Descriptive Review of Church Dogmatics in Outline, Ch 12

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).

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.

Descriptive Review of Church Dogmatics in Outline, Ch 5

In my Introduction to Theology class, we have to do at least one "descriptive review" paper a week. The second week was on "Church Dogmatics in Outline" by Karl Barth. This paper is on the fifth chapter, entitled "God in the highest"

Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline – Chapter 5

As Barth moves through the Apostles’ Creed in his book Church Dogmatics In Outline, the author spends a varying amount of time on each phrase and concept. For instance, Barth spends three chapters on “I believe,” trying to establish what it means for a Christian to say this in the context of doctrine. In chapter five, Barth tackles the beginning of the first article of faith, “… in God.”

Question: To begin with, Barth asks, what is the content of the proclamation of the gospel? In this context, the sub-question that this chapter deals with is, what does a Christian mean when he or she says “God?” The audience is the same as before; the students at Bonn, the nation of Germany and the rest of the world. Barth is also specifically speaking to a group of people who have recently placed their allegiance with a “god” in Hitler.
Answer: In answer to this question, Barth posits that the Christian is speaking of “God in the highest” (henceforth, God in excelsis). This phrase, in excelsis, captures what Barth feels to be the differentiating factor between humanity’s concepts of God and divinity (gods) and the God of Christianity. Barth expands on this by explaining that by in excelsis, he also means the God “who exists, lives, acts, and makes himself known to us … in Jesus Christ” (35). Barth goes even further, declaring that God in excelsis is “the One who stands above us,” is established in God’s self, and is “made manifest … only through Himself” (37). If God is only made manifest through God’s own actions and the Holy Scriptures (as Barth describes them) are a record of God’s “mighty acts,” then Barth has reiterated his earlier point that the only source of knowledge of/about God is through the Word (38).

Method: Barth speaks in the language of apophasis (negative theology) and uses the reasoning frame of an existentialist to arrive at his primary point, and then uses the logic to reach the conclusion that God is God in excelsis. Perhaps due to the abuses Barth has witnessed in the name of reason, the author’s launching point for the discussion of God is summed up in this statement, “if we glance at the history of human … assertion about this being [God] … [the] impression we receive is … of human waywardness and human violence with this concept, this idea of God” (35). Barth’s response to this troubling observation is that “when Christians speak of ‘God’, we may and must be clear that this word signifies a priori the fundamentally Other, the fundamental deliverance from that whole world of man’s … speculating” (36). It is clear that Barth believes it impossible to methodically and philosophically “reach” up to this God in the highest.

Therefore, Barth elaborates on the act of God “descending” as the definitive characteristic (to humankind’s perspective) of the God of Christianity. This proposition is forcefully stated on page 38, where Barth speaks to those who would attempt and prove God’s existence; “I speak of a God who proves Himself on every hand: Here am I, and since I live and act it is superfluous that I should be proved” (38). These “mighty acts of God” are shown to be in three categories (or strata): the work of creation, the covenant between God and humankind, and the work of redemption (39). It is through these acts that God descends, and thus, is God in excelsis.

Significance: To anyone in Barth’s time, the problem of usurpers has become a pressing issue; Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini among others have placed themselves in power in such a way as to steal the ‘title’ of Lord from God. Barth speaks vehemently against this, decrying any and all attempts to claim divinity outside of the three mighty acts of God found in the Holy Scriptures. This chapter’s definition of the God of Christianity is a pronouncement against any person who claims divinity for his/herself.

Evaluation: Outside of the context of the situation (indeed, outside the context of the book), this chapter stands on its own as a ‘natural negative theology.’ Barth comes to the “obvious” conclusion that we cannot know God, therefore God must reach us. The flaws in the author’s arguments can be illuminated by the very idea that we can claim to know God in the highest in spite of all the author’s posturing on the side of apophasis. Barth seems to say, we cannot know God, but we must know God. In spite of this apparent contradiction, the author eloquently speaks to the concept of the God of Christianity as a non-concept; he speaks about God as an acting, living being that is made known to us in Christ. Overall, one might still argue that to this day, we have not grasped the Otherness of God, instead continuing the pretentious ideas and concepts of divinity that allow us to continually reshape God in our own image. Barth stands against it.

Descriptive Review of Church Dogmatics in Outline, Ch 1

In my Introduction to Theology class, we have to do at least one "descriptive review" paper a week. The second week was on "Church Dogmatics in Outline" by Karl Barth. This paper is on the first chapter, entitled "The Task."

Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline – Chapter 1

Any time a theologian attempts to convey their beliefs, one must take into consideration the context in which the beliefs were forged. Karl Barth was deeply affected (like many others) by the great wars, and especially by World War II and the rise of Nazism. That said, Barth expounds theological treatises that still hold sway in many communities, and his contribution to theology cannot and, indeed, must not be ignored or dismissed. This paper will attempt to analyze the first chapter of Barth’s book, Dogmatics in Outline, and offer an evaluation of its significance and continuing value.

Question: Barth begins very clearly in this chapter (a prolegomena of sorts) to explain to the reader to what task he has set out to accomplish. In the preceding preface, the author has already told us that these lectures are given to students at the University of Bonn immediately following the war (in 1946). Barth’s purpose in this chapter is to answer the question, “What is church dogmatics?” This is made unequivocally clear by his summary statement “dogmatics is…” (9). The rest of the sentence and this chapter attempt to finish this phrase satisfactorily for both the students and the rest of the world (both of whom were still reeling in the aftershock of WWII and the Holocaust).

Answer: Barth posits, “Christian dogmatics is an attempt … to state definite facts … and present them in the form of a doctrine” (9). He goes on to say that the subject of dogmatics (that which does the study) is the church and that the object (that which is studied) is the “proclamation of the Gospel” (9-10). According to Barth, the church alone can attempt dogmatics. Barth also clarifies that this dogma is “not a thing which has fallen from Heaven to earth” (10), which implies his acknowledgement of erroneous interpretations. Moreover, Barth insists that what we are concerned with is not simply theory, but instead is the very proclamation of the gospel: “what as Christians do we really have to say?” (11) In summary, dogmatics is the act of weighing critically the content of what the church says to the world about G-d. This leads to the next question, how must we go about this process?

Method: Barth’s method appears at surface level to be ‘sola scriptura.’ To some, Barth appears to ignore reason for an extremist view that ONLY the bible can provide truth. Barth’s background in existentialism, alongside his criticism of the so-called “German Christians,” is key here to understanding his desire to jump immediately to Scripture and Confession as the only relevant sources for critical dogmatics over against reason and philosophy. If G-d exists, Kierkegaard posited, then G-d cannot be objectively known (Grenz 7). This theologian believed that since this is true, the starting point is an individual’s “leap of faith.” Barth echoes this sentiment (and goes into greater detail in the next three chapters) along with the theology of Calvin; Barth’s foundational claim is that we cannot find G-d, only G-d can find us.
Therefore, the event of G-d’s incarnation is the only real Revelation. Furthermore, “Holy Scripture is… the document of the manifestation of the Word of God in the person of Jesus Christ” (13). Barth is offering a way of doing theology that is rooted and anchored in the line of succession from the Event of Jesus down to our present day. The fact that the world of theology is still fresh off of the first real wave of biblical criticism comes into play here; Barth’s understanding of scripture is filtered through the previous century’s attempt at understanding the bible better.

Significance: In a time of groundlessness, angst, and foolishness that had recently led to genocide and war, Barth provides an anchor – don’t just ‘feel’ your way through it, that only leads to perversions like National Socialism – instead, the church must take account of its own proclamations by the standards of scripture and confession. Barth’s statements echo down to today, when Christian doctrine is still twisted and co-opted for worldly and quite evil purposes. Don’t let your reason fool you, Barth beseeches, but trust in the revealed G-d found in Jesus.

Evaluation: Barth’s theology is good for what it is. He does not attempt to engage in certain questions, such as proving G-d’s existence. Instead, the author claims that we just can’t know objectively about G-d and therefore, once we have taken that leap of faith, then we must examine that faith against the Revelation found in Jesus Christ. My only qualms with this approach are that for one, Barth seems to trust rather completely in the scriptures’ accuracy regarding the Incarnation. Also, Barth does not seem to have a plan to address the problem of evil, which in my humble opinion, might have been a necessary task in the face of the holocaust.

Descriptive Review of Surviving the Blight by Cannon

In my Introduction to Theology class, we have to do at least one "descriptive review" paper a week. The first week was on "Inheriting Our Mothers' Gardens" and I chose to review an essay by Katie Geneva Cannon on "Surviving the Blight."

With a title as consciously ambivalent as Inheriting Our Mothers’ Gardens, one may expect to find a wide swath of perspectives on the symbol of garden as it relates to “inherited” theology and worldview. In chapter four of this collection, Katie Geneva Cannon understands the metaphorical garden as related to the blighted plants of her African-American roots. In this, her main theme is the survival of a people and culture in spite of inhuman oppression and systemic de-humanization.
1. Questions/Audience:
Cannon, like the rest of the authors in the book, is writing to a global audience of women, and she is writing, in one sense, to inform others of her unique perspective. The author perceives her audience to be unaware to some degree of the “blighted” gardens of the African-American people who have suffered from the institution of slavery (and its effects) as it existed in the United States.
The questions that necessarily must be answered by all the authors in this book are (1) “from what history and culture does my version of feminist theology spring,” and (2) “what can I offer to the global dialogue as I examine this heritage.” Cannon’s unique take on these questions is apparent in her summary of the stories of oppression that begin her chapter; the author states that “hovering over all my cultural inheritance is the devastating reality that chattel tenure excluded any sort of social recognition of Black people as thinking, religious and moral beings” (83). Cannon must not only answer the first two questions, but she must do so with the reality that her cultural heritage is one that suffered under a conscious attempt at eradication.
2. Answer:
“Even with cultural self-expression outlawed, my ancestors never surrendered their humanity or lost sight of a vision of freedom and justice they believed to be their due” (84). With this statement, Cannon transitions from a recounting of the “blight” to a telling of the “surviving.” This is done with three specific “flowers” from her garden: folklore, spirituals, and prayer. In her accounts of all three, Cannon demonstrates that her heritage is full of the struggle for “freedom, resistance and self-determination” (85) and the “unflinching faith that they, too, were the people of God” (87). Both narrative and music are tied together in prayer, which the author describes as a “living bridge” (88).
3. Method:
The author approaches this task with the double-edged sword of narrative as her primary means of analysis. On the one hand, the reader can read the essay and feel as if all Cannon did was tell tales of her past; on the other hand, the tales of injustice and oppression allow the reader to see the garden from the author’s eyes. Cannon seems most concerned with placing the reader in the midst of the “blighted” garden, and letting the reader then appreciate more fully the beauty and strength of the surviving flowers.
4. Significance:
In a world where there are many injustices, the American enslavement and de-humanization of African-Americans stands out as one of humanity’s bleakest moments. If Cannon can effectively demonstrate for the global reader how her ancestors survived these times with a culture of “freedom, resistance and self-determination,” then hope can be offered to those in the world still suffering under the many facets of institutional and systemic oppression.
5. Evaluation:
As my tone may have indicated, I value both the author’s stories and approach. Cannon’s use of narrative is an effective tool as she first establishes why her ancestors’ history is unique in the magnitude and scale of the oppression. Next, her answers sufficiently demonstrate that “despite” the inhumanities, her culture retained its humanness and religion.
My only criticism is that Cannon does not go into much detail as to how exactly these “flowers” might be planted in someone else’s garden. Understanding one another is good, but contributing substantive answers to each other’s questions could be considered the true task of dialogue in theology. The author either does not have room or does not find it necessary to interpret her inherited culture for the non-African American. This, once again, is a double-edged sword; if any person so chooses, they could interpret the author’s history as similar to their own. Overall, I personally felt closer to an understanding of the author’s situation, and appreciated her task, method, and her application of the method.

coming this week

coming this week:

* posting my papers for class so far
* posting my thoughts on starting the MTS program at Perkins
* posting an update on what's been happening
* posting some thoughts about Jaimie and I's possible future plans
* posting some random crap...

Do you think you're ready for this jelly?

Be prepared...

... for the deluge to come!