Barth Post #2: Barth as partner for the philosophical theologian

Karl Barth: Partner for the philosophical theologian?

Tuesday night's class was a glimpse into the early ministry of Barth, including his time as a pastor in Safenwil from 1911-1921. After pastoring for nearly a decade, Barth began to struggle deeply with what he saw as a disconnect between the content of the Bible, and the issues the people dealt with in their daily lives. This struggle became more and more pronounced, as he struggled to make preaching meaningful to the congregation. The turning point came as Barth began to uncover the "strange new world of the Bible," a world that is not human, but God's. What Barth realized was that although the Bible is a book which contains stories about persons and events, faith in the truth of Scripture has nothing to do with "human thoughts about God, but the right divine thoughts about men."

In other words, Barth saw that "the Bible tells us not how we should talk with God, but what God says to us; not how we find the way to him, but how he has sought and found his way to us; not the right relation in which we must place ourselves to him, but the covenant which he has made with [us] and which he has sealed once and for all in Jesus Christ. It is this which is within the Bible." (Barth as quoted in class handout)

This this closely connected to Barth’s understanding of the "threefold" Word of God: As Barth explained, Jesus Christ is Word of God Incarnate. Additionally, there is the Word of God written (Scripture), and the Word of God proclaimed (the faithful witness of the Church). It is true that we only know Jesus Christ through the revelation contained in the written and proclaimed Word, BUT, we can only see/hear/know the meaning of the written and proclaimed Word as a result of Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate. Christ is primary, and without Christ, the Bible becomes nothing more than a book.

One of Barth's primary "formational influences" was Theological Liberalism. Much of his theology was aimed as a response to this "liberalism," which was basically (as Barth saw it) the surrender of theology to the philosophies of the Enlightenment. One of "liberalism's" primary motivations was the conviction that questions raised by the Enlightenment and modernism must be engaged theologically. Barth's criticism was that in so doing, theology ceded the ground to these philosophies and cultural ideologies, which reduced theology to phenomena that were to be studied and subjected to human interpretation and experience. Barth argued that theology must never become anthropocentric, and he was vigorously opposed to any system or idea that limited God's sovereign freedom to do whatever God chooses.

Barth was not fond of Tillich or others who tried to philosophically systematize theology. He saw them as intellectually dishonest. This was a bit troubling for me to hear, as my interests lean primarily toward the realm of philosophical theology. In Barth's view, Tillich (and the majority of Evangelicalism and Apologetics, for that matter) said, "Bring your questions to the Bible and God will answer them." Barth said, "No. You come to the Bible and God will ask you the questions." Barth was deeply appreciative of all the sciences and arts in their own right, but did NOT think that theology should be co-opted by any of them, or should serve any of them... all other sciences should serve theology!

Talking to Prof. Burton after class, he assured me that Barth's issue is not with philosophy per se (after all, Barth's brother was a philosopher), but with philosophers who are doing philosophy under the guise of theology, and even more, Christians who have let their theology become subject to any philosophy.

This creates an immense challenge for me as I continue along my current educational path: How do I keep from subjecting my theology to any philosophy, while at the same time attempting to speak honestly into philosophical structures that may understand and, indeed, require me using a different "language"? I can certainly see Barth's point that it would not be faithful for me as a Christian to accept the subjectification of theology, but is there a way to balance honest theological study with proper engagement of philosophical constructs and ideologies that might be of assistance to theology? This is certainly no easy task.

Of course, there are many opportunities for theology to critique philosophy. But there are also, I think, times when philosophy can and should critique theology, especially theology that has drifted from its true center and purpose. There is always the danger of philosophy becoming an idol... and for that matter, the same is true of theology. Lots to think about...

Tonight (Thursday) we will be looking at Barth's "Epistle to the Romans," a profoundly influential work that catapulted him into the spotlight of Christian academia.

First post on Barth class...

The course I'm auditing this quarter - Karl Barth and Evangelicalism - has begun, and if Monday's introductory lecture was any indication, it should be a very interesting class. I've been reading Barth's "Evangelical Theology: An Introduction" as part of the required reading (well, not so much "required" for me, but...) and I'm a bit unclear on Barth's concept of the presuppositions of Christian theology, or lack thereof.

On the one hand, Barth says, "Theology cannot... presuppose anything at all concerning the foundation, authorization, and destination of its statements." He continues, "Were theology to presuppose the power sustaining its statements and itself, then theology would assume power in its own right, superior to that first and fundamental power... the very thing theology seeks would be lost whenever theology attempted to rely upon such an arbitrary presupposition." (p. 50-51)

But later on he states (p. 147) that the "reality of God's work an the truth of his Word" is a truth "radically superior to theology" and "is presupposed for it in the manner of a radical presupposition."

I asked Prof. Burton about this last night and he indicated that what Barth was apparently trying to say was that the only presupposition for the Christian is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. For Barth, all theology is founded upon and a response to God's revelation, which is seen ultimately in Jesus Christ.

Now, at this point, my thought was that if Barth saw Jesus Christ as the only presupposition for Christianity, it seems surprising that he didn't attempt to engage more fully in New Testament studies surrounding Christ's life, death and resurrection. But my professor quickly rebuked me for that assertion! :-) Barth was not interested in the "historical Jesus" or any other such evidentiary commitment. He was only committed to the revelation of God in Christ.

But this brings a couple of difficult questions to my mind. The first is whether Barth's insistence on presupposing the revelation of God in Christ without any subsequent presuppositions does not lead him to a sort of fideism that ends in a catch-22. Perhaps Barth would call it a paradox, and Christ certainly is that. But is this all that is left to us? Is there absolutely nothing we can say? Perhaps that is the crux of the matter: Faith in Christ involves being a witness in spite of the fact that you can really say nothing.

The second, and related, question is whether Barth's theology offers any real opportunity for genuine dialogue with other fields and other faiths. My concern is this: If we, as Christians, say that our faith is built upon God's revelation in Christ, and we need not acquiesce to any other inquiry or evidence, then there is no further room for debate. Which is perhaps theologically legitimate, but causes me great concern regarding the witness of Christianity in many cases.

What I mean is, Barth connects theology (and faith) closely with community and ethics. There is a proper sense in which Christians must rely upon the revelation of God to produce the fruit of the Spirit, which will be seen in the ethic of the Christian community. But when - as is very often the case - the so-called "Christian ethic" appears either non-existent or in such disarray that many Christians (to say nothing of non-believers) can make neither heads nor tails of the difference God's revelation in Christ has made in their lives, then what do we have? It seems of little use to stand on a foundation of presupposition-less revelation when the outworking of such a theology does not bear out in actual living. Is some amount of "realism," no matter how dirty that word may be for Barth vis-a-vis Niebuhr, needed?

These questions are bothering me, and I hope that I will gain additional clarity regarding these issues as the course progresses. I think Barth is definitely onto something, and I find much of great value in his theological perspective. I'm just not sure what to make of his intense commitment to presupposition-less theology. More posts to come...

quick update...

So, it's been a couple weeks since my last post, and that will soon change... I start the first of my "intensive" summer classes this week, and I am planning to post at least some of my thoughts and questions on this blog... so, if you're a reader here, get ready for some fun! (er, uh... yeah, fun!)

My first class is an audit, actually, since I don't need it to graduate, but I'm excited to take it nonetheless: Karl Barth and Evangelicalism, taught by Dr. Bryan Burton. I am not a Barth devotee, but I do appreciate a lot of what he has to say and have a deep respect for his theological acumen. So I'm looking forward to it. Stay tuned!

Geoff

the mystery of faith...

"Sometimes it feels like pure make-believe... I have faith. I lose faith. I find faith again, or faith finds me, but throughout it all I am grasped by the possibility that it is all true: I am in good hands; love girds the universe; God will have the last word. Believing that, I interpret my life and the life of the world in a different way."
- Barbara Brown Taylor

Jesus: the bigger picture...

Some of you are probably familiar with Mars Hill Church, the large, "interdenominational" mega-church located in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle. They have grown extensively over the last 10 years, and now have several "satellite" locations as well in the Seattle metro area. This is due in no small part to the fiery preaching of Mark Driscoll, who founded the church and is their primary teaching pastor.

Driscoll has been a source of controversy ever since the church's beginning, with his "edgy" and sometimes antagonistic methods of communication, and his penchant for combining cultural progressiveness (i.e. cussing and tattoos are ok) with a strict conservative reading of Scripture (i.e. women should not be pastors, etc). The latest flap is over an apparently unintended lightning rod in the form of a video on church planting. (if you are interested, you can watch the video here.)

I have struggled over the past few years with the proper way to respond to Driscoll's teaching, and to Mars Hill in general. There are many points where I disagree with his interpretations of Scripture, and I think his ways of speaking are often reckless and unnecessarily provocative. But I also recognize that many people, including several of my friends, attend Mars Hill and their relationships with Christ have grown as a result. So I try to temper my frustration with the recognition that God is at work in that community.

I guess what bothers me most about Driscoll (and the last 4 minutes of the video is a good example of this) is that he often paints an incomplete picture of Jesus. He loves to rant on about how Jesus was not a "herbal tea loving, yellow dress wearing, hippie..." But his own portrait of Jesus seems to be equally lacking: Driscoll imagines Jesus as a sword-wielding warrior, who has the physique of a body-builder and only eats steak medium-rare. This "Jesus-as-tough-guy" image fits in nicely with Driscoll's own agenda, which is to build up an army of young Christian men who are warriors for Christ, poised to take back the world from the forces of darkness.

There is certainly an aspect of Christ as "warrior-king" that Christians must pay attention to, and I am glad that Mars Hill is trying to reach out to the many disenchanted young men in our city. But Driscoll is still painting an incomplete picture of Christ. By downplaying Christ's compassion, patience and humility, and focusing only on Christ's toughness, Driscoll is presenting his listeners with a one-sided view of Jesus. Driscoll's Jesus may be appealing to those who desire a faith that will be bold and unapologetic. But Christ himself remained bold and unapologetic while still gently caring for people in a way that seems absent from Driscoll's image of Jesus.

Furthermore, it concerns me that this incomplete picture suggests an implicit approval of Driscoll's own behavior, rather than challenging the militancy and insecurity that seem to be at the root of so many of his statements. Is Jesus really at the right hand of God, sharpening a sword, getting ready to come down and slaughter sinners, and then laugh as the Christian warrior-men bathe in the blood of the heathen? Anyone who views Jesus even remotely in this way needs to pick up the Bible and re-read the Gospels. I also wonder whether Jesus is really worried by the fact that Christians are having fewer children, or really excited that Mars Hill has grown so large in such a short period of time. We all like to assume that growth of a ministry equals God's blessing. No doubt that is often true, but we should be careful not to infer from church growth that our methods and ideas are sound. Having a huge church is not an excuse for offering a false image of Jesus.

I believe that Mark Driscoll and all the leadership at Mars Hill love Jesus and desire to bear witness to the Gospel. What worries me is that, in their efforts to develop their ministry, they have settled for an image of Jesus that is incomplete. But I am thankful that God is working in each of us to daily draw us into a deeper, fuller knowledge of who Jesus really is. I pray that God would continually make me aware of who Christ really is, and I pray that for Mark Driscoll as well.

poor proof-texting strikes again!

I'm getting really tired of people using Romans 13:1-7 out of context, especially when it seems quite clear that they haven't carefully examined that passage of Scripture, and are just grabbing for a verse that props up a particular political agenda. The latest example comes from CNN's Lou Dobbs, who, in a recent op-ed, stated the following:

"A new coalition called Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Wednesday will begin lobbying lawmakers with a new advertising and direct mail campaign on behalf of amnesty for illegal aliens.

The Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine put it this way: "If given the choice on this issue between Jesus and Lou Dobbs, I choose my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ."

But before the faithful acquiesce in the false choice offered by the good Reverend, perhaps he and his followers should consult Romans 13, where it is written: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

Now, obviously, the immigration issue is complicated and there are good points to be made on both sides of the issue (surprise! Jim Wallis isn't always right!), but SERIOUSLY: Romans 13 has nothing to do with immigration! Has Dobbs even tried to put the passage in its proper context?

Read along with the rest of Romans, Paul isn't praising the government, he is merely pointing out that God has allowed them to be in power, and that Christians should seek to live peacefully in the land, paying their taxes, and not attempting to mount any armed insurrections. Paul is NOT saying that Christians should blindly support their governments, he is simply pointing out that Christians should not attempt to overthrow the government by force, because Christians are first and foremost citizens of a kingdom that transcends all governments, and that kingdom requires our allegiance above all else.

What's ironic, however, is that Dobbs' comments re: Romans 13 are implicitly anti-American, since, after all, our country was founded on the notion that no governing authority should have the final say without the consent of the people. Given that the majority of the people in our nation have always professed Christianity, if we were to follow Dobbs' logic and blanket use of the passage, the founding fathers should have acquiesced to the British monarchy instead of standing up for a free nation based on "liberty and justice for all."

Of course, I doubt Dobbs meant to imply anything like this. But it just shows the danger of taking a passage of Scripture and haphazardly applying it to whatever suits our purpose. This is a lesson that many people dealing in the political realm, Christian and otherwise, would do well to learn.

first sermon...

Yesterday I "preached" my first sermon ever, for my homiletics class. I guess it went well, but - as most people pointed out and I sort of already knew - it came across much more like a speech than a sermon.

The professor said I have a great way with words and can make a strong case for my ideas but I need to practice making it more receptive to a hearing audience, i.e., more simple, personable and palatable to the common man.

Good points, but at this stage in the process I think most people realize that my strong suit is probably teaching, not preaching. Not that there isn't a lot of teaching involved in preaching, but some people can speak in ways that are "sermon-esque", and some (like me) just have to work a little harder to stop using big words and trying to turn everything into an essay... hehe.

There are some really good preachers in my class though... great at creating a vivid picture and really pulling you into a story.

On a totally different (and more interesting for me!) note: I am also currently working my way through "Christianity and the Postmodern Turn", a book of essays written from various perspectives and rebuttals to those essays. It's interesting to see the tension built up between those who want to rationally defend the Christian faith (typically "modernists") and those who want to allow room for the possibility of different paradigms (typically "postmodernists") -- both sides make some good points, but at the end of the day, I think holding onto either side too tightly will result in frustration or defensiveness. Humility is always called for.

Maybe I'll post a review of the book sometime.