Reviews for Thoughtful Life

The average rating for Thoughtful Life based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2015-01-10 00:00:00 Brad Beaty Karl Barth's goal in this volume is to recover the proclamation of the Word of God as the place where God's message of salvation meets sinful man. Contrary to the shrill reactions from the Reformed crowd, Barth did not deny the truth of the Gospel. However, Barth's message did rework what we mean by "the Bible," "The Word of God" and "Revelation." Some of these re-structurings will cause problems to conservative Calvinists. Be that as it may, the reasons why Barth did these things are very instructive and for the present reader, offered a way through many impasses in reading the Bible. Similar to the hysteria surrounding the academic career of N. T. Wright, Karl Barth also wrote in response to liberalism and modernism'something both his and Wright's critics failed to grasp. Barth denied that God was the "sum total of human experience" (ala Schliermacher) or the "evolution of religious consciousness" (ala Tillich). Rather, God was "wholly other" who meets man through his Revelation. What does Barth mean by "Revelation?" For Barth, Revelation is "the Word become Flesh" (119). The "Word of God" is our meeting said Revelation in the proclamation of the Church (137). Barth's reading will cause problems for many conservatives, and we should seriously consider these problems. If Barth is correct, then "inerrancy" simply becomes a non-issue. One can still maintain inerrancy, but there is no longer a need to fight that (admittedly difficult) battle. Seeing God's revelation as "the Incarnate Word" is helpful. This is precisely how the apostle John spoke about Jesus and the Word of God. Such a reading brings an urgently personal dimension to issues like Christ and the Bible. This does not mean that our understanding of who Jesus is is now relative and up for grabs. The Bible still remains the criterion for the Church in its proclamation. While no longer seen as literally the "breath of God continually breathing in our quiet time," and no longer seen as direct, propositional revelation from God, it is still holy men's witness to God's revelation.i It is still the script of the Church. The Bible, though, must now be read and interpreted in the Church. Academic theology is officially finished. Throughout the volume Barth repeatedly (and helpfully) summarizes his argument. We meet "the Word of God" (which is "speech from God," cf. 157) in three forms: proclamation, Scripture, and revelation. We can know the Word of God because God's word is "speech." It is speech to us and speech implies, assuming God isn't insane, a rational speaker. The point, then, of a rationally speaking God is that he speaks to (at least some) men who can (at least some times) rationally receive his message (187, 214). The structure of Barth's introductory volume will seem peculiar to some. He spends the first half of the volume dealing with problems of revelation and Scripture and then moves into the Trinity. However, there have been hints within Barth's narrative that he planned this all along. Keep in mind that for Barth "revelation" does not equal "propositional speech from/about God," but rather, revelation is God, or more specifically, The Word of God Incarnate. If that is so, then in discussing revelation we must discuss God, and in discussing God, we must discuss the Trinity. Barth on Analogy Barth was notorious for denying the concept of man's analogous reasoning towards God, even calling the doctrine of analogia entis the "artifact of Antichrist." Critics have since accused Barth of denying all forms of analogy and thus reducing Barth's position to absurdity, for analogous reasoning is inevitable (e.g., when we call God "father" we obviously have at least some human point of reference). But Barth did not deny all forms of analogy. Interestingly, neither do the Eastern Trinitarians. What is being denied is an analogy between God's being and creaturely being. The reason both groups deny this analogy is because the content of the creaturely being (which is what we know) begins to define (and thus limit) our understanding of the divine being. There is no problem, within reason, however, of drawing analogies between God's operations or the divine persons, which Barth does. Revelation as Trinity Barth's second half of this volume is a discussion of God as Trinity. This necessarily follows, per his gloss, from his discussion of Prolegomena, because God reveals himself as Trinity. Keep in mind that for Barth God's revelation is not "The Bible" but God himself. It is here that Barth introduces his (in)famous description of God as "three modes of being" (359). By this Barth simply wants to describe God's life in a way that doesn't suffer from the usual definitions of "person." Men have criticized Barth for using the term "mode" and from that drew the conclusion that Barth is a modalist. I don't think Barth is a modalist, though.i Instead, Barth is drawing upon the Cappadocian notion of tropos huparchos, or mode (way) of being. By this he means that the one God is God in the mode of Father, in the mode of Son, and in the mode of Holy Spirit (359-360). Mode for Barth is simply his attempt to say what the Church has always meant by "person." Of course, what the Church has "always meant by person" is a challenge, as Barth gives an excellent survey over the theological etymology of the word "person" (355-358). The Holy Spirit Barth makes an interesting suggestion that what we commonly know as the "ordo salutis" should be read, not in a temporal or logical form, as is the case in Reformed textbooks, but in an eschatological manner (464). This foreshadows a lot of the interesting suggestions made by Reformed theologians in the late 20th century. Barth ends his discussion with a lengthy defense of the Filioque. I wonder how many modern defenders of the Filioque will find it worthwhile. Part of Barth's defense rests upon his "mode of being" constructed. While I don't believe this is necessarily modalistic, most people do and will likely look askance at it. Secondly, he follows what has since become known as "Rahner's Rule:" the immanent trinity is the eschatological trinity (479). Barth's criticisms of the Eastern view are: it interprets verses in isolation (480); it separates the Spirit from the revelation of the Son (480); and "of" necessarily means "ontologically originating," since the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son (481). With regard to the first point, this is no different than the Fundamentalist saying, "Yes, it appears that verse teaches what you believe, but if you read the rest of the Bible you will see that I am correct." In other words, if you beg the question to my favor ahead of time, you will agree with me. The second objection is asking the question how is the Spirit and Son related to one another. To be fair, I don't think Barth could have been familiar with the Eastern literature on this subject. Most of the Orthodox world when Barth was writing was enslaved to either the Muslims or the Soviets. Barth probably could have consulted Vladimir Lossky, but he didn't. To answer the objection, Gregory II of Cyprus said that the Son eternally manifests the Spirit by his energies. Thus, there is a real connection between the two persons, but not an ontological subordination. Of course, Barth held to absolute divine simplicity (483), so he could not affirm the energies anyway. His last objection is the weakest. Aside from a reference to Rahner's Rule, he offers no argument that "of = from." If we take his argument, though, we must also affirm that the Spirit, being God himself, is also seen as the spirit of God, which means that the Spirit must eternally proceed from himself! Even worse, he is also the Spirit of truth, which means he must hypostatically proceed from the attribute of truth. Even worse than that, the Son came into the world by the work of the Holy Spirit. And since, per Barth's gloss, there is a 1:1 correlation between ontology and economy, the Son must necessarily proceed from the Spirit! Should we even accept Rahner's Rule? If one reads the theological literature, one will rarely come across an actual argument for it. It is is simply posited and that is that. Barth has to maintain it because Barth holds to absolute divine simplicity (483). At the back of this discussion is a certain category of being that applies in the West but not in the East. Another problem is that advocates of Rahner's rule need to demonstrate that procession is identical with sending, but if it were the Son would proceed from the Father, rather than be begotten. Barth has some other interesting and problematic comments on the Spirit. He calls the Spirit the "mediating position" between Father and Son (482). If the Spirit is the mediating position between Father and Son, how is perichoresis even possible? Interestingly, Barth does not read the Eastern compromise of dia tou hiou (through the Son) as teaching the Filioque. Make of it what you will. Conclusions and criticisms Whenever a theologian sets out to write 9,000+ pages (Church Dogmatics, you will recall, is a largely unfinished work), there will be sections where the reader disagrees. That is to be expected. My disagreements and criticisms of Barth in no way detract from from the sheer awe that is due to the man. Was Barth consistent? We agree with Barth that revelation equals the Incarnate Word. We further agree that the Bible cannot simply be defined as "the word of God." Barth elsewhere notes that God's revelation is God himself, and as such claims Lordship over man. God is both the means and content of revelation (295). Accordingly, Barth is worried about any attempt of man, (for example, the Church) to be in a hermeneutical position vis-a-vis the Scriptures. He notes that if man stands in authority over the Scriptures, the Bible can no longer exercise that free and existential lordship over the Church. As such, he is "self-interpreting" (311). Unfortunately for us, self-interpreting claims are always ambiguous. It begs the obvious (and unanswerable) question, "Self-interpreting to whom?" While the Word of God can "grasp" the individual believer and meet him with the claims of Lordship, at the end of the day someone has to interpret the Scriptures. Further, if Barth is correct and the location of dogmatics is done in the Church (112), then that someone's interpretation will in some way be binding on said believer's life. (The alternative, of course, is the free church model where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes.") At one point Barth appears aware of this problem when he says, "We must bear in mind that the word of God is mediated here, first through the human persons of the prophets and the apostles who receive it and pass it on, and then through the human persons of the expositors and preachers, so that the Holy Scripture and proclamation must always become God's words in order to be it" (304). This problem is even more pointed earlier in the narrative when Barth (unwittingly) sets Scripture against the Church (97). It is not merely that Barth objects to the idea of an apostolically-ordained bishop (which he doesn't specifically challenge that historicity of such), but also the idea of a teaching office of the Church. Of course, Barth's background is the papal claims of Vatican I, and almost all of his rhetoric is directed against such. The question, though, one can ask Barth is, "How do you know your canon of Scripture is correct?" He doesn't answer the question. He assumes a normative Protestant canon. He does not deal with (at least in this volume of CD) the issue of how the canon came to be. It would be embarrassing for his argument if he did. Keep in mind his claim elsewhere (311) that God's revelation (and by extension, Scripture) is "self-interpreting." If it is self-interpreting, it is necessarily the highest authority. If that is the case, and I think Barth would agree, then the highest authority must establish itself. This authority, though, does not say anything about the content or goal of a canon. The canon must be established elsewhere. The problem isn't over, yet. If one establishes the canon elsewhere, one must also do so in light of the fact that for Barth (and most of the Protestant tradition), "Scripture interprets Scripture." Aside from other hermeneutical problems with that statement, this means that the horizon of Scripture is not determined by Scripture (remember, Scripture says nothing about a fully intact canon). The Church, however, through the holy fathers, says quite a bit about such a horizon. At this point in history when Barth was writing, aside from a few Catholics, nobody raised the question. Final Thoughts The book is rightly seen as the beginning of a masterpiece. Even if everything Barth said is all wrong, one cannot deny that he was a master thinker and writer. The book is written with a superior style. The alternating text of large print/small print is an aide to the reader. If one has some history in post-Reformation theology and continental philosophy, the book is actually quite easy to read. Finally, one will get a thorough overview of post-Reformation dogmatics and will be able to speak of these thinkers with confidence.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-03-19 00:00:00 Jaskaran Singh In a word: magisterial. In fact, I have been so moved by Barth's theology, at one point I decided to summarize every subsection in the first volume. Here are the fruits of that labor, in case it will help you, dear reader: 1.1 §1 "The Task of Dogmatics" pp. 1-24 002: 1.1 §2 "The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics" pp. 25-44 003: 1.1 §3.1 "Talk About God and Church Proclamation" pp. 47-71 004: 1.1 §3.2-4.1 "The Word of God In Its Threefold Form" pp. 71-99 005: 1.1 §4.2-4.4 "The Word of God In Its Threefold Form" pp. 99-124 006: 1.1 §5.1-5.3 "The Nature of the Word of God" pp. 125-162 007: 1.1 §5.4-6.2 "The Nature of the Word of God" pp. 162-198 009: 1.1 §6.3 "The Word of God and Experience" pp. 198-227 010: 1.1 §6.4 "The Word of God and Faith" pp. 227-247 011: 1.1 §7.1 "The Word of God, Dogma, and Dogmatics" pp. 248-275 012: 1.1 §7.2-7.3 "The Word of God, Dogma, and Dogmatics" pp. 275-292 013: 1.1 §8.1-8.2 "The Revelation of God" pp. 295-333 014: 1.1 §8.3 "Vestigium Trinitatis" pp. 333-347 015: 1.1 §9.1 "Unity in Trinity" pp. 348-353 016: 1.1 §9.2 "Trinity in Unity" pp. 353-368 017: 1.1 §9.3 "Triunity" pp. 368-375 018: 1.1 §9.4 "The Meaning of the Doctrine of the Trinity" pp. 375-383 019: 1.1 §10.1 "God as Creator" pp. 384-390 020: 1.1 §10.2 "The Eternal Father" pp. 390-398 021: 1.1 §11.1 "God as Reconciler" pp. 399-414 022: 1.1 §11.2 "The Eternal Son" pp. 414-447 023: 1.1 §12.1 "God as Redeemer" pp. 448-466 024: 1.1 §12.2 "The Eternal Spirit" pp. 466-489