Images communicate powerfully. I read the following from Pete Rollins blog this morning and found it strikingly similar to a quote from John Franke’s, Barth for Armchair Theologians,
The question to be explored was how to bear witness and give glory to God without blurring the Creator-creature distinction and lapsing into religion. In order to pursue this task, Barth develops a dialectical approach to human language and speech about God. He speaks of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the center of human knowledge of God and yet also asserts that human beings do not have the ability to understand what has been revealed. Hence, Barth can sepak of the revelation of God that occurred in Jesus Christ as being the aftermath of an explosion of an artillery shell. We discern from the large crater that is left behind that something significant has happened, but we are unable to make sense off it within the framework of the knowledge and experience available to us. The way of the cross of Christ leading to our adoption as God’s children comes only through the death of the present world, including us. (Franke,BAT,p.47-48)
Rollins offered,
Apocalypse
Question – What does it mean to affirm intervention as primary?
Answer
– It means that we affirm the idea of apocalypse as something that has
happened in our life. Or that we are open to the incoming of apocalypse
in our lifeQuestion – What is an apocalypse?
Answer
– Apocalypse is the incoming of the Event which we could never have
foreseen, anticipated or predicted and whose presence strikes us as
utterly incomprehensible, bedazzling and transformative. An apocalypse
is the Happening which ruptures our world, which acts as a rent in our
being, ensuring that we are never the same againâ??Ã?¶apocalypse is revelation
My educational experience did more warning about Barth than reading Barth. After Marty’s post this morning I find the logic connecting new music with staff members falling to infidelity to be similar to suggesting the free fall into liberalism by reading those considered "neo-orthodox." John asserted earlier this year future generations may well consider Karl Barth the most influential theologican of the 20th century. I cannot say I have read enough to form that kind of opinion. I can write that at the very least we ought to be paying attention to Barth’s historical location, his theological development and the manner in which any insights from his writing may help us wrestle with our context of ministry as he seemed to as a result of his pastorate in Safenwil.
Franke wrote, “We discern from the large crater that is left behind that something significant has happened, but we are unable to make sense off it within the framework of the knowledge and experience available to us. The way of the cross of Christ leading to our adoption as God’s children comes only through the death of the present world, including us.”
If what Franke says is true (and I do agree with his assessment) that, like Plato’s cave analogy, we cannot even come close to explaining with any sense of accuracy God and God’s work, how come we make so much of theology in general?
It would appear that as complicated as theology becomes, the further away from God we find ourselves. I wrestle with this almost every time I gather myself to write my sermons. Can I, a finite and fallable self, actually articulate enough of God to be a proper vessel for God.
In all honesty, if it weren’t for my belief that the Spirit is the one doing the inspiring, I’d hang it all up and go back to work at McKinsey & Co.
Your article articulates my main concern (and beef) with theology in general. Thanks for sharing it.