Excerpts
"The community in and for which I have written [The Church Dogmatics] (pardon the anachronism) is that of the Church."
"Am I not aware of the lack of connexion between what fills the heads and hearts of all to-day and what I seek to set forth as stimulating and important in these pages? Am I not aware how probable it is that from large circles of those accustomed to take notice of theological work in general the cry will arise afresh that stones are being offered instead of bread" (I.1, xv).
"I believe that it is expected of the Church and its theology--a world within the world no less than chemistry or the theatre--that it should keep precisely to the rhythm of its own relevant concerns, and thus consider well what are the real needs of the day by which its own programme should be directed. I have found by experience that in the last resort the man in the street who is so highly respected by many ecclesiastics and theologians will really take notice of us when we do not worry about what he expects of us but do what we are charged to do."
Exploration
It seems that Barth not only wanted to avoid conforming to the beliefs or opinions of unbelievers but wanted to avoid even addressing their questions. At first, this might seem almost too ecclesiocentric, disconnected, even hubristic, but I think it was necessary on at least two counts. First, to be timeless requires a certain degree of irrelevance (at least in the immediate sense). Barth was attempting to offer a positive statement of the Church, not a reaction to the specific situation of the Church (or world) in his time. This required a conscious and necessary (if realistically only partial) removal from anything situational. Such reactions in theology always begin with the problem for which theology simply becomes solution--a means to an end. This does not mean that such solutions are necessarily wrong or untrue, only that they are restricted to time and conditions and are vulnerable to being absolutized (as has happened in so many Protestant denominations, whether Lutheranism, Methodism, Quakerism, whatever) and treated as the theology of the Church, which eventuates either religious adherence thereto or religious reaction thereagainst. Second, contextualization does a disservice to the Church (and the world!) when it tries to make Jesus more attractive, more acceptable than he made himself. We proclaim the Gospel on its own terms, because it can only be received on its own terms. Only as such can we make the audacious assumption that God will be present in our proclamation, because only then are we actually participating in his divine commissioning. If we persuade people to respond to our modified version of the Gospel, then it will be up to our modified version of the Gospel to save them. As my grandfather used to say, "What we win people with is what we win them to." We shouldn't assume, in any case, that anyone will even care to hear our message unless God is at work in them. And if he is at work in them, then the Gospel will be precisely what they will to respond to. Indeed, we need to always maintain a theology of shaking the dust off off our feet.
The world will be more impressed with our faithfulness than our arguments. Our greatest apologetic is our unabashed proclamation of Christ crucified.
2 comments:
JS,
It seems to me that KB addressed a lot of the issues of his time. Yes, he writes from within the Church, so his discussion isn't ruled by external agendas. But even his refusal to let the empirical sciences determine what "science" is for the Church also contains a rebuke to them, that their certainty in deciding what is or is not science has a quasi-religious" (his word) character, and that their tradition of epistemology is not the only one out there.
John
John, I guess I see Barth speaking rather innocuously regarding the sciences (at least in the beginning of I.1), even conceding that they often offer demonstrate "praiseworthy fidelity" in the pursuit of "their own axioms and methods." I understand him to be saying that those sciences are acceptable when they (1) meet the demands of scientific method (cf. CD I.1, 8) and (2) are used for their own ends. However, the Church's "science", "as regards method, has nothing to learn from them." I assume this is because science begins with empirical data, whereas the Church begins with faith. The truth it embraces as truth is irretrievable and inaccessible in virtue of its infinite and eternal nature, and therefore must be self-authenticating, if it is indeed true. For since theology claims to speak of God, it must at once concede that it speaks of something about which it can make no definitive judgment. Theology must therefore begin in faith.
I may be misunderstanding you. I think I would agree that KB would critique science if it claims that it (as though there is a singular thing that is "science") is the only epistemology out there. But I think Barth, while showing that theology is the Church's science alone, at the same time wanted to make it clear that theology is fundamentally and presuppositionally distinct from all other sciences.
I'm not sure where we are in disagreement.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment