Barth and Piper on the Relation of God’s Love and Glory

By -
Every now and then, the work of John Piper flits across my mind. I read his Desiring God (Multnomah, 1996) during the period of transition from High School to College, but I have since come to be…let’s say…‘skeptical’ about the veracity of his position. In any case, I am working on a project with a faculty member here at PTS, and Piper’s work came up briefly there. So, he has been on my mind.

At the same time, I am reading Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics 2.1 (T&T Clark, 1985) for a PhD seminar currently underway, and I came across a bit of text (reproduced below) and the contrast between Barth and Piper jumped out at me. I wanted to post about it.

So, here are quotes from both Piper and Barth on the relation between God’s love and God’s glory. As you will see, Piper makes God’s love for us subordinate to God’s glory, while Barth makes God’s glory subordinate to God’s love for us.

Piper:
“God’s ultimate goal therefore is to preserve and display his inifinte and awesome greatness and worth, that is, his glory. God has many other goals in what he does. But none of them is more ultimate than this. They are all subordinate. God’s overwhelming passion is to exalt the value of his glory. To that end, he seeks to display it, to oppose those who belittle it, and to vindicate it from all contempt. It is clearly the uppermost reality in his affections. He loves his glory infinitely. This is the same as saying: he loves himself infinitely.” (43)
Barth:
“God’s loving is an end in itself. All the purposes that are willed and achieved in Him are contained and explained in this end, and therefore in this loving in itself and as such. For this loving is itself the blessing that it communicates to the loved…Certainly in loving us God wills His own glory and our salvation. But He does not love us because He wills this. He wills it for the sake of His love. God loves in realising these purposes. But God loves because He loves; because this act is His being, His essence and His nature. He loves without and before realising these purposes. He loves to eternity. Even in realising them, He loves because He loves.” (279)
I have the sneaking suspicion that if Piper had lead with his last thought in the quote about (that God loves himself infinitely), and subordinated the language of 'glory' to this, he would have arrived at a position similar to Barth's. As it is, notions of 'value' and 'worth' to which God is subordinated means that God's love cannot ultimately be free. There is a 'why' behind God's love (and a rather abstract metaphysical 'why' at that), a goal to which it is directed and to which it is the means. I prefer Barth's tack. God's very being is love, and that love is not a means to a further end. No further end exists. God's love is the end in itself.

In any case, one of these options seems decidedly more in line than the other with what the New Testament has to say about Jesus.

Comments

Jason Oliver Evans said…
Like you, I would have to agree with Barth. Barth's view seems to me to agree what the Scriptures convey about our God. Piper conveys a God who is solely bent on holding up his reputation (glory). But God's true glory is exalted in Love, the Father glories the Son, the Son glorifies the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Bond of Love between Father and Son. All in all, God is gloried in being Love itself and loving towards His creation.

Thanks for posting this.
November 30, 2007 5:06 PM
Anonymous said…
I'd be interested in hearing more about your skepticism towards Piper.

Also, i'd bet interested to know with whom Piper's work came up, and how.
December 01, 2007 9:38 PM
Unknown said…
WTM,
Thanks for posting this. We've often called Piper and some of his devotees 'Calvinist light,' which makes me wonder--how do you think Calvin would weigh in on this point?
Thanks,
Jason
December 01, 2007 10:13 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
Jason E. - Thanks for your note, and I'm glad to see that you are lurking around and reading whatever I post that may interest you.

Andy - Who knows when I may have reason to quibble with Piper on something. Keep your eyes open for when it happens. As with whom and how Piper came up, it would be inappropriate to discuss my private interactions with professors in anything more than the most allusionary ways. Sorry.

Jason I. - I'm not sure about Calvin. I have the feeling that you could find passages from him to fall on either side. Sorry I can't be more definitive here.
December 02, 2007 8:39 AM
Glen said…
Know it's late but thought I'd add another Barth quote:

“The freedom of God is the freedom which consists and fulfils itself in His Son Jesus Christ. In Him God has loved Himself from all eternity. In Him He has loved the world.’ (CD II/1, p321)

God's self-love can only be thought of once we see the intra-trinitarian life.

Piper I feel *begins* with self-love and finds in that justification for the Father loving His Image.

See for instance the first chapter of "The Pleasures of God."

"We may conclude that the pleasure of God in his Son is pleasure in himself. Since the Son is the image of God and the radiance of God and the form of God, equal with God, and indeed is God, therefore God’s delight in the Son is delight in himself. The original, the primal, the deepest, the foundational joy of God is the joy he has in his own perfections as he sees them reflected in the glory of his Son."

This is indeed different to Barth.

I notice Piper has written another short piece on this very topic.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2007/2509_How_Is_Gods_Passion_for_His_Own_Glory_Not_Selfishness/

Somehow he manages to make from John 17 that Jesus' prayer is for His *own* glory!!

"If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me." John 8:54
December 03, 2007 3:50 PM
Rob Burns said…
I stumbled across this tonight and found it really helpful.

Oddly enough I think there is some precedent for taking up the notion that God's love constrains what counts as 'glorifying' in Johnathan Edward's reflections on whether God 'wills' the damnation of the unbeliever in the same sense that he 'wills' eternal happiness. I wonder if Piper has ever reflected on this.

In asking whether both salvation and damnation 'glorify' God in the same measure, and if they do *not*, why not, Edwards is drawn, it seems to me, to 'love' as the determining category for circumscribing how far an act may reach the end of glorifying God, insofar as self-giving love most succinctly reflects the divine nature. In some sense, this sets the table for the claim in the Reformed tradition that Barth develops.

Edwards, in his brilliance, points up a central ambiguity in the Reformed tradition in the very way he wrestles with the question of damnation, insofar as he refuses to treat damnation as simply 'on par' with the divine decree regarding salvation. Piper, in passages such as the one cited below, seems more intent on drawing the logical circle to a close then dwelling in this instructive ambiguity. In his thinking, God is glorified equally, and in the same univocal sense, in the loss of the reprobate and the happiness of the elect.

In this he departs from the proper discontent and ambiguity of the best lights of his own tradition.
March 29, 2012 10:44 PM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri
Keep reading

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 1, Day 5

By -
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from
Keep reading