Eberhard Jüngel on Moderntiy, Theism, and Atheism – As told by Archie Spencer

By -
Part of what Archie Spencer is up to in his recent book—The Analogy of Faith: The Quest for God’s Speakability—is to argue that Barth, as followed up by Jüngel, provides an account of the analogy of faith that solves a number of knotty theological problems. Along the way to this more constructive contribution he takes some time to explicate pertinent aspects of Jüngel’s thought. One of the bits of this explication that caught my interest, and that I suspected would likewise interest you, gentle readers, is his discussion of the logic of theism and atheism under the conditions of modernity. He also ties this into the medieval period. Here’s the set-up (as usual, italics, bold, etc.):

If the Middle Ages was an exercise in the unknowability of God, modernity follows it with an affirmation of his unthinkability, and atheism/agnosticism, or the unknowability of God, becomes the only alternative. (251–42)

Got your attention? Good. Hang on…

The shocking thing about this state of affairs is that it is precisely a development internal to the Western Christian tradition. Modern atheism as it comes to expression in the hermeneutics of suspicion, and as it is embedded in the modern philosophical notion of the necessity of God, is the result of a prior condition within theism and is therefore the cause of atheism. The emphasis on the simplicity, perfection and transcendence of God, in terms of radical otherness as the God who is “fundamentally and exclusively over us,” lent itself to a form of radical doubt that ultimately led to God’s displacement and banishment. The God of medieval metaphysics was not amenable to a God who may share in the suffering, death and perishability that was the predominant expression of the modern human condition. Furthermore, speaking ontologically, the perfect God of metaphysical signification was established more on a philosophical than a biblical basis. He was a product of the classical tendency to identify existence and essence as the real but at the same expressible only as the “distinction between essence and existence” due to epistemological lack within the realm of finite human knowing . . . . When modern philosophy, following Descartes, posted God as a being necessary to our own thought and existence, it no longer saw him as a unity but precisely as a rational distinction between essence and existence. Such a rational conception of God had the effect of introducing a split between God, as he is in himself, and our rational perception of God. The net result is to establish a God beyond God, making the intellectual apprehension of God itself a threat to the God beyond the rationally perceptible God. (252)

So, by distinguishing between God as God can be known and God as God is in Godself—that is, by introducing some kind of an, shall we say, apophatic extra?—it became difficult to understand how God (at least the God-est part of God, the God behind God) is thinkable. But this reservation is necessary on the basis of philosophical / metaphysical orientation that tries to think the infinite on the basis of the finite—at some point you have to throw up your hands and start gesturing mutely. So Spencer continues:

In this way the attempt to establish God as a product of our capacity to think him leads to impossibility of thinking God as God, as per classical theism. Modernity thus becomes the nursery that brings forth atheism from theism. Or as Jüngel puts it, “Proof of the necessity of God is the midwife of modern atheism.” In this sense atheism is the flip side of theism. (253)

So, what’s the solution?!?! You’ll have to read the book for that. But Spencer gives us a few lines, again channeling Jüngel, that point in what he thinks is the right direction:

The gospel points us to the God who dies in our place rather than an absolute and perfect being of metaphysical signification.

…

God is only above us insofar as he is with us, and he is with us only insofar as he is above us.

…

God is speakable because he is thinkable, but he is only thinkable because he has spoken in his Word. (254–55)

==================================


Subscribe to Die Evangelischen Theologen

Comments

George Plasterer said…
If I understand the direction of thought here, Barth's emphasis on knowledge of God in revelation makes God knowable and thinkable.
November 01, 2016 5:31 AM
A.T. Kaegler said…
So is he just repeating Jüngel's point in "God as the Mystery of the World?"
November 01, 2016 12:05 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

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

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