Karl Barth's Three Words to Atheism
Posted by
W. Travis
McMaken
The first “word” is “The Word of God in Jesus Christ” (p. 272). This has to do with Christian particularity. Bender reminds his readers – by way of Barth – that any Christian response to atheism must be properly Christian, and not vaguely theist: “Theism may appear as a proper response to a growing atheistic secularism, but for Barth, such was fool’s gold. Theism may be an appealing alternative to a generic secularism for those who lament the loss of so-called Christian culture, but generic theism is helpless before a true idolatry” (p. 273).
Bender’s chapter concludes with some helpful clarity on Barth’s stance vis-Ã -vis atheism, especially as expressed in society through secularism:
The first “word” is “The Word of God in Jesus Christ” (p. 272). This has to do with Christian particularity. Bender reminds his readers – by way of Barth – that any Christian response to atheism must be properly Christian, and not vaguely theist: “Theism may appear as a proper response to a growing atheistic secularism, but for Barth, such was fool’s gold. Theism may be an appealing alternative to a generic secularism for those who lament the loss of so-called Christian culture, but generic theism is helpless before a true idolatry” (p. 273).
The
second “word” is “A Word of Judgment” (p. 273). Here Bender draws on
Barth’s criticism of religion to make the point that atheism is “but a new
form of religion, which is itself a very old form of idolatry” (p. 273).
This is why the proclamation of Christian particularity is the only proper
response, i.e., because a programmatic apologetics “always takes unbelief
more seriously than it takes revelation and faith” (p. 276). Bender is
quick to note, however, that rejecting programmatic apologetics is most
definitely not the same as rejecting “a hearty polemics within the
dogmatic task” (p. 278).
The
third “word” is “A Word of Grace” (p. 278). Barth’s doctrines of election
and christology, whose consequences reverberate throughout Barth’s
thought, mean that there is a “Yes” to be spoken to atheists by God and
attested by Christian theology insofar as atheism “is not left to itself
to decide its own meaning” (p. 278). Rather, “God has eternally chosen to
be with humanity in Jesus Christ and thus to be God for us despite our
unbelief and rebellion” (p. 278).
Bender’s chapter concludes with some helpful clarity on Barth’s stance vis-Ã -vis atheism, especially as expressed in society through secularism:
Barth . .
. did not see secularism so much as a threat but as a clarifying reality of
postwar Europe that forced the church to confront the problems created by its
having become wedded to culture and serving as its handmaiden. . . . For Barth,
secularism was the shadow side of the church being the church, the lesser of
two evils, the greater one being the conflation of church and culture.
Therefore, as with atheism, Barth was less threatened by secularism than his
contemporaries. . . . The great threat in Barth’s estimation was not the
secularization of culture but the secularization of the church, whereby the
church sacrificed its unique identity in merging with the society around it.
(p. 280)
http://derevth.blogspot.com/2015/09/karl-barths-three-words-to-atheism-more.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Comments
Post a Comment