The Third Person: A Critique of Trinitarian Systems and Cosmological Footings through the Binitarian Pneumatology of the Early Church
We began by asking this question: what function does a distinct person (and/or, theoretically, the essential unity of God) serve in the existence of the cosmos? Originally, it was intended to underscore a basic conceptual premise—that God, or a distinct Person of God can carry out a cosmological role or function. But having traced one particular thread through the cosmological function of the Third Person vis-à-vis the mindset of early Christian binitarian thought, we approach the horizon of a much broader subject concerning the interface between cosmology and Trinitarian theology.
Cosmology and Trinitarian theology are, by their very nature as disciplines, co-implicative. Without rehashing millennia of literature, it is hopefully evidenced by the problems presented above and the iterative nature many consequent works that there exists a perennial holding pattern circling this central tension. We have explored this through a critique of Trinitarian systems and an analysis of an underlying irreconcilability which comes to a head in the definition and consideration of the Third Person of the Trinity. This is, in part, because the cosmological function of the Third Person undergirds its original emergence and subsequent definition through the thought and experience of the Church. It seems safe to assume that the sustainable growth of Trinitarian pneumatology will attempt to decipher this essential tension. In so doing, one would expect that work along these lines, would provide potential in roads to a more developed Trinitarian understanding of the God-world relationship.
But a note of caution should be made: the suggestion that humanity can unequivocally, and univocally identify a precise "causal joint" within the physical sciences is an ambitious undertaking.27 The purpose of a project such as this one, is not to imply that the discovery of "link" within the physical sciences is necessary to develop more comprehensive theological cosmologies. But rather, that more nuanced cosmology and theology is necessary to promote thinking which fruitfully recasts the Christian vision in the world. The immensity of this task is not to be taken lightly. Not only are we forced to wrestle with millennia of Trinitarian speculation which appears to have silted layer upon layers of complexity, but we are faced now with a new paradigm shifting cosmological outlook developing within modern physics. As Wolfgang Vondey has lamented:
Despite the echoes of these scientific revolutions in modern theology, however, the most recent paradigm shift caused by the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einstein's theory of Relativity in the 20th century is hardly visible in theological reflection.28
We can hope, however, that an increasingly renewed interest in Einsteinian cosmology may serve to empower a groundswell that will overcome this cosmological stalemate. Particularly, because the reframing of matter and energy within an Einsteinian cosmology has, in part, led to a more poignant emphasis on non-dualistic thought.29 It is outside the scope of this analysis to propose a thoroughly developed pneumatology that would address the conflicts exhibited here.30 It is worth, however, making some orienting remarks regarding the contours between the Einsteinian cosmological revolution, and the pneumatological critique of Trinitarian systematics in this analysis.
In order to be faithful to both the religion of the apostolic church, early and modern, 21st century theology should not side-step the relationship between God and world. One momentous undertaking related to this task is identifying the role of the Third Person in thoroughly cosmological terminology.31 Hopefully, one of things we have clearly depicted here is how—without further consideration of cosmological function of the Third Person—trinitarian theology threatens to remain within a constant field of gravity orienting us in a trajectory that does not bear consideration on the lived experience of the church in the world.32 The church will only continue forward in the sometimes distressing oscillations of being pulled back down by the grace and work of mystics and theologians who can appeal creatively to our ability to hold this cosmological paradox in utter tension. The question is, how much longer can the church remain in this paradigm? We will be hard pressed to accomplish this as theologians without explicit engagement in, and dialogue with, the prevailing cosmologists of our time—that is the natural sciences. But we are not the only implicated party in this case. We have now a path before us that can be walked only alongside scientific partners.33 We have to determine in what way will both parties proceed forward as we approach together the same question—what is the between in-between God and world?
footnotes
Yong, 77-83; Yong provides here a helpful synopsis of the current discussion surrounding the causal joint with a particular eye toward pneumatology. ↩
Wolfgang Vondey, "The Holy Spirit and the Physical Universe: The Impact of Scientific Paradigm Shifts on Contemporary Pneumatology," Theological Studies 70, no. 1 (2009), 3f. ↩
Yong, (2011), 11f: "I thus suggest that recent scholarship about pentecostalism's holistic spirituality, affective and embodied epistemology, and nonreductionistic worldview represents the best of pentecostal thinking in search of a way beyond the impasses of (in no particular order) materialism versus spiritualism, rationalism versus empiricism, intellectualism versus emotionalism, individualism versus communalism, this-worldliness versus otherworldliness, naturalism versus supernaturalism, modernism versus postmodernism, absolutism versus relativism, positivism versus fideism, etc." We see here the non-dual implications that provide fuel for a renewed pneumatological consideration of the world. ↩
There would be innumerable sources to point to along these lines, suffice to say, Amos Yong in his text The Spirit of Creation (2011) offers a comprehensive and contemporary survey of the various perspectives of the Divine Action Project and various perspectives on the causal joint, NIOSDA, NIODA, etc. in Chapter 3, "The Spirit at Work in the World." ↩
Yong, (2011), 22f: Yong makes the critique particularly against authors on Trinitarianism within the vein of science like Polkinghorne and McGrath that their thought suffers from a pneumatological deficiency. ↩
Rahner,10: His catalyzing concern here, bears repeating: "[...] [D]espite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, mere 'monotheists.'" Hopefully, this critique of traditional trinitarian schematics provides an in-road to a revitalization of fertile trinitarian orthodoxy and orthopraxis. ↩
Yong, (2011), 28f, 65f: Yong suggests a "dual-methodology" that uses the many tongues of Pentecost as a "theological rationale." While exceedingly helpful as a heuristic image for interor bidisciplinary approaches, I side with Yong's "negative reply" interlocuter and am cautious to describe the interface of difference disciplines using the image of "language." There is a sense, in which, Yong's analogy for interdisciplinary methodology is overly encumbered by his own methodological naturalism. That is, in looking at the even of Pentecost from a different vantage point, for instance, we may just as well view glossolalia as the spiritual breakdown of human imposed cultural structures which allows for the honest tacit interface of spiritual beings, rather than the empowering of people to act explicitly within others human imposed cultural structures. The question of vantage point is miniscule at most, but does serve to highlight the slight difference in orientations between religion and science vis-à-vis a methodology that begins on pneumatological grounds. I would prefer to pursue, both literally and figuratively, interdisciplinary approaches that value the physical, embodied, inter-subjective dialogue between specialists (or the like). ↩