Kathryn Tanner’s Jesus Humanity and Trinity

1. Tanner begins with an analysis of God’s being in itself, that is, the inner relation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Note, she does not begin with God’s action towards the world. She reasons that to understand God’s action toward the world, we must first understand God’s action within the godhead. So, with that said, who is the triune God? In the first few pages of this chapter, what does she say about the being of God? Note her use of Thomas Aquinas in this context too. 2. What does God’s real glory consist of? And, if human glory is based on God’s glory, then what, by analogy, can we say about human glory? 3. What does Tanner mean by the Trinity’s co-inherence of substance and persons; indivisibility of action, and unity of essence? 4. On pages 42 and following, she describes God’s giving of Godself to creation. Why can creation not receive all that God wants to give? Why 5. Tanner speaks of a correspondence of action between God and creatures. This is an extremely important point. How does she understand God bringing about these happenings in creation that are good for the world and for the good? What is it about God that allows God to act in the world of ordinary events for the good, while creature are also able to act on their own. Or, what basic principle of Christian theology allows for this non-competitive relationship between God and creatures? 6. If there is a correspondence of action between God and creatures, and if God’s action in known in the whole life of Christ, then, what kind of creaturely action correspond to God’s actions? Or, what is the shape of our humanity when it repeats and reflects the dynamic life of the Trinity? 7. Which acts reflect and repeat the self-giving of God in the Trinity and in the life of Christ in us? Praise or worship? Or service of others? If God is for us, at the depth of God’s being, then, how should we act in the world when assumed by Christ? What kinds of actions should we engage in? Be specific. 8. How would Kathryn Tanner respond to Thomas Jay Oord’s model of “essential kenosis”? How does Oord describe God’s omnipotence? How might Tanner respond? Oord begins with the problem of evil? What about Tanner? Do you think she would regard his model as a “competitive” relation between God and human beings or as “non-competitive”?