Identifying Idealist Influences
The German Idealists Georg W. F. Hegel and Friedrich W. J. von Schelling are two outstanding thinkers in the overall Greek-Western tradition of reflection on Trinity. Following upon Johan Gottlieb Fichte’s proposal to see subjectivity as triadic in structure, they each in his own way developed at great length philosophical readings of Trinity as movement of inclusive divine subjectivity. For Hegel that movement took on a more monosubjectival formulation and for Schelling a more intersubjectival structure. It has been rather widely accepted that they individually and together have significantly influenced many trinitarian thinkers who came after them.
Two previous, shorter studies have confirmed in an initial way that Idealist trinitarian thought, particularly that of Hegel and Schelling, has indeed had a considerable impact on much subsequent trinitarian thinking.1 These studies led to the discovery that we can document further and more closely such impact in several ways by reviewing in detail specific texts from selected trinitarian thinkers. We can as well note what these thinkers themselves have often enough written concerning Idealist trinitarian thought and recall remarks made by others regarding possible Idealist influence on their thought. We can, furthermore, more directly reflect on what these thinkers have said about Trinity, considering it in relation to and comparing it with what the Idealists had said. When we make such comparisons in the context of various indications of Idealist influence on the thinkers concerned, we can recognize and reasonably affirm specific cases of Idealist influence on their trinitarian thought.2
The present study brings together the results of further research and reflection concerning the German Idealist trinitarian legacy. In order properly to appreciate and evaluate these results it will be helpful first of all to present in somewhat more summary fashion particularly characteristic aspects of what Hegel and Schelling have in fact said about Trinity. This initial overview in part 1, combined with points concerning their trinitarian thought highlighted in the first part of the conclusion to the present study, will alert us to Idealist themes and approaches potentially influencing subsequent trinitarian thinkers. In this overview Schelling will require greater attention and, consequently, a slightly longer presentation than that on Hegel since Schelling’s trinitarian thought seems less well known, especially in the English-speaking world, than that of Hegel.
To confirm the existence of, and further identify, the overall Idealist trinitarian legacy it is not necessary and perhaps not desirable to aim at more or less comprehensive coverage of potentially relevant trinitarian thinkers following after the Idealists. Rather, I have found that an approach focusing on a number of selected thinkers who in their trinitarian thought exemplify Idealist influence has proven more useful. This approach can help us avoid, so to speak, missing the forest for the trees. For there is a certain, dare we say, elegance in economy. Such economy involves making an argument in relatively succinct fashion, a variant on Occam’s razor.3 In the present case, we of course need to work with a sufficient number of thinkers permitting us to argue to, and exemplify Idealist influence on, subsequent trinitarian thinking. And, naturally, selecting such thinkers who may be expected to reflect something of that legacy is quite a delicate task. It inevitably leaves room open for further discussion as to whom we should include and why we should include them. But that is, in a way, the beauty of scholarly research and writing. More generally stated, one makes an argument. Others make counter arguments. And in the process they come to a deeper insight. Perhaps, then, more important than any specific decision taken here about who is to be included in the study is the discussion these decisions may encourage, thus bringing to light further possible indications of Idealist influence on later trinitarian thought.
A fuller consideration of reasons for including certain thinkers in the present study will surely require noting what is said about their thought in the various chapters and in part 2 of the conclusion. But perhaps it will be helpful at this point to summarize my “due diligence” in deciding which trinitarian thinkers to include here. In a first step, the selection process began with reference to a doctoral seminar on the notion of the Trinity offered during the academic year 1997–98 at Claremont Graduate School, now University, by Prof. Dr. Ekkehard Mühlenberg, presently emeritus professor in Göttingen University. It continued with a review of material from undergraduate and graduate courses and seminars as well as doctoral seminars on Trinity I had offered over the years at Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Canada, and Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas. In a second step, these reviews led to the formulation of initial and then, over time, further developed selection criteria: (1) relatively direct access to the selected persons’ trinitarian thinking which is readily available in a clearly analyzable fashion; (2) in some way documentable identification of the influence of Idealist thought on these persons’ trinitarian thought; (3) at least for those in the nineteenth century, whether such persons may have played an identifiable role in the transmission of the Idealist trinitarian legacy; (4) for those in the twentieth century, whether they may have played an identifiable role in the transmission and further development of that legacy in a rigorously presented reading of Trinity; and (5) as a further consideration, whether persons could be chosen from earlier and later on in a given period of time being considered.
A third step consisted in actually selecting a number of trinitarian thinkers who might be expected to exemplify the influence of German Idealists on their thinking. A fourth step involved further reviewing potential candidates for consideration in preparation for a presentation on German Idealism’s trinitarian legacy as part of an international conference. The conference, on the impact of Idealism, was held at Magdalene College in Cambridge University during the fall of 2012. In the presentation I focused more specifically on three nineteenth-century European examples, namely, Philipp Marheineke from very early on in the century, Isaak August Dorner from later on in the same century, and Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov from later on in Eastern Europe. Though time did not permit the presentation on Solovyov, there seemed to be considerable support at the conference for including him along with Marheineke and Dorner. Choosing several trinitarian thinkers from twentieth-century Germany proved much more difficult, given the good number of great theologians there expressing an ever-increasing interest in Trinity.4 Finally I settled on Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, and Wolfhart Pannenberg as exemplifying, on one hand, respectively earlier, middle, and later twentieth-century trinitarian thought and, on the other, many and perhaps most of the different forms which Idealist influence took in twentieth-century German trinitarian thought.5 At the conference various participants expressed general acceptance of the selection of these three. And no recommendations were made to include further post-Idealist European thinkers among the six included or at least referred to in the presentation. I took these reactions to be encouraging confirmation of the reasonable viability of the initial selection, while realizing one could always consider further possible examples of Idealist influence. Such is in fact the nature of decision and choice. In a post-conference fifth step, it seemed important to include as well several American examples of trinitarian thinkers influenced directly or indirectly by Idealist thought: Robert W. Jenson; Catherine Mowry LaCugna; Joseph A. Bracken; and, my own more modestly developed thought.
The trinitarian thinkers here included often occupy strategic positions within the developing German Idealist trinitarian legacy and usually provide rather impressive and creative, rigorously constructed understandings of Trinity. They have been selected from many who have written on Trinity over a period of about 180 years and in several geographically distinct cultural settings. Given the varying distances of these trinitarian thinkers in time and space from Hegel and Schelling, it seemed wise to identify several ways in which these thinkers could be grouped together. Gathering them in these ways will help us highlight variously identifiable types of relationships between them, on the one hand, and Hegel and Schelling, on the other, as well as among themselves. The first three chosen, namely, Marheineke, Dorner, and Solovyov, have been gathered in part 2 under the rubric of “testimonials.” Marheineke was among the first to work with the trinitarian thought of Schelling and Hegel. It is even said that he influenced Hegel’s own further development of Hegel’s philosophical reading of, or at least interest in, Trinity. Dorner represents a high point in the nineteenth-century development of what we would today call immanent Trinity. In dialoguing with both Hegel and Schelling, he created a unique understanding of Trinity that has considerably influenced a number of trinitarian thinkers in the twentieth century. Solovyov brought German Idealist thought in a massive way to the attention of Eastern, but especially Russian, philosophers and theologians. Marheineke, Dorner, and Solovyov are examples of those in the nineteenth century in Central and Eastern Europe who dialogue more directly and openly in an appreciative way with Hegel and Schelling.
In twentieth-century Germany a good number of trinitarian thinkers share certain overall social, cultural, and especially intellectual roots among themselves as well as with Hegel and Schelling. This doubled sharing suggests that we can consider and refer to similarities in trinitarian thought between them and Hegel and Schelling, as well as among themselves as “family resemblances.” Among them, in part 3, we will treat of Barth, who rather single-handedly launched renewed interest in Trinity, especially among Protestants. Rahner is surely one of if not the most important systematic Catholic theologian of the twentieth century. Pannenberg stands out for the exceptional breadth of his knowledge and force of his argument.
Then, in part 4 we turn to the North American scene. There we will review the proposals of four twentieth- and twenty-first-century trinitarian thinkers across the Atlantic from continental Europe. Jenson rather impressively replaces Hegel’s logically structured presentation of Trinity with a carefully worded, temporally structured trinitarian narrative. LaCugna works with a series of thinkers variously influenced by Idealist thought as she daringly insists on a single Trinity of divine and human persons. Bracken takes on the whole Whiteheadian tradition. He transforms it in dialogue with, among others, Hegel and Schelling as he develops a trinitarianly structured relationship between the many and the one. I myself, in a considerably more modest presentation, propose to replace Hegel’s development of his understanding of Trinity in terms of a movement of thought with a view of Trinity as a movement of experience. The image of “transatlantic Idealist echo” seems to reverberate well with and hence describe in a more general fashion the varied ways in which these four thinkers exemplify Idealist influence in their trinitarian thought.
Identifying Idealist influence on the trinitarian thought of these ten quite diverse thinkers will then serve to exemplify in a concrete way the continuing legacy of post-Kantian German Idealist trinitarian thinking. In order to recognize such influence we need to take one or more varied approaches to these thinkers, depending on what the nature of their thought requires and ways in which it develops. At times, they clearly and explicitly acknowledge a certain respect for and reliance on one or more aspects of Idealist trinitarian thought. Citing their remarks helps confirm a certain Idealist influence on their thought. At other times, pointing out a specific intellectual lineage traceable back through mentors of various kinds to the Idealists provides an at least partial basis for asserting a certain Idealist influence. Or again, drawing attention to the fact that trinitarian thinkers at times cite and build upon the thought of others who themselves have in turn been influenced directly or indirectly by Idealist thought in general and trinitarian thought in particular permits us to speak of a real but less direct Idealist influence. Of particular importance, it is helpful to compare aspects, perhaps insights, structural similarities, even words, phrases, structured movements of thought, and the like of a given thinker’s reflection on Trinity with those of Hegel or Schelling or both. But we will not be concerned simply with similarities as such. Rather, we will, in the context of the overall discussion of the thinkers concerned, want to consider such similarities as possible indications of Idealist influence. With our understanding of what Hegel and Schelling proposed, it will at times even be possible more spontaneously to have an “aha” moment. An example of Idealist influence on a specific trinitarian thinker will simply jump out at us and appear to be quite evident.
We need then to do a close reading of carefully selected texts presenting reasonably well important aspects of the trinitarian thought of a given author. That reading will be shorter or longer, depending on what we need to bring forth in regard to a specific author. For example, the summary of several aspects of Marheineke’s trinitarian thought can be quite short. There our concern is simply to show specific aspects of his use of terms and note his probable influence on Hegel regarding Trinity. The presentation of Dorner’s thought will necessarily be longer, given our interest in spelling out aspects of his notion of an ethical Trinity. Length of presentation will also depend on the way in which authors develop their thought. The presentations can be shorter if authors in effect concentrate the core of their trinitarian thinking in specific chapters or numbered articles. Such is the case, for example, with Rahner. They will need to be longer if authors tend to interweave their thought on Trinity with their reflections on a series of other subjects such as, for example, the relationships among various religions. An example here would be Solovyov. In effect, there are basically four grounds for varying the lengths of the chapters, not all of which need apply in each case and one of which may at times seem, at first sight at least, to offer a counterweight to another. The first ground or reason involves just what we want to say regarding the thinker concerned. The second reason is the very way in which a given thinker develops his or her thought on Trinity, namely, whether in more concentrated fashion, permitting a more focused and limited presentation or as the development of an understanding of Trinity interwoven with a more widely ranging thought. To these two should be added two more: a third reason, namely, the way in, and the extent to which, a particular thinker is or can be linked with reasonable security to Idealist thought; and a fourth, the way or ways in which a particular thinker may function in continuing the Idealist trinitarian legacy.
Whether shorter or longer, these close readings involve paying special attention to order of thought, dynamics of presentation, even specific choices of words and phrases. We will perforce want in various presentations of the thought of these ten trinitarian thinkers to stay rather close to the texts themselves. The hope is that we will, in reading these presentations, be able ourselves to recognize further Idealist influences beyond those identified here, thus further advancing our understanding of the important German Idealist trinitarian legacy that continues on into the twenty-first century.
Yet in this enterprise a word of caution is in order. In examining these texts my own more immediate aim has of course been to recognize and appreciate the ongoing Idealist trinitarian legacy to which they give witness as they provide examples of Idealist influence on their authors. In so focusing, however, there is a danger that this way of proceeding could leave us with an unintended impression. We might feel that drawing attention to certain Idealist influences tends to overshadow, and thus diminish our appreciation of, the creative insight and constructive contributions found in the various works under review. But, important as these Idealist influences are, we should recall already now that they remain influences. In identifying these influences and briefly noting challenges Idealist trinitarian thought poses, I do not want to imply any sort of reductio. Rather, my purpose is to launch a celebratio. Drawing attention to the Idealist legacy should not reduce our appreciation of the outstanding creativity manifest in the various forms of trinitarian thinking to which we refer. It should not diminish our admiration for the enriching contributions these writers have made to ongoing reflection on Trinity. My hope is that it will lead us to celebrate that creativity and those contributions, preparing the road on which we continue, in varied ways, the Idealist trinitarian adventure.