Trinitarian Theology as a Spiritual Discipline

French Dominican theologian Gilles Emery, O.P. argues that the Trinitarian theology of both St. Augustine and St. Thomas is presented as a spiritual exercise in which the practitioner of theology is a pilgrim seeking wisdom and, ultimately, union with God. In other words, all Trinitarian theology from the early Fathers to St. Thomas, including those parts which are often derided as "rationalistic" or "abstract" is actually spiritual theology, not mere speculation. A short presentation of his argument is found in his essay: "Trinitarian Theology as Spiritual Exercise in Augustine and Aquinas" in Aquinas the Augustinian, edited by Dauphinais, David and Levering (Catholic University of America Press, 2007).

The classical tradition of Christian theology that is rooted in the creedal orthodoxy of the first five centuries and which flowers in the Augustinian-Thomistic tradition has come under fire in the modern period for many reasons. One of those reasons has to do with the modern obsession with individual autonomy, which begins systematically with Descartes although it is foreshadowed in Renaissance humanism. This autonomy is not merely the self-assertion of the individual over against the state, tradition or law, but has is roots in a metaphysical decision to claim that the true view of the universe must begin with the individual reason and situation of the individual thinker rather than with an understanding of our situation as one of God and man in relationship. Emery's interpretation of the thought of St. Thomas as continuing a type of theology that typified the early Fathers and flowered in the writings of St. Augustine helps us see why the starting point of modern philosophy (and the theology - mainly liberal Protestant - which has adopted its anthropocentrism) is inadequate for understanding reality.

In this post, I want to describe how Emery interprets St. Augustine and in a subsequent post I will discuss his argument for reading St. Thomas as continuing the same kind of theology.

Emery points out that, the purpose of St. Augustine's De Trinitate, can be expressed as (1) to show that whether one searches for the substance of God through God's creature or through the Scriptures, the same nature of God can be discovered, (2) to show the conformity of Catholic faith to Holy Scripture and (3) to show that the end result of believing in order to understand is, in fact, an enhanced understanding of faith. For St. Augustine, faith is the beginning point of intellectual or scientific inquiry because it is only from the standpoint of faith that insight into ultimate reality can be attained. The purpose of Christian theology is to demonstrate that greater understanding does in fact arise from such a starting point.

It is in this last result that theology contributes to the evangelistic and apologetic task of the Church by increasing knowledge of the universe and man and not merely of God. Emery points out that the so-called "psychological" analogy is misnamed because the modern sense of the term does not connote what was central in St. Augustine's intentions: namely the ontological truth of the analogy of the soul to God. He says: "in turning toward God, whose image it is, the soul attains what it is, its proper nature." (7) We might think here also of the arguments of David Bentley Hart and T. F. Torrance about how it was Christianity which made the rise of modern physical science possible. Christianity "works" and this should commend it to all unbiased minds.

Emery shows that the analogy between the image of God in the human soul and God is not a one-way analogy, but rather a back and forth process of eliminating errors, exploring dead ends and finding one's way forward gradually and only by much effort. Emery writes:

So one discovers that the interminable detours, repititions, and digressions of the De Trinitate are on purpose and are part of Augustine's deliberate intention: to exercise the spirit of his reader, to lead it to the ascension toward God the Trinity by sharpening the tip of his soul (acies mentis). This objective is recalled each time Augustine glances retrospectively at the preceding books. It is formulated very clearly, for instance, at the beginning of book XV: 'We wanted to train the reader [exercere lectorem] in the things that were made, so that he might know Him by whom they were made.' In this Christian setting, the spiritual exercise takes on a specific aspect. It is performed on the foundation of revelation, through divine grace, in the adherance of faith to the Triune God.

Here we see arguments against "natural theology" decisively refuted. For one thing, the knowledge of God is not limited to what nature can say. Rather, nature must be read in the light of revelation and can only point to what is beyond its scope. For another thing, the back and forth of the soul suggest the interplay of the grace of the Holy Spirit interacting with the human mind leading the sinner to greater and deeper knowledge of God step by step. Human capability is insufficient both in the beginning point and at each step along the way. Finally, there is no hint of the human mind grasping or comprehending God; in actual fact, much of the point of the exercise is that the mind needs to become aware of its possibilities and its limitations.

Theology done in this way is prayerful, humble and intellectually rigorous. It is a path of purification and a way of wisdom. We distort it when we project our modern lust for power and domination (which has so distorted and debased scientific inquiry in modernity) backwards in time on to thinkers whose purpose in intellectual analysis was much different than our own. Instead of being motivated by a desire to control, manipulate and use, it was motivated by a desire to see and submit to the ontological reality we inhabit.

The Battle for the Pronoun: Inclusive Language Revisited

The other day I read a funny statement on a blog (funny as in sad, not funny as in humorous). The author was lambasting anyone who didn’t cave to the feminists on inclusive language. He went so far as to say that we should not even refer to God using masculine pronouns like “him” or “his” or “he.” But, he said, drawing himself up to his full height, “We must not mess with the revealed name of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

Now this was a Churchill-like act of defiance; a veritable drawing of a line in the sand and daring any feminist heretic to cross it at her (or his) peril. It was like Charles the Hammer stopping the Muslim hordes cold in 732 at Tours. It was like Martin Luther at Worms saying: well, like saying: “Here I’ve evolved, I’ll be nudged no further – at least not today.”

So let’s review:

1. First, we have conceded that a dodgy, modernist, liberal experiential-expressivist form of theology of recent vintage (i.e. Feminist Theology) should be taken seriously by the Church in spite of its deficient anthropology, its cavalier rejection of revelation and utter capitulation to the fads of contemporary liberal society.

2. Second, we have conceded that the feminists are correct to argue that the language must be changed now because the great poets, the novelists, the historians, the scientists, the lawyers, the theologians and, well, everyone who wrote in English prior to 1960 was a Misogynist Thug (either consciously, the strict view, or unconsciously, the moderate view).

3. Third, we have conceded that in order to rectify this situation it is not enough to change the way we write today, and from now on, while leaving historical documents from the past (like poetry, hymns, liturgical prayers, the Bible etc.) as they were written. Instead, we must systematically alter the writings of past centuries lest certain, tender, modern sensibilities be offended.

4. Fourth, we have conceded that we should try not to think of God in male terms (such as “Father” or “Son”), but rather try to imagine him (oops! – imagine God) as either pure disembodied spirit or maybe in androgynous terms – at least when using pronouns.

But, we have our standards and they are high and shall never change; we shall not stop using the revealed name of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” of God. We shall, however, agree never to replace either “Father” or “Son” or “God” with a masculine pronoun.

Well, call me mean names like “fundamentalist” and “skeptical” but this appears to me to be much too little much too late; its smells more like General Custer than Martin Luther.

How can we make the concession regarding the pronoun and not regard this as anything other than the kind of temporary truce like Hamas is always talking about where they offer as a “generous concession” the pledge to take a few years off from trying to wipe Israel off the map in exchange for money, arms, world applause, and the Noble Peace Prize?

Some might say that the masculine pronoun is OK when replacing Jesus the man, but not when replacing the Triune God. But if so, they might want to think through exactly what is that they are thereby saying. Is not the whole point of the Nicene doctrine that God became man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth? Does not the New Testament clearly say that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us? We don’t want to have to perform a hermeneutical analysis every time we use a pronoun as to whether it replaces Jesus in his humanity alone or God because the whole point of Trinitarian doctrine is that we want to be able to refer to them interchangeably and the pronoun is a highly useful tool in doing just that. He is God. That is a crucially important Christian thing to say.

The whole idea of not using the masculine pronoun for God but continuing to use the revealed names (Father, Son) simply does not make sense. To concede that it is wrong to speak of God using a masculine pronoun is to have already conceded the principle that we should not think of God in exclusively masculine terms. The only two alternatives, then, are gradually to move to an androgynous understanding of God or to begin to use both masculine and feminine terms for God. The only reason for not making the change overnight is that it takes time to acclimatize congregations to a new view of God (actually to a new god). Refusing to use the masculine pronoun for God and editing it out of the Bible is a compromise between truth and error, but it is also a half-way house on the way to complete destruction of the Biblical concept of God in the Church and also, therefore, the destruction of the Church itself.

Inclusive Language and the Doctrine of the Trinity

Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina in The Episcopal Church (TEC) recently gave an address to the clergy of his diocese. Since General Convention '09 he has been under pressure to lead his diocese out of TEC but after consultation with his leadership has decided to stay and fight. He said bluntly:

"We face a multitude of false teachings, which like an intrusive vine, is threatening The Episcopal Church as we have inherited and received it from our ancestors. I have called this the false Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity because I see a common pattern in how the core doctrines of our faith are being systematically deconstructed."

Two of the specific doctrines he mentioned as under particular attack from the "false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity" are the doctrines of the Trinity and the Uniqueness of Christ. In his discussion of the latter he had some plain talk for Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori:

"In answering questions about the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ she has repeatedly suggested that it is not up to her to decide what the mechanism is God uses to save people. But, quite to the contrary, it is her responsibility as a bishop of the Church to proclaim the saving work of Jesus Christ and to teach what it is the Scriptures and the Church teach. Anything less from us who are bishops is an abdication of our teaching office. Otherwise how will the world know to whom to come? How will the unschooled within the Church know what they should believe? I do not cite this to be controversial but to reference the pervasiveness of this inclusive gospel that would, in its attempt to include all people and all religions, fail to rightly delight in, celebrate and worship him before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord."

This sets the context for what I wanted to draw to your attention in his speech. (The bolding is mine.)

"The Trinity. One of the doctrines under barrage in our Church is an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. At the last three General Conventions I have been concerned about the lack of Eucharists according to the rites in the Book of Common Prayer. Even this I might be able to overlook if the rites that were employed were not so devoid of references to God the Father. In more than a few of these worship services the only reference to God the Father actually in the liturgy was the Lord's Prayer. In the name of inclusion there's the perception by some (a variant of radical feminism I suppose) that the references to the Father, and the pronoun "he" is some lingering patriarchal holdover. Yet it has always intrigued me that in all of the Hebrew Scriptures there are only a handful of references to God as Father. If one wants to locate the authority of the Church to worship God as Father one need look no further than Jesus himself. It was he who called God "Abba" and taught the disciples to prayer "Our Father." Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything?"

Elsewhere in his remarks, Bishop Lawrence makes the point that the false "gospel" of indiscriminate inclusivity is not merely a problem for TEC, but is endemic in our culture. It is coming soon, if it has not already, to a neighbourhood near you. He rightly said that being in TEC is just a matter of being on the front lines. So I think it behooves us to pay attention to what someone on the front lines is experiencing and what his perceptions are.

I raise this issue because of the intense discussion generated by my post the other day about inclusive language. I used to think it was OK to meet the feminists half way by using inclusive language of humans and for contemporary writing but not for God or historical documents (like the Bible or English literature). But now I have given up trying to compromise with an ideology that is determined to sweep all before it in the name of a false gospel.

The problem is that, once the concession is made that traditional language is exclusive of women (which is never was), then the integrity and credibility of all the texts of Western civilization are placed in question. Since everything prior to 1970 uses "non-inclusive language," everything is open to suspicion of being "patriarchial" and thus non-binding. This applies to the concept of classic texts in literature, law, philosophy and history, as well as all theological texts up to and including Holy Scripture itself.

Bishop Lawrence clarifies for us what we are up against. We face a movement of self-proclaimed feminists (which, by the way, includes in its ranks as many or more men than women) that arrogantly and without warrant claims to speak for all women. This movement is so proud and so puffed up that even the venerable doctrine of the Trinity - that which makes Christianity itself - must be tossed away like yesterday's newspaper merely because it violates the ideology that judges all other belief systems by the standard of its own presuppositons.

All of Western history is thus dismissed as oppressive, patriarchial and outdated. In order to be progressive we must start all over again like the French revolutionaries with a new social order, a new law, a new calendar and a new religion. This is the spirit of Jacobinism and it is antithetical to the Christian Faith.

Bishop Lawrence gets to the heart of the matter when he points out that the origin of the Church's doctrine of the Trinity and the source of our langauge of God as Father is not the Old Testament nor Church History, but Jesus himself. His question: "Frankly, if Jesus got that one so wrong, why should we turn to him for anything?" raises the stakes and puts the real issue on the table. I would suggest that the next logical direction for the proponents of the false gospel of inclusivity to go is "beyond Jesus." And that is exactly why the Presiding Bishop's downplaying of Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life is pointing. TEC, like the United Church of Canada, is quickly moving toward a Deist or even post-Christian position.

I fully understand and appreciate the impulse to be open and humble in the face of the feminist challenge and to try to reach some sort of accommodation that makes us appear sensitive to the very real sufferings of women at the hands of men who violate God's law. But to do so in such a way as to undermine the revelation of God's nature and will is perverse and can only add to the brokenness and misery of our world. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures that contains it are the answer to the problems caused by sin in male-female relations. Once we let ourselves get maneuvered into allowing them to be portrayed as part of the problem we have become unfaithful to our calling to preach Christ to the world. At that point we fail to be the salt that the world needs to stem the rot of sin.