the baby and the barthwater?

As we move from critique of Christendom mode of ecclesia to a more missional idea of the church we do well to remember that this is something that ought always to be done in every age and every context. That it hasn’t been done all that often demonstrates how we have tended to make our prevailing idea of church into an idol and thereby put it beyond critique. The challenge of constant adaptation and reshaping along missional lines remains a fundamental part of what it means to be a faithful to the idea of church as Jesus intended it in the first place. This is no alien work; rather it forms a fundamental part of our witness in the world in which we live. The great theologian Karl Barth fully recognized this when he gave guidance to a anxious pastor in then Marxist East Germany who was struggling with how the church could continue to express the traditional form of church that they had inherited whilst having to go underground in order to maintain community witness. I quote it at length here because of its sheer relevance for our situation as well. Barth says…

I am not now saying anything new to you in reference to this question. It was indeed one of your most renowned and ablest men, General Superintendent Gunther Jacob in Cottbus, who not long ago announced the “end of the Constantinian era”. Because I have certain wariness about all theoretical formulation of a philosophy of history, I hesitate to make this expression my own. However, it is certain that something resembling this approaching end begins to show itself simply everywhere, but very sharply in your part of the world. It is certain that we all have reason to ask ourselves each of these questions and in every case quickly and clearly to give the answer:

No, the church’s existence does not always have to possess the same form in the future that it possessed in the past as though this were the only possible pattern.

No, the continuance and victory of the cause of God which the Christian Church is to serve with her witness, is not unconditionally linked with the forms of existence which it has had until now.

Yes, the hour may strike, and perhaps has already struck when God, to our discomfiture, but to his glory and for the salvation of mankind, will put an end to this mode of existence because it lacks integrity.

Yes, it could be our duty to free ourselves inwardly from our dependency on that mode of existence even while it still lasts. Indeed, on the assumption that it may one day entirely disappear, we definitely should look about us for new ventures in new directions.

Yes, as the Church of God we may depend on it that if only we are attentive, God will show us such new ways as we can hardly anticipate now. And as the people who are bound to God, we may even now claim unconquerably security for ourselves through him. For his name is above all names…

(Source: Karl Barth, “Letter to a Pastor in the German Democratic Republic” in How to Serve God in a Marxist Land (New York: Association Press, 1959) 45-80)

April 17, 2007 | Filed Under missional church, the forgotten ways |

Comments

11 Responses to “the baby and the barthwater?”

brad on April 17th, 2007 3:24 pm

well of course, yes … this makes perfect sense (unless this is all new to a first-time reader who happens to stumble upon this). what other response do we expect to Mr. Barth’s incisive reflection on the realities of “parallel cultures” versus countercultures behind the then Iron Curtain? (”parallel cultures” being the term used for countries where by day you had to live completely within obedience to “the system” — usually Communist — but once you went home and locked the door, you created your own parallel universe, insofar as possible, and did what you wanted.)

and yet, is it possible that while hitting the target, Barth missed the bulls-eye? would we not be doing even better to focus on forming missional disciples rather than formulating missional churches, as the former is actually our Commission, not the latter?

to give my own paraphrase the other famous “Mr. B.” theologian … okay, so it’s Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451, not Bultmann or Bruce … *when people become their book rather than just visit a library, then truths will have been liberated and books will be unleashed.*

i think i’m about ready for liberation from The System … and suspect I’ll soon be unleashed (though perhaps would prefer I be on a leash?!).
Alan Hirsch on April 17th, 2007 5:05 pm

Good point/s Brad. and one is always left wondering why we can suggest such change to churches facing extreme situations, but not take our own advice. Well at least Barth has clay feet like the rest of us. Phew!!
brad on April 17th, 2007 5:14 pm

yeah. that red-earth/clay thing affects us all, bro.

i think though, i’m about ready–not to give up on traditional or transitional churches, but to shift as much of my stewardship of time and talents to the tribal * decentralized * starfishy * Kingdom project networks. we have so many practitioner-activists, so few interpreter-advocates, even fewer theologian-strategists. time for those who can and who sense the call to move into these future edges where “discipleship” really means discipleship and not putting secondary things first …

hey?! what are you doing up and commenting? it’s 12:15 AM in California! oh well, that’s the paradox of where my first blog comment of the day is perhaps the last as well.

maybe see you guyz later next month if i’m still in this state …
JAMES PETTICREW on April 17th, 2007 8:00 pm

great Barth quote! Love Barth, that is when I can understand him. Barth is interesting very strong on the incarnation and yet very anti any sort of general revelation. I wonder what his view of the role of culture in the expressing the church?.Any Barth scholars out there?
Alan Hirsch on April 17th, 2007 9:54 pm

Brad, don’t leave the planet just as we are arriving. We really do hope to see you and catchup.

And James, I feel the same about BArth. Who can understand him??? Can he understand himself?
Celtic Son on April 17th, 2007 11:31 pm

Hullo-o-o

Barth is a struggle… but I’m not sure Brad about Ray Bradbury’s “interpretation of the Book of Revelation” as Theology per se… It’s another example of your incredible eclectic mind, connecting dots, so far apart that most of us have to interpolate in the gap, so to speak!!

In all honesty I find that many translations of theologians, who have written in a first language that is not English, are hard work… At times I wonder whether the theologian or the translator has clay feet or it’s just that I have a clay pigeon for a brain? I enjoy the challenge sometimes, at others it annoys me! When faced with the “ununderstandableness” (should that just be “derstandableness” to avoid the double negative?) of someone’s work… I comfort myself with the thoughts that there are always new things to learn about my God AND there are some mysteries my brain is just too wee to fit in… and sometimes my wee brain might stretch to accomodate a new thought… it has happened… I think!

The other challenge we face in reading the like of Karl Barth is that he wrote a lot of words, over a period of time in which his thinking developed, so some of his earlier work is likely to be less accurate in his own thinking - which is why, at times, I also wonder whether he understands himself!

I think I get some of Barth’s thinking, but I’m concerned that most of what I’ve read has been contaminated by the voice of commentators, rather than just plain ole Barth. I haven’t completely reconciled his arguments around general revelation, so the jury’s still out for me there… I don’t like some of his thinking, but that’s no indicator of whether there’s truth in it - all too often it’s me that has to change how I feel about the stuff I think!

My reading of Barth on the issues of church and culture, would be that he’d suggest oil and water don’t mix; that God is wholy and holy other and so should the church be… It seems to me a significant impetus for his shift from his inital liberal training was based on a sense of disgust, with the influence of the prevailing culture on liberal church leaders creating a move away from the ethic of the gospel. Again I refer to a little knowledge, doggedly dogging dogmatics and drinking lots of strong coffeee…

Question is; what does Barth’s writing - or anyone elses for that matter - have to contribute to the church of the 21st Century?? Send answers on a post card to… The Forgotten Ways

Slainte

A Celtic Son
James Petticrew on April 17th, 2007 11:32 pm

Nothing makes me more realistic about my IQ level than reading “Church Dogmatics”
James Petticrew on April 18th, 2007 1:09 am

BTW I think Barth matter today because in significant areas he points the way forward in developing a truly incarnational theology which I believe is exactly what the missional church needs.
Mak on April 18th, 2007 1:43 am

I almost never understand Barth - - but that speaks to my intelligence more than to barth’s ability to explain or speak well on a subject, esp. in his native tongue I’m sure.

But what I’ve read of him and understood I have liked.

Now, Alan I can understand

“we have tended to make our prevailing idea of church into an idol and thereby put it beyond critique.”

This is so true and something to be very aware of as we move “onward” with the Christian communities we lead/serve. Creating a “missional model” or a charismissional model or an emerging model sort of defeats the point, especially if we don’t keep at the fore the principals behind the behavior.
len hjalmarson on April 18th, 2007 2:24 am

I am far from a Barth scholar, but I sat under one two years ago for a course. Barth is worth the read. He never wrote a theology of culture per se. Here was my attempt at the close of the course to bring Barth into the current conversation..

http://nextreformation.com/wp-admin/general/barth-emerge.htm
Bob Carder on April 23rd, 2007 2:52 pm

I’m jumping in with both feet. God show me the way and please don’t let the sharks eat me.

We need leaders who do not need to survive. They may kill you, so what, you know Jesus. They may beat you, so I have been beaten before. They may accuse you, I’ve been accused, how about you. Your ministry and credentials may be taken, so what!

I jumped in with both feet, If I lose, I lose. If I win, I win. I believe with Jesus the sharks will circle but I will not be eaten. God is doing a new thing. I want to be on the wave and ride her home. The King wins and I’m on the board!

The ministry of Jesus and the Great Commission priority wins…the lost are discipled! And the discipled are discipling others, are you on board?

Or do you see the sharks and remain in the boat? I pity you and your ministry and call! Keep the status quo and be smothered to death by her. I pity you!