THINKING THE TRINITY AS RESOURCE FOR FEMINIST THEOLOGY TODAY?

Hannah Bacon

Introduction the challenge of imagining God in feminist theology

h e C hristian fem in ist im ag in atio n co n tin u o u sly stands in n eed o f h ea lth y an d h o peful ways o f th in k in g ab o u t God. To do ju stic e to all bodies an d to h o n o r all flesh, fem in ist th in k in g ab o u t th e C h ristian God needs first an d fo rem o st to be a g en ero u s k in d o f theology, a theology w h ich does n o t seek to co n ta in o r confine God an d w h ich does n o t conseq uen tly lim it w o m en o r m e n to static, p redefin ed , designated symbolic, m aterial, o r social spaces. T h in king ab o u t God m u st be g en erou s in its im aginings so th a t it allow s fo r th e fluidities, m ultip licities, am biguities, com plexities, an d diversities o f w o m en an d m e n s em b o dim en ts to be theologically th eo rized , valued, an d em braced. This article proposes th a t th in k in g God as Trinity provides a n im p o rta n t resource fo r fem in ist theo lo g y o n th is basis. Crucially, it questions th e value o f (m ainly W estern) fem in ist theo lo g ys o ften exclusive focus o n th e language q u estio n (ho w do w e speak rig h tly ab o u t God?). God-talk, it is argued, does n o t co n n o te th e full e x te n t o f th e p ro b lem su rro u n d in g th e T rin ity and, to th is ex ten t, can n ev er b e th e sum o f th e solution. A lth o u g h re la ted to God-talk, God-thought req u ires fu rth e r a tte n tio n w ith in th e fem in ist com m unity, an d in th is article, I d eb ate w h a t such a focus m ig h t co n trib u te to th e C h ristian fem in ist im agination. I beg in by ask in g w h e re has God gone in fem in ist theology?, n o tin g a d istin ct lack o f sustain ed sch olarsh ip o n th is d o ctrin e in fem inist
442
CROSSCURRENTS 2012 A s s o c ia tio n f o r R elig io n a nd In te lle c tu a l L ife

H A N N A H BACON

th o u g h t. R esponding to tw o p ro b ab le reasons for th e p au city o f fem in ist scholarshipth e a b stra ct n a tu re o f T rin itarian theology an d th e sexist n atu re o f T rinitarian languageI propose th a t w e use C hristology as a lens th ro u g h w h ich to think God as Trinity. This u n ites oikonomia w ith theologia, con firm ing th a t th e m y steiy o f salvation is revealed in th e in carn atio n an d th e sen d in g o f th e Spirit is in sep arab le fro m th e m ystery o f God. R ather th a n follow ing co m m o n p ractice w ith in co n tem p o rary Trin itarianism o f co n stru ctin g a social m o del o f th e T rinity w h ich relies o n speculative know ledge ab o u t th e im m a n e n t life o f God, u n itin g oikonomia w ith theologia situ ates th e sta rtin g p o in t o f T rin itarian reflectio n in th e m aterial rev elatio n o f God in th e econom y o f salvation, in particu lar, I suggest, w ith th e in ca rn atio n o f God in th e body o f Jesus. T hro ug h a process o f read in g b ack from th e in ca rn atio n to th e Trinitya m ove w h ich I m a in ta in is ju stifie d o n th e gro u n d s th a t th e re is n o God o utside th e God revealed in th e h isto iy o f salvationI propose th a t th e triu n e God c a n n o t be God w ith o u t th e flesh. The ram ificatio n s o f such im aginings fo r fem in ist theology are su b seq uen tly addressed. Thinkin g God as Trinity, I argue, provides a theological reso urce fo r th in k in g ab o u t in tersectio n ality an d fo r affirm ing th e fluidities an d am biguities o f identity. It also establishes self-giving as a p rim ary featu re o f Gods identity. A lth ou g h d arin g to em b race w ith in a fem in ist con tex t, self-giving as m odeled h e re becom es a p o ten tially subversive featu re o f C hristian praxis, p ro p h etically calling in to re p en tan c e th e colonizing an d hom ogen izin g agendas o f ph allo centrism . T h inking God as T rinity th u s, I conelude, provides a n invaluable resou rce for affirm ing th e diversities an d com plexities o f id en tity an d fo r locating th e value o f all bodies w ith in th e vast, fleshy, an d a b u n d a n t life o f God.
Where has God gone in feminist theology? Abstraction and sexism in the Trinity

The d o ctrin e o f God is n o t a co m m o n area o f discussion w ith in th e contem p o ra ry theological arena, especially w ith in co n tem p o rary fem in ist th o u g h t. R ather surprisingly, th e re has b een relatively little fem in ist sch o larship dedicated to a sustained discussion o f th e Trinity. A lthough, o f course, th e re are tex ts w h ich do provide such a tre a tm e n tC ath erin e LaCugnas God For Us, E lisabeth Jo h n so n s She Who Is, K aren Baker-Fletche rs Dandng with God, fo r exam plefull-length fem in ist discussions o f
DECEMBER 2012

443

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

th is d o ctrin e are n o t com m onplace. G iven th e expansive, global, and m u ltifaceted n a tu re o f fem in ist theologies today, th is raises questions ab o u t th e d o ctrin es relevance for w o m en across a n u m b e r o f diverg en t geographic, social, econom ic, an d m ateria l contexts. C ertainly, w e are led to ask w hy th e space a ttrib u te d to th is d o ctrin e seem s m in im al w h en com pared to th a t o f o th e r areas su ch as C hristology, for exam ple. The
Tr in itarian God, it w ould seem , has n o t reg istered o n th e ra d a r o f femi-

n ist theological d eb ate to th e e x te n t on e m ig h t expect.

The problem of abstraction in the Trinity

O f course, th e re are various possible reasons for this. In th e first instance, th e d o ctrin e m ay seem to o m etap hy sical to b e h elp fu l fo r fem in ist theologies w h ich are co m m itted to engaging m eaningfully w ith th e com plexity o f w o m en s an d m e n s en flesh ed experiences. As a p ro d u ct o f th e C hurch, it h as absorbed th e tech n ical ph ilo so ph ical language o f m etaphysics to m ak e sense o f th e m y stery o f God revealed in scriptu re. Language o f being, p erson, substance, essence, n atu re, relatio n , divine op eratio n s, divine processions, an d divine m issions po p u lates th is terrain . It is n o t th e n su rp risin g th a t fem inists from a ran g e o f co n tex ts have q u estio n ed w h e th e r th is d o ctrin e is too m etaphysical, speculative, and ab stract, too rem oved fro m fleshy, m ateria l reality an d th u s fro m th e lived realities o f oppressio n to be usefu l to fem in ist praxis. W h a t th is k in d o f theological m u sin g can m ean in g fu lly say ab o u t God ou tsid e th e realm s o f ph ilo so ph ical sp ecu lation h as b een queried, especially by femin ist voices fro m o utside th e afflu en t W est w h e re th e struggle fo r Ufe and survival is con sid ered to be m ore acu te th a n th e n eed to intellectu alize ab o u t th e u n ity an d diversity o f God. Kwok Pui-lan, fo r exam ple, notes th a t w h e n A sian fem inists ta lk ab o u t God th e y do n o t b eg in w ith th e ab stract discussion o f th e d o ctrin e o f th e Trinity. Such discussion, she im plies, does n o t offer th e resources A sian w o m en n eed an d so can n o t provide a p rim ary tool fo r A sian w o m en in th e ir struggle ag ain st oppression. Ivone G ebara, w ritin g as a B razilian an d as a Latin A m erican fem in ist lib eratio n theolog ian , sim ilarly co m m ents th a t w h e n faced w ith th e realities o f hu n g er, disease, w ar, u n em p lo y m en t, an d m eaninglessness, th in k in g ab o u t th e T rinity w ould ap p ear to be superfluous, h ard ly w o rth sp en d in g tim e on.1

444

CROSSCURRENTS

H A N N A H BACON

However, th is critiq u e also ex ten d s to th e W est w h ere a n u m b e r o f fem inists have q u eried th e d o ctrin es relevance for co n tem p o rary fem in ist praxis. Lisa Isherw ood, fo r exam ple, in resp o n d in g to a re c e n t c h a p ter I have w ritte n o n theolo g y an d secular dieting, challenges m y use o f th e T rinity to affirm an eth ic o f ab u n d an ce an d expanse. She w rites th a t th e T rinity appears a little ab stract an d m etap h ysical for such an enfleshed issue.2 As a fem in ist lib eratio n theolo gian, she n o tes th a t she p refers to s ta rt fro m C hristology, a place w h ich declares th a t th e divine becam e in carn ate, a place th a t n eed n o t fall foul o f th e w o rst excesses o f dualistic m etaphysics.3 O f course, th e re have b een m u ltip le fem in ist theologies w h ich have so u g h t to reco nfig ure th e T rinity in ways w h ich avoid th is k in d o f m etaphysical ab stractio n ism . (I th in k h e re p articu larly o f th e w ay Sarah Coakley has so u g h t to rep o sitio n th e S pirit an d th e practice o f p ray er a t th e fo refro n t o f T rin itarian reflection, spelling o u t th e im plications th is raises fo r h u m a n sexuality.4) However, th e re has b ee n a discernible concentratio n in fem in ist theologies o n C hristology a t th e expense o f T rinity an d a discernible sh ift to w ard m o re social m odels o f th e T rinity in contem pora iy theological discourseb o th , in p art, as attem p ts to avoid th is kin d o f abstraction ism . The tu rn to w ard C hristology in fem in ist theology insists th a t th e re is, w ith in th e C hristian story, a rev elatio n o f a n abund an tly fleshy C hrist,5 a C hrist w h o is ro o ted in th e h isto rical realities o f th e m ateria l w orld an d w ho provides a stro n g p a tte rn o f resistance to o p pression.6 M any have th ere fo re u n d erstan d ab ly concluded th a t th is is o f m u ch m o re use to fem in ist praxis th a n th e ab stract dogm atics o f th e Trinity. In a sim ilar way, th e tu rn to w ard m o re social doctrines o f th e T rinity re p rese n ts a perceived need to reco n n ect th e T rinity w ith social existence, C hristian life, an d ethics. T here are dangers, th o u g h , in b o th th ese directions. A focus o n Christology a t th e expense o f th e T rinity m ay lead to a deprived d o ctrin e o f God, w h ich fails to tak e seriously th e im plications o f th e in ca rn atio n for u n d ersta n d in g th e w id er id en tity o f God. Indeed, such a n exclusive focus o n th e p erso n o f C h rist in sep aratio n fro m th e T rinity n eed n o t be necessaiy if w e con sid er b o th to be in ex tricab ly linked. C hristology, I w ill suggest later, can an d m u st provide a lens th ro u g h w h ich to in te rp re t an d u n d e rsta n d th e Trinity.

DECEMBER

2012

44 5

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

In ad d itio n to this, how ever, fem in ist theologies should also resp o nd to th e valid co n cern th a t social m odels ru n th e risk o f rep ro d u cin g ra th e r th a n rep lacin g speculative accounts o f th e T rinity th ro u g h th e ir focus on th e i m m a n e n t life o f God. K aren Kilby has rig h tly w arn ed th a t in asserting th a t h u m a n co m m u n ities m u st m irro r th e triu n e com m unity, propon e n ts o f social d octrin es ap p e ar to claim to k n o w w h a t God is really like in Gods in n e r being, b ecko n in g questio n s ab o u t h o w such know ledge is accessed in th e first place.7 For her, social u n d erstan d in g s o f th e T rinity am o u n t to sim ple p rojectionism . They are, in th e end, speculative, an d th is m ay m ake th e m little b e tte r th a n th e W e ste rn ab stract su bstance theologies th e y claim to supersede.8 However, a sh ift to w ard u n d erstan d ing th e T rinity in light o f Christology I w ill suggest avoids th is k in d o f speculative reflectio n an d en sures th a t th e T rin ity rem ain s firm ly g ro u n d ed in h istorical, m aterial, fleshy experience. I w ill re tu rn to th is ag ain in a m o m en t. However, th e re is a second difficulty w ith th e Trinity, w h ich fem in ist theo lo g ian s (m ainly in th e W est) have expressed alm o st unilateral co n cern over, n am ely th e p red o m in an tly m ascu lin e n a tu re o f Trinita ria n God-talk.

The problem of sexism in the Trinity

In h e r sem in al tex t, She Who Is, E lizabeth Jo h n so n rep eated ly rem in d s us th a t th e sym bol o f God functions.9 Language ab o u t God, she argues, does n o t lie d o rm a n t b u t produces an effect, an d w e have to ask w h e th e r it functions all to o conveniently to su p p o rt a p atria rch a l o rd e r w h ich excludes a n d su b o rd in ates w o m en .10 O f course, th e an d ro cen tric n a tu re o f T rin itarian G od-talk provides a strik in g exam ple o f h o w G od-talk m ay fu n ctio n to alienate, silence, an d oppress w om en. N icene o rth o do x y a ttests th a t as F ather, God is Creato r, alm igh ty, m ak e r o f heav en an d ea rth , an d all th in g s visible an d invisible.11 H e creates alo n e w ith o u t any n eed o f a m o th er/o th er, an d all th in g s are u n d e r his com m and. C h ristian tra d itio n also affirm s th a t h e is tran sc en d en t, creatin g ex nihilo a t a distan ce fro m h im self. T hrough th e in flu en ce o f W e ste rn p h iloso p h y an d th e th o u g h t o f T hom ism in particular, God th e F ath er h as also b ee n associated w ith th e p hilosophical categories o f om n ip o ten ce, om nip resen ce, an d om niscience, seen as tim eless, im passible, an d in fin ite, u n ch an g ed by his re la tio n sh ip w ith th e w orld. As such, th e language o f God th e F ath er has o ften served to depict
446
CROSSCURRENTS

H A N N A H BACON

God as absolute, alm ighty, all-pow erful, controlling, auto cratic, an d im m u tab le, rein fo rcin g ra th e r th a n challen g in g p atria rch a l stereotypes o f m asculinity.12 The language o f God th e Son h as n o t fared m u ch b etter. T raditionally co m m u n icatin g th a t God has becom e flesh exclusively an d u n iq uely in th e p erso n o f Jesus o f N azareth, th is again has b een seen to com m unicateeven stro n g er th a n th e language o f divine fa th e rh o o d p erh ap sth a t m aleness is in som e sense p ro p e r to God. N icene o rth o d o x y a ttests th a t Jesus is in carn ate fro m th e Holy S pirit an d th e V irgin M ary an d is begotte n o f th e F ather b efore all th e ages. He is tru e God o f tru e God,13 homoousios w ith th e F ath er an d th e one th ro u g h w h o m all th in g s are m ade. M ary Daly th u s fam ously criticizes th is C hristological fo rm u la fo r legitim izin g th e dynam ics o f m ale privilege an d m ale ru le th ro u g h its presentatio n o f God as m ale an d th e m ale as G od.14 For her, C hristology is b e tte r n am ed C h risto latiy since it idolizes an d glorifies th e m ale sex, providing one m o re leg itim atio n o f m ale su periority.15 All in all, th e language an d related im agery o f F ath er an d Son ap p ear to rein fo rce ra th e r th a n challenge th e p ro p ern ess an d theological ap p ro p riaten ess o f patriarchy. O f course, th is is n o t th e only w ay to read th e Trinity. M any fem in ist theo lo g ian s have ta k e n a m o re o p tim istic ap p ro ach an d have so u g h t to iden tify ways in w h ich Trin ita ria n language an d im agery m ig h t be affirm ing o f fem ale personhood. Som e have set ab o u t try in g to red eem th e traditio n al language,16 som e have so u g h t to recover fem ale im agery fo r God w ith in th e corpus o f scrip ture, o th ers have p re sen ted th e Holy S pirit as th e fem in in e d im ension o f G od,17 an d o th ers still have trie d to ren am e th e w hole T rin itarian reality, e ith e r th ro u g h th e use o f explicitly fem ale m etap h o rs18 o r th ro u g h desexing19 o r dep erso n alizing 20 th e Trinity. W h a t is clear, th o u g h , in all th e se approaches is th a t h o w w e speak ab o u t God m atters. It m a tte rs because G od-talk p o ten tially directs th e w ay w e th in k ab o u t God an d h o w w e act to w ard one an o th er. W h a t I w a n t to suggest, th o u g h , is th a t changes to G od-talk w ill n o t necessarily solve th e p ro b lem o f th e Trinity. Insofar as speech ab o u t God does n o t co n n o te th e su m o f th e problem , it c a n n o t co nn o te th e su m o f th e solution. O n th is basis, ra th e r th a n p ro p osin g to resp o n d to th e language question, w h a t I w a n t to do in th e re m a in d er o f th is article is ap p ro ach th e T rinity fro m a slightly d ifferen t direction , considering w h a t it m ig h t m ean to think (rath er th a n ju s t speak) rig h tly ab o u t God. My u ltim a te co n cern is to address h o w an ad d itio n al
DECEMBER 2012

447

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

em phasis o n th in k in g God as T rinity m ig h t challenge a n id en tificatio n o f God w ith sexism an d ab stract sp eculatio n (as described previously) an d h elp d ete rm in e th e usab ility o f th e T rinity fo r fem in ist theologies today.
Toward thinking God as Trinity

In pro po sin g th a t w e b eg in o u r analysis o f th e T rinity fro m an em phasis o n God-thought, a n u m b e r o f question s im m ed iately co n fro n t us. W h a t is th e m o tiv atio n fo r th is startin g p o in t? W h a t is th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een th o u g h t an d speech anyw ay? (Are w e to believe th e y are separate?) Does th is em phasis o n t h in k in g lead th e T rinity b ack in to th e realm s o f intellectualism an d ab stra ctio n an d aw ay fro m praxis? W h a t h ap p en s to sexist God speech if G od-thought is offered as a n ad d itio n al consideration? These are im p o rta n t questions. It seem s to m e, how ever, th a t w h ile it is u n d en iab ly im p o rta n t to tran sfo rm o u r language an d fo r w o m en to sp eak ourselves in to b ein g by ow ning th e language w e use to sp eak o f God, it seem s to o naive to assum e th a t changes in speech w ill autom atically lead to changes in actio n o r th o u g h t. Indeed, it seem s p erfectly possible to speak o f God in one w ay (say as friend) w h ile sim ultaneously th in k in g o f God in a n o th e r (say as ty ran t).21 O f course, w e m u st also re m e m b er th a t th e re is a lo n g an d w ell-established tra d itio n w ith in Christia n ity o f sp eakin g a b o u t God th ro u g h reco urse to m ascu lin e language. C h ristian scrip tu re bears testim o n y to th is as does th e b u lk o f C hristian theology. Even w h ere n ew te rm s are in tro d u ced in to th e co m m u n ity o f fa ith o r fo rg o tte n term s recovered, it is q u estio n ab le w h e th e r th e se w ill b e w eig h ty en o u g h to challenge th e d o m in an t m ale m etap h o rs, supp o rted as th e y are by p atria rch a l privilege, realm s o f histo iy, an d years o f trad itio n . O f course, to change th e language w e use fo r God is im p o rta n t because th is w ill h elp expose th e co n trad icto ry claim s o f C h ristian ity in its in sistence th a t God is sexless an d y et m o st ap p ro p riately sp o k en o f as m ale, b u t it w ill n o t necessarily solve th e p ro b lem o f p a tria rch a l Godthought; th e d an g er is th a t it m ay even serve to m ask it. To tak e a n exam ple, th e g ro w th o f inclusive language in W estern C h ristian liturg ies bears testim o n y to th e w ay fem in ist values have influenced th e praxis o f th e ch u rch es.22 In m an y respects, such changes have allow ed w o m en fro m a ran g e o f co n texts th e pow er to n am e an d be n am e d in re la tio n to th e holy; how ever, th is h as n o t m e a n t th a t all is now w ell fo r C h ristian w o m en in th e W est. Private an d even p ublic sys
448
CROSSCURRENTS

H A N N A H BACON

tem s o f d o m in atio n co n tin u e to o p erate in ch u rch es to exclude w o m en fro m various form s o f m inistry. W h ere w o m en are active in m inistry, m any co n tin u e to face resistan ce an d opposition. The p o in t is th a t m oves to w ard m o re inclusive speech have n o t an d do n o t always seam lessly lead to changes in h e a rt an d th o u g h t an d m o re inclusive practice. To th is ex ten t, co n fro n tin g th e w ay w e think ab o u t God m ay h elp in m oving to w ard m o re lib eratin g an d inclusive practice. But w h a t is th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een th o u g h t an d speech? C ertainly, n o straig h tfo rw ard d istin ctio n can b e m ade. T h in k in g an d sp eak in g ab o u t God are n o t sep arate th in g s in th e sam e w ay th a t T rin itarian language an d T rin itarian th o u g h t c a n n o t be separated. W e do n o t stop thin k in g w h e n w e speak, an d w e do n o t stop u sin g language w h e n w e engage in th o u g h t. However, w h a t goes o n inside o u r heads can, an d o ften does, have a seem ingly sep arate existence to w h a t com es o u t o f o u r m o u th s. If th is w ere n o t so, th e n w e w ould n o t b e able to identify (on occasion) th a t w h a t w e are saying is n o t actually w h a t w e are really th in k in g . 23 This is n o t to suggest, th o u g h , th a t w e can th in k God o utside o f language. R eality is stru ctu re d in an d th ro u g h language, an d n o t sim ply verb al languageth ro u g h th e cu ltu ral signifiers an d sym bol system s th a t su rro u n d us. W h at I am suggesting th e n is th a t th e language w e use to stru c tu re o u r o u tw ard speech ab o u t God n eed n o t always reflect th e language w e u se to organize o u r priv ate th in k in g ab o u t God. Instead, th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een th e tw o m ay b e m o re com plex th a n this. Speech m ay in fo rm th o u g h t, b u t it also m ay not; th o u g h t m ay in fo rm speech, b u t it also m ay n o t.24 G iven th is, it seem s ju s t as acceptable to b eg in fem in ist discussion o n th e T rinity w ith an em phasis o n th o u g h t as w ith a n em phasis on speech. If a stress o n rig h t speaking m ay n o t always tra n sla te in to rig h t th in k in g o r rig h t actin g an d fem in ist deb ate to d ate h as b een d o m in ated by a focus o n Trinity-talk, th e re is m e rit in looking a t th e T rinity from th e o th e r side. S tartin g w ith a co n sid eratio n o f w h a t it m ig h t m ean to think God as T rinity an d th e n co nsiderin g th e language q u estio n in lig h t o f th is m ean s th a t speech n eed n o t co n stitu te th e sta rtin g p o in t o f fem in ist discussion o n th e Trinity. W h at, th o u g h , are w e to say ab o u t th e seem ingly in tellectu al n a tu re o f th is p roject? Is thinking th e T rinity reserved fo r th e privileged, educated tra in e d theologian? T h in k in g God as T rinity ca n n o t p rincipally b e an
DECEMBER 2012

449

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

in tellectu al th eo re tic al p ro ject w h ich relies o n a detailed, ed u cated know ledge o f biblical o r p atristic sources fo r exam ple. Instead, it prin cip ally m eans to a tte s t a basic p rin cip le o f fa ith th a t God has revealed G odself as G odself in th e econom y o f salvation. God h as m ad e G odself k n o w n in an d th ro u g h th e body an d life o f Jesus an d th e p resen ce an d pow er o f th e Holy Spirit. To th in k God as T rinity is th u s p rincipally to g ro u n d th in k in g ab o u t God n o t in ab stract m etaphysics, b u t in th e rev elatio n o f God in h isto ry an d th u s in th e m ateria l w orld. In th is respect, th in k in g God as T rinity arises fro m th e h isto rical m ateria l rev elation o f God an d is ju d g ed according to th e h isto rical m ateria l realities o f experience. Im portantly, t h in k in g ab o u t God as T rinity is only deem ed usefu l if it helps challenge an d tra n sfo rm th e dynam ics o f do m in atio n , w h ich d eh u m an ize w o m en an d m e n an d if it w orks to w ard tran sfo rm ativ e actio n in th e presen t. H ow far th in k in g God as T rinity m eets th is crite ria w ill b e addressed in due course. W h a t sh o u ld b e clear th e n is th a t I am n o t prop o sin g w e follow th e conv en tion al ro u te o f p re sen tin g a social d o ctrin e o f th e Trinity, w h ich seeks to d ete rm in e h o w th e im m a n e n t life o f God provides a b lu e p rin t fo r h u m a n societies. A lth ou g h I have do n e th is to a p o in t elsew h ere,25 I w a n t to try to resp o n d to Kilbys co n cern ab o u t th e speculative n a tu re o f social T rin itarian ism p re sen ted earlier. In so doing, I propose to p o sitio n th e in ca rn atio n a t th e ce n te r o f w h a t it m eans to th in k God as Trinity. R ather th a n proceed in g fro m a speculative u n d ersta n d in g a b o u t w h a t God is really like in Gods in w ard being, th is begins fro m th e tan g ib le revelatio n o f God in th e p erso n o f Jesus an d so w ith a stress o n th e econom y o f salvation.

Christology as a lens for thinking about the Trinity

Th in k in g God as Trinity, alth o u g h p o ten tially m ean in g a ran g e o f th ings,

m u st a t th e v eiy least id en tify th e triu n e God w ith th e concrete m ateria l w o rld an d w ith th e flesh. To th in k God as T rinity is to claim th a t th e W ord has becom e flesh an d has p itch ed h is te n t am o n g u s (John 1:14) an d th a t G ods love h as b een , p o u red in to o u r h ea rts th ro u g h th e Holy S pirit th a t h as b ee n given to u s (Rom ans 5:5). A ccording to th e Gospel accounts, th e u n fath o m ab le God has b een revealed in h isto ry th ro u g h th e in ca rn ate W ord an d th ro u g h th e Spirit. Thisas C ath erine LaCugna has fam ously arguedu n ites oikonomia (the m y stery o f salvation as
450
CROSSCURRENTS

H A N N A H BACON

revealed in th e in ca rn atio n o f C hrist an d th e sen d ing o f th e Spirit) w ith theologia (the m y stery o f God).26 It insists th a t th e m y stery o f God can n o t b e k n o w n o utside th e divine econom y an d th a t God ad intra an d God ad extra (or p u t differently, th e im m a n e n t an d econom ic Trinity) m u st be co n stan tly h eld to g e th e r as one Trinity. C ertainly, if w h o an d w h a t God is in G odself c a n n o t be separated from w h o an d w h a t God is for th e w orld, th e n LaCugna is rig h t to assert th a t God in se is pro nobis. Gods triu n e being can n o t be k n o w n independ en tly o f Gods re la tio n to th e econom y.27 A ttem p ts to speculate ab o u t th e in n e r life o f th e T rinity o utside w h a t has b een revealed in h isto ry th ro u g h th e divine econom y becom e pointless; such m usings are, as LaC ugna notes, b o th non-biblical an d u n h elp fu l,28 eq u atin g to n o th in g m o re th a n a fantasy ab o u t a God w ho does n o t exist.29 As such, to u n ite oikonomia w ith theologia m ean s to p re se n t Gods relatio n sh ip w ith th e created w orld as cen tral to w h o an d w h a t God is in Gods self. For God to b e as T rinity is n o t so m eth in g d ifferen t from w h a t it m ean s fo r God to be w ith an d fo r th e w orld. As LaCugna argues, th e econom y o f salvation show s th a t God is a being-with-us ra th e r th a n a being-by-itself.30 H owever, th e re is m o re to th is th a n sim ply iden tify in g God as one w h o is for an d w ith th e w orld. LaCugna, fo r ,exam ple, also advocates th a t th e u n itin g o f oikonomia w ith theologia affirm s th e essence o f God as relatio n al an d o th erw ard , as diverse perso n s u n ite d in a co m m u n io n o f freedom , love, an d know ledge.31 She co nten ds th a t if th e re can be no d istin ctio n d raw n b etw een God in G odself an d God in re la tio n to th e econom y o f salvation, th a t w e m u st say th a t God is relatio n al in se because God c a n n o t b e one w ay in h isto ry an d a n o th e r w ay in etern ity .32 O f course she is correct. The relatio n sh ip b etw een F ather, Son, an d S pirit revealed in th e econom y o f salvationin th e creaturely, m ateria l w orldreveals th a t God is really in re la tio n sh ip ad intra. If God h as revealed G odself th ro u g h th e flesh o f Jesus an d th e giving o f th e Spirit, th e n w e m u st also conclude th a t th e triu n e relatio n s are d istin c t ad intra trinitatis as w ell as ad extra trinitatis. D ifference is revealed as b elonging to th e v eiy b ein g o f God as w ell as to th e w ay God relates to th e w orld. This carries im p o rta n t im plications fo r fem in ist readings o f th e T rinity as w e w ill see.

DECEMBER

2012

451

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

W h a t th is m eans fo r th in k in g God as Trinity, how ever, is significant. Essentially, it m eans th a t th is d o ctrin e is relo cated aw ay fro m ab stract sp ecu latio n su rro u n d in g th e su bstance o f God an d ro o ted firm ly in th e m ateria l h isto iy o f divine revelation. Oikonomia becom es th e lens th ro u g h w h ich to k n o w an d view th e T rin itarian God, an d so th e in ca rn atio n th u s becom es a crucial tool fo r u n d ersta n d in g th e Trinity. If w e confess w ith B arth th a t [t] 0 say rev elatio n is to say th e W ord becam e flesh 33 an d to a d m it th a t theology can th in k an d sp eak only as it looks a t Jesus C hrist an d fro m th e v an tag e p o in t o f w h a t He is,34 th e n startin g w ith soteriology an d w ith th e m ystery o f salvation as revealed in th e h o u seh o ld o f God m eans to s ta rt w ith th e in ca rn ate W ord o f God. R econnecting C hristology to th e T rinity enables fem in ist Christological i n sig h ts to b e re ad b ack o n to th e d o ctrin e o f God. R ath er th a n sim ply a ffir m in g a fleshy C hrist w ho id entifies w ith th e m ateria l realities o f th o se o n th e m argins, th is step exposes a fleshy God w h o is ch aracterized by difference, relationality, an d m u ltip licity an d w h o draw s all bodies in to an ete rn a l fleshy com m u nion . It is th is step o f inductively read in g b ack fro m C hristology to th e T rinity w h ich m ay b e o f u se to fem in ist reflectio n o n th e d o ctrin e o f God. H ere, o u r theo lo gy does n o t stop w ith C hristology (as is o ften th e case w ith co n tem p o rary fem in ist lib eratio n theologies as already noted) b u t ex ten d s its in sig h ts to w ard an understan d in g o f th e triu n e God, in full confidence th a t God is n o t o th e r th a n w h a t is revealed in an d th ro u g h th e flesh o f Jesus. In th e process o f read in g b ack fro m C hristology, it is im p o rta n t th a t w e do n o t create a false d istin ctio n b etw e en th e so-called Logos asarkos (the Logos w ith o u t th e flesh ) an d th e Logos ensarkos (the Logos w ith in th e flesh ). Karl B arth m akes clear th a t G ods decision to elect C hrist is b est seen as a n e te rn a l decision w h ich tak es place w ith in th e e te rn a l life o f God. T h at God chooses to becom e k n o w n th ro u g h th e p artic u la r person o f Jesus signals th a t Jesus is b o th th e electing God a n d th e elect h u m a n creatu re. In essence, B arth claim s th a t Jesus re p rese n ts an ete rn al an d u n b reak ab le cov en ant b etw een God an d h u m a n ity in w h ich hum ank in d are elected in an d th ro u g h th e in ca rn atio n .35 This situ ates h um an k in d firm ly w ith in th e d o ctrin e o f God, estab lish in g th a t God has chosen to be th e k in d o f God w h o includes hum an ity . I do n o t believe, how ever, th a t w e are to concede as B arth does th a t n o th in g w ould be lacking in His (i.e., Gods) in w ard b ein g as God in
452
CROSSCURRENTS

H A N N A H BACON

glory, as th e Father, Son, an d Holy Spirit, as th e O ne w h o loves in freedom , if He did n o t show H im self to th e w orld.36 This ap p ro ach risks presen tin g Gods en g ag em en t w ith th e divine econom y as secondary to th e ete rn a l T rin itarian b ein g o f God, an d I have already rejected this. Furtherm ore, th e freedom o f God n eed n o t b e seen as freed o m o f choice in th is way. M oltm ann, fo r exam ple, insists th a t G ods freed o m is n o t to be u n d ersto o d as freed o m to choose b etw een b ein g e ith e r with or without h u m a n ity b u t as th e freed o m to b e w ho an d w h a t God isit can n ev er co n trad ict th e tru th w h ich h e h im se lf [sic] is.37 As such, th e freedo m o f God com m u n icates Gods ab ility to b e God, so if God in C hrist suffers an d dies, G ods suffering does n o t d im in ish Gods freed o m b u t is in fact co n stitu tiv e o f it. M oltm ann th u s rig h tly n o tes th a t it m akes n o sense to ta lk ab o u t a God w h o could h av e decided n o t to be passio nate in love, because th is is w h o an d w h a t God is; creative an d suffering love h as alw ays b ee n a p a rt o f his loves ete rn al n a tu re .38 It does th ere fo re seem non sen sical to ta lk ab o u t a God w ho could have existed w ith o u t th e flesh if th e flesh o f Jesus has always b een in teg ral to th e self-identity o f God. This essen tially reveals th a t th a t th e d o ctrin e o f th e T rinity c a n n o t be disassociated fro m th e d o ctrin e o f in carn atio n . This is n o t to say, th o u g h , th a t th e la tte r is collapsed in to th e form er. I am no t, for exam ple, endorsing a ty p e o f M odalism th a t fails to d istin g u ish b etw e en th e Son an d th e o th e r divine persons. The triu n e co m m u n ity is a co m m u n ity o f difference, an d fleshiness belongs to th e Son proper. However, because th e th re e enjoy p erfect co m m u n io n o p eratin g in accordance w ith on e w ill (as revealed in th e econom y o f salvation), fleshiness is revealed as b ein g p a rt o f th e T rin itarian identity.
Thinking the Trinity as resource for feminist theologies today

T h inking ab o u t God as T rin ity th ro u g h th e lens o f th e in ca rn ate C hrist, I now w a n t to suggest, opens u p th re e significant possibilities fo r contem p o rary fem in ist theology. 1. First, it p resen ts a w ay in to T rin itarian reflectio n w h ich avoids th e w o rst excesses o f m etaphysical specu latio n an d ab stra ctio n by placing em b o d im en t a t th e ce n te r o f th in k in g ab o u t God. 2. Second, it em braces th e diverse d im ensions o f g en d ered experience asthis is variously affected by race, sexuality, class, disability, and
DECEMBER 2012

453

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

n atio n ality (etc.) an d destabilizes th e rigid b o u nd aries aro u n d g en d er an d sexuality w h ich govern an d su stain hetero p atriarch y . 3. T hird, it provides a theological logic by w h ich ab stract m o n o th eism an d p h allo cen tric m odels o f re la tin g m ig h t b e challenged w ith o u t re to rt to th e speculative T rin itarian p ro jectio n ism Kilby w arn s of.

Thinking God as Trinity reveals a fleshy God

T u rn in g to m y first p o in t th e n , usin g th e in ca rn atio n as a lens fo r th in k in g ab o u t God offers a w ay in to T rin itarian reflectio n w h ich avoids th e
p itfalls o f m etaph y sical sp ecu latio n an d ab stra ctio n by placing th e flesh

a t th e ce n ter o f th in k in g ab o u t God. Indeed, th e C hristological focus o f th is suggestion provides a m ean s by w h ich fleshiness m ig h t b e affirm ed. A ncient b in aries b etw e en sp irit an d flesh, God an d w orld, divine an d corporeal, w h ich lim it th e divine an d w h ich have in m an y ways enjoyed a com plex alth o u g h q u ite h e a lth y ex isten ce w ith in C hristianity, are challenged an d u p ro o ted because God n o w has a body. However, p rio ritizin g th e male body o f Jesus in th in k in g ab o u t God, w e m ay say, re tu rn s us quickly to Dalys classic objectio n th a t if God is m ale, th e n th e m ale is God.39 R eading b ack fro m C hristology to th e T rinity seem s to co n fro n t us once m o re w ith th e m aleness o f divine flesh. The m aleness o f Jesus, how ever, n eed n o t o p erate in th is way. If, as I have argu ed elsew here,40 p artic u la rity is ta k e n to b e th e ch aracterizin g fe atu re o f in ca rn atio n ra th e r th a n Jesus m aleness th e n , th is n e ith e r negates th e h isto rical reality o f h is m ale body n o r attach es an y th in g o th e r th a n h isto rical significance to his m ale flesh. In beco m in g flesh, God becom es particular, an d th e p articu larities Jesus em bodies include p articu larities o f sex, class, ethnicity, religion, able-bodiedness, an d so on. It is, how ever, n o t th e specifics o f Jesus p artic u la rity th a t are revelatory b u t th a t God in th e first place becom es p artic u la r by tak in g th e fo rm o f flesh. As such, all bodies in all th e ir difference are able to id en tify w ith th e p erso n o f C h rist an d by ex ten sio n are inclu d ed w ith in th e e te rn a l life o f th e triu n e God, th ro u g h v irtu e o f th e ir ow n particularity.

Thinking God as Trinity embraces the complexity of identity

A cknow ledgm ent o f th e various ways in w h ich gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, an d n atio n ality (for exam ple) in fo rm w o m en s id en tities an d com plexify th e so-called w o m an q u estio n has b ee n a crucial featu re
454
CROSSCUR RENTS

H A N N A H BACON

o f th ird w ave fem inism . Increasingly, fem in ist theo lo gy has com e to em brace th e m u ltip le ways in w h ich d o m in atio n is configured in w o m en s lives across th e globe, h ea rin g in to sp eech th e voices o f w o m en previously excluded from th e w hite, h etero sexist, m iddle-class p aram eters o f th e w o m en s m ovem ent. R ather th a n seeing gender, class, an d race, fo r exam ple, as pred efin ed d iscrete categories, increasingly fem in ist theory, follow ed only relatively recen tly by fem in ist theology, has com e to stress th e in tersectio n ality o f th ese categories an d th e n eed to co n sid er th e ways in w hich, fo r exam ple, g en d er is itse lf raced, in fo rm ed by class, sexuality, nationality, dis/ability, an d so on. M ore th a n th is, how ever, fem in ist theology, draw in g o n th e in sig hts o f fem in ist an d q u ee r theory, h as also com e to p ro b lem atize th e very categories o f g en d e r an d sexuality. C hallenging th e co nventions o f h etero n o rm ativity an d h etero p atriarch y , fem in ist theology is suspicious o f theologies w h ich enforce clear, static bo u n daries an d d em arcatio n s aro u n d g en d er an d sexuality.41 In th is way, fem in ist theo lo g y has com e an d increasingly com es to sh are som e o f th e ce n tral features o f q u eer theology, seeking to o u tw it id en tity an d to serve th o se w h o find them selves an d o th ers to be o th e r th a n th e ch aracters p rescrib ed by an iden tity .42 T h at theolog y sh o u ld reflect th e fluidity, undecidability, an d am biguity o f id en tity is crucial. Indeed, en su rin g theo lo g y rem ain s contextualized in re la tio n to th e dynam ic, m aterial, com plex, an d am biguous realities o f w o m en an d m e n s lives and, th u s in re la tio n to th e specific in terlo ck in g system s w h ich co n trib u te to oppression, is one o f th e m o st im p o rta n t challenges facing fem in ist th eologies today. This has p ro m p ted co n tem p o rary fem in ist theologians to be m o re delib erately ro o ted in th e p artic u la r a n d m o re atten tiv e to th e com plex, overlapping d im ensions o f w o m en s lives. The h o p e is, as Jo h expresses, th a t th e k in d s o f theologizin g w e do m ay b e relev an t to o u r w o rld.43 To b e usefu l a n d usable: to such a fem in ist vision o f difference, theologies o f th e Trin ity m u st, I believe, b e flexible en o u g h an d b ro a d en o u g h to include an d em b race th e diverse p articu larities, com plexities, an d sh iftin g dim en sion s o f gen dered experience. They m u st h elp to tran sgress th e static b in a iy divisions w h ich th re a te n to confine w o m en an d m e n to one-dim ensional id en titie s44 an d provide a space fo r an affirm atio n o f abundance. This m ean s try in g to th in k God in ways w h ich challenge th e dom in ance o f h ete ro p atriarch y w ith in th e C h ristian theological im agination.
DECEMBER 2012

455

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

It

certainly m ean s co n fro n tin g an d rejectin g a d o ctrin e o f God w h ich

casts God in th e im age o f th e privileged, w h ite, im p erial ru ler/k in g w ho h as lim itless p ow er over h is lan d an d people. Th in k in g God as Trinity, how ever, can su bv ert th e se dynam ics by m ak in g th e d o ctrin e o f God atten tiv e to th e provisionality, plurality, am biguity, dynam ism , an d flu id ity o f identity. R ath er th a n enco u rag in g a u n ila te ra l acco u n t o f w o m an o r m an , th in k in g God as T rinity th ro u g h th e lens o f C hristology su p p o rts w h a t C ath erine Keller calls th e n eg atio n o f w o m an an d a n apophasis o f g en d e r [...] th a t sh atters its co n fid en t access to a b o u n d ed p air o f positive sem antic fields.45 All bodies in all th e ir p articu larities are w elcom ed in to th e v ast an d fleshy space o f th e divine life w ith o u t seeking to hom o g en ize o r categorize difference. Indeed, th e rev elatio n o f God in th e econom y o f salvation show s th a t God is always m o re th a n one, d istin c t in th e w ay God relates, n ev er w itho u t th e w o rld an d n ev e r w ith o u t th e flesh. It is n o t th a t th e flesh e n te rs th e reality o f God (as so m eth in g n ew fro m outside) b u t th a t th e flesh h as alw ays b ee n p a rt o f th e id en tity o f God due to Jesus b ein g th e e te rn a l in ca rn ate W ord w h o is etern ally th e Logos ensarkos. Bodies th e n in all th e ir differenceth ro u g h v irtu e o f th e ir individual shiftin g p articu larities, identify w ith th e body o f Jesus an d are co n firm ed as particip atin g w ith in th e fleshy life o f th e triu n e God. The T rinity th u s exposes th a t God is am biguous an d diverse in se an d th a t bodies are n o t o th e r to w h a t God is. B eginning fro m otkonomia an d th u s fro m th e in ca rn atio n o f God in Jesus an d th e in terco n n ected n ess b etw een Father, Son, an d S pirit revealed in th e divine econom y allow s all bodies to b e h eld to g e th e r in all th e ir difference in th e one God w ith o u t th is in any w ay co m p ro m isin g th e in teg rity o f God. As such, th e T rinity resists san ctio n in g th e h a rm fu l b in aries o f h e te ro p atriarch y th ro u g h an affirm atio n o f difference an d m u ltip le bodies. Because th e T rin ity is a vast an d inclusive space, a place w h ere difference is n o t occluded an d hom ogen ized b u t em braced, th e re is ro o m en o u g h fo r th e affirm atio n an d flourish in g o f all life. As w ell as th is, how ever, T rin itarian reflectio n assists in re m in d in g us, n o t only o f o u r p articu larity b u t also o f o u r interd ep en d en cy . O ur lives necessarily overlap w ith th o se o f o th ers, an d so th e T rinity rem in d s us o f th e im p o rtan ce o f b u ild in g com m unity. For fem in ist theologians, th e need to forge coalitions o f struggle across differences co n tin u es to be a priority,
456
CROSSCURR ENTS

H AN N A H BACON

to engage in cross-cultural dialogue so as to bu ild g re a te r consensus -th ro u g h th e v aluing o f difference. T h inking God as T rinity provides a th e o logical logic by w h ich th e in terco n n ected n ess o f w o m en an d m e n s lives m ig h t be affirm ed w ith o u t re to rt to th e b ou n d ed , essen tializin g b in aries o f h etero p atriarch y . If th e rev elation o f God in th e econom y o f salvation ,show s th a t God is always more th a n one, d istin c t in th e w ay God re la tes n ev er w ith o u t th e w orld an d n ev er w ith o u t th e flesh, th e n th in k in g ab o u t God as T rinity m ig h t b e a w ay o f doing ju stic e to o u r bodies. It m ay fu rth e r encourage us to celebrate o u r flesh as it is exp erien ced in a m yriad .o f ways w h ile h o n o rin g th a t w h ich w e h o ld in co m m o n

Thinking God as Trinity identifies authentic relationship with the radical self-gift of Jesus
Besides th is, how ever, tak in g oikonomia as th e startin g p o in t fo r reflectio n o n God as T rinity also provides a logic by w h ich a b stra ct m o n o th eism an d p h allo cen tric m odels o f relatio n sh ip can b e challenged w ith o u t re to rt to th e speculative T rin itarian p ro jectio n ism K aren Kilby w arn s about. The self-giving act o f th e T rin itarian God in th e divine econom y itself provides a m od el o f relatio n sh ip w h ich exposes w h a t it m eans fo r God to be God -an d w h ich stands in o p p o sitio n to th e h o m o g en izing dynam ics o f h ete ro .p atria rch y The p h rase ab stract m o n o th eism is a u sed by M oltm ann in The Trinity and the Kingdom o f God to id en tify a pro b lem h e perceives w ith in W e ste rn T rin itarian ism w h ich h as p reclu d ed th e d o ctrin es p racticability from bein g addressed.46 A bstract m o n o th eism , h e argues, u p h o ld s th e classical n o tio n o f God as ab so lute subject an d su p rem e substance. G rounded on -A quinas cosm ological proofs fo r th e ex istence o f God,47 God is h e re p rin -cipally u n d ersto o d as one, as im m ovable, im passible, u n ited , an d self-suffi cien t,48 an d th is, h e suggests, becom es a p riso n fo r th e statem en ts o f rev elation m ad e o n th e basis o f G ods m an ife sta tio n in Jesus C h rist .49 Essentially, because God is first an d fo rem o st conceived as absolute subject -an d su p rem e substance, too m u ch stress is placed o n th e u n ity o f th e T rin ita ria n God collapsing w h a t M o ltm ann calls th e triu n ity o f God in to th e One God.50 The T rin itarian p erso n s are dissolved in to a hom ogenous abstract) su b stan ce w ith De Deo Uno tak in g p reced en ce over (and th u s ( beco m in g sep arated from ) De Deo Trino. This establishes God as a universal .m o n arch , tra n sc e n d e n t ru ler, an d self-identical sub ject
DECEMBER 2012

457

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

M o ltm an ns assessm en t o f W e ste rn T rin itarian ism is q u estionable, b u t w h a t his caricature com m unicates is th e dangers w h ich ab o u n d w h en stressin g th e oneness o f God a t th e expense o f Gods th ree n ess an d w h en p rio ritizin g ta lk o f divine su b stan ce over Gods self-disclosure th ro u g h th e p erso n an d life o f Jesus. If th e re is n o God b e h in d th e God revealed in salvation history, a focus o n th e oneness o f th e divine su b stan ce in sep aratio n fro m th e econom y o f God is in co m p atib le w ith th e special rev elatio n o f God in Jesus C hrist. Im portantly, fo r M oltm ann, th e ce n tral p a rt o f th e sto iy o f C hrist is th e h isto ry o f C hrists passion an d a h isto ry o f a God w h o is deeply involved in th e w orld an d w h o suffers to th e p o in t o f d eath. This, h e m aintain s, calls for a reassessm en t o f classical th eistic accounts o f divine substance w hich, in reflectin g th e influ en ce o f an c ien t G reek th o u g h t, m a in ta in th e n o tio n o f divine apatheia. For M oltm ann, th is is in co n sisten t w ith th e passion o f C hrist, w h ich clearly show s th a t God is n o t im m u n e o r u naffected by suffering. Indeed, h e is clear th a t w e c a n n o t speak m eaningfully ab o u t a God w h o does n o t o r c a n n o t suffer because th is is contra iy to w h a t has b een revealed in th e econom y o f salvation. If God is love, th e n God m u st suffer, o th erw ise God c a n n o t b e said to love o r live.51 O f course, if th e God revealed in salvation h isto ry is a God w h o is in relatio n sh ip w ith th e w orld an d w h o is n o t im m u n e fro m suffering, th e n w e m u st conclude th a t th is is w h a t God is like in Godself. Suffering m u st exist within th e triu n e God an d be in teg ral to Gods ete rn a l self-identity. The classical n o tio n o f an ap a th etic God, w e m u st say w ith M oltm ann, is th u s re n d ere d in c o h e re n t w ith th e biblical rev elatio n o f God in C hrist. Instead, th e self-giving o f God is u n co v ered as a defin in g featu re o f Trin ita ria n life. This, I believe, carries ex trem ely im p o rta n t im p licatio ns for u n d ersta n d in g th e dynam ics o f a u th e n tic relatio n sh ip . First, if th in k in g God as T rinity m eans to th in k God as always more than one, b eyond th e a b stra ct m o n o th eism M oltm ann w arn s about, th e n th e p h allo cen tric dynam ics th a t su p p o rt an d reflect th e view o f God as A bsolute subject are challenged. P hallocentric m odels o f re latio n sh ip w h ich estab lish th e absolute subjectivity o f m ale perso ns th ro u g h a n eradicatio n o f fem ale subjectivity are destabilized. In h e r sem in al tex t, Speculum o f the Other Woman, Luce Irigaray identifies p h allo cen trism w ith a sym bolic system in w h ich w o m an co nstitutes n o th in g m o re th a n a sp ecu lu m o r m irro r th ro u g h w h ich th e m ale reflects
458
CROSSCURRENTS

H A N N A H BACON

h is ow n id entity, giving m an back h is im age an d re p eatin g it as th e sam e.52 The w om an, she argues, becom es a place o utside o f th e m an th ro u g h w h ich h e can confirm an d estab lish his ow n stable id en tity as (the only) subject. It is she [i.e., w om an] w ho sets u p th a t ete rn a l elsew h ere fro m w h ich th e su b ject co n tin u es to draw his reserves, his re-sources, th o u g h w ith o u t b ein g able to recognize th em /h er.53 Thus, alth o u g h th e m a n uses h e r as an ex te rn al in stru m e n t th ro u g h w h ich to achieve his ow n selfhood, th e w o m an n ev erth eless rem ain s invisible to him . H er subjectivity (and sex) is re n d ere d un sp eak ab le w ith in th e cu rre n t sym bolic o rd e r because th e language an d logic o f th is w orld are established by m an for h is ow n auto-eroticism . W h ereas th e ab so lu te m o n o th eism M oltm ann describes w ould alm ost certain ly su p p o rt th is p h allo cen tric system , p re sen tin g God as th e selfsam e ph allus w h o is und iv id ed u n ity an d su p rem e substance, im agining God as T rinity m ean s to tran sg ress th ese bo u n d aries an d d estabilize th is logic. If God as T rin ity is always more th a n one, th e n th e T rinity (as a m odel o f divine subjectivity) ca n n o t b e u sed to legitim ize a system w h ich colonizes difference an d uses w o m en for th e p u rp o se o f stabilizing an d co n firm in g m e n as th e only subjects. If God as T rinity is a dynam ic com m un ity o f love w h ich is n ev er solitary o r in d ep e n d en t o f th e w orld th ro u g h v irtu e o f th e ete rn a l self-giving o f God in th e Logos ensarkos, th e re is no such unifying o r stabilizing p o in t fro m w h ich to au th o riz e such a claim . R ather th a n rep ro d u cin g th e logic o f th e sam e, th in k in g God as T rinity exposes difference an d alterity as th e ro o t o f subjectivity. R ath er th a n legitim izin g th e co lo n izatio n an d assim ilatio n o f difference, th in k in g God as T rinity situates difference a t th e ce n ter o f id en tity alongside relationship. Second an d re la ted to th is, if as I have suggested self-giving lies a t th e h e a rt o f th e T rin itarian God th ro u g h v irtu e o f Gods e te rn a l decision to give Gods self to th e w o rld th ro u g h C hrist, th e n to b e in relatio n sh ip m eans to give o f o n es self freely, to be h o sp itab le to w ard th e o th er, to w elcom e th e o th er, an d to w elcom e difference. The self-giving, o r self-gift, o f God in th e in ca rn atio n o f Jesus establishes th a t self-giving is n o t sim ply w h o God is b u t also w h a t God does. But h o w useful is th is fo r C h ristian fem in ist ethics? O f course, th e re are real dangers w ith affirm in g th e value o f self-giving fo r o ppressed groups, in p artic u la r fo r w om en. It is n o t surprising,
DECEMBER 2012

459

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

fo r exam ple, th a t trad itio n al theologies o f a to n e m e n t have b een criticized for decades fo r re ite ra tin g th e values o f self-sacrifice, passivity, an d hum ility w h ich are, as M aiy Daly notes, h ard ly th e qu alities w o m en should be encouraged to h av e in sexist societies an d cu ltu res.54 In co ntex ts w here w o m en co n tin u e to be encouraged, even forced to em p ty them selves for th e sake o f o th ersw h e th e r th e ir h usbands, ch ild ren , o r w hoeverth e dangers o f th is v irtu e seem obvious. However, w h atev er self-giving connotes, it n eed n o t d em an d th e eradicatio n o r th e d en ial o f th e self. It n eed n o t re q u ire th e em p ty in g o f o n es self into a n o th e r fo r th e sake o f an o th er, o r in such a w ay th a t n o th in g o f th e self rem ains. It n eed n o t d em an d th e sacrifice o r an n ih ilatio n o f th e self fo r th e sake o f an o th er, n o r m u st it re q u ire th a t w e possess o n e s self to th e p o in t o f co n su m ing o r assim ilatin g an o th er. The re q u ire m e n t o f self-giving is first an d fo rem o st to see th e giving o f o n ese lf as gifl, as an act o f radical love w h ich is given in freedom , received in freedom , an d in w h ich th e fluid co nto u rs o f id en tity are respected. R unning alongside th e n eed to o u tw it id e n tity an d to stress th e undecidability a n d am big u ity o f g en d ered id en tity in p artic u la r th e n is a need to u p h o ld an d preserve d istin ctn ess an d difference b etw e en th o se in relatio n sh ip . A lthough id en tity is in co n stan t flux, is com plex, am biguous, undecided, an d forever o n th e m ove, I am still able to d iscern m yself in sep aratio n from an o th er, even th o u g h th is re la tio n sh ip w ill change an d sh ift in re la tio n to a m atrix o f factors. W ith o u t th e p reserv atio n o f difference bodies an d id en tities becom e h om ogenized, violated, an d colonized, an d so fem in ist th in k in g ab o u t God m u st assist in u p h o ld in g b o th principles. T hink in g God as T rinity provides a useful reso u rce fo r d o ing this. If God, as Trinity, is n e ith e r en tirely self-possessed (because God n ev e r exists in iso latio n fro m th e w o rld e ith e r as th e Logos asarkos o r as God ad intra trinitatis) n o r en tirely collapsed in to th e w o rld (the p an th e istic vision), th e n th e d istinctn ess o f God is m ain tain ed w ith o u t th is u n d erm in in g G ods in sep arab ility fro m th e m ateria l w orld. God is in re la tio n sh ip with th e w orld th ro u g h th e giving o f G odself th ro u g h C hrist. T hin k in g God as T rinity th u s establishes a p artic u la r acco u n t o f self-giving as a key feature o f a u th e n tic relatio n sh ip , o n e w h ich avoids th e dangers o f self-possession an d self-erasure by th e p reserv atio n o f freedom (divine an d hum an). If, as I have already suggested, divine freed o m does n o t co n n o te a k in d o f m as
460
CROSSCURRENTS

HAN N A H BACON

tery o r lo rdsh ip w h ere God is free to do w h atev er God w ishes b u t refers to Gods capacity to be G odself an d to th ere fo re b e love, th e n th e freed o m o f God as T rinity depicts th a t God lim its G odself so as to allow space w ith in G odself fo r th e w orld to b e, to flo u rish an d grow (the p an en th eistic vision). This tak es th e self-giving act o f God in th e in ca rn atio n ra th e r th a n speculative readings o f th e in n e r life o f God as th e g ro u n d u p o n w h ich to d iscern w h a t it m ig h t m ea n to be in a u th e n tic relation sh ip . W h a t t h in k in g God as T rinity th ro u g h th e lens o f in ca rn atio n tells us is th a t self-giving req u ires th a t w e allow each o th e r space to grow an d flourish an d th a t w e preserve th e o th e r so th a t w e can b e free to live and th riv e to g eth er. O f course, self-giving m ean s to b e a t risk. In a w orld o f violence w h e re abuse o f th e o th e r fo r th e selfs ow n ends com prises a realistic th re a t, th e d an g er o f self-giving is exposed. But radical love o f th is k in d could n o t be otherw ise. T h in king God as T rinity only affirm s as au th entic th o se relatio n sh ip s w h ere bodies an d id en tities are preserved. As such, self-giving d em ands a co m m itm e n t to not giving u p th e self an d not tak in g over th e oth er. T h at th is sh o u ld b e seen as an ac t o f love an d m ore specifically as a radical g ift o f love m eans, in th e first place, th a t w e see ourselves as valuable. Such a n im age o f radical love is seen th ro u g h th e self-giving an d self-gifting o f God in th e Ufe, d eath , an d re su rrec tio n o f th e in ca rn ate C hrist.
Concluding remarks: finding God in the flesh

The im p lication s o f th in k in g th e T rinity fo r C h ristian praxis th u s contin u e to be radical. They in fo rm a co n tem p o rary fem in ist vision w h ich w ishes to fram e God in ways w h ich do n o t co n trav en e th e p lu rality o f em bodied experience o r th e u n d ecid ability o f identity. G iven th a t femin ist d eb ate on th e T rinity to d ate h as b ee n preoccupied w ith q uestions su rro u n d in g T rin itarian language an d h o w b est to speak th e C hristian God, a discussion o f w h a t it m ig h t m ean to th in k rig h tly ab o u t God and h o w th is m ig h t im p act fe m in ist-C h ristia n praxis is b o th tim ely an d essential. Th is n eed n o t locate discussion o f God in ab stractio n if th e rev elatio n o f God in creatu rely existence is ta k e n as th e fo u n d atio n an d T rin itarian th o u g h t is id en tified as principally a m a tte r o f th in k in g b ack fro m C hristology to th e w id er d o ctrin e o f God. W hile in no w ay collapsing God th e F ather in to God th e Son, w h a t th is does assert w ith
DECEMBER 2012

461

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

confidence is th a t th e re is no God o utside th e flesh an d th a t th e expansive, fleshy space o f th e T rinity is big en o u g h to em b race all bodies, in all th e ir diffrence an d p articularities. To th in k God as Trin ity m eans to love th e bodyb o th m y ow n an d th o se o f o th ers, to W elcom e one a n o th e r [...] ju s t as C hrist h as w elcom ed you, fo r th e gloiy o f God (Romans 15.7). It m eans to live w ith th e o th e r ra th e r th a n w ith o u t or in stead o f th e o th e r an d to allow space in ourselves fo r th e o th e r to flourish, ju s t as th e triu n e God allow s space in th e divine life fo r ou r flourishing.
Notes
1. Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water: Ecofeminism and Liberation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 138. It is, however, w orth noting that Gebara does spend tim e seeking out an alternative understanding o f the Trinity, w h ich bypasses the abstract substance theology o f traditional W estern m etaphysics instead identifying the Trinity w ith the dynam ism and pluralities o f existence. 2. Isherwood, Lisa, forthcom ing, Response to H annah Bacon, in H. Bacon, and W. Morris eds., Transforming Exclusion: Engaging Faith Perspectives, T & T Clark. This piece was originally entitled If Bodies Matter Is the Trinity Em bodied Enough? A Case for Fleshy Christologies. 3. Ibid. 4. Coakley, Sarah, 2003, Living into the Mystery o f the Holy Trinity: The Trinity, Prayer, and Sexuality, in Janet Martin Soskice, and Diana Lipton, eds., Feminism & Theology, Oxford Readings in Fem inism, Oxford U niversity Press, pp. 258-67. 5. Isherwood, Lisa, 1999, Liberating Christ: Exploring the Christologies of Contemporary Liberation Movements, Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press. 6. See Ruether, Rosemary Radford, 1983, Sexism and God-talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 137. 7. Kilby, Karen, 2000, Perichoresis and Projectionism: Problems w ith Social Doctrines o f the Trinity, New Blackfriars 81/957(439), pp. 4 3 2 ^ 5 . 8. Ibid. 9. Johnson, Elizabeth, 1992, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse, New York: Crossroad, 5, em phasis m ine. 10. Ibid., pp. 4-5. 11. 1963, The N icene Creed, in Herny Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford & N ew York: Oxford University Press, p. 26. 12. M aiy Daly, for exam ple, has com pellingly argued that such language and im agery serve conveniently to perpetuate the patriarchal m yth o f m ale transcendence and self-sufficiency, nam ing God in relation to m ale being and robbing w om en o f their ow n ability to nam e God and them selves. See Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1985, p. 13. 13. Ibid.

462

CROSSCURRENTS

H AN N A H BACON

14. Daly, Beyond God the Father. 15. Ibid., p. 72. 16. See, for exam ple, Tennis, Diane, 1985, Is God the Only Reliable Father? Philadelphia: Westm inster Press. 17. See Aquino, Maria Pilar, 1993, Our Cry for Life: Feminist Theology from Latin America, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books: Congar, Yves, 1 9 8 3 , 1 Believe in the Holy Spirit, trans. D. Smith, New York: The Seabury Press: London: Geoffrey Chapman. 18. For exam ple, Johnson, She Who Is. 19. For exam ple, W ren, Brian, 1989, What Language Shall I Borrow? God-talk in Worship: A Male Response to Feminist Theology, London: SCM and McFague, Sallie, 1987, Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 20. For exam ple Duck, Ruth, 1991, Gender and the Name of God: The Trinitarian Baptismal Formula, N ew York: Pilgrim Press. 21. Bacon, Hannah, 2009, Whats Right with the Trinity? Conversations in Fem inist Theology, Aldershot: Ashgate. See 2 -3 , 5. 22. See Sokolove, Deborah, 2010, More than W ords, in M aiy E. Hunt, and Diann L. Neu, eds., New Feminist Christianity. Many Voices, Many Views, W oodstock, VT: Skylight Paths Publishing, pp. 182-9, esp. p. 183. 23. Bacon, W hats Right with the Trinity?, p. 6. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. LaCugna, God For Us, 21-14. LaCugna points out that a split betw een the tw o occurred at Nicaea constituting an im portant stum bling block in Trinitarian history. She identifies Augustine as th e epitom e o f this split given his attem pts to articulate Gods substance through reference to the internal workings o f th e m indas mem ory, understanding, and w ill, for exam ple. 27. Ibid., pp. 209-42. 28. Ibid., p. 230. 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid., p. 246. 31. Ibid., p. 243. 32. LaCugna, Catherine Mowjy, 1988, Returning from The Far Country: Thesis for a Contem porary Trinitarian Theology, Scottish Journal of Theology 41.2(208), pp. 191-215. 33. Ibid., p. 134. 34. Barth, Karl, 1961, The Humanity of God, London: John Knox Press, p. 55. 35. Barth, Karl, 1957, Church Dogmatics, II/2, The Doctrine o f God, G. W. Bromiley, and T. F. Torrance, eds., trans. T. H. L. Parker, W. B. Johnston, Harold Knight, and J. L. M. Haire, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, p. 509. 36. Barth, Karl, 1956, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, The Doctrine o f Reconciliation, G. W. Bromiley, and T. F. Torrance, eds., trans. G. W. Bromiley, Edinburgh, p. 213. 37. M oltmann, Jrgen, 1981, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God,Munich: SCM, p. 53. 38. Ibid., p. 59. 39. Daly, 19.

DECEMBER

2012

463

T H I N K I N G

THE

T R I N I T Y

AS

R E S O U R C E

FOR

F E M I N I S T

T H E O L O G Y

T O D A Y ?

40. See Bacon, Hannah, 2009, A Veiy Particular Body: Assessing the Doctrine o f Incarnation for Affirming the Sacaram entality o f Female Em bodim ent, in Jannine Jobling, and Gillian Howie, eds., Women and the Divine: Touching Transcendence, New York: Palgrave M acmillan, pp. 227-52. 41. Butler, Judith, 2006, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London, New York: Routledge. 42. Loughlin, Gerard, January 2008, W hat Is Queer? Theology after Identity, Theology and Sexuality 14.2(149), 143-52. 43. See Joh, W. Anne, 2010, Race, Class, Gender, Sexuality. Integrating th e Diverse Politics o f Identity in Our Theology, in Mary E. Hunt, and Diann L. Neu, eds., New Feminist Christianity. Many Voices, Many Views, W oodstock, VT: Skylight Paths Publishing, pp. 52-63 (53). 44. Joh, 55. 45. Keller, Catherine, Decem ber 2008, The Apophasis o f Gender: A Fourfold Unsaying o f Fem inist Theology, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 76.3, p. 918. 46. M oltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, 17. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid., p. 21. 49. Ibid., p. 17. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid., p. 38. He thus proposes the notion o f active suffering: the voluntary laying onese lf open to another w here one allow s o n eself to be intim ately affected by another. This, according to M oltmann, is the hallm ark o f passionate love (see p. 23). 52. Irigaray, Luce, 1985, Speculum of the Other Woman, trans. Gillian C. Gill, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, p. 54. 53. Ibid., p. 227. 54. Daly, Beyond God the Father, 77.

464

CROSSCURRENTS

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.