The Humanity of God- Karl Barth

About the Author
Karl Barth (1886-1968) is a Swiss reformed theologian, and is known as one of the greatest protestant theologians of the 20th century for his most famous work: Church Dogmatics, which covers four major topics: Revelation, God, Creation, and Reconciliation (atonement) and was published in 13 volumes. He also wrote a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which was his first major work.

Summary of Content
Karl Barth's The Humanity of God was originally delivered as a lecture at the meeting of the Swiss Reformed Ministers Association in Aarau on September 25th, 1956. Barth claims that the problem with evangelical theology (which Barth describes in another lecture contained in this book as the "science and doctrine of the commerce and communion between God and man, informed by the gospel of Jesus Christ as heard in Holy Scripture (page 11)" is that it has become religionistic, anthropocentric, and humanistic. This is to say that the piety of man has become its "object of study and its theme (page 39)."

For this theology, to think about God meant to think in a scarcely veiled fashion about man, more exactly about the religious, the Christian religious man. (page 39)

Barth explains that in reading the Bible, the theme is not humanity's religious morality and certainly not humanity's secret deity, but rather;

[T]he theme of the Bible is the deity of God, more exactly God's deity - God's independence and particular character, to only in relation to the natural but also to the spiritual cosmos; God's absolutely unique existence, might, and initiative, above all, in His relation to man. (page 41)

So, one should not focus the conversation on the ways in which humans can become more like God, more pious, more religious, and more perfect; but rather one should examine the humanity of God and the utter necessity of God's relationship with God's created people. In order to examine God's humanity, one must concurrently study God's deity; for "it is precisely God's deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity (page 46)." Barth points out that this is a Christological statement, and rightly so; for in Jesus Christ we are dealing neither with a human in the abstract, or with God in the abstract, but "in Jesus Christ there is no isolation of man from God or of God from man (page 46)." Christ is both God and man, preserving the full integrity of both natures.

God's nature does not exclude human nature, but God and human exist entirely together in perfect relationship in the Christ. Barth goes so far as to say that "In Him the fact is once for all established that God does not exist without man (page 50)." Although God's own eternal love is sufficient within God's self, Barth states that God wants in God's freedom not to be without humanity, but to be with humans and for humans. This is God's grace, undeserved but freely given. This is also God's humanity.

His free affirmation of man, His free concern for him, His free substitution for him - this is God's humanity. (page 51)

Barth then goes on to outline 5 consequences of our knowledge of the humanity of God.

1. Because of God's humanity, one must acknowledge every other human being as sister and brother to Christ, and as daughter and son to God.

"On the basis of the eternal will of God we have to think of every human being, even the oddest, most villainous or miserable, as one to whom Jesus Christ is Brother and God is Father; and we have to deal with him on this assumption. If the other person knows that already, then we have to strengthen him in the knowledge. If he does not know it yet or no longer knows it, our business is to transmit this knowledge to him. On the basis of the knowledge of the humanity of God no other attitude to any kind of fellow man is possible.  It is identical with the practical acknowledgment of his human rights and his human dignity. To deny it to him would be for us to renounce having Jesus Christ as Brother and God is Father." (page 53)

2. Because God in God's deity is human, we must neither focus on humanity in itself or God in God's self, but rather we must concern ourselves with the human-encountering God and the God-encountering human. Who is the God that we interact with? Who are the people that God interacts with?

3. God's humanity calls an alignment between theological thinking and speaking. Theology cannot be done in a vacuum, we can never merely think in theories. It is not a monologue but rather a conversation. It is not a fixed picture but rather a living relationship that we study.

He whose heart is really with God and therefore really with men may have faith that the Word of God, to which he seeks to bear witness, will not return unto Him void. (page 59)

4. The way we speak of the covenant of God with humanity must be positive, because God in God's humanity is utterly full of grace and affirmation; and the news is Good.

This much is certain, that we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ. Our theological duty is to see and understand it as being still greater than we had seen before. (page 62) 

5. The knowledge of the humanity of God must "take seriously, affirm, and thankfully acknowledge Christendom, the Church (page 62)."

The Church is not too mean a thing for Him but, for better or for worse, sufficiently precious and worthy in His eyes to be entrusted with His witnessing and thus his affairs in the world - yes, even Himself. So great is God's loving-kindness! For this reason there is no private Christianity. (page 64)

It is in the Church that we participate in and share with others a relationship with a human God is affirms us as God's created people. It is good, for "If God is for us, who is against us?"

Reflection
I've just got a short reflection on this week's work of theology. Although I'm not sure I agree with (or entirely understand) the notion that God does not exist without humanity, I did really appreciate the discussion of God's humanity in Barth's lecture. I most enjoyed the first point he made in the final part of his lecture: Because of God's humanity, one must acknowledge every other human being as sister and brother to Christ, and as daughter and son to God. This, to me, is the perfect picture of Christendom on earth. Everyone treating everybody like we all deserve to be treated. How many things would be different today if we really made a conscious effort to show love and respect to our fellow human being, no matter whether or not we like them or agree with them. If God is for us, who is against us? If we are for each other, then the answer is: no-one. A short reflection, but a tall order.

Book Citation
Barth, Karl. The Humanity of God. Louisville: WJK, 1996.

On Free Will - St. Anselm of Canterbury

I have been intrigued by Anselm ever since I first learned of his Ontological argument in a Philosophy of Religion class in college. The Ontological argument states that God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived,' and because God is the greatest possible imaginable being, God cannot be thought not to exist; for a God thought not to exist is not 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' and is thus not God. It's an interesting argument, because [supposedly] one cannot refute the existence of God as God is understood in the terms of this definition. I have read several articles that make the point that you cannot equivocate something thought of in the mind to something existing in objective reality; but I still think the Ontological argument holds a lot of merit. Anyway, I didn't read about this argument in Anselm's Proslogion this week, but I did read something else of his from my collection of major works. I decided to read about Anselm's thoughts on free will.

Anselm defines free will differently than I have always thought of it for myself, and I think I might like his definition more than the loose one I've been working with all these years. On Free Will is written as a conversation between a student (S) and a teacher (T), and the student is asking the teacher all sorts of questions about his understanding of free will and liberty. The teacher continues to teach and challenge the student throughout the conversation, until finally the student runs out of questions. It's a shorter piece of literature, but it does well to go deep into the idea of free will both succinctly and with clarity. I am already looking forward to reading through the rest of Anselm's works in this book and reflecting on them in the future.

About the Author
St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109. At age 27, he became a Benedictine monk at the Bec monastery and became a disciple of the current prior: Lanfranc. When Lanfranc left the monastery in 1063, Anselm became the principal teacher at Bec. Soon after he wrote the Monologion, which he considered to be a 'meditation on the divine essence', and followed it shortly with his Proslogion. in 1708 Anselm became the Abbot of Bec. He started to garner quite the reputation as his writing circulated through Europe, and others began to challenge his work. He wrote On the Incarnation of the Word just to clarify his position on the Trinity after someone pointed out his name had been linked to an unorthodox teaching.

In 1093, Anselm became Archbishop of Canterbury, though he didn't much care for the post. He didn't get along well with the king, and had to deal with some conflict there. There was also a good deal of conflict due to the East West schism which had occurred in 1054. The pope asked Anselm to speak on the main theological question of the schism (whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Father alone, or from both God the Father and God the Son) to try and sway the Greeks, who believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Father alone. Anselm did speak at the Council at Bari, but was unsuccessful in swaying the Greeks. Anselm died on April 21st in 1109, on the Wednesday of Holy Week at age 76. (Page vii-x)

Summary
Anselm defines free will as the power of preserving the rectitude of will for its own sake. Basically, that means free will is the ability to align a person's own will with the will of God, simply because that is a person's natural and free state (like Adam and Eve before the fall). Anselm says that the ability to sin has nothing to do with free will. Free will is the ability not to sin in spite of the temptations and evils present in this world. Yes, both humans and angels have the capacity to sin, but that is not the same has having a free will to sin.

Anselm explains that a person who is able to refrain from becoming a slave to sin is more free than one who chooses to sin. The first humans were totally free to choose not to sin. They could not be made to sin by any power other than their own. They had that total freedom. They did choose to sin, but it was in spite of their free will, not because of their free will.

For what has it in its power not to serve cannot be forced by another to serve, although it can serve by its own power. (Page 177)

One cannot be forced to become a slave to sin, and one is not naturally in that state. It is not until a person willingly chooses to abandon her rectitude that she becomes a slave to sin. Anselm explains that no temptation can force one to sin unwillingly. The example is given of a person who must lie to save his life. The student asks Anselm whether his lie might be given unwillingly, because it was given under threat of immanent death. Anselm points out that he has still willingly chosen to lie, even if he did not will to lie for the sake of the lie, but for the sake of his life. He has unwillingly been thrust into a situation in which he must choose between sin and death, but if he had chosen to act according to his free will and preserved his rectitude for its own sake, he would have prevailed in eternal life. Anselm's point here is that no temptation can conquer right will, because the will can only be conquered by itself.

Although our will sometimes seems powerless against temptations, Anselm points out that "temptation can fight against a will that does not give in, but cannot conquer it against its will (Page 185)." We always have free will, or the ability not to sin, even when we are in the midst of abandoning our free will. It is likened to a person still having the ability to see, even though they might currently have their eyes closed. Anselm says that not even God can take away our free will, though only God can restore rectitude of will to a person who has abandoned it. When we abandon our free will, we become slaves to sin (though willingly). We are unable to restore our righteousness on our own. We still have the inherent ability to preserve our original rectitude, because we never lose our free will; but we cannot be restored through our own power. We are only restored to righteousness through the will of God.

Those who lack rectitude either lack it irrecoverably or recoverably. He who recoverably lacks it is one of the men in this life who lack it although many of them do not recover it. Those who lack it irrecoverably are reprobate angels and men, angels after their ruin and men after this life. (192)

Reflections
I always thought that there was sin in this world because of our free will, and that free will was our ability to choose to sin or not to sin. Anselm's definition has given me a lot to think about. I think I really like it. It makes free will sound more like something God has equipped us with to fight against the temptations and evils in this world, rather than something God has burdened us with. It makes a lot of sense too, because why would God (who is totally Good and cannot be in relationship to sin) "gift" God's created beings with the ability to sin?

I like the idea that God instead gifted us with the free will to refrain from sinning. God has gifted us all with the capacity to love God and to love neighbors, and hate has nothing to do with free will. To choose hate is to choose against the free will God has given each of us. God has gifted us with the ability to remain patient and not lash out in anger and frustration. Violence is not an effect of free will, but it is rather to defect from it, to abandon the rectitude of will. Choosing hatred and violence is choosing willingly to become a slave to sin. Choosing love, patience, mercy, and forgiveness is to act according to our free will, align our will with God's will, and remain righteous.

According to this definition, Anselm does not believe humans are born into 'original sin', because if we were, then we would not inherently have free will- the ability to choose not to sin. This too, I like, because I have never been comfortable with the notion that humans are without the capacity to refrain from sinning; and never liked to think that we are born with evil (sin) in us. If this were so, if humans were born into original sin, then God seems entirely unjust to punish people for living into their natural state of being. Anselm's definition of free will disallows for this notion, and rather favors the idea that humans are born naturally with free will, and have the total capacity to live out their entire lives in alignment to God's will. We simply choose more often than not to abandon this free will and allow sin to enslave us.

One human being lived into his free will his entire life, and we all know who that is: (think Sunday School) Jesus of course! I have not read any of Anselm's Christology, so I cannot comment on the roll of the Christ in the restitution of our free will, but I will most likely be reflecting on it in the near future as I continue to read more of Anselm's work and understand his theology better. Humans are not always good, though (according to Anselm) we could be if we tried hard enough. God, however is Good all the time. All the time, God is Good. Amen.

Book Citation
St. Anselm. Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.