Karl Barth's doctrine of election and its implication for theological ontology

Reading my former lecturer's post the other day on Professor Bruce McCormack's paper on reconstructing Barth's doctrine of the Trinity in light of his later Christology (which he presented at the Trinitarian Conference in Auckland) reminded me of one his articles I've read earlier in college. The title of the essay is 'Grace and being: The role of God's gracious election in Karl Barth's theological ontology' in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (ed. John Webster; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 92-110.

Here, Professor McCormack contends that, from the vantage point of a hundred years from now, Barth's greatest contribution to the development of church doctrine will be located in his doctrine of election. His doctrine '[established] a hermeneutical rule which would allow the church to speak authoritatively about what God was doing - and indeed, who and what God was/is - 'before the foundation of the world', without engaging in speculation'. (92, his emphasis). For those in the know, the unique facet of Barth's doctrine of election was that he saw Jesus Christ, the God-man, as both the Subject of election and its Object; as both the electing God and the elect human. While Barth's doctrine of election has attracted accusations of it heading towards universalism (since Jesus is the elected man who represents the entire human race), Professor McCormack highlights that what was really at stake for Barth in this issue was a question of divine ontology. "The electing God, Barth argues, is not an unknown 'x'. He is a God whose very being - already in eternity - is determined, defined by what he reveals himself to be in Jesus Christ; viz. a God of love and mercy towards the whole human race." (97). The following quote summarises the issue at stake:

What we see in the collision between Calvin and Barth, then, is not simply a clash between two views of the extent of election. At the most fundamental level, it is a clash between a theologian working with what we might call an 'essentialist' ontology and a theologian working with an 'actualistic' ontology. Calvin knows of a mode of being or existence on the part of the Logos asarkos which is independent of his being/existence as Redeemer. Such a view presupposes an 'essentialist' ontology in accordance with which the 'essence' of the Logos (or, as we might prefer, the 'self-identical element' which makes the Logos to be the Subject that it is) is understood to be complete in itself apart from and prior to all actions and relations of that Subject. And divine 'essence', on this view, is something hidden to human perception and ,finally, unknowable.

Barth too, knows of an 'essence' (a self-identical element) in God, but for him 'essence' is given in the act of electing and is, in fact, constituted by that eternal act. It is not an independent 'something' that stands behind all God's acts and relations. God's being, for Barth, is a being-in-act; first, as a being-in-act in eternity and then corresponding to that, as a being-in-act in time. [...] Most importantly, if the eternal being of God is constituted by His eternal act of turning towards the human race - if that is what God is 'essentially' - then God's essence is not hidden to human perception. It is knowable because it is constituted by the act of turning towards us. God in himself is God 'for us'. Knowing God in this way, we can trust that the love and mercy toward the whole human race demonstrated in Jesus' subjection of himself to death on a cross is 'essential' to God and that election is therefore universal in scope. (98-99, emphasis in bold mine)

Deep and interesting words! Shows that for Barth, the issue has ultimately to do with knowing God - or more strictly, knowing God's essence, which is constituted by the act of the incarnation. This does not render the incarnation to be a non-historical event, but it does mean that for Barth, God's essence or being pre-incarnation is one that is already anticipative of the incarnation, and God decided it to be so through his election of Jesus Christ.

While the logic of Barth's thought does lead one to a greater confidence and assurance that God in himself is God 'for us', and in this sense we can say with a greater confidence that we know (because it has been revealed this way) even the essence of God, we have to ask if Barth's doctrine of election can be supported by Scripture. Scripture seems to present more of specific human beings as the object of election (Eph 1:3-4), though Christ is the mirror by which we contemplate our own election (Inst. 3.24.5), and Scripture presents God the Father as the one who does the electing. Also, while Barth's doctrine of election may secure a more knowable 'God in himself', we have to admit that one entailment of his doctrine is that it is hard to escape from the charge of universalism, a point repeatedly refuted by Scripture. So on the balance, my personal preference is to go with Calvin. While that in turn will lead to us ultimately not knowing the essence of God, as Barth and Professor McCormack has pointed out, we just have to trust in the axiom that the 'economic Trinity best reveals the immanent Trinity', i.e. if the love God showed for us in the economy of salvation is the love that flows out from his inter-Trinitarian love that he has in Himself, then we can trust that God in Himself will very much be like how God is towards us, while ultimately leaving space for a godly silence that resists any form of pinpoint accuracy.