Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Ars Disputandi Volume 4 (2004) ISSN: 1566 5399

Pan-chiu Lai
CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

The Word of Christ and the World of Culture


By Paul Louis Metzger
Sacred and Secular through the Theology of Karl Barth; Foreword by Colin Gunton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. xxiii + 252 pp.; pb. $ ; ISBN: .

The book under review is a revised version of a well-researched thesis supervised by the late Professor Colin Gunton at King's College, London. The thesis has the bene t of having been supervised by an expert in Barth's theology, and of having had access to some related unpublished papers submitted to Prof. Gunton personally. [2] The book consists of three main parts, each part comprising of two chapters. The rst part outlines the implicit theological foundations of Barth's approach to culture. Through references to Barth's explicit views on politics, music, etc., the second and third parts of the book elaborate the way in which Barth maintains the connections and distinctions between Christ and culture respectively. [3] Metzger's exposition of the implicit theological foundation of Barth's approach to culture is well-informed by the recent studies of Barth, especially his methodological christological concentration. Metzger's presentation of Barth's approach to culture is based mainly on Barth's christology, especially his anhypostaticenhypostatic exposition of the Chalcedonian christology. Through `analogical extensions,' Metzger makes Barth's christology the theological foundation for his understanding of the God-world relationship, as well as the Christ-culture relationship, which is presumably `analogous' to the relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ `distinction without separation'. According to this understanding, it is incorrect to identify Barth as a `religious despiser' of culture, or to classify Barth's position neatly as `Christ against Culture', positions which might be attributed to Barth from a one-sided reading of his theology, especially the early Barth's emphasis on dialectics rather than analogy. [4] Barth's Christology, as Metzger points out, follows the Reformed tradition, emphasising the formula nitum non capax in niti and the indirect union between Christ's two natures. Barth stresses that whereas the divine is capable of the human, the human is not capable of the divine (p.51). Furthermore, Christ's human nature has no independent subsistence or personhood of its own (anhypostatos); it has its personhood, subsistence and reality (enhypostatos) only in its union with the Logos of God (p.44). The relationship between the two natures is
c July 8, 2004, Ars Disputandi. If you would like to cite this article, please do so as follows: Pan-chiu Lai, `Review of The Word of Christ and the World of Culture,' Ars Disputandi [http://www.ArsDisputandi. org] 4 (2004), paragraph number.

[1]

Pan-chiu Lai: Review of The Word of Christ and the World of Culture

thus, asymmetric. [5] In rejecting the Lutheran understanding that the unity is direct, and that Christ's human nature participates in the divine attributes, including omnipresence, Barth denies not only the doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ's humanity, but also the divinisation of culture. Barth reiterates the point that grace does not transform or perfect nature; it elevates without transforming nature (pp.139 141). A corollary of this view is that culture remains human culture, even in its inseparable unity with Christ. Therefore, Metzger argues, Barth's theological approach to culture can successfully safeguard against not only the secularisation of culture, but also the dei cation of culture. That is the reason, in practice, for Barth speaking against the German Christians vehemently, while appreciating the value of Mozart's music as human creation. [6] Metzger further argues that unlike those theologians of mediation, e.g. Schleiermacher and Tillich, Barth's approach is more effective in preserving the distinction between the two natures, as well as the transcendence of the divine nature. In this respect, Barth's approach may arguably be even more adequate than that of Tillich, which, according to Metzger, when attempting to mediate between Christ and culture, gives the primacy to the world of secular culture, advocates a perfect symmetry between the two sides of Christ and culture, and thus, becomes ineffective in safeguarding the particularity of Jesus Christ (pp.79 80). [7] The book aims at presenting the complexity of Barth's theological approach to culture and spelling out its possible signi cance for the development of a theology of culture. It is quite successful in clarifying that Barth does not simply reject any relationship between the word of Christ and the world of culture excepting diastasis. It is also successful in spelling out the signi cance of Barth's approach. The book does break new ground and go beyond the study made by Robert Palma on Barth's theology of culture. However, when Metzger attempts to argue further that Barth's approach is even more adequate than that of Tillich, his argument is far from convincing. A very brief survey of Tillich's account of his method of correlation will nd that according to Tillich's own understanding at least, the relationship between the message (Christ) and the situation (culture) is asymmetric rather than symmetric. In the formula articulated by Tillich, while the message is a constant, culture is a variable. Furthermore, Tillich also emphasises that the theological answer is not to be derived from the situation or culture. Metzger's presentation of Tillich's position is based on a rather one-sided misinterpretation of Tillich. In fact, when Metzger elaborates his evaluation of Tillich, he cites more the views expressed by Barth and his sympathisers, e.g. Eberhard Busch (p.76), rather than those recognised scholarly accounts of Tillich's theology of culture or mediation theology, e.g. John Clayton, Jeremy Begbie, Martin Palmer, etcetera. [8] Although the book as a whole provides a sympathetic account of Barth's theology, it is not entirely uncritical of it. Metzger nds that Barth, in practice, fails to recognise both the religious character of secular culture and the religious character of an atheistic state. At this juncture, Metzger fails to mention that given
Ars Disputandi 4 (2004), http://www.ArsDisputandi.org

Pan-chiu Lai: Review of The Word of Christ and the World of Culture

Tillich's criticism of the quasi-religious character of communism, Tillich seems to be more perceptive than Barth in this respect. Perhaps based on Metzger's masterly exposition of Barth's approach to Christ and culture, a more comprehensive, penetrating and fair comparison of Barth's and Tillich's approaches is called for.

Ars Disputandi 4 (2004), http://www.ArsDisputandi.org

S-ar putea să vă placă și