... walk into a blog post.
what could easily be turned into a poor attempt at a joke is actually the intro to the 'global perspectives' that we're covering in our class on Trinitarian theology.
as i alluded to a few posts back, we have Barth (Protestant), Rahner (Catholic), and Zizioulas (Greek Orthodox) lined up for the first 3 persons to study.
Barth's contribution to Trinitarian thought has a lot to do with emphasizing the importance of the Trinity for ALL of theology. although Barth claims to base his doctrine of Trinity on Scripture, most critics have pointed out that Barth rather utilizes logical analysis of the concept of Trinity and the revelation of God.
Barth suggests that, theologically and doctrinally, we need to begin with the Trinity, since that is what we encounter in God's revelation, and only AFTER the Trinity should we discuss the attributes of God. This is certainly different than classical, systematic theology that begins with existence of God, then attributes, then Trinity. It is important, i think, to recognize that God's revelation of God's self is in Trinity, so it follows that the attributes of this God are clearest in light of Trinity, right?
*implicitly, i'm ok with assuming that God exists in the first place. perhaps this is an apologetic weakness for me, but existentially i'm willing to affirm a living, active God.
Rahner's contribution: The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity; the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.
what?
good question. there's a lot of debate regarding what exactly Rahner means by that, but it is certainly a meaningful, if succinct, statement. simply put, Rahner is saying that the God revealed in salvation history is the true, triune divine being, and vice versa. This seems to be an important concept to me because we are often prompted to focus on one 'person' or another during the course of the Easter season... we focus on Christ's suffering, we focus on God's love, we maybe sometimes sort of remember the Holy Spirit's role in resurrection (of course we HAVE to remember the Spirit in Pentecost...right?). How much more meaningful and intimate to think of the Trinity's roles in ALL of the work of salvation!
Zizioulas was very interesting. I think he's the first Greek Orthodox theologian whose work i have read at length, and i have to admit i really liked it. Although some of his linguistic issues point towards subordination (one part of the Trinity is higher than the others), i think that the asymmetrical model is very interesting, and not necessarily heretical. Although it is much easier to draw a symmetrical symbol to represent the Trinity, and it is easier to accept (hypothetically) by faith a symmetrical model of Trinitarian relationships, something about the asymmetrical model resonated with me. I don't think that an asymmetrical model necessitates subordinationism... but that could be because i don't understand all that i'm talking about :-)
voluntary mutability... that sounds like a strange concept. Something that all three of these theologians bring to the forefront is God's role in salvation history. God's role in TIME, actually entering into the incarnation. If we say that God has entered into time in the person of Jesus during and after the incarnation, are we not also necessarily saying that God has... changed?... at least in reference to the person of Jesus changing with the passage of time and the necessary effects on His body, and the amazing historical change that the resurrection marks... does this mean that God, as Trinity, voluntarily entered into a kind of mutability... a kind of change? Does what we see in the economic Trinity, the work of God in salvation history, equate to the True, inner relationships of the Trinity and the eternal nature of the Godhead? does the incarnation require the eternal God to wholly enter time...? Barth (and Calvin) would posit that God has always been the kind of God who would enter time through incarnation, and thus immutability is maintained because God's entrance and engagement with time is already in God's vision for God's self...
Something that i'll probably be thinking about as we continue to read other theologians and their interpretation of the Trinity, and something that i'll try to clarify soon... hopefully... :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So, does this mean that you accept Rahner's rule since you called it his "contribution?"
"Slater"
PS I also enjoyed reading Zizioulas, but I really didn't get a good understanding of what he was saying before the class discussion.
you should totally create a blogger identity so i don't have to create nicknames or get confused by initials :-)
i think that i accept Rahner's rule as a legitimate tautology - but i don't know that i totally jive with Rahner's own interpretation of his rule. I accept it as a useful tool in the Trinitarian discussion, because there's so much we CAN'T say (because we just don't have adequate words/terminology), it's affirming to know that there's at least something we CAN say... even though its riddle/paradox nature forces us to then say something ABOUT it
PS I wish there was MORE class discussion! why is it the guy who's auditing asks the most questions?
Post a Comment