“Where the gospel is proclaimed, there too of necessity the fact will be proclaimed along with it that there are men who have heard and accepted the gospel.”
“But the fact that we believe can only be a secondary matter, becoming small and unimportant in face of the outstanding and real thing involved in the Christian proclamation—and what the Christian believes…”
“It is noteworthy that, apart from this first expression ‘I believe’, the Confession is silent upon the subjective fact of faith.”
“By the silence of the Confession on the subjective side, by its speaking only of the objective Creed, it also speaks at its best, deepest and completest about what happens to us men, about what we may be, do, and experience.”
The modern world, at least in the western part, emphasizes the subjective. What is “my” model of the world?
Richard Rorty, the philosopher, advises us that if we do not like the predictions that come from a certain model…well, just change the assumptions…until you get a model which produces predictions that you are more comfortable with.
Models or worldviews or stories or schema or anything we use to predict with are abstractions from the world. These “tools” are not the world, itself. Hence, as Barth has stated earlier, they are incomplete and, hence, fallible.
In this sense, all models fall short and we should constantly be on the look-out to modify our models when we do find that they fall short or develop new models as we discover new questions or new problems that must be answered. And, we modify our models or create new models by changing our assumptions.
But, this does not mean that we just willy-nilly change assumptions to meet our own liking.
Our models are not absolutely adequate. The theologian David Tracy argues that our models can only be “relatively adequate.” That is, models can only be supported based upon the fact that it is relatively better than other models.
What makes them better than other models? Tracy states that for a model to be relatively adequate it must be logically consistent for we do not want to get contradictory predictions from our models. And, the model must predict at least as well in a given situation as any other logically consistent model.
This second point is so important. The model must “work”…it must “work” at least as well as other models. It seems to me that Rorty does consider this as a way to judge whether or not a model is successful. All, he seems to consider about a model is its “subjective side”…do we feel comfortable with the predictions that the model makes.
Barth does not see things this way. We must, in choosing a model, be concerned about how successful the model has been. Barth is arguing that individuals need to pay attention to the “objective side” of a model…whether or not the model has been chosen by many people because of its ability to produce predictions that result in good choices, help in making good decisions, and help in solving more and more difficult problems. And, this objective side, the “objective Creed”, speaks “at its best, deepest and completest about what happens to us men, about what we may be, do, and experience.”
That is, the Creed, the Christian model or worldview, works!
The modern approach to this where the emphasis is placed upon the subjective is examined in the latest novel of Jonathan Franken, titled “Freedom”. He follows the breakup of a family that was a part of the “me” generation and pursued their own thoughts and desires. Relationships collapse in this kind of an environment. Only at the end is an effort to rebuild bridges, to re-establish connections, and to live within community. Relying just on subjective models and subjective decision making produces fragmentation.
Another stab at describing this is by John Updike in his novel “In the Beauty of the Lilies.” This story begins with a description of how a Presbyterian minister loses his faith. His Christian model of the world is questioned within the modern community and this questioning raises issues that the minister cannot really answer satisfactorily for himself. The next generation lives a “good” life based on the foundation of the Christian model, but without the “Christian” faith and theology. This is not an uncommon phenomenon and John Stuart Mill speaks about how societies can live off the consequences of the models of an earlier generation without subscribing to the foundational assumptions of that model.
It is the third generation that becomes lost in Updike’s novel. This generation does not have the “why” and so the external values accepted by the second generation do not resonate. Without the “why” the model, the worldview, seems empty. So, this generation begins to search, to try other models, to find something that brings things together. They are looking for a “transcendence” that is absent in the second generation. And, without a foundation, this generation ends up tragically…at least in this work.
Barth emphasizes the objective side of the Creed. The “model”, the worldview, is not mine alone, it is also the “model” of many others.
The emphasis is upon the “in”. I believe “in”… The Creed explains this “in”, this object of faith, by which our subjective faith lives.
If one attempts to preserve just the subjective element of faith, that person will lose it. That is, they shall lose the “human form of existence.” They become a part of “what is” and hence get wrapped up in the “how” when they are really seeking the “why.” Without the “why” all, eventually, becomes empty as in the Updike story.
Still, a word of caution. One totally submit oneself to the “objective.” Emerson’s concern still applies in that the individual must achieve a certain “self-reliance” and not completely lose themselves in the thoughts of others. Remember, all models, worldviews, stories, etc., are incomplete and fallible.
Thus, a balance must be achieved within each individual between the objective and the subjective. Where this balance is struck for each individual is, of course, dependent upon the individual themselves. The best advice on this point, I believe, comes from David Tracy. Tracy writes that a person should “start where they are” but be open. Start with the objective models, the objective Creed, but listen and respond, to build a worldview that not only works for you, but, as Stanley Hauerwas writes, works “with the grain of the universe.”
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Barth on Dogmatics--Commentary 3
“There would be no dogmatics and there would perhaps be no theology at all, unless the Church’s task consisted centrally in the proclamation of the Gospel in witness to the Word spoken by God.”
“Exactly halfway between exegesis and practical theology stands dogmatics…”
“In dogmatics our question is: What are we to think and say (and do)?”
I add the “and do” to the last quotation because, historically, the Church has gotten so tied up in what it says without backing up what is said by actions. I believe that this is what Barth is after in his work: the answer the question “How is it we should live?”
The initial form of the question fits more into the historical discussion of theology and dogmatics, but I believe this is the reason why we have focused on developing programs within the Church and not with developing missional activity. I define missional activity as living in a way that reveals the “image of God.”
This to me is what “the proclamation of the Gospel in witness” is all about. It is about living…which includes both speaking and acting. And, I believe, that by acting in a way that is more consistent with our speaking is a more powerful message than just telling other people what our message is. I believe that this is what Barth is telling us.
From this, one can interpret the statement that dogmatics is “halfway” between exegesis and practical theology. Exegesis can be defined as “explanation and critical interpretation” of, in this case, “the Word spoken by God.”
Princeton Theological Seminary has a Department of Practical Theology. This is what the Seminary has to say about practical theology and the mission of this department: “The Seminary’s mission is to prepare women and men to serve Jesus Christ in ministries marked by faith, integrity, scholarship, competence, compassion, and joy, equipping them for leadership worldwide in congregations and the larger church, in classrooms and the academy, and in the public arena.” That is, practical theology has to do with “where the rubber hits the road.”
If dogmatics is “exactly halfway” between exegesis and practical theology then one can see dogmatics at taking the model of the Church and transforming it into practice.
I use the term “model” here because “model building” is exactly what people do when they construct a “worldview” and that is what people, pupils or teachers, do when they go about exegesis. These people attempt to “explain” and “critically interpret” the Word of God. That is, they are building a “model”.
This model can, and should, be used in problem solving and decision making. That is what humans do best. A model is something that helps us to solve more and more difficult problems and to make better decisions.
Dogmatics represents an attempt to take a model and turn it into the proclamation of God so that it is used in solving problems and making decisions. Exegesis can become sterile and “other-worldly”. It can become useless in the sense that it bears no relationship to the lives that people have to live.
Dogmatics, as Barth is defines it, seeks to keep the proclamation of God relevant to lives, to make it useful, to change lives.
The proclamation of God has to do with what we do. Therefore, it must be alive and vital and meaningful. If the proclamation of God becomes irrelevant to the needs of people to problem solve and make decisions in the world they live in, they will seek other “models”.
Barth writes, “Outwardly, dogmatics arises from the fact that the Church’s proclamation is in danger of going astray. Dogmatics is the testing of Church doctrine and proclamation.”
We must continually “test” the relationship between exegesis and practical theology.
“The correction, the deepening, the increasing precision of what is taught in our Church can only be God’s own work although not apart from man’s effort. “
Thus, the question must always be, “What is the evidence?”
“Not the evidence of my thoughts, or my heart, but the evidence of the apostles and prophets, as the evidence of God’s self-evidence.”
I like the phrase that Stanley Hauerwas used for the title of his Gifford lectures, “With the Grain of the Universe.” This, to me, gives us the ultimate test of the proclamation of the Gospel. God’s Word should bring us into greater unity with His creation. If our speech and our actions conform with God’s Word then we should be in unity with His creation and we should feel this because our actions are “with the grain of the universe.” We are moving “with” creation and are not acting “across the grain” of the universe.
If our actions are not with the grain of the universe…we become dis-satisfied, and anxious and, sometimes, alienated. Things just don’t feel right.
This is why our “practical theology” must be in line with our exegesis. This is why we must continually test the waters. And, in this sense, this is why “dogmatics” is pragmatic. It must work. It must bring into alignment with the grain of the universe.
Models are abstractions. Yes, we believe that we have received “the Word of God,” but explaining the Word of God and critically interpreting how it can be put into practice depends upon human beings. And, human beings never have the luxury to work with “complete information.” That is, humans never have the whole story.
Thus, our models, which are abstractions, are partial and therefore ultimately fallible. We must continually test our models and test the results of applying our models. This, I believe, is what Barth is teaching us. We must continually bridge the gap between exegesis and our actions. To Barth, dogmatics is the way that we do this.
“Exactly halfway between exegesis and practical theology stands dogmatics…”
“In dogmatics our question is: What are we to think and say (and do)?”
I add the “and do” to the last quotation because, historically, the Church has gotten so tied up in what it says without backing up what is said by actions. I believe that this is what Barth is after in his work: the answer the question “How is it we should live?”
The initial form of the question fits more into the historical discussion of theology and dogmatics, but I believe this is the reason why we have focused on developing programs within the Church and not with developing missional activity. I define missional activity as living in a way that reveals the “image of God.”
This to me is what “the proclamation of the Gospel in witness” is all about. It is about living…which includes both speaking and acting. And, I believe, that by acting in a way that is more consistent with our speaking is a more powerful message than just telling other people what our message is. I believe that this is what Barth is telling us.
From this, one can interpret the statement that dogmatics is “halfway” between exegesis and practical theology. Exegesis can be defined as “explanation and critical interpretation” of, in this case, “the Word spoken by God.”
Princeton Theological Seminary has a Department of Practical Theology. This is what the Seminary has to say about practical theology and the mission of this department: “The Seminary’s mission is to prepare women and men to serve Jesus Christ in ministries marked by faith, integrity, scholarship, competence, compassion, and joy, equipping them for leadership worldwide in congregations and the larger church, in classrooms and the academy, and in the public arena.” That is, practical theology has to do with “where the rubber hits the road.”
If dogmatics is “exactly halfway” between exegesis and practical theology then one can see dogmatics at taking the model of the Church and transforming it into practice.
I use the term “model” here because “model building” is exactly what people do when they construct a “worldview” and that is what people, pupils or teachers, do when they go about exegesis. These people attempt to “explain” and “critically interpret” the Word of God. That is, they are building a “model”.
This model can, and should, be used in problem solving and decision making. That is what humans do best. A model is something that helps us to solve more and more difficult problems and to make better decisions.
Dogmatics represents an attempt to take a model and turn it into the proclamation of God so that it is used in solving problems and making decisions. Exegesis can become sterile and “other-worldly”. It can become useless in the sense that it bears no relationship to the lives that people have to live.
Dogmatics, as Barth is defines it, seeks to keep the proclamation of God relevant to lives, to make it useful, to change lives.
The proclamation of God has to do with what we do. Therefore, it must be alive and vital and meaningful. If the proclamation of God becomes irrelevant to the needs of people to problem solve and make decisions in the world they live in, they will seek other “models”.
Barth writes, “Outwardly, dogmatics arises from the fact that the Church’s proclamation is in danger of going astray. Dogmatics is the testing of Church doctrine and proclamation.”
We must continually “test” the relationship between exegesis and practical theology.
“The correction, the deepening, the increasing precision of what is taught in our Church can only be God’s own work although not apart from man’s effort. “
Thus, the question must always be, “What is the evidence?”
“Not the evidence of my thoughts, or my heart, but the evidence of the apostles and prophets, as the evidence of God’s self-evidence.”
I like the phrase that Stanley Hauerwas used for the title of his Gifford lectures, “With the Grain of the Universe.” This, to me, gives us the ultimate test of the proclamation of the Gospel. God’s Word should bring us into greater unity with His creation. If our speech and our actions conform with God’s Word then we should be in unity with His creation and we should feel this because our actions are “with the grain of the universe.” We are moving “with” creation and are not acting “across the grain” of the universe.
If our actions are not with the grain of the universe…we become dis-satisfied, and anxious and, sometimes, alienated. Things just don’t feel right.
This is why our “practical theology” must be in line with our exegesis. This is why we must continually test the waters. And, in this sense, this is why “dogmatics” is pragmatic. It must work. It must bring into alignment with the grain of the universe.
Models are abstractions. Yes, we believe that we have received “the Word of God,” but explaining the Word of God and critically interpreting how it can be put into practice depends upon human beings. And, human beings never have the luxury to work with “complete information.” That is, humans never have the whole story.
Thus, our models, which are abstractions, are partial and therefore ultimately fallible. We must continually test our models and test the results of applying our models. This, I believe, is what Barth is teaching us. We must continually bridge the gap between exegesis and our actions. To Barth, dogmatics is the way that we do this.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Barth on Dogmatics--Commentary 2
“The subject of dogmatics is the Christian Church.”
Barth tells us, “where dogmatics is pursued, we find ourselves in the sphere of the Church.” This means that to be familiar with dogmatics, one must be familiar “with the life of the Church.”
The Church is embedded in history and the specific environment of each period in history. The Church is dependent upon the “state of knowledge” at a particular time.
But, the history of the Church is a “human, earthly history; and so it is not quite indefensible for Goethe to say of it that in all periods it has been a hotch-potch of error and power.”
In other words, the Church is a human institution, currently framed in the existing “state of knowledge” of the world, “charged with the object and the activity with which dogmatics is concerned—namely, the proclamation of the Gospel.”
To me, the primary thought here is that the Church is “charged” with the “object and activity” of the model or world view that the Church adheres to. That is, it is within and through the Church that the Church’s model is both examined and acted upon.
The Church’s model is examined and subject to thorough study at all times. “Christian dogmatics will always be a thinking, an investigation, and an expositions which are relative and liable to error.” Without constant scrutiny, the Church’s model can become dated and turned into an idol.
“We must use our knowledge as it has been given to us to-day.”
“Even dogmatics with the best knowledge and conscience can do no more than question after the better, and never forget that we are succeeded by other, later men; and he who is faithful in this task will hope that those other, later men may think and say better and more profoundly what we were endeavoring to think and say.”
We do the best we can. We use all the facilities we have. And we try to make the Christian model make sense within the world we live in.
But, dogmatics does not stop there. We are also charged with the responsibility for action. We much represent the model of the Church in what we do. Christian dogmatics is not just an academic subject. Christian dogmatics in not to be used for withdrawing from life. Christian dogmatics is to be applied in a way that the model of the Church, the proclamation of the Gospel, is revealed to others in our actions.
In essence, Christian dogmatics is the foundation for how we think and act in the modern world. It is the foundation of what we reveal to the rest of the world.
Be cautious, however, for, as Barth warns, the Church has also been a "hotch-potch" of error and power. Humans can take the Church in the wrong direction from time-to-time. This is why we do the best we can, why we use all the facilities we have, and why we constantly strive to make the Christian model make sense.
“The subject of dogmatics is the Christian Church.” The subject of dogmatics is what the Christian Church is in the world today. The Christian Church should be living, vital, and meaningful.
If it is not all of these things, then it is not the Christian Church.
Barth tells us, “where dogmatics is pursued, we find ourselves in the sphere of the Church.” This means that to be familiar with dogmatics, one must be familiar “with the life of the Church.”
The Church is embedded in history and the specific environment of each period in history. The Church is dependent upon the “state of knowledge” at a particular time.
But, the history of the Church is a “human, earthly history; and so it is not quite indefensible for Goethe to say of it that in all periods it has been a hotch-potch of error and power.”
In other words, the Church is a human institution, currently framed in the existing “state of knowledge” of the world, “charged with the object and the activity with which dogmatics is concerned—namely, the proclamation of the Gospel.”
To me, the primary thought here is that the Church is “charged” with the “object and activity” of the model or world view that the Church adheres to. That is, it is within and through the Church that the Church’s model is both examined and acted upon.
The Church’s model is examined and subject to thorough study at all times. “Christian dogmatics will always be a thinking, an investigation, and an expositions which are relative and liable to error.” Without constant scrutiny, the Church’s model can become dated and turned into an idol.
“We must use our knowledge as it has been given to us to-day.”
“Even dogmatics with the best knowledge and conscience can do no more than question after the better, and never forget that we are succeeded by other, later men; and he who is faithful in this task will hope that those other, later men may think and say better and more profoundly what we were endeavoring to think and say.”
We do the best we can. We use all the facilities we have. And we try to make the Christian model make sense within the world we live in.
But, dogmatics does not stop there. We are also charged with the responsibility for action. We much represent the model of the Church in what we do. Christian dogmatics is not just an academic subject. Christian dogmatics in not to be used for withdrawing from life. Christian dogmatics is to be applied in a way that the model of the Church, the proclamation of the Gospel, is revealed to others in our actions.
In essence, Christian dogmatics is the foundation for how we think and act in the modern world. It is the foundation of what we reveal to the rest of the world.
Be cautious, however, for, as Barth warns, the Church has also been a "hotch-potch" of error and power. Humans can take the Church in the wrong direction from time-to-time. This is why we do the best we can, why we use all the facilities we have, and why we constantly strive to make the Christian model make sense.
“The subject of dogmatics is the Christian Church.” The subject of dogmatics is what the Christian Church is in the world today. The Christian Church should be living, vital, and meaningful.
If it is not all of these things, then it is not the Christian Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)