Was Karl Barth Neo-Orthodox, and not
just Neo-Orthodox; but as many insinuate, was Karl Barth
The Neo-Orthodox? As I mentioned in a previous post (in passing), I was in conversation with a guy who is a missionary in Germany; and Karl Barth came up as a result of that conversation. My interlocutor asserted that Barth, as he understood him (as do so many American Evangelicals), was
The Neo-Orthodox theologian par excellence. And yet, by way of intonation, body language, and understood implication; what my interlocutor intended was to immediately shut down conversation by appealing to a caricature view of Barth by appealing to a caricature conception of what it means to be Neo-Orthodox. My retort to my interlocutor is that there is debate amongst Barth scholars whether or not Barth was actually Neo-Orthodox. Of course the underlying nagging question in all of this, is; what in fact does it mean to be Neo-Orthodox? Does it mean, simply, that this kind of theologian is a 'Liberal' demon, who denigrates a "high view" of scripture (read 'innerant'), and who probably isn't really even a Christian (if so, just barely)? Or should understanding Neo-Orthodox, definitionally, place more of an emphasis on
Orthodox; such that being Orthodox then becomes implicating of the Neo (and in Barth's case, his doctrine of 'Election' stands out here!)?
 |
| Emil Brunner & Karl Barth |
I have understood someone like Emil Brunner (a contemporary and interlocutor of Barth's) to be truly Neo-Orthodox, and Barth not really. My reasoning on this has been that Brunner left a place (anthropologically) for a so called 'Natural Theology' (and thus a place for a 'classical theistic' mode in his theology, and thus truly repetitive of the inherited 'Protestant Orthodox' mantle, theologically) in his prolegemona to his doing of theology; whereas Barth did not. And thus based upon this (and some other prolegemonological principle, such as Barth's dialecticism etc.), I have concluded, if in fact my thinking on definition for Neo-Orthodox is stout, that Barth really isn't Neo-Orthodox after all; because he rejects a place for
Natural Theology in his theological methodology.
For any of you, my Barthian readers, let me know what you think of my thinking on this ...
I just googled "neo-orthodox" and pretty much all the entries labeled Barth as Neo-orthodox. It could be that in the age of the internet, people (evangelicals) like your "interlocutor," have probably been following the quick info out there and not cared to split hairs or read his massive Dogmatics. Anyway who cares if he was or he wasn't, Barth is Awesome and if people don't want to read his art, they are missing out on something beautiful and encouraging. I don't think Natural theology is the one factor that makes one "neo-orthodox" though, the definition has to be more robust then that.
ReplyDeleteHi Kenny,
DeleteYeah, I know what you get when you google neo-orthodox as well :).
I don't care, ultimately; but it is a curiosity. And I actually don't think it has to be more robust, necessarily than the natural theology point; since that point is actually highly fundamental when it comes to framing one's theological method.
We'll see what some others I know might think (hopefully they will respond).
Thanks, Kenny.
Yes, you're right that the question of natural theology is what most divides Barth from Brunner, though Brunner's natural theology is Kantian (not Thomist or scholastic).
ReplyDeleteBut, as far as evangelicals are concerned, the nefarious thing about "neo-orthodoxy" is found in both Barth and Brunner: a denial of inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture in favor of a dynamic focus on the authority of the Word beyond and over Scripture. Likewise, we find this view of Scripture in Forsyth, Torrance, Berkouwer, Jewett, Ramm, and everyone else labeled neo-orthodox. So, this is what conservative evangelicals have in mind. The question of natural theology in Barth is not their biggest concern when it comes to denouncing "neo-orthodoxy" as a whole. Rather, they are targeting this "actualist" view of Scripture's authority, often denouncing it with the pejorative term, "existentialist."
Not to derail but a clarifying question over Barth and Brunnner's doctrines on the Inspiration of Scripture.
DeleteI've read on it before but I feel like I'm lost in the woods sometimes thinking I found a way out but in fact, only a clearing and then...more trees.
Question is thus: Why is understanding necessarily go contrary to the truth. That is to say, yes the Scriptures are meant for Christians for by the Holy Spirit we understand them. But why does this mean they can't be correct as they are? Does Barth deny not inerrancy (which really is kind of silly as articulated) and not infallibility? Why does the Holy Spirit speaking not necessarily mean that His spoken words are not true but to be understood they must be spoke anew?
Does any of that make sense?
I just don't see why that what the Spirit spoke is true and yet not everyone writing Scripture understood all that they wrote. The Holy Spirit is the Editor supreme of a multiplicity of books that say one message: Christ Jesus. Is this what Barth is saying?
I know it has something to do with being and becoming in the action of God. Perhaps one of you esteemed gents can explain it to me so I can determine (By Our Infallible Magisterial Wisdom! ;) ) whether Barth is a heretic, haha.
Thanks,
Cal
@Kevin,
DeleteI know, full well (unfortunately) how Evangelicals think of Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy; that's not really what I am after with this probing post ;). Instead, just curious how Barthians try to parse this. WTM (our compatriot) has emailed me with a link to an old post of his that I think way back then actually made me think about this at all---i.e. whether or not Barth was Neo-Orthodox. So I think I will post that and what Travis wrote so long ago, in the days to come. But, again, yes, I know how academic Evangelicals often think and caricature Barth; remember, I was educated in the hub of Evangelical Christianity :) (along with Kenny Chmiel, no less).
@Cal,
DeleteBriefly, Barth definitely does not deny infallibility! But for Barth, and Thomas Torrance (who I am even more familiar with), God's "inerrant" Word, can only be his own Self-interpreting Word, Jesus Christ. In short, though, the issue has to do with Barth's bigger 'theory of revelation' and its relation to God's own being in Christ. The goal for Barth is to maintain God's true sovereign freedom as LORD; which results (when applied to an ontology of scripture) keeping Revelation in actualistic and personal terms, and not collapsing revelation into created media (like logical positivists do). The ethical result of doing this (collapsing revelation into created media), has to do with humanity then having the capacity to have mastery over God. Why? Because if we follow the classic conception of revelation (as scripture), then man has determined and named what God's revelation is; instead of God becoming the epistemological ground of revelation in his own person, Jesus Christ.
There is more to be said, on this, Cal. But really it has a lot to do with Barth's prolegomena (his theological method), which really is Barth's doctrine of God (and election) and all the attendant implications of that for revelation/reconciliation etc.
You should p/u, if you can at some point, John Webster's Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Webster's book is an awesome constructive engagement of Barth's theory of revelation; really, Webster's book is his own statement (working from a rather Barthian perspective on revelation) on a doctrine and ontology of Scripture---which I claim as the best articulation of what I would affirm for such things.
I believe that prolegomena, in Barth, is only his summary preface before a given chapter. His methodology is the dialectic.
DeleteI agree about the natural theology point being pretty important, but "Neo-O"seems to be more fundamentally about the Transcendence of God theologically, historically it was a critique on the liberalism of the day, and philosophically had some of the same thinkers which influenced it's main theologians. So, with some of these these threads, I think Barth shares similarities with something which could be called Neo-Orthodox. Interesting post though.
ReplyDeleteKenny,
DeleteI agree with you!
Briefly, Barth definitely does not deny infallibility!
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, in the sense that the Word of God is infallible, but Scripture is not identified with the Word of God, in the way that conservative evangelicals have maintained. Torrance himself often emphasized that the Bible is transitory and finite, but the Word of God stands forever. Thus, Torrance's favorite term for Scripture is "witness."
By the way, I know you are aware of this. I am curious, however, where you currently stand on the inerrancy question. I am aware of your grievances (justifiable) with the literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic of evangelicalism. And I am aware of the extent to which you have appropriated Barth, Torrance, and Webster's theological hermeneutic, grounded in Christology. But, would you be willing to affirm with Barth that Scripture is capable of error of any sort and, indeed, that Scripture contains theological error? CD 1.2, p. 509, is one of the clearest statements by Barth on inerrancy. Of course, these passages cannot be isolated from Barth's high view of Scriptural authority.
Delete@Kevin,
DeleteYes, I am aware of the way Barth, TFT, Webster et al understand a theory of revelation, and an ontology of Scripture etc. But my point to Cal, on 'infallibility' had to do with the sense of authority that Barth & co. understand Scripture's witness to have (plus Webster goes further on this than Barth and TFT, and sees Scripture grounded a bit deeper down in God's triune speech etc than either Barth or TFT do).
Yeah, I've read that context and quote from Barth before, Kevin. I have recently written a post on where I am at relative to the inerrancy question (although I somewhat skirt your direct question here). Here's the link to that post: http://evangelicalcalvinist.blogspot.com/2012/04/my-thoughts-on-inerrancy-and-my.html .
I actually prefer not to approach this question in terms of an ultimatum, Kevin ;). I know Barth, obviously felt more free to write what he did about Scripture's fallibility (or "humanity"), as does TFT. And in one sense I can fully affirm the thought that Scripture itself is reflective of the kind of human language (an obvious correlate of being human) that needed to be redeemed ('all the way down' as TFT would say)---and that as corollary to Christ's assumption of a 'sinful humanity' in his incarnation---that Scripture remains part of that realm that remains in this "in-between" time of the now and not yet of the eschaton. But at the end of the day, while I am totally willing to affirm TFT's and Barth's understanding on the "humanity" of Scripture; I still have some sort of dialectical surplus in regards to a willingness to be as forthright as Barth is in his CD about this (after all, Kevin, I am still an American, and have been conditioned and grown up in a way with certain categories and emphases that Barth and TFT did not).
But again, I would rather just go with how I framed this in that post I just provided a link to; in a more positive way, and avoid the kinds of questions you just provided me with above :).
What is your view, Kevin?
Bobby and others,
ReplyDeleteKarl Barth was *not* a neo-orthodox theologian. It was the burden of Bruce McCormack's seminal 1995 work on Barth to demonstrate this, and ever since then no serious scholar of Barth can call him neo-orthodox any longer. It is a massive misunderstanding rooted in the Niebuhrian reception of Barth in America. But Barth rejected the term "neo-orthodox" explicitly and his theology has very different presuppositions and claims.
Hi David,
DeleteThanks! I agree with you, but I'd like to know why, in a nutshell, Barth is not neo-Orthodox? What makes someone neo-Orthodox, like Brunner; and then not, like Barth?
David,
DeleteI have only read the first chapter of McCormack's book (which is all I can get for free of it through my Nook). I would love to read the whole thing, but Multnomah Library doesn't have it; and I can't afford it, so I will have to wait. I'll take your word for it though, in re. to Barth.
Bobby,
DeleteI see you've posted Travis's comment. It's mostly right, but I would like to specify matters somewhat further. What neoorthodoxy did was to marshal certain ideas from Barth (mainly, divine transcendence, revelation as encounter), abstracted as static, stand-alone propositions, and use them to buttress the project of Christian orthodoxy within the modern era (hence the "new"). Neoorthodoxy is fundamentally ideological, in that it presupposes the validity of something like a Christian orthodox tradition. Having presupposed this tradition as something to be preserved and maintained, it then finds in Barth certain concepts that are useful toward that end. The reason neoorthodoxy is not dialectical theology is that the latter makes no such presupposition; it is in fact the total abolition of ecclesiastical presuppositions. Dialectical theology is a thoroughly destabilizing understanding of the gospel. Neoorthodoxy is basically a species of natural theology, in that it takes for granted something stable and given in the world -- in this case, the church. It is therefore no wonder that Barth and Brunner would fall out over that issue.
For these reasons, I demur from Travis on two points. First, existentialism as such is not a constitutive element of neoorthodoxy. It is only existentialism as it is welded to a certain kind of natural theology, as it was in Brunner's case, but emphatically not in the case of Bultmann. Second, I cannot help but see Torrance as operating within the ambit of neoorthodoxy. He did not engage in natural theology (I agree fully with Travis there), but it seems to me that he takes for granted a kind of ecclesiological givenness in the form of the orthodox tradition. That was precisely the underlying presupposition for his ecumenical work. And, conversely, it is why Barth cared so little about such ecumenical agreements: not because he did not believe in the unity of the church, but because such unity only exists in the person of Christ -- and the person of Christ is a reality that does not give itself to ecclesiastical and theological traditions. The saving event of Christ must always be an offense to those theologies that seek to sustain and prop up the tradition of the church. Orthodoxy, as Barth insisted, is only ever an eschatological reality. As such, there is no orthodox faith in history. And therefore there can be no neoorthodox theology.
Hey David,
DeleteThanks for this, I really appreciate your explanation; it is one that I really like and want to agree with. It is obvious how Barth's actualism is at play contra the kind of essentialism at play in something like neoorthodoxy as you have described it. And it gives me great joy that my hunch about a latent natural theology funding neoorthodoxy---pace your thinking---was not off, just not nuanced in the way you have done here.
Thanks, David. I will be posting your comment as a new post for anyone who was interested in this little question of mine; I think what you write is spot on.