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!
Thanks for the article, Elizabeth and Peter.
ReplyDeleteIn 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".