Scan barcode
A review by shelfreflectionofficial
MonoThreeism: An Absurdly Arrogant Attempt to Answer All the Problems of the Last 2000 Years in One Night at a Pub by JD Lyonhart
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
I think a blurb on the back of the book sums the tone of this book up well:
“apologetic integrity cloaked in irreverent honesty. It reads like the Screwtape Letters baptized in the blood of Captain Jack Sparrow. This is a rare jewel that will make you laugh as hard as it will make you think.”
I’ve had this book on my shelf for almost a year but I finally got to it and I’m glad I did!
I really wasn’t sure what to expect with such a unique title. Is it possible to talk about the Trinity with humor? Well I guess there is modalism, Patrick…
And I was definitely intrigued to get all the answers I’ve ever needed in just a short 150 pages.
Lyonhart does not seek to necessarily prove anything as much as propose that the rationale of the Trinity makes as much sense as our existence. Then he carries this same logic through a series of other common objections to God/Christianity.
While philosophy is not for everyone, the formatting of this book is a brilliant way to keep the reader engaged and understanding (mostly) what he’s talking about.
The entire book is a dialogue between three characters— Vlad, Idi, and Mira— in a pub. Idi is questioning his faith and wants to throw in the towel because everything is meaningless. Vlad needs him to preach at the university in the morning so he makes a bet that if he can answer his questions then Idi has to follow through with his commitment. Mira is the barkeep who joins in and becomes the unofficial referee.
By using a dialogue format, it gives us small chunks at a time with someone else doing the questioning and being devil’s advocate for us, making us feel like we’re getting a full and honest explanation.
If you really don’t like philosophical musings, you probably won’t find this book particularly enjoyable, but if you are even a little interested, I’d give it a try. With the exception of chapter 4, I think you’d be surprised what you can understand. Or at the very least able follow his general logic.
For the very philosophical readers, the end notes provide extra information for your brain to grasp. Some were helpful to me and others I just accepted that I wasn’t going to get without more training in philosophical methods and histories and that’s okay!
There is wit and humor with the bantering of the friends. Some of it feels forced or over the top, but at the same time, I’m not too mature to enjoy a good pun or ‘your mom’ joke. Be forewarned, though, that irreverent is the appropriate term; there’s some allusion to improperness (some are movie quotes) and a couple uses of the word ‘bloody’ (as used in British slang).
I’ll give you the bare bones of his argument (partly for my own recollection later when I want to remember what this book was about), but I will offer the disclaimer that it is possible I’m explaining this poorly or incorrectly— sorry J.D. if I’m slaughtering your proposition— so the only way you will know is by reading the book…
Idi’s issue with the Trinity is that it doesn’t make sense. It is a contradiction. The Trinity can’t be both three and one.
So Vlad begins the discussion with the origins of the universe, giving us three possible options:
- Becoming: the universe (or the cause of the universe) is infinite, past and future, and has always existed; each cause continually causing the cause, etc; temporal
- Being: something that isn’t ‘becoming’ (changing) but simply ‘is’; an eternal creator created an eternal universe; outside of time (atemporal)
- Both: (see below)
While there are many other theories about the origins of the universe, they all basically fall into these three categories.
“It’s literally either A, non-A, or Both. Logically.”
The problem with just Becoming is that an infinite regression doesn’t make sense to our finite minds:
“If the universe had always existed, an infinite amount of time would have to have occurred before this moment. History would never have reached this point.”
The problem with just Being is that it’s outside of time and we are clearly in time:
“it never begins or stops doing anything because that would require time, and so whatever it is doing it is just stuck doing eternally.”
We know we, and the universe, aren’t eternal so this can’t be the right theory either. We also know that we are doing and thinking things that happen in time, we are Becoming.
“So our universe of time cannot be eternal but must have been created. And whatever created our universe cannot stretch infinitely back but must be an eternal Being that is outside of time. And this timeless Being cannot be our universe itself, because we are clearly in time, so that would defy our mental lens of time. Thus, a timeless Being beyond our universe must have created our universe of time.”
But Being can’t “give birth” to Becoming because as soon as it starts to do something, it’s doing so in time.
“The third option is ‘Both’ of them. Both Being and Becoming teaming up to create the universe; an eternal Being that is also one with Becoming and so can begin to create in time. Something that is 100 percent Being, 100 percent Becoming, and 100 percent Both. Three and one… It would be outside of time and yet could create in time.”
A seeming contradiction, or paradox.
All three of these options for the origins of the universe “defy human understanding” yet we know one of them happened because we are here to talk about it.
Thus, it’s just as rational to believe in the seeming contradiction of the Trinity. The mystery of the universe is the same as the mystery of the Trinity.
“You cannot deny the Trinity for not making sense any more than you can deny your own existence.”
He then goes on to show how Jesus— the Son— is like the Becoming (temporal and transcendent), the Father is like the Being (atemporal and eternal), and the Spirit is the Both, somehow connecting the temporal to the atemporal, connecting our bodies with our souls.
We can look to verses like John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…All things were made through him”
and John 14:6 “I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Being and Becoming. No one can come to the Being without the Becoming.
When he talks about the Spirit, the unifying of them all, we get a conversation about a bearpig so you’re just going to have to read that one for yourself.
“the Spirit precedes from Both into one union.”
Much of the rest of the book is spent addressing all the objections or ‘But what about that…’ devil’s advocate questions.
There’s also a chapter spent on using this same logic to answer Idi’s other grievances like: the Incarnation, free will, the soul, the problem of evil, other religions, theology only being anthropology, meaninglessness, lack of diversity, and lack of female representation in the Trinity.
There were a few things that were missing from the book, but I believe they were not included intentionally in order to maintain the premise and structure of the book.
For example, when talking about other religions, for me the most logical place to go is the historic person of Jesus, his death and resurrection. The C.S. Lewis Trilemma of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. And Jesus can’t both be God and not be God so other major religions at their heart cannot all be true.
There was also no discussion of the Bible which is our source of Truth. But I understand this omission as Lyonhart was intending to stay in the philosophical, logic realm to defend his points.
So this book definitely has value but there are other things that need to be considered for a more wholistic look at the faith of Christianity and its doctrines.
J.D. Lyonhart is a professor at Lincoln Christian University and also co-hosts a podcast called Spiritually Incorrect which, from first impressions, seems to be conversations that combine spirituality, science, culture, and philosophy to ponder life’s questions.
Theologically, I don’t think I disagreed with anything presented in this book, but I’m not necessarily going to blanket endorse everything you might find on his channel. You’ll have to use your own discernment.
The one thing that I disagree with from this book was this statement:
“I just mean that if you wanted to start a religion in the middle East two thousand years ago, there was simply no way anyone was going to listen if Jesus was female. Now, Jesus radically elevated the status and treatment of women, but he was only able to do that and have others follow suit because he was a man. So is God literally male, or was that just the most effective way to communicate to a male-dominated culture?”
I agree that God is not gendered, but I think God coming in the form of man, Jesus, was an intentional choice by God who is not bound by ‘cultural limits’— after all, he is not just male in the Bible times, Jesus is eternally Jesus, resurrected in bodily form as a man. Plus it fits with the other language used throughout the Bible about male headship in the home and the church, as well as the church in general being the bride of Christ. I think there is intentionality there that we shouldn’t just write off as ‘well Jesus wouldn’t have been listened to if he was a woman so God had to be a man.’ I think that gives culture too much power over God’s ability to act and work.
But that’s just one thing and not something Lyonhart hit hard or long in the book.
Last few comments:
The chapter titles were great and the ending threw me for a loop. Probably because I was dealing with my kid’s potty training accident when I was reading it and so I had to go back and make sure I read it right. It was a nice little wrap-up.
I liked that though Lyonhart was talking about serious and profound things he didn’t take himself too seriously so it made a complex subject more accessible to the masses who don’t have academic training in philosophy.
I learned that our body replaces 98% of its atoms every 5-7 years. So when we think philosophically about who we are, we have to be more than our physical bodies. There is something outside of our atomic structure that gives us identity…. a soul.
Oh and I like the book title as well.
You can tell every part of the book was creatively intentional and I appreciate this final product that I’m sure took awhile to put together and pare down to accomplish what he set out to do.
Recommendation
Overall, this was a fun brain exercise that made a lot of sense. And I like things that make sense.
I am new to philosophical debates and so I had never considered this form of logic (besides that which I read in the book Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t which I would also very much recommend) and to apply it to so many different things was really cool to see how it is all woven together.
The Trinity is always a complex topic, but this was a really great way to not necessarily need to ‘prove’ the Trinity’s existence but to acknowledge that its rationale is the same as our very existence.
Even though it was dense at times, it didn’t feel dense because of the dialogue structure and really felt like I was just joining a conversation at a pub with my friends.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised by my enjoyment of this book because I didn’t know what I was getting into reading a theological book by an author I had never heard of.
It’s a short read, depending on how many times you might have to re-read a sentence or two, and is definitely worth the philosophical journey!
Further Reading:
He quotes from a lot of William Lane Craig’s writings on apologetics, time, and the cosmological argument if you want to read up on more of that.
I would also recommend the book I already linked in the review:
Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t by Gavin Ortlund which focuses on Christianity vs Naturalism and exploring how people aren’t really asking, ‘is Christianity true?’, but ‘is it good?’ But there is a chapter dedicated to the origins of the universe.
**Received a copy from the author in exchange for an honest review**
“apologetic integrity cloaked in irreverent honesty. It reads like the Screwtape Letters baptized in the blood of Captain Jack Sparrow. This is a rare jewel that will make you laugh as hard as it will make you think.”
I’ve had this book on my shelf for almost a year but I finally got to it and I’m glad I did!
I really wasn’t sure what to expect with such a unique title. Is it possible to talk about the Trinity with humor? Well I guess there is modalism, Patrick…
And I was definitely intrigued to get all the answers I’ve ever needed in just a short 150 pages.
Lyonhart does not seek to necessarily prove anything as much as propose that the rationale of the Trinity makes as much sense as our existence. Then he carries this same logic through a series of other common objections to God/Christianity.
While philosophy is not for everyone, the formatting of this book is a brilliant way to keep the reader engaged and understanding (mostly) what he’s talking about.
The entire book is a dialogue between three characters— Vlad, Idi, and Mira— in a pub. Idi is questioning his faith and wants to throw in the towel because everything is meaningless. Vlad needs him to preach at the university in the morning so he makes a bet that if he can answer his questions then Idi has to follow through with his commitment. Mira is the barkeep who joins in and becomes the unofficial referee.
By using a dialogue format, it gives us small chunks at a time with someone else doing the questioning and being devil’s advocate for us, making us feel like we’re getting a full and honest explanation.
If you really don’t like philosophical musings, you probably won’t find this book particularly enjoyable, but if you are even a little interested, I’d give it a try. With the exception of chapter 4, I think you’d be surprised what you can understand. Or at the very least able follow his general logic.
For the very philosophical readers, the end notes provide extra information for your brain to grasp. Some were helpful to me and others I just accepted that I wasn’t going to get without more training in philosophical methods and histories and that’s okay!
There is wit and humor with the bantering of the friends. Some of it feels forced or over the top, but at the same time, I’m not too mature to enjoy a good pun or ‘your mom’ joke. Be forewarned, though, that irreverent is the appropriate term; there’s some allusion to improperness (some are movie quotes) and a couple uses of the word ‘bloody’ (as used in British slang).
I’ll give you the bare bones of his argument (partly for my own recollection later when I want to remember what this book was about), but I will offer the disclaimer that it is possible I’m explaining this poorly or incorrectly— sorry J.D. if I’m slaughtering your proposition— so the only way you will know is by reading the book…
Idi’s issue with the Trinity is that it doesn’t make sense. It is a contradiction. The Trinity can’t be both three and one.
So Vlad begins the discussion with the origins of the universe, giving us three possible options:
- Becoming: the universe (or the cause of the universe) is infinite, past and future, and has always existed; each cause continually causing the cause, etc; temporal
- Being: something that isn’t ‘becoming’ (changing) but simply ‘is’; an eternal creator created an eternal universe; outside of time (atemporal)
- Both: (see below)
While there are many other theories about the origins of the universe, they all basically fall into these three categories.
“It’s literally either A, non-A, or Both. Logically.”
The problem with just Becoming is that an infinite regression doesn’t make sense to our finite minds:
“If the universe had always existed, an infinite amount of time would have to have occurred before this moment. History would never have reached this point.”
The problem with just Being is that it’s outside of time and we are clearly in time:
“it never begins or stops doing anything because that would require time, and so whatever it is doing it is just stuck doing eternally.”
We know we, and the universe, aren’t eternal so this can’t be the right theory either. We also know that we are doing and thinking things that happen in time, we are Becoming.
“So our universe of time cannot be eternal but must have been created. And whatever created our universe cannot stretch infinitely back but must be an eternal Being that is outside of time. And this timeless Being cannot be our universe itself, because we are clearly in time, so that would defy our mental lens of time. Thus, a timeless Being beyond our universe must have created our universe of time.”
But Being can’t “give birth” to Becoming because as soon as it starts to do something, it’s doing so in time.
“The third option is ‘Both’ of them. Both Being and Becoming teaming up to create the universe; an eternal Being that is also one with Becoming and so can begin to create in time. Something that is 100 percent Being, 100 percent Becoming, and 100 percent Both. Three and one… It would be outside of time and yet could create in time.”
A seeming contradiction, or paradox.
All three of these options for the origins of the universe “defy human understanding” yet we know one of them happened because we are here to talk about it.
Thus, it’s just as rational to believe in the seeming contradiction of the Trinity. The mystery of the universe is the same as the mystery of the Trinity.
“You cannot deny the Trinity for not making sense any more than you can deny your own existence.”
He then goes on to show how Jesus— the Son— is like the Becoming (temporal and transcendent), the Father is like the Being (atemporal and eternal), and the Spirit is the Both, somehow connecting the temporal to the atemporal, connecting our bodies with our souls.
We can look to verses like John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…All things were made through him”
and John 14:6 “I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Being and Becoming. No one can come to the Being without the Becoming.
When he talks about the Spirit, the unifying of them all, we get a conversation about a bearpig so you’re just going to have to read that one for yourself.
“the Spirit precedes from Both into one union.”
Much of the rest of the book is spent addressing all the objections or ‘But what about that…’ devil’s advocate questions.
There’s also a chapter spent on using this same logic to answer Idi’s other grievances like: the Incarnation, free will, the soul, the problem of evil, other religions, theology only being anthropology, meaninglessness, lack of diversity, and lack of female representation in the Trinity.
There were a few things that were missing from the book, but I believe they were not included intentionally in order to maintain the premise and structure of the book.
For example, when talking about other religions, for me the most logical place to go is the historic person of Jesus, his death and resurrection. The C.S. Lewis Trilemma of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. And Jesus can’t both be God and not be God so other major religions at their heart cannot all be true.
There was also no discussion of the Bible which is our source of Truth. But I understand this omission as Lyonhart was intending to stay in the philosophical, logic realm to defend his points.
So this book definitely has value but there are other things that need to be considered for a more wholistic look at the faith of Christianity and its doctrines.
J.D. Lyonhart is a professor at Lincoln Christian University and also co-hosts a podcast called Spiritually Incorrect which, from first impressions, seems to be conversations that combine spirituality, science, culture, and philosophy to ponder life’s questions.
Theologically, I don’t think I disagreed with anything presented in this book, but I’m not necessarily going to blanket endorse everything you might find on his channel. You’ll have to use your own discernment.
The one thing that I disagree with from this book was this statement:
“I just mean that if you wanted to start a religion in the middle East two thousand years ago, there was simply no way anyone was going to listen if Jesus was female. Now, Jesus radically elevated the status and treatment of women, but he was only able to do that and have others follow suit because he was a man. So is God literally male, or was that just the most effective way to communicate to a male-dominated culture?”
I agree that God is not gendered, but I think God coming in the form of man, Jesus, was an intentional choice by God who is not bound by ‘cultural limits’— after all, he is not just male in the Bible times, Jesus is eternally Jesus, resurrected in bodily form as a man. Plus it fits with the other language used throughout the Bible about male headship in the home and the church, as well as the church in general being the bride of Christ. I think there is intentionality there that we shouldn’t just write off as ‘well Jesus wouldn’t have been listened to if he was a woman so God had to be a man.’ I think that gives culture too much power over God’s ability to act and work.
But that’s just one thing and not something Lyonhart hit hard or long in the book.
Last few comments:
The chapter titles were great and the ending threw me for a loop. Probably because I was dealing with my kid’s potty training accident when I was reading it and so I had to go back and make sure I read it right. It was a nice little wrap-up.
I liked that though Lyonhart was talking about serious and profound things he didn’t take himself too seriously so it made a complex subject more accessible to the masses who don’t have academic training in philosophy.
I learned that our body replaces 98% of its atoms every 5-7 years. So when we think philosophically about who we are, we have to be more than our physical bodies. There is something outside of our atomic structure that gives us identity…. a soul.
Oh and I like the book title as well.
You can tell every part of the book was creatively intentional and I appreciate this final product that I’m sure took awhile to put together and pare down to accomplish what he set out to do.
Recommendation
Overall, this was a fun brain exercise that made a lot of sense. And I like things that make sense.
I am new to philosophical debates and so I had never considered this form of logic (besides that which I read in the book Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t which I would also very much recommend) and to apply it to so many different things was really cool to see how it is all woven together.
The Trinity is always a complex topic, but this was a really great way to not necessarily need to ‘prove’ the Trinity’s existence but to acknowledge that its rationale is the same as our very existence.
Even though it was dense at times, it didn’t feel dense because of the dialogue structure and really felt like I was just joining a conversation at a pub with my friends.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised by my enjoyment of this book because I didn’t know what I was getting into reading a theological book by an author I had never heard of.
It’s a short read, depending on how many times you might have to re-read a sentence or two, and is definitely worth the philosophical journey!
Further Reading:
He quotes from a lot of William Lane Craig’s writings on apologetics, time, and the cosmological argument if you want to read up on more of that.
I would also recommend the book I already linked in the review:
Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t by Gavin Ortlund which focuses on Christianity vs Naturalism and exploring how people aren’t really asking, ‘is Christianity true?’, but ‘is it good?’ But there is a chapter dedicated to the origins of the universe.
**Received a copy from the author in exchange for an honest review**