What exactly is the relationship between the church and Scripture.  More poignantly, what is the relationship between tradition and Scripture?  This is the question that Bloesch addresses in the next chapter, "Scripture and the Church."   He lays out the relationship clearly.  Scripture is the norma normans (the rule that rules) and tradition as norma normata (The rule that is ruled).  There is a place for tradition, but its place is subordinate to Scripture.  We should not jettison church tradition, but definitely relegate it to secondary status on the grounds that Scripture has primacy.  We value both, but Scripture defines and forms tradition, not the other way around.  Quoting Barth, "Scripture is in the hands, but not in the power of the church" (147).  He presents a final analogy by Robert Stroud - a tree.  Scripture is the roots and the branches are church tradition.  Tradition is fed by the Scriptures, but sometimes branches (or traditions) need to be severed.  A tree is not a tree, though, without the roots AND the branches.

From this analogy Bloesch affirms that "both Scripture and the church share in the infallibility of the incarnate and living Christ" (148).  He goes out to point out that Luther believe that a church founded on the Word of God could not err, because the Word that it teaches does not err.  I wish that Bloesch would have written more about the church being "infallible" (as he describes Scripture in previous chapters).  Given his  understanding of infallibility, I'm guessing he means that the church is unable to err in terms of its communication and witness to Christ, specifically relative to salvation.  This seems to be affirmed in a lengthy quote by Barth.  

This idea of the church being infallible because Scripture "is in the hands, but not the power of the church" (Barth, 147), is interesting.  it is not a concept I had thought of previously.  Nevertheless, it makes sense.  Further, given its status as the "bride of Christ," the Holy Spirit is present and interpreting the text for the church.  I think there is more here, but I have to think a bit more - interesting for sure.

Moving on from the meaning of revelation, Bloesch deals with the issue of the inspiration of Scripture.  Bloesch compares time periods and schools of thought on the topic of inspiration: reformation, pietism, liberalism, fundamentalism, etc.  In the interest of space I would like to focus on the section on "neo-orthodoxy."  Bloesch chooses Barth to be the representation of this school of thought.  

Barth affirms God's deeds within history as well as the reality of historical and cultural conditioning within Scripture.  He rejects the contention that the Bible is a fully historical and/or literary document as fundamentalism holds to, "Barth readily acknowledges that the Bible participates in the contingency and relativity of  the history and culture which it was a written and compiled" (101).  

As one can imagine, Barth chooses not to use words like infallibility and inerrancy in relation to the "truth" of the text.  He does us the term infallibility in relation to the information given relative to our concerns of ourselves and our relationship, questions, concern and needs, "For him (Barth) the bible is essentially truthful and authoritative, whatever its external flaws" (101) and again, "Barth would not affirm that inspiration guarantees the entire truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scripture, but it does assure us of finding the truth in Scripture.  For Him there are two moments of inspiration: the enlightenment of the writers and the illumination of the readers" (102).

It is this illumination of the readers where critique of Barth has been leveled.  For Barth, it is possible that readers of 
Scripture are not illuminated. This means that the Scripture is merely words and not the "Word" of God.  It is only the Holy Spirit that illuminates the Scripture and the Holy Spirit doesn't do this with everyone.  

Bloesch's purpose is to introduce readers to Barth, not explicate him completely.  Readers are left wondering about the role of the Holy Spirit as well as the relationship between God's written word, however culturally and historically conditioned, the preached word, and the Word revealed in Christ.  

Time for more investigation.  George Hunsinger edited a volume entitled "Barth and Scripture."  This is my next stop on understanding Barth's position.

​