Pilgrimage of Love

PilgrimageofLove

REFLECTIONANDTHEORYINTHESTUDYOFRELIGIONSERIES

serieseditor

JamesWetzel,ColgateUniversity

APublicationSeriesof TheAmericanAcademyofReligion and OxfordUniversityPress

NEWMANANDGADAMER

TowardaHermeneuticsofReligiousKnowledge

ThomasK.Carr

GOD,PHILOSOPHYANDACADEMICCULTURE

ADiscussionbetweenScholarsintheAARandAPA

EditedbyWilliamJ.Wainwright

LIVINGWORDS

StudiesinDialoguesaboutReligion

TerenceJ.Martin

LIKEANDUNLIKEGOD

ReligiousImaginationsinModernandContemporaryFiction JohnNeary

BEYONDTHENECESSARYGOD

TrinitarianFaithandPhilosophyintheThoughtofEberhardJu¨ngel PaulDeHart

LESSING’SPHILOSOPHYOFRELIGIONANDTHEGERMANENLIGHTENMENT

ToshimasaYasukata

AMERICANPRAGMATISM

AReligiousGenealogy

M.GailHamner

OPTINGFORTHEMARGINS

PostmodernityandLiberationinChristianTheology

EditedbyJoergRieger

MAKINGMAGIC

Religion,Magic,andScienceintheModernWorld

RandallStyers

THEMETAPHYSICSOFDANTE’S COMEDY

ChristianMoevs

PILGRIMAGEOFLOVE

MoltmannontheTrinityandChristianLife

JoyAnnMcDougall

PilgrimageofLove

MoltmannontheTrinityandChristianLife

joyannm c dougall

1OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,publishesworksthatfurther OxfordUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellence inresearch,scholarship,andeducation.

OxfordNewYork

AucklandCapeTownDaresSalaamHongKongKarachi

KualaLumpurMadridMelbourneMexicoCityNairobi NewDelhiShanghaiTaipeiToronto

Withofficesin

ArgentinaAustriaBrazilChileCzechRepublicFranceGreece GuatemalaHungaryItalyJapanPolandPortugalSingapore SouthKoreaSwitzerlandThailandTurkeyUkraineVietnam

Copyright 2005byOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.

PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.

198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016

www.oup.com

OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced, storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans, electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise, withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

McDougall,JoyAnn.

PilgrimageofLove:MoltmannontheTrinityandChristianLife/ JoyAnnMcDougall.

p.cm.—(Reflectionandtheoryinthestudyofreligion)

Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.

ISBN-13978-0-19-517705-3

ISBN0-19-517705-3

1.Moltmann,Ju¨rgen.2.Trinity—Historyofdoctrines—20thcentury.3.Christian life.4.Theology,Doctrinal—History—20thcentury.I.Title.II.Series. BT111.3.M332005

231'.044'092—dc222004021552

987654321

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica onacid-freepaper

Formyparents,SeenaandJohnMcDougall, andinmemoryofHansW.Frei

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

Thisbookbeganasadissertationthatwascompletedseveralyears agoattheDivinitySchooloftheUniversityofChicago.Sincethat timethisprojecthasseenseveralnewadditionsandbeenthrough significantreconstruction.ThroughoutthisarduousprocessIowe myheartfeltthankstothosecolleagues,friends,andfamilywho haveaccompaniedmealongtheway.

LetmeexpressmydeepappreciationfirsttoBernardMcGinn andDavidTracyfortheircollaborativedirectorshipofmydissertationandtheirecumenicalspiritinreachingacrosstheconfessional andthehistoricalboundariesoftheirdisciplinestosupportmyresearchincontemporaryProtestanttheology.Ioweaspecialwordof gratitudetoBerniefornominatingthisprojecttotheAmerican AcademyofReligionSeriesatOxfordUniversityPressandforhis unfailingsupportduringtherevisionoftheoriginalmanuscript. Here,too,mythanksgotoKimConnorandJimWetzel,theeditors oftheAARseries,fortheirenthusiasticrecommendationofthis projectfortheReflectionandTheoryintheStudyofReligionSeries, andtomyeditorCynthiaReadatOxfordUniversityPressforher carefulshepherdingofafirst-timeauthorthroughthetwistsand turnsofthepublishingprocess.Specialthanksgoaswelltomyresearchassistant,GinaWeiser,notonlyforhermeticulouscopyediting ofthefinalmanuscriptbutalsoforherartistryinrefiningitsprose.

IowemuchgratitudetoJu¨rgenMoltmannforinspiringthis projectduringhisunforgettablefinalteachingsemesterinTu¨bingen in1992,andthenforsupportingmyresearchduringtheacademic yearof1994–95,ayearthatwasmadepossiblethroughadissertationgrantfromtheDeutscherAkademischerAustauschdienst.Ju¨r-

gen’scriticalreadingofmyworkoverthepastfewyearshasnodoubtimproved itsquality.Moreover,hisrepeatedencouragementnottofollowhistheology butrathertocriticallyengageandopenlydisagreewithithasrunginmyears throughouttherevisionprocess.Ithankhimforinvitingmeintotheopen fellowshipoftheSpiritaboutwhichhepassionatelywrites.

Withanypilgrimageinlife,onediscoversonlyatitsendthemanypersons whohavehelpedyoufindyourway.Sowasthecasewiththisproject.Gazing back,IoweapersonalthankyoutoDavidKelsey,whofirstsparkedmyinterest inthedoctrineoftheTrinityandinMoltmann’stheologyatYaleDivinity Schoolmanyyearsago.Asmyintellectualpilgrimagetookmeelsewhere— firsttotheUniversityofChicagoandthentotheCandlerSchoolofTheology atEmoryUniversity—othersreadilysteppedinalongtheway.HereIwishto thankmostespeciallyKathrynTannerforherselflesssupportofmywork.For manyyearsnow,Kathryn’scriticalprecision,herno-nonsenseworkethic,and hergentlespirithavetaughtmewhatthevocationofthetheologianandsisterhoodinChristareallabout.Iowehermorethansheknows.So,too,my thanksgotomycolleagueMarkJordan,whohelpedmethroughseveralfits andstartstotaketheslabofstonethatthisdissertationoncewasandtocarve itintoasculpturewithmyown“voice”finallyetchedinit.Alonglistoffriends andcolleaguesalsoencouragedthisprojectthroughspiritedtheologicalconversations,carefulreadingsofitschapters,andpersonalsupport.Inparticular, manythankstoSigridBrandt,AmyCarr,RebeccaChopp,HildaKoster,Armin Kutscher,MarkMcIntosh,JoanneMcGuire,JanPranger,DonSaliers,and BruceandRuthWoll.Finally,IgivethankstoArnfridurGudmundsdottirfor herfeministsisterhoodasweeachsetforthonourowntheologicalpilgrimage inChicago.Thankyou,Addy,foralwaysbeingthereasmyfamily,especially whenyoutoofoundyourselfalongwayfromyourhome.

Thisworkisdedicatedtomyparents,SeenaandJohnMcDougall,whose manifoldexpressionsofloveovertheyearshavemademytheologicalwork possible.Amongsomanyothergifts,theygavemethefreedomtopursuemy ownpathwhereveritmightleadme.Thisbookisalsodedicatedtothememory ofmyfirsttheologicalteacher,HansW.Frei,whotrustedinmyvocationyears beforeIcouldbelieveinitmyself.Althoughthereismuchinthispresentwork thatIsuspecthewoulddisagreewith,Iknowthathishermeneuticalsensibilities,hisdistrustofsystem-building,andhispassionfortheologicaltruthinfusethiswork.

Lastbutnotleast,mythanksgotomyhusband,SteffenLo¨sel,foraccompanyingthisbook’spilgrimagefromthebeginningtoitsend.Asourshared lovefortheologytookusfromplacetoplace,heknowsbetterthananyonethe personalcostsofpursuingacommonacademicvocation.Fortakingtherisk toventurewithmeintothisfarcountry,Igivethanks.Forhisim/patience, hiswit,andhiswisdom,Igivethanks.Inourlifetogetherheembodiesthe trueloveaboutwhichthisworkspeaks.

Contents

ForewordbyJu¨rgenMoltmann, xi

1.Introduction:TheReturnoftheTrinitarianGodofLove,3

2.TheDialecticofCrucifiedandCreativeLoveinMoltmann’s EarlyTheology,29

3.TheRelationalOntologyofLoveinthe MessianicTheology, 59

4.ASocialTrinitarianTheologyoftheHumanPerson,101

5.TheHumanPilgrimageintheMessianicLifeofFaith,121

6.Conclusion:TowardaContemporaryTrinitarianTheology ofLove,153

Notes,165

Bibliography,193

Index,201

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword

IreadthisworkonthedevelopmentofmydoctrineoftheTrinity withgreatpleasureandgrowinginterest.JoyAnnMcDougall’s knowledgeableperspectivehelpedmetorecognize,asitwerefrom theoutside,thosepaths,rightorwrong,whichmythoughtshave traveledfromthetheologyof TheCrucifiedGod in1972tothedoctrineoftheTrinityin1980.ThereisaLatinadage:“Etiamlibellihabentsuafata.”Howmuchmoredoideashavetheirowndestiny!It isexcitingtosee,howtheycontinuetoworkinotherminds,in othercontexts,andinothertimes.Iconsiderittobeawonderful giftthatideasthatonceinfluencedmenowcomebacktomein suchawiseandempatheticmannerinthisbook.HereIdonotrethinkthemisunderstandingsorcontroversiesthatIonceoccasioned.Rather,Icansimplydelightintheauthor’sindependent “thinkingwith”and“thinkingbeyond”myownwork.

Atthesametimeitisdifficulttowritethisforeword.NotbecauseIfinditdifficulttopraisethisstudyandtorecommendit wholeheartedlytoallwhowanttoparticipateinthecontemporary theologicaldiscussiononthenewtrinitarianthinking.Onthecontrary:Icouldnotnameanythingbetterrightnow!No,whatisdifficultistorestrictmyselftowritingsimplyaforeword,ratherthan enteringintoacomprehensivediscussionoftheauthor’scritical concerns,andherprojectedcreativeprojectsoffurtherwork.Iwill try,however,nottoletthisforewordgetoutofhandandturnintoa reply.Itshallremainaninvitingforeword,whichdoesnottemptthe authortoanepilogue.

Thefirstthingweowetothisworkisthatitdemonstratesmy

pathfromthetheologyofthecrossin TheCrucifiedGod of1972tothedoctrine oftheTrinityin TheTrinityandtheKingdomofGod in1980.Theologically speakingthisperiodwasthemostinterestingforme.WhenIwrotethetheologyofthecross,Iwantedtoexpresssomethingthathadbeenstirringwithin meforalongtime:HowcanonespeakaboutGodinGermany“afterAuschwitz”?Idiscoveredmyownanswerinthequestion:HowcanChristiansspeak aboutGodafterGolgotha?Ididnotinanywayknowwherethisnewbeginning afterthe TheologyofHope in1964wouldleadme.WhenIwrotethedoctrine oftheTrinityin1980,however,Ihadthefivevolumesofthe MessianicTheology alreadyinview,evenifnotyetfullyinmymind.JoyAnnMcDougallpoints outcorrectlyhowthereversalofthesoteriologicalquestionintothetheological questionsignifiedthefirststepintothetrinitarianmysteryofGod:Whatdoes Christ’sdeathonthecrossmeannotonlyforthesalvationofthegodforsaken world,butfirstofallfortheveryselfofGod?IsGodindifferentvis-a`-visthe deathoftheSonofGod,ordoestheGod,whomJesuscalled“Abba,dear Father,”sufferthedeathofthebelovedchild?AtthetimeitpromptedavehementdebateoverthefactthatIrejectedthephilosophicalandtheological axiomoftheimpassibilityofGod,andreplaceditwiththepassionofGodin thetwofoldsenseoftheword.

Thesecondpointthisworkcorrectlyemphasizesisthesocialdoctrineof theTrinity,whichIintroducedintothenewtrinitariandebatein1980.Everythingthatwethinkandsayentersintoconversation,and,oftenenough,into controversywithothers.Ourcontributionsarealwaysone-sidedinorderto correctotherone-sidedperspectives.Youcanseethiseasilywhenyouisolate suchone-sidedpositionsfromtheircontext.Formypart,Ifounditnecessary tocorrecttheone-sidednessoftheWesternmodalismthatwasrepresentedin thedoctrineoftheTrinityfromAugustinetoSchleiermacher,and,inmyown time,inthedoctrinesofKarlBarthandKarlRahner.Forthisreason,Iposited asocialdoctrineoftheTrinity,asithadbeensetforthbyOrthodoxtheology intheEastoverandagainstapsychologicaldoctrineoftheTrinity,whichsaw inthementaltriadoftheindividualsubject,theunderstanding,andthewill animageofFather,Son,andSpirit.Whilemyopponentsderivedthe“threefold identity”ofGodfromtheunityofGod,Iwentfromthethreenessofthe personstothe“threefoldunity”ofGod,byunderstandingtheunityasaperichoretic“community.”Inmyview,theoftrepeatedchargeof“tritheism”derivesfromIslamandisdirectedagainsttheChristianfaithassuch.Within trinitarianthinking,however,itmakesnosense.Ifonewishestoovercome boththeone-sidednessofthepsychologicalandthesocialdoctrinesofthe Trinity,oneneedstocombinebothwaysdialectically:fromthreenesstounity andfromunitytothreeness.Suchadialecticalcombinationinthedoctrineof theTrinitymaysoundsomewhatspeculative,butithassignificantconsequencesforthetheologicalanthropologyofthe imagotrinitatis.Inthiswaynot onlythesocialcharacterbutalsotheself-relatednessofthehumanpersonis

foreword xiii emphasized.ThisisthepaththatMcDougallchooses,andIamhappytofollow heronit.

Lastbutnotleast,McDougalldemonstratesthatthroughtherecoveryof pneumatologyin TheSpiritofLife in1991theexpanseoftheTrinitywidened oncemoreforme.WhiletheWesterntraditiontreatedtheHolySpiritasthe bondoflove(vinculumamoris)betweenFatherandSon,andthusasaneutral powerandnotasadivineperson,theindependentpersonhoodoftheSpirit withintheTrinityandinChristianlifebecamesignificanttome.Afterthe WesternChurchrescindedthe filioque clauseintheNiceneCreed,theHoly Spiritnolongerneedstoberelegatedtothethirdplace.McDougallidentifies a“redthread”thatrunsthroughmypublications,namely,theunderstanding ofloveintheTrinityandineveryperson’slifeoffaiththatisguidedbyGod theHolySpirit.Outoftheconceptofdialecticalloveshedevelopstheconcept ofcreativeandGod-correspondingloveinordertodevelopa“trinitariantheologyoflove.”UptonowIhadnotseenthis“redthread”inmyownthinking. However,Inowseethisinanewway,andIwelcomeit.

Iwanttorespondtotwocriticalobservations,whichIhaveheardalready fromothersides.Thefirstreferstomystyle,mymethodology,andmyhermeneutic.Iamnotbetrayinganysecrets,whenIadmitthat,beforewriting eachbook,eachchapter,andeachpresentationIconstructagraphicdiagram oftheconcepts,thelinesofthought,theconnections,andtheequivalents,in ordertogainclarity.Astheoldsayinggoes:“Thinkfirst,thenspeak.”OnceI haveaclearschema,Igladlygivemyselfovertothepassionofpresentation, inordertowriteinaninvitingandstimulatingfashion.Iliketousepoetic expressionsinsteadoflogicaldeductions,becauseIamnotonlywritingfor academiccolleaguesanddoctoralstudents,butforallinterestedreaders,theologiansornot.ForthisreasonIavoidforcingreadersintologicaloreven ideologicalagreement.Rather,Iappealtotheirimaginationsandtheirindependentspirits.Thishasresultedinvariouscriticismsfromacademiccolleagues,who,intheirsearchformymethod,havefailedtorecognizeitsunderlyingscheme.Byandlarge,however,thishasmademybooksaccessible forawideraudience.Iattemptedtogiveanaccountofthis“hermeneuticof hope”inmybook, ExperiencesofTheologicalThinking:PathsandFormsofChristianTheology,chapter2.

Asecondcriticismisthatmanymissinmybooksconcreteethicalsuggestionsanddirectionsforthelifeoffaith.Thiscriticismismisplacedintwo respects:(1)ForwhomandwhereshallIbecome“concrete?”Forthosewho believeandactinAmericaorinKorea,inAfricaorinEurope?Thesituations aresodifferentthatlocalChristianswouldexperiencesuggestionsanddirectionsfromaGermanprofessoraspatronizing,andwouldbeforcedtoreject them.InsteadIhavetriedtospeaksoastostimulatethereaderstoimagine whatisnecessaryintheirsituation.Thisgoalisreflectedproductivelyinmany dissertationsinAfrica,Indonesia,andKorea.(2)Inmyownecclesialand

politicalsituationinGermany,Ihavecommentedquiteoftenandconcretely onmanyquestionsofeverydaylife,especiallybecauseIhavenotfoundmany ethicistswhohavearrivedatconcretedecisions.Whoeverleafsthroughthe comprehensive ResearchBibliography byJamesWakefieldwillfindalargenumberofsuch“concrete”statements,beginningwithaTheologicalDeclaration onHumanRights,tocommentsontherighttowork,therighttoresistance, thesocialfunctionofownership,nucleardisarmament,thedebateonabortion, andquestionsonmedicalethicsandsoforth.Ihavediscussedatlengththe socialdisablingof“disabled”personsandcalleduponthechurchestogive themroomtoliveinourcongregations.Ihavediscussedtheevilsofracism, sexism,andcapitalism,andhavecontributedinmy1975book, TheChurchin thePoweroftheSpirit,totheGermanchurch-reform-movementofthoseyears. Indeed,Ididnotwriteatheologicalethic,becauseIwantedtobeconcrete, ratherthanascendingtothosemetalevelsatwhichmostethicalproposalsare located.Whateverisconcretehasaspecificlocation,aspecifictime,andis directedtowardaspecificcommunity.Suchproposalscannotbepresentedon ametalevelofethicalreflection.

Inherconclusion,McDougallcallsfora“robustdoctrineofsin.”Ifind thatverycourageousandhopethatshewillsucceed.WhenIsearchedfora “theologyafterAuschwitz”in1972,IfollowedthepathofChrist’spassionand hisdescentintohellintosuchdepthsofevilthattheconceptsofsin,guilt,and godlessnesswerestruckoutofmyhands.Auschwitzandthedeath-campsof TreblinkaandMaidanek:youdonotunderstandsuchexperienceswithGod, andyoudonotunderstandwithoutGod,asElieWieseloncesaid.Onedoes notevenwanttounderstandit,becauseonedoesnotwanttoofferanyexplanation.Isitsin?Isitblasphemy?Canwegraspthisrealitywithmoraland traditionaltheologicalconcepts?Idonotknow.Wewillhavetolearnfrom thosewhohavesufferedit.Thewilltototaldestructionmightwellbethe depthsofevil,becauseitwantstoplungecreationandGodintonothingness. Facedwiththedestructivenothingness,trinitarianGod-talkneedstoturnonce moreintoatheologyofthecross,whichitselfleadsintoaworldofresurrection. Idonotwanttoanticipatetheauthor,however,butratheronlyhintatwhy sucharobustdoctrineofsinwasnotpossibleformethusfar.Furthermore, mypersonalremarksshallindicatehowstimulatingandexcitingithasbeen andwillremainformetoreadthisbook.Ipassitonwithgreatthankfulness. Itwillmakeitsownway.

Tu¨bingen,thefirstofAugust,2004Ju¨rgenMoltmann

PilgrimageofLove

This page intentionally left blank

TheReturnoftheTrinitarianGodofLove

ThusitisthatinthisquestionweareoccupiedwithaboutthetrinityandaboutknowingGod,theonlythingwereallyhavetoseeis whattrueloveis;wellinfact,simplywhat love is.

—Augustine, DeTrinitate,8.5.10

WhatconstitutesthedistinctivelyChristianunderstandingofGod?

Ifwetakethescripturesandecumenicalcreedsasareliablewitness oftheconsensusreachedamongtheearliestChristiancommunities,thisquestionmightappeartobeeasilyanswered:“Godislove” and“GodisTrinity.”Indeed,intheearlychurchthesetwotruthsof theChristianfaithwereintrinsictooneanother.Thedoctrineofthe Trinitysymbolizedthedivineeconomyoflove—thehistoryofGod’s creative,redeeming,andsanctifyingpresenceastheFather,theSon, andtheHolySpirit.ItprovidedbelieverswithwhatNicholasLash callsthe“‘summarygrammar’”fortheirprofessionoffaithinthe Godwhoislove.1

TodaythecontemporaryChristianmightwellbecomeperplexed bytheideathatthedoctrineoftheTrinityholdsthekeytodivine love.WhileChristiancommunitiesregularlyinvokethedoctrinein theircreedsandinliturgicalpracticessuchasbaptismanddoxologies,formanybelieversthemeaningoftheTrinityappearsremote fromtheirexperiencesofGod’sredeemingandsanctifyinglove.In 1943AnglicantheologianLeonardHodgsonfirstdrewattentionto thiswideningbreachbetweentrinitariandoctrineandtheeveryday practicesoftheChristianfaith.“Howmanylaymen,”hechallenged, “wouldnotratherregarditasanunintelligiblemetaphysicaldoc-

trinewhichorthodoxyrequiresthemtoprofess,butwhichhasnodirectrelevancetotheirlifeortheirprayers?”2 AgenerationlaterKarlRahnerconfirmed Hodgson’ssuspicionswhenhecommentedwrylyonthewidespreadapathy ofcontemporarybelieverstowardthedoctrine:“DespitetheirorthodoxconfessionoftheTrinity,Christiansare,intheirpracticallife,almostmere‘monotheists.’... shouldthedoctrineoftheTrinityhavetobedroppedasfalse,the majorpartofreligiousliteraturecouldwellremainvirtuallyunchanged.”3

UntilquiterecentlytheeclipseoftheTrinityinpopularpietywaswell matchedbyitsdisplacementinacademictheology.4 Systematictheologians, whoseprovincehasbeentheconceptualclarificationoftrinitarianbelief,had cometoregardthedoctrineasabstruseandimpracticalspeculation,lacking insufficientphilosophicalandbiblicalwarrantsinsupportofamoderndefense.Althoughmanytheologianscontinuetorehearsedoctrinalformulas abouttheTrinity,theiroperativeconceptofGodisoftenathinlydisguised modalismorchristomonism.Theyeithertranslatetrinitarianbeliefintoa threefoldpatternofhumanexperiencesoftheoneGodorreduceittoafocus onJesusChristasthedefinitiveself-revelationofGod;inneithercasedotheologiansventurefurthertoexploretherelationshipsthatobtainamongFather, Son,andHolySpirit.5

HavinglostitssecuremooringswithinthedoctrineofGod,theTrinityhas simultaneouslydriftedtothemarginsoftheologicaldiscussionsoverdivine love.ManycontemporarytheologiansexplicatetheChristianbeliefinaGod whoislovewithoutreferencetothetrinitariansymboloffaith.Theyinterpret thedivineattributeoflove theistically —asapersonalrelation,anattitude,or anactthatcanbepredicatedoftheoneGod.6 Letuslookbrieflyattwoillustrationsofsuchtheisticapproachestodivinelove.

Inhisrecentbook TheModelofLove:AStudyofPhilosophicalTheology, DutchReformedtheologianVincentBru¨mmerinvestigatesthenatureofdivine loveasthekeytoGod’srelationshiptohumankindanditsvariousimplications fortheChristianconceptofGod.7 AlthoughBru¨mmercontendsthathismodel ofloveisinclosedialoguewithboththeChristianscripturesandtradition,the doctrineoftheTrinityreceivesonlypassinghistoricalreferenceinhiswork.8 Evenmorecuriously,Bru¨mmerdistinguisheshismodeloflovefromtheWesterntradition’s“attitudinal”modelonthegroundsthathispurportstobea trulypersonaland“relational”model.Instakinghisclaim,however,Bru¨mmer disregardsthefactthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityhadbeentheoriginallocus inChristiantheologyforpredicatingsuchpersonalandrelationalattributesof God.9

SallieMcFague’shighlyinfluentialbook ModelsofGod:Theologyforan Ecological,NuclearAge offersanotherinstructiveexampleofanontrinitarian approachtodivinelove.10 AlthoughMcFaguemovesastepcloserthanBru¨mmertoformulatingatrinitariandoctrine,herthreefold“model”ofdivinelove as“mother”(agape),“lover”(eros),and“friend”(philia)isonlynominallytrin-

itarian.HerdoctrineofGodismoreadequatelydescribedasneo-modalist, sinceherthreemetaphorsrepresentthethreefoldtranscendentandyetimmanentrelationshipoftheoneGodwhoislovetotheworld.Forthatmatter, McFaguedoesnotstakeanyontologicalclaimsaboutthetrinitarianessence ofdivineloveitself.11 Shearguesforapurely“functional”trinitarianismon thepragmaticgroundsthathertrinityofmetaphors(chosenfromamongthe manynamesofGod)willhelpunseattheethicallydubious,reigningmetaphorsofFather,Son,andSpirit.12 Intheendthereisnothingabsolutelynecessaryaboutthesethreebeingone.

McFague’sandBru¨mmer’smodelsofdivineloveillustratewellaphenomenonthathasbecomecommonamongmanycontemporarytheologies:the divorceoftheiraccountoftheattributesofGodfromthedoctrineoftheTrinity, theparticularhistoricalself-revelationofGodasFather,Son,andSpirit.Althoughbothauthorsclaimafullyrelationalmodelofdivinelove,theysituate thisrelationalitybetweenGodandhumankindandrejectthatithasanyontologicalbasisinthetrinitarianrelationsoftheGodhead.Asaresult,thesymboloftheTrinitybecomessuperfluoustotheirconstructivetheologicalproposalsaboutthenatureandrelationshipbetweendivineandhumanloves.

Ju¨rgenMoltmannandtheContemporaryRevival ofTrinitarianTheology

DuringthepastthirtyyearsthetidethatIhavesketchedhereappearstobe turning,asadramaticexplosionofinterestinthedoctrineoftheTrinityhas appearedonthetheologicalhorizon.Thisrenaissanceoftrinitariantheology hasrapidlycrossedconfessionalandcontinentalbordersandsparkednewecumenicaldebatesamongtheEuropean,NorthAmerican,andonce-called third-worldcontexts.Theologiansacrossthespectrum—frompostliberalnarrativistsandprocessthinkerstofeministsandotherliberationists—haveall claimedastakeinthisnewtrinitariandebate,framingwidelydivergenttheologicalprogramsintermsofeitheraretrievalorareconstructionoftheclassical trinitarianheritage.13

Spurringonthistrinitarianrevivalisagrowingdisenchantmentwiththe ChristiandoctrineofGodtowhich“moderntheism”gavebirth.14 Trinitarian theologianstodayarechallengingthewidelyacceptedEnlightenmentverdict thattheTrinityisa speculative truththatisbeyondthepaleofreligiousexperience,andthat,assuch,thedoctrinerepresentsasecondary,ifnotaltogether expendable,appendagetothemonotheisticcoreofChristianfaith.15 Theyseek toreclaimthedoctrine’soriginalfunctioninthebiblicalwitnessandtheliturgicallifeofthechurchasthesymbolofthecentraleventsofChristianrevelation:Jesus’crucifixionandresurrectionandthesendingofthegiftofthe Spiritoflove.AsCatherineLaCugnadescribesinmorepoeticterms,trinitarian

theologiansseektoreturnthedoctrinefromthe“‘farcountry’”of“speculative disquisitionupontheinteriordynamicsoftrinitarianlife.”16 In GodforUs:The TrinityandtheChristianLife,LaCugnaarguesforthrightlythattheTrinitymust berevitalizedasasoteriologicaldoctrine:“[It]summarizeswhatitmeansto participateinthelifeofGodthroughJesusChristintheSpirit.Themystery ofGodisrevealedinChristandtheSpiritasthemysteryoflove,themystery ofpersonsincommunionwhoembracedeath,sin,andallformsofalienation forthesakeoflife.”17 ForLaCugnaalongwithacompanyofothertheologians, neitherthestoryofhumansalvationnortheGodofloveproclaimedinthat narrativecanbespokenofapartfromthedoctrinalsymboloftheTrinity.

Manycontemporarytheologiansstrivenotonlytorestoretheepistemologicalfoundationsoftrinitarianbeliefbutalsotorevitalizethedoctrine’sinfluenceonChristianpraxis.Certainlytherearewidedisagreementsaboutwhat suchtrinitarianpraxismightentail,andevenwhetheroneshouldspeakin termsoftrinitarian-shapedpractices.18 Sometheologianssituatethepractical relevanceofthedoctrineinthesphereofpersonalethics,whileothersenvisage itasthebasisforatheologyofculture.19 Someinterprettrinitarianpraxisasa chargetosocialaction,whilestillothersappealtothedoctrineinorderto soundthetrumpetforecclesialreform.20 Yetamidthisdiversity,contemporary trinitariantheologiansconcurthatthedoctrineshouldhavewide-rangingnormativeimplicationsforthehumanperson,interpersonalrelations,andthe socialstructuresandinstitutionsthatjoinhumanbeingstogetherincommunity.AsElisabethJohnsonargues,thesymboloftheTrinity“functions”: “[It]... powerfullymoldsthecorporateidentityoftheChristiancommunity, highlightsitsvaluesanddirectsitspraxis.”21

Duringthelastthirtyyearsnotheologianhasplayedamorepivotalrole inrevitalizingtrinitariandoctrineanditsimplicationsforChristianpraxisthan GermanReformedtheologianJu¨rgenMoltmann.Inhisearlywork TheCrucifiedGod (1972),MoltmanntracedtheillsofmodernChristiantheologyspecificallytotheeclipseofitstrinitarianunderstandingofGod.22 Hedecriedthe dispassionateanddistantGodofmoderntheismasbothincommensuratewith theidentityofthetrinitarianGodrevealedinthecross-eventandirrelevantto thechallengesofprotestandsecularatheism.In TheTrinityandtheKingdom (1981),Moltmanndeepenedhisearliercritiquebycontendingthatthemodern demiseofthedoctrinehadsprungforthfromflaweddevelopmentswithin Westerntrinitarianthought.HechallengedthattheWesterndoctrinesuffered fromalatentmonarchianismthatsubordinatedthedistinctpersonhoodof Father,Son,andSpirittotheabsolutemonarchyoftheoneGod.Furthermore, hechargedthatthisWestern“monotheisticmonarchianism”hashaddisastrousconsequencesfortheChristianlifeoffaith;ithasprovidedatheological justificationforstructuresofdominationandsubordinationinthefamilial, political,andecclesialrealmsofhumanexistence.23

InthemidseventiesMoltmannmovedbeyondthiswide-rangingcritique

toreconstructionofthedoctrine.FollowinggoodReformationtradition,he pursuedthedoctrine’srootsbeyondthedogmaticformulationsoftheearly church adfontes —insearchofthedistinctiveGodoflovewitnessedtointhe scriptures.HisintentwastocompleteoneoftheunfinishedtasksoftheReformation:torevise“thechurch’sdoctrineoftheTrinityonthebasisofthe Bible.”24 Moltmannsoughtnotonlyadoctrinethatcorrespondedmoreadequatelytothebiblicalwitnessbutalsoa“concretedoctrine”and“practical theory”thatwouldreunitethedoctrineoftheTrinitywiththeexperienceand practicesofcontemporarybelievers.25

In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,thefirstvolumeofhissix-volume Messianic Theology,Moltmannsetthisambitioustheologicalprogramintomotion.He proposedasocialreconstructionofthedoctrineinwhichhereformulatedthe trinitariankingdomincommunaltermsasfellowshipor koinonia.ForMoltmann,thisfellowshipofreciprocalindwellingrelationshipsamongtheFather, Son,andHolySpiritrepresentstheconsummateexpressionofdivinelove. Thisfellowshipoflove,hearguedfurther,isopenandinvitingtoallofcreation andtohumankindinparticular,whoisuniquelydestinedtobetheTrinity’s counterpartinfellowship.

ThepracticalsignificanceofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitarianprogramrests onhisboldclaimthattrinitarianfellowshipnotonlydescribesdivinecommunitybutalsoprescribesthenatureoftruehumancommunity.“Truehuman fellowship,”Moltmanncontends,“istocorrespondtothetriuneGodandbe hisimageonearth.Truehumanfellowshipwillparticipateintheinnerlifeof thetriuneGod.”26 Intheensuingvolumesofhis MessianicTheology,Moltmann soughttomakegoodontheseclaimsbydevelopingatheologyofcreation, christology,pneumatology,andeschatologythatelucidateshowhumanbeings participateinthedivinefellowshipandaretransfiguredintoavisibleimageof thisfellowshiponearth.27 Whenviewedinitsentirety,Moltmann’s Messianic Theology isthestoryofthiscomingkingdomoffellowship.ItssuccessivevolumestracetheintertwinedpilgrimagesoftheFather,theSon,andtheHoly Spiritintotheworldandofhumanbeings’journeyingtowardperfectfellowshipwiththeTrinityandoneanother.

TodayMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologyisvirtuallyunparalleledinits impactontheecumenicalandinternationaldiscussionabouttheChristian conceptofGod.28 Inparticular,hisprovocativetrinitarianinterpretationofthe “sufferingGod”andhisrelationalontologyoftheTrinityhavebothhada positivereceptionandspawnedanewgenerationoftrinitarianproposals.29 ChampionsofMoltmann’stheologypointtoitspropheticandkaleidoscopic vision:propheticinexposinganddenouncingvariousidolatriesofthemodern churchandsociety,andkaleidoscopicinbringingever-newtrinitarianconcepts intosightthatilluminatethefellowshipofthedivinelifeanditsliberating possibilitiesforthelifeoffaith.

Thispositivereceptionnotwithstanding,Moltmann’ssocialtrinitarianthe-

ologyhasalsobeenthelightningrodformuchcriticaldiscussion.Twolines ofinquirydominatethecontemporarydebateoverhisconstructivetrinitarian proposals.ThefirstfocusesonMoltmann’srelationalontologyoftheTrinity anditsimplicationsforGod’srelationshiptothecreatedorderand,mostparticularly,forthenotionsofdivineandhumanfreedom.Toreturntomyearlier example,SallieMcFaguechallengesMoltmann’strinitariantheologyonboth epistemologicalandmoralgrounds.Ontheonehand,sheobjectstoMoltmann’sclaimstoknowledgeaboutthenatureoftrinitarianlife,onthegrounds thatsuchclaimsexceedthelimitsofhumanexperienceandthescriptural witness.Ontheother,shecontendsthatMoltmann’sdesiretoprotectGod fromanydependencyontheworldledhimtoproposeanimmanentTrinity thatdangerouslyseparatesanddistancesGodfromtheworld.Inherjudgment, thistrinitarianmoveresultsin“apictureofthedivinenatureasself-absorbed andnarcissistic”and,evenmore,pitsdivinefreedomagainstthatofhuman creation.30

Curiouslyenough,BritishReformedtheologianAlanTorrancecriticizes Moltmann’strinitarianontologyonessentiallytheoppositegrounds.Inhis book PersonsinCommunion,TorrancearguesthatMoltmanntiestheTrinity toocloselytothecourseofhumanhistoryand,insodoing,compromisesthe transcendenceandsovereigntyofthetriuneGodovercreation.Atthesame timethatMoltmannimmanentalizesthetrinitarianlife,Torranceworriesthat hisReformedcolleagueelevatesandoverestimatestheindividual’sroleinsalvation.Inparticular,Torrancecontendsthatthereare“Pelagiantendencies”in Moltmann’sdescriptionsofdoxology.InTorrance’swords,thebeliever’s“doxologicalparticipationinthetranscendenttriunelife”appearsmoreasatask tobeachievedratherthan“aneventofgrace.”31

ThesecondconstellationofcriticismsconcernsMoltmann’sprovocative proposalsforputtingthetrinitariandoctrineintoChristianpractice.Here,too, criticspartwaysoverwhetherMoltmann’stheologypromisestoomuchor deliverstoolittle.Forexample,inhisbook TheseThreeAreOne:ThePractice ofTrinitarianTheology,DavidCunninghamcommendsMoltmannforturning thecontemporarytheologicaldiscussionabouttheTrinitytopoliticalandsocial concerns.Nonetheless,hechargesthatMoltmannfallsshortofrealizinghis ultimategoalofcreatingapracticalandconcretetrinitariantheology.Here Cunninghamcriticizesthe“highlevelofabstraction”inMoltmann’sproposals andassertsthathe“offersfewconcretesuggestions”forhowhisideastranslate intopractice.32

WhileCunninghamlooksformoreconcreteideasfromMoltmann,others wishforfarless.SeveralcontemporarytheologiansaccuseMoltmannofoverfreightingtrinitariandoctrinebytakingconceptsusuallyreservedforthetrinitarianrealmandapplyingthemtooreadilytohumanbeings’relationships andsocialstructures.Forexample,CatholictheologianWernerJeanrondagrees withMoltmannthatdivineloveshouldlaythecornerstoneforChristianethics,

buthequestionswhetherhumancommunitycanorevenshouldbeaskedto correspondtothedivinecommunionofloveasMoltmannproposes.Jeanrond pressesMoltmannonwhetherhedoesnot“confuselevelsoftheologicallanguage”bysubstituting“oursymbolicrepresentationsofGod’slovingrelationship”forthecriticalreflectionneededtodevelop“strategiesforChristianpraxis intheworld.”33

Anglo-AmericantheologianKarenKilby’scriticismsofMoltmann’ssocial trinitarianprogramtravelalongsimilarlinesbutareevenmoretrenchant.In herrecentarticle,“PerichoresisandProjection:ProblemswithSocialDoctrines oftheTrinity,”Kilbyraisesaseriesofsignificantmethodologicalobjections aboutthecontemporaryenthusiasmforsocialdoctrinesoftheTrinity.34 Moltmannservesasherchiefexemplarforshowinghowsocialtrinitariansimport highlyanthropomorphiclanguageforthedivinelife,andthenreversethedirectionoftheirsocialanalogiesandproposethemasnormsforhumanrelationships.Atthispoint,Kilbycharges,Moltmann’ssocialdoctrineoftheTrinity createsavicioushermeneuticalcircleinwhichtheauthordoeslittletoclarify thedivinelifebutprojectsontoithispreferredpoliticalidealsandethical agendaforhumansociety.

Withthiswide-rangingdebateasourbackdrop,thisstudyengagesMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologywiththedualaimofevaluatingitstheological contributionsandatthesametimeadvancingaconstructiveagendaforits furtherdevelopment.GuidingthisinquiryiswhatItaketobeMoltmann’s twofoldwageronbehalfofhissocialreconstructionofthedoctrine.First,his socialdoctrinegivesrisetoadistinctivemodelofthedivinelifeasfellowship, amodelthatcorrespondstotheeconomyoftheFather,theSon,andtheHoly Spirit’screative,redeeming,andsanctifyingagency.Second,thismodeloftrinitarianfellowshipprovidesthefoundationofa“theologicaldoctrineoffreedom”intheChristianlife.35 Putanotherway,Iwillbeexaminingthe“constative”and“commissive”forceofMoltmann’sproposedreconstructionofthe doctrine,askingfirstwhatitdisclosesabouttheGodwhoislove,andsecond whatspecifickindsofhumanaction,relationships,andformsoflifeitcommendstothosewhoprofesstrinitarianbelief.36

IninvestigatingMoltmann’sworksIpursuebothahermeneuticalanda systematic-theologicalagenda.Onthehermeneuticalside,Iseekananswerto oneofthemostvexingissuesinreadingMoltmann’sextensivebodyofwork, namely,howtounderstandtheongoingevolutionwithinhistrinitariantheology.Whatareitsdrivingtheologicalimpulses,itsmethodologicalconvictions, anditspracticalconcerns?Whatcontinuitiesexistbetweenhisearlytrilogyand hismature MessianicTheology,andwhereinliethegenuinedisjunctionsin Moltmann’swork?

Intermsofmysystematic-theologicalagenda,Iseektoresolveadifferent kindofpuzzleinMoltmann’swork,namely,whatisthedoctrinallogicthat linkshisdoctrineoftheTrinitytohisclaimsaboutChristianpraxis?Overand

againstthosecriticswhofindMoltmann’stheologythoroughlyunsystematic atthispoint,Ishallarguethatthereisacoherent,ifalsounderdeveloped, theologicalstrategythatlinkshisdoctrineoftheTrinitytohisvisionofthe Christianlife—whatIconstrueasa“socialtrinitariananalogyoffellowship.”37 Bythisterm,IrefertohowMoltmann’spersonalandrelationalontologyof trinitarianfellowshipfunctionsasadivinearchetypeorwhatIviewasanelastic ruleoffaithforrightrelationshipsinthepersonal,ecclesial,andpolitical spheresoftheChristianlife.Insupportofthisinterpretation,Iseektodemonstrateinthechaptersaheadhowthenotionoftrinitarianfellowshipprovides thekeytotheauthor’ssocialtrinitarianvisionofGod,histheologicalanthropology,andhisunderstandingoftheprocessofredemption.Insum,Iargue thattheconceptoftrinitarianfellowshipismorethanarecurringrhetorical figureinMoltmann’sdiverseworks.Trinitarianfellowshipisactuallythestructuringtheologicalprinciplethatunifieshis MessianicTheology.

AnIntroductiontoMoltmann’sTrinitarianApproach

Beforeintroducingmymethodsofanalysisforthisproject,letusorientourselvesfirsttoMoltmann’stheologicalmethod.ThisisbynomeansastraightforwardmatterespeciallysinceMoltmannhasbeenremarkablyreticent throughouthiscareerincommentingonmethodologicalquestions.Rather thanprefacinghisbookswithaprolegomenaorevenachapterontheological method,mostofMoltmann’sbooksplungethereaderdirectlyintothemidst ofatheologicaldebate.Thismeansthatheconsidersmethodologicalquestions inretrospectandoftenonlyinresponsetocriticaldiscussionsofhiswork. Nowhereisthismoreevidentthaninhis MessianicTheology,whereMoltmann waitsuntilthesixthandfinalvolumeofhisseriestoreflectuponhismethodologyinanydetail.Intheprefacetothislastvolume,entitledan“afterword insteadofaforeword,”Moltmanncandidlyadmitsthathedidnotsethistheologicalmethodinadvance:“Forme,theologywas,andstillis,anadventure ofideas.Itisanopeninvitingpath.Rightdowntothepresentday,ithas continuedtofascinatemymentalandspiritualcuriosity.Mymethodstherefore grewupasIcametohaveaperceptionoftheobjectsoftheologicalthought. TheroademergedonlyasIwalkedit.”38

GiventhemanywindingturnsonMoltmann’stheologicalpath,thereis simplynosinglemethodologicalfoundationtounearthbeneathallhisworks. Letmesuggest,instead,threeleitmotifsofMoltmann’strinitariantheology thatcanserveasourentre´eintohiswork:itsbiblical-narrativestructure,its soteriologicalapproachinaneschatologicalkey,anditsdoxological-political paradigmofChristianpraxis.39 AlthoughMoltmannhaschangedhistheologicalcoursemanytimesovertheyears,thesethreeleitmotifshavebeenhis

mainstaysthroughout.Theyformthebackboneofhismethodologicalcommitmentsandcrystallizehistheology’shighestaims.

InwhatfollowsIintroduceeachofthesethreethemesassignpoststhat canalertustothemostsignificanttrajectoriesinMoltmann’stheologicalcareer.Alongtheway,Iwillalsoflagforthereaderboththeinterpretativeissues andthetheologicalcriticismsofMoltmann’strinitariantheologythatIwillbe addressingthroughoutthisstudy.Thiswillsetthestageformymoredetailed discussionsoftheseissuesinthechaptersahead.

ABiblicalFoundationandNarrativeStructure

Eversincehisfirstmajorpublication, TheologyofHope,Moltmannhasunwaveringlyturnedtothebiblicalwitnessasthechiefsourceand normanormans forhistheology.Moltmann’scommitmenttoabiblicaltheologyreflects,of course,theReformationtenet solascriptura butalsohismoredirectdebtsto thetheologyofKarlBarth(viaMoltmann’steachers,HansJoachimIwand, ErnstWolf,andOttoWeber)andtheregnantbiblicalscholarsofhisday,that ofGerhardvonRad,ErnstZimmerli,andErnstKa¨semann.Moltmannbecame acquaintedwiththislattergroupofOldandNewTestamentscholarsduring hisstudiesandhisearlyteachingcareer.Theydrewhisattentiontothebiblical patternsofhistoryandapocalyptic,messianichope,andthekingdomofGod, allofwhichfigureprominentlyinthe TheologyofHope andformthemessianic horizonofhismaturetheology.40

TherelationshipbetweenMoltmann’strinitariantheologyandBarth’sis complexandcontentious,anditwillmeritongoinginvestigationasthisstudy unfolds.Withregardtothebiblicalfoundationofhistrinitariantheology,however,MoltmannfollowshisReformedpredecessor’sinitialleadindefending theTrinity’s“biblicalroot”inscripture.41 LikeBarth,MoltmanndoesnotattempttolocatetheTrinitydirectlyintheBible(forinstance,byappealingto certainproof-textssuchastheNewTestament’striadicformulas)butrather contendsthatthedoctrineisatrueandnecessaryinterpretationoftheNew Testamentwitness.IfwearetomakesenseoftheNewTestamentnarratives, arguesMoltmann,wemustspeakofGodintermsofFather,Son,andHoly Spirit.

WhereMoltmannpartswayswithBarthisoverthelatter’sidentification oftheTrinity’sbiblicalrootintermsoflordshipordivinesovereignty.MoltmanncriticizesBarth’srootingofthedoctrineinthenotionoflordshipasa reflectionofmodernity’sdistortedviewoffreedomasabsoluteautonomy ratherthanavalidinterpretationofthekingdomofGodmademanifestin Christandwitnessedtointhescriptures.42 Aswewillseeinthechaptersto come,thisdisagreementoverthenatureofthedivinekingdomprovesdecisive fortherespectiveformsoftheirdoctrinesoftheTrinity,aswellasfortheir theologiesofloveandfreedom.

InitiallyMoltmann’strinitarianhermeneuticsofthescriptureswerequite limited.In TheCrucifiedGod,forexample,hismainresourcesforthedoctrine arethepassionnarrativefromtheGospelofMarkandPaul’stheologyofthe cross.AtthisearlystageMoltmanndefineshismaterialnormforthedoctrine squarelyintermsofthecross-event:“ThecontentofthedoctrineoftheTrinity istherealcrossofChristhimself.TheformofthecrucifiedChrististhe Trinity.”43 WhileMoltmannneverveersawayfromthecross-eventasthecore ofhisdoctrine,hesetsitwithinanexpandednarrativeframeworkinhismature trinitariantheology.44 In TheTrinityandtheKingdom, forexample,hetracesa historyofChristthatstretchesfromtheSon’ssendingintotheworldtohis exaltation.ThereMoltmannreliesespeciallyontheJohanninecorpusandthe othersynopticGospelstofillinthecontoursoftherelationshipsamongthe divinepersons.Inthelattervolumesofhis MessianicTheology,MoltmanncomplementsthishistoryofChristwithahistoryoftheSpiritinanefforttobalance thechristocentrismofhisWesterntheologywiththerichpneumatological traditionsthathehasdiscoveredinEasternOrthodoxtrinitariantheologyand othersources.

WewilldigmoredeeplyintothebiblicalfoundationofMoltmann’stheologyasweexploretheactualdevelopmentofhisdoctrineinchapters2and 3.Noteworthyatthispointissimplytheauthor’sguidinghermeneuticalprinciple,namely,topreservetheparticularityofthescripturalwitnessandtoresist subsumingthisdynamichistorybeneathageneralspeculativeconcept.As JohnO’Donnellrightlycomments,Moltmann’sbasictheologicalimpulseis “toletthebiblicalrevelationcreateitsownontology.”45 Toservethisaim,MoltmanndevelopswhatIterma“biblical-narrativeapproach”tothedoctrine.46 BythisImeanthatheisolatesdifferentnarrativeswithinthebiblicaltext,each ofwhichtracestheFather’s,theSon’s,andtheSpirit’sactionsandrelationshipstowardoneanotherandhumankind.Hethendrawsthesevariousplotlinestogetherintoacompositenarrativeaccount—whathetermsthetrinitarianhistoryofGod.

Theoutlinesofthisbiblical-narrativeapproachtothedoctrinefirstemerge inMoltmann’sresponsetoavolumeofcriticalessaysabout TheCrucifiedGod. HerehearguesthatthebiblicalwitnessdoesnotyieldadoctrineoftheTrinity thatcanbefixedinstatictermsorbesubsumedintoametaphysicalformula. TodojusticetothefullnessofGod’sdynamicinvolvementwiththeworld,a doctrinewouldhavetohave“changingvectors”thatcorrespondtothevarious “historicalexperiences”oftheTrinity.47 Overthecourseofwritinghis Messianic Theology, Moltmanneventuallysketchesfoursuch“formsoftheTrinity”that representinanabbreviatedformthesechangingvectorsor“movements”within thistrinitarianhistory.48 ThesefourformsoftheTrinity—themonarchial,historical,eucharistic,anddoxological—differfromoneanotherintermsofwhich aspectofthetrinitarianhistorytheyportrayandwhichofthedivinepersons appearastheprimaryagentsintheirnarratives.InthemonarchialTrinity,for

example,alltheactionproceedsfromtheFatherwhobegetstheSonandthe Spiritandsendsthemforthinthecreationoftheworld.Incontrast,thefocal pointofthedoxologicalTrinityistheSpirit’sandtheSon’sjointactionin glorifyingtheFatheranddrawingallthingsintounionwithGod.

Likethebiblicalnarrativeitself,Moltmann’snarrativeapproachtothedoctrineresiststidyschematization.Overthecourseofhiscareerheaddsnew narrativepatternstohistheologyashedevelopsdifferentdoctrinesandnew aspectsoftheTrinity’shistorywiththeworld.Onlywhenviewedtogetherdo theseseparatenarrativesdepicttheentireeconomyofcreation,salvation,and glorification.SinceMoltmannneverdistillsfromthiscomplextrinitarianhistoryofGodasingleconceptofdivinelove,oneofourinterpretativetasksin thechaptersaheadwillbetoexamineeachofthesebiblical-narrativepatterns inordertoviewthedifferentfacetsofhisunderstandingofdivinelove.Only afterwetraversethisentiretrinitarianhistorywillwebeabletosynthesizethe author’svisionofdivineloveandtoevaluatehowwellhisbiblical-narrative approachfaresinreconstructingthedoctrineoftheTrinity.

ASoteriologicalDoctrineinanEschatologicalKey

OursecondmotifofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyhasalreadybeenpresent intheprecedingdiscussion,namely,thedoctrine’slinktosoteriology.Inall hiswritingsMoltmannstressesthatthedoctrineoftheTrinitymustbeviewed pronobis,thatis,asanaccountofGod’sidentitythatarisesinresponseto God’ssalvificandreconcilingactiononbehalfofhumankind.In TheCrucified God Moltmannsetshimselfthisstrict“economic”measureforhistrinitarian theologybyarguingthatwecannotspeakofGodapartfromGod’srelationship tousbutonlyasGodis“forusinthehistoryofChristwhichreachesusinour history.”49 EventuallyMoltmannwillrelaxthestricturesofthisstatement,defendingthepossibilityofdoxologicalstatementsthatcelebrateandgivethanks forGodinGod’sself.Nonetheless,hecontinuestotieallhischiefclaims aboutGod’strinitariannaturetospecificeventsinsalvationhistory.

Whilemanytheologiansanchortheirtrinitariantheologyintheeconomy ofsalvation,whatdistinguishesMoltmann’sapproachishisboldstartingpoint atthecross-event.OriginallyitwasthetheodicyquestionthatdrewMoltmann todevelopsuchatrinitariantheologyofthecross.Alongwithothersofthe post–WorldWarIIgenerationinGermany,Moltmannapproachedthecrosseventasawayofconfrontingtheradicalevilandthecollectivedespairand sufferingofhisgeneration.50 HegrewincreasinglyrestlesswithclassicalinterpretationsofatheologyofthecrossasGod’sdialecticalrevelationinhiddennessandthejustificationoftheunrighteoussinner.RecallingBonhoeffer’s crythat“onlyasufferingGodcanhelp,”51 Moltmannwrestledwiththenature ofGod’spresenceatthecross.“Insteadofaskingjust whatGodmeansforus humanbeings inthecrossofChrist,”heexplainsin TheCrucifiedGod,“Iasked

too whatthishumancrossofChristmeansforGod.”52 ForMoltmann,thecross eventuallycametosymbolizeGod’sidentificationwithhumansuffering—an actofdivinesolidaritythatnotonlyaccomplisheshumansalvationbutalso hasontologicalimplicationsfortheTrinity.Thisradicalnotionprecipitateda revolutioninMoltmann’sthinkingaboutGod.ItwasthefirstmajorsteptowardreformulatingthedoctrineoftheTrinityandthecatalogofclassicalattributesforGod.

Ifthecross-eventprovidedtheoriginalimpetusforMoltmann’strinitarian theology,theresurrection-eventprovesjustascriticaltohiseventualreformationofthedoctrine.Inhisfirstgroundbreakingwork, TheologyofHope,and morerecentlyin TheComingGod,Moltmanndepictstheresurrectioninbold eschatologicaltermsastheinbreakingofanewfuture—thecomingruleof God.Hedescribestheresurrectionnotasaclosedeventinthepastbutasa divinepromiseandananticipatedhopeofnewcreationthatliesinthecoming future.Theresurrectiondoesnotsimplyfulfillworld-immanentpossibilities; itisa novum,“anewpossibilityaltogetherfortheworld,forexistenceandfor history.”53

TheimpactofthiseschatologicalinterpretationoftheresurrectionreverberatesthroughoutMoltmann’stheology.Eschatologyisnolongeratopicreservedforthefinalpagesofhisdogmatics.Itbecomes,ashedescribesit,“the mediumofChristianfaithassuch,thekeyinwhicheverythinginitisset,the glowthatsuffuseseverythinghereinthedawnofanunexpectednewday.”54 SuchstatementsaremorethanmetaphoricalexuberanceonMoltmann’spart. Inhis MessianicTheology,MoltmannreformulateseachoftheclassicaldoctrinesfromcreationtothechurchandthesacramentsintermsoftheireschatologicalgoaloffellowshipwiththeTrinity.ThismeansthatMoltmann transcribeshisentiretrinitarianhistoryofGodintoaneschatologicalkey,such thatthisdivinehistorybecomes“open”forthetransformationandredemption oftheworld.55

TheHolySpiritoccupiesapivotalrolewithinthiseschatologicalframework.TheSpiritisnolongerthepoorrelationintheeconomyofsalvation, subordinatedtothesalvificexchangeoftheFatherandSonatthecross,but gainsherowndistinctiveworkofsalvation.Sherepresentsthecreativeloveof Godthatbearsthepromiseofnewcreationtofruition.Shedrawsandtransformsindividuals,thechurch,andindeedallofhumanhistoryintoparticipatingevermoredeeplyinthefellowshipoftheTrinity.

InthenextchapterwewillanalyzeinfurtherdetailMoltmann’searly interpretationsofthecross-andresurrection-events,sincetheyprovidethe fulcrumuponwhichbalanceshisentiretrinitarianhistoryofGod.Atthispoint letuspausetoobserveonemethodologicalconsequenceoftheauthor’ssoteriologicalapproach,namely,thatitobviatestheclassicaldivisionbetween theologia,speechabouttheeternalandineffablebeingofGod,and oikonomia, speechabouttheeconomyofredemption.InMoltmann’strinitariantheology,

theologia and oikonomia becomeoneunifiedstoryofdivineloveandhuman liberation.MoltmanndemonstratesthislinkbetweenthetrinitarianGodof loveandhiscreative,redemptive,andsanctifyingworksintheworldinstatementssuchasthisone:“Thehistoryofsalvationisthehistoryoftheeternally living,triuneGodwhodrawsusintoandincludesusinhiseternaltriunelife withallthefulnessofitsrelationships.... Godlovestheworldwiththeverysame lovewhichheisinhimself.”56 Hereaselsewherethroughouthiswritings,MoltmannemphasizesthatthetrinitarianGodofloveisnoneotherthantheGod whoenterstheworld,becomesopentothevicissitudesofitshistory,and reconcilestheworldintothedivinefellowship.

Bylacing theologia and oikonomia togetherinthismanner,Moltmannseeks aviamediabetweenthetheocentricapproachtothedoctrinecharacteristicof KarlBarthandtheanthropocentriconeofFriedrichSchleiermacher.Onthe onehand,MoltmannmovesbeyondBarth’sexclusivefocusontheselfrevealingagencyofthetrinitarianGodhead(theologia),whicheclipses,ifnot eliminates,therolethathumanexperienceplaysinmediatingdivinerevelation.Ontheother,MoltmannreachesbeyondSchleiermacher’sexclusivefocus onhumankind’sexperienceofGod’sthreefoldrelationtotheworld(oikonomia),whichdidnotadmitclaimsaboutthenatureofthetriuneGodinand ofitself.57 AsIshallargueinthechaptersahead,MoltmannreunitestherevelationofthetriuneGodwithhumanexperiencesofdivinelovebydeveloping adistinctivesocialtrinitariananthropologyandarobusttheologyofgrace. ThroughthesanctifyingactivityoftheHolySpirit,humanbeingspartakeof thefellowshipoftheTrinityandgainthecapacitytomirror,albeitinfiniteand fragileways,thetrinitarianlifeintheirownexpressionsofhumanfreedom andlove.

IfMoltmann’ssoteriologicalapproachtothedoctrineseekstoovercome thisclassicmethodologicalimpasse,italsobringsahostoftheologicalchallengesinitstow.ThemostfrequentlyheardcriticismofMoltmann’sdoctrine isthathispassion-ladenportrayalsoftheimmanentTrinityrevealaspeculative tendencyinhisworkthatultimatelybetrayshisbiblicalhermeneuticalcommitments.58 Toothers,suchspeculationaboutthedivinelifeprovessymptomaticoftheauthor’sdangerousblurringofthedivineandcreatedordersthat sacrificesthealterityandhiddennessofGod.59 StillothersobjecttoMoltmann’s soteriologicalapproachtotrinitariantheologyonsheerlyethicalgrounds.To someofhispoliticalandliberationistcolleagues,forexample,hisappealsto theimmanentTrinitysuggestadivineconsolation(or,evenworse,compensation)fortheevilsoftheworld.Byresolvinghumansufferingintherealm oftheimmanentTrinity,Moltmannappearstosmoothoverhowradicalsufferingactuallyinterruptshumanhistoryandtosidesteptheconcretesocial actionneededtodefeatsuchcreatedevils.

Moltmann’seschatologicalapproachtotrinitariantheologyisnolesscontroversial.HisrepeatedclaimthattheTrinityis“open”forthetransformation

oftheworldraisestheunavoidablequestionofwhethertheTrinityitselfisin processandawaitsthefulfillmentofhumanhistorytoreachitsownconsummation.IfthisisindeedwhatMoltmannmeans,thenhiseschatologicalapproachthrowsintoquestionclassicalclaimstodivineomnipotenceandomniscience.Furthermore,itsuggeststhattheworldisnecessarytoGod’sbeing, aclaimthatjeopardizesthegratuityofGod’screating,redeeming,andsanctifyingactivitiesonbehalfofhumankind.

Toresolvethesequestionsofbothinterpretationandtheologicalcritique, wewillneedtoanalyzecarefullyinthechaptersaheadboththeontological andthepraxiologicalclaimsthatMoltmannmakesonbehalfofhissoteriologicalapproach.AsInotedearlier,Moltmannsignificantlyreviseshistrinitarian historyofGodashedrawsonalargerrepertoireofresourcesfromscripture andchurchtheologicaltraditionsinhislaterworks.Alongthewayherefines howheseestherelationshipofthistrinitarianeconomytotheeternallifeof God.Allthesedevelopmentsaffect,inturn,Moltmann’sclaimsaboutthenatureoftrinitarianlove,aswellasaboutthecapacitiesoftheindividualandthe communityoffaithforenjoyingGod’sgiftoffellowshipandfreedominthe Christianlife.

ThePraxisofTrinitarianFaith:APoliticaland DoxologicalDoctrine

ThethirdleitmotifconcernsMoltmann’seffortstorevitalizethepraxisoftrinitarianfaithinthecontemporaryworld.AsInotedattheoutsetofthisintroduction,Moltmannishardlyaloneinthisconcern.Thereisagrowingchorus ofcontemporarytheologiansanxioustoputthedoctrineoftheTrinitytogood works.Inmyview,whatdistinguishesMoltmann’sproposalishisholistic understandingoftrinitarianpraxis.Thatistosay,Moltmanninterpretstrinitarianpraxisatonceinsociopoliticalanddoxologicalterms.Ontheonehand, thedoctrineofferstheinterpretativekeytothevariousformsofhumanagency andsocialrelationsthatconstituteoureverydaylivesandcollectiveexistence. Ontheotherhand,itinviteshumankindnotonlytowardactionintheworld butalsotowardcontemplationandworshipofthegloryofGod.Inclassical terminology,wemightsaythattrinitarianpraxisjoinstheChristianlifeof action,a vitaactiva,withthatofcontemplation,a vitacontemplativa 60

Fromtheverybeginningsofhiscareer,Moltmannhasbeencommittedto discerningthepracticalimplicationsoftheologicalbeliefsandawakeningthe churchtoitspolitical-ethicalresponsibilities.Moltmannwasschooledinthis byhispersonalbiography,particularlybyhisexperiencesonthewarfrontas ayouthandthethreeyearsthathespentthereafterasaprisonerofwarin England.YearslaterMoltmannwouldrecallthathispersonaldespairandthe collectiveguiltofhispeopleoverthemeaninglesssufferingofhisgeneration werealwaysattherootofhistheologicalconcerns.61

AsatheologicalstudentbackinGermany,Moltmannwasconvincedeven moreofthechurch’spoliticalresponsibilities.Herehisinfluencescamefrom differentquarters—histheologyteachers(manyofwhomhadbeenmembers oftheConfessingChurchmovement),hiswife,Elisabeth,whosefamilyhad alsobeeninvolvedintheresistancemovement,andhisownstudyofthewritingsofDietrichBonhoefferandthedialecticaltheologymovement.Hisfive yearsservingasapastoralsolefttheirmark.InMoltmann’swords,itlefthim withanabidingconcernforthepractical—“notsomuchwithwhatisalways right,butmorewiththewordwhichisaddressedtousinthehereandnow ...notsomuchwithpuretheorybutwithapracticaltheory.”62

Inhisfirstmajorbook, TheologyofHope,Moltmann’ssocialandpolitical agendawasstillquiterudimentary.ThereheblendedthemessianicneoMarxismofErnstBlochwiththeOldandNewTestamentaccountsofdivine promiseintoanimpassionedrhetoricofrevolutionarychange.Heexhorted thechurchtocomeforthandbecomean“exoduschurch”inmodernsociety.63 Itsmissionwastoawakenhopeintheresurrectionpromisesofthegospeland tobecomeanagentofeschatologicalunrestandsocialchange.Thisexodus churchwastokeepsocietyonthemovetowardtheinbreakingkingdomof Godintheworld.

Inthelate1960sMoltmannsharpenedthepoliticalagendaofhistheology. AspublicdiscussioneruptedinpostwarGermanyovertheChristianchurches’ silenceinthefaceofthehorrorsofAuschwitz,Moltmannandaclosefriend, CatholictheologianJohann-BaptistMetz,broketheirsilence.Togetherthey formulatedanew“politicaltheology,”inwhichtheyurgedtheirfellowtheologians“totalkaboutGodwithafaceturnedtotheworld.”64 Atthetimethis meantfirstandforemostaddressingtheologytothepoliticalrealm,whichthey judgedtobethegoverningforceinmodernsociety.InMoltmann’swords,they sought“toraisethepoliticalconsciousnessoftheologyitself.... Politicaltheologydesignatesthefield,themilieu,theenvironmentandthemediumin whichChristiantheologyshouldbearticulatedtoday.”65

Despitecriticismstothecontrary,neitherMetznorMoltmannsoughtto reducetheologytopoliticsortousetheologytolegitimateacertainpolitical order.Rather,theydevelopeda“politicalhermeneuticofthegospel”thatinterpreteditsmessageintermsofpoliticalandeconomicliberationfromconcretesituationsofhumansuffering.66 Inretrospect,Moltmannadmittedthat therewasalargedoseofromanticisminhisearlypoliticaltheology.Hestill neededtodefinemoreclearlywhathemeantbytheterm“political”andto specifywhatformsofsociallifeandpoliticalstructurescorrespondedtothe comingkingdomofGod.67

In TheCrucifiedGod acoupleofthesemissingpiecesfellintoplace.Most important,Moltmanndiscoveredanormforhispoliticaltheologyinthetheologyofthecross.Thetheologyofthecrosscametoserveasbothacritical andaconstructiveprinciple.DrawingonthecriticaltheoryoftheFrankfurt

school,hefirstusedthetheologyofthecrosstoexposetheidolatrythathesaw intheapatheticandmoralisticGodofmoderntheism.Moltmannidentifieda dangerouscorrelationbetweenChristianity’sassimilationintoabourgeoispoliticalreligionandwhathecalledtheemerging“viciouscirclesofdeath”in modernsociety:itspoverty,racialandculturalalienation,industrialpollution, politicaloppression,andsenselessness.68

Inlightofthisidolatrycritique,Moltmanntransformedhispoliticaltheologyofthecrossintoatheologyofliberationthatsoughttobreakfreefrom theseviciouscirclesofdeath.Hechallengedthechurchtoexerciseitsdiscipleshipinconcretesolidaritywiththevictimsoftheworld.“Christianlife,”he begantodescribeatthatearlytime,“isaformofpracticewhichconsistsin followingthecrucifiedChrist,anditchangesbothmanhimselfandthecircumstancesinwhichhelives.Tothisextent,atheologyofthecrossisapractical theory.”69

Theearlyseventiessawcrucialdevelopmentsnotjustonthepoliticalside ofMoltmann’spracticalagenda.Ashebecamemoreinvolvedinpoliticaltheology,MoltmannbecameincreasinglyconcernedthatChristianfaithcouldbe mistakenforaformofsocialactivism.Iftheologybecomestoocloselyidentifiedwithanysinglepoliticalagenda,itcouldeasilydevolveintoa“political moralism”or“socialpietism.”70 Tocounterthisdangerinhiswritings,Moltmanndevelopeda“theologyofplay,”inwhichhefocusedonGod’sdelightin creationandthecreature’sjoyfulresponseandpraiseofGod’sgoodness.He anchoredthistheologicalaestheticsinatenetfromtheCalvinistWestminster Catechismthattheultimatepurposeoflifeis“toglorifyGodandenjoyhim forever.”71

Theology,heargued,shouldnotonlygivethanksandpraisetoGod inresponsetoGod’sgraciousdeedsbutalsoadoreGodforGod’ssake.

Moltmann’sintentincreatingatheologyofplaywasneitherfrivolousnor casual.Heespeciallydidnotwishthisinvitationtocelebrationtodetractfrom hispoliticaltheology’scalltosocialtransformation.Onthecontrary,heenvisionedthetwodimensionsoftheChristianlifeworkinghandinhand.The believer,whofirstexperiencesthejoyoffaithandaforetasteofthecoming kingdom,beginstoexperimentwiththekingdom’sliberatingpossibilitiesand toputthemintopraxis.Justasjustificationandsanctificationcomeintobeing together,Moltmannarguesthatso,too,liberatingandjoyfulfaithmustbecome activeinworksoflove.

Withthepublicationof TheTrinityandtheKingdom,thesetwostreamsof Moltmann’spoliticalandaesthetictheologyflowedtogethertoformwhatI describeashisdoxological-politicalparadigmfortheChristianlifeoffaith.On thepoliticalside,Moltmannseeshissocialdoctrinenotjustasaremedyfor themoderneclipseofthedoctrineoftheTrinitybutalsoasasalveforsociety’s worstsocialandpoliticalills.72 InessencetrinitarianfellowshipprovidedMoltmannwithhislong-desiredtheologicalnormforrighthumanrelationships andsocialandpoliticalstructuresthatcorrespondtothekingdom.

Thisconstitutes,however,onlyhalfofMoltmann’svisionoftrinitarian praxis.Hearguesjustasferventlyfora“doxologicaltheology,”aworshipful contemplationofthetriuneGodthatincludesmeditation,adoration,and praise.73 Moltmannsignalsthegrowingimportanceofdoxologicaltheologyto histheologicalprogramintheopeningpagesof TheTrinityandtheKingdom, wherehewarnsagainsttheologysuccumbingtothe“pragmatism”ofmodernitybymeasuringthetruthofChristiandoctrinesstrictlyintermsofwhatthey achieve.Suchanotionofthe“practical,”Moltmannargues,canonlyimpoverishthelifeoffaith:“Christianloveisnotmerelyamotivation,andChristian faithismorethanthepointfromwhichactiontakesitsbearings.Beinga Christianisalsocharacterizedbygratitude,joy,praiseandadoration.Faith livesinmeditationandprayeraswellasinpractice.”74

Moltmannanchorshisdoxologicaltheologyinitiallyinsoteriology.Itisa joyfulresponsetoGod’sself-revelationandgraciousgoodnessintheeconomy ofsalvation.Ultimately,however,doxologicaltheologymovesbeyondthanksgivingoverGod’sworkstosheerwonderandglorificationofGodforGod’s ownsake.IndoxologythebelieverhasaperceptionofGodthatisbornoutof loveandevenparticipationinthedivinelife:“Hereweknowonlyinsofaras welove.Hereweknowinordertoparticipate.ThentoknowGodmeansto participateinthefulnessofdivinelife.”75

Moltmann’sdoxologicaltheologywillprovecriticaltoourstudyintwo respects.First,MoltmanncultivatesasdoxologyquitedifferentChristianpracticesthanthoseofsocialorpoliticalactionwithwhichhissocialtrinitarian theologyisoftennarrowlyidentified.Thesedoxologicalpracticesareasdiverse askeepingtheSabbath,personalprayer,andcommunalworship.Although thesepracticesdifferfromthepolitical,theyarenotadiversionfromthem. Rather,Moltmanninsiststhatthedoxologicalandpoliticalworktogetherin thelifeoffaith.Theyboth“leadmenandwomenintothehistoryofGod”76 andtowarditseschatologicalgoalofparticipationinthedivinecommunionof love.Chapter5willtestthestrengthofthistiethatbindsthedoxologicaltothe political,asIexplorehowtheloveofGodandtheloveofneighborrelateto oneanotherinthelifeoffaith.AtthatpointwecanevaluatehowwellMoltmannsucceedsindrawingthedoxologicalandpoliticaldimensionsofthe Christianlifeintoasymphonicunitywithoneanother.

Doxologicaltheologyisforasecondreasoncriticaltothisstudy.Itisthe theologicalgenreinwhichMoltmannspeaksofhumanknowledgeoftheimmanentTrinityandGod’seternalrelations.IndoxologytheTrinityopensits divinefellowshiptothebeliever,whoexperiences,inturn,aforetasteofthe eternallife.Atthispointdoxologicaltheologybecomestrulymessianictheology:itanticipatestheultimategoalofnewcreation—ourparticipationinand eternalenjoymentofGod’sfellowship.

Here,too,significanttheologicalquestionsariseforourprojectahead. First,whatisthenatureofthehumanbeing’sdoxologicalparticipationinthe

divinefellowship,andhowisitmediatedthroughChristandtheHolySpirit? Second,whatknowledgeoftheimmanentTrinitydoesthebelieverreceive indoxology,andhowdoesthisknowledgerelatetothatgainedthroughthe trinitarianeconomy?Addressingthesequestionswillhelpusresolveoneof thecriticaldebatessurroundingMoltmann’sdoxologicaltheology,namely, whetheritgiveswaytounwarrantedtheologicalspeculationabouttheimmanenttrinitarianlife.

ToconcludethisintroductiontoMoltmann’smethodology,twofinalobservationsareinorderthathelpilluminateourconstructivetheologicalproject ahead.ThefirstconcernshowMoltmannrelatestheorytopraxis,orthodoxyto orthopraxyinhistheology.InmanywaysMoltmann’spositiononthisquestion resemblescloselythatofliberationtheologians’“turntopraxis.”77 BythisI meansimplythatheagreeswithliberationistswhocontendthattheology’s foundationanditsaimisemancipatorypraxisonbehalfofthemarginalized andoppressed.Moltmannannouncesthiskindofpraxiologicalcommitment inhistheologyintheopeningpagesof TheTrinityandtheKingdom:“The practicalactwhichisnecessaryintoday’smiseryistheliberationoftheoppressed.Theologyishencethecriticalreflectionaboutthisessentialpractice inlightofthegospel.Itdoesnotmerelyaimtounderstandtheworlddifferently,itaimstotransformit.”78

Moltmannpartswayswithliberationistsatthepoint,however,inwhich theyinsistthatpraxisprecedestheoryandbecomesitsexclusivecriterionfor truth.In ExperiencesinTheology,thelastvolumeofhis MessianicTheology, Moltmannclarifieshisdifferenceswithliberationtheologiansonthisissue. Helikensprivilegingpraxisinthiswaytoamonasticorapietistictheology thatmandatescertainspiritualpracticesorexperiencesasitsprerequisite. Onceacertainformofsocialengagementbecomesthesinequanonfordoing Christiantheology,then,Moltmannwarns,theologythreatenstobecome“a kindofsocialpietismofvirtuousthinking.”Furthermore,hecontinues,if theoryalwaysfollowspraxisasitssecondstep,thenChristiantheologycannot defenditselffromthechargeofideology.“[It]givesrisetothesuspicionthat theChristianfaithis... onlybeingpressedintoservicesothatapresupposed socio-politicaloptionmaybeimbuedwithChristianengagement.”79

Inhisownwork,Moltmannpresumesahermeneuticalcirclebetween theoryandpraxis:thereisneitheratheorythatdoesnotrelyoncertainexperiencesnorpraxisthatdoesnotinvolvesomepriortheoreticalinterestsand commitments.Giventhishermeneuticalcircle,Moltmannarguesthattheory andpraxisshouldrelatetooneanotherdialectically.80 Theultimatecriterion forChristianpraxis,hestatesfurther,canonlybe“Christcrucified,”whocalls thebelieverintosolidaritywiththemarginalizedandtheoutcast,andinto conflictwiththoseinpower:“Whoisthecriterionofthispraxisofjustice?It isChrist,whoispresent,hidden,inthepoor,thesickandthechildren(Matthew25).”81

AlthoughMoltmann’sbriefremarksabouttherelationshipbetweentheory andpraxisleavemanyquestionsstillunanswered,theydoclearawayacouple ofmisapprehensionsabouthoworthodoxyandorthopraxyrelateinhistheology.First,hisremarksalertustothefactthatbothanidealistinterpretation ofMoltmann’smethod,inwhichdoctrinesdictateChristianpraxisinatopdownfashion,andapragmatistone,inwhichpraxisdictatesthetruthoftheologicaldoctrines,misstheirmark.Instead,IproposethatMoltmann’stheologicalmethodcanbestbedescribedbywhatRebeccaChoppdefinesas “criticalpraxiscorrelation.”82 BythisImeanthatMoltmannrootshistheology inthepracticalactivityofthecommunityoffaith,buthecriticallyreformulates suchpraxisinlightoftheologicalprinciples.Moltmannassumesadynamic andcriticalrelationshipbetweenhistheologicalnormsandpraxiologicalgoals, oneinwhichneithertrinitarianorthodoxynororthopraxyhasthefinalsay.

Moltmann’sreservationsaboutliberationistmethodologyarealsoilluminatingbecausetheymirrorcriticismsthatareoftenheardagainsthisown theology,namely,thathissocialtrinitariandoctrineiswindowdressingfora predeterminedsocialandpoliticalagenda.JustashewarnsthatacertainsociologicalanalysiscanrenderChristianfaithsuperfluousinliberationtheology, sosomeofMoltmann’scriticschargethatacertainpoliticalandsocialideology dictateshisownsocialtrinitariantheology.83 AlthoughbeingawareofthisdangerhardlyimmunizesMoltmann’stheologyagainstasimilarideologycritique, nonetheless,hiscautionaryremarksarehelpful.TheyrevealatheologicalcriterionthatwecanusetoevaluatehisproposalsforChristianpraxisinour project,namely,howwellitcomportswiththemessageandministryofthe crucifiedChrist.

Thesecondmethodologicalobservationtakesusinfullyanotherdirection—totherolethatthepassionsandtheimaginationplayinMoltmann’s trinitariantheology.Moltmannappealstohumanbeings’passionsandaestheticsensibilitiesthroughouthisworks,buttheyplayanespeciallypivotalrole inthebeliever’sdoxologicalencounterwithGod.HereMoltmanndescribes howthebelieverperceivesthecreativeandsufferingloveofGod,whichin turnbecomesaspeculumforseeingherownpassionsanew.InMoltmann’s words,theindividualencounters“thelivingGod”and“learnstoknowhimself inthemirrorofGod’slove,sufferingandjoy.”84 Further,Moltmannargues thatthisdoxologicalencounterofdivineandhumanpassionsfitspoorlywithin modernparadigmsofknowledge,inwhichknowledgeeitherisreducedto “narcissistic”self-knowledgeorbecomes“operational”andamatterofappropriationandpossession.85 DoxologycorrespondsbettertotheGreeks’andthe ancientchurch’snotionof“knowinginwonder.”86 Hereworshipandpraise awakenapassionatethirstingafterGodandanimaginationforthecreative possibilitiesofthecomingkingdom.

ForMoltmann,awakeningthiskindofpassionateknowledgeofGodand theselfistheology’shighestaimandultimatetask.“Theology,”heexhortshis

readersin ExperiencesinTheology,“comesintobeingwherevermenand womencometotheknowledgeofGodand,inthepraxisoftheirlives,their happinessandtheirsuffering,perceiveGod’spresencewithalltheirsenses. Itistothisthatsystematictheologyshould,lastandfirst,makeitscontribution.”87 Moltmanngoesontoinsistthatbecomingatruetheologianrequires firstofallone’sownpassionateengagementwithGod—abaringofone’ssoul thatincludesbothsufferinganddelightinGod’spresence.Outofthispassionateanddoxologicalencounterspringsforththetheologian’s“intellectual loveforGod”anda“pleasureinwisdom,”whichMoltmannventurestocall “apassionforthekingdom”ora“theo-fantasy.”88 Herethetheologian’simaginationisinfusedwithpassionanddelightattheprospectofthecomingkingdomandseekstoignitethissamespiritualimaginationinothers.

Withafewnotableexceptions,mostinterpretersofMoltmann’sworks ignoretheauthor’sremarksabouttheologyawakeningthebeliever’saffections andimagination.89 Therearemanyreasonsforthisneglect.Moltmannsuggeststhatmanydismisshisdoxologicalclaimsas“fanciful”andasanexcuse toevadetherigorsofsystematictheology.90 Aswewillseethroughoutthis study,thereismorethansometruthtothecriticismthatMoltmann’stheology lacksacertain“logicalrigor.”91 Yet,Iwouldaddtothisthemoretroubling reasonthatthesespiritualandaffectivedimensionsofdoctrinehavelargely disappearedfromthemoderntheologicalimagination.Contemporaryacademicdiscoursenolongerexpectsthatsystematictheologywillalsoalwaysbe aspiritualtheologythatcanignitethepassionsandtransformthesoul.

HowmightwecounterthistendencyinordertotakeseriouslyMoltmann’s claimsabouttheroleofthepassionsandimaginationintrinitariantheology?

EarlierIborrowedPaulRicouer’slanguageofatwofoldwagertointerpret Moltmann’sclaimsonbehalfofhissocialdoctrineoftheTrinity,namely,that itgivesrisetoliberatingthoughtandemancipatoryaction.Tothistwofold wagerletmenowaddathirddimension,namely,thatMoltmann’ssymbolof theTrinitywillsparkthebeliever’spassionsandherspiritualimagination.In otherwords,wewillalsobesearchingforthepropheticpotentialofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyforawakeningitsreaders’passionsforthekingdomandsparkingcreativepossibilitiesforitsconsummation.

TracingthePilgrimageofLove:AMethodofProcedure

BearingMoltmann’stheologicalapproachinmind,Iturnnowtomymethod ofprocedureforanalyzinghistrinitariantheology.Foravarietyofreasons, presentingajudiciousreadingofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyisnotan easytask.SurelyeveryinterpreterofMoltmann’sthoughtfindsherselfchallengedbythesheermagnitudeofhispublishedwritings.92 AsIintimated earlier,Moltmann’strinitarianpublicationsextendoveraspanofmorethan

thirtyyears,duringwhichtimehisinterpretationofthedoctrinehasundergone significantandongoingrevision.Mostnotably,aftertheoriginalGermanpublicationof TheTrinityandtheKingdom,in1980,herefinedhisconstructive proposalforasocialdoctrineoftheTrinityseveraltimesinongoingconversationwithcritics,newdialoguepartners,andemergingtheologicalissues.93

Chartingacoursethroughthisevolvingtheologyiscomplicatedfurther bythe contextual characterofMoltmann’swritings.BycontextualIdonotjust meanMoltmann’sparticularsociopoliticalandculturallocationasa“first world”Europeanmaletheologian.94 Rather,Ireferspecificallytothefactthat Moltmannhasalwaysself-consciouslyengagedinpublictheology,thatis,in formulatingatheologythataddressesitselftothepressingissuesofchurch andsocietywithinhiscontemporarycontext.Inthisregardhestandsfirmly inthetraditionofdialecticaltheologyandtheConfessingChurchmovement andinsistsonthetheologian’sresponsibilitytorespondtotheparticular kairos ofhisowntime.95

Moltmann’scommitmenttosuchapublictheologywasevidentalreadyin hisfirstmajortrilogy.Atthetimehedescribedhistrilogy’scontextualcharacter withthesewords:“Iwantedtoachievesomethingspecificintherespective intellectual,theologicalandpoliticalsituation.Theyarewrittenfromtheirtime fortheirtimeandthereforearetobeunderstoodastheologyinthecontextof contemporarylife. Theyhavethereforebeencorrectlycharacterizedasmorepastoral andpropheticthanprofessorialandsystematic.”96 Duringthe1960sand1970s Moltmannadoptedanevenmoreexplicitlycontextualapproachasmanyofhis writingstooktheformofdialogueswithMarxists,aswellaswithJewish, Orthodox,andso-calledthirdworldliberationtheologians.EventuallyMoltmanndistancedhimselffromwritingthiskindofcontextualtheologytodevote hiseffortstocertainlong-termdoctrinalissues.Histheologydidnotexit,however,fromthepublicarena.Asteadystreamofnewsocialandpoliticalissues, fromfeminismtoecologyandmostrecentlytoglobalization,continuesto informhisnewtheologicaldirections.

ThesignificanceofMoltmann’spublictheologyisthatitrequiresthateach workbecarefullyinterpretedwithitsspecificcontextanddialoguepartnersin view.Althoughtherearelinesofcontinuityamonghisworks,noworkcanbe singledout,forexample,inwhichhefinalizeshisdoctrineoftheTrinityand putsittorest.Rather,eachofhisbooksqualifiesandcomplementsanotherin itstheologicalperspective;therefore,eachmustbereadasifinanongoing dialoguewiththeothers.

TheinterpretivechallengespresentedbyMoltmann’spublictheologyare certainlymagnifiedbyhisrefusaltolayasinglemethodologicalfoundationfor histheology.AsIhavealreadyargued,thisisnomereoversightonMoltmann’s part.Itcanbeattributedtoacertaindegreetohisefforttomatchhistheological genretoitsdivinesubject,namely,thecomingkingdomofGod.Giventhe eschatologicalnatureofGod,Moltmannreasons,Christiantheologycanhardly

taketheformofapodicticdogmasorunchangingtruthclaims.Itmustbe subjecttoongoingreformationinlightoftheinbreakingrealityofthetrinitariankingdom.

Thiseschatologicalprovisobothchastensandinspiresthetheologian.On theonehand,itchastensherfortheillusionofbeingabletocreateacomprehensiveandtimelessdogmaticsystem.“Thedivinepromiseandtheawakened hope,”Moltmannwrites,“teacheverytheologythatitmustremainfragmentaryandunfinished,becauseitisthethinkingaboutGodofmenandwomen whoareonthewayand,beingstilltravelers,havenotyetarrivedhome.”97 Yet, itexhortsthetheologiannottobedeterminedbytherealitiesofthehereand nowbutrathertobeinspiredbythecreativepossibilitiesofthekingdomto comeandtoremainopentotheirongoingrevision.

Setinthiseschatologicalkey,Moltmann’strinitariantheologyhasadistinctivetheologicalstyleandformthatIdescribeasbothpromissoryandprovisional.Asheexplainsin TheSpiritofLife,hecreatestheologicalimagesand symbolsthatinvokereaders’imaginationforthecomingkingdomandelicit theirpassionsforitsfellowshipandfreedom:

ThemetaphorsforexperiencesofGodinhistoryhavetobeflexible, sothattheyinviteustovoyageintothefutureandencourageusto seekthekingdomofGod.Thetruesymbolsoftranscendenceimpel ustotranscend.Thisappliestotheologicalconceptionsandterms too.Iftheyarerelatedto“thewanderingpeopleofGod,”thiseschatologyrelativizesthem.Theybecomesignposts,andsearchimages forGod’sfuture.98

Hisever-shiftingmetaphorsandconceptsforGodarenotintendedtocapture andpreservedivinetruth.Theyare“signposts”thatpointbeyondthemselves andexhorthisreaderstoventureforthinpursuitofthekingdom.Atthesame timethattrinitariansymbolsgiverisetoeschatologicalhope,theyarealso evanescent.Moltmann’sisafiniteandfragmentaryvisionofGodthatsubjects itselftoongoingreformation.

InthislightonecanbestunderstandwhyMoltmannrefusestodefinehis MessianicTheology eitherasasystematictheologyorasadogmatics.Hedescribeshismajorworkinsteadas“systematiccontributionstotheology”soas toavoidthefalseimpressionthatheisattemptinga“totalsystem”ora“universaldoctrine.”99

Asheexplainselsewhere,hiscontributionsaremeantas “proposals”foropenandpublicdebateinthewiderchurch;theyareintentionallyexperimental,provocative,andsubjecttocontinualrevision.Forthis reason,Moltmannenjoinshisreaderstoenterintospiriteddialoguewithhis theologicalproposals,to“seekagreementordissent,butnotrepetition,”and insodoingtojourneytowarddeeperinsightintothecomingkingdomof God.100

GivenMoltmann’sself-understandingofthetheologicaltaskandthedistinctivegenreofhiswritings,thequestionarisesallthemoreurgentlyofhow besttoreadhistrinitariantheology.Inthisstudywewilltakeourcuesfrom Moltmann’strinitariantheologyitselfandnotattempttoimpressaconceptual frameworkonhiswritingsthatwouldbealientothedynamicandeschatologicalcharacterofthetrinitarianhistorythatheseekstoarticulate.Instead,Iwill adoptahermeneuticinaccordancewiththefundamentalassumptionofhis trinitariantheology,namely,thatthedivineloveisdisclosed narratively,thatis, throughthetrinitarianhistoryofcreation,salvation,andconsummation.This meansthatwe,too,willadoptaversionofthisnarrativeapproachbytracing theevolvingpatternsinMoltmann’swritingswithwhichhedescribestherelationshipsamongFather,Son,andSpirit.SinceMoltmannsignificantlyexpandshispresentationofthetrinitarianhistoryofGodoverthecourseofhis writings,wewillneedtoproceedinaroughlychronologicalfashionthrough hismajorwritingstodiscovertheemergingaspectsofhisnotionoftrinitarian love.ThiswillenableusnotonlytoseehowMoltmannbuildslayeruponlayer hisnarrativeframeworkforthedoctrinebutalsotodisclosethecrucialdoctrinallinksthatjoinhisvarioustheologicalclaims.

Thetitleofthiswork, PilgrimageofLove,isintendedasaguidingmetaphor forourstudy.ItstemsfromprocesstheologianDanielDayWilliams,whoin hiswork TheSpiritandtheFormsofLove describesdivineloveasarealitythat emergesinandovertime.ForWilliams,thetrueandfullmeaningoflovewill onlybedisclosedattheendofalltime:“Agape indeedbearsanassurancefor everyfuture....But whatlovemaydoandwilldo,whatcreativeandredemptiveworkliesahead,canonlybeknownpartiallyinthehistoryofloveuntil the‘end.’”101 NowsignificantdifferencesexistbetweenMoltmann’strinitarian notionofdivineloveandthatofaprocesstheologiansuchasWilliams.102 Notwithstandingthese,thismetaphorlendsitselfwelltoMoltmann’stheology. “Pilgrimageoflove”callstomindthatMoltmann’strinitariantheologynarrates thestoryofGod pronobis —oftheseekingandgatheringloveofGodwholinks God’sverydestinytothecreationandsalvationofhumankind.Forthisreason, tracingthetrinitarianpilgrimageofloveinMoltmann’stheologyentailsfollowingthekenoticdescentoftheGodwhoisloveintotheworldandthecosmic ascentofhiscreationintothelovingcommunionofGod.

Thismetaphorof“thepilgrimageoflove”alsoalertsthereadertothefact thatthistrinitarianhistoryhasnotyetdrawntoaclose.Itisaneschatological conceptwhosefullmeaningwillnotbeknownuntiltheendoftime.Given thiseschatologicalproviso,Moltmann’strinitariantheologyfindsitselfona pilgrimageinwhichitissubjecttorevisioninlightoftheinbreakingmessianic kingdomofGod.Itsimagesare“relatedto‘thewanderingpeopleofGod’” andpointalwaysbeyondthemselvestowardtheconsummationofthekingdom offellowship.103

InlightoftheforegoingintroductiontoMoltmann’strinitariantheologyand tomyownmethodofprocedure,letmeofferabriefmapofthepilgrimage ahead.Inchapters2and3,IanalyzethedevelopmentsinMoltmann’strinitariandoctrinefromhisearlywritingsthroughhismature MessianicTheology. Chapter2focusesontheemergenceofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyinthe companionvolumesofthe TheologyofHope and TheCrucifiedGod.HereI analyzeMoltmann’s“dialecticalchristology”andhowitgivesrisetotheauthor’sinitialdialecticalconceptoftrinitarianloveascrucifiedandcreativelove.

Chapter3tracestheevolutionfromMoltmann’searlytrinitariantheology ofthecrosstohissocialreconstructionoftrinitariandoctrinein TheTrinity andtheKingdom.HerewewillseehowMoltmann’searliercross-centered accountofthetrinitarianhistoryofGodunfoldsintoaneschatologicalnarrativethatstretchesfromthesendingoftheSonandtheSpiritfromtheFather increationtotheconsummationofcreationinfellowshipwithGodinthe eschaton.Iwillalsosetforthtwocompetingmodelsofdivinelovethatfirst emergein TheTrinityandtheKingdom:aprotologicalconceptofdivinepassion astheecstaticself-communicationofthegoodandaneschatologicalconcept of koinonia,orthefellowshipofFather,Son,andSpirit.Hereourtaskwillbe toclarifytherelationshipbetweenthesetwoconceptsoftrinitarianloveandto demonstratehowtheyadvancebeyondMoltmann’searlierdialecticalconcept ofdivinelove.

Inchapters4and5,Iturnmyattentiontoelucidatingandevaluatingthe praxiologicalimplicationsofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologyoflove.If chapters2and3proceedfromtheeconomyofsalvationtothetrinitariannature ofGod’sbeingaslove,chapters4and5moveintheoppositedirection:from Moltmann’sdoctrineoftheTrinitytoitsimplicationsforthecreation,salvation, andglorificationofhumanbeings.Chapter4laysthecornerstoneforMoltmann’svisionofthelifeoffaithbyinvestigatingtheauthor’smessianicand socialtrinitarianreconstructionofan imagoDei anthropology.HerewediscoverhowMoltmannreinterpretsthenotionof imagoDei asatwofoldanalogy ofrelations:theindividual’srelationshiptoGodtheFatheras imagoChristi, andasocialorinterpersonalanalogyofrelations,an imagoTrinitatis,thatappearsamonghumanbeings.

Chapter5investigateshowMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologyguides thewayofsalvationandthelifeofdiscipleship.Thefirstpartofthechapter analyzeswhatItermMoltmann’s“trinitarianpatternofsalvation”:theeschatologicalprocessthroughwhichthehumanbeingisadoptedintothetrinitarianlifeandtransfiguredintoitsveryimage.HereIfocusespeciallyonthe differentiatedandinterdependentrolesthatChristandtheHolySpiritplayin accomplishingtheworkofsalvation.Thesecondhalfofthechapterdemonstrateshowtrinitarianfellowshipfunctionsasadivinearchetypefordeterminingthenatureofrightrelationshipsinhumanlife.HereIarguethatthis

analogytotrinitarianfellowshipservesasanelasticruleoffaithratherthana narrowprescriptiveprogramfortheChristianlife.Afterlookingatseveral examplesofsuchlivedtrinitarianfellowship,thechapterconcludeswithan assessmentoftheliberatingdimensionsofMoltmann’spraxisoftrinitarian fellowship,aswellasaconstructiveproposalforitsfurtherdevelopment.

This page intentionally left blank

TheDialecticofCrucifiedand CreativeLoveinMoltmann’s

EarlyTheology

ThischapterexaminesMoltmann’sconceptofGodandhisinterpretationofdivineloveinhisearlytheology,spanningtheperiodfrom thepublicationofhisfirsttwomajorconstructiveworks, Theologyof Hope (1964)and TheCrucifiedGod (1972),untilthepublicationof TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit (1975).Themiddletolate1970s marka“naturalbreak”inMoltmann’stheologicaldevelopment, sinceatthatpointhebegantoshiftfromhisthematicandhighly contextualapproachtotheologyandstartthesystematicdevelopmentofhismaturetheology.1 AlthoughMoltmanndidnotlayouta full-fledgeddoctrineoftheTrinityintheseearliestwritings,they presagehismaturetrinitariantheologyinseveralkeyaspects.Here wediscoverkeyinterpretationsofscripture,motifsdrawnfromthe Westerntheologicaltradition,andanalysesofcontemporaryculture, allofwhichrecurinamorenuancedforminthe MessianicTheology AcentralaimofthischapterwillbetoidentifythesetheologicalresourcesinMoltmann’searlywritingstoclarifyboththebiblicaland theconceptualoriginsofhislatertrinitariantheology.2

Moltmann’searlywritingsaresignificanttothisstudy,however, notsimplybecausetheyprefigurehismaturetrinitariantheology. Theycontainadistinctconceptofdivinelovethatwillprovideus withafoiltotheauthor’ssocialtrinitarianconceptofloveinhis laterworks.Thedoctrinalkeytothisearlyconceptofdivinelovelies inMoltmann’s“dialectical Christology,”3 adoctrinalframeworkthat undergirdsboth TheologyofHope and TheCrucifiedGod.Likemuch ofGermanProtestanttheologywrittenintheimmediatewakeof KarlBarth’s ChurchDogmatics,Moltmann’searlytheologycanbe

broadlycategorizedaschristocentric:thecrossandresurrectionarethecore ofdivinerevelationthatinformsallotherlociofclassicaltheologicalreflection.4 WhatdistinguishesMoltmann’schristocentrismishowheinterpretsthecrossandresurrection-eventsintermsofa“radicalhistoricaldialecticofsharpcontradictions,”5 forexample,intermsofabsenceandpresence,sufferingand hope,hellandbliss.Thisradicaldialecticisopen-ended,insofarashistory continuestoswingbackandforthbetweentheeschatologicalpromiseofnew creation(alreadyanticipatedintheresurrection)andthecruciformcharacter ofpresentreality.Thisopendialecticstructuresallofworldhistory,lendingit dynamicmovementtowardconsummationintheeschatologicalkingdom ofGod.

Thesecondmajoraimofthischapteristotracehowthiscross-resurrection dialecticemergesinMoltmann’searlywritingsand,morespecifically,tosee howitauthorizeshisearliesttrinitarianconceptofGodandconceptofdivine love.IdentifyingMoltmann’sconceptofdivineloveprovesadifficulttaskin theseearlywritings,largelyduetothewhollyunsystematiccharacterofthe author’searlyreflectionsaboutthedoctrineofGod.Hisdiscussionsonthe natureofdivinelovearescatteredthroughouthiswritingsandareencapsulated withinotherthematiccomplexes.ToacertaindegreetheunsystematiccharacterofMoltmann’sreflectionsonGodcanbeattributedtothecontextual characterofthesewritings;thesearesituationalworks,respondingtoparticulartheologicaldevelopments,aswellasculturalandintellectualcurrentsof hisday.

Moltmann,however,alsopracticesanunusualmethodologyinhisearly trilogyofworks—amethodthathedescribesas“thewholeoftheologyinone focalpoint.”6 HeisolatesoneaspectofChristianrevelationineachworkand usesitashislensthroughwhichtoviewthewholecompassoftheological doctrines.MoltmanninterpreterDouglasMeeksoffersthemosthelpfulreadingofhowthismethodologystructuresMoltmann’searlytrilogy.Hesuggests thatMoltmann’sfocalpointshiftsfromEasterandthethemeofeschatology in TheologyofHope,toGoodFridayandthetheologyofthecrossin TheCrucified God,andfinallytoPentecostandpneumatologyandecclesiologyin TheChurch inthePoweroftheSpirit. 7 Inthisearlytrilogyofworks,thelogicofthese particularbiblicalevents(andtheirnarrativerenderings)prevailsoveranyoverarchingdoctrinalschema.

BuildingonMeeks’sinterpretativestrategy,Ipayparticularattentionin thischaptertothosebiblicalinterpretationsthatdriveMoltmann’stheological agendainthisearlyperiod.Intermsofourlargerproject,theseearlybiblical interpretationssecurethecornerstoneforhisdistinctivebiblical-narrativeapproachtotrinitariantheologythatIintroducedinthepreviouschapter.Moreover,thesebiblicalinterpretationsofferafirstopportunitytorespondtocritics’ queriesaboutMoltmann’sindebtednesstovariousphilosophicalframeworks forhismodelofdivinebeinganditsagencyinhistory.

TheologyofHope asProlegomenatoaDoctrineofGod

TheologyasEschatology:ANewTheologicalProgram

WhenMoltmann’sfirstmajorwork, TheologyofHope,burstontotheGerman theologicalscenein1964,itgalvanizedpublicattentiontoadegreeunrivaled sincethepublicationofBarth’scommentaryonRomansintheearly1920s. TheologyofHope wentthroughsixeditionswithinthefirstthreeyearsand receivedanenormouscriticalreceptionwithintheecumenicalandinternationaltheologicalcommunities.8 Thecriticalsuccessof TheologyofHope can betracedcertainlytothefactthatitspoketothespiritoftheage.Withthe rapideconomicrecoveryandtechnologicalandindustrialachievementsofthe 1950s,aspiritofoptimismhadcertainlysweptoverGermany.Germansociety wascaptivatedbyasenseofcreativeexpectancywithregardtofuturetechnologicalormaterialadvances,andtherewasanaccompanyinghopeforagradual humanizationofpolitical,religious,andeconomicstructuresofsociety.9 As Moltmannexplainedlater,“Thethemeofhope,ofanewdawn,wasasitwere intheairin1964.”10

AlthoughMoltmann’s TheologyofHope echoesthisculturalspiritofhope, adistinctivetheologicalagendadrivesthework.Moltmann’saimwastoprovideadetailedstudyoftheChristianunderstandingofeschatologicalhopeas hiscontributiontoamuchbroadertheologicaldebateoverthenatureofChristianrevelationanditsrelationshiptohistory.Thisdebatehadbeensimmering amongProtestanttheologianssincetheturnofthetwentiethcenturywiththe so-calledrediscoveryofthefuture-eschatologicalcharacterofbiblicaltheology, andinparticularthecentralityofprimitiveChristianapocalypticismtotheNew Testament.Inthe1920sthedialecticaltheologymovementinGermanymade thefirstattempttoreturnthisradicalbiblicaleschatologyanditsapocalyptic languagetothecontemporarytheologicalscene.Dialecticaltheologians,such asBarth,Bultmann,andGogarten,allusedthisbiblicaleschatologyasatool ofpropheticcritiqueagainsttheoptimismofProtestantliberalismintheaftermathofWorldWarI.

Inthelatefiftiesandsixties,agroupofyoungGermantheologiansreignitedthispre–WorldWarIIdebateoverbiblicaleschatology,revelation,and history.Moltmannbelongstothislooselydefined“schoolofhope,”which founditselfatoddswiththedominanttheologicalschoolsthathademerged fromthedialecticaltheologicalmovement.The“schoolofhope”questioned whetherBarth,Bultmann,andGogarten—aswellastheirsuccessors—had notdoneawaywiththehistoricalcharacterofbiblicaleschatology.11 Ofspecial concerntoMoltmannwerethedamagingsocialandpoliticalconsequences thatthesedehistoricizedmodelsofeschatologyheldforcontemporaryChristianity.Forexample,heattributedtheProtestantchurch’smarginalizationin debatesoverthereconstructionofpost–WorldWarIIGermansocietyinlarge

parttotheology’sfailuretolinkitsbiblicaleschatologicalvisiontoconcrete history.WhiletheologiansawaitedatranshistoricalkingdomofGod,Moltmanncharged,secularhumanistphilosophieswereco-optingChristianity’s messianicvisionandtransformingitintoanimmanentvisionofautopian atheistworld.AsMoltmannobserveddrylyatthetime,“AChristianfaithin Godwithouthopeforthefutureoftheworldhascalledforthasecularhope forthefutureoftheworldwithoutfaithinGod.”12

Againstthishistoricalbackdrop,Moltmann’s TheologyofHope seeksto regainChristianity’srevolutionarysociopoliticalpotential.ItcallsforaresurrectionofChristianmessianichopethroughatotalreorientationoftheology inaneschatologicalkey.InwordsreminiscentofBarth’sRomanscommentary, Moltmannannounceshisrevolutionaryeschatologicalprogramintheopening pagesof TheologyofHope:“Fromfirsttolast,andnotmerelyintheepilogue, Christianityiseschatology,ishope,forwardlookingandforwardmoving,and thereforealsorevolutionizingandtransformingthepresent.Theeschatological isnotoneelement of Christianity,butitisthemediumofChristianfaithas such,thekeyinwhicheverythinginitisset.”13 Moltmann’srhetorichere recallsthatofthedialecticaltheologians,whosoughttorevitalizethebiblical apocalypticperspectiveforcontemporarytheology.Andyet,atthesametime healsochallengesdirectlyhispredecessors’viewsofrevelationasdistortions ofthebiblicalaccount.14

Inparticular,MoltmanncriticizesbothBarth’smodelofGod’seternalselfrevelationandBultmann’smodelofrevelationasthedisclosureofauthentic selfhoodonthegroundsthattheybothtreattheeschatonasifitwereatranshistoricalphenomenon,thatis,asatranscendentallimitbetweentimeand eternity.Thesetranscendentaleschatologiesreducedivinerevelationintoan “epiphanyoftheeternalpresent”15 and,inturn,negateanymeaningfulexperienceofGodinhistory.In TheologyofHope Moltmannseekstoreversethis transcendentalturnineschatologybyrecoveringthegenuinelyhistoricalcharacterofbiblicaleschatology.Insodoing,heaimstoreclaimChristiantheology’shopeforthefutureofthisworldandthetheologian’sroleasprophetand socialcriticinthepublicsquare.

TheBiblicalGodofHope

AsIstatedearlier,certainbiblicalhermeneuticalkeysappearinMoltmann’s earlywork,keyswhichtheauthordevelopsmorefullyinhis MessianicTheology. In TheologyofHope thebiblicalhermeneuticalkeyisMoltmann’smodelof revelationasadivinewordofpromiseinboththeOldandNewTestaments. Theauthorbuildshisexegeticalcaseforthismodelofdivinerevelationas promisebydrawingonrecentscholarshipbyhistoriansofreligionandOld Testamenttheologians,inparticularthatofWalterZimmerliandGerhardvon

Rad.16

Followingtheirexegeticallead,MoltmanntreatstheExodusexperience astheparadigmfordivinerevelationinthehistoryofIsrael.HereGod“reveals himselfintheformofpromiseandinthehistorythatismarkedbypromise.”17 Putdifferently,notonlydoestheGodofExoduspromisetoactinhuman history,butGod’sbeingcomestobeknownthroughhisfaithfulnesstothese promises.MoltmanndescribesGod’sunveilinginhiseschatologicalpromises thisway:“Hisnameisawayfaringname,anameofpromisethatdisclosesa newfuture,anamewhosetruthisexperiencedinhistoryinasmuchashis promisedisclosesitsfuturepossibilities.”18

CentraltoMoltmann’sviewofbiblicalrevelationisthedialecticalcharacter ofthesedivinepromisesinhistory;thesedivinepromisescontradictpresent realityandpointforwardtoitsyetunrealizedfuture.19 Asadialecticalwordof promise,divinerevelationnotonlyhappensinhistorybutalsointroduces creativepossibilitiesintothathistory.Forexample,therevelationbytheGod ofExodusofanewfutureinstilledamessianichopeinIsraelthatbecamethe sourceofradicaltransformationofitspresentreality.20 Herethepromissory WordofGodnotonlyportendsthefuturebutalsocreatesit.

IftheExoduseventisMoltmann’sinterpretivekeytoGod’srevelationin thehistoryofIsrael,theresurrectionofthecrucifiedChrististhefocalpoint ofmessianichopein TheologyofHope.Theauthorpresentstheresurrection asthecontinuationratherthaneitherthefulfillmentortheabrogationofOld Testamentpromises.Theresurrectionisitselfanopenpromisethatsignifies definitively,ifonlyproleptically,anendtodeath’sdominion.InMoltmann’s formulation,“theresurrectionhassetinmotionaneschatologicallydeterminedprocessofhistory,whosegoalistheannihilationofdeathinthevictory ofthelifeoftheresurrection.”21

Moltmann’sinterpretationoftheresurrectionasacosmicvictoryoverevil anddeathfollowsquitetraditionallines.Distinctive,however,ishisinsistence ontheunrealizednatureofthispromissory-event.Theresurrectionisnota completedeventofthehistoricalpast,aneventtobesimplyrememberedin faithbytheChristiancommunity.Itisaneschatologicaleventthathasitsfull realitystillaheadofit.Intheauthor’swords,theresurrectionisa“promissio inquieta”thatproducesanongoingdynamicinhistoryuntilit“findsrestin theresurrectionofthedeadandatotalityofnewbeing.”22 Forthisreason Christianfaithintheresurrection,liketheHebrewfaithintheGodofExodus, isthoroughlymessianic:afaithinGod’spromisesforanasyetoutstanding future.

Bothin TheologyofHope andevenmoresoin TheCrucifiedGod,Moltmann interpretsthecross-andresurrection-eventsasadialecticofidentityincontradiction.Hedescribestheseeventsinhighlydualistictermsas“deathand life,nothingandeverything,godlessnessandthedivinityofGod.”23 In Theology ofHope theresurrectionprovidesthesymbolickeytothenatureofdivine

presence;itrevealsGodasthesourceofnewlife:“theGodwhocreateslife andnewbeingoutofnothing.”24 Thecross,meanwhile,appearsasacipher forallthenegativitiesofhumanhistoryandfordivineabsence.

AlthoughMoltmannportraystheresurrectionpromiseofnewcreationin harshcontradictiontothecrucifiedcharacterofpresentreality,thisharshdialecticisneitherareasontoresignoneselftoanalreadydeterminedhistory norareasontoseeksolaceinaspiritualizedeschatologicalrealm.Onthe contrary,theresurrectionrepresentsadivineprotestagainstallthenegativities andsufferingsoftheworld.25 Astheinbreakingofthedivinepromiseofnew lifeintothemidstofhistory,theresurrectionprovidesthecreativeimpetusfor humanaction—impetusforthosewhoholdresurrectionhopeinChristto engageinactiontorealizethisdivinepromiseinthisworld.

GodasthePoweroftheFuture:TheBiblicalGodinaModernKey

AsIarguedpreviously,oneofMoltmann’smajoraimsin TheologyofHope is toreinvigoratearealistdimensiontoChristianfaithintheworldbyinterpretingbiblicalrevelationasaconcretehistoricalhopeforGod’scomingeschaton. ForthisbiblicalGodofhopetobetrulyconceivablewithinthemodernworld, Moltmannneededaphilosophyofhistorythatcouldprovideanalternativeto themodernparadigmofhistoryasaclosedcausalnexus,ahistoryfullydeterminedbyamaterialistandmechanisticsetofcauses.Theneo-MarxistphilosophyofhopeofErnstBlochservedthisfunctioninMoltmann’searlywork. Bloch’sphilosophyofferedaviewofhumanhistoryanalogoustothebiblical oneinunderstandinghistoryasfundamentallyopentocreativepossibilityand changefromthefuture.26

AlthoughMoltmannhasbeencriticizedforhisoverdependenceonthis atheistphilosophyin TheologyofHope,hisreceptionofBloch’sideaswasalways acriticalone.27 Hehighlightstheaffinitiesbetweenhisbiblicaltheological perspectiveandBloch’smessianichumanism,allthewhilemodifyingthelatter’sphilosophicalsystemforhisowntheologicalends.BothMoltmannand BlochseethebiblicalsymbolofthemessianicGodandthecomingkingdom ofGodasamediumofhopeinhistoryandacatalystfortransformationin humansociety.28 ForBloch,however,humankind’sfaithinthetranscendent Godofbiblicalreligionremainsahighlyambiguousphenomenon.Although religiousfaithinstillsrevolutionaryhopeforchangeinhistory,italsoalways createsdeceptivehopesforafuturebeyondhistory.ForthisreasonBlochaims ultimatelytodemythologizebiblicalreligionintoarevolutionaryformofhumanism,onethatplacesitshopefullyintheimmanentpossibilitiesofhumankindandinnature.OnthispointMoltmannpartswayswithBloch’scriticaltheoryofreligion.Herejecteditsultimategoal,whathedescribedasan “immanenttranscendingwithouttranscendence,”29 onthegroundsthatsuch animmanentpossibilitycouldneverovercometherealnegativitiesofsuffering

thedialecticofcrucifiedandcreativelove 35 anddeathinhistory.Despitethisfundamentaldisagreement,MoltmanncontinuestouseBloch’scriticaltheoryofreligionasanidolatrycritiqueagainst thoseformsofChristianfaiththatcurtailhumanfreedomandagencyinthe world.

Despitetheirultimatelydivergentviewsonthesociocriticalfunctionof religioninsociety,Bloch’sphilosophicalsystemprovedabsolutelyvitalto TheologyofHope.ItoffersMoltmannanontologicalframeworkwithwhichhe coulddescribemeaningfullyGod’seschatologicalengagementinhumanhistory.Inhismajorwork PhilosophyofHope,Blochhaddevelopedaneschatology ofbeingitself—whathetermed“anontologyofthenot-yet-beingandofpossibilityintheworldprocess.”30 Incontrasttothemodernviewofhistoryasa closedsystemofdeterminedpossibilities,historybecomes,inBloch’sutopian framework,aradicallyopenprocess;herethefuturetakesontologicalpriority overpastandpresentrealityasthesourceofallgenuinenoveltyinhistory.

In TheologyofHope MoltmanncriticallyadaptsthisBlochiannotionofthe “powerofthefuture”intoatheologicalparadigmforGod’s“modeofbeing” (Seinsweise)inhistory.HeusesBloch’sutopiannotiontodescribehowthe biblicalGodofpromiseactsinhumanhistoryasasourceofitscreativepossibility:“Asthispowerofthefuture,Godreachesintothepresent.Ascreator ofnewpossibilitiesheliberatesthepresentfromtheshacklesofthepastand fromtheanxiousinsistenceonthestatusquo.”31 FramedinthisBlochian ontology,theGodofhopeappearsneitherasatranscendentalrealityoutside ofhistorynorasasubjectiverealityimmunizedfromthecourseofhuman history.Rather,theGodofhopeispresentinworldhistoryasaninbreaking eschatologicalreality—acomingrealitythatinjectsnewpossibilitiesintohistoryfromitsanticipatedend.32

Moltmannreceivedmuchcriticismfortranslatingbiblicaleschatologyinto Bloch’sidiom.ManyreadintoMoltmann’snotionofGodas“thepowerofthe future”theall-too-familiarstrainsofaGermanIdealistconceptofGod,in whichGod’sbeingisidentifiedwiththeprocessoftheworld’sbecoming.As aresult,Moltmann’s TheologyofHope wascriticizedbothforcompromising thedecisivecharacterofdivinerevelationinthedeathandresurrectionof Christandforsacrificingdivinesovereigntytothevicissitudesofworldhistory.33 Inseveralsignificantessayspublishedsubsequentlyto TheologyofHope, Moltmannrespondedtothesecriticismsandclarifiedinbiblicaltermswhat hemeansbyGod’smodeofbeingas“future.”34 Hedistanceshismodelof revelationexplicitlyfromthephilosophicalframeworksofbothGermanIdealismandprocessmetaphysics,byinvokingakeydistinctionbetweenthephilosophicalunderstandingoffutureas futurum andthebiblicalconceptof adventus.Ifonespeaksoffutureas“futurum,”heexplains,onereferstothat which“emergesfromtheeternalprocessofbecomingandbegettingofbeing. Itistheactualizationoftheprimordialpotential.”35 Inotherwords, futurum is theresultoftheimmanentprocessesofhistoryandcanbepredictedorex-

trapolatedfromhistoryitself.WhenonespeaksofthefutureofGodas“adventus,”however,onereferstothecomingofthebiblicalGodintohistoryfrom itseschatologicalend.InthiscaseGod’sfuturecanbeannouncedoranticipatedinhistorybutcannotbesimplyextrapolatedfromhistory’sprogress.

Moltmann’sproposalisthatweneedtoconsiderGod’smodeofbeingin thislattersenseof adventus,thatis,astheadventofnewcreativepossibilities intohistory.Asthesourceofnewlife,theGodofhopeintroducesproductive contradictionsintohistory,whichliberateshumanitybothfromitsdeterminismtothepastandfromits“utopiaofthe statusquo.”36 ThisGodofhopeisa life-givingforce,theprincipleofcreativetransformationinhistory,andthe ultimatesourceoffreedominhistory.

TheologyofHope asProlegomenatoaDoctrineofGod

Although TheologyofHope clarifiesmuchaboutGod’smodeofbeinginhistory aseschatologicalpromise,thenatureoftheGodofhopeandofhiscoming eschatologicalkingdomremainsquiteopaque.Moltmanndiscussesthebeing ofGodonlyindirectlyinthisfirstmajorworkwithinthecontextofhiseschatologicalmodelofrevelation.37 HeretheonlycluestoGod’sbeingcomevia descriptionsofGod’screativeactivityinhistory.ButevenwhenMoltmann describestheGodofhope’sparadigmaticactivity,forexample,as“creatioex nihilo,justificatioimpii, and resurrectiomortuorum,”38 heactuallyonlydescribes divineagencyquiteformally—asaprincipleofcontradictionthatliberateshumankindfrompastorpresentstructuresofevil,suffering,anddeath.Inshort, beyondthestatementthatGodisaneschatologicalsourceofnewlife,the positiveaffirmationsthatcanbemadeabouttheGodofhopeareslim.

WealsogainlittledirectinsightfromMoltmann’sfirstmajorworkinto hisunderstandingofdivinelove.Infact,thebookaltogetherdownplaysthe themeofChristianloveexcepttotreatloveasthefruitofactivefaithinthe Godofhope.39 ThisisnomereoversightonMoltmann’spartbutcanbeattributedtotheauthor’sexclusivefocusatthetimeonthethemeofChristian hope.Duringthisearliestphaseofhistheologicaldevelopment,Moltmann viewshopeasthequintessentialproblemofmoderntheology,whereaslove wasthatoftheMiddleAgesandfaiththatoftheReformation.40

Whatdoesemergeclearlyin TheologyofHope isMoltmann’sdistinctive modelofbiblicalrevelation—hisprolegomenatohisearlyconceptofGod.To conclude,letusnotethismodel’sthreekeyfeatures.First,MoltmannemphasizesthatthebiblicalGodisaGodwhorevealshimself historically.Overand againsttheHellenisticGodwhoisutterlytranscendenttohistory,thebiblical Godcomestobeknownsolelythroughhispromissoryactsoreventsinhistory. God’sidentityemergesthroughhisfaithfulnesstothesedivinepromisesin history,andinthisway,thestageofworldhistorybecomesconstitutiveto discerningGod’sself-identity.41

Second,biblicalrevelationisan eschatological promissory-event;ittellsof acomingGod,thepowerofthefuture,andhisstilloutstandingmessianic kingdom.AlthoughthegroundofChristianrevelationliesinthepast(inJesus’ resurrectionfromthedead),itsultimatesignificanceliesinthefuture—inthe yetunrealizedpromiseofnewcreation.InthiswayChristianfaithissuspendedbetweenpastandfuture,“memoryandhope.”42 Relatedtothiseschatologicalaspectofdivinerevelationisitsthirdkeyfeature:its dialectical character.ForMoltmann,divinerevelationisalwaysapromisethatcontradicts pastandpresentrealityand,insodoing,instillshopeinhistoryforadifferent future.Thiseschatologicaldialecticofrevelationinhistoryhasachristological foundation:itisrootedintheabsolutecontradictionbetweenthecross-event assymbolofallthenegativitiesofcreatedrealityandtheresurrection-eventas God’sdefinitivepromiseforanewcreation.

Thesethreedimensionsofbiblicalrevelation—thehistorical,theeschatological,andthedialectical—allbearepistemologicalsignificanceforMoltmann’sdoctrineofGodandthetaskofChristiantheologyasawhole.This modelofbiblicalrevelationprescribes,firstofall,thatallhumanspeechabout Godishighlyprovisionalandsubjecttoconstantcriticalrevisioninlightof theinbreakingeschatologicalrealityofGod.Putdifferently,divinerevelation isneitheranunveilingofwhatisalreadycompletedinthepastnorsimplya continuationofthatwhichisalreadyimmanentwithinworldhistory.Revelationistheadventofgenuinenoveltyintohistoryand,therefore,rendersall speechaboutGodprovisional.Inthislight,Christiantheologyremainsitself incompleteandawayfaringenterprise.InMoltmann’swords,“Christiantheologyis,therefore,eveninitsverylanguage,accordingtoancientterminology, theologiaviae,butnotasyet theologiapatriae.Thatis,itisstillthetheoryof historicalaction,andnotasyetthetheoryof theoriaDei,thevisionofGod.”43 Thedialecticalnatureofdivinerevelationalsosignifiesthatallknowledge ofGodisdynamicandself-involving.KnowledgeoftheGodofhopeprovokes anongoingcreativetransformationofexistingreality.Theexperiencedcontradictionbetweenfuturehopeandexistingrealityintroducescreativenewpossibilitiesintohistory,andinsodoing“call[s]forthpracticalmovementand change.”44 Inthiswaytheuniversaleschatologicalhorizonofdivinerevelation activatesthevocationofindividuals,aswellasthechurch,tobeconcretely engagedinrealizingthekingdomofGodonearth.

TheTrinitarianTheologyoftheCross

TheologicalandPoliticalConsiderationsinMoltmann’s TurntotheCross

Intheperiodfollowingthepublicationofthe TheologyofHope,Moltmann graduallyshiftedhisfocustotheothersideofhisdialecticalchristology,

namely,tothecross-event.Bythepublicationof TheCrucifiedGod in1972,the crossclearlyhadbecometheauthor’snewhermeneuticlensthroughwhichto investigateallotherdoctrinesofChristianfaith.Moltmannspeaksnowinthe sameprogrammatictermsaboutthetheologyofthecrossthathepreviously hadabouteschatology:“ThedeathofJesusonthecrossisthe centre ofall Christiantheology.Itisnottheonlythemeoftheology,butitisineffectthe entrytoitsproblemsandanswersonearth.”45

InitiallymanyofMoltmann’scontemporariessawhisturntoaradical theologyofthecrossasaretreatfromhisrevolutionaryprogramforaneschatologicaltheology.Fromthefirst,however,theauthorexplainshisnewtack ascomplementarytothatof TheologyofHope andemphasizesthecontinuity betweenhistwoworksintheircommondialecticalchristologicalvision:“The theologyofthecrossisnoneotherthanthereversesideoftheChristiantheologyofhope....TheologyofHope beganwiththe resurrection ofthecrucified Christ,andIamnowturningtolookatthe cross oftherisenChrist.”46 Ifwe discoveredthepositivesideofthedialecticwithGodasthesourceofcreative possibilitiesin TheologyofHope,wediscoverthenegativesideofthishistorical dialectic—God’spresenceinsufferinganddeath—in TheCrucifiedGod.

AsistrueofmostdevelopmentsinMoltmann’stheology,boththeological andpoliticalconsiderationscontributedtohisturntothetheologyofthecross inthelatesixties.Onekeytheologicalstimuluscamefromthenumerous criticalresponsesthatMoltmannhadreceivedto TheologyofHope. 47 Although criticismsofthebookwerequitevaried,manywereconcernedthatMoltmann’sdescriptionofGodinBlochiantermsasthepowerofthefuturewas tooone-sided,especiallywithregardtoitsstressonGod’smessianicactivity onbehalfofhumankind.Sucharadicaleschatologicalperspectivethreatened touncoupleChristianhopeinthecomingkingdomofGodfromthesalvation thatwasalreadyaccomplishedinJesusChrist.AlthoughMoltmanndisagreed withthosewhorejectedhisradicalbiblicaleschatologyperse,hedidconcede thatheneededtoclarifytherelationshipbetweenGod’sfuturityandhissalvific activityinChrist.48 TheCrucifiedGod respondedtothistheologicalchallenge, asMoltmannsoughttodemonstratehowresurrectionhopeintheGodofthe futurewasanchoredhistoricallyinGod’srevelationinthecross-event.

AvarietyofsecularimpulsesalsoimpactedMoltmann’schristological thinkinginthelatesixties.Theturnofpoliticalevents—inparticular,thecollapseof“socialismwithahumanface”withthemarchofWarsawPacttroops onPraguein1968,theassassinationofDr.MartinLutherKingandthecrisis itsignaledfortheblackcivilrightsmovementintheUnitedStates(towhich MoltmannwaswitnessduringhisyearatDukeUniversityin1967–68),the internationalstudentprotestmovement,andthewarinVietnam—allcontributedtothesoberingdirectionthatMoltmann’stheologytookinthisperiod. Thesepoliticaleventsnotonlytemperedtheoptimismof TheologyofHope but

39 alsoprecipitatedhisturntothecrossastheChristiansymbolof“hopeand resistance”49 inthemidstofaculturalmilieuofforsakennessanddesolation.

AnothercriticalfactorinMoltmann’stheologicaldevelopmentduringthis periodwashisactiveengagementinMarxist-Christiandialogue.InthesedialogueshewasexplicitlychallengedtodistinguishhisChristianidentityfrom hiscommitmentstocertainsocialistandpoliticalgoals.Thischallengefrom thesocialistLeftcoupledwiththegradualretreatoftheGermanProtestant churchintotraditionalistformsoftheologyandsocialapathyledtothetrenchantcritiquewithwhich TheCrucifiedGod opens.Moltmannchargesboththe churchandtheologyofbecomingcaughtinadualcrisisof“relevance”andof “identity”:“Themoretheologyandthechurchattempttobecomerelevantto theproblemsofthepresentday,themoredeeplytheyaredrawnintothecrisis oftheirownChristianidentity.Themoretheyattempttoasserttheiridentity intraditionaldogmas,rightsandmoralnotions,themoreirrelevantandunbelievabletheybecome.”50 Theauthorsoughttheremedyforthistwofoldcrisis inthereturntothetheologyofthecross.Ontheonehand,thetheologyofthe crossprovidesarobusttheologicalbasisforChristianengagementinsociety; ontheother,itprovidesacriticalprincipleforclaimingChristianity’snonidentityandindependencefromanyparticularsocialprogramorinstitution.51

ThesediversetheologicalandpoliticalstrandsofMoltmann’sthinkingin thelatesixtiescoalescedaroundwhatsurelybecomesthedrivingconcernof TheCrucifiedGod:thequestionoftheodicyordivinerighteousnessintheface ofradicalevilandmeaninglesssufferinginhistory.AccordingtoMoltmann’s personalrecollections,thetheodicyquestionhadbeenattherootofhisreflectionsaboutGodsincethewar.52 Butitwastherisingprotestatheismofthe latesixties,aswellastheemergingdiscussionamongJewishtheologianson thepossibilityofany“theologyafterAuschwitz,”thatfinallydrovethetheodicy issuetothetopofMoltmann’stheologicalagenda.Asthevoicesofreligious alienation—thoseofCamus,Dostoyevsky,andHorkheimer—protesting againstthetriumphofevilandsufferinggrewlouderinthewiderculture, Moltmann’sproposalforaneschatologicalfaithinaGodofhopebeganto founder.AlthoughtheGodofhopemightproveliberatingtothosewhohave thehistoricalfreedomtobringabouttransformationinsociety,suchaGod offerslittlecomforttohistory’sinnumerablevictimswhoappeartohavebeen forsakenbyGodtotheirfate.SuchaGodappearsaltogethertooremotefrom theconcretesufferingofthecontemporaryworldtoelicittruefaith.

In TheCrucifiedGod,MoltmannseeksamoreprofoundsoteriologicalresponsetothetheodicyquestionthroughacriticalretrievaloftheReformers’ theologyofthecross.Herevisessharplyhisdialecticalchristologyofthe TheologyofHope,sothatthecrucifixionnowbecomesthefocalpointofGod’s identificationwiththeacutesufferingandinjusticesofhumanhistory.Here atthecrossGodrevealshistruebeingasmorethaneschatologicalhope;God

revealsGod’sselfas“theeventofsuffering,liberatinglove”53 thatmediates forgivenesstothegodlesssinnersandhopetotheinnocentgodforsakenones ofhumanhistory.InwhatfollowsIwillexamineindetailMoltmann’sinterpretationofthecrossasthisrevelationofdivinesuffering,sinceitprovides thespringboardfortheauthor’sinitialtrinitarianconceptofGodandforhis earlyconceptofdivinelovein TheCrucifiedGod.

TheSoteriologicalSignificanceoftheCrossoftheRisenChrist

Moltmanninterpretsthecross-eventbywayofacomplexexegesisofthepassionnarrativeintheGospelofMark,towhichhecontributeskeyinsights drawnfromPaulinetheology.Hebeginswithahistoricalinterpretationof Jesus’death,his“historicaltrial,”andthendoublesbacktoofferacorrespondingtheologicalinterpretationofthisdeathasadivineact,whichhetermsas “theeschatologicaltrialofJesusChrist.”54 AlthoughMoltmann’sultimateinterpretationofthecrossisthetheologicalone,heproceedsfirsthistoricallyto demonstratetheidentitybetweenthehistoricalfigureofJesusandtherisen Christ,and,evenmore,toshowthefaithfulnessofGodwhorevealsGod’sself tobethesameinthesetwoevents.In TheCrucifiedGod,Moltmannpresents amultilayeredinterpretationofJesus’historicaltrialasthatofthe“rebel,”the “blasphemer,”andthe“godforsaken”one.55 Forourpurposes,onlythethird andlastinterpretationofthecrucifixionisdirectlyrelevant,sinceitprovides thefoundationfortheauthor’sinterpretationofthecrossasatrinitarianevent oflove.

Moltmann’sinterpretationofJesus’deathasthatofthe“godforsaken” restsprimarilyontheGospelofMark’saccountofJesus’deathasadeathof profounddespairandabandonmentbyGod.Moltmann’schiefbiblicalcueis thecryofderelictionascribedtoJesusinMark15:34,whichhearkensbackto Psalm22:2:“MyGod,whyhastthouforsakenme?”Moltmanninterpretsthis cryasspringingforthfromtherupturethathasoccurredinthefellowship betweenJesusandGodtheFather.AsintimateasJesus’fellowshipwithGod wasthroughouthisministry,so,too,writesMoltmann,isnowhisabandonmentbyGodabsoluteinhisdeath:“Thetormentinhistormentswasthis abandonmentbyGod.”56

Moltmann’sreadingofJesus’derelictioncryintermsofdivineabandonmentrevealstheauthor’sguidingsoteriologicalinterestinthequestionof divinerighteousnessinlightofinnocentsuffering.EssentiallyJesusrepeats themodernatheist’sprotestagainstaprovidentialGodgiventheterribleinjusticesofhumanhistory.InJesus’dyingcry,weheartherighteousperson’s cryagainstaGodwhoappearstohavebrokenfaithwithhisbelovedcreation:

JesusisnotcallingforthecompassionofGoduponhisownperson, butfortherevelationoftherighteousnessoftheGodwhopromised

“nottoforsaketheworkofhishands.”AbandonedbyGod,therighteousmanseesGod’sdeityitselfatstake,forhehimselfisthefaithfulnessandhonourofGodintheworld....Inthe words“MyGod, whyhastthouforsakenme?”Jesusisputtingatstakenotonlyhis personalexistence,buthistheologicalexistence,hiswholeproclamationofGod.... InthedeathofJesusthedeityofhisGodandFather isatstake 57

OnMoltmann’sreadingofthecross-event,Jesusissubjectathisdeathtothe darkestdepthsofdivineabandonment,aswellastheaccompanyingatheistic doubts.ThecrucifixionputstotrialnotonlyJesus’messiahshipandthekingdomthatheproclaimedbutalsotheveryexistenceoftheGodwhomheproclaimed.

Whilethisexperienceof“godforsakenness”capturesthedeepesthuman dimensionofthecross,Moltmannstressesthatfromthisperspectivealone Jesus’deathbearsnosalvificsignificance;absolutelynothingdistinguishes Jesus’crossfromalltheother“crossesinthehistoryofhumansuffering.”58 Solelyfromthevantagepointoftheresurrectiondoesthecross-eventobtain itsuniquesalvificsignificance.Theresurrectionshedslightretroactivelyon thecross-event,sothatJesusultimatelybecomesvisibleinhisdivinesending— as“the incarnation ofthecomingGodinourfleshandinhisdeathonthe cross.”59 Intheresurrection-eventwecometoknowretroactivelynotonlythat thehumanJesusbecamesubjecttodivinegodforsakennessbutthatGodhimselfdid.

Fromthisresurrection-faithperspectiveMoltmannelucidatestworelated waysinwhichthecross-eventprovessalvificforhumankind.First,thedeath ofthecrucifiedChristisanactofdivinesolidarityorkenoticidentification withthedepthsofevilandsufferingofthehumansituation.Atthecrosswe discoveraGodwhosoutterlyidentifieswiththehumansituationastobecome onewithit.Jesus’cryofderelictionrevealsthatGodinGod’sselfsubmitsto themostpainfulcontradictionofhumanexistence—divineabandonment.In Moltmann’swords,“TheabandonmentonthecrosswhichseparatestheSon fromtheFatherissomethingwhichtakesplacewithinGodhimself;itis statis withinGod—GodagainstGod.”60 AtthecrossthiscontradictioncausesadivisionorseparationwithinGod’sbeing—betweenFatherandSon,aseparation thatintheresurrectionishealedinthereunionofthetwo.Ifwebracketfor amomenttheprofoundontologicalimplicationsoftreatingthecross-eventas aruptureinGod’sverybeing,whatissoteriologicallyrelevanthereisthat throughChrist’ssufferingofgodforsakenness,Godopensdivinefellowshipto allwhosufferintheworld.SinceGodwillinglyundertakesthedeathofabsolutedivineabandonmentinGod’sself,Godspareshumanityofit.

Godovercomessufferingandevilnotonlythroughthisactofsolidarity withusbutalsointakingthisactionforus.HereMoltmanninterpretsJesus’

deathasanactof“personalrepresentation”forhumankind,butnotasan expiatorysacrifice“‘foroursins.’”61 Rather,itisahistoricalmediationofliberation,or,bettersaid,aprolepticanticipationofresurrectionforus.Inthe cross-eventaneschatologicalqualificationhasoccurredinhumanhistorythat enableshumankindtoparticipateinthenewlifeandfuturepromiseofeternal lifeoftheresurrection.InMoltmann’sformulation:“ThecrossofChristmodifiestheresurrectionofChristundertheconditionsofthesufferingofthe worldsothatitchangesfrombeingapurelyfutureeventtobeinganeventof liberatinglove.”62 InthiswayMoltmannsecuresthehistoricalknotmoretightly betweenthesalvationaccomplishedinthecross-eventandtheeschatological hopeoftheresurrectionthanhehadpreviouslyin

TheologyofHope

ThisvictoryoverdeathdoesnotfullyexhaustthemeaningofGod’sact forusonthecross.FollowingthedialecticofthecrossinPaulinetheology, MoltmannturnsbackfromtheresurrectiontothecrossanddiscoversGod’s salvificpresencenotjustin“exaltation”butalsoin“humiliationandlowliness.”63 Inacentralpassageof TheCrucifiedGod,MoltmannexplainsGod’s actofpersonalrepresentationintermsofhis“givingupoftheSon”asadivine enactmentof“self-surrendering,self-emptyinglove”:

SowhatdidGoddointhecrucifixionofJesus?...God himselfdeliveredhimup.InthepassionoftheSon,theFatherhimselfsuffers thepainsofabandonment.InthedeathoftheSon,deathcomes uponGodhimself,andtheFathersuffersthedeathofhisSonin hisloveforforsakenman.Consequently,whathappenedonthe crossmustbeunderstoodasaneventbetweenGodandtheSonof God.IntheactionoftheFatherindeliveringuphisSontosufferingandtogodlessdeath, Godisactinginhimself.Heisactinginhimselfinthismannerofsufferinganddyinginordertoopenupinhimself lifeandfreedomforsinners. Creation,newcreationandresurrection areexternalworksofGodagainstchaos,nothingnessanddeath. ThesufferinganddyingofJesus,understoodasthesufferingand dyingoftheSonofGod,ontheotherhand,areworksofGodtowardshimselfandthereforeatthesametime passionsofGod. 64

AccordingtoMoltmann,thisdivinepassionorsufferingloveactsforusinthe cross-event,transformingthehumansituationbyactinginwardlyuponitself. IntheactoftheFatherdeliveringuptheSon,Godsuffershisowncontradiction,godforsakenness,andembracesitwithinGod’sverybeing.

AtthispointwecanpausetotakenoteofhowsharplyMoltmannhas revisedhiscross-resurrectiondialecticsince TheologyofHope.Whereasinhis earlierbookthecross-resurrectiondialecticsignifiedtheharshantithesisbetweentheworldanddivineeschatologicalreality,in TheCrucifiedGod this antithesisistakenupintoGod’sself.Thecrossisnolongerasignofdivine absenceinhistorybutitsveryopposite—asignofGod’spassionatepresence

inthemidstofhumanhistory.Moreover,thesufferingofthecrossisnotan externalactionoftheSonofGodwhoissentintotheworldbutisimmanent toGod—“Godactinginhimself.”Insum,weseetheauthordrivehistheology ofthecrosstoitsradicalconclusion:God’sself-surrenderingloveonthecross issuchthatGodencompassesthiscontradictioninGod’sself.

Forthepurposesofthisstudy,whatiscrucialaboutMoltmann’sresignificationofthecross-eventin TheCrucifiedGod isthatthiseventnowdefines thenatureofthebiblicalGodwhoislove.Moltmanndrawsthisclearontologicallinkbetweendivineloveandthecross-eventinpassagessuchasthisone: “ThecrossofJesus,understoodasthecrossoftheSonofGod,thereforereveals achangeinGod,a statis withintheGodhead:‘Godisother.’Andthiseventin Godistheeventonthecross.IttakesonChristianforminthesimpleformula whichcontradictsallpossiblemetaphysicalandhistoricalideasofGod:‘God is love.’”65

HerewebegintoseehowMoltmann’stheologyofthecrossstipulateshisearlynotionofdivineloveasaformofunconditionalloveforthe other.Thecross-eventrevealsGodidentifyingGod’sselfdialecticallywithhis oppositeandyetmaintainingdivineidentity.Tocomprehendmorefullywhat thisdialecticalconceptofdivineloveentails,weneednowtotakeupthequestionthatwehadearlierlaidaside,thatis,theontologicalsignificanceofthe cross-eventforthebeingofGod.

TheCross-EventasTrinitarianDialecticofLove

AsweturntoinvestigateMoltmann’sdevelopmentofanexplicitlytrinitarian conceptofGod,letusfirstbrieflyrecallwhytheauthorviewsthecross-event asuniquelydisclosiveofGod’sbeing.AsInotedinmyintroductionto The CrucifiedGod,Moltmann’stheologicalepistemologyisverymuchinfluenced atthetimebyLuther’stheologyofthecross.HetakesuptheReformer’s trenchantcritiqueofnaturaltheologyasa“theologyofglory,”aswellashis dialecticalapproachtodivinerevelationintheparadoxofthecrossfromthe HeidelbergDisputation.MoltmannhadalreadyvoicedcriticismsofthepossibilityofobtainingnaturalknowledgeofGodinthe TheologyofHope.Therehe concludedthatcosmologicalandanthropologicalproofsforGod’sexistence wereflawed,sincetheyrestedonfalseinferencesdrawnfromthepresentstate oftheworld(orthehumansubject)totheeschatologicalbeingofGod.

In TheCrucifiedGod,Moltmanndeepensthisearliercritiqueofnatural theologybyaddingtoitLuther’scriticalperspectiveonthedevastatingnoetic effectsofsin.MoltmannadoptsfullyLuther’spositionthatalthoughnatural knowledgeofGodhadbeen“potentiallyopentomen,”66 ithadbeenrendered impossibleforhumankindduetotheirperversetendencytowardselfdivinizationandidolworship.Givenhumankind’spresentfallenstate,theonly directknowledgeoftheGodofloveisthatwhichismadevisibleinthecross, becausethisiswhereGodaddressesthesituationoffallenhumanity.Thecross

revealswhoGodis“forus”:thesufferingGodoflovewholiberateshumankind fromitscompulsionstowardself-delusionandself-deification.

In TheCrucifiedGod,Moltmannformalizesthisdialecticalrevelationof Godatthecrossintothefirstprincipleofhistheologicalepistemology.He definesthisgeneral“dialecticalprincipleofknowledge”broadlyas“likeis knownbyunlike”andexplainsitwithacontroversialformulationborrowed fromSchelling:“‘Everybeingcanberevealedonlyinitsopposite.Loveonly inhatred,unityonlyinconflict.’AppliedtoChristiantheology,thismeansthat Godisonlyrevealedas‘God’inhisopposite:godlessnessandabandonment byGod.Inconcreteterms,GodisrevealedinthecrossofChristwhowas abandonedbyGod.”67 ManyinterpretershavestumbledoverMoltmann’sformulationhere(aswellashiscitationofSchelling),sinceatfirstglanceMoltmannseemstobesuggestingthatGodistheoppositeofwhatGodreveals himselftobe.68 Oncloserinspection,however,Moltmann’sdialecticalprinciple prescribesonlythatGodrevealshimselfwhereheiscontradictedbyhisvery opposite.AsRichardBauckhampointsout,Moltmann’sdialecticalprinciple is“theepistemologicalcorollaryofthenatureofGod’slove”;itcorrespondsto hisnotionofdivineloveaslovetotheother,alovethatisrevealedinGod’s actofsolidaritywithGod’sother—thegodlesssinnerandgodforsakenvictim—atthecross.69 Putdifferently,thecross-eventbearsadoublesignificance forMoltmann:itisthelocusofGod’sdialecticalself-revelation,anditmanifeststhedialecticalcharacterofdivineloveitselfaslovefortheother,theunlike.

In TheCrucifiedGod,Moltmanncontraststhisdialecticalprincipleof knowledgesharplywiththe“analogicalprincipleofknowledge”(“likeisknown onlybylike”),whichheviewsasthefoundationalprincipleofclassicalGreek epistemology.70 JustashedrewanoppositionbetweentheHellenisticGodof ParmenidesandthatofExodusin TheologyofHope,Moltmannnowopposes thisHellenisticprincipletothedialecticalbiblicalone.Truebiblicalknowledge ofGod“isachievednotbytheguidingthreadofanalogiesfromearthtoheaven, butonthecontrarythroughcontradiction,sorrowandsuffering.”71 Adopting Luther’srhetoric,Moltmannarguesthattheanalogicalmethod,ifitispursued inisolation,leadstoatheologyofglory,whilethedialecticalleadstoatheology ofthecross.72 Inaparallelfashion,hecontraststheHellenisticconceptoflove, philia,whichhedepictsasaconditionedanalogicalprincipleoflove(“thelove forwhatissimilarandbeautiful”)tothebiblicalprincipleoflove, agape,which hedescribesasanunconditionaldialecticalformoflove(“creativelovefor whatisdifferent,alienandugly”).73

Despitehisnegativeportrayalofapurelyanalogicalapproachtoknowledge ofGod,MoltmanndoesnotaltogetherexcludethatknowledgeofGodcanbe gainedbyanalogicalmeans.Hearguesonlythatthedialecticalrevelationof Godatthecrossmustbethesoteriologicalconditionforitspossibility.This crucifyingknowledgeiswhat,inMoltmann’swords,“brings[humankind]into correspondencewithGod,and,asIJohn3.2says,enablesthemeventohave

thedialecticofcrucifiedandcreativelove 45 thehopeofbeinglikeGod.”74 Thecrossovercomestheabsolutecontradiction betweenGodandhumanityand,insodoing,restoresthroughgracethevery possibilityofhumanity’scorrespondencetoGod;onlyinthiswaydoesanalogicalknowledgeofGodonceagainbecomearealpossibilityforhumankind.

In TheCrucifiedGod,Moltmannleavesmanyquestionsunansweredabout theexactrelationshipthatobtainsbetweenanalogicalanddialecticalformsof knowledgeofGod.Theseambiguitiesquicklybroughtcriticismsagainstthe book,onesthateventuatedinMoltmann’sclarificationofhispositioninhis laterworks.Significantforthisstudyisthefactthateveninthemostdialectical phaseofhisthinking,Moltmannopensthedoortothepossibilityofanalogical knowledgeofGod.Thatistosay,heseesthepossibilityoftransformationin thehumansituationthroughthesanctifyingworkofgrace,andthis,inturn, opensupthepossibilityfortrueanalogiestoexistbetweenthedivineand createdorders.AsIwillargueinthechaptersahead,suchanalogiesorcorrespondencesbetweenthedivineandhumanrealmsbecameamorepronouncedrealityinMoltmann’smaturetrinitariantheology.Oncehedevelops afull-blowndoctrineofcreationandaccordsthesanctifyingworkoftheSpirit amorecentralroleintheeconomyofsalvation,Moltmannhasthetheology ofgraceinplacethatcansupportsuchanalogiesbetweenthedivineandcreatedorders.

Withthisdialecticaltheologicalepistemologyfullyinview,wearenowin thepositiontoconsiderhowMoltmann’ssoteriologyleadstohisinitialtrinitarianconceptofGod.AsIdemonstratedearlier,thecruxofMoltmann’ssoteriologyisthatthecross-eventrepresentsadivineactofsufferinglove,in whichGodundergoesdeathinsolidaritywithandinpersonalrepresentation ofhumanity.ThecrossbecomesaneventinGod,inwhichdivineloveembracesandovercomesitsoppositewithinitself.Tograspthefullmeaningof thiseventinandforGod,Moltmanncontendsthatwecannotspeakgenerically ofGodactinginChristorin theopaschite termsofthesufferingordeathof God.75 Thecross-eventnecessitatesatrinitariandifferentiationintheconcept ofGod.InMoltmann’swords,“Themoreoneunderstandsthewholeeventof thecrossasaneventofGod,themoreanysimpleconceptofGodfallsapart. Inepistemologicaltermsittakessotospeaktrinitarianform.”76

Byadvancingthecross-eventasthestartingpointforhistrinitarianconceptofGod,Moltmannundertakesaradicalreformationinhowtrinitarian doctrinehadbeenformulatedsincethetimeoftheearlychurch.Toclearthe wayforhisreconstructionofthedoctrine,Moltmannarguesthatthedoctrine’s developmenthadgoneseriouslyawryintheWest.ThedoctrineoftheTrinity hadbecomeslowlydivorcedfromitsrootsinthe oikonomia (howGodactsfor usinChrist)andinsteadtreatedaspartof theologia —orspeechabout“the divinemajesty.”77 Oncethisdistinctionhadbecomeanacceptedpartofthe Westerntheologicaltradition,theTrinitywasslowlytransformedintoaspeculativemysteryofthefaithwithoutsoteriologicalandpracticalrelevance.

Inmountingthiscritique,MoltmannlargelytookoverKarlRahner’s highlyinfluentialanalysisofthedemiseofthedoctrinethathadbeenpublished afewyearsprior.78 MoltmannagreesfullywithRahner’scontentionthatthe doctrineoftheTrinityhadbecomingincreasinglyisolatedfromsalvationhistory,especiallysincetheMiddleAges,atwhichtimethescholasticdistinction betweenthearticles DeDeouno and DeDeotrino intheChristiandoctrineof Godwasformalized.79 Thisfatefuldivisionbetweenthetruthsofnaturaltheologyandthoseofspecialrevelationonlyreinforcedtheancillarystatusof trinitarianclaimstothedoctrineofGodasawhole.ToRahner’sanalysis ofthedoctrine’sdemise,MoltmannaddshisownparallelProtestantversion ofthestory.ThisscholasticdivisionwasincorporatedintoProtestantorthodoxy andeventuallyledtothe“surrenderofthedoctrineoftheTrinity”intheProtestantEnlightenmentwhenthedoctrinewasdubbeda“theologicalspeculation withnorelevanceforlife.”80

Indevelopingatrinitariantheologyofthecross,MoltmannsetoutessentiallytorehabilitatetheorganicconnectionbetweenthedoctrineoftheTrinity andsoteriology.Tothisend,heappliesRahner’sfamousruletohisowntrinitariantheologyofthecross:“TheeconomicTrinity is theimmanentTrinity, andtheimmanentTrinityistheeconomicTrinity.”81 Moltmannradicalizes Rahner’srulebyinsistingthatthisismorethananepistemologicalrestriction; itisanontologicalrule.Putdifferently,Moltmanndefendstheontological identificationofthecross-eventwiththetrinitarianbeingofGod:“Thecross standsattheheartofthetrinitarianbeingofGod;itdividesandconjoinsthe personsintheirrelationshipstoeachotherandportraystheminaspecific way.”82 Inotherwords,thecross-eventnotonlyrevealsthetrinitarianGodwho is“forus”butactuallyconstitutestheTrinity.Andtherefore,Moltmann(at leastatthisearlystageofhistheologicaldevelopment)arguesagainsttheneed forthisclassicaldistinctionbetweentheimmanentandtheeconomictrinities altogether.83

AlthoughMoltmanntakesthisdecisivesteptowardreformulatingtheclassicaltrinitariandoctrine,hisinitialtrinitarianproposalisinfactquiterudimentary.EssentiallyMoltmann’sproposalisfora“trinitarianunderstanding ofkenosis,”inwhichthekenoticactofself-surrenderor“deliveringup”differentiatesthevariousrelationshipswithinthetrinitarianGod.84 Thebareoutlinesofthistrinitarianmodelofdivinekenosiswerealreadypresentinour earlierdiscussionofthecrossasasceneofabandonmentbetweentheSon andtheFather.Inalaterpassageof TheCrucifiedGod,Moltmannelucidates moreclearlyhowthetrinitariandistinctionstakeplaceinthisself-surrendering actatthecross:

InthesurrenderoftheSontheFatheralsosurrendershimself, thoughnotinthesameway.ForJesussuffersdyinginforsakenness,butnotdeathitself....ButtheFatherwhoabandonshimand

delivershimupsuffersthedeathoftheSonintheinfinitegriefof love....To understandwhathappenedbetweenJesusandhisGod andFatheronthecross,itisnecessarytotalkintrinitarianterms. TheSonsuffersdying,theFathersuffersthedeathoftheSon.The griefoftheFatherhereisjustasimportantasthedeathofthe Son.85

HereMoltmannpicksupontwoofPaul’sformulationsofJesus’deathasa “deliveringup”(Rom.8:31–32;Gal.2:20)anddifferentiatesbetweenthevariousactsof“deliveringup”(Hingabe)thatoccuratthecross-event.Notonly doestheFatherdeliveruptheSon,butalsotheFatherhimselfisdeliveredup inthelossoftheSon.Quitesignificantly,theSonisnotapassiveobjectin thiskenoticactbutactivelydelivershimselfup,too.InthiswayboththeFather andtheSonappearasactiveagentsandastheaffected“persons”ofthecrossevent;onlytogetherdotheyassumetheestrangementoftheworldasa“death in God.”86

AsInotedearlier,Moltmanninterpretsthecross-eventasadeeprupture orestrangementinthepersonalrelationsbetweentheFatherandtheSon.In acontroversialformulation,Moltmanndescribesthisdivisioninhighlyagonistictermsas“GodagainstGod”:“ThecrossstandsbetweentheFatherand theSoninalltheharshnessofitsforsakenness.Ifonedescribesthelifeof GodwithintheTrinityasthe‘historyofGod’(Hegel),thishistoryofGod containswithinitselfthewholeabyssofgodforsakenness,absolutedeath,and thenon-God.‘NemocontraDeumnisiDeusipse.’”87 Moltmann’sintentinthis passageisclear:toincludeallofhistory’ssuffering,evil,anddeathwithin God’slovingbeing.Andyet,asMoltmann’scriticswerequicktopointout,by speakingindramatictermsofthis“deathinGod,”MoltmannriskedintroducingaparadoxintotheverybeingofGodthatwoulddisrupttheunityof theGodhead.88

HeretheHolySpiritplaystwodecisiverolesforMoltmanninovercoming thisthreateneddisunityintheGodhead.First,theSpiritovercomesthiscontradiction(atleasteschatologically)inthebeingofGodbyservingasthebond oflovethatjoinstheFatherandtheSon.Despitethedeepdivisionbetween theFatherandtheSonatthecross,theHolySpirit(itselfactinginselfsurrenderinglove)joinsthetwoina“conformity”or“communityofwills”;by mutuallyenactingthisevent,thetworemain“mostinwardlyoneintheirsurrender.”89 Second,thissameSpiritofloveactsasaunifyingpowerbetween humankindandGod,overcomingthebreachcausedbysinandtherebyenablingtheworld’sparticipationinthisdivinelifeoflove.ThecommonSpirit oftheFatherandSonprocessesforthfromthecross-eventinwhatIterman expressionof“creativelove”thatbreathesnewlifeintohumankind:

WhateverproceedsfromtheeventbetweentheFatherandtheSon mustbeunderstoodasthespiritofthesurrenderoftheFatherand

theSon,asthespiritwhichcreatesloveforforsakenmen,asthe spiritwhichbringsthedeadalive. Itistheunconditionedandtherefore boundlesslove whichproceedsfromthegriefoftheFatherandthe dyingoftheSonandreachesforsakenmeninordertocreatein themthepossibilityandtheforceofnewlife.90

ItiscrucialtonoteherethattheHolySpiritincarnatesthesameessenceof divine agape astheFatherandSon.Asthepoweroflovethat“createsnewlife” and“createssimilarpatternsofloveinmaninrevolt,”theSpiritmanifeststhe sameunconditioned“loveoftheother”thattheFatherandSonalsorevealat thecrossevent.91

AspartofthebackdroptoMoltmann’smaturesocialtrinitariantheology, itissignificanttonotethattheauthor’searlytrinitariandialecticofthecrosseventactuallyresemblescloselythedominantWesternAugustinianmodelof theTrinity.JustasinAugustine’smodel,heretootheHolySpiritassumesthe roleofthe vinculumcaritatis —thebondofself-surrenderingorkenoticlove— thatunitesFatherandSon,andprocessesforthfrombothtounitehumankind toGod.MoltmannalsoinheritstheweakpointsofAugustine’smodel,namely, whetherthisunderstandingoftheSpiritasthebondoflovecanassurethe Spirit’sfullpersonhoodandequalstatustothatoftheFatherandtheSon. Moltmann’strinitariantheologyofthecrossespeciallyseemsliabletothis criticism,sincetheSpiritclearlydoesnotassumethesameactiveroleofdeliveringupor kenosis thatdistinguishesthepersonhoodofboththeFatherand theSonatthecross.92

WheretheSpiritdoesplayanessentialroleinMoltmann’searlytrinitarian schemaisinopeningthetrinitariancross-eventtoincludetheworldand,most particularly,toincludehumanhistory.ThroughtheactivityoftheSpirit,the trinitarianGod-eventbecomes,inMoltmann’swords,“aneschatologicalprocessopenformenonearth”:

Foreschatologicalfaith,thetrinitarianGod-eventonthecrossbecomesthehistoryofGodwhichisopentothefutureandwhich opensupthefuture....it seemsclearthatthedivineTrinityshould notbeconceivedofasaclosedcircleofperfectbeinginheaven. ThiswasinfactthewayinwhichtheimmanentTrinitywasconceivedofintheearlychurch.Barthalsousesthisfigureofthe “closedcircle”forGod.Incontrasttothis,though,oneshouldthink of theTrinityasadialecticalevent,indeedastheeventofthecrossand thenaseschatologicallyopenhistory.TheSpirit,love,isopentothe futureforthewholeofforsakenhumanity;inpositiveterms,forthe newcreation.93

JustaswesawpreviouslywiththeGodofhope,thetrinitarianGodofthecross isnotatranshistoricalrealityorwhatMoltmanncharacterizesnegativelyhere

asaclosedcircle.ThisTrinityisratheritselfaneventinhistorythatboth impactsuponthepresentandisopentothefuture.

MoltmannappropriatesakeyconceptfromHegel’sphilosophyofreligion, namely,thatoftheTrinityasthehistoryofGod,togiveconceptualexpression tothishistorical-eschatologicalnatureofthetrinitarianGod.ByutilizingHegel’sschema,Moltmannintroducesthesamehistoricaldynamicintohistrinitariantheologyofthecrossthatwesawinhismodelofdivinerevelationin TheologyofHope.OncereformulatedasthehistoryofGod,thetrinitarianrelationships,whichwerefirstrevealedatthecross-event,aresetintoawider historicalframeworkofGod’ssalvificengagementwiththeworld.Thishistory ofGodbeginsnowwiththesendingoftheSonintheincarnationandextends totheSon’seschatologicalhandingoverofthekingdomtotheFather.94 Most significantly,thecross-eventisnolongertheconclusionofthe“historyofGod,” forthishistoryremainsopenuntiltheeschatologicalconsummationofthe kingdom,atwhichtime“the‘Trinitymaybeallinall.’”95

ByportrayingtheTrinityintheconceptualformofthe“historyofGod,” MoltmannabandonsacrucialmodeofspeakingaboutGodas adventus,the modeofGod’sactivitythatwesawin TheologyofHope.Insteadofspeaking aboutGodbreakingintohistoryfromitsend,Moltmannnowcharacterizes theworldasbeingtakenupintothe“historyofGod”(theTrinity)and“integratedintothefutureofthe‘historyofGod.’”96 WhileMoltmanndescribes this“historyofGod”asinclusiveoftheworld,atthesametimehecautions againstapantheisticidentificationofGodandworldonthegroundsthatthis wouldignorethenegativitiesoftheworldandnegatedivinetranscendence overthem.Moltmannadvancesinsteadanexplicitly“panentheistic”97 model oftheworldinthe“historyofGod”asthemostadequatewayofexpressing howtheentirehistoryoftheworld(includingallitsnegativities)willbeeschatologicallyreconciledwithinGod’slovingbeing.

Atthispointletuspausetonotesomeofthecontroversialaspectsof Moltmann’searlytrinitarianmodelandthecriticismsthathereceivedofit. Firstandforemost,Moltmann’sdialecticofthecross-eventasthehistoryof GodresembledcloselythedialecticalmovementofHegel’sconceptofabsolute being:adialecticalhistoricalprocess,inwhichGodbecomesdividedinGod’s selfatthecross,onlytobeeschatologicallyreunitedthroughtheSpirit.This parallelwasnotlostonMoltmann’scritics,whofoundhistrinitarianconcept ofGodliabletomanyofthesametheologicalproblemsfromwhichHegel’s suffered.ChiefamongthesuspicionsraisedaboutMoltmann’strinitarian“historyofGod”wasthatitjeopardizesdivinesovereigntyoverGod’screation.For example,HermannusMiskottearguedthatMoltmann’sGodappearedfirstto becomeTrinityintheprocessofworldhistory—apositionthatrenderedthe courseofworldhistorynecessarytoGod’sbeing.RecallingBarth’scritique againstHegel’sschema,Miskottepointedtothedangerousimplicationsof

Moltmann’searlytrinitarianproposal:“Intheend,however,Godappearsto havebecometheprisonerofthishistory.”98

OtherprominentcriticssuchasWalterKasperchargedthatMoltmann’s presentationoftheTrinityasthehistoryofGodappearednotonlytoopen God’sbeingtohumanhistorybutalsotodissolveGodinit.Kaspertracedthe rootofthisproblemtohisProtestantcolleague’sdialectical“Denkform,” which—withitsuncriticaldependencyonGermanIdealism—endeduptreatingevilandsalvationasnecessarymomentsinthehistoricaldialecticofdivine being.99 InKasper’sview,Moltmann’sdialecticthreatenedtocollapseintoa dangerousidentity:“Arewenotfacedherewiththedangerthatthemiracleof theloveofGod,thecross,isdissolvedinadialectic,whichturnsoverinto identity?”100

WewillreturntothesespecificcriticismsofMoltmann’searlyworkinour nextchapter,wherewewillseehowMoltmannengagesthemin TheChurch andthePoweroftheSpirit (1975)andinotherkeyessayswrittenduringthe sameperiod.SimilarquestionsaboutGod’sfreedominrelationshiptohistory andGod’sgoodnessinrelationshiptocreatedevilswillalsooccupyourattentionin TheTrinityandtheKingdom,whereMoltmanndevelopsmostfullyhis viewsontherelationshipofGodandtheworld.Atthispoint,however,wecan ventureonefirmconclusionaboutMoltmann’searlytrinitariantheologydevelopment,namely,thathisdialecticalvisionofthetrinitarianlifeisdriven morebysoteriologicalthanconceptualnecessity.AsIhavearguedpreviously, Moltmann’strinitarianturninhisconceptofGodwasprecipitatedbyacombinationofhisinterpretationofthepassionnarrativeandhistheologicalepistemologythatcommittedhimtothepositionthatdirectknowledgeofthe divinecamefromGod’sself-revelationinthecross-event.Thesetheological commitmentsratherthanMoltmann’sphilosophicalappropriationofdialecticalidealismbestexplainhisearlyformulationofthedoctrine.Despitethe strongfamilyresemblancesbetweenMoltmann’sdialecticsandGermanIdealism,Moltmanncertainlydoesnotfallpreytothechargeofaspeculative dissolutionoftrinitariandoctrine—whatMichaelWelkerincisivelydescribes asmaking“thedoctrineoftheTrinityavestigiumofthe‘absolutemethod.’”101 AlthoughMoltmannappropriatesaspectsofHegel’sspeculativeframework intohistheology,hisconceptofthetrinitarianGodremainsfirmlyrootedin theeconomyofsalvation,andmostparticularlyinthecross-event.Thepassion narrativenotonlydeterminesMoltmann’searlyconceptoftheTrinitybutalso helpstodistinguishthebiblicalGodoflovefromrivalphilosophicalconcepts ormoralidealsoflove.

TheBiblicalGodofSufferingLove

IntheprecedingsectionItracedhowMoltmann’sconceptofdivinelove emergesfromhisinterpretationofthepassionnarrativeasatrinitarianevent

thedialecticofcrucifiedandcreativelove 51 ofself-surrenderinglove.Thiseventofloveconstitutesaformofdivinesuffering,whichnotonlyisanactivityofGodintheworldbutisinternaltothe trinitarianlifeitself;itisaninwardpassionofGod,thatis,anactthatGod undertakestowardGod’sself.IalsoelucidatedhowMoltmanndifferentiates betweentheFather’sandtheSon’sformsofsufferingatthecross.Wesawthe Son’ssufferingdescribedinexistentialtermsasthepainofderelictionor godforsakenness,andasadeathinsolidaritywithandpersonalrepresentation ofhumankind.AndwesawhowtheFatherisequallypainedbyaninfinite griefatthelossofhisSon.

Fromthesedescriptionsofthetrinitariandialecticatthecross-event,a ratherclearpictureemergesofMoltmann’sunderstandingofdivinelove.Most broadlystated,itisanunconditionalformofdivinecompassion—a“suffering with”theotherthatoccursinandamongthepersonalrelations.AsRichard Bauckhamexplainswell,forMoltmann,“God’sloveishis‘passion’inthe doublesenseofpassionateconcern(Leidenschaft)andsuffering(Leiden).Love isnotjustactivityonothersbutinvolvementwithothersinwhichoneismoved andaffected.”102 Inotherwords,divineloveexpressesnotonlyGod’sboundless beneficencetowardtheworldbutalsohowGod’sverybeingisaffectedby God’spersonalrelationshiptoGod’screation.Atthecrosshumanbeingsdiscoverthatthisdivinepassionisutterlyboundless.ParaphrasingBonhoeffer, Moltmannwrites:“Godallowshimselftobeforcedout.Godsuffers,God allowshimselftobecrucified,andiscrucifiedandinthisconsummateshis unconditionallove thatissofullofhope.”103

EvenasMoltmanninsiststhatthecross-eventistheultimatemeasureof divineloveintheNewTestament,heidentifieskeyantecedentsforthissame loveintheOldTestament.Justashedefendsafundamentalcontinuitybetween theresurrectionandthepromissorynatureofGod’srevelationtoIsraelin TheologyofHope,Moltmannnowemphasizesthecontinuitybetweenthe“sufferinglove”ofthecrucifiedGodandtheancientHebrewunderstandingof divinepathos(andthemodernJewishone).Tobuildthiscase,Moltmanndraws especiallyuponAbrahamHeschel’sstudyofdivinepathosintheprophetic literatureandontherabbinictheologyofthe Shekinah,orthe“self-humiliation ofGod.”FollowingHeschel,hedescribesdivinepathosasthepassionateconcernandindeedsufferingthatarisesfromGod’srelationshiptohiscovenant peopleofIsrael:“Heisaffectedbythembecauseheisinterestedinhiscreation, hispeopleandhisright.The pathos ofGodisintentionalandtransitive,not relatedtoitselfbuttothehistoryofthecovenantpeople.”104 Stateddifferently, thesufferingloveoftheGodofIsraelisanactiveandfreelychosenformof passion;itisanactofdivinefreedomthatarisesoutofGod’srelationshipto hiscreation.

ForMoltmann,therabbinictheologyofthe Shekinah orself-humiliation ofGodprofoundlydeepenedtheHebrewunderstandingofdivinepathos.Accordingtothistradition,God’scovenantalrelationshiptoIsraelledtoGod’s

actualindwellinginthemidstofitssituationsofhardship,includingsituations ofbothguiltandinnocentsuffering.The Shekinah incarnatesthesamedialecticalpatternthatwehavealreadytraversedwiththecross-event:adivine actofself-humiliationorof“self-surrender”insolidaritywiththeguiltand sufferingofthehumansituation,throughwhichhumanliberationisaccomplished.Justasthedivinesufferingofthecross-eventwasinternaltoGod’s being,so,too,thehistoryofIsrael’ssufferingisembracedwithinGod’sloving being.105

ThisconvergencebetweenHebrewandchristologicalunderstandingsof divine pathos provesextremelysignificanttoMoltmann’slaterdevelopmentof histrinitariantheology.Byestablishingthedivine pathos ofGodalreadyin God’shistorywithIsrael,theauthorinsiststhatsufferingisintrinsictothe biblicalGod’scovenantalrelationshipwithhiscreation.InMoltmann’slater works,thisclaimbecomescentraltohisdefensethatthedoctrineoftheTrinity (andwithitthenotionofasufferingGod)hasJewishrootsandthereforeis not,asliberalProtestantismhadpreviouslyargued,anintrusionofHellenistic metaphysicsintobiblicalfaith.106

ThelinkbetweenJewishandChristiannotionsofdivinepathosisalso centraltoMoltmann’sprojectofdevelopingacredibleChristiantheologyafter Auschwitz.AsInotedinmyintroductionto TheCrucifiedGod,thehorrorsof AuschwitzpresentedMoltmannwiththedeepestchallengetohisbeliefina righteousGod.ForaChristiantheologiantotakethischallengeseriously,Moltmannconcludes,heorshemustspeakofa“GodinAuschwitz,”thatis,affirm thattheoneGodofJewsandChristianswaspresentinthemidstofthepresent sufferingsofthepeopleofIsrael.Asonecanseeinthefollowingpassage, Moltmanndrawshisowntrinitariantheologyofthecrosstothedramaticand controversialconclusionofincludingthehorrorsofAuschwitzintoitsmidst:

LikethecrossofChrist,evenAuschwitzisinGodhimself.Even AuschwitzistakenupintothegriefoftheFather,thesurrenderof theSonandthepoweroftheSpirit.ThatnevermeansthatAuschwitzandothergrislyplacescanbejustified onlywiththeannihilationofdeathwilltheSonhandoverthekingdomtotheFather. ThenGodwillturnhissorrowintoeternaljoy....Godin Auschwitz andAuschwitzinthecrucifiedGod—thatisthebasisforareal hopewhichbothembracesandovercomestheworld,andthe groundforalovewhichisstrongerthandeathandcansustain death.107

Inpassagessuchasthisone,Moltmanndoesnotseektoexplaintheradical evilofAuschwitzbutrathertoembraceitshorrorsinthemidstoftheloving beingofGod.Insodoing,heaimstooffermeaningfulhopebothforitsvictims andforthefutureoftheworld.

BydepictingthebiblicalGodasaGodof“sufferinglove,”Moltmannchal-

thedialecticofcrucifiedandcreativelove 53 lengesdirectlytwoalternativeresponsestothetheodicyquestion,thatoftheismandthatofprotestatheism.AlthoughMoltmannreferstoseveralversions oftheismin TheCrucifiedGod —metaphysical,philosophical,orclassical—they allrepresentforhimvariationsonthetheismofclassicalantiquity,inwhich Godisdefinedas“purecausality”orthe“unconditionedmover.”108 Here,as hedoesrepeatedlyinhislaterworks,MoltmanncaststhisHellenisticGodof theisminanextremelyharshlight.Hespotlightsthoseclassicalattributesthat are negations offinitude(forexample,indivisibility,immutability,and,most important,impassibility)toemphasizehowtheGodofclassicaltheismisa remoteandimpersonalbeing.109

Moltmann’scritiqueoftheismfollowsthelead(althoughnotuncritically) oftwoofhisProtestantcolleaguesatthetime,EberhardJu¨ngelandHansGeorgGeyer.110 ForMoltmannaswellastheothers,thecross-eventchallenges basicHellenisticmetaphysicalpresuppositionsthatexcludesufferingand deathfromGod.Theearlychurchadvancedfurthesttowardrealizingthis metaphysicalrevolutionbypositingadoctrineoftheTrinitythatspokeofGod intermsoftheincarnationandcross-event.Thistheologicalrevolutionhad beenhalted,however,bythe“intellectualbarrier”ofthe“Platonicaxiomofthe essential apatheia ofGod.”111 Oncesufferingwaslimitedtothehumannature ofJesusattheCouncilofChalcedonand theopaschitism wassubsequentlyrejectedattheCouncilofConstantinople,theGodoftheismtriumphedagain. AlthoughMoltmanndoesnotstatethisexplicitlyin TheCrucifiedGod,heappearstoconcludethattheHellenizedGodoftheismhas(withfewexceptions) eclipsedthetrulytrinitarianconceptofthesufferingGodinWesterntheology everthereafter.

Regardlessifoneagreeswiththishistoricaljudgmentornot,theheartof Moltmann’scritiqueoftheismisnotphilosophicalbutsoteriological;inhis view,theismfailstoaddressmeaningfullytheproblemofevil.Onthisissue Moltmannsideswiththe“protestatheism”ofCamusandDostoyevsky,who rejectedtheexistenceofanomnipotentandgraciousGodwhoremainsimpassiveinthefaceofthedeepinjusticeandhumansufferingintheworld. MoltmannagreeswiththemthatanapatheticGodisdeficientinbeing,rather thanitssupremeperfection.AGodwhoremainsunmovedbyhiscreation’s sufferingjeopardizestheverygoodnessofGod.Intheauthor’swords,“AGod whocannotsufferispoorerthananyman....Buttheonewho cannotsuffer cannotloveeither.Soheisalsoalovelessbeing.”112

EvenasMoltmannassumestheprotestatheist’scritiqueoftheism,he subjectsittoequalcriticism.Hechargesitwithnaiveanthropocentrismand nihilism:protestatheismeitherdivinizeshumanityorsuccumbstomeaninglessness.113 Atitsroot,protestatheismsuffersfromthesamefalseassumption astheism;itassumesthattherealityofGodandsufferingarecontradictions tooneanother.

ForMoltmann,thetrinitariantheologyofthecrossovercomesthesetwo

alternativesbyoverturningthe apatheia axiom.Asheasserts,“God’sbeingis insufferingandthesufferingisinGod’sbeingitself,becauseGodislove.”114 ThekeytograspingMoltmann’sargumenthereliesinhowhedefinesdivine lovenotasafreedom from sufferingbutasafreedom for suffering.Toappreciatethesignificanceofthisshift,itisimportanttorecallthatfortheclassical Christiantradition,divinelovewasviewedasanactofbenevolenceorgoodwill inwhichGodaffectsus,butinwhichGodremainsunaffectedinGod’sself.115 ForclassicaltheologianssuchasAugustineandAquinas,allformsofvulnerabilitywereexcludedfromtheconceptofdivinelovebecausetheywouldindicatethatGodhadchangedorbeendeterminedbyanalienforce.Suchan ideawassimplyinconceivableforaGoddefinedintermsofperfectbeingand purecausality.Likewise,allformsofemotionwereexcludedfromthedivine being,sincetheywereperceivedasaformofpassivityandhenceasanimperfectioninthedivinebeing.

Onthebasisofthedivinepassionrevealedinthecross-event,Moltmann arguesotherwise.AlthoughheagreesthatGodcannotbesubjecttoinvoluntary suffering,heproposesanalternativenotionofdivinelove:“activesuffering,” inwhichGodchoosesorallowshimselftobeaffectedbyothersofhisown freewill.116 Ifdivineloveisunderstoodas“activesuffering,”Godcanbeaffectedbyhispersonalrelationshiptotheworldwithoutthisbecomingadeficiencyinhisbeing.InacrucialpassageMoltmannpresentshisargument succinctly:

Ifloveistheacceptanceoftheotherwithoutregardtoone’sown well-being,thenitcontainswithinitselfthepossibilityofsharingin sufferingand freedomtosufferasaresultoftheothernessofthe other....

Theonewhoiscapableofloveisalsocapableofsuffering,forhe alsoopenshimselftothesufferingwhichisinvolvedinlove,andyetremainssuperiortoitbyvirtueofhislove. Thejustifiabledenialthat Godiscapableofsufferingbecauseofadeficiencyinhisbeingmay notleadtoadenialthatheisincapableofsufferingoutofthefullnessofhisbeing,i.e.hislove.117

CentraltoMoltmann’sargumenthereisthatasfreelychosenor“activesuffering,”divinelovemaintainsitstranscendenceoverhumansuffering.Inother words,thereisanasymmetrybetweenGod’swillandtheevilsoftheworld. Giventhisasymmetry,divinepassibilitydoesnothavethenegativeconsequencesthattheclassicaltheistsuggests,namely,thatGodbecomesavictim ofhumanfinitude.

Thisconceptofdivineloveas“freedom for suffering”respondsequallyto theprotestatheist’saccusationagainstaGodindifferenttotheconcretesufferingofhumankind.Byembracingthecontradictionsofdeathinloveitself, God’ssufferingloveofferssolidaritywithhumansufferingandrealhopefor adifferentfuture.Althoughtheactivesufferingofthecrossdoesnotofferany

55 sortofanswer(or,evenworse,ajustification)tothequestionofevil’sexistence, itdoesofferasoteriologicalresponse.Moreover,thisnotionofactivesuffering nullifiestheprotestatheist’sclaimthatatheologyofthecrossinculcatespassivesubmissivenesstosufferingbecauseitimpliesthatthehumanprotest againstevilandsufferingremainsaliveinGod.Divinesufferingdoesnot silencetherightfulprotestagainsthumansuffering;onthecontrary,itintensifiesitbymakingitGod’sown.

OnefinalobservationisinorderaboutMoltmann’sdepictionofthebiblicalGodofsufferinglovein TheCrucifiedGod.Ifwecastourmindsbackto the TheologyofHope,wecanseehowMoltmann’sdichotomybetweenthe sufferingGodofthecrossandtheapatheticGodofclassicaltheismin The CrucifiedGod correspondstohisjuxtapositionofthebiblicalandHellenistic conceptsofGodinhisearlierwork.Theretheauthorjuxtaposedthebiblical GodofExodusandoftheresurrection-eventtotheGodofParmenides,and alsotheeschatologicalparadigmofbiblicalrevelationasapromissoryeventin historytothetranscendentalHellenisticparadigmofan“epiphanyoftheeternalpresent.”Moltmannmakesthissamehistorical-eschatologicaldistinction betweenthebiblicalandHellenisticviewsofthedivinein TheCrucifiedGod, butnowheaddsanotherdimensiontohisargument—divinepassibility.Here weencounterthedivinepathosoftheGodofIsraelandofthe“CrucifiedGod,” directlychallengingantiquity’sidealof apatheia asthemetaphysicalandethical perfectionofGod.

Moltmann’soppositionbetweenthebiblicalconceptofGodandtheHellenisticconceptdevelopsonestepfurtherin TheCrucifiedGod.Henolonger contraststheseastworivaltheisticconceptsashepreviouslyhadin Theology ofHope butinsteadadvancesanexplicitlytrinitarianconceptofthebiblical Godoverandagainstthatofphilosophicaltheism.Ifwearetograspthehistory ofthisbiblicalGodofhopeasthecrucifiedGod,Moltmanninsiststhatwe mustmakeanontologicaldifferentiationwithinastrictlymonotheisticunderstandingofGod.ThisinitialdifferentiationinthebeingofGodsetsthestage forwhatwewillseeemergeinhislaterwork,namely,theauthor’sjuxtaposition ofhissocialtrinitarianproposaltoanyundifferentiatedandmonarchicalform ofmonotheism.

TheDialecticofCrucifiedandCreativeLove

InthischapterIhaveexploredMoltmann’searliestmajorworksinorderto discoverthespecificallybiblicaloriginsofhistrinitariantheologyandtoidentifyhisearlyconceptofdivine agape asafoilforthenotionoftrinitarianlove thatemergesinhislaterwork.Moltmann’s“dialecticalchristology”hasbeen atthecenterofthischapter’sinvestigation,asIlookedfirstattheauthor’s eschatologicalinterpretationofthe“resurrectionofthecrucifiedChrist”in

TheologyofHope andthenathiscomplementaryinterpretationofthe“crucifixionoftherisenOne”in TheCrucifiedGod.

In TheologyofHope,IuncoveredwhatItermedaprolegomenatoMoltmann’sdoctrineofGod,thatis,hisdistinctivemodelofbiblicalrevelationas adialectical,historical,andeschatologicalpromissory-event.HereIemphasizedinparticularMoltmann’sinterpretationoftheresurrectionasanunconditionalyeteschatologicalpromiseofvictoryoverdeathandofnewcreation. Asarestlesspromise(promissioinquieta),theresurrection-eventproducesan ongoingdialecticthatdrawshistory—curiouslyenough,fromitsanticipated end—towarditsconsummationintheeschatologicalkingdomofGod.We couldonlygatherafewcluestothenatureofthisbiblicalGodfromMoltmann’searlydescriptionsofGod’sactivitiesinhistory:Godappearsasthe powerofthefuture,thedialecticalprincipleofcreativetransformation,and thesourceofcreativepossibilityandfreedom.Fromthesedescriptions,IconcludedthatMoltmannsawthebiblicalGodinthisearliestworkchieflyasthe eschatologicalsourceofhopeandnewlife.

IpursuedMoltmann’sdialecticalchristologyfurtherin TheCrucifiedGod, wherethecross-eventbecamethenewfocalpointofMoltmann’stheological investigation.HereIshowedhowtheauthorreplacedhisearlierinterpretation ofthecross-eventassheernegativityanddivineabsencewithaquitedifferent one:God’sdialecticalidentificationwiththatwhichcontradictsGod’sverybeing—godforsakennessandtheevilsoftheworld.Moltmanntookthisradical theologyofthecrossastepfurtherinresponsetothechallengeraisedbythe theodicyquestion.Thecross-eventbecomesaneventinGodthroughwhich divineloveembracesandeschatologicallyovercomesitsveryoppositewithin itself.Thissoteriologicalinterpretationofthecross-eventasadeathinGod providedtheimpetusforMoltmann’sshifttowardatrinitarianconceptofGod inthisperiod.

DespiteMoltmann’sstatedaimtoradicallyreformtheclassicaldoctrine oftheTrinity,wesawthathisinitialtrinitariantheologywasinfactquite rudimentary.Heoffersatrinitarianunderstandingofkenosisatthecrossevent,inwhichtheFatherandtheSonmutuallyenactthisself-surrendering actoflove.Althoughcastinahighlysubordinaterole,theSpiritappearsalso atthecross-eventasdivine agape —asthebondoflovejoiningtheFatherand theSon,andasthegiftofcreativelovethatreconcilestheworldtoGod.When viewedtogether,thesedifferentiatedactsofloveprovidetheunderlyingdialecticalstructureofMoltmann’searlytrinitarianhistoryofGod,ahistorythat tracesanontologicaldivisioninGod’sbeingthatisreconciledthroughthe eschatologicalworkoftheSpirit.Inkeepingwiththepromissorynatureof divinerevelationthatheintroducedin TheologyofHope,Moltmanndescribes thistrinitarianhistoryofGodasanopendialectic.Thetrinitariancross-event isopentohumankindandtoallofhumanhistory,anditremainssountilthe

eschatologicalconsummationofthekingdomofGod,whenallthingswillbe takenupintothemidstofthetrinitarianlife.

Atthispointinhiscareer,Moltmannhasyettodevelophismaturesocial doctrineoftheTrinity.Alreadyprominent,however,inthisearlyperiodisthe inextricablelinkbetweentheauthor’strinitarianismandhissoteriologicalvisionofdivinelove.ThedoctrineoftheTrinityisnothingotherthanthestory ofGod’sunconditionalandsalvificloveactingonbehalfofhumankind.In Moltmann’swords,“ThedoctrineoftheTrinitycanbeunderstoodasaninterpretationoftheground,theeventandtheexperienceofthatloveinwhich theonewhohasbeencondemnedtolovefindsnewpossibilityforlifebecause hehasfoundinitthegraceoftheimpossibilityofthedeathofrejection.”118 It isthestoryofthevictoryofdivineloveoverthedepthsofhumansuffering.

Throughcarefulinvestigationofthistrinitariandialecticatthecross-event, wehavebeenabletodisclosetheshapeofMoltmann’searlyviewofdivine love.Onmyreadingofhisworks,divine agape manifestsitselfintwoforms— ascrucifiedandcreativelove.Bycrucifiedlove,Iamreferringspecificallyto thedivinecompassionorsufferingwiththeotherthatwesawenactedbythe FatherandtheSonatChrist’sdeathatthecross.Moltmannpresentsthis crucifiedloveasanunconditionalformofdivinepathos,inwhichGodinGod’s selfsuffersthegriefofabandonmentonbehalfof(personalrepresentation) andinsolidaritywithhiscreation.Theothersideofthisdialectic,creativelove isclearlymoreofaminorthemethanthatofsufferingloveintheauthor’s earlywork.Thenotionofdivineloveascreativeloveisalreadypresent,however,intheauthor’sdiscussionofGodasthesourceofcreativepossibilityin TheologyofHope.In TheCrucifiedGod,creativelovemanifestsitselfmoreexplicitlyinandthroughtheliberatingactivityoftheHolySpirit,whocreates newlifeinhumankindand,insodoing,returnshumankindtotheembrace ofdivinelove.

Fromthisdialecticoftrinitarianloveascrucifiedandcreativelove,wecan drawonesignificantconclusionaboutMoltmann’searlyunderstandingofdivinelove.Heholdstoapersonalandrelationalnotionofdivine agape,bywhich Imeanthatdivineloveincludesbeingaffectedbyone’spersonalrelationto theother.Inthisrespecttheauthor’sconceptofdivine agape asdivinepathos orfreedomforsufferingdepartssignificantlyfromtheclassicaltradition’snotionofdivineloveasactivebeneficence,anotionthatexcludesGodfrombeing affectedbytheother.

Inconclusion,allowmetoraisetwounresolvedquestionswithregardto thisearlytrinitarianconceptofdivine agape.First,dothetwosidesofMoltmann’sdialecticofdivinelove—crucifiedloveandcreativelove—coherewith oneanothertoprovideaunifiedvisionofGod’sbeingaslove?Wemightstate thisquestionpolemicallyintermsofMoltmann’sdialectic:whereinliesthe identityinthisdialecticalcontradiction?Onesolutiontothisquestionliesin

Moltmann’sproposednotionof agape asanunconditionallovefortheother; bothcrucifiedandcreativelovecouldbesubsumedunderthisgeneralprinciple.Andyetthisbegsthefurtherquestion:Canonecapturethehistoryof Godundersuchadialecticalprinciplewithoutobscuringboththebiblicaland thesoteriologicalrootofMoltmann’snotionofdivinelove?

Asecondimportantquestionremainswithregardtotheexactrelationship thatobtainsbetweendivineandhumanloves.ShouldweunderstandGod’s loveonanalogytoourownhumanexpressionsoflove,orisGod’sloveofsuch aqualitativelydifferentorderthatwecometoknowituniquelyandexclusively throughrevelation?Moltmannseemstopresumesomedegreeofanalogybetweendivineandhumanloves,becauseinseveralplaceshefreelycharacterizes divineloveinhighlyanthropomorphicterms.119 Mostobviously,Moltmann explicatesGod’ssufferingloveatthecrossintermsoftheall-too-humanfeelingsofgriefandabandonment.Andyet,Moltmannalsoseemsin TheCrucified God tofollowLuther’stheologicalepistemology,inwhichtheknowledgeof Godobtainedatthecross-eventdestroystheillusionofanytrueknowledge ofGodobtainedthroughanalogiestothehumansituation.

Sortingoutwhetherthereareanalogiesbetweenthedivineandhuman formsoflove,andifso,towhatdegree,ismorethananepistemologicalquestionforthisstudy.Aswewillseeinchapters4and5,thisquestionreturnsto usinconsideringthetrinitarianpatternsoftheChristianlife:Towhatdegree andthroughwhatpowers(ourownorthroughgrace)canhumanbeingspatternthemselvesaftertheloveofGod?Canwerealizeanykindof imitatio Trinitatis,imitationofthetrinitarianlife,inthefragileandfiniterealitiesof humanrelationsandcommunities?

3TheRelationalOntologyof Loveinthe MessianicTheology

ThischapterinvestigatesMoltmann’ssocialreconstructionofthe doctrineoftheTrinityinthefirstvolumeofhis MessianicTheology, TheTrinityandtheKingdom,andhowitaltershisconceptofdivine love.Bothmethodologicalanddoctrinalissueswillclaimourattentioninthischapter.Onthemethodologicalside,Iwillpointtonew scripturalresourcestowhichMoltmannappealsinsupportofhis socialtrinitarianproposal.Identifyingthesescripturalpatternsand howtheyfunctioninhisdoctrinewillhelptoevaluateoneofthe centralcriticismsraisedagainstMoltmann’ssocialtrinitarianism thatInotedattheoutset,namely,whetherhisdoctrineisgoverned morebytheauthor’ssocialandpoliticalagendathanbythebiblical witness.

InadditiontoMoltmann’suseofscripture,Iwillalsobeidentifyingseveralnewtheologicalconversationpartnersfromwhichhe drawsinspirationforhisdoctrine.DuringthisperiodMoltmannbecameincreasinglyengagedinecumenicaldialoguesandasaresult becamemorecriticalofweaknessesinhisownReformedtradition. Atthesametime,hedevelopedanewappreciationforEasternOrthodoxtheology,especiallyforitsdoctrinesoftheHolySpiritandof salvation,andsoughtcreativewaystoappropriatethesetradition’s insightsintohistheologicalproposals.

Onthedoctrinalside,ourprimarytaskwillbetouncoverthe conceptualframeworkofMoltmann’ssocialreconstruction,inparticular,hisconceptsofthedivinepersons,theirrelations,andtheir unitywithoneanother.TheseconceptsnotonlystructureMoltmann’strinitariandoctrinebutalsoprovidethebuildingblocksfor

histheologicalanthropologyandhisviewsonredemptionandsanctification, towhichwewillturninchapters4and5.Relatedtothisdoctrinaldevelopment wewillalsopursueseveralquestionsconcerningGod’seternalnatureaslove: Howdoestheauthor’sconceptofdivinelovemateriallychangefromwhathe presentedinhisearlydialecticofcrucifiedandcreativelove?Whatarethe implicationsofhismessianicperspectiveofGod’snatureonhisclaimsabout God’sbeingaslove?Finally,howdoesMoltmannrelateclaimsaboutGod’s beingaslovetothoseaboutGod’sfreedom,especiallyinrelationshiptothe creationandredemptionoftheworld?Inansweringthesequestions,wewill bereturningtoanotheroneofthemostcontestedaspectsofMoltmann’stheology,namely,whetherhisconstrualoftheGod-worldrelationshipcompromisesdivinesovereigntytothevicissitudesofhumanhistory.

TowardanEschatologicalDoctrineoftheTrinity

TheTurntoTrinitarianPneumatology

Theyearsbetweenthepublicationof TheCrucifiedGod (1972)andthestartof hisworkon TheTrinityandtheKingdom in1978–79representatransitional phaseinMoltmann’sthinking.Hepresentednomajortrinitarianproposals ontheorderofwhathehadsetforthin TheCrucifiedGod.Hedid,however, makesignificantemendationsandexpansionsonhisearlierdialecticaltrinitarianismincertainprogrammaticessaysandinhismajorworkduringthis period, TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit (1975).Themostsignificantamong theseshiftsisMoltmann’sdevelopmentofarobustpneumatology,which,in turn,revitalizedtheeschatologicaldimensionofhistheologicalprogram.

Justaswiththetheologyofthecrossinthelatesixties,amixtureofchurchpoliticalandtheologicalissuespromptedMoltmann’srenewedinterestin pneumatologyduringtheearlyandmidseventies.Intermsofchurchpolitics, Moltmanncontinuedtobetroubledbytheongoingcrisisofrelevancethatthe GermanProtestantchurchwasexperiencing.1 Likemostestablishedorstate churchesinEurope,theProtestantchurchinGermanyfounditselfinarapidly secularizingsocietythatlookedtothechurchneithertoaddressitsspiritual needsnortoansweritspressingsocialandpoliticalquestionsoftheday.Moltmannsawthechurch’scrisisasanopportunityforaradicalreformationof thechurch’sself-understandinganditsorganizationalstructure.Asheexplainedyearslater,theGermanProtestantchurchfounditselfatacrossroads: eitheritwouldcontinuedownthissameinstitutionalpathandbecomethe “organizedreligionofthestate,”oritwouldreformitselfinto“acommunity churchofthepeopleofGod.”2 Withthehopeofcontributingtosucharadical reformationofthepost–WorldWarII Volkskirche intoafreechurchstructure, Moltmanndevotedthethirdvolumeofhistrilogy, TheChurchinthePowerof theSpirit (1975),tothethemeofecclesiology.

Fromtheveryfirst,Moltmann’secclesiologydidnotenjoythecriticalsuccessofhistwopriorworks;nordiditachievehishoped-forreformationofthe Volkskirche intoafreechurchstructure.Itprovedfruitful,however,infocusing Moltmann’sattentiononceagainontheroleoftheHolySpirit,especiallyin theprocessesofjustificationandsanctification—whathecallsbringingabout thepromisednewcreation.3 ForMoltmann,thechurchquicklybecameasubordinatedoctrinalthemetothewidermessianicactivityoftheHolySpiritin realizingthekingdomofGodintheworld.

Specificcriticismsof TheCrucifiedGod alsoprovokedMoltmann’sreturn topneumatologyinthisperiod.4 Inthepreviouschapterwealreadysawsome ofthesecriticismsofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyofthecrossemerge:the ambiguitiesinhisdialecticalepistemologyandtheHegeliantendenciesthat othershadidentifiedinhistrinitariantheology.UnderlyingbothofthesecriticismsisaconcernaboutMoltmann’sassertionthatthecrossistheconstitutiveeventfortheChristiandoctrineofGod.ManyofMoltmann’scritics interpretedthisstatementtobesuggestingthatGodfirstbecameTrinityinthe cross-event.Forexample,HermannusMiskottechallengedMoltmann’sstaurocentricapproachtotrinitariandoctrineonthegroundsthatiteclipsedthe distinctiveworkandpersonsoftheFatherandtheSpiritintheeconomyof salvation.Miskotteaskswhether,if“thecrossisthebeginningofthetrinitarian historyofGod,”then“theSonappearstohavebecomethe‘fonsdeitatis.’”He drewparticularattentiontotheindefinitenessofthepersonandworkofthe HolySpiritin TheCrucifiedGod asindicativeofMoltmann’sflawedtrinitarian theologyofthecross;theSpirit,hecriticized,appearedmorelikea“divine power”thanactuallyapersonal“modeofbeingoftheTrinity.”5

Inhis1979responsetocriticsof TheCrucifiedGod,Moltmannreaffirmed hispositionthatthecross-eventisthesoteriologicalstartingpointfortrinitariandoctrine,becausethisiswherethehumanbeingfirstexperienceshisor herliberationfromGod’sjudgmentandabandonment.6 Moltmanndidthink thathiscriticshaddiscoveredaneuralgicpointinhistrinitariantheologyof thecross.Hisone-sidedfocusonthecross-event’simplicationsfortheGodheadhadeclipsedthedistinctiveactivityoftheHolySpiritwithintheeconomy ofsalvation.AsMoltmannwrotemanyyearslaterabouthistrinitarianproposal in TheCrucifiedGod,“IdidnotgetfurtherthanseeingabinityofGodthe FatherandJesustheSonofGod.WherewastheHolySpirit,whoaccording totheNiceneCreedistobeworshippedandglorifiedtogetherwiththeFather andtheSon?”7

Inconjunctionwiththeseshortcomingsinhistrinitariantheologyofthe cross,Moltmannbegantoquestionwhetheracertainsubordinationofthe SpiritwasendemictotheWesterntrinitariantradition.Henoted,forexample, howhisbinitarianinterpretationofthecross-eventfollowedcloselytheWesternAugustinianloveanalogyfortheTrinity,inwhichtheFatherandSon appearastheloverandthebeloved,andtheSpiritasthebondoflove(vinculum

amoris)thatjoinsthetwo.Justasinhisowntrinitariantheologyofthecross, here,too,inAugustine’striadoflove,theSpiritismorea“hypostatizationof arelation”thanits“ownpersonality,”andthusneveremergesasadivine personequaltotheFatherandSon.8 IntheendMoltmannconcludedthathis trinitarianinterpretationofthecross-eventhadsimplyrecapitulatedthisAugustinianpatternoftheSpiritasthebondoflovethatunitestheFatherand theSonattheirpointofdeepestseparationandmutualforsakenness.9

MoltmannlinksthissubordinationoftheSpiritinAugustine’sandhis owntrinitarianschemastoafurtherproblemthathepinpointsintheWestern formulationoftheTrinity:itssingularemphasisonthesendingoftheSon andtheSpiritintotheworldandonthecorrespondinginternalprocessions intheGodhead.TroublingtoMoltmannaboutthiswayofformulatingtrinitariandoctrine—whattheauthordescribesasmovingfromthe“Trinityinthe sending”tothe“Trinityintheorigin”—isthatitoverlookstheeschatological aspectsofthetrinitarianhistoryofGodwiththeworld.10 Inotherwords,it doesnottakeintoaccountthestilloutstandinghistoryofGodthatreaches beyondtheinitialsendingoftheSonandtheSpiritintotheworld.Thistraditional“protological”approachtothedoctrineassumesfurtherthatallintradivineactivitiesstemfromtheFatherandtheSon,andneverfromtheHoly Spirit.WhiletheSpiritmaybeactiveintermsofhermissiontowardtheworld, sheappearsmerelypassiveastheonewhoisbeingsentbytheFatherand Son.11

Moltmanndiscoversthistraditionalstructureofthe“Trinityinthesending”andthe“Trinityintheorigin”repristinatedinhistrinitariantheologyof thecross.He,too,hadextrapolatedfromtheFather’sandSon’sactionsinthe cross-eventadescriptionoftheirinnerrelations.Asaresult,theSpirithad beenguaranteedneitheritsowndistinctactivityintheeconomyofsalvation noranactiverelationshiptowardtheFatherandtheSon.Despitethesesubordinationisttendencies,Moltmanndidnotaltogetherabandonhistrinitarian theologyofthecross.Instead,hesoughttoresolvethisimbalancebydevelopingahistoryoftheSpiritthatcomplementedhisearlierhistoryoftheSon. ThroughthishistoryoftheSpirit,Moltmannsoughttodojusticetothefull divinepersonhoodoftheSpiritwhileatthesametimerecoveringthecrucial eschatologicaldimensionsoftheTrinity’sengagementwiththeworld.

TheEschatologicalSpiritofNewCreationandtheTrinity intheGlorification

MoltmanndevelopsthebasicoutlinesofhishistoryoftheSpiritinhisprogrammaticessay“TheTrinitarianHistoryofGod”(1973)andfillsitinsubsequentlywithmuchgreaterdetailin TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit.He essentiallybeginswhereheleftoffin TheCrucifiedGod— withthehistoryof Christ—butnowapproachesthishistoryasitwerefromtheothersideofhis

christologicaldialectic.Hefocusesonthedivineactivityintheresurrectioneventandlookstowarditseschatologicalgoal.12

MoltmanndrawstogetheramosaicofPaulinetextsinordertointerpret theresurrection-eventasarevelationoftheFather’sglory—as“thedivineunfoldingofsplendourandbeauty”13 throughtheactivitiesoftheSonandthe Spirit.IntegraltotheFather’sglorificationistheeschatologicaltransfiguration andparticipationofallofcreationwithinthegloryoftheGodhead.“ThemissionofChrist,”Moltmanncontends,“achievesitspurposewhenmenand creationareunitedwithGod.InthisunionGodisglorifiedthroughmenand inittheypartakeofthegloryofGodhimself.”14 Althoughthegloryofthe FatherhasalreadybeenanticipatedintheSon’sresurrection,itwillfirstbe broughttoitsultimateconclusionwithGod’seternalindwellinginhiscreation.

TheheartoftheHolySpirit’smissionistoaccomplishthiseschatological goalofdivineglorificationandunification.TheSpiritdoesnotsimplyapply thejustificationofthesinnerthatisalreadyfullyaccomplishedinChrist,but infactconsummatesorcompletessalvationbyglorifyingcreaturesanddrawingthemintojoyfulfellowshipwithGod.TheSpiritcreatesfellowshipbetween Godandhumanbeings,andinsodoingsparksfreedomandjoyfulnessin God’screatures.AsMoltmannformulatesthis,“TheSpiritglorifiestheFather andtheSonbyfreeingmenforfellowshipwiththem,fillingmenintheir freedomwithjoyandthanksgiving.TheglorifyingoftheSonandtheFather throughtheSpiritsetsmenontheroadtowardsthegloryforwhichthey themselvesaredestined.”

15 HeretheHolySpiritactsnotonlyasthatbondof lovethatuniteshumanitytotheatoningloveofFatherandSonatthecross butalsoasthecreativepowerofGod’seschatologicalfuture.Throughthe glorifyingactivityoftheSpirit,humankindexperiencesnotsimplyfreedom fromitssinfulpastbutalsofreedomforthecreativetransformationofthis life.16

Moltmann’sdescriptionoftheworkoftheHolySpiritbuildsonmuchwe havealreadyseenin TheologyofHope and TheCrucifiedGod.TheretheSpirit alreadyappearedasthe“powerofthefuture”andasthe“creativelove”ofGod thatbringsnewpossibilitiesandlifeintotheworld.Genuinelynew,however, istheauthor’sattentiontothetransfigurativeworkoftheSpirit,whichcreates thepossibilityforhumankind’sintimatefellowshipwithGod.ThisnewemphasisonthetransformativeenergiesoftheSpiritcanbetracedtoacrucial influenceonMoltmann’sthinkingduringthisperiod—thatofEasternOrthodoxtheology.Throughouttheseventies,MoltmanngrewincreasinglyfascinatedbyEasternOrthodoxtheologythroughhisinvolvementinecumenical dialogueswiththeFaithandOrderCommissionoftheWorldCouncilof Churches,aswellasthroughhispersonalfriendshipwithRomanianOrthodox theologianDimitruStaniloae.17

WhatespeciallycapturedMoltmann’sinterestwastheOrthodoxmodelof salvationasdeification,andparticularlyitsemphasisontheHolySpirit’srole

intransfiguringthelifeofthebeliever.In TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit, MoltmannintegratesthisnewmodelofsalvationalongsideofhisReformed tradition’sclassicalemphasesontheforgivenessofsinnersthroughthework ofChristandthejustificationbyfaithofthebeliever.AlthoughMoltmann neverabandonseitherofthesecentralReformedtenetsasthestartingpoint oftheChristianlife,henowviewsthemasincompletewithoutanequalemphasisonsanctificationandtheliberatedlifeofthebeliever.18 Moreover,he derivesfromtheOrthodoxunderstandingoffaithasdoxologyanotherimportantelementthathefoundlargelyabsentfromProtestantnotionsoftheChristianlife—anattitudeofjoyfulthanksgivinganddelightinthegoodnessof God.19

BasedonthedeepenedunderstandingoftheSpirit’smissionintheeconomyofsalvation,Moltmanndevelopsasecondschemaoftrinitarianrelations inhistory,“theTrinityintheglorification,”thatcompleteshisearliernarrative oftheSon’sandtheSpirit’smissionsintotheworld.Ifthe“Trinityinthe sending”tracesthedivinepersons’missionsintotheworld,the“Trinityinthe glorification”correspondstothereverseofthatpattern;itrepresentsthedivine persons’gatheringandunitingoftheworldintotheheartofGod’sloving being.20 WhereintheformerschemaalldivineactivityoriginatesintheFather andmovestowardthesendingoftheSpirit,inthelatteroneallactivityproceedsfromtheSpirittowardtheglorificationoftheFather.

AlthoughMoltmanndoesnothimselfmakespecificreferencetotheNeoplatonicemanation-return(exitus-reditus)paradigminexplaininghisexpanded versionofthetrinitarianhistoryofGod,onecanhardlymistakeitsresemblancetothisancientpattern.The“Trinityinthesending”tracesthe“loveof Godissuingfromitself,”whilethe“Trinityintheglorification”followsthe returnofdivinelovewithallofcreationintoGod.21 Insteadoftheincarnation, herethecross-andresurrection-eventsbecometheturningpointinMoltmann’srevisionofthisemanationandreturnschema,fortheseeventsrepresentthehistoricaljunctureatwhichtheseekingloveofGodistransformed intothegatheringloveofGod.

MostsignificantaboutMoltmann’sformulationoftheTrinityintheglorificationisthatitcrystallizesforthefirsttimetheeschatologicalgoalofhis trinitarianhistoryofGod:theindwellingofallofcreationwithinthetrinitarian life.MoltmannrootsthisvisionofGod“becomingallinall”inthescriptures bycombiningaspectsofPaulineeschatologywiththeapocalypticvisionofthe BookofRevelation.22 Accordingtothesebiblicaltraditions,Godwillnolonger standoverandagainstcreationintheeschatologicalkingdombutwillindwell initsverymidst.Atthesametime,allofcreationwillbesotransfiguredso astoparticipatefullyinthelifeandgloryofGod.

TherewerealreadyglimpsesofMoltmann’s“eschatologicalpanentheism” in TheCrucifiedGod,wherethecross-eventappearedasanopeneventawaiting itsconsummationthroughtheinclusionoftheworldintheembraceofdivine

23 In TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,Moltmanntakesonestepfurther, however,andintegratesthispanentheisticvisionintothemidstofthetrinitarianlifeitself.Justasthecross-eventisaneventinthedivinelife,nowthe eschatologicalconsummationofcreationbecomesequallyforhima“happeningwithintheTrinity.”24 Intakingthistheologicalstep,Moltmanntiesthe glorificationoftheTrinitydirectlytotheeschatologicaldestinyofcreation. Divineglorificationarrivesonlythroughtheliberationofandfellowshipwith creation.

TheDoctrineoftheTrinityandtheNatureofDivineLoveRevisited

Moltmann’snewlyproposed“eschatologicalhistoryoftheSpirit”hassignificantimplicationsforhisreconstructionofWesterntrinitariandoctrineandhis understandingofdivineloveinhislaterwork.Inexaminingtheseimplications, itisessentialtobearinmindthefundamentalmethodologicalprinciplethat structuresMoltmann’sreconstructionoftrinitariandoctrine,namely,thatGod iswhoGodis pronobis.Aswesawearlierin TheCrucifiedGod,thissoteriologicalprinciplemeansthatMoltmannclaimsquiteradicallythatGod’ssalvific activityonbehalfofhumankindinthecross-eventdoesnotjustmanifestthe truebeingofGodbutactuallyconstitutesit.ThisiswhyMoltmannabandons (atleastprovisionallyin TheCrucifiedGod)thetraditionaldistinctionbetween theimmanentoreternalTrinityandtheeconomicorrevealedone.Initsplace heproposeshisoneunifiedconceptofthetrinitarianhistoryofGod,inwhich trinitarianbeingistobefoundintheunfoldingdialecticofGod’shistorywith theworld.

Theadditionofnewpneumatologicaldimensionstothistrinitarianhistory ofGodrendersMoltmann’ssoteriologicalreconstructionoftrinitariandoctrine atoncemuchmorecomplex.Thereisnolongerthesingleeventofthecross, butnowanentirenarrativeofdivineactivitiesthatconstitutesthishistory.This narrativestretchesbackintimefromthecrosstothesendingforthoftheSon andSpiritfromtheFather;similarly,thisnarrativecontinuesonfromthecross totheconsummationandglorificationofcreationintothetrinitarianbeingin theeschaton.Asaresult,theTrinitynowappearsasopentotheworldnot simplyattheruptureofthecross-eventbut,inMoltmann’swords,fromits “veryorigin,”25 thatis,fromthesendingsoftheSonandSpiritintotheworld fromtheFather.Moreover,theTrinityremainsopenuntilthegathering,uniting,andglorifyingoftheworldinthegloryofGod.

Giventhisfundamentalopennessoftrinitarianbeingtohistory,Moltmann abandonsaltogethertheclassicalWesternstructureofthedoctrineintermsof eternalprocessionsandtemporalmissions.Hedoessoonthegroundsthat nosinglesetofrelationsamongtheFather,theSon,andtheSpiritcanbe specifiedthatwillcorrespondtotheeternaltrinitarianbeingassuch.Inplace ofsuchafixedconceptualreformulationofthedoctrine,Moltmannturnsin-

steadtovariousnarrativedepictionsofthisdynamictrinitarianmovementin history.ThesenarrativesrecountthechangingrelationshipsamongtheFather, theSon,andtheSpiritthatreflectboththevariousoperationsoftheTrinityin historyand“thedivineexperienceofhistory.”26 Inotherwords,thesenarratives recounthowthethreedivinepersonsaffectthehistoryoftheworldandhow thathistoryconverselyaffectsthetrinitarianbeing.

AtthispointinMoltmann’semergingtrinitariantheology,heconstrues justtwonarrativesoftrinitarianrelations—theTrinityinthesendingandthe Trinityintheglorification—todescribethisentiretrinitarianhistoryofGod. In TheCrucifiedGod,hehadalreadyexploredatlengththeTrinityinthesendinganddrewforthavisionofGod’sbeingaspassionateself-givingandsufferinglove.TothisMoltmannnowaddstheTrinityintheglorification,which revealsthedivinedelightovertheliberationofcreationanditsfreedomfor newlife.Intheauthor’swords:“Ifwethinkinthedirectionoftheglorification, then...we musttalkaboutGod’sjoy(asalreadyinIsa.62.4–5;Zeph.3.17), God’shappinessandfelicity(ITim.1.11;6.15;Luke15.7;Matt.25.21;John15.11; 16.20;Rom.14.17;15.13).”27

Wesawglimpsesoftheseliberativeandjoyfuldimensionsoftrinitarian loveinMoltmann’sfewreferencestotheHolySpirit’sactivitiesin TheCrucified God.Thesewere,however,verymucheclipsedbyhiscross-centeredfocuson divine agape asfreedomforsuffering.Thispictureshiftsdramaticallyin The ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit.Withthiseschatologicalinterpretationofthe resurrection-event,thecreativeandjoyfulsideoftrinitarianlovenotonlyoccupiescenterstagebutgainspreeminenceasthetelosoftheentirehistory. NowMoltmanndescribesGod’ssufferinginthepassionoftheSonandthe Spiritinservicetothe“historyofGod’sjoyintheSpiritandhiscompleted felicityattheend.”28

OnefinalimplicationofMoltmann’strinitarianpneumatologydeserves ourcarefulattention,namely,howitlendsaneschatologicalopennesstothe trinitarianhistoryofGod.AlthoughMoltmanndoesnotquitegosofarasto stateexplicitlythattheTrinityispresentlyincompleteinitsbeing,hedoes describeitmetaphoricallyasopenforthegatheringofrestoredcreationinto itsmidst.TothedegreethatthetrinitarianhistoryofGodawaitseschatological completionthroughtheglorifyingandunifyingofcreationthroughtheSpirit, so,too,wecansaythatthetrinitarianGodheaditselfawaitseschatological unification.

Inlightofthiseschatologicalhorizonoftrinitarianbeing,Moltmannreviseshiswholenotionofdivineunity.Hepointedlyrejectsthetwodifferent waysthattheEasternandtheWesternchurchfathershavetraditionallyconstrueddivineunity,thatis,eitherintermsoftheFatherasthesourceofthe Godheadorintermsofacommonessencethatcanbelogicallyabstracted fromthethreedivinepersons.Neitherschema,inhisview,correspondsade-

67 quatelytothistrinitarianhistoryofGod.29 Moltmannproposesinsteadthat divineunitybeconstruedasan“eschatologicalgoal”ratherthanan“eternal premise”ofdivinebeing.30 Inotherwords,divineunityemergesinand throughtheconsummationoftheeconomyofsalvation,thatis,throughthe glorificationandunificationoftheFather,theSon,andtheSpiritwitheach otherandtheworld.

In TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,Moltmannoffersonlyapreliminary sketchofhowtoreconceivedivineunityinsucheschatologicalterms.He depictsitasthe“unionofGod”—aunionthatincludesallofcreation.He looksspecificallytotheSpirittoaccomplishthisconsummatingworkinthe world:“Justas[God’s]gloryispresentedtohimfromcreationthroughthe Spirit,sohisunitythroughtheunionofcreationisalsobroughttohimthrough theSpirit.”31 Ashisprecedentforthisnotionofdivineunityasunificationwith creation,Moltmannturnstotherabbinicnotionofdivine Shekinah,theindwellingpresenceofGod,especiallyasithasbeenreinterpretedbythemodern JewishthinkersFranzRosenzweigandAbrahamHeschel.Justastheunityof theHebrewGodis,inRosenzweig’swords,a“BecomingUnity”32 thatincludes thereturnofGod’speopletohim,so,too,Moltmannargues,the“unityofthe triuneGodisthegoaloftheunitingofmanandcreationwiththeFatherand SonintheSpirit.”33

Moltmann’sinitialproposalforaneschatologicalconceptofdivineunity astheunionofGodraisesaseriesofpressingnewquestionsforhisemerging doctrineoftheTrinity.Forexample,whatisthenatureofdivineunityinthe eschaton—anontologicalunityamongtheFather,theSon,andtheSpirit,or merelyavolitionalunitythatisconstitutedbytheirsharedactivityofglorification?Moreover,ifGod’sunityistobeunderstoodasa“becomingunity,” canonespeakmeaningfullyatallaboutadivineunityintheTrinityinthe origin?Andifso,howdoesonerelatethisprotologicalunityofGodtothe eschatologicalone?Shouldonespeakhereofaquantitativeoraqualitative differencebetweenthetwo?Finally,iftheworld’sunificationispartandparcel oftheeschatologicalunionoftheFather,theSon,andtheHolySpirit,does thismeanthatcreationbecomesaneternalnecessityoftrinitarianbeing?

AnswerstothisrangeofquestionswillhavetoawaitMoltmann’sformal reconstructionofthedoctrinein TheTrinityandtheKingdom.Nevertheless, Moltmann’sdescriptionoftheeschatologicalunityoftrinitarianbeingasthe “becomingunity”oftheindwelling Shekinah illuminesourpathforward.It remindsusthatthehermeneuticalkeytoMoltmann’svisionoftrinitarianlove liesinGod’spassionfortheworld,itssalvation,anditsnewcreation.Itbelongs totheessenceofthatdivinepassiontoundertakeapilgrimageinhistoryin ordertoreturnGod’sbelovedcreationtoGod’sself.Likethe Shekinah,the trinitarianGodputstheunityofdivinebeingatriskbylinkingitseschatological destinytothatofcreation.

TheTrinityandtheKingdom:ANewStartingPoint forTrinitarianDoctrine

ANewMethodofProcedure

Withthecompletionofhisearlytrilogyofworksin1975,mostofthebuilding blocksforMoltmann’sreconstructionofthedoctrineoftheTrinitywerein place.Henotonlyhadintegratedbothsidesofhisdialecticalchristologyinto histrinitarianframeworkbutalsohadremediedhisearliersubordinationof theSpiritwithinhistrinitariantheologyofthecross;insodoing,hehadfilled inthepneumatologicalandeschatologicaldimensionsofhistrinitarianeconomyofsalvation.Insum,Moltmannhadfleshedoutthebareskeletonofhis dialecticaltrinitarianhistoryofGodsothatitnowencompassedthechanging relationshipsamongthetrinitarianpersonsfromthesendingoftheSonand theSpiritintotheworldtotheireschatologicalconsummation.

Whatwasstillmissing,however,wasanadequatedoctrinalframework— onethatrepresentsadequatelythenatureofthetrinitarianGodwhoboth affectsthismessianicnarrativeandisaffectedbyit.AsMoltmannenvisioned it,suchadoctrinewouldbeable,inhiswords,to“integrateallofthehistorical experiencesandthereforespeakofthepersons,theirrelationsandthechanges intheirrelationships,i.e.,oftheirhistory.Thiswouldbeadoctrineofthe Trinitywith—abstractlyformulated—changingvectors.”34 By1979Moltmann haddeterminedthecourseforthisdoctrine’sfuturedevelopment.Without abandoninganyofhistrinitarianproposalsfromhisearliertrilogy,hesetout torepresenttheircontentsinadifferentsystematicform—withinwhathe originallycalleda“messianicDogmatics”thatwouldhaveasitsgoalthefreedom ofhumankindinthekingdomofGod:“Fromtheguidingperspectiveofthe TrinityandthekingdomofGod,”Moltmannwrote,“thewaywillbemarked outfromhistoryintofreedom.”35

Moltmannlaunchedhisfull-scalereconstructionofthedoctrinewiththe 1980publicationof TheTrinityandtheKingdom,thefirstvolumeofhis MessianicTheology.Therehedevelopsforthefirsttimehis“socialdoctrineofthe Trinity”asafundamentalcritiqueofthedominanttrajectoryofthedoctrine intheWest.36 Sincethepatristicperiod,Moltmanncontends,Westernformulationsofthedoctrinehaveplacedanundueemphasisontheunityofdivine essenceattheexpenseofthedifferentiatedrelationshipsamongthepersons intheGodhead.Asaresult,Westerntrinitarianismhasdevolvedintowhatthe authortermsaformof“monarchicalmonotheism,”whichdoesjusticeneither tothefullpersonhoodofFather,Son,andSpiritnortothebiblicalunderstandingofdivinesovereigntyinthekingdom.Furthermore,Moltmanncharges thatthismonarchicaldoctrineoftheTrinityhasprovidedadivinelegitimizationforpoliticalordersandecclesialstructuresthathaveunderminedChristian notionsoffreedomandoffellowshipincommunity.37

MoltmannseekstooverturnthemonarchicaltrajectoryofWesterntrinitarianismbydevelopinghissocialdoctrinewithadifferentconceptualframework:“TheWesterntradition,”heexplains,“beganwithGod’sunityandthen wentontoaskaboutthetrinity.WearebeginningwiththetrinityofthePersonsandshallthengoontoaskabouttheunity.”38 Inotherwords,Moltmann’s overallprogramistobeginwiththeactivitiesandthechangingpatternsof relationshipsamongtheFather,theSon,andtheSpirit—bothwitheachother andinrelationtotheworld.Fromthesevarioustrinitarianactivitiesinthe world(operaadextra),Moltmannderiveswhathecallsvarious“trinitarian forms.”39 Thesetrinitarianformsserve,ontheonehand,todistinguishthe threepersonsfromoneanotherand,ontheother,todescribethenatureof divinetriunityasthedynamicsocialityoftheGodhead—whathetermsthe “Trinity’srelationsoffellowship.”40

In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Moltmanncontinuesinmanyrespects exactlywherehisearliertrinitariantheologyleftoff.Notonlydomanyofthe keymotifsfromtheseearlierworksrecurinthisnewwork,butalsothesame methodologicalcriteriaareappliedtothedoctrine’sreconstruction.Mostimportant,Moltmann’sfundamentalmethodologicalprincipleofrevisingthe doctrineinlightofthebiblicalwitnessremainsunchanged.41 Hepursuesa trinitarianhermeneuticsofthescripturesthatfollowsthesamebasiclinesas theonethatweintroducedearlierin TheCrucifiedGod;hedefendsthedoctrine oftheTrinityasalegitimateinterpretationofthevariousnarrativesthatare containedinthescriptures.

Intermsoftheactualcontentofthistrinitariannarrative, TheTrinityand theKingdom doesrepresentasignificantadvanceupontheearlierversionsof thetrinitarianhistoryofGod.HereforthefirsttimeMoltmannintegrates(at leastinacompressedform)alltheTrinity’sactivitiesintheworldfromtheact ofcreationtoeschatologicalconsummationintohistrinitarianhistoryofGod. Aswewillseeahead,theauthor’snewtrinitarianinterpretationsofbothcreationandtheeventoftheincarnationareofparticularsignificance,sincethese interpretationsdeepenMoltmann’saccountofthe“Trinityinthesending”and insodoingcontributetohisreinterpretationofthenatureofthetrinitarian love.

CoupledwithMoltmann’sexpansionofthetrinitarianhistoryofGodisa morecomprehensiveandvariegateduseofthebiblicaltexts.From TheTrinity andtheKingdom onward,Moltmannweavestogetheranevermorecomplex tapestryofbiblicaltextstowhichheappealsinordertoilluminatethedifferent rolesoftheFather,theSon,andtheSpiritinthetrinitarianhistory.Totakea centralcaseinpoint:in TheCrucifiedGod Moltmannreliedchieflyonthe GospelofMarkandonPaulinelettersasthescripturalresourcesforhishistory oftheSon.Manyofthesesameinterpretationsofkeybiblicaltextsreappear intactinthenewversionofthe“historyoftheSon”presentedin TheTrinity andtheKingdom.Theyarenowenhanced,however,bybiblicalinterpretations

drawnfromtheothersynopticgospels(particularlyfromMatthew)andeven morefromtheGospelofJohn.Inasimilarfashion,Moltmannappealstoa broaderrangeofbiblicalresourcestogivemoredefinitiontotheactivitiesand personhoodoftheSpiritand,mostnoticeably,tothatoftheFather.These furtherdifferentiationsamongthetrinitarianpersonsandtheirparticularactivitieswithinthetrinitarianhistoryofGodprovecrucialtoMoltmann’ssocial reconstructionofthedoctrine,sinceheconcludesfromthesethedistinctpersonhoodofeachofthethree,aswellasthenatureoftheircommonlove.

Inadditiontoappealingtoagreatervarietyofbiblicaltexts,Moltmann alsoengagesinanintensifieddialoguewiththehistoryoftrinitariantraditions. In TheTrinityandtheKingdom andintheensuingvolumesofhis Messianic Theology,Moltmannaddressesarangeofunsettledtheologicalissuesfromthe past,whilealsosiftingthroughthehistoryofdoctrinefornewinsightsto contemporaryquestions.AsIsuggestedinmyearlierdiscussionofhismethodology,Moltmannhasalwaysinsistedthatitistheparticularnatureoftheologicaltruthstoemergeonlyinafreeandongoingdialogue.Wesawample evidenceofthedialogicalcharacterofhistheologyinhisearlierworks,inwhich heengagedinalivelyconversationwithhiscontemporarycultureandchurch situationandwithhisReformedtheologicaltradition.

WhatdistinguishesMoltmann’sdialogicalapproachinhismaturetheologyisthathisconversationpartnersgreatlyexpandtoincludean“ecumenical fellowship”oftheologiansfromthepast.42 Ofcourse,certainkeytheologians whoalreadyappearedin TheCrucifiedGod remaincenterstagein TheTrinity andtheKingdom.Schleiermacher’smodalismandBarth’sandRahner’smonarchianismstillrepresentthekeyantipodesinmodernitytoMoltmann’ssocialtrinitarianism.Theyarenowjoined,however,byachorusofotherpivotal figuresfromthepatristicandmedievalperiodsofEasternandWesterntrinitariantheology,mostnotablyOrigen,theCappadocianFathers,Augustine,Boethius,JoachimofFiore,andRichardofSt.Victor.Thiseclecticgroupprovides Moltmannwithanarrayofconceptualresourcesforreconstructinghisdoctrine.

KeepinginmindtheseintroductoryremarksonMoltmann’smethodology andhisaimsinformulatingasocialdoctrineoftheTrinity,letusturntothe unusualstructureof TheTrinityandtheKingdom andourmethodofproceeding throughitsargument.EvenforthosewhoarealreadyfamiliarwithMoltmann’s earliertrinitariantheology,thestructureof TheTrinityandtheKingdom appears atfirstglanceutterlyopaque.Moltmannneitherbeginsinthetraditionalway withaprolegomenathatintroduceshistheologicalmethodandoutlineshis resourcesnorprovidesaformalintroductiontotheorderandstructureofthe topicsabouttounfold.InabriefopeningchapterMoltmanndoessituatehis trinitarianprojectinthecontemporarydebatebyraisingthemajormodern objectionstoanyhumanknowledgeofthetrinitarianGod—namely,thatsuch knowledgeisspeculativeandofnomoralvalue.43 Healsopresentsacursory

therelationalontologyoflove 71 overviewofthetwoWesternmodelsoftheunityofGod,“GodasSupreme Substance”and“GodasAbsoluteSubject,”thatappearwithintheproofsfor theexistenceofGod.44 Bothofthesediscussionsserveasafoilfortheauthor’s ownsoteriologicalstartingpointofthedoctrine,buttheydolittleeitherto explainMoltmann’smethodologyortoilluminatetheunfoldinglogicbehind thiswork.

Inmyview,thekeytounlockingtheoverallprogramin TheTrinityand theKingdom liesinMoltmann’sconstrualoftherelationshipbetweentheimmanentandtheeconomicTrinity—aconstrualthatwesawemergingin The ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit.TherewesawhowMoltmannreinstateda versionoftheimmanentandeconomicdistinctionafterhisradicalidentificationofthetwoin TheCrucifiedGod.Specifically,Moltmannarguedthatone couldmakecertaininferencesabouttheeternalnatureoftheGodheadfrom themissionsoftheSonandSpiritintotheworld.Thisso-calledTrinityinthe originservesastheontologicalconditionofthepossibilityoftheTrinityinthe sending.Hearguedsimilarlythatotherinferencesabouttheeschatological natureoftheimmanentTrinitycouldbemadeonthebasisoftheglorifying andconsummatingactivitiesofthedivinepersonsinhistory.Inthisway,Moltmann’strinitarianhistoryofGodpointstoaneternaltrinitarianrealityboth atitsoriginandatitsend.

Onmyreading,thestructureof TheTrinityandtheKingdom recapitulates thisveryorderoftrinitarianbeing.Thebookbeginswithapreliminaryinvestigationofthenatureofdivinepassion,inwhichMoltmannanticipatesvarious aspectsoftheentiretrinitarianhistoryofGodtocomeandthenweavesthese aspectstogetherintoaninitialconceptofdivinepassion.Thisinitialconcept oftrinitarianloverepresentstheontologicalconditionforthepossibilityofthe trinitarianhistoryofGodtofollow.Inotherwords,hisinitialmodeloflove crystallizesthenatureoftheTrinityintheoriginthatcanbeinferredfromthe historyofthesendings.Moltmannthentracesinanearlysequentialorder (exceptfordiscussingchristologybeforecreation)thesendingforthandthe returningbackofthisdivinepassioninthetrinitarianeconomyofsalvation. OnlyafternarratingtheentiretyofthistrinitarianhistoryofGoddoesthebook concludewithMoltmann’sproposedsocialreconstructionofthedoctrineof theTrinity.

GivenMoltmann’sunusualapproachtodevelopinghisdoctrine,Ipursue thissameorderofpresentationininterpretingthework.Suchaprocedure recommendsitselfbecauseitallowsustoconsiderthedifferentfacetsoftrinitarianlovethatemergeasonepassesthroughthevariouschangingrelationshipsamongthedivinepersonsandtheworldthatconstitutethetrinitarian historyofGod.SincemuchofMoltmann’sdiscussionofdivine pathos andthe trinitarianhistoryofGodin TheTrinityandtheKingdom retracesgroundthat hecoveredinhisearliertrilogy,Iwillbehighlightingonlythoseaspectsofthe book’snarrativethatadvanceorsignificantlyrevisetheauthor’searlierposi-

tion.Inparticular,wewillbeexploringthenewformalaspectsofhissocial doctrineoftheTrinity—hisconceptsofdivinepersonhood,relations,andunity, allofwhichappearforthefirsttimein TheTrinityandtheKingdom

TrinitarianLoveintheOrigin:DivinePassion astheSelf-CommunicationoftheGood

Moltmannbeginshisreconstructionoftrinitariandoctrinewithananalysisof thenatureofdivinepassion—whatheterms“adoctrineof theopathy.”45 In choosingdivinepassionashisstartingpoint,theauthorinvokeshissame premisethatheelaboratedatlengthin TheCrucifiedGod,namely,thatthe ChristiantheologianasksthequestionofGodfirstandforemostasasoteriologicalratherthanaphilosophicalquestion.Attheheartoftheexperienceof faithisknowledgeofGod’ssufferingrepresentationofhumankindinChrist. InMoltmann’swords,“ThepersonwhobelievesoweshisfreedomtoChrist’s representation.HebelievesinGodforChrist’ssake.Godhimselfisinvolved inthehistoryofChrist’spassion.”46

Moltmanncreatesanunusualmosaicoftheologicalandphilosophical traditionsinordertoelucidatethenatureofdivinepassion.Therabbinicand kabbalisticdoctrineofthe Shekinah,theAnglicantheologyofRichardRolt,the SpanishmysticismofMiguelUnamuno,andfinallythethoughtofNikolai Berdyaev,theRussianOrthodoxphilosopherofreligion,allcontributetoMoltmann’sexplanationofdivinepassion.Aprimaryclue,however,comesfrom Origen’sinterpretationofthegivingupoftheSoninRomans8:32interms ofthe“passionoflove(Caritasestpassio).”47 InmanyrespectsOrigen’sexegesis coincidesexactlywithMoltmann’searlierinterpretationin TheCrucifiedGod ofdivinepassionastheactivesufferingoflovebetweentheFatherandthe Son.AsMoltmannexplains,“WhenOrigentalksaboutGod’ssuffering,he meansthesufferingoflove,thecompassionwhichisattheheartofmercy andpity....atthe sametime[he]pointstoadivinepassionbetweentheFather andtheSonintheTrinity.”48 YetOrigenalsotakesafurtherstepbeyondMoltmann’searlierargumentbydescribingthisdivine pathos ashavingitsultimate sourceinthe“superabundanceandoverflowingofhisbeing.”49

Moltmann’sinitialexplorationofOrigen’snotionofdivine pathos returns ustothefamiliarterritoryof TheCrucifiedGod,inwhichthenatureoftrinitarian agape firstemergedaskenoticorcrucifiedlove.ThereMoltmanndevelopedakeyanalogybetweentheactivesufferingofloveatthecross-event andtherabbinicandkabbalistic Shekinah tradition,inwhichdivine pathos appearsasaformofself-differentiationandself-humiliationinhistory.Moltmannreturnstothe Shekinah traditionagainin TheTrinityandtheKingdom ashisprototypeforthedivinepassionofChrist.Here,however,hisportrayal ofthe Shekinah dramaticallyshiftsashefocusesontheeternalpurposebehind thisdivineself-humiliation.Heconcludesthatdivinepassionpointsultimately

toGod’sdesireforabelovedcounterpartwhowillfreelyreturnhislove.As Moltmannexplains,itisGod’sdesireforthefreedomofhumankindthatultimatelyliesbehindhissufferingloveinhistory:“Lovehumiliatesitselffor thesakeofthefreedomofitscounterpart.ThefreedomtowardsGodofthe humanbeingwhomGoddesiresandlovesisasunboundedasGod’scapacity forpassionandforpatience.Loveoffreedomisthemostprofoundreasonfor ‘God’sself-differentiation.’”50 Moltmann’snewemphasisontheloveoffreedomasthetelosofdivinepassioncorrespondswelltotheeschatologicaldevelopmentthatwetracedearlierinhistrinitarianhistoryofGod.Justaswe sawtherehowcreativelovegainsacertaineschatologicalpreeminenceover thesufferingloveinthetrinitarianhistory,sohere,too,thedominantaspect ofdivinepassionshiftstothecreativeandliberatingloveofGodwhodesires thefreedomofhisbelovedcounterpart.

AlongsideappealstotheseancientJewishandChristiantraditions,Moltmanndrawssupportforthisnewviewofdivinepassionfromhisothermodern theologicalandphilosophicalresources.MiguelUnamuno,forexample,describestheinfinitesorrowoftheFatherassomethingthatarisesfromGod’s ownself-limitationinordertoenablethefreedomofcreation.51 Similarly,in NikolaiBerdyaev’sphilosophyofhistoryMoltmanndiscoverstheideathatthe essenceofhistoryisGod’sdesireorinnerlongingforthefreedomofcreation. Berdyaev’sdepictionofdivinedesireprovesespeciallycongenialtoMoltmann’sproject,sincetheRussianphilosopher,too,describesdesireasarising notfromadeficiencyorneedbutoutoftheoverflowingcreativegoodnessof God;inMoltmann’swords,it“isamovementinGodhimself,whichleads himoutofhimselfandbringshimtohiscounterpart,his‘Other’—man.”52 LikeMoltmann,BerdyaevalsosawthisdivineecstaticmovementastheologicallyrootedinanaffirmationofGod’striunenature.

Onthebasisofthesetheologicalandphilosophicaltraditions,Moltmann formulateshisinitialtrinitarianinterpretationofdivinepassioninaseriesof concludingtheses.Inhisfirstthesishesetsintoconceptualformthisnew understandingofdivinepassionthatwesawemergingpreviously.Moltmann redefinesloveas“theself-communicationofthegood.Itisthepowerofgoodto gooutofitself,toenterintootherbeing,toparticipateinotherbeing,andto giveitselfforotherbeing.... Lovewantstoliveandtogivelife.Itwants toopenupthefreedomtolive.”53 Heredivinepassionstilltakestheformofa self-gift,buttheessenceofthisgiftistransformedfrom kenosis into ecstasis theoverfloworcreativesuperabundanceofbeing.

Fromthisecstaticconceptofdivineloveastheself-communicationofthe good,MoltmanndeducesboththetrinitariannatureofGodandthecreation oftheworldasGod’sbelovedOtherorcounterpart.Iusetheterm“deduction” hereonlylooselytodescribeMoltmann’sargumentation,sincethebriefargumentsthathesetsforthforGod’strinitariannatureandforthecreationof theworldarehardlyontheorderofformalproofsfortheseclaims.Nordoes

Moltmannappeartointendthemassuch.Onmyreading,heinfersthetrinitarianself-communicationoflovetohumankindfromproclamationsthatare rootedinrevelation,thatis,eitherinthebiblicalwitnessorintheexperience offaith.ThissoteriologicalfoundationofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyof divinepassionisnot,admittedly,readilyapparenttothecasualreader,especiallygiventhefactthatthesedeductionsfromtheconceptofdivinepassion actuallyprecedehisaccountofthetrinitarianeconomyofsalvationinthe book’sorderofpresentation.

Withthiscautionarynoteinmind,letuslookmorecloselyatMoltmann’s deductionoftheTrinityfromhisecstaticconceptoflove.Heanalyzesthisselfcommunicationofthegoodindialecticaltermsastheeternalprocessofselfdifferentiationandself-identification.Sincesuchaprocesscannotbeaccomplishedbyasinglesubject,Moltmannconcludesthatdivinelovemustbe understoodintrinitarianterms:“IfGodisloveheisatoncethelover,the belovedandtheloveitself.Loveisthegoodnessthatcommunicatesitselffrom alleternity.”54 ThelogicofMoltmann’sanalysisoftheconceptoflovehereis quitestraightforward.Theself-communicationofthegoodrequiresthedifferentiationofasubjectandobjectofself-communication—aloverandabeloved. Joiningthesetwointheactofself-communicationisathird,theirselfidentificationorthelovethattheysharewithoneanother.

WhatcomesasquiteasurprisehereisMoltmann’srenewedappealtothis dialecticalconceptofloveandtheAugustinianloveanalogyasthebackbone ofhisargumentforthetrinitariannatureofdivinelove.Wealreadysawhow theauthorhadcriticizedhisimplicitrelianceonthisAugustinianloveanalogy in TheCrucifiedGod,sinceitcouldnotguaranteethefullpersonhoodofthe HolySpirit.YetthesamebinitariantendenciesreappearinMoltmann’sappropriationoftheanalogyhere.Hisdialecticalanalysisoftheselfcommunicationofthegoodfocuseschieflyontherelationshipbetweenthe loverandthebeloved,withlittlementionofhowtheHolySpiritfitsintothe schema.

Thistime,however,thisloveanalogyservesquiteadifferentpurposein Moltmann’soverallargument;itgroundsGod’spassionateloveforcreation withinthetrinitarianrelationsoflove.Heretheinner-trinitarianlovebetween theFatherandtheSonprovidesthespringboardforthisseconddeduction. MoltmanndefinestheengenderingandresponsiveloveofFatherandSonas “the loveoflikeforlike,nottheloveforonewhoisessentiallydifferent.Itis necessarylove,notfreelove.”55 Ifdivineloveistheecstaticself-communication ofthegood,Moltmanncontends,thenitmustpassbeyondthisnecessarylove betweentheFatherandtheSon.Theeternalpassionoflovemustpresuppose anOther—creationuponwhichitcanbestowthefreedomtolove.Inthe author’sformulation,“Ifhisfreeandcreativeloveisrespondedtobythose whomitcallstolife,thenitfindsitsecho,itsanswer,itsimageandsoitsbliss infreedomandintheOther.Godislove.Thatmeansheisengenderingand

creativelove....CreationexistsbecausetheeternallovecommunicateshimselfcreativelytohisOther.”56

HerewecanseethemostradicalimplicationofMoltmann’sredefinition ofdivinepassionastheself-communicationofthegood,namely,thatthecreationoftheworldbelongstotheessenceofdivinelove.Asweinvestigatein detailthedifferentaspectsofthetrinitarianeconomy,wewilllookmuchmore preciselyathowMoltmannanchorscreationwithintheeternalintra-trinitarian relationsoflove.AlreadyapparentatthispointishowMoltmann’sdescription ofGod’srelationshiptocreationaslovetotheOtherdepartsfromhisearlier definitionofdivine agape aslovetotheOtherin TheCrucifiedGod.While retainingthesameformaldefinitionofdivine agape,Moltmannhasshiftedits locusinrevelationfromcrosstocreation,andinsodoinghassignificantly altereditsmeaningfromsufferinglovetocreativelove—thegiftoflifeand freedom.

Thisisnottosuggestthatdivinepassionnowredefinedastheselfcommunicationofthegoodlackstheaspectofsufferinglove.Rather,from The TrinityandtheKingdom onward,Moltmannsubsumesthisnotionofsuffering lovewithinthelargercompassofGod’secstaticgoodness.Thesufferingof Godwith,from,andfortheworldappearsnowasthehighestformofcreative loveactingonbehalfofitsbeloved’slifeandfreedom.InMoltmann’swords, “Creativeloveisultimatelysufferinglovebecauseitisonlythroughsuffering thatitactscreativelyandredemptivelyforthefreedomofthebeloved.Freedom canonlybemadepossiblebysufferinglove.”57 Justascreativeloveattaineda certainpreeminenceoversufferingloveintheeschatologicaltrinitarianhistory ofGod,sohere,too,sufferingloveisincludedwithinthetrajectoryofcreative lovethataimsatthefreedomofhisbelovedcounterpart.Thistrajectoryof creativelovereachesitsfulfillmentwhenaliberatedandtransfiguredcreation returnstoitsdwellingplacewithGod—“whenitfindsitsbeloved,liberates them,andhasthemeternallyathisside.”58

Insum,Moltmann’snewconceptofdivinepassionastheselfcommunicationofthegoodandthedeductionsthathedrawsfromitcontain innuce theentiretrajectoryofthetrinitarianhistoryofGodfromcreationto eschatologicalconsummation.AsIproposedinmyintroductiontothebook’s structure,thisfirstdiscussionofdivinepassionrepresentstrinitarianlovein theorigin.Itexplainstheoriginalopennessofdivinebeingtotheworld,history,andtimeinsuchawaythatitincludestheentireeconomyofcreation andredemption.InthisregardMoltmann’snewdefinitionofdivinepassion asself-communicationofthegoodrepresentsaconceptualadvancebeyond hisearlierdialecticofcrucifiedandcreativelove.Itsynthesizesthetwosides ofthepilgrimageofloveintotheworldintoateleologicalconceptoflovethat pointstoitsmessianicgoal—thefreedomofhumankindinthekingdom ofGod.

Godasthe“OneWhoIsFreeinLove” andthe“OneWhoFreesinLove”

BeforeweturntoMoltmann’sexpandedpresentationofthetrinitarianeconomyofcreationandredemption,oneaspectofMoltmann’secstaticnotionof trinitarianlovebearsourattention,namely,itsrelationshiptotheauthor’s conceptofdivinefreedom.Aswealreadysawinchapter2,theissueofdivine freedomhadbecomeadrivingconcerninMoltmann’sworkeversincethe publicationof TheCrucifiedGod,whenseveralofhiscriticschallengedthe ontologicalimplicationsofhisradicalidentificationofdivinebeingwith thecross-event.IftheimmanentTrinitywasstrictlyidentifiedwiththeeconomyofsalvation,asMoltmannimplied,thenitseemedtomanyofhisreaders thatdivinebeinghadbeenequatedwithaworldprocess.59 In TheTrinityand theKingdom,Moltmannrespondsfullytohiscriticsonthisissuebysetting forthhisunderstandingofdivinefreedomincriticaldiscussionwiththatof Barth.60 Thisdiscussionprovessignificanttoourstudybecauseitdisclosesnot onlyfurtherdifferencesbetweenBarth’sandMoltmann’srootmodelsforthe TrinitybutalsohowthetwoReformedtheologiansdifferentlyrelatethedivine attributesofloveandfreedomtooneanother.

MoltmanncriticallyinvestigatesBarth’sconceptofdivinefreedomasit appearswithinhisdoctrineofelection.ThereMoltmanndescribeshispredecessor’snotionofdivinefreedomasself-determinationoran“absolutefreedomofchoice.”61

Insupportofthisreading,MoltmannpointstohowBarth depictsGod’sprimordialdecisiontoelecthumankindtobehiscovenantpartnerasanutterlygroundlessdivinedecree.AlthoughGodelectedinlovenot toremainself-sufficient,hecouldhaveusedhisabsolutefreedomtoelect otherwise.

MoltmannchallengesBarth’snotionofdivinefreedomherewithtwointertwinedarguments.First,hecriticizesthe“nominalistfringe”62 toBarth’s insistenceonGod’sprimordialdecision.ThisnotionofGod’sabsolutefreedom—eithertoloveornottolove—introducesthepossibilityofadifference or,evenworse,acontradictionbetweenGod’seternalnatureandhisselfrevelation.63

Stateddifferently,MoltmannchargesthatBarthsuggeststhatGod has“twonatures”:onepriortotheelectionofhumankind,inwhichfreedom isunderstoodaspure“self-determination,”andanotherafterthiselection,in whichdivinefreedomisdefinedintermsofbeingforhumankind.64 Withthis temporalbefore-afterward(orhidden-revealed)structure,Barthdisruptsthe perfectcorrespondencebetweendivinerevelationanddivinebeing.

BeneaththisfirstlineofargumentationliesMoltmann’scentralobjection tohispredecessor’smodelofdivinefreedom:itcontradictsGod’sselfrevelationaslove.OnMoltmann’sreading,Barth’sconceptofdivinefreedom follows“theconceptof absolutepowerofdisposal,”aconceptthatisderivedfrom Romanpropertylawratherthanthescripturalnotionoflove.Thisnotionof

freedomliesbeneathBarth’srepeatedinsistenceonGod’slordship:“Then ‘God’sliberty’meanshissovereignty,andhispowerofdisposaloverhisproperty—creation—andhisservants—menandwomen.”65

Oncloserinspection,oneseesthattheheartofMoltmann’sdisagreement withBarthlieswhereitdidearlierin TheCrucifiedGod,namely,withhow BarthdefinesthebiblicalrootoftheTrinityintermsofdivinelordshipinhis doctrineofrevelation.InthatdoctrineBarthportraysdivinefreedominterms ofGod’sabsolutepowerofself-determination—torevealornottorevealGod’s self.InMoltmann’sview,thisearlyconceptofdivinefreedomasabsolute sovereigntyisatoddswithBarth’slaterclaimsofGod’srevelationaslovein hisgraciouselectionofhumankind.AlthoughBarthattemptstomediatebetweendivineloveandfreedombydefiningGodlaterinhis ChurchDogmatics as“theOnewholovesinfreedom,”Barthstillprivilegesdivinefreedomover love,insofarasheretainsthenotionthatGod’shighestfreedomliesinthe choiceeithertoloveornottolove.66

MoltmanndistinguisheshispositionfromBarth’sbydevelopingaconcept ofGod’sbeinginwhichloveandfreedomcoincidewithoneanother.HeappealstoAugustinetosupporthisclaimthatthehighestfreedomisnotfree choicebutateleologicalconceptoffreedomasfreedomforthegood.67 Ashe explainsinthispassage,divinefreedomrestsnotinabsolutepowerbutinthe self-communicationofthegood:“Sototalpowerisbynomeansidenticalwith absolutefreedom.Freedomarrivesatitsdivinetruththroughlove.Loveisa self-evident,unquestionable‘overflowingofgoodness,’whichistherefore neveropentochoiceatanytime.Wehavetounderstandtruefreedomasbeing theself-communicationofthegood.”68 Giventhisnotionofloveasoverflowing goodness,Moltmannarguesfurther,onecannotspeakoftherebeinganynecessityinGod’slovefortheworld.“Self-communicationofthegood”occurs fromneither“compulsion”nor“arbitraryresolve,”butratheroutof“inner pleasureofhiseternallove.”69 Iftruefreedomliesintheself-communication ofgoodness,thenGodismostfreeinthebestowalonhiscreaturesofthegifts oflifeandfreedom.AlthoughMoltmannhimselfdoesnotofferasummary formulaforhisdoctrineofGod,onemightcharacterizehisunderstandingof Godastheonewho isfree inhislove,andtheonewho frees inlove.

MoltmannuseshisdisagreementwithBarthasaspringboardfromwhich toofferhisownpositiveformulationoffreedominaccordancewithhisnotion oflove.ThefreedomthatGodoffersasagifttohisbelovedcreationisthe oppositeoflordship(“Herrschaft”);itis“friendship”(“Freundschaft”)or“fellowship”(“Gemeinschaft”).70 ForMoltmann,suchfreedomcorrespondsfully toGod’sverybeing—itistrulyGod’sself-gift:“ThetriuneGodrevealshimself asloveinthefellowshipoftheFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit.Hisfreedom thereforeliesinthe friendship whichheoffersmenandwomen,andthrough whichhemakesthemhisfriends.”71 ThisinitialformulationofGod’sgiftof freedomtohisbelovedcreationintermsofthefriendshiporfellowshipofthe

Father,theSon,andtheSpiritishighlyrevealingforourpathforward.This formulationnotonlypointstothenatureoftheintra-trinitarianrelationsof loveasrelationsoffellowshipbutalsoindicatestheconsummationofthe freedomoftheChristianindivinefriendship.Inthisregard,Moltmann’sinitialdiscussionoftrinitarianloveastheself-communicationofthegoodnot onlyrepresentstrinitarianloveintheoriginbutalsoanticipatesitsmessianic consummation—thefreedomofcreationinthefellowshipofGod.

ThePilgrimageofTrinitarianLoveintheWorld

IfwereadMoltmann’sinitialdiscussionofdivinepassionasadescriptionof thenatureoftheTrinityintheorigin,wecanviewtherestofthebookasan unfoldingofthisdivinepilgrimageofloveintotheworld.Moltmannfirst exploresindetailthevarioustrinitarianactivitiesintheworldandthendeduces fromthesedivineoperationsthenatureoftheFather,theSon,andtheSpirit. Bydevelopinghisdoctrineinthisway,Moltmannabandonsacentraltenetof theclassicalWesterntradition,namely,Augustine’sdoctrineofappropriations. ThedoctrineofappropriationsprescribesthatthewholeTrinityactsasaunity towardtheworldandthatitsindividualworksinhistoryaremerelyascribed tooneofthethreedivinepersons.Incontrast,Moltmanncontendsthatall threepersonshavedistinctandnonexchangeablerolesinthetrinitarianhistory ofGod.Eachoftheserolesreveals,indeedconstitutes,thebeingoftheTrinity. InwhatfollowsIdonotrehearsetheentireplotlineofthesetrinitarian operationsintheworld,sincemuchofitrepeatswhatwehaveseeninMoltmann’spreviousworks.Instead,Iemphasizeonlythosenewaspectsofhis trinitarianhistorythatarecriticaltoMoltmann’ssocialreconstructionoftrinitariandoctrineandtoitsthreecentralthemes:thenatureofdivinepassion, thetrinitariankingdom,anditseschatologicaltelosinthereturnofhumankind intothedivinefellowship.

ANewChristologicalRootfortheDoctrineoftheTrinity andforDivineRule

Asnotedearlierinthediscussionofmethodology,Moltmannrootshisinterpretationofthepluriformactivitiesandrelationsamongthetrinitarianpersons inatrinitarianhermeneuticsofthebiblicalwitness.Hesiftsthroughthekey eventsinbiblicalhistoryandisolatesvariouspatternsoftrinitarianrelations— whathecallsthe“trinitarianforms”72 —thataredisplayedinthescriptures. Althoughthistrinitariannarrativenowincludesmanydifferentactorsand events,christologystillprovidestheanchorforhisdoctrinalinterpretation.

Indefendingthischristologicalrootofthedoctrine,Moltmannsideswith

therelationalontologyoflove 79 hisReformedpredecessorKarlBarthoverandagainsttheliberalProtestant historianofdoctrineAdolfvonHarnack,whointerpretedthedoctrineofthe TrinityasaHellenizationofJesus’proclamationofthekingdom.Atthesame timethatMoltmannagreeswithBarththatthedoctrine’srootliesinJesus’life andministry,hechallengesthesubstanceofBarth’schristologicalinterpretation.Alreadyin TheCrucifiedGod MoltmannhadtakenissuewithhowBarth rootedthedoctrineinChrist’sexaltation—anexaltationinwhichGodreveals God’sselfasLord.Atthetime,Moltmann’scounterproposalwastoanchor trinitariandoctrineinthecross-event,whereGodrevealshimselfnotasLord butasthesufferingloveoftheFatherandtheSon.

In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,MoltmannpursuesadifferentlineofargumentationagainstBarth’sbiblicalrootforthedoctrine.Theauthornolonger rejectsthenotionofchristologicalrootinginthenotionofdivineruleperse butratherdisagreeswithBarth’sinterpretationofdivineruleintermsofthe self-revelationofGodasLord.Moltmannconteststhisinterpretationonthe groundsthatitreducestheentirebiblicalhistorytotheworkofoneabsolute divinesubject.Itendsupflatteningoutthedistinctiveagencyofthethree divinepersonsinthechristologicalnarrative,therebyreducingallthreeto repetitionsofthesamesinglesubject—God’sself-relation.TheheartofMoltmann’sobjectionisthatBarthimportsanotionofdivinelordshipthatdoes notspringfromthebiblicaltextbutrathercomesfromapreliminaryhermeneuticaldecisionaboutthenatureofdivinesovereignty.Ratherthanallowing thenotionofdivineruletoemergefromtheco-workingofthethreepersons asdepictedinthebiblicalwitness,Barth,accordingtoMoltmann,importsan extrabiblicalnotionofdivinerulershipthatdictatesanundifferentiatedmonotheisticshapetotrinitariandoctrine.73

Ifoneistodevelopatrulytrinitarianconceptofdivinerulership,Moltmannargues,onemustinvestigatethevariousstagesinthehistoryoftheSon andseethedistinctivepatternsoftrinitarianrelationshipsrevealedtherein.We alreadysawMoltmannpursuethiscourseinhisearlytrilogy,wherehefocused exclusivelyonthecross-andresurrection-eventsinthehistoryoftheSon.Now Moltmannwidenshischristologicallenstoincludethefullrangeofeventsin Jesus’life,fromhisinitialsendinginhisbaptismtohiseschatologicalhanding overofthekingdomtotheFather.

ThefirsttrueglimpseofthenatureoftrinitarianruleappearsinJesus’ baptismandcall.MoltmannhighlightsJesus’eschatologicalproclamationof thekingdomanditslinktoJesus’uniquerelationshipwiththeGodhecalls Abba.HerewediscoverthatthekingdomofGodisaplaceofmercifulcompassionandliberation:“InthiskingdomGodisnottheLord;heisthemerciful Father.Inthiskingdomtherearenoservants;thereareonlyGod’sfreechildren.Inthiskingdomwhatisrequiredisnotobedienceandsubmission;itis loveandfreeparticipation.”74 ForMoltmann,Jesus’relationshiptotheFather signalstheuttertransformationofGod’srelationshiptohiscreationinthe

kingdom;thesearenolongerrelationshipsoflordshipandobediencebutof mercyandfreedom.Jesusnotonlyproclaimsthis“joyfulmessage”ofthe divinecompassionandfreedomofGodtheFatherbutalsomanifeststheFather’skingdominhisownlife“bygatheringtheoppressedintothelibertyof hisfellowship.”75

MoltmannappealstotheGospelofMatthewandtheJohanninecorpus forthisdepictionoftheintimatefellowshipoftheFatherandSon.Inparticular, hedrawsontheJohannine-liketextinMatthew11:27andcombinesitwitha numberofothertextsfromtheJohanninecorpus(e.g.,John10:30;17:21;1John 2:22–24)inordertodescribetheintimaterelationshipbetweentheFatherand theSonas“anexclusiveandmutualknowing,lovingandparticipating.”76 Paulinetheologythenfillsinthepneumatologicaldimensionsofthistrinitarian fellowship.DrawingonRomans8:15,MoltmannascribestotheSpirittherole ofopeningthisintimatefellowshipoftheSonandFathertohumankind.The Spiritcommunicates“‘thespiritofsonship’”77 tohumanbeingssothatthey, too,experiencethemercifulcompassionandliberationoftheFather.

Moltmann’sinterpretationoftheotherkeystagesinthehistoryofSon— theauthor’skenoticinterpretationoftheSon’ssurrenderinthecross-event andeschatologicalinterpretationoftheSon’sexaltationintheresurrection— resemblescloselythosein TheCrucifiedGod and TheChurchinthePowerof theSpirit.Thereare,however,twonewaspectsofMoltmann’spresentationof thehistoryoftheSonthatcontributesignificantlytowardtheauthor’sreformulationofthedoctrineoftheTrinity.First,Moltmanndrawsfromeachstage ofthehistoryoftheSonaparticularsequenceoftrinitarianrelationsthathave beenrevealedtherein.ThesepatternsdescribewhoamongtheFather,theSon, andtheSpiritaretheagentsandwhoaretherecipientsofthedivineactivity. Forexample,inthesending,surrender,andresurrectionoftheSon,theFather appearsastheoriginofallactivity,theSonisthereceiver,andtheSpiritisthe meansbywhichthisactivityoccurs.Incontrast,intheexaltationoftheSon andthesendingoftheSpirit,theFatherandtheSonactasthetwoagents, whiletheSpiritisthesolerecipient.Finally,intheeschatologicalconsummation,theSpiritandtheSonappearasthetwoagents,whiletheFather becomestherecipientofthekingdomandtheglory.78

Givenallthesevaryingpatternsofdivineactivityintheworld,Moltmann concludesthatnosinglepatternororderoftrinitarianrelationscanbechosen astheonethatcorrespondstotheintra-trinitarianlife.IncontrasttoWestern trinitariandoctrinethathasbeenpredicatedupononesinglepatternofdivine processions,Father–Son–Spirit,Moltmanndepictsallthreepersonscoworkinginchangingpatternsofdivineactivityandreceptivity.EventuallyMoltmannwillreturntothesetrinitarianpatternsofactivityasthebasisforhis differentiationsamongthethreedivinepersons.Butinthiscontext,these varioustrinitarianformsserveamorelimitedfunction;theyshowhowthecoworkingofallthreedivinepersonsisvitaltotherealizationofthetrinitarian

ruleinthekingdom.Inotherwords,thekaleidoscopeofchangingrelations amongthedivinepersonsrevealshowthedynamicfellowshipamongthethree isconstitutiveofthedivinelife.

ThesecondutterlynewaspectinMoltmann’spresentationofthehistory oftheSonishistrinitarianinterpretationofthekingdom’seschatologicalconsummation.Aswesawearlier,Moltmannhadalreadyplacedhiseschatological panentheisminatrinitarianframein TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit TheretheauthoremphasizedtheSpirit’sroleinunifyingandglorifyingcreationwithGod.In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Moltmannforthefirsttime assignstotheFatherandtheSondistinctiverolesintheeschatologicalconsummationofthedivinerule.HerethePaulinetext1Corinthians15:22–28 providesthechiefbiblicalcluetotheeschatologicalfutureastrinitarianevent.79

MoltmannarguesthattheeschatologicalmissionoftheSonconcludesinan inner-trinitarianprocess—inwhichtheSonactuallydeliversthekingdomover toGodtheFather:

ThedivinerulewasgivenbytheFathertotheSonthroughChrist’s resurrection.Inthefinalconsummationitwillbetransferredfrom theSontotheFather.... AccordingtoPaul,thewholeChristianeschatologyendsinthisinner-trinitarianprocess,throughwhichthe kingdompassesfromtheSontotheFather.Eschatologyaccordingly isnotsimplywhattakesplaceintheLastDaysinheavenandon earth;itiswhattakesplaceinGod’sessentialnature.80

Moltmanndrawstwosignificantconclusionsaboutthenatureofdivinerulershipfromthiseschatologicalinner-trinitarianprocess.First,thekingdomof Godisconsummatedandexercisedthroughtheco-workingoftheFather,the Son,andtheHolySpirit.Second,thenatureofthedivineruleactuallychanges initseschatologicaltransferralfromonedivinesubjecttoanother.TheSon destroysallthepowersofdeathtomakeroomforthekingdomoflifeandlove oftheFather.Divineruleisthusnotaneternalandfixedrealityimposedon theworldbutahistoricalrealitythatemergesinandthroughtheeschatological consummationoftheworld.

IfwegathertogetherthediversestrandsofMoltmann’snewtrinitarian interpretationofthehistoryoftheSon,avisionofdivineruleemergesthat divergesfromBarth’smodeloflordshipintwodramaticways.Firstandforemost,Moltmanninsiststhatdivineruleisacommunalpropertyorattribute oftheTrinity,whosenatureisdeterminedinandthroughthedynamicmovement—thechangingrelationsamongthethreepersons.InMoltmann’swords, divinerule“cannotbeamonadicunity,”“theidentityofasinglesubject”;it is,rather,the“fellowship”or“union oftheFather,theSonandtheSpirit.”81 This ruleoffellowshipisaninterpersonalunion,aformofmutualindwellingand participationthatnotonlypreservesbutalsocreatespersonaldistinctions.

Second,divineruleisahistorical-eschatologicalreality.Thetrinitarian

kingdomcannotbeunderstoodastheinbreakingoftheeternaldivinelordship inthemidstoftheworld.Rather,thekingdomisconsummatedinandthrough theworld,withthekingdomultimatelybecominganintra-trinitarianreality thatincludestheworldinitsmidst.InMoltmann’swords,“[Thekingdom] doesnotmerelyrunitscourseonearth—whichistosayoutsideofGodhimself—asdogmatictraditioneversinceAugustinehasmaintained.Onthecontrary,ittakesplaceinitsearthlymodewithintheTrinityitself,asthehistory ofthekingdomoftheFather,theSonandtheSpirit.”82

ThisvisionofdivineruleastheunionofGodwithcreationhearkensback totheeschatologicalnotionofdivineunitythatMoltmannsuggestedearlier in TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit.Italsocoincideswiththetelosofdivine passionasthefellowshiporfriendshipofcreationwithGod,atelosthat emergedinourpriordiscussionoftheGodwhofreesinlove.Nowforthefirst timeMoltmannrootsthisfellowshipinhischristology:thepersonalrelationshipbetweentheFatherandJesustheSonmanifeststhisruleoffellowship thatispromisedinthekingdom.

TheWorldoftheTrinity

WithhischristologicalanchorforhisdoctrineoftheTrinityinplace,Moltmann expandshisfocusfromthehistoryoftheSontotakeinallthekeyeventsof thetrinitarianeconomy:thecreationoftheworldthroughtheFatherofJesus Christ,theincarnationoftheSon,andthetransfigurationoftheworldthrough theHolySpirit.Moltmanndoesnotexhaustivelytreatanyofthesedifferent doctrinesin TheTrinityandtheKingdom;hereservesthistasktohisinvestigationoftheindividuallociinhissubsequentvolumesofthe MessianicTheology.Hisaimsherearemorelimited.Ontheonehand,heseekstoframe creation,incarnation,andtransfigurationastrinitarianevents,thatis,tosee howtheseeventscanbeunderstoodastheunfoldingofthedivinepassionand fellowshipthathediscoveredinthehistoryoftheSon.Ontheotherhand, Moltmannseekstoidentifytheimplicationsofthisentireeconomyofcreation andsalvationforthenatureoftheimmanenttrinitarianrelations—intheauthor’swords,“Whatdoesthecreationoftheworldanditshistorymeanfor Godhimself?”83

InpursuingMoltmann’sanswerstothesequestions,weneedtorecallthat fortheauthortheso-calledeconomicandimmanenttrinitiesnevercorrespond tooneanotherinanystraightforwardfashion.Eversince TheCrucifiedGod, MoltmannhasboldlyarguedthattheTrinitynotonlyaffectstheworldbutalso isaffectedbyitsactivitiesintheworld.In TheTrinityandtheKingdom, hegroundsthisinterdependenceintermsofthelogicofGod’sselfcommunicationoffellowshipandfreedomtotheworld.Moltmannarguesthat theworld“isnotamatterofindifferenceforGodhimself,but... represents anobject,acounterpartofhisloveforfreedom.”84 Sincetheworldisthebe-

therelationalontologyoflove 83 lovedrecipientofGod’sself-communicationoflovingfreedom,Godalsoopens God’sselftotheworld’slovingresponse.AlthoughMoltmannimmediately qualifiesthattheworlddoesnotaffectGodinthesamewaythatGodaffects theworld,henonethelessinsiststhatthetriuneGodentersintoarealrelation withtheworld,arelationinwhichGodtoosuffers.

GiventhisrealrelationshipbetweenGodandtheworld,thenatureofthe divinepersons adintra cannotbesimplyinferredfromanyparticularwork ad extra.Moltmanndeclaresthatdeducingtheactorfromtheact,themasterfrom hiswork,isanill-suitedmethodofanalyzingthelivingrelationshipbetween Godandtheworld.85 Hepursuesinsteadatwofoldtactic:first,heanalyzesthe variousoperationsintheworldonthebasisofthenatureoftrinitarianlove; second,heanalyzestheimpressofthesevariousactivities adextra onthe relationsofloveamongtheFather,theSon,andtheSpirit adintra.InMoltmann’spreferredterminology,hetracesthe“inwardacts”or“sufferings”(passioDei)withintheTrinity,whichcorrespondtotheoutwardacts.86

BearingMoltmann’smethodologicalapproachinmind,letusturntothe author’sanalysesofthekeyeventsofcreation,theincarnation,andthetransfigurationorrenewalofcreation.Moltmannbeginshistrinitarianinterpretationofcreationbyfirstanchoringitinthebiblicalwitness.Heobservesthat inthescriptures,theactofcreationisalwaysmediatedwithinthecompassof theexperienceofsalvationandthemessianichopeofsalvation’scompletion. Forexample,Israelthematizescreationretroactivelyfromitscentralexperience ofsalvation,the“exodusexperience,”andprolepticallyintermsof“themessianichope forthenew”oras“thesceneofhiscomingglory.”87 IntheNew Testament,faithinChristprovidesthebasisforasoteriologicalunderstanding ofcreation.IfChristiscreation’sgoal,hemustbeatitsfoundationandits mediatorforallofeternity.

88 TheNewTestamentalsowitnessestoamessianic relationshipbetweenGodandcreationthatismediatedbytheHolySpirit.The Spirit’spresenceincreationisdistinctfromthatofeithertheCreatororthe incarnateOne,insofarasitisaformofdivineindwellinginhumanityitself.89 Thisdivineindwellinginstillsthemessianichopeforafutureinwhichallof creationwillbetransfiguredintothedwellingplaceofGod.

OnthebasisofthesesoteriologicalandmessianicrelationsoftheSonand theHolySpirittocreation,Moltmannconcludesthattounderstandthedivine actofcreationweneedtoviewitintermsofallthreepersons’actions.The authorexplainstheactualtrinitariantermsofcreationintermsoftheeternal loveofFatherandSon.Thecreationoftheworldresultsfromtheoverflowing loveoftheFatherfortheSon:“Hisself-communicatinglovefortheonelike himselfopensitselftotheOtherandbecomescreative,whichmeansanticipatingeverypossibleresponse.”90 SincecreationresultsfromtheFather’soverflowinglovefortheSon,Moltmannreasonsthatcreationcannotbeviewedas anactofGod’sarbitrarywill,butratherofGod’swilltogoodness.TheFather createstheworldoutofhisgoodpleasure,andwiththeultimateaimthat

creationwillrespondtohislovewithgratitudeandpraise.Furthermore,argues Moltmann,theworldiscreatednotonly for theSonbutalso through theSon. TheSonrepresentsthe“divinelyimmanentarchetypeoftheideaofthe world,”91 insofarashisresponsiveloveoftheFatherbecomesthearchetypefor humankind’sownlove.

Bydescribingcreationasanintra-trinitarianactbetweentheFatherand theSon,Moltmannseeksanalternativetoeitheratheisticorapantheistic approachtocreation.Againsttheism,hecontendsthatcreationisnotanexternalactofGod’sarbitraryfreewillbutbelongstotheeternalessenceofGod astheself-communicationofthegood.Againstpantheism,hearguesthatthe world’screationdoesnotitselfcoincidewithanaspectoftheintra-trinitarian process,forexample,thebegettingoftheSonoutoftheFather’sdivinelove.92

Inplaceofeitherofthesetwooptions,Moltmannadvancesatrinitarianpanentheism,inwhichcreationbelongstotheeternalloveoftheFatherandSon yetremainsdistinctfromit.TheHolySpiritprovidesthelinchpinforthis panentheisticproposal.Throughthe“pouringout”ofitscreativeenergies,the SpiritbridgesthedistancebetweentheeternalloveoftheFatherfortheSon andthatfortheworld:“ThisSpiritisthedivinebreathoflifewhichfillseverythingwith itsownlife.”93 HeretheSpirit’sbreathoflifeenablescreationto participateinamediatedwayintheintra-trinitarianlifebybindingcreation withintheeternalloverelationoftheFatherandtheSon.94

Thistrinitariananalysisoftheoutwardactofcreationprovidesthebasis fordeterminingtheinwardimpressofcreationonthetrinitarianGod.MoltmannpostulatesthatinorderforGodtogoforth“creatively‘outofhimself,’” theremusthavebeenaninwardactof“self-limitation.”95 Herethezimsum theoryofthekabbalistIsaacLuriaprovidesMoltmannwithawayofconceiving ofthisinwarddivineact.Inavariationontheideaoftheindwellingpresence ofthe Shekinah inthetemple,Luriaclaimedthataconcentratedinversionor self-withdrawal,azimsum,hadtakenplaceinGodforthepurposeofmaking roomforcreation.Appropriatingthisideaintohistrinitarianframework,Moltmannpostulatesthatadivineself-limitationoccursinthelovebetweenthe FatherandtheSonthrougha“contraction”or“inversionoftheSpirit.”96 This alterationintheintra-trinitarianrelationscreatesthespace,thetime,andthe freedomforthecreationoftheworld:“Eternitybreathesitselfin,soasto breatheouttheSpiritoflife.”97

Moltmann’stheologicalmovetopostulatesuchaneternalself-limitation iscertainlyahighlyspeculativemovethatlacksanydirectsupportinthebiblicalwitness.Thisnotionofeternalself-limitationdoesexplain,however,some ofthemostpuzzlingfeaturesofMoltmann’sportrayalofthepilgrimageof trinitarianloveinhistory.Ithelpsaccountfortheauthor’sclaimthatthetrajectoryofdivinepassion,oncereconceptualizedastheself-communicationof thegood,stillbeginswithanactofsufferingloveordivine kenosis.Thenotion ofaninwarddivineself-limitationthatmakesroomforcreationandforhuman

therelationalontologyoflove 85 freedomshowshowsufferinglovecouldbetheinitialmomentintheoverall trajectoryofaGodwhofreesinlove.Moreover,Moltmann’snotionofatrinitariancontractioninthemomentofcreationleavesspacefortalkofthe Trinity’ssendingintotheworldfromitseternalorigin.Thatistosay,the zimsumtheoryprovidesaconceptualframeworkforinscribingtheentiretrajectoryofthehistoryoftheworldinGodwithoutsimultaneouslyfallingprey topantheism.

Moltmann’sdepictionoftheothertwokeyeventsinthetrinitarianeconomy—theincarnationoftheSonandthetransfigurationofcreationbythe Spirit—buildssquarelyonthefoundationofhistrinitariananalysisoftheact ofcreation.HepresentstheincarnationasthefulfillmentofGod’soutward actofcreationratherthantreatingitasaremedyforsin.Theultimateendof theincarnationistoreturnthebelovedcreationintoeternalfellowshipwith God.InMoltmann’swords:“Lovedoesnotmerelywanttovanquishthedeath ofthebeloved;itwantstoovercomethebeloved’smortalitytoo,sothathemay beeternallybesidethebelovedandsothatthebelovedmaybeeternallybeside himself.”98 Thistrinitarianinterpretationoftheincarnationrendersexplicitthe evolutioninMoltmann’smodelofsalvationthatwedetectedearlierin The ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit.WithoutminimizingthesoteriologicalsignificanceoftheSon’sactofreconciliationinthecross-event,Moltmannnow placesanever-greateremphasisontheprocessofsanctificationthatworks towardtheperfectionorrenewalofcreation.

Moltmannrelatestheinitialactofcreationtoitsconsummationinthe incarnationthroughthenotionofthe imagoDei.AstheLogosthroughwhom theworldwascreated,theSonrepresentsthe“true‘ikon’”orthe“primordial image”ofGod.99 IntheincarnationtheeternalSonbecomeshuman,thus fulfillingthedestinyofcreationasthe imagoDei.Astherepresentativeoftrue humanity,Christcommunicatestocreationhisownperfectresponsiveloveof theFather:“HegathersthemintohisrelationshipofsonshiptotheFatherand communicatestothemhisownliberty,whichisabovetheworld.”100 Thismediationofdivineloveoccursnotonlythroughthepassionofthecross-event butalsothroughtheSonbecoming“theprototype”101 oftruesonshipinhis entirewayoflife.InMoltmann’spreferredPaulineformulation,theSonbecomes“thefirst-bornamongmanybrethren”(Rom.8:29),whoinvitesallhumankindintofellowshipwiththeFatherandintoparticipationinhisown missionofliberatingcreation.

Justastheoutwardactofcreationmakesaninwardimpressonthetrinitarianbeingintheformofself-limitation,Moltmannpostulatesthattheincarnationlikewiseentailsan“inwardself-humiliation.”102 Thisinwardselflimitationsurpassesthatofcreation,sinceGodnowfullyacceptshumanity anditssituationintohiseternity:“Notonlydoesheenterintothisstateof beingman;heacceptsandadoptsithimself,makingitpartofhisown,eternal life.Hebecomes thehumanGod.”103 Thisinwardkenosisreachesitshighest

pointinthecross-event,inwhichGodtakesthedarkestdepthsofthehuman situation,sinanddeath,intohisverybeing.Theinwardimpressofthisoutwardactofkenoticloveisaconcessionofdivinefreedom.“Forthesakeof freedom,andtheloverespondedtoinfreedom,”Moltmannexplains,“God limitsandemptieshimself.”104

MoltmanndrawshisaccountofthetrinitarianhistoryofGodtoaclose withabriefinvestigationofthetransfigurativeworkoftheSpirit.Unlikehis elaboratenewtrinitarianinterpretationsoftheactsofcreationandincarnation, hisdescriptionoftheSpirit’sactivityismorelikeanabbreviatedformofhis pneumatologythathealreadypresentedinthemidseventies.MoltmanndescribestheworkoftheSpiritwiththesamerubricsthatwesawin TheChurch inthePoweroftheSpirit:theglorificationoftheFatherthroughtheSon’s resurrection,andtherenewalofcreationanditseschatologicalunificationwith thetrinitarianfellowship.

Intermsofhisevolvingtrinitariantheology,twoaspectsofMoltmann’s pneumatologyaresignificant.First,MoltmannrepresentstheSpirit’sworkas theconsummationofitsworkincreationratherthanasaremedyforsin,that is,astheforgivenessofsinsandasjustificationbyfaith.Justaswesawthe Spiritasthelife-givingpresenceofGodindwellingintheworldincreation, so,too,wediscovertheSpiritnowrenewingitslife-givingpresenceamong creation.HeretheSpiritmanifeststhesamedivinepassionthatwesawinthe workingsoftheSonandtheFatherintheworld:theSpiritexpressesthe overflowingloveofGodthatoffersfellowshipandfreedomtoitsbelovedcreation.Throughthetransfigurationoftheworld,theSpiritactsultimatelyto glorifytheSonandtheFather;theSpiritgivesdelightandjoytotheother personsoftheTrinitybydrawingcreationintotheirlifeoffellowship.

Second,Moltmanninsiststhatthehumanbeing’sexperienceoftheSpirit isathis-worldlyandindeedphysicalexperience.HerailsagainstanyspiritualizedinterpretationoftheHolySpiritthatmightsuggestthattheSpiritdraws humanbeingsoutoftheirhistoryandintoaneternaltimelessrealm.Rather, theSpiritindwellsinthefabricofhumanbeings’lives,renewingthemand drawingthemintodeeperfellowshipwithoneanotherandwithGod.Inso doing,theSpiritactstoconsummatetheoriginalintentofcreation,thatis,to makeallthings“thehomeofthetriuneGod.”105

MoltmanndescribestheinwardimpressoftheSpirit’sworkasareverse movementofthedivineoperationsintheworld.ThemovementoftheSpirit outwardintotheworldisactuallyagatheringoftheworldinward—intothe inner-trinitarianlife:“IntheglorificationoftheSpirit,worldandtimes,people andthingsaregatheredtotheFatherinordertobecome hisworld.”106 Here oneceasesaltogethertospeakmeaningfullyofGod adextra and adintra,since theworldreturnstoitstruedwellingplacewithinthetrinitarianrelationsof love.MoltmanndescribestheinwardimpressoftheSpirit’sglorifyingand unifyingofallcreationastheveryoppositeofdivineself-limitationorhumil-

iation.TheGodofpassionateloveattainsfulfillmentintheeternaldelightand blissfulloveofcreation:“Thisistheeternalfeastofheavenandearth.Thisis thedanceoftheredeemed.Thisis‘thelaughteroftheuniverse.’”107

Inconclusion,ifweglancebackoverthekeyeventsinthetrinitarian economy—creation,incarnation,andtransfiguration—wedetectherethe sametwofoldpatternofmovementoftheTrinityinthesendingandtheTrinity intheglorificationthatwediscoveredinMoltmann’searliertrilogy.Here,too, wediscovertheoverallpatternofemanationandreturn.Wherethisaccount ofthetrinitarianeconomyadvancesbeyondtheauthor’searlieronesisin paintingamuchricherpictureoftheTrinityinthesending,whichnowincludesthepivotaleventsofcreationandtheincarnationalongwiththecrossevent.AsIhavesuggestedpreviously,thesenewaspectsofthetrinitarianmissionsintheworldalterthemeaningoftrinitarianlove.Theearlierdialecticof crucifiedloveandcreativelovebecomesnowadivinepassionatelongingfor theOther,creation,thatexpressesitselfinthegiftoflifeandfreedomtothat Other.

ThistrinitarianeconomyoffersatransformedpicturenotonlyofGod’s love pronobis butalsoofitsinwardimpressontheintra-trinitarianrelations oflove.Althoughdivinesufferingandself-limitationor kenosis stillmarkthe effects adintra ofGod’srelationshipwiththeworld,Moltmannnowqualifies thisinwardsufferingbyemphasizingitsmessianictelosintheloveandfreedomofcreation.WediscoverthattheultimateimpressofthistrinitarianhistoryofGodwiththeworldisanincreaseofeternaljoyandblissintheeschatologicalhomecomingofGod’sbelovedcreation.

ASocialReconstructionoftheDoctrineoftheTrinity

ACritiqueoftheWesternDoctrineandChristianMonotheism

Thechangingpatternsofthetrinitarianrelationsintheeconomyofcreation andredemptionprovideallthematerialsforMoltmann’sreconstructionof trinitariandoctrine.Equallyimportanttohisdogmaticreformulation,however, istheauthor’scritiqueofthedominantWesternstructureofthedoctrine— whathereferstousuallyeitheras“monotheisticmonarchianism”or,borrowingBarth’sformulation,as“Christianmonotheism.”108 Moltmann’sterminologycaneasilybemisleadingherebecauseheisnotobjectingtomonotheism perse.Asheclarifiesinanexplanatoryfootnote,thetargetofhiscritiqueisa strictorundifferentiatedformofmonotheism,thatis,aformof“theism,” whichconstruesdivineunityinmonadicornonrelationalterms.109 Withrespecttotrinitarianproposals,Moltmanndirectsthischargeofmonarchianism towardanyformofthedoctrineinwhichdivineunityisconceptuallyindependentandlogicallypriortothetrinitariannatureofGod.

In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Moltmannoffersahighlyschematized

accountofthismonarchicalandmonistictrajectoryasheseesitdevelopin Westerntrinitarianthought.110 Accordingtothisaccount,eversinceTertullian laidthefoundationfortheWesterndoctrineintermsofhisformulaofone substanceandthreepersons,therehasbeenatendencyinWesterndoctrine fortheconceptoftheoneundividedunityoftheGodheadtoprevailoverthe threepersons.MoltmanntracesthismonistictendencyoriginallytoChristianity’sappropriationoftheGreekphilosophicalconceptofsupremesubstance asawayofdepictingthedivineessence.Theearlyconflictsthataroseover ArianismandSabellianismprovideampleevidenceforthedifficultiesinvolved indifferentiatingthethreepersonsonthebasisofthisnotionofdivineessence. EvenTertullian,whotriedtoovercomebothsubordinationismandmodalism throughmakingcarefulterminologicaldistinctions,reinforcedacertainmonisminthedoctrinethroughhisinsistenceonthemonarchyoftheFather.111

AccordingtoMoltmann,bothAugustineandAquinas,thechiefarchitects ofWesterntrinitarianthoughtinthepatristicandmedievalperiods,respectively,deepenedthismonisticandmonarchicaltrajectorybyassigningacertain logicalandepistemologicalprimacytotheonedivineessence.Becausethe divineessencecouldbearguedforthroughnaturalreason,itwasattributeda logicalprecedenceoverthetrinitarianpersons,whocouldonlybeknownin lightofspecialrevelation.Thisprecedenceofthedivineunityoverthethree personswasofficiallycodifiedinthemanualtheologiesofCatholicismandin Protestantorthodoxy;inbothbranchesofChristiantradition,thedoctrineof Godwasformallysplitintothetreatises DeDeouno and DeDeotrino.This twofolddivisionofthedoctrineestablishedanotionofdivineunitythatwas independentfromandactuallycompetedwiththeunityconstitutedbythe threepersons.Eventually,naturalknowledgeoftheoneGoderodedthedoctrineoftheTrinityintheEnlightenmentperiodintoaformofundifferentiated andabstractmonotheism.112

Despitetherenewedinterestintrinitariantheologyintheearlytwentieth century,Moltmannarguesthattheseproposals,too,sufferfromthesame monarchicaltendencies.InthewakeofGermanidealism,thenotionofGod asabsolutesubjectivityhasreplacedthatofabsolutesubstance.Heretheconceptofthepersonappliestotheonedivinesubject,andtheFather,theSon, andtheSpiritaredifferentiatedaccordingtotheprocessofself-differentiation andself-identification,bywhichamodernsubjectcomestoself-consciousness.113

MoltmannchargesthatthismodernversionoftheWesterndoctrine dispenseswiththeparticularitiesofChristianrevelationandreplacesthem withageneralphilosophicalconceptoftranscendentality.ThisIdealisticmodel oftheTrinityrepresents“alatetriumphfortheSabellianmodalism,”114 in whichthedivinesubjectdisappearsasahiddenrealitybehindthecloakofthe threemodesofbeing.

MoltmannidentifiesthehighlyinfluentialproposalsofKarlBarthandKarl

therelationalontologyoflove 89 RahnerasfallingpreytodifferentversionsofthisIdealistmodalism.115 In Barth’scase,Moltmannpointstohowhispredecessordeduceshisearliest versionofthedoctrinefromanIdealistconceptofself-revelation,aconcept thatheappealstoinordertosecuretheabsolutesovereigntyofGodoverthe humanactofknowing.116 HisthreefoldstructureofrevelationasRevealer, Revelation,andRevealednesscannot,inMoltmann’seyes,ensurethetrue differentiationamongthethreepersonsthatBarthseeks.Firstofall,theSpirit appearsonlyintheroleofthebondoflovethatjoinstheFatherandtheSon; sucharoleisredundant,however,becausetheFatherandSonareutterlyone intheirrelationshiptooneanother.117 Ultimately,Moltmannquestions whetherevenadualityofdivinepersonscanbesustainedonBarth’smodel. Barth’strinitarianformula,“‘GodrevealshimselfastheLord,’”118 impliesactuallyoneabsolutepersonality,apersonalitythatmustbeascribedeitherto theFatheror,inSabellianfashion,toafourthsubjectbehindthethreemanifestations.Ineithercase,thismonisticandmonarchicalconceptofdivine essenceasabsolutesubjecteclipsesthetrinitariannatureofdivinebeing.

MoltmanndiscoversdifferentsymptomsofGermanIdealismatworkin Rahner’sproposedtrinitarianmodelof“asingledivinesubjectinthree‘distinctmodesofsubsistence.’”119 HechallengesinparticularRahner’scontentionthatweneedtoabandonpersonhoodlanguageonthegroundsthatthe modernconceptofpersonhoodleadsinevitablytoatritheisticunderstanding oftheGodhead.HereRahnerrevealshisindebtednesstoanotionofpersonhoodas“anindependent,freeself-disposingcenterofaction,”anotionthat correspondstotheIdealistnotionofaself-reflexivesubject.120 Moltmann chargesthatinsteadofchallengingthisnotionofpersoneityaltogether,Rahner capitulatestothisEnlightenmentmodelbyapplyingittotheFatherasthe sourceoftheGodhead.Insupportofthisclaim,MoltmannpointstoRahner’s tellingtrinitarianformula,“theFathergivesushimselfinabsoluteselfcommunicationthroughtheSonintheHolySpirit,”inwhichtheFatherappearsasthe“singleGod-subject,”while“theSonisthehistoricalinstrument, andtheHolySpirit‘inus’istheplaceofGod’sself-communication.”121

MoltmannidentifiesahostoffurtherproblemsthatflowfromRahner’s modeloftheTrinityastheabsoluteself-communicationofGodtheFather.For one,Rahner’sredefinitionofdivinepersonhoodas“modeofsubsistence”does notpermitpersonaldifferentiationwithintheGodheaditself;theSonand Spiritarereducedtoactualizationsoftheoneself-communicationoftheFather.122 Moreover,MoltmannchargesthatRahner’smodelofdivineselfcommunicationendangersarealdistinctionbetweenGodandcreation.MoltmannpointstoRahner’sdescriptionoftheHolySpiritas“thesalvationthat deifiesus...inthe innermostcentreoftheexistenceofanindividualperson”123 asevidencethathumanbeingsbecomethemselvesamomentinthe divineprocessofself-communication.Insum,MoltmannchargesthatRahner

offersa“mysticalvariantoftheIdealisticdoctrine”:“HeretheabsolutesubjectivityofGodbecomesthearchetypalimageofthemysticsubjectivityofthe personwhowithdrawsintohimselfandtranscendshimself.”124

BeforewemoveontoMoltmann’sreconstructionofthedoctrine,we shouldpausetonotethatMoltmann’scriticismsofRahnerandBarthraiseas manyquestionsforhisowntrinitarianproposalsastheydoforhisrivals.For example,therearestrongparallelsbetweenMoltmann’sconceptofdivinepassionastheself-communicationofthegoodandthedeductionsthathedraws fromthisconceptaboutthesendingsoftheSonandtheSpirit,andhispredecessors’modelsofdivinerevelation.Boththedialecticofself-differentiation andself-identificationandtheAugustiniananalogyofthelover,thebeloved, andtheirbondofloveinformMoltmann’strinitariandeductionfromhisconceptoflove.LikeBarthandRahner,healsohasdifficultyassigningequal personalstatustotheHolySpirit,orelsenotreducingthedivinepersonsto modesofthesamebeing.125

DespitetheseIdealisttracesinhisownwork,Moltmanntakesaverydifferentroutethanthatofhispredecessorswhenitcomestotheformalstructure ofthedoctrine.Ratherthanbeginningwithageneralpostulateofdivineunity andthendifferentiatingthetrinitarianpersons,hefollowsthereverseprocedure.Hebeginswiththeconcreterevelationofthethreepersonsandtheir relationsinthebiblicalhistoryandlookstoestablishthenatureoftheirunity withoneanotherattheconclusionofhisdoctrine.Insodoing,hesidesexplicitlywiththoseinthetrinitariantraditionthathavepreferredasocialor interpersonalanalogyfortheTrinitytoapsychologicalone.Hedoessoonthe groundsthatonlyasocialanalogycanadequatelydepictthedifferentiated relationsamongthethreedivinepersonsandeliminatethesubordinationist ormodalisttracesthatheseesplaguinghispredecessors’trinitariandoctrines.126

MoltmannalsooptsforasocialanalogyfortheTrinityasthebestwayto representthedistinctivenatureofdivineunitythatisrealizedinthetrinitarian historyofGodwiththeworld.Thenotionofabecomingunitythatincludes notonlythesendingforthandgatheringbackoftheSonandtheSpiritbut alsothetransfigurationandinclusionofcreationinthetrinitarianfellowship requiresadifferentconceptualityofunitythaneitherofthenotionsofone substanceortheself-identicalsubject.UnlikethesedominantWesternconceptsofunity,Moltmannargues,asocialconceptoftriunityas“unitedness” canbetterincludedifferenceinitsmidstwithoutcollapsingintoidentity.127

IfMoltmann’scritiqueoftraditionalandmodernformulationsoftrinitariandoctrineaimstoexposetheirrecurringmonarchicalandmodalisttendencies,hisownsocialreformulationoftrinitariandoctrinemustwithstandcriticismsfromtheoppositeproblemthatoftentroublessocialapproachestothe doctrine,namely,thedangeroftritheism.Thatistosay,doesMoltmann’s socialreconstructionsoemphasizethedistinctionsamongthedivinepersons

thatitbecomesdifficultforhimtosecurethedivineunity?Asweexaminehis conceptualreconstructionofthedoctrine,inparticularhowMoltmanndevelopsthenotionsofdivinepersonhoodanddivineunity,wewillneedtojudge howsuccessfullyMoltmanneliminatesthisthreatoftritheismfromhisdoctrine.

TheDoxologicalTrinity:TheThreePersonsandTheirUnity

theimmanenttrinityinadoxologicalperspective .Inturningto Moltmann’sformalreconstructionofthedoctrine,weneedtoreturntoaepistemologicalissuethathasaccompaniedouranalysisofhisdoctrinefromthe outset,namely,howtheauthordrawsinferencesfromtheeconomictrinitarian relationstoGod’simmanentrelations.WehavealreadyseenthatMoltmann conteststheclassicaldistinctionbetweentheimmanentandtheeconomic Trinityonthegroundsthatsuchadistinctioncannotdojusticetothereal relationshipthatexistsbetweenthetrinitarianGodofloveandtheworld.The notionofanimmanentTrinitywhosepersonalrelationstooneanotherare utterlyself-sufficientcontradictstherevealedessenceoftheTrinityastheselfcommunicationofthegood.Atthesametime,Moltmanndoesnotutterly relinquishthisdistinctionbysimplyequatingtheTrinitywithitshistoryof relationstotheworld,asheappearedtodoin TheCrucifiedGod.Rather,he seeksalegitimatewayofmakingclaimsabouttheessenceofGodthatboth respectsthedynamicongoingrealrelationoftheTrinitytotheworldand upholdsitsdistinctionfromtheworld.

In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Moltmannproposesforthefirsttimea conceptualdistinctionthatwillmeetbothofhisaims.Hesuggeststhatwecan makeclaimsaboutGod’seternalnatureifwedosowithinthecontextof doxology.IndoxologyhumanbeingsofferpraiseandadorationofGodthat springfromGod’sbeneficencetowardhumankind.Atthesametime,believers alsomovebeyondpraiseforGod’sgoodworkstoofferpraiseforGod’svery goodnessinandofitself—forGod’sownsake.AsMoltmannexplains,“In doxologythethanksofthereceiverreturnfromthegoodlygiftofthegiver.But thegiverisnotthankedmerelyforthesakeofhisgoodgift;heisalsoextolled becausehehimselfisgood.”

128 Wecanrelyonthetruthfulnessofdoxological claimsaboutGodinGod’sselfsolongastheyremainanchoredinthateconomyofsalvation;wecannotpresume,however,aseconddoxologicalTrinity thatinanyrespectcontradictsGod’srevelationinhistory.MoltmannformulatesthisepistemologicalrulemostclearlyinadoxologicalrevisionofRahner’s axiom:“StatementsabouttheimmanentTrinitymustnotcontradictstatementsabouttheeconomicTrinity.StatementsabouttheeconomicTrinitymust correspondtodoxologicalstatementsabouttheimmanentTrinity.”

129

Evenwiththisbasicepistemologicalruleinplace,thereciprocalrelationshipthatMoltmanndescribesbetweentheTrinityandtheworldobviously

complicatesanyone-to-onepatternofcorrespondencebetweenthetrinitarian historyofGodandthedoxologicalTrinity.SincethetrinitarianhistoryofGod affectstheimmanentTrinity,thefullnatureofthedoxologicalTrinity—who Godisinthefullnessofhisgoodness—isonlyrealizedattheconclusionof history.Inotherwords,therewillfirstbeaperfectcorrespondence,evenmore, aunitybetweenthetwointheeschaton,whentheentiretrinitarianhistoryof Goddrawstoaclose.AsMoltmannputsit:“Wheneverythingis‘inGod’and ‘Godisallinall,’thentheeconomicTrinityisraisedintoandtranscendedin theimmanentTrinity.”

130 GiventhiseschatologicalperspectiveontheimmanentbeingofGod,thedoxologicalTrinitymaywellcorrespondtoourpresent experienceofsalvation,butitalsoalwayssurpassesit.ForthisreasonMoltmannplacesaneschatologicalprovisoonalltheologicalstatementsaboutthe doxologicalTrinity.Onlyina“fragmentaryway”doourconceptsandideas actuallypointtotheeternalnatureoftheTrinity;theymust,inMoltmann’s words,“suffer atransformationofmeaning iftheyaretobeappliedtothemysteryoftheTrinity.”131

theeternalrelationsoffather,son,andspirit .Bearingthiseschatologicalprovisoinmind,letusturnnowtoconsiderMoltmann’smodelofthe eternalrelationsandtheprocessionsamongthethreepersons.Inkeepingwith hisepistemologicalrule(tokeephisdoxologicalclaimsanchoredinthenarrativeofbiblicalrevelation),Moltmannfirstdescribeseachofthethreedivine personsandtheireternalrelationsasinferencesthathedrawsfromhiseconomyofcreationandredemption;onlythereafterdoeshedevelophisgeneral conceptsofdivinepersonhood,relationality,andunityforhissocialdoctrine.

IndevelopinghisconceptoftheeternalFather,theauthortakeshiscue fromtheFather’srevelationinandthroughhisrelationshiptotheSon.MoltmannspotlightsagainthedistinctiveAbbarelationshipthattheFathershared withtheSon,forexample,asitiswitnessedtointheLord’sPrayer.Moltmann drawsthecontrastsharplybetweenhistheologicalnotionoffatherhoodand thecosmologicalGodtheFatherwhoisthecreatorororiginoftheuniverse. WhereasthelatterrepresentstheGodofpatriarchy—analmightyrulerwho istobefearedaswellasworshiped,theformerrevealsaGodwhosegiftsare mercyandcompassion,freedomandfellowship.132

Onthebasisoftheirintimaterelationshipoffellowship,MoltmannconsiderstheFather’sprimordialrelationtotheSonashiseternalsourceorbegetter.Here,too,Moltmann’sprimaryinterestisinshowingtheprofound differencebetweenhistrinitariannotionofGodtheFatherandthatofother monotheisticandpatriarchalreligions.Hehighlightsinparticularhowthe sexistimageofGodtheFatherisutterlytransformedintheChristiannarrative throughtheimageryofbirthorbegetting.QuotingwithapprovaltheOrthodox tradition’sdescriptionoftheSonbeingbornoutoftheFather’swomb,Molt-

therelationalontologyoflove 93 mannconcludesthattheChristianconceptofGodtheFatherisreallythatof a“motherlyFather”ora“fatherlyMother.”133 ThisutterlytransformedFather languagedelegitimatesthewholenotionofpatriarchalruleinsocietyandproclaimsinitsplacearuleofegalitarianfellowship.ParaphrasingGalatians3: 28,Moltmannwrites,“Itleadstofellowshipofmenandwomenwithoutprivilege,andsubjection,forinfellowshipwiththefirst-bornbrotherthereisno longermaleorfemale,butallareoneinChrist,andjointheirsaccordingto thepromise.”134

WhilemanyaspectsofthisinterpretationoftheFatherreturntothemes wehaveseenpreviously,twoaspectsareespeciallysignificantfortheoverall shapeofMoltmann’ssocialdoctrine.First,heconceivesofthepersoneityof theFatherprimarilyinrelationalterms;wesimplycannotknowtheFather exceptinsofarasheisinrelationshiptotheSon.AlthoughMoltmanndoes notdrawanyfurtherconclusionsforhisdoctrineatthispoint,thisprovides uswithanearlysignofthefactthatpersoneityandrelationalityaremutually constitutiveconceptswithinhisdoctrine.Furthermore,Moltmann’sprimary concernindescribingtherelationshipofeternalbegettingisidentifyingthe natureoftherelationshipthattheFathershareswiththeSon—oneoffreedom andfellowship.ToinvokethetermsthatIintroducedearlier,theeternalprocessionoftheSonrevealstheFatherastheonewhofreesinloveandwho offersthiskingdomoffreedomtohumankindthroughouradoptionintothe Son’sfellowshipwiththeFather.

Second,MoltmannintroducesacaveattohisdefinitionoftheFatherin termsofhiseternalrelationshiptotheSon.Theauthoracknowledgesthata seconddefinitionoffatherhoodastheunoriginateorigin,the“principiumsine principio,”isalsoneeded.135 HeinvokesthisdefinitionofFatheraseternal origintoavoidthedangerofSabellianism,thatis,theideathattheremightbe afourthentityindependentofthethreedivinepersonswhoistheirtrueorigin andsourceoftheirbeing.Moltmannappliesthiscosmologicaltermtothe Fatherreluctantly,however,becauseitreintroducesthenotionofmonarchy thathewasanxioustocircumventatallcostsinhisdoctrine.Herestrictsthis monarchyoftheFatherasapplicableonlytothedivinerelationsoforigin,the “inner-trinitarianconstitutionofGod,”andhavingnobearingontheFather’s relationshiptotheworld.136 IntermsoftheTrinity’srelationshiptotheworld, allthreepersonsareequallyprimordial.

IncontrasttohisdescriptionoftheFather,Moltmann’sdepictionofthe secondpersonoftheTrinityfollowsverytraditionallines.Hereadilyadopts thelanguageofeternalgenerationanditstraditionalmeaningasaffirming thattheSonistheoneandthesameessenceoftheFather.Throughthiseternal begettingtheFather“communicateseverythingtotheeternalSon—everything excepthisfatherhood.TheFathercommunicatestotheSonhisdivinity,his powerandhisglory.”137 Moreover,MoltmannaffirmsthattheFather’seternal

communicationofbeingtotheSonisnotamatteroffreechoicebutbelongs totheessenceofthedivinenature;inotherwords,thereisnoessenceofGod apartfromthepersonaldifferentiationbetweenFatherandSon.

Moltmann’sdepictionoftheeternalrelationsofFatherandSongoesbeyondtraditionalaffirmationsbysuggestingthatthesepersonalrelationsoflove containfrometernityboththeFather’sactsofcreationandtheSon’ssacrifice oflove,activitiesthatreturncreationintothemidstoftheFather’sandSon’s loveforoneanother.Moltmannaccountsfortheseactivitiesbypositingan eternaldifferentialbetweenthecreativeloveoftheFatherandtheresponsive loveoftheSon.Intheauthor’swords,“Theydonotstandinanequalreciprocal relationshiptooneanother.TheFatherlovestheSonwithengendering,fatherlylove.TheSonlovestheFatherwithresponsive,self-givinglove.”138 Out ofthepositivesurplusoroverflowoftheFather’slovefortheSon,theFather createsaworldthatisdestinedtoreturnthisloveandgiveGoddelight.Similarly,MoltmannarguesthattheSon’sresponsiveloveoftheFather,whatthe authorcallstheSon’s“eternalobedience,”alwaysalreadyincludesthe“sacrificeofboundlessloveofGolgotha”thatjustifiesandsavescreation.139

Giventhebinitariantendenciesthatwehavenotedallalongthewayin Moltmann’strinitariantheology,itcomesasnosurprisethattheauthorhas themostdifficultyexplicatingthepersonhoodoftheSpirit,especiallywithin theframeworkofthepersonalrelationshipoftheFatherandtheSon.Moltmanncontendsthatthisproblemisnothisalone;thescripturesthemselves obscurethedistinctivepersonhoodoftheHolySpirit,sincetheSpiritusually appearsinthemeitherasadivineenergyorasasanctifyingforce.Moreover, hearguesthatthetrinitariantraditionsinboththeEastandtheWestalsooffer unsatisfactorydefinitionsoftheSpirit’spersonhood.Ontheonehand,the East’sstrategyofdefiningthepersonsintermsoftheirrelationsoforiginleads onlytoanegativedefinitionoftheSpirit’spersonhood—asbeing“notwithout origin,liketheFather,”and“notgenerated,liketheSon.”140 Ontheotherhand, theWesterndefinitionoftheSpiritasthebondoflovebetweentheFatherand theSonisalsofraughtwithdifficulties,sincetheSpiritisdefinedsolelyin termsofitsrelationtotheothertwopersonsanddoesnothaveitsowndistinctivepatternofloverelations.

MoltmannresolvestheissueoftheSpirit’spersonhood,itsprocessionand eternalrelationstotheFatherandSon,throughaseriesofcomplexarguments involvingboththescripturesandtheologicaltradition.Heturnsfirsttothe JohannineschemaoftheWordandtheSpiritinordertodemonstratethe Spirit’sfulldivinity.TherehenotesthatsincethebreathingoutoftheHoly SpiritisalwaysboundtotheutteranceoftheeternalWord,wecaninferfrom theeternalprocessionoftheWordthattheSpiritalsoeternallyproceedsfrom theFather,andisthusofequaldivinity.141 Second,MoltmannclarifiestheHoly Spirit’seternalrelationstotheFatherandtheSonbyofferingacreativecompromisesolutiontothe Filioque debatebetweentheEasternandWestern

therelationalontologyoflove 95 churches.Torecall,the Filioque debateconcernswhethertheSpiritproceeds fromtheFatheraloneastheEasternchurchmaintains,orfromboththeFather andtheSonastheWesternchurchinsists.WiththeEastMoltmannaffirms thattheSpiritprocessesonlyfromtheFatherasthesoleOriginoftheGodhead. TheSpiritreceivesitsfulldivinityfromtheFather,or,inMoltmann’spreferred terminology,hasits“divineexistence(hypostasis)”fromtheFather.142 Atthe sametime,MoltmanngesturestowardtheWesternpositionbyrecallingthat GodtheFatheris“inalleternitysolelytheFatheroftheSon,”143 sothatone cangenuinelyspeakoftheSpirit’sproceeding“from theFatheroftheSon.”144 SincetheeternalprocessionoftheSonisthe“logicalpresupposition”ofthe Spirit’sprocession,onecanspeakoftheSon’sparticipationintheSpirit’s processionas“fromtheFatherintheeternalpresenceoftheSon.”145

Tospecifytheinner-trinitarianrelationshipoftheSpirittotheSonand theFather,MoltmannintroducesadistinctionbetweentheSpirit’s hypostasis, anontologicalcategory,andherrelationalform, eidos or prosopon,anaesthetic category.146 TherelationalformdepictstheSpirit’sroleintheinnerdivinelife asglorifieroftheFatherandtheSon:theHolySpirit’sface“ismanifestedin histurningtotheFatherandtotheSon,andintheturningoftheFatherand theSontohim.ItistheHolySpiritinherinner-trinitarianmanifestationof glory.”147 WhiletheSpiritreceivesitshypostasisordivinebeingfromtheFather,shereceivesitsglorifyingformfromtheSonandtheFather.Thus,MoltmannconcludesthattheHolySpiritistheone“whoproceedsfromtheFather oftheSon,andwhoreceiveshisformfromtheFatherandtheSon.”148

asocialreconstructionoftheconceptofdivinepersons:their relationsandtheirunity .AlthoughMoltmann’sconceptofdivinepersonhoodhasbeenimplicitthroughouthispresentationofthetrinitarianhistoryofGodandofthedoxologicalTrinity,hefirstclarifieshisformalconcept ofpersonhoodafterengagingincriticaldiscussionofvariousproposalsfrom thehistoryofthedoctrine.Fourtheologians—Augustine,Boethius,Richard ofSt.Victor,andHegel—providethechiefdialoguepartnersandalsothe buildingblocksforMoltmann’sownconstructiveproposal.

Moltmann’sstartingpointisBoethius’sdefinitionofpersonhoodas“personaestrationalisnaturaeindividuasubstantia”;asMoltmannstates,“Asindividualsubstance,thepersonischaracterizedbysubstantiality,intellectuality andincommunicability.”149 TheauthorbeginswithBoethius’ssubstantialconceptofpersonhoodbecauseitprovidesanimportantcorrectivetothemodalist conceptofpersonhoodasa“modeofbeing”thathasprevailedinmodern trinitarianproposals:“ThetrinitarianPersonsarenot‘modesofbeing’;they areindividual,unique,non-interchangeablesubjectsoftheone,commondivinesubstance,withconsciousnessandwill.EachofthePersonspossesses thedivinenatureinanon-interchangeableway;eachpresentsitinhisown way.”150 MoltmannemphasizesnotsomuchtherationalaspectofBoethius’s

conceptastheweightthatitassignstothenoninterchangeableagencyofeach person.Thiscohereswellwiththeauthor’sownpictureofthetrinitarianhistoryofGodinwhicheachdivinepersonenactsadistinctsetofactivitiesin theworldthatestablishesitsparticularidentity.

Althoughthereareindubitablestrengthstoasubstantialnotionofpersonhood,Moltmannpointsequallytoitssignificantlimitations:itneitherprovidesawaytoidentifytheuniquenessofthedivinepersonsnorclarifiestheir interdependencewithoneanother.Toremedythesedeficiencies,Moltmann turnstoAugustine’srelationalconceptofpersonhood.Heretheparticular identityofeachofthethreedivinepersonsisconstitutedbyitsuniqueand nonexchangeablesetofrelationshipstotheothers.Moltmannpointsoutthat bydefiningthepersonsintermsoftheirrelationshipstooneanotheras paternitas,filatio,spiratio,Augustinedifferentiatesamongthethreeinsuchaway thatalsobindstheminextricablytooneanother;inMoltmann’swords,“The threePersonsareindependentinthattheyaredivine,butasPersonstheyare deeplyboundtooneanotheranddependentononeanother.”151 Despitethese advantagesinarelationalunderstandingofpersonhood,Moltmannconcludes thatarelationaldefinitionofpersonhoodalonedoesnotsufficeaswell.Ifwe definepersonsstrictlyintermsoftheirrelationshipstooneanother,nothing canpreventthethreatofmodalism,thatis,thatthethreebecomesubordinate toamonolithicdivinesubject.152

Giventheshortcomingsofeitherapurelysubstantialorapurelyrelational definitionofpersonhood,Moltmannoffersadefinitionofdivinepersonhood thatcombinesbothaspects:“ThetrinitarianPersons subsist inthecommon divinenature;they exist intheirrelationstooneanother.”

153 Withthisdefinition,heaffirmsontheonehandthatthedivinepersonsareconstitutiveofthe divineessence:onedoesnotexistwithouttheother.Ontheotherhand,the divinepersonsareonlygivenintheirrelationshipstooneanother.InMoltmann’swords,“Thetwo[personalityandrelationships]arisesimultaneously andtogether.”154

Moltmanndevelopshisconceptofdivinepersonhoodonestepfurtherby specifyingthenatureofthesedivinerelations.HedoessobyadoptingaconceptofpersonhoodthatwasfirstintroducedbyRichardofSt.VictorandsubsequentlydevelopedbyHegel.FromRichardofSt.Victortheauthorgleans thenotionthatthepersonsexistinecstaticrelationsofloveinwhichtheygive themselvesfullytooneanother:“Byvirtueofthelovetheyhaveforoneanother theyex-isttotallyintheother.... EachPersonfindshisexistenceandhisjoy intheotherPerson.EachPersonreceivesthefullnessofeternallifefromthe other.”155 HegelfurthersRichardofSt.Victor’snotionofecstaticloverelations withtheideathatthedivinepersonsdonotsimplyexistinbeingfortheother butactuallyconsummateorrealizetheirpersonhoodthroughthesereciprocal actsofself-givingandreceiving;inthisway,Hegelintroducestheessential dimensionofhistoricitytotheessenceofdivinepersonhood.Onecannothave

thedivinepersonsapartfromthehistoryoftheself-surrenderinglovethatis givenandreceivedfromtheotherpersons.

AlthoughMoltmanndoesnotdrawoutthecorrespondenceshimself,itis notdifficulttoseethatthisconceptofdivinepersonsasecstatichistorical relationsoflovecorrespondstotherelationsamongthedivinepersonsthat weremanifestinthetrinitarianhistoryofGod.Aswehaveseenearlier,Moltmanninterpretsallthemajoreventswithinthetrinitarianeconomy—creation, incarnation,cross-resurrection,andtransfiguration—aspermutationsofthe self-givinglovethatisexchangedamongtheFather,theSon,andtheHoly Spirit.AlthoughtheserelationshipsareeverchanginginthesensethatdifferentpersonsoftheTrinitytakeontheroleofgiverandreceiverofthedivine actionoflove,thecommondenominatorineachisthisecstaticexchangeof one’sselfinlove.

ThefinalandarguablymostdistinctiveaspectofMoltmann’ssocialreconstructionofthedoctrineishisconceptofdivineunity.Divineunityisthe dynamiccommunionsharedamongthedivinepersonsthroughtheirreciprocalrelationshipsofindwelling.Moltmannappealstoanancientconcept fromJohntheDamascene,thenotionof perichoresis (perixvrhsiß),todepict thisuniqueconceptofunityascommunionorfellowshipintheTrinity.

ThreeaspectsofthisconceptareessentialelementsforMoltmann’snotion oftriunity.First, perichoresis isadynamicconcept.AsMoltmannexplainsin thefollowingpassage,thisconceptsignifiesaunityorat-onenessthatisconstantlycreatedanewthroughtheactsofself-givingandreceivingamongthe threepersons:“AneternallifeprocesstakesplaceinthetriuneGodthrough theexchangeofenergies.TheFatherexistsintheSon,theSonintheFather, andbothofthemintheSpirit,justastheSpiritexistsinboththeFatherand theSon.Byvirtueoftheireternallovetheyliveinoneanothertosuchan extent,anddwellinoneanothertosuchanextent,thattheyareone.”156 Althoughtheterm perichoresis hasoftenbeentranslatedintheWestas“coinherence,”atermthatconnotesastaticformofindwelling,Moltmann’suseofit ismoreakinto“interanimation,”thatis,adynamicbeingandactingamong thedivinepersons.

Second, perichoresis involvesanongoingdialecticofself-differentiationand self-givingthatestablishesbothparticularityorothernessintheTrinityandthe unityofthethreepersonswithoneanother.InMoltmann’swords,“Inthe perichoresis,theverythingthatdividesthembecomesthatwhichbindsthem together.”157 ThismeansthattheunityoronenessofGoddoesnotcompete withthethreenessofGodforontologicalprecedence.Theyemergetogether becausetheserelationshipsofmutualindwellingatoncedistinguishthepersonsandformtheirunitywithoneanother.Assuch,thisnotionofdivineunity doesnotsubsumethethreepersonsunderagenericconceptofdivinebeing; divineunityunderstoodas perichoresis istrulyacommunalattributethatcan onlybepredicatedofallthreepersonstogether.

Third,thisnotionofperichoreticunitylacksanyhintofsubordination amongthedivinepersons.Thisdynamicmovementrestsentirelyonperfect reciprocityandequalityamongthethreepersons.Neitherhierarchynorpatternsofdominationandsubjugationexistinthiseternalgivingandreceiving oftrinitarianfellowship.Assuch,thenotionof perichoresis correspondsperfectlytoMoltmann’svisionofdivineruleintheeschatologicalkingdomof God—aformofmutualandpersonalindwellingthatisbasedonrelationships ofperfectequality.

WhileMoltmannheraldstheconceptof perichoresis asthesolutiontohow thethreepersonscantrulybeone,criticalquestionsremainabouthisnotion ofdivineunity.First,asseveralcriticshavepointedout,thereremainsthe evidentdangeroftritheisminMoltmann’ssocialreconstruction.158 Moltmann’ssocialdoctrineinvitesthiscriticism,especiallybecauseofhisemphasis onthenoninterchangeableidentityofthedivinepersonsinthetrinitarian historyofGod.Aswehaveseen,thepersonseachcarryoutdifferentrolesin thetrinitarianeconomy,rolesthatarenotsimplyappropriatedtothembutthat actuallyconstitutetheirpersonalidentities.Giventhisnotionofdivinepersonhood,itbecomeseasytolikenthethreetoindependentsubjects,whoseunanimityismerelyvolitional.Moltmann’sdescriptionsofdivineunityasaunion (Einigkeit)amongthethreedivinepersons—aunionthatisopentohumankind’sinclusioninitsmidst—alsofurtherssuchasuspicion.Thenotionof unionsuggeststhatthesearedistinctentitiesthatjointogetherinactsofcommonwill.

Moltmannseemstorecognizethisthreatoftritheism,sinceheseeksto warditofffromtheveryfirstin TheTrinityandtheKingdom.Hedefendshis viewoftriunityagainstthispictureofthethreedivinepersonsasfullyseparable agents,“whoonlysubsequentlyenterintorelationshipwithoneanother.”159 Heinsiststhattheirtriunityisanontologicalunitythatrestsintheirconstitutionaspersons.TofollowMoltmann’sargumentationhere,itisimportant tocalltomindthesecondconceptofdivineunitythatheinvokesinhissocial doctrine,namely,theunityintheoriginorinthemonarchyoftheFather. AlthoughMoltmanndoesnotrenderthisexplicit,itappearsthatitisthis notionoftheFatherasthesourceoftheGodheadthatactuallyguaranteesthe commondivineessenceofthethreepersons,ratherthanhisnotionoffellowshipthroughthethreepersons’mutualindwelling.

ThisleadsdirectlytoasecondcriticalquestionconcerningMoltmann’s doctrine:Whatistherelationshipbetweenthisprotologicalconceptofdivine unityintheFatherandtheeschatologicalnotionofdivineunityinthe perichoresis ofthedoxologicalTrinity?Wecanformulatethisquestionmorebroadly intermsofdivinelove:IsthereanontologicaldifferencebetweentheTrinity intheoriginastheself-communicationofthegoodanditstelosintheintratrinitarianfellowshipandfreedomoftheeschatologicalkingdom?

Moltmann’swritingsdonotgiveanunambiguousanswertotheseques-

tions.AsIhavepointedoutthroughoutthischapter,thereareclearlydeep correspondencesbetweenthevariousaspectsofhisdoctrine—hisnotionof trinitarianloveintheorigin,hispresentationofitspilgrimageinthehistory oftheworld,anditsanticipatedeschatologicalendinthekingdom.Allpoint toatriuneGodwhoseessenceisthatofanecstatic,intimate,andmutual fellowship.Andyet,Moltmann’sstatementsabouttheunfinishednatureof thedivinelifeuntiltheworldisgatheredintoitsmidstalsoleavesuchissues finallyunresolvedinhistory.AllwecanaffirmisthatthedoxologicalTrinity correspondstowhatwehavecometoknowoftheTrinityintheoriginthrough thetrinitarianhistoryofGod,butthatthismessianicrealitywillalsoinfinitely surpassit.

This page intentionally left blank

4ASocialTrinitarianTheology oftheHumanPerson

Chapters2and3ofthisstudyhavetracedthehistoricaldevelopmentofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyandthecorrespondingevolutionwithinhisconceptofdivinelove.Inthischapterandthenext, wewillstepbeyondthestrictdomainofMoltmann’sdoctrineofthe Trinityandhisconstrualofdivinelovetoenterthebroaderterrain oftheauthor’strinitariananthropologyandhistheologyofgrace. HereourtaskwillbetoexplorehowMoltmannappealstohissocial trinitariantheologytoreconfigurethenotionsofhumanpersonhood andtherelationsamongGod,theindividual,andthehumancommunity.Wewillbeaskingtowardwhatkindofattitudesandforms ofactionsthebelieverisinclinedwhenheorshecomprehendshis orherlife coramDeo —inthepresenceofthistrinitarianGodof love.

ByposingthissetofquestionstoMoltmann’stheology,wewill betestingthesecondtheologicalwagerthattheauthormakesonbehalfofhissocialtrinitarianconceptoflove,namely,thatitreflects notonlywhoGodisbutalsowhohumanbeingsas imagoTrinitatis arecalledtobecome.Wewillbeevaluatingboththepromiseand thelimitationsofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitarianconceptsofrelationality,persons,andcommunionasanormativemodel—whatI termedintheopeningchapterasa“socialtrinitariananalogyoffellowship”—fortherightrelationshipsamongindividualsandsociety andtheirGod.Insodoing,wenotonlywillbecontributingadistinctivehermeneuticforreadingMoltmann’s MessianicTheology but alsowillbecriticallyassessingthepracticalsignificanceofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheology.

Thischaptertakesthefirststeptowardaddressingthisagenda.HereI focusprimarilyonMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariananthropology,whichlaysthe cornerstoneforhisvisionoftheChristianlifethatwewillconsiderinchapter 5.Inwhatfollows,Iturnfirsttotheauthor’scriticismsofWesterntheological anthropologyanddemonstratehowthesecorrespondtohisearliercritiquesof theWesterndoctrineoftheTrinity.Inparticular,Ishowtheparallelsbetween Moltmann’sconcernsovertheatomismandhierarchicalismofWesternviews ofthehumanperson,andthemonarchianismthathasdoggedWesterntrinitarianism.

Inthesecondsectionofthischapter,Iintroducetheauthor’sdistinctive pneumatologicalandmessianicapproachtothedoctrineofcreation,which suppliesthedoctrinalframeworkforhistheologicalanthropology.Herewe willseehowMoltmannappealstothedynamicfellowshipoftheSpiritasthe Trinity’simmanentpresenceincreation.TheSpiritengendersthepossibility forarangeofcorrespondences—whatIterm“analogiesoffellowship”—betweenthetrinitarianlifeandthatofhumankind.Second,wewillconsiderhow MoltmannrevisestraditionalWesternschemasofcreationandredemptionby replacingtheclassicaltwofoldstructureofnatureandgracewithatripartite eschatologicaldialecticofnature,grace,andglory.Thistheologicalmovelends amessianictrajectorytohumanlife,sothatitremainsopen—preparedbut notyetperfected—foritsmessianicdestinyofbecomingthegloryofGod.

Inthethirdandconcludingsectionofthischapter,IconsiderMoltmann’s messianicinterpretationofthe imagoDei inhumankind:itscreateddesignationas imagoTrinitatis,itsmessianiccallingas imagoChristi,anditseschatologicaltelosas gloriaDei.HereIexamineindetailthedistinctiveaspectsof ourcreateddestinyas imagoTrinitatis.MoltmanninterpretstheimageofGod inhumankindasan“analogiarelationis,”thatis,atheologicalanalogybetween theinner-trinitarianrelationsoffellowshipandhumaninterpersonalrelations. Withthisrelationalmodel,theauthortreatsourcreateddestinyas imagoTrinitatis asasocialandembodiedlikenessthattheindividualcanrealizethrough thevariousconstellationsofrelationshipsthatconstituteherexistence.Humankind’spotentialforcreatingsuchsocialtrinitariananalogiesprovidesthe stepping-stoneforMoltmann’ssweepingsocialtrinitarianvisionoftheChristianlifethatIwilltakeupinthenextchapter.

AtomismandHierarchicalisminTheologicalAnthropology

InmanywaysMoltmann’scritiqueofWesterntheologicalanthropologyresemblescloselyhiscritiqueoftheWesterndoctrineoftheTrinityexploredinthe previouschapter.Heexposesthesamemonisticandmonarchicaltendencies inthe“possessiveindividualism”and“hierarchicalism”ofWesterntheological anthropologyanditspoliticaltheologythathaveplagueditsdoctrineofGod.1

JustastheunityofGodtakesprecedenceoverthedifferentiatedrelationships amongthedivinepersonsintheWesterndoctrineoftheTrinity,Moltmann contendsthatso,too,thesovereigntyoftheindividualprevailsoverthevarious constellationsofinterpersonalandsociopoliticalrelationsinthehumancommunity.

In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,MoltmanndevelopsthismonarchicalcritiqueofWesterntheologicaltraditionfirstintherealmofpoliticaltheology. HeinvestigateshowcertainpatternsofabsolutepowerandrulershipinChristianmonotheismaretransposedintowhatheterms“politicalmonotheism,” thatis,formsofgovernanceinwhichasinglerulerexercisesabsolutesovereigntyoverhissubjects.2 WhileMoltmanndoesnotseetherelationshipbetweenreligiousandpoliticalideasassimplyunilateral,henonethelessargues thatmodelsofdivinesovereigntyveryoftensupplythesacredlegitimationfor earthlymonarchicalorders.“Thenotionofadivinemonarchyinheavenand onearth,”contendsMoltmann,“foritspart,generallyprovidesthejustification forearthlydomination—religious,moral,patriarchalorpoliticaldomination— andmakesitahierarchy,a‘holyrule.’”3 Thetheologicalrootbehindsuch politicalmonotheismisthenotionofabsoluterulershipthatMoltmannhas previouslyidentifiedinWesternmonarchicalmodelsoftheTrinity,mostnotablyinthoseofBarthandAugustine.InMoltmann’swords,the“Lordofthe world,”who“isdefinedsimplythroughhispowerofdisposaloverhisproperty, notthroughpersonalityandpersonalrelationships,”providesthedivineprototypeforpoliticalmonarchianism.4 Aswesawearlier,theauthorobjectsto suchdefinitionsofdivinelordshipintermsofabsolutepowerandselfdeterminationbecause,inhisview,theydonotcorrespondtothebiblicalviews oflordship.Rather,thesearesecularandlegalnotionsofpowerthathavebeen transposedintothetheologicalrealm.

MoltmannoffersanumberofclassicalexamplesfromWesternpolitical historyasevidencetosupporthiscase.HepointsfirsttotheancientConstantinianempireasaprimeexampleofhowthenotionofdivinesovereignty legitimatedtheabsoluteruleoftheChristianemperorsintheearlychurch. ThereMoltmannrecallshowtheemperorwas“toapre-eminentdegree the visibleimage oftheinvisibleGod....His rulerepresentsGod’srule.Hence theoneGodisveneratedinhim.Heisnotmerelytheregent;heistheactual lordandpossessoroftheimperium.”5 Moltmannidentifiesasimilarmonarchicalanalogybetweendivineandearthlyauthoritiesinseventeenth-century Frenchabsolutism;theFrenchCalvinistsdefendedtheabsolutistpowerofthe earthlysovereignasthe“completereflectionor‘portrait’ofthemajestyof God.”6

Moltmannshiftshismonarchicalcritiquefromtherealmofpoliticstothat ofpersonalanthropologyin GodinCreation,thesecondvolumeofhis Messianic Theology.HereaselsewhereBarthservesasMoltmann’spreferredtargetof critique.HeidentifiestwosymptomsofmonarchianisminBarth’stheological

anthropology—whatMoltmannterms“spiritualization”and“instrumentalization.”7 WiththesetermshedescribeshowBarthidentifiesthehumanbeing’s essencewithitsrulingsoulandhowthebodyservesasaninstrumentofthis soul.ForMoltmann,thestructureofdominationthatisimplicitinthissoulbodyrelationmirrorsBarth’sunderstandingofrulershipandtheabsolutefreedomofthewillinhisdoctrineoftheTrinity.Whatlinksthetwoisthenotion ofthehumanbeingas imagoDei.MoltmanncontendsthatBarth’smodelof the imagoDei restsonananalogybetweentheabsolutelordshipofGodover theworldtothelordshipofthehumanspiritoverthebody.Aswealreadysaw inchapter3,MoltmannchargesthatBarth’sconceptofdivinefreedominterms oflordshipisincommensuratetothatofthescriptures.Inhistheological anthropology,theauthoradvancesananalogouscritiqueofBarth’smodelof theinnersovereigntyoftheindividualas imagoDei.The imagoDei amounts toaformofabsoluteself-possession:“ThehumanbeingistheimageofGod hisLordinthathebelongstohimself,controlshimselfanddisposesover himself.... TheruleofthesouloveritsbodyisanexpressionoftheruleofGod, andtheself-controlofthehumanbeingisitsparable.”8

NordotheilleffectsofBarth’strinitarianismonhistheologicalanthropologyendthere.MoltmannarguesthatBarthrecapitulatestheSon’spattern ofperfectobediencetotheFather’sruleintheinner-trinitarianlifeinthe ordereddivisionofthehumanpersonasa“dominatingsoul”andthe“subservientbody.”9 Thisinner-trinitarianorderofruleandobediencesacralizesa rigidorderofsuperiorityandsubordinationthathasrippleeffectsthroughout Barth’sdoctrineofcreation.Therelationsofheavenandearth,maleandfemale,humankindandnatureallcorrespondtothishierarchicalorderofrelations.10

WhileBarthmaybeMoltmann’spreferredmodernexampleofthe monarchicalandmonistictendenciesinWesterntheologicalanthropology, MoltmannrootstheprobleminAugustine’strinitariantheology.Wealready sawhowin TheTrinityandtheKingdom Moltmannlinksthemonarchical monotheismofWesterntrinitariantheologywithAugustine’spsychological analogy.In GodinCreation,Moltmannoffersaseriesofrelatedobjectionsto Augustine’spsychologicalanalogyfortheTrinity.TheauthorchallengesAugustine’sinterpretationofthe imagoDei inhumankindandoutlinesitsdeleteriousimplicationsforhistheologicalanthropologyandviewoftheChristianlife.

MoltmanntakesissuewiththefundamentalpremiseofAugustine’s imago Dei anthropology,namely,thateachhumanpersoniscreatedintheimageof thewholeTrinity,ratherthanintheimageofonedivinepersonoraspartof aninterpersonalorsocialimageoftheTrinity.QuotingAugustine’swords, “ManistheimageoftheonetrueGod.ForthisTrinityisitselftheonetrue God,”Moltmanncontendsthatforthechurchfather,“thehumanbeingcorrespondstothesingleBeingofthetriuneGod,nottothethreefoldnatureof

God’sinneressence.”11 Inotherwords,bylocatingtheimageoftheTrinityin anindividual’srationalsoul,AugustineconstruestheanalogybetweenGod andhumankindprimarilyintermsofdivinesovereignty.

NowMoltmanndoesacknowledgethatAugustine’spsychologicalanalogy impliesthatthereisatrinitariandifferentiationamongtheindividualsoul’s faculties,forexample,inthetriadof“spirit–knowledge–love.”12 Thisdoesnot relieveAugustine’spsychologicalanalogy(orAquinas’ssubsequentreception ofit),however,ofitsmonarchicaltendencies.Onthecontrary,MoltmannarguesthatonceAugustinelocatesthe imagoTrinitatis intheintellectualnature ofhumanbeing,thehumansubjectdevolvesintoathinlyveiledmodelofthe singlelordshipofGodtheFather:“[AugustineandAquinas]seemtoseethe Trinityasasinglesubjectwithtwo‘processions,’andtointerpretthehuman soulcorrespondingly,asalsoasubjectofreasonandwill.Thismeansthatas theimageofGodthehumanbeingcorrespondstoGodtheFather.”13 Justas themonarchyoftheFatherprevailsoverthetrinitariancommunityofpersons inAugustine’sdoctrineofGod,so,too,Moltmannargues,themonarchical unityoftheindividualrationalsouldominatesoveritsinternalrelationalityin thechurchfather’smodelofthe imagoDei.

Moltmannrejectstherationalsoulastheseatofthe imagoDei inhumankindnotonlybecauseitfailstodojusticetothedifferentiatedrelationalityof theTrinitybutalsobecauseitsupportswhathecallsan“analogyofdomination”overthebodyakintowhathepreviouslyidentifiedinBarth’sdoctrine.14 Withthisterm“analogyofdomination,”MoltmannreferstotheimplicitanalogythatAugustinecreatesbetweenGod’sabsolutesovereigntyovertheworld andanindividual’sspiritualsovereigntyoverthebody;here,too,therelationshipisoneofdominationandperfectobedience.JustasGodexercisesabsolute poweroverhiscreation,so,too,thespiritpreservesitsomnipotenceoverthe body’sactivities.

AccordingtoMoltmann,Augustine’shierarchicalmodelofthe imagoDei pavesthewayforasimilaranalogyofdominationtobecreatedbetweenmen andwomen.15 Onfirstglancethisisquiteasurprisingclaim,sinceonemight wellthinkthataspiritualizednotionofthe imagoDei wouldsupportthefundamentalequalityofmenandwomenascreatures.Moltmannargues,however, theconverse:thehierarchies,uponwhichthepsychologicalanalogyisconstructed—thelordshipoftheonesovereignGodovertheworld,thesoulover thesubordinatebody—fitwithananalogyofdominationthatexistsbetween maleandfemalerelations.Withoutthepositiveaffirmationthatthewhole humanbeing,bothsoulandgenderedbody—maleandfemalealike—iscreatedinGod’simage,theequaldignityofwomenandmenas imagoDei remains atrisk.

Moltmann’smostfar-reachingcritiqueofAugustine’spsychologicalanalogyfortheTrinityisthatittreatsanindividual’ssocialrelationsaslesssignificantthanone’sself-relation.Bylocatinghumankind’slikenesstoGodinthe

self-reflexivityoftheintellect,Augustineprivilegestheindividualsoulandits interiorrelationsoverthatoftheindividual’srelationshipstootherpersons.16 AlthoughMoltmanngrantsthatthispsychologicalapproachtothe imagoTrinitatis supportsthedignityofeachandeveryindividual,italsohelpedgenerate theWesternindividualismthatpitstheindividualandhisorherinterestsover andagainstthoseofhisorhercommunity.17

In TheSpiritofLife,thefourthvolumeofhis MessianicTheology,Moltmann presentsthissamecriticismofAugustine’stheologicalanthropologyinmore pointedterms.HerehechargesthattheoverallintrospectivecharacterofWesternspirituality—whatMoltmannpolemicallydescribesasits“gnosticspirituality”—stemsfromAugustine’sinteriorizationofthe imagoDei inhumankind;Augustine’sturninwardled“toadevaluationofthebodyandnature,to apreferenceforinward,directself-experienceasawaytoGod,andtoaneglect ofsensuousexperiencesofsocialityandnature.”18 Inotherwords,Augustine’s attemptstodiscernknowledgeoftheTrinityoutoftheinnerdepthsofthesoul notonlyenhanceasoul-bodydualismintheindividualbutalsoencouragethe soul’sretreatfromitsnetworkofinterpersonalrelationsandsocialresponsibilitiesintheworld.MoltmannchargesthatAugustine(andthemysticsinthe Augustiniantradition)settheindividualonaninteriorspiritualjourneyto knowandloveherGodandherself,ajourneythatwithdrawstheindividual fromloveofthesensesandloveofone’sneighbors.Itgeneratedacontemplativespiritualitythatwaseasilydivorcedfromactivediscipleship—aspirituality thatMoltmannportraysharshlyas“non-sensuous,unworldlyandnonpolitical.”19

BeforeweturntoMoltmann’ssocialtrinitarianreconstructionoftheologicalanthropology,letmeoffertwocriticalobservationsabouthispresentation ofWesternanthropology.First,weneedtoquestionatseveralpointstheadequacyofMoltmann’sinterpretationsofbothBarth’sandAugustine’stheologicalanthropologies.InbothofthesecasesMoltmanncastssweepingjudgmentsthatoftenrelyonisolatedpassagesfromtheircomplexworks.For example,inBarth’scaseMoltmanndrawsattentiontocertainpatternsoflordshipandobedienceinhispredecessor’swritings,whileheskipsoverthecountervailingthemesofGod’spartnershipwithhumankindandthatofhuman beingswithoneanother,themesthatarewoventhroughoutBarth’stheological anthropology.AlthoughonemightrightlyobjecttoBarth’srelianceonthis rhetoricoflordshipandservice,onecanequallyarguethatBarthseeksto redefinethesignificanceofsuchtermsbyplacingtheminakenoticchristologicalframework.20

InAugustine’scase,Moltmann’sanalysesareequallyselectiveandoften relyfortheirinterpretationonmoderncommentariesthatarehighlycritical ofAugustine’sposition.AsDavidCunninghampointsout,Moltmannseems tofallpreyhereto“historicalscapegoating.”21 Thatis,hesaddlesAugustine withviewsofhumanpersonhood,forexample,asatomizedandnonrelational,

thataremoreappropriatetopost-Cartesianviewsofthehumansubjectthan theyaretoAugustine’srationalpsychology.

Thesecondobservationisarelatedone.Inmyview,themoreappropriate targetofMoltmann’scritiqueisthemonarchicalpictureoftheChristianGod andtheanthropocentricworldviewthathavedoggedChristiantheologiesof creationsincetheearlymodernperiod.Moltmannsuggeststhiscritiqueof modernityintheopeningchapterof GodinCreation,ashepointsouthowthe emergingmodernconceptofGodintheRenaissance(particularlyunderthe influenceofnominalism)dramaticallyshiftedtheparadigmbothofGod’srelationshiptotheworldandofhumanbeings’relationshiptonature.Through theriseofscientificmethodologyandindustrialization,humankindcameto viewitsrelationshiptotherestofcreationintermsofexploitativedomination—intermsofpossessionandabsolutepoweroveritsresources.Justas absolutepowerbecamethe“pre-eminentattributeof[God’s]divinity,”so,too, themodernhumanbeingisurged“tostriveforpoweranddominationsothat hemightacquire his divinity.”22

Inessence,Moltmann’spolemicagainstWesterntheologicalanthropology parallelsthatwhichhelaunchedearlieragainstmoderntheism:heobjectsto itsidealoffreedomasself-sufficiencyandabsolutepoweroverothers.Modern theologicalanthropologyadoptsthisfalseunderstandingofdivinefreedom and,asaresult,fostersarangeofdestructiverelationshipsofdominationin andamonghumancommunitiesandtowardtherestofcreation.Aboveall, Moltmann’sdoctrineofcreationandtheologicalanthropologyseektodismantlethismodernanalogyofdominationbyreconfiguringboththedivineand humanrelationshipandthepatternofhumanrelationshipsintermsofthe communalandlife-givingpatternsoftrinitarianfellowship.Asweturntohis constructiveproposalahead,wewillevaluatehowsuccessfulMoltmannisin providinganalternativeparadigmforChristianexistencebuiltonthedynamics oftrinitarianfellowship,aparadigmwhichwillfosterhumanflourishingand healthyinterpersonalrelationsofinterdependence.

APneumatologicalandMessianicTheologyofCreation

BeforeweturntoMoltmann’s imagoDei anthropology,letuslookfirstattwo overarchingprinciplesoperativeinhisdoctrineofcreation:first,howtheSpirit bestowstheTrinity’slife-givingimmanentfellowshipintheworld;andsecond, Moltmann’smessianicrevisionoftheclassicalcreation-redemption(naturegrace)modelofGod’srelationshiptotheworld.23 AsIarguelater,thesetwo aspectsofhisdoctrinehaveimportantmethodologicalimplicationsforhow MoltmannpresentstherelationshipbetweentheTrinityandcreation,andparticularlyforthehumanbeing’scapacitytomodelthetrinitarianlifeinand throughhervariousrelationshipsintheworld.

TheSpirit’sCreativeFellowshipwiththeWorld

Aswerecallfromourdiscussionof TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Moltmann anchorstheoriginalactofcreationintheinner-trinitarianloveoftheFather fortheSon.TheoverflowoftheFather’sengenderinglovefortheSoncalls creationforthintolifethroughthepoweroftheHolySpirit.Moltmannretains essentiallythesametrinitariantheologyofcreationin GodinCreation,buthe nowexpandssignificantlyonitspneumatologicaldimensions.Hedoessoby appealingtovariousbiblicaltraditions,particularlytheWisdomliterature,the Psalms,andtheBookofActs,aswellastwomainsourcesfromthetheological tradition—thetrinitarianpneumatologyoftheCappadocianFathersandCalvin’spneumatologicaldoctrineofcreation.24

Inkeepingwithhistrinitariantheologyofloveasdevelopedin TheTrinity andtheKingdom,MoltmanndescribestheSpiritastheoverflowingloveofGod fromwhichcreationoriginallyissuesforth.TheCreatorSpiritrepresentsthe wellspringor,toquoteCalvin,“thefountainoflife(fonsvitae).”25 TheCreator Spiritprovidesnotonlythisinitialenergyofcreationbutalsothecontinuous presenceofthetrinitarianGodwithincreation.ThisindwellingSpiritofGod, the Shekinah,permeatestheentirecosmoswithlife-givingenergy,preserving itinlifeandallthewhiletransformingitintoanewlife.“Throughthepowers andpotentialitiesoftheSpirit,”Moltmannwrites,“theCreatorindwellsthe creatureshehasmade,animatesthem,holdstheminlife,andleadstheminto thefutureofhiskingdom.”26 Inessence,theSpiritfulfillsthethreeclassical ReformednotionsofGod’sprovidentialagency—preservation,accompaniment,andgovernanceofallcreation.

MoltmannnotonlydescribestheagencyoftheSpiritinclassicalterms butalsointegratesinsightsfromevolutionaryandecologicaltheoryintohis pneumatology.TheSpiritactsas“theprincipleofcreativity”thatcreates“new designsand‘blueprints’formaterialandlivingorganisms.”27 TheSpiritisat oncethe“principleofindividuation,”differentiatingtheoneintothemany, andthe“holisticprinciple,”knittingcreationintoacommunitywitheachother andwiththeirGod.28 Finally,theSpiritservesasateleologicalprinciple,what Moltmannterms“theprincipleofintentionality,”29 thatorientsthewholeof creationtowarditscommonfutureinthekingdomofGod.

Forourpurposes,whatismostsignificantaboutMoltmann’spneumatologicalapproachtocreationishowitredressesthehierarchicalismthatstructuresmoderntheologiesofcreation.ThroughtheSpirit’sdynamicandcontinuouspresenceintheworld,Moltmannreplacesthehierarchicalrelationship betweenGodandcreation(and,derivatively,betweenthehumancommunity anditsnaturalenvironment)withapatternofrelationalitythatcorrespondsto thatofthetrinitarianlifeitself.ThistrinitariannatureoftheGod-worldrelationshipbecomesexplicitonceMoltmanninvokesthenotionof perichoresis to describethe“dialecticalmovement”30 oftheSpiritincreation.Throughits

dialecticalmovement,theSpiritformsapatternofrelationshipswithcreation thatisanalogoustotheintra-trinitarianrelationsofmutualindwelling.Inan essaywrittensubsequentlyto GodinCreation,Moltmanndescribesingreater detailhowheenvisionsthisperichoreticrelationshipbetweenGodandthe world:“ThecoexistenceofCreatorandcreatureisalsotheirmutuallife,their cohabitationandinfluenceoneachother.TheCreatorfindsspaceinthefellowshipofcreatures.ThecreaturesfindspaceinGod.Socreationalsomeans thatweareinGodandGodisinus.”31 Throughtheserelationshipsofmutual indwelling,Moltmannreplacesthepowerstructureofabsolutesovereignty implicitinaGodwhoiswhollytranscendentovercreationwithonebasedon mutualinterdependencebetweenGodandcreation.

Moltmann’sdescriptionoftherelationshipbetweenGodandcreationas perichoreticisoneofthemostcontroversialaspectsofhisdoctrine.Byusing theterm perichoresis withoutanyqualificationstodescribetherelationship betweenCreatorandcreation,Moltmannblurstheclearontologicaldistinction betweenthetwo.HisterminologysuggeststhattheHolySpiritandtheworld existonanequalplane—onanalogytothemutualityandequalityofrelations thatexistamongthetrinitarianpersons.AsIpointedoutattheoutsetofthis study,Moltmann’sunqualifieduseofsuchtrinitarianterminologyhasdrawn firefromhiscritics,whoarguethathetherebyriskseitherdivinizingcreation ordissolvingGod’sbeingintotheworld.32 AlthoughMoltmanndoesnotspell outforhisreadershowthe perichoresis betweenGodandtheworlddiffersfrom thatamongthedivinepersons,hesuggestsinfactthatitdoesso.Heargues thattheHolySpiritremainstranscendentovercreationthroughitseternal unitywiththeFatherandtheSonintheinner-trinitarianlife.33 Inthisway, MoltmannintimatesthatthereisanasymmetryintheHolySpirit’srelationshiptohumankindthatdistinguishesitfromthemutualindwellingamong thedivinepersons.TheSpiritisintimatelyinvolvedincreationbutalsoexists infinitelybeyondtheworldasitseschatologicaltelos.

Atthispointwecanhelpfullyreturntooneoftheothercriticaldebates aboutMoltmann’strinitariantheologythatIraisedattheoutsetofthisstudy. ThereImadethepointthatcontemporarytheologianscriticizeMoltmann’s depictionoftherelationshipbetweenGodandcreationforvirtuallyopposite reasons.SomesuchasSallieMcFaguecriticizeMoltmann’sdoctrineofthe immanentTrinityasawayofpreservingGodfromanyhintofdependencyon creation.InMcFague’sview,Moltmann’strinitariantheologyundercutsany realrelationalitybetweenGodandtheworldinfavorofadistantandselfabsorbedpictureofthedivinenature.Others,forexample,AlanTorrance, contendthatMoltmann’strinitarianhistoryofGodtiestheTrinitytooclosely tothepassageofworldhistoryand,insodoing,compromisesthetranscendenceandsovereigntyofthetriuneGodovercreation.ForthisreasonitbecomesdifficulttoprotectthegraciousnatureofGod’sredemptiveagencyon behalfofhumankind.

SinceTorrance’scriticismsfocusmoredirectlyonquestionsofgraceand thenatureofdoxologyinthelifeoffaith,Iwillwaituntilthenextchapterto engagehisparticularcriticisms.Wecan,however,addressMcFague’scriticismsnowthatwehaveseeningreaterdetailhowMoltmannrelateshistrinitariantheologytohisdoctrineofcreationviahispneumatology.Hereacouple ofpointscanbemadeinfavorofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyofcreation.

First,McFague’scriticismseemsshortsighted,insofarasshedoesnottake intoaccounthowMoltmann’sreconstructionofthedoctrineoftheTrinity createsamoredifferentiatedpictureoftherelationshipbetweenGodandthe worldthanthatofeitherradicaltranscendenceorimmanence.Throughthe dynamicself-giving(kenosis)oftheHolySpirit,thereisamediatedpresence oftheTrinityincreationthatguaranteesarealandongoingpresenceofGod intheworldwithoutequatingthetwo.Moltmannuseshistrinitariannotion oftheperichoreticrelationshipofGodandtheworldtoovercomeboththe alternativesofdeism,aremoteGodwhoisuninvolvedintheworld,andof pantheism,dissolutionofthedistinctionbetweenGodandtheworld.Inhis words,“Thetrinitarianconceptofcreationbindstogetherthetranscendence andtheimmanenceofGod....Inthe panentheisticview,God,havingcreated theworld,alsodwellsinit,andconverselytheworldwhichhehascreated existsinhim.”34

Second,Moltmann’sdescriptionoftheGod-worldrelationshipviathefellowshipoftheSpirit,namely,thatGodisbothtranscendenttocreationand radicallypresentandengagedinallofcreation,cohereswellwiththeviewsof classicaltheologianssuchasAugustine,Aquinas,orCalvin.AshasbeenrecentlyarguedbyKathrynTannerandWilliamPlacher,onlyinmodernitydo doctrinesofcreationassumewhatMcFaguedoes,namely,a“contrastivedefinition”ofdivinetranscendenceinwhichtranscendenceandimmanencebecomeinversetermsina“zero-sumgame”;themoretheoneincreases,the otherdecreases.35

ForAquinas,Luther,orCalvin,itwasnotalogicalcontradictiontoclaimthatGodisbothradicallytranscendenttocreationandimmediatelypresentandatworkinit,becauseGod’sfreedomandagencyareof adifferentorderthanthoseoffinitecreatures.36 Whatwasunacceptablewas thenotionthatGodexistsintheworldinthesensethattheworldbecomesa necessarypartofGod’sbeing.AlthoughMoltmann’sunqualifieduseofthe term perichoresis todescribeGod’sindwellingpresenceintheworldmight initiallysuggestthatheespousessuchapantheisticview,Moltmann’sinsistenceontheunbrokenfellowshipoftheimmanentTrinity,aswellasthedialecticalnatureoftheSpirit’spresence,counterssuchaninterpretation.

AMessianicDoctrineofCreation

TheseconddistinctiveaspectofMoltmann’sdoctrineofcreationisitsmessianiccharacter.Aswerecallfrompreviouschapters,theterm“messianic”is

theauthor’swayofqualifyinghistheologyintermsofhiseschatologicalchristology,thatis,inlightofJesus’proclamationofthekingdomofGodandits anticipationinhishistory.In GodinCreation,Moltmanntakesonestepfurther andanchorshismessianicinterpretationofcreationinthebiblicalaccounts ofcreation.HefocusesparticularlyontheSabbathday,“‘thefeastofcreation,’”37 asthecentralcluetothemessianicstructureofcreation.Western doctrinesofcreationhavelargelyoverlookedthefactthataccordingtothefirst accountinGenesis,creationdoesnotconcludewiththesixactivedaysof creationandthecreationofhumankind.Creationisfirstcrownedwiththe Sabbathontheseventhday,whenGodrestsandrejoicesinhiscreation.In thisSabbathfeastwediscoverthefutureofcreationwhen“Godwilldwell entirelyandwhollyandforeverinhiscreation,andwillallowallthebeings hehascreatedtoparticipateinthefullnessofhiseternallife.”38 TheSabbath givesusaforetasteofthekingdomofglory,inwhichGod’speoplewilljoyfully comehometotheirpermanentdwellinginGod’smidst.

ThisSabbathvisionisattheheartofMoltmann’stheologicalagendaof developinganecologicaldoctrineofcreation.HereMoltmannismotivatedby morethanagenuineconcernofrespondingtotheecologicalcrisis.Heis equallyconcernedtorecoverthebiblicalperspectiveonnatureasthehousehold(oikos)orthepermanentdwellingplaceofGod.39 Intheauthor’sview, moderntheologiesofcreationhavelostthesenseofGod’srealpresencein natureandhavethuspavedthewayformodernscience’sattitudesofdominationandexploitationofnature’sresources.Theyhavetreatedtheworldas humankind’spossessionratherthanasGod’ssacredgift.

ThismessianicperspectivepermeatesthewholeofMoltmann’sdoctrine ofcreation.Mostsimply,itmeansthatcreationisnotaneventthatoccurred onceandforallatthebeginningoftime;rather,creationisacontinuousand openprocessthatreachesitscompletionfirstintheeschaton.Moltmannsimilarlyreconfiguresredemptionandtherenewalofcreation.Redemptiondoes notrestorecreationtoitsoriginalparadisiacalperfection;rather,itbuildson theongoingprocessofcreation.40 Althoughthekingdomofgloryhasbeen anticipatedprolepticallyintheresurrection-event,themessianictensioninthe worlddoesnotabatewiththecomingofChrist.Onthecontrary,thepouring forthoftheHolySpiritintotheworldintensifiesthemessianicrestlessnessin allofcreation,drawingitonwardtowarditseschatologicalliberation.

Moltmannappealstooneofhisoft-citedPaulinetexts,Romans8:19–23, insupportofhisviewof“newcreationintheSpirit”asadialecticalexperience oflibertyandoflonging,ofbothjoyandthesighsofpain:“‘Wehave’thefirst fruitsoftheSpiritandyet‘wait’fortheredemptionofthebody....The point wherethelibertyofthechildrenofGodhascomesoclosethatwerevivein hopeistheverypointwherewebecomepainfullyawareofthechainsofbondage.”41 Aswecanseefrompassagessuchasthisone,Moltmannviewsredemptionasaholistictransformationofthecreatedrealm.Herejectsaspir-

itualizedviewofredemptionthatpromisesliberationorexodusfromthis world.Rather,redemptionrepresentsbothsolidaritywiththewoesoftheworld andacommitmenttotheirtransformation.

Toconclude,IwouldliketoliftuptwosignificantimplicationsofMoltmann’smessianicapproachtothedoctrineofcreationforourpathahead.The firstconcernshowMoltmann’smessianicperspectiveaffectsthetraditional divisionofthedivineeconomywiththeworldintermsofnatureandgrace, creationandredemption—or,touseBarth’schristologicalcategories,“creation andconvenant[sic].”42 Moltmannrejectssuchtraditionaltwofoldschemason thegroundsthattheyconflatethegraceofferedinChristwiththeconsummationofeternalgloryand,insodoing,ignoretheunfinishedhistoryof creation.Notonlyissuchanequationofeschatologicalredemptionwiththe presentexperienceofdivinegraceinconsistentwiththeNewTestament’smessianicvision,butitalsofostersadangerousChristiantriumphalismthatassumeshumankind’sdestinyhasalreadybeenfulfilledinChristianity.43

Moltmannreplacesthistraditionalcreation-redemptionschemawitha threefoldeschatologicaldialectic,inwhichthecomingkingdomofgloryqualifiestherealmsofbothnatureandgrace.Heformulatesthismessianicframeworkbyfirsttakingthemedievalprinciplethatgracedoesnotdestroynature butpresupposesandperfectsit(“gratianondestruit,sedpraesupponitetperfecit naturam”)andrevisingitinmessianicterms:“Gracedoesnotperfect,but preparesnatureforeternalglory.Graceisnottheperfectionofnature,but preparesthemessianicworldforthekingdomofGod.”44 Withthisprinciple Moltmannorientsthewholehistoryofcreationandredemptiontowardits fulfillmentinthemessianickingdom.ThisdoesnotmeanthatGod’shistory withtheworldrepresentsasteadyevolutionaryprogresstowardthemessianic goalofGod’spermanentindwelling.Aswewillseemoreclearlyinthenext chapter,creationitselfdoesnotpossessthepotentialfortherealizationofthe kingdom.Rather,themessianickingdomthatisanticipatedinChristand thereaftermediatedthroughtheSpiritinvolvesacosmicstruggleandvanquishingofallthenegativitiesofhistory—ofbothnaturalandhumanevils. AsRichardBauckhamformulatesit,the“eschatological”is,forMoltmann,“a counter-movementwhichdoesnotdevelopoutofthispresent,transientreality, butcontradictstheevil,sufferingandtransienceoftheworldasitis,transformingitbybringingitoutofthenothingnesstowhichittendsintothe eternallifeofindwelling.”45 OnthispointMoltmann’smessianicnarrativeof creation-redemptionremainsutterlyconsistentwithhisearlierdialecticaleschatologyof TheologyofHope:theinbreakingpowerofthefuturemediated throughtheSpiritbringsgenuinelynewlife-givingpossibilitiesintohistory.

Thesecondissueisarelatedone,namely,howthismessianicandpneumatologicalapproachtothedoctrineofcreationcreatestheconditionsforand atthesametimequalifiesanycorrespondencesbetweentheTrinityandthe createdorder.Hereacoupleofpointsareinorder.First,Moltmann’spneu-

matologicaldoctrineofcreationsecuresthetheologicalnatureofallcorrespondencesbetweenTrinityandcreation,includingthoseamonghumanbeings.BythisImeanthatanyandallcorrespondencestothetrinitarianlife thatemergeinthefiniterealmarereflectionsofGod’sindwellingpresence. SincetheHolySpiritsuffusescreationalwaysandeverywherewithitsgiftof life,therearenopurelynaturalanalogiesorcorrespondencestothetrinitarian lifeinthecreatedrealmthatareindependentofGod’sgraciouspresence.

IfMoltmann’sinsistenceontheindwellingoftheSpiritincreationappearstoelevateallofcreationintoapotentialsymbolofdivinelife,hismessianicperspectivealsoqualifiesallsuchanalogiesasanticipationsofthekingdomoftheglorytocome.Intheauthor’swords,thecreatedworldreveals“the realpromisesofthekingdomofglory.Thepresentworldisarealsymbolof itsfuture.”46 Thismeansthatallreflectionsofthedivine—whatIcall“analogies offellowship”—inthecreatedorderhaveadialecticalnature.Theyarerealbut alsobrokensymbolsofthekingdomtocome.Inthislight,allsuchsignsof thekingdompossessacertaindynamictowardtheirownrevision;theyalways pointbeyondthemselvestotheiryetunrealizedfuture.

TheHumanBeingas ImagoChristi and ImagoTrinitatis

Withthismessianicandpneumatologicalapproachtothedoctrineofcreation asourframework,letusturntoMoltmann’s imagoDei anthropology.In God andCreation,Moltmannsituateshis imagoDei anthropologyattheconclusion ofadetaileddiscussionofthehumanbeing’scommunitywiththerestof creation.Hedoessotocountertheprevalentanthropocentrismofmodern theologiesofcreation.Modernphilosophicalandtheologicalanalysesofthe humanbeinghavesoemphasizedthedifferencebetweenhumankindand naturethattheyhavemaskedhumanbeings’dependenceonaswellastheir uniqueresponsibilityfortherestofcreation.Incontrast,Moltmanndevelops whatwemightdescribeasadoctrineofcreationfrombelow.Hebeginsby highlightingthemanyaffinitiesbetweenhumankindandtherestofcreation intheGenesisaccountsofcreation.Fortheauthor,humankind’sorganicrelationshiptothenaturalworldissymbolizedmostbasicallyinhumanbeings’ creationfromtheearthandtheirreturnthereupondeath.47 Humankindalso sharesseveralkeyfeatureswiththerestofanimalcreation.Likeotheranimals, humanbeingsaredesignatedas“livingsouls”(Gen.1:30)—atermthatin Hebrewmeansan“animatedbody,”48 incontrasttothelaterGreeknotionof asoulasaspiritimprisonedinthebody.Liketherestofcreation,human beingsalsofindthemselvesdependentontheearthforitslivingspaceandits food.Finally,humanbeingssharewiththerestoftheanimalsthegiftof“bisexualityandfertility,”49 fortheyreceivethesameblessingtobefruitfuland multiply.

Despitetheirsimilarities,humanbeingsoccupyauniqueplacewithinthis fellowshipofcreationas“imagomundi”oras“amicrocosminwhichallpreviouscreaturesaretobefoundagain.”50 Humanbeingsrecapitulatethewhole evolutionaryhistoryofcreationintheircomplexlifesystems.Asthecapstone ofallearthlycreation,humanbeingsservetheuniquefunctionofbeingcreation’srepresentativebeforeGod.Inthiscapacityhumanbeingsperformboth the“priestly”and“eucharistic”functionsofofferingpetitionandpraiseon behalfofcreationtoGod.51

Againstthisbackdropofthehumanbeing’scommunitywiththerestof creation,Moltmannpresentsaninnovativeinterpretationofthehumanbeing as imagoDei,inwhichheweaveshistrinitariantheologyintoamessianic interpretationofthecreationaccountsinGenesis.Moltmanndepartsfromthe traditionalnotionofthe imagoDei asanidealprimordialstateorpropertyof humanbeingsthathasbeendamagedorutterlylostintheFallandthenrestoredthroughgrace.Hereconfiguresthismythicstoryofparadiselostand regainedintoamessianicnarrative,oneinwhichthe imagoDei appearsas humankind’seschatologicaldestinyinsteadofasitslostorigin.“Inthemessianiclightofthegospel,”Moltmannwrites,“thehumanbeing’slikenessto Godappearsasahistoricalprocesswithaneschatologicaltermination;itis notastaticcondition. Being humanmeans becoming humaninthisprocess.”52

Withinthismessianicnarrative,thehumanbeingas imagoDei appearsinthe sametensivestateof“alreadyandnotyet”thatdynamizesthetrinitarianhistoryofGod;humanbeings’likenesstoGodisbothanever-presentrealityand anunrealizedpromise.InMoltmann’swords,itis“bothgiftandcharge,indicativeandimperative.Itischargeandhope,imperativeandpromise.”53

Moltmanndividesthismessianicnarrativeofthehumanbeingas imago Dei intothreestagesthatcorrespondtohiseschatologicaldialecticofnature, grace,andglory.First,humankind’soriginalcreateddestinyistobecome imago Dei.Second,ourmessianiccallinginhistoryistobecomechildrenofGod,a termthatMoltmanndefineschristologicallyas imagoChristi.Finally,oureschatologicalendistobecome gloriaDei 54 Inwhatfollows,wewillinvestigate thefirststageofthismessianicnarrative—humankind’screateddestinyas imagoDei —andwillreturntothesecondandthirdstageswhenweconsider Moltmann’smodelofsalvationandthelifeoffaithinthefollowingchapter.

Moltmann’sguidingprincipleindefiningthehumanbeingas imagoDei isthatthismustbeatheologicalcategoryasopposedtoageneralanthropologicalcategory,capacity,orpropertythatdistinguisheshumanityfromnonhumancreation.Bytheologicalcategory,hemeansthatthe imagoDei inhumankindshouldbedefinedintermsofGod’sbeingandeternalpurposein creatinghumankind.“Thehumanbeing’slikenesstoGod,”heinsists, “...firstofallsayssomethingabouttheGodwhocreateshisimageforhimself,andwhoentersintoaparticularrelationshipwiththatimage,beforeit saysanythingaboutthehumanbeingwhoiscreatedinthisform.”55 Ifwe

recallourearlierdiscussionofGod’sbeingasdivinepassionin TheTrinityand theKingdom,God’spurposeincreatinghumanbeingsistohavea“counterpart”inlove—arelationshiptoanotherwhocanreceiveandrespondfreelyto thedivinegiftoflove.Accordingly,Moltmanndefinesthehumanbeing’s uniquedesignationas imagoDei intermsofitsroleasrecipientandrespondent tothedivinegiftoflove:“MenandwomenarebeingswhocorrespondtoGod, beingswhocangivetheseekingloveofGodthesought-forresponse,andwho areintendedtodojustthat.AsGod’simage,menandwomenarehiscounterpartintheworkofcreation.”56 Althoughthewholeofthecreatedorder springsforthgratuitouslyfromGod’sinfiniteself-giving,humanbeingsare uniqueintheircapacitytoreciprocate(albeitinacreaturelymanner)thisdivine self-giving.TheyaresingularlydestinedtobecomethebelovedOther,thetrinitarianGod’ssought-aftercovenantpartnerwhosefulfillmentisfoundinreturningthisgiftofdivineloveinfreedom.

Moltmanngoesontodescribethe imagoDei inevenmorepreciseterms asan analogiarelationis.FollowingtheleadofBonhoefferandBarth,theauthor contraststhis“analogyofrelations”toan“analogyofsubstance,”thelatterof whichfocusesonasingleattributeinherentinhumanbeings,suchasthe rationalsoulorthewill.57 InsteadoffixingthelikenesstoGodintheindividual’spossessionofacertaincapacity,Moltmanndefinestheimageintermsof relationshipsthatcorrespondtothetrinitarianlife.As imagoDei,humanbeingsnotonlyrespondinlovetoGod’sgiftoffellowshipbutareblessedwith thepossibilityofexpressingecstaticandpassionatefellowshiptowardoneanother.InMoltmann’swords,“AstheimageofGodonearth,humanbeings correspondfirstofalltotherelationshipofGodtothemselvesandtothewhole ofcreation.ButtheyalsocorrespondtotheinnerrelationshipsofGodtohimself—totheeternal,innerloveofGodthatexpressesandmanifestsitselfin creation.”58 ToreturntothetermsforGod’sessencethatIintroducedinthe previouschapter,humanbeingsconsummatetheirmessianicdestinyas imago Dei whentheyare“freeinlove”andbecomethosewhothemselves“freein love.”

Letmedrawourattentiontothreeaspectsofthis imagoDei anthropology thatarecrucialforourpathahead.First,thisdivine-humananalogyofrelations dependsstrictlyonthegiftofgrace.Whateverlikenessorcorrespondencesto thetrinitarianrelationsappearinandamonghumanbeingscomeasaresponsetoGod’spriorself-giving;allouractsofself-givinglove,howevermuch theyareourown,areofferedinresponsetoGod’sfirstinitiatingarelationship withus.Inthisrespect,the imagoDei canneverbetakenforbeingaproperty thathumanbeingscaneitherpossessorlose.ItremainsalwaysandeverywhereagiftthatGodoffersfreelyandhumanbeingsreceiveingratitudeever anew.

Second,Moltmann’sanalogyofrelationsstipulatesthatthe imagoTrinitatis inhumankindisasocialorinterpersonallikeness.OnthispointMoltmann

partswayswiththedominantAugustinianstrandofWesterntheologicalanthropologythatlocatesthe imagoTrinitatis intheself-relationalityoftheindividualpsyche.In GodandCreation,MoltmanndirectlychallengesAugustine’s exegesisofGenesis1:26–27andinterpretsitsalternatingsingularandplural termsinsuchawayastosupporthissocialratherthanAugustine’sindividual interpretationofthe imagoDei.ThefactthattheversespeaksofGodasan internalpluralinthesingularsuggeststhatGodcreateshumanpersonsinthe plural(“asmanandwomanhecreatedthem”)torealizeasingleimageofthe Trinity.“TheoneGod,whoisdifferentiatedinhimselfandisatonewith himself,”concludesMoltmann,“thenfindshiscorrespondenceinacommunityofhumanbeings,femaleandmale,whounitewithoneanotherandare one.”59

AlthoughMoltmanndefendshissocialinterpretationofthe imagoDei as avalidinterpretationoftheGenesistext,hissocialinterpretationrestsmore trulyonhisrelationalontologyofthetrinitarianpersonsthathedevelopedin TheTrinityandtheKingdom.Therewesawthatdivinepersonhoodonlycomes intoexistencethroughecstaticrelationshipsofself-givingwithoneanother. Moltmannarguesanalogouslyherethattruehumanpersonhood,thatis,the humanbeing’slikenesstoGod,comesintobeingonlyinandthroughrelationshipswithotherpersonsincommunity.AsMoltmannstatesinthefollowingpassage,socialityandrightrelationshipswithothersbelongtotheessence ofwhatitmeanstobehuman:

Fromtheveryoutsethumanbeingsaresocialbeings Theyare gregariousbeingsandonlydeveloptheirpersonalitiesinfellowship withotherpeople.Consequentlytheycanonlyrelatetothemselves if,andtotheextentinwhich,otherpeoplerelatetothem.Theisolatedindividualandthesolitarysubjectaredeficientmodesofbeing human,becausetheyfallshortoflikenesstoGod.Nordoesthepersontakepriorityoverthecommunity.Onthecontrary,personand communityaretwosidesofoneandthesamelifeprocess.60

AlthoughsocialrelationshipsareconstitutiveoftruepersonhoodinMoltmann’strinitariananthropology,thisdoesnotmeanthataformofcollectivism swallowsuptheindividualorthatanindividual’sidentityissimplythesum ofherrelations.61 Oncloserexamination,Moltmann’ssocialtrinitarianinterpretationofthe imagoDei inhumankindprescribestheinseparabilityofpersonalidentityandsociality,sothatself-relationandsocialrelationscomeinto existencetogether.JustastheunityoftheTrinitydoesnottakeprecedence overthedistinctionamongthethreepersons,so,too,thehumancommunity andindividualpersonhoodareofequalstatusinthesphereofhumanrelations.62

Moltmanndoesdescribeeachindividualas imagoDei insofaraseachperson’smessianiccallingistobecome imagoChristi.OnthispointMoltmann

citesPaul’snotionoftherisenChristasGod’strueimageandasthearchetype ofwhatitmeansforhumankindtobeatruechildofGod:Christis“the‘firstborn’towhombelievers‘aretobecomelikeinform’(Rom.8.29).”63 Indefendingtheindividual’smessianicdestinyas imagoChristi,Moltmannplaces himselfagainatoddswithAugustine’stheology,whichexplicitlyrejectedthe notionthattheindividualiscreatedintheimageofanysinglepersonofthe Trinity.WhileAugustinecontendsthattheindividualiscreatedintheimage ofthewholeTrinity,Moltmannarguesthatitisonlybyfirstbecoming imago Christi thathumanbeingscanbecometheimageoftheintra-trinitarianfellowshipoflove:

Soas imagoChristi humanbeingsaregatheredintohisrelationship ofsonship,andinthebrotherhoodofChristtheFatherofJesus ChristbecomestheirFatheralso....As God’simage,humanbeings aretheimageofthewholeTrinityinthattheyare“conformed”to theimageoftheSon:theFathercreates,redeemsandperfectshumanbeingsthroughtheSpiritintheimageoftheSon.64

Accordingtothissoteriologicalnarrative,humanbeingsonlygainentrance intothetrinitarianfellowshipinandthroughtheSon.TheSpiritadoptshuman beingsintotheSon’srelationshipwiththeFatherandthusenablesthemto realizetheirmessianicdestinyas imagoTrinitatis.AlthoughMoltmanndoes notdevelopfullyhereeitherhismodelofredemptionorhisvisionofthe Christianlife,wecanalreadyseehowheseekstointegratehischristocentric emphasisofhisearliertheologywithinthisnewmessianicsocialtrinitarian patternforGod’seconomy.

ThethirdandfinalsignificantaspectofMoltmann’stheologicalanthropologyishisinsistencethatembodimentbelongstothehumanlikenessto God.AsInotedearlier,Moltmannobjectsstronglytothespiritualizationof theologicalanthropologythathasdominatedinbothancientandmodernWesternmodelsofthehumanperson.Itsspirit-bodydualismhasbothcompromisedthedignityofthebody(particularlythatofwomen)andsubjectednature tohumankind’sdominationandinstrumentalization.Aswehaveseenhim argueinothercontexts,Moltmannrefutesthisanthropologicaldualismon biblicalgrounds.Hepointsoutthatateverystageofthemessianichistoryof Godwiththeworld—increation,redemption,andglorification—embodiment isthegoalofGod’sworks.Intheoriginalactofcreationthereisamovement fromGod’sinwardresolvetowardexpressionintheWordandthenintoembodiedreality.Similarly,Godaccomplishestheworkofreconciliationthrough incarnationintotheflesh:“Bybecomingflesh,thereconcilingGodassumes thesinful,sickandmortalfleshofhumanbeingsandhealsitincommunity withhimself....Inhis takingflesh,exploited,sickandshatteredhumanbodiesexperiencetheirhealingandtheirindestructibledignity.”65 Finally,throughouttheNewTestament—inPaulandintheapocalypseofRevelation—re-

demptionendswiththe“transformationofthebody”andtheeschatological visionoftherenewalofalltheearth.66

Ifweattendtothebiblicalimagesforanthropology,arguesMoltmann,we mustdevelopamoreholisticapproachtothesoul’srelationshiptothebody. IntheHebrewscriptures,helookstotheconceptofcovenantasthebestclue totheHebrewunderstandingofthereciprocalrelationbetweentheinnerlife andthebody.JustasIsraelexperiencedandcametoknowitsGodinacovenant relationship,so,too,itunderstandsitsownselfhoodintermsofcovenantor partnership:“Theunityofsoulandbody,whatisinwardandwhatisoutward, thecentreandtheperipheryofthehumanbeingistobecomprehendedin theformsofcovenant,community,reciprocity,amutualencircling,regard, agreement,harmonyandfriendship.”67 InconsideringtheNewTestament Moltmannturnsagaintotheperichoreticpatternofmutualindwellingashis archetypeoftherelationshipbetweenthebodyandthesoul.HereJohn17:21 becomeshistrinitarianarchetypeofthekindofunityindifferentiationthathe hasinmind:“Weshallthereforeviewtherelationshipbetweensoulandbody, theconsciousandtheunconscious,thevoluntaryandinvoluntar y...asa perichoreticrelationshipofmutualinterpenetrationanddifferentiatedunity.”68

AlthoughMoltmanndoesnotexpandmuchonhowthesebiblicalimages mighttranslateintocontemporaryanthropologicalterms,hedoesinvokethe modernnotionof Gestalt asonethatcorrespondswelltothisbiblicalperspectiveofreciprocalrelationality.Moltmanndefines Gestalt as“theconfiguration ortotalpatternofthelivedlife”;itincludesnature,societyandculture,personal historyandreligiousvaluesystems.69 Gestalt connotesaformofexchange betweenanindividualandhisvariousrelationshipstohisenvironmentthat combinesunityanddifferentiation.Humanbeingsgaintheir Gestalt bothby relatingtothesevariousexternalforcesandstructuresandbysettingboundariesthroughtheirinwardstructures.

OnefinalaspectofMoltmann’santhropologyisdistinctive:hetreatssexual differentiationasanintegralaspectoftheimageofGodinhumankind.Here Moltmannsideswiththoseexegeteswhointerpretthedifferentiationofmale andfemaleinGenesis1:26–27aspartofhumankind’suniquedesignationas imagoDei:“IfGodcreatedhisimageonearth‘asmanandaswoman,’then thisprimaldifferenceisnotasubsidiary,physicaldifference.Itisacentral, personalone.”70 GivenMoltmann’sinsistencethatthe imagoDei isasocialas wellasasexuallikeness,onemightthinkthathewouldreadilyadopttheGreek churchfathers’position(overandagainstAugustine’s)thatthefamilyisthe primarysocialtrinitariananalogyinthehumansphere.Moltmann,however, adoptsamediatingpositionbetweentheEastandtheWest.Ontheonehand, heagreeswiththeEastthatthereisacertainlegitimacyinseeingtheprimal humancommunityofman,woman,andchildasanaturallikenesstothe trinitariananalogyofrelations,sinceallofhumankindparticipatesinthis “anthropologicaltriangle”asthechildoftwoparents—maleandfemale;

therefore,“thecommunityofsexes”betweenhusbandandwifeand“thecommunityofgenerations”betweenparentandchildcanbeanimageof“true humancommunity”afterthedivinelife.71 Ontheotherhand,MoltmannrejectsanarrowprescriptiveinterpretationofthefamilialanalogyfortheTrinity onthesamegroundsthatAugustinedid,namely,thatapersoncannotonly bedesignatedas imagoDei ifheorsheispartofafamily.72

Inmyview,Moltmanndoesnotsubscribetoanarrowsocialinterpretation ofthe imagoTrinitatis inhumankindbecausehepredicateshisanalogyof fellowshipintermsofthequalityofrelationshipsamongthedivinepersons ratherthantherelationshipsoforiginthatconstitutethepersons.Thesocial likenesstoGodisnotaone-to-onecorrespondenceofdivineandhumanpersonsbutacorrespondencebetweenthepatternsoffellowshipthatconstitute theinnerdivinelifewiththosethatcanbeactualizedinthehumancommunity. InMoltmann’swords,“Itisthe relations intheTrinitywhicharethelevels representedonearththroughthe imagoTrinitatis,notthelevelsofthetrinitarian constitution. Justas thethreePersonsoftheTrinityare‘one’inawholly uniqueway,so, similarly,humanbeingsare imagoTrinitatis intheirpersonal fellowshipwithoneanother.”73 Byinterpretingthesocialanalogyinthismore flexiblemanner,Moltmannpavesthewayforawealthofinterpersonalrelationshipsrangingfromthepersonaltothepolitical,theecclesialtothesecular, thatcanreflectthetrinitarianfellowship.Itistothesetrinitariandimensions oftheChristianlifethatwewillturninthechapterahead.

This page intentionally left blank

5TheHumanPilgrimagein theMessianicLifeofFaith

Inchapter4IlaidthecornerstoneforMoltmann’svisionofthe Christianlifebyanalyzingtheauthor’smessianicandsocialtrinitarianreconstructionofan imagoDei anthropology.ThereIdescribed howMoltmanndrawsuponhissocialtrinitariantheologyofloveto reconceivethe imagoDei intermsofan“analogiarelationis,”an analogyofinterpersonalrelationshipsinhumancommunity.In keepingwithhisReformedtradition,Moltmannportraysthe imago Dei notasaqualityoranattributewithwhichhumanbeingsare permanentlyendowed.ItsignifiesarelationshiptoGod,whichGod graciouslyestablisheswithhumanbeingsintheactofcreationand whichGodactualizeseveranew.Throughthisrelationship,Godestablisheshumanbeings’messianicdestinyasGod’scounterpart, God’sbelovedOtherincreation.Thehumanbeingfulfillshisorher messianicdestinyas imagoDei bybecominganimageofChrist, whoincarnatesforhumankindwhatitmeanstobethetruechildof God—thebelovedOtherofGodtheFather.As imagoChristi,human beingsarecalledtorespondtotheFather’sself-communicationof loveastheSondid—withtheirownfiniteexpressionofself-giving love.

ThisgraciousrelationshipofGodtothehumanbeingprovides thefoundationforthehorizontaldimensionofthis imagoDei anthropology:thehumanbeingas imagoTrinitatis,animageofGodin theformofasociallikenesstotheinner-trinitarianbeing.Moltmannspecifiesthissecondhorizontaldimensionofhis imagoDei anthropologyaccordingtowhatItermedhis“socialtrinitariananalogy.”Heuseshisrelationalandinterpersonalistmodeloftheinner-

trinitarianlifeasadivineanalogueoranarchetypeofrightrelationships amongpersonsbothinthechurchandinwidersociety.Finally,weobserved thatthistwofoldtrinitarianmodelofthe imagoDei hasamessianicstructure. HumanbeingswerenotoriginallycreatedintheimageofGodonlytodistort orlosethisimageandhaveitreturnedthroughgrace.Rather,humanbeings arecreatedwiththemessianicdestinyofbecomingtheimageandtheglory ofGodintheirpersonalandcommunalhistorywithoneanother.Thisoffers aradicallydynamicand“anticipatorystructure”tohumanexistence.1 Aperson neverbecomesutterlyfixedinhisorheridentitybutremainscontinuously openanddirectedtowardwhatMoltmannterms“theproject ofhis[orher] life.”2

TakingMoltmann’smessianicandsocialtrinitariananthropologyasour springboard,wepursueinthischapterthehumanbeing’spilgrimagetoward fulfillmentofitsmessianicdestinyas imagoDei inthelifeoffaith—what MoltmanndepictsaslifeintheSpirit.Wethusenterthesecondandthird stagesoftheauthor’smessianicnarrativeofthehumanbeingas imagoDei: whatitmeansforthehumanbeingtobecomean imagoChristi,andwhatis entailedinhisorherpilgrimagetowardtheultimatedestinyoftheChristian life,namely,becoming gloriaDei.InwhatfollowswewillinvestigatehowMoltmann’ssocialtrinitarianismshapesthewayofsalvationandthelifeofdiscipleshipwithrespecttoboththeindividual’srelationshiptothetrinitarianGod andhisorhersocialrelationships,activities,orformsoflife.Whilethissketch ofthemessianiclifeoffaithwillsurelynotbecomprehensive,itwillprovide sufficientevidencetoassessthepracticalsignificanceofMoltmann’ssocial trinitarianprogramattheconclusionofthischapter.

TheTrinitarianPatternofSalvation

SalvationasParticipationintheTrinitarianFellowship

Moltmann’smessianic imagoDei anthropologyprovidesthecluetohisconstrualofsalvation.Aswesawinchapter4,Moltmanndescribeshumanbeings ashavingthemessianicdestinyofmaturingintoatrueandfulllikenessto Godandofbecoming gloriaDei.Giventhismessianicanthropology,salvation canbedefinedformallyashumanbeings’eschatologicalconsummationof theircreateddestiny.Salvationsignifiesthatprocessofdeification(theosis)by whichhumanbeingsparticipateinandreflectthetrinitarianlife.Intheauthor’swords,salvationrepresents“thetransfigurationofhumanbeingsinthe gloryofthenewcreation.”3

Wecanbegintogivesomespecificcontourstotheauthor’smodelof deificationbyrecallingthenatureofthetrinitarianGod,inwhoseimageGod newlycreateshumanbeings.AsIarguedinchapter3,Moltmanninterprets

theessenceofthetrinitarianGodas koinonia,anecstaticcommunionorfellowshipofloveamongthedivinepersons.Thedivinepersons’relationsof mutualindwellingconstitutethisfellowshipoflove.Throughtheireternal perichoresis,theFather,theSon,andtheHolySpiritilluminateorglorifyone another;“they... expressthemselvesanddepictthemselveswithoneanother intheeternallight.”4 Moreover,thistrinitarianfellowshiphasanecstaticstructure;itisopentoanddrawsthewholeofcreationintoitslovingembrace.

Againstthishorizonoftrinitarianbeing,Moltmann’sconstrualofsalvationasdeificationcomesintosharperfocusashumankind’sacceptanceand participationinthisdynamictrinitariancommunionoflovingrelations.MoltmannappealstotwoofhisfavoriteNewTestamentpassages(asusual,one fromthePaulinecorpusandtheotherfromtheJohannine)todescribethe goalofsalvationasacoinherenceofhumanbeingsinthetrinitarianbeingof love:“Theirmutualindwellingincludesmenandwomen:‘Whoeverabidesin love,abidesinGodandGodinhim’(IJohn4.16).Theindwellingisalsothe mysteryofthenewcreation,‘ThatGodmaybeallinall’(ICor.15.28).”5 In Johannineterms,salvationisanabidinginGodaslove;weabideinlovewhen GodabidesinusandweinGod.Theeschatologicalgoalofournewcreation isourpermanentindwellinginatrinitariancommunionoflove.Intermsof Paul’seschatology,thisindwellingoccurswhenGodbecomesallinall.

Howdoesthisviewofsalvationaddressthehumanpredicamentofsin? Quitesurprisingly,Moltmanndoesnotaddressthisissueatgreatlengthwithin theframeworkofhismessianicanthropology.Infact,thedoctrineofsinremainsa lacuna inMoltmann’s MessianicTheology —acriticalissuetowhichI willreturnattheconclusionofthischapter.Hedoes,however,offerafewhints abouthisunderstandingofsinin GodinCreation thatwecanusetoclarify themeaningofsalvation.Moltmannappealstohisrelationalunderstanding ofthe imagoDei inordertointerpretsinasadisruptionorperversionofthis primarylovingrelationshiptoGod.InquiteclassicalReformationterms,Moltmanndepictssinastheidolatryofturningtooneself,others,orcreatedobjects asone’sprimarylove.6 SinceGodfirstestablishesarelationshiptohumankind ingrace,humanbeingscannotunilaterallyabrogatetheirstatusas imagoDei throughtheirsinfulturningaway.Despitehumankind’sfaithlessness,God’s lovetowardhumanbeingsisutterlysteadfast,and,therefore,humanbeings’ statusas imagoDei remainsintact.Whatsindoesdoisutterlydistortorpervert aperson’slovingresponsetoGod,andinthissensesinseparateshimorher fromtruefellowshipwithGod.

Againstthisbackdrop,salvationrepresentsahealingofthisbrokenfellowshiporcommunionwiththeGodoflove.AsMoltmannexplainsinthefollowingpassage,salvationmeansthathumanbeingsareacceptedintotheinnertrinitarianlifeofloveastheadoptedsonsanddaughtersofGodtheFather. Throughthisparticipationinthedivinelifetheseparationofsinisovercome:

IfthemiseryofcreationliesinsinasseparationfromGod,then salvationconsistsinthegraciousacceptanceofthecreatureinto communionwithGod.Salvationliesinthisunion.Theunionwith Godofwhatisseparatedisnotjustanexternalunion.Ittakesplace bytheSonacceptinghumanbeingsintohisrelationshipwiththe Fatherandmakingthemchildren,sonsanddaughters,oftheFather.IttakesplacebytheHolySpiritacceptinghumanbeingsinto hisrelationshipwiththeSonandtheFatherandlettingthemparticipateinhiseternalloveandhiseternalsongofpraise.7

Thispassageoffersasnapshotofthetrinitarianpatternofactivitythatconsummateshumansalvation.ThroughtheindwellingSpirithumanbeingsenterfirstintofellowshipwiththeSonandbecomeChrist’sbrothersandsisters. InthiswayhumanbeingsareadoptedintotheSon’sexclusivelovingrelationshiptoGodtheFatherandaregraduallyconformedintothe imagoChristi or intotruechildrenofGod.Tobecomean imagoChristi istobetransfiguredinto avisibleimageoftheself-givingloveofGod.Withthistransfigurationhuman beingsattaintheirmessianicdestiny;theyglorifyGodtheFatherwiththeSon andtheHolySpirit,andbecomethemselvesthegloryofGod.InMoltmann’s words,“InglorifyingGod,thecreaturescreatedtobetheimageofGodthemselvesarriveatthefulfillmentofwhattheyareintendedtobe.”8

LetusturnnowtoexaminethedistinctiverolesthattheSonandtheHoly Spiritplayinthiseschatologicalprocessofnewcreation.Moltmanntakesissue withthelong-accepteddistinctioninProtestanttheologybetweentheobjective workofredemptionaccomplishedinChristanditssubjectiveappropriation throughtheHolySpiritinWordandsacrament.MoltmannconteststheclassicalReformednotionofChristasthesoleagentofhumanredemptiononthe groundsthatitequatesredemptionwiththeforgivenessofsins—aforgiveness thatwasaccomplishedexclusivelythroughJesus’deathonthecrossandindependentlyofhisresurrectionfromthedeadandthe parousia tocome.This meantthatthe“redemptiveworkcouldbeobjectivized”9 inChrist,andthat theSpirit’sworkcouldberestrictedtotheefficacyofChrist’sjustificationin humanbeings.

MoltmannrevisesthisclassicalReformationsoteriologicalpatterninthe christologicalandpneumatologicalvolumesofhis MessianicTheology soasto reflecttheSon’sandSpirit’sinterdependentrolesinsalvation.Herehefollows theleadoftheEasternOrthodoxtraditionthatemphasizesthereciprocalinteractionoftheHolySpiritandtheSonthataccomplisheshumansalvation.10 Thismeans,forexample,thatin TheWayofJesusChrist Moltmanndevelops whathecallsa“pneumatologicalchristology”thatemphasizestheSpirit’songoingagencythroughouttheministry,death,andresurrectionofChrist.11 Similarly,in TheSpiritofLife,Moltmannproposes“achristologicaldoctrineofthe

,”12 inwhichheconfiguresChristianlifeintheSpiritintermsofbeing conformedtothewayofChrist.

IntheinterestofsystematizingMoltmann’ssoteriology,Iwilllookfirstat itsfoundationinthelife,death,andresurrectionofJesusastheChrist,and thenturntotheSpirit’sroleintherebirthofhumanbeingsintoanewlifeof righteousness.AlthoughItreattheSon’sandtheSpirit’sredemptivework hereasiftheyaresuccessivestages,IamactuallydescribingoneunifiedprocessinwhichboththeSonandtheSpiritareatalltimesinvolved.

TheFoundationofSalvationinChrist

Inkeepingwiththechristologicalpatternheestablishedin TheCrucifiedGod, Moltmannaddressesthesoteriologicalquestionviathechristologicalonein TheWayofJesusChrist andinhisotherrecentchristologicalessays.13 Heunfoldsthemeaningandthemeansofsalvationintermsofatwofolddescription ofJesus’identity:hisexclusivedivineidentityas“theonly-begottenSonofGod” andhisinclusiveidentityastherepresentativeoftruehumanityor,inMoltmann’spreferredPaulineexpression,as“thefirstbornamongmanybrothers.”14

MoltmanndefinesJesus’divinestatusastheonly-begottenSoninterms ofJesus’relationshipwithGodtheFatherasitcametobeexpressedinJesus’ messageandearthlyministry.WhatdistinguishesJesusastheonly-begotten ormessianicchildofGodisthelovingintimacythatJesusexperiencesinhis relationshipwithGodtheFather.InMoltmann’swords,“Godisascloseto himinspace—asmuch‘athand’—asthekingdomofGodisnow,through him,close,or‘athand,’intime.”15 Jesus’ Abba prayerepitomizesthisincomparablefellowshipwithGod,hisFather.MoltmannfollowstheSpiritchristologyofthesynopticgospelsinarguingthatJesusfirstcomestoknow andlovetheFatheras Abba throughhisanointingbytheSpiritinhisbaptism. HeretheSpiritdescendeduponhimand“founditsShekinah,itspermanent indwellinginhim.”16 ThroughtheSpirit’sindwelling,theFatherestablishesa lovingintimacywithJesus.ThissetsthestagefortheSpirit’sfunctioningin ananalogousroleinhumanredemption.JustastheSpiritmediatestheloving relationshipoftheFatherandtheSon,so,too,theSpiritistheonewhojoins thebelieverintothefellowshipofFatherandSon.Throughthegiftofthe Spirit,humanbeingsbecometheadoptedchildrenofGodandparticipatein Jesus’“cry‘Abba,belovedFather’(Rom.8.15).”17

NowMoltmannhadalreadyemphasizedJesus’uniquecommunionwith theFatherin TheTrinityandtheKingdom.WhatisdifferenthereishowJesus’ ministryandhisinteractionswithothersbecomecentraltohisidentityasthe messianicchildofGod.Moltmanndescribesthisnewapproachasa“social Christology,”thatis,onethatattendstothesocialinteractionsandrelationships

ofJesusascluestohisidentity.18 InthemutualrelationshipsthatJesushas withthepoor,theoutcast,andthesick,hemanifeststhecreativelovethathe receivesfromtheFatherinthe“life-givingmercy”19 heofferstoothers.For example,intheopenfellowshipthatJesusofferstothetaxcollectorsandthe sinnersinLuke’sgospel,hedemonstrates“inhisownpersonwhatacceptance bythemercifulGodandtheforgivenessofsinsmeans.”20 Throughhisministryandhisproclamationofthekingdom,Jesusprovideshumanbeingswith aprototypeofwhatitmeanstobethetruechildofGod.

AlthoughJesus’earthlyliferepresentstheconsummationofhumankind’s messianicdestiny,salvationdoesnotrestsolelyinhisbeinganexemplarof whatitmeanstobeachildofGod.Throughhismercifulself-givingJesusalso providesthemeansofgracethroughwhichhumanbeingscanenterintothis relationshipwithGod.Thisofferofdivinemercyoccursuniquelyinand throughChrist’ssufferingsinthepassionandhisresurrectionintonewlife. OnlythroughthecrossandresurrectiondoesthetrinitarianGodofloveopen tohumanbeingsthepossibilityofpartakinginthisrelationshipoflovingintimacywithGodtheFatherandofsharingthisfellowshipwithothers.

WehavealreadyseenMoltmann’sexegesisofthecross-eventasanactof divinesurrenderinthediscussionsof TheCrucifiedGod and TheTrinityand theKingdom inchapters2and3.In TheWayofJesusChrist,Moltmannincorporatesthisearliersoteriologicalaccountintohismessianicchristologyand againemphasizesthemutualself-givingandactivesufferingthatbothFather andSonundergothroughthecross-event.21 Hetakesthisargumentonestep further,however,byincludingthesufferingsoftheSpiritintothisearliertheologyofmutualsurrenderofFatherandSon.AtthecrosstheSpirit(whom MoltmannhadcharacterizedasthecreativepowerinJesus’life)alsoenactsa surrenderor kenosis ofherlife-givingpower.TheSpiritsuffers,too,as“the dyingJesus‘breatheshimout’and‘yieldshimup’(Mark15.37;strongerJohn 19.30).”22

In TheWayofJesusChrist andinhissubsequentessayonthedoctrineof justification,“JusticeforVictimsandPerpetrators,”Moltmanndevelopsmost fullythesoteriologicalsignificanceofthistrinitarianactofdivinesurrender. Firstandforemost,hedescribesthedivinesufferingatthecrossasanactof divinesolidaritywiththevictimsofinjusticeorevil,asufferingin“solidarity withhumanbeingsandhiswholecreationeverywhere: Godiswithus.”23 God notonlyidentifieswiththevictimsofinjusticeandviolenceinhistory,butin thepersonoftheSon,GodinGod’sselfbecomesthevictimoftheviolentand theunjust.Thisactofsolidarityissalvific,suggestsMoltmann,becauseittakes awaythevictim’sexistentialdespairandgodforsakennessandreplacesthem withGod’slovingpresence:“ChristbringseternalcommunionwithGodand God’slife-givingrighteousnessthroughhispassionintothepassionstoryof thisworld.”24

WhilethesufferingsofChristprovideGod’svicariousatonementforthe

perpetratorsofviolenceandinjusticeintheworld,Moltmannvigorouslyobjectstothenotionthatsuchatonementisanexpiatoryofferingorapenal sacrificeonbehalfofhumansin.Thesurrenderofthecrossandtheresurrection,hecautions,arenot“anemergencymeasuremadenecessarybythepredicamentofhumansin.”25 Instead,MoltmanndescribesChrist’satonement inthelanguageofpersonalrepresentation—asadivinebearingwiththeguilt andpainofhumaninjustice.Thisdivinesufferingdoesawaywithhumansin byacceptingitspainintoitself.Intheauthor’swords,“Godreconcilesthis worldinconflictbythewayinwhichhesuffersthecontradiction,notby contradictingthecontradiction,i.e.throughjudgment.Heturnsthepainof hisloveintoatonementforsinners.”26 Bytakingthewholerangeofsin’sconsequencesuponGod’sself,Godtransmutestheguiltandthepainofanindividual’ssinintoliberty.

Forbothvictimsandperpetrators,thesoteriologicalsignificanceofthe crossisinseparablefromtheresurrectionofJesusfromthedead.AsMoltmann arguedinhisearlierchristology,theraisingofChristisnotjustadivineconfirmationofwhathasalreadytranspiredthroughthecross.Norisitasymbolic promiseofafuturevictoryoverthedeath-dealingforcesoftheworld.Rather, Christ’sresurrectionfromthedeadinitiatesthewholeofcreationintoaneschatologicalprocessofnewcreation—anewcreationofallthingsthroughthe SpiritintoanimageofGod’sglory.Moltmannwrites,“TheChristwhoisbodily risenisthebeginningofthenewcreationofmortallifeinthisworld.Inhis bodythebodilyrisenChristleadshumannatureintothekingdomofGod.”27 WiththetransfigurationofJesusfromamortalintoaglorifiedbody,thelifegivingSpiritbeginsanontologicaltransformationoftheveryconditionsofall mortallifeandthecosmositself.

AlthoughMoltmann’semphasisontheresurrectionasanunfinished eventiscertainlynotnewin TheWayofJesusChrist,whatisdifferentishis attentiontothephysicalaswellascosmologicaldimensionsofsalvation.Just asMoltmannproposedamoreholisticapproachtohistheologicalanthropologythatprivilegesneithersouloverbodynorhumanhistoryovernature,so, too,heemphasizestheembodiedandcosmologicaldimensionsofthepromisedtransfigurationinhisdoctrineofredemption.Inelucidatingthesoteriologicalsignificanceofcrossandresurrectionforbelievers,Moltmannappeals tothetraditionalReformationcategoryofjustificationforsinsor“justifying righteousness,”28 butthenexpandsitsmeaningtointegratehismodelofnew creation.BeginningwithseveralkeyPaulinetexts,Moltmanndevelopsfour interwoven“horizonsofpurposeandmeaning”withrespecttothisjustifying righteousness;eachoftheserepresentsintegralaspectsofthemessianicprocessofnewcreationthathasbeguninChrist.29

Themostimmediatesoteriologicalhorizonishumankind’sjustification orliberationfromsin.HereRomans4:25(“Christwasputtodeathforour trespassesandraisedforourjustification”)servesasMoltmann’sbiblicalcue

forthismodelof“justifyingfaith.”30 Ifsinistheseparationorclosingoffof humanbeingsfromthesourceoflifeinGod,thenjustificationrepresentsthe processbywhichwereturnintoopenfellowshipwiththissourceoflife: “Through thejustificationofsinners,thegospelbringsmenandwomenwho areclosedinuponthemselvesintotheopenloveofGod.Through rebirthfrom theSpirit,itbringspeoplewhohavebeensubjecttodeathintotouchwiththe eternalsourceoflife.”31 Despitehistraditional(Augustinian!)languageabout sinandhumanbeings’conversion,MoltmanndoesstretchtheReformation notionofjustificationtoincludetherebirthofhumanbeingsintorighteousness.Hearguesthatthemessageofjustificationisboundupwiththeraising ofthecrucifiedJesus,andthatJesus’resurrectionoffersasurplusofgracethat takestheindividualbeyondtheforgivenessofpastsinsandinitiateshimor herintoaprocessofnewcreation.

Bylinkingtherebirthintorighteousnesswiththemomentofjustification, MoltmannpartswayswiththeReformers,whoconfinejustificationtothe divineforgivenessofsins.MoltmanntakesissuewithBarth’sandBultmann’s modelsofjustificationasreconciliationforthesamereason.Theyassumean originalstateofperfectionthatrequiresrestoration,andinthissense,reconciliationbecomesinMoltmann’sview“abackward-lookingact.”32 Moltmann countersthatjustifyingfaithintheresurrectionisnotjustarestorationof formerthingsbutalsoa“‘newcreation’whichismorethan‘thefirstcreation.’”33 Thegraceofcrossandresurrectionoffersaneschatologicalhopefor anewcreation,ahopethatinturnempowershumankindtoresistthestructuresofinjusticeandsufferingintheworld.

Thesecondandthirdinterpretativehorizonsofthecrossandresurrection signifyChrist’seschatologicalvictoryonbehalfofthedeadandovertheforces ofdeathitself.HereGodaddressesinthecrossandresurrectionnotjusthumankind’spresentsinfulconditionbutalsotheuniversalconditionofsufferinguntodeath.FollowingRomans14:9,MoltmannseesinChrist’sresurrectionaneweschatologicalfutureopenedupforthedeadaswellastheliving. AlthoughMoltmannadmitsthatthebiblicalmetaphorswithwhichweexplain Christ’sfellowshipwiththedeadaremythological,heupholdsthetruththey communicate,namely,thatGod’ssufferingandcreativelove,pouredforthin thecrossandtheresurrection,mysteriouslybreakthepowerofdeath.Christ’s resurrectionfromthedeadaffirmsthattheuniversalandunconditionallove ofGodprovesgreaterthanthepowerofdeathitself.34

MoltmannappealstoPhilippians2:9–11tocasthisfinalsoteriologicalhorizonofcrossandresurrectionintermsofthe“glorificationofGod”:“All createdbeingsfindtheirblissinparticipationinhisglory.”35 Hereweare remindedthattheultimategoalofChrist’srisingfromthedeadisnotanthropologicalbuttheological,notjusthumanliberationbutthedoxologicalcelebrationofGod.Theultimatevictoryofdivineloveovertheforcesofdeathand

sufferingoccurswithGod’shomecomingtotheworldinwhichGod’sradiance willberevealedfullyintheworld.

Takentogether,thesefourhorizonsofinterpretationrevealhowMoltmann’sviewofsalvationinChristcohereswith,indeed,consummateshis messianicdoctrineofcreation.Imeanbythismostsimplythatredemption hasthesameanticipatoryandcosmologicalstructureasthatofcreation.The resurrectionofChristinitiatesaprocessofnewcreationthatstretchesfrom thepresentexperienceofjustificationfortheindividualbelievertotheeschatologicalannihilationofalldeath-dealingforces.“Itisaprocess,”writesMoltmann,“whichbeginsintheindividualheartthroughfaith,andleadstothe justnewworld.Theprocessbeginswiththeforgivenessofsinsandendswith thewipingawayofalltears.”36 Justaswesawinhisdoctrineofcreation, redemptiondoesnotperfecttheworldbutpreparesitforitsultimateglorificationinGod.

NowthatwehaveaclearerpictureofhowMoltmann’strinitariantheology revisestraditionalProtestantmodelsofjustification(andreconciliation),we stillneedtoconsiderhowhumanbeingscometoparticipateinthiseschatologicalsalvationinChrist.Todosoweneedtoreturntothe inclusive dimension ofJesus’identity,thatis,tohisstatusastherepresentativeoftruehumanity orwhatMoltmanndescribesinPaul’stermsas“firstbornamongmanybrothers”(Rom.8:29).37 Iftheformertitle“only-begottenSon”referstowhatis utterlyuniqueaboutJesus’identity,thislattertitledescribeswhatJesusshares withtherestofhumanity.TheontologicalfoundationforJesus’inclusiveidentitywasalreadysetinMoltmann’strinitariantheologyofcreationandincarnationexploredinthepreviouschapter.Therewesawhowtheactofcreation resultsfromtheFather’soverflowingcreativelovefortheSon.Intheir exchangeofdivinelovetherewasroomforhumanityincommunionwiththe SontorespondandfulfillthejoyoftheFather.Withinthisexchangeofcreative andresponsivelove,theSonfunctionsasboththemediatorandtheprototype ofhumancreation.Thatistosay,theincarnationoftheSonconsummatesthe actofcreation,becauseJesusfulfillsthehumanbeing’struemessianicdestiny—tobean imagoDei:“Inhimwehavethefulfillmentofthepromisemade tomanthathewillbe‘theimageoftheinvisibleGod.’Christisthe‘trueman’ inthispervertedandinhumaneworld.”38 Inessence,thismeansthatJesus embodiesinhislifeanddeathwhatitmeanstolivetrulyasthechildofGod. Asthefirstbornfromthedead,theresurrectedChristfulfillsthemessianic promiseofhumanbeings’originalcreation;hefulfillswhatitmeanstobe transfiguredandglorifiedinGod.

Fortheirpart,believersconsummatetheirmessianicdestinyas imagoDei throughfellowshipwiththeincarnateChristintheformoftheSpirit.Through theSpiritwe“receive‘Sonship’andaretakenupintotherelationshipofJesus withtheFather.”39 HereMoltmannemphasizesthatthehumanbeing’srela-

tionshiptoChristisoneofbrotherhood,andnotthatofaservanttoalord. ThebelieverentersintoacommunionwithJesusthatispatternedafterthe dynamicrelationsamongthedivinepersons;itis“asocialmutualityofdeep fellowshipratherthanobedienceandsubordination.”40

IntegraltoMoltmann’svisionoftheChristianlifeisthatthebeliever’s fellowshipwithChristisbothmysticalandethical.Itismystical,insofarasthe believerisactuallyintroducedintoalovingunionorindwellingwithChrist.It isethical,insofarashumanbeingsaresimultaneouslydrawnintohismessianicwayoflifeandhispassion,awayoflifethatentailscreativeandsuffering love.Humanbeings“takepartinhismessianicmissiontoliberatethepoor, justifysinnersandhealthesick.Sotheyalsotakepartintheapocalyptic‘sufferingofChrist,’sufferingforChrist’ssake,sufferingforthesakeofthekingdomofGod,andsufferingfortheleastofhisbrothersandsisters.”41 For Moltmann,themysticalandtheethicalareinseparabledimensionsofthe believer’sfellowshipwithChrist.Onlythroughthemysticalfellowshipwith Jesusdoesthebelieverreceivethecreativelovethatturnsintolife-givingmercy forothers.

Toconclude,IwouldliketoemphasizethatMoltmann’smodelofsalvation uniquely,ifattimesuneasily,blendsthesoteriologicaltraditionsoftheEastern andWesternchurchtraditions.Onmyreadingofthelatervolumesofhis MessianicTheology,theGreekpatristicmodelofsalvationasdeification(theosis) provideshisdominantsoteriologicalpattern.HereChristservesastheparadigmoftruehumanityandthusprovidesthearchetypeofhumankind’smessianicdestinyas imagoDei.Theprocessofsalvationentailsourbeinggradually conformedthroughgraceintoamoreperfectimageofGodthroughfellowship withChrist;thehumanbeingbecomes imagoChristi,andassuchparticipates inthegloryofGod.Moreover,throughourindwellinginthisdivinefellowship, humanbeing’spatternsoffellowshipwithoneanotheraretransformedin accordancewiththisdivinewayoflife.

Withinthisprimarymodelofsalvationasdeification,MoltmannintroduceshisownamplifiedliberationistversionoftheWesternmodelofsalvation asforgivenessandrighteousnessinthesightofGod.Takingastepexplicitly beyondtheReformers,MoltmannaddressestheproblemofrighteousnessbeforeGodintermsofboththeperpetratorsofsinandtheirvictims;salvation includesboththeforgivenessofsinsandtheexecutionofjusticeonbehalfof thevictimsofhumansinandevil.Inthistwofoldmodelofjustification,Christ servestwodistinctsoteriologicalfunctions.Heoffersvicariousatonementfor thesinner,specificallyliberatinghimorherfromguilt.Atthesametimehe offerssolidaritywiththevictimsofinjustice,thusliberatingthemfromgodforsakennessandpromisinganeschatologicalvictoryoveralldeath-dealing forces.

TheSpiritofLife

Giventhisdynamicmodelofsalvation,theHolySpiritassumesanamplified roleintheprocessofsalvation.ThebiblicalhermeneuticalkeytotheSpirit’s roleisitslife-givingpowerinresurrectingJesusfromthedead.Moltmann directshisreaderstotheEasterappearancesofthecrucifiedJesusaschief witnesstothislife-givingpoweroftheHolySpirit.Thedisciples,thewomen, Paul,andJohnallexperiencedthe“quickeningpoweroftheSpirit,”orwhat Moltmanncalls“theSpiritoflife,”intheirapprehensionoftheresurrected Christ.42 Citing1Corinthians15:45,MoltmannarguesthattherisenChristis sopermeatedbythelife-givingSpiritthatonecanspeakofareciprocalindwellingoftherisenChristandtheSpiritofGod:inhiswords,“Therisen Christlivesfrom,andin,theeternalSpirit,and...the divineSpiritoflifeacts inandthroughhim.”43

AswesawinthediscussionofsalvationinChrist,Moltmanndescribes thebelievers’experienceoftherisenChristasnothingshortofthebeginning oftheeschaton—thenewcreationofallthingsinwhichdeathwillbenomore. HumanbeingsparticipateinthisnewcreationthroughthegiftoftheHoly Spirit,inwhomtherisenChristnowlives.FollowingRomans8:11,Moltmann arguesthattheHolySpiritmediatesthepresenceandknowledgeoftherisen Christtohumanbeings.TheSpiritunitesthebelievertothehistoricalevent oftheresurrectionand,insodoing,uniteshimorhertothe“anticipationof eternallifeformortalbeings.”44

AlthoughtheresurrectionofChrististhehistoricalanchorforthebeliever’sexperienceoftheSpirit,MoltmanndoesnotdefinetheHolySpirit exclusivelyastheSpiritofChrist.Heinvokesamorecomprehensiveparadigm fortheHolySpiritas“theSpiritoflife,”inordertounderscorethecontinuity betweentheOldTestamentSpiritofcreation(ruach)andtheNewTestament Spiritofresurrection.45 Aswesawin GodinCreation,Moltmanndescribes ruach in TheSpiritofLife asthe“creativepowerofGod”and“thedivineenergy oflife”;itistheimmanentdivinepresenceintheworldthat“keepsallthings inbeingandinlife.”46 TheSpiritofredemptiondoesnotsupersedetheSpirit ofcreationbutratherintensifiesit.BelieversexperienceamoreintimatecommunionwithGodthanthatgivenwiththeircreatedrelation.InaboldinterpretationofRomans5:8,MoltmannportraystheHolySpirit’sintimatefellowshipwithhumanbeingsasanalogoustothe perichoresis thatexistsamongthe trinitarianpersons:“IntheloveofGodwhichis‘pouredout’inourhearts throughtheHolySpirit,Godhimselfis‘inus’andweourselvesare‘inGod’ ...we experiencethereciprocalperichoresisofGodandourselves.”47 Justas thedivinepersonsdwellinoneanotherthroughtheirreciprocalactsofselfgivinglove,so,too,humanbeingsthroughthegiftoftheHolySpiritcanbe saidtodwellinthemidstofthislife-givinglove.TheSpiritimbueseachbelieverwitha“vitality”or“loveoflife.”48 HeorsheparticipatesinGod’sun-

conditionalloveofalllivingthingsanddiscoversa“passionforlife”and“a newdelightinlivinginthejoyofGod.”49

Moltmannjuxtaposesthisvitalityorunconditionalloveoflifewithadisembodiedandotherworldlyspirituality.WehavealreadyseeninearlierwritingshowMoltmanngoestogreatlengthstocriticizethespiritualitythatdevelopedinChristianantiquity(particularlythatofAugustine)asgnosticand antitheticaltothatoftheHebrewandChristianscriptures.Inhis Messianic Theology,Moltmanncontinuestocontestasceticspiritualitiesasafundamental misunderstandingoflifeintheSpirit.AnysuchasceticmodeloftheChristian lifedefiestheOldTestamentpictureoftheCreatorSpiritasthelifeforcein allcreatedthings.50 Moreover,suchasceticspiritualitiescontradicttheNew Testament’sclaimthatthegiftoftheSpiritisbeing“‘pouredoutonall flesh.’”51 Thelivinghopebornoftheresurrectionisnotdirectedtowarda separationofthesoulfromthetrappingsofthebodybuttowardaholistic transfigurationofbodyandsoul.Ratherthanturningtheindividualawayfrom thebody,fromnature,orfromone’snetworkofsocialrelationshipsinthe world,theSpiritinfuseshumanbeingswithaloveofalllife,a“newsensuousness”52 thatdelightsinallthings.

AtthispointwecanpausetoseehowtheSpiritoflifelendsacreativeand liberatingdynamictotheChristianlife.TheHolySpiritknitshumanbeings intothemostintimatefellowshipwiththeTrinity,afellowshipinwhichhuman beingsaregatheredintothemidstofthelife-givingandfreeingloveofGod. InMoltmann’swords,“Peopleareraisedaboveearthandheaven,lifeand death,presentandfuture,toGodhimself,andparticipateinhiscreativefreedom.... [Thebeliever]livesinthefreespaceofGod’screativepossibilities, andpartakesofthem.”53 ThroughthisgiftoftheSpirit,humanbeingsare grantedthatverysamecreativefreedomthatpouredforthintheTrinity’soriginalcreationoftheworld.Inanuncharacteristicallypositiveappealtotheterm “lordship,”MoltmannarguesthatitisintheLordshipoftheSpiritthatthe believerdiscoversanewfreedom:“‘NowtheLordistheSpirit,andwherethe SpiritoftheLordis,thereisfreedom’(IICor.3.17).”54 ThisnewlyfoundfreedomunfoldsinthecardinalfruitsoftheSpirit,infaith,love,andhope,toeach ofwhichMoltmanngivesadistinctiveinterpretation.

Moltmanndescribesthefirstaspectofhumanfreedomas“liberatingfaith” or“freedomassubjectivity.”55 Ifinmodernitythefreedomoftheindividual haslargelymeantself-possession,the“‘righttoself-determination,’”faith’s freedomrepresentsexactlytheopposite—possessionbyGod’sSpirit,orwhat Moltmanncallsbeing“possessedbythedivineenergyoflife.”56 BeingpossessedbythisSpiritoftheLordhasnothingwhatsoevertodowithenslavement,foritmarksthebeginningoftheindividual’sparticipationinthecreative freedomofGod.Faithsignalsopennesstothefutureofcreation:“Faithleads toacreativelifewhichislife-givingthroughlove,inplaceswheredeathrulesand peopleresignthemselves,andsurrendertoit....So faithmeanscrossingthe

frontiersoftherealitywhichisexistentnow,andhasbeendeterminedbythe past,andseekingthepotentialitiesforlifewhichhavenotyetcomeintobeing.”57 Inotherwords,theindividualbelieverexperienceshim-orherselfas nolongerdeterminedbyorinbondagetothepast,butfreetoactualizenew possibilitiesinhisorherlife.Herefaith’sfreedompressesbeyondliberation fromsin;itrepresentsnewagency—theliberationfornewlife.

TheseconddimensionoffreedomintheSpiritis“liberatinglove”or“freedomassociality,”thefreedomthatisenjoyedbypersonsthroughtheirrelationshiptooneanother.58 Herethegiftofcreativefreedomtranscendsthe boundariesoftheindividualtocreatefellowshipbetweenpersonsthroughtheir mutualloveforoneanother:“Lifeiscommunionincommunication.Wegive oneanotherlife,andcomealivefromoneanother.Inmutualparticipationin life,individualsbecomefreebeyondthebordersoftheirindividuality.”59 In keepingwithhissocialtrinitariananthropology,Moltmannviewslovingparticipationinthelifeofoneanotherasessentialtotheindividual’slifeinthe Spirit.Justasthetrinitarianpersonsconsummatetheirfreedomthroughtheir loveforoneanother,so,too,humanbeingsconsummatetheirpersonalfreedomthroughmutualloveforoneanother.

Ashehadpreviouslyin TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Moltmannjuxtaposes hisconceptoffreedomassocialitywiththatoffreedomaslordshipthathas oftenprevailedintheologicalandpoliticalhistory.Inthelordshipmodel,individualfreedomisidentifiedwithdominationoveranother;itisattainedonly attheexpenseoftheother.Bycontrast,inMoltmann’smodeloffreedomas sociality,freedomisattainedinandwithanotherperson.Individualsareno longerperceivedasrivalsinmy“struggleforpowerandpossessions,”60 but becomethesourceofmyownfreedom.

Moltmannsketchesonlywiththebroadestofstrokeshisthirddimension ofhumanfreedomas“liberatinghope”or“freedomasfuture.”61 Inlanguage stronglyreminiscentof TheologyofHope,hedescribeshowtheSpiritinfuses humanbeingswithamessianichope,whatMoltmannterms“thecreativepassionforthepossible....Itis directedtowardsthefuture,thefutureofthecoming God.”62 HereMoltmannaffirmstheeschatologicalcharacterofhumanfreedomintheSpirit:freedomisnotonlyapresentexperiencebutalsoadynamic processtowardanotyetrealizedfuturepossibility.Humanbeingsenjoythe promiseandforetasteofthefellowshipofthecomingkingdom.Althoughthere isjoyatthecomingofthetrinitariankingdom,thereisatthesametime restlessnessoverthebrokencharacterofthisworld.Thisdialecticalexperience ofalreadyandnotyetawakensinbelieversamessianicimpulsetowardtransformationofthepresentstateofhumanrelationsandsocialstructures.Inspiredwithhopeforthecomingkingdom,humanbeingsenvisioncreative possibilitiesfortrinitarianfellowshipintheworldandareempoweredtowork fortheirconsummation.

Toconclude,IwouldliketopointoutthatthesethreegiftsoftheSpirit,

faith,love,andhopemirrordifferentaspectsofthetrinitarianlife.Infaith’s freedom,thehumanbeingenjoysthesamecreativefreedom,thesamelifegivingenergythatcharacterizesGod’screativelovetowardhumanbeings.In loveassociality,humanbeingsparticipateinrelationshipsofmutualindwelling,relationshipsthatcorrespondtothoseamongthetrinitarianpersons.Finally,inhope’sfreedom,thehumancommunitypartakesofthesamepower ofthefuturethatcharacterizesthecomingGodofthekingdom.Aswewill seeahead,thisanalogybetweenthegiftsoftheSpiritandthetrinitarianlife willbecomeevenmorepronouncedintheactualformsofrelationshipsand practicesthatMoltmannenvisionsaspartoftheChristianlife.

TheGiftofLifeandtheOrderofSalvation

TheSpiritasthegiftoflifeservesasMoltmann’sbasicparadigmfortheworkingsofgraceintheChristianlife.In TheSpiritofLife hereformulatesthe entiretraditionalProtestantorderofsalvationasstagesinthismessianicgift ofnewlife:“theliberationandjustificationoflife,life’sregenerationandendowment,aswellasitsdevelopment,inthelivingspaceoftheSpirit.”63 These differentstagesdonotresultfromsuccessivegiftsoftheSpirit;theyallproceed fromthesinglegiftofgracethatcontinuallydrawshumankindtowardthe eschatologicalgoaloffellowshipinGod.

AsInotedearlier,Moltmannpointedlyrefusestoseparatethedivineact ofjustificationfromthatofregeneration;thehumanbeingissimultaneously justifiedandregeneratedwiththeinitialgiftofgrace.IndiscussingthefoundationofsalvationinChrist,wehavealreadyencounteredMoltmann’smodel ofjustification.ThereIpointedtohowMoltmannrevisestheclassicalmodel ofjustificationasforgivenessofsinsinordertoaddressthesoteriological situationofboththeperpetratorandthevictimofsinandevil;inbothcases, thegoalofjustificationremainsthesame—therestorationoffellowshipwith GodthroughouracceptanceashischildreninChrist.

In TheSpiritofLife,Moltmannpresentsessentiallythesamemodelof justificationbutattendsspecificallytotheSpirit’sroleintheprocess.HeredoubleshiseffortstomodifytheProtestantmodelofjustificationsothatit addressesnotonlytheforgivenessofpersonalsinsbutalsotheconcretesufferingsofthevictimsofsin,aswellasthestructuralaspectsofsin.Todoso, Moltmanndifferentiateshowweunderstandthebeliever’sreceptionofthe Spirit’sgiftofrighteousness.Forexample,thesinnerexperiencestheSpirit’s giftofrighteousnessasliberationfromtheguiltandthepainofsin;herethe SpiritofGodappearsas“theatoningpower ofChrist’ssubstitutionamongand intheperpetrators.”64 Bycontrast,sin’svictimsexperiencetheSpirit’sgiftof righteousnessasliberationfromthepainandsufferingoftheexperienceof abandonmentbyGod;heretheSpiritoflifeconveysChrist’sbrotherlyfellowship,“Christ’ssolidaritywiththem.”65 Finally,theSpirit’sgiftofrighteousness

addressesthesuprahumanstructuresofsin—theunjustsystemsofpowerand socialrelations.HereMoltmanndepictstheSpirit’sagencyonlyinthemost generaltermsascreatinghospitablesocialstructuresthatprotectthepersonal dignityandtherightsofalltheirmembers.TheSpirit’sgiftoflifemanifests itselfasa“rectifying”righteousnessthat“destabilizes”unjustandviolentsocial structuresandre-createsthemintopatternsoffellowship.66

MoltmannforgeshismodelofrebirthintheSpiritasaviamediabetween thatofKarlBarthandhispupilandMoltmann’sownteacher,OttoWeber. Barthdepictstherebirthofallmenandwomenashavingalreadyoccurredin Christonthecross;thegiftoftheSpirittotheindividualisonlyasubjective recognitionofwhathasalreadyobjectivelytranspiredinChrist.Incontrastto Barth’sstance,Weberadoptsanentirelyeschatologicalviewofregeneration. Hetreatstheindividual’srebirthintheSpiritasapurelyeschatologicalhope. TheChristiandoesnotlivewithapresentexperienceofrebirthbut“fromwhat iscomingtomeethim.”67 Forhispart,MoltmannstraddlesBarth’sandWeber’stwopositionsbydescribingregenerationasjoiningthebelieversimultaneouslytothepastandtohereschatologicalfuture.TheSpiritmakespresent therisenChrist,inwhomtheeschatologicalfuturehasalreadybeenfullyanticipated.TheSpiritoftheresurrectionentershumanbeings,sothatthey experienceinthehereandnowtherebirthintonewlife.Intheexperienceof therisenChrist,believersbecome“bornagaintoawell-foundedhopefor eternallife.”68

Thebeliever’sexperienceofthisrebirthintheSpiritisfullofmessianic tension.Ontheonehand,rebirthintheSpiritisexperiencedasa“rapturous joy”andasa“tremendous affirmationoflife.”69 ThroughthegiftoftheSpirit, humanbeingscometoengagetheworldwiththesameecstaticlovewithwhich Godhasalreadyaddressedthem.Moltmanndescribesthisexperienceofjoy asaccompaniedbyasenseofpeaceor“shalom,”aholistic“happiness ofboth bodyandsoul.”70

Ontheotherhand,suchpositiveexperiencesofrebirthin theSpiritareinseparablefromthehumanbeing’srestlessnessovertheyet unfulfilledexpectationofthenewcreation.Believersexperiencethedifference betweentheireschatologicalhopeandthepresentreality“andbegintosuffer, andtocontradict,andtoresist.”71 ThismeansthattheSpiritoflifeisatwork innegativeexperiencesaswell,forexample,inprayersoflamentandoutcries againstGod.Insuchcircumstances,theSpiritoflifeempowersactiveresistanceagainstalllife-denyingforces.ItleadsthebelievertowhatMoltmann callsa“determinednegationofthenegative,”72 thatis,totakeactionagainst allforcesofviolenceanddeath.

Inkeepingwithhismessianictrajectoryofthehumanprocessofredemption,Moltmanndepictstheindividual’sregenerationintheSpiritasanongoingprocessratherthanaonce-and-for-allconversionthatoccursatagiven pointintime.Anindividual’srenewalintheSpiritalwaysmakesafreshbeginning:“Wearestillinvolvedintheexperienceofrenewal,andthebecoming-

newtravelswithus.”73 Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthebelieverdoesnot gainameasureofcertitudeorassuranceinhisorherfaith.Believersdoexperienceanunderlying“certaintyofpreservation,”buthereagainthisrestson God’sfaithfulness,notonthestrengthofone’sfaith.74

Moltmanndescribessanctificationasanongoingprocessbywhichhuman beingsgraduallybecome imagoChristi onthewaytowardtheireschatological glorification.HepatternsitinPaulinetermsas“‘puttingonthenewhuman being,createdafterthelikenessofGod’(Eph.4.24;cf.alsoCol.3.10).”75 AlthoughMoltmannexplicitlyallowsforgrowthtowardbecoming imagoDei in theChristianlife,heinsiststhatsuchprogressrestsentirelyonGod’sgraciousnesstohumankindandnotonaheightenedgoodnessofthehuman being.Justashedidpreviouslywiththenotionof imagoDei,Moltmannargues here,too,thatournewcreationthroughtheSpiritisnotapermanentdispositionorhabitualgraceintheindividual.Rather,itis“arelationshipandan affiliation”thatGodinstitutesalwaysanewwiththebeliever.76

NotethatMoltmann’semphasisonthegratuitousnatureofsanctification doesnotinanysensediminishhumanagencyintheChristianlife.Onthe contrary,humanbeingsarechargedtorespondtothisgiftofgrace“asdeterminingsubjectsoftheirownlives.”77 ThefellowshipoftheSpiritgrantsbelieverstheveryfreedomtobecomeGod’scounterpartinlove,andtheyare calledtorespondbyenteringintoJesus’messianicwayoflife.Inthisway,the believerfulfillshisorhermessianicdestiny—whatMoltmanndescribesas “thelifecorrespondingtoGod.”78

Beforeweconsiderwhatthismessianicwayoflifeentails,Iwouldliketo returntooneofthecriticalquestionsthatIraisedintheopeningchapterof thisstudy,namely,AllanTorrance’scontentionthatMoltmannoverplaysthe humanbeing’sroleinsalvation.Torecall,Torranceraisedthespecterof“Pelagiantendencies”inhowMoltmannconstruesthebeliever’s“doxologicalparticipationinthetranscendenttriunelife.”79 HearguesthatMoltmannpresents theactofworshipmoreasahumantasktobeachievedratherthan“anevent ofgrace”andquestionswhetherthisisnotindicativeofhowthecentralmediatoryroleofChristiscompromisedinMoltmann’stheology.80

Givenmyforegoinganalysisofthetrinitarianstructureofsalvation,there islittleevidenceinmyviewtosupporteitherofTorrance’scriticisms,namely, thatMoltmanncompromisesthegratuityofgraceintheChristianlifeorthe centralityofChristasthesourceofthatgrace.AsIhavearguedearlier,the consummationofthehumanbeing’smessianicdestinyismediatedthrough thereciprocalagencyofChristandtheSpirit.Whatevercorrespondencesto thetrinitarianlifedodevelopamonghumanbeings,thesearealwaysand everywhereSpirit-filledworksoflove.Theyarebornofthefellowshipofthe SpiritwhojoinsthehumanbeingintotheintimatefellowshipofChrist;only inthiswayishumankindgracedwiththecapacitytorespondinlovetoGod andtooneanother.Inthislight,suchcorrespondencestothetrinitarianlife

arenotmerelyhumanworks,asTorrancecharges,“anaturalhumanresponse orinnatecapacity.”81 Rather,suchglimmersofdivinefellowshipinthehuman lifeare“analogiesofgrace,”thatis,fruitsoftheHolySpirit’sworkinthelife offaith.

TheMessianicPraxisofTrinitarianFellowship

Letusturnnowtoconsidersomeofthesetrinitariananalogiesofgraceinthe lifeoffaith.Whatmightthismessianicwayoflifelookliketoday?Whatforms ofhumanrelationships,ecclesialpractices,andsocialstructuresbelongtolife intheSpirit?And,mostimportant,doesthissocialtrinitariantheologyliveup toMoltmann’swagerthatitwillbecomeasourceofpropheticcritiqueandof messianichopeforthetransformationofthisworldintothecomingkingdom?

ThereaderwhoporesoverthesixvolumesofMoltmann’s MessianicTheology anticipatingadetailedsocialtrinitarianprogramisboundfordisappointment.NowheredoesMoltmannprescribeasetofdistinctivetrinitarianpracticesfortheChristianlife.Insteadofdevotinganentirevolumetotheological anthropologyortohisproposedmessianicethics,Moltmanndiscussesonly certaindimensionsoftheChristianlife,andthesediscussionsareinterspersed throughoutthesixvolumesofhisworkorinseparateessays.Forexample,he givesimmediateattentiontothepoliticalandecclesialimplicationsofhissocial trinitarianismintheopeningvolumeoftheseries, TheTrinityandtheKingdom Butreadersmustwaituntilthefourthvolumeoftheseries, TheSpiritofLife, beforeMoltmanndevelopstheimplicationsofhissocialtrinitariantheology forthemoreintimatesphereofhumanfriendshipandlove.

Moltmann’sadhocapproachtoquestionsoftheChristianlifeandethics hasbeenavexingissueforhisinterpreters.EspeciallygivenMoltmann’s avowedcommitmenttobeingapastoralaswellasapoliticaltheologian,one wouldhaveexpectedalengthytreatmentofChristiandiscipleshipinthe MessianicTheology.Inhisrecentbook, TheKingdomandthePower:TheTheologyof Ju¨rgenMoltmann, GeikoMu¨ller-Fahrenholzoffersthemosthelpfulinsightinto Moltmann’sreluctancetowritesuchacomprehensivevolumeontheChristian life.Mu¨ller-FahrenholzpointstoMoltmann’scommentsinhis1997essay “HowIHaveChanged?”inwhichhedescribeshisfailedattempttowritean EthicsofHope asacompanionvolumetohis TheologyofHope.Moltmann explainedthathehadbeeninthemidstofwritingsuchanethicswiththe twofoldstrategyofdescribing“thegreatalternative”and“themanylittlealternatives,”thatis,describinganidealChristianvisionandaddressingittoa seriesofconcreteproblemsconfrontingtheworldtoday.82 Hefoundhimself, however,withouttherequisiteknowledgeinthevariousdisciplinesand spheresoflifetofulfillhisambitiousagenda.Forthisreason,MoltmannabandonedhislargevolumeonChristianethics,electinginsteadtocontinuehis

adhocapproachtoaddressingconcreteethicalissuesthroughouthiscareer. WhileMoltmannelucidates“thegreatalternativeinoutlineform”inhismajor works,hechoosestoaddressspecificissuesconfrontinghischurchandsociety onlyinhisoccasionalwritings.83 ForMu¨ller-Fahrenholz,Moltmann’sgreat alternativeistheconceptofakingdomoffreedomthattheauthordeveloped inhisearlywritings.This“kingdomoffreedom”translatesintoaChristian “praxisofliberation”thatseekstoovercomeallformsofalienationinhistory— beitinthesphereofeconomics(poverty),politics(totalitarianism),orculture andsociety(sexism,racism).84

AlthoughIagreethatthenotionoffreedomorliberationfromvarious formsofsocialalienationisattheheartofMoltmann’stheologicalagenda,in myview,theconceptoftrinitarianfellowshipprovidesabetterkeytotheauthor’smaturetheologicalvisionofwhatnormstheChristianlifethanthe notionofthekingdomoffreedom.Trinitarianfellowshipnotonlyprovidesa theologicalcriticalprincipleforevaluatingvariousliberationmovementsin historybutalsoilluminatestheoverallgraceddynamicoftheChristianlife, thatis,howanindividualbeliever’sfellowshipwithGodbecomesactivein fellowshipwithothers.Moreover,thenotionoftrinitarianfellowshiphelpsus tolinkthecontemplativeandtheactive,thedoxologicalandthepoliticalaspects ofthismessianicwayoflife.85 Participationinthetrinitarianfellowshipisthe messianicgoaloftheindividual’scommunionbothwithChristandwithhis fellowbrotherandsister.

ThisisnottosuggestthatMoltmannappealsstraightforwardlytotrinitarianfellowshipinhisbriefdiscussionsoftheChristianlife.Mostoftenhe invokeshistrinitariantheologyonlyindirectly,bytransposingitintoanorm orruleoffaithforguidinghumanrelationships.Mostgenerally,Moltmann’s socialtrinitarianruleprescribesthattruehumanrelationshipsinvolvereciprocalself-givingandacceptanceofothers.Intheauthor’swords,truefellowshipisfoundedon“opennesstooneanother,sharingwithoneanotherand respectforoneanother.Itisthereciprocalcommunicationofallthatonehas andis.”86 Furthermore,truehumanfellowshipunitespersonsincommunity, allthewhileguaranteeingtheirparticularity.Justaswediscoveredthedialectic ofunityinpersonaldifferentiationintrinitariancommunion,so,too,all truehumanrelationshipsarebasedonadynamicofself-donationandselfdifferentiation.Theyinvolvegivingoneselffullytoothersinordertoform bondsofcommunity,allthewhilecreatingthefreespaceinwhichindividual identitybothisrecognizedandflourishes.Inotherwords,trinitarianfellowshipdoesnotcommendhomogeneoushumancommunitiesthaterasepersonaldifferences.Itfostershumanfellowshipsof“diversityinunity,”inwhich individualpotentialsarerealizedanddifferencesmayabound.87

Inthefollowingletusturnbrieflytothreedifferentspheresofhuman life,thepolitical,theecclesial,andtheinterpersonal,toseehowMoltmann constructshisanalogyoftrinitarianfellowshipineachofthem.Thesevarious

analoguestotrinitarianfellowshipwillprovideabasisfromwhichtoseehow Moltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologyisrealizedinthelifeoffaithandto evaluatethepracticalsignificanceofhisproposals.

IncarnatingTrinitarianFellowshipintheWorld

Letusturnfirsttothepoliticalsphereforwhatitmeanstoincarnatetrinitarian fellowshipintheworld.In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Moltmanndeduces twoprinciplesfromhismodeloftrinitarianfellowshipthatheappliestothe politicalarena.First,hecontendsthattrinitarianfellowshipfindsitsearthly reflectiononlyinthosepoliticalordersthatarebuiltonrelationshipsofreciprocityandabsoluteequalityofallmembers:a“communityofmenand women,withoutprivilegesandwithoutsubjugation.”88 Justasthethreedivine personsshareacommonandequalruleoffellowshipintheGodhead,so,too, humanbeingsas imagoTrinitatis arecalledtojointogetherinegalitarianstructuresofpoliticalrule.

ThesecondprinciplethatMoltmannderivesfromhistrinitarianfellowshipistheinterdependenceofpersonalandcommunalidentity.JustaspersonalandcommunalidentityproveinseparableinthetrinitarianGodhead,so, too,theyareinthepoliticalorder:“SotheTrinitycorrespondstoacommunity inwhichpeoplearedefinedthroughtheirrelationswithoneanotherandin theirsignificanceforoneanother,notinoppositiontooneanother,interms ofpowerandpossession.”89 Giventheinterdependenceofpersonalandcommunalidentity,Moltmannconcludesthatinthepoliticalsphereonecannot divorcethepursuitofindividualrightsfromthoseofthecommunityandvice versa.

Moltmanndoesnotadvanceafull-scalepoliticalagendaonthebasisof thesetwoprinciplesandinfactwarnshisreadersagainstaforcedtransposition oftheologicalidealsintothepoliticalsphere.Nonetheless,hedoessingleout democraticorpersonalistsocialismasthepoliticaloptionwithintheEuropean contextthatmostcloselycorrespondstotrinitarianrule:“IfwetakeourbearingsfromtheChristiandoctrineoftheTrinity,personalismandsocialismcease tobeantithesesandareseentobederivedfromacommonfoundation.The ChristiandoctrineoftheTrinity compels ustodevelopsocialpersonalismor personalsocialism.”90 ForMoltmann,democraticorpersonalistsocialismovercomestheantithesisbetweenindividualismandsocialismthatplaguedthe East-Westpoliticaldebatesofhisday.HissocialdoctrineoftheTrinity,withits interlockingnotionsofpersonhoodandcommunity,supportssuchapolitical orderofdemocraticsocialismthatsimilarlybalancestherightsoftheindividualandthoseofsocietyinanegalitarianframework.Personalistordemocratic socialismprovidestheneededcorrectivetoboththeexcessiveindividualism inWesterndemocraciesandthehomogenizingimpulsesofEasternsocialism.

Moltmannwagersanevenmoredirectcorrelationbetweenhistrinitarian

theologyandecclesiologythanthatinthepoliticalspherebecauseheviewsthe churchcommunityasspringingforthdirectlyfromthetrinitarianfellowship.

CitingJohn17:20–21ashisbiblicalsupport,Moltmannnotonlymodelsthe churchafterthetrinitarianfellowshipbutalsoanchorsitsverybeinginthe trinitarianfellowship:“It[i.e.,theunityoftheChristiancommunity] corresponds totheindwellingoftheFatherintheSon,andoftheSonintheFather.It participates inthedivinetriunity,sincethecommunityofbelieversisnotonly fellowship with Godbut in Godtoo.”91 Sincethechurchparticipatesinthis trinitarianfellowship,Moltmannreasonsthattherelationshipsamongitsindividualmembersaswellasitschurchstructuresaremeanttocorrespond mostcloselytothoseofthetrinitariancommunion.Thechurchistobe“the ‘livedout’Trinity,”where“mutualloveispractisedwhichcorrespondstothe eternalloveoftheTrinity.”92

Onthebasisofthisdivinearchetypeoffellowship,Moltmannchallenges thetraditionallocusofchurchauthorityinthemonarchicalepiscopate.He representsthisasaformof“clericalmonotheism,”whichreflectsthemonarchianismthathasaccompaniedtheWesterndoctrineofGod.93 Inparticular, Moltmannobjectstothechurch’sidentitybeinggroundedintheofficeof ministry,whichinturnrelegatesthecommunityofbelieversintoobedientand passiverecipientsofwordandsacrament.Moltmanncallsinsteadforthe churchtoexistasareciprocalfellowshipofsistersandbrothersinChrist— “‘acommunityfreeofdominion.’”94 HereMoltmann’ssympathiesclearlylie withtheradicalwingoftheReformationandwiththeideathatchurchauthorityshouldrestultimatelyinthecongregation,inthegatheredfellowship ofbelievers.In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,heargues,therefore,thatthe “presbyterialandsynodalchurchorder”95 correspondsmostreadilytothelife oftheTrinity.

Letusturnfinallytothesphereofpersonalrelationstoexploretwofinal expressionsoftrinitarianfellowship:thehumanexperiencesoffriendshipand oflove.Moltmann’slengthiestdiscussionoftheserelationshipsappearsin The SpiritofLife undertherubricof“thetheologyofsocialexperienceofGod.”96 HerehearguesforthecentralrolethatsuchsocialexperiencesofGodshould playinthelifeoffaithoverandagainstWesterntheology’stendencytofocus ontheindividual’sexperienceofGod.Aswesawinthepreviouschapter, MoltmannattributestheintrospectivecastofWesternspiritualitylargelyto Augustine’spivotalinfluence.OnMoltmann’sreading,byidentifyingthe imagoDei withtherationalsoul,Augustine’stheologyhadthedeleteriouseffect ofwithdrawingthehumanbeingfromitswebofinterpersonalrelationsinthe worldandrenderingone’srelationshiptoone’sneighborssecondarytoone’s loveofGod.

Onthebasisofhissocialmodelofthe imagoDei,Moltmanndescribes one’sself-relationandrelationshiptoone’sneighborasinseparabledimensionsoftheexperienceofGodinthelifeoffaith.“Infacttheyaretwosides

ofthesameexperienceoflife,inwhichweexperienceothersandourselves.”97 JustaspersonalidentityandsocialityproveinseparablewithinMoltmann’s theologicalanthropology,so,too,theindividual’sexperienceofdivineloveand thefriendshiporloveexperiencedamonghumanbeingsareinextricablein theChristianlife.

Moltmanndevelopshistheologyofloveoverandagainsttwoothertheologiesoflovethathecharacterizesasrepresentativeofthepatristicandthe medievaltraditions.98 Inthefirstmodel,the“physicalconceptionoflove,”the loveofGodisalreadypresentinthesoulofallhumanbeingsandneedsonly tobeperfectedbygrace.Hereeachpersonischargedtoloveothersnotinand forthemselvesbutinsofarastheyserveasarungontheladderupwardtoward theloveofGod:“EverythingwhichGodloves,willalsobecomeanobjectof humanloveforGod,simplybecauseGodlovesit.EverythingislovedforGod, andforGod’ssake.”99 Inthemedieval“‘ecstaticconception’oflove,”true humanloveisalsodirectedonlytowardGod,butitisidentifiedwiththetotal divestitureofselfandwiththehumanbeing’sdisengagementfromothers: “ThepersonwholovesGodperfectlyisthepersonwhoistotallyforgetfulof himselfandindifferenttowardstheworld.”100

Moltmannchallengesthesetwotheologiesofloveonsoteriological grounds.TheydidnottakeGod’sloveforusinChristandourexperienceof beinglovedasthebasisforinterpretingpersons’loveforoneanother.Citing 1John4:9ashisbiblicalsupport,hearguesthatthehumanexperienceof God’sloveinChristmustbethestartingpointandthearchetypeforhuman beings’loveofoneanother.InMoltmann’swords,“WelivethroughhimbecausethroughhimwearereconciledwithGod.... Becauseoftheincarnation ofGod’sloveinthesendingandself-surrenderofChrist, theloveofGodis realizedinloveofourneighbor,andrealizedinsuchawaythattheneighboris lovedforhimself,notasmeanstoahigherend.”101 HereMoltmann’smandateto lovetheneighborrestsfirmlyonhismessianic imagoDei anthropologyand hisunderstandingofsalvationasnewcreation.JustasGod’sloveforhumankindtakesincarnateforminthelife,death,andresurrectionofChrist,so,too, humanbeingsarecalledtoincarnatethissamelovetowardtheneighbor.In keepingwiththetermsofMoltmann’smessianicanthropology,humanbeings arecalledtofulfilltheirdestinyas imagoDei byconformingthemselvestothe messianicwayofChrist,thatis,bylovingotherhumanbeingsjustasGodhas lovedtheminChrist.Inthiswaytheybecomewithoneanotherarealization ofthe imagoTrinitatis.

Onasuperficialreading,Moltmann’sproposedmodelsofChristianfriendshipandlovedonotappeartobeintrinsicallyrelatedtohistrinitariantheology. Unlikeourpreviousexamplesoffellowshipinthespheresofpoliticsandthe church,hedoesnotspelloutforhisreadersanydirectcorrespondencesbetweenthetrinitarianlifeandthesemostpersonalformsofhumanrelationships.Infact,Moltmannalertshisreaderstohistheologicalapproachtothese

humanrelationsonlyinthemostgeneralterms,bydescribingthemas “carry[ing]overtheChristianconceptoflove—theliberatingandredeeming concept—intothedifferentlevelsofsocialrelationships.”102 DespiteMoltmann’smethodologicalunclarity,carefulanalysisrevealsthefamilyresemblancesamongthesepersonalrelationshipsandhistrinitarianontology.Let usturnfirsttohisdiscussionofopenfriendship.

OpenfriendshipisessentiallyMoltmann’smodelofChristianhospitality; itrecursthroughouthisworksastheidealforhowChristiansshouldengage othersintheworld.Moltmanninitiallyborrowshisdefinitionoffriendship fromKantianmoraltheory—hardlyatrinitariansource.Friendship,heexplainsinKant’sterms,isapersonalrelationshipthatcombines“respectfor theotherperson’sfreedomwithdeepaffectionforhimorherasaperson.”103 Despitethenontrinitarianoriginofthisdefinition,Moltmanndevelopsits meaninginsuchawaythatitactuallycorrespondstothepersonalrelations thatconstitutethetrinitarianlifeoffellowship.Openfriendshipdepends equallyonthedesiretoshareoneselffullyinthelifeofanotherindividualand ontherecognitionoftheotherperson’sdifferenceorindividuality.Furthermore,openfriendshipispredicateduponperfectreciprocityandequality amonghumanbeings.Apersonneitherappropriatesnorpossessesanother, nordothetwobecomesubjecttooneanother.Rather,eachcreatesthespace fortheotherperson’sfreedomtoemerge.InMoltmann’smorepoeticterms, “Friendsthrowopenthefreespacesoflifeforoneanother,andaccompany oneanotherinsympathyandimmenseinterest.”104

ThoughMoltmannfailstomakethispointexplicit,thepersonandthe workofJesusChristsecurethelinkbetweentrinitarianfellowshipandopen friendship.Aswerecallfromthediscussionofthetrinitarianpatternofsalvation,humanbeingscometoknowtheessenceoftrinitarianfellowship,the infiniteself-givingloveoftheOther,uniquelythroughthepersonofJesus Christ.Throughhisministryandhismessage,humanbeingsdiscoverwhat itmeanstobeatruechildofGod.WhenMoltmanndescribeshowthisselfgivinglovetakesvisibleform,hespeaksofthe“openfriendship”thatJesus extendstoallpersons,especiallythoseatthemarginsofsociety—thesinners, thepoor,andtheoutcast:

[Jesus]celebratedthemessianicfeastwiththepeoplewhohadbeen thrustoutofsociety.Ininvitingjoy,heopenedhimselfforthem, andrespectedboththemandthepoor,asthefirstchildrenofthe divinegracethatcreateseverythingafresh.Herecognizedtheirdignityaspeople.Hebridgedthegulfoftheirself-isolation,anddid awaywiththesocialprejudiceunderwhichtheysuffered.Through speechandgesture,thedivine“friendofsinnersandtaxcollectors” spreadtheencouragingandsupportiveatmosphereofopenfriendshipamongmenandwomen.105

ForMoltmann,Jesus’ministryexemplifiesperfectlythereciprocaldynamicof affectionandrespect,self-givingandself-distinctionthatcharacterizeopen friendship.Jesusgivesfullyofhimselfbyenteringwithcompassionandactive solidarityintoothers’situations;hecreatesthefreespacetoacceptothers’ differencesandtorespecttheiruniquedignity.Heoffersthisopenfriendship toallpersonsheencounters,notoutofmoraldutybutoutofoverflowinglove, theverysameinfinitegenerositythatconstitutesthetrinitarianlifeoffellowship.

Jesusismorethanaperfectexemplarofopenfriendshipinhisministry. HeincarnatesGod’sfriendshipwithallhumanbeingsinhisself-givinglove atthecross.BuildingonJohn15:13–15,Moltmanndescribesthisactofdivine lovetowardhumanbeingsasthemeansofhumanfriendshipwithGodinthe Spirit.106 Ultimately,thebeliever’spersonalexperienceofopenfriendshipwith GodthroughChristandintheSpiritempowershisorherpracticeofopen friendshiptowardothers.JustasthetrinitarianGodhasopenedhiskingdom toallhumanbeingswhoareprofoundlyotherfromGod’sselfandinvites themintofriendship,so,too,ChristiansarecalledtobeconformedtoChrist— toopenandwelcomeotherhumanbeingsintotheir“‘societyoffriends.’”107

LetusturnfinallytoMoltmann’sdescriptionofhumanloveanditsroots intrinitarianfellowship.HereMoltmannisfarmoreexplicitabouthowhe envisionstherelationshipbetweendivineandhumanloves.Heobjectstothe variousterminologicaldistinctionsthathavebeendrawninthetheological traditionbetweendivineandhumanloves,mostnotably eros versus agape,as severingtheunitythatisgiveninthedoublecommandmentoflove.Citing1 John4:16,Moltmanndescribesdivineandhumanlovesasintersectingspheres ofexperience;theyareexperiencesthat“deepenandshelteroneanothermutually.”108 Thisdoesnotmeanthatthetwoareindistinguishablefromone another,butthatwecangenuinelyexperiencetheloveofGodinandthrough humanexpressionsoflove.

AppealingtotheGreekchurchfathers(particularlyMaximustheConfessor),Moltmannusesthesingleterm eros todescribebothdivineandhuman loves. Eros signifiesbothGod’sfellowshipwithhumankindandtheforcethat joinshumanbeingsintocommunitywithoneanother.“Thecommunityof loveisan eroticcommunity:God’slovingcommunitywithhisbelovedcreation iserotic;theforcewhichdifferentiatesandunitesallhiscreaturesiserotic; therapturousdelightofloversinoneanotheriserotic.”109 Moltmannidentifies eros withthecreativeSpiritoflifewhoinfuseslove—anaffirmationoflife— intoallofcreation. Eros impartstohumanbeingsashareinthedivinelifeand enablesthemtoreflectthissameloveinthesphereofearthlyrelations.

AlthoughonceagainMoltmanndoesnotspelloutthecorrespondencesto histrinitariantheologyoflove,theyarethereforthecarefulreadertouncover. Forone,hismodeloftruehumanlovemirrorsthedialecticofunioninpersonalfreedomthatcharacterizesthetrinitarianlife.Ontheoneside,human

loveisadesireforunionwiththeother.Trueeroticdesiredoesnotwishto subjugateorpossessanotherbutrather“toparticipateinthelifeoftheother person,andtocommunicatehisorherownlife.”110 Ontheother,humanlove offersthegiftoffreedom.Truehumanlove,forMoltmann,is“generous,” insofarasitdelightsinthefreedomoftheotherperson:“Likefriendship,love unfoldsonlyinthefragileandvulnerablesphereoffreedom—indeeditislove itselfwhichinthepersonalsenseopensupfreedominthefreespacesoflife. ...It soundsparadoxical,butintheexperienceofloveitisnocontradiction tosaythattodesireandtoliberateareoneandthesamething.111 JustasI describedMoltmann’svisionofGodasonewhofreesinlove,so,too,we discoverherethattruehumanloveenjoinsthefreedomoftheother.

Moltmannalertsustotheintrinsicconnectionbetweendivineandhuman lovesbyusingparallelterminologytodescribethetwoexperiences.Forexample,hedepictshumanloversasbeingacounterpartandpresenceforone another.Loversareeachother’scounterpart,insofarastheyrespondinconcert tooneanother:“TheinclinationoftheThouawakensarespondingmovement intheI,andviceversa.”112 BeyondenjoyingthisI-thourelationshipwithone another,loversbecomean“encompassingpresence”foroneanother;“they begintoliveineachother.”113 WhenMoltmanndescribestheintimatecommunionthathumanbeingsenjoywithGodthroughthefellowshipofthe Spirit,heemploysthesameterms:“IntheexperienceoftheSpirit,Godis primal,all-embracingpresence,notadetachedcounterpart.”114 Justasthe Spiritandhumanbeingsdwellinoneanother,so,too,loversarecalledtodwell reciprocallyinoneanother.

Insum,despiteMoltmann’softenopaqueargumentationsonbehalfof histheologyofthesocialexperiencesofGod,carefulreadingof TheSpiritof Life uncoversthenumerouswaysinwhichhistrinitarianruleoffaithnorms thesphereofhumaninterpersonalrelations.Liketrinitarianfellowship,friendshipandloveareinterpersonalrelationshipsofself-givingthatcombineaffectionandrespect.Theyarebothformsofunityindifferentiation;theyinvolve agenuineparticipationorindwellinginthelifeofanotherthatengenders mutualfreedom.Finally,bothfriendshipandlovearegroundedintheexperienceoftrinitarianloveasitisdirectedtowardhumanbeings.Inthefriendshipextendedtowardthestrangerandintheloveoftheneighbor,human beingsreflecttheTrinity’sgiftoflovethathasbeenfirstofferedwithinfinite generositytohumankind.

ThePromiseofTrinitarianFellowshipasaRuleofFaith

WewouldneedtoanalyzeotheraspectsofMoltmann’spoliticaltheologyand hisecclesiologytoseefullyhowhistrinitariantheologyshapeshisidealsfor theChristianlife.Nonetheless,wecandrawsomeimportantconclusionsabout thepracticaldimensionsofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologyfromthe

examplesthatIhaveprovidedhere.Todoso,Iwouldliketoreturntoone practiceoftheChristianfaith—thatofopenfriendship—asillustrativeofthe propheticandtransformativepossibilitiesinherentinMoltmann’strinitarian fellowshipasaruleoffaith.Thecategoryofopenfriendshipprovidesanexcellentvantagepointfromwhichtoevaluatehowtrinitarianfellowshipnorms humanaction,sinceMoltmannappealstoitthroughouthisworksasthedistinctiveethosoftheChristianlifeoffaith.

Firstandforemost,openfriendshiprecaststhenotionoftruehumanfreedomincommunaltermsasafreedomforandwithanotherperson.Inso doing,thissocialtrinitarianmodelofhumanfreedomconteststhemodern (andsomewouldarguepostmodern)idealoffreedomasindividuallibertyor the“righttoself-determination.”115 Moltmanncriticizesthismodernnotionof humanfreedomasautonomybypointingtohowitatomizeshumansociety intoacollectionofsolitaryandcompetingindividuals.Inmodernity’ssocial contract,eachindividualisperceivedasthelimittoanother’sfreedom.Atits best,suchamodeloffreedomisolatesindividualsfromoneanotherbyengenderingfiercecompetitionforcommonresourcesandproperty.Atitsworst, itleadstothesubjugationoftheweakbythedominantandthedissolutionof alltruebondsofcommunity.116

Openfriendshipprovidesapowerfulantidotetotheconceptofhuman freedomas“self-constitution”thattriumphedinmuchmoderntheological anthropology.117 Incontrasttothismodernconcept,thefreedomofopen friendshipisfoundinthetiesthatbinddiversepersonstogetherasacommunity.ToborrowMoltmann’swords,itis“acommunicativefreedom”:118 a freedomthatemergesinreciprocalgivingandreceiving,inmutualrecognition andacceptance.Insuchopenfriendship,personalidentityflourishesrather thanbeingsacrificedtothatofanother.Heretheantinomybetweenthefreedomofthepersonandthatofone’sneighborisovercomeinalifeofmutual participation;otherpersonsbecomethesourceaswellasthecomplementto one’sownfreedom.Justasintheindividual’sfellowshipwiththeHolySpirit, so,too,inopenfriendshiptherecoexists“both thelove thatbindsand the freedom whichallowseverythingtoarriveatitself,initsownuniquenature.”119

Asecondpromisingdimensionofopenfriendshipliesinitschargeto practiceaself-givinglovetowardtheOther.AsIhavearguedearlier,thisselfgivingloveisessentiallychristologicalpraxis;itispatternedaftertheministry andproclamation,thelifeandself-donationofChrist.Inthismessianicway oflife,suchself-givinglovecanmanifestitselfinavarietyofconcreterelationshipsandformsofactiontowardothers.Forexample,abelievermayexpressopenfriendshipthroughcompassionatefellowship,thatis,byparticipatingsofullyinthetrialsandjoysofothersthatsheprovidescompanionship intheirmidst.Inothersituations,self-givingloveoftheOthertakestheform ofactivesolidaritywithpersonsonthemarginsofsociety.Hereopenfriendshipmightmeanwelcomingthestranger,theoutsider,intothemidstofthe

Christianassembly.Orelseitmightmeanactiveresistanceagainstunjust structuresthatcreatesocialexclusioninthefirstplace;itmaymeanrisking spiritualorphysicalsufferingonbehalfofothers.Finally,self-givingloveof theOthermaytaketheformofarestorativeforgivenessthathealsthebrokennessofhumanrelationshipsandwelcomesthepersonwhobecomesimprisonedbyeitherpersonalorcollectiveguiltbackintocommunitywithothers.

Whatjoinsalltheseformsofself-givingloveoftheOtheristheirmovementtowardinclusivity,theiracceptanceofallothersintheirdiversity.Moltmannunderscoresthisradicalinclusivitybyjuxtaposinghisproposalforopen friendshipwiththeGreekconceptoffriendship(philia),inwhichfriendship isrestrictedtothosewhoareidenticalinnatureorrank,forexample,ingender, race,orsocialstatus.Incontrast,thepracticeofopenfriendshipreachesspecificallybeyondthosewhoarelikeusouttowardthosewhoareradically “Other.”JustasJesuswelcomesallpersonsregardlessoftheirsituation,gender, orstationinlifewiththeboundlessmercyandlife-givingloveofthekingdom’s fellowship,so,too,theChristianischargedtoembodysuchopenfriendship intheworld.

Whereinliestheemancipatorypotentialinthesediverseexpressionsof openfriendship?Throughactsofcreativeandpassionatefellowship,open friendshipbreaksthebondageofhumanexclusionandweavesnewbondsof communityinitsplace.Regardlessofanindividual’ssituation,whethershe orheisthevictimortheperpetratorofbrokenfellowship,thepracticeofopen friendshiprestoresanindividualtotheembraceofcommunity.Insodoing, suchself-givingloveoftheOtherdramaticallytransformshumaneconomies ofevenexchangeintoonesofinfinitegenerosityandcreativepossibility.In openfriendship,humanloveisneitherjustreturnedinkindnormetedoutin equalportions.Rather,self-givingloveoftheOtherexpressesitselfwiththe sameoverflowingabundancethatcharacterizesthelife-givingloveoftrinitarianfellowship.Withtrinitarianfellowshipasitsmeasure,thecircleofopen friendshipwidenstoincludeallpersonsandnotjustthosewhoresembleone anotherinsocialstatus,gender,orethnicity.Itistrulyaboundlessself-giving thatiswithoutreserveorconditions.

Toconcludethediscussionofthepromisingaspectsoftrinitarianfellowshipasaruleoffaith,letusrevisitthecriticaldebateoverthepracticalsignificanceofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologyraisedinthefirstchapterof thisstudy.ThereIpointedouthowMoltmannhasbeencaughtinthecrossfire betweencriticswhothinkthathistrinitariantheologypromisestoomuchand otherswhothinkitdeliverstoolittle.Ontheonehand,contemporarytheologianssuchasWernerJeanrondandKarenKilbychargeMoltmannwithoverfreightinghistrinitariandoctrinebyapplyingittooreadilytohumanbeings’ relationshipsandtheirsocialstructures.Ontheother,criticssuchasDavid CunninghamapplaudMoltmann’seffortstousehistrinitariantheologyto addresspoliticalandsocialconcerns,buttheythinkhefallsshortofachieving

thisaimbyofferingtoofewconcretesuggestionsaboutwhatitmightmean toputhistheologyintopractice.

Inlightofmyforegoinganalysis,letmesuggestthatamorenuanced evaluationofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitarianprogramisneeded.Againstthe backdropoftheauthor’screation-redemptionschema,Ihavesuggestedthat animplicitdoctrinallogicunitesthedoctrineoftheTrinitytothatofthelife offaith.Morespecifically,IhavearguedthatMoltmannemploysasocialtrinitariananalogytoguidetheChristianlife,oneinwhichthespecificpatterns ofdivinerelationsthatconstitutedivinefellowshipprovidethearchetypefor differentpracticesandformsofrelationshipsinthehumancommunity.This doesnotmeanthathesuperimposestrinitariancategoriesontothecreated orderbutthathetranslatesthesecategoriesintowhatIhavetermedatrinitarianruleoffaith,whichhethenusestonormdiversehumanrelations.This divineanalogyoffellowshipmaynotprovideprescriptiverulesfortheChristianlife.Nordoesitlegislateaparticularcourseofactioninanygivensituation. Nonetheless,inmyview,thissocialtrinitariananalogydoesdemonstratethe theologicalcohesionbetweenMoltmann’sconceptofGodandtheconcrete practicesofindividualbelieversandtheircommunities.Itdemonstrateswhat AmyPlantingaPauwhashelpfullydescribedelsewhereasthe“flexibleintegrity”thatshouldexistbetweendoctrinesandpracticesoftheChristianlife.120

Finally,Moltmann’strinitarianpatternofsalvationgivesrisetoadistinctiveunderstandingofthecardinalfruitsoftheSpirit—offaith,love,and hope—throughwhichhumanbeingscometoenjoyagracedparticipationand transfigurationintothelifeoftrinitarianfellowship.ThesegiftsoftheSpirit provideabroadbutsturdytheologicalframeworkfortheChristianlifethatis builtupontheinseparablepillarsofloveofGodandloveofone’sneighbor. Thedeeperone’sfellowshipwiththetriuneGod,themorefreelyandgenerouslyonegoesoutintotheworldtosharethisfellowshipwithothers.Asone concreteexpressionoftheseintertwinedloves,openfriendshipleadsbelievers intothewayofJesusChrist—towardimitatingtheboundlesshospitalitythat Jesussharedwithallthoseheencounteredandparticularlywiththoseonthe marginsofsociety.ThefellowshipoftheSpiritinfusesbelieverswiththecreativefreedomtoengageinactsofcompassionatesolidarity,toresistsituations ofinjusticeandviolence,andtoofferrestorativeforgivenesstoothers.Moltmann’strinitariantheologythusoffersarobusttheologyofgracethatempowersindividualstoengageinthetransformationoftheworldintothekingdom offellowship.

SpeakingaboutSinagainsttheSpiritofTrinitarianFellowship

AlthoughmyconstructiveinterpretationofMoltmann’sviewsoftheChristian lifeandhissocialandpoliticalethicscountersmanyofthecriticismsthathave beenraisedagainsthissocialtrinitariantheology,itdoesnotstillallmydis-

quietudeaboutMoltmann’ssocialtrinitarianprogram.Intheconclusionof thisstudy,IwillpressagaintheissueofMoltmann’sadhoctheologicalmethodologyandhowitultimatelydetractsfromhispraxiologicaltrinitarianagenda. Atthispoint,IwouldliketotakeupagainDavidCunningham’scriticismof theutopiancharacterofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheology,butredirect thiscriticismtoatheologicalgapinhis MessianicTheology thathasbeenthus faroverlookedbyMoltmann’sinterpreters,namely,thelackofafullydeveloped theologyofsin.Asonerecalls,Cunninghamchallengesthepracticalrelevance ofMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologyonthegroundsthatitneveractually touchestheground,thatis,providessufficientguidelinesforhumanagency inparticularsituations.WhileIagreethatMoltmann’srhetoricaboutthe Christianlifemayattimessoundoptimistic,theproblem,inmyview,lies elsewherethanCunninghamsuspects,namely,inMoltmann’sfailuretodevelopanadequatedoctrineofsin,onethatcoincideswithhismaturetrinitarian analysisoftheChristianlife.

Nowthenotionofsindoesnotdisappearaltogetherfromthe Messianic Theology.Aswesawearlierinthischapter,Moltmanndoesbrieflydiscussthe humanpredicamentofsinattheconclusionofhis imagoDei anthropologyin GodinCreation.ThereIshowedhowMoltmanninterpretssininquiteclassical termsasadisruptionorperversionofone’sprimarylovingrelationshiptoGod duetotheidolatryofturningtooneself,others,orcreatedobjectsasone’s primarylove.Moltmannreturnsagaintothethemeofsininhislatervolume TheSpiritofLife,inwhichheintroducesabroadercosmologicalconceptof sin.Heresinrepresentsallthedeath-dealingforcesthatdenytheSpiritasthe wellspringoflife;sinnegatesorquenchestheSpiritofcreationandofnew creation—its“vitality”and“loveoflife.”121

Moltmannexplainsthisnotionofsinmostfullyinhisdiscussionofthe doctrineofjustification.ThereheissetonreformingtheclassicalReformed understandingofGod’srighteousnessthatjustifiesallsinners,onthegrounds thatsuch“auniversalconceptofsin”cantooeasilybecomean“excusefor specific,practicalguilt.”122 Inplaceofagenericimputationofallpersonsas justifiedsinners,MoltmannintroducesadifferentiatedviewofGod’srighteousnessthatoffersjustificationfortheperpetratorsofsinandjusticetoits victims.TheSpiritoflifefreestheperpetratorsofsinfromthebondageof theirguiltandrepressionatthesametimethatsheliberatessin’svictimsby creatingpossibilitiesfornewlife.123 Finally,Moltmanncallsforanexpansion intheclassicaldoctrine’sfocusonpersonalsintoincludestructuralsin— thoseinstitutionalizedformsofinjusticeinwhichindividualsexperience themselvesasbothcaughtandcomplicit.HeretheSpiritoflifemanifestsitself asa“rectifying”righteousnessthat“destabilizes”theseunjustandviolentsocialstructuresandtransformsthemintopatternsoffellowship.124

Whiletheseinnovationsinthedoctrinearesignificant,Moltmann’ssketch ofhisdoctrineofsinstilldoesnotcorrespondwelltohissocialtrinitarian

frameworkoftheChristianlife.Hedepictssinlargelyasacosmicforceagainst theSpiritofliferatherthandevelopingitintermsofbeingeitherpersonalor systemicdistortionsoftrinitarianfellowship.Symptomaticofthisdisjunction isthatMoltmanndoesnotdrawuponhissocialtrinitariancategoriestoanalyze eitherindividualorcorporatesins,forexample,asexpressionsofun-faith,unhope,andun-loveintheChristianlife.Forexample,wedonotdiscoverhow distortedpatternsoffellowshipmanifestthemselveseitherinstructuresof dominationorelseindissolutionofthenecessaryboundariesbetweentheself andtheother.Missingaswellisanin-depthreflectionofthedebilitatingand ongoingeffectsofsinuponhumanbeings’relationshipsandhowthesemight bepassedonanddistorteitherthecommunityofgenerationsorthefellowship withcreationthattheauthorespousesinhismessianicdoctrineofcreation. Finally,MoltmannpayslittleattentiontohowChristiansseektohealsuch brokenfellowship,forexample,throughcorporateactsofconfessionandlamentationorindividualactsofforgivenessandrepentance.

Inmyview,theseunderdevelopedaspectsoftheChristiandoctrineofsin goalongwaytowardexplainingthegapthatCunninghampointstobetween Moltmann’strinitarianprinciplesandhisconcreteproposalsfortheChristian life.Withoutarobusttheologicalnotionofsin,Moltmann’sclaimsonbehalf ofhispracticaltheoryandconcretedoctrineoftheTrinityappearoverlyoptimistic,asiftosuggestthatoncepersonsoffaithknowthesetrinitariannorms, theirfulfillmentliescloseathand.Theabsenceofarobusttheologyofsinalso lendscredencetowhatcriticssuchasTorranceidentifyasthePelagiantendenciesinMoltmann’smaturetheology,asifsalvationmightbeachieved throughpersonsoffaithpracticingthesetrinitariannorms.Finally,bynot includingarobustdoctrineofsininhistrinitariantheologyofgrace,Moltmann sacrificesthedistinctiveReformeddialecticofsinandgraceinhissocialtrinitariananalogyfortheChristianfaith.ThisReformeddialecticremindsbelieversthattheyremainforeverboundtothegiftofgracetojustifyandtofree themfromsin’sbondage.Furthermore,thisdialecticservesaprophetic-critical functioninthelifeoffaith,foritremindstheChristiancommunityofits ongoingsusceptibilitytoself-deceptionandthealwaysbrokencharacterofits witnessintheworld.ThedialecticofsinandgraceinspirestheChristian communitytoongoingcriticalexaminationoftheintegrityofitstheological andpraxiologicalcommitments.

Toconcludethisdiscussion,Iwouldliketotakeastepfurtherandsuggest whatMoltmann’ssocialtrintariantheologymightgainfromdevelopingadoctrineofsininsocialtrinitarianterms.Firstofall,speakingofsinasadistortion orseparationfromtrinitarianfellowshipdrawsintosharpreliefthatsinisa theological problem.Atitsdeepestlevelsinismorethanatransgressionagainst amoralorsocialcode.ItisafundamentalbreachofourfellowshipwithGod theFatherthroughtheSonintheSpirit.SinputsusatoddswithGod’sbeing andeternalpurposeincreatinghumankind—thewilltofellowshipwithhu-

mankind.Sincutsattheheartofwhowearecalledtobe,creatureswhose messianicdestinyistoflourishas imagoTrinitatis.

OncewerecallthattheSpiritoffellowshipisthecreativepassionthat createsandsustainsallofcreationinexistence,thedireconsequencesofsuch aruptureorfallingoutofdivinefellowshipbecomestrikinglyevident.Sin amountstoanunravelingofourpersonalidentity—aturningawayfromthe life-givingenergythatholdsallthingsinlife.Placedwithinthehorizonof divinefellowship,sinemergesinallitsviolenceanditsdestructivepotential asanontologicalproblem—whatBritishtheologianMaryGreyhasaptlycalled our“structuralde-creation”or“unmakingoftheworld.”125 Itnotonlydiminishesorstripsawayourparticularvocationinlifebutalsohascorrosiveeffects ontherelationships,structures,andinstitutionsinwhichweparticipate.

Speakingaboutsinasdistortedorbrokenfellowshipnotonlyhighlights thedestructivenessofsinbutalsoprovidesanelasticmetaphorwithwhich onecandescribedistinctmanifestationsofsinamonghumanbeings.For example,brokenfellowshipcanhelpfullyredescribeboththeclassicalnotion ofsinasprideandcontemporaryfeministreconstructionsofsinas“self-loss” or“lackofself-esteem.”126 Intheformercase,theegotisticselfwhoinstrumentalizesordominatesoverothersdistortsthedynamicofself-givingthatis intrinsictotrinitarianfellowship.Inthelatter,theselfwhothreatenstodissolve inandthroughrelationshipswithothersalsodistortsthegiftoftrinitarian fellowshipthatcallsonetoproperself-relationaswellasself-giving.

Totakeanotherexample,brokenfellowshipcanhelpdescribethesinthat liesbeneathracialorethnicconflict,inwhichtheOtherisviolentlyexcluded fromratherthanwelcomedintoone’scommunity.Heresintakestheformof fear-drivendesireforhomogeneityamongthemembersofacommunityand therejectionofdiversityasintegraltotheflourishingoffellowship.127 Finally, speakingaboutsinasbrokenfellowshiphasthepotentialtospeakoutagainst thosevariousbetrayalsofthehumanbodyandthenonhumancreation,bethey throughsexualabuse,torture,worldhunger,orexploitativeenvironmental practices,allofwhicharetoo-regularfeaturesofourglobalculture.Allthese areprofounddistortionsoftheembodiedfellowshipthattheSpiritseeksto fosteramongindividualsandinthecommunityofcreation.

Inalltheseexamples,speakingofsinasafallfromfellowshipjoinstogethertheethicalandthemystical,thepoliticalandthedoxologicaldimensions oftheChristianlife.Ithighlightshowdistortionsoftruehumanfellowship areintrinsicallyrelatedtothelossofpersonalfellowshipwiththeTrinity.Just asfaith’sfreedomandthegiftoffreedomtoothersareintertwinedgiftsofthe Spirit,so,too,sinasrupturedfellowshipcanbeunderstoodasthesimultaneousruptureofone’srelationshipwithGodandwithone’sfellowhuman beings.

Onasuperficialreading,myproposaltodevelopamoredifferentiated trinitariantheologyofsinmightappeartocontradictthemessianictrajectory

ofMoltmann’svisionoflifeintheSpirit,alifeaimedtowardtheregeneration ofthehumanbeingas imagoTrinitatis.Andyet,mypointincallingforsuch arobustnotionofsinisnottocastapessimisticgloomoverthehumanconditionthatwouldrobeithertheindividualbelieverortheChristiancommunity ofthefreedomand,evenmore,theresponsibilityforemancipatoryaction.I amnotsuggestingthatsincreatessuchanundertowinhumanexistencethat itbecomesfruitlesstoofferresistanceandtoseektransformationintheChristianlife.Onthecontrary!Suchsin-talkisintendedtostrengthenone’sfaith inthefellowshipthatisofferedthroughtheSpirit,andinthiswaytoinspire believerswiththepassionandthecreativevisiontomendthebrokenfellowshipsintheirmidst.Onthispoint,IagreewithRebeccaChopp,whoreminds usthatwhenproperlyunderstoodalargedoctrineofsincanbean“actof grace”:“Adiscourseaboutsinisinitselfaresistancetoinjusticeandthe expressionofthedesireforhumanflourishing,forcorrectingallthatisfalse, distorted,depraved.”128 Inotherwords,speakingaboutsinagainsttheSpirit oftrinitarianfellowshipencouragesbelieverstoidentifyandroutoutthesystemicdistortionsandtheforcesofdestructionthatstandinthewayoftrue fellowshipbetweenGodandhumanbeings.Inthisway,speakingrobustly aboutsininthemidstofgracecanadvanceMoltmann’spraxiologicalagenda— ofencouragingbelieverstoengageinthemessianicpraxisoftrinitarianfellowship,andoftransfiguringallthingsintoafullerandmoregloriousimage ofthecomingkingdomoffellowship.

This page intentionally left blank

ologybegsfurtherclarificationandatthesametimerecognizeits“openness” toongoingdevelopment.

DiscerningtheDevelopmentofaDoctrineandtheNature ofDivineLove

Ihavepursuedbothahermeneuticalandasystematic-theologicalagendain analyzingMoltmann’strinitariantheology.Onthehermeneuticalside,Isought ananswertooneofthemostvexingproblemsinreadingMoltmann’sextensive bodyofwork:Howbesttomakesenseoftheevolutionofhistrinitariantheologyandhisshiftingunderstandingofdivinelove?Inresponsetothisquestion,ItookasmyinterpretivekeytoMoltmann’sdoctrinaldevelopmentits unfoldingsoteriologicalcontent.Fromthefirsttothelast,Moltmann’sdoctrine oftheTrinityisanaccountofGod’sidentitythatisanchoredinGod’sreconcilingandliberatingagencyonbehalfofhumankindaswitnessedtointhe scriptures.ItisthestoryofGod’sinfinitepassionfortheworld—foritscreation,salvation,andultimateglorification.ForMoltmann,thissoteriological rootismorethananepistemologicalclaimaboutthesourceofhumanknowledgeabouttheTrinity.Itisanontologicalclaimaboutthesignificanceofthe historyofthetrinitarianpersons’lovingrelationstotheworldforthedivine lifeitself.

Aswesawinchapter2ofthisstudy,Moltmannatfirstlimitsthesoteriologicalcontentofhisdoctrinetothecross-event.Asaresult,hisinitialproposalforadoctrineoftheTrinityisquiterudimentaryandinmanyrespects resemblestheAugustinianversionofthedoctrinethathewilllatersharply criticize.EssentiallyitisatrinitariantheologyofthecrossinwhichtheFather andSonenactamutual kenosis,orreciprocalactsofself-surrender.Herethe HolySpiritappearsonlyinahighlysubordinatedrole—firstasthebondof lovethatunitestheFatherandtheSoninthemidstoftheirseparation,and againasthegiftofnewlifethatreconcilestheworldtoGod.Thesedifferent worksoflovelendadialecticalstructuretoMoltmann’strinitarianhistoryof God:thishistorytracesanontologicaldivisioninGod’sbeingthatisultimately overcomeintheeschatonthroughtheunitingworkoftheSpirit.

BasedonmyreadingofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyofthecrossin TheCrucifiedGod (alongwithsomehintsgatheredfromhistheologyofthe resurrectionin TheologyofHope),Iinterpretedhisearlyconceptofdivinelove (agape)asadialecticofcrucifiedandcreativelove.Divinelovemanifestsitself primarilyascrucifiedlove:anunconditionalsufferingfortheOther,inwhich theFatherandSonmutuallysufferthegriefofabandonmentbothinpersonal representationofandinsolidaritywithcreation.CreativeloverepresentsnotablyaminorkeyinMoltmann’searlyworks.It,too,isaformofunconditional lovefortheOther,butthislovemanifestsitselfintheworkoftheHolySpirit

whocreatesnewpossibilitiesforhumankindand,insodoing,returnshumankindtotheembraceofdivinelove.

AsIarguedinchapter3ofthisstudy,Moltmannneverdeviatesfromthis soteriologicalnormforhisdoctrineoftheTrinity,buthedoessignificantly augmenthisaccountofthedivineeconomyfrom TheTrinityandtheKingdom onward.Whilethecross-andresurrection-eventsremainthefulcrumofhis trinitarianhistoryofGod,thishistorynowreachesbacktothesendingofthe SonandtheSpiritintotheworldintheactofcreationandextendsforwardto theeschatologicalglorificationofallofcreationinthedivinefellowship.To capturethevariousdimensionsofthisdivinepilgrimageofloveintotheworld, MoltmanndevelopswhatIdescribedasanarrativeapproachtotrinitarian doctrine.Heidentifiesdifferentplotlineswithinthebiblicaltextthattracethe Father,theSon,andtheHolySpirit’schangingrelationsandworksinthis economyofcreation,redemption,andglorification;Moltmannsynthesizes theseintoacomplexnarrativethathecallsthetrinitarianhistoryofGod.For Moltmann,wecometoknowtheidentityofthetriuneGodonlybyimmersing ourselvesinthisnarrative,thatis,byfollowingthedivinepilgrimageoflove intheworld.

Basedonmyreadingof TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Iproposedthatthere aretwodistinct,ifintrinsicallyrelated,conceptsofdivineloveinMoltmann’s maturetrinitariantheology:theconceptofdivinepassionastheselfcommunicationofthegoodandtheconceptoffellowshiporcommunion(koinonia)ofFather,Son,andSpirit.Thesetwoconceptsframetheauthor’strinitarianhistoryofGod—theformerastheeternalconditionforitspossibility andthelatterasitsmessianicgoal.IarguedfurtherthatMoltmann’sconcept ofdivinepassionastheself-communicationofthegoodisareworkingofhis earlierconceptofdivinelove.Althoughdivinepassionstilltakestheconceptual formofself-givingtotheOther,itsessenceshiftsfrom kenosis to ecstasis —to thepassionatelongingfortheOtherandtheoverflowingpassionforlife.Formulateddifferently,wecansaythatthelocusofdivinerevelationshiftsfrom theeventofthecrosstothatofcreation,anditsmeaningshiftsaccordingly fromsufferinglovetocreativeloveandthegiftoflifeandfreedomtolove. ThisdoesnotmeanthatsufferinglovedisappearsfromMoltmann’swork;on thecontrary,itremainstheparamountexpressionofGod’spassionateengagementonbehalfofGod’sbelovedcreationinordertograntitultimate freedom.

Inconclusion,letmeproposetworelatedwaysinwhichMoltmann’secstaticconceptofdivinepassionin TheTrinityandtheKingdom surpasseshis earlierone.First,itsucceedsatunitingthetwosidesoftheearlierdialecticof crucifiedandcreativeloveintoasingleconceptofGod’sbeingaslove.This newecstaticconceptofdivinepassioncontains innuce theentiretrajectoryof thetrinitarianhistoryofGodwiththeworldfromitscreationtoitseschatologicalconsummation.DivinepassionunfoldsastheecstaticloveoftheFather

forhiseternalcounterpart,hisSon,alovethatinitsinfinitegenerosityoverflowsthroughtheSpiritinthecreation,redemption,andeschatologicalglorificationoftheworld.Second,thisecstaticconceptofdivinepassionisa teleologicalconceptofdivinelovethatcorrespondstothemessianictrajectory ofMoltmann’sentirework.Itannouncesfromtheoutsetthemessianicgoal ofthistrinitarianhistoryofGod,namely,thegiftoffreedomtohumankind throughfellowshipwiththeTrinity.

Ifthisecstaticconceptisthebeginningandtheendofthedivinepilgrimageoflove,Moltmann’sothermodelofdivineloveasfellowship(koinonia)is thecenterpieceofhissocialtrinitariantheology.ThroughoutthisstudyIhave arguedthattrinitarianfellowshipismorethanjustarecurringrhetoricalfigure thatthreadsthroughoutMoltmann’sworks.Itrepresentsthedoctrinalstructuringprincipleforhisentiretheology.Fellowshipdescribesatoncethenature ofthedivinekingdom,theabidingcharacterofGod’srelationshiptocreation, andthemessianicdestinyofallhumanbeings.

Inchapter3IidentifiedthechristologicalrootofMoltmann’sconceptof trinitarianfellowshipintheintimaterelationshipthatJesusshareswithhis Abba Father.Heredivinefellowshipappearsasalife-givingcompassion—a mutualself-givingoutofwhichspringsforthever-greaterlife.Thenatureof divinefellowshipemergedevermorevividlyaswewidenedourperspective fromthepersonalcommunionbetweentheFatherandtheSontoMoltmann’s entirehistoryoftheSonandthecorrespondinghistoryoftheSpirit.Without recountingthevariousplotlinesinthiscomplexnarrative,letmecallintoview threecharacteristicsoftrinitarianfellowshipthatproveessentialtotheother doctrinesofhistheology.

Firstandforemost,trinitarianfellowshipisacommunalpropertyofthe threedivinepersons.Itisneithertheattributeofanysingledivinepersonnor arealitydistinctfromtheirpersonalrelations.Rather,trinitarianfellowship signifiesthesocialunityconstitutedbythereciprocalself-givingrelations amongFather,Son,andSpirit.Moltmannappealstotheancientchristological notionof perichoresis todescribethisuniquecommunionsharedamongthe divinepersons. Perichoresis signifiesthecirclingmovementthatoccursthrough thethreepersons’eternalactsofself-donationtooneanother.Thiscircling movementcreatesadynamicformofunity(at-oneness),inwhichthedivine personsdwellinandthroughoneanother.Throughtheirinteranimationthe divinepersonsrealizenotonlytheirunitybutalsotheirpersonaldistinctions fromoneanother.

Radicalequalityisthesecondkeyfeatureoftruefellowship.Thismaynot appeartobeaterriblyuniqueclaimofMoltmann’stheology,sincetrinitarian orthodoxyhasalwaysaffirmedthatallthreepersonsareofonebeingand, therefore,ofequalrank.InMoltmann’sview,however,theWesterntrinitarian doctrinehasseriouslyimperiledthisequalitywithitsprocessionalmodelof theintra-divinerelations,inwhichtheFatherservesasthesourceofalldivinity,

theSonasthemediatorbetweentheFatherandhumankind,andtheSpirit asthepoweroftheothertwo.ToremedywhatMoltmannjudgestobeamonarchicalstructure,heproposesanentirelydifferentdoctrinalconstruction: differentformsoftheTrinity,eachoftheseillustratingadifferentpatternof relationshipsamongFather,Son,andSpirit,whichappearinthedivineeconomy.Togetherthesetrinitarianformsmanifesttheperfectequalityandmutual interdependenceofthethreedivinepersons.Thiskaleidoscopeofchanging patternsrevealsthetrinitarianfellowshiptobefreefromalltracesofdominationandsubjugation—akingdomgovernedbyreciprocalfriendshipanda spiritofmercyandliberty.

ThethirdandfinalkeyfeatureoftrinitarianfellowshipiswhatItermits infinitegenerosity.Iusethistermtoemphasizethatthedivinefellowship bestowsitselffreelyandwithoutreserveuponcreation.Itisanutterlybountiful andboundlesslovethatpassionatelydesirestoincludeallofcreationinits midst.Moltmannmostoftendescribestheinfinitegenerosityoftrinitarian fellowshipinfigurativeterms.Hedepictsthetrinitarianlifenotasaclosed circle,alifesufficientuntoitself,butasanopenandinvitingcommunionthat summonsallofcreationintojoyfulparticipationinitsdynamicmovement.

BeforeIturntotheimplicationsofMoltmann’sconceptoftrinitarian fellowshipfortheotherdoctrinesinhistheology,letmedrawacoupleoffinal conclusionsabouthisdoctrineofGod.First,Moltmannmounts,inmyview, ahighlycompellingbiblicalargumentforrefiguringdivineloveintermsof fellowship.Idonotmeanthathisconceptoftrinitarianfellowshipcanbe readilyidentifiedinthebiblicaltextbutthatitrepresentsapersuasiveinterpretationofdivineloveasitisrevealedintheworksoftheSonandtheHoly Spirit.Admittedly,Moltmannbeginsin TheTrinityandtheKingdom witha slimbiblicalfoundationforhisnotionofdivinefellowship,namely,hisinterpretationofJesus’relationshipwithhisFatherasdescribedinafewtextsthat theauthorgathersfromtheGospelofMatthewandtheJohanninecorpus. Overthecourseofwritinghis MessianicTheology,Moltmannsucceeds,however,atweavingmoreandmorenarrativethreadsfromboththeOldandNew Testamentsintohisdepictionofthekingdomoffellowship.In TheWayofJesus Christ,forexample,MoltmanninterpretsdifferentactsinJesus’ministryasa livingoutofthisdivinefellowship,andhedrawsonallofthesynopticGospels aswellastheJohanninecorpusforscripturalsupport.In GodinCreation and TheSpiritofLife,Moltmanncomplementsthischristologicalaccountwitha correspondingpneumatologicalperspectiveonfellowship.Herehelinksthe OldTestamentnotionof ruach,thebreathoflife,tothePaulinenotionofthe SpiritofChristtodepicttheSpirit’sgiftoflifeintermsofGod’sever-deepening fellowshipwithhumanbeings.

HavingsaidthisinfavorofMoltmann’sbiblicalsourcesforhisconcept oftrinitarianfellowship,whatismissingfromhisworksisafullerexplication ofthehermeneuticalprinciplesthatguidehisinterpretationofbiblicaltexts.

AlthoughMoltmannassemblesabroadcanonofscripturaltextstosupporthis socialtrinitariantheology,hedoessousuallywithoutclarifyingeitherhishermeneuticalpresuppositionsorthevariousexegeticaltensionsthatarisefrom individualtexts’disparatehistorical,literary,orrhetoricalcontexts.1 Bynot directlyaddressingthesehermeneuticalandcanonicalquestionsinhisearlier writings,Moltmannexposeshimselftothechargeofassuminganuncritical approachtothescripturesand,evenmore,ofimposingafalsedoctrinalunity ontothebiblicalwitness.

AsecondmajorcontributionofMoltmann’strinitariantheologyisthatit securesamodelofGod’sbeingasfellowshipthatisindivisiblefromtherelationshipsamongthethreedivinepersons.RecallthatoneofMoltmann’s chiefobjectionstotheWesterntrinitariandoctrine(andespeciallyitspreferenceforapsychologicalanalogy)isthatitdevolvesintoaformofmodalism ormonarchicalmonotheismthatprivilegesthedivineunitytothespecificity ofthedivinepersons.Forthisreason,Moltmannadoptsanalternativeapproachinconstructinghissocialdoctrine,namely,beginningwiththethree divinepersons’agencyandsubsequentlyconsideringthenatureoftheirunity withoneanother.Inmyestimation,heovercomesthesemonadictendencies withhisnotionofadivinefellowshipthatisbuiltonpersonalrelationsof mutualindwelling.Inthisdivinefellowshipthedivinepersons,theirrelations, anddynamicunityaremutuallyconstitutiveofoneanotherandcomeinto beingtogether.Furthermore,Moltmann’sconceptoftrinitarianfellowship eliminatesanyhintofmonarchianismfromthedivinekingdom.Trinitarian fellowshiprepresentsanonhierarchicalformofdivineruleinwhichtherecan benodominationandsubjugationofoneanother;hereloveandfreedom coincideinsofaraseachpersonexistsforandwiththeothers.

ThisisnottosuggestthatMoltmann’strinitarianontologyisfreeofconceptualtensions.AsIarguedinchapter3,whenonepresseshisconceptof divinefellowship,itcannoteliminatethethreatoftritheismfromhissocial trinitariandoctrine.Moltmann’shighlyanthropomorphicdepictionsofthe threedivinepersonsincarnatingdistinctrolesinhistrinitarianhistory(roles thatheinsistsarenotappropriatedtothembutconstitutetheiridentity)invite thepictureofthreeindependentagentswhomerelyactinconcertwithone another.Moreover,Moltmann’sfrequentappealtotheterm“union”or“unitedness”(Einigkeit)todescribethefellowshipamongFather,Son,andHoly Spiritonlyheightensthesuspicionthattheirsisavolitionalratherthanan ontologicalunity.AsIarguedatthecloseofchapter3,Moltmann,thoughhe neverexplicitlyadmitstodoingso,isforcedtotakerecoursetotheancient ideaoftheFatherasthesourceofunitytosecuretheontologicalclaimthat thesethreeareone.Hethusactuallyholdstwonotionsofdivineunity,aprotologicalandadoxologicalare,withoutresolvingthephilosolphicaltensions betweenthetwo.

Inchapter3IdisclosedfurtherconceptualtensionsinhowMoltmann

conceivesoftherelationshipbetweendivineloveintheoriginastheselfcommunicationofthegoodandhiseschatologicalvisionofdivinefellowship. Aretheyoneandthesamereality,ordoestheessenceofthedivinelovechange overthecourseofthistrinitarianhistory?AsIarguedinchapter3,thereare nodoubtstrongcorrespondencesbetweenthesetwoconceptsintermsofpassionateself-givingandinfinitegenerosity.Andyet,thetemporalstructureof Moltmann’sdoctrinalframework,combinedwithhisinsistencethatthistrinitarianhistoryhasrealeffectsontheintra-divinerelations,suggeststhatthe Trinityenduresatransformationthroughitspilgrimageinhumanhistory. Moltmann’saffirmationofaneschatologicalpanentheism,inwhichallofcreationwillbetakenupintothemidstofdivinebeing,lendsfurthersupportto theviewthatdivinefellowshipisabecomingreality,onethatreachesitsfulfillmentonlywiththereturnofcreationintoitsmidst.

IntheendMoltmanndoesnotprovidehisreaderswithafullysatisfying answertothequestionofwhetherdivineloveisabecomingreality.Infact,he demurswhenitcomestoprovidingconceptualclosureonthiskindofissue inhisworksonthegroundsthattheologicalclaimsaboutthemessianicnature ofGod’sbeingarealwaysfragmentaryandsubjecttoongoingrevision.As longashumankindfindsitselfunderwaytowardtheconsummationofthe kingdom,Moltmanncountersthatourtheologicalconstructsmusttoleratethis kindofepistemicopenness.ThisisnottosuggestthatwearetoremainagnosticabouttheeternalnatureofGod,foraswehaveseenthroughoutthis study,MoltmanndoesnothesitatetomakeclaimsaboutGod’seternalnature basedonGod’sfaithfulnesstohispromises.Rather,Moltmannarguesthatwe cantrustinthecorrespondencesbetweenourpresentexperiencesofdivine fellowshipandthekingdom.Atthesametimewemustmaintainacertain epistemichumilityinassumingthatthemessianicrealitywillinfinitelysurpass ourpresentunderstanding.

TheAnalogyofTrinitarianFellowship:WillItStretch orWillItBreak?

Iturnnowtotheothersideofmysystematic-theologicalagendainengaging Moltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheology:whetheritsucceedsatbecomingthe kindofconcretedoctrineandpracticaltheorythatcanmeaningfullyshapethe corporateidentityandtheindividualpraxisofcontemporarybelievers.Inaddressingthisquestion,IsoughtfirstananswertoatheologicalpuzzleinMoltmann’s MessianicTheology,namely,howtheauthoractuallylinkshisdoctrine oftheTrinitytotheChristianlifeoffaith.AsIpointedoutintheintroduction tothisstudy,manyofMoltmann’ssharpestcriticsdiscoverinsuperabledifficultiesatthisjunctureofhistrinitariantheology.Somedismisshisreturnto trinitariantheologyasaspeculativemovethatdetractsfromhisearlierpolitical

theology’sboldagendaforemancipatorypraxisintheworld.Otherscharge himwithovertaxingthedoctrineinassumingitsdirectrelevancetothesphere ofhumanrelationshipsanddiverseformsofcommunities.

BasedonacomprehensiveanalysisofMoltmann’s MessianicTheology,I arguedthattherewasacoherent,ifalsonotfullyrealized,theologicalstrategy thatlinksthedoctrineoftheTrinitytotheauthor’svisionoftheChristian life—whatIconstruedasasocialtrinitariananalogyoffellowship.Withthis term,IdescribedhowMoltmannappealstohisdistinctivemodelofpersonal relationsinthetrinitarianfellowshipasadivinearchetypeforrelationshipsin thepolitical,ecclesial,andpersonalspheresofhumanexistence.Insupportof thisinterpretation,Idemonstratedhowtheconceptoftrinitarianfellowship systematicallyuniteshistheologicalanthropology,hismodelofsalvation,and theprocessofsanctification.Withoutretracingallthestepsofmyargument, letusrecallonlytheskeletonofthisanalogytounderscoreitsliberatorypromise,aswellasitsdeficienciesforshapingChristianpraxis.

ThecornerstoneofthistrinitariananalogyisMoltmann’s imagoDei anthropology,whichconstrueshumanbeingsascreatedwiththemessianicdestinyofbecomingan imagoTrinitatis.Thisdivineimageisfoundedonatwofold analogyofrelations:theindividualperson’scorrespondencetoGod’sloving relationshiptocreation,andacorporatecorrespondencetoGod’sinnertrinitarianrelations.Inotherwords,humanbeingsfulfilltheirmessianicdestinythroughtwointertwinedformsoffellowship:anindividualbeliever’sparticipationinthecommunionamongFather,Son,andHolySpirit,andhisor hertransfigurationintoanimageofthiscommunionwithotherhumanbeings.TotradeonthetermsthatIcoinedwithrespecttoMoltmann’sdoctrine ofGod,humanbeingsconsummatetheirmessianicdestinyinbecomingfree inlovetotheOther(God)andinbecomingthosewhofreeothers(theirfellow creatures)inlove.

OneofthechiefissuesthatwehavewrestledwithinassessingMoltmann’s trinitariantheologyiswhetheritoverestimatesthehumanbeing’sroleinher ownsalvationattheexpenseofthemediatingandatoningworkofChrist.The suspicionlingers,especiallyamongMoltmann’sReformedcritics,thathissocialtrinitariantheologyresultsinaPelagianistprogramforredemption—a kindofmoralexemplarismthatcompromisestheReformedtenetsof solagratia and solafide intheChristianlife.Inresponsetothisdoctrinalquestion,I drewforthseveralcrucialaspectsofMoltmann’s imagoDei anthropologyand hisviewofsalvationthatrevealsuchcriticismstobeunfounded.

First,IdemonstratedhowMoltmann’strinitariananalogyofrelationsis rootedinan“analogyofgrace.”Ouractsofself-givingalwaysoccurasaresponsetoGod’sprioractofself-giving,thatis,throughGod’sinitiatingand preservingarelationshipwithusthroughtheindwellingfellowshipofthe Spirit.Forthisreason,whateverlikenessorcorrespondencestothetrinitarian

lifeappearinandamonghumanbeingscanneverbetreatedasthehuman being’sinnatecapacityorfixedpossession.Truehumancommunityremains alwaysandeverywhereagiftthatthetrinitarianfellowshipbestowsfreelyand thathumanbeingsreceiveingratitudeeveranew.

Second,Idrewattentiontothefactthathumanbeingsconsummatetheir messianicdestinyas imagoTrinitatis onlythroughthereciprocalandcontinuousworkoftheSonandtheHolySpirit.IfwefollowMoltmann’spatternof redemptionclosely,wediscoverthathumanbeingsmustfirstbeconformed tothepersonofChrist,thatis,become imagoChristi,beforetheyarefreedto realizetheirownworksoffellowshipintheworld.In TheWayofJesusChrist, Moltmanngoestogreatlengthstodevelopafullyincarnationalchristologyin whichJesusservesasboththeexemplaroftruehumanity(livedtrinitarian fellowship)andthedivinerepresentativewhothroughcrossandresurrection createsthepossibilityofparticipationinthedivinefellowship.Furthermore,it isonlythroughtheHolySpirit’sgiftoffellowshipthathumanbeingsare adoptedintotheSon’sexclusivefellowshipwiththeFatherand,inturn,are gracedwiththepossibilityofbecomingvisibleimagesoffellowshipwithone another.Giventhistrinitarianpatternofsalvation,itbecomesdifficult,inmy view,tosubstantiatetheclaimofMoltmann’scriticsthathesacrificesatheologyofgraceinordertorelyonhumanbeings’innatecapacitiesinthelife offaith.

WhenitcametoevaluatingthepraxiologicalsignificanceofMoltmann’s socialtrinitariantheology,Iarguedatonceonbehalfofitstransformative potentialandforitsmorenuanceddevelopment.Onthepositiveside,MoltmannconstructswhatIinterpretasahighlyflexiblesocialtrinitariananalogy inthelifeoffaith.Althoughhisheightenedrhetoricoftenindicatesotherwise, Moltmann’ssocialtrinitariandoctrinedoesnotnarrowlydictateasetofpractices,formsoflife,orcoursesofactionintheChristianlife.Thisanalogyof fellowshipfunctionslesslikeaprogramandmorelikeanelasticruleoffaith— whatMiroslavVolfhaselsewherecalleda“socialvision”thatcanshapea wealthofdifferentrelationshipsfromthepoliticaltothepersonal.2 Wheninterpretedinthismanner—asaflexibleframeworkforfaith—Moltmann’ssocialtrinitarianprogramholdsmuchpromiseforcontemporarytheologicalanthropology.

First,itoffersapowerfultheologicalantidotetotheindividualismthathas grippedmostmodernviewsofhumanpersonhood.Ratherthanconstruing humansubjectivityintermsofself-relationalityortranscendentalityasmodern theologyhaslargelydone,Moltmann’ssocialtrinitariananthropologydefines thehumanbeingwhollyininterpersonalterms,thatis,intermsofitsparticipationinacomplexwebofsocialrelationships.Likethedivinepersons,true humanpersonsgaintheirself-identityinandthroughtheirrelationswithothers.Atthesametime,however,Moltmann’s imagoDei anthropologydoesnot

simplyreducetheindividualtothesumofhersocialrelations;itsecuresa separatespacefortheindividual’sfellowshipwithGodandforherselfdifferentiationfromotherhumanbeings.

Second,Moltmann’ssocialtrinitariananalogyrecaststhenatureofhuman freedominrobustcommunaltermsasfreedomforandwithanotherperson. Humanbeingsimagetrinitarianfellowshipnotsimplybyparticipatinginthe lifeofanotherpersonbutinengenderingthefreedomoftheother.AsIillustratedthroughthepracticeofopenfriendship,Moltmann’ssocialtrinitarian theologycommendsanonhierarchicalethicofsocialrelations.Heretheantinomybetweentheindividual’sfreedomandthatofhisorherneighborisovercomeinalifeofreciprocalgivingandreceiving,onethatisbuiltonmutual respectandacceptance.

Relatedtothisnotionofhumanfreedomisthepropheticchargetopractice aninclusiveethicofself-givinglovetotheother.HerethechristologicaldimensionofMoltmann’sconceptoftrinitarianfellowshipcomestotheforefront:humanfellowshipasself-givinglovetotheotherispatternedafterJesus’ ministryandhisproclamationofthemessianickingdom.Whilesuchselfgivinglovemaytakedifferentconcreteexpressions,forexample,asactsof hospitality,repentance,orresistancetosocialinjustice,whatunitesallofthese istheirspiritofradicalinclusivityandinfinitegenerosity.Suchworksoflove areinfusedwiththesamespiritoffreedomandpassionforlifethatcharacterizethetriunefellowship.

Thisleadstoafinalpromisingimplicationofthissocialtrinitarianruleof faith:whatItermitsdoxological-politicalvisionoftheChristianlife.Incoining thisterm,Iseektoemphasizethedynamicunitythatexistsbetweenanindividual’sfellowshipwithGodandthatwithherneighbor.ForMoltmann,an individual’sfellowshipwiththetriuneGod,whichexpressesitselfingratitude andpraise,empowershumanbeingstorealizeavisibleimageofthatvery samefellowshipwithotherhumanbeingsintheworld.IndividualsandcommunitiesoffaithparticipateinthisdoxologicalfellowshipwiththeTrinitynot bycordoningthemselvesofffromtheworldbutbyengagingmoredeeplyin itsmidst—byincarnatingthesamelife-givingfellowshipwithothersthatwas bountifullybestoweduponthem.

WithoutlosingsightofthesepromisingdimensionsofMoltmann’ssocial trinitariantheology,Ihavealsopointedtomethodologicalandtheological weaknessesinMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologythatjeopardizeitspracticalrelevance.ChiefamongthemethodologicalconcernsisMoltmann’stendencytoslipintounivocalpredicationofthesametermstothedivineand humanspheres,mostnotablytheterm perichoresis.Moltmannneitherdevelops atheoryofdivinepredicationthathelpsdistinguishbetweenhisliteraland metaphoricaluseofsuchterms,norqualifiesinaprecisemannerhowparticulartrinitarianconceptsapplydifferentlytothedivineandhumanrealms.As aresult,Moltmann’sanalogyoftrinitarianfellowshipoftenobscurestheman-

ifolddifferencesthatseparatehumanexistencefromthedivine,forexample, thetemporalandmaterialconditionsunderwhichhumanbeingsseektorealizetheirmessianicdestinyoffellowshipwithoneanother.Inmyview,once Moltmannpermitstheseanthropologicalconstraintstoslipfromclearsight, hispropheticchargetocommunitiesoffaithtoliveouttrinitarianfellowship becomesfartooidealizedtotranslateintoactualpraxis.

RelatedtothismethodologicalconcernistheprimarytheologicalshortcomingthatIsingledoutinMoltmann’s MessianicTheology,namely,theabsenceofarobusttheologyofsin.AsIpointedoutintheprecedingchapter, Moltmannfailstoprovideanin-depthanalysisofsin—ineitheritspersonal orstructuralforms—thatcorrespondsfullytohissocialtrinitarianvisionof theChristianlife.Withoutsuchanaccount,Moltmann’sanalogyoftrinitarian fellowshipappearsnotonlytounderestimatethefragilityofhumanexistence butalsotoobscurethedestructiveforcesthatthreatenhumanfellowshipin theworld.Inshort,hisanalogyoffellowshiprisksfallingpreytoanidolatry critique,namely,ofassumingtooreadilycorrespondencesbetweenthedivine lifeandhumancommunities.Withoutrecallingtheever-presentdialecticof sininthemidstofgrace,hisanalogyoffellowshiplosesmuchofitsprophetic potentialtoexposeconcreteevilsintheworldandtoawakenhopefortheir resistanceandamelioration.

WhileMoltmanndoesnotdevelopthislineofargumentationhimself,his notionoftrinitarianfellowshiphasyetuntappedpotentialfordescribingvariousmanifestationsofsininthelifeoffaith.AsIhavedemonstratedinthe previouschapter,sinunderstoodasafalloutoftrinitarianfellowshipisan elasticmetaphorthatencompassesbothindividualandcollectiveformsofsin aswellasitsactiveandpassivedimensions.Moreover,conceivingofsinasa falloutoffellowshipunderscoresthetheologicalrootofsin,namely,separation fromone’smessianicdestinyoffellowshipwithGodandone’sneighbor.

ToconcludethisassessmentofMoltmann’scontributionstoacontemporarytrinitariantheologyoflove,itseemsmostfittingtorecalloneofthe author’sstatementsaboutthenatureofhistheologyanditshighestaims.In anautobiographicalreflectionthathepennedin1996,Moltmanncharacterizedhisunderstandingofthetheologicaltaskintheseterms:“Forme,theology is imaginationfortheKingdomofGodintheworldandfortheworldintheKingdom ofGod. AsKingdomofGodtheology,itisnecessarilypublictheologyand participatesinthesufferingsofthistime,formulatingtheguidingmemories andhopesonbehalfofone’scontemporaries.”3 WiththesewordsMoltmann echoesoneoftheclassicaimsofChristiantheology,onethatheshareswith Augustine,Aquinas,Calvin,andBarth:truetheologytakesitscuefromits divinesubject.Aboveall,theologyseekstoconformitselftothenatureofthe Godaboutwhomitstrivestospeak.ForMoltmann,thismeansorientinghis theologicalvisiontothecomingkingdomofGod,akingdomthatpromises joyfulparticipationandfellowshiptoallofcreation.Itisakingdomthatstirs

hopeeveranewfortheworld’stransformationandawakensrestlessnessand resistancetotheconcretesufferingsoftheworld.

Moltmann’svisionofthiscomingkingdomhasbothchastenedandinspiredhimthroughouthiscareer.Ontheonehand,itchastenedhimforthe illusionofbeingabletocreateanunassailabletheologicalsystem.Yetitalso inspiredhimtoventureatheologythatisalwaysunderconstructionandconstantrevision—onethatisexperimentalandprovocative,fragmentaryandprovisional.AtthesametimethatMoltmanndelightsinthesecreativepossibilities ofthecomingkingdom,hecommitstowritingatheologythatisresponsive andresponsibletotheissuespressinguponthechurchandsocietyinhisday. EnvisioningtheologyasimaginationfortheworldinthekingdomofGod meanskeepinghissightstrainedonthisworld,onidentifyingitssourcesof conflictandofsuffering,andworkingtowardtheirameliorationinlightof God’spromisedrenewalofallcreation.Finally,kingdomofGodtheology meanstakinghistheologicalproposalsintothepublicsquarefordialogue aboutthefutureshapeoftheworldwiththehopeofsparkingnewpossibilities andengenderingconcretechange.

Inlightofhispropheticvisionoftheology’stasks,Moltmann’smostsignificantcontributiontocontemporarytheologicaldebatelies,inmyview,neitherinhisconceptualinnovationstoChristiandoctrinenorinhisemancipatoryagendafortheChristianlife.Rather,hislastingcontributionliesin returningthetrinitarianGodtothehorizonofcontemporarytheologyandin challengingthecominggenerationtopursuethisdivinepilgrimageoflove inhistory.Hiscontributionliesinopeningabroadtheologicalspaceinwhich thefellowshipofthekingdommightbeexperiencedanew.Tothedegreethat histrinitariantheologynotjustgivesrisetothoughtandtoactionbutawakens passionforthekingdom,Moltmannachievesthehighestaimoftheology— thetruewisdomofdrawingbelieversintotheheartoftrinitarianfellowship.

Notes

chapter1

EpigraphfromAugustine, TheTrinity,ed.JohnE.Rotelle,trans.EdmundHill(Brooklyn,NY:NewCityPress,1990),251.

1.NicholasLash,“ConsideringtheTrinity,” ModernTheology 2(1986): 183.

2.LeonardHodgson, TheDoctrineoftheTrinity,CroallLectures,1942–43(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1944),176–177.

3.KarlRahner, TheTrinity,trans.JosephDonceel(NewYork:Herder andHerder,1970),10–11.

4.CatherineMowryLaCugna,“Re-conceivingtheTrinityastheMysteryofSalvation,” ScottishJournalofTheology 38(1985):1.Foracomprehensiveargumentonthe“displacementofGod”inmodernity,seeColinE. Gunton, TheOne,theThreeandtheMany:God,CreationandtheCultureof Modernity,BamptonLectures1992(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1993),esp.28–34.GuntoncastsasweepingindictmentagainstWesternthoughtbyarguingthatthedisplacementofGodbyhumanreasonand willinmodernityistheinevitableoutcomeofitsnontrinitarianunderstandingofdivinebeingsinceantiquity.

5.Cf.LaCugna,“Re-conceivingtheTrinity,”16.Forherpart,LaCugna characterizesthereigningcontemporaryoptionsintheconceptofGodas “unitarian”and“Christomonistic”(ibid.).Seealsothesimilarremarkson thisunacknowledgednontrinitarianisminthecontemporarydoctrineof God,specificallywithregardtotheneglectoftheHolySpirit,inWerner Jeanrond,“TheQuestionofGodToday,”in TheChristianUnderstandingof GodToday,TheologicalColloquiumontheOccasionofthe400thAnniversaryoftheFoundationofTrinityCollege,Dublin,ed.JamesM.Byrne(Dublin:ColumbiaPress,1993),13.

6.WemighttakeReinholdNiebuhrasaclassictwentieth-centuryex-

ampleofatheisticperspectiveondivinelove.AlthoughNiebuhrspecifiestheloveof Godinchristologicaltermsasself-sacrificiallove(agape),nonethelesshedescribes thisloveinnontrinitariantermsastheactivityofthesinglesubject,God.See,for example,hisdiscussionof agape in HumanDestiny,vol.2of TheNatureandDestiny ofMan:AChristianInterpretation (NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1943),68–97.

7.VincentBru¨mmer, TheModelofLove:AStudyinPhilosophicalTheology (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993),3.

8.ExceptforhistoricalreferencestothesignificanceoftheTrinityforBernardof Clairvaux,Bru¨mmerreferstotrinitariandoctrineonlyatoneotherpoint,namely,to raisethespecteroftritheisminanysocialdoctrineoftheTrinity.Cf.ibid.,71,194, 237–238.

9.Ibid.,33.

10.SallieMcFague, ModelsofGod:TheologyforanEcological,NuclearAge (Philadelphia:FortressPress,1987).

11.Ibid.,184.

12.Ibid.,224n.5.

13.Foranoverviewofthecurrentdiversityinthetrinitariandebate,seeRonald J.FeenstraandCorneliusPlantingaJr.,eds., Trinity,Incarnation,andAtonement:PhilosophicalandTheologicalEssays (NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress, 1989);DavidTracy,“TheHermeneuticsofNamingGod,” IrishTheologicalQuarterly 57(1991):257;IngolfU.Dalferth, DerauferweckteGekreuzigte:ZurGrammatikder Christologie (Tu¨bingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1994),187–197.

14.Theterm“moderntheism”(orEnlightenmenttheism)appearsfrequentlyin contemporarytheologicalliterature,butitisappliedwithanextremelyfluidmeaning. Forourpurposes,ElisabethJohnsonprovidesagoodworkingdefinitionoftheterm: “Itsignifiestheso-callednaturalknowledgeofGodarrivedatprimarilythroughphilosophicalinference,orthatideaofGodwhichseparatestheoneGodfromknowledge ofGod’sTrinity,placesconsiderationofthisoneGodfirst,andviewsthisGodalone in‘himself’apartfromany kenosis,incarnation,self-communicationingrace,orother self-involvingactivitywiththeworld”(ElisabethA.Johnson, SheWhoIs:TheMystery ofGodinFeministTheologicalDiscourse [NewYork:Crossroad,1992],19).Seealso HerbertVorgrimler,“RecentCritiquesofTheism,”in APersonalGod? ed.Edward SchillebeeckxandBasvanIersel(NewYork:SeaburyPress,1977),23–34.

15.ImmanuelKantandFriedrichSchleiermacheraremostfrequentlycitedas representativeoftheEnlightenmentviewpointthattheTrinityismorallyandpracticallyirrelevanttotheChristianfaith.See,forexample,Ju¨rgenMoltmann, TheTrinity andtheKingdom:TheDoctrineofGod,trans.MargaretKohl,1stHarperCollinspbk. ed.(SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1991),2–9.

16.CatherineMowryLaCugnaandKillianMcDonnell,“Returningfrom‘The FarCountry’:ThesesforaContemporaryTrinitarianTheology,” ScottishJournalof Theology 41(1988):201.

17.CatherineMowryLaCugna, GodforUs:TheTrinityandtheChristianLife (San Francisco:HarperCollins,1991),1.FollowingKarlRahner’slead,LaCugnatracesthe currentdefeatofthedoctrineoftheTrinitytoitsuprootingfromtheeconomyofsalvationandtheone-sidedfocusofthedoctrineonGod’sinnerlife.Forthisargument, seeibid.,esp.8–13,209–241.

18.Fuelingthesedebatesabouttrinitarianpraxisisawide-rangingdebate

notestopages6–7 167 amongsystematictheologiansandtheologicaleducatorsaboutthemeaningofChristianpraxisandtheroleofChristianpracticesinsecond-ordertheologicaldiscourse andinthecatechesisofChristianbelievers.Foranexcellentoverviewofthehistoryof theterm“praxis”anditsmultiplesignificationsincontemporarytheology,seeRebeccaS.Chopp,“Praxis,”in TheNewDictionaryofCatholicSpirituality,ed.Michael Downey(Collegeville,MN:LiturgicalPress,1993),756–764.SeealsoChopp’ssuperb treatmentofthemethodologicalissuesraisedbythis“turntopraxis”inpoliticaland liberationtheologiansin ThePraxisofSuffering:AnInterpretationofLiberationandPoliticalTheologies (Maryknoll,NY:Orbis,1986).ForacontrastingparadigmontherelationshipsamongChristianpractices,catechesis,anddoctrinaltheology,seeEllen Charry, BytheRenewingofYourMinds:ThePastoralFunctionofChristianDoctrine (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997).

19.Foranapplicationofthedoctrinetopersonalethics,seeL.GregoryJones, TransformedJudgment:TowardaTrinitarianAccountoftheMoralLife (NotreDame,IN: UniversityofNotreDamePress,1990),aswellashisrecentbook, EmbodyingForgiveness:ATheologicalAnalysis (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1995).Foratrinitariantheologyofculture,seeGunton, TheOne,theThreeandtheMany.

20.OntheimplicationsofthedoctrineoftheTrinityforsocialethics,seeLaCugna, GodforUs,esp.chap.10.Foratrinitarianecclesiology,seeMiroslavVolf, AfterOurLikeness:TheChurchastheImageoftheTrinity (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans, 1998).

21.ElisabethA.Johnson,“ToLettheSymbolSingAgain,” TheologyToday 53 (1997):300.Onthissurprisingconsensusonthepracticalrelevanceofthedoctrine, seeRonaldJ.FeenstraandCorneliusPlantingaJr.,introductionto Trinity,Incarnation,andAtonement:PhilosophicalandTheologicalEssays,ed.RonaldJ.Feenstraand CorneliusPlantingaJr.(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1989),5.

22.Ju¨rgenMoltmann, TheCrucifiedGod:TheCrossofChristastheFoundation andCriticismofChristianTheology,trans.R.A.WilsonandJohnBowden,prefaceto thepbk.editiontrans.MargaretKohl,1stHarperCollinspbk.ed.(NewYork: HarperCollins,1991),7–31.

23.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,131.

24.Ibid.,65.

25.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”in HistoryandtheTriuneGod: ContributionstoTrinitarianTheology,trans.JohnBowden(NewYork:Crossroad, 1992),167.

26.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“‘TheFellowshipoftheHolySpirit’:OnTrinitarian Pneumatology,”in HistoryandtheTriuneGod:ContributionstoTrinitarianTheology, trans.JohnBowden(NewYork:Crossroad,1992),60.

27.Cf.Ju¨rgenMoltmann, GodinCreation:ANewTheologyofCreationandthe SpiritofGod,GiffordLectures1984–85,trans.MargaretKohl,1stHarperCollinspbk. ed.(SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1985); TheWayofJesusChrist:ChristologyinMessianicDimensions,trans.MargaretKohl,1stFortressPressed.(Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,1993); TheSpiritofLife:AUniversalAffirmation,trans.MargaretKohl (Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,1992); TheComingofGod:ChristianEschatology, trans.MargaretKohl(Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,1996); ExperiencesinTheology: WaysandFormsofChristianTheology,trans.MargaretKohl(Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,2000).

28.Mostdiscussionsofthecontemporarydebateintrinitariantheologypresent MoltmannasthemostsignificantrepresentativeofasocialdoctrineoftheTrinity. See,forexample,Jeanrond,“QuestionofGodToday,”14–17;JohnMilbank,“TheSecondDifference:ForaTrinitarianismwithoutReserve,” ModernTheology 2(1986):213–234;JohnJ.O’Donnell,“TheTrinityasDivineCommunity:ACriticalReflectionupon RecentTheologicalDevelopments,” Gregorianum 69(1988):5–34;FeenstraandPlantinga,introductionto Trinity,Incarnation,andAtonement,6–7.TwoexcellentbriefintroductionstoMoltmann’stheologyanditscontributiontocontemporarytheological discussionareRichardBauckham,“Ju¨rgenMoltmann,”invol.1of TheModernTheologians:AnIntroductiontoChristianTheologyintheTwentiethCentury,ed.DavidF. Ford(Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1989),293–310;FrancisSchu¨sslerFiorenza,introductionto FaithandtheFuture:EssaysonTheology,Solidarity,andModernity,byJohannBaptistMetzandJu¨rgenMoltmann(Maryknoll,NY:Orbis,1995),xi–xvii.ForasurveyofthemonographsonMoltmann’stheologythrough1987,seeJu¨rgenMoltmann, Bibliographie,comp.DieterIsingwiththecollaborationofGu¨ntherGeisthardtand AdelbertSchloz(Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1987),71–77.

29.Oneglanceatthetrinitarianarticlesandbooksthathavebeenpublishedin thelasttenyearsdemonstratesthevastimpactthatMoltmann’sworkhashadonthe internationaltheologicalscene.LeonardoBoff,PaulFiddes,ElisabethJohnson,CatherineMowryLaCugna,AlistairI.McFayden,andMiroslavVolfareonlyasmallsamplingoftheauthorswhonotetheirindebtednesstoMoltmann’strinitariantheology.

30.McFague, ModelsofGod,223.

31.AlanJ.Torrance, PersonsinCommunion:AnEssayonTrinitarianDescription andHumanParticipation (Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1996),310–313.

32.DavidS.Cunningham, TheseThreeAreOne:ThePracticeofTrinitarianTheology (Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1998),43.

33.Jeanrond,“QuestionofGodToday,”16.

34.KarenKilby,“PerichoresisandProjection:ProblemswithSocialDoctrinesof theTrinity,” NewBlackfriars 81,no.956(Oct.2000):432–445.

35.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,192.HereIamtakingupandextending PaulRicoeur’swageronbehalfofreligioussymbolsgivingrisetothoughttoinclude thecriticalturntopraxis.SeePaulRicoeur, TheSymbolismofEvil (Boston:Beacon Press,1967),347–357.

36.Fortheterms“constative”and“commissiveforce,”seeVincentBru¨mmer’s analysisofhowreligiousconceptsandmodelsofGodfunctionin ModelofLove,17.

37.HereIadaptandexpandthenotionof“divineanalogy”asdevelopedbythe lateBritishtheologianandpoliticaltheoristDavidNicholls.Nichollsusesthisterm exclusivelytorefertothecorrespondencesbetweenatheologian’sconceptofGodand thestructuresofthepoliticalorder.SeeDavidNicholls, DeityandDomination:Images ofGodandtheStateintheNineteenthandTwentiethCenturies (London:Routledge, 1989),esp.5–30,232–245.

38.Moltmann, ExperiencesinTheology,xv.

39.Inhighlightingthesethreemotifs,Itakemycuefromanautobiographical essaywrittenin1985,inwhichMoltmanngaveoneofhisfewextendedreflectionson histheologicalmethod.Therehesummeduphistheologythisway:“Iamattempting toreflectonatheologywhichhas:–abiblicalfoundation,–aneschatologicalorientation,–apoliticalresponsibility.Inandunderthatitiscertainlyatheologyinpainand

169 joyatGodhimself,atheologyofconstantwonder”(Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”182).

40.Ibid.,167–169.ForacriticaldiscussionofMoltmann’searlybiblicalapproach,seethevariouscontributionstoWolf-DieterMarsch,ed., Diskussionu¨berdie “TheologiederHoffnung”vonJu¨rgenMoltmann (Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1967);ChristopherMorse, TheLogicofPromiseinMoltmann’sTheology (Philadelphia:FortressPress, 1979).

41.SeeMoltmann’sfirstdefenseofthescripturalrootofthedoctrineinhis“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘DergekreuzigteGott,’”in Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmanns Buch“DergekreuzigteGott,”ed.MichaelWelker(Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979),176–177.

42.ForKarlBarth’sscripturalrootofthedoctrineoftheTrinityintermsoflordship,see TheDoctrineoftheWordofGod:ProlegomenatoChurchDogmatics,Volume I/1,trans.G.W.Bromiley,2nded.(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1975),302–347.For Moltmann’sexegeticaldisagreementwithBarthonthispoint,seeMoltmann, Trinity andtheKingdom,63–64.

43.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,246.

44.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,61–65.

45.JohnJ.O’Donnell, TrinityandTemporality:TheChristianDoctrineofGodin theLightofProcessTheologyandtheTheologyofHope (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1983),115.

46.AlthoughMoltmanndoesnotallyhimselfexplicitlywiththenarrativetheologyoftheYaleschool,hisBarthianemphasisontherealismofthescripturalwitness andhissuspicionofspeculativeconceptsdistortingthescripturalwitnessbearstrikingsimilaritiestothisapproach.Atthesametime,Moltmann’suseofnarrativealso resemblescloselythatofotherpoliticalliberationtheologies.AsRebeccaChopp notes,Moltmannappealstonarrativenotonly“toretrievetheChristiantradition”but also“tonarratethedangerousmemoriesofsufferingandtoeffectconversionand transformation”(Chopp, PraxisofSuffering,141).

47.Moltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘DergekreuzigteGott,’”186–187 (trans.mine):“WillmannundiesenverschiedenenGesichtspunktenausdertrinitarischenGeschichteGottes—derSendung,derHingabe,derAuferstehungundder Verherrlichung—gerechtwerden,danndarfmannichtu¨bernureinergeschichtlichenErfahrungderTrinita¨teineentsprechende‘immanenteTrinita¨t’alsmetaphysischenHintergrunderrichten.UmdieFu¨lledestrinitarischenLebensGottes umfassendzuverstehen,mußmanallegeschichtlichenErfahrungenintegrieren.... DasistdanneineTrinita¨tslehremit—abstraktformuliert—vera¨nderlichenVektoren. IhreEntfaltungstehtnochbevor.”

48.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,290.

49.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,238(emphasisadded).

50.Cf.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”166.

51.DietrichBonhoeffer, LettersandPapersfromPrison,enlargeded.(London: SCMPress,1971),361.

52.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,x.

53.Ju¨rgenMoltmann, TheologyofHope:OntheGroundandtheImplicationsofa ChristianEschatology,trans.JamesW.Leitch,10thed.(NewYork:HarperandRow, 1983),179.

54.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”170.

55.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,249.

56.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,157(emphasisadded).

57.Ibid.,3.

58.Forthispoint,seeRichardBauckham, TheTheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann (Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1995),166–170.

59.Forthiscriticism,seeKilby,“PerichoresisandProjection,”esp.435–436.

60.OnoccasionMoltmannhimselfmakesuseofthisclassicalterminology.See, forexample, TrinityandtheKingdom,7.Seealsohis“Introduction:SomeQuestions abouttheDoctrineoftheTrinityToday,”in HistoryandtheTriuneGod:Contributions toTrinitarianTheology,trans.JohnBowden(NewYork:Crossroad,1992),xiii.Seeas wellRichardBauckham’sinsightfulremarksonMoltmann’sfundamentalorientation “topraxisanddoxology”in“Ju¨rgenMoltmann,”296.

61.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”166.

62.Ibid.,167.

63.Moltmann, TheologyofHope,304.

64.Moltmann, ExperiencesinTheology,116.Foranoverviewofhisearlypolitical theologyofthe1970s,seehisessayscollectedin PolitischeTheologie—PolitischeEthik (Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1984).RebeccaChoppoffersanexcellentinterpretationofhis politicaltheologyin PraxisofSuffering,100–117.

65.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“PoliticalTheology,” TheologyToday 28(Apr.1971):7.

66.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“TowardaPoliticalHermeneuticoftheGospel,”in Religion,Revolution,andtheFuture,trans.M.DouglasMeeks(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1969),98.

67.Moltmann, ExperiencesinTheology,117.Muchoftheseconcreteproposals emergedonlyinthevolumesofhis MessianicTheology,whereMoltmannalignedhis theologywiththepoliticalsystemofdemocraticsocialismandinsupportofahuman rightsagenda.

68.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,329–332.

69.Ibid.,25.

70.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”179.

71.Ju¨rgenMoltmann, TheologyandJoy,trans.ReinhardUlrich(London:SCM Press,1973);cf.alsohismorerecentreferencetotheWestminsterCatechismin ExperiencesinTheology,26.

72.SeeMoltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,191–193.

73.Ibid.,9.Inhismostrecentwritings,Moltmanncautiouslyspeaksofthisdoxologicalformoftrinitarianfaithasmysticalexperience.See,forexample,hisremarks in SpiritofLife,198–213.

74.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,7.

75.Ibid.,152.

76.Ibid.,9.

77.Forthis“turntopraxis,”seeChopp, PraxisofSuffering,esp.139–142.

78.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,7.

79.Moltmann, ExperiencesinTheology,294–295.

80.Ibid.,294.

81.Ibid.,295.

82.Chopp, PraxisofSuffering,139–142.

83.Forexamplesofsuchanideologycritique,seeinadditiontoKilby,“Pericho-

notestopages21–25 171 resisandProjection,”JamesMackey’sacerbicremarksinhisessay“AreThereChristianAlternativestoTrinitarianThinking?”in TheChristianUnderstandingofGodToday,TheologicalColloquiumontheOccasionofthe400thAnniversaryofthe FoundationofTrinityCollege,Dublin,ed.JamesM.Byrne(Dublin:ColumbiaPress, 1993),66–75.

84.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,4.

85.Ibid.,7,9.

86.Ibid.,9.

87.Moltmann, ExperiencesinTheology,xvi.

88.Ibid.,25.

89.AnexceptiontothisintheNorthAmericansceneisDouglasMeeks,who highlightsMoltmann’s“restlessimagination”andhisdesirefortheologytoregain such“sufferingandjoyfulimagination.”SeeMeeks’sexcellentreviewarticle,“Ju¨rgen Moltmann’s SystematicContributionstoTheology,” ReligiousStudiesReview 22,no.2 (1996):95–102;here95.IntheEuropeancontext,seealsoGeikoMu¨ller-Fahrenholz’s excellentchapteronmysticisminMoltmann’stheologyinMu¨ller-Fahrenholz, The KingdomandthePower:TheTheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,trans.JohnBowden(London:SCMPress,2000),230–244;andRichardBauckham’ssimilardiscussioninhis TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,213–247.

90.Moltmann, ExperiencesofTheology,xxi.

91.Bauckham,“Ju¨rgenMoltmann,”308.ForfurthercriticismonthelackoflogicalprecisioninMoltmann’sthinking,seealsoErnstpeterMaurer,“Tendenzen neuererTrinita¨tslehre,” Verku¨ndigungundForschung 39,no.2(1994):20.

92.SeeMoltmann, Bibliographie,inwhichalreadyin1987morethanfivehundredseparatelistingsofMoltmann’sessaysandbookshadbeencompiled.

93.ThetwosignificantandindeedrelateddevelopmentsinMoltmann’strinitariantheologysincehispublicationof TheTrinityandtheKingdom (1980)arehisintensifiedfocusonpneumatologyandonaholisticconsiderationofnatureandtheroleof thebodyintheology.Seehiscommentstothiseffectin SpiritofLife,x–xiii,andJu¨rgenMoltmann,“TheAdventureofTheologicalIdeas,” ReligiousStudiesReview 22 (1996):104.

94.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,xii.

95.Cf.ibid.,vii-ix,andhismorerecentremarkstothateffectinhis“Adventure ofTheologicalIdeas,”103.

96.Moltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘DergekreuzigteGott,’”166–167 (trans.mineandemphasisadded):“MitdiesendreiBu¨chernhabeichinderjeweiligengeistigen,theologischenundpolitischenSituationetwasBestimmtesgewollt.Sie sindausderZeitfu¨rdieZeitgeschriebenundalsoalsTheologieimKontextdesgegenwa¨rtigenLebenszuverstehen.ManhatsiedarummitRechtalseherpastoralund prophetischdennprofessoralundsystematischcharakterisiert.”

97.Moltmann, ExperiencesinTheology,xvi.

98.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,301.

99.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”180.

100.Moltmann,“AdventureofTheologicalIdeas,”102–103.

101.DanielDayWilliams, TheSpiritandtheFormsofLove (NewYork:Harper andRow,1968),212.

102.SeeMoltmann’scriticalremarksabouttheincompatibilityofprocesstheol-

ogy’sbipolarconceptofGodwithaChristiantrinitarianperspectivein CrucifiedGod, 255–256.

103.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,301.

chapter2

1.OnthisshiftinMoltmann’stheologicalapproach,seeRichardBauckham, Moltmann:MessianicTheologyintheMaking (Basingstoke,UK:MarshallPickering, 1987),2.SeealsoMoltmann’scommentsinhis“MyTheologicalCareer,”176,and “AdventureofTheologicalIdeas,”102–103.

2.Foranin-depthanalysisofMoltmann’ssourcesinthisearlyperiod,seeM. DouglasMeeks, OriginsoftheTheologyofHope,withaforewordbyJu¨rgenMoltmann (Philadelphia:FortressPress,1974);Bauckham, Moltmann:MessianicTheology,3–22.

3.Bauckham, TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,33;cf.ibid.,4–5.

4.Ibid.,82.OnBarth’schristocentrismanditsinfluenceonMoltmann’stheology,cf.Moltmann’sremarksinhisforewordto OriginsoftheTheologyofHope,byM. DouglasMeeks(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1974),ix–xii,esp.xii.

5.Moltmann,“AdventureofTheologicalIdeas,”104.

6.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”168.

7.Forthisinterpretation,seeMeeks’sforewordto TheExperimentHope,byJu¨rgenMoltmann,ed.andtrans.M.DouglasMeeks(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1975), xi.AlthoughMoltmannhadnotplannedhisearlytrilogytofollowthisbiblicalpattern,heagreeslaterwithhiscolleague’sinterpretationofitsbiblicaltrajectory.See Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”176.

8.SeethecriticalresponsescollectedinMarsch, Diskussionu¨berdie“Theologie derHoffnung.”

9.SeeMeeks’sexcellentanalysisoftheculturalsituationatthetimeofMoltmann’sfirstworkinMeeks, OriginsoftheTheologyofHope,4–7.

10.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”170.

11.SeeBauckham, TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,30.Foranexcellentoverviewof the“schoolofhope,”seeWalterH.Capps, TimeInvadestheCathedral:Tensionsinthe SchoolofHope,withaforewordbyJu¨rgenMoltmann(Philadelphia:FortressPress, 1972).

12.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“HopeandHistory,”in Religion,Revolution,andtheFuture,trans.M.DouglasMeeks(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1969),200.

13.Moltmann, TheologyofHope,16.Moltmannmakesthisconnectionexplicit somepageslater,whenhequotesapprovinglyoneofBarth’sdramaticstatements fromthesecondeditionofhisRomanscommentary,“IfChristianitybenotaltogether andunreservedlyeschatology,thereremainsinitnorelationshipwhatevertoChrist” (KarlBarth, DerRo¨merbrief,2nded.[(n.p.),1922],298[Englishtranslation, TheEpistle totheRomans,trans.E.C.Hoskyns([n.p.],1933),314],quotedinMoltmann, Theology ofHope,39).

14.SeeBauckham, TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,29.DuringthisperiodMoltmannsoughttorevivethesignificanceofdialecticaltheology’seschatologicalcritique forthepost-WorldWarIItheologicalscenebyrepublishingacollectionofthesetheologians’earlyessays.Seehisremarkstothateffectinhisforewordto KarlBarth

HeinrichBarth EmilBrunner,pt.1of Anfa¨ngederdialektischenTheologie,ed.Ju¨rgen Moltmann,5thed.(Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1985),ix–xviii.

15.Moltmann, TheologyofHope, 57.

16.SeeMoltmann’sdetaileddiscussionofthecontemporaryOldTestament scholarshipinibid.,95–138.

17.Ibid.,42.

18.Ibid.,30.

19.Ibid.,103.

20.Seeibid.,18.

21.Ibid,163.DespiteMoltmann’semphasisontheJewishrootsofresurrection hope,hedefendstheuniquenessoftheresurrectionpromiseofferedintheraisingof Jesusfromthedead.EmployingaPaulinelawandgospeldistinction,MoltmanncontraststheconditionalpromisesgiventoIsraelunderthelawwiththeresurrectionas auniversalandunconditionalpromisefortheultimatetriumphovertheevilandsufferingoftheworld.Forthispoint,seeesp.ibid.,147.

22.Ibid.,196.

23.Ibid.,198.

24.Ibid.,200.

25.Ibid.,21.

26.Ju¨rgenMoltmann, UmkehrzurZukunft (Munich:SiebensternTaschenbuch, 1970),10.ForanexcellentdiscussionofBloch’sinfluenceonMoltmann’swork,see Meeks, OriginsoftheTheologyofHope,16–19.ForMoltmann’scriticaldiscussionsof Bloch’sphilosophyofhope,seeinparticularhisessays“HopeandConfidence:A ConversationwithErnstBloch,”in Religion,Revolution,andtheFuture,trans.M. DouglasMeeks(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1969),148–176;“ErnstBloch andHopewithoutFaith,”in TheExperimentHope,ed.andtrans.M.DouglasMeeks (Philadelphia:FortressPress,1972),30–43;and“‘WhereThereIsHope,ThereIsReligion,’”alsoin TheExperimentHope,15–29.

27.Inmyview,RichardBauckhamrightlycomparesMoltmann’scriticalappropriationofBloch’sphilosophytoAugustine’suseofNeoplatonistphilosophy,or Aquinas’sadaptationofAristotelianism.SeeBauckham, Moltmann:MessianicTheology,9.

28.SeeMoltmann,“‘WhereThereIsHope,’”19,and“HopeandConfidence,” 150–151.

29.Moltmann,“ErnstBlochandHopewithoutFaith,”34.

30.Moltmann,“‘WhereThereIsHope,’”25.

31.Moltmann,“HopeandHistory,”209.

32.Cf.ibid.,209–210;Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“TheologyasEschatology,”in TheFutureofHope:TheologyasEschatology,ed.FrederickHerzog(NewYork:Herderand Herder,1970),13–15.

33.SeeMoltmann’ssummaryanddiscussionofthesechargesinJu¨rgenMoltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikderTheologiederHoffnung,”in Diskussionu¨berdie “TheologiederHoffnung”vonJu¨rgenMoltmann,ed.Wolf-DieterMarsch(Munich:Chr. Kaiser,1967),221–229.

34.SeeMoltmann’sremarksin“TheologyasEschatology,”11–16,andhis“Introductiontothe‘TheologyofHope,’”in TheExperimentHope,ed.andtrans.M.DouglasMeeks(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1972),50–53.

35.ExcerptedfromMoltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikderTheologiederHoffnung,”210–211(trans.mine):“Wasseinwird,entspringtausdemewigenWerde-und ZeugungsprozeßdesSeins.EsistAktualisierungvonUrpotenz.”

36.Moltmann, TheologyofHope,34.

37.Bauckham, Moltmann:MessianicTheology,91.

38.Moltmann,“HopeandHistory,”210.

39.See,e.g.,Moltmann, TheologyofHope,34.Inthesepassingreferencesto Christianloveasthefruitoffaith,MoltmannusuallycontrastsChristian agape to philia.Hereoneseesanearlyhintofhislaterconceptofdivineloveasloveforthe“unlike”oropposite.Seelaterdiscussionofthisconceptin TheCrucifiedGod.

40.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”169–170.

41.OnGodbeingknownthroughGod’sfaithfulnesstohispromisesinhistory, seeespeciallyMoltmann, TheologyofHope,117–118.

42.Moltmann,“Introductiontothe‘TheologyofHope,’”47.

43.Moltmann,“HopeandHistory,”207.

44.Moltmann, TheologyofHope,36.

45.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,204.

46.Ibid.,5.

47.Forasummaryofthesecriticalresponses,seeWolf-DieterMarsch’s“Zur Einleitung:Wohin—jenseitsderAlternativen,”in Diskussionu¨berdie“Theologieder Hoffnung”vonJu¨rgenMoltmann,ed.Wolf-DieterMarsch(Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1967), 7–18.

48.SeeMoltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikderTheologiederHoffnung,”225.

49.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,2.SeealsoJu¨rgenMoltmann,“WhyAmIaChristian?”in ExperiencesofGod,trans.MargaretKohl(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1980), 13–15.

50.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,7.

51.Ibid.,17.SeealsoMoltmann’spersonalrecollectionsofthattimeinhisautobiographicalessay,“MyTheologicalCareer,”171–172.

52.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”165–166.

53.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,252.

54.Fortheseterms,seethetitlesofchapters4and5of TheCrucifiedGod,respectively.

55.ForMoltmann’scompletediscussionofthevariousmeaningsofthecross, seeibid.,126–199.

56.Ibid.,149.

57.Ibid.,150–151(emphasisadded).

58.Ibid.,149.

59.Ibid.,184.

60.Ibid.,151–152.

61.Ibid.,181–183.

62.Ibid.,185.

63.Ibid.,192.Inparticular,MoltmanncitesRom.8:32,Gal.2:20,and2Cor.5: 19onthesoteriologicalsignificanceofGod’sgivinguptheSonforhumankind.

64.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,192–193(emphasisadded).

65.Ibid.,193.

66.Ibid.,211.

67.Ibid.,27,withquotationfromF.W.J.Schelling, UberdasWesendermenschlichenFreiheit ([n.p.]:Reclam,1809),8913–8915.

68.Forthiscriticism,seeRichardBauckham,“MoltmannsEschatologiedes Kreuzes,”in Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott,” ed.MichaelWelker(Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979),47.ForsimilarcriticismsofMoltmann’s lackofprecisioninhisdialecticalprincipleofknowledge,seealsoWalterKasper, “RevolutionimGottesversta¨ndnis?ZurSituationdeso¨kumenischenDialogsnach Ju¨rgenMoltmanns‘DergekreuzigteGott,’”alsoin Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmanns Buch“DergekreuzigteGott,” 143–144,andMoltmann’sresponsein“Antwortaufdie Kritikan‘DergekreuzigteGott,’”187–189.

69.Bauckham, Moltmann:MessianicTheology,69.IagreewithBauckham’scriticismthatbysubsumingthecross-eventunderthisgeneraldialecticalprinciple,Moltmannobscurestheprecisemeaningandthebiblicalsourceofhisthinkingondivine loveinthecross-event.Inturn,thisdialecticalprinciplecontributedtothegrowing impressionthattheauthorwassubjectingdivinerevelationtoapredetermined schemaofdialecticalHegelianphilosophy.Seemylaterdiscussionofthiscritique.

70.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,26.

71.Ibid.,212.

72.Ibid.,28.

73.Ibid.

74.Ibid.,27–28.

75.MoltmanncriticizesespeciallyKarlBarth(aswellasKarlRahner)forinterpretingthecross-event“theologically”andnotinasufficiently“trinitariandirection” (ibid.,203).AlthoughMoltmannacknowledgesthatBarthdoesintegratethecrosseventintohisunderstandingofGodinthelaterchristologicalsectionsofthe Church Dogmatics,theauthorobjectstoBarth’sdistinctionbetweenGodinhimselfandGod inChristinhisdoctrineofelectionas“atrans-christologicalproviso”(ibid.,280n. 16),whichprotectsthecross-eventfromhavinganyrealsignificancefortheeternal beingofGod.

76.Ibid.,204.

77.Ibid.,237.

78.Cf.Rahner, Trinity.

79.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,239.

80.Ibid.,237.

81.Ibid.,240.AlthoughinhislaterworkMoltmanndistanceshispositionfrom thatofRahner’s,theauthor’searlytrinitariantheologyreflectstheunmistakableinfluenceofRahner’sanalysisoftheproblemsbesettingthedoctrineincontemporary theology.Indeed,Moltmanndefendshisownmethodofprocedureasaresponseto theproblemsthatRahnerhadalreadyidentifiedinthedoctrine.See,forexample, ibid.,245.

82.Ibid.,207.

83.In TheTrinityandtheKingdom,Moltmannwillmodifythispositionbyrestoringaversionofthedistinctiontodefendtheeternalnatureofthetrinitarianrelations.Nevertheless,heneverretreatsfromthepositionthatthecross-eventhasontologicalimplicationsforthetrinitariannatureofGod.Seemyfurtherdiscussionof thisinchapter3.

84.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,205.

85.Ibid.,243.

86.Ibid.,207.Moltmannsubstitutesthisideaofa“deathinGod”forthe theopaschite expressionofthe“deathofGod,”onthegroundsnotonlythatitexplainsthe cross-eventmoresatisfactorilybutalsothatitalsoavoidstheparadoxeswhicha purelymonotheisticconceptdrawsoneinto.Foracriticismofthisdistinction(which Moltmanneventuallydropsin TheTrinityandtheKingdom),seePaulS.Fiddes, The CreativeSufferingofGod (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1988),195–200.

87.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,246.

88.OnthisissueofdivisionwithintheGodhead,seeBauckham, TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,55;Fiddes, CreativeSufferingofGod,196–197,202;BertoldKlappert, “DieGottverlassenheitJesuunddergekreuzigteGott.BeobachtungenzumProblem einertheologiacrucisinderChristologiederGegenwart,”andHermannusHeiko Miskotte,“DasLeidenistinGott.UberJu¨rgenMoltmannstrinitarischeKreuzestheologie,”in Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott,” ed.Michael Welker(Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979),69–73and78–81,respectively.

89.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,243–244.Miskotteremainsunconvincedthatthis solvestheproblemofdivineunity.Heremarksthatdespitethisstatedunityofwill, Moltmann’saccentisstillonthedivisionor statis inGod.SeeMiskotte,“DasLeiden istinGott,”79–80.

90.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,245(emphasisadded).

91.Ibid.,248–249.

92.MoltmanndidsubsequentlyacknowledgehisuseofthedominantAugustinianmodelinhis“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘DergekreuzigteGott,’”185.

93.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,255(emphasisadded).

94.Ibid.,265.

95.Ibid.,255.

96.Ibid.,246.

97.Ibid.,277.

98.Miskotte,“DasLeidenistinGott,”85(trans.mine):“AberGottscheintam EndederGefangenedieserGeschichtegewordenzusein.”

99.Kasper,“RevolutionimGottesversta¨ndnis?”144.

100.Ibid.,146(trans.mine):“BestehthiernichtdieGefahr,daßdasWunder derLiebeGottes,dasKreuz,aufgelo¨stwirdinDialektik,dieumschla¨gtinIdentita¨t?”

101.ExcerptedfromMichaelWelker,introductionto Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott,”ed.MichaelWelker(Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979),11 (trans.mine):“DochkeineinzigerTheologehat,wieHegel,dieTrinita¨tslehrezueinemvestigiumder‘absolutenMethode’gemacht.”

102.Bauckham, TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,49.

103.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,248(emphasisadded).EarlierinthebookMoltmannquotesthispassagefromBonhoefferdirectly:“Godletshimselfbepushedout oftheworldontothecross OnlythesufferingGodcanhelp”(Bonhoeffer, Letters andPapers,360–361,quotedinMoltmann, CrucifiedGod,47).

104.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,270.

105.Ibid.,274.

106.Forthispoint,seeBauckham, Moltmann:MessianicTheology,105.

107.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,278.

108.Ibid.,215.Forthesevariousterms,cf.especiallyibid.,214–216,andMolt-

mann’sdiscussionoftheconceptofGodintheancientworld,ibid.,267–269.Itis importanttonotethatclassicaltheismisahighlyambiguoustermintheauthor’s writings.AttimesheformulateshisconceptoftheismintermsoftheancientHellenisticconceptofGod,inwhichheincludesbothPlatonistandAristotelianversionsof thisconcept.Atothertimes,theGodoftheismappearsmoretobetheGodofnatural theology,who,duringtheMiddleAges,becamedivorcedfromthetrinitarianGodof revelation.Atstillotherpoints,MoltmannappearstohavetheEnlightenmentmoral ormodernpsychologicalconceptofGodmainlyinview.

109.Ibid.,222.

110.ForMoltmann’sappropriationofJu¨ngel’sandGeyer’sphenomenological analysesofChrist’sdeathasthedeathofGod,seeibid.,203–219.Moltmannstrongly disagreeswithhowthesetwoauthorslimitthesignificanceofthedeathofChristto itsexistentialimplications,therebynullifyingitssocial-politicalramifications.Healso disagreeswiththeirjudgmentthatthetheologyofthecrossis“theendofmetaphysics,”sincesuchaviewdoesawaywiththecosmologicalandhistoricaleschatologicalimplicationsofthetheologyofthecross(ibid.,216).

111.Ibid.,228;cf.ibid.,227–229.ForasignificantcritiqueofMoltmann’ssimplifiedreadingofpatristicchristologyontheissueofsuffering,cf.Bauckham, TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,60–62.

112.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,222.BauckhamwiselycautionsagainstinterpretingsuchstatementsasindicatingthatMoltmannderivesthenatureofdivinelove fromhumanlove.AlthoughMoltmannreadilyinvokesanalogiesbetweenthehuman anddivineloves,itisthecross-eventthatultimatelyrevealsthenatureofGodassufferinglove.SeeBauckham, TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,49–53.

113.SeeMoltmann, CrucifiedGod,223–227,251–252.

114.Ibid.,227.

115.Forthefollowing,seethediscussionoftheclassicalmeaningofdivinelove asbeneficenceinFiddes, CreativeSufferingofGod,17–25.SeealsotheparalleldiscussioninMoltmann, CrucifiedGod,268–269.

116.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,230.

117.Ibid.(emphasisadded).HerewehaveaprecursortoMoltmann’ssubsequentargumentontherelationshipbetweendivineloveandfreedomin TheTrinity andtheKingdom.Seethediscussioninchapter4ofMoltmann’sdevelopmentofthis argumentintermsofrevisinghisconceptofdivinelovefromactivesufferingtooverflowinggoodness.

118.Moltmann, CrucifiedGod,247–248.

119.OnMoltmann’srelianceonthispersonalanalogyoflove,seeBauckham’s astuteremarksinhis TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,65–69.

chapter3

1.Forabroaddescriptionofthecrisisofthechurchinthelatesixtiesandthe seventies,seeJu¨rgenMoltmann, TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit:AContribution toMessianicEcclesiology,trans.MargaretKohl(NewYork:HarperandRow,1977),xiii–xv.

2.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”174–175.

3.Moltmann, ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,35.

4.ThekeyreviewessayshavebeengatheredinMichaelWelker,ed., Diskussion u¨berJu¨rgenMoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott” (Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979).

5.ExcerptedfromMiskotte,“DasLeidenistinGott,”87(trans.mine):“Der Sohnscheintzur‘fonsdeitatis’gewordenzusein,denndasKreuzistderAnfangder trinitarischenGeschichteGottes....” “AberinallendiesenAussagenhatderGeist dochmehrdenCharaktereinergo¨ttlichenKraftalsdenGottes-selbst,alsSeinesweise derTrinita¨t.”AlthoughIagreethattheSpiritplaysasubordinaterolein TheCrucified God,IdonotattributeittoMoltmann’schristocentricfocusonthesufferingofthe Son.Inmyview,Moltmann’schristologicalone-sidednessresultsfromhisunusual methodologyinhisearlytrilogyandhisimplicitrelianceonAugustine’strinitarian theologyforhisproposal.

6.Moltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘DergekreuzigteGott,’”176–179.

7.Moltmann,“MyTheologicalCareer,”174.

8.ExcerptedfromMoltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘Dergekreuzigte Gott,’”185–186(trans.mine):“Esistimmerschwergefallen,fu¨rdiesessa¨chliche vinculumamoris Personalita¨tanzunehmen,denneserfolgtdanneherdieHypostatisierungeinerRelationalsdieEntdeckungeinereigenenPersonalita¨t.”

9.Ibid.,186.

10.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“TheTrinitarianHistoryofGod,”in TheFutureofCreation:CollectedEssays,trans.MargaretKohl(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1979),84.

11.Ibid.,88;seealsoMoltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘Dergekreuzigte Gott,’”185.

12.Moltmann,“TrinitarianHistoryofGod,”87;seealsohis ChurchinthePower oftheSpirit,28–30.

13.Moltmann, ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,58.Moltmanndevelopshisteleologicalinterpretationoftheresurrectionchieflyonthebasisofthe“theologicalfinal clauses”oftheNewTestament(ibid.,29–33;quotationon29).

14.Ibid.,59.

15.Ibid.

16.Ibid.,191.

17.ForMoltmann’sdescriptionoftheOrthodoxinfluencesonhisthought,see his“MyTheologicalCareer,”179.

18.Moltmann, ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,36.Moltmanndoeschallenge theOrthodoxtradition’smodelofsalvationfortheoppositetendencytothatofthe Reformedtradition,namely,foreclipsingtheessentialsignificanceofthecross-event infavorofthetransfigurationofChristintheSpiritofglory.Seeibid.,36–37.

19.Moltmann,“TrinitarianHistoryofGod,”95.Moltmannhadraisedasimilar concernabouthisownpoliticaltheologyofthelatesixtiesandearlyseventies, namely,thatheriskedreducingChristianfaithtoanethicalprogramandthereby eliminatingthejoyfuldimensionsoftheChristianlife.Inhisshortwork Theologyand Joy,Moltmannsoughttorecovertheseelementsofpraiseanddelightbyappealingto theEastereventastheeschatologicalinbreakingofGod’sgloryintotheworld.For thisearlierargument,seeMoltmann, TheologyandJoy,esp.51–54.

20.Moltmann, ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,60.

21.Moltmann,“TrinitarianHistoryofGod,”85.

22.ForMoltmann’sclearestpresentationofthebiblicalrootsofhiseschatologi-

calvision,seehisessay“CreationasanOpenSystem,”in TheFutureofCreation:CollectedEssays,trans.MargaretKohl(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1979),125.

23.Bauckham, Moltmann:MessianicTheology,113.

24.Moltmann, ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,63.

25.Ibid.,56.

26.Ibid.,63.

27.Ibid.,64.

28.Ibid.

29.Ibid.,61.Moltmannqualifiesthiscriticismin TheTrinityandtheKingdom, whereheappealsinalimitedwaytotheFatherasthesourceofdivineunity.

30.Moltmann,“TrinitarianHistoryofGod,”91–92.

31.Moltmann, ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,61.Hedoesmentioninpassing herewhatwilllaterbecomehismatureconceptofunityasdivinefellowship(koinonia).

32.FranzRosenzweig, DerSternderErlo¨sung (Heidelberg:[n.p.],1954),book3, 192;quotedinMoltmann, ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,61.

33.Moltmann, ChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit,61–62.

34.ExcerptedfromMoltmann,“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘Dergekreuzigte Gott,’”186–187(trans.mine):“UmdieFu¨lledestrinitarischenLebensumfassendzu verstehen,mußmanallegeschichtlichenErfahrungenintegrierenundalsovonden Personen,ihrenRelationenunddenVera¨nderungenihrerRelationen,alsoihrerGeschichte,reden.DasistdanneineTrinita¨tslehremit—abstraktformuliert—vera¨nderlichenVektoren.”

35.Excerptedfromibid.,168(trans.mine):“AberdasZieljenerdreiBu¨cher,... isteineNeuordnungdestheologischenSystemszueinermessianischenDogmatik,in derunterdemleitendenGesichtspunktderTrinita¨tunddesReichesGottesderWeg vonderGeschichtezurFreiheiteingeschlagenwird.”

36.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,16–20,129–150.

37.Ibid.,192.

51.Ibid.,41–42.MoltmanndoescriticizeUnamuno’sone-sidedemphasisonthe sorrowoftheFatherandhisneglectof“theredeeming joyofGod”(ibid.,42).

52.Ibid.,43. 53.Ibid.,57.

54.Ibid.

55.Ibid.,58.

56.Ibid.,59(emphasisadded).

57.Ibid.,60.

58.Ibid.

59.Onthisquestion,see,forexample,Hans-GeorgLink,“Gegenwa¨rtigeProblemeeinerKreuzestheologie:EinBericht,” EvangelischeTheologie 33(1973):337–345.

60.Foranearlierversionofthissameargument,seeMoltmann’s“Antwortauf dieKritikan‘DergekreuzigteGott,’”168–174.

61.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,53.

62.Ibid.,52.

63.Ibid.,54.

64.Ibid.,53.

65.Ibid.,56.

66.KarlBarth, ChurchDogmatics,4vols.(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1936–69), vol.II/1,§28,quotedinMoltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,55.

67.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,55.

68.Ibid.

69.Ibid.,58.

70.Ibid.,56.

71.Ibid.

72.Ibid.,94.

73.Ibid.,63–64.ItisimportanttonotethatMoltmann’scritiqueisbasedexclusivelyonBarth’sinitialpresentationoftheTrinitywithinhisdoctrineofrevelationin volumeI/1ofthe ChurchDogmatics.Thisleavesopenthequestionofwhetherornot Barthdevelopedamorenuancedaccountoftheinner-trinitarianrelationsinthelater christologicalsectionsofthe ChurchDogmatics.

74.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,70.

78.Forthisargument,seeibid.,94–95.

79.MoltmannalsodrawsonPhil.2:9–11insupportofhisinterpretation.See TrinityandtheKingdom,91–93.

TrinityandtheKingdom,92.

92.Ibid.,107.Onthispointhetakesthespeculativetheologyofthenineteenth

centurytotaskforhavingidentifiedthecreationoftheworldwiththebegettingof theSonofGod.

93.Ibid.,113.

94.Cf.ibid.AlthoughMoltmannretreatsherefromdescribingcreationasan emanationofthedivinebeing,hehintsnonethelessthatthelanguageofemanation doeshaveitsrightfulplaceinpneumatology.

95.Ibid.,109.

96.Ibid.,111.

97.Ibid.

98.Ibid.,116.

99.Ibid.,117.

100.Ibid.,117–118.

101.Ibid.,120.

102.Ibid.,119.

103.Ibid.,118.

104.Ibid.,119.

105.Ibid.,125.

106.Ibid.,127.

107.Ibid.,128.

108.Ibid.,131and129,respectively.

109.Ibid.,240n.7.

110.MoltmannreliesprimarilyonsecondarysourcesforhiscritiqueofthemonarchicalshapeofWesterntrinitariandoctrine,mostnotablyF[erdinand]C[hristian] Baur, DiechristlicheLehrevonderDreieinigkeitundMenschwerdungGottesinihrergeschichtlichenEntwicklung,3vols.(Tu¨bingen:[n.p.],1843),referredtoinMoltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,225n.21;ErikPeterson,“Monotheismusalspolitisches Problem,”in TheologischeTraktate (Munich:[n.p.],1951),48–147,referredtoinMoltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,248n.2.Oflate,patristicscholarsandhistoriansof trinitariandoctrinehavequestionedMoltmann’sandothercontemporarytheologians’ critiquesofthemonarchicalormodalisttrajectoryinWesterndoctrineforbeing vastlyoversimplifiedandahistoricalreadingsofthisdoctrinaldevelopment.Mostnotably,MichelRene´BarnespointstotheHegelianidealismlatentincontemporaryinterpretationsoftrinitariandevelopmentinthepatristicperiod,forexample,inthe presumedneatdivisionofEasternandWesterntrinitarianismintermsoftheirstartingpointinthethreepersonsortheunityoftheGodhead.Furthermore,Barneschallengescontemporarytheologians(includingMoltmann)forreadingtheproblemsof themodernCartesiansubjectbackintothepatristicandmedievalsourcessoasto createaspringboardfortheirconstructiveprojects.Forthiswell-foundedcritique,see MichelRene´Barnes,“AugustineinContemporaryTrinitarianTheology,” Theological Studies 56(1995):237–250.FormycritiqueofMoltmann’sone-sidedreadingofAugustine,seethenextchapter’sdiscussionofhis imagoDei anthropology.

111.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,137–139.

112.Forthisargument,seeibid.,16–17,190.Moltmann’scritiqueofthetrajectoryofWesternthoughtfromAquinasonwardfollowscloselythatofKarlRahnerin “RemarksontheDogmaticTreatise‘DeTrinitate,’”in MoreRecentWritings,vol.4of TheologicalInvestigations,trans.KevinSmyth(London:Darton,LongmanandTodd, 1966),77–87.

113.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,17.

114.Ibid.,139.

115.MoltmannalsoincludesinthiscritiqueFriedrichSchleiermacher,whoexplicitlyadvocatedaSabellianformofthetrinitariandoctrine.Forthisargument,see ibid.,136–137.MoltmannisnotaloneincriticizingsuchIdealistictendenciesin Barth’sandRahner’strinitarianschemas.Forasimilarcritique,seeWolfhartPannenberg, SystematicTheology,trans.GeoffreyW.Bromiley,3vols.(GrandRapids,MI: Eerdmans,1991–98),1:295–296,307–308,319–320n.184.

116.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,140–142.AlthoughBarthdevelopssubsequentlyachristologicalrootforhisdoctrineinthe ChurchDogmatics,Moltmann chargesthatthedoctrine’sstructureneverbecomestrulyrootedinbiblicalrevelation. Asnotedintheearlierdiscussion,MoltmanntracesBarth’snotionofabsolutelordshiptomodernnotionsofownershipandautonomyratherthantothescripturalwitnesstothekingdom.

117.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,142.

118.Ibid.,143.

119.Ibid.,144.

120.Ibid.,145.

121.Ibid.,147.

122.Ibid.,146.

123.KarlRahner, GrundkursdesGlaubens (Freiburg:[Herder],1976),141,quoted inMoltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,147.InlightofthiscritiqueofRahnerasan emanationist,itbecomesclearwhyMoltmannisanxiousinhisowndescriptionof creationastheself-communicationofdivinelovetoavoidpresentingtheworldasan emanationoftheinner-trinitarianprocess.IndistinctionfromRahner,Moltmann claimsthatcreationarisesfromthemutualanddifferentiatedintra-trinitarianlovebetweentheFatherandtheSon,andthattheHolySpirit’spresenceinhumankindis theindwellingofitsownlife.SeetheearlierdiscussionofMoltmann’strinitarianinterpretationofcreationastheself-communicationoflove.

124.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,148.

125.Seetheearliercriticaldiscussionaboutthisdialecticalstructureoftrinitarianloveintheorigin.

126.MoltmannrejectsthepsychologicaldoctrinefortheTrinityherewithafurthertheologicalargument,namely,thatanisolatedindividualisnotthe imagoDei:“A personisonlyGod’simageinfellowshipwithotherpeople:‘IntheimageofGodhe createdhim;maleandfemalehecreatedthem’(Gen.1.27)....Itisnotthe completed andfulfilledindividualpersonalitythatcanalreadybecalledtheimageofGodon earth;itisonlythecompletedcommunityofpersons”(ibid.,155–156).ThenextchapterontrinitariananthropologywillexploreindepthMoltmann’sargumentfortheexclusivelysocialnatureofthe imagoDei.

127.Ibid.,150.

128.Ibid.,153.

129.Ibid.,154(emphasisintheoriginal).

130.Ibid.,161.

131.Ibid.,162.

132.Ibid.,163.

133.Ibid.,164.

134.Ibid.,165.

135.Ibid.

136.Ibid.

137.Ibid.,166–167.

138.Ibid.,167–168.

139.Ibid.,168.

140.Ibid.,169.

141.Cf.ibid.,170.

142.Ibid.,183.

143.Ibid.

144.Ibid.,184.

145.Ibid.

146.Cf.ibid.,186.

147.Ibid.,187.

148.Ibid.(emphasisintheoriginal).

149.Ibid.,171.

150.Ibid.

151.Ibid.,172.

152.MoltmanndoesnotchargeAugustinewithsuchareductionofpersonsto sheerrelationsbutratherpointscriticallytoAquinas’sreceptionofAugustine’sposition,andthentoBarth’sNeoscholasticversionofit(ibid.,147).

153.Ibid.,173.

154.Ibid.

155.Ibid.,173–174.

156.Ibid.,174–175.

157.Ibid.,175.

158.See,forexample,JamesMackey’sacerbiccriticismoftheimplicittritheism inMoltmann’shighlyanthropomorphicanalogyinMackey,“AreThereChristianAlternatives?”esp.68–70.Foranearlierversionofthiscriticism,cf.GeorgeHunsinger, “TheCrucifiedGodandthePoliticalTheologyofViolence,” HeythropJournal 14 (1973):278.

159.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,175.

chapter4

1.Moltmannborrowstheterm“possessiveindividualism”fromC.B.Macpherson,whoarguesthattheEnlightenmentnotionofhumanfreedomis“afunctionof possession”thatservestoradicallyindividualizepeople.Forthisargument,seeC.B. Macpherson, ThePoliticalTheoryofPossessiveIndividualism (Oxford:[n.p.],1962),3, quotedinMoltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,252n.47.

2.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,193.Forhowreligiousmonotheism translatesintopoliticalmonotheism,MoltmannreliesprimarilyonErikPeterson’sinfluentialtreatise“MonotheismusalspolitischesProblem”(1935).SeeMoltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,192–195.

3.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,191–192.

4.Ibid.,198.

5.Ibid.,195.

40.Insupportofthisongoingprocessofcreation,Moltmannemphasizesthe continuitybetweenthedepictionoftheOldTestament’s ruach asthesourceoflifein theoriginalactofcreationandtheNewTestament’sdepictionoftheHolySpiritas thebreathoflifeintherenewalofcreation.Forthisargument,seeMoltmann, Godin Creation,67.

41.Ibid.

42.Ibid,7.SeealsoMoltmann’smoredetailedcriticismofBarth’screationcovenantschemainMoltmann’s“Creation,CovenantandGlory,”127–132.

43.MoltmanncriticizesBarth’stwofoldmodelofcreationandcovenantbecause ittreatsthereconciliationinChristasitselfthe“triumphof... glory”(KarlBarth, ChurchDogmatics,4vols.[Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1936–69],IV/3:157,quotedin Moltmann, GodinCreation,62).

44.Moltmann, GodinCreation,8(trans.mine):“gratianonperfecit,sedpraeparat naturamadgloriamaeternam;gratianonestperfectionaturae,sedpraeparatiomessianica mundiadregnumDei.”

45.Bauckham, TheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann,197.

46.Moltmann, GodinCreation,56.ItisimportanttonotethatMoltmannportrayscreationasaneschatologicalsignofthekingdominresponsetoBarth’snotion ofcreationasanearthlyparableforthekingdomofheaven.Moltmannobjectsto Barth’sschemaonthegroundsthatittreatscreationasamerecipherforGod’sreality,andnotasapromiseandanticipationofitsownfuture.Forthisdiscussion,see ibid.,60–65.

47.Seeibid.,187.

48.Ibid.

49.Ibid.,188.

50.Ibid.,186.

51.Ibid.,190.

52.Ibid.,227.

53.Ibid.

54.Seeibid.,215.

55.Ibid.,220.

56.Ibid.,77–78.ForthisnotionofhumanbeingsasthecounterpartofGodthe Father,seethediscussioninchapter3.

57.Moltmann, GodinCreation,219–220.SeeBonhoeffer’searlierdiscussionof thisanalogyofrelationsinDietrichBonhoeffer, CreationandFall:ATheologicalInterpretationofGenesis1–3,trans.J.C.Fletcher(London:SCMPress,1959),36–37.

58.Moltmann, GodinCreation,77.

59.Ibid.,218.AlthoughMoltmannrelieshereonaliteralisticreadingofthe GenesisaccounttosupporthissocialinterpretationoftheimageoftheTrinityinhumancommunity,elsewhereheobjectstousingbiblicaltextsasadirectrevelationof theTrinity.Suchinconsistenciesinhistheologicalappealstothescriptureshaveled RichardBauckham,amongothers,tocriticizeMoltmannforhisfailuretoexplainhis biblicalhermeneuticsinhislaterwork.Iwillreturntothisissueintheconclusionof thisstudy.

60.Ibid.,223.

61.Suchabareidentificationoftheindividualwithhersocialrelationswouldin

factamounttoaformofmodalismthatviolatesMoltmann’ssocialtrinitariantheologyandthecorresponding analogiarelationis inthehumansphere.Justasthedivine personscannotbereducedtomodesofbeingoftheoneGodinMoltmann’strinitariantheology,so,too,humanpersonscannotbereducedtocommunalmodesofbeing inhistheologicalanthropology.

62.Moltmanndoestendinhiswritingtoaccentthesocialityofhumanexistence,buthedoesso,inmyview,tocounterbalancemodernanthropology’sfocuson theindividualandherself-transcendence.

63.Ibid.,218.

64.Ibid.,242–243.

65.Ibid.,245–246.

66.Ibid.,246.

67.Ibid.,258.

68.Ibid.,259.

69.Ibid.

70.Ibid.,240.

71.Ibid.,241.

72.Ibid.

73.Ibid.

chapter5

1.Moltmann, GodinCreation,265.

2.Ibid.

3.Ibid.,229.

4.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“TheInvitingUnityoftheTriuneGod,”in Historyandthe TriuneGod:ContributionstoTrinitarianTheology,trans.JohnBowden(NewYork: Crossroad,1992),86.

5.Ibid.,87.

6.Moltmann, GodinCreation,233–234.DespiteMoltmann’sfrequentcriticisms ofAugustine’santhropology,onecanhardlyfailtonotethathisconceptofsinresemblescloselyAugustine’sconceptofdisorderedloves.

7.Moltmann,“InvitingUnity,”87.

8.Moltmann, GodinCreation,228.

9.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,81.

10.Moltmann,“InvitingUnity,”84.

11.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,73.

12.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,58.

13.SeeespeciallyJu¨rgenMoltmann,“‘IBelieveinJesusChrist,theOnlyBegottenSonofGod’:BrotherlyTalkofChrist,”in HistoryandtheTriuneGod:ContributionstoTrinitarianTheology,trans.JohnBowden(NewYork:Crossroad,1992),31–43;and“JusticeforVictimsandPerpetrators,”alsoin HistoryandtheTriuneGod,44–56.ThelatteressayappearswithslightadditionsasachapterinMoltmann, Spiritof Life,123–143.

14.Fortheseterms,seeMoltmann,“‘IBelieveinJesusChrist,’”36–37.Foran earlierversionofthissameargument,seehis TrinityandtheKingdom,120–121.

15.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,142.

16.Moltmann,“‘IBelieveinJesusChrist,’”33.Moltmanndefendsthecompatibilityoftheso-calledadoptionistchristologyofthesynopticGospelsandthepreexistencechristologyoftheGospelofJohn.Jesus’historicalexperienceoftheSpiritinhis baptismneednotcontradicttheessentialnatureofhisrelationshiptotheFatheras hisonly-begottenSon.Onthispoint,seeibid.,34–35;Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist, 143.

17.Moltmann,“‘IBelieveinJesusChrist,’”33.

18.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,71–72.

19.Moltmann,“‘IBelieveinJesusChrist,’”35.

20.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,115.

21.Ibid.,173.

22.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,64.

23.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,181.

24.Moltmann,“JusticeforVictimsandPerpetrators,”48.

25.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,178.

26.Moltmann,“JusticeforVictimsandPerpetrators,”52.

27.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,257.

28.Ibid.,181;cf.ibid.,181–196.AnearliertreatmentofthesamedoctrineofjustificationcanbefoundinJu¨rgenMoltmann,“JustificationandNewCreation,”in The FutureofCreation:CollectedEssays,trans.MargaretKohl(Philadelphia:FortressPress, 1979),149–171.

29.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,183.

30.Ibid.,182.

31.Ibid.,185.

32.Ibid.,188.

33.Ibid.

34.Seeibid.,190.

35.Ibid.,182.

36.Ibid.,183.

37.Moltmann,“‘IBelieveinJesusChrist,’”40.

38.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,116.

39.Moltmann,“InvitingUnity,”83.

40.Moltmann,“‘IBelieveinJesusChrist,’”41.

41.Ibid.,37.

42.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,66.

43.Ibid.,67.

44.Moltmann, WayofJesusChrist,242.

45.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,83;seeibid.,83–98.

46.Ibid.,42.

47.Ibid.,195.ThisisoneofthosepassagesonwhichIagreefullywithKaren Kilby’scriticismofMoltmann’sappealtotheterm perichoresis todescribethedivinehumanrelationship.Hereasinotherplacesinhiswriting,Moltmannfailstospecify howthistermappliesdifferentlytotherelationshipbetweenGodandhumanbeings thanitdoestotherelationshipsamongthedivinepersons.ForafullcriticalassessmentofMoltmann’suseofthisterm perichoresis asananalogyfortheGod-human relationship,seeJoyAnnMcDougall,“ARoomofOne’sOwn?TrinitarianPericho-

resisasAnalogyfortheGod-HumanRelationship,”in WoistGott?Gottesra¨ume—Lebensra¨ume,ed.Ju¨rgenMoltmannandCarmenRivuzumwami(Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag,2002),133–141.

48.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,86.SeealsoMoltmann, GodinCreation,268–270.

49.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,178.

50.Seeibid.,84.

51.Ibid.

52.Ju¨rgenMoltmann, TheSourceofLife:TheHolySpiritandtheTheologyofLife, trans.MargaretKohl(London:SCMPress,1997),85.

53.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,121.

54.Ibid.,99.Moltmann’sinterpretationoftheSpiritastheexperienceoffreedomdoesnotrestsolelyonthistext.HealsodrawsfromtheexperienceofGodas liberatorintheExodusaccountandvariedexperiencesoffreedomthatarereportedin fellowshipwithJesus.Forthesebiblicalinterpretations,seeibid.,99–102.

55.Ibid.,114.

56.Ibid.,115.

57.Ibid.(emphasisadded).

58.Ibid.,117.

67.O[tto]Weber, GrundlagenderDogmatik,2vols.(Neukirchen-Vluyn:[n.p.], [1955]–1962),2:401,quotedinMoltmann, SpiritofLife,151.

SpiritofLife,153.

GodinCreation,227.

SpiritofLife,174.

PersonsinCommunion,313.

82.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“HowIHaveChanged?ReflectionsonThirtyYearsof Theology,”in HowIHaveChanged,ed.Ju¨rgenMoltmann,trans.JohnBowden(Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational,1997),27,quotedinMu¨ller-Fahrenholz, KingdomandthePower,107.

83.Mu¨ller-Fahrenholz, KingdomandthePower,107.

84.Ibid.,111–112.

85.Tohiscredit,Mu¨ller-FahrenholzisoneofthefewinterpretersofMoltmann’s workwhoemphasizesthecentralityofspiritualityand,indeed,mysticism,toMoltmann’stheology,buthetendstotreattheseelementsasseparatefromMoltmann’s political-liberationistagenda.ForMu¨ller-Fahrenholz’sdiscussionofmysticismin Moltmann’swork,seeibid.,116–118,230–244.

86.Moltmann,“‘FellowshipoftheHolySpirit,’”57.

87.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,219.

88.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,198.

89.Ibid.

90.Ibid.,199(emphasisadded).

91.Ibid.,202.

92.Moltmann,“‘FellowshipoftheHolySpirit,’”64.

93.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,200.

94.Ibid.,202,quotingthetitleofG.Hasenhu¨ttl, HerrschaftsfreieKirche,SoziotheologischeGrundlegung (Du¨sseldorf:[n.p.],1974).

95.Moltmann, TrinityandtheKingdom,202.

96.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,248.

97.Ibid.,221.

98.Seeibid.,249.Moltmannborrowsthistypologyofthepatristicandmedieval traditions’understandingsofChristianlovefromthearticle“Liebe,”writtenbyJoseph Ratzingerforthe Lexikonfu¨rTheologieundKirche,ed.MichaelBuchbergeretal.,2nd ed.,10vols.(Freiburg:Herder,1957),6:1031–1036.Ashasbeenthecaseinother placesinhiswritings,Moltmann’sdependenceonthissecondarysourceleadshimto makesweepingcriticismsaboutthetheologicaltraditionthatlacknuanceandsufficienttextualwarranttosupporthisclaims.

99.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,249.

100.Ibid.

101.Ibid.,250(emphasisadded).

102.Ibid.,248.

103.Ibid.,255.AlthoughMoltmanndoesnotciteKantashissourceforthisdefinitionin TheSpiritofLife,hedoessoinhisearlierdiscussionsof“openfriendship.” See,forexample,Ju¨rgenMoltmann,“OpenFriendship:AristotelianandChristian ConceptsofFriendship,”in TheChangingFaceofFriendship,ed.LeroyS.Rouner(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1994),30.

104.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,256.

105.Ibid.,258. 106.Ibid.

114.Ibid.,195. 115.Ibid.,115.

116.Ju¨rgenMoltmann, GodforaSecularSociety:ThePublicRelevanceofTheology, trans.MargaretKohl(Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,1999),156.

117.Forapowerfulcritiqueofmodernity’sidealoffreedomasabsoluteselfconstitution,onethatparallelsMoltmann’s,seeChristophSchwo¨bel,“ImagoLibertatis:HumanandDivineFreedom,”in GodandFreedom:EssaysinHistoricalandSystematicTheology,ed.ColinE.Gunton(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1995),57–81.

Schwo¨belchargesthatthemodernnotionoffreedomasabsoluteself-constitutionisa formofself-deification,inwhichhumanbeingsclaimafreedomforthemselvesthat isintheimageofthedivineattributes,e.g.,divineomnipotenceandomniscience.

118.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,118.

119.Ibid.,220.

120.Forthisterm,seeAmyPlantingaPauw,“AttendingtotheGapsbetween BeliefsandPractices,”in PracticingTheology:BeliefsandPracticesinChristianLife,ed. MiroslavVolfandDorothyC.Bass(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2002),33–48.In thisessayPauwarguespersuasivelythattheologiansandChristiancommunitiesalike shouldexpecta“flexibleintegrity”ratherthanan“unbendingrigidity”betweenChristiandoctrinesandpractices(ibid.,42).Alongasimilarvein,KathrynTannerinher essay“TheologicalReflectionandChristianPractices,”alsoin PracticingTheology,228–242,cautionstheologiansagainstexpectingtootightafitbetweendoctrinesandpracticesbecausethiscanmaskacommunity’sdistortionsofitspracticesandbeliesthe “improvisionalandadhoc”natureofsocialpractices(quotationat230).

121.Moltmann, SpiritofLife,86.

122.Ibid.,126.

123.Seeibid.,129–138.

124.Ibid.,143.

125.MaryGrey,“FallingintoFreedom:SearchingforNewInterpretationsofSin inaSecularSociety,” ScottishJournalofTheology 47,(1994):241.

126.Foranexcellentdiscussionofthefeministcritiqueandreconstructionof thecategoryofsin,seeSereneJones, FeministTheoryandTheology:Cartographiesof Grace (Philadelphia:FortressPress,2000),99–125,esp.110–111.

127.SereneJonesdescribesthesocialsinsofracismandsexisminsimilarterms asa“refusaltocelebratedifference”andan“obsessivevalorizationofsameness,”althoughshedoesnotappealtotrinitariantheologyinsupportofherinterpretation. Forthedetailsofherargument,seeJones’sessay“What’sWrongwithUs?”in EssentialsofChristianTheology,ed.WilliamC.Placher(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohn KnoxPress,2003),141–158;here,151.

128.RebeccaS.Chopp,“AnointedtoPreach:SpeakingofSinintheMidstof Grace,”in ThePortionofthePoor:GoodNewstothePoorintheWesleyanTradition,ed. M.DouglasMeeks(Nashville,TN:KingswoodBooks,1995),105.

conclusion

1.ForsimilarcriticismsofMoltmann’sunclearbiblicalhermeneuticsinhislater work,seethecommentsofNewTestamentscholarRichardBauckham, Theologyof Ju¨rgenMoltmann,25–26;seealsoJeanrond,“QuestionofGodToday,”16.Tohis credit,Moltmannacknowledgesthesedeficienciesinhisbiblicalhermeneuticsinhis 1996autobiographicalremarks:“WhenIaskmyselfwhatIwouldliketohavedone

differentlyandatwhichpointsIhavetoadmitthatmycriticsareright,thenIhaveto nameexegesisfirst”(Moltmann,“AdventureofTheologicalIdeas,”104).Sincemakingtheseremarks,Moltmannhaselaboratedfurtheronhishermeneuticalapproach tothescripturesinhisrecentwork, ExperiencesinTheology,125–150.TherehehighlightsthesignificanceoftheBible’s“promissoryhistory”forhismessianicinterpretationofChristianity,andreiteratesthebasisfor“histrinitarianhermeneutics”inthe NewTestament’snarrationoftherelationshipsofFather,theSon,andSpiritas“relationshipsoffellowship.”AlthoughthisdiscussiondoesclarifyMoltmann’soverarchingbiblicalhermenueticalprinciples,itdoesnotputtorestthenumerousexegeticalconcernsraisedbyhisappropriationofhighlydiversescripturestohisdogmatic ends.

2.ForMiroslavVolf’suseofthisterm,seehisexcellentarticle“TheTrinityIs OurSocialProgram?TheDoctrineoftheTrinityandtheShapeofSocialEngagement,” ModernTheology 14(July1998):403–423.HereVolfmakesacompellingargumentforreplacingtheideaofa“socialtrinitarianprogram,”whichMoltmannadopts fromRussiantheologianNicholasFederov,withthatofa“socialvision.”Withthis term,Volfarguesthattrinitariantheologyprovidesatheologicalframeworkofvalues thatcannormChristiandiscipleship.Althoughhedoesnotapplythistermtothe worksofhisformerteacherMoltmann,inmyviewitcaptureswellthesenseofhow MoltmannactuallyappealstohistrinitariantheologyinmakingproposalsforChristianpraxis.

3.Moltmann,“AdventureofTheologicalIdeas,”103.

Bibliography

worksbyju¨rgenmoltmann

“TheAdventureofTheologicalIdeas.” ReligiousStudiesReview 22(1996): 102–105.

“AntwortaufdieKritikan‘DergekreuzigteGott.’”In Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgen MoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott,” ed.MichaelWelker,165–190. Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979.

“AntwortaufdieKritikderTheologiederHoffnung.”In Diskussionu¨berdie “TheologiederHoffnung”vonJu¨rgenMoltmann, ed.Wolf-DieterMarsch, 201–238.Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1967.

Bibliographie. Comp.DieterIsingwiththecollaborationofGu¨ntherGeisthardtandAdelbertSchloz.Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1987.

TheChurchinthePoweroftheSpirit:AContributiontoMessianicEcclesiology. Trans.MargaretKohl.NewYork:HarperandRow,1977.

TheComingofGod:ChristianEschatology. Trans.MargaretKohl.Minneapolis,MN:FortressPress,1996.

“CreationasanOpenSystem.”InJu¨rgenMoltmann, TheFutureofCreation: CollectedEssays, trans.MargaretKohl,115–130.Philadelphia:Fortress Press,1979.

“Creation,CovenantandGlory:AConversationonKarlBarth’sDoctrineof Creation.”InJu¨rgenMoltmann, HistoryandtheTriuneGod:ContributionstoTrinitarianTheology, trans.JohnBowden,125–142.NewYork: Crossroad,1992.

TheCrucifiedGod:TheCrossofChristastheFoundationandCriticismof ChristianTheology. Trans.R.A.WilsonandJohnBowden.Prefacetothe pbk.ed.trans.MargaretKohl.1stHarperCollinspbk.ed.NewYork: HarperCollins,1991.

“ErnstBlochandHopewithoutFaith.”InJu¨rgenMoltmann, TheExperiment

Johnson,ElisabethA. SheWhoIs:TheMysteryofGodinFeministTheologicalDiscourse. NewYork:Crossroad,1992.

———.“ToLettheSymbolSingAgain.” TheologyToday 53(1997):299–311.

Jones,L.Gregory. EmbodyingForgiveness:ATheologicalAnalysis. GrandRapids,MI: Eerdmans,1995.

———. TransformedJudgment:TowardaTrinitarianAccountoftheMoralLife. Notre Dame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1990.

Jones,Serene. FeministTheoryandTheology:CartographiesofGrace. Philadelphia:FortressPress,2000.

———.“What’sWrongwithUs?”In EssentialsofChristianTheology, ed.WilliamC. Placher,141–158.Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2003.

Kasper,Walter.“RevolutionimGottesversta¨ndnis?ZurSituationdeso¨kumenischen DialogsnachJu¨rgenMoltmanns‘DergekreuzigteGott.’”In Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott,” ed.MichaelWelker,140–148.Munich: Chr.Kaiser,1979.

Kilby,Karen.“PerichoresisandProjection:ProblemswithSocialDoctrinesofthe Trinity.” NewBlackfriars 81,no.956(Oct.2000):432–445.

Klappert,Bertold.“DieGottverlassenheitJesuunddergekreuzigteGott.BeobachtungenzumProblemeinertheologiacrucisinderChristologiederGegenwart.”In Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott,” ed.Michael Welker,57–73.Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979.

Kro¨tke,Wolf.“TheHumanityoftheHumanPersoninKarlBarth’sAnthropology.”In TheCambridgeCompaniontoKarlBarth, ed.JohnWebster,159–176.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2000.

LaCugna,CatherineMowry. GodforUs:TheTrinityandtheChristianLife. SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1991.

———.“Re-conceivingtheTrinityastheMysteryofSalvation.” ScottishJournalof Theology 38(1985):1–23.

LaCugna,CatherineMowry,andKillianMcDonnell.“Returningfrom‘TheFarCountry’:ThesesforaContemporaryTrinitarianTheology.” ScottishJournalofTheology 41(1988):191–215.

Lash,Nicholas.“ConsideringtheTrinity.” ModernTheology 2(1986):183–196.

Link,Christian.“Scho¨pfungimmessianischenLicht.” EvangelischeTheologie 47(1987): 83–92.

Link,Hans-Georg.“Gegenwa¨rtigeProblemeeinerKreuzestheologie:EinBericht.” EvangelischeTheologie 33(1973):337–345.

Mackey,James.“AreThereChristianAlternativestoTrinitarianThinking?”In The ChristianUnderstandingofGodToday, ed.JamesM.Byrne,66–75.Theological ColloquiumontheOccasionofthe400thAnniversaryoftheFoundationofTrinityCollege,Dublin.Dublin:ColumbiaPress,1993.

Macpherson,C.B. ThePoliticalTheoryofPossessiveIndividualism. Oxford:[n.p.], 1962.

Marsch,Wolf-Dieter,ed. Diskussionu¨berdie“TheologiederHoffnung”vonJu¨rgenMoltmann. Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1967.

———.“ZurEinleitung:Wohin—jenseitsderAlternativen.”In Diskussionu¨berdie “TheologiederHoffnung”vonJu¨rgenMoltmann, ed.Wolf-DieterMarsch,7–18.Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1967.

Maurer,Ernstpeter.“TendenzenneuererTrinita¨tslehre.” Verku¨ndigungundForschung 39,no.2(1994):3–24.

McDougall,JoyAnn.“ARoomofOne’sOwn?TrinitarianPerichoresisasAnalogyfor theGod-HumanRelationship.”In WoistGott?Gottesra¨ume—Lebensra¨ume, ed. Ju¨rgenMoltmannandCarmenRivuzumwami,133–141.Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag,2002.

McFague,Sallie.“IsGodinCharge?”In EssentialsofChristianTheology, ed.William C.Placher,101–116.Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2003.

———. ModelsofGod:TheologyforanEcological,NuclearAge. Philadelphia:Fortress Press,1987.

Meeks,M.Douglas.Forewordto TheExperimentHope, byJu¨rgenMoltmann,ed.and trans.M.DouglasMeeks,ix–xvii.Philadelphia:FortressPress,1975.

———.“Ju¨rgenMoltmann’s SystematicContributionstoTheology.” ReligiousStudies Review 22,no.2(Apr.1996):95–102.

———. OriginsoftheTheologyofHope. WithaforewordbyJu¨rgenMoltmann.Philadelphia:FortressPress,1974.

Milbank,John.“TheSecondDifference:ForaTrinitarianismwithoutReserve.” ModernTheology 2(1986):213–234.

Miskotte,HermannusHeiko.“DasLeidenistinGott.UberJu¨rgenMoltmannstrinitarischeKreuzestheologie.”In Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott,” ed.MichaelWelker,74–93.Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979.

Morse,Christopher. TheLogicofPromiseinMoltmann’sTheology. Philadelphia:FortressPress,1979.

Mu¨ller-Fahrenholz,Geiko. TheKingdomandthePower:TheTheologyofJu¨rgenMoltmann. Trans.JohnBowden.London:SCMPress,2000.

Nicholls,David. DeityandDomination:ImagesofGodandtheStateintheNineteenth andTwentiethCenturies. London:Routledge,1989.

Niebuhr,Reinhold. HumanDestiny. Vol.2of TheNatureandDestinyofMan:AChristianInterpretation.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1943.

O’Donnell,JohnJ. TrinityandTemporality:TheChristianDoctrineofGodintheLightof ProcessTheologyandtheTheologyofHope. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1983.

———.“TheTrinityasDivineCommunity:ACriticalReflectionuponRecentTheologicalDevelopments.” Gregorianum 69(1988):5–34.

Pannenberg,Wolfhart. SystematicTheology. Trans.GeoffreyW.Bromiley.3vols.Grand Rapids,MI:Eerdmans,1991–98.

Pauw,AmyPlantinga.“AttendingtotheGapsbetweenBeliefsandPractices.”In PracticingTheology:BeliefsandPracticesinChristianLife, ed.MiroslavVolfand DorothyC.Bass,33–48.GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2002.

Peterson,Erik.“MonotheismusalspolitischesProblem.”InErikPeterson, TheologischeTraktate. Munich:[n.p.],1951.

Rahner,Karl. GrundkursdesGlaubens. Freiburg:[Herder],1976.

———.“RemarksontheDogmaticTreatise‘DeTrinitate.’”InKarlRahner, MoreRecentWritings, vol.4of TheologicalInvestigations,trans.KevinSmyth,77–102.London:Darton,LongmanandTodd,1966.

———. TheTrinity. Trans.JosephDonceel.NewYork:HerderandHerder,1970.

Ratzinger,Joseph.“Liebe.”Invol.6of Lexikonfu¨rTheologieundKirche, ed.Michael Buchbergeretal.,2nded.,1031–1036.Freiburg:Herder,1957.

Ricoeur,Paul. TheSymbolismofEvil. Boston:BeaconPress,1967.

Rosenzweig,Franz. DerSternderErlo¨sung. Heidelberg:[n.p.],1954.

Schmaus,M[ichael]. DiepsychologischeTrinita¨tslehredesHeiligenAugustinus. Mu¨nster: [n.p.],1927.

Schu¨sslerFiorenza,Francis.Introductionto FaithandtheFuture:EssaysonTheology, Solidarity,andModernity, byJohann-BaptistMetzandJu¨rgenMoltmann,xi–xvii. Maryknoll,NY:Orbis,1995.

Schwo¨bel,Christoph.“ImagoLibertatis:HumanandDivineFreedom.”In Godand Freedom:EssaysinHistoricalandSystematicTheology, ed.ColinE.Gunton,57–81. Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1995.

Tanner,Kathryn. GodandCreationinChristianTheology:TyrannyorEmpowerment? Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1988.

———.“TheologicalReflectionandChristianPractices.”In PracticingTheology:Beliefs andPracticesinChristianLife, ed.MiroslavVolfandDorothyC.Bass,228–242. GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2002.

Torrance,AlanJ. PersonsinCommunion:AnEssayonTrinitarianDescriptionandHumanParticipation. Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1996.

Tracy,David.“TheHermeneuticsofNamingGod.” IrishTheologicalQuarterly 57 (1991):253–264.

Volf,Miroslav. AfterOurLikeness:TheChurchastheImageoftheTrinity. Grand Rapids,MI:Eerdmans,1998.

———.“TheTrinityIsOurSocialProgram?TheDoctrineoftheTrinityandthe ShapeofSocialEngagement.” ModernTheology 14(1998):403–423.

Vorgrimler,Herbert.“RecentCritiquesofTheism.”In APersonalGod? ed.Edward SchillebeeckxandBasvanIersel,23–34.NewYork:SeaburyPress,1977.

Weber,O[tto]. GrundlagenderDogmatik. 2vols.Neukirchen-Vluyn:[n.p.],[1955]–62.

Welker,Michael.ed. Diskussionu¨berJu¨rgenMoltmannsBuch“DergekreuzigteGott.” Munich:Chr.Kaiser,1979.

Williams,DanielDay. TheSpiritandtheFormsofLove. NewYork:HarperandRow, 1968.

This page intentionally left blank

Index

adventus,35–36,49

Seealso eschatology; futurum agape,25,56,66

ascreativeloveoftheother,48 ascrucifiedorkenoticlove,72, 75,154

vs.eros,143–144

Moltmann’searlydialectical conceptof,44,55,57–58,75, 154

vs. philia,44

Seealso divinelove

analogyofrelations(analogia relationis),26,102,115–119,121

asanalogyofgrace,136–137

vs.analogyofsubstance,115

SeealsoimagoDei; imago Trinitatis

anthropology,theological conceptofsinin,148

modernindividualism(atomism) in,102,161

Moltmann’scritiqueof Augustine’s,104–107,117

Moltmann’scritiqueofBarth’s, 103–104,106

Moltmann’scritiqueofWestern, 102–107

Moltmann’sreconstructionof,113–119,141,160–161

SeealsoimagoDei appropriations,doctrineof,78 Aquinas,54,88,105,110,163

Augustine,54,70,95,110,132,163 appropriationsand,78 conceptoffreedomin,77 interiorizationofthe imagoDei and,106

loveanalogyfortheTrinityand, 48,61,74,90

modelofthe imagoDei and,104–107,116

monarchicalmonotheismand, 88,103–104

psychologicalanalogyforthe Trinityand,104–105,117,182 n.126,184n.12

relationalconceptofpersonhood and,96

subordinationoftheSpiritin,62, 90 SeealsoimagoDei

Barth,Karl,11,15,163

biblicalrootoftheTrinityas Lordship,11,79,182n.116

Barth,Karl(continued )

ChurchDogmatics,29–30,77

divinefreedomand,76–78,104

Godasabsolutesubjectand,88–89 modalismand,88–89

modelofrevelationand,32

monarchicalmonotheismand,70,103–104

re-birthoftheSpiritand,138

theologicalanthropologyand,103–104, 106

Bauckham,Richard,44,51,112

Berdyaev,Nikolai,72–73

biblical-narrativeapproachtotheTrinity, 12–13,155

Bloch,Ernst,17,34–36

Boethius,70,95

Bonhoeffer,Dietrich,13,17,51

Bru¨mmer,Vincent,4–5

Bultmann,Rudolph,31–32

Calvin,John,108,110,163

Camus,Albert,39,53

CappadocianFathers,70,108

Chalcedon,Councilof,53

Chopp,Rebecca,21,151

Christianlife,121–151(esp.137–144), 167

Christianmonotheism. See monarchical monotheism

christology,dialectical,26,29,37–38,55–58

christology,pneumatological,124–125

christology,social,125–130

Clericalmonotheism,140

Constantinople,Councilof,53

Creation consummationof,inChrist,129 divineloveand,74–75

pneumatologicalandmessianic theologyof,107–113

Spiritof(ruach),131 theologicalanthropologyand,113–119

astrinitarianact,83–85,87 criticalpraxiscorrelation,21

cross-event,65,126

asactofdivinesurrender,40–43,46–48,126,154

asopen-event,56,64

soteriologicalsignificanceof,40–43, 56,125–130

asstarting-pointforthedoctrineofthe Trinity,12–13,56,61

astrinitariandialecticoflove,43–50, 56–57,62,154–155

Seealso divinepassion;divine suffering

Cunningham,David,8,106–107,146, 148

deification,63,130 democraticsocialism,139 dialecticaltheology,17,23 divinefreedom

asfreechoicevs.freedomforthe good,76–77

andfreedomofcreation,8,73–75

asfriendship(fellowship),76–78

inrelationshiptohistory,50 divinelordship11,77,79 divinelove,30,36,153–159

cross-eventand,43–50

asdialecticofcrucifiedandcreative love,55–58,75,154

divinefreedomand,76–78

asecstaticself-communicationofthe good,72–78

as eros vs. agape,143–144 asfreedomfromsufferingvs.freedom forsuffering,54–55

andrelationshiptohumanloves,58, 141–144 and Shekinah,51–52

astrinitarianfellowship(koinonia),26, 155–157

trinitarianhistoryofGodand,25,64, 71

asunconditionalsufferingwiththe other,51

Seealso divinepassion;trinitarian fellowship

divinepassion,67,72–75,155–156

Seealso divinelove;divinesuffering; pathos,divine divinerule. See divinelordship; trinitarianfellowship

divinesuffering,40–50(esp.40–43),50–55,75

Seealso divinelove divineunity

eschatologicalconceptof,67,82,98 as perichoresis,97–99

socialconceptof,asunitedness,90 tritheismand,90,98

unionofGodwithcreation,67,82

volitionalvs.ontologicalreality,98 Dostoyevsky,Fyodor,39,53 doxologicaltheology,19–20

doxologicalTrinity,12–13,91–99 doxology,21–22,64

EasternOrthodoxtheology,12,63–64,89 ecclesiology,60–61

Seealso exoduschurch economicTrinity

relationshipofimmanentTrinityto, 46,65,71,91–92

ecstasis,73–74,155

Seealso divinelove epistemology,theological,44–45 eros,143–144

Seealso divinelove eschatology

conceptoffuturein,35–36,49 creationand,111–113

cross-eventand,48–49,64–65

divineunityand,67,98–99

freedomasfutureand,133 hopeand,31–37

natureandtaskoftheologyand,23–25,37

resurrection-eventand,33–34,56,63

Spiritofnewcreationand,62–67

trinitarianhistoryofGodand,64–67

Seealsoadventus; futurum;kingdomof God

exoduschurch,17

fellowship,trinitarian. See trinitarian fellowship fellowshipwithChrist,130 filioque debate,94–95 freedom,divine. See divinefreedom freedom,human. See humanfreedom friendship,140–144,146

Seealso divinefreedom;human freedom;trinitarianfellowship futurum,35–36,49

Seealsoadventus;eschatology

GermanIdealism,35,50,88–90

Gestalt,118

Geyer,Hans-Georg,53

Gogarten,Friedrich,31 Grace

analogyofrelationasgiftof,115,137, 160

criticismsofMoltmann’stheologyof, 8,136–137,160–161

asgiftoflife,134

sanctificationand,136

Seealso HolySpirit Grey,Mary,150

Horkheimer,Max,39

Harnack,Adolfvon,79

Hegel,G.W.F.,47,49–50,95–96

Seealso GermanIdealism

Heschel,Abraham,51–52

Hodgson,Leonard,3 HolySpirit

asbondoflove(vinculumcaritatis),47–48,56,61–62,89

consummationofcreationand,81,86–87

ascreativelove,47–48

EasternandWesternmodelsof,94 fellowshipwithhumanbeingsand, 62,131–132

giftsof,intheChristianlife,132–134 humanexperienceof,86,131,135–136

messianicdoctrineofcreationand,110–113

HolySpirit(continued )

inMoltmann’smaturetheology,86–87,95,108–109,148–150

asSpiritofcreation(ruach),108,131–132,148

asSpiritoflife,131–134,148

Seealso grace;pneumatology;re-birth intheSpirit humanfreedom

asfreedomforandwithanother person,162

asliberatingfaith,love,andhope,132–134

openfriendshipand,145–147

Seealso trinitarianfellowship

imagoChristi,26,124,136

humanbeing’smessianicdestinyas, 102,113–119,121–122,129–130,161

SeealsoimagoDei; imagoTrinitatis imagoDei

asanalogyofdomination,105

asanalogyofrelations,26,102,121

JesusChristasconsummationof,85, 129–130

asmessianic(eschatological)destiny, 102,114

Moltmann’smodelof,26,113–119,140–141,160–161

psychologicalanalogyfortheTrinity and,104–106

rationalsoulas,105,140

Seealso anthropology,theological; imagoChristi; imagoTrinitatis imagoTrinitatis

Augustine’spsychologicalanalogyand, 105

asmessianicdestiny,101–102,150–151, 160–161

Moltmann’ssocialmodelof,26,113–119,121,141,161

inpoliticalsphere,139

SeealsoimagoDei immanentTrinity

doxologicaltheologyandknowledgeof, 19–20

Moltmann’smodelof,8,15,91–99

relationshipofeconomicTrinityto,46, 65,71,91–92 incarnation,83,85–87

Iwand,HansJoachim,11

Jeanrond,Werner,8,146 JoachimofFiore,70 JohntheDamascene,97 Johnson,ElisabethA.,6 Ju¨ngel,Eberhard,53 justification,doctrineof,126–130,134–135

Ka¨semann,Ernst,11 Kasper,Walter,50 kenosis

creationandinwardactof,85–86 asdeliveringup,47 trinitarianmodelof,46–48,56,87, 126

Seealso divinepassion;divine suffering

Kilby,Karen,9,146,188n.47 King,MartinLuther,38 kingdomofGod,56,79,125,127 creationand,110–113

divineruleand,81–82,98 freedomin,68,138

natureandtaskoftheologyand,23–24,163–164

trinitarianfellowshipandthe,7,81, 156,162

Seealso eschatology koinonia. See trinitarianfellowship

LaCugna,CatherineMowry,5–6 Lash,Nicholas,3 love,divine. See divinelove love,human,143–146

Seealso divinelove;trinitarian fellowship Luria,Isaac,84 Luther,Martin,43,58

Marxist-Christiandialogue,39 MaximustheConfessor,143 McFague,Sallie,4–5,8,109–110

Meeks,Douglas,30

MessianicPraxisofTrinitarian Fellowship,137–151

Metz,Johann-Baptist,17

Miskotte,Hermannus,49–50,61 modalism,4,70,89,96,158

Moltmann-Wendel,Elisabeth,17 monarchialmonotheism

WesterndoctrineoftheTrinityand,6, 68,70,87–90,158,181n.110

Westerntheologicalanthropologyand, 102–107

monarchianism,monotheistic. See monarchialmonotheism

Mu¨ller-Fahrenholz,Geiko,137–138

narrativetheology,169n.46

naturaltheology,43–44

natureandtaskoftheology,20–22,23–25,163–164

as theologiaviaevs.theologiapatriae,37 Niebuhr,Reinhold,165–166n.6

oikonomia,14–15,45 openfriendship,142–143,145–146,162 Origen,70–72

panentheism,eschatological,64,159 panentheism,trinitarian,84,110 pantheism,84 pathos,divine,51,52,72

Seealso divinepassion; Shekinah perichoresis

divinelifeand,123,156

Moltmann’suseofterm,97–98,109–110,162–163,188n.47

relationshipofbodyandsoul,118

Spirit’sfellowshipwiththeworld,108–109,131

Seealso divineunity persons,divine,83,92–95,95–97 philia,44,146

philosophyofhope,Bloch’s,34–36 pilgrimageoflove,22,25–26,78 Placher,William,110

PlantingaPauw,Amy,147

pneumatology,trinitarian,xiii,60–62,65–66,86,107–110

Seealso HolySpirit politicalmonotheism,103

Seealso monarchialmonotheism politicaltheology,17 praxis,16–22,167n.18

Seealso Christianlife;Messianic PraxisofTrinitarianFellowship processphilosophy,35 protestatheism,6,39,53–55 publictheology,23

Rad,Gerhardvon,32–33

Rahner,Karl,4,46,70,88–91

re-birth(regeneration)intheSpirit,134–136

Seealso sanctification;HolySpirit relationalontology,8,96–97

resurrection-event,14,33–34,55–56,63, 127–129

asinseparablefromcross-event,33,38, 41–42,127

revelation,biblical,32–33,36–37,56

RichardofSt.Victor,70,95–96

Ricouer,Paul,22

Rolt,Richard,72

Rosenzweig,Franz,67

Sabbath,asfeastofcreation,111 salvation

asconsummationofcreation,129 asdeification,63–64,123,130 foundationof,inChrist,125–130 aspersonalrepresentation vs. penal sacrifice,127

Protestantorderof,134–137 trinitarianpatternof,26,122–137,142, 147

Seealso cross-event sanctification,136

Seealso grace

Schelling,Friedrich,44 Schleiermacher,Friedrich,15,70 scriptures,trinitarianhermeneuticsof,

xiii,11–13,59,69–70,157–158,191–192n.1

Seealso biblicalnarrativeapproachto theTrinity

Shekinah,51–52,67,72,84,108,125

Seealso divinelove sin,doctrineof,43,123–124,128,135, 148

critiqueofMoltmann’sdoctrineof,xiv, 147–151,163

socialtrinitariananalogyoffellowship, 10,101,113,118–119,121–122,159–164

Seealso analogyofrelations

Soteriology. See salvation

Staniloae,Dimitru,63

Tanner,Kathryn,110

Tertullian,88

theism,4–5,53–55,107,166n.14,177 n.108

theodicy,questionof,39,53–55

theologia,14–15,45

theologyafterAuschwitz,39,52

theologyofglory,44

theologyofhope,31–37

theologyofplay,18

theologyoftheCross,17–18,37–58,61, 68

theology,doxological,19,21

Torrance,Alan,8,109–110,136–137,149

transfiguration,86–87

trinitarianfellowship(koinonia) Christianlifeand,7,16,18,133,138–144,147

ascommunalattributeofFather,Son, andSpirit,81,97,158 anddivinelove,155–157,159 anddivinerule(kingdom),79–82,93, 158

asessenceofthetriuneGod,77–78, 99

andexperiencesoffriendshipandlove, 140–144

natureof,97–98,123,142,156–157

relationshipofGodandcreationas, 82,107,109

asruleoffaith,27,138,144–147,160–161

salvationasparticipationin,15,122–125 sinasdistortionof,149–151

asstructuringtheologicalprinciplein MessianicTheology,10,156

astheologicaldoctrineoffreedom,9 Seealso MessianicPraxisofTrinitarian Fellowship;socialtrinitariananalogy offellowship

trinitarianhistoryofGod,12,56,62,65–71,78,87,97–99

divineloveand,13

divinesovereigntyovercreationand, 49 eschatologicalgoalof,64,73 relationshiptoHegel’sconceptof,49–50

trinitarianpraxis,6,16–22

Seealso MessianicPraxisofTrinitarian Fellowship

Trinity Augustine’smodelof,48,61 biblicalrootof,11–13,69–70,77,79, 155

andtheChristianlife,6,10,147,162 christologicalrootforthedoctrineof, 78–82

christomonismand,4

contemporaryrevivalofdoctrine,5–10, 153–164

divineloveand,3–5

aseschatologicalprocess,48–49 formsofthe,12–13,69

modalismand,4,70,89,96,158

Moltmann’sdoctrineof,7,9,10,19, 21,22,68,78–82,87–99(esp.95–99)

aspoliticalanddoxologicaldoctrine, 16–22

practicalrelevanceofdoctrine,6–7, 48,146–147,161–162

soteriologicalapproachtothedoctrine, 6,13–16,46,50,57,61,65,154–155

Seealso cross-event;socialtrinitarian analogyoffellowship;trinitarian fellowship

Trinityintheglorification,62–67,85

Seealso trinitarianhistoryofGod

Trinityintheorigin,62,71

Seealso divinepassion

Trinityinthesending,62,64,66,69, 71,87

Seealso trinitarianhistoryofGod

tritheism,xii,90–91,98–99,158

Unamuno,Miguel,72–73

Volf,Miroslav,161

Weber,Otto,11,135 Welker,Michael,50 Williams,DanielDay,25 Wolf,Ernst,11

Zimmerli,Ernst,11,32 zimsumtheory,84–85