From July 21, 2014, āWithout justice, weāre not reading the same bookā
Chris TillingĀ points us to Adam Nederās 2009 book,Ā Participation in Christ.
I appreciate Nederās subtitle: āAn Entry into Karl Barthās Church Dogmatics.ā Many readers have found Barthās huge, dense, multi-volume work to be impenetrable, so if Neder has really found some way in, then we should be grateful to him.
Much of what Tilling shares from Neder is still pretty heavy stuff ā immensely Barthy and not easy going. But let me share just one tiny bit from the very first page of Nederās book:
According to Barth, revelation is not merely the offering and acquisition of information. ⦠It is an event in which God establishes an orderly fellowship between [God] and human beings. āGodās Word means that God speaks,ā and since it is God who speaks, to hear [Godās] Word is not simply to become aware of [God], but to obediently acknowledge [God] as Lord. ThusĀ revelation is inseparable from reconciliation.
Ah, OK. That, I think, explains a great deal. Thatās an insight just maybe even bordering on an epiphany.
Just to be clear, when Barth talks about āGodās Wordā and about ārevelation,ā he doesnāt mean the Bible. He means Jesus Christ. For Barth, the fundies have it backwards. They worship an inerrant Bible that tells them how to understand Jesus. Barth worships Jesus, who tells him how to understand the Bible.
When Neder/Barth tell us that ārevelation is inseparable from reconciliation,ā theyāre talking about reconciliation with God ā what we sometimes call transcendent or āverticalā reconciliation. I havenāt read the rest of Nederās book, so I donāt know if he goes on to argue the same thing in the same terms when it comes to āhorizontalā reconciliation ā reconciliation with our fellow humans.
But it doesnāt really matter whether or not Neder or Barth makes that argument, because the epistle of 1 John has that covered. That epistle never allows us to separate reconciliation with God from reconciliation with one another. The two things are, in 1 John,Ā identical:
Whoever says, āI am in the light,ā while hating a brother or sister,Ā is still in the darkness. ā¦
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. Godās love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.
⦠God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We loveĀ because he first loved us. Those who say, āI love God,ā and hate their brothers or sisters,Ā are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sisterĀ whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sistersĀ also.
āEveryone who loves knows God.ā āWhoever does not love does not know God.ā
āRevelation is inseparable from reconciliation.ā
We invite a world of frustration when we try to separate them ā even when weāre just separating them in the hopes of then putting them back together. We get this idea that one will lead to the other ā that we can achieve one by means of the other. We want to believe that revelation can somehow produce reconciliation. And so we wind up trying to exegete our way to justice.
I respect the effort and I share the goal. I admire the heroic work ofĀ abolitionist Bible scholars like Albert Barnes, Iām humbled by the patient determination of egalitarian writers likeĀ Mimi Haddad, and Iām awed by the courage and fortitude of youngĀ Matthew VinesĀ as he takes on the clobber texts of anti-gay clobber-textianityĀ Theyāre fighting for justice and truth. Theyāre right and theyāre on the right side.
But I also canāt help but notice that their approach hasnāt ever really succeeded. We canāt exegete our way to justice because exegesis is an appeal to revelation, and revelation is inseparable from reconciliation. Without reconciliation, revelation cannot be seen or heard or understood.
I suspect that Neder/Barth is on to something there. Revelation ā an understanding of the Word of God or of the word of God ā cannot lead us to justice because such revelation cannot precede justice. They are inseparable ā meaning understanding arrives with justice.
What that suggests, I think, is that folks like Barnes, Haddad and Vines arenāt so much planting the seeds of justice as they are showing us how to reap the fruit of it.*
I donāt think this means the work of biblical scholars isnāt valuable, or that it isnāt necessary. I think itĀ isĀ necessary, but that it can never beĀ sufficient. We will never produce justice as a result of better biblical understanding unless we also produce better biblical understanding as a result of justice.
āAha!ā cry my conservative friends, critics, catechizers, gatekeepers and inquisitors. āJust as we suspected. All this talk of ājusticeā is an attemptĀ to change the meaning of the Bible.ā
Yep. Thatās true.
Because if youāre reading the Bible without justice, then whatever meaning you think youāre finding thereĀ needsĀ changing.
Everyone who lovesĀ knows. Whoever does not loveĀ cannotĀ know.
ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā
* Thatās a bit of a chicken-and-egg distinction, perhaps, since fruits and seeds are also inseparable. And Iām perilously close to undermining my own argument by hinting that reconciliation might precede revelation rather than accompanying it. Plus Iāve likely upset the Barthians by invoking their guy and then two beats later collapsing the transcendent into the immanent, and from what I gather thatās not really how they roll. But bear with me here, Iām in the middle of an almost-epiphany and Iām just trying to get this down and essay it out.