The Paradigm of Relational Selfhood Shaped by Social Trinitarian Anthropology: A study of Jürgen...

要 supervisor 安裝 Greek 字型 By Tsung-I Hwang

Chapter Five

The Paradigm of Relational Selfhood Shaped by Social Trinitarian

Anthropology: A study of Jürgen Moltmann’s interpretation

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. MOLTMANN’S CHRISTIAN SOCIAL TRINITARIAN RELATIONAL SELFHOOD 4

2.1 Moltmann’s Social Trinitarian Anthropology 4

2.2 Historical Doctrine of the Trinity: The Triune God 5

2.3 Social Doctrine of the Trinity Through Perichōrēsis 9

2.4 The Imago Dei in Moltmann’s Trinitarian Theological Anthropology 16

2.4.1 Nature, Imago Dei, and the Original Designation of Human Beings 16

2.4.2 Grace, Imago Christi, and the Messianic Calling of Human Beings 20

2.4.3 Glory, Gloria Dei, and the Future of Human Beings 22

2.5 Imago Trinitatis: Eternal Fellowship with the Open Trinity 24

2.6 Open Friendship:The Community of Grace27

3. EVALUATING MOLTMANN 32

3.1 Trinitarian Theological Anthropology 32

3.2 Anthropology and Masking the True Self 35

3.2.1 A Theological Perspective 36

3.2.2 A Psychological Perspective 37

4. CONCLUSION 40

4.1 The Presuppositions of Moltmann’s Anthropology 40

4.2 Moltmann’s Paradigm of Unmasking the True Self 41

5. Bibliography 43

Table of Diagrams

Diagram 5.1 Moltmann’s Synthesis Between God’s Subjectiveness and

Objectiveness.........................................................................................................7

Diagram 5.2 Moltmann’s Synthesis Between Abstract Monotheism and Tritheism. 10

Diagram 5.3 The Three Indispensable Foundations of the Triune God.....................13

Diagram 5.4 The Erroneous Danger of Tritheism......................................................14

Diagram 5.5 The Erroneous Danger of Abstract Monotheism...................................14

Diagram 5.6 The Erroneous Danger of Subordinationism.........................................15

Diagram 5.7 The Foundations and Erroneous Dangers of the Trinitarian Doctirne...15

1


Diagram 5.8 Moltmann’s Synthesis Between Individualism and Collectivism.........19

Diagram 5.9 The Dynamic True Self in Two Dimensions.........................................37

Diagram 5.10 The Relations of the Presuppositions of Moltmann’s Anthropology. .41

Table of Chart

Chart 5.1 Moltmann’s Trinitarian Theological Anthropology Compared with

Tournier’s Paths to the Person and the Personages.............................................38

2


Story Five

‘When I finally started to learn to understand, accept and appreciate how differently God created my wife Shuman from me in His image, then our alienated relationship and

superficial communication began to change and go deeper and connected. She became gradually not afraid of sharing with me her true negative feeling about me and her weak and dark side in reality. Eventaually, we began to enjoy more and more the freedom of

facing each other without wearing a mask after our seventeen-year marriage.’

1. INTRODUCTION

We have seen from preceding chapters that the tendency of an imposed relational self in

the PTRIC (post-traditional Ru-inspired Chinese) context is the main factor causing the

working research problem of masking. And we have also found that Tu Weiming’s

paradigm of post-traditional Ruist relational selfhood is almost the same as the

paradigm of relational selfhood in the PTRIC context that is criticized by scholars, in

terms of social imposition and imposed relational self. Accordingly, a paradigm shift (or

a modification reference) of relational selfhood in the PTRIC context is necessitated. So

what about the self in Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology? In the West, has

it not been the case that Christianity, especially trinitarianism, has promoted a view of

individualism, which is inaugurated by Augustine, augmented by the Enlightenment,

and finalized by Kant (Grenz 2001:60, 76)? 1 2 We are interested to discover to what

extent Moltmann’s thinking about the Trinity can escape this problem.

The doctrine of the imago D ei in trinitarian theological anthropology establishes

‘human persons being and becoming in relationship’ on the basis of the

incommensurable ‘trinitarian Persons in relationship’ and thus understands humankind

as a ‘reciprocating self’ (Balswick et al. 2005:30). F. LeRon Shults (2003:1–2)

emphasizes further that the doctrine of the imago D ei is not only about my relationship

with God but also about me and the human other. Therefore the self in trinitarian

theological anthropology is indeed also a ‘relational self’ (Boff 1988:149). 3 Is such a

relational self different in kind from the one supported by the collectivism in post-

traditional Ruism? Can its paradigm provide an alternative for a paradigm shift (or a

modification reference) of PTRIC relational selfhood? In dealing with the tendency of 1 Based on the earlier fathers’ models of inter-personal ‘distinction of the divine hypostases’, Augustine assumes ‘internal relations within the Godhead. But he dissociates completely ‘these eternal intra-trinitarian relations from ordinary human relations’ so that he cannot but shape ‘a rather static concept of the diety’ and ‘an individualistic concept of humaniry’. (Kaiser 2001:95) Grenz states that ‘Kant provides the final intellecmal foundation for the shift to radical individualism’ because he develops ‘the capstone on the construction of the Enlightenment self’. He elevates the ‘active mind as the definitive agent both in the knowing process and in the life of duty completed the turn toward the knowing subject’. (Grenz 2001:76)

2 See also in the other references (Gunton 2003:93–5; Moltmann 1998:32).

3 See also in the other reference (Grenz 2001:312).3


an imposed relational self in the PTRIC context, I am seeking to find out the significant

differences offered by the notion of a relational self that follows from Moltmann’s

trinitarian theological anthropology. This chapter will aim to reveal this distinctive

paradigm. Its comparison with Tu’s paradigm will be dealt with in the next chapter.

2. MOLTMANN’S INTERPRETATION OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL TRINITARIAN RELATIONAL SELFHOOD

We will now examine Moltmann’s interpretation of Christian social trinitarian relational

selfhood in detail through his comprehensive social trinitarian anthropology, especially

in regard to social imposition or an imposed relational self.

2.1 Moltmann’s Social Trinitarian Anthropology

As described above in chapter three, Moltmann himself advocates freedom for the

oppressed in many aspects and criticizes patriarchy. But he (Moltmann 1989:89) values

‘communalism’ more than ‘individualism’. 1 For him (2008:72), the identity of

individuals comes from the collective continuity of ‘the contract between the

generations’ (1989:90) handed down from generation to generation. He (2000:333)

makes a distinction between ‘an individual and a person’. Through tracing back to the

definition of individual as ‘something … indivisible’ in both Latin and Greek, the

individual without ‘relationships’ is not identical with a person. A person is an existing

human being with sociality and history. Separate and isolated individuals — the

problem of individualism — tend to be more easily ‘dominated’ by politico-economic

powers. To secure their liberation and protect their ‘dignity’, Moltmann highlights the

power of the community to make unified decisions and so determine ‘their lives socially

for themselves’. For he (2000:333) understands and explains the nature of true human

community as base on the divine community. Accordingly, true human fellowship is

rooted in the image of the triune God involved with the earth.

Moltmann (1981:129–222) presents the imago Dei as an ‘analogia relationis’

(1985:77) (analogy of relations), namely ‘social likeness to God’ (1985:234), seeking to

differentiate it from an ‘analogy of substance’ (1985:219). 2 Moltmann explains this

image as the mirror of the trinitarian life from the aspect of relationships. Therefore, in

his social trinitarian anthropology following the thought of the Eastern Orthodox

1 See also in the other reference (1967:304–28).

2 ‘An analogy of substance’, by McDougall’s explanation (2003:191), ‘focuses on a singular attribute inherent in human beings, such as the rational soul or the will’ and ‘fixes the likeness to God in the individual's possession of such a capacity’.

4


Church, he (1981:134–200) affirms that ‘personal identity’ (McDougall 2003:192) and

‘sociality’ are inseparable and social relations are not to be prioritized over personal

identity. It is just as the unity and the distinction among the trinitarian persons are

equally preserved without sacrificing any of them, so human persons and relations are

equally primary. From the concept of the imago Dei in terms of relationships and

community, Moltmann (1977) develops the concept of an ‘open fellowship’ and an

‘open church’. Such a open fellowship and church are offered and accessed by God’s

grace instead of the merits of human beings. Therefore, this kind of relational self in

social trinitarian anthropology is developed from Moltmann’s concept of relationship,

community and fellowship based on his understanding of the imago Dei. But, and here

we come to the central question, is this kind of relational self able to escape or resist the

tendency of social impostion as a product of Ru-based cultural design that we have

observed to operate in the PTRIC context?

In order to answer the sencond main research question in this thesis –Does the

paradigm of the social trinitarian relational selfhood provide a better alternative or

modification reference for a paradigm shift of the post-traditional Ru-inspired Chinese

relational selfhood? The main researcg research question in this chapter is: What does

Jürgen Moltmann’s social trinitarian theological anthropology have to say to the

tendency of an imposed relational self found in Ru-based culture? 3 In order to answer

it, several subsidiary questions will be examined,

1. What does Moltmann understand by the imago Dei and the moral self-development

by grance disclosed in Moltmann’s social trinitarian theological anthropology in

terms of social imposition?

2. What is the open community in Moltmann’s social trinitarian theological

anthropology in terms of social imposition and what are its implications for the

unmasking of the true self as understood as the imago Dei?

3. What are the presuppositions for Moltmann’s social trinitarian theological

anthropology relevant to escaping the tendency of an imposed relational self (see

4.1)?

2.2 Historical Doctrine of the Trinity: The Triune God

Moltmann (1981:19) first developed a ‘historical doctrine of the Trinity’ (or trinitarian

history of God) by beginning with ‘the history of Jesus the Son’. He then developed ‘a

3 As for comparing Jürgen Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology with Tu’s interpretation of New-Ruist selfhood, it will be done in detail in the next chapter

5


social doctrine of the Trinity’ in distinction to the Trinity of a ‘homogenous substance’

and to the Trinity of an ‘identical subject’. The former is derived from Tertullian’s

‘general concept of the divine substance’ (‘una substantia － tres personae’, or one

substance － three persons). The latter is derived from Hegel’s ‘general concept of the

Absolute Subject’ (‘one subject － three modes of being’). In the former, God’s

existence and uniqueness are to be proved and assured first, by means of the

‘cosmological’ premise, namely ‘there is an ordered cosmos’. And then the three

persons of this existing God are to be explained by the doctrine of the Trinity as

developed. Accordingly, not only is ‘the unity of the triune God’ emphasized unduly,

but also is ‘the triunity’ reduced to ‘the One God.’ (Moltmann 1981:13–17) In the latter,

God is presented as the Absolute Subject － ‘the Father is assigned to the I, the Son to

the self, and the Spirit to the identity of the divine I-self’. It is based on ‘anthropological

reasons’ (‘God as person’) (Moltmann 1981:4, eo). 4 This is all done to confirm God’s

sovereignty and liberty, in order to prevent God from being changeable passively as an

object which would reduce God to the level of creation. However, this identical divine

subject cannot but yield the plural concept of persons to ‘the one, identical God-subject’

and another ‘non-subjective expression’ for the three Persons. (Moltmann 1981:15–18,

63) Therefore ‘the unity of the Absolute Subject’ is easily reduced into mere three

aspects of the one subject, three modes of being. (Moltmann 1981:18) In the ‘Western

tradition’, the discussion of the Trinity started from ‘God’s unity’ (‘God as Supreme

Substance; Or God as Absolute Subject’) and moved from there to discuss His ‘trinity’.

(Moltmann 1981:2, 19) Instead Moltmann (1981:19) begins with the trinity of the

Persons’ and goes on to discuss their unity, namely ‘a concept of the divine unity as the

union of the tri-unity’. For him (Moltmann 1981:16–18) to represent the trinitarian

Persons either as a homogeneous divine substance or as the one identical divine subject

results unwittingly but inevitably in the collapse of trinitarian doctrine into ‘abstract

monotheism’.

To sum up, even if the Western Christian churches all reached a consensus of

confessing trinitarianism, in Moltmann’s eyes the tendency to abstract monotheism

appeared alongside it for the purpose of preventing the churches from falling into the

trap of tritheism. But how we balance the distinctiveness of the three persons without

falling into tritheism and their unity (erroneously as one substance) without falling into

monotheism is still a problem. Can ‘an absolute balance’ between the distinctiveness of

4 The abbreveiation of eo stands for emphasis original. 6


the three persons and their unity be maintained in reality? Lin Honghsin (2010:30) does

not think so. This is because even the definition or demarcation for such a balance is

difficult to express concretely. However Moltmann’s social doctrine of the Trinity is in

fact an attempt to build a dialectical synthesis, as demonstrated in Diagram 5.1 between

the thesis of God as the Supreme Substance (emphasizing the objectiveness of the

doctrine of God) and the antithesis of God as the Absolute Subject (emphasizing the

subjectiveness of the doctrine of God).

Diagram 5.1 Moltmann’s Synthesis Between God’s Subjectiveness and

Objectiveness (Suggested by Jeremy Law 2013)

In order to explain the reciprocal relationships between the three persons of the

triune God further, and so to distinguish it from the concept of the Trinity of the

identical subject (God as Absolute Subject), which will be discussed later, Dumitru

Staniloae (1998:260–78) proposes the concept of ‘divine intersubjectivity’. He

emphasizes that in divine perfect love the ‘persons do not merely engage in a reciprocal

exchange of self; they also affirm themselves reciprocally and personally, and establish

themselves in existence through giving and receiving’ (Staniloae 1998:257). What does

‘divine intersubjectivity’ mean? In a nutshell, it means there is no passive object and act

in the triune relationship, namely, all persons are subjects and all their acts are active.

Moltmann (2009b:299, eo) also pinpoints a similar concept in ‘the eucharistic

form of Trinity’ he presents, in which ‘activity proceeds from the Spirit and with the

Son in the direction of the Father’. In differentiating this form from the ‘monarchical’

and ‘monadic’ one (Moltmann 2009a:290), he (2009b:300) highlights the role of the

7


Spirit ‘as the real subject’, i.e. ‘the Spirit glorifies the Son and the Father’, instead of

acting in a ‘subordinate’ position to them. Moltmann (1981:64) also argues for this form

by stating that the Son and Father reveal each other (Matt. 11:27; Gal. 1:16) rather than

‘God reveals’ God-self. It is not given by God the Father or His own, but by His own

Son, as subject, who has been given up for us (Rom. 8:32). Therefore, Jesus as the Son

incarnated into the history of human beings is ‘not consummated and fulfilled by a

single subject’, but emerges from ‘the co-efficacy’ of all the three Persons of the triune

God. This history is of ‘the reciprocal, changing, and living relationship’ among them. I

think, however, that Staniloae’s term divine intersubjectivity is much clearer and more

informative in a more succinct way than the eucharistic form of Trinity to explain the

uniqueness of the reciprocal relationships between Trinity. Significantly, Moltmann

himself does not use this term, but Richard Bauckham (2005:155) uses ‘intersubjective

relationship’ to introduce Moltmann’s concept of the ‘relationship between the divine

persons’. 5

Moltmann’s trinitarian concept of creation is from an eschatological panentheistic

perspective. He (1985:98) explains that ‘creation exists in the Spirit, is moulded by the

Son and is created by the Father’ and therefore not only the creator God dwells in

creation but also creation is ‘from God, through God and in God’. This concept brings

into focus two essential truths about God: ‘transcendence’ and ‘immanence’. Stressing

only one of them leads to either ‘deism’ (lack of ‘God’s immanence’) or ‘pantheism’

(lack of ‘God’s transcendence’) (Moltmann 1985a:98). Drawing upon the explanation

of Heinrich Heine, Moltmann (1985:103) makes a distinction between pantheism and

panentheism. 6 Pantheism views everything as God without difference and sees only

‘eternal, divine presence’. But Panentheism differentiates God from the world and can

identify ‘future transcendence, evolution and intentionality’ (Moltmann 1985:103)

because God discloses himself to a various degree in varing things and ‘everthing bears

within itself an impulse to strive after a higher degree of divinity’. (Heine 1882:57–8)

However, Moltmann (1985:103) does not think that panentheism can bind together

God’s immanence and his transcendence without ‘the trinitarian doctrine of creation’

that ‘the creator Spirit’ creates the world and indwells in it. In this sense, the Spirit not

5 Notably, the relationship implied by divine intersubjectivity is different from the one implied by ‘universal intersubjectivity’ in the philosophical discussions in cosmology, arguing that ‘objectivity is grounded in habit or repetition of pattern among [interrelated] subjects of experience rather than in fixed essences within a pregiven causal scheme’. (Bracken 1998:704)

6 Notably, Heine (1882:57–8) points out the error of ‘the pantheism of the Goethe era’ through manifesting the meaning of what Moltman (Moltmann 1985:103) terms as ‘panenthesim’ but Heine himself does not use the term panentheism.

8


only sustains His creation and its ‘communities’ but also guides them ‘beyond

themselves’. Accordingly, the world becomes a ‘divine environment’ that shelters and

nurtures every living creature. Moltmann quotes Acts 18:20 to supports his

‘panentheistic understanding of the world’: ‘In him we live and move and have our

being’ (NRSV) (Moltmann 1985:103, 300). Although panentheism is not a normal

Christian theological term, it is evident that Moltmann uses it to apply and extend the

relationships of the perichōrēsis among trinitarian persons to explain the relationships

between the triune God and the world in the perspective of his social doctrine of the

Trinity. We will discuss this in the next section.

2.3 Social Doctrine of the Trinity Through Perich ō r ē sis

From his understanding of ‘the history of the Trinity’s relations of fellowship’ to which

the scriptures testify, Moltmann (1981:19) develops his ‘social doctrine of the Trinity’.

This is based on a form of ‘trinitarian hermeneutics’. It directs us to the aspects of

‘relationships and communities’, first among the trinitarian Persons, and then as the

Trinity’s relations of fellowship become ‘open to men and women’, and furthermore

extending the Trinity’s relations to the whole creation in the world. In his viewpoint,

this trinitarian hermeneutics takes the place of ‘the subjective thinking’ which can

function only in the ‘separation and isolation’ from its objects.

Moltmann practically applies this social doctrine of Trinity to thinking

‘ecologically about God, man and the world in their relationships and indwellings’. For

him (1981:19) this application is drawing upon ‘panentheistic ideas’ which are rooted in

‘the Jewish and the Christian traditions’. While expounding the concept of person in

trinitarian terms in his The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, Moltmann (1981:174–5)

follows John Damascene’s thoughtful ‘doctrine of the eternal ’ (perich ō r ē sis )

which means ‘reciprocal indwelling and mutual interpenetration’ (Moltmann

2009a:289). 7 The concept of perichōrēsis highlights the ‘circulatory character’ of the

triune God. Moltmann (1981:178) discloses its meaning later when he states:

To throw open the circulatory movement of the divine light and the divine relationships, and to take men and women, with the whole of creation, into the life-stream of the triune God: that is the meaning of creation, reconciliation and glorification.

7 indicates ‘circumincessio of the trinitarian Persons’ (Moltmann 1981:174) and is translit-erated to perichoresis as an English word. The concept of perichōrēsis was first used to explain ‘the intim-ate communion of the two natures of Christ’ by Gregory Nazianzen, in the fourth century, and Pseudo-Cyril was probably the first to apply its usage further to ‘the trinitarian relationships, around 650’. (Otto 2009:368–9)

9


This seems to be his application of the panentheistic ideas. Moltmann (1981:174–5) also

explains it as a process of ‘the exchange of energies’ occurring in the trinitarian Persons

of God, becoming perfection through their ‘fellowship and unity … in the eternal love’.

In other words, through the eternal love of the triune God, the Persons live and ‘dwell in

one another and communicate eternal life to one another’, and ‘to such an extent, …

they are one’. (Moltmann 1981:175) Notably, as mentioned in 3.1 of chapter two, the

term ‘exchange’ is used by Triandis (1989:517) to describe the relationship of the

private self with others in a more individualistic culture. Moltmann (1981:13–19, 175)

convincingly presents his dialectical synthesis, as demonstrated in Diagram 5.2, as the

Trinity of perichōrēsis. It is a solution to the contradiction between the thesis as abstract

monotheism and the antithesis as tritheism. As discussed above, he criticizes both the

Trinity of a homogenous substance and the Trinity of an identical subject as abstract

monotheism. He also worries about tritheism. 8 As a result, through this dialectical

synthesis, Moltmann (1981:175) summarizes the kernel of perichōrēsis as ‘the very

thing that divides them becomes that which binds them together’. Accordingly, the

persons of the Trinity are neither ‘three different individuals, who only subsequently

enter into relationship with one another’, nor are they ‘three modes of being or three

repetitions of the One God’ which is Barth’s understanding of the Trinity (Barth

1958:44, 338, 341). The former is reproached usually as ‘tritheism’ and the latter as

modalism. (Moltmann 1981:175, eo) The trinitarian ‘doctrine of the perichōrēsis’

integrates ‘the threeness and the unity’ in a perfect way so that the threeness does not

disappear in the unity and the unity does not collapse in the threeness. (Moltmann

1981:175) The trinitarian and perichoretic unity of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit

consists not only of relationships — the relationship of their mutual ‘absolute

dependence’, or of their ‘self-differentiation’ from each other — ‘but also in their

reciprocal indwelling’ and mutual interpenetration. (Moltmann 2009a:289)

8 See also in the other references (Bauckham 2005:160; Jeroncic 2008:193 n.282; Kärkkäinen 2011:236–7; Kim, Byunghoon 2002; O’Donnell 1982:13; Williams 2003:99).

10


Diagram 5.2 Moltmann’s Synthesis Between the Abstract Monotheism and Tritheism

The concept of the Trinity transcends the ability of human reason to understand

and describe it concretely and fully. Although the term of perichōrēsis is useful and

helpful in explaining more deeply the features of threeness and the unity of the triune

God, particularly in a negative theological way, 9 it is still an abstract or metaphysical

term. Is the term energy which Moltmann uses to explain the meaning of perichōrēsis

within the threeness, more understandable than it? It seems, however, that the term

energies is never fully explained. Rather its usage is confusing and misleading because

this term was never used in the tradition to explain the relations of the persons of the

Trinity. It is used, rather, to indicate ‘the knowable … in God’ in contrast with its

‘antimony’ essence indicating ‘the unknowable in God’. (Lossky 2001:52)

This word ‘energy’ or ‘energeia’, which is usually translated as ‘actuality or

activity’, is taken to be the opposite to ‘dynamis or potentiality’. It was originally used

by ‘Aristotle’ to identify with the ‘form or determinate structure’ and to indicate God as

a ‘pure form without … any potentiality’ (Zavershinsky 2011:101, eo). St. Gregory

Palamas and his followers overcome the problem caused by the fact that there is no

difference for Aristotle ‘between the essence’ and the energies of God, by making them

distinct. The Western philosophical and theological tradition followed Aristotle’s view

of the inconceivability of both God’s essence and energies. In differentiating between

them, Palamas followed ‘the Fathers such as Denis the Areopagite, Basil the Great and

9 Negative theology, or Apophatic theology, is a theological approach to describe God only in terms of what He is not, instead of presumptuously attempting to describe what God is. (Lossky 2001:13–30)

11


Gregory the Theologian’. He averred that ‘God’s uncreated, eternal energies’ can be

understood as ‘ineffable, suprasensible light’ that is graspable and participable and felt

as ‘Divine grace’. (Zavershinsky 2011:101) Palamas found that Orthodox theologians

referred to the uncreated energy of God ‘as one and as many, as being divisible

indivisibly’ but never mentioned the essence of God ‘in the plural form’ because it

would contrast with God ‘being one and altogether indivisible’. Unlike the essence of

God that is beyond human reason and hence unfathomable, the uncreated energy of God

is ‘like the rays of the sun’ through which God’s existence is knowable, even if what He

is is not knowable. (Zavershinsky 2011:102, eo) Palamas asserted that ‘light’ is used to

name God ‘according to His energy’, instead of ‘His essence’. (Palamas n.d. cited in

Zavershinsky 2011:109)

Therefore, Moltmann is probably influenced by the meaning of energies given by

Orthodox theologians and borrows it to explain perichōrēsis. For example, the energies

of God are referred as one and as many, as being divisible indivisibly by Orthodox

theologians. God can be ‘participable’ only ‘in His energies’ but not in His ‘essence’.

(Lossky 2001:56) Lossky (2001:56 n.27) explains that ‘[I]f one could participate in the

essence itself, God would no longer be Trinity, but a multitude of persons’. Palamas

‘designates energies by the word “divinities” (in the plural) … because they are proper

to the Three consubstantial Persons as their life, power, wisdom, sanctity, common to

the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’. (Lossky 2001:57) I found that the ‘participability’ in

God’s energies and 2 Peter 1:4 (‘you … may become participants in the divine nature’)

can be also applied to explain Moltmann’s panentheistic understanding of the world as

mentioned above. (Lossky 2001:56–7) ’. It looks like that the term energies and its

differentiation from essence according to the Orthodox tradition does help to crystallize

the meaning of the threeness in the unity and the unity of the threeness, even though we

acknowledge here again our human finitude in knowing and describing God.

A long time ago, patristic theologians understood such a concept of the

perichōrēsis ‘as the sociality of the three divine Persons’ (Moltmann 1981:198, eo).

Orthodox theologians following the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, down to the present day,

engage in the analogical ‘category of community’, namely the church, applied to ‘the

eternal life of the Trinity’. But the Western church has employed the analogical

‘category of the individual person’ which Augustine developed in his ‘psychological

doctrine of the Trinity’, 10 according to which the triune Persons are ‘reflected in every

10 Augustine had actually mentioned the sociality of the Trinity by indicating the Father and the Son are of ‘same society of love’ (Augustine 2002:4.9.12), but he did not emphasize and develop it for some reason. (Plantinga, Cornelius Jr. 1988:24; 1989:33)

12


human psyche, as the self, the understanding and the will’. (Moltmann 2009a:291–2)

Eastern Orthodox theologians hold a forcefully ‘social doctrine of the Trinity’ and

disagree with the Western ‘modalistic tendencies in the personal trinitarian doctrine’.

(Moltmann 1981:198–9, eo) It is perichōrēsis that keeps Moltmann’s social triune God

distinctive and distinguishable from either ‘a general concept of divine substance’ or

‘three modes of being of one and the same divine subject’. For the unity through

perichōrēsis depends on ‘the circulation of the divine life’ that is fulfilled in their

reciprocal relationships to each other. In this way the personal differences are not ever

abolished, and ‘the very difference of the three Persons’ depends on ‘their relational,

perichoretically consummated life process’ (Moltmann 1981:175). Thus, by

distinguishing his social triune God from a general concept of divine substance, does

Moltmann indeed deny the fundamental, ontological, substantial, objective, nature of

God’s reality? As is commonly understood, Jesus is the Son of God as the second

Person of the Trinity. The Son is indeed a relational term, albeit eternal in relationship.

But the Son also as God – YHWH – I AM –possesses ontic identity. God is something

distinct. Jesus has both relationality and ontic identity. This will be discussed later in

5.1.

In his book The Forgotten Trinity, James R. White (1998:23–32) offers an

apologetic account of the doctrine of the Trinity through an apophatic illumination of

the trinitarian God via his ‘triangle diagram’. This might be appropriate and helpful for

summing up Moltmann’s doctrine of the Trinity discussed above. The following

diagrams inspired by White illustrate what Moltmann tries to fight against in presenting

his trinitarian doctrine understood through p erich ō r ē sis . Diagram 5.3 illustrates

monotheism, three persons, and equality as the three indispensable ‘foundations’ of the

Triune God. White (1998:28) defines equality as ‘[T]he [P]ersons [A]re [C]oequal and

[C]oeternal’.

13


Diagram 5.3 The Three Indispensable Foundations of the Triune God

Diagram 5.4 illustrates the erroneous danger of tritheism (or polytheism) in the

doctrine of the Trinity which results from denying or debasing monotheism.

14


Diagram 5.4 The Erroneous Danger of Tritheism in the Doctrine of the Trinity

Diagram 5.5 illustrates the erroneous danger of abstract monotheism (or

modalism) in the doctrine of the Trinity which results from denying or debasing three

persons.

Diagram 5.5 The Erroneous Danger of Abstract Monotheism in the Doctrine of the Trinity

15


Diagram 5.6 The Erroneous Danger of Subordinationism in the Doctrine of the Trinity

Diagram 5.6 illustrates the erroneous danger of subordinationism in the doctrine

of the Trinity which results from denying or debasing equality.

Diagram 5.7 integrates all together the above diagrams to show the three

indispensible foundations of the Trinity and the three main erroneous dangers in

denying or debasing any one of these foundations.

Diagram 5.7 The Three Foundations and the Three Main Erroneous Dangers of the Trinity

16


2.4 The Imago Dei in Moltmann’s Trinitarian Theological Anthropology

Grenz (2001:304) presents the imago Dei as a concrete and pragmatic basis for the self

to be grounded in God. In theological history, there are three different approaches to

understanding the imago Dei: (1) the substantial view—that is, ‘the imago dei as

consisting of certain attributes or capabilities lodged within the person’; (2) the

relational view—that is, ‘the divine image as referring to a fundamental relationship

between the human creature and the Creator’; and (3) the telic view—that is, ‘the imago

dei as humankind’s divinely given goal or destiny, which lies in the eschatological

future and toward which humans are directed’. 11 Are these three views mutually

exclusive of each other? In terms of the self, it seems that together they disclose the

comprehensive meaning of the imago Dei. They function in logical correlation, and can

be seen as three complementary aspects. Indeed, in his God in Creation, Moltmann

(1985:1–192) displays that his historical doctrine of Trinity includes all the above three

views of the imago Dei as (1) ‘nature’, in ‘creation in the beginning’; (2) ‘grace’, ‘in the

continuous creation’; and (3) ‘glory’, ‘in the new creation’. 12 Through these three

perspectives, he seeks to understand and explain the imago Dei as related to the doctrine

of Trinity. We shall now exploit these three perspectives to look at human beings as the

image of God in the history of God’s creation: that is as the ‘imago Dei’, as the ‘imago

Christi’ (‘the image of Christ’), and as ‘g loria Dei est homo’ (the glory of God is man)

(Moltmann 1985:215–43).

2.4.1 Nature, Imago Dei , and the Original Designation of Human Beings

Firstly, Moltmann (1985:216–25) follows the traditional Christian hermeneutics in

explaining the imago Dei as the source of the original designation and superiority of

humankind. He (1998:30) states that human beings are granted the commission of

‘dominum terrae’ (being lord of the land). Theologically speaking, it comes from ‘the

imago Dei structure’ that endows meaning to being human. Based on the biblical

traditions, he also maintains that ‘the dignity of human beings’ in their superiority

above other creatures originates in their unique creation in the image of God. Such a

unique creation in the imago Dei grants them more freedom and ‘a special commission’

in the transcendental God’s name which includes ‘special responsibility for other living

creatures’. (Moltmann 1998:30)

11 See also in the other references (Grenz 2001:17, 142, 177; Staniloae 1994 cited in Bates 2012; Moltmann 2009b:277, 289).

12 See also in the other reference (Moltmann 2007).17


Yet with regard to the question about the constituents of human beings’ likeness

to God, Moltmann (1985:219–20) rejects all of the answers given by theological

traditions in the history as ‘a false inference’. These include ‘the soul’ — based on ‘the

analogy of substance’; ‘the human being’s upright walk and upward glance’ — based

on ‘the analogy of form’; the biblical interpretation of ‘man’s lordship over the earth’

based on ‘the analogy of proportionality’; and ‘the community of man and wife’ —

based on ‘the analogy of relation’. This is because all of them in his view have reduced

the meaning of the likeness to God to humankind’s relationship to God in general.

While this distinguishes them from animals by their distinctive characteristics, it still is

just a a reduced form of relationship described ‘in religious terms’ rather than in

theological one based on the imago Dei of social Trinity. He argues that there has been

the saying that God ‘creates his image for himself’ and participates in ‘a particular

relationship with that image’ before the humankind’s likeness to God becoming an

‘anthropological’ term. (Moltmann 1985:220) For the saying that God creates

humankind in the likeness to Him should be ‘a theological term’. This means that God

actively means to have an extraordinary relationship with His image for His own sake,

so that He creates His image as humankind. Accordingly the nature of human beings

comes from being created in the imago Dei and their relationship to God. As a result

human nature should be defined by this special relationship to God, instead of by some

distinctive characteristics from other living things. It is human beings’ ‘whole

existence’, ‘whole person’ rather than only ‘his soul’), and ‘the true human community’

rather than mere ‘the individual’ that make them God’s image (Moltmann 1985:221,

eo). On this point of analogia relationis, both Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1997:41) and Karl

Barth (1963:382) had also made a similar observation.

It is insightful to define human nature first by means of theology, and then by

means of anthropology because human beings are created in the imago Dei and

anthropology can only be based on the knowledge of God’s creation revealed through

the Bible by God. But the question is, on Moltmann’s definition, whether or not God

possesses ontological attributes that are fundamental to human nature and makes

human’s community possible (even necessary)? Moltmann seems to want to avoid this

question, yet community presupposes intelligence, for example. In other words, can

relationship alone define human nature, without any immanent reference to the

ontological nature of the imago Dei? This requires further discussion, which will be

picked up later.

18


The evidence for this kind of argument comes from Moltmann’s exegesis of

Genesis 1:26-27. In Genesis 1:26, a ‘singular’ human being, Adam, ‘corresponds to a

divine plural’. But in Genesis 1:27, 13 a human being ‘plural’, men and women,

‘corresponds to a divine singular’ (Moltmann 1985:222). Moltmann (1985:218–22)

believes that the ‘interplay’ or ‘grammatical shift’ of the singular and plural of the

divine and human being here is ‘deliberate’, purposeful, and thus highly meaningful.

Therefore, the shift from singular human being to plural human beings is evidently

intended to disclose that to be human implies not only ‘being sexually differentiated’

but also ‘sharing a common humanity’. Both facets are ‘equally primary’. For him this

observation also obviously invalidates the argument that ‘being human is the generic

term for which man and woman are simply sub-divisions, or that man and woman are

two different creatures’ (Moltmann 1985:222).

Moltmann (1985:224) agrees that the commission to ‘rule over the animals’ and

the charge to ‘subdue the earth’ are granted to human beings following ‘the creation of

God’s image on earth’ according to Genesis 1:28 and 29. 14 But he views these

commissions as ‘a specific addition’ to ‘the likeness to God’, instead of being congruent

with it. However these two diverse commissions obviously ‘complement one another’,

and the first is determined by the second, because Genesis 1 reveals that the rule of

humankind ‘over the animals’ has to be differentiated from their ‘subjection of the

earth’ in order to nourish humans and animals (Genesis 1:29-30). He (1985:224)

criticizes and blames the traditional theological doctrine of the dominium terrae for

intermingling the two commissions together and thus bringing forth ‘disastrous

consequences for the world’. From the nuance of the interplay of plural and singular

grammatical forms of the Creator triune God and the creation humanity, he

demonstrates how a perichoretic relationship can be an element of the triune God’s

image and the triune God’s likeness in which He made mankind. In this way, the triune

13 Cf. different English versions of Genesis 1:26-7 (especially the different translation s of ‘humankind’ in NRSV and ‘man’ in NKJV)

NRSV Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

NKJV Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

14 Moltmann’s explanation (1985:224) of the sequence of the charges of ‘rule over the animals’ and ‘subdue the earth’ from God in the text of his God in Creation has an obvious error of transposing verses about the references to Genesis 1. The charge of ‘rule over the animals’ from God appears actually for the first time in verse 26, instead in verse 28, and then the second time in verse 28.

19


God not only set a template of interpersonal relationships but also endowed them to

mankind through His creation. Such interpersonal relationships integrate and maintain

the unity of the community, the equality among individuals, and the diversity of each

individual with different functions. All of this is echoed in the metaphor of one body

with many members used by the Apostle Paul to explain how Christian relationships

should be in Christ in (see 1 Corinthians 12) where unity, equality and diversity are

highlighted in balance. Based on this image Dei, persons in a superior position are not

to abuse the world, especially other living creatures but to take a special commission

and exercise particular responsibility to rule in a way that nourishes the world.

Diagram 5.8 Moltmann’s Synthesis Between Individualism and Collectivism

In Moltmann’s concept of the imago Dei, even though it involves his seemingly

questionable denial of the fundamental, ontological, substantial, objective, nature of

God’s reality, the relational self is developed from God’s image as a community with

the nature of p erichōrēsis . Needless to say, p erichōrēsis is used here to expound the

meaning of analogia relationis applied to human beings but this is not precisely the

same thing as relationships of the three persons of the triune God. It will absolutely not

be the separate, isolated, and autonomous self developed in ‘egoistical individualism’

(Moltmann 1993:270f.), nor be similar to the the socially soluble or ‘absorbed’ and

debased self developed in collectivism. (Triandis et al. 1988:272) 15 In his social

trinitarian doctrine (2009a:289), ‘individual and community’ are maintained ‘equally

primal’. In the same dialectic fashion, we find this relational self is also a dialectic

15 See also in the other references (Bochner 1994:281; Moltmann 1993:270f.).20


synthesis drawn from individualism as the thesis and collectivism as the antithesis, as

demonstrated in Diagram 5.8. (Moltmann 1992b:254; 1993:269–71)

2.4.2 Grace, Imago Christi, and the Messianic Calling of Human Beings

Moltmann (1985:215) disagrees with a ‘one-sided viewpoint’ of theological

anthropology because it limits the consideration of humankind’s ‘likeness to God only

in the context of the doctrine of creation’, namely, the image of God that first was

blurred or ruined through the Fall and then is recovered through God’s grace. This

approach was only used to describe an ‘ideal picture of human beings in their primal

condition’. He reinterprets such a classical notion of the imago Dei along ‘the messianic

alignment’ of the historical trend of human beings. Following the Apostle Paul’s

concept, Moltmann (1985:94–5) applies the likeness to God to the raised and

transfigured Messiah, Jesus Christ, as ‘God’s true image’ (II Corinthians 4:4), ‘the glory

of God’ (II Corinthians 4:6), ‘the first-born of all creation’ (Colossians 1:15), ‘the first-

born from the dead’ (Colossians 1:18), ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Colossians

1:15). Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God mediating in creation, reconciling

the world to God, and ruling as the divine Lord. Based on this, Moltmann (1985:226)

argues that ‘God appears in his perfect image, God rules through his image, God

reconciles and redeems through his image on earth’. So he maintains the eschatological

principle that ‘Christ must already be the mystery of creation in the beginning … the

beginning is comprehended in the light of the [later] consummation’. (Moltmann

1985:226) Accordingly, seeing God’s creation from eschatological perspective, he

(2003:189) indicates that ‘the final is greater than [the] original’. This not only is in

facing to human beings’ present misery in realtiy but also points to their transformed

future promised by God.

Therefore, for him (Moltmann 1985:225–7), ‘[B]eing human means becoming

human in this process’. In other words, the true imago Dei will be ‘consummate[d]’ and

is to be obtained at the end of the history of God with humankind rather than at its

beginning before the ‘lost origin’ (McDougall 2003:190). But ‘as goal’ it indeed exists

throughout ‘every moment of that history’ from its beginning to its messianic end:

Christ. According to his interpretation, it is a dynamic and tensional process of already-

and-not-yet instead of a static one. This statement can be also understood reasonably as

that this final true self is more perfect than the original. The true self in my research

problem, as defined in 2.3.3 of chapter one, focuses more on just as it is in every

moment of its existence, 16 which is dynamic instead of absolute, not as it was or will be. 16 Carl Rogers’ ‘to be all of oneself in each moment’ (Rogers 1961:172, eo).

21


In other words, the true self means that one can lives one’s true self out, discloses

oneself, or allows the expression of one’s true self to be realized. Being or living out

one’s true self is to let that self be expressed and disclosed as it is in every moment of

its existing without pretending to be the expected self valued by others, society or even

oneself. But the source and knowledge of one’s true self are still relevant and important

in dealing with the problem.

The implication of Moltmann’s thought here is that the behavioural custom of

masking the true self, in terms of both any individual and society at large, can be

abolished only through the love of the crucified Christ which opens a new future. The

final true self in the promised future of Christ, that Moltmann highlights, provides a

concrete and definite biblical description for the hoped for goal. This goal is what

Tournier affirms in his concept that the personage will express and show forth the

person genuinely instead of ripping off the personage directly. For, as discussed in

chapter two, the reality is that our personage also shapes our person and the external

social roles we play transform us constantly, exerting their influences on the most

profound hidden part of the person (Tournier 1957:80). In other words, when the value

of the true self conflicts with expectations from inside and outside, one cannot or dare

not express one’s true self; not only is the true self then repressed, but also its inherent

value is harmed. Under this masking, the true self is not empty or does not exist, but

suffering from incompetency. Therefore encountering the problems of the personage,

the restoration of the true self, is to commit the personage to act according to the values

of the true self instead of merely removing the personage. This final true self is

definitely not imposed by society. That is to say, the final true self, as well as the

‘eschatological hope’ of divine ‘mission and call’ (Moltmann 1967:285), becomes the

ultimate destination of the congruence of the personage and the person since time

cannot go back or stop.

Moltmann cannot understand the imago Christi apart from his social doctrine of

the Trinity. It is in the ‘fellowship of believers with Christ’ and through the grace of

God that the ‘restoration or new creation’ of the imago Dei happens. 17 It is because

Christ is the ‘messianic imago Dei’, so that believers can be ‘accepted and promised,

wholly, bodily and socially’ into the ‘imago Christi’ (Moltmann 1985:215–27), that

17 Since Moltmann (2003:189) highlights that the final creation is greater and better than the original one from eschatological perspective of God’s creation, the ‘new creation’ of the imago Dei should be the precise expression here although he (1985:227) uses the ‘restoration’ of the imago Dei, too. These two terms mean differently. But I guess, it is in adopting the Christian traditional way to express the transformation of the ‘obscured or destroyed’ imago Dei through Christ’s salvation that Moltmann uses the term ‘restoration’ (Moltmann 1985:215, 227).

22


they can enter upon the path towards the ‘gloria Dei on earth’ through the ‘imago

Christi’ (Romans 8:29-30) (Moltmann 1985:226). To put it in other words, the

holistically ‘embodied and social human beings’ can only be fulfilled in the ‘messianic

fellowship of Jesus’; and then death can never separate ‘them from God and from one

another, or [separate them] into soul and body’. (Moltmann 1985:227) 18 ‘[I]n history’,

in contrast to ‘an open history’, the process of ‘the messianic becoming-human’ of

humankind will be neither complete nor completable. (Moltmann 1985:350 n.22) But it

is in ‘the process of resurrection’ that believers already live as a fellowship with Christ,

here and now so that they can ‘experience themselves as accepted and promised’

holistically. (Moltmann 1985:227) According to Moltmann, expounding this likeness to

God through the messianic imago Dei, believers are not only the imago Christi socially

but also the imago Christi wholly and bodily. Here, then, Moltmann seems not to

exclude the ontic nature of humankind in the likeness to God of his social Trinity.

2.4.3 Glory, Gloria Dei, and the Future of Human Beings

Moltmann (1985:228) emphasizes that human beings are not only ‘commissioned by

God’, but also made ‘the mode of his appearance in his creation’. For, through Jesus the

Messiah, human beings are called to enter into ‘the eschatological history of the new

creation’ accorded to the form of the likeness to Christ. This argument of Moltmann’s is

based not only on the biblical tradition that ‘human beings are created as the image of

God for the divine glory’, but also on his imago Christi that human beings are redeemed

to become the imago Christi for ‘eschatological glorification’. Human beings move

from justification, through ‘sanctification’ and onto glorification. Even as ‘the coming

glory of God’ shines upon the face of the resurrected Messiah, so the Spirit-filled

believers right now also have a reflection of the glory of God on their ‘unveiled

face[s]’. It is obvious that Moltmann’s interpretation of Gloria Dei est H omo here is

drawn from his interpretation of mainly Romans 8:30, 1 Corinthians 13:12, 2

Corinthians 3:12-18, 4:6, and 1 John 3:2. The veil of the unveiled face here in the

context of 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 refers to the relational barrier or problem between

God’s people and God. But it can also be extended to indicate the relational barrier or

problem between human beings and even the relational barrier or problem between the

personage and person in a man. Just as mentioned in chapter three, the initial things the

first man and woman did after the Fall of human beings was to hide their nakedness

from their own eyes and then from the other’s eyes (Gen 3:7). And the third thing they

18 For the overcoming of separation, see Moltmann’s detailed discussion in his The Way of Jesus Christ (1993:260–70).

23


did was to hide from the Lord God. (Gen 3:8) As a holistic being, the relational barrier

of human beings due to the Fall blocks the their authentic relationships not only to God,

but also to their fellows and their own true self. As 2 Corinthians 3:18 promises, 19 the

glory of the Lord is to transform us sinners into the imago Christi with glory upon glory

when the veil is taken away, that is the grace and work of the Spirit. After the relational

barrier between human beings and God is removed, they no longer need a mask to hide

their true self from others. This is because the relationship between man and God in

trinitarian theological anthropology is the first step grounding all the other relationships

which have the triune God as their source and archetype. These relationships include

both social relations and self relation. If the veil between human beings and God

disappears, the veils between human beings will also disappear, and eventually their

masks can be also taken off and their true self no longer needs to be hidden.

In Moltmann’s opinion (1985:228–9), ‘theosis’ marks ‘this promised

glorification’ by way of human beings’ ‘perfect’ likeness to God. Theosis means ‘the

eschatological becoming-one-with-God of human beings’. In reality, this promised

glorification can be fulfilled when ‘the imago per conformitatem gratiae’ (the image of

the conformity of grace) is transfigured into ‘the imago per simi l itudinem gloriae’ (the

image of the likeness of glory) through the work of the Holy Spirit. And then human

beings can eventually unveil their face to reflect God’s glory. He stresses very much the

differentiation ‘between grace and glory, between reconciliation and redemption’, and

between ‘the historicizing of nature’ and ‘the eschatological naturalizing of history’.

(Moltmann 1992a:129–30, eo) For in describing the concept of ‘theosis’, besides using

‘[p]articipation in the divine nature’ from 2 Peter 1:4, Moltmann (1985:229) also uses,

other phrases in different context. These include ‘becoming-one-with-God’, ‘to

participate in the divine life and beauty’, ‘conformity to God’, ‘flowering into perfect

resemblance’, ‘a realistic divinization’, ’the deification of man’, and ‘the visible

indwelling of God in his new Creation’. (Moltmann 1974:93, 277) 20 Does Moltmann

mean by this that human beings will acquire the divine nature and become a being like

God? Moltmann (1981:107) absolutely disagrees that humanity can be identical with

God or the Son of God. He (1981:68) unequivocally contrasts the likeness between ‘the

Father and the Son’ with the unlikeness between humanity and God by referring to the

exclusive relationship between Father and Son in Matthew 11.27: ‘All things have been

19 NRSV 2 Corinthians 3:18: ‘And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.’

20 See also in the other references (Moltmann 1992a:130; 1999:140).24


handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no

one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal

him.’ He (1981:107) also argues that the world and God’s ‘only begotten Son’ are not

identical, and maintains emphatically the differentiation of ‘the world process’ 21 from

‘the inner-trinitarian process’. 22 Only in one place, while explaining the relationship of

Christology and eschatology, does he use theosis to indicate Jesus’ ‘becoming God’

(Moltmann 2007:86) . But does it means the same thing for him in using it for human

beings as for Jesus Christ? Seemingly not, even though he does not define and explain it

directly of much detail.

2.5 I mago T rinit atis : Eternal Fellowship with the Open Trinity

Nonetheless Moltmann’s (1981:199; 1985:235) concept of imago Dei is never of ‘the

individual’: contrast mankind ‘being made in the image of God’, which was presented

by Augustine. Moltmann’s imago Dei is of ‘person with person’: ‘Adam and Eve and

Seth’ as a family being made in the image of ‘the unity of the Triunity: three Persons － one family’. 23 This was proposed by Gregory of Nazianzus. Though Adam and Eve and

Seth are ‘dissimilar’ persons, they are ‘an earthly image and parable of the Trinity’

because of their consubstance. Notably, Moltmann’s use of consubstance to explain the

i mago T rinit atis here seems to adopt Palamas’ concept of consubstannce in describing

Three Persons of God. Through this term of the i mago T rinit atis and ‘the first human

family as a trinitarian analogy’, Moltmann again underlines the importance of

‘harmonizing personality and sociality’ in the human ‘community’ without

compromising or even giving up ‘the one to the other’.

Moltmann (1985:241) here indicates what is the ‘true human community’, but not

‘a religious family ideology’. ‘[T]he simultaneous community of the sexes in space’

(that is ‘man and wife’) and ‘the community of the generations in time’ (that is ‘parents

and children’) are basic units within humanity. The former one indicates an

‘inextinguishable sociality’, and the latter, an ‘equally unalterable generativity’. On the

basis of his observations, Moltmann (1981:199, eo) feels that the lack of stress on

21 Moltmann seems to have not defined precisely the meaning of ‘world process’ in this book but from its context I believe it means ‘the existence of the world and its history’ (Moltmann 1981:42).

22 ‘Inner-trinitarian process’ means that ‘the Son to whom the Father has subjected everything will then subject himself to the Father and will give the kingdom (basileia) over to him’. (Moltmann 1981:92)

23 Referring to Moltmann’s distinction between an individual and a person in 2.1.25


p erichōrēsis in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Western church

leads to ‘the development of individualism, and especially possessive individualism. 24

Therefore, Moltmann raises a further question: ‘everyone is supposed to fulfil

himself but who fulfils the community?’ Accordingly he (1985:223–4) argues that ‘the

trinitarian concept of community’ is the solution to this problem, because it is to

surmount both ‘the ego-solitariness of the narcissist’ and ‘the egoism of the couple － man and wife’. For Moltmann (1985:234) ‘the triune God’ is the source and the

‘archetype of true human community’ and ‘[Human] beings are imago T rinitatis ’.

Therefore, he (1985:216) maintains that they can ‘correspond to the triune God’ only

when they are ‘united’ as a community. Based on his commentary on John 17:21, 25 he

(1985:241, eo) defines his social Trinity as the ‘the community within the Trinity’,

instead of simply ‘the Fatherhood or the Sonship’. 26 Accordingly, ‘through the imago

Trinitatis’ what is intended are earthly representations at the level of ‘the relations in the

Trinity’ rather than at the level ‘of the trinitarian constitution’. But since p erichōrēsis

and Trinity are terms used to describe the trinitarian mystery of God, how is the concept

of p erichōrēsis applied rightly to the relationships between human beings? What does

‘the trinitarian concept of community’ mean? What does the unity within the Trinity

mean to the unity among human beings? What do the relationships in the Trinity, even

when they are united with one another, mean to the relationships among human beings?

These questions must be considered at a later point in my work.

Moltmann (1985:242) uses the primal and fundamental human community to

interpret the whole of human beings as the imago trinitatis. And then he further explains

that after the Fall human beings are not only to be ‘restored … to this divine image’

from their sinful natures ‘through the messianic fellowship with the Son’ but are also to

be called together into ‘the open Trinity’. But what is this ‘open Trinity’? Based on

John 17:21, Moltmann (1981:90–96) uses it to disclose the openness of the union of the

Trinity, instead of a closed unity. For the fellowship of disciples is not only ‘a

fellowship with God‘ but also, more than that, ‘a fellowship in God’. There are three

main aspects of Moltmann’s open Trinity through sending ‘the creative Spirit’. First of

all, it is open for believers to participate in ‘the trinitarian history of God himself’, in

addition to ‘the eschatological history of the new creation’. Secondly, it is open to a

24 ‘Possessive individualism’ is the idea that ‘everyone is a self-possessing, self-disposing centre of action which sets itself apart from other persons’. (Grenz 2001:11)

25 NRSV John 17:21: ‘[Jesus looked up to heaven and said,] “that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”’

26 See also in the other reference (Moltmann 2009a:289).26


‘forward-looking’ future. Thirdly, it is ‘open for unification with believers, with

mankind, and with the whole creation’. Therefore, according to his viewpoint, the unity

of the Trinity is also a ‘soteriological’ term as well besides a ‘theological’ one. I suggest

that it is because the Trinity is open rather than closed so that the Son was sent to suffer

and risk and sacrifice His life for human beings.

Noticeably, by way of the imago Christi, Moltmann (1985:242–3, eo), following

the Orthodox theologians after Gregory of Nazianzus, makes his ‘open Trinity’ distinct

from ‘a closed and self-contained Trinity’ presented by Augustine and followed by

Thomas Aquinas. An open Trinity manifests ‘itself outwardly in differentiated form’,

but a closed and self-contained Trinity only manifests ‘itself outwardly without

differentiation’ because in Moltmann’s understanding Augustine views ‘the Trinity

itself’ as ‘whole’. For Augustine, the imago Dei ‘in the unity of the Tri-unity’ indicates

‘the image of the whole Trinity’ instead of the image of the differentiated three persons

in the unity of triune God. As a result, the whole Trinity a closed and self-contained

Trinity. On the contrary, in the open Trinity the restoration of sinful men is through and

according to ‘a single Person of the Trinity’ save by the Father through the Son in the

Spirit. Consequently, human beings as the imago Christi are assembled ‘into his

relationship of sonship’ and call the Father of Jesus Christ, ‘Abba, Father’ (Galatians

4:6) ‘in the brotherhood of Christ’. I can see that the imago Christi of the open Trinity is

the key to understanding the meanings of the imago Dei and the imago T rinitatis in

Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology. Through the Son, not only ‘the divine

Trinity’ unfolds itself to welcome humankind, but also humankind ‘as God’s image on

earth’ so obtains admittance to the Father. To say this in other words, ‘the Father

creates, redeems and perfects human beings through the Spirit in the image of the Son’

(Moltmann 1985:243). Apparently only an open Trinity makes possible an interweaving

of the imago Dei, the imago Christi, g loria Dei est h omo , and the imago T rinitatis into a

harmonious whole. But does Moltmann intend here a necessary salvation for all, since

he mentions the openness of the open Trinity for uniting ‘with mankind, and with the

whole creation’? This issue will also be discussed later in 3.1.

2.6 Open Friendship: The Community of Grace

Jesus’ relationship with his Father and the relationships amongst his believers can be

explored further in order to inform us about the imago Dei (imago T rinitatis ) and the

significance of this trinitarian theological anthropology. For Moltmann (1978:50–63),

27


Jesus’ ministry exemplifies and characterizes perfectly what he terms ‘open friendship’. 27 Because of his concept of the open Trinity, Moltmann develops his trinitarian concept

of fellowship. Fellowship is ascribed to ‘the special gift of the Spirit’ (Moltmann

1992b:217). In his trinitarian concept of fellowship, it is evident that the Spirit gives

himself in order to participate in the fellowship with believers and then attracts them

into the fellowship with Him (Moltmann 1992b:217). Karl Rahner’s words are quoted

to emphasize that God’s fellowship with us is a ‘free and unmerited’ relationship of

grace (Rahner 1966, cited in Moltmann 1974:240).

In his understanding (Moltmann 1992b:217–18), fellowship ‘liberates’ and

attracts others to enjoy relationships instead of possessing and taking the other ‘by

force’. In a true fellowship, people can open themselves with ‘respect for one another’,

so that they ‘give one another a share in themselves’ and participate in each other’s lives

because of ‘mutual recognition’. Therefore, fellowship or community is formed ‘when

what is in common is shared’ by dissimilar people with their own personal ‘attributes

and differences’ (Moltmann 1992b:217–18). 28 It is the community or fellowship of both

‘like with like, and … the unlike’, not exclusive but ‘open, inviting, and embracing’.

(Moltmann 2009a:289–90)Through this trinitarian perspective of community,

Moltmann (1992b:220) emphasizes repeatedly ‘diversity in unity’ existing from the

very outset of Christian faith. Community or fellowship in the trinitarian sense does not

only ‘unite the differences’ — instead of ‘standardization’ — but also ‘differentiate[s]

the One’. For ‘differentiation’ is indispensable to a ‘true community’ where ‘individual

potentialities’ can be developed in ‘the greatest given diversity’. This community or

fellowship is not a general one. Instead it is ‘the trinitarian fellowship of the Spirit’ with

the love that ties together the things in common and the freedom which develops the

scope and uniqueness of things ‘individual and singular’. God can be experienced both

individually and socially within the interaction with others in this community.

Talking about freedom, Moltmann (1981:216f., 253 n.49, eo) first differentiates

two dimensions of freedom: (1) a dimention of ‘function of property’: ‘freedom as

lordship’ which exists in the subject-object relationship; and (2) a dimention of ‘social

function’: ‘freedom as community’ of as ‘fellowship’ in the subject-subject relationship.

He rebukes the former freedom as a ‘lie’ because it undermines community and

‘inflicted’ wounds in the past and still does so nowaday. In his viewpoint, the true

freedom can happen only in the love that tears down barriers so that the wounds can be

27 See also in the other reference (Moltmann 1977:119–20).

28 See also in the other reference (Moltmann 2000:332).28


healed in ‘unhindered, open communities in solidarity which such freedom results in.

Based on freedom as community or fellowship, Moltmann presents a third, special and

indispensable dimension of freedom granted by ‘the experience of the Spirit’: (3) a

dimention of ‘creative function’: ‘freedom as a passion for the future’ which exists in

the ‘subjects to a project’ relationship filled with hope. Because of the ‘limited kingdom

of reality’ of the past, one is free to think, say and do only when one in the Spirit

‘transcend the present in the direction of God’s future’, that is ‘the kingdom of not yet

defined potentialities’. Freedom as a passion for the future is not only as ‘creativity’ but

also as ‘initiative’. Moltmann summarizes the three dimensions of freedom respectively

as (1) ‘having’; (2) ‘being’: and (3) ‘becoming’. If everyone understands and desires

‘the project of the common future’ and assumes its ‘common responsibility’, their

society will turn into ‘personal and authentically social’. Accordingly, if freedom as a

passion for the future initiates and assumes ‘the responsibility for a common future’, in

order to benefit freedom as community (being), freedom as lordship (having) is to be

abolished even if it is not ‘possible and desirable’ to abolish it totally. Moltmann

(1981:211) terms this ‘new community’ in the Spirit as ‘the community of the free’

where there is not any one having ‘privileges and subjection’.

Moltmann (1977:119–20) consequently presents his theology of open friendship

to embody such a community, in the hope of the future, involving reciprocal self-giving

and acceptance of other persons which can be practiced only in grace. 29 ‘[D]iversity in

unity’ is therefore realized and may abound. (Moltmann 1992b:219–20, eo) The

archetype of this open friendship is demonstrated by Jesus Christ, as cited in the New

Testament: ‘“[h]e is called the friend of tax collectors and sinners.” (Luke 7:34)’

(Moltmann 1992b:258, eo) Through ‘the law of grace’ (Moltmann 1977:117), Jesus

offers open fellowship to other people who are not only different, but even have been

cast out of their community. In his joy of inviting them, Jesus ‘celebrated the messianic

feast with’ them, accepted them as human beings with dignity, and respected them ‘as

the first children of the divine grace’ which renews all things. Accordingly, the ‘social

prejudice’ and their ‘self-isolation’ which they suffered could be done away with.

(Moltmann 1992b:258)

Jesus manifests a core truth of Christian theology distinctive from other religions.

It is exactly that God himself through Christ ‘creates the conditions’ of participating in

the relationship with the open Trinity for ‘the sinners, the godless and those forsaken by

God’. For they are not able to ‘satisfy these conditions’ by themselves. Only through

29 See also in the other reference (Moltmann 1978:50–63).29


God’s ‘self-humiliation’ in Christ’s death on the cross and ‘through his exaltation of

[hu]man[s]’ in Christ’s resurrection from death, God himself provides the ‘conditions’

for reconciliation with God. In other words, it is only through Chirst ‘this person and his

history’. (Moltmann 1974:275) Moltmann (1974:276) states very clear that this

relationship with the open Trinity is neither a religion nor a law or an ideal by saying:

God does not become a religion, so that man participates in him by corresponding religious thoughts and feelings. God does not become a law, so that man participates in him through obedience to a law. God does not become an ideal, so that man achieves community with him through constant striving. He humbles himself and takes upon himself the eternal death of the godless and the godforsaken, so that all the godless and the godforsaken can experience communion with him.

Therefore, through the one-sided covenant provided by God for all by way of

Christ on the cross, this true community and fellowship turns out to be a ‘gracious,

presuppositionless and universal community of God’. In this community, all miserable

men are welcome unconditionally. For the sake of this kind of community of grace,

Christian theology must not separate ‘christocentric’ thought from ‘trinitarian’ thought’.

(Moltmann 1974:275–6)

Can only a ‘new being’, demanded by the divine calling, enter into this covenant

relationship to the open Trinity? Without Christ in the cross, human beings are kept

‘insuperably’ far from God’s call. Therefore, ‘Christian baptism … as a form of grace’

marks and displays an identity alteration by the burial of the old and the rebirth of the

new (Moltmann 1976:16, 18). Although ‘moral cultivation’ is not the term used in

Christian theology, the theology of life transformation developed from imago Christi

explained above can be understood and coined as gracious moral cultivation (moral

transformation by Christ’s grace) in contrast to Ruist moral self-cultivation (moral

transformation by oneself). It is evidently displayed in the imago Dei in Moltmann’s

trinitarian theological anthropology. Nonetheless, Moltmann (1992b:259, eo) does not

consider ‘the moral purpose of changing the world’ as ‘the motive’ for the imago

Christi. It is instead a festival exultance over God’s ‘kingdom’ having unfolded itself

‘wide open for the others’. He does not explain more directly why he considers this so.

But it is not difficult to infer from his context his reason in highlighting ‘open

friendship’ that is based on God’s ‘grace’ and ‘love’ (Moltmann 1992b:248–63).

I believe the distinction Moltmann (1992b:248–63) wants to make is between a

festival exultance over God’s ‘kingdom’ and ‘the moral purpose’. In other words, he

tries to differentiate friendship or relationship from ‘moral notions’ or ‘competition’, to

distinguish grace or love from ‘commandment’, obligation, or duty, and to tell

30


intendwants from oughts. 30 Such a distinction also differentiates the relationship in

Moltmann’s open friendship in the trinitarian doctrine from the one in Tu Weiming’s

post-traditional New-Ruism that still prioritizes moral purpose as the foremost thing. In

the former, the relationship is open to anyone unconditionally by grace and love to

receive salvation and transforming power through the imago Christi and the Spirit.

Accordingly, the diversity of every individual self is accepted, encouraged, and valued

in the community with communion and common future. But in the latter, the

relationship is only open to the ones conditionally who can self-transform morally and

attain to some extent the common norms by their own capacity through a communal act.

Accordingly, the privatized self and its diversity are debased in Ru-based collective self.

Therefore, the latter relationship is in reality a closed one.

This open friendship is passed down through the community of his people:

‘Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.’

(NIV Rom. 15:7) 31 Therefore I can see that Moltmann’s social Trinity provides a

healthier relational self, which can be built up in such a community of Christ. For its

basic law is ‘acceptance of others in their difference’ without surrendering one’s

identity but mutually revealing what each other is. (Moltmann 1992b:258–9)

Moltmann’s open friendship is ‘a non-hierarchical fellowship of equals in the

Holy Spirit’ in which everyone in this community ‘contributes what is his or hers’.

(Moltmann 1992b:224) It is neither collectivism nor individualism because Moltmann

(1992b:224) states:

The true unity of the church is an image of the perichoretic unity of the Trinity, so it can neither be a collective consciousness which represses the individuality of the persons, nor an individual consciousness which neglects what is in common.

This open friendship provides the positive aspect of a non-hierarchical society in which

people are not being imposed, controlled and suppressed. Nobody has a special

prerogative and nobody’s freedom is offended. (Moltmann 2000:332) It is a kind of

relationship where ‘what is truly human emerges and remains’ when the relationships of

other types cease or are taken away. These other types include the ‘parent-child’,

30 IntendWants means what one intendwants or would like to do. Oughts means what one thinks one should do according to other’s expectation. About the discussion and definition of intendwants from oughts in detail, see 1.1.2 of chapter two.

31 Cf. ‘accept’ (NIV), ‘welcome’ (NRSV) and ‘receive’ (NKJV) as different English translations for in Rom. 15:7:

NRSV Romans 15:7 Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

NKJV Romans 15:7 Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.31


‘master-servant’, and superior-inferior relationships, and man-woman relation or

connection. When ‘receptivity’ is united with ‘permanence’ by this open friendship,

‘freedom’ is sustained and then ‘existence with others’ is, too. This can only happen ‘in

unexacting friendliness’, namely being exempt from ‘necessity and compulsion’. In this

relationship in the grace of the triune God, ‘the new man, the true man, the free man is

the friend’. The more people begin to trust one another as friends, ‘the more privileges

and claims to domination become superfluous, … the less they need to control one

another’. (Moltmann 1977:116) Therefore in this fellowship of grace, people are not

necessary there to please others and God, or to pretend to be good before them anymore.

As a result, they can live out their authentic self without wearing a mask to hide their

weakness, ugliness and sinful nature.

As Carl Henry argues (1999:136), the rational part of humans, as a fundamental

part of the imago Dei and human nature, makes communication possible and enables

this sort of relationship. Through rational communication, I believe open friendship is

the pragmatic meaning of the imago Dei as the goal in trinitarian theological

anthropology, and is also the way to such a goal. However, the open friendship, based

on Moltmann’s ‘analogy of relations’ (Moltmann 1985:77), relies exclusively on a free

gift of grace that God offers. It is absolutely not on an inborn nature or capacity of

humans. It also assures a ‘social or interpersonal reality’ (McDougall 2003:192) that the

imago Dei bestows. To say in other words, only through the relationships in

community, can men utterly recognize and experience ‘their messianic destiny as imago

Trinitatis’ (McDougall 2003:192). It is through divine grace that ‘God pours the

supernatural virtue of caritas (charity) into a person’s heart’. Accordingly, his

spontaneous longing for God will be adequately directed and consummated in ‘the

friendship with God’ that God endows (Moltmann 1992a:249). Consequently, his will

will be one with God’s; he will love everything which God loves for God’s sake. And

this is where the personage will express and show forth the person genuinely.

3. EVALUATING MOLTMANN

After examining Moltmann’s interpretation of Christian social trinitarian relational

selfhood and its implication on the tendency of social imposition, we are now going to

evaluate Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology and its relevance to the

tendency of the behavioural custom of masking (the true self).

32


3.1 Trinitarian Theological Anthropology

Moltmann’s open Trinity and open friendship together construct a strong case for

rejecting not only a non-trinitarian theist conception of God, but also the other two main

Christian theologies of the Trinity: God as supreme substance and God as absolute

subject. But Henry Jansen (1994:106, 129) criticizes Moltmann for basing his ‘concept

of God’ exclusively on ‘God quoad nos’ (to us) and at the same time plays down ‘God

in se’ (in God-self). (Jansen 1994:228) God quoad nos means the ‘personal’ doctrine of

God ‘related to the world’ and God in se the ‘(impersonal) ontological’ one

‘independent of the world’. Jansen (1994:228) insists on maintaining both

complementary ‘aspects of God as person and God as Being’ in a ‘paradoxical’ tension

with each other. Must these two remain mutually exclusive?

Although the conflict between these two aspects might not be utterly ‘resolved’,

they ‘cannot be separated from nor reduced to each other[s]’; otherwise we end up

either losing ‘the notion of God as Being Itself’ or missing ‘the understanding of God as

person’ (Jansen 1994:228). I don’t think Jansen’s criticism here is based on a right

understanding of Moltmann. It is because of his deeper ontological concern that he

(1981:171) emphasizes God’s three persons as ‘the non-interchangeable, untransferable

individual existence[s]’ as well as their relationships. He (1981:172, eo) construes this

so-called ‘existing-in-relationship’ by explaining,

In respect of the divine nature the Father has to be called individua substantia, but in respect of the Son we have to call him Father. The position is no different in the case of the Son and the Spirit.

According to this explanation, Moltmann never ignores the importance of God in se

while emphasizing the forgotten doctrine God quoad nos in the West Church. It seems

that Jansen holds the classic differentiation of the ‘economic Trinity’ from the

‘immanent Trinity’ that Moltmann has deserted. He follows Karl Rahner’s argument

(1970:22, eo) that ‘[T]he economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent

Trinity is the economic Trinity’. 1 He (Moltmann 1981:160, eo) tries to bring ‘the

substance’ (the ‘inwardness’ of the triune God) and ‘the revelation’ through crucified

Christ (and ‘the outwardness of the triune God’) to interact. He argues that ‘[T]he

economic Trinity not only reveals the immanent Trinity; it also has a retroactive effect

on it’. Traditionally, the ontological dimension of God is discussed in the context where

historical time is transcended, in timelessness; and the personal dimension of the divine,

within the context of historical time. But Moltmann (1981:160) does not see the

1 Nevertheless, Rahner (1970:106) rejects that there are three ‘subjectivities’ in the triune God. 33


necessity of such distinction which, he argues, would dissolve ‘the one in the other’.

Wolfhart Pannenberg integrates these terms for explaining the seemingly conflicting

concepts between God in se and God quoad nos into a new term ‘reciprocal’ or ‘mutual

self-distinction’ (2004:300–327). Moltmann (1981:160) highlights that the sociality of

the Trinity ‘corresponds to’ the substances of Trinity from the beginning of the world.

In his social trinitarian doctrine (2009a:289), ‘substances and relations’ are maintained

‘equally primary’. In the sense of the economic Trinity that we can experience, the

triune God opens God-self to the world and enters into the history through Christ’s

incarnation and crucifixion.

At this point, I do not see that Moltmann will understand God quoad nos and God

in se to be in conflict with each other. Instead they are two descriptions and

understandings about God being demonstrated in two different dimensions that

complementing each other in trying to paint a full picture of the triune God. But because

of the mysterious Trinity beyond human’s reason, I agree more with what subtle

distinction Leonardo Boff (1988:215) makes between them: ‘the economic Trinity is the

immanent Trinity, but not the whole of the immanent Trinity’. For there still exists the

mystery of the immanent Trinity to some extent that has not yet been revealed in the

economic Trinity. Without the understanding of God as Being Itself, the incarnation and

crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the gift of grace, and even the relationship with a personal

God become vague, abstract, metaphysical, and problematic. However, without the

revelation in the economic salvation of Christ, the immanent Trinity is hard to grasp.

Therefore both aspects are indispensable in establishing a foundation for encouraging

people in searching for liberty on the path to the person rather than the personage.

(Tournier 1957:224) This foundation is the relationship in grace with God, within the

self, and with others.

Wáng Wénjī 王文基 (2005) is basically positive towards Moltmann’s concept of

open friendship, but is concerned with its obscurity. The boundaries of such an open

community work under the shadow of ‘universalism’ (Wang, Wenji 2005:20), which is

criticized by evangelicals. He (2005:19) criticizes Moltmann’s ‘over-optimistic’ attitude

about ‘human nature’, and its ability to enter into this open community paying less

attention to the problem of ‘sin’. Accordingly, Wang worries that human beings can

enter into this open relationship with God without the Cross or messianic salvation.

Wang’s concerns about Moltmann’s universalistic stand are reasonable from a

Protestant evangelical perspective (which I share). But his criticisms are not based on

the proper comprehension of Moltmann’s rationales for it. At least it is not either

34


because of his undervaluing the despair of human sinful nature nor because he opens a

side door for salvation without the messianic Cross or crucified Christ. (Moltmann

1967:22–6; 1996:235–55) 2

Moltmann (1976:20, eo) indeed shows his universalistic tendencies in one of his

earlier works. But he differentiates his ‘Christian universalism’ from general

universalism because he insists the most fundamental rationale for his Christian one is

to believe in the crucified Christ instead of relying merely on ‘monotheism, one God, so

one humanity’. The only hope for ‘men in their shared lack of full humanness’ is the

acceptance from the ‘crucified God’. He (1993:222–5) also reclaims and explains at

length and unequivocally in some of his later works his universalist stand, especially in

refuting ‘double predestination’ and making a synthesis between the thesis of ‘the

universal theology of grace’ and the antithesis of ‘the particularist theology of faith’.

(Moltmann 1994:138–44; 1996:235–55) 3 Because of God’s love for the sinner and

grace greater than sin, Moltmann (1996:243–55, eo) refuses to accept a God

condemning sinner into hell and argues for his universalism on the basis of the

purposeful and ultimate ‘restoration of all things’ by Christ’s ‘all-reconciling love’

through taking the condemnation for the sinner on the Cross. The imago Christi is a key

in presenting Moltmann’s concept of the imago Dei. He (1974:275) insists that God

himself through Christ ‘creates the conditions’ for ‘the sinners, the godless and those

forsaken by God’ to participate in the relationship with the open Trinity. Moltmann

(1985:229–34) never undervalues the despair of human’s sinful nature. He understands

sin not as a substance change but as a relation change so that in his viewpoint ‘the

image is in no way … diminished’. I guess this is the main reason that he might be

misunderstood by Wang or some others. In trying to hold the position of ‘at once God’s

image and a sinner’, he (1985:232–4) argues that what sin may damage is not the image

Dei but humankind’s relationship to God. Therefore, the sinner is as a slave of sin

(Romans 6:17) instead of a servant of God. However, God’s relationship to humankind

cannot be damaged by sin so that God’s presence faithfully keeps the imago Dei

inescapable and from being deprived. 4 Nevertheless, he (1985:223–42) still contradicts

himself by calling a sinner God’s ‘refractory image’ and by declaring the need and hope

for ‘[T]he completion of the imago Dei’ and the restoration from sin to the divine

image. He also explains that sinner turned from being the imago Dei into ‘an imago

2 See also in the other references (Moltmann 1974:275–6; 1985:242; 1993:185, 243; 2004:94–6; 2007:117f., 122–3).

3 See also in the other reference (Moltmann 2004:140–51).



satanae or an imago mammonis’ and mentions a sinner’s situation of falling short of

likeness to God. If the imago Dei is undiminished, how can it become refractory and

why does it need to be completed?

Moreover, in Moltmann’s social doctrine of the Trinity, social likeness to God is

the core value of the imago Dei. (1985:234–243) Does social likeness to God not

include humankind’s relationship to God? How can social likeness to God be kept intact

while humankind’s relationship to God is perverted by sin? Since Moltmann accepts

perverting but refutes destroying as the influence of sin toward humankind’s

relationship to God, why cannot he accept the imago Dei perverted rather than insist it

undiminished? I am afraid that Moltmann’s insistence and arguments on this issue are

not very coherent and convincing.

Furthermore, as we have discussed above in 2.4.3 that Moltmann (1981:68, 107)

absolutely disagrees that humanity can be identified with God or the Son of God, but he

(1981:199) in other places tends to conflict himself to obscure the differences between

the triune God creator and created human beings by applying p erichōrēsis boldly. 5 He

even uses the term consubstance to explain how human beings bear the imago Trinitatis

and experience their relationship as a community. Such terminology is normally

adopted to describe in an exclusive manner the mysterious attributes of God, which are

beyond human beings’ reason and experience. Since human beings are the image Dei,

they are only like God, and will not ever have the same attribute as the triune God has,

even at the end of God’s history with human beings.

3.2 Anthropology and Masking the True Self

In this section, the relevance of Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology to the

tendency of the behavioural custom of masking (the true self) is to be evaluated both

theologically and psychologically. As for its relevance to the problem among PTRIC,

we are going to discuss this in chapter five.

3.2.1 A Theological Perspective

In response to Moltmann’s essay ‘Christianity and the Revaluation of the Values of

Modernity and of the Western World’, Ellen T. Charry (1998:102) indicates that ‘the

modern worldview lacks not only a doctrine of sin, but also a doctrine of grace’. Even if

‘the self-sufficiency of the self’ has prevailed after Descartes, Charry (1998:100–101,

eo) pinpoints the other side of this trend as that ‘modern’ self depends on ‘the respect



accorded one by others’. Such dependence leads to a distorted ‘natural self’, namely

‘just be yourself’, suffering from fear and insecurity before gaining respect from or

‘power over others’. Such a ‘self-constructed self’ is quite similar to the self-cultivated

self in post-traditional New-Ruism. This self is always striving for self-formation and

achievement recognized by others through one’s own endeavour and willpower and

extrinsic ‘reinforcement’. Accordingly, she worries about that the ‘self-esteem’

supported and strengthened by unrelenting effort or straining for success ‘in a

competitive, accomplishment-driven society’. It even comes with the decadency of

depending on ‘guilt and shame as instruments of moral formation’. She is convinced

that such a self-understanding would be damaged by these values and priorities

ultimately. Charry (1998:101) points out that if the self dignity relies on the respect

accorded one by others, it will cause ‘an insecurity in the self’. The insecurity in the self

which Charry highlights can be understood as a sign of the problem of masking as

discussed and disclosed in chapter two. However, humans cannot live without getting

along with others. Moltmann’s relational trinitarian theological anthropology not only

emphasizes the restoration of individual personal relationships to God, moving from the

imago Dei through imago Christi so as to attain our true personhood. But it also

retrieves the trinitarian perichoretic relationship as a prototype. That prototype is

obtained through the imago Trinitatis for the interpersonal relationship in a community

of grace, and the human-divine relationship in a collective sense. The latter is the

relationship in a community between subjects built upon the project of hope (Moltmann

1981:216, 253 n.49).

The community in Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology is a

community of grace, a fellowship of open friendship, and an imago trinitatis of the open

Trinity as described above. The self in such a community of grace is based on the imago

Dei, especially on the imago Christi. Accordingly, each human’s identity comes from

the imago Christi by free and unmerited grace only. Only when the self and the

community can be transformed in God’s grace, the true self, namely the unique self

within, can be experienced and become unveiled. And then it does not need to be

masked or hidden any more. (Grenz 1997:139) 6 One’s ‘intimacy with God’, referred to

by Moltmann in terms of the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on theosis, forms the ground

for liberation from ‘the pressure of the world’ (Charry 1998:106) .

As indicated above, both collectivism and individualism lead to the loss of self in

human beings. Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology not only is an open

6 See also in the other reference (Moseley 1991:17, 78; Bellinger 2010:151)37


friendship appealing to neither collectivism nor individualism, but also locates the

imago Christi as the source of the self. It is the free and unmerited grace which shows

how to attain the goal of the humanity. Because of the free and unmerited grace, we can

boldly recognize g loria Dei est h omo (the future of self) as the goal of the humanity.

Because of it, the true self can be contextualized in the community of grace. While there

is no insecurity arising from a failure to win recognition from God, or from others and

even one’s self, there is no need for the self to pretend to perform sufficiently well to

acquire one’s self security. This corresponds to Touriner’s understanding of the person

as a ‘true self’ in Christ. The dynamic true self interacting with the masked self in

Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology can be understood in two dimensions,

present and eschatological, as is demonstrated in Diagram 5.9.

Diagram 5.9 The Dynamic True Self in Two Dimensions

38


The

Features of

the Path to

The PersonThe Revealing

Personage

The Contrastive

Personage

Moltmann Tournier Tournier Tournier

FromBeing Reconciled to God in the Cru-

cified Christ

The Trust in a Personal En-

counter (with Je-sus Christ)

Seeking the Safe and Healthy Con-ditions for Being

Reborn

The Effort of One’s Own Will

By Way of

Abandoning Illu-sion About One-self and Well-Jus-

tified Despair About Oneself’

Acknowledging the Deepest Prob-lems in the Fel-

lowship

Confessing the Problem of the Personage, in a

Gracious Fellow-ship

Achieving a Cer-tain Skill at the

Task

For

An Iconoclasm of Liberation 7 in an Open Friendship

of Grace

Boldly Revealing the Person

Boldly Revealing and Acting Out

Conforming to the Person

Artificially Mak-ing up a Personage

Resulting

in

Removing Shame, Anxiety, and Self-

AccusationEasing Tensions

Liberating Confes-sion

Exciting Tensions

Expressed

Through

Reflecting the Glory of God with

Unveiled Face

A Self-Abandon-ment (to Jesus

Christ)

Waiting for the Renewal by the

Holy Spirit

The Glorification of Will-Power

Embodied

in the

Principles

of

Trinitarian Theo-logical Anthropol-

ogy

(Christian) Mod-ern Psychology 8

The True Solution Of Grace

Stoicism

Chart 5.1 Moltmann’s Trinitarian Theological Anthropology Compared with Tournier’s Paths to

the Person and the Personages

3.2.2 A Psychological Perspective

Evidently Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology reflects much more the

characteristics of the paths to the person and the paths to the revealing personage rather

than those of the paths to the contrastive personage, in terms of Tournier’s concepts

discussed in chapter two. Moltmann’s departing point to the person and to the revealing

personage is from being reconciled to God through the salvation of the crucified Christ

instead from the effort of one’s own will. Christ’s salvation releases one’s presuure to 7 People do not need to ‘deceive themselves and others about the truth’ anymore in their ‘beautiful and pious pretence’. (Moltmann 1976:20f.)

8 For Tournier, in terms of ‘the discovery of the person’, all the school of psychotherapy and Christian faith take the path of ’trusting relaxation of tension’ towards ‘abdication of self-constraint’. (Tournier 1957:224) Of course, they are not the same. For dealing with the compatibility between Christian faith and psychology (psychoanalysis), Tournier (1968) wrote another book A Place for You: Psychology and religion.

39


mask one’s true self but depending on one’s own effort does not due to one’s limited

capability and imperfectability. When one can abandon illusion about oneself in an open

friendship of grace, there is no shame and reality to hide or mask and the tension of

anxiety and self-accusation can be eased. Chart 5.1 demonstrateds a comparison

between the features of the path to the person displayed in Moltmann’s trinitarian

theological anthropology with the summary of Tournier’s paths to the person, the

revealing personage, and the contrastive personage (Tournier 1957:224) displayed in

Chart 2.2 in chapter two.

In Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology and Tournier’s paths to the

person and to the revealing personage, there are four of the six features, from, by way of,

for and resulting in (marked in shade), sharing their similarities. In Moltmann’s social

trinity, human beings being redeemed to become the imago Christi for the

eschatological glorification is a prominent feature. Therefore, comparing to Tournier’s

paths to the person or the revealing personage, Moltmann’s trinitarian theological

anthropology directs the path of the relational self to a more specific promised future,

namely reflecting the glory of God with unveiled face. This promised future of the

relational self is the eschatological destination of the true self recreated by God, where

the revealing personage becomes the person and the divine oughts becomes what the

true self intendwants, as illustrated in Diagram 5.9.

As mentioned in chapter two, Jung’s approach to individuation, in pursuing true

self, engages in highlighting the uniqueness of the individual’s natures. The human

relationships in the ways of his description to some extent like an imago trinitatis or

similar features of p erichōrēsis . He diversifies the individual’s unique peculiarity in the

universal collective solidarity, and fulfills the collective qualities of the human being in

the realization of the distinguishing characteristics of the individual. In terms of such an

individuation promoted by Jung, Moltmann’s relational trinitarian theological

anthropology evidently provides a more concrete foundation theologically and

practically than Jung does. Jung indeed tries to picture an ideal path to the true self. But

it is almost a self-individuation. Therefore, Tournier (1957:23) would criticize it as

‘only mechanisms of the mind’ psychologically that are mere ‘of the order of the

personage … [but] not of the person’. In Tournier’s eyes, Jung’s mechanisms are

similar as the studies of ‘all the physiological mechanisms of the body’. However,

Jung’s individuation in psychology and psychoanalytic therapy might substantiate

indirectly the implications of Moltmann’s relational trinitarian theological anthropology

in regard to the problem of masking.

40


4. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I will discern what presuppositions the development of Moltmann’s

Trinitarian Theological Anthropology is based on. And then I will conclude with the

implication of these for unmasking the true self and so explain Moltmann’s Paradigm

for unmasking the true self. As for their implication for PTRIC, we are going to discuss

in details in chapter six.

4.1 The Presuppositions of Moltmann’s Anthropology

Although I do not agree with Moltmann’s firm universalistic position and equivocal

stand on the condition of the imago Dei after the Fall of humankind, both of them are

not the presuppositions of Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology. According

to the above studies on Moltmann’s trinitarian theological anthropology, we can

summarize and list its presuppositions that predicate directly the knowledge of the self,

the definition of the self, the property of the self, and the transformation of the self.

They are relevant to the tendency of the behavioural custom of masking. These

presuppositions are as follows (P standing for presupposition; the relevance to the

concept of the self is indicated in the brackets in the end of each P):

P1: The Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, is the revelation from God and the

authority and source of Christian theology. Based on it, Moltmann’s trinitarian

theological anthropology is developed through his hermeneutics. (The knowledge of

the self: revealed by the Bible as the revelation from God)

P2: There is an omnipotent, omnipresent, and personal God who is the creator of all

things in the world, including humankind. Humankind is created by the creator God

in Their image and according to Their likeness. (The definition of the self: given by

the creator triune God)

P3: The creator God is a triune God: three intersubjective persons, the Father, the Son,

and the Spirit, united in Oneness through the perichoretic relationships. Humankind

is created is the image and likeness (the imago Dei) of God. The imago Dei includes

the imago Trinitatis, social likeness to God. (The property of the self: a relational

self)

41


P4: Humankind becomes the sinner after the Fall 1 and sin damages humankind’s

relationship to God so that sinner is a slave of sin. Through God’s grace in crucified

Christ, the sinner receives the imago Christi for the eschatological glorification (the

gloria Dei), and the promised future of the true self. (The transformation of the self:

toward a redeemed and promised future self by the salvation grace)

Diagram 5.10 The Relations of the Four Presuppositions of Moltmann’s Anthropology (The

direction of blue arrows is from the presupposed to the predicated.)

P2 is the direct presupposition of P3 and P4. And P1 is the direct presupposition of P2.

Their relations are illustrated in Diagram 5.10.

4.2 Moltmann’s Paradigm of Unmasking the True Self

In the last century, individualism (prevailing more in the Western countries) and

collectivism (dominating more in the Eastern countries) have been discussed more than

ever before. The problems on both sides are examined and criticized. It is in such a

context, Moltmann presents his trinitarian theological anthropology as a synthesis

between them. He purposes to prevent not only the self developed in individualism from

merely being separate and autonomous, but also the self developed in collectivism from

merely being soluble in relation. In suggesting a more balanced relational self, we can

see above that Moltmann’s explanations and arguments for trinitarian theological

anthropology not only displays points of great relevance in facing the tendency of social

1 Notably, Moltmann (1993:51, 128), on the one hand in following Christian tradition, recognizes the condition of humankind was changed after the Fall. (Moltmann 1967:71; 1974:187; 1985:233; 1996:17; 2007:117; 2010:68) But he (2007:115–30), on the other hand, criticizes the general interpretation of the Fall as a potential misleading trap for an open and eschatological doctrine of creation because history in this way ‘only begins with the Fall’, instead of creation, and ‘ends with the restoration of creation in redemption’.

42


imposition and thus a imposed relational self, but also can be suggested as a possible

positive solution for the tendency of the problem of masking.

The paradigm of relational selfhood presented by Moltmann might be applied to

facing both the problems of collectivism and individualism. This is, according to

Moltmann’s interpretation, because one’s identity obtains confidence through: (1) one is

the imago Dei as the source of the self by creation; (2) the imago Christi as the

reconciled and redeemed self by messianic grace; (3) the imago Trinitatis as the

relational self by fellowship; and (4) the gloria Dei as the promised future self by

gracious moral cultivation. Due to the reality of sin after the Fall, human beings cannot

transform themselves in order to attain the imago Dei. In this predicament, gracious

moral cultivation through the imago Christi is evidently the promised way to liberate

them from hiding their true selves, namely the way to unmask the true self. Such a

relational self in trinitarian theological anthropology is developed in the open Trinity

and strengthened in the open friendship (community of grace) so that one does need to

sacrifice one’s own individuality and also value others’ individuality in a perichoretic

kind of unity with the others.

Besides the relational self is created in the imago Dei, Moltmann in his trinitarian

theological anthropology highlights both the restoration of individual personal

relationships to God after the Fall through the imago Christi for attaining our true

personhood, and the provision of the trinitarian perichoral relationship as a prototype for

interpersonal relationship in a community of grace through the imago Trinitatis of the

open Trinity.

The self in such a community of grace, a fellowship of open friendship is based on

the imago Christi so that each human’s identity comes from the imago Christi by free

and unmerited grace only. Only when the self and the community can be transformed

together in God’s grace, the true self, the unique self within, is possible to be

experienced and become unveiled without a mask to hide any more. The liberation of

such a relational self from ‘the pressure of the world’ is based on one’s ‘intimacy with

God’ (Charry 1998:106) .

The loss of self in human beings results from both collectivism and individualism

as indicated above. In terms of it, the open friendship in Moltmann’s trinitarian

theological anthropology does not appeal to either collectivism or individualism. It

locates the imago Christi as the source of the self. The free and unmerited grace directs

the path to attain the goal of the humanity, namely g loria Dei est h omo (the future of

self). The true self is contextualized in the community of grace. In this context, there is

43


no insecurity of failing to win recognition from God, as well as from others and even

one’s self. For there is no need for the self to pretend to perform good enough to acquire

one’s self security. Moltmann’s imago Christi in trinitarian theological anthropology

deepens Touriner’s understanding of the person as a ‘true self’ in Christ.

Some criticisms from aspects of Christian theology have been discussed in 3.1. As

indicated above, some of them are based on misunderstanding or overlooking

Moltmann’s whole arguments. Although I do not agree with Moltmann’s firm

universalistic position and equivocal stand on the condition of the imago Dei after the

Fall of humankind, both of them are not the presuppositions of Moltmann’s trinitarian

theological anthropology so that they will not affect the relevance of Moltmann’s

trinitarian theological anthropology to the problem of masking and its implication on

the issue of social imposition. Therefore, in my comparison between Tu’s with

Moltmann’s paradigm in the next chapter I will suggest Moltmann’s paradigm of

relational selfhood shaped by trinitarian theological anthropology as an alternative for a

paradigm shift (or modification reference) of relational selfhood in the PTRIC context.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Augustine 2002 The Trinity Washington, DC: Catholic University of America

Balswick, Jack O; King, Pamela Ebstyne & Reimer, Kevin S 2005 The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective Downers Grove: IVP Academic

Barth, Karl 1958 Church Dogmatics, Vol. IV The doctrine of reconciliation, Part. 2 Online edn Edinburgh: T & T Clark

　 1963 The Doctrine of the Word of God : (Prolegomena to Church Dogmatics, being vol. I, part I) Edinburgh: T & T Clark

Bates, Dana 2012 ‘Introducing Staniloae’s Trinitarian Theology [E-mail] (Personal communication, 6 November 2012)’

Bauckham, Richard 2005 ‘Jürgen Moltmann’ in FD Ford & R Muers eds. 2005 The Modern Theologians: An introduction to Christian theology since 1918 Malden: Blackwell: 147–62

Bellinger, Charles K 2010 The Trinitarian Self: The Key to the Puzzle of Violence Cambridge: James Clarke & Co

Bochner, Stephen 1994 ‘Cross-Cultural Differences in the Self Concept A Test of Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism Distinction’ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 25/2:273–283

Boff, Leonardo 1988 Trinity and Society Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates

44


Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 1997 Creation and Fall; Temptation: Two biblical studies New York: Touchstone

Bracken, Joseph A 1998 ‘Toward a New Philosophical Theology Based on Intersubjectivity’ Theological Studies 59/4:703–19

Charry, Ellen T 1998 ‘The Crisis of Modernity and the Christian Self’ in M Volf ed. 1998 A Passion for God’s Reign: Theology, Christian learning and the Christian self Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 89–112

Grenz, Stanley 1997 The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics Leicster: Apollos

　 2001 The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei Louisville: Westminster John Knox

Gunton, Colin E 2003 The Promise of Trinitarian Theology 2nd edn Edinburgh: T&T Clark Int’l

Heine, Heinrich 1882 The Romantic School English edn Trans. by SL Fleishman New York; Oxford: Henry Holt and Company

Henry, Carl FH 1999 God, Revelation, and Authority, Volume II Wheaton, IL: Crossway

Jansen, Henry 1994 Relationality and the Concept of God Amsterdam; Atlanta: Editions Rodopi B.V.

Jeroncic, Ante 2008 A peaceable logic of self-integration: Juergen Moltmann’s theological anthropology and the postmodern self Microform edn Ann Arbor: ProQuest

Kaiser, Christopher B 2001 The Doctrine of God: A historical survey Revised edn Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti 2011 ‘The Trinitarian Doctrines of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg in the Context of Contemporary Discussion’ in PC Phan ed. 2011 The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University: 223–42

Kim, Byunghoon 2002 ‘Tritheism and Divine Person as Center of Consciousness with a Comparative Appraisal of Jurgen Moltmann and William Hill as Test Cases’ Ph.D., Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary

Lin, Honghsin 林鴻信 (p. Lín Hóngxìn) 2010 ‘Point and Line: Uniqueness and relationality applied in “self” and “others” in the cross-cultural dialogue’ Taiwan Journal of East Asian Studies 7/2:25–47

Lossky, Vladimir 2001 In the Image and Likeness of God New edn JH Erickson & TE Bird eds. New York: St Vladimirs Seminary

McDougall, Joy Ann 2003 ‘The Return of Trinitarian Praxis? Moltmann on the Trinity and the Christian Life’ The Journal of Religion 83/2:177–203

45


Moltmann, Jürgen 1967 Theology of Hope: On the ground and the implications of a Christian eschatology 1st U.S. edn London: SCM

　 1974 The Crucified God: The cross of Christ as the foundation and criticism of Christian theology New York: Harper & Row

　 1976 Man: Christian anthropology in the conflicts of the present Philadelphia: Fortress

　 1977 The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A contribution to messianic ecclesiology London: SCM

　 1978 The Open Church: Invitation to a messianic life-style London: SCM

　 1981 The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The doctrine of God London: SCM

　 1985 God in Creation: A new theology of creation and the Spirit of God London: SCM

　 1989 Creating a Just Future: The politics of peace and the ethics of creation in a threatened world London: SCM

　 1992a History and the Triune God: Contributions to trinitarian theology New York: Crossroad

　 1992b The Spirit of Life: A universal affirmation Minneapolis: Fortress

　 1993 The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in messianic dimensions Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

　 1994 Jesus Christ for Today’s World Minneapolis: Fortress

　 1996 The Coming of God: Christian eschatology London: SCM

　 1998 ‘Christianity and the Revaluation of the Values of Modernity and of the Western World’ in M Volf ed. 1998 A Passion for God’s Reign: Theology, Christian learning and the Christian self Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans: 23–43

　 1999 God for a Secular Society: The public relevance of theology London: SCM

　 2000 Experiences in Theology Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress

　 2003 Science and Wisdom Fortress

　 2004 In the End-The Beginning: The life of hope Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

　 2007 The Future of Creation: Collected essays Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

　 2008 [Moltmann] Lùn Zhōngguó Wénhuà 《莫特曼論中國文化》 (Jürgen

Moltmann on Chinese Culture) Hong Kong: Jīdào (基道)

　 2009a A Broad Place: An autobiography Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

46


　 2009b ‘The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit: Trinitarian Pneumatology’ Scottish Journal of Theology 37/3:287

　 2010 Sun of righteousness, arise!: God’s future for humanity and the earth Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press

Moseley, Romney M 1991 Becoming a Self Before God: Critical transformations Nashville: Abingdon

O’Donnell, John J 1982 ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity in Recent German Theology’ The Heythrop Journal 23/2:153–67

Otto, Randall E 2009 ‘The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology’ Scottish Journal of Theology 54/3:366–84

Pannenberg, Wolfhart 2004 Systematic Theology, Volume 1 London; New York: T&T Clark International

Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr 1988 ‘The Perfect Family’ Christianity Today 32/4:24–7

　 1989 ‘Social Trinity and Tritheism’ in RJ Feenstra & Cornelius, Jr. Plantinga eds. 1989 Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and theological essays Notre Dame: Univ of Notre Dame: 21–47

Rahner, Karl 1970 The Trinity Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates

Rogers, Carl R 1961 On Becoming a Person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Shults, F LeRon 2003 Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the philosophical turn to relationality Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Staniloae, Dumitru 1998 Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The Experience of God, Vol. 1: Revelation and Knowledge of the Triune God Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox

Tournier, Paul 1957 The Meaning of Persons Translated from French by E Hudson London: SCM

　 1968 A Place for You: Psychology and religion Translated from French by E Hudson London: SCM

Triandis, Harry C 1989 ‘The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.’ Psychological Review 96/3:506–520

Triandis, Harry C; Brislin, Richard & Hui, C Harry 1988 ‘Cross-Cultural Training Across the Individualism-Collectivism Divide’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12/3:269–289

Wang, Wenji 王文基 (p.Wáng Wénjī) 2005 ‘Kāifàng Yǒuyìshì Jiāohuì — Lùn

[Moltmann] duì jiāohuì shēnfèn zhī shénxué guānhuái 〈開放友誼式教會 — 論莫特曼對教會身分之神學關懷〉 (The Church in Open Friendship: On Moltmann’s Theological Concerns about the Identiy of Church)’ Shénxué yǔ Jiāohuì 《神學與教會》 (Theology and Church) 30/1:102–125

47


White, James R 1998 The Forgotten Trinity Minneapolis: Bethany House

Williams, Stephen N 2003 ‘Jürgen Moltmann: A critical introduction’ in P Duce, D Strange, & D Mcleod eds. 2003 Getting Your Bearings: Engaging with Contemporary Theologians Leicester: Apollos: 75–124

Zavershinsky, George 2011 ‘The Trinitarian ‘Trace’ and the Divine Energies’ International Journal of Orthodox Theology 2/2:97–111

Augustine 2002 The Trinity Washington, DC: Catholic University of America

Balswick, Jack O; King, Pamela Ebstyne & Reimer, Kevin S 2005 The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective Downers Grove: IVP Academic

Barth, Karl

1958 Church Dogmatics, Vol. IV The doctrine of reconciliation, Part. 2 Online edn Edinburgh: T & T Clark

　1963 The Doctrine of the Word of God : (Prolegomena to Church Dogmatics, being vol. I, part I) Edinburgh: T & T Clark

Bates, Dana 2012 ‘Introducing Staniloae’s Trinitarian Theology [E-mail] (Personal communication, 6 November 2012)’

Bauckham, Richard 2005 ‘Jürgen Moltmann’ in FD Ford & R Muers eds. 2005 The Modern Theologians: An introduction to Christian theology since 1918 Malden: Blackwell: 147–62

Bellinger, Charles K 2010 The Trinitarian Self: The Key to the Puzzle of Violence Cambridge: James Clarke & Co

Bochner, Stephen 1994 ‘Cross-Cultural Differences in the Self Concept A Test of Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism Distinction’ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 25/2:273–283

Boff, Leonardo 1988 Trinity and Society Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 1997 Creation and Fall; Temptation: Two biblical studies New York: Touchstone

Bracken, Joseph A 1998 ‘Toward a New Philosophical Theology Based on Intersubjectivity’ Theological Studies 59/4:703–19

Charry, Ellen T 1998 ‘The Crisis of Modernity and the Christian Self’ in M Volf ed. 1998 A Passion for God’s Reign: Theology, Christian learning and the Christian self Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 89–112

Grenz, Stanley

1997 The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics Leicster: Apollos

　2001 The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei Louisville: Westminster John Knox

48


Gunton, Colin E 2003 The Promise of Trinitarian Theology 2nd edn Edinburgh: T&T Clark Int’l

Heine, Heinrich 1882 The Romantic School English edn Trans. by SL Fleishman New York; Oxford: Henry Holt and Company

Henry, Carl FH 1999 God, Revelation, and Authority, Volume II Wheaton, IL: Crossway

Jansen, Henry 1994 Relationality and the Concept of God Amsterdam; Atlanta: Editions Rodopi B.V.

Jeroncic, Ante 2008 A peaceable logic of self-integration: Juergen Moltmann’s theological anthropology and the postmodern self Microform edn Ann Arbor: ProQuest

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti 2011 ‘The Trinitarian Doctrines of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg in the Context of Contemporary Discussion’ in PC Phan ed. 2011 The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University: 223–42

Kim, Byunghoon 2002 ‘Tritheism and Divine Person as Center of Consciousness with a Comparative Appraisal of Jurgen Moltmann and William Hill as Test Cases’ Ph.D Thesis, Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary

Lin, Honghsin 林鴻信 (p. Lín Hóngxìn) 2010 ‘Point and Line: Uniqueness and relationality applied in “self” and “others” in the cross-cultural dialogue’ Taiwan Journal of East Asian Studies 7/2:25–47

Lossky, Vladimir 2001 In the Image and Likeness of God New edn JH Erickson & TE Bird eds. New York: St Vladimirs Seminary

McDougall, Joy Ann 2003 ‘The Return of Trinitarian Praxis? Moltmann on the Trinity and the Christian Life’ The Journal of Religion 83/2:177–203

Moltmann, Jürgen

1967 Theology of Hope: On the ground and the implications of a Christian eschatology 1st U.S. edn London: SCM

　 1974 The Crucified God: The cross of Christ as the foundation and criticism of Christian theology New York: Harper & Row

　 1976 Man: Christian anthropology in the conflicts of the present Philadelphia: Fortress

　1977 The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A contribution to messianic ecclesiology London: SCM

　1978 The Open Church: Invitation to a messianic life-style London: SCM

　1981 The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The doctrine of God London: SCM

49


　1985 God in Creation: A new theology of creation and the Spirit of God London: SCM

　1989 Creating a Just Future: The politics of peace and the ethics of creation in a threatened world London: SCM

　1992a History and the Triune God: Contributions to trinitarian theology New York: Crossroad

　1992b The Spirit of Life: A universal affirmation Minneapolis: Fortress

　1993 The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in messianic dimensions Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

　1994 Jesus Christ for Today’s World Minneapolis: Fortress

　1996 The Coming of God: Christian eschatology London: SCM

　 1998 ‘Christianity and the Revaluation of the Values of Modernity and of the Western World’ in M Volf ed. 1998 A Passion for God’s Reign: Theology, Christian learning and the Christian self Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans: 23–43

　1999 God for a Secular Society: The public relevance of theology London: SCM

　2000 Experiences in Theology Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress

　2003 Science and Wisdom Fortress

　2004 In the End-The Beginning: The life of hope Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

　2007 The Future of Creation: Collected essays Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

　 2008 [Moltmann] Lùn Zhōngguó Wénhuà 《莫特曼論中國文化》 (Jürgen

Moltmann on Chinese Culture) Hong Kong: Jīdào (基道)

　2009a A Broad Place: An autobiography Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

　 2009b ‘The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit: Trinitarian Pneumatology’ Scottish Journal of Theology 37/3:287

　 2010 Sun of righteousness, arise!: God’s future for humanity and the earth Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press

Moseley, Romney M 1991 Becoming a Self Before God: Critical transformations Nashville: Abingdon

O’Donnell, John J 1982 ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity in Recent German Theology’ The Heythrop Journal 23/2:153–67

Otto, Randall E 2009 ‘The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology’ Scottish Journal of Theology 54/3:366–84

Pannenberg, Wolfhart 2004 Systematic Theology, Volume 1 London; New York: T&T Clark International

50


Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr

1988 ‘The Perfect Family’ Christianity Today 32/4:24–7

　1989 ‘Social Trinity and Tritheism’ in RJ Feenstra & Cornelius, Jr. Plantinga eds. 1989 Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and theological essays Notre Dame: Univ of Notre Dame: 21–47

Rahner, Karl 1970 The Trinity Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates

Rogers, Carl R 1961 On Becoming a Person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Shults, F LeRon 2003 Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the philosophical turn to relationality Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Staniloae, Dumitru 1998 Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The Experience of God, Vol. 1: Revelation and Knowledge of the Triune God Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox

Tournier, Paul

1957 The Meaning of Persons Translated from French by E Hudson London: SCM

　1968 A Place for You: Psychology and religion Translated from French by E Hudson London: SCM

Triandis, Harry C 1989 ‘The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.’ Psychological Review 96/3:506–520

Triandis, Harry C; Brislin, Richard & Hui, C Harry 1988 ‘Cross-Cultural Training Across the Individualism-Collectivism Divide’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12/3:269–289

Wang, Wenji 王文基 (p.Wáng Wénjī) 2005 ‘Kāifàng Yǒuyìshì Jiāohuì — Lùn

[Moltmann] duì jiāohuì shēnfèn zhī shénxué guānhuái 〈開放友誼式教會 — 論莫特曼對教會身分之神學關懷〉’ (The Church in Open Friendship: On Moltmann’s Theological Concerns about the Identiy of Church) Shénxué yǔ Jiāohuì 《神學與教會》 (Theology and Church) 30/1:102–125

White, James R 1998 The Forgotten Trinity Minneapolis: Bethany House

Williams, Stephen N 2003 ‘Jürgen Moltmann: A critical introduction’ in P Duce, D Strange, & D Mcleod eds. 2003 Getting Your Bearings: Engaging with Contemporary Theologians Leicester: Apollos: 75–124

Zavershinsky, George 2011 ‘The Trinitarian ‘Trace’ and the Divine Energies’ International Journal of Orthodox Theology 2/2:97–111

51

The Paradigm of Relational Selfhood Shaped by Social Trinitarian Anthropology: A study of Jürgen...

Documents

Transcript of The Paradigm of Relational Selfhood Shaped by Social Trinitarian Anthropology: A study of Jürgen...