A Miracle

Something written in Barth's Church Dogmatics that I understand! Two things of note for me:

1) I now see how Brueggemann was so heavily influenced by Barth. I imagine reading Barth to be like listening to some old Bob Dylan records. They may be a little obscure at first, but as you become familiar with the language of Dylan you realise just how influential he was on all the artists that you like today.

2) With all this talk of "conversation", was Karl Barth the original Emergent Theologian? Look at the picture to the right, imagine him wearing square lenses, and you know it makes sense.

Here's the passage from Church Dogmatics, which I think is astounding:

“What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” Only one answer can be given, namely, that it was and is the good-pleasure of God to be mindful of him, and to act towards him in this way. In other words, it is not accidentally, nor arbitrarily, nor under any constraint or compulsion of a reality distinct from Himself, but in His own freedom that He is this God, that He is God in this way and not another. It is in virtue of this free and basic kindness that He is the God who makes Himself the Partner of man, and man His partner, in this covenant and conversation, even though He does not owe him this, even though man has no right or claim, even though man deserves the very opposite of His address and self-giving. He is mindful of man because to Him as the God He is, His own glory and man’s salvation, man’s salvation and His own glory, are not two things but one.

There Are No Christians

...if we can say that there are some Catholics who are Christians, can we not equally say that there are some Evangelicals who are Christians? Or perhaps better still, shouldn’t we simply leave the judging to the One who will judge justly? If we don’t, then where will the madness end? Calvinists will admit that some Armenians are Christians, hyper-Calvinists will concede that some Calvinists are Christians, and so on until eventually we’ll have a denomination of Christianity that claims there are actually no Christians at all...

Little did I know when I wrote this that Karl Barth, through his commentary on Romans, has already begun this peculiar denomination of Christianity:

Rightly understood, there are no Christians: there is only the eternal opportunity of becoming Christians - an opportunity at once accessible and inaccessible to all men.

I wrote about this potential with exasperation, but maybe this Barth fellow has a point.

Barth's Next Conquest

Karl Barth has made several passes at me. He's winked his eye in bookshops and whispered sweet nothings into my ear on various websites. I've let my guard down a couple of times, but I couldn't help myself. I've heard from his previous lovers that he is the real deal. "Once you go Barth there's no going back" is what they say. His reputation is second to none.

And yet, our liaisons have thus far left me feeling cold, distant, like an outsider who doesn't get the joke. There are brief moments where I see what all the fuss is about, but most of the time I'm left dazed and confused, sensing greatness but not understanding it.

I want to understand it. I want to be Barth's next conquest. What will it take? Where does one begin with this Swiss maestro? I haven't read much theology, so perhaps I need to chase after some of Barth's uglier friends before I go for the man himself. Or maybe there is a hermeneutical key that will unlock Karl Barth's meaning for me; some sort of secret password that will make his most difficult work read like Ann and Barry.

It might simply be that I need to stop the silly flirtation and make a serious statement of commitment: Church Dogmatics, here's an obscenely large space on my Shelfari "Now Reading" list; I want you to fill it, all 795 volumes of you.

Whatever it takes, I want to know Karl Barth; or rather, be known by him. Help me achieve this goal.