Unity in the Triune God

Trinitarian Theology in the Full-Communion Agreements of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Tavast

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781621898979
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

The contemporary trinitarian paradigm in systematic theology has been internationally well-known since the time of Karl Barth and Karl Rahner and, particularly, since the contribution of their famous successors. Many of them, Wolfhart Pannenberg and Robert W. Jenson among others, have intentionally shown in their writings what the general ecumenical relevance of the findings of trinitarianism might be. However, the academic research of ecumenism has not yet fully investigated how ecumenically-oriented trinitarian theology has been factually applied in varying ecumenical relationships and agreements.Unity in the Triune God focuses on the ecumenism of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America with its full-communion partners--the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ (1997); the Episcopal Church (1999); the Moravian Church in America (1999); and the United Methodist Church (2009). Together all these ecumenically active denominations have shown in their full-communion agreements that the doctrine of the Trinity and the church's common trinitarian confession are not meaningless relics from ancient times, but rather are dynamic and many-sided ecumenical resources that can be used for several functions in full-communion agreements. The goal of this study is to reveal the differing ways in which to utilize this ecumenical potential of the trinitarian faith.

1

Introduction: Toward a Distinct View of the Ecumenical Functions of Trinitarianism

Trinitarian Theology in Ecumenism

Particularly since the 1960s, trinitarian theology1 has played a crucial role in ecumenism. This period has also been called the “trinitarian renaissance” in Western theology in general. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the classical trinitarian heritage of the church has always been highly appreciated, but the situation was clearly different in the Western church—particularly in the Protestant tradition—starting with the Enlightenment’s criticism of classical dogma. Karl Barth’s (1886–1968) and Karl Rahner’s (1904–84) trinitarian writings,2 as well as the next generation’s contributions to trinitarian theology, radically changed modern Western tradition. After Barth and Rahner, prominent pioneers of trinitarian theology include Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–), Robert W. Jenson (1930–), Jürgen Moltmann (1926–), and Eberhard Jüngel (1934–). Due to these famous systematic theologians and others inspired by them, the doctrine of the Trinity has been freshly rediscovered in an updated form, and has thus had a profound impact on the church’s life and theological interpretation.3

These trinitarian scholars have also succeeded in answering modern Enlightenment and Neo-Protestant critics. They have shown that the fundamental ideas of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity are not bound to Hellenistic substance metaphysics as the earlier critics had claimed. Instead, trinitarian doctrine has an evident biblical basis and—this is the trinitarian pioneer’s most notable emphasis when responding to modern criticism—this doctrine implies an ontology of its own, namely, relational ontology that has its roots in the biblical economic view of the one God who exists in the mutual relational life of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All these steps taken by the trinitarian renaissance movement in the latter half of the twentieth century have made remarkable contributions to the recovery of the Great Tradition of the catholic and apostolic church. The classical trinitarian and christological dogma and the church’s doctrinal and liturgical tradition in general are no longer seen as a burden loaded with problematic Hellenistic influences but as a valuable apostolic heritage and highly useful theological potential that can be utilized when the contemporary church meets the new challenges of the postmodern era.4

The new trinitarian theology has been ecumenical by nature since its origins. In fact, certain developments in ecumenism were one of the starting points of the whole trinitarian renaissance. The International Missionary Council that was later integrated into the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 19615 had already emphasized the idea of the mission of the triune God (missio Dei) at its conference at Willingen in 1952. This can be regarded as the first preview of the new trinitarian paradigm that later arose and ran parallel with, or even replaced, the christological paradigm that had dominated the missionary movement and ecumenism in the first part of the twentieth century.6 In the context of the most notable ecumenical organization, the WCC, the remarkable appearance of trinitarianism occurred at the beginning of the 1960s. Particularly, thanks to the influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church on the ecumenical movement, the explicit reference to the doctrine of the Trinity was added to the basis of the WCC at the Third Assembly held in New Delhi in 1961. Thus the organization and its member churches confessed that classical trinitarian dogma is decisive for the Christian faith and should be used as a fundamental criterion when accepting members to this fellowship of Christian churches.7 This example shows one crucial function of the doctrine of the Trinity in ecumenism. In other words, it demonstrates a meaningful way to utilize trinitarian doctrine in the field of ecumenism and manifests one central purpose for which this doctrine is used: it provides a classical standard and an essential criterion for Christian churches in evaluating themselves and their ecumenical companion candidates regarding whether they represent the apostolic Christian faith. In this study, the way to use trinitarian dogma for this purpose in ecumenism is termed the first function of trinitarianism.8

When analyzing ecumenical efforts more closely, for example, by some Lutherans and their dialogue partners, it is possible to find another creative way to make use of ecumenical trinitarian theology. In some recent dialogues, ecumenically-oriented trinitarian theology—the classical source of the common Christian faith among different branches of Christianity—has been rediscovered and consciously and profoundly used as a fundamental theological framework within which a given ecumenical process has taken place and on which the results of the process have been grounded. This use of trinitarian dogma and of its theological applications is called the second function of trinitarianism in this study. In many cases, the positive outcomes of this kind of ecumenical trinitarian approach have been evident. Two examples can be given.

The first example is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by the representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church in 1999. Although the topic of this ecumenical declaration is the new Lutheran-Catholic agreement on the doctrine of justification, classical trinitarian and christological dogma is also strongly present in the statement. The doctrine of the Trinity is not investigated as an ecumenical problem or as a separate dogmatic locus since there has never been debate on these themes between Lutherans and Catholics. Instead, the shared trinitarian view of God and the common understanding of the economic deeds of the Trinity are used as the deepest foundation of the new interpretation of the justification represented by both partners of the dialogue. Another way to express the same concept is as follows: classical ecumenical trinitarian theology is the structure within which the current ecumenical problems and solutions are set. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification shows us that trinitarian dogma is not some historical relic without any significance or use but that it can contribute to contemporary ecumenical processes.9

The second example document, the Porvoo Common Statement (the full-communion10 agreement produced by the British and Irish Anglican churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches, effective since 1996) follows an identical approach. Again, common trinitarian theology shared by different denominations has a significant function in an ecumenical agreement: the doctrine of the Trinity is not investigated separately as a problem that needs some solution; instead it is used as a tool that helps the churches to solve ecumenical problems and as a framework within which common faith and ecumenical solutions are rooted and interpreted.11

A notable element of both dialogues addressed above is the ecumenical method applied when the dialogue partners were searching for unity during the processes and expressing their consensus in the final documents. Before elaborating on some methodological details of the example documents, it should be clarified that generally in ecumenics, ecumenical method means, first of all, a way to unity. In other words, the participants of an ecumenical dialogue follow some conscious or unconscious approach in their process toward deeper unity of the church. This approach (that exists on the meta level) implies the use of certain ecumenical tools and leads to specific proceedings of the dialogue. However, another element is often combined with the idea of ecumenical method. This second element is the model of unity represented by dialogue partners. This aspect of ecumenical methodology addresses the understanding of the church’s true unity and also the view of the goal of a specific ecumenical process. These understandings obviously influence the procedures of a dialogue. Both of the above-mentioned aspects are included in the general definition of the concept of ecumenical method in this study.12

With regard to the ecumenical method of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and of the Porvoo Common Statement, it is evident that a certain version of the method of differentiated consensus is followed in these documents.13 It is not meaningful to describe the details of this method here, but some features of it are noteworthy in order to clarify the interaction of ecumenical methodology and the use of trinitarianism in its second function (that is, as a fundamental theological fabric). As the method of differentiated consensus presupposes, there is a dual pattern of two levels in both agreements mentioned above: the fundamental level is the achieved consensus on the essentials of faith, and the second level consists of remaining doctrinal and ecclesiastical differences that do not challenge the fundamental agreement but are considered to be legitimate. The most notable feature from the viewpoint of the present arguments is as follows: the Catholics and the Lutherans (in the Joint Declaration process) as well as the British and Irish Anglican churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches (in the Porvoo dialogue) formulated explicitly and extensively their common understanding of the apostolic faith and the doctrinal consensus that has now been found. This explicitness and expansiveness is not a self-evident feature if seen in the wider context of the different variations of applying the method of differentiated consensus,14 but it is typical for the version of this method followed in the ecumenical documents mentioned. The described version can also be clarified in the following way: in the Joint Declaration and the Porvoo Common Statement, the dialogue partners did not pass over doctrinal matters quickly and move into practical ecclesiastical fellowship by supposing beforehand that there has to be some invisible spiritual unity beyond all the diversities and doctrinal differences—a unity that is not even necessary or possible to express with human words. Instead, the churches in these dialogues thought very clearly that the unity—if there is one—can and has to be explicated by common doctrinal expressions. Otherwise the consensus or convergence between the dialogue partners is an empty hypothesis without real content.15 Many ecumenical scholars—particularly in Scandinavia—have criticized the Leuenberg Agreement (that is, the Leuenberg Concord, the full-communion agreement between many Protestant churches in Europe signed originally in 1973) for the opposite methodological emphasis. That is the background that determined, for example, Scandinavian Lutherans to follow a different ecumenical approach (that is to say, the different version of the general method of differentiated consensus) in their full-communion process with Anglicans as well as in their contributions to the Lutheran World Federation’s efforts to achieve agreement on justification with Catholics.16

Ecumenical methodology also influenced the willingness to apply trinitarian dogma in the Lutheran-Catholic and Lutheran-Anglican dialogues. Logically, when the method obliged the negotiators of these churches to expound extensively upon the achieved doctrinal consensus, this principle also encouraged them to address the trinitarian foundation of all Christian doctrine. So the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on justification did not discuss the doctrine of justific...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Chapter 1: Introduction: Toward a Distinct View of the Ecumenical Functions of Trinitarianism
• Part One: Analysis of the Agreements
• Chapter 2: A Formula of Agreement with the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ
• Chapter 3: Called to Common Mission with the Episcopal Church
• Chapter 4: Following Our Shepherd to Full Communion with the Moravian Church in America
• Chapter 5: Confessing Our Faith Together with the United Methodist Church
• Part Two: Synthesis of the Findings and New Proposals
• Chapter 6: Constructive Goal of the Second Part
• Chapter 7: First Function: Trinitarianism as an Evidence of the Confessed Apostolic Tradition
• Chapter 8: Second Function: Trinitarianism as the Fundamental Theological Framework
• Chapter 9: Third Function: Trinitarian Foundation and Structure of the Church and Its Unity
• Chapter 10: Summa Summarum: Recommendations for the ELCA’s Future Ecumenism
• Bibliography