Feb 17
Why Jim West is wrong
Jim has a characteristically diffident 
post on what he learned from Karl Barth.
It is the undeniable, irrefutable, unalterable, eternal truth that the Gospel is in and of itself thoroughly sufficient and that the Gospel + Anything = heresy.
Leaving aside the consummate irony of a disciple of Bultmann (perhaps the greatest 20th century example of adding to the gospel) saying this, I note that he then lists some examples of what he means by “anything”. I won’t disagree with his disapproval of “entertainment” masquerading as worship (though we might well differ about our definitions), but I will take issue with his listing “maximalism” and “emergent” among his “anything”.
In a curious way these condemnations go together. Bultmann’s despising of history which Jim echoes in his hatred of maximalism is no doubt tied to Jim’s rejection of any emergent attempt to engage the specific moment of history which is today’s culture.
However, the gospel does not exist in a vacuum, nor happen in the head. Jim forgets that for Barth in his proclaiming of the gospel, the Bible went in one hand and the newspaper in the other. Without history and culture there is no gospel, because there are no specific historic and contingent settings for it to be spoken to.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
It’s a good think I don’t know what diffident means or I might be offended or worse, hurt!
February 17th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
It is a glorious thing when we are found to have been wrong - for the chief work of the flesh is our desire to be right - but such rightness only comes by the One who imputes it - leaving us in our desire capable only of a lie - as it is written Let God be true and every human a liar. And of the flesh, it is said - those who a Christ’s have crucified it - so that the glory may be from God and even in our perplexity, Not of our own imagination.
What I remember from Barth is the Not in front of God (I read him in English) - there’s only so much time…
February 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Barth’s NEIN extends to all attempts to supplement the Gospel. That’s why Doug is wrong.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Nah! He was Swiss like your mate Ulli. Must be wrong!
February 18th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Jim West is usually wrong.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I’ve just posted my own little response to this on Jim’s blog.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I would also add that Bultmann’s approach was very much an attempt to engage his specific point in history: he wants to make the gospel credible to a construct known as “modern man.” In fact, this commitment to what ever “modern man” believes is believable becomes the criterion for truth in reading the NT. Anything that doesn’t fit is either cut out or reinterpreted along more palatable lines. Bultmann would be, for me, an example of someone who lost the balance between the Bible and its contemporary relevance, subsuming the Bible within modernity. (He happily admits this in his Jesus Christ and Mythology).
February 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
From the North, East is left so West is Right (althought Wright is still wrong)
February 18th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Doug now that anti-Swissian bit was just mean. Anon- you do credit yourself too much. And as always Steph - correct.