The Kingdom Come

Back in the late 1980s I took a philosophy course at a local college.  The text book was by Colin Brown, a professor of systematic theology & dean of the Center for Advanced Theological Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary.  The book is called, Philosophy & The Christian Faith.

The book is a good overview of the philosophical & Christian confluence from the Middle Ages forward.  But what I wanted to mention as I have been re-reading this book is what Brown says about the German theologian, Karl Barth.  Barth's background makes him admirable on many levels, not least of which was his early rejection of Nazism. But perhaps Barth is best known for his reaction against his liberal theologic heritage.  Part of that reaction stemmed from the fact that many of Barth's mentors began supporting the nationalism of the Nazis & in doing so they claimed a sort of evidential God that was manifested in cultures of advancement -- particularly, Germany.  Perhaps this explains what might be considered Barth's OVER-REACTION.  I call it an over-reaction because Barth claimed that no knolwedge of God can be had except from Scripture (see Clarkianism). If God can't be ascertained as working in history, then Barth could easily deny the Nazi claims that God was on their side.  Again, though I agree that God was not on the side of the Nazis, to deny God works in history, especially in Church History is certainly an over-reaction.

It is here I want to quote Brown from the book, pages 257 & 258:

"[Barth]...on the one hand, he says that whole of Scripture is inspired, and that we must treat all its words `with the same measure of respect'.¹ But on the other hand, he is willing to concede that the biblical writers were mistaken.² Such a position can be accepted only if we are prepared to commit double-think. It treats the Bible as true and false at the same time -- true in so far as it is the revealing Word of God, and false in so far as it is the erring word of man. (It is not a case of some parts being inspired and reliable, whereas others are not, but of the same passage being both.) In practice Barth seems simply to ignore the difficulty.  This indifference to history and the physical world is the Achilles' heel of Barthianism.  The early Barth stressed the supernatural character of revelation to the point of denying any factual content.  And the later Barth is more interested in theological interpretation than in the historicity of the events he interprets.  But Christianity is no mere esoteric, other-worldly religion.  It claims to be grounded in history and experience.  In principle, its pronouncements on matters of fact are open to the same verification and falsification as any other such pronouncements...In short, Barthianism is no short cut which enables us to side-step historical questions.  We cannot have revelation and biblical theology without being prepared to defend their historical basis. Barth himself appears indifferent to this, and consequently his teaching seems to be left hanging in mid air.  The radicals abandon it [historicity] altogether, but in so doing they abandon Christianity in all but name, and present the world with a collection of ideas so attenuated, that the non-Christian concludes that it is not worth bothering his head about." (Colin Brown, Philosophy & The Christian Religion, pages 257-258)

This quote is very, very relevant today since many who claim to be Christian "teachers" today are the epitome of what Brown is describing here -- a radical abandonment of the historicity of Christianity.  Presenting a collection of ideas so attenuated (weak in proposition), that many people don't even bother to examine it.

Neither Brown nor I are trying to advocate for full blown evidentialism, wherein we spend much time trying to "prove" God & Christianity to people.  Rather, at least I am advocating that when we behave like everyone should start at the assumed starting point of "The Bible is God's Word written", then we actually rob God of His foremost glory. People can see God all around themselves but they suppress the knowledge of Him (Rom 1:18-20).  Let us first start with the innate manifestation of God, as Paul did when he addressed the Athenians (Acts 17:22-24).  Let us declare "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth".  Let that be our starting point.  It does not deny Scripture as, "The Word of God written" but actually gives it strength.  It tells the person that the God of the Bible isn't just some tribal god, but He is the God who made the world and everything in it & that He is the Lord of the heaven & earth -- He is Supreme & Sovereign over all.  Then when a person reads the Bible, they should not doubt as Barth did, as if it can be both correct & incorrect at the same time.

Further, we understand that God is working always through time & history to bring about the most glory for Himself -- the chief end of man is to glorify God & enjoy Him forever (WCF Q1A1).