The Theological Significance Of Discipleship In Church .

Transcription

The Theological Significance of Discipleshipin Church Dogmatics IV/2 §66Karl Barth’s vision of sanctification as a resourcefor Christian living at the “end of Christendom”A thesis submitted submitted to Charles Sturt University,St Mark’s National TheologicalCentre, the School of Theology,in fulfilment of the requirements forthe degree of Doctor of PhilosophyJune 2018ByRev. Christopher C. SwannBSc University of New South Wales, BA (Hons 1) University of New South Wales,BD (Hons 1) Moore Theological College

ue1Introduction4The contemporary convergence on discipleship5Discipleship and the “end of Christendom”13Discipleship as a resource for Christian living171. Barth and His Critics on Discipleship221.1. Discipleship in Barth’s theology of sanctification?221.2. What do the critics say about discipleship in Barth?251.4. Why (not) listen to Barth on discipleship?352. The Context of Discipleship in Church Dogmatics IV/2502.1. Christology and the context of discipleship in Barth502.2. Sanctification as Christ-centred discipleship552.3 Which Christocentrism? Whose discipleship?702.4 A “lively Christology” for discipleship803. The Content of Discipleship in §66.3893.1. Discipleship means freedom903.2. Discipleship as “formed reference”1004. Discipleship and the Shape of Correspondence1134.1. Discipleship and the shape of correspondence1144.2. The significance of construing correspondence as discipleship1224.3 Discipleship, correspondence, and Christian living134

5. The Consequences of Discipleship for the Church1395.1. The “actualistic concreteness” of the church in Church Dogmatics IV/21405.2. Mortification and discipleship-shaped moral agency1465.3. Solidarity and difference in the discipleship-shaped church1536. The Consequences of Discipleship for Christian Living1576.1. The “indirect directness” of moral action in Church Dogmatics IV/21596.2. Good works and discipleship-shaped moral activity1626.3. Discipleship, “indirect directness,” and practical reasoning1737. The Consequences of Discipleship for Christian Suffering1787.1. Discipleship, “active passivity,” and moral suffering1797.2. Grace, character, and discipleship-shaped suffering1877.3. Discipleship, suffering, and the “ambiguities of liberation”1928. With, Against, and Beyond Barth on Discipleship2008.1. With Barth on discipleship2018.2. Against Barth on discipleship2048.3 Beyond Barth on discipleship208Conclusion217The theological significance of discipleship217Discipleship in Barth studies218Discipleship and Christian living at the “end of Christendom”221References225

Certificate of AuthorshipI hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledgeand belief, understand that it contains no material previously published or written byanother person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for theaward of any other degree or diploma at Charles Sturt University or any othereducational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Anycontribution made to the research by colleagues with whom I have worked at CharlesSturt University or elsewhere during my candidature is fully acknowledged.I agree that this thesis be accessible for the purpose of study and research in accordancewith normal conditions established by the Executive Director, Library Services, CharlesSturt University or nominee, for the care, loan and reproduction of thesis, subject toconfidentiality provisions as approved by the University.Rev. Chris Swann28 June, 2018i

Financial Support of the ResearchThis research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program(RTP) Scholarship.ii

Professional Editorial AssistanceWith the approval of my primary supervisor, professional editorial assistance wasobtained from Rev. Dr. Chris Mulherin of The Public Sentence, 946 Canterbury Rd,Box Hill South VIC 3128 Australia. Rev Dr Mulherin proofread my entire manuscript.Rev. Dr. Mulherin has a Doctor of Theology in philosophical hermeneutics from theUniversity of Divinity, Melbourne, and teaches at the Austrralian Catholic University inthe areas of philosophical hermeneutics, science and faith, climate change, andacademic writing.iii

Publications Resulting from the ResearchTo date, the following publication has resulted from the research in this thesis: “Discipleship on the Level of Thought: the Case of Karl Barth’s Critique of theReligion of Revelation,” in Revelation and Reason in Christian Theology:Proceedings of the Theology Connect Conference, ed. Christopher C. Green andDavid I. Starling (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2018), 166–81.This paper derives in part from material in chapter 3 of the present thesis.iv

AbbreviationsCDBarth, K. The Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. in 13 parts. Translated byGeoffrey W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–75.Unless indicated, all citations from The Church Dogmatics areto this edition and are included in the body of the text.KDBarth, K. Die kirchliche Dogmatik. 4 vols. in 13 parts. Zürich:Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1938–65.Inst.Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford LewisBattles. Edited by John T. McNeill. 2 vols, Library of ChristianClassics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.v

AcknowledgementsThis thesis would not exist apart from the generosity and support of many.To begin with, I would like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri People of the Kulin Nation.I acknowledge them as Traditional Owners of the land upon which I live and work, andI pay my respects to their Elders, past, present, and emerging.I am privileged to name the staff and community of St Mark’s National TheologicalCentre and Charles Sturt University—not only the faculty members and students whotook an interest in my work and provided me crucial feedback as part of the St Mark’sPostgrad Seminar, but also the library staff who packaged and sent out the books Iendlessly requested. I am grateful for St Mark’s as a community of learners, scholars,and worshippers. For the welcome they extended, the flexibility they granted, and thekindness they showed—especially to a distance student who rarely set foot on campus—I am deeply appreciative.I am especially indebted to my supervisors at St Mark’s: Geoff Broughton, AndrewCameron, and David Neville. Geoff has been my tireless champion, believing in me andmy research even when I struggled with self-doubt. He consistently called me to “backmyself” and recognise that engaging with Barth was the thing that gave me the mostenergy and sustained my interest in discipleship. Andrew provided an invaluablesounding board as well as a very long leash in the formative stages of my research. Healso reined me in when needed, pushing me towards clarity and precision in articulatingmy thoughts. David’s warm encouragement, scholarly rigour, and mastery of thesystems and policies of the university steered me to completion.Apart from my supervisors, who provided extensive, sympathetic, and critical input, Iwant to express my thanks to several others who read my thesis (in whole or in part):Michael O’Neil, whose support for me as an emerging scholar is avi

model I aspire to one day emulate; Andrew Errington; and Chris Porter. In addition,Rebekah Earnshaw, Sam Freney, and Mike Allen all read portions of this thesis andprovided invaluable feedback—a natural though by no means expected extension to thefriendship and support they supplied as part of my Moore Theological College study(and snorkelling) group, “Team Zissou.” After receiving such wide-ranging and closeattention from so many, any remainng errors of substance, argument, and typographyare my own.In addition, I am very glad to have had the opportunity to take part in two courses thatenhanced my understanding of Barth. The first was Theological German with JaninaHiebel at Yarra Theological Union. The second was Classic Texts in Christian Theology,focusing on The Epistle to the Romans, with Ben Myers at United Theological College.For the provision of space in which to read, write, and think—as well as proximity tothe sustenance of community (and coffee)—I am beholden to Ridley College inParkville, who provided me a desk in their postgraduate study area, as well asAmpersand cafe in Thornbury, where the team endured my near-constant presence withgood humour and something like affection.I would also like to mention a number of family and friends who cheered me on,politely enquired, and tolerated my preoccupation during these past few years. Myparents Patricia and John Swann are always in my corner. My parents-in-law Diane andMichael Lauer are ever-generous with their support, hospitality, and willingness to wadeinto a household with two small children and two PhDs. Melonie and Piers Bayl-Smith,Georgina and Hugh Dircks, Megan and Phil Curlis-Gibson, Andrew Katay, Len Firth,and Angela Cook as well as many others have helped me more than they know. I amthankful for their friendship, prayers, timely words, kind deeds, and patience.Above all, however, I am grateful for Natalie, Benjamin, and Abigail—God’s gifts tome for my own discipleship and sanctification. You make me more human.Chris SwannJune 2018vii

AbstractThe theme of discipleship has become a significant focus of attention across a range oftheological disciplines—from theological ethics to practical ministry—especially in thecontemporary social context of the late-modern West, which some have described as the“end of Christendom.” This thesis will argue that a properly theological approach todiscipleship yields significant resources for Christian living in this context. To this end,I demonstrate that Karl Barth’s “turn” to discipleship, in which he explicitly andextensively develops the image of discipleship as part of articulating his maturetheology of sanctification in Church Dogmatics IV/2 §66, establishes the main lines forjust such a theological approach. There are two aspects to this argument.First, I argue that neither Barth’s vision of discipleship nor his theology of sanctificationcan be properly understood without recognising their integration with each other—coordinated as they are by the “lively Christology” that is visible in §64.4 and towers overBarth’s whole treatment of sanctification in §66. Against those who neglect or downplayhis “turn” to discipleship, I establish that Barth’s theology of sanctification isdistinctively discipleship-shaped. To do this, I highlight its significance in the context ofhis self-conscious revision of Calvin on sanctification, I analyse its function in givingform to the freedom of sanctification, and I uncover its structuring role with regard toBarth’s crucial notion of “correspondence.” On this basis, I interrogate theconsequences of Barth’s discipleship-shaped theology of sanctification with respect tothe distinctive account of moral agency, moral activity, and moral passivity (orsuffering) that emerges from it. Discipleship enables Barth to keep Christ at the centreof sanctified Christian living (as the Master) while upholding the human reality andintegrity of those who are united with him (as his disciples). As such, discipleship is farmore than merely illustrative or supplementary. It is integral to Barth’s vision ofsanctified community and human life.viii

Second, I argue that Barth’s discipleship-shaped account of sanctification istheologically significant insofar as it can resource constructive engagement with thecontemporary interest in discipleship. I articulate an account of discipleship that movesbeyond Barth by working with him, while also mobilising the resources of his theologyof discipleship to mitigate against his own problematic practice of discipleship. Thisaccount provides a richly theological, materially christological, and consequently deeplypractical resource for contributing not only to the contemporary discipleshipconversation but also to equipping Christians to live at the “end of Christendom.”ix

Prologue: A Tale of Two Bedrooms“I don’t want to boast, but it really was my text.” So wrote Barth, referring to the text ofthe Barmen Declaration (1934)—or, more precisely, to the six articles that form itstheological core.1 Few theological statements of the twentieth century can claim theecclesial and ecumenical significance of the Barmen Declaration. Adopted by theConfessing Church (and many others thereafter), it made Christ central to the churchand the Christian life, and translated this centrality into a vision of discipleship with farreaching political and ethical implications in its original context. And as Karl Barth waslater to reminisce, he drafted it (or at least brought it to near-final form) in his bedroomat the Basler Hof Hotel in Frankfurt with the aid of some strong coffee and Braziliancigars while his two Lutheran collaborators slept the afternoon away. Eberhard Buschrecords Barth’s quip about that afternoon: “The Lutheran Church slept and theReformed Church kept awake.”2This thesis investigates the theological significance of discipleship within the vision ofsanctification that Barth develops in Church Dogmatics IV/2 §66, with an eye to itspotential as a resource for Christian living at the “end of Christendom” in the latemodern West. While the details of what transpired in that hotel bedroom in Frankfurt aresubject to at least some degree of exaggeration, it poses the question: How could we failto listen to what the chief architect of the Barmen Declaration has to say aboutdiscipleship when he gives himself to consider the theme at length?However, if this bedroom looms in the background of this thesis, another bedroomlikewise casts its shadow over it. This other bedroom was the single room at Princeton1Cited in Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, trans. JohnBowden (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 245.2 Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth, 245.!1

Theological Seminary shared

The Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. in 13 parts. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–75. Unless indicated, all citations from The Church Dogmatics are to this edition and are included in the body of the text. KD Barth, K. Die kirchliche Dogmatik. 4 vols. in 13 parts. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1938–65.