chapter v

Thirdly, Barth has been quoted as a supporter of radical theologies like Secularization Theology and Minjung Theology. As we discussed in the first chapter, secularization theologians have always claimed Bonhoeffer and Barth as their source, though it is fundamentally mistaken (1.3.3). Such a claim was also made during the secularization and indigenization controversies in the Korean theology of the 1960's and 70's. Further, some Minjung theologians tried to strengthen their position by quoting Barth, though this theology was quite contrary to Barth's thought since it turned out to be a liberal theology (4.4.6). Some of them focused on Barth as a socialist or red pastor and attempted to exploit Barth in order to justify socialism and revolution. It is certainly unfair to uncover the forgotten past of Barth's pre-conversion period in order to insist that he supports their socialistic theology. Though theologians like Marquardt, Rumscheidt, Dannemann, and Brinkman have shed light on Barth's political theology, including his works during his socialist period, it is not proper to draw the main structure of his political theology from those works. It needs to be obtained from his rich and evangelical political writings during the periods of anti-Nazi struggle and the post-war international situation (2.2.8).

Fourthly, Barth was judged too early by the evangelical churches of Korea. In 1935 Hyung Nong Park, the leading dogmatician of the conservative churches, wrote a monumental work entitled Christian Modern Theology: A Selected Discussion of Its Difficult Problems, and his critical comments on Barth's theology as “new theology” set the anti-Barthian tone which continues until now. This negative view made him to prohibit “the direct import of European Reformed theology.” [6] It was too early to judge Barth, because it was just when Barth began to write his Church Dogmatics which properly represents his theology. However, Park's judgment was proved right when liberal theologians claimed Barth as their supporter, as we have discussed above. Since then, the evangelical churches have had no opportunity to read his magnum opus and to re-evaluate Barth because of successive political problems such as Shinto worship issue in the 1930's and 40's, the WCC issue in the 1950's, and the subsequent polarization since the 1960's. A few articles were written on Barth and the main structure of their criticism was borrowed from the American critic Cornelius Van Til, [7] who also judged Barth too early.

Most negative judgments of Barth are based on his early works, written in the 1920's, which are philosophical, dialectical, and radical. In the second edition of the Römerbrief, which initiated dialectical theology, Barth introduced the dialectical philosophy of Kierkegaard, Kant, and Plato as a response to the criticism of German Liberal theologians that he lacked a philosophical basis (2.2.4). It may have been right within the German context, but it was quite excessive and radical for the evangelical churches of other countries. So his dialectical theology was quickly criticized in the 1930's, though Barth was young and his theological career was just begun. Barth recognized his “false start” in the 1930's (2.3.1) and began his new dogmatics with the following statements:

I now think I have a better understanding of many things, including my own intentions, to the degree that in this second draft I have excluded to the very best of my ability anything that might appear to find for theology a foundation, support, or justification in philosophical existentialism... in any conceivable continuation along this line I can see only the plain destruction of Protestant theology and the Protestant church... I regard the analogia entis as the invention of Antichrist... To say this is to clarify my attitude to the charge which I clearly foresaw five years ago and which has been raised at once all along the line in every possible tone from friendly concern to downright anger, namely, that historically, formally and materially I am now going the way of scholasticism. [8]

...the attempt to base theology, exegesis, dogmatics and preaching on what is called existentialist philosophy. For its introduction into theology I myself must bear a good deal of unwitting responsibility, for I paid tribute to it in my commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1921) and even in my well-known false start, the Christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf (1927)... But I cannot see that where it has been expressly applied--for after all negation is no supreme art nor the overthrow of all kinds of false idols a superlative task--it has produced positive results worth mentioning... With all due thanks to those who wish to instruct us about what must not be said in theology, I am far better pleased with the man who is at pains to show us what one may say... although I still enjoy debate, I have gradually acquired more and more feeling for the affirmations by and with which we can live and die. [9]

If I now attempt to judge how far I have actually changed in these last ten years [1928-1938] with regard to my work, then it seems possible to put the case in a formula: I have been occupied approximately equally with the deepening and the application of that knowledge... The deepening consisted in this: in these years I have had to rid myself of the last remnants of a philosophical, i.e., anthropological (in America one says “humanistic” or “naturalistic”) foundation and exposition of Christian doctrine... The positive factor in the new development was this: in these years I had to learn that Christian doctrine, if it is to merit its name and if it is to build up the Christian church in the world as she must needs be built up, has to be exclusively the doctrine of Jesus Christ--of Jesus Christ as the living Word of God spoken to us men. [10]

Though this does not mean that Barth disassociated himself entirely from his earlier theology, it was certainly a “real change of direction.” [11] Therefore, a reappraisal of Barth's theology is needed. His theology has been significantly purified from the philosophical influence of existentialism and become matured through the application of his theology to the resistance movement against Hitler's Nazism. His ambiguous or mistaken statements which confused the church and were therefore criticized have been repeatedly corrected or explained. His doctrine of the Word of God was the main target of criticism, for it had a weakening effect on the authority of the Scripture, but his later theology concretely states that the Holy Scripture is the only place to find the Word of God (3.4.1). His doctrine of the Trinity raised the suspicion that Barth might be a modalist or binitarian, but he clearly states in his later theology that the Son is in heaven with the Father and the Spirit is on earth (3.4). Barth also limited the use of his dialectical method to the defense of those biblical truths that are incomprehensible to simple logic, recovered the biblical concepts of time and eternity, and affirmed the continuity between two realms through the power of the Holy Spirit:

In the attempt to free ourselves both from these early forms of one-sidedness, especially from that of pietistic and Liberal Neo-Protestantism... we took the surest possible way to make ourselves guilty of a new one-sidedness and therefore to evoke a relatively justifiable bit, in view of the total truth, equally misleading reaction, involving all kinds of protests and opposition to even the justifiable aspects of our own concern. Expounding Rom 8.24, I even dared to say at that time: “Hope that is visible is not hope.” Direct communication from God is not communication from God... They were hazardous because to be legitimate exposition of the Bible they needed others no less sharp and direct to compensate and therefore genuinely to substantiate their total claim. But theses were missing. If we claim to have too perfect an understanding of the Gospel, we at once lose our understanding... At that time we had not sufficiently considered the pre-temporality of the Reformers or the supra-temporality of God which Neo-Protestantism of all shades had put in such a distorted way at the centre. Hence we had not seen the biblical conception of eternity in fullness. The result was that we could not speak about the post-temporality of God... That we had only an uncertain grip of the matter became apparent, strangely enough, in those passages of the exposition in which I had to speak positively about the divine future and hope as such. It emerged in the fact that although I was confident to treat the far-sidedness of the coming kingdom of God with absolute seriousness, I had no such confidence in relation to its coming as such... it is also clear that with all this art and eloquence I missed the distinctive feature of the passage, the teleology which it ascribes to time as it moves towards a real end... It was no light task gradually to put right these not undeserved misunderstandings, including my own misunderstandings on which much that I said at that time rested... The doctrine of the living God will not tolerate any such concentrations. [12]

He tried to be humble enough to correct his mistaken positions continuously. Barth even changed his position on baptism by listening to his son Markus Barth one year before he died. [13] Besides, Barth's passion for Christ and Christology is amazing. His belief in the supernatural incarnation of Jesus through the virgin birth led to a debate with Emil Brunner who denied it. His affirmation of miracles and the transcendent world made him to reject the demythologization theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Although both of them were his friends, he could not continue the friendships at the expense of the biblical faith. Concerning his strong belief in the physical resurrection and the second coming of Jesus, T.F.Torrance tells an impressive story. When Barth heard from him that there was some doubt about Barth's belief in the physical resurrection, he was sad and asked Torrance to clarify this misunderstanding even by rewriting his works. [14]

However, the romantic view of Karl Barth, that what he said is always right or that he is not affected by any humanistic philosophy, is wrong according to the doctrine of sola scriptura. Also, he asked his readers: “Do not take any statement from me untested, but measure all of them by the one true Word of God, who is the judge and supreme teacher of us all.” [15] No theologian is inerrant and therefore we have to be critical of any theologian, including ourselves. In this respect G.C.Berkouwer demonstrates a model of the proper interpretation, understanding, and use of Barth's theology. His work The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth is a very critical treatment of Barth's theology as a whole, but Barth praised it as “the great book” because, “for all its reservations and criticisms[,] this work is written with such care and good will and Christian aequitas.” [16] The Korean Church needs this approach of positive or sympathetic criticism. It is not proper to take the dialectical Barth of the 1920's and insist that this represents Barth without interpreting it in the light of the Church Dogmatics. Therefore, Pong Nang Park's suggestion that the Korean study of Barth has to transcend the dialectical Barth needs to be seriously considered. [17] Further, contextual criticism is necessary for the proper application of Barth to the Korean churches. One may not attempt to simply import to the Korean Church what belongs to the typically European culture or German cultural context. Since his theological writings are innumerable and massive, we cannot and may not take all of Barth over. Through contextual analysis and comparison, we can take as much as we need and what can be of benefit to us. It is wrong to divide theologians of the Church into “our side” and “your side” and uncritically take everything of “our side” theologians while totally rejecting everything of “your side” theologians. What is important is to serve the Lord only and to appreciate the theological works of the past and present insofar as they are beneficial to one's own context.

Our final question is: Why does the Korean Church need Karl Barth? The present context of the Korean Church needs Barth more than ever before and it will be quite beneficial if his theology is read carefully and applied contextually. So I suggest that now is the time to reconsider and reappraise Karl Barth for the following three reasons:

(1) There are more than 65,000 preachers in Korea and they suffer from the lack of preaching resources. It is simply incomprehensible as to why they are prohibited from utilizing Barth, while they avail themselves of helpful materials from a variety of sources--Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, and even Roman Catholic works. Barth wrote a great amount, including the fourteen volumes of the Church Dogmatics, and no Reformed theologian has ever written more than him. It is not, however, only a matter of quantity but contains many wonderful insights for preachers and theologians. As a matter of fact, his Church Dogmatics is a special and excellent commentary for those struggling to understand the in-depth meaning of the Scripture. Further, this work is not a hard-to-read dogmatics but full of insightful sermons, for it was written not only for theologians but also for preachers as well. Therefore, it is quite appropriate to include “Aids for the Preacher” in the index volume of the work. If a preacher uses the Scripture and subject index properly for the text or subject to preach, he will discover amazing insights that cannot be obtained from any other reference. This is not accidental, because the theology of Barth was born in the struggle to preach the Word of God properly and he esteems preaching highly as a form of the Word of God.

(2) The evangelical Calvinist churches comprise the majority of the Korean Church, but they are theologically isolated from the rest of the Reformed community of the world. One of the important reasons for this isolation is their unreasonable condemnation of Karl Barth. As we have discussed above, the negative judgment which was made too early on the dialectical Barth of the 1920's is not effective any longer, because Barth recognized his false start and significantly changed his position. Such early criticism certainly helped Barth to correct his reactionary one-sidedness, as he recognized. However, since the early condemnation the conservative churches in Korea have never sincerely read or reflected on Karl Barth, who is praised as one of the great theologians of our age. To enrich their theology for the increasingly complex world, they need the deep insights offered by the great theologians in the world, including Barth. There are more than 300 dogmaticians who wrote their dissertations on the theology of Barth and this includes the majority of Korean dogmaticians in the NCC camp. It means that theological koinonia in dogmatics without reading Barth is almost impossible and therefore the theological isolation of the evangelical Korean churches is inevitable. Moreover, Barth is after all a Reformed dogmatician, though he attempted to improve Reformed theology according to the Reformed principle of sola Scriptura and semper reformanda. His theology is fundamentally grounded on none other than that of John Calvin and it is definitely Christ-centered, Bible-centered and Church-centered. It is not easy to find such a Reformed theology in this age of secularization, even though it contains the stains and blemishes of his own culture and philosophy. Korean evangelical theology has the important task of dissolving the unnecessary hostility and distrust, overcoming fear and isolation, and regaining theological leadership from liberal theologies, since the evangelical churches constitute the majority. Barth has been exploited by liberal theologians in Korea and the evangelical theologians simply treated their friend as their foe.

(3) As we now approach the 21st century, which will be even more complicated and secularized, Korean evangelical theologians need a new framework, which is biblical but also contemporary, in order to serve the Korean churches effectively in the future. It has to be able to deal with problems like religious pluralism, atheism, post-modernism, and cultural secularization. The Christian Church in the world today suffers from the weakness of sound theological leadership. Whose theology can serve as a guide for the new century? Several theologians have tried to find a theological model suited to the post-modern era, and there is a consensus that Karl Barth should be the model or paradigm for the new difficult era. [18]

5.2 The Contextual Application of Barth's Doctrine of Sanctification

The model for theology is the Word of God in the sense that the former attempts to interpret the Scripture for the particular context just as the Holy Spirit contextualizes the Word of God for the particular community. One Word is expressed in different words when the context is different and this careful way of application demonstrates the love and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Theologians are the organ of the Holy Spirit as far as they imitate and participate in the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the perfect Counsellor, Comforter, Guide, and Communicator. To speak the same word in different contexts is careless, thoughtless, and groundless, as it is contrary to the effective communication of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we may not simply repeat the words of Western theology to the Korean Church but they may be read as source material for the creation of a theology for the Korean Church as a theological koinonia of the una ecclesia, just as the Corinthian church read the epistle to the Galatian church or those addressed to other fellow churches (1.5).

The Korean theology needs some Western assistance, and this presupposes wise selection on the basis of contextual applicability and contributability. As a certain biblical passage originally spoken to a certain context is exegeted and applied to a certain present context on the basis of contextual applicability, the selection and application of Western theology into the Korean Church requires such a contextualization. We selected Karl Barth on the assumption that his theological context and the present Korean context share the most similarities as far as the doctrine of sanctification is concerned and therefore he can be of good assistance to the Korean Church today. We are now going to conclude this project by demonstrating the truth of our assumption and the possible benefits if his doctrine of sanctification is applied to the Korean context.

First, the Korean Church is now confronted with Liberalism. Though Korean liberalism dates back to the 1930's, those liberals were rather moderate, for they questioned some traditional beliefs like the silence of women in the church, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, or the verbal inspiration of the Scripture. They were pioneers of Korean liberalism but different from those radical liberals who deny the essential articles of the Christian faith as confessed in the Apostles' Creed. The situation is quite different now. A group of radical liberal theologies has arisen since the 1960's: Secularization Theology, Indigenization Theology, Minjung Theology, Religious Pluralism, and Post-Modern Theology. Old Liberalism of the 19th-century was overcome by two theological movements: Fundamentalism in America and Neo-Orthodoxy in Europe. The evangelical churches in Korea imported American Fundamentalism as a way of keeping its theological purity. It has been quite successful in keeping orthodoxy, but the churches are beginning to realize some serious problems with Fundamentalism. Moreover, they recognize some crucial weaknesses in fundamentalism with respect to the challenge of new liberal theologies. For example, Minjung Theology demonstrated its power in the 1980's, but Fundamentalism could not meet the challenge of the rise of this liberal theology because it had no political theology to offer as the alternative. This is also true for the other liberal theologies, which are quite modern and sophisticated. In this respect Barth can be of the best assistance to the evangelical churches in Korea because he is the one who fought against Liberalism with a significant success. [19] Moreover, because the liberal theologians falsely based their theology partially on Barth, such theologies can be powerfully shaken by showing their basis to be false. Barth's doctrine of sanctification arose in the context of European secularization and it was a powerful attack on the humanistic, psychological, subjectivistic, and pietistic ideas of self-sanctification (2.2.1-2). He did this through his strong criticism of religion as the humanistic attempt at self-salvation (2.2.3-4). The Korean Church has to deal with the problem of religion but lacks an evangelical theology to deal with this subject. As traditional religions have unconsciously infiltrated into the practices and teachings of the Korean Church and secularized it, we need Barth's criticism of religion for its theological sanctification (2.3.2). Further, the indigenization movement, which began in the 1960's, now strongly challenges the Korean Church by riding on the spirit of the age--religious pluralism and nationalistic resurgence of traditional religions. Process theologians have committed themselves to the Buddhization of Christianity and there are those who are attempting to syncretize Christianity with some other traditional religions. Furthermore, even the evangelical churches need to overcome religious secularization by purifying their doctrine of sanctification, for they have unconsciously pursued self-righteousness and self-sanctification under the influence of the teachings of traditional religions. and taught disciplinary sanctification(4.3), even though this was fundamentally different from the biblical teaching of sanctification accomplished in Jesus Christ. Barth's main emphasis is that Christian sanctification is the sanctification of Jesus Christ and thus distinguished from all other ideas of sanctification. The Korean Church suffers from the internal and external challenges of liberal and humanistic theologies of sanctification. So the Korean Church needs the assistance of Barth who is one of the best critics of liberalism. When some strength of the existing Fundamentalism is properly and selectively complemented by Barth's theology, which is the other partner in the battle against Liberalism, the evangelical churches in Korea will be well equipped to defeat liberalism.

Secondly, the Korean Church has to overcome the private Christianity. Traditional religions taught that religion is a matter of mind and spirit and divided one's social life from religious life (4.2). This division is uncritically accepted by most Christians in Korea and sanctification is regarded as a matter of disciplining one's mind and character. This has been one of the main causes of the secularization of Christian life. Liberalism had a similar view of sanctification and limited it to the realm of the inner mind with the pursuit of inner peace and religious feeling. Against this subjectivism of Pietism and Schleiermacher, Barth taught the Reformed idea of “the sanctification of the whole,” that God redeemed all parts of ourselves and therefore claims the sanctification of all parts of our being and all areas of our lives: body and soul, individual and social, economic and political, intellectual and cultural lives (2.2.3). This motif is in line with the Neo-Calvinist view that the sovereignty of God is to prevail in all areas of life for the coming of His Kingdom. While Barth shows some weaknesses in the active plan for the sanctification of education and politics, Neo-Calvinism has same problem in its theological criticism of the Western culture and its cultural Christianity and also with respect to the sanctification of the church and the individual Christian. Therefore, it would be best if both the Neo-Calvinist teaching of sovereignty of God in all areas of life and Barth's teaching of the sanctification of the whole are properly synthesized within the biblical framework and contemporary context.

Thirdly, the Korean Church is polarized with respect to the doctrine of sanctification. Generally speaking, Presbyterian churches teach disciplinary, subjective, and continual sanctification, though in practice fatalism and defeatism prevail. In fact, Methodist churches teach the same view but add the perfectionist idea of entire sanctification as far as the volitional aspect is concerned. On the other hand, Holiness and Pentecostal churches teach mystical sanctification, i.e., that the second grace of the baptism of the Holy Spirit mystically sanctifies the sinful soul (4.3). This theological polarization has caused confusion and distrust among Korean Christians. Barth provides a comprehensive doctrine of sanctification that includes objective and subjective sanctification, regeneratory and continual sanctification, gracious and disciplinary sanctification, Christological and Pneumatological sanctification, for all of them are found in the Scripture (2.2.9). Even though Barth himself suffered from this polarized thinking in his early period, he gradually overcame it by finding a comprehensive vision in the Scripture. Therefore, his doctrine of sanctification can unify those polarized and one-sided views within the biblical teaching of sanctification.

Fourthly, the Korean Church has no sound political theology, though it is continually confronted by the political issues. Since the principle of separation of the church from politics was declared in 1901, the Korean Church has repeatedly failed to obey God politically, as we discussed in detail (4.4). Under the military dictatorship a powerful political theology called Minjung Theology has developed in Korea and contributed to the restoration of democracy. But the evangelical churches in Korea could not accept it, because Minjung Theology was based on the liberal theologies like Liberation Theology and Secularization Theology (4.4.6). The Korean Church is now preparing for the reunification of Korea and this situation calls for a sound political theology. Barth can offer an effective service in this regard, as his position on the church's relation with communist countries was severly criticized during the Cold War for his non-partisan attitude but it is now shedding new light since the end of the Cold War. Further, because his political theology was formed in the resistance movement against Hitler's totalitarianism and the political secularization of the German Church and it is based on the first commandment of God, the Reformed principle of the sovereignty of God, and the biblical vision of the Kingdom of God (2.2.8), it can be utilized powerfully and biblically as a political guide for the Korean evangelical churches, though it would be better if it were complemented by other Reformed political theologies like that of Richard J. Mouw. [20] The distinctness of his political theology is that he related political obedience to sanctification in such a way that the purpose of sanctification is to make one the faithful covenant-partner of His Kingdom who participates in the holy campaign of the divine revolution to redeem the world powers (3.3.1).

Fifthly, the Korean Church is suffering from moral secularization but lacks an ethical theology. The Korean Church has rapidly grown into a major religion in Korea but the weakness in its ethical teaching invited secular ethics into the churches and resulted in its moral secularization (4.5). The Christian churches were ethically superior in the past but are now criticized by non-Christians for their ethical problems. This ethical weakness was caused partly by the influence of traditional religions but also partly by the pursuit of an amoral theology in the Fundamentalist tradition. For example, the biggest seminary in Korea, where almost 2,000 students study, has no professor of Christian ethics. Moreover, the orthodox tradition of dogmatics tried to preserve the old dogmatics which treats only biblical passages and theological concepts, feeling that any contextual discussion might corrupt tradition. Barth overcomes this separation of dogmatics from ethics by incorporating dogmatics and ethics in the doctrine of sanctification (2.2.6, 2.3.4). For him, to hear the Word of God is to obey it and without obedience it is no longer true theology. If Barth's ethical perspective is applied to the Korean Church, it could turn its theoretical theology into practical and ethical theology. The present situation is quite tragic, for the pastors arbitrarily make up their own solution to the churches' ethical issues because it is not provided by the theologians.

Sixthly, the Korean Church understands sanctification individualistically and even egoistically. It is definitely not a Christian teaching but the influence of traditional religions which have taught that religious discipline is for one's own happiness--his own soul, life, family and nation (4.2). This individual and collective egoism has hindered the understanding of the true motif of Christian sanctification for which Jesus Christ died on the Cross. Barth opens a new horizon by teaching that our personal sanctification is not an end in itself but a means for the telos, which is the sanctification of the world as the will of God in Jesus Christ (3.1.2, 3.2.1). This idea of teleological sanctification relates mission and evangelism to sanctification (3.2.4). We are called and sanctified in order to be the witness of Jesus Christ in word and deed within this world. The Korean churches are eager to evangelize non-Christians and send missionaries into the world, but they have not found any theological relationship between mission and sanctification. It can thus undertake missions egoistically for competition, pride, denominationalism, or nationalism. Because Korea is a country of a single people of long history, nationalism is extremely strong and religions have even accommodated it. Here is a great danger for the Korean Church, for it has to identify itself with the one universal church and the universal Kingdom of God (4.4.7). Barth himself suffered from the same problem of Swiss sectarianism before he met John Mott, who opened his eyes to the significance of the world (2.2.1). His vision for the world from the perspective of the Kingdom of God made him critical of the churches' support of or silence regarding the collective egoism of western colonialism.

Seventhly, the Korean Church is gradually losing the theologia crucis, the theological basis of the present growth of Korean Church. It was relatively pure when it accepted suffering as a way of following Jesus during the periods of Japanese rule and the Korean War. As Korea emerged from the economic suffering in the 1960's, the Korean churches began to preach the Shamanistic gospel of blessing (4.5.1). The theologia gloriae offered a cheap grace and the Pentecostal churches spread its theology of prosperity throughout all denominations. It is one of the most important reasons for the secularization of the Korean Church. Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out that this rejection of suffering was the main reason for the secularization of western churches. The Korean Church needs to recover the theologia crucis and Barth can be of great help in this because he emphasized cross-bearing as an indispensable element of sanctification (3.3.4). Of course, we need to balance both of them, but this is the time to emphasize on cross-bearing and suffering in order to recover its balance and eschatological faith. The idea of mental sanctification without any painful obedience has to be rejected, because it is psychological, secular, and non-Christian.

So far, we have listed seven benefits for the Korean Church if Barth's doctrine of sanctification is applied to it. There are more but we will limit ourselves here, for the purpose of this discussion is simply to demonstrate the fact that it would be beneficial to the Korean Church. However, the most important benefit is his Christological understanding of sanctification: objective sanctification in the unio cum Christo and subjective sanctification in the participatio Christi. This is what the Korean Church needs to learn most, for it has not clearly distinguished Christian sanctification from the humanistic or religious idea of sanctification. Our sanctification is achieved only in Jesus Christ, whatever form it takes. And this principle of solus Christus will recover the Reformed principle of sola fide and sola gratia in the doctrine of sanctification. It will heal the separation between justification and sanctification or vocation and sanctification.

5.3 Toward the Sanctification of the World in the Third Millennium

We are approaching the third millennium since the coming of Jesus Christ and His Church in the world is now experiencing a dramatic change of situation. The Christian community that was born in Jerusalem spread into the whole Roman Empire and christianized Europe in the first millennium. In the second millennium, however, the Church became secularized in several ways: (1) Pre-Reformed Christianity suffered from political secularization as it aspired to worldly glory and also from theological secularization as it attempted to synthesize Christianity with European culture, especially Greek philosophy. (2) Protestant Christianity too suffered from political secularization for it justified ecclesiastical separatism and identified itself politically with the colonialism and imperialism of European countries. It also became secularized theologically as it attempted to synthesize Christianity with humanistic philosophies, especially in German theology. On the other hand, especially in its second-half of the second millennium, the Church made significant progress for the sake of His Kingdom by sending missionaries and expanding its domain to the whole world, even though the European churches themselves suffered from secularization and rapidly declined and became a minority in this last decade.

What will the Christian Church be in the third millennium? Though it is difficult to predict, some signs can already be seen. The major factor in the change will be the decline of the European churches, though it might be recovered. So far the signs of their dramatic revival is not seen yet. On the other hand, the churches in Asia and Africa are growing. It will transform “two-wheel Christendom” into “four-wheel Christendom” of Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. However, the most critical problem for the churches in the third millennium will be that of secularization, as it will be more aggressive and sophisticated than that of the second millennium (1.2). Therefore, the doctrine of sanctification has to be powerfully preached not only to protect the churches from secularization but also to promote their sanctification in the deeply secularized world. Barth's vision for the sanctification of the world is the biblical vision of the Kingdom of God that Jesus Christ would be “ta panta en pasin” “on earth as it is in heaven” (Eph 1.23, Matt 6.10). It is also Daniel's vision that all worldly empires would be destroyed by the Living Stone and His Kingdom would fill the whole world. Further, modern New Testament studies discovered that Jesus' central teaching was the Kingdom of God. As the Christian Church in the third millennium comes ever closer to the Parousia, it has to be more aggressively engaged in the realization of the sanctification of the world in Jesus Christ.

How God governs the world history is a mystery, but a revealed principle of the divine providence is to humiliate the proud and exalt the humble, whether it is the individual, community or nation, for the security and progress of His Kingdom. If a blessed church or nation is secularized by synthesizing or compromising the Gospel with their own culture and loses its saltiness by abandoning its eschatological faith and cross-bearing in witnessing Jesus, as the prophets of western Christianity like Kierkegaard, Overbeck, Bonhoeffer, and Barth warned, God will move his lampstand to other places. It is this problem that the Korean Church is now facing and will face in the next century. Some futurologists predict that the 21st century will be the century of China. It is generally agreed that Korea will be reunited in a few decades. Whether the Korean Church will be able to serve the Kingdom of God in a leading and honourable position or not will be decided by its answer to the question of whether it will successfully overcome secularization or not.

[1] . The dissertations which Korean theologians wrote on Barth are as follows: P.N.Park, Karl Barth's Doctrine of Inspiration, with Special Reference to the Evangelical Churches in Korea, Harvard Univ. diss. 1958; S.K.Park, Man in Karl Barth's Doctrine of Election, Drew Univ. diss. 1966; J.K.Un, The Christian Community as Mission-Event in the Theology of Karl Barth, Pacific School of Religion diss. 1968; Y.G.Maeng, The Command of God: A Study of Karl Barth's Theological Ethics, Emory Univ. diss. 1974; S.K.Park, Der Zusammenhang von Theologie und Politik im Denken Karl Barths, Bochum Univ. diss. 1975; K.J.Kim, Gottes Sein in der Geschichte: G.W.F.Hegels Gottes- und Geschichtsverständnis nach seiner Vernunft in der Geschichte und theologische Kritik an Hegel am Beispiel Karl Barths, Tübingen Univ. diss. 1976; M.Y.Kim, Der Gottesbegriff Karl Barths in der heutigen Diskussion, Tübingen Univ. diss. 1985; J.H.Choi, Aspekte der Pneumatologie Karl Barths mit einem Beitrag zur Lehre vom Heiligen Geist in der protestantischen Kirche Koreas, Heidelberg Univ. diss. 1987; S.K.Lee, Entwicklung und Gestalt der Ekklesiologie Karl Barths, Tübingen Univ. diss. 1987.

[2] . For the definition of liberalism, see n. 5:19.

[3] . Y.J.Kim, A History of the Korean Church, Seoul 1992, 228f.

[4] . Cf. S.B.Yun, [The Life and Theology of] Karl Barth, Seoul 1968, 224-229.

[5] . T.S.Ryu, An Introduction to the History of Korean Theology, Seoul 1982, 270.

[6] . H.N.Park, “The Theological Tradition of Korean Presbyterian Church,” Theological Review 1976.9:19.

[7] . Cf. C.Van Til, The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Karl Barth and Brunner, London 1946; Idem, Christianity and Barthianism, Philadelphia 1962; Karl Barth had responded to the Neo-Calvinist harsh criticism with a fierce anger: “That the Neo-Calvinists in the Netherlands and elsewhere are not among my well-wishers... Let us not blame them for this... But it is going too far... shown themselves to be men of stupid, cold and stony hearts to whom we need not listen.” (CD III/4, xiii) However, realising that he had made a mistake when he became acquainted with G.C.Berkouwer, he submitted a sincere apology: “Of the fierce attack which I made on Dutch Neo-Calvinist in globo... The wrath of man seldom does that which is right in the sight of God, and never when it is in globo... I should like to withdraw entirely the generalised and therefore ill-founded words,” though some “fundamentalists” were excluded: “Only butchers and cannibals are beyond the pale (e.g., the one who summarily described my theology as the worst heresy of any age)... Those who were wounded then can take comfort in the fact that I myself have now come under the charge of `Fundamentalism'... they need have nothing to fear from me.” (CD IV/2, xii)

[8] . CD I/1, xiii.

[9] . CD III/4, xii-xiii.

[10] . Barth, How I Changed My Mind, 42f.

[11] . CD III/4, xiii.

[12] . CD II/1, 634-636.

[13] . Cf. CD IV/4, x.

[14] . Cf. T.F.Torrance, “My Interaction with Karl Barth,” in: D.K.McKim, ed., How Karl Barth Changed My Mind, Grand Rapids 1986, 62f.

[15] . K.Barth, Offene Briefe 1945-1968, GA 15, Zürich 1984, 375, quoted in: R.J.Erler and R.Marquard, ed., A Karl Barth Reader, tr. G.W.Bromiley, Grand Rapids 1986, 112.

[16] . CD IV/2, xii.

[17] . Cf. P.N.Park, “Karl Barth and the Korean Presbyterian Church,” Poolbit Ministry 1983:5, 68: “Of course, the Korean Church's understanding of Barth was too introductory and weak. We wonder whether the Barth who has been introduced to Korea is the real Barth or his ghost. The understanding of Barth in Korea is preliminary to Barth and did not cross beyond the transcendental Barth of the Römerbrief. In my understanding Barth's positive thought in his later thought of the Church Dogmatics... has not yet received its proper treatment. We do not know Barth yet. One of the tasks of the Korean Presbyterian Church is for young theologians to master his massive dogmatics, study his whole theology, discover the hidden heritages, and introduce his whole theology correctly.”

[18] . Cf. D.L.Dickerman, ed., Karl Barth and the Future of Theology, Yale Divinity School 1969; H.Küng, “Karl Barth and Postmodern Paradigm,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin n.s. 1 (1988): 8-31; Idem, Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View, tr. Peter Heinegg, Doubleday 1988; B.Jaspert, “Karl Barths Theologie am Ende des 20 Jahrhunderts,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 112 (1987): 717-730; D.E.Klemm, “Toward a Rhetoric of Postmodern Theology: Through Barth and Heidegger,” Journal of American Academy of Religion 55 (1987): 443-469; D.Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, Louisville 1989.

[19] . The term "liberalism" or "liberal" is often abused by conservatives, as it is quite ambiguous and relative. In general, it designates a theological tendency rather than a system of theology: it tends to be free, rationalistic, scientific, modernistic, humanistic, subjectivistic, optimistic, and this-worldly. The types and degrees of liberalism are too diverse to define it. In our study, we limit to the type of liberalism which is understood by Barth and the Korean Church. Even Barth's definition of liberalism is quite diverse but his main criteria is one's attitude to the divine revelation and concretely the Holy Scripture. According to Barth, liberal theologians are those who are quite free from the Holy Scripture and even critical of it from his a priori knowledge based on human reason and experience etc: "The basic difference between this [liberal] theology and the theology of older Protestantism is that from some source or other, some general knowledge of God and man, it is known beforehand, known a priori, what revelation must be, may be, and ought to be... denial of revelation... The bad thing, and that is the revolt indeed, is the denial that barely conceals the illusion and presumption that we have either power or right to say Yes or No to God's revelation, merely because we are satisfied or dissatisfied with it... On the contrary, if theology is really to correspond to the witness of Holy Scripture, they must give theology its essential forms and they must also determine its methods, for without these it could not be theology" (CD I/2, 4-7). This free thinking with respect to the divine revelation in the Holy Scripture from the rationalistic or humanistic standpoint is regarded as liberalism also in the Korean Church. In his article entitled "Liberalism in the Korean Church" (Theological Review 1964.1, 151-162), Hyung Nyong Park identified Korean liberalism with the critical and free thinking to the divine revelation in the Holy Scripture which results in the denial of essential articles of biblical faith such as the incarnation and virgin birth of Jesus, His atonement, physical resurrection, and second coming. He also pointed out their dependence on religious experience.

[20] . R.J.Mouw, Political Evangelism, Grand Rapids 1973; Idem, When the Kings Come Marching In: Isaiah and the New Jerusalem, Grand Rapids 1983.