Notes/Commentary on "Simply Trinity" by Matthew Barrett

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.