John Rogerson is (I think) Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at Sheffield University. He has been retired for many years, most likely at least 11 years as he has been leading a more or less monthly Bible study for that long. His main interest is in the Old Testament but this year we are looking at Romans.
Last night we got as far as Romans 1: 16, 17. John read from Karl Barth's 'The Epistle to the Romans', a passage which seems to be a response to verse 17 'the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith'. The following indented paragraph is the gist of what Barth writes. The original is in German and the only English translation isn't very good apparently. Furthermore I've taken this from my notes of what John read out. However far this text has strayed from the original, it is still interesting.
What is named God is not God. This God affirms the world as it is. A cry of revolt against such a God is nearer the truth. All the time we think we know what God is like apart from Jesus. But we must accept we don't know what God is like. If we talk about God without Jesus we talk of this no-God who does not redeem creation. The God we conjure up is no God. The cry of revolt is nearer the truth. In Christ God speaks as he is and punishes the no-God. Christ condemns the no-God, affirming himself by denying us as we are and the world as it is.
John also quoted from Paul Tillich - 'To argue that God exists is to deny him. Accept the absurd as divine, the executed criminal.' John said verse 17 is the willingness to accept that God is trying to put things right.
This reminded me of the atheist bus campaign. Richard Dawkins and others have collected a huge sum of money to advertise on the sides of buses all over the country. The advert reads, 'there is probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.' The 'probably' is delightful and has caused at least one Christian group to make a contribution on the grounds that it will get people talking about God. There is a paradox here because according to Barth the atheists are right to reject God but wrong to talk of God in the absence of Jesus. By the same token the Christians who have contributed are also wrong. Both, according to my interpretation of Barth have a false image of God (as have we all).
This also reminds me of Wesley's 'Three Grand Scriptural Doctrines'. How far does his rejection of doctrinal "opinions" share Barth's insight about the nature of what we call God? But is he also in his three rather intellectualised doctrines making the mistake of moving too far from Jesus?
Christopher Jamieson in 'Finding Sanctuary' states we cannot know God. God reveals himself to us by revealing to us the true nature of ourselves. I think Wesley's doctrines of original sin, justification and sanctification are all about us learning of God through learning our own true nature. It is the life and teaching of Jesus that helps us know ourselves. We cannot compare ourselves to God, but we can compare ourselves to Jesus.
Comments