Contemporary theology and the meaning of life

CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY AND THE MEANING OF LIFE J. Edward Barrett

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the

University of St Andrews

1964

Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository

at:

http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10023/12644

b a in s a 'Hioais presented by

j . EDVARD barrett a. b. , d. d. , T h .n .

t o the U n iv e r s ity o f 3 t* Andrews

ProQuest Number: 10166462

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The qu ality of this repro d u ctio n is d e p e n d e n t upon the q u ality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u th o r did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be note d . Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,

a n o te will in d ica te the deletion.

uest

ProQuest 10166462

Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). C op yrig ht of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.

789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346

DECLARATION

I hereby d e cla re that the fo llo w in g T h esis i s based on th e r e s u l t s of research eu rried out by me in St* M ary's C ollege* U n iv e rsity o f St* Andrews* t h a t the T h esis I s ray own com position* and th at I t has not p re v io u sly been presented fo r a higher Degree*

.W«M

X hereby c e r t i f y th a t J . idward B arrett haa ay ant nine terms a t Research %>rte In St* Mary* a C ollege* th e U n iv e r sity o f St* Andrena* th a t he haa f u l f i l l e d th e con d itio n s o f Ordinance So* 16

( S t . Andrews), and th a t he i s q u a lifie d to aubralt the accompanying Thesla in a p p lic a tio n f o r the

degree o f >’ h *D *.

The Reverend Profeasor SDOAR P. DICKIE

Supervisor o f Research

A CAD'.MIC HISrCttY

In 1955 I waa graduated ( A .3 , ) from Susquehanna U n iv e r sity In S e lln a g ro v e , Pennsylvania, with a major

In philosophy and r e l ig io n and 3 minor in psychology. While there I was e le c te d to ? ! Qataaia |Ma. th e n a tio n a l s o c ia l scien ce honor s o o le t y .

In 1959 I m s graduated ( 3 .D .) from Princeton

t h e o lo g ic a l Seminary in P rinceton, l e v J e rse y . Prom

.Tone 1958 u n t i l Seoterube-" 1992 I was pastor o f the F ir s t Presbyterian Charon in O lessh ore, Hew J e rse y .

During t h i s time I continued part-tim e graduate

stu d ie s In th e o lo g y , and in I960 was awarded a fu r th e r degree (T h .M .) from P rin ceton.

1 m a tricu la ted in the U n iv e rsity o f S t . Andrews In Ootober 1962 and im mediately commenced research on

"Contemporary Theology and the Meaning o f L i f e , " whioh

' ' ! • j i; > « ' , ■■

The extent o f my debt to th e Reverend P rofessor -dear ?• Diokia con sid erab ly surpeeses what words

oan e a s i l y say* He has been generous with h is tim e,

gracious w ith h is fr ie n d s h ip , and h e lp fu l w ith h is

counsel* The ran

39

o f h i s knowledge, h is o r l t l o a l

power and good Judgement are combined with a y r a o tlo a l a b i l i t y to give e f f e c t i v e guidanoe and prompt a tte n tio n * To him X oan on ly auggeet my profound adm iration and

ainoere a p p re c ia tio n ,

Warm thanks are due t o my w if e , Susanne, whose w illin g n e ss and a b i l i t y w ith todious d e t a i l s o f the manuscript have fr e e d me to concentrate upon the

content o f the r e se a r c h , whose In s is te n c e upon l o g i c a l c l a r i t y has o fte n oorrected me, and whose personal

support and enoomragsaant have always su stain ed me*

I t has been a Joy to work In the C h ristian ocsuiunlty composed o f the s t a f f and students o f 3 t* Mary's C o lle g e , to know the I n t e ll e c t u a l ch allen ge and s c h o la r ly oomoltaent o f the U n iv e r s ity , and t o l i v e In th e u n d e n t and l o v e l y town o f St* Andrews*

JHDI CATION

To « y

HOBIKR a n d PA W SB

fron sham I know

"Tyovo b e a r s a l l t h in g s , b e lie v e s

a l l th in g s , hopes a l l th in g s ,

endures a l l t h in g s , t« v e never

e n d s ,"

I C o r in t h ia n s 1 5 : 7 , 8 ,

P a g e

CSiAPThR OHS

,ln ttffo < fa q liA .< » ... 1

I * The Problem and I t s Expression •• 2

I I , The '•rogram o f Research **•••*•••

8

A 39m TVS0

I b f l . w t a a ^ . . m * A ft ^ S m l Q K Z J z t

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ®

I , I n t r o d u c t i o n ••••••».*••••••*•••• X7

I I , T h e O o n e ra l o r ToleolO uloal

IHmoiislon * Qod's V ictory

over Uoauiiiglosotiooc and

Man's D estin y ••••*•«•••••••••••• 29

I I I , The In d iv id u a l or V ocational

D im e n s io n - R e s p o n s ib le

Pro idom and the Servant

Covenant »«•••»•••••••••••••••»•* 49

IV* TLo S o c ia l or e th ic a l

D im e n s io n - T h e S t r u c t u r e

o f the Covenant and the

Character o f i&oounter •••»•••••* 94

V* The B so h a to lo cica l

Dtaenslon - The "lite r n a ils in g ”

b e fo r e Ood o f Temporal Seine **•* 84

VI* Summary and evalu ation -

U x o Q uestionable Value o f

an Answer without a s p ir io a l

Content or Co ioem * • * • « ,* • • « ,• • • 7 2

-R IllH E E

■vno. v l . ^. ■, )) 1'1 . H! iQ „ iL Q. ■ ■ ! J.il*

X , In tro d u ctio n *••*••••••*•*•

XI* The d on er*! o r T e le o lo g ie s !

I I I « T h e In d iv id u a l or V ocational

Distension - Authentic or

B schatologlo& l Xocistenoe ,.« • <

I V , The S o c ia l or E th ic a l ...

DSaeneion - The Answer

th at Ootaes In Knoountsr » » , , , <

V, The K so h *to lo g io a l

Dimension - The Personal .

Meaning o f Death «••••••••»••

V I , Summary a n d E v a lu a t io n

-The Tnroat t o the P o s s i b i l i t y

o f Meaning o f a Theology Void

o f a Vfeltaiiaohauaag .

itlWt .Bit

I , In tro d u ctio n

I I , The General or T e le o lo g lo a l

Dimension - The Ooalng t o

Rest o f the Question in Bheountsr w ith C hrist «•••• Dimension

e .vo.

Sear

.mansion • iw

V V a lta n e o h e u u n a ta r o h f o r M e a n ii

The Threat o f % to Man's

j u n g

« POOR

God and Mia P a re o .a l ffn—i l M l o o • 177

XV#

£h&

duoJLtiJL o r ^ b h io a l

D i m m a l o a • Ttiv Jam

Ktlafciouahip mid tarn Utax

Who haa boon W aiting •••••••••••• 181

V# tlw X aohatologioal

uimauaion «• Sua Meed f o r

an

liaohatology o f U ltim ate

OonauaKoation •*•*••••«*«»»•••»•»• 183

VI* dasamary and ^valuation •

£ha Waaknasa o f a Theology Determined by a Futuriafcle

liaahatology ••*••••••*«•••••#•••• 198

dlilMfjiS KX V32 , .

drtthl,, jfi&& i\ ■ .^lii iii ...

^aiabQid. lauuhr ••*.•••••••••••••••••• 205

1 , In trod u ction 99#

XX* The Qouoral or T e le o lo g io a l

Giaouaiuu - Xua Govaraigaty

o f G ufforiuj uova over llia to ry •• 837

XXX* Sue In d iv id u a l or VOoatiooal

Jiaaaaiou - dbriate* Cua

Powar o f God and tuo t lid fl*

Of ... 890

XV* Xbo S o o la l or &tuioal

diaonaion - Proximfco

R oaliaationo o f tho Kingdom ••••• 890

V* tbm d a o h a t o lo io a l

Oluianaion - TUo

Completion o f H istory

aoyond H isto ry »••*••*••••*••••••

2

Ga

V I . Summary and Evaluation - Mature and th e Weakness o f a Theology Determined by Kfchloal Couoern •••••.••••<

CHAPTER SIX

t f t t i i .flt I— — P i e m a n

«...

I * In trod u ction

I I . The General op T e le o la g io a l

D laenslon - The Growth o f

Ueauixii and C reative In te r ­ change

I I I . The In d iv id u a l or V ocational

Dimension - The Stages o f

H isto ry and the Function o f

t b # J t u r o h • • • • • • • • «• • • • • • • • • • • «

XV. The S o o la l o r n th io a l

Dimension - M orality and

the Growth o f lea n in g

V. The -a o h a to lo g lo a l

Dimension * Death and

the Growth o f le a n in g

V I. Gueuaery and Evaluation

-Oie luminous and the Weakness o f a Tueology Determined by

Em pirical Co; ocrn . . . .

CHAPTER ShVflH

it .a C

I# In tro d u ctio n •*<

275

28 7

28 8

299

321

338

342

352

365

and tbs Lngoa

XXX• Tbs In d iv id u a l or V ocational

Jluonalon «* Tbo is ® ie la g

and tb s' S p ir it . . . ... ••*•

XV* lb s S o c ia l o r s t h le a l

Dimension - M orality* ..

R e lig io n and Guitar# ...

V* Tbs E so b ato lo g loa l

Olsons Ion - Jud^ecaonfc*

U n iv e rsa l Redemption* and

"B s a a n t ia lia a t io a " « * • * • • ....<

VX* A Further Consideration ■

M eaninglessness* Doubt* and tb s Courage t o Be • ...* • • « * • • •

VXI, Sunoary and Evaluation •

The R elation o f System atic Tbsology to the Question o f tb e Meaning o f L ife

AFVSUI EXGUT

.pl..;aion « « * * * . * * # . » . * . • . . . a a .a . . . *

X* The Rssearob and tbs Question •••

XX* Tbs Meed f o r an 4 a p ir lo a lly

O riented* Convincing Answer »

Tbe Meaning o f an "Answer

'1

. . . .

XXX* Tbs Used fo r an S a p lr ic a lly

O rien ted . Relevant Answer -

Tbs Meaning o f " L i f e " •••»*•*•*••

IV* In te r p r e ta tio n and tb s

7 , U o a n ln & U s a n a iis a n d t b o a a a ro fa f o r a dgrstamatio T L a o lo ^ y •

Dho Ana

war Do U

m

Quostion ••••«• 478

V I* Summary o f C andLaalona ... 484

B I B U O O iU n Y ... * ... . . . 4 8 6

X

"3 sa o lo t ilsssn ss s " i s m ; ■ new problem.

S everal o s a tu r ls e b s fa r e th e b ir th o f Jssu s •

Hebrew sags m t « sh at i s o e r ta in ly Was o la s a le a l

exp ression o f th e u ltim a te numan f r u s t r a t i o n . Uan*a

s itu a tio n i s such th a t Cod ’’has put s t s m i t y in to

man's mind, y s t so th at h s cannot f i a d out sh a t

0

od

toss dona fr o a th s bSci nine t o t b s e n d * ...V M tla s r

i t i s l o s s o r h a ts man doss not X n o*. . v a r yth in g

b e fo re S AS

18

▼ »nifcy

«"1

^ s > s casual reading o f

o o l s s i a s t s a s i l l in d ic a te th s oasurelisnsivs extant

to shioh i t has a l l bssn s a id • oven to th s join t

o f b i t t e r resentm ent. "C o n s Ldsr th s work* o f Oodt

sho oan anics s t r a ig h t shat m n a g made sro o fcsd t"*

Hoods w ithin h is t o r y vary M s gsn srat to

1

h e o la sia sto a 3 i U |

81

U J l b U c s l Quotations

are (excep t snan th s t r e n c ls t io n i s io d io s ts d as b sin g tuat o f th s th eo lo g ia n undsr co, s ld s r a tio n )

from th s Revised Standard Version o f

2

b* iiniv e l b i a

(Res fork* Thomas H slson end Sons, 1 & 4 ) .

a ib id . .

7

*

13

.

_ 1 ^

I *n a r a ti from M n tjrjr to M a t o i f i Sh N In i

ttw rt twvt M m tim es i t « I t haa boon r e l a t i v e ly

d i f f i c u l t to understand t b i t H t t m i M l e u p b e p •

times when • mood o f a t l e a s t cau tiou s optimism

seamed J u s tifie d * in e v ita b le * and oven appropriate*

Sut| ours

la

not snob a time* Modem m b l e n e ith e r

o

o p t i o i a t i o nor p e s s l a i e t l e * Me I s h e s ita n t* Me

has not oomoltted h im se lf to oo olu slon a o f despair*

but he i s tempted by then* Today* opt lad

an

s

earns

sh a llo w , but pesalaiam seems Ir r e s p o n s ib le , and men

l a again trou b led about th e meaning o f I t a l l * and

asking with urgeney* Mi«e l * the

C ertain o f our load in g p s y c h ia t r is ts have b a m

p a r t ic u la r ly s e n s i t i v e to the roolem* Carl C*

JUng* th e very t i t l e o f whose important book tfadora

aattn.to g f W f e a l a S W i lo d lo a te s a keen awareness

1

“I t la perhaps wholesome f o r ua to r e a l i s e

th a t t h i s mood I s not unique and unexampled* I t

w i l l be good f o r th ose who ere aeorwtljr ra th e r proud o f i t t o remember tuefc i t haa m anifested i t s e l f be­ fo r e * and f o r thoae Mbs are trou bled by i t to know

th at I t w i l l pass* The w riter o f & c ,in -is o t e a knew

thw mood* but he wee w iser than o . r age in recogn isin g

th at ha was not the f i r s t to experleoee i t * fh era l a

no now th in g under th e sun*” adgar ?* 81 dele*

| a v 4 u ■ ii^ M lL S k iifIh lt ( alnburgbi T , h T . Clark*

8

*".!u oh la w r itte n in our time about 't h e modem

mind*' The r e a l tr o u b le l a that th ere are ao many

m inds, fo r the 'mm o f to-d ay '•••has not v et mads u j

4

o f the problea o f a M B la ^ U M O M ii boa doeoribed

:>ayeboneuroola l a Juefc those tonaat "t b o s u ffe r in g

’N‘ ' • i „ . \ *

o f a bunaa being who baa not d iscovered m a t l i f e

neana for bla*...^5tfl7 baa failed to read the laaanlng

o f b la awn

axietenos.** Xndoed* Jung

oea oo

to

describe tbe education

o f

tbe Meaning

o f

life aa H tt

aoot ordinary and frauent of questlone" wbloh be

baa

confronted

In

bla experience

aa

a payeblatrlat*®

The moat aerloaa a t t e a -t t o ooae to g rip e w ltb

tbe jT ib le a of sw aalagleasnes*

from

to * standpoint

o f e y o h la try la t o be found la tbo work o f Vlotor

atoll Frankl* tbo auooeaaor o f Froud and A dler at tb o

U n iv e rsity o f Vienna* Praaitl does not » la h to d o -

p r e d a t e nor disown t b s lap o rta n t work o f b i s o r e -

deoeasora* But* "In ay oplnlosi* oan la n a ltb or

d e a lnate d by tb e w i l l t o pleasure (Freud) nor tbo

d l l t o power (A d le r )* but by abet X should l i k e to

c a l l Man*a w ill-to -w e e n ln g ) that la to aay* b io

daop-ooatod a t r i v i a and s tr u g g lin g f o r o b iyb ar and

u l t l s a t e aoanlng t o b io e x is te n c e * "® Frankl ooes

"n a n 'a o v o e r n about a meaning In l i f e wblob would

1 trano* by K.S* O oll and Cary F* Jeynee ( don*

Kagan | a u l* Trencbj Truboer * Co.* 1 9 3 6 )* p* 260*

hum an m f t a r # l o t w u * ^ U o u n fla rs b a n d s saan*o a w M h

f 0 r id ird o g ad "goxxstlno* i t l u

®!1

n

0

urotlO| u

, ., * c , i . * ^

• s p ir it u a l d ia t r s a a , but not • pay Ohio d is e a s e

. 92

Ho asks ju s t S i i t happens whan w to ro men Bfl*Hi£i

hinisclf f n u t r d ttd tit ^ Iff skmki buoiBD douooO fop a

X • f ¥

n i ^ r * ,n i t o h it t i l ito n o o

0

aid dooorlboa t h i s f o l l u r c

to fin d a sa n ib f w ith th s sards " 'e x i s t e n t i a l f r u s t r s -

tio n * <•> t h is world-wlda co lto a tiw e nourosl • 0 i » t

ogolnf t h r o d t

9

ooo^oMipopupjt son i s ohat X

ITU** *1 *1 # ♦*tr -^k Ahr J| ^ ViaiMlllMl

o t i i f5 o i o a i o a ) 6 M 4 f«Quuav w i»u «i uu m

not alouSf b s a r r t r , in I t s

mxlmxm aaopooooo o f ti>#’ pjrooXora o f wo^lrt^lOflisottfs # "rno Hollow .'iso* o f t . 3 , J iio t sounds etrilcitin ly

■ Imtlar> to tha " • z l i t a n t i a l vacuum" o f V. £• F n aicl*

CortooJaily tbo problem fan boon ooo o f tfao load in g

CO OG.;*..iG o f E U e t

*9

H A t o d .y , f^ t h ip dooidi&g

t o

11

vs h is I l f s in terms o f aoros great* hitch and

h o ly purpose* fin d s

SSWIW mm mm m s n s .s n . m» 1 ■ i.a.w. Wl aw m— w w . is. ■' ■■■ • • mmmmum "■ ' " — 1— P § P# ! $ $ #

tw $ P 9 #

fo llo v d o g l i ioa toy S3Llot o r * tukon

OOttlft OO tfld l OO t t d i

1

e

••. t i a e y e t fo r • hundred I n d e c i s i o n , And f o r • hundred v ia io n e and r e v l s l o a , before the talcing o f t o a s t and te e *

Indead, "jr. A lfred Prufrmafe* la such e gainful

expression o f eo temporary aeanlogleaeaeca t h a t ,

i n « m m o I o f Iro n y , he r e f l e c t s )

. ■ r . .

X neve measured out wy U f a with e e ffe e spoons.

E lio t experiences contemporary s o c ie t y eat

The en d less oyule o f Idea and notion

Endless in v e n tio n , endian- experim ent, /whiofe/ brings k n o e lo d :o o f m otion, hut not o f a t I l l n e s s ) Knowledge o f speoeh, but not o f a lie n e e ;

Knowledge o f words, and Igacranoe o f the o r d « . . .

And he lo n g in g ly askei

Where la th e knowied. e wo heve l o s t In 1nfonestlonT

R estore s o o le ty l a , l a f e e t a "V e sta b u d , * In whlah

Re who were l i v i n g are aoe dying with i l i t t l e p a tie n c e .

There ore Indeed th ose who are aware o f the jro o lem .

B a t, t h e i r v o le e s eons as

. . . d r y s t e r i l e tlwimder w itheat v e l a ,

e d E lio t he ere ear c i v i l i s a t i o n ep itom ised i s th e

words from c lld fc o o d i

L c .d o n b rid ge la f a l l i n g down

f e l l i n g d e ss

f e l l i n g down.

Other vetoes in contemporary l i t e r a t u r e , from Kafka

and Camus to H i l l e r and W illia m s, ape ok w ith s im ila r

o o o o r n and c l a r i t y , givin g th s problem ex p ressio n ,

I t I s , h o w e e r , In ooitvaporary a t h e i s t i c e x is ­

t e n t i a l philoa ophy t a a t tbo r ob le a o f meaningloasiiosa

assumes fundamental sad system atic s lg r tlfle a n o o , J w n *

Paul S a rtre fin d s i t "extrem ely smbarrassinj? tn a t Ood

doss not e x i s t , f a r th e re d i s a v o w s w ith Hia a l l y t « »

a i b l l l t y o f fin d in g " any a o r l c r ! "e s a e n o e ," any "g iv e n *

meaning in I l f a

, 1

*Oad does not a x i s t , a n d ,• • it l a

neoeaeary to draw tha oonaaquanoaa o f hia ahaeaae r ig h t

to tha s a d ,"® "Stan f i r s t o f a l l e x i s t a ,..a u d dafinaa

hlm aelf afterw a rd s,*® Thus, S a r t r e 's su a .a ry statement

o f h ia fundamental tn a a la l a tiia t f f r t i f t m i * nraa ad a a

aaaenoa. F i r s t , aan l a , Lefcsr, ha may and even shoul d

d soid s th a meaning hia e x is te n c e , ha l a rosoo a l b l a

f o r doing t h i s , Out thara i s no a t e m a l l y v a lid or

given m&nttn to I l f s , "s in a s thara l a no i n f i n i t e and

p erfect oo<aolouanasa t o think i t

, ”4

T h is movement,

m l o h haa nad suoh a wlda in flu en ce upon tha thought

o f eor.tl :« n t a l Surope aan only ha properly understood

as tha p h ilo so p h ic and a y s t e a s t ie exp ression o f th ia

profound oo i temporary problem o f a es a in tle a s n e a a .

M t l r d ^ F i o t X n ! i l & M D i X ^ | T 4 d 3 ) , p , 5 5 , The i

o f t h is sim ple statement o f S a r t r e 's philosophy i s hardly

surpaaaad in h ia l a r g e r and more comprehensive

•ana* by n aaol a T ^ sr n a s ILo'"cE£» aathuan

1

O o ,, 1 3 57),

Mae o o n sid a rstlo n o f Helds, gar w i l l appear in Chapter :i on mltmann,

2 I b i d . . pp. 5 2 , 5 3 ,

* t S W 2 0 ,

. a . 3 5 .

8

A-

•

I I .

f

In Shw research which fo llo w s an examination i s

atidart^ctsm o f s s le o te d w ritin g s from s i x leadin g

oontenporwry t b a o lo g l u u lie discover vuafc help they

g iv e In saawarlnt th e question o f th e weaning o f l i f e *

The s i x th e o lo g ia n * heve boon ohoaen (

1

) l e w a a a o f

th e v a rie d p o s it io n s d d a b they ropresent* end (

8

)

because o f t h e ir obvious lnfluanaa w ithin the p resen t-

d ay church* So s u g .e s t io .. I s intended th a t K arl

Berth* Rudolf siltmann* jts r l helm* Relnbold Hiwbuhr*

Usury Wlwann* end .‘au l T i l 11 oh exhaust th e tetwi "c o n -

teaperary th e o lo g y * " Rather coosjlcu ou aly abaeat e re

con sid era tio n s o f a d l Brunner, <J*C* erlcouwer* Mels

Ferre* the "laandeoeisn soh o l (Gustav A llan and Anders

Kygren)* sad tbs newly developing "p oat-B u ltn an n "

school ( w r t ls u le r ly F r it s Burl end O u ta r d Kballot )*

tbo s i x wan chosen do* however* g iv e sone index o f

th e broad and v a ried spastrata which i s "oo; fceoyorary

th e o lo g y *"

The purpose o f the fo llo w in g research 1st ( 1 )

to e s t a b lis h s wore p r e e l■# d e fin it io n o f th s question

o f the meaning o f l i f a j (

8

) to survey the answers t o

loa d in g c o a t e o p o r a r y th eo lo g ia n s) and ( 3 ) 3d suggest*

by observing stren gth * a n d we»lcne s e a , the :d n d o f

an sear eh I oh, In t h e l i g h t o f the aoro p r e c is e ly d e fin e d

q u estio n ,

1

* most t r u ly * h e lp fu l answer*

The I n t e n t i o n o f th e research la n o t, th e r e fo r e ,

to d e te m la e ehat l a the meaning of l i f e , alnoe such

a deolalon preouppoaea a th e o lo g ic a l p o s itio n from

which judgement la aade, a n d In v o lv es ehaolog&oal

con stru ctio n beyond t h e proper U n i t s o f research*

This researoh lo not s e l f • oo usel oua

1

;- undertaken from

o p a rtio u la r t h e o l o j l o * ! p o s it io n , though# to be o e r t a ln ,

) - ' • *1 _ a -0 ' • V

one l a present a n d e v e n tu a lly eaorges* I t la a f l o t i o n

to protend t o ooop lete o b j e c t i v i t y , but i t i s a ls o a

f l o t l o n t o pretend t o undertake research oonoom ln,

c o l l i s i o n s which have already been reached* So save

the ev alu ation from s u b je c t i v i t y (an e f f o r t which,

ooneidwftag the oharootor o f th e tb * o lo ® le a l t a s k , oan

o n ly bo p a r t i a l l y s u c c e s s fu l) Judgement *1 1 1 be awdo.

In so f a r aa p o s s ib le , n o t upon the " t r u t h ” o f an

answer, but upon whether or n o t and in wl**t way i t i s

a c tu a lly an answer a t a l l *

t a fo llo w in g fo u r s u b -question# o r "d la a is lo o s *

o f th e question o f

tbo

aoonlag o f l i f e rep resen t on

10

th e research* They e re intended ee * t

0

o la * t o enable

eooess to the r e a l i t y which

i t v o z

r l i e t o t h e i - th e

actu a l question as v e i l as the a ctu al answer* They

db n o t represent an attempted sc h o la r ly d e f in it io n o f

the c u s e tio n * as t h is la a f o r m u la t io n which should

(and w i l l ) a r is e from the research I t s e l f and be

e x p re ssly d efin ed In the general conclusion* The

fo llo w in g four “dimensions* o f the primary cu ertlen do

In d ic a te the m anifold breadth Im plied in th e question

o f the m m X a t o f l i f e * as w e ll as the major forma

In which the u e stlo n la o fte n popularly expressed*

1

» fflaoxoaori^ « - m i » Xbio f a n

o f tb o qu estion a s m , *Wbat la Uo<l'a purpose

human l l f a t Why boo Ho oronted uat Kbat ere we iscant

t o b o t " I t i s a general question ca>: oarnln* God and

tbo wbolo of huaanlty#

«• Iht totU U ifaU or ? a a t t l, a l flU trnlnrn

*»!• f®*®

o f th e question sake* *Mow does e man ach ieve a per*

so.ial sense o f meaning! How does he achieve In d iv i­

d u a lity w ithin th e p ersp ectiv e of the general answer? *

I t i s the In tim a te ly personal aspect o f th e question*

s * S n « t f t f t U i i i a i a t a f i w * h i » t o m o f t h e

question asks* •Wnet la the meaning o f th e in d iv id u a l's

Z t raZa*a ru«atio& o f fcb* r o litlo n o U i^ o f m— nine

m 4 r e a ^ a i l b l l l t y *

4

. Tbo oaoiiatolotgiotil d lm tm ia a i o f tbo

question sake# "Y>h*t ia the meaning of I l f # In tha

p a w p a ottv e o f death? liow oan U f a h*ve any moaning

whan and i f i t e n d s ? l a tne a no u ltim ata meaning In

l i f e ? * I t io the question o f hop# atm e te r n ity *

la th e r understandably# no su ggestion that the #

fo u r a n tiq u estion e exhaust th e question o f th e moaning

o f l i f e l o intended# Tuey do# however# g iv e some

prelim inary "shape* to a jroblma which by i t a very

nature t o g a M nk1y nebulo u s eharaetar# and they g iv e

the in te r r o g a tio n o f each th eologian e reasonably

uniform atru eture#

however# th e f r y i n g o f a reasonably proelse

question (aeoeseary I f reaoaroh la to be undertaken)

must not ( i f yrer,o*nfo l a to be undertaken) be perm itted

to become r i g i d l y d e te ra ln a tlv e #

In

aeefcifti to under*

stand a theologian* a thou ht i t

ia

neeesaary to reoo®»

n la e th at questions determine answers and th e form

which an a wo r e take

In

a way

whiah

can be con sid erab ly

beyond and oth er than

tr„*t

l n t nded# Care must be

taken# th erefore # to roaialn f l e x i b l e so that the form

1 2

ay a t em o f thought I s not l m l « T « o t o r a r t i f i c i a l

w ithin th at o f another* Aeeoniin# i y , aa att.aa.

9

t w i l l

ba a*da to a l i o * tb o tb aologlan t o taka m m part i a

tbo framing o f tbo quaationo ao t o l l

aa

l a t&o aupyly*

ta g o f anooora* l a t h ia aay* a doeper in a lg b t l a

gained la t o tbo p a r tio u la r theologian*a poroaptioa o f

tbo problau* Tt.o appaaranoa o f a p a r tic u la r dootrlna

( f o r example* • e le a tlo n l a tb o atiaear o f ona theo­

log ia n

*111

aot naaassaarlly bo » r n lla la d by a e -

a id a ra tlo a o f th o oaao docfcrlna l a tha «aa*ar o f

another* Vurtbesmore* i t l a to bo oxpeatoa th a t aocaa

theolo^lana* ra tb a r than a«p plying

a f

ivaa "auawar*"

*111

only t lva auggeationa a a t o bo* to doal with

tbo a i f I l o u l t y .

Tbo y r l o a r y t u K u n d a r t a a a l a r a e e e r o h * 1 h a r o f a r a *

t a a a a p h a s la a n d g o a l o f a l l O u t tb a l a a t a a a t lo n o f

a a e h o f t b a f o l l o w i n g a l x a h a y ta r a i a d a o e r lp t i v a *

a a y a p a t b a t la a x p o a & tio n a n d d e v e lo p m e n t o f

tba

a n a w e ra

c o n ta in e d w i t h i n tb a tb e o lo e I a n * a a y a te m o f t h o u g h t *

Aa e v a lu atio n o f oaab cheolo lan*a matmar w i l l ba In­

eluded a t tba and o f aach chap’ -er, and a more general

evalu ation and auaoiary o f tna oonaluaiona o f tiie

raaaerah

*111 compose tha f i n a l

chapter*

though accessary fa r un understanding

of

th e th ee-

l o g l M ' i i u m p , ao not oompoee th « u m v i t s e l f * Tor

example, I t I s necessary to understand something o f

Ouitmenn*s "detaytfaolo. i i s i n g ' r o g r o s In order adequately

t o greap h is answer to the question o f tb s meaning o f

I l f s * h u t, th e v a li d i t y o f dem ythaleglslng i t s e l f i s

not at is s u e or

under

c r i t i c a l con sid era tio n in the

research* s i m i l a r l y , th ia s t *dy w i l l not undertake

t o deoldo the issu e r a is e d between Heim and illebuhr

on tho ono hand and bleoan on toe

other

aa to the

n e c e s s ity o f b e l i e f in a personal Cod* d o u b tle ss,

such q u estion s are im portant, but they

are

n e c e s s a r ily

o u tsid e tb e scope o f th is work* tb e c r itiq u e s end .

e v a lu a tio n s nay very v e i l s e n t to ho o v e r ly oo -eerned

with weaknesses, but t h i s i s beoauae the stren gth s

a r e , i t i s hoped, s u f f i c i e n t l y in d icated in the

e x p o sitio n o f each th e o lo g ia n 's thought, and do not

stand in naed o f r e p e titio n *

beoause o f the breadth o f tha area of re se a rc h ,

no attempt

w ill

be made to exhaust the m aterial made

a v a ila b le by eaob th e o lo g ia n in p e r io d ic a ls and minor

books* So one, f o r example, w m id suggest that any­

thing important ia co.itained in K arl O r t h 's summer

14

t i t l e aaeanatlOfl in O utline which la tre a te d at

g r e t e r Imigtih aad wiUi more jubat&aoe in M a ijL , aqL,

Ifc. ra v vQ^> Tbe important Ih liir to determine la not

ebat a t .» e o lo i a n <aay say abo.it tbo problem o f mooning

' » - . ■ < . a ■,

bore o r tn ere# bat tu a t answer lo im plied within t b o

I b a i t lA» la g e n « * « l, th en , tb e

ex p osition w i l l bo lnfonaed by a n d o o o a rn e d with

tbo

major and ®or© system atic aorica o f oaob theologian*

Eoj t o f thoae w o risa aro in Bn^llab* bat tb o Ooraon

source® aro in d lo a tod wbsn appropriate*

In developing tbo o x ^ o s ltlo u frequent and reg u la r

uae ia made o f abort cootatlon a • seldom so re tban

a aonteneo in length* This technique permits a degree

o f 03 not aa exp ression which i t would bo d i f f i c u l t to

achieve oth r « i s t | and which l o demanded by tbo brood

nature of tbo ,>rogrua*

v.a aba

11

boat be a b le to guard again st doing

in ju a tio a to w riters by stic k in g aa c lo a a ly aa ws oan t o tb o ir non w ritin g s* employing t b o ir oan to nalaolo y and ^ itln g there p o s s it ie t b o ir

Accuracy in n otation s (d r a m fro® naoy boo*ca* printed

over many years* on both aldoa o f tbo A tlan tic) baa

aoootittoa n e c e s s ita te d Ir r e g u la r ity in c a p it a lis a t io n

and sp oilin g# Apart from quotations* tbo tc*xt o f tbo

tbo moania o f l i f o oust oook to oowpreuand tbo a ctu al

otruoturo o f tba quoatlon a t i s s u e , to study tbo

p e a a lb lllt& a s f o r a oo a tr u o tiv o answer p re sen tly

a v a ila b le , to appraise those answers by tbo c r it e r io n

o f tbo quoatlou i t s e l f so as to d e ta w ia o t b o ir

accountable v a lu e , and to c l a r i f y tboao lin o s o f

ap, roach to a wore h e lp fu l a nswer su e a sted by tbo

research i t s e l f . I t i s with t h is task th a t tbo fo llo w ­

in g chapters ar« co earned.

1 (S p r in g fie ld , itoeo.t

0, as c.

Morriwa O o ., 1 9 4 9 ) ,

---Probably no name l a so w a ll known in contemporary

theology as th a t o f K arl Barth* He has been a dom­

in a tin g fig u r e on the th e o lo g ic a l scene f o r more than

fo r ty years* His r o le has been variou sly defined in

words ranging from glowing p ra ise to a lo o f disdain*

But

9

no one denies the s ig n ific a n c e o f h is r o le or

the power o f h is presence*

Whether or not in agreement with Barth, i t i s

im possib le t o p a r tic ip a te in "contemporary th e o lo g y "

and not come t o g rip s with him* He i s there* on the

th e o lo g ic a l scene* a dominating presence speaking with

fo rc e on every conceivable th e o lo g ic a l issu e * Perhaps

t h i s i s the most fa e o ln a tln g th in g about Barthi He

creates controversy* demands d e cisio n s* and* to a

la r g e extent* determines the "norm" by which men de­

fin e t h e ir own place in the th e o lo g io a l spectrum* Ho

theologian o f t h is century has oaused so many o f h is

contemporaries to d isagree with him* while sim ultan­

eously causing them to ta k e account o f h is thought**

1 A glance a t the index o f almost any serious book o f th eology w i l l re v e a l that i t s author has spent con­

sid erab le time d e fin in g h is own r e la tio n s h ip to Barth*

18

"G enerations to ochm w i l l be c a lle d upon to t e s t

and In te r p r e t” B a r th 's th e o lo g y ,1.

Before examining the answer to the question o f

the meaning o f l i f e a s i t la contained in B a r th 's

th e o lo g y , i t I s neoessary to consider b r i e f l y h i s

ep lstem ology, with few men i s the oath to theo­

l o g i c a l knowledge so d eterm in ative. Indeed, B a rth 's

answer to the question o f th e meaning o f l i f e can

only be understood as th e goal a c c e s s ib le t o those

w illin g to tread t h i s p a r tic u la r path,

Barth attem pts t o begin and end the th e o lo g ic a l

task on the presupposition o f God's r e v e la tio n in

Jesus C h r is t, For him, t h i s means the r e je c t i o n o f

every attempt t o d isc u ss God apart from th at pre­

su p p o sitio n , Beginning with Jesus C h r is t, th eology

nay assume " i t s p o s s i b i l i t y on the b a s is o f i t s

r e a l i t y , * * I t has no need any "n a tu ra l

1

Charles W est,

JMpalMJinfl

till

IfcftlflfiUai

( P h ilad elp h iat The Vastrainst e r P re ss, I 9 6 0 ) , pp, 8 3 4 ,

835, Bven a casual glanoe a t the s i s e o f the Church

Jo. m utlca w i l l in d ic a te why,

2 K arl Barth, flMrCh BW .agiftBfcM .31

i,i.u ord or -Iad. eti, by G.t. Brawllo y and T .F , Torrance,

crane, by G.T, Thomson and Harold Knight ( adinbur^i*

T. & T, C lark, 1 9 5 5 ) , 1 * 2 , 3 , Hare Barth in d ic a te s

h is indebtedness to Anselm, See a ls o h is book e n t it le d

A n a o la i Pities jiaerena In to lla c tu m . t r a n s , )y Ian W,

-;obortson (to n a o u s SCM 19 G o), where he w rites

th at "i n t h is book on Anselm I m working with a v i t a l kay, i f not th e k ey, to an understanding o f th at whole process o f thought th a t has impressed me more and mare

in ray feieA.Baanftfclftg th e only one proper fo r

th eology

. ”1

Indeed, any attempt by man to fin d

" f o r h is U f a e ith e r a c le a r moaning or a d i s t i n c t

purpose" in "th e u n s u b s ta n tia l, u n p ro fita b le and

fundamentally very te d io u s " imaginings o f n atu ral

theology only t e s t i f i e s to the deceptive freedom o f

man t o p ro je e t th e creation a o f h i s own mind in to

"th e vacuum o f u t t e r a b s t r a c tio n ."® N atural theology

can le a d n e ith e r t o a con fron tation with Ood nor an

understanding o f h is w ill* Indeed, Barth Judges that

such undertakings have "not only l i t t l e but no re ­

la t io n t o O od ."s

Barth moves with v igor again st every a p o lo g e tic

because he b e lie v e s th a t "th e r e has never been any

oth er e f f e c t i v e a p o lo g e tic and polemic o f f a i t h

again st u n b e lia f than the unintended o n e ...w h ic h

took ^and ta k e j£ 7 plaoe when Ood H im self sid e d ^and

aldej/? with the witness o f f a i t h . The r e s u lt I s

th at tru e "a p o lo g e tlo s and polemlee can only bo an

1 B a rth 's c l a s s i c a l statement on t h i s I s con­

tain ed in h is "H o" to a n il Brunner, S ee, Barth,

natural V heolo/y. t r a n s , by Peter Fraankel (London* (Jeoffroy B io s, Thu Centenary P re ss, 1 9 4 6 ).

2 Barth, C h u rc h ao. m a tlc a * ‘pie .o o trla e o f

tr a n s , by A .T . Maokay, x .h .L . Parker,

I g h t , h . A . Kennedy, John M a r k s , I I I t 4 , 4 7 9 ,

I J . U f t e

3 Ib id . . 1 * 2 , 3 0 3 .

4 Barth, ~ ‘

i f l C d ,? f. JSaAs

4 Barth, Church arena s lc a i The jto g trla c _->X the

ovonfc, they cannot bo a programme, For th e o lo g y ,

everything m a t and dooa depond upon the f a c t that

Ood r e v e a ls h im self* th e r e fo r e , th ere I s no need

f o r th eology to "prove and J u s t ify " i t s e l f , "Doubts”

th ere s i l l b e , o f oourse. But theology must not take

doubt s e r io u s ly , end c e r ta in ly not so s e r io u s ly as I t

tak es Ood*a gracious r e v e la tio n o f h l a s e l f - I t s only

proper co» com * "Consider ^donb&7 too lo n g , and, l i k e

L o t 's w ife , we become a p i l l a r o f s a l t . We have to do

something b e tt e r } we have t o do the one th in g that i s

needful* We have to b e l i e v e * .*ln Jesus C h r is t* " We

must not t r y to e r e c t an I n t e ll e c t u a l foundation upon

which we can sta n d . We have no other foundation than

th at which la given in and with h is name. Upon t h i s

name we can stan d, with i t we can, l i k e P e te r, walk

on w ater. Without i t we, a ls o lik e P e te r , fa lte r , end

f a l l * F aith i s t h is "bein g suspended and hanging

without ^ /p h llo o o p h io a ^ ground under our f e e t

."3

I t

i s t r u s t in the Ood who can be tru ste d to give support*

This Ood can be counted on t o "m aintain H im self i f we

1 I b id . . p , 3 3 .

2 B arth, llWKStoS9 i m U « f . g** iJoctrina o f God,

t r a n s , by T .H .L , Parker, W .b. Johnston, Harold K night, J*L*M, H a ir s , XXf l , 1 5 0 ,

S I b id .

w i l l only allow the name o f Jesus C hrist to he main­

tain ed In our th in k in g as the beginning and the end

o f a l l our th o u g h ts.^ *

Barth has a s im ila r d is ta s t e fo r approaching

theology w ith supposedly "r e le v a n t " or " e x i s t e n t i a l "

questions.** Be b e lie v e s th a t tfren such qu estions

are posed "s c r ip tu r e is no lon ger able to say f r e e ly

what i t w i l ls to sa y , Zt can only answer the questions

put to i t by m a n . W h e r e a s , "what I t w ills to do

f i r s t i s to give us with i t s answers the r ig h t

q u e s t io n s ,"* A l l e x i s t e n t i a l a n a ly sis aimed at

achieving a "r e le v a n t " th eology u ltim a te ly lea d s to

nothing more than an "absorbed and dom esticated

r e v e la t i o n ."® The fa c t i s that "th e re I s n oth in g,

from the viewpoint o f heaven or e a rth , more relevan t

to the r e a l s itu a tio n / o f majj

7

than th e speaking and

1 Barth, Chur oh Do nasties* TtH ,ag-flflfla

tr a n s . by 0.v«. Brom iley, J .C . Campbell, Ia in W ilson, J .S . Motiab, Harold K night, R.A. Stew art, 1 1 * 2 , 4 , 5 ,

2 Barth i s In constant polemics with the approach

expressed In T i l l i c h 's "method o f c o r r e la tio n " (See

P . 362 t h i s p a p er.) and Judges that beoause o f t h i s

approach T i l l i c h 's thought i s "u ltim a te ly uninter­

e stin g as a con trib u tion to th e o lo g ic a l w ork.” Church

jrf&UB&kUfl, I I I , <*>• T h ia fta s , o f o e u r s e , w rit ten

b e fo re T i l l i c h 's express form ulation o f h i s method In

T h g g t a a r * . _

3 R n r t h . G h n r d i D o m a t lc a .

11

*

2

, 4 1 . 4 I b id .

22

' TV

tha hearing o f the ' o r d o f Cod In the o r ig in a tiv e

and r e g u la tiv e power o f I t s t m t h . " ^ Barth asks*

l a I t not ae I f /fa s a jtf wished t o say to us at every ste p "What I n te r e s t have I in your ’ prac­

t i c a l l i f e ’ ? I have l i t t l e to do with th a t,

Pollow a f t e r jag or l e t sue go ay way!

"2

Theology ou st go h is way. From t h i s way. and from

t h is way alone ean theology sxpeot l i g h t

. 3

Theology

ou st allow i t s dogmatic qu estions to "be d ic ta te d by

the answers which are a lread y present in th e r e v e l­

a tio n o f Ood a t te s t e d in Holy S c rip tu re .

But. in tfxat sense can Holy Scripture be con­

sidered r o v e la tio n t Barth would "d l a t i n u iah the

B ib le e s such from r e v e la tio n

." 5

He b e lie v e s that

"th e re la no point in ignoring: the w rittenness o f

Holy Writ f o r the sake o f i t s h o li n e s s , i t s humanity

f o r the sake o f I t s d i v i n i t y ."® But. Just when we

take the fa c t that i t i s a human word s e r io u s ly , we

fin d "th a t as a human word i t p o in ts away from

1 K arl Barth, The Word o f God _aad the Word of dga,

tr a n s . by Douglas Horton (London* Hodder and Stoughton,

1 9 2 3 ) , p . 1 2 3 .

2 Ib id . . p . 3 8 .

3 $ <rth, Church Do m atloa. 1 *1 , 334. Tha unmen­

tio n ed p r o b le in a ttfT fs point l a , o f cou rse, d i s t i n ­ guishing C h r is t ’ s "way" from B arth’ s "w a y ,"

4 Ibid** ri*2* 3*

5 Ib id . » 1 * 2 , 4 6 3 .

6

I b i d . Barth continues* "We must not ignore i t

any more than we do the humanity o f Jesus C hrist Him­

s e l f . We must study i t , f o r i t i s here a t nowhere

i t s e l f * that as a word i t points toward a f a c t , an

o b j e c t ."* ’ This means that i f wo are to perceive the

o b je c t toward which i t would point us we must not

attempt t o read I t " u ^ h l b l l o a l i y ." We z&ist look

toward tn a t a t which the B ib lic a l authors a re looking

2 ^

aid toward which t h e / are pointing* These men

deserve as much o f our confidence " as we u su a lly

give to other men - but no more*" "The men thorn we

hear aa w itnesses speak as f a l l i b l e * e rrin g men lik e

o u r s e l v e s . B u t * the f a l l i b i l i t y o f the w itnesses

la o f no oo com once the " o b j e c t " toward which they

point i s discerned* "Jesu s Christ i s t h i s o b j e c t .*

He I s th e tvo b je c t we encounter in the image r e f l e c ­

te d in S c r ip t u r e ." He i s the o b je c t o f t h e ir w itness*

And* " t h i s o b je c t req u ires and j u s t i f i e s our co f l —

dance

." 5

Theology to simply confronted with and

lim ite d by the f a c t th at i t i s Scripture which

1 ftbld»* P* ABA*

2 IM A ** p . 466* Barth fin d s much present-day

"n o n -t h e o lo g ic a l* " "im p a r t ia l* " or so c a lle d "s c ie n ­ t i f i c " ex eg e sis to be t r a g ic in s o fa r as "around 1910* t h i s idea threatened to achieve almost canonical

sta tu s in P rotestant theology* But now we can qu ite

calmly d e scrib e i t as merely c o m ic a l." ( I b id . . p .

469) Paul T i l l i c h speaks o f "B a rth fs pneumatic-

e x i s t e n t i a l in t e r p r e t a t io n " o f scrip tu re * System atic

TheoioCT (Chicago* U n iv ersity o f Chicago Press*

1 9 5 1 } * I . 36*

3 -v -*• * P* 491* 4 I b id . . p* 507*

24

w itnesses to Ood * s r e v e la tio n o f h im self in Jesus

C hrist* I t i s h ere, and not apart from here that

t h is witness takes place with o r ig in a lit y and force*

"We cannot, t h e r e fo r e , f r e e ou rselves from the

_ l

t o x t s . . . . V e are t ie d to th ese te x ts *

Barth notes "how e n e r g e t ic a lly " Calvin set upon

the th e o lo g ic a l ta sk by w re stlin g with the 3 o r lp tu r a l

te x t " t i l l the w alls which ^ssparatu<j

7

the six te e n th

century from th e f i r s t ^ b e c a s ^ t r a n s p a r e n t ! U e

concludes th at "by f a i t h " cane to the seme " con­

temporaneity* •• with the w itnesses o f r e v e la tio n * ■

Bow i s t h is p o s s ib le ? B a rth 's answer i s th at

the S c rip tu ra l authors do in fa c t witness t o an

o b le c t* and in and through t h e ir witness that o b je c t

mates h im se lf known as a liv in g su b ject*

The Ood o f I s r a e l , and th e re fo re the Ood who r u le s a l l th in gs* i s the Subject whose speaking and a c t­ ing i s th e source and a ls o the o b jeo t and oontenfe o f the w itness o f the Old and .'Jew Testaments, ^He i s th e one whfl/ spoke th e " I a n ,” and in speaking . I t a c tu a liz e d i t fo r seeing eyes and hearing e a r s . '

Furthermore, i t i s important to understand th at we

1 B a r t h , I b i d . . p* 4 9 2 *

2

B a r t h , T h e p i n t l e t o th e Bnmani „ dw yn C* iio s k y n a (L o n d o n * O x fo r d U n iv e r s it y P r e s s ,

2

b arth . The i p l a t l s to tfre SWMr a n s . by t

n C. Uos

1 9 S 3 ) , P . 7 .

3 Burth, 4 Barth,

i k l a a , t

| 3 , 1 7 7 .

3 Barth, OHM l *2 » 7 **>* .

r t u ,

" s p i r i t u a l " exp erien ce, but with a ctu al h i s t o r i c a l

events o f "c o n c re te s u b s t a n c e * " W e have to think

o f d e f in it e events and s e r ie s o f events which***

a c tu a lly took place a t th ese periods and in these

p la c e s , r e la tin g then always to the spoken and

■ o

a c tu a lls e d 91 am' *” R evelation does not a r is e from

the a rb itra ry choosing by theology o f "o b je c t s to set

up as s ig n s , in th at way inventing a knowledge o f Ood

a t i t s own good-pleasure* I t knows God by means o f

the o b je c t chosen by Ood h im s e lf* " I t l e t s the s c r ip *

tu ra l o b j e c t i v i t y "become a witness - y e t only a w it*

x

ness * to the o b je o t iv lt y o f Gk>d*

What la more, th e o b je c tiv e h ia t o r lo a l ev en ts,

toward which the s c r ip tu r a l authors w itn e ss, thorn*

se lv e s w itness to a s in g le events "th a t cox orate

thing which la In d icated by the name o f Jesus C hrist

and not by any other name*"* Here I t la p a r tic u la r ly

important to take caution l e s t we s l i p in to some

26

b e in g . He e x i s t s "w ith o b ja o tlv # r e a l i t y . ” In him.

Ood e x is t s "not only lnooneeivably aa Cod, but alao

conceivably aa m an," and i t l a f o r ju st th la reason

th at f a i t h and theology are able to aay anything at

a l l about Ood. Ood h a s , in C h r is t, become "temporal

Q

and s p a t i a l , " and not .lust an Irre lev a n t e x tr a -

mundane r e a l i t y . " t h i s o b je o t lv e , actu a l and h is ­

t o r i c a l Jesus, w itnessed to in the Hew Testament,

"p r e sse s in upon im , from i t s o b j e o t lv lt y to our

s u b je c t i v i t y , in order th a t there should be in us

a c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . A s Scripture thus lead s us to

the l i v i n g o b je e t o f i t s own w itn e ss, and s o to

encounter with a l i v i n g s u b je o t, "th e re tab es place

the work o f the S p ir it o f Scripture who i s the Holy

6

S p i r i t . * Tho Holy S p ir it 1s to be understood as

t h i s actu al "costing o f the man Jesus, who i s the

Son o f God, to other men who sre not t h i s but with

• ■ w . , . ' ■ ■' • • .

..6

vftioiD He s t i l l a sso c ia te s#

Tneology Is th at s c i e n t i f i c d is c ip lin e vulck

1

2

3 4

■ 5 [■ ^ 6

f I V i

2

t 50#

f I I I * 5 f 179,

undertakes to sp ea k o f t h is Ood** I t may do so

because t h is Ood has In fa c t become o b je c tiv e in

Jesus C hrist* I t must do so because o f the " sovereign

freedom o f th e su b je c t-m a tte r

*"2

Indeed* the

"s o v e r e ig n ty " o f th e su b je c t-m a tte r o f theology i s

ju s t as important a s i t s " o b j e c t i v i t y * " sin oe " i t i s

only as those who are mastered by the su b ject-m atter*

who are subdued by I t * that we can In v e s tig a te tbs

humanity o f the word by which i t i s t o ld u s * " ®

Theology may and must begin and end with th is ood*

I t may do so "w ith confidence and without need o f

e x c u s e * T r u e * theology i s "broken thought" in

that " i t can progress only in is o la t e d thoughts end

statem ents d ir e c te d from d iffe r e n t angles to the one

o b je c t* I t can never form a system* comprehending

and as i t were * s e i s i n g ' the o b j e c t ." But t h i s

must under no circum stances be thought to imply a

1 The term "s c ie n c e " has s p e c u lia r ly haunting;

importance f o r Barth* See Church Dogmatics. I t l * a ,

3

l

5

f| a ls o X l t l * 856 there theology in described as

a "p e c u lia r ly b e a u tifu l s d e n o e "} Barth* E m e t i c s

I n O u t lin e , tran s* y O.T, Thomson (London* 3 CM P ress, 1949)* pp. 9 -1 4 where Barth b e i n s with the sentence

"Dogmatics i s a s o le n o e ."} and h is more recent

-■ -■ffi.AqtJQaHfcU'gftt tra n a . by

drover Foley (London* eidunfold and Mlcolson* 19 63)*

p. 3 which begins "Theology i s one among; those human undertakings t r a d it io n a lly descrlbsd as 's c i e n c e s .' "

2 Barth, Church Dogmatics. 1*2* 4 7 1 . Underlining

mine*

28

freedom from r a tio n a l r e s p o n s ib i lit y , sin ce theology

w i l l always be "a lo g ic a l answer corresponding, to the

lo g ic a l a ttitu d e o f Ood

."1

I t i s almost u n iv e r s a lly recognized tnat the

c h a r a c t e r o f B arthf s th eology 1® (or seek® to be)

o

"unambiguously G h riatooen trio#ff "Grace and tru th

oime th rou ^i Jesus Christ#*® I t la in Kin th at Ood

"lias made known to ua in a l l wisdom and i n s i s t the

mystery o f h is w i l l # * * Indeed, "he r e f l e c t s the

g lory o f Ood and beara the very stamp o f h is n a tu r e ,"

Tlie r e f or o , the name o f Jesus Christ i s not to bs

• ' ■ ’ A \ ' - ■ m.

understood as "m erely a c ip h e r ,W Everything theology

has to aay and to do la depandent upon i t , "There

are s t r i c t l y speaking no Christian themes Independent

o f C hrlatology

,"7

In Just t h is fa c t I l e a the source

o f the th e o lo g ia n ’ s Joy, fie need not become Involved

in th e kind o f c ir c u la r d iscu ssio n with h im se lf which

i s th e pligh t o f those who attempt t o reach knowledge

o f Ood through engaging in "lo g i c a l or e t h ic a l d e lib ­

e r a t i o n ," * Ho la fr e e d from t h i s , Freed by Ood in

and through H is gracious re v e la tio n in C h r is t. There­

f o r e , th eology must "from the beginning £ . p ossesj

7

the

presence o f mind to venture the whole In e v ita b le ooun—

terthrow from the C h r ls to lo g lo a l p ersp ective and thus

from th e su p erio r and more exact standpoint o f the

» 2

eentr&l and e n tir e w itness o f Holy 3 o r lp t u r e ."

I I

The s ig n ific a n c e o f t h i s approach to theology fo r

the t e l e o lo g io a l dimension o f the question o f the

meaning o f l i f e - the general question concerning

Ood'e purpose fo r man - emerges with the fo llo w in g

statementt

Jesus C hrist i s the oentre and meaning o f the

cosmos and h is t o r y . As man has a share in the

e x isten c e o f th e cosmos and the l i f e o f h is t o r y , Jesus C hrist la o b je c t iv e ly th e oentre and mean*

lnp o f h is e x iste n c e too

. 5

He who would know Cod's purpose fo r man must look

fo r h is answer to Christ who re v e a ls Cod's answer.

1 I b i d , . 1 1 *2 , ISO.

2 K a r r Barth, th e Humanity a f Ood, tr a n s. by Thomas

w leser and John Newton Thoms ( Richmond* John Knox

P ress, 1 9 6 0 ), p . 4 6 .