Christological Perichoresis


I reclaim the patristic Christological use of perichoresis by showing how in bringing together different entities, such as God and Nature in unity as the one person of Christ, we can acknowledge the perichoresis between divine human and nature. Christological perichoresis supports the idea that the whole creation is included in God’s recreated cosmos, in response to the redeeming power of Christ who entered the web of life as a creature. Trinitarian relationships bear a Christological message for intentional openness towards the “other”. Thus ecofeminism can be considered from a Christian view, realizing Christ’s “cosmic” role in the salvation of the entire cosmos.

Share and Cite:

Sahinidou, I. (2014) Christological Perichoresis. Open Journal of Philosophy, 4, 552-559. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2014.44057.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Athanasius. Contra Arianos PG 26, 2, ΛóvοçΠρwτοç33.
[2] Boff, L. (1997). Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. New York: Orbis.
[3] Buxton, G. On the Trinitarian Doctrine of Perichoresis.
[4] Clarke, C. (2002). Livingin Connection. Warminster: Creation Spirituality Books.
[5] Coakley, S. (2002). Persons. In Powers and Submissions, Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender (pp. 112-120). Oxford: Blackwell.
[6] Coakley, S. (2002). Re-Thinking Gregory of Nyssa: Introduction—Gender, Trinitarian Analogies, and the Pedagogy of the Song. Modern Theology, 18, 431-443.
[7] Davis, L. D. (1983). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787), Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.
[8] Davis, L. D. (1983). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology. Collegeville MN: A Michael Glazier, 116-117.
[9] Elwell, W. (2001). Cappadocian Fathers. In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (pp. 205-206). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
[10] Gregory of Nazianzus. NIDCC, p. 435.
[11] Gregory of Nazianzus. Scholia on Dionysius, epistle 4.8.
[12] Harrison, V. (1991). Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 35, 54.
[13] Johnson, E. A. (1999). She Who Is, the Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. New York: Crossroad Herder.
[14] Keller, K. (1996). Pneumatic Nudges: The Theology of Moltmann, Feminism, and the Future. In Volf (Ed.), The Future of Theology Essays in Honor of Jürgen Moltmann (pp. 142-153). Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmams Publishing Company.
[15] Kilby, K. (2000). Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity. New Blackfriars, 81, 432-445.
[16] LaCugna, M. C. (1993). God for Us. New York: Harper San Francisco.
[17] Louth, A. (1996). Maximus the Confessor the Early Church Father. London: Routledge.
[18] Maximus the Confessor (1996). Texts Difficulty 41, 1313B. In A. Louth (Ed.), Maximus the Confessor (p. 162). London and NewYork: Routledge.
[19] Moltmann, J. (1993). The Trinity and the Kingdom. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
[20] Moltmann, J. (1997). God in Creation. London: SCM Press.
[21] Otto, R. E. (2001). The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology. Scottish Journal of Theology, 54, 366-384.
[22] Perichoresis, C. (1967). New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. Washington DC: McGraw-Hill, 128-129.
[23] Prestige, G. L. (1964). God in Patristic Thought. London: S-P.C.K. Abbot.
[24] Stead, J. (1953). Perichoresis in the Christological Chapters of the De Trinitate of Pseudo-Cyril of Alexandria. DominicanStudies, 6, 12-20.
[25] Zizioulas, D. J. (1985). Being as Communion. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.