-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read this post over at Theology Out of Bounds, in which the author makes the case that monotheism (asserting the existence of only one god) is unbiblical. He argues that the faith of Israel and of the early church was not so much monotheistic as it was monolatrous (monolatry: serving only one god regardless of the existence of others). It reminded me of a passage from Oswlad Bayer's Theology the Lutheran Way and I thought I'd walk through it a bit.
Bayer is talking about the relation of philosophy (especially natural theology) to biblical theology and the attempt to unify them by what he calls "justifying thinking." The attempts to do this can go two ways. First, as in the case of the medieval scholastic theologians, it can start from abstract, general, rational truths derived purely from logic and try to end up with Christianity. This approach starts with something like the god of Plato (omnibenevolent, omniscient, immutable, omnipotent, etc.) and moves to show how the god of the Bible is this god. It tries to build a foundation of logic and then add revelation on top of it. The second approach is more recent and finds proponents in Bonhoeffer and Barth. This method begins with God's self-revelation and works from there to arrive at abstract, general, rational truths. To Bayer, both of these approaches suffer from the same flaw: they both sacrifice the concrete revelation of God for the sake of general, abstract truths.
The temptation to engage in justifying thinking is especially strong for a systematic theologian, for this kind of thinking develops the idea of a "unity" of reality. Justifying thinking is preoccupied with the desire to mediate and reconcile all things. It is driven by the compulsion to demonstrate that every individual and particular thing is based on something general...As humans, we are driven to justify ourselves, both with our thinking and our actions. By trying to find something that unifies human endeavors with God's revelation, we look to justify ourselves before God in our thinking. It's not really any different than the person who acts morally in order to earn their way to heaven. It's all part of the same motivation: Sin. Sin causes us to try and show ourselves to be worthy, rather than accepting the entirely free gift of God. This has to be eliminated, and the only way for that to happen is through the cross. We have to die to ourselves. God has to kill the "theologian of glory" (the person whose theology is captivated by the need to reserve some glory for humanity) to leave the "theologian of the cross" (the person whose theologies of glory have been broken and who realizes that all remains is the cross).
Insofar as metaphysics is justifying thinking, which is in league with morality in the sense of justifying action, it is put to death by the passive, donated righteousness of faith. The person who is reborn a Christian and a theologian through the word of the cross and is a "theologian of the cross" says what a thing is: "A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls a thing what it actually is. (Heidelberg Disputation)" Why is that so? People by nature have their own natural idea of God, in which they flatten everything out to make it fit the concept of the One, the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. But the theologian of the cross has had that false idea of God shattered through painful disillusionment.And there it is: the conception of God as "the One, the True, the Beautiful, and the Good"-- this is an idol created by the human heart! The search for a "totality of meaning" which can incorporate both our human reasoning and divine revelation (even if it is based in Christology, as in Barth) is just a symptom of our "fabricating heart!" When we talk about the "one God" in the sense of monotheism, we gloss over the way he is presented in scripture. The "God" of philosophy ends up usurping the God of revelation. Bayer gives an example of this in the translation of God's name:
The death of the old self therefore also means that our illusion of a totality of meaning is destroyed, even if it was only hypothetically anticipated. Humans have a deep-seated need to engage in justifying thinking. But the theologian of the cross recognizes in this the "thinking and striving of the human heart," which is radically evil (Gen. 6:5 and 8:21). In its justifying thinking the human heart is a "fabricating" heart that constantly produces and projects images in the mind, idols, on which we hang our hearts, archetypes, prototypes, hopes of happiness and success. Each of us has such images on which we hang our heart, which the heart itself has produced. Therefore, Calvin, luke Luther, says that the human heart is an "idol factory."
...this question was raised by the Greek form of the Hebrew name of God in the [Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture]. God's name in Hebrew has a verbal form that can be taken as a reliable promise that God is freely present with us: I am/will be who I am/will be (Exod. 3:14). [There is no real tense in Biblical Hebrew, so 'ehyeh can mean both "I am" and "I will be."] However, in Greek this dynamic is lost and the divine name is petrified into the self-predication of an absolute being: ego eimi ho on [lit. "I am the one who is" or "I am the being"] (where "on" is the word in Greek metaphysics for "being").When we think in terms of metaphysics, of some abstract, rational reality behind the presented reality, we are in danger of forgetting that God is a "living God" and not an abstract ideal. God is not some generic "being" or abstract emotion; he is a personal, living and active God, and he does things we hate. To shield ourselves from this terrifying God, we create theories to set up idols so that we can have control. Essentially, we set up gods that are lesser than God so that we can leave some room for our own freedom, our own morality, our own justification. We can't help it. We are in bondage to Sin and so we can't let God be God. The only answer to this is the word of the Cross: the promise of death and new life, freely given by a God who we can't control and who won't submit to our quest for a "totality of meaning." The theologian of glory must die so that the theologian of the cross can be raised.
In Greek thinking, immortality, the absence of emotion and its accompanying impassibility (apathy), all belong to being, pure and simple, to being itself. However, where the biblical texts are taken seriously, there will be a grave conflict with Greek metaphysics and ontology. The event described in Hosea 11:7-11 is ontologically unthinkable. Ancient metaphysics rejects it as mythology because it cannot abide the thought that there is a "coup," a change in God himself. Here God is not identical with himself; he is not consistent with himself: "...My heart is changed within me, I am full of remorse. (9) I will not execute my fierce anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and no mortal...."
Clearly, there is a strong tension between theology and philosophy that we cannot minimize or even try to harmonize.
I think this is a great potential sermon. There is revelation in it.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the post reminded you of that passage?
ReplyDeleteYou caught me, Amy!
ReplyDeleteIt actually reminded me of this quote:
"Yahweh's lawsuit with the other gods must not be glossed over even by systematic theology through an abstract monism. At stake is the truth of the first commandment: 'I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods besides me!' Nevertheless, the other gods have their reality in their promises and enticements, as either something fascinating or frightening, in the sense of a power that is given to them by the human fabricating heart."
And then I had to go back and explain what he meant by "abstract monism," and that ended up turning into this post, and then the original quote didn't quite fit.
And here we are.
That's a relief. I was afraid that there was some obvious connection that went without saying and I was just too dense or too poor of a reader to pick up on.
ReplyDeleteI like some of Oz's word choice: "donated" and "lawsuit"
Here's something: I believe the gist of this post to be true. I feel a compulsion to justify what I do, to explain my actions and emotions, to make so much sense that no one could possibly blame me. I think that my compelled justifications are nonsense. The trouble is to be a theologian of the cross seems too painful. How would you not simply despair without the crutches of the idols of the heart?
Alright. I figure the Barth dude should say something. I like the prompt and general direction this goes, but i'm not too settled on where your Bayer reference goes with figures like Bonhoeffer and Barth. I'm sure you expected this coming from me. I haven't read Bayer so i don't think i fully understand his position on the two characters and their theology. But...
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure going from Revelation to Abstract Truth is that similar to the process of going developing Abstract Logical Truths and attempting to fit them in Christian schemes. Obviously that is the god of the philosophers, but i don't think Barth or Bonhoeffer have a god similar to that of the Philosophers. In fact they spoke thoroughly against that god and the prologomena leads to such a god.
Also the method of Barth and Bonhoeffers is purposefully grounded in God's revelation and seek to let God speak for Himself. I believe that both recognize with Calvin and Luther that the human individual is an 'idol factory'. But that is the very human that goes up on the cross with Christ. The man that dies... and the man that needs redemption. I think both would say that that man must die and does die with Christ. I think where they would probably draw their authority for why they can even possibly attempt theology is that Christ rose from the dead and so that killed man has as well with Him. And the fact that they do try to understand the self-revealing God is grounded in the fact that the whole man is redeemed. I don't remember who said it but it was a classic quote of one of the church fathers. 'The unredeemed is the unsaved'. Alongside that even man's mind is redeemed and in the process of redemption. But as we are simultaneously redeemed and being redeemed we must proceed in caution. I think Barth and Bonhoeffer would agree with me in saying the work of theology is dangerous. It seems to me that the authority that both draw from in their journey of being a theologian is from the Holy Spirit and the call to proclaim/preach. Both would say that the preached word is flawed but we should not succumb to the problem of theology--that true preaching and teaching is that of preaching and teaching the word within the world. Attempting to let God speak for Himself through our work and word in the world.
All this to say, i wonder if Bayer is getting caught at the cross with Barth and Bonhoeffer. I think when one looks and the B's you have to allow them to speak through their complete Christology--Living, Dying and Resurrected Christ. I wonder if Bayer is caught on the cross because that is where He finds the Truth. I want to be fair so i recognize that may be a gross generalization. But i think when one tries to compare one's own theological understanding to another's of a different tract much can fall through the cracks. By these passages i just don't think that Bayer understands what the B's really mean by going from revelation to abstraction. I think, and i may be wrong, that they would say that one's abstract thoughts derived from revelation is simply one's way to explain what was just read... there and then.
I may be bastardizing everything here, so what do you think?
Amy - Yeah, that's exactly right. Being a theologian of the cross is a painful process; it involves being put to death! And part of what that death entails *is* despair; despair of idols, and ultimately despair of one's self. The only thing that keeps it from being total despair is that there is a way out. The only way left to us is to let God get us out. Our saving grace is the word of the cross, the promise of salvation, the promise that this confusing, frightening, unpredictable God has chosen to be *our* God. This is what I mean when I say that I cling to the promise. I cling to it because (when I'm at my best theologically) it is the only option available to me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the idols of the heart all ultimately lead to despair as well; there's no lasting help in them. They may give some peace of mind for a while, but like all defense mechanisms, they end up causing more trouble than they're worth.
Also, being a theologian of the cross isn't something you do so much as it is something done to you. You can't destroy your own idols, God (through external words and life experiences) has to do that for you. If life were easy, we'd probably be able to go forever with our idols, but God won't let us.
So, to answer your question, being a theologian of the cross is something that involves much pain and even despair, but it's despair with a way out through resurrection.
Tyson - First of all, as a matter of clarification, when we talk about being a theologian of the cross, the cross is "shorthand for the entire narrative of the crucified and risen Jesus," to quote Forde. My fault for not making that clear, I'll edit the post so that makes more sense to people.
ReplyDeleteSecond, to Bayer, whenever you try and establish abstract, rational truths, whether pre- or post- revelation, you subordinate the concrete events of scripture to your abstract ideals. The attempt to come up with a totality of meaning can't be honest, the story of the cross doesn't allow for that kind of interpretation.
As regards Barth and Bonhoeffer (more Barth than Bonhoeffer): I can't be sure that I'm representing Bayer accurately here, as the third of the book dedicated to evaluating Tillich, Elert, and Barth isn't included in the English edition. Basically, I don't know enough about Barth to go into details, but I know that Bayer sees him as crossing a line in his move from concrete to general. This goes along the same lines as the dispute about the "hidden God" goes. Bayer thinks that Barth is going farther than he is able to go in trying to pierce the mysteries of God, even if he is trying to be faithful to revelation. Bayer believes that one of the ways God relates to us is in his hiddenness. God hides himself apart from revelation, and that includes generating abstract generalizations from revelation. God simply won't be found that way. Barth's Christology and the natural theology he takes from it deny the hiddenness of God. It makes it seem that we can know all that there is to know. Bayer denies this. God won't submit to a system, even a system based on scripture.
Sorry I can't be more specific, but just realize that the issue isn't the starting point, it's the abstractions themselves.
Hmm. In regards to Barth, and what you have shared of Bayer's perspective on him, i'm still not settled on how accurate he is with Barth. We can let that slide... for now.
ReplyDeleteI think my real issue is understanding what is meant by abstract thought. Here's where i go with the whole situation. Abstract thought prior to revelation, yes, will always end up in 'isogesis'. No matter how well meaning we are in our work prior to reading scripture it will always contaminate our perspective and transform honest reading of scripture into rationalism. I think everyone in this conversation Bayer, Barth, Bonhoeffer, you, me and the rest would agree to some point or another on that.
The place i get hung up on is obviously the other direction--beginning with scripture and going into rational or abstract thought. I see this going to ways, but just to keep you following the wrong way that i'm about to describe is really just working with scripture going from the abstract/rational to scripture and thus is 'isogesis'. So this wrong way i think plays out like this: one reads scripture, sees all these connecting dots, defines those dot's as a general 'rule', then goes back to scripture with this preconceived notion and only reads that in scripture. This is why theology is so dangerous and one must realize that one can't make God in one's own image, even if you have the best or most biblical references to support it. This is a temptation for all theologians/pastors/christians and must be recognized as such, for it is the disease of the church.
The other way, and if i dabble into the wrong way you see why i believe theology is such a hard and dangerous work, is as such. One picks up the bible, reads this and that, sees all these connecting dots, they then try to define what they are reading and when someone comes along and asks them about this God they try to tell them about Him in understandable language.
...
...
ReplyDeleteNow, i understand these may be horrible examples but here are a few things that i want to point out as needed distinctions.
A: Reading scripture is a communal thing. As well as doing theology, ministry, relationships, etc. I believe it is when we believe we are only accountable to ourselves that we get into the worst trouble, internally and externally.
B: Reading scripture is not just for our enjoyment. I mean it can be that too, and i believe we should delight in scripture, but we read scripture that we might share that witness. Witnessing involves both action and word but when we use our words we are attempting to share a thought in an understanable way.. even if the thought is unthinkable (like... the mystery of God).
C: With both of these i think the real theme is language. If we read scripture together or attempt to share thoughts we must come to some decided, or developing, language. I think sometimes this can lead us into situations like the medieval era that described God as omnipotent and all the rest of those omni's and more. But i think a theologians job, since he must attempt to call a spade a spade, is also to help craft a language so that we don't mistake a spade with shade.
D: In working with language one has a mighty temptation to make generalizations. And here's the kicker: I think the good way to read scripture and use the rational/abstract is to use it tentatively. Example: after reading about Jesus' life, death and resurrection--'so it looks like God can resurrect the dead, now i know He probably won't do a 'lazarus' on me but as i read it it sounds like God is stronger than death.'
I hope that makes sense. What i just don't get is how Bayer is defining the rational truths and abstract thoughts. Nor do i understand his problem with the post-revelation rational/abstract scheme because, and this might be a little snarky, i'm sure he uses at least some rational thought and works with abstract concepts. Unless he want's to say he is simply an observer of what others have done or are doing and wants to call them wrong... if, if that is true than he's simply a nay-sayer of the worst kind. But i don't think he is, well i don't know, but i'm sure he's not.
What do ya think?
Tyson,
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry that I’m unable to show exactly how Bayer is criticizing Barth, I’m sure it must be frustrating. Thanks for letting it slide for now, I’m going to make another post soon and try and let Bayer speak for himself in that one. I like your two examples, I think they make the point quite well, and I think that Bayer would see Barth as doing something like the first one with/through his Christology. I don’t know enough to explain that sufficiently, so wait for my next post, hopefully that will help.
Regarding theology being about language: I totally agree, and I think Bayer does as well. He quotes Hamann several times as saying that “theology is a grammar of the language of Holy Scripture.” Since God relates to us verbally, through the Word, theology at its best concerns itself with that relation and becomes a kind of “grammar.” The problem, as Bayer sees it, comes when theologians try and peel back the Word and see what lies behind it. They begin to say that it is not God’s relating to us that is important, but some abstract truth behind it. So, Jesus’ death on the cross stops being important in itself, and only becomes important as it points to a prior event (God’s decision to elect us through Christ). The story of Lazarus, to borrow from your example, becomes merely an object lesson that God is stronger than death. As true or false as these abstractions may be, they are dead and entirely at our disposal. “God is stronger than death” becomes a datum which I can summon at will to serve whatever purpose I would like.
Notice that in this scheme I am the primary actor. Bayer insists throughout his book that theology is not so much something we do as it is something that is done to us by God. The Word (whether it comes as Law, Gospel, or crushing hiddenness) has power over us; it interprets us, not the other way around. When we eliminate context/history to generate an abstraction, we are insulating ourselves from the power of the story to kill/raise us. Bayer sees abstraction as a defense mechanism of the old self against the killing action of God. “God is stronger than death” has little power over me. Much stronger is the word preached to me that “My God does not desire the death of me, a sinner.” This word, or something like it, has the power to really interpret me, it draws me into the story of God’s redemption of the world, and by doing this it accomplishes my redemption along with the world.
Something helpful to remember in regards to Lutheran theology is that (at its best) it is all about the Word of the Cross, wherever and in whatever form it comes to us. Scripture, preaching, prayer, general life experiences—these are the media by which the Holy Spirit does his work on us. These don’t point to some other plane of existence where redemption is happening; they themselves accomplish the work. When the priest (in the priesthood-of-all-believers sense) declares to you that your sins are forgiven, he is not merely describing something that has mysteriously and internally happened to you—he is not pointing to some other reality—rather, he is doing the deed. He is effecting your forgiveness. That declaration is how God forgives your sins. When Luther says that “the cross alone is our theology,” he means precisely that the story of God’s action in the world (culminating, of course, with the cross) is our theology, not the supposed “truths” that it points to.
Fascinating. I think i see the point. Tell me if this is right. The Word is relational. Relational in that God is speaking to us and involving us in His story, involving us in scripture. So as God speaks to us by the Word that speaking is an action of God's to/upon/against us. It is not a text book to accumulate general concepts about God, not a history book in which we discover simply the nature of man, nor a science book which seeks to understand the workings of the world. The Word is God's word to each and every one of us as a single sinner. The Word is the language of God to man and theology is what the Holy Spirit does in each man as he/she is spoken to.
ReplyDeleteIf this is a fare take of what you are saying i can see the problem. I was just a little confused with the verbiage used, oh language. :)
This is interesting though that he labels Barth as one who takes the wrong path of theology. In at least the little that i have read of Barth's works i cannot see his point concerning him. In fact the little research i have done concerning Barth himself would say that Barth was 'created' by those who used scripture, theology, and God in this way. He was fervently opposed to this kind of 'theology' and labels it correctly as natural theology. In regards to that kind of theology that wants to seek 'truths' behind the 'facade' of scripture, Barth agrees with people like Feuerbach who sees all theology as such and defines religion then as simply anthropology, or a projection of one's self. Barth agrees that religion is such but true Christianity is something utterly alien to this kind of manipulation. Christianity to Barth is relational not simply theoretical or conceptual. I have found this also in my reading of him.
But, a big Barthian idea though is: you are what you do. So i can maybe see why Bayer has a problem with Barth as simply making every little piece of scripture into concepts of who God is as an actor. Thus, when Barth is trying to rethink through the Reformed understanding of predestination he makes the point of God choosing Jesus before creation. However I think Barth would say this is utterly involving. That as Christ is chosen He is not just chosen conceptually but that as we are united in Him we die with him on the cross. That is why, when someone asked Barth when it was that he was saved, he said at golgotha.
What do you think?... now i'll read your next post:)
Tyson- I think you articulated it beautifully!
ReplyDeleteRegarding Barth: I think this will be clearer in my other posts (particularly part 3), but it almost seems as if Bayer sees young Barth (1930s) in a better light than old Barth (~1960). I don't know if there is a distinction made among Barth scholars along these lines, but its possible that Bayer sees Barth as being compromised later on. This is almost entirely a guess on my part though, so take it with a boulder of salt.
I was wondering about that. There is for sure a distinction to be made between early and late Barth. I'm not as versed in it but some even make a similar distinction of his Church Dogmatics. This is one of the reason I hope to study him so much since I am not clear on where this can be made or what the nature of distinction truly is.
ReplyDelete