Project description.
Your assignment consists of designing and implementing a program that will analyze the use of a paged memory system with 32 Kbytes of physical memory. Your program will read the file available for download through D2L and identify the number of page faults and the simulated overhead time as specified below.
The size of a page will be selected during the execution so the user can test two different page sizes. The data file has 1 million addresses. Your program will accept several records of input data, according to the following format:
Code
Address (in hexadecimal)
Where code is identified by a single digit with the following meaning:
0 – address for data read
1 – address for data write
2 – address for instruction fetch
An example of the data file contents could be
2 415130
0 1010acac
2 415134
The address size is 32 bits. An address such as AB means 000000AB. The program must be written in C or C++ and be the smallest possible code to solve the problem. DO NOT CODE ANY SOLUTION THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO OTHER PROBLEMS (HINT: you can read hexadecimal numbers in C++ using unsigned integers and the command FILE>>hex>>number;)
During the execution of this file, pages will be stored in the physical memory and later replaced following a First In First Out algorithm. Pages accessed should be marked as referenced and those with a writing code should be marked as modified. During page replacement, the overhead time will be increased by 100 cycles due to the disk load operation and if the page has been modified another 500 cycles should be added to the overhead to account for the writing back in disk. The experiment should be repeated with a Least Recently Used algorithm (hint: a linked list or a queue may help you to track the LRU information)
Report your times for page size 4096 and 2048, running under FIFO and RU page replacements.
You must turn in the source code of your program and a short report. This report must contain a comparison of the two possible line sizes.
SHOW MORE…
help
Students must write a 5-page paper on the importance of Anti-Oppression Social Work practice within the context of their Field Practicum and the importance of adhering to this type of practice. Students should include (5 Literary, Scholarly Sources) and be sure to give examples of how they will check their privilege in their administration of social services. Please be sure to reference your anti-oppression articles.
Rubric- Please be sure to review the rubric carefully prior to starting your assignment. Followingthe rubric will yield the most potential for earning ahigher grade.
SWK 530
Grading Rubric
Anti-Oppression Social Work Practice Paper
200 Points
Students must write a 5-page paper on the importance of Anti-Oppression Social Work practice within the context of their Field Practicum, and the importance of adhering to this type of practice. In your paper, please describe what anti-oppressive social work practice is and its importance. Demonstrate that you understand the tenants and terminology of anti-oppressive practice. Briefly describe your field practicum agency and community. Discuss anti-oppressive social work practice in the context of the field agency. Students should include (5 Scholarly Literary Sources), and be sure to give examples of how they will check their privilege in their administration of social services. NOTE: If you are not currently enrolled in a field placement, you may select Option B on the rubric to complete your paper.
(Competency 3)
Rubric-Please be sure to review the rubric carefully prior to starting your assignment.Followingthe rubric will yield the most potential for earning ahigher grade. To view your rubric for this assignment, click on the assignment title under this week in blackboard. On the right/middle of the page, near the points possible for this assignment, you’ll see a little button that says “View Rubric”. Click that button and the rubric used to grade the assignment will appear. I will grade your assignment exactly from therubric. Thankyou and good luck!
Instruction
Feedback
Possible Points
Earned Points
*Introduction:
Brief summary of the main points of the paper letting the reader know what to expect.
25
*Anti-Oppression:
Describe what anti-oppressive social work practice is and its importance. Demonstrate that you understand the tenants and terminology.
50
*Anti-Oppression in Field:
(Choose to write on Option A or B. Please clearly note clearly on the heading of your paper which option you are responding to in your paper. Option B is reserved for students with summer block practicum.)
Option A:
Briefly describe your field practicum agency and community. Discuss anti-oppressive social work practice in the context of the field agency. Demonstrate you understand the importance of this type of practice.
Option B:
Describe why adopting an anti-oppressive practice is important for your role as a social worker, serving marginalized populations. Describe 3 specific anti-oppressive practices you would implement; one at the micro, one mezzo, and one macro level of your social work practice. Demonstrate how you will integrate an anti-oppressive approach clinically when serving your clients as well as when developing policy affecting marginalized populations.
75
References
Reference the assigned readings and other relevant scholarly material. (A minimum of 5 scholarly sources are required).
25
Organization
Use the headings provided in this rubric and present organized sentences and paragraphs. First person is acceptable. All sentences are well constructed and have varied structure and length. No errors in grammar, mechanics, and/or spelling. APA style formatting is required for your paper.
25
Total
200 ANTI-OPPRESSIVE PRACTICE AND SOCIAL TRINITARIANISM: AN
INTERCONNECTION OF FAITH AND SOCIAL WORK PRINCIPLES
By: Lydia Hogewoning
Presented at:
NACSW Convention 2012
October, 2012
St. Louis, MO
Abstract
Anti-oppressive social work (AOP) provides an important model towards identifying and
maintaining empowering client relationships in the context of existing oppression in society and
practice. Yet for Christian social workers, the question remains whether such a model, which is
postmodern in nature, can be upheld alongside faith values. Through examination of the Social
Trinitarian model, key theological principles are shown to reinforce AOP as a worthy model for
social workers to implement in practice. Drawing on the works of theologians Miroslav Volf and
Jurgen Moltmann, and social theorist Lena Dominelli, this paper demonstrates how a Social
Trinitarianism theology of love, equality, and openness to the other connects to core AOP
principles of empowerment and critical consciousness.
Keywords: Anti-oppressive Practice, Social Trinitarianism, Empowerment
Think of what defines social work practice. The term oppressive is not usually the first
adjective to come to mind. After all, social work, as defined by the International Federation of
Social Workers, is a profession seeking to promote social change, problem solve in human
relationships, and empower people and groups to enhance [overall] well-being (IFSW, 2012).
However, as contradictory and perhaps painful it is to admit, social work is associated with
oppression simply because it deals with broken human relations. Plain and simple, relationships
in every facet incorporate elements of exclusion and oppression resulting from sinful human
identities. In turn, Christian social workers bear the responsibility of analyzing the nature of
oppression in personal and professional relationships as a fundamental step in implementing the
type of service and profession defined above.
Social work practitioners seek to work by values and ethics which uphold social justice
and respect for the dignity of the other. Similarly, in Christianity believers seek to carry out
biblical commandments urging mankind to love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as
yourself (Matthew 22:29). So in response to oppression, how do Christian social workers merge
professional and religious mandates? As a leading social work model in response to the existence
of oppression in practice, AOP aligns with a Social Trinitarian model to provide key insights for
equitable relations in social work practice. Ultimately, through examining the nature of
oppression, the benefits of anti-oppressive theory, and the dimensions of Social Trinitarianism, it
becomes evident that Trinitarian themes endorse AOP methods, which Christian social workers
can adopt to increase empowering practitioner-client relations.
Exclusion
Before considering the use of AOP one must consider the need for it. One must consider
the nature of oppression, how it relates to and is present within social work, and how AOP is a
model Christian social workers can adopt.
The nature of oppression infiltrates all aspects of life. Lena Dominelli (2002), a leading
social work theorist, defines oppression as relations that divide people into dominant or superior
groups and subordinate or inferior ones. These relations of domination consist of the systematic
devaluing of the attributes and contributions of those deemed inferior, and their exclusion from
the social resources available to those in the dominant group (p. 8). Exclusion, which ultimately
results from oppression, is a significant concern for social workers.
Theologian Miroslav Volf speaks considerably to the nature of exclusion and injustice in
his book, Exclusion and Embrace. When humans experience a perceived threat to their personal
identities and lack the ability to maintain and affirm a unique identity, they exclude others by
contrasting themselves against a constructed, and inferior, identity of the other (Volf, 1996). To
better understand this, consider condemnation. According to psychologists, people who form
patterns of condemnation frequently do it to enhance their own self-esteem because blaming or
criticizing another person makes ones own qualities and behaviors appear better or superior
(Hull & Kirst-Ashman, 2009, p. 312). Furthermore, Dominelli (2002) suggests that the very
nature of identity formation includes understanding ones identity in relation to another. This
process is often evaluative, where the individual ends up measuring him/herself in a hierarchy
against the other based on the personal values he/she holds. Consequently, Dominelli (2002)
argues, hierarchy results in one identity or trait being regarded as superior to the other, thus
creating an us-them dynamic resulting in division and posing risk for oppression.
An additional component of exclusion and identity formation relates to how individuals
analyze their identities based on how they conform to larger societal expectations. As Volf
(1996) explains, people are uncomfortable with anything that blurs accepted boundaries,
disturbs our identities, and disarranges our symbolic cultural maps (p.78). Exclusion occurs
when individuals are either accommodated or rejected by societys standards (for example,
consider xenophobia or stigma against single mothers as deviating from the traditional family
model). Thereby, exclusion acts as a way to perpetuate the othering process which confirms
unequal social relations (Dominelli, 2002, p. 39). Moreover, identity includes many cross-
sections including dimensions of age, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation,
physical appearance, and more, which may jointly result in a dynamic and complex form of
oppression. Lastly, the role of identity formation in oppression is universal. From a Christian
standpoint, oppression aligns with a Reformed view of the fallen nature of manhumans both
experience and perpetuate it (Newman, Suarez, & Reed, 2008).
The concept of oppression and exclusion concerns social workers because it opposes
values of self-determination and respect for the dignity and worth of all people (NASW, 1996).
Christian social workers must not only consider its existence in society but also its existence in
the very nature of social work practice. Acknowledging that identity formation and power play
an important role in oppressive practice, social workers must realize their professional identities
are tied to power, which can play an influential and sometimes unconscious role in causing
oppression.
Recognizing the power associated with the social work profession can be an
uncomfortable realization, especially considering the various anti-oppressive ethics which seek
to guide its practice. As Dominelli (2002) attests, for social workers to identify themselves as
the oppressors can cause feelings of paralysis and guilt, especially where it is difficult for the
individual concerned to extricate him or herself from [the] privileged status (p. 46).
Nevertheless, best practice methods include acknowledging these power structures and
addressing them at the following two levels. First, practitioners must explore to what degree their
personal social status aligns with the dominant social status of who holds power in regard to
policy decisions and accepted societal norms (Newman et al, 2008). What structural inequalities
does ones lifestyle or very class reinforce? In reference to the population group the practitioner
works with, how does the practitioners lifestyle impact oppression faced by that population
group on a micro, mezzo, or macro level? For example, it is crucial for the practitioner and client
to consider the role of race in a therapeutic relationship if one is from a dominant race/ethnicity
and the other from a minority group. This recognition encompasses being aware and resistant to
reinforcing hegemonic value systems and ways of knowing and viewing the world which may
further disadvantage the client (Dominelli, 2002, p. 92).
Second, practitioners must examine to what extent they practice authoritative work. In
its nature as a helping profession, social work has the potential to be paternalistic in that the role
of the social worker is often to help or bestow knowledge on a vulnerable client group (Pitner &
Sakamoto, 2005). Dominelli (2002) critiques the traditional approach of viewing a client as
passively requiring the knowledge and skills of the practitioner. She argues that identifying
clients in need as defective, percolates this configuration of the person and sets the context for
power-over dynamics to be (re)produced rather than egalitarian ones (Dominelli, 2002, p. 98).
After all, Pitner and Sakamoto (2005) raise an interesting pointwho knows more about
oppression, those who teach it, or those who live it? (p. 439).
Social workers must acknowledge their roles as having the potential to perpetuate
oppression in practice, primarily through homogenizing tendencies around client groups and
treating clients with the hope of outcomes rooted in personal values ingrained in the social
workers identity. For example, a social worker may unconsciously promote a nuclear family
model as a best outcome through reinforcing prescribed gender roles around custody and
parenting issues (Dominelli, 2002, p.51). Social work can also be oppressive through what
Dominelli (2002) refers to as the acquisition of information approach. This concept refers to a
practitioners aim to gain cultural competency through educating her/himself on a particular
identity group. For example, the social worker learns key facts about the other as if those cultural
identities are static, which reinforces the social worker, rather than the client, as the expert
(Dominelli, 2002).
In addition, this way of creating space for the other rarely considers how the social
workers identity relates to the clients identity (Dominelli, 2002). Exposure through education
does not eliminate power dividesrather, in naming or viewing the other as different, [social
workers] affirm their own identity as the norm, and fail to appreciate the significance of its
interactive capacity and exclusivity (Dominelli, 2002, p. 53). Dominelli (2002) contests that
through the process of consciously or unconsciously applying stereotypes, social workers deny a
clients agency and self-determination, including his/her capacity to contest culture or engage in
its creation and recreation (p.53). Anti-oppressive writers have written against modern theory
endorsing social work practice as neutral in respect to social bias, stating that it remains
embedded within a white, middle class perspective (Vanderwoerd, 2009). Social workers must
examine how practice may unconsciously reinforce marginalization. When practitioners strive to
allow client self-determination in practice without examining the influence of personal values
and biases in guiding client engagement, social workers may be reinforcing marginalizing
tendencies, even when it would be difficult to identify it as such (Coholic & Todd, 2007).
Oppressive Identities
Despite the collaboration and empowerment that occurs in social work, practitioners
cannot disregard the presence of personal identities as reinforcing oppressive structures and
encounters. As promoted by Newman et al. (2008), deconstruction of how dominant discourses
are shaped, whose interests social workers serve and whose they may subjugate and the exposure
of the marginalized perspective, is an essential part of understanding power dynamics and the
risk of reinforced oppression (p. 409). A commitment to social justice in social work practice
also involves personal reflection and responsibility beyond structural and societal advocacy.
Anti-oppressive theory, a post-modern perspective drawing on themes from feminist,
constructivist, ecological, and system theories, provides a social work model in reaction to
oppressive and dominating discourse in practice as further described below (Sakamoto & Pitner,
2005).
The Anti-Oppressive Model
In social work, the anti-oppressive model aims to function and promote equal, non-
oppressive social relations between various identities. As Dominelli (2002) defines it, in
challenging established truths about identity, anti-oppressive practice seeks to subvert the
stability of universalized biological representations of social division to both validate diversity
and enhance solidarity based on celebrating difference amongst peoples (p.39). Traditionally
and still today, this model analyzes and advocates against macro levels of oppression. It remains
dedicated to principles of social justice, which is also upheld in NASW values, by
acknowledging diversity within oppression and considering the intersection of the isms (Pitner
& Sakamoto, 2005). However, progressive AOP models emphasize social justice against
oppressive practice at the micro level through analyzing the sociological and psychological
components of oppression. A fundamental aspect of this analysis is through the discipline of
critical consciousness. Newman et al. (2008) explain critical consciousness as the reflective and
critical process of challenging domination on a personal, interpersonal, and structural level. It
is a deconstruction of ones stories or accounts of practice in which [the social worker] works
towards identifying [his/her] assumptions (theories or construction about power) and changing
these along more empowering lines (Newman et al., 2008, p.409). Pitner and Sakamoto (2005)
outline two main methods for accomplishing critical consciousness. First, they endorse
standpoint theory in which practitioners are called to examine personal social identity and status
to gain self-awareness on their inherent biases. Second, social workers must be aware of their
professional training schemas through which they consider and interpret information within
practice (Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005). Anti-oppressive social work as a schema therefore guides
[social workers] to listen for oppression in practice with individuals, society, and structures
(Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005, p. 443). In turn, practitioners advocate against oppression through
social work practice by promoting increased respect for the inherent dignity and worth of all
people, and social justice (NASW, 1996). Acknowledging NASW values, along with the
importance of human relationships, remains an integral part of building empowering client-
practitioner relationships (NASW, 1996).
AOP & Christianity
Anti-oppressive practice remains an important model for the progressive implementation
of social work values; however, Christian social workers face the challenge of balancing the
post-modern approach with the modern truths fundamental to the Christian faith. Coholic and
Todd (2007) consider the compatibility of Christianity and AOP. They state that historically,
social work and religion have been closely tied. Historical examination reveals that religious
interventions have contoured social work as a practice of beneficence and self-sacrifice in which
people, not institutions and cultures, are the object of change (Coholic & Todd, 2007, p.9).
Moreover, they question whether Christian social workers have the ability to separate
fundamental religious values from impacting their ability to uphold client self-determination
(Coholic & Todd, 2007). Especially in response to the gradual academic and societal shift in
ideas on spirituality and sexuality, the authors question whether Christians, who profess to
uphold some kind of orthodoxy or right practice, inherently create exclusion or self-separation
as a way to preserve their tradition as truth (Coholic & Todd, 2007, p.8). Is it possible then for
Christians to maintain faith values and the truth of Christ while carrying out anti-oppressive
practice? Coholic and Todd (2007) may argue no, however, based on the examination of
Trinitarian themes, anti-oppressive social work does actually correspond with Christian ideas on
biblical human relationships, as will be demonstrated further on.
Before one considers the relation between AOP and Trinitarian themes, it is valuable to
contemplate whether AOP is a model Christian social workers should follow in the first place.
Several critiques against AOP exist and warrant explanation. First, AOP is criticized as being
post-modern and subjective in its attempt to validate people and views in an effort to remain un-
oppressive. As Volf (1996) promotes, extreme post-modern subjectivity can itself result in
oppression since it generalizes new forms of exclusion by the very opposition to exclusionary
practices (p.64). A subjective view of exclusion results in non-order where there is no clear
boundary on what is permissible or not in society, resulting in chaos (Volf, 1996, p. 64). Second,
another limitation of this model is the lack of consensus on a clear definition of AOP due to the
number of dynamic perspectives on what oppression encompasses (Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005).
Responses against oppression vary. For example, some see it as getting rid of all the isms;
others focus on a hierarchy of oppression; others view it as eliminating all power differentials;
still others see it as incorporating empowerment approaches (Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005). Lastly,
the AOP model is criticized for being too idealistic or discouragingly lofty, especially
considering one of its main objectives is the eradication of all forms of structural oppression,
making it largely unattainable for social workers to fully carry out or measure progress due to the
complexities of structural inequalities (Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005, p.438).
In response to the critique against post-modernism, AOP is less about determining truths
and values about society than it is about the greater concept of human relationships and the
challenge of balancing the reality of post-modernism in Christian social work practice.
Ultimately, social workers must practice in accordance to NASW ethics which identify values to
uphold in response to ambiguous ethical situations (Vanderwoerd, 2009). Though the concrete
definition of AOP is up for debate, there are key components fundamental to all the varieties of
the modelnamely, that exclusion and oppression exist and it relates to personal identities and
relationships to other human beings. In addition, though AOP remains idealistic in its attempts to
eradicate oppression in social work and society, it challenges apathy against injustice and
oppression by working toward the social work value and Reformed practice of social justice, the
opposite of oppression, in practice settings. Social workers are not alone in working against the
extensive problems in society, but rather create a task-force of individuals striving for more
just relations and structures (Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005).
Examining the Trinity as a Model for AOP
Back to the question at hand: Can Christianity provide a model of how interpersonal
relationships fit with anti-oppressive principles? The answer is yes, and the explanation lies
within an analysis of Trinitarian theology.
The Trinity, a fundamental aspect of Christian theology, has been historically debated by
theologians regarding its role in understanding Christian discipleship. To understand how the
Trinity can be a model for just and equitable social work relationships, specifically from a social
Trinitarian viewpoint as is considered in this paper, one must first consider its historical and
theological basis.
Historically there have been various changing approaches to the Trinitys place in
Christian scholarship. In fact, during the Enlightenment, thinkers such as Kant and
Schleiermacher largely dismissed the Trinity as a valuable aspect of Christian doctrine
(Seamands, 2005). The Trinity was viewed as a complex, opaque doctrine, a reality which
deterred its ethical implications for the modern Western church (Thompson, 1996). A Trinitarian
renaissance, along with renewed controversy on its meaning, only arrived in the twentieth
century with the emergence of postmodernism and the work of theologians such as Rahner and
Barth. Despite renewed controversy, this renaissance highlighted the Trinity as fundamental to
the Christian Doctrine of God and thereby imperative for theological study (Thompson, 1996).
The emergence of postmodernism in the twentieth century brought with it a push for a more
relational and dynamic understanding of principles, including theological ones. This has
encouraged dialogue between the two approaches to Trinitarian theology established in the
eleventh century, which have traditionally separated Western and Eastern Trinitarian thinkers.
The first approach, embraced by Western theology, is rooted in Latin Trinitarianism and fathered
by the works of Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (Rea, 2009). Within this camp, the Trinity is
approached with an overwhelming unity claim tended to efface the personal distinctions of
Father, Son, and Spirit, leaving many with the acute (and still popular) impression that in
confessing the Trinity, one was affirming the three persons were also at the same time one
(person) (Thompson, 1996, p. 10). As Cornelius Plantinga Jr. explains, for Augustine the
Father is great, the Son is great, and the Holy Spirit is great, and yet there are not three
greatnesses, nor three greats, nor even three who are great, but only one great thing…in the
Trinity each of Father, Son, and Spirit is identical with this one thing, with this one divine
essence (Plantinga, 1988, p. 45).
The twentieth century shift brought increased dialogue and Western consideration of the
second Trinitarian approach developed by the Cappadocian Fathers. This traditionally Eastern
approach considers a social or relational approach to the Trinity by examining the threeness of
God as a way to understand Gods identity (Kinnison, 2008). To understand the persons of the
Trinity, one must consider how the Trinitarian persons inter-relate in its identity as one divine
substance, which is the essence of Social Trinitarianism (Kinnison, 2008). Plantinga explains
that a social view of the Trinity accounts for the Trinity as a transcendent society or community
of three fully personal and fully divine entities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These
three are wonderfully unified by their common divinity, by the possession by each of the whole
divine essenceincluding, for instance, the properties of everlastingness and sublimely great
knowledge, love, and glory (Plantinga, 1988, p. 50). An understanding of perichoresis, the
mutual indwelling and co-inherence of the persons of the Trinity, is a Greek term used by John
of Damascus to describe the inner-relation of the Trinity, and allows Christians to further
consider the concept of Trinitarian unity within Social Trinitarianism (Kinnison, 2008, p.264).
As described by the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, the divine modes of Being mutually
condition and permeate one another so completely that one is always in the other two. Trinitarian
perichoresis begins with the unity of natures or a strict consubstantiality and affirms a reciprocal
interrelation. Each person has being in each other without any coalescence (2001, p. 907).
Re-emergence of the Trinitys importance did not just occur because it is considered an
essential tenet of the confessional tradition; the Trinity is now being declared indispensable
ethically [and] practically (Thompson, 1996, p. 7). Examining the Trinity, specifically from a
social perspective, provides unique insights on practical implications of Christian discipleship,
and on major considerations such as freedom, inclusion, dialogue, and issues of justice
(Thompson, 1996). As the perspective considered in this paper, a social view of the Trinity has
become an embraced and preferred approach for many theologians. A social analogy not only
offers a much more coherent account of the Trinity, [it] better clarifies a fundamental vision of
[a Trinitarian] God (Thompson, 1996, p. 45).
Naturally however, there is no universally accepted theology and a social perspective on the
Trinity brings its own critiques. Therefore, before examining how a Social Trinitarian theology
applies to anti-oppressive practice, it is important to consider some of the limitations of this
theological approach.
Rea (2009) critiques Social Trinitarianism as an inadequate way to understand the
Trinity by arguing that a social model relies on social analogies between the Trinity to materials
that are concretely distinct yet inter-related, promoting the Trinity more as a social relation than
one, unified, divine relation between the Godhead. However, the writings of the Cappadocian
Fathers demonstrate that the social model of the Trinity does indeed uphold monotheism. The
Cappadocian Fathers emphasized relation as a unifying element of the Trinity; they understood
the Trinity as perfectly unified in communion so that he who receives the Father virtually
receives at the same time both the Son and the Spirit (Pembroke, 2004, p.355). Moreover, as
Moltmann (1981) describes, the unity of the divine tri-unity lies in the union of the Father, the
Son, and the Spirit, not in their numerical unity. It lies in their fellowship, not in the identity of a
single subject (p.95). Volf (1996) promotes that a social understanding of the Trinity is actually
preferable, opposed to the Latin Trinitarian or unipersonal perspective. He argues that the
unipersonal perspective understands God as an indissoluble subject and as one God in
threefold repetition, which is too similar to the logic of the same to fully understand the
complexity of Gods reality as radically multiple, radically relational, and infinitely active
(p.176).
Nevertheless, systemic theology properly includes both dogmatics and ethics
(Thompson, 1996, p. 9). A Social Trinitarian theology holds merit and the study of the unified
Trinity can surely enable better discernment for the presence of unity in the diversity of human
relations (Kinnison, 2008). The Trinity is the essence of Gods nature, and is consequently
integral to Christian faith. As Volf affirms, as baptism into the Triune name attests, beginning
the Christian pilgrimage does not simply mean to respond to Gods summons but to enter into
command with the Triune God; to end the Christian pilgrimage does not mean simply to have
accomplished an earthly task but to enter perfect communion with the triune God (Volf, 2006,
p. 3). Communion with God presupposes a certain degree of likeness. There is an affinity
between human beings and God and, therefore between the way Christiansand by extension all
human beingsought to live and the way God is (Volf, 2006, p. 4). Therefore, if one considers
Jesus words about the Sermon on the Mount to be…as your heavenly Father is (Matt 5:48), is
the consideration of the Trinity not an imperative relation to examine? And to what degree does
the Trinitarian relationship, its themes and implications, pertain to humans?
Christians can seek to model their lives according to the perfect relation of the Trinity,
while acknowledging their inability to fully achieve this due to the sinful nature of mankind. As
Paul describes in Romans 7:22-23, For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in
my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin
that dwells in my members (Seamands, 2005). Without being polar in response by either
copying God in all respects, which is impossible, or claiming there are no analogues to God in
creation at all, Christians bear the responsibility to continually look to the Lord and his
strength, seek[ing] his face always as a way to live in the redemption and manifested shalom of
Gods continuing restoration of creation (Psalm 105:4; Kinnison, 2008, p. 263). As will be
explored next, Social Trinitarianism brings to light several themes to guide kingdom-building
relationships in practice: love, mutuality and equality, and openness to the other. These highlight
truths abo