Bart(h) and the Boyz

Hail to the Unpredictability of the Great God Almighty

2012-01-30T20:51:00.000-08:00

It is so important to acknowledge the largeness of our God. We aretold that He gives beyond our abilities to ask or think , beyond our abilities to ask or comprehend. Think about that for a moment. If Godfunctions in ways we cannot understand or grasp (comprehension), it is onlybecause 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 oncesaid, “We pursue Him until he captures us.”

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

Think of the busaccident that kills 7 while 30 survive -- all disciples of Christ. The survivors will give praise to God, ofcourse, but what of those who died? And why the seeming inconsistency. While this may not be the answer folks arelooking for in times of great distress, still, this is the best answer wehave 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 isfully capable of doing this. The unbeliever is not. If there is anything that divides one from the other, it is thesovereignty of God. The believer will submit to it, in time, and the unbelieverwill rebel.

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

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

The call to faith brings us to crisis. Some turn and walk awayfrom 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 questionof all, “why not someone else” are questionsthat deny His magnitude as we assert our preeminence over and against God. These are the devil's questioning. Todemand that the Infinite Great God Almighty somehow measure up to our finiteand limited expectations is the very essence of rebellion and the first fruitof the displacement of God.

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

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

A rewrite froman article written in May of 2007. (Hail to the Unpredictability of the Great GodAlmighty)

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

2012-01-27T22:06:00.000-08:00

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

Endnote: 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

2011-12-07T11:33:00.000-08:00

Update: at the end of this article or post, I give you "read more . .." and the conclusion of my discussion with "Paul." He wroteback, not willing to surrender his criticism of religion. I hope that myresponse will be an encouragement to any who have been discouraged in theirefforts to minister reconciliation. The young theology major or minister hasnot encountered those negatives that are not uncommon to many of us. If youstruggle for survival in a social clime that should be tolerant and accepting,well, know this: you are not along and many of us did not backtalk God for ourdistress. Understand this: you can't blame God and quit. You have nochoice. Why? Because thereis God and there is nothing, that why !!!

Anyway, I encourage you to read my "update #2" It scoredbig with my wife, my third wife. ---- J Smithson

Preface:

“Paul” is a young liberal who occasionally writes in on mypolitical site . . . and allow me to use the word “liberal.” He really does notchime in on the discussion unless and until I say something about God. Thefollowing is part of a discussion we are having, even as I write this post.

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

Initial post:

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:

* 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. Faith becomes our evidence. The Hebrew writer was only making an observation that reality demanded. 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 in 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, Paul, wrote back. Here is the conclusion to our discussion. . . . . .Click on "Read more . . ."

Begin reading the end of my discussion with Paul, here. It is an example, I hope, of how the ontological gospel works, 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

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.

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

Ten years ago, 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 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 returns 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 we 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 was taught the law of situation ethics and the other 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?

My faith, 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. 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)?

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

Seriously, why is chaos not the alternative to “God,” and, why do you think that is preferable?

You don’t believe the “golden rule” is a substantive social construct? Wow.

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.

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.”

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

2011-11-27T07:04:00.000-08:00

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 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 with that problem in this report, it does need consideration.

Matthew 6:33 – an alternative understanding.
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 wonderful prophetic words, I think we will miss the point of this gospel account. This prophetic description of the New Covenant 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 a requisite considerations, we come to the Matthew passage.

Matthew 6:33 as a parallel thought to Jeremiah 31: 31-34 and Philippians 2:12-13.

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

“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, "kingdom" means "sovereign rule and authority." 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 AND, we are to seek out his righteous activity.

And here is where I may have a certain difficulty in making my point:

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."

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.
© 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.

2011-11-20T22:31:00.000-08:00

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:

**/ *** - “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.

2011-11-14T20:35:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-11-08T18:12:00.000-08:00

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: ²⁶ 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. ²⁷ And the Father who knows all hearts knows what the Spirit is saying, for the Spirit pleads for us believers^[^a^] 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

2011-11-05T01:35:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-11-03T09:47:00.000-07:00

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 7,000 pageviews per month and may reach the "10,000" mark within a couple of weeks. 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.

2 comments:

stripmallpaul said...: Come on dude! What does religion or God have to do with this train wreck of a person? It has NOTHING to do with God. There are plenty of people you could point out who are more screwed up than Lindsay Lohan who believe in a higher power. Come down off your self-righteous high horse!; November 3, 2011 10:17 AM

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

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, this response 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 represent my point at this writing. (Note: I am proud "Bible thumper," btw, just not anymore typical than you).

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, 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. and that fellowship preached the same thing, using different wording and with a much different attitude (than good fellow, Pastor Wright).

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 practicing 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."

On one very important level, 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 every be a lesson Paul will 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:

My translation of John 3:21:

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.

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.

Barth and the Boyz is undergoing a heavy review with regards to content and formatting.

2011-10-30T18:01:00.000-07:00

You should know that I am very disappointed in this [blog] effort. I am a professional writer. I do free lance for a California magazine and have authored well over 5,000 articles and monographs. I preached for 14 years and know how to put my thoughts into words, how to motivate. I know what it means to "preach with a view to persuasion" and am capable of doing this, effectively.

But putting my thoughts, my faith, in writing, in this particular format, on a level that merits my claimed partnership with Karl Barth, has proven to be the most difficult assignment I have ever given to myself.

Understand, that I have no problem reading Barth. I think in dialectic and read his Dogmatics with a certain ease. I have studied the pastor's work for eight years, and believe that I know his most fundamental considerations as well as anyone. On this last point, I am saying that I can be predictive of a Barthian position, even before reading what this good man had to say. Arrogance, on my part ?? I certainly hope not. Rather, it is confidence that in the notion that, after several years, I find myself in the same thoughtful "grove" as the great pastor.

I am qualified as an author. I am studied in the writings of Barth. I am at ease with his dialectic presentation. And I share in his conclusions . . . . all of them (thus far). So why is writing at a level that does not detract from his legacy and credits God with the challenges of his (God's) revelation to man, so very difficult to accomplish?

"Dufus" comes to mind. I would admit my intellectual immaturity, quit with this high toned assignment and move on if it weren't for my children. But my children need to know of this reformed opinion. Because of my exposure to the writing of Barth, I have come to the conclusion that God functions and thinks and communicates within the context of the dialectic. And while you might not know precisely what I mean by that statement, understand that I do, and it is the single most impelling contribution I see in Barth. I just cannot seem to share that knowledge on a level that merits your enthusiasm I fear.

After 5 years of trying, I am on the verge of admitting that I cannot write in such a way as to as to command your attention, much less the attention of my own children.

Rather than surrender to the obvious, I have decided to give it one more try. I am looking at two months worth of concerted effort, reading and rewriting what is already been recorded here, at Barth and the Boyz.

You will see the word "finis" at the end of any article I have reviewed and consider to be satisfactory. There are more than 250 articles. I have reviewed and rewritten three of them.

I am going to leave off the "down home" style of writing often used, believing that it is too much of a contrast with the thoughts I am attempting to present. There is nothing about God's revelation, in the context of Barth and the dialectic, that is common place, and, "down home" is just that, commonplace colloquialism . . . . commonplace and out of place.

Look for "finis." My children will have to live this final effort.

The commandments of God versus the command of God -- a brief discussion

2011-10-23T23:33:00.000-07:00

As I was reading in Evangelical Theology - an introduction, one of my favorite collections of Barthian essays, something I read gave me this thought: "authority" and "immediacy" form a duplicitous ministry, if you will. You cannot have one without the other. At least, that is the premise of this essay. While that may seem painfully obvious, the implications of this reality escaped me until now.

Without taking the time to argue the point, let me simply make the application. And, it is this: if Christ is the authority in our lives, it is because the immediacy of his person is upon us, both individually and in a collective or congregation sense.

The existential certainty of this matter . . . . . that the two are related, that one causes the other . . . . . . means that to attempt to reject this reality only does us as the Created, great harm. We can only choose to surrender to this reality. In this surrendering, we do not affect his authority over us, in our lives or the reality of his presence. God will do what he wills, regardless of our action. He is fully capable of acting out his will for us and upon us, without our permission and in absence of our surrender. Sometimes, perhaps often, Christ's independent action in and, even, against our will, is the very thing that brings us to the light. (Sometimes we are saved from ourselves without our knowledge of same).

As to authority and immediacy, we can see their partnership in the name of God, revealed so long ago, "Tell them, I Am that I Am, sent you ."

I dislike all this talk of "free will" and "choice" as if there is a choice. Indeed, the illusion of choice is always present, but what good is "choice” when our "choice" is life over and against "nothing?" You and I can argue this point, philosophically, but if we were to skip over the argument, what would be left? Only to surrender to the single reality facing us. We do ourselves no service, pretending that we have a choice in this matter of discipleship.

If you disagree with the stated premise of this brief essay and live your life as if two viable choices exist, when, in fact, there is life and there is nothingness, how have you advanced yourself? Choose a life of prostitution, drugs, material pursuits, bigoted religiosity or power and you have made yourself to be just another "dead man walking." Such is the result of your "choice." And such is at the heart of our mission to mankind.

Our ministry, as children of the Father, is one of "re-conciliation," bringing the lost and confused [back] to a knowledge of the living and loving God already a part of their lives. I seek out the drug infested woman, squatted down in a dark corner of our city, because she is allowing the life of God within her, gifted her by rite of her created humanity, to be sucked from her body. "Sheep I have that are not of this fold," he said. She is my sister. We share the same Life. I cannot watch her let go of that Life and die, without, at least, telling her of the good news. I must make an effort at reconciliation. The God she knows not, is not far from her.

"I will hold off on a life of discipleship, choosing, rather, to pursue the good life," is a statement made by one who does not understand the existential relationship between existence, our existence, our individual existence and the Life that gives us our very existence.

"And God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul" is the intended meaning of Gen. 2:7. The biblical author is telling us that human life is not human at all. And, because of this fact, we are constrained to live life as His life dictates. And, we really do not have a choice in the matter, not if we are going to live.

I often write, "It is not the commandments of God that drive the New Covenant relationship, rather, it is the very command of God, himself." The paradigm shift described in Romans, chapter two, between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law is precisely the point I am making. We have moved from the commandments of God to the command of God, and in so doing, we are alive and thriving. The choice? Deterioration and non-life (death.)

finis

The Barman Declaration, Barth, and the need for revival.

2011-06-26T20:36:00.000-07:00

Of late, I have seen articles suggesting the need for a "second" Barman Declaration. There is the Manhattan Declaration, for example. Many see this as that second pronouncement. I do not. I have nothing critical to say about the Manhattan Declaration, but it should not be considered as a substitute for the original.

I am posting the Barman Declaration in this article. Read it carefully ---- which means, for most of you, "read it several times in succession." As you read, understand that this is the sole work of Karl Barth., contrary to popular opinion. You can read the history on this matter, but trust me, while his theological buds slept off a little too much wine, Barth crafted this declaration and they agreed to it. Also know that only Barth would have ever thought to write such a thing -- and I speak of the content of the Declaration. The document is a testament to his "biblical theology." The profundity of the document is found in both its straight forward brevity and its appeal to the simplicity of the biblical record.

This is not a document written by a theologian. Rather, it is a document written by a disciple of Christ. In fact, Barth disliked the notion that he was a [systematic] theologian. Theology according to Barth, especially a system of theology, was a distraction from the revealed word of God as presented in the Bible.

With regard to the evils of the German politic under Hitler and while America remained in denial, Karl Barth and many other men of courage and faith saw what was happening to Germany and the Church within its borders. This document was written in 1934 and remains a statement for all time. It is a testament to his "biblical theology" rejected by so many as misguided, if not childish, in today's theological parlors.

Those who preach the lie that Barth did not honor the Bible as the written word of God are confounded in this reading. Those who declare that there was no dialectic sense to Barth's pacifism are, likewise, confounded (cf. point 5 below) in the reading of this document.

Note the fact that this document is not written as a dialectic circumstance. Understand that "dialectic" exists, in Barth, when god's point of view is laid along side the opinion of his creation. When the finite addresses itself, as in the Barman Declaration, there is no occasion for dialectic; there is only man's opinion as bolstered by God's written word.

Note, also, Pastor Barth's use of the phrase, "false doctrine," and the implied absurdity of a viable alternative opinion. While Barth realized the intrinsic difficulty in the notion of absolute truth and our ability to access same, he was not afraid to express himself in definite terms as if the problem of knowing truth absolutely did not exist. Chalk this up to his personal dialectic.

As you read, make note of his condemnation of the "present reality" (Nazi Germany) without assuming the power or position of "Judge."

Finally, understand that the good Pastor wrote this declaration as if the entire church had commissioned him to do so. In this document, his is a spokesman for the Church, Holy Scripture (i.e. the Bible) and the Lordship of the Sovereign God. As a spokesman for each of these three considerations, he is a representative of truth as expressed in the mission of the Body of Christ. The Barman Declaration does not need a second writing, only a revival within the church as to its implicit centre, the Living Christ and the relational consideration to which we are called, as individual disciples and as the Church. It is revival that we need, not a rewrite.

John Smithson
6/26/2011
Updated 10/29/11

finis
The Barmen Declaration

In view of the errors of the "German Christians" and of the present Reich Church Administration, which are ravaging the Church and at the same time also shattering the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:

1. "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

"Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold through the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved." John 10:1,9

Jesus Christ, as he is attested to us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God whom we have to hear, and whom we have to trust and obey in life and in death.

We reject the false doctrine that the Church could and should recognize as a source of its proclamation, beyond and besides this one Word of God, yet other events, powers, historic figures and truths as God's revelation.

2. "Jesus Christ has been made wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption for us by God." 1 Cor. 1:30

As Jesus Christ is God's comforting pronouncement of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, with equal seriousness, he is also God's vigorous announcement of his claim upon our whole life. Through him there comes to us joyful liberation from the godless ties of this world for free, grateful service to his creatures.

We reject the false doctrine that there could be areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ but to other lords, areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

3. "Let us, however, speak the truth in love, and in every respect grow into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together." Eph. 4:15-16

The Christian Church is the community of brethren in which, in Word and Sacrament, through the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ acts in the present as Lord. With both its faith and its obedience, with both its message and its order, it has to testify in the midst of the sinful world, as the Church of pardoned sinners, that it belongs to him alone and lives and may live by his comfort and under his direction alone, in expectation of his appearing.

We reject the false doctrine that the Church could have permission to hand over the form of its message and of its order to whatever it itself might wish or to the vicissitudes of the prevailing ideological and political convictions of the day.

4. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to have authority over you must be your servant." Matt. 20:25-26

The various offices in the Church do not provide a basis for some to exercise authority over others but for the ministry [lit., "service"] with which the whole community has been entrusted and charged to be carried out.

We reject the false doctrine that, apart from this ministry, the Church could, and could have permission to, give itself or allow itself to be given special leaders [Führer] vested with ruling authority.

5. "Fear God. Honor the Emperor." 1 Pet. 2:17

Scripture tells us that by divine appointment the State, in this still unredeemed world in which also the Church is situated, has the task of maintaining justice and peace, so far as human discernment and human ability make this possible, by means of the threat and use of force. The Church acknowledges with gratitude and reverence toward God the benefit of this, his appointment. It draws attention to God's Dominion [Reich], God's commandment and justice, and with these the responsibility of those who rule and those who are ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word, by which God upholds all things.

We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the State should and could become the sole and total order of human life and so fulfill the vocation of the Church as well.

We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the Church should and could take on the nature, tasks and dignity which belong to the State and thus become itself an organ of the State.

6. 'See, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matt. 28:20 "God's Word is not fettered." 2 Tim. 2:9

The Church's commission, which is the foundation of its freedom, consists in this: in Christ's stead, and so in the service of his own Word and work, to deliver all people, through preaching and sacrament, the message of the free grace of God.

We reject the false doctrine that with human vainglory the Church could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of self-chosen desires, purposes and plans.

The Confessing Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a confederation of Confessing Churches. It calls upon all who can stand in solidarity with its Declaration to be mindful of these theological findings in all their decisions concerning Church and State. It appeals to all concerned to return to unity in faith, hope and love.

Verbum Dei manet in aeternum.
The Word of God will last for ever.

Sonship and the grace of an everlasting Father

2011-02-02T02:02:00.001-08:00

I was talking to a friend of mine today. He was upset with himself. He has temptations that overwhelm him, for time to time. He has a job interview coming up and he really needs the job. The temptations have returned, just hours before he needs God's help with the interview process. Is he being silly in his thinking that he has to resist or God will leave him to his own devises?

The short answer? Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I fancy myself as a "Reformed Fundamentalist," which means that I am still a fundamentalist but with a different perspective as to the role of fundamentalist principles. My particular fellowship of disciples often appears to be quite the legalist collective. They don't mean to be. They just don't know what to do with the demand for obedience as we seek to define the parameters of "grace." Maybe you have that all worked out, but I don't. I am 65. At this writing, I have been a Christian for 53 years. I have been a dedicated student of Barth for seven years. I have been a thoroughly involved student of Scripture for well over 40 years and take some satisfaction in my sense of objectivity. But, I still don't have satisfaction in my understanding of "obedience" as it functions within the doctrine of Grace.

If it were up to me, I would leave "obedience" out of the teaching on Grace, all together. Christ died for us ALL and did so while we were yet sinners, in the midst of our sinning. My righteous truly is "as filthy rags." I know that the Law was perfect, that the failure of the Law was and is my own flesh. I get that. I know for a fact that if I am going to be saved, obedience is not my path to heaven -- how could it be? I am a failure in the moral sense of the word. I am imperfect in a systemic sort of way.

While listening to my friend confess that he was some kind of pervert, that he didn't like that about himself, that he feared that God did not like him for that either, I secretly wondered why he was talking to me !!!

I am a retired pastor. Once a pastor, always a pastor. What is cool about the "pastor" thingy is that if you keep your sins to yourself and your big mouth shut, folks will think you have got it all figured out . . . . . . . this business about being dead to sin and all.

If you are a pastor, you know exactly what I am talking about. You do not have the same liberties in confession as do those in your keeping. You totally know that confession will more often than not force you to seek other employment. . . . . . . at least, that is your fear.

For several years, I was [also] a student of NT Wright, thinking that he and Barth had much in common. In time, however, I came to be very disappointed with regard to his idea of grace and obedience. The short version of his teaching is that you are saved by grace but live your life in an obedience that merits your continued salvation. This continued salvation via obedience is termed "status" in Wright's teaching. It took me nearly five years to figure this out with regard to Wright. Great man. Wonderful Christian thinker. Just plain wrong when it comes to salvation and status. And it is hardly a new perspective.

So what about obedience and grace and seeking God's blessing and receiving God's blessing and having confidence in his partnership with you? What about all that?

It is late and these posts take days for me to finish. After all, I AM a layman theologian. But, just before I doze off, let me make my first and most obvious point: God is our father. His is our perfect father. There is a reason why that metaphor is used in Holy Scripture. It is because we all know how a perfect father acts. He is understanding and forgiving almost beyond belief and when he disciplines, it is out of love, not anger or hate. That is a perfect father.

I am a father of five. The youngest is 27 ; the oldest is 44. I express my love to each when, at times, I do not agree with whatever it is they are doing at the moment. I am of that mindset because I believe that a father's love has to transcend the actions of his children. They do not think for a moment that, before they ask me a favor, they have to take a bath or clean up their act or pretend to believe what I hold to be true. They just come and say, "Dad, I need your help" and I say, "What can I do to help, Sis." You see, in this, I am the perfect father.

The parent/child thing is a relational matter that has nothing to do with status. Which brings me back to my friend's concerns? The man is God's child. God is his father and the first thing out of God's mouth is always, "What can I do to help."

I am thinking it really is no more complicated than that. And that is why we must believe in a risen God in Christ, the wonderful counselor, the prince of peace, the mighty God, the everlasting Father. God saves, and forgives and helps in time of need, even when we deserve it least. That is what a father does.

finis

Jim Wallis, Me and Obama's notion of social justice - a secular societal function or what?

2011-01-18T13:19:00.000-08:00

Jim Wallis is one of Obama's spiritual advisors. Understand that I am not a fan of the US President but this is not the place to debate that point. I do want to make the following points with regard to the general use and content of this particular memo, however.

Dear John,

The recent shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, the congresswoman from Arizona, must speak to the soul of this nation. The shooter raised his gun to her head, and then he kept shooting until 13 others were wounded and six people killed, including a district court judge and a 9-year-old girl who was in her church choir. We all mourn the lives lost and hope and pray for the recovery of those who were injured.

I was with Gabby just a week ago, as our families celebrated New Year’s at a retreat in South Carolina. I count her as a friend. We talked about her very tough election this fall, which she won by a few thousand votes in one of the most divided states in the nation, where -- much like the rest of the country -- the political rhetoric has become more and more poisonous and personal.

What are the situations and environments that allow this kind of hate and violence to grow? How can we not only stop conflict, but also be a part of bringing about a just community that displays the positive presence of peace?

We start with ourselves. Our Peace and Civility Pledge outlines the higher standards that scripture calls us to in how we are to treat one another and act in community. I ask you to sign the Pledge, consider how these teachings are being manifested in your life, and share it with a friend, your church, your family.

Last Spring, we began this important work with over 100 prominent Christian leaders who signed the “Civility Covenant.” Each one committed to modeling civil discourse, even with people they disagree with. In a divided world each one made a commitment to model the peace of Christ in their lives and their communities. They recognized that many of us who would never consider violence of the fist have been guilty of violence in our hearts and with our tongue.

Part of building a better society is relating to others with whom we disagree on important issues without calling them evil. It is out of that work that we recommit ourselves to being peacemakers in our country. It is on that Covenant that we have based this new Pledge.

As the county sheriff in charge of the criminal scene in Tucson said on Saturday, this must be an occasion for national “soul searching.” In the midst of tragedy and violence, I believe this means every Christian must ask: “How am I responsible?”

To that end, we encourage you to reflect with us all, using the Pledge as a starting place for scriptural teaching. Please share your thoughts, prayers, confessions, and hopes on our Facebook page or on the God’s Politics blog.

This horrible tragedy must now become an important American moment. We must honor this tragic event and Gabby’s national service by reflecting deeply on how we speak to and about one another, and how we create environments that help peace grow -- or allow violence and hatred to enter.

Blessings and peace,
Jim Wallis

I have drafted comments in response to this letter from Jim Wallis. I have taken it down for purposes of a thorough rewrite. It will be reposted as an "Update."

If God's Grace Cannot Save A Mormon, Can It Save Any Of Us ? Some thoughts about the efficacy of grace.

2011-01-04T10:20:00.001-08:00

At the center of the Christian gospel is the good news offered to the world and authored by God through Jesus of Nazareth. You would think that to be obvious, especially to folks who might stumble on this blog.

"Yes, of course !!"

Ah !! But maybe it is not so obvious. We have spent a life time since Christ, dividing the church over issues that may embrace "truth" but have nothing to do with the issue of Christ's saving influence in our lives.

The High Church questions the personal message of salvation and preaches the efficacy of liturgy. The non-Catholic Church has no clue what liturgy is nor the doctrine of grace giving ceremonies (i.e. the Eucharist). We are divided over the doctrine of baptisms, the form of church or congregational governance, the place and purpose of the bishopric, tongues and the Holy Spirit inspired charismata, the Eschaton and its eschatological importance, the place and purpose of Holy Scripture, social justice as a function of church politic, prophecy and its eschatological purpose, the sovereignty of God versus the creaturely demand for obedience, the whole soteriological question and how we apply that teaching without getting in the way of God's saving activities . . . . . and on and on.

Today, I hope to meet with a couple of young Mormon elders. This will be my fourth set of meetings. From the beginning, I purposed to present a "incarnational gospel," if you will; one that allows for the problem solving sovereignty of God to draw us together upon the pronouncement that Jesus is Lord.

They have tried to talk about the need to discover the right church. I have talked about the problem of being a member of the right church while continuing to be a sinner and sinning in our personal life, away from the "right church."

They have talked about the importance of the prophet, Joseph Smith, (oooops, I almost wrote "Joseph Smithson") and his function as mediator. I have talked about Christ centered relationships and the mediation of the Christ of God.

They have talked about the Spirit in the Church and I have talked about the Spirit within us.

And at each of these points, they readily agree!! That is, if I don't force a denial of their present beliefs.

Some will argue that I am doing a disservice to the message of the gospel. I would argue that I am preaching the only gospel Christ left us to preach.

Look, Paul tells us that some within the first church believed there were other Gods, dynamic and living. He writes to the Corinthians words to this effect," we know there is but one God but there are those [our brothers] who do not share that belief." As a result, Paul argues, we must honor their fear of eating meats offered to these false Gods. We can conclude that the Corinthian Church was full of disciples who had actually made a choice as to which God they would server, Zeus (for example) or the God of Christ and the Jews.

We know that the First Church was almost 100% Jewish in composition. They worshiped and sacrificed on Saturday and attended Christian services where Christ was the only sacrifice. They practiced their "old" religion as if nothing had changed while naming Christ as their Lord and Savior.

How does all this work and why would we think that Mormons who name the name of Jesus as Lord and Savior should receive less grace than those "in error" within the First Church.

I for one, cannot imagine the existential difference between those in error within the First Church and our Mormon friends who name the name of Christ.

I understand that they are more than confused as to the doctrine of God and Christ. Does that mean that God/Christ cannot work salvation in their lives, saving them until the time they understand that he is truly God.

I was baptized at age 12 -- 57 years ago. I doubt that I had a clue as to what Christian doctrine was all about, or the eternity of God or his sacrificial death on the cross. Heck, it was not until 1997 that I came to understand the power of the indwelling Spirit of God. Was I lost until then?

Do I have to think right to be saved? I know that there is not enough obedience within me to make the grade, apart from His mercy. What about my ability to think? Are only the most intelligent saved.

What about that addict whose brain is wasted and whose sensibilities are retarded?

You may have your answer.

I have mine and it is truly good news for the stupid and blind and addicted.

A final question: who wins, man who thinks and does unrighteousness or the grace of God?

If our sins and intellectual failures win the day, if they "stop God in his tracks, God is not sovereign. The claim to "sovereignty" demands God's ability to accomplish his will in our lives, in the function of his creation and in spite of our several inabilities.

finis

Grace: Does it define you or is it the other way around.

2010-12-23T12:22:00.000-08:00

If I take possession of a thing without the knowledge or belief that it is mine, I function as a thief -- running, hiding, never speaking of my possession, always convinced that it might be taken away, knowing as one knows when he sees a lie that it is not his.

In the proclamation of the Gospel, we learn of and receive this truth, that what we thought could never be [rightfully] ours has been given to us as a gift. It is ours to possess. It belongs to us, not rightfully so, of course -- it is the consequence of a grace that refuses to count our sins against us and in that refusal, establishes itself as sovereign to anything we might say or do.

When we are caught red-handed, teaching against the sovereignty that is the function of the grace of God, we find ourselves begging God to spare us, time after time, rather than looking to the accomplishments of the Cross and allowing that sacrifice to be the supreme sacrifice. We are thieves in the night, depending on grace when we do not need it and begging for its return when we are faced with our own incessant unrighteousness.

If my sin defeats the cross, even for a moment, the cross is useless as a divine function. After all, man forgives until he is violated. We do not need God for that.

If my own stupidity defeats the cross, only the intelligent and wise will be saved. We often call these folks "repentant disciples," but of course, they are members of a club that asserts that they are "right,' that you are "wrong" and that being right and wrong are very important considerations, functionaries if you will in God's plan for saving man. If we have to be "right" or "correct" to be saved, we save ourselves and God is - in the final analysis, irrelevant.

Have you stolen the idea of grace, using its refreshing notion as you develop your theology or, do you accept it as a gift, a possession, that cannot be lost except you let go it ?

In the former circumstance, it is yours to mutilate. In the latter, it is yours to keep.

In the former, it is yours to define, this grace you so often speak of. In the latter, it defines all that you believe about God's saving function.

In the former, you are saved until the need for the next prayer of repentance. In the latter, it is simply yours.

Merry Christmas

Hail the Unpredictability of God - new and revised text

2010-12-14T03:30:00.000-08:00

Hail the Unpredictability of God

It is so important to acknowledge the largeness of our God. We are told that He gives beyond our ability to ask or think; in other words “ to ask or comprehend.” Think about that for a moment. If God functions in ways we cannot understand or grasp, it is only because He, Himself, is larger than our failing abilities to lay hold of Him. And so it is that, out of necessity, He lays hold of us !!

Like 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. Certainly He is consistent in what He has allowed us to know about Him as He is revealed to us in the Incarnation....... He cannot be what He is not. This "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, perhaps more importantly, how we perceive that function to be.

When it comes to the revelation of God to man, there is the revealing, of course, and then there is manifestation. God through Christ reveals himself to us. That revelation is pure and holy and without contradiction. But then there is the perception of that revelation. Because this includes man’s ability [or do we dare say, “man’s inability to understand] to understand what has been revealed, this perception is anything but pure and holy. God’s revelation of himself to man through Jesus of Nazareth has been written. It is finished. Man’s understanding of this manifest God is not final and cannot be categorized as scripture, precisely because it is the work of man and mankind.

Think of the bus accident that kills 7 while 30 others survive. Many of the survivors will give praise to God, but what of those who died? And so we speak of the unpredictability of our Great God Almighty. We teach in this writing that He appears to be unpredictable in this particular matter solely because of His sovereignty and largeness. As our Creator, He cannot be reduced by His creation. We can only stand in awe. And when “awe” is not our experience , we can only trust.

We must acknowledge that God and God in Christ cannot be reduced or deduced by His creation. A pot cannot comprehend the potter. A chair cannot conceive of the carpenter. A creature cannot know of his Creator. In the end, there is revelation, our understanding of that revelation (whether God in scripture or God in our world) and a thing called faith and trust.

The believer is fully capable of faith and trust. The unbeliever is not. If there is anything that divides one from the other, it is the creatures acceptance of 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 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 associated with that circumstance. To be critical of God for a supposed failure to act out consistently is not His failure ! Some turn and walk away from God because "He did not give to me in my time of need."

While your child lived, my child died and that makes God unpredictable and unacceptable. I have cancer and it will not be healed. I live in Haiti and that will never change. I have no job and will not find one before I lose my house and new car.

Understand that while the question of the age appears to be “ how do we make God work in these realities,” the truly creaturely question of "Why me," "Why this," or "why now" ?

Understand this, if our child had lived, if we had been born in the Hamptons, if someone had offered us a job that provided for a larger home and more luxurious car, we would not be asking these questions.

Such questions, then, are questions that deny His magnitude. They are of the devil's query.

To demand that the Infinite measure up to our finite expectations is the very essence of inconsistency. Think for a moment just how ridiculous that last thought sounds: we who are finite expecting He who is infinite to "measure up" to our way of thinking? Is that even possible?

For God to be consistent as we view predictability would be as the result of the "dummying down" of our God. Do we want a God who thinks as we do? Would that include those times when we do not know what to think or what to do or what to say?

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. We can be thankful for that !!

What a mess we would be in if that were not true.

Finally, we as creatures must resist the temptation to judge God. We are called to lose our lives in His. There are no promises of prosperity for doing so. Some are benefited, others “are cut asunder,” All are blessed. And in the end, the lessons of Job are our lessons, as well.

We believe in God because he is our Creator and provider and for no other reason.

J David Smithson, your friendly editor.

Seriously - If we lived the next 7 days as if each were our last, what would be the outcome.

2010-12-11T22:58:00.000-08:00

Seriously - If we lived the next 7 days as if each were our last, what would be the outcome.

Well, one thing for certain, if we were called home during the week, it would not come as a surprise, would it? Not to us, to our families, to our friends or to any we befriended during the week. . . . . . . . and we would be about the "befriending" of others, wouldn't we ?

If you cannot accept this assignment, try our next suggestion:

During the coming 7 days, do something benevolent for someone other than family, one act of kindness on each day of the coming week.

Life for Life - and they say the New Covenant is not about relational dynamics. Ha !!

2010-11-26T14:08:00.000-08:00

Our lives are built on the death of others -- Leonard deVinci

When we read the deVinci quote, it is difficult not to think of Jesus of Nazareth, isn't it ?

When death is an individual event and nothing more, fear and good-byes override all other emotions.

But when death is for others, purpose and value become the context and the event ceases to be that which we avoid but cannot deny. And so a mother dies giving birth; a father surrenders his youth for his boys; a pastor remains but grieves for his parish; a god who cannot be killed surrenders unto death for the world he created, and life is given that life might continue.

We are called to join in this transition from life to life understanding that it only works in terms of "transition" because of the victory of Jesus and his empowerment within us.

Scriptures for your consideration:

The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs -- heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in His sufferings in order that we may also share in His glory. (Romans 8:16-17)
For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for Him. (Philippians 1:29)
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps. (1 Peter 2:21)
And the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. (1 Peter 5:10)

There is a difference between arguing doctrine and experiencing doctrine.

2010-11-17T23:14:00.000-08:00

Actually posted 11/23/2010

Barth encourages us all to "study as if for the first time" on any occasion that we accept a call to return to the scriptures. Foreknowledge and bias are not necessarily our friends in this endeavor. Fresh eyes and an "open mind" are keys to a study of the written word. Our studied return to scripture should never be an opportunity simply to confirm "what we already know." To avoid the childish practice of "confirming" study, besides fresh eyes and open-mindedness, we should add a third consideration: doctrinal empathy.

What I have in mind, here, is the need to think like those who might disagree with our point of view. Barth believed that "theology is the church talking to itself about God." Well, "talk," in this case, is only chatter if it does not include a sincere/honest exchange of ideas. Some of those ideas will be wrong headed; such is unavoidable if a real 'exchange' of ideas is the reality. Understand that some theological ideas are wrong and others only appear to be wrong. We cannot know the difference if we never attempt to honestly prove-and-then-disprove the idea in question.

The "authority of the Pope" comes to mind. We have a family member on my wife's side, Nancy. Nancy is a Catholic. Nancy loves discourse. And, unfortunately for me [at times] , she actually knows what she is talking about. Dang !!

Anyway, in a recent discussion, I asserted that the Catholic Church mediates salvation. It is fairly clear to me that this is the case. The Eucharist and water baptism are life giving functions, not merely symbolic representations - to a Catholic. Most importantly, in this case, they are administered by the Church. Life giving functions administered by the Church per an edict of the Church, no doubt. Looks like the Church mediates salvation, to me. Nancy firmly disagrees. Nancy and I can never have true fellowship if I never get around to an empathetic understanding of her point of view. Ditto for Nancy, I must add. Nancy and I will continue in debate form or experience a "coming together," depending on our willingness to experience the other's point of view. Let me say this again, perhaps differently. If I cannot experience Nancy's polemic concerns, she and I will only argue our case and nothing of consequence will be accomplished. After all, it seems to me that the point of an intelligent and thought-filled 'debate' should be a certain and manifest 'coming together.' The key to this aspect of "coming together," to an empathetic understanding of Nancy's faith, is found in asking the question, "How can I defend her point of view?" Understand that it is in the asking of this question that I [and Nancy] make a first step towards sharing in the 'polemic experience' of the other.

Know this, you cannot understand the opponent if you have never tried to think like the opponent. I have been doing this for decades -- trying to put myself in the shoes of those with differing opinions. Never forget the purpose of this questioning. It is not "to become like Nancy," but to "thoroughly understand what Nancy is thinking and, hence, what she really means to say."

More often than not, I come away from such an assignment confirmed in my own thinking, but, on occasion, I make such an adequate defense of the opponents view that I am forced to change my mind. In every case, whether change occurs or not, I come to understand the "other's" point of view and make note of their desire to be truthful in their doctrinal discipline. E.g. , Nancy loves the Lord and lovers of the Lord can never be counted as "lost" or, dare I say, uninformed. Before you object, know this: if God cannot save us in our mental error, we are all so screwed. But, because we do not have to be right, the path to unity is made clear.

So, why should I seek to EXPERIENCE Nancy's point of view? Because Nancy may not be one who is wrong? There !! I think I have made my point.

From the fertile mind of Willam Taylor

2010-11-17T00:56:00.000-08:00

It is faith, not logic, that is requisite to all meaningful discourse, even when the object of that faith is something other than Jesus Christ. -- William Taylor December 6, 2004

Editor's note: Barth believed that the scientist suffered under much the same rules and limitation as the theologian. He also taught that we believe so that we can understand.

Confirmation from the science of mathematics

The existence of the mathematical "postulate" is evidence of our point and an example of the truthfulness of Taylor's quote above.

Postulates are at the heart of geometry, Dalton's atomic theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, and the concept of natural selection. In 1899, David Hilbert listed 20 (originally 21) assumptions proposed in his book, The Foundations of Geometry (a German publication). Others tell us that the list is actually closer to 200.

Remembering back to my college days, the professor told us of a table of "postulates" we needed to use, located in the back of our books, in order to complete our [geometry] assignments.

"What is a postulate," someone asked in class. Our instructor responded with words of this sort, "A postualte is an apparent mathematical fact or truth that needs to be included in our calculations, but a "truth" that has no mathematical evidence other than the fact that 'it works' . "

"So," I asked, "If it cannot be proven, mathematically, could it be wrong?"

"Yes, of course. It has no math behind it that we can verify.. We know it is true because it works. But, there could be a problem in which it does not work; we doubt that such will ever be the case, but it is possible."

As a 19 year old minister and student, my personal but unspoken response was this: "If we rely on a stated axiom when it could be false or unworkable, in a particular application, why is not its usage a matter of faith, first, and then, science as we proceed ? More than this, why was not the first postulated but unproven axiom, the very first, not a matter of pure faith? " And if science cannot move forward without these postulates, is not Taylor's point, that " . . . . faith, not logic [or mathematical proof, in this case] . . . . is requisite to all meaningful discourse," a truth that puts all of mankind, believer and unbeliever, alike, on common ground. We end each day believing there will be a tomorrow. All of us share in this moment of faith. But more than this particular bit of existential commonality, it turns out that science is, itself, dependent upon faith before it can move forward with its models and conclusions. It is true, then, that we believe so that we might know.

Understand that "God" is no less a working postulate, if you will. He is unprovable and when "plugged" into life's equation, our problems are suddenly given solution(s).

Point of post: the Christians use of faith is no less intellectual than is science's faith-based use of axiomatic "fact" in the course of its physical assignments. In fact, "we" are one up on the scientific community because we admit to the fact of faith as the gateway to knowledge. It is hardly debatable.

Faith if our substance and our evidence (Heb 11:1 )

We believe so that we can understand

Updated and rewritten 1/15/2012 by J Smithson

If the Bible was not written as a systematic theology, why should we rewrite the Message in terms of a system. And whose system is right ?

2010-11-13T00:39:00.000-08:00

A new essay project by the editor
Essay currently under construction - 11/15/2010

Few of us are aware of just how different Western thought, content and process is quite different from the East and its oriental/ancient ways of thinking. Because we can read the Bible in our own language, we give little thought to the fact that this Bible was not written to us, our times, our way of thinking, our biases.

For those who would teach from the biblical message, understanding the historical, philosophical and literary context of specific biblical passages is or should be a thorough going hermeneutical pursuit.

It is hoped that this essay will help in that pursuit.

The flow of this essay will be somewhat formal on one hand and interactive on the other. I have no idea where this will go, in terms of effective commentary, but I have hope and hope, in this case, is the word of the day !!

Some initial questions:
1. Why is the Bible filled with so many passages that seem at odds with others?
2. Could God have caused the biblical message to be written without controversy and confusing rhetoric?
3. How did the ancient/oriental mind process information differently than today, here in the West?
4. Why was the Bible not written as one would write a "systematic theology" especially in view of the fact that God in Christ could have superintended a record that was quite systematic and without interpretive question.

These four issues will be at the heart of this developing essay. If you follow this blog, and few do, you know that these essays take this editor a "month of Sundays" to write. There are two reasons for that: one is the fact that the editor studies out the issue(s) at hand as if for the first time -- and he is 53 years into his adult commitment to the Lord!

A second consideration is the need for a comprehensive rhetorical tone in the completion of the article. Our editorial conclusions are borne of an implicit apologetic [ you can call this 'bias' if you prefer] and that tends to delay the final writing. What I mean, here, is this: I want my conclusions to at least make sense to the "opponent," to the unbeliever who might happen onto this blog. The unbeliever is always in my thoughts as I write to the Church or fellow members of the Church. Who knows, some of my brothers and sisters in the Lord may be more the "unbeliever" than they pretend. In that case, this blog may be of some help.

I freely admit to having doubts. They do not carry me to the brink of denial, but they are serious doubts, nonetheless. Study helps me, as well.

Grace to you.

By the way, the returning reader might give attention to her owning thinking as I struggle to complete this essay.

Working update (am 11/12/2010)

A critical doctrine separating Fundamentalist/Evangels from the rest of the known world is their doctrine of the inspiration of scriptures. In simplistic form, the teaching insists on the Bible being inspired or authored by God himself. For the Fundamentalist, if God wrote the Bible, error in the text or its historical/doctrinal statement is an impossible consideration for obvious reasons.

In spite of the many difficulties associated with a defense of this idea, for the sake of this essay, we accept that teaching. Whether you agree with the idea or not, we believe much can be learned using this teaching. Keep in mind that this is a "reformed fundamentalist" site. Understand that if we leave behind the teachings of "fundamentalist" in our quest for "reforming," our work, here, is no longer "fundamentalist," is it? So we cling to our guns, our Bible and our doctrine of inspiration.

For a few moments in time, let's pretend that all who read this post are in agreement with the above teaching, namely, that the Bible is literally "God's word" to man, that it was originally written for the purpose of revelation, God revealing himself to man; that this revealing was done precisely as God intended.

Understand that this editor used to worry about proving "verbal, plenary inspiration" - if you are a fundamentalist, this is the technical wording for the belief of "inspiration of the scriptures." "Verbal" - having to do with the literal words of the original text and "plenary" having to do with every word and thought of the text.

Alrighty then, let's take that consideration and apply it to our assignment.

If the Bible is literally the very word of God, we must conclude that it was written as God had intended. Each book, although added over time, was part of God's planned and well thought out revelation to man, the final book being Revelations. O.k.

Would this not include the very format of the text at every level of consideration?

We have in mind the fact that it was not written as a systematic theology, especially as one considers New Covenant scriptures. In other words, the single book we know as the "Bible," is actually a collection of 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. Why do we conclude that all 66, with the completion of the book of Revelations, suddenly become one book? What is it in the doctrine of "verbal plenary" that allows us to escape the original format and the implications of the original design?

Understand that it is entirely possible, even probable, that some or all of the Pauline letters were written before any of the first four "Gospels" (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Understand that church folk in Galatia or Corinth or Ephesus may have never read any "new testament book" other than the one(s) addressed to them.

If all this was God's intention and design, it may have been his intent that brethren in Corinth read "Corinthians" and nothing more. While there is much consideration in the defining and understanding of the "gospel," the question of the moment is this: what are the implications of an oral tradition in concert with anecdotal application ?

Does a literalist/fundamentalist have the right to assume the original partnership of "preaching the gospel" (the oral tradition) and pastoral application are trumped by the eventual existence of the Bible as we know it today? Just askin'.

One thing that is "for certain" is the fact of the beginnings of our Bible. There was the preaching of the gospel (the oral tradition) and the application of that gospel; that this application was specific to a particular church or locale; that "we" share in those instructions only if and when our circumstance parallels "their" historicity. No ??

In Romans 10, Paul details the importance of the preaching of the gospel. Could it be that the preaching of the gospel was never intended to be codified or God would have done so? How on earth do we escape the reality that God could have done it "our way" but didn't ?

Let's talk about "dialectic confirmation." You have your gift and I have my epiphany.

2010-11-08T04:33:00.000-08:00

A Barthian thought that has given me the opportunity to define my experience with God and God in Christ is his thinking that Christ is the very source of our being. In other words, we have no life apart from Him.

We could take that to mean "there is no spiritual life apart from Christ," using that terminology [spiritual life] in view of a certain dualism, the spiritual on the one hand and the secular on the other. Here at Barth and the Boyz, we reject the notion of dualism as relates to life. And that brings us to a second alternative thought; that God and our Christ of God is the source of our being, that he is as vital to our very existence as is our heart or our brain.

And that would be true for all of humanity, of course. In the creation account, we are told that God breathed into man the breathe of life and man became a living soul. That biblical thought has no value if it does not imply that man (and mankind) is alive because of God's dynamic presence in his person.

Understand that God wants to define my life's activity but, at the same time, he is my very existence. Life is no more possible apart of from the God's presence than is life possible without blood silently coursing through our veins or the unnoticed pounding of the heart.

Our point? In our quest to experience God in our lives, perhaps we have overlooked the gift of life, itself.

If you read this blog, you know that we often speak of the "dialectic." Life and death is a dialectic. So to is faith and works, indebtedness and grace, the old man and the new man, here and there, the kingdom's coming and the kingdom within and on and on.

Well, receiving the gift of the spirit and being indwelt by the spirit from the beginning of our individual existence is one of those dialectic equations. Each thought is true.

When we look to Acts 2:38, it seems the Spirit is a gift that is given following the activity of faith. If we stop reading there, we miss the fact that " . . . . it is God at work within [us] both to will and to do his good pleasure," that our salvation (we assume 'getting' saved ) is only possible because of God's inward influence. The reader will find this expressed thinking in Philippians 2:12 -13. Take time to read this wonderful bit of revelation.

Point of post ? While experiences such as speaking in tongues may be legitimate events coming from the Holy Spirit's influence in and through the Church (I Cor. 11 -14), those of us who have never shared in such experiences have every reason to believe that God's exhilarating and 'supernatural' presence is manifest in our very existence. While 'spiritual gifts' argue for the presence of God in our lives, so, too, does the fact that we are alive. If we do not allow ourselves to forget the words of the Philippians text, we understand [via revelation] that God is manifest in our very will to move toward salvation.

Let's not fall to the floor in despair, grieving the fact that a particular 'gift of the Spirit' has not come our way.

My wife has this gift of tongues. I have listened to its expression for more than 10 years and believe it to be a legitimate reality. But God, in his written word, tells me that I am gifted, as well, ala Philip 2:12-13.

Look, understand that the beating of the heart is seldom an "experience," yet it gives me life and is working on my behalf every moment of the day. So too is the Spirit of God within me. I have no reason to believe that God has ignored me or is not a part of my life because I have not been gifted in ways described in the Corinthian text. My wonderful wife has her times when God seems more present than at other times. I share in that same reality. There are times when I have to lay my Bible down and pick up the phone to share the spirit of the moment [think 'epiphany'] as God has opened my eyes to an understanding of scripture that was previously misunderstood. Those times are exhilarating, even emotional. More importantly, those times confirm the presence of God and His Christ in my life.

Conclusion? Get up off the floor and appreciate the life you have as a "sign" of the presence of God within, because that is precisely the case !!
m

A Barthian Quote of the Day.

2010-10-27T20:10:00.000-07:00

Paul what a man he must have been and what men also those for whom he could so sketch and hint at these pithy things in a few muddled fragments! […] And then behind Paul: what realities those must have been that could excite the man in such a way! What a lot of far-fetched stuff we compile about his remarks, when perhaps ninety-nine per cent of their real content escapes us!
— diary entry, Karl Barth

Layman Series - Study Group #1/ Contrasts

2010-10-25T21:52:00.000-07:00

Layman Series - Study Group #1/ Contrasts
Barth and the Boyz/Biblical Studies 403

Six points are presented for group discussion:

Julie Helm, Bill Taylor and your not-so humble editor, John Smithson, are working on a book to be published. Understand that many many folks write books but few actually publish. We will present excerpts from our work from time to time. The three of us are fundamentalist/evangelicals who are moving away from the legal paradigms with which we were raised. Our concern is that we make this "move" without floating off into some expression of existentialism. Julie is more of a charismatic. Bill and I are see great value in Reformed Theology as presented in the works of Karl Barth and the Torrance brothers.

. . . . . . . . . . . , Contrast

If grace comes through obedience, God is obligated
If grace covers only some, God is limited
If all are "saved," God’s grace 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.

Each statement approaches the paradoxical at some level. None are quite dialectic in construct and if you don't know what "dialectic" is, don't worry about it.

Definition: paradox is a statement that contradicts itself or seems to contradict itself.

Our first thought is for the reader to consider the above in prayer and meditation [especially meditation]. Just read and think. Who knows, it might be an exciting change for some !!

A second suggestion would be this:

1)Try to defend each side of the paradoxical equation. In other words, resolve the seeming paradox without denying either of its two primary claims.

2) Add scripture to the scriptures already suggested.

3) Do not disregard any statement, in spite of the fact that it may be incorrect in your way of thinking. Consider this an exercise in critical thinking, something with which we Fundamentalist are not comfortable in doing.

Finally, take time to solve the following problem. Consider that you are in Biblical Studies 403, a graduate course like one you have never experienced before. There are no right answers, only you, the written word and God in Christ working in you as you work to resolve this biblical issue. Understand that every time you prayerfully study scripture with the expectation that God is about to reveal Himself to you. Also accept that you are about to partner with the mind of God in Christ always remembering that His thoughts are above our thoughts. To exhaust His revelation is to make Him one of us.

Dialectic Difficulties

Don't know what a dialectic is? Well, here is one of many. Both sides of the matter are true. True theology is the result of the dealing with the conflicting issues while allowing for the biblical integrity. Solve the apparent problem and you will be the richer for it. -- jds

On the one hand:

Begin with this question: Is God limited by your disobedience? Be careful, here. Refer to our 4th point in Contrasts.

Does the fact that we all begin our walk with God as babes who are [ still] IN THE FLESH, conflict or accommodate your answer? Compare I Cor. 3: 1, Ephesians 4:22-24 (understanding that the old man and the new man are present time realities in this passage ), Romans 7:25 with its present time Christian application, and I John 1: 8 - 9.

On the other hand:

We have not finished our study if we have not reconciled the above to these biblical considerations:

Romans 6: 1 – 14; I John 5:18 , II Peter 2:20-21, Heb 10:26-27.

The concern, here, is to develop a theology in this assignment that does not change the wording of any of the scripture cited above. In the spirit of the great pastor, we encourage you to study this matter as if considering the critical scriptures for the first time. You are about to involve yourself in the process of revelation.

Existential theologies versus biblical or dialectic theologies

2010-10-20T01:11:00.000-07:00

Albert Schweitzer and Karl Barth were contemporaries as was Harnack, Tillick, Bultmann and Bonhoeffer. Quite a collection of robust Christian thinkers. The thinking of past notables, those who preceded the times of Barth, included Georg Hegel (Karl Marx was a fan of Hegel's), a major Hegelian detractor in Soren Kierkegaard, and Immanuel Kant, each of whom held great influence at the turn of the 20th century, each of whom were existential in their views to one degree or another.

The single individual who seems most challenging to Pastor Barth was Friedrich Schleiermacher. He lived a 100 years before Barth and has been called the Father of modern Protestantism or neoProtestantism. This might surprise some, but this editor believes that it was Schleiermacher's thinking that gave Barth a first glance at the theological issue of the “centrality of Christ,” specifically that Jesus through the church is the source of all theology. It is without question that the "centrality of Christ " became the exclusive theme of Barthian thinking and we may have Schleiermacher to thank for this.

Schleiermacher, a man who dealt with doubt and theological change throughout his life, was a primary contributor to the notion of "higher criticism." He also did work on the dialectic as a hermeneutic principle - a way of thinking that became critical to all of the Barthian consideration. Most importantly, it was the Schleiermacher version of existential theology that played a huge and negative role in Barth's early life. Understand that the collegiate Barth was one heavily influenced by existential teaching. Biblical studies, in the college setting, was not about the bible, itself. Rather , it was about a rationalistic view of the text including a historical view, if you will, of Christ, who was quite human; one who was quite like us. In developing the idea that Christ was the central influence, Schleiermach rejected the place of the creeds, choosing, rather, to prefer an inward, subjective approach in seeking to understand scripture and God, himself. Barth did the very opposite. He elevated the creeds and the historical understanding of the early and first church.

What separated Barth from so many of his peers was his view of time/space and the idea of the dialectic as an applied hermeneutic in biblical studies. It was the use of the dialectic that allowed Barth a belief in the miracles, the virgin birth, a literal resurrection/ascension (Barth really did not like to think of the two separately). As Barth separated himself from the existentialism of his time, from the existentialism of his associates, his understanding of the dialectic increased. We argue in this article that the move away from existentialism and into a dialectic consideration evidences the idea that the two are not compatible; they are very much opposite factors.

If the reader truly understands "dialectic," she then understands how Barth could believe the impossible. . . . . . . because, in the end, the impossible gives the possible its identification. Barth never expected to fully understand or explain anything that stood in a dialectic circumstance. At the center of Barth's dialectic was the power and thought coming from God (on the one hand) into a finite and created world (on the other). While divine power and/or thought could manifest itself in a finite world, it could not be fully understood or fully grasped by the created. Finite and in-finite are worlds apart, the very beginning of the Barthian dialectic.

Barth fully expected the miracle of the virgin birth to be unexplainable. This is why, perhaps, Barth is not an apologetic theologian. While faith in the Christ of God is not a product of reason, it most certainly is reasonable. Such, in the mind of Barth, is not a unyielding paradox, but the very nature of reality. Life and death are not differing realities but the book-ends to the same reality. As such, they are by definition, dialectic.

Understand that in the Hegelian dialectic, there is a synthetic assumption that serves as a solution to the tension of the dialectic equation. In spiritual matters, however, the opposing factors of the dialectic (thesis and anti-thesis) are dynamic entities and, as such, are not propositional issues to be solved but, rather, driving forces that need mediation. This writer believes that the mere fact of the pronouncement of Christ as "mediator" is a declaration that Christ stands in the midst of a grand dialectic. We maintain that “mediation” is always about the dialectic .

Schweitzer, as an example of the existential thought of the times, did not share this point of view. There is nothing in his writings that indicates that he allowed for dialectic at any serious level. Understand that the existential mind operates on a linear plain. We would argue that Hegel's use of dialectic is existential and linear. In Hegel, there is a well defined problem (thesis vs antithesis) that moves us to a solution or synthesis. That synthetic statement may become the thesis of another dialectic circumstance and its synthetic solution, the next thesis and on and on . . . . . so we say that the Hegelian dialectic is linear.

The spiritual (if you will) dialectic is circular in nature, the tension between the two forces never ending (in this world). Good and evil are always a part of our reality. Mediation is always necessary and the only solution. The old man and the new man always stand against each other. The resulting tension does not destroy "the host," because the Mediator is always present and always about the task of mediating that tension. We call this mediation, "salvation," because the tension does not destroy us. Glory to the Jesus, the Mediator.

For Schweitzer, when the kingdom did not come "soon," his existential theology was mortally challenged. The Great Humanitarian had no dialectic that allowed him to accept that "soon" and "later" would be part of the same "kingdom reality."

When God revealed the kingdom and implied that it is coming soon, there was always room for the coming of the kingdom to be something other than what we see as "soon." Paul thought the kingdom would come in his life-time or shortly thereafter. But, at some point, Paul realized that he would not see the coming of the kingdom. There is no reason to believe that this caused Paul a distress that could be called "doubt." After all, he died for the Lord and in his name, or so we believe. Jesus, too, spoke in terms of dialectic when he pronounced that the kingdom was within us, on one occasion, and yet "to come" on another.

Albert Schweitzer had a problem with this and it effected everything he came to believe about the biblical message. His evaluation of God's promises was linear in scope. And, that perspective became a problem. He could not explain the failure of the coming kingdom (its been 2000 years, now) . He did not want to abandon the Christ. The solution was to adjust his view of Christ, to approach him as a historical character, fully and completely. As historical and very human, the failure of the coming kingdom was explained away as the failed thinking of one who was grand and human, but not god.

Barth "knew" that all the promises of God were couched in the tension of the dialectic, the same tension that exists between "now" and "later." It is somewhat like being told that you will receive a cookie when you finish a certain project, only to be made to wait for the reward. It didn't happen, but then, again, it did [finally] happen. Was the promise never a promise until it was fulfilled ?? Of course not. The difference is perspective. After the reward is given, we can realize that we were living in the power of the promise all along. The promise remains real. The delay becomes insignificant.

Schweitzer could not see beyond his existential view of the promise. For him, there was no "living in the promise" prior to its complete manifestation. There was no dynamic dialectic that allowed for the kingdom to exist now, fully and completely and, again, at another time.

Understand that in a dialectic, whether Hegelian or spiritual, both the thesis and the antithesis are true realities and are problematic because of their individual truth. Existential theologies move from point A to point M and beyond. We might argue that the “divine” aspect of an existential/linear theology is the fact that it is goes on and on ad infinitum .

But with the Barthian or spiritual dialectic, the solution of the dialectic tension is never ending. The need for the Mediator is, likewise , never ending. And the mediated solution is quite circular for this reason. In existential theology, Christ is always on the same plain as other great leaders. In Barthian dialectic theology, Christ is forever the solution to the tension of this world’s various realities. The circular nature of the spiritual dialectic leaves Christ as part of the equation and never the leg of another developing dialectic circumstance. He is never part of the problem.

Another word for dialectic theology is “biblical theology” and, ooooops, we are have come full circle, back to Barth. He saw his theology as “biblical theology.” Perhaps, the profundity of that description included the idea of the dialectic as we have described. Perhaps he was not such a simpleton, in this description (ie “biblical theology”), as some have supposed.

Conclusions

The weakness of a linear theology is found in the disappointment of promises not yet fulfilled -- in a historical sense. The very opposite is true for a dialectic or biblical theology. Unfulfilled promises are to be expected. They are part of a dynamic (read: dialectic) record that is measured in terms that are other than purely historical.

Further, an existential theology sets the created above the revelation. And, when the revelation does not work for the existential theologian, that part of the revelation is amended or disregarded altogether. The sense of a sovereign God is lost. The created becomes sovereign and confusion is enhanced.

With a dialectic view of revelation, problems are to be expected and time is allowed for the resolution of any particular problem. The dialectic theologian is not compelled to place himself above what has been revealed, or above the Revealer, Himself. He is not threatened by ambiguity. Rather, he learns to appreciate the idea that ambiguity may be ordained of God. Think about it, if ambiguity was not an embedded feature of the revealed word of God, the student/disciple would have no reason to return to the written word except to refresh her memory. The fact of the matter is quite different. It is more than a common experience of the student/disciple to read scripture over and over again, with the same conclusion in mind, and then, suddenly realize that that scripture has a very different application.

This editor read Galatians 3:26,27 for years, decades even, with the view that adoption was the provision of water baptism: "For in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God, through faith because as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." In recent years, I have come to believe that the baptism referenced in the Galatians passage has to do with an "immersion into Christ" that finds myself clothed in his person: "For as many of you as have been immersed into Christ -- as opposed to a baptism into water -- have put on Christ."

The point? It is not that I was wrong and now I am right !! That is far too existential for me. Rather, it is that God worked his will in my life with the former understanding and, now, he continues his work, using the latter. Apart from the continuing work of a living God in Christ, the scriptures have no esoteric and foundational meaning for the individual except for the opinionated rantings of the popular theologies of the time.

The existential thinker needs to understand and move on. He believes that in every way, day by day, he is getting better and better. The dialectic theologian needs only to obey what has been given him knowing that good things are yet to some -- often, from the same realities. "Getting better" is neither the goal nor a measured reality for the "biblical" theologian, only surrender to the command of God in his life, as he understands that command at the time.

There is a secular myth making the rounds: atheists know more about matters biblical than do Christians. Here is our repsonse.

2010-10-19T13:23:00.000-07:00

Who knows more about faith, an atheist or a disciple ? The answer may surprise you. Maybe not.

First, the ridiculous headline and story:

Americans fail basic religion test; atheists score high

Not entirely surprised by this one, except for Catholics not understanding transubstantiation. I mean, you hear it in every mass. Should be hard to miss. At any rate, this once again proves that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than many proponents of those religions. Know-it-alls (again, these brief comments are not ours - jds).

**********

Editor's notes: Taking the overall test results, the godless among us, bless their disbelieving hearts, are making the claim that they know more about religion that do the very religious.

The storyline in the Dallas Morning News includes these words:

If you have a factual question about religion, you might want to ask an atheist. A new survey of Americans shows that atheists and agnostics rank with Jews and Mormons as the top-performing groups in religious knowledge.

So, how did this happen? Atheists and agnostic scoring higher than Christians proving, of course, just how stupid rightwing religious nuts really are.

Nonsense. Here are the actual questions.

Pew Forum Religious Knowledge Questions

Questions below have been paraphrased for brevity; most response options were rotated. See topline survey results (Appendix B) for exact wording and question order.

Note: to enlarge print, hold down "ctrl" and tap the "+" key.

Bible
What is the first book of the Bible? (Open-ended)
What are the names of the first four books of the New Testament, that is, the four Gospels? (Open-ended)
Where, according to the Bible, was Jesus born? Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nazareth or Jericho?
Which of these is NOT in the Ten Commandments? Do unto others…, no adultery, no stealing, keep Sabbath?
Which figure is associated with remaining obedient to God despite suffering? Job, Elijah, Moses or Abraham?
Which figure is associated with leading the exodus from Egypt? Moses, Job, Elijah or Abraham?
Which figure is associated with willingness to sacrifice his son for God? Abraham, Job, Moses or Elijah?

Elements of Christianity
What is Catholic teaching about bread and wine in Communion? They become body and blood, or are symbols?
Which group traditionally teaches that salvation is through faith alone? Protestants, Catholics, both or neither?
Was Mother Teresa Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Mormon?
What is the name of the person whose writings and actions inspired the Reformation? Luther, Aquinas or Wesley?
Who was a preacher during the First Great Awakening? Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney or Billy Graham?

Elements of Judaism
When does the Jewish Sabbath begin? Friday, Saturday or Sunday?
Was Maimonides Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or Mormon?

Elements of Mormonism
When was the Mormon religion founded? After 1800, between 1200 and 1800, or before 1200 A.D.?
The Book of Mormon tells of Jesus appearing to people in what area? The Americas, Middle East or Asia?
Was Joseph Smith Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu?

World Religions
Is Ramadan the Islamic holy month, the Hindu festival of lights or a Jewish day of atonement?
Do you happen to know the name of the holy book of Islam? (Open-ended)
Which religion aims at nirvana, the state of being free from suffering? Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam?
Is the Dalai Lama Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic or Mormon?
In which religion are Vishnu and Shiva central figures? Hinduism, Islam or Taoism?
What is the religion of most people in India? Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian?
What is the religion of most people in Pakistan? Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian?
What is the religion of most people in Indonesia? Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian?
Who is the king of Gods in Greek mythology? Zeus, Mars or Apollo?

Atheism and Agnosticism
Is an atheist someone who does NOT believe in God, believes in God, or is unsure whether God exists?
Is an agnostic someone who is unsure whether God exists, does NOT believe in God, or believes in God?

Religion in Public Life
What does Constitution say about religion? Separation of church and state, emphasize Christianity, or nothing?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher lead a class in prayer?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher read from the Bible as an example of literature?
According to the Supreme Court, can a public school teacher offer a class comparing the world’s religions?

More notes from the editor: allow this editor to ask a few questions of his own (he has a point in mind).
1. What is the significance of Christ being Son of God and Son of Man ?
2. Why the virgin birth?
3. Is the positioning of a disciple one of law or one of relationships?
4. Explain your answer to #2.
5. Which Old Testament figure is described as our father in faith?
6. Did he live by faith in ALL of life's business?
7. Who is the "first man Adam"?
8. Who is the "second man Adam"?
9. Is "father God" a doctrine of the Old Testament?
10. What is the meaning of "atonement?"
11. Is Christ the "king of the Jews" or the "King of the world?"
12. Did Christ expect people to follow the rules of the Sermon on the Mount?
13. Which mediates salvation, the Church or the living Christ?
14. Name three notable differences between the American, Jonathan Edwards' theology and that of the . . . . ........European, Karl Barth.
15. True or false: Joseph Smith died in a gunfight with angry "locals."
16. True or false: Christ died in a fight with angry Jews.
17. True or false: atheists believe in the eternity of matter and motion.
18. True or false: the "big bang theory" is a scientific fact.
19. True or false: Man supposed descended from lung fish.
20. True or false: evolution has no explanation, biologically speaking, for the existence of a "conscience."
21. True or false: there is proof of evolution in species larger than one centimeter.

We could go on. The point being this --- anybody can draft a "test" that makes a specific point. Our questionaire might prove that only Barthian students know what is going on in matters religious.

Silliness.

The Christian faith is not about the quantification of knowledge. It is about the development of a relationship with God. How much knowledge does a two year child have of her parents comings and goings? Does THAT have anything to do with the child being a person in full relationship with her parents ?

Again, the secular questionnaire is so much silliness. End of story.

The slow task of upgrading our essays continues.

2010-09-30T20:38:00.000-07:00

See our revised updated interpretation Matthew 6:33

Calvin, Barth, and Reformed Theology

Participation in Christ

The Humanity of Christ

The reviews of the above are fairly comprehensive. Add to the above, the review and our notes in the post following this posting.

Barth and Schleiermacher, a book review ------ with a few personal notes.

2010-09-29T23:03:00.000-07:00

The following is taken from an extensive review of the book, Barth and Schleiermacher.

Matthias Gockel has provided his readers with a highly learned and accurate exposition of the doctrines of election developed by the two giants of modern Protestant theology. Moreover, he has done far more than this. He has shown to be true what von Balthasar told us more than fifty years ago, a lesson that far too many Barth scholars have unfortunately forgotten (or perhaps have chosen to neglect):

“Barth cannot be understood unless we see how his point of departure was determined by Schleiermacher, who gave him during the years of his theological formation the conceptual tools for his own thought. But even more than that, Schleiermacher gave Barth a powerful intuition into the unity, grandeur and totality of theology as a scientific discipline.” (Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth, trans. Edward T. Oakes; Ignatius Press, 1992, p. 199).

In other words, if one is to understand Barth correctly, then one must travel the road to, through, and only then from Schleiermacher. Gockel has admirably lead us along this path, narrating the turns and dead ends and finally directing us forward in ways faithful to, albeit critically reparative of, both Barth and Schleiermacher. Gockel’s book will hopefully lead contemporary theologians to see that it is high time the so-called impasse between Barth and Schleiermacher be set aside so that protestant theologians can get on with the task of serving the Church in its proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ. One can only hope (and pray!) that future Barth scholars will follow Gockel and, in so doing, hasten the death of the unreflective Barthian scholasticism and historically ignorant Neo-Orthodox readings that continue to plague English-language Barth studies. READ THE FULL AND LENGTHY REVIEW >>>>>>>

Editor's notes: we have highlighted a clause above suggesting that understanding Barth is some sort of necessity. This editor has been a student of Barth for some six years. During that time, he has sought to gain an understanding of Barth on two levels; his theological conclusions and the influences in his life that may or may not have contributed to his thinking. He studied for nearly 4 years before reading a biography or studying anything outside of the CDs and the recorded meetings at Princeton during Barth's only American visit. This editor does not feel disadvantaged in the effort of the first four years.

Having written that, we hasten to admitted to a fairly involved study on the subject of "dialectic." At some point, one needs to understand Barth's use of dialectic and appreciate the difference between the Pastor's use of dialectic and Hegel's.

Secondly, one is benefited in knowing of Barth's struggle to free himself of the existential influences in his younger life. Barth does not consider the revelation of God to man via Jesus of Nazareth to be an existential event, in and of itself. While that may be debated, it is not debated on this blog. Neither does Barth consider the illuminating influences of God to be existential in nature.

Our recommendation as to the reading and understanding of Barth? Start with the Doctrine of the Word of God and stay with those two volumes until you fully understand what Barth is thinking. We are not embarrassed to admit that we were in those first two volumes for nearly two years before we felt comfortable in our understanding of what the good pastor was about.

Ambiguity and absolute truth

2010-09-23T10:31:00.000-07:00

Here at Barth and the Boyz, we have made this somewhat of a theme, namely, that ambiguity as relates to the biblical message is the design of God. Karl Barth was a dialectic theologian. He once wrote: If you ask me about God, and if I am ready to tell about Him, dialectic is all that can be expected of me. Neither my affirmation nor my denial lays claim to being God's truth. Neither is more than a witness to that Truth which stands in the centre between very Yes and No. "

Understand that it is the ambiguity of the biblical message that keeps us coming back to the written word of God and that ambiguity is embedded in the "dialectic" tone of the biblical message. Most of us, students of the written Word, have had the frustrating experience of having worked out a specific point of theology only to wake up to a particular verse, 5 years down the road, that "fouls everything up" as relates to that "specific point of theology."

We were "just fine" with salvation by faith APART from the works of the law until we read James telling us, "So then, we see that faith only saves no one (James 2). We were "just fine" with the sinner's prayer until we read the verse, "Baptism doeth also now save us" (I Pet 3:21). We were "just fine" with the notion that Christ did not come to abolish but to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17-20) until we read Ephesians 2:13-15 ( [he] destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.) We were "just fine" with the death of the old man (Romans 6: 1-12 ) until Paul made it clear that the "old man" was co-existent with the "new man" (Eph 4:22).

If you are asking, "what is a dialectic?" --- well, you just read several examples. Each demonstrates the complexity of the biblical message. Being that it (the message) comes from God, we should not expect the Message to be less than complex.

To quote Thomas Torrance, " "Dialectical theology stands for the fact that toward the Truth itself, all our statements must remain essentially open, in humble acknowledgment of the fact that it is not in our competence to capture the Truth or to enclose it in our formulations . . . . (Karl Barth, p87).

The point of this post:

1. Because revealed truth is presented in paradoxical terms, we should expect problems in our exegesis and the apparent "contradiction" from time to time. In fact, we should allow for the fact that our exegesis is never the final answer, that there remains the need to approach the next bible study, our next bible study, as if we were reading for the first time.

2. This second point is one of those points of which I am mentally aware but [perhaps] not capable of putting into words. It seems to me, that "absolute truth" is only the possession of Almighty God because only he has the capacity of identifying such truth. He is larger than the truth he considers; we are not. In a sense, God can see the outer limits of "truth" and, thus only he can determine truth to be "absolute." Understand that a "truth" is "absolute truth," if it is not open ended in any respect. There can be nothing that effects the conclusion of a particular proposition if it is absolutely true.

Is it not more than interesting that the "unbelieving" existential crowd is the one making the argument against "absolute truth?"

Ambiguity, then, works to accomplish two things: for the unbeliever, it leaves the door wide open for a reasonable consideration of “God,” and, for the believer, it keeps him coming back to the written word, over and over again.

This editor believes that ambiguity is by the design of God. He can't prove it but only because he is not larger than the truth he discusses.

Barth and the Ascension: A book review

2010-09-09T12:59:00.000-07:00

Editor's notes: in my studies of Barth, I have found that the great pastor [relatively] seldom spoke of the ascension separately. In his mind, the ascension belonged to the story of the Resurrection. It is the resurrection/ascension that gives us the Living Christ and is, therefore, the vehicle moving us into an effectual and ontic presentation of the Living Word.

We hasten to add that this must not be considered an apologetic positioning that might read: We believe in the living Christ. Such demands a resurrection and, unless one believes Christ walks this earth today as he did before, there must have been a literal ascension, as well.

That is not the way Barth thinks. Barth does not reason the ascension into existence. He believes it to be a revealed fact and accepts it for that reason. Because of the fact of the resurrection/ascension, the doctrine of the living and indwelling Christ of God is enhanced or "made possible."

Understand that Barth begins with the Christ of God, revealed in scripture and history and begins his theology with the Christ Revealed. In Barth, "Christ" is the sovereign fact of theology, not our reasoning as to his existence or to any bit of understanding as regards Christ. To argue otherwise, makes our understanding the sovereign consideration, not the independent and living Word of God.

The reality of Christ is true for the very same reasons your children claim a knowledge of you. . . . apart from any reasoned discussion. You believe in your parent because of the relationship you have with your parent. If someone were to demand, "Prove it" you probably would feel no compunction at all to oblige that demand. Ditto "me, Christ, and your demand." Such is the context of the Barthian view on ascension. Note: I have purposely written this intro before reading the following. It is my impression of Barth. More than that, it is my theology.

That is what is so rewarding with a study of Karl Barth. He gives us an opportunity to develop our own theology. He would be proud of this notion. - jds

The Ascension in Karl Barth A book review

Andrew Burgess, The Ascension in Karl Barth (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 209. $99.95

Reviewed by Benjamin Myers, University of Queensland

Douglas Farrow’s 1999 work on Ascension and Ecclesia has gone a long way towards reviving interest in the theological significance of Jesus’ ascension. In a more recent article in the International Journal of Systematic Theology, Farrow suggests that Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics IV is “one of the major works of ascension theology” – and in this study, Andrew Burgess seeks to develop this suggestion by demonstrating that the concept of “ascension” plays an important role throughout the Church Dogmatics.

Although Barth does not often explicitly speak of Jesus’ ascension, Burgess proposes that the ascension functions as “a presupposition in Barth’s thought” (p. 23), and he argues that this presupposition has far-reaching implications for the whole dogmatic structure of Barth’s theology. For Barth, “the ascension informs a dynamic of presence and absence – Jesus Christ’s coincident presence and absence during ‘this time between’” (p. 19). The church is the community that exists in this “time between,” in the dialectical space between Christ’s presence and absence. Burgess therefore highlights the significance of ascension in Barth’s conception of time. Through his lordly agency, Jesus “reaches into the lives of His people … in such a way that they are now made to share His time” (p. 38). Barth’s whole account of ecclesiology and Christian life is thus structured by this view of the church’s existence in the “time between.”

One of Burgess’ most interesting suggestions is that Barth’s fundamental disagreement with both Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant ecclesiology rests in part on different conceptions of Jesus’ risen lordship: Roman Catholic theology places too much emphasis on the identity between the life of Jesus and the institutional church, while liberal Protestant theology places too much emphasis on the faith of the individual believer as the locus of God’s presence (pp. 101-2). In contrast, Barth wants to differentiate as sharply as possible between the agency of the risen Jesus and the agency of the Christian community.

After tracing the function of the ascension throughout the Church Dogmatics, Burgess brings Barth’s theology into dialogue with T. F. Torrance, Douglas Farrow and Robert W. Jenson. He critiques Jenson’s conception of Jesus’ presence in the Christian community, Farrow’s conception of Jesus’ eucharistic presence, and Torrance’s notion of Jesus’ high-priestly work in heaven – and in each case, he argues that Barth’s own dialectical emphasis on the church’s existence “between the times” provides a more reliable basis for ecclesiological reflection.

All in all, Burgess offers an interesting new way of reading Barth’s theology, and he rightly highlights the importance of the agency of the risen Jesus in Barth’s thought. As an interpretation of Barth, then, this book is valuable. But I have some reservations about Burgess’ attempt to demonstrate the contemporary dogmatic importance of the ascension of Jesus.

In the first place, Burgess is certainly right to point out that some theological projects have suffered from a lack of ascension-theology: for instance, projects in which Jesus is simply assumed to be absent, or in which the risen life of Jesus is simply identified with the practices of the Christian community. In contrast to such approaches, Burgess rightly argues that Jesus is “present” not merely passively or noetically, but “as agent of His [own] reconciliation” (p. 49). Nevertheless, to conceive of this “agency” in terms of an ascended physical body seems rather problematic. I wonder whether it is intelligible – either scientifically or theologically – to speak of the risen Jesus as though he were simply removed to a different spatial location? What does it mean to say that Jesus “departs ‘physically’ in the event of the ascension” (p. 26)? Or that “Jesus is ‘physically’ located somewhere other than the church and sacraments” (p. 187)? Certainly we should distinguish between Jesus’ agency and ecclesial action. But is it meaningful to speak without further ado of a “physical location,” or to give the impression that Jesus is perhaps simply acting from a distance?

As writers like Bultmann and Pannenberg have argued, it is a minimal requirement of all theological statements that they are intelligible within the general framework of what we know about the world. So on the one hand, Christian theology has a right and a responsibility to re-think the concepts of “space” and “time” from the standpoint of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. But on the other hand, the account of space and time that we thus formulate cannot simply be a mythology; as a minimal requirement, it must cohere with what we already know from other sources about the nature of space and time.

In any event, it seems to me that Barth wanted to avoid any form of ascension-mythology when he argued that resurrection and ascension are simply two “moments in one and the same event” (CD IV/2, p. 150). Indeed, as New Testament exegetes have pointed out, the Lucan depiction of a bodily ascension introduces a temporal distinction between ascension and resurrection that was not present in the church’s earliest proclamation (see, e.g., C. F. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament). To speak of the risen one is to speak of the ascended Lord; and to speak of the ascension is to speak of the man whom God raised up from death.

In other words, to say that Jesus is ascended is to make a theological statement about God’s exaltation of the crucified Jesus. It need not be regarded as a quasi-historical description of Jesus’ movement through space, or as a statement about the “physical location” of Jesus. Rather, and more straightforwardly, it is (in Barth’s words) the confession that the crucified and risen Jesus “went to God,” and so entered the “reality [Weltwirklichkeit] by which humans are always surrounded” (CD IV/2, p. 153).

Burgess is right, then, to emphasize the present agency of the risen Jesus, and to distinguish between the agency of this risen one and all forms of ecclesial action. But it seems to me that we can offer a meaningful and sufficiently radical account of this divine agency only by resisting the development of a spatial mythology, and by placing much greater emphasis on the theological unity between resurrection and ascension.

Trinitarian/Incarnational/Ontological explained.

2010-09-03T18:14:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the greatest challenge for a Trinitarian/Incarnational/Ontological theologian (whether professional or layman) is to fashion an applied theology that is able to convert the high-end terminologies of seminary rhetoric into that which the common church is able to understand. In fact, "understanding" is not the end game, either. Rather, at the end of the day, if the Church Common is not incited to victorious living and a desire to share the risen Christ, the particular theology is a failure no matter what we call it.

Trinitarian

When we think of that which is "trinitarian," we are reminded of the sense of shared community that is the eternal existence of the Godhead. Before God made man, he knew of love, caring, judgment and the dynamics of "community" and he knew of these things because they existed within himself; the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father and the Spirit moves in, through, and out of the Father and the Son. Because he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, he is the "third person" but not a "person" in the same way as the others.

Incarnational

When we speak of the Incarnational gospel, we have in mind the "humility" of Christ as described in the opening verses of Philippians, chapter two. God in Christ became man -- Son of God, Son of Man reconciled in the body of the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth. It is humility that allows us to be like him. It is humility that drives our being and gives purpose to our living - that "purpose" is to be like him because he humbled himself to be like us -- " in every way like us," we are told. It is this teaching of the "incarnational gospel" that compels all who hear to move into his life, to transcend our humanity while continuing as human.

Ontological

And then there is that rather unusual word, "ontological." Most in the Church Common has no idea what this is. Understand that "ontic" is a shortened version of the same word. In one online dictionary, we are given this review of ontological : "metaphysical science or study of being." Anyone think this helps to understand the word? This editor believes there is no more useless word in our language than "metaphysical." We will give the reader a definition that seems to work best - for "metaphysical." But, at this moment, forget the word. Our focus in this post and on this blog, is that of an ontological view of life in Christ. "Ontology" is, indeed, the study of being but not simply the "study of being." It is the study of being IN RELATIONSHIP to other beings or realities.

Here is a definition that will seem a little too high-minded for most . . . bear with us for a moment: speaking of "ontology," we have this: In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal representation of the knowledge by a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts.** The only part of this quote you need to understand and remember is the last phrase beginning with "and the relationships between . . ." Perhaps it will help if we rewrite that technically definition in this wise: Ontology, in any science, is the study of " bla bla bla AND the relationships between those concepts.

At this point in our post, we focus on the principle of relationships and give this definition in our study: as applied to the revelation of God in Christ, the ontic nature of the gospel is about the living Christ (our state of 'being') and the relationships that necessarily exist because of that state of being. To put it in simpler terms, we cannot consider ourselves "in Christ" apart from our relationship with him and those who comprise his body. Christ in us is our being and the being of the church is, once again, Jesus Christ. We are, collectively, the "body of Christ" and that is true because each of us has an identical personal relationship with the Christ of God that drives us to different heights and profoundly different actions. With the New Covenant, it is no longer the "commandments of God" that drive us to action, but the very command of God, himself, that moves us away from the limitations of law and into relationships with both God and man. The "revealed mystery" mentioned so many times in New Testament scripture is the fact that the barrier between the Jew and everyone else has been torn down. More than this, God in Christ is now approachable for all peoples and every individual.

Christ is our Mediator and our High Priest AND he indwells our person. Let me write the very same thing again -- Christ is our Mediator and our High Priest AND he has a relationship with us. In this indwelling (in this relationship), the God behind the veil is now our God and possession. The veil was torn asunder at Christ's death on the Cross. Three days later, he moved into the life stream of mankind, becoming that which gives life to man before the cross and after the cross. The paradox is that this was so, before the foundations of the world . . . but that is a different matter.

Point of post: perhaps the reader can understand why it so much easier to simply say "Trinitarian" or "Incarnational" or "Ontological." On the other hand, perhaps the theologian can understand the complexities of his theology and the need to preach to the understanding of all.

** Tom Gruber (1993). "A translation approach to portable ontology specifications". In: Knowledge Acquisition. 5: 199-199.

metaphysical = the underpinnings of a concept. Stress factors displayed on a set of plans for a high-rise building appeal to certain concerns in the mind of the architect. One man's factors will be greater than another's, depending on "how safe" the architect wants the building to be. In the above post, "incarnational" is the concept; our explanation of the term is the "metaphysics" of the matter. As you can see, to name our explanation"metaphysical" is to add NOTHING to the discussion. We still have to give the explanation. Calling that explanation names is a waste of time and energy. --- jds

Just One Lord, Just One Faith, Just One Baptism -- we don't think so.

2010-08-29T07:35:00.000-07:00

Eph 4:5 -- " . . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism . . ."

Notes: often this passage is used in discussions as to the nature of baptism, the point being that if there is but one baptism, we had better choose the correct baptism.

We suggest that this passage has little to do with an implicit charge of a "correct" baptism. Why? There is a pronounced dualism with each of the factors presented above: "one Lord" cannot be separated from the Father or the Spirit; "one faith" must allow for the faith of Christ (in which we are saved) and our expressed faith (with which partnership is established) and "one baptism" does not eliminate the post-ascension preaching of both spirit baptism and water baptism.

Perhaps "one" has to do with "true" than it has to do with "one versus all other considerations."

We leave you with the suggestion that, in your bible studies, you leave behind your Western style of thinking, linear in scope and exclusive in nature. The Eastern mind did not think or write in these terms. What the Eastern mind sees as a rhetorical strategy for the sake of emphasis, we see as an exclusive statement of "truth" and in this circumstance, we create problems that should not exist.

Suddenly, we need to submit to the one and true baptism, whether that be spirit or water baptism, adult or infant baptism, baptism for or because of remission of sins.

Suddenly, we need to fully understand Jesus as Lord (as if Jesus can be fully reduced at any level) and are often shocked to find Paul talking as if the Spirit is the Lord (II Cor. 3:18) .

Suddenly, the "one faith" becomes cluttered with several choices: "The Faith," "the faith of the believer," and the role of the faith of Christ in our salvation.

"Suddenly," we are at the center of our own salvation rather than God. "Suddenly" our understanding is sovereign to God's ability to save the sinner IN his fallen nature.

Understand that the constant move of the Western disciple to a reductive theology, implies that God's ways ARE [ultimately] our ways, that His thoughts can be our thoughts (cf. Isaiah 55:8). In this, we, again, make God as small as our thinking.

We need to abandon the notion that "ambiguity" with regard to biblical "knowledge," is to be conquered at all cost, that our salvation is not final unless and until we can reduce God's thinking to an understandable polemic. All of God's language is cast in paradoxical terminologies. Faith stands against works, the old man against the new man, freedom against bondage, miracles against providence, and on and on. In technical terms, these stand in dialectic with Christ as the mediator of the tension between the two opposing factors, whatever the equation might be.

If we allow for "faith and works" to be a dialect, a statement of opposing influences, which they are, in the end and after the most thorough of biblical studies, it is Christ who mediates the differences between the two. After our bible study, we are ALWAYS left with unanswered questions and unanswerable paradoxes. Lurking in the dark shadows of Ambiguity, is a scripture, somewhere, that does not FIT in our well thought out theology. In the end, we need the Mediation of Christ as a resolution to the most basic of Christian thought.

keys: dialectic, Eph ch4 v 5, one baptism, one faith, one lord, paradoxical language

Quotable quote: A Word about Revelation/Dogma

2010-08-27T02:46:00.000-07:00

In so far as dogma is the relation of Revelation to the human word of the Church, it is God's eternal , unchangeable, infallible, definitive Truth, but in so far as it is the relation of the human word of the Church to Revelation, it is temporal, incomplete, changeable, fallible truth. (Thomas Torrance, Karl Barth, p 112.)

In God's economy as relates to the revealed word of God and established in the dogma of the Church, there are two perspectives: one is from God's point of view and the other is of man's. What God in Christ has revealed to man is perfect; what man hears of God is full of imperfections, misconceptions and even untruth. The saving grace in this paradox is the Sovereignty of God and the Ultimate Truth of his revelation.

"Sovereignty" overcomes the deficit inherited because of the fallen nature of man's ability to understand anything and, in this case, God's Truth. "Sovereignty" takes our mistaken view of what He has revealed and puts it to "good use," proving - if you will - that God can bring to completion all that he has set out to accomplish. If he cannot be defeated by our idiocy, we win in Him. In fact, so great is his "sovereignty" in this case, that our fallibility is the very thing that keeps us coming back to His word; it is the very thing that keeps us from slipping away. Such only works in God's economy and proves His divine wisdom.

"Ultimate Truth" gives us a reason to return to the biblical text, the record of God's revelation, with the hope of moving closer to the Truth. It makes little difference whether we finally get "there." Divine Ambiguity demands that we keep coming back to the written Word, allowing the Living Word to make sense of what we cannot fully know. Understand that if "His ways are not our ways" is true, we should not expect to fully understand anything he has revealed nor accomplish anything he has asked of us. Indeed !! If we can understand all that He has in His mind for us; of we can accomplish all of His will for us, then our God is far too small. But if there is ALWAYS more to learn and understand, if there is ALWAYS more to accomplish and room to grow, then our Great God Almighty is ALWAYS relevant, powerful and needed. -- jds

keys: God is too small, sovereignty, Thomas Torrance, ultimate truth

Death and the door to a new hermeneutic

2010-08-24T01:37:00.001-07:00

In working up our daily submissions for Midknight Review (a conservative political blog), we came across this little tidbit:

What If Death Is Simply a Disease Curable by Science?

Editor's notes: as an afternoon update, we only add this thought: death has been woven into the fabric of life because of the reconciliation of Christ. "Death, where is thy sting" is a victory statement. We now have the opportunity to approach death as if it were an escape portal from this fallen world. It was through death that life was secured for all those who care to find themselves in (eis - into) Christ. If we choose to be identified with the first Adam, we inherit the eternal finality of his death because of our own complicity. On the other hand, it is the second man Adam who gives us life through death and challenges us to look forward to what is beyond the portal of personal death.

The headline above presents an interesting thought, but one that is little more than wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that Mankind has the slightest ability to rescue himself from his time-limited existence at any level. In Christ, there is no need to fret this pending circumstance. The issue has already been dealt with - since before the foundations of the world.

. / .

What you see in the middle of this page is a representation of God's perspective with respect to -- you, death, and you again. That is God's perspective and it is one that is forever in present time. He is above it all, looking down on his creation in present time, That is where the Great I Am dwells, present time. He sees life, death and life all at the same time, his time. He does not see the problem that appears from our perspective.

If we were to attempt to picture our perspective, perhaps it would be as simple as drawing a closed door, death being that door. We are "here." Death is "there." And the fact that it [ the door] is closed simply means that we cannot see what is on the other side . . . . . . . . . but there is "another side."

Two perspectives of the same . . . the very same, reality. One is of faith and the other is real.

In due time, we intend to develop what we have begun, here. It will be biblical, not speculative. There is no point in an existential segue into the theological Land of Oz, is there ?

We will be discussing what we know (from scripture) of our time and God's time. We will pursue the fallacy of dualism as we compare it to something we will call "realism." We will concern ourselves with seeking out of an understanding of the value of the two perspective as noted above, ours and God's. Understand that virtually everything given to us in terms of revelation is couched in paradoxical language. The high theologians know this as "dialectic." Faith and works form a dialectic. grace and debt, love and apathy, now and tomorrow, freedom and bondage, death and life -- are all examples of the paradoxical construct we are calling "dialectic." Paul is heavy in the language of the dialectic as is John.

In addition to the paradox of the dialectic, biblical language often couches its terminology in terms of "type" and "substance." The sacrifice of bulls and goats is a type while the substance or anti-type is the sacrifice of Christ. The writer of Hebrews uses this typology to make several of his points. Typology is also seen in the dual interpretation of certain Old Testament prophecies (e.g. Isaiah and the suffering servant) as well as specific historical moments. When Christians read of the promise that Eve's seed will bruise the head of the serpent, they see that historical moment as a type of the historical moment when Christ was raised from the dead, defeating the power of sin and giving all of Mankind hope for an eternal life.

And what will we do with this very unusual collection of information? Apply it to Hermeneutics 501.

All of this because we allowed ourselves to consider the notion of Man's defeat of death. The fantasy of an anonymous author used by Barth and the Boyz as a segue into a developing hermeneutic. Cool.

Updated text: The letter versus the Spirit - what does that actually mean. We may have the answer.

2010-08-22T22:02:00.000-07:00

I have rewritten this article as of 1/27/2012. The original article was little more than a first draft, as it turns out.

I talk much better than I write. I do believe the new article will be worth your time. I trust that the passage of time has helped me to mature as an author.

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6406536925707039853#editor/target=post;postID=7221737982207629262

The article's new title is: The ontological gospel, the test of it singularity and the witness of its dynamic nature.

Is it the commandment of God or the command of God ---- there IS a difference.

2010-08-21T19:49:00.001-07:00

When we consider the effect of law and how we are involved in its perception, two considerations come to mind.

On the one hand, we have law stated in terms of statutes and commands - propositional law. People and even God write this kind of law and you, the citizen of the kingdom, decide whether you will or will not obey. Will I run that red light in an effort to get home early? The ones whom I love, those at home, have little to do with my decision to obey the red light. Of course they are effected by my decision but my personal relationship(s) with them -- at home -- has nothing to do with the traffic laws of the land.

And on the other hand, we have law that is organic in nature – the New Testament scriptures use such terms as “the law of love,” or ‘the law of faith” or the “law of the Spirit.” Some see these as only names for a new or more comprehensive law - as if the word “new” makes law keeping the easier of tasks.

Both forms of law can be put into writing but one can be commanded while the other can only be described -- evangel if you will.

If there are enough statutes, if the details for their keeping are technical enough, obedience to that law becomes most difficult and the mantra, “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” becomes the caution of the day. The power to obey propositional law is found in our ability to know of the law's requirements. And so the one who would be free of conviction must either never venture out or know of the laws content. That person must be studied and capable.

A law that concerns the governance of our inner person, what we think, our emotions, our desires for truth and being -- is ontological in nature and allows for the individual to be open for advancement and guilty of failure at the same time. In this case, success and failure are the bookends of the same human reality. If we are always increasing the new man (Eph 4: 20-23) , there is always room (less and less, of course) for the old man and we are always in need of rescue and strengthening.

Propositional law is something that we can command. Ontological law, the Law of the Spirit, the law of faith and love, is something that commands us. Under the new law, it is no longer the commandment of God that is at our centre but the very command of God, himself. And the Church often has no clue as to how to deal with this new reality.

Jeremiah 31:31-34, one of the most quoted O.T. passages found in New Scripture, makes it clear that the new covenant will "not be similar to" the old - yet, so many of us want the new law and the old law to be about Law and in that desire, institutionalize the notion that the Christian faith is about "may the best man win."

Look, I can act like I love my wife or I can love my wife. The difference? She will know the second an intruder enters the house !!

One is the stuff theologians are made of, the other is the stuff of martyrs.

We regret to report Clark Pinnock's death.

2010-08-18T10:59:00.000-07:00

Clark H. Pinnock's life journey is over. The influential and often controversial evangelical theologian died unexpectedly August 15 of a heart attack. He was 73. In March, the long-time professor of systematic theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, had announced he was withdrawing from public life and revealed that he was battling Alzheimer's disease.

It was a difficult admission for a man whose mercurial mind and openness to the Holy Spirit led him to stake out theological positions that challenged evangelical orthodoxies. Renowned for exploring the frontiers of biblical truth, he was reputed to study carefully, think precisely, argue forcefully, and shift his positions willingly if he discovered a more fruitful pathway of understanding. He said he preferred to be known, "not as one who has the courage of his convictions, but one who has the courage to question them and to change old opinions which need changing."

Born in Toronto in 1937, Pinnock's mind was changing from his youth: His parents were liberal Baptists, but at age 12 converted to the more conservative evangelical faith of his grandmother and Sunday school teacher. After years of involvement in Youth for Christ, the Canadian Keswick Bible Conference, and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Pinnock graduated from the University of Toronto. He went on to study under F. F. Bruce at Manchester University, where he earned his Ph.D.

"My early interest on scholarship came about from an interest in foreign missions, specifically the Wycliffe Bible Translators and therefore the biblical languages being translated into new tongues," he said. "That led me into Hebrew and Greek."

He also came under the influence of Francis Schaeffer and worked for a time at L'Abri. Pinnock came to the United States in 1965 and taught at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, where he became an influential figure in the Southern Baptist Convention's battles over biblical inerrancy. From 1969-1974 he taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and from 1974-1977 at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia.

He arrived at McMaster in 1977 with great hopes of becoming an agent of biblical renewal in what he described as a "comfortable mainline seminary." In his inaugural lecture, he said that evangelical theology must be both conservative and contemporary. "We should strive to be faithful to historic Christian belief taught in Scripture, and at the same time be authentic and responsible to contemporary hearers.". . . . . .

His career goal was to help the church worship God "with freedom, to experience the truth of the Bible in fresh ways, and to be able to share the gospel in a more effective and natural manner."

The late Stanley Grenz once observed that Pinnock "has been lauded as an inspiring theological pilgrim by his admirers and condemned as a dangerous renegade by his foes. Yet no story of evangelical theology in the 20th century is complete without the inclusion of his fascinating intellectual journey from quintessential evangelical apologist to anti-Augustinian theological reformist." In his own account of his spiritual journey, Pinnock recounts how he started right, moved left, and then ended up in the center. . . . read the full article

From Theopedia: The two most controversial elements of Pinnock's theology in recent years has been his affirmation of Open Theism and his affirmation of an annihilationist view of hell that says that the unsaved will experience extinction rather than eternal conscious torment. Norman Geisler and Roger Nicole questioned whether Pinnock's views are compatible with the Evangelical Theological Society's affirmation of biblical inerrancy. As a result Pinnock, along with John Sanders, on the issue of whether they should be removed from the membership of that organization was brought to a vote in November 2003. Pinnock maintained that he did affirm the Society's doctrinal statement. After clarifying his views to the satisfaction of Nicole, the motion to remove Pinnock failed to reach the required two-thirds majority by a sizable margin (Sanders was also retained albeit on a close vote). It is fair to say that Pinnock remains a controversial figure among evangelical theologians.

Does your theology allow you say, "Baptism doeth also now save us"? Why?

2010-08-18T07:05:00.001-07:00

Editor's notes: we are including a post written by a good friend, William Taylor, with regard to the baptism of Jesus. Bill deals with the notion that the baptism of Jesus was for an example to those who follow him and nothing more. "He was baptized so we should be baptized" and with that thought, we leave "baptism" in the dust, moving on to the "real" theological issues of discipleship.

Bill deals with one very important aspect on the subject of baptism and forces us to ask, "Is there more ?"

"What was in the mind of Jesus as he neared the waters of baptism," as he listened to John preach "repentance into remission of sins," as he (Jesus) decided to participate in this baptism, as he entered and submitted, and as his eternal Sonship/deity was proclaimed by none other than God himself? Is there any sort of "ontological" component to the practice of water baptism that does not "violate" the idea of salvation apart from works? Perhaps most importantly, we ask, "Why does our theology keep us from writing 'baptism doeth also now save us' (I Per.3:21)? What have we missed when we answer the question, "Shall we sin more that grace may abound?" with words and thoughts that do not include baptism (see Romans 6:2ff)? Or, at another level, would any of us ever preach "Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins . . . ." ? Who among us would ever craft a sentence such as this: "For all of you are sons of God by faith for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:26-27).

To end any further discussion of baptism with the claim that "baptism is clearly an example," is to ignore the questions above. Understand that Barth and the Boyz believes in the separation of faith and works but wonders if that position means there is nothing more to be learned from the biblical teaching on baptism. If you have never looked into the eyes of another and said, "Baptism also saves you," what is missing in your theology, what allows Peter to make this statement and prevents you from doing the same?

We open our discussion on water baptism with Bill Taylor's brief discussion, below:
Note: to enlarge the text, depress the "Ctrl" key and tap on the "+=" key.

What is the significance of Jesus' baptism? Is it as many evangelicals teach simply a baptism of example? He was baptized, therefore we should follow his example and be baptized likewise. This, I submit is probably not the case. I believe that Jesus' baptism was more than one of example; rather his was a vicarious baptism on our behalf.

Let us look first at the nature of John's baptism and then ask, if it was by example, what in the world was Jesus even doing in those waters. The Gospel of Mark states that “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (1.4). And in the Gospel of Matthew, John himself says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance” (3.11). So the purpose of John's baptism was very narrow and specific: it was a baptism of repentance, and more specifically one “for” or “unto” (Greek eis, perhaps meaning “into”) the remission of sins. The Greek word for “remission” (ephasin) is interesting in that it coveys a variety of meanings, ranging from release, liberation, or deliverance, to pardon or cancellation of debt, to that of forgiveness and cancellation of guilt (Friberg's lexicon). In the context of John's baptism, “remission” is probably in reference to a pardon or cancellation of guilt, perhaps even to forgiveness, for one's sins. Repentance here probably means a turning away from sins or a sinful way of life to a new walk in holiness.

The question is, if John's is a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, then what is Jesus thinking when he enters those waters to be baptized? Jesus was not a sinner; he had no “sins.” He therefore had nothing to repented of, and he certainly did not need forgiveness, pardon, or the cancellation of any guilt. Why was he there? John was obviously baffled by it all. In fact, Matthew records that “John tried to prevent Him” from being baptized, stating, “I need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?" (3.14). Indeed John, knowing who Jesus was, recognized that Jesus was not a candidate for his form of baptism.

Jesus' answer: "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." My question is, given the nature of John's baptism and Jesus' response, How is the baptism of Jesus an example? When interpreting Scripture it is always important to look first at immediate context before extrapolating a broader meaning. It seems significant to me that at the time of Jesus' baptism he had no one to be an example to. He had no followers at that time. In fact, on the very day of Jesus' baptism, John said, “There stands One among you whom you do not know” (John 1.26). Jesus, at the time of his baptism, was an unknown. His baptism signified the beginning of his ministry, long before he had crowds of followers. And so again we must ask, Who was he an example to? As to broader context: Was he really thinking down the road, as it were, to that day when his baptism would become an example to others, to us? I don't really think so. I think the baptism-for-example explanation is probably fairly weak.

Let us look now at what I mean when I say that Jesus' baptism was a vicarious act. By that I mean to say that he went into the water on our behalf. His baptism was our baptism, so to speak. His “repentance” was our repentance, a repentance done on our behalf. We read throughout the New Testament that Jesus actually stands in for us in matters related to salvation. He in becoming incarnate became representative man for us. He said, for example, “I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified...” (Joh 17.19). He did what we in ourselves are incapable of doing, our acts of holiness or righteousness being unworthy. Look with me at another example of Jesus standing in for us. 1 Corinthians 1.30 states, “But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God -- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” He became these thing for us.

Let us step back for a moment and set the stage. Jesus commenced his ministry by being baptized in the waters of the Jordan into a life of conflict with evil. It led directly to his baptism in blood upon the cross, not for himself, but for us. And this is no stretch of imagination. Jesus spoke of his death on the cross as his baptism: “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and what constraint I am under until the ordeal is over" (Luk 12:50). He says to the disciples, “Can you be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” (Mar 10:38). Therefore we must not think of his "baptism" as just a metaphor for suffering. It is instead the reality at the heart of the Gospel, signified by the rite of baptism. It is by his baptism for us at the cross, his atoning death and his resurrection, that he forgives and sanctifies and secures our righteousness in adoption. Thus in it we also find the basis for St. Paul's language of being “buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6.4).

And so when Jesus saw the people going down into the river to be baptized by John, confessing their sins, submitting to the verdict of guilty (which is repentance), Jesus said in essence to John, Baptize me! I will submit to the verdict of guilty for them! There he identified himself with sinners, that he might take their place as their substitute under the judgment of God. From out of those waters he marched to the cross to be baptized for us. The Gospel is that Christ was baptized in blood on the cross, once and for all, one for all, the one on behalf of the many, the many in the one. In this way, his death was our death, his burial our burial, his resurrection our resurrection, his baptism for us our baptism. We are baptized in response to the love of the Father. Ours is grounded in the substitution of the Son, not as a result of an example set for us.

When Jesus came to John to be baptized, he came on our behalf. There in baptism's waters he became our repentance. Our sins are remitted because of his vicarious act in our place. Why was he baptized? Because it was fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.

Bill

Torrance on Atonement -- A fellow layman offers this summary view. Who needs those stinking theologians ??

2010-08-14T17:31:00.000-07:00

Editor's notes: Just in case some of you are offended with the "stinking . . ." comment; just having a little fun. We are not anti-intellectuals here at Barth and the Boyz. We do think, however, it is "anti-intellectual" to suggest that only "intellectuals" have something to add to the theology of the moment. Disagree? Go looking for Pastor Barth's credentials and get back to us. -- J Smithson :--)

John, I will be sending you the full text on Torrance's view of Christ's atonement and its universal sweep, but in the meantime I thought I would try to summarize some of his main points as they find their basis in the Old Testament themes of redemption. I hope this will be a helpful introduction to his thought. You may forward this on to Julie if you like.

Torrance begins his teaching on atonement with the following words.

One of the first things we have to say both about Jesus' teaching that he came to give his life as a ransom for many, as well as about his teaching on the new covenant in his blood, is that it is given in a setting in which Jesus is profoundly conscious of the constraint of the will of God upon him. That is not simply a constraint that arises out of his direct consciousness of the Father's will, but a constraint laid upon him by the revelation of the Father's will in the scriptures of the Old Testament. He has come to fulfill the will of God manifested in covenant relation with Israel, and therefore he spoke of himself as having to fulfill the Old Testament Scriptures.

Christ's fulfillment of OT themes of atonement:

Jesus Christ himself explained that he had come as a servant to give his life in an act of sacrifice for humanity. Thus resting on Christ's own self-interpretation, the New Testament concept of redemption assumes a central role in the doctrine of atonement. In order to clarify the term atonement, we must turn to the OT. Behind the OT conception of atoning redemption there are three basic terms and their cognates (words descended from the same language or form). Although all three denote different aspects of divine redemption they are all profoundly interrelated.

1) Kipur — Together with its cognates kipur is applied to express the expiatory form of the act of redemption in the OT. It speaks of the barrier of sin and guilt which exists between God and humanity as being done away by the sacrifice and propitiation made between the two factions. Here, the subject of the atoning act is always God. Thus even though in the OT it is liturgically carried out by a high priest, the human act has to be seen as only a witness to the fact that God himself makes atonement and blots out sin by his own judicial and merciful act. Both God's judgment of wrong by offering an equivalent and the act of restoration to holiness before him are involved here in the understanding of atonement. This is brought out most clearly in the NT where we see Christ stand in as both Priest and Mediator (e.g., "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Heb. 2.17). In the NT Christ stands in also as the sacrificial offering, wherein Christ is seen to be the sacrifice as offered to God by the high priest (he being the lamb slain from the creation of the world).

2) Pedah — Together with its cognates pedah is applied to express the aspect of the mighty acts of God in the OT concept of redemption. Significantly these acts bring immediate deliverance from oppression of evil and out of God's judgment upon it. It also carries the notion of offering a life in substitution for another as the cost of redemption and emphasizes the dramatic nature of the redeeming act as a sheer intervention on the part of God in human affairs. When the NT writers speak of Christ in terms of achieving victory over the tyrants – sin, death, devil, the world, and the curse of the Law – they have in view the pedah aspect of atoning redemption; e.g., "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil;" (Heb 2.14). Thus Christ stands in on humanity's behalf and vicariously makes his victory over the tyrants our victory as well. Christ in the pedah aspect of atonement is, as the Latin's phrased it, Chritus Victor.

3) Go’el — Together with its cognates go’el is used to express the aspect of someone redeeming another (see Ruth and Boaz) or others (see David against Goliath in his representation and redemption of Israel) out of a situation of bondage or forfeited rights. The "kinsmen redeemer" or go’el, upon whom the emphasis is placed in this type of redemption, possesses a bloodline kinship to those in need, and can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. This ontological concept of redemption is applied in the OT to God acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of its special covenant relationship. That covenant was, of course, fulfilled in Christ in that he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and David, and the entire human race by way of his kinship attachment to Eve. Thus in recapitulation – i.e., to “re-head-up” humanity (see Eph 1.10) – Christ is go'el as the second Adam in his representation of humanity as the second of two who were qualified to stand in on humanity's behalf, Christ accomplishing what the first was disqualified from doing (see e.g., the gathering together language of Eph. 1-2; Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15; see also Heb 2.14a – "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same").

As mentioned before, these three concepts of redemption not only overlap each other in the teachings of the OT, they also modify each other within the unique relations of God with his people. It is significant that all three concepts are applied in the OT paradigm event of divine redemption: Israel's redemption from Egypt in the Passover and the Exodus. In Isaiah these three concepts are also applied to God's Servant – the Holy One of Israel – who offers himself for the transgressions of Israel and intercedes for them.

However, it must be noted that the Israelites did not identify this servant with the divine go’el (as in kinsmen redeemer) because the idea of God becoming incarnate within the fabric of humanity seemed remote to them (Not only was it remote but it was entirely missed throughout the old covenant period, as witnessed in the crucifixion of their “LORD” and Messiah – see Acts 2). This identification was left to be made in the NT in God's incarnate Son – as seen, for example, in Jesus' interpretation of himself as the Son of Man who gives his life as a ransom for many. In doing so, the NT reinterpreted this OT concept of redemption in terms of what the Son of God had actually become and had actually done while in the flesh, the flesh of a Jew, a kinsmen of Israel.

Bill

(William Taylor)

Barth and universalism - edited and reposted from Barth and the Boyz - the Library.

2010-08-09T06:47:00.000-07:00

The article was taken from The Fire and the Rose , a David Congdon webpage. Understand that Congdon probably goes too far in assigning "universalism" to Barth unless one believes it possible to be a universalist without believing in universalism. The reader might go to our right hand column and click on Barth and the Boyz - the Library for this article AND the rather interesting discussion in "comments" that followed -- editor.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Why I Am A Universalist, § 5: The Doctrine of God, Part 4: The Doctrine of Election (Section IV)
Section IV: The election of the individual

Karl Barth says all that needs to be said on the subject of individual salvation in one lengthy passage from § 35 of the Church Dogmatics. If you are looking for Barth’s most clear and unequivocal endorsement of universalism, look no further. It is important to note that in this passage, he speaks about how the church community should present the Good News to unbelievers, to those who reject God entirely. He speaks first about the godlessness within the church and then about the godlessness of those who remain outside of it. What Barth says here has important ramifications for how we conceive of ecclesiology, to which we will return at a later time.
This, then, is the message with which the elect community (as the circumference of the elect man, Jesus of Nazareth) has to approach every man—the promise, that he, too, is an elect man.
It is fully aware of his perverted choice.
It is fully aware of his godlessness.
It consists itself of godless men who were enabled to hear and believe this promise, and who still need to hear and believe it.
It does and must reckon continually with the original godlessness of its members. It is fully aware, too, of the eternal condemnation of the man who is isolated over against God, which is unfailingly exhibited by the godlessness of every such man.
It knows what his perverse choice must cost him. It knows of the threat under which he stands. It knows of the wrath and judgment and punishment of God in which the rejection of the man isolated over against God takes its course.
And it also knows of the shadow into which every man does actually move because he desires and undertakes at all costs to be a man isolated, and therefore rejected, in relation to God; because he behaves and conducts himself at all costs as though he were this rejected man.But it knows, above all, about Jesus Christ. It is the community founded by His death and resurrection.
It belongs to Him as His property.
Its existence is defined by witness to Him. It proclaims Him and nobody and nothing else.
It knows men, therefore, only to the extent that it knows Jesus Christ. And so it knows the full extent of their godlessness, and the rejection that accompanies it.
But it knows something greater than that.
And it knows even that only in relation to this greater thing.
It knows what has become of this threat, how and where it has been executed.

It knows that God, by the decree He made in the beginning of all His works and ways, has taken upon Himself the rejection merited by the man isolated in relation to Him; that on the basis of this decree of His the only truly rejected man is His own Son; that God’s rejection has taken its course and been fulfilled and reached its goal, with all that that involves, against this One, so that it can no longer fall on other men or be their concern. [...] Their concern is still to be aware of the threat of their rejection. But it cannot now be their concern to suffer the execution of this threat, to suffer the eternal damnation which their godlessness deserves. Their desire and their undertaking are pointless in so far as their only end can be to make them rejected. And this is the very goal which the godless cannot reach, because it has already been taken away by the eternally decreed offering of the Son of God to suffer in place of the godless, and cannot any longer be their goal.This is the contradiction with which the community opposes the godless, who do not know all this.

It testifies to them that the way in which they find themselves was aimless even before they entered upon it; that their desire and undertaking were nullified before the world began. The revelation of this contradiction is the basis of the community itself. How can it meet any other man otherwise than with this contradiction? But it knows more than this.

It knows that God has removed the merited rejection of man, and has laid it upon His own Son, so that He might draw man to Himself and clothe him with His own glory. It knows that God is gracious to man, not only in a negative sense, not only by the removal of his rejection, but positively, in that He elects him. Indeed, the first and essential thing that He has decreed for him in His Son is his election to covenant with Him. He loves His enemies, the godless: not because they are godless; not because they seek to be free of Him; but because He will not let them break away; because in consequence they cannot really break away from Him. What is laid up for man is eternal life in fellowship with God. (CD II.2, 318-19; paragraph breaks added for readability)

Karl Barth’s argument rests on the “But” in the second paragraph: “But it [the community] knows, above all, about Jesus Christ.” This could be a summary of Barth’s entire theological program. Jesus Christ is “above all” human concerns about our eternal state, because in Jesus all concerns are rendered null and void. In him we have our answer. In him we hear the promise of God to each individual: Because you were there in my Son—because he stood in your place—you are my beloved, my elect. This is the gospel, the “good news” which we must proclaim to the world: We belong to God, and to no one else—especially not to ourselves. No one can escape the gracious grasp of the Holy One in our midst (Hos. 11:9), the God who “loves in freedom” and displayed this holy love in the incarnation of Jesus Christ as the realization of God’s infinite grace. The verdict has been given, and Jesus took upon himself the punishment which we deserved. Apart from God we are doomed to perish. But we are never apart from God, because God claims us as God’s beloved children. Thus we may rejoice! We are not lost. We are not guilty. Our lives are hidden with God and we are promised an eternity of fellowship with our Creator as the special guests at the banquet table. Whether we all know it or not, we are invited as the elect of God, no longer rejected as God’s enemies. God determined before the creation of the world that we would share in the wedding feast for all eternity. And so we shall! Praise be to God!

After reading this passage, I am reminded of the quote I posted earlier on grace, from CD II.1:
Grace in itself means primarily that the sin of the creature, the resistance which it opposes to God, cannot check, weaken or render impossible the operation of divine grace. On the contrary, grace shows its power over and against sin.Grace, in fact, presupposes the existence of this opposition. It reckons with it, but does not fear it. It is not limited by it. It overcomes it, triumphing in this opposition and the overcoming of it. (355)

Karl Barth proves to be a theologian of grace from beginning to end—the grace of God’s self-revelation, God’s gracious being-in-act as the “one who loves in freedom,” and now God’s election of Jesus Christ as the divine election of grace for all humanity. What is significant is that this grace is not only connected to God’s wrath and judgment but is, in fact, realized in God’s judgment of sin on the cross in the person of Jesus Christ.I close now with a selection from an earlier section in CD II.2, but one which connects the election of individuals to the topic that will be presented next: Jesus Christ as the Judge judged in our place. Barth does not address this fully until the fourth volume, under the doctrine of reconciliation. So with this quote we finally end our discussion of the doctrine of God and move into Christology, reconciliation, justification, and the atonement.

Who is the Elect? He is always the one who “was dead and is alive again,” who “was lost and is found” (Lk. 15.21). That the elected man Jesus had to suffer and die means no more and no less than that in becoming man God makes Himself responsible for man who became His enemy, and that He takes upon Himself all the consequences of man’s action—his rejection and his death. This is what is involved in the self-giving of God. This is the radicalness of His grace. God must let righteousness reign, and He wills to do so. Against the aggression of the shadow-world of Satan which is negated by Him and which exists only in virtue of this negation, God must and will maintain the honour of His creation, the honour of man as created and ordained for Him, and His own honour. God cannot and will not acquiesce in the encroachment of this shadow-world upon the sphere of His positive will, an encroachment made with the fall of man. On the contrary, it must be His pleasure to see that Satan and all that has its source and origin in him are rejected.But this means that God must and will reject man as he is in himself. And He does so. But He does it in the person of the elected man Jesus. And in Him He loves man as he is in himself. He elects Jesus, then, at the head and in the place of all others. The wrath of God, the judgment and the penalty, fall, then, upon Him. And this means upon His own Son, upon Himself: upon Him, and not upon those whom He loves and elects “in Him;” upon Him, and not upon the disobedient. Why not upon the disobedient? Why this interposition of the just for the unjust by which in some incomprehensible manner the eternal Judge becomes Himself the judged? Because His justice is a merciful and for this reason a perfect justice. Because the sin of the disobedient is also their need, and even while it affronts Him it also moves Him to pity. [. . .] That is why He intervened on our behalf in His Son. That is why He did no less. He did not owe it to us to do it. For it was not He but we ourselves in our culpable weakness who delivered us up to Satan and to the divine wrath and rejection. And yet God does it because from all eternity He loves and elects us in His Son, because from all eternity He sees us in His Son as sinners to whom He is gracious.For all those, then, whom God elects in His Son, the essence of the free grace of God consists in the fact that in this same Jesus God who is the Judge takes the place of the judged, and they are fully acquitted, therefore, from sin and its guilt and penalty. Thus the wrath of God and the rejection of Satan and his kingdom no longer have any relevance for them. On the contrary, the wrath of God and the rejection of Satan, the free course of divine justice to which God Himself has subjected Himself on their behalf, has brought them to freedom. In the One in whom they are elected, that is to say, in the death which the Son of God has died for them, they themselves have died as sinners. And that means their radical sanctification, separation and purification for participation in a true creaturely independence, and more than that, for the divine sonship of the creature which is the grace for which from all eternity they are elected in the election of the man Jesus. (CD II.2, 124-25; paragraph breaks added for readability)
Posted by David W. Congdon at 10:53 PM
Labels: election, universalism

Prologue to Barth and the Boyz

2010-08-09T06:33:00.000-07:00

Some Introductory Thoughts
Not everyone is ready for Karl Barth. I couldn't begin to understand all that I was reading, but the bits and pieces that I did understand brought me back to the biblical message, over and over again. More than that, it set my mind to thinking, thinking about the things God would have me think.

So many of the sermons we hear on Sunday are designed to appeal to those who are not well acquainted with the written Word. In other words, the preacher preaches to "babes" and never goes beyond the "basics," Its kind of like listening to Theology 101 . . . . . . . . . for 40 years ! Not a complaint. Just an observation. When I sat down with Barth laying there on the table top, I realized that I was about to begin my post-graduate education, Theology 801. That's right. One day I am thinking about "does baptism save" and the next day, I am trying to read from my newly acquired Church Dogmatics and realizing, fearing, that I may never get to the point in time in which I actually understand what Barth has written.

I went through a stage [my first year in Barth] that is common to novice Barthian students - I began to talk like he wrote. Not good. Not me. After a year or so, I made myself stop. I literally sat down one evening and made some thoughtful decisions. Barth would not have been happy with me before that sit-down. Now? Oh, I am sure I would be his favorite son !?

As with anyone whose preaching/teaching lifts us up and renews our mind, Barth's teachings need to become our own and if they (Barth's teachings) have any true meaning, it is because they reflect the biblical message in concert with the illuminating work of the Spirit of Christ (the Living Word.) I am a proud Evangelical [well, maybe not always so proud.] For me, Barth's teachings fit perfectly into that intellectual space that has for its content 'Evangelical/Trinitarian dogma.' But more than that, his teachings have become mine. They now reflect something of my concerns and biases. What I teach and write is my personal theology. Barth was and is the segue between my former traditions and where I am today. Barth/segue way and God /teacher - are ideas that belong together. Hopefully, as the content of this blog develops, your experience will become the same as mine.

In the end, it is not about Barth but about God-in-Christ and how He works in the proclamation of the Word to effect every aspect of our lives [we call this 'salvation'.] It must be 'biblical' as we evangelicals are fond of saying. With Barth, it can be no other way.

J Smithson

Here is Wright's biggest failing - beside the fact that he moved counter to Barth . . .

2010-08-08T18:38:00.000-07:00

Did You Know ?

Most of Wright's followers do not have a narrative for reaching the lost that is different from that of a well established Barthian /Trinitarian /Incarnational / Ontological [did I miss anything?] disciple. In fact, I dare to say that NONE of Wright's disciples have discovered anything unique in the proclamation of the gospel of Christ, except for the redefining of terminology. The dedicated Wrightian believes that modern day orthodoxy has been "wrong all these thousands of years" as to the meaning of salvation, justification, faith, redemption, grace and the works of the law, but such has precious little to do with a coherent proclamation to a drug addict crouched down in the shadows of skid row, begging for deliverance or, at least, another hit. Go ahead and mention "covenantal nomism" to the poor stoner and measure the response. You know what you've got after you have corrected Orthodoxy? Nothin' !!! That's what you've got. Nothin'.

Barth was all about the gospel if you understand the gospel message to be the message of Christ, himself.

As far as having my sins forgiven for the purpose of living a righteous life, thereafter? Well, I grew up in Churches of Christ. There is nothing new in this Wrightian/new perspectives thingy. Wright has not left behind the paradigm of law and moved to that of the spirit . . . . BUT, at the very same time, he is not a legalist. Seriously. Nor are his followers.

If proclaiming Christ until he comes is our assignment, as Christian disciples, then the content of that proclamation is critical to a successful pursuit of the "assignment." "You can do it" is not the message of hope and "salvation" (whatever that means to a Wrightian follower - don't they always put "saved" in quotes? ).

And that is the failing of the New Perspectives. In the end, it is a collection of the same old same old with a few "new" definitions and a historical context at the center of one's theology rather than a living Christ.

With Barth, you begin with Christ. With Wright, you begin with the Second Temple and the belief that the Jews were actually grace people. Go figure.

On being lost or saved and the dialectic that fouls up our solutions.

2010-08-08T17:39:00.000-07:00

In discussing the notion of being "lost" in a final sense, we offered these remarks in the middle of a discussion between two friends. I begin with a reference to their previous exchange with each other, and then . . . . . . .

Wonderful discussion. If I might, allow me a couple of thoughts. I think it important that we not come across as discussing "lost" in terms of a legal judgment but, rather, as a "tearing apart" of one's self from the life force of his being. If we have moved from the paradigm of law to that of [the ] spirit, what is left but the notion of an ontological pairing, me and God in Christ?

Romans, chapter one, gives us a gracious God who has given some over to their own gods, to their own lusts, to their own "pairings" if you will.

The prodigal son? Well, both sons missed the mark !! The prodigal seems more concerned with a good meal and a well rehearsed "confession of sins" than he should, and the older son, suddenly exposes himself for the selfish bigot that he was. Yet, the father
did not care - ultimately - for the failings of either. They were his sons and as long as they remained in his presence, they benefited
from the graciousness of their father.

John

All of God's message is cast in dialectic. But, while an accepted definition of the term might read: A contradiction of ideas that serves as the determining factor in their interaction. We hasten to add that the "determining factor" in their interaction is Jesus Christ, not the interaction of the tension, itself. It is Christ who is the [only ] objective revelation of God; he alone is Mediator, High Priest, and perfected human. There is no resolution of tension between good and evil, faith and apathy, works and free grace (and the like) except for the person and work of Jesus as the eternal Son of God. Ditto for salvation/damnation. Christ, alone, mediates salvation/damnation -- that is why we are told not judge [in terms of sentencing], because we cannot.

In this editor's way of thinking, we have laid out an important consideration separating a purely existential "reality" from a revealed existential reality.

Dialectic considerations as a forerunner to a sound relational theology - Layman Series

2010-08-08T14:32:00.000-07:00

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.

An ode to Claire Wilkin -- Layman Series An Edited Repost.

2010-08-08T14:18:00.000-07:00

Note: this was intended to have been read at the funeral of my 6 month old granddaughter. It has been edited in the hope that its word's bring solution to others who have lost loved ones.

Sept., 30, 2006
For Claire

Death and life --- inescapable and seemingly profoundly at odds with one another. For many, it makes little sense to be born, to grow and learn , to be excited about life and then die.

Opposing realities (death and life) that are thoroughly reconciled in Christ. And where we cannot always speak of the solution, explain that solution to others or put into print its theology, we who are partnered with Christ can have the assurance that as these two realities race against each other -- life and death, we who stand at their intersection will not be destroyed because, Christ, at the last minute, in His perfect time, swallows up death in life and we are saved !! As failing man, we find ourselves positioned “in the gap,” at this intersection. On each side, racing against the other, are these opposing forces. But Christ, on the cross, has placed Himself at that intersection. We now stand in the gap, at the very moment of destruction, in (eis) Him, and we are saved.

Col 1:19-23 tells us that all things have been reconciled in Him, unto Himself, in the body of his flesh, at His death. All that seems to conflict, life and death, faith and reason, sin and obedience, law and love – all these things and more, have been fully reconciled in Christ.

We are saved, in Him, not because the contradictions, these opposing forces, cease to exist, but because He has woven death into the fabric of life and in so doing has taken away its sting and its victory. Death has been swallowed up in victory. We continue to experience it but, in Christ, death is reconciled to life and life is made the richer for it !! And that works for every single person in this building, believer and unbeliever alike.

Claire Wilken lived only six months. We can get lost at the intersection of her life and death or we can admit to the reconciliation of those two opposing realities and be better served in life than if Claire had never been born. Claire’s death proclaims both the immediacy and the terminal nature of this life. It is not death that is immediate, it is life because we are living it. Because of Claire Wilken, we are gathered together reaching out in tender compassion to Jesse and Nancy. For a moment in time, the distinction that is "believer and unbeliever" is gone. Because of Claire, we , today, all of us, experience in community the sadness and the continuing hope of this wonderful couple. Because of Claire, we can leave this service today with a renewed motivation to love the unlovable that exists in the lives of all those for whom we care. Because of Claire Wilken, many of us will leave this building with a renewed vigor for life and the expression of love

Claire Wilken’s life is resolved in Christ.

It is in death that life is proclaimed and even renewed. Imagine, if you will, this world just as it is, in this present economy, after the fall, full of suffering and disappointment but without death. Our world without death.

Where, in that world, is there room for God? There is no escape, as it were, without death. We are here and God is there without death. Man is given opportunity to transcend this world of tragedy in the function of death. A world without death would be even more a curse. And so I say, it is in death that life is proclaimed and even renewed. And that is why death was the chosen vehicle for Christ’s redemption of this world. Yes !! Why didn’t Christ just issue a proclamation that absolved us all of our failings? He could have done that but He didn’t. Because that wouldn’t have gotten the job done. There is no lasting effect in the mere shouting out of words. But when the Word is offered up in death -- the effects are forever. He chose death, reconciling it to a resurrected life. And the power of life lived, if even for a few days, is a profound statement for change and heightened resolve. In the midst of the tears, and many more will be shed, we need to surrender to a deeply felt appreciation of life as Claire Wilken, laying silently at our side, proclaims the need to live life in the most expressive of terms.

We can turn our sadness inward and lose sight of the connection we have with those around us or we can admit to the purpose of her life and ours and live for one another. We can choose life and love and community and caring and living for something other than ourselves and our own material lusts. And if that demands a change, then make the change. If that means asking someone for help or offering help to someone in need, then get after it. Do not leave this building with an unspoken resolve because it is that response that robs Claire of the purpose for her life. I know that I am a better granddad, a better husband, a better father and a better person than before Claire was born . She is forever the 12th grandchild in our family and the lesson of her life will live with us forever.

Anne Rice quits Christianity (but not Christ).

2010-07-31T17:56:00.000-07:00

Facebook declaration (Wednesday past)

For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outside. My conscience will allow nothing else.

Facebook declaration (Wednesday past - follow-up post)

As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

Facebook declaration (Thursday past)

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been or might become.

Editor's notes: Understand that the very being of the church is Jesus Christ. If Anne Rice no longer cares to run with the Church, that is of her own will. But she cannot cease being a member of the body of Christ anymore than she can quit breathing. To argue that point is to press for a dualism that finds her at odds with the normative world of the revealed will of God. After all, it was God who is pictured as having constantly filled his prophets with words of rebuke and correction -- directed at his own, those who claim his knowledge, those who pretended to be under his influence (and were, at times).

We continue to love Rice as a sister. But, we are thankful that her God has more patience with his church than she.

J David Smithson

Notes on the importance of Barth's understanding Christology and Sovereignty.

2010-07-22T14:32:00.000-07:00

What are the several most important considerations with which Barth spent time in thoughtful reflection? Without trying to be comprehensive in a final sense, these issues come to mind in answer to our question:

1. Christ as the self-revelation of God was an exciting concept to Barth. He could not escape the problematic issue of "the total depravity of man." Understand that in this case, "total depravity" means nothing more than that man, at every level of endeavor, cannot perform perfectly. There is no assurance that we can think correctly, accept with full understanding, love without fault and in the highest sense of purity, or keep our checkbook balanced !!! Our knowledge of God comes from God and that knowledge needs to be mediated by God in Christ. He truly is our all in all and THAT, my friend, is what the song is about.

With Barth, Christ is the profound centre of his theology. There is no system to this theology because God in Christ did not reveal himself outside the realm of the ontological. If he were revealed in law or via some sort of propositional construct, we might hope for predictability and even consistency. But God is not to be limited by any doctrinal construct, legal paradigm or even self revelation of Himself to man.

Perhaps the best work done by a living and loving God is that work accomplished in the life or lives of his created outside the boundaries of revelation. Think about this question: how many times has God in Christ saved your life -- as you passed through an intersection without due caution, in the late night encounter of those prowling the streets looking for trouble, of the ravages of grief and frustration ???? If God is sovereign to our sense of awareness and the event of time, He has opportunity to work in our lives as He sees best.

2. The second consideration, then, is the sovereignty of God. At this point, we need to understand that God functions out of the reality of the paradoxical (paradoxical = Seemingly contradictory but nonetheless possibly true). Everything that effects us in an ontic sense of the word is paradoxical in nature and scope. We love and hate our wives, fail and succeed at work, drive fast one day and enjoy a slow ride through the back ways on another.

In Ephesians 4, Paul writes of the old man and the new man. Before we finish this biblical reading, we are startled to realize that these two "realities" were/are, in fact, only differing perspectives of the same reality. The old and the new man exist within us at the very same time. They define much of my life. Think of a nickle. The heads and tails of that coin are specific, individually different, and their existence actually defines the reality of the coin, itself.

Add to this example these paradoxical issues: faith v works, life v death, love v hate, caring v wrath, judgment v mercy, sin v divinity, creation v eternity (which is different from "forever"), right v wrong, freedom v bondage, salvation v loss of life, truth v the anecdotal, non-existence v resurrection, sameness v transformation, law v relationships, saved v being saved, spirit v the temporal, war v peace, strength v surrender, sacrifice v contrition, persecution v victory, male v female, near and far, grace v wage, old covenant v new covenant, Moses v Abraham, God v evil, prayer v an all knowing God, miracles v pantheism.

Our point as relates to a "sovereign" God is this, sovereignty is required if all of the above works to a common good. The paradoxical "collective" above is a receipt for chaos without a God who is sovereign to the tension that drives these opposing factors apart. What is the opposite of "salvation?" The destructive force of a paradoxical universe without a mitigating and sovereign Creator.

If God is not sovereign, he cannot be "creator" nor can he save me in spite of myself. --- jds
.

Another rant against the good bishop, NT Wright. We like the man but he is seriously wet as a theologian.

2010-07-22T00:20:00.000-07:00

Understand that we are "Barthian" here at Bart(h) and the boyz. We admit our bias, freely. What you may not know is that we took 4 years to study the work of NT Wright. We bought his books, joined a Wright site, traveled to San Fran a couple of years ago to hear him speak at a downtown Episcopal church and had the good bishop (yes, we know that he retired) autograph our copy of the Romans commentary. We are not ignorant of the man's thinking. And that is why we have serious misgivings about his theology. We hasten to make clear that our complaint against the Bishop does not rise to the level of exclusion. He is a brother in Christ as far as we are concerned - just a little misguided.

We are into our 6th year of Barth and have a reasonable understanding of what the great Pastor was about. The knowledge of the two men gives us quite a contrast to consider.

On the one hand, we have the Bishop, who began his studies in disagreement with current orthodoxy. As a young collegiate, he turned to Myers, Albert Schweitzer and Rudolf Bultmann and some fellow named E.P. Sanders. At the same time, he obviously decided to NOT include the thinking of Karl Barth. The common denominator for the fearsome foursome was the fact of their individual existentialism. These men were hardly "biblicists" in their studies, each finding difficulties in believing in a literal virgin birth, the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, or a literal resurrection. What was noteworthy to Wright -- who does believe in a literal resurrection - was the position of each of the four for a comprehensive study of the historical Christ and their insistence that His Jewishness was not a focus point in current orthodoxy. Wright found himself asking, "What if -- what if the writers of New Testament scripture intended Hebrew meaning as they wrote in Greek letters?" His answer to this question? OF COURSE THEY DID. As a result, with the disciples of Wright, we often are faced with their exclusion of Koine Greek scholarship and any first century connection to Greek or Hellenistic thought.

Our problem with this conclusion is found in this observation: the "first church" was almost exclusively Jewish in terms of its membership until and extending beyond 70 AD -- so why did Paul and others use koine Greek instead of a Hebrew dialect during that period of time ??

More than this, and on a larger point, Wright came to believe that one cannot understand Christ unless and until he is studied in "second temple theology" and the influence of the inter-testament period upon first century Jewish theology.

Barth, on the other hand, was equally critical of the orthodoxy of his day, but came to believe that his ignorance about the things of God must be revealed by God himself. The starting point for Barth, came to be the self revelation of God in the man Jesus of Nazareth (understanding, of course, that this Jesus was the embodiment of the godhead), that this Jesus was and is the only objective revelation of God to man.

Wright began with a study in history and Barth began with an ontological consideration of Jesus of Nazareth.

And the theologies of the two men bear the mark of their thinking. Wright begins with an existential/historical consideration that puts Christ into the intended context of Jewish thought and theology while Barth begins with an ontological/revelatory relationship with the Living Word.

Wright begins with history. Barth begins with the Living Word.

While Wright rejected current orthodoxy, he also rejected Karl Barth. . . . . . . . . . . and Barth is hardly "current orthodoxy," even in today's theological economy. Understand that Wright, when it is all said and done, is more into a legal paradigm than is Barth. With Wright, one is saved by grace apart from works, and then the law kicks in. Get acquainted with the wording, "covenantal nomism ." What is it? Well, on an anecdotal level, if you were raised a Mennonite or a member of the Churches of Christ or you came out of a Pentecostal background, you know exactly what this means but without the new phraseology. In a word, it s salvation by grace followed by a life lived in obedience to the law of God. One can parse words, here, but in the end, this is what we have.

With Barth, the Pastor goes beyond the saved by grace consideration, far beyond law -- believing that obedience is the ontological response of the leading of the Spirit.

It is late, so we will leave you with these words. It seems that we never finish with our theological statement. Perhaps that is the way it is intended.

J Smithson

We stole this from Faith and Theology and Ben Meyers. Please forgive.

2010-07-16T11:49:00.001-07:00

Today I met with the Australian theologian Andrew Dutney. He promised he would wear his Karl Barth button – it may well be the greatest thing you've ever seen:

Bart(h) and the Boyz

Hail to the Unpredictability of the Great God Almighty

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

Me, Torrance and Barth in a discussion with Paul

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

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

Dialectic is the challenge. Personal insight is the reward.

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

Karl Barth and the dialectic of faith and knowledge

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

She's a babe but . . . . .

2 comments:

Barth and the Boyz is undergoing a heavy review with regards to content and formatting.

The commandments of God versus the command of God -- a brief discussion

The Barman Declaration, Barth, and the need for revival.

Sonship and the grace of an everlasting Father

Jim Wallis, Me and Obama's notion of social justice - a secular societal function or what?

Jim Wallis is one of Obama's spiritual advisors. Understand that I am not a fan of the US President but this is not the place to debate that point. I do want to make the following points with regard to the general use and content of this particular memo, however.

If God's Grace Cannot Save A Mormon, Can It Save Any Of Us ? Some thoughts about the efficacy of grace.

Grace: Does it define you or is it the other way around.

Hail the Unpredictability of God - new and revised text

Seriously - If we lived the next 7 days as if each were our last, what would be the outcome.

Life for Life - and they say the New Covenant is not about relational dynamics. Ha !!

There is a difference between arguing doctrine and experiencing doctrine.

From the fertile mind of Willam Taylor

If the Bible was not written as a systematic theology, why should we rewrite the Message in terms of a system. And whose system is right ?

Let's talk about "dialectic confirmation." You have your gift and I have my epiphany.

A Barthian Quote of the Day.

Layman Series - Study Group #1/ Contrasts

Existential theologies versus biblical or dialectic theologies

There is a secular myth making the rounds: atheists know more about matters biblical than do Christians. Here is our repsonse.

Who knows more about faith, an atheist or a disciple ? The answer may surprise you. Maybe not.

Americans fail basic religion test; atheists score high

Pew Forum Religious Knowledge Questions

The slow task of upgrading our essays continues.

Recommended Readings - three books with linked reviews by others.

Calvin, Barth, and Reformed Theology

Participation in Christ

The Humanity of Christ

Barth and Schleiermacher, a book review ------ with a few personal notes.

Ambiguity and absolute truth

Barth and the Ascension: A book review

Trinitarian/Incarnational/Ontological explained.

Just One Lord, Just One Faith, Just One Baptism -- we don't think so.

Quotable quote: A Word about Revelation/Dogma

Death and the door to a new hermeneutic

Updated text: The letter versus the Spirit - what does that actually mean. We may have the answer.

Is it the commandment of God or the command of God ---- there IS a difference.

We regret to report Clark Pinnock's death.

Does your theology allow you say, "Baptism doeth also now save us"? Why?

Torrance on Atonement -- A fellow layman offers this summary view. Who needs those stinking theologians ??

Barth and universalism - edited and reposted from Barth and the Boyz - the Library.

Prologue to Barth and the Boyz

Here is Wright's biggest failing - beside the fact that he moved counter to Barth . . .

On being lost or saved and the dialectic that fouls up our solutions.

Dialectic considerations as a forerunner to a sound relational theology - Layman Series

An ode to Claire Wilkin -- Layman Series An Edited Repost.

Anne Rice quits Christianity (but not Christ).

Notes on the importance of Barth's understanding Christology and Sovereignty.

Another rant against the good bishop, NT Wright. We like the man but he is seriously wet as a theologian.

We stole this from Faith and Theology and Ben Meyers. Please forgive.