The Use of Declension Narratives in Contemporary Trinitarianism: Part One--Introduction
Like most who do any reading in theology these days, a majority of my reading has been in regards to the surge in Trinitarian theologies which have cropped up ever since Barth jump started its long dormant slumber amidst the liberal neo-Protestant theologies. The so-called Renaissance in trinitarian theology is of course, by now, not only not a secret but has been exclaimed by David Cunningham for example "as not so much a renaissance but a bandwagon" (These Three Are One p.19). In fact not so long ago Ben Meyers over at Faith and Theology felt the word "Trinitarian" had become so saturated in the theological scene as to threaten to lose its meaning entirely, and so called for a lengthy moratorium on the word. While I certainly have approached nothing close to an exhaustive reading of Trinitarian literature (a near impossible task, I would think) nonetheless I have covered a good amount of writing. One of the particularly fascinating things you notice fairly quickly reading these many works is a sub-theme that runs through them (perhaps calling it a sub-theme is unjust, it is in fact a controlling theme of most of the works) is the idea of genealogy, or outlining a declension narrative. The goal of the "declension narrative" is of course to answer the question "how and why did the Trinity become marginalized in contemporary theology?" in the hopes that having discovered and outlined an answer in historical terms, from inception up until now, we might be able to counter the tendencies as described and move forward into new and better formulation. This is what Cunningham pejoratively notes as "historical scapegoating." (These Three Are One p.31f)
As a phenomenon these declension narratives as selective retellings of history are probably just as, if not more, interesting than some of the constructive work on Trinitarianism itself (or, more fairly, they are just as interesting since the constructive work is reliant upon the genealogy). LaCugna's or Boff's or Moltmann's or Jüngel's doctrines of the Trinity, for example, are just as much a retelling of history as much as it is a positive formulation of doctrine. These narratives of a fall provide the optical frame through which tradition is itself viewed, automatically creating a certain form of distance between “then” and “now”—a distance whose measure is precisely the suspicion that somewhere, something went awry and must be identified and corrected. This is particularly fascinating to me because, as many have claimed, I feel that the doctrine of the Trinity is a profoundly practical doctrine, yet few have analyzed some of its practicality from the standpoint of analyzing the selective genealogies employed to narrate the history of theology in particular. Part of the practical aspect of this analysis, I think, would be to help us analyze in part not only the claims of any given theologian against their genealogies, but also the extent to which their hermeneutical and theological strategies for reading the history of theology and philosophy are influencing their doctrine of the Trinity, and vice versa. It also more or less explicitly allows us to examine more closely the claims of many that modern philosophical and theological ills are due to an anemia in Trinitarian thinking (some claims are more explicit, such as Colin Gunton's The One, The Three, And The Many and Milbank's Theology and Social Theory, but all of the works determine what is meaningful, beautiful, and right in a "Trinitarian" way implying that any myopia in understand God as triune leads to a social defect. This to me is a fascinating claim in its own right). This series of posts will attempt to categorize certain forms of the different narratives of the "fall" of the Trinity. Like I said these arent exhaustive, my knowledge is limited, and as such I wish to limit myself to things I have read rather than cite works which have only come to my attention in the periphery. These posts will not offer much by way of my constructive criticism (though it will be present tangentially) rather they will be an attempt that allows me the benefit of collating a lot of information into one space both for easy reference and allowing me to gather my thoughts together about them. Hopefully they will be somewhat helpful to everyone else as well, and as always your constructive comments and questions are more than welcome. Look for the first post in the next few days (they take a little time, as they contain numerous source citations).
As a phenomenon these declension narratives as selective retellings of history are probably just as, if not more, interesting than some of the constructive work on Trinitarianism itself (or, more fairly, they are just as interesting since the constructive work is reliant upon the genealogy). LaCugna's or Boff's or Moltmann's or Jüngel's doctrines of the Trinity, for example, are just as much a retelling of history as much as it is a positive formulation of doctrine. These narratives of a fall provide the optical frame through which tradition is itself viewed, automatically creating a certain form of distance between “then” and “now”—a distance whose measure is precisely the suspicion that somewhere, something went awry and must be identified and corrected. This is particularly fascinating to me because, as many have claimed, I feel that the doctrine of the Trinity is a profoundly practical doctrine, yet few have analyzed some of its practicality from the standpoint of analyzing the selective genealogies employed to narrate the history of theology in particular. Part of the practical aspect of this analysis, I think, would be to help us analyze in part not only the claims of any given theologian against their genealogies, but also the extent to which their hermeneutical and theological strategies for reading the history of theology and philosophy are influencing their doctrine of the Trinity, and vice versa. It also more or less explicitly allows us to examine more closely the claims of many that modern philosophical and theological ills are due to an anemia in Trinitarian thinking (some claims are more explicit, such as Colin Gunton's The One, The Three, And The Many and Milbank's Theology and Social Theory, but all of the works determine what is meaningful, beautiful, and right in a "Trinitarian" way implying that any myopia in understand God as triune leads to a social defect. This to me is a fascinating claim in its own right). This series of posts will attempt to categorize certain forms of the different narratives of the "fall" of the Trinity. Like I said these arent exhaustive, my knowledge is limited, and as such I wish to limit myself to things I have read rather than cite works which have only come to my attention in the periphery. These posts will not offer much by way of my constructive criticism (though it will be present tangentially) rather they will be an attempt that allows me the benefit of collating a lot of information into one space both for easy reference and allowing me to gather my thoughts together about them. Hopefully they will be somewhat helpful to everyone else as well, and as always your constructive comments and questions are more than welcome. Look for the first post in the next few days (they take a little time, as they contain numerous source citations).
Comments