The term ' presencing' 3 stands for a kind of encounter wherein the past, the present and the future intersect in such a way that sensing (experience) and present moment (state of being) coincide in order to create a sense of meaningfulness and purposefulness. The Godhead was most often defined in terms of strict ontic categories and very prescriptive dogmatic characteristics - God as a supreme being 2 rather than applying abstract definitions about the very being of God and the so-called divine characteristics like the omnipotence and omniscience of God that is, language that describes God's 'what' (essential and substantial categories defining an ontology of Being) - the challenge within the networking paradigms of contemporary global and functional thinking is to attend to the 'how' of God (God's presencing and being there where humans are). This challenge turns to the different encountering narratives in the biblical account regarding the multifaceted countenance (visage) of God. What is most needed is the challenge as to how to deal with multidimensionality. In the 20th century, it became clear that meta- and omni-categories are not any more appropriate to articulate the 'presencing' of God. In his book on Trinity, Moltmann (1980:25) points out the necessity to re-interpret the categories employed by systematic theology and many ecclesial confessions of faith to describe the dynamics of the Divine Entity: On 'being God'. To my mind, God became suddenly 'word-able' and 'approachable', a kind of vivid infiniscience of God. The attention is on compassionate hospitality and not on metaphysical speculation regarding the essence of Trinity. But then, in 2013, I embarked on a study in iconography (Louw 2014) and came across the relational dynamics of the encircling and hospitable depiction of the Godhead in the Rublev icon - a kind of divine perichoresis as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit focussed on the chalice. However, 'God' became an exercise of the human mind, and I lost my awe for the unfathomable mystery of divine intervention. I made sure that I remembered all the 'undefinable characteristics' and averaged 87%. Others were non-knowledgeable and could not be defined and understood as such. Some were knowledgeable and accessible to the human mind and thus communicable. I was forced to study divine characteristics. In 1967, I was forced to write an examination on the characteristics of God. Keywords: Trinity Perichoresis Rublev Icon Infiniscience of God Verbing God Fides Quaerens Beatitudinem Theopaschitic Theology. This approach should be supplemented by the bowel categories of ta splanchna in order to qualify the infiniscience of the JHWH-Godhead: the being of divine interventions in terms of verbing terminology. It is argued that the trinitarian interplay should be re-interpreted in terms of compassionate categories stemming from the passio Dei in theopaschitic theology. Trinitarian thinking should be directed by hospice-categories rather than by personhood-categories representing 'substance'. In this respect, the Rublev icon on Trinity could help establish the circular and spiral thinking of divine perichoresis as modes of God's unpredictable, but faithful, covenantal and redemptive encounter with human misery. The relational dynamics between the Father, the Son and the Spirit should be revisited. The undergirding research assumption is that the latter reflects, in most cases, more abstract and rather positivistic metaphysical speculation than representing the vividness of God's compassionate being-with as explained and revealed in the narratives of the biblical account on God's graceful intervention with the frailty of human life. The Infiniscience of the hospitable God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: Re-interpreting Trinity in the light of the Rublev iconįaculty of Theology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africaīecause of the impact of church doctrine and many documents explaining the official confession of many denominations in Christianity, Trinity was mostly defined in terms of static and substantial categories (the impassibility of God).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |