I give you my version of the "ontological" Barthian gospel.

Prelude: 

Put aside the fact that you may be much more a liberal than I. The following is not about politics, it is about the dynamics of an applied ontology as concerns faith.

I own a political blog. It is really a personal blog used for conservative political purposes. The blog currently has 30,000 pageviews per month.  Good enough.

As you might suspect, I get comments representing all sorts of perspectives, although the blog is not a comment blog. Currently, one of the liberals attending the site, is a younger fellow named Paul. He is an opponent who is uncomfortable with any expression of faith, interjected into the blog's commentary. Every time I mention God, he has a fit.

I recently posted this (see below), beginning with the headline, followed by the storyline and, finally, the comment from "Paul."

She's a babe but . . . . .

I don't think she is 26, yet.

Look at that face. I know, I know, "Who looks at her face !!??"

But, seriously, look at her face . . . . about as hard a face as you find on a 20 something.

I love it when the non-religious makes fun of "my kind." This is what so many of them have to look forward to.

Geeeeesh.

My first response to Paul's comment was the simple word, "No !!"

But I immediately took that response down, gave it a little thought and came up with the following. I include it, here, on this blog, because it illustrates something of what I have learned from reading Barth. Understand that this blog is not about my faith in Barth, but my faith in the Christ of God. Barth was the catalyst God used to "get me on board" with the notion of an ontological gospel. Barth hated the idea of a "Barthian following." My faith is not about what he despised. My faith is personal, informed and in Christ. So, too, is the dedication of Bart(h) and the Boyz. Here is my response:

John Smithson said...

“God” is not disproved because morons such as myself, do not practice his will or our own personal belief systems.
The difference between a believing Lohan and a hardcore Lohan is this, the “hardcore” beauty has no existential reason to change her life style except, perhaps, as she stands in violation of “codified societal pressure” (read “law”). All the while, her very person rots away before our eyes.
I do not begrudge you, your belief system. Don’t begrude me mine -- and do not feel sorry for me for believing in a claimed transcendency of ideas or a relatively clean life style of purpose.
I believe in God despite my inability to grasp who he is or what he is all about. That belief makes my life much improved over what it was before 1997. Sounds like your life-style works for you, as well. It is not about being “right,” Paul. It is about what works. Just don’t put me in one of your boxes, when it comes to issues of faith.

November 3, 2011 12:37 PM

After the Prelude: 

Now, I do not think this response to be "monumental" in any sense of that word. Many of you, perhaps most of you, God forbid "all of you," would have a better response. But, my response to Paul  is not what I would have come up with 10 years ago.

Barth once made this point, and I only approximate his words: "If God does not exist, no amount of words makes it otherwise. If God does exist, no amount  of words are necessary."

I don't have to argue with Paul about the existence of God.

Two considerations (from Barth) are always a part of any developing religious commentary, on my part. One concerns itself with the "sovereignty" of God and the other has to do with a thing called "dialectic." I am currently, attempting to revise the several postings found on this blog, in a rather desperate effort at improving the intellectual quality of my written polemic. Time will tell if I have the ability to accomplish this end.

The two considerations, mentioned above, are discussed in several posts on Bar(h) and the Boyz, so I will not take time to expand on either, in this writing, except to say this:

Sovereignty as in "God's sovereignty," is grossly under rated. I did not say, "misunderstood" nor did I write, "often off the mark, biblically speaking." Of course, both are true, at times, but neither represents my point at this writing

When I write, speak of, or think "the sovereignty of God," the totality of what I believe to be the case, comes into play. The very thought expressed by Paul, that God, himself, in Christ, died for us as sinners, while being sinners, in our sins, is the very thing that keeps us, created man, humble and in God's care and keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Before the catalyst that is Karl Barth, I did not believe that. NT Wright believes that you are saved by grace, but your badge of faith is obedience. Without that "badge," your salvation is in question. I was raised in Churches of Christ. I preached in that fellowship for 14 years, until I got tired of dodging bullets.  That fellowship held the same teaching as Bishop Wright, using different wording and with a much different attitude.

The notion that I must be right, at some point in time, in order to continue my salvation, is something that most of us, as Christians, would argue against, yet, we actually believe. While the efficacy of "obedience" is a difficult issue for those who believe that "we are saved by faith, through grace, and that, not of ourselves, it is the gift of God," it is often put forward as something that defines our continuing salvation rather than as a simple and, even, profound response to the very command of God, himself (as opposed to the commandments of God). (see Galatians 2:13)

After years of having practiced faith in my version of a legal paradigm, I, now, have an answer to the question, "Why obedience" that makes more sense to me than anything I every preached, sad to say.   I obey, at points in my life, because God in Christ drives me to that hap-instance. No other motivation to do his will brings me life. Compliance is not "life." God's activity, in this regard -- and here is the "ontological" aspect of the gospel's message -- is in addition to my ability to "experience" his presence. God at work in my life is not framed by my awareness of same, it is only appreciated in this "awareness."  In other words,  I do not have to know God is working in my life before such is the case.  I do not actualize God.  It is quite the other way around. 

On one very important level, the young man and opponent, Paul,  and  I  are brothers. I don't have to argue with him. I only need to accept him. God's work is far beyond whatever I think I can do for this young man . . . . . . and there is peace and confidence and increased personal faith in that knowledge.

If God is truly sovereign, he cannot be defeated by the worst of foes, our own rebellion to his presence in our lives. Will this be a lesson Paul will, someday,  receive?  I don't know, but I do know, that Paul's broken nature has been redeemed, even before his knowledge of same.

I leave you with the end of Christ's comment to Nicodemus, found in John 3:21. Read that passage, again, and see if you don't agree with this:

We live our lives, existentially, and in so doing, accomplish some good. In time, we come to the Light (Christ in God) and in the light, discover that that our works have been the works of God, all along.(per my understanding of these words of Christ).

That is the revelation I received from this single passage of scripture. Perhaps, in that sudden awakening, I was reborn again, this time from above.