The Trinity: A Guide for the Perplexed
.
.
With thanks to the kind folks at Continuum for this review copy!
Paul M. Collins is a priest in the Church of England and a Reader in Theology at the University of Chichester, UK. The Trinity: A Guide for the Perplexed is an intermediate level work designed with the expressed intention of getting students of Trinitarian theology to think. Collins says that his “intention in writing this guide is not so much to provide answers as to equip the reader in framing good questions of Scripture and tradition and of those who seek to interpret them.” (p. 5)
In chapter 1 Collins’ driving question is “Why Trinity at all?” In seeking to answer this he examines certain NT passages which gave rise to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Church’s worship, and the mystical theology of various theologians, ancient and contemporary. He concludes of the NT that “later Trinitarian reflection is neither an aberration nor inauthentic,” and that it “secur[es] the Apostles’ experience of Christ… rather than a radical misunderstanding. (p. 16) And while the shape of the Church’s worship is decidedly Trinitarian Collins correctly notes that this doesn’t “necessarily guarantee any explicit Trinitarian understanding or devotion among members of a congregation.” (p. 16) Yet it’s the Church’s experience of “God in the Christ event and the event of Pentecost” (p. 25) that forms the root of the doctrine of the Trinity. Ancient writers such as Dionysius the Areopagite sought to speak of God apophatically which gave rise to later theologians asking if it is possible to know God, and if so to what extent. Rahner contends that that “human beings ‘know’ God by knowing themselves in relation to the mystery of being alive.” (p. 24) One wonders how much of a ‘mystery’ being alive actually is though.
In chapter 2 Collins turns his attention to four ‘moments’ throughout the Church’s history that have had serious impacts on Trinitarian hermeneutics. In reverse chronological order he begins with “de Régnon’s paradigm” and the influence it has had on modern social Trinitarianism. Essentially the “paradigm” is a caricature that says the Eastern fathers started with God’s threeness while the Western fathers started with God’s oneness. Taking this as their point of departure modern social Trinitarians opt for the Eastern model and focus on relationality by conceiving God as a society of persons in communion. This reading of the Eastern fathers (i.e., the Cappadocians, esp. Gregory of Nyssa) has been challenged recently by scholars such as Sara Coakley who argues that social Trinitarians are misreading the sources which are actually more concerned with “underscoring the unity of divine will in the Trinity.” (p. 34) Despite the critiques against social Trinitarianism Collins believes that it can be defended on the basis of what Rowan Williams calls an appeal to the “world of particulars” (see p. 37, 38). “Such an appeal would focus on Christology, as rooted in an understanding of the concrete events of revelation in the economy.” (p. 38) Such a reading is alleged to be superior to essentialist readings that focus on God’s ontology.
Next he examines the role that Socinianism played in shaping Trinitarian theology from the 16th to 19th centuries. In short, the orthodox theologians saw the doctrine of Socinus as akin to Arianism which called for a reexamination of the ante-Nicene faith. Certain orthodox theologians concluded that the ante-Nicene fathers were more in line with Arianism while other orthodox theologians came to radically different conclusions and saw Athanasius as the more faithful interpreter of the faith that preceded him. From here he continues back in time to the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Church. Of course a brief treatment of the filioque controversy follows but Collins is quick to note that this wasn’t the only, or even the main factor in the split. “Rather, it can be argued that the main differences between East and West concern their epistemological approaches and ontological affirmations about the being and nature of God.” (p. 45) Taking Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas as the medieval representatives of Eastern and Western theology respectively, Collins highlights the differences in their understanding of God’s essence and energies. For Palamas God’s essence is “utterly inaccessible and unknowable for human beings” while Aquinas “argued that the divine essence might be known through the habitus (habit or state) of created grace, enabling the human mind to perceive divine truth.” (p. 45) Collins is sure to note the similarities between the two theologians and the theologies they represent though in the belief that “even a redeemed human being does not actually know or participate in the very being of God.” (p. 45)
Collins rounds the chapter out with a brief discussion on the reception of Nicene orthodoxy. He focuses on Augustine and notes the manner in which he functionalized the doctrine. “This did not entail a reformulation of the doctrine but its reception in ways which were novel and creative. [...] By appealing to the salvific, Augustine is able to remove the doctrine of the Trinity from merely being a rule by which to judge statements and turn it into something which has a functionality which is both existential and redemptive.” (p. 49-50) He sees Augustine’s functionalization of the doctrine as “support of the contemporary appeal to relationality,” (p. 50) especially in the work of theologians such as John Zizioulas, but he also recognizes that such an approach might diverge from Eastern apophatic reflection on God.
To be continued…
B”H
No comments:
Post a Comment