## The Trinity and creation

The Trinity embodies the uniqueness of the Christian faith. One must wonder whether or not periods of renewed faith can be correlated with renewed interest in the deep mystery of the Triune God. In the modern era, this interest in the Christian Trinity may also be investigated in light of its relevance to prevalent existential, phenomenological, sociological, humanistic concerns and the like. At the same time, a modern Einsteinian cosmology and Darwinian biological teleology reasserts the relevance of metaphysical philosophy while in tandem utterly reframing the work and potential pertinance of Triune God of Jesus of Nazareth. In light the ascendancy of natural science in the contemporary era, it could be argued that among a variety of subject areas in need of import from Trinitarian thought, none is more relevant that a deeper investigation into the relationship between God as relational, threefold Trinity and the phenomenon of creation— that is, both the natural world and our existence within it.

## Creation in Augustine and Aquinas

This analysis will first seek to investigate some key concepts in Trinitarian thought through unpacking its history on the subject of creation, and then propose some conclusions based on the contemporary work of theologians Karl Rahner and Denis Edwards with an eye toward potential conceptual challenges inherent to this line of thinking. Ultimately, the acknowledge that creation is integral to the self-definition of God as Trinity reframes subjects of Christian theology proper in a fruitful way, it should be acknowledged approched and unpacked: first, for practice as a faith community and for spiritual practice at large in its ultimate relationship to Christ, and second, for theory in that, despite the traditional challenges that may be raised to this line of thought, it opens up the possibility for more compelling conceptual framework that reverently dialogues with the deep mysteries of God. Historically, the method of integration (or more accurately, non-integration) of the Trinity and creation can be contextualized by cosmological, ontological and soteriological motivations.[^1] In this line of thought are Western fathers like Augustine and Aquinas. Whether or not they can be said to directly followed an Aristotelian cosmology, the fixed, Ptolemaic universe may have help to frame a more mechanistic formulation for understanding the relationship of God and creation. Augustine defended the immutability of God by clearly differentiating between God's nature and his willful act of creation. In line with other Church fathers such as Athanisius and the Cappadocians "Augustine articulates the late Nicene emphasis on God's distinction from creation through a strong emphasis on divine immateriality."[^2] For Augustine, the penetrating immanence of temporality throughout creation in an important premise. Temporality, for Augustine, implies mutability.[^3] Likewise, along with Origen, it is possible that Neoplatonic influences inspired a low view materiality and gave nonmateriality (i.e. immateriality) a higher value.[^4] Hence, it is vital for Augustine to delimit God's immutable, immaterial, eternality from creation's mutable, material, temporality.

Aquinas develops this further into Trinitarian light by defining the process of creation as one that is the work *ad extra* of an undivided, undifferentiated Trinity. Aquinas does explicate the unique involvment of each individual person which is appropriated in a given act of creation,[^5] however, despite Aquinas' particularly nuanced (and sometimes undervalued) understanding of the role of the Trinity in creation, every act is distinctively an act of the unified Trinity.[^6] Following this, in both patristic examples, the relationship between God and creation is fundamentally *unifold* rather than *threefold*. It is not "Trinitarian." In other words, creation is not integral to the self-definition of God specifically in his Trinitarianness.[^7] In Western thought following Augustine and Aquinas there exists an abstract, logical, causal relation[^8] between God as Trinity and God's uniform act of creation rather than a dynamic, tripartite, personal relation between God as Trinity and creation.[^9] Those who nowadays prefer Thomistic lines of thought such as Paul Molnar and Daniel Miller, attempt to reify traditional causal relations that push back against more contemporary work influenced by trends in liberation theology, process theology, modern physics and the like which theorize deeper forms of integration and threaten unorthodox views (i.e. for Molnar and Miller) of God's mutability and freedom of will. Clearly, these challenges faced even by Augustine and Aquinas, have perennial import for each subsequent generation of Trinitarian thought.

## Bonaventure, Rahner, and Edwards

Following this brief consideration Augustine and Aquinas, there lies a parallel vein within Western thought that suggests a more integrated relationship between God as Trinity and creation. This originates most cogently in the mystical strains of Late Medieval theology such as Bonaventure, and then again in 19th-20th century theology with thinkers like Karl Rahner and Denis Edwards.

Bonaventure begins his Trinitarian theology with premises that appear already simpathetic to a tacit belief in the deep inter-relationality of Trinity and creation. He appropriates and reframes the doctrine of divine simplicity as a nature which in its simplicity is inherently communicable.[^10] Self-communication is therefore an intrinsic quality of the divine essence. Bonaventure likewise pulls from the early Medieval, Eastern theologian Pseudo-Dionysius to postulate about the relation of goodness and love to the nature of God. *Bonum diffusivum sui* —because goodness is self-diffusive by nature it is freely distributed to others in relationship and therefore, is intrinsically creative in form.[^11] Likewise, supreme love exists in mutuality between the Father and Son which is manifested via self-communication in the form of the Spirit.[^12] For Bonaventure, these premises—first—undergird the *metaphysical* basis for the emanation of the Son and Spirit from the Father in his primacy and inascibility.[^13] And second—following Franscican tradition—it ties the foundations for the creation of the universe intimately with the manifestation of the Logos and the Spirit. As Hunt writes, "the self-expressiveness of God *ad extra* reflects the self-expressiveness of God *ad intra*."[^14] Bonaventure's fundamentally Trinitarian theology represents the beginnings of a truly Trinitarian theology of creation by positing a compelling metaphysical bases for the existance of God in his unified threefoldness that neatly correlates to the reasons for and existance of creation.

Rahner's seminal work on the Trinity has introduced an axiom to trinitarian theology that is, at least, a penetrating heuristic and, at most, profoundly paradigm shifting: "the 'economic' Trinity is the 'immanent' Trinity and the 'immanent' Trinity is the 'economic' Trinity."[^15] The question concerning the depth and verity of such an axiom has been asked fittingly already: *is this analogy or correlation of mysteries?*[^16] For the purposes of this analysis, the question could be recast: does Rahner's axiom, taken literally, have implications for the constructive integration of the Trinity and creation? Denis Edwards is one contemporary scholar who does not shy away from developing Rahner's axiom as a thoughtful approach toward correlating the mystery of God as Trinity and the origins and operations of creation. Building on Bonaventure's mystical approach, Edwards develops a Trinitarian theology that frames Christology and pneumatology in terms of their relation to both God as Trinity and creation. In so doing, he deeply integrates the reality of creation to the distinct realities of the Persons of the Trinity. There is no "buffer" between the God and creation. Rather, creatures share through the Word in the Spirit with immediacy before God—there is no intermediary despite the Creator's radical otherness.[^17] Edwards calls the Holy Spirit the "immanent energy of Love."[^18] Like Bonaventure, the perichoretic dynamism of the Trinity *ad intra* (*circumincession* for Bonaventure) is innately linked to the dynamic Trinitarian inter-relationality with and within creation and each creature: "The Spirit is the ecstatic gift of divine communion with creatures, whereby each creature exists, and whereby each creature is caught up with the dynamism of the trinitarian *perichoresis*."[^19] Conversely, the risen Christ as the self-communicated Word of God (the Logos) is divine attractor in evolutionary emergence.[^20] Edwards and Rahner both appeal to advances in evolutionary and natural science by linking the redemptive work of Christ to intrinsic processes of developmental progress in creation. For Edwards, this is Christ as "strange attractor" in the unfolding of evolutionary emergence which correlates with Rahner's process of "active self-transcendence."[^21] This relationship is integral to the ongoing creative relationship between the Trinity *ad intra* and the Trinity *ad extra*:

The Holy Spirit can be understood as the dynamic life-giving presence of God to the whole process of the emergence of a universe, uniting it, and every part of it, to the Word in the relationship of continuous creation. It is this relationship that enables the existence of entities and their becoming. Without this relationship there is no existence and no emergence. The relationship with the Spirit enables both.[^22]

Following Bonaventure, Rahner and Edwards do the theological spadework for a nuanced and compelling Trinitarian theology, Christology and ecology that interconnect and posit the possibility for a God who is constituted by His temporal relations with the world and a creation that is integral to the self-definition of God as Trinity.

## Implications for Trinitarian theology

From these premises, we (both in this analysis and as a theological enterprise as a whole) can begin to unpack the implications of a deeper relation between God as Trinity and His creative work. The rest of this analysis will focus on a few choice conclusions concerning the way in which creation can be understood as integral to the self-definition of God as Trinity within a variety of theological subjects, and the way in which these conclusions are not only fruitful, but fecund conceptually and point toward a path forward in genuine Trinitarian theology.

First and foremost, reconsideration of the relationship between God as Trinity and creation fundamentally reframes our understanding of the incarnate and resurrected Christ. It seem in circumventing the reality that the incarnation emphasizes the significance of the collision and union of eternality and temporality in consideration of the nature of God. This is somewhat of a departure from the Augustian and Thomistic model which tended to place a duality between material and immaterial, temporality and eternality.[^23] Rather than resorting to dualistic understanding of the hypostatic union, seeing Christ as a unified expression of God in his threefoldness sets the stage for a renewed Christocentric anthropology and furthermore, a Christocentric ontology/ metaphysics—this for both Trinity *and* creation. Second, in so doing, we must reconsider our soteriology and eschatology: salvation and creation cannot be seen divorced from one another. Creation and redemption exist in continuity. This has profound effects on our personal understanding of the life of faith, and (in our contemporary situation) may help to avoid the insidious threat of gnosticism which is intrinsic to the material-immaterial dualism prevalent in Western thought. This likewise brings theology into conversation with modern naturalism and the physical sciences rather than being in opposition to a 21st century cosmology. If the Son is the Logos of the father, and is drawing all of creation into himself (i.e. creation is being made into his image) than one could suggest that creation is intended to exist in the same relationship to the Father as the Son is in relationship to the Father. This understanding is consistent with the scriptural witness and lends itself to a cohesive understanding of the canon: the apotheosis theology of Paul in union with the Johannine Logos theology.[^24]

Lastly, these academic disciplines that were traditionally limited to theology are reconciled with more modern existential and phenomenological concerns (among their relationship to the naturalistic disciplines of psychology and sociology) by opening the discussion to relevant ontological and relational implications of Trinitarianism (and Trinitarian Christology in particular). We see this departure from an Aristotelian framework for substance as far back as Bonaventure who diverts from traditional ontological considerations and redefines essence as relational in light of the metaphysical reality of the Triune God.[^25] While Rahner is apprehensive to fully embrace this speculative premise, theologians like Edwards and Christophe Schwöbel have sought not only to wrestle with it in the context of Trinitarian ontology, but extrapolate from it to its moral, anthropological and sociological implications.[^26] Edwards, for example, writes: The church is called to be a communion which lives from and represents the trinitarian communion. It is to be "a sign and instrument... of communion with God and of unity among all people." This commits the church to effective witness in word and deed to the work of justice and peace. This theology of God calls the church to a prophetic critique of sexism, racism and all forms of domination and servility in social and political life.[^27]

For Schwöbel, all of the categories discussed—incarnation, resurrection, soteriology, eschatology, ontology and relationality—come to head with a properly Christocentric Trinitarian theology especially as interfaces with the theoretical consideration of the mode integration between creation and the Triune God. Within the goals of this analysis, its relevance lies with the implication that the penetrating reality of incarnation has for our understanding of the integral nature of creation to the threefold Being of God: our being-in-relation to Christ and vice versa, fundamentally grounds us, as humans, in the dynamic life of the Trinity (both the economic and the immanent) and therefore reshapes our bases for subjects like morality and ecology by the light of the mutually loving self-communicative Goodness that is the Threefold relationality of God.

In conclusion, as noted previously, these conclusions are not without obstacles and potentially problematic implications. Part of a fruitful and honest path forward is addressing these conflicts. However, in light of the work of those such as Edwards and Rahner, much of the resistance appears within the context of the perennial paradoxes of theology without giving heed to the way in which this Trinitarian ecotheology may be equipped to overcome problems by presenting a fresh context in which to approach and embrace them in the midst of the deep mystery of God. Hunt writes, "Edwards [...] is more concerned for felt meaning and existential relevance in the mediation of the Christian faith; he is not primarily concerned with cognitive meaning and its logical and theoretical refinements."[^28] I might be willing to concede that Edwards fails to carry his Trintarian formulations to their furthest conceptual and philosophical conclusions. However, this does not mean that considering the Trinity from the vantage point of its existential relevance makes it any less veracious or fruitful for "logical or theoretical refinements." On the contrary, it may be "existential relevance" (in this area among any other) that indicates the crucial need for deeper "logical and theoretical refinement." Particularly if we are willing to acknowledge the profundity of those 20th century thinkers like Paul Tillich who place particular concern on the social import of the theological enterprise in a given time and space.

A more comprehensive development of the integral nature of creation to the being of the Triune God, should lead us *into* the difficult theoretical implications of this line of thought rather than avoid them. Creation *is* integral to self-definition of God as Trinity—nuanced approaches to the reality of these relations bear particular fruitfulness and fecundity in a wide variety of theological disciplines especially as they are capable of reframing questions of theodicy, pen(en)theism, and the mysteries of God in general. Despite the ability to address more modern existential and phenomenological concerns, it is particularly telling that these lines of thought are not modern inventions, but can be traced back through Rahner and Edwards, to Bonaventure and as early as Psuedo-Dionysius. If it is at all possible that renewing Trinitarian thought along these lines could benefit the deep divisions in the church, and reinvigorate conversation between theology and philosophy—the religious and secular respectively—then the reasons for its deeper unpacking and explication are poignantly evident.

[^1]: It is, in a sense, soteriological (or possibly harmartiological) because early explanations of theodicy and the origin of the relationship between "sin" and good/evil are in close theoretical proximity to the soteriological relationship between the immaterial and material and furthermore, the dualistic relationship respectively between God and creation.

[^2]: Barnes, 79; cf. Hunt, 98; In spite of this essential agreement on the distinction between God and creation in the late Nicene fathers, it could be argued Athanasius and the Cappadocians may have developed more nuanced frameworks to allow for a more developed mystical integration.

[^3]: Hunt, 98. This is one reason for his expression *non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum tempore*. cf. Letham, 430: Colin Gunton advocates a similar Augustinian understanding of creation as an act of sovereignty, beginning in space and time, not eternal or infinte. "A trinitarian theology of creation enables the universe to be closely related to God, but free to itself." We see here, and will unpack later, the significance placed on maintaining "freedom of will" (both on behalf of God and Creation in some instances) by inserting a type of logical causality between God and His act of creation.

[^4]: Letham, 430f. Here Letham summarizes the British, reformed, systematic Colin Gunton's interpretation of Western tradition (specifically patristic tradition) of interpreting the connection between God (i.e. Trinity) and creation. Much of his patristic interpretation is in line with that of Phan, Hunt and LaCugna. Gunton co-founded the Research Institute of Systematic Theology with fellow reformed, systematic Christophe Schwöbel in 1988.

[^5]: Hunt, 99f

[^6]: Hunt, 98

[^7]: Denis Edwards, *Jesus the Wisdom of God: An Ecological Theology* (New York: Maryknoll, 1995), 118. Edwards supports this reading of Augustine, its relation to the Thomistic line of thought and the Western tradition in general: "The Augustinian teaching that 'the Trinity's acts *ad extra* are one,' has led to the common theological position that since creation is an action of the essence of God, there is no proper role for each Person. It has been the traditional view that when we attribute a particular role in creation to one of the Persons, we do so only by 'appropriation.' This means that we attribute to one Person what really applies to all three."

[^8]: This reoccuring Thomistic explanation for the relationship I qualify as abstract in the sense that (for us) it happens once outside of reality and therefore can't be grounded in the same actuality of the typical phenomenon/subject of theological investigation and is at; logical in the sense that it's necessary cause is grounded in an act of God's rational agency (although there may exist correlation, I don't inted this to be understood in context of the Rahnerian explanation of logical v. ontological eplanation: cf. *The Trinity,* 52-55); and finally, causal in a quasiAristotelian sense: God as the agent is a pseudo-necessary cause of creation—that is, only God can be the cause, but he does not have to be the cause. Typically, we this notion carries a more developed concept than Aristotle's first mover because of the personal and Trinitarian nature of God. However, it is still related in a philosophical sense.

[^9]: Letham, 433. Explicating Colin Gunton, Letham notes the significance of "the emergence of Aristotelian influences in medieval times." While accurate in a sense, it doesn't account for the type of "logical causality" evinced in earlier patristics.

[^10]: Osbourne, 115, 117.

[^11]: Hunt, 105.

[^12]: Osbourne, 114. He argues Bonaventure did not derive Dionysian inspiration from Richard, because Richard was "radically Augustinian" in his reliance on the analogy of the mind which frames his understanding of love in contrast to Bonaventures. cf. 118.

[^13]: Osbourne, 113; cf. 116 for discussion of *paternitas*.

[^14]: Hunt, 106; cf. Osbourne, 122.

[^15]: Rahner, 22.

[^16]: Ilia Delio, "Introduction: Outline" (in-class notes, Villanova University, 2017).

[^17]: Edwards, (2013), 130f. Cf. Edwards, (2014), 33-36: Edwards bases this also on the Trinitarian theology of Athanasius.

[^18]: Edwards, (2013), 133ff. Cf. Edwards (2014), 76-80; Edwards (2006), 27-45.

[^19]: Edwards, *God of Evolution*, 88; qtd. in Hunt, 110

[^20]: Edwards, (2013), 134ff. Cf. Edwards (2014), 80-87; Edwards (2006), 82-92. In *Jesus the Wisdom of God: An Ecological Theology.* (New York: Maryknoll, 1995) Edwards develops his Logos Christology (leading to his Trinitarian theology) most comprehensively.

[^21]: Edwards, (2013), 134.

[^22]: Edwards, (2013), 134.

[^23]: Cf. Letham, 433. This is not to suggest the Fathers did not hold a deep reverence for the Paschal mystery manifest in the incarnation.

[^24]: And theoretically, the Israelite sociology with the pastoral anthropology of Peter.

[^25]: Osbourne, 119.

[^26]: Rahner, 68ff; Edwards, (1995) 112-123: Here, Edwards' six theses on the Trinitarian God rely heavily on the reality of "persons-in-mutual-relation;" cf. Christoph Schwöbel, "Christ for Us— Yesterday and Today: A Response to 'The Person of Christ," in *The Person of Christ*, ed. Stephen R. Holmes and Murray A. Rae (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 185ff.

[^27]: Edwards, (1995), 118.

[^28]: Hunt, 98.