God, Individualism, and Community: An Assessment of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity and its Anthropological Implications

Dimmitri Christou

1. Introduction

The dogma of the Holy Trinity is of principle significance to all theological and practical inquiry. Yet while the dogma of the Holy Trinity may be looked over within general theological discourse, being commented on only in passing, the dogma of the Holy Trinity nevertheless remains at the forefront of discussion for systematic theologians who belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Accordingly the dogma of the Holy Trinity, as articulated by the Eastern Orthodox Church, takes into consideration a holistic understanding of divine communion within the Godhead. Specifically each individual Person of the Godhead is understood so as to economically compliment the other in accordance with each Person of the Godheads particular hypostatic mode of being (e.g., the Word of God as generated from the Father who is unoriginate, and the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father). Even so, such a view of Gods subsistent relations, wherein each Person of the Godhead isnt considered as ontologically superior to the other, consequentially implicates the entirety of humankind concerning how we as individual persons relate to one another in a community. Regardless of

whether or not we choose to admit that we are created in the Image and according to the Likeness of God (Gen. 1:26), the dogma of the Holy Trinity possesses essential importance in all realms of lifeespecially in an age where individualism runs rampant and permeates the post-modern persons mindset.

Nevertheless this essay will attempt to gauge the dogma of the Holy Trinity from an Eastern Orthodox perspective by first assessing the nature of the Holy Trinity. Subsequent to assessing the nature of the Holy Trinity conclusions will be drawn regarding the implications the dogma of the Holy Trinity maintains on the individual person as appreciated from an anthropological level of concern prior to concluding. The dogma of the Holy Trinity possesses dire soteriological and practical significance and this essay will attempt to demonstrate exactly why.

2. God as Mystery

Before beginning to assess the Eastern Orthodox view of God one ought to first begin by pointing out that God in His essence is in effect an a priori mystery. Consequently God, as being understood as mystery, implies that God in His essence1 remains indescribable, unapproachable, and unknowable as such. Nevertheless God being

Essence generally understood designates the nature of an object. For example, the essence of humankind

designates what is essential to humankind; namely, humanness. Hence essence constitutes an essential yet categorical description relative to the object or being under question.

indescribable, unapproachable, and unknowable is contingent upon a number of factors that are both extrinsic and intrinsic to Gods being. Extrinsically, God is indescribable as mystery due to the constraints of human language and the inadequacy of logical structures of thought. Human language is translated through metaphysical tools that are best equipped to describe material reality, the reality human language is undeniably coloured by. Likewise, human beings as finite creatures are ontologically limited in their reach and so are incapable of comprehending that which is substantially beyond and above finitude. Intrinsically, however, as St Basil the Great points out, "His *Gods+ essence remains unapproachable2 for as St Gregory also adds, God is not a nature, for He is above all beings. 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.3

Hence Gods indescribability as mystery is contingent upon a fundamental hierarchy of inadequacy and perfection that is then predicated to a variety matters. Specifically the transcendence and perfection of Gods being and the immanent and imperfect methodological tools that humankind is destined to be equipped with are a decisive contributing factor. Likewise the ontological frailty of the human condition, in contrast with that of Gods, who is utterly beyond frailty, is another decisive factor. It is on account of these matters that God is understood paradoxically as a mystery as such.

2 3

St Basil the Great, Adversus Eunomium, P.G., XXXII 869 AB. St Gregory of Palamas, P.G. cl, 1176c.

Still this is not to say that God is utterly incommunicable with. Undeniably God has also revealed Himself within the created order in a number of ways (e.g., God has revealed Himself in the Person4 of Jesus Christ). In fact it is God who in the Old Testament reveals Himself hypostatically5 as I am (Gr. ) and not merely as an essence or static being of sorts. Gods self-revelation possesses existential worth. Effectively it is the essence of God which receives its being from the Person of the Father. Nevertheless due to Gods self-revelation we are hence capable of coming into communion with God. Commenting on Gods self-revelation St Basil the Great explains, We know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.6

Essentially St Basil is arguing that God is knowable by virtue of His energies. Undeniably Gods essence remains unreachable. Still it is by participating in Gods divine energies that we come to know and experience God according to our own capacity. Using the analogy of the sun and the rays of light that the sun emits, one could understand their experience or participation of God as analogous to their experience of the sunthat is, by experiencing the sun, which would destroy us if we were within its
4

The term person or hypostasis should be understood as designating the concrete existent relative to the

divine person or human being by virtue of their name.

5

St Gregory Palamas. Gregory Palamas: The Triads 3.2.12. John Meyendorff ed. (New Jersey: Paulist Press,

1983), p. 98.
6

Thomas Hopko. The Trinity in the Cappadocians. In: Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century.

(New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1985), p. 262-3

direct proximity, we come to familiarize ourselves with it. Within the Eastern Orthodox Church this analogy is understood to apply to the person in relation to God. As Vladimir Lossky explains, In creation the consubstantial Trinity makes itself known in the energies proper to its nature.7 God as revealed, understood, and experienced relatively according to His divine energies by the person.

Nonetheless God being understood as mystery is predicated to a number of matters both extrinsic and intrinsic to God. However, God being understood as mystery does not diminish or detract from the theological rationale utilized for approaching the Godhead. Instead, God being understood as mystery safeguards and dignifies the Godhead for what it truly is. For as Thomas Hopko says: A God who can be comprehended by creatures, contained by creaturely minds and circumscribed by creaturely concepts, would be no God at all.8

2. God as Holy Trinity

According to the Christian dogma of the Holy Trinity the Godhead is composed of three distinct Persons who each are God no less than the other. In fact we come to know through reading the literature of the New Testament that it is precisely the Father, the

Vladimir Lossky. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. (St Vladimirs Seminary Press,

1976), p. 72.
8

C.f. Hopko, p. 262.

Son and the Holy Spirit that are the exact divine Persons of the Trinity. (e.g., Matthew 28:19) Furthermore, that there exists three divine Persons in koinonia rather than one divine Person in isolation demonstrates the transcendent perfection of the Trinitarian Godhead. As the eminent Eastern Orthodox philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne explains:
There is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary divine individual. If such an individual is love, he must share, and sharing with finite beings such as humans is not sharing all of ones nature and is therefore imperfect sharing.9

Essentially Swinburne is arguing that if God is truly perfect then the perfection of God would be exemplified in the act of sharing ones essence (e.g., the act of the Father generating the Son). For any act lesser in kind enacted by a perfect God would be a priori imperfect in comparison as the act of sharing ones essence is summative of true love.10 Nevertheless the dogma of the Holy Trinity explains that the three distinct Persons of the Godhead are ontologically equal in terms of dignity yet remain relationally distinct by virtue of their hypostatic properties.

William Lane Craig, ed. Philosophy of Religion: A Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity . By Richard

Swinburne (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002), p. 566.

10

Kallistos Ware. The Human Person as an Icon of the Trinity. (Sobornost 8, 1986), p. 7.

Still we understand the three distinct Persons of the Holy Trinity to be distinguished from one another by virtue of their hypostatic properties. A hypostatic property is a property that is designated primarily to the person and so constitutes the numerical identity of that personthat is the essential attribute constitutive of the uniqueness of the individual. For example, the hypostatic property of the Son of God is that of being begotten (Gr. ). Likewise, the Fathers hypostatic property is that of being unbegotten (Gr. ) while the Holy Spirits hypostatic property is that of procession (Gr. ). Effectively it is these distinct hypostatic properties that allow one to conceptually and meaningfully distinguish between the three distinct Persons of the Trinity.

Accordingly we understand the hypostatic properties of each Person of the Godhead to possess distinct ontological detail. To reflect on one example, the Son of God being begotten ought not to be understood in the materialistic sense, such that the Son of Gods generation from the Father implies some change of potency to act, but rather the Son of Gods generation should be understood in the timeless sense such that the act of being begotten is substantially and eternally derived from the essence of God the Father rather than merely His willindeed the Son being generated from God the Fathers essence timelessly frees the Trinitarian dogma from any kind of charge that

might suggest that the Son is by nature composite.11 Commenting on this matter St John of Damascus argues that the Son is most definitely first born of all creation as a distinct Creation of God but that the Son, as distinct from creation per se, derives His being alone and timelessly from the essence of God the Father.12

Consequently the distinct hypostatic principles that are relative to each Person of the Godhead are the essential principles of each Person of the Holy Trinity which reflect the independent reality or mode of being that each Person of the Godhead possesses in relation to the other.

3. God as Communion

Thus far this assessment has lightly touched on the topic of koinonia in relation to the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. That said, the focus of this essay will now, prior to concluding, be directed toward gauging the notion of koinonia as understood within the Godhead and creation.

11

The term composite here being used implies that an object be understood as metaphysically composed of

particular parts or pieces. For example, human beings are composites of both act and potency. The soul is the sole principle of act while prime-matter, what we are composed of materialistically, is the principle of potentiality.
12

St John of Damascus, ch. 8: How the Only-Begotten Son of God is Called First-Born in: An Exposition of the

Orthodox Faith.

Particularly the perichoresis of God, that is inter-communion and penetration of the three Persons of the Trinity, denotes the relationship of communion that the three Persons of the Godhead share with one another. Regarding perichoresis Kallistos Ware explains, the Greek term means literally cyclical movement, and so reciprocity, interchange, mutual indwelling... Applied to the Trinity, it signifies that each person contains the other two and moves within them. 13 Hence the perichoresis of the Godhead is the constitutive principle pertaining to the unity of the Godhead. Still the perichoresis of God is exemplified in the mutual love each distinct Person of the Holy Trinity shares for one another. Although, love is the pivotal principle regarding the unity of God such love would be destructive of the Godhead if it were self-centred. Contrarily since there is no opposition of will between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the love shared between each Person of the Holy Trinity is utterly self-less and focused on the other.

Subsequently the perichoresis of God possesses significance on an anthropological mode of being for all of humanity granted humanity would, as a consequence of being made in the Image of God, bear attributes reflective of its exemplar. Thus by humanity possessing the image of God in an analogous sense a human person would not be distinguished or considered distinct by virtue of their identity in and of itself but rather

13

Loc. cit.

by virtue of their identity in relation to another.14 True individuality is accomplished in and through the other for it is in and through the other that one discovers their true selves.

This view of personhood cuts at the heart of the post-modern mindset which advocates individualism, the notion that the individual person is the centre of the cosmos in certain respects, by contravening the operative orientation and function of ones proper end and goal in life. We dont merely exist for our own sake so as to merely satiate our own temporal desires but rather we exist for the sake of the other so as to participate in what is truly good.

4. Conclusion

Throughout this essay the nature of the Holy Trinity as understood within the Eastern Orthodox Church has been gauged. Primarily, the nature of the Holy Trinity as understood from an ontological and existential perspective has been assessed. Likewise, the implications of the Holy Trinity on an anthropological level have been assessed. Consequently, the dogma of the Holy Trinity possesses the utmost soteriological and practical significance for the Christian and general person granted if we are all created

14

C.f. Hopko, p. 273.

in the Image and according to the Likeness of God then we must understand and thus appropriate behaviour that reflects the very Image we were created in light of.

5. Bibliography

1. St Basil the Great, Adversus Eunomium.

2. St Gregory of Palamas, P.G.

3. St Gregory Palamas. Gregory Palamas: The Triads 3.2.12. John Meyendorff ed. (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1983). 4. Thomas Hopko. The Trinity in the Cappadocians. In: Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1985).

5. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.

6. Kallistos Ware. The Human Person as an Icon of the Trinity. (Sobornost 8, 1986).

7. William Lane Craig, ed. Philosophy of Religion: A Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity. By Richard Swinburne (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002). 8. Vladimir Lossky. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. (St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1976).