BARTH, BARTHIANS, AND EVANGELICALS: REASSESSING THE QUESTION OF THE RELATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AND THE WORD OF GOD

Trinity Journal, Fall 2004 by Morrison, John D

From the Enlightenment there has arisen the strong tendency in theological circles to bifurcate, to dualistically separate, the text of Holy Scripture from "the Word of God," which is something reckoned to be necessarily other than all texts as such, whatever "the Word of God" is understood to be. The chasm between text and "Word" grew through the nineteenth century as a result of philosophical developments and, especially, the further development of historical-critical approaches to the study of Scripture. As a result, many developments of twentieth-century theology and its prominent schools of thought (especially in the first half of the century), followed by the "shattered spectrum" of multiplied theologies and the entrenchment of postmodernity, have affirmed the separation of Scripture from some non-contentful, nondiscursive, non-historical "Word of God," which is the transcendent seat of divine truth and authority. Hence religious authority was located anywhere but in the text of Scripture, which was regarded as simply another human religious product resulting from the effect of or "encounter" with divine Truth/Word of God.

Into the midst of this theological fray came Karl Barth, who, because of his prolific, powerful, and consistent christocentric theological writing, came to be known as the greatest theologian of the twentieth century -perhaps the greatest since Calvin. Barth did much to turn European and American theology, for a time, back to serious theological and christological engagement, and to the serious use of Scripture for the theological task.

Yet at the same time Earth's theology became a center around which diverse discussion swirled. Classical liberals and later neoliberal and existentialist theologians criticized Earth's apparent readiness to return to Reformation themes and doctrines. "Orthodox" Protestants varied in the form and focus of their responses, and were at first mostly critical, though usually not without constructive interest and appreciation for the new direction in which Barth was taking Christian theology. Suspicion was coupled with regard for Earth's emphases on the Godness of God, the Trinity, the centrality of Jesus Christ for all Christian thought and theology as truly Christian, human sinfulness, and real redemption through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But among the most repeated points of concern was (and is) Earth's understanding of the nature of revelation and so "the Word of God" and its relation to Holy Scripture.

In any case, "Barthianism" or more broadly "dialectical theology" (neo-orthodoxy is not an adequate designation) was a position understood to be something of a tertium quid between more "liberal" or even (after the rise of Bultmann) "existential" theologies and the loose elements of Protestant orthodoxy. As a result the label "Barthian" was attached to many, including more and more "postfundamentalist" evangelicals, who found a place to stand in what they perceived to be Earth's simultaneous confession of the classical doctrines of the Christian faith and his subscription to modern, scientific, historical-critical approaches to the very human words of Holy Scripture. Thus, through Barth, many were attracted to the possibility of a substantially "orthodox" faith commitment and confession without the need wholly to follow the pre-modern Reformers and, even more, pre-modern Protestant Scholasticism's location of present historical authority in the actual concrete text of Holy Scripture as verbally inspired, written Word of God, and as an aspect of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. As James Robinson put the matter, "Barthianism consists ... of a meeting of the later Barth's move to the right with conservatism's opening itself to influence from the center."1 Or as evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm put the matter, "Barth's theology is a restatement of Reformed theology written in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, but not capitulating to it."2

In this way, Barth's theology was regarded as an avenue whereby one could be both faithful to the historic Christian faith while avoiding labels like pre-modern, unscientific, obscurantist, and theological dinosaur. It is especially Barth's "Doctrine of the Word of God" (especially in CD I/1, 1/2) and, therein, the relation of Holy Scripture to the Word of God and God's (self-)revelation, as it is and as it has been interpreted by both "Barthians" and "evangelicals," and as it has and continues to exercise monumental influence on evangelicalism's estimation of the nature of Holy Scripture, that I wish to analyze in this essay. To that end we will first briefly present Barth's own often misunderstood presentation of the "ontology" of Holy Scripture, i.e., that like the triune God, Scripture's "being is in becoming." Second, we will cursorily examine representative "Barthian" misinterpretations of Earth's own doctrine of Holy Scripture and the Word of God, noting how Barth has been mishandled even by those who claim to follow in his theological footsteps. As we will see "Barthians" (with reason) have understood Barth to assert that Scripture, as simply human, written text, "becomes" what it is not, "the Word of God," when God sovereignly chooses to "speak" (non-contentfully) through the text, so as to thereby meet/encounter persons who respond in faith. Next we will examine representative evangelical criticisms of Earth's view of Scripture showing, again, theological misinterpretation of his multi-leveled dynamism regarding "the Word of God." We will conclude with an example of an evangelical, who, under the influence of "Barthian" (contra Earth's own) presuppositions, methods, and conclusions, has been led to finally separate the historical text of Holy Scripture from "The Word of God," and so from real participation in and as an aspect of the self-disclosure of the triune God.