Yesterday I mentioned some comments made by N.T. Wright on the Chalcedonian Definition found in his chapter “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” in Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright, edited by Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays. Earlier today I wrote a long review of the chapter. In the review I mentioned that there were two negatives that I observed: (1) In Wright’s criticism of the effects of Chalcedonian Christology it could be perceived that he dislikes those who formulated this creed, rather than those who have used the Christology of the creed to flatten the historical Jesus into abstract doctrinal ideas. (2) In Wright’s criticisms of Barthians/Neo-Orthodox it could be perceived that he dislikes Karl Barth, rather than his followers.
Now it is possible that Wright is aiming his criticisms directly at the Council of Chalcedon and it is possible that he is not fond of the work of Karl Barth. In some areas it sounds like this is what he is saying, but the broader context leans toward his criticisms being directed at the aftermath of these doctrinal paradigms rather than the paradigms themselves.
So while I am sharing Wright’s criticisms it makes sense to include the second one of interest (he has a lot to say about Bultmann as well, but who doesn’t?), which is what I am doing here.
Wright is concerned that we tell “the whole gospel story, the whole story as history. History then; history now.” (pp. 152-153). He doesn’t want this to lead into apologetics as classically defined, but he does say the following:
“…genuine historical research is very good at cutting back the undergrowth behind which skeptical arguments had been hiding, and showing them up as worthless. This process, while not a full apologetic in the high modernist sense, can and should be genuine praeparatio evangelica, clarifying and posing more sharply the ultimate challenge of the Christian message.” (p. 153)
Wright positions the apologetic of historical research over against that of high modernism on one end. On the other end he sees a danger in the approach of Karl Barth and the Neo-Orthodox. He says the following,
“Otherwise–and this is my perceived problem with Karl Barth, or at least with those who have followed through some aspects of his thought–it really does appear to me that the gospel is presented as a closed, charmed circle, where we don’t allow any natural theology, which protects itself against the ravages of negative historical scholarship at the massive cost of shutting itself off against any possibility of genuine inquiry form the outside. There is no way out and no way in. It is all very well to say, ‘Come inside this circles, and you’ll see it all makes sense,’ but that is no real argument to someone who says, ‘From outside I can see that you are living in your own deluded little world.’ And that isn’t simply a matter of apologetics; it applies to politics and similar spheres as well. What good is it if I say to the government, ‘You ought to remit Third World debt,’ or ‘You ought to treat asylum seekers as vulnerable human beings, not as criminals,’ if they can retort, ‘That’s all very well from within your charmed faith-based circle, but we live in the real world and you have nothing to say to us.’ No wonder Paul’s speech of the Areopagus has had bad press in neo-orthodox circles. Paul shouldn’t have tried to build, they have said, on the signals of God in their culture. Isn’t it bound to end up a compromise? But the whole point of Israel’s tradition–of Abraham’s vocation!–was that Israel should be the people through whom God would go out and address the world, in order to rescue the world. When Jesus said, ‘You are the light of the world,’ he expressly warned against putting a bucket over that light. He presupposes that the world can and will see the light when it’s shining and will be attracted to it.” (pp. 153-154)
As you can see Wright isn’t committing to a critique of Barth, per se, but rather his followers (and only Barth if his followers correctly represent him). So I don’t get the sense that he has interacted much with Barth himself. I can be sympathetic since (1) I have tried to read Barth but always find myself wanting something that feels a little less lost in the ethereal and (2) frustrated by the writing and speaking of some Barthians who seem to say so much without saying anything that makes sense to the rest of us who live in the real space-time universe.
What do you think? Do you agree with Wright’s criticisms or not? Do you think they apply to Barth, his followers, or both?
the archives near Emmaus 
I guess I am the ultimate anti-Barthian, so I dig the quote by Wright. Barth. His followers. I get them confused sometimes.
Also, on another note, I resist calling Barth and Co. neo-orthodoxy, for it has come to be used in a polemical sense. I resolve to call Barth Bonhoeffer, Brunner, and Bultmann German contextual theologians. Just a thought.
Rod: I tend to word my criticisms like Wright in that I haven’t read enough Barth to know if I dislike Barth himself. Many Barthians speak in such a way that it feels gnostic at times. It is all about special knowledge and the predestinating work of God is so overwhelming that I can’t make much sense of the Fourth Gospel’s efforts to convince readers that Jesus is the Son of God or the Lukan Paul’s sermon at the Areopagus or the author of Hebrews effort to show his audience how Christ is everywhere in Torah. Sometimes I can even make sense of evangelism as they word it.
I am more than willing to pull the label “Neo-Orthodox” because it does sound kind of cool and I don’t know that I want the Barthians to own it! 🙂
I am a huge fan of Wright and his work on the Historical Jesus. Studying the historical Jesus certainly gives us more color to the Gospel portraits. Sad that i actually have to say this but, studying Jesus historically is not necessary to be a Christian or understand the Gospel. The Gospel is universal and supersedes culture. Historical Jesus studies for me is a hobby. I think this is where there is something to say about Barth’s existential, the Christ of faith. I don’t know if he is ahistorical, but sees historical criticism as unnecessary. Wright as a historian naturally cringes at this and should. It chops up the Bible as it is organically to be read, as a narrative. When this happens we can no longer find our place in that story.
Ryan: While I agree that understanding Jesus in his historical context doesn’t make a Christian (that is a work of the Spirit alone), it is dangerous to be satisfied with a merely existential Jesus since (1) Jesus isn’t merely someone we experience, like the thrill of a roller coaster or the taste of vanilla ice cream and (2) emotions and feelings can be helpful, but due to their instability they make lousy foundations. Historical work have the ability to make stable a structure that comes into existence because of some sort of experience.
You rightly note that a Jesus that is maybe a tad bit “more than a feeling” to quote the song is a Jesus without a narrative. This Jesus leaves us without a narrative. A narrative is not salvation, but it sure is hard to know why you are doing what you are doing, and why you are worshiping who you are worshiping, if it becomes detached, ahistorical spirituality with Jesus’ face on it.
Just a quick one. I’d categorize Brunner & co. as Neo-Orthodox; since he seeks to leave a place for the analogia entis in his prolegomena, while Barth & co. seek to radically erase it through the analogia fidei (although this is not w/o some controversy as well, i.e. how far Barth actually erased the analogy of being. All things being equal, I would suggest that it is a misnomer to label Barth & co. Neo-Orthodox (I’ve had Barthians correct me on this in the past; so I thought I’d pay it forward 😉 ).
I would also like to suggest that the same critique could be levied at Wrightians. While Wright is more “pastoral” in mode (relatively speaking); he still has his own technical lexicon and jargon. And for the uninitiated reading him might as well be reading Barth; viz. for the uninitiated.
Bobby: In that sense it is true of anyone that someone has not read much. I don’t understand the technical jargon of many people in many fields. A big question is then can so-and-so’s followers introduce so-and-so’s thoughts with ease or translate them into their own thought while only hinting at subtle influence. With Wright I find this very easy, but I never understand Barthians. It could be that I am slow, but I don’t think I am alone. And I am sure it often depends on the person and their mode of thinking. If only Barth would have ditched the Dogmatics and wrote “The Trinity for Everyone”, “Christology for Everyone”, and so forth I’d be more prone to appreciate him. 🙂
Brian, I know what you’re saying. He did write his Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, which is quite accessible (more so than his CD). You could always try and read TFT, like his “Christian Doctrine of God” or “The Trinitarian Faith;” both excellent and accessible.
First the Karl Barth Facebook scandal, and now trenchant criticism from Tom Wright. I don’t know if Neo-Orthodoxy can take much more!
I’m with Wright (and you) on Barth…and Barthians. I’ve always heard so many great things about Barth, but after I picked up his work and read it for myself, I found him to be so entangled in abstract philosophy and theology that it left those of us who live in the (as you say) “space time universe” without much to latch hold of. And though I always hear Barthians championing his work, I find that much of Barth’s stuff is inaccessible and convoluted…and pretentious in some areas (at least, some of his followers act pretentiously with his teachings).
I admit that I’m biased against Barth, because I’ve always found him to be a bit over-rated. Nevertheless, if a theologian cannot be reasonably clear – not always needing his/her ardent followers to “interpret” – then maybe we should rethink our appraisal of such a theologian. Sure, some theological concepts are tricky and difficult to get our arms around, but Barth transcends this problem and reaches a level of disgruntling ambiguity.
However, I do appreciate much his perspective on the resurrection, because after all I’ve said above, I would also criticize Wright for being too dogmatically historical. Wright, in my judgment, treats history as the last word (just look at his defense of his New Perspective ideas). Thus, I credit both Barth and Bultmann for viewing the resurrection as more than a mere historical event but, in fact, as an escahtological event.
@Aaron: There is much to benefit from the “resurrection as eschatological event” argument, but I think that needs to be qualified lest it leads to something so abstract that it doesn’t make sense of the rise of the church and the content of the apostolic proclamation. It is so amazing that we must not rely on historiography to a fault as if the resurrection is something that we should expect to make tons of sense. Likewise, the evangelists mention an empty tomb and the Apostle Paul points to eyewitnesses. This makes me think that part of what Wright is doing (and Habermas and now Michael Licona) still has an important place.
Hi Brian, Appreciate this old post. I’m just beginning studies at Wycliffe College in Toronto–a place that seems to be quite sympathetic to postliberal theology (strongly influenced by Barth). Wright’s description “closed, charmed circle” captures my experience of Barth’s theology so far but we’ll see where it all goes. It’s certainly not simple to crack into! Cheers
@Stephen:
Thanks for stopping by the blog! Although this post is a couple years old my experience remains the same with Barthians. Also, I have not yet found myself interested in his overall project, but maybe someday. I hope all goes well for you in your studies, both at Wycliffe and of Barth!