Discussion about Karl Barth's thought

[ubicaritas]

I am not saying they are all atheists, but when it comes to scholarship they are influenced by the intellectual climate in the universities, and they sometimes capitulate to naturalism in their studies.

I wouldn't exactly say its "capitulating to naturalism" but to paraphrase Rudolf Bultmann, it is difficult to believe in miracles when you flip a light switch.

The intellectual climate in universities is a good thing, mostly. It's better than what passes at "Bible colleges", honestly. Does the culture have its blind spots? Sure. But Bible colleges and seminaries have their own rigid orthodoxies as well, which is pretty obvious really and almost goes without saying. At many schools you can be kicked out as a professor for just questioning biblical inerrancy or verbal inspiration. In contrast, mainstream academia has much more freedom.

In my own denomination, the whole controversy in St. Louis's Concordia University in the 70's was a case of academic persecution of otherwise mainstream ideas that eventually lead to several thousand clergy, laity and students leaving the LCMS to eventually join up into the ELCA. My own pastor joined the ELCA around this time period, despite being raised in the LCMS.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So I understand better what you mean, give me an example of something thought to be midrash other than the guards at the tomb in Matthew's Gospel.

Well, there is that little bit about "many arising from their graves" in Matthew 27:52-53 that could be taken as kind of 'midrashic' in nature.

 

[dms1972]

The answer to the question about the video camera is a statement of faith. But answering it in the negative, is not necessarily saying there was no bodily resurrection of Christ. For whatever reason, this event was not witnessed directly by anyone. TV Moore in his book The Last Days of Jesus: says in answer to why this was:

"It might be sufficient to reply, that it is no part of the scheme of redemption to compel belief, and that we have no right to either expect or demand more than sufficient evidence to warrant belief. And there were reasons of fitness that doubtless required that this august and awful scene should take place, not in the presence of a clamourous crowd, but in the sublime solitude of that silent dawn, when the keepers were as dead men. But there is another reason usually overlooked that has no small force. Whether it was arranged for this purpose, we will not affirm. But it is obvious that, by this arrangement, this fundamental fact of the Christian system, in which all have exactly the same interest, comes to all with exactly the same proof... The women were called to believe on the testimony of the angels, the disciples on the testimony of the women, and the world on the testimony of the disciples. The women had subsequent corroboration of the testimony of the angels, the disciples of theirs, and we of the disciples; but in each case, the first demand to believe is on the same ground, the testimony of competent witnesses, and not ocular demonstration. The subsequent proofs in the case of the women and disciples include this ocular demonstration; but they were required first to believe on the testimony of competent and credible witnesses, just as we are, and not on the evidence of their own senses."

 

[dms1972]

Well, there is that little bit about "many arising from their graves" in Matthew 27:52-53 that could be taken as kind of 'midrashic' in nature.

But why is that considered Midrash, and other parts not?

 

[ubicaritas]

So I understand better what you mean, give me an example of something thought to be midrash other than the guards at the tomb in Matthew's Gospel.

The most obvious example are the doubling in miracles compared to the other synoptic Gospels (two demoniacs, two lepers, two blind men). And also the saints leaving the tombs at the end of Matthew, which does not appear in the other synoptics.

The easiest explanation for the differences between Luke and Matthew, indeed, mostly come down to Matthew's unique sense of Jewish storytelling. So Matthew is likely just Mark + Q + Jewish sensibilities about what makes for good religious storytelling.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But why is that considered Midrash, and other parts not?

First of all, just to be clear, I'm not saying that I necessarily see it as a 'midrash' type statement. I think it could have actually happened in a certain kind of way. But, it could also be seen as a form of midrash in that it, as a bit of possibly added bit of embellishment to the story, represents the motif of 'resurrection' and 'dry bones coming to life' that was valued by some (such as the Pharisees) in later Jewish faith just before and after the time of Jesus.

 

[ubicaritas]

The answer to the question about the video camera is a statement of faith. But answering it in the negative, is not necessarily saying there was no bodily resurrection of Christ. For whatever reason, this event was not witnessed directly by anyone. TV Moore in his book The Last Days of Jesus: says in answer to why this was:

"It might be sufficient to reply, that it is no part of the scheme of redemption to compel belief, and that we have no right to either expect or demand more than sufficient evidence to warrant belief. And there were reasons of fitness that doubtless required that this august and awful scene should take place, not in the presence of a clamourous crowd, but in the sublime solitude of that silent dawn, when the keepers were as dead men. But there is another reason usually overlooked that has no small force. Whether it was arranged for this purpose, we will not affirm. But it is obvious that, by this arrangement, this fundamental fact of the Christian system, in which all have exactly the same interest, comes to all with exactly the same proof... The women were called to believe on the testimony of the angels, the disciples on the testimony of the women, and the world on the testimony of the disciples. The women had subsequent corroboration of the testimony of the angels, the disciples of theirs, and we of the disciples; but in each case, the first demand to believe is on the same ground, the testimony of competent witnesses, and not ocular demonstration. The subsequent proofs in the case of the women and disciples include this ocular demonstration; but they were required first to believe on the testimony of competent and credible witnesses, just as we are, and not on the evidence of their own senses."

The real disturbing thing to me is how much some evangelicals in the US and Britain want to delve into what is something understood as holy and mysterious that has been lived out and recapitulated in our churches for centuries. That's just to me a bit misguided, like looking for personal intellectual certitudes more than the faith that has been proclaimed since the beginning.

It's sort of like if you see a wierd light moving in the sky and you jump to the conclusion its a spacecraft full of little grey men coming to abduct humans. If I deny that leap of logic, that doesn't mean I am negating that something extraordinary may be happening. Likewise, I think we are not into making leaps of logic beyond that Christ is risen and not in the tomb. I don't think its necessary to conclude Easter Morning = "The Walking Dead" to believe that the resurrection happened, that Christ is risen. As one Anglican bishop put it a few decades ago, the resurrection is not about revivification of a corpse.

 

[dms1972]

I wouldn't exactly say its "capitulating to naturalism" but to paraphrase Rudolf Bultmann, it is difficult to believe in miracles when you flip a light switch.

What have electric lights got to do with miracles?

Two modern writers who would take issue with Bultmann's statement, are RC Sproul and Dallas Willard:

Sproul writes: "One must ask Bultmann, however, what television and radio have to do with angels, or antibotics with resurrection? The mere presence of these modern tools says nothing about the theological world view of Scripture."

Willard says: "The powerful though vague and unsubstantiated presumption is that something has been found out that renders a spiritual understanding of reality in the manner of Jesus simply foolish to those who are 'in the know'. But when it comes time to say exactly what it is that has been found out, nothing of substance is forthcoming...", he goes on to say: "you can be very sure that nothing fundamental has changed in our knowledge of ultimate reality and the human self since the time of Jesus. Many will be astonished by such a remark, but it at least provides us with a thought - that nothing fundamental has changed from biblical times - that every responsible person needs to consider at least once in his or her lifetime, and the earlier the better. And as for those who find it incredible - I constantly meet such people in my line of work - you need only ask them exactly what has changed, and where it is documented, and they are quickly stumped. Descending to particulars always helps to clear the mind." (italics Willard's)

 

[ubicaritas]

What have electric lights got to do with miracles?

At least two modern writers who would take issue with Bultmann's statement, are RC Sproul and Dallas Willard:

Sproul writes: "One must ask Bultmann, however, what television and radio have to do with angels, or antibotics with resurrection? The mere presence of these modern tools says nothing about the theological world view of Scripture."

Willard says: "The powerful though vague and unsubstantiated presumption is that something has been found out that renders a spiritual understanding of reality in the manner of Jesus simply foolish to those who are 'in the know'. But when it comes time to say exactly what it is that has been found out, nothing of substance is forthcoming..." and then he says: "you can be very sure that nothing fundamental has changed in our knowledge of ultimate reality and the human self since the time of Jesus. Many will be astonished by such a remark, but it at least provides us with a thought - that nothing fundamental has changed from biblical times - that every responsible person needs to consider at least once in his or her lifetime, and the earlier the better. And as for those who find it incredible - I constantly meet such people in my line of work - you need only ask them exactly what has changed, and where it is documented, and they are quickly stumped. Descending to particulars always helps to clear the mind." (italics Willard's)

I don't think Bultman is scoffing at miracles as a possibility per se, but the idea that the modern world we live in is in some sense not a wonder that has been mastered, to a certain extent. The notion that we have some inherent need for miracles now in our lives, is getting more and more dubious.

There is a sheer weightiness to modern science that cannot be easily set aside. I am reminded of Opennheimer quoting from the Bhagavad Gita when he watched the Trinity testing of the atom bomb, "Behold I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" (referencing the wrathful aspect of God in the Hindu epic). There's something about technology that grabs our imagination on a visceral level in the same way that ancient religious stories did.

In my own life about a year ago I was really into tube amplifiers on hi-fi audio, so me and my dad worked on a small headphone tube amplifier, and I think I understood exactly where Bultmann was coming from. There's something almost spiritual about understanding how a vacuum tube works and you can see the eerie blue glow of electrons as they pass through the tube (which I understand is actually a result of quantuum physical effects, similar to Cherenkov radiation). For many people science has indeed surpassed religion as a source of wonder and awe.

If you want to really delve into this theme more, Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers from Prison is really driving this point home, that much of traditional religion in the premodern era really doesn't function the same at all, or even doesn't work at all, for modern educated people.

 

[dms1972]

As one Anglican bishop put it a few decades ago, the resurrection is not about revivification of a corpse.

Who said that?
I agree. The raising of Lazarus was a revivification, and Lazarus presumably died again. Resurrection is much more, qualitatively different.

 

[hedrick]

One reason I haven’t read Barth much is that I find him frustratingly hard to make sense of. Did he believe that the Resurrection was historical event? The answer seems probably to be yes. But it’s not clear that he means what most people would understand by that, that if you had a camera it would have picked up something. I’m willing to be a bit unclear about what, but I think there’s a difference between something that happened in history and his followers ascribing some kind of significance to him. I don’t think I can reliably tell the different in Barth. Or Spong. Or certain other writers.

For me the more basic question is: what do we mean when we talk about God? Now obviously he’s not an old guy sitting on a throne. We don’t need to take all images literally, and we also have to be wary about insisting on understanding something we can’t. But still, I find a lot of writing unnecessarily opaque. Classically Christians have thought that God is a moral agent, with a will. After all, we’re made in his image. If so, it’s reasonable to think that he would do things. Maybe he’s clever enough that he doesn’t have to stick his hand into history and visibly intervene. Maybe he can plan things to work the way he wants. But then what do we say about the resurrection?

I could live with the answer that God actually is not a agent. Maybe the universe has as part of its basic structure, just like conservation of energy and quantum mechanics, a builtin favoring of life, and in particular of life that follows Jesus’ principles. (Some scientists have hinted at this with the "anthropic principle.") Maybe Jesus was so in tune with this that he couldn’t stay dead, not because some agent intervened and did a miracle, but because the basic principles of the universe didn’t permit it. If that’s the kind of thing people mean, fine. But I’d like a bit more clarity.

 

[ubicaritas]

Who said that?
I agree. The raising of Lazarus was a revivification, and Lazarus died again. Resurrection is much more.

David Jenkins, the former bishop of Durham. The British press had a field day loudly proclaiming he had denied the resurrection or somesuch. His point was more subtle than that. He said, "The resurrection is not just a conjuring trick with bones".

I think some of us in the mainline are just tired of the miracles debates and we prefer to live and let live, and I think the neo-orthodox position is a compromise between an overwrought orthodoxy and sheer skepticism. It's less about peering into somebody else's soul to check their orthodoxy card and more about letting each individual believe in their own way.

 

[dms1972]

I agree Hedrick, he is difficult to understand, and I don't say I understand him, I do find some sections of his work helpful and easier to grasp. The variation in interpretations of Barth is the reason for both positive and negative appraisals.

GC Berkouwer has spoken about this in his book on Barth, The Triumph of Grace in Barth's Theology. Berkouwer makes what seems to me a very astute comment when writes:

"Van Til has no eye for the fact that often in the history of dogma particular philosophical assumptions, that is, in which and alongside of which an influence of the Word of God makes itself felt in such a way that it is impossible to deduce the theology logically and consequentially from the particular philosophical assumptions. Because Van Til thinks that he can point out certain assumptions in Barth, he thinks that he can draw the lines of them on through, and so essential statements of Barth are neglected or distorted."

I think also theologians can have different starting points, some begin with God, his nature and attributes, others begin with God revealed in Jesus Christ. And that can make a big difference.

 

[dms1972]

David Jenkins, the former bishop of Durham. The British press had a field day loudly proclaiming he had denied the resurrection or somesuch. His point was more subtle than that. He said, "The resurrection is not just a conjuring trick with bones".

I think some of us in the mainline are just tired of the miracles debates and we prefer to live and let live, and I think the neo-orthodox position is a compromise between an overwrought orthodoxy and sheer skepticism. It's less about peering into somebody else's soul to check their orthodoxy card and more about letting each individual believe in their own way.

I agree Jenkins was misquoted regarding the resurrection. He didn't quite believe in the virgin birth, at least he said: "I wouldn't put it past God to arrange a virgin birth if he wanted. But I don't think he did."

I think one has to take into consideration more than what he says in a TV interview, before saying he has departed from the Faith. In that regard I don't know much about him.

Its interesting - Matthew and Luke explicity affirm the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Paul most likely did not know of it. Belief in the virgin birth doesn't necessarily guarantee Biblical orthodoxy - Arians also believed in the virgin birth (but denied that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh), and Jehovah Witnesses do, as do many Muslims.

Barth defended the reality of the Virgin Birth and counter to a tradition of criticism of a century's standing, and also contra his contemporary Emil Brunner who attacked the doctrine.

I think one reason many people give up or reject it, is the embelishments to the scripture testimony that have been added that are docetic, or gnostic. Donald Bloesch has a good chapter in a volume of his Christian Foundations on Jesus Christ, and he looks at valid and invalid reasons for believing or not believing in the virgin birth.

 

[hedrick]

I've read a fair amount of mainline theology and Biblical exegesis. I think objections to the Virgin birth are primarily based on the usual critical methods.

I agree that many people seem to draw heretical conclusions from them, but that is probably more common among popular discussion than among real scholars. Most defenses of the Virgin Birth that I've seen in CF have been docetic, but I don't think that's a necessary consequence.

 

[dms1972]

If someone explains the virgin birth as Jesus passing through the wall of Mary's womb, leaving her hymen intact, most folk are going to find that difficult to either believe or think, yet that's what some people think it means. That kind of understanding is what I mean by tending towards gnosticism - because it shows a reluctance to affirm that Jesus shared in the ordinary human processes of human birth and connotes a gnostic depreciation of earthly existence. Scripture emphasis is on a virginal conception, Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

Other embellishments are that Mary remained ever-virgin (this was widely affirmed in Protestantism, including Luther, Calvin, Wesley). While this might be less problematic, for some they can see that scripture seems to indicate Jesus had brothers, albeit unlike the Lord, conceived in the ordinary manner. That said they could possibly have been cousins.

 

[hedrick]

If someone explains the virgin birth as Jesus passing through the wall of Mary's womb, leaving her hymen intact

I think that would be an unusual use of language. I admit that it makes sense. But I think when people refer to the Virgin Birth they normally mean the virginal conception of Jesus.

 

[dms1972]

One reason I haven’t read Barth much is that I find him frustratingly hard to make sense of. Did he believe that the Resurrection was historical event? The answer seems probably to be yes. But it’s not clear that he means what most people would understand by that, that if you had a camera it would have picked up something. I’m willing to be a bit unclear about what, but I think there’s a difference between something that happened in history and his followers ascribing some kind of significance to him. I don’t think I can reliably tell the different in Barth. Or Spong. Or certain other writers.

For me the more basic question is: what do we mean when we talk about God? ...

That's what Barth gets into in Volume 2 of his dogmatics :The Doctrine of God, at least he says "In the doctrine of God we have to learn what we are saying when we say 'God'. In the doctrine of God we have to learn to say 'God' in the correct sense."

 

[dms1972]

I think that would be an unusual use of language. I admit that it makes sense. But I think when people refer to the Virgin Birth they normally mean the virginal conception of Jesus.

I agree 'virgin birth' is the term used mostly even when people mean virginal conception. But there was a trend in the catholic church to take it very literally.

Bloesch addresses this :"In the emerging Catholic tradition Mary was hailed as the Virgin Mother, and this encompassed far more than the virginal conception. It was said that Mary was a virgin not only before Jesus' birth (ante partu) but also during his birth (in partu) and after his birth (post partum). Many in the church succumbed to a docetic mentality when they envisaged Jesus as simply passing through the wall of Mary's uterus so that her hymen was not ruptured. Their reluctance to affirm that Jesus shared in the ordinary processes of human birth connoted a gnostic depreciation of earthly existence."

Myself I don't think the Bible means more than a virginal conception.

 

[dms1972]

I don't think Bultman is scoffing at miracles as a possibility per se, but the idea that the modern world we live in is in some sense not a wonder that has been mastered, to a certain extent. The notion that we have some inherent need for miracles now in our lives, is getting more and more dubious.

Medical science can help us in many ways, but I think also nowadays it can be so rationalistic that a bad/wrong prognosis sometimes cannot be adequately challenged within its framework. This became particularly evident in the Kraepelian scheme of calling mental illness the same as any other illness - that it was biological, rooted in the brain, and this was before the plasticity of the brain was understood. Patients could only hope for medication to control the symptoms of their illness, not healing of mental illnesses. This is a false view of what mental illness is, and Thomas Szasz was right to combat it. Some might see people in psychiatric hospitals as very much in need of a miracle, a miracle in the deep mind or psyche, that their psychiatrists cannot provide, and also a miracle in the psychiatrists so that they would acknowledge something has really changed, that a patient is not the same.

I had a negative prognosis placed on me in my early twenties, a psychiatrist said in irritation nothing could be done for me. With people like him and the medicalisation of every day life - people need miracles more than ever.

But certainly what you are saying regarding electrical equipment can indeed give us a sense of wonder - I used to marvel at light emitting diodes - I don't know a vast amount about quantum fluctuations, its a fascinating field - I read a bit of Jeffrey Satinover's book the Quantum Brain but most of it is beyond me.