Somebody asserted yesterday on a Facebook meta (discussion) I was having that ‘I am not a Barthian, I am an “evangelical Calvinist.” Indeed, this is true; to a degree. Let me explain this a bit. I enjoy and resonate with Thomas Torrance (who just happens to be one of Karl Barth’s most famous English speaking students), and insofar that Thomas Torrance imbibes the emphases and themes of the theology presented by Karl Barth, then that is how far I could be considered a Barthian. What are some of those overarching or undergirding themes?:
- That God is Triune love, and freely Self-determined to be who He is without us, but as corollary, and in grace, He has chosen to not be God without us, in Christ.
- As corollary to the above; I accept Barth’s critique of classical understanding of double predestination which is entailed by a distinction between elect individuals and reprobate individuals; and these individual’s status determined by God’s arbitrary choice. Barth sees God’s being as conditioned by election (and thus not God without us, ultimately), and his always already choice to be Triune. More particularly, as Barth restructures the classical conception of election/reprobation; he grounds it election in the humanity of Christ for us, and in His free choice (as electing God, and elected Man) to become humanity, He assumes our reprobation in the process. The result is that in this wonderful exchange, a double election occurs, wherein he initially elects our reprobation, but in the process of salvation (and His cross-work and grave-work), He assumes a newly elect status as the recreation of man, through His resurrection. These are the riches that we become participants of through His poverty at the cross. It is this theme that I fully endorse, provided by Barth (and there are particularities to this that I do not fully follow, which is why I end up going with Torrance … that is fodder for another day).
- I fully accept Barth’s critique of natural theology; i.e. that it is anti-Christ.
- I accept, in a constructive reading, Barth’s and Torrance’s theory of Revelation, that views Christ as God’s Self-revelation, and scripture and the proclaimed word as His ancillaries (Scripture logicallyΒ preceding Proclamation, at least for us).
- As corollary (which all of these points are of each other); I follow Barth’s and Torrance’s ‘analogy of faith’ methodology Versus the classical ‘analogy of being’ model of doing theology. Which means that I do not engage in philosophical categorizing of God first, but methodologically start with God’s own Self-interpretation in His Self-revelation in Jesus Christ.
Some people have narrower ways of defining whether someone is a Barthian, or not. My guess, really, is that most would say that I am Barthianβwith the emphasis on IANβΒ but no matter, I am more concerned with the conceptual and constructive matter than I am with the label (and I do recognize the relative import of labels). I am what I am, and the above signifies some of the fundamental moves that provides an ongoing and constructiveΒ wayΒ for me as I move and breathe from the Spirit’s breath given in and through the humanity of Christ (in which I participate as an adopted son).
I think one of the key marks of a “Barthian” theologian is dialectical method. The function and nature of dialectic in Barth’s theology gets debated, and that is where many think Torrance isn’t Barthian (ie dialectic) enough but maybe too (strong or naive) realist, but I can’t see much use in the term “Barthian” if something of the dialectic approach isn’t retained. I see the emphasis on theo-logic as opposed to formal logic as the way more Torrancian Evangelical Calvinists tend to appropriate Barth’s dialectic, but that can sometimes actually have an objectifying affect. In other words, where for Barth dialectic allows him to follow an issue to both of its extremes so that they speak to and clarify each other (like objectivity and subjectivity, unveiling and veiling, universal atonement and the need for faith, etc), I often find more conservative fans of Torrance appealing to theo-logic as a way to harden a weakly defined or defended position.
That isn’t to say I wince at the notion of theo-logic: I think its important and use it all the time. I just think its proper use springs from the reality at the heart of kataphatic Christian theology, the Word become flesh, which I would say requires the kind of dialectical treatment Barth gives it. So what I’m really proposing is that theo-logic and dialectic need each other and are together methodologically natural to Barthian theology. In that light, do you see yourself as Barthian, or do you like things tidier than that? It seems the worry about Torrance from more Barthian types (Hunsinger’s comments in How to Read Karl Barth come to mind) is that because of his scientific bent he wants things too tidy.
Hi Adam,
Thanks for this.
I see myself drawn more to dialectic than even theo-logic; indeed, this, I think, early on, was what attracted me to Barth (who I started reading and about before I ever heard of Torrance). I am fine with TFT’s theological science, and it is no secret that he stole this mode from Barth; but then as you note, given TFT’s own predisposition stole it another way, through his constructive appropriations.
I am really more interested in the Word-become-flesh mode of theologizing (and I think, obviously Torrance was too); but there is a freedom in dialectism that is not as realized in what you note as theo-logic. I have used both of these interchangeably in the past (theo-logic and dialectic), but I think you are highlighting a helpful distinction. I am more happy with living in dialectic paradox and what I used to call (before I ever read much of Barth) “Evangelical tension.”
I aspire towards dialectic theology, Adam. And so this leads me, by resonance anyway, closer to Barth than Torrance. That said, I like to read Torrance just the same (as I know you do!). My personal disposition is actually more un-tidy, my educational bent has come from the more tidy direction; but my personal bent is winning.
How about you, Adam; are you more “un-tidy” or “tidy”, given your own treatment and categorization of this above?
Here is a dialectism: I am an un-tidy conservative.
Don’t worry, Bobby, you aren’t a Barthian. You don’t voluntarily hold yourself to that standard, though you do respect both its existence and what Barthian positions have to say. (And, of course, what Barth said, which is a tertium quid!)
In that sense, Matt, you a right. I wasn’t worried about it, but more interested in what this means. In the end you are right though; I don’t ultimately feel obliged to so identify with Barth that I must check my every thought and turn from his (but I do like many of his turns).
Bobby, perhaps you are what Thomas Torrance claimed to be: rather than a Barthian, an Athanasian!
Hi Bill,
Yeah, I knew that is what Torrance claimed for himself; and in some ways that could fit for me too. But I am more of a hybrid than that still. To label myself as a solo Athanasian wouldn’t totally work :-).
“Bobby, perhaps you are what Thomas Torrance claimed to be: rather than a Barthian, an Athanasian!”
Why did TFT spend so much time reading and writing about the Church Fathers? My guess: he didn’t want to be identified as a Barthian. He wanted, rather, to situate himself within the catholic tradition of the Church. I honestly do not know how “reliable” Torrance’s readings of the Church Fathers are. More often then not, I get the impression that we are reading Barth synthesized through Athanasius or Hilary. But that’s okay. The important thing is that he saw the decisive importance of the Fathers. TFT did not want to be identified simply as a Reformed Christian.
What future can there be for evangelical Calvinism if it ignores the Father and tries to jump from the New Testament to Barth and Torrance?
Fr Kimel,
And yet he read the Apostolic Fathers, for his PhD diss, under Barth’s tutelage … ha ;-). No, I think TFT was quite proud to be a Reformed Pressie theologian who saw himself as an ecumenist seeking to bring some rapproachment between historically disparate communions within the broader body of Christ. So he worked with the Eastern Orthodox as a Reformed theologian, that seems to be the point and point of departure and presupposition of his ecumenical work there.
Indeed, there is no doubt that we are reading Torrance’s “Fathers” and Torrance’s “Scottish Reformed,” which gets right to the point of your closing question.
The future for EC is that we are a resourcement movement modeled through the mood evinced by TFT; someone who retrieves constructively from the past with Christ alone as the depth dimension and control of our retrieving. I didn’t think we did ignore the Fathers; this is the first I’ve heard of it.