Theological Comparing and Contrasting 1 Barth and Cone: Convergence and Divergence

According to James Cone, “Christian theology is a theology of liberation”[footnoteRef:2]—though the liberation that is referred to in this sense is not necessarily the liberation of the soul from sin but rather the liberation of the community from oppression, whether it be social, political or economical. In other words, Cone’s theology of liberation is rooted in a worldly sense of the Christian mission—a sense of social justice being delivered to the here and now. The oppressed are those who should be freed, and the Gospels are meant specifically for these people. This is the essence of theology for Cone. [2: James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010), 1.]

For Karl Barth, theology is the science and doctrine of God and in Christian theology, the term “The-anthropology” is employed by Barth in order to convey an appropriate sense of the God-Man, as there is no “abstract doctrine of God…in the Christian realm, only…a doctrine of the commerce and communion between God and man.”[footnoteRef:3] From this perspective, Barth settles into his theological method, which is based on evangelical theology, with roots in the 16th century Reformation era as well as the ensuing philosophies of Enlightenment and Romantic era thinkers, like Hegel and Kant. Barth incorporates the notions of thesis, antithesis and synthesis into his theological method to arrive at the commerce and communion between God and man that makes up his central aspect of the Christian theology. In other words, it is no longer a science of God in the objective sense ala Thomism, but rather in an experiential sense that is ever evolving because the one experiencing it is also bringing new meaning to the text and participating in the synthesis. [3: Karl Barth, The Humanity of God (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1960), 11.]

Barth’s emphasis on Enlightenment and Romantic era philosophy converges with Cone’s method of liberation and black theology, in the sense that both focus on a re-interpretation of theology that is radically and fundamentally different from the 1500 years or so of theological continuity that was engendered from the Early Church period to the end of the Renaissance. For Cone, the Gospels are read not in the light of Christ’s sacrifice as redemption of man from sin but rather in the light of the suffering of blacks. He specifically states that “the task of black theology is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the light of oppressed blacks so they will see the gospel as inseparable from their humiliated condition, and as bestowing on them the necessary power to break the chains of oppression.”[footnoteRef:4] [4: Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, 5.]

Their point of convergence, however, is also their point of divergence for the two take their theologies in two very different directions from that point on. They both reject the established theological traditions of the Old World and develop new ones—but Barth takes his inward into the subjective experience and Cone takes his outward into the societal or communal experience. Cone focuses on the cultural pain and suffering of the oppressed class—the black race—and equates Christ’s message to the message of the abolitionists. Barth takes Christ’s message and intertwines it with the evolution of modern thought and the question of how modern man is to engage with the Word of God in a way that turns theology into a discourse: as Barth states, “Theology belongs to the wider realm of the Christian Church, ecumenical and universal, in space as well as in time. In the Church there exists a community of concern that may be endangered, but never cancelled out, by even the most serious difference in approach.”[footnoteRef:5] In other words, theology is not about differences but rather about sameness—the fact that we are all attempting to engage with God. And in this respect, the scientific and disciplined approach to God brought to mind by traditional concepts of theology is decimated and what is put in its place is a poetic, Romantically-inclined, modern approach. Inevitably, this leads Barth to adopt a perspective on Christ that is more humanistic, and in this sense there is a reconvergence with the theological method of Cone, as Cone too adopts a humanistic perspective of Christ....

[5: Barth, The Humanity of God, 12. ]
The fundamental differences in their respective understandings of revelation, however, are that Barth does not wholly abandon the spiritual aspect of the redemptive work of Christ, though he does challenge the traditional interpretations of that work. Cone on the other hand views revelation wholly in the light of the oppression of people, likening blacks to the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians. Cone’s sense of God’s presence in the world is defined by his sense of oppression. Barth’s sense of God’s presence in the world is defined by his sense of the various differences among philosophers and theologians in the modern era, all of the seemingly cut adrift from the moorings of the Old World, struggling to make sense of a God and His communications to man and vice versa. Barth gets lost in the “spirituality” of the God-Man communication process while Cone is absorbed in the struggle for freedom, for liberation of the oppressed people and forgets that Christ’s focus was on liberation from sin not from a social class. Barth’s position in the theological method takes him into the realm of the subjective, and Cone’s takes him into the realm of the political, social and economic.

2 Barth and Tillich

Barth and Tillich both refer to scripture in their theologies, though their references are sparingly used in “The Humanity of God” and in Dynamics of Faith. Neither relies upon a strict Scriptural assessment in order to define their theologies. Barth’s theology is more personal and experiential; Tillich aims to support some of his arguments with scriptural references, such as when he states that the “knowledge of God is the knowledge God has of himself; and it is expressed by Paul when he says (1 Cor. 13) that he will know as he is known, namely, by God.”[footnoteRef:6] However, Tillich, like Barth, is interested in arriving at new definitions or new ways of describing old concepts—like faith, which Tillich describes and defines without ever referring to scripture at all. It is almost as though both theologians are approaching the concept of theology from outside the scope of religion and revelation. They are approaching it as though there were a need to understand with fresh eyes the concept of faith—yet faith without reference to revelation seems to be lacking in the essence of its importance and really its nature, for faith is dependent upon Christ, not the other way around. Tillich, however, simply defines faith “as an act of the human personality, as its centered and total act. An act of faith is an act of a finite being who is grasped by and turned to the infinite.”[footnoteRef:7] While this may explain the act of faith, it does not necessarily correspond to faith as it is presented in scripture. [6: Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (), 12.] [7: Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, 18.]

Barth likewise veers away from scripture in The Humanity of God and does not specifically discuss the Humanity of God in the Person of Jesus Christ from a Biblical perspective. Instead, the discussion is more theoretical, more philosophical, more visceral and experiential in nature. Barth does dive into some aspects of scripture; for instance, he mentions the God of Abraham and Isaac but he does not really examine the scriptural basis for God’s humanity. Rather he muses indefinitely on the nature of God’s divinity and humanity in a manner that is almost Nietzschean in its stream of thought consciousness.

Should scripture function more definitely in their writings? One would think that if theology is really going to be seriously discussed, the basis of Christian theology should bear some part in that discussion. Barth and Tillich appear, however, to be more interested in following their own train of thoughts wherever they might lead them. They draw upon their own interests, what the Reformers have said, how language itself can be used to convey ideas and emotions. They dwell in linguistic playgrounds in order to heighten their own sense of subjects that would be more aptly defined within the context of scripture. It is as though they were wanting to discuss Christian theology without actually having to reference the Chrisitan Bible or examine how the topics they discuss have been treated by the Evangelists or by the prophets.

For example, Barth offers up musing such as these, which do not seem to proceed…