_full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en nul 0 in hierna): 0 _full_articletitle_deel (kopregel rechts, vul hierna in): Narrative & Triune Reality in the Theology of Robert Jenson _full_article_language: en indien anders: engelse articletitle: 0
Narrative & Triune Reality in the Theology of Robert Jenson 3
Chapter 1 The Narrative and the Triune Reality in the Theology of Robert Jenson: A Post-Karl Barth’s Development
Wai Luen Kwok
Karl Barth believes that the doctrine of Trinity is the distinguishing way that Christians know, believe in, and talk about God.1 But since the Reformation the doctrine has become more of an embarrassment to Christians than a source of pride. In The Conflict of the Faculties, Immanuel Kant claims that: ‘The doctrine of the Trinity, taken literally, has no practical relevance at all, even if we think we understand it; and it is even more clearly irrelevant if we realize that it tran- scends all our concepts. Whether we are to worship three or ten persons in the Deity makes no difference.’2 The problem of the meaninglessness of the doc- trine of the Trinity began with the demise of metaphysical realism since the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment initiated new developments in philosophy and biblical studies. Because of these challenges, the doctrine is considered meaningless. The most important contemporary theological resource to meet the Enlightenment’s challenges is Barth’s theology. Barth suggests that the doc- trine of the Trinity is possible and meaningful because God is a self-revealing God. God’s self-revelation is not something other than God. It is God himself. It is the coming of God’s word. The doctrine of the Trinity is an account of God’s self-revelation as a word-event. The relation of word and event in Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity leaves some open space for later theologians to develop their trinitarian theologies in very different directions. This paper analyses how Robert Jenson develops Barth’s idea and the implication.
1 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4 vols., eds. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963–1969), I/1: 301. Hereafter as CD. 2 In Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, trans. A. W. Wood and G. di Giovanni (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 264.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409910_002 4 Kwok
1 Barth and the Resurgence of Trinitarian Theology
1.1 The Triune God’s Revelation as Word-Event Barth undoubtedly is the leading figure of the twentieth century’s trinitarian renaissance. He does not accomplish the project through old metaphysics. He reconnects the relation of word and God’s reality by proposing God as a self- revealing God.3 For Barth, Christian faith and theology is possible because God is self-re- vealing. Revelation ‘is itself the Word of God.’4 ‘The Word of God becomes knowable by making itself known.’5 Revelation ‘denotes the Word of God itself in the act of its being spoken in time.’6 More importantly, revelation in the Bi- ble is ‘the same, the repetition of God.’ It is not ‘an other over against God’:7 ‘Revelation is indeed God’s predicate, but in such a way that this predicate is in every way identical with God Himself.’8 ‘God’s Word means that God speaks … God’s Word means the speaking God.’9 In other words, we do not know God as a metaphysical object. Conversely, we know God because he speaks to us. God’s word is God’s speech-act: ‘The Word of God is itself the act of God.’10 It is ‘the enacted divine event.’11 In other words, God’s self-revelation is a word- event. This event is not something other than God. Barth believes that it is God’s reality. In revelation, ‘God declares His reality: not only His reality for us
3 Theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar and Bruce McCormack suggest Barth’s thought has a significant shift around 1920’s–1930’s. However, I would follow George Hunsinger and see it as rather ‘a development in his thought than a development of his thought.’ Also, the difference of Barth’s earlier and later thought is not crucial for our present study. What I want to argue is that Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity believes God’s revealing event is both God’s veiling and unveiling. In fact, McCormack argues that this dialectic of veiling and unveiling can be found in both Barth’s earlier and later work. Trevor Hart also finds that Barth holds this thought from his earliest writings till his latest. Nevertheless, I by no means suggest we can summarize Barth’s whole theological enterprise with the theme of God’s revelation. See George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 7; Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909–1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 18; Trevor Hart, Regarding Karl Barth: Toward a Reading of his Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 40; Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1992). 4 Barth, CD I/1: 118. 5 Ibid., 246. 6 Ibid., 118. 7 Ibid., 299. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid., 136. 10 Ibid., 143. 11 Ibid., 59, 193.