This last weeks seminar was one of the best theological discussions that I have ever had. There was much headway made in furthering the theological discussion between Barthian's and Neo-Calvinist's. After reading CD IV/3.1 and Barth's book on Mozart, my Neo-Calvinist friends were quite surprised. One of the main issues is that they haven't read much Barth and the other issues is that, if they have read him, they have been interpreting him through a Yoderian or Hauerwasian viewpoint. A couple of my friends said they were pleasantly surprised and really enjoyed reading Barth. They couldn't believe that Barth was talking about lights and truths within the realm of creation. The unfortunate thing is that a large number of people including those who haven't read Barth, Neo-Calvinist's, and even Barthian's think that Barth is anti-creation and anti-culture. This is not true. This area of Barth's theology is the most untouched portion and has yet to be fully dealt with apart from a couple of excellent books. Because of this Barth is not appreciated for his appreciation of creation and culture. I do have to admit that I get a little weary when I read his book on Mozart. Maybe Barth went a little bit too far with his praise of Mozart? I don't know if I would have given Mozart so much praise. As a musician I greatly appreciate Mozart's music, but I also understand that he was not that good of a guy. I guess what Barth is showing is that in light of our downfalls and sin, God can use an individual apart from their knowledge to shine light on the Light of Christ, bearing witness to his beautiful creation, i.e. music.
Reading CD IV/3.1 was great. I really enjoyed Barth's Christocentrism in light of his praise of culture. The most important part of this section of the Dogmatics is Barth's emphasis on the One Word of God. The lights and words of creation are not in themselves lights and words, but are lights and words because God has miraculously made them lights and words through the work of the Holy Spirit. And these lights and words bear witness not to themselves, but to Christ. Even the created truths, which speak only truth about the cosmos, bear witness to Christ because he created them. For Barth there is no way of getting around it, Christ is the center and basis for both the secular and the sacred spheres. What I feel is Barth's greatest argument for the lights and words of creation bearing witness to the Light of life, is that grace and revelation are ontologically grounded in God's being. So, there can be no revelation and no grace apart from God himself. In light of this statement lights and words of creation have no power or truth in themsleves because they cannot be grace or revelation, they can only bear witness to their origin, which is grounded in Christ.
I will follow up more on this soon. This week we are reading Paul Metzger's book The Word of Christ and the World of Culture: Sacred and Secular Through the Theology of Karl Barth. So far it's a great book and I will post on the book and our discussion sometime later this week.
For further resources on the subject see: chapters 1-5, 7 of Disruptive Grace by George Hunsinger; As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God by Cornelis Van Der Kooi; Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology by Bruce McCormack
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Post #4: Summary of CD IV/3.1 and Mozart
Church Dogmatics IV.3.1 The Light of Life
“Jesus Christ as such is light, that His being is also name, His reality truth, His history revelation, His act Word or Logos. We have simply ascribed to Him what the Bible calls glory and therefore his prophetic office.”[1] We may assert that he is the one Light of life and true Word because his presence and action give substance to this claim (74). Barth’s initial argument is that we call Christ’s life Light and Word because he is the bearer of grace and revealer of the being and character of God. “Grace means that God expresses himself before man, declaring Himself as the truth in his existence. It means that he causes himself to be perceived by this one who is not his equal, who is merely his creature, and who has willfully closed his eyes and ears and heart to him. It means the free revelation of God. This takes place in the life of Jesus Christ.”[2] Christ is the grace revealed, willed, and enacted by God. This is both self-disclosure and self-impartation grounded in the being of God. Grace and revelation are thus inseparable because they are grounded in God’s being. This for Barth is the reason why Christ is the one grace and the one revelation, the one Light and the one Word.
After Barth presents his thesis that Christ is the one grace, one revelation, one Light, and one Word he moves on to address the validity of other lights and words of truth (83). He says, “ Noble rivalry or peaceful co-existence is possible with those who prefer other lights of life or words of God. And, of course we maintain our own liberty to hear other such words as well, and perhaps even to prefer them.”[3] It is quite interesting that Barth moves from Christ as the one Light of life and Word of God to other lights and other words of God. He even acknowledges that the statement, Christ is the one Light of life and Word of God, is one that is dangerous (84). Barth elaborates on the idea of other lights, words, and truths, but he does so quite cautiously. He maintains that Christ is the one Light of life and Word of God so there can be no other witnesses to the truth of God that do not stand side by side with Christ. So, if we hear a truth apart from Christ, it is not a truth in itself; what has happened is that Christ has freely and miraculously spoken through a person(s) or event. This consistently grounds all truth and light in the one grace and revelation of Christ. Barth maintains that all divine utterances are not to be taken as independent truths, but as the utterances of God himself (89).
Barth moves on to addresses specific examples of other lights that bear witness and words that speak truth. Concerning the Bible and the Church Barth says, “But the Bible as such is not the one Word of God. Indirect witness is also borne to Jesus Christ in the message, activity and life of the Christian Church, whose whole raison d’être[4] is to make him known as the one Word of God.”[5] The Bible is not the one Word of God, but exists to make Jesus Christ known as such. Even the lights of the Church and Bible shine as lights only because the Light of life shines. Contrary to popular belief Barth actually does speak of bright lights of humanity that carry both importance and significance. Not all words spoken outside of the Bible and the Church are valueless, empty, corrupt, misleading, and untrue. They are words of seriousness, profound wisdom, and comfort.[6] They are good because they are in the commission and will of God. They are words of truth and light only in relation to Jesus Christ. For Barth these lights are incomplete and Christ himself as the Light of life is the one Light who is complete.
Barth begins to further explicate Christ’s involvement with other lights. He states, “As the one Word of God, he can bring himself into the closest conjunction with such words. He can make use of certain men, making them his witnesses and confessing their witness in such a way that to hear them is to hear him (Lk. 10.16).”[7] But, in order for these words to be true they must be in substantial conformity and agreement with the one Word. “The truth proper to the one Word of God must dwell within them. Applied to such words, ‘true’ must imply that they say the same thing as the one Word of God, and are true for this reason.”[8] These truths participate and share in the content and truth of Christ. They have no truth in themselves, but are moved and empowered by the Spirit to speak truth that attests to the one Word of God. Barth likens these true words to parables that have been instituted by Christ, bear witness to Him, and are true because he is true. For the sake of avoiding confusion it may be best to refer to the light of Christ and the luminosity of creation (133).
Barth argues that Christ’s capacity to present these parables, lights, and words of truth transcend both the secular sphere and that of the Church. Therefore we must expect to hear these words and see these lights from both within the Church and beyond it. Barth’s Christ has the ability to awaken and raise up witnesses to speak true words no matter the sphere in which the witness resides. Yet, these witnesses and true words are only true in regards to the truth of Christ, which allows them to participate in his truth and light. This for Barth presents us with a Christ who is neither narrow nor static, but rather a Christ who is broad and dynamic, grounding all truth and light in himself as the one Light of life and Word of God. There is indeed for Barth not one square inch in creation, which Jesus Christ has abandoned and not one square inch where he is not active (114).
Although Barth asserts that there are in fact other lights and words worth hearing, we must not call into question whether or not these lights and words are more than signs of Christ’s coming glory and testimony to the risen Lord. “Yet they express the one and total truth from a particular angle, and to that extent only implicitly and not explicitly in its unity and totality.”[9] These lights are the herald of the king, but not the King himself, and are true only insofar as they refer back to their origin. Barth argues that these other lights and other words must always be put to the test by their comparison to the words and character of the Light of life, the historical dogmas, confessions of the Church, scripture, and the fruits they bear. Although these lights and words may be true, they may not be universally heard and therefore must never be canonized. They may not be given a normative function in the Church for they cannot be explicitly pinpointed (127).
Barth’s final point is that there are also lights and truths that can be communicate creature to creature. These are not lights and truths that bear witness to God, but lights and truth that speak of the consistent order and patterns of creation. Creation can speak truth to creation not of God, unless enlisted by the Light of life, but of the contours of life. It seems as though Barth is hinting at a quasi form of natural law in which there are consistent contours, orders, processes, and sequences of creation. These are forms of nature itself, created by God (139). Creation bears truth of itself, that it is in fact the cosmos. “The light in which this is declared and perceived is only a created light. But it is certainly a light.”[10] These lights still find their grounding in God because he created them. These lights cease to lack only if and when they are called into the service of God and taken up into association with the risen Lord.[11]
In conclusion, Christ is the one Light of life and Word of God. There are in fact other lights and words, but we can only speak of them in plurality because they are not light and word proper, they are finite and rely solely on the empowerment and call of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. They are lights and words only because he is the Light of life and Word of God. There are created lights that speak of truth, but only of the truth of creation. They are part of the theatrum gloriae Dei[12], but they speak only of the theater itself and not of the glory of God unless commissioned by Christ. God speaks in every sphere of life and there is not one inch of the world where Christ is not working. He speaks by means of the Spirit both extra muros ecclesiae[13] and intra muros ecclesiae[14]. He is not bound by the walls of the Church, he is active in the secular world, his Spirit works miraculously in the hearts of the just and the unjust, he is the director and creator of his theater, he is the King and creation his herald. We are lights and speak words of truth that bear witness to Christ because he himself has commissioned us. We shine and speak truth because he is light and he is truth. Christ is himself the one grace, the one revelation and therefore the one Light of life, the one Word of God, he is this because he is the revelation of the being and character of God and his creation bears witness and testifies to this universal truth.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Barth’s book on Mozart is a collection of 4 short essays. The first essay being a testimonial to Mozart, the second a letter of thanks to Mozart, the third a short history of Mozart and his influence, and the fourth on the freedom of Mozart.
In Barth’s very short piece A Testimonial to Mozart he begins by stating his devotion to Mozart. He gives thanks for having the possibility of listening to his music. Barth regards Mozart so highly that says, “I even have to confess that if I ever get to heaven, I would first of all seek out Mozart and only then inquire after Augustine, St. Thomas, Luther, Calvin, and Schleiermacher.”[15] This is quite a bold statement. It shows Barth’s devotion and gratitude to Mozart’s music and speaks to his influence on his life.
In A Letter of Thanks to Mozart Barth speaks of his gratitude to Mozart in quite a fanatical way. He speaks of a dream in which he quizzes Mozart on the meaning of Dogmatics and Dogma, but to his despair there was no answer. He finishes this paragraph by saying that he was surprised because he knew that Mozart would not be allowed to fail.[16] Not only do I find this odd, but also puzzling. Is Barth considering Mozart’s failure as a musician or in all facets of life? Barth thanks Mozart because whenever he listens to him he is “…transported to the threshold of a world which in sunlight and storm, by day and by night, is a good and ordered world.”[17] It’s as if Mozart has transformative power, as if he is an opiate bearing dreams of utopia. Barth ascribes heroic properties to Mozart and his language parallels language used when referring to Christ. Barth says, “…I believe that in its growing darkness our age needs your help—for these reasons I am grateful that you walked among us, that in the few short decades of your life you wanted only to make pure music and that in your music you are still vitally with us.”[18] It’s as if Barth is comparing Mozart to Christ. Mozart came to help a dark age and walked among us in only a few short decades, and he is still with us because he has left his music to be heard. This is a stark parallel to Christ coming to save a lost people, walking among humanity for only a few short decades, and being vitally with us through his Spirit, which he gave to us.
In Barth’s third piece on Mozart he gives brief background of his life and death. He says that Mozart was a Catholic who died with last rites and that he became a Freemason and that did not detract him from his Catholic worship. Barth very much so puts Mozart on a pedestal. He says, “Zwingli, taking into account the curious Christendom of Mozart’s day, would probably have granted him a unique, direct access to God, which, to be sure, he granted even to all kinds of virtuous pagans. In the case of Mozart, we must certainly assume that the dear Lord had a special, direct contact with him. “He who has ears, let him hear!”[19] This resonates with CD IV/3.1. Mozart appears to be, according to Barth, a light in which God has commissioned him for the service of his Kingdom. Barth truly believed that Mozart was a gift and instrument of God. He goes on to comment about Mozart unique and incomparable work. But he also discusses Mozart’s unhappiness and questions how a man could be so unhappy yet write such beautiful music. Barth explains the loveliness of Mozart’s music in this manner,
“One marvels again and again how everything comes to expression in him: heaven and earth, nature and man, comedy and tragedy, passion in all its forms and the most profound inner peace, the Virgin Mary and the demons, the church mass, the curious solemnity of the Freemasons and the dance hall, ignorant and sophisticated people, cowards and heroes (genuine or bogus), the faithful and the faithless, aristocrats and peasants, Papageno and Sarastro. And he seems to concern himself with each of these in turn not only partially but fully; rain and sunshine fall on all.”[20]
Barth later goes on to say that Mozart does not will to praise God, but his music does in its humility. For Barth Mozart’s music is so beautiful and flawless that its only explanation is that it comes from God. He views Mozart’s music as being prophetic.
In his last essay Mozart’s Freedom Barth comments on Mozart’s freedom to play beautiful music and its freeing effects. “Mozart’s music always sounds unburdened, effortless, and light. This is why it unburdens, releases and liberates us.”[21] Barth saw his music as both free and freeing. Barth believed that this freedom was given to Mozart for freeing purposes. Barth moves on to ask the question, “How can I as an evangelical Christian and theologian proclaim Mozart.”[22] Barth parallels Mozart to a parable of the Kingdom of heaven. He is a light outside the sphere of the Church being used as an instrument of Christ. How? I am not quite sure. Barth doesn’t really answer this question very well.
It is clear that Barth believes Mozart to be so perfect that his music could be none other than from God. It is then also clear that his music is beautiful, good, and freeing only by the miraculous work of the Spirit in Mozart. Barth praises Mozart, who wasn’t a good guy, a bit too much. I understand how beautiful his music is, but I don’t think that merits Christ-like language and almost salvific properties. Although this may be true, Mozart’s music was beautiful and Barth gives no indication that Mozart himself is revelation, his music is merely beauty bearing witness to the beauty of God.
[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. IV.3.1 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 69
[2] Karl Barth, 78
[3] Barth, 84
[4] Reason for being
[5] Barth, 92
[6] Barth 93/97
[7] Barth 97/102
[8] Barth, 106/111
[9] Barth, 117/123
[10] Barth, 137
[11] Barth, 152
[12] Theater of the glory of God
[13] Outside the walls of the Church
[14] Inside the walls of the Church
[15] Karl Barth, “A Testimonial to Mozart” in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 17
[16] Karl Barth, “A Letter of Thanks to Mozart” in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, 21
[17] Karl Barth, 23
[18] Karl Barth, 23-24
[19] Karl Barth, “Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart” in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, 27
[20] Karl Barth, 35
[21] Karl Barth, “Mozart’s Freedom” in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, 48
[22] Karl Barth, 57-58
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Post #3: Eastern Orthodoxy and Culture
This last week I had the wonderful task of reading For The Life of The World by Alexander Schmemman. This was not only a wonderful read, but also a breath of fresh air. Reading this book was not only my first major encounter with Eastern Orthodoxy, but a good one. Schmemman attempts to view the Church and culture, nature and grace, and the mission of the Church through the lens of liturgy and the sacraments. It was really nice to see someone looking at the Church's engagement with culture from a different lens. To be all honest I am just sick of hearing about the Barth and Brunner debate on natural theology. Schmemman didn't even touch the subject. My personal favorite part of his book and the most beneficial part of our seminar discussion this last Tuesday was on the Eucharist. Schmemman believes that we must, as the Church, encounter culture through the sacraments, primarily "eucharistically." What he means by this is, that we encounter creation with "thanksgiving." That the Church's role is to regain culture for the purpose of giving God thanks for his good creation. So, grace permeates and redeems nature through the sacraments. Creation was made to give thanks to God for being his good creation and the mission of the Church is to help restore this. The Church encounter's culture through the sacraments because the sacrament's urge the Church to go out and be missional. Those who the Church minister to encounter God through partaking in the sacraments, in experiencing the Eucharist one could therefore then live their life eucharistically. For Schmemman the sacraments aren't merely a means of receiving grace and encountering the resurrected Lord, but also the fuel for the fulfillment of the "great commission." The Spirit not only works in the life of the believer through the sacraments, but also compels the believer to mission's and therefore works in the non-believer by bringing the non-believer to encounter the Lord by means of the Church and sacraments.
Although, I do find Schmemman to be inconsistent at times, I like his direction and his emphasis on both the Church and creation. He takes mission's seriously as well as the preservation of the Church. His point about living "eucharistically," that is a life of giving thanks, is a wonderful example of how the Christian should live. Schmemman even goes as far as saying that when we take the Eucharist we eat and drink and remember end even ascend to the risen Lord, therefore whenever we eat and whenever we drink we should remember the taking of the Eucharist and that should compel us to live lives of thanksgiving and to fulfill the mission of the Church. Great book and if you have not had an encounter with Eastern Orthodoxy I highly recommend For The Life of The World.
Although, I do find Schmemman to be inconsistent at times, I like his direction and his emphasis on both the Church and creation. He takes mission's seriously as well as the preservation of the Church. His point about living "eucharistically," that is a life of giving thanks, is a wonderful example of how the Christian should live. Schmemman even goes as far as saying that when we take the Eucharist we eat and drink and remember end even ascend to the risen Lord, therefore whenever we eat and whenever we drink we should remember the taking of the Eucharist and that should compel us to live lives of thanksgiving and to fulfill the mission of the Church. Great book and if you have not had an encounter with Eastern Orthodoxy I highly recommend For The Life of The World.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Post #2: Natural Law
For this last week we read Robert P. George's book In Defense of Natural Law. To be quite honest with you I am not really interested in natural law, especially the Thomist/Catholic view of natural law, as opposed to the Reformed view. I really do not have much to say in regards to the topic and to be frank, I wasn't that impressed with the book.
I find natural law problematic because it assumes humanity's capability of gaining knowledge and revelation through nature apart from God. It asserts that reason is our means by which we gain our ethic and moral qualities. Natural law puts too much stock in human capability. It is also too subjective. If there are a multitude of moral qualities and ethical boundaries that one can gain from observation of the natural order, than how is one to be sure that it is of the natural law. A crazy person could assume that killing is part of the natural order and claim natural law, there are not enough checks and balances. Also, George's argument about sex and marriage is kind of ridiculous. I don't think scripture supports the claim that all sexual activity including oral sex and any sort of foreplay, even in the context of marriage, is strictly forbidden and sinful. Song of Solomon certainly does not agree with this statement. I also think it limits and confines physical unity within a marriage to mere "penetration," please excuse the crassness. I don't find his arguments to be overly convincing
That's about it. I really don't have much to say and am really not that interested in natural law. If you are really interested in the topic of natural law read A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law by Michael Cromartie. Sorry for the lame post
I find natural law problematic because it assumes humanity's capability of gaining knowledge and revelation through nature apart from God. It asserts that reason is our means by which we gain our ethic and moral qualities. Natural law puts too much stock in human capability. It is also too subjective. If there are a multitude of moral qualities and ethical boundaries that one can gain from observation of the natural order, than how is one to be sure that it is of the natural law. A crazy person could assume that killing is part of the natural order and claim natural law, there are not enough checks and balances. Also, George's argument about sex and marriage is kind of ridiculous. I don't think scripture supports the claim that all sexual activity including oral sex and any sort of foreplay, even in the context of marriage, is strictly forbidden and sinful. Song of Solomon certainly does not agree with this statement. I also think it limits and confines physical unity within a marriage to mere "penetration," please excuse the crassness. I don't find his arguments to be overly convincing
That's about it. I really don't have much to say and am really not that interested in natural law. If you are really interested in the topic of natural law read A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law by Michael Cromartie. Sorry for the lame post
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Seminar Series "Common Grace" and General Revelation: Post #1
Last Monday was a wonderful discussion and debate about G.C. Berkouwer's book General Revelation. First off I must say that although I do not agree with Berkouwer on many points, he is an excellent scholar and theologian. He also did a very nice job interpreting Barth, and he did so quite fairly. Berkouwer's book starts with an introduction and background to General Revelation and then moves on to Barth's offensive against Emil Brunner and Natural theology and then to Brunner and Althaus's reaction to Barth. He examines the "Nature Psalms," discusses the ideas related to revelation and knowledge, revelation and the law, revelation and illumination, article II of the Belgic confession, and finally Universality and particularity in relation to revelation. This is a very thorough book that I would recommend to anyone interested in studying General Revelation, "Common Grace," and for a better understanding of the critique of Barth and Barth's argument.
In my seminar this last Monday we discussed Berkouwer and the relationship between revelation and grace. I am coming from a Barthian background, and the rest of my colleagues and Dr. Mouw are all Neo-Calvinist's and for the most part Kuyperian's. I am widely out numbered. But, as I suspected we had a fruitful conversation and discovered that we do indeed have many similarities. Once again the crux of our theological engagement is mostly do to the use of language. Primarily the use of the words "grace" and "revelation." For Barth these two words are not only inseparable, but also unique in there relationship to each other and to Christ. For Barth "grace" involves "revelation" and vice versa. What makes these two unique is there direct relationship to Jesus Christ. For Barth grace is salvific and has been uniquely revealed in the revelation of his own being in the person of Jesus Christ. So, revelation has to necessarily include grace and the revelation of God himself. Christ is not just the giver of grace, he is grace itself, he is not just the one who imparts revelation, he is revelation itself.
"Only in the incarnation God himself comes to us and that we, therefore, only in this respect are dealing with real, actual revelation. 1" As you can see our problem has to do with language. For Berkouwer and the Neo-Calvinist school, grace does not exclusively have to do with Jesus Christ in the sense that Christ saves us, but there are also "good" things in creation which are also graces. What they mean here is not that grace is salvific in the created order, but that God's good gifts are abundant and made evident. Grace in this sense, is the act of God sustaining, preserving, and providing within creation. The problem for Barth and Barthians alike, is the word "grace." Grace is unique to Jesus Christ and therefore cannot be applied to another. Also, grace is in direct relation to revelation. Therefore, the idea of General revelation assumes grace, and the idea of "common grace" assumes revelation. This is problematic because it does not ontologically ground revelation and grace exclusively in Jesus Christ. This implies, as does natural theology, that creation, on its own, has the capacity for revelation and its reception in itself. We cannot ground revelation or grace in creation and its foundation cannot be anthropological, rather it must be Christological. Because of this distinction Barth is often considered a "christo-monist." Although this term can be a bit overstated, Barth and Barthian's alike are content with the centrality, and even exclusivity, of Jesus Christ as the "one" Word of God, and therefore one grace and one revelation.
Now, if we were to take away the word "grace" from "common grace" and "revelation" away from "general revelation," there would not be a blockade between these two traditions. In Barthian terms "common grace" is the good things that are common between the believer and the heathen. This is on account of the grace of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. "Common grace" is the active work of the resurrected Jesus Christ in creation. It is the rain that falls on the unjust and the just to produce crops, it is gifts received in any manner by all people, it is simply things that God created to be good. But, these things are good and are upheld only because of Christ. Without Christ they would not be good because they would not be attainable. What we have here is not grace, but "common good" and "common witness" created by Christ for Christ and bearing witness on account of Christ to Christ. In General Revelation, we do not have revelation, but witness and testimony. General revelation imparts no knowledge of God's being and character, but testifies and bears witness to Christ' saving act. This witness and testimony is not revelation of grace, "It is at most the herald of the King, but not the King itself. 2" "Common grace" and "General revelation" in Neo-Calvinist terms are not in fact "grace" and "revelation" in Barth's terms.
My conclusion to this whole conversation is that, maybe we cannot agree on the use of these terms, but that we can agree that these "things" are on account of the work of the living Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. So, for Barth this testimony, witness, and goodness in creation are possibly because of Christ and instituted in creation by the Holy Spirit. In this we cannot separate the eternal work of Christ from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is, we can not abstract Christ's actions from his being. Therefore we must attribute both Old and New Testament witness and present and future witness to the work of Christ by means of the Holy Spirit on account of the grace of Jesus Christ on the cross. The Old Testament witness bore testimony to the act of Jesus Christ, the New Testament proclaimed it, and the present and future witness recall and remember it. These things are possible because of Christ and are not "grace" and not "revelation," but witness and testimony actualized by the Holy Spirit. This directly links all "grace" all "revelation," and witness and testimony directly to the work of Christ. So, we really do have much in common, it's merely a matter of how we state things. Finally I would officially restate "common grace" as "commonness," that which is common and good for the the believer and unbeliever, and "general revelation" as "general witness," that which bears witness to the saving act of Christ and is done by the power of the Holy Spirit. I hope this was helpful and informative. Please feel free to comment.
1. G.C. Berkouwer, Generarl Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955) 101
2. G.C. Berkouwer, 25
In my seminar this last Monday we discussed Berkouwer and the relationship between revelation and grace. I am coming from a Barthian background, and the rest of my colleagues and Dr. Mouw are all Neo-Calvinist's and for the most part Kuyperian's. I am widely out numbered. But, as I suspected we had a fruitful conversation and discovered that we do indeed have many similarities. Once again the crux of our theological engagement is mostly do to the use of language. Primarily the use of the words "grace" and "revelation." For Barth these two words are not only inseparable, but also unique in there relationship to each other and to Christ. For Barth "grace" involves "revelation" and vice versa. What makes these two unique is there direct relationship to Jesus Christ. For Barth grace is salvific and has been uniquely revealed in the revelation of his own being in the person of Jesus Christ. So, revelation has to necessarily include grace and the revelation of God himself. Christ is not just the giver of grace, he is grace itself, he is not just the one who imparts revelation, he is revelation itself.
"Only in the incarnation God himself comes to us and that we, therefore, only in this respect are dealing with real, actual revelation. 1" As you can see our problem has to do with language. For Berkouwer and the Neo-Calvinist school, grace does not exclusively have to do with Jesus Christ in the sense that Christ saves us, but there are also "good" things in creation which are also graces. What they mean here is not that grace is salvific in the created order, but that God's good gifts are abundant and made evident. Grace in this sense, is the act of God sustaining, preserving, and providing within creation. The problem for Barth and Barthians alike, is the word "grace." Grace is unique to Jesus Christ and therefore cannot be applied to another. Also, grace is in direct relation to revelation. Therefore, the idea of General revelation assumes grace, and the idea of "common grace" assumes revelation. This is problematic because it does not ontologically ground revelation and grace exclusively in Jesus Christ. This implies, as does natural theology, that creation, on its own, has the capacity for revelation and its reception in itself. We cannot ground revelation or grace in creation and its foundation cannot be anthropological, rather it must be Christological. Because of this distinction Barth is often considered a "christo-monist." Although this term can be a bit overstated, Barth and Barthian's alike are content with the centrality, and even exclusivity, of Jesus Christ as the "one" Word of God, and therefore one grace and one revelation.
Now, if we were to take away the word "grace" from "common grace" and "revelation" away from "general revelation," there would not be a blockade between these two traditions. In Barthian terms "common grace" is the good things that are common between the believer and the heathen. This is on account of the grace of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. "Common grace" is the active work of the resurrected Jesus Christ in creation. It is the rain that falls on the unjust and the just to produce crops, it is gifts received in any manner by all people, it is simply things that God created to be good. But, these things are good and are upheld only because of Christ. Without Christ they would not be good because they would not be attainable. What we have here is not grace, but "common good" and "common witness" created by Christ for Christ and bearing witness on account of Christ to Christ. In General Revelation, we do not have revelation, but witness and testimony. General revelation imparts no knowledge of God's being and character, but testifies and bears witness to Christ' saving act. This witness and testimony is not revelation of grace, "It is at most the herald of the King, but not the King itself. 2" "Common grace" and "General revelation" in Neo-Calvinist terms are not in fact "grace" and "revelation" in Barth's terms.
My conclusion to this whole conversation is that, maybe we cannot agree on the use of these terms, but that we can agree that these "things" are on account of the work of the living Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. So, for Barth this testimony, witness, and goodness in creation are possibly because of Christ and instituted in creation by the Holy Spirit. In this we cannot separate the eternal work of Christ from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is, we can not abstract Christ's actions from his being. Therefore we must attribute both Old and New Testament witness and present and future witness to the work of Christ by means of the Holy Spirit on account of the grace of Jesus Christ on the cross. The Old Testament witness bore testimony to the act of Jesus Christ, the New Testament proclaimed it, and the present and future witness recall and remember it. These things are possible because of Christ and are not "grace" and not "revelation," but witness and testimony actualized by the Holy Spirit. This directly links all "grace" all "revelation," and witness and testimony directly to the work of Christ. So, we really do have much in common, it's merely a matter of how we state things. Finally I would officially restate "common grace" as "commonness," that which is common and good for the the believer and unbeliever, and "general revelation" as "general witness," that which bears witness to the saving act of Christ and is done by the power of the Holy Spirit. I hope this was helpful and informative. Please feel free to comment.
1. G.C. Berkouwer, Generarl Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955) 101
2. G.C. Berkouwer, 25
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)