KARL
BARTH
Dialectical
Christology
The Theology of the “Holy Other’
Karl
Barth- who has been hailed as the church father for the twentieth century and
undoubtedly one of the most significant voices of modern Christian Theology.
Barth condemned liberal theology for focusing too much on humanity and thus
replacing the traditional starting point of theology “from above” with an
approach “from below.” The background of Barth’s break with the liberal
theology came from, two sources- first, liberal theology was useless in his
task of preaching. Consequently he devoted his time to a careful, painstaking
study of Scripture. Later on he was writing his monumental thirteen-part Church
Dogmatics (1932-67). Second, liberalism
fails to make distinction between this worldly and transcendent agendas.
Starting
from his commentary The Epistle to the Romans (1918). He presented
“neo-orthodoxy,” ‘dialectical theology,” or “theology of crisis,”. This theology
continued the basic convictions of classical orthodoxy as presented in the
creeds and patristic and other theologies before the Enlightenment such as the
divinity of Christ and divine revelation; therefore, it was contrary to
liberalism. At the same time it was neo- “new,” a modification of orthodox
beliefs such as the doctrine of election and the Bible as God’s Word.
Christianity
is the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Such theology was called
theology of crisis because it depicted humanity as utterly desperate apart from
the sovereign election and redemption of God in Christ.
For,
Barth, God is totally Other. Barth describes this wholly pother God as the
perfection of divine love and divine freedom. The freedom of God’s love means
that God’s love is not necessary unless he freely chooses to love. The same can
be said of God’s freedom; it is totally free. God’s unlimited love and freedom
meet in Jesus Christ, who establishes the covenant of love that serves as the
basis for our salvation.
Christ in the Trinity
For
Barth, the Trinity is that which makes the doctrine of God distinctively
Christian. “The doctrine of the Trinity is what basically distinguishes the
Christian concept of revelation as Christian, in contrast to all other possible
doctrines of God or concept of revelation.” “The reality of Jesus Christ is
that God Himself in person is actively present in the flesh. God himself in
person is the Subject of a real human being and acting.
Barth
prefers the term “mode of being” (From German Seinsweise). God has only one personality and therefore to talk
about three persons is contrary to this principle. Barth notes that if Christ
were a distinct person he could not possibly act as God’s self-revelation.
The Ambiguous Nature of
the Humanity of Christ
To
him, the more challenging aspect of the person of Christ is the meaning and
value of Christ’s Humanity. He assumes a worldly form without giving up his
divine form. Barth assures us that God does not cease to be God in the
incarnation.
In
considering the humanity of Christ, Barth owes much to the thinking of Soren
Kierkegaard, the highly original Danish thinker. Kierkegard maintained that the
real contemporaries of Jesus were not Jesus’ contemporaries in history but
modern believers. Kierkegaard called ‘divine incognito” the fact that the deity
of Christ was thoroughly hidden in the humanity. Kierkegaard also taught Barth
that “truth is subjectivity” and he contrast the “objectivity” approach to God
and Jesus Christ with the subjective. In the Objective approach, God and Christ are treated as objects, facts to
be grasped intellectually and scientifically. In the Subjective approach, they are treated existentially and the
relation of the knower to the known is passionate, not that of an outside
observer.
The Mediator
Barth’s
theology is Christ-centered and saw the emphasis of the Bible. The role of
Christ as the mediator between the transcendence God and humankind comes to
focus in Christ’s dual role as the agent of revelation and of reconciliation.
Thomas and other medieval theologians had assumed with their “analogy of being”
conception that knowledge of God is an innate capacity within human experience
or human nature; in other words, they assumed an anlogy between creation and
the Creator. Barth repudiates this idea and suggests the principle of an
“analogy of faith”: knowledge of God and faith are possible only because God
graciously gives them in Jesus Christ, who is both God and human.
Jesus
Christ is the final and ultimate revelation of God and the focus of revelation.
The Word of God appears in three forms: in the person of Christ: in the written
Word, the Scripture ; and in the Word preached. Therefore, the final authority
of Scripture lies in the person of Christ.
For
Barth, Jesus stands between God and humankind as the mediator who brings
redemption and salvation. He became man to plead our case. Through his passion
and death, he reestablished the covenant between God and humanity that had been
broken, not only by the first human pair but by all of us. As the Son of God,
he had the authority to make this substitution and to permit his death.
An Electing God and
Elected Man
In
contrast to the traditions of Reformed position, according to which God has
elected some for salvation and others for perdition (double predestination),
Barth maintains that all God’s elective actions are centered on Christ and
Christ only. The passages that talks about election (Romans 9 and Ephesians 1
being the most important ones) have to be read christologically. When doing so,
one formulates a doctrine of election and predestination in light of God’s work
of revelation and atonement. By sending his Son to be incarnate God-man, God
revealed his will to save men and women, not tor eject them. The incarnation is
proof that God is for humanity, not against it.
Jesus
Christ, as the focus of God’s election, acts not only as an individual but also
as the representative of humanity. Jesus Christ acts in his dual role as the
elected man and electing God. AS the representative of the entire human race,
Christ has freely chosen not only to become a man but to become a man for us;
he chose the “reprobation perdition, and death” that was ours. Voluntarily, he
chose to be rejected by humanity and crucified on the cross. Thus, God elected
Christ to bear completely the pain and cost of redemption. God chose to accept
the cross and the lot of fallen humanity. Furthermore, God elected Christ to
take from us the judgment. Christ was rejected in order that we might not be
rejected. The negative side of predestination, which was to be ours, was
directed toward Christ.
Barth
uses the term ‘universal election.” All human beings are included in the
election of Jesus Christ by God. Because Christ was condemned on the cross for
our sins, no other condemnation follows. Not all are living as elected,
however, and it is the task of the elected community the church, to proclaim
that a person “belongs eternally to Jesus Christ and is not rejected, but
elected by God in Jesus Christ. And that he is appointed to eternal life with
God on the basis of the righteous divine decision.
.jpg)