Majority World Theology

Christian Doctrine in Global Context

Gene L. Green, Stephen T. Pardue, K. K. Yeo, Gene L. Green, Stephen T. Pardue, K. K. Yeo

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780830831814
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

More Christians now live in the Majority World than in Europe and North America. Yet most theological literature does not reflect the rising tide of Christian reflection coming from these regions. If we take seriously the Spirit's movement around the world, we must consider how the rich textures of Christianity in the Majority World can enliven, inform, and challenge all who are invested in the ongoing work of theology.Majority World Theology offers an unprecedented opportunity to enter conversations on the core Christian doctrines with leading scholars from around the globe. Seeking to bring together the strongest theological resources from past and present, East and West, the volume editors have assembled a diverse team of contributors to develop insights informed by questions from particular geographic and cultural contexts. This book features- a comprehensive overview of systematic theology, with sections on the Trinity, Christology, pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology- contributors including Amos Yong, Ruth Padilla DeBorst, Victor I. Ezigbo, Wonsuk Ma, Aída Besançon Spencer, Randy S. Woodley, Munther Isaac, and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen- explorations of how Scripture, tradition, and culture fit together to guide the church's theological reflection- scholars demonstrating how to read the Bible and think theologically in light of contextual resources and concerns- inside views on what doing theology looks like in contributors' contexts and what developments they hope for in the futureWhen we learn what it means for Jesus to be Lord in diverse places and cultures, we grasp the gospel more fully and are more able to see the blind spots of our own local versions of Christianity. Majority World Theology provides an essential resource for students, theologians, and pastors who want to expand their theological horizons.

INTRODUCTION TO PART ONE

TRINITY 101: KALEIDOSCOPIC VIEWS OF
GOD IN THE MAJORITY WORLD

K. K. Yeo

CHRISTIANITY HAS MADE a unique claim among world religions: God is one, and there are three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) who are God. In the Christology section of this volume (part two), scholars from the global church present a thesis that God is Christlike. Yet much more can be said about God. In this section, the thesis advanced is: God is one and trinitarian—but this is more easily asserted than proved. Indeed, “One is in danger of losing [one’s] soul by denying the Trinity and of losing [one’s] wits by trying to understand it”—but believe and understand we must.1 Our understanding of this doctrine has great consequences for how we apprehend who God is and how God works in history; it also has rich implications for how we understand who we are as God’s creatures, who we are as a church, and what Christian ministry, mission, and spiritual life entail.

This introductory chapter serves as a guide to help readers study this doctrine, and to avoid studying it in isolation or from an exclusively Western perspective.2 We invite you to sit at a roundtable with nine biblical and theological scholars from the Majority World church. The gifts they bring are more than their academic qualifications and areas of expertise. They offer perspectives as Christian believers who breathe the air and drink the water of their homelands, live in the sociopolitical and cultural contexts of their countries, and serve their local churches and communities. These scholars, who hold diverse perspectives on scriptural reading, creedal understanding, and who God is and how God relates to their life-worlds, are committed to honest discourse. Their works are invaluable to us as we seek a clearer and fuller understanding of the basic issues of this foundational confession of our faith. While it should be clear that there are diverse understandings of the Trinity even within evangelical Western scholarship and in the Majority World, the editors of this collection are not theological policemen. Rather, our task is to bring the global church to theological dialogue regarding kaleidoscopic understandings of the Trinity, but a dialogue that is bound and strengthened by our evangelical faithfulness to Scripture and tradition as well as our dynamic contexts.

WHY STUDY THE TRINITY?

The liturgical contexts and doxological purposes in the formation of the Holy Scriptures, Christian creeds, and theological endeavors speak volumes about the significance of this study. Surely, the study of the Trinity is not simply an academic exercise; admittedly, it is a complex doctrine. The human quest to know how things look in light of the triune God is noble. Since “faith seeks understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum, according to Anselm), Christian life is most fruitful when it is informed and renewed by our knowledge of God.

The Latin phrase lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi (“the law of prayer/worship, the law of belief, the law of living”) summarizes well the way our worship life informs how we believe and live.3 Since we become what we worship—“for ruin or for restoration”—it is important to pursue the knowledge of God in order to know God more certainly (in creed) and fully (in worship), thus grounding the ethical and ecclesial bearing of believers to live in the trinitarian life of God for God’s glory and for the good of the world.4 The end of Christian theology is the beginning of doxology—a worship of the triune God that carries the following life currency:

1. 1. to restore who we are as the imago Dei in Christ by the Spirit;
2. 2. to transform who we are as the body of Christ in the world for the reign of truth (authenticity), love (justice), and beauty (power);5 and
3. 3. to envision all of creation as children of God as they live in the divine economy/community of ecological diversity in unity, mutual hospitability, and interdependence.

All nine essays in part one are written out of such passion for the topic and out of a shared commitment to the evangelical cause (the gospel of Christ) and to interpreting all life events through this theology (the triune God). This allegedly abstract, seemingly useless, but truly transcendent doctrine may in fact be “a practical doctrine with radical consequences for Christian life.”6

WHITHER TRINITY?

Our nine scholars are part of a revival of the study of the doctrine of the Trinity in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. A sketch of the current landscape of various trinitarian views below will help us locate the terrain of the eight main chapters in this part.7

The debate about immanent and transcendent understanding of the Trinity seems to occupy the mind of the European scholars. Related issues are the relationship between Trinity and Christology (Karl Barth, N. T. Wright), person and nature (T. F. Torrance), history and revelation (Wolfhart Pannenberg), person and community (Jürgen Moltmann, John Zizioulas), and immutability and change (Richard Bauckham). Taking a step further than the European scholarship, North American scholars wrestle with the social and relative models of the Trinity. Major themes that have surfaced in their deliberation are identity and narrative (Robert Jenson, Michael Rea), God for us (Catherine M. LaCugna, Gerald Bray), God in relationship to Wisdom/Sophia (Elizabeth Johnson), Friend (Sallie McFague), or the Holy Spirit (Steven M. Studebaker).

Latin American scholars, however, take their lived experience as a necessary lens for focusing on the communal understanding of Trinity. While their concerns regarding the Trinity are not antagonistic to that of the North Atlantic region, their formulations give rich nuances to our understanding of the Trinity in the context of justice. Leonardo Boff uses the language of a perichoretic community of equals; Justo L. González speaks of a Trinity of minority; and José Míguez Bonino mentions the Trinity at work in community. Antonio González, a writer in this part, writes of act of love as God’s essence, whereas Rosalee Velloso Ewell, another writer in this part, celebrates the reign of the Trinity in community through the Spirit.

A highly contextual theology of the Trinity is seen in the works of African scholars as well. Common themes in the African Trinity have to do with God in light of African traditional religions (John Mbiti) and parent ancestor (Charles Nyamiti). Our African writer in this part, Samuel Waje Kunhiyop, recounts an African Trinity in the African Orthodox and Islamic contexts.

Asian scholars have considered the significance of their indigenous worldviews and the multireligious contexts. Natee Tanchanpongs’s essay reviews and assesses, for example, Jung Young Lee’s yin-yang philosophical understanding of Trinity, Brahmabandhab Upadhyay’s Hindu religious categories (sat, cit, ananda), and Nozomu Miyahira’s relational and communal language (Trinity as three betweenness and one concord). The other two essays in this part are more constructive: Atsuhiro Asano discusses the motherly relatedness and care of God in the Pauline Epistles and in the experience of Japanese Christians; Zi Wang revisits the challenge of translating the name of God as Shang-ti and Shin, and she then uses Paul’s crosscultural hermeneutic to suggest a way forward.

There are exciting voices emerging from the margins. The Kairos Palestine Document claims the promise of the gracious God in the land and its suffering people, and the Rainbow Spirit Elders and Aborigines in Australia call God to be their Creator Spirit. Randy Woodley’s essay in this part represents the struggle of many Native American Christians in embracing God and all creations, and asks what it means to name God as Uhahetaqua, Atanati, Usquahula.

Theologians in the West keep revising, and at times departing from, their own classical formulations of this doctrine.8 Scholars from the Majority World who seek fidelity to the doctrine find that their new linguistic and cultural contexts compel them to think anew. At times, their stance seems critical and reactionary, and at other times their constructive theologies show originality coupled with continuity. Among themselves they also find nuances and disagreements; thus the need for dialogue and debate with each other.

The answer to the question “Whither Trinity?” has over the centuries been contingent on the threeness-oneness problem and on defining more precisely key terms such as one, three, person/prosōpon/persona, and essence/nature/substance/ousia. Most of the essays in this part discuss these issues. Part of the challenge is using a limited linguistic tool to depict God, who is incomparable. How can a line, being a one-dimensional tool, depict a cube, which is a three-dimensional reality? Although languages are metaphorical and creative, analogy still falls short of allowing us to conceptualize precisely who God is and what God does. Yet the recognition that language is inadequate does not mean that we are limited to silence or to a via negativa (see Asano’s essay). Rather, the scriptural narrative suggests that we need to deliberate more, speak more, and consult more languages for a fuller understanding (see the essays by Woodley, Wang, and Velloso Ewell).

For example, what does it mean to say that “God is one,” or to refer to “the oneness of God” (Deut 6:4-9)? The term one is used not in a quantitative (numerical) sense but in a qualitative sense to indicate the sovereignty of God in his nature, will, and action. Whether one accepts the existence of other gods (thus the difference between monotheism and monolatrism), the oneness of God calls for exclusive devotion to God alone, who is most sovereign above all (Is 45:23; 1 Cor 8:1-6).9 I propose that the biblical faith is one of soteriological monotheism (thus monolatrism), not primarily metaphysical or numerical monotheism. Even in Old Testament usage, the word one is used to express a nuanced meaning: “The Hebrew ’echad means ‘one’ (Gen. 1:9; Exod. 12:49; Josh. 23:10); but also ‘one and the same’ (Gen. 40:5; Job 31:15); or ‘only’ or ‘alone’ (1 Kings 4:19; Josh. 6:11); or first (Gen. 1:5; Exod. 39:10),” Anthony Thiselton writes. In other words, God is unique, one and only; “there is no other [God]” (Deut 4:39-40) or no other like him; he is incomparable (Ex 15:11; Ps 35:10; Is 40:12-17; 44:7; 45:21-22). No class, genus, or category will fit God precisely; no language can fully describe God; there is no equal (Is 40:25) to God; God is the real “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex 3:14). Anthony Thiselton correctly privileges the meaning of one to God’s doing: “If ‘one’ carries with it an application in terms of the one living God in action, this is no different from the unity of focus in which God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in action and self-giving in 1 Cor. 12:4-7, where distinctive actions of Father, Son, and Spirit are also identified.”10 Thus the oneness of God entails also the unity of the triune God; in other words, biblical monotheism and trinitarian faith are inseparable.

As we explicate unity as oneness, we come to another difficult term, person. There is one God (Mt 28:19; Deut 6:4; Is 45:5; 1 Tim 2:5), not three Gods, although the Athanasian Creed states, “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God” (Ita deus Pater, deus Filius, deus Spiritus sanctus; Jn 6:27; Heb 1:8). Why is the sum of three “is-es” still one? During the patristic period, the Latin/Western and Greek/Eastern churches used substantia/ousia (“essence/nature”) to speak of the oneness of God, and persona/prosōpon/hypostasis (“person”) to speak of the threeness of God. In our modern English usage, person means an individualized being with their own personality (thus Karl Barth refused to speak of God as three persons).11 In antiquity, however (e.g., Tertullian), the Latin word persona (Greek: prosōpon) means a mask worn by an actor in performing a drama (yet the New Testament usage of prosōpon and hypostasis is nuanced beyond the concept of masking to unmasking, i.e., the understanding of role-playing of God’s being and unmasking of God’s mystery; “face to face” in 1 Cor 13:12; see Bray’s essay in this part). Simply put, in trinitarian theology the threeness of God means that the threefoldness, or three persons of the Godhead, plays three roles in history for working out the drama of redemption.

The threeness of God can sound like tritheism (a belief in three equal, closely related Gods). To avoid the error of tritheism, theologians also speak of the unity/oneness of the Trinity, which means that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same essence/nature/ousia (Jn 10:30), honor (Jn 5:23), and glory (Jn 17:5), to the extent that they have perfect communion in will, knowledge, and love (Mt 11:27; 1 Cor 2:10). Yet the oneness of God is not modalism (a belief in one God who re...