Prayer, particularity, and the subject of divine personhood: who are Brummer and Barth invoking when they pray?

The title "Trinitarian Theology after Barth" is a deceptively simple one. With the reference to trinitarian theology it appears to have learned from Barth that the doctrine of the Trinity is no mere dogmatic addendum, merely another thing confessed. But what does "after Barth" mean? It can be taken in a chronological sense that has theological significance for the regulation of trinitarian theology, a trinitarian theology that has learned to ask who God is in some manner through Barth's trinitarian reflections. On the other hand, there is a chronological sense that refuses to do its trinitarian theology through him. Worries about whether Barth has truly engaged with the pluriformity, or the very trinitarianness, of God in his account of the Trinity could understand the "after Barth" as a way of returning threefold difference to theology over against Barth's perceived indulgence in singularising divine subjectivity. Even so, it is important not to reduce the plurality of accounts of "Trinitarian Theology after Barth." This book's title, then, cannot demand anything less than an attentiveness to, and honesty in assessing, a whole host of complex issues.