Earlier today I noticed two books sitting beside each other on my desk shelf. I've used both of them at different times in the past few days. But they aren't books you might expect to be comfortable in each other's company. What has Karl Barth in common with Julian of Norwich? Barth in his entire Dogmatic project, and in his utter conviction that divine revelation is fully and finally Christological, was leary to the point of hostile towards mysticism and mystical experience.
For her part, Julian's theology and theological style was as far from post enlightenment dogmatics and the Summa of Thomas Aquinas as it's possible to be. Her Revelations are embedded in her deepest identity as "a simple unlearned creature", desiring to understand the Passion of Jesus and thus the love of God. She told these revelations in narrative form, as a series of visions, long contemplated and finally articulated in a work of astonishing beauty, insight and provocative theology. But her theology was profoundly and inescapably subjective. And for Barth all revelation is objective, and all we can ever know of God is by revelation, and that revelation is in the Word, Christ the word made flesh, and in the witness to the word, written and delivered to the church as Scripture.
Of course Julian was equally sure that her Revelations came from God, and their reality depended on their divine origin, and divinely revealed explanation. What we have in Karl Barth and the Lady Julian, are two minds wrestling with the mystery of the love of God, focused on the passion of Christ and the meaning of the cross, and wondering and wrestling with what God has done in Christ and for the world.
For Barth God is all in all; yet, for all her intense subjectivity and mystical ruminations, Julian believes nothing less. Here are her famous words that position her before God as one utterly dependent, and seeking to be utterly obedient:
God, of thy goodness, give me thyself;
for thou art enough for me,
and I can nothing ask that is less
that would be full worship to thee.
And if I ask anything that is less,
ever me wanteth;
for in thee only have I all.
Seven pages into the 800 page first volume on Reconciliation Barth says something theologically similar though in different, more complex, idiom which I have also written as prose poem:
"What unites God and us men
is that He does not will to be God without us,
that he creates us rather to share with us
and therefore with our being and life and act
His own incomparable being and life and act,
that he does not allow His history to be His and ours ours,
but causes them to take place in a common history."
What links these two fragments of theological writing is the common desire to give God his place, to let God be God, to live in an environment of doxology and prayer as the primary sphere and disposition within which to explore the ways of God with His world, especially as seen through the lens of the cross. I have read both Julian and Barth for years, yet I'm not sure I've ever quite grasped the way they share a deep and common crucicentric currency.
The differences in context between a medieval Catholic anchoress writing her spiritual narrative and visions in the vernacular, and a Swiss post-enlightenment Reformed dogmatician writing millions of words over half a century can be overplayed, as if a theological Grand Canyon had opened between them. Differences there are; but what intrigues me is the impact on both, of decades long intellectual and spiritual contemplation on the central mystery of the Christian faith. For both Barth and Julian, the Cross and the Passion of Christ are vividly portrayed and vitally felt both as theological conviction and spiritual experience. Moreover, for both, the Cross and Passion of Christ are the central convictions from which all else that is true of God is derived and must find congruent expression. Christian theology is in Julian and in Barth crucicentric.
Consequently, the human response to the grace revealed and enacted on the cross is self-surrender to the call of the Crucified to take up the cross and follow, to move into a new existence in a life of discipleship and reconciliation that is cruciform, informed and formed by long meditation on Christ crucified. To live in, to inhabit, the words written by another who had thought and prayed and gloried in the cross: "I am crucified with Christ. I live, yet not I, but Christ lives within me. And the life I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me."
So the accidental juxtaposition of two books, leads to this essay on two of the church's greatest theologian. They are so different that any comparison that brings them into some agreement might seem ludicrous; and perhaps that is the folly of the cross. That in Christ crucified Christians converge in the reconciliation of deep differences by the even deeper eternal mystery of God's redemptive ways with the world he created, and with humanity created in God's image and for God's glory, which will not be denied.
Recent Comments