• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The Theological Significance of Discipleship in Church Dogmatics IV/2 §66 Karl Barth’s vision of sanctification as a resource for Christian living at the “end of Christendom” A thesis submitted submitted to Charles Sturt University, St Mark’s National Theological Centre, the School of Theology, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2018 By Rev. Christopher C. Swann BSc University of New South Wales, BA (Hons 1) University of New South Wales, BD (Hons 1) Moore Theological College Abbreviations v Acknowledgements vi Abstract viii Prologue 1 Introduction 4 The contemporary convergence on discipleship 5 Discipleship and the “end of Christendom” 13 Discipleship as a resource for Christian living 17 1. Barth and His Critics on Discipleship 22 1.1. Discipleship in Barth’s theology of sanctification? 22 1.2. What do the critics say about discipleship in Barth? 25 1.4. Why (not) listen to Barth on discipleship? 35 2. The Context of Discipleship in Church Dogmatics IV/2 50 2.1. Christology and the context of discipleship in Barth 50 2.2. Sanctification as Christ-centred discipleship 55 2.3 Which Christocentrism? Whose discipleship? 70 2.4 A “lively Christology” for discipleship 80 3. The Content of Discipleship in §66.3 89 3.1. Discipleship means freedom 90 3.2. Discipleship as “formed reference” 100 4. Discipleship and the Shape of Correspondence 113 4.1. Discipleship and the shape of correspondence 114 4.2. The significance of construing correspondence as discipleship 122 4.3 Discipleship, correspondence, and Christian living 134 5. The Consequences of Discipleship for the Church 139 5.1. The “actualistic concreteness” of the church in Church Dogmatics IV/2 140 5.2. Mortification and discipleship-shaped moral agency 146 5.3. Solidarity and difference in the discipleship-shaped church 153 6. The Consequences of Discipleship for Christian Living 157 6.1. The “indirect directness” of moral action in Church Dogmatics IV/2 159 6.2. Good works and discipleship-shaped moral activity 162 6.3. Discipleship, “indirect directness,” and practical reasoning 173 7. The Consequences of Discipleship for Christian Suffering 178 7.1. Discipleship, “active passivity,” and moral suffering 179 7.2. Grace, character, and discipleship-shaped suffering 187 7.3. Discipleship, suffering, and the “ambiguities of liberation” 192 8. With, Against, and Beyond Barth on Discipleship 200 8.1. With Barth on discipleship 201 8.2. Against Barth on discipleship 204 8.3 Beyond Barth on discipleship 208 Conclusion 217 The theological significance of discipleship 217 Discipleship in Barth studies 218 Discipleship and Christian living at the “end of Christendom” 221 References 225 Certificate of Authorship I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge and belief, understand that it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at Charles Sturt University or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by colleagues with whom I have worked at Charles Sturt University or elsewhere during my candidature is fully acknowledged. I agree that this thesis be accessible for the purpose of study and research in accordance with normal conditions established by the Executive Director, Library Services, Charles Sturt University or nominee, for the care, loan and reproduction of thesis, subject to confidentiality provisions as approved by the University. Rev. Chris Swann 28 June, 2018 i Financial Support of the Research This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. ii Professional Editorial Assistance With the approval of my primary supervisor, professional editorial assistance was obtained from Rev. Dr. Chris Mulherin of The Public Sentence, 946 Canterbury Rd, Box Hill South VIC 3128 Australia. Rev Dr Mulherin proofread my entire manuscript. Rev. Dr. Mulherin has a Doctor of Theology in philosophical hermeneutics from the University of Divinity, Melbourne, and teaches at the Austrralian Catholic University in the areas of philosophical hermeneutics, science and faith, climate change, and academic writing. iii Publications Resulting from the Research To date, the following publication has resulted from the research in this thesis: • “Discipleship on the Level of Thought: the Case of Karl Barth’s Critique of the Religion of Revelation,” in Revelation and Reason in Christian Theology: Proceedings of the Theology Connect Conference, ed. Christopher C. Green and David I. Starling (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2018), 166–81. This paper derives in part from material in chapter 3 of the present thesis. iv Abbreviations CD Barth, K. The Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. in 13 parts. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–75. Unless indicated, all citations from The Church Dogmatics are to this edition and are included in the body of the text. KD Barth, K. Die kirchliche Dogmatik. 4 vols. in 13 parts. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1938–65. Inst. Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Edited by John T. McNeill. 2 vols, Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960. v Acknowledgements This thesis would not exist apart from the generosity and support of many. To begin with, I would like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri People of the Kulin Nation. I acknowledge them as Traditional Owners of the land upon which I live and work, and I pay my respects to their Elders, past, present, and emerging. I am privileged to name the staff and community of St Mark’s National Theological Centre and Charles Sturt University—not only the faculty members and students who took an interest in my work and provided me crucial feedback as part of the St Mark’s Postgrad Seminar, but also the library staff who packaged and sent out the books I endlessly requested. I am grateful for St Mark’s as a community of learners, scholars, and worshippers. For the welcome they extended, the flexibility they granted, and the kindness they showed—especially to a distance student who rarely set foot on campus —I am deeply appreciative. I am especially indebted to my supervisors at St Mark’s: Geoff Broughton, Andrew Cameron, and David Neville. Geoff has been my tireless champion, believing in me and my research even when I struggled with self-doubt. He consistently called me to “back myself” and recognise that engaging with Barth was the thing that gave me the most energy and sustained my interest in discipleship. Andrew provided an invaluable sounding board as well as a very long leash in the formative stages of my research. He also reined me in when needed, pushing me towards clarity and precision in articulating my thoughts. David’s warm encouragement, scholarly rigour, and mastery of the systems and policies of the university steered me to completion. Apart from my supervisors, who provided extensive, sympathetic, and critical input, I want to express my thanks to several others who read my thesis (in whole or in part): Michael O’Neil, whose support for me as an emerging scholar is a vi model I aspire to one day emulate; Andrew Errington; and Chris Porter. In addition, Rebekah Earnshaw, Sam Freney, and Mike Allen all read portions of this thesis and provided invaluable feedback—a natural though by no means expected extension to the friendship and support they supplied as part of my Moore Theological College study (and snorkelling) group, “Team Zissou.” After receiving such wide-ranging and close attention from so many, any remainng errors of substance, argument, and typography are my own. In addition, I am very glad to have had the opportunity to take part in two courses that enhanced my understanding of Barth. The first was Theological German with Janina Hiebel at Yarra Theological Union. The second was Classic Texts in Christian Theology, focusing on The Epistle to the Romans, with Ben Myers at United Theological College. For the provision of space in which to read, write, and think—as well as proximity to the sustenance of community (and coffee)—I am beholden to Ridley College in Parkville, who provided me a desk in their postgraduate study area, as well as Ampersand cafe in Thornbury, where the team endured my near-constant presence with good humour and something like affection. I would also like to mention a number of family and friends who cheered me on, politely enquired, and tolerated my preoccupation during these past few years. My parents Patricia and John Swann are always in my corner. My parents-in-law Diane and Michael Lauer are ever-generous with their support, hospitality, and willingness to wade into a household with two small children and two PhDs. Melonie and Piers Bayl-Smith, Georgina and Hugh Dircks, Megan and Phil Curlis-Gibson, Andrew Katay, Len Firth, and Angela Cook as well as many others have helped me more than they know. I am thankful for their friendship, prayers, timely words, kind deeds, and patience. Above all, however, I am grateful for Natalie, Benjamin, and Abigail—God’s gifts to me for my own discipleship and sanctification. You make me more human. Chris Swann June 2018 vii Abstract The theme of discipleship has become a significant focus of attention across a range of theological disciplines—from theological ethics to practical ministry—especially in the contemporary social context of the late-modern West, which some have described as the “end of Christendom.” This thesis will argue that a properly theological approach to discipleship yields significant resources for Christian living in this context. To this end, I demonstrate that Karl Barth’s “turn” to discipleship, in which he explicitly and extensively develops the image of discipleship as part of articulating his mature theology of sanctification in Church Dogmatics IV/2 §66, establishes the main lines for just such a theological approach.

Load more

  255

Copy Link