Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T12:00:03.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Randall E. Otto
Affiliation:
West Grove Presbyterian Church 139 W. Evergreen Street West Grove, PA 19390USA

Extract

Perichoresis (perichoresis, circumincessio) is a theological term which describes the ‘necessary being-in-one-another or circumincession of the three divine Persons of the Trinity because of the single divine essence, the eternal procession of the Son from the Father and of the Spirit from the Father and (through) the Son, and the fact that the three Persons are distinguished solely by the relations of opposition between them.’ This term was popularized in the eighth century by John of Damascus who, in his De fide orthodoxa, said the three Persons of the Trinity ‘are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other [kai ten en allelais perichoresin] without any coalescence or commingling.’ This important theological term, which Karl Barth rightly regarded 'as the one important form of the dialectic required to complete the concept of ‘three-in-oneness’ ‘from the side of the unity of the divine essence’ and ‘from the side of the original relations,’ has suffered in some recent theology from its appropriation to describe relationality apart from mutually shared being. For example, in his influential social doctrine of the Trinity, Jürgen Moltmann emphasizes the ‘relational, perichoretically consummated life processes’ of the three Persons who ‘cannot and must not be reduced to three modes of being of one and the same divine subject,’ whose unity ‘cannot and must not be seen in a general concept of divine substance.’

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2001

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 ‘Perichoresis,’ Dictionary of Theology (2nd edn; ed. Rahner, Karl, Vorgrimler, Herbert; New York: Crossroad, 1987), 377.Google Scholar

2 John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa 1.8, PG 94.829A.

3 Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics I/1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), 425426.Google Scholar

4 Moltmann, , The Trinity and the Kingdom (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 175Google Scholar. So also Colin E. Gunton, who maintains that God should not be understood as ‘in some sense “substance”’ while yet advocating the import of perichoresis to the unity of God's inter-relations and actions (The Promise of Trinitarian Theology [2nd edn; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997], 198).Google Scholar

5 Moltmann, , The Coming of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 295, 301, 327, respectively.Google Scholar

6 In history (Historie) the past is observable, self-contained, and reproducible, terminating the promised horizon of the historic (Geschichte), which as eschatological is noetic and phenomenological. ‘Facts are never experienced as self-enclosed events, which have had their time, but as moments in the process of the history of promise. That is, they are not experienced as “facts” or “matters of fact,” because in these expressions a Greek concept of being is employed, against which the thinking of the history of promise rages. Only in the “horizon” of promise and fulfillment are historic events dealt with. Abstracted from that, they become a collection of dead facts’ (Moltmann, , ‘Verkündigung als Problem der Exegeses,’ Perspeckliven der Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze [Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1968], 114)Google Scholar. ‘The very use of the term “fact” … implies a concept of being, of absoluteness, of immutability and finality, which refuses to be combined with promise, hope, and future, and therefore also with “history”’ (Theology of Hope [New York: Harper & Row, 1967], 110)Google Scholar. Promise, on the other hand, ‘keeps the hoping mind in a “not yet” which transcends all experience and history’ (ibid., 102). On Moltmann‘s view of history and eschatology, see Otto, Randall E., The God of Hope: The Trinitarian Vision of jürgen Moltmann (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991), 63117 and passim.Google Scholar

7 Moltmann, , The Coming of God, 285287.Google Scholar

8 August Deneffe, ‘Perichoresis, circumincessio, circuminsessio. Eine terminologische Untersuchung,’ Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 47 (1923), 497–532. Deneffe also distinguishes a static view of perichoresis as ‘coinherence’ or ‘mutual in-dwelling,’ from a dynamic ‘interpenetration,’ a view reflected in the medieval West in the Latin terms, the static circuminsessio and the dynamic circumincessio; Michael Schmaus, however, admits no difference between the terms. According to him, circumincessio was found in Bonaventura in the thirteenth century, with the spelling changed by the Dominicans to circuminsessio after the Frankish empire (Katholische Dogmatik [Munich: Max Heuber, 1960], 1:496).Google Scholar

9 Stemmer, Peter, ‘Perichorese. Zur Geschichte eines Begriffs,’ Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 27 (1983), 955.Google Scholar

10 PG 37.181C.

11 Harrison, Verna, ‘Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers,’ St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 35 (1991), 55. Harrison's article has provided the basis for the patristics portion of this discussion.Google Scholar

12 Ambiguorum Liter 112b, PG 91.1053.

13 Capitum Quinquies Centenorum Centuria 4.19, PG 90.1312A–B.

14 Harrison, ‘Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers,’ 58.

15 Ambiguorum Liber 190a, PG 91.1228C–D.

16 Harrison, ‘Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers,’ 58–9.

17 Egan, John P., ‘Toward Trinitarian Perichoresis: Saint Gregory the Theologian, (Oration) 31.14,’ Greek Orthodox Theological Review 39 (1994), 8393Google Scholar, contends that Gregory Nazianzen's allusion there to three interconnected suns in which there is a single intermingling of light anticipates Pseudo-Cyril's trinitarian perichoresis. On Athanasius and Hilary; cf. Prestige, G. L., God in Patristic Thought (London: William Heinemann, 1936), 284285Google Scholar and the fine classical foundation in Torrance, Thomas F., The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 168202.Google Scholar

18 Prestige, , God in Patristic Thought, 284.Google Scholar

19 Ps.-Cyril, De Trinitate. 10, PG 77.1144B.

20 Harrison, ‘Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers,’ 60.

21 ‘Person-al’ is used here advisedly, since ‘person’ is required for the unity of the two natures in Jesus Christ, whereas ‘person’ is less fortunate for the unity of the three persons in God, since it sets up the awkward assertion of ‘three persons in one person.’ ‘In view of the fact that there are three persons in God, it is better to say that God is personal than to speak of Him as a Person’ (Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941], 85).Google Scholar

22 Ibid., 89.

23 Torrance suggests that ‘without qualification,’ the christological appropriation of perichoresis ‘has resulted in some form of docetic rationalising and depreciating of the humanity of Christ’ (Christian Doctrine of God, 102), ‘a Eutychian conception of Christ's humanity’ (170n.) in which the humanity coalesces into the divine. Perichoresis, however, functions in christology as well as in trinitarianism to maintain distinctions without such intermingling; thus Torrance can rightly speak of the inter-relations of the two natures in Christ and of the three Persons in the Trinity in terms of subsistence within union, i.e., enhypostasis (160, 171), which is ensured by perichoresis.

24 While the christological use remains a part of the dogmatic traditions of the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches (cf. Schmaus, , Katholische Dogmatik 2/2, 246247Google Scholar; Heppe, Heinrich, Reformed Dogmatics [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978 rep.], 429)Google Scholar, it is particularly within the Lutheran Church, with its unique view of the communicated omnipresence of Christ, that perichoresis retains a special christological centrality. Cf., e.g., Pieper, Francis, Christian Dogmatics (St Louis, MO: Concordia, 1951), 2:123214.Google Scholar

25 Barth, , Church Dogmatics I/1, 456.Google Scholar

26 Moltmann, and Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth, Humanity in God (London: SCM Press, 1984), 88.Google Scholar

27 Hart, , Understanding our World: An Integral Ontology (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), 209210.Google Scholar

28 Guarino, Thomas, ‘Postmodernity and Five Fundamental Theological Issues,’ Theological Studies 57 (1996), 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Gunton, , Promise of Trinitarian Theology, 137157 (quote on p. 151).Google Scholar

30 Schroeder, , The Science of God (New York: Broadway, 1997), 177.Google Scholar

31 Peacocke, , ‘Science and God the Creator,’ Zygon 28 (1993), 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Ibid., 477.

33 Torrance, , Christian Doctrine of God, 157, 149.Google Scholar

34 Moltmann, , Trinity and Kingdom, 173176, 198.Google Scholar

35 Solomon, Robert C., In the Spirit of Hegel: A Study of G. W. F. Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 89.Google Scholar

36 Cf. Otto, , God of Hope, 93117Google Scholar; idem, The Eschatological Nature of Moltmann's Theology,’ Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992), 115133.Google Scholar

37 Thompson, John, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 34, 51.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., 51.

39 Moltmann, The Coming of God, 287. The phrase ‘Gott-möglich’ derives from Moltmann, ‘Die Kategorie Novum'm der christlichen Theologie,’ Perspecktiven, 186.

40 Van Steenberghen, Fernand, Ontology (Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1970), 50.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., 64–5.

42 In her fine study of Bloch, the Marxist atheist from whom Moltmann ‘learned theology’ (Moltmann, , Im Gesprach mit Ernst Bloch [Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1976] 90)Google Scholar, Geetruida M. van Asperen says, ‘By transcending us in time, the non-existent goal becomes the tendency of the process, thus exerting its directive influence on the course of the process. That the non-existent can exert an enduring attraction is due precisely to its absence. The goal's failure to appear causes the process to continue. In other words, the insufficiency of what has been realized at the very front of the process, an insufficiency which becomes apparent only when measured by the standards of the not-yet existing goal, acts as the motor of the ongoing movement’ (Hope and History: A Critical Inquiry into the Philosophy of Ernst Bloch [Utrecht: Free University Press, 1973), 41.Google Scholar

43 Van Steenberghen, , Ontology, 86.Google Scholar

44 Moltmann, , God in Creation (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 227.Google Scholar

45 Moltmann, , Trinity and Kingdom, 120.Google Scholar

46 Moltmann, , The Crucified God (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 256.Google Scholar

47 Moltmann, , ‘Antwort auf die Kritik der Theologie der Hoffnung,’ Diskussion über die ‘Theologie der Hoffnung’ von Jürgen Moltmann (ed. Marsch, Wolf-Dieter; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1967), 225.Google Scholar

48 Moltmann, , Crucified God, 173.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., 182.

50 Moltmann, , The Way of Jesus Christ (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990), 223.Google Scholar

51 Thomas, John H., ‘Trinity, Logic and Ontology,’ Trinitarian Theology Today: Essays on Divine Being and Act (ed. Schwöbel, Christoph; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 78.Google Scholar

52 Moltmann, , Coming God, 333.Google Scholar

53 Boff, Leonardo, Trinity and Society (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988), 58, and 65–99, where he demonstrates his coherence with classical dogmatics.Google Scholar

54 Buber, Martin, I and Thou (2nd edn; New York: Scribner's, 1958), 4.Google Scholar

55 Anderson, Ray S., On Being Human (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 76.Google Scholar

56 Berkouwer, G. C., Man: The Image of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 100101Google Scholar. The tensions in Barth's theology of relations may be seen in Deddo, Gary, ‘The Grammar of Barth's Theology of Personal Relations,’ Scottish Journal of Theology 47 (1994), 183222CrossRefGoogle Scholar. While Barth sees'a unity of humanity in Jesus Christ’ (217) by virtue of his being the elect Man, humanity's ‘being in becoming’ (205–12) requires personal recognition of God's love which elicits human love for God in return. Thus, ‘Barth offers us a theologically grounded (i.e. trinitarian and christological) relational (non-substantial) ontology of personal being’ (220), albeit with many of the tensions that persist within his doctrine of election and his implicit universalism.

57 Otto, Randall E., ‘The Imago Dei as Familitas,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1992), 510.Google Scholar

58 Ibid., 511, with allusion to Moltmann and criticism as above.

59 Thomas, Gordon J., ‘A Holy God among a Holy People in a Holy Place: The Enduring Eschatological Hope,’ Eschatology in Bible & Theology (eds Brower, Kent E. and Elliott, Mark W.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 59Google Scholar; Lawler, ‘Perichoresis: New Theological Wine in an Old Theological Wineskin,’ 54–64, applies the term to marriage and the church; as applied to the church; cf., e.g., Volf, Miroslav, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998)Google Scholar who follows Moltmann in neglecting the necessary ontological basis; so also Gunton, , Promise of Trinitarian Theology, 5682Google Scholar; Speidell, Todd H., ‘A Trinitarian Ontology of Persons in Society,’ Scottish Journal of Theology 47 (1994), 283300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 Moltmann, , Coming of God, 318.Google Scholar

61 Moltmann, Coming of God, 295, 310, 327, respectively. Discussion is found particularly in Bauckham, Richard, ed., God Will Be All in All: The Eschalology of Jürgen Moltmann (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999).Google Scholar

62 Moltmann, , Coming of God, 326327.Google Scholar

63 The sociological use of Christian terminology is found in Moltmann, , The Experiment Hope (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 173Google Scholar; on Moltmann's use of phenomenology, see Otto, , God of Hope, 199233.Google Scholar

64 Moltmann, , ‘Vershrānkte Zeiten der Geschichte: Notwendige Differenzierungen und Begrenzungen des Geschichtsbegriffs,’ Evangelische Theologie 44 (1984), 217.Google Scholar

65 Moltmann, , God in Creation, 55.Google Scholar

66 Moltmann, , ‘Gott und Freiheit,’ Heute von Gott reden (eds Hengel, Martin and Reinhardt, Rudolf; Grūnewald: Chr. Kaiser, 1977), 77.Google Scholar

67 Moltmann, ‘The Bible, the Exegete, and the Theologian,’ God Will Be All in All, 228.

68 Moltmann, , Coming of God, 299301.Google Scholar

69 Ibid., 298.

70 Richard Bauckham, ‘Eschatology in The Coming of God,’ God Will Be All in All, 15–16.

71 Moltmann, ‘The World in God or God in the World?,’ ibid., 41.

72 Moltmann, , Coming of God, 294.Google Scholar

73 Ibid., 291.

74 Bauckham, ‘Time and Eternity,’ God Will Be All in All, 193.

75 Morse, , The Logic of Promise in Moltmann's Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 54.Google Scholar

76 Barrow, John and Tipler, Frank, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 676f.Google Scholar, cited in Worthing, Mark W., God, Creation and Contemporary Physics (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1996), 171.Google Scholar

77 Worthing, God, Creation and Contemporary Physics, 172.