“The Becoming of the One Who Always Was: Toward a Trinity in Process” -- Chapter 10 (Part 1)
As I slowly move through Philip Clayton’s Adventures in the Spirit (Fortress, 2008) for the Transforming Theology blogging project, so slowly that James McGrath has already begun, finished, and moved to other things, I have come to that point where the theology is starting to emerge from what is an intensely philosophical book. Clayton is both philosopher and theologian, and, as such, his intent is very much an apologetic one (in the classical sense). He wants to find a connection between theology and other enterprises in the hopes that it might be seen as rational in nature.
He notes that neither philosophers nor theologians are exactly happy with the way the other discipline approaches questions of the divine. In part because each feels that other constrains and limits its reach, and they approach the questions from opposite ends. One focuses on particularity (theology) and the other a more general understanding (philosophy). This is especially true of discussions of the Trinity. But, it provides an important test case for the conversation.
It is in this area that Clayton finds the need for modifying the ideas of Alfred North Whitehead, the formulator of Process Thought. Although he finds Whitehead helpful in developing a “Trinity in Process,” he needs more help from other areas. I am going to skip over much of the discussion of how this modification takes place, so as to get to the heart of the issue, the way in which panentheism is expressed in Trinitarian ways.
The issue is how we conceive of God as both transcendent and immanent – both God’s otherness and God’s presence with creation. At the same time, as the ones reflecting on this question, we must recognize first that we are finite. Clayton writes on this Cartesian declaration: “The intuition of finitude is, I suggest, the first and the basis for all subsequent reflection on God and on ourselves” (p. 161). The second step, he writes, is to affirm the proposition “I am not infinite.” That is, if we intuit that there is finiteness, then there is the further intuition that there is that which is infinite (and that’s not me). Thus, the question is: what is the infinite? While he doesn’t believe that ontological proof is compelling as a proof, intuitively we can think of the infinite as God.
Although Whitehead’s Process ideas are key to understanding God’s presence, Clayton also turns to the German Romantic philosopher F.W.J. von Schelling for help in developing his Trinitarian theology on a philosophical basis. From this starting point (I’ll leave it to the reader to explore the details in depth by reading the book), we get to our point, which is the divine nature. He notes that God is “potentially subjective,” in that God is not fully subject until encountering an “other.” Subjectivity, we’re told includes four dimensions: life, movement, consciousness, and responsiveness. Thus, with regard to the Trinity, the question is whether it makes sense to “speak of an actual divine community prior to the creation of the world of finite occasions?” (P. 166). The further question is whether we can/should conceive of God as a “being,” which is the traditional way of envisioning God. Thus, if God is a being, then we must determine in what ways God differs from other beings. Clayton doesn’t particularly like this way of conceiving God, and so he suggests abandoning the idea of God as being.
So, who/what is God (philosophically)? Using Schelling, he suggests that there are “three moments in God.”
1. Infinite Creative Ground. Thus, God is infinite in that God possesses an “absolute lack of limitation”; that is, no other being exists that can limit God. God is Ground in that God is the ground of the existence of all that exists. As the Ground of being, the infinite (God) precedes the finite, and is its ground. It is Creative, because in it “the many become one.” God is the “potential for creative development, not the dictator of the outcome of this process.” (p. 167). The doctrine of the Trinity allows for God to be both Ground (within God) and Highest Being (infinite). That is, God is both “ultimate principle” and person, but for this to be true, then the two need to be mediated by a “third moment.” – See you get Trinity here!
2. Consequent. Being finite, we know that there must be an infinite Ground of Being, and this infinite ground requires a finite – that is, a consequent. As we can see there is a principle of reciprocity – both are needed. While the world needs God, the two are not identical. Thus, “as finite, the world both requires God and cannot be identical to God” (p. 169). The finite world is, for this proposal a “genuine other to its infinite ground.”
3. Mediation. Even if we’re not exactly at a Trinitarian theology, we have a Trinity of sorts. Moving beyond a dualism of ground and consequent, we’re led to the third moment – mediation. That is, following Schelling, he seeks to understand how the Ground and the Consequent can be unified in the “divine self-consciousness.”
To put it another way, “if the divine is conscious,” then . . . it is so in a three-fold way. It is conscious of itself as “Ground, of its product, and of the relationship between self and product.” Now, note that the consequent/product isn’t the 2nd person of the Trinity in Christian understanding. But, the principle is present. And if we go back to Augustine, the Holy Spirit is that love that exists between Father and Son. Clayton writes that in his understanding “panentheism emerges out of the dialectic between the infinity and the finiteness of God” (p. 169). Or, similarly, there is a dialectical relationship between the “absolute as ground and the personal God as consequent.”
This is the philosophical starting point for the discussion, but being that I'm more theologically than philosophically inclined, I invite you to stay tuned for Part 2 -- the theological side.
He notes that neither philosophers nor theologians are exactly happy with the way the other discipline approaches questions of the divine. In part because each feels that other constrains and limits its reach, and they approach the questions from opposite ends. One focuses on particularity (theology) and the other a more general understanding (philosophy). This is especially true of discussions of the Trinity. But, it provides an important test case for the conversation.
It is in this area that Clayton finds the need for modifying the ideas of Alfred North Whitehead, the formulator of Process Thought. Although he finds Whitehead helpful in developing a “Trinity in Process,” he needs more help from other areas. I am going to skip over much of the discussion of how this modification takes place, so as to get to the heart of the issue, the way in which panentheism is expressed in Trinitarian ways.
The issue is how we conceive of God as both transcendent and immanent – both God’s otherness and God’s presence with creation. At the same time, as the ones reflecting on this question, we must recognize first that we are finite. Clayton writes on this Cartesian declaration: “The intuition of finitude is, I suggest, the first and the basis for all subsequent reflection on God and on ourselves” (p. 161). The second step, he writes, is to affirm the proposition “I am not infinite.” That is, if we intuit that there is finiteness, then there is the further intuition that there is that which is infinite (and that’s not me). Thus, the question is: what is the infinite? While he doesn’t believe that ontological proof is compelling as a proof, intuitively we can think of the infinite as God.
Although Whitehead’s Process ideas are key to understanding God’s presence, Clayton also turns to the German Romantic philosopher F.W.J. von Schelling for help in developing his Trinitarian theology on a philosophical basis. From this starting point (I’ll leave it to the reader to explore the details in depth by reading the book), we get to our point, which is the divine nature. He notes that God is “potentially subjective,” in that God is not fully subject until encountering an “other.” Subjectivity, we’re told includes four dimensions: life, movement, consciousness, and responsiveness. Thus, with regard to the Trinity, the question is whether it makes sense to “speak of an actual divine community prior to the creation of the world of finite occasions?” (P. 166). The further question is whether we can/should conceive of God as a “being,” which is the traditional way of envisioning God. Thus, if God is a being, then we must determine in what ways God differs from other beings. Clayton doesn’t particularly like this way of conceiving God, and so he suggests abandoning the idea of God as being.
So, who/what is God (philosophically)? Using Schelling, he suggests that there are “three moments in God.”
1. Infinite Creative Ground. Thus, God is infinite in that God possesses an “absolute lack of limitation”; that is, no other being exists that can limit God. God is Ground in that God is the ground of the existence of all that exists. As the Ground of being, the infinite (God) precedes the finite, and is its ground. It is Creative, because in it “the many become one.” God is the “potential for creative development, not the dictator of the outcome of this process.” (p. 167). The doctrine of the Trinity allows for God to be both Ground (within God) and Highest Being (infinite). That is, God is both “ultimate principle” and person, but for this to be true, then the two need to be mediated by a “third moment.” – See you get Trinity here!
2. Consequent. Being finite, we know that there must be an infinite Ground of Being, and this infinite ground requires a finite – that is, a consequent. As we can see there is a principle of reciprocity – both are needed. While the world needs God, the two are not identical. Thus, “as finite, the world both requires God and cannot be identical to God” (p. 169). The finite world is, for this proposal a “genuine other to its infinite ground.”
3. Mediation. Even if we’re not exactly at a Trinitarian theology, we have a Trinity of sorts. Moving beyond a dualism of ground and consequent, we’re led to the third moment – mediation. That is, following Schelling, he seeks to understand how the Ground and the Consequent can be unified in the “divine self-consciousness.”
To put it another way, “if the divine is conscious,” then . . . it is so in a three-fold way. It is conscious of itself as “Ground, of its product, and of the relationship between self and product.” Now, note that the consequent/product isn’t the 2nd person of the Trinity in Christian understanding. But, the principle is present. And if we go back to Augustine, the Holy Spirit is that love that exists between Father and Son. Clayton writes that in his understanding “panentheism emerges out of the dialectic between the infinity and the finiteness of God” (p. 169). Or, similarly, there is a dialectical relationship between the “absolute as ground and the personal God as consequent.”
This is the philosophical starting point for the discussion, but being that I'm more theologically than philosophically inclined, I invite you to stay tuned for Part 2 -- the theological side.
Comments
John
You did a great job sorting through the Trinity and philosophy stuff. Here's what I think are the three main ideas:
* philosophy doesn't ground my Christian faith. But it matters that we can say to the world, "hey, trinitarian Christian belief isn't for crazies, and it's not a throw-back to dogmas of the past. It makes just as much sense in the language of the central thinkers of the modern period as it did to the ancients."
* Biblical revelation is not dependent on Greek substance metaphysics. The church *still* hasn't seen that clearly enough. If substance philosophies have lost credibility in the modern world (as I think they have), or if they are philosophically suspect, that doesn't mean that we have to abandon our belief in the divinity of Christ or God's three-fold nature. The idea of the Trinity is like software that will run on multiple philosophies, multiple hardware platforms.
* Indeed, other conceptual frameworks (Schelling's unfolding nature, Whitehead's process thought) may let the biblical, self-revealing God shine through *more* clearly than did the static categories of classical Greek thought.
But I haven't read your second post yet, so maybe you've already said all this...
-- Philip Clayton
And thanks Dr. Clayton for checking in on the review.
Because of this ongoing review I am going to get this book. I had always found 'process thought' very appealing but was frustrated by the fact that it tended to a) be foundationalist and b) to reduce God from a perfectly self-sufficient whole to a being contingent on the worlds process for existence.
I am looking forward to the rest of your reviews.