이 정석 교수의 신학 문답 Q&A

1.3. Secularization and Sanctification

 

1.3.1 The Gospel of Sanctification

 

Christianity is a religion which offers the gospel of salvation on the basis of Jesus' redemptive life, death, and resurrection.  Christian salvation has several aspects, and sanctification is the most important and immediate aspect of salvation for our purpose in finding a theological solution for the problem of secularization.  Sanctification is the grace of reversal and counter-process to the movement of secularization.  Men have separated themselves from God and fallen into misery, enslaved under the sinful passion of the world and destined for destruction.  Nevertheless, God is so gracious as to offer a way back to Him in Jesus Christ, that is, the reconciliation of the world with Him, which sanctifies secularized man and his life.  Traditionally sanctification was limited to the individual soul, but it gradually became recognized that the object of sanctification is universal.  The sanctification of an individual soul not only has a crucial relationship with the spiritual state of his society including his family, church, the communities in which he lives and works, and the state, but the sanctified man has also been commanded to sanctify his society.  This social consciousness is reflected in some recent dogmatics as “social sanctification” or “structural sanctification.” [128]   Further, sanctification has been expanded to include the whole creation, with an ecological concern and Kingdom motif. [129]    No doubt, it is a good development in the Church's understanding of sanctification.

 

Further, sanctification is more important practically than any other aspect of salvation.  Though its eschatological aspect is indispensable, Christian salvation is achieved already “here and now.”  Accordingly, the present reality of salvation has to serve as an object to prove its validity and attraction to the non-Christians:

 

You are the light of the world...let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Mt 5.14-16). 

 

Here lies a crucial challenge as well as a problem of Christian sanctification.  For, in the so-called ordo salutis, there are two possible categories.  The first category, which includes forgiveness of sin, justification, adoption, union with Christ, regeneration, glorification, and even election, happens in the transcendental realm and therefore it is not observable but to be accepted in faith as having happened by the work of God.  However, the second category, which includes calling, conversion and sanctification, occurs also in the phenomenal realm and is therefore partly observable.  Sanctification is the most important ordo, because, while calling and conversion are events that have already happened in the past, sanctification is the only imperative ordo for a life-long process to realize salvation in our lives and this world.  Moreover, sanctification is the only phenomenally observable reality that proves the validity of Christian salvation.  Therefore, sanctification has been a major concern of the Christianity throughout the centuries.

 

At present, however, any discussion of the doctrine of sanctification is often regarded as traditional and obsolete.  To modern man, sanctification seems the most offensive doctrine, for as Leonard Griffith wrote in his Barriers to Christian Belief:

 

Of all the obstacles that prevent some good people from moving forward to a complete and whole-hearted acceptance of Christianity there is none more formidable and discouraging than its sheer idealism... Perhaps they have honestly tried to live the Christian life but have felt so lonely in their idealism and so wretched by the sense of failure, that they have simply given it up as hopeless. [130]

 

Except for some devotional books, it is quite rare to find any theological treatise on this doctrine.  However, nobody will deny that our age needs the truth and power of sanctification more than any other age in human history, for this is the secularized age.

 

  

 

1.3.2 Secularization of the Doctrine of Sanctification

 

As mentioned above, sanctification is the counter-process to secularization, bringing men back from the world and reconciling them with God.  Clearly, sanctification is the divine method of de-secularization.  Therefore, it could be expected that the spirit of the world must be very hostile to the Gospel of sanctification.

 

It is happening in our age.  Secularists now openly criticize the doctrine of sanctification.  For example, Carl Jung strongly insisted that the teaching of sanctification causes neurosis by encouraging people to struggle for a holy life and therefore it should be terminated. [131]   He even suggested revising our understanding of imitatio Christi: “Are we to understand the `imitation of Christ' in the sense that we should copy his life... or in the deeper sense that we are to live our own proper lives as truly as he lived his in all its implications?” [132]   What does he mean by “the deeper sense” but the secular sense?  In his Honest to God, John A. T. Robinson similarly criticized the traditional practise of sanctification as “via negativa” and “interior sanctification.” [133]   Paul van Buren limited sanctification as love of man and denied that it included love for God. [134]   No doubt, one of the most offensive doctrines for the secularists must be that of sanctification, as it opposes and contradicts their worldly orientation.

 

On the other hand, there are those who attempt to secularize the concept while retaining this biblical and traditional term.  As Paul Tillich pointed out, the secularization of the churches which are seeking for holiness and sanctification is a “great riddle of church history.” [135]   So some theologians even insisted that secularization is the destiny of Christianity because Christianity has negated entirely the notion of the sacred and thus liberated the human race from religious bondage.  They are certainly wrong, because Christian message is not only “liberation from” but also “liberation for.”  And, the goal of liberation is not secularization, but sanctification: “For God did not call us to be unholy, but to live a holy life.” (I Thess 4.7)  Whatever they do, it is impossible to reconcile both ideas perfectly.  However, they argue that secularization is sanctification.  Here is a modern illiteracy that confuses even opposite concepts.  Here is a theological licentiousness, however they define secularization.

 

　

 

1.3.3 Secularization Theology and Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

When Harvey Cox said that “The age of the secular city, the epoch whose ethos is quickly spreading into every corner of the globe, is an age of `no religion at all',” [136] it is almost a quotation from Dietrich Bonhoeffer who is honoured as the modern founder of Christian secularism.  As a matter of fact, secular theologies are mostly commentaries on Bonhoeffer, but they misunderstand his deep insight and intention.  It is true that he advocated “religionless Christianity” “in the world come of age,” but the “religion” which Bonhoeffer criticized was different from the “religion” of which secularist theologians attempted to rid themselves.  What then was the religion or “religious clothing” (religiösen Einkleidungen) [137] which Dietrich Bonhoeffer cried to be removed?  It was the Western form of Christianity that had become so rationalized and culturalized that it had been transformed into another religion which is essentially different from genuine Christianity. [138]   For Bonhoeffer sighed: “Christianity did originally come from the East, but we have so westernized it and so permeated it with the concerns of civilization that we can see that we have almost lost it.” [139]   He could sense the coming of the twilight of Western Christianity, because it lost the essence of the Christian faith which he believed to be the way of cross and participation in God's suffering. [140]   So he even worried about divine condemnation of the West and the transfer of the Christianity to another part of the world: “Is our time up and has the gospel been given to another people, proclaimed in perhaps very different words and deeds?” [141]   With a strong faith in God's grace, however, he overcame his earlier pessimism. [142]   In the struggle against the secularized state and church of Hitler's Germany, he dreamed of a new era of a renewed Western Christianity.  He believed that it would arrive soon, because he understood that man was “at the end of” a long secularization process which started from the Enlightenment. [143]   Therefore, the task of the Church was to de-secularize Western Christianity: “What we need to do now... is to take Christ out of the process of secularization into which he has been drawn since the days of the Enlightenment.” [144]

 

Bonhoeffer definitely intended to overcome secularization, not to pursue it. [145]   Therefore, he rejected the demythologization of Rudolf Bultmann.  He appreciated Bultmann's question but not his solution, because it is a liberal reduction of the Gospel:

 

...he [Bultmann] misconstrues them in the sense of liberal theology, and so goes off into the typical liberal process of reduction--the `mythological' elements of Christianity are dropped, and Christianity is reduced to its `essence'.--My view is that the full content, including the `mythological' concepts, must be kept--the New Testament is not a mythological clothing of a universal truth; this mythology (resurrection etc.) is the thing itself--but the concepts must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith.  Only in that way, I think, will liberal theology be overcome and at the same time its question be genuinely taken up and answered.  Thus the world's coming of age is no longer an occasion for polemics and apologetics, but is now really better understood than it understands itself, namely on the basis of the gospel and in the light of Christ. [146]

 

This evangelistic mind of Bonhoeffer should be taken into consideration in the interpretation of some texts where the term “secularization” is used positively.  As far as this is concerned, it is either a counter-secularization of secularized Western Christianity, that is, de-secularization, or a call to the participation in the suffering of sanctification in this world and this critical time (that is, saeculum). [147]   It was a cry and call primarily to Hitler's Germany but also to secularized Christians in the world.  To be sure, he was not a theologian of secularization, but a theologian of sanctification whose life theme was the discipleship of Jesus--following after Jesus, Nachfolge Jesu, through the participation in the suffering of Jesus in this world.

 

Because Secularization Theology was criticized as being established upon a misunderstanding of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, it suffered greatly.  Moreover, because it did not provide any acceptable Christian alternative, it was rejected by the most Christians as a radical departure from authentic Christianity.  When Harvey Cox defined it as the liberation of the world from all that was the supernatural, [148] Daniel Callahan responded as follows: “Who needs it, and so what, anyway?” [149]   So did Louis Dupré: “If Christianity is not worth being saved as a religion [that is, as a personal relation to transcendence], it is not worth being saved at all.” [150]   Pannenberg also criticized its suicidal “paradox”: “Instead of the end of religion--or even as its decisive phase--it was now the end of Christianity which suddenly seemed imminent, or at least the end of the central content of faith in the Christian tradition.” [151]   So the fever and fervour of the Secularization Theology has gone, and it is now passé.  After the 1970's, even the word “secularization” almost disappeared in theological discussions. [152]

 

So far, we have established our proposition that sanctification is the gracious and powerful remedy of God for the problem of secularization, in spite of some confusions and distortions of the Gospel of sanctification.  Therefore, we may proceed with our study by offering a biblical doctrine of sanctification.  But, as our motif and purpose in this project is very contextual and practical with respect to reflection upon the modern development of secularization in Western churches, a course that non-Western churches are expected to follow if it is not fundamentally restrained, I intend to learn from a model theologian of the West, who made a successful struggle against secularization.  As seen above, Dietrich Bonhoeffer could be a possibility, but my choice is Karl Barth.  Barth is not only one of the best representative theologians of the Western churches today in the Reformed and evangelical tradition, but he also offers one of the most comprehensive and biblical dogmatics that includes the doctrine of sanctification.  Further, it is recognized that he represents a small number of theologians who dealt with the problem of modern secularization seriously. [153]   Therefore, Barth's doctrine of sanctification is a very contextual and practical reflection of the biblical teaching on it, and his doctrine of sanctification, born out of the struggle against the secularization in the West, would certainly be helpful for the struggle of fellow Christians in Korea.

 

 

 

1.3.4 Karl Barth and Sanctification

 

Karl Barth (1886-1968) gives commanding importance to the doctrine of sanctification in the whole system of his theology on his theological principle that dogmatics is ethics and ethics is dogmatics. [154]   As a matter of fact, Karl Barth has given such an all-embracing existential importance to the doctrine of sanctification that any dogmatic discussion “loses its meaning and purpose” without relating it to sanctification, because it is the “doctrine of sanctification in which dogmatics directly and expressly becomes ethics.” [155]   Therefore, without this practical implication, dogmatics would be a mere “metaphysics which, developed in the attitude of a spectator,” “cannot possibly be the reality of the Word of God, no matter how rich or profound its content might be.” [156]   In his theology of the Word, if one does not hear the Word in act, “he does not hear it at all,” [157] and thus dogmatics is ethical by nature, or it is a mere speculation.

 

In every dogmatic discussion, therefore, Barth attempts to relate it to our subject, whether in terms of the Christian life, sanctification, or ethics.  So sanctification is discussed everywhere implicitly or explicitly in all of his writings.  For that reason, a complete study of his doctrine of sanctification would require the study of the whole corpus of his works, but the extent of his writings [158] disallows such a full treatment.  Accordingly, the selection of the materials is inevitably necessary.  Of course, our main text will be Barth's final, mature, and comprehensive discussion on sanctification in his Church Dogmatics IV/2, §66: The Sanctification of Man (1955).  In addition, many other complementary texts which reflect the diverse stages and aspects of development in his doctrine of sanctification will be dealt with.

 

First, since he declared his departure from liberal theology and early socialism, Barth was vigorously engaged in the theological attack against the anthropocentric liberalism from every angle of theology.  Therefore, the theological principle of sola gratia dominates his primary discussion on sanctification in the first stage of his thought, prior to the Nazi period.  Accordingly, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is strongly emphasized, while the humanistic idea of sanctification is sharply criticized.  In this initial stage he laid a theological foundation for his doctrine of sanctification.  According to H. W. Tribble, who wrote the first dissertation on Karl Barth's doctrine of sanctification in 1937, Barth even conducted a seminar on the doctrine of sanctification, though the material is not available now.  His theological development on this doctrine in this period is reflected in the following works.

 

1909    “Moderne Theologie und Reichgottesarbeit,” in Vorträge und kleinere Arbeiten 1905-1909, ed. H.-A.Drewes and H.Stoevesandt, GA 21, Zürich 1992, 334-66.

1911    “Jesus Christus und die soziale Bewegung,” Der Freie Aargauer 6.153:1-2, 154:1-2; 155:2; 156:1; “Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice,” in: G.Hunsinger, ed., Karl Barth and Radical Politics, Philadelphia 1976, 19-45.

1919    Der Römerbrief, Eerste Fassung, ed. H.Schmidt, GA 16, Zürich 1985.

1922    Der Römerbrief, Zweite Fassung, Zürich 1989; The Epistle to the Romans, tr. E.C.Hoskyns, Oxford 1933.

1927    Rechtfertigung und Heiligung, ZdZ 5:281-309.

1928    Ethik I, 1928 Vorlesung, ed. D.Braun, GA 2, Zürich 1973; Ethics, tr. G.W. Bromiley, New York 1981.

1929    Ethik II, 1928/29 Vorlesung, ed. D.Braun, GA 10, Zürich 1978; Ethics, tr. G.W. Bromiley, New York 1981.

1930    “Der heilige Geist und das christliche Leben,” in Zur Lehre vom Heilige Geist, with H.Barth, München, 39-105; The Holy Ghost and Christian Life, London 1938.

 

Secondly, when the National Socialist Party and Adolf Hitler seized power in 1933, Karl Barth was strongly impelled to engage passionately in the political struggle against nationalist imperialism, as a theological endeavour.  It is in this period that Barth developed his theology of political sanctification, with bitter resentment toward the political secularization of the German Church.  His life was his theology.  In this political and theological crisis of the German Church, which was confronted with the test of faith to make a choice of whether to serve the Lord or the political power, he led a small portion of the German Church to the courageous declaration of faith at Barmen.  And even after he was forced to leave Germany, he supplied a theology of resistance not only to the evangelical German Christians but also Christians all over the Europe and America.  The literature produced in this period mostly deals with the problem of political secularization and sanctification, and the following four collections are essential:

 

Karl Barth zum Kirchenkampf, Beteiligung-Mahnung-Zuspruch, ed. E.Wolf, TEH 49, 1956; The German Church Conflict 1933-1938, London 1965.

Eine Schweizer Stimme 1938-1945, Zürich 1945.

Theologische Fragen und Antworten 1927-1942, Zollikon 1957.

Against the Stream: Shorter Post-War Writings 1946-1952, London 1954.

 

As Karl Barth became an indisputable patriarch of contemporary theologians after the Second World War, he had to hurry to finish his monumental Kirchliche Dogmatik.  Volume IV/2 which includes his systematic and comprehensive doctrine of sanctification (§ 66) was finally published in 1955.  On the other hand, he wrote a dozen of summae, dealing with the whole range of dogmatics including the doctrine of sanctification, in addition to the Church Dogmatics, though they are relatively brief and general.  As the primary text of Karl Barth is enormous, the secondary sources are more abundant and diverse.  Since the first study on his doctrine of sanctification in 1937, several theologians have produced their understandings on Karl Barth's doctrine of sanctification per se.  Further, theologians like F.-W. Marquardt, M.E.Brinkman and W.Rumscheidt have contributed to the illumination of Karl Barth's political theology. [159]   Also, there are rich resources of reference in the related areas that discuss Karl Barth's understanding of ethics, freedom, obedience, hearing God's command, as well as a general introduction to Karl Barth's theology and soteriology.

 

But, there were some previous attempts to present Barth's doctrine of sanctification: H. W. Tribble (1937), J. C. Lombard (1957), O. G. Otterness (1969), and M. den Dulk (1987).  Therefore, we will briefly review each of those four studies in the following section.  This present study, however, will be quite different from those works, as it attempts a contextual, structural, and comprehensive study.  While they have concentrated on a limited aspect of Barth's doctrine of sanctification, this study intends a balanced and comprehensive presentation under the teleological superstructure, a perspective that is crucial for a fair understanding.  In that sense it aims for a reappraisal of Barth's doctrine of sanctification.

​

​

_______________________________________________________

​

[128] . Cf. A.A.Hoekema, Saved by Grace, Grand Rapids 1989, 228-231 (The Social Dimension of Sanctification); H.Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith, Grand Rapids 1979, 507-512 (The Sanctification of the World).

 

[129] . Cf. D.L.Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, Grand Rapids 1991, 181f: “all our fellow creatures... the whole realm of nonhuman creatures”; A.M.Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basis for a Reformational Worldview, Grand Rapids 1985, 72-84.

 

[130] . L.Griffith, Barriers to Christian Belief, New York 1961, 173.

 

[131] . Cf. C.G.Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul, New York 1933, 236f: “It is my duty as a physician to show my patients how they can live their lives without becoming neurotic.  Neurosis is an inner cleavage--the state of being at war with oneself... The conflict may be between the sensual and the spiritual man, or between the ego and the shadow.”; “He must have no fixed ideas as to what is right, nor must he pretend to know what is right and what not... only that which acts, is actual.” (239f)

 

[132] . Ibid., 236.

 

[133] . Cf. J.A.T.Robinson, Honest to God, Philadelphia 1963, 95-97.

 

[134] . Cf. P.v.Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel, New York 1963, 182f: “In a word, sanctification is love for one's neighbour.”   He also criticized Bornkamm's distinction between love toward God and love toward the neighbour.  He commented cynically: “In passing, we might say that this is closing the barn door several centuries too late.”

 

[135] . Cf. P.Tillich, Systematic Theology, Chicago 1963, III:378-380: Here, he listed “the many riddles of church history which express the paradoxical character of churches.”  “Why, for almost five hundred years, have secular movements arisen within Christian civilization which have radically changed human self-interpretation and have in many cases turned against Christianity, notably in scientific humanism and naturalistic communism?  This is a question to which another must be added today: Why do these two forms of secularism have such tremendous power in nations with a non-Christian civilization, such as those of the Far East?  In spite of all Christian missionary efforts and successes in some part of the world, the spread of these outgrowths of the Christian civilization is far more impressive.”; “How could it happen that there is so much profanization of the holy in church history, in both of the senses of profanization, i.e., by ritualization and by secularization?  The first distortion happens more often in Catholic, the second more often in Protestant, type of Christianity.”; “The secular form of profanization of the ultimately sublime, which is now spreading all over the world, is a further great riddle of church history especially in the last centuries.  It is probably the most puzzling and urgent problem of present-day church history.”

 

[136] . Cox, The Secular City, 3.

 

[137] . D.Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, München 1959, II:420.

 

[138] . Cf. E.Feil, The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Philadelphia 1985, 196f: “It would seem that, for Bonhoeffer, religion is the Western form of Christianity, while religionlessness is the form which, after the decline of the West, will take the place of religion as the dying form of Western Christian faith.  This would tend to confirm that for Bonhoeffer religion is indeed a concept of intellectual history.”; E.Bethge, “The Challenge of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Life and Theology,” in: R.G.Smith, ed., World Come of Age: A Symposium on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, London 1967, 79: “The term `religion' as distinct from `faith' was strongly revived by Barth and... Bonhoeffer presupposes this.  In this sense religion means human activities to reach beyond, the postulate of a deity in order to get help and protection if wanted.  Bonhoeffer praises Barth in the highest terms for the rejection of religion.”; “It would be completely erroneous to conclude from Bonhoeffer's `religionless' concept of faith, that he had in mind a kind of secularization of the life of the church... For this would then mean that `religionlessness' as such is identical with true Christianity, which Ebeling, in his excellent essay, rightly called a misinterpretation of Bonhoeffer.” (100); W.Pannenberg, “Eschatology and the Experience of Meaning,” 192: “It was often forgotten, however, that Bonhoeffer's call for a non-religious interpretation of the Christian message was motivated not only by an awareness of the secularity of the modern experience of the world, but at least equally by Karl Barth's theology of revelation, which saw the Christian message and Christian faith as in direct conflict with all religion.  What was taking place was an attempt by apologetics to rescue Christianity from the attacks of the modern criticism of religion without having to present a defence against its arguments.”; J.Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, New York 1977, 283: “He [Bonhoeffer] fought passionately against the withdrawn piety of those who put up with every injustice on earth because they have long since resigned themselves to it and only live life here in a half-hearted way.  But he opposed with equal passion the flat and trivial this-worldliness of those who consider themselves enlightened, who want to enjoy the present, resign themselves in the face of the future, and therefore only live half-heartedly and without fervour... God without the world and the world without God... are merely a mutual corroboration of one another.  They are products of the disintegration of a Christianity without Christ.”

 

[139] . Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, II:182.

 

[140] . Cf. D.Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, New York 1972, 361f [18 July 1944]: “He must therefore really live in a godless world, without attempting to gloss over or explain its ungodliness in some religious way or other.  He must live a `secular [worldly]' life, and thereby share in God's sufferings... It is not the religious act that makes the Christian, but participation in the suffering of God in the secular life.  That is metanoia: not in the first place thinking about one's own needs, problems, sins, and fears, but allowing oneself to be caught up into the way of Jesus Christ, into the messianic event, thus fulfilling Isa. 53.”; Ibid., 370 [21 July 1944]: “By this-worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities.  In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world--watching with Christ in Gethsemane.  That, I think, is faith; that is metanoia; and that is how one becomes a man and a Christian.  How can success make us arrogant, or failure lead us astray, when we share in God's sufferings through a life of this kind?”

 

[141] . Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, I:61.

 

[142] . Cf. Feil, The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 199.

 

[143] . D.Bonhoeffer, Ethics, New York 1955, 96.

 

[144] . Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, München 1972, V:136; Concerning the starting point of secularization, Bonhoeffer suggested the Enlightenment as its modern emergence, but also pointed to the thirteenth century as the origin of this movement, when Scholastic theologians attempted to rationalize the Christian faith with the introduction of Aristotelian philosophy. See Letters and Papers from Prison, 325.

 

[145] . Cf. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 325-327 [8 June 1944]: “The movement that began about the thirteenth century toward the autonomy of man has in our time reached an undoubted completion.  Man has learnt to deal with himself in all questions of importance without recourse to the `working hypothesis' called `God'.  In questions of science, art, and ethics this has become an understood thing at which one now hardly dares to tilt.  But for the last hundred years and so it has also become increasingly true of religious questions; it is becoming evident that everything gets along without `God'...`God' is being pushed more and more out of life, losing more and more ground.  Roman Catholic and Protestant historians agree that it is in this development that the great defection from God, from Christ, is to be seen... to be anti-Christian... Christian apologetics has taken the most varied forms of opposition to this self-assurance.  Efforts are made to prove to a world thus come of age that it cannot live without the tutelage of `God'.  Even though there has been surrender on all secular problems, there still remain the so-called `ultimate questions'--death, guilt--to which only `God' can give an answer, and because of which we need God and the church and the pastor.  So we live, in some degree, on these so-called ultimate questions of humanity.  But what if one day they no longer exist as such, if they too can be answered `without God'?  Of course, we now have the secularized offshoots of Christian theology, namely existentialist philosophy and the psychotherapists... That is secularized methodism.  And whom does it touch? A small number of intellectuals, of degenerates, of people who regard themselves as the most important thing in the world, and who therefore like to busy themselves with themselves.  The ordinary people, who spends his everyday life at work and with his family, and of course with all kinds of diversions, is not affected.”

 

[146] . Ibid., 329 [8 June 1944]; “The arcanum must be re-established whereby the mysteries of the Christian faith are preserved from profanation.” (286); cf. Bultmann, “The Idea of God and Modern Man,” 92-94: “Faith in the transcendent presence of God can be expressed in the phrase `transformation of God'... It then remains to keep oneself open at any time for the encounter with God in the world, in time... Readiness consists in openness in allowing something really to encounter us... the encounter with which is designed to transform us, to make us ever new selves.”

 

[147] . During his last years in prison, Bonhoeffer tended to emphasize “this-worldliness of Christianity” (Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 369f).  Some insisted that it was a “new start” of his theology, but I agree with Ernst Feil that Bonhoeffer's new development has to be understood in the continuity with his earlier thought, for his main concern lied in the responsible and active participation in the sufferings of God, when he talked about the secular or human autonomy.  Though there were some changes and disturbances in the development of his theology, Bonhoeffer was consistent in his basic theological position that is God-centered, Christological, and anti-humanistic (Feil, The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, chapter 4: Historical Survey of Bonhoeffer's Understanding of the World, 99-159).  Concerning his theological development, see also F. de Lange, Een burger op z'n best: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Baarn 1986.

 

[148] . Cf. Cox, The Secular City, 2: “It is the loosing of the world from religious and quasi-religious understandings of itself, the dispelling of all closed world-views, the breaking of all supernatural myths and sacred symbols.”

 

[149] . D.Callahan, The Secular City Debate, New York 1966, 99.

 

[150] . L.Dupré, “The Problem of Divine Transcendence in Secular Theology,” in: The Spirit and Power of Christian Secularity, 106.

 

[151] . Pannenberg, “Eschatology and the Experience of Meaning” (1972), 193.

 

[152] . Cf. Pannenberg, Christianity in a Secularized World, viii: “Since around 1970 it has been moved    firmly into the background of the discussion.”

 

[153] . Cf. van Egmond, “De gevolgen van het secularisatieproces: Reacties in de theologie,” 118-120.

 

[154] . Cf. CD I/2, 793: “Dogmatics itself is ethics and ethics is also dogmatics.”

 

[155] . CD I/2, 792f.

 

[156] . Ethics, 17.

 

[157] . Ethics, 16.

 

[158] . In addition to 14 volumes of Church Dogmatics, his magnum opus, Karl Barth Gesamtausgabe has been published since 1971. 23 volumes have already been published, but much more are needed to cover all his writings, apart from CD.  For the complete list of his writings, see H.-A.Drewes & H.M.Wildi, Bibliographie Karl Barth, II, Zürich 1984; E.Busch, “Bibliographie,” in Parrhesia: Karl Barth zum 80 Geburtstag, Zürich 1966, 709-723; Ch.v.Kirschbaum, “Bibliographia Barthiana,” in Antwort: Karl Barth zum 70 Geburtstag, Zürich 1956, 943-960; Also, the secondary literature on Karl Barth is extensive.  More than 300 doctoral dissertations have been written on Karl Barth so far, without any sign of decline.  For the list of some selected secondary literature on Barth, see H.M.Wildi, Bibliographie Karl Barth, II, Zürich 1992; M.Kwirian, Index to Literature on Barth, Bonhoeffer and Bultmann, Basel 1977.

 

[159] . Cf. F.-W.Marquardt, Theologie und Sozialismus: Das Beispiel Karl Barths, München 1972; Idem, “Sozialismus bei Karl Barth,” Junge Kirche 33 (1972): 2-15; Idem, “Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth,” in: Karl Barth and Radical Politics, 47-76; Idem, “Current discussion on the political character of Karl Barth's theology,” in W.Herberg, ed., The Social Philosophy of Karl Barth; M.E.Brinkman, Karl Barth's socialistische stellingname: Over de betekenis van het socialisme voor de ontwikkeling van zijn theologie, Baarn 1982; Idem, “Die Politische Kontroverse um Barths Theologie in den Niederlanden,” ZDT 2 (1986): 379-387; W.Rumscheidt, ed., Footnotes to a theology: The Karl Barth Colloquium of 1972, Waterloo 1974; Idem, “Theologische und politische Motivationen Karl Barths im Kirchenkampf,” Junge Kirche 34 (1973): 283-303; W.Hordern, “Sanctification and Politics in the Theology of Karl Barth,” Chicago Theological Seminary Register 52.4 (1962): 6-15; D.N.Anderson, The Political Ethics of Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr, Chicago Univ. diss. 1966; H.Zillessen, Dialektische Theologie und Politik: Eine Studie zur politischen Ethik Karl Barths, Berlin 1970; J.D.Bettis, “Political Theology and Social Ethics: the Socialist Humanism of Karl Barth,” Scottish Journal of Theology 27 (1974): 287-305; G.A.Butler, Karl Barth and Political Theology, Duke Univ. diss. 1973; Idem, “Karl Barth and Political Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 27 (1974): 441-58; U.Dannemann, Theologie und Politik im Denken Karl Barths, München 1977; M.Schoch, Karl Barth: Theologie in Aktion, Stuttgart 1967; H.Gollwitzer, Reich Gottes und Sozialismus bei Karl Barth, TEH 169, München 1972; Idem, “Kingdom of God and Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth,” in: Karl Barth and Radical Politics, 77-120; E.Thurneysen, Karl Barth-Theologie und Sozialismus in den Briefen seiner Frühzeit, Zürich 1973.