RELASI BAPA DAN ANAK PADA PERISTIWA SALIB MENURUT PANDANGAN JÜRGEN MOLTMANN

The cry of Jesus saying "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" draws Jürgen Moltmann’s attention to investigate what happened in the relationship between the Father and the Son at the event of the cross. Moltmann sees that in this event of the cross, for the first time, Jesus crying out called the Father not as Father but as "God". The exclamation is then seen as an indication of separation in the intratrinity relationship. Moltmann supports his conclusion with the thought of Karl Rahner who believes that "the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." In an attempt to explain what happened in the relationship between the Father and the Son at the cross, Moltmann uses the trinitarian point of view, namely seeing the Triune God first as three distinct persons and then seeing the unity. The weakness of Moltmann's thinking is that it creates the impression that the economic Trinity can change the immanent Trinity and falls into the understanding of the social Trinity. This understanding can also give the impression that the cross event can separate the relationship between the Father and the Son. By using a descriptive analysis method, this paper will show that even in the event of the cross, the relationship between the Father and the Son remains intact and one. First of all, the author describes Moltmann's view and provides some reviews of these views. Then, the author gives a view of the relationship between the Father and the Son with respect to the call of Jesus at the cross. Keywords: Jürgen Moltmann, broken Trinity, intratrinity relation, cross. Abstrak: Seruan Yesus yang mengatakan “Allahku, Allahku, mengapa Engkau meninggalkan Aku?” menarik perhatian Jürgen Moltmann untuk menyelidiki apa yang terjadi dalam relasi Bapa dan Anak pada peristiwa salib. Moltmann melihat bahwa pada momen ini untuk pertama kalinya Yesus berseru memanggil Bapa bukan dengan sebutan Bapa, tetapi dengan sebutan “Allah”. Seruan ini kemudian dilihat sebagai indikasi terjadinya keterpisahan dalam relasi intratritunggal. Moltmann mendukung pernyataannya ini dengan mengadopsi pemikiran Karl Rahner yang meyakini bahwa “the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.” Dalam upaya untuk menjelaskan apa yang terjadi dalam relasi Bapa dan Anak pada peristiwa salib, Moltmann memakai sudut pandang trinitaris, yaitu melihat Allah Tritunggal pertama-tama sebagai tiga pribadi yang berbeda kemudian melihat kesatuannya. Kelemahan dari pemikiran Moltmann adalah menimbulkan kesan the economic Trinity dapat mengubah the immanent Trinity dan jatuh pada pemahaman Trinitas sosial. Pemahaman ini juga dapat menimbulkan kesan bahwa peristiwa salib dapat membuat relasi Bapa dan Anak terpisah. Dengan menggunakan metode analisis deskriptif, tulisan ini akan memperlihatkan bahwa pada peristiwa salib pun, relasi Bapa dan Anak tetap utuh dan satu. Pertama-tama penulis memaparkan pandangan Moltmann dan memberikan beberapa tinjauan terhadap pandangan tersebut. Kemudian, penulis memberikan pandangan tentang relasi Bapa dan Anak terkait dengan seruan Yesus. Kata-kata Kunci: Jürgen Moltmann, keterpisahan Tritunggal, relasi intratritunggal, salib.

Hasker’s Tri-Personal God vs. New Testament Theology

Hasker’s “social” Trinity theory is subject to considerable philosophical problems (Section II). More importantly, the theory clashes with the clear New Testament teaching that the one God just is the Father alone (Section III). Further, in light of five undeniable facts about the New Testament texts, we can know that the authors of the New Testament thought that the only God was just the Father himself, not the Trinity (Section IV). Hasker can neither deny these facts nor defeat the strong evidence they provide that in affirming a triune God in the late 4th century, catholic tradition departed from apostolic teaching about the one God (Section V).

Ontology

The chapter argues that Jonathan Edwards’s concept of God was largely traditional and that arguments to the contrary which privilege his discussions of a so-called social Trinity are mistaken. It also takes issue with the currently popular view that Edwards was a panentheist. There is a clear sense in which God includes the world but—with one unique exception—the world does not include God. Just as the coming into being of Raphael’s Dresden Madonna is a literal part of his painting it, so God’s ‘acts’ of creation or emanation are properly regarded as parts of him, and what he does (that is, what he emanates) is literally part of that action. But what God creates or emanates is the history of redemption, and some parts of that history are more central or immediately salient than others. The material world, for example, is essentially nothing more than a platform on which the drama of redemption is enacted. The central or most immediately salient, on the other hand, are the lives of the saints, and it is only the latter whose lives can be said to include God. For because the saints necessarily include the Holy Spirit, they necessarily include God. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Edwards’s views on the ontological status of mathematical, logical, metaphysical, and morally necessary truths. The chapter argues that they are neither created by God nor exist independently of him but are instead aspects or expressions of his goodness.

The Social God and the Relational Creation

Although Lewis’s emphasis on the Incarnation is well known, his emphasis on the doctrine of the Trinity is less well known because it is less concrete, more subtle, and expressed in his creative imagery. The theme of God as “the Great Dance”—borrowed from Gregory of Nazianzus—is communicated through an image of dynamism and movement rather than a static, inert object. To imagine the Trinitarian God as the Great Dance is to say that the inner life of God is social and relational, seeking to draw the rest of creation into that Dance which has been going on in God forever. The idea of the social Trinity is a backdrop for seeing human redemption not so much in juridical and legal terms but in terms of the Self-Giving, Self-Living Life at the heart of reality seeking to live and grow in our lives. How, then, could those who participate in that Life of unending beatitude not experience and reflect joy, love, and peace?

In Defense of a Latin Social Trinity: A Response to William Hasker

In “Unity of Action in a Latin Social Model of the Trinity,” I objected to William Hasker’s Social Model of the Trinity (among others) on the grounds that it does not secure the necessary agreement between the divine persons. Further, I developed a Latin Social model of the Trinity. Hasker has responded by defending his Social Model and by raising seven objections against my Latin Social Model. Here I raise a new objection against Hasker on the grounds that it is inconsistent with Conciliar Trinitarianism, and I respond to the seven objections and in so doing further develop the Latin Social Model.

Women, Personhood, and the Male God: A Feminist Critique of Patriarchal Concepts of God in View of Domestic Abuse

Domestic abuse is a common occurrence for women in the Christian Church. Underlying this dark reality is a long history of patriarchal theological interpretations that have depicted God as a dominant male figure that subjects women to male hierarchy as a subordinate. Often based on an understanding of Jesus as subordinate to God the Father in the Trinity, the correlated praxis of the Church has commonly been to subject women to suffering at the hands of men – even at the cost of their lives – thus mimicking the death of Christ. This deeply flawed androcentric theology and subsequent praxis of women’s subordination has been severely challenged by liberal feminists, and rightly so for the sake of women’s survival and flourishing. This article utilizes the Social Trinity to provide a Christian feminist critique of patriarchal atonement models and theology towards the feminist goal of liberating women from male-perpetrated violence. Ultimately a reframing of God will be presented that includes women as full persons and calls them to resist the suffering of domestic abuse and to reclaim their full personhood as the imago Dei.

Social Trinitarianism and the tripartite God

In this article, I consider the most prominent contemporary attempts to reconcile Social Trinitarianism (ST) with monotheism, arguing that within ST, only mereological (part/whole) accounts can ultimately preserve monotheism. A corollary of this is that every other condition (or set of conditions) adduced in defense of a monotheistic ST really entails tritheism, that is, until a part/whole condition is deployed. Such models, I contend, fail necessarily insofar as they attempt to solve a puzzle that is wholly quantitative in nature with purely qualitative considerations. I conclude by remarking that the Social Trinity model propounded by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland succeeds where the others fail, though this model is itself by no means impervious to weighty objections.

Kristologi Feminis

Virtually zero room is afforded in everyday speech, let alone in formal ecclesiastical doctrine, for talk (discourse) concerning the Christ as Female, or even as feminist. This essay considers contingencies concerning a multiplicity of identity regarding the Christ figure, particularly the notion of a womanized Christ. In doing so, this paper aims to minimize the historical contradiction of even having such a conversation, as such pertains to the incarnation of God in the (male) body of Jesus, by first making an appeal to the Creative Christology line of inquiry developed by Muriel Orevillo-Montenegro. Following this initial contingency [concerning Christ], I forward a second contingency [concerning Jesus] by appealing to the perspective of Elizabeth Johnson concerning a multiplicity of identity regarding the prophet of Nazareth, thereby envisaging the womanly face of Jesus. Finally, in order to forward a third contingency [concerning the (social) Trinity], I investigate the notion of a multiplicity of identity regarding the divine Triunity in tandem with the articulation of perichoresis put forth by Miroslav Volf and Catherine Mowry LaCugna. All the while, I interrogate the act of naming God from within a feminist critical frame, thereby drawing upon the linguistic theory of Brian Wren; as well, I engage the constructive ecclesiology of Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza (concerning household of God). This essay thus envisages the relationality within the Triune Godhead by virtue of engaging with a robustly trinitarian ecclesiology serving as portrait for gendered, mutual, interpersonal relationality.

The Dance of Emptiness

Jon Paul Sydnor’s essay, “The Dance of Emptiness,” compares two doctrines, Nagarjuna’s Buddhist doctrine of emptiness and Jürgen Moltmann’s Christian doctrine of the social Trinity. The essay is an attempt to produce constructive theology in relation to the doctrine of God that is relevant to individual and church life. The two doctrines are rich in the similarities that make comparison possible and the differences that make it fruitful. Emptiness and social Trinity gradually draw near to each other as the essay moves from discrete, mechanical comparison to a more concrete, organic mode of comparison. The conclusion reflects on the data gained through the comparison, the promise of comparative theology, and the importance of interdependence between the religions.