My last post dealt with how humans speak about God. However, through dialogue with a friend and reading more Karl Barth, I have come to see that I was somewhat wrongheaded in my approach to that question. The basic problem was that I treated language in a theoretical form apart from particulars despite my attempts to give attention to human judgment. My post could have lended credence to forms of natural theology through theoretical accounts of language, including those touting "difference" as the key. I do not know what a theoretical account of language might look like, so this is a problem. Furthermore, the qualitative infinite difference between God and humanity is a form of revelation for Christians. Thus, my last account presupposed a theological account which is more fundamental. Even if the infinite qualitative difference can be known without revelation it could have no content and could not provide any positive knowledge of God.
Bascially, Christians must begin with a theological account of language; Jesus is the Word or Speech of God. What does it mean to say such a thing and what implications does this have in how we speak about God? In other words, we must predicate things about God in Jesus: in Jesus Christ God has revealed himself definitively to humanity. In the person of Jesus Christ the infinite qualitative difference between God and humanity (which I was rightly concerned to preserve in my last post) is made visible in the man Jesus of Nazereth. This distinction cannot be neglected as Jesus' two natures cannot be mixed, but when speaking about the undivided person of Jesus we can and must say things like "God was crucified in Jesus Christ." The last phrase, "in Jesus Christ" is essential to meaning of the sentence and not allowing it to stand alone and mean all sorts of ridiculous things.
Furthermore, and this is where Barth comes in, Jesus reveals humanity to us. In our current sinful state we are "less than human" insofar as sin is not part of what it means to be truly human (our intended way of being). Thus, statements like "Of course I sin; I'm only human" are simply false. This is symptomatic of a natural theology that begins with the "human" while neglecting revelation. Immediately some may object that we have now separated God from humanity in an inappropriate way; that inappropriate way being that humans are unable to come to knowledge of God on their own. However, this need not follow as in Jesus Christ we see that humanity is linked to God; they are not separated. Christ is truly God and truly man. God has come to us in Jesus Christ the Word of God, redeemed our language through God's own language, and we are thereby able to speak about God. We must always remember, however, our language about God must begin with Jesus. Any other knowledge is simply a (less than) human attempt to create God in our image.
This does not mean our language "captures," "pictures," or "corresponds" to God in some natural or foundational way; God's language and our language are not completely separated despite the ontological difference between creator and creature. Here is where Barth does not quite get, but does get close in the later Dogmatics (Volume 4 particularly). Barth is right, though, to begin with revelation and that we cannot reason our way to the Father of Jesus or of Jesus himself. Aquinas and Barth here are in agreement as Thomas does not think knowledge of the Trinity is possible apart from revelation. Hence, I was wrong to begin my discussion about God-language with a discussion about language in general apart from particulars, particularly Jesus Christ, the Father's Word made flesh. I should have begun with Jesus. That said, I do think the content of my last post is mostly correct but can only be deemed so post-revelation. In other words, my treatment of analogy is a theological treatment that I failed to recognize as such. My way of knowing (the logical order) became the way of ontology (ontological order), which is the first great mistake of natural theology. I needed to recognize that the ontological order precedes my knowledge of it. Hence, speech concerning God must begin with Jesus Christ, the Word of God, who is the performance of the analogy of being. Jesus as analogy of being both maintains that we can say positive things about God while also maintaining our speech is analogical or does not "capture," "picture," or "correspond" to God in a definitive sense. In other words, speech remains analogical (without proportion) but only because of Jesus.
To be honest, I am not sure what the implications are of this, as I am still stumbling through it. I welcome comments.
Tim
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Tim--
Another very interesting and thoughtful post. I hope to respond later this evening.
BTW, about the email...this is embarrasing...could you remind me of your last name again? *hangs head in shame*
LOL!
I didn't email you because I couldn't remember yours :-) So, I tried to be sneaky and have you email me to avoid the shame. Don't feel bad as I now hang my head in shame as well. BTW, Furry.
Tim--
As you know, I completely agree with your approach here, that is, to begin God-language with the person of Christ. After all, and as you note, the only way in which to speak of that which is infinitely qualitatively different is that the "different" becomes the same as us, which has occurred in Christ as the God/human.
There are curious implications to this. For example, if it is true that we cannot truly speak of God except as we speak of God as revealed in Christ, does the same necessity apply to anthropological language? In other words, is it possible to truly speak of humanity without speaking of it in relation to God as revealed in Christ? Is Christ the nexus for not only theological (God) language, but also for anthropological language?
If this isn't a heretical, perhaps it could function as a kind of "proof" of God, as the very nature of human language anticipates a corolary divine language and is only properly resolved in the revelation of the God/human
Exist,
Thanks for the comments. I do want to say that Christ is the nexus for anthropolical language, and I do think this follows from what I posted.
However, I would want to stay away from human language anticipating God's language. God has eternally willed to be "for us" in the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, we must say God did not have to create, but he did and must speak from here. Thus, if anything God's language anticipates ours insofar as God speaks himself and even us before the foundation of the world through Jesus Christ. There is not humans in themselves; thus, we must speak of God, specifically Jesus when talking about humanity. (Hence, Barth's "Humanity of God" book). Here, I am using Barth's doctrine of election. Jesus is the elector and elected, not certain individuals. This to me is exactly what Ephesians 1 says since Paul always says we are elected "in Christ." Try that one on your Reformed friends and see what happens! Interestingly, Barth was rather reformed--a little too much for my taste actually.
Tim--
However, I would want to stay away from human language anticipating God's language. God has eternally willed to be "for us" in the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, we must say God did not have to create, but he did and must speak from here. Thus, if anything God's language anticipates ours insofar as God speaks himself and even us before the foundation of the world through Jesus Christ. There is not humans in themselves; thus, we must speak of God, specifically Jesus when talking about humanity. (Hence, Barth's "Humanity of God" book).
I don't think I was as clear as I should have been. When I said that human language "anticipates" divine language, I was thinking in terms of humans in relation to themselves. In this sense, it is not that humanity-as-separate-from-God creates divine language, but rather that the very createdness of humanity and its union to the divine in the person of Christ presupposes the "first-ness" of divine language. Therefore, the anticipation of divine language is more in the act of the human reflection upon human language, rather than to be seen as human language creating divine language. Does that make sense?
Here, I am using Barth's doctrine of election. Jesus is the elector and elected, not certain individuals. This to me is exactly what Ephesians 1 says since Paul always says we are elected "in Christ." Try that one on your Reformed friends and see what happens!
LoL, I try it all the time. They just laugh nervously, change the subject, and talk about the ineffable eternal decrees of God. Or they accuse me of neo-orthodoxy (since reformed theology is, apparently, THE orthodoxy...doh!) and go on rants about every negative peice of theology that has come up since Calvin and try to associate me to them.
Interestingly, Barth was rather reformed--a little too much for my taste actually.
I'll forgive him.
Tim,
I think you would do well to read Gregory of Nyssa. I think that he may make a nice conversation partner to your Barth.
Overall, I like what you are doing, but I always wonder. I really wonder, "What about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Moses? What about the OT "saints"?" How did or were they able to speak about God before the coming of Jesus, unless the structure of Jesus (what I like to call the Logos) was there before the actual incarnation of the Logos?
Just what I am pondering. I appreciate what you are trying to do, and for the most part, agree. I just wonder.
Hi, Nate,
Thanks, as always, for your comments. I am familiar with some of Nyssa. Robert Jenson, who likes Barth, is quite fond of Nyssa.
To respond to your question about the Logos, I would say that God has eternally willed to be "for humanity" in Jesus Christ. So, yes, there is a pre-existent Logos but it would not be asarkos (without flesh). God has elected all of humanity in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. There is not a general "substratum" in creation that is separate from Jesus Christ. To speak of the pre-existent Logos is rather speculative, I think. Besides we can only make such claims post-Incarnation which means they go through Jesus. Does this clarify at all?
I am still thinking through this stuff, so continue to press me and ask questions.
Exist--
"Human reflection upon human language"--I am not sure what you mean by this as wouldn't this simply be more human language? Are you implying humans can get "outside" language? Of course, I think there is more to "the world" than simply words, but language is not reducible to words. I think the world is linguistic all the way down, and for theological reasons!
Do you mean to say our performance of speaking and God's eternal speech of the Word, which includes humanity!, is analogous? If so, I can go along with that.
Tim
Regarding the logos asarkos discussion, I think that we must not begin with the Word, but with the Word-made-flesh. However, we must take seriously the fact that the Word became flesh, which means, I think, that there was in some sense a time when the Word was asarkos.
This logos asarkos is not, however, the final or basic reality of all things and is not constitutive of God the Son's identity. This is where Jenson's God-as-event talk helps so much. God's identity is event-ual and determined by the End, by the future outworking of the Father's revelation in the eternally incarnate Son's obedience - i.e., in the Spirit, in and by whom eternality and temporality find their perfection together.
This talks leaves me dizzy, and I feel that I'm always about to lose myself in nonsense - perhaps I've already done that! But as I've said already, even though we can't know the Word without the Word-made-flesh, we must not think that that means the Word becoming flesh wasn't an event. If our soteriology is to be realistic in any sense, that is, if it's going to have anything to do with the reality we inhabit, then Jesus' incarnation must have been a real event in the life of God. Otherwise, we're dealing with monad-like existence for ourselves and God, it seems to me.
This is related to our nature/grace discussion, obviously, so that logos asarkos has to do with "nature" and logos en sarkos has to do with "grace."
The Word is always intended and intending to be the Word-made-flesh; nonetheless there was a time when the Word-made-flesh was not. The incarnation is really new, both for God, whose experience makes reality real, and thereby for us and all creation.
Jesus is the new creation, is grace, in such a way that he is more than the Word without being other than the Word. I think any resistance to this idea of change that doesn't necessitate imperfection arises from metaphysical assumptions that need to be overturned, as Jenson, et. al. have argued.
Following this line of thought, then, I find that grace is qualitatively more than nature but not in such a way that nature is not graced. Grace fulfills nature, makes it its most real self, does for it what it could never have done for itself. Nonetheless, the self that grace makes of nature is really, truly nature's self. When grace has done its work, nature does not say, "I am lost"; it says, "At last!"
So, I think, it goes with the Law and the Spirit, Israel and the church, the Word and the Word-made-flesh.
Post a Comment