tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post3795920432444577940..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Barth for beginners: a new series?Ben Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-9751251447735239982007-11-30T13:22:00.000-05:002007-11-30T13:22:00.000-05:00Not sure if you are still considering writing this...Not sure if you are still considering writing this, but it would be most appreciated...<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-74829962166462166022007-10-07T15:29:00.000-04:002007-10-07T15:29:00.000-04:00This is not a helpful series. It will distract me...This is not a helpful series. It will distract me from my job and family and eating and sleeping . . . you get the idea. I cannot wait for the series! <BR/><BR/>Kidding aside, I respectfully submit it would be an even more helpful book!An Anxious Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630532668798784975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-65540640294194788192007-10-05T08:59:00.000-04:002007-10-05T08:59:00.000-04:00The very idea of grammar implies something somethi...The very idea of grammar implies something something formal and comprehensive. Restricting the grammar of the <I>Church Dogmatics</I> to what can be gleaned from Barth's doctrine of election is in danger of being arbitrary and reductive.<BR/><BR/>Of course from I/1 to II/2 Barth's theology developed and deepened. But it did not fundamentally change. It would be fine to read I/1 retrospectively in light of II/2, but only if one also reads II/2 so as not to miss the way in which I/1 is presupposed by and incorporated into it.<BR/><BR/>"God cannot not be God. Therefore – and this is the same thing – he cannot not be Father and cannot be without the Son. His freedom or aseity in respect of himself consists in his freedom, not determined by anything but himself, to be God, and that means to be the Father of the Son." (I/1, 434)<BR/><BR/>This remark, from which Barth never deviated, is essential to the grammar of his entire theology after 1932.<BR/><BR/>Barth agreed with von Balthasar: "The life of the Trinity is a circle, eternally fulfilled in itself: it does not need the world." (<I>Theo-Drama</I>, vol. 3, p. 287)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-77869257296092870682007-10-04T17:56:00.000-04:002007-10-04T17:56:00.000-04:00Goddam right, Michael!Goddam right, Michael!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-35718851278376648812007-10-04T14:25:00.000-04:002007-10-04T14:25:00.000-04:00If you do a dialogue with Hauerwas...will you have...If you do a dialogue with Hauerwas...<BR/><BR/>will you have to put in all the swearing?michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-11222266309846473672007-10-04T14:15:00.000-04:002007-10-04T14:15:00.000-04:00Ben,This looks marvelous. I haven't come across t...Ben,<BR/><BR/>This looks marvelous. I haven't come across too many tantalizing "introductions to Barth" in recent years, but this one certainly is! And the way you've structured your engagement with Barth is especially great. You've chosen excellent dialogue partners.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to expand on Kim's comment and suggest an excursus on Balthasar and Barth (et al) on the question of analogy. This would allow you to connect Barth, Balthasar, Pryzwara, Jüngel, and Hart (your favorite!) together. It is also relevant in light of the upcoming conference this spring. Analogy also connects issues of epistemology, dogmatic construction, and ontology together in fruitful ways. Anyway, this is just an idea.<BR/><BR/>The only other section I would add is one between "The Electing God" and "The Rejection of Nothingness," entitled "The Proclamation of Election," focused on Barth's theology of the Word of God (I/1-2). Here is where you could discuss his "threefold Word of God" as well as Barth's emphasis on preaching as the ground for dogmatic theology.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to the series!David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-68560996026905581592007-10-04T14:00:00.000-04:002007-10-04T14:00:00.000-04:00G. Rixon and others,It is going to be hard to make...G. Rixon and others,<BR/><BR/>It is going to be hard to make a case that Barth's epistemology is "perceptual," when his dominant framework is verbal (the whole first volume of his CD is "The Doctrine of the Word of God"). If you are thinking of perceptual-oriented theologians, perhaps Balthasar would be better, at least his multi-volume "Herrlichkeit." Barth is different in orientation than this. In particular, you can look at his section on "The Word of God and Experience." Here's a brief quote from that section: "To define the anthropological locus at which experience of the Word of God is possible, it is not necessary to emphasize one or another among the various possibilities of human self-determining, as though this and this alone were the chosen vessel of this experience. Will, conscience and feeling have been mentioned as such places, and whole theological systems have been built on the one preference or the other." Barth's concern is that we don't privilege one way of knowing or one kind of experience in which knowledge of God can come, because as soon as we do, we limit other ways and possibilities, and thus hamper the freedom of God. For example, you mentioned Aquinas and the emphasis of knowing as "intelligently grasped and rationally judged." But does this privilege the intelligent and rational over others? As a pastor, I have people in my church who are severely limited mentally. I'm not sure they could grasp intelligently and rationally, at least as these are typically defined. And yet, I want to say that they are not barred from experience and understanding of God in ways that are particular to their lives. To be honest, I am not a huge fan of Barth's, but I have to try to read him on his own terms to be fair. I think integrity and mutual conversation require this. <BR/><BR/>Kip IngramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-62619319214229253662007-10-04T12:18:00.000-04:002007-10-04T12:18:00.000-04:00"...the whole of Barth's thought unfolds (even ret..."...the whole of Barth's thought unfolds (even retroactively: thus the requirement to read I/1 in light of II/2)."<BR/><BR/>OK, I'm withing 100 pp of finishing I/1 and can't just put it aside to pick up II/2, so I'll finish I/1 and then jump to II/2 and check in often to see when you begin your proposed project here.<BR/><BR/>GO FOR IT!Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11768563138849587357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-59955019127305296632007-10-04T09:42:00.000-04:002007-10-04T09:42:00.000-04:00Mr. Myers.Thank you for your response. Yes I am a...Mr. Myers.<BR/>Thank you for your response. Yes I am aware that Barth rejects the possibility of such knowledge, but only, I believe, because he mistakenly views knowledge to be akin to a form of perceptualism; for him knowledge consists of a subject that stands apart from, and confronts the object of knowledge. And of course when it comes to God as object, this deeply offends Barth’s sensibilities, for it implies that there is a creaturely subject that can take the measure of God with a ‘look’ from the outside in. Labouring under this defective understanding of what knowledge is, and to avoid the offense, he is forced to arbitrarily cut short the line of questioning, ruling out of court anything related to the condition of the possibility of knowledge of God, and establishing the slogan ‘God is Known in the church of Jesus Christ’ as the baseline on which ‘his whole order of thinking’ is founded. If Barth had been as attentive to St Thomas as he was to St Anselm then perhaps the foundation and subsequent development of his theology would have been quite different. St Thomas did not understand knowledge to be a form of perception. For him knowledge was a unified dynamism of the perceived as intelligently grasped and rationally judged. To be a knower is not merely to be a perceiver, it involves the procession of intelligent conception and rational affirmation. For St Thomas the Barthian proposition ‘God is known’ must be intelligently conceived and rationally affirmed in order for it to become known. And these are the conditions of any possibility of knowing, of God or of anything else that is known. <BR/>Barth’s whole theology is an ingenious, convoluted elaboration to avoid consideration of these conditions. He must reject out of hand any ‘knowledge of God’ claims emanating from natural theology or non-Christian religious speculation because he disavows any role to human intelligence and reason to judge between these and possible conflicts of knowledge claims emanating from the church of Jesus Christ. In Barth’s theology the creature is never real; never the free operator of a control relinquished by God; never the independent knower in free communion with the known. Barth’s God doesn’t take any risks. He never puts himself in a position where he can actually lose at the hands of the created other. His love is purely egotistical because it can never be disappointed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-8512377700087634292007-10-04T07:40:00.001-04:002007-10-04T07:40:00.001-04:00Quite helpful.Quite helpful.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14641068117855718120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-83741965360221276412007-10-04T07:40:00.000-04:002007-10-04T07:40:00.000-04:00Ben,I would love for you to do this. It seems tha...Ben,<BR/><BR/>I would love for you to do this. It seems that I am joining a chorus of voices that desire this as well. I look forward to reading what you have to say. Peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-26529674303270117692007-10-04T07:21:00.000-04:002007-10-04T07:21:00.000-04:00I wonder,is this the G. Rixon from Regis College i...I wonder,<BR/><BR/>is this the G. Rixon from Regis College in Toronto who's mis-reading Barth? If it is, you should bring your concerns to David Demson, he'll put you straight!<BR/><BR/>Ben, love the idea of 'how not to be a Barthian'--a title Barth would have certainly approved of!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-8161860439612850482007-10-04T06:54:00.000-04:002007-10-04T06:54:00.000-04:00I'm looking forward to what you have to say about ...I'm looking forward to what you have to say about <I>not</I> being a Barthian.Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-44748670249968279042007-10-04T02:11:00.000-04:002007-10-04T02:11:00.000-04:00Hi Ben,This is great. A right dose of Barth for us...Hi Ben,<BR/><BR/>This is great. A right dose of Barth for us who are suffering from Barth- deficiency syndrome. Looking forward again for an excellent series. Thanks in advance.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04037540294379020064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-18183608021287992742007-10-03T23:57:00.000-04:002007-10-03T23:57:00.000-04:00It sounds like a helpful book!æIt sounds like a helpful book!<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://andrewerrington.wordpress.com" REL="nofollow">æ</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-73990903160124979772007-10-03T22:24:00.000-04:002007-10-03T22:24:00.000-04:00Would love to see this. Thanks Ben.Would love to see this. Thanks Ben.Michael J. Pailthorpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07846022944571262451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-70682355129980620452007-10-03T21:55:00.000-04:002007-10-03T21:55:00.000-04:00George, thanks for your comment. You're right, of ...George, thanks for your comment. You're right, of course, that Barth's dogmatics isn't "oriented" around election in a formal sense -- i.e., election isn't the formal structuring principle of the <I>CD</I>. But what I really have in mind is the way election functions as the deepest underlying "grammar" of Barth's dogmatics. Which is why I think the <I>real</I> starting-point of the <I>CD</I> is not I/1, but II/2 -- it's here that Barth's theology becomes faithful to itself for the first time, and it's from this central point that the whole of Barth's thought unfolds (even retroactively: thus the requirement to read I/1 in light of II/2).<BR/><BR/>Hans Urs von Balthasar sums this up very nicely, when he says that II/2 is "the most magnificent, unified and well-grounded section of the whole work", and that it is nothing less than "the heartbeat of his whole theology" (p. 174).Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-43232530850895353592007-10-03T19:14:00.000-04:002007-10-03T19:14:00.000-04:00Finally, I can now read Barth without having hyper...Finally, I can now read Barth without having hypertensions. ;-)<BR/>Thanks for this. I'll be waiting for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-83088246714258029472007-10-03T18:22:00.000-04:002007-10-03T18:22:00.000-04:00Barth did not "orient dogmatics around election." ...Barth did not "orient dogmatics around election." He oriented it around the Holy Trinity as revealed in Jesus Christ. Election is the self-determination of the Holy Trinity to be the same God for us as God is in and for himself in to all eternity (and so would be with or without the world).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-7311416903502693242007-10-03T18:20:00.000-04:002007-10-03T18:20:00.000-04:00Hi again, G. Rixon. Thanks for quoting that passag...Hi again, G. Rixon. Thanks for quoting that passage -- I can see now where the misunderstanding comes from!<BR/><BR/>When Barth speaks of "a place outside the knowledge of God itself from which the knowledge can be judged", he's <I>critiquing</I> this notion. His whole point is that there is no such "place", no such <I>a priori</I> or <I>in abstracto</I> knowledge. In his view, questions about "the condition of the possibility of our knowing God" are a mug's game. The whole order of Barth's thinking is this: God <I>is</I> known, and therefore God <I>can</I> be known.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-79343225915918160342007-10-03T18:12:00.000-04:002007-10-03T18:12:00.000-04:00Another interesting juxtaposition of two seminal b...Another interesting juxtaposition of two seminal but quite different readers of Barth - and of Barth's legacy, including its implications for theological ontology - would be George Hunsinger and Bruce McCormack - as long as it doesn't start another Battle of Trenton!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-14359832696571487682007-10-03T17:02:00.000-04:002007-10-03T17:02:00.000-04:00Please, please, please, make this happen.Please, please, please, make this happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-75667165019433581982007-10-03T16:40:00.000-04:002007-10-03T16:40:00.000-04:00I look forward to this series, since it seems you'...I look forward to this series, since it seems you've already gotten enough yes votes to justify going ahead with it. <BR/><BR/>For my input, I'm more interested in how Hunsinger or Torrance read Barth than Webster, but maybe that's because I haven't read enough Webster. <BR/><BR/>Also, you must be familiar with Bromiley's indispensible <I>Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth</I>. It would seem like your project bears a great deal of similarity to his. Or have you read John Franke's book on Barth for the Armchair Theologian series? I recently reviewed it and found it to be a great help in providing a beginners overview.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-46271827392934295772007-10-03T15:02:00.000-04:002007-10-03T15:02:00.000-04:00It would be great. I would also agree with Kim th...It would be great. I would also agree with Kim that a similiar discussion of Von Balthasar and maybe Jensen would be great also.Blackhawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461553899950994610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-14725115721754548272007-10-03T12:55:00.000-04:002007-10-03T12:55:00.000-04:00This would be fantastic! Others have asked for per...This would be fantastic! Others have asked for personal notes, so I'll add mine: While you're about connecting and/or juxtaposing various theologians with Barth, how about Luther and Robert Jenson? (The Luther relationship is problematic, but I am struck by the number of decent Lutheran theologians who are Barthians. And, of course, Barth was not only Jenson's teacher, but also godfather to Jenson's daughter.)Dwight P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15849665963994688905noreply@blogger.com