"Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it."

[BurtWorm]

A statement by Karl Barth, so-called neo-Orthodox theologian (so-called by his "liberal" critics). Here's a taste of what Barth was about:

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/2000/Issue65/5.23.html

He started out life conventionally enough: he was born in 1886 in Basel, Switzerland, the son of Fritz Barth (a professor of New Testament and early church history at Bern) and Anna Sartorius. He studied at the best universities: Bern, Berlin, Tübingen, and Marburg. At Berlin he sat under the famous liberals of the day (like historian Adolf Harnack), most of whom taught an optimistic Christianity that focused not so much on Jesus Christ and the Cross as the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

After serving a Geneva church from 1909 to 1911, Barth was appointed to a working-class parish in Switzerland. In 1913 he married Nell Hoffman, a talented violinist (they eventually had one daughter and four sons).

As he pastored, he noted with alarm that not only was Switzerland's close neighbor, Germany, becoming increasingly militaristic, but his former professors there were fully supportive of the development. Dismayed with the moral weakness of liberal theology, Barth plunged into a study of the Bible, especially Paul's Epistle to the Romans, to see what insights it could offer. He also visited Moravian preacher Christoph Blumhardt and came away overwhelmingly convinced of the victorious reality of Christ's resurrection.



*********

By unbelief, I'm guessing he was not referring strictly to agnostics and atheists, but probably primarily to any rational skeptic, including "liberal Christians."

Nevertheless, I find the quote interesting considering the frequent discussions that take place in this forum over how believers and nonbelievers argue with one another. Or are we just preaching and being preached to?

[niyad]

1. why does belief feel it is necessary to argue with unbelief? how about just leaving the unbelievers

alone? I find a desire to preach, to argue, a bit on the rude side, unless specifically invited to do so.

[BurtWorm]

2. If you're addressing me with your question

I'm an unbeliever, so I can't answer from the other side. However, this is a forum for religious/theological discussion, so it seems rather natural to argue on these subjects here. But I am wondering how prevalent Barth's view among believers is, or if this is a strictly "neo-Orthodox" point of view.

[jgraz]

4. i don't mind a bit

Since I then feel prefectly free to argue back.

[struggle4progress]

7. Is it your view that one is NEVER entitled to say anything the other person does not want to hear?

[intaglio]

3. Belief is not necessarily linked to just religion

On this board there are many believers in the venality of GWB but they cannot argue with unbelievers (ie the Freepers and their kin) only preach to them.

Mind you I think that Barth was talking rubbish because his use of the term "unbeliever" means anyone not of his belief system even those who are undecided. If we take Barth at his word it can only mean there is no rational, arguable basis for his faith.

[struggle4progress]

5. What Barth was actually saying, in his voluminous writings, has been extensively debated

Here is an interesting approach:

Political Theology and Social Ethics: The Socialist Humanism of Karl Barth

Joseph Bettis

... liberals have known for a long time that Barth considered them anathema. And they usually returned the favor. Liberals assumed that since Barth disagreed with them, he must represent a conservative, confessionalistic, authoritarian, dogmatic, preliberal position. On the contrary, and this is the thesis of this paper, Barth represents a radical, dialectical, socialist, humanistic, postliberal theology and social philosophy ...

Of course everyone knows that Barth was interested from time to time in politics. There was the time as a pastor in Safenwil when he was involved in the labor unions, the Religious-Socialist movement, and the Social Democratic Party. There was the profound conflict with Nazism and with the German Christians. There was the Barmen Declaration. There was his service in the Swiss army, his preaching to prisoners in the Basel jail, his trip to Hungary, and the famous letter to the East German Pastor, to which I will return later. All these events are well known. The question is, are these political activities integral of Barth's theology, or are they incidental activities of the man who, during the period when most of them occured, was also writing the Church Dogmatics? ...

Marquardt argues that Barth is a socialist and that his theology is a
product of his study of Marx. The sources of Barth's theological socialism lie in the frustrations he experienced as a pastor in Safenwil. Barth was frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the liberal efforts at social reform ... His dialectical theology was developed as
a way of expressing a radical, socialist position which would be true both to the transcendence of God and to the demands of historical struggles for justice ...

... we have been handicapped in our evaluation of his theology because our politics have been essentially the politics of liberalism. We have accepted the liberal presumption that nothing of significance occurs to the left of the classical liberal position. If we widen our politics to include radical socialistic humanism as a valid political position, then Barth's theology takes on an entirely new and politically significant dimension. In other words, I believe people have said Barth was nonpolitical and didn't have a social ethic when what they really mean was that they didn't like his socialist politics or radical ethics ...

http://kashpureff.org/susan/txt/KarlBarth.txt

[papau]

6. "frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the liberal efforts at social reform" - so true n/t

n/t

[NMMNG]

8. Being "preached at" is so annoying and inneffective.

Giving others the opportunity to seek, if and when they choose, is so much more desirable.