Trinitarian Ontology of Freedom: David C. Schindler’s Philosophy and Theology of Freedom and Its Political Implications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important and interesting issue of human and Christian freedom in the horizon of Trinitarian doctrine, particularly in the context of contemporary attempts—though rooted in traditional metaphysical models—to construct so-called Trinitarian ontology. In other words, it explores a certain theological and metaphysical grounding for thinking about reality. To this end, the article refers to the interpretation of American thinker David C. Schindler. The author is familiar with Schindler’s assumptions and main theses, which are presented in several points throughout the work.

From a formal point of view, the paper is sound. The structure of the content corresponds well to the stated problem. At the beginning, it explains the premises of Trinitarian ontology through several of its representatives, the basic concepts (act, potency), and the understanding of freedom in the thought of major Christian thinkers, as interpreted by Schindler.
The bibliography is appropriate and sufficient. The overall line of reasoning is coherent and clear.However, several specific remarks arise:

1. It would be better if the author were more aware—from today’s perspective—of the complex and unresolved issue of the relationship between the psychological constitution of freedom and the attempt to discern its inner meaning, which has its experiential source in faith in God. In fact, this involves the distinction between the Latin concept of libertas and the Greek eleutheria. Schindler’s concept likely refers to the latter.

2. Is freedom an alternative possibility of self-realization through free acts, while at the same time definitive and ultimate in its decisions? Or is it a given, relative, positive freedom, identical with its own purposefulness? Theology continues to debate the status of both human freedom and divine grace.

3. Does the author not conflate the natural and supernatural orders? Can the Trinity rightly be referred to as the common good in today’s pluralistic society?

4. It should be appreciated that the author is aware that, against the backdrop of modern theories of freedom and liberal social concepts, the question becomes increasingly acute: What links Christian freedom with emancipated freedom (understood as liberation), and what distinguishes this Christian freedom from its secularized counterparts moving toward emancipation?
   However, the question arises whether the socio-political implications provided by the author are sufficient. Do they not sound somewhat utopian or wishful?

5. Worth noting is the Trinitarian and personalist character of the understanding of freedom, both on the individual and social level.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading and evaluating my paper!

I tried to incorporate your comments and insights into the paper in a following way:

1. I discuss Schindler's etymological considerations on the original meaning of Greek eleutheria and Latin libertas on page 6 in the introductory part of section 3. Here, I wanted to show that in Schindler's interpretation both of these terms overlap and point in the same direction. According to him they both refer to the common and shared origin and flourishing of man.
2. /4. I discuss the problem of freedom as definitive decision and in the same time as a liberation or emancipation in the section 2 in the part on the notion of freedom by Piero Coda. It is also discussed in the section 4., where I tried to show that Schindler strives to overcome this dichotomy by defining freedom not primarily as a free choice but as realization of inner meaning of human life, that is already given as a gift of Trinitarian love.
3. I tried to extend a discussion on potential conflation of natural and supernatural order in section 2.1 on the realationship between theology and philosophy, in the final section of the paper on political freedom and in a new conclusion to the paper. I argue, that in Schindler's view we cannot separate these two orders, but that for natural order to come to its completion and fulfilment it requires supernatural order.

I also tried to address the remark about utopian character of Schindler's project in a new conclusion to the paper.

Thank you once again for your valuable comments!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article does introduce Schindler's specific contribution rather late in the text. His work is only analyzed in depth starting around page 5. This choice creates a potential imbalance in the paper, especially considering that Schindler's work is highlighted in the title as the primary focus.
What seems most valuable in Schindler's contribution is not radical innovation but rather his systematic thinking.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some Grammatical errors:

• Line 4-5: “...focus on the influence a Trinitarian doctrine...” should be “...the influence of Trinitarian doctrine...”.
• Line 71-72: “...dynamic and fast evolving field of research in the philosophical theology...” should be “...in philosophical theology...”.

Something to improve:

• Line 47: “Neoplatonims” instead of “Neoplatonism”.
• Line 44: “benefical” instead of “beneficial”.
• Line 69: “theologicam” instead of “theological”.
• Line 129: “Pierro” instead of “Piero”.
• Inconsistent terminology for “liberty” and “freedom” without clear distinction.
• “Superactuality” What does it means?
• Some quotes are too long.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading and evaluating my paper!

I tried to address your comments in a following way:

• I tried to emphasizes Schindler's importance already in the introduction to the paper and highlight mutual relations between Schindler's project and a Trinitarian ontology in the inroductory parts of the paper.
• I tried to explain my usage of "freedom" and "liberty" and differentiate between them in the introduction to the paper.
• I also extended my comments on "superactuality" and its definition at the end of page 9 and on page 10.
• I erased unnecessary and too long quotes (especially in the section 2).

Thank you once again for your comments!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript treats of a very topical and important issue, the philosophical and theological account of freedom proposed by the North American theologian David C. Schindler who approaches the question from the perspective of Trinitarian ontology. As the author claims, there has been ample reference made to the notion of freedom within the framework of Trinitarian ontology, however, the exact nature of such freedom and a systematic treatment of the traits of a specifically Christian idea of freedom has often remained vague. Schindler’s account, therefore, is crucial for a deeper understanding of this central Christian notion, and also for a clearer delineation (with regard to competing secular discourses on freedom) of what makes the Christian approach unique and irreplaceable.

The manuscript thus sets a highly desirable goal, however, in many respects, it does not fulfil the reader’s expectations. It cursorily surveys a wide array of theologians and philosophers from the tradition and within the contemporary landscape and their metaphysical ideas of freedom, but these treatments remain rather vague and sketchy. The part on Schindler’s idea of freedom likewise would need a more systematic elaboration, starting from a more detailed description of Schindler’s overall project and a more comprehensive account of his Trinitarian ontological understanding of freedom and its definition.

Therefore, I suggest that manuscript needs a thorough revision in order to make its central idea more comprehensible and the argumentation more logically organised. The sub-sections would also need reorganisation and their titles should be made more specific.

Section 2 titled “Trinitarian ontology” very cursorily surveys the accounts of three theologians: Piero Coda, Klaus Hemmerle and John Milbank. It is not clear why they are not treated in chronological order, why is Coda treated first? Why do we not get an account of Hemmerle’s Trinitarian ontology – the originator of the idea – first? The presentation of the three accounts is fragmentary and does not serve a better understanding of Schindler’s project. I suggest that the author either omit this section and reduce reference to these authors to a few remarks (or even include these in footnotes), or make this section much more elaborate with sustained analyses of these authors and their influence on Schindler’s work.

Section 3 “D. C. Schindler: Metaphysics of Freedom” is not on the same level as the rest of the sections, it overarches all of the following sections. This should be indicated in the numbering.

Section 5 “Theology and philosophy” would be much more appropriate at the beginning of the essay as a methodological preliminary.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 are unnecessarily long excursions into the theological tradition, their content could be summed up in a more concise manner.

Section 9 is a too cursory account of Schindler’s ideas on this topic.

The conclusion presents no more than the repetition of what was said before, it does not add any significant insight.

Eventually, the essay provides one with a detailed summary of the contents of many of Schindler’s chapters, however a deeper reflection on his idea of freedom embedded in a Trinitarian ontology and a more systematic examination of his account is lacking.

Therefore, I suggest that the author thoroughly revises the text, omit unnecessary and cursory excursions and elaborate in a more systematic and hermeneutically informed manner the central theme. Currently the text seems more like a patchwork of loosely related ideas and not satisfactorily elaborated accounts. Once revised, it would make an important contribution to this central theme.

There are errors to be corrected in the manuscript, e.g.:

line 43 “catogories” “categories”

line 66 “the similar philosophical and theological background” “a similar…”

line 69 “theologicam environment” “theological”

line 162 “Pryzwar’s” “Przywara’s” (?)

line 166-167 two quotes follow one another without any comment in between them

line 392 “can be express” “expressed”

line 447 “Servai Pinckaers” “Servais”

line 459 “liber arbitrio” “liberum arbitrium”

line 465 “the liber arbitrium” “liberum arbitrium”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs language editing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for a thorough reading of my paper and for all valuable comments.

I tried to rewrite and rearrange the paper in a following way:

• I rewrote the introduction to section 2 to highlight connection between Schindler's project and Trinitarian ontology. I also rearrange the part on the relationship between theology and philosophy as and introductory part of section 2. I also shortened my exposition on different authors from a Trinitarian ontology just to highlight their importance for the discussion on freedom and rearrange the whole section in a chronological order. 
• I rearranged original section 3-8 to organize them in a more hierarchical order. These sections are currently organized into 2 main parts - first (section 3) presents metaphysical foundations of Schindler's notion of freedom (including his thoughts on act and potency) and second on the transformation of notion of freedom in the Christian tradition. I also rewrote introductory parts to these sections (esp. section 4) to bring more clarity to my argument. I made several changes throughout the text to make it more systematic.
• I enlarged final section on political implications and added new conclusion to the paper, just not to summarize and repeat main ideas.

Thank you once again for reading my paper!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a thoroughly-drafted manuscript in which the author engages with the relationship between the Trinitarian ontology of God and the political freedom in creation. The author focuses on the work of David Schindler’s work.

While I affirm the argument, I would like to provide the following comments for revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

1.     I agree with the author’s argument regarding the pure actuality of the Trinitarian inner life that does not abnegate the potentialities inherent in God’s works of creation and redemption. The author rightly lifts up the dynamic nature of divine action, without reducing it into a merely contingent frameworks.

2.     The author offers a robust discussion of Schindler’s account of the freedom of the Trinity and its implications for creation in the framework of Trinitarian ontology. The author grounds political freedom in the eternal, purely actual inner life of the Triune God. The portrayal of God as the source of political freedom—non-deterministic and lovingly generative—is compelling.

The manuscript benefits from a nuanced treatment of Schindler’s thought in dialogue with several other Roman Catholic theologians. Yet, the analysis would be even more persuasive, if it expanded its ecumenical horizons. Incorporating some voices from other traditions, particularly those from the Reformed, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox traditions, would broaden the conversation and also help the reader see how Schindler’s Trinitarian ontology contributes to theological scholarship in contrast to other Trinitarian understandings of freedom.

A comparative engagement with other traditions’ theologians such as Karl Barth, Jürgen Moltmann, or Robert Jenson, for instance, could be helpful to presenting Schindler’s ideas more clearly as complementary to the alternative accounts of the Trinity, creation, and freedom.

3.     In sections 5 through 8, the author discusses Schindler’s engagement with a few significant voices in the Roman Catholic tradition that culminate in Section 9. Strengthening the internal coherence of these sections would help the reader follow how each part builds toward the culminating argument. The author may think of adding a few transitional sentences or brief summarizing remarks.

Such transitional sentences and pointers in each subsection would enhance the structural integrity of the essay and highlight the progression of thought more clearly.

4.     The discussion of Trinitarian self-giving as both an active and eternal mode of divine being is theologically rich. Yet, I recommend a more concrete explanation of how these intra-Trinitarian relationships mean mutuality and communion. This additional articulation is especially important , given the essay’s focus on political freedom grounded in the divine life.

This task can be done by expanding this section with more concrete and analogical descriptions of Trinitarian relationality or active communion.

In a nutshell, this is a promising article. With these recommended revisions, I believe the author’s argument would become even more compelling and broadly engaging.

 

Author Response

Thank you for reading and evaluating my paper!

I tried to address your comments in the following way:

2. I understand the need to discuss whole problem in a more ecumenical way. Yet, I was not able to incorporate other authors, as the scope of the paper is quite large so far and it discusses quite a lot of different authors. I tried to focus predominantly on the authors from a Trinitarian ontology, but I also tried to enhance references to the authors outside the Catholic Church (e.g. Sergei Bulgakov, John Milbank)

3. I rearrange original section 3-8 to make the structure of the paper more clear. Now it consist from 2 sections - section 3 on metaphysical foundation of Schindler's thought and section 4 on his intepretation of freedom in Christian tradition. I also tried to make my arguments in this section more clear and add additional remarks.

4. I put several insight about the political implication of a Trinitarian ontology into the final section of the paper.

Thank you once again for reading my paper and for your comments.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for this interesting paper. I think the author does a good job of motivating interest in Schindler's work, and moves from section to section in a reasonable way. I'm recommending that this paper be accepted. Some minor typos: line 39 should be 'reviews' not 'review'; line 49 - remove 'the' before Schindler; line 413 'Plotinus' not 'Plotinos'; line 632 should be Hans not Hand. 

Author Response

Thank you for evaluating my paper and for the recommendations for language adjustments. I have made corrections accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author, congratulations. You have greatly improved the argumentative structure of the article. I only find disproportionate the attention dedicated to Schindler's thought versus the other authors. Perhaps it might be necessary to update the title of the work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading my paper once again and for your final comments.

With kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Thank you for your feedback and the changes made to the manuscript which have improved the quality of your argument.

At the end of the article in the References section, number 19 the name Karen (Kilby) should be corrected (n is missing at the end).

The entire text must be checked for typos and errors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 I suggest that you have the text checked by a native English speaker.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading my paper once again and for your final comments.

With kind regards,