|
Listen to this post:
|
In a recent long blog post my friend Skylar McManus had some negative things to say about the Unitarian Christian Alliance. I replied here. In this post, I’ll respond to various parts of his reply. He writes,
The strong reaction that I received is clearly because of the rhetorical flourish at the end of that post: “Unitarian Confusion Alliance.” The point of that post was twofold. First, Tuggy, in response to a critic of one of their videos, asserts that “the Trinity” is “a herd of jostling, competing theories” and that this should “cast doubt” that it’s from God. But here’s a similar state of affairs: The Alliance membership will clearly consist of a herd of jostling, competing unitarian theologies, each of which is supposed to tell us who Jesus really is.
In reply, the two are not really comparable. For the herd of Trinity theories, see here.
Now the comparable “herd” of christologies Skylar is pointing out in the Alliance consists of people who think Jesus is a man who began to exist at or after his miraculous conception, and people who think Jesus is a man who before being a man was a disembodied spirit of some sort. Both agree that the Father alone is the one true God, not the Trinity, that Jesus is a real man, and that Jesus is a numerically distinct and lesser being than God. Both agree that the man Jesus is God’s Messiah, who died, was raised, and who has been exalted to God’s right hand. Now, there can be variations on these views (e.g. the speculation that the pre-human Jesus was the archangel Michael), but basically, it’s two general sorts of christologies. It’s an interesting question how diverse pre-existence unitarians are when it comes to Jesus’s “two natures” (if they use that phrase). I would think they would tend to be “Apollinarian” – but I have no data on that.
Now I’ve come up with a way of sorting Trinity theories into three very broad approaches: one-self, three-self, and mysterian. But within each category there are very different Trinity theories. Compare, e.g. Anderson with Augustine (both mysterians) or Craig’s “Trinity monotheism” with any relative identity theory (both three-self), or Swinburne vs. Bøhn vs. Rea (all three-self). Perhaps recent one-selfers are a little more closely related to one another, but there’s been a lot of creative speculation in that realm recently (which is not yet in my “Trinity” entry.)
Skylar continues,
Second, I wanted to show that, from a practical perspective, it looks strange that monarchical Trinitarians (hereafter, MTs) can participate in the Alliance’s vision. That’s because they count as unitarian on Tuggy’s definition of the term.
Well, his criticism was stronger than that. He asserted that my definition of the concept unitarian is obviously wrong, worthy of ridicule. Now in my post replying to him, I challenge him to provide better definitions, or rather, better analyses of the concepts trinitarian and unitarian – one which would show that Branson’s “monarchical trinitarianism” is really a variety of trinitarianism, and not any variety of unitarianism. As of yet, Mr. McManus has not risen to the challenge. Now, I know this is not an easy task; it is easier to ridicule what strikes one as odd. But the reason I asked for such is because I think we need some reason why what he calls “monarchical trinitarianism” should get the classification he wants.
There are lots of practical, non-rational reasons why someone holding to Branson-Behr style theology would want it to have the label “trinitarian.” We ought, it my view, to be aware of these strong forces that can distort our classifications. All along I’ve been seeking to bulid a sensible, non-polemical, non-arbitrary classification of different types of Christian theologies – one which has a place for everything, and everything in its place, one which as much as possible respects established terminology, but which can sometimes actually be illuminating. Not all the sortings are going to be obvious; some will strike some people as odd, and not every proponent will like where her favored views are put. It’s all about classification – this is why it’s not fundamentally an argument about words, and why it can’t be settled by looking in a dictionary.
Honestly, I think my scheme is better thought out than is Branson’s. But it would take a whole academic paper to discuss the deficiencies of his definitions. Still, on the face of it, there’s nothing obviously wrong with my definitions. A great many trinitarians seem to think that the heart of their view is that God is triune, tripersonal. And those I’m calling “unitarian” seem to all think that the one true God just is the Father and no one else. On my scheme, correctly, Oneness theology gets sorted as neither trinitarian nor unitarian. Some “early” theologians get counted as unitarian and not trinitarian? That’s as it should be, in my view, as trinitarian (triune-God) theologies were rather late to the party.
Mr. McManus refuses to offer any definitions because:
First, what the Alliance is already doing shows that monarchical trinitarians are within their rights to feel unwelcome.
I’m not sure why we’re talking about feelings here. “Monarchical trinitarians,” as I understand them, can agree with the UCA Affirmation. He continues,
The primary culprit here is their video called “10 Reasons Christians should NOT be trinitarians.” (The lower-case “trinitarians” here puzzles me in light of Tuggy’s discussion of “Trinity” vs. “trinity,” but I’ll let that pass.)
As I explain in my book, I think that it’s best to leave an adjective like “trinitarian” lowercase, as it doesn’t name a group or denomination. (Same with “unitairan.”) This is just a matter of clear English style. In my view, the adjective “trinitarian” properly has to do with thinking that God is the Trinity. I do make a big deal about the Trinity (the tripersonal God) vs. the triad of much pre-4th c. theology (consisting of the one God, and the Logos, and the Spirit), which I have called “the trinity.” At any rate, I didn’t title that video. Skylar observes that this video
. . . doesn’t just argue that Jesus as a “God-man” is one view among many, less plausible biblically, or perhaps just misguided. Rather, the video claims the view is actually impossible.
Now remember that the monarchical trinitarians I have in mind (following Branson and Behr) accept conciliar Christology. But this entire video is basically an argument against Chalcedonian Christology. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that, despite what the UCA has said so far, MTs wouldn’t actually be welcome as members.
Again, “welcome”? Let’s set aside this sort of concern. McManus is running together several issues here, I think. Generally, UCA types are not big fans of councils, or of treating their statements as binding. (In this, they are joined by many trinitarian Protestants.) Of course, UCA people will by definition reject the whole big package of “conciliar Christology.” Among other things, this presupposes that God is the Trinity, and it includes the claim that Christ is as divine as is the Father. And yes, probably all Unitarian Christian Alliance members hold views which imply, and also assume the Affirmation to imply, that nothing can be both human and divine.
But, one might be unenthusiastic about councils and their mandates, and one might be against a “two-natures” christology on which Jesus is “fully divine” – and yet consistently with such claims, one may think that Jesus existed before he was a human. He must have been some sort of bodiless spirit back then, unless he had some other sort of body or something. So what’s the problem exactly?
Perhaps Skylar is packing “conciliar Christology” into the meaning of “monarchical trinitarianism”? I wonder if this is correct, though. Here’s how Dr. Branson in one place contrasts “M T” with “S T” (“social trinitarianism”) and “R I” (“relative identity trinitarianism”).
- “S T” says that The One God is all of the divine persons (taken together).
- “R I” says that The One God is each of the divine persons (taken individually).
- “M T” says that The One God is one of the divine persons (namely, the Father).
One of these things is not like the other! Anyway, later in the paper Branson says a bit more to characterize M T:
“Monarchical model” (of the Trinity): Any model (of the Trinity) that incorporates [the strong monarchy of the Father], i.e., any model in which The One God just is the Father.
By “Trinity” here he means the triad of Father, Son, and Spirit – not a triune God. The “strong monarchy of the Father” thesis is that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) the Father. As so defined, M T doesn’t contain really any christology, much less the whole “conciliar Christology.” (This neologism refers to the conjunction of all christological assertions in the first seven “ecumenical” catholic councils.)
Maybe this is why Skylar is switching from theologies to the realm of people and their feelings. Sure, certain people who hold to M T may “not feel welcome” in the U C A, but it won’t be because of M T, but rather because of other theses they hold. So, if you’re Orthodox, very likely, because of something in your whole package of doctrinal views, you’re going to disagree with some points of the U C A Affirmation – probably the first, second, or last. Want to insist that the Son is “true God from true God”? You’ll probably reject the first claim.
I’ll press this further. . . . one of the U C A’s committee heads, thinks that the U C A consists in members who “want to glorify and honor the Father alone as the God of the universe.” But this is certainly not the vision shared by M Ts, who honor and glorify Jesus Christ as Yahweh and as the God of the universe.
I’m not sure where our friend Skylar is getting this. Since “Yahweh” is a personal name for the one God, and this (on M T) just is the Father, and since this one clearly is not the same person as the Son, why would M Ts agree that Jesus is either Yahweh or the God of the universe? I wonder if the tag “trinitarian” is misleading Mr. McManus here.
It’s his coinage, so: Dr. Branson? Does a proponent of M T by definition want to honor and glorify Jesus Christ as Yahweh and as the God of the universe”? Or am I right that M T is just an account of the triad of Father, Son, and Spirt on which the one God just is the Father?
Second, it’s unnecessary that I replace Tuggy’s definitions because I have considered the arguments and I think that Branson has this right: Tuggy’s definitions are irreparable.
Some better definitions sure would help with showing that! As best I can see, Skylar has just asserted that M T should count as trinitarian and not unitarian. He says,
I don’t need to replace them to believe this. I’ll certainly reconsider if he publishes a response to Branson’s paper.
Maybe, God willing, in due time. I have too much on my plate to do this in the near future. He continues,
But all he really said on his podcast is that Branson’s definitions don’t satisfy some desirable criteria as conceptual definitions should. Fair enough.
I think McManus senses that he’s just asserting the very point at issue here, so he ventures some further criticisms of my definitions. These in the next post.
