An interesting quote from Fred Sanders‘ “Trinity Talk, Again”, Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 44:3, Fall 2005, 264-72.
…the words ‘‘Trinity’’ and ‘‘trinitarian’’ are being employed in unusual new ways in contemporary theological discourse. They sound in a different register than they once did. Your expectations are bound to be frustrated if the occurrence of the word ‘‘Trinity’’ suggests to you that the author intends to take up the task of reconciling threeness with oneness. When ‘‘trinitarian’’ occurs in titles these days, it is almost never a signal that anything about divine triunity is in view, or even anything christological or pneumatological. Instead, ‘‘trinitarian’’ is now being used in theological parlance to put the Christian edges on doctrines. It serves as a one-word cipher for the specificity of the Christian claim. At one time, the word ‘‘Christian’’ itself may have functioned this way, but calling something trinitarian now does the work the simpler term once did. Perhaps this trend is best accounted for as a sign of a diffuse postliberal ethos in contemporary theology.
…The term ‘‘trinitarian,’’ in other words, is now being used to mark out the Christian theological field of discourse as such. There are a couple of downsides to this usage. One is that many books with ‘‘Trinity’’ in the title are not books about the Trinity, which is confusing. Another is that the large number of ostensibly trinitarian theologies is really just the usual assortment of diverse theological projects, all of which now make their appeal to being trinitarian. That shows how high this doctrine’s stock has risen.
In other words, it’s now cool to flaunt your Christian credentials by slapping the word “trinitarian” on whatever you’re doing. I have to say, this strikes me as a silly practice, and as Sanders notes, it is really confusing for people searching for books or articles which are really about the doctrine(s) of the Trinity. Before I buy any such book, I go to Amazon and look really closely at the sample and table of contents.
Could this organization’s name be a similar phenomenon?
Technorati Tags: Sanders Trinity theology trinitarian complaints
I actually think (in contrast to Matthew) that what Fred pointed out in the rise and standing of the doctrine is not actually a desire for people to claim orthodoxy at all. As Randal pointed out, Moltmann is a great example. Certainly he has no strong desire to claim orthodoxy. He would probably even the use of term he would find oppressive and patriarchal, and his Trinitarian theology is not orthodox at all.
From my seminary studies, I feel that the rise of “Trinity” and “Trinitarian” is two-fold. First, it refers to more than one thing, thus it is used to resist monarchy and hegemony in the church–particularly appealing for Protestants. Secondly, it is a relatively ancient doctrine, and incredibly difficult to pin down. It is so ineffable that it readily lends itself to abuse. And since it’s so old and so hard to get right, you can tack it onto most anything and gain both the authority of ancient wisdom and the ambiguity to allow you to purse your own theological project.
Thanks for the correction – I’ll go and fix it.
I should also make clear that in that piece Fred doesn’t take my negative view of this phenomenon. Like most theologians, his main reaction is sort of – Hey, cool, that shows the relevance of the doctrine to all sorts of other things – though he’s aware that sometimes the alleged connections are tenuous.
I’m more uniformly negative, like Randal. Looking at it sort of as an outsider, it seems to me the (or “the”) doctrine is treated as a sort of a plaything. Something to be “riffed on”, waxed eloquent about, and applied to whether or not we should enact universal health care, or whatever. There’s both unclarity and (in part due to that) fishy implications (i.e. non sequiturs). Honestly, I haven’t read that much of it… this genre just seems so… not intellectually serious.
Yes, Jordan is right: the “Trinity Talk, Again” article is from Dialog: A Journal of Theology 44/3 (Fall 2005), 264-272. My bad, I sent Dale a page proof .pdf that I had on my hard drive, with headers not yet updated.
I assume it’s a typo, but I think the article is from 2005, not 2004. Love the blog!
Fred’s assessment is both accurate and sobering. We shake our heads in disappointment at the congregational fadism that seeks meaning in 40 days of purpose. And yet many theologians now treat the doctrine of the Trinity as a program for forty days of theological purpose. The word fad is defined as “a practice or interest followed for a time with exaggerated zeal.” (Websters) Now it may seem peculiar to speak of the Trinity as a fad (followed with exaggerated zeal), but note that we are not talking about the Trinity per se, but rather about the doctrine of the Trinity. And the zeal is exaggerated when the doctrine is applied to areas for which it has no obvious relevance. One classic example is Moltmann’s “trinitarian” argument against monarchical government. Note the subtle shift. Since the doctrine of the Trinity is too sparse to deal with political economy, Moltmann must in fact invoke his tendentious (tritheistic) theology of the Trinity. And this is what we find: a vast plurality of mutually incompatible theologies of the Trinity being used to baptize various causes celebres. These days getting your pet project stamped with the Trinity imprimatur is like getting your product on the shelf at Walmart.
“That shows how high this doctrine’s stock has risen.”
I take it this means as a stamp of orthodoxy. With so many Christians accusing one another of not being Chrisitan, or being barely Christian, the trinitarian doctrine has become for many the one required stamp for truely being a Christian. Of course this ignores 2000 years of non-trinitarian thinkers who counted themselves Christians.
Comments are closed.