Truth as a proposition is found to be offensive by what it implies. That is, if the proposition is correct I must be wrong, ergo you are judging me. Or, if we are passionate about the truth the response is normally, ‘why are you so loud or emotional. I am offended.’ Instead of asking, ‘what is it that drives you so.’ Even in our own church your banner statement, Recovering the reformed confession by Recovering reformed theology, piety ,and practice offends some because it implies they need reforming. The common thread is a pervasive self centeredness that becomes the lens by which truth is viewed and ultimately rejected because the discomfort it causes takes focus off self and requires a submission to some reference point other than self.
Is this why comments that disagree with the moderators are subject to summary deletion? I refer to the recent deletions that occurred in relation to Richard Muller’s article on Karl Barth.
Read the comments policy.
I’ve read the comments policy. I get it. I just think that it is a bit ironic that you posted the above quote, especially where it says: “Or, if we are passionate about the truth the response is normally, ‘why are you so loud or emotional. I am offended.’ Instead of asking, ‘what is it that drives you so.’ Even in our own church your banner statement, Recovering the reformed confession by Recovering reformed theology, piety ,and practice offends some because it implies they need reforming.” I could say the same thing back. Instead of deleting comments, why don’t you ask “what is it that drives you so?” Do we (I have in mind myself and Bobby Grow whose comments were deleted) offend because we imply that something needs reforming?
Jonathan,
1. This space is dedicated to advocating unapologetically for Reformed orthodoxy, not Barthianism or neo-orthodoxy. There are a billion places to do that. This isn’t one of them.
2. What Muller said is the truth. It’s confirmed, in my view, by the definitive work on Barth’s theology, McCormack’s Critically Realistic Dialectical…. He confirmed (unintentionally) about everything that Van Til ever said about Barth.
3. In my view, other than being an unintentional conduit for some to orthodoxy, Barth has been a giant cul-de-sac from which people need to be delivered.
4. Barth was no “Reformer.” Münter’s theology of existential encounter with the Word is no Reformation.
5. As I explain here, Semper Reformanda does not mean, cannot mean, “let’s consider Barth as a way forward.”
6. As the comments policy says, as you’ve read with your own eyes, comments that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Advocacy of Barth (or Amyraldianism) irritates the management greatly.
For those reasons and more I’m quite (i.e, to say utterly) impatient with attempts to rehabilitate him or to seduce naive evangelicals into following him. I don’t dislike Barth as much as I dislike Schleiermacher but it’s close.