Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics Iii.3 In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH A PERSONALIST DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE: KARL BARTH’S CHURCH DOGMATICS III.3 IN CONVERSATION WITH PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY BY DARREN M. KENNEDY EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND 7 AUGUST 2007 ABSTRACT In this thesis I present a critical explication of Barth’s doctrine of providence in Church Dogmatics III.3. I argue that Karl Barth’s doctrine of providence developed throughout CD III.3 represents a ‘personalist’ revision of Reformed orthodoxy which can only be understood through his ad hoc use of philosophical resources. I claim that critics and supporters alike have missed the depth of Barth’s revision of Reformed providence by failing to perceive his ad hoc use of contemporaneous philosophical tools of the personal. Barth’s doctrine of providence remains theology proper, and not philosophy, but cannot be understood without philosophy. By setting Barth in conversation with three philosophical theologians, Vincent Brümmer, John Macmurray and Austin Farrer, I attempt to show how far Barth is from pre-modern understandings in his articulation of the doctrine of providence. These conversations equip the reader to discern continuities and discontinuities of Barth’s thought with 20 th century personal, relational philosophy, thereby making sense of many of Barth’s counterintuitive claims. For Barth, human life is the continual double-agency of human self-determination and divine determination. This life in covenant before God ( coram Deo ) constitutes the God- given opportunity of human personhood. Seen in dialogue with personalist philosophical thinkers, Barth’s doctrine of providence overcomes problematic aspects of traditional Reformed views and grants limited time and space for personal development. Providence sheds light on Barth’s ‘eternalizing’ eschatology in that election establishes the objective reality of salvation for all creatures, while providence explicates God’s active lordship in the human’s self-determination of personal identity in history (the subjective formation of the person who is objectively saved). Election describes God’s salvific work on behalf of creation solely in the work of Jesus Christ. Providence determines the identity of those creatures in relation with the personal God. The conversations I propose with philosophical theologians enable the reader to discern a greater philosophical coherence in Barth’s doctrine of providence. Through contrast with the philosophical theologians, Barth’s christocentric and Trinitarian articulation gains clarity and significance. Building on these philosophical comparisons, I attempt to assess Barth’s elaborations on ii entrenched debates concerning history as determined by divine action, human freedom under divine providence, and the problem of evil in world-occurrence. I argue that Barth’s ‘personalist’ post-Enlightenment providence as seen in the whole of III.3 points to absolute confidence in God’s determination of all world-occurrence, limited human autonomy of action under God’s universal providence, and an explication of evil that strengthens the Christian in the face of suffering and injustice. iii Signed Declaration I, Darren Michael Kennedy, hereby declare that I have written this thesis and that the work it contains is entirely my own. I furthermore declare that this thesis has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. Signed __________________ Date __________________ iv CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS……………...……………………………… vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………….. vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION………………………………. 1 II. PROLEGOMENA………………………………. 6 PART I. CONVERSATIONS WITH PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY III. THE PERSONS OF PROVIDENCE IN BARTH AND BRÜMMER………………………………. 22 IV. THE THEOLOGICAL FORM OF THE PERSONAL IN BARTH AND MACMURRAY.. 55 V. PROVIDENTIAL DOUBLE-AGENCY IN BARTH AND FARRER………………………… 100 PART II. CRITICAL READING OF CHURCH DOGMATICS III.3 VI. §48 THE BASIS AND FORM OF PROVIDENCE………………………………….. 144 VII. §49 GOD THE FATHER AS LORD OF HIS CREATURE…………………………………….. 157 VIII. §50 GOD AND NOTHINGNESS………………. 195 IX. §51 THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, THE AMBASSADORS OF GOD AND THEIR OPPONENTS…………………………………… 214 X. CONCLUSION…………………………………. 232 APPENDIX A. MACMURRAY’S DESCRIPTION OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS……… 239 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………. 241 v ABBREVIATIONS CD Church Dogmatics (4 volumes, 13 parts) CCKB The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth CC Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology of Austin Farrer DA Divine Action: Studies Inspired by the Philosophical Theology of Austin Farrer FSW For the Sake of the World: Karl Barth and the Future of Ecclesial Theology IJST International Journal of Systematic Theology I.1 Church Dogmatics , volume I.1 I.2 Church Dogmatics , volume I.2 II.1 Church Dogmatics , volume II.1 II.2 Church Dogmatics , volume II.2 III.1 Church Dogmatics , volume III.1 III.2 Church Dogmatics , volume III.2 III.3 Church Dogmatics , volume III.3 III.4 Church Dogmatics , volume III.4 IV.1 Church Dogmatics , volume IV.1 IV.2 Church Dogmatics , volume IV.2 IV.3.1 Church Dogmatics , volume IV.3.1 IV.3.2 Church Dogmatics , volume IV.3.2 JMCP John Macmurray: Critical Perspectives KD Kirchliche Dogmatik (4 volumes, 13 parts) SJT Scottish Journal of Theology vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS While at times a difficult and lonely task, researching and writing this thesis was a tremendous gift made possible by many others. I would especially like to thank my advisor David Fergusson for his wisdom, patience, and encouragement over the past three years. His scholarship and personal interaction set a standard which I hope to emulate in my own teaching. I have also been enriched by stimulating theological conversation with several other teachers over the years, whom I wish to thank: John McDowell and Nicholas Adams of New College and Bruce McCormack and George Hunsinger of Princeton Theological Seminary. Several other scholars have contributed in a myriad of ways to the completion of this thesis. Paul Nimmo and Adam Neder offered encouragement and insightful answers to queries via email. Fellow students have contributed substantially to this thesis in direct and indirect ways. Adam Hollowell gave helpful suggestions on an early draft of this work. I was blessed throughout my three years of study by fellowship, insight, and encouragement from Glenn Chestnutt, Jason Curtis, Dwight Friesen, Chris Keith, Heather McDivitt, Andrew O’Neill, Ryan Weimer, and Eric Ortlund. On an institutional level, I wish to the Evangelical Theological Seminary in Cairo, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the many individuals who made this possible. I am especially thankful for the support, encouragement and friendship of Atef Gendy. Finally, I wish to thank my family for the incalculable ways that they have contributed to this work. My sons Calvin and Sammy have supported me in every way they know how and have made these three years very joyful. In particular, I wish to thank my dear wife Elisabeth, without whom this thesis could not have been completed. Countless hours of conversation, immeasurable encouragement, and detailed editing of multiple drafts include but do not exhaust the debt I owe to her. I dedicate this thesis to her. vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The central claim of this thesis is that Karl Barth’s doctrine of providence in Church Dogmatics III.3 must be understood as entirely personal. Specifically, human life is the continual double-agency of human self-determination and divine determination. This life in covenant before God ( coram Deo ) constitutes the God- given opportunity of human personhood. Seen in dialogue with personalist philosophical thinkers, Barth’s doctrine of providence overcomes problematic aspects of traditional Reformed views and grants limited time and space for personal development. Moreover, providence sheds light on Barth’s ‘eternalizing’ eschatology in that election establishes the objective reality of salvation for all creatures, while providence determines precisely who these human persons are that will be saved. It is specifically these persons—determined in world history under providence—who face God’s mercy and judgment and participate in God’s eternal life. Election describes God’s salvific work on behalf of creation solely in the work of Jesus Christ. Providence determines the identity of those creatures in relation with the personal God. This thesis is a critical reading of the providence of God in III.3. Brian Hebblethwaite describes providence as a non-credal doctrine which underlies ‘all the actual doctrines of the creed’. 1 As such, neglect of providence comes with great risks to dogmatics. Positively, a proper understanding sheds light on the doctrines it supports. In conversation with three philosophical theologians, I argue that Barth uses personalist philosophical forms to articulate a thoroughly theological, personal providence. 2 Thus III.3 is a ‘personalist’ revision of Reformed orthodoxy which can only be understood through Barth’s ad hoc use of philosophical resources. Critics and supporters alike miss the depth of Barth’s revision by failing to perceive this ad hoc use of personalism. Barth’s doctrine of providence remains 1 Brian Hebblethwaite, Philosophical Theology and Christian Doctrine (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 132. 2 McDowell and Higton helpfully offer a challenge for more careful ‘conversation’ with Barth. I have attempted throughout this thesis