Bruce McCormack on God and History

“The history which constitutes the being and existence of the human Jesus belongs to the history of God in the second of God’s modes of being (as ‘Son’). If, in Jesus Christ, God has elected to become human, then the human history of Jesus Christ is constitutive of the being and existence of God in the second of God’s modes to the extent that the being and existence of the Second Person of the Trinity cannot be rightly though of in the absence of this human history."[1]

This is a great quote! Bruce McCormack brings to light the relationship and unity between God's history in eternity and God's history in temporal existence. McCormack, in an incredible way, displays the heart of Barth's theological ontology, and leaves no room for God to be contemplated in terms of an abstract metaphysical subject.

---

[1] Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern : Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 223

An Introduction: Karl Barth, Christology, and History

This is the introduction to a paper I am writing for, the legendary Dr. Colin Brown, on the Christology of Karl Barth.

      When pursuing a theological investigation into the Christology of Karl Barth one must be prepared to encounter the developing nature of his theology. The Church Dogmatics, in their voluminous structure showcase the developing thought of one of the greatest theological minds of the twentieth century. Not only was the God of Karl Barth—to borrow a phrase from Eberhard Jüngel—a God in becoming, but Barth himself was a theologian in becoming. This can be seen precisely in the development of his Christology from CD I to CD IV. Barth, as a result of his theological development chose, in CD IV, to start over at the beginning with Christology; the outcome of this being the creation of a “dogmatics within a dogmatics.”[1] According to Bruce McCormack the key motivation for Barth’s Christological development from CD 1/2 to CD IV has immensely to do with the change experienced in his doctrine of election from 1936-1942.[2] The greatest result of this development can be seen in Barth’s shift from an emphasis on the anhypostasis/enhypostasis dialectic of personhood, to one of history. In light of this development, the thesis I will advance is three-fold. First, Barth’s Christology cannot be sufficiently identified within the categories of “from above” or “from below,” rather it transcends this dialectic. Second,
Barth, in lieu of a classical[3] approach to Christology, opts for a historical Christology whose theological locus centers on a two-fold history of Christ. And third, for Barth, the history of Jesus of Nazareth—the history of God with humanity—is synonymous with the history of covenant.

---

[1] Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 219

[2] Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern, 213

[3] What I mean by “classical Christology” is the emphasis upon salvation located in God’s history with creation. Barth, however, redirects this emphasis to the history of God, and humanity as it is located in the two natures of Christ. This will be later discussed in the section on “covenant.” For a more in depth discussion see, Robert Jenson, Alpha and Omega: A Study in the Theology of Karl Barth (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1963)

 

Some New Books to Look forward to

Barth Reception in Britain by D. Densil Morgan (Aug. 17, 2010)









 Kierkegaard and Theology (Philosophy and Theology) by Murray Rae (Aug. 8, 2010)

The Theology of Rowan Williams A Critical Introduction by Benjamin Myers (April 3, 2011)









Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis (T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology) by Keith L. Johnson (June 8, 2010)








Remembering the Future: An Eschatological Ontology by John Zizioulas (August 18, 2012)

An Unfortunate Reason to Blog About Suffering

This morning at 11am a friend of mine, who I play on a worship team with--named Scott, died from swelling of the brain. About a week ago Scott had a series of four strokes--two minor and two severe; he was admitted to the hospital and given a very slim chance of survival. Thankfully, he passed away peacefully this morning in the presence of his wife and our pastor, and he was fully prepared to rest in the Lord's arms.

In light of this unfortunate situation I feel the need to blog about suffering. I don't want to talk about why bad things happen; I don't want to talk about where God is in our suffering; I want to talk about where "we," i.e., the Church, are in the suffering of others.

First, we share in the suffering of Christ. We, as the Church, share in the greatest act of suffering, Christ' death, and in doing so we also share in the greatest comfort (2 Cor. 1). What does this mean? This means that we share in Christ' suffering communally. Together we share in the suffering of Christ and together we share in the comfort of Christ.

Second, because we share in the comfort and suffering of Christ, we are able to share in the suffering of others and to offer comfort to those in affliction. I truly believe that suffering is a communal event. We are meant to share in the suffering of others as we share in the suffering of Christ. There is something extremely powerful about suffering together as the body of Christ, and in doing so, offering the comfort of Christ to one another. It is my hope that as the body of Christ, we no longer stand by and let those who are afflicted suffer alone, for we cannot truly comfort others unless we suffer with them. So, without suffering we can offer no comfort; it is by our participation in the suffering of Christ that we receive comfort and communicate it to others.


"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you lshare in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort." 2 Corinthians 1:1-7

Pannenberg on the Historical Jesus and the Experience of Faith

Although I do believe that Pannenberg gives too much weight to a Christology "from below," which insufficiently deals with the eternal logos, I very much appreciate this quote.

"If it cannot be shown that the proclamation about Christ has ‘support in the historical Jesus himself,’ then the proclamation must appear as a product of faith. ‘If the person to whom the kerygma refers is in no way concretely definable in his historicity, if the reference of the kerygma to Jesus consists exclusively in the assertions for whose understanding Jesus himself is irrelevant, as merely a cipher that is accidental and in itself says nothing, then the kerygma—if it then could be kerygma at all—would be pure myth."[1]




[1] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), 27