Not my final views, but moving towards them.
Bruce McCormack notes,
- The order of knowing runs in the opposite direction to the order of being. This means before we “know” God we are operating with some abstract notion of “being” or “person” and projecting that onto God. As McCormack argues, “The consequence of this methodological decision is that the way taken to the knowledge of God controls and determines the kind of God-concept one is able to generate” (187). This leads to:
- Metaphysical thinking in “the strictest sense of the term.” We are beginning “from below” and through an inferential process determining what God can be.
- Which means that we have a fully-formed (or mostly formed) concept of what God is before any consideration of his self-revelation in Christ. As McCormack notes, “the content of Christology will be made to conform to a prior understanding of God” (188). Natural theology has now given us a definition of God apart from God’s decision to elect, save, create, etc. There is now a metaphysical “gap” between God in the abstract and the Triune God.
“For Barth, the triunity of God consists in the fact that God is one Subject in three modes of being. One Subject! To say then that ‘Jesus Christ is the electing God’ is to say, ‘God determined to be God in a second mode of being.’ It lies close to hand to recognize that it is precisely the primal decision of God in election which constitutes the event in which God differentiates himself into three modes of being. Election thus has a certain logical priority even over the triunity of God. [Quoting Eberhard Jüngel:] ‘Jesus Christ is the electing God. In that here one of the three modes of being is determined to be the God who elects, we have to understand God’s primal decision as an event in the being of God which differentiates the modes of God’s being.’ So the event in which God constitutes himself as triune is identical with the event in which he chooses to be God for the human race. Thus the ‘gap’ between ‘the eternal Son’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ is overcome, the distinction between them eliminated…. There is no ‘eternal Son’ if by that is meant a mode of being in God which is not identical with Jesus Christ” (pp. 218-19).
As Ben Meyers summarizes,
The event in which God chooses to be “God for us” is identical with the event in which God “gives himself his own being.” And this event of election is not located in any timeless eternity. God’s eternal decision coincides with the temporal event in which this decision reaches its goal. This coincidence – this event of utter singularity – is God’s being. Time, then, “is not alien to the innermost being of God” (p. 222). The time of Jesus Christ is the time of God’s decision – it is the primal time, the time of God’s eternal movement into history. There is no still-more-primal divine being which lurks behind this movement into history; God’s being is this movement, this effectual decision.
Bruce McCormack suggests that the best model for understanding Karl Barth’s theology is Realdialektik–God is indirectly identical with the medium of his self-revelation. It is dialectical in the sense that it posits both a veiling and unveiling of God. God is unveiled in Jesus’s flesh, but since it is in Jesus’s flesh, God is in a sense veiled (McCormack 145). This is another way of using Luther’s Deus absconditus. Interestingly, this dialectic solves the postmodern problem of “Presence-Absence.”
What is Classical Metaphysics?
Barth’s project is in many ways an attempt to overcome the limitations of classical metaphysics. Among other things, classical metaphysics (and it doesn’t matter whether you have in mind Eastern and Western models) saw the essence of God as an abstract something behind all of God’s acts and relations (140). This view is particularly susceptible to Heidegger’s critique of “Being.” It is also susceptible, particularly in its Cappadocian form, to Tillich’s critique: