Talk:Social trinitarianism

Barth
A direct quote will capture Karl Barth's importance to the development of the modern idea. I think that his statements concerning the "economic trinity" being the same as the "imminent trinity" and vice versa are excellent examples of this. Based on that, he says things like, the Trinity is not a doctrine for teaching us about God, but for teaching what human community should look like. Those aren't direct quotes, but I'm sure that the ref can be found - and his interpretation of the Cappodocian Fathers, and the "especially" in the claim made, can all be justified. But while looking for just the right reference I've marked it with. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't the economic trinity being the immanent trinity Rahner rather than Barth? I'm not sure how much of that I recognise from Barth - are you possibly thinking of Rahner again, or am I just showing the fact that I'm almost completely unfamiliar with Barth? As far as I recall, Barth is very much into his "modes of being" for the trinity, and to do with the trinity as explaining revelation, rather than anything to do with human community.  A lot of these things sound very out of character for Barth to me, to be honest (but then I've barely read him, and read not much about him either!) TheologyJohn 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right - that's Rahner's 'rule'. I have something nagging at my memory though that turns out much like that statement - only with Barth's emphasis on God's freedom to be God: Rahner turned on his head.  But I might have it wrong.  I need to find what I read to get this idea. I'll adjust the sentence for the time being. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm looking for the basis of my original statement (which may not pan out), I've changed the paragraph to reflect your comments and I'll go from there. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidently, I confused the quote from Rahner with that of Barth - which should have been something like, "God is as God revealed himself to be" (in Christ). Since the directions indicated by these statements are very similar, I'm mistaken to imply they are advocates of what Moltmann and Zizioulas are speaking of.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Barth and Rahner conceive of the Trinity as "social" in the sense of "relational" to us-ward, in Christ; in contrast to the "social Trinity" which is a "communion" or "community" in/with the Father, in/with the Son and Spirit.
 * Obviously, I'm not prepared with sufficient scholarship on this topic to say anything definitively. So, I'll continue to pepper statements with citation needed, while this stub develops. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to Social trinitarianism
The article is about a system, a monotheistic trinitarian relational model, called "social trinitarianism" in contemporary philosophical and religious works, e.g. "Trinity" entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Trinity" entry in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion (v. 5, p. 295), The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion (p. 152), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology (p. 13), Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology (v. 1, p. 30), etc. Google Ngram also shows "social trinitarianism" came into use in the late 20th century while "social trinity" peaked circa 1900 but is also much in contemporary use.

I think the -ism has more MOS:PRECISION because it conveys that it is a model of a system, like, for example "Latin trinitarianism," another model. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I endorse this move and will move it myself if no one objects.--Jahaza (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed and moved. Caorongjin (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Relational theology
I recall (from my days at the Harvard Divinity School that an idea described as 'relational theology' had its rationale in 'social trinitarianism' that was not dogmatic, but allegorical, and that I had then felt that their 'relational' exegesis had its precursors in a number of other earlier movements in theology but had become a vehicle for clinical counseling students (many of them nuns doing counseling and other ministries). MaynardClark (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not clearly explained
I am a theology student and went to this entry to get an overview of this concept. I am no clearer on the concept than before. 65.92.152.196 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)