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?
No comments:
Post a Comment