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.