Trinity and Ecology

The Ecological Significance of God-Language (1999) Edwards goal is to reframe the discussion of God-Language and the naming of God with an eye toward its implications for our theology of creation and furthermore, ecology. He agrees with the sentiment of John Paul II in affirming different modes of thought in considering human generation as analogical to Trinity (i.e. fatherhood and motherhood) (709). And likewise he is sympathetic to feminist scholars like Elaine Wainwright who point out the unfruitfulness of male-dominated God-language. However, he emphasizes that God-language can become anthropocentrist and needs to be balanced by nonhuman modes of thinking to properly include the relation to the Trinity to creation. This article is an investigation into various threads of theological tradition that offer language fruitful for developing a "trinitarian ecological theology" (710).¹ I. Wisdom Christology is evident in the personification of Wisdom as working continuously in creation throughout the OT. In the NT, Jesus is called the Reflection (apaugasma), the Image (eikon), and the Word (logos), of God which reify the OT concept of Wisdom as sustaining the universe. Wisdom Christology was an important bridge to theology of incarnation and furthermore to creation Christology. A. Origen (713)²

1. All creatures are somehow located in or from the Eternal Wisdom; (reframing of the Platonic concept of the Realm of Forms)

B. Athanasius (714f)³

1. The Word and Wisdom of God unites all creation; "in and through" 2. Wisdom as Image and Expression of God, "leaves an impress and likeness on all creatures"

C. Maximus the Confessor (715)

1. The Logos is the center of the " logoi " which underlies the natural order. 2. Maximus makes an important development/distinction: the fall does not distort creations logoi but instead the mode of operating (tropos)

D. Bonaventure

1. Creation is divine self-expression and Trinitarian in nature: the eternal generation of the Word (Logos, Wisdom) is the eternal self-expression of God in creation. (715, 718) Bonaventure separates this into three levels of expression. (717f) a) A trace (in every creature) b) An image (in intellectual creatures) c) Likeness (in those who are God-conformed). 2. An implication, is that creation is a form of revelation (717) and each creature an aspect of God's self-expression (719).

E. Pannenberg

1. Appropriating Hegel's dialectic formulation of the world of ideas, Pannenberg emphasizes the Son, Logos as the ultimate form of self-distinction in the Trinity. This provides a foundation for an understanding of otherness, plurality and creaturely distinctiveness in relation to the Trinity (720). 2. Edwards notes that without the addition of something like Bonaventures divine selfexpression or goodness, Pannenberg's notion of self-distinction is devoid of content or likeness (721). 3. Because of the contingencies of existence that a modern cosmology presumes more and more, it is significant to see the divine Wisdom as "working in and through the randomness and contingency, as well as through the lawfulness, of physical process." (22

Questions: Is Maximus' distinction between the logoi and the tropos a compelling explanation of theodicy in ecological Trinitarian terms? How might we benefit ourselves from using nonhuman God-language (in addition to it giving a more accurate significance to creation in the interconnectedness of Trinitarian relations)?

The Attractor and the Energy of Love: Trinity in Evolutionary and Ecological Context (2013) Here, Edwards explores the implications of theology that embraces the more modern understanding of the universe as an emergent, contingent, and developing process. He begins by drawing on Athanasius' theology of Creation/Deification and then espouses some evolutionary and ecological connections to fTrinitarianism. I. Athanasius⁴ A. There is no "buffer" between the God and creation; creatures share through the Word in

the Spirit with immediacy before God; there is no intermediary despite the Creator's radical otherness. (130f)⁵

B. Creation is fruitful and diverse because God is dynamic, fruitful and diverse. (131)⁶ C. God's love and delight for creation is rooted and unfolds within the mutual love and delight of the Divine Persons.⁷ D. Theology of creation is bound up within theology of the Incarnation; deification is for

more than just chosen humanity, rather, creation itself is liberated in Christ⁸ II. Seeing God as more than the source of existence, but also its dynamism lends itself to Trinitarian formulations: the "Holy Spirit as the immanent energy of love, and the Word of God as divine attractor in evolutionary emergence."⁹ A. Spirit as the Energy of Love¹⁰

1. Rahner's idea of the "active self-transcendence" of creatures can be reframed as the natural worlds "evolutionary emergence" and the Spirit enables this process. (134) 2. "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." (134)

B. The risen Christ and Word of God is the divine attractor¹¹

1. The final transformation and teleological (my word) fulfillment of the whole creation (136) 2. Therefore "evolutionary emergence [is] participation in the life of God."

III. An evolutionary theology must address the issue of the theodicy (137) A. Edwards departs from Moltmann and Balthasar who emphasize the essential quality of

the "suffering and self-emptying of Trinitarian life" (138). He suggests seeing it in a way more familiar to Origen (140). 1. God's suffering is part of his "passion of love" (caritatis est passio). 2. The Father, nor the Word is bearing our suffering as such, but the suffering of the passion of love (e.g. not a suffering with creatures but a suffering for them) (141)

B. Not powerless but defenseless¹²

1. Schillebeeckx a) God is defenseless rather than powerless in Creation, on the cross, and through the Holy Spirit in the church. (142) b) By act of creation he has given "creative space to human beings, God makes God's self vulnerable." (143) 2. Divine omnipotence works in humility; God is waiting upon creation, but not passive; works within the limits of creaturely process; and achieves divine purposes through them (144).

Questions: Is the way Edwards addressing the problem of Theodicy compelling?

Do the problems of suffering and powerlessness exhaust the theoretical problems inherent in an ecological theology of Trinity? In what way is the Spirit as the energy of Love involved or not involved in so-called acts of radical evil? Edwards utilizes God's Transcendent humility to move from quasars to topsoil, and his Christology claims the transformation/fulfillment of all creation, but what is the role of the physical human body of Christ in this Christology? It was a sweaty, stinky, hairy body that was incarnated—does Edwards doesn't find this important? Should we? (from Elisha)

"'Everything Is Interconnected': The Trinity and the Natural World in Laudato Si'" (2016) Edwards relates Zizioulas sentiment that Laudato Si' begins from the conviction that human life is grounded in three fundamental relationships: with God, with our neighbor, and with Earth itself. (82, 90) Entering deeper into these relationships are "the one path to fulfillment, maturity and holiness." (91) Furthermore, the third relationship specifically has been largely ignored by Christendom. Edwards shapes his discussion around two premises and their implications:¹³ I. "The interrelationships of the natural world can be seen as a pale reflection of the dynamic relations of trinitarian life." (81) A. The world of creatures is a sacrament of communion. (82ff)¹⁴

1. Other creatures have intrinsic value. That is, that by their very being they praise God. It is acceptable to admit that we do use them, but not to say that creatures are "created simply for human use." (83)¹⁵

a) "Each creature is the place of God's dwelling" (84) b) "God loves each creature." (84) c) "Our eternal life involves other creatures." (84) 2. Creation is a kind of revelation to us; a word of God. (85) 3. As creatures we exist in a "sublime" communion with the natural world (85); everything is connected and this universal communion moves to consider creation with the same empathy for suffering which we are called to feel for our neighbor. (86)¹⁶

B. This integral ecology is based on a trinitarian formulation; the "three act as one, as a single divine principle," (87) but they perform separate work in creation based on the Person. 1. Father is the Source of All who "gives creation its being;" Loving and self-communicating (87) 2. Christ is "present throughout creation, holding creatures to himself and directing them to their fullness in God.;" reflection of the First Person (87)

1. The Spirit of God is "the one who enables the appearance of the new in creation;" Infinite bond of love (87f)

C. Trinity exists in subsistent relations, i.e. "the relations of God are what God is." (88)

1. This type of relational reality is evinced by scientific and cosmological outlooks. II. "Ecological conversion [...] is essential to the very nature of the human made in the image of the dynamically relational God." (81) A. Pope Francis laments Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's insight that we need to repent for our crimes against the planet because they are sins against God. (82f) 1. "The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast." (91)

B. This calling to a "holistic spirituality" that embraces the Franciscan notion our splendid

universal communion with creation and calls us to address the needs of the earth and the poor, is the essence of our human life and essential to our humanity.

Questions: Can we extrapolate from Trinitarian spiritual formulations such as these in praxis, to what they may imply in theory? If so, what are the implications? The Doctrine of the Trinity and Christian Environmental Action by Daniel Miller (2012) Miller proposes a model (contra Edwards) that advocates use of Trinitarian doctrine to understand ecological action as part of economic work towards creation rather than immanent life (e.g. ad extra participation rather than ad intra) (20f, 25). He utilizes a Thomistic framework that sets precedence between each being and its relationship to God rather than extrapolating on to intracreated-being relationship or ecologies (21f). I. Traditional/historical observation of traces of Trinitarian life are not useful for natural theology toward Trinitarianism (for example) but rather, to deeper understand the inner life of the Trinity given by revelation (22). A. Tertullian

1. "Root brings froth the ground shoot" (Father and Son) and the "fruit out of the shoot is third from the root" (Spirit) (22). 2. These are not to deduce Trinitarian doctrine nor to demonstrate correct ecological behavior (22f).

B. Augustine

1. "Memory, sight and love" serve to direct humanity toward Trinitarian salvation rather than depict relationship between one another or the environment (22).

C. Thomas Aquinas

1. Doctrine of the Trinity is used to explain the "existence of creatures" as opposed to building a model from which proper behavior could be extrapolated (23). 2. All three are seen to create, but actions are appropriated (24) a) Son (Logos) "has creative power, yet [...] receives it from the father." b) "Spirit gives life to that which the Father creates through the Son."

(1) "Quickens and governs creation." 3. All created beings have a hierarchy traces in their reflection of divine being (24) 4. Creatures are integrated with Trinitarian beginnings and endings as part of economic work of Trinity but immanent Trinitarian life does not model behavior (25).

II. Behavioral prescriptions should be critiqued because they extrapolate from inner Trinitarian life (25ff) A. Analogy (in the strong sense) between Trinity and nature breaks down and is in sufficient because nature always finds it origin in something outside itself (25). B. Diversity, for example shouldn't be sought after because it reflects diversity in God, but

rather because diversity is a quality of God's goodness, goodness that is reflected in Creation (26). 1. Practical application: "Christians should be wary of [...] monocultures [...]"

III. A proper ecological Trinitarianism is will see its environmentalism on a part of its participation in the economic work of the Trinity rather than imitation of (or participation in ) immanence. A. Christ's mission reminds us that he is sent not to provide a path from the material world

but to redeem it. As Christian acts of worship these are valued by God as reflecting his goodness and the life of Christ (29)

B. The Spirit is a foretaste, empowers, gives hope, and bears witness to Christian's participation in the redemptive work of creation by Christ (30f) Questions: From an affective sense for you, does Miller's formulation prima facie ennoble God? Belittle him? What about compared to Edwards? By distancing Trinity from creation does Miller help us avoid potential issues of theodicy or pantheism while still embracing the

The Function of the Trinity in Moltmann's Ecological Doctrine of Creation by Paul D. Molnar (1990) Molnars critiques of Moltmann: Panentheism: Moltmann's theological premise of panentheism (followed by an emphasis on the suffering, self-giving God) disables a proper understanding of the freedom of God vis a vis the necessity (inner compulsion) of creation (677). This despite the fact that Moltmann tries to give heed to these concerns and—at least in rhetoric—draw these clear distinctions (679) (Molnar's argument is that (despite the attention paid in rhetoric surrounding discussion of creatio ex nihilo for example) Moltmann's system insufficiently the transcendence and otherness of God (680f). Freedom/Necessity: "God being his own prisoner" is an important foil that Molnar circles back to in criticism of Moltmann (680ff). For example what does it mean for God to be a prisoner of his own love toward himself? Toward creation? (681 cf. 696). Economic/Immanent: Molnar's primary objection, is Moltmann's appropriation of the Rahnerian conflation of the economic and immanent trinity (which Molnar often critiques on the grounds that it is in fact Feurbachian): "Moltmann's failure to distinguish the immanent and economic

Trinity then leads him to be unable to distinguish between God's being and act, nature and will, as well as creation and redemption at this crucial point" (681f, cf. 675). I. Molnar sees this lack of distinction in Moltmann as inevitably leading him into the modalism he criticizes in Rahner and Barth, and as well into tritheism (683). A. Modalism

1. He sees Moltmann as collapsing the immanent into the economic, and into the incarnation (also leading to patripassianism) (689) 2. Conflation of the Spirit of God with the Spirit of the universe (692) 3. Moltmann's panentheism leads to a lack of distinction between metaphysical natures in God (693)

B. There is a danger of Tritheism because the economic work of the Trinity is seen in utter

distinction, combined with a conflation of the immanent and economic (693f)