What Comes First – Doctrine or Life? (A response to "Beyond Foundationalism" and "Velvet Elvis")

This perpetual “chicken or the egg” question which has been presented to me many times in my educational and personal life over these last years.

Growing up, I had always assumed that doctrine came before life. It was precisely this belief that lead me to Bible school, where I hoped to hear the deep things of God expounded to me, in order that I could spend a lifetime expounding them to others, to be of maximum assistance to my fellow humans. It was at seminary, however, that I first encountered the rival position.

In Grenze and Franke’s book “Beyond Foundationalism,” they argue that the concept of finding truth in Scriptures, then building one truth after another upon these Scriptures (or, “Foundationalism”) is too outdated, “too modern,” and too divisive. They prefer to see theologians as servants of the church – following after her. As she experiences God, the theologians write theology to express this experience. This is basically the same perspective which was presented by Classic Liberalism, which was fond of saying “beware of doctrine!” and urging people to put their experiences, not their ideas of God, as foremost in their spiritual lives. Most recently, Rob Bell has said that the idea that Scriptures can actually speak for themselves, (that is, the idea that the Bible has a trans-cultural message, which can be read in-spite of any biases of the reader) is a toxic, dangerous idea. Later he says that it makes him want to vomit. For him, doctrines help us live and help us love – but the doctrines themselves are not the point (the living and loving is), and they can be changed for other doctrines if we so choose.

With all this preamble, I hope that you see clearly that although you may have thought it only common sense that doctrines precede life, there are many who are teaching exactly the opposite. In fact, there are exceedingly strong winds – both in the academy and Christian-pop-culture which would push the next generation into believing this very thing.

In this post, I hope to briefly, concisely and firmly prove that to be a Christian is to put doctrine before life.

IDEAS ARE IMPORTANT

Paired with the idea that “life proceeds doctrine” is the similar thought that “doctrine is unimportant.” But on what ground can this idea be defended? Doctrines are beliefs, and beliefs are the most important things which exist in the life of a human. Beliefs drive some people to success and other to failure. Beliefs make and ruin marriages. Beliefs push people to climb mountains, and lower them to wallow in drunken stupors.

But doctrines are not just any beliefs – they are beliefs about God, about eternity, about the meaning of life. In short, doctrines are beliefs about the most important things in the world. It was because of doctrine that the armies of Hitler, of Stalin, and of the Allies marched. It was because of doctrine that Muslims flew their planes into the World Trade Center, and because of doctrine that the Christian and post-Christian nations fought back.

In fact, if one was perceptive they would see that only a few of the major wars of the last century have been wars over bare-faced greed and hatred: almost all of them have been wars of doctrine. And this with good reason! For the doctrines of one people raised them to great humanitarian heights – while the doctrines of others caused them to devalue human life, to use and abuse people, to imprison and exterminate, to commit genocide and crimes against humanity.

Hitler was a mighty military genius: but without his propaganda – that is, without his ability to convert people to his way of thinking, to his doctrine – he would have been powerless.

How can anyone say that doctrines are unimportant? Anyone with sense could see that doctrines are the rudders which steers the mighty ships of our turbulent earth.

PLACING EXPERIENCE BEFORE DOCTRINE IS KNOWN COMMONLY AS ‘FLYING BY THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS’

We know people who act without first thinking. In common language we say they, “live by the seat of their pants.” The Bible calls these people fools. A wise man looks ahead and avoids the pit: the fool stumbles right into it.

No one values this. No one with any sense lives like this: not in marriage, not in finances, not in careers, not in any aspect of life, in fact, except in this one thing, in religion. But if religion is the most important aspect of life – that is, it is that one aspect of belief, from which all other beliefs flow – then why are people cavalier about this aspect of their belief? Should religion not be the most important, and therefore the most studied, most contemplated, most thoroughly accurate portion of our belief system?

PARENTS PUT RIGHT THOUGHT BEFORE LIFE EXPERIENCE

Let us put the large words aside – or, rather, boil them down to more common and manageable words. By “doctrines,” we mean things that Christians think about God and life. By experience, we mean daily life. Now tell me – which do you expect to come first for your children? Do you tell your two-three-and-twelve year-olds, “go, my children – experience the world! Learn for yourselves what is right and wrong!” Of course not. That is just silly. As parents, we have a wealth of information to pass on to our children. Our intention is not (usually/hopefully) to control them or stifle their growth. Rather, we hope to set them on a firm foundation of learning and of sound living. Before our children are in their teens, we expect them to be acquainted with literally millenia of accumulated human knowledge and lessons. We also expect them to have a strong sense of morality – treating others with fairness and compassion. In short, we teach our  children what/how to think in order that they may have long, happy and prosperous lives. We do not expect them to experience the world with an empty head, then come back to us and tell us what to think about it. Of course, this does happen – and broken-hearted parents beat on the doors of heaven, crying out for their children to be quickly delivered from the arrogant self-sufficiency of adolescence.

There is a critical phase of development when parents (ideally) begin to back off, to let their children learn for themselves. However, this cautious freedom is really just another teaching method. The hope is that children given guidance from a distance will be able to learn for themselves the lessons which the parents have tried to instill in them from childhood.

A few very foolish parents attempt to give their children absolute freedom from diapers to graduation. The result is almost universally one of absolute disaster.

But if we cannot even raise our children without first giving them thoughts to build their lives on, how can pastors, churches, and even theologians say that the thoughts of people on this topic of religion are unimportant?

A STRANGE DIVISION BETWEEN SPIRITUAL AND EARTHLY MATTERS

Perhaps it could be said that these are all secular matters. On finances, on career and life planning and such things, it is essential to have a good education. However, in spiritual matters it is the questioning and the journeying which are far more important than the destination.

In reply to this we must ask two questions: first, is God real, or only a figment of our imagination? Secondly, we must ask whether right knowledge is necessary to relationship.

Many people – even many Christian people – believe that religion is a deeply private affair. And in certain ways it most certainly is. Nobody should tell anybody else what they must believe about God. However, when we make the statement that “everybody’s beliefs about God are valid,” we are making a very definite theological statement. We are, in fact, denying the real existence of God: for the only way that mutually contradicting statements can both be “equally” valid is for neither of them to be valid.

EVERY PERSON HAS CERTAIN FACTS, WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THEM

Let us imagine three girls – all bereaved of their father in early childhood. Naturally, each of the girls has a “relationship” with her father in her memories of him. And just as naturally, the father of the imagination is slightly different for each girl. The oldest remembers her father as a wise and quiet man – slow of speech, but full of wisdom and kindness. The middle child remembers him on his knees giving her “horsie-rides” and tickling her with great affection. The youngest, however (who in reality has no memories whatsoever) has invented a father by gluing together the TV characters of Mr. Christie, Santa Clause and Willy Wanka. The other sisters regard her mythological conceptions of father with quiet and respectful amusement. Each one is welcome to her own opinion – and the very young are welcome even to deceive themselves. However, at some point if the youngest will not grow out of her delusion, an older sister is sure to set her straight: “Look, sister, dad was not magical. He did not wear a top hat. He did not have a snowy white beard. He did not go to the land of leprochans and umpa-lumpas. Dad was a real person. And these stories you are making up are totally fictional. Your fantasies do not match up with the actual reality which I remember. Please – if you want to hold on to these delusions, keep them to yourself. They are an insult to me, because you make it sound like dad did not really exist, was not a real person. And he was. I remember him!”

Surely God shows a different aspect of Himself to each person. However, if we begin to say that wildly contradicting ideas about God’s nature and character (for example, “He is Trinity” versus “He is not Trinity) are equally valid, we have just made the statement that God is not real, except in the human imagination. At this point, ”God” differs nothing from the tooth-fairy, the imaginary friend, or Santa Clause.

FACTS ABOUT PEOPLE ARE ESSENTIAL TO RELATIONSHIPS

Further, it is my firm belief that beliefs about a person are foundational to a relationship of any sort. Let us use the internet phenomenon of a chat room as one bare example. Let’s say we are in an open chat room – discussing, for example, global warming. A user by the name of Gl831 has said some interesting things, and so you want to talk to them directly – perhaps even become (as scary as this is!) their friend. What is the first thing you would likely ask them? “Hello, Gl831 – just curious, what is your a/s/l?” As we techies know, that stands for “age, sex, location” – the bare minimum of information which you can know about a person, to have an online conversation/relationship. If you don’t know this, or if the person lies to you, a real deep relationship is impossible. If you do not know whether Gl831 is, for example, 38/m/United States or 12/f/Japan, you will have no idea how to visualize the person, how to respond, how to term your questions, where they are coming from, or, in short, who they are. They will be nothing but a phantom to you.

And if we are unclear about our beliefs about God, He is only a phantom to us: no relationship is possible. If we do not know whether “God” is Zeus or Gaia, whether He is Allah or Buddha, whether He is Yahweh or “the force,” whether He is, kind or mean, all-knowing or limited, all-powerful or impotent, personal or impersonal, how could we begin to have a relationship with Him? If we are keeping our minds “open” to all possibilities, we are really admitting we have landed on none, and thus are very far from even attempting a relationship.

Let us push it further. Let’s go ask that couple – the one over there, walking on the beach with stars in their eyes – whether they have beliefs about one another, or are motivated by pure sentimentality? On the surface, yes, the two are simply madly, illogically in love. But let us push deeper. “Maam, do you believe that this man is a cruel person?” “No! Of course not!” “Do you believe he will be a good father?” “I certainly do!” “Do you think he will abuse your children?” “Certainly not! Why – do you know something I don’t know?” See now how this relationship is actually built on real beliefs. Only a little digging and experimentation shows how very weak those foundation-stones are in this case, for in reality most of the woman’s beliefs about the man (and vice-versa) are founded only in a projection of desire: however, without concrete beliefs, a relationship is impossible. Of course, a person is more than a list of facts (e.g. 5’3″, male, Canadian, kind, good at math, Christian, good provider, virgin, well groomed, etc.) but they are never less than these facts. These facts provide the bedrock of a relationship: alter or move the important “rocks,” and the relationship shatters.

CONCLUSION

So it is with a relationship with the Living God. He is real. As such, He has real facts – or, attributes – which we can learn about. He has a real history, and He really spent time in the flesh, on this earth as recorded in the Bible. In reading, studying and cross-referencing the Bible, we can arrive are real “doctrines,” or “beliefs” about God. Our relationship to God is built upon these beliefs. Our life, in turn, is built upon our relationship (or lack thereof) with God.

Therefore, Christian doctrines do not flow from experience, but experience flows from doctrines. There is likely no more important task for each individual Christian than finding out exactly what it is that God has revealed of Himself in Scriptures, and seeing how that intersects with their own lives.

By contrast, the idea of theology or doctrines coming from experience is at best agnosticism and at worst an anti-God religion, which makes humanity the inventors of “God,” who is merely a figment of each individual’s private imagination.

The only religion where doctrines flow from life would be Hinduism, or various eastern spin-off religions from Hinduism. In this religion, each individual is the center of their own universe: they, themselves are or at least contain god. Therefore, whatever conception they hold of God is valid for them – as god, they have the power to create spiritual realities for one’s self. For Christians, however, who believe in a real personal God who is outside of us, the notion of “creating doctrine” is nonsense or (to put it into religious terminology) blasphemy.

I would like to close with one illustration. In the introduction of an episode of “the white-horse inn podcast,” one of the hosts told a story about a very liberal university professor, who was trying to convince the class that all religions are basically the same thing. The man’s aims were supposedly good – he was trying to achieve world peace by helping all religious people realize that they are all part of one big happy family. “The only uniting which he accomplished,” said the host, “was to motivate myself [a Christian] and my Jewish and Muslim friend to meet in a pub later that night and rage about how mad we were at him!”

And why wouldn’t they be mad? For if all religions are the same, they are all equally false. Wasn’t that teacher basically saying that all religions basically are myths which help us be good people? But to believe this would not be to be a “better” Muslim, Jew or Christian, but to cease to be a person of faith, and become an agnostic or humanist.

People who place life before doctrine should not be surprised at the angry back-lash from people of real faith: for there is no insult more deep and profound than to say that the beliefs which one has founded their entire life upon, has sacrificed for, has fought for, are mere fantasy.

 

The Theologian's Prayer

Oh Lord, may I stand among the great and nameless throng

Our voices weaving seamlessly in one unchanging song.

Thy glory as our object, thy person as our fame

With gratitude, with servitude our one, our great refrain.

 

Machen Quote

I think this quote from the first chapter of Machen’s “Liberalism and Christianity” is so good that I can cut and paste it here without comment. What do you think? I agree completely!!

****

The purpose of this book is not to decide the religious issue of the presentday, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible,in order that the reader may be aided in deciding it for himself.Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular businessat the present time; there are many who prefer to fight their intellectualbattles in what Dr. Francis L. Patton has aptly called a “condition oflow visibility.”1 Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, boldfacing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many personsregarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contributionto mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, andproduce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with suchpersons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seemat times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in theend. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditionalphrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from “controversial”matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphereof religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreedare apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really importantthings are the things about which men will fight.

 

Letter To A Bartian Professor

I originally wrote this letter to one of my “Bartian” (aka followers of Karl Barth) professor in my seminary. I am still hoping that he gets back to me eventually: in the mean time, however, I would like to also send my probings out onto the broad, wide seas of the world wide web, in hopes that someone out there will have some helpful thoughts or resources to send my way!

Mostly, I am hoping to get the other side of the debate, since I feel that my iTunes U class (“History of Philosophy and Christian Thought,” by Dr. John M. Frame, especially lectures 21-23), has argued strongly against Barth, and I don’t know who to read, for a voice championing his cause.

The traditional answer is for me simply to “dive into” the original documents, to read deeply of Barth from his own words. I am stuck with the dilemma, however, that if I were to do this at this point in my life, my thinking would likely become siginificantly shaped by Barth for life. Before I can ethially do this, however, I need to know whether Barth is on the level, and whether I should entrust my feeble, wandering mind to his tutolage. (Read more about my thoughts on this in “A Wise Shepherd of a Wandering Mind.”)

My solution is to read lightly of Barth and heavily of the second materials at least until I am able to see the major flaws in his thinking, so that when I do finally plunge in, I will know what to look out for.

If people have educated opinions to share, or pertinent resources – audio resources are highly prized!! – I would be very appreciative!

*****

Dear Dr. X:

Hello there!

It has been a while since we talked in person, and it will be a while until we talk again, since I am hoping to take most of the rest of my seminary by correspondence. There are some things which I am really struggling with, however, and you seem to be the natural person to talk to about them, since they all tie back to Karl Barth.

Would it be possible to schedule a meeting by phone in the next few weeks, to talk about some of my questions? …

I know that your time is limited, and so I have chosen to write this rather long e-mail to maximize efficiency. In this way, you will be able to skim quickly over a concise presentation of my thoughts, rather than listening to my faltering attempts at verbal precision on the phone.

*****

I had never heard of Barth until I entered seminary, and since that time, it seemed at times like I was hearing of no-one else! Naturally, this lead to a desire to know more about this man. Because there did not seem to be classes at (my seminary) which studied Barth as an objective subject, I looked online – specifically at iTunes U – to find some scholarly voices on the subject.

Those who seemed to have the most to say about Barth were Reformed “VanTillian” thinkers. You will probably not be surprised that these people had more critiques than affirmations when it came to Barth. Some of the material is beyond me, but in what I understand, I am feeling myself siding against Barth. I am hoping that you can present the other side of this debate, or at least point me to some names and titles which can speak in favor of Barth, as I continue to grow in my understanding of 20^th century theology.

OVERVIEW OF MY EMERGING THOUGHTS

I am beginning to see Barth as analogous to Brevard Childs. As I understand him, Childs was a man who excelled for years at Liberal (secular?) hermeneutics, but eventually felt a distinct lack when he realized that the theology which he was practicing was different from the faith of the Reformers and left no room for the faith which he cherished in his own heart. The rest of his legacy could be described as a monumental striving to bridge the impossible gap between the historical-critical method and the Christian faith.

I mention Childs not to say that I have formed a final opinion of the man, but by way of illustration: Increasingly, I am seeing Barth’s legacy in a similar light – as a monumental attempt to bridge an impossible gap.

BARTH’S OBSTACLE: LESSING’S UGLY DITCH

It seems to me that Barth is stumbling over that same obstacle which Kierkegaard and others struggled with – Lessing’s ugly ditch. If I can put this problem into my own words, Lessing understands that history as based ultimately on sensory data, which is flawed. Also, in no time or place does anybody have a “God’s-eye-view” of events, and so it is impossible to draw true applications from the disparate events of one’s day. Finally, the transmission of data from one generation to the next is flawed. The upshot of this is that we cannot know with absolute certainty exactly what Matthew originally wrote about what he thinks he saw, even if we were to trust his words (which we should not): or, in Lessing’s words, “If no hostorical truth can b demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths,” (Gotthold Lessing, Lessing’s Theological Writings, trans. Henry Chadwick, London: A & C Publishers, 1957, p. 55).

By the time Barth comes on the scene, the Liberal wing of the church had become quite comfortable setting up shop on “their side” of the ugly ditch, redefining Christianity around various systems of human perfectionisms through morality, romanticism, etc. Famously, Barth found the “faith” of Liberalism to be crushingly inadequate in view of WWI and the rise of the Third Reich in his native land of Germany. His solution is to engages in a thorough deconstruction of Liberalism (which I approve of), and then to spend the rest of his life trying to bridge Lessing’s ditch for himself, through existentialism (which I am not so sure about).

BARTH’S SOLUTION: EXISTENTIALISM

I find epistemology to be an ironic discipline, because while it is supposedly the study of “knowing,” those who spend too much time formulating a comprehensive epistemology almost inevitably end up with a system which warps all of knowledge around only one aspect of knowing. Thus, philosophers seems less in touch with reality, more inclined to insanity, and less able to function in the real world than their contemporaries, who apprehend reality in a more ad-hock fashion.

Existentialism, as I understand it, is an epistemological system which interprets all of reality around human experience. The old question, “If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, did it really fall?” seems to be a watershed question: an existentialist would answer “no:” since no human had an experience of a tree falling, it did not occur.

Barth seems to tip his hat to Lessing’s ditch in his discussion of “Historie,” then builds his theology of “Geshichta” around a basically existential understanding of God: we know God because we experience Him.

How? When? Where do we experience Him…?

First, we must understand that God is timeless – He is eternally present to us all, in Himself. Even as we rush through time, He is always near us, in the present. His entering into history seems historical to our perspective: however, to Him all of His intrusions into calendar-time are one – they all happen in “Geshichta,” in God’s special “time-space bubble,” if you will. God intruded into this world by setting it in motion, by talking to the patriarchs, by coming at Pentacost, by revealing Himself in sermons, etc. – but all of His intrusions are echoes forwards or echoes backwards to His prime revelation of Himself as Christ on the cross. The prime experience of God with this world was that moment when “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself,” (2 Cor. 5:19): that is, the moment at which the “being” in God overcame the “non-being” in God. All other events participate in that one event, but they are subordinate to it.

How is Lessing’s ditch bridged, then? God meets with His people ultimately in Christ, who is mediated through Scriptures and through preaching. These encounters are momentary from our perspective – but they are true existential occurrences of meeting with the divine. It is in these events – and in the fact that they are mediated only through Scriptures and Christian preaching (most definitely not through natural revelation!) – that a Christian may/must place their faith and trust.

Thus, Barth sees Scriptures as fallible, in agreement with Lessing and the Liberal camp: however, he sees God’s use of fallible Scriptures not as contradictory, but as an example of His great grace. The God who could speak through Balaam’s donkey, can also speak through such a book as Isaiah – a book written by three authors, handled roughly in transmission, and redacted beyond recognition by who-knows-who. (At least, that is what the Liberals believe)

IS BARTH BIBLICAL?

I am not sure whether I am understanding Barth correctly: I would very much like to know whether my brief sketch above is accurate!

If my sketch is accurate, I would tend to see Barth as “the best option, considering a poor starting-point.” If one accepts Lessing’s presuppositions, I suppose that Barth’s solution to the problem is among the best out there: but isn’t Lessing’s ditch the unique problem of a modern/scientific/empirical worldview?

LESSING’S UGLY PRECIPICE

I mentioned that Lessing has some dangerous presuppositions. I believe that the chief of these is one that runs deep to the core of our modern/scientific worldview: the belief that until science has spoken, there is no truth. No herbal remedy or folk cure should be trusted until “the experts” have done their job. Likewise, no text or document should be trusted until the experts have combed over it and sorted out the truth from the errors.

Here there is a problem, however. Although pop-scientists talk often about “facts” and “proven realities,” the fact is that the scientific method is a method of skepticism. Even something as basic as the boiling point of water is only likely to be at a certain temperature, given the known variables. Nothing is know for certain – there are only probabilities. Also, every few generations, the established norm is overthrown for a completely new paradigm. We can know nothing for sure.

For this reason, the most logical stance of a scientist is “skepticism.” Until a thing is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it should not be believed. Even when it is believed, the thing must be held loosely – there is no such thing as unquestionable fact.

I do not debate at all that Lessing’s ditch exists: however, I find it significant that it did not become a problem until the modern era. The ditch is not the problem: it is standing within the modern/scientific worldview which creates the problem!

TOWARDS A SCRIPTURAL HERMENEUTIC

According to Scriptures, there is no ditch. Rather, the Biblical writers predicate their words on accurate sensory-experience (1 John 1:1). They write their accounts guided by inspiration (1 Pet. 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16), and bequeath their testimonies to “faithful men,” (2 Tim. 2:2, Col. 4:16) to be held to and expounded from (2 Thess. 2:15) without dimunition or alteration (2 Pet. 3:16, [Rev. 22:18-19?]), as an enduring and accurate possession of the Church and foundation for faith (John 20:31).

No bridge must be built from our side: God has already built one from His side, in the holy writ of Scriptures.

Of course this doesn’t make any sense to the modern scholarly community…but whose approval/disapproval do we fear in the end?

RETURNING TO BARTH

In reading Childs and Barth, I kept feeling like they were working very hard…but I had no connection with the enemy against which they fought. At the end of decades of hard-won ground, it seemed they had returned again (and barely!) to the level of my Sunday-school teacher. Finally they were able to speak of a God who communicates to us through Scripture, who died for our sins, who loves us and who made a wonderful place for us to be with Him after death. Although I greatly admire their wisdom on some points, and stand in awe of their monumental careers, I cannot help but wonder: have these theologians spent their lives climbing out of a hole which I could just as easily walk around?

A TENTATIVE WAY FORWARD

Evangelicals, of course, solve Lessing’s problem by saying that the Bible is “inerrant.” I like it that this provides a quick and easy path across the ditch, but it seems to be a bridge of glass. This is saying, in effect, that Scriptures have passed all of the tests of science, before and in spite of any evidence to the contrary. As soon as someone comes in contact with Liberal scholarship, or one error (no matter how tiny or inconsequential!) the entire system shatters. Also, it affirms the critical flaw with the whole system – it allows Science to set itself up as judge and jury over God’s word.

My thoughts on this are very tentative: however, perhaps what must be done is to begin with God, and allow every man to be a liar. What do Scriptures say? They begin with a God who is, and a God who speaks. He is the judge of all the earth, and none judge Him. The grass withers, the flowers fade – but the word of our God stands forever.

In ancient Greece, the cross of shame and “folly” was a crucified Lord, and a bodily resurrection: perhaps our cross of shame in this day is a Bible which demands that we hold it above the opinions and preconceptions of the ever-shifting scientific consensus…?

SOME FOCUSED QUESTIONS

I have touched on many things in my words above: when we talk next, I hope that these focused questions will help to guide our discussions:

1)    Do I have Barth nailed, or am I seeing him too much through the lenses of the secondary material?

2)    If so, where can I go to hear the other side of the perspective?

3)    Do I have Lessing, the ditch, and Liberalism somewhat figured out?

4)    Do you agree with me that there may be a way to circumvent the ditch, by abandoning some aspects of modern/scientific thought?

5)     Do you see a thesis in here somewhere, or should I just do this research on the side, for my own benefit?

I look forward to our conversation!

Thank you and God bless!

- Josiah

SOME ADDITIONAL MISC. POINTS, JUST IN CASE THERE IS EXTRA TIME

1. I have also heard that Barth conflates the person and work of Christ, by saying that Christ is the work of God. This makes sense in an existential framework (I am my experiences, as I progressively reveal/discover who I am by making free choices which lead to new experiences), however I don’t see it borne out in Scriptures, where the Father and the Son and the Spirit act – at times simultaneously, in harmony but distinction. (e.g. who was speaking in Mat. 3:17? Who was coming down from the Father, and resting on Jesus?)
2. Barth says that when we meet with God, it is instantaneous, and we are immediately left with only memory and longing. This, to me, places Barth exactly where he started – trusting faltering sensory data and memory/memory-transmission. If there is an ugly ditch separating us from Matthew, how can I trust Barth – or, for that matter, my own memory – when relating a more recent occurrence of “Geshichta”? The difference between trusting your own memory and trusting the gospel accounts is not a difference of quality, but of quantity: you still must blindly place your trust in potentially flawed systems of data-recognition and information storage and transmission…right?
3. In “Evangelical Theology,” Barth says that the love of God comes before the wrath of God. How does this fit with the teachings of Scripture that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”? Also, when Peter preached on Pentacost, he started with the bad news. Once people were “cut to the heart” over their sin and the wrath to come, he shared the gospel. Barth seems to have things backwards here…
4. Perhaps tied to the above comment…I have heard that Barth talks of sin/salvation/redemption as all occurring within God. This is the moment when God’s “non-being” is overcome by His “being.” How does this fit with the Scriptural teaching that “there is none righteous, no, not one,” which would seem to imply that the problem of sin is in us humans, not in God? Also, there is that tired out accusation that Barth can’t seem to free himself from….isn’t Barth being a universalist here? I heard that in one of Barth’s books (a collection of sermons), Barth reveals that his sermon which he preached to convicts in prison was that, “You are already redeemed – now live like it!” Is this a misrepresentation? If not, isn’t this promoting works-righteousness, and false security? I have also heard that Barth’s theology on this point has dramatically reduced the desire and effectiveness of missionary work in the 20’th century. Again…just wondering how much of this is true, and looking forward to some answers or hints towards resources. Thanks a bunch!