For those like Bonhoeffer and Barth, the depersonalization
of sin was not birthed in the new language of neo-orthodoxy, but might be
better rendered as a reaction to existing problems for which resolution seemed out
of touch.
One such instance occurs in both Bonhoeffer and Barth, and
it has to do with those for whom salvation requires special excesses not deemed
fully possible for the normal believer. Those with mental deficiencies or even
children, for whom the message of salvation is an impossible quandary, make the
formulaic approach to sin an absurdity. These special cases are usually handled
with sensitivity, but they have one grand defect: Like those they protect, they
take away the universality of the reconciliation act of Christ and parcel it
into participatory criteria on the one hand, and a type of universalism on the
other hand for those with special conditions. This inequality should be
glaring, and indeed, there have been attempts in all mainline denominations to
address it adequate, usually placing it at the feet of Christ as an act of
grace, that in no way takes away from the grace offered to us. But no matter
how you gloss it, the problem remains, and it was Barth and Bonhoeffer with
their unfailing respect for the universal consistency of God’s approach to us
all, that had them rejecting the biological basis of sin, and instead appeal to
a condition of sin that is tied in with all human existence, while at the same
time refusing to find its location in the physicality of the person. This is a
smart, if not honest, appraisal of the God of the universe. Barth’s famous
repartee comes at the expense of Emil Brunner, with whom he battled and denied
that the rationality of God’s revelation Brunner claimed was unveiled in the
world was enough to support such cases. Bonhoeffer, following, though not acknowledging
Barth’s lead, wrote about this question in the Ethics and here too rejected
anything that looked like a multi-pronged approach to the grace of God, where some, because of
their natural disadvantages, are simply more privileged to eternal life, then
those of us who are not.
Personally, to consider a functional normality as the
criteria of free will salvation seems to me an appeal to a mechanistic rationalist’s
worldview. In this case, truth is accessible to all, and it’s only a matter of
us uncovering it. But like those with mental deficiencies there are other subtle
indicators constantly working against us. Those who are by nature skeptical or naïve,
though a medical test might not be available, have a natural inclination to
dismiss or cling to the herd mentality. In all, everyone has nuanced
understandings and acceptances of doctrines of faith, that can only be uncovered
once we literally test them. I wonder if a test of faith were administered on
paper, how many in the same congregational bodies would answer differently? For
conservative evangelicals, it may simply signal there is more work that needs
to be done, despite the fact that even where a belief that a greater
consistency works, I’ve been in enough conservative churches and bible studies
over time, to know that even the most basic understandings of the faith are
subject to a wide interpretation. We must accept that as we live with one
another, we live with different conceptions of God – right down to our home
churches. While many liberal churches (such as my current home) get this and
allow for a variety of responses to God, the logical next step is opening this
to interpretations of God found in other religions. Heresy is an unavoidable
reality, and it’s time that we understand when we disagree we must agree to
disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment