On the Critical Science of Theology (original) (raw)
Related papers
In his The Theology of Karl Barth, Von Balthasar wrote: "Schleiermacher gave Barth a powerful intuition into the unity, grandeur and totality of theology as a scientific discipline." 1 With this, von Balthasar proposed that Barth's thought exhibited a degree of genetic dependence upon Schleiermacher at both a formal and material level. The concern of this essay is not to inquire into such genetic dependence. Rather, it is concerned with the phrase "theology as a scientific discipline." How did these two modern theologians conceived of theology, and in particular dogmatics, as a "scientific discipline"? What is the nature and task of theology under the conditions of modernity, conditions prominently marked by the ascendancy of "science" and the modern research university?
Karl Barth’s understanding of the nature of theology:
In this examination of Barth I have deliberately focussed on his more accessible shorter works, drawing on some of his early as well as his later works. The major themes in Dogmatics are dealt with in these shorter and seemingly more accessible works and enable the reader to get to grips with the core themes of Barth’s work in a more manageable format. The key themes of Barth’s thought that I want to examine are Revelation, Incarnation, Church and Community, and his own understanding of these within the place and function of theology. I want to examine the content of these themes and also place them within Barth’s own context to see how the context informed the theology and vice versa. I then want to examine Barth’s understanding of these themes with reference to their possible applications for the mission of the church in our own context.
KARL BARTH AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
Heythrop Journal-a Quarterly Review of Philosophy and Theology, 2009
It is commonly held that Karl Barth emphatically rejected the usefulness of philosophy for theology. In this essay I explore the implications of Barth's theological epistemology for the relationship and proper boundaries between philosophy and theology, given its origin in Barth's theology of revelation. I seek to clarify Barth's position with respect to philosophy by distinguishing the contingency of its offence from any necessary incompatibility. Barth does not reject philosophy per se, but the way in which philosophy is typically conducted. This is made explicit through an analysis of Barth's censure of the uncritical acceptance in theology of modernist philosophical presuppositions. I nuance Barth's response to a collection of philosophical assumptions that are rarely distinguished in theological literature. Finally, I highlight a representative instance of Barth's reflections on philosophy in relationship to theology, to demonstrate that the criterion for evaluating the usefulness of philosophical assumptions and methods in the service of theology is the same criterion by which theology is itself evaluated.
Scottish Journal of Theology, 2022
Karl Barth's deeply rooted theological convictions directly shaped his pedagogical practice. These convictions continue to merit reflection today. Barth's theological pedagogy is dedicated to his convictions pertaining to: 1) the particularity of theology's subject matter; 2) the necessary embodiment of theology's practice in an ecclesial and confessional tradition; 3) an open and charitable reading of the church's past; and 4) a principled rejection of ideology. These four convictions are explored in this essay with an eye to their relevance and importance for the teaching of theology and contemporary challenges. The essay concludes with a brief account of the dispositions that should accompany these convictions.
Did Karl Barth Put an End to Theology?
Barth's Epistle to the Romans, 2022
Why does the Römerbrief give its readers the impression that theology can never again be done in exactlyt his way? What did Barth accomplish with this book: did he refresh European theology or did he put an end to it? This paper aims at answering this question by dealing with Alasdair MacIntyre's critique of Barth's "first" theology that,according to him, would have led to atheistic theology. The author's contention is that Barth understood theology in the Römerbrief as founded exclusively on context. But although this contextual and anti-theoretical foundation for theology precludes epistemological security, it does not necessarily lead to atheism and to renouncing the theological task. Barth used the concept of "interruption" for theorizing this uncomfortable position for theology.
Theology for the twenty-first century – Going beyond Barth?
Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif, 2013
Dirkie Smit is honoured in this contribution as a theologian who has persistently and ingeniously held together two poles in Reformed theology: Karl Barth's emphasis on Christology: God's salvation and free grace as incarnated in Christ, and Van Ruler's emphasis on pneumatology: the appropriation, application and working out of God's grace in humanity, nature and history, through the indwelling power of God's Spirit. The article, based on cryptic notes in which Van Ruler offered "Critical comments on Barth's theology" (1965), provides an English translation of this unique text with explanatory footnotes. It is suggested that Van Ruler's sixteen pertinent questions to Barth, almost fifty years ago, once again deserve our careful attention and that our task remains to keep in balance the work of the Creator, the Saviour and the Spirit, which persists in working on the pneumatological question of how we as human beings are incorporated into God's ongoing, sanctifying work in nature and history. KEY words Barth Van Ruler Pneumatology Twenty-first century Christology KErNwoordE Barth Van Ruler Pneumatologie Een-en-twintigste eeu Christologie
In studies of Karl Barth in the past decades, there has been great concern over his position on world religions. Recent scholars, especially, have tried to interpret Barth's position in light of the traditional threefold typology, namely, 'exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism,' in the discipline of religious studies. They particularly appeal to §17 and §69 of Barth's Church Dogmatics I/2 and IV/3 respectively, for the former paragraph explicitly discusses the problems of religion, whereas the latter paragraph seems to show an open minded understanding of world religions as a way of divine communication. The scholarly interpretations of these two paragraphs become problematic because of the isolation of them from their immediate literary contexts. As a result, Barth's theological agenda of the two paragraphs is ignored, and subsequently, the validity for using the threefold typology to interpret Barth's theology of religion should also be called into question. The purpose of this study is therefore to reexamine the two paragraphs in the wider literary contexts, in order to situate the two paragraphs in Barth's original theological agenda in the Church Dogmatics I/2 and IV/3, so as to determine whether the threefold typology is applicable to Barth's theology of religion in these particular texts and to examine in what ways we can bring the text into an interdisciplinary dialogue with religious studies without violating his originally theological agenda.
What's Interesting about Karl Barth? Barth as Polemical and Descriptive Theologian
International Journal of Systematic Theology, 2002
Much of the interest in Karl Barth's theology has been found in the formal elements of his theology, whether a single thought-form or multiple forms. Most of that interest focuses on Barth's epistemology or his 'actualism'. This article suggests that material theological loci, expounded descriptively, and often with a polemical intent, were at the heart of Barth's work, and are still the richest vein of his theology. Metaphysics and epistemology were subservient to material dogmatic affirmations. The article closes with some observations on the continuing relevance of Barth's theology.
The Continuing Relevance of Karl Barth's Critique of Liberal Theology
The development of Karl Barth's theology – his disenchantment with liberalism and movement towards dogmatism, as well as the dialogue sparked by this development in the 20th century, speaks to the church of the 21 st century. This paper explores some dynamics of Barth's engagement with his liberal theological predecessors and neo-orthodox contemporaries in an effort to construct the beginnings of a critique of the Mainline Protestant Church today.