RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
McCormack, Bruce. Oxford.
With the discussion about Barth going around, this should clarify some of his views.
This is an intellectual biography. Part of this book’s thesis is the attempted overturning of Hans urs von Balthalsar’s claim that Barth rejected liberalism in favor of “analogy.” McCormack argues that Barth’s use of the en/anhypostatic distinction played a far greater role in his theology than the analogia fides. More importantly, the anhypostatic distinction allowed Barth to use the concept of dialektik until the very end.
McCormack effortlessly weaves Barth's social situation and his theology together.
>>> Barth as Anti-Bourgeois<<<
Barth flirted with socialism simply because he saw the failure of liberal individualism. Barth was not simply anti-capitalist.
However, the Socialist theme had receded from Barth by the first half of 1914. At the same time we see a new theme in Barth: the judgment of the wrath of God. “That God judges evil tells us something about God himself; it is not simply abstracted from the divine being” (McCormack 94).
>>>Theology in a revolutionary age<<<
McCormack argues that the crises evoked by Germany’s loss in WWI didn’t fundamentally change Barth’s theology. Barth opposed the very bourgeois German liberalism that was destroyed. Further, Barth was in Switzerland, which was neutral. And Barth always maintained ambivalence towards culture. It wasn’t evil but wasn’t the Kingdom of God.
>>>Clearing the Ground: The Theology of Romans II<<<
Thesis: BM argues that the gains made in Romans II are found everywhere in CD (244). T₂: If God can’t be known by metaphysical speculation, then he must be known indirectly, by means of a medium. God is not transformed into this medium. The revelation is distinct from the medium (249).
>>>Enhypostatic/Anhypostatic<<<
In many ways this is the most important chapter in the book and the most important moment in Barth’s career: he discovered the en/anhypostatic doctrine.
Thesis 1: This doctrine allowed Barth to replace the time-eternity dialectic with the dialectic of veiling/unveiling of Jesus Christ. The Trinity as Self-Revelation and Differentiation: it is God alone and God in his entirety or it is no revelation (351). God is subject of revelation in the earthly form, but God does not become the earthly form (354). The language of Self-Revelation places 5th century Christology on a modern basis (359). The dialectic of veiling/unveiling has now been localized in the incarnation and not simply in the Cross.
Problems with von Balthalsar's Reading
(1) analogia fide is itself an inherently dialectical term (16). It is grounded in the veiling/unveiling in revelation.
(2) It confuses two different categories. The analogy of faith refers to the result of a divine act over which human beings have no control. On the other hand, “Method” is something humans do.
(3) Talk of analogy has to do with what God does; talk of dialectic emerges here in the context of what humans do in light of the fact that they have no capacity for bringing about the Self-speaking of God” (314, 315)
(4) Contra HuvB, Barth never gave up dialectics, even if he gave a larger voice to analogy. If HuvB is true, then one must explain why Barth still retained the most fundamental category of his theology: the dialectic of veiling/unveiling. However, if HuvB simply said that Barth gave up the time-eternity dialectic, that would be true. Except Barth gave that up long ago. That happened in 1924.
Clarifying some points:
“Critical:” Going beyond Kant, this would see God as an object to human knowledge without ceasing to be Subject. “In other words, it is the hiddenness of God who is fully present in revelation which calls into question the constructive activities of the human knower” (159).
“Realism:” the being of God is something complete, especially in the revelation-process, yet it is only indirectly identical (159).
God’s revelation is surrounded by an external and internal limitation: The external limitation is the hiddenness of God in his self-revelation. The internal is the ultimate inadequacy of human thought to bear witness.
With the discussion about Barth going around, this should clarify some of his views.
This is an intellectual biography. Part of this book’s thesis is the attempted overturning of Hans urs von Balthalsar’s claim that Barth rejected liberalism in favor of “analogy.” McCormack argues that Barth’s use of the en/anhypostatic distinction played a far greater role in his theology than the analogia fides. More importantly, the anhypostatic distinction allowed Barth to use the concept of dialektik until the very end.
McCormack effortlessly weaves Barth's social situation and his theology together.
>>> Barth as Anti-Bourgeois<<<
Barth flirted with socialism simply because he saw the failure of liberal individualism. Barth was not simply anti-capitalist.
However, the Socialist theme had receded from Barth by the first half of 1914. At the same time we see a new theme in Barth: the judgment of the wrath of God. “That God judges evil tells us something about God himself; it is not simply abstracted from the divine being” (McCormack 94).
>>>Theology in a revolutionary age<<<
McCormack argues that the crises evoked by Germany’s loss in WWI didn’t fundamentally change Barth’s theology. Barth opposed the very bourgeois German liberalism that was destroyed. Further, Barth was in Switzerland, which was neutral. And Barth always maintained ambivalence towards culture. It wasn’t evil but wasn’t the Kingdom of God.
>>>Clearing the Ground: The Theology of Romans II<<<
Thesis: BM argues that the gains made in Romans II are found everywhere in CD (244). T₂: If God can’t be known by metaphysical speculation, then he must be known indirectly, by means of a medium. God is not transformed into this medium. The revelation is distinct from the medium (249).
>>>Enhypostatic/Anhypostatic<<<
In many ways this is the most important chapter in the book and the most important moment in Barth’s career: he discovered the en/anhypostatic doctrine.
Thesis 1: This doctrine allowed Barth to replace the time-eternity dialectic with the dialectic of veiling/unveiling of Jesus Christ. The Trinity as Self-Revelation and Differentiation: it is God alone and God in his entirety or it is no revelation (351). God is subject of revelation in the earthly form, but God does not become the earthly form (354). The language of Self-Revelation places 5th century Christology on a modern basis (359). The dialectic of veiling/unveiling has now been localized in the incarnation and not simply in the Cross.
Problems with von Balthalsar's Reading
(1) analogia fide is itself an inherently dialectical term (16). It is grounded in the veiling/unveiling in revelation.
(2) It confuses two different categories. The analogy of faith refers to the result of a divine act over which human beings have no control. On the other hand, “Method” is something humans do.
(3) Talk of analogy has to do with what God does; talk of dialectic emerges here in the context of what humans do in light of the fact that they have no capacity for bringing about the Self-speaking of God” (314, 315)
(4) Contra HuvB, Barth never gave up dialectics, even if he gave a larger voice to analogy. If HuvB is true, then one must explain why Barth still retained the most fundamental category of his theology: the dialectic of veiling/unveiling. However, if HuvB simply said that Barth gave up the time-eternity dialectic, that would be true. Except Barth gave that up long ago. That happened in 1924.
Clarifying some points:
“Critical:” Going beyond Kant, this would see God as an object to human knowledge without ceasing to be Subject. “In other words, it is the hiddenness of God who is fully present in revelation which calls into question the constructive activities of the human knower” (159).
“Realism:” the being of God is something complete, especially in the revelation-process, yet it is only indirectly identical (159).
God’s revelation is surrounded by an external and internal limitation: The external limitation is the hiddenness of God in his self-revelation. The internal is the ultimate inadequacy of human thought to bear witness.
- Here I add a cautious critique of Barth. If human thought is inadequate to bear witness to God’s revelation, then what’s the point of even trying?
