De Trinitate
Scott Collins-Jones, "You are in more dire need of a blog than any white man in history." (Movie quote, anyone?)
Since Scott, a funny, smart, opinionated guy who needs a blog doesn't have one yet, he emailed me to ask how I can not think that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity is not unorthodox. Well, not coincidentally, Doug and I spent a long time talking about this the other night, sitting in his van in my driveway after catching the late showing of What the #$*! Do We Know!?. In fact, this is one of the things that Duffy Robbins and I talked about recently since Doug has made some public comments on this issue.
Now, listen, I disagree with Doug on some significant theological points -- we've recently had heated conversations on the Trinity and baptism, among other things. But if you listen carefully to him, as I encouraged Duffy to do, Doug uses phrases like "The 3rd century Nicene understanding of the Trinity was once sufficient, but it isn't any longer." That is, he feels that many people use the "We've got to get back to a Trinitarian theology" line to once again hide behind a God who is quite -- if not completely -- removed from creation.
This is interesting for me because it's almost exactly the charge leveled against Schleiermacher and Barth by Moltmann. Moltmann, however, felt that each of these two (and their many acolytes) had subjugated the Trinity and promoted a radical monotheism which leads to monarchialism which leads to Hitler (yes, Moltmann tends to overplay his hand a bit). Moltmann's counter is to recover the Eastern Orthodox social/perichoretic conception of the Trinity. This is a way, he says, to think of a God who is intimately involved with the continuing creation of the world.
Anyway, my point in all this is that the doctrine of the Trinity is still on the table. Some people, it seems to me, would like for us to no longer debate certain "sacred" doctrines -- the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the nature of scripture, the nature of marriage etc. And these persons tend to get very jumpy when emergent-types discuss these sacrae doctrinae, especially in books and at conferences that are being taped. "This is dangerous," they say.
I say it's dangerous to stop talking about these things, and it leads to a hegemony among those who already control the seminaries, colleges, magazines, radio stations, conferences, publishing houses, and magazines. We will continue to debate such things.
And furthermore, didn't some famous theologian once say, "None of us is truly orthodox"? Who was that, anyway?
Since Scott, a funny, smart, opinionated guy who needs a blog doesn't have one yet, he emailed me to ask how I can not think that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity is not unorthodox. Well, not coincidentally, Doug and I spent a long time talking about this the other night, sitting in his van in my driveway after catching the late showing of What the #$*! Do We Know!?. In fact, this is one of the things that Duffy Robbins and I talked about recently since Doug has made some public comments on this issue.
Now, listen, I disagree with Doug on some significant theological points -- we've recently had heated conversations on the Trinity and baptism, among other things. But if you listen carefully to him, as I encouraged Duffy to do, Doug uses phrases like "The 3rd century Nicene understanding of the Trinity was once sufficient, but it isn't any longer." That is, he feels that many people use the "We've got to get back to a Trinitarian theology" line to once again hide behind a God who is quite -- if not completely -- removed from creation.
This is interesting for me because it's almost exactly the charge leveled against Schleiermacher and Barth by Moltmann. Moltmann, however, felt that each of these two (and their many acolytes) had subjugated the Trinity and promoted a radical monotheism which leads to monarchialism which leads to Hitler (yes, Moltmann tends to overplay his hand a bit). Moltmann's counter is to recover the Eastern Orthodox social/perichoretic conception of the Trinity. This is a way, he says, to think of a God who is intimately involved with the continuing creation of the world.
Anyway, my point in all this is that the doctrine of the Trinity is still on the table. Some people, it seems to me, would like for us to no longer debate certain "sacred" doctrines -- the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the nature of scripture, the nature of marriage etc. And these persons tend to get very jumpy when emergent-types discuss these sacrae doctrinae, especially in books and at conferences that are being taped. "This is dangerous," they say.
I say it's dangerous to stop talking about these things, and it leads to a hegemony among those who already control the seminaries, colleges, magazines, radio stations, conferences, publishing houses, and magazines. We will continue to debate such things.
And furthermore, didn't some famous theologian once say, "None of us is truly orthodox"? Who was that, anyway?
posted by tony at 4:04 AM
27 Comments:
Hi Tony. I saw your previous post on this. Whilst I think much of theology is not about orthodoxy, the trinity is an issue to far for me and many in the church.
I like the catholic theological framework (Tom Oden does a great outline of this), at three levels:
1. dogma - non negotiable
2. doctrine - important and open to debate/inerpretation
3. Beliefs (funny latin phrase I forget) - things that don't matter very much.
Now I'm not sure Catholic theologians use this a generously, but as an outline, I think it is helpful. Within thise schema, the Trinity is Dogma not doctrine.
Tom also goes on to outline how during major cultural changes there are some key theological responses:
1. Folk - people decide, what do I/we think...
2. Lay - church leaders
3. Pastoral - Church pastors do some re-thinking
4. Professional - seminary profs etc
5. Academic - university theologians not connected to church
He suggest that the academic and the folk are the main developers. The academic first then the folk.
As much as I like Doug and count him a friend, some of his ideas on the trinity are for me 'folk' theology, and non-orthodox in the broadest sense.
Doesn't mean I don't think he's christian, but I would see him as non-orthodox.
I read a lot of Barth for my masters research and his doctrine of creation is so thoroughly trinitarian that it enabled Colin Gunton at Kings to develop his ideas, and produce 'The Promise of Trinitarian Theology'. So I see a different Barth from the one you mention below.
I'll debate the trinity, christology etc, but I won't see the trinity as unbelievable and a matter of orthodox faith :-)
Thanks Tony, great blog and post.
..and re-reading your post, I think our theology has been so thoroughly non-trintarian, that we do need to revisit the trinity. What you say Doug says here more sublty nuanced than I have heard. What he has said to me he doesn't believe in the trinity :-)
The following was written in response to a post by RDavis at aintsobad.com concerning the relationship of word vs deed in evangelism but uncovered for me the irrecontovertible relationship of Trinity in of all places the beginning!
I have tried to relevate some passages for this post.
thankyou for your space--I come here to try to be more enlightened, I don't contribute nearly as much as I glean.
rrev@juno.com
KJV Genesis 1:1-3
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
So
God, then Heaven and Earth, in the beginning
Yet shapelessness, emptiness, confusion, seething, and violence under
God's brooding bellowing breathful Spirit (direction)
Followed by
The Word's instant light
and good reflection
Separation(Security,enlightenment/unenlightenment)
the mystery that is God? Involved yet Holy,
Thus
God--
Preconception, Intention, Machination[(Divinity, Intensity, Personality),(Holiness, Spiritualness, Individualness),(Being, Meaning, Providing),(God, Spirit, Word)]
--then suddenly Ideal and Materiale
Under Spirit induced care and conditioning
there was Wanton disregard/total devotion, frustration
But God gave
Guidance, Encouragement, Warmth--Faithfulness
and
Recognition, All knowing God
Reward,/Encouragement Ever Present Spirit
Protection All Powerful Victory over death
'As an aside to the point here is that design and plan and construction are miraculously close together in origin and before time.'
So to usward it becomes a fog(ging) of perception and thus difficult to discern, the Trinity, that is.
'What is not evident is the differentiation between word and deed. The better question, then, is one of faith, something only God discerns with certainty, and not a question so much of whether you do as you say or say as you do, thus as long as both are fairly congruent, then word and deed are to be accepted at face value as proffered by the speaker and doer of those particular words and deeds.'
For what better evidence of Spirit(God usward, faith us Godward) do we have than accomplishment of attitude depicted in word and deed?
'When they(word and deed, actions) are fidelic with scripture and timely to circumstance they indicate, for practical purposes, a receipt of Grace(reunity with God). Word and deeds then are both actions, which, when applied separately from each other are often disregarded as especially hypocritical, and even when unified are hapless unless divinely appointed(Spirit led).'
Somewhat seemingly convoluted and circuitous, I know, but somewhere in there is the touchstone of your post. Trinity is hard to deny as a precept.(dogma)What meany orthodoxy?
Thanks again
RobertFRe
rrev@juno.com
I agree with both Tony and the posts.
My view on the Trinity is thus. It is a METAPHOR for God. If Barth is too be believed, and on this point he is, that God is wholly other than us all language for God is at best a limited metaphor. All metaphorical language for God is important, but not exhaustive. The metaphorical language tied to the Trinity can at times be overstated, and thus misused (For instance I have heard some people say men are more like God than women because God is FATHER and SON.). I think this is the point that Doug needles us toward at certain points--to remember that all language for God is metaphorical and limited, including the Trinity.
As a sidenote, this limitation of language to communicate something perfectly is at the core of "postmodern" philosophy (see Derrida). So we should not be surprised that an emergent pastoral theologian like Doug struggles with language for God.
However, I disagree on this point. Although the Trinity is a metaphor for God, it is the DOMINANT METAPHOR for God in the New Testament (although never explicitly stated as Trinity). It is also the dominant metaphor for God in the current and historical community of the Christian faith. It tells us a lot about who God is, without exhausing our understanding of who God is. Thus, as I read him so far, Doug goes too far.
I agree with both Tony and the posts.
My view on the Trinity is thus. It is a METAPHOR for God. If Barth is too be believed, and on this point he is, that God is wholly other than us all language for God is at best a limited metaphor. All metaphorical language for God is important, but not exhaustive. The metaphorical language tied to the Trinity can at times be overstated, and thus misused (For instance I have heard some people say men are more like God than women because God is FATHER and SON.). I think this is the point that Doug needles us toward at certain points--to remember that all language for God is metaphorical and limited, including the Trinity.
As a sidenote, this limitation of language to communicate something perfectly is at the core of "postmodern" philosophy (see Derrida). So we should not be surprised that an emergent pastoral theologian like Doug struggles with language for God.
However, I disagree on this point. Although the Trinity is a metaphor for God, it is the DOMINANT METAPHOR for God in the New Testament (although never explicitly stated as Trinity). It is also the dominant metaphor for God in the current and historical community of the Christian faith. It tells us a lot about who God is, without exhausing our understanding of who God is. Thus, as I read him so far, Doug goes too far.
tony..
i think one of the most important points here is that the Trinity is still on the table. That is, there is no theology or point of view that is complete, finished, finalized. We must (and we are called) to continue to rethink and debate everything. Nothing is taken for granted...
One of the greatest gifts of Emergent..
Mark
Wow, I love nothing more than a good conversation about what Doug thinks.
First, Doug thinks that people should not post under anonymous personas.
Also, Doug does not not believe in the Trinity.
I have tried to be clear so many times on this; the Trinity is not something to be believed in, it is an explanation of how God interrelates. The language of “not believing in something” is far too limited.
It is fair to suggest that the third century version of how God relates is not the most accurate in light of what we currently know, and not be forced into saying that one does not believe in it.
I simply suggest that the issues that were in place that caused the concept of the Trinity to be formed are no longer an issue. I am not suggesting a lesser understanding of God, or God not dwelling in Christ Jesus. I am suggesting that we not debate the Trinity – that concept did it’s job, rather we need to have Christian understanding of God that fits our day as well as the Trinity fit the third century.
I am not saying it is wrong, but it is not complete. No view is complete. That is why all belief is progressive.
Also, Doug thinks that there ought be no Dogma. There should be nothing that is not on the table of reconsideration. We will not be able to reconsider everything at the same time, or even think that all things need to be reconsidered, but nothing is exempt from reconsideration.
Holy Crap!? Doug Pagitt doesn't believe in the Trinity? I am getting very scared in all this. I may now attend FutureGen instead of Emergent this year.
Hi Tony, Jason here.
Dogma is not doctrinal opinion, not the pronouncement of any given teacher, but doctrinal statute (decretum). The dogmas of a church are those doctrines which it declares to be the most essential contents of Christianity.
So when I hear doug saying there should be no dogma, I get a little oncomfortable. For me there is Dogma, that Jesus is the basis for christianity, has to be a dogmatic statement, etc.
Without Dogma we have no faith at all, except whatever we chose to believe.
I understand the limit of metaphors, they are just that our best attempts (and sometimes worst) to explain the inexplainable.
I'm all for debating theology about everything, but I can't let go of the trinity, however much it is a metpahoric explanation.
Are there really no dogma for you doug, was Jesus God, was he human, any christlogical beliefs you hold about Jesus that say he was not just an ordinary bloke that are vital for being a christian?
You can't have any beleif without dogmatics, even if you believe there should be no dogma, which is a dogmatic statement itself.
Jason Clark
London, England
There is some truth in most of what people are saying here. Yes, all of our stories need continual reinterpreting in every generation, including the trinity.
Saying that the trinity needs to be reconsidered is neither new nor very interesting. So it seems to me the real interesting thing here is that when DP says something like this, people freak out, as if what he is saying is new. The benefit then is that people start thinking more seriously about the Trinity.
However, I do not think it is helpful for Doug to challenge the 3rd century version of the trinity without giving his own understanding of it. Like I said, challenging an old version of something doesn't take a lot. Giving content to new understandings might be more useful.
In that, I find Moltmann's understanding the most useful language for our day. Contrary to SCJ, Moltmann did not merely warm over or redress Eastern understandings of the Trinity for the last 2 centuries and call it his own. To reference eastern europe and Russian history as data that refutes Moltmann is simplistic rhetoric and fails to convince.
Let's get past what Doug thinks because in the end it doesn't matter for the church unless he offers a version that simply ignores the "grammatical function" of the doctrine to begin with and throws out the baby with the bathwater. Would those with the most compelling versions from our time please step forward? I offer Moltmann's version as the most compelling starting point, and frankly, if you haven't read Trinity and the Kingdom 3 times, please don't presume to understand his position (even if you have read it).
jim barnhill
jim
"Let's get past what Doug thinks . . . " - agreed
"I do not think it is helpful for Doug to challenge the 3rd century version of the trinity without giving his own understanding of it . . . " - partial agree
one of my long term frustrations with the "emergent group" has been the ease at which some seem tear at or deconstruct a historical Christian position and its equal inability to offer the an equally compelling or tangible vision for the "new" . . .
however, I disagree in this sense though . . . I found doug's post helpful. maybe I read less than most of you braniacs, and maybe this is not new, but . . . .
"the Trinity is not something to be believed in, it is an explanation of how God interrelates . . . "
I found that to be quite compelling and at least a partial glimpse of some visionary new way to relate to an old docterine/dogma/whatever we decide it is/was
viva la paz
Tony,
I think the doctrine of the Trinity was left on the table even after the 2nd Council in 381. If you are emperor you just want folks to quit bithching and move on. As you know, it may have given us a more Trinitarian "creed", but it did not settle the "doctrine". I am not so certain that there was ever a "dominant" understanding of the trinity in the Third Century.
Yes, it is on the table and always has been. I thought Basil, Nyssa, and friend were good ole "Orthodox" boys. Personally, I have no problem with God as "trinity." I CAN see why folks struggle though.
I find it funny who gets to label oneself orthodox and the other a heretic. The one doing the writing is usually "orthodox", the one on fire is the heretic. :)
Nice post.
Rick
Nice post.
From Jimmy - Let's get past what Doug thinks because in the end it doesn't matter for the church unless he offers a version that simply ignores the "grammatical function" of the doctrine to begin with and throws out the baby with the bathwater.
But, you see, I have drain in my bathtub and do not throw out the bathwater at all, I let it go slowly down the drain. so I never worry about the baby going down the drain. So, I think the baby is safe.
No one throws the baby out with the bathwater. The baby is always safe, so don't worry about that.
Now, Jimmy go see if you can help your wife while she finishes making a book out of that yack I sent her :)
New here and posted earlier. I find most of this conversation fun.
1. Actually, I think much of our understanding of God is "folk" theology. That isn't a bad thing. It is only when we attempt to be literal that it becomes a problem. We are all attempting to find expression to our undestanding of God. Same shit has been going on for several thousand years. Welcome to the mystery, ain't it fun?
2. Someone said: "i think one of the most important points here is that the Trinity is still on the table. That is, there is no theology or point of view that is complete, finished, finalized. We must (and we are called) to continue to rethink and debate everything. Nothing is taken for granted... One of the greatest gifts of Emergent.."
I think this is a good point. Personally, I would not attribue anything to emergent. In some ways emergent reminds me of the kid who just got his yellow belt in karate. He knows how to stand and he knows one kick. He knows enough to get his ass kicked if he gets in a real fight. I think much of the "emergent conversation" is about yellow belt level in terms of it embracing mid-20th century mainline theology. I speak mainly for myself.
I do think it is wonderful though to discuss, seek, and debate. Thanks for a wonderful topic. It gives me much to think about.
Blessings,
Rick
Doug, I think the metaphor doesn't include the baby slipping into the small opening known as the drain. So the rate of drainage seems less important, I think, than a radical tossing of the screaming baby out the bathroom window along with your dirty bath. . . . However, if you take a shower in the kind of shower stall I have, you'll have no trouble with this. And, "it doesn't matter what DP thinks" is partially a medicine tablet to reduce the swelling of your head when 18 comments are made on or about something you've said. Folks, help the man out here for God's sake, all three of them!
Doug, I think the metaphor doesn't include the baby slipping into the small opening known as the drain. So the rate of drainage seems less important, I think, than a radical tossing of the screaming baby out the bathroom window along with your dirty bath. . . . However, if you take a shower in the kind of shower stall I have, you'll have no trouble with this. And, "it doesn't matter what DP thinks" is partially a medicine tablet to reduce the swelling of your head when 18 comments are made on or about something you've said. Folks, help the man out here for God's sake, all three of them!
my question would be, that if the trinity is not to be believed in why would we give the bible a gender? as per one of his previous posts....?
So would whatever theology Doug holds to be considered Dougma? ;-)
(Still new here and joining in on my own free will.)
It is not that the Trinity should not be "believed in". I think the point is that the Trinity is extremely relevant. The problem for 21st century folks is perhaps NOT attempting to interpret the Trinity base on hellenistic ideas for these have and can result in dogma.
We don't toss out the doctrine of the Trinity because of its past Hellenistic understandings, however, we cannot impose a timeless obligation of faith on all believers.
Kuhn claims, the unity of the father, son , spirit can be understood as REVELATION event and revelational unity. We must move beyond the pure Christological debate and see Jesus and God with reference to Spirit. It is incomplete without pneumatology. Check the creed itself, it is weak on pneumatology. It is as though they just tacked it on. If Jesus was a revelation of God, how does he become a revelation for us? Spiritually. The spirit is the presence of God and of the exalted Christ for believers. It is not a material or physical revelation for us as it is a spiritual reality.
Thanks again for the topic.
Rick
This conversation is too much for me. I know that we are should be discussing and thinking about theology, but this is making me want to run into the loving and strong arms of Duffy Robbins and have him cradle me softly and tell me it is going to be OK and Doug isn't going to get make the Trinity go away.
I have recently been reading Alfred North Whitehead's The Function of Reason. Process Theology, I believe can add a much needed alternative to the Platonic Alpha perspective of God's action in relation to God's Self as well as God and Humanity. Ackhams Razor(I hope this is spelled right) is another path in which to travel when dealing with God. Could Jesus just be the son and God Just be God and let the greeks have the spirit. I dont know just a thought?
Does God NEED to be triune? It is sad, to me, how we have to wrestle with/against theologies vs. initial intent [that's my point-of-view on how the church does/doesn't grow it's orthodoxy -- same basic idea as express by previous posts]. Forgive what is about to become a combination of DP thoughts (or at least my thoughts on his thoughts)...
The 3rd century's Trinity was in response to what was going on in combination with their basic understanding of the universe (duh). But our understanding of the universe is drastically different (2nd duh). If the doctrine of Trinity speaks to relating, and if relating has drastically changed, then the doctrine will not be worthless. Rather, the doctrine will give great insight into what those people were actually saying (intent).
We live in a world that has virtual and at-a-distance effects. I still laugh out loud when I remember DP's statement about the advent of the telephone and its effects on one's understanding of communication - talking no longer requires proximity.
So The Holy Spirit, God's typical non-"physical" presence on earth, becomes almost unnecessary for we now understand that a god-like God can relate, affect, distort, etc. without having to have a visible, physical manifestation at the point of activity. But that's NEW to the human experience.
My point: the doctrine of the Trinity will now give us understanding into what those people understood about God's relating to ________ ("Himself" - me - nature - etc.) Isn't that the point of a metaphor anyway (whether given by man or God)? to understand the intent of the communicator? So God gives us the analogy of something Triune-ish, and we give ourselves a further delineated analogy.
If Jesus had come to earth today, if all of God's revealing in word started this year, I don't know that God would have used anything trinity-ish . . . which I think is the point of those wishing to crucible the Trinity. In the meantime, I can enjoy the intent of the metaphor - God does relate and I rather like the way it's done (except when I'm in discipline, then I'd rather be short-sited and materialistic).
David in Phoenix
My name is Dino....I don't have a passowrd or username so I had to post annonymously.
Is Paul's language to live by the Spirit or walk in the spirit or even when he talks about gifts of the spirit...are these to be taken as simply metaphors of speaking about God? If trinitarian language is not a neccessity for following Christ then why does Paul employ such language...even Jesus for that matter when he says I will send you a comforter & counselor...or that the Spirit will lead you into all truth.
It seems at least that the Spirit has some kind of practical function for being a disciple of Jesus. If the Spirit is only metaphor for God then how do we incorporate the concept of Spirit in both our individaul and communal praxis?
Hey Dino, it seems to me that the language of the New Testement should serve us just fine.
Jimmy - if the metaphor doesn't work for the baby, then maybe we ought to quit using the metaphor and scaring people into thinking that somehow we will lose what is precious in trying to get rid of the dirty water.
We have ways to get rid of the water and keep the baby, so let's stop worrying about that.
I am not sure anyone is suggesting the Trinity is wrong - certainly not me. I am suggesting that it is not the end of the conversation and we can have more discussion of the relationship of God with the world than to encouraged to "return to good Trinitarian theology", or to consider it a dogma.
"the Trinity is not something to be believed in, it is an explanation of how God interrelates . . . "
The doctrine of the Trinity *has* become a doctrine of God's interrelatedness, but this is what needs to be deconstructed, not the idea of the Trinity per se--which I'm not suggesting is Doug's agenda. My favorite book on the Trinity is God for Us by the late Catherine LaCugna. She took the position of the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner that we can't speak of God's interrelatedness because we only know of his relationship to us. We're not "out there" to observe God's inner life. We have God revealed in the economy of space and time--in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Further, this relatedness of Father and Son and Spirit includes us by virtue of the creative and redemptive activity of the three. Further, this divine interrelatedness is what is our promise (John 17, 2 Pet. 1:4, 1 John 3:1-3). Thus, I think the Trinity is absolutely something to be *believed* in, though I agree that it's always on the table for dialogue.
Zossima, www.forgettingourselves.com
Post a Comment
<< Home