Recent Conceptions of the Theology of the Cross in Karl Barth : Reviewing the Secondary Literature

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

The literature in toto

No less than the classical crucicentric tradition itself, the secondary literature pertaining to it is comparatively thin compared to the broader secondary literatures with which it intersects. An examination of the international ATLA theological database reveals that in the last four decades approximately,2 some 244 articles make some reference to the theology of the cross (of any period), although perhaps only 50 of these focus intensively on it. In descending emphasis this literature ties the theology of the cross to: epistemology, divine and human suffering, radical sociopolitical reform, Christology, soteriology, the means of Reformation, the combating of evil or heresy or human sin, eschatology, ethics, human glorification – both true and false, mysticism, pneumatology, various doctrines of atonement, and lastly anthropology.

Position One: The Confined Position

The confined (or narrow) position associates the theology of the cross with either a single theme or narrow set of themes, which are usually said to encapsulate its meaning in entirety. These definitions may or may not explicitly appeal to classical crucicentric notions. With various shades of radical and dogmatic emphases: Dalferth (1982), Fiddes (1988), Neufeld (1996), and Richardson (2004) understand the theology of the cross to be first or solely an epistemological instrument for the revelation of divine truth. Moltmann (1972), Godsey (1982), and Hunsinger (1999) understand it as solely or overwhelmingly to do with a theology of divine suffering. Cornwall (1997), or at least his ATLA cataloguer, connects it with the ethical value of Christian suffering.

Concluding the review

It appears from the recent literature that as yet no widely accepted meaning for the nomenclature theology of the cross exists. Almost all the conceptions just reviewed can be quickly placed towards one or other end of a continuum. One polarity represents the narrow conception of the theology of the cross as comprising one or a few crucicentric elements. The other denotes an encompassing system of these elements. Advocates of the narrow conception quite simply do not appear to be aware that the broader and systematic conception of the theology of the cross exists. Conversely, from the perspective of that broader conception, to understand the theology of the cross in a narrow way necessarily misses its systemic breadth, shape, and involved theological content and purpose. Neither does a narrow view do justice to the historical depth of the crucicentric tradition. Indeed turn of the century conceptions of the theology of the cross restricting it to radical methodology tend to sever it from its classical foundations altogether.

The negative epistemology of the cross

The classical crucicentric theologians reject all anthropocentric starting points for the knowledge of God, including starting points in human experience, the law, a self-engendered mysticism, and the several strands of natural theology. In doing so they take up arms in − as Torrance notes in immediate reference to Athanasius − ‘a conflict between underlying frameworks of thought, an objective [thoroughly crucicentric] way of thinking from a centre in God and a subjective way of thinking from a centre in man.’26 The first two of these starting points may be disposed of very briefly. Firstly, crucicentric epistemology regards human experience as the subjective product of either the senses or the reasoning mind. The creature cannot of itself attain the objective knowledge of God as God really is for then it would be as God; it cannot itself constitute a starting point for attaining concrete knowledge of God.

The positive epistemology of the cross

The classical crucicentric theologians present an embracing and positive epistemology. Humans are created to know their Creator intimately, such knowledge being life-giving. Given the post-lapsarian incapacity to know God naturally however, God pities them. Athanasius, for example, explains that God ‘did not leave [believers] destitute of knowledge of himself [but] bestowed on them of his own image, our Lord Jesus Christ’.81 Instrumentally and ontologically it is then the cross of Jesus Christ which in the crucicentric view, supremely discloses ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God’, (2 Cor. 4:6). Once again multiple crucicentric elements interplay in this light. The first now considered relates to the dialectic between wisdom and foolishness.

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

• Abstract
• Dedication
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
  • (1) Introduction
  • PART ONE
  • (2) Recent Conceptions of the Theology of the Cross : Reviewing the Secondary Literature
  • (3) The Classical Epistemology of the Cross
  • (4) The Classical Soteriology of the Cross
  • (5) Conclusion Part One : Identifying the Classical Theologia Crucis, its Dogmatic Shape, Theological Content and the Marks Characterising its Theologians
  • (6) Postscript Part One : The Disciplinary Foundations to the Heidelberg Disputation PART TWO
  • (7) From Luther to Barth
  • (8) Recent Conceptions of the Theology of the Cross in Karl Barth : Reviewing the Secondary Literature
  • (9) Karl Barth’s Modern Epistemology of the Cross
  • (10) Karl Barth’s Modern Soteriology of the Cross
  • (11) In Final Conclusion
  • (12) Bibliography

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
IDENTIFYING THE CLASSICAL THEOLOGIA CRUCIS AND IN THIS LIGHT KARL BARTH’S MODERN THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS