Mark G and Daniel's discussion

[Bethany Gates]

I will not be able to make this meeting, as I'll just be returning from a trip.  Some observations that might be of interest for the discussion.

1.  One of his fundamental points is one Karl Barth, the Swiss Reformed theologian, would resonate with deeply: "What is true is what discloses itself in relationship to us: what constitutes and gives us life," and "God is only knowable through the saving activity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Barth's great contribution to 20th century theology was a reminder of this truth: We can know nothing of God without God's initiative and self-revelation to us. We cannot reason our way to God; any god we would discover by way of this reason will turn out to be an idol.  See Barth's commentary on Romans. 

One key difference is this: Daniel says, "This means that only our experience of relatedness can be true." Barth would say only God is true, partly because "our experience of relatedness" can be so deceiving, as can all our experiences. We can never be sure of "our experience," but we can have confidence in God and what he has revealed of himself to us in Jesus Christ.

2. At the end, Daniel says, "The only propositional statement regarding God allowable for the Church is that 'God is

Love. " And "there remains nothing else to say about God." Not sure what he means, because this suggests that all biblical statements about God--especially those which say or indicate he is all-wise, all knowing, righteous, holy, just, merciful, omnipresent, omnipotent and so forth--are not "allowable for the Church.  But, in fact, all such attributes of God are extolled in the liturgies of all Christian churches, including the Orthodox. If there was "nothing else to say about God" than this, why did God reveal so much of himself in addition to this.  If something is ultimately true--God is love--it doesn't make everything else that is true pointless to say or to meditate upon.

I suspect what he means is that all our  propositional knowledge of God must be read not abstractly but as a commentary on God's ultimate nature. 

Anyway, food for thought for the group.

Mark

Daniel’s thoughts in response:

Hey that's really interesting. I don't know anything about Barth, but he sounds like a fellow Heideggerian along with Yannaras who inspired that whole thing I wrote. Anyway, I think Mark did understand me in point 2. Though I was perhaps a little hyperbolic there with the word 'only.' It was meant in contrast to other methodologies not to other attributes. As for point one, it's an epistemological issue which may or may not  separate Yannaras from Barth. (since again I don't know anything about him yet.) Y's point is that revelation is made in direct personal relation through the Church, not in the logical deduction of reading or thinking. So I would imagine that sounds similar to Barth. For Y, it's important that personal experience or relatedness not be understood privately, but communally in the context of the canonical eucharist. Also that God's revelation is Himself, not a medium of Himself: grace is God, not a separated gift of a God. So the mode of revelation must likewise be personal relation and not discursive reasoning or propositional instruction. This in no way discounts the usefulness of those tools, but just sets apart the Truth itself from reflection upon it.