Linking policy

If you leave a comment, or I refer to your blog, I'll add you to my link list. You will be categorised as either Sound as a Bell or Wobbly and Dodgy, but don't take it personally.

What's it all about? Karl Barth

It seems that 20th century Swiss theologian, Karl Barth is all the rage at the moment. Ben Myres at Faith & Theology devotes every other post to something Barthian. So, you might be wondering, what's the fuss all about? Don't worry, you won't have to plough through the massive 4 volume Church Dogmatics to find out - David Sky will give you the low down.

Biog

This is important. You have not pronounced his name correctly if you make it rhyme with "laugh". Barth rhymes with "art" or "cart".

Barth (1886-1968) taught theology at a number of German universities, Gottingen, Munster, and Bonn. In the 1930's he opposed Hitler and was dismissed from his post. He returned to Switzerland and taught for the remainder of his career in Basel. In 1919 Barth published his seminal commentary on Romans, where he emphasised the "Godness of God". His major literary work was his massive, four volume Church Dogmatics.

Barth scandalised his admirers by conducting a long term affair with his assistant, Charlotte ("Lollo") von Kirschbaum. He would take "Lollo" on holiday with him, leaving his poor, long suffering wife at home.

Theology

Barth reacted against the liberal theology of the likes of Bultmann and found inspiration in the teaching of John Calvin. But Barth's dislike of the historico-critical method of exegesis left him seeming to be ambiguous about the historical basis of Scriptural events. Barth emphasised the revelatory character of events like the resurrection of Christ. At least in his earlier writings, he wasn't so sure about the historicity of the empty tomb.

Barth saw Scripture as a witness to the revelation of God rather than the inscripturated revelation of God in itself. He held that the Bible may become the Word of God to us in a revelatory event, but that Scripture was not the Word of God written. Barth so emphasised Jesus Christ as the revelation of God that he seems to have forgotten that we cannot know Christ apart from the witness of Scripture.

He was ambiguous about using the term "Person" to describe the three in the Trinity. Barth preferred to speak of "modes" within the godhead. He may not be charged with fully blown modalism, but the spectre of unipersonality cannot be entirely avoided. His model of the trinity is God as "revealer, revelation and revealdness". Again, this leaves us doubtful regarding the distinct Personhood of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Barth reformulated Calvin's doctrine of election to teach that God elects himself to save humanity in Christ. This leaves him open to the charge of universalism. If God has chosen to be the Saviour of all humanity in Christ, it is difficult to explain how all will not be saved. Barth's followers battle amongst themselves as to whether or not he was a universalist.

Christ assumed a fallen humanity when he became Man according to Barth. If "fallen" means anything, it means sinful. At the fall, humanity entered a state of sinful rebellion against God. What does this say about the union of the divine and human natures of Christ within the Person of the Son? Did the Son of God express himself through sinful humanity? If Jesus assumed a sinful humanity, he is part of the problem rather than the solution. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But we was without sin. He offered himself up without spot to God.

Conclusion

We may be able to learn certain valuable lessons from Karl Barth. But remember, Barth does not rhyme with laugh because his theology contains some seriously bad errors.

Pet monkey the movie

Someone once asked if the monkey in my picture is me. Cheek! My pet monkey is actually a movie star. Here is a clip of some of his best work.

What's it all about? The Emerging Conversation

I realise that not everybody has the time and intelligence to keep up-to-date with what's going on in the Christian world. This is the first in a series called "What's it all about?" I will give a brief but accurate assessment of a trend that might be bothering people who are too dull or indolent to look these things up for themselves. I'm starting with that hot topic the Emerging Conversation.

Lots of different people are involved in this conversation. But neither they nor I know quite what it's all about. Emerging types believe that the best way to win the postmodern world (trendy eh?) is to copy the postmodern world. Bad stuff like absolutes have to go now that we have outgrown old Enlightenment epistemology (that's bad).

Emerging voices don't believe in gospel truths like penal substitution. They tend to say that Christ was offered as a ransom to Satan. This makes the cross much more acceptable to postmoderns who don't like the idea of sin and judgement.

Because Emergents view the Bible through postmodern lenses, they can't really tell you what it means. What matters is what the Bible means to you. Any attempt at responsible exegesis is viewed as manipulative power play.

So, now you know.

Site Meter report

So far, I've had 99 hits. That's an average of 40 a day. Not bad for a new boy. World domination will soon be mine. Ben Myres and Chris Tilling won't know what's hit them.

Ten proposals for world peace

This is a guest post by my great friend Jake Coolicus.

1. World peace is a very good thing, so let's go for it!
2. Remember that Winston Churchill who said, "We'll fight them on the beaches, on the streets...we will never surrender." Also said, "Jaw jaw is better than war war."
3. My peace role models are Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Bono.
4. It's a myth that all Christian peaceniks have beards and wear socks with sandals.
5. Music can be a catalyst for peace, "All we are singing is give peace a chance".
6. Shalom is the Hebrew for peace.
7. Just because I'm a man of peace, doesn't mean that I don't get stroppy, so don't push me.
8. The United Nations should be allowed to rule the world and make the warmongers beat their Kalashnikov's into ploughshares.
9. Love and peace or else.
10. If all this peace stuff doesn't work on your enemies, just nuke 'em.

Ps.

Jake wants everyone to know that he is not the same person as David Sky and that he could have a blog of his own if he wanted to.

A blogging manifesto

This is where I set out the principles, aims and values that will guide my blogging. This, readers is my personal mission statement:

1. This blog will chart my spiritual journey. I hope Sky's the Limit will be to blogging what Augustine's Confessions was to books.

2. This blog will share the fruits of my theological learning. Calvin had his Institutes. For me, the Sky's the Limit.

3. This blog will pass judgement on the state of the Christian world today. I hope that this journal will be a forum for world-wide reform.

4. This blog will encourage intelligent and wise debate. Come on, you bloggers log on and let's get thinking.

5. This blog will be fun. I don't want to take myself too seriously. Stay tuned and you'll soon find that I have a great sense of humour.

6. This blog will reflect my wide interests in the world of music, culture and literature. Posts on everything from Bruckner to Blur, from Hardy to Herodotus, will fascinate and educate my readers.

7. This blog will consider reciprocating links with other worthy bloggers.

8. This blog will be bigger than Faith and Thelogy.

9. All my blogging will be carried out in a charitable spirit, upholding the highest scholarly standards.

10. If you think that I have fallen below my principles, please hold me to account.