The One, the Three, and the Many by Gunton

by Colin E. Gunton

'Endlessly rewarding with many memorable aphorisms (the book) will certainly be a key text in the Gospel / Culture debate over the next decade.' --Ministry

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Academic

Paperback

First published July 29, 1993

About the author

Colin Ewart Gunton (1941-2003) was a British systematic theologian. As a theologian he made contributions to the doctrine of Creation and the doctrine of the trinity. He was Professor of Christian Doctrine at King's College London from 1984 and co-founder with Christoph Schwoebel of the Research Institute for Systematic Theology in 1988. Gunton was actively involved in the United Reformed Church in the United Kingdom where he had been a minister since 1972. He was arguably the most important British theologian of his generation.

Gunton's most influential work was on the doctrines of Creation and the Trinity. One of his most important books is The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity" (1993), and is "a profound analysis of the paradoxes and contradictions of Modernity." The One, the Three and the Many remains a "majestical survey of the western intellectual tradition and a penetrating analysis of the modern condition."

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Joseph Sverker]

2015:
Well, another reading done and I still think this book is quite brilliant in its argumentation. There are certainly seem problems. I think Gunton's view of all attempts to solve the question of human's place in context as theological might be one. It doesn't allow for there to be something 'other' than theology, which goes against his main idea about the need for God to be trinitarian in order for creation to be able to be other than God. Furthermore, I find it a bit strange that Gunton takes on such a modernist theory of secularization (modernity as culture turned away from God) and at the same time stands critical against so much else of modernity. Isn't Gunton's very own theory of secularisation a symptom of modernity, one where modernity is supposedly alienated by God. The way of phrasing that sounds 'modernist' in itself so that Gunton becomes, in a way, a modern thinker in terms of secularization, while he certainly doesn't want to be in other areas.

Nonetheless, I struggle to really conceptualize what a perichoertic ontology and what the open transcendentals really might be. How can the relational be primary for the constitution of being for example? But Gunton makes a very good attempt to argue for this and to locate it in the relational Trinity. I also like Gunton's starting point of wanting to start in the concrete and particular and his critique of essentialism is to the point, as is his argument against modern individualism and collectivism. I just have to work out how to use this properly and argue from this in my own dissertation.



2013:
I could say a whole lot about this book, but since I'm writing a PhD kind of based on this I suppose much will come out there! My overall impression is that it is an absotluely brilliant example of how to do theology. Gunton believes in the the importance of good theology and he shows it. He is brave, although not always correct in his interpretation of Augustine, Modernity and some other things, but even though I read it with a researcher share of skepticism I can't help but get drawn in to his argument. He argues convincingly and to me it is mostly in the details that he goes wrong, except for perhaps one or two things were he seem a little inconsistent. When I'm done with the Phd, many years to go still, you can read what that was.


2004:
This is such a inshgtful, yet complex book. Gunton's theory of today's inability to solve the ancient problem of the one and the many is mainly neglected by contemporary theologians and philosophers. I would love to see a secular response to this.

[Shannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Apologies to Colin Gunton, as I am only a wannabe intellectual and I don't understand this as well as I should. However, I have really enjoyed TRYING to understand.

The One, the Three, and the Many by Colin Gunton

Gunton seems to be saying that Christianity (and possibly theism more generally) has come apart in modernity because it was unstable from as early as Augustine who minimized the roles of the Christ and the Holy Spirit, asserting that the creation was the product of divine arbitrary will—leaving it rather purposeless and unrelated to anything. Thus theology developed into a sort of competing and fragmented dualism: relationality and particularity only on the temporal, fallen side with timeless, immaterial, unchangeable eternality on the other. Separating the transcendent from temporality by making God completely unrelated to human being was alienating to humans, who attempted to bring God down to earth and the rational. And once the transcendent was displaced into something other than what it really was, there was no longer a need for it because human reason was enough, thus humans became gods unto themselves. Once again the world is steeped in a form of Gnosticism in which the world is a fallen place—only this time the only hope is human action, and no wonder everybody is depressed!

He proposes a quest for a theology in which divine attributes are given proper due rather than subordinating one to the other. He points to the timeless and transcendent nature of the Father, the redemptive and personal nature of the Christ, and the perfecting and particular relationality of the Holy Spirit all as parts of our necessary constitutions as being created in the image of God. If we are able to perceive these attributes fully in our being, we may be able to heal the great divisions that hold us down and apart.

[Michael Philliber · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an interesting plunge into a whole different way of thinking theologically. And it was quite an intellectual stretch. It seems to me that Gunton was addressing the valuable critiques from Modernity and later Modernity (post-modernity) as well as it's deep short-falls. But the author also worked slowly into the material, massaging into the this work bit by bit, what he sees as the remedy to the critiques and the short-falls: a renewed and reworked theology of creation through the lens and relationship of the Trinity. This will impact and change our anthropology: our human-to-human, human-to-creation, human-to-God relations; "All things are what they are by being particulars constituted by many and various forms of relation. Relationality is thus the transcendental which allows us to learn something of what it is to say that all created people and things are marked by their coming from and returning to God who is himself, in his essential and inmost being, a being in relation" (229).

This is my second time to read "The One, the Three and the Many." I was befuddled most of the time then (2006) and I was befuddled most of the time now (2014). Nevertheless, I sensed that there are profound things here, and I will likely be pondering this material for some time to come.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Exasperating.

[Jeffrey Brannen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. Ok, four stars because I don't know enough to say whether Gunton has a convincing argument because I don't know what he's trying to prove. Or rather, I know enough to feel around the edges and know that there is so much here that merits further study.

In short, we are caught between between the Parmedian One and the Heraclitian Many which can only be resolved by the Irenean Three (his doctrine of the Trinity with the S and Spirit being the two "hands" of the Father in Creation).

In modernity, God is displaced either outside creation (deism and a mechanistic Newtonian universe) or into creation (pantheism and an organic Darwinian universe) which results in fragmentation on three levels: 1.) time and space vs. eternity and infinity; 2.) in cultural enterprise where truth, goodness and beauty become competing superlatives which battle against the others for self-elevation; 3.) in social thought where society and the individual have become either collectivism or individualism.

That and a whole lot of philosophers and theologians I've maybe heard of, but never read. It's like joining a discussion when you are only vaguely aware of the issues.

I also do not know if Gunton properly reads Augustine. On the list of books to come back to in a decade when I've learned more of what I didn't get in college.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Gunton attempts to expose the problem of modernity, especially its lack of relationality. He argues that only the triune God and creation as grounded in this creator provides the proper referent for truth, goodness and beauty (or science, ethics and art). Culture than is left void and empty without the Trinity construed as being in relation. It is unclear whether the Trinity truly performs the work that Gunton sees it performing. This book is a clear example of contributions of the late Colin Gunton.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gunton's aim is to give a satisfying account of relationality to both the one and the many, particular and universal, and the basis of his analysis is with the Trinity who is both One and Three (Universal in Substance and Particular in Persons).

I found his account of the modern problem of disengagement to be fascinating. Modernity is marked by displacement of God by other wills vying to take God's place. Individualism sought to liberate the person, to assert the rights of the many, but instead alienated the person from culture and nature. Individualism is non-relational.

I appreciated his point that our theology of God interacts with and is echoed by human beings organizing themselves in the world. A deficient theology of God and creation will only serve to prolong the non-relational aspects of God and the world, and human structures will become oppressive and divisive because of it.

His notion of 'open transcendentals' was new to me. An open transcendental is a notion basic to human thinking that empowers a continuing exploration of universal marks of being. He offers three of them: perichoresis, substantiality, and relationality. In these, he attempts to show that the interrelation and interpenetration of the divine Persons opens up to the created world and, in some way, marks the being, structure, and organization of the created realm itself. All of creation is thus marked by an interrelatedness that is at the core of its being, patterned after the Trinity.

Overall, I thought this book was highly insightful. I appreciated Gunton's attempt to show the relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity for modernity. However, I do have a few critiques that do not deal so much with details of his argument as they do with the theological system that Gunton and other modern systematic theologians employ:

1) Gunton is critical of Western Christian theology of God and creation, especially that of Augustine and Aquinas and those who followed in their stead. The deficiencies in their theologies provide, for him, modernity's point of entry as a rebellion against the domination of the One to the detriment of the Many, the particular, in their theologies. This leads me to two examinations. First, whatever the deficiencies are in these thinkers, I do not think it is right to directly link them with the rise of modernity. I appreciate Augustine, Aquinas, and those in their tradition because their theology developed from their contemplative vision of the Trinitarian God and the world, and modernity developed rather from an un-contemplative vision of God and the world. This leads into the second examination, that to speak of God, the theologian must be in relationship with God, not just as a creature, but also as a lover. Gunton's book is in line with Catherine LaCugna's "God For Us" in the sense that, in my opinion, it reacts to modernity prematurely before the human heart is captured and invigorated by the life of the Trinity. Indeed, God is for humanity, but if our first question is what can God do for us, we miss the preliminary point of adoration of God in Himself. Gunton has the good intention of remedying modern culture by showing the interaction of the intra-Trinitarian life with our world, but this cannot happen unless our hearts are transformed by the contemplative beholding of God. He offers a macrocosmic view of the problem and solution, and I would simply nuance it by adding that this can only happen in the microcosm of each individual heart transfigured by God's life and love.

2) Gunton's emphasis on the particularity of God and the world leads him to reflect on everything as relational. For him, God seems to be thought of solely in terms of a relationship. While he does a marvelous job giving due to the particular, at times I felt that this was done to the detriment of the universal. Simply put, I felt that the reality of God as Being is lacking in his analysis. Unless we first affirm the Essence of God, God understood as relation can lead into some precarious philosophical and theological confusion concerning the distinction between God and the world. While Gunton does affirm the distinctiveness, I wish the non-necessity of the world of particulars was given more consideration. God was under no necessity to create, and the particularity of Persons in God in no way makes the created world necessary. I do not think Gunton is by any means guilty of blurring the God/world distinction nor culpable of giving to creation a necessary being, but I do think these points could come out more clearly in his analysis to avoid any confusion.

Other than these considerations, I really enjoyed reading the book. I think it offers a great analysis of the the problems of modernity, and for that reason alone it is worth the read. But I also think that his treatment of the Trinitarian relationality being echoed in our world is a great reflection, and can be truly transformative if it leads the reader to a contemplative beholding of God and thus to a transformation of the heart.

[Joshua Butler · Rating 5 out of 5]

another of my all-time favorites. gunton attempts to address the classic philosophical tension between the one & the many (is reality a unity or plurality?) through the lens of the Trinity. tracing the philosophical discussion through classical thought, pre-modern, modern and into the present, he highlights the massive dangers to humanity and creation as the pendulum of our societal worldviews swing from the One to the Many and back again.

he proposes the Trinity as a matrix of mediation between the One and the Many, a framework in which unity and plurality integrally co-inhere, each distinct but inseparably bound together. drawing upon the tradition of Irenaeus and the Cappadocian Fathers, he utilizes such concepts as perichoresis (mutual coinherence, the ancient idea of the life of the Trinity as "dance", particularity and unity inseparably integrated) to explore the relation between God and creation.

this book was helpful to me on a number of levels. on an academic level, it helped me understand modernity better in its rebellion against pre-modernity's unitary vision of God which was, rightly in some respects, at the heart of a totalitarian and oppressive vision of society (as all societal worldviews grounded in extremes of "the One" tend to become) not having sufficient space and grounding for diversity and plurality. it also helped critique that very same modernity of not having the resources to achieve the freedom it so longed for as "the One" of God was merely replaced by "the One" of Reason, the State, etc. in Gunton's view, the removal of God cleared the way for new unitarian visions of society even more repressive and totalitarian than the one removed (ie. "get rid of one demon in the house and seven take its place").

it likewise helped me better understand our discontent in postmodernity with the modern project through this lens of reocgnizing the default of modernity's promise on freedom, rebelling against the modern project (and in other respects continuing it to a further extreme) removing any unity which would restrict unhindered diversity and plurality. from Gunton's view however, diversity without a basis for unity comes with its own host of major problems.

on a social level, it gave me a lens for helping understand the tensions when unity or diversity is exalted in, say: the State (do the inviduals come first (democracy) or the State (communism)? marriage (do the needs of the husband / wife come first, or the unity of the marriage)? business (does the company come first or its workers)? the dangers when one is exalted over the other and they are played against each other, rather than working in mutual integration in / for the other.

on a practical level, I fell more in love with the Trinity as a beautiful Christian doctrine. all i got to say is "I Heart Huckabees" ;) i watched this movie a few months after reading it and was like "this movie is entirely about the classic problem of the One and the Many and the personal discontent we find when we try and arrange life around one extreme or the other!" while the movie called for an integration of the two (ie. the scene in front of the burned down house: "you guys [read: "One & Many"] used to get along and something happened where you split and now ever since you've been fighting; let me guess you've been working together all along!") in the Trinity I've found the beauty of a God in whom unity and diversity are reconciled for the sake of our world.

[Joshua Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wildly ambitious book that argues modernity is essentially a displacement of God and that an anemic doctrine of both creation and trinity are the main contributors to this displacement.

Gunton spends the first half of the book diagnosing the problems of modernity and the second half suggesting corrections to our understanding of the Trinity and God's work of creation that lead to a metaphysic not leading to monistic overemphasis on unity or plurality demanding homogeneity.

If that last sentence was just gobbly-gook to you, then this probably isn't the book for you. (It really isn't for me either--SO much just went over my head...)

BUT if it piqued your interest, there is MUCH more where that came from!

This book was written (based on a series of lectures) in 1992, so Gunton's engagement is primarily with modernity and just a BIT with postmodernity. It would be interesting to see how his suggested robust trinitarian theology would apply to today and the almost 25 years of further cultural development.

[G Walker · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this to pay may Gunton dues... alas, I am not perhaps the best person to critique Gunton... andyway, I found it to be interesting and provocative look at the idea(s) of perichoresis... and how that really is worked out in the day to day events of world history, society and personal life etc... the idea was good (truly, I think he IS onto something) but the ultimate analysis and solutions were confusing, frustrating and inadequate...

[Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most challenging reads I have faced in a while. Very complex thoughts that are hard to grasp but life-changing when understood. A refreshing look at God in all aspects (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The author does an amazing job of critiquing without becoming cynical. He challenges modernism and provides great insight for how life should be lived.

[Matt Kottman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm probably just not as clever as others, but I found this a difficult read (although thought provoking). Definitely written for scholars. If you're game for a slow read which helpfully challenged modernity and postmodernity, you may want to wade through this one.

[powei · Rating 5 out of 5]

beautiful, despite the poor ending.

[Heidi]

Tim Keller recommends the works of Colin Gunton, especially this one, for "some extremely stimulating reflections on the promise of Trinitarian thought."

[Jerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful in parts.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

read long ago snd enjoyed it.