Thursday, April 4, 2013

A Vision of Man in God? Barth on Christ's Role in Anthropology


W
hat does it mean to be human? Karl Barth tackles this question with a unique twist. Whereas many anthropologies turn inward to define man philosophically from the inside out, Barth argues that true man is discovered only by turning our gaze outward to the only real man: Jesus Christ. What follows is a brief explication of his six irreducible criteria for anthropology as acquired from the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It should be noted that Barth presents these general characteristics with some qualification because he does not think that Christology and anthropology have an exact one-to-one equivalency.[1] Due to Christ’s divine nature, there is exists some mysterious relationship between his identity with God and his true humanity. Nevertheless, Barth argues that we can “know indirectly who and what we are from the fact that we live in the same world and have the same humanity as this man.”[2] So, holding that epistemic qualification in mind, we now turn to Barth’s six irreducible criteria.
           
Barth’s first essential quality of humanity deals with God’s direct presence with man. If one looks closely at the man Jesus, it quickly becomes obvious that this man was “confronted immediately and directly with the being of God.”[3] Barth does not leave any room for a general theory of God’s presence with man. In Jesus he finds the elements of God’s decision for relationship with man in an undeniably purposeful and personal way. In Jesus, God has eternally determined to present himself to man in a meaningful way. Therefore, real man, as posited in the “priority” of Jesus, exists most truly in this direct relationship to God.[4]
           
Secondly, Barth argues that true man exists as a player in a particular history with God. Indeed, the man Jesus is himself “conditioned” by the reality of God’s work in him to reconcile all men to himself. Therefore, “every man…must exist and have his being in a history which stands in a clear and recognizable relationship to the divine deliverance enacted in the man Jesus.”[5] This perspective removes the ability for man to somehow define his own relationship to God.  God is already about reconciling man to himself and real man is the respondent partner to this Divinely initiated covenant relationship received through the man/God Jesus Christ.
           
The third element of true humanity for Barth reckons with the relationship between man’s existence and God’s glory. He argues that ultimately the “being of every man…is not an end in itself.”[6] In God’s action towards the man Jesus, we find a God who is completely self-determined and sovereign in his self-revelation. He willfully chooses to descend to humanity and take upon himself the nature of man. In this act of humility, he proves himself to be most glorious. So, insofar as any man participates in the same humanity that Jesus had, he also exists for the “true determination” of the glory of God.[7]
           
The fourth essential aspect to Barth’s theological anthropology deals with the issue of God’s sovereignty. Looking at Jesus, Barth finds a man who fits absolutely square within the nexus of God’s lordship.[8] There was never a time when the man Jesus failed to exist under the sovereign will of God or refused to bring his actions into humble submission. Barth understands from this the principle that true man, insofar as he exists as a being with the same humanity of Jesus, will also exhibit life under God’s lordship. Barth sees this as setting clear boundaries around what human freedom can mean. However one might understand human freedom, “it cannot consist in freedom to escape the lordship of God.”[9]
           
Barth’s fifth essential criterion seeks to deal directly with the problematic topic of human freedom.  He argues that if the being of Jesus exists “wholly in the history in which God is active as man’s Deliverer, then necessarily…the being of every man must consist in this history.”[10] Therefore, man’s freedom becomes a freedom to respond to the work of this Deliverer. God has already determined his being in relationship to man and now man must respond to the grace offered to him.[11] On this model, freedom become less of a capacity to do whatever one wishes and more of a grace-filled response God’s action. On this model, choosing anything opposite of what God’s will is becomes a sort of un-becoming or self-contradiction.
           
Barth concludes his analysis of human nature by arguing that true humanity exists for God.[12] Jesus
--> à la man was greater than all other creatures because he existed solely to do the work of God; his life was filled by doing things on behalf of God (i.e. ushering in the Kingdom, speaking God’s word to others, etc.).[13] Interestingly, Barth highlights the fact that “being for God” in this manner is only possible because God previously willed to “bind himself to man” in Jesus.[14] Insofar as all other men are truly human, they respond to God’s initiation in this covenant relationship and offer themselves to his service.  
Whatever other things might be true of man – and Barth concedes the possibility of other things – they cannot be understood apart from these six essential characteristics. These are the boundaries stones that cannot be moved. These are the theological lenses that must influence the interpretation of all other phenomena of man.


[1] CD, III/2, 68
[2] CD, III/2, 68
[3] CD, III/2, 69
[4] CD, III/2, 69
[5] CD, III/2, 70
[6] CD, III/2, 70
[7] CD, III/2, 70
[8] CD, III/2, 70
[9] CD, III/2, 70
[10] CD, III/2, 70.
[11] CD, III/2, 70.
[12] CD, III/2, 70.
[13] CD, III/2, 70.
[14] CD, III/2, 70.

No comments: