Barth I.1 §3.1

In Church Dogmatics I.1 §3.1, Barth begins his discussion of the doctrine of the Word of God as the criterion for dogmatics.  He begins, not with the Bible, as most current evangelicals would do when discussing the Word of God, but rather, with preaching and the sacrament.  Preaching, or "proclamation" and the sacrament should, according to Barth, be at the center of the church's mission. 

Carrying over his sparring partners from §2, Barth continues to engage with Catholics and Protestant liberals over the issue of preaching and the sacrament.  For Barth, Catholics relegate preaching to the margins of the church while elevating the sacraments to the center, the one true means of God's grace.  On the other hand, in protestant liberalism, preaching is self-exposition.  As Barth writes:

"Proclamation as self-exposition must in the long run turn out to be a superfluous and impossible undertaking." (CD I.1 p. 64). 

Preaching and sacrament are the one place for Barth in which the church actively seeks to bring forth the Word of God.  Now, for Barth, the Word of God can come through various mediums.  It can come in theology, church instruction to youth, church social service, yet only in preaching and the sacrament, is there a true commission from God for the church to bring forth his Word.  In one of the few moments where Barth steps down from his esoteric language and engages in common speech, Barth writes:

"God may speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog.  We do well to listen to Him if He really does.  But, unless we regard ourselves as the prophets and founders of a new Church, we cannot say that we are commissioned to pass on what we have heard as independent proclamation." (CD I.1 p. 55).

Key here for Barth is that God's freedom is preserved, namely the ubi et quando visum est Deo (where and when it is pleasing to God).  God remains free to speak in any way and anywhere he so desires.  Yet, only in the areas of preaching and the sacrament is the church actually "commissioned" to proclaim the word of God.  For this commission, Barth goes to the "Great Commission" of Matthew 28, but does little exegesis on the passage.

A couple of notes about the current situation of the evangelical church.  1.  Preaching is certainly central, but I think you would be hard pressed to find many conservative evangelicals in the American conservative evangelical movement that would ever elevate preaching to the status of "Word of God."  Yet, Barth's counter part to preaching, that of sacrament, is largely neglected in the current evangelical church.  It would be rare to find an evangelical church today that takes communion as seriously as preaching.  Many churches only take communion once a month, some only once a quarter.  2.  Is the "Great Commission" truly the one commission that Jesus gave his church.  Sure, it was the last, at least according to Matthew.  Are there not many other "commissions," things that Jesus called his church to do?  How about Love your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.  Is not this a "great commission" for the church, yet certainly preaching does not cover all of the churches activities that might fulfill this commission.  I have seen many "Great Commission" oriented churches that neglect many other parts of Christ's message.  So, is Barth correct in claiming that only in preaching and the sacrament is the church "commissioned" to bring forth the Word of God. 

One more thing: though I have read some other Barth, and think I have a fairly firm idea of what Barth means by the term "Word of God," he uses the term throughout this section and never gives a satisfactory definition of what he means.  Why not start with a firm definition of what Word of God means to Barth before he talks about preaching as the primary vehicle for the church proclaiming the Word of God?

Apostolic Succession

In the period between the apostolic age, when the church was more or less dependent upon the apostles for their sense of right belief, and the age of Constantine when the church began to look to church councils to the determine doctrine, there was an epoch of strife between certain forms of belief.  In this period, where did one turn to find authority on matters of Christian belief and practice?

I brought up this question with my freshman students this last class period, and the first answer they gave was, "read the Bible."

There are multiple reasons why this was not the primary answer given in the early church. 

In order to read the Bible several conditions have to be met:

1) There has to be a Bible.  Though all of the books of the NT had been written, there was no canon per se. Part of the whole controversy is deciding which books were authoritative and which were not.
2) You have to be able to read, which most of the early Christians could not.
3) If you can read, you have to also have enough money to buy a copy of the scriptures, or pay a copyist to copy one for you. You couldn't just walk down to Barnes and Noble and pick up a copy of the Bible.

And one more reason why scripture did not automatically guard right belief was that the heretics used scripture just as much as the orthodox did. 

Therefore, where early Christians turned more often amidst debates about doctrine were the church leaders.  Careful consideration was given to appointing church leaders who could faithfully carry on right teaching.  Even more than this, there was some emphasis put on who discipled certain leaders.  This led to an emphasis on apostolic succession.  In its most basic form, this meant that one could trace a certain leader's spiritual lineage back to one of the disciples.  In a very specific form this meant that one leader could trace back his discipleship lineage to Peter, the original "Bishop" of Rome.

Interestingly, though in its Roman Catholic form, this appeal to authority is often thought to be a later development.  Indeed, in say the second century one cannot even speak of a Roman Catholic Church in the same sense as it existed after Constantine.  Yet, the seeds of this appeal to the authority pf the bishop of Rome has very early roots.  Consider Irenaeus, late 2nd century, who listed the first thirteen Bishops of Rome, including Peter himself.  Irenaeus writes:

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3).

Interesting stuff!

Bodies and Souls

Yesterday I posted about gnosticism.  Today, I want to follow that up with a couple of links. 

Inherent in any gnostic system in which the world is divided into two parts, that is,the evil physical reality and the good spiritual reality, is the necessary corollary that humans are also divided in this way into our bodies and our souls, the soul being the essential "me" and that which lives on after death. 

I have discussed this view of the human in a multi-part series earlier which you can find in the following links (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 4b, and Part 5)

Also, my wife had a great quote about bodies on her blog today which you can find here.

Gnosticism and the Hydra

Gnosticism is a fascinating topic to me. What makes its lure so great?  What made it such a formidable challenge to the early Christian church?  Why does it capture the imagination in pop culture?  Think of movies like the Matrix, the Da Vinci Code, and Vanilla Sky. 

Gnosticism is like the hydra, cut off one head, and others regrow to take its place.  When you think you have finally defeated the monster, it comes back with a vengeance. 

I think one of the most alluring aspects of gnosticism is its individualism and self centered nature.  At its heart, gnosticism is about individual salvation through some esoteric knowledge.  Therefore, gnosticism is self flattering, "I have this special knowledge that is not given to the masses.  I am special, I figured it out." 

A second alluring aspect of gnosticism is its conspiratorial nature.  In gnosticism, this world is illusory.  Humans are kept prisoners in this world by the conspiratorial powers that be.  Conspiracy, in itself is tantalizing.  While I am no conspiracy theorist, I at least find them interesting.  I like listening to people's conspiracy theories, even if I rarely buy into them.  The conspiracy of gnosticism, that this world itself is the big conspiracy, is fascinating; it is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

Gnosticism, though officially "defeated" in the first few Christian centuries through scripture, creeds, and orthodox writings, never really disappears for the church.  It is always a tempting alternative, or perhaps one should say additive to the mission of the local church.

I remember when the movie the Matrix came out.  I loved it, the parallels with Christianity were unmistakable.  Neo, the savior  figure, defeating enemies, leading a small community to salvation.  Yet, the movie is unadulterated gnosticism.  This world (i.e., the matrix) is illusory.  Only through special knowledge (i.e., that the matrix is a computer construct) can one be freed to join the real world.

I remember a sermon that I heard about the same time.  The preacher stood up on the stage and waved his shod foot around and asked, with regard to his shoe: is this me?  Of course not.  He took off his shoe and wiggled his socked foot around.  Is this me?  Of course not.  He took off his sock, and wiggled his now bare foot: is this me?  Of course not.  This body is just a shell for the true me, my soul.  This guy was a total gnostic.  He didn't know it, I think his motives were right, but the lure of gnosticism had caught him to. 

As Christians, it is important to affirm this created order, that God created the world good.  Sure, there has been evil and corruption, the world did not continue in its pristine created state.  Yet, the answer is not a gnostic escape from this created order, but rather the promise of new creation, of a restoration of the cosmos to its rightful place, the time when God will redeem all that is wrong with the world.  As John writes,

Rev. 21:1  Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
Rev. 21:2 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev. 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
    “See, the home of God is among mortals.
    He will dwell with them as their God;
    they will be his peoples,
    and God himself will be with them;
Rev. 21:4     he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
    Death will be no more;
    mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
    for the first things have passed away.”

Martin Luther King Jr. Scholar? (Repost)

(On this Martin Luther King Day, I offer this repost, originally posted this last Spring)

When I think of Martin Luther King Jr. I think of a great speaker, civil rights activist, a Baptist Minister, a rhetorician, a non-violent protester, a martyr, and other such titles, but I do not think of a scholar. Upon a re-reading of his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" I will have to re-think my judgment.

A letter such as he wrote would be nearly impossible today, even from a scholar. As I was re-reading the letter in preparation for my yearly lecture on the Civil Rights Movement in my Christian Heritage class at Baylor University, I was struck by one thing that I had not noticed before. Sure, I have always noted King's ability to weave words into powerful figures of speech as a means of persuading his audience. Sure, I have noticed his empassioned plea for racial equality. Sure I have noticed his well reasoned defense of non-violent resistance. Yet, I had never noticed the depth and breadth of his scholarly knowledge.

King, from a prison cell without any source material rattles off quotes from a surprisingly diverse group of scholars. Among his citations are a comparison of himself to Socrates acting as a social gadfly from Plato's Apology, Augustine's claim that "an unjust law is no law at all," a comparison of segregation to a reduction of human relations to Martin Buber's "I-it" relationship, and a comparison of segregation to Paul Tillich's definition of sin as separation.

Moreover, King, in a masterful rhetorical argument of ethos, does not shy away from calling himself an extremist and quotes several famous extremists of the past, such as Jesus, an extremist for love, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.." Amos, an extremist for justice, "Let Justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Paul, an extremist for the gospel, "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Martin Luther, " Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." John Bunyan, "I will stay in Jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." Abraham Lincoln, "This nation cannot survive half slave half free." Thomas Jefferson, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

King wrote this masterful work from prison, drawing on and often quoting great leaders and scholars from over 2400 years of human history. Add one title to the list of those attributed to Martin Luther King Jr: Scholar!

Barth I.1. §2

In Church Dogmatics  I.1. §2 Barth takes up the question of a prolegomena to dogmatics.  By prolegomena, Barth means to lay out the foundation for a "way of knowledge" for dogmatics. 

His first question is whether a prolegomena is indeed necessary.  Barth answers in the affirmative, but only after a lengthy argument.

First, Barth deals with the issue of prolegomena taking the form of apologetics.  Should a theologian seek to argue for the faith on the basis of human reason, as a way to confound unbelievers and thus lay a rock solid foundation for dogmatics.  Barth answers in the negative.  For, to do so takes one away from the task of dogmatics itself, and takes unbelief far too seriously. 

On the contrary, only other faith, or other belief ought to be taken seriously, that is that only heresy in which one can discern a true faith in the "other" should serious debate take place.  And for heresy, Barth finds that only with the reformation does a true heresy become a real possibility for the church.  Barth writes:

"That only since the reformation has heresy become a generally and fundamentally experienced problem.  If there was nothing new formally, it was something quite new materially that the Evangelical Church of a Luther or Calvin should see heresy in the Papacy and Roman Catholicism of the 16th and 17th centuries and vice versa. It was then for the first time that the Church learned what is meant by divergent faith."  (CD I.1 p. 35)

That is, only with the divergence of Roman Catholicism and Protestant theology were there two divergent faiths that must deal seriously with one another.  It is for this reason that Barth believes that only after the reformation is there a real need for a prolegomena to dogmatics.

Barth then moves to his second question, and that is of the possibility of a prolegomena to dogmatics.  To illustrate this possibility, Barth plays his Evangelical way of thinking off of the Evangelical Faith's two sparring partners, the theology of modernists and the theology of Roman Catholics.  These are the two "heresies" in which the Evangelical recognizes faith, a heretical faith, but nevertheless one which must be taken seriously.

On the one hand, Barth finds a problem with modernist (By which I take him to mean protestant liberalism, embodied most fully in Schleiermacher) prolegomena to dogmatics in that they find their foundation for the way of knowledge in dogmatics in an "anthropological prius."  By this "anthropological prius" Barth is referring to a dogmatics based on a way of knowledge found in the fact of the existence of humans.  The existence of humans becomes the basis for knowledge of the divine.  That is, in fallen humanity, there is some "point of contact" with the divine.  From this point of contact, one can then construct a dogmatics or true talk about God.  Barth utterly rejects this notion of an "anthropological prius."

On the other hand, Barth finds a problem with Roman Catholic prolegomena to dogmatics in that they find their foundation for a way of knowledge in scripture, church tradition, and living Catholic teaching through the infallibility of the Pope.  Barth takes issue with this foundation for true talk about God, in that he sees the free act of God and the reality of the Church bound up in the human institution of the Roman Catholic Church as a limitation of the true God.  God is no longer free to act after being institutionalized and subjected to the Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, Barth finds only one foundation for a way of knowledge of true talk about God, and that foundation is the Word of God itself.  Now, the next section in CD will be an elucidation of Barth's doctrine of the Word of God, so I cannot speak fully on this doctrine at this moment.  Yet, it is clear that for Barth, the Word of God is not merely equal to holy scripture, just as it is not bound up in Roman Catholic Church tradition or teaching.  The Word of God is the free revelation of God to humans, it is an event.  For, as Barth himself summarizes his thoughts on a prolegomena to dogmatics:

"The place from which the way of dogmatic knowledge is to be seen and understood can be neither a prior anthropological possibility [contra modernists] nor a subsequent ecclesiastical reality [contra Roman Catholics], but only in the present moment of the speaking and hearing of Jesus Christ Himself, the divine creation of light in our hearts." (CD I.1. p. 41).

Orthodoxy

So we begin.  This marks the first week of my Christian Heritage class where I get to complete the story that I began to teach in my Christian Scriptures course.  The story of Christianity is incomplete if one reads the Bible and then skips to today.  There are nearly 2000 years of Church history that intervene, and we cannot understand our own place in the Christian story if we do not know what has happened between the time of the Bible and the present.

One of the first things that comes up in a discussion of early Christianity is the issue of orthodoxy and heresy.  What is orthodoxy?  What is heresy?  Who decides?

Walter Bauer and Barth Ehrman have set forth a reconstruction of early Christian history in which Christianity was made up of incredible diversity.  There were numerous vibrant groups of Christians with divergent views about God, Christ, the church, salvation, etc.  These groups existed side by side, often in debate, but none of these groups having the theological upper hand.  Only after the rise of Constantine in the 4th century and the subsequent squelching of all but one strand of Christian faith was there an imposed unity of orthodoxy.

Contra this opinion are writers such as H.E.W. Turner, Andreas Kostenberger, and Michael Kruger (I have read Turner, and look forward to reading Kostenberger and Kruger's The Heresy of Orthodoxy) who argue that while there was some diversity in pre-Constantinian Christianity, there was more or less a norm of Christian belief which could then be used as a standard to judge heretical elements.

What we know for sure is this: pre-Constantine we do have evidence of diversity in Christianity.  This cannot be denied since we have the literature from groups with divergent beliefs.  What we do not know is the extent to which these groups had a following.  Besides what could be labeled as proto-orthodox writings (that is, those in line with what was later to be deemed orthodox), which had a wide distribution and following, we do not know to what extent other writings were influential.  For example, the gnostic writings found at Nag Hamadi, while fascinating, may not have had much influence at all on the vast majority of Christians. 

Here's what D.A. Carson has to say about this view of heresy and orthodoxy in the pre-Constantinian period. (from blurb on the back of Kostenberger and Kruger's book The Heresy of Orthodoxy).

“In the beginning was Diversity. And the Diversity was with God, and the Diversity was God. Without Diversity was nothing made that was made. And it came to pass that nasty old ‘orthodox’ people narrowed down diversity and finally squeezed it out, dismissing it as heresy. But in the fullness of time (which is of course our time), Diversity rose up and smote orthodoxy hip and thigh. Now, praise be, the only heresy is orthodoxy. As widely and as unthinkingly accepted as this reconstruction is, it is historical nonsense: the emperor has no clothes. I am grateful to Andreas Köstenberger and Michael Kruger for patiently, carefully, and politely exposing this shameful nakedness for what it is.”

—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (HT Rod Decker and NT Resources Blog)

 So, which reconstruction of early Christian history do you find most persuasive?