Persons in Relation: An Essay on the Trinity and Ontology

8. Correlation as Relationship Model in/with the World

8 Correlation as Relationship Model in/ with the World I. Relationality as a Reflection of “Unity-in-SelfDifferentiation ” In the previous two chapters, I showed that contemporary theology offers a co-relational model representing a balanced interaction between theology and forms of epistemological inquiry that can maintain the integrity and particularity of both. This form of correlation says that: 1) theology should acknowledge the importance of interacting with other disciplines in a way that maintains its own distinctive identity. And, 2) this interaction should not be limited to exclusive self-communication, but should reach an interdisciplinary level, in which both disciplines follow a “unity-in-distinction” form of correspondence. In this final chapter, I will apply this correlational model to the case study discussed in the previous chapter around the trinitarian work of W. Pannenberg and J. Moltmann. The logic that underlies the interdisciplinary correlation between theology and the secular condition, which I traced in F. Watson and H. Frei in chapter six, is similar to the logic that underlies the “unity-in-differentiation” paradigm of the trinitarian ontology of personhood, as seen in the discussion of Moltmann and Pannenberg in the previous chapter. This similarity is an obvious support of the conviction that “everything looks different in the light of the Trinity.”1 I believe that the trinitarian hermeneutics of “person” and “relation” offers to the debate on the proper relationship between theology and other forms of intellectual conditions the following relevant point: the relation between theology and other intellectual conditions is not per se an originator of the theological message. The content, the language, and the thought-form of theological discourse (i.e., the characteristics that are expressive of its identity) 1. Colin Gunton, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 28. 291 are not in the first place, or exclusively, the outcome of its interaction with other fields of knowledge. To the contrary, the relation with other disciplines should shed light on the self-distinction of theology and should help maintain its integrity. The identity of theology is grounded in its communal existence with other intellectual discourses. Theology does not become a follower but a partner in the interdisciplinary correlation created with other fields of knowledge. As the relationships between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit do not dissolve their distinct personhood, but reflect their distinction instead, the relation between God and the human (and, therefore, between the knowledge of God [theo-logy] and human knowledge of the self) does not dissolve their distinct personhood and does not reduce any of them to mere expressions of interactivity. And, as the relation with humanity cannot be the originator of God’s being, the relation between the study of God and secular theories of knowledge should not deny theology’s self-differentiation and integrity, which derives from the subject matter itself. If the triune God is the theological criterion of the real meaning of relationality and otherness, the distinction between “being” and “action” in the Godhead should be criterial of the right relation between: 1) human personhood and relational actions, and 2) most importantly, between theology and other intellectual conditions expressive of postmodernity. In this chapter, I will end my study with a further examination of J. Moltmann and W. Pannenberg. After discussing their trinitarian thinking in the light of the “unity-in-differentiation” model of correlationality, I will look at their understanding of the correlation between theology and other forms of intellectual inquiry. In their understanding of this correlation, I see a valid application of what H. Frei and F. Watson call for in their interdisciplinary approach to theological knowledge. In the work of Moltmann and Pannenberg, I see a valid and tenable proposal for rethinking the relationship between theology and postmodernity, not only with regard to the implementation of the notions of “personhood” and “relationality” for understanding God’s nature and human nature, but also with regard to all other common subjects and concerns that may relate theology to our contemporary intellectual condition(s). II. Standing Firmly, Yet Openly before the World In his doctrine of the Trinity, Moltmann states that the foundational framework of his trinitarian project is an endeavor to develop a social doctrine of the Trinity in opposition to models of the Trinity based upon notions of “substance” and “subject.” He justifies this by arguing that thinking about the 292 | Persons in Relation Trinity in terms other...