We have seen that Calvin begins his Institutes with the knowledge
of God the Creator as distinct from the knowledge of God the Redeemer.
He gains his understanding of the knowledge of God from areas such as
the sensus divinitatis and the natural world, and his doctrine of
providence from a general understanding of scripture. He does not,
however, use the knowledge of God revealed in Christ to formulate his
doctrine of providence.
Calvin also, despite all his attempts to keep it out, allowed his
philosophical and humanist education to colour his doctrine of
providence, and used his notion of accommodation to divide God into
God in himself and God revealed in Jesus Christ. It is clear that
Calvin was no Stoic philosopher, not simply because he fought their
influence on Christianity but because he never accepted their
pantheism. His understanding of God's transcendence and the Trinity
are far from Stoicism. God could never be confused with nature. What
is evident, however, is that the humanistic understanding of God is so
similar to Calvin's as to make one wonder Just how much of Stoicism
Calvin unknowingly included in his own theology. He definitely
protested against Stoicism. But could he have protested too much? In
damning the tide of Stoicism, Calvin allowed it to influence him
sufficiently that it provided a kind of soil which would incline him
to prefer or have an interest in certain biblical themes to the
exclusion of other themes which might have moderated the overall shape of his doctrine of providence. In all these ways, despite his best
instincts, Calvin ended up with a God whose real self is hidden behind
a revealed God, thus, the revealed God can never show us who the real
God is. Calvin has left himself open to the charge of there being two
wills in God, the real God hidden behind the revealed. Not only does
this not do justice to the revelation in Christ but it also cannot
cope with human freedom, the modern era and all its problems.
Karl Barth stands in the Reformed tradition and thus maintains
the sovereignty of God, as does Calvin. Yet, Barth is as postCopernican
and post-Enlightenment as Gilkey. He, too, lived with
wars, pogroms, and the threat of nuclear annihilation and diseases.
He, too, had to come to grips with the fact that humanity, in the 20th
century, is fractured by constant and consistent change. He was all
too aware of the modern human experience of a world moving too fast
and losing all sense of grounding and control.
Because Barth sees the same world that Gilkey does, he is in a
better position to answer Gilkey than Calvin. While standing firmly
within the Reformed tradition, Barth is also post-Copernican and postEnlightenment,
and thus has a doctrine of providence which reforms
Calvin. He fundamentally agrees with Calvin on the ultimacy of the
sovereignty of God, and that no human understanding of God's
providence can stem from a human experience of history, from any
modern historical consciousness, nor from an experience of change. As
Reformed theologians, Barth and Calvin agree that the heart of the
Reformed understanding of providence rests upon its conviction that
God is sovereign over human affairs and world occurrence generally,
guiding and controlling the unfolding of events in such a way as to bring them to ends which suit his purposes. The providence of God is
just that, the providence of God. It stems from and can only be
defined by God.
While agreeing with Calvin on the sovereignty of God, Barth is,
nevertheless, in a decidedly better position to answer Gilkey than
Calvin, and as a result reforms Calvin's doctrine of divine
providence. Barth discusses the doctrine of providence with a postEnlightenment
understanding of the human questions concerning history
and human existence. Earth's argument concerns the questions, Who is
this God whose providence we are discussing? What is the nature of
this God? What is the shape of this God's interaction with the cosmos
and perhaps more practically, how do we find out about this God? He
sees God's revelation in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ — the one, unique in kind, revelation of God through whom
alone humanity gains this knowledge.
It has been said that Barth is both child and critic of the
Enlightenment, and it might equally be said that Barth is both child
and critic of the Reformation. But for Barth the decision was not to
decide between the two as if God and modernity were locked in a
pitched battle. Far from Gilkey's conception of the Reformed
understanding of God versus modernity, Barth maintains a fundamentally
different beginning and reference point from which to construct his
model of the Christian faith, and so is equal to the task of reforming
the Reformation faith while firmly standing in the modern era. While
Calvin reformed the church of the 16th century, Barth reforms Calvin.
In so doing, he speaks to modern people.
Barth has shown that Reformed theology must return to its roots, to Jesus Christ, in order to make sense of this world in this century.
In response to Calvin, Barth will not capitulate to divine sovereignty
at the expense of human freedom. In response to Gilkey, Barth will
not capitulate to human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty.
To capitulate in either direction is to refuse to live within the
tension of being a human being created by God. To capitulate to
divine sovereignty at the expense of human freedom renders human
beings puppets and makes a mockery of their God-given autonomy, their
self-government in the midst of relationship. To capitulate to human
freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty is to render God
superfluous, to knit God in an image to suit ourselves. Again, it is
to refuse to live within the tension, the autonomous relationship.
Autonomy, if defined by God and God's own internal relationship,
no longer means separation and standing alone. Autonomy exists in
relationship. Note that relationship does not mean suffocation or
smothering. In God we see none of that. But autonomy in relationship
means the complete honouring of the other, such that the other can and
does stand as an individual, but never abandoned or disregarded.
While indeed, autonomy does mean "self-governing", self-governing", as
seen in the Trinity, does not mean three separate gods who stand alone
as islands. Autonomy, self-governing, as seen in the Trinity, is a
standing-alongside-of, a genuine respect of oneself and the other. It
is integrity. The Father respects the Son and Holy Spirit, the Son
respects the Father and Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit respects the
Father and Son. We see this especially in the Holy Spirit. For on
that cross, while the Father was experiencing the death of his son and
the Son experiencing death itself, the Holy Spirit knew the pain and anguish of them both and yet honoured their respective decisions. In
the interpenetration within the Trinity the Holy Spirit knew the pain
of the Father and Son, yet rather than rescue either, chose to stand
alongside both. In the relationship of love existing in the Godhead,
the Holy Spirit knew the love of Father for Son, Son for Father, and
the love of God for humankind such that Father and Son would endure
death on behalf of humanity.
Is the doctrine of providence credible today? Yes. God is
alongside us. God creates and respects our autonomy in the midst of
relationship and God's power is given to us in our weakness. To be
sure, this is a different definition of providence than Calvin gave.
Providence is found on the cross of Christ, where God does not
intervene in our human, muscle-bound notion of power. Providence is
no longer power raised to the highest human degree but is rather a
relationship found in the midst of the lost, the least and the last.
Credible? Yes, because providence is not a way of ruling our
life-situation but a way of living in situations we do not rule. It
sees the broken, human and blood-stained face of reality clearly. The
providence of God does not shrink from human reality but dives into
it, walking alongside us wherever we walk.
Credible? Yes, not because providence gives answers but because
it stands alongside us in our questions. Providence hears,
understands and respects our questions. Providence never takes them
away from us. Providence will not take our humanity from us.
Credible? Yes, and not in a way which takes our integrity from
us. We are created to walk alongside each other as God walks
alongside us, not making each other's decisions but being each other's
fellow travellers. Truly Reformed. Truly modern.