. . . What do you think about a social trinitarian perspective, particularly the inclination to use the Trinity as the model for our own social and ecclesial relations? . . .

I think we must “use” the Trinity as the model; but I also think (at least as I recall Grenz’s social tri. thinking) that we need to avoid engaging in negative methods of appropriating said “model.” In other words, there is always that danger of collapsing God’s life into our own, socially, so that in fact when we speak of God’s “social life,” we are actually imposing our conceptions of distinctiveness (i.e. individuality, etc.) upon the life of God instead of vice versa.

Steve said:

. . . it makes good sense to begin our thinking about the Trinity with a sturdy account of God’s unity. Hopefully the emphasis on God’s triunity doesn’t crowd out the need to reflect on God as one and the implications of this for the life and mission of the church. . . .

I think this is what perichoresis (as articulated by Gunton, T. F. Torrance, and others from the past) is what is able to preserve both components Deo de uno and Deo de trino; so that God’s ousia is shaped by His hypostasis, and vice versa. In other words, to speak of God’s oneness apart from His threeness, and His threeness apart from His oneness is a revelatory impossibility. I think to speak of God’s oneness is to speak of His threeness, and I don’t think either reality is diminished thus speaking; but instead enhanced. That is to say, I think it creates a false dilemma to speak of such things in competitive ways (and I’m not saying that you are, Steve, necessarily).

Thanks for this these reflections on Franke and Husbands’ essays.

I think the historical issues are crucial here since 1) a theologian like Franke does have an interest in working in continuity with the Christian tradition and 2) it seems a bit trendy to speak against Western, classical theism, a phenomenon that might be tempered by a better understanding of patristic and medieval scholastic approaches to the doctrine of God. An essay like Husbands’ might help the theology proper pendulum to swing a little less vigorously and stop somewhere nearer the middle where we are better positioned to utilize the resources of both Eastern and Western thinkers.

On a somewhat related note, I’ve been struck recently by reading Matthew Levering and Herman Bavinck both say quite simply that, since in the flow of redemptive history and accompanying Scripture we learn first of God as one, it makes good sense to begin our thinking about the Trinity with a sturdy account of God’s unity. Hopefully the emphasis on God’s triunity doesn’t crowd out the need to reflect on God as one and the implications of this for the life and mission of the church.

On social Trinitarianism and the church, I think that Jesus’ prayer in John 17 warrants some exploration of how our fellowship with one another might take its cues from the fellowship of God the Father and God the Son, but I think in the current theological landscape it may be easy to overdo this in some ways.

Again, thanks for posting thoughts on such a pertinent topic!