Week3:Christologyagainsthistory

• ‘Dialectical’theologywasmorethanjustaresponsetofrustrationaboutunsuccessfulhistoricalJesusresearch.• RejectionofhistoryasmajorpointofreferenceforChristology/soteriology.• OftenframedascausedandjustifiedbyWWI,butmustultimatelybejudgedbyitsanswers.

1.Søren Abaye Kierkegaard(1831-1855)

KierkegaardReading

• PhilosophicalFragments(1844).Onlineat:http://sorenkierkegaard.org/texts/text7a.htm• ConcludingUnscientificPostscripttothePhilosophicalFragments(1846)• P.L.Gardiner,Kierkegaard,Oxford1988• A.Hannay (ed.),TheCambridgeCompaniontoKierkegaard,Cambridge1997• J.Howland,KierkegaardandSocrates.AStudyinPhilosophyandFaith,Cambridge2006.

KierkegaardII

• WholeheartedrejectionofHegeliansynthesis.• Dichotomyoffaithandknowledge.• Religioustruthisattainedassomethingalientohumans.→ Cannotbygainedby‘Socratic’method.• Ithastoacknowledgesin,theconsciousturningawayofhumansfromGod.• Thereforeitcanonlybetaughtbyateacherwhocanfirstchangethelearner→ Godhimself.

KierkegaardIII

• Godmustapproachthehumanbeingassomeonelikehim→Incarnation.• Thisisparadoxical,theAbsoluteParadox.• Causespolemicalresponse;onlyacceptedthrough‘leap’intofaith.• → Faithisalwaysmiracle.• Thereforenodifferencebetween‘first’and‘second’disciple.

KierkegaardIV

• Thefascinationofthis‘Christology’liesinitsfocusontheutterstrangenessoftheunionofdivineandhuman.• Also:no‘impartial’Christologypossible,onlyfaithwillgraspit(intimateconnectionwithexistentialistanthropology!)• NoconceptualisationoftheIncarnationassuch(it’saparadox!)

2.KarlBarth(1886-1968)

BarthReading

• K.Barth,TheEpistletotheRomans,1919,2nd ed.1921,ET:1933.• T.F.Torrance,KarlBarth.AnIntroductiontohisEarlyTheology,London1962.• B.McCormack,KarlBarth’sCriticallyRealisticDialecticalTheology.ItsGenesisandDevelopment1909-1936,Oxford1995.• R.E.Burnett,KarlBarth’sTheologicalExegesis.TheHermeneuticalPrinciplesoftheRömerbrief Period,Tübingen 2001.

Barth– earlytheology

• InfluenceofKierkegaard,Kant,ReligiousSocialism(andindeedpoliticalsocialism).• From1911pastoratSafenwil(Switzerland)• Breakwiththeliberalismofhisacademicteachersandtheirforebears(esp.Schleiermacher)• Majorcriticismoftheologysince18th century:puthumanityatthecentreoftheology,ratherthanGod.

BarthIII

• MajordocumentofhisearlyperiodishiscommentaryonPaul’sEpistletotheRomans• Barthallbutignoreshistoricalscholarship.• ReadsStPaulundertheassumptionthathewasspeakingofGod–theproblemswiththatwouldbethesamethenandnow.• Centraltenet(withKierkegaard):dichotomyofGodandman.• Christsignifiestheintersectionoftwoplanes,aknownandanunknown.

BarthIV

• ‘Thepointonthelineofintersectionisnomoreextendedontotheknownplanethanistheunknownplaneofwhichitproclaimstheexistence.Theeffulgence,or,rather,thecratermadeatthepercussionpointofanexplodingshell,thevoidbywhichthepointonthelineofintersectionmakesitselfknownintheconcreteworldofhistory,isnot– eventhoughitbenamedthelifeofJesus– thatotherworldwhichtouchesourworldinHim.’(29)

BarthV

• CombinationoftwoelementsfromKierkegaard:infinitedifferencebetweenGodandhumanity&Incarnationasaparadox.• Consequently,Christologicalfocusontheresurrection:• TheResurrectionistherevelation:thedisclosingofJesusastheChrist,theappearingofGod,andtheapprehendingofGodinJesus.TheResurrectionistheemergenceofthenecessityofgivingglorytoGod:thereckoningwithwhatisunknownandunobservableinJesus,therecognitionofhimasParadox…IntheresurrectionthenewworldoftheHolySpirittouchestheoldworld…(30)

BarthVI

• AttheresurrectionJesusis‘proclaimed’SonofGod(cf.Rom1,4)–thisisallthatmatters:• ‘[This]isthesignificanceofJesus,and,apartfromthis,Jesushasnomoresignificanceorinsignificancethanmaybeattachedtoanymanorthingorperiodofhistoryinitself.’(30)• Thecrucialeventisnotthe‘mergingorfusion’ofGodandman,buttheunveilingofthecomingKingdomofGod.

BarthVII

• Relevanceofeschatology(cf.Schweitzer!)• Barth:thismeantanexpectationofsomethingentirelydifferentfromhistory,notsomedramaticendofhistory.• RejectsassumptionofearlyChristian‘crisis’becausetheParousia,the2nd comingofChrist,didnotoccur.• Eschatologyisasmuchamatterofhopenowasitwasthen:

BarthVIII

• ‘Butthatdayandthathournomanknoweth– noteventheangelsinheaven,neithertheSon,buttheFather (Mk13,32).Donotourearsburnwhenwehearthis?Willthereneverbeanendofallourceaselesstalkaboutthedelay oftheParousia?…TheendofwhichtheNewTestamentspeaksisnotemporalevent,nolegendary‘destruction’oftheworld;ithasnothingtodowithanyhistorical,or‘telluric’orcosmiccatastrophe.TheendofwhichtheNewTestamentspeaksisreallytheEnd;soutterlytheEnd,thatinthemeasuringofnearnessordistanceournineteenhundredyearsarenotmerelyoflittle,butofnoimportance’.(500)

BarthIX

• BarthmanagestobreakawayfrommajorChristologicalpatternsofthe19th century.• Theliabilitiesoftheearly20th centurydiscoveryofeschatologyarevirtuallyturnedintoanasset.• Theocentric,notChristocentrictheology.• NotionoftheIncarnationpracticallyvanishes:Jesusisanoccasionfortheresurrectiontooccur.

MoreBarthReading

• K.Barth,TheHumanityofGod, London1967• MacCormack,Barth’scriticallyrealisticdialecticalTheology,Oxford1996,partiv• J.Thompson,ChristinPerspective.ChristologicalPerspectivesinthetheologyofKarlBarth,Edinburgh1978.• G.Hunsingerin:Webster(ed.),CambridgeCompaniontoKarlBarth• T.Hart,‘WasGodinChrist’in:id.RegardingKarlBarth,Carlisle1999• R.Jenson,GodafterGod,Indianapolis1969.

Barth’sLaterTheology

• Barth’sChurchDogmaticsisstrictlychristocentric.• ThereforeChristologycannotbelimitedtooneparticulartopic.• Howdoesitshapetheworkasawhole?• ChristocentricfocushasledBarthtonegativeandpositiveassertions.Thenegativeonesarebetterknown,thepositiveonesprobablymoreimportant.

LaterBarthII

• Majordecisionisrejectionof‘naturaltheology’.• AnyattempttospeaktheologicallyapartfromChrist(analogyofbeing;‘anthropological’theologyofliberalism)• Barthseesdangerofuniversalapproach→ Christianityisreducedtooneinstanceofamoregeneraltruth.• Instead,theologyoughttobeconcrete.

LaterBarthIII

• Revelationdoesnotmeanasetofpropositions,butbecomingawareofreality.• JesusistherevelationoftheWordofGodbecauseinhimoureyesareopenedtotherealityofGodandthehumanbeing.• Barththusisless‘orthodox’thanhasbeenclaimed.• Canbeseenasforerunnerof‘postmodernist’emphasisonspecificity(J.Derrida;cf.G.Ward,Barth,DerridaandtheLanguageofTheology).

LaterBarthIV

• FocusonJesusChristmeansthattheologyisbasedonthenotionofreconciliation.• Godrevealedhimselfasbeingalignedtohumanity.• Godrevealedthehumanbeingasexaltedtothedivineimage.• Theseareorthodoxcategories,butmodifiedwithinachristocentricsystem:• DoctrinesofGod,creationandFallcannotbearticulatedindependentlyoftheChristevent.

LaterBarthV

• TheconsequenceisthateverythingstandsunderthepropositionthattheworldhasbeenreconciledtoGod;sintrulyis‘nothingness’.• AlltheinitialnegationsoftheCDaremodifiedinlightofthisinsight:• InlightoffaiththeworldisfullofsignspointingtoGod.• InlightoftheChristeventthehistoryofreligionstakesonapositivesignificance.

LaterBarthVI

• HasBarthturnedwhollyidealisticandlefthisdialecticalphasebehind?• No,becauseGod’srevelationisatthesametimehisconcealment.• Wedonotgrasphisbeing,butseehissalvificwill.• IncarnationandreconciliationarenotnecessaryconsequencesofGod’snature(asinHegel),butGod’sfreedecisiontoalignhimselfwithhumans.• Therefore,theologydoesnotturnintoametaphysicsofalovingGod.