Comments on: Barth’s “nevertheless” of God’s faithfulness http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/barths-nevertheless-of-gods-faithfulness/ Serving the joyful cultivation of the theological craft for the life of the church: inquiring honestly, deliberating wisely, acting faithfully Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:38:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Bobby Grow http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/barths-nevertheless-of-gods-faithfulness/#comment-23123 Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:32:57 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=3932#comment-23123 Sp. is “Barth” vs “Barthes” :-) .

]]> By: brettongarcia http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/barths-nevertheless-of-gods-faithfulness/#comment-23120 Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:46:36 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=3932#comment-23120 I can remember being briefly attracted to Barthes, when he was considered intellectually hot property, as late as c. 1955-60. For many of us raised on strict, fundamentalist adherence to every word of the Bible, but who desired a little more intellectual breathing room, Barthes offered up a few precious words – like his “nevertheless” – that seemed to open things up a bit. That functioned like variables, or gateways, to recognition of a few options, even in the Bible itself, to extremely strict dogmatism. And to the Fundamentalist, absolutely firm, lawmaking GOD, who seemed to offer no flexibility at all.

Since that time so long ago – c. 1955 – to be sure, many have moved on to far, far bolder statements, and to far more involved and convincing, scholarly departures from Fundamentalism. No doubt though, Barthes’ writings might continue to provide a first, subtle, shy and allusive step, into a broader world of critical theology. For those escaping a too-restrictive background.

At the same time to be sure, I feel scholarly theology has long since moved into much bolder – and truer – territory. And I am therefore more supportive of your interest in say, Pannenburg (SP?).

]]>