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"....