Introducing Theology Proper Through the Unity and Multiplicity of God's Personhood

The starting point of this thread on the topic of Theology Proper is a 33-minute YouTube video of William Lane Craig presenting The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity at the 2015 National Religious Broadcasters Convention. I am not endorsing Craig's position, provocative as it is, but simply taking his awe-inspiring presentation as the starting point for a hopefully long and constructive conversation about the nature of Theology Proper. 

Here is a good initial definition of Theology Proper from Wikipedia:

Theology proper is the sub-discipline of systematic theology which deals specifically with the being, attributes and works of God. In Christian theology, and within the Trinitarian setting, this includes Paterology (the study of God the Father), Christology (the study of Jesus Christ) and Pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit).

One quibble. I am not sure I would call Theology Proper a sub-discipline of systematic theology as much as a meta-discipline or ongoing summation of the field, at least from my beginning theologian's point of view.

Now to jump right in regarding Craig's handling of the multiplicity of God's personhood, what happens if we start not with a Trinitarian conception of this multiplicity, which seems rather minimalist, but rather pick up from a much more maximalist anthropological perspective, on the basis of the imago Dei of Genesis 1:27? "So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (NLT). Should we not perhaps argue from the imago Dei that every human being is an expression of the personhood of God? 

If we can and should so argue, this means we can in some sense approach the female nature of God's being, attributes and works by relating to Her holiness through the multiplicity of all the female human persons that have ever lived.

From this perspective, the divinization of Mary in the Muslim misconception of the Trinity, as Craig presents it (cf. Quran 5:116), is hardly surprising. On the contrary, it seems entirely natural and rather to be expected. Indeed, Craig's shock at the apparent Muslim misconception of the Trinity may strike some feminist theologians as ironically patriarchal. Should Materology really be excluded from Systematic Christian Theology Proper, if Christian men intend to school Muslim men, with all due respect for the golden rule, on possible defects in the Islamic theological compass? Should male Christian theologians not first remove the beam from their own eyes?

While I appreciate the necessity, sincerity, and rigor of his argument, I do wonder if Craig approaches Islam with enough of the golden rule in mind. Christianity also has its track record of collaboration with worldly power, for good and ill. Pastor John Piper, for his part, disagrees pointedly on God's love for the sinner in a way that must sound positively Islamic to Craig's ears (cf. God Loves the Sinner, But Hates the Sin?)

We are all made in the image of God and run great spiritual risk when we stop seeing enough of God reflected in our fellow human beings. Surely God has created Jews, Christians, and Muslims to complement and illuminate one another?

Craig uses the triangle to illustrate the unity of God's being and the multiplicity of God's personhood. This leads me to imagine a Unitarian circle circumscribing Craig's Trinitarian triangle. The 8.2 billion points on the circumference of the Unitarian circle are all of the people now alive on Earth, each one a mirror of God. (This number should be 100-120 billion if we want to include all members of the human species that have ever lived). The Unitarian circle - or better yet the circumpunct - teaches the unity and multiplicity of God's personhood.

Now if we are determined to speak of a Trinity, why not God the Cardinal Creator, God the Fixed Maintainer, and God the Mutable Destroyer? Is this not equally logical and Biblical?

If we object to the exclusion of the Father and the Son, why not argue for a Holy Quaternity: God the Father, Mother, Son and Daughter? This would be more in harmony with a mystical Jewish view of YHWH. There are also some who believe the Holy Spirit is feminine in gender, not masculine. This would give us Paterology (Father), Materology (Mother), Christology (Son), and Pneumatology (Daughter) in a Quaternary Messianic Theology Proper. 

By raising all of these questions, I don't mean to suggest that the Holy Trinity of orthodox Christianity lacks empirical reality. I am a man of many minds (Sun in Aquarius; Moon in Gemini; Pluto and Uranus in Libra). My goal is not to disprove the orthodox Holy Trinity, but to magnify God by taking the imago Dei of humanity more fully into account when approaching the multiplicity of God's personhood.

To sum:

1. God as Unity of Being
2. God as Sexual Complementarity (Female and Male, Circle and Square)
3. God as Modal Trinity (Creator, Sustainer, Destroyer)
4. God as Cruciform Quaternity (Father, Mother, Christ, Holy Spirit)
5. God as Collective Human Intelligence (Imago Dei)

Now I am curious to see what follows.