Pictured here is Giovanni Francesco di Bernardone (a.k.a. St. Francis of Assisi, d. 1226 ) – my photo of a 19th c. statue from southern Arizona, probably well worn from processions and general fondling. I understand that he started, or at least popularized the building of manger scenes.

I remember reading his early biographies some years ago. I never could decide what to think: whether he was extremely holy, mentally ill, or both. Once a well known Christian philosopher who works in medieval philosophy described St. Francis to me as “a stinker” – I think the meaning was a sort of drama queen or manipulator. So that’s another option. But I remain perplexed.

Went to a Christmas eve service tonight. At one point the pastor said that the incarnation – that God became a human being – makes no sense to us, yet at some level we – i.e. all we Christians – believe it. If I were less tired, or in a different mood, this would induce a whole series of rants/lectures from me. But, not tonight. I will just say: I am grateful that God sent us his only Son, the perfect representation of him and sure way to him.

After the jump: another pic taken at the same place as the Francis pic. This time, someone indisputably both holy and sane, also celebrated Catholic-style. Merry Christmas!

For those who enjoyed my previous posts (here and here) on avatars in Hinduism, here’s something I’ve done recently for a class I’m teaching – excerpts of the long (78 part!) ultra-hit Indian tv series Ramayan into movie form. (Here’s the whole series.) Yes, I watched the whole thing, over a couple of months, so you don’t have to. Grab some popcorn and check it out. My notes in the comment below will help you to bridge the plot-gaps.

This doesn’t directly have to do with Christian theology. My interest here was to illustrate the Hindu tradition for my students, specifically a popular, present-day, devotional Vaishnavite form.

Still, one can fruitfully apply philosophical analysis and comparison with Christian theology here:

• What’s presented here, despite appearances, is supposed to ultimately be monotheism. The one god is Vishnu, and the other gods and goddesses are just manifestations of him, him acting in different forms. This is clear when at one point the three functions of creation, preservation, and destruction are assigned to Vishnu. It’s modalism on a massive scale.
• The series asserts the primacy of Vishnu, even while bending over backwards to exalt Shiva as a great god and proper object of worship (and also the Great Goddess). He’s a perfect self, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, a se.
• Ram (aka Rama, pictured here – but in the movie, he’s not blue) is Vishnu’s manifestation as a human being, Vishnu incarnate, or in their terms, a descent (avatar) of Vishnu. The screenplay reflects the tensions in the various versions of the Ramayan – Does Ram know that he’s Vishnu? Is he merely feigning ignorance? Why does he keep saying he’s just a man? Is he in the end a real human being, or does he only appear to be one? Or does this not matter, since at bottom in some sense everything is Vishnu/Brahman?
• The screenplay repeatedly says that Vishnu and his descent as a man, are unfathomable, mysterious, beyond logic, etc.
• At the end, the movie presents Ram as the one god, the one ultimate being, of which the rest of the Hindu pantheon is a manifestation. (I’m talking about the worship song scene were Ram appears in the middle of a bunch of faces and bodies lined up all together.) But that’s because Ram is supposed to be numerically identical to Vishnu – they are one and the same.
• There are even parts of the series, not included here, in which Vishnu and Shiva seem to enjoy what some Christians call “perichoresis” or perfect fellowship; they worship each other, and dwell in the hearts of one another.
• The third member of the Trimurti (aka the “Hindu Trinity”) Brahma gets short shrift, like the Holy Spirit. While Brahma appears in a number of scenes (floating on a big pink lotus flower), he isn’t really worshiped, at least, not like Vishnu and Shiva are. At any rate, he’s presented as a manifestation of or attribute of Ram/Vishnu. This reflects the practice of Hinduism – my understanding is that Brahma as such (as opposed to as a member of the Trimurti) is not really a focus of devotion there.
• Ram is very much meant as a model of human behavior, an ideal human being, the way that Christians view Jesus. In many or most cases, Christians would agree with Hindus that his behavior in the Ramayana is indeed virtuous, though there would be some disagreements in the areas of filial piety, honor, and idolatry.
• As with Calvinism, here one is saved by grace, through faith. Note the ultimate fate of the villian Ravan here.

No, this doesn’t include anything from the 39-part 1989 follow-up series. I believe this features Ram un-descending back into Vishnu, but I haven’t gotten around to watching that one yet.

Another answer: here.  (HT: kingdomready.)

Evidently, Fred Sanders isn’t the only theological cartoonist out there. But I do prefer his cuddly lecturing bear Dr. Doctrine.

Commenters: please link your best God, Trinity, or Jesus related cartoons. Only requirements: that they be at least mildy amusing, and not too offensive.

Re: “Herman & Nudix“. True story: in Christian college c. 1990, some yahoo buddies and I ran an imaginary person for Student Association President. Made up a hilarious trifold campaign handout, and other silly promotional materials. He got 4% of the vote. His name: Herman Ootics (full name: Herman J. Ootics III). Yeah, some theology nerds got a kick out of that name. I should post the awesome pic we used some time.

Just recently, out of morbid curiosity, since it’s available free online, I watched all three hours of it.

Yes, the stupid, it BURNS! Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Hanks mumbles and lurches his way through the movie, like an unkempt Dennis Miller on downers. He was much better in… just about anything else he’s done.

The movie alternates between competent chase scenes, talky sleep-inducing scenes, and scenery chewing by evil, murderous, self-hating, conniving, comic book Catholic villains.

It’s directed by Opie, no less. And he seemed like such a nice kid!

At the end of the movie, the two main characters are reflecting on Jesus, in light of the cockamamie yarn they’ve just lived through. Saith, Hanks’s character:

The only thing that matters is what you believe. History shows us Jesus was an extraordinary man, a human inspiration. That’s it. That’s all the evidence has ever proved.

Yes, the author Dan Brown knows how to please – telling his audience exactly what they want to hear, and what is convenient to believe. Believe whatever you please. And of course Jesus was just a competent, admirable human. No grounds whatever for all that “Son of God” business. You’re right to ignore all that.

Why does it have to be human or divine? Maybe human is divine. …

Yes, folks, the wit and wisdom of Dan Brown.

In sum, the movie is anti-Catholic, and anti-Christian dreck. Moreover, Brown knows exactly what he’s doing – peddling foolish conspiracy theories to that segment of the public which is ignorant of Christian history, and which for various reasons would like to believe that the Evil Roman Catholic Church has been Hiding It All up till now. I’m well familiar with this segment of the public, as I teach philosophy of religion and religious studies at a state university.  Brown is happy to take their money and make them stupider, while making them feel they’ve been let in on wondrous secrets. I remember seeing an interview with him some years ago, and he very, very carefully walked the line of not quite claiming his novel to be historically accurate, while not denying it either.

If all of this isn’t depressing enough, there is the fact that stupid begets stupider.

I wouldn’t bother posting on this mediocre movie without providing some links to scholars eviscerating its absurd claims.

• Darrell Bock: no, there’s no reason at all to think Jesus was married. No, Brown’s ideas about how the four gospels are chosen is just wrong, and no, there was no close vote on Jesus’ divinity at Nicea in 325, nor was that the first time his “divinity” was brought up.
• Carl Trueman on why people enjoy conspiracy theories.
• Eminent Christian historian N.T. Wright, on what it all means.

Also, a famous demon weighs in. More reputably, some Catholic apologists weigh in. And some Protestant ones.

Finally, for those who prefer their refutations in video form:

Since I’m posting mildly entertaining nonsense lately, here’s a video from the, ahem, legendary Winterband. (Steve Winter, not Edgar & I assume, no relation), playing to a packed out basement (his own). Click if you dare.

Winterband is a power duo in reality, although Steve plays in three “persons”. (We must use this term, as we have none better.) Steve 1 plays lead and sings. Steve 2 plays rhythm. Steve 3 plays bass. And yet there are not three Steves, but one. And then there’s the mysterious Angel of Steve, aka Junior, holding down the drums. Some think he is Steve, but he is only Steve’s agent. Steve is one, people.

Although, some hold Steve Winter to be a loving community of band members. They play as one, perfectly together, better than Led Zeppelin circa 1971. Only the word perichoresis can capture it, they say. If you click the link above, you will caught up into the life of this group – you will be, in a word, Winterized. (At least, that’s what the Easterners say.)

In any case, the energia is clearly one. The Winter vibe is unmistakable. Turn up the speakers, and prepare to kiss the sky.

The rockin’ fun is somewhat dampened by his insistence that all trinitarians are tritheists who are going straight to hell. (More in depth analysis by Mr. Winter here.) Dang – where’d he get the idea that God is such a doctrinal stickler?

Some readers will be gratified to know, however that in Winter’s view, Jesus is the Only God.

(Finally, something to cleanse the musical palate. This one won’t hurt – I promise.)

Actually, a pair of “trinities”, with co-equal prices.

Decorating the mantle or end-table with religious statues has never been more affordable.

I know you’re intrigued by these low, low prices. If you live in Tucson, Arizona, you might be able to get the last ones.

I don’t know what the deal is with Jesus’ knee and calf. Does anybody out there get it? (click picture for close-up)

Did he take a bazooka hit, or what?

Or maybe he’s just karate-kneed Satan bloody?

Or perhaps he jumped on a live grenade, saving not only the other 2/3 of the Trinity, but the little foot-rest cherubs as well.

Jesus is MELTING!

Looking for a present for that theology geek in your life?

Wear your modalism in t-shirt form.

(Why is this modalism?)

Is this one also modalistic? Discuss. This one surely is.

“Social” trinitarians may prefer this one.

And: for your skate-boarding needs.

Something for paradox lovers and fans of non-standard logics (explanation). Similarly, for people who also like Escher.

Fan of the multiple personality analogy? Look no further.

Here’s the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (sort of) in shirt form.

Then there’s a glaring theological non sequitur, in mug form. And another one, this time on a shirt.

Babies too. People who need help with spelling. Even anti-trinitarians can get in on the action. Happy little monkeys. And people with non-standard “trinities”.

Props to the commenter who can discern the intended message of this one. Or this one. Or this one.

And there’s wearable proof (-texts) that Jesus is God. Lastly, if Jesus just is God, and it was God who miraculously impregnated Mary, then… (Please, no complaints – I’m just the messenger.)

Wasn’t that a fun bit of time wasting? The internet and capitalism rule.

(PS – None of these sellers are affiliated in any way with trinities, nor do I or we get any cut of the $ – this post is just for our mutual amusement.)

Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

A professor friend emailed me recently:

I’ve lately been reading a book (at a student’s request) …a piece of bad Christian fiction called “The Shack” by William P. Young. … it might interest you in light of your trinitarian research. The persons of the Trinity make an appearance in the story: God the Father as a large black woman, God the Son as middle-Eastern carpenter (go figure!), and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman. I’m certain that there’s heresy lurking nearby.

Just thought I’d pass it along. It is apparently gaining some popularity among some segments of the evangelical subculture – hence, my student’s request that I read it. (link and emphases added)

I can’t speak to the book’s artistic merits, but I’ll trust my friend on that. As to theological merits, heresy or not, there’s certainly social trinitarianism lurking nearby! Who would’ve guessed the Divine Society was so “diverse”? At least they let Jesus remain male… And it arguably beats the gay men’s chorus.

According to this much read review, this society is also maximally egalitarian (see the Trinity section of the review).

Update: a more sympathetic review at Christianity Today.

I’ve always been interested in not only what intellectuals think about the Trinity, but also about what ordinary Christians think. Thus, this is an interesting find – five helpful wikites step in to wiki-answer the following important questions:

WikiAnswers – What is the trinity and could you be a Christian and not believe in the trinity

I’ll save you some trouble, distilling the answers down into 80-proof folk-wisdom, taking the second question first.

So, Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity?

• yes
• yes
• blah blah blah sexism blah
• yes
• no – and don’t be a cultist

Now, for the first, tougher question: What is the Trinity?

• three aspects or roles of the one God
• something concocted at Nicea, which is optional
• God’s three personalities, which the sexist pigs conspired to keep all-male. And all of ‘em are Jesus. Plus the Egyptians thought of it first.
• Dunno, but in all the Bible only the spurious 1 John 5:7 teaches it.
• Dunno, but it’s really important, and is how God has revealed himself to be in the Bible. And people who deny it deny the deity of Jesus.

Part of the reason I started this site is so that googlers might stumble upon something more accurate than this sort of pooled ignorance.

At least this is sporting some artwork now. It’ll come up second if you google “Trinity”. But I’d be careful with it – our theologian Dr. Nick Riviera up there has had his hands in certain parts!

Technorati Tags: folk trinitarianism, wikipedia, Trinity

The trinity occurs at :55 and 1:13. Even sorta looks like a church. There’s other rich trinitarian imagery there as well, for those with eyes to see.

Impossibly beautiful. Literally. (image credit)

Check it out: a whole site and blog devoted to art featuring impossible objects!

I can’t help but think that the picture above had a trinitarian inspiration: according to the babelfish, it means “You must in such a way live”. (German speaking readers – feel free to correct the translation.) I read this as addressed to the Trinity.

If so, this pic would be an expression of what I call “positive mysterianism” about the Trinity – that the doctrine is, unavoidably given our current epistemic situation, apparently contradictory.

Related: a website where you can print and build your own “impossible” object. (HT: Matthew Mullins) Note to modal logic newbies: necessarily, if it is actual, then it is possible as well. Still, this shows that note everything which seems logically impossible really is.

Technorati Tags: impossible, impossible figures, mystery, mysterian, impossible Trinity

People interested in ancient heresies – you have to check out this, by “Probably the world’s greatest systematic theologian cartoonist.”

Jack T. Chick has got nothing on our friend Fred! Nice work, Fred.

Background: Fred is goofing on a long-extinct sect that was famously embraced by St. Augustine (354-430 CE) prior to his conversion to Christianity. Augustine left them after discovering that their much-vaunted wise men simply didn’t have answers to his questions. If only those guys had the benefit of cartoons – “It’s all so simple!”

Technorati Tags: Fred Sanders, Christian cartoons, Manichaeism, Mani, manichean, Augustine, St. Augustine, Augustine of Hippo

Natch, a Trinity of comments:

1. The Father looks kind of mad.
2. The Holy Ghost seems to have been designed by someone who was a little too literal-minded! Reminds me of one of Charlie Brown’s friends, out trick-or-treating.
3. $30 + $3 shipping = total ripoff

Technorati Tags: Trinity art, lego Trinity

He’s baaaaack. A smokier, bluesier, dirtier “Trinity Schminity”. Now in basement music video form! Apparently there’s been some big shakeup in the band. Their website says “we are now a Christian father and son band”. Mother and daughter, we hardly knew ye.

Thankfully, they’re still “100% monotheist”. And they still ROCK.

Get it? Winter has made himself a phony Trinity. “Bobo” and “Hayseed” are a LIE!!! Don’t believe in them, please. Seriously. Don’t. I SAID DON’T. “You can’t just make up gods as you go along…” Neither may you make up Steve Winters.

Are they Is he singing “Sminity” or “Schminity”? Serious fans like me need to know. See the previous edition for lyrical analysis.

Below the fold: bonus material!

Skip to about 4:00 – first, Winter Sr. channels this guy! Then, they try to do either the Allman Brothers or maybe the Moody Blues! Holy double drum solos, Batman! Then at 6:45, back up front, for some Jimi Hendrix Nigel Tufnel action. Incomparable!

Technorati Tags: modalism, Trinity Schminity, oneness pentecostals, UPCI, United Pentecostal

A post on some previous post commentary – no one can navel-gaze like a philosopher! Here’s a pictorial recap, and some additional thoughts on the comments here, in response to Scott and JT. The point of all this: we’re exploring why people who call themselves “social trinitarians” don’t like what they call “Latin” theories, and specifically the claim that those “Latin” theories can’t do justice to the loving relationships between the persons of the Trinity.

Figure A: I said (comment #2) that social trinitarians, when they refer to “love”, esp. between Father and Son, they have this complex event or state of affairs in mind: two persons mutually acting for the benefit of one another.

Figure B: Scott points out (#3) that many social trinitarians doubt whether this “Latin” model adequately accounts for, or comes to the same thing as the fact in figure A. Here, the Father (composed of D, the divine essence, and P, the relation of paternity) loves the divine essence (D). (For more on this sort of chart, see this previous series.) Just below, to clarify, I’ve separated the lover and the beloved – though on this theory they would of course be separable in thought only. As JT observes (#5,6,8,9) adherents of this model believe that it includes personal relationship facts like those in Figure A. I say: sure, that’s what they think, but it’s not clear to me it is so.

Figure C: I said (#11) that by “love”, some mean an act, action, or attitude on an individual person – not the whole loving-relationship fact, as in figure A. Scott basically says (#2, 11) sure, but put two of those individual love-acts together, directed towards each other, and you’ve got the same fact as in Figure A.
I say, yes, that seems right. In fact, the model C may be better than A – instead of a “relationship” seeming to hover between the lovers, as if it is instantiated in no thing, but somehow between things, in Figure C we have the loving relationship being reducible to two persons, each of which instances a love-act, with these directed at one another. A technical point, to be sure. The more important issue is whether B captures the fact in A or C.

Figure D: I agree with Scott (#7, 12) that (barring mental illness) one can’t adopt the same kind of love towards a hot, steaming, pepperoni pizza, as towards another personal being.
But look at Figure B – the object of love there is no more a person than a pizza is a person. Of course, this D thing is a component of three persons, on that sort of Trinity theory. But we’ve no reason to think every component of a person is a person. Against these negative thoughts, JT urges (#15,16,17) that to love D (the divine essence) is to love any person which has D as a component. I say (#19), I don’t see why that should be so. Though I’m not a social trinitarian, I see the point of their resisting on this score.

Finally, Scott points out that while part of the “social trinitarian” discomfort with Figure B has to do with the fact that the objects of love aren’t the persons, but rather D, another issue is the idea, embodied in Figure B, that a divine person is to be understood as a composite of a universal (D) and a property or relational property (e.g. paternity, in the Father’s case). He says (#18) that many “social” theorists want to take persons as basic entities, not analyzable as the combination of various components. I say (#19) yes, that’s right – they’re following the lead of various (anti-medieval) early modern philosophers there.

Hey Scott – perhaps my coffee hasn’t kicked in – I’m not sure I follow your last two comments (#20,21). Could you elaborate in a post, complete with a pic or two? As you can see, I’ve effectively lowered the artistic standards around here, so go and get that pencil and scanner! You’ll have a hard time lowering them further!

Poetry, anyone?

Karen Armstrong is a famous ex-nun who has written, among other things, a puffing biography of the prophet Muhammad. She frequently appears on TV confidently gassing about various religious matters. But I was really taken a back by this, which I ran across in a podcast:

Ms. Armstrong: Well, you see, I think theology is poetry. That’s what my Jewish friend, Chaim Maccabee, told me all those years ago when he quoted Hillel’s golden rule to me and said, “You know, it doesn’t matter what you believe. Theology is poetry.”

Now a poet spends a great deal of time listening to his unconscious, and slowly calling up a poem word by word, phrase by phrase, until something beautiful is brought forth, we hope, into the world that changes people’s perceptions. And we respond to a poem emotionally. And I think we should take as great a care when we write our theology as we would if we were writing such a poem, instead of just trotting out an orthodox formula, or an orthodox definition of God, or a catechism answer, so that when people listen to a theological idea, they feel as touched as when they read a great poem by, say, Milton or Dante.

We should take as great care with our religious rituals as if we were putting on a great performance at a theater because ritual — and theater, indeed, was originally a religious ritual designed to lead us to transcendence instead of just mechanically going through the motions of our various rites and ceremonies, trying to make them into something absolutely beautiful and inspiring, because I do see religion as a kind of art form.

There’s a wonderful moment when one of my favorite Greek Orthodox theologians, a man called Gregory of Nyssa, who was a fourth-century wonderful mystic, and he and his brother and friend were the people who formulated the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Trinity. And he said, first of all, this doctrine could only be understood in a ritual context and in the context of prayer and contemplation. It’s not something like an equation that you can just follow rationally. But he said when he thinks — “When I think of the three, I think of the one. When I think of the one, I think of the three. And then my eyes fill with tears and I lose all sense of where I am.”

And that’s what a theological formulation of the Trinity should do to us. And so often our theological formulations don’t do that to us. They remain opaque and a bit soulless. But I think we should be a bit more creative and inventive with our theology. (source)

Yes, folks, the purpose of theology is to make you feel a certain way. Truth? Rationality? Who needs ‘em? Not poetry.

Just remember this, next time you’re tempted to consult one of her many books: “Oh freddled gruntbuggly / Thy micturations are to me /As plurdled gabbleblotchits / On a lurgid bee.”

My favorite comment from the Youtube page: “Somehow you make modalism rock… it’s still wrong, but you made it rock.”

His band’s page is here.

Props to the first commenter who can stop laughing, get beyond the bad music, and analyze the arguments implicit in his lyrics. That’d really be taking a bullet for the team.

Technorati Tags: modalism, Trinity Schminity, oneness pentecostals, UPCI, United Pentecostal

(Picture credit.)

Swinburne isn’t what you’d call a theological liberal. He’s not a conservative evangelical either, given his rejection of things like biblical inerrancy. He was, I believe, a life-long Anglican, until 1996 when he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. As I understand it, at least part of his motivation was his exasperation with anything-goes style Anglicanism (e.g. priests who are not theists). But my point is that he aims to be a “Catholic” Christian, in the sense of one who holds to mainstream orthodoxy – roughly, that core of doctrines held in common by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and (at least in theory) most Protestants. (Actually, he’s probably a good bit more “Catholic” than that – in that he believes in apostolic succession, and in the authority of The Church to decree the meaning of scriptural texts – see his book Revelation.) This requires some dexterity on his part, and creates the burden of crafting a theory that one can claim fits with the “Athanasian” and Constantinopolitan Creeds.

Swinburne argues that it is uncharitable to read the ecumenical councils’ claim that “there is only one god” as asserting that there’s only one divine individual, as that would contradict their committment to there being three divine individuals. This is a really key move in his theory, and we need to pause over it before moving on.

He’s applying here what he calls elsewhere “the principle of charity”, which is (roughly) when you’re reading a text (any text) you should try to understand it in a way which is self-consistent. Here he remarks,

…no person and no Council affirming something which they intend to be taken with utter seriousness can be read as affirming an evident contradiction. (180)

That is, they’d be irrational to assert that there’s exactly one divine individual, and there ain’t. So we (assuming a minimal level of rationality on their part) should try to find a way to read them which is self-consistent.

Why does he think they’re committed to there being three divine individuals? He’s assuming the indiscernibility of identicals here. These documents refer to “the Father”, “the Son”, and “the Holy Spirit”, and they assert things of each which they deny of the other two. Therefore, they’re assuming that none of the three are numerically identical. He’s on solid ground here – this sort of reasoning is as obviously valid as, say, modus ponens arguments. (One’s with this form: p. if p then q. therefore q) Yes, some uber-sophisticates (cough… Brandon… cough) will challenge this sort of inference, but not to worry – just about every obvious necessary truth (and every properly basic belief) has been so challenged. Carry on, using the mind God gave you.

So in his Swinburne’s view, the doctrine of the Trinity should be understood as three numerically distinct things, each of which is (fully) divine.

Objection: A divine thing is just a god. You’ve got three gods there, Swinburne!

Slow down. Let’s hear him out first, and then return to the issues of tritheism and the creeds (we haven’t yet heard how he proposes to interpret them). Then, we’ll know exactly what we’re objecting to, if we’re so inclined.

Here’s his basic suggestion:

What in denying tritheism, the view that there are three Gods, were the Councils ruling out? I suggest that they were denying that there were three independent divine beings, any of which could exist without the other; or which could act independently of each other. (180)

Next time: functional monotheism.

Technorati Tags: Richard Swinburne, social analogy, social trinitarian, social trinity, tritheism, Orthodoxy, identity, monotheism

Richard Swinburne is an Emeritus professor at Oriel College, Oxford University, and is widely considered one of the greatest living Christian philosophers. He’s done original work in philosophy of science, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and general metaphysics, but is perhaps best known for his work in philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. He has a way of squarely facing tough issues, and treating them in original and principled ways. He’s particularly well known by philosophers for his arguments for mind-body dualism, for his cumulative case for the existence of God, and for his bold social trinitarian theory, which I’ll cover in this series. I particularly enjoy his takes on moral matters, where I think he has a really fine touch. But I’d be hard pressed to say what my favorite book of his is. All I can say, is that I’ve learned a lot from him. I have fond memories of seeing him defend dualism in a most manly fashion, about ten years ago in California, in front of a very hostile audience of several hundred philosophy professors and students. In a sense, much of his philosophy of religion work is an exercise in apologetics – be he’s no mere verbal jouster, no lawyerly defender of the party line. He strives to go deep into the issues, and base his moves on well thought through philosophical positions. It takes a bit of work to see why he says all he does, but that’s what this blog is about – trying to give you a leg up.

Swinburne’s The Christian God contains his trinitarian theory. This theory is carefully crafted, and is notable for its clarity. Unlike many self-professed “social trinitarians”, he doesn’t content himself to say “God is sort of like three men, and sort of not” (never quite telling you in what ways the analogy does and doesn’t hold), or just “God is sort of like three men, but he’s really infinitely unlike three men” (whatever that means). No – he steps up to the plate, and boldly sketches out a theory which you can understand well enough to either agree or disagree with. And he’s certainly taken the heat for his clarity. He’s not unlike Moreland and Craig in this respect.

As with his other books in philosophical theology, Swinburne starts out by laying out some fundamental philosophical claims, which he then applies to the issues at hand. In this case, he has chapters on the concepts of necessity, substance, time, causation and “thisness”. In this series, in the interest of brevity, I’ll skip straight to his Trinity theory, explaining his purely philosophical claims only as needed.

As we haven’t discussed “social trinitarianism” here yet, let me say a few general things about it. There’s no precise definition of “social trinitarianism”. Indeed, many such theologians think they only differ in emphasis, or even just verbally from what they call the contrasting “Latin” tradition. (We’ve looked at a well-developed recent example of that in Leftow, and perhaps Brower and Rea can be put in that broad camp as well.) I would list the following as concerns distinctive of those in the “social trinitarian” camp.

• A concern to preserve the interpersonal relationships among the members of the Trinity, particularly the Father and the Son.
• Closely related, a desire to do justice to the New Testament, specifically its idea of Christ as a mediator and his loving personal relationship with the Father
• Suspicions that the “static” categories of Greek philosophy have in previous trinitarian theology obscured the dynamic and personal nature of God.
• Concern that traditional or Western trinitarian theology has made the doctrine irrelevant to practical concerns, such as politics, gender relations, and family life.
• The idea that to be Love itself, or for God to be perfectly loving, God must contain three subjects or persons.

I see the first, second and last of these in Swinburne, as well as one more concern, found more in philosopher social trinitarians – a desire that the doctrine be visibly consistent. He’s not content to leave apparent contradictions in place, unlike some social trinitarians, who also endorse what I call “mysterianism”. But that’s another topic.

Next time: Why there are three dudes on the cover of The Christian God.

or this

Get it? One self/personal substance/entity (represented by the one head) with three faces, i.e. ways of presenting himself or interacting with us. Or alternately, three ways of living (with or without us in the picture).

To be fair, though, one might think that the artists’ inspiration was something like the constitution theory of presented by Mike Rea and Jeff Brower in this paper. (Or much more accessibly, in pp. 8-10 of this one. Stay tuned – these will eventually be discussed here.) Roughly, this is the view that the three persons, though none are identical to one another, are “numerically the same”, as they are composed of something analogous to one batch of divine stuff/matter. Yeah, it’s going to be a bumpy ride when I take a shot at ‘splaining this one…

Again, maybe this could be a way to represent the view of Biola’s dynamic duo, Craig and Moreland… Then again, maybe this would be better.

Technorati Tags: modalism, art, trinity, constitution trinitiarianism, moreland, craig, brower, rea, theology