No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Personal Imperative of Revelation: Emil Brunner, Dogmatics and Theological Existence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 October 2012
Abstract
Based on the theology of Emil Brunner, this article seeks to demonstrate the relevance, even the imperative nature, of personal encounter both for the work of dogmatics and for theological existence. In particular it assesses what impact the personalness of God's self-revelation should have, not just on one's doctrinal conclusions, but also on one's self as a theologian. A range of Brunner's writings forms the backdrop for this focused study of a paradigm which shapes his theology and methodology: personal encounter. I start by introducing the broader context of Brunner's presuppositions about the theological task, including his regard for divine self-communication. With this in mind, attention will be paid to the relationship between revelation and scripture, and in particular to the Christocentric, personal and enduring character of God's unveiling. Brunner's regard for the apostolic witness as the authoritative testimony to God's full disclosure in Christ is high and determines the position that he affords the Bible throughout his work. A summary of Brunner's treatment of the divine-human encounter will follow, with a view to understanding him on this subject in his own terms. His small publication by the same name, The Divine-Human Encounter, serves as the focus of this examination. The term ‘personal correspondence’ requires special consideration for the central position it enjoys in Brunner's conception of divine revelation and its relationship to dogmatics. Further expressions related to this theme will come to light in the process of answering two questions regarding the connection between personal encounter in scripture and the work of theology. First, how true is our doctrine when its expression becomes distanced from the language of divine-human encounter which characterises revelation? Second, what is the relationship between scripture as theology's primary source and the ongoing revelation of God to the believer in personal encounter? The suggestion that theology cannot be restricted to intellectual pursuit will not be universally applauded, but the proposal that God's self-unveiling obliges a change in existence and not just an adjustment in knowledge is one that Brunner deems unavoidable. In this light I conclude by suggesting that the personal encounter of revelation issues an imperative for both individual and communal existence which must be considered by all who undertake the theological task.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2012
References
1 One need not look far for illustrations of Brunner used as antagonist, however justifiably or unjustifiably so: e.g. McInroy, Mark J., ‘Karl Barth and Personalist Philosophy: A Critical Appropriation’, Scottish Journal of Theology 64/1 (2011), p. 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Instances of overlooking Brunner, even where he might be relevant to the subject at hand, are likewise available, such as a comprehensive and detailed critique of narrative theology with not one reference to Brunner therein: Francesca Aran Murphy, God is Not a Story: Realism Revisited (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
2 The aim of this article is primarily expository and not critical, though I am well aware of the usual arguments against Brunner which render him suspect for many theologians (e.g. certain interpretations of Brunner's comments on natural theology or his perceived reliance on personalist philosophy). It is my view that a rigorous study of his work must be achieved afresh before dated critiques of Brunner can be adequately sustained in current debate.
3 Brunner, Emil, The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics, vol. 1, trans. Wyon, Olive (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949; German edn. 1946).Google Scholar
4 Brunner, Emil, The Divine–Human Encounter, trans. Loos, Amandus W (London: SCM Press, 1944).Google Scholar The German title, Wahrheit als Begegnung (1938), has been alternatively translated as Truth as Encounter. Both English renditions point to the single theme of the text and, it could be said, of Brunner's theology: we know God in personal encounter.
5 The noteworthy influence of Søren Kierkegaard is easily and rightly identified here; however, although it plays a role in the broader study of Brunner's work underlying these pages, its particular significance surpasses the breadth of this article.
6 Brunner, Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 19–20.
7 ‘In the New Testament faith is the relation between person and person, the obedient trust of man in the God who graciously stoops to meet him. Here revelation is “truth as encounter,” and faith is knowledge as encounter’. Brunner, Emil, Revelation and Reason, trans. Wyon, Olive (London: SCM Press, 1947; German edn, 1941), p. 9.Google Scholar Also readily detectable is Buber's I–Thou paradigm, of which Brunner makes much throughout his work: Buber, Martin, I and Thou, trans. Kaufmann, Walter (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1970)Google Scholar. Word limit, however, inhibits a substantial treatment of Buber's work from being made here.
8 Brunner, Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 45. Brunner discusses various forms in which God communicates his word to us; see Brunner, Emil, Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology, trans. Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth Press, 1939; German edn, 1937), pp. 67–8Google Scholar.
9 Specifically in relation to Luther, Brunner distinguishes between instrumental authority and the formal authority attached to the doctrine of verbal inspiration; see Brunner, Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 107–13. Also, Brunner, Revelation and Reason, pp. 181–2.
10 Brunner, Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 110. ‘The revelation can only be received in [Jesus Christ], and not merely through Him. He Himself is the revelation, as He Himself is the Word; He is what God has to say to us.’ Brunner, Emil, The Mediator, trans. Wyon, Olive (London: Lutterworth Press, 1934; German edn, 1927), p. 270Google Scholar.
11 Brunner, Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 43.
12 Ibid., pp. 93ff. For his explanation of this threefold root of the theological task, see Brunner, Encounter, p. 11.
13 Brunner, Encounter, p. 32.
14 Ibid., p. 14.
15 All sources save divine revelation ultimately fail to tell us who God is, because ‘the rational God is the God whom I construct for myself; the revealed God is the God who speaks to me’. Brunner, Man in Revolt, pp. 242–3. Also Brunner, Emil, The Divine Imperative: A Study in Christian Ethics, trans. Wyon, Olive (London: Lutterworth Press, 1937; German edn, 1932), p. 50Google Scholar; and Brunner, Mediator, pp. 105–14.
16 As Reidar Hauge notes, ‘This knowledge, therefore, is to be distinguished from ordinary knowledge in three ways. It does not make us masters over that which is known. It does not leave us unchanged. Nor does it render us solitary as all other knowledge necessarily does’. Hauge, Reidar, ‘Truth as Encounter’, in Kegley, Charles W. and Bretall, Robert W. (eds), The Theology of Emil Brunner (New York: Macmillan, 1962), p. 142.Google Scholar
17 Brunner, Encounter, p. 40.
18 Ibid., p. 46.
19 Ibid., p. 30. ‘The will of God, which alone is Good, is made known to us in His action, in His revelation. The Divine process of revelation, however, is not only present, nor is it only past; in fact, it is present, based on the past. We know God through His present speech – in the Holy Scriptures. He is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, and this not only in what He gives but also in what He demands. But in His historical revelation He has made Himself known to us as the Creator and Redeemer. Thus in this unity of His revelation He is the God of the Bible, the God who is revealed to us in Jesus Christ.’ Brunner, Divine Imperative, p. 122.
20 Brunner, Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 43.
21 The original phrase, Gott-an-Sich, becomes a specific term for Brunner; Brunner, Encounter, p. 88.
22 Gott-zum Menschen-hin and Menschen-von-Gott-her likewise become specific terms for Brunner; ibid., pp. 44, 31; also Brunner, Revelation and Reason, p. 47.
23 Brunner, Encounter, p. 32.
24 Ibid., p. 62.
25 Ibid., p. 45.
26 Ibid., p. 57. God draws near to men and women in personal address, and they in turn respond to his Lordship in an act of submission and faith. This is the divine–human encounter in which truth as personal correspondence is known.
27 Ibid., p. 46.
28 Ibid., p. 22.
29 Compare, for instance, Simon Peter's declaration (Matt 16:16), ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’, with his proclamation to the crowds at Pentecost (Acts 2:36), ‘Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Jesus Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified’.
30 One place where Brunner explains this shift is Brunner, Revelation and Reason, p. 121.
31 Brunner, Encounter, p. 58.
32 ‘Obedience-in-faith’ is the trans. for Brunner's term Vertrauensgehorsam, from pistis; ibid., p. 48.
33 E.g. speaking about the doctrine of the Trinity; for further discussion, see Brunner, Dogmatics, vol. 1, ch. 16, ‘The Triune God’.
34 Brunner, Encounter, p. 79.
35 Ibid., p. 77.
36 Ibid.
37 Does this mean that scripture is not sufficient to evoke a faith response to the Lordship of Christ? Certainly not. What is at stake here is the kind of conversation had from the earliest of church councils: scripture clearly testifies that Jesus is Lord, but what does that mean for our worship of one divine being? The concern is specifically identified with the unavoidable discussion of faith, which becomes necessary, if not before the moment of personal encounter, then subsequent to it.
38 Brunner, Encounter, pp. 79–80.
39 Ibid., p. 79.
40 E.g. the difference between (a) questions of accuracy of some of the geographical details of the synoptics and (b) the fact of Jesus’ death; or (c) the list of greetings in Paul's letters as compared with (d) the veracity of his theological exposition and preaching; Brunner, Encounter, p. 81.
41 Brunner, Encounter, p. 110.
42 Ibid., p. 84.
43 Ibid., p. 85.
44 Ibid., p. 139.
45 I do not use ‘theological existence’ as a particular phrase here, though I recognise it has served as a specific referent in the past, such as Barth's influential Theologische Existenz Heute. My use of it is simply to indicate Brunner's valid insistence that personal encounter with God in Christ through the Spirit cannot but have an impact upon who we are as persons, whether we accept Christ as Lord or reject him. The influence of Kierkegaard is again felt here.
46 Scripture's teaching on this is abundant: from Abram's call to leave his country, kindred and father's house to be transformed into a great nation by God (Gen 12); to the power of God's word to change the one who heeds it (e.g. Ps 119); to Jesus’ charge to the woman caught in adultery and, it could be said, to all who encounter him: ‘Go and sin no more’ (John 8:11).
47 Brunner, Encounter, p. 111.
48 Brunner, Divine Imperative, p. 54.
49 Brunner, Encounter, p. 117.
50 Ibid., p. 120.