REINHOLD NIEBUHR AND KARL BARTH ON THE RELEVANCE OF THEOLOGY

REINHOLD NIEBUHR AND KARL BARTH ON THE RELEVANCE OF THEOLOGY many years Reinhold Niebuhr FoR has criticized the theology and social and political ethics of Karl Barth. The culmination and summation of this criticism is expressed in an article of Niebuhr's which appeared in the last Christian Century series on "How My Mind Has Changed." Niebuhr says: Barth has long since ceased to have any effect on my thought; indeed he has become irrelevant to all Christians in the Western world who believe in accepting common and collective responsibilities without illusion and without despair. We cannot protect the truth of the gospel by separating it from all the disciplines of culture and all the common experiences of our ethical life."' It is not yet apparent as to whether Barth's visit to America (Spring, 1962) will have any noticeable effect in theological discussion. A number of factors militate against the probability of Barth's exercising significant influence on American Christianity, however. One is the vehement and categorical dismissal of his theology by American THOMAS E. McCOLLOUGH* * Thomas E. McCollough is assistant professor of religion at Duke University. He has taught at the International Baptist Seminary in Ruschlikon- Zurich, Switzerland, and at Stetson University, DeLand, Florida. He holds the B.B.A. degree from the University of Texas (1947), the B.D. and Th.D. (1955) from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and has done additional study at the University of Zurich and the University of Basel, where he participated in the colloquium of Professor Karl Barth (1959-61). He has contributed articles to Religion in Life, Religious Education, Review and Expositor, and Scottish Journal of Theology. 49 theologians of first-rank importance, such as Niebuhr and Tillich, who have been influenced in earlier years by Barth's theology but who now disavow him altogether. A false image of Barth, prejudicial to a close study of the man and his thought, is perpetuated by responsible theologians. The sheer bulk of Barth's Church Dogmatics is a stumbling block to the American student. The different contexts of Continental and American Christianity and Barth's own strictures against American culture constitute further barriers to a sympathetic study of his thought. It may be, however, that a serious study of Barth's theology is needed in America at this time, the more especially since he speaks from a European context. For its continued vitality, theology must be a sustained dialogue in which central issues and basic methodology are clarified in light of contrasting approaches and emphases. Niebuhr's charge of "isolationism" in Barth's theology merits careful analysis. The debate between Niebuhr and Barth is particularly instructive at this point, for when Niebuhr, an authentic and representative American theologian, criticizes the basic theological stance of Karl Barth, he reveals his own fundamental presuppositions. The vast corpus of theological writing of both men must be assumed as background for the following discussion, which can do no more than touch on some of the central issues posed for

50 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION American Christianity by the Niebuhrian critique of Barth. Niebuhr has criticized Barth's theology first on the score that it is "too consistently 'eschatological' for the 'nicely calculated less and more' which must go into political decisions," and second for his "extreme pragmatism, which disavows all moral principles."2 In attempting to assess Niebuhr's criticism of Barth, it is imperative to note that Niebuhr's perspective is not one of dogmatics but rather of apologetics and/or political theory. Niebuhr's distinction between the "theological frame of reference" and the "lower political frame of reference"3 is fundamental to a consideration of the conflict between the two theologians. Charles C. West in a careful analysis of the theologies of Barth and Niebuhr in relation to communism gives a trenchant but sympathetic critique of both. He finds Barth deficient in his understanding of some of the realities of the contemporary political situation. West sees Barth's great strength, however, in his insistence on the critical detachment of theology from philosophies and ideologies which seek a holy alliance with the Christian faith. He concludes that Niebuhr, in speaking for the preservation of Western values in the face of the threat of the Communist world, has presupposed the values of the Western tradition in his exposition of "moral principles"; Niebuhr's theology has not been sufficiently distinguished from his ideology.4 It could be that Barth as theologian and Niebuhr as Christian commentator on political events are pursuing complementary tasks. That each may on occasion venture to speak in the area of the other's chief competence makes it the more necessary to clarify the rela- tion of the two "frames of reference" on the theoretical level, if theology is to maintain its integrity and effectiveness as an independent, autonomous discipline. In opposing himself to Barth, Niebuhr declares: "We cannot protect the truth of the gospel by separating it from all the disciplines of culture and all the common experiences of our ethical life."" But Niebuhr confuses Barth's theological separation of the truth of the gospel from culture with a practical separation of faith from its worldly expression in culture and ethical life. The question of the relevance of theology to culture necessitates a clarification of the nature of theology as a discipline. Practical application of the Christian faith must be distinguished from theoretical explication of Christian truth, else pragmatic considerations will exercise a determinative influence upon theology. The pragmatism which Niebuhr sees in Barth's political pronouncements characterizes Niebuhr's own thought on the theoretical level of theology. The gradual development of Niebuhr's thought as evidenced in his writings and in his "Intellectual Autobiography" reveals the fact that his theology has developed under the pressure of pragmatic considerations.6 Because of his dominant political and social interests, Niebuhr has been preoccupied with analyzing the problems of the historical situation. Prophetic religion has provided the perspective for the analysis of sin and the proclamation of judgment. His apologetics has claimed validation of fundamental Christian insights concerning man's historical existence. Here the question is not one of the value of Niebuhr's work in the area of the doctrine of man as a Christian commentator on events in the interna-

NIEBUHR AND BARTH ON RELEVANCE OF THEOLOGY 51 tional political scene. The question is whether Niebuhr's pragmatism is adequate as theological method. Niebuhr has disclaimed the title of theologian. He confesses in his "Intellectual Autobiography" that he has never been sufficiently interested in pure theology to acquire competence in its "nice points"; he shares the "strong pragmatic interest" of American Christianity in comparison with European Christianity. He declares that he has refused to defend himself against the challenge of the "stricter sects of theologians in Europe" to prove that his interests were theological rather than practical or "apologetic" both because they had a point and because he was not interested in a distinction between the two.7 Niebuhr's continuing criticism of Barth's theology exposes Niebuhr's own theological method to the necessity of theological analysis. Such critical examination of his assumptions on the theoretical level of theology is imperative, since his accomplishments and his present acknowledged stature have led many to overrule his modest demurrals and acknowledge him as professional theologian. Will Herberg, for instance, declares: In spite of his own disclaimers, Reinhold Niebuhr must be rated a theologian in the strict sense of the term, and a very distinguished one too.8 He goes on to say: With great truth, Carl Michalson has recently noted that "the one American theologian most consistent in his delineation of the historical element in the Christian faith in Reinhold Niebuhr. Every major doctrine has been a hermeneutical tool of historical interpretation in his hands."9 The implications for theology proper which follow from the conception of theology as a hermeneutical tool of history are highly significant. The "mighty acts of God" are grasped as "points of illumination in which the purposes of God are revealed within the flux of history."'0 The Christian faith is reduced to meaningful symbols, permanently valid myths, profound insights, an "interpretative key" which unlocks the mystery of the nature and destiny of man and the meaning of history. The "insights of biblical religion" constitute the solid ground for Niebuhr's pragmatic theology. The Christian "idea" becomes a substitute for the event of revelation. Relevance to the situation rather than to the truth of its object becomes the dominant concern of theology. Nowhere does Niebuhr develop a rationale for the norm of Christian truth other than his attempt to validate rationally the claim that the Christian faith illuminates the nature and destiny of man more adequately than do alternative faiths. Relevance takes priority over truth. When pragmatism assumes the status of theological method, relevance to the situation becomes the criterion of truth. Niebuhr makes good use of the "points of illumination" in his social and political analyses. But he renders his project problematical as a theological program because he is not essentially concerned with revelation as the recollected and anticipated act of God. It is here that the possible inadequacy of his pragmatism as a theological method comes into view vis-a-vis Barth's theology. Niebuhr and Barth pose the question of the nature of theology: Is theology to be understood as a hermeneutical tool of historical interpretation and so a pragmatic discipline ancillary to that of history; or is theology to be recognized as an independent

52 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION or "scientific" discipline which is autonomous because grounded in its own unique object with a method appropriate to the nature of its object? According to Barth, theology is to be considered a science in the sense that it, like other sciences, is "a human effort after truth," "following a definite, self-consistent path of knowledge"; it must provide a rational justification for its own peculiar "scientific" method, grounded in its own essential nature." "As a theological discipline, dogmatics is the scientific test to which the Christian Church puts herself regarding the language about God which is peculiar to her."12 Theology seeks to measure the language of the church by the criterion of its own source and object (revelation, that is, Jesus Christ). Theology is fallible human work and must be obedience to grace if it is to be well done.'3 In the correlation of message and situation, the theologian is part of the situation and as such a part of the problem. The truth is not in his possession. To the question how we come to know God by means of our thinking and language, we must give the answer that of ourselves we do not come to know Him, that, on the contrary, this happens only as the grace of the revelation of God comes to us and therefore to the means of our thinking and language, adopting us and them, pardoning, saving, protecting and making good.14 The "point of contact" is not in the situation, regarded from the side of man but in the proclamation of the message of the gospel.15 In concentrating on the message of the gospel, theology makes revelation its basis and object. Revelation consists of the event and its meaning. The historical situation in which the normative revelation (Jesus Christ) became event is the anchor for reflection on the meaning of the event. It follows that the Bible constitutes the basis for theological reflection, since its character of historical witness preserves the unique, once-for-all character of the historical revelation. The locus of the truth which theology seeks to explicate is the unique event whose meaning is reflected in the witness of the Bible. The criterion of theology is found not in experience, according to Barth, but in the revelation which in Jesus Christ is a disclosure both of true God and true ("real") man. God's togetherness with man in Jesus Christ constitutes the truth and the relevance of theology. As the human revelation, the Bible is the authoritative rule of the church's faith and witness, preserving the givenness and objectivity of that revelation. Standing over against the church, it points it away from its preoccupation with itself, and its all too human concern for the relevance of the gospel to its situation, to God and to the question directed to the church in is concrete existence by God. Barth's conception of the threefold character of the Word of God as revealed, proclaimed, and written safeguards the priority and authority of the revelation in its scandalous objectivity while at the same time insisting in the most radical way on its essential subjectivity as a reality of grace, the event in which God encounters man. As the unique historical witness to the revelation in Jesus Christ, the Bible represents the objectivity of the revelation in its rule over the church, thus preserving the revelation from all efforts to subjectivize, relativize, and assimilate it in the "inner life" of the church. In a post-world War II encounter between Barth and Niebuhr during and following a World Council of Churches

NIEBUHR AND BARTH ON RELEVANCE OF THEOLOGY 53 conference in Amsterdam, Barth claimed that the chief difference between Continental and American theologians lay in their attitude toward the Bible. He charged that American theologians did not take seriously the authority of the Bible. It is significant that instead of attempting to answer Barth's criticism, Niebuhr replied by accusing Barth of biblical literalism. The question of the normative function of the Bible as criterion for theologyfor Barth the crucial issue in the question of the relevance and truth of theology-was sidestepped by Niebuhr."l Barth's preoccupation with revelation incurs Niebuhr's charge of "theological isolationism." This would imply that revelation as the event of God's gracious self-manifestation is not in itself relevant to the human situation. Barth must be allowed to speak for himself at this point. He declares: The theme of dogmatics is always the Word of God and nothing else. But the theme of the Word is human existence, human life and volition and action.... Dogmatics has no option: it has to be ethics as well. Its dialectics and its whole attitude necessarily has to be "existential," i.e., because it refers to the Word of God, it must also refer to human existence.17 According to Barth, dogmatics and ethics belong inseparably together. The attempts methodically to separate dogmatics and ethics are dubious even from the point of view of ethics itself, because in the process there regularly occurs a change of focus, a fatal interchange of the subjects God and man, which though impossible in theology, becomes the true constitutive principle of ethics.... But in theology we can never have to do with the consequences of God's revelation, or work to man, but only with the revelation and work itself... the holy man has no independent existence. Therefore he never becomes an independent object of thought. He exists only in the course of the existence of the holy God and of the study of His speech and action.,s It is to be expected, then, that when Barth comes to treat the doctrine of man he begins with "Man as a Problem of Dogmatics."19 He declares: If we think of man in isolation from and independence of God, we are no longer thinking about real man. Man exists only in his relation with God. And this relation is not peripheral but central, not incidental but essential to that which makes him a real man, himself. He is to the extent that not he himself but God is His sovereign Lord, and his own sovereignty flows from God.20 It is man in relation to God with which theology is concerned. The crucial question is whether theology is relevant to this "real" man. Niebuhr has frequently criticized Barth's eschatology for what he believes to be its deficiency within the "political frame of reference." Eschatology, for Barth, is concerned with God as the "end" of history, above and beyond all relativities. But for Barth, God acts in revelation, so that eschatological symbols signify recurring events of God's gracious action in history, signs, to be sure, of his ultimate victory. For Niebuhr, eschatological symbols become pointers to the meaning of history.21 But in effect they leave God beyond history.22 Niebuhr's almost exclusive concern with the analysis of the problem has had the effect for him of relegating the answer to the eschaton. He has succumbed to the danger endemic to the apologete who participates in the question but fails to present the answer of the gospel of God's action. Anthropology is assumed to have peculiar relevance to the human situation; theology proper is deferred to a secondary place. Several questionable implications suggest themselves: that man is not as problematical as God from the theological point of view; that man in his

54 THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION sinful predicament is the proper focus of anthropology; that revelation consists of illuminating insights rather than the event of God's grace. As Barth insists, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the revelation of God and man; it follows that man's problem is to be understood at that point at which the answer is provided. From the Christian point of view, sin is rightly understood only in the light of revelation, which means-in the light of the gospel, in faith. The common definition of theology (following Paul Tillich) in terms of the two poles of message and situation conceals a fateful ambiguity. The focus of Niebuhr's theology is in the correlation of message and situation. The focus of Barth's theology is the correlation of revelation and message. In both theological programs the relevance of the message is the prime consideration, the question being: relevance to what? Because for Barth it is the correspondence of the message to the revelation, theology is concerned with the truth of its object. The criterion of the truth is in the revelation attested by the Bible. The truth is an event of God's grace which occurs in and through the proclamation of the church. For Niebuhr, the question of the relevance of theology is decided by the correspondence of the message to the realities of the situation, realities empirically observed, analyzed, and judged. The meaning of the Christian faith becomes a substitute for the event of revelation. Theology becomes a hermeneutical tool for the interpretation of history. This may be a legitimate application of theological insights, but it is no longer theology itself. The proper object of theology has been lost. Preoccupation with the analysis of man's predicament has become the focus of concern rather than the understanding and proclamation of the good news of God's action for men. Particular political, social, economic situations require expert and highly discriminating judgments on the part of those who have the necessary information and experience to qualify them as authorities. Niebuhr's demand for the relevance of the Christian faith to the political situation requires the services of such people. But the confusion of theological and political "frames of reference" on the theoretical level will lead the church to misconceive the object of its theology, its gospel, and its distinctive mission in the world. The church must speak primarily to the fundamental problems of man's human existence with a gospel that is relevant to these problems. But it can be relevant only if it is true. This requires more of revelation than that it provide meaningful insights and illuminating symbols for the interpretation of history. It requires that it be the disclosure of a loving God who in redemptive action deals with man in his situation in judgment and renewal, holiness and grace. The revelation of God in Christ provides such a radical reorientation of meaning that man's questions about the possible relevance of religious faith to him are transposed by the revelation to questions of man's relevance to the will of God. It is at this point that the issue is joined between Niebuhr and Barth: what is to be the central concern of theological reflection -relevance to the situation or truth of the revelation? The two polar elements of theological thinking are taken into account by both theologians. But Barth needs to be taken more seriously in American theological work in his concern for the centrality of the revelation.

NIEBUHR AND BARTH ON RELEVANCE OF THEOLOGY 55 This revelation constitutes the possibility of the relevance of a scientific theology which isolates its object in order to understand its meaning and measure its truth. Such a theology is in a position to relate the Truth, which remains in the possession of God, to the truths which men possess. NOTES 1. "The Quality of Our Lives," Christian Century, April 11, 1960, p. 571. 2. Essays in Applied Christianity, ed. D. B. Robertson (New York: Meridian Books, Inc., 1959), p. 186. See p. 187, "Barth's view makes no provision for discriminating judgments, both because of its strong eschatological emphasis and because of the absence of principles and structures of value." All the articles which Niebuhr has written about Barth are collected in this section, entitled "Barthianism and the Kingdom," pp. 139-93. 3. Ibid., p. 186. 4. Communism and the Theologians (London: S.C.M. Press Ltd., 1958), pp. 168-69, 238. 5. Christian Century, p. 571. 6. The Library of Living Theology, Vol. II. Reinhold Niebuhr, ed. Kegley and Bretall (New York: Macmillan Co., 1956), pp. 3-10; see Essays in Applied Christianity, pp. 148, 157. Cf. A. Roy Eckhardt's criticism of an essay by Niebuhr on "The Relations of Christians and Jews in Western Civilization": "Through a reliance upon purely 'religious,' pragmatic, and, in effect, humanistic criteria Niebuhr fails to face up to the issue of missionary obligation posed by the very nature of the Christian evangel," Theology Today, XVIII, No. 1 (April, 1961), 58. 7. The Library of Living Theology, p. 3. 8. In a review of The Thought of Reinhold Niebuhr, Gordon Harland, and Reinhold Niebuhr on Politics, ed. Harry R. Davis and Robert C. Good, in Christian Century, August 10, 1960, p. 926. 9. Ibid., p. 927. The introduction to a recent anthology of contemporary Protestant theology sets forth two types of theological interpretation: "Protestant theological interpretation may be considered to be either the continuous reinterpretation of the original substance in the language and forms of thought of each generation; or the continuous interpretation of historical human experience in the light of the original encounter with the trans-his- torical source of meaning." Dimensions of Faith, ed. Kimmel and Clive (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1960), p. 26 (entire sentence italicized in original). The term "theological interpretation" is ambiguous, but insofar as it is intended to designate theology proper, the second type, which characterizes Niebuhr's work, is called into question by Barth's theological program. The issue of the nature and task of theology needs to be clarified in America because of the radical reinterpretation of theology which the whole "theology of culture" school implies. 10. The Library of Living Theology, p. 438. This follows from Niebuhr's fundamental assumption that the "problem of meaning...is the basic problem of religion," The Nature and Destiny of Man (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), p. 164. See also Essays in Applied Christianity, p. 88; "Mystery and Meaning," Pious and Secular America (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), pp. 123-45; The Self and the Dramas of History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955), pp. 66, 224 ff. 11. Church Dogmatics, trans. G. T. Thomson et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), I, Part I, 10, 7. 12. Ibid., p. 1. 13. Ibid., p. 2. 14. Ibid., II, Part I, 223. 15. Ibid., p. 121; see also pp. 117-23. 16. Essays in Applied Christianity, pp. 176-77. 17. Church Dogmatics, I, Part II, 793. 18. Ibid., p. 790; for Barth's full treatment of theological ethics, see II, Part II, chap. viii, "The Command of God," and III, Part IV, chap. xiii, "The Command of God the Creator." 19. Ibid., III, Part II, 3 ff. 20. Ibid., p. 123. 21. See Essays in Applied Christianity, p. 20. 22. See The Library of Living Theology, pp. 207 ff.; cf. Communism and the Theologians, pp. 174, 241.