Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline – Chapter 12
As we wrap up our analysis of Karl Barth’s Dogmatics in Outline, I am compelled to note that this study has proven to be tremendously beneficial to me, both as a reminder of the core of Christian doctrine as passed down through history as well as an inspiration to pursue my own theology as it develops. For Barth did not need to write in the tongues of philosophy or existentialism or postmodernism, but wrote simply to the common Christian theologian, and in doing so left a permanent and powerful mark upon Christendom.
On the chapter in question, “God’s Only Son,” Karl Barth asserts the divinity of Christ, and the implications found therein. The four adjectives that stand out in the epigraph – and hence, in the text – are helpful, adequate, compelling and exclusive. These four words define the boundary of the argument being attempted. Barth does not attempt to determine what divinity actually is in an ontological sense; instead, Barth seeks to claim the divinity of Christ as exclusive, compelling, helpful and adequate.
Question: Why do Christians say they “believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only son?” What do they mean when they say this? These two primary questions are addressed by Barth in this essay, and they are addressed to the Christian church as it does confession. This starting point, within the church, is made clear when Barth states that “starting from the Christian faith” (83).
Answer: The statement of Jesus as God’s only son means that the “revelation” of God is “compelling and exclusive,” and the “work” of God is “helpful and adequate” (82). These two statements and four terms define what Barth means when he claims that God is “uniquely living through” Jesus (82). The Incarnation of God in Jesus is compelling and exclusive in that in Jesus, there is the supreme and final Revelation of God. If Jesus is God made human (which Barth has spoken of in the previous articles), then there can be no other God made human – Jesus’ Revelation is exclusive. If Jesus is God made human, then we are compelled to seek and understand this Revelation. Furthermore, Barth claims, if Jesus is God made human, then this Revelation has shown us a God that if for us; this God made human is both helpful and adequate.
Method: Barth again uses the primary tool of exegesis and reasoning based on his prior assertions. Barth does not engage in questions of substance and essence, of eternity and time, but Barth affirms the definitions and answers of the early church fathers as they struggled with these issues. Barth commends them for not being “afraid to fight” (86); indeed, Barth confesses that “all we men do is problematic, shameful and joyless,” a caveat for the reader declaring that even Barth’s assertions must be held in the same understanding. Barth does not claim any special revelation or power – he only stands with the church, claiming what the church claims.
Significance: To those who have experienced abuse of power in Christ’s name and to those who have “reduced” Jesus to simply a man/teacher/great thinker, Barth stands for Christ’s divinity, over against these things. For one, to those in Barth’s era who had seen people lay claim to the special Revelation and even the divinity of God (Heil, Hitler = Heil, Marie), and subsequently experienced terrible acts of inhumanity at their hands, Barth reminds us that Jesus as God is both helpful and adequate. And to those in Barth’s time who spoke of the Christian message as powerless and empty in the face of evil and death, the theologian offers us hope in that Jesus as God is compelling and exclusive. This work of God, according to Christian faith, is both final and for our good.
Evaluation: It is now quite clear that Karl Barth is not concerned with abstract theology and questions, but with practical Christian theology, as can be determined from the bible and from the creeds. I believe that Barth accomplishes this to a certain degree, as is evidenced from his longevity. More importantly, I believe Barth offers up a new criteria for faith and progress; we must not discard or discredit the past, but instead we must look searchingly for truth where it is to be found, and then determine what is helpful and adequate, compelling and exclusive in the work of God as “He wills to be for us in His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ” (87).
9.11.2007
Church Dogmatics in Outline, Chapter 10
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline – Chapter 10
In chapter 10 of Karl Barth’s Dogmatics in Outline, the author tackles the portion of the Creed that contains the phrase, “Jesus Christ.” In doing so, Barth illuminates his Christ centric tendencies. This chapter makes the audacious claim to be expositing the “heart of the object of Christian faith” (65). The author makes his point very clear, that in the second article, “I believe in Jesus Christ,” we find the foundation of all Christian belief and theology.
Question: Barth asks the simple question, “Why must we confess that we believe in Jesus Christ?” Why not say, “I believe in God, but not in Jesus,” or “I believe in the movement Jesus started?” Barth is concerned here with positing that Christians confess that they believe in Jesus Christ, the historical person (69), as the actual and literal center of all else they claim to believe. Why is this so, asks Barth?
Answer: As the author claims on page 65, the “original Christian confession consisted of three words, ‘Jesus Christ (is) Lord.’” If Barth holds to the idea that the closer to the original faith we get, the closer we get to God (and it seems that this is most undoubtedly the case), then a priori the original creed of the Church is most likely to have essential truths therein. So, to Barth, the answer to the previously noted question of why is answered by the voice of the early church, as they proclaimed the Christian message of Jesus Christ as supreme.
Method: One does not arrive at Barth’s conclusion by speculating or philosophizing. Barth’s methodology once again is clearly an exegetical approach to first scripture, and then creeds (the closer to the Incarnation, the better). The reason that Barth accepts and lifts up the creeds and doctrines of the Reformation is that Barth believed, as the reformers did, that they were returning to the more original understanding of the Christian message. Barth, like the reformers, is concerned with refining our theology regarding God and Word, and is focused on the evangelical nature of this confession. As is evident in this chapter, the author speaks of Jesus Christ as God becoming man for our good. This is absolutely good news, claims Barth.
Significance: The significance of this chapter is primarily noted in demonstrating how Barth is Christ centric. By understanding Barth’s point of view regarding the Incarnation, one can more clearly understand the whole of Barth’s theology and dogmatics (65). Accordingly, this chapter is significant to any who might agree with the author regarding the nature of theology, scripture and Christian confession. To any and all reformed theologians, this chapter is a significant statement of belief, couched in modern terms and context, and paves the way for future hope and proclamation regarding the Event of God made man.
Evaluation: According to the measure of philosophers and historians, this chapter does not stand up. Barth does not prove, in fact, does not make an attempt to prove, why Jesus must be declared as central to the Christian faith. To Barth, that Jesus is central is established in the fact that Jesus Christ is central. There is no argument around or against this. Barth has declared, since the beginning, that we are playing with his rules, and these rules dictate that Jesus Christ is central. In fact, this is the very starting point for the theology and expositions that the author has engaged in.
Socrates and Plato might have decried this work as a work of rhetoric, as a work of a Sophist; to many, Barth does nothing more than try to convince the reader of his rightness, disregarding any truth that might be discovered outside the revealed truth already in the mind of this sophist. I would wager, however, that Barth did not perceive his work as sophistry, but instead as exposition of history – a history based in the work of God as done in and through Jesus. I stand in the middle, both admiring Barth for his boldness and clarity of thought as he engages in admittedly Christian theology, but also shuddering at the arrogant and dismissive ways that Barth seems to disregard all other arguments against his reasoning.
In chapter 10 of Karl Barth’s Dogmatics in Outline, the author tackles the portion of the Creed that contains the phrase, “Jesus Christ.” In doing so, Barth illuminates his Christ centric tendencies. This chapter makes the audacious claim to be expositing the “heart of the object of Christian faith” (65). The author makes his point very clear, that in the second article, “I believe in Jesus Christ,” we find the foundation of all Christian belief and theology.
Question: Barth asks the simple question, “Why must we confess that we believe in Jesus Christ?” Why not say, “I believe in God, but not in Jesus,” or “I believe in the movement Jesus started?” Barth is concerned here with positing that Christians confess that they believe in Jesus Christ, the historical person (69), as the actual and literal center of all else they claim to believe. Why is this so, asks Barth?
Answer: As the author claims on page 65, the “original Christian confession consisted of three words, ‘Jesus Christ (is) Lord.’” If Barth holds to the idea that the closer to the original faith we get, the closer we get to God (and it seems that this is most undoubtedly the case), then a priori the original creed of the Church is most likely to have essential truths therein. So, to Barth, the answer to the previously noted question of why is answered by the voice of the early church, as they proclaimed the Christian message of Jesus Christ as supreme.
Method: One does not arrive at Barth’s conclusion by speculating or philosophizing. Barth’s methodology once again is clearly an exegetical approach to first scripture, and then creeds (the closer to the Incarnation, the better). The reason that Barth accepts and lifts up the creeds and doctrines of the Reformation is that Barth believed, as the reformers did, that they were returning to the more original understanding of the Christian message. Barth, like the reformers, is concerned with refining our theology regarding God and Word, and is focused on the evangelical nature of this confession. As is evident in this chapter, the author speaks of Jesus Christ as God becoming man for our good. This is absolutely good news, claims Barth.
Significance: The significance of this chapter is primarily noted in demonstrating how Barth is Christ centric. By understanding Barth’s point of view regarding the Incarnation, one can more clearly understand the whole of Barth’s theology and dogmatics (65). Accordingly, this chapter is significant to any who might agree with the author regarding the nature of theology, scripture and Christian confession. To any and all reformed theologians, this chapter is a significant statement of belief, couched in modern terms and context, and paves the way for future hope and proclamation regarding the Event of God made man.
Evaluation: According to the measure of philosophers and historians, this chapter does not stand up. Barth does not prove, in fact, does not make an attempt to prove, why Jesus must be declared as central to the Christian faith. To Barth, that Jesus is central is established in the fact that Jesus Christ is central. There is no argument around or against this. Barth has declared, since the beginning, that we are playing with his rules, and these rules dictate that Jesus Christ is central. In fact, this is the very starting point for the theology and expositions that the author has engaged in.
Socrates and Plato might have decried this work as a work of rhetoric, as a work of a Sophist; to many, Barth does nothing more than try to convince the reader of his rightness, disregarding any truth that might be discovered outside the revealed truth already in the mind of this sophist. I would wager, however, that Barth did not perceive his work as sophistry, but instead as exposition of history – a history based in the work of God as done in and through Jesus. I stand in the middle, both admiring Barth for his boldness and clarity of thought as he engages in admittedly Christian theology, but also shuddering at the arrogant and dismissive ways that Barth seems to disregard all other arguments against his reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
