It's now or never

What better way to begin a post on the task of prolegomena to dogmatics than with  Elvis singing 'Now or Never'. (I apologize for any advertising this may include for products you really don't need). The lyrics include this reflection;-

"When I first saw you, With your smile so tender, My heart was captured, My soul surrendered, I'd spend a lifetime, Waiting for the right time, Now that your near , The time is here at last."

In Chapter 2 Barth is concerned with the presuppositions that are made before embarking on the dogmatic task. After much rebutting and reflecting he concludes that “... the place from which the way of dogmatic knowledge is to be seen and understood can be neither a prior anthropological possibility nor a subsequent ecclesiastical reality, but only the present moment of the speaking and hearing of Jesus Christ Himself, the divine creation of light in our hearts” (p41).

The 'prior anthropological possibility' he rejects is what he calls the 'modernist' view that assumes the human mind to be the basis of all knowledge, with or without reference to God. The 'subsequent ecclesiastical reality' is the Catholic idea that Christianity can only be interpreted though 'The Church'. He suggests that the only true basis for the dogmatic task is the work of God's Spirit in the present, as a reality that reveals God's truth to us. Hence my Elvis quote "I'd spend a lifetime, Waiting for the right time, Now that your near , The time is here at last." Yes, I know Elvis is talking about a romantic relationship, but the line 'My heart was captured, My soul surrendered'  could have come from many a modern praise song or Revival hymn.

George Hunsinger has an introductory book about reading Barth that is helpful in giving an overview of some of the concepts that Barth returns to and which undergird much of his thought. He talks of six motifs or patterns which shape Barth’s thought. These are helpful in attempting to understand Chapter two! 

• Actualism – Actual events of God’s action in history shape reality as we experience it. E.g., We understand history by how God has actually acted; we do not interpret how God has acted through a general theory of history.
•  Particularism – The particular and concrete logically and theologically precedes the general and the abstract. E.g., the Incarnation in its unique particularity must inform the general nature of humanity; a general theory of humanity does not inform the particular nature of a human named Jesus.
• Objectivism – Theological claims must be shaped by the object they seek to describe. E.g., God must be spoken of in terms of how he himself objectively presents himself (“reveals” himself) to us.
• Personalism – Knowledge of God is knowledge of God as one who is to be known as a “personal” being and not merely as a “control belief.”
• Realism – Language about God is based on Scriptural language that is neither “literalist” (theological language cannot be equated directly to God) nor “expressivist” (theological language is not merely that which is expressed when thinking about God), but a “real analogy” to God.
• Rationalism – the mystery of God can be coherently spoken of without needing to comprehend God; i.e., theology is a “rational wrestling with mystery.”

It appears that one of Barth's concerns is that being over concerned with where we begin the journey may be a distraction from actually making the journey itself. Apologetics or polemics can  become a distraction from the true dogmatic task. To quote from a blog  I discovered that had been posted by the 'Karl Barth Society of Amherst' (who knew there were such an organization?):-

' Theology which does its own job will be the best apologetics. If prolegomena are needed, the necessity arises, not in relation to unbelief, but in relation to error in the church itself. Alongside truth in the church there is also heresy. Dogmatics, having a primary concern for the content of the Church's confession and proclamation, must obviously learn how to distinguish between heresy and truth.'

I shall leave the final thought in this post to Barth himself. He assures us that if we read on that: "We shall see that the cardinal statement of the doctrine of the Word of God which we shall try to develop in what follows is indeed materially the same as the assertion of the authority and normativeness of Holy Scripture as the witness to divine revelation and the presuppoition of Church proclamation"

I know! We can't wait. Bring on Elvis... "It's now or never"....

Prolegomena is....

Introduction part 2 is titled 'The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics"

What is Prolegomena?

As Frankie Howard used to say in 'Up Pompei" ..... 'THE PROLOGUE'

According to the dictionary :-

1.a preliminary discussion; introductory essay, as prefatory matter in a book; a prologue.

2. Usually, prolegomena. ( sometimes used with a singular verb  ) a treatise serving as a preface or introduction to a book.

According to the theological dictionary...

 

Prolegomena simply means prefatory remarks. The Prolegomena of a systematic theology refers to the methodological questions generally found in the opening sections, dealing with the nature and task of theology and perhaps with the nature and focal point of revelation.

Karl gives us the statement 'By prolegomena to dogmatics we understand the attempt to give an explicit account of the particular way of knowledge taken in dogmatics, or, as we might also say, of the particular point from which we are to look, think and judge in dogmatics" (p25)

I fear Frankie would say "Titter ye not!"

It's science Jim, but not as we know it!

Chapter One continues with its discussion of 'The Church, Theology and Science'. As I understand it Karl suggests, in a very Captain Kirk manner, that 'Theology is a science Jim, but not as we know it!". The task of theology truly is a discipline and a quest for knowledge, but as that knowledge is related to God's self revelation it is subtly different to other scientific explorations.

We then move onto consider 'Dogmatics as an Enquiry'. On p16 he writes '(Thus) Dogmatics as such does not ask what the apostles and prophets said, but what we must say on the basis of the apostles and prophets"

Relating that to the task of preaching and preparing sermons (and teaching Scripture in general) the suggestion seems to be that it is not the task of dogmatics to critique the content, or to rewrite the text, but rather to take the text 'as is' and figure out how it applies in the now. Again he draws us back to the question "What should the church say about God?" . Well... what did the prophets and apostles say? And where does what they say apply in our contemporary situation?

There is a logical transition to the next section 'Dogmatics as an act of faith'. Dogmatics as a science requires the application of all our faculties (just as any scientific discipline does). Yet over and above that, it also requires Christian faith. (I'm back with 'It's science Jim, but not as we know it!')

"In faith, and only in faith, human action is related to the being of the Church, to the action of God in revelation and reconciliation..... without faith it would be irrelevant and meaningless" (P17)

I like the way that the whole task of dogmatics requires 'a pre-supposition of grace'. Without God's input it is a futile quest.

"It always rests with God and not with us whether our hearing is real hearing and our obedience is real obedience, whether our dogmatics is blessed and sanctified as knowledge of the true content of Christian utterance or whether it is idle speculation." (p18)

Dogmatics is a task that has to be conducted within an attitude of prayer. "We always seem to be handling an intractable object with inadequate means" (p23).

As Karl reflects on prayer, he writes P23 'We do not speak of true prayer if we say 'must' instead of 'can'. According to Romans 8:26 ( In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans) the way from 'can' to 'must' is wrapped in the mystery at the gates of which we here stand." 

He concludes the chapter with the words; 'Lord, I believe, help Thou my unbelief'.

 Chapter 1, 'The Task of Dogmatics' 'It's science Jim, but not as we know it!'. It's  a devotion and a quest and a pilgrimage that we are not called to make alone, but only in the presence and company of God, remaining completely reliant on God's grace.

So I will move onto chapter 2 'The task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics". The immediate problem is that I have no idea what a 'prolegomena' is.  Maybe I'll ask the assistant for one when I go to Wal-Mart. 'Two pounds of prolegomena please, with a dogma on the side". 

Say What?

So let us begin at the very beginning. Well not really... that would be the editor's preface and the authors preface, which are kind of interesting, but I always find them more understandable when I come back to them after I've begun reading a book. And if that doesn't make sense, then wait till you get into some of Barth's paragraphs LOL.

 I begin where Karl begins... by defining what the task of dogmatics is.

 'As a theological discipline dogmatics is the scientific self examination of the Christian Church with respect to the content of it's distinctive talk about God' 

At the risk of over simplifying a definition I think Karl is asking the question "What should the church say about God?"

He calls the quest both a 'science' and a 'discipline'.  This is not some random late night discussion on how many angels could dance on a pin head. This is digging down to the foundations.

He places that quest within the arena of the Christian Church. He's not trying to speak for every philosophy and religion that has ever or will ever be. His focus is on what the Church should be doing.

He uses the word 'distinctive' to suggest that Christianity has something to offer that is quite unique. Hence the need to examine ourselves (and our churches)... and see if what we are doing and saying is an authentic reflection of Christian faith.

p4, para 2 "It (the Church) puts to itself the question of truth, i.e., it measures its actions, its talk about God, against its being as the Church"

He recognizes theology as as inexact science. '...it is fallible human work' and dependant upon the grace of God.

Is he then just writing a great big book about the church? By no means. He describes Jesus as 'the being of the church'. (or as Paul said 'the body').His ecclesiology is totally Christocentric He asks.'Does Christian uttereance derive from Him? Does it lead to Him? Is it conformable to Him?

Some good questions there, to ask ourselves if ever we are teaching or preaching.

1. Where is my teaching coming from? Is this just me pontificating spiritual physcobabble, or have I genuinly received something from God that I'm passing on?

2. Who is it pointing to? Am I tyring to show how great I am at understanding the Bible, or how well I've mastered this particular area of life... or am I lifting up Christ? Who's taking center stage?

3. Would Jesus recognize that I'm speaking for Him? Does what I say reflect His love? His forgiveness? His justice? His mercy? Forget about WWJD... this isWWJS (What would Jesus say?)

That'll do for now! And darn it, I've only made it to page 4.

Some Videos about Barth

Theology as Fighting Talk

Back when I attended Aberystwyth Theological College in the early 80's I first heard about the theologian Karl Barth. In one of the small libraries, lining the shelf were his 14 volumes of Church Dogmatics. A collection well beyond my budget! But I did manage to get a couple of paperbacks that featured his work. His writing took me into a different world. A place where theology was argued with great seriousness and no conclusions were reached without deep reflection. Words that carried opinions about matters that had never even crossed my mind.

Then I learnt about the Barmen Decleration and the stand Barth made against Hitler. My dad was in the army in the second world war and, though we never spoke about it, I knew that somehow, if a nation of ordinary people hadn't laid down their lives, then I may never have been born. Even if I was, the world I would have been born into would be nothing like the one I experience today.

Until I encountered the Barmen Deceration I could never connect my Christian faith to the titanic struggle of a world war. In Barth I discovered a theologian, who through his words, laid his life on the line and sought to bring down a tyrant. Theology as fighting talk.

In the early 90's I heard that T.T Clarke had released his 14 volumes in a paperback edition. Well... could I jusstify the expense? Not right then. I'd just emigrated, was serving a small church in West Virginia and had two kids to put through college. So the dream of owning those 14 volumes I'd seen in Theo Coll years before was laid aside.

Then a few weeks back I received a Christian book catalogue that had them, in hardback, on sale for $129. (This was reduced from $995, a saving of $865). My current church allows me a study budget so I consulted with the treasurer and got the all clear. They arrived (from Christianbook.com) in a box this afternoon.

So now the journey begins. Now I get to dive into that unfamiliar theological world of the early twentieth century. It's not going to be easy. I may get lost from time to time. But I want to discover more about the belief system of a man who used theology as a weapon in opposition to one of the most evil regimes the world has ever known.

Blogging as I go seems like the way to proceed. If you have found this blog and wish to comment, then please do. It's going to be a lengthy journey after all!