WHAT IS WRONG WITH DIALECTIC THEOLOGY
WHAT IS WRONG WITH
DIALECTIC THEOLOGY
Introduction
Dialectical theology, this aspect of theology
existed early in the 20th century, in response to the liberalism then dominant
in German theology. Many young theologians and church leaders were appalled
when Germany's leading theologians signed an open letter endorsing German war
aims, and concluded that there was something fundamentally wrong with a
theology that was incapable of standing against the popular cultural tide.
Dialectical theologians traced the fundamental problem back to liberal
theology's alleged anthropocentric starting point: as Karl Barth, one of the
leading dialectical theologians, put it, liberals thought they could talk about
God by talking about human beings in a loud voice, which meant that they were
ultimately left empty-handed when the time came to say “No” to a culture's
self-perception.[1]
What Is Theology
The word theology is derived from two Greek words
‘Theos’ (God) and logos (study). Thus, theology can be
defined as a study of God. According to Anselm of Canterbury, he defineds
theology as “faith seeking understanding”, one sees that it somehow encompasses
the very nature of theology. By subjecting our faith to rational enquiry in order
to understand what we believe, it does not just terminate at the level of
seeking to understand rather our understanding should contribute to faith; this
is what we see in the harmony of faith and reason. Theology begins with human
experience of faith, and tends to make it explicit by understanding all it
signifies, means and implies.[2]
The range of theology extends to reach the language in which we speak of God. Theology
also helps us on the discourse about God and our faith as Christians. More so, theology
refers as the highbrow examination and description of what Christians believe
and also practice.[3] Studying theology will
make one attain an intensive understanding of his or her religious tradition or
any other religious tradition.[4]
The study of theology may be used to equip someone to challenge biblical
criticisms or kick against some non-religious practices within any religious
belief. Theology can be used to reform or justify a religious tradition.
Studying theology makes one to address some present problem or to search for
possible ways of interpreting the world.[5]
How is theology done?
It
is necessary for us to note that this question of how is theology done directs
us to the preliminaries that enable us to make careful and deliberative claims about
God and the life of faith. Those concerns that shape how theology is done are
refers to as theological method. Thus, the mindful use of language is essential
for the communication of theological knowledge hence the deep relationship between
language and theology begins the preliminary consideration on how language
about God should be engaged.[6]
Language is a unique way to share who God is and life
of faith. Furthermore, our use of language can limit how God is known in our
lives and in our communities of faith or it can express the infinite, wondrous,
elusive, immense reality of God and encourage us to know the divine more
deeply.[7] One
of the prominent ways in which we can talk about God is the use of metaphor. The
use of metaphor makes it possible to speak of something in terms of another. God
cannot be describe God directly because God is spirit and not a physical
person, making use of metaphors is the exact way in which we can indirectly say
something meaningful about God. For example, when we speak of God as a father,
we only mean to describe God like our earthly father who cares, loves and
provide for us daily. But every metaphor breaks down at some point and we
encounter the opposite: “God is not like our earthly father”.[8]
Thus, these are ways that God can be considered father-like: we believe our
life comes from God; God cares for us like a parent; God disciplines and loves
us alike and in other hand God is not like our earthly father because God does
not have a physical body and is not biological male, God does not fall short
the way the best fathers do.[9]
Dialectic theology, foundational Dialectical theology,
foundational to the theological system known as neo-orthodoxy, is the idea that
God is unknowable to human beings outside of His grace and direct revelation.
According to dialectical theology, all attempts to know God through human
reason are frustrated by insurmountable contradictions; thus, reason must give
way to faith. Dialectical theologians focus upon God’s transcendence rather
than attempt to explain God in human terms. The word dialectic refers to the
logical discussion of ideas through opposing forces, such as using paradox to
describe an abstract thought.[10]
From
the above definition of “dialectic theology” to ask what is wrong with the
dialectic theology presupposes the conviction that it contains something that
is right.[11]
According to Paul Tillich he stated that, it his indeed his conviction that
there is not only something that is right in the dialectic theology, but
something quite definitive for theology and equally fundamental for the church.
And not until that fact is emphatically established does significant criticism
become possible.[12]
Karl Barth is the proponent of dialectic theology, its
theological founder and head, with whom we are principally concerned in our
exposition and criticism, comes from the Swiss religious-socialist movement.
Karl Barth hold a determinative idea of the notion that God stands as sovereign,
not only over against the world, but also over against the church and piety, and
consequently he has the power to make more of his will known through a contemporary
secular movement even through an atheistic movement like that of social
democracy than through ecclesiastical activities and the churchly forms of
piety.[13]
The Blumhards and the religious socialists taught that God’s will is most
clearly manifest not in subjective piety and the rescue of individual souls but
in the administration of the world, the vanquishing of the demonic powers
therein, the coming of the kingdom of God. And for this purpose God can employ
such instruments as seemingly are least his, even the enemies of the church and
of the Christianity. At a time the will of God was understood as a mundane
social reality, and the struggle to realize the kingdom of God could be
interpreted as a political struggle for social righteousness. But the
sovereignty of God, denied to the church was thereby surrendered to a political
movement. Because of this Barth withdrew from the movement and retained only
the notion of the unconditioned sovereignty of God over against both the church
and the world.[14]
Barth centers his theology on the first commandment of God “I am the Lord thy
God; thou shalt not have any other god beside me.” Any teaching that draws God
into the sphere of human possibility is rebellion against the first
commandment. Barth posited that the relationship between God and Man is
expressed in the sentence “God is in heaven and thou art on earth.” There is a
hollow space between God and man which man is unable of himself to penetrate. [15]
These presuppositions enable one to understand the severity with which Barth and
all the theologians who follow him assail mysticism. Mysticism assumes the
identity of the human and the divine spirit. All mysticism seeks God in the
depths of the human spirit. It seeks the deepest levels of the human in order
to meet God, since where the speech cease the divine in man begins. But to be
Christian is to seek God in the Word and in the Word only. The Word stands over
against us. It is spoken to us by another. It is outside of us and demand faith
and obedience, not submergence and ecstasy.[16]
Naturalistic theology taught, that it is accordingly
maintained that man can know God from nature, Barth on his own rejected this
notion of the naturalist theology, by positing that, “if man is at all able to
recognize God as a God from nature, then human activity is involved in the act
of faith. But if the act of faith is purely a work of God, then man can be
allowed no antecedent possibility of knowing God”.[17]
Following the naturalist theology there is the tendency of deifying man, but
Barth holds that the likeness of God in man is a thing to be sought , a goal of
salvation and perfection, but is nothing given, no natural equipment by whose
help one can attain any knowledge of God. We can attain knowledge of God only
by means of God himself, that is, through his spirit which is in us but not of
us. The spirit alone makes possible man’s likeness to God.[18]
Natural and cultural theology is condemned along with the philosophy of
religion because it attempt to discover immediate knowledge of God from nature
on the one hand, and from philosophy, science, art, and history on the other.
So nature can only be interpreted in a human, not in theological way. Human and
divine possibility are radically separated, for man is a sinner and the
possibility of natural sinlessness is an abstraction that can have for us
absolutely no meaning. Therefore, the liberal theology is heresy.[19]
The total result is, finally, that theology can be
nothing but the exercise of a critical self-consciousness upon the content of the
Christian pronouncement, in which the word of Scripture is the ultimate
standard of criticism. Any mingling of philosophical ideas in this task is
rejected.[20]
The use of any sort of natural theology as a preliminary to reflection on God,
the world, or man is stoutly resisted. Philosophy, like religion, belongs in human
culture and in the sphere of human possibilities. Theology rests on revelation,
which is humanly impossible. And there is no bridge spanning the gulf between
the divine and the human.[21] Thus
the Barthian theology, from first to last, preserves the sovereign prerogative
of God as expressed in the first commandment. God's sovereignty is not blended
with any form of human existence and action.[22]
Unquestionably, this seems to me to be the truth that is preserved not only in
the Barthian theology but in any theology that deserves the name. A criticism
of this position would be not only a criticism of Barth but of the Bible, the church,
and theology in general.[23]
Bernard
Lonergan, a Jesuit philosopher and theologian lived from 1904 until 1984. He
wrote a book name “Method in Theology”,
this book presents theology as a discipline that mediates between a religion
and a culture and in the book he explores how the human mind can understand and
know things, as well as how a basic continuity in the process of knowing
stretches across math, social science, metaphysics and religious belief. The
book deals with intellectual conversation and expands the range of concerns to
include also moral and religious conversation. Intellectual conversation
entails understanding what you are doing when you are knowing, moral
conversation involves a shift in your criteria of decision, making from selfishness
to higher values. Religious conversation is a falling in love with God.[24] The
work shows how theology can be a fully reasonable and critical discipline while
at the same time retaining its traditional role as "faith seeking
understanding." And he lays out basic plan for academic discipline of
theology which is divided into eight functional specialties: research,
interpretation, history, dialectic, foundations, doctrines, systematics and
communications. The first four functional specialties operate in a way that is
logically prior to conversation and final four require conversation as a
prerequisite.[25]
Thomas
Aquinas, his theology is based fundamentally on the authority of revelation,
yet understood according to the philosophical principle of instrumental
causality. Theology begins with the truth of Sacred Doctrine, the truth of
God's knowledge of Himself and of humans' as being ordered to Him as to an end.
Since God alone can impart His knowledge of Himself, the act of revelation by
which it is given, and the act of faith, by which it is received, are
fundamentally God's actions. Yet this knowledge is imparted to humans, by
humans and for humans[26]. And
since it is a principle of thomistic thought that "whatever is received is
received according to the mode of the receiver," revelation is also a
human act conditioned by the human. The truth of Faith is transmitted through
Sacred Doctrine and is the human participation in divine science, i.e. the
knowledge which God and the blessed share in heaven.[27] Theology,
insofar as it is distinct from Sacred Doctrine, is a human science of the
divine. However, both start first with God and then proceeds according to the
human. Theology, when properly done, will merely present all of, and only, the
truth of Sacred Doctrine in another form. According to Thomas, God reveals
himself through nature, so to study nature is to study God. The ultimate goals
of theology, in Thomas's mind, are to use reason to grasp the truth about God
and to experience salvation through that truth. The central thought is grace
does not destroy nature, but perfects it.[28]
Gregory
of Nazianzus, he states that any confession of God must be governed by rules,
that only God knows himself perfectly so that the church’s confession is always
partial. He posits, “The Divine, then, is boundless and difficult to
contemplate; the only thing completely comprehensible about it is its boundlessness
even though some think that the fact of its simple nature makes it either
completely incomprehensible or perfectly comprehensible”. Gregory responded to
Eunomius who taught that God was perfectly knowable, that man comprehending God
places boundaries upon God.[29]
He upheld orthodox position that God’s essence is incomprehensible and
ineffable for man because God is infinite, holy and greater than anything man
can imagine. Gregory’s goal is to mark off what cannot be said about God so
that the church can boldly assert what is revealed so that salvation and
worship are protected.
Conclusion
In
the course of this paper we have been able to define dialectic theology as the
idea that God is unknowable to human beings outside of His grace and direct revelation
and according to dialectical theology, all attempts to know God through human
reason are frustrated by insurmountable contradictions; thus, reason must give
way to faith. Karl Barth being the proponent of this theory posited that “if
man is at all able to recognize God as a God from nature, then human activity
is involved in the act of faith. But if the act of faith is purely a work of
God, then man can be allowed no antecedent possibility of knowing God”.
Furthermore, Bernard Lonergan on his part lays out basic plan for academic
discipline of theology which is divided into eight functional specialties:
research, interpretation, history, dialectic, foundations, doctrines,
systematics and communications. The first four functional specialties operate
in a way that is logically prior to conversation and final four require
conversation as a prerequisite. More so, for Thomas, God reveals himself
through nature, so to study nature is to study God. So one can know the
existence of God through nature, and finally Gregory upheld that God’s essence
is incomprehensible and ineffable for man because God is infinite, holy and
greater than anything man can imagine.
[3] Elaine A. Robinson, Exploring
Theology: What is Theology? (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2014) p. 9
[4] Cf. Michael
S. Kogan, Towards a Jewish Theology of
Christianity’ (The Journal of Ecumenical studies 32.1, 1995) pp. 89-106
[5] Cf. Anne Hunt Overzee, The body divine: the symbol of the body in
the works of Teilhard de Chardin and Ramanuja (Cambridge university press,
Cambridge 1992) p. 4
[6] Cf. Elaine A. Robinson, Exploring
Theology: How do we do theology? (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2014) p. 63
[7] Cf. Elaine A. Robinson, Exploring
Theology: How do we do theology? P. 64
[8] Cf. Elaine A. Robinson, Exploring
Theology: How do we do theology? P. 64
[9] Cf. Elaine A. Robinson, Exploring
Theology: How do we do theology? P. 64
[10]
https://www.gotquestions.org/dialectical-theology.html
[11] Paul Tillich, “What Is
Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion, Vol. 15, No 2
(Apr., 1935), pp. 127 – 145
[12] Cf. Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp. 127
[13] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp. 128
[14] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp. 129
[15] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp. 130
[16] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp 131
[17] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp 131
[18] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp 131
[19] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp 132
[20] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp 135
[21] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp 135
[22] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp 135
[23] Paul
Tillich, “What Is Wrong with the “Dialectic” Theology” The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 15, No 2 (Apr., 1935), pp 135
[24] https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bernard-lonergan-drew-map-theology-new-era.
Accessed 14th January 2018
[25] https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bernard-lonergan-drew-map-theology-new-era.
Accessed 14th January 2018
[26] http://www.aquinasonline.com/theology.html.
Accessed 15th January, 2018
[27] http://www.aquinasonline.com/theology.html.
Accessed 15th January, 2018
[28] http://www.aquinasonline.com/theology.html. Accessed 15th January,
2018
[29] http://equip.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SBJT-V14-N.2-Goad.pdf.
Accessed 15th January, 2018
Comments
Post a Comment