Rethinking the Trinity and Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian Assessment (Strategic Initiatives in Evangelical Theology). By Keith E. Johnson. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2011.

Reviewed by Matthew Claridge

Trinitarian theologizing is all the rave today. Trinitarian theology, of course, has always been foundational for any self-respecting Christian, but the desire to apply Trinitarian-shaped methodologies onto every branch of human thought and experience has become particularly fashionable coming on the heels of the twentieth century “Trinitarian Renaissance.” What are evangelicals to make of these developments? Are they a boon or a bust?

Like most things, the “devil is in the details,” and Keith E. Johnson has done the church a tremendous service by auditing one specific attempt to make the Trinity serviceable in the cause of religious pluralism. Johnson tackles the growing trend among self-professing Christian theologians to justify the possibility of salvation apart from Christ on the basis of Trinitarian doctrine. In three main chapters, Johnson interacts with and critiques an assortment of proposals from a Protestant (Mark Heim), a Pentecostal (Amos Yong), and two Catholic theologians (Jacques Deupuis and Raimundo Panikkar). Alongside these others, Johnson includes Augustine as a dialogue partner. In fact, Augustine’s Trinitarian theology frames and grounds Johnson’s overall strategy and interaction with these inclusivist proposals. The primary benefit of Augustine’s presence in the discussion is surely the polemical payoff. Precisely because Augustine is a shared authority in ecumenical circles, Johnson can deploy him with great polemical affect against rival views that boast in their “ecumenical” credentials. As such, Johnson’s work represents two things in one: a commentary on Augustine’s Trinitarian theology and a critique of various inclusivist views that rely on the Trinity in one form or another.

Johnson’s approach could easily become a confusing one, but the reader is helped by his routine introductions, transitions, and summaries. He is always clear about exactly where he is going and how he got there. In the first chapter, he sets the stage with some very helpful background material on the modern “Trinitarian Renaissance” and its impact on ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue. The Second chapter introduces us to Augustine and his Trinitarian theology. Here, in addition to summarizing the content of Augustine’s De trinitate, Johnson surveys the basic talking points derived from Augustine he will bring up in later chapters. The meat of Johnson’s book is found in chapters three through five where he critiques four inclusivist proposals that press the Trinity into their cause. The general pattern of these chapters is as follows: a summary of the inclusivist proposal, relevant material from Augustine, and Johnson’s own critique often building off of Augustine’s insights.

These chapters are excellent in their own right, but the final chapter is perhaps the most useful of all. Up to this point, Johnson’s thesis has been highly negative—what Trinitarian theology does not say about religious pluralism. Even if somewhat brief, Johnson offers several constructive ways the Trinity informs an evangelical perspective on religious pluralism. Finally, and most helpfully, Johnson provides a section that tackles a question that has gone un-answered through the whole book: how much weight can we place on the Trinity to inform and structure other areas of theology? Or, is the Trinity a methodological principle to which all theological formulation must conform and reflect in some way? The importance of this question can not only be seen in the specific area of religious pluralism, but in a wide assortment of recent  proposals: “Trinity and personhood, Trinity and societal relations, Trinity and gender, Trinity and marriage, Trinity and church, Trinity and politics, Trinity and ecology, and so forth” (17).

Johnson proceeds to lay out six rules for evaluating Trinitarian models. All of these rules are extremely helpful. As I see it, they boil down to two main points: 1) Scripture, not speculation, is our ultimate authority for making Trinitarian connections in other areas; 2) Starting with the immanent Trinity, rather than the economic Trinity (as revealed in Scripture), invariably leads to speculative ideas, anthropocentric projection, and confusion between the creature and the Creator.

Towards the end of the book, Johnson has attached a substantial appendix dealing with Colin Gunton’s critique of Augustine’s Trinitarian theology. Given Johnson’s extensive reliance on Augustine as an orthodox source and “evangelical” ally against the inclusivists, the inclusion of this appendix is certainly justified. Johnson defends Augustine against several charges all having to do, in one way or another, with his supposed reliance on neo-platonism and subsequent divergence from the Cappadocian fathers.

Overall, Johnson succeeds in what he sets out to do. Given his angle of using Augustine as a theological sounding board, Readers should be aware that Johnson’s main tactic is more indirect than just simple appeals to Scripture.  Yet, in the final analysis, that is what Johnson’s critiques basically come down to. For all the bewildering novelty of the proposals offered by Heim, Yong, Deupuis, and Panikkar, all of them are hopelessly speculative and un-tethered from Scripture’s normative role. Furthermore, as Johnson notes in passing, all of these proposals will fail in inter-faith dialogue because they “offer tradition-specific interpretations of religion,” (35) even despite their radical departure from Trinitarian orthodoxy in general. That is, no self-respecting Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu will accept a description of their religious system in anything resembling a Christian, “Trinitarian” framework.

One area that deserves particular care is Johnson’s handling of Augustine. Evaluating Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine is complicated not least because De trinitate is an incredibly complex piece of work but also, I would argue, because Augustine is not always consistent. Many of the claims Gunton makes against Augustine are outrageous and Johnson’s responses in the appendix are cogent and faithful to the great father. However, Johnson appears to assume Augustine has no problem areas whatsoever. While Johnson is right to point out the priority of Scripture for Augustine’s epistemology (“faith seeking understanding”), there are other, competing tendencies in Augustine that at the very least befuddle this priority.  I believe several lines of evidence from Augustine’s writings would support this claim, but at this point our purpose is simply to alert readers to the need for caution when absorbing Johnson’s entirely optimistic appraisal of Augustine.

Matthew Claridge is Senior Pastor of Mt. Idaho Baptist Church in Mt. Idaho, ID.

This review is from the January issue of Credo Magazine, “In Christ Alone.”

The January issue argues for the exclusivity of the gospel, especially in light of the movement known as inclusivism. This issue will seek to answer questions like: Can those who have never heard the gospel of Christ be saved? Will everyone be saved in the end or will some spend an eternity in hell? Must someone have explicit faith in Christ to be saved? Contributors include David Wells, Robert Peterson, Michael Horton, Gerald Bray, Todd Miles, Todd Borger, Ardel Caneday, Nathan Finn, Trevin Wax, Michael Reeves, and many others.

To view the magazine as a PDF Click Here