“Christological enquiry is a profoundly hermeneutical one – no appeal can be made to immediate knowledge of God. This means, pace Barth, Christ cannot be an ‘epistemological principle [Erkenntnisprinzip]‘ for we have no access to how Christ views and knows things. We only have access to interpretations of the way Christ views and knows things; interpretations which may participate in God’s grace, but which cannot claim to be inspired without scandal (skandalon).” Christ and Culture, p. 1.
April 17, 2008
Graham Ward on Barth’s Christology
Posted by Jon under Christocentrism, Christology, Method, Theology | Tags: Barth, Christocentrism, Christology, Graham Ward |[4] Comments
April 19, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Let me get this straight: is Ward saying that the Christological method of Barth relies on having access to the perspective of Jesus? If so, I don’t see Barth having any interest in the way Christ views and knows things, but perhaps I missed some key sections.
April 19, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Chris,
I think Ward is reacting against the notion of ‘immediacy’ in revelation, something that Colin Gunton reacts against too in his book on revelation: “Since Hegel’s time, theology has been dominated by quests for different forms of immediacy, and that, I believe, is one root of our modern discomfort with the question of a revealed religion.” (A Brief History of Revelation, 4) I think Ward would admit that Barth never explicitly expresses ‘the way Christ views and knows thing’ as the principle of knowledge in Barth’s Christocentrism – rather I think he sees that being the corollary of Barth’s Christocentrism – hence why he wouldn’t like to advocate it.
April 20, 2008 at 3:48 am
Well, I wouldn’t advocate for it either, but I fail to see how it’s a corollary of Barth’s Christocentrism. Perhaps some other form of Christocentrism (Jesus-centrism), but certainly not Barth’s. Of course, turning Barth’s Christological method into an -ism is a dangerous move in itself, especially since he does not use this method by necessity, nor does he employ it in the same way. Christological method requires Christology, and that is something that is arguably being developed throughout the Church Dogmatics as a dynamic loci, so the Christ of the Christological method means that it is not a static method and certainly not an -ism.
April 20, 2008 at 9:49 am
Chris,
For a fuller critique of Barth’s Christocentric methodology see the first 26 pages of Ward’s book ‘Christ and Culture’. I think you have to admit there are problems with Barth’s Christological method. It becomes a lot clumsier later on when you want to talk about man and theological anthropology…