Perichoresis and Projection: A Response to Kilby’s Trinitarian Minimalism

Abstract

The use of perichoresis by Miroslav Volf (1998) and others spring from significant themes within the Scriptures, most notably from Christ’s prayer that reveals the entire divine-human relationship as filial in nature based on a mutuality of how they relate: ‘I pray . . . that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; in order that they may be one in us’ (John 17:21). This predicates mutuality, not in the divine ‘transcendence into the substance of being,’ but on the shared character of relationality, perichoresis, experienced within the immanent Trinity and progressively reflected within human social relations. Karen Kilby concludes otherwise that any consideration of perichoresis outside of expressing the mystery of relations within the immanent Trinity is problematic, ultimately only mirroring human social relations. This essay argues that accurate reflections of perichoresis are increasingly observable within social relations and emerging within various disciplines of thought that then bring greater coherence and meaning to the Scriptures, theology, and the faith community. Using a perichoretic ontology, this essay will provide significant meaning to Matthew 12:32 (otherwise considered meaningless) and other passages. If a perichoretic ontology subsequently transforms our understanding of Christ’s redemptive action in the world and promises to resolve many historically persistent theological anomalies, the notion of perichoresis must rise within the theological project.

Keywords

• perichoresis
• perichoresis and projection
• trinity
• matthew 12:32
• analogia spiritus