Skip to main content

Barth on the authority of scripture (2)

In my last post on this subject I considered some of the questions that Barth raises for us about scriptural authority, the authrotiy of God, and ethical deliberation. I have continued to think along those lines for the past few days, and have been reading Barth's Ethics with a view to the question of the Bible's place. Barth's overwhelming theological apologia for the freedom and sovereignty of God, even over the scriptural witness, informs his approach to bibical interpretation. It is this that defines his account of revelation. Scripture is not permitted to occupy any of the space that is God's alone. The following quotation is indicative of where these theological presuppositions lead Barth with regard to the Bible and ethics:

...we have to remember that throughout the Bible the biblical commandments are not simple and direct revelation, but like the whole bible they are witness to revelation, and it is in this specific sense which excludes their use as general moral truths that they are God's Word to us. This means however, that they are not themselves the direct, definite, individual command to us which is alone the real command. Then and there as people heard it the real command was very different from the recollection of it which, in the form of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, bears witness to us today of the way in which the divine Logos, the good, claimed people then and there. In their relative concreteness, however, they point us, as the whole Bible does, to the event of that claiming of men by the divine Logos which will be unavoidably the meaning of our own action (Ethics p.82)
What is interesting for me as I have pondered the question of how we read scripture together, is that for Barth the Bible opperates not as presciptive commands but as descriptive of the way in which the Commander relates to His people. The effect is to locate our concern for moral truth, or whatever other concern it may be, not in the text of scripture itself but in the actual lived relationship God has with his people, to which the scriptures bear witness and into which they seek to draw us deeper. The kind of moments of encounter between God and particular persons we read about in the Bible may also be expected in the life of the contempoirary Church. The meaning of my own action is the claiming of my life by the divine Logos (again with overtures from John 1 - Jesus Christ). The Word claims me. This is a present tense event. It is not an abstract account of my life, but a concrete encounter - as Moses and the Tribes encountered YHWH at Sinai, or the disciples heard Jesus on the Mount.

It is difficult to say what the effect of this is. It doesn't make reading the Bible any easier, and it doesn't answer any of the hermeneutical questions we may have. In fact that strangeness of the text is necessarily indicative of the strangeness of God to us (as the absolute other from human creatures). Nor does it mean we can get away with ignoring the Bible - as may be suggested as a response to more conservative theologians. It does go some way to locating the role or function of scripture dogmatically. Barth's approach demands attentiveness to the scriptures, not for themselves, not even so that in them we read what God wills, but so that through them we may encounter in the present the living God who was there in the past and promises his presence in the future. To me, this way of reading together is wholly more demanding. It means living with the difficulties of the texts, not rejecting the text because of them, but owning them and being prayerfully open to hearing God's voice in them. It also means living with the compexities of other peoples' reading of the texts, especially those with whom we do not agree. It demands that we think and pray together, and that we inhabit a gracious and humble space together.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Paul Nimmo on Schleiermacher

Once again it's been a while since I blogged anything, but I thought I would flag-up this clip from the increasingly successful Modern Theology  Timeline created by Tim Hull at St John's College Nottingham, UK. This is a recent interview Tim did with the Edinburgh based scholar Paul Nimmo on Friedrich Schleiermacher. It is a really good interview, and will go a long way to rehabilitating FDES for those who mis-read Barth and reject him outright. Happy watching!

What Do You Call a Group of Theologians?

I think the answer should be "an argument", but perhaps that's unfair. I can test my theory this next week, which sees the start of the annual Society for the Study of Theology (UK) conference on the theme of Holy Writ? (The question mark is very suggestive). It looks really good, and the list of plenary speakers is great: Alex Samely (Manchester); Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter); Henk van den Belt (Amsterdam); Walter Moberly (Durham); Anthony Thiselton (Nottingham); Hugh Pyper (Sheffield). The conference lasts several days and is convening this year at York University. I hope to be able to blog a few thoughts from the conference and some info about the plenary sessions, but I shall be presenting a paper at one of the themed seminars on Wednesday afternoon on the interpretation of Barth's ethics of responsibility so may be a bit distracted until then. So watch this space for more info...

When religion stops us seeing clearly...

I spent a few minutes after morning prayer on Saturday wandering around the church building, enjoying the silence. I also had a look at the stained glass windows - most of which are Victorian. It's something I don't get to do very often because I'm too busy. My favourite window in our church building is very recent, only three years old, and is a brightly coloured rendition of Jesus welcoming children to himself. It is in the baptistry, an appropriate place for welcoming children into the family of God. I discovered another window today too, which I've never really noticed before - something that surprised me because ours is not an overly large building. It is a large plain window, with clear glass. You can see straight through it to the outside world: across the grave yard to the A-road that runs through the middle of the parish, and on to the homes beyond. I stood for a while watching people heading to the shops, the saturday morning traffic held up by the changing