Yesterday I was at a talk by Dr. Karen Kilby, in which she suggested that von Balthasar exhibits too much of an “insider’s view” when it comes to the trinity. It was a fascinating theme, and she has written a couple of other papers along similar lines which I plan to read soon – relating to “Thomas [Aquinas] and the Trinty” and her provocative advocation of an “Apophatic Trinitarianism”.
I think there is something worthwhile here: Dr. Kilby identified a certain process that is all too common in Christian trinitarian ethical discussion at the moment (and I have certainly seen plenty of this):
- Abstract a doctrine of the “immanent” trinity – generally emphasising social relations as being primary
- Make this doctrine “useful” by applying it to human relationships/politics/etc
Kilby’s hesitancy, if I may attempt to summarise, is that this seems to pry too easily into the inner workings of God himself, irreverently rushing beyond Scripture’s witness to Father, Son and Spirit in their relationship with the world, and trying to make God “useful” for our own interests.
She is not opposed to the necessary formulations that went on in the opening centuries of the common era in response to heresies; but advocates what she calls a certain “intellectual asceticism” in this area, being content not to have an “inside” knowledge of the inner workings of God, and rather relating in worship to the Father, by the Son, in the Spirit.
RSS - Posts
Dear Matt,
Yes, it seems to me that all the blurb about social Trinitarianism fails to address what Scripture explicitly alludes to: (i) how the Father-Son relationship sheds light on the parent-child relationship in the human family; and (ii) how the Father-Son relationship relates to the human husband-wife relationship (so 1 Cor. 11:3ff.).
In general culture the family is passe. However, it is the basic unit of society not least because of the above to ways that it mirrors the Trinity.
Blessings,
Marty.
Kilby is my new hero! I’m a long time advocate of not using the Trinity as a model for social programs. God tells us how he wants us to treat others and how to conduct ourselves so that should be good enough. We don’t need to appeal to the inner workings of God to know how or why to do these things.
Nick,
Yup. Appeal to the Trinity seems not required when all you need is the basic sayings of Christ.
Not to be rude, but you appear to be responding in precisely the way that Karen is critiquing: that a certain social relation (ie a hierarchical family) is validated since it is found in The Trinity. While social Trinitarian types tend to see the Trinity as a model of egalitarian social organisation, you have simply done the same, but for non-egalitarian organisation.
What Karen is that both are flawed as both have the same projectionist logic: she is saying that the trinity is an (even the simple one expressed in the creeds) inexhuastable mystery and we shouldn’t rush to such conclusions and that an Apophatic Trinitarianism is what is required, letting the trinity be the trinity.
Alex: Have you read William Placher’s The Triune God: An Essay in Postliberal Theology? I appreciated his willingness to approach the Trinity apophatically throughout much of his presentation. If you’ve not read it I did a four part review some time ago that you might be interested in.
Not really my area of research/interest, but cheers very much for this anyway, I’ll check out your posts.
I think part of the problem is that the critics of Christianity leap on the Trinity, particularly when it is described as a mystery, so to prevent this Christians are rather over clear (The Trinity is obviously this and this) and end up being instrumentalist in their approach – the Trinity as community can be got by just about anyone, rather than trying to explain to someone 1+1+1 persons = 1 God. Take the God Delusion where Dawkins specifically goes after the trinity, saying that unlike quantum mechanics say, theology attempts to say “preserve the mystery” rather than give a straight answer etc.