The One, the Three and the Many

Speaking as a British theologian to the English academic community, Gunton exhibits considerable erudition along with concern about the disintegration of traditional Christianized culture into what he calls "modernism" and "postmodernism." His analysis of the cultural shift reaches back to pre-Christian philosophy, from Idealism to the reality of relationships. The book is not an easy read, but for those who want to think about the course of the American culture, it is informative and stimulating.

I find the ideas compelling, as far as it goes. But the writing is a bit abstruse in places. I am not a theologian, so the context and conversations the author used to situate his argument were beyond my ken.

Gunton's thesis is that Modernity plays the one and many against each other (6). Antiquity and modernity are alike in having defective accounts of relationality. Third, the fragmentation of the three transcendentals (begun with Plato) makes the modern world an uneasy world. Understanding that modernity is difficult to define, Gunton sees it as a family of dogmas best represented in the French and Russian Revolutions. What modernity gives us is "displacement," shifting transcendentals from God to the world (or something like it). Yet this book is not merely a screed against modernity. Modernity is best seen as parasitic upon and in reaction to the ancient Christian tradition. Indeed, some moments of modernity, while wrong, could not have gotten off of the ground if not for ambiguities in the Christian tradition (e.g., a privileging of Plato, etc). Gunton uses Parmenides and Heraclitus as two symbols of dealing with the problem of One and Many. Gunton calls these two approaches “a coincidence of opposites” (18). Without the mediation of a third factor they collapse into each other. The ancient Western tradition *tended* to favor monism over dualism (there were exceptions). Gunton suggests this could be due to substance-metaphysics, that the real substance of God is what lies beneath and behind the persons (191). The early Christian tradition, by contrast, provided a model for overcoming this--best seen in Irenaeus. ecapitulation gives time itself validity before eternity (von Balthasar, quoted in Gunton 159). It gives us a conception of God’s acting in and through the world which is diversified within fundamental unity: wordly happening is now diversified and open because it is embraced by eternity. Economy embraces the being of the world in its relation to God and the action of God in relation to the world. The economy is the way God constitutes reality. He makes it what it is through the activities we call creation and redemption. In conclusion the substantiality of God should not reside in an abstract being, but in concrete particulars that we call divine persons and in the relations in which they mutually constitute one another (191). Gunton has some beautiful meditations and suggestions on spirit and perichoresis, but I must note a few criticisms: * I feel uneasy about his saying the Persons of the Trinity constitute each other by relations. There is a truth, there, but the statement is misleading. I repeat Volf's criticism of Zizioulas: Zizioulas distinguishes between being constituted (the Son and the Spirit through the Father) and the Father being conditioned (The Father by the Son and the Spirit). If one presumes that the Father alone is the constituitive entity within the Godhead, then, as we have already seen, it is difficult not to ascribe priority to the person before the communion. If, on the other hand, one takes seriously the notion of the Father as conditioned by the Son and the Spirit, then the differences between the persons risk being leveled. If the Father is conditioned by the Son and the Spirit, then he is constituted by them. That is, he is God only as Father. As soon as one allows innertrinitarian reciprocity, the innertrinitarian asymmetry seems to vanish (After Our Likeness, 80). In short, whatever their genius, I don't think the Cappadocians can fully deliver by themselves. * He suggests we should see Ideas in Coleridge's sense as the transcendental that unites One and Many. Maybe so, but this tends to move the discussion back to priority of the One. * I agree with all of Gunton's criticisms of Augustine, yet after a while we see increasingly few citations of Augustine following criticisms of Augustine.

Colin Gunton hopes to show in The One, The Three, and The Many (OTM) that all the problems of the world would be solved if everyone could just understand the Christian doctrine of the trinity (thus "The Three"). This sounds so incredibly ambitious that it may look like I'm pitching a straw man, but Gunton thinks the trinity is so powerful that any attempt to downplay this feature of his argument would injure him more than my apparently overwrought summary does. For Gunton the trinity is humanity's only hope to establish genuine truth, morality, beauty, and unity in diversity. I do not think Gunton makes his case. First, OTM is a use-mention error. Even if Gunton is right that the concept of the trinity is 100% necessary to achieve unity in diversity, that would not imply the trinity actually exists. Trinity and god then are handy metaphors at best. Gunton seems to concede this near the end, and tries to retreat from ontology to transcendentalism. OTM is unparsimonious, though, because even the concept of the trinity is not necessary. The "universe" is a simpler metaphor for unity in diversity, and has the benefit of existing, so we can leverage it without resorting to superstition. Finally OTM is unscientific. Gunton thinks modernity has unleashed a legion of social ills that he hopes the Trinity will cure. But he fails to support this claim with empirical data. When Gunton manages to wear the right outfit he is late to the party. He defends evolution on grounds that young-earth creationists have misunderstood Genesis chapters 1-2. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it is incredible if not insulting to believe anyone is waiting around for a British theologian to uncover the true meaning of an iron age creation myth before believing that evolution is true. The rest of the world already knows evolution is a fact based on reason and hard evidence. Only a fundamentalist could benefit from this theological tap dance; and how many fundamentalists are going to read Colin Gunton? I agree with Gunton that finding unity in diversity is a massively worthwhile goal, but I don't think violating Occam's razor will help us get there. Gunton is not unique on this count. Theologians in general seem to value existential impact more than parsimony or evidence. Which is why theology is a metaphysical free-for-all. But perhaps there are exceptions?

A superb evaluation of the ills of modernity with a masterful handling of philosophical and theological concepts. This book is full of insight and wisdom on a number of important thinkers, topics and intellectual epochs. The first part of the book deals with the problems of universality, particularity, relationality, meaning and truth in modern (and late modern) thought. The second part of the book is an excellent introduction to Trinitarian theology and it offers impressive and thought-provoking solutions to the myriad of issues identified in Part 1. As a point of critique, I do not share Gunton's hostility towards Plato and Augustine, as I think they are (in some respects) more faithful to biblical theology than the likes of Irenaeus (who Gunton overrates). I also think contemporary Trinitarian theology is a bit overblown to the point of distorting Christian doctrine and I was pleased to see some acknowledgement of its limitations in the introduction.. But this is a minor theological digression and should not dissuade readers of this review from buying the book.

Speaking as a British theologian to the English academic community, Gunton exhibits considerable erudition along with concern about the disintegration of traditional Christianized culture into what he calls "modernism" and "postmodernism." His analysis of the cultural shift reaches back to pre-Christian philosophy, from Idealism to the reality of relationships. The book is not an easy read, but for those who want to think about the course of the American culture, it is informative and stimulating.

I find the ideas compelling, as far as it goes. But the writing is a bit abstruse in places. I am not a theologian, so the context and conversations the author used to situate his argument were beyond my ken.

Colin Gunton hopes to show in The One, The Three, and The Many (OTM) that all the problems of the world would be solved if everyone could just understand the Christian doctrine of the trinity (thus "The Three"). This sounds so incredibly ambitious that it may look like I'm pitching a straw man, but Gunton thinks the trinity is so powerful that any attempt to downplay this feature of his argument would injure him more than my apparently overwrought summary does. For Gunton the trinity is humanity's only hope to establish genuine truth, morality, beauty, and unity in diversity.I do not think Gunton makes his case.First, OTM is a use-mention error. Even if Gunton is right that the concept of the trinity is 100% necessary to achieve unity in diversity, that would not imply the trinity actually exists. Trinity and god then are handy metaphors at best. Gunton seems to concede this near the end, and tries to retreat from ontology to transcendentalism. OTM is unparsimonious, though, because even the concept of the trinity is not necessary. The "universe" is a simpler metaphor for unity in diversity, and has the benefit of existing, so we can leverage it without resorting to superstition. Finally OTM is unscientific. Gunton thinks modernity has unleashed a legion of social ills that he hopes the Trinity will cure. But he fails to support this claim with empirical data.When Gunton manages to wear the right outfit he is late to the party. He defends evolution on grounds that young-earth creationists have misunderstood Genesis chapters 1-2. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it is incredible if not insulting to believe anyone is waiting around for a British theologian to uncover the true meaning of an iron age creation myth before believing that evolution is true. The rest of the world already knows evolution is a fact based on reason and hard evidence. Only a fundamentalist could benefit from this theological tap dance; and how many fundamentalists are going to read Colin Gunton?I agree with Gunton that finding unity in diversity is a massively worthwhile goal, but I don't think violating Occam's razor will help us get there. Gunton is not unique on this count. Theologians in general seem to value existential impact more than parsimony or evidence. Which is why theology is a metaphysical free-for-all. But perhaps there are exceptions?

Gunton's thesis is that Modernity plays the one and many against each other (6). Antiquity and modernity are alike in having defective accounts of relationality. Third, the fragmentation of the three transcendentals (begun with Plato) makes the modern world an uneasy world. Understanding that modernity is difficult to define, Gunton sees it as a family of dogmas best represented in the French and Russian Revolutions. What modernity gives us is "displacement," shifting transcendentals from God to the world (or something like it).Yet this book is not merely a screed against modernity. Modernity is best seen as parasitic upon and in reaction to the ancient Christian tradition. Indeed, some moments of modernity, while wrong, could not have gotten off of the ground if not for ambiguities in the Christian tradition (e.g., a privileging of Plato, etc).Gunton uses Parmenides and Heraclitus as two symbols of dealing with the problem of One and Many. Gunton calls these two approaches “a coincidence of opposites” (18). Without the mediation of a third factor they collapse into each other. The ancient Western tradition *tended* to favor monism over dualism (there were exceptions). Gunton suggests this could be due to substance-metaphysics, that the real substance of God is what lies beneath and behind the persons (191).The early Christian tradition, by contrast, provided a model for overcoming this--best seen in Irenaeus. ecapitulation gives time itself validity before eternity (von Balthasar, quoted in Gunton 159). It gives us a conception of God’s acting in and through the world which is diversified within fundamental unity: wordly happening is now diversified and open because it is embraced by eternity. Economy embraces the being of the world in its relation to God and the action of God in relation to the world. The economy is the way God constitutes reality. He makes it what it is through the activities we call creation and redemption.In conclusion the substantiality of God should not reside in an abstract being, but in concrete particulars that we call divine persons and in the relations in which they mutually constitute one another (191). Gunton has some beautiful meditations and suggestions on spirit and perichoresis, but I must note a few criticisms:* I feel uneasy about his saying the Persons of the Trinity constitute each other by relations. There is a truth, there, but the statement is misleading. I repeat Volf's criticism of Zizioulas: Zizioulas distinguishes between being constituted (the Son and the Spirit through the Father) and the Father being conditioned (The Father by the Son and the Spirit). If one presumes that the Father alone is the constituitive entity within the Godhead, then, as we have already seen, it is difficult not to ascribe priority to the person before the communion. If, on the other hand, one takes seriously the notion of the Father as conditioned by the Son and the Spirit, then the differences between the persons risk being leveled. If the Father is conditioned by the Son and the Spirit, then he is constituted by them. That is, he is God only as Father. As soon as one allows innertrinitarian reciprocity, the innertrinitarian asymmetry seems to vanish (After Our Likeness, 80).In short, whatever their genius, I don't think the Cappadocians can fully deliver by themselves.* He suggests we should see Ideas in Coleridge's sense as the transcendental that unites One and Many. Maybe so, but this tends to move the discussion back to priority of the One.* I agree with all of Gunton's criticisms of Augustine, yet after a while we see increasingly few citations of Augustine following criticisms of Augustine.

A superb evaluation of the ills of modernity with a masterful handling of philosophical and theological concepts. This book is full of insight and wisdom on a number of important thinkers, topics and intellectual epochs. The first part of the book deals with the problems of universality, particularity, relationality, meaning and truth in modern (and late modern) thought. The second part of the book is an excellent introduction to Trinitarian theology and it offers impressive and thought-provoking solutions to the myriad of issues identified in Part 1.As a point of critique, I do not share Gunton's hostility towards Plato and Augustine, as I think they are (in some respects) more faithful to biblical theology than the likes of Irenaeus (who Gunton overrates). I also think contemporary Trinitarian theology is a bit overblown to the point of distorting Christian doctrine and I was pleased to see some acknowledgement of its limitations in the introduction.. But this is a minor theological digression and should not dissuade readers of this review from buying the book.