The first part will begin with Chapter 1, which explores Edwards’ ideas about beauty, first in The Mind and then in True Virtue, while also briefly looking at a sermon
entitled The Excellency of Christ. This chapter will identify his understanding of beauty and demonstrate that it is derived from philosophy, and is therefore in tension with a Protestant epistemology.
In Chapter 2, the thesis will then turn to The End of Creation. It will demonstrate that Edwards’ understanding of beauty influences his account of the relationship between glory-seeking and love, observing that his thesis is rooted in an account of a union between God and humanity, before identifying various strengths and weaknesses of his ideas. These weaknesses will set the scene for later chapters which will work to reconstruct Edwards’ thought by using an account of beauty derived more from
32
revelation, and therefore more consistent with Protestantism and Edwards’ wider thought.
Part 2
Part 2 will begin this process by looking at the account of beauty of Hans Urs von Balthasar, arguing that it fits within the Protestant tradition (or is at least more
naturally present than Edwards’ own thought). Its first chapter, Chapter 3, introduces Balthasar’s thought, his key themes, particularly his understanding of how different “fragments” of beauty cohere around the cross. It then spends the remainder of the chapter examining how Balthasar’s thought relates to Protestant epistemology, with reference to the question of natural theology – showing that it is more compatible with Protestantism than Jonathan Edwards’ account.
The following chapter, Chapter 4, examines Balthasar’s thought in the light of a central Protestant theological loci: Martin Luther’s concept of the Theology of the Cross. The chapter identifies three specific criteria by which, according to Luther, a Theology of the Cross can be identified: that it believes divine revelation subverts human knowledge; that it is crucicentric; and that it displays appropriate humility. It then goes on to examine Balthasar’s theology in the light of this, arguing that he appears to meet all three criteria sufficiently well.
Chapter 5 then examines Balthasar’s use of the Bible – a question which is
fundamental to the question of whether his ideas can be seen as sufficiently close to Protestantism. It examines in turn first Balthasar’s understanding of the close
relation between glory and beauty, arguing that Balthasar’s use of biblical language of glory to see beauty is sufficiently well-founded. It then goes on to evaluate in turn Balthasar’s use of the Old and New Testaments, arguing that the approach to beauty which emerges is closer to Protestantism than Edwards’ understanding.
Part 3
Part 3 then explores how Balthasar’s ideas can be used therapeutically on Edwards’ understanding of the relationship between glory and love. It draws on a number of
33
themes in Balthasar, but at the centre is Balthasar’s rich understanding of love which involves a union between the lover and the beloved. This offers an alternative way of giving an account of union between God and humanity which does not contain the weaknesses of Edwards’ own equivalent ideas.
It begins with two chapters which examine those ideas within Balthasar’s theological aesthetics which come closest to dealing with the question of glory and love. In Balthasar, these themes coincide with “the two dogmas which constitute Christian revelation: Christ and the Trinity.”87 Chapter 6 examines Balthasar’s understanding
of Christology in a chapter of The Glory of the Lord called Word-Flesh. We see in this chapter how Balthasar relates two apparently contradictory attributes of Jesus – authority (which includes glory) and poverty – to the cross, uniting them around a concept of self-giving love. This self-giving love displays a unity between the lover and the beloved. We will also find that this account explains the relationship of the incarnate Son’s glory and His love for the Father – but not for humanity. It therefore presents the beginnings of such an answer, but not the whole of one.
The following chapter, Chapter 7, goes on to examine the role the Trinity plays in Balthasar’s account of the divine goals. For Balthasar, the kenosis of the cross is a manifestation of a more fundamental kenosis found in the Trinity itself, whereby the Father’s begetting of the Son is understood as the Father, in His self-giving love, giving Himself to the Son. In this act, the Father shares His glory with the Son, and the two are united in this sharing of love. This relation is itself the ground of the Trinity’s relation to humanity in salvation history, and in the act of salvation humanity is incorporated within the intra-Trinitarian love, therefore enabling a union between God’s love for redeemed humanity and His love of His own glory. We will see that this again makes a further contribution to this question, but does not explain why God loves prior to salvation.
Following on from these two chapters, the final chapters then turn more closely to Edwards’ work and how his account can be healed. They do this in two stages – firstly by looking at the theme of love; secondly, by looking at the theme of union.
34
Chapter 8 examines Edwards’ understanding of love. It identifies three features of Edwards’ account of love – it is rooted in the lover’s desire for joy, it involves a union between lover and beloved, and it desires the good of the other. However, this chapter argues that these features are in tension, and are especially problematic when applied to God, given divine aseity. As a consequence, it argues for a
modified version of Edwards’ account, whereby the first feature is rejected (at least with regards to God), and the remaining two features are united by using Balthasar’s understanding of how self-giving love brings about a union. This heals and fulfils strands of Edwards’ ideas, uniting them around Balthasar’s centre of beauty: the cross.
The final chapter, Chapter 9, finally brings together the ideas from previous chapters, focusing on the central idea of union between God and humanity. While Part 1 established that the details of Edwards’ resolution of the tension between glory and love in The End of Creation owes a great deal to natural theology, this chapter demonstrates that there are other places in Edwards where the idea of resolving tension through a different account of a divine-human union is postulated based on scriptural sources. Therefore, while a number of the details of Edwards’ account in
The End of Creation are problematic and rooted in natural theology, his basic idea of
resolving the tension through union between God and humanity is consistent with Protestantism.
This chapter proposes an alternative view which draws on ideas from Balthasar’s account of divine beauty. The thesis has already argued towards reinterpreting Edwards’ understanding of love around a centre drawn from Balthasar’s ideas. This chapter explores how this concept of a love which involves a union between God and humanity may enable a union between God’s love for Himself, His love for humanity, and His love for glory – enabling an account which retains the scriptural strengths of Edwards’, without incurring the problematic elements.
Previous Dissertation
My MA dissertation was related to this thesis. My former dissertation examined The
35
the Trinity, arguing that using Balthasar’s understanding of the Trinity would
strengthen Edwards’ account. It was from this research that my PhD was born, as through a study of the two figures I concluded that examining their respective ideas about beauty would be likely to be especially fruitful.
However, it has been important that I not repeat fundamentally the same work in both dissertations. In order to prevent this, I have included my former dissertation as an appendix to this work, and occasionally reference elements of it within the text when the argument in my thesis is dependent upon some argument in my previous dissertation, rather than repeat the same argumentation in both dissertations. This will also allow the examiners to identify the originality of this thesis, which – while not unrelated to the former work – is sufficiently independent of it that I am confident that it justifies being submitted for a separate qualification. Due to the need to prove this, I have chosen to incorporate the former dissertation in full in the exact state in which it was submitted. In one sense, I find this very regrettable, because I am aware that the earlier dissertation contained numerous minor errors of such things as spelling and grammar. (This is because I broke my ankle very shortly before submitting the former dissertation, which upset my writing schedule and meant that the final editing process was extremely rushed.) I am also now aware of a handful of scholarly mistakes that I made in the earlier dissertation, but would not make now. I trust that the reader will assess my competence in such areas based on the evidence of this thesis, rather than of the earlier dissertation.
Notes on Language
Finally, it is worthwhile to make some notes on my use of language.
Firstly, throughout this thesis, there will be numerous occasions when I will discuss Protestantism when I could also have referred to Reformed theology. In particular, my argument is that Edwards’ use of natural theology is inconsistent with his Protestantism, and can be made more consistent by being reconstructed using Balthasar’s ideas. When discussing this, I could usually be more specific and speak of making Edwards more consistent with his Reformed theology, rather than simply with Protestantism.
36
I chose to ordinarily use the more generic term because there are specific times in this thesis where I draw one or both of Edwards and Balthasar into dialogue with elements of Protestantism which are not specifically Reformed. The most extensive example is Chapter 4, where I argue that there are significant elements of
commonality between Balthasar’s account of beauty and Martin Luther’s
understanding of a “Theology of the Cross”. These are examples of Balthasar’s ideas being used to reconstruct Edwards to make him more consistent with Protestantism, but rather than bringing Edwards closer to his Reformed tradition, they instead use Balthasar’s ideas to bring different Protestant traditions together. As a result of this, I have opted to use “Protestant” rather than “Reformed” when either is suitable. However, this does not mean that I do not think that Balthasar’s ideas could make Edwards more consistently Reformed, specifically; as Reformed theology is a type of Protestant theology, therefore to be made more consistently Protestant is, at the same time, to be made more consistently Reformed. Instead, the language is used to make it simpler to incorporate examples where other Protestant traditions are dealt with.
Secondly, I consistently choose to capitalise divine pronouns, despite this not being followed in the texts which I am quoting from either Balthasar or Edwards. I choose to capitalise divine pronouns, partly because I prefer the implications of reverence, but primarily because when referring to both God and a theologian within a short space of text, it makes it considerably easier to distinguish between the theologian and God if this use of pronouns is followed. However, the reader will have to be aware that this is my practice, and not that of my primary sources, and so it will not be followed in their quotes.
Thirdly, it will be worthwhile to note the way my footnotes are abbreviating the standard Yale edition of the Works of Jonathan Edwards. I am using the abbreviation of “WJE” followed by the volume number, a colon, and the page numbers.
37
38