Barth Journal Entry #3: Karl Barth Can't Say That, Can He?

For those of you who understand my Molly Ivins reference, don't worry this isn't a blog post comparing a preeminent theologian with a beloved, albeit snarky, local writer.  For those of you who didn't get it, I suggest you read her book.  I am merely highlighting the idea that, like the concept of cannon within the Cannon, there are some themes that even the most loyal of his fans would rather Barth not have addressed.  The following may be one of those topics, but I very much appreciated reading this passage, because it was refreshing to see one of my own inner paradoxes unpacked on the page.  Increasingly throughout this course, I find myself actively agreeing with Barth, despite his rather convoluted argument.


Moving on to the text itself, on CD IV.3.2 565:

2. The classic answer gives rise to a further difficulty when we ask how it is possible on this presupposition to maintain the distinction between the Christian and non-Christian.  May it not be that the Christian has to admit quite honestly that in respect of his glorious experience and existence, which he knows well enough and of which he can and should boast, he is often enough, and perhaps in some dark recesses permanently, either very near to zero or even well below it?  And does he not sometimes come across non-Christians-pious Hindus or Buddhists, or the valiant, cheerful and often very serious children of the world whom we often meet in the West-who do not merely say but demonstrate in astonishing fashion that even without the benefit of Jesus Christ, and in a very different language, conceptuality and terminology, they have something analogous or even identical with his Christian being, possession and capacity, namely, the are not strangers to, but enjoy to an astonishing degree, something of the same peace and patience and trust and discipline and freedom in and in face of the world?... Does not this make it impossible of an absolute uniqueness of the Christian ethos in itself and as such?...

Later on page 566, he asks, "expressing a human insight, might it not be unfortunately only too human?


Continuing on page 567-8 :

Did the Son of God clothe Himself with humanity, and shed His blood, and go out as the Sower, simply in order that He might create for these people-in free grace, yet why specifically for them and only for them?-this indescribably magnificent private good fortune, permitting them to obtain and possess a gracious God, opening to them the gates of Paradise which are closed to others?  Can this really be the goal of His calling and therefore of His ongoing prophetic work?  Can it really be the goal of the work once and for all accomplished in His death? Can it really be the meaning of His election and sending?...

It can hardly be denied that the piety, teaching and practice of Christianity in every age and place-and particularly in the strongest movements and most impressive champions-has disclosed an almost sinister and irresistible bias in this direction, as though it were really inevitable that man... should be the measure of all things... I use the term "suspect" because I do not regard the difficulty of the Christian... as a true, theological reason for rejecting this answer.  For after all, egocentricity may not be its unavoidable consequence. 

Barth then goes on to say that it is not that men are blessed, or that Christians are blessed, that is the problem.  Instead it is the fact that we have forgotten that saving souls and being in relationship with God is our highest priority (572).


What Barth is addressing in these passages is quite intriguing.  He makes a case that just because we claim to be Christians, or perhaps because we've entered into a relationship with Christ before, does not mean we have a monopoly over Christlike qualities.  It is possible for non-Christians to possess qualities that are analogous to Christ as well.  They still have some form of imago dei, and are sometimes more accurate in living into their original creation than we are. Therefore, people and endeavors which may not claim to be Christian can be responsible for acting as moral centers and doing God's work, without using Christian language to do so.  Is Barth going to far into apologetics?  Is he siding with Schliermacher?


 Well, I don't think he's gone quite that far.  I just think he's trying to prevent us  from exalting ourselves too much.  We're still human, and God is God and we are not.  Just because we are in relationship with Christ, doesn't mean we always live up to what that means.  It just means we recognize when we sin more often and more fully than others.  It should also mean that we recognize God in others, even non-Christians and the nonhuman part of creation.God did not elect Christ simply to be in relationship with the elect.  Christ is human in order to be in relationship with all creation, in which humans are blessed specifically.  Because humans have fallen from the original intent of their creation, they are blessed because of and through their relationship with Christ.
This is important to ministry because we need to recognize the intentions with which all humans were created.  We need to remember that all humans have the capability to access the divine, as well as provide insight, even to those who are supposedly closer to the truth because they "really know Jesus".  We need to ask ourselves whether following the letter of the law in Scripture and doctrine is more important than finding God through meditation, silent prayer, or communion with nature.  If you're following all the rules, but you can't claim a personal relationship to to the God you say you're following, is it really faith?  Was Calvin right when he said the church can believe for you?  Sometimes I think apologetics and interfaith ministry is needed in order to hold a magnifying glass up to the hypocrisy in our own leadership and semantics regarding our own faith.  It's like they say in political debates: if you can't argue your platform to the other side, you don't know or believe your own platform.

Barth Journal Entry #2: What Does It Mean To Be A 'Christian'

What?!!!!! We're defining what it means to be Christian based on Karl Barth?  Now, I know that he tends to be a little patriarchal, exclusionary, and ableist in his rhetoric but hear me out for a second, okay, y'all?  We do need to define what 'Christian' is in order to have a decent discussion, so let's start somewhere...

Barth is somewhat more understandable in this section of the text, although he continues to be paradoxical in his circular argument.  In the previous section, he maintains that to be a Christian is part of the human vocation, and being a disciple of Christ should be a central part of the Christian vocation.  The same can be said for the beginning of this section.  However, on CD IV.3.2 523, he posits that being a Christian should not be a vocation for a man simply because it is handed down, but because of "... his attachment to Jesus Christ".  But I digress, I went into this subject as an addition to my earlier journal post.

My actual concern for this post stems from the section which begins on page 525,

It can be proved dogmatically only if we examine the name 'Christian' in relation to its origin and meaning, understand it strictly... and thus see it in its necessary connexion with the concept of vocation.

Continuing on page 526:

... a Christian means one who belongs in a special way to Jesus Christ... that their existence among all other men is determined... by their faith in him, by their liberating and yet also binding and active knowledge that all men and therefore they themselves belong to him.

Continuing on page 527:

It certainly means, of course that Christians do not so much belong to Christ as Christ to Christians.  He is not the Creator but the supreme creature of faith.

My reason for choosing these texts, I hope, is fairly straightforward.  In order to understand our vocation as Christians, any of our vocation(s), or Christology as a whole, we must first define what being a Christian means. 

The first thing we know from Barth on page 521, is that the purpose of our vocation is to become a Christian.  Furthermore, we know that it is individual and cannot simply be handed down to us.  It is about a personal act of attachment with Jesus Christ, which is the result of a free decision on the part of the divine.  On the contrary, since it is not automatically inherited it is also our choice to renounce our claims to Christianity.  Christianity is not forced upon us by God, but is a mutual choice between two parties, in Barth's view.

Christianity and vocation are not mutually exclusive, and must be defined in relationship to each other.

Everyone has the opportunity to experience what Calvin would term general revelation, but Christians have a special relationship because they participate in tradition, and have knowledge of faith.  Therefore, Christ belongs to them.

This is important to my ministry specifically because many in the disability community and otherwise, have a wrong perception of Christianity, due to Christians who are not living into their true vocation.  Many believe that Christianity is about hypocrisy or people trying to heal them.  In Germany, Christianity has become a political party rather than a relationship.  Barth and I share the opinion that Christianity is not handed down.  What I mean is I don't believe you can be ethnically Christian, the way some people say they are ethnically Jewish.  A relationship is not an ethnicity.  I think the church needs to rethink their ministry based on a relationship rather than starting with doctrine that may be misused, outdated, or broken.

A Blog Everybody Should Read and/or A Book Everbody Should Read

http://www.aapd.com/resources/power-grid-blog/amazing-gifts-stories-of.html

I like big books...

People say/ I say

One step does not equal 0, No, you can't heal me....and ahem...
But enough of that...

I LOVE KARL BARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barth Journal Entry #1: Finding Barth's Growing Edge: A Keller Love-Fest

Those of you who know my schedule this semester should probably take a moment to relocate your chairs.  Yes, you read my title correctly.  Barth is not perfect, even though he puts Jesus at the center, and process theology is actually good for something.  I'm not saying that Jesus shouldn't be at the center.  Nor am I saying that if we interact in God's plan apes will rule the world, everything will be about money, trees will talk, and Satan will run a highly successful matchmaking service.

I am merely addressing a few areas in which Barth's argument needs expansion.  We live in a different time now, and there are several societal issues which his theology, prolific as it is, left unchallenged.


For example, in The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Barth explains that non-Christians have not yet realized their God-given Christian vocations.  However, Christians have not fulfilled their mandate either, and must therefore stand among the non-Christians, and continue seeking.  This may sound as though he is momentarily advocating a form of tolerance, but in my current reading, he is not.  He is not saying that there are multiple ways to God or that God is not absolute, instead he posits that non-Christians are Christians in the "not yet"(called vs uncalled, CD IV.3.2, 483).  I too believe that Jesus is almighty, but I prefer to examine more critically such absolute truth claims which masquerade as certainties for all time.  Instead of following Jesus's example of meeting people where they are and helping them be all they could in body and soul, Karl Barth is expecting the people to eventually meet him where he is.

Barth assumes that election, and knowledge of one's election, as part of a community is a guarantee.  He is assuming that all believers in God see themselves reflected in the actualized God, that is eternally Father, through which the universal male is justified and sanctified by Jesus Christ.  This is not an individual act of salvation only, but universal act, unlike Calvin's definition of election (CD IV.3.2, 484).


The Barmen Declaration appeals to the better nature of German Evangelical Christians, and calls upon them to refocus their agenda away from German nationalism, and center it on Christ.  The declaration calls previous church credos destructive to the unity of the faith.  Barth claims that this can only be reversed through God and the Holy Spirit.Furthermore, the next section addresses the intentions of the other denominations to limit the power and scope of the German Evangelical Church, followed by some well-placed biblical evidence to drive home the dangers of self-centered or country-centered theology.   It doesn't mention a reprimand for not helping the least of these and those in the margins of society. 

Barth later acknowledges regret for not directly attacking the abuses of Jewish people, done in the name of God.  But what about the rest of our colleagues?  What about the rest of us?  They were not the first, and they were not the last.  They will not be the last to be persecuted, shut out, ridiculed, marginalized, and forgotten by society.  Unfortunately, theology is not immune to this forgetfulness when we rely on old creeds without critically engaging them and making them more inclusive.  Today I ask Barth, "If Christ was the final revelation, and he was revolutionarily inclusive, why aren't you?  And more importantly, why aren't we all?"

Look, I appreciate that part of the Christian vocation is to take care of Christians and non-Christians as part of our responsibility (CD IV.3.2, 494). but it's time we stopped looking at Christ and Christianity through Creed colored glasses.  Process theology gives us the chance to actually see the kioninea, to "preach with the Bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the other".It's one thing to talk about mystery of God, and Christian vocation.  It's one thing to talk about God with us.  It's one thing to talk about the Kingdom coming for everyone, or that everyone should write their own Church Dogmatics.  Jesus came to throw the theology of the Pharisees out the window, start over, break into the world and start doing something.  It's about time we took our head out of our books, dropped our pencils, and did the same.  Because often all this God-talk dulls the mystery.  Maybe we need some activity, or better yet, maybe we need some silence.

Catherine Keller invites a disability theologian's praise when she speaks of theology in process, in reference to Barth's "broken thought" idea:

"... a way no less purposeful than that which moves toward some fixed goal... and they are more open than Barth could've recognized... theology... takes all our beliefs into the evolving perspective of its interactive process (On the Mystery, 10).

My point in saying all this is that we need Christology, because as Nancy Eiesland says Christ disables himself for us and with us on the cross (The Disabled God 1994), but maybe we need to let in some process theology.  After all, it should be at least somewhat visible that our bodies are in process, why not our souls?