Date of Award
5-1-2010
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Department
Systematic Theology
First Advisor
Leopoldo Sanchez
Scripture References in this Resource
1 John 4:16; 1 John 4:7–17; 1 John 4:9; Acts 10:45; Acts 2:38; Galatians 4:4; John 1:10–11; John 1:1–18; John 1:14; John 1:14, 18; John 10:30; John 14:26; John 14:26; John 14:28; John 15:26; John 15:26; John 15:26; John 16:28; John 16:7; John 17:1; John 3:16, 18; John 3:17; John 7:16; John 8:16; Luke 3:22; Matthew 28:19; Philippians 2:5–11; Revelation 5:12; Romans 8:3
Abstract
Dukeman, Jeffrey, A. “Problems in a Movement: Towards a Mutual Hierarchy Social Model of the Trinity.” PhD diss., Concordia Seminary, 2010. 241 pp.
Many chief adherents of a social model of the Trinity, which posits community as the ultimate ontological category in Trinitarian discourse, exhibit a hierarchy-equality polarity or tension in various aspects of their Trinitarian thought. Typically, social Trinitarians “resolve” this tension by emphasizing or choosing one side of the polarity, either hierarchy or equality, over the other. This results in an inadequate accounting for full sociality among the divine persons, where such sociality requires, among other things, both the dignity and the uniqueness of each divine person.
Mutual hierarchy, on the other hand, is a framework that is capable of better accounting for this sociality than the existing social Trinitarian options. This may be seen in at least three areas of tension in the field through a comparison with the corresponding positions of Hans Urs von Balthasar, whose hierarchical Trinitarian understanding is best classified as social Trinitarian, and of Miroslav Volf with his egalitarian social Trinitarianism.
As Balthasar critiques other major Trinitarian models—namely, a person-oriented model and a substance (unity)-oriented model—he tends to argue that these models insufficiently account for hierarchy among the divine persons, but in so doing Balthasar himself does not account adequately for the dignity of the divine persons. Volf rather tends to critique these other models for insufficiently accounting for the equality of the divine persons, but in so doing Volf himself does not account adequately for their uniqueness relative to one another. But a mutual hierarchy social model of the Trinity looks more at how other Trinitarian models understand terms like hierarchy and equality so that it may acknowledge how, for example, a person-oriented Trinitarian model tends to account for the uniqueness of each divine person even while it critiques this model for not accounting adequately for the dignity of the persons.
In looking at the life of Jesus in the economic Trinity, Balthasar tends to conceive of the hierarchy of the Father over the Son in an almost “master-slave” fashion that does not account adequately for the dignity of either the Son or the Father, as may be seen in Balthasar’s understanding of Holy Saturday, which for him is the chief redemptive period of salvation history. As Volf looks at the life of Jesus, he rather emphasizes the egalitarian mutual relations and perichoresis of the divine persons in such a way that the he insufficiently distinguishes the divine persons from one another. But my proposal utilizing a mutual hierarchy framework argues that each divine person exercises hierarchy over the others in connection with the vocation of each, which accounts for the uniqueness of each person. And it argues that each divine person uses this hierarchy in order to serve the other persons with their vocations, which accounts for the dignity of each person. It thus accounts for the sociality of the economic Trinity.
In looking at the immanent Trinity, Balthasar again tends to conceive of the hierarchy of the Father over the Son in an almost “master-slave” fashion that does not account adequately for the dignity of either the Son or the Father. As Volf looks at the immanent Trinity, he again emphasizes what he sees as the egalitarian mutual relations and perichoresis of the divine persons in such a way that the he insufficiently distinguishes the persons from one another. But a mutual hierarchy social model of the Trinity argues that each divine person exercises hierarchy over the others in connection with the personal properties of each, which accounts for the uniqueness of each person. And it argues that each divine person uses this hierarchy in order to serve the other persons with their personal properties, which accounts for the dignity of each person. It thus accounts for the sociality of the immanent Trinity.
Recommended Citation
Dukeman, Jeffrey, "Problems in a Movement-Towards a Mutual Hierarchy Social Model of the Trinity" (2010). Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. 116.
https://scholar.csl.edu/phd/116
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
