rethinking the trinity and religious pluralism (siet) by keith johnson

8/4/2019 Rethinking the Trinity and Religious Pluralism (SIET) by Keith Johnson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rethinking-the-trinity-and-religious-pluralism-siet-by-keith-johnson 1/40



http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3902

http://www.christianbook.com/rethinking-trinity-religious-pluralism-augustinian-assessment/keith-johnson/9780830839025/pd/839025?product_redirect=1&Ntt=839025&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Trinity-Religious-Pluralism-Augustinian/dp/083083902X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316013758&sr=1-1



An AugustiniAn Asses sment

R i n k i n g

t h e R i n i y

& R l i g i o u s

P l u R A l i s m

Foreword by geoffRey WAinWRight

♦

k e i t h e . J oh n s o n

Strategic initiativeS in evangelical theology



C ont e nt s

♦

frwrd b gr Wawr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Prac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

irdc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. The Turn To The TriniTy in The Theology of religions 25

t Cprar trara Ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

t Cr a t R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2. inTroducing The TriniTarian Theology of augusTine 51

Cxaz A’ trara t . . . . . . . . 51

irdc De trinitate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3. The economic TriniTy and The immanenT TriniTy

in The Theology of religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

s. mar h’ trara t R ed . . . . . 66t ecc tr ad ia tr De trinitate . 73

h’ trara t R ed:

A Aa eaa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

ipca r Cra t R . . . . . . 90

4. divine relaTions in The Theology of religions . . . . 93

A y’ Paca t R . . . . . . 94

Jacq Dp’ Cra t R Pra . . . 98

A Ra D Pr . . . . . . . . 101

y’ trara Pa: A Aa eaa . . 119



Dp’ trara Cr: A Aa eaa . . 126

ipca r Cra t R . . . . . . 136

5. vesTiges of The TriniTy in The Theology of religions 141

Rad Paar’ tadrc spra . . . . . . . . . . 143

A Vestigia Trinitatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Paar’ trara spra: A Aa eaa . 166

ipca r Cra t R . . . . . . 183

6. reThinking The relevance of The TriniTy . . . . . . . . 185ipca r Cra t R . . . . . . 186

sar trara Prb Cprar t . . . . 195

R Rac tr: Aa Rc 209

Cc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

appx: Rca A tr . . . . . . . . . . 220

C g’ Crc A’ trara t . 221

Rrad A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231Cc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Bbrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Ar idx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

sbjc idx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

scrpr idx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285



intRoDuCtion

immauel Kat declared that the doctrie of the Triity “has o prac-

tical relevace.”1 Kat would be hard-pressed to make this criticism

stick today. Cotemporary theologias are drive by a quest to relate

triitaria doctrie to a wide variety of cocers. Books ad articles

aboud o Triity ad persohood, Triity ad societal relatios, Tri-

ity ad geder, Triity ad marriage, Triity ad church, Triity ad

politics, Triity ad ecology, ad so forth. Theologias of every stripe

are attemptig to relate triitaria doctrie to a broad variety of issues.

That the doctrie of the Triity has garered widespread iterest i

recet years is a welcome developmet; however, it is importat re-

member the maxim: “All that glitters is ot gold.” Is it possible that this

quest for relevacy might be leadig us dow the wrog path?Recetly a umber of Christia theologias have suggested that the

doctrie of the Triity holds the key to ew uderstadig of religious

diversity. Although at oe time this doctrie may have bee viewed as

a stumblig block to iterreligious dialogue, the situatio has dramati-

cally chaged. A umber of Christia theologias have attempted to

pave the way for a positive uderstadig of o-Christia religios

withi redemptive history by appealig to the Triity. Accordig tooe theologia,

God has somethig to do with the fact that a diversity of idepedet

ways of salvatio appears i the history of the world. This diversity re-

flects the diversity or plurality withi the divie life itself, of which the

Christia doctrie of the Triity provides a accout. The mystery of

the Triity is for Christias the ultimate foudatio for pluralism.2

1Immauel Kat, The Conflict of the Faculties, tras. Mary J. Gregor (new York: Abaris, 1979),pp. 65-67.

2Peter C. Hodgso, “The Spirit ad Religious Pluralism,” i The Myth of Religious Superiority:



18 RETHInK InG THE TRInITY AnD R ELIGIOUS PLURA LISM

Similarly, “The diversity ad commuio of persos i the Godhead

offer the proper key—to be explored hereafter—for uderstadig themultiplicity of iterrelated divie self-maifestatios i the world ad

i history.”3 Fially,

It is impossible to believe i the Triity instead of the distictive reli-

gious claims of all other religios. If Triity is real, the may of these

specific religious claims ad eds must be real also. . . . The Triity is a

map that fids room for, ideed requires, cocrete truth i other reli-

gios.4

Although substatial differeces exist amog these proposals, they

share a importat feature i commo—amely, a covictio that the

doctrie of the Triity provides the basis for a positive appraisal of o-

Christia religios. It is my cotetio that this assumptio merits

careful scrutiy. The purpose of this book is to offer a critical assess-

met of the use of the doctrie of the Triity i the Christia theology

of religios. I will argue (1) that there is good reaso to questio theassertio that the Triity provides the foudatio for affirmig the

validity of o-Christia religios; (2) that recet attempts to employ

triitaria doctrie to this ed are udermiig classical Christia

teachig regardig the Triity; ad (3) that misuse of triitaria doc-

trie i the theology of religios reflects broader methodological prob-

lems i cotemporary theology.

What differece does it make if a hadful of theologias misco-

strue this doctrie i addressig pressig questios of religious diver-

sity? Perhaps the simplest respose is to say that the gospel is ultimately

at stake. It is istructive to remember that early triitaria cotroversies

were drive by soteriological cocers: Who must Christ be i order to

do what Christ did? Because the Triity represets a presuppositio of

Multifaith Explorations of Religious Pluralism, ed. Paul F. Kitter (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis,

2005), p. 136.3 Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis,1997), p. 208.

4Mark Heim, “The Depth of the Riches: Triity ad Religious Eds,” Modern Theology 17(2001): 22.



Introduction 19

the gospel,5 distortios of this doctrie ievitably lead to a distorted

gospel.6

Also at stake i this ivestigatio is how we costrue the “relevace”

of triitaria doctrie. I a review article titled “The Triity: A new

Wave?” Kare Kilby poits out that as iterest i the Triity has grow,

theologias have ot paid adequate attetio to the questio of how

this doctrie should fuctio.7 Should it regulate the way Christias

talk about God, the way they read Scripture ad the way they worship,

or should it serve as a “lauchig pad for useful ideas” such as “related-

ess” (or, i the case of this iquiry, “religious diversity”)?8 Kilby’s ques-

tio is crucial. This ivestigatio will raise importat questios regard-

ig the proper fuctio of triitaria doctrie.

Drawig upo the triitaria teachig of St. Augustie, I will criti-

cally examie four recet proposals i the Christia theology of reli-

gios: S. Mark Heim’s triitaria theology of religious eds, Amos

Yog’s peumatological theology of religios, Jacques Dupuis’s Chris-

tia theology of religious pluralism, ad Raimudo Paikkar’s triitar-ia accout of religious experiece. Several factors shaped my selectio

of these theologias. First, I limited my ivestigatio to proposals that

explicitly appeal to the doctrie of the Triity. Secod, I focused o

proposals that attempt to operate withi the bouds of historic triitar-

ia orthodoxy. Third, I selected theologias who represet diverse ec-

clesial affiliatios.9 Fially, I wated to select a set of proposals that

would provide a represetative cross-sectio of cotemporary use of triitaria doctrie i the Christia theology of religios. The propos-

als outlied earlier represet just such a cross-sectio. Mark Heim’s

5See Fred Saders, The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (Wheato, Ill.:Crossway, 2010), esp. chaps. 3-4.

6See Kevi J. Vahoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to ChristianTheology (Louisville: Westmister Joh Kox, 2005), pp. 42-44.

7Kare Kilby, “The Triity: A new Wave?”Reviews in Religion and Theology

7 (2000): 378-81.

8Ibid., p. 381.9Mark Heim is Baptist. Amos Yog is Petecostal. Jacques Dupuis ad Raimudo Paikkar areCatholic.




triitaria accout of religious eds represets oe of the most sophis-

ticated attempts to date to employ a doctrie of the Triity as costitu-tive groud for a Christia theology of religios. Amos Yog has devel-

oped oe of the most advaced peumatological approaches. Whereas

triitaria pneumatology represets the key to Yog’s proposal, triitar-

ia Christology provides the key to Jacques Dupuis’s proposal. O this

basis, Dupuis makes a vigorous case for the salvif ic role of o-Christia

religios i the ecoomy of salvatio. Raimudo Paikkar’s triitaria

accout of religious experiece represets the strogest exemplar of a

proposal that appeals to the logic of the “vestige” traditio.

Why brig the teachig of a late-fourth-cetury bishop ito cover-

satio with cotemporary reflectio o religious diversity? There are at

least five reasos Augustie’s theology provides a helpful basis for eval-

uatig the triitaria doctrie i the Christia theology of religios.

First, Augustie stads at a importat poit i the developmet of

triitaria doctrie. The fourth cetury played a crucial role i solidi-

fyig the key elemets of what we retrospectively call triitaria ortho-

doxy.10 Writig i the wake of cociliar developmets at nicaea (325)

ad Costatiople (381), Augustie’s teachig o the Triity repre-

sets a mature expressio of the pro-nicee theology that emerged i

the latter decades of the fourth cetury amog Lati ad Greek speak-

ig Christias.11 Secod, Augustie has bee recogized as a “Doctor

of the Church,” that is, a reliable authority whose doctrie reflects the

teachig of Scripture ad creedal expressios of Christia orthodoxy.not oly do medieval theologias like Thomas Aquias egage Au-

gustie as a authority o matters of triitaria doctrie but the Re-

formers do as well.12 Third, Augustie’s teachig o the Triity is oe

10For a overview of these developmets, see Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach toFourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (new York: Oxford Uiversity Press, 2004).

11For a discussio of pro-nicee theology, see chap. 2.12

It is importat to remember the Reformers were ot opposed to traditio as a guide to readigScripture. What they opposed was traditio as a secod source of revealed truth stadig overad agaist Scripture. Heiko Oberma distiguishes two uderstadigs of the relatioshipof Scripture ad traditio that provide a backdrop for Reformatio debates. Accordig to“Traditio I,” Scripture ad traditio coicide i such a way that traditio simply represets



Introduction 21

of the most ifluetial i the Wester church.13 I turig to Augus-

tie, we draw upo what is arguably the most represetative versio of triitaria doctrie i the history of the church amog Catholics ad

Protestats. Moreover, there is a ecumeical advatage i appealig

to Augustie’s theology. Despite popular claims to the cotrary (see the

appedix), Augustie shares much i commo with the Greek-speak-

ig theologias of the East (e.g., the Cappadocias).14 Ideed, much of

the critique I will offer of cotemporary use of triitaria doctrie i

the Christia theology of religios could have bee made i coversa-

tio with the Cappadocias. Fially, the essetial triitaria issues

raised i the theology of religios are addressed i oe form or aother

i Augustie’s writigs (see the followig paragraph). Ideed, the co-

tiuig value of Augustie’s triitaria theology will become evidet i

chapters three to five as we observe the kid of heavy liftig it is ca-

pable of doig.

Eve if we grat these five poits, is’t it aachroistic to ask what

Augustie thought about the views of cotemporary theologias ad-dressig the theology of religios? My purpose is not to marshal a

Augustiia critique of cotemporary iterpretatios of religious di-

versity (i.e., exclusivism, iclusivism ad pluralism). I am ot askig,

What would Augustie thik of Jacques Dupuis’s iclusive pluralism?

but rather, From a Augustiia perspective, how adequate is the tri-

itaria theology that supports Dupuis’s proposal? To this ed, my ives-

Scripture properly iterpreted. Accordig to “Traditio II,” Scripture ad traditio represetdistict sources of revelatio. (The “II” i Traditio II stads for two sources whereas “Tradi-tio I” is a sigle source view.) The Coucil of Tret embraces “Traditio II” while the Re-formers hold to “Traditio I.” As Oberma explais, durig the Reformatio ad Couter-Reformatio, “We are here ot cofroted with the alteratives of Scripture ad traditio but with the clash of two radically differet cocepts of traditio: Traditio I ad Traditio II”(Heiko A. Oberma, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reforma-tion [Ediburgh: T & T Clark, 1986], p. 283; see also Heiko A. Oberma, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought [Cambridge: James Clark, 2002], pp. 51-66).

13Of course, ot everyoe views Augustie’s ifluece as positive. A detailed discussio of co-temporary criticisms of Augustie’s triitaria theology ca be foud i the appedix.

14It is importat ot to read later theological differeces that develop betwee the East ad Westback ito the fourth ad fifth ceturies.




tigatio is structured aroud a Augustiia assessmet of three fu-

dametal triitaria issues i the Christia theology of religios: (1)the relatioship of the ecoomic Triity ad the immaet Triity; (2)

the relatios amog the divie persos (iterally, apart from creatio;

ad exterally, i creatio, providece, ad redemptio); ad (3) the

search for reflectios of the Triity (vestigia trinitatis) i huma expe-

riece.15 That these ideed are crucial issues i the theology of religios

will be argued i the chapters that follow.

Because of his role as Doctor of the Church (Doctor Ecclesiae ), medi-

eval theologias treated Augustie as a reliable authority whose teach-

ig o the Triity may be employed as a foudatioal elemet i theo-

logical argumetatio because is it see as a faithful expressio of

Scripture ad cociliar teachig.16 This medieval practice offers a apt

aalogy for my egagemet with Augustie i the chapters that follow.

Augustie’s teachig o the Triity will fuctio as “f irst priciples” i

the assessmet to be developed i chapters three to five. I the spirit of

ressourcement, I wat to appropriate oe of the treasures of the church

for the sake of its theological reewal.17

Two twetieth-cetury developmets provide a key cotext for my

ivestigatio: the triitaria revival ad the rise of the Christia theol-

ogy of religios. These developmets will be explored i chapter oe.

I chapter two I will offer a brief itroductio to Augustie’s teachig

o the Triity. I will idetify four factors that provide importat co-

text for uderstadig his triitaria doctrie ad briefly survey oe of

15My ivestigatio is Augustiia i the arrow sese that I will draw exclusively o Augus-tie’s triitaria theology ad not later iterpreters of Augustie like Thomas Aquias. Ulessotherwise idicated, I will be referrig to the teachig of the bishop of Hippo whe I use theterm Augustinian.

16 This is ot to suggest that they viewed Augustie’s doctrial statemets as possessig thesame kid of authority as Scripture. Rather they possessed a “probable” authority—somethigless tha the ultimate authority of Holy Scripture but certaily much more tha utested

theological opiios.17Ressourcement (Frech) deotes a retur to the roots, a rediscovery of earlier sources. The termLa Ressourcement was used to describe a movemet that emerged amog Catholics i WesterEurope i the early part of the twetieth cetury that emphasized returig to early sources(Scripture, traditio ad creeds) for the sake of theological reewal.



Introduction 23

the key sources for his teachig o the Triity—De trinitate .18 The

formal cotet of Augustie’s triitaria theology will be preseted ichapters three to five. I have structured the order of these chapters to

follow the way Augustie treats these topics i De trinitate .

Arguably, the relatioship betwee the ecoomic Triity ad the

immaet Triity represets a key poit of debate i cotemporary

theology. This debate is directly relevat to the theology of religios. I

chapter three I will explore the relatioship betwee the ecoomic

Triity ad the immaet Triity i the work of Mark Heim. I co-

versatio with Augustie, I will argue that Heim’s “theology of reli-

gious eds” ultimately severs the immaet Triity from the ecoomic

Triity.

Assumptios about the relatios of the divie persos also play a

importat role i several recet proposals. I chapter four I will explore

the relatios amog Father, So ad Holy Spirit i Jacques Dupuis’s

Christia theology of religious pluralism ad Amos Yog’s peumato-

logical theology of religios. I coversatio with Augustie, I willargue that Yog ad Dupuis offer iadequate accouts of relatios of

the divie persos.

A umber of Christia theologias have suggested that triitaria

structures ca be discered i o-Christia religios ad that this

reality bears witess to the validity of o-Christia religios. I chap-

ter five I will examie this assumptio i the work of Raimudo Pa-

ikkar ad his iterpreter Ewert Cousis. I coversatio with Augus-tie I will argue that Paikkar’s triitaria accout of religious

experiece udermies the basic grammar of the vestige traditio.

I chapter six I will explore the implicatios of my ivestigatio for

the Christia theology of religios ad cotemporary theology. Oe

might be tempted to assume that the triitaria problems I documet

i the pages to follow are limited to a select group of theologias re-

flectig o religious diversity; however, such a assumptio would be

18Augustie, The Trinity, tras. Edmud Hil l (Brookly: new City Press, 1991).




mistake. After summig up my evaluatio of Heim, Yog, Dupuis

ad Paikkar, I will demostrate that similar problems ca also be seei attempts to relate the doctrie of the Triity to a variety of other

cocers. I will close by cosiderig how Augustie might lead us to

rethik the purpose(s) of triitaria doctrie.

At the ed of Rethinking the Trinity and Religious Pluralism, I have

added a appedix addressig cotemporary criticisms of Augustie.

Accordig to his critics, Augustie’s triitaria theology begis with a

uity of divie substace (which he allegedly prioritizes over the divie

persos), his triitaria doctrie is shackled to neo-Platoic philoso-

phy, his “psychological aalogy” veers toward modalism ad he severs

the life of the triue God from the ecoomy of salvatio. These criti-

cisms ca be foud i works of Coli Guto, Corelius Platiga,

Catherie LaCuga ad Karl Raher. I will egage a key spokesperso

for these criticisms, Coli Guto, i order to draw attetio to some

of the ways Augustie is characteristically misread i cotemporary

theology.



1

t h e t u R n to t h e t R i n i t y

in t he theology

of R eligions

♦

t wo cotemporary developmets provide a importat cotext formy Augustiia assessmet of triitaria doctrie i the Christia

theology of religios: the twetieth-cetury triitaria revival, ad the

rise of the Christia theology of religios. The purpose of this chapter

is to survey these developmets.

the ContemPoRARy tRinitARiAn Revi vAl

A umber of excellet studies have bee writte chroiclig the reais-sace of triitaria theology i the twetieth cetury. There is o eed

to repeat at legth what others have said.1 For our purposes it will suf-

fice briefly to examie the work of Karl Barth ad Karl Raher, with

specific attetio to several themes that have shaped the character of

the cotemporary triitaria revival.2

1See Claude Welch, In This Name: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Contemporary Theology (new

York: Charles Scriber’s, 1952); Joh Thompso, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives (new York:Oxford Uiversity Press, 1994); Geoffrey Waiwright, “The Ecumeical Rediscovery of the Triity,” One in Christ 34 (1998): 95-124; ad Staley J. Grez, Rediscovering the Triune God:The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Mieapolis: Fortress, 2004).

2A discussio of the extet to which triitaria doctrie was actually margialized i various




Karl Barth. The twetieth-cetury triitaria revival was eergized

o the Protestat side by the work of Karl Barth.3

I his massive ChurchDogmatics, Barth itroduces the doctrie of the Triity as a fouda-

tioal elemet of his prolegomea. This move is drive by the assump-

tio that it is impossible to reflect o the ature of Christia doctrie

apart from the material cotet of Christia doctrie.4 More specifi-

cally, Barth isists that we caot thik about the ature of revelatio

apart from the Oe who is revealed in revelatio.5 Three questios

aturally arise as we cosider the ature of revelatio. Who is revealed?

How does revelatio happe? What is the result of revelatio? The

aswer to the first questio is that “God reveals himself.”6 The aswer

to the secod is that “He reveals himself through himself .”7 The aswer

to the third is that “He reveals himself .”8 For Barth, God is the subject of

revelatio, the act of revelatio ad the object of revelatio. “It is from

this fact,” explais Barth, “that we lear we must begi the doctrie of

ecclesial cotexts i the early part of the twetieth cetury lies outside the scope of this ives-tigatio (see Bruce D. Marshall, “Triity,” i The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology,Blackwell Compaio to Religio, ed. Gareth Joes [Malde, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004],pp. 183-203). What is clear is that a triitaria revival emerged i the twetieth cetury adthat the work of Barth ad Raher exerted sigificat ifluece o the character of this revival. Oe compellig exceptio to the margializatio thesis ca foud i the writigs of theDutch theologia Herma Bavick. Writte almost forty years before Barth, Bavick’s Re- formed Dogmatics is deeply triitaria (see Herma Bavick, Reformed Dogmatics, vols. 1-4, ed. Joh Bolt, tras. Joh Vried [Grad Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003-2008]; for a discussio of Bavick’s doctrie of the Triity, see Bavick, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, God and Creation,pp. 256-334).

3For a brief overview of Barth’s life ad theology, see Robert W. Jeso, “Karl Barth,” i The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology in the Twentieth Century , ed. David F.Ford, 2d ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1997), pp. 21-36.

4Commetig o his approach, Barth explais, “The most strikig aticipatio of this kid wil lcosist i the fact that we shall treat the whole doctrie of the Triity ad the essetials of Christology i this coectio, amely as costituet parts of our aswer to the questio of the Word of God. We caot pose the questios of formal dogma without immediately eterig atthese cetral poits upo material dogma” (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1/1, The Doctrine of

the Word of God , tras. G. W. Bromiley, 2d ed. [Ediburgh: T & T Clark, 1975], p. 44).5Ibid., p. 295.6Ibid., p. 296.7Ibid.8Ibid.



The Turn to the Trinity in the Theology of Religions 27

revelatio with the doctrie of the triue God.”9 Whe we recogize

that “to the same God who i uimpaired uity is the Revealer, therevelatio ad the revealedess, there is also ascribed i uimpaired

differetiatio withi Himself this threefold mode of beig,” we are

brought directly to the problem of the Triity.10

Barth’s decisio to locate the doctrie of the Triity i his prole-

gomea stood i cotrast to a well-established practice of discussig

God’s existece, ature ad attributes prior to ay discussio of God’s

triuity. Because the doctrie of the Triity “is what basically disti-

guishes Christia doctrie of God as Christia,” it must be give a

place of priority.11 Barth’s cocer is ot merely chroological. He i-

sists that the doctrie of the Triity should shape all theological ref lec-

tio: “I givig this doctrie a place of promiece our cocer caot

be merely that it have this place exterally but rather that its cotet be

decisive and controlling for the whole of dogmatics.”12 I the latter cotext

Barth presets the doctrie of the Triity as both a iterpretatio of

ad prerequisite for revelatio.

Barth’s methodological claim that the doctrie of the Triity should

be “decisive ad cotrollig” for all theological reflectio may well rep-

reset oe of his most sigificat cotributios to the twetieth-ce-

tury triitaria revival. Robert Jeso explais that what is oteworthy

about Barth’s doctrie of the Triity is ot its cotet, which “turs out

to be a fairly stadard Augustiia doctrie,”13 but rather his theologi-

9Ibid.10Ibid., p. 299.11Ibid., p. 301.12Ibid., p. 303 (italics added).13 Jeso, “Karl Barth,” p. 32. Barth offers the followig summary of his triitaria doctrie:

“Geerally ad provisioally we mea by the doctrie of the Triity the propositio that He whom the Christia church calls God ad proclaims as God, the God who has revealed Him-self accordig to the witess of Scripture, is the same i uimpaired uity ad yet also thesame thrice i differet ways i uimpaired distictio. Or, i the phraseology of the church’s

dogma of the Triity, the Father, the So ad the Holy Spirit i the biblical witess to revela-tio are the oe God i the uity of their essece, ad the oe God i the biblical witess torevelatio is the Father, the So ad the Holy Spirit i the distictio of His persos” (Barth,Church Dogmatics 1/1, pp. 307-8). We ca see the Augustiia ifluece o Barth’s thoughtmostly clearly i the fial setece.




cal method.14 Cotemporary theologias have leared from Barth “that

this doctrie has ad must have explaatory ad regulatory use i the whole of theology, that it is ot a separate puzzle to be solved but the

framework withi which all theology’s puzzles are to be solved.”15

Karl Rahner . The triitaria revival was ivigorated o the Catholic

side through the work of Karl Raher.16 I 1967 Raher wrote what

proved to be a ifluetial essay o the Triity that was first published

i Germa i a multivolume work titled Mysterium Salutis ad later

traslated ito Eglish ad published as a stad-aloe book.17 I this

essay Raher lamets the margializatio of the Triity i the

church:

All of these cosideratios should ot lead us to overlook the fact that,

despite their orthodox cofessio of the Triity, Christias are, i their

practical life, almost mere “mootheists.” We must be willig to admit

that, should the doctrie of the Triity have to be dropped as false, the

major part of religious literature could well remai virtually u-

chaged.18

Accordig to Raher, at least three factors cotributed to margial-

izatio of triitaria doctrie: (1) a tred, begiig i medieval theol-

ogy texts, of separatig discussio of triitaria doctrie from discus-

sio of the ecoomy of salvatio (e.g., the icaratio), (2) icreased

preoccupatio with the immaet Triity, ad (3) a tedecy to treat

the doctrie of God uder two headigs, first from the stadpoit of

14 Jeso, “Karl Barth,” p. 33.15Ibid., p. 31.16Iasmuch as the doctrie of the Triity costitutes formal dogma for the Catholic Church, it would be iappropriate to speak, i ay formal sese, about the doctrie beig recoveredamog Catholics. Certaily the doctrie was ot lost. Raher, as we will see, speaks i termsof the margializatio of the doctrie. Alogside the work of Raher, Vatica II played aimportat role i stimulatig the triitaria revival amog Catholics. A triitaria framework shapes may of the cociliar documets.

17

Karl Raher, “Der dreifaltige Gott als traszedeter Urgrud der Heilsgeschichte,” i My-sterium Salutis: Grundriß heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, vol. 2, Die Heilsgeschichte vor Christus,ed. Johaes Feier ad Magus Löhrer (Eisiedel: Beziger Verlag, 1967), pp. 317-401; Karl Raher, The Trinity, tras. Joseph Doceel (new York: Crossroad, 1999).

18Raher, Trinity, pp. 10-11.




the divie essece (De Deo Uno) ad the oly secodarily from the

stadpoit of the divie persos (De Deo Trino).19

Accordig to Raher, the first step i recoverig the sigificace of

the Triity for the Christia life is recogizig that this doctrie is a

mystery of salvatio: “The isolatio of the treatise of the Triity has to

be wrog. There must be a coectio betwee Triity ad ma. The

Triity is a mystery of salvation, otherwise it would ever have bee

revealed.”20 Recoectig the Triity ad salvatio requires that we rec-

ogize the uity of the economic Triity ad the immanent Triity.21

The basic thesis which establishes this coectio betwee the treatises

ad presets the Triity as a mystery of salvatio (its reality ad ot

merely as a doctrie) might be formulated as follows: The “economic”

Trinity is the “immanent” Trinity and the “immanent” Trinity is the “eco-

nomic” Trinity.22

Accordig to Raher, the uity of the ecoomic ad the immaet

Triity ca be see most clearly i case of the icaratio. Who Jesusis ad what he does, as a huma, reveals the eteral Logos. As a result,

“we ca assert, i the full meaig of the words: here the Logos with

God ad the Logos with us, the immaet ad the ecoomic Logos,

are strictly the same.”23 Raher suggests that the icaratio represets

a sigle istace of a broader pheomeo: the self-commuicatio of

the triue God. I God’s self-commuicatio, each of the divie per-

sos commuicates himself to huma beigs i a way that reflects the

particularity of that divie perso.24

Raher isists that all triitaria reflectio (ad, for that matter,

dogmatic presetatio) must begi with the self-revelatio of the triue

19Ibid., pp. 15-24.20Ibid., p. 21.21 The ecoomic Triity refers to God’s self-revelatio through creatio, providece ad re-

demptio, while the immaet Triity deotes the itratriitaria life of the three divie

persos apart from creatio ad redemptio.22Raher, Trinity, pp. 21-22.23Ibid., p. 33.24“These three self-commuicatios are the self-commuicatio of the oe God i three rela-

tive ways i which God subsists” (Raher, Trinity, p. 35).




God i the ecoomy of salvatio, ad oly thereafter move to a doc-

trie of the immaet Triity. Thus, the divie “missios” should co-stitute the startig poit of theological reflectio. Followig this meth-

odology Raher develops his costructive doctrie of the Triity

begiig with God’s ecoomic “self-commuicatio.” O the oe

had, God’s self-commuicatio is oe; it possesses a ier uity. At

the same time, God’s self-commuicatio ivolves two fudametal

modalities—truth ad love. Raher claims that these self-differetiatios

(truth ad love) must belog to God in himself . Otherwise God’s com-

muicatio would ot be a geuie self-commuicatio: “For those

modalities ad their differetiatio either are i God himself (al-

though we first experiece them from our poit of view), or they exist

oly i us, they belog oly to the realm of creatures as effects of the

divie creative activity.”25 If the latter were the case, o geuie self -

commuicatio would exist. God would be preset oly as represeted

by a creature. If there is to be a authetic self-commuicatio, God

must ot merely be the “giver,” he must also be the “gift.” Geuie self-

commuicatio meas that God reveals himself as God through his

self-commuicatio. It is because of God’s immaet self-commuicatio

that God ca freely commuicate himself i the ecoomy.

Implications. Barth ad Raher share several importat assumptios

that have shaped (ad cotiue to shape) the cotemporary triitaria

revival.26 First, both share a visio for recoverig the cetrality of tri-

itaria doctrie for the life of the church. Arguably, this visio fuels thecotemporary quest for establishig the relevace of triitaria doc-

trie. Secod, both believe that the doctrie of the Triity should play

a goverig role i Christia theology. Barth expresses this covictio

25Ibid., p. 100.26 This is ot to suggest that all their shared assumptios have proved ifluetial. For example,

both Barth ad Raher were quite hesitat to speak of the Father, So ad Holy Spirit as

“persos” i the post-Elightemet sese of the word. Barth preferred to speak of the diviehypostases as “modes of beig” while Raher preferred the term “distict maers of subsist-ig.” I cotrast to Barth ad Raher, may cotemporary theologias—especially “social”triitarias—speak quite freely about Father, So ad Spirit as “persos” i the strogest pos-sible sese.




whe he says that triitaria doctrie should be “decisive ad cotrol-

lig for the whole of dogmatics.”27

We ca see the outworkig of Barth’sassumptio i cotemporary attempts to idetify the implicatios of

the doctrie of the Triity for huma persohood, worship, ecclesiol-

ogy, missios, marriage, ethics, societal relatios, political theory, o-

Christia religios ad the like. Third, both posit a close relatioship

betwee the ecoomic ad the immaet Triity. Barth articulates a

“rule” that is quite similar to Raher’s: “But we have cosistetly fol-

lowed the rule, which we regard as basic, that statemets about the di-

vie modes of beig atecedetly i themselves caot be differet i

cotet from those that are to be made about their reality i revelatio.”28

Raher’s rule about the relatioship betwee the ecoomic Triity ad

the immaet Triity has sparked extesive debate amog cotempo-

rary theologias (see chap. 3). Fially, Barth ad Raher both empha-

size the epistemic priority of the ecoomic Triity (God’s self-revelatio

i the ecoomy of salvatio) ad preset their triitaria doctrie i a

way that uderscores this basic assumptio. Raher’s presetatio

moves from God’s “self-commuicatio” i the ecoomy of salvatio to

the itratriitaria “self-commuicatio” that grouds it. Similarly, i

his Church Dogmatics Barth discusses each divie “mode of beig” uder

two headigs—first, from the stadpoit of the ecoomic Triity (e.g.,

“God as Recociler”) ad the from the stadpoit of the immaet

Triity (e.g., “The Eteral So”). The critical lik for Barth betwee

the ecoomic ad the immaet Triity ca be foud i the phraseantecedently in himself . For example, the So ca be our Recociler oly

because “atecedetly i himself ” apart from his salvif ic actio o our

behalf, he is the eteral So.29 For Barth the relatioship of the eco-

omic to the immaet Triity is irreversible: the immaet costi-

27

Barth, Church Dogmatics 1/1, p. 303.28Barth cotiues, “All our statemets cocerig what is called the immaet Triity havebee reached simply as cofirmatios or uderliigs or, materially, as the idispesablepremises of the ecoomic Triity” (Barth, Church Dogmatics 1/1, p. 479).

29Ibid., pp. 414-16.




tutes the otological groud for the ecoomic.30 With this backgroud

i mid, we will ow tur our attetio to aother key developmet itwetieth-cetury theology.

the ChRistiAn theology of Religions

The Christia theology of religios, which should be distiguished

from the “history of religios” ad the “philosophy of religio,”

emerged as a distict theological disciplie followig Vatica II.31

Questios discussed uder the rubric of the theology of religios i-

clude the followig: Uder what circumstaces may idividuals expe-

riece salvatio apart from the witess of the church? To what extet,

ad o what basis, ca we recogize elemets of truth ad goodess

i o-Christia religios? To what extet, if ay, is the triue God

active i o-Christia religios? What role, if ay, do o-Christia

religios play i salvatio history? To what ed, ad o what basis,

should Christias eter ito dialogue with adherets of other reli-

gios? Fially, to what extet ca we icorporate o-Christia

religious practices ito the developmet of idigeous churches i

missioary cotexts? These questios caot be avoided i the

icreasigly globalized world we live i.32

30It should be oted that importat epistemological differeces exist betwee Raher ad Barth,o the oe had, ad the classical (pre-Elightemet) theology o the other. Raher adBarth operate withi a post-Katia epistemological cotext i which Kat’s distictio be-twee the noumenal ad phenomenal realms provides the cotext for uderstadig the rela-tioship betwee divie reality ad dogmatic cocepts, such as immaet Triity ad theecoomic Triity.

31Several thikers have rightly oted that Vatica II represeted a “watershed” evet i the his-tory of the church (see Miikka Ruokae, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions According to the Second Vatican Council [new York: E. J. Brill, 1992], p. 8). This is ot to suggestthat theological reflectio o the relatioship of Christiaity to other religios did ot existprior to Vatica II. What is uique followig Vatica II is the emergece of the “theology of religios” as a ew theological disciplie. For a discussio of the developmet of this ew disciplie, see Veli-Matti Kärkkäie, An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical,

Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Dowers Grove, Ill.: IterVarsity Press, 2003).32 This is ot to suggest that a awareess of religious diversity is somehow ovel i the history of the church. The early church proclaimed its kerygma i a sycretistic eviromet thatrecogized “may gods ad may lords” (see Bruce W. Witer, “I Public ad i Private: Early Christias ad Religious Pluralism,” i One God, One Lord: Christianity in a World of Religious




Exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism . Debate regardig the rela-

tioship of Christiaity to other religios has take place uder therubric of the exclusivist-iclusivist-pluralist typology. Exclusivism is

associated with the view that salvatio ca be foud oly through the

perso ad work of Jesus Christ, ad that savig grace is ot mediated

through the teachigs ad practices of o-Christia religios.33 In-

clusivism geerally refers to the view that Christia salvatio exteds

beyod the visible boudaries of the church ad that o-Christia

religios may play some positive role i God’s purposes for humai-

ty.34 Although they agree that salvatio exteds beyod the witess

of the church, iclusivists are divided o the questio of whether o-

Christia religios qua religios costitute chaels through which

savig grace is mediated. I a variety of forms, iclusivism has gaied

mometum amog Protestats ad Catholics sice Vatica II. As a

iterpretatio of religio pluralism deotes the viewpoit that all reli-

gios represet equally valid meas to salvatio (which is costrued

i a variety of ways).35

Although the exclusivist-iclusivist-pluralist typology has framed

debate regardig the relatioship of Christiaity to other religios for

Pluralism, ed. Adrew D. Clarke ad Bruce W. Witer [Grad Rapids: Baker, 1992], pp. 125-48).

33Exclusivism is sometimes cofused with restrictivism (i.e., the view that oly those who ex-press explicit faith i Christ ca be saved); however, as the term is used i the broader discus-sio of the relatioship betwee Christiaity ad other religios, exclusivism does ot eces-sarily etail a particular view regardig the fate of the uevagelized. For example, AlisterMcGrath, who holds a exclusivist (or, as he prefers, particularist ) view, adopts a agosticstace regardig the fate of the uevagelized (see Alister McGrath, “A Particularist View: APost-Elightemet Approach,” i More Than One Way? Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralis-tic Word , ed. Deis L. Okholm ad Timothy R. Phil lips [Grad Rapids: Zoderva, 1995],pp. 151-209).

34See Harold A. netlad, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Dowers Grove, Ill.: IterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 52. While the precise boudary betwee exclusivism ad iclusivism is difficult to discer for reasos I will outlie later, oe

elemet that clearly distiguishes exclusivists from iclusivists is their perspective regardigthe salvific role of o-Christia religios.35 The pluralist positio is perhaps best exemplified i the writigs of Joh Hick (see Joh Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent [new Have, Co.: YaleUiversity Press, 1989]).




almost two decades, at least three limitatios beset it.36 First, several

proposals caot be easily located uder ay of these positios. Forexample, Karl Barth is typically idetified as a exclusivist; however, to

the extet Barth may legitimately be characterized as a uiversalist, his

positio defies easy categorizatio. Secod, eve amog theologias

who explicitly alig themselves with oe of the three positios outlied

here, cosiderable diversity exists i the substace of their proposals.

For example, Mark Heim claims that while Christias will experiece

salvatio (i a Christia sese), adherets of other religios will experi-

ece other positive eds that are distict from salvatio.37 Jacques Du-

puis claims that o-Christia religios costitute chaels through

which their adherets will experiece Christia salvatio.38 Although

he ackowledges the uiversal presece of the Spirit i o-Christia

religios, Gavi D’Costa isists that savig grace is ot mediated

through o-Christia religios.39 All three of these thikers broadly

idetify themselves as “iclusivists,” yet their costructive proposals

differ sigificatly.40 Heim affirms multiple religious eds while Du-

puis claims that oly oe positive ed exists (i.e., commuio with the

triue God). Dupuis affirms that o-Christia religios mediate sal-

vific grace, while D’Costa rejects this claim. Differeces such as these

suggest that explaatory power of the exclusivist-iclusivist-pluralist

typology has become limited. Although some theologias believe that

the exclusivist-iclusivist-pluralist typology is still useful, others have

36Ala Race is frequetly credited for brigig this typology ito promiece (see Ala Race,Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religion [Marykoll,n.Y.: Orbis, 1982]).

37S. Mark Heim, “Salvatios: A More Pluralistic Hypothesis,” Modern Theology 10 (1994): 343-60.

38 Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis,1997), pp. 203-390.

39Gavi D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 2000), pp.101-16.

40

I fairess to Gavi D’Costa, it should be oted that while he previously idetified himself asa iclusivist, he has more recetly distaced himself from this label—both because he rejectsthe typology o which it is based ad also because he believes that iclusivism has becomeicreasigly associated with a positio he rejects, amely, that salvatio is mediated througho-Christia religios (see ibid., pp. 99, 116).




attempted to develop alterative paradigms.41 Fially, use of the label

“exclusivism” withi the threefold typology obscures the fact that eachof these positios is exclusivist i a fudametal sese. Gavi D’Costa

advaces this thesis as the basis for a peetratig critique of a pluralist

iterpretatio of religious diversity. Drawig o the work of Joh Mil-

bak ad Alasdair MacItyre, D’Costa argues that there is o such

thig as a “o-traditio-specific” accout of religio, ad that plural-

ism “represets a traditio-specific approach that bears all the same

features as exclusivism—except that it is wester liberal moderity’s

exclusivism.”42 Iclusivism fares o better, accordig to D’Costa, be-

cause it too is exclusivist i that it offers a traditio-specific accout of

religious diversity. Iclusivism “collapses” ito exclusivism i three im-

portat ways.43 First, iclusivists hold that their positio is otologi-

cally ad epistemologically correct. Secod, the claims of iclusivists

are iseparably liked to Christ ad the church i ways that are similar

to exclusivism. Fially, both exclusivists ad iclusivists offer traditio-

specific iterpretatios of religio ad defed these iterpretatios

agaist coflictig iterpretatios.

The turn to the Trinity in the theology of religions. Raimudo Paik-

kar is frequetly idetified as oe the first cotemporary theologias

explicitly to employ a doctrie of the Triity as costitutive groud for

a Christia theology of religios. I 1968 Paikkar wrote a essay ti-

tled “Toward a Ecumeical Theadric Spirituality,” which was later

41For supporters of the former see Paul Griff iths, Problems of Religious Diversity (Malde, Mass.:Blackwell, 2001), pp. 22-65, 138-69; ad Perry Schmidt-Leukel, “Exclusivism, Iclusivism,Pluralism: The Tripolar Typology—Clarified ad Reaffirmed,” i The Myth of Religious Supe-riority: Multifaith Explorations of Religious Pluralism, ed. Paul F. Kitter (Marykoll, n.Y.:Orbis, 2005), pp. 13-27. Oe alterative typology that has gaied promiece employs thecategories of “ecclesiocetrism,” “Christocetrism” ad “theocetrism.” Veli-Matti Kärk-käie, followig Jacques Dupuis, edorses this typology (see Kärkkäie, Introduction to the Theology of Religions, pp. 23-27, 165-73). The ecclesiocetric-Christocetric-theocetric ty-pology does ot appear to offer ay substative improvemet o the exclusivism-iclusivism-

pluralism typology.42D’Costa, Meeting of Religions, p. 22. It is importat to distiguish the fact of plurality (em-pirical pluralism) from “religious pluralism” as a philosophical iterpretatio of religio. Whe I am speakig of the former I will geerally employ the phrase “religious diversity.”

43Ibid.




developed ito a book uder the title The Trinity and the Religious Ex-

perience of Man.44

Paikkar suggests that the doctrie of the Triity provides a itegratig model for huma spirituality i which the Fa-

ther, So ad Holy Spirit are idetified with three distict forms of

religious experiece (“icoolatry,” “persoalism” ad “mysticism”). I

1970, Ewert Cousis wrote a essay titled “The Triity ad World

Religios”45 i which he commeds Paikkar’s proposal ad attempts

to build o it by likig it to “three uiversalizig currets i the his-

tory of Triitaria theology”: the medieval vestige doctrie, the trii-

taria doctrie of creatio i the Greek theologias ad the Wester

doctrie of appropriatio.46 Cousis argues that whe Paikkar’s pro-

posal is situated withi the cotext of these three “uiversalizig cur-

rets,” his proposal ca be see to possess a legitimate basis i the his-

tory of Christia theology.47

The followig year (1971), i his address to the World Coucil of

Churches Cetral Committee, Georges Khodr suggested that triitar-

ia peumatology may provide a way forward i dealig with the rela-

tioship of Christiaity to other religios.48 Cetral to Khodr’s proposal

is a triitaria distictio betwee a ecoomy of the So ad a eco-

omy of the Spirit: “The Spirit is preset everywhere ad fills everythig

by virtue of a ecoomy distict from that of the So.”49 Because “the

Spirit operates ad applies His eergies i accordace with His ow

ecoomy,” oe could “regard the o-Christia religios as poits where

His ispiratio is at work.”50 Although it did ot prove to be immedi-

44Raymod Paikkar, “Toward a Ecumeical Theadric Spirituality,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968): 507-34; ad Paikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man: Person- Icon-Mystery (new York: Orbis, 1973). Paikkar’s proposal will be discussed i greater detaili chap. 5.

45Ewert Cousis, “The Triity ad World Religios,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 7 (1970):476-98.

46Ibid., p. 484.47

Ibid., p. 492.48Georges Khodr, “Christiaity ad the Pluralistic World—The Ecoomy of the Holy Spirit,” Ecumenical Review 23 (1971): 125-26.

49Ibid.50Ibid., p. 126.




ately ifluetial, Khodr’s essay iflueced the developmet of subse-

quet peumatological approaches to the theology of religios.51

Over the ext twety years, little was writte explicitly likig tri-

itaria doctrie to the theology of religios. A ew wave of appeal to

doctrie of the Triity bega i 1990 with the publicatio of Christian

Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions.52

This book cotais a collectio of essays that were writte i respose

to The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Re-

ligions.53 The first sectio of Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered cotais

three essays uder the headig “The Triity ad Religious Pluralism.”

I the first essay, “Triity ad Pluralism,” Rowa Williams apprecia-

tively—though ot ucritically—examies Paikkar’s attempt to em-

ploy the Triity as the foudatio for religious pluralism.54 Paikkar’s

book The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man represets “oe of

the best ad least read meditatios o the Triity i [the twetieth]

cetury.”55 Although Paikkar’s model “possess[es] a real cosistecy

ad plausibility,” it requires “some specif ic clarificatios precisely i the

area of its fudametal Triitaria orietatio.”56 Accordig to Wil-

liams, Paikkar helps Christias see that the doctrie of the Triity

eed ot be a stumblig block to iterfaith dialogue but rather a re-

source.57 I “Particularity, Uiversality, ad the Religios,” Christoph

Schwöbel argues that either exclusivism or pluralism offer the proper

foudatio for iterreligious dialogue because they both fail to provide

a adequate accout of “the complex relatioship of particularity ad

51Khodr’s ifluece ca be see i Amos Yog’s peumatological theology of religios (seechap. 4).

52Gavi D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 1990).

53 Joh Hick ad Paul F. Kitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 1987).

54

Rowa Williams, “Triity ad Pluralism,” i Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of aPluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. Gavi D’Costa (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 1990), pp. 3-15.55Ibid., p. 3.56Ibid., p. 6.57Ibid., p. 11.




uiversality i religios.”58 The exclusivist positio aff irms particular-

ity while deyig uiversality, while the pluralist positio offers a ac-cout of uiversality that udermies particularity. A proper uder-

stadig of the relatioship betwee the uiversal ad particular is

provided by the Christia doctrie of the Triity.59 Triitaria faith

requires Christias ot oly to recogize the distictive particularity of

their ow faith but to affirm also the distictive particularity of other

faiths.60 Alogside this particularity, the Christia faith also aff irms a

uiversal dimesio grouded i the recogitio that the God who is

revealed i Jesus Christ through the Spirit is the “groud of all beig,

meaig ad salvatio.”61 Thus, the triue God is uiversally preset

ad active “as creative, recocilig, ad savig love.”62 The latter reality

must be take ito accout i order to arrive at a proper uderstadig

of other religios.63 All religios represet “huma resposes to the

uiversal creative ad redeemig agecy of God.”64 Thus, although sal-

vatio may take place oly though Christ, this does ot mea oe must

be a member of a Christia church or accept Christia doctrie to ex-

periece it.65 Perhaps the most importat essay i this book attemptig

to relate triitaria doctrie to the Christia theology of religios is

“Christ, the Triity ad Religious Plurality” by Gavi D’Costa.66

D’Costa argues that the cocers that aimate the writers of The Myth

of Christian Uniqueness are better addressed withi a triitaria frame-

work. Withi a triitaria cotext “the multiplicity of religios takes

58Christoph Schwöbel, “Particularity, Uiversal ity, ad the Religios: Toward a Christia The-ology of Religios,” i Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. Gavi D’Costa (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 1990), p. 33.

59Ibid., p. 43.60Ibid., p. 37.61Ibid.62Ibid., p. 38.63Ibid., p. 39.64

Ibid., p. 43.65Ibid., p. 41.66Gavi D’Costa, “Christ, the Triity ad Religious Plurality,” i Christian Uniqueness Recon-

sidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. Gavi D’Costa (Marykoll, n.Y.:Orbis, 1990), pp. 16-29.




o a special theological sigificace that caot be igored by Chris-

tias who worship a Triitaria God.”67

Accordig to D’Costa, thedoctrie of the Triity provides a key to uderstadig other religios

because of the way it holds together particularity ad uiversality.68 O

the oe had, this doctrie affirms that the triue God has bee dis-

closed i the particularity of Jesus of nazareth. O the other had, it

also affirms that God is cotiually revealig himself i huma history

through the presece ad work of the Holy Spirit.69 Because the work

of the Spirit is ot limited to istitutioal Christiaity, triitaria faith

ca egeder ope attitudes toward other religios:

The sigificace of this Triitaria ecclesiology is that if we have good

reasos to believe that the Spirit ad Word are preset ad active i the

religios of the world (i ways that caot, a priori, be specified), the

it is itrisic to the vocatio of the church to be attetive to the world

religios.70

The followig year (1991), niia Smart ad Stephe Kostatiepublished a book titled Christian Systematic Theology in World Context,

i which they argue that the triue God, specifically the “social” Tri-

ity, is the ultimate divie reality, which costitutes the groud of all

religious experiece.71 Differig forms of spirituality arise from a ex-

periece of oe of three “aspects of the divie life” of the triue God:

(1) orelatioal, (2) relatioal, ad (3) commual.72 Diversity i the

divie life grouds diversity i religious experiece.73 Buddhists, for

example, apprehed the “o-relatioal” dimesio of the divie life

while Christias experiece the “relatioal” dimesio. Smart ad

Kostatie coted that these three “aspects” of the divie life are

67Ibid., p. 16.68Ibid., p. 18.69Ibid., p. 17.70Ibid., p. 23.71

Social tr iitarias view huma commuity as a model for relatios amog the divie persos.niia Smart ad Stephe Kostatie, Christian Systematic Theology in World Context (Mi-eapolis: Fortress, 1991).

72Ibid., p. 174.73Ibid., pp. 173-74.




geerated by the complex ature of God as Triity.

Durig the same year, Paul Kitter wrote a essay titled “A new Petecost? A Peumatological Theology of Religios.”74 I this essay

Kitter builds upo Georges Khodr’s earlier proposal by suggestig

that o-Christia religios represet the idepedet domai of the

Spirit:

If we ca take the Spirit, ad ot the Word i Jesus Christ, as our start-

ig poit for a theology of religios, we ca affirm the possibility that

the religios are “a all-comprehesive pheomeo of grace”—that is,a ecoomy of grace that is geuiely differet from that made kow

to us through the Word icarate i Jesus (i whom, of course, the

Spirit was also active). Ad i that sese, the ecoomy of religios is

“idepedet”—that is, ot to be submerged or egulfed or icorpo-

rated ito the ecoomy of the Word represeted i the Christia

churches.75

Although Kitter did ot further develop this triitaria peumatol-

ogy, his proposal has bee embraced by other theologias.76

I 1994 Pa-Chiu Lai published a revisio of his doctoral disserta-

tio uder the title Towards a Trinitarian Theology of Religions.77 The

poit of departure for Lai’s ivestigatio is the assumptio that the

two domiat positios i the theology of religios—“theocetrism”

(pluralism) ad “Christocetrism” (exclusivism)—are iadequate.78

Whereas the theocetric positio dowplays the cetrality of the i-

caratio, the Christocetric positio miimizes the role of the Holy Spirit.79 Lai suggests that a triitaria approach provides a way to i-

tegrate ad trasced theocetrism ad Christocetrism, ad that the

resources for developig this kid of triitaria approach ca be foud

74Paul F. Kitter, “A new Petecost? A Peumatological Theology of Religios,” Current Dia-logue 19 (1991): 32-41.

75Ibid., p. 36.76

Oe example is the Petecostal theologia Amos Yog.77Pa-Chiu Lai, Towards a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A Study in Paul Tillich’s Thought ,Studies i Philosophical Theology 8 (Kampe, netherlads: Kok Pharos, 1994).

78Ibid., pp. 31-41.79Ibid., p. 41.




i the theology of Paul Tillich.80 Accordig to Lai, a importat shift

i thought took place i Tillich’s thikig betwee the secod adthird volumes of his Systematic Theology.81 Tillich’s early approach to

o-Christia religios might aptly be characterized as Christoce-

tric, iasmuch as it assumed the superiority of Christiaity; however,

i the third volume of his Systematic Theology Tillich adopted a peu-

matological approach to other religios primarily because he recog-

ized that Logos doctrie did ot offer a adequate basis for aff irmig

the validity of other religios. The uiversal ecoomy of the Spirit

played a key role i Tillich’s ew approach. Accordig to Tillich, sal-

vatio occurs aywhere people ecouter the “healig power” of

Christ.82 The Spirit represets the ultimate source of this healig

power.83 Accordig to Lai, Tillich’s theory of the Triity has three

implicatios for iterreligious dialogue. First, his doctrie of the Tri-

ity grouds the “possibility ad autoomy of other ways of salvatio”

by avoidig “a exclusively Christocetric coceptio of the Triity.”84

Secod, by affirmig that “the three personae of the divie Triity

represet three differet characters of the divie revelatio—the abys-

mal, logical ad spiritual,” Tillich is able to itegrate a wide variety of

religious experieces.85 Fially, the “participatory otology” that u-

dergirds Tillich’s uderstadig of the Triity eables Christias to

eter ito dialogue based o the assumptio that other traditios are

“livig religios” just like Christiaity.86

I 1996, Jacques Dupuis published his “Christia theology of reli-gious pluralism” which he grouds i triitaria theology.87 Accordig

80Ibid., p. 43.81Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: Uiversity of Chicago Press, 1951-1963).82Lai, Towards a Trinitarian Theology of Religions, p. 119. Although Christ represets the crite-

rio for this healig, savig power is ot limited to him. Oly God is Savior. God savesthrough Christ.

83Ibid., p. 129.84

Ibid., pp. 160, 159, respectively 85Ibid. 160.86Ibid., p. 164-65.87 Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis,

1996). Dupuis’s proposal will be discussed at greater detail i chap. 4.




to Dupuis, the “Christia visio of the Triue God” opes the door for

a “positive evaluatio of other religious traditios.”88

It does so by pro- vidig a iterpretive key: “From a Christia viewpoit the doctrie of

the divie Triity serves as the hermeeutical key for a iterpretatio

of the experiece of the Absolute Reality to which other religious tradi-

tios testify.”89 Dupuis appeals to the Triity i at least five differet

ways. First, the Triity costitutes the otological basis for his pro-

posal. Accordig to Dupuis, “the mystery of the Triue God—Father,

So, Spirit—correspods objectively to the ier reality of God, eve

though oly aalogically.”90 Secod, Dupuis claims that all religious

experiece possesses a “triitaria structure.”91 Third, the Triity pro-

vides the “hermeeutical key” to relatig the uiversality of God’s sav-

ig will to the particularity of Christ, eablig oe to move beyod a

exclusivist approach to o-Christia religios without embracig a

pluralist perspective. How does oe affirm the uiversality of God’s

savig will while retaiig the particularity of the Christ evet? Simply

by recogizig that the “two hads” of God—the Word ad the

Spirit—are uiversally preset ad active i other religios.92 Fourth,

Dupuis reiterprets the cetrality of Christ through a appeal to the

Triity i such a way that he is able to affirm other saviors who some-

how participate i the mediatio of Christ.93 Fially, religious plural-

ity, as a empirical pheomeo, fids its ultimate basis i the plurality

of divie life of the Triity: “The diversity ad commuio of persos

i the Godhead offer the proper key—to be explored hereafter—foruderstadig the multiplicity of iterrelated divie self-maifestatios

i the world ad i history.”94

The followig year a collectio of te essays from the Fifth Edi-

88Ibid., p. 313.89Ibid., p. 264.90

Ibid., p. 259.91Ibid., pp. 276-77.92Ibid., p. 300.93Ibid., pp. 205-6.94Ibid., p. 208.




burgh Dogmatics Coferece was published uder the title The Trinity

in a Pluralistic Age .95

Kevi Vahoozer explais that the purpose of thecoferece was to explore the implicatios of triitaria thought for the

preset pluralistic cotext:

Our workig hypothesis is straightforward, but its implicatios are im-

mese: the doctrie of the Triity, with its dual emphasis o oeess

ad threeess as equally ultimate, cotais uexpected ad hitherto u-

explored resources for dealig with the problems, ad possibilities, of

cotemporary pluralism.96

A distictive feature of this collectio of essays is the way several

cotributors express cocers regardig cotemporary appeal to the

Triity i the theology of religios. Three examples will suffice. Al-

though he praises the triitaria revival that has take place, Lesslie

newbigi criticizes attempts o the part of key leaders i the ecume-

ical movemet to commed a triitaria approach to missio as a al-

terative to ad replacemet for a Christocetric model that empha-sizes the uiversal lordship of Christ.97 Such a move, he explais, would

represet a “grave mistake.”98 I a essay titled “The Triity ad ‘Other

Religios,’ ” Stephe Williams raises importat methodological ques-

tios regardig the appeal to the Triity i the works of Raimudo

Paikkar (The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man) as well as

niia Smart ad Stephe Kostatie (Christian Systematic Theology

in World Context ): “Oe strikig feature of both of these cotributios

is the absece of ay discussio of the questio of criteria. The criterio-

logical questio that must be aswered is this: what eables somethig

to cout as a formulatio of the doctrie of the Triity?”99 Although

both Paikkar ad Smart-Kostatie employ triitaria terms ad

95Kevi J. Vahoozer, ed., The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age (Grad Rapids: Eerdmas, 1997).96Ibid., p. x.97

Lesslie newbigi, “The Triity as Public Truth,” i The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age , ed. Kevi J. Vahoozer (Grad Rapids: Eerdmas, 1997), p. 7.98Ibid., p. 8.99Stephe Williams, “The Triity ad ‘Other Religios,’” i The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age , ed.

Kevi J. Vahoozer (Grad Rapids: Eerdmas, 1997), p. 28.




idetify triadic patters, either of them aswers, or eve attempts to

aswer, this questio.100

Fially, i a essay titled “Does the Triity Belog i a Theology of Religios?” Kevi Vahoozer explores several

key triitaria issues i the Christia theology of religios.101 Oe

issue cocers the relatio of the So ad the Spirit i the ecoomy of

salvatio. Vahoozer expresses cocer over the way may cotempo-

rary theologies treat the Spirit as “uiversalizer.”102 If the Spirit’s activ-

ity truly is uiversal, oe would ot be able “to distiguish the divie

from the demoic,” or would there be ay good reaso exist to limit

the Spirit’s work to the realm of religio.103 Vahoozer suggests that

problematic accouts of the Spirit’s uiversal work arise, at least i part,

from a failure to cosider how the Spirit relates to Christ: “Does ot the

arrative idetif icatio of the triue God preset the Spirit as the Spirit

of Christ—ot simply the Logos, but the crucif ied ad rise Christ?”104

Cotemporary theologias would beefit from recosiderig Reformed

teachig regardig the “iseparability of Word ad Spirit, ad i par-

ticular its doctrie of the testimoy of the Spirit, for a theology of

religios.”105

I 2000, two importat books relatig the triitaria doctrie to the

theology of religios were published: Gavi D’Costa’s The Meeting of

Religions and the Trinity, ad Amos Yog’s Discerning the Spirit(s): A

Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to a Christian Theology of Reli-

gions.106 I The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity D’Costa argues that

pluralists like Joh Hick are really covert exclusivists ad that the co-cers which drive pluralist iterpretatios of religio (e.g., opeess,

100Ibid., p. 29.101Kevi J. Vahoozer, “Does the Triity Belog i a Theology of Religios? O Aglig i the

Rubico ad the ‘Idetity’ of God,” i The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age , ed. Kevi J. Vahoozer(Grad Rapids: Eerdmas, 1997), pp. 41-71.

102Ibid., p. 62.103Ibid., p. 63.104

Ibid., pp. 69-70.105Ibid., p. 70.106Gavi D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 2000); ad

Amos Yog, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to a Christian The-ology of Religions (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).




tolerace ad equality) are better addressed withi the framework of a

Roma Catholic triitaria theology of religios. Cetral to D’Costa’striitaria theology of religios is the uiversal presece of the Holy

Spirit. Although he believes that the Spirit is uiversally preset ad

active withi o-Christia religios, D’Costa rejects the view that

o-Christia religios, qua religios, costitute “vehicles of salvatio”

o the grouds that support for this view caot be foud i cociliar

teachig.107 D’Costa coteds that that presece of the Spirit i o-

Christia religios is “itrisically triitaria ad ecclesiological.”108

As a result, the work of the Spirit outside the church must be aalogous

to the Spirit’s work iside the church. Furthermore, he argues that the

presece of the Spirit caot be severed from the presece of Christ,

the church ad the kigdom.109 Christia theologias, therefore,

should avoid “abstract talk of the ‘the Spirit i other religios.’ ”110 I

the process of costructig alterative theologies of religio, a umber

of Catholic thikers—icludig Paul Kitter, Raimudo Paikkar ad

Jacques Dupuis—have severed “itrisic relatios” that obtai betwee

the persos of the Triity, the church ad the presece of God i the

world.111 At least five implicatios flow from the uiversal presece of

the Holy Spirit. First, it meas that salvatio is available (apart from

the witess of the church) to adherets of o-Christia religios. Sec-

od, it meas that the Spirit produces the presece of the kigdom ad

the church i a “ichoate” form amog other religios.112 Third, it

suggests that through egagemet with adherets of other religios,the church may be led more deeply ito the life of the triue God: “The

church, therefore, must be attetive to the possibility of God’s gift of

himself through the prayers ad practices of other religios.”113 Fourth,

107D’Costa, Meeting of Religions and the Trinity, p. 105.108Ibid., p. 110.109

Ibid., p. 111.110Ibid., p. 128.111Ibid., p. 110.112Ibid., p. 116.113Ibid., pp. 115-16.




as a result of the Spirit’s uiversal presece, it is possible that Christias

may observe “Christ-likeess” i adherets of other religios: “It mustbe clear from this that other religios, i keepig with their ow self-

uderstadig, may geerate profoudly Christ-like behavior.”114 Fi-

ally, because the Spirit ispires every “authetic prayer,” Christia

participatio i iterreligious prayer may, i certai cotexts, be ap-

propriate.115

The uiversal presece of the Spirit also plays a cetral role i the

work of Amos Yog. Although a umber of Christia theologias have

commeded peumatological approaches to o-Christia religios,

Discerning the Spirit(s) represets the first book-legth attempt to ar-

ticulate a peumatological theology of religios. I Discerning the

Spirit(s) Yog argues that the Holy Spirit is preset ad active amog

adherets of o-Christia religios ad that Christias must lear to

discer the Spirit’s presece.116 The triitaria peumatology he out-

lies i Discerning the Spirit(s) builds o a distictio betwee a eco-

omy of the Word ad the ecoomy of the Spirit. Because the Spirit acts

i a ecoomy distict from that of the So, Christias should be able

to idetify aspects of the Spirit’s work that are ot costraied by the

work of the So. To this ed, Yog outlies a process for discerig the

“religious” activity of the Spirit amog adherets of other religios that

ivolves three elemets (experietial, ethical ad theological).

Perhaps the most sophisticated attempt to groud a Christia theol-

ogy of religios i triitaria doctrie came i 2001 with the publica-tio of S. Mark Heim’s The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of

Religious Ends.117 Heim claims that the quest for a Christia theology

of religios geerally proceeds from the uwarrated suppositio that

there ca be oly oe religious ed. I cotrast, Heim argues for mul-

114Ibid., p. 129.115

Ibid., p. 152.116 Yog’s proposal will be discussed at legth i chap. 4.117S. Mark Heim, The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends , Sacra Doc-

tria (Grad Rapids: Eerdmas, 2001). Heim’s proposal will be discussed at legth i chap.3.




tiple religious eds. While Christias will experiece salvatio (i.e.,

commuio with the triue God), adherets of other religios may experiece other eds that must be distiguished from Christia salva-

tio.118 These alterate eds are rooted i the complex ature of the

triue God. The divie life of the triue God is complex i that it is

costituted by three dimesios. Whe a relatio with God is pursued

exclusively through oe of the three dimesios, the result is a distict

religious ed that caot simply be subsumed uder salvatio (i the

Christia sese).119 Four kids of huma destiy may follow: Christia

salvatio, other religious eds, oreligious destiies, ad the egatio

of the created self.

I 2003 Michael Ipgrave wrote a book titled Trinity and Inter Faith

Dialogue i which he presets the doctrie of the Triity as a key “re-

source” for iterfaith discussio.120 This doctrie ca be see as a

resource whe we recogize that the Triity represets “a uiversal

patter traceable i all religios.”121 Cetral to Ipgrave’s proposal is a

distictio betwee “Triity” ad “triity.” The former represets the

divie persos of Christia revelatio (Father, So ad Holy Spirit),

while the latter “serves as a geeric ame for ay triadic accout of di-

viity sharig to some recogizable extet i the patters of Christia

uderstadig of the Triity.”122 I short, Ipgrave proposes that we

separate the structural or costitutive elemets of the Triity from co-

fessio that this triitaria God has bee revealed i Jesus Christ.123

To this ed, he idetifies six foudatioal triitaria elemets as a basisfor iterfaith egagemet, icludig “plurality” (divie reality ivolves

118Ibid., pp. 31-32.119Ibid., pp. 167-68.120Michael Ipgrave, Trinity and Inter Faith Dialogue: Plenitude and Plurality, Religios ad Dis-

course 14 (new York: Peter Lag, 2003), p. 21.121Ibid.122

Ibid., p. 12.123“The coherece of this separatio is show by the possibility i priciple of imagiig a reli-gious faith which taught that God was a eteral ad co-equal ‘tr iity ’, differetiated as threepersos ad udivided i oe substace, yet which made o referece to the evet of JesusChrist” (ibid., p. 25).




differetiatio), “persoality” (realities costituted by this differetia-

tio are, i some sese, persos), “threeess” (there are exactly threedifferetiated persos), “equality” (patters of equality mark these rela-

tioships), “ecessity” (ay differetiatio must be ecessary rather

tha cotiget), ad “immaece” (differetiatio must obtai at

every otological level).124 Through the six “triitaria parameters,”

this doctrie provides the key to discussig the divie reality toward

which huma dialogue is directed. These triitaria parameters ca be

idetified ad amed i other religious traditios.125 Ipgrave also sug-

gests that the key elemets of successful dialogue (“opeess,” “ratio-

ality” ad aff irmig “religious experiece”) are grouded, respectively,

i the Father, So ad Holy Spirit; thus, a triitaria patter shapes

the dialogical process.126

Oe fial work merits discussio. I 2004 Veli-Matti Kärkkäie

wrote Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in

Christian Theology of Religions.127 Kärkkäie briefly explores ie re-

cet attempts to relate triitaria doctrie to a Christia theology of

religios. Four are Roma Catholic (Karl Raher, Jacques Dupuis,

Gavi D’Costa, Raimudo Paikkar) while five are Protestat (Karl

Barth, Wolfhart Paeberg, Clark Piock, S. Mark Heim, Joh

Hick).128 Followig his aalysis of these ie theologias, Kärkkäie

examies recet dialogue betwee Roma Catholics ad Muslims i

Frace as a test case for a triitaria theology of religios. He cocludes

by idetifyig a umber of issues that eed to be addressed “o the way

124Ibid., pp. 27-31.125“Triitaria doctrie makes a claim about the structure of the divie life: that the ultimate

referet of religious laguage is i reality characterized by the patters of Triitaria diver-sity which mark the Christia uderstadig of God—patters which I have idetified iterms of six parameters. As this is so i reality, it is ot ureasoable to expect some traces of this diversity to be foud i the ways i which other religious traditios i tur speak of thedivie pleitude” (ibid., pp. 336-37).

126

Ibid., p. 325.127Veli-Matti Kärkkäie, Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in ChristianTheology of Religions (Burligto, Vt.: Ashgate, 2004).

128Kärkkäie groups these proposals uder three headigs which broadly parallel the exclusiv-ist, iclusivist ad pluralist positios.




to a more coheret, satisfactory triitaria theology of religios.”129

Kärkkäie argues that Christia triitaria faith is icompatible withay form of “ormative” pluralism (e.g., the pluralism of Joh Hick)

ad that the issue of truth must be take seriously because Christia

truth claims possess a uiversal itet.130 I additio, he suggests that

greater attetio must be paid to the questio of what costitutes a le-

gitimate doctrie of the Triity i the theology of religios.131 Recet

formulatios eed to be assessed i light of salvatio history ad the

classic creeds.132 Alog the way Kärkkäie surfaces several problems

that arise i recet proposals icludig severed liks betwee Triity

ad Christology, betwee Triity ad salvatio history, ad betwee

Triity ad church. He cocludes his ivestigatio by idetifyig sev-

eral questios that must be aswered o the way to a adequate trii-

taria theology of religios. What relatioship exists betwee the So

ad the Spirit i the ecoomy of salvatio? Should peumatological

approaches to the theology of religios replace christological ap-

proaches? Amog curret approaches, which are adequate from a bibli-

cal ad theological stadpoit? Fially, what criteria might be employed

to evaluate the adequacy of various proposals?133

Although importat differeces exist amog the proposals outlied

above, they share oe feature i commo: a assumptio that the doc-

trie of the Triity (or, more precisely, a particular costrual of this

doctrie)134 costitutes the basis for a positive iterpretatio of religious

diversity from the stadpoit of Christia theology.135 Icreasig appeal

129Kärkkäie, Trinity and Religious Pluralism, p. 164.130Ibid., pp. 165-66.131Ibid., pp. 169-71.132Ibid., p. 170.133Ibid., p. 182.134By referrig to “the” doctrie of the Triity I am ot implyig that there is oe particular

systematic uderstadig of the triue God upo which all Christias agree. I this sese, it

might be more accurate to speak about “a” doctrie of the Triity. By speakig of “the” doc-trie of the Triity I have i mid triitaria doctrie i cotrast to other loci of Christiadoctrie (e.g., soteriology, athropology, etc.). Of course, the classic triitaria faith of thechurch is cofessed i the aciet ecumeical creeds.

135I additio to the works discussed previously, a umber of other theologias also commed




to triitaria doctrie i the Christia theology of religios raises a host

of questios: Does the doctrie of the Triity provide a roadmap foriterreligious dialogue? Ca vestiges of the Triity be foud i o-

Christia religious experiece? Is it legitimate to appeal to complexity i

the Triity as a basis for multiple religious eds? To what extet ca oe

aff irm the presece of coflictig ecoomic maifestatios of the triue

God i other religios without udermiig the uity of the ecoomic

Triity ad the immaet Triity? I light of the fact that the divie

persos act with oe will i the ecoomy of salvatio, to what extet—if

ay—is it appropriate to groud a theology of religios i a idepe-

det ecoomy of the Spirit? These are some of the questios that will be

examied i the chapters that follow.

the doctrie of the Triity as a importat resource for uderstadig religious diversity. SeeDaiel P. Sherida, “Grouded i the Triity: Suggestios for a Theology of Relatioship toOther Religios,” Thomist 50 (1986): 260-78; Athoy Kelly, The Trinity of Love: A Theologyof the Christian God , new Theology (Wilmigto, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989), pp. 228-48;M. Darrol Bryat, “Iterfaith Ecouter ad Dialogue i a Triitaria Perspective,” iChristianity and the Wider Ecumenism, ed. Peter C. Pha (new York: Parago House, 1990),pp. 3-20; Ae Hut, Trinity: Nexus of the Mysteries of Christian Faith, Theology i GlobalPerspective (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 2005), pp. 139-64; Reihold Berhardt, “The Real adthe Triitaria God,” i The Myth of Religious Superiority: Multifaith Explorations of ReligiousPluralism, ed. Paul F. Kitter (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 2005), pp. 194-210; Peter C. Hodg-so, “The Spirit ad Religious Pluralism,” i The Myth of Religious Superiority: Multifaith Explorations of Religious Pluralism, ed. Paul F. Kitter (Marykoll, n.Y.: Orbis, 2005), pp.135-50; Harvey G. Cox Jr., “Make Way for the Spirit,” i God’s Life in Trinity, ed. Miroslav

Volf ad Michael Welker (Mieapolis: Fortress, 2006), pp. 93-100; Daiel L. Migliore,“The Triity ad the Theology of Religios,” i God’s Life in Trinity, ed. Miroslav Volf adMichael Welker (Mieapolis: Fortress, 2006), pp. 101-17; Roger Haight, “Triity ad Re-ligious Pluralism,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44 (2009): 525-40; ad Ilia Delio, “Religious

rethinking the trinity and religious pluralism (siet) by keith johnson

Documents