KARL BARTH AMONG THE POSTLIBERALS by William J Brennan III A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Theological Studies Asbury Theological Seminary May 2012 ! ! For Isabel and Liam, and to the glory of God When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”-Revelation 1.17-18, NIV ! ! Table of Contents Page Introduction: Karl Barth among the Postliberals………………………………………………….1 Chapter 1. Karl Barth: His Life and Work…………………………………………………………..18 2. George Lindbeck and Stanley Hauerwas: Postliberalism Exemplified………………….36 3. Barthianism and Postliberalism as Reactions to Liberalism……………………………..57 4. No Foundation but Jesus: Barth, Lindbeck, Hauerwas and Nonfoundationalism……….79 5. Intratextuality…………………………………………………………………………...100 6. The Parting of the Ways: Where George Lindbeck and Stanley Hauerwas Depart from Karl Barth……………………………………………………………………………….119 Conclusions and a Way Forward……………………………………………………………….135 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………150 ! ! INTRODUCTION Karl Barth among the Postliberals As we continue to fully enter into the postmodern age, modern, liberal theology is dying. Admittedly, the death that it is dying is a slow one, as even within evangelicalism many of the assumptions of modernity still loom large in matters of theological method and biblical interpretation. Nonetheless, modern, liberal theology is on its way out, and for evangelicals this provides many reasons to celebrate. The liberal turn in theology, precipitated by Kant, is quite simply unable to address Christian theology on its own terms. George Lindbeck, for example, noted that Kant’s reduction of God to a necessary condition left religion impoverished.1 However one evaluates the attempts of liberal theologians like Schleiermacher to rectify this impoverishment it must be admitted that they fail to do justice to the historic message of Christian orthodoxy. Schleiermacher’s identification of Jesus as someone with an unusually high-level of “God-consciousness” is little more acceptable to those committed to Christian orthodoxy than Kant’s reduction of God to a moral condition.2 The dawn of postmodernity brings with it the prospect of the rescue of Christian theology from such failed attempts to accommodate allegedly Christian belief to the rigors of Kantian philosophy. In the new world of postmodernity, Christianity is able to stand upon its own feet, and need not be consumed with justifying itself in terms of foreign disciplines. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 1 George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (25th Anniversary Edition) (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), p. 7. 2 Although the failure of Schleiermacher’s theology is but one example of the failure of liberal theology to address the Christian message on its own terms, I hope to make clear through the rest of this work that this type of failure bespeaks of a broader problem within modern theology.!! 1 ! Postmodernity, however, has had a rather polarizing affect upon Christianity. There are some who conceive of it only in its most Nietzschian and nihilistic form, and therefore quickly dispense of it, and on the other hand are those who accept postmodernity somewhat uncritically and in the process due further injury to the Christian witness. The enthusiasm for the prospects presented to theology by postmodernity exuded so far in this work should not be understood as representative of the latter outlook. There are, to be sure, elements of postmodernity of which the Church must be wary; the tendency to relativism and fideism, while not a necessary element of postmodernism, is nonetheless often present in particular instantiations of it. Lindbeck notes that it was Barth’s recommendation concerning extra-biblical concepts that they should be used in theology in an ad hoc and unsystematic manner3, and theology would do well to heed this recommendation in regard to the interface between postmodern philosophy and Christian theology. The creation of a new scholasticism which rigidly and systematically subjugates the discourse of Christian theology to the extra-scriptural conceptualities of a particular postmodern philosopher would not truly be an advancement past modernity at all, and would be unfaithful to the postmodern ethos itself. Postmodern philosophy, however, when used in this ad hoc and asystematic way, and especially when employed to overcome some of the most problematic aspects of modernity (as mentioned above), has the potential to yield enormous benefit for Christian theology. In this work, I will consider a particular strand of postmodern theology: postliberalism, as instantiated by George Lindbeck and Stanley Hauerwas. Postliberal thought has much to recommend itself to contemporary evangelical theologians, not least the benefits already briefly discussed concerning postmodern theology more generally. Yet, postliberalism, especially as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, p. xxx.! 2 ! propagated by Lindbeck, in some ways remains quite unpalatable to evangelicalism. The most crucial reason for this is the vagueness which is left concerning the relationship of the “text” of Christianity to ontological and historical reality. I will suggest that the corrective needed to systematically bridge the gap between the Christian narrative and objective reality is found most fully in the same theologian from whom postliberalism has derived some of its most basic convictions: Karl Barth. I will demonstrate, therefore, the deep resonance of Barth with postliberal theology on some of the concerns most central to both, and will then proceed to suggest that a further appropriation of Barth (especially his doctrine of revelation, and his associated understandings of the freedom and otherness of God) is what is most needed by postliberalism. If Graham Ward hopes in his Barth, Derrida, and the Language of Theology, as Bruce McCormack suggests he does, that Barthian conceptions can and should be held in tension with, and eventually rescue theology from, “the abyss of deconstruction,” I hope that they can do the same with regard to postliberal “textual nihilism.”4 It may indeed seem strange to some to pursue at some length a conversation between Karl Barth and some of the foremost proponents of postliberal theology. There are several reasons, some real, and some imagined, that one might hesitate to closely associate Barth with theologians like George Lindbeck and Stanley Hauerwas. Barth, after all, was a man of his time, and the questions which shaped his theology were, on some level, rather different from the ones which shaped the theology of these more recent postliberal thinkers. Barth, it must be said, did not have the opportunity to experience the climax of the postmodern philosophical revolution, and Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault and others who so influenced the postfoundationalist turn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! "!Garrett Green, “The Hermeneutics of Difference: Barth and Derrida on Words and the Word,” pages 91- 108 in Postmodern Philosophy and Christian Thought, edited by Merold Westphal (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999), p. 92. I do not meant to insinuate here that Lindbeck, Hauerwas, or any particular postliberal theologian is a “textual nihilist”—only to suggest that such a possibility is left open by many postliberal theologies.! 3 ! in theology were not known by Barth himself. For his part, Barth was concerned to respond to theologians like Schleiermacher, who he saw as failing to adequately respond to, and move forward from, the Kantian Critique. Barth is, in an major sense, a modern, instead of a postmodern, thinker, who takes Kant as an important starting point, and seeks to fill the void left by Kant in terms of understanding the ground of positive, historical religion for which Kant’s “religion within the limits of reason alone” did not sufficiently allow.5 On the other hand, the postfoundationalists in general, and the postliberals more particularly, may have hoped that they, unlike Barth, had sufficiently moved past the Kantian problematic for Christian theology. Indeed, insomuch as Kant serves as a kind of figurehead of the Enlightenment and of the full- flowering of modernity, the very name “postmodern” indicates the belief that Kant and his philosophical relatives have been decisively left behind. What, then, can Karl Barth discuss with the postliberals? Is there any ground for such a discussion to take place? Any point of agreement or indebtedness to be explored? While acknowledging that Barth himself was not fully a “postliberal,” these latter two questions must be answered in the affirmative. A conceptualization which seeks to see a clean break between liberal and postliberal theology such that there can be no real conversation between thinkers from these opposing schools of thought is, in fact, inadequate to address the realities of the situation. Instead, close attention must be paid the interplay of these two epochs of thought. Knowledge of the conditions under which theological reflection is conducted need not detract from a serious !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 See Karl Barth, “Kant,” Pages 266-312 in Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Valley, 1973, p. 306-307. Barth enumerates three possibilities for theology in light of the Kantian enterprise. Theology can (1) accept the Kantian Critique virtually in toto, and seek to do theology on its basis; this is representative of “rationalistic” theology as represented by Ritschl and Hermann, (2) accept the Kantian program but critique it as too narrow, and unable to account for the full range of human reasoning capacity; this is representative of, e.g., Schleiermacher (and, therefore, of much of liberal theology), who added the capacity of “feeling”; or (3) critique the Kantian position by raising the point that it applies only to the human side of the divine- human relationship, and God remains free, and his action unaccounted for by Kant’s conception of the issue; it is with this third option that Barth’s own theological method should be identified. 4 ! consideration of the positive assertions made by such reflection. Instead, such knowledge of what is being implicitly denied can help to better understand exactly what is being affirmed.6 We must explore, then, the question as to exactly what postliberal theology is reacting, and the answer, we shall find, is not so completely different from that against which Barth was reacting as might be otherwise assumed. Postliberalism, though it may wish to fully disassociate itself from liberalism, ultimately proves unable to do so. Many of the concerns present in liberalism are not the concerns of postliberalism (e.g. the Cartesian need for absolute epistemic certainty), and I do not mean to suggest that postliberal theology has not succeeded in removing some of the most problematic elements of liberal theology, for I believe that it has. The point which I here make is simply this: the fact that postliberal theology is so concerned with these problematic elements of liberal theology has undoubtedly helped to form its own shape, and understanding that postliberalism is in large part a denial of liberalism will help to better understand what postliberalism affirms positively. The upshot of this discussion of the importance of understanding the way in which postliberalism has defined itself against liberalism is that Karl Barth was himself concerned with making an answer to the liberal theology which was prevalent during and before his time. Many of the elements of liberalism with which he took issue were the same with which postliberal theology would later take issue, and would in fact draw upon Barthian ideas to repudiate. Barth, though perhaps he should not be characterized as essentially and most of all a postliberal theologian in the more technical sense, is intimately tied to that movement. Whether intentionally or not, much of postliberal theology is driven by concerns with liberalism that Barth also held. Furthermore, the answers to these concerns are in many cases Barthian in nature. It !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, p. 61. Lindbeck himself discusses here the importance of understanding the situation which surrounded the formulation of doctrine in order to better understand the doctrine itself, both in what it affirms and it what it denies. 5 ! must of course also be said that there are very significant departures in postliberal thought from that of Barth, and these points of divergence must also be elucidated lest one comes to associate Barth with postliberalism too enthusiastically. In the first chapter, attention will be given to a general summary of the most salient aspects of Karl Barth’s life and thought. As with the postliberals, it will be important to understand the developments against which Barth framed his theology in order to be able to better understand what he sought to affirm positively. Many of the events of Barth’s life— especially his early acceptance of theological liberalism, his abhorrence of the nationalistic war- enthusiasm of many of the liberal theologians during the first World War, and his ultimate break from a liberalism that he came to see as a vacuous capitulation to the contemporary zeitgeist— are matters that are important to an understanding of his theological development. As is well- known, Barth’s theology went through stages, and the entire Barthian corpus—from the first edition of Romerbrief to the final volume of Church Dogmatics—is immense. An effort will be made at the rather difficult task of speaking of some of the most definitive aspects of his theology, and especially those of relevance to the issue at hand. Although at this point a broad survey of his theology will be attempted, and throughout this work attention will be paid to the various elements of Barth’s work, the later conversation of Barth’s relationship to postliberalism will focus on his thought as expressed in Church Dogmatics I.2, where many relevant issues of theological prolegomenon are discussed. In Chapter 2, similar sketches will be conducted of the life and thought of two of the most prominent “postliberal” theologians: George Lindbeck and Stanley Hauerwas. The importance of Hans Frei to the postliberal theological movement cannot be underestimated, and it is regrettable that I will be unable to more fully consider his relationship to Karl Barth here. Frei, 6 !