Tolle, Lege discussion

I've only just ordered my copy therefore will post a schedule when I have received it and have figured out what seems reasonable.

There are 24 relatively brief chapters. A chapter a week sounds to slow, because while I don't doubt that Barth deserves 6 months of our time, I doubt that we can sustain interest that long. At the moment I'm thinking two a week or more, but I'll look at the text when I receive it and see what looks manageable!

Look here for updates.

I got my Barth in the mail!

For now I'm still thinking of two chapters a week. They're short but VERY dense. I'm just very reluctant to spend more than three months on this one (short!) volume! But there is a LOT of meat there.

If others have thoughts since receiving their copies I am open.

I now have a copy of the book. At this point, two chapters a week seems reasonable.

I would like to join in with this read, but need to find a book still. Summer is when I usually dive into the books I'll be teaching next year, which means Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Hesiod, possibly Ovid and Virgil's Georgics, and more (my complete list isn't solidified yet. Thankfully there are some things on it I've already read and don't have to repeat!). Time could become difficult, but I want to give it a try. :-)

Blessings. --L

L, that's an impressive list! I majored in Classics (mainly Greek) longer ago than I want to admit. :)

Tim, I'm feeling like I'm majoring in Classics now--lol! I teach at a small, private, Christian school that uses classical methodology. My letters classes are the ancients. History is taught sequentially and cycles in our school, and we'll be adding a 10th grade next year that will be going through the ancients again, hence the new reading. I have to confess that if left to my own devices I would desire to read these, but have far less motivation to accomplish the task. But teaching is soooo much easier when I've read them ahead of time. I enjoy them quite a bit, though. I wanted to explain why I might start off in the group, though, and then disappear. I hope it didn't come off as bragging because that wasn't my intent. There are always more books than time, though. Blessings! --L

I have ordered my book but, alas, have not yet received it. I will make up the time when it arrives.

Rhonda wrote: "I have ordered my book but, alas, have not yet received it. I will make up the time when it arrives."

I'm not in a rush to get started if it's more convenient for Rhonda, Bill and Larinmtz to wait a week or two.

Absolutely- we can wait! What time frames are folks thinking of?

I have to beg the groups's pardon, for after joining, I discovered I had become busy. This will be unfortnately the case from tome to time, but I will still read along and make comments as much as I am able. I am still behind in Boethius also.

I just joined the group. Have you started reading this book yet? I went ahead and ordered it today, but I suppose it won't be here for a bit. I'll check the library and see if I can find a copy if you have started; otherwise, I'll wait for my copy to come in the mail. Thank you.

Hi, Den. We haven't started Barth yet.

I'm prepping my reading list for next year and have come to the sad conclusion that I'm not going to have time to read the Barth. I'll try to check in and see how you all are doing, but I'll be immersed in Greeks. Maybe the next book will come at a better time for me.

--L

Tim wrote: "Hi, Den. We haven't started Barth yet."

Great. Thank you, Tim. Then, I'll just wait for my book to arrive in the mail.

My Barth is supposed to be down at the mailbox...I'll go pick it up tomorrow. I see that we will be doing two chapters a week. Any updates on when we are starting?

Den wrote: "My Barth is supposed to be down at the mailbox...I'll go pick it up tomorrow. I see that we will be doing two chapters a week. Any updates on when we are starting?"

I've been waiting to hear from Rosemary. Perhaps she's working or away. I'm ready to start anytime.

Sorry to be slow to respond. I had to return my library copy of DIO, but now (today) the copy I ordered has arrived. Should we try doing the first two chapters next week? Or should we wait for Rosemary?

Well, I don't know; I'd like to hear from Rosemary. I've read the first couple chapters, so I'm ready to discuss on any schedule we agree upon.

I have been perusing my new copy which arrived a few days ago and find it quite interesting. I also sense that either Barth is often using language in a strange way or the translator did a poor job...and perhaps it is a bit of both. In any case, I find myself rereading certain passages with little comprehension of what he means. I look forward to how others react to this book.

Den wrote: "Well, I don't know; I'd like to hear from Rosemary. I've read the first couple chapters, so I'm ready to discuss on any schedule we agree upon."

I'm fine with waiting. At least now we know that (at least) five of us have the book and four are ready to start.

Rosemary seems to be missing in action. Perhaps something has gotten in her way of Tolle, Lege for awhile. I sent her a note a few weeks ago about joining the group, but have not heard from her. When I came back to check today, I found that I could register, so I just did.

I have had a copy of Dogmatics in Outline from our church library almost since this group was announced, but I have only "worked" on the first two chapters. (They can call me if someone else needs or wants it.) I do look forward to the discussions here, but am quite willing to wait until Rosemary can make a reappearance.

I am a Presbyterian by profession of faith and background since in my teens, although my mother was Lutheran and her teachings and those of her family have influenced my faith, along with participation in both conservative and avant garde congregations. I have long had the conviction that one's faith education should parallel one's secular education in depth and sophistication, although I am not certain I carried that out for significant periods at the height of my business and family obligations. In the past ten years, I have had more opportunities to attempt that balance.

It would seem that we have stalled in reading Barth and I was wondering why. Is it because Rosemary is MIA or that we have picked something too intense? Perhaps in the former case we may appoint a lieutenant moderator and begin, seeing that we all must have the book by now. I am somewhat eager to begin, frankly.

I think it is because some wanted to wait until Rosemary reappeared. I would be willing to move forward with a lieutenant moderator.

Tim wrote: "I think it is because some wanted to wait until Rosemary reappeared. I would be willing to move forward with a lieutenant moderator."

I'm not ready to be the vice moderator, but I have bought the book and would be happy to carry on if you take the lead.

Well let's take a vote: I am sure that Rosemary won'ymind if we start. How do the rest of you feel?

July 4 is the last time I see any activity for Rosemary on Goodreads.

Is there anybody among us who knows her in a way to be able to reach her?

I have not tried to send a private message to her since it has appeared she may not even be checking the board. I certainly would like to "know" what has happened to her since she initiated the board. Is she sick? Has she been in an accident? ....

I have not checked out who her friends are and whether any of them might have an idea of her status.

Do not construe this as a view on whether to go ahead only with or now without Rosemary. At this point, I am fairly neutral and do not particularly want to help "swing" any choice the group might make.

I'm on vacation until the middle of next week (and don't have the book with me), but I'm fine with starting at any time.

I vote that we start the book.

Start the book! I feel terrible!

What happened was we bought a house, and that's about all there was to it.

Rosemary wrote: "Start the book! I feel terrible!

What happened was we bought a house, and that's about all there was to it."

Congratulations! That's an understandable "reason." (It would have been nice to have heard from you.)

Can you find time enough to give us some threads?

I fear that many are, as I am, losing interest in this project. While this is unfortunate, in order to jump start the reading we need, first, a group of people wiling to read it. Count me in that group.
Secondly we need a moderator. If no one else will volunteer, I will do so on my own terms.
Those terms will be suggesting questions for each section. I think questions help keep us on the track of what is written and away from what the reader may otherwise think on an associated subject such as the legitimacy of Catholicism.
Having belonged to several other groups where we read difficult books, I find that the most frustrating portion comes about when someone continuously feels the need to express him or herself on foundational issues not involved with the book.
Thus I do not care whether one is an atheist or a Jew or Catholic: concerning Barth, and anyone else for that matter, I want to know whether you think that his points are legitimate if and only if his foundations are true. Expositions become very long-winded otherwise. We shall have a relatively large problem at the inception, as it is, speaking about how we understand dogmatics.

Rhonda wrote: "I fear that many are, as I am, losing interest in this project. While this is unfortunate, in order to jump start the reading we need, first, a group of people wiling to read it. Count me in that..."

I am willing to read the book. And it sounds like you will be an excellent moderator. :)

Rhonda -- thank you for stepping forward. I like the sound of your suggested way of tackling Barth. I still have my borrowed copy and anyone who needs it knows how to find me, so I should still be able to accommodate the pace chosen, unless I allow myself to get bogged down in other reading. Will you also suggest a rate for reading or how many sections we will tackle in what time periods? I believe that would be useful, but I don't think it all needs to be laid out a priori if you would prefer to do it as we move along. Forming questions sounds like work, and I for one am grateful that you are willing to do that work.

Thanks Rhonda.

Thank you for those who responded. I think we have enough to make a beginning. I was afraid that in my frustration I may have come across like a martinet, but questions sound like a good way of keeping us organized. I will have something better organized toward the end of the week. In the meantime, I ask these very general questions for Chapter 1:
1) What does Barth mean by "dogmatics" and is his vague or non-existent definition intended to be explicated in the section at large?
2) What are some of the reasons why someone might suggest or believe that dogmatics is not a science?
3) Is Barth trying to amplify the meaning of dogmatics to make questionable distinctions in his point of view?
4) If we allow that dogmatics IS, in fact, a science, what advantages does Barth gain in his explication of this?
5) Why specifically would a Catholic theologian have difficulty with Barth's point of view on this issue?

3) Is Barth trying to amplify the meaning of dogmatics to make questionable distinctions in his point of view?

Might this question be more neutrally stated: "Is Barth trying to amplify the meaning of dogmatics to make distinctions in his point of view? What are other points of view from which he may be trying to distinguish? Is he successful in making those distinctions?"

You caught me, Lily, as I was deliberately intending to provoke a misdirection. However, I phrased the question as such because I often feel that external criticism of Barth does so. For the record, your version of the question is fine with me.
On the other hand, I think the distinction here is between extending the definition outside of its legitimate realm and understanding the integral nature of the subject matter. Personally I think that Barth does the latter, but it would be unfair of me to weigh in any further on answers to my own questions before hearing from others.

I think I misread your intentions, Rhonda! LOL!

I appreciate Bill's contribution above. I'm just wondering: Should we continue the discussion of chapter one here or will a new topic/thread be started for that under "Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline"?

These are excellent answers, if only a little pithy, but there is no point using more words to explain your point of view than you need and for that you are to be commended. I hope others will chime in.
I think the first issue to be answered is concerning a Catholic's reply to Barth and that reply would certainly be that Barth was denying both the fixed dogma upon which the Roman Catholic church is based and the traditions upon which it is based: hence he is an heretic.
Barth says "The second point we mentioned in the opening statement referred to 'the guidance of its Confessions'. Holy Scripture and the Confessions do not stand on the same level. We do not have to respect the Bible and tradition with the like reverence and love, not even tradition in its most dignified manifestations."
It seems to me that none of these statements could be even marginally true unless his statement about dogmatics as a science were true. Further, how this knowledge, at any given time and by any given human being, is to be is to be separated from that which is wrong or delusional seems to be at issue. I suppose that Barth might respond that knowledge of anything, whether empirical or spiritual, always runs the risk of taking a temporary wrong path but that it will always correct itself. Elsewhere he says "Dogmatics is a critical science." This implies to me that it is self-correcting.
Still what puzzles me the most about his entire exegesis here is that he seems to maintain that some sort of historically transcendental approach to dogma is obvious to the spiritual scientist. Perhaps he is arguing that it is necessary, but then the necessity begs the question of the truth of his statement, again, in my opinion. It may well be that this is true, that mankind is really acting out the spiritual will of God in the world, but I do not think he has proven this or even provided us with the clues by which this may be so.
Lastly, given his definition of dogmatics, one wonders if a million serious spiritual scientists wouldn't end up with a million different versions of present dogma. In this sense it becomes mystical and vague, at least to me, much like that of Jung's collective unconscious.
Overall, I am impressed with Barth's approach which appears to be phenomenological. His writing reminds me of Heidegger's of the early 20th century. Nevertheless, I am anxious to discuss following issues to ensure that his reasoning is not merely a gigantic mystical circle.

I think Barth is using the word "science" in an older sense of the word. He does not mean natural or physical science, but rather, as he says, "an attempt at comprehension and exposition, at investigation and instruction, which is related to a definite object and sphere of activity." Dogmatics is a science in that sense. He then distinguishes between the subject and the object of dogmatics. By subject I understand the entity doing the study, which Barth says is the Christian Church. He says the object and activity with which dogmatics is concerned is the proclamation of the Gospel. He notes that someone trying to do dogmatics from outside the church would not be able to do it effectively.

Dogmatics is a critical science, according to Barth, because it tests the Church's proclamation by the standard of the Scriptures. This involves exegesis or interpretation of the Bible. Because of that, like other sciences, it is not "final" but is open to further correction and elaboration.

All of the above, in my opinion, involves many presuppositions about the Church, the Gospel, the Scriptures, which would not be self-evident to non-Christians or accepted by them.

Rhonda wrote: "I think the first issue to be answered is concerning a Catholic's reply to Barth and that reply would certainly be that Barth was denying both the fixed dogma upon which the Roman Catholic church is based and the traditions upon which it is based: hence he is an heretic...."

Personally, I am most interested in exploring Barth and his writings independently for their content and their relationship to Protestant dogmatics, rather than necessarily in relationship to Catholic theology, although I shall be interested in the insights of those of us who can bring those perspectives. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on either the positions or the significance or even all the names of the major theologians about whom we should be concerned. But, I do see discussions like this and the reading of men like Barth as potentially opening insights. With my own association with the Reformed Protestant tradition, my own travels have taken me more into contact with Calvin than perhaps any other single theologian, although certainly the writings of the likes of Reinhold Niebuhr, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Soren Kierkegaard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mary Daly, Harvey Cox, and even the philosopher Martin Buber, along with some of the far more ancient seers, have influenced my faith and understandings. Yet, I don't consider myself knowledgeable nor able to describe/assign the core beliefs of any of these. So it is with that constrained understanding that I shall attempt to participate in the discussion here.

First, I will say that the entire discussion about whether or not dogmatics is a science has held little interest to me so far in the discussion. I rather view all the acrimonious discussions about whether or not any field of human knowledge is a "science" or not as belonging largely to the first half of the 2oth century, when "science" was viewed as having a particular hold on "truth." With the broad acceptance of many fields of intellectual endeavor as being amenable to some, if not all, of the characteristics of "science", I find the arguments largely moot unless demonstrated specifically otherwise. For the moment, in Barth's book, the issue is largely in abeyance for me.

While Barth may indeed be a "heretic" within the scope of Catholic dogma, I find little value in the labeling for the purposes of understanding the positions he puts forth.

I will have some questions for section 2 on Sunday. This has been a formidable and wonderful beginning.
Concerning the issue of his being heretical, Lily, the intention was to define how Barth fits into the history of modern theology. It has often been said that Barth is the most important theologian since Schleiermacher's effort to meld Enlightenment issues with Protestant orthodoxy. Certainly Barth was reacting to the liberal theology of his time but also those who were proposing a more seriously Godless world. I mention Nietzsche, Freud and Twain just to use 3 different examples.
I admit to having a problem with his very first sentence,"Dogmatics is a science," although I am able to suspend my own judgment to discover more about what he wants to say in the book. I find it very exciting as a whole, but I also find myself re-reading single sentences several times in order to understand them.
I hope to encourage more to speak up on what each thinks before we go on to chapter 2.

Rhonda wrote: "...I find it very exciting as a whole, but I also find myself re-reading single sentences several times in order to understand them...."

lol! I hope it is helping you! After tackling Niebuhr this past year (with a f2f group) and doing so much of such re-reading of single sentences and it not always helping all that much, I am putting off the serious investment in such for another chapter or two!

I found this section difficult so please do not feel obliged to answer all the questions. Please feel free to pick and choose one or two for discussion purposes. That being said, I hope we can get the rest of the group to participate.

Barth begins this section by referring to what is commonly known as The Apostles' Creed. I say this for clarification for those who do not commonly recite this in their church.

1. How is Barth legitimately able to provide a basis for the Christian faith on this creed when, as he acknowledges, it was not used commonly until the third century CE?
2. Barth says that in Christian faith, men become free to hear the word of grace spoken in Jesus Christ. This seems to imply that freedom comes in following not our own decisions, but God's. How would you agree or disagree with Barth's point of view or would you state it another way?
3. In a few words, how would a modern school of philosophy or psychology (i.e., last 100 years or so) criticize Barth's understanding of freedom? Please state the name of the school or person.
4. When Barth states that”the subjective form of faith, the fides qua creditur (the faith by which it is believed) cannot quite be excluded from proclamation,” how does this not suggest that his reasoning on individual faith may be circular?
5. Barth indicates that by believing,one is filled and determined by the object of one's faith. If one could become saturated with “the other,” what would become of the individual? Use a Biblical reference (preferably not Christ Himself) to any person to reinforce your opinion.
6. Barth says “And as this nature and work of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is His free grace towards us, it is grace all over again if our eyes and ears are open to this grace.” Barth states that we cannot achieve and do not deserve a relationship with Him. If it is not something upon which we ourselves decide to act, how does this suggest that God Himself decides not only those who hear Him but also those who do not hear Him?
7. Barth says, “Where there is faith in the gospel, there the Word has found confidence, there the Word has so let itself be heard that the hearer cannot withdraw from it.” How does this suggest that not only is one powerless to accept the gospel but also powerless to lose faith in it?
8. Why is it that only after one has come to believe, as Barth says, that man's most profound efforts to trust in himself become pointless?
9. Barth says that the gospel and the law are not to be separated, with the glad tidings being primary but including the law. Intuitively, one might think that God's love and God's rules for us might be quite separable, as many liberal churches seem to preach these days. How are we to not look on the law as a set of restrictions of our natural behavior?
10. Barth says, “God is hidden from us outside His Word. But He is manifest to us in Jesus Christ.” If He is manifest to us in Jesus, how is it that He remains hidden? If we recognize the nature of Christ, do we not recognize, concomitantly, the nature of God?
11. Barth says, “And faith is concerned with a decision once for all.” If this is true, is this faith indelible and unshakeable so that one, once faith has found one, it cannot be changed to another form of belief? Put another way, can one who truly believes in Jesus Christ ever give Him up to believe in, say, Wicca?
12. Barth says, “To believe is the freedom to trust in Him quite alone, sola gratia and sola fide." How does Barth's position here indicate a transposition of values?

I agree with Tim - Barth is using a definition that doesn't quite align itself with today's use of the word science. Still, it seems that Barth knew there would be a rustling of some readers' feathers when he made the opening statement that "[d]ogmatics is a science." It seems to be a defensive position for Barth, as well as a vital component of his discussion. So, I, for one, did find the science discussion interesting. Barth adds to his words page 12: "Dogmatics is a critical science." Since Barth opens the book with similar words, then reaffirms and substantiates them throughout the chapter, the position is obviously important to him; he is using his rhetoric to convince the reader of the statement.

I'm not entirely sure of his motives, though. Does the description of dogmatics as a 'real science' somehow elevate dogmatics into a more intellectual sphere? I am likely asking the question because I am recalling Nathaniel Hawthorne as I read Barth. I just spent a great deal of time elsewhere explaining Hawthorne's position that human intellect always operates in defiance of faith. In fact, Hawthorne often attributed the biblical Fall of Man to man's intellect, because intellectual men (in Hawthorne's mind) believe that science can replace God. Hawthorne's position does not exist in isolation. A number of people have shared (do share, and will share) an opinion like Hawthorne's. Barth, though, seems to be justifying the necessity of the intellect and its value to the science of dogmatics. What, then (I would ask), does Barth gain if he can convince an antithetical reader that dogmatics is a science? Why is it so important for Barth that he is able to convince his audience that dogmatics should be defined in such a way?

What, then (I would ask), does Barth gain if he can convince an antithetical reader that dogmatics is a science? Why is it so important for Barth that he is able to convince his audience that dogmatics should be defined in such a way?

Den, those are good questions, but they are not easy to answer. I'm guessing that Barth would say that the human intellect is the good creation of God and does not necessarily "operate in defiance of faith." It is simply part of being human to seek to comprehend and explain (i.e., do what Barth calls "science"). Of course, because of human rebellion against God, the human intellect can be used to reject the Christian faith and/or deny God's existence.

1. How is Barth legitimately able to provide a basis for the Christian faith on this creed when, as he acknowledges, it was not used commonly until the third century CE?

Barth might answer by saying that even though the Apostles' Creed does not go back to the first century, it is one of the oldest "Confessions" of the church that has come down to us. As such, it has a "non-binding authority, which must be taken seriously" (p. 13.) Nearly all branches of the Christian Church acknowledge that this creed is a faithful summary of the Church's proclamation.

2. Barth says that in Christian faith, men become free to hear the word of grace spoken in Jesus Christ. This seems to imply that freedom comes in following not our own decisions, but God's. How would you agree or disagree with Barth's point of view or would you state it another way?

I think it is significant that Barth quotes Luther in this connection: "I believe that not of my own reason and power do I believe in my Lord or am able to come to Him." Luther wrote a book entitled The Bondage of the Will in which he opposed Erasmus' On Free Will. Luther believed that because of sin, our wills are enslaved to sin. Therefore, God must take the initiative and set us free to put our trust in him. Some Scripture that may support this view: 2 Corinthians 4;4,6 and Ephesians 2:1,4,8. Barth then would seem to be following Luther (and also the apostle Paul) in saying that God frees us to hear the word of grace.

10. Barth says, “God is hidden from us outside His Word. But He is manifest to us in Jesus Christ.” If He is manifest to us in Jesus, how is it that He remains hidden?..."

One interpretation of these words is that we have only the Word; i.e., Jesus Christ is made manifest to us through the Word. (We do not have his physical presence that we can see and touch and hear -- still we can know his admonishment to Thomas, John 20:29.)

1. How is Barth legitimately able to provide a basis for the Christian faith on this creed when, as he acknowledges, it was not used commonly until the third century CE? ..."

Is Barth avoiding the discussions that have received widespread public knowledge in the past 30-50 years about the many early sects of Christianity and their wide diversity? I would presume that he knew many of those arguments, because the public knowledge certainly arose out of academic scholarship, fueled by some of the archeological finds. It is my understanding there was considerable "shielding" of that information on early churches throughout much of the 50's and well into the next decades.

If so, the Apostles Creed could be treated as a point of historic/historical consensus?

@52Rhonda wrote: "5. Barth indicates that by believing, one is filled and determined by the object of one's faith. If one could become saturated with “the other,” what would become of the individual? Use a Biblical reference (preferably not Christ Himself) to any person to reinforce your opinion. ..."

I think of St. Paul when I read this. It may not really be a "proof text", but this passage from a book by Harvey Cox, The Future of Faith, suggests just how "human" one remains even if "saturated with the other":

"...This is why the 'I' is not a problem that can be solved, but a mystery that remains with us as long as we live. The apostle Paul came closer to the truth than the bard's loquacious Polonius [Hamlet:'To thine own self be true, and it must follow as night the day, thou canst not be false to any man.'] when he [St. Paul] complained that the very thing he wanted to avoid doing was what he always seemed to do, and what he wanted to do he did not (Romans 7:15,19)." p. 30

(Cox calls Polonius "fatuous".)