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

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…

get back to you on the last comments which are interesting…

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

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…

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.

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

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

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

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

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!!!).