Contra Barth (Theology, 20 pp.)

In studies of Karl Barth in the past decades, there has been great concern over his position on world religions. Recent scholars, especially, have tried to interpret Barth's position in light of the traditional threefold typology, namely, 'exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism,' in the discipline of religious studies. They particularly appeal to §17 and §69 of Barth's Church Dogmatics I/2 and IV/3 respectively, for the former paragraph explicitly discusses the problems of religion, whereas the latter paragraph seems to show an open minded understanding of world religions as a way of divine communication. The scholarly interpretations of these two paragraphs become problematic because of the isolation of them from their immediate literary contexts. As a result, Barth's theological agenda of the two paragraphs is ignored, and subsequently, the validity for using the threefold typology to interpret Barth's theology of religion should also be called into question. The purpose of this study is therefore to reexamine the two paragraphs in the wider literary contexts, in order to situate the two paragraphs in Barth's original theological agenda in the Church Dogmatics I/2 and IV/3, so as to determine whether the threefold typology is applicable to Barth's theology of religion in these particular texts and to examine in what ways we can bring the text into an interdisciplinary dialogue with religious studies without violating his originally theological agenda.

The Journal of Religion, 2008

Although he criticized Barth under the enigmatic phrase "positivism of revelation," 1 Bonhoeffer saw Barth's criticism of religion as "his really great merit." 2 In the present age in which inter-faith dialogue has become more pressing than it has perhaps ever before been, theology can at times engage in two conversations that are not only separate but at worst self-contradictory: in its discussions with secular society, theology can engage in critical discussions about religion, drinking deeply from the well of criticism offered by the likes of Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Durkheim, and Marx; 3 yet, in its discussions in inter-faith settings, the danger can arise that these critiques are thrown out altogether or at least lie in abeyance. If we are truly to realize the potential Bonhoeffer glimpsed in Barth's critique of religion, it is my contention that we must not leave this important piece of theology aside as we enter dialogue with members of other faith communities. 4 Moreover, to engage in two sep-* An earlier version of this article was presented at the Senior Systematics Seminars of Cambridge University and King's College, London. Thanks must be expressed to the participants in these seminars for their critiques and helpful questioning. Thanks must also be given to David Ford, Garrett Green, Paul Nimmo, and (especially) the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggested revisions. Without them, the article would have been much the poorer.

1987

Bibliography: pages 163-166.The paradox evident in these quotations from Barth's writings forms the centre of his theology. On the one hand, humanity is incapable of speaking of God. On the other hand, it is imperative for humanity to speak of God. This dilemma is resolved by God's act for humanity in Jesus Christ, giving rise to a human response of faith and obedience. Humanity can speak of God only because God has revealed Godself. Hence, all theology and praxis begins doxologically, in praise for God's initiative of grace. This thesis proposes that Barth's perception of this initiative of God is best expressed in the concept of the revolution of God, which provides a paradigm from which to recover the liberative and humanising intention of his theology. This theology implies human praxis which participates in the divinely instituted process of transforming human reality. In this way Barth simultaneously speaks of God and humanity, without confusing the deity of Go...

Pacifica: Australasian Theological Studies, vol 27 no 2 (2014)

This article critically takes up the reaffirmation of Barth's reaction to the analogia entis in the recent work of Keith L. Johnson in order to question Johnson's appeal to human sin as the pivotal factor in Barth's rejection of the Catholic doctrine. By explicating what I call Barth's 'theological particularism', it will become more apparent that Johnson's reference to sin in Barth functions abstractly in the very 'as such' way that Barth sought to methodologically foreclose while also conflating ordinary creaturely knowledge and being with a view of sin that places God and creatures in epistemic and ontological contradiction. By filling out Johnson's missing account of Barth's view of the shadow of sin, a positive account of creatureliness has the chance to emerge that highlights faith and prayer as the fulfillment of creaturely life in the life of God.

Roczniki Teologiczne, 2016

The article shows the key aspects of the Christological approach to Karl Barth's teaching about "the humanity of God". The author argues that in the mirror of Jesus Christ's humanity the humanity of God included in Jesus's divine nature is revealed. It is in Jesus Christ that kenosis and gloria, humanum and divinum meet in an amazing way; and in the negotiating space which is constituted by His Person they explain each other, speaking more sonorously with their own voice. Hence the point of departure for a reflection on the problem that is posed here, is looking closely at the formal basis of Barth's theology. Jesus Christ's central place-with respect to the contents, form and method-is considered to be one of its most important attributes. The author of Die Kirchliche Dogmatik starts his argument by discussing Jesus Christ's pre-existence with the help of the doctrine of "the gracious election" that is a modified conception of his earlier Trinitarian theology. It says that God "from the beginning" is directed to man, suggesting a prohuman character of God's being and acting. In the light of Barth's doctrine Jesus Christ, as the second Person of the Trinity, is not only the object of election", but He is also the electing subject. As the One Who Wants to complete the Father's salutary work, he is the justification and guarantee of our salvation. Barth categorically pronounces himself in favor of the Christological paradigm of the Revelation saying that around history and the dialogue, in which God and a man meet and are together-around a mutually made and kept relation-there is the most complete opening and exchange. It happens in the Person, since Jesus Christ is in the only and in the highest degree: a true God's man (Gott des Menschen) and a true Divine Man (Mensch Gottes). The phrase about the "humanity of God"-is Emmanuel, to whom we pass from the Christological centre, taking into consideration the theological and anthropological consequences following this movement.

2016

This dissertation analyses and critically evaluates an aspect of Karl Barth’s thought, the understanding of which is important to a broader understanding of Barth, his relationship to other (especially iconoclastic) thinkers, and his relevance for contemporary theology: his understanding and critique of idolatry and the idol. Chapter 2 argues that it was revelation which both drove Barth’s idolatry-critique and determined his concepts of idolatry and the idol. It analyses Bath’s idolatry-critique as it was levelled against natural theology, and offers an evaluation of the picture of Barth’s thought which emerges. Chapter 3 analyses Barth’s idolatry-critique in relation to the doctrine of God. Directives which, for Barth, had to be adhered to within the development of the doctrine of God for the avoidance of idolatry, are discussed. Finally, an evaluation and critique of Barth’s critique of idolatry within the doctrine of God, and of his own adherence to these directives, is offered....

In this examination of Barth I have deliberately focussed on his more accessible shorter works, drawing on some of his early as well as his later works. The major themes in Dogmatics are dealt with in these shorter and seemingly more accessible works and enable the reader to get to grips with the core themes of Barth’s work in a more manageable format. The key themes of Barth’s thought that I want to examine are Revelation, Incarnation, Church and Community, and his own understanding of these within the place and function of theology. I want to examine the content of these themes and also place them within Barth’s own context to see how the context informed the theology and vice versa. I then want to examine Barth’s understanding of these themes with reference to their possible applications for the mission of the church in our own context.

2020

Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans

ForKarl Barth, 'metaphysics' in theologyrefers to the practice of speaking of God and the human on ab asis other than Christology (i. e. cosmology or anthropology). This essays ketches the results of Barth'sg roundingo ft he basic concept of God and of the human in the event of cross/resurrection. God and the human are what they are in this event in which God encounters the human and the human knows and acknowledgesG od.H ere, alreadyi nRomans,G od's "being" is ab eing in the act of self-speaking and human "being" is ab eing in the act of hearing the divine address. OpenAccess. ©2 022C hristophe Chalamet, Andreas Dettwiler and Sarah Stewart-Kroeker,p ublished by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsA ttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.