Plenary #2: “Balthasar’s Biblical Hermeneutics” (Nielsen)

“Balthasar’s Biblical Hermeneutics”
By Cynthia Nielsen

Part I

W.T. Dickens in his essay, “Balthasar’s Biblical Hermeneutics,”¹ notes that according to Balthasar the vast majority of modern theologians and biblical scholars (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) had thrown theological aesthetics to the wayside and as a result a distorted view of Scripture prevailed (e.g., seeing the Bible as a principally a set of propositional truths). This is not to say that Balthasar believed that modern biblical scholarship as a whole was a completely unfruitful project. Rather, for Balthasar, a recovery of certain premodern hermeneutical conventions was needed to reintroduce a lost theologico-aesthetic sensibility to the biblical hermeneutical project and such conventions were not incompatible with the positive discoveries of modern biblical scholarship. These premodern hermeneutical practices include “viewing the Bible as a self-glossing, christologically focused story, the proper interpretation of which is enabled by the Holy Spirit and nourished by regular liturgical worship” (p. 175).

As mentioned above, one of the problems arising when theological aesthetics is discarded is a tendency to view the Bible as primarily a set a propositional truths. Such a view presupposes a kind of dualism between sign and referent in which the sign becomes disposable once that which is signified is affirmed; hence, the mediation of revelation is rendered somewhat superfluous (p. 175). By reintroducing the medieval view of the transcendentals in which beauty, goodness, and oneness are understood as mutually dependent aspects of created being, not only can the sign/referent dualism be overcome, but one also gains a more integrated view of the relation between nature and grace. As Dickens explains,

“in redeeming creation, God does not destroy it in order to create it anew, but surpassingly fulfils it. From this perspective, creation’s unity, truth, goodness, and beauty are seen to be perfected in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Created being’s determinations are not identified with God; they are believed to participate in the divine beauty, truth, goodness, and unity. When beauty is conceived as a transcendental attribute of being that participates in the glory of God, then the natural and historic forms it takes are regarded in significantly different ways from those followed by most modern theologians. Rather than merely pointing to or dissolving in a transcendent ground or depth, Balthasar claimed that beautiful forms embody and reveal this transcendence, while simultaneously veiling it (Glory of the Lord 1, 151). This is because they are indissolubly united with the transcendence they mediate. Although a form’s content transcends its mediation, it is available only in and through the form. It does not lie behind, above, or in front of it—regardless of whether those spatial metaphors are construed historically, morally, spiritually, or otherwise. Form and content, therefore, can be distinguished only provisionally. Breaking the bonds that unite a beautiful radiant form with its transcendent content destroys the one and renders the other inaccessible.” (pp. 176-177)

Part II

As mentioned in part I, Balthasar desired to reintroduce into the biblical hermeneutical project of his day, a number of premodern practices so as to attempt a recovery of theologico-aesthetic sensibilities that had been lost with certain modernist interpretive currents. In this section, I shall focus primarily on the first of two premodern hermeneutical practices that Balthasar viewed as crucial, viz., (1) understanding the Bible as self-interpreting and self-glossing and (2) interpreting the Bible as a Christocentric narrative. In part III, I shall discuss (2).

As Dickens points out, Balthasar was somewhat critical of diachronic readings of the Bible, though at times his own readings seem to depend on diachronic analyses. Balthasar’s burden it seems was not to establish the intelligibility of the Bible on the basis of certain similarities to non-biblical forms of life, but rather to emphasize the ways in which the biblical authors transformed what they had taken from non-biblical worldviews to communicate God’s purposes (p. 178). Moreover, Balthasar rejected the idea that the interpreter should “assume that all biblical concepts and images are so time-and culture-bound as to be unintelligible to the modern reader. He recognized that interpretation requires transposing horizons, but refused to countenance any comprehensive, programmatic summary thereof” (p. 178). For Balthasar, events like the Virgin birth are particular, historical events “that God has invested with universal theological significance. Each is a ‘supertemporal expression of the living revelation’ [TD 2, 98]. In such cases, it is not the biblical author’s view of creation, or of God’s identity and will, that must be transformed, but the interpreter’s” (p. 178). In other words, Balthasar took seriously the Bible’s claim on one’s life and its ability via the Spirit to radically change a person. Scripture, in other words, is not simply another fascinating subject to study, but is a medium through which we hear a call to follow Christ and die to self.

“The Holy Spirit enables such dying and rising in Christ by shattering the interpreter’s anthropological and cosmological horizons of interpretation [TD2, 91]. Hence another implication of Balthasar’s claim that the Bible is self-interpreting is that the Spirit leads the faithful to understand the Bible as God would have them do. The hermeneutics that constitutes theology’s task is therefore sustained by God’s own hermeneutics. Wanting to be known and loved by creation, God provides the conditions that make this possible. The most important of these are the incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This proves to the eyes of faith both that God is freely self-emptying trinitarian love, and that, as such, God communicates through creaturely forms without destroying them. Part of the Son’s self-emptying involves handing over to the Spirit the responsibility of interpreting the mutual love of Father and Son, which, according to Balthasar, the Spirit both is and exhibits [GL7, 255].” (p. 178)

In addition, according to Balthasar, the two most important ways in which the Spirit interprets the Son are

“enabling the biblical authors to fashion a salvifically adequate image of the Spirit’s own vision of the event of Jesus Christ—and through him of the Father—and initiating the faithful into the triune love of God [GL1, 3; TD2, 106]. These two actions of the Holy Spirit imply each other. On Balthasar’s view, interpreting the Bible as God intends requires an in-spiration in the interpreter that analogously corresponds to the inspiration of the biblical authors.” (pp. 178-79)

In sum, Scripture is not merely an academic affair but lays a claim on the life of the interpreter. Thus, to interpret Scripture properly involves a noetic and existential transformation of the self that is accomplished by an active cooperation with and submission to Holy Spirit.

Another dimension of Balthasar’s understanding of Scripture as self-interpreting is what we today speak of as intratextuality. The medievals used the term self-glossing to describe this same idea, viz. that the various parts of Scripture are interrelated and can be read as commenting and illumining each other in a polyphonic manner. For example,

“Balthasar frequently used verses from the Gospel or epistles of John to solve interpretative riddles that he believed were evident in other texts. Sometimes the intratextual melodies that Balthasar heard were more complex, involving several different texts, from both Testaments. For instance, when discussing the identity of the Church, he used the Deutero-Pauline imagery of Christ being the Head of his Body, the Church, to interpret the ecclesiology of the Letter to the Hebrews, which itself, he maintained, provided a theological corrective to the Old Testament image of Israel as the people of God [GL7, 92]. By listening for such melodies, Balthasar did not mean necessarily to imply that a given biblical author or editor had read the texts with which Balthasar put him in conversation. Rather than making a historical claim about the likely reading list of various biblical authors, Balthasar was contending that contemporary interpreters are more likely to avoid interpretative pitfalls and dead ends if they are alert to the theological interaction among texts that the canon brings together. Otherwise, a certain note will be allowed to sound too loudly, distorting the symphony that he believed the Spirit performs by means of the whole Bible.” (p. 181)

Clearly, viewing the Bible as self-glossing presupposes its canonical integrity, which Balthasar of course firmly believed. Though the Bible was composed over hundreds of years by numerous authors and consists of diverse parts, Balthasar emphasized the received or final form of the canon as the standard for Christian life and thought (p. 178). Consequently, in interpretative endeavors one must keep the biblical drama in its entirety in mind when attempting to interpret any of its parts, just as one must keep the entire symphony in mind when analyzing one of its movements or smaller melodic fragments.

Part III

The focus of this concluding post is Balthasar’s hermeneutical practice of interpreting the Bible as a Christocentric narrative. Here again Balthasar’s conviction regarding the canonical integrity of the Bible comes to the fore. For Balthasar, the Bible as a whole speaks of Christ, who is the climax of the one unfolding story from Genesis to Revelation. Stated slightly differently, both the Old and New Testaments must be read in light of the cosmic significance of the resurrection. As one would expect, Balthasar welcomed the ancient and medieval view of a fourfold sense of Scripture, but here too he stressed Christ as the hermeneutical center through which these four senses must ultimately pass. According to Balthasar, the literal or grammatical-historical sense is the basis for the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical senses. “But the literal sense is not a verbal shell above or behind which lie the so-called spiritual senses. Reading the Bible as though the literal and spiritual senses were thus related would, of course, sever the indissoluble bonds uniting its form and content.” Rather than construing Balthasar’s understanding of the relation between the literal and other senses of Scripture in spatial metaphors (though Balthasar did at times speak of layers of meaning), “it is more consistent to think of the relation, as he did, in terms of different applications or uses of a given text by the Spirit, who seeks thereby to bring humanity through Christ into the divine life” (p. 182).

Moreover, for Balthasar, the Bible is neither “a script, which the faithful must slavishly follow in order to secure their heavenly reward. Nor does it contain a fixed set of propositions or ‘fundamentals’ to be believed. And it is not the historical record of events now long past whose impact gradually attenuates with the passage of time. From Balthasar’s perspective, the Christological or spiritual sense of the Bible is neither static, nor time-bound. It mediates the resurrected Christ, who did not ascend into a timeless eternity, but is present in every time as a living event that is ‘always taking place in an ever-new “now”’ [TD2, 102; Balthasar’s emphasis]” (p. 183). As one would expect, Balthasar rejected the idea presented by a number of modern biblical scholars and theologians that the goal of biblical hermeneutics is to find a “fixed, original meaning, which then is contrasted to a contemporary perspective [TD2,103]. It is not the transposition of one horizon to another that bothered him about this standard approach, for […] he believed such transpositions are necessary, but rather the presumption that the Bible is an inert object whose meaning can be laid hold of once for all” (p. 183). By this, Balthasar is in no way dismissing the importance of seeking to understand the original authorial intention. It is, however, to insist that the meaning of a text cannot be exhausted by human authorial intention. “Balthasar believed that at the time of a given biblical text’s composition and first reception, the Spirit was already at work opening up the text’s superabundant range of meanings” (p. 183). Relatedly, Balthasar was extremely critical of the idea that a text’s meaning can be summarized in brief formulas in which the summary is presented as articulating the text’s meaning more perspicuously than the text itself. “Once we step into that boat […], we inevitably cut the mooring lines to the text and are sure to drift wherever our own culture’s winds happen to blow us. The standard approach, therefore, fails to appreciate the Bible’s surplus of meaning as it participates in the theodrama” (p. 183).

In light of the fact that Balthasar accepts multiple meanings in Scripture, does his position necessarily result in a kind of hermeneutical relativism? According to Dickens, (and I tend to agree), absolutely not. There are two constraints that limit the range of acceptable meanings: (1) authorial intent and (2) the regula fidei. Regarding the first, though Balthasar did not limit the meaning of a text to human authorial intent, he did view the human author’s (or redactor’s) intent as being a necessary but not sufficient condition for proper interpretation.

“For Balthasar, trying to discern the human author’s intention is, in part, a straightforwardly historical-critical undertaking, involving the identification of the various conditions attending the creation and reception of the original text. Such investigations do not yield meanings, however, since […] tracing the genesis of a text [i.e., relying solely on the diachronic approach] is not the same as understanding it. But this research does limit the number of plausible authorial intentions.” (p. 184)

Secondly, part of understanding the human author’s intention involves what Balthasar calls seeking a “fellow-feeling” with the author. [I hear echoes of Gadamer here]. Because the goal of

“sharing a fellow-feeling with the author is to apprehend more accurately the text’s subject matter, interpreters trying to cultivate this feeling must take their cues from the texts themselves. Putting the point differently, a reader must not allow his or her pre-understanding of love to control the way he or she interprets, say, John’s claims about God’s love for the world. Rather, the interpreter must let the evangelist’s (and redactor’s) uses of this term and its philological relatives guide the inquiry.” (p. 184)

The second constraint that restricts the range of acceptable meanings is the regula fidei, which Balthasar understood as a “sense for the radiant integrity of the whole form of revelation as that is mediated by the Scriptures. This is a theological aesthetic sensibility, a capacity to hear when a proposed interpretation distorts the harmonies that Balthasar believed resonate throughout the Bible” (p. 184). Examples of such harmonies include the (consonant, yet in some instances paradoxical) relation between mercy and judgment, Christ’s humiliation and exaltation, the distance of the Father and the nearness of the Son, the dual nature of the one Person Jesus Christ and so on.

“For Balthasar, the theological aesthetic fittingness of these relationships, and the beauty of the whole to which they belong, is objectively demonstrable to the eyes of faith. These demonstrations, however, are not based on a comprehensive overview of revelation in its finished totality, for such a vision would undermine the theodramatic quality of God’s dealings with creation. Rather, the rule of faith is a graced capacity to detect when one aspect of revelation’s dynamic relationships has been thrown out of balance by exaggerating or unduly minimizing its significance, or by omitting it altogether.” (pp. 184-85)

____________________

¹ Dickens’ essay is found in The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs Von Balthasar, eds. by Edward T. Oakes, S.J., and David Moss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 175-186.

Response #1: Halden Doerge

Response to L. M. Miles, “Von Balthasar, von Speyr and Holy Scripture”
By Halden Doerge

Those of us who are interested in the theological work of Hans Urs von Balthasar have much to be grateful for in Lois Miles’ helpful summary of the intimate relationship between the mystical and contemplative readings of Scripture of Adrienne von Speyr and the multifaceted theology of von Balthasar. There is little I can find to disagree with in Miles’ distillation of the complex relationship between von Speyr and von Balthasar. In the interest, then, of extending the conversation further, I will attempt to simply add a few brush strokes to the excellent portrait that Miles has provided us with, and perhaps find some colorful vistas along the way that may open up new points of interest and dialogue in regard to the relationship between von Speyr and von Balthasar.

Let it be said first off that Miles’ overview of the friendship and collaboration of these two very different figures will certainly be of great help to those who are unfamiliar with their intellectual and spiritual connection. And a profound connection it is indeed. In addition to the various examples which Miles provides of how von Speyr’s commentaries cross-pollinated and vivified so much of von Balthasar’s work, one is reminded in particular of his Theo-Drama V: The Last Act, which demonstrates more clearly than any of his other works that I have encountered the degree to which the theological minds and hearts of he and von Speyr were intertwined. In crafting the conclusion of his theodramatics, von Balthasar freely weaves von Speyr’s prose into his own as he draws the dynamic strands of the biblical narrative together in depicting the final apocalyptic consummation of all creaturely reality being drawn into the divine life of triune God. It would almost surely be without exaggeration to claim that nearly one third of the prose in this 529 page volume consists of quotations from von Speyr.

One wonders how deep the influence of von Speyr goes throughout the whole of von Balthasar’s theology. In particular it might prove quite interesting to examine, in conversation with von Balthasar’s early works the possibility that von Speyr may be the person most directly responsible for making von Balthasar a Biblicist. Could it be that the intensely intellectual man who approached his career with a thoroughgoing fascination with the philosophical milieu of German idealsm was drawn through the denizens of Western philosophy to the riches of the Christian Scriptures largely through the work of von Speyr? I am, of course, not qualified to answer this question. But those who treasure the legacy of von Balthasar will doubtless find it a fruitful question to explore, and indeed one that may have a significant impact on further von Balthasar studies.

Of course, as Aidan Nichols rightly points out, it was not von Speyr alone who shaped von Balthasar into the reader of Scripture that he became. Rather it was Karl Barth and von Speyr together who more than anyone else would help to shape the direction of von Balthasar’s theological engagement with Scripture.¹ Moreover, given the way in which Barth and von Speyr serve as perhaps von Balthasar’s two principle influences (leaving aside for a moment the very pertinent influence of de Lubac), this opens up another quite interesting question: What might it mean for the theological exegesis of Barth and the contemplative commentaries of von Speyr to be brought into dialogue with each other? What has Barth’s apocalyptic Der Römerbrief to say to von Speyr’s mystical readings of the book of Revelation? Or her The Victory of Love to his reading of Romans 8? These questions might lead to a truly interesting ecumenical study of the nature of the theological interpretation of Scripture. Of course we could already venture a tentative answer to this question. An exploration of the theological exegesis of Barth and von Speyr might very well tell us little more than we would learn from reading von Balthasar!

____________________

1. Aidan Nichols, The Word has Been Abroad: A Guide through Balthasar’s Aesthetics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998), xvi.

Plenary #1: “Von Balthasar, von Speyr and Holy Scripture” (Miles)

Von Balthasar, von Speyr and Holy Scripture:
The Importance of the Contemplative Reading of Scripture for Hans Urs von Balthasar
by L. M. Miles

“The starting point and model of all theology, namely Holy Scripture, provides us with a shining example of the perfect identity between concrete and abstract . . . ways of looking.”¹

This shining example is first of all the Incarnate Son. But Hans Urs von Balthasar also includes as examples the prophets throughout Scripture as well as those who in the history of the Church have conformed their lives most nearly to the Son: the early Fathers, the Saints and the contemplatives. For them, the Gospel is a living word, like an ancient tome that children stumble upon in a hidden room, opening the covers only to plunge into the story, living and acting in it, participating rather than simply reading a story. The importance of the Fathers for von Balthasar is their ability to discover “appropriate dogmatic clothing for their very personal experience.”² Such contemplative experiences are analogies to Christ’s experience of human life and his Sonship as they have been drawn into a living participation of his life, and as such, their reflections³ are valid resources for theology. Personal experience is not the goal but is the aid to understanding the content of revelation insofar as that participation in Christ is obedient and evidences ever-deepening love for God and neighbor. One such contemplative is Adrienne von Speyr.

Von Speyr’s contemplative readings of Scripture are integral to von Balthasar’s work. To present this, we will first look at the relationship of von Balthasar and von Speyr. Next, we will glance at three short examples from von Speyr’s Scriptural commentaries. Finally, we will look at how von Balthasar incorporates her insights into his work. We will rely on von Balthasar’s own personal assessment of the relationship of their work.

The Priest and the Contemplative
In 1940, Hans Urs von Balthasar had been newly appointed as chaplain to the University of Basel, Switzerland. Von Balthasar’s exposure to the dry dust of scholasticism,⁴ the disconnection of theology from “spirituality,” the separation of the academic from the lived faith of the saints, motivated him to find some method of reuniting the abstract and the concrete Christian faith. During the course of his studies, he met Henri de Lubac who introduced him to the contemporary value of the Fathers of the Church.⁵ His theological aesthetic is the result of this pursuit for a unity of sanctity and theology.

By 1940, von Balthasar had published his doctoral study on the Apocalypse of the German Soul in three volumes and his first study on the Church Fathers, Origen: Spirit and Fire. His studies on Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Nyssa would soon follow. He had yet to begin publishing his work on theological aesthetics when in the summer of 1940 a mutual friend introduced von Balthasar to Dr. Adrienne Kaegi-von Speyr. This thirty-eight year old physician was recuperating from a heart attack and although raised Protestant had been exploring the possibility of the Catholic Church. He found her already prepared to accept the teaching of the Church and she was received into the Church on All Saint’s Day, 1940.⁶

Von Balthasar became Dr. von Speyr’s spiritual director. He recognized her unique and timely mystical gifts for the Church and began to publish her works, which he considered more important than his own writings, establishing Johannes Verlag for that purpose.⁷ The majority of von Speyr’s sixty published volumes are commentaries on Scripture that von Balthasar wrote down from her dictation during daily periods of contemplation over the course of fifteen years.⁸ “Adrienne would be seated in an armchair with her small French Segond New Testament. She would read the verse, close her eyes, reflect for a few seconds and then begin to dictate”⁹ to him. What von Balthasar had recognized in the works of the Patristics, a contemplative reading and application of Scripture, the concrete unity of life and doctrine, he now saw unfolded in a contemporary woman.

Contemplating Scripture: “Eating the Book”
Adrienne von Speyr’s Biblical commentaries are an invitation to the reader’s own contemplations.¹⁰ They do not focus on the grammar or historicity of a verse or sentence. Rather, she “endeavors to hear and interpret the Word of God afresh verse by verse.”¹¹ The purpose of her commentaries is not to present interesting nuggets or intellectual stimulus, but to encounter the living Word. She writes:

One cannot prepare oneself properly for the confession without a living relationship to the Holy Scriptures, inasmuch as they contain the life of the Lord or interpret his intentions. . . . He remains in the Father; his whole existence is love for the Father, prayer to the Father, service of the Father. In his light we immediately see how things stand with our own existence, our own prayer, our own service, what we have not done correctly and what we have missed.¹²

In her contemplation of Scripture, von Speyr writes as though she enters into the author’s understanding and motivation. She considers the people who meet the Lord. How does this one respond to the Lord’s invitation? How does the Lord reveal himself to that one? How does this author of this Gospel, this Epistle reveal his experience in the Lord? How open is this saint to the Lord in his or her prayers? And, uncomfortably, she continually redirects these questions back to the reader.

In her commentary on the Gospel of John, von Speyr includes scenes from Revelations, assuming the same author. She writes that John “is given the book to eat in the vision in order to take it into himself and understand it.” He “eats the book—the book that cannot be read from outside. It has to be interpreted from the within of love, that love that reverently recognizes God and the mysteries of God in the ever-greater of the Son.”¹³ So, Scripture cannot be understood from outside a heart of loving faith. But that does not make Scripture a soft fluffy comfort. “At first the word that God addresses to us looks harmless, like a human word. But instantly the fire within it begins to stir, insatiably embracing everything, demanding everything, consuming everything.”¹⁴

Her first book, Handmaid of the Lord, demonstrates what one can obtain from contemplating one short Scripture: the Virgin Mary’s Fiat. According to von Speyr, Mary’s “let it be done” demonstrates her complete openness and active receptivity to the Word of the Lord. Mary gives her consent to God’s Word with no hesitation, no reservation, no consideration.¹⁵ Thus, her “obedience is the prototype of every future instance of Christian obedience, which draws its whole meaning from the life of prayer and the perception of God’s will. . . . She is ready in prayer even when she does not know what she will be accepting.”¹⁶ But von Speyr does not end with Mary. She describes the obedience of the Son in the Incarnation as the foundational grace for Mary’s obedience and the mutual giving and receiving of love and obedience within the life of the Trinity.

In Three Women and the Lord, von Speyr reflects on Luke 8:1-2 and the relationship of Mary Magdalen to the Lord:

And the twelve were with him, and also . . . Mary, called Magdalen . . . No account is given of how Magdalen was tormented by the demons nor of how she found her way to the Lord. . . . Scripture only speaks of service as a result of liberation. And Magdalen remains in this service, although her being with the Lord was bound to mean that she was never to forget the past: she was and is marked by her erstwhile demonic possession. But that is of no concern to her. For her there is only one constant factor: she follows the Lord because he has set her free.¹⁷

Magdalen’s response to the word of God spoken to her is a lifetime of following, of obedience, of being possessed by the Lord and as such is an example to the reader of overflowing gratitude and thankfulness.

These are brief examples of the manner in which von Speyr contemplates Scripture. Her reflections cover a wide range of theological topics within short spans without a care for academics who would like to see subjects and ideas neatly arranged. Time for contemplation is the rule of thumb for reading von Speyr.

Throughout all her writings, von Speyr reflects on the Trinity. She often expresses her understanding of the Trinitarian relationships in the language of St. Ignatius of Loyola with the concepts of Choice, Indifference (readiness or availability) and Obedience. She freely uses these categories in her reflections on Christian discipleship in the Scriptures and in exhortations to her readers. These Trinitarian elements are a hallmark of von Speyr. Only within the context of von Speyr’s understanding of the Trinitarian relationships can her theology of Holy Saturday be understood.

Von Speyr’s Contemplations in von Balthasar’s Theology
Even von Balthasar’s early studies indicate a strong interest in eschatology and the apocalypse, not just in German literature but also in his studies of Augustine, Origen and other early Fathers. He could not accept the universalism suggested by Origen but neither could he find the Scriptural basis for Augustine’s certainty of a densely populated hell. Not until the Holy Saturday experiences of Adrienne von Speyr was he able to ascertain another method of resolving this dilemma of theodicy.¹⁸ His writings on Mary, John and Peter and their forms in the Church include multiple references to von Speyr’s insights as does much related to his theology of Holy Saturday. When von Balthasar discusses the Incarnation, the Trinity and the Descent into Hell, he frequently composes his theme with the words of Adrienne von Speyr, supplementing his arguments with others who have generated similar insights whether from the Early Fathers or contemporary theologians, saints and poets.

One need only glance through the footnotes in von Balthasar’s works to register his appreciation and application of von Speyr’s contemplations on Scripture. In numerous ways and places,¹⁹ von Balthasar asserts, “Her work and mine cannot be separated from one another either psychologically or theologically. They are two halves of one whole, with a single foundation at the center.”²⁰ Furthermore, he contends that “on the whole, I received far more from her, theologically, than she from me, though, of course, the exact proportion can never be calculated.”²¹ However much he received from her insights, von Balthasar’s intellectual education was the means through which von Speyr’s contemplative insights would be given appropriate catholic expression.²²

Reprise
Hans Urs von Balthasar, a chaplain concerned with the unity of spirituality and theology, providentially encountered von Speyr, a contemplative with theological insights that concerned not only unity of the concrete and abstract elements of faith but also provided considerations for von Balthasar’s questions regarding theodicy. Examples of von Speyr’s contemplative Scriptural commentaries show profound theological observations of persons actively participating in Christ. Von Speyr’s contemplations also consist of recurring Trinitarian reflection and Ignatian language. Furthermore, von Balthasar’s incorporation of von Speyr’s insights was conscious and intentional. He recognized the unity of concrete and abstract in the Patristic writings and valued the theological significance of contemplation that Adrienne von Speyr also demonstrated. For von Balthasar, “only the contemplative reading of the New Testament is adequate to the Glory of God in Jesus Christ.”²³

____________________

¹ Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, trans. Aidan Nichols, O.P. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 37.

² Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Theology and Sanctity” in Explorations in Theology, I: The Word Made Flesh (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 190. See Mark A. McIntosh, Christology from Within: Spirituality and the Incarnation in Hans Urs von Balthasar (Notre Dame and London: Notre Dame Press, 2000) for more on von Balthasar’s use of contemplatives in his work.

³ Von Balthasar does not consider all contemplative experience as valid for the Church. Only those focused on Christ (not personal experience or perfection itself) as their goal and obedience that is communally oriented as the outworking of love.

⁴ Peter Henrici, S. J., “A Sketch of von Balthasar’s Life” in Hans Urs von Balthasar: His Life and Work, ed. David L. Schindler (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991), 12, 13.

⁵ Ibid., 13. Erich Przywara also influenced his work in ontology; many others also come into play here at the beginning of the Ressourcement.

⁶ Hans Urs von Balthasar, First Glance at Adrienne von Speyr, trans. Antje Lawry and Sr. Sergia Englund, O.C.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1981), 31. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Our Task, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1994), 47.

⁷ Henrici, 29; Balthasar, “Foreword,” First Glance, 13.

⁸ First Glance, 44, 97ff. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, has published 30 volumes of her works in English and is committed to translating and publishing her complete works.

⁹ First Glance, 98.

¹⁰ Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Foreword,” in Adrienne von Speyr, The World of Prayer, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), 9.

¹¹ Balthasar, “Foreword,” The World of Prayer, 9.

¹² Adrienne von Speyr, Confession, trans. Douglas W. Stott (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), 153.

¹³ Adrienne von Speyr, John: The Word Becomes Flesh, vol. I, trans. Sr. Lucia Wiedenhöver, O.C.D. and Alexander Dru (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 13.

¹⁴ Speyr, John, vol. I, 23.

¹⁵ Adrienne von Speyr, Handmaid of the Lord, trans. E. A. Nelson (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), 15.

¹⁶ Handmaid, 27.

¹⁷ Adrienne von Speyr, Three Women and the Lord, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1978), 14, 16-17.

¹⁸ Balthasar, Our Task, 40.

¹⁹ For von Balthasar’s own description of the works in which he details the influence of von Speyr, see his book, Our Task.

²⁰ Henrici, 28, quoting Hans Urs von Balthasar, Rechenschaft 1965, 35. The “foundation” is the Community of St. John that von Balthasar and von Speyr co-founded.

²¹ Balthasar, First Glance, 13.

²² Balthasar, Our Task, 44.

²³ Aidan Nichols, O.P., “Introduction” to Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, 6.

2008 Hans Urs von Balthasar Blog Conference: Introduction

Tomorrow is the beginning of the first annual 2008 Hans Urs von Balthasar Blog Conference on the theme of “Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Exegesis.” Over the next week, we will read and discuss nine short essays that investigate different aspects of how von Balthasar read and interpreted Holy Scripture. These essays range from discussions of hermeneutics (Nielsen) to an analysis of how he read the Old Testament (Doerge) to an essay on how von Balthasar understood the name of the Lord in Exodus 3 (Murphy) to a survey of von Balthasar’s exegesis of the New Testament texts on the resurrection (Drury). Along the way, I will post official responses which will help frame our discussion of the material.

While a new essay and response will be posted each day, from March 17-25, I encourage every one to continue the conversations beyond the one day. This is the advantage of holding a “blog” conference: our conversations with the presenters are not limited to a fifteen minute block of time. We can engage the issues for days and even weeks.

Let me offer a word of thanks to everyone who is participating in this exciting project. I am grateful for the hard work each person has put into this. Many thanks to those who wrote the plenary posts as well as to those who wrote responses.

In a world where we are bombarded by seemingly endless amounts of information, I trust this conference will offer something distinct and interesting. While blogs have been disparaged (often rightly) by academics, I hope this experiment demonstrates that theo-blogging can be a place for academically rigorous and theologically sophisticated work. More importantly, in a conference examining the interrelation between theology and exegesis, I hope most of all that these essays provoke us to return to the text anew for a fresh hearing of God’s Word. May we gain a greater appreciation for what von Balthasar accomplished, and, following his example, learn to cultivate a faith that always seeks understanding.

Official 2008 Balthasar Blog Conference Schedule

The first annual 2008 Balthasar Blog Conference is almost upon us! The theme for this blog conference will be “Von Balthasar’s Theological Interpretation of Scripture” and will take place over nine days from March 17-25. We have a plenary post and response planned for each day. Below is the official schedule for the event.

If you are a blogger, please let others know about the upcoming event. This schedule will continue to be updated as I receive information from each of the participants.

Official 2008 Balthasar Blog Conference Schedule:

Monday, March 17 — Adrienne von Speyr’s influence on Balthasar

• Plenary: Lois M. Miles, “Von Balthasar, von Speyr and Holy Scripture: The Importance of the Contemplative Reading of Scripture for Hans Urs von Balthasar”
  
• Response: Halden Doerge

Tuesday, March 18 — Balthasar’s approach to biblical hermeneutics

• Plenary: Cynthia Nielsen, “Balthasar’s Biblical Hermeneutics”
• Response: Jonathan King

Wednesday, March 19 — Aesthetics and revelation

• Plenary: Daniel Wade McClain, “Aesthetics and Revelation: Balthasar’s Creational Aesthetic”
  
• Response: Brian M. Niece

Thursday, March 20 — Balthasar on the Gospels

• Plenary: Heather Reichgott, “Balthasar and ‘Contradictory’ Material in the Gospels”
• Response: Meg Shoeman

Friday, March 21 — Balthasar on Scripture and philosophy

• Plenary: Francesca Murphy, “Von Balthasar on Exodus 3: The Metaphysics of the Exodus Revisited”
  
• Response: Stephen M. Garrett

Saturday, March 22 — Balthasar’s use of the Old Testament in his theological aesthetics

• Plenary: Halden Doerge, “The Unfolding of the Form: Von Balthasar, The Old Testament, and the Scriptural Mediation of Revelation”
• Response: Andrew Guffey

Sunday, March 23 — Balthasar on the Apocalypse

• Plenary: Andrew Ryan Guffey, “The Apocalypse and the Theological Aesthetic of Theo-Drama”
• Response: David W. Congdon

Monday, March 24 — Balthasar on the problem of universalism in Scripture

• Plenary: David W. Congdon, “Toward a Hermeneutics of Hope: Hans Urs von Balthasar on the Biblical Warrant for Universalism”
• Response: Patrick McManus

Tuesday, March 25 — Balthasar on the resurrection

• Plenary: John L. Drury, “Balthasar’s Interpretation of the Resurrection of Christ in Mysterium Paschale”
  
• Response: W. Travis McMaken
  

2008 Trinity Blogging Summit

The 2008 Trinity Blogging Summit is has just finished at Nick Norelli’s blog. Here is the index of the essays included in the summit:

1. A Trinitarian Wedding Meditation By Jeffrey Meyers
2. Making Room By Peter J. Leithart
3. The Trinity and the Nations: Insight from Galatians By Michael Halcomb
4. Augustine Among The Social Trinitarians By W. Travis McMaken
5. Trinitarian Spirituality: Relationships, not Roles By Darrell Pursiful
6. Trinity in Jewish Terms? By Anne Kim
7. The Trinitarian Grammar of Worship By Doug Chaplin
8. Sent from the Father: A Case for Pre-Temporal Obedience By Nick Norelli
9. God’s Being Is in Coming: Eberhard Jüngel’s Doctrine of the Trinity By David W. Congdon

I would like to especially recommend reading Nick Norelli’s essay on the exegetical basis for the Son’s eternal obedience to the Father. This is a very good piece of work which has important theological implications, many of which are already being worked out by Bruce McCormack of Princeton Seminary. McCormack has made the same case using the theology of Karl Barth. Norelli’s essay helps to broaden this topic beyond the realm of systematic theology, which is an important task.

If you’ve been wondering about my absence from blogging, part of it is due to the time I spent on my contribution to this summit. I greatly enjoyed the opportunity to explore Eberhard Jüngel’s doctrine of the Trinity. I might try to expand this into a fuller paper for publication someday. Any feedback is more than welcome.

Balthasar Blog Conference

Updated March 3, 2008.

The first annual Balthasar Blog Conference is just around the corner on March 16-25. The topic is Balthasar’s theological exegesis. We have an exciting schedule of nine plenary posts by the following participants:

• Monday, March 17 – Lois M. Miles
• Tuesday, March 18 – Cynthia Nielsen
• Wednesday, March 19 – Halden Doerge
• Thursday, March 20 – Daniel Wade McClain
• Friday, March 21 – Heather Reichgott
• Saturday, March 22 – Francesca Murphy
• Sunday, March 23 – Andrew Guffey
• Monday, March 24 – David W. Congdon
• Tuesday, March 25 – John L. Drury

We have responses planned by the following people:

• Halden Doerge in response to Lois Miles;
• Brian M. Niece in response to Daniel W. McClain;
  
• Andrew Guffey in response to Halden Doerge;
• W. Travis McMaken in response to John L. Drury;
  
• Patrick McManus in response to my post;
• Meg Shoeman in response to Heather Reichgott;
  
• Steve Garrett in response to Francesca Murphy;
  
• Jonathan King in response to Cynthia Nielsen; and
  
• yours truly in response to Andrew Guffey.