§2.1 The Necessity of Dogmatic Prolegomena

Summary: Prolegomena is the introductory part of theology that seeks to understand its particular way of knowledge. Prolegomena, thus, is our attempt to speak about how we go about knowing in theology. Why do we need prolegomena? Well, first of all it isn’t something simply forced on us by modernity. Barth rejects the notion that somehow our present age is unique and different than all others that preceded it: “Knowledge of the revelation believed in the Church does not stand or fall with the general religious possibility that is made easier by the ancient view of things and more difficult by the modern” (p. 28). Moreover, this view (i.e. that the modern situation requires theology to offer a sort of justificatory prolegomena that explains how revelation is possible) is to be reject also on the grounds that revelation, as the church confesses it, has occured and it creates its own “point of contact in [hu]man[ity]” (p. 29). We cannot set about looking into the possibility of knowing divine revelation, we can only speak about its actuality. However, speaking in this way of course leaves open the possibility of heresy, that is a genuinely Christian deviations (or seeming deviation) from truth of revelation. This is a possibility that we can never foreclose, and which is in fact essential for the life of the church.

Money Quote: “In this conversation [between faith and heresy] the Church must wrestle with heresy in such  way that it may itself be the Church. And heresy must attack the Church because it is not sufficiently or truly the Church. . . . In true encounter with heresy faith is plunged into conflict with itself, because, so long and so far as it is not free of heresy, so long and so far as it must accept responsibility in relation to it, it cannot allow even the the voice of unbelief which it thinks it hears in heresy to cause it to treat as not at least also faith but simply as unbelief. It must understand it as a possibility of faith.” (p. 33)

§2.2 The Possibility of Dogmatic Prolegomena

Summary: Understanding prolegomena as the articulation of the way of knowledge that happens in theology means that there must be come place to start from which this exposition is intelligible and meaningful. Where is this place? Barth asks. Well, according to “modernist dogmatics” (i.e. Protestant liberalism), “the Church and faith are to be understood as links in a greater nexus of being” (p. 36). Thus, theology is understood on the basis of other human sciences (anthropology, metaphysics, etc.). Of course this proposition, as Barth notes, already has “a highly theological character” (p. 37) and involves the rejection of the church’s confession of revelation in Jesus Christ, as such Barth rejects it. On the other hand, Roman Catholicism has a different answer to this problem. The place from which theology can begin, on that view, is from the self-positing givenness of the Roman Church’s body of teaching through “Holy Scripture, Church tradition, and the living teaching apostlate of the Church infallibly representing and interpreting both” (p. 39). Barth rejects this option as well as in it “the action of God immediately disappears and is taken up into the action of the recipient of grace, that which is beyond all human possibilities changes at once into that which is enclosed within the reality of the Church, and the personal act of divine address becomes a constantly available relationship” (p. 40). Where does that leave us? Well, for “Evangelical dogmatics” it means that we don’t have a “place” in the world to start out from which it “can be known and said in advance, before actually embarking on dogmatics” what theology is and how it is possible. There is no general human or ecclesiastical possibility for specifying the correctness and possibility of theological knowledge. Rather this can only be an event, and event of God’s own speaking in Christ. Thus, “Only when and to the extent that such a Word of God is spoken by God Himself to the Church is there any right sense in speaking about God in the Church. Only when there is such a Word of God is there a criterion, namely, the Word itself, of the correctness of such speech and therefore of the correct criticism and correction of such speech, i.e., of dogmatics” (p. 42).

Money Quote: “The only possibility of dogmatics knowledge remaining to us on the basis of Evangelical faith is to be marked off on the one hand by the rejection of an existential ontological possibility of the being of the Church and on the other hand by the rejection of the presupposition of a constantly available absorption of the being of the Church into a creaturely form, into a ‘There is.’ On the one side we have to say that the being of the Church is actus purus, i.e., a divine action which is self-originating and which is to be understood only in terms of itself and not therefore in terms of a prior anthropology. And on the other side we have also to say that the being of the Church is actus purus, but with the accent now on actus, i.e., a free action and not a constantly available connexion, grace being the event of personal address and not a transmitted material condition. On both sides we can only ask how it may be otherwise if the being of the Church is identical with Jesus Christ. If this is true, then the place from which the way of dogmatic knowledge is to be seen and understood can be neither a prior anthropological possibility nor a subsequent ecclesiastical reality, but only the present moment of the speaking and hearing of Jesus Christ Himself, the divine creation of light in our hearts.” (p. 41)

This is cross-posted from our ongoing reading/discussion blog, Reading through Church Dogmatics. I figure I’ll post my summary sections here the day after I post them on the reading group blog so I can index them as we go and maybe it’ll end up being a helpful resource for people interested in the Church Dogmatics.

§1.1 The Church, Theology, Science

Summary: Theology, Barth argues, is the self-examination of the church regarding the content of what it claims about God. Theology, for Barth, is interrogatory, it subjects the church to self-examination in light of the God that the gospel proclaims. As such theology is primarily a self-critical discipline rather than an apologetic, or an attempt to synthesize other human disciplines into a scientific whole. In fact, for Barth, whatever relationship there might be between theology and other human sciences isn’t really that big of a deal. The point is that theology, fundamentally, is about subjecting ourselves to judgment on the basis of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Money Quote: “Theology does not in fact possess special keys to special doors. Nor does it control a basis of knowledge which might not find actualisation in other sciences. Nor does it know an object of enquiry necessarily concealed from other sciences. Only by failing to recognise the actualisation of revelation, the possibility of grace and therefore its own nature, could it possibly make any such claim.” (p. 5)

§1.2 Dogmatics as an Enquiry

Summary: First of all, since theology is a form of inquiry, that assumes that the truth about God can in fact be known by human beings. This assumption is made in the act of faith in Jesus Christ who “in His revelation gives Himself to faith” (p. 12) However, this means that Christian talk about God must constantly be tested by its conformity to Christ, an always ambiguous and uncertain enterprise. Ultimately it is “the freely acting God Himself and alone” who is “the truth of revelation” (p. 15-16). All our theological efforts can never be accorded the authority that ultimately belongs to the free and living Lord.

Money Quote: “Dogmatics is possible only as theologia crucis, in the act of obedience which is certain in faith, but which for this very reason is humble, always being thrown back to the beginning and having to make a fresh start. It is not possible as an effortless triumph or intermittent labour. It always takes place on the narrow way which leads from the enacted revelation to the promised revelation.” (p. 14)

§1.3 Dogmatics as an Act of Faith

Summary: Theology is an act of faith. It is undertaken by those who have been called together by Jesus Christ (the church). But faith itself is the “gracious address of God to [hu]man[ity], the free personal presence of Jesus Christ in his activity” (p. 18). As such dogmatics assumes not a human capacity or disposition, but rather depends wholly on the free, gracious, and present action of God in Christ. And thus the church cannot guarantee the possibility of doing dogmatics at all. It should set out to examine itself, interrogate itself, and strive for faithfulness, but it can only do so on the basis of hope, hope that God will be present, active, and will free us up in grace to speak rightly about the truth of the gospel. As such theological work must be understood finally as prayer (p. 23).

Money Quote: “Prayer can be the recognition that we accomplish nothing by our intentions, even though they be intentions to pray. Prayer can be the expression of our human willing of the will of God. Prayer can signify that for good or evil [hu]man[ity]justifies God and not himself. Prayer can be the human answer to the divine hearing already granted, the epitome of the true faith which we cannot assume of ourselves. We do not speak of true prayer if we say ‘must’ instead of ‘can.’” (p. 24)

Edited to add: Also, in the interest of directing conversation to the blog for the reading group, all of my own reflections/provocations will be included only in the original posts at the reading group blog. Over here we’ll just have the summaries and money quotes kept on file for indexing purposes down the road.