Book Review: Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation, by Paul
King Jewett
Paul King Jewett. Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation. (London:
James Clarke & Co. Ltd, 1954).
190 pages.
This book has been out of print
for so many years that I cannot determine when it was no longer published. It was written as publication of the
Evangelical Theological Society, which Dr. Gordon H. Clark helped to found. Paul King Jewett was a student of Gordon
Clark when Clark taught at Wheaton College during the 1941 school year.[1] Later Paul Jewett did a Ph.D. dissertation
at Harvard Divinity School, and Dr. Clark used Jewett’s dissertation in his
philosophy classes when was a professor at Butler University in Indiana.[2] In 1954 the book was published by the
Evangelical Theological Society at Dr. Clark’s request.
I became interested in reading
this book after reading about Fuller Seminary and Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s former
students in Douglas Douma’s authorized biography of Dr. Gordon H. Clark. It took some time to find a used copy
online. This book review is the result
of that endeavor. In the front of the
book, Paul Jewett clearly dedicates the book to “Dr. Gordon H. Clark,
Teacher and Friend.” At the time of
the publication Paul Jewett was teaching philosophy of religion classes at
Gordon Divinity School, in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. The school is now known as Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary.
In the acknowledgements on page
vii, Jewett says that he is indebted to Dr. Gordon H. Clark, Dr. Roger Nicole,
and Dr. Edward John Carnell for feedback during the writing of the book, and
presumably the dissertation. While doing
studies for his doctoral dissertation, Jewett took classes with Emil Brunner in
Switzerland at the University of Zurich where Brunner taught systematic
theology and practical theology in 1951.
In the first four chapters of the
book, Jewett explains in detail Brunner’s views on a host of theological
topics, including time and eternity, the Bible, historiography, and
existentialism. In chapter five, Jewett begins
to offer a critique of Brunner’s theology and neoorthodoxy. Also discussed was the feud between Karl
Barth and Emil Brunner over the issue of special revelation versus natural
revelation and natural theology. The
problem with both men is that terms used by Evangelicals in theological discussions
are completely redefined by the two neoorthodox theologians. I suspect that this is one reason that Dr.
Gordon H. Clark insisted on precise definitions of terms in his writings. One indication of Clark’s influence on Jewett
in the writing of this book is the precision with which Jewett discusses
existentialism and the existentialist philosophers, especially Soren
Kierkegaard.
In the interest of brevity, I
will try to summarize the chapters of the book and the subsections of each
chapter. In the introduction Jewett says
that Barth and Brunner wish to be known as theologians of the word:
Though the
thought of Barth and Brunner has been nicknamed the Theology of Crisis, of
Paradox, of Dialectic, sometimes even of Pessimism, the designation which
undoubtedly best conforms to the intention of these theologians themselves is
that of Kattenbusch, i.e., The Theology of the Word.[3]
In reviewing this book, perhaps
the reader will indulge me a few digressions.
In the debates between the supporters of Cornelius Van Til and Dr.
Gordon H. Clark, the question of the qualitative difference between God’s
knowledge and human knowledge is often brought up in regards to the
Creator/creature distinction and God’s archetypal knowledge versus humanity’s
ectypal knowledge through divine revelation in the Scriptures. The hard truth here is that Gordon Clark did
not try to pry into God’s archetypal knowledge.
What he said was that the ectypal knowledge revealed to man, who thinks
discursively, is univocally the very same propositions and thoughts that God
has. Clark did distinguish between God’s
intuitive and direct knowledge of propositions and all other knowledge and
man’s discursive and limited knowledge.
In other words, the qualitative difference between man’s knowledge and
God’s knowledge is that God’s knowledge is omniscient and intuitive as an
eternal Being, and man’s knowledge is limited to what man can intellectually
absorb discursively given the limitations of time and history. I bring this up in reference to Jewett’s quotation
from Karl Barth at the top of page 1, opening the discussion of Revelation and
History in chapter 1.
If I have a
‘system’, it consists in this, that I always keep in mind with the utmost
vigour what Kierkegard has called the ‘infinite qualitative difference’ between
time and eternity, and that in both its positive and negative implications. ‘God is in heaven and thou upon earth.’” --Karl Barth
This book is heavy reading for
anyone who is unacquainted with neoorthodoxy or existentialism. The very first chapter raises the issue of
relativism in regards to historiography.
The problem of relativism is not new to the 21st
century. It was already obvious in the
early 20th century. Both
Brunner and Barth recognized that WWII raised the problem of Nietzschean
relativism to a higher level that had caused the totalitarian regime of
Hitler’s Nazi party to rise to power.
The problem is that the existentialist view did not return to the
authority of an infallible and inerrant Bible as the basis for a civilized
society. According to Jewett, the neoorthodox
theologians did not think that the Bible could withstand modern criticism:
The answer to
Relativism, however, it not a return to the infallible Bible of Orthodoxy. Brunner shares with the other leaders of the
Neo-Supernaturalistic school, the conviction that in the light of Biblical
criticism, such a procedure would be hopeless scientific obscurantism that
could only widen the breach between the modern mind and the Christian faith.[4]
Brunner wanted to oppose relativism
because of what he had observed when the Nazis took over Germany.
Brunner styles
Relativism in religion “Historicism”. It
marks the dissolution of all theology.
Revelation becomes “’the inner feeling and certainty of the whole of
things and its being, which we call religious feeling or perception’
(Troeltsch)”. This progeny of religion
Liberalism, is the parent of modern Totalitarianism. The Relativism into which we have been
irresistibly drawn by the abandonment of Biblical faith is, so Brunner feels, a
cause of that monster of wickedness, the totalitarian state.[5]
Jewett’s analysis of Brunner’s
beginning point or axiom for his neoorthodox theology or new modernism sounds
almost orthodox, except it is not.
According to Jewett, Brunner understood that “Christianity stands or
falls with its claim to a transcendental revelation . . .” that cannot be part
of the historical process of world events.[6] Yet, Brunner does not want to throw out
history because he recognizes that the Bible reveals a history of revelation in
historical time.
The thrust of Jewett’s analysis of
Brunner is that he wants to ignore history and instead replace it with an
existential encounter with an eternal God.
Brunner’s theology is nothing like the Reformed view of propositional
truth and a biblical system of theology.
Instead, Brunner returns to a man-centered or anthropocentric view where
revelation is an existential experience of God’s revelation, not a written source
of information in propositional form.
Like Barth, Brunner emphasizes God’s transcendence, not His immanence in
His creation. Jewett’s book has the
advantage of tracing the theological and historical roots of the development of
modernist theology and philosophy and their influence on Barth and Brunner.
The problem is that Barth and
Brunner did not return to orthodoxy.
Instead, they redefined the orthodox terms to fit with their
reaffirmation of theological liberalism in a different form. In chapter one Jewett compares Brunner’s view
of Hegel and Kierkegaard. Hegel's view of
history was that of an evolution of religious thinking in the “consciousness of
the race.” Kierkegaard objected because
this would just make Christianity a dot on the historical timeline, a blip on
the radar screen of history.[7]
One of the reasons that Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til had differences is that Clark accused the supporters of Van Til of unknowingly crossing the line into neoorthodoxy at certain points of their arguments, which emphasized paradox. On the other hand, supporters of Van Til's apologetics accused Clark of violating the Creator/creature distinction by his view that the Bible is univocally the very words of God in propositional revelation.
Jewett, although not mentioning
the Clark/Van Til Controversy, brings out aspects of the dispute by highlighting
Brunner’s belief in a totally transcendent God:
Brunner shares
with Kierkegaard and Barth an unshakeable conviction in the absolute otherness
of God, in the infinite qualitative difference between the Creator and the
creature (eternity and time).[8]
The controversy rages on
today. John Frame, a student of Van Til,
and professor emeritus of Reformed Theological Seminary in Oviedo, Florida, has
proposed that God has two existences. He
was highly criticized for this view because it suggested a downgrade into ditheism. Another professor at Westminster Theological
Seminary proposed that God took on covenantal properties so that he could
condescend to human level or become immanent in the world. This was criticized by theologians who said
that this would make God mutable instead of immutable. The key feature of Van Til’s apologetic is
the Creator/creature distinction. To
violate this distinction would be to make God mutable and immanent, not
transcendent, according to Van Til. The
one thing that students of Van Til were supposed to avoid is mutualism or
confusing the Creator with creation or with the creature. Ironically, both Frame and Oliphant were
students of Van Til as well.
For those who want to understand
Gordon H. Clark’s critique of neoorthodoxy better, I highly recommend buying a used
copy of Paul King Jewett’s book. It is
in fact the first book that Jewett wrote and the most conservative one. In later years, Jewett went down the road of
limited inerrancy and joined the Presbyterian Church USA where he began to push
for egalitarian views of male and female leadership. Clark’s book on neoorthodoxy[9]
is recommended as well as his book on historiography[10]. Both books are meant to respond to both Barth
and Brunner. Clark was critical of
Arminianism because of its view of God as finite and subject to autonomous
humanity. You could say that he opposed
making God mutable or immanent as well.
Furthermore, Clark affirmed the transcendence of God by recognizing that
God knows all things by intuitive and eternal omniscience. He recognized the limitations of humans as discursive
and limited to the temporal realm of time and space.
Sola Deo
Gloria.
[1]
Douglas Douma. The Presbyterian
Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of
Gordon H. Clark. P. 307.
[2]
Ibid., pp. 309-310.
[3]
Paul King Jewett. Emil Brunner’s
Concept of Revelation. (London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1954). P. 1.
[4]
Ibid., p. 9.
[5]
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
[6]
Ibid., p. 10.
[7]
Ibid., p. 12.
[8]
Ibid., p. 13.
[9] Gordon
H. Clark. Karl Barth’s Theological
Method. 1963. Second edition. (Trinity Foundation, 1997). 277 pages.
[10]
Clark. Historiography: Secular and Religious. 1971.
Second edition. (Jefferson: Trinity Foundation, 1994). 366 pages.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment