The Trinitarian Koinōnia and Its Socio-Economic Implications

Abstract

The Triune God is not indifferent to the human condition. This article, “The Trinitarian Koinōnia and Its Socio-Economic Implications,” intends to reflect on the inspiration and the critique of the Holy Trinity on human society. It aims at contributing to improving the socio-economic life of the last, the lost, and the least of society. Faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity can influence human socio-economic relations. On the one hand, the theoretical framework used in this article is that of the classical Catholic method, which reflects on theological pillars (loci theologici). First, the article will reflect on the “theological pillar” (locus theologicus) of the Bible. It will discuss the biblical foundation of the Trinitarian koinōnia. It will then discuss another theological pillar (locus theologicus) of the human context concerning the Trinitarian koinōnia. On the other hand, another theoretical framework to be used is the deductive method. This article will examine whether there are particular socio-economic applications from the general Trinitarian koinōnia. The basic hypothesis is that there is a practical implication to the Christian faith in the Triune God. The Trinitarian oikonomia, when properly understood through, inter alia, Trinitarian koinōnia, can be the icon of the ideal human economics (oikonomia). In this article, we will privilege a systematic and systemic approach.

1. General Introduction

This article intends to reflect on the Trinitarian koinōnia and analyse its socio-economic implications. Is Trinitarian koinōnia an abstract and utopian notion? Is it a classical invention of some speculative theologians? The background of this reflection is based on my lived experience of extreme poverty whilst on mission in one particular country. There was a large gap between the rich and the poor. How can the Trinitarian oikonomia, or rather Trinitarian koinōnia, inspire and criticise the human oikonomia where there is a large gap between the rich and the poor? Is Trinitarian koinōnia a ‘reality of faith’ which has serious implications in our present socio-economic context? The article will take the three loci theologici of the Scriptures, Tradition, and the present human (socio-economic) context seriously (Bevans 2002, pp. 3–4).

After the first section—the general introduction—the second section will try to answer the following question: What is the foundation of the Trinitarian koinōnia? It will investigate whether there is a Biblical foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Then, it will look for the roots of koinōnia in the New Testament. Finally, it will try to show how the Trinitarian koinōnia is rooted in the New Testament. The third section will analyse some contemporary views of the Trinitarian koinōnia. It will analyse the views of some contemporary theologians like Catherine Mowry LaCugna and Leonardo Boff. They have written about the Trinitarian Social Model. They have contributed to the debate on the influence of the Holy Trinity on human society. The socio-economic implications will be dealt with in the fourth section. It will attempt to show how the reality of Trinitarian koinōnia can illumine and shape human society. Can one dream of the Triune–human koinōnia? Then, in the end, we will conclude.

What is koinōnia? There are as many definitions of koinōnia as there are the proponents of the definitions. Koinōnia is a multi-faceted reality. The New Testament itself presents several meanings of koinōnia. It uses the word koinōnia to denote different realities. As a working definition, I favour the multi-dimensional definition of Adalbert G. Hamman. Koinōnia is as follows (Scerri 1999, p. 111; Hamman 1992, p. 188):

“that which is common”, that which constitutes a link, a community (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 1:3); consequently, the disinterested spirit of sharing (2 Cor 9:13); then the sign or proof of fellowship, especially in common contribution, a gift both centrifugal and centripetal (Acts 2:42…); finally, participation in collection (2 Cor 8:4) or in a common good, e.g., the Body and Blood of Christ (1Cor 10:16)—a use which gives the word, in the liturgy and in fourth-century writers, the meaning of communion in the Eucharistic mystery […]. Among the Latins the term expresses the act of association, participation, then the status of being common, likeness, the fact of sharing the same faith, union with the whole Church which holds fast to spiritual and material goods, reconciliation which gives back “communion” with the Church, and finally participation in the Eucharist through communion.”

This multi-faceted definition is helpful in our enterprise of the Trinitarian koinōnia and its socio-economic implications. It involves the relationship of God and human beings from (ek) the Father through (dia) the Son in (en) the Spirit. Let us examine the theological pillar of the Bible.

2. What Is the Foundation of the Trinitarian Koinōnia?

2.1. Is There a Biblical Foundation of the Doctrine of the Trinity?

In this article, there is a major supposition that the reader accepts the doctrine of the Trinity. However, one can still ask the following question: Is there a foundation for this doctrine in the Scriptures, the Christian tradition, and the human context? It is not the intention of this article to review the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it is important to highlight, at least, the scriptural basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. It will then look for its roots in the Bible. This is in line with our systematic and systemic approach.

2.1.1. The Hebrew Bible and the Doctrine of the Trinity

The Hebrew Bible (sometimes referred to as the Old Testament) does not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity (albeit some scholars find a vague Trinitarian hint in Ecc 24; Wis 7:22–30; Prov 8:22–31; Gn 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; 18:1–5.9–10.16; Gn 11:7; Is 6:3-8). Some Church Fathers like Irenaeus of Lyon (Haer. IV 20, 1), Ambrose and Jerome and Tertullian understood those texts in the Trinitarian sense. Morden exegesis does not agree. All the biblical quotations will be quoted from The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version (RVS 1952), which is closer to the original Hebrew texts of the First Testament. God’s self-communication is found in Israel’s consciousness of the salvific action of the word (dabar or Memra) of God (YHWH). Judaism insists on the monotheistic God (Dt 6:4; Is 44:6) and denies the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. However, some progressive and liberal Rabbis maintain that ‘Classical Rabbinic Judaism presents significant analogues to Trinitarian thinking, for example, in the frequent collocation of God and God’s twin attributes of Justice and Mercy, forming a dialectic entity, and epithets like Shekhinah and Ruach ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit) as manifestations of God’s presence and inspiration.’ Despite the absence of an explicit foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Hebrew Bible is a prerequisite for the Christian faith. Karl Rahner maintains that ‘Nonetheless, given the continuity of salvation-history and its permanent ground, the OT is also important for the doctrine of Trinity (Rahner 1975, p. 1755).

2.1.2. The New Testament and the Doctrine of the Trinity

Does the New Testament give a clear formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity? There are several texts which have a triad (Trinitarian) formula: Mt 28:19; Rom 14:17–18; 15:16; 15:30; 1 Cor 12:4–6; 2 Cor 1:21–22; 3:3.13:14 (2 Cor 13:13b in The New Jerusalem Bible); Gal 3:11–14; and Ph 3:3. Other texts include Eph 2:18, 2:20–22, 3:14–17, 4:4–6, and 2 Thes 2:13. It is important to take a quick look at some these texts. In Mt 28:19, there is the commission to baptise in ‘the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…’ (Aland et al. 1994). The Greek texts will be taken from this book. This text is very attractive, but a good number of modern exegetes do not consider it to be part of the ipsissima verba of Jesus (Blomberg 1987; Funk 1998, 1993, 1999; Vearncombe et al. 2022).

The text of 2 Thes 2:13 says ‘But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through the sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth’. This text is very credible because it is not only an authentic Pauline letter, but it is also his earliest letter.

In 1 Cor 12:4–6, we read, ‘Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in everyone.’ This text obtains its credibility from most of the biblical scholars, and it is earlier than the Gospels.

In the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians, there are several triadic texts: 2 Cor 1:21–22: ‘But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.’ 2 Cor 3:3 maintains that ‘And you show that you are a letter of Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts’. Another famous text is 2 Cor 13:13: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit…’. These texts are credible because they are authentically Pauline and they are earlier than the Gospels.

Furthermore, in Rom 14:17–18 it is held that ‘For the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men’. This is the RSV translation. Many scholars consider this text to be authentically Pauline and, hence, credible. Another text is Rm 15:16: ‘to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.’ This text is equally credible. Another credible text which is authentically Pauline is Rom 15:30. The translation of the text is ‘I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf’. The same level of credibility is applied to Gal 3:11–14, 4–6 and Phil 3:3.

In Eph 4:4–6 it is maintained that ‘There is one body and one Spirit… one Lord… one God and Father of us all…’. This text is less credible because it is considered to be Deutero-Pauline by a good number of modern scholars. The same applies to Eph 2:18, 2:20–22, 3:14–17, and 4:4–6.

All the above texts and several others can be considered to offer, at least implicitly, the foundation for what scholars have called the economic Trinity (Trinity ad extra). The main focus is the salvific plan of God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Spirit to human beings. The New Testament is not very clear about the divine persons of one God (ad intra), in se. There is a theologoumenon considers texts like 1 Tm 2:5; 1 Cor 8:4–6; Mk 12:28:-29; Eph 4:4–6; Jn 17:3; and Jas 2:19 as the biblical foundation of immanent Trinity. Karl Rahner affirms that ‘There is no systematic doctrine of the “immanent” Trinity in the NT’ (Rahner 1975, p. 1755). Theologians (Gregory Palamas, Walter Kasper, Roger Haight, Eberhard Jüngel, Gordon Kaufman, P. J. A. M. Shoonenberg, Ives Congar, M. D. Chenu, etc.) are divided on the Grundaxiom of Karl Rahner. For example, Ives Congar is cautious about the “vice versa” in Rahner’s axiom. Catherine LaCugna discusses, inter alia, the ‘possibilities and limits of the axiom’ (LaCugna 1993, pp. 211–31). The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nanzianzus) have made a great contribution to the theology of the Holy Trinity. They consider their Trinitarian theology to be apophatic because of the inexhaustible mystery of the Holy Trinity, especially the Immanent Trinity. Catherine LaCugna writes, ‘Basil and the Gregory’s emphasised the unknowability of God primarily in contradistinction to Eunomius’ view that God’s ousia could be defined as agennetos (unbegotten)’ (LaCugna 1993, p. 187).

2.2. Is Koinōnia Rooted in the New Testament?

The Greek word koinōnia is found 19 times in the New Testament (Act 2:42; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:16; 2 Cor 6:14; 8:4, 9:13; 13:13; Gal 2:9; Eph 3:9; Ph 1:5; 2:1; 3:10; Hb 13:16; Phm 6; 1 Jn 1:3.6-7). Other words which are found within the same semantic field include koinōneō (which appears eight times; Rm 12:13, 15:27; Gal 6:6; Ph 4:15; 1 Tm 5:22; Hb 2:14; 1 Pt 4:13; 2 Jn 11), koinōnikos (which appears one time in 1 Tm 6:16) and koinōnos which appears ten times, Mt 23:30; Lk 5:10; 1 Cor 10:18-20; 2 Cor 1:7; 8:23; Phm 17; Heb 10:33; 1 Pt 5:1; 2 Pt 1:4) (Aland 1978, pp. 158–59; 1983, pp. 695–96).

It is interesting to observe that, though the Greek word koinōnia appears 19 times, the Revised Standard Version translates it differently in various texts. In Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 13:13; and 1 Jn 1:3.6-7, it is translated as ‘fellowship’. In Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 9:13; and Gal 2:9, the same word is translated as ‘contribution’. The word ‘participation’ is used in 1 Cor 10:16 and Ph 2:1. There is a mention of the word ‘partnership’ in 2 Cor 6:14. In 2 Cor 8:4 and Ph 1:5, the word is translated as ‘taking part’. The same word is translated as ‘share’ in Ph 3:10 and Hb 13:16 and as ‘sharing’ in Phm 6. The divergence in the translation of the Greek word koinōnia in different texts is significant.

There are several dimensions of koinōnia in the New Testament. George Panikulam, in his doctoral dissertation (Panikulam 1979), gives a detailed account of these dimensions: koinōnia with the Son (1 Cor 1:9), koinōnia with the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:23–26), koinōnia in the context of the collection (2 Cor 8–9), koinōnia of the spirit (2 Cor 13:13, Ph 2:1), koinōnia in the Gospel (ph 1:5), koinōnia in faith (Phm 6), koinōnia in the suffering and glory (ph 3:10), and koinōnia in Acts 2:42. Putting the immanent Trinity between brackets, it is correct to maintain that the New Testament has two main dimensions: vertical and horizontal koinōnia. The vertical dimension is concerned with the God–human being relationship. The horizontal dimension is the relationship among human beings or rather ‘beings who are called to be human’. It is not the intention of this article to analyse the different texts of koinōnia in the New Testament. This article is interested in the Trinitarian koinōnia as it analyses its social implications to foster the Christian, or rather, the human koinōnia.

2.3. Is the Trinitarian Koinōnia Grounded in the New Testament?

It is important to question our question. What do we mean by the Trinitarian koinōnia? Is it the koinōnia within the immanent Trinity or the economic Trinity? The focus of this paper is the Trinitarian koinōnia within the economy of salvation. The Trinitarian koinōnia is revealed to us through Jesus Christ. To have the full knowledge of the koinōnia within the immanent Trinity, one should be a prosōpon of the Trinity. One can go as far as claiming that it is a human impossibility to have a full grasp of the koinōnia of the immanent Trinity.

According to G. Panikulam, one can trace some elements of the Trinitarian koinōnia in the Pauline corpus and Acts. However, one of the fundamental texts of the Trinitarian koinōnia is 1 Jn 1:3. It is maintained that ‘that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.’ This text can help us to analyse the Trinitarian koinōnia in a fourfold dimension: the incarnate Son, the Father, the Spirit, and the believers (Panikulam 1979, pp. 134–39).

2.3.1. The Incarnate Son and Koinōnia

In this text, Jesus Christ has a fundamental role to play in the koinōnia. He mediates the koinōnia in the relationship among human beings and in the relationship between God and human beings. One would have expected to begin by analysing the relationship between the Father and koinōnia instead of beginning with Jesus Christ. However, when one reflects on the Christian revelation and the work of salvation, we become aware of who the Father is, not only through Jesus Christ but also in Jesus Christ. L. S. Thornton, commenting on 1 Jn 1:1–3, maintains that the epiphany of God is in the person of Jesus Christ and that ‘The essence of koinōnia lies in the fact that communion between God and man exists in Christ.’ (Thornton 1944, p. 162). The author of this letter is convinced that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos, is the object of his sensible experience of hearing, sight and palpability. It is Jesus Christ who is the initiator and mediator of the different levels of koinōnia through sharing ‘the eternal life, tēn sōēn tēn aiōnion (1 Jn 1:2). This mediational role of Jesus Christ should not be divorced from the salvific role. In Jesus Christ, sōteria and koinōnia are wedded (1 Jn 1:2–3, 2:2, 4:9–10,14, 5:20)

2.3.2. The Father and Koinōnia

Koinōnia is the gift (didōmi, 1 Jn 3:1) from God the Father. He is the origin and destination of koinōnia. The expression, koinōnia, (de he hēmetera) meta tou patros points to this reality. Though Jesus is not excluded in the mention of koinōnia, he is preceded by the Father. The author of 1 Jn 1–5 is conscious of the inseparability of the Father and the incarnate Son. He maintains that Jesus Christ is sent by the Father to manifest the Father through his words and actions. Can one claim that the Father–Son relationship is based on subordination? This relationship is not to be understood in the human sense of master–servant or messenger. It is the mutual agapic and kenotic relationship of koinōnia, which entails sōtēria, diakonia and marturia (1 Jn 3:1–16, 4:10, 5:2).

2.3.3. The Spirit and Koinōnia

Though the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned in relation to koinōnia, the Spirit is actively involved in the implementation of the koinōnia. This koinōnia is lived through the commandments of faith in Christ and mutual love, cf. 1 Jn 3:23–24 (Barrosse 1957, pp. 538–59). Though the Spirit seems to be in the background, the Spirit has an important role to play (1 Jn 3:24b). The RVS translates the Greek text as ‘And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.’ The Spirit helps us not only to grasp the Trinitarian koinōnia but also to grow towards a life of mutual love and forgiveness, cf. 1 Jn 4:12–16 (Malatesta 1978, p. 303). How can one discern a good spirit from a bad spirit? The author gives an important criterion. The good spirit will always foster unity in the Tri-unity, which includes acknowledgement of the salvific role of Christ (1 Jn 4:3–6). The bad spirit is likely to do the contrary. In brief, the Spirit has an important role to play not only in the realisation of the Trinitarian koinōnia but also ‘The Spirit has a prime role in the Johannine development of koinōnia’ (Panikulam 1979, p. 140).

2.3.4. The Believers and the Koinōnia

Is the koinōnia of believers the eikōn (icon) of the Trinitarian koinōnia? An affirmative answer can seem to be an overstatement and utopian. However, for the author of 1 Jn 1–5, there is an inseparability of the koinōnia of believers and the Trinitarian koinōnia. In fact, it is better to speak of a multi-faceted koinōnia. Just like a six-sided die, koinōnia is one, albeit it can be experienced, grasped, and lived in different dimensions or levels. God and human beings have their specific role to play in the koinōnia. If the Son is ‘the mediator of koinōnia’, God the Father is ‘the giver of koinōnia’, and the Holy Spirit is ‘the efficacy of koinōnia’, then the believers are the ‘heirs of koinōnia through faith and love’ (Panikulam 1979, pp. 131, 134, 135, 138). It is interesting to see that the author of 1 Jn 1–5 uses the same formula of ‘fellowship with, koinōnian echēte meth’ hēmōn’ not only for Jesus Christ and for the Father but also for us (hēmōn). There is a covenant between God and human beings through the fidelity of the koinōnia. This gift (didōmi) of the koinōnia is also a challenge not to live in ‘darkness, peripatein’ and ‘sin, harmatia’ (1 Jn 1:6–7, 2:11). The divine loving invitation calls for a human response in ‘love, agapē’ and ‘faith, pistis’ (1 Jn 4:7–5:13). The Koinōnia, for us believers, is a gift and a task to paraphrase the famous expression of Bonhöffer, “Gabe ist Aufgabe”, gift is a task (LaCocque and Ricoeur 1998, p. 87).

2.4. A Further Consideration of the Trinitarian Koinōnia in the New Testament

According to J. M. R. Tillard, there is a close connection between the koinōnia and homologia, which is translated as the confession of the same faith (Tillard 1986, pp. 104–5). An illustrative text is 2 Cor 9:13: ‘Under test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and all others.’ There is a link between the confession of faith in Jesus Christ (homologia) and the proclaiming (kērussein) of the Kingdom (Reign) of God (Basileia tou Theou). In communion (koinōnia) with the Holy Spirit, Jesus proclaims (kērussein) the Kingdom of God to the destitute (ptochois) captives, the blind, and the oppressed (Lk 4:18–19). One can consider the Basileia tou Theou as the eikōn (icon) of the Trinitarian koinōnia. It is important to have an excursion on the Kingdom (Reign) of God. Without faith, one cannot grasp, of course without exhaustion, neither the mystery of the Trinity nor the Trinitarian koinōnia.

2.4.1. The Kingdom (Reign) of God: The Eikōn (Icon) of Trinitarian Koinōnia

The Hebrew Bible uses m^elukah, mal^eku, mal^ekuth, mam^elakah, and mam^elakuth around 220 times to mean ‘kingship’, ‘kingly rule’, ‘reign’, or ‘sovereignty.’ The expression ‘the malkuth of God’ connotes the fact that ‘God reigns as King’ (Dodd 1983, p. 29). However, the expression ‘Kingdom of God’ is not mentioned in the ‘Hebrew Bible’, but in the Greek deutero-canonical book of Wisdom 10:10. We do find nine references in the ‘Hebrew Bible’ to the ‘kingdom’ over which Yahweh rules. Furthermore, there are 41 references to Yahweh as ‘king, melek’ (Fuellenbach 1999, p. 25). The word ‘basileia’ (kingdom) is mentioned 162 times in the New Testament: in Luke 46 times, in Matthew 55 times, in Mark 20 times, in John 5 times, in the Pauline Corpus 17 times, in Acts 8, and 11 times in the rest of the New Testament (Aland 1978, pp. 52–53). However, on a few accounts, the same word is associated with evil and beasts (Rev 16:10, 17:12–18).

2.4.2. The Presence or/and Absence of the Kingdom (Reign) of God

A quick look at this sub-title might lead to a quick criticism. In fact, ‘presence or/and absence’ is similar to ‘immanence or/and transcendence’, ‘otherworldly or/and thisworldly’, ‘realised or/and unrealised’, ‘evidence or/and hiddenness’, or better still ‘already or/and not yet.’ Though one can prefer one appellation more than the other, three schools of thought are persistent in all these appellations. Firstly, one person might be experiencing the presence of the Kingdom of God. Secondly, another person might be convinced that the Kingdom of God is absent. The third possibility is a bit subtle: a person can be experiencing that the kingdom of God is somehow absent and present.

C. H. Dodd is the precursor of the theological school of the presence of the kingdom of God. He maintains that Mk 9:1 reflects the presence of the Kingdom of God. Despite the presence of suffering, the kingdom of God is inaugurated in the person of Jesus Christ (Dodd 1983, p. 43). Though the coming of Jesus and his preaching did not remove all the sufferings of the first-century Palestinians, one should not deny the presence of the Kingdom of God. He maintains that there was an apparent contradiction between some Jews and Gentiles. On the one hand, Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom of God had come. On the other hand, he foretold suffering for himself and disasters upon Israel. Hence ‘“the eschatology of the woe” falls within “the Kingdom of God”’ (Dodd 1983, p. 59).

Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer are the forerunners of the theological school of the absence, transcendence, ‘otherworldly’, unrealised, or the hiddenness of the kingdom of God during Jesus’ ministry. Following their search for the ‘historical Jesus’, they maintained that Jesus did not bring the kingdom. The kingdom is eschatological. J. P. Meier maintains a more or less similar position. He argues for the eschatological coming of the kingdom. In a section ‘The Kingdom of God Already Present’, he analyses Lk 11:20 in supposedly Aramaic and Greek (Meier 1994, pp. 422–23). He maintains that this text is more likely to be pointing to the future than to the present. Hence, the kingdom of God is not yet realised, according to Meier.

Oscar Cullmann gives the origin of the ‘distinction in inseparability’ concerning the time of the kingdom of God. His famous phrase is that the kingdom of God is “already and not yet.” He gives a metaphor from warfare to illustrate this ‘both-and’ position (Cullmann 1964, p. 84):

The decisive battle in a war may have already occurred in a relatively early stage of the war, and yet the war still continues. Although the decisive effect of that battle is perhaps not recognised by all, it nevertheless already means victory. But the war must still be carried on for an undefined time.

Many theologians and the Magisterium support this position. John Paul II and Wilbert Gobbo, in line with Oscar Cullmann (1964), are against the ‘either-or’ of the extreme positions. They refuse the position that the kingdom of God is only to be realised in the future. They maintain that this position is pessimistic and secular (worldly). The kingdom of God is not fully realised already. They stress both the immanent and transcendent elements of the Kingdom of God. Indeed, the Kingdom is already and not yet. It is for everyone: individuals, society, and the world at large. It is linked with the divine salvific plan (John Paul II 1990, no 5, 15; Gobbo 2014, pp. 55–62).

2.4.3. The Models of the Kingdom (Reign) of God

The Kingdom of God, just like other mysteries, can be experienced and known to some extent but never exhausted. They transcend human experience and knowledge, which are limited in their very nature. The language of symbols, metaphors, analogies, and models can be appropriate as far as the mysteries are concerned. A model, by definition, “is a conceptual and symbolic representation… by which we try to grasp and express reality or part of reality” (Lambino 1977, pp. 2–3). A. Dulles contributes very well to the study of the mysteries of revelation and the Church in his books Models of the Church and Models of Revelation (Dulles 1987, 1997). Howard A. Snyder, in his book Models of the Kingdom (Snyder 1991), proposes eight models of the kingdom as found in the Bible. The first model is ‘the Kingdom as future hope’ (Jn 18:36). The second model is ‘the kingdom as inner spiritual experience’ (Lk 17:21). ‘The kingdom as mystical communion (Lk 22:29–30)’ is the third model. The next model is ‘the kingdom as institutional Church’ (Mt 16:19). The fifth model is ‘the kingdom of God as a counter system’ (Lk 6:20). ‘The kingdom of God as a political state’ is the sixth model. The seventh model is ‘the kingdom as Christianized culture’ (Is 42:1, 4). The last model is ‘the Kingdom as the earthly utopia’ (Is 11:6).

How can one assess these models? Are they exhaustive? To say that they are exhaustive would be saying too much. Nevertheless, they portray a ‘rich variety’ in the understanding of the Kingdom of God. Just like the Trinitarian koinōnia, Basileia tou Theou is a multi-dimensional reality. There is a diversity of models in the unity of the Kingdom of God and the Trinitarian koinōnia. Now, it is appropriate to consider various contemporary views of the Trinitarian koinōnia.

2.5. Conclusions

The purpose of this part was to find the foundation of the Trinitarian koinōnia. Firstly, it has attempted to establish the biblical foundation of the doctrine of Trinity and the roots of the koinōnia in the New Testament. Secondly, this part has tried to show how the Trinitarian koinōnia is rooted in the New Testament. It has not ignored the link between the Trinitarian koinōnia and the Kingdom of God, which is already and not yet. Maybe an image which can be used of the Trinitarian koinōnia and Basileia tou Theou is that of the ‘twin sisters’ called ‘justice and peace’ (Gobbo 2001a) or even the ‘Siamese twins’. This chapter gives the ‘Sitz im Leben’ (Gunkel 1964) of the Trinitarian koinōnia. Now, it is appropriate to analyse some contemporary views of the Trinitarian koinōnia.

3. Some Contemporary Views of the Trinitarian Koinōnia

3.1. A Brief Reflection on God for Us—Catherine M. LaCugna

Catherine M. LaCugna gives a brilliant reflection on the Trinitarian koinōnia as ‘Persons in Communion’ (LaCugna 1993, pp. 243–317). She proceeds by considering ‘Person as Relation’, ‘Personhood in the Horizon of Modern Thought, Persons in Relation: The Personalist Philosophy of John MacMurray’, ‘Persons as Ecstatic and Hypostatic: The Contribution of Contemporary Orthodox Theology’, Persons Oppressed: The Trinity and Liberation Theologies’, ‘Voices from Christian Ethics: Catholic and Orthodox’, ‘Toward an Understanding of Persons in Communion’, and ‘Communion with the Living God through Christ in the Holy Spirit’.

Her reflection can help us to understand, at least to a certain extent, that the Trinitarian koinōnia has some practical implications for human beings. These implications can be extended to the socio-economic domain. The Triune God is not for God’s self. The Triune God is for communion with human beings and creation.

3.1.1. Her Brief Historical Review of the Doctrine of Trinity

Tertullian (160–220) coined the word ‘trinitas.’ In his Adversus Praxea, Tertullian argues that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit tres sunt (are three) non (not by) statu (status), substantia (substance) et potestate (power) sed (but by) gradu (degree), forma (form) et specie (kind or manifestation). He speaks of oneness (unum) and threeness (tres) in God. Each persona (prosopon) is distinct yet is fully united in one God. Albeit LaCugna identifies the Cappadocians (Basil of Caesarea (330–379), Gregory of Nyssa (335–394), and Gregory of Nazianzus (330–394)) with the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Cappadocians identified the divine ousia with the person of the Father along with the relation of the Father to the Son. Their main insight was God as a relational being. On the one hand, there is the uniqueness and distinctiveness in the co-equal hypostases of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On the other hand, there is the unity of the relational divine hypostases in their very ousia. In God, there is the ‘unique hypostatic identity and distinction’ of divine persons. ‘This ontology predicated relation or person (hypostasis) as the mode of God’s ousia … For the Cappadocians, hypostasis or personhood was not an addition to being; personhood or relation is “how” being exists. If God was not personal, God would not exist at all’ (LaCugna 1993, pp. 243–44).

The Cappadocians used the terms hypostasis and ousia interchangeably. One could speak of God as one ousia in three hypostases, or one could still say that God is one hypostasis in three ousia. There was confusion, which led to Christologies of subordination (Arianism) and Christologies of modalism (Sabellianism) (Stead 1977).

The Greek Fathers considered personhood (prosōpon) as the divine ontological principle. In God, the substance (ousia) or nature (physis) and person (prosōpon) or hypostasis are mutually inclusive. You cannot have one without the other. However, the cause (aitia) of being is the prosōpon or hypostasis. The Greek Fathers maintain that personhood is the basis of the divine existence and essence. This personhood is grounded in the overflow of the love of the Father, which, in total freedom, leads to the begetting of the Son and the bringing forth of the Spirit (Zizioulas 1985, pp. 41–44). Furthermore, he argues that ‘God exists on account of a person, the Father, and not on account of a substance’ (Zizioulas 1975, pp. 401–48). Concerning Greek and orthodox theology, he maintains that ‘an ontology of God that treats divine substance apart from divine persons is a contradiction in terms.’ The Greek Fathers refute chronological (sequential), subordinate and necessary (as opposed to free) outflow of the love of the Father.

LaCugna observes a theological deviation (especially in the West) from Greek theology. There was a speculation about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that became ‘prepersonal’ and ‘impersonal.’ The treaty on the ‘oneness’ of God (De Deo Uno) was separated from that of the ‘threeness’ of God (De Deo Trino). Furthermore, theologia was divorced from oikonomia. The Latin theologians insisted on theologia, while the Greek theologians stressed the oikonomia. The koinōnia of the divine persons was replaced by the notion of substantial aseity (by-it-selfness). She maintains that the Latin theologians (like Augustine, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, etc.) are responsible for this deviation. She appreciates the attempt of Karl Rahner to adopt the approach of the Greek Fathers (of the outflow of the love of the Father—the Unoriginated Origin) in his concept of ‘supernatural existential’ (LaCugna 1993, pp. 246–48; Rahner 1979).

LaCugna argues that the notion of the Trinitarian koinōnia is affirmed by theologians of the East and the West. However, Greek theology brackets the koinōnia ad intra and concentrates on the Trinitarian koinōnia within the perspective of ‘redemption and deification’ (theosis). The Latin theology not only speaks of Trinitarian koinōnia ad extra but also speculates, to a great extent, on the Trinitarian koinōnia ad intra. On the one hand, the koinōnia in Latin theology is coloured with speculations, distinctions, and definitions (delimiting). On the other hand, Greek theology insists on the koinōnia ‘of all in all, all in God, God in all’ (LaCugna 1993, p. 249). Furthermore, LaCugna insists on the reunion of the marriage between theologia and oikonomia, which was separated by the Latin theologians. She insists that we are to move from the empty speculation of God in se and per se to God-for-us, who is manifested by and in Jesus Christ through the Spirit. She affirms that ‘God’s To-Be is To-Be-in-relationship, and God’s being-in-relationship-to-us is what God is’ (LaCugna 1993, p. 250).

LaCugna maintains that, in the West, the concept of personhood is individualistic and not relational. Starting with Augustine and going to modern scholars (such as Schleiermacher 1979) via Descartes (with his cogito ergo sum), personhood has a connotation of an independent subject, a centre of self-consciousness, and individuality. It is because of this confusing understanding of personhood that Karl Barth suggested the replacement of ‘person’ with ‘modes of being’ (Seinsweisen). For Barth, God is the what, the that, and the how of revelation. In other words, ‘God is Revealer, Revelation, and Revealedness; God reveals, God reveals Godself, God reveals through Godself’ (LaCugna 1993, p. 252; Barth 1975, p. 355). In the same line, Karl Rahner maintains that the term person is problematic and proposes the ‘distinct modes of subsisting’ (Subsistenzweisen). He considers the Father as the first mode of subsistence. God’s ‘self-communication’ and ‘self-mediation’ are through the Father. He argues that the divine persons’ taxis (or internal order) is that of the oikonomia of the salvation of Father, Son, and the Spirit (Rahner 1986, pp. 103–15). Some scholars (Kasper 1985, p. 288; Moltmann 1981, p. 144) have criticised the suggestions of Karl Barth and Karl Rahner. However, their contribution is a breakthrough in the notion of the ‘personhood’ of God. They have opened wide the door of the discussion of the ‘personhood’ of God. LaCugna analyses the contributions of John Macmurray, John Zizioulas, and other scholars in this problem of the ‘personhood’ of God.

3.1.2. Some Different Views on Personhood and Trinity

John Macmurray’s appellation of ‘God’ is a ‘universal personal Other’. The personal Other is in a mutual relationship with each member of the human community. This idea of the personal Other makes possible the reality of the unity of persons within a community (Macmurray 1961, p. 164). LaCugna maintains that, though Macmurray is a philosopher (and not a theologian), his understanding of personhood can shed light on the Trinitarian notion of personhood. He argues that ‘A person is a heterocentric, inclusive, free, relational agent’. The person is ‘the one who acts in relation to another’. This understanding of ‘personhood’ can help us to understand the unity of the nature and actions of God (LaCugna 1993, p. 259). The activity of God is embodied in Godliness. In other words, one can say that the Trinity ad intra (theologia) is inseparable from the Trinity ad extra (oikonomia).

LaCugna appreciates the contribution of John Zizioulas, who considers persons in terms of ekstasis and hypostasis. His theology is Cappadocian. He acknowledges the Cappadocian notion of a person as hypostasis. However, he refutes the notion of a person as ousia. He argues that the character of ekstasis entails catholicity, integrity, and indivisibility. The character of hypostasis entails the bearing of its nature and identity of totality and wholeness. Furthermore, it signifies the uniqueness and the unrepeatability of the person (Zizioulas 1985, p. 47).

Zizioulas maintains that human ‘location’ (experience, grasp, and understanding) of God is not in ousia or substance (because God in se is unknowable) but rather in personhood. The being or essence and the existence of God are ‘earthed’ in koinōnia (Zizioulas 1985, p. 49). The revelation of God is in (en) and through (dia) Jesus Christ. Zizioulas maintains that the notion of God as love entails personhood, relation, and koinōnia: ‘Love as God’s mode of existence “hypostasizes” God, constitutes (God’s) being. Therefore, as a result of love, the ontology of God is not subject to the necessity of the substance. Love is identified with ontological freedom’ (Zizioulas 1985, p. 46). Love, being ontologically relational, is eternal. This concept can be the foundation of the eternal life of humans in koinōnia with God. Love is the source of new beings. There are no beings or persons without love. LaCugna maintains that ‘However, what is of ultimate significance for Zizioulas is that God (the Father) is the origin of all personhood. Human persons exist in the first person because God subsists as triune love’ (LaCugna 1993, p. 266).

LaCugna reflects on the persons who are oppressed within the context of Triune God and the theologies of liberation. Her main concerns are feminist and Latin American theologies. Her basic assumption is that the Trinity as koinōnia helps us to conceive an authentic human community which is shaped, mirrored, and inspired by the divine community ‘characterised by equality, mutuality and reciprocity among persons’ (LaCugna 1993, p. 266).

She maintains that feminism is the critique of the ‘ethos of patriarchy’ and ‘androcentric bias’ which are manifested in all dimensions of human life: political, cultural, socio-economic, religious, linguistic, and intellectual areas (LaCugna 1989, pp. 235–50). Theological feminism reacts against the male image and concept of God, which subordinates (and excludes) women. Women have been considered to be the equal, aliquo modo/secundum quid (though less than) men (Harahan 1983). Theological feminism proposes complementarity between men and women. It is against the male domination and subjugation of women. It rejects sexism in different aspects: intelligence, feeling, work, etc. Several thinkers refute sexism in Judeo-Christian religion. They propose the substitution of God for Goddess, and they attribute several feminine characteristics to God (Ruether 1983; Fiorenza 1983; Goldenberg 1979). Some scholars claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is about the masculinity of the Triune God. This doctrine embodies the subordination of the divine persons, which is extended to the subordination of women by men. The doctrine of the Trinity takes a hierarchical structure and not an egalitarian form of a community (Rice 1984; Wilson-Kastner 1983, p. 123).

Following Jürgen Moltmann, Patricia Wilson-Kastner describes the Trinitarian unity in terms of perichoresis (Moltmann 1981, pp. 174–76; Gregory of Nazianzus 1857–1866, pp. 37, 182; Prestige 1928, pp. 242–52). The term perichōrēsis entails reciprocity and mutuality in love, interconnectedness, interpenetration, interdependence, and permeation. It stresses unity in distinction. For Wilson-Kastner, Triune perichōrēsis entails co-equality, mutuality, reciprocity, inclusiveness, koinōnia, and freedom, which refutes the human realities of sexism and racism. Only an egalitarian human community can be the eikōn of Triune koinōnia and perichoresis (Wilson-Kastner 1983, p. 131–33). This notion is reflected, to some extent, in Eph 1:3–14 and Jn 17:20–21.

Furthermore, LaCugna observes that Leonardo Boff is strongly against the supremacy of the Father over the Son and the Spirit. The hierarchical model of the Trinity can be used to justify injustice, subjugation, and oppression. Boff uses the notion of perichōrēsis to illustrate his notion of a just society. Concerning the notion of the Triune God, he stresses the divine love (LaCugna 1993, p. 284; Farley 1975, pp. 627–46), unity in diversity, reciprocity, communion, freedom, and ekstasis (Boff 1988, pp. 129–34; Segundo 1974, pp. 66, 98–177). For Boff, the perichoretic koinōnia is not an accident. On the contrary, it is an essential element which constitutes the Trinity. God is intrinsically personal, relational, and communal. This understanding of God should shape our vision of human beings. He writes: ‘This perichoretic communion does not result from the Persons, but is simultaneous with them, originates with them. They are what they are because of their intrinsic, essential communion. If this is so, it follows that everything in God is triadic, everything is Patreque, Filioque and Spirituque’ (Boff 1988, p. 146). Boff is very critical of the hierarchical model of the Church.

3.1.3. A Summary of the Trinitarian Koinōnia

LaCugna gives a summary of the Trinitarian koinōnia in a section entitled ‘communion with the living God through Christ in the Spirit’. Christ is the koinōnia of both the divine and human. On the one hand, Jesus Christ is the eikōn of the unseen God. On the other hand, he is the human being par excellence. The ‘wholeness’, the ‘whatness’, and the ‘howness’ of Jesus are inseparable. Jesus is both the divine and human ekstasis. There is a radical inclusiveness and true freedom in Jesus Christ. Jesus is not only the God-made man but also, in him, there is the divinisation (theōsis) of the human being (LaCugna 1993, pp. 292–96; Harakas 1985, pp. 212–15).

LaCugna presents the Holy Spirit as the one who brings unity not only in the Trinitarian koinōnia but also in the koinōnia between God and human beings (and creation at large). The Holy Spirit is involved in the humanisation (anthrōposis) of God and the divinisation (theōsis) of human beings. The Holy Spirit is the ekstasis of God. The ‘bond of love’ between the divine persons entails the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is involved in the incorporation of human beings into the divine perichōrēsis. True freedom in koinōnia and diakonia is the work of the Holy Spirit (LaCugna 1993, pp. 296–300; Duquoc 1978, pp. 121–22). Congar (1983, p. 148) argues that ‘[The Spirit] makes the divine communion open to what is not divine. He is the indwelling of God where God is, in a sense, “outside Himself”. [The Spirit] is therefore called “love”. He is God’s “ecstasy” directed towards [God’s] “other”, the creature.’

LaCugna maintains that the Bible speaks of ‘the living God’. Unfortunately, the Greek philosophical notion of God (such as the Aristotelian notion of the unmoved mover) has greatly influenced Christian theology. There is a need to reinterpret some divine attributes. The immutability of God is to be understood as divine personhood. The incorruptibility of God is in terms of God’s love. The divine kenōsis (Balthasar 1968, pp. 71–72; 1994, pp. 324, 326, 328) does not lead to the cessation of Godliness. On the contrary, agapē and kenōsis are essential divine attributes. God is the summum bonum of love, communion, and personhood. There cannot be God without being essentially God for and with us (LaCugna 1993, pp. 300–5; Jüngel 2009, p. 327).

Catherine LaCugna, in her magnum opus God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, has shown that the Triune God (including the Trinitarian koinōnia) is relevant in our life (including our socio-economic life). Her book, which has received recognition from many theologians around the world, is a great contribution to the faith-based argument that the Trinitarian koinōnia has socio-economic implications.

3.2. A Brief Reflection on Trinity and Society—Leonardo Boff

3.2.1. His Brief Historical View of the Doctrine of the Trinity

In line with our Catholic classical method of the three theological pillars (loci theologici) of Scriptures, Apostolic Tradition, and human context, we find it appropriate to highlight a brief historical view of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is part of our systematic and systemic approach. The historical view is associated with the locus theologicus of Traditio apostolica. Boff begins by proposing a paradigm shift in the understanding of God ‘from the solitude of one to the communion of three’ (Boff 1988, pp. 1, 9). Boff proceeds by identifying some texts in the New Testament which are triadic (or Trinitarian): Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:13; 2 Thes 2:13–14; 1 Cor 12:4–6; and Gal 3:11–14. Other Pauline texts include Gal 4:6; 2 Cor 1:21–22; 3:3; Rm 14:17–18; 15:16, 15:30; Phil 3:3; Eph 2:18; 2:20–22; 3:14–17. Other implicit texts include Tt 3:4–6; 1 Pt 1:2; Jude 20–21; Rev 1:4–5; and Hb 6:4 (Boff 1988, pp. 36–39).

Boff outlines some of the efforts in the cause of understanding the Trinitarian reality. He not only analyses the orthodox position but also examines the erroneous approaches of modalism and tritheism. He gives highlights of the positions of Irenaeus (c. 125–202), Origen (185–254), Tertullian, the Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine (354–430), and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) (Boff 1988, pp. 46–53; Irenaeus 1959, pp. 39–40; Bourassa 1975, pp. 187–94).

He re-examines various dogmatic views of the mystery of the Trinity. He not only evaluates the official documents of the magisterium but also the personhood and the communion of the Trinity. He examines the ‘Creed of Nicaea’ and the ‘Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed’. Furthermore, he analyses the ‘Quicumque’ or ‘Pseudo-Athanasian Creed’ and those of the councils of Toledo, Florence, and the Fourth Lateran Council. He concludes with the ‘Decree for the Jacobites’ (Boff 1988, pp. 66–75; Denzinger-Schönmetzer 1955, 1982). Boff, based on his analysis of the various views of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, observes three paradigm shifts in the understanding of the Trinity. These shifts include: ‘from unity of nature to Trinity of persons’, ‘from the unity of substance of the Father to Trinity of persons’, and ‘from the Trinity of Persons to the unity of nature-communion’ (Boff 1988, pp. 78–84; Schmaus 1927).

3.2.2. The Trinitarian Eternal Life

Boff insists on the Trinitarian relationship, which entails perfection in communion and participation. He argues that zōē (life), koinōnia, and perichōrēsis are key Trinitarian concepts. The concepts of life and communion are rooted in the Bible while perichōrēsis, (circuminsessio or circumincessio (Lt circum for around, sedere for to seat)) is a theological term (Boff 1988, pp. 123–24).

Boff maintains that God lives eternally. There are several texts in the ‘First Testament’ which associate God with life: Gn 1:2; 2:7; Ex 3:7–10.13–15; 6:7; Deut 6:21; 10:18; 26:12; 1 Sam 17:26-36; Ps 18:46; 36:9; 115:4–8; 104:29–30; 146:6–9; Prov 14:31; 17:5; 22:23; Is 42:5; Jer 22:16; Ezek 37; Hos 2:1. In the Hebrew mentality, God is not a static being. God is alive and deals with living beings. The New Testament is not ignorant of the fact that God is alive. The Johannine and the Pauline traditions insist on the fact that God is source of life: Jn 1:4; 5:26; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6; Rom 5:18-21; 6:22; 9:26; 2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:5–6; 1 Tim 6:16. This concept of life is also found, explicitly or at least implicitly, in other texts such as Mt 16:16; 26:63; Acts 3:15; 14:5; 1 Jn 1:2; Rev 1:17–19; 4:9; 10:6; 15:7. God realises Godself eternally through God’s eternal life. This God’s self-realisation is gar (for), dia (through), meta (with), en (in), sun (together with), and other persons of the Trinity (Boff 1988, pp. 124–28).

3.2.3. The Trinitarian Koinōnia and Human Society

The Koinōnia is an essential reality of the Trinity. Life and communion are mutually inclusive. Boff prefers the word ‘communing’ to ‘communion’. This Trinitarian reality is very important to enlighten our views of the Church, man, and divine grace (Moltmann 1985, pp. 50–58; Bracken 1974, pp. 166–88; Hamer 1962). He gives three perspectives of God’s communing: analytical, philosophical, and theological.

The analytical dimension of communing entails ‘presence one to another’, ‘reciprocity’, ‘immediacy’, and ‘community’. They include mutual welcome, openness, mutual acceptance, dialogue, and sharing. Furthermore, they embrace mutual attraction, togetherness without fusion, intimacy, mutual interests, transparency, and other centeredness. There is a symbiotic relationship. Other aspects of communing are mutual respect, participation, and a common project in the distinction of individual contribution (Boff 1988, pp. 129–30).

The philosophical dimension of communing involves: ‘being-in-openness’, ‘being-in-transcendence’, and ‘being-us’. This dimension comprises openness, freedom, love, and interdependence. It goes beyond the human self to the Absolute Being (to which the name God is attributed). It entails the transformation of the human community into a fellowship which is founded on mutual love (Boff 1988, pp. 130–31).

There is a rich theological dimension of communing. The Bible has given a strong basis for the communing of God. In the First Testament, the notion of the covenant underlines the communing aspect of God: Gn 9, 12; Ex 19, 24; Jer 31:33; and Ezek 37:26. This covenantal relationship was not only collective but also individual. In the New Testament, there is a foundation of God’s communing: 1 Jn 1:3; Rom 6:6; 8:17; 2 Cor 7:3; Gal 2:19; Col 2:12, 3:1; Eph 2:6; and 2 Tim 2:12. Other texts include Jn 14:20; 15:4; 17:21; Acts 2:42; 4:32; Rom 12:5; 15:26; 1 Cor 10:16–18; 2 Cor 9:13; 13:13; and Hb 4:32; 13:16 (Boff 1988, pp. 131–32).

The community of the early Church identified itself as communio sanctorum. The relationship between the members of one loving community was nourished by mutual collaboration visits and letters (litterae communicationis). Their relationship was grounded in openness, reciprocity, participation, mutual recognition, and cooperation. The Second Vatican Council, the Third General Conference of Latin American Bishops held in Puebla in 1979, and the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops of 1985 stressed the importance of the ecclesial communion (Boff 1988, p. 133; Paul VI 1998, p. 395).

Koinōnia is an essential Trinitarian reality. The divine persons are eternally distinct but inseparable. Their unique and peculiar unity, which ‘embodies’ the threeness (Tri-unity), entails unity in diversity. Siding with the Church Fathers, Boff argues that ‘The Father is Father because he has a Son; the Son is Son only because he has a Father; the Spirit is Spirit only because of the love in which the Father begets the Son and the Son gives back to the Father’ (Boff 1988, p. 133).

The Trinitarian society is the foundation of the human society. The notion of the Trinitarian unity should illuminate human unity. There should be the empowerment of persons and not their annulment. There should be equitable sharing of the common good. Human relationships should be egalitarian and just. There should be loving, open, and inclusive relationships. The notion of perichōrēsis can help us to reflect on life and communion (Boff 1988, p. 134).

3.2.4. The Trinitarian Perichōrēsis and Human Society

The notion of perichōrēsis is grounded in the Johannine tradition: Jn 10:30, 10:38, 14:11, and 17:11. Other texts which speak of the mutual participation and interpenetration without fusion or confusion of the divine persons include Mt 1:18, 11:25–27, 12:28; Mk 5:30, 12:1–9, 13:32; Lk 1:27–35, 2:5, 4:1–13,17–21, 6:3; Jn 14:16, 15:26, 16:14; Rom 8:15; and Gal 4:6. The Councils of Florence and Toledo insisted on this notion circuminsessio or circumincessio. It stressed the indwelling, interplay, ‘dance’, and inseparability of the distinct divine persons. This reality implies dynamism, permeation, compenetration and interpenetration, dynamic reciprocity, and intertwining in the dynamism of the eternal communing. This Trinitarian notion of perichōrēsis (communicatio idiomatum) can be a foundation of a human society which is rooted in communing, equality, mutual respect, and acceptance (Boff 1988, pp. 135–38; Denzinger-Schönmetzer 1955, p. 531). Boff maintains that the eternal Trinitarian perichōrēsis is the basis of the Trinitarian union and that it is inclusive by nature. He argues that ‘St Paul and St. John summon us to include all people and history in the perichoretic unity of the Trinity’ (Boff 1988, pp. 147–48) (Jn 17:21; Acts 4:32; 31–35; Rom 10:12; 1 Cor 15:28).

Boff considers the Trinitarian koinōnia not only as an inspiration but also as a critic of our understanding of ‘personhood, community, society and Church’ (Boff 1988, p. 148). This understanding challenges the culture of individualism and the ‘a-trinitarian’ monotheistic view of some churches. It is a challenge to the hierarchical structure of the Church. The Trinitarian koinōnia fosters the notion of the Church (and indeed the society) as persons in the web of dynamic and inclusive relationships.

Does capitalism mirror the Trinitarian koinōnia? Capitalism, which involves the rule of the few and the exploitation of the majority, is not the eikōn of the Trinitarian koinōnia. In capitalism, the capital, the market, human rights, and superstructure are controlled by a few individuals at the expense of the majority of people. The Trinitarian koinōnia is the antidote of capitalistic societies (Boff 1988, pp. 149–50). The Concise Oxford Dictionary maintains (Pearsall 1999, p. 207) that capitalism is ‘an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.’ Among the defenders of capitalism is Jay W. Richards in his book Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem (Richards 2010).

Is socialism an eikōn of the Trinitarian koinōnia? Boff answers no. On the one hand, socialistic societies have communion as their founding principle. On the other hand, this social principle of koinōnia is imposed from above by the leading party without taking the point of view of the majority of people seriously. There is domination of the majority by the ruling few in the name of equality and collectivisation. The principle of unity in diversity is not respected. The Trinitarian koinōnia can inspire socialistic societies (Boff 1988, pp. 150–51). According to the World Bank and IMF, South Africa has one of the world’s highest income gaps between the rich and the poor (IMF 2020). The Trinitarian koinōnia can be its critique and inspiration.

One should see tri-unity as an eternal utopia. It is an ideal to strive for. A society inspired by the Trinitarian koinōnia should struggle to reduce large class differences and dominations based on economic, gender, or ideological status. The inspired society should promote mutual fellowship, participation, generosity, equality, unity in diversity, etc. There should be the eradication of the multi-dimensional oppression and marginalisation of the majority of women and men (Boff 1988, pp. 151–52; Moltmann 1985, pp. 50–55).

Boff argues that the Church’s unity (or rather a hierarchy) is not based on Trinitarian monotheism, but rather it is based on ‘pre-trinitarian monotheism’ or even ‘a-trinitarian monotheism’. It is based on one God, one Christ, and one pope. It entails being and performing for the faithful and not with the faithful. He argues that the Trinitarian perichoretic koinōnia is the ‘solar mystery’ while the Church is (or rather supposed to be) the ‘lunar mystery’ or rather the ‘derive mystery’ (mysterium derivatum) (Boff 1988, pp. 152–53; Congar 1974, pp. 687–703). This understanding of the Church should promote the Episcopal collegiality and unity of one Church of God in the diversity of the local churches. The ecclesial communion should be mirrored by the Trinitarian communion. There should be a paradigm shift from the ecclesial hierarchia to ecclesial koinōnia (which embraces the human koinōnia) (Boff 1988, pp. 153–54).

3.3. A General Evaluation of the Views of LaCugna, and Boff on the Trinitarian Koinōnia

3.3.1. The Contribution of LaCugna and Boff to the Trinitarian Koinōnia

Several theologians have written about the koinōnia. However, I find that LaCugna, and Boff have made a significant contribution to this important Triune reality. The titles of their books are very significant. In Trinity and Society, Leonardo Boff wants to show that the Trinitarian koinōnia is not dissociated from human society which includes its socio-economic reality. Similarly, in God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, Catherine LaCugna highlights that the Trinitarian is not indifferent to our human life and Christian life at large, which includes our socio-economic reality.

Both of them, implicitly or explicitly, affirm the Trinitarian koinōnia in terms of ad intra and ad extra relations. Though the koinōnia essentially and eternally befits and describes (rather than defines, which is delimiting) God in se, it describes opus Dei (which is God’s dealing with human beings and creation at large). The notion of koinōnia is ‘embodied’ in our perception, experience, conception, and understanding of the Triune God. The Father is revealed en (in) and dia (through) Jesus sun (together with) the Holy Spirit. There is no divine revelation without the Triune koinōnia. To use the Barthian language, the koinōnia of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit implies the unity in distinction of the ‘Revealer, Revelation and Revealedness’ (Barth 1975, p. 295; O’Donnell 1992, p. 23; Barth 1937, pp. 42–46). The Father is the ‘whoness’ or the ‘whatness’ (quiddity) of revelation, the Son is its ‘thatness’ (illudity), and the Spirit is its ‘howness’.

Both of them maintain that God is intrinsically personal and relational (O’Collins 1999, pp. 165–82; Torrance 1996; Hill 1982). God is not ‘prepersonal’, ‘apersonal’, or ‘antipersonal’. God is related to human beings not out of necessity but out of God’s overflowing love. It is interesting to observe that both of them affirm that God is love par excellence. All of them seem to propose a paradigm shift in the understanding of God: ‘from Being to Being-in-love’. The agapeic and kenotic qualitative jump is an essential aspect in the understanding of the Triune God (Kelly 1989; Balthasar 1968).

LaCugna and Boff argue, implicitly or explicitly, that the Triune koinōnia affects human life. Human society is shaped with the divine perfect society of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Triune unity in diversity (distinction without separation) is reflected in the interpersonal relationships of human society. Human society has to move from being the opaque of the Trinitarian koinōnia to being its iekōn (Volf 1998, pp. 403–23; Prokes 1993).

3.3.2. The Limitations of LaCugna and Boff on the Trinitarian Koinōnia

It is important to point out that their limitation does not rule out their insightful contribution. The Koinōnia is a very rich multidimensional reality. Not a single academic work can exhaust this divine and human reality. The Trinitarian koinōnia will always remain an ‘unfinished business’ (Bowden 1983, p. 2).

LaCugna and Boff are theologians and not biblical exegetes. This reality can be observed in their treatises of the Trinitarian koinōnia. Boff and LaCugna begin with the early Church Fathers and not with the Bible. Boff makes some efforts to highlight some insightful biblical texts. However, they have tried their best to establish the biblical foundation of the Trinitarian koinōnia.

Both of them are neither social analysts nor economists. They have tried to highlight the link between the Trinitarian koinōnia and human society. However, the link is not very well illustrated. It needs a thinker and a Christian believer who is a professional in social analysis, economics, the Bible, and theology to give a very good synthesis of the God–human koinōnia. Nowadays, because of specialisation, it is very difficult to be a professional in several fields. However, theologians are invited to try their best to be familiar, to a certain extent, with l’enjeu of human society in its multi-faceted dimensions: socio-economic, political, cultural, etc.

Though both of them are convinced of God as love par excellence, they have not created even a short sub-section to the divine inclusion (if not the radical option) for the ‘unlovable’, the ‘have-nots’, the ‘non-persons’, the last, the least, the lost, and the victimised whose voice is that of God (vox victimarum vox Dei) (Gobbo 2001b, p. 47; Bosch 1989, pp. 3–21; Lamb 1982). The Trinitarian koinōnia challenges current human society whereby the gap between the rich and the destitute is very large. The Trinitarian koinōnia and, indeed, oikonomia should challenge and criticise the current human or world economics. Otherwise, it remains empty words (flatus vocis). The Trinitarian koinōnia and the Basileia tou Theou should be rooted in both orthopraxis and orthodoxy.

Both of them follow the Trinitarian social model. This model is different from the Augustinian psychological model. There are both arguments for and against each Trinitarian model. It is not the intention of this article to go into the arguments for and against each of the Trinitarian models.

4. The Socio-Economic Implications of the Trinitarian Koinōnia

Many theologians have insisted on the soteriological implication of the doctrine of the Trinity. Their efforts are acknowledged and appreciated. This article tries to stress the socio-economic implications of the Trinitarian koinōnia. Are the two ‘seemingly’ different implications mutually exclusive? It should be taken into account that sōtēria is a holistic notion. Sōtēria is not just a spiritual salvation. Life (zōē) is equally comprised in sōtēria. Ireneus said that the glory of God is man fully alive. Human life is an essential concern of divine salvation. However paradoxical it may seem to some people, it is correct to sustain that there is a covenantal relationship between the soteriological and socio-economic implications of Trinitarian koinōnia.

Is there a link between the Trinitarian koinōnia and the human socio-economic dimension? As the saying goes, ‘money makes the world go around’ and it is important to reflect on the implication of the Trinitarian koinōnia to the human socio-economic reality. Human beings have both spiritual and material elements in their being. The vertical relationship (God—human being) and the horizontal relationship (among human beings) are interpenetrated. There should be no dichotomy between the Trinitarian oikonomia and human economics. Concerning the Trinitarian faith, Gerald O’Collins argues that it comprises not only fides quaerens intellectum scientificum but also fides quaerens adorationem and fides quaerens iustitiam socialem (O’Collins 1999, pp. 3–4). The endeavour to understand is scientific in worship and social justice.

However, to agree with or to grasp the implications of the Trinitarian koinōnia, it presupposes not only faith in God but also a belief in the mystery of the Triune God. A person who does not believe in the three persons of the Triune God will not easily agree with the influence of the inspiration or critique of the Trinitarian koinōnia on human socio-economics. This would mean fighting a battle which is lost in advance. God’s love which is associated with the divine life, perichoresis and koinōnia will be just empty words (flatus vocis). St. Augustine and Pope John Paul II speak of ‘I believe so that I may understand’ (credo ut intellegam) and ‘I understand so that I may believe’ (intellego ut credam) (John Paul II 1998, no 16; 24). Without faith in the Trinitarian koinōnia, there are no rational arguments which will convince the person beyond doubt. What is needed is not just pure rationalism but rather ‘reason informed by faith’ or ‘incarnate reason’ (recta ratio).

Furthermore, someone who has known and lived their life in a capitalistic country might not be in the position to be self-critical and understand the side effects of a capitalistic system on the exploitation of other countries. One can even justify colonialism and neo-colonialism because they bring wealth to the capitalistic country. Performing theology in the South, from the point of view of the last, the lost, and the least of the society might not only be understood but also accepted by some theologians in the North.

4.1. An Outline of Some Socio-Economic Facts

Can my two years of studying economics qualify me to analyse economic issues? Experts in sociology and economics are required to give an exposition of complex and dynamic socio-economic issues. Nevertheless, it is important to give a brief exposition of some important socio-economic facts.

4.1.1. The Function and Dysfunction of the Global Economic System

On the one hand, one can affirm the function of the global economic system. On the other hand, one can affirm its dysfunction. There is both overproduction and consumerism (Britannica 2002) in some areas and underproduction and poverty in others (Britannica 2024). Gutiérrez offers a broader definition of the poor. He maintains that the poor are “the weak and powerless” and this is true at all levels—“economic, social, political, or human” (Gutiérrez 1983, p. 114).

What are the factors which lead to economic imbalance? There are both internal and external factors which make some people or nations rich and others poor. Many people attribute the poverty of poorer countries to global events: the development of some civilisations and formation of empires, the Triangular Trade (America, Africa, and Europe), the Industrial Revolution, colonialism, and neo-colonialism (Gheddo 1973, p. 82), the Cold War, the Communication Revolution, the UN, the IMF (Green 1995, p. 36), the World Bank (George and Sabelli 1994, p. 130), Multinational Enterprises (Daniels and Lever 1996, p. 104), the Arms Trade, globalisation, foreign debt (Jackson 1990, p. 88), etc. George and Sabelli (1994, p. 130) write “It took the Church several hundred years to convert only a part of humanity to Christianity. It took the Bank little than a decade to impose structural adjustment worldwide, or very nearly.” Daniels and Lever (1996, p. 104) write, “The world as a whole is estimated to hold a total of 37,000 multinational firms, which control in total… around one-third of all private sector capital. These capital assets generate a sales value of approximately $US5.5 trillion (a million million), a figure only slightly less than that of the US in 1993.” This view is very simplistic. One should include corruption, nepotism, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, etc. The complex factors for economic inequalities are grounded in the unquenchable human desire for more profit and wealth at whatever cost.

The current global socio-economic structure makes rich countries grow richer, and poor countries remain in the vicious circle of poverty. The poorest fifth of the global population receives 1.4% of the total global income, while the richest fifth receives 82.7% of the total global income (UNDP 1992).

When the price of raw materials coming from Africa is decided by rich buyers in Europe and America, such a setup will never be for the betterment of the poor countries in Africa. If Africa is not at the table of discussion, then it will be part of the menu; this was proven to be true at the Berlin conference (1884–1885) which led to the colonialism of Africa and is true today, inter alia, with unfair international trade and neo-colonialism at large in Africa and other poor regions.

4.1.2. Is Going Against the Current Economic Imbalance Possible?

How can one change economic laws? How can one reverse the trade arrow, which points to the maximisation of profit? How can one ‘tame’ the ‘giants’ (the multinationals)? The World Trade Organisation (WTO) maintains that of the 100 largest economic entities in the world, 51 are transnational corporations. The 200 largest corporations in the world have combined sales greater than the combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of all countries but the ten largest economies and 18 times greater than the income of 25 per cent of the world’s poorest population (living on less than one USD per day). The profit of the 200 largest companies (of which 82 are based in the US) grew by 362.4 per cent over the 16 years between 1983 and 1999. Their sales amounted to the equivalent of about 27.5 per cent of the global GDP in 1999 (Lobe 2001).

Furthermore, the 500 largest industrial corporations in the world control 25% of the global economic output. It is noted that the top 300 multinationals (excluding global financial institutions) own about 25% of global productive assets. According to the estimation of The Economist, the assets of the fifty largest global commercial banks and diversified financial companies amount to nearly 60% of a USD 20 trillion global stock of productive capital (Korten 2024). On the one hand, in the era of globalisation, the existence of multinationals seems to be inevitable. On the other hand, can there be means and ways to bring about a fair and equitable sharing of global resources? How can there be a qualitative jump from selfish and profit-centred economics to holistic and human-centred economics? Can a particular system (capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy, anarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, etc.) bring about this paradigm shift? History tells us that none the systems have been very successful.

In this short article, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive presentation of the global socio-economic reality. In our world, or global village, the socio-economic dynamics are so complex. In economics, we speak of “ceteris peribus” (if all factors remain constant), and unfortunately, they are never constant. There are different economic structures in different countries (China, North Korea, Mexico, USA, South Africa, South Sudan, etc.) of the world. There are people who work very hard for their socio-economic development. However, in some countries, there are some exploitative structures, for example, unfair trade or demanding elevated interest on the money borrowed by poor countries, leading them to become greatly indebted countries and remain in the vicious circle of poverty. One question remains: can one speak of structural sin in such situations? Unfortunately, our answers are likely to be biassed by our lived experience either as victims of structural sin or beneficiaries of the exploitative socio-economic structures. Let us reflect on the possibility of the Trinitarian illumination in human socio-economics. Maybe the Trinitarian koinōnia can illumine this qualitative shift.

4.2. Can the Trinitarian Illuminate the Human Socio-Economics?

4.2.1. The Trinitarian Koinōnia and Kenōsis

Self-emptying (kenōsis), humility (tapeinōsis), and obedience hupakoē are very important Christian attitudes. The Trinitarian koinōnia is ‘earthed’ in kenōsis (Thompson 1994, pp. 47–49). The word kenos appears 18 times in the New Testament, and the words kenophōnia and kenoō appear 2 times and 5 times, respectively. The word tapeinōsis appears four times in the New Testament. Other words within the same semantic field include tapeinos (8 times), tapeinophrosunē (7 times), tapeinophrōn (1 time) and tapeinoō (14 times). The adverb kenōs appears only once. All these times it is used pejoratively as null, void, and empty. It is only in Phil 2:7–8 where the verb kenoō is used positively as self-emptying (Aland 1978, pp. 154, 272; 1983, pp. 688, 1242–43): ‘But emptied himself (ekenōsen), taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself (etapeinōsen) and became obedient (hupēkoos) unto death, even death on a cross.’ The word kenosō is closer to the words tapeinoō tapeinow (to humble oneself) and hupakaouō (to obey). The word hupakaouō appears 21 times in the New Testament (Aland 1978, p. 283). It is mainly in Hb 5:8–9 where obedience is directly attributed to Jesus: ‘Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him’.

Furthermore, whenever Jesus speaks of ‘doing the will (thelema) of my Father’, he points to the Trinitarian mutual kenōsis, tapeinōsis, and hupakaouousin (Mt 7:21, 12:50, 18:14; Mk 3:35; Jn 4:34, 5:30, 6:38–39,40, 7:17, 9:31). Concerning the mystery of the Trinity, John McDade maintains that ‘The obedience of the Son, the Father’s bestowal of life and the overflowing of the Spirit of love, are the different expressions of the determination of the divine being to be “God for us”’ (McDade 1988, p. 187).

On the one hand, the Paschal mystery is an event of humiliation. On the other hand, it is a kenotic event (Forsyth 1957, pp. 42–43; Barth 1975, pp. 21–25, 357). It is the point of encounter between the divinisation (theosis) and the humanisation (anthropōsis) of the true man and the true Son of God. The paschal mystery brings about reconciliation between the ‘Tripersonal’ God and human beings. Karl Barth writes ‘in his humility and compliance as the Son he has a supreme part in the majesty and disposing of the Father’ (Barth 1975, pp. 203–9; Thompson 1978, p. 51). Jesus bridges the gap between the Triune koinōnia and the human koinōnia. There is the ‘retroaction’ (Pannenberg 1977, p. 321; Galloway 1979, p. 80) of our eternal and intrinsic relationship with the Triune God, the God ‘for’, and ‘with’ us.

When one is humble, they can overcome pride and egoism. Such an attitude is very important for communion (koinōnia). The attitude of humility is important for accepting to be criticised and inspired by the Trinitarian koinōnia in our socio-economic reality. The humility of God (Varillon 1983; Balthasar 1975) can help us to move from our human ‘unholy trinity’ of ‘I, me and myself’ to the Trinity of God which is associated with love, life, and communion (koinōnia) in God’s self and in relationship with human beings and creation at large.

4.2.2. Trinitarian Koinōnia and Agapē

Love is an essential element in the Triune God. God is love par excellence. In the New Testament, the word agapē (love as a noun) appears 116 times. Other related words which are found within the same semantic field are agapaō (‘to love,’ which appears 143 times) and agapētos (‘beloved’ which is found 61 times) (Aland 1978, p. 2; 1983, pp. 3–6).

The Greek categorises love as agapē (selfless and altruistic love), erōs (aspiration toward value), philia (friendship), and epithumia (desire of the flesh, Rm 13:14; Gal 5:16-24; Eph 2:3; 1 Pt 2:10.18; 1 Jn 2:16). Many theologians can identify God with agapē and philia. It is very difficult for some scholars to associate God with love as erōs. Sallie McFague insists on God as a mother (agapē), lover (erōs), and friend (philia). The mainstream Christian tradition has been reluctant to maintain that ‘love is God’ or ‘God as lover’ because of the issue of eroticism (McFague 1987, pp. 101–2, 125–27, 157–60). Great mystics are comfortable with the imagery of God’s desire. Bernard of Clairvaux, when commenting on the Song of Songs 1:2, speaks of Jesus Christ as the happy kiss of God in which God is united to human beings (Bernard of Clairvaux 1950, p. 72; McDade 1994, p. 498–503).

Though Hans Urs von Balthasar takes the Triune kenos seriously (Balthasar 1968, pp. 71–72; 1984, pp. 150–53; 1990, pp. 148–49; Mansini 2000, pp. 500–1), his main stress is the Triune agapē. His contribution to the ‘descent into hell’ on ‘Holy Saturday’ is rooted in the infinite love of the Son of God to collaborate in the divine plan of love. Von Balthasar maintains that the Son of God empties himself to the highest level through his descent into the hell of those who have wilfully rejected God. For von Balthazar, the Triune kenōs and agapē are the two sides of the same coin (Balthasar 1975, p. 51; Balthasar and Ratzinger 1971, pp. 52–53). Love is not something added to God. It is wrong to consider God as an abstract, disinterested being. God is essentially love. There should be a paradigm shift in our understanding of God from the Triune ‘Being-without-us’ to ‘Being-in-Love-with-and-for-us’. It is love that ‘trinifies’ (the humanity) or the world and (humanises) or ‘en-worlds’ the Trinity (Kelly 1989, pp. 168–69). Therefore, it is very important to affirm the inseparability between the Trinitarian koinōnia and kenōsis. It is very difficult to conceive of the three Persons of one God to be in perfect, essential, and intrinsic fellowship without lovingly emptying for and with each other for the fulfilment of the divine loving plan.

For a person, for Church or society to accept to be criticised or inspired by the Trinitarian koinōnia in socio-economic relations to others, especially the poor (anawim), there should be self-emptying (kenōsis). Kenōsis will help rich people to be other-centred instead of following the natural egocentric tendency. They can imitate the three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who live in love, communion (koinōnia), and solidarity.

4.2.3. The Trinitarian Koinōnia and Solidarity

One can consider the koinōnia to be synonymous with solidarity and judge the above sub-title to be a tautology. Is it justifiable to reduce the rich concept of the koinōnia to only solidarity? As we have seen in the working definition of the koinōnia and in the New Testament, the koinōnia is a multi-faceted reality. This sub-section intends to underline solidarity as one of its dimensions, which has important socio-economic implications. There is solidarity among the three divine persons of one God in all that concern God’s self and in the economy of salvation. The fellowship of solidarity is in both Trinitarian dimensions, ad intra and ad extra. There is collaboration in the bestowal of grace, love, and fellowship (2 Cor 13:14), life and witness, marturia (Rm 8:11-16; Acts 2:32–33), unity in diversity (Eph 4:4; 1 Cor 12:4), peace (Jn 20:21–22; Rom 5:1; 14:17), blessings (Eph 1:3–17; 1 Cor 6:11; 2 Th 2:13), and forgiveness (Acts 2:38). There is Trinitarian solidarity in all good works of human beings (Acts 10:38), teachings and remembrance (Jn 14:26), confession of faith (1 Jn 4:2), service, diakonia (Hb 9:14), our chosenness, destination, and sanctification through obedience (1 Pt 1:2).

Triune solidarity is ‘embodied’ in Godliness. Trinitarian solidarity might be easily conceived in the salvific plan of God the Father, in the Son through the Spirit. However, one should affirm it as an essential and intrinsic reality which befits the Triune God in se. There is an interpersonal relationship among the persons of the three-person God. This relationship of solidarity is both active and passive, dynamic yet with static elements, within God’s self and towards the non-God (Kasper 1984, pp. 279–80; Fox 1996, pp. 29–30). Trinitarian solidarity is deeply rooted in the Trinitarian koinōnia.

4.3. The Ongoing Search of Ideal Human Koinōnia

There are many Christians and people of goodwill who say no to the exploitation and exclusion of the lowly. There have been several attempts to establish an ideal human koinōnia as the prolepsis and eikōn of the Trinitarian koinōnia. Some of these attempts include fair trade, cancellation of debts, and integrity of creation, which embraces justice and peace.

4.3.1. Human Koinōnia and Fair Trade

The IMF, IBRD, and WTO have not been successful in narrowing the gap between rich and poor countries. As a condition for loans, the IMF and IBRD impose several conditions such as privatisation, deregulation, trade liberalisation, etc. Other ties can be on government policies, taxation policy, reduction in services, and the Adjustment Structural Programme. These conditions can seem, in the short term, good for poor countries, but in the long term, they destroy their economies, making them dependent on developed countries. This leads to the vicious cycle of poverty.

The WTO, which was founded to reduce tariffs (taxes on imported goods) to encourage trade, is beneficial to developed countries (Lichauco 1982, pp. 34–45). The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) emerged for the same purpose. Unfortunately, the policies in the world market are made by the rich countries for their maximum acquisition of profit, even at the cost of the lives of millions of poor people. Other commercial strategies which are detrimental to the economy of developing countries include agricultural subsidies. For example, in 2002, the President of the United States authorised USD 4 billion to 25,000 cotton farmers in America. This commercial strategy lowered the prices of cotton in the global market. Consequently, West African countries lost USD hundreds of millions, affecting 11 million households that produce cotton. Some families starved to death.

Some Christians and people of goodwill search for a ‘fairer world trading system’. The International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT) is the international network of Fair Trade organisations (EFTA 2024). It insists on trading for sustainable development. IFAT membership includes some 111 producer groups, export marketing organisations, and brands in Latin American, Asian, and African countries. It includes 15 Fair Trade organisations in the USA, Canada, Austria, New Zealand, and Japan. Furthermore, it includes 3000 Fair Trade shops and 53 Fair Trade organisations in 11 European countries, which include the European Fair Trade Association (EFTA 2024).

One can ask how the fair trade is fair. However, at least the Fair Trade organisations operate on the principle that trade can make a sustainable and significant contribution to reducing poverty in poor countries. It is said that over five million producers benefit from the terms of Fair Trade. Fair Trade organisations claim to contribute to the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals of reducing the number of people living in absolute poverty by half by the year 2015. The meeting at Cancun (Mexico) was a breakthrough for Fair Trade organisations.

There are eight criteria for membership in the Fair Trade Federation (FTF): (1) paying a fair wage in the local context; (2) offering employees opportunities for advancement; (3) providing equal employment opportunities for all people, particularly the most disadvantaged; (4) engaging in environmentally sustainable practises; (5) being open to public accountability; (6) building long-term trade relationships; (7) providing healthy and safe working conditions within the local context; and (8) providing financial and technical assistance to producers whenever possible (EFTA 2024).

Though Fair Trade contributes USD 400 million, just 0.01% of all the global trade has a considerable impact in making people aware of the possibility of a fair and equitable trade (EFTA 2024). A good number of people of goodwill are joining their effort to be the voice of the voiceless, the victimised, and the destitute. Despite its limitations, fair trade points toward the human koinōnia.

There are different forms of economic cooperation and collaboration in the world, which are beneficial to some and detrimental to others. The world has become a place for survival of the fittest. G5, G7, G20, BRICS (Brazil–Russia–India–China–South Africa) countries (Raimondi 2020, p. 40) and other kinds of global associations collaborate for the benefit of the respective members.

4.3.2. Human Koinōnia and Cancellation of Debts

The notion of debt cancellation springs from the Judaeo-Christian tradition (Ex 25:9–27:24; Nb 36:4; Is 61:1–2; Mt 18:23–27; Lk 6:18–19). It is rooted in the jubilation of God’s love and mercy, which is extended to all believers and people of goodwill. John Paul II, in Tertio Millennio Adveniente, speaks for the cancellation of debts and external debt as a concrete move to the preferential treatment the poor (John Paul II 1996, no 51).

Millions of people live in destitution to the point of dying because of debt servicing. The governments of poor countries are obliged to spend more their budgets on paying for the high interest of previous loans and tied aids. Consequently, there is not enough funding to help people affected by famine with AIDS, malaria, and other life-threatening diseases. There is no good provision of services such as health, education, housing, and safe water systems because of debt servicing and other factors. Debt is the ‘cancer’ of poor countries. Several poor countries have a foreign debt of more than double their GNPs. In other words, these poor countries must produce for at least two consecutive years without spending ‘anything’ to be able to pay their debt. This is impossible. It was observed that ‘As of the end of 1984, Third World countries (about 2.6 billion population) owed an estimated $895 billion’ (George 1986, p. 23; Julien 1985). Several economists argue for debt cancellation for poor countries. Some economists suggest a bold proposal for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs), which is to forget the debt.

Is a 100% cancellation of World Bank and IMF debt possible? The IMF and IBRD maintained that it was impossible. However, in the new report commissioned by the Irish Debt and Development Coalition (DDCI), Jubilee Research at NEF challenges the IMF and IBRD, arguing that it is possible to cancel 100% of the HIPCs. This financial analysis shows that IMF and IBRD have ample resources to cancel all the HIPC debt without, in any way, jeopardising their normal operations or threatening their credit ratings. The research recommended specific mechanisms to solve the problem of debt: The IMF is to sell some of its gold reserves, and the IBRD is to use a combination of retained earnings and future income allocations to fully bankroll the total cancellation of the debt (JMI 2003).

However, it is important to highlight that the US has one of the greatest debts in the world. Raimondi (2020, p. 41) writes “The world’s aggregate debt (public and private) by end 2019 amounted to 255 trillion dollars. In 2018, it had been 177 trillion dollars—an increase of almost 80 trillion dollars in one year. The US and China together represent 60 per cent of the total. The aggregate debt of emerging economies has reached 71.4 billion dollars or 220 per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP).”

The Jubilee Movement International (JMI) campaigns ‘to lift nations and their peoples out of foreign debt bondage, and to struggle for global economic and social justice’ (JMJ 2001). This portrays that, at least, part of debt cancellation is necessary for the establishment of the human koinōnia.

4.3.3. Human Koinōnia and the Integrity of Creation

Pure economics tends to ignore the integrity of creation. Keen economists situate economics within a complex reality which takes environment and creation seriously. Analysing the matrix of human needs and satisfiers, Robert Chambers (1992, pp. 205–10) outlines some basic needs according to their axiological (existential) categories. These needs include subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, and freedom. Their existential categories include being, having, performing, and interacting. The ongoing human desire is to have all these needs satisfied. There can be authentic satisfiers (which include the synergic satisfiers) and pseudo-satisfiers. Pure economics is used to evaluate the economic growth of a particular country by calculating its Gross National Product (GNP) and its Per Capita Income. This approach is too simplistic. There should be a way to determine the satisfaction of various human needs, equitable sharing of work, greater economic self-reliance, conservation and ecological enhancement of the environment, and sustainable use of natural resources. The systemic new approach takes into account various indicators of economic progress such as resource indicators, indicators of health, social indicators, and indicators of informal economy. There is the concern of an Adjusted National Product (ANP), which consists of GNP with the deduction of the social and environmental costs.

Is the integrity of creation just a political ideology? Do human beings not share the state of creatureliness with the whole of creation? Unfortunately, human beings have taken themselves to be ‘the’ creatures in relation to other creatures. We over-exploit natural resources not only for our needs but also for our superfluous luxuries. We are not at the ‘dominating’ centre of the whole of creation. We are forerunners of stewardship and caring. We are co-creators with the caring and loving creator. We are part of a harmonious system. The over-exploitation of human and natural resources for the benefit of a few is wrong. On the one hand, there is the unquenchable human desire to possess people and things without limits. On the other hand, there is the divine invitation to share and be in fellowship with other human beings and creation at large. Indeed, the integrity of creation is another basis of human koinōnia, which begins with the fellowship of all human beings and extends to the whole of creation. There is a strong basis of the integrity of creation in Judaeo-Christianity (Gen 1:28; 2:15; Ps 8:3–9, 104; Jr 18:6; Is 11:6–9; Col 1:15–18; Mt 6:25–33; Jn 1:3) (Prior 1995, pp. 5–27; Tarazi 1990; McDonagh 1986; Osborn 1990; Palmer et al. 1986; Murray 1992). It is interesting to observe that all the major global religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Sikhism, and Baha’i) are conscious of this reality (Palmer et al. 1986).

4.3.4. Trinitarian Koinōnia and Human Koinōnia Embrace

There seems to be a large gap between the Trinitarian koinōnia and the human koinōnia. It is very difficult for a limited human being to attain the Triune virtues of self-emptying, love, and solidarity. Egoism is deeply rooted in human beings. Should one fall into fatalism and despair? What about the attempts of some people of goodwill to work for a fair trade, debt cancellation, and the integrity of creation? Despite all the vices in the world, several people are the prophetic voice for the underprivileged. As the world becomes a village, there are not only people who want to exploit and dominate others but also people who struggle for mutual participation, reconciliation, and equity (Wignaraja 1992, pp. 393–94).

The Christian conception of God cannot be that of a ‘closed’, exclusive, and disinterested being. God is not a loner. In se, God is koinōnia in the highest level of radicalness and par excellence. Karl Barth maintains that any speculation of a god apart from the Triune God revealed by and in Jesus Christ through the Spirit is an idol-god, a deus nudus (nude god) (Barth 1975, p. 45). Similarly to Trinitarian radical inclusion, which befits the Triune God, there cannot be the Trinity ad intra, which is not eternally, essentially, and intrinsically Trinity ad extra. One cannot divorce the Trinitarian theologia from the Trinitarian oikonomia.

Furthermore, one can maintain that the Trinitarian ‘oikonomia’ seeks to illuminate, inspire, and transform human (socio-) ‘economics.’ Amitai Etzioni insists on the link between economy, society, and ethics. He proposes a paradigm shift from ‘I’ to ‘we’ (Etzioni 1992, pp. 48–53). How can we move from a non-human-centred economy to a humanistic economy (or rather, a humanised economy)? Is it not appropriate to dream of the convergence between the Trinitarian koinōnia and the human koinōnia? It is utopian (ou, not, topoj, place) to speak of the ‘Trinitarian koinōnia and the human koinōnia embrace’. The Christian faith is grounded on faith, hope, and love. These virtues make us optimistic that, at the opportune moment (kairos) and opportune space (agora), there will be the one koinōnia of Trinity–Humanity embrace. The ‘Big Bang’ of the human koinōnia against the Trinitarian koinōnia will form a ‘Big Crunch’ in the Trinitarian and human loving embrace. Will this encounter (Collier and Esteban 1998), fellowship, communion, participation, interdependence, inclusion, interpenetration, and wholeness lead to the distortion of human identity, nature, and freedom? The answer should be “no”. This Triune–Human koinōnia does not turn a human being into a butterfly, a bird, a fish, or an angel (a divinised human being). On the contrary, this ‘theandric’ koinōnia entails a paradigm shift from a ‘human being’ to a ‘being who is human’. It is a qualitative jump from a ‘self-divinising’ human being to an ‘altruistically humanised’ human being. This ‘startling Strangeness’ is closer (though not synonymous) to the fulfilment of authentic metanoia or Basileia tou Theou.

Wilbert Gobbo, in his magnum opus, Critique of the Trinitarian Social Model of Leonardo Boff: Small Christian Communities of the Archdiocese of Tabora in Tanzania, a Case Study, gives a critique of the Trinitarian Social Model of Leonardo Boff and proposes a Social Trinitarian Model which is based the African reality. He outlines, inter alia, that the Trinitarian koinōnia is an unattainable ideal to a limited number of human beings. Furthermore, the Trinitarian–human relationship is not self-evident to all human beings. However, the Trinitarian koinōnia, when properly understood, can be used as a critique and inspiration to human beings and inspire human society, especially in the socio-economic dimension (Gobbo 2016, pp. 73–116).

5. General Conclusion

This article, ‘The Trinitarian koinōnia and its socio-economic implications’, has tried to show the relevance of the mystery of the Trinity to concrete human realities. It has tried to take the theological pillars of the Scriptures, Christian Tradition, and the actual human (socio-economic) context seriously. However, this article has not directly dealt with the soteriological implication of the Trinitarian; a keen reader can trace, at least, its implicit and indirect presence. Salvation (soteria) is holistic. Liberating a society from socio-economic exploitation is an integral part of salvation. Salvation is spiritual and material.

After the general introduction, the second section reflected on the Biblical’s foundation of the mystery of the Trinity and Trinitarian koinōnia. This section represents the first of loci theologici. The third section analysed the views of some contemporary theologians: Catherine Mowry LaCugna, Leonardo Boff, and Jürgen Moltmann. These theologians represent the Christian Tradition as a locus theologicus. The fourth section dealt with the third theological pillar of human context. The Trinitarian koinōnia, which ‘embodies’ Trinitarian love, self-emptying, and solidarity, can illuminate and shape our human society, which is dominated by egoism, pride, and conflicts. There was an appreciation of various attempts of some Christians and people of goodwill to struggle for a just, equitable, and better world of fellowship, communion, sharing, collaboration, co-responsibility, and mutual participation. Some of these attempts include fair trade, cancellation of debt, and the integrity of creation (which includes justice and peace). In the end, we have concluded.

This article hopes for a gradual convergence of the Trinitarian koinōnia and human koinōnia. On the one hand, the Triune–human koinōnia remains utopian. On the other hand, our Christian faith is rooted in hope and trust. Each ‘person of goodwill’ will embrace the invitation of personal metanoia. The notion of the Basileia tou Theou (which is already and not yet) will be true in our lives. This reality is synonymous with the Triune–human koinōnia (the marriage between the Triune God and beings who are human).

This article is dedicated to people of goodwill who are convinced that there is a need for a change for the better in the socio-economic reality in the world, and especially for Africa and other developing regions. Raimondi (2020, p. 53) writes ‘Today the need is for a new global architecture. To maintain peace and defeat the coming winds of wars, it is necessary to face the challenge of redesigning global institutions of civilian life, respecting the principles of cooperation, development and freedom.’ From our theological perspective, we maintain that Christians and believers can be inspired by the Trinitarian koinōnia to work for a better socio-economic life in the world, especially for the least, the lost and the last of the human society. Finally, we can maintain that, at least from “right reason” or “incarnate reason” (recta ratio) of reason informed by faith, the Trinitarian koinōnia has some socio-economic implications.