Kant’s objection to the doctrine of the Trinity is a major
factor for what Rahner claims is a marginalisation of the Trinity that has
consigned Trinitarian theology to “abstract speculation”.[1] The apparent contradiction
inherent to the Trinity in which three is equal to one puts the Trinity at odds
with Enlightenment rationalism, this combined with Kant’s critiques buried the
doctrine in Western Christianity until the neo-Orthodox advent. This essay will
aim to prove that since Karl Barth, Trinitarian theology has made considerable
progress in reasserting itself as a foundation of the Christian faith and, in
fact, the Trinity does have relevance in the lives of the Christian community. These
innovations are often framed as extensions of revelation, as they ground the
Trinity in the reality of Jesus Christ.
Kant’s critiques of the Trinity are itself one in three;
Kant is overall concerned that the Trinity is beyond practical reason, that the
Trinity is so far removed from human conception that it bares “no practical
relevance at all”.[2]
Kant separates this one major criticism into three sub-reasons: first, that the
Trinity is inconsolable with human rationality, “the pupil will implicitly
accept one as readily as the other because he has no concept at all of a number
of persons in one God”.[3] Kant’s first polemic is
that there is no rational basis to talk of God as being a divisible entity. Secondly,
there is no praxis to the discussion of God as a Trinity, this refers primarily
to worship and ethics. Kant claims that nothing can be learned about the
metaphysics of morals by coming to terms with God as Trinity, nor does a
believer benefit from the distinction.[4] Kant goes on to explain
that if we take a Christocentric outlook “we cannot require ourselves to rival
a God”,[5] that is to say that
humankind cannot use Christ as an example as this mystery is also beyond
practical reason. Furthermore, Kant asserts that it would be a failing of God
if God were to grant only one man universal access to moral truth, and not
share it with humankind.[6] This goes to show that
Kant has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Trinity as God’s self and of
Jesus Christ as the Incarnate God. Finally,
Kant is suspicious of the Trinity as a means of experiencing God, as these
experiences cannot be reconciled with practical reason.
Kant is however inconsistent on the issue of the Trinity;
it is clear in his later work he becomes more pessimistic about what God is
within the limits of practical reason. Previously he has made the claim that
faith in a threefold quality is necessary to avoid a moral anthropomorphism[7] as having an incarnate
deity as a figure in within the Godhead works as a mediator of God’s universal
moral law. This Christological claim that Christ’s incarnation reveals the
metaphysics of morality appears to directly contradict Kant’s later proposition
that the Trinity is entirely without a moral praxis. One aspect that Kant
remains consistent on is the expression of God’s revelation as a mystery[8] - this same conclusion is
found in Barth’s Church Dogmatics.
Barth acknowledges first and foremost that “God reveals Himself through
Himself”, and agrees with Kant that God’s self-revelation is a true revelation
of who God is, but that revelation is revealing a mystery that surpasses human
conception.[9]
This is itself a meaningful revelation as it places the emphasis of God’s Word
back onto Christ who is a tangible reality, rather than dangerous speculation. Nonetheless
both Barth and Kant acknowledge that part of self-revelation is revealing a
Triune God, this very admission severely undercuts Kant’s later proposition
that the Trinity is irrelevant, God is showing humanity something of God’s
nature. Rahner highlights the importance of this unique position, he makes
clear that God reveals a great personal truth about himself in the Trinity, as
not only do humans observe the economic Trinity but also that the imminent
Trinity is as God reveals it to be.[10] This in and of itself
makes the Trinity infinitely valuable.
If Kant’s argument for the irrelevance of the Trinity is met
seriously, the question becomes: what are the moral aspects of Trinitarian hermeneutics?
Moltmann responds to this enquiry with the proposition that all Christian expressions
about God have to have moral dimension in order to avoid the very problem of
abstract dogmatism.[11] The core of this outlook
is to be found in a Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation as this is God
becoming self-complete. The Father and the Son (in two hypostases) exists “’in God’ and God in them’”,[12] not only does God then
become bound to humanity through his love, the twin heresies of modalism and
Arianism are avoided without retreat into a theocratic monarchy that losses its
identity as Christian. Moltmann here is advocating a unique type of Divine
command – which is to say that God’s command is by definition moral. However, in the context of revelation, that
bares the hallmarks of a Christianised virtue ethics as Moltmann focuses solely
on Jesus Christ. He claims that the Trinitarian incarnation establishes the
rule of God through the incarnate Son whom is the revealer of this morality and
thereby risks making Christ into a dogma. Moltmann claims it is the dichotomy of
the Son’s obedience and the Father’s law that leads to the moral life.[13] Moltmann’s moral Trinitarianism
is an expansion of Bonhoeffer’s ethics, Bonhoeffer is also principally
concerned with not turning the reality of Christ into Christological dogmatics.
He instead wants to boldly assert that there are no Christian ethics – there is
only the reality of Christ.[14] Moltmann’s exegesis does
however run the risk of becoming self-destructive by making virtue ethics –
which is inherently dogmatic, the core of his Divine command as it centres
around the incarnate Christ. It is worth noting at this point that the
discussion hitherto would deeply dissatisfy Kant who would not accept any
Divine command theory. Not only is it beyond his definition of practical reason
but it is a direct conflict with his categorical imperative, which is itself a
meta-ethical dogma.
If the Trinity is to be relevant in the lives of practicing
Christians then it cannot be separated from the incarnation and the cross, the
suffering Christ is a Trinitarian tragedy and therefore a uniquely Christian
moment in human history. Suffering is an inescapable problem of monotheism and
a principally moral challenge to God’s sovereignty. Pure monotheism points to a
capricious, distant or even malevolent God, while the Triune God enters into
the process of suffering as both deliverer and participant. The Son suffers the
pain of death and abandonment[15] while the Father
experiences the boundless grief at the death of his mortal Son.[16] The narrative of the
Cross as an internal Trinitarian event rebukes Kant’s problem of relevancy as
it presents a moral and experiential praxis to the issue. Grief is the epitome
of the human condition; it is a shared suffering and a universal force everyone
will one day will understand. The pain of dying is, likewise the epicentre of
the human life along with the shared love of life, the Son dies a painful death
and the Father weeps for his loss, all in the same moment. All persons of the
Triune God feel the effects of suffering, so when Christians worship God they
do so in a community of suffering with a God that knows all aspects of their
own personal anguish - the Trinitarian hermeneutics of the tormented God are
thus well within practical rationality.
In conclusion, the Trinity is only relevant within the Christian
context of Revelation. The incarnation is a Trinitarian incarnation and
therefore God is revealed as a Trinity. While this does not directly answer the
Kant’s challenge from moral action it goes some way to addressing the
confessional praxis as God’s imminence is identical with his economy which is a
Triune God. This therefore means that Christian worship is a worship of Father,
Son and Spirit in eternal perichoresis. The Trinity is then necessary from a
Christian outlook, as Kant explains it protects God from becoming an
anthropomorphic vision as claimed by Feuerbach. Furthermore, Moltmann cautions
of a moral monarchy that goes together with absolute monotheism. The Trinity in
meta-ethical terms can only be justified with the Cross of Christ, the death of
Christ is the moment of kenosis and thereby God’s binding to humanity as a
suffering Trinity. the Trinity turns Christological dogmatism into divine
command and shields Christ from a regression into a merely prophetic role or a
post-Kantian Arianism that has little need of Christ. These conclusions are
essential to the understanding of the self-sacrifice of a loving God that does
not regress to a self-destructive deity as an agent of God’s own debilitation. For
God is not a law, a principle or a religion but through strictly Trinitarian
means becomes a sufferer both within and without creation.
Further reading:
Barth, Karl, G. W Bromiley, and Thomas F
Torrance. Church Dogmatics Volume 1:
The Doctrine of the Word of God. London: T. & T.
Clark International, 2004.
Bonhoeffer,
Dietrich. Ethics, London: SCM press.
1955.
Kant, Immanuel. The Conflict Of The
Faculties. New York, N.Y.: Abaris Books, 1979.
Kant, Immanuel, Allen W Wood, and George Di
Giovanni. Religion Within The Boundaries Of Mere Reason And Other Writings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Moltmann,
Jürgen. The Crucified God. London:
SCM Press. 2011.
Moltmann,
Jürgen. Trinity and the Kingdom of God:
the Doctrine of God, London; SCM Press. 1998.
Rahner, Karl. The
Trinity, New York; The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001.
Rahner, Karl.
Theological Investigations: volume IV: More Recent Writings, London:
Darton, Longman and Todd. 1974.
Schwöbel,
Christoph. The “Renaissance of
Trinitarian Theology” - revisited in Recent
Developments in Trinitarian Theology: An International Symposium,
Minneapolis; Ausburg Fortress Press. 2014.
[3]
Ibid. p.67
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Ibid.
[7] Kant, Immanuel, Allen W Wood, and George Di Giovanni. Religion
Within The Boundaries Of Mere Reason And Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998. p. 142
[8]
Ibid. p. 143
[9] Barth, Karl, G. W Bromiley, and Thomas F Torrance. Church Dogmatics
Volume 1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. London: T. & T. Clark International, 2004. p.342
[10] Rahner,
Karl. The Trinity, New York; The
Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001. pp.101-2
[11]
Moltmann, Jürgen. Trinity and the Kingdom
of God: the Doctrine of God, London: SCM Press. 1998. p.62
[12]
Ibid p. 121
[13] Moltmann,
Jürgen. The Crucified God. London:
SCM Press. 2011 p. 244
[14]
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics, London:
SCM press. 1955. pp. 3-4
[15] Matthew
27:46 NRSV
[16]
Moltmann, the Crucified God. P.249
No comments:
Post a Comment