Karl Barth's Christological Ecclesiology

Kimlyn J. Bender

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351924344
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Many of Barth's theological themes, such as revelation and election, have received numerous scholarly examinations, whilst Barth's doctrine of the church has been largely ignored. Yet, Barth entitled his massive systematic theological opus the Church Dogmatics, and the church was a central element of his thought from first to last. This book seeks to fill a lacuna in studies of Barth's theology, presenting the first comprehensive examination of Karl Barth's doctrine of the church in over three decades. Kimlyn Bender examines Barth's ecclesiological thought, from his early theological treatises to his massive unfinished dogmatics, in light of his interaction with both Roman Catholicism and Protestant Liberalism. A special emphasis is placed upon Barth's mature ecclesiology in the Church Dogmatics.

Chapter One

Introduction

Even the most superficial reading of Barth’s Church Dogmatics reveals its massive scope and ambitious attempt to leave no theological stone unturned. Yet only a careful and extensive examination discloses its equally impressive coherence and deeply-woven structure in which each doctrinal strand of this gigantic theological tapestry is intertwined with others, so that no thread is entirely independent of another. Barth’s doctrine of the church is no exception in this regard.

In dialogue with his students, Karl Barth once described Christian truth as ‘a globe, where every point points to the centre,’ and asserted that dogmatics may in theory begin with any doctrine, including that of the church.¹ In fact, however, Barth began his dogmatics proper with the doctrine of God’s revelation as the triune God, and the doctrine of the church followed discussions of revelation, the Trinity, and Christology. These prior discussions were not peripheral but integral to Barth’s understanding of ecclesiology. Even from a developmental standpoint, while the question of the church arose for Barth early in his theological career, it was always inextricably entwined in a web of related questions.

These observations are not surprising, for ecclesiology itself is a derived system, dependent upon other theological doctrines and their attendant propositions and principles to provide it with shape and substance.² This is especially true with regard to ecclesiology’s relation to Christology, for the identity of the church is intimately connected to that of Christ. The inclusive and complex nature of the doctrine of the church poses a problem for any study in ecclesiology, for such an investigation cannot limit itself to an examination of the question of the church per se, but must also take into consideration these pertinent theological presuppositions and convictions. A further related difficulty is posed by the fact that ecclesiology is a synthetic doctrine — it includes within it many aspects of theology. It is therefore impossible to say that it is either purely dogmatic or ethical, for ecclesiology includes both aspects, with either coming to the fore depending upon whether one is focusing on the church’s nature or activity.³

Both of these difficulties are present when one attempts to examine the ecclesiology of Karl Barth. As has been noted, Barth’s concept of the church is greatly influenced by other theological doctrines and convictions. Furthermore, Barth’s ecclesiology, like his theology as a whole, is comprised of both dogmatic and ethical elements, joined together in an intimate way. Indeed, it is misleading to say that for Barth ethics follows ecclesiology — it is much more accurate to say that ecclesiology is ethical, a point that will become evident in the course of this study.⁴ Many missteps in the interpretation of Barth’s ecclesiology (both past and present) can be traced back either to a failure to place Barth’s doctrine of the church within his larger dogmatic framework, or to understand its implicitly ethical nature. I hope to show how these missteps have been made, and also how they can thus be avoided. Indeed, the present work is nothing less than a re-narration of the historical development and re-presentation of the inner logic of Barth’s doctrine of the church.

To fulfill this task, this study will attempt to explicate Barth’s ecclesiology by drawing attention to the Christological logic that governs its inner shape, structure, and content. Other theological patterns will be discerned as well, but these are subordinate to the distinctive Christological ones, for it is the Christological patterns that are in general inclusive of the others, not surprising in light of the centrality of Christology in Barth’s theology. So, while Barth’s ecclesiology will be examined in light of other central doctrines such as election and reconciliation, it is preeminently the Christological aspects of these doctrines that influence and shape Barth’s ecclesiology.

It has in fact often been said that Barth’s theology is Christocentric, but what does this mean? Perhaps with some careful qualification one could even say that Schleiermacher was a Christocentric theologian, but this of course should not be taken to imply that Barth and Schleiermacher shared a similar theological method. To say that a theology is Christocentric may mean a number of things — what we must understand is what it meant for Barth.

The short answer is that for Barth theology is Christology.⁵ To say this is to affirm that every Christian doctrine must be determined and shaped by God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. This does not entail that every doctrine need be strictly deduced from Christology, or that all theology becomes Christology so that all other doctrines are excluded. But it does mean that no doctrine can be formulated independently from Jesus Christ. For Barth, to consider and formulate a Christian doctrine in isolation from the revelation given in Christ results in an abstract doctrine that has lost its moorings and can be regarded only as speculative. To say that Christology is the center of Barth’s theology will be examined further in the coming chapters, but for now it is sufficient to say that for Barth, every Christian doctrine must be determined in light of the particular person of Jesus Christ, and this holds true for ecclesiology.

Three primary elements comprise the Christological logic that shapes Barth’s ecclesiology and provides its inherent principles of reasoning.⁶ This logic is the formal and internal skeletal structure upon which the material substance of Barth’s doctrine of the church is hung. These elements are related in an inclusive fashion, in that the second element serves as a further detailed explication of an aspect of the first, and the third as a further detailed explication of an aspect of the second. They are therefore unfolding elements, each intricately related to the other.

The first and most comprehensive element is what George Hunsinger has identified as the Chalcedonian pattern.⁷ This pattern serves as the constitutive paradigm for understanding the formal relation, itself unique and irreplaceable, between the divine and human natures of Christ in the incarnation. In Barth’s thought, however, it also serves as the regulative pattern for all divine and human relationships that stand in analogy to the incarnation itself, as well as for a few carefully qualified relationships between created entities.⁸ The Chalcedonian pattern is comprised of a unity, a differentiation, and an asymmetrical relation between the divine and human natures in Christ, and by analogy between the members, or terms, of the other designated relations. The unity of the natures entails that they cannot be thought of as severed so that the intimacy of their relation is lost — in the language of Chalcedon, they are ‘without division or separation.’ The distinction of the natures entails that they cannot be thought of as mingled so that the integrity of either is sacrificed — in the language of Chalcedon, they are ‘without confusion or change.’ The asymmetry between the natures signifies that they exist in an ordered and irreversible relation whereby the first is independent and superior in relation to the second, whereas the second is dependent and subordinate to the first, the first being different from the second in kind, not merely in degree. Just as the distinction between the natures or terms guards against an identification of them, protecting the integrity of each, so also the asymmetry of the natures or terms ensures that there is no parity between them.⁹ The Chalcedonian pattern is used by Barth to guard against mistaken positions on the left and the right, those that either exalt humanity by granting it autonomy, or those that denigrate humanity by positing a divine determinism or monism.¹⁰

The second element of the Christological logic follows from this final aspect of the Chalcedonian pattern. In essence, it may be described as a further exposition clarifying the nature of the asymmetrical relation itself with primary reference to the personal union of Word and flesh in Christ and then to the communion of the natures, and with secondary application to defining the relationship between divine and human subjects. This element is articulated in terms of the patristic anhypostasia/enhypostasia formula in Christology.¹¹ This doctrine, as Barth understood and articulated it, made two statements, one negative and one positive. The negative assertion (expressed by the anhypostasis) is that the human nature of Christ has no independent existence apart from the Word in the incarnation. This safeguards both the divine freedom and initiative as well as the utter dependence of the creature upon the Creator. It therefore protects against any form of adoptionism. The positive assertion (expressed by the enhypostasis) is that the human nature does have a real, true, and complete existence in the Word. This ensures the integrity and wholeness of the creature, that Jesus was a complete human being. The Christological couplet preserves both the sovereign freedom and benevolent goodness of the divine self-giving in the incarnation, as well as the wholeness and bestowed dignity of the creature, thus expressing ‘the essential logic in the irreversible movement of God’s grace.’¹²

When applied by analogy to designated divine and human relationships, then, this Christological formula entails that the human partner and work has no independent existence apart from the divine initiative, but at the same time ensures that the human subject does have a real and true existence and activity as established by and in relation to the divine Subject and activity. The human activity is not abolished or denigrated but established and dignified by the divine activity, even though it cannot supplement or replace the divine work and exists on an entirely different plane. Barth’s anhypostatic-enhypostatic Christological formula allows him to speak of a true unity of the Word and flesh in Christ and of the Creator with the creature, without sacrificing the distinction and superiority of the divine to the human on the one hand or the integrity of the creature on the other. It is the ontological complement to the soteriological ‘justification by grace alone.’

The final element of the Christological logic follows from the two preceding. It further describes the nature of the human life of Christ in relation to his divine life, and thus describes the character of the real, true, and whole human existence that is established by the divine Word in material rather than purely formal terms. Barth answers the question as to the positive relation of the second term to the first, of Christ’s human life to his divine life, by positing the notion of correspondence [Entsprechung].¹³ Correspondence itself includes both ontological and ethical aspects and is related to the epistemological concept of the analogy of faith [analogia fidei].¹⁴ It is a specifically Christological notion, however, for it is defined by and refers first and preeminently to the manner in which Christ’s human life mirrors and indeed represents the divine life of God in its own proper sphere of being and activity.¹⁵ It is then applied by analogy to obedient human activity that reflects the divine will as established by grace.

The concept of correspondence speaks neither of an identity, continuity, and cooperation between divine and human action, nor of a purely radical separation, opposition, and contradiction between them. It is neither univocal nor equivocal, but analogical, in nature. On the one hand, it guards against any type of identification or conflation of divine and human activity, excluding any synergistic or cooperative understandings of salvation. Divine and human activity remain distinct and do not exist on the same plane. Positively, it entails that human activity not contradict but reflect the divine will and activity in a manner appropriate to the creature, neither replacing nor supplementing the divine activity.¹⁶ And it is for this positive affirmation that the negative judgment is made: human activity is relativized and limited not so that it is to be set aside as irrelevant or purely sinful, but so that human activity might be given its own proper place as a truly human work, rather than the work of God. The eschatological reservation gives rise, and does not destroy, an ethical and historical affirmation of human life and activity.¹⁷

This human life and activity corresponds, or lives in analogy to, the divine life, but does so only in light of the previous logic whereby the radical asymmetry between the partners and their work is affirmed, and the complete and utter dependence of the human upon the divine is safeguarded. Barth’s notion of correspondence describes the char...