Karil lBarth's Dogmafics and - unitingcollege.edu.au

Karil lBarth's Dogmafics and

lPreachhuig

The Relationship Between Dogmatics and Preaching

in the Church Dogmatics, with a Comparative

Analysis of a Selection of Basel Prison Sermons

David John McGregorUniversity of South Australia, January 2002

Abstract

This thesis investigates the relationship between dogmatics and preaching in the

theology and practice of Karl Barth. It begins by noting that although it is widely

acknowledged that Barth's dogmatics was orientated to the problem of preaching this

remains in the background in many discussions of his theology.

This observation is supported by an extensive literature review which identifies nine

various approaches to the Church Dogmatics by interpreters of Barth's theology.

These either (1) offer a critique in the light of a different theological tradition; (2)

focus on methodological issues; (3) identify a central organizing principle; (4) or a

central concept; (5) seek answers to key questions; (6) amplify its the minor key; (7)

concentrate on a specific theme; (8) paraphrase with minimal interpretive comment;

or (9) identify recurring modes of thought. None are specifically concerned with its

relevance for preaching. It is true that, of the studies accessible to English readers,

one does deal with the rhetoric of Barth's early theology and another does focus on

the Church Dogmatics as a resource for preachers. But they are not concerned with

the question of how Barth constructed his own sermons in the light of his dogmatic

parameters. This research addresses this question.

The relevant sections of the Church Dogmatics are first surveyed in order to clarify

Barth's views on (1) preaching, and (2) dogmatics in relation to preaching. Then,

drawing on Barth's early 1932-33 lectures on preaching, Barth's understanding of the

nature of the sermon and nine homiletic criteria with their implications for the form

and content of sermons are delineated. Barth's own suggestion that a selection of his

Basel prison sermons could be examined in the light of these criteria is then taken up.

It is first shown that the criteria are thoroughly grounded in the mature dogmatic

thought of Barth's Church Dogmatics. They are thereby validated as legitimate

points of correlation for testing the dogmatic determination of his sermons.

Particular attention is given to the first of Barth's homiletic criteria, i.e., past and

future revelation as the whence and whither of preaching. An survey of the

Church Dogmatics substantiates the dogmatic grounding of five implications of

2

revelation as the whence of preaching. These are: (1) what God has done in Jesus

Christ is the presupposition, central point and defining factor in all that its said; (2)

God's act in Jesus Christ is the revelation of who God is; (3) God's act in Jesus Christ

is the determination of human existence; (4) sin is only known in the context of

reconciliation; (5) the indicatives of the Gospel precede the imperatives of the law.

The dogmatic grounding for revelation as the whither of preaching is demonstrated

from the sections of the Church Dogmatics dealing with the outpouring of the Holy

Spirit and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Four of Barth's own sermons are then analysed in the light of his homiletic criteria.

Each of the sermons is shown to exhibit the influence of these criteria in both its form

and content. Since the criteria have already been grounded in Barth's dogmatics, the

conclusion is drawn that these sermons reflect the direct influence of Barth's

dogmatic tenets.

3

Table of Contents

Abstract .2Abbreviations 8

Acknowledgements 10

Introduction 11

Chapter One: Literature Review 17

Chapter Two: Methodology 271. Epistemology 272. Theoretical Perspective 283. Methodology 33

4. Methods 35a. Exegesis 36b. Comparative Analysis 37

Chapter Three: Barth's View on Preaching in the Church Dogmatics 381. Proclamation 382. The Word of God Preached 403. The Word of God and the Word of Man in Christian Preaching 41

4. The Christian as Witness 435. The Task of the Community 436. The Ministry of the Community 457. Summary 51

Chapter Four: Barth's View on Dogmatics in Relation to Preaching in the ChurchDogmatics 52

1. The Task of Dogmatics 522. Dogmatics and Church Proclamation 543. The Question of the Nature of the Word of God 564. The Word of God, Dogma and Dogmatics 595. Pure Doctrine as the Problem of Dogmatics 61

6. Dogmatics as Ethics 637. Dogmatics as a Function of the Hearing Church 648. Dogmatics as a Function of the Teaching Church 699. The Task of the Community 7310. The Ministry of the Community 7511. Summary 76

Chapter Five: The Nature, Criteria, and Form of the Sermon in Barth's Homiletics.. 781. The Nature of the Sermon 782. The Criteria of the Sermon 79

a. Revelation 79i. The Whence 79ii. The Whither 81

b. Church 82c. Confession 82d. Ministry 83e. Heralding 83f. Scripture 84g. Originality 84h. Congregation 84

4

i. Spirituality .853. The Form of the Sermon .85

a. The Sermon must be Wriften 85b. The Sermon is to Begin and End with Prayer 86c. The Sermon must be Textual 86d. The Structure of the Sermon must be Determined by the Text 86e. The Sermon must not be Thematic 87f. The Sermon needs no Introduction 87g. The Sermon is to be an Exposition not just an Exegesis 88h. Exposition and Application must not be Separated in the Sermon 89i. The Sermon is to have no Special Conclusion 89

4. Conclusion 90Chapter Six: Revelation: The Whence and Whither of Preaching Grounded in theChurch Dog,natics 93

1. Past Revelation, the Whence of Preaching 93a. What God has done in Jesus Christ is the Presupposition, Central Point, andDefining Factor in all that is said 93

i. The Doctrine of the Word of God 94ii. The Doctrine of God 96iii. The Doctrine of Creation 97iv. The Doctrine of Reconciliation 99v. Conclusion 105

b. God's Act in Jesus Christ is the Revelation of who God is 106i. The Doctrine of the Word of God 106ii. The Doctrine of God 107iii. The Doctrine of Creation 109iv. The Doctrine of Reconciliation 110v. Conclusion 112

c. God's Act in Jesus Christ is the Determination of Human Existence 112i. The Doctrine of God 112ii. The Doctrine of Creation 115iii. The Doctrine of Reconciliation 116iv. Conclusion 118

d. Sin is Only Known in the Context of Reconciliation 119i. The Doctrine of Reconciliation 119ii. Conclusion 122

e. The Indicatives of the Gospel Precede the Imperatives of the Law 122i. The Doctrine of The Word of God 122ii. The Doctrine of God 123iii. The Doctrine of Creation 126iv. The Doctrine of Reconciliation 127v. Conclusion 130

2. Future Revelatiorl, the Whither of Preaching 130i. The Doctrine of the Word of God 131ii. The Doctrine of Reconciliation 132iii. Conclusion 135

3. Conclusion 135Chapter Seven: Analysis of Barth's Sermons 136

1. Unto You Is Born This Day A Saviour 137a. Transcript 137

5

b. Opening Prayer 137

c. Biblical Text 138d. Structure 138e. Introduction 138f. Exposition 139

i.ToYou 140ii. This Day 141

iii.A Savour 143

g. Conclusion 143h. Concluding Prayer 145i. Concluding Summary 145

i. Form 145ii. Content 146

2. The Criminals With Him 148a. Transcript 148b. Opening Prayer 148c. Biblical Text 149d. Structure 149e. Introduction 149f. Exposition 150

i. With the criminals 150ii. They crucified Him 151

iii. One on either side of him 153g. Conclusion 155h. Concluding Prayer 155i. Concluding Summary 156

i.Form 156ii. Content 156

3. You Will Live Also 158a. Transcript 158b. Opening Prayer 158c. Biblical Text 159d. Structure 159e. Introduction 159f. Exposition 160

i.Ilive 160ii. You will live also 162

g. Conclusion 163h. Concluding Prayer 163i. Concluding Summary 164

i.Form 164ii. Content 164

4. Look Up To Him 167a. Transcript 167b. Opening Prayer 167c. Biblical Text 168d. Structure 168e. Introduction 168f. Exposition 169

i.Lookuptohim 169

6

ii. And your face will shine 171

iii. And you shall never be ashamed 172g. Conclusion 173h. Concluding Prayer 173i. Concluding Summary 173

i. Form 173ii. Content 173

Chapter Eight: Conclusion 176Bibliography 178Appendix 1: The Need and the Promise of Christian Preaching 186Appendix 2: The Gottingen Dogmatics 190

1. The Presupposition of Dogmatics is God's "Ongoing Word" in Preaching 1902. The Rank of Dogmatics is to Secondary to Preaching 1913. The Raw Material of Dogmatics is Preaching 1924. The Necessity of Dogmatics is the Ambiguity of Preaching 1935. The Role of Dogmatics is to Assist Preaching to be Pure Doctrine 1946. The Mode of Dogmatics is Reflection on Preaching 1957. Summary 196

7

Abbreviations

CD Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956-75

ChrL The Christian Lift: Church Dogmatics 4 Lecture Fragments.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981.

DC Deliverance to the Captives. New York: Harper and Row, 1959

FQI Anseim. Fides Quaerens Intellectum. London: SCM, 1960

GD Gottingen Dogmatics I. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991

H Homiletics. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991

WGWM The Word of God and the Word of Man. London: Hodder andStoughton, 1928

8

Declaration

Title:

Karl Barth's Dogmatic and Preaching: The Relationship Between Dogmatics and

Preaching in the Church Dogmatics, with a Comparative Analysis of a Selection of

Basel Prison Sermons.

Candidate:

David John McGregor

I declare that this thesis is the result of my own research, that it does not incorporate

without acknowledgment any material submitted for a degree or diploma in any

University and that it does not contain any materials previously published, written or

produced by another person except where due reference is made in the text.

Signed

9

Acknowledgements

Thankyou to my supervisors Professor Robert Crotty and Dr Tony Densley for your

guidance; to the Board of Tabor College for your support; to my colleagues Dennis

Slape, John Annells, Michael Spyker, Graham Buxton, Mark Worthing and John

Capper for your encouragement; to my family Danielle, Michelle, Jessica and Kieran

for your patience; and especially to my wife Gina who has been my greatest

encourager and supporter.

10

Introduction

In a television interview in Paris in 1964 Karl Barth was asked about his major

concern in teaching theology. His response was:

When I now face the students, I see them in the position of future pastors.And I imagine them in their robes in the pulpit, facing the open Bible and thecongregation. The great task of theology is first to find the way into the Bibleand then the way from the Bible into life. Basically this is my very simplerecipe. 1

This remark was virtually identical to one he had made in a minister's meeting at

Schulpforta in July 1922, forty-two years earlier.2 On that occasion he was speaking

of his experience as a young pastor struggling with the task of sermon preparation.

He confided that the great problem he encountered was the problem of preaching

sermons that were both faithful to the message of the Bible and relevant to the

problems of life. He explained:

I sought to find my way between the problem of human life on the one handand the content of the Bible on the other. As a minister I wanted to speak tothe people in the infinite contradiction of their life, but to speak the no lessinfinite message of the Bible, which was as much of a riddle as life. Oftenenough these two magnitudes, life and the Bible, have risen before me (andstill rise!) like Scylla and Charybdis: if these are the whence and the whitherof Christian preaching, who shall, who can, be a minister and preach?

In that address Barth went on to say that he had come to the conclusion that all

theology must be done from the point of view of the preacher. "Would it not be for

theology's own good," he said, "if it attempted, as I have said, to be nothing more

than this knowledge of the quest and questioning of the Christian preacher, full of

need and full of promise? Must not everything else result from this knowledge?"4

It is widely recognised that Karl Barth's theology was a theology orientated to the

problem of preaching. Typical are the comments of Arnold B. Come: "Barth's whole

unique theological formulation had its origin and rise from the specific problem of the

Junge Kirche, Vol. 25, 1964, p. 700. Cited in Heinz Zahrnt The Question of God: ProtestantTheology in the Twentieth Century. Translated from the German by R. A. Wilson. London: Collins,1969, 117.

2 See "The Need and Promise of Christian Preaching" in Karl Barth, Word of God and the Word ofMan. Translated by Douglas Horton: Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1978, 97. Hereafter abbreviatedas WGWM. See Appendix 1 for a full discussion of this address.WGWM, 100

4WGWM, 102

11

sermon."5 Paul M. van Buren is another who asserts, "Barth stands as a theologian in

the service of preaching."6 In the preface of Barth's Homiletics, David G. Butterick

observed: "More than any thinker in the century, Barth linked theology and

preaching: He proposed that theology should be 'nothing other than sermon

preparation.' Thus to follow his deliberations on preaching is to enter his theological

world."7

The story of Barth's theological development is usually traced from his initial revolt

against Liberal Theology as reflected in Der Romerbrief (1919, 1921),8 to his more

mature dogmatic thought as expressed in the Church Dogmatics

Although the standard historiography of Barth's move from "dialectic to dogmatic" is

under review today, 10 it is evident from Barth's own statements that his struggle to

find an appropriate methodology for doing theology was conditioned by the need to

speak positively about the relationship between God and human beings." It became

clear to him that the radical dialectic of his early period, which stressed so heavily the

distinction between God and human beings, was ultimately inadequate for the

development of a more positive dogmatic theology that would serve as a guide for

Christian preaching.'2

Arnold. B. Come An Infroduction to Barth's Dogm atics for Preachers London: SCM Press, 1963, 14.6 Paul M. van Buren, "Translators Introduction" in Karl Barth God Here and Now London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1964, xiv.

David G. Butterick, "Forward" in Karl Barth, Homiletics. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley andDonald E. Daniels. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991, 8. Hereafter abbreviated as H.8 This explosive and epoch making commentaly on the Epistle to the Romans introduced a new era inmodem theology. It was translated into English from the sixth edition, (which followed the secondedition), by Edwyn C. Hoskyns under the title The Epistle to the Romans London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1933.

Karl Barth Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1956-75

For the traditional narrative see Thomas F. Torrance Karl Barth: An Infroduction to his EarlyTheology, 1910-1931 London: SCM Press Ltd, 1962; Hans Urs von Balthasar The Theology of KarlBarth, translated by John Dury, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. For more recentrevisions of this standard version of Barth's development see Bruce L. McCormack Karl Barth'sCritically Realistic Dialectical theology: Its Genesis and development 1909-1936 Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1995; Gary Dorrien The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology without WeaponsLouisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000."See Barth's comments in the essay "The Humanity of God" in Karl Barth The Humanity of GodLondon: Collins, 1961, 34-42. 1

12 Commenting on Barth's "path to neo-orthodoxy" Cohn Brown observes that after Barth wasappointed to teach theology at the University of Gottingen (1921) he faced a new crisis: "It was onething to be a theological angry young man; it was another thing to teach theology. It was one thing towrite a brilliant, impassioned, gesticulating book about the breaking in of the Word of God; it wassomething entirely different to hammer out a responsible account of Christian doctrine.... Barth alsosaw the inadequacy of the dialectical understanding of revelation. If God is really Wholly Other, thennothing at all can be known or said about Him... With his doctrine of sin and grace, Barth the

12

Barth's first attempt at a dogmatic theology is represented by his early Gottingen

lectures (unpublished in his lifetime).13 In these lectures Barth defined dogmatics as

"the science of the principles of Christian proclamation."4 His opening thesis

asserted that the problem of dogmatics concerned the "scientific reflection on the

Word of God which is spoken by God in revelation, which is recorded in the holy

scripture of prophets and apostles, and which now both is and should be proclaimed

and heard in Christian preaching."5 Daniel Migliore, in the introduction to the

English edition of these lectures, observed: "The determination to reorient the

discipline of dogmatics to the task of church proclamation is everywhere evident in

the Gottingen lectures."16 Barth's biographer, Eberhard Busch, has also noted: "The

really new feature about it proved to be the 'stubborn persistence' with which he 'kept

returning from every angle to the situation of the pastor in the pulpit."7

In Barth's famous false start, Die Christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf(1927),'8 his first

published attempt to provide an "outline" or "draft" of dogmatics, Barth wanted to

emphasize the objectivity of the Word of God as it is proclaimed and heard in

Christian preaching.'9 Unfortunately, his phenomenological analysis of proclamation

in the church combined with his existential analysis of the subjective hearer

Dialectical Theologian, had really said more than his premises allowed." (Cohn Brown Karl Barth andthe Christian Message London: The Tyndale Press, 1967, 20, 21). Barth's solution to this problem wasnot an abandonment of dialectic, as such, but a Christological relocation of it, i.e., he came to see moreclearly that the divinity of God was only to be understood from the humanity of Christ (See Karl BarthThe Humanity of God London: Collins, 1961, 42ff); or as Gany Dorrien explains: "He argued that thediastasis between God and humanity that his Romans commentary had featured was actually itselfGod's Word, properly understood" (Gary Dorrien The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theologywithout Weapons Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000, 89).

They were published in German in 1990 and in English as Gottingen Dogmatics: Instruction in theChristian Religion I Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991, hereafter abbreviated as GD.14GD,31415 GD, 3 (italics mine)'6GD XXI-XXII17 Busch Eberhard Karl Barth: his Ljfe from Letters and autobiographical texts London: SCM Press,Ltd, 1976, 154. Busch goes on to say: "from the beginning he [Barth] approached his task with theview that 'Dogmatics is reflection on the Word of God as revelation, Holy Scripture and Christianpreaching... Its primary object, therefore is neither biblical theology nor Church doctrine, nor faith, norreligious awareness, but Christian preaching as it is actually given. This can be recognized as the"Word of God" by reference to scripture and revelation and is defmed critically by the "Word of God"(which is the aim of the exercise). Thus the concept of dogmatics is the exposition of the principles ofChristian preaching (= dogmas) based on revelation and scripture' Revolutionary Theology in theMaking (Rev T), 1964, 182) (quoted in Busch, 155).18 This volume was never translated into English. It is of historical interest because "it shows us theearly shape of Barth's systematic theological thinking" (David L. Mueller Karl Barth Waco, Texas:Word Books, 1972, 32..

For an extensive discussion of this work see Thomas F. Torrance Karl Barth : An Introduction to hisEarly Theology, 1910-1931 London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1962, 105ff.

13

undermined his endeavour to make the Word of God the objective basis for all his

dogmatic statements.20 In retrospect Barth came to understand that his attempt to

construct a dogmatic on the basis of an independent ontology of the Word of God,

which appeared to be drawn from an existential analysis of the hearing subject, was

confusing to say the least. All existential elements had to be eliminated from his

methodology if his dogmatic statements were to be unambiguously grounded in the

Word of God. 21 His reworking of this material led directly to the publication of the

first part volume of the Church Dogmatics (1932) as the doctrine of the Word of God.

In this part volume, Barth carefully spelled out what was to remain his settled view on

the nature of the Word of God and the relation between proclamation and dogmatics.

The point to be made here is that it was precisely the clarification of Barth's thinking

in regard to the relationship between the Word of God, preaching, and dogma that

precipitated his decision to abandon his Die Christliche Dogmatik and to replace it

with the first part volume of the Church Dogmatics. The very genesis of the Church

Dogmatics is the story of Barth's wrestling with methodological questions concerning

the relation between dogmatics and preaching.

20 Gary Dorrien explains: "Barth began with a phenomenological analysis of Christian proclamationthat underscored the objectivity of the revelation to which scripture gives witness, but he correlatedthese arguments with an existential method that presented the Word in its subjective character from thestandpoint of the hearing subject. He reasoned that as a hearer of the Word, the receiving humansubject must be included in the concept of the Word of God. On that basis, Barth still allowed thatexistential analysis can be a basis for sound statements about the Word of God" (Gary Dorrien TheBarthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology without Weapons Louisville: Westminster John KnoxPress, 2000, 89-90).21 In the first volume of the Church Dogmatics there is an important passage in which Barth is self-critical of his previous discussion of the nature of the Word of God as set out in Die ChristlicheDogmatik The passage is as follows: "In the first edition the doctrine of the Word of God is developedat this juncture as follows. In and 6 two analyses are given of man's situation first as preacher andthen as hearer of the Word of God. In §7 there is then an analysis of the distinctive knowledge of theWord of God generally. In the last sub-sections of the three sections there are then annexed to the threeanalyses as their ostensible results three more precise definitions of the Word of God which togetherrepresent what is here to be developed as the doctrine of the nature of the Word of God. Thatarrangement in the first edition had three faults. 1. The more precise defmitions of the Word of God,being scattered over the three sections and appearing almost in the form of appendices, were by thisexternal placing isolated from the reader's attention in a way that was fatal to a proper understanding ofthe whole. It might easily happen, and did in fact happen, that these conclusions to —7 could beeasily regarded as a mere response to the analyses which might easily have been omitted, since theanalyses themselves constituted the true and to some extent provocative part of the sections. 2. I didnot succeed (and happily could not succeed) in making these conclusions on the concept of the Word ofGod, as I proposed, illuminating and credible as results of the three analyses. There were certainassociations of thought between the analyses and the more precise defmitions, but fundamentally andcomprehensively the latter are grounded elsewhere, they are not necessarily at this point, and thereforethey cannot be as impressive or catch attention in the same way as the actual analyses. 3. The(necessarily) unsuccessful attempt to deduce the doctrine of the Word of God from an analysis of theconcrete situation of the preacher or the hearer, or the man who knows God's Word generally, involvedfollowing a "false tendency" in the same sense and the same direction as the introduction and use of theconcepts of phenomenological and existential thought already criticised (CD 1.1, 126).

14

Although most interpreters acknowledge that the question of the relationship between

dogmatics and preaching was important to Barth, a survey of the secondary literature

on Barth's Church as is provided in the next chapter, will show that this

fundamental concern remains in the background of most discussions of his theology.

If Barth's most basic concern was to do theology for the purpose of preaching, (a

claim which will be further substantiated in later discussion), then preaching ought to

be in the foreground and not just the background of any analysis of it.

Furthermore, a survey of the secondary literature also reveals that Barth's published

sermons have not received the attention one might expect. If preaching was of major

importance to Barth's dogmatic endeavour, then surely the question concerning

Barth's own preaching is a significant one. It seems to me that a careful analysis of a

selection of Barth's own sermons would be helpful to determine how Barth himself

actually constructed his sermons in the light of his dogmatic parameters. In fact,

Barth proposed that such a comparison should be done.

In the preface to the English translation of his 1932-33 lectures on preaching,22 Barth

suggested that: "A well-informed young theologian might find it of interest to

compare some of my sermons - for example those in the series Deliverance to the

Captives.. .with the principles expounded here; and see how closely I have adhered to

them."23 Barth believed that the homiletic criteria spelled out in these lectures on

preaching were consistent with the dogmatic tenets of his mature theology found in

the Church Dogmatics. In the same preface he went on to say, "anyone who is

acquainted with my Dogmatics will recognize at once that the views expressed here

are essentially the same as those of this earlier work, though argued and formulated in

slightly different tenns."24 Can Barth's casual statement be substantiated by a careful

analysis of the Church Dogmatics itself? If these criteria can be shown to be

consistent with the dogmatic parameters of Barth's mature theology, as developed in

the Church Dogmatics, then they could become the points of correlation for

demonstrating the relationship between Barth's dogmatics and his own preaching.

22 These lectures were given in Bonn in 1932 and 1933. H, 7.23 Karl Barth Prayer and Preaching London: SCM Press, 1964, 64-65.24 Barth Prayer and Preaching London: SCM Press, 1964, 64.

15

What exactly is Barth's understanding of preaching? What is his understanding of

dogmatics? And what precisely is Barth's view of the relationship between dogmatics

and preaching? What is Barth's understanding of the nature and criteria of the

sermon? Can it be demonstrated that the criteria he expounded in his early lectures on

preaching are consistent with his mature dogmatics as stated in his extensive Church

Dogmatics? How is Barth's dogmatics reflected in the way that be actually

constructed his sermons? This research will address these questions. In doing so it

will take seriously Barth's claim that his whole theological endeavour, and in

particular his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics, must be understood from the

perspective of preaching.

16

Chapter One: Literature Review

The study of Barth's Church Dogmatics from the perspective of preaching has not

been a major focus in Barthian studies. This is despite the fact that the volume of

secondary literature on it is almost overwhelming. There have been many and varied

approaches, but little serious attention has been given to his fundamental concern to

relate dogmatics and preaching.

A survey of the major studies of Barth's Dogmatics reveals that much of the literature

has sought to critique it from a particular theological or ecclesial perspective. This is

the case, for example, with many Conservative Evangelical assessments. The major

point of issue is Barth's innovative approach to the Reformed Tradition, particularly

in regard to his non-propositional understanding of revelation, and his view of the

Bible as a "witness" to revelation not revelation per Se. Van Til's book on Barth and

Brunner entitled The New Modernism25 is an example of such a negative critique.

Barth complained bitterly about the accuracy of the presentation of his ideas in

several polemical works from these circles.26 Gregory G. Bolich's Karl Barth &

25 Cornelius Van Til, The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner.Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973. Another text in a similar vein is GustafWingren's Theology in Conflict: Nygren, Barth, Bultmann. Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1958.26 In one of Barth's letters he refuses to engage in dialogue with conservative theologians whom he felthad not really tried to understand his position. He says, "Such a discussion would have to rest on theprimary presupposition that those who ask the questions have read, learned, and pondered the manythings I have already said and written about these matters. They obviously have not done this, but haveignored the many hundreds of pages in the C:D. . . .they have long since decided and publicly proclaimedthat I am a heretic, possibly (Van Til) the worst heretic of all time.... These fundamentalists want to eatme up. They have not yet come to a "better mind and attitude" as I once hoped. I can thus give themneither an angry nor a gentle answer but instead no answer at all" ("To Dr. Geoffrey W. BromileyPasadena, California" in Karl Barth Letters 1961-1968. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981, 7-8). HansUrs von Balthasar also complained "The situation is even more ridiculous ten years later (1947) whenCornelius van Til (The New Modernism) tries to explain the whole theology of Barth and Brunner onthe basis of their earlier positions and in terms of the philosophical principles that are supposedly at theroot of their system." (Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth. Translated by John Dury.Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1972, 45). See also the footnote 4 in G. C. Berkouwer, TheTriumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Translated by H. R. Boer. Grand Rapids:Eerdmanns, 1956, 11; and Gregory G. Bolich, Karl Barth & Evangelicalism. Madison: Inter-VarsityPress, 1980, 66 -73. Despite its inaccurate representation of Barth's views, Van Til's book influencedthe initial evangelical response to Barth's theology in America.

17

Evangelicalism27 was an early attempt to rehabilitate Barth for American

Evangelicals.28

If Evangelicals have been largely critical of Barth's theology, Roman Catholic

assessments have been more welcoming. The classic text is Hans Urs von Baithasar's

The Theology of Karl Barth.29 Despite the fact that this text is very appreciative of

Barth's theology, and even received an endorsement by Barth himself on its

christological focus,3° the main orientation of the work is to seek a point of

identification between Barth's later theology and Roman Catholicism. One of the

recent criticisms of this text is that it offers some dubious interpretations of Barth,

precisely because it attempts to do this.3' Another celebrated Roman Catholic work,

also with ecumenical intent, is Hans Kung's The Doctrine of Karl Barth

and a Catholic Reflection.32 Kung attempts to show "fundamental agreement"

between Barth's view and the Roman Catholic view ofjustification.33 Coim O'Grady

is yet another Roman Catholic author who has produced a two volume study: The

Church in the Theology of Karl Barth34 and The Church in Catholic Theology:

27 Gregory G. Bolich, Karl Barth & Evangelicalism. Madison: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980.28 Evangelicals basically opposed to Barth in 1980 are cited by Bolich as: Cornelius Van Til's, GerritC. Berkouwer, Gordon Clark; John H. Gerstner; Clark H. Pinnock; Charles Caidwell Ryrie; Francis A.Schaffer; Harold 0. Brown; and John Warwick Montgomery. Evangelical friends of Barth are cited asHolmes Roiston; Edward John Carnell; Cohn Brown; James Daane; Donald G. Bloesch; BernardRamm; Klaas Runia; W. Bromiley; J. I. Packer; George Ladd; Carl F. H. Henry; F. F. Bruceand Klaus Brockmuehl (p.63-99).29 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth. Translated by John Dury. Garden City:Doubleday & Company, 1972.30 Barth refers to "the well known book which Hans Urs von Baithasar addressed to me, in which I findan understanding of the concentration on Jesus Christ attempted in C.D., and the implied Christianconcept of reality, which is incomparably more powerful than that of most books which have clusteredaround me" (CD IV.1, 768).31 George Hunsinger cites as "strange misreadings" the lack of emphasis on the Trinitarian shape ofBarth's thought, the idea of development in Barth's dogmatics from an initial focus on the Word ofGod to a later concentration of Jesus Christ, and the proposition that Barth eventually did embrace theanalogia entis, a concept he clearly resisted to the end. George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth, 6-9 Gerrit C. Berkouwer also challenges Balthasar's contention that Barth eventually embraced theanalogia entis. See Gerrit C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth.Translated by H. R. Boer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1956, 186-190.32 Hans KUng, Jus4flcation: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection. Translated by T.Collins, E. E. Tolk and D. Granskou. London: Burns & Oates, 1981.

This text contains a letter from Barth endorsing the accuracy of Kung's presentation of his views.Barth was not so sure that KUng had accurately represented the Roman Catholic position. One of thestrengths of Kung's book is that it deliberately sets out to discuss the theme of justification within thetotal context of Barth's theology. Several chapters are devoted to helpful outlines of the structuralelements of the wider Dogmatics and the discussion ranges over the entire corpus.

Coim O'Grady, The Church in the Theology of Karl Barth. Washington: Corpus Publications, 1968

18

Dialogue with Karl Barth.35 O'Grady concentrates on Barth's understanding of the

church. He holds that the "basic Protestant-Catholic dialogue is typified in the Barth-

Catholic dialogue."36 Clearly the focus of these studies is orientated, each in its own

way, to Roman Catholic concerns.

Balthasar's work is also an example of several presentations of Barth's theology that

focus on the developmental aspects, with particular regard to methodology. Balthasar

argues that one must not attempt to explain the Church Dogmatics on the basis of

Barth's earlier writings characteristic of his "dialectical" phase. With the publication

of Barth's book on Anselm37 Barth's method moved, he says, and with some authority

from Barth himself,38 from his early use of dialectic to his mature method of analogia

fidei.39 This position, endorsed by T. F. Torrance in Karl Barth: An Introduction to

his Early Theology, 1910 — was for many years the standard paradigm. The

recent work of scholars such as Bruce McCormack in Karl Barth 's Critically Realistic

Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909 have brought this

view into question.42

Coim O'Grady, The Church in Catholic Theology: Dialogue with Karl Barth. London: GeoffreyChapman, 1969.36 This is because, he said, Barth's innovative theology sought to follow along the line of the sixteenthcentury Reformers. It was ideal for an ongoing dialogue because it was so consistent and extensive.O'Grady's two volume work sought to facilitate this dialogue. Part one sets out clearly Barth's viewand Part two the Catholic view. The positive influence of Barth's theology of the Trinity and theChurch on Roman Catholic theology is acknowledged by O'Grady, even to the point of saying thatVatican II "can be viewed as an attempted implementation of legitimate demands such as his." Theconverse, however, cannot be claimed. O'Grady laments that Barth has not listen to Catholic concerns.As with Kung's study, O'Grady's thematic approach ranges through the whole complex of the ChurchDogmatics.

Karl Barth, Anseim: Fides Quaerens Intellectum. London: SCM Press, 1931 (Hereafter abbreviatedFQI)

Barth said in the second preface to his Anseim book: "Only a comparatively few commentators, forexample Hans Urs von Balthasar, have realized that my interest in Anseim was never a side issue withme.... Most of them have completely failed to see that in this book on Anseim I am working with avital key, if not the key, to the whole process of thought that has interested me more and more in myChurch Dogmatics as the only one proper to theology" (FQI, 11).

According to Balthasar, although Barth did not wholly abandon the dialectical emphasis of his earlieryears, within the Church Dogmatics a successive shift from the method of dialectics to analogy, inparticular to the analogia fidei can be detected. This shift in theological method was supposedlymarked by the publication of Barth's book on Anseim.40 Thomas F. Torrance Karl Barth: An Introduction to his Early Theology, 1910— 1931, London: SCMPress, 1962, 182ff.

Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis andDevelopment 1909 - 1936. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.42 Bruce McCormack denies there was such a defmite transition in Barth's theological method, andclaims that Barth never really gave up the dialectical approach for the method of analogy in the ChurchDogmatics. He also disputes the importance of the Anseim book as a turning point in Barth's approachand argues that the analogia fidei is not a theological method at all. The analogia fidei is in itself,

19

George Hunsinger maintains that both Baithasar's and Torrance's approach to Barth's

Dogmatics are examples of interpretations which search for a grand organizing

principle.43 He points to the formal principle of analogy (analogia fidei) and the

material foundation of christology, as Baithasar's understanding of what determines

the shape and content of Barth's theology. Torrance, he says, has organized Barth's

theology under the rubric of the Word of God. It is arguable that this is really the case

in Torrance's work.44 It is, however, clearly the approach of the major work by the

Reformed theologian Gerrit C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of

Karl Barth. Berkouwer's book attempts to assume all under the controlling motif of

the "triumph of grace," an approach which was rejected by Barth himself in one of the

later volumes of the Dogmatics.45

Rather than search for a central principle, Robert Jenson in Alpha and Omega. A

Study in the Theology of Karl Barth46 addresses certain key questions concerning the

relationship between God and history to Barth's Dogmatics. In this way he seeks to

arrive at a "description of Barth's thought which is at once true to his pattern of

thinking and yet more than a mere chapter-by-chapter summary of the Church

Dogmatics."47 Interestingly, even though he adopts this approach he still comes close

McCormack claims, an "inherently dialectical concept" which does not represent an abandoning ofdialectic but is itself an expression of it. McCormack thus argues for a continuity of the dialecticalmethod for the whole of Barth's output since breaking with Liberalism, dubbing it a "critically realisticdialectical theology." It was material decisions in dogmatics, he says, not methodological changes thatcharacterize the difference between Barth's latter and earlier theology (Bruce L. McCormack, KarlBarth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909 - 1936. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1995, vii-x, 1-28). The dialogue on this in the Scottish Journal of Theology isinformative: Gunton, Cohn E., "Article Review: Bruce McCormack's Karl Barth's Critically RealisticDialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936", Scottish Journal of Theology, 1996,Vol. 49 (4), 483-91; and McCormack, Bruce Lindley, "Barth in Context: A Response to ProfessorGunton", Scottish Journal of Theology, 1996, Vol. 49 (4), 49 1-98.43George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology, New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1995, 6-12.

In my reading of Torrance he does not use the term "Word of God" abstractly, but always has inmind Jesus Christ. For example, when Torrance characterizes Barth's theology as a "theology of theWord," he explains that he means, "a positive Christian dogmatics centred in Jesus Christ" (Thomas F.Torrance Karl Barth: An Introduction to his Early Theology, 1910— 1931, 131).45Barth's response to Berkouwer, was: "We are not concerned with.. .a principle, even though theprinciple be that of grace. We are concerned with the living person of Jesus Christ" (CD P1.3.1, 173).Again, "I am not trying unilaterally to think through the principle of grace to the point at which I reachthe "triumph of grace" in this relationship. I should regard such a procedure as quite illegitimate" (CDIV.3.1, 175).46 Robert W. Jenson, Alpha and Omega: A Study in the Theology of Karl Barth. New York: ThomasNelson & Sons, 1963.

Robert W. Jenson, Alpha and Omega, 18. The three basic questions he poses are "(1) To what enddoes God rule human history, and what is the course of the history of salvation? (2) In what sense doesGod have a history, and what is the relation between this history and ours? That is, how does God

20

to endorsing what amounts to a central concept with his view that Barth's

"christological doctrine of election" is the "centre of his thought."48

All of the commentators referred to so far, have, in one way or another, indicated the

importance of christology in Barth's dogmatics. There is, however, a recent approach

by William Stacy Johnson, The Mystery of God. Karl Barth and the Postmodern

Foundations of Theology,49 which attempts a reading of Barth's Dogmatics from a

"theocentric" rather than a "christocentric" perspective. Likening the Dogmatics to a

musical composition, Johnson acknowledges that "the most audible strain" is its

"christocentrism." There is, however, a "countermelody at work" as well. Johnson

identifies the hiddemiess and mystery of God to be the "theocentric" minor theme,

"submerged beneath the rest of the composition." Johnson's interest is to show that

Barth's theology, with its non-foundationalist approach, has contemporary relevance

for the postmodern world. 50

Then there is the thematic approach.5' Thematic studies usually begin with a brief

outline of important structural aspects of the Dogmatics, point to "keys to Barth's

thought," and invariably discuss the positioning of the particular doctrine or theme

that they are focusing on within the overall framework. Some of the significant ones,

guide human history? (3) What is the reality to which talk in the Church bears witness?" The answerto each is Christ the Omega, Christ the Alpha, Christ the Alpha and the Omega. Within this threefoldschema Jenson expounds (1) Barth's understanding of creation, covenant, providence, evil, sin, and thenoncontingency of reconciliation; (2) The preexistence of Jesus Christ, eternal history, eternal historyand Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ as the foundation of creation, nihility; (3) Created reality andreconciled reality, inclusive christology. A chapter follows this on "Predestination" and a final chapteron "Reflections."48 Robert W. Jenson, Alpha and Omega, 18, note 5.

William Stacy Johnson, The Mystery of God: Karl Barth and the Postmodern Foundations ofTheology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.50 Ibid, 1. Johnson's book is an appeal, based on Barth's own practice, to "begin again at thebeginning" in our reading of Barth. Far from being a rigid restatement of an outmoded theologicaltradition, Barth's Dogmatics has contemporary relevance for a postmodern, non-foundationalist, andmultidimensional approach to theology. It actually points the way in this direction, being a precursorto postmodemism. This is because Barth's is a "decentring" theology. It refuses to acknowledge any"ground" or "givenness" upon which theology can be constructed and manipulated. "Some mayassume," Johnson asserts, "that revelation in Jesus Christ functions, in fact, as the "given" in Barth'stheology. To the contrary, neither "revelation" nor "Jesus Christ" is self-evident to theologicalanalysis. We have them as "signs" that can do no more than "point" to the God who is ultimatemystery." Johnson's study traverses the whole scope of Barth's dogmatics from the perspective ofopenness. Not that this is a "central concept," as such, but rather "a style or method of thinking." It istherefore not the content of Barth's thought so much that Johnson is really concerned with, but themode of his theological inquiry.

These appear in books entirely devoted to one theme, essays in edited collections, journals, andchapters in general introductions of various sorts.

21

(many originating as doctoral theses, but also many journal articles), include works

devoted to Barth's idea of revelation;52 scripture;53 Trinity;54 Cbristology;55 the Holy

Spirit;56 election;57 creation;58 reconciliation;59 evil;60 humanity;6' ethics;62 church;63

time;65 eschatology66 and so on.

52 Peter Monsma, Karl Barth 's Idea of Revelation, Somerville: Somerset Press, 1939; James E.Davidson "Can God Speak A Word To Man? Barth's Critique Of Schleiermacher's Theology" inScottish Journal of Theology Vol. 37,189-211; Cohn Gunton "No Other Foundation" in Nigel Biggar,editor, Reckoning With Barth: Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of Karl Barth's Birth,London & Oxford: Mowbray, 1988, 6 1-79.

Klaus Runia, Karl Barth '.s Doctrine of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962; Mark 1.Wallace "Karl Barth's Hermeneutic: A Way beyond the Impasse" in Journal of Religion 68 (July1988): 396-410; D. F. Ford, "Barth's Interpretation of the Bible" in S. W. Sykes, editor, Karl Barth:Studies of his Theological Method, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979, 55-87; Werner G. Jeanrond, "KarlBarth's Hermeneutics" in Nigel Biggar, editor, Reckoning With Barth: Essays in Commemoration ofthe Centenary of Karl Barth's Birth, London & Oxford: Mowbray, 1988, 80-97.

Cohn Gunton, "Barth, The Trinity, An Human Freedom" in Theology Today Vol.43, no.3, 316-330;Eberhard Jungel, The Doctrine of the Trinity: God's Being is in Becoming. Translated by HortonHarris. Edinburgh & London: Scottish Academic Press, 1976; Paul D. Molnar "The Function of theImmanent Trinity in the Theology of Karl Barth: Its Implications for Today" in Scottish Journal ofTheology Vol. 42, 267-399; Richard H. Roberts, "Karl Barth on the Trinity" in A Theology On Its Way:Essays on Karl Barth. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991, 8 1-93; R. D. Williams, "Barth on the TriuneGod" in S. W. Sykes, editor, Karl Barth: Studies of his Theological Method, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1979, 147-193.

John Thompson, Christ in Perspective in the Theology of Karl Barth. Edinburgh: St Andrew's Press,1978.

56 John Thompson, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Karl Barth. Allison Park: PickwickPublications, 1991; Philip J. Rosato, The Spirit As Lord: The Pneumatology of Karl Barth. Edinburgh:T.&T. Clark, 1981.

Cohn E. Gunton "The Doctrine of God: Karl Barth's doctrine of election as part of his doctrine ofGod" in Cohn E. Gunton, Theology Through the Theologians: Selected Essays 19 72-1995, Edinburgh:1. & T. Clark, 1996, 88-104.58 Gordon Watson, God and the Creature: The Trinity and Creation in Karl Barth; Dan L. Deegan,"The Christological Determinant in Barth's Doctrine of Creation" in The Scottish Journal of Theology,14 (June 1961): 119-135; W. A. Whitehouse "Karl Barth on "The Work of Creation." A Reading ofChurch Dogmatics, 11111" in Nigel Biggar, editor, Reckoning With Barth: Essays in Commemoration ofthe Centenary of Karl Barth's Birth, London & Oxford: Mowbray, 1988, 43-57.

Donald G. Bloesch Jesus is Victor! Karl Barth's Doctrine of Salvation, Nashville: Abingdon, 1976;Arthur Cochrane, "The Doctrine of Sanctification: Review of Barth's Kirchhiche Dogmatik, IV/2" inTheology Today, Vol., 13, 1956, no.3, 376-388; Hans Kung, Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barthand a Roman Catholic Reflection, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1964;60 Scott R. Rodin, Evil and Theodicy in the Theology of Karl Barth, New York: Peter Lang Publishing,1997.61 Stuart D. McLean, Humanity in the Thought of Karl Barth, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981; JohnThompson, "The Humanity of God in the Theology of Karl Barth" in Scottish Journal of Theology Vol.29, 249-69.62 Nigel Biggar, "Hearing God's Command and Thinking about What's Right: With and BeyondBarth" in Nigel Biggar, editor, Reckoning With Barth. Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary ofKarl Barth's Birth, London & Oxford: Mowbray, 1988, 101-118; John Macken, The Autonomy Themein the Church Dogmatics: Karl Barth and his1 Critics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990;John Webster, Barth's Ethics of Reconciliation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; J. B.Webster "The Christian in Revolt: Some Reflections on The Christian in Nigel Biggar, editor,Reckoning With Barth: Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of Karl Barth's Birth, London &Oxford: Mowbray, 1988, 119-143; Robert E. Willis, The Ethics of Karl Barth, Leiden: E. J. Brill,1971.63 Colm O'Grady, The Church in the Theology of Karl Barth. Washington: Corpus Publications, 1968;The Church in Catholic Theology: Dialogue with Karl Barth. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969;

22

A variation on the thematic approach is to discuss a number of themes or aspects of

Barth's Dogmatics without trying to apply any interpretive device. This is the loci

approach. Herbert H. Hartwell's The Theology of Karl Barth: An Introduction67 is

the classic text that follows this approach. Slightly different again are those

concerned to keep even closer to the format of Barth's Dogmatics. The two important

interpretations of Barth that simply take the form of following the table of contents in

the Dogmatics, paraphrasing, abridging and explaining Barth's discussion, are Otto

Weber's Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: An Introductoiy Report on Volumes 1:1 to68 and Geoffrey W. Bromiley's An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth.69

A radical departure from all of the approaches mentioned so far is found in George

Hunsinger's How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of his Theology.70 Instead of

seeking to identify controlling ideas, or central themes, or simply restating Barth's

theology, Hunsinger has developed a list of "motifs" or "modes of thought" evident in

Barth's Dogmatics (originally suggested to him by Hartwell's list of "characteristic

features" of Barth's theology).7'

Alistar McGrath "Barth on Jesus Christ, Theology and the Church" in Nigel Biggar, editor, ReckoningWith Barth: Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of Karl Barth's Birth, London & Oxford:Mowbray, 1988, 27-41.64 H. Hartwell, "Karl Barth on Baptism" in Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 22, 10-29; Paul D. MolarKarl Barth and the Theology of the Lord's Supper: A Systematic Investigation, New York: Peter LangPublishing, 1996.65 Richard Roberts, "Karl Barth's Doctrine of Time: Its Nature and Implications" in A Theology On ItsWay: Essays on Karl Barth. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991, 1-58.66 s• Reist "Commencement, Continuation and Consummation: Karl Barth's Theology of Hope"Evangelical Quarterly, Vol., 59, July 1987, 195-2 14.67 Op.cit. Hartwell has discussed Barth's theology around the following loci: General Introduction;The Word of God as the Source and Criterion of Theology; Jesus Christ, the Key to the Understandingof God, the Universe and Man; Gospel and Law; The Grace of God; The Significance of Barth'sTheology.68 Otto Weber Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: An Introductory Report on Volumes I:] to 111:4.Translated by Arthur Cochrane, London: Lutterworth Press, 1953.

W. Bromiley An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979.Bromiley says of his work: "The aim is to give a direct summary of the material as Barth himselfdevised, organized, and presented it. Secondary sources will be ignored, not because they arevalueless, but in order that nothing apart from the person of the introducer may stand between thatwhich is introduced and those to whom the introduction is made." (ix). Bromiley work obviouslyfollows Barth's outline: The Doctrine of the Word of God; The Doctrine of God; The Doctrine ofCreation; The Doctrine of Reconciliation

George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology, New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 199571 Ibid. 20-37. Hunsinger argues that: "Several recurrent "motifs" or modes of thought...can be seen torun throughout the Church Dogmatics and to shape the doctrinal content of Barth's mature theology asa whole. "Actualism," "particularism," "objectivism," "personalism," "realism," and "rationalism" arethe names that will be used to designate these motifs"(ibid, 4). Hunsinger explains the outcome of suchan approach: "No tightly constructed scheme into which Barth's theology can be seen to fit results

23

To recapitulate: The literature referred to so far reflects a variety of ways of

approaching Barth's Church Dogmatics. Some interpreters (1) seek to offer a critique

in the light of a different theological tradition; (2) focus on methodological issues; (3)

search for an organizing central principle; or (4) a central concept; (5) seek answers to

key questions; (6) identify a minor key; (7) concentrate on a specific theme in various

ways; (8) paraphrase, abridge and summarise with minimal interpretive comment; or

(9) identify recurring motifs or modes of thought. As helpful, or otherwise, as each of

these approaches may be, the glaring omission is that none of them is orientated to

Barth's major concern: the relevance of his Dogmatics for preaching.

Having said this, it is true that there have been some attempts to take seriously Barth's

claim that his Dogmatics is for the purpose of preaching. Although some studies are

inaccessible to English readers, there are several minor articles that address aspects of

the theme.72 Stephen H. Webb has produced a study on the relationship between

Barth's rhetorical style and 1± conceptual thought, but focuses mainly on Barth's

early theology.73 The only other major study of which I am aware is Arnold B.

Come's An Introduction to Barth's Dogmatics for Preachers.74 True to its title,

Come's book provides an introduction to Barth's Dogmatics for active preachers. It

not only gives a "map to the labyrinth" of the Dogmatics and a "quick tour" of its

contents, but also provides several chapters on how Barth's Dogmatics informs

from the exercise. Nor does a single overarching conception that unifies Barth's theology as a whole.Yet something more emerges than a set of loci strung together like beads on a string: a flexible butunmistakable repertoire of "thought forms," a repertoire implicitly and explicitly brought to bearthroughout Barth's argumentation in his great dogmatic work" (ibid, 5-6). Hunsinger warns that themotifs that he has identified are not to be understood as the content of Barth's thought but rather the"forms" that govern his thought. These, Barth would claim, have been determined by the nature of thedogmatic Subject Himself: God in His revelation in Jesus Christ.72William R. Barr "The Presentation of Christ" in Lexington Theological Quarterly Volume X, No. 2,April, 1975, 5 1-62; Geoffrey W. Bromiley "Theology as Service in Karl Barth" in Trevor Hart andDaniel Thimell (eds.) Christ in Our Place. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1989, 133-151; Trevor A. Hart,"The Word, the Words. And the Witness: Proclamation as Divine and Human Reality in the Theologyof Karl Barth" Tyndale Bulletin Vol 46 May 1995, 8 1-102 (also found in Trevor A. Hart RegardingKarl Barth: Essays Toward a Reading of his Theology. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999, 28-47);Frederick L. Hertzog "theologican of the Word of God" in Theology Today Volume XII Oct., 1956,315-33 1; Philip Lee "Karl Barth as Preacher and Pastor" in Union Seminary Quarterly review Vol 28Fall 1972, 87-92; J. McConnachie "Barth as a Preacher of the Word of God" in The ofKarl Barth. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931, 168-189.

Stephen H. Webb Re-figuring Theology: The Rhetoric of Karl Barth. Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 1991. Webb does have a final chapter in which he discusses the development ofBarth's Church Dogmatics as a "retreat" from the rhetoric of expressionism exemplified in his earlierwork to a more realist style. See Chapter 6 "Retreat and Reconstruction: Re-Reading Barth Today,"149ff.74Arnold B. Come An Introduction to Barth's Dogmatics for Preachers. Philadelphia: Westminster,1963.

24

preaching in relation to the use of the Bible and various themes for preaching (e.g.,

"Jesus Christ," "Man Between God and the Demonic," "God's Awesome

Command").75 True also to Barth's intent, Come endorses Barth's Dogmatics as a

valuable guide for preaching, but cautions about simply using it as a resource for

preaching, i.e., as an uncritical "Barthian."76 Barth, I think, would have appreciated

both the endorsement and the words of caution.77

Encouragement for preachers to draw on Barth's Dogmatics as an aid for their

preaching is also found in the index volume of the Church Dogmatics itself, where a

section entitled "Aids for the Preacher" is included.78 This seeks to make more

accessible to preachers exegetical passages taken from the Dogmatics by arranging

them according to the church year. As an extension of this, another volume of

extracts from the Church Dogmatics has been complied by John McTavish and

Harold Wells, Karl Barth Preaching Through the Christian Year: A Selection of

Exegetical Passages from the Church Dogmatics.79 As helpful as these publications

may be for preachers, there still remains the question: How did Barth's own dogmatic

parameters determine the nature and the construction of his own sermons? One is

forced back to the primary sources to determine the answer to this question.

The major primary sources relevant for understanding the relationship between

Barth's preaching and his dogmatics, and which therefore will be the source for this

research are: (1) Barth's early lectures on preaching (published from student notes)

initially in Prayer and Preaching,8° but later revised and renamed, Homiletics,81 an

Chapters VI-XI, Arnold B. Come An Introduction to Barth's Dogm atics for Preachers. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1963, 168-232.76 Come says in the preface that he feared his book might become too successful, i.e., preachers mightbe encouraged by it to used Barth's Dogmatics as a resource, without the critical approach Comesuggests in his chapter on "How to Avoid Becoming a Barthiari" (Come, Arnold B. An Infroduction toBarth's Dogin atics for Preachers. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963, 9).

Eberhard Busch, Barth's biographer comments on that fact that "it was a joy and a satisfaction to himthat a large number of pastors were using them [his Church Dogmatics] and reading them" (Busch,489). Of those who were uncritical Barthians, Barth himself was critical! (See for example BelaVassady "Gleanings" in Donald K. McKim How Karl Barth Changed My Mind, Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1986, 28-29).

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: Index Volume with Aids for the Preacher. Edited by G.W. Bromileyand T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977.

John McTavish and Harold Wells (eds.) Karl Barth Preaching Thorough the Christian Year: ASelection of Exegetical Passages from the Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T. & 1. Clarke, 1978.

Karl Barth, Prayer and Preaching. Edited by A. Roulin and translated by B. E. Hooke. London:SCM Press, 1964.

25

invaluable primary source for understanding Barth's own views on the nature of

preaching and the criteria and practice of sermon construction; (2) the Church

Dogmatics82 itself; and (3) the first volume of Barth's Basel prison sermons,

Deliverance to the Captives (1959)83

Other relevant resources are (1) the essay, "The Need and Promise of Christian

Preaching," in the early collection of Barth's essays, The Word of God and the Word

of Man84; and (2) Barth's Gottingen Dogmatics,85 an early attempt by Barth to

construct a dogmatics orientated specifically towards preaching. Although not

included in the main body of this thesis, a descriptive analysis of each will be attached

as appendices.

81Karl Barth, Homiletics. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Donald E. Daniels. Louisville:Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991 (H), In the preface of Prayer and Preaching Barth said that hehad no recollection of when these lectures on preaching were given. In the foreword to Homiletics,however, we are informed that the material was drawn from lectures conducted at Bonn in 1932 and1933 under the title "Exercises in Sermon Preparation" (H, 7).82

See bibliography for details.83 Karl Barth, Deliverance to the Captives. Translated by Marguerite Wieser. New York: Harper andRow, 1959 (DC). See also Karl Barth, Call for God. Translated by A. T. Mackay. London: SCMPress Ltd, 1967.84 Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man. Translated by Douglas Horton. London: Hodderand Stoughton, 1928, 97-13 5 (WGWM)85 Karl Barth Gottingen Dogmatics, Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1990 (GD)

26

Chapter Two: Methodology

Michael Crotty86 maintains that as a precursor to legitimate research one must first

nominate the methods one proposes to adopt. By methods he means the techniques or

procedures to gather and analyse data relevant to the research question. Then an

outline of the methodology is required. This is a statement of the overall strategy or

plan of action to be followed in employing these methods to achieve the desired

outcome. Further to this, Crony insists that the theoretical perspective or

philosophical stance and the epistemology or theory of knowledge rooted in this

philosophy should be clearly articulated. The following discussion is an attempt to

clearly spell out these four elements. It will address first the epistemological and

theoretical perspective, then the methodology, and finally the methods used in this

research.

1. EpistemologyThe epistemology adopted in this research is the critical realist approach. Critical

realism is a theory of knowledge that refuses to take sides with both objectivism,87

(i.e., naive realism) and subjectivism88 (in all its forms including constructivism89). It

differs from subjectivism in that it maintains that reality exists outside the perception

of the knower. It differs from objectivism by not assuming that the knower's

perception of this reality corresponds exactly to it. N. T. Wright defines critical

realism in the following way:

This is a way of describing the process of 'knowing' that acknowledges thereality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence

86 Michael Crotty The Foundations of Social Research St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1998.87 According to Crotty: "Objectivist epistemology holds that meaning, and therefore meaningful reality,exists as such apart from the operation of any consciousness... In this objectivist view of 'what itmeans to know', understandings and values are considered to be objectified in the people we arestudying and, if we go about it in the right way, we can discover the objective truth" (Michael Crotty,Foundations, 8).88 Again, according to Crotty: "In subjectivism, meaning... is imposed on the object by the subject.Here the object as such makes no contri8ution to the generation of meaning" (Michael Crotty,Foundations, 9).89mis view, as explained by Crotty, agrees with the subjectivist claim that there is no objective truth tobe discovered because there is "no meaning without a mind." Rather than holding that the subjectimposes meaning on the object, however, this view holds that truth or meaning comes about from "theinterplay between subject and object." Meaning "comes into existence" through this interplay orengagement. In other words, meaning is constructed by subjective interaction with an objective text(Michael Crotty, Foundations, 8-9).

27

'realism'), while also fully acknowledging that the only access we have to thisreality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversationbel',veen the knower and the thing known (hence 'critical'). This path leads tocritical reflection on the products of our enquiry into 'reality', so that ourassertions about 'reality' acknowledge their own provisionality. Knowledge,in other words, although in principle concerning realities independent of theknower, is never itself independent of the knower.9°

2. Theoretical PerspectiveThe theoretical perspective, as Crotty designates it, is the "philosophical stance

informing the methodology and thus providing a context for the process and

grounding its logic and criteria."9' It is to be "a statement of the assumptions brought

to this research task and reflected in the methodology as we understand and employ

it."92

The theoretical position of this research may be designated hermeneutical realism.93

This is the view that it is possible through the application of hermeneutical method to

arrive at a valid understanding of the meaning of literary texts. One cannot assume to

have the absolutely correct interpretation, but one can arrive at an interpretation that

may be considered "provisionally sufficient."94 Although always open to further

verification and critique, it assumes that an adequate representation of the reality

pointed to by the text can be arrived at by the interpreter.

N. 1. Wright The New Testament and the People of God Augsburg: Fortress Press, 1992, 35. In afootnote, Wright explains "the adjective 'critical' in the phrase 'critical realism' has a different functionto the same adjective in the phrase 'critical reason.' In the latter (as e.g. in Kant) it is active: 'reasonthat provides a critique.' In the former it is passive: 'realism subject to critique.' (footnote 12)91 Michael Crotty, Foundations, 392 Michael Crotty, Foundations, 7

The following description of hermeneutical realism is in agreement with the hermeneutical theoryadopted by Barth himself, in his Church Dogmatics, and draws from his discussion. It is G. Hunsingerwho has described Barth's hermeneutics as "hermeneutical realism" (G. Hunsinger, How to Read KarlBarth, 224-225). Barth describes his hermeneutical theory in the Church Dogmatics as "generalhermeneutics" (CD 1.2, 465ff, 723ff). One may state the underlying assumption of Barth's position inthe dictum of Anseim (fides quaerens intellectum). For Barth, faith in God is the starting point of alltheological reflection and human understanding. This comes as a gift from the self-revealing God.That God is real and has revealed himself is therefore the basic assumption from which all reflection onGod and the world must begin.

A phrase coined by G. Hunsinger in his essay "beyond Literalism and Expressivism: Karl Barth'sHermeneutical Realism" in Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2000, 2 10-225

28

The critical question in hermeneutics involves the locus of meaning in relation to a

text.95 Three options are commonly advanced: (1) The position held by

Schleiermacher and Dilthey was that the meaning of a text is discovered in the

intention of the author;96 (2) More recent hermeneutical approaches, influenced by

New Criticism97 or Structuralism,98 locate the meaning in the text itself; (3) Still more

recent reader—centred approaches focus almost exclusively on the reader's role in

constructing meaning from the text, or even imposing the reader's own meaning on

it.99

Werner G. Jeanrond argues that hermeneutics must be related to textual interpretation. He says: "weunderstand by 'hermeneutics,' first of all, the reflection upon the conditions and possible methods ofthe human understanding of texts." He seeks to clarify four areas of confusion in regard to themeaning of hermeneutics: (1) Hermeneutics concerns the 'theory of interpretation' and not'interpretation' itself, it is therefore concerned with "procedures and methods and implications of theunderstanding of texts." (2) Hermeneutics and epistemology are related but not identical, the former isconcerned with understanding human language, the later with the act of knowing in general. (3)'Macro-hermeneutics' concerns human understanding in general light of the interpretation oftexts; 'micro-hermeneutics' seeks to avoid bringing ontological questions into consideration at first andfocuses on "the acts and text-interpretation in particular." (4) Hermeneutical reflectiondoes not free one from the ambiguities of the human situation which it exposes: "the liberation whichresults from our insights into the possibilities and limitations of text-interpretation can only be aliberation for further and possibly new acts of understanding and not a liberation from such activity."Werner G. Jeanrond "Karl Barth's Hermeneutics" in Nigel Biggar (ed) Reckoning with Barth: Essaysin Commemoration of the Centenary of Karl Barth's Birth London & Oxford: Mowbray, 1988, 80-81.96 F. Schleiermacher is considered the founder of modern hermeneutics and his biographer Diltheyextended his views on the meaning being located in authorial intent (Michael Crotty, Foundations, 92-94).

New Criticism is the name given to a trend in meaning theory prominent in the 1940s and 1950s.The name is derived from the book by John C. Ransom, The New Criticism. W. Randolph Tateexplains: "According to New Criticism, the author's intention and world are not importantconsiderations for interpretation because the literary work itself is sufficient. The text is a literaryentity which can stand on its own. Interpretation is limited to the text, meaning that the role of theauthor is for all practical purposes denied, or at least given no prominent role in interpretation. This ofcourse, demands an extremely close and careful reading of the text. The reader must give muchattention to the various linguistic and literary relationships within the text" (W. Randolph Tate BiblicalInterpretation: An Integrated Approach Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, xviii).98 Structuralism derives ultimately from Ferdinand de Saussure's work in linguistics at the turn of thecentury (Course in General Linguistics, 1915) which emphasised that language must not just be studieddiachronically i.e., by focusing on its individual parts, but synchronically i.e., by focusing on therelationship between its individual parts ("Structuralism" in DBI, 651). At the base of de Saussure'ssystem of structural linguistics is an assumption that the human mind functions according to certainstructures or recurring patterns and these are expressed in language. The emphasis for structuralapproaches to a text is therefore on the relationship of the words in the text rather than on the meaningof the words as intended by the author. Tate explains: "Structuralism also focuses on the text. Theauthor of a work is not an original creator, but simply uses certain literary devices already existingwithin contemporary culture. Since a work is conceived out of already existing literary conventions,the meaning of the text is located in the conventions, not in the intention of the author (W. RandolphTate Biblical Interpretation, xviii-xix).

Tate explains: "The reader brings to the text a vast world of experience, presuppositions,methodologies, interests and competencies. The reader must actualise the meaning that is onlypotential in the text. Most reader—orientated theories hold that a text means nothing until someonemeans something by it. More radical proponents of reader response criticism go further to say that thereader creates meaning out of the text. Others.., hold that the meaning is produced by the mutualinteraction between text and reader. According to this view the text engages the reader as the reader

29

Hermeneutical realism attempts to transcend the extremes of both the objectivist and

subjectivist epistemologies, although it recognises an objective and a subjective

element in the hermeneutical process. It also refutes the constructivist insistence that

there is no objective referential for meaning outside the construction of the reader as

he or she interacts with the text. It insists that there is an objective referential of

meaning. This objective referential is distinct from the intention of the author, the

text itself, and the subjectivity of the reader.

This view maintains that in order to interpret any human text we must recognise that

something is described or intended by the words of the author.'°° It holds that

language only has meaning if there is an objective referent.'°1 The author of a text

seeks to convey, by means of the linguistic symbols, a particular picture of some

object, theme or subject matter. The text becomes the linguistic form of that

particular picture or object. Its purpose is to evoke the same picture in the reader or

interpreter. In other words, the author begins with a picture of some reality, which he

or she then attempts to convey through the medium of words. These words are not

the reality as perceived by the author, but they are an attempt to point to that reality.

Legitimate interpretation of the text occurs when the reader, following the sense of the

words in the text, reproduces that picture of reality in his or her own mind.'02

engages the text. Meaning, then, is an invention of the reader in collaboration with the text, but is notdivested of interests and presuppositions. The text is re-contextualized through the multicolouredlenses of the reader" (W. Randolph Tate Biblical Interpretation, xix).100 Barth says: "We must also take quite defmitely the fact that as a human word it does say somethingspecific, that as a human word it points away from itself, that as a word it points towards a fact, anobject.... What human word is there which does not do the same? We do not speak for the sake ofspeaking, but for the sake of the indication which is to be made by our speaking. We speak for the sakeof what we denote or intend by our speaking" (CD 1.2, 464).101 For Barth, words direct the thinking of the interpreter to the object evoked by them. He says: "Wecan think of an object by thinking of the word that describes it, that is by obeying the directions whichour thinking receives from the sign language of this word and so considering what claims to be thethought of the object concerned" (FQI, 163). Barth says: "The universal rule of interpretation is that atext can be read and understood and expounded only with reference to and in the light of its theme"(CD 1.2, 493). The process of interpretation involves grasping "the subject-matter or reference of whatthe author says" in a particular text (CD 1.2, 723).102 Barth says: "The image. which their [i.e., the author's] words conjure up reflects a certain object"(CD 1.2, 723). The interpretive task, according to Barth, is to "try to reproduce and copy the themewhose image is reflected in the picture" (CD 1.2, 723) which is portrayed linguistically in the text. Thispicture is not identical with the words, but comes to the interpreter "in the mirror of these words bymeans of the literary examination" (CD 1.2, 724). The interpreter seeks to "form an accurate picture ofthe object mirrored" (CD 1.2, 724) and in this way comes to understand the meaning. Thomas E.Provence explains Barth's position: "Words are directional signals to an object which is beyond them;they have no ontological force of their own. Neither do words direct us to the author's inner thoughtsor feelings. Instead, they point to an object beyond both the author and interpreter... The point ofinterpretation is not found in understanding the words of the text as such or in entering into the

30

According to hermeneutical realism, the meaning cannot be located in the words or

linguistic symbols of the text, for one may understand the grammar and syntax of a

text, i.e., its literal meaning, but have no true understanding of its objective referent,

and so no understanding of its actual meaning. Again, the meaning cannot be

restricted to the presuppositions of the author that lie behind the text because this

would be to ignore the referent — the object to which the words point.'03 Nor can the

meaning of a text be exclusively constructed, or determined subjectively by the reader

or interpreter him or herself, for then there would be no objective meaning at all, but

only the interpreter's own meaning. This would make the communication of meaning

from the author to the interpreter impossible since it undermines the basic

presuppositions that the author intended to convey meaning, that the text is about

something, and that interpreting is about discovering what this is.104 Although careful

aftention must be given to the words of the text, the background and context of the

author, and one's own presuppositions, it is only when the reader actually grasps the

thoughts of the author. Instead, understanding properly occurs when the object evoked by the words ofthe author is reproduced in the mind of the interpreter" (Thomas E. Provence "The Sovereign SubjectMatter: Hermeneutics in the Church Dogmatics" in Donald K. McKim (ed) A Guide to ContemporaryHermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1986, 243).Thomas F. Torrance also takes a critical realist hermeneutical position similar to Barth's. He alsoinsists that the words of a text must be read in the light of the reality to which they point. This reality isnot to be identified with the text, but indicated by it. To read a text without acknowledging theontological reality to which it points, Torrance asserts, is to suffer a loss of meaning. Torrancearticulates these views with particular reference to interpretation of the New Testament text. He says:"the theologian handles the New Testament by reflecting on its reports in the light of the reality whichthey claim to indicate, independent of the reports, by letting his mind fall under the power of itsintrinsic influence.., he interprets the reports not by subjecting the reality they indicate to the reportsbut by subjecting the reports to the reality they intend... This does not mean that the theologicalinterpreter pays no attention to the literary and conceptual patterns which the reports assume infulfilling their intention, for they have an all-important significative role to play, but that he will notallow the realities signified to be reduced to, or resolved into, or equated with, the forms of speech andthought that are employed in the service of their disclosure and apprehension. That kind of nominalisterror is, of course, inevitable whenever the ontological reference of biblical statements is broken, orphenomenologically bracketed off, with the result that the significant sequences of the biblicalnarratives suffer badly from analytical disintegration and considerable loss of meaning." In a footnoteto this statement Torrance states his epistemological position: "I find myself forced to accept a deeplybut critically realist position bound up with the inseparability of empirical and theoretical componentsin knowledge" (Thomas F. Torrance Space Time and Resurrection Edinburgh: I & I Clark, 1976, 6,footnote 9).103 Barth says: "My exposition cannot possibly consist in an interpretation of the speaker. Did he saysomething to me only to display himself? I should be guilty of a shameless violence against him, if theonly result of my encounter with him were that I now knew him or knew him better than before. Whatlack of love! Did he not say anything to me at all? (CD 1.2, 465).104 Barth says: "To listen to a human word spoken to us does not mean only that we have cognition ofthe word as such. The understanding of it cannot consist merely in discovering on whatpresuppositions, in what situation, in what linguistic sense and with what intention, in what actualcontext, and in this sense with what meaning the other has said this or that. And the exposition of hisword cannot possibly consist only in the exposition which, as I listen to him, involuntarily or evenconsciously I try to give of the speaker himself' (CD 1.2, 464).

31

subject matter, i.e., perceives in his or her own mind an image of the thing described

or intended, that true understanding comes about.'°5

The hermeneutical realist view maintains therefore that the meaning of texts cannot be

determined only by empirical methods of analysis espoused by the theoretical

perspective of positivism, or literalism; as if meaning is objectively present in the text

and can simply be read off by the application of literary rules of grammar and syntax.

In rejecting this naive objectivism one must not deny, however, that meaning is

conveyed through the text and the grammatical and linguistic conventions must be

observed.

Again, hermeneutical realism does not fit within the theoretical perspective of

interpretivism.106 It is acknowledged, as in interpretivism, that the reader does bring

his or her presuppositions to the text, and does engage subjectively with it. Meaning,

however, is not constructed or imposed but re-envisaged. It is not arrived at directly

and conclusively, as is claimed in a positivist approach, but indirectly and

approximately. The reader grapples with the text seeking to allow his or her ideas to

be corrected or confirmed by the text. In this way both the interpreter's

presuppositions and the author's text itself can be transcended in a process sometimes

referred to as the "hermeneutical spiral."107 Understanding happens as an "event," to

use Barth's term, when through this process, the interpreter sufficiently grasps the

subject matter or objective referent of the text.

105 Barth says: "We can speak meaningfully of hearing a human utterance only when it is clear to us inits function of indicating something that is described or intended by the word, and also when thisfunction has become an event confronting us, when therefore by means of the human word weourselves in some degree perceive the thing described or intended. It is only then that anyone has toldme anything and I have heard it from him" (CD 1.2, 464-465).106 Crotty defines the interpretivist approach as one that "looks for culturally derived and historicallysituated interpretations of the social life-world" (Michael Crotty, Foundations, 67). Crotty describesthe development of modern interpretivist hermeneutical theory as beginning with Schleiermacher andDilthey, influenced by the phenomenology of Heidegger, and later by Gadamer's historicalhermeneutics and finding expression in the hermeneutics of Ricoeur (Michael Crotty, Foundations,87-111).107

See Grant R. Osborne The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to BiblicalInterpretation Downers Grove: Intervasity Press, 1991, 324. W. W. Klien, C.L. Blomberg, R.L.Hubbard introduction to Biblical Interpretation Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993, 114.

32

3. MethodologyTurning now to the methodology, or procedure to be taken in this research:

The first step will be to survey the relevant sections of Barth's Church Dogmatics in

order to determine: (1) Barth's understanding of preaching; and (2) Barth's

understanding of dogmatics in relation to preaching. By providing a selective

analysis of the Dogmatics in this way, the claim made in the introduction that Barth's

whole dogmatic programme was orientated towards preaching can be substantiated.

The survey approach will give due recognition to the loci nature of the Dogmatics in

which Barth repeats himself from various perspectives, each time adding new nuances

of meaning. This means that in order to fully investigate his position on a particular

theme each locus needs to be considered.108 Although following Barth's discussion

throughout the relevant parts of the Dogmatics will involve a certain amount of

repetition, the advantage will be not only to give a true representation of his position,

i.e., what he says, but also an indication of how he has developed it, i.e., how he says

it.

The next step will be to outline Barth's specific definition of the nature, criteria and

form of the sermon, as given in his early lectures on preaching in Homiletics.'09 This

will form the beginning point for the rest of the research procedure.

Then, returning to the Church Dogmatics itself, a further selective analysis will be

attempted. The focus this time will be on the question of whether Barth's first and

primary criterion for the sermon outlined in Barth's early lectures on preaching is also

108 Geoffrey W. Bromiley explains why the "selective approach," i.e., simply investigating a singlevolume or part volume of the CD, is inadequate: "The reason lies in Barth's theological method. Barthdoes not simply deal with an individual doctrine in its proper sequence and then move on to the next.For him, God himself, not the doctrines, constitutes the theme of theology. Hence all the doctrines areclosely interwoven. The individual teachings are constantly seen in new contexts and from differentangles as the series continues.. .To read a given volume or a selection from different volumes inisolation from all the rest, is to run the risk of considerable misunderstanding, or at least misplacementof emphasis in relation to the theology as a whole" (Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth,Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979, x-xi).109Karl Barth, Homiletics. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Donald E. Daniels. Louisville:Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991.

33

grounded in the wider context of his Church Dogmatics.'1° By demonstrating that

this criterion is firmly rooted in Barth's dogmatic thought it is thereby validated as a

legitimate point of correlation for testing the dogmatic determination of his sermons.

The final step will be to analyse a selection of Barth's own sermons in the light of

Barth's own sermon criteria. The influence of all the criteria will be considered, but

the specific focus will be on Barth's primary criterion previously grounded in his

mature theology the Church Dogmatics.

Four sermons will be selected for the comparative testing of Barth's theory and

practice. These will be drawn from the first collection of sermons Barth preached to

prisoners in Basel prison published under the English title of Deliverance to the

Captives. The rationale for selecting sermons from this collection is as follows: (1) it

was Barth's own suggestion;'11 (2) the sermons were preached in the decade of 1950s

and so were contemporaneous with Barth's mature theology as reflected in the

Church Dogmatics. Many, although not all, of the sermons in this collection were

delivered at the various festivals of the church calendar. In an attempt to reduce the

arbitrariness of the selection, a representative example of a Christmas, Good Friday,

Easter, and Ascension Day sermon will be chosen.

If it can be established that the criteria of the sermon Barth nominated in his early

lectures on preaching, with particular reference to the primary criterion, are (1)

grounded in the Church Dogmatics, and (2) actually reflected in the form and content

of his sermons, then the relationship between Barth's dogmatics and his own

preaching can be demonstrated.

The limits of this research need to be noted. (1) The research relies on English

translations of the original texts. This of course excludes the consideration of Barth's

verbal lecturing style reflected in the original volumes which were based on edited

and revised manuscripts of Barth's lectures to his students. It also makes impossible

110 That this first sermon criterion is also the primary one is based not only on the fact that Barth beginswith it but on the fact that he explains each of the others in terms of it. This will become evident inchapter five where Barth's understanding of his own criteria is described.

"A well-informed young theologian might fmd it of interest to compare some of my sermons — forexample those in the series Deliverance to the Captives.., with the principles expounded here; and seehow closely I have adhered to them" (Karl Barth Prayer and Preaching London: SCM, 1964, 64-65).

34

the analysis of his preaching rhetoric as found in the original sermons. But since the

orientation of this research is more on the structure and content of Barth's dogmatics

and sermons, and not on their style, this does not seem to be a significant limitation.

(2) Although it is acknowledged that the historiography of Barth's theological

development is important, the focus of this research is not on historical questions

concerned with Barth's developing theology or theological methodology as such. It is

limited to an exegetical and comparative literary analysis of the texts nominated, and

Barth's theology and methodology reflected in these particular texts. Nevertheless,

some reference will be made to Barth's developing methodology as it is reported in

the Church Dogmatics itself. Also to be attached as appendices are discussions of

several important texts that reflect Barth's developing views on the relationship

between preaching and dogmatics, namely: the essay "The Need and the Promise of

Christian Preaching" and the GOttingen Dogmatics. (3) In all stages of this research

no attempt will be made to critique Barth's dogmatic views. Nor will there be any

attempt to engage in critical discussion with the secondary literature, although this is

not ignored. The focus will be restricted to summarising and clarify Barth's own

views on preaching and dogmatics, and then to determining the relationship between

them in Barth's actual practice. (4) Only Barth's first criterion for the sermon will be

specifically grounded in the content of the Church Dogmatics. This is simply due to

the massive size of the Dogmatics itself, and the number of criteria nominated by

Barth. That the other criteria are also evident in the Dogmatics will be indicated by

reference back to the initial surveys of the Dogmatics in the first step of this research

programme. (5) Within the restrictions of length imposed upon this research, the

number of sermons has necessarily been limited to only four. Obviously the results

from such a small sample can only be preliminary, and will not be as conclusive as a

more extensive investigation could be.

4. MethodsThe particular hermeneutical methods required by the research design are (1)

exegetical and (2) comparative.

35

a. ExegesisThe basic method is that of exegesis. This will be employed to determine the

meaning of the texts that are the focus of the descriptive analysis. Exegesis involves

the "drawing out" of the meaning of a text. It seeks to avoid as much as possible any

form of eisegesis, which "reads into" a text what one wants it to mean. The exegetical

method is an interpretive process involving three moments: observation, reflection,

and appropriation."2

The first of these involves a close observation of the literary features of the text such

as grammar, semantics, and syntax in order to determine what the text says. The text

must be observed within its context and considered along with what the author has

said on the same subject in different texts, or in different contexts about the text in

question. In order to test or confirm one's interpretation, other interpreters may also

be consulted and considered. Priority is to be given to the author's own clarification

of his meaning over the views of secondary interpreters. In all of this, the

methodological focus is on determining the subject matter of the text and restating it

as faithfully as possible.

Concurrent with observation is the process of reflection. As every attempt at

interpretation involves a subjective element, the interpreter cannot help bringing to the

text his or her own presuppositions or philosophical position. Beginning with these,

the interpreter enters into a process of interaction or dialogue with the text.113 True

understanding of the meaning is contingent on allowing these ideas to be reshaped

through the interpretive process. An a priori commitment to a certain philosophy or

preconceived idea will prevent one from hearing the text. As will pre-emptive

conclusions, arrived at through inadequate observation and reflection on the text.

Ideas of meaning that arise through interaction with the text must be considered

exploratory, and open to further confirmation or correction by the text.

'12This research adopts the description of exegetical method described by Barth in his ChurchDogmatics (CD 1.2, 722-740). Barth discusses these three moments in exegeses as the steps or phasesof biblical interpretation or scriptural exegesis, but holds as indicated above, that they are valid for theinterpretation of all texts.113 Barth says: "In reading the Bible, as in all other reading and hearing, we use some sort of key orscheme of thought as a "vehicle" in which to "accompany" it. In an exploratory way we attribute tothat which confronts us, to the image arising through our observation (we attribute this to it already asit emerges in the act of observation), one or other of the possibilities of meaning already known to usthrough our philosophy... In attempting to reflect on what is said to us... we must first make use of thesystem of thought we bring with us, that is some philosophy or other (CD 1.2, 729).

36

Appropriation occurs when the interpreter arrives at an understanding of the text as

determined by its object. This occurs as the image of the object evoked by the text

takes shape in the interpreter's mind through, and coincidentally with, observation

and reflection on it. The interpreter seeks to verify his or her perception of the

meaning of the text by means of the criteria of coherence (does it fit the textual data?),

comprehensiveness (does it account for all the statements of the text?), adequacy (is it

understandable?) and consistency (is it inherently consistent?)."4

b. Comparative AnalysisThe other method adopted in this research is comparative analysis. This will be

employed in the triangulation procedure described above. It focuses on the

relationship of particular texts to the same criteria. It depends upon the results of the

exegetical interpretation of these texts, and involves finding points of correspondence

or connection between them and the criteria that have also been exegetically

determined.

114 These criteria are described by Grant R. Osborne in The Hermeneutical Spiral, 1991, 310-311 as acritical realist approach to validation of meaning in biblical texts.

37

Chapter Three: Barth's View on Preaching in the

Church Dogmatics

The following discussion outlines Barth's view on preaching, as he has expressed it in

the relevant sections of the Church Dogmatics.

1. ProclamationBarth's beginning point in the Church Dogmatics is proclamation. The first section of

chapter one focuses on church proclamation as the material of dogmatics."5 In the

first subsection he distinguishes proclamation as a particular form of the church's talk

about God. It is not just any human talk about God. In the church's worship, for

example, human talk to God in prayers, hynms and confessions of faith are properly

called responses to God but not proclamation. Aspects of the church's life directed

towards other human beings, such as social concern, or love in action, are better

considered as commentary on proclamation, but not proclamation. Education aims to

teach and inform, but not bring to decision, and so must be excluded as well. As too

must theology, which reflects on proclamation, but is not strictly proclamation per

se.116

Proclamation is distinguished from all other talk about God, Barth says, in that it is

"directed towards men with the definite claim and expectation that it has to declare

the Word of God to them."17 The clear intention of proclamation is not just to talk

about God, but rather, "to speak the Word of God Himself,"8 and so to call for a

response of faith and obedience to God from those to whom it is directed. Barth says:

Proclamation is human speech in and by which God Himself speaks like aking through the mouth of his herald, and which is meant to be heard andaccepted as speech in and by which God himself speaks, and therefore heardand accepted in faith as divine decision concerning life and death, as divinejudgment and pardon, eternal Law and eternal Gospel both together.119

115 CD 1.1,47116 CD 1.1, 49-5 1

117 CD 1.1, 51118 CDI.!, 32119 CD I.!, 52

38

True proclamation lives in an atmosphere of expectation. Yet this expectation is not

based on the logic, content, religious profundity or personal power of the human

utterance. The idea that it is possible for a human being to utter the Word of God "in

the place of God" is blasphemous.'2° Proclamation is not an attempt to speak for

God. It is rather the human attempt to serve the Word of God by pointing to "its prior

utterance by God himself"2' in the expectation that God will speak his own Word

again in the present. Barth says that if proclamation is to be the Word of God then

God himself must sanctify the human pointer to be his own witness. Although it is a

task or commission given by God, it depends solely on God for its realization.122

Barth acknowledges that the Word of God is not confined to proclamation. God may

speak in the church in any way that he chooses.'23 He may also speak quite apart

from the church.'24 Human beings have no control over God. Church proclamation

must therefore take the humble posture of regarding itself as "only a service of the

Word of God, as a means of grace in God's free hand."25 Nevertheless it must also

be obedient to God's commission.126

What then is proclamation? Barth says that proclamation is preaching127 and

sacrament.128 This is so because Jesus Christ commissions both, and because he

himself speaks in and through the human words of preachers, and through the

symbolic action of the church's rituals (for Barth, this means water baptism and the

Lord's Supper).'29

120 CD 1.1, 52121 CD 1.1, 52122 CD 1.1, 52-53123 CD 1.1, 53-54124 In a famous statement Barth says: "God may speak to us through Russian Communism, a fluteconcerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to him if he really does" (CD I.!,55).125 CD 1.1, 54126 CD 1.1, 55ff127 Barth defmes preaching as: "the attempt by someone called thereto in the Church, in the form of anexposition of some portion of the biblical witness to revelation, to express in his own words and tomake intelligible to the men of his own generation the promise of the revelation, reconciliation andvocation of God as they are to be expected here and now" (CD 1.1, 56).128 Sacrament is understood as: "the symbolic act which is carried through in the Church as directed bythe biblical witness of revelation in accompaniment and confirmation of preaching and which isdesigned as such to attest the event of divine revelation, reconciliation and vocation which does notmerely fulfill but underlies the promise" (CD 1.1, 56).129 CD 1.1, 57-58

39

The preacher called to this task cannot speak God's Word directly but can only

announce God's promise given to the church. In the light of this, the sermon must not

be an arbitrary religious discourse but strictly a restatement of the promise. It must be

guided and controlled by the biblical witness, because it is this that points to the

promise given by God in Jesus Christ. The sermon is more than quoting Bible verses,

however. The preacher expounds the biblical text in the light of the contemporary

situation. Preachers use their own words and speak in their own individual way, as

they attempt to make the promise intelligible to their contemporaries. Ultimately,

however, it is only the Word of God itself that can create the actual concrete

encounter with God, which is the event of proclamation. Barth says: "Calling,

promise, exposition of Scripture, actuality — these are the decisive definitions of the

concept of preaching."3° This is an understanding of preaching that goes far beyond

instruction in religion and morals, or the expression of personal piety.'3'

For Barth, the sacrament is a complement to preaching in symbolic action. Therefore

it cannot be arbitrary, but must also be controlled by the biblical witness. It cannot

replace the Word of God but can only serve the Word of God. If the sacramental

action is to be more than just a mere representation, it must be "the event whose

subject is not the Church but God himself."32 Barth says: "Promise in the form of an

adjunct to preaching, action in distinction from mere word, conformity to Scripture,

representative symbolic connexion with the "once-for —all" of revelation — these are

the decisive definitions of the concept of the sacrament."133 Barth insists that, contra

Roman Catholicism, the sacrament exists for the sake of preaching not vice versa. 134

2. The Word of God PreachedIn section four, Barth introduces l?is concept of the threefold form of the Word of

God. The first subsection deals with "The Word of God Preached."35 Here, Barth

claims that "the event of real proclamation is the function of the Church's life which

130 CD 1.1, 59131 Barth attributes the first to Roman Catholic preaching and the second to Neo-Protestant (LiberalProtestant) preaching. See CD 1.1, 60.132 CD 1.1, 61133 CD 1.1, 61134 CD 1.1, 70135 CD 1.1, 88

40

governs all others"; that the church only exists in the event of proclamation; and

because proclamation must ever again become proclamation, the church must ever

again become the church in this event.136 This is a staggering claim for the

importance of proclamation, and more specifically for preaching. For Barth,

preaching is located at the very center of the church's life and existence.

The underlying presupposition of preaching, and the essence of the church, is the

Word of God himself.'37 Barth describes the relationship of the Word of God and

preaching in four ways: (1) The Word of God is the commission for preaching. This

means that the warrant for preaching rests solely on God's command, not on any

objective or subjective need of human beings for self-expression. It must begin with

hearing the Word of God and then attempting to repeat, however inadequately, what

one has heard.'38 (2) The Word of God is its own theme in preaching. This means

that the Word of God is never a datum in the possession of the preacher. Preaching

depends totally upon "the self-objectification of God" i.e., God making himself the

object of our talk. That this happens is purely an expression of God's free grace, and

cannot be evoked by human means.139 (3) The Word of God is self-authenticating in

preaching. This means that the preacher cannot prove the truth of what is announced.

The preacher is entirely dependent on God to confirm his own Word. When the self-

authenticating Word of God endorses what is said in preaching then preaching is

authoritative and must be listened to and obeyed. (4) The Word of God is God

himself speaking in preaching. Preaching is the event in which God speaks. In some

miraculous way, while always remaining human utterance, preaching becomes the

Word of God: "the event of human talk is not set aside by God but exalted."4°

3. The Word of God and the Word of Man in ChristianPreaching

In chapter four, Barth returns to a discussion of the proclamation of the church. In

section twenty-two, "The Mission of the Church," Barth's first subsection deals with

136 CD 1.1, 88137 Barth says: "The presupposition which makes proclamation proclamation and therewith makes theChurch the Church is the Word of God" (CD 1.1, 88).

CD 1.1, 90CD 1.1, 92

"° CD 1.1, 95

41

the relationship of the "Word of God and the Word of Man in Christian Preaching."41

Barth insists that despite "all the poverty and helplessness and confusion and

impotence of Church proclamation,"42 and "the whole sea of impure doctrine in

which the Word of God seems formally to be drowned in the Church

proclamation,"43 God does speak his own Word in preaching. This must be the

presupposition or begimiing point for all reflection on the problem of preaching.

Barth says that the "real problem of God's Word as the preaching of the Church or the

preaching of the Church as God's Word can be raised only within the limits of the

question put to us by the answer which God has already provided."44 For Barth,

then, the human problem of the impossibility of speaking of God can only be fully

appreciated in the event of human beings really speaking of God. Barth says:

If there is proclamation, if the attempt does not fail, it is just at the point wheresuccess is achieved that it can and will be understood, not as a human success,but as a divine victory concealed in human failure, sovereignly availing itselfof human failure. God then makes good what we do badly.'45

The possibility of preaching being the Word of God is entirely dependent on God's

grace. For Barth, this is a source for both encouragement and humility. It means that

preaching does not have to be perfect, and it also means that preaching cannot be

perfect. Barth goes on to say that it is not only the preacher who needs grace to

proclaim the Word of God but the listeners also need grace to hear it. For this reason

one cannot preach without praying.'46 But this does not mean that the preacher

should simply pray and not prepare. Such an attitude would be arrogant and lead to

indolence. Because preaching is dependent upon God's grace alone, Barth argues,

this is the very reason the problem of Christian preaching must be taken "as seriously

as any human task can be taken."47

141 CD 1.2, 743. This title is the same as that given to the early collection of essays containing theaddress "The Need and Promise of Christian Preaching" cited in the introduction. It seems that Barthhas reworked the material of this essay in this section.142 CD 1.2, 751'43 CD 1.2, 751144 CD 1.2, 745. This idea also appears in Barth's early essay on "the Need and the Promise ofChristian Preaching" see Appendix 1 below.145 CD 1.2, 751146 "The human frailty of the Church's proclamation must be constantly borne in mind to the preciseextent that we have to be clear that both those who speak and those who hear in this mater necessarilyrely on the free grace of God and therefore prayer" (CD 1.2, 755).147 1.2, 756

42

4. The Christian as WitnessIn chapter fourteen, "Jesus Christ the True Witness," under section seventy-one, "The

Vocation of Man," Barth's fourth subsection is: "The Christian as Witness." He

begins with the premise that Jesus Christ himself is the "True Witness," i.e., the one

who makes himself known. In reality, there is only one true Prophet, one true

Preacher, and one true Witness — Jesus Christ. Barth says of Jesus Christ: "He alone

is always the Lord, the authentic, original, immediate and direct Speaker of the Word

of God — He who is also alone the Doer of his work."48 Yet, Barth also says: "The

God who has reconciled the world to himself is not alone as the true Witness and

Proclaimer of this event."149 By grace Christians have been called into fellowship

with him, and so also called into cooperation with his prophetic work.'5° It is, in fact,

the calling of every Christian to participate in the ministry of the True Witness, and so

to bear witness concerning him. Every Christian is summoned to the ministerium

Verbi divini, to the service of God and His Word. That the Christian may participate

in fellowship with Christ and his ministry as the true Witness is "an overflowing of

divine grace."5' God's grace therefore, although not depending on human

cooperation, does not exclude but rather includes human cooperation. Thus, for

Barth, bearing witness is not in the first instance what Christians do for God. It is

rather what God himself is doing already, and what Christians are privileged to

participate in through his calling of them into fellowship with him.'52

5. The Task of the CommunityIn section seventy-two, "The Holy Spirit and the Sending of the Christian

Community," Barth develops the idea of the church's participation in the prophetic

ministry of Jesus Christ. Here Barth broadens the discussion from an individual

perspective to a communal one. Individual Christians can participate in the prophetic

ministry of Jesus Christ because they are already in vital connection with him as

members the church, which is his body, and which has him as its the

148 CD IV.3.2, 607149 CD IV.3.2, 557150 CD IV.3.2, 607

CD IV.3.2, 608152 CD IV.3.2, 603-6 10153 Barth says: "He gives it to them [the Christian community] to take a ministering part in Hisprophetic work, claiming them for his service and equipping and directing them in its discharge... As

43

In the third subsection, "The Task of the Community," Barth says that the specific

content of the church's task is to announce the Yes of the Gospel. This Yes is none

other than Jesus Christ himself. Barth puts this emphatically:

[O]ur concern is with a great and a comprehensive affirmation which thecommunity is set in the world to attest, namely, with the Christian positionwhich the community is charged to manifest and indicate. Jesus Christ is thisgreat affirmation or Christian position. Declaring Himself, he pronounces asingle and unambiguous Yes. He is this Yes, and therefore not merely itsproponent, sign, symbol or cipher. When we call this Yes the content of thetask of His community, we do not point beyond Him or speak of somethingdistinct from Him, but with John the Baptist we point to Him.'54

Barth insists that the announcement of the Gospel, the Yes of God in Jesus Christ, is

the church's one and only task:

{T}here is committed to it the Gospel, i.e., the good, glad tidings of JesusChrist, of the real act and true revelation of the goodness in which God haswilled to make and has in fact made Himself the God of man and man Hisman. This great Yes is its cause. It has no other task beside this. This task isso profoundly stimulating, so radically impelling, so important, urgent andcomprehensive, that it claims it utterly, and it cannot undertake any other.155

Barth recognizes that the Yes of the Gospel does contain a no. Yet, he says, the

Gospel is "predominantly, decisively, originally and definitely a Yes and not a No."56

The Yes in Jesus Christ affirms the goodness of God and the value and significance of

human beings to God. It is the total content if the church's task to proclaim Jesus

Christ, the great Yes, the goodness of God, and man ennobled by God's goodness.'57

Barth insists that there must be no deviation from this line:

There is no freedom to obscure the great Yes by an arbitrary Yes-But. Thereis no freedom either to begin or end otherwise than with the goodness of God.There is no freedom to substitute for interest in man any other interest, even anabstract interest in God, as though a true and concrete interest in God did not

the community has its basis in Him, and knows in Him its Head, with all its being it can try to actualiseonly this connexion with him, and in all its work only this participation in his mission, in his propheticwork" (CD IV.3.2, 79 1-792).154 CD IV.3,2, 797155 CD IV.3.2, 800. It should be noted that where "Man" or "man" appears in Barth, it is a translationof the non-gendered German word "Mensch", not the gendered "Mann".

CD IV.3.2, 797. Barth says: "It is not a Yes which is limited, constricted, conditioned and thereforeweakened or called into question by a No. It cannot, then, be the task or office of the community to sayNo, or Yes and No. It fails to discharge its task if, forgetting that it has to do with Jesus Christ, it eithersays No instead of Yes, or sets a No alongside the Yes with the same dignity and force" (CD IV.3.2,798).

CD IV.3.2, 801

44

point in the very opposite direction. The freedom which is not�just left butgiven to the community is not license to deviate from the Gospel.1 8

For Barth, then, the church's task is its message: "Its content is message, kerygma,

proclamation." 159 The church's task is not only to announce this particular Gospel,

but also to do so in a particular way, in the light of its own content i.e. from "the

standpoint of the Gospel."6° Since it is a joyful message, one that "brings and is

calculated to awaken joy,"6' it must be announced with joy. Further more, since the

message is addressed to those who, in spite of their ignorance are "already established

and secured de iure in Jesus Christ,"62 the church's task is not, in the first instance, to

focus on the human contradictions that seem to deny this. It has a positive focus not a

negative one. Regarding all human beings as christianus designatus163 the church's

task is to call people to the realization of who they already are in the light of the

Gospel. In this way, what is true of all de iure may also become true defacto for all

those who acknowledge that this is so.

6. The Ministry of the CommunityIn the fourth subsection of section seventy-two Barth discusses "The Ministry of the

Community." He reiterates that since the church is the community of Jesus Christ, it

must exist actively for the world as he does. It does this by attesting to it the Word of

God in association with him. Jesus Christ, or the Gospel "which He proclaims and

which proclaims Him,"64 is the paradigmatic content of the church's witness. The

church's ministry of witness must therefore be "ordered in relation to Jesus Christ."65

Since Jesus Christ is the "great, primary and true Minister,"66 the community can

only minister in the name of Jesus Christ. His ministry must orientate its ministry.

This has a defining, limiting, and promising result:

158 CD IV.3.2, 801CD IV.3.2, 802

160 This phrase is repeated throughout this section. See for example, CD IV.3.2, 803.161 CD IV.3.2, 802162 CD IV.3.2, 811163 CD IV.3.2, 810164 CD IV.3.2, 831165 CD IV.3.2, 831166 CD IV.3.2, 831

45

Firstly, in terms of definition: it means that by its association with Jesus Christ, and in

the power of this association, the church's ministry must be specifically: "a ministry

to God and a ministry to man: a ministry to God in which it may serve man; and a

ministry to man in which it may serve God, and therefore a ministry to the God who

speaks to man in His Word, and to the man who is already called and now summoned

to hear, perceive and accept the Word of God."67 This is because the God-man, Jesus

Christ is both the speaking God and the listening man. He combines in himself both

the Word of God to man and the response of man to God, a response that is valid for

all human beings. Barth says:

He as very God and very Man; He as Mediator between the two; He asExecutor of the divine work of grace accomplished for men; He as the man inwhom it has already reached its goal and is already valid for all; He as the oneWord of God and its one Hearer, witness and Guarantor in advance of allothers.'68

Secondly, in regard to its limitation: it means that the church's ministry can only be

service and witness. As a ministry it can only be service, for this is the very meaning

of the term. The church cannot do what only God can do: "It can neither carry

through God's work to its goal nor lead men to the point of accepting it... It is called

and engaged to faithfulness in service and not to mastery."69 As a ministry of witness

it can only point to Jesus Christ, for this is the nature of witness. It does not attempt

to take the place of Jesus Christ. Barth says that to do so would "do despite to Jesus

Christ Himself as the one Doer of the work of God and the primary and true Witness

of this work, becoming a hindrance to what He himself wills to do andaccomplish."70

Thirdly, as to its promise: the very limitations of the church's ministry must be

understood as its promise. The limitations of the church mean that the church's

success in ministry does not depend upon its own resources; for the church can only

minister in the power of the risen and living Jesus Christ: "It works in the power of

His work, of the name hallowed in Him, the kingdom come in Him, the will of God

167 CD IV.3.2, 831168 CD IV.3.2, 831169 CD IV.3.2, 833

CD IV.3.2, 836

46

done on earth as in heaven in Him. Not in its own power but in His, its work is

neither meaningless nor futile."71

Turning to the specific nature of the church's ministry, Barth maintains that "the sum

of what must always take place in Christian ministry is declaration, exposition and

address, or proclamation, explication and application of the Gospel as the Word of

God entrusted to it."172 He deals with each of these in turn.

Firstly, declaration of the Gospel: Although it is not in the power of the church to

"produce or even reproduce the historical fact" of what "God says in the Gospel

concerning what He has done and does and is for man," nor "is it in its power to

disclose it," the church can and must declare it.173 As it does this it sets up a "sign" or

a "banner" for the world. Barth says the Christian community can only acquaint

others with the Gospel.'74 Nevertheless it must declare the content of the Gospel "in a

way that is not muffled or confused or embarrassed, but in clear and strong and

unhesitating indicatives."175 It should do all that is humanly possible to communicate

this message, even though ultimately the success of its witness is not in its own hands

but the Lord's.'76 Barth spells out the manner of the church's declaration and the

specific content of the Gospel it declares as follows:

To declare and thus to proclaim the Gospel means, however, to utter and tocause to be heard in the world, with no less distinctness than many otherthings, and with incomparably greater peace, certainty, freedom and joy, thegrace of God addressed to man as His creature, the covenant concluded andsealed between him and man, the act of God in which it took place that Hereconciled an opposing and gainsaying world to Himself, in short, theexistence of the Jesus Christ yesterday, to-day and to-morrow as thecontent of the Gospel.

Secondly, explanation or explication of the Gospel: Barth says the ministry of the

church community is also to expI'ain or unfold the meaning of the Gospel, i.e., to

make it intelligible. This, however, can only be done in the context of faith seeking

understanding (tides quaerens intellectum). Explanation is necessary, Barth says,

171 CD IV.3.2, 842172 CD IV.3.2, 843173 CD IV.3.2, 844

CD IV.3.2, 844175 CD IV.3.2, 845176 CD IV.3.2, 845

CD IV.3.2, 845

47

because the Gospel "gives itself to be understood, and wills to be understood."178

Since the Gospel content is "self-enunciating,"79 it is impossible to have a mere

"formal acquaintance" with it. One must recognise, though, that "the self—enunciating

content of the Gospel does not permit any autonomous explanation" of it.'80 This

means that the church's explanation of the Gospel "must follow the shape it has

already assumed,"8' i.e., it must be determined by its content. Explaining the Gospel

is essentially a descriptive task that takes the form of narration. Barth expands on this

as follows:

To explain the Gospel is to trace the points and lines and contours of itscontent in the relations and proportions in which it discloses and explainsitself... To explain the Gospel is to define and describe the nature, existenceand activity of God as Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer, the grace, thecovenant and the work of reconciliation with all that these include and in theliving terms of the manifestation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ...To explain the Gospel is generally and very simply to narrate the historywhich God Himself has inaugurated, which He rules, in which He has takenthe world and man to Himself, and in which man finds himself taken up intointercourse and fellowship with Him.182

Thirdly, explication in the form of application of the Gospel, i.e. "evangelical

address"183: Barth insists that in the proclamation of the Gospel, explication cannot be

divorced from application. The Gospel must be "directed to the whole human race

and to every man."184 This is because the Gospel by its very nature must be addressed

to all, concerns all, and applies to all. The Gospel has its basis in the love of God for

all humanity, and therefore its proclamation must include a loving "heartfelt appeal"

to all human beings to believe in, and to acknowledge, the love that God has for

them.'85 Barth insists that the Gospel should never be proclaimed in "the form of

178 CD IV.3.2, 846179 CD IV.3.2, 847180 CD IV.3.2, 847181 CD IV.3.2, 847182 CD 1V.3.2, 849. Barth is emphatic that the Gospel should not be explained on any other groundsthan its own: "The vital thing in so doing is that the whole content of the Gospel in all its elements anddimensions should be allowed to be its own principle of explanation, that under no pretext or titleshould alien principles of explanation in the form of metaphysical, anthropological, epistemo logical orreligio-philosophical presuppositions be intruded upon it, that it should not be measured by any otherstandards of what is possible than its own, that answers should not be given to any other questions thanthose raised by itself, that it should not be forced into any alien scheme but left as it is and understoodand expounded as such" (CD IV.3.2, 849).183 CD IV.3.2, 850184 CD IV.3.2, 850185 Barth says: "This point consists in the fact that God has made and loves them [the whole humanrace] too, that Jesus Christ has died and risen for them too, and that reception of the Word of God and

48

bitter and threatening accusation spreading alarm and terror," but rather, it must

always be an appeal calling all to "the rest and peace of God, inviting them to the

feast which is prepared (Mt. 22:4, Lk. 14:7) and thus summoning them to joy."86 As

such it must be "evangelical address." Barth explains as follows:

Evangelical address as the community's ministry of witness means theinclusion of all men near and far, from the very first and withoutfastidiousness even as the great sinners they are, like all members of thecommunity... It means their incorporation into the likeness of the kingdom ofGod which is to be offered, into the circle of the validity of the content of theGospel and therefore of grace, of the covenant, of reconciliation, of God'shumiliation accomplished for the world in Jesus Christ in order that man mightbe exalted.'87

Next, Barth gathers the "multiplicity" of the forms of the church's ministry as witness

to Jesus Christ and lists them under two groupings: (1) speech (or action by speech):

praise; preaching; instruction; evangelisation; mission; theology; (2) action (or speech

by action): prayer; cure of souls; personal example; diaconate; prophetic action;

fellowship.'88 In his discussion on preaching Barth begins by asserting that this

aspect of the church's ministry is "truly basic and therefore highly important," not just

in relation to the assembling of the community, but in regard to its "whole

ministry."89

For Barth, preaching takes place in the church with an orientation towards the

world.'90 Through the means of regular preaching, the church is reminded continually

obedience to it is their first and final destiny too. It is for this reason that the Gospel applies to them. Itis on this basis and with this in view that the community has to address them, and indeed appeal tothem, since it cannot be taken for granted that they can or will hear what they really are... What optionhas the community but to love, and to address in love, the men whom it knows to be loved by God?"(CD IV.3.2, 851).186 CD IV.3.2, 851. Barth says: "the likeness of the fatherly love of God which it has to offer iscompletely spoiled, and its witness does not perform its service, if its [the Christian community's]declaration and explanation of the Gospel are not as such a dynamic, if only a humanly dynamic,invitation and wooing, a summons to faith, and therewith a sign of the nearness of salvation, of theaccomplished removal of human error, wickedness, confusion and need, of the most radical alterationof its nature and situation, of the invading kingdom of God" (CD IV.3 .2, 852).187 CD IV.3.2, 853188 CD IV.3.2, 854ff189 CD IV.3.2, 867. Barth asserts: "Poor community whose ministry is deficient in this basic form!"(CD. IV.3.2, 870).190 For Barth, preaching takes place "in the assembly of the [Church] community, in the midst of divineservice, where it is also heard directly or indirectly by the world' (CD IV.3 .2, 867).

49

of its own message, and its reason for existing. Jesus Christ speaks afresh confirming

the content of its message, and calls the church once again to service in the world.'9'

True preaching, Barth insists, is proclaiming Jesus Christ. It is the "preaching of

Jesus Christ, of the radical alteration of the situation between God and man, between

heaven and earth as it has been effected in Him."92 Barth spells out two implications

of this. (1) The first implication is that preaching must be scriptural. It must "take

place in concrete connexion with the original witness concerning Jesus Chrjst,"93

namely the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments. Although not a simple

repetition of the Bible, preaching must be based on the Bible. Barth says: "Shaped

always with special reference to a special part and aspect of the biblical witness,

nourished by it as its "text," it is preaching of Christ, of the kingdom, of salvation, of

grace."94 Preaching, therefore, as a "declaration and explanation of the Gospel,"95

speaks "out of the Bible, but not concerning it."96 (2) The second implication is that

preaching must not be a lecture in dogmatics. Although preaching must be "full of

dogmatics," 197 the dogmatic elements must be implicit not explicit. Preaching must

not "engage in confusing analysis or tedious expansion," 198 but must come quickly to

the point. It is an address and appeal on the basis of the Gospel that it declares and

expounds. It calls people to a decision for faith and obedience, and to knowledge or

an understanding of their own reality in the light of the Gospel. It does not focus on

unbelief, disobedience or the ignorance of those it addresses, although recognition of

these is implicit in its message. True preaching is "positive in its significance," and

sets up a "hopeful sign" because it reports on the affirming decision that God has

made concerning all in Jesus Christ.'99

191 CD IV.3.2, 867192 CD IV.3.2, 868

CD IV.3.2, 868CD IV.3.2, 868

195 CD IV.3.2, 868196 CD IV.3.2, 869

CD IV.3.2, 869198 CD IV.3.2, 869

CD IV.3.2, 869-870

50

7. SummaiyThis survey of Barth's understanding of preaching in the Church Dogmatics has

shown the following: Preaching is to be distinguished from all other speaking about

God in that it claims and expects to be God's Word. It is heralding in anticipation that

the King will speak. It always remains a human utterance, but by virtue of God's

grace can also, and does, become the Word of God. It is pointing to the Word of God

spoken in the past in expectation that the same Word of God will speak again in the

present. It is service to the Word of God, obeying its commission, surrendering to its

theme, seeking its authentication and elevation in the event of God himself speaking

in and through it. Because of its association with the Word of God, it is located at the

very centre of the church's life and existence. It is, in fact, participation in the

prophetic work of Jesus Christ; the task of accompanying the true Witness as he bears

witness to himself in the world. As such, it is the announcement of God's Yes in

Jesus Christ to all humanity. Furthermore, it is the basic form of the church's

ministry, a ministry defined by Jesus Christ as a ministry to God and humanity. It is

limited to service and witness of him, and assured by the promise that he himself is its

power and effectiveness. True preaching is biblical and dogmatically determined, but

not a simple repetition of the Bible and dogmatics. Its nature is that of declaration,

explanation and application of the Gospel, and as such it is "evangelical address." It

is the announcement and exposition of the Gospel together with an appeal to faith,

obedience and understanding on the basis of this Gospel. It has a positive orientation

and is directed to all.

51

Chapter Four: Barth's View on Dogmatics in Relation

to Preaching in the Church Dogmatics

Having outlined Barth's view on preaching in the previous chapter, it now remains to

retrace the sections in the Church Dogmatics in which Barth delineates his

understanding of dogmatics in relation to his view of preaching. This is the focus of

this chapter.

1. The Task of DogmaticsBarth defines the task of dogmatics in his Church Dogmatics as follows: "As a

theological discipline dogmatics is the scientific self-examination of the Christian

Church with respect to the content of its distinctive talk about God."20°

Dogmatics is a function of the church.20' It is the self-examination of the church's

talk about God, and is concerned with the correctness of this talk. It is

because it has a "definite object of knowledge," follows a "particular path of

knowledge," and must "give an account of this path to itself and to others."202 It is

also an act offaith because it begins with the presupposition of the givenness of this

object.203 Yet, it has the nature of enquiry because this object is never in its

possession. The object of knowledge for dogmatics is also the transcendent source of

its knowledge.204

Barth says that the church examines the way it talks about God in relation to its own

being, that is, the foundation of its existence, namely, Jesus Christ. He is the source

and object of its talk. He is also the criterion for its self-examination. Barth says:

200 CDI.!, 3201 Barth says: "Dogmatics is a function of the Christian Church. The Church tests itself by essaying it.To the Church is given the promise of the criterion of Christian faith, namely the revelation of God.The Church can pursue dogmatics.. .there is no possibility of dogmatics at all outside the Church" (CDI.!, 17).202 CDI.!, 7-8203 CD 1.1, 17-24204 CD 1.1, 11-17

52

The criterion of past, future and therefore present Christian utterance is thusthe being of the Church, namely, Jesus Christ, God in His gracious revealingand reconciling address to man. Does Christian utterance derive from Him?Does it lead to him? Is it conformable to him?205

Dogmatic theology is particularly concerned with the last of these three questions,

(i.e., the question of the content of the church's talk about God); Biblical theology

focuses on the first, (i.e., the basis of its talk); and practical theology is concerned

with the second, (i.e., the goal of its talk).206

As preaching is a particular form of the church's talk about God, it is subject to the

critique of dogmatics. Is the content of the church's preaching conformable to Jesus

Christ? If it does then it is true dogma.207 Barth says that dogmatics, as enquiry into

true dogma, or as the "science of dogma,"208 begins with the presupposition that God

is known in his act of revelation in the church: "it believes in Jesus Christ as the

revealing and reconciling address of God to man.. .It sees and recognises that this is

given with the Church."209 On this basis it asserts that true dogma can be known.

But, Barth says, if true dogma can be known, then it must be known. The church has

an obligation to be faithful to its own message. The ongoing task of dogmatics seeks

to serve this end.

Yet the problem for dogmatics is that its object of enquiry is not at the dogmatic

theologian's disposal. Consequently, dogmatics as "an act of human

appropriation,"210 must itself be subject to testing and correcting, and the dogmatic

theologian must always be open to revise the results of earlier dogmatic work. Barth

says: "Dogmatics is possible only as theologia crucis, in the act of obedience which is

certain in faith, but for this very reason is humble, always being thrown back to the

beginning and having to make a fresh start."211 Barth maintains that dogmatics is to

be guided by previous dogmas (conclusions about dogma), such as the creeds of the

church, but it must not enshrine these in a way that inhibits further reflection.

205 CD 1.1,4206 CD 1.1, 4-5207 CD I.!, 11208 CD 1.1,12209CD 1.1, 12210 CD 1.1, 14211 CD 1.1,14

53

Furthermore, dogmatics must be based on biblical exegesis, but it must not be

restricted to a simple repetition of the Bible. This is because the content of true

preaching is Jesus Christ himself, the one who transcends the biblical witness

concerning him. Barth says: "dogmatics as such does not ask what the apostles and

prophets said but what we must say on the basis of the prophets and apostles."212

Like preaching, dogmatics must take place within the church. Both share the same

presupposition, i.e., the givenness of God's Word in the church. Both are an act of

faith and obedience in response to the free grace of God given in his revelation in

Jesus Christ to the church. Barth says dogmatics "trusts in the uncontrollable

presence of its ontic and noetic basis, in the revelation of God promised to the

Church, and in the power of faith apprehending the promise."213 It therefore requires

penitence, obedience, and above all prayer, as it seeks to examine the preaching of the

church in the light of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ.214

2. Dogmatics and Church ProclamationIn the second subsection of section three, "Church Proclamation as the Material of

Dogmatics," Barth specifically discusses the relation between dogmatics and church

proclamation. He reminds us that proclamation always remains a human utterance,

and only becomes God's Word "when and where it pleases God."215 Because it is

always this human word, it is always open to critique. It is, Barth says, "exposed to

the question of its responsibility."216

The focus of dogmatic questioning is twofold: "Did the Church's proclamation

measure up to its responsibility yesterday? Will it do so tomorrow?"217 Barth says

that the ultimate answer to these questions can only be discovered in prayer, yet one

must not only pray. The penultimate answer is arrived at through reflective thinking:

"critical, corrective, investigative work at Church proclamation in the light of the

212 CD 1.1,16213 CD 1.1,22214 CD 1.1, 22-24215 CD 1.1,72216 CD 1.1,72217 CDI.!, 75

54

divine verdict to which it appeals as that which it sets out to be."218 Since dogmatic

work is itself human work, it, too, cannot claim to be absolutely correct. Its criticisms

and corrections must themselves be subject to further criticism and correction.

Nevertheless, dogmatic work must be done and redone, because of the centrality of

proclamation for the life of the church, and for the correct representation of its

message.219 This responsibility is not limited to a few specialist theologians but

belongs to all members of the church.22°

Because dogmatics reflects on proclamation, it also reflects on previous dogmatic

work. The history of dogmatics is, in fact, the record of the church's self-reflection

on the proclamation of yesterday. Because proclamation is an ongoing aspect of the

church's ministry, dogmatics must also be orientated to guiding the proclamation of

tomorrow. In taking its cue from dogmatics, however, proclamation cannot simply

repeat it. Barth says dogmatics simply sets the parameters for proclamation. In an

important passage he says of the content of proclamation:

This content must be found each time in the middle space between theparticular text in the context of the whole Bible and the particular situation ofthe changing moment. Dogmatics can only guide to the right mastery and theright adaptability, to the right boldness and the right caution, for the givenmoment when this space has to be found. It can only guide to orientationbetween the two poles of saying what has to be said in all circumstances andnot saying what must not be said in any circumstance.221

Barth reiterates that the task (although not the reality) of proclamation is specifically

identified with preaching and sacrament. Dogmatics is therefore particularly

(although not exclusively) concerned with these.222 Barth is aware that his

understanding of the starting point for dogmatics as proclamation, and in particular

with preaching, is not universally endorsed in the Christian church.223 Why doesn't

dogmatics investigate the subject matter of Christianity directly? Barth advances

three arguments for the indirect nature of dogmatics. (1) The first is that the reasons

218 CD 1.1,75219 CD 1.1,76220 CD I. 1, 76-77221 CD I.!, 79222 CD 1.1, 80-8 1223 Barth says: "In all kinds of variations, Roman Catholics and Protestants, ancients and moderns, havepresented, as the raw material of dogmatics, God and the things of God, or man in his relation to God,or God's revelation in Christ, or the Christian faith, or more recently the Christian principle, or thenature of Christianity, in short, the theme of Christian discourse, the subject-matter of Christianity"(CD 1.1, 81-82).

55

for dogmatics and proclamation differ. Proclamation is required by God's command;

dogmatics is necessary because of human fallibility in executing this command.

Barth says proclamation is directly related to the theme of Christianity and so is

primary; but dogmatics investigates the "orthodoxy of contemporary kerygma" and is

therefore secondary. The very nature of dogmatics as investigative "polemic,

criticism and correction" rather than "positive, stimulating and edifying" like

proclamation, reflects its secondary role.224 (2) Secondly, dogmatics is indirect

because it serves church proclamation. In its role as servant to proclamation it should

not claim a higher stage of faith, a better source of knowledge. Dogmaticians are not

necessarily more spiritual or knowledgeable than preachers. Furthermore, dogmatics

must not be seen as an end in itself. Dogmatics can have no autonomous existence;

its raison d 'etre is proclamation, without which it is superfluous.225 (3) Finally,

dogmatics can never be the master of the subject matter, which is the direct theme of

proclamation. Dogmatics cannot provide this content for preaching. It simply guides

and directs preaching. Its presupposition is that "preaching acquires its content

elsewhere."226 Barth concludes, therefore: "Church proclamation and not dogmatics

is immediate to God in the Church. Proclamation is essential, dogmatics is needed

only for the sake of it."227

3. The Question of the Nature of the Word of GodIn section five of chapter one, Barth begins with an important excursus explaining the

reasons why he abandoned his earlier attempt at providing a prolegomena for

dogmatics. In his previous work, Die Christliche Doginatik, he had discussed the

concept of the Word of God in its threefold form by means of a phenomenology of

church proclamation and an existential analysis of the hearer.228 To Barth's horror,

one of his reviewers understood him to have attempted a construction of dogmatics on

224 CD 1.1, 82-83225 CDI.!, 83-85226 CD LI, 86227 CD 1.1, 87228 Barth says: "There, after establishing the concept of the Word of God in its threefold form by meansof an analysis of Church proclamation, we made a transition from a phenomenological treatment to anexistential treatment, i.e., from thinking in terms of an outward observer to thinking in terms of anexistential participant" (CD 1.1, 125).

56

the foundation of existential thinking.229 Another reviewer, in sympathy with such an

attempt, criticised Barth for not going far enough in his existential analysis, and for

not providing an adequate anthropology as a basis for his understanding of God.23°

On reflection, Barth conceded that his arrangement of the material was confusing and

that his language was misleading.23' He was adamant, however, that it never was his

intention to base his dogmatics on existential thinking.232 Nor did he agree that a

doctrine of the Word of God ought to be more firmly based on anthropology.

Although he had "tended" in this direction, he had come to see that exactly the

opposite should be the case. Anthropology must be based on the Word of God not

vice versa.233 Barth concluded that it was, in fact, fortuitous that he had not provided

a "true anthropology" as "the central task" and "real problem of theology,"234 as his

229 This was the criticism of T. Siegfried. Barth says: "to my horror T. Siegfried... interpreted thepassage as follows: "On this foundation (i.e., the existential thinking introduced) he proposes to buildhis dogmatics" (CD 1.1, 125-126).230 This was the critique ofF. Gogarten (see CD 1.1, 127ff).231 One passage from the Christliche Dogmarik which Barth was later amazed to find that he hadwritten is as follows: "God's Word is not only speech but address. We cannot hurry hither or thither,either into heaven or into the abyss, in order to lay hold of it and read it; rather it is "in our mouth andin our heart", for it has come to us. That is to say, the hearing man is included in the concept of theWord of God just as much as the speaking God. He is "co-posited" in it like Schleiermacher's God inthe feeling of absolute dependence. One does not speak of the word of God unless one speaks of theman who receives it, of the human I which here, finally and ultimately comes up against the Thou,which is its origin and in fellowship with which alone it can exist as an I. That is why the Word of Godis a concept which is only accessible to an existentialist thinking" (quoted in Thomas F, Torrance KarlBarth: An Introduction to his Early Theology, 1910-1931 London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1962, 141). Inrejecting such language Barth ultimately arrived at a christological understanding of how human beingsare 'co-posited' in the address of the Word of God. Barth's more mature view is stated clearly in thesecond volume of the CD (sections 25 and 26). Torrance explains: "Jesus Christ is the 'Man' who isincluded in the Word, for he is the Word made flesh; he is himself the Word of God addressed to manand also the Man hearing and receiving that Word adequately and appropriately and perfectly.Therefore he, Jesus, is both the objective and the subjective possibility of its revelation to us and of ourreceiving of it, for through reconciliation and union with him in the power of the Spirit we are enabledto hear and understand the Word, as we are quite unable to do on our own" (Thomas F, Torrance KarlBarth: An Introduction to his Early Theology, 1910-1931 London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1962, 142).232 Barth says in response to Siegfried's review in which he asserted that Barth had attempted to basehis dogmatics on existential thinking: "This was not really my intention. But I ought to have had thebetter judgment to see that to drag in those concepts at that point in relation to what I wanted to saythere was a superfluous and dangerous game: superfluous because it was not in any case followed byan attempt to prove the doctrine of the Word of God by showing it to be posited by existential thinkingor by advancing an existential philosophy as its background and justification (CD 1.1, 126). Barthresolved that in a revision of this material "it must no longer seem as if the doctrine of the Word of Godis either based upon or subsequently supported by the fact that it is a result of existential thought" (CD1.1, 131).233 Thus Barth says: "There is a way from Christology to anthropology, but there is no way fromanthropology to Christology." (CD 1.1, 131).234 Barth said: "The fact that he [Gogarten] . . . spoke of a lack of true anthropology in site of my obvioustendency in this direction, is very comforting to me to-day, since it proves that the damage has not beenso great as it might have been. For I can oniy regard it as doing great harm to do what happilyGogarten has not found me doing but would have liked me to have done, namely, setting up a "trueanthropology" as "the central task" and "real problem of theology" (CD 1.1, 127).

57

critic had lamented. Furthennore, he resolved to rewrite his original "draft" and

eradicate all suggestions that his doctrine of the Word of God could possibly be based

on anthropology, even a church anthropology.235

Barth's clarification of his theological methodology236 is reflected in this the first part

volume of the Church Dogmatics (CD I.1).237 Although in his earlier work Barth had

meant to base his dogmatics on an independent ontology of the Word of God, in this

new volume he makes this absolutely clear. No aftempt is made to answer the

dogmatic question concerning the nature of the Word of God through an analysis of

the existential situation of the hearer of the Word of God in preaching. The stress is

on the objectivity of the Word of God that impinges on the subjective experience of

the hearer from outside, and which is never to be identified with human knowing as

such. Human knowledge of the Word of God, Barth avers, is contingent on the

believing hearer being continually co-opted by the Word of God. This happens in the

context of an encounter with the Word of God, initiated and continually sustained by

the Word of God. Thus Barth says:

235 Barth says: "I must not only decline Gogarten's invitation to improve my dogmatics by introducinga true anthropology. I must also eliminate all that might seem to be a concession in that direction in mydraft of five years ago.. . there must not even be the appearance of an anthropology serving as a basis ofthe understanding of God's Word" (CD 1.1, 131)236 According to the standard historiography this was precipitated not just by Barth's self-criticalresponse to the reviews already referred to, but also to a large extent by his study of Anseim. SeeThomas F, Torrance Karl Barth: An Introduction to his Early Theology, 1910-1931 London: SCMPress, Ltd., 1962, 182ff See also Gordon Watson God and the Creature: the Trinity and Creation inKarl Barth Brisbane, Qld.: Gordon Watson, 1995, 25ff Whereas Torrance seems to endorse Barth'sinterpretation of Anselm, Watson argues that Barth's theological method in the Church Dogmaticsreflects Barth's own particular miss-interpretation of Anseim! (In his analysis of Barth's reading ofAnselm's Cur Deus Homo and the Proslogion Watson argues that Barth's theological presuppositionsconcerning revelation prevent him from really understanding Anselm's theological programme. See p34-35, 441). The question of the validity of Barth's understanding of Anselm, however, is beside thepoint, for both Torrance and Watson agree that Barth's study of Anseim did influence the developmentof Barth's own methodology as applied Church Dogmatics.237 Gordon Watson notes that "when Barth set about eliminating what he perceived to be theweaknesses of his first systematic attempts at a christian Dogmatik in the Church Dogmatics, we fmdsubstituted for the analysis of the situation of the preacher and the hearer, an analysis of the nature ofthe Word of God as the point of departure for understanding God's revelation. Barth relates thedetermination of the ontic forms of revelation, ie, the event of revelation, Scripture, proclamation, andthe noetic determination of the creature as the recipient of revelation to the nature of the Word of God.Thus Section 5 The nature of the Word of God of the first volume is the link between sections 3-4 and6. As this analysis of the "nature of the Word of God" serves as the basis of Barth's understanding ofGod's revelation it is the basis also of the dogma of the Trinity" ; and again: "The central significanceand strategic importance of this analysis [of the nature of the Word of God under a threefold aspect ofspeech, act and mystery] cannot be over estimated in understanding the development of Barth'stheological method" (Gordon Watson God and the Creature: the Trinity and Creation in Karl BarthBrisbane, Qld.: Gordon Watson, 1995, 46-47, 52).

58

What God and his Word are, we can never establish by looking back andtherewith by anticipating. This is something God himself must constantly tellus afresh. But there is no human knowing that corresponds to this divinetelling. In this divine telling there is an encounter and fellowship between hisnature and man but not an assuming of God's nature into man's knowing, onlya fresh divine telling. In this divine telling knowledge of God and his Word isactualised with the God with us. Only thus, i.e., in faith in God's Word, canwe say who God is.. 238

In the next three subsections Barth expounds on the objective nature of the Word of

God in its threefold aspects, as: (1) the speech of God (which is therefore spiritual or

rational, personal and purposeful)239; (2) the act of God (which has contingent

contemporaneity i.e., it happens in every time; is the act of God the Lord and so is

powerful to claim and change us, and is free to decide and call forth decision from

us)240; and (3) the mystery of God (which is veiled as it is unveiled, or hidden as it is

revealed, and so cannot be demonstrated by argument; is manifested only indirectly;

and can only be perceived in faith through the Holy Spirit).24'

4. The Word of God, Dogma and DogmaticsIn section seven, Barth discusses the Word of God, dogma and dogmatics. His

opening thesis makes clear that dogmatics concerns "the critical question about

dogma."242 For Barth, dogma must not be equated with the traditional idea of

dogmas, i.e., the doctrinal propositions formulated by the church and identified with

the truths of revelation. Nor should dogmatics be confused with the traditional view

that it is the collecting of so-called dogmas, or truths of revelation, and providing a

commentary on them. For Barth, revelation can never be equated with propositional

statements,243 nor can dogmatics ever master revelation or arrive at a conclusive

statement of dogma.244 Barth defines dogma and dogmatics as follows: "Dogma is

238 CD I.!, 132239 CD 1.1, 132-143240 CD 1.1, 143-162241 CD 1.1, 162-186242 CD 1.1, 186-248243Barth says: "But will the truth of revelation submit to such materialisation and depersonalisation?Can one have it in abstraction from the person of Him who reveals it and from the revelatory act of thisperson in which it is given to other persons to perceive?" (CD 1.1, 270). And again: "If veritas revelatais a command, it cannot be identical with church dogma." (CD 1.1, 272).244 Barth says, "we must deny that dogmas constitute the goal of dogmatic work or that dogmatics iscalled dogmatics on their account... .Jn dogmas the Church defmes, i.e., limits revealed truth, the Wordof God. The Word of God thus becomes the word of man... The Word of God is above dogma as theheavens are above the earth" (CD 1.1, 266). And again: "In the identification of the Word of God and

59

the agreement of Church proclamation with the revelation attested in Holy Scripture.

Dogmatics enquires into this agreement and therefore into dogma." 245 Barth again

stresses the enquiring nature of dogmatics. Dogma is something that dogmatics can

only strive for, but never achieve. Dogmatics must therefore remain humble and

recognize that all its conclusions are at the same time further questions.246

In this section, Barth again returns to the idea of dogmatics as a science.247 It is a

science, not because it can be classified generally among other sciences, but because

it is required to keep to a particular "path of knowledge" determined by its own

object.248 Barth maintained that if dogmatics, be it regular or irregular,249 is to be

truly scientific, then three things are demanded of it. (1) It must devote itself

exclusively to church proclamation, not to general questions unrelated to it.250 (2) It

must not simply repeat church proclamation but seek to criticise and correct it.25' (3)

It must enquire into the agreement of church proclamation with revelation as attested

in Holy Scripture, i.e., it must be orientated to the question of dogma.252

Church dogma... [the Church] has seized the word of God for itself, taken it under its ownmanagement, and lost the capacity of listening to the voice of another" (CD 1.1, 267).245 CD 1.1, 265246 Barth says: "Thus the real results of dogmatics, even though they have the form of the most positivestatements, can themselves only be new questions, questions to and fro between what the Church seemsto want proclaimed, questions which can be put only with the greatest modesty and a sense of supremevulnerability if they are perhaps serious and significant questions" (CD I.!, 269).247 He had introduced this idea in his opening thesis in §1.1 where he referred to dogmatics as "thescientific self-examination of the Christian Church with respect to the content of its distinctive talkabout God" (CD 1.1, 3).248 Barth says: "What it means by science when it calls itself a science, it defmes in responsibility to theChurch which it serves.., in responsibility to its object and to the task imposed by this object. For itrealises for one thing that in its question about dogma i.e., about the agreement of Church proclamationwith the Word of God, it has to tread a defmed path of knowledge, a path defmed by this particularproblem. And then it realises, too, that it has to submit to itself, i.e., everyone who has a share in it, anaccount regarding this path of knowledge" (CD I.!, 275).249 Barth distinguishes between regular and irregular dogmatics, his own being an example of regulardogmatics (CD 1.1, 275-279).250 Barth says: "It must devote itself to the problem of Church proclamation as such and not toproblems of thought which might arise in proximity to certain concepts in Church proclamation butwhich have nothing to do with proclamation itself" (CD 1.1, 280). Again: "Dogmatics as gnosiswithout regard for the task of Church proclamation, dogmatics as self-motivated and self-groundedmetaphysics is unscientific as dogmatics no matter how profound, erudite and logical it may seem tobe" (CD 1.1, 280).251 CD 1.1, 281-283252 Barth says: "Dogmatic work stands or falls by whether the standard by which Church proclamationis measured is the revelation attested in Holy Scripture and not a philosophical, ethical, psychologicalor political theory" (CD 1.1, 283).

60

5. Pure Doctrine as the Problem of DogmaticsIn the second subsection of section twenty-two, Barth discusses the problem of

dogmatics as the problem of pure doctrine. Barth says that the task of dogmatics "is

in concreto the effort and concern of the church for the purity of doctrine. Its problem

is essentially the problem of Christian preaching."253 Barth is referring here to the

specific problem of "the place of the human action"254 within preaching. Does the

human action within preaching serve the Word of God or does it not? If it does then it

is pure doctrine.255 Clearly, in Barth's terms, doctrine is not equivalent to a human

theory, which arises from human observation and reflection, and which may or may

not be the subject of discussion.256 Doctrinal instruction means imparting something

just as it has been received. It attempts to be responsible both to its source and object,

and to its recipients who are also required to pass it on responsibly. It is not just a

matter of intellectual curiosity. It is required to be shared. Furthermore, it is not just

"the expression of opinions"257 which may or may not be discussed. Although

debatable, doctrine by its very nature does not seek to be the object of debate. It seeks

to be a statement of the truth, of insights not opinions.258 Even pure doctrine,

however, cannot be the truth, but can only point to it.259

When the word of the preacher is pure doctrine it "lets God's Word say what must be

said."26° As such, it is transparent like a window, or reflective like a mirror; it is the

"human word completely yielding itself to the divine Word."261 Because "preaching

ought to be pure doctrine,"262 it must be the focus of intensive dogmatic scrutiny and

attention. It is true that God's grace transcends all human inadequacies, and this

applies to the human attempt at preaching. Nevertheless, grace is "not magic."263 It

253 CD 1.2, 766254 CD 1.2, 759255 Barth says: "The comprehensive term to denote the content of the service of God [inproclamation].., is that of pure doctrine" (CD 1.2, 761).256 CD 1.2, 76 1-762257 CD 1.2, 762258 CD 1.2, 76 1-762259 Barth says: "Even pure doctrine is not in itself the same thing as what God does when He speaks hisWord. Doctrine as such cannot be the endowment of the hearer with the Holy Ghost. It cannot be hisawakening to faith or even his maintenance and advance therein. It cannot be his conversion. Doctrineas such cannot bring in Jesus Christ. It cannot build or exhibit His Kingdom. It cannot bring about theevent of fellowship between God and man as a living reality" (CD 1.2, 762).260 CD 1.2, 764261 CD 1.2, 765262 CD 1.2, 764263 CD [.2, 765-766

61

includes human work, although it does not depend upon it. Barth says: "When we

have done all that was required of us, we must add that we are unprofitable servants.

But if we infer from this that we might equally well allow ourselves to be idle

servants, we are not trusting in the grace of the Word of God."264 Barth goes on to

say: "We are, therefore, anxious and eager for the purity of the Christian preaching

which is to be performed in its service."265

Next, Barth returns to the distinction between biblical, dogmatic and practical

theology. Each of these is inextricably related. Dogmatic theology takes place at the

transitional point between biblical and practical theology (between explicatio and

applicatio).266 It must therefore include both.267 Furthermore, since preaching is the

event in which God himself has promised to speak, in and through the human words

of the preacher, pure doctrine must also be an event. It follows from this that

dogmatics is a task. It cannot be thought of in static terms as a solution to hand, nor

can it be reduced to "specific texts, in sentences, formulae, sequences of thought,

[and] systems of ideas."268 These are simply "milestones on the way," or "provisional

outlines" needing further work.269 Dogmatics and preaching are to be distinguished,

Barth says, as "right thought" necessarily precedes "right deed."27° As such,

dogmatics is the necessary preparation for preaching.271 It is free thought but Barth

warns it cannot be arbitrary thought.272 Dogmatics must resist the temptation to

become an end in itself and unrelated to preaching.273 Furthermore, it must not allow

philosophy rather than revelation, i.e., the Word of God, to become its point of

departure. 274

264 CD 1.2, 766265 CD 1.2, 766266 CD 1.2, 766-767267 Barth says: "dogmatics arises only at the central and transitional point between exegetical andpractical theology. But it is at this central and transitional point between the question of the origin andthat of the method of Christian proclamation that there obviously emerges the really critical theologicalquestion, that of its actual content.. .How can it put this question of content without realising that theonly source from which it can learn the answer is Holy Scripture? How, then, can there be dogmaticsunless exegesis not only precedes but is included in it? And, again, how can this question be askedexcept in view of the proclamation laid upon the Church? How, then, can there be dogmatics unlesspractical theology too, not only follows but is already included in it? (CD 1.2, 767).268 CD 1.2, 769269 CD 1.2, 769270 CD 1.2, 769271 CD 1.2, 770272 CD 1.2, 77 1-772273 CD 1.2, 772-774274 CD 1.2, 774-775

62

Barth maintains that although dogmatics must criticize church proclamation, it must

do so only with the conviction that God does speak in church proclamation. It has no

right to be "skeptically negative" towards it.275 Because it is concerned with an

activity that is foundational for the church's worship, Barth again reminds us that

dogmatics cannot be engaged in without prayer.276 And because it cannot in itself

produce pure doctrine, dogmatics can only be a relative assessment of it.277 In

practice, dogmatics focuses on the key words, phrases, and sequences of thought,

fundamental outlines and the logical construction of Christian preaching.278 These

will be continually new in the context of the contemporary preaching church, but the

church must not surrender its continuity with the past.279 In order to assess the purity

of doctrine in preaching, Barth says that dogmatics must indicate its objective

criterion, and also clarify how it uses this criterion. The first of these he calls the

dogmatic norm, and the second he refers to as dogmatic method.28° Both of these he

takes up in later sections.

6. Dogmatics as EthicsIn the third subsection of section twenty-two, Barth raises the question of whether

dogmatics can be limited to the discussion of the purely theoretical content of

Christian proclamation.28' His answer is an emphatic no! The problem of dogmatics,

he has stressed again and again, is the problem of the Word of God in Christian

proclamation, i.e., it asks the question: is the Word of God heard in Christian

preaching? But, Barth argues, one cannot hear the Word of God without obedience to

it: "only the doer of the Word is its real hearer."282 True, Barth says: "the theme of

dogmatics is always the Word of God and nothing else. But the theme of the Word of

275 CD 1.2, 775276 CD 1.2, 776277 CD 1.2, 776-777278 CDI.2, 777-779279 CD 1.2, 779-78 1280 CD 1.2, 781281 Barth asks: "Is it really true, then, that we can limit dogmatics to a discussion of the purelytheoretical content of Christian proclamation, turning neatly to ethics as its practical aspect? Is there,indeed, any such thing as a purely theoretical content of Christian proclamation? Can the whole idea ofa distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" rightly be sustained...? (CD 1.2, 787).282 CD 1.2, 792

63

God is human existence, human life and volition and action."283 Dogmatics therefore,

must also be ethics. It is concerned not just with the Word of God, but also with the

human response to the Word of God.284

7. Dogmatics as a Function of the Hearing ChurchIn section twenty-three, Barth discusses "Dogmatics as a Function of the Hearing

Church." Here, Barth borrows the terminology of Roman Catholic theology

regarding the "teaching and hearing Church" (ecclesia docens and ecciesia audiens)

but (1) reverses the order (the church is first to hear and only then to teach)285 and (2)

applies both designations to the whole church (all members of the church are to hear

and teach). 286

Barth maintains that the role of dogmatics is to invite "the teaching Church to listen

again to the Word of God in the revelation to which the Scripture testifies."287 This is

the "critical and formal" task of dogmatics. It is necessary because of the "ambiguity

of human error" in the church's hearing of the Word of God in the Bible.288

Dogmatics does not tell the church "this or that must be preached" but reminds the

church "in regard to the content of its preaching the Church has to recognise and

assimilate and adjust to the answer already given."289 The content of the church's

283 CD 1.2, 793284 CD 1.2, 793-796. Barth says: "A reality which is conceived and presented in such a way that it doesnot affect or claim men or awaken them to responsibility or redeem them i.e. a theoretical reality,cannot possibly be the reality of the Word of God, no matter how great may be the richness of itscontent or the profundity of its conception. Dogmatics has no option: it has to be ethics as well" (CD1.2, 793).285 Barth says: "the Church is first and foremost a hearing Church, and only then as such a teachingChurch" (CD 1.2, 797). And again: "Dogmatics is a function of the hearing Church, and stands underthe Word of God as the norm to which the Church in its fundamental character as hearing Church issubject. In consequence it must itself seek above all to listen; and its primary function consists ininviting and guiding the Church in its second character as a teaching Church to listen afresh to theWord of God. Only from this point of view is dogmatics understood as itself also a function of theteaching Church, of which the Word of God is not only a standard but also the subject matter" (CD 1.2,797).286 Barth says: "We rather understand the Church in the totality of its members to be both a hearing anda teaching Church" (CD 1.2, 797). And again: "What a misuse it is of the idea of the congregation tounderstand by it a group of mere spectators privileged, or disqualified as such! The truth is thattheologians cannot teach except as the mouthpiece of the congregation of Jesus Christ, which does notin any sense consist of listeners only, but of those who, as listeners, are themselves teachers" (CD 1.2,798).287 CD 1.2, 798288 CD 1.2, 798-799289 CD 1.2, 800

64

preaching cannot therefore be arbitrary. Dogmatics calls the church back to the fact

that "the content of Church proclamation is not really the predicate of the human, but

of the divine Subject, which the human subject with the content of its speech has to

serve."290 Barth says that the critical question as to the content of the church's

preaching must be addressed to the church in every age.29' Dogmatics critiques the

church's self-will, which expresses itself in the form of heresy, i.e., "wanting the

Word of God without God."292 It also seeks to correct the church's tendency to "pre-

heretical deviation" from the Gospel (such as its propensity to engage in dogmatics

for its own sake,293 and "false moralistic earnestness"294 in regard to the preaching

task).

Barth insists that dogmatics must work with three assumptions. (1) In the church

there is correct teaching, and the dogmatician must adopt a positive aftitude in this

regard.295 (2) The church can and is often in error, and so vigilance is necessary (the

very fact that there is correct teaching in the church is the reason for this vigilance).296

(3) The teaching church can and will hear the Word of God afresh, as Jesus Christ

290 CD 1.2, 800-80 1291 CD 1.2, 800-806292 Barth says: "At every moment and in every situation the danger threatens that members of theChurch may want the Word of God without God, bringing it under their power and understanding, andapplying it according to their own good pleasure. When Church proclamation is placed by heresy inthe service of alien interests" (CD 1.2, 807).293 Barth says that the beauty of the truth the church has to proclaim "can seduce the Church intotreating it as we do other beautiful things i.e. a dilettante contemplation and enjoyment. But it isbeautiful only in order that its work may be done more joyfully. If instead of calling to decision itbecomes an object of contemplation, it ceases to be the truth. The God of whom we make for ourselvespictures is no longer the living God. Deviation has taken place even though there is no heresy, or onlyan immediate preparation for heresy" (CD 1.2, 808).294 Barth says: "Again there exists in the Church, before heresy arises, just the opposite possibility thata false moralistic earnestness will dominate proclamation, as though it is man's affair whether it isvictorious or defeated, as though man has to make the Word of God powerful by the weight of his ownwill, as though it lies in the man's hands to compel decisions about it. When this is the case the Churchstrengthens itself to serve the Word of God, as though it is a matter of the organisation and running of abusiness, or the instituting and carrying through of a great law-suit, or deployment and operations of anarmy. But, again it is impossible to handle the truth in this way" (CD 1.2, 808).295 Barth says: "because the promise has been made to himself and others and all who are in the Churchby the Word of God itself. This is the first thing which the teaching Church ought in all circumstancesto hear from the dogmatician - not a reminder of all the dangers to which it is exposed, but of the factthat without any merit or value of its own it is in good hands" (CD 1.2, 809).296 Barth says: "The more firmly he is rooted in the first assumption of faith, that in virtue of thepromise and thus upheld by the grace of God the Church teaches the truth, so much the more sensitive,clear-sighted and relentless he will be in regard to every slightest deviation - not with the joy of a kindof police detection, but in the realisation that, just where by God's grace everything is made good,everything is really endangered by human self-will resisting grace, so that everything has to be safe-guarded" (CD 1.2, 809-10).

65

will not forsake his church.297 Dogmatics does not judge the church, as such, but

simply calls the church back to a more careful listening of the voice of Jesus Christ,

and so to the church's own confession.298 Dogmatics is not to adopt a superior

attitude,299 but rather, it must seek to be an example to the teaching church, by

listening itself to the Word of God.30°

The Word of God is, of course, the dogmatic norm for measuring the proclamation of

the teaching church. Barth says:

The dogmatic norm, i.e., the norm of which dogmatics must remind Churchproclamation, and therefore itself first of all, as the objective possibility ofpure doctrine, can be no other than the revelation attested in Holy Scripture asGod's Word.30'

Barth refers to this norm as a "theonomy" that allows for human "autonomy," i.e., as

God's law that allows for human freedom. Before one speaks of the autonomy of

dogmatic thinking, however, one must first speak of the "heteronomy" of this

dogmatic norm. It is not to be thought of as something subjective or immanent, but as

a "different law," or "other law," which comes from outside. To this objective norm,

which is the Word of God, all preaching and dogmatics must conform. Conforming to

the Word of God means three things for Barth: (1) Dogmatics must be biblical, i.e., it

must listen to the Holy Scripture, which is the basis of the church.302 To be biblical, it

must adopt the attitude and orientation of the biblical witnesses, i.e., the starting point

297 Barth says: "In all its human frailty the teaching Church has to be seen and understood as theChurch of Jesus Christ which is not forsaken by His Spirit" (CD 1.2, 810).298 Barth says: "Dogmatics summons the teaching of the Church to listen again to the voice of JesusChrist. Its business, therefore, is to issue a warning whenever it sees a threat to the obedience whichChurch proclamation must render.. .it must not allow itself to shrink from this task. But it does not haveto judge, as it does not have to defme articles of faith. The most that can be said is that it may have torepeat the judgement and confession of the Church itself' (CD 1.2, 812).299 Barth says: "In its desire to summon the teaching of the Church to a fresh act of listening, dogmaticscamiot speak down, as though to an inferior. The dogmatician can only place himself alongside thepreacher and not over him' (CD 1.2, 8 12-3).°° Barth says: "As dogmatics itself teaches by listening, it reminds the teaching Church of the listening

which is so necessary" (CD 1.2, 813). Barth says that Schleiermaclher's system is unsatisfying"because there is no shift of emphasis from teaching to listening" - there is only the human word ofproclamation. The control in Schleiermacher' s system is immanent, and is not the Word of God thatregulates "from above" (CD 1.2, 813).301 CD 1.2, 815302 Barth says: "The first concrete requirement which is made of dogmatics, and in obedience to whichit has to be an example to all Church proclamation, is that its investigations, formulae anddemonstrations must have a biblical character" (CD 1.2, 816).

66

must not be its own questions but the question put by revelation;303 furthermore, it

must listen to the biblical testimony;304 and fmally, its "form of thought" must be

acquired from submission to the biblical text (although not necessarily supported by

"proof texts").305 (2) Dogmatics must be confessional, i.e., it must listen to the fathers

and the confessions that have shaped the church.306 To be confessional does not mean

that dogmatics is simply the study of symbolics, but that dogmatics must seek to be

ecumenical, i.e., it must be church dogmatics.307 Again, this does not mean that

dogmatics should attempt to become an inter-confessional dogmatics.308 The

differences within the church must be taken seriously. Barth maintains, for example,

that all proper dogmatics must be Evangelical dogmatics,309 as distinct from Neo-

Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.31° The later

forms are, for him, heretical, because they do not conform to the objective norm of the

revealed Word of God, as witnessed to in the Scriptures. He insists that one must

maintain "polemical" opposition to these forms of dogmatics, albeit in an "irenical"

303 Barth says that the attitude of a witness "is distinguished from the attitude of an interested spectator,or the narrating reporter, or the reflective dialectician, or the determined partisan, by the fact that whenthe witness speaks he is not answering a question which comes from himself, but one which the judgeaddresses to him. And his answer will be the more exact and reliable the more he ignores his ownirrepressible questions in the shaping of his answer, and the more he allows it to be exclusivelycontrolled by the realities which it is his duty to indicate and confirm" (CD 1.2, 817).304 Barth says: "for dogmatics as for church proclamation everything depends on hearing the revelationattested by the prophets and apostles, as it is imparted to the Church and all the world in the form oftestimony" (CD 1.2, 818). And again: "Not for a single moment have we to think and speak as thoughGod had not spoken and acted, as though the existence and work of God were one problem with others,and not the basis, and, whether we realise it or not, the solution to all other problems. God can neverbe for dogmatic thinking and speaking an object which can be affirmed apart from God" (CD 1.2, 819).305 Barth says: "Biblical exegesis is the decisive presupposition and source of dogmatics...Butdogmatics in itself is not biblical exegesis" (CD 1.2, 821); "it cannot be expected to quote "proof texts"for all its reflections" (CD 1.2, 821).306 Barth says: "Dogmatic thinking and speaking must be distinguished from undefmed religiousthinking and speaking, not only by its orientation to the Canon and text of the Bible, but also by a rightconnection with the history which has moulded this Church and the confession which obtains in it"(CD 1.2, 822).307 Barth says: "Where dogmatics exists at all, it exists only with the will to be a Church dogmatics, adogmatics of the ecumenical Church" (CD 1.2, 823).308 Barth says: "Church dogmatics cannot...be at the one and the same time Roman Catholic, GreekOrthodox, Neo-Protestant and Evangelical. It cannot be ecumenical by an attempted combination ofthem all" (CD 1.2, 824).309 Barth says: "Church dogmatics is Evangelical dogmatics or it is not Church dogmatics. By'Evangelical dogmatics' is here to be understood the dogmatics of the one holy, universal and apostolicChurch, as it was purified and founded anew by the reformers of the 16th century and by the confessionwhich adopted their testimony, and as it hears the Word of God in this the only possible and normativedetermination" (CD 1.2, 825).310 CD 1.2 829-830

67

Barth's own Church Dogmatics with its ongoing critique of Roman

Catholicism on the one hand, and Neo-Protestantism (or Liberal Protestantism) on the

other, is a demonstration of this.312 Barth locates his dogmatics within the Reformed

branch of the Evangelical Church (which includes the Lutheran, Reformed and

Anglican branches).313 In his view, the differences within the one Evangelical Church

are not sufficient to render any heretical. Each should, however, be open to "listen to

one another,"314 and not remain entrenched in their own confessional position. This is

because dogmatics is not simply the unthinking reiteration of a confessional stance. A

"confessional attitude" is to be preferred over such "confessionalism." This is an

attitude, or a way of thinking, that respects the past decisions of one's particular

branch of the church, but does not simply adopt and repeat it uncritically.315 (3)

Dogmatics must be contemporary, i.e., it must listen to the teaching of the church of

today and so adopt a "Church attitude."316 To have a "Church attitude" precludes the

view that dogmatics is an ahistorical, "detached inquiry into the ontic and noetic

suggestions opened up by the Bible and dogma,"317 i.e., an abstract Christian

philosophy;318 it also prohibits dogmatics simply as aesthetics, i.e., as self

preoccupation with its own form and structure;319 it also excludes romantic dogmatics,

311 Barth says: "It will be prepared to contradict. But it will also be prepared for contradiction, andopen to the point of view of the opposite party. Its contradiction will be one in which it has not only toteach but to learn" (CD 1.2, 837).312 CD 1.1,34313 CD 1.2, 830-832314 CD 1.2, 835315 Barth says: "the confessionalism of dogmatics, like biblicism...does not denote a content of thought,but a form of thought, a principle of thought for dogmatic work" (CD 1.2, 837). And again: "It is notby referring to the fathers and confessions and reproducing their doctrine, but only by actually learningfrom them, that it maintains its confessional attitude" (CD 1.2, 838).316 Barth describes "Church attitude: "What we understand by it is as follows: that in its testing ofchurch proclamation dogmatics must orientate itself to the actual situation in the light of which themessage of the Church must be expressed, to its position and task in face of the special circumstancesof contemporary society i.e. to the Word qf God as it is spoken by Him, and must be proclaimed by theChurch in the present" (CD 1.2, 840).317 CD 1.2, 841318 Barth says: "The Word of God did not found an academy but the Church... [Dogmatics] has to servethe reflection which the Church needs for its work, its struggle, its unavoidable temptations andsorrows. It is expressly and instrument of the ecciesia militans, in the conviction that the Church of aspecific time cannot be anything but an ecciesia militans, i.e. the Church of a specific time with itsneeds and hopes" (CD 1.2, 841).319 Barth says: "It is true, of course, that the object with which it has to do has its characteristic andquite distinctive beauty which it would be unpardonable, because ungrateful, to overlook or fail to findpleasing. But the moment dogmatics even temporarily surrenders to and loses itself in thecontemplation of this beauty as such, instead of letting itself be held by the object, this beauty becomesthe beauty of an idol. No doubt certain formal requirements of completeness, symmetry and balancecan and must be satisfied, because they are requirements of the object itself. But other requirements of

68

i.e., a dogmatics that is locked in the past and not relevant for today;32° but it does not

mean that it should become secular dogmatics, i.e., dogmatics which takes its agenda

from the world and so merely "serves the spirits of every present."32'

8. Dogmatics as a Function of the Teaching ChurchBarth maintains that the role of dogmatics is also to summons "the listening Church to

address itself anew to the task of teaching the Word of God in the revelation attested

in Scripture."322 This is the "positive and material" task of dogmatics. It is necessary

because of the ambiguity of the church's "will and activity" in relation to its service

of Word of God.323 Just as the church may be disobedient in its hearing of the Word

of God so the church may be disobedient in its teaching of the Word of God.324 The

task of dogmatics, however, is to remind the church that the "Word of God committed

to the church has not only an origin but also a telos,"325 i.e., a purpose or goal. Its

goal is its own proclamation. Barth says: "The Word of God, when it is heard,

demands the service of the Church; it demands to be proclaimed and made known."326

And again: "the Word of God is not the Word of God if it is not viva vox, a message

that goes forth as directed by the Church."327 Barth says the material task of

dogmatics is to summons the church to ongoing proclamation. It is not dogmatics'

task, however, to provide the "law and norm"328 for the church's activity in

proclaiming the Word of God. This is the presence of Jesus Christ himself. He is the

dynamic of the church's proclamation. Dogmatics must simply remind the church

that this is so. Barth says:

this kind have their origin and justification only in the contemplating subject and its arbitrary fancy"(CD 1.2, 842).320 For Barth, romantic dogmatics is "a dogmatics which does not start honestly from the Church of thepresent day, but goes back more or less successfully to the past and critically or uncritically tries tothink and speak from the standpoint of a past century of the Church" (CD 1.2, 842).321 Barth says: "In the present and for the sake of the present, dogmatics will not inquire about thevoices of the day, but about the voice of God for the day" CD 1.2, 843). And again Barth says thatdogmatics loses its voice "if it tries to speak, not from the Church, but from the world to the Church...Itwill not do its real work, which is to summons and direct the Church to reflection in the light of its ownbasis and nature" (CD 1.2, 843).322 CD 1.2, 798323 CD 1.2, 798-799324 CD 1.2, 845325 CD 1.2, 845326 CD 1.2, 845. Barth says: "It can never be granted that a real hearing of the Word of God can evertake place without a renewed attempt to teach it" (CD 1.2, 846).327 CD 1.2, 848328 CD 1.2, 848

69

Here again its task will be a material task, because this summons, in so far as itis a positive summons to proclaim new doctrine, is grounded in the fact thatthe presence of Jesus Christ in His Church is not only the norm, but thespecific theme or object to which the teaching Church is dedicated. For fromHis nature as this object it follows necessarily that He must be proclaimed. InHis presence lies both the obligation and the inspiration to proclaim him. Andthe dynamic, which the Church may neglect just as little as it may swervefrom the norm he sets up, is the dynamic of this object.329

Barth says that the material task of dogmatics is to summons the church from the form

of self-will that expresses itself in sophistry, i.e., that which "tries to change the

content of the divine command into the content of a self-chosen programme, and the

service of God into the service of an ideal and idol of one's own making."33° It must

also call the church from its tendency to "be only a hearing Church, an audience

entertained but finally not involved"33' in the proclamation of the Gospel. Barth asks:

"What is the use of a purity of doctrine which is not the purity of a doctrine of the

Word of God which is actually practised, and proclaimed?"332 Again, Barth says that

dogmatics calls the listening church to ongoing proclamation as the teaching church

by itself being an example as it listens to, and then teaches the Word of God.333 Barth

is also careful to emphasis that dogmatics does not set itself up as judge over the

church. It confronts the heretical or heretically minded church "not only in judgment

but also in forgiveness of sins," and reminds the indolent church of its failure by

pointing to "the abundance of its own wealth," i.e., that the presence of Jesus Christ is

in the church to empower its proclamation despite its "failings, errors and

deviations."334 Dogmatics, he says, does not compel the church, but invites and urges

the church "not only to hear, but to teach as it hears."335 It thus calls the church to the

privilege and freedom granted to it to proclaim the Gospel, the foundation of its

existence:

For it is an honour and a joy, an inner necessity and a gracious privilege toserve and therefore to teach the Word of God. Indeed, it is the whole meaningof the Church's existence. Therefore the compulsion to proclaim the Gospel

329 CD 1.2, 847-848330 CD 1.2, 846331 CD 1.2, 846332 CD 1.2, 846

Barth says: "How can it fulfil its role if it is not willing to enter right into the matter, understandingit as the Gospel, which it is, and making it understandable as Gospel to the Church?" (CD 1.2, 851).

CD 1.2, 852. Here Barth demonstrates his belief that the word ofjudgment can only be heard in thecontext of the word of reconciliation, i.e., the question is raised only where the answer is given.

CD 1.2, 852

70

implies the incomparable freedom of the Church. It is not only disobedienceand disloyalty, but folly and self-betrayal, not to make use of this freedom.336

Barth goes on to discuss the dogmatic method. This, in essence, is the same as the

preacher's method only with a shift of emphasis. Both the dogmatician and the

preacher, who are claimed by the Word of God, are to reflect on this Word of God in

a way that is determined by it. Barth says:

The dogmatic method is, then, the way necessarily taken by dogmatic work, asclaimed by its object. Like the dogmatic norm, it must be identical with therevelation which Scripture attests as the Word of God, to the extent that it isnot merely a norm but also a way: a specific integrated and ordered content.At the very deepest level, this content for dogmatics, as for Churchproclamation, its way and its method.33

Barth also refers to dogmatic method as a "theonomy" that allows for human

"autonomy," i.e., as the law of God's work or action that allows for human freedom.

Barth describes the autonomy of dogmatic method as a "relative and concrete form of

theonomy." Here, theonomy is not understood as an external law imposed from

outside (as in the heteronomy of the dogmatic norm) but as "the freedom and

sovereignty of the divine work and action consummated in God's revealed Word, as

the way which God has taken, takes and will take with man in the person of Jesus

Christ and through the operation of the Holy Spirit."338 Dogmatic method must

therefore be the "free human decision," to follow the way of "God's action taking

place in His Word."339 Barth says:

It is an inner obedience in which our subjection to the Word does not meanonly that we acknowledge it as the externally imposed norm of our thinkingand speaking, but beyond this, that we accept the work and activity of Godwhich takes place in the Word, allowing ourselves to be drawn into the sphereof its effective operation, that we therefore make our own way which GodHimself takes in His Word, adopting it as the way of our own thinking andspeaking, and consequently of its method.34°

Barth stresses that although the dogmatic method is free, it is only free within the

context of obedience to the way and work of God in his Word, i.e., it is free, but not

336 CD 1.2, 853CD 1.2, 856

338 CD 1.2, 856-857CD 1.2, 858

340 CD 1.2, 859

71

arbitrary.34' Since dogmatic method is the freedom of obedience it means that

dogmatics must not attempt to force the content of the Word of God into a system.

This would render it no longer (1) free or (2) obedient. In this case, the autonomy of

dogmatic work would be eliminated, and the work and activity of God would then be

reduced to formal principles and themes subjected to the dogmatician's control.342

But dogmatic method, Barth insists, involves being continually open to the Word of

God.343 This means that there can be no comprehensive views, no final conclusions

and results, but rather, dogmatic work must "continually begin again at the beginning

in every point."344 The beginning for every point, is of course, the "self-positing and

self-authenticating Word of God."345 Dogmatic method is therefore a way of thinking

that begins with, and continues under the guidance of the Word of God. Its concern is

not with completeness but with faithfulness, as it attempts to give an account of the

content of the Word of God. "In the last resort," Barth says, "we may say the

dogmatic method consists simply in this: that the work and activity of God in his

Word are honoured and feared and loved (literally) above all things."346

In the final pages of Barth's first volume, he explains how his dogmatic method will

be worked out in the development of his Church Dogmatics. He reiterates, "we must

take as our starting point the fact that the work and activity of God in His Word is

identical with what we have described as the first form of the word of God, namely,

God's self-revelation."347 One must avoid imposing one's own system or the

adopting a vantage point outside the subject matter itself, but let revelation itself

determine the form and content of the discussion. He asserts that four loci arise "from

the fact of the self revelation of the one and triune God."348 These are God, Creation,

Reconciliation, and Redemption. Not one of these loci should become the sole focus

341 CD 1.2, 860342 CD 1.2, 861-863. Barth says: "This object, which must dictate dogmatic method, is the Word ofGod itself. It is not a conception of it. It is not, therefore. A basic dogma, tenet, principle or defmitionor essence of Christianity. It is not any kind of truth that can be controlled. Dogmatics certainly has abasis, foundation and centre. But — and we must remember this point, especially when we are thinkingof the autonomy of dogmatics — this centre is not something which is under our control, but somethingwhich exercises control over us" (CD 1.2, 866).

Barth says: "Essentially dogmatic method consists in this openness to receive new truth, and only inthis" (CD 1.2, 867).

CD 1.2, 868CD 1.2, 869

346 CD 1.2, 867CD 1.2, 870

348 CD 1.2, 877

72

or determining centre of any system of dogmatics, but each should take their

departure directly from revelation.349 Although Barth says that one is free to arrange

these loci in any order, his chosen procedure follows the classical tradition of

dogmatics, and what he considers to be the natural pragmatic order. After briefly

outlining the contents of each locus,350 he concludes by reiterating that the content of

each locus must take their rise from revelation alone, i.e., Jesus Christ:

God is active in His Word; therefore dogmatics must remain bound to HisWord, and can undertake only to give an account of that which is revealed inthe Word of God as the past, present and future activity of God, of that whichis an event in the Word, with all the force of what occurred yesterday, occurstoday and will occur to-morrow. And God's Word is his Son Jesus Christ.Therefore in the most comprehensive sense of the term dogmatics can andmust be understood as Christology. In all four stages of its development itmust always remember that it can legitimately speak only of the God and thework and activity of the God who is the revelation of the Father in Jesus Christby the Holy Spirit.35'

9. The Task of the CommunityIn section seventy-two, subsection three; Barth deals with the "Task of the

Community." We have already seen that Barth describes the content of this task as

that of announcing the Gospel. We have also seen that, because all humanity has

been included in the reconciling event of God's action in Jesus Christ, the Gospel is to

be addressed to all human beings as christianus design atus. In the rest of this

subsection, Barth goes on to discuss the question of the purity of the church's task in

both (1) announcing to Gospel, and (2) in relation to those to whom it is addressed. It

is, of course, the role of dogmatics to call the church to the purity of its task.

Firstly, in regard to the content of its task, i.e., the announcing of the Gospel:

dogmatics seeks to call the church to vigilance concerning two possible falsifications:

(1) it may fail to "see that the Gosjel is always the living Word of the living Lord of

the community"; and (2) it may fail to appreciate that the Gospel is "the constant

Word of its one Lord."352 Concerning the first of these: Barth says that if the church

This is true even of the doctrine of the triune God, which begins this first volume on the doctrine ofthe Word of God. Barth insists that the doctrine of the Trinity was derivea from revelation, just as thefour loci are (CD 1.2, 878-879).350 CD 1.2, 88 1-883

CD 1.2, 883352 CD IV.3.2, 813

73

fails to remember that the Gospel of the risen Lord Jesus Christ is a "living Word,"

then the Gospel may lose its character as "a call which always goes out to men of a

particular age from God who reveals himself in that age, addressing them here and

now in their particular situation."353 The Gospel must not, however, be perverted into

the impartation of "general, timeless and irrelevant Christian truth."354 It is always to

be addressed to specific people, at a specific time and situation; and it must always

call these people to "a concrete decision of faith and obedience."355 If the Gospel is

generalised into a timeless, abstract message with no relevance, then it ceases to be

the Gospel of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, and becomes simply the "inarticulate

mumbling of pious words."356 Barth says:

For there can be no doubt that, when its relevance to specific times andsituations is taken from it, intentionally or unintentionally the Gospel is nolonger preached as the declaration of the risen Jesus Christ who rules at theright hand of the Father Almighty but who also by His Holy Spirit lives andacts and speaks in the ongoing earthly and temporal history of the world andthe Church. There can be no doubt that in these circumstances it is emptied ofit content and therefore made unserviceable as the eternal Word of the Yes ofGod's goodness pronounced in Him.357

Turning to the second danger, Barth says, although the Gospel must address the

contemporary situation, its message must always remain the same: "It is always and

everywhere the self-declaration of Jesus Christ, the Yes of the goodness of God

towards man. Always, everywhere and in all changing circumstances, it is thus to be

attested as the same by the community which serves it."358 Barth maintains that the

danger for the Church is that it may change the Gospel into a "pseudo—Gospel" which

is not true to the "direction of the living Lord Jesus Christ" but "adapted to the moods,

the modes of thought, the instincts, the ideas, the needs and the aspirations of a

specific age and situation."359 Surprisingly, Barth says that such a tendency is not

usually the result of an "evangelical radicalism" but of a "very unevangelical

conservatism,"360 which tends to impose its own faith on the Gospel.36'

CD IV.3.2, 813CD IV.3.2, 817CD IV.3.2, 814

356 CD IV.3.2, 814CD IV.3.2, 816

358 CD IV.3.2, 817-818CD IV.3.2, 818

360 CD IV.3.2, 818361 Barth says: "If the gospel, i.e., the content of the commission of the community, becomes asupposedly well known text and object, subjected to its own interpretation, instead of an eternal

74

Secondly, in regard to those addressed by the church's task, i.e., all human beings:

dogmatics calls the church from the twofold deviation of either (1) neglecting them,

or (2) patronising them. If the church neglects those addressed by the Gospel, i.e.,

stands aloof, indifferent and remote from them, it denies the very foundation of its

existence, i.e., that it is called into co-existence with humanity through Jesus Christ.

Barth says of the church: "Its existence finds not merely its meaning but its very basis

and possibility only in its mission, its ministry, its witness, its task, and therefore its

positive relation to those who are without."362 On the other hand, if the church

patronises those addressed by the Gospel, i.e., approaches them with an attitude of

"superior knowledge" and attempts to exercise power over them to coerce them into

faith and obedience,363 then it also falsifies its task. The church is not to attest to its

own knowledge of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ, but rather the Gospel itself, and

Jesus Christ himself.364 Furthermore, the church must not seek to "handle" people,

however benevolently, in a way that treats them as objects. Rather, the church

"performs its ministry with no concern to assure or create results, but leaving it to

Him whom it attests to make of it what He wills."365

10. The Ministiy of the CommunityFinally, in Barth 's discussion of "The Ministry of the Community" in section

seventy-two, he lists the ministry of theology as one of its forms. Again, he insists

"there would be no theology if there were no ministry specially committed to the

witness of the Word."366 Here, he lists four types of theology: biblical or exegetical

theology; ecciesial and dogmatic history; systematic theology or dogmatics; practical

theology.367 He is aware of the "many sins of which one might well be guilty of in

theology."368 Foremost among them is pride. The paradox is that theology's only

purpose is to make itself superfluous. Given that the church's ministry will always be

Subject, the living Word of the living Prophet Jesus Christ, which reveals itself afresh and establishesfresh knowledge in every age, then it is only to be expected that the community's handling of thisobject will be radically, totally and at bottom irresistibly influenced by all the presuppositions which itinevitably bring to it from its relationship with the world around" (CD IV.3.2, 821).362 CD IV.3.2, 826363 CD IV.3.2, 829

CD IV.3.2, 829365 CD IV.3.2, 829366 CD IV.3.2, 879367 CD IV.3.2, 879-880368 CD TV.3.2, 881

75

in need of criticism and correction, however, Barth concedes that theology will only

become superfluous in the lumen gloriae.369

Theology must be involved in "serious questioning, analysis, argumentation,

construction, [and] discussion," and so inevitably involves polemics. Barth says "a

little of the notorious rabies theologorum is thus in place."37° But polemics should be

engaged in only indirectly. In the main, theology is a positive, peaceful, beautiful,

and joyful science. Its aim must always be to serve the church and not to dominate.

In solidarity with the rest of the church, theology is to be always mindful of the world.

It should not, however, attempt to provide an apology for Christianity. It serves the

world best by keeping to its own task. For Barth, "good dogmatics is always the best

and basically the only possible apologetics."37' Theology is not unrelated to life but is

"the integrating element" in the ministry of the church. For Barth, every Christian is a

theologian.372

11. SummaiyThis survey of Barth's understanding of dogmatics in relation to preaching in the

Church Dogmatics has shown the following: Dogmatics is a theological discipline. It

is the ongoing, scientific, self-examination of the church in regard to the content of its

talk about God, particularly its proclamation. It seeks to be both critical and

corrective. As such, it is orientated to the question of dogma, i.e., pure doctrine. This

is the event in which the church's proclamation conforms to its proper content, i.e.,

Jesus Christ. Dogmatics thus shares the presuppositions of preaching, i.e., that the

Word of God is spoken in the church through its proclamation. It is therefore not

sceptical of preaching, but is concerned that the Word of God should be heard in it. It

is also concerned with the human response to the Word of God in preaching.

Dogmatics calls the church away from heresy and pre-heretical deviations to a more

careful listening to the Word of God. It does this by measuring its proclamation by

the norm of the Word of God. In this task it adopts a biblical, confessional and

church attitude. Dogmatics also calls the church from sophistry and indolence to a

369 CD IV.3.2, 880CD IV.3.2, 881

371 CD IV.3.2, 882372 CD IV.3.2, 882

76

more faithful proclamation of the Word of God. The Word of God itself determines

its method, which may be understood as the attempt to follow the way of God's action

in his Word in the power of the Holy Spirit. The task of dogmatics is to remind the

church that the Gospel is not an abstract, irrelevant message but is the Word of the

risen Christ to contemporary people calling for their response in the light of his act of

reconciliation, which has included all. It is also the task of dogmatics to remind the

church that the message of the Gospel is always "the Yes of God's goodness towards

man" in Jesus Christ. Dogmatics reminds the church that it exists for the world.

On the basis of the summary of Barth's views, in this and the preceding chapter, it

may be concluded that the claim made in the introduction concerning Barth's

Dogmatics as a dogmatics orientated to preaching has been firmly established.

Barth's extraordinary claim for preaching as the centre of the church's existence must

be taken seriously. As must Barth's insistence that dogmatics is a second order

activity in service of the Word of God in preaching, and only exists for the sake of

preaching. To approach Barth's Dogmatics from any other perspective is to miss his

most basic concern. To take Barth seriously, therefore, one must read his Dogmatics

as his attempt to serve the church by providing, what may be considered to be, an

extensive and sophisticated homiletic handbook.

77

Chapter Five: The Nature, Criteria, and Form of the

Sermon in Barth's Homiletics

In Barth's early lectures on preaching he discusses the nature of the sermon in terms

of nine specific criteria, and then deals with how these are to be applied to the actual

task of sermon preparation. In this way he provides parameters for both the material

content and the structural form of the sermon. A summary of Barth's understanding

of the sermon, as outlined here, follows:

1. The Nature of the SermonIn the early section of Homiletics, Barth critiques various views of preaching and

finally arrives at his own two-fold definition:

1. Preaching is the Word of God which he himself speaks, claiming for thepurpose the exposition of a biblical text in free human words that are relevantto contemporaries by those who are called to do this in the church that isobedient to its commission.

2. Preaching is the attempt enjoined upon the church to serve God's ownWord, through one who is called thereto, by expounding a biblical text inhuman words and making it relevant to contemporaries in intimation of whatthey have to hear from God himself.373

He explains that there can be no adequate definition of preaching that does not

acknowledge both, the role of God and the role of the preacher. From one

perspective, preaching is entirely what God does, yet from another, preaching is

entirely a human event. God claims the "free human words" to serve his purpose.

His Word does not displace the human words but neither is there a synthesis of the

Word of God with human words.374 There can be no synthesis because preachers can

never speak God's Word, but can only be signposts, or pointing fingers: "Only

brokenly and very imperfectly can they discharge their mission as proclaimers of

God's Word."375 Nevertheless, God does not displace the human words of preachers.

H, 44Barth argues that the relation between the Word of God and the human word in preaching is

analogous to the divine and human in the person of Jesus Christ (H, 45).H, 45

78

Precisely in and through the very inadequate human "attempt" that preachers make to

"serve God's own Word," God himself speaks. In some miraculous way the Word of

God includes the human words in this event. Barth says: "The totality forms a closed

circle which begins with God and ends with him."376

2. The Criteria of the SermonBarth delineates nine specific criteria for the sermon drawn directly from this two-fold

definition of preaching. These are: revelation; church; confession; ministry;

heralding; scripture; originality; congregation; and spirituality. A brief summary

follows:

a. Revelation.The primary criterion for preaching is that it must conform to, and be determined by,

revelation. Barth speaks of an "unconditional whence"377 and an "unconditional

whither" 378 of preaching. These are orientated to God's past and future revelation.

Both are christological. He says: "Preaching has the task of proclaiming the past and

future revelation of God, the epiphany and parousia of Jesus Christ."379 And again:

"The two points that determine whether a sermon is in accord with revelation are

Christmas and the day of Christ. If preaching is within these two points, it conforms

to revelation. All that is said must always be said between these two points."380

God's past and future revelation cannot be separated from Jesus Christ who is the

same yesterday, today and forever.

1. The WhenceThe whence of preaching is God's self-revelation in the incarnation of Jesus Christ

(including his death). Orientated to this past event, preaching is therefore an

announcement of what has happened.38' It can only adopt an "attitude of receptivity,

376 H, 44. Barth says, "all the action that takes place in preaching... is the action of the divine Subject.Revelation is a closed circuit in which God is both Subject and Object and the link between the two"(H,47).

H, 51378H, 53

H, 86380 H, 55381 Barth says: "If preaching is to be governed by this "whence," then it can take place in no otherattitude than that of the recipient; it can seek no other posture. It can be undertaken only in the

79

of gratitude and assurance."382 Barth suggests at least five implications of this for the

material content of the sermon:

Firstly, what God has done in Jesus Christ is to be the presupposition, central point,

and defming factor in all that is said, i.e., the content of the sermon must be

christologically determined. Barth says:

Preaching.. . is itself an event in the face of revelation that has taken place. Itmust set itself unconditionally under this presupposition. No matter what maybe said in detail, this is the point from which every single line must be drawn.Not the mere word "Christ," not a mere description of Christ, but solely whatGod has done with us in Christ, Immanuel, God with us — this is the centralpoint of all preaching.383

Secondly, as a specific application of the first point above, the sermon must

presuppose that God's act in Jesus Christ is the revelation of who God is, i.e., it must

talk of God only in the light of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Barth repeatedly

affirms that the incarnation "means that God has revealed himself. . .personally"384 in

Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, the sermon must also announce that God's act in Jesus Christ is the

determination of human existence, i.e., it must assume that reconciliation is an

objective reality for all humanity in Jesus Christ already. Barth says: "In Christ we

were reconciled to God — eph' hapax [Heb. 10: 101, once for all. Believing means

seeing that this is so, that God has reconciled himself to us in Christ."385 By virtue of

the incarnation, lost humanity has been called home. Barth asserts:

God has revealed himself, the Word became flesh. God has assumed humannature. Humanity has become God's in Christ. In Christ God has made fallenhumanity his own. Faced with the fall, God did not step angrily aside. Insteadhe has personally united himself with the race. Lost humanity has been calledhome.3 6

knowledge that God himself has put everything right. Over against all doubt and contradiction, thetruth is that the Word became flesh. All that was required has actually been done to meet all humanneed" (11, 51).382 H, 54383H, 51384H, 51385115138611,51

80

Fourthly, the sermon must not talk abstractly of sin but only of forgiven sin, i.e., sin

must only be discussed in the context of reconciliation. Barth says: "Sin undoubtedly

has to be taken seriously, but forgiveness even more seriously. For either forgiveness

is the first word or it is not true at all. Sin must be spoken about only as the sin which

is taken away by the lamb of God. Christian preaching deals with sin as forgiven

Fifthly, the sermon must not talk of the imperatives of the law before the indicatives

of the Gospel, i.e., reconciliation must be presented as the presupposition of

sanctification. Barth says:

The law can be good only when it stands in relation to the gospel... abstractpreaching about law is in no circumstances Christian preaching. The churchcan preach only the law that is set in relation to the gospel. It can speak aboutthe commandment only with the injunction to fear God and to love him... If itis true that we are reconciled to God, how can this fail to involve a claim onhumanity? How can we proclaim the gospel without listening to the law? Butthe reference to sanctification, like that to sin and the law, can be made only inthe light of the unconditional "whence."388

ii. The WhitherThe whither of preaching is orientated to the future event of Jesus Christ.389 Barth

says: "If, then, revelation is ahead of preaching as well as behind it, the previously

described attitude of receptivity, of gratitude and assurance, is also the attitude and

movement of expectation. The expectation is that what has taken place already will

be given again."390 In another important passage Barth says:

Preaching, then, has the task of bearing witness to revelation on its way fromyesterday to tomorrow, and thus of taking the way from what has been heardbefore to what will constantly be heard again. If preaching sounds this basicnote, it conforms to revelation, and it is in a right relation to the word of Godthat it is to proclaim, taking its starting point in this Word and hastening backto it as to something which is wholly new, which constantly renews itself,which is alive.39'

H, 52388 H, 52389 Although not explicitly stated here, for Barth, the parousia of Jesus Christ must be understood notonly as the ultimate event at the end of time, but as a continuing event from the time of the resurrectionof Jesus Christ, made possible by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The resurrection, outpouring of theHoly Spirit, and the fmal parousia are all related perichoretically to the one coming of Jesus Christ (CDIV.3.1, 293-296).390 H, 54391 H, 87

81

Several practical implications follow from this: (1) the preacher's task is not to

attempt to prove the existence or the truth of God through intellectual arguments for

only God can prove himself;392 (2) the preacher is not to try to create the reality of

God;393 (3) the preacher must not use static or possessive language about God or

salvation, but must always speak in dynamic terms. God and salvation are never a

datum one possesses, but are graciously and continually given in the event of ongoing

revelation.394

b. Church.This criterion concerns the place of preaching. For Barth, the church is the place of

preaching because it is the community created by God's revelation, the place where

God has chosen to speak. Furthermore, it is in the church that the sacraments and the

scripture are found, both essential for true preaching. For Barth, "preaching must

orientate itself solely to baptism as the sign of grace, to the Lord's Supper as the sign

of hope, and to the scripture as the record of truth."395 The sacraments and preaching

complement each other in that the former point to the "That" of revelation and the

latter to the

c. ConftssionPreaching is confessional, i.e., it is not simply the self-expression of the preacher but

the voicing of the community's response of faith to revelation. Preaching therefore

must pay attention to the creeds, the corporate statements of faith of the church, as

392 H, 47Barth refutes popular ideas of preaching as: "building up the kingdom of God"; "converting";

"leading to a decision"; "confront us with the reality of God'; "communicate an experience"; "bring tolight our situation and set us before God". Barth says all these may happen in the sermon, but they areacts of God himself - they are never the preacher's task to try and make them happen (H, 48).

Barth says: "Everything depends on our not falling victim to the whence alone, as if coming fromthe grace of God, as if Christian assurance meant a rest, a possessing a fmal security. This assurance isin fact a profound nonpossessing. This wealth, as we turn to the future, is total poverty and lack. But itis also expectation and hope, the prospect of what will then be given us" (H, 54). And again: "Theassurance, the confidence is not Christian assurance or confidence unless shot through with yearningfor future salvation, for Christ who has appeared already, the Christ who is still to come must be thecenter of every sermon. All that we say must be subordinated to this: Christ comes, we await his day"(H, 54).395H, 87396H, 61

82

"the goal and limit of what they say."397 In this way, Barth says, preachers put

themselves "in the place where the church stands."398

MinistryPreaching is an essential aspect of the church's ministry in the world. Barth says:

"Preaching takes place on the special authority and responsibility of divine calling to

ministry in the Church."399

e. HeraldingPreaching is an attempt to obey the command of God given to the church, to serve

God's own Word. Preachers perform the role of heralds by pointing beyond

themselves to God. As heralds, their task is provisional and preliminary. Their focus

is not on themselves, or their own words, but on the one they point to — to the one

who is coming. Barth says: "It is the task of preaching to point to this coming, as the

keryx, the herald, intimates the coming of the king whom he precedes."40° If the

Word of God is to be spoken in preaching then inadequate human words must be

justified and sanctified by God himself.401

H, 65398 H, 65

H, 87. Barth accepts the four criteria generally required in the church for those who preach: (1) apersonal calling; (2) the ethical injunctions of the Pastoral Epistles (although it is acknowledged that allneed the grace of justification); (3) a theological education (although the Holy Spirit is the trueteacher); (4) a calling to a congregation. Each of these criteria are ultimately God's doing, who is alsofree to transcend them and to use those who are not ordained by the church, if he so desires (H, 67-71)400 H, 71401 Just as justification is the blessing of God upon human beings who are not worthy of it, and whoremain the same as they were after being justified (for Barth, justification is not an inner work oftransformation); so justified preaching relies entirely upon God to bless unworthy human words. Thesewords have no power in themselves to convey God's Word. They remain inadequate human wordseven when God speaks through them. When Barth talks of sanctified preaching, his emphasis is on thehuman aspect of preaching. Just as means being claimed by God for obedience to him,so sanctified preaching is human speech that is claimed by the Word of God for obedience. Theobedience of preachers can only be a response to this prior claiming of God. Preachers cannot speakfrom themselves, but must only repeat what they hear. When this happens; the words that they say aretheir own, but God's own Word has conscripted them. The promise of preaching (i.e. that it will beGod's Word) is totally dependent upon the prior claiming of God in this way. Barth says that it is notonly preachers who need to be sanctified by God's Word but the listeners as well. Both can only listenand obey, as the Word of God claims them (H, 71-75).

83

f Scripture.Preaching is exposition based on the exegesis of scripture. The scriptures are the sole

source for preaching.402 Both the Old and New Testaments point to Christ and are to

be interpreted with the view that he is the locus of their meaning.403

g. OriginalityPreachers are to speak personally and freely in their own words. This is the result of

the justifying and sanctifying grace of God in preaching which frees preachers to be

themselves. In order to preach with originality, preachers must hear the Word for

themselves, and so preach in personal repentance and thankfulness. To hear the Word

they must occupy themselves with the words of the scripture. Barth says: "holy

scripture first has to break through to them. Only then are they in a position to echo

it with their own words and their own thinking."404 Barth says again: "Preaching can

take place only in personal repentance and thankfulness, and it is thus a free word of

the preacher."405

h. CongregationAlthough preaching is not to be determined by the congregation, it must be

specifically addressed to it. It must always be addressed to particular people at a

particular time. The preacher is to adopt the posture of being part of the congregation

not above it. The presupposition is that the people addressed are already God's

402 Barth says that preachers must have regard for the Biblical text as it is written and given to us. Thismeans five things specifically. (1) They must regard Scripture is the sufficient source for preaching.To look outside of Scripture is to betray a lack of faith in its adequacy. (2) Careful attention must bepaid to the text. When this is done, Barth says: "The sermon will be like the involuntary lip movementof one who is reading with great care, attention, and surprise, more following the letters than reading inthe usual sense, all eyes, totally claimed, aware that 'I have not written the text." (H, 76). (3)Diligence is also required. Academic exegetical work is important (philological and historical study).But more than this is necessary. Preachers must be forever open to hear the Word of God in the text innew and different ways. (4) Modesty is also a requisite. Even after diligent study we never grasp thefull meaning of the text. We must be continually willing to give up our insights, to be contradicted andcorrected by listening to the text (H, 78). (5) Finally, preachers are to enter into the movement of theWord, i.e., submit to it and let it lead them. Barth says that if these five points are followed then three"fatal possibilities" of clericalism, idealism, and boredom will be avoided (H, 79-80).403 H, 80404 H, 89

H, 88

84

people. Barth says: "Preaching aims at the people of a specific time to tell them that

their lives have their basis and hope in Jesus Christ."406

L SpiritualityPreaching can only serve God's Word. In the final analysis, only God can make

himself known. Preachers must in all humility and soberness acknowledge this.

Despite their best efforts, the sermon only becomes God's Word to the congregation if

God wills to make use of it. Preaching therefore requires prayer.407

3. The Form of the SermonFollowing the explanation of his nine criteria, Barth addresses the task of actual

sermon preparation. Throughout this discussion he specifies certain structural

elements of the sermon. These may be summarized as follows:

a. The Sermon must be WrittenAccording to Barth's criterion Church, the sermon is "the central act of Protestant

worship, closely related to the sacrament."408 Its dignity as a liturgical event, Barth

says, demands that it be written. He insists that the sermon must be "prepared word

for word and written down."409

406 H, 89. Barth says that the presupposition of preaching is that the people addressed are alreadyGod's people. They are the ones that God wishes to speak to. They are those on whose behalf God hasalready acted in Jesus Christ, when he died and rose again. The task of preachers is to tell thecongregation this truth.407 Barth says: "We cannot preach without praying. Since in the last analysis the sermon can have to dowith God alone, its words must be spoken in the course of calling upon him, and the congregation, too,must be summoned to pray" (H, 86). And again: "Preaching, then, must become prayer. It must turninto the seeking and invoking of God, so that ultimately everything depends upon whether God hearsand answers our prayer. This opening up to heaven must not be blocked by the triumphant coping of amajestic Gothic arch that shelters us from the gaze of heaven, for we are truly sheltered only when weare exposed before God. There is no place, then, for victorious confidence in the success of our ownaction, but only for a willingness to open ourselves to heaven and to remain open to God, so that Godhimself can now come to us, and give us all things richly. Our attitude, then, must be controlled fromabove: nothing from me, all things from God, no independent achievement, only dependence on God'sgrace and will" (H, 90).408H 119409H, 119

85

b. The Sermon is to Begin and End with PrayerOn the basis of criterion Spirituality, Barth also insists that the sermon must begin and

end with prayer. For Barth, prayers are not simply to be offered extemporaneously,

but must also be written down as part of the sermon transcript.410

c. The Sermon must be TextualCriterion Scripture, means for Barth that the sermon must be textual. The text should

not be too short as this may facilitate the preacher commandeering it for his or her

own purpose. The preacher must not impose his or her own thoughts on to the text

but simply expound on what it says.41' Barth says: "The text itself must always be

master, not we."412

d. The Structure of the Sermon must be Determined by the TextThe Lordship of the text, criterion Scripture, has relevance for the structural divisions

of the sermon as well. Barth rejects any logical divisions of the sermon derived from

some schema introduced by the preacher. The structural divisions and content of the

sermon must always follow the thought form and content of the text. The divisions of

the sermon must be constructed by "repetition of the text's own rhythm and with due

regard to the proportions discerned by exegesis."413 Barth says: "The unity lies in the

text itself and should find expression in the sermon, which follows the movement of

the text"414

Barth says that following the way of witness415 in the exposition of the text, i.e., a

christological reading of it, does not mean that the structure of the sermon necessarily

follows the exact order of the text. It may do this, but alternatively, the sermon may

begin at the end or the middle of the verse or passage. What is important is not so

much a slavish following of the letter of the text, but conformity to its meaning, as

christologically determined.416

410H, 134H, 95H, 93

413H, 126414H, 121415H, 103-104416 Barth says: "The homily principle involves no bondage to the letter. If the text is unevenlyaccentuated, allowance must be made for this. Perhaps very little need be said about the letter, but the

86

e. The Sermon must not be ThematicIt is also in the context of submission to the authority of the text, criterion Scripture,

that Barth rules out preaching on a theme external to the text itself, or only loosely

related to it. He says: "We cannot view an address on a theme as having the same

rank as a sermon on a text (a homily)."417 Preachers should not use the text as an

occasion for expounding their own thoughts in the sermon.

Barth also says that it is a mistake to try and locate a particular theme or themes in the

text itself. According to criteria Revelation and Scripture, there is only one theme of

the Bible, to which all texts point. This is God's own Word, Jesus Christ. Just as a

witness "is not itself the object of its witness,"418 so the biblical witness, or textual

part thereof, must not become the object of preaching. The focus in preaching must

always be on Jesus Christ, the Word of God, to whom the scriptures bear witness. In

practical terms this means that preachers are to follow the way of witness in simple

repetition of the biblical text, which always point to Jesus Christ. Barth says: "To

preach is to tread again with the congregation the way of witness taken by the text."419

f The Sermon needs no IntroductionA surprising, but nevertheless logical outworking of Barth's views on preaching is

that the sermon should have no introduction.420 He gives the following reasons for

rejecting introductions as part of the structural form of the sermon: (1) they are

unnecessary because the preceding congregational worship is the introduction to the

sermon; (2) they distract from the Word of God, which is to be announced in the

sermon; (3) they often begin in the wrong place, i.e., with an analysis of the times

which is not the preacher's expertise, or a quotation of a famous person which

distracts from the biblical text, or a denunciation of sin421 before announcing divine

content must come out at all costs. Finding all this is the business of exegesis.. .The aim of the sermonshould not be that people receive a few thoughts, but that they open the Bible and note the way ofwitness that it takes" (II, 126 127).

H, 95418H, 103419H, 104420 He concedes that some short preliminary reference to the reading may be necessary to link it to thesermon proper, but in that case the introduction would really a mini-sermon before the sermon!421 Barth finds this extremely inappropriate. He says: "the depiction of sin and error, which offer sorich a field, ought not to take on autonomous significance in the sermon. We have no right to bespattera Christian congregation, or one that is almost Christian with such a shower of bitterness from the veryoutset" (H, 123).

87

grace; (4) even an introduction that involves an extensive contextual discussion of the

background of the text is to be avoided, as this amounts to talking about the Bible

instead offrom it.422

The major reason Barth has for rejecting introductions in sermons is based on his

criterion Revelation. According to Barth, there is no need for, nor is there a

possibility of, establishing a "point of contact' for the Word of God. The only point

of contact between God and us is the one established by God himself in Jesus

Christ.423 As far as Barth is concerned, we begin with God's promise to us not a point

of contact in us: "Preaching cannot try to relate to the divine within us. The miracle

must always take place from above."424 To the preacher Barth says:

We have no need to build a slowly ascending ramp, for there is no height thatwe have to reach. No! Something has come down from above. And this canhappen only when the Bible speaks from the very outset. We have then donewhat we could.425

g. The Sermon is to be an Exposition not just an ExegesisOn the basis of criteria Originality and Congregation, Barth holds that the sermon

must not be the reporting of the results of a simple exegesis of a text. Based on

exegesis, the sermon must address the contemporary situation. Although anchored in

the text, it moves beyond a straightforward exegesis of it. 426

422H 121-125423 Barth says: "There is only one exception, the contact which is made, of course, by the miracle ofGod from on high. When the Word has found an entrance into a person, then God has worked amiracle, he alone, without any preparation or assistance of ours. We have simply to approach peopleknowing that there is nothing in them that we can address, no humanum, no analogia entis of any kindthat we can put in touch with the divinum, but only the one great possibility which has no need of ourskills, which alone is efficacious, and which does not need us as advocates... "the Father has spoken"only in this way and no other. We have simply to adopt the attitude of the messenger who does nothave to create a mood for the message. No doubt all this seems to be wildly destructive of the littlegarden of our sermon out of which we had hoped to pluck so many blooms!" (H, 124 -125).424H, 125425 H, 125. Barth says that the preacher should not in any way, through his own efforts, seek to movehis audience towards God. The sole concern should be to speak from revelation: "How many parts ofsermons, especially so-called introductions, which are for the purpose of getting the attention of thelisteners, would be better left unspoken from this standpoint. The real need is not so much to get to thepeople as to come from Christ. Then one automatically gets to the people" (H, 52-53).426H, 111ff

88

h. Exposition and Application must not be Separated in the SermonAgain as a function of criterion Originality, Barth insists that explication and

application are not to be separated: "In a good sermon, explication must relate to

application as subject does to predicate."427 Barth also says on the basis of criterion

Congregation, which holds that preachers are part of their congregations, that

sermons are not to be soliloquies that have no relation to the congregations, nor are

they to address the congregation abstractly, without reference to the preacher. Barth

says: "Neither preacher nor congregation must be viewed as an abstract entity."428

And again: "Recognition of this situation of the preacher is the basic prerequisite for

the proper application of the Word, which at the same time can never cease to be

explication."429

Barth claims that the problem of preaching is "that of the relation between closeness

to life and a closeness to the text."430 The preacher's art, he suggests, is to prepare

sermons always with the congregation firmly in mind, and at the same time with the

conviction that the biblical text is profoundly relevant to their present situation.431

Barth says, however, that closeness to the text is the most important requirement: "For

in preaching it is always better to be too close to the text than to be too thematic, or

too much in keeping with the times. Of the two evils, it is better here to choose the

lesser."432

L The Sermon is to have no Special ConclusionBarth not only rejects a special introduction as a structural element of a sermon, but

also a special conclusion. This is consistent with his insistence that exposition and

427H 112. For him, exposition is not followed by application, but is combined with it from the verybeginning of the sermon. The introduction is, he says, "the 'cliff' in preaching." He means by this that,from the very first sentence, preaching must address the people directly from the text (H, 82).428H, 113429H, 113430H, 113431 Barth says: "We have to say on the one hand that when preparing a sermon we cannot think enoughabout the people for whom it is meant. Each word that is to be proclaimed to the listeners must becomea Word that is specifically and decisively addressed to our own present. But woe to the preachers whodo not first see how relevant the Word of the Bible is to the people of today! Woe even more topreachers who do see the contingency and relevance of the biblical Word to the people of today butwho are then fearful or unwilling to give offence and thus become deserters of the Word the Wordwhich seeks to seize and disturb and confront the people of today, and in this way to lead them truly tothe rest of God, but which is buried by the cowardice and disobedience of the preachers, and thusprevented from doing its proper work!" (H, 114).432H, 117

89

application are to be inseparably linked throughout. To relegate the application to the

end is to divorce these. The sermon is from first to last an address to the people from

the Word of God.433 Barth does not favour concluding sermons with a doxology, or a

"great Hallelujah," although occasionally this may be appropriate. For him, the whole

sermon is doxology.434 Barth's preference is that the sermon should simply end with

the word "Amen." Such an ending, he says, acknowledges that the sermon has been

said before God, that it depends upon him, and is inadequate without him.435 From

this word "Amen", which is both "comforting and critical," Barth suggests, "we might

unpack the whole doctrine of preaching."436

4. ConclusionThis outline summary of Barth's early lectures on preaching has indicated that Barth

has addressed the practical question of preaching, and specifically the question of the

sermon. Not only has he provided (1) a definition of the nature of the sermon, but (2)

he has also delineated nine criteria of the sermon and (3) the practical implications of

these for the content and the form of the sermon. It is the specific criteria given here

and the implications for the form and content of the sermon that will become the

points for comparison with a selection of Barth's own sermons in the last section of

this investigation. Of particular significance is Barth's primary criterion Revelation,

which is foundational for the rest.

Before proceeding to the analysis of Barth's sermons, an important preliminary step

must be taken. This will involve the grounding of Barth's primary criterion for the

sermon in his more mature theology as given in the Church Dogmatics. A

comparison of the findings of this chapter with chapter three, where an analysis of the

Church Dogmatics in regard to preaching was given, will show many points of

correlation have already been established between the Dogmatics and the various

Barth says: "As we reject the special introduction, so there can be no independent conclusion; thesermon has to end with the exposition. If a summary is needed, it is already too late to give it; themischief has been done. A theoretical sermon cannot be made more practical by a concludingapplication. Address can never come too soon" (H, 127).

Barth says: "Motivating is especially dangerous and seductive: the sounding of a great Hallelujah inthe style of Romans 8. As surely as this may sometimes be done, we must be warned against it as amethod. The sermon must certainly be worship, but as a whole and not merely at the end. If it is soonly at the end, it is no longer credible" (H, 127).

Behind this statement lie criterion (1) Revelation, (5) Heralding and (9) Spirituality.436H, 127

90

3

criteria nominated here. Revelation as the whence of preaching, for example, was

reaffirmed in the Dogmatics with Barth's assertion that the sole task of the

community is to announce the unambiguous Yes of the Gospel based on God's past

action in Jesus Christ. It was also evident in Barth's discussion of the nature of the

church's ministry as the declaration in "strong and unhesitating indicatives"437 of "the

act of God in which it took place that He reconciled an opposing and gainsaying

world to Himself."438 Revelation as the whither of preaching was also reiterated

throughout, particularly in the idea that Jesus Christ himself is the true minister, "the

one Doer of the work of God and the primary and true Witness of this work"439 who

speaks for himself in the present. Furthermore, the central place of preaching in the

church,44° the understanding of preaching as ministry44' and heralding,442 the need for

prayer,443 the scriptural witness as preaching's only source,444 and the nature of

preaching as "evangelical address." i.e., personal appeal to specific are all

further annunciations of the criteria spelled out in Barth's early lectures above, and

which we have already encountered in the Dogmatics.

Criteria outlined in this chapter were also encountered in the analysis of the Church

Dogmatics in chapter four. In the section on "The Task of the Community"446 it was

pointed out that Barth says dogmatics calls the teaching church back to the purity of

its task of proclamation in regard to: (1) the content of the Gospel, which must be

christologically focused and situationally relevant; and (2) a proper attitude to those

addressed by the Gospel, i.e., all human beings, who must not be neglected or

patronised. These ideas especially reflect criteria Revelation and Congregation, as

CD IV.3.2, 845438 CD IV.3.2, 845

CD IV.3.2, 836440

See on page 40, where Barth's view that preaching is located at the centre of the church's existenceis discussed.

See on page 45 where Barth's view of preaching in the context of the ministry of the church isdiscussed.442

See on page 38 above, where a quotation in which Barth uses words almost identical to those usedin his early lectures to describe the preacher as a herald for the King is cited and discussed.

See on page 41 above, where it is pointed out that Barth recognises that the preacher depends onGod's grace in order to proclaim the Word of God and so must humbly pray.

See on page 51 above, where Barth's views on the implications of preaching as proclaiming JesusChrist are spelled out as (1) preaching must be scriptural, and (2) preaching must not be a lecture indogmatics.

See on page 45 above, where Barth's views of the nature of the church's ministry as declaration,explanation and application of the Gospel are outlined.446

See page 42 above.

91

has been outlined above. In the section on "Dogmatics as a Function of the Hearing

Church,"447 it was also noted that Barth explained that conforming to the objective

norm of the Word of God required that both preaching and dogmatics be biblical,

confessional, and contemporary. In this section, then, we have already encountered

five of the criteria: Revelation, Scripture, Confession, Originality and Congregation.

In the following chapter an extensive analysis of the Church Dogmatics will seek to

establish explicitly that the primary criterion for the form and content of the sermon

given above, i.e., criterion Revelation, is thoroughly grounded in the content of the

various loci of the Dogmatics itself, i.e., in the doctrines of the Word of God, God,

Creation, and Reconciliation respectively.

See on page 64 below.

92

Chapter Six: Revelation: The Whence and Whither of

Preaching Grounded in the Church Dogmatics

A selective survey of the volumes of the Church Dogmatics follows in order to

establish that Barth's primary criterion Revelation, which has specific relevance for

the content of sermons, is thoroughly grounded in it.

In Barth's early lectures he insisted that preaching must be orientated to a whence and

a whither, to past and future revelation, i.e., the first and second comings of Jesus

Christ. In the Church Dogmatics Barth also refers to the church's existence between

this whence and the whither, as the time of its ministry in association with the True

Witness Jesus Christ as he carries out his prophetic office and work in the world.448

1. Past Revelation, the Whence of PreachingIn the previous chapter, it was indicated that beginning with past revelation has at

least five implications for the content of the sermon. Each of these will now be

discussed in turn.

a. What God has done in Jesus Christ Ic the Presupposition, Central Point, andDefining Factor in all that is said

The first implication of beginning with past revelation is that the sermon must be

christologically determined. That this is a fundamental premise in the Church

Dogmatics can be demonstrated as follows:

448 Barth says: "It is in this, in its whence and whither, that it [the Church] has its specific basis ofexistence. There took place there the graciou,s work of God, as there still takes place its disclosure inhis gracious self-revelation. And there exists' here the men for whom it took place and to whom it isrevealed, but who have not yet received it, who do not yet know that it took place for them and isrevealed to them, for whom it seems to this extent to have taken place and to be revealed in vain.Between the two, in the service of God and serving men, there strides Jesus Christ in His propheticoffice and work. As the living Word of God in the calling, enlightening and awakening power of theHoly Spirit, He marches through the history of humanity which hastens to its goal and end, continuallymoving from our yesterday, through our to-day into our to-morrow. Yet He does not do so alone. Heis accompanied by the community gathered, built up and sent by His attestation" (CD IV.3.2, 830-831).

93

i. The Doctrine of the Word of GodIn volume one, "The Doctrine of the Word of God," Barth provides the paradigmatic

introduction to his whole Dogmatics. In chapter one, his fundamental premise is that

all dogmatics begins with the Word of God and is to be determined by the Word of

God. Here, he develops his understanding of the Word of God in its threefold form,

i.e., preached, written and revealed.449 The primary form Barth tells us is the revealed

Word. He also tells us in this chapter that the nature of this revealed Word is the

speech, the act, and the mystery of Goct5° and therefore insists that the knowability of

the Word of God is grounded in the Word itself.451 Although Barth speaks somewhat

abstractly here, even in this first chapter we are left in no doubt that the Word of God

in this primary form is none other than Jesus Christ. Barth says, for example:

"Revelation in fact does not differ from the person of Jesus Christ nor from the

reconciliation accomplished in Him. To say revelation is to say: 'The Word became

flesh."452 Barth also assures us that the Word of God, Jesus Christ, is the speech, act,

and mystery of God that has happened. He is the "Word of God Revealed"453 i.e.,

"God's past revelation."454 Thus, Barth says:

It has happened as self-moved being in the stream of becoming. It hashappened as completed event, fulfilled time, in the sea of the incomplete andchangeable and self-changing... This fulfilled time which is identical withJesus Christ, this absolute event in relation to which every other event is notyet event or has ceased to be so, his "It is finished," this Deus dixit for whichthere are no analogies, is the revelation attested in the Bible. To understandthe Bible from beginning to end, from verse to verse, is to understand howeverything in it relates to this invisible-visible centre.

In Barth's second chapter, "The Revelation of God,"456 the explicit identification of

the Word of God with Jesus Christ, and with past revelation, is made in part two,

"The Incarnation of the Word."457 Barth affirms: "The Word or Son of God became a

Man and was called Jesus of Nazareth; therefore this Man Jesus of Nazareth was

God's Word or God's Son."458 And again: "in the New Testament the name Jesus

CD 1.1, 88-124450 CD I.!, 125-186

CD 1.1, 187-247452 CD 1.1, 119

This is the title of Barth's section on the primary form of the Word of God (CD 1.1, 111-120).Italics mine.

CD 1.1, 111 (Italics mine).455CD1.1, 116456 CD 1.1, 295-CD 1.2, 454

CD 1.2, 1-202CD 1.2, 13

94

4

Christ is the beginning, middle and end, on which the various pointers to the reality of

revelation converge."459

Barth begins his discussion on the incarnation of the Word with section thirteen,

"God's Freedom for Man."46° Here he orders his discussion to deal with the objective

reality of God's freedom for man in Jesus Christ before he discusses its possibility.46'

He insists that one must begin with the reality of revelation. Working back from this

reality, one can and must reflect on its possibility. In Barth's words, the possibility

can only be "read off from its reality,"462 i.e., the concrete event of revelation, and not

our own abstract ideas, must be the starting point for our reflection.

In section fourteen, "The Time of Revelation,"463 Barth designates the reality of

God's revelation "in the event of the presence of Jesus Christ"464 as "the time God has

for us," the "time of His revelation, the time that is real in His revelation, revelation

time."465 This time must not be understood from the perspective of our time, but only

in the light of revelation itself.466 Barth says: "Revelation is not a predicate of

history, but history is a predicate of revelation."467 Beginning with this revelation

event, Barth understands Jesus Christ as the Lord of Time. His time is God's time,

mastered time, real time, and fulfilled time in the midst of our time. As such it reveals

our time as passing time, limited time. It also divides our history into the time of

expectation (the time of the Old Testament witness to revelation which anticipates the

coming of Jesus Christ) and the time of recollection (the time of the New Testament

witness to revelation which recollects this coming).

CD 1.2, 24460 CD 1.2, 1-44461 This is consistent with Barth's earlier discussion in chapter one, section five and section six, wherethe nature of the Word of God was discussed before the knowability of the Word of God (CD 1.1, § 5-6,125ff).462 CD 1.2, 44463 CD 1.2, 45-121

CD 1.2, 45465 CD 1.2, 45466 Barth says: "in the interpretation of this concept of time, which is now our task, we shall not have totake as a basis any time concept gained independently of revelation itself" (CD 1.2, 45).467 CD 1.2, 58

95

In section fifteen, "The Mystery of Revelation,"468 Barth begins with the assertion that

all dogmatics must be "christologically detennined as a whole and in all its parts."469

Here, he returns to the idea introduced in chapter one, that God's revelation is

revealed mystery.47° The mystery consists, he says, "in the fact that the eternal Word

of God chose, sanctified and assumed human nature and existence into oneness with

himself, in order thus, as very God and very man, to become the Word of

reconciliation spoken by God to man."471 In other words, the mystery is the person of

Jesus Christ, the God-man. Barth's central subsection focuses on Jesus Christ as

"Very God and Very Man,"472 and the final subsection, "The Miracle of

Christmas,"473 endorses the virgin birth as the sign of the mystery of the incarnate

Word of God. Barth acknowledges that one cannot prove or explain the incarnation

of God in the man Jesus Christ. Faith in this event is simply the starting point for all

dogmatic reflection. He insists: "We do not look for some higher vantage point from

which our statement can derive its meaning, but we start from this point itself. . . What

ever we think or say about it can only be with the aim of describing it again and again

as a mystery, i.e., as a starting point."474

ii. The Doctrine of God -

In the second volume, "The Doctrine of God," Barth begins his discussion with

chapter five, "The Knowledge of God."475 In the subsections "The Fulfilment of the

Knowledge of God,"476 and "The Knowability of God,"477 Jesus Christ is presented as

the man who knows God and so the objective basis for the knowability of God.478

468 CD 1.2, 122-202469 Barth says: "A Church dogmatics must, of course, be christologically determined as a whole and inall its parts, as surely as the revealed Word of God, attested by Holy Scripture and proclaimed by theChurch, is its one and only criterion, and as surely as this revealed Word is identical with Jesus Christ.If dogmatics cannot regard itself and cause itself to be regarded as fundamental Christology, it hasassuredly succumbed to some alien sway and is already on the verge of losing its character as Churchdogmatics" (CD 1.2, 123).

CD 1.1, 125-186. For Barth, the claim that God is mystery is not based on speculation or the limitsof human understanding but on the revelation of God. Only in the context of revelation can one knowthat God is unknowable. God's mystery is revealed mystery.471 CD 1.2, 122472 CD 1.2, 132-171

CD 1.2, 172-202CD 1.2, 124CD 11.1, 3-254

476 CD 11.1, 3-62CD 11.1, 63-178

478 This first chapter in Barth's doctrine of God repeats and expands on much of what Barth outlined inhis chapter on the revelation of God in volume one. There, Jesus Christ was presented as the objective

96

Barth's argument goes as follows: On the basis of revelation, we know that God is

"first and foremost objective to himself'479 in his trinitarian relations, i.e., God knows

himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because God is objective to himself he can

make himself the object of our knowledge. In his grace God has objectified himself

in Jesus Christ the incarnate eternal Son of God. Jesus Christ, the man who is also

God, is both the object and the Subject of our knowledge of God. He is not only the

God who is before man, but he is also the man who is before God.48° He is not only

the God who is ready to be known, i.e., who graciously wants to be known, but he is

also the man who is ready for the knowledge of God, i.e., who is open to grace and

truth.48' In this way he is both the God who makes himself known, and the man who

knows God, in one person. We come to know God, Barth says, through participation

with the man Jesus Christ in his knowledge of God. This takes place in the context of

the faith and obedience, which, although it is our faith and obedience, is nevertheless

evoked in us by the Holy Spirit. It is an act of grace that God should include us in his

own self-knowledge, objectified in Jesus Christ, and made real to us by the Holy

Spirit.

iii. The Doctrine of CreationBarth's third volume, "The Doctrine of Creation," begins with the section entitled

"Faith in God the Creator." In this section Barth insists that our knowledge of God,

this time as Creator, is derived only from faith in Jesus Christ. The first article of the

apostle's creed has its basis in the second.482 This means, specifically, that the noetic

and ontic basis for our understanding of God as Creator (and the terms "God,"

"Almighty," "Father" and "Creator") is Jesus Christ.483 Barth's argument is based on

the fact that in the person of Jesus Christ we have "the unity of Creator and creature

reality of revelation and so as the objective possibility. Here. Jesus Christ is the fulfilment of theknowledge of God and so as the basis for the knowability of God.

Barth talks of the "primary objectivity of God" within God's triune life that precedes and is the basisfor his "secondary objectivity" in which he "gives Himself to be known by us as He knows Himself'(CD 11.1, 16).480 Barth presents Jesus Christ as "Man before God" and "God before Man" in the two subsections ofsection twenty-five, "the Fulfilment of the Knowledge of God" (CD 11.1, 3-62).481 Barth presents Jesus Christ as "the Readiness of God" and "The Readiness of Man" in the twosubsections of section twenty-six, "The Knowability of God" (CD 11.1, 63-178).482Barth says: "1 believe in Jesus Christ, God's Son our Lord, in order to perceive and to understandthat God the Almighty, the Father, is the Creator of heaven and earth. If I did not believe the former, Icould not perceive the latter, my perception and understanding are completely established, sustainedand impelled by my believing the former" (CD III.!, 29).483 CD 111.1,28

97

actualised in Him,"484 i.e., Jesus Christ is both the Creator arid the creature. From this

unity of God with the man Jesus Christ we understand human beings as God's

creatures, the centre of God's creation; we also know God as the Creator of all that

exists apart from him, especially the Creator of human beings.485 Barth argues that all

the elements of the creation dogma can be known only through Jesus Christ.486

In section forty-three, Barth introduces his anthropology, under the title "Man as a

Problem of Dogmatics." He refuses to approach the question of the nature of human

beings from a phenomenological perspective. For him, anthropology must be

grounded in christology.487 He insists that one should not attempt to understand Jesus

Christ in terms of humanity, but just the reverse. Humanity must be defined in terms

of the man Jesus Christ. Barth says: "As the man Jesus Christ is Himself the

revealing Word of God, He is the source of our knowledge of the nature of man as

created by God."488 Barth's argument is that in the light of revelation, all human

beings are revealed to be sinners. Therefore, although they remain creatures of God,

they cannot be the starting point for reflection on the true nature of humanity, for

theirs is a distorted humanity.489 Only in Jesus Christ, the God-man, can we know

both God's attitude to sinful human beings and the true nature of humanity. Jesus

Christ is the prototype of humanity; he is, in fact, the only true human being.49°

Barth goes on to say that anthropology cannot be deduced directly from christology.

Although the man Jesus is like us, he is also different from us (Jesus is the man who is

God; he is sinless; and he reveals human nature in its original form491). Nevertheless,

it is through Jesus Christ, this unique man, that we learn of God's relation with

humanity and of the true nature of human beings. In the following sections of Barth's

484CD111.1,3485 CDIII.!, 25-27486 CDIII.!, 27-29

Barth explains that his point of departure "means nothing more nor less than the founding ofanthropology on Christology" (CD 111.2, 44).488 CD 111.2, 3ff489 CD 111.2, 27ff490Barth asserts: "The nature of the man Jesus alone is the key to the problem of human nature. Thisman is man. As certainly as God's relation to sinful man is properly and primarily His relation to thisman alone, and a relation to the rest of mankind only in Him and through him, He alone is primarilyand properly man" (CD 111.2, 43).491 CD 111.2, 47-54

98

anthropology, his beginning point, and constant reference point, is always the specific

man Jesus Christ.492

iv. The Doctrine of ReconciliationIn Barth's fourth volume, "The Doctrine of Reconciliation," he deals with what could

be called christology proper. In section fifty-seven, "The Work of God the

Reconciler," Barth spells out what he considers to be the "subject —matter, origin and

content of the message received and proclaimed by the Christian community."493 He

maintains that the heart of the Christian message is "God with us."494 This message is

a report about an event, an act of God's redemptive grace that has saving significance

for all humanity. It is not a concept or an idea but an historical event, a particular life

history. "God with us," or Emmanuel, is the name of Jesus Christ. The Christian

message, Barth says, declares this name and recounts the history associated with this

name, and is "the story of the bearer of this name."495 The story is not only about

him, but he himself determines the meaning of all its conceptual themes. Barth says:

"all the concepts and ideas used in this report (God, man, world, eternity, time, even

salvation, grace, transgression, atonement and others) can derive their significance

only from the bearer of this name and from His history, and not the reverse."496 Barth

says again: "the name of Jesus Christ covers the whole power of the Christian

message because it indicates the whole of its content, because at its heart, which is

normative for the whole, it is a message about him, and therefore a message about the

event that 'God is with us."497

492 This christological beginning point is outworked as follows: In relation to God: Jesus Christ is the"Man for God," (CD 111.2, 55ff) the "Real Man" (CD 111.2, 132ff); in relation to others: the "Man forOther Men," (CD 111.2, 203ff) the "Image of God" (CD 111.2, 285ff); in relation to self: the "WholeMan" (CD 111.2, 325ff); and in relation to time: the "Lord of Time" (CD 111.2, 437ff).

CD IV.1, 3CD IV.1, 3-21

495CDIv.1, 16496 CD IV.1, 16

CD IV. 1, 18. Barth designates seven things that the Christian message centred on the name JesusChrist describes or reports: (1) an act of God (the being of God in his life and activity); (2) a uniqueevent in the midst of all other events which unites God and man; (3) the redemptive grace of God, thepower of the eschaton in the present; (4) the manifestation of God's original saving purpose for humanbeings and the meaning and basis of his creative will; (5) the revelation that human beings haveforfeited their salvation; (6) the fulfilment of God's redemptive will for human beings by becomingman for us in the power of the Godhead in order to take up our cause in our place; (7) the communityenclosed in him by the Holy Spirit" (CD IV.1, 18-2 1)

99

In the first and second parts of volume four, "Jesus Christ, the Servant as Lord,"498

and "Jesus Christ, the Lord as Servant,"499 Barth works out the "the material content

of the doctrine of reconciliation."500 God's act of reconciliation, he says, cannot be

separated from the person of Jesus Christ. The God-man, Jesus Christ, is both the

Reconciling God and the reconciled man.50' The history of this man, Jesus Christ, is

the history of reconciliation. In this one person a two-fold movement took place,

from above downwards and at the same time from below upwards. The event of Jesus

Christ was both the humiliation of God and the exaltation of a man. These are not

two successive actions but one single event in the "being and history of the one Jesus

Christ."502

In the subsection, "Jesus Christ The Mediator,"503 Barth emphasises that these two

movements find their unity in the one person. Jesus Christ is not just the beginning

and the end but also the middle. Thus Barth says: "He who bears this name, and his

existence, must really be regarded as the middle point which embraces the whole and

includes it within itself, the middle point in which the sovereign act of the reconciling

God and the being of the reconciled man are one."504 The specific implications of this

for the doctrine of reconciliation are: (1) the person and work of Jesus Christ cannot

be abstracted from one another: ontology and soteriology, being and action, are one in

him; (2) the twofold movement that takes place in the person of the one Jesus Christ

must not be considered as subsequent states, but as one event or history, the life

history of this one man.505

Barth develops his discussion of these two movements as follows: The first movement

is described in section fifty-nine, "The Obedience of the Son of God."506 Here, the

incarnation, and so the condescension of the Son of God, is discussed under the rubric

498CD IV.1499CD IV.2

CD IV.3.1, 3501 Barth says: "The content of the doctrine of reconciliation is the knowledge of Jesus Christ who is (1)very God, that is, the God who humbles Himself, and therefore the reconciling God, (2) very man, thatis, man exalted and therefore reconciled by God" (CD IV. 1, 79), (italics mine).502 Barth adapts traditional terminology to refer to this two-fold movement as the high-priestly office(munus sacerdotale) and the kingly office (munus regium) of Jesus Christ, respectively (CD IV.2, 21).503 CD IV.1, 122ff504cDIv.1, 123505 Barth says: "He exists as the Mediator between God and man, in the sense that in Him God'sreconciling of man and man's reconciliation with God are event" (CD IV.1, 123).506CD1V.1, 157ff

100

4

of "The Way of the Son of God into the Far Country."507 In this event, the Son of

God did not abrogate but revealed his deity.

In the next subsection, "The Judge Judged in our Place,"508 Barth tells us that Jesus

Christ is both the divine Judge and the man judged on behalf of all sinful human

beings. In solidarity with sinful humanity, Jesus Christ judged us by judging himself

and dying in our place. In this ultimate act of humility he revealed the true majesty of

his divinity. Barth says: "for in the majesty of the true God it happened that the

eternal Son of the eternal Father became obedient by offering and humbling himself

to be the brother of man, to take his place with the transgressor, to judge him by

judging himself and dying in his place."509

In Barth's final subsection, "The Verdict of the Father,"51° he discusses the

resurrection of Jesus Christ as God the Father's affirming verdict on the humiliation

of the Son in the event of cross.511 Barth explains that this event was primarily the

justification of God himself (the Father and the Son), and secondarily, the justification

of all sinful human beings in him.512

The second movement (although not a subsequent event) is described in section sixty-

four under the title, "The Exaltation of the Son of Man." Here, the incarnation of the

Son of God, and so the exaltation of the Son of Man, is discussed in the subsection,

507CDIv.1, 157-210508CD IV.1, 211-283

157510 CD IV.1, 283-356: Barth discusses the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the gracious act of God theFather (CD IV. 1, 300-3 04) that is new and subsequent to the event of his death (CD IV. 1, 304-309) butnevertheless related to and inseparable to his death (CD IV. 1, 309-333), as a historical event (in historybut transcending historical analysis) (CD IV. 1, 333-342), and an irreversible present reality (CD IV. 1,342ff).511 Barth says: "To sum up, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the great verdict of God, the fulfilmentand proclamation of God's decision concerning the event of the cross. It is its acceptance as the act ofthe Son of God appointed as our Representative, an act which fulfilled the divine wrath but did so inthe service of the divine grace. It is its acceptance as the act of his obedience which judges the world,but judges it with the aim of saving it. It is its acceptance as the act of his Son whom He has alwaysloved (and us in Him), whom of His sheer goodness He has not rejected but drawn to himself (and us inHim) (Jer. 3 1:3)" (CD IV.l, 309).512 Barth says: "In this the resurrection is the justification of God himself, of God the Father, Creator ofheaven and earth, who has willed and planned and ordered this event [i.e., the cross]. It is thejustification of Jesus Christ, His Son, who willed to suffer this event, and suffered it to the very last.And in His person, it is the justification of all sinful men, whose death was decided in this event, forwhose life there is therefore no more place. In the resurrection of Jesus Christ his life and with it theirlife has in fact become an event beyond death: "Because I live, ye shall live also" (Jn. 14:19)" (CDIV.l, 309).

101

"The Homecoming of the Son of Man."513 Barth points out that there is no direct

correspondence of the first and second movements. In the humiliation of the Son of

God, he became man; but in the exaltation of the Son of Man, this man does not

become God.514 Nevertheless, Barth maintains that the incarnation of the Son of God

means nothing less than that the human essence of the man Jesus of Nazareth was "set

in perfect fellowship with the divine essence."515

Barth tells us in the next subsection, "The Royal Man," that the coronation of this

Royal Man was his cross.516 For Barth, the exaltation of the Son of Man did not take

place after, but in the humiliation of the Son of God at the cross.517

In the final subsection, "The Direction of the Son,"518 Barth refers to the resurrection

of Jesus Christ as the revelation of "the power of the existence of the one man Jesus

Christ for all other men."519 He emphasises that Jesus Christ as the Son of Man, is the

man "who participates in the being and life and lordship and act of God and honours

and attests Him."52° He is the man who has turned toward God, the man who is

orientated to freedom, the man who is sanctified in the perfect offering of himself to

God. Because he is the representative man, all humanity is converted, orientated

towards freedom, and sanctified in him, i.e., all human beings have been exalted and

share in the direction of the Son.52' This is an objective reality in him, before and as

513 CD IV.2, 20-154514 CD W.2, 71515 CD IV.2, 72516 Barth tells us that the existence of the man Jesus (CD IV.2, 156-166), his correspondence to God(CD IV.2, 166-192), and his life-act (CD IV.2, 1192-247) all witness to his exaltation, but it was at thecross where his exaltation was truly manifested (CD IV.2, 247-264).517 Barth says: "Jesus was not led to this place, nor did He go to this place, in contradiction of the factthat He was the royal man. On the contrary, it was in a sense His coronation as this man" (CD IV.2,252); "the exaltation of the One who humiliated himself in obedience (Phil. 2:9) is not the divine acttowards this man which takes place after His humiliation, but that which takes place in and with hishumiliation" (CD IV.2, 256).518 CD IV.2, 264-377519 CD IV.2, 265520 CD IV.2, 3521 Barth talks in this section of "the royal man Jesus, who has taken our place and accomplished oursanctification, regeneration and conversion" in his death (CD IV.2, 292). He says: "The whole NewTestament witness to Jesus, and He himself s echoed or reflected in this witness, points to this death.And they point to it as the goal which is the new beginning that He has made: the new beginning of theworld as it is reconciled to God in Him; of a man who is changed and restored and justified in Him, butalso sanctified, converted to God, and elevated and exalted to be a true covenant partner of God. In Hisdeath He has not only reached His goal, but made this new beginning for us, in our place, and with us,with man. In His death there took place the regeneration and conversion of man... This is how thedisciples saw him in his resurrection (CD IV.2, 291).

102

the basis for, its subjective realisation in us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus,

Barth says that as "the Head and Representative and Saviour of all other men," Jesus

Christ is "the origin and content and norm of the divine direction given us in the work

of the Holy Spirit."522

In volume four part three, "Jesus Christ, the True Witness," section sixty-nine, "The

Glory of the Mediator," Barth deals with what he calls the "formal" aspect of the

doctrine of reconciliation.523 This third aspect adds nothing materially to what has

been said in the first two aspects of reconciliation discussed above. These deal with

the question of the "what" of reconciliation, but here, Barth addresses the question of

"how" this reconciliation is also revelation.524 The answer is that Jesus Christ is both

the reconciler and the revealer. Barth says that God's act of reconciliation in the

person of Jesus Christ "expresses, discloses, mediates and reveals itself, not as a truth

but as the truth."525 The subjective reception of reconciliation has its objective basis

in Jesus Christ.526 In his own person Jesus Christ mediates and accomplishes both the

act of reconciliation and its reception, apart from, and independent from, any

reception on our part. This is because in him "the covenant between God and man is

sealed on both sides."527 He is the "Amen" to his own "Yes."528

In the first subsection, "The Light of Life,"529 Barth asserts that reconciliation is also

revelation because it is "first and decisively event and reality in Him who is its

522 CD IV.2, 3523 CD IV.3.1, 8. Here again, Barth adapts traditional terminology to speak, this time, of the propheticoffice of Christ (munuspropheticum) (CD IV.3.1, 14-18; CD IV.1, 137-138).524 CD IV.3.l, 8525 CD IV.3.1, 8. He says again: "It displays itself. It proclaims itself. It thus summons to conscious,intelligent, living, grateful, willing and active participation in its occurrence.... For it is the event — wespeak of Jesus Christ — in which the covenant between God and man is sealed on both sides, in whichpeace is established both from above and below, and in which justification and sanctification ofman are both accomplished, whether or not there is response in the faith and love of a singleindividual" (CD IV.3.1, 8).526 Barth says again: "it is necessary to hold fast not oniy to the objectivity of reconciliation as such andits occurrence in the world, but also to the objectivity of its character as revelation, to the a priorinature of its light in face of all human illumination and knowledge. There is human knowledge, and atheology of reconciliation, because reconciliaiion in itself and as such is not only real but true, provingitself true in the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit, but first true as well as real in itself, asdisclosure, declaration and impartation" (CD IV.3.1, 11).527 CD IV.3.1, 8 (italics mine)528 Barth refers to 2 Cor. 1:20 where Paul talks about saying the Amen to God's Yes. Barth insists that:"First as properly and basically. . . it is pronounced by the very One in whom the Yes is also spoken"(CDIV.3.l, 12).529 CD IV.3.1, 38ff

103

Mediator and Accomplisher in His own person."53° This time under the rubric of the

glory of God, Barth argues in his familiar fashion that Jesus Christ the Mediator is

both the glory of God and the man who gives God glory. He says: "the glory of Jesus

Christ embraces both the gloria of God and the human which it deserves

and exacts."531 As the true Son of God, eternally with the Father, Jesus Christ is "the

original and authentic image of the glory of God."532 As the true Son of Man he is

also "the normative original of the praise to be ascribed to God by man, the prototype

of all doxology as the self-evident response to, and acknowledgement of, the self-

demonstration which has come to man from God."533 Barth offers a similar argument

as the basis for his assertion that in contrast to the Old Testament prophets Jesus

Christ as the true Prophet.534 He goes on to argue that because Jesus Christ is God in

his action and presence and grace in the human situation, he is the selJautbenticating

One. This is because God's eternal nature is both radiant and eloquent, and his grace

is overflowing love.535 Therefore we do not come to him with questions about his

authenticity, but he comes to us calling forth the question of our authenticity. Barth

concludes this section with the assertion that Jesus Christ is the Light of Life.536 The

definite article means that life and light, reconciliation and revelation, are found only

in him.537

In the next subsection, "Jesus is Victor," Barth emphasises that as the Light of Life

Jesus Christ shines in the darkness overcoming it. His prophetic work is his ongoing

pronouncement of his own victory over the powers of darkness.538 As in the other

CD IV.3.1, 38-39531 CD IV.3.1, 48532 CD IV.3.1, 48

CD IV.3.1, 48Barth argues that Jesus Christ as true Prophet transcends the prophets of the Old Testament as he is

"the One who is both Yahweh and the Israelite, both the Lord and His Servant and the Servant and HisLord, in one and the same person" (CD LV.3 .1, 51); and that he is the "One Prophet of the onecovenant" that embraces the Old and New Testaments (CD IV.3. 1, 53-72).

CD IV.3.1, 72-86536 CD IV.3.1, 86ff

Barth says: "Positively, this means that He is the light of life in all its fullness, in perfect adequacy;and negatively, it means that there is no other light of life outside or alongside his, outside or alongsidethe light which he is" (CD IV.3.1, 86).

In reference to the title of this subsection Barth says: "Jesus is Victor." The saying refers us to theSubject of the action, the dominating character in the drama, and the Hero in the conflict which hereconcerns us [i.e., the conflict with the evil powers of darkness]. . . He and He alone is Kyrios. It is withthis bias or orientation that there is enacted the history, action, drama, or conflict of the prophetic workof Jesus Christ, the shining of light in the darkness.. .He Himself is present as the Victor from the very

104

two aspects of the doctrine of reconciliation, Barth next refers to the resurrection as

the manifestation of who Jesus Christ is and what he has done (and of the basis or

means whereby all that he is and has done can be made real to us).

In the subsection, "The Promise of the Spirit,"539 Barth refers to the resurrection of

Jesus Christ as the first form of his parousia.54° According to Barth this is related to

the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the final coming of Jesus Christ perichoretically.

The one coming of Jesus Christ embraces Easter, Pentecost and the Eschaton. Each is

distinct but inseparable.54' As the first form of the parousia, the resurrection is the

self-declaration of Jesus Christ that: (1) God has irrevocably committed himself to

human beings;542 (2) all human beings have been reconciled to God (here, Barth

speaks of the positive determination of all humanity, which is total, universal and

definitive);543 and (3) Jesus Christ's return from the dead was a radically new event,

which opened up a new future for all, a future to which all are summoned.544

v. ConclusionOn the basis of the analysis provided above, it is clear that in Barth's Church

Dog,natics, the name Jesus Christ is presented as "the beginning, middle and end, on

which the various pointers of the reality of revelation converge."545 He is the

beginning and the end because he is both the Son of God and the Son of Man: the

Revealer and the revelation; the Known and the knower (i.e., God ready to be known

and the man open to know God); God the Creator and man the creature (i.e., the true

God and the true Man); the divine Reconciler and the reconciled man. He is also the

middle, the Mediator, because he is uniquely, the Son of God and the Son of Man in

one person. The Christian message, therefore, must be first and foremost the

proclamation of the history of God in this man. It must focus on him.

outset. He is life; in him the covenant is fulfilled; in him reconciliation is effected; in him everythingwhich, again in him, shines out into the world around" (CD IV.3.1, 172, 173).

CD IV.3.1, 274-367540 CD IV.3.l, 292541 CD IV.3.l, 293-296542 CD IV.3.1, 296-301

CD IV.3.1, 301-308. For further discussion see below on page 112 and following.CD IV.3.1, 308-316CD 1.2, 24

105

b. God's Act in Jesus Christ is the Revelation of who God isThe next point to establish as a fundamental dogmatic tenet of Barth's Dogmatics is

that what the preacher says specifically about God must be wholly derived from

revelation, i.e., God's act in Jesus Christ. This can be clearly shown as follows:

i. The Doctrine of the Word of GodIn the first volume, Barth argues that on the basis of God's self-revelation in Jesus

Christ, we know God to be triune: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.546 If our talk about

God is christologically determined, he says, then it must also be trinitarian.547 In the

light of the biblical witness to God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ, we cannot

separate the questions: who, how and what in regard to revelation. The answer to

each of these questions is the same.548 God himself is the revealer (the who of

revelation), the act of revelation (the how of revelation), and revealedness itself (the

what of revelation).549 God is not just himself, but he is also his self-revealing, and he

is also what he creates and achieves in human beings. These modes of his threefold

being, although differentiated, cannot be separated.55° In other words, the one God is

triune.

In the subsection, "The Root of the doctrine of the Trinity,"55' Barth makes explicit

that the beginning point, or "root," for the doctrine of the trinity, is the New

Testament claim that Jesus Christ is Lord (i.e., divine).552 In section nine, "The

Triunity of God," Barth outlines the mutual relations of the one God who is

differentiated as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.553 There, he insists that it is only in the

light of the revelation of Jesus Christ as Lord, that one can know God as Creator (the

Lord of our existence) the eternal Father (antecedently the Father of the Son); God as

546 CD 1.1, 295ffHe states this as follows: "After all that has befallen it, church dogmatics will not become "church"

again, i.e., free from the alien dominion of general truths and free for Christian truth, until it summonsup sufficient courage to restore what is a specifically Christian knowledge, that of the Trinity and ofChristology, to its place at the head of its pronouncements, and to regard and treat it as the foundationof all its other pronouncements" (CD 1.2, 124).548 Basic to Barth's discussion is the statement: "God reveals Himself. He reveals Himself throughHimself He reveals Himself If we really want to understand revelation in terms of its subject, i.e.,God, then the first thing we have to realise is that this subject, God, the Revealer, is identical with hisact in revelation and also identical with its effect" (CD 1.1, 296).

CD 1.1, 295-304550 CD 1.1, 299551 CD 1.1, 304-333552 CD 1.1, 304-333

CD 1.1, 348-383

106

Reconciler (the Lord in the midst of our enmity against him) the eternal Son

(antecedently the Son or Word of God the Father); and God as Redeemer (the Lord

who sets us free) the eternal Spirit (antecedently the Spirit of the love of God the

Father and the Son).554 Thus for Barth, Jesus Christ is both the noetic and the ontic

basis for all that can be said about God. We not only know that God is triune as

Creator and eternal Father, Reconciler and eternal Son, and Redeemer and eternal

Spirit through Jesus Christ; but we also know who God is as Father, Son and Spirit

through Jesus Christ, i.e., we know the nature of God's fatherhood, sonship, and

Spirit.555

ii. The Doctrine of GodIn the second volume, chapter six, "The Reality of God,"556 Barth's opening sentence

is: "God is who he is in the act of revelation."557 Barth says that we know that God is

love because he seeks and creates fellowship between himself and us in and through

Jesus Christ. God doesn't need to love us in order to be love, for he is love in his

inter-trinitarian relations between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His love for us is

therefore the free overflow of his inner love in which he wills and fulfils fellowship in

himself. Barth then goes on to discuss the perfections of God in terms of his love and

freedom. As the loving God who is free, Barth says that God is in himself, and all his

works: gracious, merciful and patient and at the same time holy, righteous and

wise.558 As the free God who is loving, God is in himself, and in all his works: one,

constant and eternal and at the same time omnipresent, omnipotent and glorious.559

Barth's constant beginning and reference point in his discussion of each of these

perfections is Jesus Christ. Not only does Barth refuse to conceptualise them in

abstraction from him, but he also maintains that they must not be abstracted from one

another, i.e., they are not attributes of God as such, but expressions of the very being

See the thesis which begins each section CD 1.1, 384, 399, 448.It is here that Barth endorses the doctrine of perichoresis, which maintains that persons of the

Trinity interpenetrate one another so that they share the same essence although remaining distinct theycannot be separated.556 CD 11.1, 257ff

CD 11.1, 257CDII.!, 35 1-439CD 11.1, 440-677

107

of God.56° In the light of Jesus Christ, Barth insists that the first thing to be said about

God is that he is love. He says: "Since our knowledge of God is grounded in his

revelation in Jesus Christ and remains bound up with it, we cannot begin

elsewhere.. .than with the consideration of his love."56'

In chapter seven, "The Election of God,"562 Barth's leading statement is that the

doctrine of election is "the sum of the Gospel because of all the words that can be said

or heard it is the best: that God elects man; that God is for man too the One who loves

in freedom."563 In other words, the doctrine of election tells us that God is for us.

It is significant that Barth placed his doctrine of election within the doctrine of God.

For him, this doctrine affirms that God's eternal determination to be for us in Jesus

Christ is definitive for the very nature of God. God is God in his determination to be

the God of human beings. We cannot think of God in any other terms. Having

decided in eternity to be the God of the one man Jesus Christ, and all humanity

represented by him, "God could not be God" without this relation.564 God is who he

is in relation with us in Jesus Christ.

Another significant aspect of Barth's treatment of this doctrine is his insistence that its

foundation can be none other than Jesus Christ. The argument goes as follows: Jesus

Christ is both the divine Subject and the human object of God's election, i.e., he is the

560 Barth says: "[W]hen we speak of the love of God, we shall have to speak also of His freedom, whenwe speak of His freedom we shall have to speak also of His love, and when we speak of one individualaspect we shall have to speak also of all the others. But if we do not wish to deviate from Scripture, theunity of God must be understood as this unity of His love and freedom which is dynamic and, to thatextent, diverse. What we have then is a complete reciprocity in the characterisation of the one Subject.Always in this reciprocity each of the opposing ideas not only augments but absolutely fulfils the other,yet it does not render it superfluous or supplant it. On the contrary, it is only in conjunction with theother - and together with it affirming the same thing - that each can describe the Subject God" (CD 11.1,343).561 CD 11.1, 351562 CD 11.2, 3ff563 CD 11.2, 3

Thus, in this important passage Barth can say: "Jesus Christ is indeed God in his movement towardsman, or, more exactly, in his movement tdwards the people represented in the one man Jesus ofNazareth, in his covenant with this people, in his being and activity amongst and towards this people.Jesus Christ is the decision of God in favour of this attitude or relation. He is himself the relation. It isa relation ad extra, undoubtedly; for both the man and the people represented in him are creatures andnot God. But it is a relation which is irrevocable, so that once God has willed to enter into it, and hasin fact entered into it, He could not be God without it. It is a relation in which God is self-determined,so that the determination belongs no less to him than all that He is in and for Himself' (CD.II.2, 7italics mine).

108

Elector and the Elect. As the eternal Son of God, he, the Son, together with the Father

and the Holy Spirit, determined in his free grace to be the God of sinful human

beings.565 This decision necessarily involved him "taking upon Himself the rejection

of man and all its consequences."566 As the human Son of Man, he is therefore the

rejected and elected man. From eternity he is the man predestined to rejection, but

also the man elected to participation in the glory of God. Because he is the

representative human being, in his rejection and election all humanity has been

rejected and elected by God. Barth concludes that since God is fully revealed in Jesus

Christ, as the God who has elected himself to be rejected in order that all humanity

could be accepted, we can only affirm in wonder that God is the eternally gracious

One.567

iii. The Doctrine of CreationIn volume three, the doctrine of creation, section forty-one, "Creation and Covenant,"

Barth returns to discuss God's eternal purpose, this time in creation. He maintains

that "the purpose and therefore the meaning of creation is to make possible the history

of God's covenant with man which has its beginning, its centre and its culmination in

Jesus Christ."568 Although creation is the first of God's works ad extra, the

presupposition of creation is God's eternal determination to be in covenant relation

with humanity through Jesus Christ. Creation therefore is the "external basis of the

covenant," and the covenant is the "internal basis for creation."569 Because creation is

the first step towards the realisation of the covenant, it is "The Yes of God the

Creator,"57° an expression of the goodness of God.57'

565 Barth says: 'In the harmony of the triune God He is no less the original Subject of this electing thanHe is the original object" (CD 11.2, 105).566 CD 11.2, 94567Barth says: "This doctrine is the basic witness to the fact that the gracious God is the beginning of allthe ways and works of God. It defmes grace as the starting-point for all reflection and utterance, thecommon denominator which should never be omitted in any statements which follow, and whichshould, if possible, be asserted in some form in these statements" (CD 11.2, 93).568 CD 111.1, 42569 CD III.!, 94ff, 228ff

CDIII.!, 330571 Barth says: "the creation of God carries with it the Yes of God to that which He creates. Divinecreation is divine benefit. What takes shape in it is the goodness of God" (CD III.!, 330).

109

Later, Barth expounds on the nature of God's providential care or his fatherly

lordship, i.e., his preserving, accompanying and ruling over creaturely existence. 572

Here again, he stresses that it is only in the light of the revelation of the lordship of his

Son, i.e., the revelation of God's mercy, that God's fatherly care of all his creatures

can be known and understood.573

iv. The Doctrine of ReconciliationIn volume four, Barth again returns to the idea of God's eternal covenant in section

fifty-seven, "the Work of God the Reconciler," in the subsection entitled, "The

Covenant as the Presupposition of Reconciliation."574 He begins with the equation:

"Jesus Christ is the atonement."575 The significance of the atonement is that God's

original and basic will to be in covenant relationship with human beings has been

realised in Jesus Christ. It is the covenant, he says, that is "the presupposition of the

atonement as revealed in its actualisation in Jesus Christ."576

He then goes on to explain that God's eternal covenant with human beings in Jesus

Christ is characterised by the Old Testament phrase "I will be your God and ye shall

be my people." Again he stresses that in the first instance, it is the determination of

God himself to be the God of human beings. He says: "If for us men God Himself has

become man, we can, we must look into the heart of God — He Himself has opened

His heart to us — to accept His saying as a first as well as a final saying: 'I will be your

God.' We cannot, therefore, think of him except as the One who has concluded and

set up this covenant with us."577 On the basis of this concluded covenant we must

572 This is found in chapter eleven, "The Creator and His Creatures," section forty-nine, "God theFather as the Lord of his Creature, " (CD 111.3, 58ff).

Barth says; "God fulfils his fatherly lordship over his creature by preserving, accompanying andruling the whole course of its earthly existence. He does this as his mercy is revealed and active in thecreaturely sphere in Jesus Christ, and the lordship of his Son is thus manifested to it" (CD 111.3, 58).

CD IV. 1, 22ff. Barth defines this covenant as "the fellowship that originally existed between Godand man, which was then jeopardised, the purpose of which is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in thework of reconciliation" (CD IV. 1,

CD IV.1, 34576 CD IV.1, 38mn CD IV.1, 38

110

affirm that God is our God, the gracious God,578 the faithful God, who upholds his

original decision to be for us (Deus pro nobis).579

Finally, in the first part of the doctrine of reconciliation, "Jesus Christ, The Lord As

Servant," we have seen that Barth discusses Jesus Christ as God in his movement

towards humanity. He emphasises that in Jesus Christ it was God who became, and is

man.580 He insists that in this act of condescension God revealed his eternal glory. In

the light of this event alone, we understand "all the predicates of His Godhead."58'

This means, specifically, that all the predicates of God, i.e., his onmipresence,

omnipotence, eternity, wisdom, righteousness, holiness, glory and so on, must be

understood in terms of his humble self-giving in Jesus Christ. In this act of

condescension, God did not surrender his deity but "supremely asserted Himself and

his deity."582

578 As a covenant of grace, Barth says that this eternal covenant realised in Jesus Christ: (1) has beeninstituted by God's free will, the "overflowing of his love" in spite of our unworthiness; (2) is a"powerful Yes" spoken to us for our eternal benefit; (3) evokes our gratitude (CD IV.l, 39-42).

It also means that human beings do not exist in abstracto from this relationship. Barth says: "whenGod reveals in Jesus Christ that from the very first He willed to be God for man, the God of man, Healso reveals that from the very first man is his man, man belongs to Him, is bound and pledged to him"(CD IV.!, 42). He says again: "For as in Jesus Christ there breaks out as truth the original thing aboutGod: 'I will be your God,' so in Jesus Christ there breaks out as truth the original thing about man: 'Yeshall be my people." The detennination of God to be gracious to us in Jesus Christ is also thedetermination of human beings to be grateful. Barth says: "And if the essence of God as the God ofman is His grace, then the essence of men as His people, that is proper to and demanded of them incovenant with God, is simply their thanks" (CD IV. 1, 42). "As God is gracious to us, we may — andthis "may" is the serious and force of every "ought" on that account be thankful. By deciding for usGod has decided concerning us. We are therefore prevented from thinking otherwise about ourselves,from seeing or understanding or explaining man in any other way, than as the being engaged andcovenanted to God, and therefore simply but strictly engaged and covenanted to God. Just as there isno God but the God of the covenant, there is no man but the man of the covenant: the man who as suchis destined and called to give thanks" (CD IV. 1, 43)580 Barth says: "Jesus Christ is Himself God as the Son of God the Father and with God the Father thesource of the Holy Spirit, united in one essence with the Father by the Holy Spirit. That is how He isGod. He is God as He takes part in the event which constitutes the divine being. We must add at oncethat as this One who takes part in the divine being and event He became and is man" (CD IV. 1, 129).581 Barth says: "When we speak of Jesus Christ we mean the true God — He who seeks His divine gloryand fmds that glory, He whose glory obviously consists, in the fact that because He is free in His loveHe can be and actually is lowly as well as exalted; He, the Lord, who is for us as servant, the servant ofall servants. It is in the light of the fact of his humiliation that on this first aspect all the predicates ofhis Godhead, which is tru& Godhead, must be filled out and interpreted" (CD IV.I, 130). Barth says:"In the condescension in which He gives Himself to us in Jesus Christ He exists and speaks and acts asthe one He was from all eternity and will be to all eternity" (CD IV. 1, 193).582 CD IV.!, 187. Barth says: "His particular, and highly particularised, presence in grace, in which theeternal Word descended to the lowest parts of the earth (Eph.4: 9) and tabernacled in the man Jesus(Jn. 1: 14), dwelling in this one man in the fullness of his Godhead (Col.2: 9), is itself the demonstrationand exercise of his omnipresence, i.e., the perfection in which He has His own place which is superiorto all the places created by him, not excluding but including all other places. His omnipotence is thatof a divine plenitude of power in the fact that (as opposed to any abstract omnipotence) it can assumethe form of weakness and impotence and do so as omnipotence, triumphing in this form. The eternity

111

v. ConclusionThe survey in this section has shown that Barth's Dogmatics presents us with an

understanding of God on the basis of his self-revelation in Jesus Christ. We have seen

that by beginning with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, Barth understands God

to be trinitarian: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This trinitarian God is the God who

loves in freedom and whose freedom is his love. All of his perfections are perfections

of his love and of his freedom. He is the God who from eternity has determined

himself to be the God of sinful human beings, to be for them. He is therefore the

gracious God. His goodness is expressed in creation and his Fatherly lordship in his

providential care. In the light of the atonement realised in Jesus Christ we must say

that God is our God, who is faithful to his loving purpose to be for us. The

incarnation reveals him to be the God whose glory is his grace, whose Lordship is his

mercy, whose immutability is his faithfulness, and whose majesty is his humility (and

vice versa).

c. God's Act in Jesus Christ is the Determination of Human ExistenceOne of the central affirmations of Barth's Church Dogmatics is the third aspect of

Barth's criterion of beginning with revelation, i.e., that God's act in Jesus Christ is the

determination of human existence. This can be shown as follows:

i. The Doctrine of GodIn Barth's doctrine of God we have already seen that the election of Jesus Christ is the

determination of himself for rejection and of all human beings for participation in the

glory of the triune God. In section thirty-four and thirty-five, "The Election of the

Community,"583 and "The Election of the Individual,"584 Barth develops the

in which He Himself is true time and the Creator of all time is revealed in the fact that, although ourtime is that of sin and death, He can enter it and himself be temporal in it, yet without ceasing to beeternal, able rather to be the Eternal in time. His wisdom does not deny itself, but proclaims itself inwhat necessarily appears folly to the world; his righteousness in ranging himself with the unrighteousas one to come under accusation; his Holiness in having mercy on man, in taking his misery to heart,willing to share it with him in order to take it away from him. God does not dishonour Himself whenHe goes into the far country, and conceals his glory. For He is truly honoured in His concealment.This concealment, and therefore his condescension as such, is the image and reflection in which we seehim as he is. His glory is the freedom of the love which He exercises and reveals in all this" (CD IV.!,187- 188).583 CD 11.2, 195ff. It is a characteristic of Barth's dogmatics that be never begins with the individualbut only the individual in the context of the community. Barth says that the two-fold form of thecommunity of God (i.e., Israel and the Church) attests to the necessity of divine judgment borne byJesus Christ in his death and also to the divine mercy in Jesus Christ revealed in his resurrection. In its

112

implications of Jesus Christ's election for all humanity. His leading thesis in the

second section maintains that God in Jesus Christ has elected all human beings to

eternal life.585

In the first two subsections, "Jesus Christ, the Promise and the Recipient,"586 and

"The Elect and the Rejected,"587 Barth asserts that Jesus Christ is the only rejected

man and the only elected man: "He is the Rejected, as and because He is the Elect."588

Furthermore, he states emphatically that all human beings are already elected "in and

with the election of Jesus Christ."589 The church's task is to simply announce this

reality to those who live in ignorance or denial of it. Barth says: "The content of the

promise when it is rightly delivered in and with the message of Jesus Christ is as

follows: In Jesus Christ thou, too, art not rejected — for He has borne thy rejection —

but elected. The decision has been made, in Jesus Christ."590

In the final two subsections, Barth discusses "The Determination of the Elect,"59' and

"The Determination of the Rejected."592 In the former, Barth says that the

determination of the elect in Jesus Christ is to be loved by God: "this is what God

two-fold form the one community of God is determined by God to hear and believe and in this wayparticipate in the election in Jesus Christ, and so mediate this election to the world. It is throughincorporation into this community that individuals realise their own election.584 CD 11.2, 306ff

Basth says: "The man who is isolated over against God is as such rejected by God. But to be thisman can only be by the godless man's own choice. The witness of the community of God to everyindividual man consists in this: that this choice of the godless man is void; that he belongs eternally toJesus Christ and therefore is not rejected, but elected by God in Jesus Christ; that the rejection which hedeserves on account of his perverse choice is borne and cancelled by Jesus Christ; and that he isappointed to eternal life with God on the basis of the righteous, divine decision (CD 11.2, 306).586 CD 11.2, 306-340587 CD 11.2, 340-409588 CD 11.2, 353. In regard to Jesus Christ being the rejected man: Barth says: "the only truly rejectedman is His [God's] own Son" (CD 11.2, 319); "By permitting the life of a rejected man to be the life ofhis own Son, God has made such a life objectively impossible for others. The life of the uncalled, thegodless, is a grasping back at this objective impossibility. . . it cannot alter the fact that there is only oneRejected, the bearer of all man's sin and guilt and their ensuing punishment, and this One is JesusChrist (CD 11.2, 346). In regard to Jesus Christ being the elected man: Barth has his first subsectionentitled "Jesus Christ, the Promise and its Recipient," i.e., he is the recipient of the promise of electionand all others ase elected in him (CD 11.2, 306ff). Barth says: "It is strictly and narrowly only in thehumanity of the one Jesus Christ that we see who and what an elect person is. It is He who is the mandistinguished by this special relationship to God... It is He who is the elect individual" (CD 11.2, 351).589 Barth says: "the elect, then, do not first become this either with reference to their person or inrecognition of any attributes or achievements, or even through their divine calling. Their specialcalling simply discloses an confirms that they already are elected... elected in and with the election ofJesus Christ and by means of His community" (CD 11.2, 340-341).590 CD 11.2, 322591 CD 11.2, 4 10-449592 CD 11.2, 449-506

113

wills with him — to love him. And this is what He wills from him — to allow himself

to be loved by Him. It is for this purpose that He elects him."593 Election to be loved,

and to allow oneself to be loved by God, is, in fact, (1) a determination to blessedness,

i.e. to share in "the overflowing of the inner perfection of the joy of God"594 and (2) a

determination to active participation in the service of God, i.e., to respond to God with

gratitude595 and to bear witness to all others concerning their own election to be loved

by God.596

In the latter subsection Barth defines the "rejected man," as the human being who

resists being elected by God, and so is against God, ungrateful to God, and withdraws

from God.597 Despite this, Barth asserts: "With Jesus Christ the rejected man can only

have been rejected. He cannot be rejected any more."598 Therefore, such a person can

only live a lie "against the Gospel."599 Since the "rejected man" is really elect in

Jesus Christ, Barth says that the determination of the so called "rejected man" is (1)

"to manifest the recipients of the Gospel whose proclamation is the determination of

the elect," i.e., to represent human beings in need of the Gospel;600 (2) "to manifest

that which is denied and overcome by the Gospel," i.e., to show what has been

overcome by the Gospel;60' (3) and "to manifest the purpose of the Gospel," i.e., to

hear and believe the Gospel.602 In other words, God has specifically determined that

the "rejected man" be elected in Jesus Christ, that his rejection be overcome in Jesus

Christ, and that he hear and believe that this is so.

CD 11.2, 411CD 11.2, 412CD 11.2, 413

596 CD 11.2, 414ffBarth defmes the rejected man as follows: "A 'rejected' man is one who isolates himself from God

by resisting his election as it has taken place in Jesus Christ. God is for him; but he is against God.God is gracious to him; but he is ungrateful to God. God receives him; but he withdraws himself fromGod. God forgives him his sins; but he repeats them as though they were not forgiven. God releaseshim from the guilt and punishment of his defection; but he goes on living as Satan's prisoner. Goddetermines him for blessedness, and his service; but he chooses the joyless existence that accords withhis own pride and aims at his own honour" (CD 11.2, 450).

CD 11.2, 453CD 11.2, 453

600 CD 11.2, 455-456601 CD 11.2, 456-457602 CD 11.2, 457-458

114

ii. The Doctrine of CreationIn the doctrine of creation, we have seen that Barth asserts that human beings were

created to be God's covenant partners, in and through Jesus Christ. Barth says that

the existence of the man Jesus Christ has "ontological significance"603 for all human

beings. In the first section of his anthropology dealing with humans in relation to

God,604 this is worked out as follows: (1) Understood in the light of the existence of

Jesus Christ, every human being is a "fellow man of Jesus."605 Barth says: "the

ontological determination of all men is that Jesus Christ is present among them as

their divine Other, their Neighbour, Companion and Brother."606 (2) Because the man

Jesus Christ is also God, then the basic thing we must say about all human beings,

even the so called "godless," is that they are with God, i.e., by virtue of Jesus Christ

the existence of godless human beings is an ontological impossibility.607 Barth goes

on to explain that "being with God" rests on God's eternal election in Christ and

consists of hearing God's Word, i.e., all human beings derive from God's grace and

are summoned into existence God's Word.608 Because this is so, we must say that

"the being of man is a history," determined by the "primal history" of Jesus Christ.609

Because all human beings are determined by the primal history of Jesus Christ, each

are determined as "a being in gratitude" (summoned to give thanks to God in response

to God's grace)61° and "a being in responsibility" (summoned to acknowledgement of

God, obedience to God, invocation of God, and freedom before God, all of which are

the goal of God's grace and the appropriate response to hearing God's Word).61' In

603 CD 111.2, 133604 This is found in section forty-four, subsection three, "Real Man" (CD 111.2, 132ff).605 CD 111.2, 134606 CD 111.2, 135607 CD 111.2, 135-136. Barth does not deny that human beings sin, but he says: "To be in sin, ingodlessness, is a mode of being contrary to our humanity" (CD 111.2, l36).608 Barth says: "If I ask: Who am I? I do not ask: What belongs to me? Nor: What would I like to be?Nor: What do I pretend to be? Nor: What have I made of myself? — but I ask: Who am I myself? Whoam I really? Then if I understand myself in the light of God or his Word, I must answer that I amsummoned by this Word, and to that extent I am in this Word. And the same answer is equally true ofothers. They are men, and may be addressed and seriously regarded as such, because primarily andfundamentally they are summoned by this Word. This is a universal truth. Men are those who aresummoned by this Word (CD 111.2, 150).609 CD 111.2, 157. Barth says: "We again ask: What is man? And we answer: He is the being whoseKinsman, Neighbour and Brother is the man Jesus, and in whose sphere therefore this history takesplace. He is with God, confronted and prevented and elected and summoned by him, in the fact thatthis history takes place in his own sphere" (CD 111.2, 160).610 CD 111.2, 166ff611 CD IV 111.2, 174ff. See footnote 132 above.

115

the other sections Barth continues to discuss the determination of each human being

in correspondence to Jesus Christ.612

iii. The Doctrine of ReconciliationIn volume four, section fifty-eight, "The Doctrine of Reconciliation (Survey)," the

first subsection, "The Grace of God in Jesus Christ,"613 Barth insists that God's act of

grace in Jesus Christ has accomplished the fulfilment of the eternal covenant of God

with human beings. All human beings have been reconciled to God. God has "taken

us, embraced us, as it were surrounded us, seized us from behind and turned us back

again to himself."614

Barth goes on to speak of the event of atonement, or reconciliation made in Jesus

Christ, as the creation of a new humanity — a true and authentic humanity. This is so

despite the shadow of the old humanity remaining.615 The atonement, he says, was

the radical "alteration of the human situation," an alteration of the very "being of

man."616 Human beings must now be viewed in the light of this new reality which is

their "own most proper being."617 This applies not just to Christians but to all human

beings: "Whatever we have to think and say of man, and not only of the Christian but

of man in general, at every point we have to think and say of his being as man

reconciled in Jesus Christ."618

612 Barth discusses the human being in relation to others: as "a being with others"; in relation to self: asa being constituted by God's Spirit; and in relation to time: as a being in time (CD 111.2, 222ff, 344ff,511ff).613 CD IV.!, 79ff614 Barth says: "What He [God] has done is not just something which applies to us and is intended forus, a proffered opportunity and possibility. In it He has actually taken us, embraced us, as it weresurrounded us, seized us from behind and turned us back again to himself. We are dealing with thefulfilment of the covenant. God has always kept it but man has broken it. It is this breach which ishealed in the sovereign act of reconciliation. God was not ready to acquiesce in the fact that while hewas for us we were against him. That had to be altered, and in Jesus Christ it has in fact been alteredonce and for all. That is the original and unilateral and sovereign triumph of God" (CD IV. 1, 8 8-89).615 Barth says: "This is what was accomplished by the grace of God effective and revealed in Him. InHim a new human subject was introduced, the true man besides and outside whom God does not knowno other, beside and outside whom there is no other, beside and outside whom the other being of man,that old being which still continues to break the covenant, can only be a lie, an absurd self-deception, ashadow moving on the wall — the being of that man who has been long since superseded and replacedand who can only imagine that he is man, while in reality he is absolutely nothing." (CD IV.1, 88-89).616 CD IV.1, 91617 CD IV.1, 91618 CDIV!, 9!

116

In the second subsection "The Being of Man in Jesus Christ"619 Barth makes it clear

that this determination means all human beings have been converted to God in Jesus

Christ.620 This means, firstly, that God's verdict on all human beings has been

pronounced in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This has two aspects:

(1) negatively, it is a verdict that "disowns and renounces," i.e., "it declares that man

is no longer the transgressor, the sinner, the covenant breaker. . . The sentence on him

as sinner has been carried out,"621 (2) positively, it is a verdict that "recognises and

accepts," i.e., "it declares that God receives man, and that in accordance with his

election and institution as a covenant-partner — can confess himself a faithful servant

of God, His recognised friend and well-loved child. . .man is not merely innocent but

positively righteous, the man who fulfils His will."622 Barth emphasises that this two-

fold verdict is irreversible and does not need to be repeated, and that it is actual not

just nominal, i.e.: "It is a declaring righteous which without any reserve can be called

a making righteous."623 Barth expounds on this in more detail in section sixty-one,

"The Justification of Man."624

Secondly, in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ a new direction has been

determined for all humanity. Barth says that if the divine verdict tells us who we are

and whom we are not, the divine direction tells us where we belong and were we are

to live. God's direction in Jesus Christ, he says, is the command to all human beings

to realise that (1) they are already at peace with God625 and that (2) they are already

freed in him to do his will,626 i.e., all humanity have been sanctified in Jesus Christ.627

619 CD IV.1, 92ff620 All that Barth expounds here concerns the "conversion of man to God in Jesus Christ" (CD IV. 1,93).621 CD IV.1, 93622 CD IV.1, 94623 CD IV.1, 95624 CD IV.1, 514ff625 Barth says: "On the basis of what man is and is not by virtue of the divine sentence passed andrevealed in Jesus Christ, in face of that twofold pardon, he has no other place but this — the kingdom inwhich God can be at peace with him and he be at peace with God. Jesus Christ and this is the secondelement in his work and ministry as the Reconciler between God and us — is the all-powerful directionof God to us to occupy this place, to live in this kingdom (CD IV. 1, 99).626 Barth says: "What is this place and kingdom in which God's direction summons man to awaken andremain and to act? We have already mentioned the decisive concept: it is a matter of man's directioninto the freedom for which he is made free in Jesus Christ (in the twofold pardon), in peace with God.It is the place and kingdom which already surrounds him, in which he is already placed, in which hehas only to find himself. God's direction is the direction to do this, to make use of his freedom" (CD1V.1, 100).

117

Barth expounds on this in more detail in section sixty-six, "The Sanctification of

Man."628

Thirdly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a divine promise concerning the future of

all human beings. It declares "the teleological determination of the being of man and

of the Christian in Jesus Christ."629 Barth says that justification and sanctification

have as their goal the calling of all humanity to participation in the divine life and

service, i.e. eternal life with God and for God. This is already the calling, or

vocation, of all human beings in Jesus Christ.630 To be called in Jesus Christ means

that our future is already present in him, i.e., it is true, actual, an event in him.63'

Barth expands on this in more detail in section seventy-one, "The Vocation of

Man.,,632

iv. ConclusionIn the light of the above, it may be concluded that Barth's Dogmatics asserts that

Jesus Christ is the determination of all humanity. In the sections that have been

sketched,633 it has been shown that Barth talks of the determination of human beings

in his doctrine of God, creation and reconciliation. He affirms that in Jesus Christ all

human beings have been eternally elected to participation in the life and service of

God. By virtue of the primal history of Jesus Christ they are creatures with God,

having their origin and being in the Word of God, and so are beings in history, beings

in gratitude, and beings in responsibility. Also in Jesus Christ, by virtue of his death

and resurrection, all humanity has been reconciled to God, justified and sanctified,

627 Barth says; "this subjection of man to the divine direction is usually called sanctification" (CD IV. 1,100).628 CD IV.2, 499ff629CD1V.1, 108630 Barth says of Jesus Christ: "He is the man, who lives not only under the verdict and direction of Godbut also in the truth of His promise. He is not merely righteous and well pleasing to God and the objectof His love, but beyond that he is taken and used by Him, standing in His service and at His side,working with him, living eternal life, clothed with his honour and dignity and glory. He Himself as theeternally living God is also the eternally living man. The world is reconciled and converted of God inHim" (CD IV.1, 115).631 Barth says: "in his present (alone) we have to do (only) with our future with God" (CD IV.3.1, 115);and again: "the divine promise of the future of the being of man is not only revealed but is actual, anevent, only in Jesus Christ" (CD IV.3.1, 117).632 CD IV.3.2, 48 1-680633 The outline above is not exhaustive. For example, only the first aspect of Barth's anthropologyconcerned with "Man as the Creature of God" has been treated.

118

and already called as participants in the life and service of God, i.e., the eternal

purpose of God has already been realised for all in Jesus Christ.

L Sin is Only Known in the Context of Reconciliationi. The Doctrine of Reconciliation

In Barth's early lectures on preaching he asserted that the preacher must not speak of

sin but only of forgiven sin. This insight is behind one of the most significant

innovations in Barth's Church Dogmatics. Contrary to traditional approaches, Barth

has no independent or autonomous doctrine of sin.634 Rejecting the usual placing of

the doctrine of sin between the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of reconciliation,

Barth insists that it can only be adequately discussed in the context of reconciliation.

Thus Barth says:

The doctrine of sin cannot be established, expounded or developed independentlyof or prior to the doctrine of reconciliation. It forms an integral part of the latter.It derives subsequently and retrospectively from a knowledge of the existence andwork of Jesus Christ as the Mediator of the covenant of grace. Sin may be knownin its nature, reality, implications and consequences as it is opposed, vanquishedand done away by Him.... The Christian concept of sin is not to be gained in avacuum, remoto Christo, but from the Gospel.635

It is true that in Barth's doctrines of the Word of God, God, and creation he has

already spoken about human sin, but in each of these places Barth's beginning point is

always God's reconciling and revelatory event in Jesus.636 Barth's insistence that sin

can only be discussed in the context of reconciliation is a simple outworking of the

dogmatic tenet that we must not, because we cannot, speak of the human problem as it

really is, except in the context of the divine answer, i.e., we must begin with

revelation.

Barth outworks his doctrine of sin in the context of the three aspects of the doctrine of

reconciliation, immediately following the three introductory christological sections.

Thus, in the first part "The Obedience of the Son of God" is followed by "The Pride

634 Barth says: "there has to be a very clear doctrine of sin in the Church's dogmatics. But it must notbe a doctrine of sin which is autonomous" (CD IV.1,139).635 CD IV.3.1, 369636 In Barth's famous section fifty "God and Nothingness" in his "Doctrine of Creation," for example,Barth has a subsection entitled "The Knowledge of Nothingness" in which he begins: "To answer thisquestion we must revert to the source of all Christian knowledge, namely, to the knowledge of JesusChrist" (CD 111.3, 302).

119

and the Fall of Man"; in the second part "The Exaltation of the Son of Man" is

followed by "The Sloth and Misery of Man"; and in the third part "The Glory of the

Mediator" is followed by "The Falsehood and Condemnation of Man." In each of

these treatments sin is revealed as the negation or the opposite of what God has done

in Jesus Christ.637 Then, immediately following each of these discussions on the

nature and consequences of sin, Barth places the doctrines of "The Justification of

Man," "The Sanctification of Man," and "The Vocation of Man" respectively. In

these sections he argues that all human beings have already been justified, sanctified,

and called in Jesus Christ. On the basis of this structural analysis it is evident that

Barth's discussion of human sin and its consequences appears only in the context of

his discussion of reconciliation already accomplished in Jesus Christ, and of human

beings already justified, sanctified and called in him. This may be further

substantiated as follows:

In section fifty-seven, "the Work of God the Reconciler," in the subsection entitled,

"The Fulfilment of the Broken Covenant," Barth stresses that the presupposition of

the atonement is God's grace not human sin. He concedes that although the

"atonement accomplished in Jesus Christ is God's retort to the sin of man and its

consequences,"638 this is not the primary focus of God's action, nor should it be the

primary focus of the Christian message.639 Certainly, because of human sin, one must

speak of the fulfilment of the "broken covenant,"640 and this fulfilment necessarily has

637 Barth's own summary is as follows: "In the first part ("The Lord as Servant") we saw it as reflectedin the high-priestly work of Jesus Christ. It appeared as the strange opposite of the humility with whichthe Son of God humbled Himself in obedience to the Father. It was the pride in which man exaltedhimself in an attempt to be as God, his own judge and helper. In the second part ("the Servant asLord") it was set in the light of His kingly work. It thus appeared as the strange opposite of theexaltation and majesty of the Son of Man. It was sloth in which man allows himself to sink and fallinto the morass of his unnatural yet natural stupidity, inhumanity, dissipation and anxiety." Inencounter with the prophetic work of Jesus Christ, as a negative reflection of the self-revelation andglory of the Mediator, as the darkness resisting the light of life, as the contradiction of the truth whichreaches man, his sin appears in the guise of falsehood" (CD IV.3.1, 369).638 CD IV.1, 46639 Barth says: "What takes place in Jesus Christ, in the historical event of the atonement accomplishedby him in time, is not simply one history amongst others and not simply the reaction of God againsthuman sin. It stands at the heart of the Christian message and the Christian faith because her Godmaintains and fulfils His Word as it was spoken at the very first.., the atonement in Jesus Christ takesplace as a wrestling with and an overcoming of human sin. But at the same time and primarily it is thegreat act of God's faithfulness to himself and therefore to us- His faithfulness in the execution of theplan and purpose which He had from the very first as the Creator of all things and the Lord of allevents, and which He wills to accomplish in all circumstances" (CD IV. 1, 47).

CD IV.l, 67

120

S

"the character of an atonement."641 Yet, Barth insists, the presupposition of the

atonement is the covenant of God's grace in Jesus Christ, not the sin of human

beings. God's grace is the first and eternal Word of God. Barth says "in delivering

and fulfilling this first and eternal Word in spite of human sin and its consequences, as

he would in fact have delivered and fulfilled it quite apart from human sin, sin is also

met, refuted and removed in time."642 Again Barth says: "The grace of God triumphs

over man and his sin that is the fulfilment of the covenant which takes place in Jesus

Christ."643 Barth goes on to say that this does not minimise the seriousness of sin. On

the contrary, it is only when we know that we are forgiven our sin that we can truly

confess ourselves sinners. He says: "If we live, we do not live because the confession

of our sin and guilt laid on our hearts and lips by the grace of God has been weakened

or embellished, but because the forgiveness of our sin has been accomplished by God

in the event of the atonement. Therefore the praise of faith cannot be a denial of the

truth but rather a confirmation of it."644

In section fifty-eight, "The Doctrine of Reconciliation (Survey)," Barth asserts that

sin is "a breach in the covenant of grace concluded in Jesus Christ from all

eternity."645 As such it is a contradiction to the divine Yes and is subsequently

contradicted by it.646 He says that because human sin is a denial of God's grace it

results in the perversion of human nature. Since human beings are themselves

affected by sin they cannot perceive it as it really is. It is only the light of Jesus Christ

that reveals the darkness of human sin. Sin is only revealed, as it really is, where it is

already defeated.647 As the human No to God's Yes, it can only be known in relation

to this Yes. Barth explains this in the following statement:

Sin is a reality... But it is not an autonomous reality. As the No whichopposes the divine Yes, it is only a reality that is related to and contradictingthat Yes. Therefore it can be known — and all the horror of it can be known —only in the light of that Yes. In all its reality and horror it can never be a first

CD IV.1, 67642CD1V.1,48643 CD IV.1, 68

645CD1V1 140140

647Barth says: "In the light of Jesus Christ the darkness is revealed as such. It is made plain that man isa sinner. It is shown in what his sin consists. It is that being and acting and thinking and speaking andbearing of man which in Jesus Christ God has met, which in him He has opposed and overcome andjudged, which in Him He has passed over, in spite of which He has converted man to himself in Him"(CDIV.1, 141).

121

word, nor can it ever be a final word... The reality of sin cannot be known ordescribed except in relation to the One who has vanquished it. In his light it isdarkness, but a darkness which yields. That He is the victor is therefore aChristian axiom which is not only not shaken but actually confirmed by sin. Itis He who has the fmal Word.648

Barth's view that the knowledge of sin cannot precede the knowledge of Jesus Christ

is further discussed in each of the three treatments of sin that follow in the three parts

of the doctrine of reconciliation, especially in the subsections "The Man of Sin in the

Light of the Obedience of the Son of God," in part one;649 "The Man of Sin in the

Light of the Lordship of the Son of Man" in part two;65° and "the True Witness" in

part three.65'

ii. ConclusionClearly, the axiom that sin must not be the first word in preaching, nor an autonomous

word, but must only be spoken about in the context of God's forgiveness in Jesus

Christ, has strong dogmatic grounding in the Church Dogmatics. The first word of

the gospel must be the word of God's grace that comes to us in Jesus Christ. Sin is a

reality, but must be, and can only be, understood in the context of its defeat in the

reconciling event that took place in Jesus Christ.

e. The Indicatives of the Gospel Precede the Imperatives of the LawAnother innovative characteristic of the Church Dog,natics is its insistence that the

indicatives of the Gospel must precede the imperatives of the Law.652 This can be

demonstrated as follows:

1. The Doctrine of The Word of GodBarth's first ethical section of the Church Dogmatics is found in section eighteen,

"The Life of the Children of God," which concludes the pneumatological section in

part three of chapter two, "The Revelation of God." Barth first explains that this is

144CD IV.1, 358-4 13 (especially 387ff)

650 CD IV.2, 378-403651 CD IV.3.1, 368-434652 In the CD Barth reverses the usual way of speaking of Law and Gospel by inverting it to Gospel andLaw. This inversion is expressed in the early article Barth wrote in 1935, "Gospel and Law." See"Gospel and Law" in God, Grace and Gospel, translated by J.S. McNab (Oliver and Boyd, 1959)(S.J.T. Occasional Papers No. 8), 3-27.

122

premised on the corresponding section in the christological discussion of part two,

which deals with the mystery of the divine human Reconciler and the virgin birth as

the sign of this mystery.653 The earlier section concerned the event of revelation as

the act of God in Jesus Christ; this section is concerned with the human reception of

revelation and man as the "doer of the Word."654 Barth explains that ethical

discussion cannot be abstracted from the event of revelation. It is the fact of God's

revelation that raises the question of what we are to do.655 It is revelation that actually

creates in us the freedom to love God and to love our neighbour. When the circle of

revelation intersects the circle of human existence," he says, "the grace of revelation

frees human beings."656 The predetermination of revelation calls forth free acts of

human self-determination, i.e., the ethical life, or as Barth calls it "the life of the

children of God."657 These free human responses created by God's revelation in the

children of God are love and praise of God. Our love of God is, he says, an

answering to God's love, and our praise of God is the witness to what he has done.

Such love and praise of God fulfils the great commandment to love God and our

neighbour.658

ii. The Doctrine of GodIt is significant that in Barth's doctrine of God, chapter seven, "The Election of God,"

precedes chapter eight, "The Command of God." We have already seen that Barth

maintains that the doctrine of the election of God is "the sum of the Gospel"; that it

653 CD 1.2, 362654 CD 1.2, 362655 Barth says: "The fact of God's revelation as such raises the question what are we going to do? thequestion of the shaping of our life in conformity with this fact. Better it commands our obedience"(CD 1.2, 367).656 "It is the grace of revelation that God exercises and maintains His freedom to free man" (CD 1.2,365).657 Barth says, "the very self-determination, without which he would not be man, man becomes anobject of the divine predetermination. It is in this way that the circle of his existence is intersected bythe circle of revelation. The grace of revelation is not conditioned by his humanity, but his humanity isconditioned by the grace of revelation" (CD 1.2, 3640365). And again: "If we remember that man'sself-determination in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit stands under the sign and within the limits of thedivine predetermination, we are faced with the problem which is usually described as the problem oftheological ethics, or more practically as the Christian life" (CD 1.2, 367). And again: "Human self-determination, and therefore the life of the children of God, is posited under the predetermination ofrevelation" (CD 1.2, 368).658 Barth says as his leading statement: "When it is believed and acknowledged in the Holy Spirit, therevelation of God creates men who do not exist without seeking God in Jesus Christ, and who cannotcease to testify that He has found them" (CD 1.2, 362). This statement is amplified in CD 1.2, 37 1-401,401-454.

123

refers to God's eternal and gracious decision to be for all humanity in Jesus Christ.659

The doctrine of the command of God, however, concerns the ethical response required

of human beings. Its placing after the doctrine of the election of God is the

outworking of Barth's view that the indicative statement of the Gospel, i.e., that God

is for man, must precede the imperative of the Law, i.e., "what God wants from

man."660 Barth insists that although one cannot separate Gospel from Law, it is the

Gospel that must always be the first word. This he makes clear in the following

statement:

It is as He makes Himself responsible for Man that God makes man, too,responsible. Ruling grace is commanding grace. The Gospel itself has theform and fashion of the Law. The one Word of God is both Gospel and Law.It is not Law by itself and independent of the Gospel. But it is not Gospelwithout Law. In its content, it is Gospel; in its form and fashion, it is Law. Itis first Gospel and then Law. It is the Gospel which contains and encloses theLaw as the ark of the covenant the tables of Sinai. But it is both Gospel andLaw.66'

Barth goes on to say that grace precedes Law as origin and goal. Grace, he says, is

the "evangelical indicative" which becomes an imperative: "The truth of the

evangelical indicative means that the full stop with which it concludes becomes an

exclamation mark. It becomes itself an imperative."662 Barth goes on to claim that

the doctrine of the grace of God in election is the answer to the ethical problem. We

must, he says, always begin with the answer: "It is the answer — this must be our

starting point. . .the grace of God is the answer to the ethical problem. For it sanctifies

man. It claims him for God."663 Barth then identifies Jesus Christ as this answer:

"The man Jesus, who fulfils the commandment of God, does not give the answer, but

by God's grace He is the answer to the ethical question put by God's grace."664 Barth

argues therefore that it is Jesus Christ who defines for us what God requires. He has

already fulfilled the requirement of God on behalf of all humanity. As God he is the

one who acts in a way that is right towards us and demands what is right from us; yet

as the God who is also the representative man, he does what he demands on behalf of

us. He is both the Sanctifying God and the sanctified man. Thus Barth says:

659 CD 11.2, 510660 CD 11.2, 510661 CD 11.2, 511662 CD 11.2, 512663 CD 11.2, 5 15-516664 CD 11.2, 517

124

What right conduct is for man is determined absolutely in the right conduct ofGod. It is determined in Jesus Christ. He is the electing God and the electedman in One. But He is also the Sanctifying God and the sanctified man in one.In His person God has acted rightly towards us. And in the same person manhas also acted rightly for us.665

What then constitutes ethical action for us? Barth's answer is that all that is required

of us is that we should live as people to whom the grace of God has come in Jesus

Christ. So Barth says: "Therefore 'to become obedient,' 'to act rightly,' 'to realise the

good,' never means anything other than to become obedient to the revelation of the

grace of God; to live as a man to whom grace has come in Jesus Christ."666 Clearly,

before one can do this one must hear the indicatives of the Gospel.

In section thirty-seven, "The Command as the Claim of God," Barth goes on to state

that: (1) the basis for the divine claim on human beings is his grace;667 (2) the content

of the divine command is that our actions should correspond to his grace, i.e., that

we should "accept as right what the gracious God does for us and acquiesce to it,"668

this means specifically that we should believe in Jesus Christ;669 and (3) the form of

the divine claim is permission or freedom.67° Barth completes his ethics in the

doctrine of God with two further sections, thirty-eight, "The Command as the

Decision of God," and thirty—nine, "The Command as the Judgment of God." In both

of these discussions the presupposition and beginning point is the indicative of the

Gospel, i.e., God is gracious to us in Jesus Christ.67'

665 CD 11.2, 539. Barth says again: "What ought we to do? We are asking about Him, for it is in Himthat this question of ours is answered. In Him obedience demanded of us man has already beenrendered" (CD 11.2, 540).666 CD 11.2, 539667 Barth's leading statement is: "As God is gracious to us in Jesus Christ, His command is the claimwhich, when it is made, has power over us, demanding that in all that we do we admit that what Goddoes right, and requiring that we give our free obedience to this demand" (CD 11.2, 552).668 CD 11.2, 579669 Barth says: "We can sum it all up by saying that what God wants of us and all men is that we shouldbelieve in Jesus Christ. Not that we should believe like Jesus Christ . . .but that we should believe inJesus Christ, in the gracious action of God actualised and revealed in Him... All the answers oftheological ethics to the same question [what are men to do?] can oniy paraphrase and confirm theimperative: 'Seek those things which are above, where Christ is"(CD II. 2, 583).670 The uniqueness of the command of God is that it frees, even though in form it appears the same asother commands that restrict. Barth says: "The command of God sets man free. The command of Godpermits. It is only in this way that it commands. It permits even though it always has "in concreto theform of the other commands, even though it, too, says, "Thou shalt" and "thou shalt not," even thoughit stands before man, warning, disturbing, restraining, binding and committing" (CD 11.2, 586).671

See the introductory statement at the beginning of each, CD 11.2, 631, 733.

125

iii. The Doctrine of CreationAlready in the doctrine of creation we have seen that in Barth's anthropology he has

described the human person as a "being in gratitude," summoned to give thanks to

God in response to grace, and also, as "a being in responsibility," summoned to

acknowledgement of God, obedience, invocation and freedom. These imperatives are

obviously based on the indicatives of the Gospel. We must be grateful and

responsible because of the grace of God and the Word of God that has called us into

existence.

In the doctrine of creation, chapter twelve, "The Command of God the Creator," Barth

turns from what he calls general ethics, as discussed in the doctrine of God, to special

ethics, the command that comes to us in our concrete situation.672 Special ethics has

nothing to do with casuistry,673 nor is it concerned with determining the specific

content of the divine command.674 Although we cannot anticipate the command of

God, which is the Word of God in each particular moment, we can know the

"character it will always take."675 It will always be primarily God's claim, decision

and judgment concerning us, which pre-empts and precipitates our free response to

him,676 i.e., ethics always involves human freedom evoked by grace. We also know

that this God who commands us is our Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer, and we

who are commanded, are his creatures determined to be his covenant partners, sinners

who live by his forgiveness, and children of God looking forward to eternal life.677

All of this is the "field" for the ethical event,678 or the different spheres of relationship

that already exist between God and human beings in which the ethical event takes

place.679 Although the task of special ethics is not to legislate or prescribe what is

right or wrong conduct, it can by reference to these spheres, give ethical leads,

directives or guidance.68° Plainly, Barth's premise in all of this is that the indicatives

of the Gospel, whereby we know who God is and who we are and what our

relationship is with God through Jesus Christ, must be the foundation or context for

672CD 111.4, 5-6673 CD 111.4, 6-15674 CD 111.4, 15-17675 CD 111.4, 18676 CD 111.4, 23677 CD 111.4, 24-26678 CD 111.4, 27679 CD 111.4, 29680 CD 111.4, 30-31

126

the ethical imperatives of the Christian life. Barth's special ethics may thus be

summarised in the adage: 'be who you are,'681 i.e., live your life in correspondence to

the reality revealed in the Gospel. In the rest of this chapter Barth develops the ethics

of creation in four areas: freedom for God, freedom in fellowship, freedom for life,

and freedom in limitation. These areas correspond to the sections of Barth's

christological anthropology in chapter ten, and are clearly dependent on them.682

iv. The Doctrine of ReconciliationThat the imperative always follows the indicative can also be seen in the way Barth

concludes his discussion of each of the three parts of his doctrine of reconciliation. At

the end of each, and only at the end, there is an existential focus on the individual

Christian.683 In each, the corresponding human action to God's act of reconciliation

in Jesus Christ is discussed as faith, love and hope respectively. These are possible

only on the basis of God's past action in Jesus Christ for us and through the present

work of the Holy Spirit in us.

In the first part, section sixty-three, 'The Holy Spirit and Christian Faith," Barth

speaks of Christian faith in two subsections: "Faith and its Object," 684 and "The Act

of Faith."685 The order of these discussions is important. Although Christian faith

involves the reconstitution of the Christian subject, i.e., it is the event in which one

becomes a Christian, a new creature; Barth speaks of faith first in terms of its

orientation and origin in Jesus Christ himself, who is its object and basis. Only then

does Barth speak of faith as a free human act of participation in the faith that comes as

681 This is, in fact an expression Barth uses in his discussion of the indicative action of the Holy Spiritin CD IV.2. There, Barth says: "The basic indicative of the apostolic exhortation is alwaysunmistakable. So, too, is the fact that on this assumption (and therefore with supreme defmiteness) it isan appeal, an alarm, a summons, an imperative: 'Be what thou art" (CD IV. 2, 364).682

See CD 111.2, §44-47: "Man as the Creature of God"; "Man in His Determination as the Covenant-Partner of God"; "Man as Soul and Body"; Man in His Time." Here once again it is evident that thechristologically derived indicatives concerning who human beings are in chapter ten, forms thestructural basis for the ethical discussion of chapter twelve.683 It should be noted that before Barth discusses the individual Christian, he always discusses thechurch community. This is evident in each of the three parts of the doctrine of reconciliation where thesections "The Holy Spirit and the Gathering of the Christian Community," "The Holy Spirit and theUpbuilding of the Christian Community," and The Holy Spirit and the Sending of the ChristianCommunity" precede "The Holy Spirit and Christian Faith," "The Holy Spirit and Christian Love," and"The Holy Spirit and Christian Hope" respectively (CD IV.l, 643ff; CD IV.2, 614ff; CD IV.3.2,681ff).684 CD IV.1, 740-757685 CD IV.1, 757-779

127

a gift from 686 And even then, our faith is simply described as the act of

acknowledgement, recognition and confession of what is already true in Jesus Christ.

In this way Barth takes the focus off what we do, in the first instance, and places the

emphasis solely and wholly on Jesus Christ, and on what he has done and does. This

understanding of faith clearly begins with the indicatives of the GospeL The

imperative to believe can only be premised on the Gospel indicative that Jesus Christ

is the true believer on my behalf. What is it that we are to acknowledge, recognise

and confess in the act of faith? Barth's answer is: "that Jesus Christ Himself is pro

me. ,,687

In the second part, section sixty-eight, 'The Holy Spirit and Christian Love," Barth

speaks first of "The Basis of Love,"688 and then of "The Act of Love."689 The basis of

the Christian's love is God's prior love for us. Barth says: "In response to the Word

in which God loves him and tells him that He loves him, in correspondence to it. . .the

Christian may and must and will also love."690 It is the Gospel message of the eternal

love of God for us that compels our response of love for God. Barth says:

When He loves us, what comes on us to our benefit is an inconceivableoverflowing of His eternal love which we can only acknowledge, recogniseand confess in its actual occurrence... Called and impelled on the basis of Hisaction to us, our Christian love arises and takes place as the human act whichanswers and corresponds to His act.69'

Thus, it is only after describing the love of God for us that Barth goes on. ill his next

section, "The Act of Love," to speak of the Christian's love for God692 and love for

686 Barth says: "Faith is simply following, following its object. It is going a way that is marked out andprepared. Faith does not realise anything new. It does not invent anything. It simply finds that whichis already there for the believer and also for the unbeliever. It is simply man's active decision for it, hisacceptance of it, his active participation in it. This constitutes the Christian. In believing, the Christianowes everything to the object of his faith" (CD IV. 1, 742). And Again: "The Holy Spirit is the powerin which Jesus Christ the Son of God makes free for this choice andtherefore for faith. He is the power in which the object of faith is also its origin and basis, so that faithcan know and confess itself only as His work and gift, as the human decision for this object, the humanparticipation in it which he makes in his own free act but which he can only receive, which he canunderstand only as something which is received, which he can continually look for as somethingreceived again and which is confirmed in a new act" (CD IV.1, 748).687 CD IV, 755688 CD IV.2, 75 1-783689 CD IV.2, 783-824690 CD LV.2, 752 ' S

691 CD IV.2, 760. Barth says again: "The love of God is the basis for that of man, but the love of manis never the basis for that of God. The love of God always takes precedence. It always has thecharacter of grace, and that of man the character of gratitude" (CD IV.2, 753).692 CD IV.2, 790-802

128

neighbour.693 God's love for us is described as electing love,694 purifying love,695 and

creative love;696 our responding love is described as unusual, free, self-imparting, and

joyful.697

In the third part, section seventy-three, 'The Holy Spirit and Christian Hope," Barth

speaks first of "The Subject of Hope and Hope,"698 and then of "Life in Hope."699

Again Barth argues that the power of hope has its basis in Jesus Christ. He says "As

the Subject of the faith and love of the Christian, Jesus Christ is also the Subject of his

hope... He is objectively already his hope, i.e., the theme goal and basis of his

subjective hope."70° On the basis of this Gospel indicative, the imperative to live in

hope is then discussed in the next section. The Christian's hope is described here as

private but also public,70' present as well as future,702 and deriving only from God.703

Barth never completed his ethical discussion for the doctrine of reconciliation. There

are two fragments published posthumously. The first entitled The Foundation of the

Christian Life has two sections: (1) "Baptism with the Holy Spirit," which refers to

the work of God's Spirit in us (on the basis of the objective work of Christ for us) that

turns us to faithfulness to God;704 and (2) "Baptism with Water," which is the first

step of this life of faithfulness, understood not as a sacrament, but as a human act of

obedience in response to grace.705 Here again, the imperative follows the indicative,

i.e., what we are to do must be premised on what God has done. In the other fragment

published much later entitled The Christian Life, Barth explains that the gracious God

is the commanding God and that the Christian life as a life of active obedience to this

gracious and commanding God can only be lived in invocation of God. Prayer he

says is the normal human action in response to or corresponding to God's grace. He

says of this response:

693 CD W.2, 802-824694 CD TV.2, 766-771695 CD W.2, 77 1-776696CD IV.2, 776-783697 CD [V.2, 784-790698 CD IV.3.2, 902-928699 CD IV.3.2, 928-942700 CD IV.3.2, 915701 CD IV.3.2, 930-934702 CD Iv.3.2, 934-939703 CD [V.3.2, 939-942704 CD [V.4 (Fragment), 3-40705 CD [V.4 (Fragment), 41ff

129

We are speaking of the humble and resolute, the frightened and joyfulinvocation of the gracious God in gratitude, praise, and above all petition. Inthe sphere of the covenant, this is the normal action corresponding to thefulfilment of the covenant in Jesus Christ. Man is empowered for this, andobligated to it, by God's grace.706

v. ConclusionThis survey has shown that, for Barth, the ethical discussion cannot be abstracted

from the event of revelation. Although one cannot hear the indicatives of the Gospel

without also hearing the imperatives of the Law, they must never be reversed. That

God is for human beings must be announced before any injunction about what God

wants from human beings. Ethics can only be understood as a response of gratitude to

grace, a corresponding of human action to God's action. It is through the

announcement of the Gospel that we know who God is, and who we are, and what our

relationship with God through Jesus Christ is. The Gospel indicatives therefore

become the basis for the imperatives, such as: "Let God be to you who he is!" and

"Be who you already are in Jesus Christ!" Faith is simply the acknowledgement,

recognition and confession of what is already true in Jesus Christ; Christian love for

God and neighbour is a response to God's prior love for us; and a life in hope can be

founded only on the Gospel truth that Jesus Christ is our future.

2. Future Revelation, the Whither of PreachingIn his early lectures on preaching Barth said that preaching was "the task of bearing

witness to revelation on its way from yesterday to tomorrow, and thus of taking the

way from what has been heard before to what will constantly be heard again."707 We

have already seen that in the Church Dogmatics, Barth understands the ministry of the

church as a participation in the ministry of the True Witness as "He marches through

the history of humanity which hastens to its goal and end, continually moving from

our yesterday, through our today into our tomorrow."708 As the church proclaims the

message of past revelation it does so in the expectation and hope of ongoing

revelation. This ongoing event of revelation takes place through the outpouring of the

Holy Spirit. That this is a fundamental tenet of the Church Dogmatics can be

demonstrated as follows:

706 ChrL, 43707 H, 87708 CD 4.3.2, 830

130

i. The Doctrine of the Word of God

In chapter two, "the Revelation of God," Barth introduces part three, "The Outpouring

of the Hoiy Spirit," with section sixteen, "The Freedom of Man for God."709 Here, he

speaks of the subjective reality and subjective possibility of man's freedom for God.

This parallels the discussion in part two, section thirteen, where Jesus Christ was

presented as the objective reality and possibility of God's freedom for us. The first

discussion was developed from God's side and concerned God's freedom for us,

which is objective to us. Here, the discussion is from our side, and concerns God's

freedom in us, or how God's revelation reaches us subjectively. In both, the

possibility of revelation resides entirely in God's freedom,71° and all talk of this

possibility, (be it objective or subjective), begins with its reality in God's

revelation.711 The point to be made here is that Barth is very clear that the transition

from past objective revelation to present subjective revelation takes place in the power

and autonomy of the Holy Spirit.

In section seventeen, the "problem of religion" is then discussed in the light of the

subjective reality of God's revelation. Barth opposes all autonomous human attempts

to encounter God. Human religious endeavour is a denial of both past and ongoing

revelation, and, as such, must be considered an expression of unbelief.712 This is true

even of the Christian religion.713 Religion, Barth says, is man's attempt "to justify

and to sanctify himself before a capricious and arbitrary picture of God."714 In

contrast to this, revelation is God's self-offering and self-manifestation which makes

all religious effort and abstract ideas about God redundant.715 Barth says that it is

709 CD 1.2, 203-279710 Barth says: "This freedom of man's can oniy be a freedom created by God in the act of hisrevelation and given to man. In the last resort it can only be God's own freedom" (CD 1.2, 205).711 Barth says : "the question of the reality of revelation must come first, the question of its possibilityfollows" (CD 1.2, 205).712 Barth says: "To realise that religion is really unbelief, we have to consider it from the standpoint ofthe revelation attested in Holy Scripture" (CD 1.2, 301).713 Barth says: In our discussion of "religion as unbelief' we did not consider the distinction betweenChristian and non-Christian religion. Our intention was that whatever we said about the other religionsaffected the Christian religion similarly" (CD 1.2, 326).

CD 1.2, 280. Barth says: "From the standpoint of revelation religion is clearly seen to be a humanattempt to anticipate what God in his revelation wills to do and does do. It is the attemptedreplacement of the divine work by human manufacture" (CD 1.2, 302). Again: "it is only by therevelation of God in Jesus Christ that we can characterise religion as idolatry and self-righteousness,and in this way show it to be unbelief' (CD 1.2, 314).715 Barth says: "Revelation is God's self-offering and self-manifestation. Revelation encounters manon the presupposition and in confirmation of the fact that man's attempts to know God from his ownstandpoint are wholly and entirely futile; not because of any necessity in principle, but because of a

131

only by God's grace, through the event of God's ongoing revelation in the outpouring

of the Holy Spirit, that the Christian church becomes sanctified as the place where

God speaks today.716 If preaching in the church is to be more than simply religious

utterance, and not just the expression of pious human notions, it must point to past

revelation in Jesus Christ with the expectation that this revelation will take place

again in the present by the power of the Holy Spirit.

ii. The Doctrine of ReconciliationIn the doctrine of reconciliation, Barth includes his understanding of revelation as an

ongoing event in the three subsections that deal with the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

"The Verdict of the Father," "The Direction of the Son," and "The Promise of the

Spirit." In each of these sections, Barth deals with the question of how the event of

past revelation can be relevant for us today.

In the subsection, "The Verdict of the Father," Barth asks: "what is the mediation in

which recollection becomes presence, indirect speech direct, history present day, the

Christus pro nobis tunc the Christus pro nobis nunc, the Christ who meets us, the

Christ who is our Saviour not only as He is known and remembered historically, but

as He Himself saves us to-day?"717 The answer given is that the resurrection and

ascension of Jesus Christ inaugurated a new time in which "He was and continues to

be and ever again will be directly present and revealed and active in the community

by his Spirit, the power of His accomplished resurrection."718

In the subsection, "The Direction of the Son," the question is again asked: "what is

the power of the existence of the one man Jesus Christ for all other men? To what

extent is there a way from the one to the other, from Him to us?"719 The answer

practical necessity of fact. In revelation God tells man that he is God, and that as such he is the Lord"(CD 1.2, 301).716 Barth says: "That there is a true religion is an event in the act of the grace of God in Jesus Christ.To be more precise, it is an event in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. To be even more precise, it is anevent in the existence of the Church and the children of God" (CD 1.2, 344). Again: "The Christianreligion is the sacramental area created by the Holy Spirit, in which the God whose Word became fleshcontinues to speak through the sign of his revelation. And it is also the existence of men created by thesame Holy Spirit, who hear this God continually speaking in His revelation" (CD 1.2, 359).717 CD IV.1, 288718 CD IV.1, 318 (italics mine)719 CD IV.2, 265

132

given, again, is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ makes this possible: "He is the

Resurrected who as such discloses Himself to us."720 The power of the resurrection is

understood as "the presence and action of the Holy Spirit."72' It is the Holy Spirit

who encounters us in the present, giving us a new direction. This direction involves

(1) indication: the Spirit shows us that our place of departure is that we are already

free in Jesus Christ, i.e., it is by the power of the Spirit that the indicatives of the

Gospel can be heard and on this basis that the imperative can be urged: Be the free

person that you already are;722 (2) correction: the Spirit warns us by saying No to the

paths that will mean the loss of our freedom;723 (3) instruction: the Spirit guides us by

saying Yes to the paths of real freedom.724 Barth makes the point that the No of the

Spirit is always in service of his Yes, i.e.: "As instruction the direction of the Holy

Spirit says Yes and Forward at the very point where in its capacity as correction it

says No and commands us to halt and retreat."725

In the subsection, "The Promise of the Spirit," Barth asks the same question about the

transition from christology to anthropology, from the past to the present, from Jesus to

us: "to what extent is there a real and conceivable way from the one to the other, from

Him to us?"726 The answer is the Jesus makes the transition himself in his

resurrection.727 Barth goes on to outline his threefold view of the "new coming"728 of

Jesus Christ (subsequent to his incarnation), as (1) the Easter event (resurrection), (2)

Pentecost (outpouring of the Holy Spirit), and (3) the Eschaton (final coming).729 He

says: "Always and in all three forms it is a matter of the fresh coming of the One who

came before. Always and in different ways it is a matter of the coming again of Jesus

720 CD IV.2, 299. Barth says: "This, then, is our answer to the question how it is possible and actual,and can be said in truth, that a man becomes and is a Christian. . . the answer can only be that, derivingfrom Jesus Christ, i.e., His resurrection, is a sovereignly operative power of revelation, andtherefore of the transition from Him to us, of his communication with us... (CD IV.2, 318).721 CD IV.2, 319. Barth says: "we have to speak of the Holy Spirit as the self-revelation of the manJesus.. .the way in which He opened up Himself to other men, and opened up other men to Himself,uniting Himself with them, and them with Him... The outpouring of the Spirit as the effect of Hisresurrection..." (CD IV.2, 333).722 CD IV.2, 363-367723 CD IV.2, 367-372724 CD IV.2, 372-377725 CD IV.2, 374726 CD IV.3.1, 267727 CD IV.3.1, 281ff728 CD IV.3.1, 291729 CD IV.3.1, 293ff

133

Christ."730 It is the middle form of Jesus' coming that encounters us here and now.

Barth says: "The return of Jesus Christ in this middle form, in which it takes place

here and now, is his coming in the promise of the Spirit. This is His direct and

inimediate presence and action among and with and in us."731 The implications of

this are that "this present day of ours is also a day of the living Jesus Christ"732 in

which the church accompanies him in his mission in the world along a path that is

"both difficult and glorious."733

Finally, in section seventy-one, "The Vocation of Man," Barth spells out specifically

what it means for Jesus Christ to be our Contemporary, through the power of his Holy

Spirit.734 Again, Barth insists that Jesus Christ is "not a figure of the remote past," but

rather "in his parousia in the form of the Holy Spirit, as the One He is there He is also

on earth among us as the Contemporary of man in every age."735 Barth describes the

event of vocation as illumination,736 a new creation,737 and an awakening.738 Each of

these expressions gives new nuances of meaning to the one event, which is the

dynamic,739 on going work of Jesus Christ in his prophetic office,74° through the

power of his Holy Spirit.

730 CD IV.3.l, 293731 CD IV.3.1, 350. Barth says again: "Not only was God glorious in the past, and not only will He beglorious in the fmal fulfilment of His promise, but He is glorious here and now in the promise of hisSpirit, He Himself being present and active yesterday, to-day and to-morrow" (CD IV.3.1, 359).732 CD IV.3.l, 362

CD IV.3.l, 367Barth says "the vocation of man consists decisively in the fact that the living Jesus Christ encounters

defmite men at definite times in their lives as their Contemporary, makes himself known to them as theOne He is, i.e., as the One He is for the worlds, for all men, and therefore for them too, and addressesand claims them as partners in His covenant and sinners justified and sanctified in Him" (CD IV.3.2,502).

CD IV.3.2, 504736 Barth says: "Illumination means that the light of life carries through its work in a particular man toits conclusion. It shines on all men. But in the event of vocation it does not merely shine on aman.. . Jesus Christ in person meets him as a person and becomes a known and conscious element in hislife-history. ...Jesus Christ as the light of the world illuminates this man. It does not now merely shinefor him in general. It now shines for him in such a way that his closed eyes are opened by its shining,or rather his blind eyes are healed by its shining and made to see" (CD IV.3 .2, 508).

CD IV.3.2, 509-5 10738 Barth says: "Awakening is the turning of many from that false situation to his true situation aseffected through revelation and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ" (CD IV.3 .2, 512).

This is the particular emphasis of the term "awakening." Barth says it underlines "the dynamiccharacter of illumination and vocation as the process in which a man becomes a Christian" (CD IV.3.2,513).740 CD IV.3.2, 520

134

iii. Conclusion

This survey has established that a fundamental dogmatic tenet in the Church

Dogmatics is that revelation is not only past but also future. It is ongoing in the

present by virtue of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Hoiy

Spirit. Through the autonomy of the Spirit, Jesus Christ is the Contemporary of every

human being. Through his own prophetic ministry, Jesus Christ calls, illumines,

recreates, and awakens those whom he has already reconciled to the realisation and

experience of this reality. The church accompanies him in his ministry and mission in

the world. It does so by pointing to the past event of revelation in the expectation that

this will happen again and again in the present by the power of the Holy Spirit.

3. ConclusionThis chapter has established that Barth's fundamental criterion for preaching and its

implications for the content sermons, namely, that preaching must point to past

revelation in the expectation of ongoing revelation, is indisputably grounded in the

Church Dogmatics. The selective surveys of the content of the Church Dogmatics in

this chapter, in regard to both aspects of this criterion, has thereby validated this

criterion as a legitimate point of correlation for testing the dogmatic determination of

his sermons. Earlier surveys in previous chapters have also established that the other

criteria are important aspects of Barth's understanding of preaching, as he has

expressed it in the Church Dogmatics.

The remaining task is to examine a selection of Barth's own sermons in the light of

his own dogmatic criteria to determine whether he has actually put these principles

into practice. This is the focus of the next chapter.

135

Chapter Seven: Analysis of Barth's Sermons

Over a period from 1954-1964 Karl Barth preached some thirty sermons to inmates at

Basel Prison. Barth's biographer, Eberhard Busch, tells us that the prison was Barth's

favourite place to preach, and that he often visited the prisoners in their cells before

and after the services conducted in the prison chapel.74' The prison chaplain, Martin

Schwartz, reported that the prisoners responded warmly to Barth. They listened

receptively to his preaching, and joined in the celebration of the Lord's Supper which

followed.742 They even took it on themselves to publish the first copies of the

transcripts on their own printing press in the prison itself

Four sermons have been selected for description and analysis. These have been

drawn from the first volume of these sermons published as Deliverance to the

Captives. They are representative examples of a number preached on Christmas,

Good Friday, Easter, and Ascension Day, respectively. The approach will be to

analyse the form and content of each in the light of the structural elements and criteria

of the sermon Barth himself designated in his early lectures on preaching, and which

have already been shown to be grounded in his mature theology. The opening and

concluding prayers have been included in the content analysis in recognition of

Barth's remarks that they were an essential part of the sermon.744 Apparently Barth

demanded that they be published as part of sermon transcripts, and remonstrated with

his English publisher who suggested that they be left out.745 The direct style of each

sermon is somewhat lost in the descriptive analysis that follows (and one presumes in

the English translation). Some of this, however, is captured, in the quotations that

have been included. The analysis of each sermon follows:

741 According to Busch, Barth once reported: "this morning I listened at length to three murderers, twoconfidence tricksters and one adulterer, added the odd remark here and there and gave them each a fatcigar" (Busch, 15).742 Deliverance to the Captives, 12. Hereafter abbreviated DC.743DC, 11

11

John Bowden Karl Barth Theologian. London: SCM, 1983, 83-85.

136

1. Unto You Is Born This Day A Saviour

The form and content of Barth's 1954 Christmas sermon, "Unto You is Born This

Day A Saviour"746 is as follows:

a. TranscriptThe sermon takes the form of a written transcript. Included in the transcript is an

opening and concluding prayer. For Barth, this is in recognition that the sermon is a

liturgical event as per criterion Church.

b. Opening PrayerThe prayer acknowledges in a formal way the dependence of the preacher on God's

Word in the event of the sermon. In this way it exhibits criteria Heralding and

Spirituality.

It is also evident that the content of the prayer has been shaped by criterion

Revelation, i.e., both past and future revelation. This can be shown as follows:

(1) It conforms to past revelation in that the initial statements in the prayer are

premised on what God has done in his Son. Its opening lines assert that the reason the

congregation has gathered is so that they may rejoice in the incarnate Son of the God,

i.e., the Father's "dear Son who became man and a brother for our sake."747 The

Father is then called upon to disclose to the congregation what is already true for them

in him, i.e., to "show us bow great is thy mercy, loving kindness and help that thou

hast prepared in him for us all!"748

(2) It expresses the hope of future revelation in the three short petitions that follow.

These are uttered in the expectation of what God will do in his Son. The first is the

request that the Father will open the hearts and understanding of those present so that

they may grasp that there is forgiveness of all sins, new life, comfort and counsel in

746 DC, 20-27DC, 20

748 DC, 20

137

life and death, and hope for the world in him, i.e., in the Father's Son. The second is

the request that the Father will create in them a "true spirit of freedom,"749 so that they

may humbly and courageously go out to meet the Father's Son who comes to them.

The final request is that the Father will grant that the whole church and the world as

well, may celebrate Christmas truly, i.e. that they may "break through the glitter"750

and appreciate its true meaning.

c. Biblical TextThe sermon is drawn from Luke 2:1-14 with specific focus on verse 11. The sermon

is not thematic or topical, but is drawn exclusively from the biblical text. In this way

it conforms to criterion Scripture.

d. StructureThe structure of the sermon is determined by the text itself. Although the reading is

drawn from the wider passage Luke 2:1-14, the main body of the sermon concentrates

on the message of the angel in verse 11, "For to you is born this day in the city of

David a Saviour!" The three key phrases from this text form the loci of the

exposition: (1) to you, (2) this day, and (3) a Saviour. These phrases are expounded

consecutively in the order in which they appear in the text. Again this conforms to

criterion Scripture.

e. IntroductionThe first section of the sermon begins with reference to the main characters in the

Christmas story as narrated in verses 1-9. Barth muses on the various reactions of

those present to this story as it was read to them. Some, he suggests, may have been

inattentive to it; others may have 'discounted it as a fairy tale; and still others may

have responded sentimentally to it, simply associating it with childhood memories.

Barth refuses to engage with these reactions directly. He will not read the story again,

nor will he debate its truthfulness, nor will he demand that people take it seriously.

Despite varying human reactions to this story, he asserts unequivocally that it is "the

DC, 20750 DC, 20

138

story of us all. . more important, more true and more real than all the stories in history

books and novels and all the broadcasts and printed news put together!"75' Yet, it is

only the angel of the Lord, as in the Christmas story itself, who can shake us up out of

our indifference, unbelief, and sentiment and bring home to us its true meaning.

Barth asserts that this angel is present this Christmas, as he was on the first Christmas.

"It only remains for me," he says," to make you aware of his presence and attentive to

his words, so that we may listen, and ponder what he has to say."752

Barth goes on to say that the angel of the Lord is like the mailman bringing the news

directly from God: "if he announces the news, absent-mindedness, unbelief and lofty

sentiments are swept away."753 He is also like the lightning that precipitates directly

from heaven illumining our darkness. When the angel of the Lord appears it will be

like the first Christmas. Then, the angels appeared in the night sky and "the glory of

the Lord shone around them and the night was as light as the day."754

Thus, the first part of this sermon is not an attempt to gain a hearing for, argue the

truthfulness of, or evoke in the audience a deeper understanding of the Christmas

story. Barth pointedly and emphatically refuses to engage in such attempts. He

insists that God himself must create his own point of contact with the people if they

are going to hear and understand the Christmas message. The role of the preacher is

simply to announce that God is present and to draw attention to the words of the text

through which God may speak again as he spoke on that first Christmas. Evident here

are Barth's criteria Revelation, especially the expectation of future revelation, and

Heralding i.e., the conviction that the preacher can only serve God's Word.

f ExpositionThe rest of the sermon expounds the text according to the divisions already indicated

above. The content of the sermon is characterised by evangelical appeal, i.e., it

combines declaration, explanation and application. This may be demonstrated as

follows:

751 DC, 21-22752 DC, 22

DC, 22DC, 22

139

i. To YouThe combination of exposition and application is evident in the first division of the

sermon emphasising the first part of the angel's message: "To you is born this day a

Saviour." In this section Barth asserts that the message involves us personally,

specifically and corporately.

(1) The message involves us personally: "For your sake" he says, "God was not

content to be God but willed to become man; for you he emptied himself that you may

be exalted; for you he gave himself that you may be lifted up and drawn to him."755

"The wondrous deed" Barth says, "brought him no gain, fulfilled no need of his. It

was accomplished only for you, for us. The Christmas story then is a story that is

enacted with us and for us."756

(2) The message is not addressed to "mankind in general," but spec jfically and

unconditionally to us as individuals: "You, regardless of who you are, whether or not

you understand the message, whether or not you are good and pious people. The

news is meant for you. For your benefit the Christmas story happened. Again, it does

not take place without us; we are involved in it."757

(3) The message is not just addressed to individuals, but is all-inclusive, i.e.,

addressed to all. Barth says that the angel's message "ties us together like brothers

and sisters who share a wonderful present from their father. No one is first, no one is

last, no one gets preference, no one gets short changed, and most important, not a

single one goes wanting."758 This is why the Christian life can only be understood in

the context of the church.759

DC, 23756DC, 23757DC, 23-24758 DC, 24

Throughout the sermon Barth emphasises that the message of Christmas has a corporate dimension.Phrases from the Lord's Prayer (such as 'our Father,' 'our daily bread', 'forgive us our trespasses','deliver us from evil') and the Lord's Supper (we all eat from one bread and all drink from one cup) areevidence for the communal nature of the Christian life. The Christian community is described as afamily of brothers and sisters with Jesus Christ as "the eldest brother of us all." In this community,fellowship with others is determined by fellowship with Jesus Christ: "Where there is no communionwith the Saviour, there is no communion among brothers, and where there is no communion amongbrothers, there is no communion with the Saviour" (DC, 24).

140

In Barth's exposition in this section, it is evident that the portrayal of God is

christologically based. The sermon speaks of God as the God who "was not content

to be God but willed to become man."76° This phraseology is characteristic of Barth's

discussion of God in his doctrine of election in the Church Dogmatics (and

elsewhere).76' There, God's eternal decision to be the God of humanity is understood

as definitive for the very nature of God. As in Barth's doctrine of election, the

sermon asserts that God's eternal kind intention was an act of free grace. This act

fulfilled no need of God's, but was purely for our benefit. The sermon also goes on to

assert that in Jesus Christ, God has acted to fulfil his gracious desire to include, lift,

and draw us all to himself, i.e., God's eternal purpose has been realised. Clearly the

sermon reflects one of Barth's primary dogmatic assertions, i.e., that the Gospel

message begins with God's decision to be for us, and that this eternal Yes of God has

been realised in Jesus Christ. These assertions are founded on past revelation, and so

conform to criterion Revelation.

ii. This DayThe combination of exposition and application is also evident in the second locus of

the sermon emphasising the angel of the Lord's words "To you — this day."762 Barth

understands this day in terms of the past, present and future. He outlines each of these

in turn:

(1) This day first refers to a particular time in the past when Christ was born, when a

"new day dawned in the middle of the night."763

(2) This day also has relevance for us in the present, because: "Christ himself was and

is the sun of this day and of every day. The new day is not only Christmas Day, it is

the day of our life."764 Barth says: "This day refers not only to the past, to 'once upon

a time.' Far from it. The angel of the lord today announces the same news he then

760DC, 23761

See CD 11.2, 3-506 and Karl Barth, The Humanity of God London and Glasgow: Collins, 1961, 3364.762 DC, 24-25763 DC, 24

24

141

announced to the shepherds. We live in the new day which God has made. We hear

of a possible new beginning..

(3) This day is also the possibility of the future. Barth says "Certainly also tomorrow!

He who was born on that first Christmas Day will not die ever again but lives and

reigns eternal."766

Evident in these assertions about past, present and future, is Barth's understanding of

Jesus Christ as the one who embraces yesterday, today and tomorrow. Barth does not

simply present the Gospel as a report about an event of the past, but he also points to

the possibilities of the present and the future in Christ. In this way he is true to both

aspects of criterion Revelation, i.e., past and future revelation as the whence and the

whither of preaching.

It is also significant that Barth refers to human sinfulness for the first time in this

section of the sermon. He has not attempted to establish that all men are sinners in

need of salvation before he announces Jesus Christ as the Saviour. Just the opposite.

It is only in the context of announcing salvation in Jesus Christ that he refers to

human sinfulness. He affirms that sin and misery can be only spoken about in the

past tense: "yesterday 's misery, guilt and fear, though still existing, have been

mercifully covered and no longer harm us, because to us is born a Saviour."767

Although human experience does not warrant the confidence to venture a new start,

this is the assurance given to us in the angel's announcement that Savour has been

born. It is consistent with Barth's dogmatic parameters that this confession of

inadequacy only comes in the context of the assurance of the Gospel. It reflects

Barth's view that one can only talk of sin in the context of reconciliation, and that

confession of sin cannot be abstracted from the assurance of the Gospel, i.e. it is

consistent with Barth's criterion Revelation, past revelation as the whence of

preaching.

765 DC, 24-25DC, 25

767 DC, 25 (Italics mine)

142

iii. A SavourThe central christological assertions of the sermon are found in the third section

emphasising the words of the angel of the Lord: "To you this day is a Saviour." Barth

says that the Saviour is "the very heart of the Christmas story."768 He explains that

the word Saviour means three things for us: (1) salvation, (2) that is free, and (3) for

all. These are stated as follows:

(1) Firstly, it means salvation. This salvation is not separated from the saviour

himself: "He is the helper, the liberator, the redeemer as no man but God alone, can

be and really is; he stands by us, he rescues us, he delivers us."769

(2) Secondly, it is free of charge. This salvation is a gift that is not deserved or

earned: "All we are asked to do is to stretch out our hands, to receive the gift, and to

be thankful."77°

(3) Finally, it is for all. The Saviour is for all "without reservation or exception," 771

because we all need him, he is the Son of God who is the Father of us all, and because

in his incarnation he became the brother of us all.

Again, each of these assertions is an expression of Barth's understanding of past

revelation, i.e., the event in which God graciously reconciled the world to himself in

the incarnation of his Son. They stress the inseparability of the person and work of

Christ, and the grace of God, and objective reality of the salvation of all in him. They

therefore conform to criterion Revelation.

g. ConclusionIn the concluding section, Barth reaffirms the claim made in the introduction that the

Christmas story involves us all. "It is impossible," he says, "to hear this story without

hearing our own."772 He then goes on to assert that the Christmas event has already

brought about a change for all humane beings. He speaks of "the great transformation

768 DC, 25769 DC, 26770 DC, 26771 DC, 26772 DC, 26

143

that has been worked in us once and for all, the great joy it has released in us, and the

great calling we have received to set out on the way he shows us."773 This assertion is

again an expression of one of Barth's fundamental dogmatic tenets, i.e., that God's act

in Jesus Christ is the objective determination of all humanity. It is another aspect of

Barth's understanding of past revelation, i.e., criterion Revelation.

The sermon ends with no attempt to coerce, but simply invites response. Barth says:

"The angel of the Lord does not compel anybody. Even less can I compel! A forced

listening to the Christmas story, a forced participation in the story, is of no avail."774

In this way, Barth reflects his view that the preacher is not to attempt to create a

response to the Gospel message. This is consistent with criteria Revelation and

Heralding.

It is on the basis that all have already been transformed in Christ that the concluding

appeal is made. Although not named as such, repentance and faith are urged.

Repentance is described as an invitation to "awake," "rise," and "set out on a

journey," to "turn about."775 Faith is described as simply joining in with the tune sung

by the heavenly host, and spontaneously singing along with their songs of praise.

Barth says: "might we not be carried away just as we fall in step when a good band

plays or unconsciously hum or whistle a well known tune that falls on our ears? That

would be it! Then we would freely listen to and freely participate in the Christmas

story."776

The one and only imperative in the sermon, i.e., "We must willingly listen and

willingly participate,"777 its found in the conclusion. This imperative is based on the

indicatives of the Gospel that have been previously expounded. Its placing here

conforms to Barth's view that the indicatives of the Gospel must precede the

imperatives of the law as spelled out in criterion Revelation. The juxtaposition of the

words "must" and "willingly" in this sentence also indicate Barth's understanding of

freedom, i.e., freedom is only the freedom to obey. This is an important aspect of

DC, 26DC, 26DC, 26

776 DC, 27DC, 26

144

Barth's dogmatic thought expressed in his discussions on ethics in the Church

h. Concluding PrayerThe prayer begins with affirmations of God's holiness and glory. These are

understood not in terms of God's distance from us, but on the contrary, in terms of his

relationship with us in Jesus Christ. God's glory is that he remembers us, and does

not abandon or reject us, despite what we deserve. God's glory is ultimately

expressed in God's self-giving in the incarnation of his Son: "In thy dear Son Jesus

Christ, our Lord, thou hast given us nothing less than thyself and all that is thine."778

This affirmation is the basis for praise to God for his mercy in this life and beyond.

Confession of human failing follows: "We spread before thee all that troubles us, our

mistakes, our errors, and our transgressions, our sorrows, and cares, also our rebellion

and our bitterness."779 This is immediately followed with the assurance of God's

saving action in Jesus Christ. Thus Barth prays: "We commit all of this into you

faithful hands which thou hast outstretched in our Saviour. Take us as we are..

Intercession for others follows. The prayer concludes with the corporate reciting of

the Lord's Prayer.

Again, it is evident that the content of this prayer is guided by Barth's christological

understanding of God and of salvation already accomplished. It is therefore based on

past revelation, i.e., criterion Revelation.

i. Concluding Summaryi. Form

In the analysis provided above, it has been shown that the sermon exhibits all the

structural elements designated by Barth for the specific form of the sermon. These

may be listed as follows: (a) it is written; (b) the opening and concluding prayers are

included in the transcript; (c) it is textual and not thematic; (d) the structural divisions

are determined by the text; (e) it does not seek to establish a point of contact in a

special introduction; (f) it combines exposition and application throughout; (g) it has

778 DC, 27779 DC, 27780 DC, 27

145

no special conclusion, but ends with an invitation for response at the end of the

exposition.

ii. ContentFurthermore, it has been shown that the content of the sermon definitely conforms to

the nine criteria for the sermon outlined by Barth, and grounded in his wider

dogmatics. This can be summarised as follows:

The sermon has been guided by Barth's primary criterion Revelation, i.e., that the

sermon must conform to past and future revelation which is the unconditional whence

and the whither of preaching, as follows:

All five aspects associated with past revelation, are expressed: (a) the sermon has a

christological focus from beginning to end, not only in the exposition but also in the

prayers; (b) God is understood only in the light of Jesus Christ as the God of human

beings, i.e. the God who willed to become man and so the God who is for us; (c)

humanity is spoke of as already included in the Christmas story, and already

transformed in Christ, already set on a new path, and already called even before this is

known or experienced; (d) sin is referred to as yesterday 's misery in the light of the

coming of the Savour, and confession of sin (in the concluding prayer) is made only

in the context of the assurance of forgiveness already received; and (e) the one

imperative in the sermon comes at the end, and is based solely on the indicatives of

the Gospel already announced and explained.

The focus on future revelation is also evident in the following ways: (a) in the

expectation of the opening prayer, which invokes God himself to open the hearts and

minds of the congregation so that they might understand what he has already done for

them; (b) in the introductory comments at the beginning of the exposition, where it is

emphatically asserted that the message of Christmas can only be truly heard from the

angel of the Lord, who is present to announce God's message directly from heaven in

the event of the sermon.

146

The sermon is also consistent with criterion Church. The occasion of the sermon is a

Christian gathering. The sermon makes a point of emphasising the corporate nature of

Christianity. A corporate reciting of the Lord's Prayer concludes the sermon.

It is also evident that criteria Heralding and Spirituality are reflected in the prayers at

the beginning and the end. These indicate the preacher's dependence on God and the

preacher's expectation that God will speak for himself in and through the sermon.

(Criterion Ministry may possibly be included here, as Barth understands ministry as

participation in what the true Minister is doing, i.e., participation in Jesus Christ's

self-witness).

It has already been shown that the formal aspects of the sermon comply with criterion

Scripture. This is true also for the actual content of the exposition. The outline above

has shown that the sermon is not strictly an exegesis of the text, but rather an

exposition of the Gospel, as Barth understands it. Although beginning with the text it

moves beyond it to Jesus Christ the theme of the text. This conforms to Barth's

hermeneutic of reading the text according to "the way of witness," i.e., with Jesus

Christ as its objective referent. The text therefore functions only as a pointer to him.

Finally, criteria Originality and Congregation are evident in the combination of

exposition and application throughout, i.e., in the preacher's own words personally

addressed to a specific audience in the expectation of their personal response.

147

2. The Criminals With Him

The form and content of Barth's 1957 Good Friday sermon, "The Criminals with

Him" is as follows:

a. TranscriptThe sermon is in the form of a written transcript that includes an opening and closing

prayer. It is therefore consistent with Barth's criterion Church in which preaching is

considered a liturgical event.

b. Opening PrayerThe inclusion of the prayer in the sermon transcript is consistent with Barth's view

that one cannot preach without praying as per criterion Spirituality.

The content of the prayer has been shaped by criterion Revelation, both past and

future revelation. This is evident from the following:

(1) The prayer reflects Barth's understanding of past revelation. (a) It begins with the

assertion that their gathering is to commemorate what God has already done in Jesus

Christ, i.e., "the fact that thy masterly and fatherly plan with the world and with

ourselves has been carried out."781 (b) The next phrase affirms that what happened to

Jesus was for their benefit "thou didst permit our Lord Jesus Christ to be imprisoned

that we may be free, to be declared guilty that our guilt may be taken away, to suffer

that we may have joy, to be put to death that we may have eternal life," 782 i.e., God's

act in Jesus Christ is the of human existence. (c) The confession of

human lostness and unworthiness is freely made in the next part of the prayer, but

only in the context of the affirmation of God's majestic mercy expressed in the

incarnation. Thus the prayer goes: "Left to ourselves we are lost. None of us

781 DC, 75782 DC, 75

148

deserved to be rescued, not one. Yet in thy great majesty and mercy thou hast made

common cause with our misery and our sin in order to lift us up."783

(2) The prayer also reflects Barth's view of future revelation. (a) It asserts that the

they can only gratefully appreciate, comprehend, and acknowledge what God has

done for them if the risen Lord comes into their midst to reveal it to them: "This can

only happen when the same living Saviour who suffered for us, was crucified, died

and was buried, now enters into our midst. Only when he speaks to our hearts and

consciences, opening them to thy love and teaching us wholly to trust and to live on

thy love alone"784 can this take place. (b) It concludes with a humble but confident

request that this will happen by the power of the Holy Spirit.

c. Biblical TextThe sermon is drawn exclusively from Luke 23: 33 "They him with the

criminals, one on either side of him." It is therefore not thematic or topical, but

textual and so conforms to Barth's criterion Scripture.

d. StructureThe sermon's structural divisions are not imposed, but are drawn directly and

naturally from the text. There are three divisions as follows: (1) With the criminals;

(2) they crucUled him; (3) one on either side of him. Each phrase is expounded

consecutively, in the order in which it appears in the biblical text. In this it also

conforms to criterion Scripture.

e. IntroductionThe sermon begins with the invitation extended to the congregation to read the story

of Good Friday in the Gospels for themselves. This story, Barth claims "contains the

whole history of the world and, what is more, of God's dealing with man and hence of

our dealings with God, including the life history of each of us here."785 With this

statement Barth introduces the main focus of his sermon. He is going to speak of the

783 DC, 75784 DC, 75785 DC, 76

149

death of Jesus Christ as both the history of God and of all humanity. Behind this

assertion is his understanding of revelation as a past event in which God himself acted

in Christ to reconcile the whole world to himself, i.e., criterion Revelation.

There is obviously no special attempt in this introduction to secure the attention of the

audience. The main premise of the sermon is simpiy announced. It clearly conforms

to Barth's insistence that the sermon should attempt to speakfrom revelation, and not

in any way try to create or evoke some response in the congregation.

f ExpositionThe rest of the sermon seeks to expound the text in the light of Barth's understanding

of the death of Jesus Christ as the history of God and the world. The sermon is not a

simple exegesis of the text but a proclamation and explanation of the Gospel, as Barth

understands it. This may be outlined as follows:

1. With the criminalsThe first section draws attention to the fact that Jesus died in solidarity with criminals.

Barth makes the surprising claim that because Jesus Christ was associated with

criminals in his death, and because the criminals actually died with Christ, the

criminals constituted the first Christian community.

Barth asks: "Which is more amazing, to find Jesus in such bad company, or to find the

criminals in such good company?"786 Both were true. All three hung together sharing

the same public abuse, incessant pain and inevitable fate. All three had been arrested

and condemned and crucified. They were joined in a solidarity and fellowship that

was irreversible. Although many paintings of the crucifixion omit the criminals on

either side of Jesus, Barth says that if one must paint the crucifixion scene then it is

essential that the criminals be included.

Barth anticipates surprise when he announces that the criminals with Jesus formed the

first Christian fellowship or community. He acknowledges that previously there had

been a community around Jesus made up of the disciples whom he had called. These

786 DC, 76

150

disciples had accompanied Jesus in Galilee, and followed him to Jerusalem, and

witnessed what he said and did. But they were a "vacillating, doubting

community."787 They had slept in Gethsemane, fled at his arrest, one had betrayed

him, and another had denied him. In contrast, the criminals who had probably never

heard of Jesus before and who were certainly not believers or saints, could not sleep,

abandon him, deny him, or dissociate themselves from him, as the disciples had done

- for they were nailed to their crosses beside him! This, Barth says, is why they form

the first Christian community. The disciples did join the Christian community later,

but they were next in line to the criminals before them!

Already evident in the exposition is criterion Revelation. The claims made here are

consistent with Barth's understanding of past revelation as the objective reality of

reconciliation, i.e., as an event that took place in God's action in Jesus Christ not in

the first instance in the subjective experience of Christians. The criminals are

understood as the first Christian community, not because of any subjective response

they have made to Jesus Christ, but solely on the basis of the objective reality that

Jesus Christ died with them and they with him. Criteria Originality and Congregation

are also evident. Barth's novel claim that the criminals were the first Christians must

have been particularly appealing and relevant for the prisoners listening to this

sermon!

ii. They HimIn the next section Barth draws our attention to Jesus: "the principal actor, the hero of

Good Friday, the head of the first Christian community."788 Having already declared

that Christ died with criminals, the sermon goes on to explain the meaning of his

death and its implications for our understanding of God and all human beings.

What actually happened when Jesus Christ was crucified? The answer given is

twofold: (1) visibly, he died as other ordinary men have died before and since; (2)

invisibly, he died as the man in whom God was present and at work: 'He [God] was in

Christ reconciling the world unto himself' (2 Corinthians 5:19).

787 DC, 77788 DC, 78

151

Barth's explanation of the invisible event in the death of Jesus Christ begins with the

assertion that despite the world's opposition to God, God refused to allow his original

loving purpose for the world to be thwarted. "It so happened," Barth says, "that in

this man Jesus, God himself came into the world, which he had created and against all

odds still loved." 789 He took human nature upon himself "in order to put an end to

the world's fight against him and also against itself, and to replace man's disorder

with God's design."79°

Barth goes on to stress the obedience of the man Jesus. He perfectly fulfilled the will

of God, and so realized in time, God's eternal intention for all humanity. As the man

who is also God, he actually fulfilled the prayer he taught his disciples to offer to

God. In his action God's name was hallowed, his kingdom came, his will was done,

his glory manifest, and evil was overcome. Thus, in an amazing way, the

manifestation of God's glory in his Son was for our salvation. By virtue of God's act

in Christ, humanity has been totally and eternally healed. Barth asserts that God "not

only bandaged, but healed the wounds of the world; he helped mankind not only in

part and temporarily, but radically and for good in the person of his beloved Son; he

delivered us from evil and took us to his heart as his children. Thereby we are all

permitted to live, and to live eternally."79'

The sermon asserts that God "cancelled out"792 and "swept away"793 all that offended

him, and all that made our lives difficult, for ourselves and for others, i.e., all our

wickedness, pride, anxiety, greed, and falsehood. No matter what it was or who we

are, God "crossed out,"794 "did away with,"795 and "put behind us,"796 all that made

our life "terrifying, dark and distressing."797 It is now "no longer part of us."798 All

this happened in the crucified Christ. In that event God took on himself the full load

of humanity's evil and died condemned as a criminal, as though he were guilty of all

789 DC, 79790 DC, 79

DC, 79792 DC, 79

DC, 79DC, 80DC, 80

796 DC, 80DC, 80

798 DC, 80

152

that we have done and do. By removing the burden from us and taking it on himself,

he reconciled us to himself. He saved us and freed us to live eternally in his kingdom.

The invisible event that took place in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ was our

reconciliation: "his danination our liberation, his defeat our victory, his mortal pain

the beginning of our joy, his death the birth of our life."799 Those with evil intent,

who put Jesus to death, unknowingly accomplished God's good will for the world.

All of this is a simple restatement of Barth's understanding of the Gospel as presented

in the Church Dogmatics. Here, as there, Barth begins with the doctrine of election,

i.e., God's loving decision to become man in order to bring to pass his "design" for

sinful humanity, his "good will for the world." The incarnation is understood as the

realisation in time of this eternal decision. Jesus Christ is the one who is both God

and man. As such he is the Reconciler and the reconciled, i.e., he fulfilled the prayer

that he himself offered; as the Judge who is also the judged, he judged us by judging

himself, dying the death of a criminal in our place.

This section of the sermon clearly conforms to criterion Revelation. Its emphasis

throughout is on the past tense objective reality of reconciliation accomplished by

God in the life and death of Jesus Christ.800 Significantly, it is only here in the second

section of the sermon, which concentrates on God's act of reconciliation in the death

of Christ that the problem of human sinfulness is raised, i.e., only in the context of it

already having been overcome in God's reconciling act.

iii. One on either side of himBarth now brings our attention back to the two criminals. Even though we do not

know their names, their crimes, or their guilt (although one admitted 'receiving the

due reward of our deeds'801), we do know that against their will, they were crucified

with Jesus. They witnessed directly, as no one else, "God's act of reconciliation,

799 DC, 808001he sermon asserts: God's name was hallowed, his kingdom came, his will was done, his glory wasmanifest for our complete salvation and all evil was overcome (i.e., the Lord's prayer has beenfulfilled). All that offends God, and all that makes life difficult for us, and others (i.e., our wickedness,pride, anxiety, greed, false pretences), has been dealt with in the death of Jesus Christ. Humanity hasbeen reconciled to God, saved and freed by him. The world has been redeemed. The invisible eventthat took place in the death of Jesus Christ was the victory of God, the accomplishment of the salvationof the world, and the overcoming of death. All of this is in the past tense, i.e., an accomplished reality(DC, 79-80).801 DC, 81

153

God's glory and the redemption of the world."802 Despite their individual reactions to

Jesus (one acknowledged Jesus and the other mocked him), the fact is that both were

there with Jesus in his death.

Barth then goes on to make two further points: (a) The first is that Jesus died not only

with criminals as a criminal himself, but only for criminals: "He did not die for the

sake of a good world, he died for the sake of an evil world, not for pious, but for the

godless, not for the just, but for the unjust, for the deliverance, the victory and the joy

of all, that they might have life."803 (b) The second is that the criminals witnessed the

saving act of God in the death of Jesus Christ by participating in it personally. They

experienced, "at their side, even in their own existence,"804 the invisible event that

took place in the death of Jesus: i.e., the glory and the victory of God, which

accomplished the salvation of the world. They died with the one who is the King of

Life, the one who entered into death only to overcome it. His death was the path to

his resurrection! But if these criminals literally died with Christ, Barth argues that the

promise in Romans 6:8 "But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also

live with him," must belong to them. Although we do not know whether they actually

experienced this promise, it is certain, Barth insists, that they were included in it.

In language characteristic of evangelical appeal, Barth then asserts to the congregation

that it is by this promise alone the Christian community is constituted. The

community exists only where this promise is heard and believed. The promise,

however, is only given to "crucified criminals," i.e., to those who are "utterly

compromised before God and before man, who move relentlessly toward the end and

cannot escape this destiny by their own doing."805 It is only for these people that

Jesus died: "And mark this," Barth says, "precisely these, and these only, are worthy

to go to the Lord's Supper."806

Again in this section Barth has been guided in his exposition by his understanding of

the objective reality of reconciliation that has taken place in Jesus Christ, and which is

802 DC, 81803 DC, 81804 DC, 82805 DC, 82-83806 DC, 83

154

the determination of all humanity, i.e., criterion Revelation. The emphasis is on the

objective participation of all sinful human beings in the death and resurrection of

Jesus Christ. The Christian community is differentiated from others, not in being

sinless, but on the contrary, in their open acknowledgement of their sinfulness! They

are free to do this in the context of hearing of God's reconciling event in Jesus Christ

and believing that it is true for them. They differ only in that they acknowledge and

accept what is true for all humanity in Jesus Christ.

g. ConclusionThe concluding paragraph is characterised by personal appeal. Whether we want it or

not, Barth says, the fact is that all of us (those in the prison and those outside) are

crucified criminals: "In reality, we all are these people, these crucified criminals."807

He then urges directly: "Are we ready to be told what we are?" "Are we ready to hear

the promise given to the condemned, to 'get in line behind'? We must not refuse to

'get in line behind' the first criminals. May God give us grace so that we may humbly

do Barth means here, of course, that we must acknowledge our sinfulness and

accept the fact that we have been crucified with Christ. In this acknowledgement,

which can only be a work of God's grace in us, we enter into what is already true.

Thus, in this simple direct way the exposition of the sermon ends. There is no attempt

to patronise or coerce a decision.

It is consistent with Barth's criterion Revelation that Barth leaves to the final

paragraphs the urging of this one imperative of the sermon, i.e., "get in line behind"

the two criminals. Only after the indicatives of the gospel have been announced and

explained is this imperative urged, not vice versa.

h. Concluding PrayerThe concluding prayer begins with affirmations concerning God's mercy and power

understood from the perspective of the incarnation: "0 Lord our God, merciful and

almighty Father! How thou doest love this evil world that thou hast willed to send

807 DC, 83808 DC, 83

155

thine only begotten Son on such a strange journey to save the world and us with it!"809

Then follows an invocation for God to grant "again and again that some come to

recognize thy way with Jesus and with ourselves and thus may find peace according

to thy will."81° Intercession follows. The prayer concludes with thanksgiving that

"Jesus lives and that we may live with him" and that they can share in the Lord's

Supper "as a token of this promise."81' Again, the shaping of Barth's criterion

Revelation is evident.

i. Concluding Summaryi. Form

In the analysis provided above, it is clear that this sermon also exhibits all the

structural elements designated by Barth for the specific form of the sermon, namely:

(a) it is written; (b) the opening and concluding prayers are included in the transcript;

(c) it is textual and not thematic; (d) the structural divisions are determined by the

text; (e) it does not seek to establish a point of contact in a special introduction; (I) it

is an exposition of the text in the light of Barth's understanding of the Gospel (g) it

combines with the exposition personal application throughout; and (h) it has no

special conclusion, but ends with a simple invitation for response at the end of the

exposition.

ii. ContentThe analysis has also shown that the content of the sermon has been guided by

Barth's criterion Revelation, i.e., its whence and whither is past and future revelation:

(1) All five aspects associated with past revelation, have been found: (a) its focus is

christological, i.e., the sermon is essentially an announcement and explanation of

what God has done in the death of Jesus Christ, "the principal actor, the hero of Good

Friday"; (b) God's act in Jesus Christ is the beginning point for the portrayal of God

as the one who refuses to allow his original loving purpose for the world to be

thwarted by its sinfulness, and whose majesty is his mercy; (c) its central assertion is

that the story of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ "contains the whole history of

809 DC, 83810 DC, 83811 DC, 84

156

the world," i.e., the objective reality is that all humanity have participated in the death

and resurrection of Jesus Christ and so already have been judged and accepted in him;

(d) human sinfulness is only discussed in the context of its obliteration in the death of

Jesus Christ; and (e) the one imperative "to get in line behind" comes at the end of the

sermon, and is firmly grounded in the Gospel indicatives.

(2) The need for future revelation is also expressed in the opening and concluding

prayers, and in the prayer that concludes the exposition, for God to give grace so that

those who have heard the sermon will respond appropriately.

In regard to the other criteria: criterion Church is evident in the reference to the

"Christian community" throughout the sermon, and in the congregational context, i.e.,

their gathering for prayer and the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The assertion of

the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ is consistent with criterion Confession. The

influence of criteria, Ministry, Heralding and Spirituality is evident particularly in the

content of the prayers in which the preacher expresses his need for God himself to

speak in the event of the sermon. Criterion Scripture is reflected in the source and

structure of the sermon as outlined above. Finally, criteria Originality and

Congregation are reflected in Barth's own exposition of the text, which is particularly

addressed to, and appropriate for his audience.

157

3. You Will Live Also

The form and content of Barth's 1955 Easter sermon, "You Will Live Also" is as

follows:

a. TranscriptThe sermon takes the form of a written transcript. The transcript includes the opening

and concluding prayer. It therefore meets Barth's criterion Church.

b. Opening PrayerThe opening prayer reflects the two aspects of Barth's criterion Revelation. This can

be shown as follows:

(1) The initial part of the prayer is couched in the past tense, indicating that the basis

for its invocation is the past event of revelation. Easter, for example, is spoken of as

the day "when thou hast revealed thy beloved Son."812 The action of God in Christ in

removing our sins, misery and death has taken place. "He has taken upon himself,"

Barth says, "all our sins, our human misery and death in our place expiated, suffered

and once for all, conquered and dismissed them."813 The prayer offers thanksgiving

for the freedom that we now have to trust God, i.e., "to look away from ourselves to

thee,"814 because of what God has done for us, and the whole world.

(2) But the prayer also expresses the expectation that God will speak in the sermon.

This is evident, for example, in the request: "Grant sincerity to our speaking and our

listening — that thy true word may govern, move and replenish us in this hour — that it

may comfort, encourage and admonish us all by its power — that our poor praise may

be pleasing to thee!"815

812 DC, 28 (emphasis mine)813 DC, 28814 DC, 28815 DC, 28

158

c. Biblical TextThe sermon is drawn from John 14: 19. It is not thematic or topical, but is drawn

exclusively from the biblical text. It therefore conforms to criterion Scripture.

d. StructureThe first section of the sermon concentrates on the primary affirmation of Jesus

Christ: (1) I live. The second section expounds the subsequent affirmation about us in

the light of this (2) you will live also. These phrases are drawn exclusively from the

text and expounded in the order in which they appear in the text. Two other New

Testament references are cited with brief comment in the introduction. In this way,

the sermon again conforms to criterion Scripture.

e. IntroductionBarth's opening statement is direct and to the point: "My dear brothers and sisters, I

live. Jesus Christ said that, and now he is saying to us again: 'I live."816 To help

explain these words Barth immediately refers to two other sayings of Jesus:

(1) The first saying is: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the

midst of them." To be gathered in the name of Jesus means that they are not gathered

in their own name. We are gathered, Barth says: "Not because we enjoy dealing with

him, but because he is pleased to deal with us. Not because we are for him, but

because he is for us. Not because we have earned the right of his companionship, but

because he has paid the highest price for our companionship with him."817

(2) The second saying is: "Come to me, all who labour and are heavy-laden, and I will

give you rest." This promise, Barth says, was not only made by Jesus but also

validated by him "through the mighty act of his entire life and death."818 As the risen

Lord, shepherd and teacher, he calls and creates a community in which he is present

today, to speak the truth about himself: i.e., that he lives.

816 DC, 29817 DC, 29

DC, 29

159

Barth then observes that Jesus' statement about himself, I live, is followed by an

affirmation about us: 'Because I live, you will live also.' This means that when Jesus

speaks about himself he is also speaking about us. Barth says: "Hence when Jesus

says 'I live,' he speaks about the redemption of our life, of its freedom and holiness,

its righteousness and glory."819 Even though his life is very different to ours, we will

never understand ourselves, Barth says, until we appreciate the "all-inclusive

affirmation about him."82°

In these preliminary comments, Barth has introduced the two parts of the text that he

will go on to expound. It is evident that there has been no attempt to establish a point

of contact with the audience. The introduction immediately launches into the

exposition. The text is simply announced and then explained in the context of other

sayings of Jesus. In this way the introduction conforms to criterion Revelation, i.e.,

one begins immediately with the announcement of what God has done and will do

without any special attempt to create a reception for this message through human

means.

f ExpositionFollowing the introductory exposition the sermon concentrates on the two aspects of

the text already nominated.

i. I liveIn this section the focus is on Jesus Christ himself. What does Jesus Christ mean

when he says I live? Barth's explanation is based on the assertion that the man Jesus

Christ is also the Son of God, fully human and fully divine. As a man the divine life

of Jesus Christ is lived for us, and as the Son of God his human life is lived with us

and as us. These four points are expressed as follows:

Firstly, Jesus means: "I live as true man my divine ltfè."82' The man Jesus Christ,

Barth asserts here, is also "the eternal and almighty God who has created heaven and

819 DC, 29820DC 29821 DC, 30

160

J

earth and is the source and fullness of our life."822 Yet, he has not kept his divine life

to himself, or at a distance; nor has he given to usoccasionally from his fullness, but

he has chosen to be our God and to share all of himself with us.

Secondly, Jesus means: "I live my divine life for you."823 Barth goes on to say that

the unique thing about Jesus Christ is that he lives his divine life by loving us, by

willingly taking our place, and by giving his life for all of us. It is because he does

this in the power of his divine life that it has saving power for us, cancelling our sin,

guilt, misery and death. He has chosen to live his divine life in this way i.e. by giving

it in order to save us.

Thirdly, Jesus means: "I live my human as the true Son of God."824 Here, Barth

asserts that Jesus Christ lives "the life of a weak, of a solitary, of a tempted man dying

in shame, like you, totally like you."825 He does not reserve a better human existence

for himself, nor refuse the misery of our human existence. He became truly man like

us, the neighbour and brother of the most needy, dependent on God's mercy alone.

Fourthly, Jesus means: "I live my human life without opposition or resistance as your

own, such as life is."826 Barth says that Jesus Christ is not just a man like us, but the

representative man who lifts from us the burden of our folly and wickedness, anxiety

and despair, by accepting it on himself. He also lifts us up by converting, renewing,

baptizing us in himself, and transforming our perdition, sin, and death into

redemption, righteousness and life, that we might be born again, glorify God, and

become pleasing to God.

In summary: Barth asserts that we must understand Jesus Christ's Easter affirmation I

live to mean that he lives only to pour out his divine life in service of humanity, and at

the same time to lift up his representative human life in service to God. This twofold

movement, from God to man and from man to God, is the reason why this affirmation

of Jesus Christ must also be followed by an affirmation about us.

822DC, 30823 DC, 30824DC, 30825DC, 30826 DC, 31

161

Clearly the assertions made in this part of the sermon are simple restatements of

Barth's understanding of the Gospel, which centers in the history of God in the man

Jesus Christ. The Gospel affirmations made here are an outworking of Barth's

criterion Revelation with particular reference to past revelation. The central claim

that Jesus Christ is both God and man is consistent with Chalcedon Christology,i.e.,

criterion Confession.

ii. You will live alsoIn the second division of the sermon, Barth makes the important point that the

statement you will live also is not to be read as an imperative, but as an indicative

statement about us, or concerning us, i.e., it is not an obligation but a promise. It is an

announcement of our future because of him. We live because he lives. The sequence

cannot be reversed: 'You will live also' follows 'I live,' Barth says, "like two

succeeds one, B succeeds A, the thunder succeeds the lightning."827

Our future, therefore, issues from, and is assured by his life not our own; his

righteousness and holiness not our sin and guilt; his joy and freedom not our sadness

and captivity; and his life not our death. Our past failures, the past actions or

accusations of others, God's wrath against us that we have deserved, or our previous

grumbling and disbelief in God do not define us. Jesus Christ determines the present

reality about us: i.e., Jesus Christ "is our present." 828 He determines our identity, i.e.,

what is true and valid about us now, regardless of all other considerations.

Barth urges his listeners to accept God's gifts and help. To try to acquire or seize

anything themselves is the character of sin. They are to simply receive what is

already prepared; to see what is before them and hear what is said to them; to open

and stretch out their hands instead of keeping them in their pockets or keeping their

fists clenched; to open their mouths and eat and drink instead of setting their teeth like

children; and to walk forward instead of backwards. By means of these metaphors

Barth simply urges his audience to believe that Jesus Christ determines their present

reality. In believing they will discover that this is so.

827Dc 31-32828 DC, 32

162

They are to let the response of faith take root and grow in their hearts and minds. One

cannot truly hear the announcement of Jesus Christ, Barth says, without the

corresponding answer arising within us. Since all are objectively included in the life

of Jesus Christ, and in the mercy of God, and since all have been born again in him to

a new hope through his resurrection, none should consider themselves excluded.

Barth's assertions in this section of the sermon are also related to his understanding of

past revelation and conform to criterion Revelation. The major emphasis is that the

resurrection of Jesus Christ reveals that God's act in Jesus Christ, the representative

man, is the determination of all humanity. All talk of human sinfulness must

acknowledge that God's judgment on our past has been executed; our sin and death

have been overcome in him. The indicatives of the Gospel are the basis for the one

imperative to simply receive what God has done.

g. ConclusionBarth announces the end of his sermon abruptly. The Lord's Supper, he says, is a

sign that the risen Christ is in their midst, and that all may live because of him.

Although he will not attempt to compel anyone, on the basis that Jesus Christ gave

himself for all, he invites all present to partake.829

h. Concluding PrayerThe concluding prayer also has its basis in the past event of revelation. It begins with

the affirmation that God is our Lord and Father, and that Jesus Christ is God's Son

and our brother. It gives thanks for the objective reality of all that has been

proclaimed: "We give thee thanks that everything is as we have attempted to say and

to hear it once more today."83° This affirmation is the context for the confession of

sin and the intercession for those in need which follows. It ends with the corporate

reciting of the Lord's Prayer.

829 DC, 31-34830 DC, 34 (italics mine)

163

i.Concluding Summaryi. Form

In the analysis provided above, it is evident that the sermon exhibits all the structural

elements designated by Barth for the specific form of the sermon, namely: (a) it is

written; (b) the opening and concluding prayers are included in the transcript; (c) it is

textual and not thematic; (d) the structural divisions are determined by the text; (e) it

does not seek to establish a point of contact in a special introduction; (f) it is an

exposition of the Gospel as Barth understands it, not just an exegesis of the text; (g) it

has no special conclusion, but simply concludes with an invitation for response at the

end of the exposition.

ii. Content

The analysis has also shown that the content of the sermon has been guided by

Barth's primary criterion Revelation. This is evident from the following:

(1) All five aspects associated with past revelation, are expressed as follows: (a) The

sermon focuses on Jesus Christ and his Easter affirmation: I Live. He is affirmed as

the God-man. Barth begins with assertions about him before he makes any assertions

about God or humanity. It is simply announced that as a man his divine life is lived

for us; and as the Son of God his human life is lived with us and as us. (b) The

sermon portrays God, revealed in this man Jesus Christ, as the eternal and almighty

Lord, the Creator of all that exists, but whose majesty is that he chooses to live his

divine life by loving sinful humanity. (c) The sermon also emphatically affirms that

in the life and history of the man Jesus Christ all humanity has been delivered from

sin. Human beings are therefore not to be defined by their past. They are already

converted, renewed and reoriented towards a new life in Jesus Christ. (d) The sermon

speaks only of sin in terms of the victory of Jesus Christ over it, i.e., sin is only

spoken of in the context of reconciliation. (e) Finally, faith is urged on the basis of

indicatives of the Gospel previously expounded.

(2) The focus on future revelation is also evident: The opening prayer, for example,

entreats that God's "true word" will "govern, move and replenish us in this hour — that

it may comfort, encourage and admonish us all by its power."83' The concluding

prayer also invokes the Holy Spirit to "touch us, to awaken us, to make us attentive,

831 DC, 28

164

humble and courageous."832 Clearly, both of these requests are premised on the belief

that God's revelation is not only past but also ongoing in the present. God must speak

again through the risen Christ, or more specifically by his Holy Spirit, if his Word,

which has already spoken through Jesus Christ, is to be heard again today with

contemporary relevance and power.

It is also significant that Barth chooses to couch much of his sermon in the form of

direct speech from Jesus Christ himself. Taking his cue from the text itself, which is a

direct statement of the risen Christ, Barth continues this direct speech in his

exposition. This can be seen, for example, in the first division of the sermon that

seeks to amplify what Jesus meant when he said I live. Instead of explaining this in

the third person descriptive form, Barth places his explanations in the mouth of Jesus

himself He has Jesus say I live means: "I live as true man my divine life"; "I live my

divine life for you"; "I live my human life as the true Son of God"; "I live my human

life without opposition as your own, such as life is."833 Although the words of the

sermon are Barth's own, by placing them in the mouth of Jesus himself in this way,

Barth forcefully, if only implicitly, conveys his belief that Jesus Christ speaks for

himself in and through the preacher's words.

Jesus Christ is not only the Word of God spoken in the past, but he is also the risen

Lord who bears witness today to what he has accomplished for us i.e., he himself is

the True Witness who makes himself known.834 This is explicitly stated in the early

part of the sermon, where the risen Christ is said to be "in our midst even here and

now, testifying to the truth: 'I live.' He is not in the tomb; he is risen, as we have

heard it read from the Gospel. He himself tells us to forget about everything else and

stick firmly to this fact: 'I live."835

Also consistent with Barth's understanding of revelation as an ongoing and future

event is his claim that Jesus Christ is our "present" as well as "our future." This is

conveyed in the promise of the text you will live also, which Barth's expounds at the

beginning of the second division of his sermon.

832 DC, 34833 DC, 30-31834 See CD 4.3

DC, 29

165

Along with criterion Revelation, criteria Heralding and Spirituality may also be cited

as being reflected in: (a) the sermon's clear lack of any attempt to establish a point of

contact with the audience apart from the introductory prayer which calls on God to do

so; (b) the style of armouncement rather than argument that characterizes the whole

sermon (i.e., it is largely indicative statements about Jesus Christ and their

implications for humanity); and (c) in the fact that the conclusion makes no attempt to

force or evoke a decision from the audience (i.e., a clear invitation is extended to all

to accept what God has done and to participate in the Lord's Supper but no attempt is

made to compel this). Behind all of this is the belief that God himself must evoke

attention and response to his own Word, not the preacher.

Criteria Church and Ministiy are evident in the worship context of the sermon (as is

clear from the corporate reciting of the Lord's Prayer and the celebration of the Lord's

Supper immediately following and criterion Confession in the orthodoxy of the

christological claims. Compliance with criterion Scripture has already been

established in the formal considerations discussed above. Criterion Originality is

expressed in Barth's reformulating of the biblical message in his own words, (as

exemplified by the metaphorical images for faith in the last section). Criterion

Congregation is also evident in Barth's combination of exposition and application,

and especially his personal invitation at the end for the congregation to embrace the

message for themselves.

166

4. Look Up To Him

The form and content of Barth's 1956 Ascension Day sermon, "Look Up to Him" is

as follows:

a. Transcript

The sermon takes the form of a written transcript. Included in the transcript is an

opening and concluding prayer. This is an expression of Barth's criterion Church,

which regards the sermon as a liturgical event.

b. Opening Prayer

The content of the opening prayer is consistent with criterion Revelation. This can be

shown as follows:

(1) It conforms to past revelation: (a) it is uttered in the name of Jesus Christ, and

affirms him to be our brother, the one who has ascended, our redeemer and Lord. (b)

It begins with the covenant name of God, 'Lord our God,' and so implicitly claims

that God is already in relationship with us, i.e., that God is the Lord our God. It also

refers to God as our father because he is the Father of the Son, who is by virtue of the

incarnation, our brother, i.e., our relationship with God is determined by our

relationship with his Son. (c) It is explicitly stated that our lives already belong to

God: "Here we are, each one with his life which is not his own, but wholly thine,

wholly in thy hands."836 On this basis God calls us to return to him and to look up to

him, i.e., to acknowledge what is already true. Thus, the prayer asserts: "Thou callest

us: 'Return, you sons of man! Lift up your hearts! Seek what is above!' (d) The

confession of sin and of human sorrow in the prayer is offered in the context of the

affirmation of the forgiveness and joy that God gives, i.e., there is no abstract talk of

sin and human misery apart from the forgiveness of sin and deliverance from

suffering. So the prayer goes: "Here we are. . . each one with his sins, great and small,

836 DC, 43

167

which only thou canst forgive; each one with his sorrows which only thou canst

transform into joy. Here we are nevertheless each one also with his own secret hope

that thou wilt prove to be his almighty and merciful God."837

(2) Barth's understanding of revelation as ongoing in the present is also evident. The

prayer asserts that God calls, and summons his people "this very morning"838 to return

to him, to lift up their heads, and to seek what is above. The prayer asserts that asking

for God's Spirit, and longing for his truth, help, and guidance is what pleases God.

This however, can only be the result of God's work in us. This premise is behind the

invocation: "Wake us up, 0 Lord, that we may be awake!"

c. Biblical TextThe sermon is drawn from Psalm 34: 5 "Look up to him, your face will shine, and you

shall never be ashamed." The sermon is not thematic or topical, but is drawn

exclusively from the biblical text and so conforms to criterion Scripture.

d. StructureThe sermon divisions follow the three clauses of the text (1) Look up to him; (2) your

face will shine; (3) and you shall never be ashamed. These phrases are expounded in

the order of the text. In this it also conforms to criterion Scripture.

e. IntroductionThe Sermon begins directly: "My dear brothers and sisters. "Look up to Him! This is

what we commemorate on Ascension Day: the urgent invitation, the permission and

the command, the freedom we enjoy as Christians and the obedience that is expected

from us to look up to him, to Christ who lived for us, died and rose again."839

Jesus Christ, Barth goes on to say is our Saviour and brother, but also our example

and master.

837 DC, 43838 DC, 43839 DC, 44

168

It is evident that there is no special introduction as such, but the exposition of the Old

Testament text begins immediately. The text is understood as a reference to Jesus

Christ, i.e., it is interpreted according to "the way of witness." In this it complies with

criterion Scripture. The absence of a special introduction conforms to criterion

Revelation.

j Expositioni. Look up to him

The exposition begins with the assertion that Jesus Christ has ascended and is now in

heaven. 'Look up to him,' Barth says, because he is in heaven above and we are on

earth below. The physical heaven is but a sign of a mysterious higher reality that is

above, beyond, and surrounding us. It is the place in which God dwells, and from

which he rules. The man Jesus Christ is the only one who has ascended to heaven.

He lives as the center of this mystery, on the throne of God, the Lord and Saviour of

us all.

The command 'Look up' is not, however, to be taken as the common expression

"Chin up!" There is no help in simply looking up. For all we know, heaven could be

a cruel reflection on an infinite scale of our own human misery. Even more horrible

than this is the thought that God himself could be a cruel tyrant. But these abstract

and speculative ideas of heaven and God are unfounded. The text says that we are to

look up to him, i.e., to Jesus Christ. He defines for us the nature of heaven and of

God. He is "in the center of the encompassing mystery"84° called heaven.

Thus, the sermon affirms that God's act in Jesus Christ defines for us the true nature

of God and of heaven, the abode of God. In this it makes clear Barth's fundamental

dogmatic tenet: i.e., all our thoughts about God and heaven must take their rise only

from Jesus Christ. Our own speculative ideas must therefore be corrected in the light

of God's self-revelation in this man Jesus Christ. In him God has told us about

himself These affirmations are an expression of criterion Revelation.

DC, 45

169

The sermon continues: Who then is Jesus Christ? Barth's answer is twofold: (1) he is

the man in whom God has expressed his love for us by taking on himself our

affliction, injustice, guilt, anxiety, fate and death in order to deliver us; (2) he is also

the Son of God who became our brother in his incarnation so that we could be

children of the Father with him, and so be reunited with God and share in God's

blessing, and the eternal life that God always intended for us. The man Jesus Christ

defines for us the nature of heaven and of God because he is the revelation of God. It

is therefore: "In the face of the Son the face of the heavenly Father is made to

shine."841

These christological affirmations are not found in the text itself, but are brought to it

from Barth's dogmatic starting point: i.e., Jesus Christ as both the humble God and

the exalted man. They reflect the two movements of Barth's doctrine of

reconciliation as outlined in the Church Dogmatics: the Lord who is Servant and the

servant who is Lord; the obedience of the Son of God and the exaltation of the Son of

Man; the Son of God going into the far country and the homecoming of the Son of

Man. Here, as in the there is no separation between the person and the

work of Christ: i.e., who Jesus Christ is, is not discussed except in the light of what he

does and vice versa.842 Again, the reference to Jesus Christ as the one in whom God's

original intention for humanity is realized is an expression of Barth's doctrine of

election, as found in the Dogmatics. For Barth, it is the beginning point of the gospel.

God's eternal intention is for all people to be included in Jesus Christ, and so to be

children of the Father. God's action in Jesus Christ is the realization in time of this

eternal purpose for all humanity. Clearly the assertions in the sermon have deep

dogmatic underpinnings. They are consistent with criterion Revelation, i.e. we must

begin with past revelation in all our talk about God. The classical christological

assertion that Jesus Christ is both God and man also reflects criterion Confession.

To 'Look up to him,' Barth affirms in the sermon, means to "let him" be who he is, to

"acknowledge and believe" 843 that he is for us. It means to keep firmly in mind that

he intervenes for us and that we belong to him. It is to say 'yes' to him, i.e., that he is

841 DC, 45842CD IV.1843 DC, 45-46

170

4:

right and has made things right for us, even the worst of us; to accept his

righteousness without question. It means to believe in him.844

Already Barth has entered into evangelical appeal, i.e., the combination of exposition

and application. The imperative to look up to him is interpreted as a call for a

response of faith to the objective reality already affirmed, i.e., because Jesus Christ is

above us, we should look up to him; because he has made things right we should say a

simple yes, acknowledging this to be so; we should let him be for us who he really is.

The imperative based on the indicative in this way is an expression of criterion

Revelation.

ii. A nd your face will shineIn the second division of the sermon the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in us is

the subject of discussion. This is an inward change that comes about as we believe. It

is described as a miracle, an experience ofjoy and freedom created by God's Spirit.

The phrase "And your face will shine," Barth says in the sermon, is an announcement,

a promise, and an assurance for ordinary human beings. All who truly look up to

Jesus Christ, (i.e. who believe in him), are transformed, changed, and become children

of God. This is an inner change that becomes apparent in their disposition, words and

deeds. They experience joy, despite their sorrow, and express this joy in genuine

laughter. Although we cannot make ourselves joyful, Barth says, we cannot prevent it

if we look up to Jesus Christ. Such joy helps us live uprightly and contentedly. It

also comforts others, because in it they see a reflection of heaven on earth. The best

comfort that we can give our fellowmen, Barth says, "is this reflection of heaven, of

Jesus Christ, of God himself, as it appears on a radiant face."845

The discussion of this subjective aspect of God's work in us by the Holy Spirit after

the announcement of the objective reality of revelation and reconciliation in Jesus

Christ reflects Barth's methodological procedure in the Church There the

objective reality and possibility of revelation in Jesus Christ precedes the discussion

844 DC, 44-46845 DC, 48

171

of the subjective reality and possibility of revelation in the outpouring of the Holy

Spirit.846 Past revelation is the basis for ongoing revelation, as in criterion Revelation.

In this section of the sermon we again encounter evangelical appeal. The

congregation is asked directly: Why is it then that our faces do not shine? It does not

have to be the case, Barth assures. Everyone who looks up to, or believes in Jesus

Christ, experiences a miracle of transformation by the Spirit of the Lord.847

iii. And you shall never be ashamedIn the third division of the sermon, it is asserted that although we have good reason

for fear and shame before God, redemption, justification and preservation have been

accomplished in Jesus Christ. This is why the text says that when we look up to him,

we shall never be ashamed. It is not because of what we deserve, nor is it because our

faces shine that this is so. Our faces shine only because God has established a

relationship with us through Jesus Christ that is already true and valid in heaven and

on earth.

This section of the sermon conforms to the dogmatic axiom that one must not talk of

sin, but only of forgiven sin. It is only in the context of the promise of no shame that

we are free to acknowledge our shame! In the security of God's acceptance

(redemption, justification, preservation) we acknowledge his judgment on all our

thoughts, desires and accomplishments! Here again the sermon reflects criterion

Revelation.

Also in this section the sermon engages in evangelical appeal: All may know strength

in their own lives, Barth asserts, if they would only "look up to him, fearlessly and

brightly."848 If they do so they will be able to repeat in their own hearts the words:

'Bless the Lord, 0 my soul; and all that is within me, bless his holy name! Bless the

lord, 0 my soul, and forget not all his benefits; who forgives all your iniquity, who

heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with

steadfast love and mercy.'849

846 CD 1.2, 1-44, 203-279DC, 46-48

848 DC, 49849 DC, 49

172

g. ConclusionThe sermon ends simply with an invitation to partake of the Lord's Supper.85°

h. Concluding PrayerThe concluding prayer invokes God to speak his Word by his Spirit so that it might

have effect in many lives. Barth asserts that human lips and ears are weak and unable

to express and grasp God's truth, yet God himself can bring about the "firstfruits" of

his Spirit "in our lives and hearts."85' Barth prays that God's Word will have power

to "shine, to heal, and to win" i.e., to be effective in our lives, if it is "rightly preached

and received in the power of thy Holy Spirit."852 These invocations reflect the

dogmatic view that God himself must also speak in the present if his Word to be heard

and so comply with criterion Revelation.

L Concluding Summaryi. Form

In the analysis provided above, it has been shown that the sermon exhibits all the

structural elements designated by Barth for the specific form of the sermon: (a) it is

written; (b) the opening and concluding prayers are included in the transcript; (c) it is

textual and not thematic; (d) the structural divisions are determined by the text; (e) it

does not seek to establish a point of contact in a special introduction; (f) it is an

exposition not simply an exegesis; (g) it has no special conclusion.

ii. ContentThe sermon reflects the shaping of Barth's sermon criteria as follows:

Barth's primary criterion Revelation, i.e., past and future revelation is evident in the

prayers and the exposition itself. The exposition conforms to past revelation as

follows: (a) Beginning with Jesus Christ, the Old Testament text is then read as an

injunction to look up to him. The central assertion of the sermon is that Jesus Christ

is both truly man and fully God: the in whom God has loved us by identifying

with our sin and our misery in his death; and the Son of God who fulfilled God's

DC, 48-49851 DC, 50852 DC, 50

173

eternal intention for us by become our brother and so reuniting us with God. (b) The

sermon affirms that God's act in Jesus Christ defmes for us the true nature of God and

of heaven: "in the face of the Son the face of the heavenly Father is made to shine."853

(c) It is asserted that in the incarnation, the Son of God became the brother of all, and

so all humanity are somehow inextricably involved in the life history of this man who

is also God. In him all human affliction has been overcome and all have been exalted,

lifted up and reunited with God. (d) It does not talk abstractly of sin, but only in the

context of redemption, justification and preservation. (e) Finally, the imperatives of

the sermon are firmly based on the indicatives announced in it. The opening

paragraph does state the imperative of the text: Look up to him, but quickly focuses on

the last word of this phrase: him, i.e., Jesus Christ. This imperative is interpreted as a

call for a response of faith to the objective reality affirmed in the opening sentence

and throughout, i.e., Jesus Christ is above us by virtue of his ascension, and as such he

is our Lord and Saviour.

The sermon content is also uttered in the expectation of ongoing revelation. This is

particularly evident in the second division of the sermon where the transforming work

of the Holy Spirit in us is the focus.

Conformity to criterion Church and associated criterion Ministry is also evident. In

the opening prayer, for example, Barth invokes God to speak in the context of their

gathering. He specifically refers to this context in the following request: "Grant that

everything we do in this hour will be according to thy will, when we pray and sing,

when we speak and listen, when we partake of the Lord's Supper." In the concluding

prayer, Barth's intercession includes reference to "pastors and their congregations."854

The reference to Ascension Day, a church celebration, and the invitation for all to

partake of the Lord's Supper also indicate the ecclesial context of the sermon.

Conformity to criterion Confession is also evident in Barth's classic christological

assertion that Jesus Christ is very God and very man. Criteria Heralding and

Spirituality are both evidenced in the prayers in which God is invoked to speak in the

sermon.

853 DC, 45DC, 50

174

It has already been demonstrated in the formal analysis that the sermon conforms to

criterion Scripture. The sermon also conforms to criterion Originality in that the

sermon's language reflects Barth's own vocabulary.855 Finally, criterion

Congregation is also reflected in Barth's identification with the congregation. This is

conveyed by his use of plural pronouns (we, us, our etc) throughout, and in his

attempt to address the congregation personally.856

For example, characteristic Barthian phrases occur throughout e.g. Jesus Christ is "the man in whomGod has expressed his love for us"; he is "the Son of God who became our brother"; in him weencounter God's "severe kindness"; to believe is to "acknowledge"; the transformation of the Spiritbrings "joy" and "freedom." All of these expressions are catch words repeated countless times in theChurch Dogmatics.856 This is reflected in the illustrations used. He clearly has his audience in mind, for example, when hemuses that without revelation heaven may be simply the magnified projection of our own anxieties,"like one of those dungeons where they used to keep prisoners in centuries gone-by" (DC, 44-45). It isalso evident in his direct references to the audience: e.g., when talking about the possibility of atransformed life Barth specifies that this is for all who believe "here on earth, here in Basel, here in thishouse" (DC, 47). Another way in which Barth attempts to engage the audience is with direct questions.The following questions are raised through out the sermon before they are answered: Could it not bethat above and beyond us, in heaven we are confronted with a stark and merciless mirror, reflecting ourhuman affliction? Who is Jesus Christ? Dear brothers and sisters, why is it then that our faces are notbright? If they were, we would feel fme, would be glad to live uprightly and contentedly in spite ofadversities, wouldn't we? Don't you agree with me that such a change would make a quite definiteimpact on them? Why revived? Do we not all together long for its appearance? Why don't we do it?Why do we withhold from them the one comfort of mutual benefit? Why are the faces we show eachother at best superior looking, serious, questioning, sorrowful and reproachful faces, at worst evengrimaces or lifeless masks real Carnival masks? Why don't our faces shine? Why afraid? They seemto be Barth's attempt to engage with his audience.

175

Chapter Eight: Conclusion

This research has established, by means of an extensive literary review, that the study

of Barth's Church Dogmatics from the perspective of preaching has not been a major

focus in Barthian studies. This is despite the claim made by Barth himself, and

others, that his whole theological programme was orientated towards the task of

preaching.

The research has sought, from the epistemological and theoretical perspective of

critical realist hermeneutics, and through exegetical method, to analyse and interpret

Barth's Church Dogmatics, in order to determine Barth's own views on the

relationship between preaching and dogmatics. It has given due recognition to

Barth's loci structure of the Dogmatics, by surveying each of the relevant sections in

the four volumes, firstly, in regard to preaching, and then, in regard to dogmatics in

relation to preaching. The findings of these surveys have been reported at the

conclusion of each of the relevant chapters. The outcome has confirmed that Barth's

Church Dogmatics is orientated to the task of preaching. The contention that one

must approach it from the perspective of preaching if one is to take this basic concern

seriously has thereby been established.

This conclusion provided the rationale for further investigation of the Dogmatics in

the light of the criteria for the sermon spelled out by Barth himself in his early

lectures on preaching, published much later in Homiletics. After delineating these

criteria and their implications for the form and content of the sermon, points of

correlation between them and the understanding of preaching, already described in the

Church Dogmatics, were indicated. It was found that the criteria outlined in these

early lectures reappeared in the Church Dogmatics, albeit, in a slightly different way.

Then, beginning with the primary criterion for the sermon given by Barth in his early

lectures on preaching, namely, revelation both past and future, a selective, although

extensive, survey of the content of the Church Dogmatics was conducted. Again due

recognition was given to the loci structure of the Dogmatics. The results of this

176

analysis were conclusive. Both aspects of this criterion, and their implications for the

specific content of the sermon, were found to be fundamental to the content of Barth's

mature dogmatic thought. In other words, Barth's fundamental criterion for the

shaping of the form and content of the sermon was demonstrated to be thoroughly

grounded in the form and content of the Church Dogmatics itself. This criterion was

thereby validated as a legitimate point of correlation for testing the dogmatic

determination of Barth's own sermons.

The final part of the research investigated four of Barth's sermons published in

Deliverance to the Captives. This was done by means of a comparative analysis of

their form and content with the sermon criteria and the formal elements of the sermon

spelled out in Barth's early lectures. Particular attention was given to the shaping of

the sermons in the light of Barth's primary criterion of revelation, both past and

future, as the whence and whither of preaching. In the samples analysed, it was found

that in each case the form and content of Barth's sermons consistently exhibited the

influence of these dogmatic criteria.

The fmal conclusion of this research is that not only does the Church Dogmatics

reflect Barth's concern to engage in the dogmatic task for the purpose of preaching,

but the form and content of his own sermons reflect the direct influence of the

dogmatic tenets he has expounded in it. This research therefore demonstrates the

practical and consistent application of Barth's dogmatics for the task of preaching in a

selection of Barth's own sermons.

177

Bibliography

Almond, Philip C., "Karl Barth and Anthropocentric Theology" in Scottish Journal ofTheology Vol. 31, 435-447.

Avis, Paul, editor, "Divine Revelation in Modern Protestant Theology" in Revelation.London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1997, 49-52.

Balthasar, Hans Urs von, The Theology of Karl Barth. Translated by John Dury.Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972.

Barth, Karl, Against the Stream, Shorter Post-War Writings 1946 - 1952. London:SCM Press, 1954.

Barth, Karl, Anseim: Fides Quaerens Intellectum. London: SCM Press, 1931.

Barth, Karl, Cailfor God. London: SCM Press, 1967.

Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics 4 volumes:1.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. edition. Edited by G. W. Bromileyand T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1975.

1.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Translated by G. T. Thomson and Harold Knight. Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1970.

11.1: The Doctrine of God. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance.Translated byT. H. L. Parker, W. B. Johnson, H. Knight, J. L. M. Harie.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957.

11.2: The Doctrine of God. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance.Translated by G. W. Bromiley, J. C. Campbell, Ian Wilson, J. StrathearnMcNab, Harold Knight, and R. A. Stewart. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957.

111.1: The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Translated by J. W. Edwards, 0. Bussey, Harold Knight.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958.

111.2: The Doctrine of Creat/on. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Translated by Harold Knight, G. W. Bromiley, J. K. S. Reid, R. H.Fuller. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960.

111.3: The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley and R. J. Ehrlich. Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1960.

178

111.4: The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance.Translated by A. T. MacKay, T. H. L. Parker, Harold Knight, Henry A.Kennedy, and John Marks. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961.

IV.1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956

IV.2: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958.

IV.3. 1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961.

IV.3.2: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962.

IV.4: The Christian Life. Lecture Fragments. Translated by G. W. Bromiley.Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1960.

IV.4: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Fragment. Baptism as the Foundationof of the Christian Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance.Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969.

Index Volume with Aids for the Preacher. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T. F.Torrance. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977.

Barth, Karl, Deliverance to the Captives. Translated by Marguerite Wieser. NewYork: Harper and Row, 1959.

Barth, Karl, Dogmatics in Outline. London: SCM Press, 1949.

Barth, Karl, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. Translated by Grover Foley.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

Barth, Karl, Gottingen Dogmatics I. Edited by Hannelotte Rieffen. Translated byGeoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Barth, Karl, Letters 1961-1968. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981.

Barth, Karl, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. London: SCM, 1972;Valley Forge: Judson, 1973.

Barth, Karl, The Christian Church Dogmatics IV, 4 Lecture Fragments.Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981.

Barth, Karl, The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London:Oxford University Press, 1933

Barth, Karl, The Humanity of God. Translated by Thomas Wieser and John NewtonThomas. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1968.

179

Barth, Karl, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God According to the Teachingof the Reformation: The Lectures of 1937 and 1938. London: Hodder andStoughton, 1938.

Barth, Karl, The Theology of Schleiermacher. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982.

Barth, Karl, The Word of God and the Word of Man. London: Hodder and Stoughton,1928.

Berkouwer, Gerrit C., The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth.Translated by H. R. Boer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

Biggar, Nigel, editor, Reckoning With Barth: Essays in Commemoration of theCentenary of Karl Barth's Birth. London: Mowbray, 1988.

Bloesch, Donald G., Jesus is Victor!: Karl Barth's Doctrine of Salvation. Nashville:Abingdon, 1976.

Bolich, Gregory G., Karl Barth & Evangelicalism. Madison: Inter-Varsity Press,1980.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1979.

Brown, Cohn, Karl Barth and the Christian Message. Chicago: Inter Varsity Press,1967.

Brown, Robert McAfee, "Introduction" in Casalis, Georges, Portrait of Karl Barth.Translated by Robert McAfee Brown. New York: Doubleday, 1964, xi - xliii.

Casalis, Georges, Portrait of Karl Barth.Translated and introduced by RobertMcAfee Brown. New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Clark, Gordon H., Karl Barth 's Theological Method. Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterianand Reformed, 1963.

Cobb, John B., "Karl Barth" in Living Options in Protestant Theology: A Survey ofMethods. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962, 17 1-197.

Cochrane, Arthur, "The Doctrine of Sanctification: Review of Barth's KirchlicheDogmatik, IV/2" in Theology Today, Vol., 13, 1956, no.3, 376-3 88.

Come, Arnold B., An Introduction to Barth's Dogmatics for Preachers. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1963.

Crotty, Michael, The Foundations of Social Research. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin,1998.

180

Davison, James E., "Can God Speak a Word to Man? Barth's Critique ofSchleiermacher's Theology" in Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 37, 189-211.

Demarest, Bruce A., "Yahweh vs. Baa!: The Barthian Backlash" in Bruce A.Demarest, General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1982, 115-133.

Dulles, Avery, "Model Four: Revelation as Dialectical Presence" in Models ofRevelation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992, 84-97.

Frei, Hans W. Edited by George Hunsinger and William C. Placher, Types ofChristian Theology. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992, 3 8-46,78-94, 147-163.

Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in aTransitional Age. Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1978, 65-77.

Gunton, Cohn E., "Article Review: Bruce McCormack's Karl Barth's CriticallyRealistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936" in ScottishJournal of Theology, 1996, Vol 49(4), 483-91.

Gunton, Cohn E., "Barth, The Trinity, An Human Freedom" in Theology TodayVol.43, no.3, 3 16-330.

Gunton, Cohn E., "The Doctrine of God: Karl Barth's doctrine of election as part ofhis doctrine of God" in Cohn E. Gunton, Theology Through the Theologians: SelectedEssays 1972 - 1995. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996, 88-104.

Hart, Trevor & Daniel Thimell, editors, Christ in Our Place. Exeter: PaternosterPress, 1989.

Hart, Trevor A., Regarding Karl Barth: Essays Toward a Reading of his Theology.Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999.

Hartwell, H., "Karl Barth on Baptism" in Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 22, 10-29.

Hartwe!l, Herbert H., The Theology of Karl Barth: An Introduction. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1969.

Hendry, George S., "The Dogmatic Form of Barth's Theology" in Theology Today,Vol., 13, 1956, no.3, 300-33 1.

Hendry, George S., "The Transcendental Method in the Theology of Karl Barth" inScottish Journal of Theology Vol. 37, 2 13-227.

Heron, Ahistair I. C., A Century of Protestant Theology. Cambridge: LutterworthPress, 1980, 74-98.

Hordern, William, "Karl Barth Today" in Theologians of Our Time. Edited by A. W.Hastings and E. Hastings. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966, 77-85.

181

Hunsinger, George, Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Hunsinger, George, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology. New York:Oxford University Press, 1991.

Jenson, Robert W., "Karl Barth" in The Modern Theologians. Edited by David F.Ford. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1997, 21-36.

Jenson, Robert W., Alpha and Omega: A Study in the Theology of Karl Barth. NewYork: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1963.

Johnson W. S., "Barth, Karl (1886-1968)" in Historical Handbook of Major BiblicalInterpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim. Downers Grove/Leicester: Inter VarsityPress, 1998, 433-439.

Johnson, William Stacy, The Mystery of God: Karl Barth and the PostmodernFoundations of Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

Jungel, Eberhard, The Doctrine of the Trinity. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press,1976.

Jungel, Eberhard, Karl Barth, a Theological Legacy. Translated by Garrett E. Paul.Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986.

Klien, W. W., C.L. Blomberg, R.L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Klooster, Fred H., The Sign of Barth's Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961.

Kung, Hans, The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection.Translated by Thomas Collins, Edmund E. Tolk, and David Granskou. London:Burns&Oates, 1981.

Lehmann, Paul L., "The Changing Course of a Corrective Theology" in TheologyToday, Vol., 13, '1956, no.3, 332-357.

Macken, John, The Autonomy Theme in the Church Dogmatics: Karl Barth and hisCritics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

McConnachie, J., The Barthian Theology and the Man of Today. London: Hodderand Stoughton, 1933.

McConnachie, J., The of Karl Barth. London: Hodder and Stoughton,(undated).

McCormack, Bruce Lindley, "Barth in Context: A Response to Professor Gunton",Scottish Journal of Theology, 1996, Vol 49 (4), 49 1-98.)

182

McCormack, Bruce, L., Karl Barth 's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: ItsGenesis and Development 1909 - 1936. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

McLean, Stuart D., Humanity in the Thought of Karl Barth. Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1981.

McTavish, John & Harold Wells, editors, Karl Barth Preaching Thorough theChristian Year: A Selection of Exegetical Passages from the Church Dogmatics.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1978.

Migliore, Daniel L., "Karl Barth's First Lectures in Dogmatics: Instruction in theChristian Religion" in Karl Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics: Instruction in theChristian Religion Vol. 1. Edited by Hannelotte Reiffen. Translated by Geoffrey W.Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, xv-lxii.

Modin, Battista, "Barth's Doctrine of Analogy of Faith" in The Principle of Analogyin Protestant and Catholic Theology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1968, 147-173.

Molar, Paul D., Karl Barth and the Theology of the Lord's Supper: A SystematicInvestigation. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1996.

Molnar, Paul D., "The Function of the Immanent Trinity in the Theology of KarlBarth: Implications for Today" in Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 42, 3 67-399.

Mueller, David L., Karl Barth. Waco: Word, 1972.

O'Grady, Colm, The Church in the Theology of Karl Barth. Washington: CorpusPublications, 1968.

O'Grady, Colm, The Church in Catholic Theology: Dialogue with Karl Barth.London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969.

Osborne, Grant R., The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction toBiblical interpretation Downers Grove: Intervasity Press, 1991.

Parker, T. H. L., Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Provence, Thomas E., "The Sovereign Subject Matter: Hermeneutics in the ChurchDogmatics" in Donald K. McKim (ed) A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics:Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Pugh, Jeffrey C., The Anselmic S/üft: Christology and Method in Karl Barth 'sTheology. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1990.

Reist. J. S., "Commencement, Continuation and Consumation: Karl Barth's Theologyof Hope" in Evangelical Quarterly, Vol., 59, July 1987, 195-2 14.

Roberts, Richard H. A Theology On Its Way?: Essays on Karl Barth. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1991.

183

Rodin, R. Scott, Evil and Theodicy in the Theology of Karl Barth. New York: PeterLang Publishing, 1997.

Rosato, Philip J., The Spirit As Lord: The Pneumatology of Karl Barth. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1981.

Runia, Klaas, Karl Barth 's Doctrine of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1962.

Smart, James D., The Divided Mind of Modern Theology: Karl Barth and RudolfBult,nanmn, 1908-1933. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, i967.

Sykes, S. W., editor, Karl Barth: Centenary Essays. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1989.

Tate, W. Randolph, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach Peabody:Hendrickson, 1991.

Thompson Geoff & Christiaan Mosert, editors, Karl Barth: A Future for PostmodernTheology? Hindmarsh: Australian Theological Forum, 2000.

Thompson, John, "The Humanity of God in the Theology of Karl Barth" in ScottishJournal of Theology Vol. 29, 249-69.

Thompson, John, Christ in Perspective in the Theology of Karl Barth. Edinburgh: StAndrew's Press, 1978.

Thompson, John, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Karl Barth. Allison Park:Pickwick Publications, 1991.

Torrance, Thomas F., "Karl Barth" in Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 22, 1-9.

Torrance, Thomas F., Karl Barth. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990.

Torrance, Thomas F., Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology, 1910-193].London: SCM, 1962.

Torrance, Thomas F., Space Time and Resurrection Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976.

van Til, Cornelius, The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth andBrunner. Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973.

Villa-Vicencio, Charles, editor, On Reading Karl Barth in South Africa. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Watson, Gordon, God and the Creature: the Trinity and Creation in Karl Barth.Brisbane, Qid.: Gordon Watson, 1995.

184

Watson, Gordon, "Karl Barth and St Anseim's Theological Programme" in ScottishJournal of Theology Vol. 30, 3 1-45.

Webb, Stephen H., Re-figuring Theology: The Rhetoric of Karl Barth. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1991.

Weber, Otto, Karl Barth 's Church: An Introductory report on Volumes I:] to 111:4.Translated by A. C. Cochrane. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.

Webster, John, Barth. London: Continuum, 2000.

Webster, John, Barth 's Ethics of Reconciliation. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995.

Webster, John, Barth's Moral Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998.

Webster, John, editor, The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. Cambridge:University Press, 2000.

Willis, Robert E., The Ethics of Karl Barth. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.

Wingren, Gustaf, Theology in Conflict: Nygren, Barth, Bultmann. Translated by EricH. Wahistrom. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1958.

Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God Augsburg: Fortress Press,1992.

Zahrnt, Heinz, The Question of God: Protestant Theology in the Twentieth Century.London: Collins, 1969, 85-122.

185

Appendix 1: The Need and the Promise of Christian

Preaching

In his address to a minister's meeting in Schulpforta in July 1922, Barth wasembarrassed by the request to introduce and explain "his theology."857 He maintainedthat it was simply a viewpoint rather than a standpoint, a marginal note or correctiverather than a system. It was important to realize, he insisted, that "it did not come intobeing as a result of any desire of ours to form a school or to devise a system; it arosesimply out of what we felt to be the "need and promise of Christian preaching."858Later in the address, Barth said that if he were pressed to nominate a standpoint forhis theology, he would have to say that it was "simply the familiar standpoint of theman in the pulpit."859

Barth explained that as a young minister for twelve years his one great problem was"the specific minister 's problem, the sermon."860 His theological training had notprepared him for this task. Speaking of his he said: "Why, I had to ask myself, didthose question marks and exclamation points, which are the very existence of theminister, play really no role at all in the theology I knew.. .?861 Driven back again andagain each week to the problem of preparing sermons he concluded that all theologyshould be done from the point of view of the Christian preacher. In fact, he told hisfellow pastors, his Romerbrief had actually developed out of his own attempt toaddress the question of preaching. He explained: "it simply came about that thefamiliar situation of the minister on Saturday at his desk and on Sunday in his pulpitcrystallized in my case into a marginal note to all theology, which finally assumed thevoluminous form of a complete commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans."862With the Romerbrief Barth had not been concerned with what preaching was, or howto do it, but with the more basic question of how preaching could be possible at all.863

The great problem that Barth felt as a preacher was the expectation of the gatheredcongregation. They came anticipating that "something great, crucial, and momentousis to happen."864 It was especially disturbing that this anticipation was focusedlargely towards the preacher. Consciously or not, people were looking for answers tothe ultimate and serious questions about life. They came to church wanting to know if

857 "The Need and Promise of Christian Preaching," in Karl Barth Word of God and the Word of Man.Translated by Douglas Horton: Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1978, 97 (WGWM).858 WGWM, 100859 WGWM, 104860 WGWM, 100861 WGWM, 102862 WGWM, 101863 Barth says: "you will best understand it when you hear through it all, the minister's question: Whatis preaching? - not How does one do it? but How can one do it? (WGWM, 103). In correspondence tohis former teacher Adolf von Harnack over his Romerbrief Barth put the thesis that "the task oftheology and the task of preaching are one." To this von Hamack retorted that the "professional chairshould not be turned into a pulpit" (quoted in Eberhard Busch Karl Barth: His Life from Letters andAutobiographical Texts SCM, 1976, 147).

104

186

the Christian God is true. They wanted to encounter God and hear his Word.865 Theycame with their questions seeking answers. Barth lamented that they were oftendisappointed.866

But then there was an even greater problem for the preacher. Barth called this theexpectation of the Bible. What is unnerving about the Bible, he said, is that Godhimself comes to us through the Bible with his answer.867 God's answer seeks acorresponding questionfrom us. Barth said:

[The] Bible has a somewhat uncanny way of bringing into the church situationits own new and tense and mighty (mightier!) expectancy. If the congregationbrings to Church the great question of human life and seeks an answer for it,the Bible contrariwise brings an answer, and seeks the question correspondingto this answer: it seeks questioning people who are eager to find and able tounderstand that its seeking of them is the very answer to their question.868

It [the Bible] is expectant of people who in its question will recognize theirown question as well as God's answer — a final answer, which redeems,recreates, enlivens, and makes happy; an answer which casts the light ofeternity upon time and upon all things in time; and answer which generateshope and obedience.869

Thus, for Barth, God's answer contains a question. This question put to us by God inhis answer, is far more radical than any that we could put to him. As profound as ourquestions may be, they do not plumb the depths of human ambiguity and problems.Only God himself can reveal the true nature of the human condition. God's questionis his word of judgment. It exposes the fact that human beings do not truly andearnestly ask about God.87° Yet, Barth insists, when we hear God's question, hisword ofjudgment, we also hear God's answer, his word of reconciliation. These two,answer and question, question and answer, cannot be separated. We cannot hear thequestion if we have not received the answer; if we have heard the answer we have

865 People come with the question: "Is it true, this talk of a loving and good God, who is more than oneof the friendly idols whose rise is so easy to account for, and whose dominion is so brief?" (WGWM,108) People want to hear the word of God: "Blood and tears, deepest despair and highest hope, apassionate longing to lay hold of that which, or rather of him who, overcomes the world because he isits Creator and Redeemer, its beginning and ending and Lord, a passionate longing to have the wordspoken, the word which promises grace and judgement, life and death, and beyond in the here and now,God's word - this it is which animates our church goers, however lazy, bourgeois or commonplace maybe the manner in which they express their want in so-called real life. (WGWM, 108-109) "The seriousmeaning of the situation in our churches is that the people want to hear the word, that is, the answer tothe question by which, whether they know it or not, they are actually animated, Is it true? (WGWM,110).866WGWM, 110-112867 Barth says: "In the Bible it is not we who seek answers to questions about our life, our affairs, ourwants and wishes, but it is the Lord who seeks labourers in his vineyard" (WGWM, 12 1-122).868 WGWM, 116869WGWM, 121870 Barth says: "it gives his question its first real depth and meaning and in a way that leads even themost frightened, the most humbled, and the most despairing man on to the edge of a worse abyss thanhe has dreamed of, in a way that makes.. .our most instant and urgent question seem trivial and dieaway; in a way that shows us that all our previous questioning has really been preparation and practicefor the question of questions which now arises, Are we asking in dead earnest? Are we asking afterGoa'? (WGWM, 117-118).

187

also heard the question. At one and the same time, God's Word both judges andjustifies, questions and answers, kills and makes alive.871

But how can both the expectation of the congregation and the greater expectation ofthe Bible be realized in. Christian preaching? For this to take place the preacher mustspeak God's Word. But how can the preacher speak God's Word? It waspresumptuous, Barth said, to assume to speak for God or about God. It is humanlyimpossible to do so. Barth held that such presumption was the very error of theProtestant Church of his day. The sacramental theology of the Roman CatholicChurch was also anathema to Barth. One could not bring God's presence through thesacramental act. Such views revealed that both sections of the church had not reallyheard the Word of God in its dialectic of answer and question. Before preachers canbring the answer of the Word of God, he insisted, they must first hear the question inthe very answer they proclaim.872 It is only when preachers know their profoundinadequacy that they become "qualified" for the task of preaching. It must always beremembered, he said, that preaching is an event in which God himself graciouslycondescends to speak through inadequate and sinful human beings.

In the final part of his address, Barth called the church, Protestants and RomanCatholics, to a reappraisal of both church theology and practice in the light of thisunderstanding of preaching. What was needed, Barth urged, was a return to theReformer's view of preaching as service to the Word of God, and also an embrace ofLuther's theologia crucis. He urged the church to hear the Word of God afresh, toreject a theologia gloria for a theologia crucis, and to stand under the crisis (orjudgment of God's Word). In this way, and only in this way, the promise of Christianpreaching could be realized. This, Barth said, was the corrective that his theologysought to bring.

Barth concluded by reiterating that one caunot separate the promise from the need, orthe need from the promise. It is, in fact, the promise of preaching that evokes aprofound recognition of the need of preaching. In the light of this dialectic, Barth saidthat if one felt the need acutely then this meant that one had already received thepromise. Hope for a new Reformation in preaching was assured, he said, when onesighed Veni Creator "You have been introduced to 'my theology' if youhave heard this sigh."8

It is evident from this address that (1) Barth's theology was born out of a deepconcern for the need of Christian preaching to be the event in which God's Word is

871 Barth says: "one simply cannot ask or hear he "question" with out hearing the answer. The personwho says that the Bible leads us to where finally we hear only a great No or see a great void, provesonly that he has not yet been led thither. This No is really Yes. This judgment is grace. Thiscondenmation is forgiveness. This death is life. This hell is heaven. This fearful God is a lovingfather who takes the prodigal in his arms. ;The crucified is the one raised from the dead. And theexplanation of the cross as such is eternal life. No other additional thing needs to be joined to thequestion. The question is the answer" (WGWM, 120).872 Barth says: "As the minister of the people who come or do not come to Church on Sunday, he mustbe the first to give them the answer; as the minister of the Bible he must be the firsi to be prepared tosubmit to God's question by asking the question about God, without which God's answer cannot begiven. If he answers the people 's question but answers it as a man who has himself been questioned byGod, then he speaks — the Word of God" (WGWM, 122-123).873 WGWIVI, 134

188

spoken; (2) Barth's theology was also grounded in the firm assurance of the graciouspromise that Christian preaching can and does become the Word of God; and (3) itwas Barth's view that all theology needs to be a theologia crucis in service of theWord of God in preaching.

189

Appendix 2: The Gottingen Dogmatics

In the GOttingen Dogmatics Barth spelled out even more clearly his view thatdogmatics must be done from the standpoint of the pulpit. In it he defined dogmaticsas "the science of the principles of Christian proclamation."874 His opening thesisasserted that the problem of dogmatics concerned the "scientific reflection on theWord of God which is spoken by God in revelation, which is recorded in the holyscripture of prophets and apostles, and which now both is and should be proclaimedand heard in Christian preaching."875

Whereas, in the "Need and the Promise of Christian Preaching," Barth had focused onthe Word of God as the problem for preaching, here, in his Gottingen Dogmatics, hewas concerned with the Word of God in preaching as the problem for dogmaticreflection. Both preaching and dogmatics, he said, had to do with the Word of God.Preaching involved proclaiming the Word of God and dogmatics concerned reflectingon the content of preaching in the light of the Word of God. A brief outline of Barth'sunderstanding of the relationship between preaching and dogmatics, as presented inthese lectures, follows:

1. The Presupposition of Dogmatics is God's "Ongoing Word"in Preaching

It is in the Gottingen Dogmatics that Barth first introduced his understanding of theone Word of God but three addresses of God. In a way analogous to the doctrine ofthe trinity, Barth maintained that there is only one Word of God, "one authority, onepower," and yet three addresses: revelation, Scripture and preaching. These threeaddresses must not be confused but neither can they be separated. They are not threeWords of God, "three authorities, truths or powers," but one. They are distinguishedby their relations: "Scripture is not revelation, but from revelation. Preaching is notrevelation or scripture, but from both." Each is equally the Word of God: "the Wordof God is scripture no less than it is revelation, and it is preaching no less than it isscripture."876

Preaching is distinguished from the other two addresses of God, i.e., revelation andScripture, in that preaching is the Word of God ongoing today. Barth said:

The Word of God is God's speaking. It is ongoing as Christian preaching. Itis not ongoing as revelation in the strict sense... Nor is God's Word ongoingas holy scripture... But as Christian preaching, which proceeds fromrevelation and scripture (as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and theSon), the Word of God is ongoing. It is present. Naturally, in, with and underChristian preaching, revelation and scripture are present too, but nototherwise.8 7

874 GD, 314875 GD, 3 (italics mine)876GD, 14-15877GD, 15,16

190

With his doctrine of the threefold Word of God, it is not surprising that Barthendorsed the Reformation emphasis on the proclamation of the Word in place of thesacramental action at the altar.878 For Barth, preaching was sacramental. He pointedout that the Reformers and the second Helvetic Confession affirmed the directequation of preaching with God's Word: "The preaching of God's Word is God'sWord."879 Barth was fully aware of the audacity of this claim, and repeatedly spokeof the "daring" of Christian preachers who "venture" to speak the Word of God. Hesaid:

Christian preachers dare to talk about God. Even on the presupposition of themediation of revelation by holy scripture this venture would always beimpossible without the third presupposition that God acknowledges it and willhimself speak as we speak, just as he spoke to the prophets and apostles andstill speaks through them. The Word of God in this third form, as the present-day communication of revelation, is Christian preaching.88°

Barth went on to say that it was the "riddle of preaching" that human words canremain human words yet also become God's Word. But this claim is thepresupposition of dogmatics. He said: "It is on account of Christian preaching, theWord of God today, that we take up the question of the Word of God and thattheology in general and dogmatics in particular are concerned."88' It should be notedthat Barth did not restrict the term "Christian preaching" to sermons.882

2. The Rank of Dogmatics is to Secondary to PreachingBarth placed dogmatics on a "lower rank"883 to revelation, Scripture and preaching.This decision was premised on his understanding of the one Word of God in itsthreefold form. Dogmatics, he said, is not revelation, scripture or preaching, and so itcaimot be God's Word.884 Rather, it is "a second and independent thing, a human

878 Barth says: "The best preaching is as such an equivalent to the kerygma that the Roman CatholicChurch offers every day in the form of the sacrament of the altar. According to the conscious anduniversal view of this Church, that sacrament is the living Word of God today, the daily renewal,presentation, and offering of what took place at Golgotha. We might regard it as an aberration from thetrue line of the Chjjstian Church that sacramental action as the bearer of God's Word should crowd intothe background in this way the personal, oral, responsible witness to the truth. But we have the right toprotest against it only if our own pastors and their congregations are swayed by the consideration thatthe Word of God is at issue in that which the Reformers put in place of the sacrament of the altar" (GD,31).879 Barth says: "the Church of Zwingli and Calvin, maintained this equation loudly and defmitely fromthe very outset. The preaching of God's Word is God's Word: this is how the heading of the secondsection of the Second Helvetic Confession runs, and then goes on to say that whenever God's Word isproclaimed in the churchel by regularly called preachers, we believe that God's Word is proclaimedand is received by believers. No one, then, should either invent another Word of God or expect onefrom heaven" (GD, 32).880 GD, 265881 GD, 16 (italics mine)882 GD, 16883 GD, 16884 Barth says: "a dogmatics which along with its specific aim does not function as Christian preachingis an extremely God-forsaken dogmatics. But such dogma and dogmatics are not Christian preachingand therefore they are not God's Word" (GD, 16-17).

191

word which lives only in relation to the first thing [the threefold Word of God] andwhich is unquestionably secondary."885He conceded that in its critical and corrective role in relation to Christianpreaching,886 dogmatics does stand "above" preaching. Yet this role must beunderstood as one of service not lordship. Dogmatics is "under" preaching because itonly exists because of the Word of God in preaching. If God did not speak inChristian preaching there would be no point to dogmatics. Dogma and dogmaticsmust give way to preaching therefore as the "moon does to the sun." Barth makes thisclear in the following statement:

As a critical authority dogma and dogmatics stand above Christian preaching,which may not escape their service (not their lordship) insofar as preaching isa human act that needs a norm. Yet they also stand under it, for they havetheir origin in it and must yield to it as the moon does to the sun insofar aspreaching, proceeding from revelation and scripture, is itself God's Word.887

3. The Raw Material of Dogmatics is PreachingFor Barth, it followed that if dogmatics is reflection on the Word of God in preaching,then preaching is the phenomenological starting point, or raw material, for dogmatics.He made this clear in his second thesis: "The divine address to which dogmaticreflection must relate directly is preaching, that is, the proclamation of the ChristianChurch which has its basis in revelation and scripture."888 He further stated: "Thisphenomenon of Christian speaking.. . is as it were the raw stuff of dogma anddogmatics. As such it is our methodological starting point."889 And again: "Thepious words of Christian preachers are the fact with which dogmatics always beginsand to which it must always return."890

By beginning with preaching Barth consciously rejected all other starting points fordogmatic reflection (such as religion, piety, religious consciousness, faith,89' andapologetics892). He advanced four reasons for beginning with preaching. These were:(1) historically, dogmatics has always had a critical or guiding role for preaching;893(2) objectively, preaching provides a tangible given for dogmatics;894 (3) functionally,

885GD, 17886 GD, 17-18. This twofold role of dogmatics in relation to preaching will be discussed in detailbelow.887 GD, 18. The primacy of Christian preaching over dogmatics is reflected in Barth's reference topreaching as the front line and dogmatics as the headquarters which has to be there "if anythingessential is to be done at the front." For him dogmatics "stands at a distance from this place of decision[i.e., preaching] and what happens there." (GD, 276).888 The title of Barth's second section of the GD is "Preaching as the Starting Point and Goal ofDogmatics" (GD, 23).889 GD, 23-24890 GD, 280891 GD, 7-12892 Barth insists that dogmatics does not seek to prove anything: "in dogmatics it is not a matter ofadvancing or establishing or proving anything. God's Word as Christian preaching is already therelong before dogmatics, and also, we hope, something of pure doctrine" (GD, 277).893 Barth says: "historically, dogma and dogmatics have never been in fact free presentations of God orof faith, but have always been either criticism of what is actually preached or norms for what ought tobe preached" (GD, 318). See also GD, 26-2 8.894Barth says: "The statements and the groups of statements on which the dogmaticians reflect andwhich they have to reduce to theses are already given, whether they be good or bad, Protestant or

192

preaching gives purpose and relevance to (4) correctively, focusing onpreaching puts dogmatics in its proper place.8 6

4. The Necessity of Dogmatics is the Ambiguity of PreachingThe necessity of dogmatics in the fact that the Church's preaching is a "historical,human, conditioned entity"8 7 and as such is open for questioning. There are"different kinds of preaching"898 and pious words are "ambivalent."899 The"ambiguous phenomenon of Christian speech"90° requires dogmatics. Barth said:

The Church speaks, and it is a serious question (never settled) whether it isspeaking correctly, whether all this Christian talk is to the point, especiallywhen (through understanding or misunderstanding, through human folly ordivine providence or both) people are forced to engage in Christian speaking.What is meaningful here and what is meaningless? What should we say andwhat for God's sake should we not say? What can we do, and what can weavoid, so as not at least to get in the way of God's Word with our own word?Homiletics does not provide the answer to this truly practical rather thanacademic question. Dogmatics does. What is needed is the discovery of basicprinciples, and to find these by way of reflection on the Word of God is thework of dogmaticians.90'

Roman Catholic, liberal or orthodox, appropriate or inappropriate. Preaching goes on from the pulpitsand in the streets, oral and written... The work of reflection on the Word of God in all this Christiantumult, the work of establishing principles in the ocean of unfounded statements which is all around usand in which they are one of the waves — this is the work that dogmaticians must do (GD 28). Incontrast to the intangibility of "pious consciousness," preaching provides an abundant and substantialfocus: "the Christian church does speak; there can be no doubt about that. Once we turn to this,material for reflection is truly present. It is superabundant. There is too much of it" (GD, 29). Seealso GD, 318.895 Barth's understanding of dogmatics provides the reason for it, and so saves dogmatics fromirrelevance. He argues that the Church would be more interested in dogmatics if it were understoodthat dogmatics relates to preaching. See GD, 29, 318.896 For Barth, dogmatics has a secondary role to preaching. It must never be an end in itself. He rejectsthe idea that Christianity is based on adherence to dogmas arrived at by means of dogmatic reflection.He also rejects the idea that preaching is simply the repetition of such dogmas. Suchmisunderstandings are corrected by Barth's placing dogmatics in a subservient role to preaching. SeeGD, 29-30, 318.897 GD, 24898 Barth said of dogmatics: "It is presupposition is the fact of preaching, of different kinds ofpreaching, so that the question has arisen in the Church that there might be on the one hand a preachingthat is pure and correct and true, and on the other hand a preaching that is muddied and perverted andfalse. Agreement on what is true and false, the principle by which to understand God's Word, isdogma" (GD, 27).899 Barth said: "The pious words of Christian preachers are the fact with which dogmatics alwaysbegins and to which it must always return. With intentional ambivalence I say "pious words."Obviously this might mean very different things for us. But the fact itself is ambivalent; this is whatmakes dogmatics necessary" (GD, 280). Barth said again: "The fact to which dogmaiics relates today isambivalent. We do not really do dogmatics as an end in itself, nor for the joy of scholarship, butbecause it is bitterly necessary" (GD, 281).900 GD, 24901 GD, 29

193

5. The Role of Dogmatics is to Assist Preaching to be PureDoctrine

In the light of the ambiguity of Christian preaching, dogmatics has the important roleof assisting902 it to become pure doctrine. Barth said that Christian preaching is puredoctrine if "the word of the preacher gives free play to God's own Word." He wenton to say that: "Insofar as it does this, and should do it, the word of the preacher is thesubject matter of dogmatic work."903 For Barth, pure doctrine must not be regarded ina static way as "a formula or system of formulas" but as "an event, a human actioncorresponding to the simultaneously occurring divine action."904 It is "the humanword that leaves room for God's Word."905 It is leaving "space" for God to speak.906This understanding was behind Barth's preference for the word "pure" over "right" or"correct". He explained:

When I say that doctrine must be pure (and to that extent "right" or "correct",orthe), I mean that it should be clear and transparent like polished glass. It isnot there for its own sake but so that we may see through the human word tothe present, living Word of God. The less it puts a third thing between God'sWord and us; the more it removes every third thing and displaces everythingthat is falsely divine or over arrogantly human; the more positively it is merelya reference or a pointing of the finger compelling us to look at the other thingwith which it is indirectly identical; the more clearly the hidden Word of Godcan shine through the concealing human word, the more it is pure doctrine.907

Barth allowed that God's freedom means that he may not speak even when doctrine ispure or he may speak through the medium of impure doctrine. He also insisted that itwas never in the power of the dogmatician to make preaching the Word of God. OnlyGod can do this.908 Nevertheless, the recognition of God's freedom and humaninability must not lead to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what is said inpreaching, or that dogmatic work is unnecessary.909Dogmatics humbly assists preaching to become pure doctrine by both critiquing andguiding it in relation to its content, in what ought to be said and what ought to be leftunsaid. It deals with the "what" of preaching. Barth explained:

Dogma, and dogmatics as its ongoing discovery, give us guidance anddirection as we answer the question of this "what." They set up border postsand anchor buoys. They tell us what will do and what will not do, what wemay say and what we may not say if what we say is to be Christianpreaching.91°

902 Assisting is an important qualification because it does not lie in the power of the dogmatician tomake preaching to be the Word of God; only God can do this.903 GD, 265904 GD, 274

GD, 275906 GD, 283907 GD, 274908Barth said that dogmatics does not provide a panacea for preaching that is sick but offers "sober andwell-considered advice like a good physician." And again: " Dogmatics does not make puredoctrine.. .but contributes to it" (GD, 278).909 Barth said: "When we have done everything that we are required to do, we should still say that weare unprofitable servants [Luke 17:101, but those who infer from this that we may be indolent servantsshow thereby that they do not understand the matter at all" (GD, 274).910GD, 17-18

194

Barth suggested that the way dogmatics was to do this was to concentrate on the lociof preaching. These were the recurring terms and concepts that preachers use:911

With the help of these commonplaces dogmatics will then try to show in detailin what sense and context, with what presuppositions and consequences, withwhat relations and delimitations such words must be used in order that noblock or brake should stand in the way of God's Word but the human wordshould be a pure mirror for God's glory.912

Barth insisted that dogmatics should never become the content of preaching.913 It is apreparatory act.914 He said that dogmas "have no place in the pulpit, but pastors in thepulpit should give evidence that they know them by their silent adherence to them.They should preach non-dogmatically but with a solid dogmatics behind them."915

6. The Mode of Dogmatics is Reflection on PreachingFrom what has already been said it is clear that the mode of dogmatics is reflection.Dogmatic reflection on the ambiguity of Christian preaching seeks to determine towhat extent it is the Word of God. Barth said:

When the Church receives the Word, the question has to arise: To what extentis the address that takes place in Christian preaching identical with the addressthat took place through the prophets and apostles, with the revelation that gaverise to the prophetic and apostolic kerygma? To what extent is it the Word ofGod?

This is where dogma and dogmatics come in. For reflection is necessary here,and investigation of the meaning or concealed reality within the veryambiguous phenomenon of Christian speech. 916

Barth maintained that since preaching as the Word of God proceeded from revelationand Scripture, dogmatic thinking involved the investigation of preaching by goingback behind preaching to its twofold origin. Such a "methodological movement"Barth described as "scientific reflection," because it was strictly orientated anddirected towards this object, the Word of God in Scripture and revelation. Both wereimportant. The Word of God could not be located simply in the words of the

911 Barth says: "It can pick out a number of key terms that constantly recur in what Christian preacherssay, for example, God, his love, wisdom, power, and similar attributes, creation, providence, sin, guilt,Christ, reconciliation, faith, etc. These terms were called loci, or communes (literally commonplaces):Christian commonplaces, concepts which either explicitly or implicitly will always occur in whatpastors say" (GD, 278).912 GD, 278913 Barth warns his students not to confuse dogmatics with preaching: "we must not confuse dogmaticsand preaching. You should not go out and for a few years overpower your poor congregations with thecontents of your notebooks... .You must draw the content of your sermons from the well which standsprecisely between the Bible, your own concrete situation, and that of your hearers. Homiletics andpractical theology as a whole deal with it. In no case, however, must you draw on my own or any otherdogmatics" (GD, 276).914 Barth says; "Dogmatics is an exercise, an academic exercise, a necessary and useful exercise whenit is done properly, but still an exercise, a preparatory act behind the scenes.. .there is hardly anythingthat we theologians should keep as much to ourselves as dogmatics (GD, 276).915 GD, 278916 GD, 24

195

Scripture nor apart from Scripture. Only as revelation attests itself in and throughScripture could the Word of God be heard. In the light of this fresh hearing of theWord of God, the dogmatic theologian was to critique and guide preaching.917

In his lectures, Barth went on to stress that while the absolute objective norm ofdogmatics was the heteronomy of revelation, the Deus dixit, there were also relativeformal determinates for dogmatics. These were the 'Bible,' 'School' and 'Church.'The dogmatic traditions of particular theological schools, and the confessions of thewider church must be respected. These are, however, only relative guides for judgingthe content of preaching. The Bible, while itself a relative formal determinate, musttake precedence over the other two. The traditions and confessions must be examinedand re-examined in the light of Scripture, which must be read and re-read in the lightof revelation.

Barth also insisted that the absolute subjective possibility of dogmatics was theautonomy of the Holy Spirit. One can only engage in dogmatics in the freedom of theHoly Spirit. He also held that there were relative material determinates for dogmatics.These were faith and obedience, dialectic thinking, and responsible thinking.Dogmatics can only be free human thinking in the context of faith and obedience, i.e.,JIdes quaerens intellectum, "faith seeking understanding," (Anselm' s dictum).Because it is always seeking understanding, dogmatics can only be an ongoingconversation and never a final statement of truth. And because it is human thinking inthe light of revelation, it caimot be speculative or abstract, but must be humanthinking that is determined by its object, i.e., responsible to revelation.

7. Summa,yBarth's Gottingen Dogmatics is clearly orientated towards preaching. In theselectures Barth worked out some of his basic ideas concerning the relationship betweendogmatics and preaching. The outline above has shown that, for Barth: (1) thepresupposition of dogmatics is the ongoing Word of God in Christian preaching; (2)dogmatics is secondary to preaching; (3) preaching is the phenomenological startingpoint for dogmatics; (4) dogmatics is required because of the ambiguity of preaching;(5) the role of dogmatics is to assist preaching to become pure doctrine; (6) dogmaticsis reflection on preaching according to the norm of the Word of God which comes tous in and through the words of the Scripture, while also giving due respect to previousdogmatic reflection and the confessions of the church. It is also autonomous humanthinking in the context of faith and obedience, which is necessarily dialectic andresponsible, and made possible only by the Holy Spirit.

GD, 3, 23, 37-3 8

196