It Is Finished.

Well, our foray through Foundations of Dogmatics is finished. It was a wild ride. Did everyone else enjoy it as much as I did? Did you also experience such a feeling of satisfaction this morning when you read those last words? Is it weird for anyone else to not see a Foundations of Dogmatics volume taking up desk real estate?

I kid because I love. Happy Thanksgiving.

God's revelation and mystery.

Thus begins the section on God's essence and attributes. It's asking the question, 'what is God like?' How can we ask that question, nonetheless answer it? In some sense we can't. One of the problems with history, religion, and the world is that people have been trying to ask and answer that question on their own. In this sense then, Nietzsche is very helpful when he says that "All gods are dead." (as in Weber, 398) We have dreamed up God, and he ends up looking an awful lot like us (or our parents!), and we are slowly realizing that this is grim, and cannot be. So how can we even talk about God? Only because God makes himself known.

We do not have any predicates for God at our disposal...We can do nothing other than to accept the fact that God has predicated himself. ... We do not predicate God, but God predicates himself in eternity.

Weber, 399.

All that we can do then, with all humility, fear, and trembling, is "merely interpret how God reveals himself to us." (Weber, 400) God reveals himself through his revelation, but he is not transformed into something else by his revelation. This means that, (1) God turns completely to us, and that (2) God remains completely he himself in his turning to us.

The Triune God in His Revelation

Although his work is not the emanation of a necessity which controls him, it is the work of his true nature itself and thus of the necessity which is established in him and through him.

Weber, 389.

This sentence may seem as if it could be glossed over, but it's implications cannot be overlooked. This is a sentence which leans heavily on the relationship that Karl Barth forged between the doctrines of the Trinity and of election (or predestination). First, God's work is not a necessity that controls God. God chooses, or elects, just who God is and what he does. That is to say that God is totally free in himself, God did not need to create stuff (people, the universe, time, etc.) outside of himself to be God. God elected to do this and to be this God out of his free and loving decision, which is ultimately for us. Thus, it is only out of a sort of self-imposed necessity (established in him and through him) that God is and does this.

I'd like to know what Weber means when he says "the work of his true nature itself". Is this to say that God has a nature "before" he had a triune being and activity? Or is he simply stating that within himself, within the trinity, his true nature worked outward into this necessity? Does this "work of his true nature" result in a sort of 'overflowing' within and from the triune life that resulted in creation, humanity, etc.? I'm taking a class on the doctrine of election, so this stuff is just in my wheelhouse.

He sort of gets at the answer to those questions in the very next section. This is a good long quote to think on:

His work cannot be separated from his nature. He has destined himself in his essence, in his true nature, for this his work. But that means that God as the One is always himself and thus he is always turned towards a counterpart. He is he himself in that he does not exist for himself alone bur rather for himself in his distinction from himself. And that means, as Augustine very rightly saw, that God is love.

Weber, 389.

Of yeah. These are the conceptual seedlings for why God's unity is in his three-ness, and his three-ness in his unity. An important consequence of this is in God's opus as extra (outward directed work). This concept basically claims that

God's unity in triplicity is not solely an 'inward' unity, so to speak, but it is also a unity in God's work regarding the creature.

Weber, 392.

What he's saying here, for instance, is that the work of Creation, while traditionally attributed to the Father, is also the work of the Son and the Spirit. The work of reconciliation and redemption, traditionally thought of as the work of the Son, is also the work of the Father and the Spirit. And on and on. So while it is God the Son who dies on the cross, it is also an act of God the Father and God the Spirit.

This is all related to the traditional and dangerous doctrine of "appropriations". Weber seals up this deal nicely:

...the Doctrine of Appropriations is a reflection of the 'order of persons'...it cannot imply more than this, that God's work, in accordance with his being, realizes the lordship of the Father through the lordship of the Son in the lordship of the Spirit. ... the Doctrine of Appropriations refers back to the mystery which does not cease to be mystery when it has been revealed, the mystery of the unfathomable and inexhaustible unity and triplicity of God.

Weber, 396.

Revelation and Being and the Trinity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity, like all theology, is derived from the self-disclosure of God which is made manifest as real in faith. It can be nothing other than the interpretation of the "salvation-event" proceeding a posteriori.

Weber, 379.

Thus, Weber starts this section on the relation of the Trinity to the "salvation-event", i.e., the sending, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit. In this event, in this 'act', God does not reveal something other than who he is and has always been, Father, Son, and Spirit. Thus we can say that the revelation of God's being is in God's acting. Not only the revelation, but the being of God is in God's act. God is what God does. That sort of thing.

In this act, and in God's being, God is out to utterly destroy the "walled insularity of man, his enslavement to the powers and forces..." (Weber, 381). He does this, as God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. (II Cor. 5:19) He also does this through the gift, act, and "reception of the Spirit, [where] revelation becomes 'subjective reality' and thus 'possibility'" (Weber, 386). Although our knowledge of God in his revelation is imperfect because our knowledge of revelation is imperfect, this is still how we can and do know anything about God (Weber, 388).

Important Trinitarian Ideas, Concepts, and whatnot.

These are some of the most important ideas to keep track of when it comes to the theology and problems with the doctrine of the trinity.

Subordinationism refers to the idea that Jesus (or the Spirit) was in some sense 'subordinate' to God. Usually, this takes shape when it is thought that Jesus was 'given' the power/deity of God so that Jesus wasn't in fact God but merely somehow divine...God-like, God-empowered, and God-created. Arius was the big name here, basically claiming that there was such a time when Jesus did not exist. The biggest problem here is that the full deity of Christ and the Spirit is not respected, and it does not respect God's unity.

Modalism refers to the idea that Jesus Christ and the Spirit were merely modes or ways that the one God behind the mode appeared. Modalism can take the form of something like God being a shape-shifter, or take the form of God being something like an actor in a play who puts on different masks and costumes to fit the role. This is associated with Sabellianism. The problem here is that since God only reveals himself to us in different modes, we do not get to see God as God and so we have no real knowledge of God. In modalism, there is always a real God behind the mode of God - denying the true revelation of God. Not good.

[The interesting thing about subordinationism and modalism is that all doctrines of God are in danger and violation of slipping ever so gently into one camp or the other. As we read (not just Weber, but all talk of God), we have to keep this possibility in mind.]

Vestiges of the Trinity refers to a concept, which gained steam with Augustine, that claims that there are vestiges (marks, traces, etc.) of the trinity in nature, the human person, etc. Augustine saw vestiges of the trinity in the human intellectual makeup (memory, intellect, and will) and in the makeup/powers of the soul (spirit, self-knowledge, and self-love). In this scheme, there is a sort of analogy between humans and God whereby we can understand God as trinity. This is often referred to as "analogia entis" (analogy of being). When it hits the fan, this is a nice idea but ultimately a very bad one. It is trying to discover and fit God in something that he ought not. I'll leave it at that.

Another important trinitarian word is "homoousios". It is the idea that God is made up of a divine substance ("ousia") and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all made of this same ousia (thus, "homoousios" literally means 'of one substance'). This all gets a little hairy when God is thought of to be made of a substance, essence, nature, etc. For instance, it is important to state that while the Father, Son, and Spirit are of one substance, this substance cannot not be given/attributed to anything that is not God. Also, it's important not to think of God's being one substance in the sense that humans are all made out of one substance. If this were the case, then as all humans are individual people, so would God be three individuals, resulting in tritheism. Complicated. It's important to be able to navigate though, as these terms filled a lot of church fathers' time. I think that they struggled through these issues for good reasons.

Another important trinitarian idea is around the words hypostasis, persona, and ratio, as referring to something like 'person'. The idea of person is helpful (Jesus is the 2nd person of the trinity, etc.) but it is also dangerous. Our modern idea of "personhood" is very individualistic and separate (leading to tritheistic ideas), where as in the old days hypostases, ousia, persona, prosopon (face), and substantia all got mixed up and misunderstood over time.

This is all very confusing, complicated, and somewhat frustrating. Weber draws out the gem of the section though when he says that

[O]ur review of the terminology of the Doctrine of the Trinity should have made one thing clear: all of the formulae are only approximate attempts to express a mystery which will never be completely comprehended by our thought processes.

Weber, 379.

On Monotheism.

Weber mentions the inadequacy of the concept of monotheism, in that monotheism generally deals with an abstract, unknown, and absolute God or deity. (Weber, 354) In God's revelation (in God's concrete self-disclosing acts), God contradicts this general monotheism as God encounters us as Father, Son and Spirit. Does this mean three Gods? No, in that God in his freedom determines Himself as the One Triune God. This is not easy. Weber prefers the term "revelational monotheism" because it allows the Biblical revelation of God to determine our way of thinking and conceiving of God. Weber states that

...the biblical witness makes three things clear. The one God is not a solitary God. He is not a lifeless God. He is not a God who is wrapped up in himself.

Weber, 358.

God is three and God is one. He is the personal, living, and outward oriented Triune God. So what does this mean practically? Four things:

1) This means first of all that worship, service, and obedience are due to God alone...

2) God is this One God as the Lord who deals with us...

3) God is, as the One and the Only One, the God whom we may and should trust solely and completely...

4) God is the One and the Unique as the God who discloses himself to us really, validly, and as he who stands over against us.

Weber, 358-60.

Why the Triune God?

Why the Triune God? Why not just talk about God? Shouldn't we get God down first (a 'general' doctrine of God), and then move on to this "trinity" idea? This is a decision upon which everything stands or falls. Weber puts it like this:

In our doctrine of God's being and attributes, everything then will depend upon our really talking about the God who encounters us in the biblical witness. This God, however, is the One who discloses himself to us as the Father in the Son through the Holy Spirit. He is the God whose unity, life, and revelation are expressed by the Doctrine of the Trinity in reflection and interpretation.

Weber, 350.

What the point is, is that if there is some God behind the trinity (i.e., behind God as he has revealed himself in scripture), then we actually have no knowledge of God because God had actually not revealed himself. He would have revealed some other version of himself. If this were true, then all would be lost. All theology/talk of God would be utterly meaningless and nothing more than human speculation. But this is not the case. God reveals himself. He does so as he is, Father, Son, and Spirit. This is good news.

Creator, Creation, Covenant, Law, & Christ.

I've been totally behind on posting to the blog! I want to catch up quickly, so here are some broad strokes on Scripture.

The Testimony to the Creator:
An important aspect of the Old Testament is its witness to God as Creator. When the New Testament is read or built upon without this witness behind it, we lose sense of the world and creation and "the New Testament understanding of Christian existence" is necessarily distorted. (Weber, 293)

Creation and Covenant:
Covenant is the basic term by which God establishes relationship with creation. Through covenant, humanity is permitted and invited to participate and be admitted into God's own realm. (Weber, 293) Here you go:

The Old Testament could only make the Creator known because it was coming from the encounter in which the Creator had disclosed himself as the Other and yet the One who turns to man and allows himself to be approacehed and addressed by man.

Weber, 293

This relationship to humanity is not limited to Israel, as the Old Testament witnesses to, but its central point and orientation of knowing is in and through Israel. God has established it this way.

Covenant and Law:
The Law of the Old Testament finds its meaning and ground in the covenant. Weber states that,

The law characterizes life in the covenant as life in obedience and thus as historical life. The fundamental "I am" of the decalogue is inseparable from the corresponding "Thou shalt" of the commandments.

Weber, 295.

Christ and Scripture:
In the section on "The Unfulfilled Law," Weber says important things about the function of the covenant and the law, and how it is always oriented towards a future and concrete fulfillment. Thus, Israel would reach forward with its own hands toward fulfillment of this covenant yet it could not do so, convicted of its failure by the law. So where can they turn? Paul gives us this answer in Romans 10:4 as stated by Weber,

The goal and end of the law is Christ...as the new reality. How should this be understood?

Weber, 298.

This statement is of inestimable significance. Weber beings to explain this significance on pp. 298-299. It means everything for us, for our possibility, for our contribution to salvation, etc. Here you go:

Jesus Chist is the person in who God's covenant finds its real partner, and he is simultaneously the one in whom this covenant is fulfilled. ... He is not the end of God's will toward the covenant partner. But he is the end of the law understood as man's possibility.

Weber, 299.

Thus, all we are, might be, used to be, may become is thankfully, mercifully, and gracefully in Christ. It makes sense then for Weber to posit Christ as the center of all scripture. (Weber, 302ff.) There is our hermeneutic. Enough with scripture...it's on to the Triune God!

BTW: today's reading (pp. 433-437) was awesome.

The Old and New Testaments

I'm not going to do much on this section. This quote stands out to me as an important one to consider:

For our thought, the point of departure is definitely the New Testament. It cannot be contested that the New Testament understands its proclamation upon the basis of the Old Testament. It is equally incontestable that the way in which the message witnessed to in the New Testament is understood defines the position of the Old Testament. In addition, we only have the Old Testament through the mediation and reception which is made known in the New Testament. There is no other approach to the Old Testament for us than the way paved by the proclamation of the New.

Weber, 287-8.

This is fairly controversial, and probably not something you're going to hear in a lot of modern scholarship. It seems to devalue the Old Testament in and of itself, but I don't think that it does. I actually think it gives it more value by its insistence that it has something to say about the New (and about Christ)! I think the important phrase to understanding this quote is that this approach is 'for us', as in, for Christians and the Church. Obviously, this approach would make no sense to Jews, for instance.

As I flip through this section, there is some really good stuff in here...maybe I'll try to put up some material on it later after all.

The Properties of Scripture

Although these 'properties' of Scripture are varied and understood slightly differently all over the place, it's good to know them. So here they are:

1. Authority:
Jesus Christ is the true Lord and authority of the Church, and yet,

Scripture is authoritative because and in that it witnesses to God as the One who has called his Community in his own actions, in the freedom of his historical activity.

Weber, 271.

The authority of Scripture is not some sort of inherent characteristic, but is as Jesus is Lord of the Church through the Spirit who "was not just the Lord of Scripture in the past, but always is." (Weber, 272) That is, Scripture has authority not because the Spirit injected it with authority in the past, but because the Spirit still speaks through it today. As such a living authority, its authority is not 'at hand' or easily grasped, but must be sought and decided for again and again.

2. Sufficiency:
This property is summed up in that,

Scripture suffices unto salvation and for the right knowledge of God in his activity.

Weber, 274.

This is so because Christ through the Spirit, rather than the Church and/or tradition, speaks through it unto the living and knowledge of salvation.

3. Perspicuity:
This property basically states that Scripture is understandable to everyone because God reveals himself to us through it in a way that we can understand it with the brains, intellect, reasoning, etc. that we are created with. We do not need to rely on a guiding principle or method from the Church in order to understand Scripture. That being said, we still need revelation via the Word of God and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit for it to be God who addresses us and calls us to faith in Scripture.

4. Efficacy:
This property looks at Scripture's 'effect' on its readers. There is a tension in this property that is difficult to navigate. On one hand, we do not believe that Scripture (as a book sitting on a table, for instance) inherently contains efficacious power that we can wield whenever we'd like, but on the other hand, we do believe that Scripture is effective in a special way as it bears witness to what God has done in Christ and is doing in the Spirit. I think the efficacy of Scripture is put nicely in Weber's discussion of Calvin,

...because the Word is worked by the Spirit and empowered by him, it cannot fall to the earth without effect.

Weber, 286.

Simple and true. The second paragraph on p. 286 sums up the property nicely.

The Canon.

Who decided on what is in the Bible? How did all of that stuff get in there? Weber has a lot to say about this, which I will not engage in here. Its a complex issue because of this statement:

The Church is not able to establish the trustworthiness of the Bible nor certify it because it itself is dependent on the Bible for its own establishment and certification.

Weber, 249. My emphasis.

The important point to be noted here is that "in establishing the canon, the early Church was referring back to the witness of the Apostles," (Weber, 252) that is, the authority over them as they experienced. Thus, the canon is a decision that ensure apostolic succession. Weber lists two guiding criterion for the New Testament: (1)that it presupposes the authority of the Old Testament and (2) that it refers back to the event of salvation, Jesus Christ, the "Word happened" (Weber, 253)

I'm happy with their decisions. Jude is a bit strange.

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit

The thing about Scripture is the fact that its being the Word of God is not provable. There is no criterion that can "prove" it, except for the Word of God itself. This is unavoidably circular reasoning. This is where the doctrine of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit comes in. Weber defines the doctrine in that God speaks and "proves" the Word to us in it, stating that

God is the One at work in the Holy Spirit, not only when the Word is heard but also in the fact that this Word calls forth response from us.

Weber, 241-2.

As the answer to the circular reasoning mentioned above, this understanding of Scripture with the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is, as Barth states in note 40 on p. 243, "at its weakest point" also "its indestructible strength." One could object that anyone could simply invent the Spirit speaking internally and thus claim that God has specially given his Word. Weber holds off this idea by insisting that,

The testimony of the Spirit is perceived by me as an "I" to the degree that I hear it through the Community or in the Community.

Weber, 247.

I think that's good enough for now.

God!

Here we are! We made it through our first part (the self-disclosure of God) and we are on to our second major part (the Triune God). This is excellent. I feel energized for this section.

I realize that I have not put up a post in a while. I want to put together one or two posts that put out the main points, terms, and definitions of what we've read since then. Look for it soon.

Also, I want to make sure that you all know that you are all totally free to post something yourselves...summaries, questions, developments, whatever.

Enjoy the reading! This looks to be great reading.

Theopneusty!

"Theopneusty" is the term that Weber uses for speaking about the understanding of the inspiration of Scripture that he prefers and puts forth here. I've never heard it before, and doubt I ever will again...so don't whip this word out and expect people to know what you're talking about! The important point here is a proper understanding of "inspiration," which "only suggests...the actual working of the Holy Spirit." (Weber, 229)

What he is talking about in this concept is that there is a balance in Scripture, which suggests that the Bible is neither simply human words, nor is it simply the Spirit's authorship. Rather,

its worthiness is to be found in the fact that God's Word in the Bible takes the form of human words which are abbreviated in their reality by absolutely nothing.

Weber, 233.

Thus, we should understand Scripture as the work of the Spirit "in and on man". (Weber, 234) As Scripture is the word of the witnesses to the event of salvation, it is also a work of the Spirit in that it is an instrument in making this salvation known, real, and effective in us. At the same time, and this can only be understood because the Spirit operates at another level than human operation, the word of the witnesses are still human words...their witness still speaks. Weber sums up "theopneusty" by stating that,

Scripture as the compilation of the Word witnessed to is "breathed through by God," that is, it is God's gift and work in the Holy Spirit, because Scripture as the unabbreviated word of man is the Word in which God confronts us unequivocally, for life or for death, because he presents himself to us in it.

Weber, 235. My emphasis.

In proclamation, this Word calls forth decision from us. This "decision is made in light of the Word which is perceived in the words of the biblical witnesses, by virtue of the relationships of these words to the Word happened." (Weber, 235) Thus, in this understanding of Scripture it becomes essential to inquire about the relationship (in the broadest sense of the word) between the Scriptural statement/text/verse/story and the salvation event (Jesus Christ).

That's all for now...I'll try to get some stuff up on the 'Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit' later or tomorrow.

Word and Spirit

It's been a few weeks since I've had time to sit and put together another blog post. There's a lot we've read through in the last few weeks. I'm going to try to take a big sweeping crack at a summary in these next few posts, highlighting what I see as the important details.

He starts the chapter by talking about the root of the problem in the doctrine of Scripture. In short, the problem is that theologians and the Church haven't done a great job historically at balancing the fact that the Spirit actually works in and through Scripture, with the fact that the Spirit also cannot be bottled up in Scripture, personal experience, or the Church. As soon as the Church tries to bottle up the Spirit, be it in an inherently inspired understanding of Scripture(think evangelical-type the-Bible-is-the-infallible-inspired-word-of-God), the ambiguity and individual exclusivity of personal experience (think mysticism), or in the structure, teaching, office, or sacraments of the church (think Catholic understanding of papal infallibility, official teaching on par with Scripture, etc.), it has misunderstood the Spirit all together. This is what is at heart and what is at stake in a proper understanding of Scripture.

It's Scripture Time!

Get ready for lots of reading about Scripture! About a month's worth! This might seem like a lot. It might be a lot. Only time will tell.

I appreciate the amount of space given to the understanding of the reading of and theology of Scripture. As Scripture is the thing that we'll interact with more than anything short of God himself, this decision makes sense. When it comes down to it, a lot of what we do, say, are, mean, work towards, work for, believe in, appropriate, etc. all comes down to how we interpret Scripture. It makes sense to try to get it right.

Knowledge of God

So far we have looked into the concepts of revelation and the Word of God, and now we move on to knowledge of God. I have to admit that these three concepts, though distinct, are so closely related and interconnected that it's hard to keep them straight and not mash them all together! I think this is so because, as Weber points out, God's activity in which he makes himself known to us is not only the content of our knowledge of God, but is the thing that makes our knowledge possible!

We'll start here. I think that perhaps the most important sentence from this chapter is that,

He [God] not only makes himself into the object of our knowing, but in the same act he makes us into those who know him.

Weber, 196.

God, in the same act whereby he makes himself known to us, he creates and activates within us the ability to know him (but not in a sense of a switch being thrown on). God "opens us up" (p. 196) in order to know him. This opening is something that we could never do on our own, even with the best philosophy, logic, or reason that we could muster. This is what the rather large section on "natural theology" is all about. Weber 'says it all' on page 209,

The human conscience can be the place where the truth is made known. But again we must say that this occurrence cannot be deduced from the most profound analysis of human perception or of human conscience, or be prepared for by the training of the conscience separate from the message. No human activity including the most careful apologetics can change the fact that "the god of this world [!] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor. 4:4). Instead, the creative readiness of our conscience and our mind is revealed in the new act of creation, done by the One "...who said, 'Let light shine out of the darkness...'" (2 Cor. 4:6)!

Weber, 209. My emphasis.

In my view, the most important point to be noted about the opposition to natural theology, is that Jesus Christ, the Word, the Gospel, God, needs no preparation in order to open a person up to know God. They do not need to know they're a sinner, they do not need to believe that a god can possibly exist, they do not need to feel the emptiness and hole inside of their heart, they do not even need the inherent (i.e., natural) ability to know God, etc. God doesn't need or require a "point of contact", as God's Word is in and of itself a self-creating point of contact. This is what Weber is on about on p. 214f. So much for natural theology.

So what is 'knowledge of God' like? This is important, though I almost forgot about it in the sea of natural theology and proofs for God's existence (or lack thereof). Knowledge of God is always response to him, it is "concrete, personal, and unspeculative", it is "ultimately always acknowledging", it is "the experience of the I-Thou relationship", it is "nothing other than the knowledge of Jesus Christ...nothing other than faith itself", etc. (quotes from pp. 196-8) It has what Weber calls, "a practical orientation." (p. 198) Knowledge of God is not an end in itself but is that which results in real and practical changes in behavior. He sums it us beautifully on p. 198, saying,

[T]he knowledge of God is not the noetic reception of "something," but the relationship and behavior which involves all of man, which takes place between the individual "I" (or "we") of knowing man and the Thou of a loving and knowing God...God...has established this relationship. The knowledge of God is fellowship with God.

Weber, 198. My emphasis.

So knowledge of God is not primarily information or stuff about God. The sons of Eli knew about God but did not know him. Even the demons believe that God exists, and shutter. Obviously, knowing about God or believing that God exists is not what true, real, active, living knowledge of God is after. This is because knowledge of God, or,

Fellowship with God takes place in grateful and obedient response to the Word given to us, in faith which answers the faithfulness of God...it...is a thankful living "under" God.

Weber, 199.

Well put. As this post quickly becomes as long as the chapter, I will bring it to a close. There's lots that I didn't cover that is important and/or provocative. Thoughts?

The Word of God Proclaimed: Church Proclamation

The Word as event, i.e., Jesus Christ, is witnessed to in and through Scripture as it brings the Word into the present. Likewise,

The Word witnessed to necessitates then the proclaimed Word in each situation because the validity made known in it is acknowledged in the believing Community, and it in turn makes it known, proclaims it to the world.

Weber, 190.

This is obviously thorny and easily misunderstood. Is the word of the preacher also the Word of God? Well, yes and no. It is certainly not necessarily or inherently. It all falls on God, as the words of humans can only be God's Word by God's own work. It is only through God's promised presence in the Community via the Holy Spirit that the Community's proclamation becomes God's Word. As the Head of this Body, Jesus Christ has promised this presence('when two or three are gathered'[Mt. 18:20], 'behold, I am with you always'[Mt. 28:20]) as he is its Living Lord in such a way that he still speaks in it, to it, and through it.

As someone who gets a chance to preach occasionally, this is both comforting and terrifying: comforting because it is God who is responsible for his Word being present; terrifying, because of the awe-some responsibility it is to prepare for and participate in such an event. I go back and forth on whether the comfort leads to terror, or the terror to comfort.

The question that I have is about the difference between "preaching" and "proclamation". I've assumed that preaching was one specific aspect of the Church's greater and encompassing proclamation (for instance, the Church proclaims with its actions, its other words, its outward moving presence, etc.). Weber seems to use "preaching" and "proclamation" somewhat interchangeably (I'm not fine-tooth-combing this). Understanding that "preaching" is certainly a vehicle and form of God's Word, to what extent is the Church's greater and encompassing proclamation also God's Word?

Also, the word 'necessitates' bothers me. I don't think that God and/or Christ 'necessitates' anything, in the sense that God doesn't 'need' anything to be God. Weber's logic possibly seems to go somewhere down that route: God/the Word/Jesus Christ needs Scripture which needs proclamation. I don't think he means 'necessitates' in that fashion though. I think he means "causes to occur". Thoughts?

Note: 'Community' is another term for 'Church'. It was somewhat (and still is) en vogue because it put less focus on the building/institution/etc. and more on the people/family of God. I like the interchangeability of them because they both emphasize necessary aspects(people and institution) of the Body of Christ.

The Word of God Witnessed To: Scripture

The second form is the Word witnessed to, i.e., Scripture. Because the Word of God was incarnate in history, it is given to us now through the Word of its witnesses. Weber states that,

The witness which Holy Scripture contains is essentially the proclamation of what has happened once and for all so that it will be accepted and believed as the event which is once and for all.

Weber, 186.

Here, Weber is stating that the Scriptures point to the mighty acts that God has accomplished for all people and all time, and as such, for us today. Thus, he can say that the Word is truly witnessed to in Scripture because of the validity that these acts hold for the present (and the future) as well as the past.

In some ways it is the total opposite of fairy tales, novels, or even history. That sort of literature is meant to take you from the present/real world and into their world, while Scripture is meant to bring its world to you in such a way that you may respond to the good news it witnesses.

The Word of God as Event: Jesus Christ

Under the section of 'the Word as event', Weber speaks about the way in which Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh and dwells among us (Jn. 1:14). That the Word can and would dwell among us is pointed towards in the Old Testament, so that

the One in whom the Word of God is so present, as the Word of God in person, in a specific, historical man, God's elect, that in him it is no longer an alien Word, like that of the prophets, which is obediently heard, passed on, and testified to. Here, he comes to us in his total authenticity so that this Man no longer just receives and proclaims, but is the Word of God.

Weber, 181. My emphasis.

This form of the Word is the original form from which the others find their foundation. Thus, Jesus Christ is the source of their meaning and content. This is only verifiable and certain by God's own verification and authority. In this section, Weber mentions three ways that the Church has historically tried to otherwise verify the Word: by making the Church itself authoritative, by making the Bible infallible, and through some sort of historical authenticity underlying Scripture. Each of these ultimately fail because they put themselves (the Church, the Bible, or historicity) in the place of God, as God is the only true authority of the Word.

If the quote from my last post is true and read through this post, it is entirely comforting, encouraging, and challenging the Jesus Christ is the decision made about me that demands of me a decision.

Note: Weber, along with many other recent theologians, is fond of using "I and Thou" terminology. This is terminology which was made prevalent in the 1920s by Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher. In short, it is used to denote genuine and authentic relations between two entities. It is in contrast to "I and It" relations, where the "It" refers to objects that we either use or experience, but do not enter into genuine relationship with. In reference to the Word to the Thou, he means that when the human is addressed by the Word, the human's humanity and creatureliness is upheld and respected, and visa-versa. The Wikipedia entry on I-Thou is helpful (just like all Wikipedia entries).

The Threefold Form of the Word of God

So thus far we have seen that God reveals himself to us. The "how" of this, is that he reveals himself in and through his "Word". Because God actually reveals himself in a way that is real, personal, concrete, happens in time and history, etc., this revelation must have some 'form'. This 'form' is the Word.

It is important at this point to mention that the Word is not some abstract substance of truth or knowledge that is floating around in the atmosphere for us to be able to comprehend rationally. That is (something like) the way the ancient Greeks developed the concept (and how some Christians thought and/or think of it). The Word is an address from God to the human. It is a

divine decision made about me which demands of me a decision.

Weber, 180

Weber's section on the Word is divided into three parts, following Karl Barth's understanding of the "threefold form of the Word of God." While there is one Word, the Word is found in three forms: the Word as event (Jesus Christ), the Word witnessed to (Scripture), and the Word proclaimed (the Church's proclamation).

Revelation...

So we've started! The first main part that we are reading is entitled "The Self-Disclosure of God". This is a fancy of way of saying that God makes himself known (God discloses himself). This will take us all the way through to near the end of February.

The section we first read is on the theological concept of 'revelation'. This simply means to reveal, to make known what was previously unknown, etc. This concept is extremely important because on our own, we have no way of naturally knowing God, God's nature, God's works, etc. This is not because God is unknowable per se, but more because "we, the way we are, are opposed to the truth (Rom. 1:25; 3:4; Eph. 4:25)." (Weber, 169) When we seek out to 'find' God, we really only end up finding a human projection of something like a god, or we find a god that we have defined, and thus, we can control. Weber states that,

Christian discussion of God always implies him who is in no sense identical with man. Therefore, when we talk about revelation in a Christian sense, we are always talking about the self-disclosure of the One who is utterly and completely Other, outside us and confronting us.

Weber, 170. My emphasis.

Important to this concept is the idea that revelation is God's doing. God makes himself known to us, and it is a wonderful gift: a gift because God freely gives himself to be known to us in revelation, a gift because in God making himself known to us, God breaks through our opposition to the truth, our insularity, our inward-focused direction. This is the only way that we know ourselves, but God saves us from ourselves, frees us, and sets us in the right direction.

The final point that Weber discusses, is that God doesn't first reveal to us ideas, rules, morals, lessons, or information about him, but God reveals himself - personally. In revealing himself, God then also reveals his will, nature, behavior, relationship to us and to the world, etc. Thus, God reveals himself as a specific God - not some vague and/or abstract notion of God - as the God who is for us when He reveals himself in Jesus Christ.

A point that I think is important to recognize, and which Weber hints at and will certainly come back to later in greater detail, is that God's revelation of himself to us is always a call to follow, know, and serve him. It is not primarily something mental, intellectual, informational, etc. God does not simply convey to us an idea of who he is for the sake of our own knowledge or interest or even well-being. God reveals himself in order to set us free from our self-captivity so that we may follow him: revelation is for discipleship.

This all leads to the question which will be dealt with in the next section: how does God make himself known? We will see that God makes himself known in his "Word".

In this sense we will do our work...

Here's a little snippet I came across while reading Barth's book on the Heidelberg Catechism. He's talking about "the responsibility...of those who find themselves in the community of the church which is founded on the good news of Jesus Christ and to which is entrusted its interpretation and transmission." He says,

The gospel must ever again be explored and sought and inquired into. It demands work, reflection, exertion. It demands faithfulness and independent investigation. The church may not avoid this effort, for its existence as church depends on it. Doctrine is thus not its own goal. One can work at theology for theology's sake just as little as he can work at art for art's sake. Christian doctrine is rather a part of the service of the community, service to God and to neighbor. It is thus a part of the church's liturgy. In this sense we will do our work, and in this sense only can it be done. When we teach or study theology, we stand in the service of the church.

Karl Barth, Learning Jesus Christ Through the Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 19.

So keep this in view as we read. We don't study theology for theology's sake, or for learning's sake, or for whatever's sake. We study theology so that we may become more faithful servants, stewards, teachers, witnesses, ambassadors, interpreters, and transmitters of the good news of Jesus Christ.