Trinity and its Political Implication

Theology is dynamic, and not static. A good theology is a theology that is relevance and speaks to each and every epoch of cultural struggles, including politics. Some of us may stop and pause. Theology is for the church and it does need to engage with any politics whatsoever. Politics are irrelevant! I think this comment comes based on two hidden assumptions and unsettled questions in mind. Why we need to study politics? Does it bring any impact in daily lives? In Ancient Greek, study politics was considered as indispensable. The work of Aristotle and Plato covers much about politics, and many of their treaties were political in nature (Aristotle-Politics and Plato-Republics).

Both philosophers realized how the state, will bring a significance impact toward the life of the citizen since mostly everyone are stayed under a polis-a city. This is true also in our day. Taxes, company salaries, they way business run are depend most of the time, to the political decisions which were made by elites, empowered by the voice of crowds (democratic society). Furthermore, by understanding politics, we can know the condition of our country in particular, other nations in general, our rights in specific which in a way, might help us to tune and even plan our lives better. Simple example, the protests and riot in the street (because of the new job laws) could block our way, and thus cancel our enthusiastic plan to buy milk in the store just nearby! 

The more pivotal question to be asked further is this. How God's triune relevant to the conversation about politics? Is there any principles we can draw from the doctrine of Trinity, to speak to our current world, in the midst of myriads political issues of our time. Here I argue, yes, but not in every tinny detail but on the very basic principle and fundamental values only. The doctrine of Trinity can contribute to a making of broad political framework in general which can be set as a guide, on how political engagement should be administrated. In this matter, Frederick Christian Baeurschmidt has made an eye opening introduction to this issue, in his article entitled, "The Trinity and Politics" in Oxford companion of Trinity, which I think personally, is worth reading as it is succint yet stimulating. 

Today, after Immanuel Kant, there was a shift of focus in general understanding Trinity. Kant says, "it concerns us not so much to know what God is in himself (His nature) as what He is for us moral beings." To know God as in Himself, is has no "practical relevance" according to Kant. Following the stream of Kant's critique and focusing more in God's triune act, In his writing, H. Richard Niebuhr unfolds the work of Trinity, God the Father focus on creation, reason and natural law. Son, which focuses on salvation, revelation and the sermon of the mount and Spirit, focus on contemporary experience, both individual and communal. Base on these classifications, Niebuhr had produced three paradigmatic framework that comes from the doctrine of Trinity, the three are reason, revelation and experience, which profoundly laid down some common ground, to engage with the society and enter into a public discourse with the non-Christian. So with this helpful framework, whenever Christian engaging with any ethical or political issues, they need to consider these three values of reason, revelation and experience before they come into a conclusion abut any political and ethical matters. 

Moreover, the other attempt is to bring Trinity to be relevant to community is to bring the idea of social trinitarianism in play, that is to say to see Trinity as a model of human community. To emphasis mutual difference in unity. This idea is proven to nourish the idea of plurality and progress toward egalitarian  society. However, to emphasis this idea of social Trinity too much is quite a dangerous because it  potentially speak more about the human community and politics, than of God. As Bauer noted in the writing of Thomas Parker who had says in his writing that the idea of community in God embrace the notion of "struggle for community." In response, Bauer critically press, "Are the person of the Trinity really involved in a struggle for community?" This seems to "high price to pay for political relevance", as Bauer concludes. In bringing the doctrine of Trinity in relevance to political issues, we need to be careful, and not being reckless or otherwise, we are tempted to impose any pressing political ideas into the language and concept of Trinity, which could destroy the entire historical and orthodox essence of the doctrine we inherited from the past. Stephen R. Holmes remind us that we cannot make the doctrine of Trinity to be acceptable in political content of our time without radically, "messaging, relativizing, or even simply reversing". In conclusion, one can possibly make a vision, framework, and principles of politics out of it yet we are ought not to inject any politics to reframe the Trinity as mere "political God!"