Social Trinitarianism Research Articles

Social Trinitarianism: A Discussion of Some Recent Theological Criticisms

AbstractIn this article I briefly summarize the development of social trinitarianism in order to arrive at a description of its most important defining coordinates. Next, leaving aside the philosophical debate, I discuss some of the theological criticisms that have recently been leveled against it. It will turn out that social trinitarianism can be redefined in such a way that these objections are taken into account insofar as they are justified, but without losing the momentum social trinitarianism gave to the recent renewal of trinitarian thinking. Finally, having proceeded thus far in a defensive way, I will briefly explore two more constructive arguments in favour of social (or relational) trinitarianism.

From Being to Love: Reconceiving the Trinity in Light of Jean-Luc Marion's Phenomenological Shift

This article uses the work of Jean-Luc Marion, emphasizing his shift from Being to Love as an analogue for God, to make a parallel shift from Person to Love in Trinitarian theology, thereby addressing some of the issues raised by the social trinitarians. The article then focuses on the work of Catherine Mowry LaCugna as particularly congruent with the shift suggested by Marion, but adds to LaCugna's work a conception of the immanent Trinity that is grounded in Marion's phenomenological shift. Conceiving of God as the unoriginate source of Love that is revealed in Word and enacted in Spirit allows one to understand personhood and community, not in and through the relationships between the Trinitarian Persons, but in and through Love incarnate in the human person of Jesus Christ, and Love enacted in the Spirit present in the community, forming it into the Body of Christ.

How Revolutionary is the Holy Spirit?

AbstractMost theologians agree that the early church neglected the Holy Spirit in formulations of the Trinity, and in recent years, many books have been written to redress this deficiency. Pentecostal theologians are especially invested in recovering a fuller doctrine of the Holy Spirit. These two monographs, one by an established scholar (Steve Studebaker) and the other by a relative newcomer (Andrew Gabriel), are among the best on this topic. Both are unafraid to be critical of Pentecostal theology and both are valuable for their specificity. Gabriel revises the divine attributes of classical theism while Studebaker goes even further by arguing that the Holy Spirit constitutes the Trinity. Neither author is sympathetic to Social Trinitarianism, and Studebaker in particular is critical of Richard of Saint Victor, who is often credited as an early progenitor of the social model. This first complete translation of Richard's treatise on the Trinity, by Ruben Angelici, reveals a radical view of the Holy Spirit and thus needs to be taken seriously by all future discussions of this topic. Richard not only gives the Holy Spirit its own personal identity but also ties the Spirit to God's power of listening, just as the Son is God's Word.

A Perichoretic Model for Christian Love

This article is basically a theological response to the Common Word Between Us and You. It gives a special emphasis on the Trinitarian concept of perichoresis and uses it as a model for Christian love in a pluralistic society. Close attention is given to Jurgen Moltmann’s social trinitarianism, and how it helps formulate a theological framework for a Christian attitude toward others.

BEYOND SOCIAL TRINITARIANISM

Stanley J. Grenz was commonly understood as one of North America’s leading evangelical theologians of recent years, committed to developing a social doctrine of the Trinity with major significance for his theology and ethics. His own caution regarding social trinitarianism was often overlooked, however, as was his movement beyond the fashionable social models of the Trinity to his own trinitarian proposal, which can best be understood as flowing from his evangelical and baptist self-identity.

The Trinity, the Church, and China's Harmonious Society: A Politics of Persuasion

Taking seriously Karl Rahner's comment that most Christians in their practical life are ‘mere monotheists’, this paper illustrates and argues how the Trinitarian God is better understood within the model of persuasion, and how this understanding of the Trinitarian God may shape what Chinese society may look like, how Chinese churches engage in a harmonious society, and how the Three-Self churches (official churches) and house churches (non-registered churches) treat one another. This paper has adopted a kind of social Trinitarianism, but it is not necessarily projectionist, for theology is always a human construction based on God's revelation. Bishop Ting has taken a courageous step to construct the Trinitarian God in terms of restoration of relations in order to respond to society, but his attempt is too absorbed by both Yihe Weigui and the ideology of a harmonious society. As a result, Chinese Christianity has been turned into a hexie (accommodating) Christianity. Taking both the cultural resources in terms of the Confucian tradition and the socio-political conditions in terms of the emergence of exchange politics into consideration, this paper suggests the Trinitarian God as a God of persuasion reflected in the Scripture and characterised by dialogue, respect of difference, participation, and good work, provides an alternative to a politics of propaganda and efficiency. This is what the Christian contribution to a harmonious society is.

Social Trinitarianism and polytheism

AbstractSocial Trinitarians attempt to solve the logical problem of the Trinity by claiming that there are three numerically distinct divine persons. A common objection to this view is that it is seemingly committed to the existence of multiple Gods and is therefore polytheistic. I consider Edward Wierenga's response to this objection, as well as two other possible responses, and show that each faces serious philosophical problems. I conclude that, in the absence of a better method of distinguishing the property of being divine from that of being a God, Social Trinitarians are committed to the existence of more than one God.

Deception and the Trinity: a rejoinder to Tuggy

AbstractDale Tuggy argues that his divine-deception argument against Social Trinitarianism remains unscathed, in spite of my recent objections. I maintain that his argument is question-begging and exegetically weak, and does not succeed in refuting Social Trinitarianism.

Divine deception and monotheism: a reply to Hasker

AbstractIn two recent pieces William Hasker argues that my arguments against Social Trinitarianism fail. I argue here that he hasn't successfully refuted or rebutted them, and that his response to the quaternity problem sacrifices monotheism.

Two Trinities: reply to Hasker

AbstractWilliam Hasker replies to my arguments against Social Trinitarianism, offers some criticism of my own view, and begins a sketch of another account of the Trinity. I reply with some defence of my own theory and some questions about his.

Objections to Social Trinitarianism

AbstractThis article reviews a number of objections to Social Trinitarianism that have been presented in the recent literature, especially objections alleging that Social Trinitarianism is not truly monotheistic. A number of the objections are found to be successful so far as they go, but they apply only to some versions of Social Trinitarianism and not to all. Objections to Social Trinitarianism as such, on the other hand, are not successful. The article concludes with a proposal for a Social Trinitarian conception of the unity of God.

A Critical Re-Evaluation of “Persons in Relation” and Its Significance for a Social Trinitarianism

A Critical Re-Evaluation of “Persons in Relation” and Its Significance for a Social Trinitarianism

Three Versus One? Some Problems of Social Trinitarianism

This paper examines the question whether we should prefer the so-called 'social' doctrine of the Trinity, which figures so prominently in contemporary trinitarian reflection, to its 'Latin' alternative. After a sketch of some evident attractions of social trinitarianism, it is argued that these attractions conceal as many problems—problems which may be rather devastating in the end. First of all, the practical and ethical usefulness of the social doctrine turns out to be highly questionable. Second, contemporary social trinitarianism deviates in crucial aspects from the Cappadocian (and other) Fathers. And third, the claim that social trinitarianism is in fact the best way to appropriate the biblical witness is found wanting. The paper concludes with the suggestion that social trinitarians today use the doctrine of the Trinity to answer questions which the Fathers answered by means of Christology.

Trinity, Filioque and Semantic Ascent

It is difficult to reconcile claims about the Father's role as the progenitor of Trinitarian Persons with commitment to the equality of the persons, a problem that is especially acute for Social Trinitarians. I propose a metatheological account of the doctrine of the Trinity that facilitates the reconciliation of these two claims. On the proposed account, ‘Father’ is systematically ambiguous. Within economic contexts, those which characterize God's relation to the world, ‘Father’ refers to the First Person of the Trinity; within theological contexts, which purport to describe intra-Trinitarian relations, it refers to the Trinity in toto-thus in holding that the Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father we affirm that the Trinity is the source and unifying principle of Trinitarian Persons. While this account is solves a nagging problem for Social Trinitarians it is theologically minimalist to the extent that it is compatible with both Social Trinitarianism and Latin Trinitarianism, and with heterodox Modalist and Tri-theist doctrines as well. Its only theological cost is incompatibility with the Filioque Clause, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son—and arguably that may be a benefit.

A most beautiful mind

[1] Richard Cross, in recent years a very productive writer, is a specialist of late 13th and early 14th century Christology en Trinitarian theology. Yet his work is never entirely Medievistic. On occasion it presents various links to present day philosophical and theological themes and theories, either by extrapolating his findings to an ongoing debate (on the viability of ‘Social Trinitarianism’, for example) or by introducing and elucidating the highly technical, for most modern readers rather inaccessible, scholastic discussions in terms of modern views (on causality, for instance). It is clear that for him Duns Scotus stands out in his remarkable analytical acumen on almost any issue, combining a strong sense for the complexity of things, requiring ever new distinctions, with an equally strong sense for the most simple solution. Cross’ overview of Scotus as one of the ‘Great Medieval Thinkers’ (which in fact only addresses the theologian Scotus) appeared in 1999. In 2002 a close-up of Scotus’ Christology1 has followed, and now (2005) a close-up of his doctrine of God. Considering the vast field that had to be covered – the doctrine of God being by far the most elaborate part of any high-medieval theology, solving highly detailed questions bymeans of a complex semantic, logical and metaphysical ‘tool box’ – Cross’ concise presentation is an achievement in itself.

Polytheism and Christian Belief

Christian philosophers and theologians have long been concerned with the question of how to reconcile their belief in three fully divine Persons with their commitment to monotheism. The most popular strategy for doing this—the Social Trinitarian strategy—argues that, though the divine Persons are in no sense the same God, monotheism is secured by certain relations (e.g. familial relations, dependence relations, or compositional relations) that obtain among them. It is argued that if the Social Trinitarian understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, then Christianity is not interestingly different from the polytheistic Amun-Re theology of Egypt's New Kingdom period. Thus, Social Trinitarianism should be classified as a version of polytheism rather than monotheism. Christians are monotheists; but they believe in three fully divine beings—the three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The tension here is obvious and well known. 'Polytheism' is most commonly defined simply and without qualification as 'belief in more than one god', and a god is most commonly understood to be any being that is fully divine. Thus, on the most common way of understanding polytheism, orthodox Christian belief is not monotheistic, but quite clearly polytheistic. Christian philosophers and theologians have long been concerned with the question of how to reconcile their belief in three divine Persons with their commitment to monotheism. One strategy is to insist that, despite being three in some sense, the divine Persons are somehow also the same god.1 By far the most popular strategy, however, involves denying that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same god and then arguing that monotheism is secured by the special relationship that obtains among the divine Persons. Proponents of this latter sort of view are typically labelled 'Social Trinitarians' (because they conceive of the divine Trinity on the analogy of a society of human persons).2 1 For further discussion of this strategy, and references, see Rea (2003) and also Brower and Rea (2005). 2 Defenders of Social Trinitarianism include Davis (1999, 2003), Forrest (1998), Layman (1988), Plantinga (1986, 1988, 1989), Swinburne (1994), and Williams (1994). © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org doi: 10.1093/jts/flj007 5 006. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.160 on Mon, 17 Oct 2016 04:15:08 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

In defence of mystery: a reply to Dale Tuggy

In a recent article, Dale Tuggy argues that the two most favoured approaches to explicating the doctrine of the Trinity, Social Trinitarianism and Latin Trinitarianism, are unsatisfactory on either logical or biblical grounds. Moreover, he contends that appealing to ‘mystery’ in the face of apparent contradiction is rationally and theologically unacceptable. I raise some critical questions about Tuggy's assessment of the most relevant biblical data, before defending against his objections the rationality of an appeal to mystery in the face of theological paradox.

Divine deception, identity, and Social Trinitarianism

After laying out the claims and motivations of Social Trinitarianism, I develop three new arguments against it. According to the first two, if Social Trinitarianism were true, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would have engaged in wrongful deception via both Old and New Testament revelation. I briefly consider the strength of the arguments and some possible replies to them, concluding that they constitute good reasons to deny that version of Trinitarian doctrine. According to the final argument, Social Trinitarianism is incompatible with two central claims of the New Testament.

The Dialectic of Divine Love: Pannenberg's Hegelian Trinitarianism

Abstract: In this study of Pannenberg's social trinitarianism, I first present his Hegelian‐dialectical approach to the problem of the unity and plurality in God, highlighting his many innovations, such as the mutual reciprocity of the divine persons, the mutual mediation of the divine essence and the three persons, the essence as self‐manifestation and a force field, the Holy Spirit as the divine essence, which is love. Second, I discuss serious reservations about some of the consequences of these innovations, such as the monarchy of the Spirit, the elevation of the divine essence as an entity above the three persons, the failure to explain the specificity and equality of each person, and others.

The Problem with Social Trinitarianism

In a recent article, Edward Wierenga defends a version of Social Trinitarianism according to which the Persons of the Trinity form a unique society of really distinct divine beings, each of whom has its own exemplification of divinity. In this paper, I call attention to several philosophical and theological difficulties with Wierenga’s account, as well as to a problem that such difficulties pose for Social Trinitarianism generally. I then briefly suggest what I take to be a more promising approach to the Trinity.