Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:56:39.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social Model of the Trinity and Its Critics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

John L. Gresham Jr
John L. Gresham Jr
Affiliation:
2628 Liveoak Waco, TX 76708
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the analogies used by the Cappadocian Fathers and other early theologians to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity was the social analogy in which Father, Son and Spirit were likened to three human persons. Beginning with Augustine however, Christian Theology, particularly in the Western Church, shifted away from the social to the psychological analogy. Augustine found analogies to the Trinity in all of creation but the clearest analogy to the Trinity, in fact its unique image, was the human soul. The divine image was not found in the union of three persons but in the unity of three activities, remembering, knowing, willing in the individual human soul. The social analogy reappeared in the twelfth century in Richard of St Victor's argument for the existence of three persons in God based on the premise that supreme charity required shared interpersonal love. Though some of Richard's insights were taken up by Bonaventura, the impact of his trinitarian theology was overshadowed by the dominant influence of Thomas Aquinas with his masterful use of the psychological analogy to probe and illuminate the inner being of the divine Trinity. Following Aquinas's further development of Augustine's psychological analogy, the interpersonal approach of the social analogy all but disappeared from subsequent trinitarian theology. Even with a later shift away from the Augustinian-Thomistic model, modern theology retained its unipersonal image of the trinitarian God.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , August 1993 , pp. 325 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Welch, Claude, In This Name: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Contemporary Theology (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1952), 29–34, 133–151Google Scholar. Examples include W. Richmond, J. R. lllingworth, Charles F. D'Arcy, R. C. Moberly, C. C. J. Webb, Lionel Thornton, Leonard Hodgson, and Charles Lowery.

2 Hodgson, Leonard, The Doctrine of the Trinity (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1944). Hereafter referred to as DT.Google Scholar

3 Moltmann, Jūrgen, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981). Hereafter referred to as TK.Google Scholar

4 See Olson, Roger, ‘Wolfhart Pannenberg's Doctrine of the Trinity’, Scottish Journal of Theology 43 (1990): 175–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Boff, Leonardo, Trinity and Society, trans. Burns, Paul (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988), 6–7Google Scholar; Segundo, Juan, Our Idea of God (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1974).Google Scholar

6 Carr, Anne, Transforming Grace: Christian Tradition and Women's Experience (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 156–157Google Scholar; cf. Campbell, Cynthia, ‘The Triune God: A Model for Inclusion’, Austin Seminary Bulletin 97 (1981), 13–20Google Scholar; ‘Imago Trinitatis: the Being of God as a Model for Ministry’, Austin Seminary Bulletin 102 (1987), 5–15.Google Scholar

7 Plantinga, Cornelius Jr., ‘The Perfect Family: Our Model for Life Together is found in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’, Christianity Today, 4 March 1988, 24–28Google Scholar; Gruenler, Royce Gordon, The Trinity in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).Google Scholar

8 Brown, David, The Divine Trinity (LaSalle, II.: Open Court, 1985)Google Scholar; Hasker, William, ‘Tri-unity’, Journal of Religion 50 (1970), 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morris, Thomas V., The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), 210–218.Google Scholar

9 Bracken, Joseph, The Triune Symbol: Persons, Process, and Community (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985)Google Scholar; ‘The Holy Trinity as a Community of Divine Persons’, Heythrop Journal 15 (1974): 166–182, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Ware, Kallistos, ‘Human Persons as an Icon of the Trinity’, Sobornost 8 (1986): 6–23.Google Scholar

11 Plantinga, Cornelius Jr., ‘Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity’, The Thomist 50 (1986), 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 For examples see Welch, 269–270 and Heyer, George Jr., ‘Theological Reflections on “Imago Trinitatis: the Being of God as a Model for Ministry“’, Austin Seminary Bulletin 102 (1986), 17–18Google Scholar. Also relevant are the well known criticisms of the modern use of ‘person’ as a trinitarian term by Karl Rahner and Karl Barth.

13 Hodgson, DT, 155; cf., Ibid., 160–165.

14 The primary target of Hodgson's arguments over the proper interpretation of these theologians was Hastings Rashdall. While disputing Hodgson's historical interpretation, Welch admits his point against Rashdall. Welch, 296–297, 300.

15 I have in mind here especially the Cappadocian Fathers. By treating prosopon as synonymous with hypostasis, they sought to avoid the Sabellian view possibly suggested by prosopon. (See Basil Epistle 236.6 Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers 2nd series 8: 278). Moreover, in the Cappadocian theology, the divine hypostases ‘were not merely three metaphysically distinct realities who were one God, they were also three really distinct subjects of divine life, who know, love and operate divinely’ (Fortman, E.J., The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 81)Google Scholar. Cornelius Plandnga, Jr. argues along similar lines in ‘Gregory Nyssa and the Social Analogy’.

16 Slusser, Michael, ‘The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology’, Theological Studies 49 (1988), 461–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf., Nolan, Brian, ‘Person, Divine’ in The New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Komonchak, Joseph A., Collins, Mary and Lane, Dermot A. (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987), 759Google Scholar; Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology’, Communio: International Catholic Review 17 (1990), 440–443.Google Scholar

17 Moltmann, TK, 145.

18 Boff, 89.

19 Bracken, , ‘subsistent Relation: Mediating Concept for a New Synthesis?’, Journal of Religion 64 (1984), 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Boff, 89.

21 Augustine, , The Trinity, 5.10, trans., McKenna, Stephen, Fathers of the Church, vol. 45 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 188.Google Scholar

22 This problem in Moltmann's theology is noted by Meyendorff, John, ‘Reply to Jūrgen Moltmann's ‘The Unity of the Triune God”’, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 28 (1984), 187.Google Scholar

23 Boff, 89.

24 Hill, William, The Three-Personed God: the Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 222–223, 255Google Scholar; O'Donnell, John J., The Mystery of the Triune God (London: Sheed and Ward, 1988), 109–110Google Scholar; Kasper, Walter, The God of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 1984), 289.Google Scholar

25 An exception wasjoachim of Fiore (d. 1202) whom the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) condemned for presenting the unity of the Trinity as collective, like the unity of many persons in one church.

26 Gregory of Nyssa, for example argued that to be philosophically correct one should even speak of‘Man’ in the singular not the plural. (Gregory of Nyssa, ‘That we Should Not Think of Saving There Are Three Gods‘, Christology of the Later Fathers, ed. Hardy, E. R. and Richardson, C. C. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954), 257–258.Google Scholar

27 O'Donnell, John, ‘Trinity as Divine Community: A Critical Reflection Upon Recent Theological Developments’;, Gregorianum 69 (1988), 21; cf., Welch, 259–60; Hill, 173, 220, 237.Google Scholar

28 Hodgson, DT, 91–96.

29 Ibid., 85–89.

30 Ibid., 183–186; cf., Hodgson, , How Can God Be Both Oneand Three? (London: SPCK, 1960), 10–11.Google Scholar

31 Hodgson, , How Can Cod Be Both One and Three?, 11–12Google Scholar; ‘Glory of the Eternal Trinity’, Christianity Today, 6th May 1962, 4.

32 Moltmann, TK, 17, 130–131.

33 Moltmann, , TK, 191–192Google Scholar; Humanity in God (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1983), 106Google Scholar. This political critique of monotheism, derived from Erik Peterson, is questioned by Nicholls, David, Deity and Domination: Images of God and the State in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (London: Routledge, 1989), 235–237.Google Scholar

34 Moltmann, TX 64, 160.

35 Ibid., 149–150.

36 Moltmann, , ‘The Unity of the Triune God’, St Vladimir's Theology Quarterly 28 (1984), 166Google Scholar; cf., TK, 175. Avirtually identical view of divine unity may be found in Boff, 84, 133, 138.

37 Moltmann, TK, 177.

38 Ibid., 170.

39 Ibid., 165.

40 Ibid., 178.

41 Bracken, , ‘Process Perspectives and Trinitarian Theology’, Word and Spirit 8 (1986), 52.Google Scholar

42 Bracken, , Triune Symbol, 20.Google Scholar

43 Ibid., 24.

44 Ibid., 37–38; ‘Process Perspectives and Trinitarian Theology’, 55. Bracken does not view God as a non-temporal actual entity (as Whitehead) nor a society (as in Hartshorne and Cobb) but as a ‘democratically structured society of three personally ordered subsocieties‘. (Triune Symbol, 44.) cf. Bracken, , ‘Process Philosophy and Trinitarian Theology’ (2 parts) Process Studies 8 (1978), 217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 11 (1981), 83–96.

45 Augustine, The Trinity, 9.4, Fathers of the Church 45:275.

46 Bracken, Triune Symbol, 26–7. cf., Bracken, ‘Holy Trinity as Community of Divine Persons‘, 180–182.

47 The value of both models is affirmed in a comparison of Augustine and Richard of St Victor in Fortman, 194. These two analogies illustrate the two-fold unity in the Trinity noted by Aquinas, a unity of essence and love. See Aquinas‘ commentary on John, In Joann. 17, lectio V, 2, cited by Boff, 144–145.

48 For example, Cobb, John, ‘Reply to Jurgen Moltmann's “Unity of the Triune God”’, St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 28 (1984), 175.Google Scholar

49 Moltmann, TK, 120. In his more recent work, Moltmann approaches the question of two natures from the perspective of the cosmic Christ who deifies humanity and nature in his resurrection. See Moltmann, , The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions (London: SCM Press, 1990), 51–54, 258–259, 274–275.Google Scholar

50 Hodgson, , For Faith and Freedom 2 v. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1957), II, 80–85Google Scholar. On Hodgson's Christology, see also: Hodgson, , And Was Made Man (London: Longmans Green, 1928)Google Scholar; ‘The Incarnation’, Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, Rawlinson, A. E. J., ed. (London: Longmans Green, 1933).Google Scholar

51 Ibid., 85–86. For a possible approach to this problem, see the description of Lonergan's view in Kereszty, Roch, ‘Psychological Subject and Consciousness in Christ’, Communio: International Catholic Review 11 (1984), 258–277.Google Scholar

52 Hodgson is accused of both in Welch, 265–266 and Baillie, Donald M., God Was in Christ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1948), 87–88.Google Scholar

53 Hodgson, Faith and Freedom, II, 85. See also Hodgson, , ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Further Thoughts’, Journal of Theobgical Studies 5 (1954), 53.Google Scholar

54 Wells, David, The person of christ (Westchester, II.: Crossway Books, 1984), 112–113, 177–178Google Scholar; Relton, H. M., A Study in Christology (London: SPCK, 1934).Google Scholar

55 Atfield, D. G., ‘Can God Be Crucified? A Discussion of J. Moltmann’, Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977), 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Welch, 261–263.

57 Moltmann, TK, 88, 92.

58 Hodgson, DT, 68.

59 Cobb, 176–177; Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, ‘Comments on Jūrgen Moltmann's “Unity of the Triune God”’, St Vladimir's Tlieological Quarterly 28 (1984), 182.Google Scholar

60 Boff, 120–122, 170–171, 182–183.

61 Boff, 196–198, 210–212. While he avoids the term, Boff's view is problematical in suggesting that Mary is the ‘incarnation’ of the Spirit. Donald Bloesch offers a preferable approach when he presents Mary and the Church as pointing ‘indirectly’ to the feminine dimension of God. See Bloesch, , The Battle for the Trinity (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1985), 37–39.Google Scholar

62 Bracken, , What Are They Saying About the Trinity?, 78–79.Google Scholar

63 Moltmann, , TK, 163.Google Scholar

64 Moltmann, TK, 162–165. Moltmann and Boff both refer to the Council of Toledo (675), which spoke of the Son's generation out of the Father's ‘womb’, as evidence for the Father's maternity. This ignores, however, that same council's contrast between the Son's eternal generation from a Father without a mother and his temporal birth from a mother without a father. (See ‘Eleventh Council of Toledo’ in The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, rev. ed., ed. Neuner, J. and Dupois, j. (New York: Alba House, 1982), 170.) Nonetheless, their affirmation of the maternal qualities of the Father is valid, though it would be more faithful to scriptural revelation to speak of God as a motherly Father rather than a fatherly mother.Google Scholar