schaab_art and the theology of god as trinity_bridges

7/31/2019 Schaab_Art and the Theology of God as Trinity_Bridges

1/20

BRIDGES Vol. 14 (3/4) 1

Art and the Theology of God as Trinity:Exploring Belief and Praxis Through Symbol

________

Gloria L. Schaab

This essay engages the notion of art as theological

symbol. Focused upon the doctrine of Trinity, it

explores representations of the Trinity in religious art

as a means of expressing theological insight and

shaping Christian life. The movement of this essay is

threefold. First, it considers the question of Trinitarian

doctrine as practical and relevant to Christian life.

Second, it discusses one particular method of

expressing Christian belief, that of artistic symbol.

Finally, it reflects upon artistic representations of God

as Trinity to see how each might form, inform, and

transform Christian life and praxis in practical ways.

Keywords Trinity; Symbol; Andrei Rublev; Lucas

Cranach; Religious Art; Spirituality;Christianity; Community

In his influential workThe Trinity, Catholic theologian

Karl Rahner makes a startling declaration: Despite

their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are,

in their practical life, almost mere monotheists. We must be

willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be

dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well

remain virtually unchanged.1 According to Rahner, The

venerable classical doctrine of the vestiges and the image of

Trinity in the world is thought to bealthough one would never


2/20

BRIDGES

BRIDGES Vol. 14 (3/4)2

explicitly say soa collection of pious speculations.2 In spite of

Rahners appraisals of the Trinity in the practical life of Christians,

the latter part of the 20th century witnessed a resurgence of interest,

energies, and imagination in theological circles concerning the

doctrine of the Triune God. This renaissance focused not only on

the theological understanding of the Triunity of God, but also on

the practical implications of this central doctrine for the life of the

Christian community. The 20th-century Protestant theologian Karl

Barth saw fit to begin his Church Dogmatics with an extensive

treatment of the Doctrine of the Trinity and declared this doctrineto be the prolegomena to dogmatics, that is, the foundation of all

other aspects of the Christian faith.3 Taking a similar view of

Trinity as divine revelation, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner firmly

contended that the doctrine of the Trinity is the expression of the

very life of Gods own self.

In more recent years, theologians such as Jrgen Moltmann

and Catherine LaCugna have expanded their theological

deliberations from a theoretical consideration of the Trinity to a

closer study of the impact of Trinitarian doctrine in Christian life

and community. In The Trinity and the Kingdom, Jrgen Moltmann

proposes a social doctrine of the Trinity based upon the inter-relationality of the persons of the Trinity. On this basis, Moltmann

calls the doctrine of the Trinity a doctrine of freedom4 which

calls forth a community capable of transforming systemic structures

and interpersonal relationships in Church and in society.5 In God

for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, Catherine LaCugna focuses

her energies on a retrieval of the relationship between oikonomia

and theologia, between Gods comprehensive plan for the salvation

of creation and the mystery of God as a communion of persons.6

While some have sought to emphasize the practicality of

Trinitarian belief through social models of God or through Gods


3/20

Gloria L. Schaab


activity in salvation history, I intend to approach the practicality of

the doctrine of the Trinity through the notion of symbol,

particularly the symbol as expressed through art. Like Elizabeth

Johnson in her essay Trinity: To Let the Symbol Sing Again, I

use the notion of symbol in a dense, doctrinal sense, as a word or

image that participates in the reality being signified, opens it up to

some understanding, yet never exhausts it completely.7 Through

the notion of symbol, I suggest that God as Trinity serves to model

and to inspire a way of life that has significant consequences for

relationships within the Christian community and, by extension,within the global community. The fundamental questions that guide

this exploration are these: If we, as a Christian community of faith,

profess belief in the Trinity of God, in the personal and relational

three-in-oneness of God, then how shall we live? Moreover, if we,

as individuals and as a community, are made in the image of this

Triune God, what practical difference does this reality make in our

life and relationships with God and with one another?

Engaging Doctrine through Symbol

Why approach the doctrine of the Trinity through artistic

symbol? There are three fundamental reasons. The first is theessential ineffability of God. As expressed in the words of Paul

Tillich: Nothing can be said about God as God which is not

symbolic.8 This is due to the fact that God as Godas infinite, as

ultimate, as mysteryis essentially incomprehensible and ineffable.

However, we have not always understood talk about the Triune

Mystery of God in this way. According to Johnson, Too often talk

about the Trinity has been conducted in implicitly literal,

descriptive language, as if we were peering into the divine mystery

with a telescope. Who is processing from whom? And what are

their relationships? In truth, however, this is a religious symbol that

reveals its truth only according to the power of symbolAll


4/20

BRIDGES


religious speech is like this, like a finger pointing to the moonTo

equate the finger with the moon or to acknowledge the finger and

not perceive the moon is to miss the point.9 Thus, the most one

can hope to do with the finite human power of expression is to

point toward God in varied and fragmentary ways.

However, humanity can do so with some confidence for a

second reason based on two theological insights that have been

well elaborated by Karl Rahner. The first insight is strictly

Trinitarian and is often referred to as Rahners Rule: Theeconomic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent

Trinity is the economic Trinity.10 To say, as Rahner does, that

the economic trinity is the immanent trinity has several important

practical implications for Christian life. First, it implies that the

God whom one encounters in religious experiences, in liturgical

celebrations, and preeminently in the compassionate and liberating

love of Jesus Christ and of the Spirit within history, is the reality of

God as God is from all eternity. It says that we are not duped by

Gods self-revelation in Christ, in the Spirit, and in human

experience.11 Consequently, the identification of the economic and

immanent Trinity also implies that the eternal reality of God is

essentially a unity-in-diversity, is essentially relational.Furthermore, to say that the God encountered in distinctive ways

through prayer, worship, and community is the God who is Holy

Mystery enables the Christian to use the analogies, the metaphors,

and the symbols that arise from these experiences of God to express

Gods personal relation to individuals and to the community.

Finally, to give precedence to the economic trinity as Rahner did in

his axiom implies that the experience of Gods activity in the world

is the primary means to insight concerning Gods essential nature

in Godself.


5/20

Gloria L. Schaab


With this last realization comes the fundamental

understanding of God operative in Rahners insight about the

Trinity, the understanding that God is self-communicating in and

through creation and incarnation. Although God utterly transcends

limited human existence, human beings nonetheless have

profoundly palpable experiences of the immediacy, the nearness,

of God. Within finite existence, human beings experience the

genuine breaking in and through of the infinite God in and through

cosmic creation and in and through human history, particularly in

that human history named Jesus the Christ.12

According to RahnersThomistic theology, God provides for all things according to their

natures. It is natural for humans to attain knowledge through the

use of sensible things, for all of our knowledge begins with sense

experience.13 And it is such sense experiences that take shape in

symbols, and, in terms of this essay, in artistic symbols for the

Triune God.

The final reason to approach the doctrine of the Triune God

through symbol is because of the capacity of symbols to transform

human existence. Theologically, the use of symbol enables persons

to move their engagement with the doctrine of the Trinity from the

intellectual level to the experiential level where it influences andtransforms individual and communal lives. By means of symbol,

the imagination contemplates and assimilates elements of reality

that are inaccessible to other modes of cognition. Furthermore,

through symbol, the imagination comprehends and communicates

inner realitiesaffections, dispositions, habitsthat are inexpressible

by means other than the symbolic. Hence, although always

deficient and fragmentary, the use of symbol in theology has a

twofold potency in religious and personal lives. First, symbols

enable believers to express with great power their personal and

communal experiences of God. Furthermore, symbols possess great

potential to transform lives as believers actively engage the


6/20

BRIDGES


personal and communal symbols that strain and crack to express the

inexpressible mystery of God.

The Nature and Function of Symbol

What does a symbol do that makes it so expressive and

transformative? Calling to mind a powerful visual symbol of

Trinity derived from art or architecture reminds one that the symbol

of Trinity suggests certain dynamic qualities. First, this visual

symbol points beyond itself.

14

It reveals and proclaims a particularinterpretation of the Triune nature of God and is full of the God

symbolized. Second, this symbol gives rise to thought. It is

pregnant with an abundance of meanings and allows a wealth of

interpretations.15 Third, this symbol invites participation. It invites

one to inhabit its environment and discover new possibilities,

interpretations, and values.16 Finally, the symbol of Trinity

functions. It represents profound truth. Consciously or

unconsciously, it molds religious identity, highlights values, directs

praxis, and inspires particular types of relationships with God and

with others.17

Nevertheless, symbols are a curious phenomenon.

18

Theyrequire a process of interpretation that is able to account for the

complexity of their imaginative nature, as well as for the

intentionality and the historical context of their creators and

interpreters. Moreover, a symbol will not yield its excess of

meaning through the mere perception of its visual sign. Its aim

cannot be fulfilled without subjective engagement in the symbol

itself and, in consequence, in the symbolized. With regard to the

artistic symbol, a number of factors must be taken into account.

These factors include the genesis of the symbol and its creative

contexts.


7/20

Gloria L. Schaab


In his essay Interpretation and Its Art Objects: Two

Views, Michael Krausz elucidates some of the salient issues

concerning the locus and limits of meaning as related to the artistic

symbol and suggests two models from which to approach the issue

of meaning: the constructionist model and the realist model.19

According to the realist model, an object-of-interpretation is fully

constituted independently of interpretation as such.20 This

constitution focuses on the form, composition, texture, and color of

an object. However, it is widely accepted that the creator

constitutes an object-of-interpretation not only through sensualelements, but also through intentions that arise from historical,

ideological, and psychological contexts.21 The realist would

contend that, precisely because of this, the locus of interpretation

must reside primarily in the object itself as bearer of meaning

indelibly shaped in a particular structure and within a specific

context. To suggest that an interpretation has any constitutive

authority would be to grant too much authority to the interpreter.22

For the constructionist, conversely, the historicity of an

object-of-interpretation is, in and of itself, sufficient warrant to

wrest constitutive authority from the hands of the creator.

Regardless of its intentional structures, the object-of-interpretationis a cultural object. While the interpreter may well take account of

the creators original intentions, no individual intention or history

has precedence over an interpretive response to it.23 In this study,

the interpretative contributions of both the realist and the

constructionist approaches come into play. Combined, they reveal

the expressive capacity of the symbol as true theological text that

communicates its understanding of the Triune God to believers in

a particular historical context and that transcends its productive

milieu in order to challenge and transform each new generation of

those who participate in its dynamic and living discourse.


8/20

BRIDGES


Art and the Theology of God as Trinity

I now demonstrate this interactive and mutually

illuminative approach to theological symbols with three works of

art depicting the Triune God. The first engagement with each of

these pieces represents the realist approach in which the work is

considered constituted by its particular structure and by the

intentions and historical context of its creator.

Lucas Cranach -

1515-1518 CE

Trinity 1515-1518

Oil on Wood

Kunsthalle Bremen

Andrei Rublev - 1410 CE

The Holy Trinity

Wood and Tempura

Tretyakov Gallery,

Moscow

Margie Thompson -

2001 CE

Trinita

Oil on Wood

Mount St. Joseph,

Philadelphia, PA

Realist Approach

The depiction of Trinity by Cranach is oil on wood, largely

focused through the areole of angels. His use of untamed landscape

with architectural ruins, windswept trees, and effects of light and

weather give his work the emotional force of the Danube school.24

Additionally, his setting of the crucifixion within the Trinity

historically reflects Cranachs role in the Reformation period in

which he became an artistic herald of the burgeoning reform

movement. There are no human figures or social references within


9/20

Gloria L. Schaab


the piece, which could suggest, as does Aquinas, that Cranachs

Trinity has no real relation to the world. Nevertheless, historians

speculate that this divine isolation may well have contributed to the

popularity of his work because his contemporaries, who in public

life were the protagonists of embattled ideologies, yearned for

for peaceful refuge from the worlds turmoil.25

Scholars widely agree that the three angels of Rublevs

Holy Trinity represent the hypostases of the Trinity. The prototype

for this icon is the biblical story of the visitation of three angels toAbraham and Sarah at Mamre; however, it has come to represent

the understanding of the Triune God as Persons equal in dignity

and in trinuity. In order to express such equality in diversity, this

icon depicts these figures in modes of both similitude and

distinction. By way of similitude, monk Gregory Krug notes, All

three angels are blessing the chalice, in which lies a sacrificed calf,

prepared for eatingAll three angels have staffs in their hand as a

symbol of their divine power. The distinction of Persons in this

icon is reinforced both through color and through symbolism. The

blue undergarment of the first angel identifies the Father in his

celestial nature, verified by the background image of an abode that

denotes the divine plan for creation and the Fathers primacy in thisplan.26 Placed centrally in the icon, the middle figure represents the

second Person of the Trinity. This angel is vested in dark crimson

and blue, which symbolize the dual natures of Christ in incarnation

and divinity. Behind this angel, are tree branches that represent

both the tree of life and of the cross. Finally, the third figure at the

right of the icon represents the Holy Spirit. The combination of

blue and green in the garments of this figure signify the heavens

and the earth and suggest the life-giving force of the Holy Spirit,

which animates everything that exists. This perspective, moreover,

is reinforced by the mountain that rises above this last figure.27 The

God-world relationship indicated in this iconography is intriguing


10/20

BRIDGES


and open to various interpretations. Its mood has been

characterized as detached, meditative, contemplative, and intimate,

void of any noticeable energy of earthly life, of corporeality of

forms and external manifestations of love. Nevertheless,

commentators indicate that equally absent from it is that cold

soaring of the spirit, so remote from humans. The image determines

the subtle struck balance between soul and spirit, the corporeal and

the imponderable, endless and immortal sojourn in the heavens.28

Of the third piece, Trinita, artist Margie Thompson writes,This particular image of the Trinity symbolizes the primacy of

relationship, a unity empowered by diversity, and an embrace of

active, inclusive love, drawing us toward one mind, one heart. The

hands in particular symbolize the Spirit of God, incarnate for

mutual service, in the reality of mutual vulnerability. In this image,

the tenderness and reverence which energize the members of this

divine community empower our participation in Great Love of

God which is made flesh in and through us. The circular structure

of the piece intimates the dynamic perichoretic interrelationship of

the Triune God and communicates the inclusivity and participation

of humanity in the divine love of the Trinity. Not limited, however,

to the human beings in the embrace of God, inclusivity andparticipation extend through the cosmos to Gods own self,

depicted in a multiethnic, male and female representation of the

Trinity of persons. The prominence of the heart and the wounded

hands serve to convey the vulnerability and tenderness of the

Crucified, Incarnate one, while the warm, yet vibrant colors of the

piece transmit the fiery and energizing love of the Spirit. In her

reflection on Trinita, Thompson proceeds to suggest the impact for

theology and for praxis that such art possesses when read as

theological text. Directing the reader toward the theological

implication of her art, Thompson raises the questions, What image

of God might help us to deepen our understanding of the power of


11/20

Gloria L. Schaab


our life together in community? What image of God might help us

to foster our own flourishing, the flourishing of the human

community, and indeed of the whole cosmos? Attending to the

theological content of her own work, she asks, How might this

image of God as Trinity help us in our present efforts toward

deepening our life as communities of unity and reconciliation?29

Constructive Approach

As Thompsons reflections suggest, the realisticinterpretation of sacred art can point to the viability of the

alternative constructive approach to such art. This latter approach

permits the viewer to read these texts theologically beyond the

historical and aesthetic contexts from which each derives and to do

so within his or her own historical, cultural, and experiential

location. Moreover, this constructive stance toward a work of

sacred art obviously converges with the theological approach to art

as visual symbol through which this essay proposes to explore the

belief and praxis surrounding the doctrine of Trinity. From this

perspective, I now ask not only what theological understanding of

Trinity is expressed through each work of sacred art above, but

also, more significantly, what quality of Christian life and praxiseach inspires. How might they differ, one to another, to form and

transform Christian life and praxis? Does a particular artistic

symbol promote relationships of equality and freedom or

relationships of supremacy and subjection? Does it communicate

the compassionate and inclusive love of God revealed in Jesus

Christ and in the Spirit? Finally, does each have the liberative

power to transform both Church and society into the image of the

Trinity, the ideal of relationality and community?

The constructive-symbolic approach to Cranachs Trinity

draws ones attention to the same structure that was prominent in


12/20

BRIDGES


the realistic approach to the piecethe areole of angels. As noted

above, this artistic convention tends, like much of Western

theology, to focus attention on the intradivine relations of the

Trinity. Despite this intradivine focus, however, Cranachs work

suggests little or no relationality among the Persons of the Trinity

themselves. The Fathers gaze is transfixed forward, the Crucified

Sons head is turned away, and the avian Spirit perches

precipitously upon the orb. Moreover, the regalia of the Father

imply a majestic, hierarchical ordering of relations that clearly

communicate the monarchy of the Father at the expense of thesubordination of Son and Spirit. Finally, although the areoled

Trinity is set in a landscape near a city, there is no intimation of

God-world relationship in this work. Returning to the questions

posed by this study, therefore, one wonders how such a

representation of Trinity functions to inspire Christian life,

relationship, and praxis. The inevitable conclusion drawn from the

interpretation above suggests that a Christian life modeled on such

a symbol of Trinity moves toward separation from the world, rather

than engagement with it. It exemplifies the image of the Triune

God critiqued by Rahner as absolutely locked up within itself.30

It functions to reinforce isolationism and hierarchical relationships

of dominance and subordination, rather than to encouragecommunal relationships of intimacy and equality. In the words of

Kieran Scott, it communicates a Trinity that is abstract,

impractical, a-historical, [and] immune to the concerns of ecclesial,

spiritual and liturgical life.31

Rublevs Trinity, when considered from a constructive-

symbolic perspective, seems to correct the isolationist, hierarchical

emphasis of Cranachs piece. As demonstrated above, the realistic

approach to this icon through the rubrics of iconography belies that

impression, at least with regard to monarchy and hierarchy.

Nonetheless, employing the constructive-symbolic approach


13/20

Gloria L. Schaab


enables the viewer to read the visual symbolism through a lens not

controlled by Greek iconography. Through this alternative lens,

Rublevs icon is able to convey equality, relationality, and

invitation to the believer drawn into its compass. This relationality

is reinforced by the representation of the Three Persons themselves.

The Father looks toward the Son and Spirit and they return the

Fathers gaze. Both lean toward the Father, as if in intimate

exchange and careful listening. The cup that draws the attention of

not only the viewer, but the Trinity, represents the Eucharistic cup,

symbol of sharing and oneness. According to Catherine LaCugna,This icon expresses the fundamental insight of the doctrine of the

Trinity, namely, that God is not far from us but lives among us as

a community of persons.32 Elizabeth Johnson echoes this insight:

This is a depiction of a Trinitarian God capable of immense

hospitality who calls the world to join the feastThe mystery of

God is not an isolated monad but rather a living communion in

relation with the world.33

While Rublevs icon The Holy Trinity certainly moves past

the isolationism and a-historical nature of Cranachs piece, it

nonetheless retains a certain rigidity and non-engagement with the

viewer. Certainly the openness of the circle suggests invitation tothe shared life of the Trinity; yet none of the Persons encourages

this participation through gaze or gesture. Thus, it communicates

the potential for God-world relationship and waits for the viewer to

take the initiative. Thompsons Trinita, however, clearly takes the

next step toward communicating the Divine as both transcendent

and immanent in relation to the cosmos and its creatures. The heart

of the Trinity envelops Gods beloved creation and the wounded,

inflamed, and encircling hands of the Divine Persons provide

secure embrace. Without sacrificing the sense of intradivine

intimacy, the gaze and gesture of the Persons direct themselves

outward, inviting, engaging, vivifying, energizing, and empowering


14/20

BRIDGES


the viewer to join in the dynamic dance of the Trinity with and

within the cosmos and its creatures. This sacred work of art

communicates profound relationality and interpenetration of the

Divine Persons one with another and each with the beloved

creation. In so doing, it preserves both mystery and mutuality.

Moreover, the multiethnic, male and female, non-hierarchical

representation of the Trinity challenges the exclusivity of male,

monarchical metaphors characteristic of the classical doctrine of

Trinity. Mirrored in the male and female faces of the multiple races

and ethnicities made in the divine image, it proclaims that unity indiversity is the reality of divinity. In Thompsons Trinita God is

one with Godself and, simultaneously, in communion with the

world.34 Through Thompsons Trinita, the challenge to truly live

in the image and likeness of such a God is issued to humanity.

The Symbol of Trinity in Belief and Praxis

In view of these interpretations of art as theological

symbol, this essay now asks whether belief in the Triune God is

truly of no sort of use in Christianity? Is it really of no practical

value? Are Christians actually mere monotheists? The reflections

on Trinitarian symbols in this essay lead to an emphatic no.However, if one judges belief in our Triune God to be practical and

relevant to our Christian life and praxis, then one is called to enter

into the dynamic life that it offers. The Triune God challenges

Christians to move from intellectual belief to the threshold of

transformation and to respond to the question What practical

difference does this Triune reality of God make in our life and

relationships with the Divine and with one another? Inspired by

the symbols of Trinity that demonstrate the most practical,

powerful, and profound capacity to impact Christian life, I propose

that a community who lives in the image and likeness of the

Triunity of God manifests distinctive characteristics. Such a


15/20

Gloria L. Schaab


community is one that allows the essential meaning of the doctrine

of the Triunity of God to function practically, creatively,

redemptively, and transformatively in its communal existence.

What might such a community look and act like? First, a

community that endeavors to live in the image and likeness of the

Triune God is one that fosters relationships of equality, unity, and

love in the image of the God who is the incomprehensible mystery

of relation. Such a community does not seek to shore up its

institutional hierarchies or to preserve them from accountability.Rather, it devotes itself to collegiality and communication in the

image of its self-revealing God. Secondly, it is a community that

cultivates inclusivity in the image of our God who is a hospitable

God. Such a community would assure that no member is isolated,

marginalized, or ostracized by human judgment or social class.

Third, it is a community that celebrates diversity and uniqueness in

the image of our God who is Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.

At its table of Eucharist and of companionship, it embraces all

persons, regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, class, or sexual

orientation. Fourth, it is a community that nurtures interdependence

and mutuality in the image of our God who is the community of

Divine Persons interacting compassionately and salvifically in andwith the world. It does not isolate itself within an areole of

self-righteousness and pious indignation, but recognizes itself as

saints and sinners in need of forbearance and reconciliation. Fifth,

it is a community that elicits the giftedness and participation of

each and every member in the image of our God who is both Giver

and gift, unlimited by gender, tradition, historicity, or culture. Like

the Giver of the gift, each creature adds to the flourishing of all by

offering what God has ordained to be developed and shared.

Ultimately, a community that endeavors to live in the image and

likeness of the Triune God welcomes and embraces a diversity of

metaphors and symbols for the Divinemale and female, human


16/20

BRIDGES


and non-human, individual and communal, ancient and newin the

image of our God who is eternally and temporally self-

communicating mystery.

In so living its image of the Triune God, moreover, the

community itself becomes a particular kind of symbol of this triune

God. Ideally, the community becomes a symbol that points beyond

itself to the reign of God in its midst, initiated already in Christ and

the Spirit, but yet to come in its fullness. It becomes a symbol that

gives rise to thoughts of human dignity and liberation and thatinvites participation in its communal and liturgical life. It becomes

a symbol that functions powerfully to mold its corporate identity as

the Body of Christ in healing and prophetic ministry to those who

are marginalized and oppressed. Ultimately, it becomes a symbol

that functions powerfully to highlight its values of compassion,

justice, and peace. Guided by such values, it becomes a symbol that

functions effectively to direct its praxis toward the coming of the

reign of God in which a flourishing humanity on a thriving earth

in an evolving universe, [is] all together filled with the glory of the

Triune God.35

_____________


17/20

Gloria L. Schaab


Permissions for Use of the Artwork

Lucas Cranach the Elder. Trinity. c. 1515-1518. Available from

http://www.wga.hu/index1.html (Accessed 24 August 2007). The Web

Gallery of Art is copyrighted as a database. Images and documents

downloaded from this database can only be used for educational and

personal purposes. Distribution of the images in any form is prohibited

without the authorization of their legal owner.

Andrei Rublev. The Old Testament Trinity. c. 1410. Available from

http://www.abcgallery.com/I/icons/rublev1.html (Accessed 24 August2007). Images from Olgas Gallery are made available for limited non-

commercial, educational, and personal use only, or for fair use as defined

in the United States copyright laws. Users must, however, cite the source

of the image as they would material from any printed work, and the

citations should include the URL www.abcgallery.com.

Margaret Thompson. Trinita. C. 2001. Used by permission of the artist.


18/20

BRIDGES


1 Karl Rahner, The Trinity (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970),10-11.

2 Ibid., 14.

3 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God(Edinburgh: Clark, 1960), 1.

4 Jrgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine ofGod(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 218.

5 Ibid., 192.

6 Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and ChristianLife (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1973).

7 Elizabeth A. Johnson, Trinity: To Let the Symbol Sing Again,Theology Today 54 (1997): 300.

8 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1967),239.

9 Johnson, To Let the Symbol Sing Again, 304.

10 Rahner, The Trinity, 22, italics in the original.

11 Ibid., 303.

12 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to theIdea of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1985), 81-89.

13 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.9, TheMedieval Sourcebook,accessed 8 February 2006, available fromhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ source/aquinas1.html.

ENDNOTES


19/20

Gloria L. Schaab


14 Roger Haight,Jesus, Symbol of God(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1999),197.

15 Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (New York: Harper & Row,1967), 347-348.

16 Paul Avis, God and the Creative Imagination: Metaphor, Symbol,and Myth in Religion and Theology (New York: Routledge, 1999),106.


18 David M. Rasmussen, Symbol and Interpretation (The Hague:Nijhoff, 1974), 1.

19 Michael Krausz, Interpretation and Its Art Objects: Two Views,Monist73:2 (April 1990): 222-232.

20 Ibid., 224. Krausz uses the term object-of-interpretation since heconsiders his insights applicable to the range of literature, art,symbol, and the like.

21 Laurent Stern, Factual Constraints on Interpreting,Monist73:2(April 1990): 205-221.

22 Ibid., 208.

23 Ibid., 223.

24 Cranach, Lucas, The Elder,Encyclopdia Britannica Online,accessed 25 February 2006, available fromhttp://search.eb.com/eb/article-1597.

25 Cranach,Encyclopdia Britannica Online.

26 Ibid.


20/20

BRIDGES


27 Gregory Krug, Andrei Rublevs Icon of the Holy Trinity, OnlineOrthodox Library of Transfiguration of Our Lord Russian Orthodox

Church, accessed 1 March 2006, available fromhttp://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/lord_trinity_rublev.html.

28 Andrei Rublev,RusPhoto, accessed 1 March 2006, available fromhttp://park.org/ Guests/Russia/moscow/sergiev/rublev.html.

29 Margie Thompson, Reflections on Trinita, Deepening DayGathering of the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Philadelphia, September

12, 2001, Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

30 Rahner, Trinity, 17.

31 Kieran Scott, Practicing the Trinity in the Local Church: TheSymbol as Icon and Lure,Review and Expositor99:3 (2004): 433.

32 Catherine M. LaCugna, God in Communion with Us, in FreeingTheology: The Essentials of Theology in a Feminist Perspective, ed.Catherine Mowry LaCugna (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,1993), 88.


34

Scott, 438.

35 Elizabeth A. Johnson, God's Beloved Creation,America 184:13(2001): 12.

schaab_art and the theology of god as trinity_bridges

Documents