Random Update…

So this blog, minus my two rants the evening I discovered the Syracuse didn’t get into the NCAA Tournament, has basically been unused.  Therefore, I feel compelled to write an update.

First, some of my posting has been focused on www.presbymergent.org.  This is a new site that I am part of the editorial team for.  So if you want to see a little of what I’ve been bantering about you can go check that out

Second, things at church have started to ease up and I feel like I’m back in control of my life again.  Being the only pastor at a church with attendance of 400 people per week is not an easy task and one that I am extremely glad is over.  It’s given me a chance  to re-focus my efforts on turningpoint and the youth ministry, and that’s been nice.

Third, baby is progressing along well.  We should find out the gender tomorrow and we’re over halfway through the pregnancy (well, Renee is anyway) and that’s very exciting.  Right now, the general non-scientific consensus is that we’re having a girl – but again, that’s a completely non-scientific consensus.  We’ll know tomorrow (hopefully) and let the world know on wallyandnay.net

Fourth, it’s my favorite time of year – NCAA Tournament time and the end of the NHL Regular Season.  While I did pathetically poor early on, I did manage to pick 3 our of the 4 Final Four Teams (Georgetown, Florida and Ohio State).  My Sabres are making a nice run toward the playoffs, with a few less than stellar games thrown in.  We’ve always done well when playing from the bottom of the pile as a lower seed, now we’ll find out how we do playing from the top seed.

Finally, my reading of Karl Barth has continued.  II.1 is as I expected, quite dense, but also quite enjoyable.  It’s definitely helping to clear out some cobwebs.

Watch for the baby announcement tomorrow!

Karl Barth – Part 1

As noted earlier I’ve once again taken to reading Karl Barth, who I discovered my first year of seminary and has shaped me in a whole matter of ways. I’ve read the entirety of 4.1, 4.2, and 3.4 and a good chunk of 1.1. But I’ve wanted to read Barth’s Doctrine of God (2.1 and 2.2) for a while and decided that now was a good time to tackle it.

Under the heading of The Fulfilment of the Knowledge of God Barth first addresses “Man before God”.  Barth first addresses is the issue of whether or not God is even knowable, and answers that question that by merely asking that question one is assuming the existence of God.  Rather, the only two questions worth asking are (1) How far is God known? (2) How far is God knowable?  Barth also limits all knowledge of God to that grounded within faith.  For Barth, there is no knowledge about God that is not knowledge through faith.  Barth gives this definition of faith:

“Faith is the total positive relationship of man to the God who gives Himself to be known in His Word.  It is man’s act of turning to God, of opening up his life to Him and of surrounding to Him.” Barth also makes this statement, “But our first task is not to understand the knowledge of God as faith, but the knowledge of God as faith”

Having addressed the nature of the knowledge of God as faith, he turns his attention to the depth and nature of how this knowledge is revealed to us.  Again in his own words:

God is objectively immediate to Himself, but to us He is objectively mediate.  That is to say, He is objective directly but indirectly, not in the naked sense but clothed under the sign and veil of other objects different from Himself.  His secondary objectivity is fully true, for it as its correspondence and basis in His primary objectivity.  God does not have to be untrue to Himself and deceive us about His real nature in order to become objective to us

What Barth seems to articulate is something similar in nature to the position of “critical realism” that I have heard articulated in a variety of forms.  It is not that our knowledge of God is complete as we do not know God unmediated.  But rather God uses other objects and using those objects as “sign and veil” God reveals himself.  Another word might be that God uses “icons” to reveal Himself to us.  But Barth insists that despite this veiled revelation the secondary objectivity is none the less maintained.  In other words, our knowledge of God, while mediated is none the less ontologically grounded.

Barth takes this belief to it’s logical conclusion in his discussion of the early church.  “In their existence as apostles the secondary objectivity of the human appearing of Jesus Christ Himself is repeated.  And hidden with this is the primary objectivity of God Himself, calling to faith, awakening to faith, establishing faith and renewing faith, and with faith the knowledge of God – not by these men’s own strength but by the power of the Holy Spirit communicated to them, in the freedom of grace”  

If one follows Barth’s logic his belief in the “visible church” as the literal ontological incarnation (shall we say?) present throuth the power of the Spirit.  It is not that the church is literally God, but God assumes the church through His Spirit in a way that the church points to and reveals the true and real knowledge of God to the world.

Talk about a daunting thought to think about when it comes to writing a sermon…

Snowed In!

So the winter storm has rolled into Pittsburgh, and thanks to my laptop I am working from home today.

I finished the first section of Church Dogmatics II.1 and hope to post a reflection on it today.  This is perhaps some of Barth’s most impressive work that I’ve read so far.

Return to Barth…

So for the past few months I’ve been away from reading Karl Barth.  After taking Theology/Ethics of Karl Barth last year I ventured into some other areas but have really missed my time with the greatest theologians of the 2oth Century.  So now I’ve returned to where I began… The Church Dogmatics, reading II.1.

I hope to post a little snipet with a comment each day to help keep myself accountable.  We’ll see how I do!

The Bible

A number of weeks ago I posted my list of “Top 20 books” and at the beginning I said I was going to leave the bible off the list because it was in a totally different category. One commentor asked what category I would put the bible in. So, here’s my attempt to answer that question:

The books on the list are all very good books – or I would not have included them. However, none of those books are “my book”. The bible is “my book” as it has become part of my story, or more aptly I’ve become a part of it’s story. I’ve had a long relationship with the bible, better at some points, not so good at others. There was the time when it was just intimidating, then the time when it began to open new worlds, then the time when it became a book of theological data, to becoming a living testimony to God’s work in the world. Lately, it’s become the later and now a story book. The bible is the story book of the Christian family – it’s not something you read once and then put away, it’s something you pull out and read often, because it tells the story of those who went before you. Like the old family stories you read them and tell them over and over again because reading them helps you understand who you are.  What makes the bible more than just a story book is that our ancestors in the faith have taught us that God still speaks through these old old stories. For me the bible is something to be wrestled with, to be challenged by, and to see into new worlds with. John Calvin described the bible as the spectacles through which we see God, and I love that description. I do not “believe in the bible” nor am I a “bible believing Christian.” I put my faith in the one to whom the bible points – Jesus of Nazareth and his Father in Heaven and his Spirit poured out in the world.   The bible helps me understand where as a follower of Jesus I’ve come from and where, as a follower of Jesus, I’ll be going in the future.  The bible excites me, angers me, challenges me, and intruiges me all at the same time.

Even the genuius of Karl Barth cannot compare…

The top 20 books that have most influenced me…

So Ben Myers has posted a top 20 list of the books that have most influenced him… so I thought I’d come up with my list of top 20 most influential books. I am going to exclude the bible from the top 20, not because it hasn’t influenced me but rather because it’s in a whole different category

1. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics – IV/1-2 (These two books completely shattered my world during my first two years of seminary as they opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking theologically)
2. Tony Jones, Postmodern Youth Ministry (The best book on Youth Ministry as it doesn’t offer a model, but rather things to think about as one does ministry)
3. Andrew Purves and Charles Partee, Encountering God (I’ve only read it once but given that I took a total of 10 classes in seminary from the authors their thoughts have shaped how I think)
4. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/4 (While not as influential as IV/1-2 this volume on ethics helped me understand how ethics can be intensely situational yet rooted in the command of God. It also reinforced my belief that in ministry its more important to teach people how to think, rather than what to think)
5. Andrew Purves, Reconstructing Pastoral Theology (I took the man for six courses… need I say more?)
6. John Franke and Stanley Grenz, Beyond Foundationalism (I read this book during my last year of seminary and I finally felt that I had found my place in the theological spectrum. This book also helped me understand how eschatology integrated into the day to day life of the church as the “orienting principle” for the church’s mission)
7. John Franke, The Character of Theology (Similar to the book above, this prequel of sorts helped me get a grasp on how to think about the theological task in a postmodern world)
8. Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God
9. Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom
10. Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope (I didn’t discover Moltmann until late in my seminary career, but two of the professors who I learned the most from in seminary were shaped by him. While often at odds with Barth, I found him challenging and enjoyed the fact that he stretched me to think of categories in different ways)
11. NT Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (I’m actually in the midst of reading this one, but while I was in seminary and dating Renee long distance I used to spend hours in my car driving back and forth. NT Wright has more free audio available online than anyone else I know so I used to listen to his lectures off of my iPod. Wright helped me get inside the bible the world of the bible and to better understand Jesus’ intensely political message without simply collapsing it into either left wing socialism or right wing moralism)
12. Jerry Bridges, The Discipline of Grace (I read this book at the end of my time in college and while now I probably wouldn’t get much out of it, I remember really be challenged and yet refreshed by the concept of the discipline of living in grace)
13. Doug Fields, Purpose Driven Youth Ministry (I’ve read this book twice – first while I was just out of college and again while I was in seminary. While Doug and I aren’t on the same page on everything, it’s given me a helpful way to think about ministry
14. Athanasius, Against the Arians (I haven’t read the whole thing, but read significant parts for classes and papers. Really shaped my understand of the atonement as Christ’s whole life, not just his death)
15. Cornelius Plantinga, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be (I only read a short except from this book, but it’s a phrase that I’ve found so apt at describing the world that it’s become a hallmark in nearly every sermon I preach or lesson I teach)
16. T.F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God (I feel bad putting Torrance down this low on the list because he should be higher, but alas. This book was my first serious attempt at working through the Doctrine of the Trinity)
17. John Calvin, Institues of the Christian Religion (Ditto for Calvin, he shouldn’t be down this low. Once I left seminary I realized how much his understanding of the church and it’s sacraments had shaped my own)
18. David Bosch, Transforming Mission (Read this book for Missiology and am still being challenged by it)
19. Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (This book should be required for every person planning to do ministry in at least the United States)
20. Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy (McLaren, like Wright, has shaped me more through his lectures that I’ve listened to than his writing, but I read this book in the midst of seminary and came to a greater understanding of how he thought

Honorable Mention:

• Stanley Grez, A Primer on Postmodernism
• Alister McGrath, Scientific Theology
• Dan Kimball, Emerging Worship
• The Book of Confessions of the PC(USA) – Particularly The Barmen Declaration and The Confession of 1967

So there you have it. The numbering isn’t really right – Bosch and Newbigin would definitely be higher on the list. But, what this list proves is that I’m (1) A total dork (2) Shaped heavily by the Post-Conservative/Neo-Orthodox Reformed tradition

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Summary/Review

When I set out on this short adventure of reading and blogging about a book I said that my comments and review would not be “ojbective” in any sense of the word because I am a fan of Barth’s theology and count John Franke as one of my friends… so take my comments with a grain of salt.

Overall, I really enjoyed Barth for Armchair Theologians.  Its length makes it very digestible  and it’s style, a cross between biographical story and analysis creates a nice balance to read.  Particularly helpful is that this can be desribes as “theological-historical” biography as at every point John seeks to show how the historical content in which Barth was living and writing impacted what he wrote.  My ability to tell whether something is accessible to the average chuch goer is completely shot, but my guess is that most people with an interest in theology would be able to handle it.  I found the last part of Chapter 7, where John discusses the neo-orthodox/postmodern interpretations of Barth to be a little higher grade of discussion, but nothing completely over the top.

What the book helped me to was understand myself better actually.  While my thinking has been shaped by Barth directly (via his books) my thinking has also been shaped by Barth indirectly through the people he has influenced such as professors that I’ve had and authors that I’ve read.  At numerous points in the book I was reading and then went, “Ah ha!  That’s where that came from!”

What did suprise me a bit was that there was no mention of Barth’s highly controversial assisant, Charlotte Von Kirschbaum.  It seems that shortly after the discussion of Barth begins someone brings up the strange mysterious relationship between Barth and Von Kirschbaum and its something that wasn’t even mentioned in this book.

My final assessment is that Barth for Armchair Theologians is well worth reading, especially if one is interested in getting a grasp on his thought prior to diving into the Church Dogmatics which will literally take a person years to read….

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Chapter 4-7

So I got a little behind on my blogging about Barth for Armchair Theologians mainly because I was reading it so fast to the point where I finished the book today. So I’m going to summarize the last four chapters in this post and then post my summary thoughts.

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 is entitled “The Impossible Impossibility” which traces Barth’s rise to popularity as he shifted from Switzerland into Germany and began his time there. What I found most ironic was that Barth was actually throughly unqualified to teach what he had been called to teach (Reformed dogmatics) and thus spent much of his time lecturing in order to teach himself. It’s interesting that he highlights the Heidelberg Catechism which is something that Barth references a great deal in the Church Dogmatics. Franke also highlights Barth’s understanding of Reformed Theology as theology that is constantly reforming, hence for Barth reformed theology has never “arrived”. Finally, this chapter brings to light Barth’s rediscovery of John Calvin and the ultimate impact that that had on his development.

The next section of the chapter highlights Barth’s reference to the “impossible possibility” of theology. Basically, as humans we are inherently unable to speak of God but because God acts in revelation we thus can attempt to speak of God. This is one of many dialectical tensions that emerge in Barth’s thought, but this is perhaps the most central.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 is entitled, “Bearing Christian Witness” which, given the impossibility of speaking about God is all that we can do. This, along with the belief that Dogmatics was ultimately to serve the church led him to undertake “The Church Dogmatics” rather than his previously attempted, “Christian Dogmatics”.   The final part of the chapter highlights Barth’s engagement with the Nazi Party in Germany, the Barmen Declaration, and his ultimate dismissal for refsing to sign an oath of faithfulness to the German government.

Chapter 6

Chapter 6, entitled “The Church Dogmatics” is by far the longest and therefore its going to get the shortest summary.  It traces the outline and shape of the Church Dogmatics and then summarizes each volume.

Chapter 7

The final chapter traces Barth’s legacy and his post-retirement legacy.  Franke devotes considerable time to outlining two interpretations of Barth – the neo-orthodox interpretation and the postmodern interpretation.  Franke argues that each interpretation of Barth ultimately fails to account for Barth’s dialectical style.  The neo-orthodox side diminishes the “God as wholly other” emphasis, while the postmodern interpretation neglects God givenenss and revelation.  Franke ultimately argues that is Barth’s dialectical style that must govern our reading of Barth.

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Chapter 2-3

In Chapter 2 of “Barth for Armchair Theologians” John Franke continues to trace the biographical developments of the young Barth as he began his time as a Swiss pastor.  As someone who has read mainly the later Barth (Church Dogmatics III.3-IV.2) some of the statements that Franke recounts are quite stunning, but helpful to understanding Barth’s beginnings.  Most notable has to be Barth’s comment regarding the Chalcedonian definition of the nature of Jesus Christ: “If Jesus were like this I would not be interested in him” (Pg. 22)  Franke also highlights Barth’s involvement with Christian socialism and his involvement in the struggles of his parishoners.  This all leads to the most illuminating part of the chapter, where Franke describes Barth’s break with liberalism.

Franke points out that Barth’s break with liberalism began in the midst of World War I, when many of his teachers had given their stamp of approval to the German war effort, much to the chagrin of Barth.  “For Barth, the fatal flaw in the liberal approach to theology was it limited ability to speak about God in ways that challenged the assumptions and presuppisitions of a particular culture… Hence, the God of liberal theology appeared to Barth to function as one who simply sanctioned the values and norms that society had established and certified them with a divine seal of approval.” (Pg. 31)

What we might ask led to Barth’s shift?  It was a return to the bible, and a new way of reading the bible.  “The bible is not primiarly about history, religion, morality, and the like, but rather God.  God is the content of the Bible.  It is not right human thoughts about God that make up the content of the Bible, but rather right divine thoughts about human beings…. it <the Bible> stands over against our knowledge and will as something Wholly Other.

It was this view of the bible, coupled with his intense study of the Epistle to the Romans that led to the “bomb that went off in Switzerland” (to quote one of my former professors); Barth’s commentary on Romans.  The new central piece of Barth’s thinking became the idea that God was “Wholly Other”.  I personally had never made the connection between Barth’s frustration with seeing God’s blessing too easily pronounced over World War I with his emphasis on God as “Wholly Other” who could not be co-opted to affirm human interests.  Rather, according to Franke Barth argued “… that the Bible legitimatizes only one truth, one store, and one kingdom, the kingdom of God.” (Pg. 46)

Franke then attempts to explain Barth’s “dialectical approach” to theology.  Even as someone who is familiar with this I was highly suspicious that this section would come across as being at all readable.  However, I am happy to report that I think it’s clear and readable.  “He <Barth> speaks of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the center of human knowledge of God yet also asserts that human beings do not have the ability to understand what has been revealed.”  To put this into my own words, God’s revelation through Jesus Christ is something we know happened, but within the frameworks that we have we cannot understand and comprehend it.  It is the “Wholly Other” acting in our world. There is a simply beautiful paragraph that I was going to try and summarize but it simply cannot be done

Barth’s dialectical approach to speaking about God meant that standard assumptions concerning theology in both liberal and conservative traditions, had to be rethought and reconstructed.  Hence, Barth tended to be wary of straightfoward propositional statements about God, revelation, and truth which would suggest that we as human creatures are in a position to speak knowingly about things that are of neccessity, because of the Creator-creature distinction, known only to God in spite of revelation.  Propositions are too static for speech about God.  Yet he also wanted to affirm, indeed felt compelled to affirm, that God had indeed been revealed and made known in Jesus Christ.  Hence it was neccessary to do two things: first, to recognize and acknowledge the inadequacy of human langauge with respect to God; and second, given the necessity and responsibility of human beings to bear witness to their Creator, to rethink and redeploy patters of theological speech that were dynamic and more reflective of a God who cannot be pinned down, contained, or put in a box” (Pg. 48)

Yes – go back and read that again.  It’s that beautiful.

Franke wraps up chater 3 by introducing the Lambech lecture, which Barth was invited to give in Germany to a group of Christian Socialists.  In it, Barth actually argues against that which he used to support and says that in the end God alone can save the world and put things right.  Another quote:

“In light of the resurrection, human beings can no longer live under the illusion that we can change the world for God or on behalf of God, but we can live in the assurance that god can and will overcome and transform the world and bring about the Kingdom of God.  This is our hope” (Pg. 55)

Needless to say, thus far I am impressed and enjoying Barth for Armchair Theologians.  As I said in a post a few days ago my review is far from objective (no review really ever is) as I’m a huge fan of Barth and count John Franke among my friends.  However, it is helpful to see the care in which John has focused on Barth’s early life instead of diving directly into the Church Dogmatics and that this book is approached as a biography.

Chapter 4/5 to come tomorrow…

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Intro/Chapter 1

John Franke opens his introduction by asserting, as many would, that when all is said and done Karl Barth will be considered the giant of the 20th Century, and in all likelihood one of the giants of Christian theology period. The irony, as Franke points out, is that despite this he is one of the least read theologians, in part due to the sheer mass of his Church Dogmatics. Franke points out though that this was not what Barth intended. In fact, Barth himself never completed his doctorate and saw his role as a theologian as assisting the church in its proclamation.

Franke then outlines what the book will be. “This little book tells the story of Barth’s theological journey from liberalism to a new form of theology” (Pg. x) Franke points out that in the end, Barth traced a path of theological thinking that drew the ire of the “conservatives” for being “too liberal” and the ire of the liberals for being “too conservative”. But John invites us to “… enter into the story for themselves and come to their own conclusions”

Chapter 1 is a brief biography of Barth’s childhood, followed by a clear and concise introduction to the three main figures (Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and Herrmann) and in theology who preceded Barth himself and thus shaped Barth’s early thinking. A few things stood out to me from this chapter that I thought were significant

• I was unaware that Barth had grown up in a deeply pious family with a father who valued religious experience over “orthodoxy” and viewed “orthodoxy” as something that sometimes hindered faith
• Franke offers a nice introduction to the enlightenment as well as summaries of Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and Herrmann – not too technical or in-depth, but adequate.
• I think its helpful that Franke starts with a historical introduction and allows the story of Barth’s life to unfold in story form.

Chapter 2: “Breaking with Liberalism”