{"id":42443,"date":"2020-05-24T20:39:06","date_gmt":"2020-05-25T01:39:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=42443"},"modified":"2020-05-27T13:18:45","modified_gmt":"2020-05-27T18:18:45","slug":"some-clarifications-a-reply-to-mcmanus-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/some-clarifications-a-reply-to-mcmanus-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Some clarifications: a reply to McManus – Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In a recent long blog<\/a> post my friend Skylar McManus had some negative things to say about the Unitarian Christian Alliance. I replied here<\/a>. In this post, I’ll respond to various parts of his reply. He writes,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The strong reaction<\/a> that I received is clearly because of the rhetorical flourish at the end of that post: \u201cUnitarian Confusion Alliance.\u201d <\/em> The point of that post was twofold. First, Tuggy, in response to a critic<\/a> of one of their videos, asserts that \u201cthe Trinity\u201d is \u201ca herd of jostling, competing theories\u201d and that this should \u201ccast doubt\u201d that it\u2019s from God. But here\u2019s a similar state of affairs: The Alliance membership will clearly consist of a herd of jostling, competing<\/strong> unitarian theologies, each of which is supposed to tell us who Jesus really is.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In reply, the two are not really comparable<\/strong>. For the herd of Trinity theories, see here<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now the comparable “herd” of christologies <\/strong>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<\/strong>. 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<\/a>” – but I have no data on that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now I’ve come up with a way of sorting Trinity theories into three very broad approaches<\/strong>: one-self, three-self, and mysterian. But within each category there are very<\/em> 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. B\u00f8hn 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<\/em> in my “Trinity” entry.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skylar continues,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, I wanted to show that, from a practical perspective, it looks strange that <\/strong>monarchical Trinitarians (hereafter, MTs) can participate in the Alliance’s vision. That\u2019s because they count as unitarian on Tuggy\u2019s definition of the term. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, his criticism was stronger than that. He asserted that my definition of the concept unitarian <\/em>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<\/em> and unitarian<\/em> – one which would show that Branson’s “monarchical trinitarianism” <\/a><\/strong>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<\/strong> what he calls “monarchical trinitarianism” should get the classification he wants. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are lots<\/em> of practical, non-rational reasons why<\/strong> 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<\/em> 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<\/strong> – this is why it’s not fundamentally an argument about words, and why it can’t be settled by looking in a dictionary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Honestly, I think my scheme is better thought out than is Branson’s<\/a>. 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 <\/em>wrong with my definitions. A great many trinitarians seem to think that the heart of their view is that God is triune, tripersonal.<\/strong> 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Mr. McManus refuses to offer any definitions because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, what the Alliance is already doing shows that monarchical trinitarians are within their rights to feel unwelcome. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’m not sure why we’re talking about feelings here. “Monarchical trinitarians,” as I understand them, can agree with the UCA Affirmation<\/a>. He continues,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The primary culprit here is their video called \u201c10 Reasons Christians should NOT be trinitarians.\u201d<\/a> (The lower-case \u201ctrinitarians\u201d<\/strong> here puzzles me in light of Tuggy\u2019s discussion<\/a> of \u201cTrinity\u201d vs. \u201ctrinity,\u201d but I\u2019ll let that pass.) <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong> 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<\/p>\n\n\n\n

. . . doesn\u2019t just argue that Jesus as a \u201cGod-man\u201d is one view among many, less plausible biblically, or perhaps just misguided. Rather, the video claims the view is actually impossible. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now remember that the monarchical trinitarians I have in mind (following Branson and Behr) accept conciliar Christology. <\/strong>But this entire video is basically an argument against Chalcedonian Christology. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s unreasonable to think that, despite what the UCA has said so far, MTs wouldn\u2019t actually be welcome as members.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, “welcome”? Let’s set aside this sort of concern. McManus is running together several issues<\/strong> here, I think. Generally, UCA types are not big fans of councils<\/strong>, or of treating their statements <\/strong>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<\/strong>.” 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong>, 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps Skylar is packing “conciliar Christology” into the meaning of “monarchical trinitarianism”? <\/strong>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”). <\/p>\n\n\n\n