God in
Trinity
Our social programme,
said the Russian thinker Fedorov, is the dogma of the Trinity. Orthodoxy
believes most
passionately that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not a piece of ‘high
theology’ reserved for
the professional scholar, but something that has a living, practical importance
for every Christian.
Man, so the Bible teaches, is made in the image of God, and to Christians
God means the Trinity:
thus it is only in the light of the dogma of the Trinity that man can
understand who he is and
what God intends him to be. Our private lives, our personal relations,
and all our plans of
forming a Christian society depend upon a right theology of the Trinity.
‘Between
the Trinity and Hell
there lies no other choice (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of
the Eastern
Church, p.
66). As an
Anglican writer has put it: ‘In this doctrine is summed up the new way of
thinking about God, in the
power of which the fishermen. went out to convert the Greco-Roman
world. It marks a saving
revolution in human thought (D. J. Chitty, ‘The Doctrine of the Holy
Trinity told
to the
Children,’ in Sobornost, series 4, no. 5, 1961, p. 241).
The basic elements in
the Orthodox doctrine of God have already been mentioned in the
first part of this book,
so that here they will only be summarized briefly:
1. God is absolutely
transcendent. ‘No single thing of all that is created has or ever will
have even the slightest
communion with the supreme nature or nearness to it (Gregory Palamas, P.G.
150,
1176c (quoted on p. 77)). This absolute transcendence Orthodoxy safeguards by
its emphatic use
of the ‘way of
negation,’ of ‘apophatic’ theology. Positive or ‘cataphatic’ theology — the
‘way
of affirmation’ — must
always be balanced and corrected by the employment of negative language.
Our positive statements
about God — that He is good, wise, just and so on — are true as
far as they go, yet they
cannot adequately describe the inner nature of the deity. These positive
statements, said John of
Damascus, reveal ‘not the nature, but the things around the nature.’
‘That there is a God is
clear; but what He is by essence and nature, this is altogether beyond our
comprehension and
knowledge (On the Orthodox Faith, 1, 4 (P.G. 94,
800B, 797B)).
2. God, although
absolutely transcendent, is not cut of from the world which He has made.
God is above and outside
His creation, yet He also exists within it. As a much used Orthodox
prayer puts it: ‘Thou
art everywhere and finest all things.’ Orthodoxy therefore distinguishes
between
God’s essence and His
energies, thus safeguarding both divine transcendence and divine
immanence: God’s essence
remains unapproachable, but His energies come down to us. God’s
energies, which are God
Himself, permeate all His creation, and we experience them in the form
9
of deifying grace and
divine light. Truly our God is a God who hides Himself, yet He is also a
God who acts — the God
of history, intervening directly in concrete situations.
3. God is personal,
that a to say, Trinitarian. This God who acts is not only a God of
energies,
but a personal God. When
man participates in the divine energies, he is not overwhelmed
by some vague and
nameless power, but he is brought face to face with a person. Nor is this all:
God is not simply a
single person confined within his own being, but a Trinity of three persons,
Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, each of whom ‘dwells’ in the other two, by virtue of a perpetual
movement of love. God is
not only a unity but a union.
4. Our God is an
Incarnate God. God has come down to man, not only through His energies,
but in His own person.
The Second Person of the Trinity, ‘true God from true God,’ was
made man: “The Word
became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). A closer union than this
between God and His
creation there could not be. God Himself became one of His creatures (For
the
first and second of these four points, see pp. 72-9; for the third and fourth
points, see pp. 28-37).
Those brought up in
other traditions have sometimes found it difficult to accept the Orthodox
emphasis on apophatic
theology and the distinction between essence and energies; but apart
from these two matters,
Orthodox agree in their doctrine of God with the overwhelming majority
of all who call
themselves Christians. Monophysites and Lutherans, Nestorians and Roman
Catholics, Calvinists,
Anglicans, and Orthodox: all alike worship One God in Three Persons and
confess Christ as
Incarnate Son of God (In the past hundred years, under the
influence of ‘Modernism,’
many
Protestants have virtually abandoned the doctrines of the Trinity and the
Incarnation. Thus when I speak here
of
Calvinists, Lutherans, and Anglicans, I have in mind those who still respect
the classical Protestant formularies of
the
sixteenth century).
Yet there is one point
in the doctrine of God the Trinity over which east and west part company
— the filioque.
We have already seen how decisive a part this one word played in the unhappy
fragmentation of
Christendom. But granted that the filioque is important historically,
does
it really matter from a
theological point of view? Many people today — not excluding many Orthodox
— find the whole dispute
so technical and obscure that they are tempted to dismiss it as
utterly trivial. From
the viewpoint of traditional Orthodox theology there can be but one rejoinder
to this: technical and
obscure it undoubtedly is, like most questions of Trinitarian theology;
but it is not trivial.
Since belief in the Trinity lies at the very heart of the Christian faith, a
tiny
difference in
Trinitarian theology is bound to have repercussions upon every aspect of
Christian
life and thought. Let us
try therefore to understand some of the issues involved in the filioque
dispute.
One essence in three
persons.
God is one and God is three: the Holy Trinity is a mystery of
unity in diversity, and
of diversity in unity. Father, Son, and Spirit are ‘one in essence’ (homoousios),
yet each is
distinguished from the other two by personal characteristics. ‘The divine is
indivisible in its
divisions (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, 31, 14). for the persons are
‘united yet not
confused, distinct yet
not divided’ (John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8
(P.G. 94, 809A)); ‘both
the distinction and the
union alike are paradoxical’ (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations,
25, 17).
But if each of the
persons is distinct, what holds the Holy Trinity together? Here the Orthodox
Church, following the
Cappadocian Fathers, answers that there is one God because there is
one Father. In the
language of theology, the Father is the ‘cause’ or ‘source’ of Godhead, He is
the principle (arche)
of unity among the three; and it is in this sense that Orthodoxy talks of the
‘monarchy’ of the
Father. The other two persons trace their origin to the Father and are defined
in terms of their
relation to Him. The Father is the source of Godhead, born of none and
proceeding
from none; the Son is
born of the Father from all eternity (‘before all ages,’ as the Creed
says); the Spirit
proceeds from the Father from all eternity.
10
It is at this point that
Roman Catholic theology begins to disagree. According to Roman
theology, the Spirit
proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son; and this means that the
Father
ceases to be the unique
source of Godhead, since the Son also is a source. Since the principle
of unity in the Godhead
can no longer be the person of the Father, Rome finds its principle of
unity in the substance
or essence which all three persons share. In Orthodoxy the principle of
God’s unity is personal,
in Roman Catholicism it is not.
But what is meant by the
term ‘proceed?’ Unless this is properly understood, nothing is understood.
The Church believes that
Christ underwent two births, the one eternal, the other at a
particular point in
time: he was born of the Father ‘before all ages,’ and born of the Virgin Mary
in the days of Herod,
King of Judaea, and of Augustus, Emperor of Rome. In the same way a
firm distinction must be
drawn between the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and the temporal
mission, the sending of
the Spirit to the world: the one concerns the relations existing from all
eternity within the
Godhead, the other concerns the relation of God to creation. Thus when the
west says that the Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son, and when Orthodoxy says that He
proceeds from the Father
alone, both sides are referring not to the outward action of the Trinity
towards creation, but to
certain eternal relations within the Godhead — relations which existed
before ever the world
was. But Orthodoxy, while disagreeing with the west over the eternal procession
of the Spirit, agrees
with the west in saying that, so far as the mission of the Spirit to the
world is concerned, He
is sent by the Son, and is indeed the ‘Spirit of the Son.’
The Orthodox position is
based on John 15:26, where Christ says: ‘When the Comforter has
come, whom I will
send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the
Father
— he will bear witness
to me.’ Christ sends the Spirit, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father:
so the Bible teaches,
and so Orthodoxy believes. What Orthodoxy does not teach, and what
the Bible never says, is
that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
An eternal procession
from Father and Son: such is the western position. An eternal procession
of the Spirit from the
Father alone, a temporal mission from the Son: such was the position
upheld by Saint Photius
against the west. But Byzantine writers of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries — most notably
Gregory of Cyprus, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1283 to 1289,
and Gregory Palamas —
went somewhat further than Photius, in an attempt to bridge the gulf
between east and west.
They were willing to allow not only a temporal mission, but an eternal
manifestation of the Holy Spirit by
the Son. While Photius had spoken only of a temporal relation
between Son and Spirit,
they admitted an eternal relation. Yet on the essential point the two
Gregories agreed with
Photius: the Spirit is manifested by the Son, but does not proceed from the
Son. The Father is the
unique origin, source, and cause of Godhead.
Such in outline are the
positions taken up by either side; let us now consider the Orthodox
objections to the
western position. The filioque leads either to ditheism or to
semi-Sabellianism
(Sabellius,
a heretic of the second century, regarded Father, Son, and Spirit not as three
distinct persons, but simply
as
varying ‘modes’ or ‘aspects’ of the deity). If the Son as well as the Father is
an arche, a principle or
source of Godhead, are
there then (the Orthodox asked) two independent sources, two separate
principles in the
Trinity? Obviously not, since this would be tantamount to belief in two Gods;
and so the Reunion
Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438-1439) were most careful to
state that the Spirit
proceeds from Father and Son ‘as from one principle,’ tanquam ex (or
ab)
uno principio. From the Orthodox
point of view, however, this is equally objectionable: ditheism
is avoided, but the
persons of Father and Son are merged and confused. The Cappadocians regarded
the ‘monarchy’ as the
distinctive characteristic of the Father: He alone is a principle or
arche within the Trinity. But
western theology ascribes the distinctive characteristic of the Father
11
to the Son as well, thus
fusing the two persons into one; and what else is this but ‘Sabellius reborn,
or rather some
semi-Sabellian monster,’ as Saint Photius put it? (P.G. 102,
289B).
Let us look more
carefully at this charge of semi-Sabellianism. Orthodox Trinitarian theology
has a personal principle
of unity, but the west finds its unitary principle in the essence of
God. In Latin Scholastic
theology, so it seems to Orthodox, the persons are overshadowed by the
common nature, and God
is thought of not so much in concrete and personal terms, but as an essence
in which various
relations are distinguished. This way of thinking about God comes to full
development in Thomas
Aquinas, who went so far as to identify the persons with the relations:
personae sunt ipsae
relationes (Summa Theologica, 1, question 40, article 2). Orthodox thinkers find
this
a very meagre idea of
personality. The relations, they would say, are not the persons — they are
the personal
characteristics of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and (as Gregory Palamas
put it)
‘personal
characteristics do not constitute the person, but they characterize the person’
(Quoted in
J.
Meyendorff, Introduction à 1’étude de Grégoire Palamas,
Paris, 1959, p. 294). The relations, while designating
the persons, in no way
exhaust the mystery of each.
Latin Scholastic
theology, emphasizing as it does the essence at the expense of the persons,
comes near to turning
God into an abstract idea. He becomes a remote and impersonal being,
whose existence has to be
proved by metaphysical arguments — a God of the philosophers, not
the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has been far less concerned
than the Latin west to
find philosophical proofs of God’s existence: what is important is
not that a man should
argue about the deity, but that he should have a direct and living encounter
with a concrete and
personal God.
Such are some of the
reasons why Orthodox regard the filioque as dangerous and heretical.
Filioquism confuses the
persons, and destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in
the Godhead. The oneness
of the deity is emphasized at the expense of His threeness; God is regarded
too much in terms of
abstract essence and too little in terms of concrete personality.
But this is not all.
Many Orthodox feel that, as a result of the filioque, the Holy Spirit in
western thought has
become subordinated to the Son — if not in theory, then at any rate in
practice.
The west pays
insufficient attention to the work of the Spirit in the world, in the Church,
in
the daily life of each
man.
Orthodox writers also
argue that these two consequences of the filioque — subordination of
the Holy Spirit,
over-emphasis on the unity of God — have helped to bring about a distortion in
the Roman Catholic
doctrine of the Church. Because the role of the Spirit has been neglected in
the west, the Church has
come to be regarded too much as an institution of this world, governed
in terms of earthly
power and jurisdiction. And just as in the western doctrine of God unity was
stressed at the expense
of diversity, so in the western conception of the Church unity has triumphed
over diversity, and the
result has been too great a centralization and too great an emphasis
on Papal authority.
Such in outline is the
Orthodox attitude to the filioque, although not all would state the case
in such an
uncompromising form. In particular, many of the criticisms given above apply
only to
a decadent form of
Scholasticism, not to Latin theology as a whole.
|