I know some of you have had issues with the idea and possibility that it is possible to do theology, or even desirable, apart from appealing to nature and what has been called the analogia entis (or “the analogy of being”/natural theology). Karl Barth challenged this by offering what he called the analogia fidei, or ‘analogy of faith’ (playing off of Martin Luther’s coining of this language which he was contrasting with the patristic regula fidei); by this, Barth meant that we must start our theologizing in the ‘event’ of his Self-revelation in Jesus Christ. In this way, then, God’s Self-revelation is not illustrated by so called proximate things that we can find in nature; instead, nature itself serves as the created theater wherein God comes to nature and uses its resources (thus giving it its telos) as the mode through which he speaks Himself to us in Christ. Eberhard Jüngel, one of Barth’s best German students and interpreters helps to clarify this in his book God’s Being Is in Becoming. What I just said is only introductory to what I really want to get to, and that is how this applies to hermeneutics. I will let Jüngel take over from here (and then I’ll close with a comment or two). He is speaking from the context I just provided above, and he is noting how this effects the way that Barth engaged in the hermeneutical process; in a way that “[I]nterpretation means saying the same thing in other words. Illustration means saying the same thing in other words” [Jüngel citing Barth, p. 25]. Here is what Eberhard has to say further:
Here the hermeneutical interest of theology and its use of the historico-critical method meet. In that it investigates the language (of the text) as language (and not as revelation), the historical-critical method seeks to acquaint itself with revelation in the language of the text. The historical-critical method thus orients itself (exclusively) to the captures which revelation made when it came to speech. The hermeneutical task of theology consists in bringing revelation to speech as revelation in carrying out the historical-critical method. Hermeneutics is interested in the capturing of language by revelation, as it can be perceived in the captures (texts). Hermeneutics seeks to preserve revelation as revelation and language as language in such a way at the very place where revelation takes place, where God comes to speech. Hermeneutics is interested in the texts as the captures of revelation which has come to speech, since it is interested in the reiteration of the event of the capture of language which occurs when revelation takes place. Thus the hermeneutical task of theology is the most consistent essence of the historical-critical method in theology. . . . [Eberhard Jüngel, God’s Being Is in Becoming, 25-6 fn. 42]
Kabeesh! So in other words, biblical interpretation, for Barth (according to Jüngel) involves simply re-stating what has already been stated (and is being stated) in the ‘event’ of God’s Self-revelation comandeering human language (nature) and giving it its purpose in signifying the reality that God has given it in his Self-revelation mediated through the words of Scripture; its purpose (creaturely media) is not to signify itself (or somehow serve to illustrate who God is apart from God’s Self-revelation in Christ through this media), but its purpose becomes specified as God in Christ meets us through this media. So “nature” and human words maintain their integrity, but we come to find out that their integrity comes from its inner-basis as a servant (or theater) of God’s own good purpose for His creation.
The important thing to grasp, I think, is that WE don’t say who God is; instead God says who HE is in Christ. And thus, we need to recognize this, and then speak theologically as He has spoken to us by Scripture in Christ. This ends in a “Christian exegetical” approach, and it deters us from the typical mode of hitorical-critical exegesis that seeks to somehow picture God through words that are un-grounded in their proper reality in Christ.
Or you could just read your Bible 😉 .
This is really good. It brings theology back to a simple task. – restating the revelation in the context of our human existence.
I like to think of theology as taking the many facets of God’s revelation found in the various forms of speech in scripture and reorganizing it into logical constructs of systematic order. Since God didn’t present Himself to us that way the challenge is to not lose the fullness of His self disclosure to us in the process of our compacting it into theological articulation.
In addition I really like the way Jungel draws out the relationship of God’s revelation of Himself to us through language. Very nice imagery of God’s revelation coming to speech. In His act and His speech we are made to know of Him. And in the Spirit in Christ we know Him. And in relationship to one another in the body of Christ wherein is the Spirit we know Him.
Jon, right! I think focusing on speech is very important, and it gets us back, even, into the ‘Tradition’ and the patristic thought on the eternal logos being God’s speech and ‘Word’ in the economic disclosure. This was something, I think, that Barth was about; reconstructing this kind of Patristic thought through his own contextual situaded terminology and points of reference. And I agree, it is important to not logicalize God’s revelation to us by our words; which is what Jungel’s point is about. Also, as you note, the relational aspect (or personal) is emphasized with this theory of Revelation in play!
Today I listened to a fascinating discussion at Reformed Forum.
http://reformedforum.org/ctc186/
Lane Tipton discussing his Christo-morphism which has definite similarities to Christocentrism. I think you would find it fascinating, the second half seemed to get clearer. I would like to read his chapter from which this discussion draws. He is getting into issues of historical grammatical hermeneutics as well as Christocentric hermeneutics. And discusses symbols and typology. I am not as conversant with the contemporary discourse he references, but I heard echoes of Barth and Torrance.
Hey Jon,
Thanks. You know Lane Tipton is a Federal, Covenantal Westminster Seminary Faculty Calvinist. They certainly have a christocentric hermeneutic in place, but that is nuanced and given shape through their particular flavor of Federal Covenantal thinking. I have listened to Tipton before, and I don’t think he probably echoes either Barth or Torrance. I’ll give it a listen when I have a chance, thanks!
You could be right about Tipton. I haven’t read anything by him. The discussion is about an hour and takes concentrated listening. I had many interruptions.
Have you done any writing on Torrance and covenant theology?
On your question, Jon; lots! I used to write on this all the time, just check The Evangelical Calvinist blog and the archives on Federal theology or critiquing classic Calv. Also, TFT is certainly covenantal, but as you know very different than classic. He pretty much only has the Covenant of Grace in his framework.