Linkage: Trinity discussions @ Theologica (Dale)

I recently received a friendly note from Daniel Eaton, head moderator at Theologica: a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site. It seems they’ve set up a whole section devoted to Trinity discussions, here. Check it out.

Daniel sort of asks me a few questions:

…it would make an interesting discussion as to whether or not the definition we have of “traditional Christianity” on our About Page suggests or encourages [modalism].

Here’s the relevant part of the statement, part of the policy that only real Christians are allowed to blog on their site:

What Theologica Bloggers Believe

… I believe God to reveal himself as three eternal persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Yep – sounds modalist to me; I mean, that’s how many or most will understand it. There’s one being, a person (“himself”) who has “revealed himself as” three eternal persons. This part is extra unclear – are the persons only ways God appears? Or both appears and is? Lives? Three ways he self-reveals? Events involving him? Parts of the one god? You’ll never know. But it looks like some form of eternally concurrent FSH modalism. Nothing unusual here – this is the norm in evangelical circles. If you’re a real Christian, in the eyes of many, you are a modalist. I find it interesting – and disturbing – that this is considered “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all [real Christians]“.

Daniel also says,

I’d also love to hear how, if you were told to define “historical Christianity”, how you would word a definition of the Trinity.

“Historical Christianity” is just a rhetorical term used by evangelical apologists to dismiss or marginalize their theological opponents with one easy stroke, as (to use a Muslim term) “innovators”.

In other words, there’s no such thing. What there are, are more and less popular, connected, related, historical streams of theologizing by various people claiming to be Christians. One can talk about mainstream approaches, of course, and I often call that small-c “catholic” theology – that rough core of theology which is been fairly stable through the history of Catholicism, and which is shared by most Protestants and the Orthodox churches. What is my definition of that, concerning the Trinity? On one level  the creeds.

But these don’t express any one way of thinking about the Trinity. As best I can tell, they give rise to three main approaches: mysterianism, modalism, and something like this (this last, in my experience, never among the laity, but only among sophisticates educated in medieval Catholic theology). And among those versed in recent theology, some “social” approaches – but again, very rarely among the laity.

Among American evangelicals, I believe FSH modalism (or SH modalism) to be the main approach. This is a bummer, as any kind of Son-modalism is ruled out by the New Testament to which evangelicals pledge their allegiance!

There’s a tension here: Theologica’s founder and maintainers, I suppose, don’t want to be responsible for sponsoring dangerous heresy – hence the rule noted above. And yet, they do want a fully open and respectful discussion. I applaud their aim of respectful argument (so often lacking in theological discussion!), and I especially enjoyed this post about Words that Don’t Prove Your Point. Some relevant parts:

Sounds like you’ve been reading X’s heretical garbage.
This has nothing to do with what the person is saying. …

Calvin, Luther, Piper and Joel Olsteen would say you’re wrong.
Ooooh: they’re big and famous and agree with you but, sorry bro, that doesn’t mean your position is right. If there’s equally famous people that disagree with your position then what you’re doing is pretty much name-dropping uselessness.

The majority of Church History would disagree with you so you can’t be right.
Okay, that’s pretty interesting information but it still doesn’t prove the argument wrong. Just because the majority of any group holds a certain position it doesn’t make it right or wrong: it just makes it popular. Now true, the Spirit of God was working throughout Church history but there’s no possible way that you or I can say “Yes, this is most definitely the Hand of God” without some sure sign of heaven.

This last part is a little flip, but I agree with the basic point – that the bolded words don’t constitute an unassailable argument. (I think that they can in some cases be a fairly strong argument.)

But then, why partially exclude (purported) Christians who hold non-mainstream views? I’m guessing that their justification is more a practical than a theoretical one – they want the site to have a catholic focus, and don’t want to have to worry about every Jehovah’s Witness who might become ensconced there.

On the second one, I’m pretty sure, they meant “Osteen”.

And I’m also sure that he’d agree with everything in my post here – and that settles it!

All right, back to reading X’s heretical garbage…