Was Karl Barth a 'neo-Orthodox' Theologian? The Third Time ...

For anyone who was interested in that question of mine a few posts ago – e.g. whether or not Barth was actually neo-Orthodox – well, another Princeton guy I know (a bit ;-), David Congdon has offered the lineaments of a really helpful argument for why Barth was not neo-Orthodox [and he also comments on where he sees T.F. Torrance on (or not) spectrum as well]. It gives me hope, relative to my own thinking, that what David iterates jives with my earlier hunch (i.e. that natural theology is definitive for whether or not something can count as neo-Orthodox, or not). Below are the two links to the previous posts on this, and then David's clarifying comment.

1st post & 2nd post

Bobby,

I 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. [David Congdon's comment, here]

To be as radical and 'critically-dialectically-realistic' as Barth, the theologian must endeavor to rub out any inkling of human mastery when it comes to knowledge of God in Christ. This is why Barth is known as a post-metaphysical theologian who works from his actualistic mode of theological endeavor.


Thanks, David.

Was Karl Barth really a Neo-Orthodox Theologian?

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 ...