I thought this assessment of Karl Barth and Neoorthodoxy’s understanding of “authority” and Scripture was interesting; I thought I would share it:
Neoorthodoxy has sometimes been classed with liberalism and sometimes with conservatism. The reason for this confusion is that, on the one hand, it broke with liberalism by insisting that God, not man, must initiate revelation (and thus seemed to be conservative); while, on the other hand, it continued to teach liberal views concerning the Bible (and thus seemed to be liberal).
The basis of authority in neoorthodoxy, at least as expressed by Karl Barth (1886-1968), is the Word. However, the Word is mainly Christ. The Bible witnesses to the Word, and does so fallibly, and Christian proclamation is a word about the Word.
The sovereign God took the initiative in revealing Himself, centering primarily in the revelation in Christ. The years of Christ’s life exhibited the epitome of revelation, and His death was the climax of revelation. The Bible witnesses to the revelation of God, even though it is interpreted by all the canons of liberalism. The Bible, then, has no absolute authority, but only instrumental authority, since it serves as the fallible instrument by which we encounter Christ the Word. And it is that encounter of faith at the point of “crisis” in which God communicates Himself. That is absolute truth.
Though neoorthodoxy seeks objectivity in God’s sovereign initiative, it practices subjectivism in the experiences of faith’s encounters. Even though the Bible is involved in those experiences, it is not allowed to be the ultimate judge of those experiences. Neoorthodoxy lacks an external, objective standard of authority. (Charles Ryrie, “Basic Theology,” 21)
I realize that some of Ryrie’s characterization is somewhat oversimplified, and at points overstated; nevertheless, he captures a salient point, at least relative to some of my own misgivings with Barth (and I also realize that many Barth guys would say that Barth was not truly Neoorthodox, instead folks like Brunner better fit that “bill”). I appreciate Barth’s christocentrism; I appreciate his reframing and retooling of predestination and election. But I continue, like Ryrie, have problems with Barth’s view of scripture. I do think, maybe contra Ryrie, that Scripture needs to be seen more instrumentally than many “Evangelicals” might want to approach this; but I would want to qualify that in more “Calvinian” ways (how John Calvin spoke of Scripture as “spectacles”) — I think Scripture points beyond itself to Christ (cf. Jn. 5.39). Unlike Barth, though, and along with Ryrie, I do believe that Scripture is infallible; that it is not just imbued with a human witness and/or reflection upon say the Apostle’s or Prophet’s “encounter” with the God of Israel in Jesus of Nazareth. There is certainly encounter with the “Word” by the Apostles and Prophets (subjective), but their witness was divinely “given” and spirated by God the Holy Spirit Himself (cf. II Tim. 3:16).
One of the only real beefs I have with the Barthian view of Scripture is that it winks too much at the higher criticism that seeks to undercut the very “authority” and infallibility of this most special witness to Jesus Christ. Other than that, there are many things I still can appreciate about Barth’s emphases and themes articulated in his deep and wide theological approach.
*P.S. I think Kevin Vanhoozer has some good words on how to appropriate Barth, but to do so with “Evangelical” sensibilities.
**P.P.S. Expect to hear more from Ryrie. His was the first “Systematic Theology” I ever read (years ago, in fact my copy is autographed by Ryrie); it is quite “basic,” but I think would still be fun to interact with along the way.
DUANE said:
Thanks Bobby, this question came up for me last night. I was checking out a blogsite I had not been to in a while, and a commenter referred to Barth as neoorthox.
Bobby Grow said:
Yeah, that’s under dispute for some.
Darren said:
Thanks for this post, Bobby! I think Ryrie is doing a bit of the usual way that Barth was criticized in the English-speaking world in the mid twentieth century — mixing truth about what Barth was doing with error, usually skewed toward the fear of a loss of conservative Evangelical distinctives. Whether men like Ryrie (or van Til, if the comparison is justified) misrepresent Barth because they innocently misunderstood him is, perhaps, a defense of sorts.
Ryrie’s summation of Barth’s doctrine of Scripture here seems mostly accurate, but one must take umbrage with this conclusion: “Neoorthodoxy,” by which he means Barth, “lacks an external, objective standard of authority.” This is the conclusion to which inerrantists leap when it comes to believers who do not share their doctrine of Scripture. That this is utterly false with regard to Karl Barth should be clear from Ryrie’s own summation. The external and objective standard of authority is Jesus Christ, “the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.” Barth’s christocentrism here, in the Barmen Declaration, isn’t just a quaint over-application of a doctrinal loci; I take it as a condemnation of Evangelicalism’s biblio-centrism (the immediate context of church-state relations notwithstanding). There is one Word of God, one external and objective standard of authority. Nothing can be set next to it or above it — not “another gospel,” not human philosophy or moral codes, not the authority of the state (even a “Christian” state), not an ecclesial Magesterium … and not a written text, even an inspired one. Everything is subject to our One Lord.
The problem for fundamentalists in the early part of the last century was that matter of “objectivity.” In reacting against the claims of scientific modernism they actually took on board modernism’s own methods — that is, they wanted to demonstrate how the Bible lives up to modernism’s standards of scrutiny (rather than rejecting it). So we get things like a doctrine of inerrancy, somewhat extracted from infallibility, in a way that the Christian tradition before had never quite been concerned about it.
But — like much of Scripture — the highest authority who is Jesus Christ is not “objective” by modern standards. He is the Lord who is inaccessible to examination and criticism. Barth was keenly aware of the challenge of Gotthold Lessing — that Jesus (and indeed, all of the events narrated by Scripture) is too far removed from us to be truly knowable. So how can Christ be “objective” for Barth? I’m not sure that Barth is terribly concerned with this point — he does, after all, follow the tradition in affirming the necessity of faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God, and indeed, to even know Him.
But note that in the Barmen Declaration Barth states that the one Word of God we must hear is Jesus Christ “as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture.” Scripture is not set aside. Barth is thoroughly Protestant. In terms of authority in the Christian life, the doctrines of Christ and Holy Scripture are vitally integrated (but properly ordered). Scripture points beyond itself, yes — but it is still Scripture. It is still inspired by God as something of an “objective” testimony to the one authority — one authority over those who call Jesus Christ “Lord, Lord.”
Bobby Grow said:
Hi Darren,
I agree with you on Ryrie’s accounting; it sounds pretty typical. Unfortunately I’m all too aware of the origins and rationalism of Fundyism; and unfortunately in many quarters this kind of “Apologetic Faith” (as B. B. Warfield called it) is still defining Evangelicals across the board. I realize the history of inerrancy in America, but it’s interesting — wouldn’t you agree — that the flip side, relative to Barth’s acceptance of “higher critical” thinking is grounded in just as “rationalist” thinking as is unqualified inerrancy. So while Barth offers a unique way of framing the “Word” (unique relative to the typical “Evangelical” way); at the same time he is still tinged with some of the very rationalism that he too disdains (which I understand, he was a product of his situation as we all are). I want to hold some of what Barth emphasized (encounter) together with some of what my heritage presents (i.e. the accuracy and infallibility of the scriptures as “God-breathed”). This is why I mentioned Kevin Vanhoozer; I like what he has said here:
I agree with you on critiquing what Ryrie has said on Barth not having an “objective external standard” — for Barth, and for all of us, this should be and is Christ.
Thank you for the detailed comment.
Glen said:
I don’t think Barth’s critics take seriously the three-fold Word stuff on the trinitarian analogy. The bible is word-from-Word like Christ is God-from-God but is no less authoritative for that. Also his Romans commentary (see especially the preface to the 4th edition) is *so* much more dismissive of higher criticism stuff than 99% of “evangelical” commentaries.
Bobby Grow said:
Hey Glen,
I’ll have to check out the preface to the Romans commentary again; I read it once, but I forget his points there. I just read his “Evangelical Theology: An Introduction,” and he sounds much more higher critical (maybe not in terms of “authority” or uniqueness) than it seems you are making him sound. Maybe in methodology he is higher critical de facto, but relative to his “theory of authority” and bibliology he is only higher critical de jure. I don’t know.
I agree with you on many evangelical commentaries; as Darren has noted, they are more concerned with apologetic concerns than they often are with actual exposition and exegesis (i.e. so that they are answering questions — higher critical ones — that canonically the text never intended to answer).
Kevin Davis said:
I wish I had time to take apart Ryrie’s criticism, but I happen to be on vacation in the Appalachian mountains…so I’ve got other things to do. I do want to second Bobby’s recommendation of Kevin Vanhoozer. His essay in Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology (Baker Academic, 2008) is fantastic. Actually, all the essays are fantastic except for Sung Wook Chung’s chapter, which was poorly written and poorly argued.
Bobby Grow said:
Enjoy the Appalachians, it looks like a beautiful place; I’ve only seen them on TV. You can always come back take apart Ryrie later 🙂 .
DUANE said:
Golden oldies: You know John Denver’s
“Almost heaven, West Virginia, Blue Ridge Mountain, Shenandoah River,…”?
Yeah, it’s like that.
If the Lord does do a millenial reign on earth, maybe we could spend a couple years just hiking with the brethren and worshipping the Lord : ).