Contra Barrett (Part 6): EFS and the marks of social trinitarianism

Now that you're seen the EFS view, notice how so many of these marks are an exact match:

• Starting point (and emphasis) is not simplicity but the three persons—some reject simplicity altogether
• Trinity redefined as society and community, analogous to human society
• Persons redefined as three centers of consciousness and will
• Persons redefined according to their relationships and roles
• Large overlap (sometime collapse) of immanent and economic Trinity
• Social Trinity is paradigm for social theory (ecclesiology, politics, gender, etc.)

EFS lines up with each of these marks, which makes EFS a species of social trinitarianism.

[Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity, 226]

Is EFS a form of social trinitarianism? It depends on how you defined "social trinitarianism." Matthew Barrett has defined social trinitarianism with these 6 points. Thus, defined, Barrett then asserts that EFS has all 6 points, and therefore this "makes EFS a species of social trinitarianism." But is this a valid characterization of EFS? In order to answer this question, we must ask ourselves: (1) Are these 6 points valid markers of social trinitarianism, and (2) Does EFS fulfill these 6 marks?

First, are these 6 points valid markers of social trinitarianism? Social trinitarianism, if defined just according to its name, is any view of the Trinity that defines the Trinity socially. In other words, if the Trinity is defined as a society of persons, then by virtue of the adjective "social," that view of the Trinity is a version of "social trinitarianism." Of course, things are much more complicated, but let's take that as a basic marker of social trinitarianism. Note that any marker for social trinitarianism must be something that is in some manner definitive of it. In other words, if a point (Point X) is shared between social trinitarianism and a non-social trinitarianism view of the Trinity, then Point X cannot be definitive of social trinitarianism.

When we look at it this way, only point 2 (Trinity redefined as society and community, analogous to human society) is definitive of social trinitarianism. What about the other points? Point 1 is not definitive of social trinitarianism, otherwise Eastern Orthodoxy would be considered social trinitarianism. Point 3 would be needed for social trinitarianism, but to claim it is necessary does not make it definitive of social trinitarianism. Nevertheless, since it is necessary, we can grant it as a marker for social trinitarianism. This goes the same for points 4 and 6. As for point 5, that is a very subjective criterion: what is seen as a small overlap can be seen as a large overlap by others, and vice versa. Regardlesss, that is in no way definitive of social trinitarianismm, since social trinitarianism is independent of one's view of the relation between the immanent and economic Trinity.

We are left with points 2, 3, 4 and 6. Now, how does EFS match to these points? EFS in its generic variety simply is a teaching that the Son submitted to the Father in eternity. Generic EFS therefore does not correspond to any of the points. How about specific variants of EFS? The dominant variant of EFS promoted by Bruce Ware, Wayne Grduem and others would line up with points 4 and 6. Wih regards to point 2, a case could be made that Bruce Ware in his earlier work Father, Son, and Holy Spirit seem to hold to point 2, although as have shown, Ware is using it for deriving practical applications. Regarding point 3, I have not seen any EFS proponent assert that each person is an individual center of consciousness and will. Barrett is inferring from phrases talking about the will of the Father, the will of the Son, and the will of the Spirit as distinct wills, that therefore EFS teaches three centers of consciousness and will. However, that does not follow (Non Sequitur). Classical Theism holds to the Father loving the Son, the Son loving the Father, and so on. Yet, the Father loving the Son in Classical Theism does not imply two wills, so why should any phrase or sentence discussing the will of the Father, the will of the Son and so on imply three centers of will?

Therefore, is EFS a version of social trinitarianism? Not necessarily. Is the dominant variant of EFS a version of social trinitarianism? No. We have said that only point 2 is definitive of social trinitarianism, while allowing points 3, 4 and 6 as they are necesary for social trinitarianism. But necessity is not the same as sufficiency. Points 3, 4 and 6 are necessary for social trinitarianism, but they are not sufficient for social trinitarianism. Therefore, merely having points 4 and 6 does not mean that the dominant variant of EFS is a version of social trinitarianism. Is Bruce Ware's version of EFS a form of social trinitarianism? It depends on how one interprets his earlier work Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Correctly read and interpreted, the focus of that work uses relationality for application, not for definition. If however, one reads that as reflective of his view of the Trinity, both immanent and economic, then it can be argued that Bruce Ware's view embraces point 2. Nevertheless, we note here the one simple fact that EFS is not necessarily a version of social trinitarianism, and only if one's version of EFS holds to point 2 can that version of EFS be considered a version of social trinitarianism.

Barrett assserts that EFS exactly matches all 6 ponts of social trinitarianism. That is a false statement. The reason why Barrett can make such a statement is because he misunderstands and misrepresents EFS, as we will continue to show to be the case.