Women and the Trinity
I’ve been having a stimulating convo about the Trinity w/ a colleague from school and it’s only been getting deeper and better. Clement Wen is doing his Masters thesis on the theme / doctrine of deification which is not far from some thoughts I’ve been formulating on a theology of ascension. So we’re contemplating taking it to the next level and videoconferencing some thoughts especially pertaining to social implications of the Trinity. The latest development at this point in the convo is: implications of the Trinity for women. While a technical discussion ensues, our tokbox convo will likely be more down-to-earth. We’re still scheduling a time.
Here’s the most recent convo:
Hi Wayne,
I thought of another example of what it *might* look like to collapse the Economic into the Immanent Trinity. You don’t have to agree with this illustration. I don’t know if I do. But, it’s a potential example, so here goes:
On the issue of women in ministry…
From the side of the Immanent Trinity: because the three share one essence, and are thus egalitarian on that basis… women should be allowed to do ministry because the ultimate apologetic (Immanent Trinity) is the egalitarian God.
From the side of the Economic Trinity, however: even though the three share one essence, there is a certain way in which they relate to creation ~ the Father initiates, the Son inaugurates, the Spirit completes… what then does this mean for ministry if the Church is to image the Trinity? Doesn’t it mean that there is a certain order, a certain way in which ministry is to be done (even while acknowledging that all are egalitarian in essence)? On this basis, women can potentially be excluded from holding a ministry office.
So which Trinity do we image? Immanent or Economic?
That’s the question that critics believe Social Trinitarians need to answer (because they are unhappy that Social Trinitarians call us to image the Immanent rather than the Economic Trinity). They would say that the only thing we can possibly know about God is how He has revealed Himself to us economically (thus, He has not revealed Himself to us in terms of what He is like in His essence ~ and as such, we cannot image Him in an essential way).
Yeah, this critique raises a host of issues. Are poor people just poor because of the God’s economic creational order (pun intended!)? Or are white people just more superior because of God’s economic creational order? Obviously, utilizing the Economic Trinity as one’s apologetic for reality can lead (and has led!) to abuse. But does that mean that the Immanent Trinity should take its place? That’s what I haven’t thought enough about yet…
Clement
and my response:
I’m thinking that the economic doesn’t have to suggest an essential subordination of women – the tension is still there in that the immanent proposes egality while the economic proposes sequence(?). I’m not sure if that’s grounds for subordination (of women per se) and even if so it would conflict w/ the immanent…
I had some thoughts on this issue of women too… ordination issues aside, I think there is an even more basic “ascension” that needs to take place… i.e., the ascension of women into full humanness. What I mean by that is that the ontological status of women is relegated to sub-human status; to be is to be male, and this we see in the ascended (male) body of Christ and the gender prescribed to God the Father… (of which Provan states that God is above gender, a statement I’m still not sure what to do with let alone sign off on…) So in a sense, there is even a more base ascension that needs to take place for women, even before the vocational issues of ordination; women need an even prior initial ascension into humanness, something denied them for ages.
And your last paragraph re: economic creational / social order… that just goes to show why the economic / immanent dialectic is so important – subordination cannot be the obvious conclusion, and yet what do we make of the “sequencing” of God yet?
thoughtfully,
wayne
Tokbox below for the continued convo.
Like
so for my thesis, i’m writing a bit of comparison between east and west on the theme/doctrine of deification. in my first chapter, i wrote about how the east sees the hypostatic union as the “prototype” for mystical union. i also gave the eastern analogy of how a red-hot sword “perfectly” illustrates the hypostatic union because the cutting-edge of the sword and the heat from a fire are “hypostatically united” in the sword’s blade so there is union with distinction (the cutting edge cuts, the heat from the fire burns ~ thus, the natures are united in the blade, but not confused). luther used a similar analogy of red-hot “iron”; calvin didn’t like luther’s use of that analogy.
ross told me to delete the word “perfectly” when it came to the illustration (no explanation given). he probably won’t care too much that you used the analogy for pastoral call ~ but i wouldn’t be surprised if he wrote a gentle comment about it.
that said, my other adviser (from st. andrews) took issue with the east using the hypostatic union as the basis for mystical union. this is because, writing from a calvinist reformed perspective, she said: “There is only *one* hypostatic union.” … See More
hope that helps. -c
No; that makes sense and is quite interesting to me, particularly the deification bit; are you talking about the ascension of man (Christ) into the Godhead?
yes. but it of course depends on what you mean by “into the Godhead.” the eastern perspective always speaks of participation in God as being in His “energies,” and never in His “essence.” this is why the hypostatic union can play the role of prototype (as the hypostatic union is a demonstrative display of divine and human in “unconfused … See Moreperichoretic union” with each other). our participation in the energies is a union with God through Christ by way of synergistic participation made possible by the grace of the Spirit. thus, for the east, incarnation and ascension trump cross and resurrection in terms of importance. Also, the ascension is humanity, in Christ the High Priest, being brought before the Father in the heavenly realms. further, because the entire cosmos is united in humanity (who plays the role of microcosm and mediator of the cosmos to God), the ascension is basically the cosmos-in-humanity united to God through Christ, and brought before the Father in Christ. in terms of the particular thinker i’m studying (Maximus the Confessor), the Spirit plays a very vague role. but yeah, that’s pretty much what i would mean by ascension “into the Godhead” — it’s not pantheism. it’s a perichoretic union with God by way of participation in His energies so that the Creator-creature distinctions (as well as the creature-creature distinctions) are maintained.
whether the notion perichoresis should be applied to 1) the hypostatic union, 2) our relationship with God, is another story for another time.
I’ve heard Moltmann call this the “Open Trinity”. When you say “the eastern perspective always speaks of participation in God as being in His “energies,” and never in His “essence.” I assume you are speakign of mankind – but not of Christ, who participates in both essence and energies?
But on our behalf our personal eschatology entails … See Moreparticipation with God in his energies exclusively… thus maintaining creature / creator distinction… am I understanding correctly?
I’ve been writing a “Theology of Ascension” for some time now encompassing several classes with maybe the ambition to pursue further post-grad study on the matter. The basic premise is using the social model of the Trinity as an exemplar of “Being in relation” applied socially; i.e., downward mobility is only half the story. So I’m in pursuit of the dialectical model of downward mobility / upward empowerment as a better template of missional engagement as opposed to the unidirectional, and often condescending / patronizing model. It’s the tension of hypostasis in praxis that I am seeking.
what i think the east would say is that Christ’s humanity participates only in God’s energies (otherwise, his humanity would be of a different nature than ours! and as the patristic saying goes: “what is not assumed is not healed”). Christ’s divinity, however, is itself the imparticipable essence and the participable energies (which are the divine attributes like goodness, wisdom, immortality, etc.). the perichoretic communication of the attributes means that the two natures interpenetrate each other in Christ’s hypostasis – but do so without confusion, change, division or separation (as per Chalcedon). another way of saying this is that a distinction is made by the east between logos and tropos — logos being the a nature’s natural principle (which cannot be subject to change or innovation) and tropos being the mode by which that principle exists (person, hypostasis, etc.). Christ’s divine-human existence is thus according to his tropos, but not his two logoi.
this is mind, our personal eschatology is in Christ, the prototype of deified humanity. we participate in His participation, perhaps? at the same time, however, the substance of the energies is Christ Himself. As Maximus put it: “The Logos is the logoi and the logoi are the Logos,” but the Logos is not participated while the logoi are (logoi was the term Maximus used for energies; energies became the term after Palamas ~ that’s a very rough sketch of influence) – and the Logos, of course, is Christ (cf. John 1)
i would be very interested in whatever you come up with if you pursue your idea for post-grad work! i don’t know much about moltmann. the critique that the social trinity is getting hit with right now, which i think is actually a quite good critique, is whether social trinitarians collapse the economic trinity into the immanent trinity. any thoughts? what do you do with those who speak of the church’s role right now as being the lamb (i.e. kenosis, downward mobility, etc.), and that only later, the lion (upward and reigning)? in other words, what does “upward empowerment” look like?… See More… See More
on the topic of ascension, you might really like a new book that’s coming out in march by my adviser Julie Canlis (phd st. andrews, mcs regent). i got to read it in pre-published form. it’s really good!! check it out! http://www.amazon.com/Calvins-Ladder-Spiritual-Theology-Ascension/dp/080286449X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262818668&sr=8-1
that’s interesting (Cal’s Ladder). There’s not much lit on ascension and I’ve been working thru Douglas Farrow’s Ascension and Ecclesia. Maybe you have been too.
collapse of econ Trinity into immanent; how so? I am not aware of this critique and am not sure how the social trinitarians might be complicit in it.
As for the lamb-now/lion-later metaphor, as with all Trinitarian metaphors this one too falls short, no? Because it would assume a sort of modalism or some kind of (latter) essential transformation. I would hold that Christ always was, both lion and lamb. And if that were any indication of community, then we would need both downward kenosis along w/ upward reigning, simultaneously and completely – but what that looks like is a bigger paper…. See More
I’m thrilled that you’re studying this (esp @ St. Andrews – didn’t know you were in Scotland?) I’m ambitious about the subject but have a long way to go. But I think “ascension” is an important and notable ballast to what I think is an over-emphasis on incarnational theology, which can potentially be an act of (unconscious) hegemonic preservation. In the end I hope to compare notes with you.
hi wayne. i’m actually not at st. andrews (though i wish i was!
). i’m actually just working on my mcs thesis for regent. ross is my official adviser, and hans is my second reader (but i don’t really know him). because my thesis involves calvin, ross hooked me up with julie canlis from st. andrews. i know… it’s confusing. i’m confused a lot about it too. 
tracy finished her MA TESOL at wheaton in july, and we’ve been back to DC/MD/VA area since october. she’s working while i’m trying to write… i’ll be starting a youth min position at my home church in march.
i haven’t heard of douglas farrow’s book. i’ll have to check that out when this project is over at the end of this month. thanks for the suggestion!
ok… so the collapse of the economic into the immanent trinity… the critics basically don’t agree with the notion that the Church (and other aspects of the reality in which we live on this side of heaven) images the Trinity (i.e. Volf and friends). i think the best way for me to explain this is to take the missional church movement as an example. the critics might say that proclaiming mission as an “attribute of God,” and therefore, as a prescriptive “attribute of the Church” on the basis of the idea that the Church should image the Triune God, means that we are attributing something to God’s essence (in this case, mission) something that is of His economy (the eternal sending “missions” of Son and Spirit). i don’t really have space to get into it further here in a comment, but i first read this critique in “Trinitarian Theology for the Church: Scripture, Community, Worship,” eds. Daniel Trier, David Lauber. there are two articles in the book, one which supports social trinitarianism (john franke), and one that attempts to refute it (mark husbands), and one that agrees with husbands (keith johnson). have a look if you get a chance. they explain it better than i do: http://www.amazon.com/Trinitarian-Theology-Church-Scripture-Community/dp/0830828958/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262840629&sr=8-1...
as for the lion/lamb distinction, i actually first heard that from darrell in the empowering the church course. that’s interesting that you link it to modalism. i usually only associate modalism with the trinity. when you say that Christ was always both lion and lamb, do you mean before the Incarnation, after the Incarnation or both before and after?
proper incarnational christology wouldn’t agree with an essential transformation either… they would say that the eternally pre-existent hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a full human nature at the Incarnation (as if His hypostasis, which originally only “contained” His divine nature, added a full human nature to it). as such, there’s no change in essence. the lion takes into himself the nature of a lamb in an unconfused union of natures… the very assumption, however, is the act of kenosis… and perhaps the cross is the ultimate outworking of it?
interesting thoughts man… i’ll have to think about whether i agree with you that incarnational theology is over-emphasized these days (it’s certainly true that in our circles, pneumatology is de-emphasized! perhaps an over-emphasis on incarnational can be blamed for that?)… but yeah, if you’ve written anything about the downward/upward simultaneity… I’d love to read it! all i usually am exposed to these days is downward, downward, downward… self-denial, self-denial, self-denial… and that we *will* reign with Christ when He returns… curious as to what it means to move downward as well as upward at the same time… and i’m curious if you make a distinction between upward “empowerment” and upward “reigning”… it sounds to me as if upward “empowerment” means that we empower others… but if that’s the case, then that seems to be more consistent with kenosis than it does with reigning… …
i won’t be too far from you pretty soon here. We relocate to NY this summer and Ash’s family is from NOVA so we’ll be coming down your way quite often – in which case we def need to hook up.
This discussion is important for me as I hope to pursue the Ascension idea and will be doing a small teaching on Econ/Essential Trinity for a mission class. I… See More probly represent the social trinitarian perspective. Ah. At least I’m in good company (Volf and friends).
I’ll email you my latest version of the paper. read it only if you’ve the time and would love your input. And when we hook up in MD I’ll buy you lunch, friend…
actually, i’m in nova these days (fairfax).
and yeah, you definitely are in good company. ross is a social trinitarian too. too bad you weren’t able to take his trinitarian theology seminar ~ that class changed my life! (volf’s “after our likeness” was one of the textbooks.) since then, though, i’ve been meaning to ask him about the … See Morecritiques i’ve been reading… but haven’t had time yet. he’s actually working on a book for IVP called “missional church, missional god” or something like that…
but yeah, let’s definitely hook up! speaking of getting together… are you thinking about going down to austin for the verge conference in february? if so, we can hang out there… i’m staying with paul.
thanks for sending me your paper. i’ll try read it during one of my writing breaks (t-minus 22 days to thesis deadline if i want to graduate this year! ack!!!).
Hi Wayne,
I thought of another example of what it *might* look like to collapse the Economic into the Immanent Trinity. You don’t have to agree with this illustration. I don’t know if I do. But, it’s a potential example, so here goes:
On the issue of women in ministry…
From the side of the Immanent Trinity: because the three share one essence, and are thus egalitarian on that basis… women should be allowed to do ministry because the ultimate apologetic (Immanent Trinity) is the egalitarian God.
From the side of the Economic Trinity, however: even though the three share one essence, there is a certain way in which they relate to creation ~ the Father initiates, the Son inaugurates, the Spirit completes… what then does this mean for ministry if the Church is to image the Trinity? Doesn’t it mean that there is a certain order, a certain way in which ministry is to be done (even while acknowledging that all are egalitarian in essence)? On this basis, women can potentially be excluded from holding a ministry office.
So which Trinity do we image? Immanent or Economic?
That’s the question that critics believe Social Trinitarians need to answer (because they are unhappy that Social Trinitarians call us to image the Immanent rather than the Economic Trinity). They would say that the only thing we can possibly know about God is how He has revealed Himself to us economically (thus, He has not revealed Himself to us in terms of what He is like in His essence ~ and as such, we cannot image Him in an essential way).
Yeah, this critique raises a host of issues. Are poor people just poor because of the God’s economic creational order (pun intended!)? Or are white people just more superior because of God’s economic creational order? Obviously, utilizing the Economic Trinity as one’s apologetic for reality can lead (and has led!) to abuse. But does that mean that the Immanent Trinity should take its place? That’s what I haven’t thought enough about yet…
Clement
I’m thinking that the economic doesn’t have to suggest an essential subordination of women – the tension is still there in that the immanent proposes egality while the economic proposes sequence(?). I’m not sure if that’s grounds for subordination (of women per se) and even if so it would conflict w/ the immanent…
I had some thoughts on this issue of women too… ordination issues aside, I think there is an even more basic “ascension” that needs to take place… i.e., the ascension of women into full humanness. What I mean by that is that the ontological status of women is relegated to sub-human status; to be is to be male, and this we see in the ascended (male) body of Christ and the gender prescribed to God the Father… (of which Provan states that God is above gender, a statement I’m still not sure what to do with let alone sign off on…) So in a sense, there is even a more base ascension that needs to take place for women, even before the vocational issues of ordination; women need an even prior initial ascension into humanness, something denied them for ages.
And your last paragraph re: economic creational / social order… that just goes to show why the economic / immanent dialectic is so important – subordination cannot be the obvious conclusion, and yet what do we make of the “sequencing” of God yet?
thoughtfully,
wayne
Hi Wayne,
I think I’m starting to understand what you mean by “ascension.” It’s a very interesting definition! Tracy and I often wonder what to do if we are the ones who are not in a position to be kenotic. Do we turn to liberation theology? Do we demand our “rights”? Do we have patience and persevere through hardship with the prayerful, albeit sentimental, thought and attitude that God is in control and will one day vindicate us?
It seems that kenotic theology only applies to those who have the power to lay their power down (and you’ve pinpointed this very well!). What of those who don’t? What does a spirituality of ascension look like if you’re not one who is in the position of being kenotic?
Particularly, does such ascension require someone else to be actively kenotic? If not, then does it require someone else to at least be “passively” kenotic (in other words, is someone else’s unchosen kenosis a consequence of one’s ascension)?
Interesting reframing of “God’s economic order of relating to creation” as “God’s economic sequencing” … there’s potential to this term! You’ve also made me think about Immanent and Economic a bit more… namely, anything that God reveals to us economically ought not contradict His essential nature… thus, the little that we do know about the Immanent always needs to provide a check and balance to our conceptions of the Economic… not sure if we’re allowed to say vice-versa on that one… but that’s the very tension we’re dealing with, is it not?
Good thoughts Wayne! Looking foward to talking with you more about this sometime in the next couple weeks…
Clement
Oh, one more thing. If I remember correctly, the critics of the Social Trinity don’t believe we should be imaging the Trinity at all (Immanent or Economic)! Rather, they believe Scripture calls us to image *Christ*. (e.g. Mark Husbands’ essay was entitled: “The Trinity is *not* our social program”).
So then, of course, the question becomes: Which Christ do we image at this stage of the story? The condescending or the ascending? And as you know, most would answer: the condescending.
Just food for thought. -c
Imaging Christ – isn’t that, in a sense, imaging the Trinity? I think of the Trinitarian formulations stemming from Christological heresy; that is to say, our apophatic approach comes from what Christ is not…
I would have the same conclusions – then what part of Christ do we image, his divinity or his humanity, and that brings us back to the social metaphor… and for certain I agree; that most would only image the downward condescending aspect, missing the ascension entirely.
Hi Wayne, thanks for commenting back. Just so I’m tracking you correctly, are you correlating condescension with Christ’s humanity, and ascension with Christ’s divinity?
yes; by ascension I do mean the divinity of Christ.. more specifically, the ascension of his body, his soma, into the Godhead.
The elevation of his body suggests two important questions in my mind that I am not entirely sure of:
1. Did Christ eternally have a human body, even before the human birth? I.e., was he eternally human? (even before “incarnation”)
2. While on earth, was Christ in any way separated from the Trinitarian Godhead? Instinct tells me “no”, because of the perichoretic nature of the Trinity; then what actually does ascension entail? I guess that last question is the most pressing for me, both theoretically and in praxis; because I understand ascension to mean the incorporating of Christ’s human ontological being into the Godhead – participating in the Godhead, perhaps not mixing essence, but a mutual participation in energies, as you have suggested… Nonetheless, man (in all of our creatureliness) be among God now, and that is terribly compelling for me with implications manifold…
Hi Wayne. Thanks for clarifying. I wanted to make sure I was tracking your thoughts correctly before I responded. Here goes:
1. I would have trouble equating imaging Christ with imaging the Trinity. I would have trouble with this precisely because of the Trinitarian clarifications that resulted from the Christological controversies, namely: that the Second Person of the Trinity truly is equiprimal with the Father and the Spirit (thus, the three are one in essence), yet at the same time is *distinct* from the Father and the Spirit by way of hypostasis. When the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature into His already eternally pre-existing hypostasis, the other two members of the Trinity did not assume humanity into their respective hypostases. Thus, to image Christ seems to me to be of a different, though not unrelated, category than imaging the Trinity. This view of “enhypostasis” is what is commonly maintained in the East as well as in the West.
2. As a sidenote, what this means is that I do not believe that the Second Person of the Trinity was eternally both divine and human. I believe that He only assumed a human nature at the event of the Incarnation. This does, however, raise the question of how Adam imaged God in the Garden of Eden. Some have answered that he imaged God the *Father* only. A few have answered that he imaged Christ’s (coming) humanity. One of Calvin’s opponents, Andreas Osiander, even went so far as to say that Adam imaged Christ in both soul *and* body ~ and he was blasted for that by Calvin, who believed that the image was spiritual and not physical (the chief seat of the divine image in humanity, for Calvin, was the human soul).
3. The other question this raises is whether or not Christ will be divested of His humanity in the eschaton after humanity and the cosmos have been glorified in Him. On this, I have no opinions.
4. I don’t see the ascension as being the ascension of Christ’s divinity (for God need not ascend to Himself). I see the ascension as being of Christ’s *humanity*, the significance of which is that *we* humans are ascended to God *in Christ*.
5. As such, I don’t see humanity as joining God in an ontological way (for that is *precisely* the mixing of essences), but as participating in *Christ’s relationship* to the rest of the Godhead. In other words, from beginning to end, our participation in God is *in Christ*. I should add, perhaps, that it is *in Christ* by the *Spirit*. That’s how the Trinitarian Economy works: Father -> Son -> Spirit … Spirit -> Son -> Father. For example: Our prayers are a participation by the Spirit in the prayer(s) of Christ to the Father. Another example: The reason why we can be called children of God is because we participate, by the Spirit who unites us to Christ, in Christ’s sonship.
6. Just to clarify: I’m not actually sure if I believe in the essence/energies distinction that those in the East make. However, even if I were to subscribe to it… for Maximus, anyway, participation in the energies is a participation in the person of Christ.
7. I think you’re really going to enjoy reading my thesis when it’s done.
Hope these thoughts (whether you agree with them or not) further yours.
Blessings,
Clement
In #5 above, a better way to phrase the last sentence is: “The reason why we can be called children of God is because we participate in Christ’s own sonship by way of the Spirit who unites us to Christ.
I’ve imported all our back convo on this subject from facebook and email exchanges so we can have it in one place and use it as a helpful resource (I know I will!)
get back to you on the last comments which are interesting…
I’m looking forward to reading your thesis Clement. It has already helped mine…
Agreed on the ontological distinction; God and man are not “mixable” but the participatory impulse is breathtaking nonetheless;
ditto on imaging Christ / vs imaging the Trinity…
Glad to hear! I look forward to reading your thesis too! You’ve got some really great ideas that *definitely* deserve fuller treatment!
Not sure when you want to do tokbox, but if we aren’t able to get to it before your perspectives talk (due to our busy schedules), feel free to send me the outline via email if you still want me to have a look at it. -c
OK; will do