A Pastoral Proposal for an Evangelical Theology of Freedom
A Respectful Response to the Expressed Hope
of Dr. Karl Barth
Albert J.D. Walsh
A Pastoral Proposal for an Evangelical Theology of Freedom
A Respectful Response to the Expressed Hope of Dr. Karl Barth
Copyright © 2013 Albert J.D. Walsh. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.
Wipf & Stock
An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers
199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3
Eugene, OR 97401
www.wipfandstock.com
ISBN 13: 978-1-62032-649-7
EISBN 13: 978-1-62189-663-0
Manufactured in the U.S.A.
All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Holman CSB®, and HCSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.
To the faculties of Princeton Theological Seminary, Lutheran Theological Seminary of Philadelphia, Moravian Theological Seminary, and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
Soli Deo gloria
Preface
In the audio version of the lectures given by Dr. Karl Barth when he paid his first and only visit to the United States, lectures that were eventually published under the title Evangelical Theology, and in his closing remarks, Karl Barth expressed his hope to see a theology native to North America that would suffer from neither an inferiority complex in relation to good old Europe, nor a superiority complex in relation to Asia and Africa (somewhat prophetic). Karl Barth then expressed his hope for the development in the United States of a theology of freedom, and more particularly, a theology of freedom for humanity! Whether in fact such a theology has been written in the interim, we do not know; in our own theological reading, study, and research we have yet to encounter such a theological expression. This essay is a proposal, recommending those elements and/or characteristics that could be considered central to the formation of such a theology, and primarily from the perspective of a pastoral theologian, and based on the evangelical witness of the apostles, evangelists, and prophets.
We do not intend the italicized word (i.e., pastoral) to be in any way pejorative, as if pastoral theology were somehow something less important, less professional, or as possessing less intellectual integrity and rigor than do the more academic forms of theological reflection and explication. The italicization of the word pastoral is, instead, meant to affirm the centrality of the context out of which this particular proposal speaks, and to affirm as well how this particular context presents us with some of the more challenging issues to be faced in contemporary Christianity. If theology is fundamentally at the service of the Church catholic and the Church’s immense responsibility for the proclamation of the gospel, then this context (i.e., pastoral service), and the wider context of the ekklēsia in the world, should be understood as vital to the development of a proposal for and further expansion of a theology of freedom. There can be no genuine comprehension of the “graced freedom” proposed if one considers it to be little more than some abstract principle; this freedom is for humanity, and those who embrace such freedom will soon discover that it is an extremely relevant and practical reality, with supremely relevant and practical implications for the life we must live. To deny that this graced freedom has practical implications will also and at the same time diminish the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the reality of redemption and reconciliation in Christ, to little more than an abstract principle; the incarnation assures us that the graced freedom proposed in this essay is a matter of what has been made real in the flesh and for us and for our salvation.
Clarification of Terms
From the start it is essential to note that we are not talking about liberty, a term that has taken on connotations that are, in my estimation, almost the polar opposite of what can be described as evangelical freedom from the point of view of a theology shaped, as it should be, by the witness of Holy Scripture and the explication of Scripture as handed down to us in the theological traditions of our evangelical faith. Liberty is applicable to the external realities of one’s life and impacts accessibility to a certain kind of freedom that will either impair or enlarge one’s choices. The Statue of Liberty is representative of this form of freedom, as is so clearly expressed in the poetic words she bears: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Perhaps Dr. Barth was being somewhat tongue in cheek when he suggested that the Statue of Liberty should be made subject to demythologization; nevertheless, a theology of freedom would assert that the poetic phrase, engraved on the Statue of Liberty, bears witness to the external nature of the liberty being extended, by way of her lamp, and represents a reality that is different from the freedom being advocated in this essay. Excepting the Constitutional language of inalienable rights, aspects of such liberty would include responsibilities of one’s citizenship, commitment and obedience to the order of law, regular engagement in the political order, perhaps even the pursuit of happiness, which demonstrate the externality of liberty and its effects. This liberty is, in fact, conferred upon the citizen, and mimetically confessed (that is, to be seen as a secular confessional affirmation) in the Pledge of Allegiance; in confessing allegiance to the flag, the citizen confesses allegiance to all the flag represents symbolically.
Nevertheless, might we who live by the light of that lamp of Liberty not also see the use of such liberty as an opportunity to proclaim that greater freedom, which is evangelical freedom? Stated in more concrete terms, does not the benefit of such liberty provide the ekklēsia in the United States with a particular and practical responsibility—for proclaiming the graced freedom made real in Christ and enacting, in service to humanity and in the name of God and the gospel of God, that same freedom? Is it appropriate (to say the very least) for the ekklēsia in the United States to benefit from such liberty, while denying the God-given mandate of the gospel to proclaim, in word and deed, that graced freedom essential to the enrichment of humanity and found in the gift of God in Christ Jesus? One purpose of this essay is to establish the necessity for such as fundamental to the development of an evangelical theology of freedom for humanity; recognizing, as we do, that graced freedom is first and properly given in obedience to God, and secondarily given in service to the neighbor (as the concrete expression of the two-fold love of God and neighbor).
Regrettably, for many today, the word liberty has come to be associated with the all-too-limited concept of individual rights and in extreme measure, the privatization of personal choice; so much is this the case that one finds resistance to the mere suggestion that there are boundaries and demands of what can be reasonably expected of a citizen, external to the individual, to which he or she is obligated in order to maintain what could only be called the common welfare of the community at large. Even more evident is a form of relativism that has collapsed all truth claims into a vast sea of generalization, and so one is at liberty to select that claim which he or she feels best expresses his or her individuality. One cannot assert knowledge of the truth in any way whatsoever, as such truth is said to be non-existent, or merely a misguided claim to self-assertion; one can only speak of the truth in general, as