Journal #6 Why Does Evil Exist?: A Child of God's Temper Tantrum

Today I am thinking about the topic of theodicy, or "Why does evil exist?"  This is a question which people everywhere, Christians and non-Christians alike, have attempted to answer since the beginning of time.  Before I get accused of using natural theology, or of claiming to know all the answers, my usual response to this question is to say that evil should not exist, that discrimination and discord are not productive, that violence is wrong, the tragedy should not happen, and that we should honor our individual vocations, abilities, ideas, and contributions as creative creatures who were created good.  I don't have the answer, but I found a reasonably understandable start that Barth made, beginning on page 695:

On the one side there is the good creation of God, which is not in any sense robbed of its goodness, which does not lose it, which is not broken or defaced, which is just as glorious as it was on the very first day.  And this creation of God includes not only man himself, who in respect of all that makes and marks him as creature-whatever may have to be said of his action-is good and not bad.  It also includes the surrounding cosmos, created as the theatrum glorae Dei, in all its explored and unexplored dimensions, with all its known and as yet unknown or only suspected possibilities and powers, with the nature which God Himself has given no less than in the case of man, and which can neither shift nor change.  Creation does not cease to extol its Creator, and it is therefore far more sensible to extol creation itself in respect of its Creator than to deplore its puzzling and difficult features.... on the other side however-and it is here that we may seriously think of the devil-there is the reality and operation of the absurd, of nothingness , grounded in no possibility given by God, neither elected nor willed by the Creator... how can this be?

Barth has an answer for this, too.  That we have confused two parts of our nature which are incompatible, and therefore, we have brought evil, which is not created, and should not exist upon ourselves and the world.
This is confusing for ministry, because even this is not a simple answer, that I still have not fully comprehended.  How is it our fault, and how do we fix it?  One thing I do know is that we're not supposed to be okay with that answer.  If when the kingdom of God actually does come there's not going to be evil, we've got to work on it.  Because our ultimate vocation as Christians is to bring in the kingdom of God.  It is not our finitude that is the problem, it is the fact that we keep falling into our sins, when we should be falling for Him!  We were created good, and in Jesus we still are, we just have to get there.  But we have to get there without beating each other up for sinning.  We have to lift each other up, as we are lifted up by, in, and with Jesus.  We have to be for each other, not against.  We have to do the kinds of things he did, things that were people centered, not self-centered.  The kind of ministry that met people where they were, but encouraged them to be the best people they could be.  People that were in right relationship with each other and with him.  The people they were created to be.

Now Trending on Facebook

Source

Barth Journal Entry #5: Finding the Individual in Barth/What Is a Personal Vocation? (TRIGGER WARNING)

I think I said this at the beginning of the course, but one of the reasons why I wanted to take this class was that I was having trouble finding a foothold (for lack of better terms) in Barth.  It is true that there is very little on the surface that can be applied to disability theology.  Even my part of the Christian vocation is bigger than that.  But in reality, my struggle with the text was deeper than that.  My central problem was I was having trouble understanding the text.  I'm not referring to mere comprehension, (I've been reading college-level textbooks before I could sign my name), it was that he seemed to making an argument that was so intent on being for everyone in the Christian faith that he was losing the individual audience member.  I knew there was no I in team, but I couldn't find any "I"s in Christian, and as far as I knew there were still two.  If our vocation is to be Christian, and being Christian is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, where is our personal relationship?  And where is our personal vocation?  As Paul writes to the Corinthians, our vocation is to be part of the body, but were not all the same body part, and each body part does something to build the Kingdom.  At some point he has to address this, at some point I have to be in here, right?


Finally, I found a section of Barth which I think addresses a good part of my concerns, on CD IV.3.2 649:

Let us begin with the simplest and most obvious fact that from the formal standpoint the vocation of man takes place in such a way that for the called it necessarily carries with it a supremely personal endowment and equipment.  The Word of God goes forth indeed to all men, for Jesus Christ who speaks it is the Head of all men, and what He declares, the gracious act of God accomplished in Him, has taken place for all men, or the whole world.  In the event of the vocation of His witnesses, however, it comes to these men in such a way that enjoy a special liberation, namely, that it is given to them to receive it, its content disclosing itself to them and they themselves being open to its content.  It does not remain concealed from them.  They hear, see and recognise it, and to that extent each in his own manner and measure shares and appropriates it.  The gracious act of God for the whole world and for all men, reconciliation, the covenant, the justification and sanctification of man, the promise of eternal life, all that has been accomplished in Jesus Christ and is now presented and disclosed to them, is no longer an unknown or improperly understood magnitude, nor is it merely an external and therefore alien phenomenon; it is something known and properly understood, a part of their own experience, i.e., an element of their own life.  This can perhaps mean many different things.  They may have more clear or obscure perception.  They make take it more or less seriously to heart.  They may handle it with more or less loyalty.  They may allow it to speak to and work in them with greater or less willingness and with greater or lesser power and consistency.  But as those who are called by the Word of God, so that they have some measure of knowledge and experience in respect of its content, they are no longer the men they were.  The reality disclosed and imparted to them in the Word of God has become a factor in their own personal existence.

I believe that what Barth is trying to say is exactly what I try to explain to people who are confused about my ministry.  It is true that the gospel is for everyone; it is true that God is calling everyone to be a part of the Kingdom, whether they are currently a part of what is traditionally considered Christianity.  However, Christians are called as a group to a specific purpose.  We are also called individually to our own purposes, in order that we might have a specific impact on the building of the Kingdom.  Christians, because of their partnership with Jesus and God, are able to see clearer the part that they are called to play in the Kingdom.  They understand, however dimly, Christ's goals on Earth and are called to to participate in them.  In the course of understanding and comprehending the goals, the building of the Kingdom is incorporated into their own lives, so much so that they cannot live without accomplishing these goals on some level, whether they are directly conscious of it or not.


People outside the church keep asking me:

What do disability advocacy and Christian ministry have to do with each other, and why would you want to teach adults?  Haven't they had enough school?  Don't you know you can't teach an old dog new tricks; adults will never learn, and certainly not the church?  Don't you know the only way to solve anything is through a youth led political movement?   Don't you know God is just a concept we made up so that the powers that be could exert power over others?  He can't actually do anything except grant 'them' un-earned legitimacy!

Or my personal favorite,

Why are you even bothering to deal with the church? I left long ago when they tried to heal/exorcise me!

Don't think the church is immune to these questions either:

We know you're smart, but can't you stick to the academic sphere?  Or better yet, the Capitol?  We included you as a child, and tried as a youth, so why do you want to work for us?  We agree that you're doing good work, and that it is a calling, but can you please not talk about it in church?  We agree that you're called, but we can't ordain you, because an archaic rule says we can't ordain based on your physical constraints.  You are okay with that, right?  You do know that eventually you are going to need to be institutionalized, regardless of how far you get? 

 My usual response I hope is consistent with what Barth would say/is saying in this passage.  You don't turn off being a Christian when you leave the church building, and you can't turn off having a disability or being an advocate when you come to the altar.  These two identities are not mutually exclusive.  And in my life they never have been.  Yeah, politics and religion have done some pretty crazy stuff to each other.  Especially lately.  Yes, I'll admit the church has done some pretty creepy things to people with disabilities from time to time,(Exorcism, identifying disability with demon possession and/or paying for past sins; sin=disease or disease=sin,drive-by healings, 'pray till it goes away'/'pay till it goes away', forced baptisms, intentional inaccessibility, denial of community, denial of membership, giving legitimacy to institutionalization, etc.) but then again so has the government (Institutionalization, forced sterilization, suggested/forced abortion, systematic poverty, systematic ignorance/non-education, disproportionate unemployment, disincentives for employment, disincentives for self-improvement, disincentives for Independent living, and disincentives for family involvement, disproportionate/inadequate healthcare, disproportionate wages, non-consumer directed services, lack of community services, lack of safety, etc.).  Ignoring whatever side we decide to hate this time isn't going to solve any problems, or strengthen anything, or further any agenda.


I'm living proof that they can coexist.  I'm a lifelong church member, and yet I've always had a disability.  I live, advocate, and worship in the capital city.  I am probably the only person in the world that uses "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus" as motivation for physical therapy.  I was an acolyte, (and contrary to popular assumption) I didn't burn the church down.  I went to a Methodist college, when I was a member of a social justice theater group, the allies club, and a Christian sorority, etc.  I even managed to major in comparative religions, politics, English, and minor in feminist studies, while staying sane, relatively balanced, and hold on to my views and values.  If I can be an individual while contributing to the Kingdom, why can't others do so visibly?  If I can hold values, and still be in the middle of the road, and cross the aisle, why is it not obvious that others can do so?

Mister Rodgers: T.V. Personality, Presbyterian Minister,....and Disabilty Theologian

‎"Part of the problem with the word 'disabilities' is that it immediately suggests an inability to see or hear or walk or do other things that many of us take for granted. But what of people who can't feel? Or talk about their feelings? Or manage their feelings in constructive ways? What of people who aren't able to form close and strong relationships? And people who cannot find fulfillment in their lives, or those who have lost hope, who live in disappointment and bitterness and find in life no joy, no love? These, it seems to me, are the real disabilities." ~ Mr. Rogers Source

Barth Journal Entry #4: The Christian in Affliction?!

I realize I might be reading Barth through the lens of Alex Cornell's recent sermon, but I have a problem with the idea that the Christian is made and chosen to be in partnership with God and Christ to be in a state of affliction.  I confess I am willing to concede that I agree with Barth's statement on page 608 "Hence it is not out of any need, but in this special demonstration of mercy, that Christ calls His people".  It is when Barth calls affliction a necessary part of the Christian vocation, that he enters dangerous waters.  Especially when taken out of context, this could mean that oppressed Christians could be told, taught, or led to believe that their suffering is a necessary part of being a Christian, and makes them more holy.
However, Barth warns against this on CD IV.3.2 618:

A further general warning is indispensable before we turn to the matter itself.  If the ministry of witness is the primary demonstration of the Christian existence, and the ministry of witness unavoidably brings the Christian into affliction, then we have to say that none can be a Christian without falling into affliction.  To be sure, we have not a desire to seek or provoke it, as martyrdom or the so-called baptism of blood was coveted in some circles in the early days of Christianity.  This could only rest on misunderstanding, as though the bearing of affliction made the Christian a Christian.  In fact, it is only the call of Christ, as His calling to the ministry of witness, which can constitute Christian existence as such.  Yet such a view would also miss the true reality of the specific affliction of the Christian.... it comes upon him from without as an occurrence over which he has no power, which he cannot escape, but when she has not to desire or bring upon himself... so affliction only be the work of the surrounding world and cannot in any sense he brought about by himself.  As willed and caused by himself, it could have nothing whatever to do with his Christian existence.  It can only be an arbitrarily conjured evil such as all men bring on themselves and have to suffer.  On the other hand, since the vocation to be a Christian is essentially and decisively the vocation to be a witness, a man cannot possibly become and be a Christian without having to experience and endure affliction as the work of the surrounding world.  Real Christians are always men who are oppressed by the surrounding world. The pressure exerted on them can take very different forms.  Its form will not necessarily but only relatively seldom be a spectacular one of persecution or something similar.… may often consists in a continual and relatively tolerable habit... which has perhaps almost become an institution, which is the reaction of the surrounding world to his witness and which he has thus to endure.

 Barth makes a good point or two in there, but ultimately succombs to his "surrounding world".  He says that one does not fundamentally have to endure affliction in order to have a conversion experience of becoming a Christian, and that we should not desire to bring affliction upon ourselves.  However, he contradicts himself by saying that Christians should expect affliction in this life.  It is not an aberration which should not be, as sin is in most accounts, but a sign that we are in fact fulfilling our vocation.  "Only the call of Christ" can make us a Christian according to his opening remarks, and that we should not desire to invite affliction upon ourselves, but doesn't his reference to "a continual and relatively tolerable habit" invite people to assume that in order for God to look upon us favorably as servants we should endure and even embrace our afflictions?  And this argument also assumes that all affliction comes from the outside.  He makes no effort to address the fact that there may be systematic oppression by Christians on others and even each other.  He has no conscious self reflection on his own privilege and participation in a flawed system at this point.  He's not acknowledging the influences of society on his writing and theology.


The application of this ministry cannot be done unless we do some recovery first.  If we don't look at the true meaning of what Jesus did, or the ministry of his life, all we will be doing is perpetuating the victimization of oppressed people and oppressed Christians, especially women, the poor, and people of color.  And we shouldn't be doing this, because our vocation is to help "the least of these".
First of all, it is unwise to tell parishioners that it isn't possible to be a Christian without experiencing affliction.  While it is true that at some point in the life of every Christian, some one is not going to like our hypocrisy, what someone preached, all the Bible was used against them, or how people claiming to be "real Christians" impinge on their personal freedom and did not let them come to their own decision, this is not the way to get people to come to Christ or to begin evangelizing.  Instead, we should allow those who come to us with questions to rest in the fact that Jesus does not have an expectation of continual affliction for us, because he took on our afflictions on the cross so that we could be free from them.  And now we are free to love, even through our afflictions, because Christ is with us.  Being a Christian is not about afflictions.  It's about a relationship, which grows and changes and provides support in difficult times and situations, which come in every person's life, Christian or non-Christian.  This is how we should explain it, not that being a Christian somehow draws more affliction to us than otherwise, or that we should want to have more or go looking for more affliction in our lives.  It's going to happen, and Jesus is going to be with us in it, and for that we should thank God.  Not for the affliction itself.

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.