Introduction:
During my second year of Seminary, I had the pleasure of
taking a yearlong “theology and ethics of Karl Barth” course at Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary taught by Dr. John Burgess. The year accounted for three credits hours in
which we covered Karl Barth’s “Church Dogmatics Volume 3: The Doctrine of
Creation Part 4.” The setup of the class was to read anywhere from 25-40 pages
of Barth a week and produce a detailed outline of the material in the readings.
We then would meet once a week to discuss the readings. At the end of the
course, we were asked to prepare a 20-page paper that covered a main theme in
the Church Dogmatics Volume. This series of blogs consists of sections from my
paper that I wrote for the course. As you will see in the posts, I was
specifically impressed by Barth’s discussion of ethical issues in the light of
the Command of God and what he calls the exceptional case to that command.
There are many other things that I loved in this volume that are not covered in
these post, and I am in no way claiming to have fully comprehend what Barth is
getting at, I just want to share some of my thoughts in hope to continue my
theological pursuit after seminary!
Series collection:
Euthanasia
As mentioned earlier, when attempting to understand
how Barth understands the Command of God, specifically “thou shall not kill”,
it is helpful to take into mind how Barth understands the value of human life
under the Command of God. For Barth humanity’s life and meaning is not based on
if, or how much, they are able to work.
A person’s life has meaning even if they are unable to work.[1] To
the outside world it may not appear so, but their worth is God’s secret.[2] God sees the true inward reality of their
life. Barth takes a stern stance on any state or ruling government that would
try to vindicate the meaning of a person’s life based off what they can offer
to society. It is not up to a state to vindicate or discredit a person’s life.[3] The incurably sick, or disabled are not a
criminal or enemy of the state. The state is not a victim of these people
inability to work, but Barth feels these people are victims of society, because
the state has allowed them to fall into the gaps and deficiencies of the
existing orders of society.[4] Barth explains, “A community which regards
and treats its weak member as a hindrance, and even proceeds to their
extermination, is on the verge of collapses.[5] ”
Self-defense
Barth’s respect for the Command of God and human
life also complicates the subject of self-defense. The question arises for
Barth, can a self-defense killing ever be a Command given by God? Self-defense
is understood “as one who is assaulted, in the absence of police, and who kills
the person who is assaulting them by an act of reason and concern for their own
life where they have no option but to defend themselves. ” Barth presents the question, should a
person fight back and can the retaliation be in accord with the Command of God?[6] It
is no surprise that when a person is attacked and they are completely innocent,
in the eyes of society if they retaliate their reaction is justifiable.
However, Barth feels that while the self-defense instinct may be natural and
justifiable in the eyes of secular society, it might not be Holy and acceptable
in the eyes of God.[7]
The push back to a natural reaction of self-defense is that the Command of God
does not coincide with what happens concerning the natural response of a
person. The Command of God may order a person to go against their natural urge
of self-protection. Barth understands that the real emergency is not only the
possible loss of life for the one in danger, but the other possibility that a
person may enter into the harmful cycle by becoming an aggressor.[8]
Retaliation
This leads
Barth into a discussion of the consequences of retaliation. This section
differs slightly in that it is observing the possibility of a person getting
attacked, but not in a life threatening manner. Therefore, it is evaluating
physical, verbal, and personal attacks. If a person says demeaning things to
another person, returning another unfriendly word will not satisfy the person
who was attacked. It will only succeed in placing the person retaliating in a
disagreeable position.[9] The person on the attack may have no reason
to harm the other person, but it still does the victim no good if they harm the
attacker back.[10] The retaliation may even encourage greater
retaliation forcing a never-ending cycle of harmful acts toward both parties.
Barth’s interpretation of the Command of God and the protection of human life
imply that if there is no threat on the life of the one getting attacked, then
God does not Command a human being to harm another human.[11]
Killings another over possessions
There is
no surprise then concerning Barth’s views of the option of a person taking the
life of another to protect their own possession.[12] This type of behavior is out of the question
as far as Barth is concerned. Barth is more focused on finding out why the
person is stealing. It appears Barth feels that the person who is stealing
another person’s possessions may have a reasonable excuse for taking the
possession of another person.[13] This of course, is an obvious exception to
God’s Command thou shall not steal. If
there are dire circumstances that would lead a person to take possession, such
as the threat of starvation for their child, then it is not up to the person in
which those possessions belong, to take the life of another.[14] After all, all things belong to God,
including life, and are given as a loan. Therefore, it is not up to a person to
take a life, which is a loan from God, for their possessions which are also a
loan from God. Accordingly, Barth concludes that the exceptional case of the
Command “do not murder” is not permitted in this case.
The exceptional case
Barth deems that the Command of God must be
permitted to summon us to be intelligent, willing and ready for the execution
of His Command.[15] The obedience of the Command derives from the
requirement of service in the New Testament. Within this obedience, humanity
must allow freedom for the Command of God to reign in their life. Consequently,
Barth warns against those who are strictly rigid concerning the Command “Thou
shall not kill”, but are unconcerned with how this Command may shift due to
different circumstances. Concerning this Command Barth explains, “We may
receive from the Lord orders which lead us beyond this life.[16]”
This leads Barth to his explanation of the exceptional case in which he feels
God can will a person to defend themselves. Because of the freedom that comes
with the Command of God, it also may be the case that God Commands a person to
defend their neighbor in danger. God is able to will that a man should not
allow his neighbor to be insulted, robbed, injured, or even killed by a third
party. However, none of the circumstances means that a person should plunge
into evil. It should always be remembered that this order from God is never in
the context of a person’s mere impulsion for their own needs.
Capital punishment
Barth’s problem with the idea of capital punishment
is another great example for understanding his approach to the Command of God.
Barth suggests if self-defense and a counter attack are acceptable within the
context of the exceptional case, then that very much may mean that there is a
place for capital punishment in the case of the state.[17] In the same sense, just as the person who
harms another in self-defense becomes the attacker, so does the state that
retaliates against a man or women by taking their life.[18] It is also to be noted that when the state
takes it upon themselves to administer capital punishment and when the citizens
approve of the act, they in unison declare that the states constitution is
good. Thus, it appears that there is strong potential danger in any state that
is an allowed to inflict this punishment.
Not only does this punishment raise the question how good is the state,
it also raises the question of whether capital punishment is Commanded or
forbidden in light of the Command “thou shall not kill”.
Barth
feels when it comes to capital punishment; the Christian Church has failed to
live accordingly to the required Command of God. He calls the Church to a
higher standard in approaching the subject.[19] He feels it is not too late for the Church to
espouse the renunciation of capital punishment on a worldwide scale.[20] Nevertheless, as is the case with other
ethical issues Barth always returns to the freedom that must come with the
Command of God. Even so, Barth will not go so far as to say that capital
punishment should be completely excluded and is forbidden by the Command of God
in all forms and circumstances. In the exceptional case that the state is truly
threatened, there must be an exception to the death penalty.[21]
[1] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4, Edited by
G.W / Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. S.l.: T. & t. Clark, 1961 P. 423
[2] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3,the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 423
[3] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3,the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 423
[4] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3,the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 424
[5] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3,the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 424
[6] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3,the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 431
[7] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3,the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 431
[8] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3,the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 430
[9] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3,the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 431
[10] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 431
[11] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 431
[12] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 432
[13] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 432
[14] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 432
[15] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 434
[16] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 435
[17] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 440
[18] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 440
[19] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 445
[20] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 446
[21] Barth,
Karl. Church Dogmatics; Volume 3, the Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 P. 446
No comments:
Post a Comment