Union Theological Seminary THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF KARL BARTH'S CRITIQUE OF LIBERAL THEOLOGY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Divinity at Union Theological Seminary Dr. James Cone and Dr. Gary Dorrien by Stephen Joseph Sarma-Weierman April 10, 2015 APRIL 10, 2015 CONTENTS THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF KARL BARTH'S CRITIQUE …................................... 1 Introduction: Karl Barth and the Mainline Church Today 1 Modern Protestant Theology and the Early Barth 5 Barth's Disenchantment 10 Barth in Dialogue 13 Rudolph Bultmann 13 Paul Tillich 18 Moving Beyond Liberalism and Barth 21 The Task of Theology: Some Preliminary Thoughts on Ecclesiology 26 The Failure of Liberal Theology to Become Liberation Theology 28 Supernaturalism Revisited 34 Re-Imagining the Church by Building Upon the Three-fold Word of God 36 Revelation and Mystery Revisited 44 Conclusion 46 APPENDIX I: ON THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF EDWARD SCHILLEBEECKX …................... 48 Schillebeeckx's Early Christology and Ecclesiology 48 Schillebeeckx's Later Christology and Ecclesiology 50 APPENDIX II: “APOLOGETIC” AFTERWORD …................................................................. 54 Bibliography …............................................................................................................................. 55 ii THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF KARL BARTH'S CRITIQUE OF LIBERAL THEOLOGY It is the contention of the author that all theology is both practical and incomplete. It is practical, in that it must be of service to the Universal Church and the faithful. It is incomplete in that it is always but a fragment—a small contribution to a long ongoing dialogue. The spirit of this work can be summed up in the words of Karl Barth: “The gospel is not a truth among other truths. Rather, it sets a question-mark against all truths.”1 In this fragment, I will begin with liberal Protestant theology and Barth, and I will end with the Church today, remembering that the Gospel of Christ holds a question-mark against this and all theological endeavors. The crisis facing the modern Church is undeniable. Many churches are dying. It is my conviction that the Church needs resurrection, not resuscitation. Introduction: Karl Barth and the Mainline Church Today The development of Karl Barth's theology – his disenchantment with liberalism and movement towards dogmatism, as well as the dialogue sparked by this development in the 20th century, speaks to the church of the 21st century. The Mainline Protestant denominations in the United States draw their theologies from the traditions established during the Reformation and strongly influenced by the liberal theological tendencies born out of the Enlightenment. The development of liberal theology after Barth has continued while holding him at arm's length. He is someone liberal theologians must wrestle with or go around; they ignore him at their own peril. 1 Barth, Epistle to the Romans. p. 35. 1 The work and historic context of Barth should be our cautionary tale. Here I will explore the influence of two great liberal theologians on Barth's early theology, and how German nationalism created in crisis in theology that led Barth to become a dialectical theologian. I will explore the dialogues that developed out of the “Barthian revolt,” in an effort to provide some insight into the shortcomings of liberalism and orthodoxy. I will argue that both liberal theology and Barth's dualistic theology must be transcended to be of relevance to the church today. Since my primary concern is the future of the church, I will conclude by offering the beginnings of an ecclesiology based on this work. Today's Mainline Protestant denominations in the United States have as their foundation the liberal theology born out of the European “Age of Reason.” The enlightenment movement in philosophy and the liberal movement in theology, from Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher onward represents a critically important development in Protestant theology. Martin Luther's doctrine of universal priesthood finds a deeper realization in Kant's enlightenment. The enlightenment signaled humankind's release from “self-incurred tutelage.” As Kant remarked: “Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction of another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.”2 Kant argued that clergy have an obligation to make the sermon “conform to the symbol of the church he serves, for he has been accepted on this condition.” In contrast to the scholar who has “complete freedom, even the calling, to communicate to the public all his carefully tested and well-meaning thoughts on that which is erroneous in the symbol and to make suggestions for 2 Kant, p. 286. 2 the better organization of the religious body and church.”3 However, in the Mainline church today, both clergy and laity find the ability to function as a scholar, neither fully confined by the symbol of the church, nor completely abandoning that symbol. While the clergy have a responsibility to both their superiors and their congregation to uphold the traditions of the church, both doctrinal freedom and freedom of the pulpit have liberated them to some degree. The only practical restriction one finds in the pulpit is to speak on those things that will, in fact, “preach.” The liberation of the preacher comes at a cost. She is no longer bound by the Word of God, but by the context of her congregation. If she is faithful to the gospel, she will preach it faithfully while being mindful of her congregation's context and how they can best receive the message. She is also free (or—in some cases—may find herself pressured) to preach another gospel. She may draw her cues from what her congregation wishes to hear, rather than what they need to hear. She may be pulled to that which corrupts the gospel, such as prosperity theology. The danger of the present situation isn't evident only in the “bad theologies” that manifest in various churches of all denominations today. The cost of rationalizing away faith has created in the Mainline especially the tendency to make the Church solely about engaging the causes of social and economic justice. As important as that work is, it has reduced the church to its social function. These days it's not all that shocking there are ministers like the Rev. John Shuck of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who claims the identity of both Christian and atheist.4 Sociologist of Religion Robert Bellah, in one of his final addresses before his death, argued that Liberal Protestantism has been eclipsed by its own success. Since the churches have 3 Ibid. p. 288. 4 Shuck, John. “I'm a Presbyterian Minister Who Doesn't Believe in God.” Friendly Atheist. http://www.pathos.com. Posted 17 March 2015. Web. Accessed 30 March 2015. 3 managed to infiltrate and transform secular society, they are in decline.5 Bellah writes: The “eclipse” [of liberal Protestantism] may be due to the triumph of liberal Protestantism. By so invading secular humanist culture that it lost its own distinction, it won, after all, by transforming secular humanist culture itself. There is more than a little evidence that most Americans, for example, would assent to unmarked liberal Protestant beliefs more often than to unmarked orthodox alternatives, and that this would be true not only for most mainline Protestants but also for most Catholics and even most Evangelicals.6 It is my contention that modern theological movement has, as a whole, attempted to subsume theology through philosophy of religion. This has caused many within the discipline to forget the humility and reverence in approaching the Divine. How often have we as theologians forgotten, in our zeal to pursue God and to love God with all our mind, that the totality of God is beyond our apprehension? Every theologian of merit acknowledges this limitation, yet in the moment we get caught up in the pietistic experience of doing theology, we find ourselves at risk of forgetting. We substitute the subject of our theology—God—for the form and content which points to that subject. “For now we see in a mirror, dimly…” (1 Cor. 13.12) Barth reminds us of this: The truth concerning the limiting and dissolving of men by the unknown God, which breaks forth in the resurrection, is a known truth: this is the tragic factor in the story of the passion of the truth. When our limitation is apprehended, and when He is perceived who, in bounding us, is also the dissolution of our limitation, the most primitive as well as the most highly developed forms of human self-consciousness become repeatedly involved in a 'despairing humiliation', in the 'irony of intelligence' (H. Cohen). We know that God is He whom we do not know, and that our ignorance is precisely the problem and the source of our knowledge.7 The task of theology calls us to meditate on the mystery of God, not in the hopes of unraveling it, but with the desire to serve God and to seek God and God's will for us. As we 5 Todd, Douglas. 6 Bellah, Robert N. 7 Barth, Epistle to the Romans. p. 45. Emphasis added. See also “The Word of God and the Task of Ministry” in The Word of God and the Word of Man. 4 engage this task, we must remember our own finitude, and that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1.25). In short, we must approach our task with proper humility. Modern Protestant Theology and the Early Barth Liberal theology, like most branches of theology, is not a monolithic entity, and to present it as such would be a disservice to its rich and diverse history.