http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4734-7709
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The objective of this article is to examine the political ethics of Karl Barth in the context of neoliberal China, with a focus on how he relates ethical beliefs to political engagement. Barth believes that human ethical action must be our free response to the Word of God in a covenantal relationship and thus be responsible to the rights of others. When addressing political issues, he resists all forms of hegemony, embraces a collective understanding of human rights, and urges their crucial importance for sustaining a humane political community. This article suggests that Barth's political ethics is helpful in reflecting on the lessons and prospects of collective right and resistance to Chinese neoliberalism.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributor
Quan Li is Assistant Professor at School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, China. He is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Chinese Public Administration Research in the same institution. He teaches and researches in the areas of political theory, Chinese politics and government, and political ethics. His recent work is The Idea of Governance and the Spirit of Chinese Neoliberalism.
ORCID
Notes
1 See Hsu, Rise of Modern China, 950–8; Macfarquhar and Schoenhals, Mao's Last Revolution, 1–13; Meisner, Mao's China and after, 449–82.
2 For the most influential discussions of global neoliberalism and its Chinese variant, see Harvey, A History of Neoliberalism and Wang, China's New Order. Doubts about Harvey's description of Chinese neoliberalism also exists, see for example Ong, Neoliberalism as Exception and Nonini, “Is China Becoming Neoliberal?” Based on a robust methodological review, a recent theoretical work argues that these emphases on the micro-level governance (Ong) and network analysis (Nonini) can supplement Harvey's analysis of Chinese neoliberalism rather than undermine it. Li, The Idea of Governance, 42–7.
3 Nonini, “Is China Becoming Neoliberal?” 161–2.
4 Li, The Idea of Governance, 49–67.
5 Wang, “For God or party?”
6 Lillar questioned, for instance, “Withdrawal into monasticism, ruling the earthly city with the two swords of church and state, building the messianic New Jerusalem – which is the true model of Christian politics? For over a millennium Christians themselves could not decide, and this tension was the source of almost unremitting struggle and conflict, much of it doctrinal, pitting believer against believer over the very meaning of Christian revelation. … All politics involves conflict, but what set Christian politics apart was the theological self-consciousness and intensity of the conflicts it generated – conflicts rooted in the deepest ambiguities of Christian revelation.” See Lilla, The Stillborn God, 51–2.
7 Gray, Black Mass, 1–35.
8 Werpehowski, “Karl Barth and Politics,” 228–42.
9 For a theological interpretation of Barth's usage of analogy, see Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth, 114–67.
10 Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2, 552–65.
11 Ibid., 552.
12 Ibid., 667, 669, 673, 710. See Hare, “Barth on Divine Command,” 143–56.
13 Ibid., 557.
14 Ibid., 585.
15 Ibid., 587.
16 Barth provides very detailed illustrations to show that both the Law revealed in the Old Testament and the Gospel in the New Testament convey this same message. Ibid., 572–5.
17 Ibid., 632.
18 Ibid., 634.
19 According to the early Barth in his Epistle to the Romans, the differentiation between good and evil is first and foremost an ontological one. See Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 228.
20 Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2, 733.
21 Ibid., 757.
22 Ibid., 767.
23 Ibid., 766.
24 Ibid., 761.
25 Ibid., 641.
26 Ibid., 642.
27 Ibid., 643.
28 Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.3, 544.
29 Biggar, The Hastening that Waits, 131.
30 Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.2, 802.
31 Webster, Barth's Moral Theology, 120.
32 Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2, 644–645.
33 Barth, Church Dogmatics III.4, 87–115.
34 Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2, 735.
35 Ibid., 758.
36 As Barth remarks, “The obligation revealed and grounded in the person and work and lordship of Jesus Christ fulfills the idea in all its strictness. It is a categorical imperative, not merely in name, but in fact. And as such – unlike the Kantian imperative – it reveals the fact that to obey it is not merely the highest duty but also the highest good. It is the moving and illuminating and uplifting of man – inextricably involved in the ideas and aims proper to his own will – by the goodness of the free transcendent divine will.” Ibid., 652.
37 This observation has also been made by scholars such as Robert Wills and Robin Lovin. See Wills, The Ethics of Karl Barth, 157–71; Lovin, Faith and Choices, 24–8.
38 For this point, see Hunsinger, Barth and Radical Politics, 224. As Barth reflected in his later years, “the theology which I tried to fashion out of Scripture was never a private affair, foreign to the world and humanity. Its object is: God for the world, God for human beings, heaven for the earth. It followed that my whole theology always had a strong political component, explicit and implicit … this interest in politics accompanies me to the present day.” Quoted from Gorringe, Against Hegemony, 18.
39 Barth, “The Christian Community and the Civil Community.” For a profound interpretation of the meaning and significance of political witness in Barth's theological ethics, see Haddorff, Christian Ethics as Witness, 369–93.
40 It is this theological witness to political liberation that inspired Barth's contemporary interpreter George Hunsinger, who argues that a bold progressive politics is required of Christians today if they wish to avoid the idolatry of state power. See Hunsinger, Disruptive Grace, 69–77. It also convinced Andy Chiu and other Hong Kong theologians that a true theology of freedom and grace is a theology, in the context of Occupying Central Movement, for civil disobedience. See Chiu, Occupying Central, 161–4; Lai, Sino-Christian Theology, 311–46.
41 Chow, Chinese Public Theology, 146–59.
42 See Wang et al., “A Statement by Pastors”.