In this week’s edition of our Church Dogmatics reading (§1.8.3, §1.9.1-2) Karl Barth is talking about the Trinity.
God is one. And the doctrine of the Trinity is how Christians affirm God’s oneness.
God exists in three modes of being, though to say as much creates all sorts of dangers of missteps, and no one has quite said it correctly.
My general take on this part of the Dogmatics is that in turning to defend church dogma, rather than state afresh what must be said on the basis of scripture and church, Barth not only gets boring but also finds himself having to both stray far from the biblical witness and to say things that make the Bible itself very difficult to read.
Can we say, with Paul, “God and his son Jesus?” Or does that make us heretics?
Must we say that the God who spoke to Jesus at the baptism was Father, Son, and Spirit? or can we affirm with Matthew, Mark, and Luke that the God in heaven spoke this to the son on earth while the Spirit was descending–and thus that the son did not speak, nor did the Spirit?
The doctrine of the Trinity is true. But how helpful is it as a means of characterizing the God of the biblical story if even our greatest theologians can’t quite tell us what it means? I’m ready to get back to discussing God in terms of how God has revealed Godself in the story itself rather than wrestling with the church’s philosophical reflections on that narrative.
Aren’t the Church’s philosophical reflections on that narrative in some sense actually the continuation of that narrative?
In some sense. That’s why I endure them.
Great post, Daniel. I agree that Barth’s Trinity is unhelpful, on the whole. Wondering if you are familiar with Catherine LaCugna’s “God For Us”, or Jurgen Moltmann’s “Trinity and the Kingdom”? I find both of their approaches to the Trinity to be much less abstract, more narrative focused, and relevant to the church.
I’m not familiar with either. I’ve heard of Moltmann’s, haven’t had a chance to read it. Thanks for the heads up–I don’t want to give up on the Trinity or anything!
You could also try reading Colin Gunton’s The Christian Faith. Gunton’s very good on the Trinity, in my opinion.
I concur. Gunton would be a good resource as well.
Moltmann’s “The Trinity and the Kingdom” is IMHO great. He is influenced by the eastern church and its emphasis on “the three” rather than the “one” (typical of the West, including Barth to an extent). He focuses on the “social trinity” and that gives him “room” to do some interesting things, especially read the biblical narrative more on its own terms! LaCugna’s somewhat similar though less astute and careful than Moltmann in my opinion. GO with Moltmann!
Every time I try to explain the Trinity to our 3 year old, Dave points out many heresies. I would prefer not to explain something I don’t understand, but three year olds insist on asking questions to clarify things like whether Jesus is God or God’s son.
I like your diagram. First time I have seen that.
On 347, Barth says that there is a true vestigium trinitatis in how God himself has revealed himself in our language, world, and humanity. I take that to mean the Scripture, proclamation of the Church, and what else?
Thanks as always.
Boring? Here are a few reasons I didn’t find the material boring, even though much of it was abstract and difficult (but not more so than the previous 7 sections):
1. In 8.1 Barth summarizes a direct transition from the structure in his analysis of revelation to the doctrine of the Trinity. Is this too pat, too forced – or is this itself an illuminating and useful intro to the doctrine? Either answer is controversial. And if one favors the second, it’s a useful teaching tool.
2. In 8.2 he tells why he puts the doctrine of the Trinity at the head of his dogmatics rather than at the end of his theology proper. In his explanation he insinuates that not doing so is at best inconsistent with a consistently Christian methodology, thus putting a traditional very much on the defense.
3. Further in 8.2 he begins his exposition of the Trinity by starting with the Son, which surely connects with the historical and NT exegetical reasons that the question arose to begin with.
4. He shows OT roots of the doctrine, not by resort to traditional proof-texts, but by an examination of God’s actions in Ex. 3, etc. (pp. 322 ff.).
5. In 8.3 he gives a critique of finding roots of the doctrine of the Trinity anywhere, and turns the critique on himself.
6. All through section 9 he examines what “unity” and “trinity” can mean with respect to God and what the limitations are. Maybe the material is too wordy to be immediately useful when talking to a congregation, but do its difficulties really lie outside the difficulties presented by the whole of Scripture?
And, although these sections are not full of direct exegesis, where has he departed from the Scriptures? Of course, the doctrine itself is not a statement of scripture, but a commentary on it. But in developing that commentary, has KB not stayed within the bounds of what the Scriptures demand.
And last, KB agrees with the point of the questions, “Must we say that the God who spoke to Jesus at the baptism was Father, Son, and Spirit? or can we affirm with Matthew, Mark, and Luke that the God in heaven spoke this to the son on earth while the Spirit was descending–and thus that the son did not speak, nor did the Spirit?” He says as much on p. 362 in the small print paragraph, where he quotes Luther.