|
Listen to this post:
|
At his blog former Oneness Pentecostal Skylar McManus offers a negative critique of the Unitarian Christian Alliance called “The Unitarian Christian Alliance: Who’s In or Out?” He accurately sketches the motivations for our starting this group. Then the rock-throwing starts. He decides to go through our Affirmation line by line,
[Affirmation:] Only the Father of Jesus is the one true God.
Put in a way that I think Tuggy would say, this means that God just is (or is “numerically identical to”) the Father. The Father = God.
We can’t even get past the first line without issues, and this is due to Tuggy’s scuffle with Beau Branson over definitions of “unitarian” and “Trinitarian.” Branson has a series of presentations on the “monarchy of the Father.” One way to understand what this phrase means is what Branson calls the “strong monarchy view” (SMV) in a forthcoming paper.
On this view, Branson says, “Strictly speaking, The One God just is the Father.” So here we have the Father = God, and this is (as Branson contends) a Trinitarian view because it can allow for there to be three divine Persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Yes, Dr. Branson claims the prestigious title “trinitarian” for this view. Not only this, but he urges that the tripersonal God people (i.e. nearly all who confess to being “trinitarian”) are confused about what the True Trinitarian Tradition is. But his sort of theology features no tripersonal god, no triune God. And while all three mentioned are “divine,” only one is divine in the sense that entails being the one true God: the Father. Hence,
Now, what Tuggy has done in response is to insist that the SMV is actually unitarian. His definition of a “unitarian Christian theology” is one that affirms:
1. There is one God.
2. Who is numerically identical with the one Jesus called “Father.”
3. And is not numerically identical with anyone else.
4. And (1)-(3) are eternally the case.
For the SMV, on Tuggy’s view, each of these receives a check mark, so it’s unitarian. But then we have the odd result that there can be unitarians who affirm that the Son and Spirit are “consubstantial” (homoousios; “of the same substance”) with the Father and are not three gods. On his Trinities Podcast Facebook page, Tuggy recently said that Athanasius was a unitarian.
Yes – Mr. McManus thinks he’s airing embarrassing facts here, but I stand by all of this – at least, for the early and middle works of Athanasius. His latest works may be trinitarian; I’m looking into that. What’s the objection here anyway? Is it that Dr. Branson disagrees? Well, sorry, but there is a long tradition of calling guys like Samuel Clarke “unitarian.” And in his day a legion of critics refused to consider him and his triune-God free theology to be “trinitarian.”
I suspect that Mr. McManus, after these long years out in the cold, would like to be considered within the mainstream; in other words, like Branson, he’d like the tag “trinitarian.” But of course most trinitarians will agree with me that one can’t be a trinitarian unless one believes that the Trinity is the one God!
In truth, the Trinity Club makes few demands; they may tolerate Branson, as they do Behr, so long as they keep quiet about denying that there’s a tripersonal God. Back to McManus,
After all, [Orthodox writer] Fr Thomas Hopko would count as a unitarian, for Tuggy.
This is supposed to be a damning point. But if Mr. McManus has read my recent paper, he will see that there I clearly show that Eastern Orthodox theologians are not of one mind about what it takes to be “trinitarian.” Some agree with Branson; also, I quote several who clearly believe in a triune God, and who say that the Orthodox position here agrees with Catholic and trinitarian Protestant theologies. Even Hopko himself seems to have one foot in both camps.
But this is a problem for the Orthodox to solve – whether they think the term should be “monarchical Trinitarians“ or monarchical “trinitarians.” To help them, here is a simple question they can discuss among themselves: is this or isn’t this a coherent position:
My theology is trinitarian, and I deny that there is any tripersonal God – in other words, I deny that God is the Trinity.
I dare say that more will side with me on this, than will side with Branson and McManus. But, I could be wrong; let the polling begin!
Back to Mr. McManus’s hunt for problems with the Affirmation:
[Affirmation:] The unique man Jesus is his Messiah/Christ.
So they’ve already, at face value, lets [so-called “monarchical trinitarians”] into the UCA. Does this line of the affirmation push them out?
Nope – next question. McManus carries on with several paragraphs of what he thinks are damaging rhetorical questions, but this is the answer. The Affirmation allows people who think the one God just is the Father, and that Jesus is a real human, who somehow existed before becoming human.
Now for the last three bullet points [of the Affirmation]
God the Father sent Jesus, gave him his message, empowered him, and endorsed him “with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him.”
Jesus obeyed God, laying down his life so that we can have the hope of resurrection to eternal life.
God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to his right hand, making Jesus the one Lord under the one God.
[Skylar comments:] I don’t see how anybody I’ve mentioned just above is going to deny any of these points.
Yes, this is all well and good.
He then lists some of the many issues that might be addressed in the creed of a church or denomination which are not addressed in the Affirmation. Again, this is as it should be; as he notes, we’re neither a church nor a denomination.
Then Mr. McManus tries to press his accusation, that we’re way to inclusive:
As the Unitarian Christian Alliance says, “If you can agree with this statement, you’re one of us.” In this post, we’ve seen who counts as “one of us”:
- Deists, who can deny that God is at all active in the world, and instead is letting his Son run the show.
First, “deism” is really a long-dead early-modern movement – not some large group of people nowadays we need to be worried about excluding. Second, “deists” were skeptical about all claims to divine revelation, and so they wouldn’t believe in scriptures or prophets or in any miracles, such as God’s resurrection of Jesus, or Jesus’s miracles. McManus’s imaginary “deists” would not be Christians, and so would presumably not be affirming most of the claims in the Affirmation, as they put no stock in the apostolic writings in the New Testament.
- Ebionites, who reject the apostle Paul (thereby having a different view of the New Testament canon) and who, historically, have rejected the Virgin birth. One who still identifies as an Ebionite, to my knowledge, actually wrote the script for the Unitarian Christian Alliance video on Jude.
Ebionites? To my knowledge, there is no significant group of people nowadays who claim this title. Again, it’s a long extinct movement. I suppose if some of them time-travel to the twenty-first century, they might be admitted into UCA membership, and then the rest of us could have some friendly arguments with them about some things.
- Arians and semi-Arians, who believe in the pre-existence of the Son.
There are some folks who claim the title “Arians.” But the Board has fully considered the matter, and yes, we are willing to join together in this organization with these sorts of unitarians.
- Nestorian Oneness Pentecostals, who would believe that the Father is a distinct subject from the solely human Son with whom he is (incredibly?) united without becoming incarnate. (But as I said, maybe this view just isn’t conceptually different from Socinianism anyway.)
I’m not familiar with these folks. I’d be glad if Mr. McManus could tell me where to learn more about them. If he’s right that their theology is substantially like that of “Socinian” Christians, they could be in the Alliance. Their claiming the title “Oneness” would not keep them out.
- Monarchical Trinitarians, who, though they think they are Trinitarians, are actually unitarians according to the Alliance’s chairman of the board.
This last one, to my mind, is a particularly egregious error.
Mr. McManus, feel free to inform me why. It can’t be just that these last folks want to be called “trinitarians.” I don’t care too much what they call themselves. But when I try to soberly classify their theology, it fits in with many historical subordinationist unitarian views. So please, without merely expressing outrage or disbelief, explain why “monarchical trinitarians” should be classed with Augustine, Barth, Swinburne, Leftow, and Calvin, and not with Clarke, Origen, Tertullian, and Biddle. I’m listening. Do you think that in his controversial definitions Dr. Branson has properly sorted the views? If so, let’s talk about them. I’ve told you what I consider to be necessary and sufficient for a theology being “unitarian” or “trinitarian” – or nearly so. Now, it’s your turn.
And yet, their affirmation allows what would look to anybody like Trinitarians to sign their affirmation (ie., those who hold to the SMV), among others.
A contentious claim to be sure. I’m a scholar specializing in this exact area, and I deny that folks like Branson and Behr hold to a properly “trinitarian” theology, but instead hold to a type of “unitarian” theology, precisely because they think the one God just is the Father alone. To be sure, Dr. Branson is a PhD as well. But I invite you to weigh his definitions vs. mine. In my view, his definitions are heavily weighed down with problems. Let’s see you post on them and kick the tires, if you think he’s on the right track. Here’s a post that will help you to evaluate definitions in general.
Furthermore, there are unitarian directories of churches (i.e., Eastern Orthodox ones) that have existed for a while now, on Tuggy’s understanding of things. So one wonders if the Alliance is really meeting a need there at all.
Skylar, in the first part of your post, you noted the obvious needs that we’re serving. I hope you don’t imagine that Orthodox churches are full of people who think like Dr. Branson about “the Trinity.” I invite you to talk to such people, and again, to review the recent Orthodox authorities I quote it my paper who clearly assert that “the Orthodox view” is that God is triune, so that the one God is not the Father alone, but rather the Trinity.
If the attitude is to let in as many “unitarians” as possible and then sort out the trash later (or as Tuggy says, “establish a baseline of fellowship” first), it makes me wonder how unitarians who participate in this won’t just end up with a second wave of Unitarian Universalism or something. If all they care about is banding together disparate “unitarian” Christians who are united on seemingly one thing and one thing only—that the doctrine of the Trinity is false—that’s a pretty shoddy basis upon which to (supposedly) bring about another Reformation.
This is a pretty wild faux-worry, given that you’ve actually read the Affirmation. Do you know a lot of UU types who believe in the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus, and in his resurrection and exaltation, giving us the hope of eternal life? About “sorting out the trash,” of course, any church or denomination must discipline its members.
The Alliance exists to serve Christians who belong to various unitarian Christian small-groups, churches, and denominations – and their basis in every case will be the New Testament, as they best understand it. So it’s a much wider basis than what is in the Affirmation – which is as it should be. For an example, here is the slightly fuller statement of my denomination, The Church of God General Conference:
The Church of God places great emphasis upon the Word of God, and Bible preaching and teaching are prominent. Bible classes and Bible study groups are the backbone of its work.
The Church of God believes in the literal, visible second coming of Christ. We support adult immersion for the remission of sins. We believe that man will inherit immortality on the condition that he accepts Christ as his Savior and is found in Him at His coming.
We believe God the Father, the Creator, is above all. Jesus Christ is His Son who came into existence by the power of God by birth to the virgin Mary. We believe the Bible is the only inspired Word of God, and adhere to it as the only authority for faith and doctrine. We believe that Jesus will return to this earth and establish the Kingdom of God on the earth, reigning in it for a millennium.
We believe that the promises made to Abraham will be fulfilled in the church and in the faithful of Israel through Christ. “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29).
(Source here.)
Here’s the statement of my own church. Interestingly, even it doesn’t address all the issues you brought up. Still, I don’t think it’s right to mock either as amounting to just: “the Trinity is false.”
The mission of the Alliance is to help groups like these and others who agree with the Affirmation to thrive, and to help unitarian Christians to find fellowship, and to help people to revisit actual New Testament teaching about the one God and his Son. We simply decline to tell them what other things to believe.
Finally, McManus drops the proverbial turd in the punchbowl:
Even if I were a unitarian, it wouldn’t even cross my mind to participate in what the Unitarian Christian Alliance thinks it’s trying to accomplish. Because, in reality, it seems like what people are being invited to sign up for is the Unitarian Confusion Alliance.
All this shade, because, basically, the UCA could let in an oddball “trinitarian” who holds to views like Branson and Behr, and I assume McManus? I would hope that he would care a bit more about the practical and spiritual needs of the people we’re trying to serve, even if he doesn’t like what we’re doing.
Again, let’s set aside the mocking and actually compare definitions.
