“Karl Barth’s Theology of Mission for Today”
by John Drury
No one can say
“Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are
varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of
activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. (1 Cor. 12:3b-6)
When he
delivered his paper “Theology and Mission in the Present Situation”[i]
at the Brandenburg Mission Conference in 1932, Karl Barth imparted to missional
theology a wealth of ideas that would yield rich theological reflection for
years to come. Here I aim to briefly
summarize and assess these contributions.
First I will pinpoint the center of Barth’s theology of mission and
follow it as he unfolds his argument.
Then I shall note a few problems and prospects regarding the validity of
his thought for the church’s mission today.
Karl Barth on Theology and
Jesus
Christ is the center of Barth’s theology, both as a whole and as it relates to
the church’s mission. The truth of the
statement that Jesus Christ is Lord binds together all other statements. It is precisely Christ’s Lordship that
occupies the limelight of this particular essay. He is attempting to answer the question,
“What does theology have to say to mission?”
His shorthand answer is “Jesus is Lord.”
Not only does he regard this statement as the content of the church’s
missionary message (2), but the truth of this statement determines the
respectful relationship between theology and mission as two modest forms of
ecclesial obedience:
This
is really what makes the life of the church and life in the church possible,
that in all their members and functions they know themselves to be the earthly
body of their heavenly Lord . . . Mission and theology receive space next to
each other, each its own space, when both are aware of their common boundary in
the divine justification that alone is sufficient (5).
So what is mission for Barth? Although he has the insight to see mission as
calling of the church as a whole (11), Barth nevertheless identifies the
particular work of mission as activity on foreign soil. Mission is concerned with the communication
of the Christian message to the heathen (6).
This it has in common with other activities of the church (6), for even
the homeland church is full of heathens.
Yet at home the message is repeated, while in mission it is initiated
(2). Missionary endeavor is unique in
that it communicates the message of Jesus Christ as Lord in the form of
initiation.
What,
then, is theology? Theology for Barth is
critical reflection on the communicative activity of the church (3). As a service of the church, it aims to place
the church under the criticism of her Lord (8).
Theology, therefore, asks questions of mission (9). Barth even goes as far as to say that
theology is to “cripple” mission as the angel did Jacob (15). Theology is not superior to mission, however,
for Jesus Christ is the Lord of both of them (6). They are both forms of ecclesial obedience to
this same Lord (4). Theology and mission
are both called by him to their specific tasks (11). They are to execute these tasks with mutual
respect and modesty (10).
What
does theology have to say to mission?
Barth reflects on mission at four distinct points. At each point, the Lordship of Jesus Christ
guides his criticism. First of all, what
is the motive for mission? Barth
asserts that the motive for mission is found in the will of the “Lord of the
Church” (9). This divine will is not an
arbitrary will, however, but grounded in God’s very being. Barth therefore draws a connection between
the mission of the church and the Trinitarian missions of the Son and Spirit
from the Father. This insight has come
to be called the missio Dei.
Secondly,
what is the proper appeal for mission?
Simply put, the real appeal to mission is the recognition that the
church is a “missionary community” (11).
This is what it is called to be.
Jesus Christ has called the church not to be for itself but for the
world (3). Thirdly, what is the task
of mission? Barth criticizes three
strategies of mission (Pietist, Anglo-American, and Lutheran) as systems that
fail to recognize the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
They are strategies that aim at one particular aspect of the gospel instead
of proclaiming Christ as the Lord of all.
Mission is to “serve Christ himself, without wasting its energy in such
a system” (12).
Finally,
what is the mission sermon? The
issue at stake here is what sort of “translating” is proper. On the one hand, Barth affirms attempts at
“making things clear” to clarifying the truth of the message by means of
analogies from life (14). On the other
hand, he says an unequivocal “No” to any theory about a point of contact between
human religion and divine revelation.
The missionary does translate into the language and culture of the
people, but this act of translating is not in itself what connects God to the
people. Since Jesus Christ is Lord, he
will reveal himself.
Barth
covered considerable ground for such a small essay. I will therefore point out only three areas
of weakness I foresee as one tries to bring Barth’s thought to bear on a
contemporary theology of mission. The
first issue is a simple situational change from the 1930s to today. No longer can the church’s mission in the
form of initiation be located on foreign soil.
Barth’s distinction between repetition and initiation still holds, but
we can no longer take for granted that our neighbors in the West have heard the
message of Jesus Christ.
The second
issue is methodological. Barth relates
theology to mission in such a way that the practical concerns of missional
activity are not permitted to shape one’s theological reflection. He states,
“As with any proper discipline, theological work wants to be carried out for
its own sake, without reference to its practical scope and the usefulness of
its results” (8). I can appreciate
Barth’s protection of theology from a tyrannical control of the practical. But to avoid the practical for the sake of
the integrity of the discipline is to fall short of the goal of theological
reflection. Barth is right that theology
must begin again at the beginning, but he is not always faithful to carry it
through to the end.[ii]
The
third problem is doctrinal. Barth’s “No”
to natural theology hides from sight the prevenience (“going-before”) of God’s
grace.[iii] I agree with Barth that a systematic point of
contact between the human and the divine is not only fallacious but
idolatrous. There is no natural
capacity of a human to “meet God half-way.”
But this does not necessarily preclude any gracious working of
God the Spirit in a place where the name of Christ has yet to be preached.[iv] The name of Christ must still be preached
there, but we must remember that we are following Christ there.[v]
The prospects in Barth’s
essay for a contemporary missional theology far outweigh the problems. His central focus on Jesus Christ as Lord
carries over for today with high yield.
I can only cite a few of the positive results here. First, his essay as a whole fosters an
attitude of modesty. Jesus Christ is the
Lord of the church.
The second
prospect is Barth’s methodological application of the Protestant doctrine of
justification to the activities of the church.
God’s grace is sufficient to justify the tasks of both theology and
mission (5).
The final and most significant contribution of Barth’s essay to the contemporary understanding of the church’s mission is the missio Dei doctrine. Barth connects the sending of the Son and the Spirit into the world with the sending of the church into the world (10). This innovative connection roots the church’s mission to the very being of God. Therefore, our missional motive is not just a matter of necessity, possibility, or desire. It is a matter of the divine being in action through us in the world. Our participation in God means our participation in mission. To be saved is to be called. May the two never again be separated!
[i]
Karl Barth, “Die Theologie und die
[ii] One could remain consistent with Barth’s theology while foregrounding more practical concerns and pragmatic criterions, because (1) he eventually turns to practical questions at the end of this essay, as well as at the end of each volume of his Church Dogmatics, and (2) his anti-pragmatic statements may be regarded as reactionary to both the overemphasis on the practical by his missionary audience and the pragmatist leanings of his liberal zeitgeist.
[iii] One could argue that Barth believes in a Christological prevenience of grace: Jesus Chirst’s work is once-for-all, and therefore accomplished “before” it is heard. Hence, in this essay Barth can say concerning the heathens, “Christ has died and was raised for them precisely as such people” (6).
[iv] I am indebted to my own Wesleyan tradition for an interest in the doctrine of Prevenient Grace. Leslie Newbigin’s work on the Prevenience of the Spirit in The Open Secret helps flesh this doctrine out in a more Barthian vein.
[v] It is worth noting that missional theology tends to focus on the imagery of “being sent,” but we must not forget the biblical imagery of “following.”