Rethinking Trinity
Keith Ward’s new book, Christ and the Cosmos: A Reformulation of Trinitarian Doctrine, inspires me. It offers ideas whose basic form I’ve been pondering for some time. But Ward puts those ideas in explicit language and encourages me to think more creatively than I have previously!
I’ve been asked to write a full-length review/evaluative article on Ward’s book for an academic journal. But I want to throw out here Ward’s three main ideas and my two quick responses to get feedback.
First, Ward says the idea that the Trinity is “a society of three subjects of consciousness” is logically and theologically inadequate. The social trinity idea leads not only to tri-theism but creates insuperable problems for Christology. Out with the social trinity, says Ward! Ward says we should still affirm trinity, just not the social version of God revealed in three dimensions.
Second, the God incarnate in Jesus is revealed as “a dynamic, creative, responsive, and relational God whose nature as love.” Out of love, God creates and loves others. This is an argument I make in my own books. It’s great to read Ward making it central in this book. Affirming a relational God of love is important for thinking afresh about the trinity, because some trinitarian theologies presuppose a wholly impassible deity.
Third, as creator of the cosmos, God “cannot be fully and finally understood in anthropocentric images familiar to human beings on this planet.” God would likely choose a different creaturely form than human through which to be revealed on planets without humans. Among other things, this means “we should stop thinking,” says Ward, “that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one finally true identifying name of God for every inhabited planet in every galaxy and universe.”
Ward prompts two quick observations of my own:
The notion of three centers of will and consciousness making up the triune God is deeply ingrained today in the imaginations of many Christians. It will likely take significant deconstruction for them to set aside the social view of trinity. But I agree with Ward that such deconstruction should be done.
The demise of the social trinity raises the question of how God’s nature is essentially relational love. Those who affirm creatio ex nihilo have said God can relate within social trinity via everlasting give-and-receive love between divine members. But if there is no social trinity and creatio ex nihilo is true, God cannot be essentially relational. For my part, I see this as another good reason to be rid of the nonbiblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. If we reject creation from nothing and affirm God’s everlasting love for creation, “God with us” can be essentially and everlastingly true!
Today’s trinitarian teaser to titillate your theological tastebuds….
Keith Ward's new book is a trinitarian treatise to titillate your theological tastebuds! Click To Tweet
Newsletter
For a 200-page book of Thomas Jay Oord's best-selling writings and to receive his newsletter, add your email address...
Comments
Making the social trinity into a separate theological construct kind of misses the reality that it developed out of trying to correlate various biblical statements, more than from systematic or ideological motives. But it seems like he removes it for systematic/philosophical reasons. I haven’t read the entire book (just the sample chapter and excerpts I have found), but it seems unsatisfying so far so I haven’t purchased it. I favor biblical theology and I don’t know what else to do with passages like John 14-17, for example, if the social trinity is out. Does he deal with this more thoroughly in the book? Do you have a response to my question?
First off let me start by addressing this statement from the article, “God “cannot be fully and finally understood in anthropocentric images”” In my opinion, the reason that God is spoken of in anthropocentric images is so that we can have some basis of understanding who God is. When you communicate to anyone, if you want to be understood, you communicate in ways and words that they will comprehend. This is why the Bible uses such imagery. It is simply for our benefit so that we have the opportunity to understand. So we need not throw out that imagery. We do need to understand the imagery as that though, God’s loving desire to have us, His creation, understand more about our creator.
That being said, I certainly think that there are more ways that we can more fully understand and comprehend more fully about our creator, the lover of our souls.
I think the true desire to understand more about God is only natural for a thinking created being on this planet. We are naturally curious and so it is no surprise that when we think of God we are curious and desire a more complete understanding of just who our God is and how that effects out relationship to our God and how also that that effects God’s relationship to us, His creation.
Doing away with the notion of trinity is a difficult sell though. It is so central to so many different denominations. To even question it is to invite claims of heresy. And once that happens then no one listens. they become to ensconced in proclaiming your heresy, mostly I think because they don’t want to think about what they believe. I know that for me one of the best things that having been in your company Tom, for me, is that I am much more willing and able to think through what I believe. I find that I do not feel threatened by opinions that differ from my own because I hold love to be central to God’s identity and my own!
So that being said, I would be careful in conversations that question the trinity. I think it is only wise for us, as thinking Christians, to wonder about our faith and how we best communicate and understand our faith. When we stop thinking we die! For me, I love to engage my mind in discussions about faith and life with whoever is willing to be in the discussion. I have talked to many people of differing faith backgrounds in and outside the Christian camp. It is exhilarating to engage in these discussions. I think it is a superb way to communicate to others the loving nature of God. After all God is always willing to discuss with us any ideas we have. God does not shut us down or shout us down as we are apt to do far too often.
You have certainly peeked my interest to read this book and to see once again how my thinking can grow and become more as I live here right now on this planet! Thank you Tom! You are a good brother!!
Thanks, Tim. Keith’s book is probably best described as philosophical theology. But he does spend several chapters dealing with biblical language with relation to the Trinity. I think he makes a convincing case that it is… ambiguous. Some passages seem to support a social trinity. Others work against it. The result is that one cannot decide the issue on scripture alone.
Thanks, Todd. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but you seem to think Ward (and I) are getting rid of the Trinity. That’s not the case. What we’re criticizing is a particular view of the Trinity commonly called “the social Trinity.” Does that make sense?
Yes it does. I am just saying that my fear is that you and Ward will be understood as trying to get rid of the Trinity. We both now how polarizing that would be perceived!! No one would listen and God knows His Church needs to listen a lot more than we do. I find that I keep coming back to this passage in John 13:34-35, “So I give you a new command: Love each other deeply and fully. Remember the ways that I have loved you, and demonstrate your love for others in those same ways. Everyone will know you as My followers if you demonstrate your love to others.” I hope that as children of God we all can love each other enough to listen especially when conversations are hard to hear.
Love you brother!
Thanks, Todd. I agree: Some people so identify the trinity with the social trinity that any statement to reject the social trinity will be perceived as wanting to get rid of the trinity altogether.
Thanks!
Loved your discussion with Todd. I too saw that you were not saying that Ward wants to do away with the Trinity. But, as written, your post could easily be construed as arguing for just that. Not all readers are good readers and certainly not all are sympathetic readers. But questioning the ‘social’ Trinity is not a bad idea, because we should be able to list precise reasons why we think it necessary to think in these terms. If these don’t hold up…………
On your last point (creatio ex nihilo):
Just thinking out loud here to see if I’m tracking this. Haven’t read Ward’s book.
Q: What did God love (relate to) before there was anything but God?
Q: (troublesome student) How do we know there was a time when only God existed?
A: Because only God has existed forever, so there must have been a ‘nothing but God time’.
Q: (troublesome student) When was time created?
A: When God created everything else.
Q: (still trouble) Was that before or after the ‘nothing but God time’?
I’m I catching the drift of your concerns? Or do I just need to read a lot more in this area about which there must be volumes? I’ll start with Ward’s book.
Peace
Thanks, Bev (and Todd). I think I’ll add a line in my blog that explicitly says Ward is not rejecting the Trinity altogether.
Thanks also for your post on God and time. As I see it, time is not a thing that is created. And I think there are two ways to talk about time being without beginning or end.
One is to affirm a social trinity and say God has timefully given and received love among the members of the Trinity. This giving and receiving is moment by moment, but it has gone on everlastingly. Of course, if you reject the social trinity, this option also goes.
The other is to say God has everlastingly been creating from that which God previously created. In this scenario, time has no beginning, because God and God’s creating has no beginning.
For what it’s worth,
Tom
I’ve been asked to offer an article for the same symposium on the book. The book certainly is interesting, but so far I can’t see how his arguments work all that well when he addresses “Social Trinitarianism.” There is too much confusion about what “ST” really is, not enough clarity about which criticisms apply to which versions of ST, and not enough attention to some important biblical texts (any mention of John 17… at all?). I think that I’ll be addressing other issues in my essay, but there are several places where Ward’s arguments are open to criticism.
Considering God is a social Trinity, the love God has within Himself is not self-love, but love between Persons. (John 10:17) I visualize the mechanics of the Trinity by making a poor comparison with my heart. It has its own brain and a will of its own. It the case of the Trinity, each are Almighty. After returning to His situation in heaven, the Son took the name He had before His incarnation, Word. (Revelation 19:13) The Father speaks, the Word creates. (John 8:28; 12:50) The Holy Spirit also has a unique part that He plays. Each has a character and attitude of love, encouraging each other’s uniqueness, each using Their thoughts and will to serve one another as love does, yet They are One. (The Father is in us; the HS is in us; the Son is in us, yet there is One Spirit in us. (Ephesians 4:4)
Hi Tom,
Let me first say that I have a great amount of respect for you (and Keith Ward). ‘Open Theism’ has been a really important and positive influence on my thinking and I’d love to get your thoughts on the following (Any glaring errors are entirely mine rather than the thinkers mentioned).
Putting aside the issue of the trinity for a moment I want to consider ‘creatio ex nihilo’. I think some of the difficulties with understanding this doctrine come from the lack of interaction between the ‘analytic’ and ‘continental’ traditions. Analytic theologians often seem so caught up in the idea of ‘possible worlds’ and ‘universals’ that they miss the point that this way of thinking is only possible due to the ‘univocity of being’ established by thinkers such as Avicenna and Duns Scotus (A superb exploration of this is Connor Cunninghams ‘Genealogy of Nihilism’: http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/118073/56cfa657e1681bf5849d3f471a7e2a87.pdf?sequence=1 )
From a (radically) orthodox point of view, many of the problems in Open/Process theism are a result of an uncritical acceptance of this idea, e.g. the process criticism of Gods power and interaction with the world just doesn’t gain any momentum when we can understand God’s action as always non-competitive with that of creatures. Likewise creation out of nothing becomes a necessity because otherwise the world would not be a ‘gift’ it would be a ‘given’ (John Milbank gives a helpful analogy of a bike in a shop which could become a gift when bought and given to a child but on a deeper level of reality wouldn’t be.)
‘Creatio ex nihilo’ allows us to say that at the deepest level of reality the world is a gift from a loving God. Without it there is a real difficulty to distinguish between creative charity and a sheer capricious exercise of power.
Hi, Thomas-
I am a Presbyterian pastor, and I love reading your blog. I read that you were going to write a more extensive review of Ward’s book on the Trinity. In what journal and when will this be published? I would love to read it. I struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity, and Ward makes good sense, but I also feels he doesn’t engage the biblical tradition in more depth. Let us all know when you will publish this review. Many thanks!
Thanks for the kind response, Russell. I am scheduled to write a review of Keith’s new book. I’ve read it, but I haven’t written the review. I forget at the moment which journal asked me to contribute. But I’ll post a version of my review on my website, so just keep an eye out for it.
Tom