As Joel Watts has noted, there has been a lot of discussion around the blogosphere sparked by Roger Olson’s recent post on the essentials of Christianity (see here) where he stated that he is “not certain” if a Christian must believe the doctrine of the Trinity. Similarly, Miroslav Volf has noted in a recent interview that he doesn’t see the doctrine of the Trinity as being something that should divide monotheistic Christians and Muslims (see here), which implies that it is the “oneness” of God that is more important when it comes to the essential nature of God than the “threeness”. These two prominent theologians have caused some stir in the blogosphere.
I have personally interacted with the public thoughts of Volf both here and here. This has sparked interesting conversations with people like our own JohnDave Medina and others like Nick Norelli and Bobby Grow who have made important observations regarding the importance of Trinitarian dogma for Christians. Likewise, on his blog, T.C. Robinson has had a few things to say including both a critique of Olson (see here) and a bold statement that he thinks the early church was “Trinitarian-ly conscious” (see here).
Others have gone the direction of Olson and Volf minimizing its importance. In the aforementioned post by Joel Watts he called the doctrine “idle speculation” here. Rodney Thomas emphasizes “Trinitarian ethics” of equality over Trinitarian dogmatics, which he seems to propose would lead to unity amongst Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Christians just as Trinitarian doctrine teaches us of the equality of persons (see here). On another note from a different angle, Daniel Kirk hasn’t gone as far as some others (and he wrote interacting with Barth, not the blogosphere), but he did suggest that he prefers thinking about God from the angle of how “God has revealed Godself in the story”, rather than the later, more philosophical doctrines of the church (see here).
I am sure this is going to spark more debate and discussion from others. For some the Trinity is an ecumenical doctrine that is not open for discussion. For others it is one way of explaining the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” triunity of early Christianity. For others it is dangerous and wrong. I am sure some fall somewhere in between these three categories. If you have a thought or two please feel free to drop a link in the comments or if you want to say something about one of these various blog posts that is welcomed as well.
the archives near Emmaus 
I haven’t studied much of the Trinity, but after going through my Early Christianity class last term, I would have to side with Olson and Volf in that it isn’t an essential belief; what seemed more emphasized to the earliest Christians was, as mentioned, God’s oneness. Even a high Christology wouldn’t make sense to many (possibly all) Jews, let alone a Trinitarian God. God was one and there was no other in the mind of the Second Temple Jew.
Then again, I haven’t studied much on the Trinity’s importance. But what I do know, is that even though I’m not sure if it’s a Trinitarian operation, I know God works through Himself, His Spirit, and His Son. Exactly how that plays out (i.e. three equal persons in one), I’m not sure, but I don’t find that I need to be sure in order to be a true member of the Christian faith.
P.S. I love the new layout. It’s fancy 🙂
I think it is a way, to be sure, but not dangerous. And ‘wrong’ is tossed around too easily anyway.
@Jeremy: It does seem that some of later Trinitarian dogma would be very foreign to Jewish ears, but I wouldn’t make as black-and-white a distinction. It was in Second Temple Judaism that we find the personification of Wisdom and Logos. There are some DSS that seem to use language making the Messiah sound semi-divine. And we must remember that the Apostle Paul and the author of the Fourth Gospel arise in this context and they say some very “Trinitarian-esque” things about Israel’s God, including language emphasizing Father, Jesus, and Spirit. Even the Synoptics, in my opinion, present a higher Christology than many acknowledge if we ponder their use of their own Scriptures when telling the story of Jesus.
Thanks for the compliment on the lay out. I was inspired by the cathedrals in Rome! 🙂
@Joel: I agree “wrong” is used too quickly and without nuance too often.
Though I think it might be a bit anachronistic to read the Patristic concept of the Trinity back onto the biblical text, I do think that’s what needed to be developed out of what we have in the New Testament.
Olson mentions people (oneness folk) who are normally theologically blindsided by fideism; they’re bound to be judged entirely different than say one who is working on their Ph.D in New Testament thought. Of course, I’m just saying this from a Romans 2 perspective.
Though I don’t think one is going to hell (I’m not the judge though, obviously), if one is misunderstanding the nature of God. I do think that the Trinity existentially speaks to the very essence of humanity, and that one misses out on a lot if one doesn’t have some kind of grasp on this.
Brian, I think what Bauckham in his original work “God Crucified” and now to a fuller extent “Jesus and the God of Israel” is brilliant. Though regarding a human as divine would be entirely novel, even scandalous at that time, there was no internal conflict between the oneness and plurality within God if Jesus was found to be within the very identity of that God.
Regarding the personification of God’s Wisdom: In these texts it doesn’t seem (to me) as if there are these demi-gods or semi divinities that functionally hold God’s Wisdom. Rather, Wisdom in these texts seem to be (as far as I can see) seem to be God’s Wisdom, not a separate entity; in creation God’s Wisdom advised Him, the Wisdom that is entirely intrinsic to His nature.
Bauckham on Pg. 17 says “The personifications have been developed precisely out of the ideas of God’s own Wisdom and God’s own Word, that is, aspects of God’s own identity. In a variety of ways, they express God, his mind and his will in relation to the world. ”
Peace.
I guess we will see whether denying the importance of the Trinity is as bad as denying the importance of hell. Hmm….Why would denying the importance of hell be worse than denying the importance of the Trinity, especially when the Trinity makes it in our first formulations of the faith (Apostle’s Creed/Nicene). And, what does this say about the state of modern evangelicalism?
@Brian: No doubt about the Trinitarian-esque language in both Paul and John’s Gospel. I think what I was meaning to get at was really the lack of explicit language regarding the Trinity and what it might mean for the Second Temple Jew. What I’ve also wondered, though, is that even with the Logos and Wisdom personifications and the Trinity-esque language, does it need to be understood in a Godhead three-in-one sense or could it be explained in some other fashion?
I only ask because a classmate of mine in Early Christianity wrote his paper on Paul’s Christology and argued more in favor of a God-agency view of Jesus; that Jesus wasn’t necessarily divine in and of Himself, but rather God’s divinity was working through Him. From a standpoint of faith, I disagreed with him, but I found it interesting to think about.
@Jeremy: I tend to disagree as well. I do not think the Apostle would have used later categories of “Trinity”, “substance”, “persons”, and so forth. Those words are relevant to the place and time of the debates from which they arose. As far as “agency” is concerned, I think this lowers Pauline Christology too far.
First, it ignores “Spirit-Christology” where Christ and the Spirit are intimately connected. Second, it does not do a solid job explaining what makes Jesus different from other children of God. To use his language in his Epistle to the Romans why are we “adopted” children and Christ is not? Third, I think it ignores the Kenosis of Phil. 2. Fourth, it ignores the “cosmic Christ” of Colossians (which I accept as authentically Pauline). I could go further but those are some reasons why I think that argument is vogue, but not easily sustained.
I have a comment from a Oneness Pentecostal (OP) perspective:
I think this discussion happens in reverse sometimes on our side (i.e. must you believe in the Oneness of God to be saved…). I think the reason some will come to the conclusion and a reason many push their respective views is due to its effect on other parts of their theology, especially Soteriology..
We (OP’s) believe in the Baptism is essential to the new birth, and that baptism must be administered in the “Name” of Jesus… not the “Titles”.
Trinitarian baptizing churches, i.e Catholics and others, believe baptism is essential too, but they use “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” as the “Name”.
Due to (but not limited to) these essential parts of our respective “doctrines of Salvation”, we view the issue of the Godhead as essential as well…
@Joseph: When it comes to Trinitarians wrestling with whether or not non-Trinitarians are (or can be) Christian there is a basis in hundreds of years of tradition. The Trinity has become staple orthodoxy. I can’t respect Oneness Pentecostals when they wrestle with this issue for the simple reason that the movement has neither exegesis nor history on their side. If I were to deny Trinitarian dogma there is no way I would find the Oneness Pentecostal model the alternative. Rather, I think the next step would be something grounded in “agency” like many liberal Protestants have suggested.
@Brian: I think that’s one of the key differences; he was only using Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and then 1 & 2 Thessalonians as authentic Pauline letters. We were only supposed to write for 12-15 pages, so it was essential to narrow the focus a little, I think. At any rate, I too thought that the “agency” version was viewing too lowly of Jesus.
By way of comparison, the DSS seemingly have a lower divinity attributed to the Messiah than does the New Testament. We never really spent much time in the DSS’s discussion of the “Teacher of Righteousness,” but from what I gathered, they regarded him as a human who God exalted to a mediator-type position (mediating between Yahweh and Israel), but this TOR had no divine power in and of himself. I have found just the opposite in the language of Paul and NT as a whole.
Just out of curiosity, is this intimate connection between Christ and the Spirit where the Trinity language arises? What I mean is, is it here where it’s assumed that Christ and the Spirit are directly connected and that therefore to call Christ “God” is to call the Spirit “God” as well? For whatever reason, I’ve just never made that assumption. I’ve always seen the Christology controversy more prevalent in Scripture than the Trinitarian controversy, but perhaps I’m mistaken?
@Brain: First: my point was that one’s Soteriology affects things…
Secondly: What happens (and I mean what will your reaction be) if the outcome of people questioning “essential doctrines” is a “new” doctrine/theology that does not line up with history? If such “new/fresh” doctrines are a product of good scholarship and have satisfactory exegesis, will you discount as you do Oneness Pentecostal theology?
@Joseph: If “new” ideas result from good exegesis and quality scholarship than I will listen. Oneness Pentecostalism has never done that in my opinion. As a former Oneness Pentecostal who studied under your best scholar (Daniel Segraves) at your most academic school at that time (Christian Life College) I remain convinced that it is not only bad theology/Christology from the perspective of Second Temple Judaism, early Christianity, and historical Christianity, but also biblical exegesis and modern scholarship.