H. Richard Niebuhr's Suggestion Reconsidered: Towards Trinitycentrism as a Trinity-Centered Theology

Abstract

This article reconsiders H. Richard Niebuhr's suggestion of “a synthesized formula” of the Trinity as an ecumenical theology for the whole church's faith in God. His suggestion seems to go in the right direction for a proper understanding of the triune God. However, Niebuhr unfortunately does not go further in more detail. To take a close look at Niebuhr's analysis of three unitarianisms such as “the Unitarianism of the Father or the Creator,” “the Unitarianism of Jesus Christ or the Son,” and “the Unitarianism of the Spirit” in his 1946 article, this article finds that his choice of theological terms is not accurate but somewhat content with showing some general tendencies of understanding and expressing the doctrine of the Trinity in church history. Niebuhr also maintains that each of three unitarianisms cannot stand alone but they are interdependent with one another. Considering this point, this article suggests that it is better to use terms such as “theocentrism,” “christocentrism,” and “pneumacentrism” for each of the three unitarianisms. Theocentrism refers to a God the Father-centered theology or a Creator-centered theology. Christocentrism refers to a God the Son-centered theology or a Redeemer-centered theology. Pneumacentrism refers to a God the Holy Spirit-centered theology or a Consummator-centered theology. Each centrism shows a different emphasis on each of the three divine persons of the Trinity, but not excluding the other two. And each of those three centrisms has both some strengths and some weaknesses. Therefore, this article argues that it is the better to put some strengths together to maximize them, and to put some weaknesses away to minimize them, while referring to such a synthesized formula as “Trinitycentrism,” as “a Trinity-centered theology.”