Barth's Theology

A Sketch of Karl Barth



      After studying classical liberal theology, Barth's theology was absolutely amazing and refreshing.  Barth's dialectical method of theology is very intriguing.  For Barth, the dialectical method of theology is the balancing of saying that we can know fully objective things of God and saying that he is so transcendent that we cannot possibly know anything about him.  These two extremes known as dogma and self criticism are balanced by a dialectical approach to theology. 
       One thing I love about Barth's theology is that it is totally Christ centered.  Barth stressed that Jesus is the image of God made flesh, the ultimate revelation of God to man.  In Christ alone does man find reconciliation with God.  Though Barth had such a wonderful view of Christ, his theology on the atonement drifted towards universal election. 
      Barth's focus on God's sovereignty also gives me great joy.  We cannot know God or speak of God unless it is by His grace.  This is so true.  It is only by God's grace that we can know him and speak of Him.  Taking this further, Barth pressed the idea that we can never speak of God unless God speaks through us.   When God speaks through us, he is unveiling himself through the veil of human language.  This is so interesting to me.  I mostly agree with Barth here, but I do believe that we can say some objective things about God even though they may not be fully understood. 
      God veils and unveils himself to us in the Word of God.  For Barth, this is not actually the Bible.  Barth breaks the Word of God into three components:  the Word Proclaimed, the Word Written, and the Word Revealed.  The Bible fits inside the Word written.  The Word Proclaimed is when people preach.  Finally, the Word Proclaimed refers to Jesus.  Though Barth had such a great view of the Bible, he did not directly associate it with the Word of God. 
      Though Barth's theology does not directly regard the Bible as the Word of God, I agree with a lot of Barth's theology. I think he did a great job of providing a dialectical method of theology.  Barth properly attributes a division between creator and created.  At the center of Barth's theology, his Christology is absolutely beautiful.  Whenever I read or read of Barth's theology, I find myself greatly engaged and fascinated.  He was a truly remarkable theologian. 

The Basic Idea Behind Process Theology

      At the very foundation of process theology is the idea that everything is in constant change and that the supernatural does not occur in created order.  Nothing in the universe is the same from one second to the next.  All life is bound by change.  This idea of constant change leads to the process theology idea that God must be changing.  Process theology lends to God as a character who evolves with history.  Therefore, God is bound to a relationship with creation. 
      Since God needs relationship to be who he is, or more so who he is becoming, creation is therefore eternal.  It is not that God created the universe out of nothing, but that he was always involved in a relationship with creation because creation and evolution define him. 
      In process theology, God is not fully sovereign nor all knowing, because man has ultimate free will.  Process theologians believe in the ultimate power of free will, which leads to the idea that God does not really know what is going to happen, but merely leaves control to humanity.  Also, God is not in control of the future anymore.  In this God is bound to time, human choice, and the natural universe.
      Process theology thus limits God and the biblical understanding of God.  A central presupposition to process theology is the philosophy of naturalism.  Instead of a God who is in control, who created in vast foreknowledge, process theology promotes a God who has good intentions for creation, but merely leaves control to his creation.  By process theology, how God's creation changes affects and changes God himself.
     


Here are some interesting videos from the perspective of a person who adheres to Process Theology:

My Evaluation of Higher Criticism

Higher Criticism



      The Enlightenment and the dawn of the age of science really changed how people viewed the world and reality.  Epistemology became founded upon man's ability to reason and natural law.  Gradually, reason and scientific enquiry became the main source of truth.  Along with this, Christianity adapted to the times and became modern by judging its beliefs in light of modern scientific knowledge and reason.  During this time, people began to view the Word of God not as the truly inspired inerrant word given by God, but as a fallible human document needing subjection to man's intellectual reason and judgement. 
      This way of viewing the Bible is known as higher criticism.  Those who use this method of analyzing the Bible generally adhere to naturalism.   In their attempt reconcile the Bible with modern reason and philosophy, people who use higher criticism have made the Bible into a human and fallible book which needs to be scrutinized under modern cultural presuppositions, namely naturalism and the infallible reason of man. 
      Because of this view of the Bible, I must diverge from a view of higher criticism.  As a Christian, the Bible is God's written word to mankind and the authority over the believer.  Without an objective revelation source, Christianity loses validity because it then becomes a matter of personal religious experience rather than known objective truth which has bearing on people's lives.  Therefore, Christianity without the Bible is not Christianity.  Christ is the highest most pure revelation of God to man, but the Bible is the objective Word of God which has authority over the faith. 
      It is the Bible that reveals Christ to us through the work of the Holy Spirit.  I believe this is why God gave us the Bible, so that we would actually have objective revelation which holds us accountable.  God is not a God of confusion, He is a God of perspicuity and truth.  When man thinks he can subject God to his own rational judgment, he needs to step back and understand his own finiteness.  God is not put into a box understood in terms of modern scientific "truth."  This is why I believe Higher Criticism is defunct, because in an attempt to scrutinize and understand God and the Bible, higher critics have forgotten that God is beyond everything we can know and as Christians we are called to a faith in God which seeks understanding.  Without the Bible, we are not Christian. 


      I believe the Bible is the Word of God, because I believe what it teaches, and the Holy Spirit convicts me so.  When I attempt to understand what the Bible is saying, I follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in faith.  Anselm put it in a great way for us to understand.  Christian epistemology should be faith seeking understanding. 

Liberation Theology

Jesus the Liberator

   

  

      Liberation theology is actually the title of a list of theologies that all deal with a central feature: the liberation of individuals and the striving for a utopian society.  Mainly found in third world countries, liberation theology is similar to the social gospel movement in the United States.  Though there are many forms of liberation theology, every form promotes liberation--whether it is liberation from poverty, or from social inequality. 
      Within liberation theology there are some great elements that the church can glean.  One element is a passion for the downtrodden, the weary, the oppressed, the orphan, the widow, the poor.  As Christians we are called to live out our faith and reach out to those who are in need.  Another aspect is theology needs to be applied.  What good is theology if it does not do anything other than satsify the mind? 
      Even though these positive influences exist, liberation theology has some serious lackings as a "Christian" theology.  In a paper I was reading about liberation theology from a person who follows liberation theology, I found that liberation theology views the Bible metaphorically.  (I am including a link to this paper at the end.)  For liberation theologians, creation is essentially good.  Sin is not an offense against God, but merely an act against a fellow human, as found in the case of Cain and Abel. Therefore, man does not really need a savior.  This alone is disturbing.  The Bible is quite clear about man's sinful nature and need of a savior.  Apart from Christ, we can do nothing. 
      With their lax notion of sin, liberation theology views Jesus Christ as mainly a liberator from sinful societal structures.  Some of these theologies see him as a model and others believe that his liberation is sacramental.  Because liberation theology views man as essentially good, it believes that we can change society and someday develop a utopia. 
      Liberation theology truly is a mixed bag of good and bad fruit.  In its attempt to bring about a changed utopian society, it lost sight of the natural interpretation of the Bible, the inherent sinfulness of man, the most definite need of a savior, Christ's atoning work on the cross, the spiritual needs of people above and beyond the physical needs, and others.  As such, liberation theology looks like a nice wonderful apple, but when one bites into it, the apple turns rancid as the rottenness is found within.  Though liberation theology is appealing on the outside, it is not based solidly on God's word and thus is found lacking. 




Here is the link to the article I read...

http://www.socinian.org/liberty.html

My Opinion on the Jesus Seminar

      The Jesus Seminar is an association of modern liberal biblical scholars which presuposes a naturalistic worldview with disregard for supernatural occurences.  Because of their strong naturalistic understanding, the Scriptures are seen not as an inspired inerrant text, but rather as only a metaphor, albeit the right metaphor. Steeped in higher criticism, the Jesus Seminar attempted to determine in the Scriptures what Jesus most likely said.  The product of this is a bible with a color coded text which reveals what the Jesus Seminar decided Christ must have said and that which he surely did not say.
      I do not agree with the Jesus Seminar in what they do, because I do not hold to a naturalistic viewpoint.  The Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God which is the foundational revelation through which Christian theology is based. Human reason and religious experience is not good enough as revelation, because it is subjective and changing as we are not God. Whenever I see miracles occur in the Bible, I believe that an actual miracle took place.  Christianity rests on Jesus' divinity, His atoning work on the cross, and His physical resurrection.  Without this truth, Christianity is void.
      Also, I do not even attempt to believe that I am the highest source of understanding when it comes to theology; God is.  Therefore, by my limited ability to fully understand the intricasies of God and all He is, I lend myself to faith.  In no way am I saying that faith is unreasonable.  On the contrary, faith is reasonable, but I simply admit that I do not have the full capacities to reason everything and put it in a box.  God has done a work in me, that I may believe in Him, but this belief does not stop with an empty faith, it is faith that seeks understanding.
      Overall, the Jesus Seminar misses the mark of true theology.  In their attempt to reconcile the Bible with human reason and naturalism, they have turned the Word of God into the Metaphor of God.  For the Jesus Seminar there is a great divide in the importance of objective truth over metaphorical truth.  Without a strong biblical grounding, the Jesus Seminar promotes religious experience governed by modern philosophy and understanding as the foundation for knowing God. 

The following video is a good short clip on the Jesus Seminar by William Lane Craig.

Classical Liberal Theology

      Born out of the Age of Reason, classical liberalism is a political ideology focused on the rights of individuals.  John Locke is a significant contributor to the development of classical liberalism.   There are ten main tenets within classical liberalism: 1) Liberty, 2) Individualism, 3) Skepticism of Power, 4) Rule of Law, 5) Civil Society, 6) Spontaneous Order, 7) Free Markets, 8) Toleration, 9) Peace, and 10) Limited Government.  For more detailed information on these tenets, please watch the following video.

      Another product of the Enlightenment was classical liberal theology.  Classical liberal theology really started with Friedrich Schleiermacher.  Central to classical liberal theology is that Christian theology must agree with modern philosophy and scientific knowledge.  Here, man is the arbiter of truth through his innate ability to reason.  When faith and reason clash, reason must win and faith needs to be reconstructed.  Highly important to note is that the foundation of classical liberal theology does not reside in revelation given in the Bible, but in religious experience. 

    One aspect of classical liberal theology is to reconstruct traditional Christian beliefs in light of modern knowledge and philosophy.  In other words, Christianity needs to be relevant to the modern culture.  By becoming relevant, classical liberal theology lays down a foundation of religious experience which leads away from the authority of the Bible.

     Because classical liberation finds its foundation in religious experience, this leads to the right of individuals to criticize and reconstruct traditional beliefs.  In a sense, God becomes who we perceive is the most appealing and philosophically satisfying being.  It is not that God revealed himself to us in an objective way, but that he reveals himself through the subjective faculties of individual experience.         

      Morality is a main focus in classical liberal theology.  A branch off of classical liberal theology is the social gospel.  People's physical and socio-economical statuses become of great concern rather than the true spiritual needs of man found in the Bible.

      Before classical liberal theology, a traditional belief in Christianity was the gap between man and God given by the transcendence of the eternal infinite holy God and the sinfulness of the finite human beings, which Jesus Christ ultimately bridged by making atonement for mankind on the cross at Calvary.  During the Enlightenment, theologians like Schleriermacher drifted towards the idea of the immanence of God.  This is why religious experience became the foundation for classical liberal theology. 

   Classical liberal theology finds its basis in religious experience rather than the Scriptures.  Therefore, as classical liberal theology made Christianity more relevant and believable, classical liberal theology destroyed the biblical basis of Christianity.  Rather than an inspired text, the Bible is on the level of any other literature and should be read as such.  Classical liberal theologians would probably note that though the Bible is not inspired, it still contains some truths that reveal characteristics of God and how he worked in history.

Sources:

For the first paragraph, my source is the video.

The second part of the paper mainly used the following source:

Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 51-53. 

My Personal Evaluation of Schleiermacher

      Without application, theology is not useful.  If Christianity is only expressed in terms that revealed truth in a different time to a different culture, then it is bankrupt.  Only when the truths of Christianity are applied in the modern context will Christian theology be fruitful.  However, the ultimate overarching truths of Christianity should not be hampered by some idea of the "authority" of man's subjective and emotional/spiritual experiences of God. 
      First and foremost, I agree with Friedrich Schleiermacher that theology must be relevant to its times.  However, this is where Schleiermacher and I diverge, our personal experience and trust in our own reason should not be authoritative over Christianity theology.  We must start with some solid authority.  This authority is the Word of God. 
      God's word reveals that mankind is sinful and that everyone is bound to sin.  Only through Christ is someone freed from their bondage and forgiven.  This sin, and sin nature, affects man's experiences and ability to reason.  Therefore, man's reason and experiences should not be looked to as the supreme authority.  This is why God gave us His word, in order that we may come to know Him and have a standard for truth. 
      Schleiermacher's largest failure was not that he emphasized man's experience of God, but rather that he destroyed any trace of biblical authority, placing the authority of man over God.  I agree with Schleiermacher's push to make people see that knowledge without experience, and a faith lived, is dead.  Most of all, I am saddened by the effect Schleiermacher's theology has today.  In our postmodern world, there is no view of the God who is.  Modern liberal theology basically makes man god, in that man is--through his experience--the arbiter of truth.