In the first half of the book Soulen stated his premise in the introduction and then went into a broad sweep of the history of Christian thought from the Bible (kind of) until the modern day. He primarily focused on representative thinkers through different epochs, namely the Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius, Augustine, Thomas, Luther, Barth, Robert Jenson, and Elizabeth Johnson. Having arrived at the end he restates his premise and gives a hint that the next part will be more constructive than descriptive. I wish he had done it the other way around.
His basic premise is that there exists a three-fold pattern of naming the persons of the Trinity in the history of Christian thought. The first, which he dubs a theological pattern, is based on reference to the Tetragrammaton. The second, the christological pattern, is based on the male kinship relations Father, Son and Holy Spirit and is thus called christological because it is based upon the specific existence of the human Jesus. The third pattern, called the pneumatological pattern, is based on a multiplicity of names that are context-specific coming out of the Holy Spirit's outpouring on Pentecost. Soulen outlines these patterns in the introduction/first chapter.
In the second chapter, Soulen attempts to show how the first pattern is evident through the nomina sacra, a group of terms that were given a special orthography in antiquity. Very early on, Jewish scribes began using special orthography for the name of the Tetragrammaton. New Testament scribes took on this practice when composing and copying the New Testament writings, but instead of using special orthography for the Tetragrammaton alone, they also applied the practice to Jesus, Christ, Spirit, etc. Soulen argues that this was perhaps the earliest creed of the church and visually argued not only the divinity of Christ, but also God's Trinitarian nature. Soulen then argues that the pattern and creeds formed by the nomina sacra can be seen copied into the Nicene Creed.
In the chapters that follow, Soulen argues that immediately following Nicea and Constantinople, the first pattern of naming the Trinity was dropped. He then goes through an expansive historical-theological outline in order to show how we have arrived at the current modern debate over inclusive language in naming God. While these chapters serve as an impressive primer in Trinitarian theology, I feel that another way of organizing the book would have allowed Soulen's argument to function better.
At this point, halfway through the book, Soulen has set up a methodology for Trinitarian naming. However, at this point, halfway through the book, that methodology seems relatively trivial. He has not built a case for why this three-fold pattern of naming is more true to Scripture, the historic Christian witness, or will help mitigate current ecclesial and theological debates. The reader assumes and anticipates Soulen will do this at some point. Yet when critiquing the vast history of Christian thought it is best to have your alternative already in place.
Ultimately, Soulen is asking us to trust him. Essentially, right now Soulen has built a case for a three fold pattern of Trinitarian naming based off of an esoteric pattern of writing a few words and one particular way of reading the Nicene Creed. The special orthography, which to this point is the only thing he has to build his case, was so ubiquitous that by the late 4th and early 5th century, the Bishops of the church had no idea it existed. All the giants of the Christian church (Augustine, Thomas, Calvin, Luther, Barth, Anselm, Gregory, etc.) are all said to be in error and the only thing there to convince us is orthography.
This is not to say that Soulen is wrong or that his thesis will ultimately prove without merit. In fact, I imagine the second half of the book constructs a wonderful argument for his proposed three-fold naming system that will help mediate current ecclesial debate as well as allowing theology to be more true to Scripture. Elizabeth Johnson herself calls the book "One of the best books on naming God in years" so on that recommendation alone there is hope. However, I wish Soulen had done the constructive work up front. That way we would have in mind a fully developed three-fold naming pattern when judging and critiquing the tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment