fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (01/19/85)
In article <spar.36> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > >I don't think the doctrine of the trinity is essential to being Christian; >this idea was largely an elaboration on vague notions in the New Testament >by early Christian philosphers with a bent for Greek philosophy. > 1) Which Christian denominations do not teach the doctrine of the trinity? 2) Which Christian denominations teach it, but do not consider the belief to be vital? 3) What are the attitudes of the larger denominations (Catholic, Episcapalian, Baptist, etc.) towards the denominations described above? Frank Silbermann University of North Carolina WHEN UNCERTAIN, WHEN IN DOUBT, RUN IN CIRCLES, SCREAM AND SHOUT
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (01/22/85)
> 1) Which Christian denominations do not teach the doctrine of the trinity? > > 2) Which Christian denominations teach it, but do not consider the belief > to be vital? > > 3) What are the attitudes of the larger denominations (Catholic, > Episcapalian, Baptist, etc.) towards the denominations described > above? > > Frank Silbermann > University of North Carolina > Obviously it is going to be hard for any one person to answer these questions without doing the amount of research normally associated with a Ph.D. thesis. But I can give information for at least some denominations. First, you have a problem deciding how to define what a denomination teaches and what it considers vital. Very few churches give you a copy of a creed and ask you to sign on the dotted line, before accepting you as a member. (Typically you are asked to say something like "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior".) So it is certainly possible for someone to be a member of many churches (certainly Presbyterian (USA) and United Methodist, probably also Episcopal) without believing in the Trinity. When I was growing up, I even ran into United Methodist ministers who did not believe in the Trinity. So to decide what a church teaches, you have to look at the following: - does it have official doctrinal standards, even if the average member may not have to sign them in blood? - what is taught in its seminaries? - what is taught in its Sunday School material? - what creeds or other statements of faith are used in worship? Based on these criteria, I believe it would be true that all of the "mainline" Protestant churches (Presbyterian (USA), United Methodist, United Church of Christ, American Lutheran, American Baptist, Episcopal, etc.) teach the Trinity. I can say for certain that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has official doctrinal standards, and they do include the Trinity. They are binding on all officials (lay and clergy), and are at least taught to all prospective members in prepatory classes. I am reasonably sure that the same would be true of the smaller Presbyterian churches. Indeed at first glance, I would say that all of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches teach the Trinity. Historically, people who denied the Trinity were called Unitarians. The Unitarian Church was considered to have withdrawn from Protestantism, and indeed from the Christian Church as a whole. Some other groups that do not believe in the Trinity are also outside the mainstream of Protestantism, in the sense that they are not just splinters of some group that goes back to the Reformation, but have some additional outside inspiration: - Mormons, with the special revelation to Joseph Smith - Christian Science, with the special revelation to Mary Baker Eddy - Quakers, who are almost by definition "free thinkers", although they are a more direct offshoot of the mainstream Church. (I have heard Quakers themselves debate whether or not it is proper to consider them Christian. I know that some of them hold traditional Christian doctrines, and others do not.) Unfortunately, I am not a good enough church historian to know whether this is an exhaustive list. It is possible that somewhere there is some otherwise normal Protestant denomination that does not believe in the Trinity. But I doubt it. However in the last 50 years or so, ordinary church members have become much less interested in doctrine, and much less inclined to go around calling people heretics. Call it tolerance, or maybe just being tired of the endless theological wrangles that beset the American churches. Indeed many ordinary church members simply no longer care about the details of theology. The effect is that somebody can now deny the Trinity without having anyone jump down his throat (at least in the more liberal churches). That does not mean that the church doesn't teach the doctrine, nor even that the people in the church who care about theology don't take it seriously. Note that there is considerable controversy in modern theology about the Trinity (and also the Incarnation) (at least in the liberal churches -- the more conservative Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians hold to the historic doctrines with little change). In order to understand this controversy, you should know that many liberal theologians consider that traditional doctrines such as the Trinity have what you might call two levels. First, there is the question of the experience and understanding on which they are based. Then there is the question of the terms in which this is expressed. Many theologians now believe that the Trinity expresses a very important truth, but expresses it in terms of a Greek metaphysics that no longer makes sense. They are trying to find a way to come up with an equivalent expression using more modern terms. At the moment this effort has not succeeded. Some of the attempts have ended up producing a modern equivalent of a classical heresy. Others look promising but simply have not developed a concensus. The critical issue here is to produce a theological statement that is not simply a watering down of the traditional view, but genuinely expresses the full content in modern terms. As far as I know, few if any churches have adopted such notions for purposes of worship, or teach them in Sunday Schools. Rather, they try to give people sufficient historical background that they can see understand the context of the traditional doctrines. I think there is a limit to how long this can go on, but the churches are (correctly) wary of making a major change in theological expression until there is a reasonable concensus. One exception to this conservatism is the attempt to find a non-sexist equivalent to the traditional language (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Currently a number of people are pushing Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. There are problems with this language (it tends to be impersonal, and suggests modalism to some of us), but I am simply reporting that it is becoming common in the liberal churches (Presbyterian (USA), United Methodist, and I would guess United Church of Christ and several others). This language is not intended to indicate any change in theology, nor is it intended to replace totally the traditional language. I suppose if it becomes common, I will stop thinking of Brahma, Vichnu, and Shiva whenever I hear it. (Let me hasten to say that I do support efforts to prevent the Church from being sexist. I am simply reporting the way these terms strike me.) Let me see if I can convince you that some doctrine like the Trinity is probably inevitable if you take Christianity seriously. In essense, the doctrine of the Trinity expresses the essential difference between Christians and Jews. If I understand the Jewish view properly, we do not really know God's essense. We know what he wants us to do, and we know his attitudes to us, but he is sufficiently far above us that it would be presumptuous of us to think that we actually knew what he himself was like. Christians believe that we know some things about God: - that he is personal - that he loves us - that God's love is not just something that he happened to feel some morning, nor is it just an attitude that he puts on externally. Rather, it represents his actual nature. - that Jesus reveals God's nature - that when God asks us to love and obey him, he does not leave us on our own, but that through the Holy Spirit he infuses us with what he asks of us. These things, when taken together, have some interesting metaphysical consequences. First, if you try to take seriously the concept that God has love as part of his essense, you are lead to an immediate question: Love is a relationship between people. How can a single person have a relationship internal to himself? Second, if God supplies us with the love that we are supposed to have, this means that he has it within himself. This means that he himself "feels" (to the extent that this word can be appropriate for God) not only the sort of love that a parent would have, but also the aspects that a child would have: a love that involves trust and obedience. Both of these considerations lead to an idea of God that is slightly complex. He must have within himself both sides of the loving relationship between parent and child. The Trinity is simply a formal way of saying this, using Greek metaphysical language. Unfortunately, the Trinity is often presented as mathematical magic. You get illustriations involving waterglasses purporting to show how something can be both one thing and three things. I think all of that is irrelevant. In fact I consider that number 3 is irrelevant to the Trinity. There aren't three of anything. It isn't as if they were separate people that you could count: 1, 2, 3. There is one God. However he has within himself three aspects (I won't take time to explain where the third one comes from), and they are sufficiently separate that there can be a personal relationship within him. This is a perfectly classical understanding, by the way. In De Trinitate, Augustine says exactly this, that the three aspects are separate only to the extent needed to have a relationship between them. I have used the term "aspect" where you might think that a more natural one would be "role". Indeed "role" is probably the right word, if you understand it to mean the right thing. However it is an extremely dangerous word in this context, because it suggests modalism. This is the heresy that says that God is simply playing 3 roles. We want to say something a bit stronger: that he has the three roles in his essense.
edwardsb@harvard.ARPA (Bill Edwards) (01/22/85)
> In article <spar.36> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > > >I don't think the doctrine of the trinity is essential to being Christian; > >this idea was largely an elaboration on vague notions in the New Testament > >by early Christian philosphers with a bent for Greek philosophy. > > > > 1) Which Christian denominations do not teach the doctrine of the trinity? > > 2) Which Christian denominations teach it, but do not consider the belief > to be vital? > > 3) What are the attitudes of the larger denominations (Catholic, Episcapalian, > Baptist, etc.) towards the denominations described above? > > Frank Silbermann > University of North Carolina > > WHEN UNCERTAIN, WHEN IN DOUBT, RUN IN CIRCLES, SCREAM AND SHOUT "Between the Trinity and hell lies no other choice" Vladimir Lossky Mystical Theology, 66