Social Trinity is an interpretation with regard to the Christian doctrine on trinity. The main and central idea lies in the fact that this concept of trinity comprises of three persons whose relationship constitutes its very nature. Over the last three decades, there have been increased outpouring of the writings from both the Protestant and Catholic theologians on the concept and doctrine of trinity, and almost all of which have ironically been lamenting on the neglect of this doctrine. Trinity is crucial and central to Christian theology and Christianity, though it has not received adequate treatment. It is indeed unacceptable that the theologians protest that this idea has been regarded as complex and obscure in terms of theological technicality. Karl Rahner remarked that Christians are almost “monotheists” who play lip service to the concept of trinity but ignoring it in practice. He further stated that if it was to be announced that this dogma had been termed as a mistake and that it was to be removed from official Christianity, then nobody would really care including the ordinary Christians and the theological authors. This Rahner’s diagnosis has been widely regretted and /or accepted. The consensus among many authors and Christians is that trinity is a pivotal concept in Christianity and both piety and theology have strayed if they regard it as belonging to the specialists.
To revivify the doctrine and probably bring its relevance, it has been proposed that enhanced advocacy of its social understanding is necessary. This process and line of thought has been picking momentum after the publication of The Trinity and the Kingdom of God by Jurgen Molmann which has been achieved in various quarters, gaining prominence and becoming what is termed as new orthodoxy.
A brief characterization of the modern social theories of Trinity is necessary. Basically the social theorists state that Christians ought to imagine that God not as an individual thing or person which comprises of three aspects, sides, modes or dimensions of being; but instead God should be conceptualized as being a group, collective or a society with is bound together by the mutual accord, love and self-giving of its members. Several and indeed many theorists share more on this concept or. There is need to draw one’s attention to the recurring features, to begin with, the understanding of the meaning and implication of the word “person”, as per the classical Trinitarian formula; the particular picture with regard to the history of this doctrine; and thirdly, the orientation towards waxing the enthusiasm when it comes to the explanation of how the three which constitutes the Trinity can be carried out.
All Christian theologians who consider themselves as being orthodox are committed to the preposition that God is constituted by three “persons”. Almost all contemporary theologians tend to agree that the meaning and implications of Trinity is not merely identical to the modern understanding of the word. But with regard to how different this meaning may be, and in what way, there seem to be no unanimity. The twentieth century theologians who do not believe social theories seem to emphasize how technical the term “person” is within the Trinitarian formula, and how it may have nothing to with our contemporary notion. Both Ranher and Barth, for example, suggest that this term is misleading to those who are untrained and therefore theology will do better if it abandoned it altogether, and its place a different terminology substituted. They put forward terms such as “mode of being” or “mode of subsistence”. They imagine that because of the evolution of the meaning of the word, the moment one hears of the word “three persons”, then inevitably there will be three separate “I”, three distinct wills, three centers of consciousness and therefore it must be rejected as being tritheism of the highest order. It is therefore counterproductive to continue invoking and using the word.
On the other hand, social theorists do acknowledge that the meaning of the word “person”, has been changing though not as radically as other groups may think, and not so much that this word “ person “should be abandoned. Therefore what is required is not a new word but that through the usage of the word “ person” Trinitarian theology should put up some elements of the contemporary and secular understanding of this option. Our modern comprehension of the society’s basic understanding of this word, its implication and meaning to be a person should be reformed by the return to the real Trinitarian theology and understanding. The issue with our normal notion of personhood is in the connotation of individualism, which brings forth the assumption that every person is an isolated being who is against all the others. The proper understanding Trinitarian perichoresis and Trinity counteracts this, and according to them enables one to comprehend the person by their very nature interdependent, interactive, in communion with each other.
One point which unites the social theorist is that they happy in the use of the term person within the Trinitarian context. Secondly, is the certain reading and understanding of the doctrine history. Social theorists sharply distinguish between the manner in which the Trinity doctrine was dealt with in the East and how it was expounded or developed in the West. Specifically, it is pointed out that Cappadocia’s, took as their being points the three persons in the Trinity then inquired about unity whereas Augustine from the West started with the oneness of God, having an abstract notion of the divine substance and puzzled on how to report on the “threeness” (sic) of the persons. And it is within Augustinian oneness precedence of “threeness” which the entire Western tradition was mistakenly wrong, going by the typical account of social theorists. They see as one of the results of Augustine approach, especially that beginning from the 18th century and beyond theological texts books start with the treatise on the one God de Deo Uno and move to the threeness of God, de Deo Trino, and they conceptualize it as being linked to the modern problem of irrelevance: if one has been introduced to God and understood the basic facts as they were before the question of trinity is brought up. It is no surprise that that the latter emerges to seem to be an intellectual difficulty with a secondary portion of the information with less problematic and poor understanding of God.
The third common characteristic of modern social doctrines on Trinity lies in the ethunism that their proponents show itself when it comes to explaining how the three persons in God are actually one. This can be understood through the means of contrast. One might state that if one becomes a follower of Augustine and starts from God’s oneness, then the issue of the Trinity is to determine a way of accommodating God’s threeness, but when begins with the social theorists right from the three persons then the issues is to determine a way of making sense of the claim that indeed God is one. In fact, social theorists do not talk of a problem instead they see the question of how the three persons are one. At this point social theorists invoke the concept or idea of perichoresis. It is the divine perichoresis that can explain the idea of three becoming one, and therefore perichoresis make Trinity to be wonderful doctrine. It is hypothesized that among the three persons, there is a perfect interpenetration which implies that the three persons are one God. Jorgen Moltmann states that the doctrine of perichoresis joins together in a stunning way the threeness, without reducing the threeness to unity or rather dissolving the unity in threeness. Moltmann characterizes perichoresis as the manner in which every person with regard to their eternal love communicates eternal life and dwells in the other two; as a process of the most intense and perfect empathy; as the motion of eternal divine life.
The enthusiasm for social theorist emerges from two ways. First, God is seen having a wonderfully admirable and attractive inner life. Cornelius Plantinga in a carefully restrained and constructed presentation describes trinity as a wondrous community, full of zest, lover, mutuality, light, joy and verve where there is no insulations, no isolation, no fear of transparency between each other and no secretiveness. Therefore, divine perichoresis and the interrelatedness of the Trinity make God to be intrinsically active.
God’s inner life is brought forth as having positive implications. Patricia Wilson-Krastner in her chapter Faith Feminism and the Christ, present the doctrine of Trinity on the ground that it supports feminist values but the problematic nature of the language of the Son and the Father. While abstract philosophical theism asserts that God has no gender, Christian Trinitarianism speaks of God in al male terms. But Wilson-Kastner states that feminists prefer Trinitarian understanding of God in what she calls “strict monotheism”. Imaging God as being three cause one to focus on the interrelationship as being the core of divine reality compared to being a single person reality, which according to Wilson-Krastner images God as a male.
Trinity and on the other hand does support the values and vision favored by the feminists according to the social theory. Wilson-Krastner account of Trinity is largely influenced by that of Jurgen Moltman. He stages the contrast between the positive implications of the socially conceptualized Trinity and the alternative “Christian monotheism. Moltman state that Christian monotheism correspond to certain legitimate forms of churches. In other words during the early Christianity, the Roman empire corresponded to one God, such that one empire brings peace to all the kingdoms and nations, under one emperor who represents one visible image of the unseen God, whose will is the law, he makes and amends the law though he himself is not bound by the law.
In a similar manner, Moltman proposes a connection between Christian monotheism and a certain type of ecclesiology. Moltman suggests that the justification of the Roman Catholic Church pope role in guaranteeing church unity through one pope, one Christ, one God. Moltmann argues that the justification for the theological justification of papal authority and churchy unity is dominated by monotheistic thinking.
The only way for the Christian theology to escape the provision of legitimization absolutism is the adoption of the proper Trinitarian understanding of God through a social doctrine of Trinity. Moltman states that it is not the monarchy with a ruler which corresponds to the triuene God but rather it is the community of women and men without subjugation and privileges, because the persons of trinity do have everything in common. Something similar holds in ecclesiology, that just a mere monotheistic doctrine justifies the church as the hierarchy and obedience and authority are replaced with harmony, dialogue and harmony. Therefore, the synodal and presbyterial leadership and brotherly advice are the organizational forms which correspond to social Trinity.
An emphasis on the oneness and unity of God could arguably be utilized to undermine and legitimize absolutist and hierarchical forms of churches. Before the one God who is mighty and transcends in the entire world it might be stated that all the human beings are like creatures that are different from their creator and any move to lord it over on anyone will be seen as an attempt to usurp the place of God and therefore make it sinful.
However, there are things to note about Wilson-Kastner’s account. She seems to state some precise things about Trinity. It is important to note that there are not only three centers of consciousness, but there are also these centre are also self-aware, centered and self-possessed. From the examination of the examples of Trinity social theories, one forms the impression much of the information has been derived from the authors’ ideals or larger societies’ ideals of how human beings aught to live in the community. It is important to state that God can be appropriately modeled around three human beings compared to just one. But the social theorists do not want to be referred to as “tritheists”
Bibliography
Anscombe, G. E. M. and P. T. Geach. 1961. Three Philosophers (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Boff, Leonardo. 2000. Holy Trinity, Perfect Community. Obis Books, p. 125
Brower, Jeffrey. Forthcoming. “Abelard on the Trinity,” in The Cambridge Companion to Abelard, eds. Jeffrey Brower and Kevin Guilfoy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Cain, James. 1989. “The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Logic of Relative Identity”. Religious Studies 25: 141-152.
Clark, Kelly. 1996. “Trinity or Tritheism?” Religious Studies 32: 463-76.
Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., “Social Trinity and Tritheism” in Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. ed. Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989).
Feenstra, Ronald and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. (eds.) 1989. Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
Feenstra, Ronald and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. (eds.) 1989. Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
Hunt, Anne. 2005. Trinity: Nexus of the Mysteries of Christian Faith (Theology in Global Perspective). Orbis Books
Karen Kilby, Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with the Social Doctrine of the Trinity, First Published in New Blackfriars October 2000,
Karl Rahner, The Trinity, Trans. Joseph Donceel (NY: Crossroad, 1997) pp10-11.
Layman, C. Stephen. 1988. “Tritheism and the Trinity.” Faith and Philosophy 5: 291-98.
Martinich, A. P. 1978. “Identity and Trinity”. Journal of Religion 58: 169-181.
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith seeking understanding: an introduction to Christian theology. New York: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Moltmann , Jurgen. 2007. The Trinity and the Kingdom. New York : Harper Collins
Patricia Wilson-Kastner, Faith, Feminism and the Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 122.
Plantinga, Cornelius Jr. 1986. “Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity.” Thomist 50: 25-352.
Thompson, John. Modern Trinitarian Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press
Treier, D. J. & Lauber , David. 2009. Trinitarian Theology for the Church: Scripture, Community, Worship. Inter Varsity Pr Publishing
Williams, C. J. F. 1994. “Neither Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance,” pp. 227-243 in Reason and the Christian Religion: Essays in Honor of Richard Swinburne, ed. by Alan Padgett (Oxford: Clarendon Press)