I would like to post extensively on Magnifica Humanitas (which I am working through this week ahead of sharing in a podcast about it, organised by a local Catholic priest). Alas, time is short this week, and urgent people-oriented tasks must be concluded before week's end - which has an exciting end to it, the ordination of Archdeacon Susan Wallace as the next Pihopa o Te Hui Amorangi o Te Waipounamu, at 11 am on Saturday 6 June 2026.
So, failing that, but in the hope that perhaps next week is chronologically less challenged, I simply post the link to this article by keith Johnson, "A Strange Examination" which is a reflective account of a significant couple of moments in the 1930s history of German Christianity, with Karl Barth in a starring role, challenging the notion of God speaking through two voices, and the notion that grace perfects nature.
Although the article does not draw all implications out, the voice of Karl Barth in this article is a challenge to me (re some of my posts here), to some currents in Roman Catholic theological debate in the 20th and 21st centuries (re nature/grace), as well as to "Christian nationalism" in its various, current manifestations.
A big "hat tip" and thank you to a commenter here, Elizabeth, who supplied the link to the article in a comment to last week's post.
Onwards!
2 comments:
Thanks for the article, Elizabeth and Peter.
In continuity from our discussion last thread, I'm hearing: *on some issues* there cannot be a "middle path". *On some issues*, we cannot be faithful to Christ and God and take a both/and approach.
This is uncomfortable, perhaps suicidal, for those who hold office in a church experiencing such a kairos moment.
Barth, the theologian, didn't have the episcopal and pastoral responsibility of holding the German church together, of daily dealing with the practical negotiations of law, politics, and church - that is true. From his relative independence in Switzerland, and as a theologian, he could more easily being faithful to the prophetic voice.
And we know what happened to Bonhoeffer.
The trouble for church leadership - on the topic of full inclusion and justice for gay and queer people - is that there are two sides who both say: on this issue there can be no middle path - one cannot be faithful to Christ and say we have room for a "both" approach. Either side accuses the other of politicizing the Gospel, and then of misunderstanding that, no, they are working out of where the Spirit, not culture, is leading them.
But church leadership and Christians need to still decide/discern: which version is *true*. And then courageously act.
On *some issues* we cannot be faithful to God and take a "both" approach.
The English church, especially, finds that very hard: look what the C of E did with women's ordination and "flying bishops".
Yes thanks Elizabeth, apologies I didn’t see the comment when you first linked to the article.
I found reading really perceptive, for the author and Barth at the time. One can realise especially looking at the US today with the political polarisation that it would be quite difficult to see the Gospel apart from politics because of how entrenched the thinking is… When it comes to comparing that with Nazi Germany it is somewhat scary.
I suspect you are right Mark that it was easier for Barth as he was Swiss but I was still struck by how he was prepared to loose his job in Germany over the issue and to return to German when the Nazi’s were there to keep on speaking the point he held. It challenged me, would I be prepared to loose a job over the Gospel or for the Gospel - I know I should be but am I!!
I also found it helpful as I have long recognised from when this way of dividing perspectives into liberal and conservative came into our obit in NZ, eg. Decades ago, that I didn’t fit into either bracket, I was like weird, like I would be labelled liberal in social inequality/social justice and conservative on some moral/ethical issues etc…. The challenge to act and see as a Christian from a Gospel lens first and foremost I think is a timely one.
I see your point Mark re both sides of the ‘the topic’ debate likely see themselves as the ones who are looking through the Gospel lens, however, I think there are ways that can be plumbed. And like you say discern the path to take, albeit acknowledging that might not be an overnight revelation and take some time. What do the scriptures in context really say? And honest prayer for each of us, and communally to God like offering up our own perspectives and being willing to be challenged, as in the Anglican phrase “hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church” as opposed to defaulting to viewpoints from politics or cultural or our own personal biases.
I personally struggle with the current thinking that all things should be accepted and if you don’t you are ‘judging’ a person. As I see Jesus in the NT He was open to all but he did not endorse all behaviour, e.g. the tax collector Jesus met him and talked with him and accepted Zaccheus, and then after spending time together Zaccheus announced he would give half his money to the poor and repay fourfold anyone he cheated etc. and Jesus said ‘today salvation has come to this household’. To me this points to meeting people and accepting the where they are at while also acknowledging where they are at might not be in alignment with God’s ways. A recent example of my struggle with the everything is acceptable viewpoint was a conversation with my Aunty saying that in Hamilton all op shops refuse goods from Temu because they are inundated and then describing a friend of hers who orders say three sweatshirts of different sizes to make sure one will fit and then discards the other two - we were discussing the backdrop of Temu and child labour and general economic exploitation. My Aunties response was I didn’t say anything because I didn’t want to be judgy…. I think there is something in our current culture sphere where saying anything that might contradict a persons personal preference or choice is seen as judging the person as opposed to adding another perspective (e.g. pointing out the repercussions for others of this choice), challenging a behaviour or simply having a different opinion.
Post a Comment