islamic monotheism and the trinity - university of waterloo · islamic monotheism and the trinity...

Islamic Monotheism and the Trinity

Jon Hoover

ChristiansandMuslimsbothbelievethatthereisonlyoneGod,and,asIhopetoshowinthisarticle,theirdoctrinesofGodsharesomeimportantstructuralsimilarities. However, Muslims and Christians also find themselves differing over how this God is one, with Muslims rejecting the Christian doctrineof the Trinity. The first part of this essay surveys Islamic criticisms of the Trinity,andthesubsequentpartsseektowidenthescopeofthediscussionso as to find bridges between the Islamic and Christian doctrines of God. I outlinethebasicsoftheIslamicdoctrineofGod,examinehowChristiansaffirm the unity of God by means of Trinitarian doctrine, and note parallels inordertoenhancemutualunderstanding.Aswillbecomeapparent,myaimisalsoapologetic:thatis,IseektoclarifythesenseoftheChristiandoctrineoftheTrinityinviewoftypicalMuslimconcerns.

Thisessaybeganasapresentationat theMennonite-Shi‘idialogueheldinQom,IraninFebruary2004.1Thatpaperwaspublishedwithminorrevisions in aCatholic journal the sameyear.2 Itwasalso to appear in avolumecontainingthe2004Qomdialoguepapers,butplansforthatvolumewere eventually abandoned. In the meantime, I became aware of difficulties withmy2004presentation.Thepresentessayis thusathoroughrevisionofthatwork,andItrustthatitisnowmoreadequate.3However,duetothewide scopeofmydiscussion, I havenot been able either to explain andjustifyallofmyclaimsasfullyassomemightwishortoengagetheentirerange of potential objections to my arguments, from both Christians andMuslims.4Thisremainsaworkinprocess–orratherpartofadialogueinprocess–anditisinthespiritofthesharedandongoingMuslim-ChristiansearchfortruththatIsubmitthiscontributiontofurtherconversation.

Islamic Criticism of the TrinityThe Qur’an asserts that God is one (e.g., Q. 16:51, 44:8, 47:19, 112:1-4). For many Muslims, the monotheism that is foundational to IslamicdoctrineisknownnotonlyfromQur’anicrevelationbutalsofromreason.

The Conrad Grebel Review�8

Islamic criticism of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity then flows from theconvictionthat thisdoctrinecompromisesGod’sunityandentails tri-theism.OnceitisestablishedthattheChristiandoctrineisnotmonotheistic,itisbutashortsteptocensuringChristiansforcommittingtheunforgivablesinofassociatingpartnerswithGod(shirk):TheywronglygiveJesustheSonandtheHolySpiritashareinGod’sexclusiveruleoftheworld,andtheydevoteworshiptoJesusthatisdueonlytoGod.5MuslimsjustifytheirconvictionthattheTrinityviolatesGod’sunityinanumberofways.Here,Iwillsurveythreemajorlinesofargument:Qur’aniccriticism,TrinitariandoctrinaldevelopmentascorruptionofthemessageofJesus,andrationaldeficiencies in the classical Trinitarian formulations.

TheQur’anincludesseveralversesthatMuslimsoftenusetocriticizethedoctrineoftheTrinity.TheQur’anrejectsatriadthatconsistsofGod,Jesus, and his mother Mary: “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say to thepeople,‘WorshipmeandmymotherastwogodsbesidesGod?’”(Q.5:116).TheQur’analsodeniesthatJesusisGod’sSonandthatGodis“three,”asin theverse,“TheMessiahJesus, sonofMary,wasonlyamessengerofGod….Donotsay‘Three’….GodisonlyoneGod.Glorybetohim.[Heisabove]havingason”(Q.4:171).AnothertextimpliesthatcallingChristGod’ssonisunbeliefandthatworshipingChristasalordisassociationism(Q.9:30-31,seealsoQ.2:116,5:73,5:75).6

InresponsetothisQur’anicreproach,ChristiansreadilynotethatthedoctrineoftheTrinityspeaksnotofGod,Jesus,andMary,butofFather,Son, and Holy Spirit. Additionally, Christians do not understand Jesus’sonshipinthecarnalwaythatMuslimsoftenpresume.Rather,asAnglicanBishopKennethCraggputsit,sonshippointstotheobedienceofJesustheIncarnateSontohisFatherandthedepthofrelationshipwithintheoneGod.7Moreover, Christians concur with the fundamental Qur’anic rejection ofpolytheism,andtheyagreethatweshouldnottalkofthreegods.IthasalsobeensuggestedthattheQur’anisnotevenspeakingtoclassicalChristiandoctrinebuttosomethingelse,perhapssomekindofaberrantChristianitypresentinArabiaatthetimeoftheProphetMuhammad.8

TheseresponsesremindMuslimsinclinedtolooktotheQur’anfortheirknowledgeofChristianitythattheyneedtoexaminewhatChristiansthemselves say about theTrinitybefore rejecting it.However, it remains

Islamic Monotheism and the Trinity ��

possiblethattheQur’andidaddressclassicalTrinitariandoctrine.EventheQur’anicpolemicagainstpolytheistsmayhavebeenaimedattheallegedlydefectivemonotheismofmainstreamJewsandChristians.9Whatever thecase,ChristianattemptstoblunttheQur’aniccritiquecannotnegatethefactthatTrinitariandoctrinedoesdifferfromthepositiveQur’anicandIslamicteachingaboutGod.ToexplainhowChristianityandIslamcametodifferentviews,asecondlineofMuslimanti-TrinitariancriticismallegeshistoricalcorruptionoftheChristianreligion.

Islamic narratives of Christianity’s historical corruption are rootedin the conviction that all of God’s prophets and messengers brought thesamemessageofGod’sunity.Jesuswasnodifferent.Hisreligionwaspuremonotheism, but it was corrupted by theApostle Paul and again later attheCouncilofNiceain325.Theearlymedievaltheologian‘Abdal-Jabbar(d. 1025) elaborates this narrative in lurid detail. He underlines Paul’swickednessandcunningasheadoptsnumerousRomanreligiouspracticesintoChristianitytoendearhimselftoRomanpower.Likewise,Constantinemanipulatedchurchleaders toadopt theNiceneCreed, imposeditonthepeople,andkilledthosewhoopposedit.10

Modern Muslim versions of the historical corruption narrativesometimesborrowfromtheliberalwingofmodernwesternscholarshipontheBibleandearlychurchhistorytoenhancetheirapologeticcredibility.This is evident, for example, in the recent book by Faruk Zein entitledChristianity, Islam and Orientalism.11 Zein draws on such figures as the founder of the Jesus Seminar Robert Funk,12 the Jewish Pauline scholarHyamMaccoby,13andtheBritishpopularwriterA.N.Wilson14toarguethatPaulinventedChristianitybytransformingthehumanJesusintoaHellenisticmythaboutadyingandrisinggod.ThismythwasthenformalizedinthedoctrineoftheTrinityadoptedbytheCouncilofNicea.Zeinalsoexplainsthat the true followersof Jesuswere “Nazarenes”whoadhered to Jesus’moralreligionanddidnotworshiphimasagod.Zeinapplaudsthewesternscholarswhohavebroughtallofthistoourattention.However,hechidesthemfornot investigatingIslam,which,heargues,has long taught theseverysamethings.15

I have not been able to find lengthy rebuttals of Muslim arguments for historicalcorruptionoftheChristianfaith,norwillIattemptaresponseof


myown.RejoinderstotheJesusSeminarandotherdefensesofcontinuitybetweenJesus,Paul,andclassicalChristiandoctrinemaybeseentostandin for this lack.16 However, I will sketch below howTrinitarian doctrinefollows from the soteriological impulse that I take to be central to theBiblicalwitness.

A third strand of Muslim argument impugns the rationality of theTrinity.ManyMuslimpolemiststhroughhistoryhavebeenwellacquaintedwiththeessentialsoftheclassicaldoctrine.17Godisonesubstance(ousiainGreek,jawharinArabic)inthreepersons(hypostasisinGreek,uqnûminArabic):Father,Son,andHolySpirit.Thepersonsareequalandcoeternal,and they are distinguished one from another by their origins: the Fatheris ingenerate; the Son is generated from the Father; and the Holy Spiritproceeds from theFather.Thewesternchurch traditioneventually linkedtheHolySpirit to theSonaswell,suchthat theSpiritproceedsfromtheFatherandtheSon(filioque).

This doctrine is often quickly dismissed as irrational with theobservation that one cannot be three.A quotation by the modern SyrianQur’ancommentatoral-Sabuni(b.1930)istypical:

[TheChristians]say:Onesubstanceandthreepersons:Father,SonandHolySpirit.Thesethreeareoneasthesunconsistsinitscircularshape,raysandwarmth.TheyclaimthattheFatherisdivine,theSonisdivine,theSpiritisdivine,andthewholeisoneGod.Itisknowntobefalsebytheintuitionofreasonthatthreeisnotoneandoneisnotthree.18

Other polemicists go further in spelling out the doctrine’s rationaldifficulties. In A Response to the Three Sects of the Christians,Abu‘Isaal-Warraq(d.ca.860)providesoneoftheearliestandmostextensivecritiquesof this kind. His anti-Christian polemic was highly influential even though he wasdeemedaMuslimheretic.AfterprovidingafullandcarefuldescriptionoftheTrinitarianteachingsoftheMelkites,Nestorians,andJacobites,Abu‘Isagoeson theoffensive.He takes thehypostases tobe threecountablethings,which,whenaddedtothesubstanceoftheGodhead,makefoureternalentities.ThisisrejectedasviolatingGod’sunity.Conversely,heshowsindiversewaysthatChristianeffortstoshowhowthethreehypostasesareonefailandendupincontradiction.19

Islamic Monotheism and the Trinity �1

David Thomas, editor and translator of this early text, observesboth thatAbu ‘Isa treats Trinitarian doctrinal statements as propositionsmaking univocal assertions about the reality of God and that this is nothow Christians understood them.20 However, Thomas does not explainhowChristiansdounderstandthem.HerewemayturntotheCappadociantheologians of the fourth century for clarification. To ward off the charge of “tri-theism”intheirowntime,theyexcludedthenotionofnumberfromtheTrinitarianpersons–thepersonscannotbeaddedupasnumbers–andtheyunderlined the indivisibility, simplicity,and incomprehensibilityofGod’sessence. For the Cappadocians, Trinitarian doctrinal statements must bemadeandinterpretedfromwithinthepriorframeworkofGod’ssimplicityandineffability.21AsimilarappealtoGod’sineffabilityoressentialmysteryisfundamentaltomyowninterpretationoftheTrinitybelow.

TocountertheMuslimchargeofirrationality,someChristianshavesoughttogroundTrinitariandoctrineinreasonitself.AnexampleoccursinalettertoMuslimsbyPaulofAntioch,theMelkiteBishopofSidon(d.early1200s?).Hebeginswithacosmologicalargument–createdthingsimplyaCreator–toestablishGod’sexistence.Then,PaularguesthatGodmustbelivingsoasnottobedeadandspeakingsoasnottobeignorant.Thus,heconcludes:

TheonegodwhoiscalledoneLordandoneCreatorisaliving,speakingthing—thatis,essence,speech,andlife.TheessenceweholdtobetheFatherwhoisthesourceoftheothertwo.ThespeechistheSonwhoisbornfromtheFatherinthemannerofspeechfromtheintellect.ThelifeistheHolySpirit.22

InresponsetoPaulofAntioch’sletter,thefourteenth-centurySunnitheologianIbnTaymiyya(d.1328)wrotethefullestMuslimrefutationofChristianityintheIslamictradition,The Sound Response to Those Who Have Changed the Religion of Christ.23Hiscritiqueisinformedandastute.Withrespect to the Trinity, he first calls Paul’s bluff and explains that Christians draw the language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from their texts.Thislanguagedoesnotarise fromreasonbut fromwhatChristians take toberevelation.Moreover,theTrinityisnotneededtoknowthatGodislivingandspeaking,andthereisnoreasontolimitthenumberofGod’sattributestothree.24


WithPaulofAntioch’sbit ofnatural theologyoutof theway, IbnTaymiyya turns to a more comprehensive critique. Unlike Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq, Ibn Taymiyya demonstrates awareness that Christians generallyregard the Trinity as unknowable apart from revelation and somehowbeyond rational analysis: “[Christians] claim that the divine Books haverevealedtheseviewsandthattheyconstituteamatterbeyondreason.Theyholdthisbelieftobeofadegreebeyondthatoftheintellect.”25

LikemanyotherMuslimtheologians, IbnTaymiyyamaintains thatreasonknowsagreatdealaboutGodapartfromrevelation.ReasonknowsthatGodexists,thatGodisone,andthatGodhasattributessuchaspower,life,knowledge,andsoforth.Revelationandtheteachingoftheprophetsthen confirm what is known by reason, but they will never contradict reason. Revelationsometimesdoesgobeyondreasontoprovideinformationthatthe lattercannotaccess.This includes information thatGodhas revealedaboutrecompenseinthehereafter,aswellassomeofwhatGodwouldhaveustodointhislife.26

IbnTaymiyyarecognizesthatmanyChristianswouldwanttoincludethe Trinity under this latter rubric of revelation inaccessible to reason.However,herejectsthepossibilityandaccusesthemofnotdistinguishing“between [1] what the mind imagines and proves false and knows to beimpossibleand[2]thatwhichthemindisunabletoconceivesinceitknowsnothing about it, and has no information on it either by affirmation or denial.”27 For him, the Christian doctrine falls under the first of the two categories,notthesecond.TheTrinityisnotamattersimplybeyondreason;itisclearlyopposedtoreason.

To make the point, Ibn Taymiyya maintains that speaking of GodbegettingasonisevenmoreirrationalthanpositingawifeforGod,evenif‘begetting’ isexplainedas“intellectualproductionlikeChristianscholarshold,”28orassimilarto“thebirthofspeechfromthemind.”29Moreover,hearguesthattheTrinitarianhypostasesresolvetotri-theismandcontradiction.IftheSonistrulyequaltotheFatherinsubstance,thentheSonmustlikewisehave a substance of his own, making the Son into a second substance.Similar logicapplies to theHolySpirit, turning it intoa third substance.Thus,Christiansbelieveinfactinthreesubstancesandthreegods,andthiscontradictstheirclaimthatGodisone.30


IbnTaymiyyacomplementshisrationalcritiqueof theTrinitywithan historical corruption narrative. The Trinity contradicts the consistentteachingoftheprophets,andJesusdidnotinstructhisfollowerstobelieveinthisdoctrineorusetermssuchasuqnûm(Arabicforhypostasis).Trinitariandoctrineisrathertheresultoferrantinterpretation,theimpositionsoftheCouncilofNicea,andChristianscholarsappealing–inthefaceofsoundreason–towhattheyallegedwaswritteninrevealedtexts.Tocorrectthis,IbnTaymiyya shows how biblical texts traditionally cited to support theTrinitymaybereinterpretedtoagreewithIslamicmonotheism.Forexample,heconsiders thecommand inMatt.28:19 tobaptize“in thenameof theFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit.”Here,‘Father’meansGodtheLord;‘Son’referstotheprophetChrist;andthe‘HolySpirit’istheangelGabrielwhobringsrevelationorrevelationitself.Thus,thebiblicaltextcommands“peopletobelieveinGodandHisprophetwhichGodsentandintheangelbywhichGodsentdowntherevelationwhichhebrought.”31

TosumuptheIslamiccriticism,theTrinityhasnotbeenrevealedbyGod;itendsintri-theism;and,formanyMuslims,itispositivelyirrational.ThereisofcoursenowayapartfromfaithtoadjudicatewhethertheTrinityisrootedinrevelationfromGod.Itisalsonotpossible,inmyview,tocometoknowledgeoftheTriuneGodonthebasisofreasonalone.However,onecanattempttoexplainwhyChristiansholdthisdoctrineandtrytoexplicatesomethingofitssenseindialoguewiththebeliefsofothers.ThisiswhatIaimtodointheremainderofthisessay.

The Islamic Doctrine of God’s UnityThefollowingpresentationoftheIslamicdoctrineofGod’sunity(tawhîd)draws upon and somewhat expands an analysis outlined by MurtadaMutahhari(d.1979),aprominentandsophisticatedtheologianintheShi‘iclerical traditionofmodern Iran.32 He identifies four levels or aspects of tawhîdwithananalyticalclaritythatwillproveusefullaterinmycomparisonwithTrinitariandoctrine.ThechoiceoftheShi‘iMutahhariasmyprimaryinterlocutor also derives from the fact that I first presented this material at a Mennonite-Shi‘i dialogue with Shi‘i clerics in Iran in 2004. SunniMuslims may find my choice unfortunate, and I must beg their indulgence. However, similardoctrinalpositions are foundamongagoodnumberof


Sunnis. The influential and renowned theologian al-Ghazali (d. 1111) treats thedoctrineofGodfollowingasimilarfourfoldstructureinhiscreed,evenifnotexplicitly.33Also,thedoctrinesoftawhîdfoundinIbnTaymiyya,theArabianreformerMuhammadIbn‘Abdal-Wahhab(d.1791or1792),andtheir modern heirs bear some resemblance to Mutahhari’s presentation.34What ties Mutahhari together with these otherwise dissimilar figures is a certaindebttothephilosophyofIbnSina(Avicenna,d.1037).

Mutahhari identifies the first aspect or level of tawhîdasal-tawhîd al-dhâtî,theonenessofGod’sessence(dhât):God’sessenceissimple,non-composite,andwithoutdivision.TheclassicalargumentisthatGodcannotbecomposedofpartslestGodneedacausetobringthosepartstogether.35The oneness of God’s essence also indicates that God’s essence and hisattributesareincomparableandbearnolikenesstotheessencesandattributesofcreatures.Inadditiontoargumentsfromreason,thisissupportedbytheQur’anicverse,“Thereisnothinglikehim”(Q.42:11).MutahhariobservesthatallMuslimsagreeatthelevelofal-tawhîd al-dhâtî.

In treating the next two levels of tawhîd, Mutahhari contrasts hisviews with those of the Mu‘tazili and theAsh‘ari theological traditions.TheMu‘tazilitradition,whichstronglyemphasizesGod’sunityandjustice,emergedintheeighthcenturyanddiedoutamongSunnisinthethirteenth.However,someShi‘isuptothepresentholdviewssimilartosomeMu‘tazilidoctrines.TheAsh‘aritraditiontakesitsnamefromtheearlytenth-centurytheologian al-Ash‘ari (d. 935), who broke with his Mu‘tazili teachers togivemoreweighttoGod’spower.Ash‘aritheologycontinuesstrongamongSunnistoday.36

ThesecondleveloftawhîdaccordingtoMutahhariisal-tawhîd al-sifâtî, theunityofGod’sattributes(sifât),suchasGod’slife,knowledge,power, speech, and hearing. The character of these attributes has beencontroversial. Mu‘tazili theologians maintain God’s simplicity andnumerical unity by identifying God’s attributes with his essence. Thus,God’sattributesandGod’sessenceareoneandthesame.Whilethisseemstosolvetheproblemofhowmanymaybeone,theMu‘taziliswereaccusedofdenyingtherealityoftheattributesbecauseeachattributeisnothingbutGod’sessence.

On the other hand, the Ash‘ari tradition affirms that God’s essential


attributes such as knowledge, speech, and power are real and eternal.However,thisintroducesacertainontologicalmultiplicityintothebeingofGod. How do God’s real, eternal attributes fit with the simplicity of God’s essence?The traditionalAsh‘ari response is thatGod’s attributes are notidentical with God and yet not other than God. So, for example, God’sattributeofpowerisnotidenticaltoGodhimself;yet,God’spowerisnotother thanGod.Thisdoesnotprovidearationalsolutionto theproblem.Rather,itsimplysetslinguisticboundariesforwhatmaybesaidofGod,anditleavesunansweredthequestionofhowGod’sattributessubsistinGod’ssingularessence.

Ibn Sina presents a slightly different approach, although it comesclosetotheMu‘taziliview.ForIbnSina,God’sattributesarenecessarilyconcomitantwithGod’sessence,suchthatGod’sessencemanifestsdiverseattributes without compromising God’s absolute simplicity. In speakingaboutGod,we simply cannothaveGodwithoutGod’s attributesor viceversa.GodandGod’sattributesareinseparable.37

MutahhariaccusestheAsh‘arisofviolatingal-tawhîdal-sifâtîwiththeirdoctrineofGod’srealattributes,andhecharges theMu‘taziliswithmakingGod’sessencedevoidofattributesaltogether.Heseeksavia mediathatcomesclosetothepositionofIbnSina.Hestatesthat[“TheDivineAttributes] are identical with the Essence, in the sense that the DivineEssenceissuchthattheAttributesaretrueofIt,orissuchthatItmanifeststheseAttributes.”38

The third level of tawhîd is al-tawhîd al-af‘âlî, the uniqueness ofGod’sacts(af‘âl).IntheAsh‘ariview,this tawhîdmeansthatGodis theonlyCreatorintheuniverse.Godhasnoassociatesinhiscreation,andGodcreatesanddetermineseverything,includinghumanacts.Thereisnofreewill. The Ash‘aris try to affirm human responsibility by speaking of the humanacquisition(kasb)ofacts,buthumansstillhavenoroleinbringingtheiracts intoexistence. Incontrast, theMu‘tazilismaintain thathumansareindeedthecreatorsoftheiracts,becauseGodmayonlycallhumanstoaccountandjustlypunishtheirbaddeedsifhedoesnotcreatethem.TheAsh‘ariscounterthatGodisnotobligedtofollowsuchhumannotionsofretributivejustice.Moreover,theyrejecttheMu‘tazilidoctrineasaviolationofGod’ssoleprerogativetocreate.

The Conrad Grebel Review��

Mutahhari sides initially with the Ash‘aris against the Mu‘tazilis.God’swillisall-pervasiveandhumanbeingsarefullydependentonGodfortheir existence and activity. Nonetheless, Mutahhari also affirms the reality ofhumanactionandresponsibilitybyintroducingsecondarycausality:“Thesystemofcausesandeffectsisreal,andeveryeffect,whilebeingdependentonitsproximatecause,isalsodependentonGod.”39 He identifies this as an intermediatepositionbetweenthetwoviews.Al-GhazaliandIbnTaymiyyaadoptsimilarviews,drawingontheresourcesofIbnSina.40

Thefourthlevelisal-tawhîd al-‘ibâdî,theexclusiveworshipofGod.NothingelseisservedandworshipedbuttheoneandonlyCreator.WorshipofotherbeingsisthesinofgivingassociatestoGod(shirk).IbnTaymiyya,Ibn‘Abdal-Wahhab,andtheWahhabiswhofollowedafterthem,aswellasvariousmodernMuslimreformers,havestronglyemphasizedthisleveloftawhîdandsometimesinterpreteditinhighlypuritanicalfashion.41Mutahhariobserves thatMuslimsare inagreementat this level,buthecensures theWahhabisforrejectingmanycommonIslamicdevotionalpracticessuchasseekingtheintercessoryaidofprophetsandsaints.Thatis,allMuslimsagreethatworshipmustbedevotedonlytoGod,buttheydisagreeoverwhethercertain practices violate or fulfill this obligation. As he writes, “The debate isaboutwhetherinvokingofintercessionandassistancemaybeconsideredaformofworshipornot.”42

The Christian Doctrine of the TrinityWithbothIslamiccriticismoftheTrinityandtheIslamicdoctrineoftawhîdnowinview,weareinapositiontointerpret trinitariandoctrinesoas tohighlightstructuralsimilaritieswiththeIslamicdoctrineandtoexplainhowChristiansconfessGodtobeone.InaccordwiththeAnabaptist-Mennonitetradition, I give priority to the biblical witness in theological reflection. As comparative theologian David Burrell notes, however, one must employphilosophicaltoolsorstrategiesinseekingtocommunicateacrossreligioustraditions.43 Different Christian theologians do this in different ways anddrawondifferentresources.Myownapproach leans,both implicitlyandexplicitly,onstrategiesemployedinsystematictheology,and,aswillbecomeapparent below, I rely in the first instance on the work of Catholic theologian NicholasLashinarticulatingwhatItaketobetheproperbeginningpoint


forTrinitariantheology:God’sincomprehensibilityandmystery.Ialsoseekto speak ecumenically, that is, for Christians generally. Some may find my presentationofChristianityinadequatetotheiremphasesandconcerns,andIrequesttheirforbearanceinadvance.44

Christian affirmation of God’s unity begins with the Jewish monotheisticconfession,“Hear,OIsrael:TheLORDisourGod,theLORDalone”(Deut.6:4,cf. Isa.44:6,Mark12:29,1Cor.8:4-5).TheChristiantraditionalsoinheritstheconcomitantJewishaversiontoidolatry(Ex.20:4,Deut.5:8,Isa.44:7-20).ThisisexpressedtheologicallywiththedoctrinesofGod’ssimplicityandineffability,andhassolidfoundationsnotonlyintheHebrewBiblebutalsointheNT:“Itis[God]alonewhohasimmortalityanddwellsinunapproachablelight,whomnoonehaseverseenorcansee”(1Tim.6:16,cf.Rom.11:33-34).Godisfundamentallyincomprehensible,andthisparallelsGod’ssimplicityandincomparabilityentailedintheMuslimconfessionofal-tawhîd al-dhâtî and affirmed in the Qur’anic verse “There isnothinglikehim”(Q.42:11).

ThedoctrinesofGod’ssimplicity,ineffability,andincomprehensibilityestablishattheoutsetthattheoneGodisdistinctfromhiscreatures(cf.Isa.46:5).Thus,asNicholasLashputsit,Godismystery,notinthesenseofwhateverobscuritymightbeleftwhentalkofGodseemstobreakdown,butasprofoundandinexhaustiblesimplicityoveragainstallthecomplexitiesofourworld.45Lash stresses thatChristian theologyshouldnot aspire toexplainGodinthesenseofgraspingGodanddrainingthemysteryoutofhimby reducinghim tophilosophicallyprecisepropositions.Thatwouldmiss the point of relating to God himself. Rather, Lash finds the proper senseofmysterypertainingtoGodinthemetaphorofhumaninterpersonalrelations:

Personsarenotproblems tobesolved. Indeed, thecloserwearetopeople,andthebetterweunderstandthem,themoretheyevade our cognitive “grasp” and the greater the difficulty that we experienceingivingadequateexpressiontoourunderstanding.Other people become, in their measure, “mysterious,” notinsofaraswefailtounderstandthem,butratherinsofaras,inlovinglyrelatingtothem,wesucceedindoingso.46

ThatGod ismysteriousand incomprehensible,yet is in someway


known, constitutes the beginning point for the Christian doctrine of theTrinity.ThemysterythatisGodisnotamysterycompletelyhidden,butamysterythatseeksencounterwithhumankind.ThereisatraditionbelovedtoMuslimmysticsinwhichGodsays,“IwasaHiddenTreasure,soIlovedtobeknown.Hence I created the creatures that Imight beknown.”47 Inmuchthesameway, theGodofChristianconfessionis theMysterywhochoosestocommunicateandrevealhimselftotheworld.

TheBibleisbasicforChristiansinseekingtoascertainwhoGodhasrevealedhimselftobe.AsMuslimcriticsaccuratelynote,theword“Trinity”anditsattendanttechnicalterminologyisnotfoundintheBible.However,theBibledoesbearwitnesstoGod’ssavingworksinhistoryinsuchawaythatleadstorecognitionofGodastriune.TheNTinparticularspeaksoftheFather,Son,andHolySpiritalltogetherengagedinagreatmissiontosave,redeem,andreconcilehumankindandallcreation(e.g.,Mark1:9-15,Mark14:32-36,John16:1-15,John17:20-24,Rom.8:9-27,1Cor.15:20-28).UndertheinspirationofthisbiblicalwitnessandtheongoingChristianexperienceofGod’ssavingwork,itwasonlyamatteroftimebeforethechurchmadetheTrinitarianpatternofGod’sactivityandbeingexplicitandeventuallyformalizeditintothedoctrineoftheTrinity.

Trinitarian doctrine is founded first in soteriology and Christology, thatis,insalvationinJesusChrist.ThatChristisfullydivinearisesoutofthecoreconvictionthatinhimsalvationhasbeenexperiencedatthehandofGodhimself.Athanasius,thefourth-centurydefenderofNiceneorthodoxy,argues that creaturescannot save themselves.Only theCreatorcan save,whichhedidinChrist.SalvationisnotsimplyinductionintoParadisebutparticipationinthelifeofGod,andthisissomethingonlyGodhimselfcanrender.Thus,Athanasius rejects theChristof theArianswho,althougha“divine” savior and firstborn of all creatures, is nevertheless still a creature and so lacks the ability to save fellow creatures. Rather, Jesus Christ istheeternalWordandSonincarnateforoursalvation.WiththeidentityofChrist clarified, early Christian theologians applied similar reasoning to the HolySpirit:theHolySpiritiseternallydivinebecausetheSpiritdoeswhatonlyGodcando.48ComparableargumentsforthedeityofChristandHolySpirithavebeenrehearsedthroughouttheChristiantradition,includingtheAnabaptist-Mennonite tradition. Menno Simons (d. 1561), for example,


explainsthattheSonandtheHolySpiritaredivinebecausetheBibleshowsthemsharingthesameattributeswithGodtheFather.49

Muslims typicallyobject to theChristianclaimthatJesusChrist istheeternalWordincarnatebecause,inIslamictheology,Godhimselfcannotcome into history and assume human form and flesh. The perfection and majestyofGod renders the Incarnation impossible.ToChristians, this isan unnecessarily limitation of God. Kenneth Cragg asks, “Are we rightin forbiddinganything toGodwhichhedoesnot forbid tohimself?”HemaintainsthatGodisinfactgreaterforhiscomingintothisworldinChrist:“TobelievethatGodstoopedtoourneedandweaknessisnottomakeGodless,butmore,theGodofallpowerandglory.”50

WiththeFather,Son,andHolySpiriteachestablishedasequallyandeternallydivine,thedoctrineoftheTrinityassertsthatthesethreeareoneGod.TheGodwhocreatesisthesameGodwhosavesinJesusChristandalsothesameGodwhowillbringthisworldtofullnessintheHolySpirit.ThecreationandredemptionhistoryofFather,Son,andHolySpiritwithhumankindandtheworldisasingle,uniquehistorywhosesourceandendareexclusivelytheoneandonlyGod.MuchasChristiansconfessthatGodtheFather,Son,andHolySpiritisthesoleactorincreation,redemptionandconsummation,Muslimsassertwithal-tawhîd al-af‘âlîthatGodisthesoleCreatoroftheuniverseandtheOnetowhomall thingsarereturning(cf.Q.10:56).Aswell,MuslimsconfessitwasthesameGodwhorevealedtheTorahtoMoses,theZabûr(Psalms)toDavid,theInjîl(Gospel)toJesus,andtheQur’antoMuhammad.Whiletheyallowthereweresomedifferencesbetween these revealed books, with the Qur’ân confessed to be the final and abrogatingrevelation,allthesebookscomefromthesameGod.Thus,theIslamic narrative of history finds its unity under one God, and, though this narrativediffersfromtheChristianstoryofGod’sIncarnationinChrist,bothChristiansandMuslimsconfessthatonlyoneGodisLordofallhistory.

Asnotedearlier,MuslimsaccuseChristiansofshirkorassociatingpartnerswithGodforascribingdivinitytoJesustheSonandtheHolySpirit.From another perspective, however, Trinitarian doctrine was formulatedpreciselytodenythis.LutherantheologianRobertJensonobservesthatitisArianismthatwasguiltyofshirkbecauseitpositedtheSonasacreaturenexttoGodundertakingtheworld’screationandsalvation.Trinitariandoctrine


establishesthatJesustheSonisnotmerelyGod’sassociate.Rather,astheNicene Creed affirms, the Son is of one substance (homoousios)with theFather.TheFatherandtheSonarethesameGod.ThedoctrineoftheTrinityisthusessentialforChristianstoavoidtheshirkofregardingtheSavioroftheworldasanyonelessthantheeternalGod.51

Christian theology often distinguishes between the “eternal” or“immanent”Trinityand the“economic”Trinity.The immanentTrinity isGodinhimself,andtheeconomicTrinityisGodinrelationshiptocreaturesinhis“economy”orplanofsalvation.Thisdistinctionisusefulforclarifyingthat God in himself – in the immanent Trinity – is free and self-sufficient apartfromtheworld,butthatGodforus–intheeconomicTrinity–hasnonetheless chosen out of grace to create the world and reconcile it tohimself.52 Even though this distinction is required for theological clarification, itdoesnotdivideGodintotwo.TheGodwhoisFather,Son,andHolySpiritinhiseconomyofsalvationisalsoinhimselfFather,Son,andHolySpiritfrometernity.Father,Son,andHolySpiritarenotsimplynamesgiventomanifestationsofGodintheworld;theyareconstitutiveofwhoGodisinhimself.53CatholictheologianKarlRahner(d.1984)expressesthisidentitysuccinctlyinhisfamousaxiom:“TheTrinityoftheeconomyofsalvationistheimmanentTrinityandviceversa.”54

TheimmanentTrinityandtheeconomicTrinityposethequestionofGod’sunityintwodifferentways.WhatIhavediscussedaboveistheunityoftheeconomicTrinity.ParalleltotheIslamicconfessionofal-tawhîd al-af‘âlî, the economic Trinity affirms that the acts of God toward us, whether thoseoftheFather,ortheSon,ortheHolySpirit,areallactsoftheoneandonlyGod.TurningnowtotheunityoftheimmanentTrinity,theproblemishowGod isone inhimself ineternityasFather,Son,andHolySpirit.Christians have devoted much energy to this problem and have offereda variety of proposals. This is also the problem that Muslim rationalistcriticismofTrinitariandoctrinedeems inadmissibleof coherent solution,whichthenrendersthedoctrinefalse.ItgoesbeyondthescopeofthisessaytodetailtherichChristiandoctrinalandtheologicaldiscussionofhowGodisthreeinone.Instead,IwantmerelytoshowthatMuslimsfaceasimilardilemma,andthenIwillmakeafewremarksonthecharacterofChristianresponsestothisproblem.


TheChristianproblemofhowtospeakofthethreeasoneandtheoneas three isakin to the Islamic theologicalproblemofconceiving theunityofthemultipledivineattributesinal-tawhîd al-sifâtî.MuchasIslamicdoctrine distinguishes God’s essence from God’s attributes, the classicaldoctrine of the Trinity distinguishes God’s essence or substance (ousia)fromGod’spersons(hypostases).InIslamicperspective,God’sessenceisone and God’s attributes are many, while in Christian perspective God’sessenceisoneandGod’spersonsarethree.AccordingtoIslamicdoctrine,GodhasmultipleeternalattributesthataredistinguishedinatleastnamebytheMu‘tazilisandinrealitybytheAsh‘aris.InclassicalTrinitariandoctrine,God’sthreepersonsareequalandco-eternalbutdistinguishedintheirnamesandorigins:theFatherisingenerate;theSonisgeneratedfromtheFather;andtheSpiritproceedsfromtheFather(inEasternChristianity)orfromtheFatherandtheSon(inWesternChristianity).

The correspondence between the Islamic and Christian doctrinesisnot exact, insofar asChristiandoctrinealso speaksofGod’s attributesandtheretoofacesthequestionofhowthemultipleareone.Additionally,Christian doctrine affirms the full and essential divinity of the Trinitarian persons, whereas Islamic theology does not speak of God’s attributes asfully divine in themselves. Nonetheless, the parallels are sufficiently clear tohelpMuslimsandChristiansseethattheyshareaprobleminconceivinghowGodinhisverybeingisbothoneandmultiple.

As noted earlier, the Muslim rationalist critique derives its powerfrom reading Trinitarian doctrinal language univocally, expecting it towithstandthefullrigorsoflogicalanalysis.However,thisisnotinkeepingwith the Christian sense of God’s mystery and essential distinction fromus and theworld. BecauseGod is different, humandiscourse aboutGodwillnotcorrespondexactlytothewayGodisinhimself.Thisisnottosaythatthereisnocorrespondencewhatsoever.TheoppositeerroristodenythepossibilityofanyknowledgeofGodinhimselfandtotreattheologicallanguageasequivocal.Inthisview,TrinitariandoctrineatbestspeaksonlyofhowGodhappenstoappeartous.ItmakesnoclaimtoknowanythingaboutGod inhimself.This is theologically inadequate,because itdeniesthatGodhasrevealedhimselftous,leavingtracesofhisnatureinhisworkofcreation,comingintohistoryforourreconciliationinJesusChrist,and


empoweringustorespondtohisinitiativethroughtheHolySpirit.Christiantheological language thus falls somewhere between the univocal and theequivocal.Thetechnicaltermforthisis“analogical”;thatis,ourtheologicallanguagecorrespondstoGodinhimselfincertainobliqueandambiguousways,butnotinallrespects.55

WhatthismeanscanbeillustratedbyexaminingtworivalTrinitarianconceptualmodelsincontemporaryChristiantheology.ThesocialTrinitarianmodelofJürgenMoltmanntakestheintra-trinitarianrelationsobservedintheBibleasthecluetoconceivingGodinhimselfasacommunityofmutuallove (see,e.g.,Mark1:9-15, John16:1-15,1Cor.15:20-28).Theeternalintra-trinitarianlifeisdynamicandconsistsinahistoryoflovecirculatingbetweentheFather,theSon,andtheHolySpirit.MoltmannunderlinesthemutualityandegalitarianisminGodandsubmitstheseaspatternsforthewayweshouldliveoutourlivesinthechurchandhumansociety.56WhilehismodelhighlightstheintenselyrelationalandlovingcharacterofGod’sinner life, it risks turningGod intoacommunityof threedivinesubjectswith separate centers ofwill and consciousness. It is for this reason thatMoltmannandothersworkingwithinasocial trinitarianframeworkhavebeenaccusedof“tri-theism.”57

KarlBarth (d.1968) representsa secondmajorwayofconceivingGod incontemporaryChristian theology.Forhim, theclassical languageof the trinitarian persons so readily implies three separate centers ofconsciousnessandwill–andthustri-theism–thatitshouldbeabandoned.Heproposes instead to speakof threewaysormodes thatGod isGod.58

Barth underlines God’s freedom and sovereignty, and he argues that theoneGodinhislordshipisfree“todifferentiateHimselffromHimself,tobecome unlike Himself and yet to remain the same.”59Thus, the Father,whoiseverveiled,isnonethelesstheRevealerwhounveilshimselfasLordintheRevelationoftheSoninJesusChrist.GodasSpiritenableshumanbeingstorecognizetheRevelationasrevelationandnotjustanothersecularevent.ThisisGodasBeingRevealed.ForBarth,theTrinityisGodinthethree modes of Revealer, Revelation, and Being Revealed. He affirms that thesedistinctionsinGod’sactstowardusapplyequallytoGodinhimself,and affirms fellowship in God with “a definite participation of each mode of beingintheothermodesofbeing.”60


However,BarthisreticenttospelloutthesedistinctionsinMoltmann’sfashion.InfactMoltmanncriticizeshimforprivilegingGod’sfreedomandlordshiptothedetrimentoftheintra-trinitarianrelations.This,Moltmannsays, reducesGod toone absolutedivine subject such that “thepersonalGodineternitycorrespondstothebourgeoiscultureofpersonality.”61

This contrast between Moltmann and Barth could be read as anintractable disagreement about how best to conceive God as triune. Isuggest that it is more helpful to see these models as complementarywaysofindicatingdifferentaspectsofthetruthaboutGod.Barth’smodalunderstandingoftheTrinityunderlinesGod’sunityandsovereignfreedom,whileMoltmann’ssocialTrinityemphasizesGod’sthreenessandhislove.Botharetrueintheanalogicalsensedescribedabove.If,however,God’sdistinction fromtheworld isnot respected,and thesemodelsare readasunivocaldescriptionsofhowGodisbothoneandthree,themodelsbreakdownandbecomefalse.WhatdecideswhichmodelsoranalogiesshouldbeusedinspeakingofGodinhimselfasoneandthree?Iproposethatthisisultimatelyamatterofpastoralwisdomandapologeticconcern.Workingindialoguewith theBible, the traditionof the church, the contemporarycontext,andthedynamicsofworshipandservice,ChristiansemployvarioustheologicalmodelsandconceptsthatwillmostaptlyconveythetruthofthetriuneGodforthesituationathand.

The Trinity in Christian DevotionThus far, my discussion of the Trinity has focused on God and his actstowardus,andIhavenotedtherelevantparallelswiththeIslamicdoctrinesof al-tawhîd al-dhâtî, al-tawhîd al-sifâtî, and al-tawhîd al-af‘âlî. On theIslamicside, the fourth levelof tawhîd – al-tawhîd al-‘ibâdî – shiftsourattention from God in himself and his acts toward us to our response ofworshipingandservingGodalone.ChristiansreadilyjoinwithMuslimsinaffirming this tawhîd,buttheydifferoverhowitisrightlyenacted.Muchas Muslims themselves differ over whether al-tawhîd al-‘ibâdî permitsseeking the intercession of saints and prophets, Christians differ withMuslimsoverwhethertheoneGodistobeworshippedinJesusChristtheIncarnateWord.Yet,evenifMuslimsrejectworshipofChristasshirk,theymay perhaps come to appreciate how Trinitarian theology contributes tobalancedChristiandevotiontotheoneGod.Howso?


ItisessentialtoTrinitariandoctrinethattheFather,Son,andtheHolySpiritworktogetherineachofthedivineactsofcreation,redemption,andsustainingempowerment.With respect tocreation, forexample,both theSonandtheSpiritareintegrallyinvolvedwithGodtheFatherincreatingtheworld(Gen.1:2,Col.1:16).Yet,ChristiansalsoallowspeakingofcreationasdistinctivelytheworkoftheFather,redemptionasdistinctivelythatoftheSon,andempowermentasdistinctivelythatoftheHolySpirit.Similarly,butatagreaterlevelofabstraction,theFathermaybelinkedinChristianexperience toGod’s transcendenceover theworld, theSpiritwithGod’simmanenceintheworld,andtheIncarnateSonwithGod’sinterventionandrevelationinhistory.Withtheselinkagesinmind,IwillreviewanoldarticlebyH.RichardNiebuhrandthenturntofurtherinsightsfromNicholasLashinordertoillustratehowtheTrinitymayshapeabalancedChristianpiety.

Ina1946articleentitled“TheDoctrineoftheTrinityandtheUnityof the Church,” Niebuhr outlines three commonly occurring Christian“unitarianisms”thatfocusononeoftheFather,theSon,ortheSpirittotheexclusionoftheothertwo.62HenotesthattheunitarianismoftheFatherorCreatordisapprovesofpolytheism,idolatry,andreligiousenthusiasmandputs great stock in reason and natural theology. However, it has difficulty interpreting the biblical narrative and making sense of inner religiousexperience.TheunitarianismofJesusChristprotestsagainsttheexcessesof reasonandnaturalisticreligion,andgivespreeminence toJesusas thesupreme ethical or salvific figure over against the less honorable or less exemplarycreatorGodoftheOT.Thisunitarianismcanmakesomesenseofhistory and the Bible, but has difficulty accounting for the source of Jesus’ powerinsomethingbeyondhimself.TheunitarianismoftheSpiritlocatesthesourceofrealityininnerreligiousexperienceandfeelingwhileneglectingthe transcendentCreatorandGod’sworkof redemption inhistory.Thus,thisunitarianismstrugglestomakesenseoftheoriginoftheworldandtheneedforsomekindofobjectiveethicalstandard.

Niebuhr’s point is that an exclusive focus on only one oftranscendence(Father),history(Son),orimmanence(Spirit)constitutesanunstablebeliefsystemthatmusteventuallyacknowledgeaneedforthetwomissing dimensions. This observation allows Niebuhr to find an implicit trinitarianismeveninChristianheresies.However,theaimofhisanalysisisnotnormativebutpragmatic.Niebuhristryingtousethedoctrineofthe


TrinitytobringChristiansofdiversetendenciesintooneecumenicalfold.Nevertheless,hisschemeleavesopenthepossibilitythattheTrinitycouldalsofunctionnormatively toguardChristiansagainst theexcessesofanyoneunitariantendency.63

ThisdovetailsnicelywithLash’ssuggestionthatthedoctrineoftheTrinitycanfunctionasasetofrulesguidingChristianprayeranddevotion.64First,GodasSpiritindicatesthatGodisimmanentandinvolvedinalloflifeandvitalityinthisworld.Yet,itistheerrorofpantheismtoidentifyGodwiththeworldcompletely.ThusthereisneedforasecondrulewhichstatesthatGodisabsolutelydifferentfromtheworld.GodisthetranscendentCreatorwhodiffersfundamentallyfromthecreation.Yet,toomuchemphasisonaGodwhoisdifferentandincomprehensibleushersinagnosticismandevenatheism.Here,Godisabsent,andotherlessergods–productsofourownlabor – rush in to fill the gap.

Lashobservesthatmuchnineteenth-centurythoughtintheWestseemstooscillatebetweenpantheismandatheism,orbetweenabsoluteidentityoftheworldwithGodandabsolutedistinctionofGodfromtheworld.Thisleadstothethirdrule,theneedforrevelationinhistoryandthetraditionofreferencetoGodthatgrowsoutfromit.ThisisGodtheWord,whichlinkstheCreatorandtheSpirit.LashpointsoutthatevenhereChristiansfacethedanger of idolatry if they fix too firmly on the tradition of language referring totheWordincarnate,thinkingitprovidesfullknowledgeofGod.ThisthenrequiresthecorrectiveofGod’stranscendence.ForinJesus“istheimageof the ImagelessOne.”65Lashunderstands theChristiandoctrineofGodtoprovideasetofself-correctingrules thatenableus to liveandpray inbalancedreferencetoGod.66

IbelievethatwemayextendNiebuhr’sandLash’sinsightsfurthertospeakofanaestheticqualityinChristiandevotiontoGodandperhapseven in God himself. From this perspective, the doctrine of the TrinitydrawstogetherGod’stranscendenceovertheworld,God’simmanenceintheworld,andGod’sinvolvementinhistorythroughChristandpointstothesingle,comprehensive,andall-encompassingbeautythatisGod.ThisbeautytheninvitesChristianstoliveoutabalanced,harmoniouspietythatmirrorstheelegancefoundintheunityofthetriuneGod.MysticallyinclinedMuslimsmayappreciatewhatIamtryingtosayhere.TheIslamicmystic,the Sufi, seeks to become one in whose very being the range and fullness of

The Conrad Grebel Review��

God’snamesandcharactertraitsarebroughttogetherinbalancedharmony.Similarly, Christians in their worship and service seek to reflect the harmony andgraceofthetriuneGod.

ConclusionBoth Muslims and Christians affirm that there is only one God who is fundamentally simple, mysterious, and incomprehensible. Yet, this Godcreates the world, seeks to communicate with humankind, and desires ahumanresponseofundividedworshipandservice.God’scommunicationand interactionwithhumankindhas takenplacemostdecisively in JesusChrist for Christians and in the Qur’an for Muslims. Following on fromthe soteriological dynamic of the Bible, Christians affirm that God’s Word incarnateinChrististrueGodhimselfandthattheHolySpirit isGodaswell.TheChristiandoctrineoftheTrinitymaintainsthatthesethree–Father,Son, and Holy Spirit – are all one God. Muslims affirm that the Qur’an is God’s word spoken into history, but they do not affirm that the Qur’an is Godhimself.TheoneGodinhisveryselfdoesnotenterintohistory.TheserespectivedoctrinesofGodarerootedintwodifferentauthoritativetextswhichportrayGodintwodifferentways.Whilethesedifferencesmustberespected,theyshouldnotblindustosimilaritieswheretheyoccur.And,moreimportant,theyshouldnotpreventMuslimsandChristiansfromwrestlingwith these differences, seeking to understand their import more deeply,and asking how they can refine our faith in the one God. The comparative framework that I have outlined is meant to stimulate critical dialogue totheseends.IfthisframeworkisfoundwantinginfurtherMuslim-Christiandiscussion,itwillhaveserveditspurposeswell.

Notes1 For an overview of this dialogue, seeA. James Reimer, “Introduction: Revelation andAuthority:Shi’ahMuslim-MennoniteChristianDialogueII,”CGR24.1(Winter2006):4-11.Fourofthedialoguepapers,twoMennoniteandtwoShi‘i,werealsopublishedinthisissue.2JonHoover,“RevelationandtheIslamicandChristianDoctrinesofGod,”Islamochristiana30(2004):1-14;Frenchtranslation,“LarévélationetlesdoctrinesmusulmaneetchrétiennesurDieu,”Chemins de Dialogue: Penser la foi dans l’esprit d’Assise28(2006):167-90.3 I would like to thank especially NajeebAwad for his patient and expert assistance in


Trinitarian theology. I am also grateful to Muammer Iskenderoglu, George Sabra, DavidBurrell,GiuseppeScattolin,dialoguepartnersinIran,andananonymousreviewerfortheirhelpalongthewayasIdevelopedthisarticle.4 I may be faulted especially for not engaging debate over the role classical Christianorthodoxy should play in contemporary Mennonite theology, especially since significant discussionofthishastakenplaceinCGR.ItwillbecomeapparentthatIbelieveMennonitetheologyisbestsituatedwithinapro-Niceneframework.Thisiswelldefendedindialoguewith Mennonite voices in A. James Reimer, “Trinitarian Orthodoxy, Constantinianism,and Radical Protestant Theology,” in Mennonites and Classical Theology: Dogmatic Foundations for Christian Ethics (Kitchener: Pandora Press, 2001), 247-71. For a specific example of Mennonite debate in this journal that turns on the rejection or acceptance ofclassicalChristianorthodoxy,seeJ.DennyWeaver,“ReadingSixteenth-centuryAnabaptismTheologically:ImplicationsforModernMennonitesasaPeaceChurch,”andthereplybyC.ArnoldSnyder,“AnabaptistHistoryandTheology:HistoryorHeresy?”CGR16:1(Winter1998):37-51and53-59,respectively.5Forthesecharges,seeAbuAmeenahBilalPhilips,The Fundamentals of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) (Riyadh: International Islamic Publishing House, 1997), 29 and 39. Philipssimplyassumes that theTrinity isnotmonotheistic;hemakesnoeffort toexplore it.HealsocensuresasshirktheChristiandoctrineoftheIncarnationformakingGodpartofhiscreation(34).6For amore extensive reviewof theQur’anicmaterial, seeDavidThomas, “Trinity,” inEncyclopedia of the Qur’ân,ed.JaneDammenMcAuliffe(Leiden:Brill,2001-2006),5:368-72.ForanoverviewofMuslimpolemicagainsttheTrinitygenerally,seeDavidThomas,“Tathlīth,” The Encyclopedia of Islam,NewEdition (hereafterEI2) (Leiden:Brill, 1954-2004),10:373-75.7KennethCragg,Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration (London:Allen&Unwin,1985;reprintOxford:Oneworld,1999),29-30.8IllustrativeoftheseChristianresponsesareCragg,Jesus and the Muslim,289-95;ChawkatMoucarry,Faith to Faith: Christianity & Islam in Dialogue (Leicester,UK: Inter-VarsityPress,2001),184-95;andGeoffreyParrinder,Jesus in the Qur’ân(London:FaberandFaber,1965;reprintOxford:Oneworld,1995),126-41.ParrinderprovidesthefullestelaborationofthetheorythattheQur’anicpolemicdoesnotaddresstheclassicaldoctrinesofJesus’divinesonshipandtheTrinitybutvariousChristianheresiesorArabpaganism.9SoarguesGeraldHawting,The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press,2000).10GabrielSaidReynolds,A Muslim Theologian in the Sectarian Milieu: ‘Abd al-Jabbâr and the CritiqueofChristianOrigins(Leiden:Brill,2004),107-17,163-76.11 M. Faruk Zein, Christianity, Islam and Orientalism (London: Saqi Books, 2003), 55-68,73-84,93-106. LesssophisticatedeffortsofasimilarnatureareMuhammadFazl-ur-Rahman,Islam and Christianity in the Modern World: Being an Exposition of the Qur’anic View of Christianity in the Light of Modern Research (Delhi: Noor Publishing House,1992),49-112,135-45;andMuhammad‘Ataur-Rahim,Jesus: A Prophet of Islam,2nded.(London:MWHLondonPublishers,1979).‘Ataur-Rahim’sbookisreviewedbyJanSlompin the Theological Review of the Near East School of Theology 3.2 (Nov. 1980): 35-37.


HughGoddard,Muslim Perceptions of Christianity(London:GreySealBooks,1996),citesnumerousinstancesofthecorruptionnarrativeintwentieth-centuryEgyptianwritingagainstChristianity(see‘Trinity’intheIndex).KateZebiri,Muslims and Christians Face to Face(Oxford: Oneworld, 1997), 67-71, analyzes the corruption narrative in English languageMuslimpolemicagainstChristianity.12RobertW.Funk,Honest to Jesus (SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1996), andThe Five Gospels(NewYork:Macmillan,1993).13 Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (New York:Harper&Row,1986).14A.N.Wilson,Paul: The Mind of the Apostle(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1997),andJesus(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1992).15Zein,Christianity, Islam and Orientalism,91-92,106-09.16 For critique of the Jesus Seminar, see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). Tom Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?(Oxford:LionPublishing,1997),167-83,countersthethesisofA.N.WilsonthatPaulinventedChristianity.LewisAyers,Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford Univ.Press,2004),providesathoroughhistoricalapologeticforpro-Nicenetheology,andworkswiththeexplicitconvictionthatNicenedoctrinaldevelopmentswereinessentialcontinuitywithGod’sworkinJesusChrist.IamgratefultoNajeebAwadfordrawingAyers’worktomyattention.ForaMennonitevoiceofsimilarconviction,seethearticlebyReimer,“TrinitarianOrthodoxy,”notedabove.17SeeforexamplethefulldescriptionoftheTrinitarianteachingsoftheMelkites,Nestorians,andJacobitesprovidedbyAbu‘Isaal-WarraqinDavidThomas,ed.andtrans.,Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam: Abû ‘Îsâ al-Warrâq’s “Against the Trinity,”(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press,1992),67-77.18 Muhammad ‘Alî al-Sâbûnî, Safwat al-tafâsîr, 3 vols. (Beirut: Dâr al-Qur’ân al-Karîm,1981),1:357n.4, incommentaryonQ.5:73.Al-Sabuni isherequotingselectively fromAbûHayyânal-Gharnatî’s(d.1344)commentaryonQ.5:73inAl-Bahr al-muhît,whichisaccessibleinArabicatwww.altafsir.com.19Thomas,Anti-Christian Polemic,64,99-107.ThomasshowsthatAbu‘Isa’sargumentationwas taken over to a large degree by the later Muslim theologians al-Baqillani (d. 1013)and ‘Abd al-Jabbar in their rationalist critiques of the Trinity (43-50). See also DavidThomas,“TheDoctrineoftheTrinityintheEarlyAbbasidEra,”inIslamic Interpretations of Christianity,ed.LloydRidgeon(Richmond,UK:Curzon,2001),78-98.20Thomas,Anti-Christian Polemic,63-64.21J.N.D.Kelly,Early Christian Doctrines,rev.ed.(SanFrancisco:Harper&Row,1976),267-69.ThemorerecentworkofAyers,Nicaea and its Legacy,emphasizesthecentralityofbelief in God’s simplicity as the backdrop for pre-Nicene Trinitarian reflection in the fourth century:“Inpro-NicenetextstheprimaryfunctionofdiscussingGod’ssimplicityistosettheconditionsforalltalkofGodasTrinityandoftherelationsbetweenthedivine‘persons’,toshapethe judgements thatwemakeinspeakinganalogically,not toofferadescriptionofdivinebeingtakentobefullycomprehensible”(287).Ayersdrawsthisoutmorefullyin


expositionsoftheCappadocianGregoryofNyssa(344-63)andAugustine(364-83).22PaulofAntioch’sLetter to a Muslim Friend,asquotedinThomasF.Michel,A Muslim Theologian’s Response to Christianity: Ibn Taymiyya’s Al-Jawab al-Sahih (Delmar, NY:CaravanBooks,1984),255.23ThefollowingdiscussiondrawsonIbnTaymiyya’streatmentoftheTrinityinhisAl-Jawâb al-sahîh li-man baddala dîn al-masîh(ThesoundresponsetothosewhohavechangedthereligionofChrist),aspartiallytranslatedinMichel,A Muslim Theologian’s Response,255-79,referredtohereafteras“IbnTaymiyya,Response.”24IbnTaymiyya,Response,255-56.25Ibid.,256.26Ibid.,321,333-37.ForfurtherdiscussionofIbnTaymiyya’sviewsonreasonandrevelation,seeJonHoover,Ibn Taymiyya’s Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism(Leiden:Brill,2007),29-39,56-69. Islamic theology(‘ilm al-kalâm)distinguishesbetween the ‘aqlî (rational)andthenaqlî(transmittedortraditional)partsofitscontent.The‘aqlîisknownbyreasonapartfrom revelation, even if revelation also speaks to it.This includes the existence of God,God’sunity,manyofGod’sattributes,andthehumanneedforprophets.Thenaqlîthatisknownonly through revelation includesdetailsof religious lawandknowledgeof futureevents.Muslimtheologiansofteninsist that theologymustberationallybased.ThispointismadeforexamplebytheShi‘itheologianMurtadaMutahhari(d.1979),Understanding Islamic Sciences(London:IslamicCollegeforAdvancedStudies,2002):“The‘aqlipartofkalâmconsistsofthematerialthatispurelyrational,andifthereisanyreferencetonaqli(tradition), it is for the sake of illumination and confirmation of rational judgement. But in problemssuchasthoserelatedtoDivineUnity,prophethoodandsomeissuesofResurrection,referencetonaql—the Book and the Prophet’s Sunnah—is not sufficient; the argument must bepurelyrational”(52-53).RichardM.Frank,“TheScienceofKalâm,Arabic Sciences and Philosophy2(1992):7-37,argues,convincinglyinmyview,thatIslamicKalâmtheologypresentsitselfas“strictlyphilosophicalmetaphysics”but“is,infact,essentiallyatheology”(36).Frankcontrasts thiswithChristian theology,which“begins in theobscurityof faithin quest of rational understanding of clarification within the limits set by the nature of the object”(19).Inmyearlierarticle,“RevelationandtheIslamicandChristianDoctrinesofGod,”IportraytheKalâmviewthatGod’sunityisknownmostbasicallyfromreasonastheprimary Islamicperspectiveandcontrast thiswithChristianknowledgeof theTrinityderivingfromrevelation.27IbnTaymiyya,Response,256.28Ibid.,260.29Ibid.,s267-68.30Ibid.,270-71.31Ibid.,262(cf.277).32MurtadaMutahhari,Understanding Islamic Sciences,57-84.33Al-Ghazali’screedisfoundinIhyâ’ ‘ulûm al-dîn(Beirut:Dâral-ma‘rifa,n.d.),1:89-93(thefirst faslofthesecondkitâb,entitled“Kitâbqawâ’idal-‘aqâ’id”),withanEnglishtranslationinW.MontgomeryWatt,Islamic Creeds: A Selection(Edinburgh:Univ.ofEdinburgh,1994),73-79.34OnIbnTaymiyya,seeHoover,Ibn Taymiyya’s Theodicy,28-29,120-22.ForIbn‘Abdal-

The Conrad Grebel Review80

Wahhab,seeEstherPeskesandW.Ende,“Wahhâbiyya”EI211:39-47(at40).Forarecentandfullyelaborateddiscussioninthistradition,seePhilips,The Fundamentals of Tawheed,1-26.ThethreelevelsoftawhîdoutlinedbyIbn‘Abdal-WahhabandPhilipscorrespondcloselytothelastthreeofthefourgivenbyMutahhari.35IbnSînâ,Al-Risâla al-‘arshiyya,(Hyderabad:Matba‘atdâ’iratal-ma‘ârifal-‘uthmâniyya,1353/1934-5),3-7,translatedinArthurJ.Arberry,Avicenna on Theology(London:J.Murray,1951),25-32.36MutahharihimselfelaboratesthedevelopmentofMu‘taziliandAsh‘aritheologyinsomedetail,buthedoesnotmentional-Maturidi(d.944)andtheMaturiditheologicaltraditionthat has also been widely influential among Sunnis. For general information on Islamic theology,seeW.MontgomeryWatt,Islamic Philosophy and Theology: An Extended Survey,2nded.(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.Press,1985).37IbnSînâ,Al-Ta‘lîqât,ed.‘Abdal-RahmânBadawî(Cairo:Al-Hay’aal-misriyyaal-‘âmmali-l-kitâb,1973),180-81.38Mutahhari,Understanding Islamic Sciences,59.39Ibid.,81.40SeeHoover,Ibn Taymiyya’s Theodicy,138-41(IbnSinaandal-Ghazali)and146-65(IbnTaymiyya).41ThebookbyPhilips,The Fundamentals of Tawheed,notedabove,isacaseinpoint.42Mutahhari,Understanding Islamic Sciences,60.43DavidB.Burrell,“TrinityinJudaismandIslam,”forthcominginCambridge Companion to the Trinity,ed.PeterPhan(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press).Iamgratefultotheauthorforsharingthispiecewithmepriortopublication.44 In addition to sources cited below, I have benefited from Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction,3rded.(Oxford:Blackwell,2001),319-44;R.L.RichardandW.J.Hill,“Trinity,Holy,”New Catholic Encyclopedia,2nded.(Detroit:Thomas/Gale,2003),14:189-201;andA.J.Reimer,“God(Trinity),Doctrineof,”The Mennonite Encyclopedia,Vol.5(Scottdale:HeraldPress,1990),342-48.45HereIfollowNicholasLash,Easter in Ordinary: Reflections on Human Experience and the Knowledge of God(NotreDame:Univ.ofNotreDame,1990),231-42.46Ibid.,236.47SeeWilliamC.Chittick,The Sufi Path of Knowledge(Albany:StateUniv.ofNewYork,1989),391n.14,forthetranslationofthissayingandIbn‘Arabi’scommentuponit.48 For these arguments, see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)(Chicago:Univ.ofChicago,1971),172-225.Foradetailedhistoricalstudyofthefourth-centurytrinitariancontroversyinwhichAthansiusplayedakeyrole,seeR.P.C.Hanson,The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1988).49MennoSimons, “ConfessionsoftheTriuneGod,”inThe Complete Writings of Menno Simons, trans.LeonardVerduinanded.JohnChristianWenger(Scottdale:Herald,1956),491-98.SeeThomasN.Finger,A Contemporary Anabaptist Theology: Biblical, Historical, Constructive (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 421-64, for a survey ofAnabaptistandrecentMennonitethoughtontheTrinity.

Islamic Monotheism and the Trinity 81

50KennethCragg,The Call of the Minaret,2nded.(Maryknoll,NY:OrbisBooks,1985),263-64.51 Robert Jenson, “The Risen Prophet,” in a 1985 unpublished report of the AmericanLutheran Church Board forWorld Mission and Inter-Church CooperationTask Force onChristianWitness toMuslimsentitledChristian Witness to Muslims, as cited inMarkN.Swanson,“TheTrinityinChristian-MuslimConversation,”Dialog: A Journal of Theology44.3(Fall2005):256-63(at260-61).52PaulD.Molnar,Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity: In Dialogue with Karl Barth and Contemporary Theology(London:T&TClark,2002),arguesforcefullyfor the necessity of distinguishing the immanent Trinity from the economic to countercontemporaryChristiantheologians(e.g.,Moltmann)whomakecreationnecessarytoGod’sperfectionandallowhumanhistorytoimpactGod’snature.53HereIdifferwithDouglasPratt,“Christian-MuslimTheologicalEncounter:thepriorityoftawhîd,”Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations7.3(Oct.1996),271-84,whoarguesthattawhîdisconstitutiveofGodinbothIslamandChristianitywhileTrinityissimplyoneamongmanywaysofconceivingofGodinrelationtous:“ArguablyitwouldbeacategorymistaketocontrastTrinitywith tawhîdbecause the latter is theprioror fundamentalconcept; theformerisbutoneconstructexpressingthehumanunderstandingoftherevelatoryexperienceofGod-in-relationship”(283,cf.271).Perhapsunwittingly,PrattdisallowsthepossibilitythatGodcouldrevealthatheisFather,Son,andHolySpiritinhimselfandnotmerelytowardus.54KarlRahner,“RemarksontheDogmaticTreatise‘DeTrinitate’,”Theological Investigations,Vol.4(London:Darton,Longman&Todd,1966),77-102(at87).55TheclassicdiscussionofanalogyisThomasAquinas,Summa Theologiae, I.13,whichI amnot followingexactlyhere. I amgrateful toPhilEnns fordrawingmyattention tothispassage.MythinkingaboutanalogyhasalsobeeninformedbyAyers,Nicaea and its Legacy,273-301,322-24,andvariouspassages inDavidB.Burrell,Faith and Freedom: An Interfaith Perspective (Oxford:Blackwell, 2004).The theological analogyofwhich Ispeakhereisnotidenticaltotheanalogy(qiyâs)ofIslamicjurisprudence,inwhichthereisaunivocallysharedaspect(acauseor`illa)bywhichtherulinginonelegalcaseistransferredtoanewcasenotyetspokentobyIslamiclaw.ForanexpositionofanalogyinIslamiclaw,seeMohammadHashimKamali,Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence,rev.ed.(Cambridge:TheIslamicTextsSociety,1991),197-219.56Moltmann,The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God(NewYork:Harper&Row,1981).Moltmann’ssocialTrinitarianismisexploitedinseveraloftheessaysinMiroslavVolfandMichaelWelker,eds., God’s Life in Trinity(Minneapolis:FortressPress,2006).57SoMolnar,Divine Freedom,227-33.58 Barth develops the doctrine of the Trinity in the first volume of his Church Dogmatics,2ded.,trans.G.W.Bromiley(Edinburgh:T&TClark),I.1.295-489;thediscussionof‘person’isfoundatI.1.349-68.59Ibid.,I.1.320.60Ibid.,I.1.370.61Moltmann,The Trinity and the Kingdom,139-44(quoteon139).

The Conrad Grebel Review82

62H.RichardNiebuhr,“TheDoctrineoftheTrinityandtheUnityoftheChurch,”Theology Today3(October1946):371-84.63AccordingtoJohnHowardYoder,The Politics of Jesus,2nded.(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1994),17-18,Niebuhralsoargues in“TheDoctrineof theTrinity” thatJesus’nonviolentsocialethicshouldnotbetakentooseriouslybecausetheFatherandtheSpiritmightpointinotherdirections.Niebuhrdoesnotinfactsaythisinhisarticle,butYoderislikelyreactingtouseofNiebuhr’sTrinitarianschemeforsuchends.ModernMennonite theology in theYoderiantraditioneasilyfallsafoulofNiebuhr’s“UnitarianismofJesusChrist”bystressingJesus’nonviolentethicattheexpenseofitsfoundationinGod’spowerandtranscendence.ResistingthisdangerisatthecoreofmanyessaysinReimer’sMennonites and Classical Theology.64Thisdiscussion isbasedonLash,266-72.Reimer similarlyand frequently linksGod’stranscendence to the Father, God’s immanence to the Spirit, and God’s involvement inhistorytotheSoninhisMennonites and Classical Theology,229-230,243-45,333-34,368-71,459,538-39,andelsewhere.ThisapproachisalsofoundinKarlRahner,“OnenessandThreefoldnessofGodinDiscussionwithIslam,”Theological Investigations,Vol.18(NewYork: Crossroad, 1983), 105-21:The incomprehensibleFather “is unsurpassably close toman historically in Jesus Christ…and imparts himself to man in the innermost centre ofhumanexistenceasHolySpirit”(114).65Lash,271.66DavidB.Burrell,Freedom and Creation in Three Traditions(NotreDame:Univ.ofNotreDame, 1993), extends Lash’s insights beyond Christianity to Judaism and Islam as well.While not attributing any kind of Trinitarian doctrine to Islam, Burrell identifies a threefold structure of transcendence in God the Creator, immanence in God’s preservation of theMuslim community, and linkage between the two in God’s revealing of the Qur’an.Thedifference with Christianity is that Muslims do not identify the very revelation of God’sWord with God Himself (161-84). Perhaps as well, an imperfect parallel may be madewith the threefoldstructureof Islamic theology’s treatmentofGod.God’sessence (dhât)indicatestranscendence;God’sacts(af‘âl)involveGod’simmanenceinthecreationthroughhisactivity;andGod’snamesandattributes(al-asmâ’ wa al-sifât)linkthetwo.God’snamesand attributes constitute thebridgebetween the transcendent simplicityofGod’s essenceandtheimmanentmultiplicityofGod’sactsintheworldmuchastheWordlinkstheCreatorandtheSpiritontheChristianside.TheparallelwithChristiantheologybreaksdowninthatGod’sattributesinIslamdonotenterdirectlyintothehistoricalprocess,exceptinthecaseofGod’sWord,whichcomesintohistoryastheQur’an.

Jon Hoover is assistant professor of Islamic Studies at the Near East School of Theology in Beirut, Lebanon, and a minister in the Mennonite Church USA.

islamic monotheism and the trinity - university of waterloo · islamic monotheism and the trinity...

Documents