Chapter 6: An evaluation of Sallie McFague's body of God theology
6.6 The degree of Trinitarian reflection in the body of God model
Another consequence of McFague's Christology is it does not have the resources for a sufficient Trinitarian reflection. She suggests that face, body and spirit should replace the traditional terms for the trinity, but does not elaborate much on this (1993a: 191). This is the issue that the study now addresses.
personal metaphors she uses therefore needs development, because in their unrevised version they are modalistic.
In addition to the modalistic nature of McFague's personal metaphors, her notion of God as the embodied spirit of the world is also problematic from a Trinitarian perspective. The body of God model introduces a dichotomy between the spirit and the Holy Spirit. A consequence of this is that the spirit may be understood as something foreign to the Trinity. Moreover,
McFague believes the spirit is the source and empowerer of the universe. Even if the spirit and the Holy Spirit were the same, creation and providence becomes the sole function of the Spirit.
In addition to this McFague does not describe the work of the Spirit and the work of Christ sufficiently. The body of God model fails to link its pneumatology with Christology. The result of this is that McFague is unable to describe how the Spirit and Christ operate in
creation's processes. Gaybba states, "The Father made everything through the Son in the unity of the Holy Spirit" (2004: 114).
It was noted under the study's ecological theology reflection that Moltmann is a theologian who has maintained a strong Trinitarian approach to his ecological theology. He believes the Spirit produces new types of interaction during the evolutionary process. In addition to this the Spirit harmonises these interactions and thus makes creation coherent. The Spirit therefore unifies reality, as everything has the one Spirit, but also allows creation to maintain its uniqueness. It is the Word that is the source of this diversity. The Spirit therefore gives creation accesses to the source of diversity. These insights indicate that a Trinitarian approach is needed to articulate God's action in the evolutionary process.
Perichoresis is a doctrine that supports a relational view of God. McFague does not make use of this insight. The reason for this is she may be suspicious of Trinitarian speculation on the immanent Trinity. However, a relational view of God may be supported not only by reflection on the immanent Trinity, but also on the economic Trinity. Rahner asserts that the economic and immanent Trinity are the same (1970: 21-2). In other words God reveals Godself as a network of relationships in the salvific history of humankind and in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. McFague does not argue for a relational view of God from a Trinitarian perspective, but from the vantage point of the common creation story. Her thesis is that if reality is relational then God must be as well. In other words, the body of God model has not provided an adequate theological argument for the concept of a relational God.
McFague discards the traditional terms for the Trinity and suggests the "invisible face, the visible body, and the mediating spirit" (1993a: 193). Her reason for doing this is that the traditional view of the Trinity is unable to preserve God's transcendence and immanence.
McFague is suggesting that there is no such thing as Trinitarian panentheism. She prefers a
"monotheistic, panentheism theology" where God is in some degree physical and not just spiritual (1990: 213). The researcher is in disagreement with McFague on this point.
Moltmann's panentheism is clearly Trinitarian. Moreover, Edwards argues that a Trinitarian panentheism is crucial to understand how creation is relational (2004: 200). Field believes an ecological ethic needs to be based not on a monotheistic theology, but on a Trinitarian theology that underscores divine transcendence and immanence (1994: 204).
After consideration of these insights, the researcher believes the body of God model provides an inadequate Trinitarian reflection. McWilliams affirms the researcher's findings and writes,
"Although she draws insights from Jesus' teaching and ministry, McFague does not make christological or trinitarian concerns central to her program" (1998: 351). The body of God model is thus in disagreement with pointfour of the study's requirements for an ecological theology.
Conclusion
The body of God model was found to be pantheistic. McFague's argument for divine
transcendence and agency were shown to be problematic. Contrary to McFague's sentiment, the mind-body analogy is a valid argument for divine corporeality. Her argument that creation ex nihilo causes a dualism between God and world is unwarranted. The doctrine of creation as a synthesis of procreation and emanation is therefore unable to signify divine transcendence.
The body of God model is thus contrary to point one of the study's theological criteria. The researcher is undecided about the applicability of the body of God model's pneumatology vis- a-vis point two of the theological criteria. McFague's separation of the spirit from the Holy Spirit compromises Trinitarian reflection. The body of God Christology was accepted, because of its focus on christopraxis. This degree Christology is not clear about the two natures of Christ, but does stress the cosmic scope of Christ and is therefore compatible with point three of the study's theological reflection. The body of God model does not have adequate
Trinitarian reflection and is in opposition to point four of the theological criteria.