Mutual Hierarchy

A New Approach to Social Trinitarianism

Jeffrey A. Dukeman

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781532664274
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Teología cristiana

Social Trinitarians have not been shy about positing community as the chief ontological category for Trinitarian discourse. As beneficial as this is, social Trinitarians have typically been less helpful in advocating the sort of human community for the Trinitarian analogy that most people would probably find desirable. To use the example of a marriage, one has often been forced to choose between a fully egalitarian view, where the spouses supposedly have no differences from each other, and a hierarchical view where a husband exercises a unilateral and oppressive power over his wife. This book advocates a third alternative for the sort of community present in the Trinity. Just as genuine teamwork is generally desirable in various human communities, the divine persons have a mutual hierarchy relationship with each other. Here each divine person has a unique hierarchy over the others, and yet each uses this hierarchy to serve the others in a dignified way. Recognizing this mutual hierarchy of the divine persons fosters a view of the Trinity that is maximally social, in keeping with the name "social Trinitarianism." In proceeding thus, the book attempts to, in a unique way, show the harmony between systematic theology, exegesis, and practice.

1

Identifying Themes and a Tension in Social Trinitarianism

This chapter seeks to identify themes and an inherent tension in social trinitarian systems. The chapter will first look at some chief themes that are characteristic of Social Trinitarianism and, in connection with these themes, identify a tension that is typically present in social trinitarian systems in three different areas. I will call this tension a hierarchy-equality polarity, a viewing of hierarchy and equality as opposites. The chapter will then show how Balthasar and Volf are helpful as representative figures for assessing Social Trinitarianism.

Some Key Themes and Areas of Tension in Social Trinitarianism

In what follows, I will lay out three chief themes that are characteristic of Social Trinitarianism. In the process, I will also identify a hierarchy-equality polarity or tension in connection with three areas associated with these themes.

Social Trinitarian Critiques of Other Trinitarian Models

A first important theme associated with Social Trinitarianism is that it critiques other trinitarian models in accordance with its stressing community as the ultimate ontological category in trinitarian discourse. Thus, Leonardo Boff in Trinity and Society distinguishes between Social Trinitarianism, a Western-Augustinian understanding of the Trinity, and an Eastern-Cappadocian understanding of the Trinity.1 Boff sees these as teaching community, substance, and person, respectively, as the ultimate ontological category in trinitarian discourse. In what follows, I will first provide examples of both person-oriented and unity (substance)-oriented trinitarian models which have been influential in the history of trinitarian discourse. I will then proceed to describe some of the general characteristics of social trinitarian critiques of these two trinitarian models.

A person-oriented trinitarian model teaches that the relative independence of the divine hypostases (in particular, the person of the Father as cause) is the ultimate ontological category in trinitarian discourse. A good example of a foundational description of this model may be seen in the work of Basil the Great, one of the Cappadocian Fathers associated with the church’s fight against Arianism leading up to the second ecumenical council. Najeeb Awad in his article “Between Subordination and Koinonia: Toward a New Reading of the Cappadocian Theology” provides a helpful example of a place where Basil sets forth a person-oriented trinitarian model.2 Awad argues that among the Cappadocian Fathers, “the idea that ‘the origination of the Godhead is by virtue of the Father alone’ is found at center stage primarily in Basil’s writings.”3 Awad makes his case based primarily on portions of Basil’s On the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s On the Holy Spirit—especially chapter sixteen onwards—Basil explicates the eternal Trinity in terms of successively linear relationships between the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Whereas in the earlier chapters of this treatise, he states that causal prepositions (i.e. from, through) refer equally to the three persons, in the later chapters he rather insists that the Father alone remains the source and the center of the Godhead.4

Awad goes on to identify two significant features in Basil’s presentation. First, Basil, although also concerned to protect the equal divinity of the divine persons against the Pneumatomachoi, nevertheless stresses the linear ordering of the divine persons. Thus, for example, Awad notes that Basil in On the Holy Spirit emphasizes that only the Father is the “fountain and source of all gifts” whereas the Son is the sender of the gift and the Spirit is the messenger through whom the gift is sent.5 Second, Basil in On the Holy Spirit tends to associate the word “God” with the Father alone. Awad summarizes as follows:

This does not mean that for him [Basil] the Spirit and the Son are not expressive of God. It simply means that the Spirit and the Son are so as each is “God from God,” whereas the Father alone is “God the Father.” That the Spirit and the Son are “God from God” and not “God,” as the Father is, is a conclusion that Basil derives from the language about the Son and the Spirit as conveyers, transmitters, of the divine gift (i.e., the Son is the sender, the Spirit is the messenger), and not, as is the Father, “the fountain and source of all gifts.”6

According to Awad, Basil emphasizes the fact that the person of the Father is the source of the Godhead and in so doing overshadows other, more relational themes in his understanding of the Trinity.

A basic problem of a person-oriented view from the perspective of many Social Trinitarians is that it tends to teach a logical subordinationism in connection with the priority that it gives to the Father as the unoriginated cause of the divine life. Many Social Trinitarians, and especially egalitarian Social Trinitarians, warn of a danger of Arianism in connection with this alleged subordinationism in an Eastern-Cappadocian trinitarian understanding.7 However, some hierarchical Social Trinitarians tend to cast the problem of a person-oriented trinitarian model not so much as a problem of the Father’s hierarchy over the other divine persons (although they typically see this as a related problem), but more as a problem of reconciling the “one” and the “many” in the doctrine of the Trinity so that there is an inadequate accounting for the distinctness of the many.8 That is, hierarchical Social Trinitarians often do not see the problem chiefly in terms of hierarchy but rather in terms of the distinctness of the divine persons.

A substance (unity)-oriented trinitarian model teaches that the divine substance, logically speaking, precedes the divine persons and that this divine substance is the ultimate ontological category in trinitarian discourse. It is widely recognized that the fifth book of Augustine’s On the Trinity is a foundational text for this substance view. In this place, Augustine looks at what he sees as the three main categories in the doctrine of the Trinity: substance, relation, and person. Augustine here emphasizes that the divine substance is completely unchangeable, admitting no analogy from the world of creation since in creation all things are accidents and as such may either lose their qualities or have their qualities diminished. But the divine substance admits no accidents whatsoever. However, not all things in God are spoken of in reference to substance. Rather, certain things are spoken of according to relation. Here Augustine looks at how such terms as Father, Son, begetter, and begotten are fully relational terms and in no way refer to themselves. Thus, for example, the term Father only makes sense in relation to the Son, and the term Father in no way refers to the divine substance or to the Father himself. And thus we already arrive at Augustine’s third chief term: person. For Augustine, there are three divine persons who each equally possess the divine substance and are relations to one another. In sum, Augustine in this chapter sets up a hierarchy between his three terms where substance receives the most attention and emphasis, relation less so, and person still less.

Social Trinitarians tend to critique a substance (unity)-oriented trinitarian understanding to the extent that it teaches that the divine substance is a sort of fourth entity that is primary and logically precedes the divine persons.9 For example, Moltmann critiques what he can simply refer to as monotheism that has been present in the church throughout its history as follows: “The Christian church was therefore right to see monotheism as the severest inner danger.”10 Pannenberg critiques Augustine for, allegedly, insufficiently conceiving the relationship between the one and the many in the Trinity by blurring the dist...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Identifying Themes and a Tension in Social Trinitarianism
• Chapter 2: A Mutual Hierarchy Critique of Traditional Trinitarian Models
• Chapter 3: A Mutual Hierarchy Approach to the Economic Trinity
• Chapter 4: A Mutual Hierarchy Approach to the Immanent Trinity
• Chapter 5: Mutual Hierarchy as a Framework for Ecclesiology
• Chapter 6: Mutual Hierarchy amid the Triadic Macrostructure of the Gospel of Matthew
• Chapter 7: Mutual Hierarchy and Discipleship in the Gospel of Matthew
• Conclusion
• Glossary
• Bibliography