“The Becoming of the One Who Always Was: Toward a Trinity in Process” -- Chapter 10 (Part 2)
In the first post on this chapter, we were engaged in philosophical work. But what about the theological? As one more inclined to theology than philosophy, this is the part that I need to get to – the Trinity of theology.
Philip Clayton, in chapter 10 of his Adventures in the Spirit, notes that even though philosophy, especially the philosophical work of Schelling and Whitehead, among others, holds promise for understanding God as Trinity, we must recognize that there remains a gap between philosophical and theological understandings of the Trinity. Of course, Aquinas also discovered that you can’t go directly from philosophy to the Christian theology of Trinity. The Trinity of Christian theology is essentially a matter of divine revelation, a view from the top rather than the bottom, and it’s imagined in the context of salvation history. Just as a point of clarification in our conversation, he doesn’t believe that the traditionally named persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not necessary to this enterprise, but as he says “the panentheistic structure is inherently Trinitarian.”
Starting from the premise that God is infinite, the second person of the Trinity is the immanent, and in becoming immanent, God becomes the 2nd person of the trinity. The third person is the relationship between the two. That is, in order that God doesn’t become completely immanent, and thus become finite, and cease to be God, there must be something/one that remains separate and infinite (1st Person). This third person is, in Clayton’s presentation, “God as the power that relates these two persons and unifies them” (p. 171). This is that sense of mediation mentioned earlier. And, although Augustine isn’t mentioned, the two are unified by love.
To move on, there are three primary points to be made here, according to Clayton:
1. “The three divine persons who constitute the divine unity are divine in their very nature.” Thus, there is a distinction between human and divine, and our relationship with the divine is one of Grace not one of nature.
2. “The three divine persons together constitute what it is to be God.” Or, to put it a different way – “God just is this tri-unity.” And God was before creation and God will be when all of this collapses – that is God is self-sufficient, and thus “our existence within the divine is, again, a gift of grace from God.”
3. Every action of the trinitarian God reflects the full moral perfection of God: giving, accepting, glorifying.” There is, he suggests, a singular beauty in the “incredible richness of the inner-trinitarian life.” Indeed, he writes further that “only divine grace could make possible the audacious assertion that God allows agents such as ourselves to exist within the being of the divine.”
The question that might be asked in all of this concerns the essential Christian nature of this doctrine, or perhaps to put it another way – where is Jesus in all of this? For Clayton, “Jesus becomes the exemplar for humanity” in much the same way as in classical theism. That is:
Philosophy helps us understand the nature of God, by suggesting that the ultimate and the consequent may be one – though they must be mediated. That is: in this “third moment” we find:
But, we still need more, if we’re to understand how the Trinity fits with an emergent understanding of reality. So, soon we’ll move on to the next chapter.
Note, these series of posts are part of the Transforming Theology theoblogging project.
Philip Clayton, in chapter 10 of his Adventures in the Spirit, notes that even though philosophy, especially the philosophical work of Schelling and Whitehead, among others, holds promise for understanding God as Trinity, we must recognize that there remains a gap between philosophical and theological understandings of the Trinity. Of course, Aquinas also discovered that you can’t go directly from philosophy to the Christian theology of Trinity. The Trinity of Christian theology is essentially a matter of divine revelation, a view from the top rather than the bottom, and it’s imagined in the context of salvation history. Just as a point of clarification in our conversation, he doesn’t believe that the traditionally named persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not necessary to this enterprise, but as he says “the panentheistic structure is inherently Trinitarian.”
Starting from the premise that God is infinite, the second person of the Trinity is the immanent, and in becoming immanent, God becomes the 2nd person of the trinity. The third person is the relationship between the two. That is, in order that God doesn’t become completely immanent, and thus become finite, and cease to be God, there must be something/one that remains separate and infinite (1st Person). This third person is, in Clayton’s presentation, “God as the power that relates these two persons and unifies them” (p. 171). This is that sense of mediation mentioned earlier. And, although Augustine isn’t mentioned, the two are unified by love.
To move on, there are three primary points to be made here, according to Clayton:
1. “The three divine persons who constitute the divine unity are divine in their very nature.” Thus, there is a distinction between human and divine, and our relationship with the divine is one of Grace not one of nature.
2. “The three divine persons together constitute what it is to be God.” Or, to put it a different way – “God just is this tri-unity.” And God was before creation and God will be when all of this collapses – that is God is self-sufficient, and thus “our existence within the divine is, again, a gift of grace from God.”
3. Every action of the trinitarian God reflects the full moral perfection of God: giving, accepting, glorifying.” There is, he suggests, a singular beauty in the “incredible richness of the inner-trinitarian life.” Indeed, he writes further that “only divine grace could make possible the audacious assertion that God allows agents such as ourselves to exist within the being of the divine.”
The question that might be asked in all of this concerns the essential Christian nature of this doctrine, or perhaps to put it another way – where is Jesus in all of this? For Clayton, “Jesus becomes the exemplar for humanity” in much the same way as in classical theism. That is:
“He actualized the possibility that each human enjoys as one who is made in the image of God. He lived a life of perfect devotion to God, acknowledging the true relationship of creature to Creator in every thought and action. We are within God, and in that sense present to God, no less than Jesus was. But he alone perfectly lived a life that reflected his locatedness within the divine. We are within God, but Jesus is fully God, yet without ceasing to be human.” (p. 173).
Philosophy helps us understand the nature of God, by suggesting that the ultimate and the consequent may be one – though they must be mediated. That is: in this “third moment” we find:
Philosophically speaking, God’s panentheistic appropriation of the world as God’s other; theologically speaking God’s salvific and self-sacrificial love for the world – the core and completing moment of the trinitarian understanding of the divine nature.” (P. 174)
But, we still need more, if we’re to understand how the Trinity fits with an emergent understanding of reality. So, soon we’ll move on to the next chapter.
Note, these series of posts are part of the Transforming Theology theoblogging project.
Comments
David Mc
Who doesn't take asprin when we think about the Trinity. Bob you did a good job summarizing the thought.
1. First one is that "infinite" is nothing but a clear idea, even in mathematics.
2. Aquinas is closer than Augustine to Greek scientists, especially Aristotle. For Greek science "infinite" is "what is not finished", not perfect.
3. Infinite thought as "divine" or "perfect" is typical of the XVIIth anti-trinitarian English theology and science (Newton for instance).
Linking Trinity with Salvation is of course true, but I do not believe that trinity idea or fact gives a better understanding of God. It gives a better understanding of salvation.
You quote: "But he alone perfectly lived a life that reflected his locatedness within the divine."
For me this assertion creates a huge theological problem. To me Jesus is very human. He shows what is possible on a human level. Thus I presume that his life was not without flaws and in his humanity, he was not "perfect" in all things. The human Jesus pointed to the always divine father, and away from himself, as the archetype of perfection.
This is important in my theology, because Jesus shows me what is possible for me; his life is not a mere model, not a mere goal - the Gospels describe what can be actualized in my life. No, I don't live up to his standards, in fact I don't even try often enough. But still, his life was a life within the realm of objective possibility, not theoretical conjecture.
The quoted language lifts Jesus’ earthly accomplishments (ignoring the perhaps his death and certainly his resurrection) beyond the mere mortal to the impossibly transcendent, denying his humanity, and moving him from fully human, at least during his incarnation, to fully God in all respects at all times. He becomes a god slumming among his father’s creation - unlike the Greco-Romans gods only in his moral perfection and his lofty intentions.
John
If you look at the quote you'll see that he speaks of Jesus living perfectly a life located in the divine presence. I don't think that this means that Jesus had perfect knowledge of all things. Hebrews says he was like us, yet he did not sin. I think that this is the point. Is it possible for us to live to that level. I don't know. Many have tried, few if any have succeeded.
David Mc finds complex frustrating, but I love the humbling experience of grappling with a divine reality that we'll never fully grasp. God's self-manifestation reveals to us the divine nature; it stimulates the highest level of reflection humans have ever achieved; and yet it doesn't erase Mystery. I find this beautiful!
In THE PROBLEM OF GOD IN MODERN THOUGHT, ch. 3, I distinguish between the infinity and the perfection of God, which addresses Exorciste's concerns (and the footnotes are in French!), but it's too technical for here.
The tension between Bob's post John's criticism is interesting. Bob worries that Jesus' humanity is lost in the trinitarian speculations, whereas John worries that I have made Jesus *too* perfect. The double criticism is actually encouraging, though: isn't our task, as Jesus-disciples, to continually remain in the tension between one who was fully human, in every way that we need in order to identify with him, and yet divine in such as way that he can always remain our ideal, model, and guide? Isn't that the question that you want to ask of every christology you encounter, whether it's in a book, a sermon, a blog, or a church coffee-hour conversation?
It's that same tension or mystery that I wanted to highlight by speaking of the *becoming* of the One who yet *always was*.
-- Philip Clayton
No, I'm ok, I was worried about Bob working too hard.
Infinite to me is never running out of curiosities. I like that.
I agree with Exorcist though and feel understanding salvation > understanding God. At least in our present situation.
I find the tension or dissonance between what I expect and what I actually encounter, whether in life, Scripture, or theology in general, to be the great magnet for my engagement, and the greater the complexity of the puzzle encountered, the more certain the evidence that God is in the mix. Accepting that God's complexity transcends the human imagination, I have come to expect that the genuine truths of creation should be just as complex when encountered in their fullness.
The more complex my comprehension of Jesus becomes, I fancy myself getting closer to the truth - closer but never close enough.
As to your concluding line: God is after self-named as: the great "I will become what I will become."
John
-- Philip Clayton