Author H E Baber
Publisher SCM £65.00 2019
Format hbk
ISBN 9780334057253
H E Baber, we are informed, is a professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego with research interests in metaphysics and philosophical theology. She is also a member of St John’s (Episcopal) Church, Chula Vista California, so she writes as a Christian philosopher, although she does not allow her beliefs to get too much in the way of a good philosophical argument. Indeed, in philosophical terms this book is a thorough treatment of the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity, considering all the relevant questions from a variety of perspectives in an even-handed way. However, it is solely a work of philosophy and anyone wanting to deepen their understanding of the Trinity as a foundational Christian doctrine should look elsewhere, beginning with the Bible.
If I can set aside for a while my negative response to the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity is merely an interesting philosophical problem, then on the positive side there are many good points in this book. I am being somewhat unfair in accusing Prof Baber of reducing the Trinity to a mere philosophical problem, but she does seem to think that as a central pillar of the Church’s faith it has not served us too well by being at best paradoxical if not downright incomprehensible. However one of the strong points of the book is the first chapter in which there is a useful discussion of why the doctrine was developed – as a way of reconciling the belief in God as the God (i.e. monotheism) with the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was divine. The various heterodox views which failed to make the cut are also clearly discussed. What I missed in all this was a reference (or two) to the passages in scripture which give us hints and intimations that there just might be more to a monadic God than meets the eye – but Prof Baber has already ruled the Bible to be irrelevant, so we cannot go there. This perceived lack will not in any case undermine her argument.
In chapter 2 the focus is on the differences between Latin and Greek approaches to the doctrine, which it seems should be summarised as either starting with the unity and having a problem with the distinctions (Latin view), or beginning with the distinctions and having the problem of avoiding tritheism (Greek view). The Greek view has led some in contemporary theology to support the idea of Social Trinitarianism, which is discussed (and rebutted) in chapter 3. As Baber notes, following Moltmann, the Church’s hierarchical structure mirrored a monarchical view of God which has in recent thinking been replaced by ‘a communitarian vision of human flourishing and of social arrangements and political agendas thought to promote the common good.’ Using the doctrine of the Trinity to tell us how society should be, Baber argues, is to take a utilitarian view of doctrine – ‘to articulate an understanding of human nature, to provide an account of the good life and the good society, and to support [their] preferred moral views and political agendas.’ That is not what the doctrine of the Trinity should be about as it is first and foremost a grappling with our incomplete and at best feeble attempt to describe the object of our worship – the God who is always beyond and incomprehensible. Not that apophaticism is the answer, but we cannot extrapolate from an account such as that of Jesus’ baptism to say how God is in Godself in one easy step. There are other arguments against a social Trinity view, and in this respect, Baber is at one with a number of contemporary theologians, for example Stephen Holmes. The main point is that the three persons of the Trinity are not persons in the normally accepted sense of human persons and therefore the relations between the three are of a different order. As Holmes puts it, in terms of the relations within the Trinity, ‘a “relation” is a mode of distinction in a simple essence that establishes the simple unity of two distinct but not different subsistences of that essence.’ Thus the three are distinguished solely by the relations (of origin) that obtain between them – they are not three independent centres of consciousness. There is also the danger that those favouring a social view of the Trinity are reading back into the being of God the way they think life on earth should be.
Chapters 4 and 5 get to the heart of the matter discussing in turn, ‘On not confounding the Persons’ and ‘On not dividing the essence’. Here the philosophical language becomes more technical and there are several lengthy quotations from Richard Swinburne whose arguments are not particularly helpful. Unsurprisingly the solution to both problems is argued to lie in the nature of the relations between the three Persons, the relations being both the source of the distinction and the basis of the unity. Along the way there is a cogent argument for doing away with the Filioque – three cheers for that!
Overall this book succeeds in its aim of presenting a thoroughly coherent philosophical treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, writing as a biblical theologian I feel a purely philosophical approach misses the point at times, getting bogged down in technical arguments that do not get us anywhere. When you read the bible from a Trinitarian perspective you see how such a doctrine is almost forced on us, at least in a nascent form. Chris Tilling, for example, makes a strong case for reading Paul from a Trinitarian viewpoint. That might smack of eisegesis – a not uncommon fault. Philosophy also seems to lead us away from a Christian doctrinal approach that sees the Trinity in the light of soteriology. Our understanding of the incarnate Christ as homoousios to patri is important here as Christ cannot be understood except within the context of the Trinity. The homoousion is key to soteriology because as Athanasius said, he became one with us so that we might become one with him; also Gregory Nazianzus – that which is not assumed is not redeemed. It is also axiomatic (to me, at least!) that the Bible must be the control on our God-talk – we cannot set it aside as irrelevant or unhelpful. Finally, while I am on my soapbox, hopefully being guided by scripture will prevent us from falling into heresy. Heed the words of Stanley Hauerwas:
‘When all is said and done orthodoxy is the hard discipline of learning to say what needs to be said and no more. Too often those we learn to call heretics have tried to say more than can be said. They have succumbed to the temptation to say too much by explaining what cannot be explained. Orthodoxy shows why what we believe cannot be explained but can only be prayed.’
Some final comments of a negative kind. For £65 I expect a book to have virtually no typos – disappointment number 1 – there are quite a few. Number 2 – there are some editing errors, including one sentence repeated, and a couple of bibliographical malfunctions. Number 3 – there are some long and complex sentences which could have done with some editorial assistance to aid comprehension – it feels at times, with words omitted here and there, that the text was produced in haste and is a bit ‘stream of consciousness’ in places. There are however, a few nice touches of dry humour, and I imagine Prof Baber is a lively and engaging speaker.
So, who is this book for? Not the faint-hearted that is for sure. It is either for someone studying religious philosophy or else for someone doing a degree in theology that requires an engagement with philosophical arguments. Either way, get the library to buy a copy – save your £65 for a rainy day.
MARION GRAY
Leave a Reply