So, I haven't blogged in a while. I had my final papers and exams the last couple weeks, so I've been pretty busy. Now that I've finished spring long term, though, I should have more time.
Any blog about my time at PTS wouldn't be complete without mentioning my Doctrine of Election class with Bruce McCormack. Dr. McCormack is a well-respected Barth scholar, and his own unique contribution is in the area of election, so this is a fairly big-time class at PTS. I really had no idea who McCormack even was going into the class, so I was forced to get up to speed fairly quickly.
We covered much of the historical development of the doctrine, at least until the time of Barth, which was helpful. I was able to clarify Augustine's position in my own mind (more specifically the development in Augustine over the span of his life) and take a brief look at Aquinas. Calvin I had read already. Given the emphasis of PTS in general and McCormack in particular, it shouldn't be surprising that Barth was hyped as a sort of savior for the doctrine of election in the Reformed tradition. McCormack himself likes to tell about how he began as a Wesleyan-Arminian, became Calvinist for about three years in grad school, and then Barth "saved" him from Calvin.
I was thoroughly disappointed by what I found in Karl Barth. Not that his doctrine of election is bad; I think its really fairly good. He emphasizes God's election of Jesus Christ over discussion of individual destiny, which I appreciate. He reminds theologians that God's relationship and governance of individuals cannot be separated from the loving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which is also a helpful reminder. But when it came to his discussion of individual election, his position wasn't substantially different from previous options (at best), and maybe even incoherent (at worst).
Barth wants to emphasize that Christ has taken our punishment in the crucifixion. As a result, humanity is elect and Christ is reprobate. God has chosen to reprobate himself in Jesus Christ rather than punish humanity. He even makes claims such as this: "Not every one who is elected lives as an elect man... Perhaps he never does so... this fact does indeed conflict with his election, but it cannot annul it. ... His rejection may be attributed to him... only as a threat hanging over him... the threat which is rendered powerless by Jesus Christ." (CD II/2.321) Barth sets up a system where the inevitable conclusion of his calculus is that all are universally elect and therefore universally saved, but he doesn't want to go there, so he never quite makes the jump. The only other options that might be able to resolve the tension in Barth's system would be the Calvinist move of denying universal election, or the Arminian move of allowing the individual to ultimately resist election. Barth doesn't seem to offer some wildly attractive third option, unless that option is universalism (which I cannot accept since I can't justify it exegetically).
Things I took from this class:
1) The relationship between God's nature and God's will may be more complicated than simply sublimating one to the other. God is who God is (triune, etc.) because God freely chooses to be so. God chooses to be loving and triune based upon his nature as God. The two need not be mutually exclusive statements for an eternal being (maybe).
2) I don't like the idea of collapsing God's justice into God's sovereignty. This seems like a rank abuse of language. Surely when one speaks of God's justice, one is talking about a particular way in which God exercises his power, rather than the mere fact of his power. God's action provides the definition for justice, but that doesn't deny justice its character as distinct from sovereignty
3) A lot of useful historical data
4) I truly can embrace Reformed brothers and sisters as part of the Christian tradition. I didn't get a lot of sympathy as an Arminian/Molinist at a Reformed seminary, but I was able to gain an appreciate for the concerns which drive the Reformed perspective. I may not agree, but I do respect their underlying motives.
5) The Doctrine of Election can be a powerful, positive doctrine. It need not consist of a terrible, absolute decree coming from an unknown and unknowable primordial will of God. God has revealed himself as loving, and self-sacrificial, and as willing to take humanity's place in punishment. Before we can speak of man's election to relationship with God, we have to recognize God' election of himself to be a God for humanity in Jesus Christ. Nothing could be better news.
