Academic literature on the topic 'Economic trinity'

AbstractTheologians have recently been criticizing the notion of an immanent Trinity as idle speculation and focusing their attention exclusively on the economic Trinity. The change thus proposed is at once too radical and not radical enough. It is too radical in that it seems to set aside almost two thousand years of careful theological reflection on the reality of God as derived from Scripture and Tradition. It is not radical enough in that it does not grasp the deeper issues involved here. For, what is really needed is not a move away from ontology toward phenomenology, but rather a conscious shift in ontologies, a move, in other words, from a metaphysics of being to a metaphysics of becoming as the appropriate conceptuality for an understanding both of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the God-world relationship.

Although Apponius’ Expositio in Canticum Canticorum refers directly to one of the books of the Old Testament, by dint of the allegorical exegesis used by it’s author, we can find there many New Testament subjects and theological problems. It also contains knowledge about the Holy Trinity. In the article there were used quotations about the Holy Trinity (from books I-III), one can find either the very noun “Trinity” (Trinitas) or individual Persons in the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son and the Spirit, yet having relations with each other. In the first part of the article there were analyzed attributes, which are used by Apponius to describe the nature of the Holy Trinity: inseparabilis, individua, coaeterna Trinitas. The speci­fied attributes of the Holy Trinity get to the core of the Christian dogma about God and combine with the faith and baptism. God is one, indivisible, acting with a one divine power, but eternally existing in three Persons. In the second part of the article, the relations occurring in the Trinity were presented. Apponius’ Trinitas is the three Persons in God: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Persons in the Trinity are in two kinds of relations: occurring between the Persons of the Holy Trinity (the immanent Trinity) and going beyond the Trinity into the world and human beings (the economic Trinity). Apponius using the language of symbols, metaphors and analogies, reminds the fundamental truths about God. By descrip­tion of the attributes of the Holy Trinity he emphasizes the unity of God, and by the description of the relations – the trinity of the Persons.

Abstrak: Artikel ini menguraikan penggunaan konsep teologis “Trinitas sosial” oleh empat teolog yang secara khusus menyoroti isu-isu ekonomi. Secara umum para teolog itu menyatakan bahwa teologi ekonomik yang berdasarkan “Trinitas sosial” menolak model ekonomi individualistik yang memertaruhkan komunitas. Mereka memberi gambaran yang berbeda-beda tentang model ekonomi yang layak ditolak itu. Meeks dan Boff melihat praktik ekonomi pasar yang berlaku saat ini maupun praktik ekonomi sosialis yang pernah dijalankan di negara-negara komunis sebagai wujud-wujud dari model ekonomi semacam itu. Novak menolak praktik sosialisme dan memandang kapitalisme yang bersifat demokratik sebagai model ekonomi yang trinitaris. Higginson menilai model ekonomi yang individualistik itu tersirat dalam “etos Protestan”nya Max Weber dan seringkali tercermin dalam cara pengelolaan perusahaan. Saya melanjutkan teologi ekonomik yang berdasarkan Trinitas Sosial itu dengan menjadikan secara spesifik keluarga sebagai wujud konkret komunitas. Saya berpendapat bahwa “Trinitas keluarga” dapat menjadi dasar bagi pengembangan teologi ekonomik yang responsif terhadap konteks ekonomi Indonesia dan Asia pada umumnya, di mana keluarga menjadi bukan hanya model hubungan sosial tetapi juga acuan etis.
 Kata-kata Kunci: Trinitas sosial, teologi ekonomik, ekonomi kekeluargaan.
 Abstract: This article explores the use of the theological concept of “social Trinity” by four theologians focusing on economic issues. In general, those theologians suggest that the concept of “social Trinity” implies an economic theology resisting the individualistic economy model, which puts the community at stake. They disagree on which economic system exactly they consider worth rejecting. For Meeks and Boff, that economic model includes both the existing market economy and socialism as had been practiced in the communist countries. Novak rejects the economic system of socialist countries whilst insisting that “democratic capitalism” is consistently Trinitarian. Higginson argues that the individualistic economy is implied in Weber’s “Protestant ethic” and often reflected in the management of corporations. Subscribing to the economic theology based on “social Trinity,” and, at the same time, responding specifically to the characteristics of the Indonesian context, I suggest the family as a concrete form of community. I argue that “familial Trinity” would serve as a foundation for developing an economic theology in response to the situation of Indonesian economy and Asian economy in general, where the family is not only a model of social relations, but also an ethical reference.
 Keywords: Social Trinity, economic theology, familial economy.

AbstractThis article focuses on one of the main issues in the contemporary trinitarian renaissance, viz. the relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity. It takes its starting-point in what is labeled 'the classic model' as shared by both the Eastern and the Western church. The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic Trinity. It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians, viz. John Calvin and Herman Bavinck. Next, the 'model of the new theology of the cross' is introduced, as represented by Eberhard Jüngel and Jürgen Moltmann. Especially Moltmann's innovative proposals are critically discussed. Characteristic of this second model is that the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred. Third, it is argued that Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model, which leaves us with only the economic Trinity. Although both of these contemporary models have their attractions, it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model.

Despite the renaissance of trinitarian reflection during the last half-century of Christian theology, the doctrine of the immanent Trinity – God's triune being in se as distinct from God's acts or operations ad extra – has suffered significant neglect. Following Karl Rahner's now famous axiom that ‘the “economic” Trinity is the “immanent” Trinity and the “immanent” Trinity is the “economic” Trinity’, contemporary theologians have focused primarily on the economy of salvation as the means by which God's triune being is known. Speculation about the inner life of God, abstracted from God's own self-revelation, has been eschewed for its tendency to turn the immanent Trinity into a rarified, esoteric doctrine with little influence on practical piety. Thus for most contemporary theologians, the neglect of the doctrine of the immanent Trinity is quite benign.

One of the major issues animating contemporary discussions of trinitarian theology is the relation between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. This article focuses on Karl Barth and Karl Rahner by explicating each position in terms of ontology and epistemology. Through a critical analysis of each position, this article shows that ontology and epistemology are intricately woven into each discussion on the immanent–economic Trinity relation, and goes further to show that a concept of divine mystery, though not univocally, is also intimately involved in each position, functioning to resolve certain ontological or epistemological tensions.