Nearly forty years ago, Ronald Goetz famously dubbed theological passibilism the ‘new orthodoxy’. Though a rhetorical overstatement, neoclassical theisms are here to stay, and they continue to galvanise more traditional theologians in (often) constructive ways. Jacqueline Service’s Triune Well-Being is an example of the latter, seeking to (re)claim the language of divine dynamism and systematise it in robust balance with an ecumenical Trinitarianism.
Service’s core theological dictum is ‘God enriching God in the perfection and fullness of God’ (p. xvii). The demonstration of this dictum’s plausibility and significance, over and against the ostensible ‘crypto-Hegelianism’ that Service sees widespread throughout contemporary theology, is hinged on another core notion, that of ‘kenotic-enrichment’. Service strives to render these terms, kenosis and enrichment, in such a way that they coherently apply to the eternal, simple immutable life of the triune God. Again, this is ambitious, for kenosis, on its face, speaks of self-emptying, a movement of depletion, and enrichment, prima facie, indicates increase or amplification. Taken at the level of ordinary language, both emptying and enrichment throw an array of monkey wrenches into the gears of classical theism.
But Service recognises the challenge and gamely tackles it via her expositional defense of ‘the logic of divine self-enrichment’ (p. 1). She first expends considerable effort on the unity-and-diversity of the Godhead. This effort, however, is not primarily aimed at debunking varied forms of social trinitarianism but rather in positing the value of perichoresis and grappling with the well-known charge from Karen Kilby regarding human projection in such frameworks. The circumnavigation of Kilby is only partially successful, for Service suggests that human projection can be avoided by ‘interpreting the biblical depictions of the relating activity of the divine persons’ (p. 7), but the chapter does not proceed to offer any clear exegetical demonstration of how this might be done, nor how the given hermeneutic would guard itself against projectionist tendencies. This sort of issue recurs in early sections, with Service making strong appeals to scripture’s usefulness for her position but not delivering specific biblical references or reasoning (see, e.g., pp. xii-xiv, 7-8, 18-21).
Having asserted divinity’s immanent relationality, Service next ensures its priority over the divine relation to the created order. She presents Molnar’s trinitarian reasoning as a corrective to more neoclassical models (such as LaCugna’s), asserting that ‘divine distinction from creation is the theological basis to uphold God’s profound relationality with creation’ (p. 12). The models of relational theists and panentheists, wherein God’s love seemingly requires the otherness of creation to fully express itself, are accused of modal collapse, and an emphasis on radical divine freedom is maintained in a Barthian register.
The remainder of Part 1 brings the polemic against neoclassical theisms to a mixed crescendo. Simplicity (along with aseity) is lauded, reliant on James Dolezal and Thomas Weinandy, and immutability (along with impassibility) is definitionally expressed as ‘God cannot be affected by anything’ (p. 33, quoting Richard Creel). Just a few lines later, however, Service reiterates her commitment to ‘map the logic of a doctrine of God’ that is ‘profoundly relationally dynamic’ (p. 33). Further discussion on the analytical consistency between ‘immutability’ and what is necessarily entailed by the definitional meanings of ‘relational’ and ‘dynamic’ would have been welcome here.
Service is clear that she wants to guard against any implication of ‘divine deficiency’, and simplicity is chosen as the classical attribute most worthy of extended logical and historical argumentation, providing an engaging exploration on the reception of simplicity in the incarnational and trinitarian reflections of the patristic period, Nicholas of Cusa, and Barth. Throughout Part 1, neoclassical thinkers are presented as largely confused and illogical.
Part 2 commences a thematic tour of Bulgakov, Pannenberg and Balthasar, and it is here that the book shines brightest. Each thinker is accorded a detailed examination of their dynamically framed trinitarian metaphysics, alongside their concerns for history and the divine economy. Most uniquely, the deployment of intra-trinitarian kenosis in each thinker is detailed with impressive clarity and comparative insight. Service is aware that custodians of tradition have lambasted each of her ecumenical representatives for various dimensions of their trinitarian programs, and she presents a nuanced handling of the requisite critiques. Bulgakov’s divine Sophia is found to be self-sufficient, despite his inconsistency in speaking about it; Pannenberg’s eschatology serves as a ‘harmonizing principle’ against his alleged Hegelianism; and Balthasar’s problematic positing of eternal intra-divine distance (Abstand) is understood as lyrical, rather than systematic. Despite the many high points of Part 2, one does get the impression of special pleading in these cases, especially when measured against Service’s earlier and less-nuanced denunciations of figures like Moltmann.
Part 3, the shortest of the book, gestures towards the praxiological implications of trinitarian kenotic enrichment for Christian living. Here, Service draws on sensibilities related to her work in international aid and development, presenting compelling insights on topics like ‘Free and Volitional Gift and Receipt’ and ‘Equal Being in Mutual Dependency’. This turn to praxis is needed, refreshing and compelling.
Triune Well-Being has much to commend it. In terms of broader patterns of theological effort, it is a clear example of self-conscious and constructive classical theism, reacting to neoclassical paradigms and attempting to reclaim important dimensions of theological discourse. Part 2 presents nuanced and salutary readings of three deeply influential figures. And its concluding motions towards an imitatio Trinitatis are bracing, acknowledging the limitations of mapping our action to God’s inner life while also sagaciously noting: ‘Limitation does not equate to fruitlessness’ (p. 146).
