Tags: ABCs of Breast Size, Advaitic Trinitarianism, Diversity, Eucliwood, Haruka Oogure, Haruna, Humanity, Interfaith dialogue, Karl Bath, Korezom, Liberation, Masou-shoujo, Mune Diversity, Mune Worship, Munetheism, Necromancer, Pluralism, Principle of Mune, Raimon Panikkar, Saint Trinity, Salvation, Seraphim, St. Thomas Aquinas, Trinitarian Doctrine, Trinitarianism, Trinity, Triune God, Zombie
(Kore wa heroin desu ka by Haruka Oogure)
One of the most important developments in the field of theology in the last two decades has been a genuine revival of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. “Its roots are hard to isolate, and the styles of theology within it vary widely, but the current trinitarian revival itself is unmistakable… Virtually every serious theological movement of recent years has sought in its own terms to state and shape trinitarian doctrine“. Feminists, liberationists, process thinkers, and more traditionalist Catholic and Protestant theologians as well as Eastern Orthodox desire to free the Trinity from its isolation in traditional statements with the consequent lack of relation to pratical Christian faith and life. The realization that in the economy of salvation we have to do with God as he is in himself has radically focused thought in a new way on the being and act of God as triune. Further, the emphasis on the liberation of human beings and the concomitant social and political thrust has undoubtedly been a contributing factor. This poses a question : Is God as triune not only the source of our salvation but also the ground and paradigm of true social life and liberation ?
The double context of salvation and liberation in relation to the Trinity has been the prime reason for renewed interest in the doctrine today and in its pratical implications.”Recent rejuvenation of the Trinity has owed much to the efforts and success of theologians in laying out a wide range of trinitarian implications. No doubt here, as elsewhere, Karl Bath is the great twentieth-century pioneer, resisting the unitarian, pietist, and nineteenth-century liberal convictions that the doctrine of the Trinity is practically sterile“. Barth’s has been a massive and timely response to all who in theory and practice agreed with Kant’s dictum that “absolutely nothing worthwhile for the practical life can be made out of the doctrine of the Trinity taken literally“. The modern trinitarian revival attempts to show exactly the opposite. It is as we properly understand God as triune that we will have a right view of the faith, of its doctrines, and of the relevance of all this for every sphere of human life and activity. It is in many ways remarkable that this insight, always latent in our traditions, has now, almost suddenly and unexpectedly, emerged as a (some might say the) central aspect of current theology. Whatever the varied reasons for this renewed interest, its concern to relate the Trinity to the life of the church and of the world is tobe warmly welcomed.
John Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, 1994, p3
THE COSMOTHEANDRIC MYSTERY
With little exaggeration we can say that with the exception of Raimundo Panikkar, who gleans from the rich pluralistic soil of Asia, even those Christian theologians who have laboured in the field of Christianity’s relation to other religions have ignored the relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Panikkar has been the first to not only highlight the importance of the Trinity for religions in general and Christianity in particular, but also maintain that there is a basic trinitarian structure embedded in several living religions.
Everett H. Cousins, a respected interpreter of Panikkar’s thought, succintly summarizes the significance of his trinitarian vision for interfaith issues. Cousins mentions that no doubt Panikkar is a classic theologian in putting the Trinity at the centre of theology. Yet he does this in a way that makes his trinitarian vision innovative. First, he sees the Trinity in relation to other religions, which most earlier Christian theologians did not have contact with or knowledge about. Second, he has related the Trinity to the advaitic heritage of Asia ; Cousins dubs Panikkar’s approach “Advaitic Trinitarianism’. Third, Panikkar sees that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity reveals a structure of reality that is more comprehensively universal than was perceived in the classical tradition of Augustine and others that sees in creation and human beings vestiges of the Trinity.
In Panikkar’s view, Christian understanding of the Trinity is in need of deepening from other religions; on the other hand, Christianity contributes to a fuller understanding of that vision among other religions. Exclusivism is avoided by maintaining that Christianity, no more than other religions, can never absolutize its current historical understanding. Pluralism, in terms of watering down differences, is also avoided by insisting that differences among religions are real and that they matter, even in light of the expectation of the coming convergence….There is no denying the fact that Panikkar has significantly advanced the discussion of the relation of the doctrine of the Trinity to interfaith dialogue. Against the prevailing pluralistic idea of the ‘rough parity’ of all religions, Panikkar affirms the principle of diversity :
“We have to work towards a healthy pluralism which would allow for the conviviality and coexistence of cultures and civilizations that no single culture, religion or tradition has the right to claim to represent the universal range of human experience, nor the power to reduce the diversity of humanity to one single form, broad as this may be.”
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions, 2004, p1, p126