이 정석 교수의 신학 문답 Q&A

1.5 Contextual Approach and Procedure

 

In contemporary theology, the importance of context is increasingly emphasized not only in hermeneutics and exegesis but in all divisions of theology including dogmatics.  This is due partly to the influence of existentialism and pluralism, partly to the modern awareness of culture and situation.  On the other hand, because many Third World theologies seem to promote relativism by negating the relevance of Western theologies for the Third World churches, there are some negative reactions to the contextualization of theology. [239]

 

However, theology is a contextualization.  As a function of the Holy Spirit, theology is a human attempt to communicate effectively the Word of God to the particular church in the particular context.  It is not correct to assume that any theological work could be communicated to any context.  For example, a theological work written in Dutch language and mentality could not be communicated to the people of Korean language and mentality without a proper process of lingual as well as cultural translation.  In fact, the Holy Scripture is a collection of the contextualized Word of God, though inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore perfect contextualization suited to a particular people in a particular context.  Therefore, without this contextual approach of understanding, it is not possible to conclude the unity of the Scripture written to various recipients of diverse contexts throughout more than a millennium.  The gift of multiple gospels as well as multiple descriptions of the Word of God emphatically witnesses that the Holy Spirit is the Perfect Communicator of contextualization.  In this sense, theologians, teachers and preachers should try to imitate the Holy Spirit in their effort to communicate the Word of God effectively to their particular context.

 

Nevertheless, many traditionalistic theologians have not been so successful in following the model of the Holy Spirit and thereby the Word of God has not been so effectively communicated to the people of God, because they attempted to write theologies of universal application without willingness to contextualize, even though they were called and committed primarily to serve their particular church in the particular context with its particular needs and issues.  Therefore, their theologies failed to be an effective organ of the Holy Spirit.  The introduction of traditional dogmatics usually consists only of the history of doctrine and not the analysis of the context.  As H. Berkhof correctly states, “the proper practice of dogmatic study is part of the sanctification of human life.” [240]   Therefore, theologians should not fail to discuss the secularization and sanctification of their particular church and particular world.  In this sense, the need of dogmatics increases with the “growing secularization.” [241]   Accordingly, it is the duty of a theologian to “oscillate” ceaselessly between the two worlds of text and context. [242]   In a multi-religious society like Korea, moreover, dogmatics without due discussion on parallel teachings of traditional religions results in the failure of effective communication. [243]

 

Daniel L. Migliore recently suggested a contextual approach in dogmatics, when he listed four questions that systematic theology should be always asked: (1) Are the proclamation and practice of the church true to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ attested in Scripture? (2) Do the proclamation and practice of the community of faith give adequate expression to the whole truth of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ? (3) Do the proclamation and practice of the community of faith represent the God of Jesus Christ as a living reality in the present context? (4) Does the proclamation of the community of faith lead to transforming praxis in personal and social life? [244]   Also, all three major methods in contemporary dogmatics--Karl Barth's Christocentric method of critical self-examination of the theological context of the church, Paul Tillich's correlation method of analyzing the human situation in its broad aspects and then correlating it with the answers of the Christian message, and the praxis method of Liberation Theology to examine critically the church's praxis in a particular context--commonly emphasize the contextual approach. [245]

 

Further, the contextual approach promotes the unity of the Church, which is the foundation of Christian theology.  When Karl Barth said that “theology is a function of the Church,” [246] he is referring to the (una) sancta ecclesia catholica.  Theologians may not ignore their own confessional traditions because of their own particular callings and settings, but dogmatics will descend into “a group ideology” [247] if it fails to confess the unity of the Church and to self-examine one's particular church by the standard of sola Scriptura and una ecclesia.  But the recognition of multiple confessional traditions as well as cultural diversities of spirituality itself affirms the validity of the contextual approach.  Church separation is a secularization, because it is caused by the secular spirit of hate, pride and political avarice.  But, when it is healed by the Holy Spirit of unity, understanding and cooperation, the different churches will recognise that “[We] are walking together.” [248]   As John Kromminga remarkably pointed out, “To rush to recognize a disunity that Christ does not recognize is to fail to discern Christ Himself.” [249]   The unwillingness to recognize the contextuality of one's theology has caused a great number of unnecessary theological wars among different traditions, though it is the holy duty of theology to fight against heresies only because they are not within the one true Church.

 

It was precisely what Karl Barth did.  He did not insist that he could give a theological answer to every church.  Even though his most beloved theologian was John Calvin, he did not think that Calvin could solve the problems of Barth's particular church or any other church since his death, because Calvin did not know developments like Orthodoxy, Pietism, Rationalism, Romanticism or Liberal Theology. [250]   Likewise, Karl Barth can not help the Korean Church without a proper contextualization, because he did not experience the Korean Church.  Accordingly, this study will first attempt to understand Barth's doctrine of sanctification in his own historical and theological context in chapters 2 and 3.  Then, before applying it to the Korean churches in chapter 5, we will analyze the context of the Korean Church in chapter 4.

 

Because our study attempts to re-illuminate and reappraise Barth's doctrine of sanctification with a fair and balanced treatment according to the design and intention of Barth himself, it is very important to place his doctrine of sanctification properly in the historical and structural context of Barth's whole theology.  Like Augustine or Calvin, Barth's theology has developed as an accumulation of theological reactions against threats to the Church in his time.  Therefore, it is almost impossible to understand his doctrine of sanctification without preliminary research on the contextual process of its development.  Accordingly, prior to our main presentation, we will begin with a detailed and thorough analysis of the developmental background since his earliest theological formation, which will clearly illuminate why and how his distinct theological system has emerged.  Of course, it will concentrate on the historical and structural development process of his doctrine of sanctification, its key concepts and systematic integration, in two areas--its historical formation in the pre-CD period and political struggles (2.2) and theological foundation in the Church Dogmatics I, II and III (2.3).

 

Then we will proceed to our main discussion on Barth's doctrine of sanctification in chapter 3.  In the introduction to this chapter, the relationship between justification and sanctification [§66.1] will be illuminated by the analysis of the total structure of his doctrine of reconciliation, which consists of three sub-doctrines of justification, sanctification, and vocation.  Also, we will discuss the two prior sections [§64 and 65], as the Christological foundation and hamartiological presupposition of the doctrine of sanctification proper in §66 (3.1).  Next, it will be necessary to see the total structure of his doctrine of sanctification as presented in §66.2, without which it is impossible to connect the several aspects of sanctification properly (3.2).  And, as Barth himself proceeded in §66.3-6, a discussion on the four forms of sanctification (discipleship, conversion, good works and cross-bearing) will be in order (3.3).  Then the Holy Spirit's practical application of sanctification to the Christian community and individual, which Barth himself had presented in §66 and 67 but previous writers have generally ignored, will be discussed (3.4).  It will be divided into two sub-sections--the sanctification of the church and the sanctification of the individual.  Then this main chapter will be completed with a concluding section which will reflect on the compatibility of Barth's doctrine of sanctification with that of the evangelical churches (3.5).

 

Finally, we will attempt to apply Barth's doctrine of sanctification to the Korean context, in order to find a theological solution to overcome the rising trend of secularization in the Korean churches.  However, because it can be applied properly only when there are contextual similarities, a fair and thorough analysis of the Korean context will be necessary with respect to secularization and sanctification: the pre-understandings of sanctification in the traditional religions which have greatly shaped the Christian understanding of sanctification (4.2), and three types of the doctrine of sanctification in the Korean Church (4.3), and historical analysis of her political (4.4) and moral secularization (4.5).

 

In the conclusion, we will ask two main questions and try to answer them.  Our first question will be why the evangelical churches in Korea need Barth now.  It will be answered by explaining how the Korean churches have misunderstood Barth and by suggesting how Barth can be a good help in solving some crucial problems which the Korean churches are now confronted with (5.1).  Our second question will be what the Korean churches will benefit if Barth's doctrine of sanctification is applied to the Korean context (5.2).  Of course, the contexts of Karl Barth and the Korean churches will be compared for a proper application, following our assumption of contextual approach that contextual similarity is the only proper ground for application.  Then our whole study will end with a concluding remarks about the sanctification of the world in the Third Millennium (5.3).

​

​

__________________________________________

​

[239] . Cf. Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics, 71-73.

 

[240] . Ibid., 14.

 

[241] . Ibid., 13.

 

[242] . Ibid., 14f.

 

[243] . Ibid., 18f.

 

[244] . Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 9-13.

 

[245] . Ibid., 14-18.

 

[246] . CD I/1, 3.

 

[247] . Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics, 21.

 

[248] . J.Kromminga, All One Body We, Grand Rapids 1970, 211.

 

[249] . Ibid.

 

[250] . A.Dekker and G.Puchinger, De oude Barth, Kampen 1969, 65.