Morally Perfect Being Theology: A Doctrine of Divine Humility A thesis submitted to Charles Sturt University in fulfilment of the requirements of the award of Doctor of Philosophy Matthew A. Wilcoxen B.A., Biola University M.A., Talbot School of Theology August, 2017 iii CONTENTS Certificate of Authorship v Acknowledgments vii Abstract ix Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Morally Perfect Being Theology 9 Heidegger’s critique of ontotheology 13 Love over being: Jean-Luc Marion 25 Therapy for metaphysical malaise: Kevin Hector 34 The necessity of ‘perfect being theology’ 44 A more excellent way: morally perfect being theology 48 Conclusion: towards a doctrine of divine humility 53 Chapter 2: Definitions of Humility 55 Analytic definitions of humility 55 Magnanimity and not humility: Aristotle 59 Against humility: Hume, Nietzsche, and Goldstein 64 Humility as magnanimity: the classical Christian context 72 Conclusion: A concept fit for God 93 Chapter 3: Augustine: Scripture’s Suggestive Tensions 99 Exodus 3:14-15: ‘the name of being’ and ‘the name of mercy’ 101 John 5:19-30: trinitarian processions and inseparable operations 107 Philippians 2:6-7: the forma dei and the forma servi 115 Conclusion: Augustine’s ambiguous doctrine of divine humility 127 Chapter 4: Karl Barth: Divine Humility as “An Offensive Fact” 131 “The way of the Son of God into the far country” 134 Querying Barth’s account of inter-trinitarian obedience 142 Christ’s will(s): dyothelitism or monothelitism? 155 Conclusion: correcting Barth on divine humility 170 Chapter 5: Katherine Sonderegger: The Mystery of Divine Energy 175 Theological compatibilism and God’s real presence in concepts 177 Humility as divine energy: ethicising omnipotence 187 Mystery, counterfactuals, and the relocation of the divine will 202 Conclusion: divine humility without Christocentrism 210 Conclusion 213 Reference List 223 v CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, understand that it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at Charles Sturt University or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by colleagues with whom I have worked at Charles Sturt University or elsewhere during my candidature is fully acknowledged. I agree that this thesis be accessible for the purpose of study and research in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Executive Director, Library Services, Charles Sturt University or nominee, for the care, loan and reproduction of theses, subject to confidentiality provisions as approved by the University. Name: Matthew A. Wilcoxen Signature: Date: vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing a doctoral thesis in theology is humiliating. In one’s most honest moments, one wonders: “After all this time, and all this work, is this all that I have been able to say?” Yet it is also humbling, in the truest sense of that word. For, empowered and emboldened by both celestial and terrestrial sources, one has the privilege of uttering a word about God, adding an echo, however faint, to the great conversation that is the Christian faith. Recognising the fact that the primary, heavenly empowerment works through secondary causes, I would like to express my gratitude to those who have travelled with me on this journey. My supervisor, Dr. Benjamin Myers, has only grown more impressive the longer and better I have known him. He has served for me as an unattainable ideal of excellence in scholarship, a lively and imaginative teacher, and a moral exemplar. He is nearly always the most talented person in a room, but he consistently puts his gifts to use for the good of others. I am only one of the many beneficiaries of his generosity. I will always cherish the time I spent conversing with him about theology and life in beautiful Sydney, Australia. My only regrets are that that time is now over, and that I have not been able to do work worthy of one of his students. I had other teachers who introduced me to the study of theology. The Rev. Dr. Mickey Klink was my first theological instructor. He showed me the joy and freedom of Christian scholarship, and demonstrated the possibility of being both a pastor and a theologian. Professor Jon Lunde remains one of the best theological teachers I have ever witnessed in action, and it was a privilege to serve as his teaching assistant when I was an undergraduate. While I never got to know Robert B. Price well, his graduate courses in theology exposed me to the best in historical and systematic theology, and his lectures were endlessly fascinating. I have been fortunate always to have fellow students of theology to spur me on along the way. There are too many to be named. But Jeff Aernie, Janice McRandal, Steve Wright, Ian Packer, and Thomas Swanton are all due specific mention. All of this thesis was written while I was engaged in vocational Christian ministry, and I would be remiss if I didn’t appreciate the people and congregations who gave me the freedom and support along the way: Bruce Pollard, Paul Yeates, the Rev. Dan Anderson, and the Rev. Dr. David Sandifer of Robert Menzies College at Macquarie University; the Rev. Clif McDonnell, Camille Sena, and the parishioners at All Saints’ Anglican Church in Balgowlah, New South Wales; and the Rev. Dan Claire and the parish council at The Church of the Resurrection in Washington, D.C. viii Most importantly, I would like to thank my wife, Annie. She cheerfully sacrificed in various ways so that I could complete this thesis, while also making sure that our home was always filled with beauty and laughter. I am grateful for her faithful companionship and her constant encouragement. ix ABSTRACT The question facing contemporary theology is not, as has often been thought, a question of whether it can speak of God’s being but, rather, how best to do so. What is needed in the Christian doctrine of God is a way to express the integrity of God’s metaphysical and moral attributes, and between God’s being in se and pro nobis—a “morally perfect being theology” is needed. In this thesis I argue that humility, when rightly defined, provides a compelling and coherent way forward. To make this case, I analyse and evaluate the ways humility is applied to God by three theologians: St. Augustine, Karl Barth, and Katherine Sonderegger. In critical dialogue with these innovative thinkers, I sketch a doctrine of divine humility within the wider constellation of Christological and Trinitarian concerns in the doctrine of God, one that will contribute to important ongoing debates in Christian theology. 1 INTRODUCTION The doctrine of God should go beyond merely collecting and categorising those things that are attributed to God in the pages of scripture. It ought to do more than merely rehearse the deliverances of the great theologians of times past. These are necessary undertakings for all who would think and write about God, no doubt, but the goal of systematic theology is to build constructively on the biblical and theological foundations that have been laid. As the late John Webster writes, the vocation of Christian dogmatics is to worship God “by crafting concepts to turn the mind to the divine splendour.”1 Since they aim to be communicative tools of the knowledge of God, such concepts in Christian theology must be crafted carefully and evaluated as to their coherence with holy writ, their place within the matrix of creedal dogma, basic logical consistency, and their ability to solve or ameliorate existing conceptual difficulties within the theological tradition or some substratum thereof. To the degree that they fulfill these criteria, theological concepts can be offered to the Christian community as what Webster calls “instruments for spiritual apprehension”, instruments that are to be used in Christian thought, speech, and prayer.2 Of course, the relation between concepts and prayer is not unidirectional; theologians have long recognised the fact that what they are engaged in is a conceptual development of an apprehension that is already embedded in the spiritual life of the Christian faith: lex orandi, lex credendi. The words of prayer that rung out as I wrote this thesis are from Thomas Cranmer’s famous “Prayer of Humble Access”: “We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord 1 John B. Webster, God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology, Volume 1: God and the Works of God (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), p. 27. 2 Webster, God Without Measure, pp. 27-28. 2 whose property is always to have mercy.” How serious is one to take the words of this Anglican prayer? Does it encapsulate some metaphysical truth of the gospel, or is it mere rhetorical flourish? In the Australian prayer book from which I first prayed these words, the term “nature” is substituted for “property”. Is it God’s “nature”, his very being, to condescend to creatures who, being both finite and sinful, are doubly unworthy? Is this merciful God’s nature “always”—that is, from all eternity? Is it possible to attribute “mercy” to the being of God while preserving the non-negotiable self- existence of God? If the answer to this cluster of questions is “yes”, then how might this be accomplished conceptually? In this thesis, I argue that it is possible to answer these questions in the affirmative, and I attempt to show just how one might give this answer.