Cat moving preparation

I and the four (yep, count 'em, four) cats are at the Vet today, trying to determine what is the best option for moving the four yep, count 'em, four) cats.


They don't like the cat carriers at all, but they have quieted down now that we are at the Vet's office.



The howled in the car for the whole 10 minute drive. Ajax was, of course the loudest.



-Here's to a good cat tranquilizer!

Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Test post

This is a test post using blogpress app for my iPhone.


This is the house I will be moving into in less than two weeks. Yahoo!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Cobbs Dr,Waco,United States

Barth I.2 §15.3

The Miracle of Christmas.

This entire section deals with the issue of the virgin birth of Christ.  Barth, opposing his most frequent opponents, liberal theologians, decisively affirms the dogma of the virgin birth of Christ.  Many liberal theologians in the early 20th century had come to deny the historicity, or the reality, of the virgin birth.  They denied this miracle, as they denied all other miracles, on the basis of its physical impossibility in light of modern physics and biology.  Barth, on the other hand radically defends the dogma of the virgin Birth.

For Barth, the virgin birth is a sign.  That is, it signifies something greater, points beyond itself to some other reality.  This "something greater" is the incomprehensible mystery of the incarnation, the Word assuming human nature.  For this sign to truly signify the deep inconceivable mystery that is the incarnation, the sign must be equally mysterious and inconceivable: hence, the birth of Christ from a virgin. 

Barth begins by saying that this dogma is attested in scripture, and he is of course correct.  Both Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus' birth from Mary, a virgin.  The question, which Barth answers in the affirmative, is: is the virgin birth part of the "core testimony" of the gospels?

For Barth, the virgin birth is important for several reasons:
1) it states that Jesus had a human mother, making Jesus a human "like us."
2) it eliminates the possibility of docetism on the one hand (that Jesus was a mere divine phantom) and Ebionitism/adoptionism on the other hand (that Jesus was a mere human, born of a mother and father, and later adopted as the Son of God).
3) perhaps most importantly, for Barth's own situation, the affirmation of the virgin birth protects against going down the road of liberal theology.

Barth's entire system seems to be fighting liberalism at every front.  He so despised liberal theology, that he wanted to head them off at every turn.  I think also, at times, liberal theology blinded Barth in his own internal logic, and I think that the virgin birth is one of those places.

For example, Barth has a fairly lengthy discussion on sex in this section which I have had a hard time deciphering. 

For example, Barth writes the following:

"Here we cannot consider the quite un-biblical view that sexual life as such is to be regarded as an evil to be removed, to that the active sign is to be sought in the fact that this removal is here presumed to have taken place." (CD I.2 §15.3 p. 190). 

By this I take Barth to mean that the virgin birth is not affirmed to appease any puritanical notion that sex is evil and dirty and for Christ to have been born through a sexual union would thus be unworthy of the Son of God.

But, not a page later, Barth writes the following:

"By this action [virgin birth] of God sin is excluded and nullified.  And to this particular action of God the natus ex virgine points.  It is the sign that the sinful life of sex is excluded as the origin of the human existence of Jesus Christ." (CD I.2 §15.3 p. 191).

Now, perhaps I am missing something here, but it seems as if Barth has turned 180 degrees.  Here he seems to be saying that the virgin birth is the sign because it excludes the sinful sexual life of humans.

What Barth appears to be saying is the the sinful sexual life of humans is not capable of receiving the human origin of Jesus.  Yet, he goes on to say, that even Mary, in her innocence and virginity, was in no way capable of receiving the Son of God.  She had no innate capacity, no "point of contact" with the divine, making her worthy to receive the Son of God.  For Barth, the very action of God in the virgin birth creates this capacity in Mary to receive.  But logically, if God had to create such a capacity in Mary, why could he not have also created this capacity through a sexual union between Mary and Joseph?  Barth does not answer this question. 

The best answer Barth gives is to say that the sign must adequately point to the mystery of the incarnation and that only birth from a virgin, in its impossibility and inconceivability, truly points to the mystery of the incarnation.

Barth touches briefly on other stories of miraculous births in antiquity, including numerous other stories of births without sexual union.  I must say that here Barth's argument was very weak.  He admits to other stories in antiquity that speak of "assertions from the realm of heathen mythology which sound very similar." (CD I.2 §15.3 p. 197).  And Barth's response: Well, they sound similar, but they are not miracles, because they did not come about from the true God.  That is no different from the argument that says, "well, my religion is true and yours is false." Or "I believe in the true God and you serve a false God."  It is circular reasoning: My God is true, and so his miracles are real, your god is false, and therefore your miracles are not miracles at all.  I think that Barth failed to put the virgin birth in its context in its literary milieu and to evaluate these stories on such grounds.

The We Heart Waco Farewell Tour

Well, I am down to 16 days left in Waco, TX before I load all that we own into a rental truck and head off for a three day road trip to North Carolina. 

In our last 2 weeks+, Brooke and I are conducting what we are calling our "We heart Waco farewell tour."  We have made a list of some of our favorite places to go in Waco and we are determined to visit them all.  I might blog about some of these, but I think Brooke will get them all.  So, go visit her blog, brookereich.blogspot.com to read about our first few accomplishments.

Barth I.2 §15.1-2.ii

This section of Barth's Church Dogmatics can be summed up in the phrase "very God and very man."  Or, if you like, the Word became flesh.  Barth is concerned in this section to highlight the mystery of the incarnation.  How is it that God takes on human flesh?  How can the two, which for Barth are in complete contradiction, come together to be unified in the person of Jesus Christ?

For Barth, Christology, who Christ is, is at the heart of all of dogmatics.  To fail to answer the question of Christology is to fail in all of theology.  Christ and who he is lies at the center of Barth's entire undertaking.  And, at the heart of Christology is the problem of the incarnation, or how the Word becomes flesh and unites the divine and human nature. This problem of Christology as Barth calls it must remain a mystery.  There is no explaining this mystery away, but one must let it persist as a mystery.

Barth is careful (as always) to protect the freedom of God in the incarnation.  That is, there was no necessity either inside or outside of God that compelled the incarnation.  It was not the necessary consequence of creation or even the fall. The incarnation remains God's free act of mercy.  As Barth writes:

"That is, in His Word becoming flesh, God acts with inward freedom and not in fulfillment of a law to which he is supposedly subject." (CD I.2 §15.2 p. 135).

Further protecting God's freedom is Barth's conclusion that the incarnation in no way limits or diminishes God in any way.  The Word of God, the λόγος, remains the Word of God in all of His deity.

Yet, the Word of God really does take on flesh.  He really assumes human nature "like us."  Barth is clear that even though the divinity of God is not diminished through the incarnation, still, the incarnation is a true assumption of human nature "like us."  Jesus is not a demi-god or an ideal man, he is a man "like us." For Barth, if in the incarnation God did not become "like us" he would be of no help to us.

Barth is careful to avoid any form of adoptionism.  There was not first a man Jesus whom the Word of God assumed.  No, This was a literal incarnation, the human nature united with the divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ. 

For Barth, σάρξ, is a neutral or negative term.  In its neutral sense, it is merely the stuff we are made of.  In the negative sense, is it what separates humans from God and other animals.  It is the result of the fall and what makes humans liable to the judgment of God. In the incarnation, Christ assumes flesh in both senses, but more importantly in the second sense.  In this sense, Christ takes on human flesh in all of its liability to the judgment of God.  This is the mystery and the miracle of the incarnation.  That God takes on the very nature of man that is liable to judgment is inconceivable. As Barth writes:

"He would not be revelation if He were not man.  And he would not be man if he were not 'flesh' in this definite sense.  That the Word became 'flesh' in this definite sense, this consummation of God's condescension, this inconceivability which is greater than the inconceivability of the diving majesty and the inconceivability of human darkness put together: this is the revelation of the Word of God." (CD I.2 §15.2 p. 152).

Indeed for Barth, the greatness of Christ, his perfection, lay not in his good deeds or special morality, but in his obedience, taking on human flesh in all of its liability to God's judgment, and doing so willingly. 




And here is the money quote:

"Mariology is an excrescence, i.e., a diseased construct of theological thought.  Excrescences must be excised." (CD I.2 §15.2 p. 139).

If you had any doubt about how Barth feels about the Catholic practice of the veneration of Mary, take a look at the definition of the word "excrescence" from dictionary.com:

–noun

1.  an abnormal outgrowth, usually harmless, on an animal or vegetable body.

2.  a normal outgrowth, as hair or horns.

3.  any disfiguring addition.

Barth I.2 §14.3

Barth wraps up section 14 with his discussion of the time of the New Testament and the time of the church.  The time of the New Testament is a time of recollection.  It looks backward as it witnesses the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. To the extent that it gives a proper witness to Jesus Christ, it participates in "fulfilled time," in God's time, but it is not identical with that fulfilled time.  The time of the New Testament is much more akin to the time of expectation in the Old Testament.  The difference is now that it has seen the concrete revelation of God in the event of Jesus Christ.  Yet, the NT is not only a time of recollection.  According to Barth, if the NT only looked back at the event of Jesus Christ as a past historical event, an event which came into being and then passed away, it would not be true Christianity, but a form of ebionitism.  While the NT is a time of recollection of a past event, because what it is recollecting is God's fulfilled time, which neither comes into being, nor passes out of being, then the time of the NT is also a time of expectation, of the God who is coming.

Barth explains this section in three subsections. 

1) The time of the NT is one of recollection of the fulfillment of the expectation of the Old Testament.  The Covenant of God with man expected in the OT is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  Christ is not just in line with other OT men of God, with the Patriarchs, Prophets and Kings, but is the fulfillment of what the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Kings were expecting. 

2) The time of the NT is the recollection of the revelation of the hidden God, God's hiddenness seen in his judgment.  His judgment is absolutely complete in the passion of Jesus.  In Christ's passion, the entire hiddenness and judgment of God is poured out on humanity and is complete.  The crucifixion of Jesus brings Jews and Gentiles together under the judgment of God.  Both Jews and Gentiles are complicit in the crucifixion of Christ, and are both brought to stand on equal footing before God both equally say NO to God's revelation.  Yet, the resurrection of Christ is God's divine YES to humanity, his demonstration not only of Judgment poured out, but also of reconciliation.

3) The time of the NT is not only a time of recollection of a past event, but is also witness to the expectation to the God who is coming.  The event of Easter, the breaking in of God's "fulfilled time" into our time, while it took place in the "past" does not cease to exist.  God's fulfilled time does not pass away.  It is eschatological in the sense that this event of Easter, God's yes, is one that has taken place once for all and is still to be fulfilled.  Thus, the time of the NT, and subsequently, the time of the Church, is not only a time of recollection, but also a time of expectation of the God who is coming.  The Christian looks backward in recollection of the event of the cross and at the same time must look forward to the coming of Christ.  There is not one without the other.  The time of the Church is both recollection in faith and hope in the future.

Barth does a good job in this section of keeping with the continuity of the story of the OT and NT.  Both look toward the revelation of God, both expect a God who is coming.  The only difference is that in the NT and beyond, the Church looks both backward and forward at the God who has come and is coming. 

Barth I.2 §14.2

This section of Barth was wonderfully written and organized, which I have found is a rarity for Barth. Barth really seemed to understand what he was talking about and was therefore easily able to communicate what he meant.  ( I have often found that my writing is the least clear when I do not have a good conception in my mind as to what I mean to communicate, though of course this is not the case for Barth.  Where he is unclear, it is clearly that I just simply can't understand him).

In this section, Barth is speaking about the Old Testament as the time of expectation, that is the time of expectation of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

As I began to read, I had a moment of trepidation.  There is so much abuse in "reading Jesus into the OT," that I feared the worse.  Would Barth find Jesus on every page of the OT, lurking behind every obscure prophecy or hiding in the guise of an angel of God or as a shadowy figure in the fire.  Not to fear, Barth did not do any of this.  Instead, he really did a great job telling the story of Israel and how that story is one of waiting and expectation.  The story of the OT looks for it's fulfillment, and read from this side of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, it is clear that Christ is that fulfillment.

Barth treated the OT expectation in 3 parts.

In the first part, Barth spoke of covenants.  The story of Israel is one of covenant, of God claiming a people for himself.  There are numerous covenants in the OT: Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, and others that exemplify this relationship between Yahweh and the people of Israel.  But these covenants are all awaiting their fulfillment.  These covenants bear witness to the their expectation of fulfillment, which the Christian believes happens in Jesus Christ.

In the second part, Barth speaks of the story of Israel as the story of the encountering God's hiddenness.  This hiddenness is found in God's judgment.  When God claims sinful humanity for himself, there is an inevitable judgment.  Because Israel is the chosen people in the Old Testament, it was inevitable that they would bear the brunt of God's judgment.  There were some very powerful quotes in this section about the judgment passed on Israel as necessary because of relationship of sinful humanity to a perfect God and Israel displaying that judgment to the world as God's chosen people. As Barth writes:

"The story of this nation is only too much a reptetition of the story of its tribal ancestor, who has to wrestle not only with man but with God, and though disabled by God  nevertheless wrestles with this one till dawning: 'I will not let thee go except thou bless me.'  This nation's decline and fall seems to be God's own triumph, and this nation's salvation seems to lie exclusively in the fact that, like a drowning man, it must clutch constantly at the hand, must constantly be saved by the hand, that smites it so frightfully." (CD I.2 §14.2 p. 87).

But, God's hiddenness and judgment does not get the last word.  Judgment is not the end for Israel, or for humanity. According to Barth, the last word is spoken in the fulfillment of God's covenant and with reconciliation:

"He who, because he is God in the assertion of His real Lordship, will not let His hiddenness be the last word--that makes it all the more impossible for man in his rebellion to retain the last word.  It must be so because there must be a Christmas, because reconciliation must take place in the event of God's real lordship." (CD I.2 §14.2 p. 92).

This quote is perhaps the first reference in the Dogmatics that I have seen that could be construed as Barth's leaning toward universalism, but that is a discussion left for another day.

Finally, in section three, Barth speaks of the eschatological nature of Israel's hope.  Barth finds in the main avenues of hope in the OT, in the promised land, in the temple, in the people and the covenants, and finally in the king, all of these objects of hope have a concrete referent, but all look beyond that referent to an eschatological fulfillment.  According to Barth, that fulfillment is found only in Jesus Christ.

Barth ends with a brief discussion of the present situation and relationship of the church to the synagogue.  This quote I found powerful:

"The mystery of revelation, which is the mystery of free, unmerited grace, includes the Church of the New Testament inseparably with the people whose blessing is attested for us in the Old Testament as expectation of Jesus Christ.  And this very mystery acts not only as a barrier but as a bond between Church and Synagogue which, like the impenitent sister with seeing eyes, refuses to see that the people of the Old Testament really expected Jesus Christ and in this expectation was graciously blessed." (CD I.2 §14.2 p. 101).

This quote gives a marvelous foundation for relations between the Church and the Jewish people that has been sorely lacking for much of Church history.  

What I liked most about this section, besides bring crystal clear, was that Barth followed the biblical narrative and demonstrated how powerful that narrative can be without delving into theological and philosophical speculation.