Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity (Baker Books, 2021).
This is not a review but more of a discussion about certain parts of Barrett's book.
Barrett's theological "saga" takes us back to the time when he intellectually digested Millard Erickson's Systematic Theology, a book that seeks to unfold theological concepts with rigorous logic. As Barrett studied theology more generally, but the Trinity more specifically, he learned the doctrine of God's triunity like one learns math or logic: he was taught that the Trinity is analogous to "a conundrum, even a problem, but one that could be solved with the proper formula" (page 26). Despite the apparent complexity of the Trinity doctrine, learning that God was triune seemed simple to Barrett, as long as one had the right theological heuristics or proper algorithms. Or so he thought.
However, as time proceeded, Barrett began to see that others had taught him the Trinity erroneously, as though it were some mathematical formula or worse, some conjured nonsense analogous to a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat. Another thing that bothered Barrett was that some people he respected did not accept the eternal generation of the Son idea, a belief that was echoed at Nicaea and elsewhere. Ironically, the ones who repudiated this belief the most were "respected" Evangelicals like W.L. Craig and John Feinberg: two reasons they eschew the eternal generation concept is its ostensible lack of scriptural support; furthermore, the eternal generation of the Son concept seems logically incoherent. Evangelical theologians/thinkers appear to believe that the idea does not make sense, yet Barrett finds it simple and evidently lucid.
The book Simply Trinity asks us to envision the three persons of the Trinity this way: the Father is unbegotten (the relation of paternity); the Son is eternally begotten (the relation of filiation), and the Holy Spirit is spirated like breath (the relation of spiration). Theologians call these relations, "relations of origins," but they're supposed to be eternal or timeless relations, having no beginning and no end. Barrett insists that if we considered the Holy Spirit to be God's "grandson," that would be weird. Weirder yet to me is to say God (regardless of the person) has/had an origin: it's also weird for me that the Holy Spirit is supposed to be a divine person, but the Spirit is spirated like breath, which makes "his" relation of origin sound impersonal. Moreover, what does it mean for someone to be generated timelessly or spirated timelessly? And what does "three modes of subsistence" mean? Maybe Barrett's book answers these questions to some people's satisfaction. In my dissertation, I ultimately argued that all of this Father and Son talk for the divine, is metaphorical anyway.
While Barrett appears to be flabbergasted by the Evangelical rejection of the eternal generation doctrine, he professes that there is something even worse. After relating a story about where he grew up, and a bookstore he visited, Barrett tells us what he found to be so shocking. As he started to peruse his theology books one day, he came across an author who claimed the Trinity doctrine is "our master plan for politics." In particular, the writer argued that the Trinity doctrine teaches us the best form of society is socialism in which all persons are equal. But the next book he grabbed made a case for ecumenism, based on the Trinity: in other words, religions can remain diverse but they need to cooperate with one another in putative imitation of the Trinity. Finally, another writer used the Trinity doctrine as an endorsement for pluralism whereas other books argued in favor of ecological concerns or feminism, all based on the Trinity. Dare we mention that other books made a plea for egalitarianism with respect to male-female relations while others made a case for homosexuality, again, all based on the Trinity doctrine. How did all these books affect Barrett? To quote him: "Socialism, ecumenism, pluralism, environmentalism, egalitarianism, complementarianism, homosexuality . . . as I put the books down, my theological soul felt a little nauseous" (page 37).
The disturbing part of all these developments for Barrett is that theologians--mostly Evangelicals--were turning the Trinity doctrine into the proverbial wax nose. He felt that the doctrine was being manipulated this way and that, for sociopolitical ends rather than for theological ends. He complains that some are turning theology into anthropology. Now I wouldn't say these problems are strictly Trinitarian because Bultmann was accused of doing the same thing, yet I don't view him as an ardent Trinitarian. But what these writers did with the Trinity vexed and pained Barrett, which likely moved him to write Simply Trinity. What does Barrett think will solve this sad state of affairs? He urges a return to "Nicene orthodoxy."
Barrett is aware that no one verse in the Bible spells out the Trinity doctrine: that leads him to point out that Trinitarians need help since "heretics" have and do (according to him) distort the Bible. We supposedly need church tradition to understand the Bible and, more specifically, to grasp the Trinity: that includes creeds and writers from the early church. However, he evidently thinks the Bible is the final authority for the ecclesia (sola scriptura rather than solo scriptura). But Barrett quotes a number of Pauline verses to establish his point that the apostles passed on "tradition" to the church, and this tradition was supposedly "trinitarian through and through." Barrett wants to work his way back to a Trinity that is "unmanipulated," one that accords with the doctrine of divine simplicity, but still makes a clear distinction between the tres personae trinitatis.
Each point that Barrett raises can be and has been challenged. It seems that only a revised account of ecclesiastical history can maintain that the early followers of Jesus were "trinitarian through and through." The Trinity doctrine developed over time; and even when church writers began to talk about God's supposed triunity, even they made sharp distinctions between God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. Just read Justin Martyr, Origen of Alexandria, Tertullian, Novatian of Rome, and Hippolytus.
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
This book has popped up on my raydar a few times. Does he have an actual model of the trinity?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Barrett is not constructing his own model of the Trinity: he tries to correct other views of the Trinity and advocates Nicene orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, the one thing I'll agree with Barret about, is the political usage of the trinity doctrine (from liberals like Moltmann or conservatives like Grudem) strikes me as silly and unserious. One's doctrine of God should be kept away from petty political issues. Of course, God's revelation has (meta)political implications (i.e. the Kingdom of God, pacifism, neutrality, koinonia, etc etc), but when speaking about God in himself I find it cheap and unfitting to try and argue from God in himself to political points.
ReplyDeleteYes, arguing that way is highly subjective and it's open to many forms of abuse. Some liberation theologians made similar arguments at one time to promote their ideas about political freedom: even violence was seen as acceptable to achieve political ends. How counter that runs to Matthew 26:52.
ReplyDeleteFor an example of what I'm talking about, see https://www.academia.edu/5085722/The_Trinity_as_Liberation_An_Analysis_of_Leonardo_Boff_s_Theological_Imagination
Agreed, much liberation theology has basically turned theology into just a thin covering for politics.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame Barrett doesn't provide a model; I think if one is gonna write on the trinity one should attempt to make some sense of it.
When I say he doesn't provide a model, I mean that Barrett doesn't introduce his own version of the Trinity, but he tries to correct those who reject eternal generation and he attempts to show how easy it is, to understand the Trinity. While he's not trying to dispel the mysterious elements of the Trinity, I do think he believes his book sheds light on the doctrine.
ReplyDeleteQuestion some ask.
ReplyDeleteSince the apostles applied certain scriptures like Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 that quote from the Old Testament about YHVH and applied it to Jesus doesn't that make Jesus YHVH or equal to him?
Thoughts?
Let's take Acts 2:21. That verse is not clearly applied to Jesus and the context makes a clear distinction between Jesus and God. Just start at Acts 2:22: Jesus is a man sent by God and raised from the dead by God. Besides, applying the same verses to distinct persons don't make them equal or on the same plane.
ReplyDeleteJames Dunn on Joel 2:32/Romans 10:13 (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? Page 105):
ReplyDelete"So the fact that Paul refers the same verse to the exalted Jesus presumably means for Paul either that Jesus is Yahweh, or, more likely, that Yahweh has bestowed his own unique saving power on the Lord who sits on his right side,
or that the exalted Jesus is himself the embodiment as well as the executive of that saving power."
So there can be different interpretive possibilities, but see also Psalm 110:1.
A brother made a wonderful video called "Are Trinitarians Changing the Bible?"
ReplyDelete👇🏾
https://youtu.be/3PMGfNbZ2-Q?si=0ItMvxT0SY0TGNMv
Thanks, I do watch that brother's videos and enjoy them.
ReplyDeleteYou mention Barrett’s reflection that early in his theological studies, the Trinity was presented to him as a complex problem solvable through formulas or logic. Later, he began to understand the doctrine more deeply, recognizing that it is not reducible to mathematical precision. While you critique the doctrine as convoluted and based on Greek philosophy, it's important to remember that complexity does not necessarily equate to illogicality.
ReplyDeleteThe doctrine of the Trinity indeed challenges human reason because it concerns the infinite nature of God. However, divine mysteries (such as the Incarnation or the Trinity) are often beyond full human comprehension, as affirmed by both Scripture and theological tradition. Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us that God's ways and thoughts are far higher than ours. The mystery inherent in the Trinity is not irrational, but rather suprarational—beyond what finite human logic can fully grasp.
Barrett’s understanding that the Trinity should not be reduced to simplistic formulas reflects the balanced Christian perspective: we are called to faith that seeks understanding (fides quaerens intellectum), but we must also humbly acknowledge that some aspects of God's nature transcend our intellectual limitations.
You question the concept of eternal generation, mentioning that respected Evangelicals like William Lane Craig and John Feinberg reject it due to its perceived lack of scriptural support and its logical incoherence. However, the doctrine of eternal generation is deeply rooted in both Scripture and the early church fathers’ writings.
The Nicene Creed (325 AD) affirmed the Son as "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." This doctrine was developed not as a result of philosophical speculation but as a response to heresies that threatened to undermine the biblical teaching on Christ’s divinity (e.g., Arianism).
Theologians like Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers defended eternal generation to protect the biblical truth of Christ’s co-equality and co-eternity with the Father. The eternal generation of the Son explains the relational distinction between the Father and the Son without implying inequality or subordination in essence.
You express discomfort with the concept of the Holy Spirit’s procession (spirated like breath), which you find impersonal. However, the procession of the Holy Spirit (based on John 15:26, where Jesus says the Spirit "proceeds from the Father") is understood within the context of Trinitarian relationships, not in a way that diminishes the Holy Spirit’s personhood. While the term "spirated" may sound metaphorical, it is used to describe the eternal relationship between the Spirit, the Father, and the Son—highlighting the Spirit’s distinct personhood within the one Godhead.