Book Review: Sumner, Karl Barth and the Incarnation

212 Reviews T he issue rears itself elsew here. Schw arz is particularly concerned at points w ith m atters pertaining to the environm ent. A gain, it is quite reasonable to believe that historic C hristianity should speak to such issues. B ut how it does so - indeed, how it can do so - is the big question that is not addressed. In the end, the reader is left thinking that the term ‘creedal’ in the subtitle serves to provide the basic structure and taxonom y of the w ork. In fact, how ever, the term does not function in a strong w ay as a m eans of providing m aterial content. T hat is sham e, for this is a stim ulating volum e. B ut it fails to clarify its ow n assum ptions and so (ironically) leaves the theology som ew hat floating in the air. C arl R . T ruem an Westminster Theological Seminary, PA D arren O . Sum ner, Karl Barth and the Incarnation. London: B loom sbury T& T C lark, 2014, ix + 244pp. £65.00 hb., £28.99 pb. T he goal of Sum ner’s study is ‘to identify not only the content of B arth’s C hristology but its enduring significance for C hristian theology’ (p. 2). H e contends that B arth’s C hristology has satisfying solutions for difficulties left by older christological traditions as they thought about the identity of the second person of the T rinity and the incarnate Jesus. T hese older traditions conceive of the incarnation as the divine W ord adding a second, hum an nature to his original, divine nature. T his hum an nature is therefore accidental to the W ord’s existence, in opposition to his original, essential, divine nature. Sum ner is convinced that this w ay of conceiving of things leads to an identity problem : ‘Jesus ... is strictly the L ogos ensarkos and coincident but not identical w ith the second person of the T rinity ... the W ord is fully the G od-hum an Jesus C hrist, but Jesus C hrist is not the fullness of the eternal W ord of G od’ (p. 39). T he W ord and Jesus are not from first to last identical beings. Sum ner believes this to lead to several other theological problem s. C om bined w ith divine im m utability, ‘G od’s becom ing hum an in the person of the Son is necessarily an opus Dei ad extra’ (p. 47). This suggests, Sum ner believes, ‘that w e are no longer speaking of a true incarnation of G od and not a theophany’ (p. 47). M oreover, unless the hum an nature ‘is essential to the Son H im self’ (p. 68), the Son escapes the suffering of Jesus. In the light of these problem s, Sum ner argues, B arth has the better approach. O n Sum ner’s reading, B arth holds that the W ord’s hum anity is as ‘ontologically basic’ to him as his divinity because in the incarnation the triune G od has freely m ade hum anity essential to the divine life (p. 10). G od can do this because G od does not exist ‘logically prior to and apart from his act’ (p. 14). R ather, ‘G od is L ord even of his ow n existence’ (p. 14). U nderstanding hum anity as constitutive of © 2017 John W iley & Sons L td Reviews 213 the W ord’s existence, B arth is now able, according to Sum ner, to solve the conceptual difficulties of older christological approaches. Jesus C hrist is identical w ith the divine W ord w ithout any reserve (p. 205). D ivine im m utability does not assign the incarnation to an accidental place in G od’s life ‘because his assum ption of hum an essence is an eternal act. H e has, in a sense, alw ays been hum an’ (p. 210). A nd, in opposition to the older traditions, the W ord can claim Jesus’ hum an suffering as ‘properly his’ (p. 219) because it is essential to his existence. Sum ner m akes his case in five clearly delineated chapters. In the first he offers his ow n critical account of the doctrine of the incarnation in patristic, m edieval and R eform ed theology, identifying w hat he believes to be the w eaknesses w hich B arth’s C hristology w ill solve. In the second chapter he turns to B arth, and traces B arth’s engagem ent during the 1920s and 1930s w ith ‘Logos C hristology’, especially as expressed by the R eform ed tradition, concluding w ith an analysis of the C hristology em bedded in Church Dogmatics 1/2. In the third chapter Sum ner engages B arth’s ‘m ature C hristology’ as expressed in Church Dogmatics IV . H e focuses on four them es: the relationship betw een covenant, election and C hristology; the relationship betw een C hristology, eternity and tim e; the com m unication of divine and hum an essences in C hrist; and the tw ofold m ovem ent of C hrist’s hum iliation and exaltation. In the fourth chapter Sum ner raises the issue w hether B arth’s C hristology, w hich reinterprets the creedal notions of ‘nature’ and ‘person’, can still be said to adhere to C halcedonian gram m ar, and m akes a case for an affirm ative answ er. In the fifth and final chapter Sum ner returns to the issues identified in the first chapter, and argues that B arthian C hristology is able to offer a better account than patristic or traditional R eform ed approaches. Sum ner’s analysis of B arth is part of a larger discussion w ithin N orth A m erican B arth studies regarding the relationship betw een C hristology and the doctrine of G od. T he debate concerns the exact nature of the absolute priority B arth assigns to G od’s decision to be for us G od-in-C hrist. D oes this shape G od’s life ‘dow nstream ’ from this decision, as all G od’s dealings w ith w hat is not G od now happen w ithin the context of this decision? O r does it also shape G od’s life ‘upstream ’, that is, the life in G odself? In other w ords: does G od’s decision to be Jesus C hrist determine G od’s being, or constitute G od’s being? Sum ner’s reading of B arth is rooted in the latter interpretation. In evaluating Sum ner’s w ork, I w ould like to start w ith an observation about the w ider discussion in w hich it is situated. T he debate started in 2000 w ith an essay by Princeton’s B ruce L. M cC orm ack and has been going ever since. A fter the publication of Sum ner’s book, w hich sides w ith M cC orm ack’s understanding of C hrist as constituting G od’s being, at least tw o other studies (by G eorge H unsinger and Paul D . M olnar) w ere published that defend the opposing view , and no doubt m ore publications from both sides are in the m aking. It strikes m e that the very fact that w e can have a sixteen-year-long sophisticated debate about an issue of interpretation in w hich no clear w inner has em erged suggests that w hatever B arth w as trying to do actually leaves him open to a variety of interpretations. M cCorm ack has been very upfront about this, others not so m uch. Sum ner also © 2017 John W iley & Sons L td 214 Reviews does not clearly acknow ledge the unresolved tensions in B arth’s thought. I think his study w ould have been stronger if he had expounded and analyzed the several directions B arth’s C hristology could be taken in, even if one of these w ould have had his ow n theological preference. T his leads to a second point. T he energy injected into the debate by all participants suggests that w e are not just dealing here w ith an issue of B arth interpretation. Participants believe ‘their B arth’ leads them in the right direction constructively. B ut if B arth’s ow n thinking is m arred by unresolved tensions, as the debate lays bare, it m ay be best at som e point to leave B arth behind and to start m aking our ow n constructive proposals. W hat I do applaud in Sum ner’s study is that he is upfront about his ow n constructive interest. H e studies B arth not just for B arth’s sake; he is clear about m ining B arth so as to solve w hat he believes to be as of yet unresolved theological issues. T his in turn leads to m y last point - the w ay Sum ner executes his case. M y appreciation for Sum ner’s constructive interest notw ithstanding, m y concern is that he m akes m ore assertions than he develops in-depth argum ents for his position. I offer tw o exam ples, one from his evaluation of the older christological traditions and one from his exposition of B arth. A s to the first: on a m ore traditional approach, the hum an nature is accidental, not essential to the divine W ord. Sum ner asserts that because of this the W ord’s hum an nature’s suffering is not properly his. B ut w hy? T his assertion is only true on the unstated prem ise that only those things are properly ours that are essential to us. Such essentialism is indeed present in m uch of W estern philosophy, starting w ith Plato and A ristotle. B ut C hristian theology has consistently rejected such essentialism , since from the C hristian point of view m uch is ‘properly ours’ that is nonetheless not ours essentially: love, sin, grace, forgiveness. If one does not adhere to essentialism - and one should not Sum ner’s assertion does not follow . A second exam ple: Sum ner’s reading of B arth, according to w hich G od ‘chooses’ to m ake hum anity essential to the divine life, hinges on B arth’s quip that ‘G od’s being is in act’. O f course, for B arth this is not a foundational ontological principle - his theology does not allow for foundational ontological principles. It rather is a tentative ontological reflection on the actus singularis w hich B arth encountered in the gospel: that G od decides to be for us G od-in-C hrist. H ow one reads this ontological form ulation w ill therefore depend on how one w ants to unpack B arth’s christological starting point. If one reads him as m aking a case about divine self-determ ination, this is how one w ill understand the ‘G od’s being is in act’. If one understands B arth’s christological assertion as expressing divineself-constitution, one w ill take him to say ontologically, as Sum ner does, that G od does not exist logically prior to his christological act. B ut taken in this w ay, w hat w ould B arth’s quip actually m ean? Prima facie, if one constitutes som ething, there w as a (logical, ontological) m om ent w hen that w hich is constituted w as not. T o say that G od constitutes G od’s hum an nature as equally ontologically basic as G od’s divine existence seem s an incoherent statem ent because the one w ho is doing the constituting inherently needs to be m ore basic than w hat is being constituted. © 2017 John W iley & Sons L td Reviews 215 G od’s freedom to constitute G odself is after all said to be a divine freedom . So, if that is the position Sum ner and others w ant to take, w e w ould need at least som e ontological account of how this is to w ork. Sim ply asserting that it is the case is not enough. B ut Sum ner never gives us that ontological account. T herefore, w hat Sum ner’s book calls for is another volum e in w hich, w ithout leaning on B arth’s authority, he m akes his case constructively. E dw in C hr. van D riel Pittsburgh Theological Seminary N icholas A dam s, The Eclipse of Grace: Divine and Human Action in O xford and M alden, M A : W iley-B lackw ell, 2013, xx + 240pp. £69.50/$l 10.95 Hegel. A dam s has w ritten a deceptively m odest book. O n the one hand, his aim is to provide an introduction to H egel’s texts for readers w ith a desire to grasp the significance of H egel for theology. M oreover, A dam s focuses on a single strand of H egel’s philosophy: logic. T his em phasis on logic m ay strike m any readers as strange. For w hen (or, unfortunately, if) contem porary theologians turn to philosophy, they tend to be far m ore interested in epistem ology and even m ore so, w ith a figure like H egel, in ontology rather than in logic. W ith this em phasis on logic, a m odest goal com es paired w ith a bold one. So, m odestly this is a book w ritten to help students read H egel. A s A dam s rightly observes, H egel is significant source, explicitly and im plicitly, for the giants of tw entieth-century theology such as B arth, B onhoeffer, R ahner and von B althasar. D ebates can and should be had concerning how individual tw entiethcentury theologians are influenced by H egel (e.g. positively or negatively, substantively or form ally), but that they are is beyond dispute. Thus, a w orking know ledge of H egel is a m ust for students w orking in m odern theology. The problem , fam iliar to anyone w ho teaches in this field, is that w hile there are several quality introductions to G erm an philosophy and to H egel in particular, there is little available that is geared tow ard so equipping postgraduate theology students. A dam s explicitly seeks to fill that gap. H e proceeds by turning directly to H egel’s texts. Intentionally eschew ing broad overview s of H egel’s thought (plenty are available and he directs the reader to them ), he rather selects, from H egel’s m ajor w orks - The Phenomenology (chapter 2), The Science of Logic (chapter 3) and The Lectures of the Philosophy of Religion (chapter 4) - short, m anageable sections that he considers relevant for theology. Parallel G erm an/E nglish texts are provided w ith a detailed sentence-by-sentence com m entary. T he result is a book that could w ell have been subtitled, and not im m odestly, ‘H ow to R ead H egel’. T here is nothing else like it yet available for theologians to acquire the skills to handle H egel’s texts w ith understanding. © 2017 John W iley & Sons L td License and Permissible Use Notice These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials. You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission. Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws. For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at [email protected]. Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.