In the last post I noted Bulgakov’s suggestive idea that the church be understood as an entelechy, a reality that carries its end within itself and as such never “achieves” its end in a static sense, since perpetual “becoming” towards this end is part of its own definition.
This notion also seems a fruitful description of the life the Trinity. If we conceptualize the Trinity as entelechic we are able to understand the being of God as completely and eternally actualized in itself and as always on its way, always in becoming towards perfection–a perfection that lies within the Trinity itself, but which always lies ungrasped, circulating as gift between the persons of the Trinity. This seems to make sense of the biblical narrative of Jesus in a profound way. The Scriptures portray Christ’s resurrection as definitive of his very being–if Christ is not raised, this God simply is not, as Robert Jenson says–however, if Christ’s being is defined by resurrection, does this not mean that God in some sense “depends” on creation to be God?
Not if we understand God’s being entelechically, which would allow us to say (along with Eberhard Jüngel) that God’s being-in-becoming is simply the definition of how God is God. Thus posting becoming, movement, newness, in the divine life does not require us to posit a transmogrification in the being of God in which God changes from one thing into something else or is extrinsically determined. Rather, God’s trinitarian being carries its eschatological fullness within itself while simultaneously always moving towards it as God’s own future.