Barth argues that 18th-century rational theology was rooted in prior commitments to peaceable citizenship and morality. The dynamic goes something like this: Christianity is interpreted pragmatically - it’s about the transformation of human life; but it doesn’t work - human life isn’t transformed; there must therefore be something wrong with Christianity itself. All the scientific and philosophical discoveries of the 18th century are picked up as tools to critique a Christianity that doesn’t mean prior moralistic standards.
Generalizing, Barth adds “Psychologically speaking, abstract theories of Christianity, whether they are positive or critical, are always a compensation for an actual (albeit at times very hidden) deficiency in Christian practice.”
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Theology
Continue reading related articles
In Praise of Thomas
Gotta love ol’ Tommaso d’Aquino, a.k.a. Thomas Aquinas. The margins of my various copies of his works are full of notes of disagreement and question marks, but still: His toss-off arguments are usually deeper than the sustained arguments of lesser theologians. Here’s a pot pourri from the early part of…
Hoping For Love
In his 2007 encyclical on hope, Spe Salvi , Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI observes that the experience of loving and being loved is a moment of “redemption.” Love gives new meaning, new joy, new energy. Every love is a new birth. We long and hope for love. We want it…
Is All That's In God God?
Divine simplicity is often summarized in the axiom, "All that's in God is God." If this is taken at face value, though, it conflicts with Trinitarian orthodoxy. 1) By this axiom, the Persons are identical with the essence of God. 2) But the Persons have (or are) identifying particularities or…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.