Barth on God's Covenant With Humanity

This is Eberhard Busch quoting and summing up parts of Karl Barth's Doctrine of Reconciliation. I think this is hugely important stuff -- such that I hesitate to spoil it with introductory comments. So give it a read and I'll spoil it with follow-up comments instead:

"'Reconciliation . . . is the fulfillment of the covenant between God and man' . . . .

Barth’s understanding of the covenant has an unusual emphasis at this point when he says that God involves himself with humans despite sin. . . . if it were otherwise, God’s relationship to human beings would be dependent upon sin. Sin would either be immortalized or God would have nothing to do with humans apart from sin. As God’s reconciling reaction to sin takes place in the act of his [pre-existent] covenant will, it cannot thus be pulled into the undertow of sin.

For God, this can only mean allying himself with human beings notwithstanding their sin. According to Barth, the reconciliation that takes place in the fulfillment of God’s covenant has the character of an effective protest. Barth even speaks (and here he uses the concept in a different way than usual) of the character of judgment. Because it takes place as a reaction to sin in God’s covenant action, his judgment is the fulfillment of God’s faithfulness as he rejects Israel’s unfaithfulness . . . .

That reconciliation took place within the covenant means ‘with divine necessity’ that the Word became flesh, yet ‘not simply any flesh, any man humbled and suffering. It became Jewish flesh. The church’s whole doctrine of the incarnation and the atonement becomes abstract and valueless and meaningless to the extent that this comes to be regarded as something accidental and incidental.’"

(Quoted from Eberhard Busch, Barth, 2008, pages 42-43; referring to Barth excerpts from Church Dogmatics IV/1- 22, 34, 71-3,181-4)

Ian on John Webster on the Bible

I've been in touch with a guy named Ian who is doing a Master's degree over at the University of Aberdeen and he's been helping me out with some of the details of considering a move to Scotland. As a result I have been keeping an eye on his blog, the stoop, and I thought his most recent post on the place of the Bible in Christian ministry was really good.

The following exerpt was notable to me not only for its content, but for the insight it gives me into the approach of my soon-to-be doctoral supervisor, John Webster. Ian writes:

"Webster would argue that we ought to begin by maintaining not that the text is inspired and infallible, but that God, who reveals himself through the Bible, is the One who inspires. Therefore, we should approach the Bible as a text through which God reveals God’s self, not allowing our ministry to be defined by the worshipping of and strict adherence to the text itself, but rather by trust, worship and obedience in relation to the God that the text reveals. In relation to ministry, therefore, the Bible must be read as an account of God’s self-revealing work in creation, as a text that must be interpreted in context and as a story that demands active participation. . . .

A more communal and narrative mode of reading is necessary. Modern modes of reading have encourage individuals to examine the text on their own in search of certainty and fact, that which can be applied to daily living and held onto in the face of immediate and imminent personal experience. As readings by George Lindbeck and Stanley Hauerwas reminded us, however, we are to approach the Bible as an all-embracing story of the past and present dealings of the triune God with his creation and his people. Through this mode of reading, there will be a renewed sense of our place within the text, and how it is to be read and lived out within the context of our specific communities."

Read it all, including an endorsement of one of the best books I've ever read on this topiv (by Fowl and Jones), here.

Barth on Theology

"For Barth, theology ‘is the most beautiful of the sciences’ . . . . When asked about the significance of reason, he simply replied, ‘I use it.’

And what is reason used for? Barth says that just as Philip asked the Ethiopian official in Acts 8 whether he understood what he was reading, so one can also ask, ‘Do you understand what you are believing?’

Theology seeks to help us understand what we read and believe. In theology, as Barth conceives it, one walks a path on which we follow not a principle but a person, Christ; and theology is about following Jesus Christ, following him in the realm of thinking. The Word of God that comes to us in Christ is not simply printed in a book."

(Quoted from Eberhard Busch, Barth, 2008)

The Mythographer

My friend Joel, with whom I've been debating Christianity and atheism here there and everywhere for a couple years, is hosting a discussion aimed at me and me alone on his blog, the Mythographer. It is about reason, and the place of reason, and aims to be a bit of a sideline from our basic arguments in which we've been butting heads over and over.

Could be heady stuff, and I'm not even sure I will represent the people of my faith all that well, but if you want to follow along, the link is going to keep showing up in my blogroll whenever the conversation moves forward. I don't really have a goal, except to be sharpened, to understand, and to see where, if anywhere, Joel and I part ways (not as friends, but in terms of worldview, of course).

Anyway, if you feel like observing, well, there you go. If not, hey, that's fine.

What Went Wrong for West Wing V?

When my wife and I started into West Wing Season Five a month or so ago I was curious to see if something went wrong with the show. I remember that it was sometime in season five that the ratings started to take a dip and they first started talking about the show's longevity. It ended up going seven, but I'd have liked to have seen it go eight.

I used to think it must have been the loss of Rob Lowe in season four that caught up to them, but I don't think so anymore. Certainly his absence was felt, but that's not it. A better theory is that the loss of writer Aaron Sorkin led to the loss of viewers, but, as good as he was, the writing didn't suffer enough to cause the show to lose the people who would already have been sucked in. No. I think the loss in ratings was a loss of the casual viewer. And in season five something happened that I think made it happen.

It wasn't a drop in quality, it wasn't a shift in time slot, it wasn't any of that. It had everything to do with the story and the characters of the show themselves, and this is it:

The goings got tough.

At times it was even hard to watch. The season began with the President's daughter being kidnapped, and while that sounds like a ratings grab, it transcended such gimmicks by turning itself into an interwoven group of character studies. If it was a series of novels, this would be the one where the characters went through the fire. Sometimes they came out shining, sometimes their flaws were exposed. Always it was smart writing.

Always it felt like life and entertainment were meeting and making art. I'm not totally opposed to entertainment being escapist, but I do prefer the smart, real, stuff; the stuff of classic novels; the stuff of developing characters and story webs. It doesn't get the ratings as much, I suppose, but it is right up my alley.

Perhaps the highlight of the season, thematically, is the fallout from the aforementioned kidnapping, where the President steps down in order not to do something rash to save his daughter. What results is that the person who takes over does what is best for the country first, and the daughter second. In the end they do get the daughter back, but the family is never the same.

The cost of leadership is seen at its highest, and the President is seen for his commitment to his job and his country. But the cost is high, and it takes the family a long time to recover. It feels like a modern parable of Abraham and Isaac, achieving through a contemporary storyline what Soren Kierkegaard with Fear and Trembling and Fredrick Buechner with his novel Son of Laughter achieve with the old one. The depth of it is profound, while still being great entertainment.

That said, it was a tough year for the characters and the storylines, and so I can now why viewers dropped off. But as a fan of the West Wing, it is sort of gratifying that it lost viewers because of an increase, and not a decrease, in quality. Bravo.