Ethics & Society Lecture VI-1

Ethics & Society Lecture VI

Consider Barth pg. 249: A German theologian who came through two world wars.
We need to understand that whoever we are reading, we need to ask the questions:
Who, what, where, how come? How did they get inspiration or motivation for this
contribution? What time period was it written? What is the authors
problem/concern that he/she is struggling? Why is a struggle for them? Whats the
problem that has to be addressed? How does the author propose to address the
problem?
The problem for Barth is that the people feel disconnected because of a
preconceived notion of a debt. He is a theologian of the Church, which means that
he starts with the doctrines of the Church. Paul Tillich is a theologian of the
Academy; he doesnt start with the doctrines of the Church. The Apostles Creed/
Nicene Creeds sum up the doctrines of the church. Barth is a dogmatic theologian,
starting with the dogma of the church. Tillich doesnt start with the dogma of the
church.
This kind of work requires that you bring the hermeneutic of suspicion? Why is he
saying this or that?
Barth shows us how God the Creator initiates the relationship with us covenantally,
and binds us in that covenant without debt, a debt we cannot pay. God has to pay
the debt for binding us in the covenant; and in the binding process God binds
Godself because we are not qualified to make a covenant with God. You cant make
a covenant with God, or anyone who is your superior. God is not your equal. In
order to bring back a covenant you have to be able to bring something of equal
value to the table. How can a finite creature impel something infinite, perfectly free
to do something? But, God impels Godself to do it.
Why would Barth even say this? Many thinkers of his day did not agree with him?
The church at this time is set up on a debt/works system. They think that you are
saved through works. Barth suggests that it is the grace of God (Hes reading
Luther, Paul, etc.).
If this covenant issue is the way Barth reads it, that God is the main actor who does
this thing before we ever have any say so about it, and binds us in the relationship,
ethically what does this do to my will? What does this do to my ethical choice?
What does it do to your will? (see pg. 250)
The problem of special ethics suggests the question of what is good human action.
This is the recurring question of virtue ethics. If we are sinners, how do you pull it
off? What is good human action?

Ethics & Society Lecture VI-2

The true God and true human are characterized by good action.
What is good action? Who is good? What constitutes goodness?
The way Barth talks about his point is so metaphysical; hes theologizing the
Churchs metaphysics.
Paul talks about the true God and the original man, his metaphor for Jesus. He
speaks of the first Adam and the second Adam. The second Adam saves the
descendants of the old Adam.
Consider Barths problem of ethics: true man, true God, good actions
If a man is true, it presupposes that his actions are good. Being true has to do with
his being/nature. If his nature is true, we presuppose that his actions are good. If
his nature is corrupt and polluted, there is no way for him to pretend that his actions
can be good in this scheme of Barth thought.
A mans actions can be good if sanctified by the Word of God. What does he mean
by the Word of God? He is talking about something that happens when you read
the Word: sanctification, revelation. He cant limit the Word of God to the Bible; he
doesnt leave the Word of God in the Bible. The Word of God transcend s the Bible,
it happens when we engage the Scriptures, in the reading, meditation the
Scriptures, the Word of God breaks in.
This is the power of transcendence. We have recently attempted to trap God in our
ritual. As if a seed offering can only be sowed in the service that the preacher calls.
You can sow it when a beggar meets you on the streets.
Mans actions are good insofar that he is an obedient hearer of the Word and
command of God. (New Testament Scripture, through Christ)
Barth went back and read Luther and Calvin, seeing how they appropriated
Scripture in interpreting Christ and the actions of God.
There is the testimony of those who have been in instances where God did for them
in a moment when struggling for goodness, what they couldnt do for themselves,
viz., prejudicial/racial ill-treatment before the Civil Right Era caused many blacks to
rely on the Holy Spirit to do for them what they couldnt do for themselves. The
spirit of God sanctifies a particular moment during the persecution of the oppressed
in that the oppressed responds with a power that is not their own. For Barth,
whatever goodness takes place in the active moment, in the decision-making in the
crisis, is not ours, but it is God sanctifying the moment. God sets us aside in that
moment, because ordinarily we might have done something crazy. God sets us
aside for Gods own glory.
God is only good. We are good in hearing and obeying Gods Word.

Ethics & Society Lecture VI-3

For Barth, you cant deal with Gods Word without Jesus. Thats how we come to
know Gods Word, through Jesus. Jesus is the true man that models the goodness of
God. The only way you can know that is through Jesus. Jesus is the true man, for
Barth, because he perfectly obeys the command of God. Jesus is the Word fulfilled.
He is the Word that has been revealed to us, a revelation.
This is his definition of virtue ethics, which suggests that virtue is not something
that we can achieve through our actions.
Jesus is true God, and we know this through the revelation: life, death, burial,
resurrection. Jesus is the God-man.
Barth is struggling with the notion of natural law. Paul suggests that natural law is
laws that derived from the natural order, what we see in the natural order, i.e., a
snow-storm is a part of natural law. All your prayers in the world will not stop
natures laws.
In Barths world, there are those who question what do you with the commands of
nature. Barth says that, yes they are real, but the commands of God are revealed
through Scripture, not nature. Some think that all they need to know about God is
found in natural law, and that they dont need to go to church.
Consider Tillich, pg. 266
Form, being suggests that he is reading the Greek classics.
What is the relation of justice to the compulsory element of power? It is not
compulsion which is unjust, but a compulsion which destroys the object of
compulsion instead of working towards its fulfillment. If the totalitarian State
dehumanizes those for the sake of whom it enforces its laws, their power of being
as persons is dissolved and their intrinsic claim is denied.
You cant destroy others power of being without destroying yourself, dehumanizing
yourself.