This is an extremely thorough exploration of the conceptual similarities between the Trinitarian theology developed by Karl Barth after the First World War, drawing on modern (and psychological) anthropology, and the ontological articulation of the Holy Trinity by the Cappadocian Fathers, relating both of these understandings to the Being-as-Communion theology which has become well known as a result of the work, in particular, of John Zizioulas. It is easy to see conflict between the psychological preconceptions of the modern world and the philosophical preconceptions of the Patristic world - but what is extremely interesting in this book is the way in which Paul Collins derives what we have all learnt to call the 'relational Trinity' of Greek theology from a specific reaction against monism; and Barth's appropriation of a degree of relationalism into his understanding of God as a response to the 'static' concept of divinity which had characterised conventional Protestantism (and arguably western theology altogether since the time when Augustine claimed not to understand a difference between ousia and hypostasis) - particularly as a consequence of that Protestant establishment's acquiescence in the face of war.
This book contains very thorough examination of the similarities and differences between these different versions of Trinitarianism: it does not claim that Barthian language of 'event-conceptuality', for instance, is precisely the same as Patristic understanding of 'essence-and-substance' (very clearly they are not the same - they come from entirely different conceptual worlds) - but it is an extremely interesting account of the way in which some kind of relationalism seemed to Barth to be the only adequate theological response to war: although it goes way beyond the subject of Paul Collins' book, this groping towards relationalism and away from static abstraction is echoed time and again in postmodern (and, indeed, post-Auschwitz) Christianity. I think it is still legitimate to ask whether (as, for example, David Bradshaw implicitly does in his book, 'Aristotle East & West') the whole enterprise of western Christianity has a conceptual failing within it - but it is intriguing how many people are finding the ideas (albeit modified and messed around with) of Eastern Christianity to be a sensible source of insight and of help - not least in addressing the issues thrown up by our experiences of conflict and mutual antagonism. ( )