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.
No comments:
Post a Comment