A Synthesis of Perennialist and Christological Monisms
Trinitarian Existential Relational Monism: A Synthesis of Perennialist and Christological Perspectives
Abstract
This essay explores the synthesis of Timothy Troutner’s concepts of “perennialist monism” and “Christological monism” within a Trinitarian framework. It delves into the intricacies of the Trinity, encompassing Jordan Daniel Wood’s notion of the “whole mystery of Christ.” This exploration seeks to harmonize metaphysical ideas of God-world unity, as found in Neoplatonism (and Eastern philosophies), with a Christ-centered monistic interpretation, advocating a cohesive understanding that honors both God’s immanence and transcendence. This synthesis is deeply rooted in a relational ontology, offering a novel perspective on the divine mystery.
I’ve included screen shots below at the end of this essay of Troutner’s Twitter posts that spurned this essay. So, one can have context to why and how I’m working off some of his ideas. As regular followers will know, I’ve been developing a chat bot source document to specifically integrate these similar aspects to the two views, so his post was timely as my Bot’s sources are now well equipped enough to communicate this synthesis and navigate the issues he raises.
Introduction
The interplay of perennialist monism and Christological monism offers profound insights into the relationship between God and the world. Perennialist monism, through ideas like “analogy” or “participation,” as seen in Neoplatonic and Eastern traditions, proposes a unified but modally distinct reality, especially as it relates to the Christian God. In contrast, Christological monism places Christ at the heart of this relationship, emphasizing the significance of post-Chalcedonian theological developments for a holistic understanding. This view means the God-world relation is a Panentheistic like Christology, which we will call here “PanChristicism.”[1] This essay seeks to integrate these perspectives within a Trinitarian framework, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of the divine mystery.
Part 1: Perennialist Monism Perspective
Perennialist monism, deeply rooted in the fertile soils of Neoplatonism and various Eastern philosophies, offers a profound and nuanced understanding of the God-world relationship. It sees this relationship not as a rigid dichotomy but as a modal difference within a larger unity, a view that attempts to communicate a harmonious blend of contrast and coherence to the divine-human nexus.
Neoplatonism and the Divine Unity
Neoplatonic thought, as I understand it, espoused by philosophers like Plotinus and Proclus, posits that the One or the Good is the ultimate principle, transcending all categories of being and non-being. This metaphysical conception resonates with the Christian understanding of God, as depicted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 213, 300), affirming God’s incomprehensibility and infinite nature. The emanation from this One gives rise to the Nous (Intellect), and subsequently, the Soul, leading to the material world. This language, along with helpful theological terms that developed congruently with Christianity,[2] provides a useful springboard to present Christianity’s own views in the same domain. The neo-Platonic language can easily mirror the Christian doctrine of creation, where God is the source of all being (Genesis 1:1, CCC 338). However, unlike Christianity, in the One, we see a cascading emanation that is not a diminution but a modal expression of the One, where each subsequent level is a reflection and a part of the same ultimate reality. This model illustrates (think of it as a truthful analogy) the perennialist monism perspective, where the God-world relationship is seen as a series of unfolding manifestations, each distinct yet part of the same divine source. The difference, however, lies in the fact that rather than an emanation, it is more akin to an echo or a faint copy of the divine. This is expressed well in the Christian idea of participation in God’s creation (1 Corinthians 12:12, CCC 950), which is also biblical, as seen in 2 Peter, and adopts an apocalyptic key in various parts of Revelation, notably chapter 22.
Eastern Philosophies and Divine Immanence
Eastern philosophical traditions, such as some schools of Advaita Vedanta in the varieties of Hinduism, and certain schools of Mahayana Buddhism, also align with this perspective[3]. Generally speaking, in Advaita Vedanta, Brahman[4] is the ultimate reality, characterized by Sat (being), Chit (consciousness), and Ananda (bliss). The world and individual souls (Atman) are not separate from Brahman but are its expressions, with the apparent multiplicity being result of Maya (illusion). Similarly, in Mahayana Buddhism, concepts like Sunyata (emptiness) suggest that all phenomena are interdependent and devoid of intrinsic, independent existence[5], reflecting a fundamental unity underlying the apparent diversity.
Non-Dialectical Harmony and the Oscillation between Univocity and Equivocity
Perennialist monism underscores a non-dialectical harmony in the God-world relationship. It rejects a binary opposition between God and creation, instead proposing a fluid interplay where the divine oscillates between univocity (sameness) and equivocity (difference). This oscillation allows for a dynamic interaction where God’s presence is neither wholly identical with the world nor utterly distinct. It attempts to provide a middle path, or at least a golden mean like commitment to preserving God’s transcendence without negating the immanence that permeates creation. However, should this approach fail there is always the negative approach: a refusal to collapse either pole metaphysically. This approach is basically the classical theistic approach, and there’s resonances in just about every great doctor of the catholic church to these ideas. For example, Aquinas has the idea of mixed relations, and just about every great theologian has the idea of the creator-creature divide. This complex creates an “oscillation” where any discussion between the interplay of nature and grace is really a mystical expression and participation, and solutions are secondary[6], such as Aquinas’ dictum that grace perfects nature. He’s really just giving us a consistent mysticism rather than some concrete science; and, this could easily be collapsable to mysterianism if his framework were to fail.
Participation and Mirroring the Divine Essence
This perspective views creation as participating in the divine essence. The world and all beings within it are seen as mirrors[7] reflecting the divine reality. This participation is not mere resemblance but an active engagement with the divine, where every aspect of creation participates in the larger reality of God. It is a participatory union, where the distinct identity of creation is not lost but is fulfilled by being part of the divine whole.[8]
In essence, perennialist monism offers rich of theological and philosophical insights, where the God-world relationship is understood as a nuanced interplay of unity and diversity, transcendence and immanence, and participation and reflection, although not necessarily collapsing these nuances into each other. It provides a compelling framework for understanding the divine as intimately connected with every aspect of creation, each part reflecting and participating in the grandeur of the ultimate reality.
In this discourse, however, our foundation remains firmly planted in a distinctly Christian context, where a non-negotiable Trinitarian doctrinal reverence is held for the uniqueness of the natural world and its engagement in the divine mystery. This stance meticulously upholds the integrity of both the transcendence and immanence of the Trinity, ensuring that they are never conflated or diminished. Similarly, this approach rigorously respects the distinct yet interconnected realms of nature and grace, ensuring that each retains its essential character while participating in a harmonious and reflective relationship with the other.
Part 2: Christological Monism Perspective
Contrastingly, Christological monism identifies the hypostatic union of Christ as the quintessential manifestation of the God-world relationship. It underscores the indispensability of theological innovations post-Chalcedon for an accurate comprehension of this relationship. It promotes a symmetrical interpenetration of participant and participated, challenging traditional models of analogy or participation. In this view, Christ represents both the radical distinctiveness and the inseparable unity of the divine and human natures.
Christological monism, is a class of PanChristicism, which is to say a Panentheistic like post Chalcedonianism. In fact, Christological monism draws significantly from the post-Chalcedonian theological developments, and for example Maximus the Confessor would be a source par excellence. Terms like ‘hypostasis’ and ‘perichoresis’ are essential in understanding Christ’s divine and human natures. These terms, developed after the Council of Chalcedon, illustrate the complex interplay of Christ’s dual nature, challenging simpler models of analogy or participation.
Retroactive Causality and Symmetrical Interpenetration
This Christocentric “monism” incorporates the concepts of retroactive causality and symmetrical interpenetration, suggesting a profound, reciprocal interaction between Christ’s divinity and humanity. It transcends traditional participation models, proposing a more integrated and dynamic unity. For example, Christ’s divine nature, transcending time, influences his human experience in a non-linear fashion. This notion upends traditional concepts of causality, positing a more profound, reciprocal interplay between the divine and human aspects of Christ.
In Christological monism, this non-linear relationship is a symmetrical interpenetration between Christ’s divinity and humanity and is a central concept. This denotes a mutual indwelling where each nature fully embraces and is transformed by the other, without losing its distinct properties. This perspective challenges the conventional notion of participation where the human remains distinct from the divine. It suggests a deeper union, where the human and divine natures in Christ are so intimately connected that they operate as a single, unified reality, providing a profound example of the divine-human relationship.
Radical Natural Distinction and Concrete Hypostatic Identity
In Christological monism, the abstract logic of nature posits a stark difference between God and the world, which is reconciled at the hypostatic level in Christ. This approach aligns with the post-Chalcedonian understanding of Christ’s nature, emphasizing the unity and distinctiveness of his divine and human natures. In this model, the abstract logic of nature is reconciled in the concrete reality of Christ’s person. The hypostatic union, as understood post-Chalcedon, represents a perfect balance of unity and distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures, transcending the limitations of earlier theological models.
Hegelian Resonances and Beyond
While resonating with Hegelian philosophy, PanChristicism offers a more nuanced view. It acknowledges the complex, dialectical nature of Christ’s person, where the divine and human aspects are both radically different and intimately united. While resonating with Hegelian dialectics in some aspects, Christological monism, as a form of PanChristicism, transcends this philosophy by grounding its dialectic in the Incarnation’s concrete reality. This approach provides a nuanced, holistic view of Christ’s nature, affirming his role as the ultimate synthesis of divinity and humanity.
The Christological Monism perspective on PanChristicism, provides a comprehensive view of the God-world relationship. It positions Christ’s hypostatic union as central, demonstrating a nuanced synthesis of unity and diversity. This approach not only deepens the understanding of Christ’s dual nature but also broadens the theological scope, encompassing the entire cosmic order and highlighting Christ’s universal significance, specifically in the God-world relationship.
Jordan Daniel Wood’s work on this subject has been most influential in the English speaking world here. His book presents this PanChristicism as the “Whole Mystery of Christ,” which is also the title of his book. David Bentley Hart typically represents the oppositional “perennial” monism, yet I don’t think he’s written anything in any widely published work, and for the most part the two sides are amiable so there doesn’t need to be a response proper I don’t think. It’s really just about whether classical theism is still up for the task or not, and I have the sentiment that it obviously is (I like to imagine me and Hart share this reflexivity). However, this presentation of Christological Monism in contrast to Perennialist Monism opens us to the question whether the whole mystery of Christ is a subclass of Trinitarianism, therefore is not necessarily in conflict? Are these two schools synthesizable under the whole mystery of the Trinity? I contest that if one contextualizes them in a shared ontological context, then yes, they’re not only harmonizable but synthesizable. Here, I’ll do this with a relational ontology, but one could probably do this with just about any kind of context, including a classical one, like say Aquinas’ substance based existential Aristotelianism.
Part 3: A Trinitarian Synthesis
The synthesis of the two views is quite simple, so we will say it first, then put it all together so it is clarity through and through…The full mystery of the Trinity reveals that God is manifest as a matter of fact. But in the interconnectness of his own life the act of this existence is also manifestly present in all things. Thus, the divine presence, both pervasive and specific, is eternally actualized across past, present, and future, culminating in the concrete revelation of God in Christ. The synthesis of perennialist and Christological monisms within the Trinitarian framework reaches its apex where human comprehension and language are insufficient to fully grasp the divine nature. It is at this juncture that the mystery begins anew.
A Trinitarian framework as a relational and existential monism emerges as a unique harmonizing context on these two perspectives of perennialist and Christological monisms. The Trinity, representing the apex of divine unity and diversity, reflects the perennialist emphasis on unity within diversity. Concurrently, the Incarnation of Christ demonstrates the most profound expression of God’s relationship with the world. In Christ, the divine and human natures are united in a manner that transcends the limitations inherent in both perspectives, revealing the Trinity most directly. This is why I will mention the 3 “infinities” of God later, but only in passing, because that’s one area I think we can go beyond what my synthesis does here.
Foundation in Relational Ontology in an existential key
Relational ontology, the cornerstone of this synthesis, posits that the essence of reality is intrinsically and fundamentally relational. This perspective is crucial for understanding the Trinity, where the eternal relations among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit define their distinctiveness. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1812, 902) underlines the importance of these relational dynamics, emphasizing the interplay of relationships and interactions in comprehending the divine nature and the enigmatic mystery of the Trinity.
Relational ontology offers a fresh perspective on old ideas that were always relational-in a sense-anyway by emphasizing the intrinsic relationality within the divine essence. Rather than viewing God’s essence as a static, monolithic substance, this approach sees it as a dynamic, living communion of Persons. Each Person of the Trinity fully embodies the divine essence but in a relationally distinct way. This relational understanding aligns with the insights of the CCC, which, in paragraph 267, speaks of the divine persons as “inseparable in what they are and what they do,” yet each manifests “what is proper to him in the Trinity.” My own take-for what it is worth- on these concepts has led to me saying this in an existential key. That is, the divine persons fully present, represent, and manifest all that it means to be God. Or notionally, the most fundamental relation, act, and being in their unity, trinity, and infinity are not only the ultimate reality, but also reveal that the ultimate reality are fundamentally a personal touch.
The synthesis of the two monisms mentioned above Im arguing can be brought under the banner of “Trinitarian Existential Relational Monism.” This is the theological perspective that views all existence as fundamentally interconnected and unified through the relational dynamics of the Divine Trinity, emphasizing the coexistence of God’s transcendence and immanence in a deeply relational ontology. It posits that the essence of reality, including human existence, finds its ultimate meaning and purpose in the communal, participatory relationship with the Triune God, where every aspect of creation is intimately involved in the divine life.
Implications for Understanding Divine Mystery
This relational ontology provides a helpful tool for deciphering the complexities of the divine mystery. It offers a nuanced perspective on the God-world relationship that transcends traditional notions of identity and distinction, suggesting a dynamic and intimate interaction central to both perennialist and Christological views. And it allows us to at least, like Aquinas, talk in a existential key, consonants with the platonic tradition, but directly from the light of the revelation of God in Christ. This key speaks its God-talk by saying in harmony that God’s oneness refers to the divine essence as uniqueness, and the Person’s threeness as distinct persons in an incomparable unity.
This paper does not have sufficient space to fully explore this ontological context, but if it did it would allow for a trifecta of discourse around God’s three most important infinities, thereby expanding the mystery of Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. These infinities are often discussed negatively, encompassing concepts such as God having no parts, no potentiality, and no relational limits. For now, the doctrines of Divine Simplicity, Actus Purus, and my relational existential interpretation of Perichoresis as a negative concept (indicating no relational limit) are instrumental in this synthesis. I introduce these ideas for future discussions that aim to integrate these two views as much as possible, particularly in the context of divine mystery and mysticism.
(See CCC 1812, 902)
Conclusion
The exploration of Trinitarian Existential Relational Monism presented in this essay culminates in a profound synthesis that harmoniously blends perennialist and Christological perspectives. This synthesis offers a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the God-world relationship, rooted in the mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ.
At the heart of this synthesis is the acknowledgment of the inherent relational nature of the divine, as understood through the lens of Trinitarian theology. The Trinity, embodying both unity and diversity, reflects the perennialist emphasis on a unified reality that encompasses a spectrum of modal distinctions. Concurrently, the Christological perspective brings to the forefront the central role of Christ’s Incarnation as the most direct and profound manifestation of God’s relational engagement with creation.
In this context, the relational ontology framework provides a pivotal insight, underscoring that the essence of reality and the divine is intrinsically relational. This perspective illuminates the Trinity not as a static, distant concept, but as a dynamic, living communion of Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each distinct yet united in their divine essence. This understanding is echoed in the teachings of the Catholic Church, which emphasizes the inseparable nature of the divine Persons in their actions and essence.
By embracing this relational ontology, we gain a fresh perspective on the divine mystery, one that transcends conventional notions of identity and distinction. It invites us into a deeper contemplation of the God-world relationship, highlighting the dynamic and intimate interplay central to both perennialist and Christological views.
Moreover, this synthesis allows us to articulate a vision of the divine that is consonant with the Platonic tradition, yet directly informed by the revelation of God in Christ. Here, the language of theology resonates in harmony, articulating that God’s oneness refers to the divine essence as uniqueness, while the threeness of the Persons reflects distinct identities in an incomparable unity.
Trinitarian Existential Relational Monism offers a rich and profound understanding of the divine mystery, deeply embedded in the relational nature of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It encourages a living faith that actively participates in the relational life of the Trinity, inviting believers into a deeper exploration and experience of the divine. This synthesis not only enriches our theological understanding but also bridges philosophical and doctrinal divides, offering a cohesive and comprehensive view of the divine that respects both the transcendence and immanence of God.
Catherine of Siena may be helpful here. In her mystical vision, she portrays Christ as a bridge, but it’s a mystery into the Kingdom of God, which is the whole mystery of the Trinity. There’s much here for the mystics to contribute and help us all out with. And on this and most issues I’m Sure DBH and JDW agree. In fact, I’m sure their systems are big enough and pliable enough that there doesn’t need to be a “synthesis.” Their disagreements are prob healthy and helpful to keep tbh. I’m merely using them as a springboard to talk about the issues, and give my own view since I happened to already been working on training a bot to navigate these issue to begin with. Fin.
[1] I consulted Jordan Daniel Wood for this term, and it’s an evolutionary step from Blondel’s use in his own work. The idea is fully developed here: https://robertdryer.com/hypostasis-panchristicism-and-fitt/ In brief, it’s just a way of framing Panentheism like theology through Christology, but there’s nuances you can reference the article through the link above for more.
[2] Some Criticize Christianity as overly influenced from Platonism, especially Neo-Platonism. The fact is, Christianity is an older school than Neo-Platonism, and the Middle East and North African influenced Judaism pre-dates and influences some of the mysticism we find in Plato. The development is congruent and interconnected in various contexts. The most important thing to remember is that educated Christians were more than capable of appropriating Neo-Platonism where it was relevant or helpful, just as well-educated Christians today are more than able to appropriate modern scientific paradigms as needed. As we see here, just because there’s inter-change doesn’t mean there’s an identity. The biblical writers were particularly adept at appropriating OT texts, Greek, Hebrew, Roman, and medical and philosophical language to get their point across, especially in the New Testament. The interchange of ideas should be welcomed, especially when its well appropriated.
[3] Advaita Vedanta, a Hindu philosophical system, primarily draws from texts like the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Brahma Sutras. Central to this philosophy is the concept of Brahman as the ultimate reality, encompassing being, consciousness, and bliss, as detailed in the Upanishads, notably in the Mandukya Upanishad. The notion of Maya, which creates an illusion of diversity, is a key aspect explored in these texts.
In Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of Sunyata, or emptiness, is pivotal. It suggests that all phenomena lack an independent, inherent existence. This idea is elaborated in the Prajnaparamita Sutras, especially in the Heart Sutra, emphasizing an interconnected reality.
Unfortunately, my knowledge on these systems is too thin to really give you much other than to point you to the source documents for more. The reflection here is your standard western dictionary like entry on this subject, and is included-basically-because David Bentley Hart has inserted this kind of language into the American Theological discourse when one discusses classical theism and its analogs through monistic like systems.
[4] See an English Rendering here for some of the Mandukya Upanishad: https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Mandukya-Upanishad-An-ancient-Sanskrit-text-on-the-nature-of-Reality.pdf
[5] See the Heart Sutra for some of these ideas: https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/heart_sutra.pdf
[6] At least how I read Aquinas and the greats of the Christian Catholic tradition. Their mysticism is very apparent if you spend much time with them, so I take that as primary in some sense that shouldn’t be downplayed.
[7] 1 Corinthians 13:12
[8] Philippians 2:6, 1 Corinthians 12:27, Romans 12:4-5, Romans 11:36, John 10:30, John 15:5, Ephesians 4:15-16, Colossians 2:9, 2 Peter 2, Hebrews 1:3
