“Confessional” Meme

Ben over at Faith and Theology has discovered a new meme going around.  It is a “confessional” meme, where the theologically minded reveal their deepest, darkest secrets.  here are my “confessions.”

I Confess: It is a shame that many theologians are dismissive of philosophy.

I Confess: That Tillich’s “method of correlation” isn’t as evil as many conservatives think.

I Confess: That much American theology is several steps behind European thought.

I Confess: That America is behind Europe primarily due to an over literalist reading of the Bible.

I Confess: That more than 1/2 of the books i own are either unfinished or completely unread.

I Confess: That @ times i’m not completely sure that even Barth himself understood what he was saying.

I Confess: That i get highly annoyed with the doctrine of “particular election.”

I Confess: That i get highly agitated when theologians who write “simplistic” books for all the church are accused of trying to manipulate or deceive.

I Confess: I love Gregory Boyd’s work, even though i wouldn’t necessarily call myself an open theist anymore.

I Confess: I believe in the ontological existence of the devil, demons, angels, etc.

I Confess: That unlike Ben, i’ve found that my initial reading of Gunton has provided much satisfaction and excitement..

I Confess: That i don’t understand the concern that theology can/should be considered a science.

I Confess: That T.F. Torrance stopped me from giving up on Reformed thought.

I Confess: That i don’t actually know what a “meme” is, although after this i think that i have the idea.

The Passing of a Great Scholar

Brevard Childs has recently passed on, at 2pm on Saturday.  He was a 1st rate scholar, leading the charge in the revival of Biblical Theology in the 20th century.  He was the leader of the canonical critical approach to the bible, although he eventually rejectd such a designation.  He will be missed.

HT: Dr. Jim West

Gunton on Doing Theology

I have recently began a book by a man named Colin Gunton regarding the divine attributes.  For a brief and informative biography of his life and thought, click here. 

The book i have begun is Gunton’s last work before his untimely death, entitled Act & Being.  It is my first dive into this great thinker, and i have loved it so far.  What he is saying is really resonating with where it seems that my thought and faith are headed.  Although i am planning to do my first “book review” post over this book in the future, i can’t resist posting a keen insight Gunton has now.

This insight concerns the nature of theology, specifically theological method.  Gunton, when dealing with an insight from Karl Barth regarding divine attributes and theological method, points out the difficulties of doing theology:

“This is a theme which will recur, and it reminds us of an essential truth about the practice of theology: that apparently minor shifts of content in one place can have a major impact in another.  To seek ‘balance’ as a primary end in theology is to court boredom, if not disaster; yet imbalance can also be catastrophic.  Such are the difficulties of the discipline (20).”

There are a few truths in Gunton’s quote that i believe merit serious reflection by theologians, both aspiring and professional:

1)  Theology is systemic in nature.  How one understands one area of the faith can’t help but influence and color one’s views in other areas.  I believe that the responsible theologian needs to ask not only if his/her view of the atonement, salvation, creation, and so on is accurate, but does their view pull another area of doctrine out of alignment.  If it does, then one might need to rethink their view.

2)  Most people’s natural inclination from point 1 above is to seek to “not rock the boat.”  The fear of being wrong often, as well as the overwhelming idea of being able to discern theological and bibilical truth straitjackets people from sincere and rigorous inquiry.  Most people want to live in the comfortable yet often confusing center of the majority of Christian thought.  However, i believe that Gunton is wise to anticipate this and offer a strong caution against such an ambivalent attitude.  To always seek “balance” in theology is actually to concede to being in error, as such an attitude is fundamentally at odds with the nature of the Gospel as a definitive and radical proclamation of the truth.  The Gospel (and God) isn’t always necessarily palatable, and the idea that our theology should be and never “rock the boat” cuts against the texture of faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

3)  To those who are ready to dive into the most inane theological speculations after Gunton’s 1st two points, Gunton offers one more thought for our consideration.  While balance can lead to sterility and error, an unnecessary cavalier attitude towards the traditionally accepted doctrines of the faith courts disaster as well.  Many who have spent their lives seeking God have come before us, and their efforts deserve our serious, thoughtful, and charitable engagement.  However, let us not forget point two above, and refuse to break with the norm.  As John Sanders has said “being a heretic puts you in bad company, but it also puts you in some really good company!”

I really appreciate Gunton’s views here.  I think that he has it right that in the end, trying to be faithful to God message in doing theology is a “difficult task,” one that we will all surely come up short of pulling off.  However, let this understanding hold us not in a state of paralyzing intellectual fear or push us into a sloppy carefree attitude.  May we rath be humble and full of prayer, seeking to do our task as faithful servants of both God and His church. 

Lord, whatever our views, may we be found that in holding it our central goal is to be fiathful to you.

Contemporary European Views of God (1): Karl Barth on God & Creation

When seeking to understand how Barth viewed the relationship between God and creation, one must return to his very unique view of revelation.  God “reveals himself through himself,” which according to Barth is through Jesus Christ alone.   See my former post  (and comments) on Barth and revelation for how this is fleshed out in greater detail here.

Since Barth is very Christ-centered in his theology, it should come as little surprise that Barth believes that the “insight that man owes his existence and form, together with all the reality distinct from God, to God’s creation,” is founded upon the divine self-witness in Christ.  What will probably frustrate many Christian philosophers, particularly those of a more evangelical stripe, is that Barth maintains that even knowing who God is as Creator is not derived from the world but is possible only through in Jesus Christ (128).  This is because for Barth all revelation must be of a redemptive nature, if it is truly going to be called “Christian.”  This leaves little, in fact probably no room for what we call “general or natural revelation” today.

However, why did God create in the first place?  According to Veli-Matti Karkkainen’s (from now on abbreviated as VMK) understanding of Barth, Barth views God’s motivations for creation to center around Jesus Christ.  It appears that God needed creatures in order that there would be the one creature Jesus Christ. 

For Barth creation is the “external basis of the covenant” made with man (or Jesus?) and since it is based on grace, “creation is grace.”    God’s act of creating is a “free positing of reality by the omnipotence of divine love.”  God relates to the world on the basis of love, and binds himself in a covenant with creation freely and willingly.  This leads to Barth’s famous understanding of God as “the one who loves in freedom (128-129).”

Finally, regarding Christ and creation, VMk points out that Barth held that if God is as has been revealed to be in Jesus, then it is inevitable that he would create distinctly from Himself.  In fact, VMK points out that for Barth “Creation and incarnation flow out of God’s self-willed free decision to let the eternal intratrinitarian love extend beyond the triune fellowship.”  This is the God revealed in Christ, and for Barth there is no other (129).

I must say that Barth’s view of creation was difficult for me to grasp, at least how VMK presented it.  Here are the questions i’m struggling with:

1.  Why does God “need” creatures? 

2.  In connection with that, why was it so important for Jesus to be a creature? 

3.  To take a different slant, what does it mean for creation itself to be a covenant? 

4.  Finally, is God’s covenant with Jesus Christ, or with humanity?  I’m sure the answer is both, since Barth takes Jesus’ humanity seriously, but what is the chain of reasoning Barth takes to get there?

Barth lovers come to my aid in my time of intellectually confused need!

A New Journal to Check Out

Ben over at Faith and Theology has found a fairly new journal:

I looked at it for a bit this morning, and i think it looks pretty good.  Their mission statement reads as follows: “The Other Journal is an online quarterly publication promoting vibrant discourse surrounding the intersections of theology, culture, and social justice.”

Theologically, “The Other Journal is committed to Christological, relational and ecclesial theology. We believe that robust theological reflection is bound to an imaginative witness of the gospel through a lived-out faith.”

They have already had some notable scholars write for them, which is very exciting since it is a free journal to peruse.

Doing Theology with a Philosopher

 

Recently i have been talking with one of the best philosophers today, Alan Rhoda.  We have been discussing how God relates within Himself as Triune, and the implications of this topic for understanding God’s relationship to time. 

I have been very excited to participate in a such a discussion with such a brilliant mind.  Recently he posted about our exchange that started in  the comments section of one of his earliest posts.  To be honest i’m flattered to see him give my thoughts some earnest consideration.  He has been very gracious.

So i would encourage you to head over to his blog for two reasons: 1) To get a chance to talk with such a sharp guy.  I’ve found it very beneficial to talk with him, because he is a very precise communicator.  He is indirectly showing me the value of philosophy, particularly logic, for doing theology.  2) After reading his analysis of my thoughts (which he words better than i do), please chime in.  Be forewarned, if you don’t buy into a more “social” understanding of the Trinity, you will probably disagree with me.  I haven’t completely formulated my response, but i’m cooking one up, to either be responded to in his comments or to post on here. 

Contemporary European Views of God (1): Karl Barth on the Trinity

When discussing Karl Barth’s doctrine of God, one would be remiss if the Trinity wasn’t mentioned.  Here again, Barth was a revolutionary, due more to his reviving of the most ancient of understandings of God, rather than by introducing a theological novelty.  As Veli-Mattie Karkkainen (hereafter his name will be abbreviated as VMK) puts it “Barth can be hailed as the pioneer of the revival of trinitarian theology for the 20th century (127).”

Although the idea of the Trinity wasn’t new, the place Barth put it was a new idea.  Barth changed the way scholars looked at systematic theology by placing the Trinity at the forefront of his magnum opus Church Dogmatics.  In addition to the placement of the doctrine, he also made it foundational to his whole project.  This is found in his famous formula “God reveals himself.  He reveals himself through himself.  He reveals himself (CD 1/1: 296).”  Thus as VMK points out, “for Barth God’s revelation and God’s being are identical.  God is who God is revealed to be.”  That being the case, it is after the Trinity that concepts that usually precede it are discussed.  Barth’s ingenuity is found in the fact that while historically God’s oneness was the starting place for the theological enterprise, he instead began with God’s triunity (127).

Concerning Barth’s particular conception of the trinity, there is much controversy.  Barth is frequently charged with adhering to a heresy called modalism.  Barth often is accused of this because of his disdain for the use of the term “person” when discussing the trinity.  Barth believed that such usage in the modern world was at odds with its earlier intent when used.  In the modern world, Barth argued, person implies three members of the trinity with their own wills and minds.  To Barth, this is tritheism, which is heresy.  Thus, since God is one, Barth preferred the term “mode of being (German: Seinsweise).”  It is easy to see how using a term so close to a previously condemned heresy would put Barth in hot water here (127).

So was Barth a heretic?  VMK thinks not, although he does grant that if all we had were the 1st part of his dogmatics, that criticism might hold to a degree.  However, in his later volumes Barth more than puts this suspicion to rest.  In his last volume of the dogmatics before his passing, Barth “introduces historicity into the Triune God and in doing so ‘revolutionizes so-called classical Christian theism (127-128).”  In his famous (infamous?) section in the CD (IV/1), entitled “The Way of the Son into a Far Country,” He brings the Economic Trinity and the Imminent Trinity together by describing the Prodigal’s journey as the Son’s own journey into a far land.  However, since the Son is also God himself, it follows from this that “the Son’s journey is God’s own journey and that the Son’s self-humiliation is an expression of God’s own transcendance.”  It is clear from this that for Barth that the Triune God has stepped into history and also marks clear distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (128). 

Of course, for some like myself, Barth historicizing God, so to speak, answers the modalism question but open several new cans of worms.  What, more precisely, was Barth’s view of God’s relationship to time?  It seems like he would be a little more nuanced than to simply say that God is “in” time.  Would He be sypathetic to Open Theism?  How does God actually being intertwined with human history through the incarnation affect our understanding of anthropomorphisms?  How about metaphors as well?  

Let me close by saying that this was a very hard post for me.  It took me quite a while to feel like i was grasping it, and honestly i feel a little confused on some of this still.  However, i throw this out there for all to read, and hope that people more comfortable with Barth can help elucidate this central theme of his for everyone else better.   

A New Blog to Check Out

If you are looking for someone to speak at a retreat, conference, whatever, i would encourage you to check out a blog by my friend Matt Brunk.  He loves God, and is passionate about community and teaching God’s word.  If you are interested in contacting him about speaking with you, check out his blog, which he is using as a springboard for his speaking opportunities.

Schleiermacher & Barth: Friends of Foes?

 

Since my first post on Contemporary European views of God, i have been engaged in a fun dialogue with Travis.  He seems to have a thorough knowledge of Barth’s thought, and i have enjoyed dialoguing with him.

During our dialogue, a question came to me.  It seems to me that maybe Barth never really got as far away from Schleiermacher’s immanentism as he hoped.  If for Barth the only true knowledge of God comes through the “acting on” of Christ in a person, and not grounded in an objective sense in the Scriptures, how has he escaped the overly experience focused theology of Schleiermacher?  If true knowledge can only be brought by the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit, than although for Barth God is the “wholly other,” we can only interact with Him relationally in a way analogous to Schleiermacher’s view.

Don’t get me wrong, i think that there is a difference between receiving revelation from Christ than from a feeling of utter dependence.  Nevertheless, i can’t help but wonder if Barth’s complete epistemic disconnect of regarding the knowledge of God from the bible has rendered us to only use more lofty “man-talk” about God, despite his best intentions.

I guess my question to Barthians is this: If our knowledge of God is completely dependent on our experience of Christ acting on us to receive that knowledge, then how can we avoid the subjective “man-talk” in regards to Christ that Barth found so distasteful in Schleiermacher’s theology? 

New Blog to Check Out

 

Hi eveyone,

I hope to continue my contemporary views series tonight, but for now i want to encourage everyone to check out a new blog i have found.  It is called Faith and Alternatives.  I am excited about this blog because it was just started up by a former professor of mine, Mark Alterman.  He is honestly one of the most brilliant men i have ever known.  He knows roughly 80 ancient languages (a little over the top, but just a little).  He is also very kind, being patient with students, and always approaches other scholar’s work in a charitable manner, pointing out why they have good to offer, as opposed to a purely negative approach.  I honestly think that he has taught me how to talk and interact with other people’s work with grace.  Alterman taught me how to do theology communally. 

Anyway, enough gushing on about how good of a prof he is.  His blog is in a Q & A format.  He poses a question, then hopes to interact with others.  I think that it would be worth everyone’s time to dialogue with him.

Why a Husband Should Go Shopping with his Wife

 

It’s supposedly something every huband dreads.  Few, if any, task or endeavor will make a husband cringe like having to go shopping with his wife.  For most men, they would rather get their wisdom teeth pulled than go shopping.  Not me though.  Well at least not all the time.

I have found that when shopping with one’s wife your enjoyment of it as a man is pretty contingent on where it is you go to shop. 

Today i went shopping with my wife at a thriftstore near our house.  We had been in there before, and i sifted through the clothes and then proceeded to wander.  Eventually i came to the books.  Lo and behold, i ran into several great books.  The two major finds were Hegel’s History of philosophy, and Volume II of Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology, dealing with Theological Anthropology and Soteriology.  Total cost: $2.00.  It was a sweet day of victory.  I felt like i had beat the system, and it gave me warm fuzzies.

My wife was shocked that i could find anything of value @ the DAV, but then again my persistence and willingness to comb through what appears to be useless books has served me well throughout my academic career.  I know my wife thinks i’m a book-nerd, which may be the worst kind of nerd.  After finding solid books at the DAV, and being caught up in rapturous moment of victory and joy, i plead guilty.  The irony is that my wife didn’t end up buying anything, whereas the books, combined with a few polo shirts, cost me about $10.  I can’t wait until Monday, because that is the day they cut prices on books in half, and i’m thinking about “taking” my wife shopping.

So husbands out there, the next time your wife wants you to go shopping with her, muster up your strength and go with her.  If you are persistent and are willing to “dig deep,” you might come away with a treasure.  At the very least such hunting will keep your eye off your watch.  Just make sure you try to go to a place where they have books, or whatever brings out the nerd in you.

Contemporary European Views of God (1): Karl Barth on the Knowledge of God

As Claude Welch put it, Karl Barth ushered in a “contemporary revivial of theology” with his highly influential Epistle to the Romans.  Karkkainen agrees, stating that it is appropriate both “thematically and chronologically with Karl Barth (125).”  Barth was one of those few extroardinary thinkers who possessed such originality while still striving to remain fathful to many (if not all) of the classical tenets of the faith.  He was a “paradigm shifter,” whose influence is still heavy today.

Barth’s theology was born out of historical factors, like all are.  He studied within the 19th centuries’ classic Liberalism.  Such talk about how doctrines like the Trinitarian and Christological assertions of the 4th century church were “hellenistic deteriorations of dogma,” detracting from the pure and simple “gospel of jesus” were unsettling to Barth, as was the Liberal tradition’s overemphasis on the Immanence of God, viewed through experience.  In a revealing quote by Barth regarding Schleiermacher, who Veli-Matti Karkkainen (VMK) informs us Barth saw as the backbone of the era’s “pervasive immanentism,” Barth accuses him of relegating “God-talk” into ”man-talk,” at the expense of God–”the God who is sovereign Other standing over against humanity (125).” 

The combination of the human-centered, experiential focus of Liberal theology with the by and large European Liberal church’s wedding with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime drove Barth back to the Bible and forced a rejection of their views.  This foundational shift was made known with his Epistle to the Romans, which was likened to “a bombshell being dropped on the theological playground.”  Now that we have a bit of canvas against which to view Barth, let’s look at the highlights of his understanding of God, at least according to VMK.

1. In stark contrast to Liberalism’s focus on God’s immanence, in Barth’s theology God is radically transcendent.  In fact, as VMK points out, Barth goes as far as to say that there is “absolutely no way to know God apart from revelation (126).”  So if God is unknowable through practically any means other than His revelation, where do we find this revelation?
2. The knowledge of God is found in Jesus Christ.  It is important to note that Barth isn’t necessarily referring to Scripture, but rather to the God-man himself: “When holy Scripture speaks of God, it concentrates our attention and thoughts upon one single point . . . And if we look closer, and ask: who and what is at this point upon which our attention and thoughts are concentrated, which we are to recognize as God? . . . From its beginning to its end the Bible directs us to the name of Jesus Christ (CD, 2/2, 52-54).”
3. This assertion raises some important questions regarding knowing God.  VMK points out that Barth is “skeptical at best” regarding whether or not people can know God apart from the revelation of Christ (126).  Barth went from completely ruling out any form of “general revelation,” to backing off a bit.  However, his fundamental skepticism and position for the absolute supremacy of the living Christ as revelation never changed.  As VMK points out, this is b/c for Barth genuine revelation has inherent redemptive content.  A vague “general revelation” of God, cannot properly be called “Christian revelation.”  “Only knowledge of God that helps us know God as savior can be called Christian revelation (126).”

I think that Barth’s view of God’s transcendence, and hence his doctrine of revelation, gives us many key questions to think through today.  I’m particulary interested in how giving the risen Christ primacy in revelation critiques our modern mind-set’s approach to epistemology, ethics, and the nature and proper interpretation of Scripture.  I hope to blog on each of those subjects at somepoint.

For many this will be your first taste of Barth, particularly if you are an American.  There is much more to talk about, but for the sake of readability, if it isn’t too long already, this is enough for now.  The reality is that Barth literally wrote several thousand pages of work (he was a machine!), so whatever we do here will be a thumbnail sketch at best.  Hopefully however, your appetite has been “whetted,” and you are ready to delve more into the heart of his thought.  Tomorrow, Barth on the Trinity and his revival of the most ancient of Christian views on God.

Series on Contemporary Views of God

 

 I have decided that i would like to start a series regarding contemporary views of God.  The book i will use is The Doctrine of God by Veli-Matti Karkkainen.  I’m sure that no one (including me) will agree with all his analysis, but hopefully this will help to foster dialogue.  I think that his book will be a good one to look at since he covers more than just Evangelical American trends (what, you mean there is a world outside of fighting over biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, women in ministry, premillenial dispensationalism, mixing politics and faith, and God’s foreknowledge?  Please note sarcasm in parenthesis.), to look at European, African, Latin, and Asian views of God.  I think getting past our “theological ethnocentrism” can do nothing but make us better theologians.  Actually, he also broadens our understanding of American theology, including Native and African American Theologians, as well as Feminist views of God in America.  Also, he provides much needed context through a historical overview of the development of the doctrine of God. 

I know that in the past i have said i would do series, and haven’t followed through.  To all the doubters regarding my ability to follow through, you may be right.  But since it is my blog i think that will give it a go again.  Also, i think that this will be very doable b/c each concept or theologian doesn’t occupy more than   a couple dozen pages at most, so i think that i will be able to keep it going. 

Finally, a couple disclaimers before we get started.  Obviously, we all have different views as to who was a major shaper in the ways we all think about God today, but several in Karkkainen’s mind (and surely in ours as well) rise to the top.  These will be focused on in his work, although other significant thinkers will be mentioned in conversation with his thoughts.  Second, we will follow Karkkainen’s chronology in regards to defining “contemporary.”  Many will view thinkers like Barth, or even Rahner as rather archaic today (i’m not one of them), but for the sake of uniformity, we will follow his lead.