Hail to the Unpredictability of the Great God Almighty

It is so important to acknowledge the largeness of our God. We are told that He gives beyond our abilities to ask or think ,  beyond our abilities to ask or comprehend. Think about that for a moment. If God functions in ways we cannot understand or grasp (comprehension), it is only because He, Himself, is larger than we  and our failing abilities to lay hold of Him. And so, He lays hold of us  because we cannot capture Him. 

As someone once said,   “We pursue Him until he captures us.”

And if God is more than we can think Him to be, He may appear to us to be unpredictable.  This supposed  "unpredictability" is not a notion tied to His immanence ( His divine nature), but rather to His communion with man ----- how He expresses Himself in terms of function in our world and how we perceive that function.

Think of the bus accident that kills 7 while 30 survive  --  all disciples of Christ.  The survivors will give praise to God, of course,   but what of those who died?   And why the seeming inconsistency.    While this may not be the answer folks are looking for in times of great distress,  still,  this is the best answer we have to give: 

He appears to be unpredictable solely because of  His sovereignty and largeness. As our Creator, He cannot be reduced by His creation. We can only stand in awe.

The believer is fully capable of doing this. The unbeliever is not. If there is anything that divides one from the other, it is the sovereignty of God. The believer will submit to it, in time, and the unbeliever will rebel.

As  believers,  we must come to expect this apparent unpredictability. When the creature is inconsistent, it is because of his humanness and the failings that are associated with that circumstance, that is clear enough. But it may surprise you to know that the inconsistencies of God, this unpredictability of which we write, exists for the very same reason -- our humanity and the failings, our failings,  associated with that circumstance (our humanity).

To be critical of God for a supposed failure to “act out consistently”  is not His failed performance but our failed perception. 

The call to faith brings us to crisis. Some turn and walk away from God decrying, "He did not give to me in my time of need."  The creaturely questions,   "Why me," "Why this,"  "why now" and the most evil question of all,  “why not someone else” are questions that deny His magnitude as we assert our preeminence over and against God.    These are the devil's questioning. To demand that the Infinite Great God Almighty somehow measure up to our finite and limited expectations is the very essence of rebellion and the first fruit of the displacement of God.

Think for a moment just how ridiculous is our demand to know and understand;  we who are finite expecting He who is infinite to "measure up" to our way of thinking? Is that even possible? Of course not. For God to be consistent as we view predictability would be  the result of the "dummying down" of our God. Do we want a God who thinks as we do and , would that include those times when we do not know what to think or what to do?

Praise God when we go to Him not knowing what to say. He has given His Spirit for just such a circumstance. His ways are not our ways neither His thoughts our thoughts. Thank God for that !!  What a mess we would be in if that were not true.

A rewrite from an article written in May of 2007. (Hail to the Unpredictability of the Great God Almighty)

The ontological gospel, the test of its singularity and the witness of its dynamic nature.

Completely revised for content, syntax and grammar 1/27/12 - J Smithson.  Taken from an article I wrote in August of 2010.  Good ideas,  but terribly written.  I am hoping this is an improvement.


I propose the notion of an ontological gospel,  a living law that is profoundly dissimilar from that of the old.  We deal with the issue of a  single offering that works for all peoples throughout all time as we answer the question,  "How can this be."  


Text:  


As we consider the idea of an ontologically oriented "New Law," we are challenged as to how that might be -- a "law" that has being and invites being; a "law" that is dynamic and, as such, drives us toward obedience. All of us live under an administration of law. Certainly, for most it is a civil code of conduct. Still others add to this mix a religious law. That might be the Quran, the Jewish Torah, a Fundamentalist view of the New Law or a High Church implementation of  life-giving liturgy.   In the end, it is all about our effort to do what God has required  or provided as we seek to lay hold of Him and struggle to be obedient to His dictates.  Because we cannot escape our finite frailty and innate ineptness,  we ultimately come up short in keeping the law or achieving its efficacy.  We are left only to cling to that which is our ultimate rescue and, so, we sing of the Old Rugged Cross and move through life missing the point of the "New Law."   


We forget that God has promised a change in the administration and very nature of "law."

We here at Barth and the Boyz believe the paradigm of "law" - as commonly understood - has been taken down.  We would argue that the promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34 forecasts a living indwelling that accomplishes all that a law, could not.  The promise of God,  Himself, speaks of a  new law, "unlike the one given to the people when God took them by the hand and lead them from Egypt." Barth and the Boyz cannot over-emphasize the wording "unlike the one" or, "not similar to." In this passage (Jere. 31), the old law is being replaced by a new law - one that is  not similar the old. And the difference between the two?


 "I will put it in their inward parts and write it on their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my people."   


Such is the difference between the letter of Law and the Spirit of Law.


Please note that inwardness,  in this case,  is something more  than memorization or deep thought esoteric mediation.


Paul,  in Philippians 2:13, gives us precisely the same vision as that found in the Jeremiah passage:  "Work out your salvation . . . . . .  for it is God [Himself] at work within you both to will and to accomplish his pleasure."  
Understand that, typically,  law is "that by which we are judged."  It is external in nature,  and propositional in scope.  Those who comply or obey,  have status.    The God of Jeremiah and the God of Paul are telling us that we are no longer judged by an external construct of law,  in the typical and historical sense.  We are no longer judged in our compliance to requirements -- whether that be found in the Torah, the Quran, or in an ill conceived  "New Law"  of commandments and statutes.     Rather, we are now "judged" by the inwardness promised in Jeremiah 31,  a law of Spirit,  an inwardness that is  more than than passion, fear and obedience.  If we could have been saved by these things ,  the "old" law would have been sufficient, but,  from the beginning,  it was in the mind of God to leave behind the covertness of a god who was always there and never far from us to  the overt God of the indwelling Spirit.  


We have moved from the commandments of God,  to the very command of God,  Himself.  


There is but one faith that promotes the  proclamation of this wonderful  message   of inward rule,  making it, truly, a dynamic option measured against  the problematic  "keeping of law."    No wonder the Apostles could take this gospel, in its singularity,  to every culture in the world.  I think we fail to appreciate the dialectic premise  of this reality  -  the "rule of God," expressed in a singular offering and presented to differing histories, evolving social constructs in seeming perpetuity,   conflicting cultural attitudes, and even clannish esoteric expectations.   Only a "law" borne of an ontological state,  dynamic because its Author, Himself,  is this New Law, could reach and prosper in the duplicitous  world of the created.  One "law" for all of mankind throughout all ages!!  Indeed.  Such an assignment, in and of itself, rules out any law other than that which is living and full of life, dynamic and transcendent.  And if it has life,  it will produce life.  

Romans 10:10 tells us that we confess into (eis) salvation and believe into    (eis) righteousness. John 14:1 tells us that we believe into (eis) God, Himself and, again, into (eis) the Christ of God. Matt 26:28 speaks of the blood of the new covenant that brings us into (eis) the forgiveness of sins. Col. 2:5 speaks of a faith into (eis) Christ. Religiously speaking, one cannot be brought into something that is not a part of an ontological equation.  

When I come to forgiveness, it not that I bow in obedience to its imperative.  I do this,  but, more than that,   I move into that experience much as one  moves into a room   Forgiveness becomes my surround,  for I have,  again,  moved into that experience.  Under God's new covenant,  forgiveness is no longer status as a result of proclamation and obedience,  but, rather,  it is  a part of my very ontology. Forgiveness is as alive as I am.  When I come into forgiveness,  I am embraced by its power, by its continuation. To come into forgiveness is to be immersed into  that reality, into  that function of God, that historicity that ties me to all who have come before and the future hope of all who have yet to share the experience.  None of this is possible if "into forgiveness" does not speak to a profound ontology that is beyond the terminal estate of the earth bound man.  "Into forgiveness," then,  is a testament to the Living Word of God and a life that must transcend the world of the created.  


Status is not "life."  it is lifestyle.  Confession that is merely proclaimed and obeyed  is not the same as confession lived.   Prayer without ceasing is not bound to liturgy. And the Living word of God cannot be reduced to a systematic theology or corraled by a  "statement of faith,"  whether personal or denominational.  

My thoughts are not your thoughts;  neither are my ways your ways.  (Is 55:8)  

Finis

End note:  If we assume with Paul that the law is perfect and good,  the change of which we speak must one that concerns the nature of law. There is no other option.  

Me, Torrance and Barth in a discussion with Paul

Preface:

“Paul” is a young liberal who occasionally writes in on my political site . . . and allow me to use the word “liberal.” He really does not chime in on the discussion unless and until I say something about God. The following is part of a discussion we are having, even as I write this post.

Before I continue, let me say something about “labels.” In politics, I am quite the “conservative.” I consider myself equally conservative in my theology, but most who know me, consider me to a liberal -- almost more liberal than they want to tolerate. I have been disfellowship by more fundamentalist churches than most of you have driven past. I was refused graduation at seminary because of what I believed (grace and the indwelling spirit were the cause of my demise.) So I became a carpenter. Understand that I believe that Barth is more the Fundamentalist than anyone I know. As a result, my use of labels is always an advised matter, seldom meant to be negative.

Initial post and speaking to "Paul" 

You write: “Chaos is a direct result of believing in fairy tales.” 


 I assume you mean “God” with the term “fairy tales.” Rather than argue the point, I simply ask for a substantive example of your claim. I don’t think you can come up with one.

You write: “If you need to explain faith by saying that it is beyond our comprehension then maybe faith needs a little more scrutiny.” 


 I don’t think I went down this road -- more of you putting me in one of your stereotypical boxes. But, I would argue your conclusion.

Here is what I think: faith always comes into play when something in an equation is not in evidence. Discovery science has faith that a cure for cancer “is just around the corner.” Faith, . . . . . “believing in that which is not in evidence” . . . . . . is the very thing that drives discovery science. It, faith, is the only reason you, heir Paul, make plans for tomorrow, since there is no evidence that you will live through the night. Faith is the ONLY explanation for a mathematical postulate* which means, of course, that all the conclusions of science have, as their cornerstone, this thing (faith) you want to deny.

You write: “How many people have died in wars ‘in the name 
of God?’ " as if this is some sort of proof against God. 


 I know this will come off as arrogant, but, come on Paul, if you are going to keep up with this discussion, you really need to be a little more original than this. Apparently, you do not believe in “true and false” when it comes to religion. Is that the only category in which there is no “right and wrong” as far as you are concerned? I mean, if climate scientists lie and cheat on their reports, does that condemn all of climate science? If not, why?

You think that when a Muslim shouts, “God is great” and, then, takes 10 minutes to saw a screaming young American’s head off, that is an indictment against the truth of God and the utility of faith? Good gosh. How challenged is that argument? The god that allows a Muslim murderer to do such a thing, is no god at all . . . . just ask a Muslim who hates what she sees in the Jihadist rebellion.**

Finally and in a previous post, you criticized my use of a “circular argument.” Heck, the universe is circular and everything in it. I would have agreed with your criticism of circular logic, in my younger days, before I read comments made by a man named Thomas Torrance in a wonderful book entitled The Mediation of Christ. I am a big time student of Karl Barth (pronounced “Bart”). Torrance was a student of Barth.

Anyway, Torrance makes this point: “When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular” (p.3).

What we know about God is revealed by God, himself. Circular.

What we know about history is revealed by a study of history. Circular.

Science is about discovering the principles of science that “work,” using science to discover science; using revealed science to discover what is previously “unknown” but ALREADY there. We don’t invent a cure, we discover a cure, and, that is true because the pursuit of all such things is circular in nature.

Its all circular, buddy.

Update # 1 and end notes: 

* postulate. Understand that a postulate is an axiomatic truth that must be used, in this case, in a mathematical equation in order to solve for an answer. What is interesting to me, a simple minded Fundamentalist Reformed layman, is that a postulate has no mathematical explanation for itself. It just works. The resulting answer, is correct, because part of its solution "just works;" kind of like "God" as the solution in our world. We can offer evidence for his Presence, but, in the end, there is no explaining the Creator by the created. In the Book of Hebrews, "Faith . . . is the evidence of things unseen."  Faith becomes our evidence. The Hebrew writer was only making an observation that reality demands.   Again, faith is the evidence of things not seen, a conclusion drawn out of necessity.

And what of the first postulate, before the "Book of Postulates" was written. Some mathematical whiz kid couldn't solve a problem. He believed (faith) there was a solution, experimented (what faith drives us to do if we are involved with the "search") with sets of numbers until he found something that work. He could never prove his numbers, but, still, they worked and, in the end, that was proof enough. And so, he put his conclusions into the Book of Postulates, and sent the book on its way,  into scientific history,  with these words on the cover: "Trust me." Kind of like God.

** now is not the time to argue for the true God. I believe in the true God, btw. The point is this: "god" does not [even] work as a concept if it, the concept, does not take us away from ourselves and into an existentially "better place." Understand that if God is real, his concept is his shadow and even that, has great power.

Paul did not challenge the "unknown god," while in Athens. Rather he sought only to give him a definition. He did not challenge the sacrifices he was ordered to offer (Acts 21), knowing that the Sovereignty of God is so much larger than our misunderstandings concerning him. His compliance to the orders of James, gave God additional opportunity to work his will.

Update #2: The young man involved in this discussion, "Paul," wrote back. 

My conversation with him, I hope, demonstrates how the ontological gospel "works" in conversation, believing as I do, that a living God [hence my use of the word "ontology"] works in the proclamation of His Word. I am exited to know that God might take my words of proclamation and work his unique will. I have no idea what will come of this but, if nothing else, it has helped me as God works on my heart in my proclamation. --- J Smithson

Again,  I address "Paul,"
You wrote: “The difference between faith in science and faith in "God" is that science has a result, a conclusion. Something useful, WITH SUBSTANCE! actually comes from putting faith in science. What do you get out of faith in "God"? A sense of security in a scary world full of chaos? An entitlement to eternal life? Fairy tales? . . .”

As an after thought, I really must address this comment. Here is what I have to say about your observation:

I just saw an ad encouraging users to sue because of the ill effects of Lipitor. Science gave us Lipitor and the FDA gave us protections and assurance in their approval of that drug . . . . . and not that drug only but 100’s of drugs, over the years. [In the end, science failed.]

Science gives us our daily weather report. Assurance and consistency? Ha! You tell me!!!!

Ten years ago, [science told us that]  more than two eggs per day was a death sentence. Today? 5 or 6 will be just fine.

There is no consistency in the geo-evidence [science] presented for evolution. Fossilized remains, for example, dated for a certain geo-age are often found in strata that are millions of years too early or too late. The very rules for evolving species from one state to another are as misguided as a woman in a clothing store. Science has no consistent answer for the beginnings of times. There are dozens of variations to the “big bang” theory. Clearly, no one knows "for sure." Science cannot explain how particulate motion came to be or where matter, in its simplest form, came from. Consequently, science is stuck with the “eternity” of motion and matter while laughing at non-believers who chose to accept the eternity of God.

With our first return from the moon, we were told, “these finds (moon rocks) have changed some of the most basic considerations we have had for the beginnings of the universe,”  which meant, of course, all that crap I learned in college was suspect.

Science told us that in the summer following Katrina (2005) , there would be 17 major hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. There were none for three years.

Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal, came after 274 failed efforts. While the cloning of Dolly was extraordinary, I do not forget the hundreds of failed scientific conclusions that did not work in real life, but looked great on paper.

Science gave us aluminum wiring and the government gave us its approval. Turns out that aluminum wiring was an absolute disaster.

Heck, Paul. talk about killing people. Science gave us the atomic and hydrogen bombs and the guns we shoot and the land mines we plant !!!!! 

Science gives us the basis for environmental law, yet those laws never seem to get the job done and are constantly being revised. Those twisty light bulbs are full of mercury. Ethanol is more a pollutant than fossil fuels and cost five times the energy it “saves.” The ban on DDT has killed 40 million in Africa.

With all of the above, you will pardon my sinicism as a relates to science.

On the other hand, while I cannot make a thoroughly consistent case for God  [the created will always fail to confirm or explain its creator],  your claims about my world are patently false. Paul, two of my boys, one a lawyer and one a doctor, both went through school as borderline atheists. One [the lawyer] was taught the law of situational ethics and the other [the doctor]  was taught a godless evolution. Your arguments were their arguments. Today? Each expresses a belief in God that allows for their individuality in thought and emotional preference. What made the difference in their lives? [Why did they move from your faith in nothing to their faith in God?]  The answer:   my faith [as their father], my consistency. 


In the midst of all my hypocrisy ( I am a thorough going dialectic !!!), my boys saw a consistency they came to believe was desirable.  [They saw God in me and became believers,  because of that faith].  It is not God who needs to be consistent. It is his believers.

My world of faith, me being from a different generation and era (I am 66 years old), was borne of a cookie cutter type expression, a fundamentalism that does not seem to work in this so-called post modern world. Back in the day, we all had to speak and think the same things. I never fit in that world. I have been kicked out of more churches than you have driven by. I was not allowed to graduate from seminary. I have enough college credit to have earned a PhD in biblical studies, but, instead, I am qualified as a building contractor . . . . . . . a change of plans forced on me by "believers in God."   Yet, I understand their “stilted” faith and accept it as evidence for the same God I serve.

You tell me what to say to a young woman full of sores because of a meth addiction. What does an atheist say to her? My words often give the opportunity to change her life and if change is no longer possible, to give her assurance as she faces the physical results of her addiction.

What does an athiest say to a family having lost loved ones in a shooting or a traffic accident?

Does an atheist even care about the young pastor who just got the crap kicked out of him by the power structure in his congregation or the head master of his seminary (my story is not unique to me)?

All Civilizations are rooted in a certain faith in God. To me, that is an unadulterated fact.

Seriously, why is chaos the alternative to “God,” and, why do you think that such is preferable?

You don’t believe the “golden rule” is a substantive social construct? Wow. Understand that this "golden rule" was not given to us by the godless unbeliever.  

If you understand the idea of a “ministry of reconciliation,” where man is encouraged to help man in good ways, what is the non-believers' alternative? Government?!! Good grief.

I would argue that a godless world has not worked at all. While you point to such things as the crusades, “people killing people in the name of God,” you have not approached my sense of the divine, which, by the way, does not allow for such things as the crusades. Because bad people do bad things has nothing to do with my faith. That includes the actions of those who have expelled me from seminary and church.

I have had my doubts and have experienced certain life changing inequities. Again, none of that speaks to the issue of faith in God. I can only hope that, in time, you will tire of the structured chaos in your life. Understand that I believe in God because I see no intellectual choice, among other considerations. The man and apostle, Paul, wrote of his own hypocrisy as a believer,  in a Bible passage we know as Romans 7, verses 14 through chapter 8 and verse 1.

You really need to read that passage. When I read it to a drug infested moron on meth or whatever, they always say, “Hey, this is me” and more often than not, that euphony is the beginning of their walk with their God.

[Without God], you’re an existentialist, dude.

Existentialism is always about “me.” Good luck with “me.” God, if revealed and accepted, is always about Him and that fact is the fact that gives believers direction and a degree of consistency.

I freely admit that I cannot “prove” God. You need to admit that your world is equally unsettling.

In the end, the difference between you and I is the difference between facing life with “me” and facing life with “God.”

End note:  and that was the end of our conversation.  I have not heard from Paul, since,  but I know he continues to check in,  onto my blog.  

A Trinitarian View of Matthew 6:33 revised - It is not our righteous we pursue but His function

A Trinitarian View of Matthew 6:33
New and revised (11/27/11)

And Exegetical Consideration

The scripture
We begin with the accepted translation of 6:33: "But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added unto you."

A popular Fundamentalist interpretation (it is the problem)
Speaking from a traditional Evangelical/Fundamentalist perspective, Matt 6:33 is understood in this wise: 

 as a call to Kingdom membership and discipleship. Our chief concern is for the Kingdom of God ( His Church) and the demand on our lives to live righteously. If we put His Church and our obedience first, the problematic concerns of the world will take care of themselves. The Church and our obedience together generate God’s blessings. How could it be any other way?

But in fact, it could be otherwise. To the degree that salvation rests upon our actions and reactions, the eschatological consequences becomes problematic, do they not? And while we do not intend to deal, fully,  with that problem in this report, it does need consideration.

Matthew 6:33 – an alternative understanding [to the more traditional view as stated above].
We begin with a requisite notation or two.

Jeremiah 31:31-34: Understand that Karl Barth put up this Jeremiah passage as the first of some 80,000 biblical references used in his Church Dogmatics. If we approach the Matthew passage without making note of Jeremiah 31:31-34, or, at least, the truth that comes our way through these wonderfully prophetic words, I think we will miss the point of this gospel account. 

This prophetic description of the New Covenant (Jere 31:31-34) is one that allows for a dynamic inwordness (and "no," that is not a misspelling) that provides for a new and controlling interest in our lives. I believe that Barth would insist that God uses this Jeremiah passage to refocus our being in the command of God, Himself, rather than in the commandments of God. While the Law is good and perfect, it was never intended to justify.

Philippians 2:12-13: it is my opinion that this Philippians passage is an exacting parallel to the Jeremiah description. We are driven by a very certain inwordness that bespeaks the source of our existence.

With these two passages as requisite considerations, we come back to the Matthew passage.
What if Matthew 6:33 is a parallel thought to Jeremiah 31: 31-34 and Philippians 2:12-13.  I rather believe it is. 

For what it is worth, here is how I read Matthew 6:33

An Alternative interpretation:  

Assume that “Kingdom" as used in the Matthew passage , has more to do with “the authority and power and rule and majesty belonging to God, emanating from Him and shared with his creation” than it has to do with an entity called the Church. In brief and in this case, "kingdom" is used to imply the "sovereign rule and authority" of God.   Jesus is telling all who listen to

“seek first (and foremost) the sovereign rule and authority” of God in your life.

But that is not the end of the matter. We are to seek his sovereign rule in our lives as  we are to seek out his righteous activity.    And here is where I may have a certain difficulty in making my point:

The traditional phraseology reads, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God  and his righteousness . . . ."  What is righteousness if not “righteous activity?" Typically speaking, and without considering the need for grace, I am not righteous because I think myself righteous. I am considered righteous because I act righteously. Being righteous and acting righteously are concepts inextricably joined. True for mankind; true for God. When we speak of "righteousness," we include the notion of  [righteous]  function whether we put it in those words or not.

I see the phrase "the righteousness of God" as referencing His function - or to use the redundancy, "His righteous function or activity.  "

Perhaps, then, Christ is asking us all to make the quest for God’s rule and His activity in, around and through our lives, as our highest priority. . I surrender to His sovereign rule in my life and look for His activity in my world. In other words, we submit to His will and come along side His action. All else will be provided us in the context of this search and partnership with our Creator.

Seek ye first and foremost,  the sovereign rule and authority of God in your life as you look for His activity in your world,   and life's blessings will be added unto you.  

© J Smithson
Barth and the Boys
Originally written July 12.2009

Revised November 27, 2011

See this related article: you will find a little repetition, but this "related article" is more the application of the above exegesis.

Matthew 6:33 and comments from a Barthian/Trinitarian perspective

Barth, the infallibility of scripture versus the veracity of the biblical message.

Updated for grammar and content, 11/23/11.

Barth preferred to identify his theology with two different terms: evangelical theology and biblical theology. According to Barth, theology was “evangelical” because its existence was “in the service of the Word of God’s covenant of grace and power.”* His "Dogmatics," 13 volumes containing more than 7 million words and 80,000 references to the biblical message merit the label, "biblical theology," precisely because it was a biblical theology. His writings are not apologetical in the slightest.

Because Barth’s theology was a “biblical” theology, the following is the case: He never quoted outside sources as “authority” for what he wrote. He did not believe that philosophy should have any role to play in one’s personal theology, leaving only the biblical message as foundational. Textual criticism was not important enough to him, to allow its consideration in the development of his personal theology. Because he believed that the reading and study of the biblical message was an inspired event - "God works his will in the proclamation of his word” - he did not feel the need to justify "First Isaiah" with a "Second Isaiah." There is no effort, on the part of Barth, to place greater import on the Synoptics, over and above John's gospel. Whether there were 400 or 4,000 stalls in Solomon's stables was of no concern to Barth. You will not find the great theologian dealing with the issue of a late date for Mark, or "Q" or any number of seemingly contradictory statements found throughout the Message. The whole topic of textual criticism is sorely lacking in his work. The women went to the tomb after dawn in the Synoptic Gospels, but, before dawn, "while it was yet dark" in the Johannine message. Which was it? Don't look to Barth for the "solution." Why? Because he firmly believed the biblical message was a chosen medium for continuing the revelation of and about God to man.** It was sanctified for his purposes, as are the disciples of God in Christ. From the earliest of times, God had elected to use the written word in the proclamation of his will. The written word is "right" and effective, an offering of life giving grace solely because God wills this to be the case, without regard to the actuality of the proposition. The Bible “works for us” because God invests himself, his very person, in the “process” as we read and listen and consider its message.

God, and only God, is “infallible;” that is the critical issue when Barth discusses biblical inerrancy. If God is as we say, infallible, how he chooses to use the Bible is irrelevant, except for the fact, of course, that he is using the Bible.

Is the Bible infallibly written? Is the Bible the Word of God or does it contain the word of God? These questions are often used to frame the debate about the Bible as relates to its "reliability." Because Karl Barth believed in the election of the biblical message as that which would be used by God in the proclamation of his didache, the question of its "correctness" or "infallibility" probably seemed somewhat unimportant to him. After all, a sovereign God can make anything work for his “good pleasure,” can he not?

Can God use or work through "error" to get his will done? Did we somehow miss the fact that none of the apostles stood with Christ at his trial or attended his crucifixion except for John? Have we forgotten that the First Church was 100% Jewish, in its make-up? Have we lost track of the fact that these Jewish Christians, continued to practice the Jewish system of sacrifice and atonement? Is it not important that the Church grew to record proportions before the Bible and its message was codified and ratified? Is it not germane to this discussion that the Church continued through the centuries, before the printing press and the use of a personal Bible? The fact of the matter is this: the Church needed and possessed the word of God long before the invention of the Bible as we know it today.

This silly notion that God is driven from us because of our sins, that a holy God cannot be confronted with sin, is as unbiblical a thought as can be found. While God is holy and man is not, the Christ of God is the mediator of our salvation, the mediator between God and man. It is in him that we have salvation and "that, not of ourselves, it is the gift of God." As Son of God, he can save anyone he wills to save; as Son of Man, he died that all would be saved. It is the Christ of God who has determined that our faith is considered to be righteousness when no righteousness can be found (the Abrahamic promise) .

If the Sovereignty of God trumps our inabilities and imperfections, his manifest will cannot be defeated. And, likewise, if God is Sovereign, then the question of biblical infallibility should not be a stumbling block. I have been a Christian for 54 years and have been a vigorous student of the Bible for most of that time. . . . . vigorous, I say. I have never found anything in the biblical message that has ever caused me the slightest concern. It is easy for me to believe in the "infallibility" of the Message. But, there are those who find this most difficult. I have a son that falls into that category.

Ten years ago, this infallibility issue was a problem for him. Today, it is not. Why? Because he believes in the living Word as he (the Living Word) mediates the written message. If the Bible is the "Word of God," then it is the message that "belongs" to God. It is in his trust and functions within a divine sovereignty that makes its content irresistible, "infallibly" so, if you will.

Never forget that Barth was a dialectic. He had no problem seeing the Bible as fallible and infallible, at the same time.

We misrepresent Barth's reverence for the Bible when we argue that he did not believe in the veracity of the Bible. But his faith in the Bible began with his belief in the sovereignty of God and was not based on his ability to defend the issue of infallibility*** . His faith in the Bible began with God, not with a well stated apologetic that, then, opened the door to a consideration of God, himself. With Barth, nothing stood between him and his faith in God.

Note: I am a proud Fundamentalist . . . . just not proud of all its priorities. Many of my good friends are “stuck,” when having to deal with someone who refuses to agree with the idea of “verbal, plenary inspiration.” Their belief in an infallible biblical message is the beginning point for their faith as well as the beginning point for the sharing of that faith. They do not begin with God, they begin with the proof of infallibility. My son could not agree with the infallibility claim. So, what did his Dad do (that would be me)? I ignored the problem. Today, he shares the same reverence for scripture as I and the Living Christ moves him in all that he does, seriously.

In time, my son stopped asking for proof of the infallibility and simply began to prayerfully consider its narrative. The issue of infallibility became a useless pursuit, for him. We sing the song, "there is power in the Word," and that power is God, himself, alive and active as we read his written witness.

Indeed, it was Barth who once summarized all that he had written, with these words, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." He actually said that to someone. His reverence for scripture is profoundly stated in this proclamation. But, how can that be? Because he believed in the infallibility of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God. My Fundamentalist friends begin with “infallibility” rather than God. NT Wright, a wonderful Christian scholar, begins his theology pushing for a proper understanding of “Second Temple” historicity, thinking as he does, that Christ must be correctly defined, historically, before the biblical message can be understood. Wow. Still, others begin with a properly worded “Statement of Faith,” most of which begin with “infallibility,” God coming in 2^nd or 3^rd place in these statements. Barth’s thinking began with God. That is why he spends so little time with apologetics or textual criticism. He does not care about 1st and 2^nd Isaiah, for example, because his God is fully capable of using the two Isaiah’s as we share in his revelation. Understand that with Barth, we are not simply studying the Bible, we are involved in the very process of revelation.

Understand this: Barth started with “God,” and never took time to “prove” the existence of God. He reasoned that if God existed, we did not need to argue for the fact, and if he did not exist, no amount of words would make it otherwise.

If Barth would not take time to argue for the existence of God, why would we expect him to, then, develop an apologetic for the veracity of His [biblical] message? Barth only needed to know that God was alive. Infallibility was assumed, as was his (Barth) participation in revelation.

End Notes:

* – Evangelical Theology – an introduction, Karl Barth, © 1963, p.20 (end of first paragraph)

**/ *** - “Exegetical theology investigates biblical teaching as the basis of our talk with God. Dogmatics, too, must constantly keep it in view. But only in God and not for us is the true basis for Christian utterance identical with its true content.” Dogmatics, 1.1, p 16. Two things are important, here; that God is the starting point for a meaningful theology and, two, the Bible is the “basis of our talk with God.” People want to pretend that Barth did not believe this. Shame on them.

"The Pastor and the Faithful should not deceive themselves into thinking that they are a religious society, which has to do with certain themes; they live in the world. We still need - according to my old formulation - the Bible and the Newspaper." (remarks made in a 1966 interview, per Eberhard Bush, a Barthian biographer). I include this quote because I believe it goes to Barth's view of the importance of the Bible. Again, the notion that Barth was a raving liberal with no regard for the Bible is one of the more preposterous lies told about the man. Disgusting.

Dialectic is the challenge. Personal insight is the reward.

If grace comes through obedience, God is obligated

If grace covers only some, God is limited

If all are "saved," God is no longer necessary

If grace can be rejected, God is not Sovereign

If no one is lost, God isn't looking.

If choice does not matter, God is a tyrant.

True or not, each of the above has value as an opportunity for a received revelation. Understand that God works through the ministry of words to accomplish revelation. Barth would say it this wise: "God works in and through the proclamation of the word" - the word having a specific duplicity in the written and living Word. Understand that when we listen to a sermon, read and study the Bible or pray "in the spirit," we are participating in revelation, God revealing to us what he would have us know. "Conviction," that "wow" moment, the intellectual thrill of having the "lights come on," the excitement we feel when we suddenly understand what was previously hidden (epiphany - ἐπιφάνεια) , all this and more - experiences common to all disciples - is the finger of God touching our spirit.

We do not read "revelation," we participate in revelation.

The search for God is not a linear affair. I found him within myself, standing in his Presence, without words.

Imagine this: a preacher without words !! At times, that is me, and it is a good thing. Here is a little of how I got to know God. Here is why I expect so much more.

For years, the idea of “God” worked for me. He supplied my needs and answered my questions.

And then came the divorce and my world fell apart.

Out loud, I asked, “Was she to blame? Or was it me?” but in secret, I wondered , “Did God fail me? “

I know it sounds a little crazy to ask such a question, especially if you claim the name of Christ . Certainly I am not blaming God. But, in the face of personal disasters,

such questions often come to mind.

I am now years removed from the divorce. And, when disaster strikes, I still do not have all the answers.

Two considerations come to mind that have more meaning to me, now, than before the divorce. In fact, their impact in my life is more of a manifest reality because of the personal and overwhelming trauma that was the end of my first marriage.

1. Christ talked about the danger of looking back as we set our hands on the plow. Retrospective self-analysis, introspection, even repentance and confession mean little if they are not combined with a certain forward look that includes this admission: “I don’t know. In fact, I do not understand, but, I must move on and trust in God for what is lacking.” Understand this: the reality of "not knowing" is sometimes indicative of an "advanced state of being."

2. Romans 8: 26-27:   And the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. For example, we don’t know what God wants us to pray for. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words.  And the Father who knows all hearts knows what the Spirit is saying, for the Spirit pleads for us believers  in harmony with God’s own will

As the memory of the divorce suffered less and less impact on my life, I experienced more and more freedom to see me for what I was. After more than 25 years, I have come to realize that, before the divorce, I was far from being “wholly available” to God (perhaps I should have written “holy” available). Understand that before the divorce, I was like so many. While I never claimed to have had all the answers, still, I did have all the answers to the questions I was asking. Romans 8:26-27 never “worked” for me, precisely because – until the divorce - I had never been left speechless. I had never been without words when I came to God. When words finally failed me, the Old Testament comment, “Be still and know that I am God” came to have a certain existential meaning in my life, and, in that reality, served as a requisite backdrop for the revelation found in the Romans passage, referenced above. I hated the divorce. I hated having to admit my complicity in that terrible event. Still, God works all things together for good. With the passing of time and because the trauma of the divorce destroyed the illusion that I had all the answers, that straight and narrow road we often sing about, became an eight lane highway.

After decades of trying, I am happy to announce that I have finally grown comfortable, praying in the spirit, without words.

I leave you with this: if you are "without words," you are either dead, asleep, or hearing and listening. Which is it for you ?!

Karl Barth and the dialectic of faith and knowledge

This message comes through, loud and clear, in the good pastor's writings:

we believe so that we might know.

The sovereignty of God and God in Christ was a concept that framed the remainder of Barth's theology. As applied to knowledge, especially the knowing of God and his will, faith was the starting point, for the pastor.

It appears to me that if we were to reverse the order, "I know, therefore I believe," the results of this ordering would put our knowing before God's reality, in our lives. Knowledge, in this case, would be sovereign to God, a preposterous circumstance.

Faith takes many forms. It can be raw superstition. It might be a pagan religion. It might be experienced at a rock concert. It might be an attack of "conscience." We are created by God, whether we care to admit it or not, and in that creating, we - mankind - were given a conscience and emotion and the desire, from time to time, to raise our hands and cheer. All this is nestled in and around the foundation of worship.

Next time you watch a music concert on the television, turn the sound off and just watch the crowd. If you have ever been exposed to a robust praise service, hands raised in unison, voices singing, hearts and minds focused on the stage and the event, itself, you will understand what I am saying. With the sound off, a concert crowd looks remarkably similar to a believers' praise service.

I said, pagan gods? Understand that because the creation has lost track of the only God, it has not, and cannot, abandon its desire to serve and worship [a] god. There were those in Corinth who actually believed in the existence of other gods, but had chosen to serve the only God. When Paul was in Athens, he used the stated notion of an "unknown god," as a catalyst for preaching the true God. In focusing on a "false" god, I believe that we often forget the obvious and that is, the inner desire of the pagan worshiper to praise and serve. Christ talked about sowing the seed upon fertile ground. Such could, very well, include the pagan worshipers in need of a god to serve. Our message of love and grace and the living Spirit is perfect for such people as these.

And what of superstition as an example of faith? Think about how superstition works. Something happens to us that is good, for example, and suddenly, we make note of what we were wearing, or how many times we drove around the block just before it happened, or the timing of the event. We take that observation and try to duplicate it in the hopes that the good whatever, will happen again. As a baseball player, maybe I refuse to shave, thinking that it has something to do with winning. A fisherman might go to a particular fishing hole at a specific time of day, hoping to recreate the events that lead to his last big catch. We know that this [superstitious] behavior is illogical and, even, a bit silly, but there are times when we do it anyway. Why? Because there is a part of man that wants to praise and serve that which he does not know. It is a part of our very creation.

Finally, there is the conscience as an expression of faith before knowing. Understand that the conscience only works in one "direction." It always pushes us to do the right thing, whether that is defined by some pagan consideration or by a more valid motivation. Paul tells us that "God is at work within us, both to will and to accomplish his pleasure (Philp. 2:13). What if he means to imply that God is at work within us all. I mean, before we came to the Light, all the good that we accomplished, were, actually, the works of God, all along (John 3:21). A thief never wakes out of a sound sleep, grieving because he forgot to shot someone, yesterday. Our conscience drives us to do what is "right," never driving us into evil deeds. I believe that the conscience is God within us, before we know of his presence and admit to his to will in our lives.

In short and before knowing God, we are all creatures of faith !! That is the lesson of the moment.

If this is true, if we are creatures of faith before knowing of God, when we deny faith, we work against our own well being. We work against our own person. Ever wonder why our Nazarene Master, told us to love others as we love ourselves ( Matt 22:39)? I have. I am not sure I have the answer, but, perhaps, it has something to do with the "fact" that our life is by and of God. In the most exacting of terms, our ontology is his ontology.

When we give CPR in a crisis situation, what are we doing? Imitating the heart beat and the breathing of the injured person. That person could very well be dead, but we are causing him to push blood through his veins and "breath." What is missing? Life !! I believe that in the physiology of life, there is God. He is our life . . . . . really. God breathed into man, the breath of . . . . . life . . . . . . . and man became a living being (Gen 2:7). Whether you are a biblical "literalist" or not, surely this passage is clearly telling us that God the reason for our life.

If Philip 2:13 is true of all, saint and sinner, we, as his creatures, are possessed by our creator. He is an existential part of our being, the reason we are alive. Maybe " survival" is not so much an "instinct" as it is a radical motivation of the God within. Maybe our conscience is the unknown god within, driving us to the light, and causing us to do good, along the way. Maybe our mistaken devotion to things other than the true God is the unknown god trying to reach out to the Revealed God. If we love others as we love ourselves, we provide for others just as we provide for ourselves, even before we know of the Living God.

In Genesis 1:27, the biblical writing refers to the creation of man in a trilogy, of sorts. God created man in his image. In his image, God created man (and the author is talking about "mankind" in this passage, not a particular man). On the third occasion of this proclamation, the author becomes quite original: male and female, created he them.

I believe that all three "legs" of this trilogy are describing the same circumstance. If so and in this passage only, mankind as a community of individuals is the image of God. That will not make sense to one who does not believe in the trinity of God. Assuming his trinity, God is a community of "persons," is he not? The father loves the son; the son loves and serves the father, and the spirit is the perichoretic influence that binds the trinity into "one" and joins it to his creation.

I love others as I love myself, because (and in addition to what I have written above) man responding to man is the very expression of the image of God. When we function in community ("female" "male" created he them is certainly a statement of "community"), we do so because we are the image of God. I love my neighbor, because, in that love, I admit to the image of God and function because of that divine motivation.

All of mankind participates in the image of God. But not all of mankind knows of this God. Faith, indeed, comes before knowing. It is the ground upon which we sow the seed. The soteriological experience for all of mankind is the shared experience of God, in Christ, on the cross, reconciling his creation unto himself (Col 1:19), even before his creation knows of this event.

Allow me this license: in the act of reconciliation, God is complete when united with his handiwork. David intuitively knew this. Rather than express his sin as an act against his neighbor, he acknowledged, "Against thee and thee ONLY, have I sinned."

The God within (again Philip 2:13) is our motivation. When we sin, it is in direct rebellion to God, himself, as a partner in the flow of our very lives. Conversely, when I share good will with my neighbor, God is at work, in that function, reconciling the God within, the life of the person, unto himself - the inward presence uniting with cosmic reality that is the God of everything.