Abstract
The Lutheran theologian Hans Schwarz, professor emeritus of systematic theology at the University of Regensburg, Germany, is a prolific author who has addressed a wide range of theological topics. In The Trinity, Schwarz provides “a slender volume” that is “also readable for the non-specialists” (xiii–xiv). The main question Schwarz explores is “what is scripturally tenable with regard to the Trinity and what is unwarranted theological construction or even speculation” (vii)? Schwarz surveys the biblical material, including both Testaments, and the history of trinitarian reflection from the early church to the present day before offering his own conclusions.
The strength of The Trinity is Schwarz’s impressive survey of the history of trinitarian doctrine beginning with Irenaeus and Tertullian in the early church and concluding with feminist theologians Catherine Mowry LaCugna and Elizabeth A. Johnson and liberation theologian Leonardo Boff. Schwarz helpfully identifies and summarizes the major players in the development of trinitarian theology in both the East and the West. If one is looking for a survey of the land in trinitarian theology, Schwarz provides a helpful map.
Schwarz’s constructive contribution, which he reveals at the end of The Trinity, is less satisfying. Schwarz is concerned that trinitarian theology often strays from its biblical moorings, is not understood by a majority of Christians, and tends to emphasize “ontological categories” rather than “matters of existential significance” (194). His solution is to reject completely “intrinsic Trinitarian theology” that focuses on the immanent Trinity in favor of an “extrinsic economic Trinitarian theology,” but he does so without recognition of how the immanent Trinity preserves God’s freedom and the veracity of divine revelation (194). Schwarz hints that the Holy Spirit is “more the extended arm of God and/or of Christ than a personified figure of the Trinity” (195). He suggests that “Christians by themselves did not arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity” but instead were overly influenced by the Roman emperor Theodosius and even the symbolic significance of the number three in religion and mythology (177–78).
Nevertheless, Schwarz repeatedly insists that Christians should not give up the doctrine of the Trinity but only refrain from “undue speculation” (193, 205). Schwarz offers several summary statements that he finds “sufficient,” including the following: “As the New Testament affirms, it is decisive that God was and is in Christ for our salvation and that God is present through his Holy Spirit so that there is life” (198). The shortcomings of these summary statements are immediately apparent, however, when one realizes that modalists and Arians could wholeheartedly affirm them. Of course, one could expand these summary statements, but one could also employ the technical vocabulary developed by trinitarian theologians.
At a deeper level, a number of popular, but questionable, assumptions guide Schwarz’s survey of the biblical material. Schwarz assumes a fixed Jewish monotheism, seeks to discern the place of Jesus within this monotheism, downplays the importance of the Holy Spirit, and is suspicious of later trinitarian reflection for the sake of scholarly objectivity. Missing in this approach, which Schwarz shares with a number of contemporary scholars, is careful reflection on the relations between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as expressed throughout the New Testament. Fourth-century trinitarian thinkers gave significant attention to the triadic formulas and patterns in the New Testament and how these patterns affirm both the unity of God and the distinct relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Schwarz refers to these triadic patterns but gives them little sustained attention. Why should one assume that Schwarz’s contemporary approach to the Trinity, with its own presuppositions, is better or more objective than the careful biblical reflections of fourth-century trinitarian theologians?
For Schwarz, the Trinity is like a bad relationship that he “can’t live with and can’t live without.” For those in the same dilemma, Schwarz is one with whom you can commiserate. Schwarz is less helpful, though, for those who have a greater appreciation of the achievements of trinitarian theologians and who want to reflect more carefully on the “undue speculation” of some contemporary trinitarian theologians.