The Trinity: Augustine and Contemporary Social Theories

It has been quite some time since iv posted anything of substance, and so i figure i should at least attempt to keep up with Galyon’s output. So in what follows appears a paper i wrote for Church History I on the Trinity; specifically the Eastern and Western formulations and contemporary social models. 

  

THE TRINITY: ST. AUGUSTINE AND CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL THEORIES

 

General Introduction

The 21^st century is unlike any other period in history in terms of theological development, innovative ideas and provocative outlooks. It has brought with it, however, new philosophies, ideologies, and political struggles as well. With the linguistic turn in modern philosophy, and the subsequent revision of much of modern theology, it is indeed an interesting time to “live and move and have out being.” While the interest in theology grows, what exactly constitutes the basis of theology, or rather, its character[i] has been starkly redefined, modified, or completely left open. Not to say that this is a bad thing, rather, it marks the modern reformation within evangelicalism with regards to the development of theology, and theological tradition,[ii] as well as its ecumenical tendency’s in this modern day. With the reform and the classification of what some are calling “post-evangelicalism,” comes a new critical realism that seeks to critique itself. This self-criticism has open the eyes of many, and caused a new yearn for other traditions, theologies, and conceptual scheme’s. It is here that the 21^st century and historical theology intersect, with renewed discussion and thought on the doctrine of the Trinity.

            The doctrine of the Trinity has been reshaped, in recent years, through the efforts of emerging theologians and Biblical scholars in an effort to remain biblically faithful, historically fair, and culturally relevant. In keeping with the linguistic turn, and recognizing our “situatedness,” modern theologians are keeping a self-critical eye upon their theologizing. Perhaps the doctrine of the Trinity, more than any other doctrine of the Christian faith, can be a case in point as to the open-mindedness towards other traditions other than the classic position. It is here, that modern theology attempts to incorporate the horizon of the biblical text, the Christian tradition, and our own culturally shaped, linguistically sensitive minds; because of this understanding, all of theology is second order percepts, including our doctrine of the Trinity. This understanding, interestingly enough, is not a new one. This goes back to the Scottish distinction between God “in himself” (in se) and “towards us” (erga nos).[iii] Francis Junius, a reformed theologian “also picked up this distinction and categorized theology as God knows it (theologia archetypa) and theology as it is revealed to and done by us (theologia ectypa).”[iv] This breaks the bonds of modernistic tendencies toward a univocal knowledge of God (or even “the thing in itself”), while not reducing it to equivocal knowledge (meaning relativistic). Instead, the theologian must travel the narrow road, between two extremes. This narrow road can be labeled “analogical.” Michael Horton observes “Like the relation of the “sign” and the “thing signified” in sacramental theology, the way of divine self-communication unites word and reality by promise and not by the (Nestorian) separation or (Eutychean) confusion of these two aspects.”[v] He goes on to say “according to this mode, then, scripture provides the community with authorized analogies, drawing on that which is more familiar in human experience in order to indicate appropriate references to that which is more remote.”[vi] The analogical approach to theology is not a “univocal knowledge,” but it does not fall into equivocation, and just mentioned. Instead, by its very nature, still communicates truth, while not falling into either of these two extremes. “Analogical thinking in necessarily dialectical thinking, as analogies both are and are not their referent.”[vii]

            The importance of this for theology, and especially a sound Trinitarian theology is essential. One must recognize that while our understanding of the Trinity is analogical, and serves as a “model,” it still must be guided and normed by the “authorized analogies” given in scripture. And in that way one can evaluate and reform classical or contemporary models.[viii]

            It is at this point that the reformed mantra “always reforming” (semper reformanda), can serve as a unique ability for Protestants to take the best of both worlds (the classical Roman/Western understanding of the Trinity and the Greek Orthadox/Eastern understanding). In this way one can come to the current discussion and glean insight from both positions, and provide a way forward.

Augustine and the Trinity

            One cannot begin looking at the Doctrine of the Trinity nor understand the current hodgepodge of views without beginning with Augustine.[ix] 

Historical Development and Division

            While the development of the concept of the Trinity especially in the early church is often vague, there are clear differences between our theological ancestors. While Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers (and later John of Damascus) used language that seemed to say that the Son proceeds from the Father (eternally), and in turn the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, this has often led the church into subordinationism.[x] However, the Western conception was quite different. Tuertullian conceived God as starting in Gods being, as opposed to the Eastern tradition of starting with the Father (the person). He also said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son.[xi] Hilary also make’s this distinction. He “puts the Spirit in the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Father and states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent and dispensed by the Son…”[xii]

            The distinction being made in the West was that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Trinity or “God” is ultimately grounded in his “oneness” or essence/ousia. This becomes the primary basis upon which the Western tradition lies in its Trinitarian formulation. God’s ontological nature resides in his immanence, as opposed to his economy.[xiii]  Augustine picks this up and shaped the tradition ever more, and, relying upon him, Aquinas, who formulates the doctrine of divine simplicity.

            Augustine, employing a faith seeking understanding, in his classic book On the Trinity or De Trinitate explores the nature of the Divine.

Augustine’s Analogy

            In his book Augustine develops what is famously known as the “psychological analogy” of the Trinity. This is a reasoned discussion about the nature of God, through the use of an analogy, of it mirroring the human mind, or rather, the human mind mirroring the Divine Image.[xiv] This starting point is unique to the Western tradition. He starts with oneness. God’s substance or ousia is the ontological principle that constitutes his being. It is therefore, only reasonable, that one should start with the individual human mind (one/singular individual) as the basis for analogy. Augustine provides some rational ground for this move by saying,

“For in relation to the substance of truth, since truth alone truly is, nothing is greater unless it is more true [or: more real].[xv]  But with regard to whatever is intelligible and unchangeable, no one thing is more true than another, because all are equally and unchangeably eternal. What is called great is great for no other source than from that by which it truly is.”[xvi]

 

And

“…the Trinity itself is just as great as each one of the persons therein. For there, that is not greater which is not more true, where truth itself is greatness. Because in the essence of the truth, to be true is one an the same as to be, and to be is one and the same as to be great; therefore, to be great is one and the same as to be true.”[xvii]

 

There is no subordinationism within the Godhead, and consequently, Gods essence is not derived from his relationality, but rather, by being God. This constitutes Augustine’s use of the psychological analogy.

            The analogy itself, while easy to categorize as “psychological” is a little more difficult to pin down than one would expect, and he does not always stick to the same analogy. One could find about twenty alone in Book 11 itself. At the end of book 10 he presents an analogy from a triad of memory, understanding and will (hence, all psychological). However, while this is certainly an analogy to be explored, Niel Ormerod notes, “It is not this analogy that will prove most effective in the Western tradition, at least in this form of expression.”[xviii] “In fact what proves decisive for the trajectory of the Western tradition is the analogy which Augustine works out in some detail in Book 9, to which he returns in Book 15. This analogy is a formation of his “love analogy:” the lover, the loved, and loves. However this collapses when one points out that one can love oneself, and thus the analogy produces a binary model as opposed to a Trinitarian one. His corrective to this problem appears in Book 9. Here he develops the triad of the mind, its knowledge, and its self-love. Which is reflective of the Father (mind), Son (knowledge), and Spirit (love).

“The word therefore, which we now wish to discern and study is knowledge with love. Hence, when the mind knows and loves itself, its word is joined to it by love. And because the mind loves its knowledge and knows its love, then the word is in the love and love in the word, and both are in him who loves and who speaks.”[xix]

 

“Focusing on the self-knowledge of the mind, he describes it in terms of the production of an inner word. This inner word becomes the primary analogue for the procession of the Word from the Father.”[xx] “The more perfect the knowledge the more perfect the identity between the knowledge and what is known. In God this becomes an identity of substance.”[xxi]

            It must be noted, that while this development of analogies devoted to the interior human consciousness is profound, it is not a systematized work. It is only later that Augustine’s work is picked up and formulated further in Aquinas. Augustine himself remarks, “A thing, therefore, which is a trinity is not the same as an image of a trinity in another thing; on account of which image that, too, in which these three are, is at the same time called an ‘image’…”[xxii] That is, an analogy is simply that, an analogy. All analogies or models are destined to break down at some point, and thus are not meant to provide univocal knowledge. Rather, they aid us in our understanding, and that is what Augustine was attempting to do.

The Eastern Tradition

            The eastern tradition, which we have noted above, is in stark contrast to the Western/Augustinian tradition. The formulation of the Trinity within its dogma begins at a different starting point than that of the west. We have already mentioned Athanasius and the Cappadocians, but their understanding of the proceeding of the Holy Spirit will have other implications on their Trinitarian formulations (which modern theologians will pick up on). Essential to their Trinitarian understanding is the relationality of the three Persons. Instead of starting with ousia, the Cappadocians started with hypostasis, personality. It was Basil of Caesarea who first distinguished between hypostasis and ousia. Preferring hypostasis as the “first principle.”

He identified, in line with Stoicism, the ousia as what it had in common with the substratum, which is qualified by quality, i.e. by the hypostasis. Doing this he explained the three hypostases in terms of paternity, sonship and santification and defined the hypostasis as tropos tes hyparxeos, as the way in which ousia is received.[xxiii]

 

This is to be a common trend in the Cappadocian Fathers, probably because of their antagonists, the Sabellian’s, who were essentially modalists.

            In this way the eastern tradition is different from that of the western, whereas the West starts with ousia, the East starts with hypostasis. These two foundations lead to different conclusions and different Trinitarian formulations. The West begins with Gods oneness and moves to three persons; and the East begins with the three persons (notably, they begin with the Father, and then proceed to the Son, and then Holy Spirit, as they are in relation) and move to one essence.

Social Trinitarianism

            Having outlined the Western tradition (primarily Augustine) and then briefly the Eastern tradition (primarily the Cappadocian Fathers) we now must turn to the contemporary setting.

Historical Setting

Theological discourse within evangelicalism and abroad had been somewhat stunted during the early 20^th century. This included, especially, Trinitarian theologizing. Karl Rahner lamented these unfortunate circumstances by saying that Christians were practical “mere monotheists.” This decline in Trinitarian theology in the churches and in the lay piety, provoked Rahners decry, and in response, ignited a resurgence in Trinitarian theology throughout the later 20^th century and up until the current 21^st. Part of that resurgence has been the immergence of “Social Trinitarianism.” This emergence is in mostly contrary to the Western formulations and instead is taking the lead of the Cappadocian Fathers. Key figures in this movement are: Moltmann, Colin Gunton, Miroslav Volf, John Franke, Cornelius Plantinga, and John Zizioulas. This movement is not altogether monolithic, but is diverse within each of its proponents. Some reject Augustinian formulations, while other affirm both the West and the Eastern dogma’s.

 

Reasons for its Emergence

One of the main reasons for this emergence is the move from modernism to postmodernism. This turn has led to a turn to relationality within philosophy and theology. Social Trinitarian analogies are primarily derived from social relations, and thus serve as a basis for the “ontological principle of God.” God exists in relation. John Zizioulas, interestingly enough, attempts to preserve Gods freedom, and thus says, “If God exists, he exists because the Father exists, that is, He who out of love freely begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit. Thus God as person-as the hypostasis of the Father-makes the one divine substance to be that which it is: the one God.”[xxiv] This means, as Ziziouslas further explains, that God is not “ontologically necessary.” In this sense God is perfectly free, and that includes freedom from existence. God chooses to be a necessary being. Here we have modern attempt to preserve Divine freedom and autonomy, something that is essential (so these proponents say) to the human being. 

            With this understanding, the doctrine of the “Imago Dei” is also transformed from the individualistic and monistic being or “mode of existence,” to a bright and attractive life in communion.[xxv]

Conclusion

            While the debate is still a current one, there is room for theological development even still. As noted earlier, our theologizing is analogous, and analogies always tend to break down at some point, and so we must be intricately observing the modern discourse and applying the Biblical witness to its development. In this particular discussion, Protestants are in a unique position to draw from both traditions. In that sense we can affirm a thoroughly Trinitarian dialectic and say yes to both. It is important that we do not emphasize the unity over the diversity (and hence become modalists), nor the diversity over the unity (and become tri-theists). We must unsparingly affirm that the Biblical witness certainly affirms the “oneness” of God, and the “person’s as well. So in this sense, a truly biblically faithful theologian must travel the road less traveled and affirm the dialectic of unity and diversity both in the Godhead and in the Imago Dei. This understanding can appreciate both models while not rejecting one or the other. Theologians must come to terms with the dialectical tensions within our theology and affirm these. For this the beauty of the Christian religion, its thoroughly Trinitarian theology. This leads to a proper understanding of anthropology as well, as both the person as individual and as corporate entity’s. Christians must not shy away from these debates, but rather affirm with Augustine “faith seeking understanding” and our reformation motto, semper reformanda; always reforming, and this includes our models of the Trinity; as we seek to bring Glory to God alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             

How Should We Read Hebrews 11?: A Challenge to the Exemplary Approach (Part 2)

To quickly summarize part 1 of this post, I believe that Hebrews 11 has often been read in isolation from its immediate context in the letter. There is no doubt that the examples of faith given in Hebrews 11 are meant to be an encouragement to the author’s persecuted audience, but is that all they are? In other words, is Hebrews 11 a hodgepodge of Old Testament heroes intended to overwhelm us with encouragement from the saints of old? Of course these examples should encourage us, but is the mass number and order of these examples accidental? I think not.

I hope to propose a fuller reading of Hebrews 11, one in which the examples of faith play into a grandeur “lesser to greater” argument. By lesser to greater I mean that the saints of old are shown to have great faith while they had experienced lesser revelation than we now have. They saw far off what we have now seen fulfilled in Jesus. We now have, in Jesus, both a greater example of faith and greater revelation of the promises of Old. It is our position in redemptive history that gives us this privilege.

My reason for reading Hebrews 11 as part of this greater redemptive-historical argument is that these great men of the faith are listed in chronological order, having faith in future realities, and showing types and redemptive allusions in their persons and actions so as to point to the founder and perfecter of our faith. These evidences along with the eschatological fulfillment of redemptive history spoken of in Hebrews 12, seem to show that the author intended Hebrews 11-12 to be read in a redemptive-historical manner with Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, as the one which we should be looking to.

In order to offer evidence for this particular reading of Heb. 11, I will take a look at four different reasons for why we should read Heb. 11 as part of a “lesser to greater” argument:
The Chronological Ordering
Faith in Future Realities
Types and Redemptive Allusions
The Mount to Which We Have Come (Heb. 12)

I’ll hash out these four evidences in part 3 and then draw out the implications for Christian living in part 4.

Batter My Heart

Batter my heart, three-person’d God; for You
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn and make me new.
I, like an unsurp’d town, to another due,
Labor to admit You, but Oh, to no end!
Reason, Your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv’d, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love You, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth’d unto Your enemy:
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to You, imprison me, for I
Except You entrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except You ravish me.

-John Donne-

Lewis on Encountering Extraordinary People

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would strongly be tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal.”

— C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, HarperOne, pp. 14-1 

How should we read Hebrews 11?: A Challenge to the Exemplary Approach (Part 1)

Growing up my chief exposure to the book of Hebrews came from Hebrews chapter 11. There were two reasons why this chapter was referenced or taught:

1. Verse one gives us a nice little definition of faith

2. The rest of the chapter gives us examples of men and women (shout out to Rahab and Sarah) who lived out this faith

My understanding of how Hebrews 11 should be read and taught has been heavily influenced by this approach to the chapter. I had no problem with seeing Hebrews 11 as a simple exemplary listing of great men of the faith, but I did however get bored in Sunday School when the teacher would take a look at one example per week. We were shown the example of the person’s faith and then encouraged to follow in their footsteps.

There were however, a few questions that came up while looking at Hebrews 11. For one thing, why so many examples? Why did the author have to give so many examples in chronological order rather than just giving a couple really good examples? I was told that this was just part of the author’s argumentation, he had to be thorough in his giving of examples to emphasize his point. Then there were the passages that spoke of future promises that they trusted in and looked forward to; these verses the teacher often skipped over: v. 10, vv. 13-16, v. 26, and vv. 39-40. I witnessed some impressive evasive maneuvers from various teachers when asked about the meanings of these verses. Perhaps the best answer they could conjure up was that we should follow their example in looking forward to heaven. Another question that just recently appeared relevant to me was why stop at the end of chapter 11? Could chapter 12 shed any light on the meaning of chapter 11? For the most part I was, if for no other reason than mere practicality, taught to respect the God-ordained chapter divisions.

To say the least, the exemplary reading of Hebrews 11 does not seem to fall in line with the flow of Hebrews. I see Hebrews 11 as the integral corner piece to the redemptive historical puzzle laid out in Hebrews 11-13. This chapter begins the last great “lesser to greater” argument from the writer. While Hebrews 11 does contain examples of faith, their examples are part of the lesser to greater argument. If they showed such great faith when they did not yet receive what was promised, how much greater faith should we have now looking to Jesus, the fulfiller of what what was promised?

I’ll hash this out a little bit more in my next post.

Linkage: New Southern Baptist Journal of Theology and More. . .

• The Spring 2008 edition of the SBJT (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology) was just released today.

The Journal articles include:

• • Editoral: Stephen J. Wellum, “Reflection on the Kingdom of God”
  • Graeme Goldsworthy, “The Kingdom of God as Hermeneutic Grid”
  • Peter J. Gentry, “Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image”
  • Jonathan T. Pennington, “The Kingdom of Heaven in the Gospel of Matthew”
  • Brian Vickers, “The Kingdom of God in Paul’s Gospel”
  • Russell D. Moore and Robert E. Sagers, “The Kingdom of God and the Church: A Baptist Reassessment”
  • Todd L. Miles, “A Kingdom without a King? Evaluating the Kingdom Ethic(s) of the Emerging Church”
  • The SBJT Forum

The articles linked can be viewed online in PDF format; to inquire about getting the entire journal e-mail journaloffice@sbts.edu

• Harold Best, former emeritus professor of music and dean emeritus of the Wheaton College Conservatory of Music, will be lecturing at Sojourn Community Church as a part of their Cultivate Beauty art and film festival. Dr. Best is a renown lecturer, artist and author of the books, Unceasing Worship and Music Through the Eyes of Faith. (HT: Sojourn Music)

• The guys at Christians in Context provided a really neat link to some resources by G.K. Beale on Revelation and Biblical theology which also includes a list of good books on the topics.