Pronomial God

There are problems all over the place in Panikkar’s Trinitarian theology, but there are some lovely, profound passages, like this: “A non-trinitarian God cannot ‘mingle’ much less unite himself with Man without destroying himself. He would have to remain aloof, isolated. No incarnation, descent, and real manifestation of any kind would be possible. He would cease to be God if he became Man. A non-trinitarian Man cannot hump outside his little self, cannot become what he wants and longs for without destroying himself. He would have to remain aloof, isolated. No divinisation, glorification, redemption of any kind would be possible. He would cease to be Man if he became God. Man would stifle himself just as God would die of self-consumption if the trinitarian structure of reality were not the case.”

And: The doctrine of the Trinity “connects the immanent mystery with the ‘economic’ God . . . in which the destiny of the whole world is at stake. It is not mere speculation a bout the depths of God; it is equally an analysis of the heights of Man. It is a ‘revelation’ of God inasmuch as it is a revelation of Man.” Nicely done: Trinitarian theology as true humanism.

And finally this, justifying the title of this post: “There are languages which do not have the verb ‘to be’ and others which do not possess the word ‘being.’ In some there is no definite distinction between nouns and verbs. No known language lacks the ‘I, Thou, He/She/It’ with the respective plural forms. It is in this ultimate and universal structure that the Trinity is reflected . . . . The Trinity appears then as the ultimate paradigm of personal relationships (and neither substantial nor verbal).” I like this, so long as we keep in view Jenson’s qualifications about I/Thou and as long as we allow that the personal relations are always already enacted, and therefore the pronomial God is, just for that reason, also verbal.