In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 The Realm of Ethics The previous chapter addressed the “burning matter of dispute” between Balthasar and Barth on the “realm” within which theologians pursue knowledge of God. On this matter, Balthasar was both for and against Barth. He was for him in that the de deo uno cannot condition the de deo trino without losing the divine economy. He was against him in that the crucial identity between them did not entail abandoning a version of the analogia entis. This chapter addresses the other “burning matter of dispute,” the realm within which theologians and Christians should reflect upon, and practice, “ethics.”1 Much like Balthasar’s recognition that our natural knowledge of God should not work against God’s Triune economy, he also found in Barth a way to think about ethics that overcame stale divisions between nature and grace. Ethics and theology are no more a two-tiered relation than are nature and grace. Ethics should be interspersed within dogmatic loci, and not a separate treatise grounded in nature qua nature. Barth and Balthasar interspersed ethics throughout dogmatic loci, and generated a very different approach to ethics than that found among either the neoscholastic or the liberal Protestants. Their approach is worthy of emulation, which is to suggest neither that they produced an ethical theory or practice free of problems, nor that their work was in complete agreement. Their differences take place, however, within substantive agreements. The first is that “ethics” poses a temptation and crisis for modern theology. The second is that the remedy for this temptation is to intersperse ethics throughout dogmatic loci. The third is that dogma entails human agents capable of performing God’s 1. This chapter does not intend to be an exhaustive analysis of Barth’s theological ethics. Much work already exists that does that well. In fact, Gerald McKenny, The Analogy of Grace: Karl Barth’s Moral Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) does it superbly. For a fuller analysis of Barth’s theological ethics see McKenny’s work. My intention in this chapter is to provide a basis to compare and contrast Barth and Balthasar on theological ethics. 177 goodness in the world, both within and without the church. The latter comes as a surprise to many, but it is one of the most important discussions Barth and Balthasar held over the years. They came to agreement that human agents do perform God’s goodness, but the how of it remains a source of disagreement. If Barth’s ethics potentially collapsed nature into grace, creating difficulties for human action in the realm of grace, and thus abandoning human action only to a realm of nature, Balthasar’s ethics so emphasized mission and the evangelical counsels (poverty, celibacy, obedience) that it could lead to a valorization of sacrifice. Another key difference between them is one they never resolved—what role does the church play in the human agency Christ makes possible? They differ on the following points. First, for Barth, election is of Christ and all are elected only in his election. Each Christian is equidistant from the Elect One. Balthasar’s doctrine of election also finds election primarily in Christ, but some are elected to specific missions to live out obedience to him and nonidentically represent his life in ways others are not. Mary primarily fulfills this representation. She is the only person, except Jesus, whose idea and existence are united on earth, but others can approximate this unity, and the church’s mission depends upon them. Second, for Balthasar, Christ and his church are differentiated, but they are one body; for Barth they are one body as well, but the Church is a form of Christ’s earthly body such that it can never assume his unique singular agency into itself. Third, albeit related to the second point, Barth denounced the doctrine of the church as the prolongation of the incarnation as blasphemy. Balthasar’s sense of mission depends upon that teaching. Fourth, Balthasar affirmed that some Christians were called to “go outside the camp,” and be with Christ so that they become a sacrifice for others. Barth had little place for this repetition of sacrifice, even though he was open to monastic obedience, but for him, Christ alone was the prodigal Son who went into the far country. No one goes with him. Fifth, Barth always sharply distinguished justification and sanctification. The latter made no contribution to the former. Balthasar did not adhere to such a strong demarcation...

Share