The purpose of this paper is to argue two points. The first point is that the concept of perichoresis emerges from the field of Christian theology as a form of “tacit knowledge.” The second point is that perichoresis as a form of tacit knowledge creates a more holistic prolegomenon for the creator-creature relationship than does classical natural theology.
The first point of the thesis will be argued first by briefly reviewing the concept of “tacit knowledge” as developed by philosopher of science Michael Polanyi and adapted into Christian theology by Thomas Torrance. From Polanyi, “Tacit knowing integrates the particulars of a comprehensive entity and makes us see them forming the entity. This integration recognizes the higher principle at work on the boundary conditions left open by the lower principle, by mentally performing the workings of the higher principle. It thus materializes the functional structure of tacit knowing. It also makes it clear to us how the comprehensive entity works by revealing the meaning of its parts” (Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, 55). Then, a brief biblical and historical overview of perichoresis in both trinitarian and christological theology will show how perichoresis is a paradigm for both. The paper will then briefly review my own contribution to the literature arguing that salvation is a third form of perichoresis. Finally, a brief outline will be sketched showing how perichoresis extends to the plan of God and the work of the Spirit in the body of Christ. Armed with these biblical and historical examples, the idea of perichoresis—unity and diversity in harmony via mutual indwelling and active participation in the other—becomes tacit knowledge of the overall relationship between creator and creation from the “particulars” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, soteriology, and ecclesiology. Once grasped in the particulars, perichoresis tacitly becomes the paradigm for the whole.
The second point of the thesis will be argued that because of the organic and tacit nature of perichoresis to describe the creator-creature relationship, it should become the standard theological prolegomenon for all discussions of that relationship. Currently, the most common such prolegomenon is a natural theology rooted in the principle of distinction as opposition. Three points will be made to argue for the superiority of perichoresis over natural theology. First, the former is an eternal reality (the divine persons have eternal distinctions without opposition) while the latter only begins with creation and fall. Second, the former is a form of self-authenticating tacit knowledge from within the system, while the latter is a pagan concept (originating in pre-Socratic philosophy) imposed from without. Third, creation of humanity is structured perichoretically while the first to espouse “distinction as opposition” was the serpent in the Garden. That is, the former seems to fit within the particulars of Christian theology while the latter does not. Therefore, perichoresis is a superior paradigm for the creator-creature relationship.