Is it possible to do good "Barthian" theology without all of the Barth-esque language? I've been reading over my own posts (which can only be classified as a failed attempt at theology) and have to admit that I'm rather disgusted at the type of words I use and the way I formulate sentences. Barthian sentences make me want to vomit. And they are everywhere! Just throw in the word witness for every blog post you write, for every wretched theological essay you draft and your in on the Barthianism. Here are some good blog titles that should release the bile in your liver:
"Apocalyptic Christology: the New Testament as witness in a post-fundamentalist world."
"Christ as authentic man: the pedagogy of the apostolic witness."
"Creation as Act: Re-mythologising the factum in the Old Testament witness."
Puke puke puke!!!!
Just when I think I've vomited enough as I read this glowing garbage, I find more vomit to spew out. This is nonsense! It needs to stop!
4 comments:
Come now, all you have to do is cleave to Mennonite tradition, and substitute rigorous hermeneutics for serious theology (especially systematic theology). Right?
Good advice.
Who needs to do theology when there is lots of land to plough and harvest?
you dont have the right to criticize barth (or anyone really) unless you've read them thoroughly as possible.
have you read the entire church dogmatics? his numerous sermons? etc?
sure, he has his problems, but you cant, as a theologian, denigrate until you've engaged. and you cant do that reading ABOUT barth- you have to read BARTH.
thats how real theologians work. with first hand acquaintance.
Good to see you here Jim!
I actually wasn't criticising Barth...far be it from me. I'm jabbing my fingers at "Barthianism", more particularly the Barthians in the blogosphere (like me).
Post a Comment