White’s The Incarnate Lord: An Appreciative Interaction

Abstract

White’s The Incarnate Lord: An Appreciative Interaction Chris Tilling Every few years or so, I have been fortunate enough to read authors to whom I know I will endlessly return. For me, that list includes the likes of Karl Barth, Douglas Campbell, Jeff McSwain, and Richard Bauckham, to name some of the “likely suspects.” I may now add Thomas Joseph White to that list, for he has encouraged me to rethink some of my inherited theological commitments. Indeed, the learning, eloquence, and cogency of argumentation on display in The Incarnate Lord1 was, for me, like a New Testament baptism in that I felt plunged into deep waters—refreshing waters, I might add, as he kept sight of “first order” theological discussion. Rather than a boring and very well-worn escapade into hermeneutical or reader-centered concerns that some inexplicably still seem to think are cutting edge, here we are treated to the kind of theological analysis that stretches, that seeks to advance. What is more, the scope of White’s volume is impressive. His argument ranges confidently through philosophical subtleties, both ancient and modern. He handles complex, yet important, Christological debates and soteriological discussions in conversation with giants in the field, one of whom alone usually suffi ces for a lifetime of reading. And this is all done in conversation with important contemporary interlocutors. As a result, the numerous and arguably important observations contained in The Incarnate Lord will shape my own questions for years to come. How refreshing to read a work of theology that seeks [End Page 629] unapologetically to “peer into the mystery of God himself ” (29)! This is all to say that it is an honor to respond to White’s work. It is also a considerable task for this humble Neutestamentler. Consequently, in what follows, I will not outline what I consider to be White’s overarching concerns, except as they are refracted by my own interests, nor place his contributions on the landscape of alternative proposals. Rather, I will alight upon what I consider to be matters most worthy of dissection given my own expertise and interests. To wit, I will first note areas that are significant impulses in my own theological development. This will lead to the most substantial section of this paper, second, where I will ponder White’s engagement with Scripture and in light of Scripture, particularly as presented in his introduction. This will provide a useful springboard into a variety of substantial concerns in White’s volume. Third, I will seek to bring the many debates and discussions to as sharp a formulation as possible, in the hope that it may provoke fruitful dialogue. Significant Contributions As stated, this section is not meant to enumerate the various contributions White makes in terms of general systematic theological discussion. This would extend an already overly ambitious review. I would be ill-equipped to make such judgments, either way. This is more personal, relating to an entirely contingent theological biography, and how White’s arguments push me to develop. First, I note his critical commentary on the Barthian tradition, and its implicit endorsement—without sufficient theological justification—of the Kantian critique of metaphysics. This was an insight made with particular force and cleverly contrasted with the implicit ontological commitments of Chalcedon. As he rightly asks: “What does it mean to say that God personally ‘exists’ as a human being among us? How should we understand the difference between Christ’s human nature and his divine nature?” Or again, how is “nature” attributed “to Christ’s human essence as distinct from his divine essence?” White presses the point: “In seeking to recover Chalcedonian ontology ‘after Kant’ without a commitment to classical metaphysics, the Barthian ‘tradition’ cannot answer these questions adequately” (49). In particular, he then asks whether it is adequate to follow Barth in placing the “site” of the hypostatic union in the identity of God “revealed in a voluntary act of the human Christ.” Barth, thereby, locates central ontological considerations concerning the divine–human unity in “an ‘accidental’ feature of the human being of Christ” (49). As such, this tends toward a [End Page 630] particular understanding of Nestorianism (as...