I. The Church, Theology, Science.
St. Thomas begins Summa Theologiae (a.k.a. Summa Theologica) by delineating whether sacra doctrina is necessary or whether a human properly should stick to “philosophical disciplines” (by which he means anything available to human intelligence).
Thus it was necessary that, besides the philosophical doctrines which can be investigated by reason, there be a sacred doctrine known through revelation.
(ST I. 1.1. responsio, transl. David Burr)
St. Thomas, having investigated the nature and extent of sacra doctrina immediately moves to assess arguments for the existence of God.
Friedrich Schleiermacher begins by discussing the identity of dogmatics in the “theological sciences” (=disciplines, theologische Wissenschaften). The identity of Christianity in the churches is found in “the piety which forms the basis of all ecclesiastical communions … a modification of Feeling or of immediate self-consciousness.” (The Christian Faith, transl. of 2nd ed. by Mackintosh & Stewart, Harper, 1963, p. 5).
St. Thomas begins by assuming Christianity and a church, the existence and identity of which was for him more or less and given. Schleiermacher had to content with the existence of several churches, and locate what is essential beneath their differences.
Barth begins with characteristic bluntness. The header to §1 makes clear: the Christian Church is (at least notionally) one; dogmatics is the “self-examination of the Christian Church with respect to the content of its distinctive talk about God.” (I/1/1). There is a difference between theology and dogmatics: dogmatics is a theological discipline, but theology itself “is a function of the church.”
Barth slightly fudges several issues here. One is that the Church manifestly is not united. “Fortunately the reality of the Church does not coincide with its action.” (ibid.). So Barth eventually has to locate the existence of the Church solely in response to Jesus Christ, “as her foundation, her end, and her content.” (I/1/5) By speaking of the dogmatics as a theological discipline (theologische Wissenschaft) Barth does in fact nod to the University but gives the Church priority in that inter-institutional conversation.
On the other hand, Barth’s definitional clarity sets a him on a distinctive path (to say the least!) given his immediate heritage in liberal Protestantism. Barth quickly turns to Scripture: Jesus Christ is the essence of the Church: “The criterion of past, future and therefore present Christian utterance is thus the being of the Church, namely, Jesus Christ, God in His gracious revealing and reconciling address to man.” (I/1/3) Thus as Biblical theology, theology “is the question of the basis, as practical theology the question of the goal and as dogmatic theology the question of the content of the distinctive utterance of the Church” (I/1/4-5)
Barth then —thanks be to God!— removes my own discipline from the cross-fire: “What is called Church history” (—one may detect a note of irony—) “does not correspond to any independently raised question concerning Christian talk about God, and it cannot therefore be regarded as an independent theological discipline. It is an auxiliary science indispensable to exegetical, dogmatic and practical theology.” (I/1/5)
In one cut Barth disallows any attempt to make history demonstrate the truth of one position or another in history. It can simply study its materials as best it can using its own disciplines and methods, and need neither evade or respond to the question, “were such-and-such Christians faithful or orthodox?” It is the attempt to stuff historical events and figures in the mold of contemporary controversy which is the root of so much mischief both in theology and history.
(rev. and page numbers correct Oct. 2019)