In an essay ‘God and the Cross’ (p.125-141 of Engaging the Doctrine of God (ed. Br
uce McCormack; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), French theologian Henri Blocher evaluates the “God Crucified” theologies, most notably expressed in the theologies of Jürgen Moltmann (as seen in The Crucified God) and Eberhard Jüngel (God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundations of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism).
uce McCormack; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), French theologian Henri Blocher evaluates the “God Crucified” theologies, most notably expressed in the theologies of Jürgen Moltmann (as seen in The Crucified God) and Eberhard Jüngel (God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundations of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism). Blocher states that the dual attraction found in the “God Crucified” theologies is the new theodicy it provides as we see God involving Himself in upmost suffering, and an affirmation of history as linked and binded with God’s being (for e.g. Moltmann in The Crucified God goes so far as to say that the Trinity is constituted by the event of the cross) (p.129-30). Blocher himself applauds and agrees with the “God Crucified” theologies on two fronts. Firstly, the biblical sense of truth leads us to a certain degree to this truth. Blocher states, “If a view of God makes it impossible for him to be in Christ on the cross, reconciling the world unto himself, it cannot be entertained.” (p.130) Secondly, the “God Crucified” theologies warn us against the influence of pagan Greek philosophy on Christian theology and the recognition of God’s pathos (“passion”), that entails compassion. A ‘positive valuation of history and the constant stress on the doctrine of the Trinity are welcome indeed’ (p.131).
However, Blocher also has three serious misgivings – the first relates to the deity of the Son, where in the “God Crucified” theologies, there is a tendency to relegate the second of the Trinity to the man Jesus, as ‘the man (crucified) with whom God identifies himself, thus defining himself as love, thus differentiating himself as Trinity’ (p.132). The second difficulty relates to God’s independence from the world if his being is defined by a worldly occurrence. Moltmann, for example, is ready to soften the emphasis of God’s freedom in creation, and he makes room for ideas of ‘panentheism’ in his theology (p.133). The third difficulty relates to the relationship between ontology and history. If God’s being is constituted or defined by the event in time, then this event itself is transmuted or changed into ontology itself: it becomes eternal, it no longer “happens”. The news of the cross runs into the risk of being an eternal Idea. Blocher states it this way, “The nemesis is that ontology historicised breeds an ontologised history, which loses the true character of history. The true character of history demands the duality." (In the same way, we wonder if the same comment can be posed of B
arth’s idea of the incarnation of Christ as crucial to God’s being, though Barth prevents the ‘dehistoricising’ of the incarnation by stating that God’s being is ‘anticipated’ in that key event, which happened distinctly in time and history. ‘God’s being is in his becoming’. As McCormack states it, ‘God’s being in eternity is a being-in-act’. See here.) All this leads to Blocher’s major difficulty with ‘God Crucified’ theologies and what they tell us about God’s nature – the hermeneutics of the event. Whatever knowledge we derive of God from the event (of the cross) comes to us within a grid and framework of interpretation bound to the event itself! Blocher states, “The only “God”, then, that can be conceived is “correlative” of some worldly reality. […] Only if God himself testifies about himself may we go beyond.” (p.134). In another words, Blocher is for a theology of the cross – but one interpreted under the guidance of all the Scriptures, the abiding word of God written! (p.135).
arth’s idea of the incarnation of Christ as crucial to God’s being, though Barth prevents the ‘dehistoricising’ of the incarnation by stating that God’s being is ‘anticipated’ in that key event, which happened distinctly in time and history. ‘God’s being is in his becoming’. As McCormack states it, ‘God’s being in eternity is a being-in-act’. See here.) All this leads to Blocher’s major difficulty with ‘God Crucified’ theologies and what they tell us about God’s nature – the hermeneutics of the event. Whatever knowledge we derive of God from the event (of the cross) comes to us within a grid and framework of interpretation bound to the event itself! Blocher states, “The only “God”, then, that can be conceived is “correlative” of some worldly reality. […] Only if God himself testifies about himself may we go beyond.” (p.134). In another words, Blocher is for a theology of the cross – but one interpreted under the guidance of all the Scriptures, the abiding word of God written! (p.135). With this in mind, Blocher states three interpretive guidelines from Scripture that help us to think through what the theology of the cross reveals about God. Firstly, God cannot die in his own (divine) nature. Scripture seems to lead us towards that direction (Hab 1:12 and 1 Tim 6:16). Secondly, the distinction between person and nature becomes foundational, and thirdly and related to the second, persons in the Godhead can be viewed as subsisting relations. Blocher states this, “There are several persons of the one God, and the language of the “crucified God” must be explained as dealing with God the Son, whom God the Father has sent that he may take on human flesh and die in his flesh, in the weakness proper to human flesh.” (p.138)
No comments:
Post a Comment