Conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 174-188
Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

“The task of theological ethics,” Barth asserts, “is to understand the Word of God as the command of God.”1 The Word of God is the revelation and work of God’s grace to human beings in Jesus Christ, and the command of God is the summons, direction, and empowerment of human beings to be in their conduct what they are by God’s grace. In Jesus Christ, God acts for human beings and in their place. Human beings confirm God’s grace, so understood, in their actions that directly or indirectly correspond to it. The action God commands is thus a likeness to God’s action. Ethics takes form as an analogy of grace....

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

Barth’s theological ethics is a version of divine command ethics. However, it is a highly unusual version. Its premise is that the Word of God—the revelation and work of God’s grace to human beings in Jesus Christ—is also the command of God, that gospel is also law. What God commands, therefore, is that human beings confirm in their conduct what they already are by virtue of God’s grace to them. Human beings confirm grace in their conduct by performing actions that correspond to grace, so that the moral life is lived as a human analogy to divine grace. The problem with Barth’s divine command ethics is that the claim that grace is the norm of human action fails to do justice to human beings as creatures. For Barth, God’s resolution from eternity to be gracious to human beings and God’s realization of this eternal resolution in time determines human beings as creatures, not just as those who have fallen into sin. It follows that the human creature exists for the actualization of grace, not grace for the perfection of the creature.


2021 ◽  
pp. 25-51
Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

Barth’s divine command ethics claims that God’s grace to human beings in Jesus Christ is the norm of human action. In Jesus Christ, God both poses and answers the question of the good of human action, which is the question of its conformity to grace. Rather than a norm of a distinctively Christian way of acting or form of life, Barth argues that this is a moral norm that pertains to human action as such. When moral philosophy considers the question of conformity to the good that is posed to human action, it implicitly attests the grace of God which poses this question. And when moral philosophy considers the answers to the question of the good that derive from reason or experience, it implicitly attests the grace of God as the answer to the question. In its explicit attestation of the grace of God as the norm of human action, theological ethics makes use of this implicit attestation in moral philosophy. Barth thus endorses the traditional position according to which theology articulates the moral norm with the assistance of philosophy. However, Barth’s claim that the norm of human action is a revealed norm, and not a rational norm that is clarified, specified, and extended by revelation, qualifies the goodness of the human creature, fails to secure the mutual accountability of those who are inside and outside the circle of revelation, and limits the grounds on which Christians and others cooperate with one another in moral endeavors.


Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

Does theological ethics articulate moral norms with the assistance of moral philosophy? Or does it leave that task to moral philosophy alone while it describes a distinctively Christian way of acting or form of life? These questions lie at the heart of theological ethics as a discipline. Karl Barth’s theological ethics makes a strong case for the first alternative. This book follows Barth’s efforts to present God’s grace as a moral norm in his treatments of divine commands, moral reasoning, responsibility, and agency. It shows how Barth’s conviction that grace is the norm of human action generates problems for his ethics at nearly every turn, as it involves a moral good that confronts human beings from outside rather than perfecting them as the kind of creature they are. Yet it defends Barth’s insistence on the right of theology to articulate moral norms, and it shows how Barth may lead theological ethics to exercise that right in a more compelling way than he did.


Karl Barth ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 362-382
Author(s):  
Christiane Tietz

Barth’s Church Dogmatics is the most extensive theological work of the twentieth century. Barth worked on it from 1932 until 1967, reconceptualizing theology from the very foundations. He distinguishes three forms of the Word of God, avoiding a biblicistic reading of the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is a consequent exposition of the concept of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. This God is the one who loves in freedom, that is who relates to human beings because of grace. Barth therefore completely transforms the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. The doctrine of creation as well has to be derived from God’s self-revelation; God created the world because God wanted a covenantal partner. To this creation belong shadow sides as well as nothingness. God in Jesus Christ entered the confrontation with nothingness and reconciled the world with God. Only from reconciliation can we understand the essence of sin.


2021 ◽  
pp. 52-77
Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

As a version of divine command ethics, Barth’s theological ethics answers the two fundamental questions posed to every divine command ethics, namely, how is it that God’s command determines the good of human action, and why is it that human beings must accept what God determines as good? Barth’s answer to both question is that in Jesus Christ, God both poses the question of the good to human beings and answers it in their place. In him, God’s goodness both confronts other human beings as the norm of their goodness and fulfills that norm in their place. It therefore determines the good of human action insofar as Jesus Christ is the human being who takes the place of other human beings. And other human beings must accept what God thereby determines as their good because—again, insofar as Jesus Christ has taken their place—their good is already a reality in him, in whom they exist as the human beings they are. The problem is that while the grace of God in Jesus Christ is the genuinely human good of other human beings insofar as they exist in Jesus Christ, it is, precisely as grace, a good that constitutes them from outside and not a good that fulfills them as the kind of creature they are.


Author(s):  
Hans Wiersma

Grace is an essential element of Christian theological reflection. Primarily, the divine attribute or trait labeled “grace” refers to God’s disposition and activity in regard to the Creation in general and toward human beings in particular. From the first chapters of Genesis to the last chapters of Revelation, Scripture bears witness to the fact that God creates things “good” and gives good things. God’s grace is especially manifest in the divine promises and other gifts described in the Bible and realized over time. At the same time, the Scriptures show that human beings—made in the image of God—have a history of devaluing, forgetting, and even abusing those things that God has graciously given. Part of Christianity’s doctrinal development, therefore, consists of attempts to describe the scope and sequence of God’s gracious regard and activity on behalf of a humanity prone to sin and rebellion. In light of such creaturely “original sin” and ongoing rebellion, Scripture testifies that the Creator remains gracious—that God yet desires to be in relationship with human beings despite their sin. Theological considerations of grace share a basic assumption that although God is not obligated to think, feel, and act for the benefit of sinful humans, God does so nevertheless. While God’s wrath results in severe consequences for sin, God’s grace results in gifts that overcome sin and its consequences. The full extent of God’s gracious giving is in the giving of the divine self in Jesus Christ, the divine Logos made flesh, who is “full of grace and truth” and from whose “fullness we have all received grace upon grace” (John 1:14, 16). Martin Luther’s theology can be fundamentally construed as the development of his thought regarding the nature of grace, the nature of God’s favor and blessing bestowed upon undeserving human beings. The many dimensions of Luther’s biblical teaching and theological reflection have, in the background a desire to understand God’s grace most fully revealed in Jesus Christ. As such, Luther’s concepts of the righteousness of God, justification by faith, the bound will, the distinction of law and gospel, the new obedience, the “happy exchange,” and many related concepts are, at heart, attempts to describe what it is to have a God of grace. Most interpreters have rightly understood that in Luther’s view, to have a gracious God means to have a God who does not require human beings to fulfill a set of prerequisites in order to receive God’s gift in Christ or to reciprocate God’s giving in order to continue receiving Christ and his benefits. For Luther, to have a God of grace means to believe and trust that through Jesus Christ, God has already met all prerequisites and fulfilled all reciprocations. On this point, Luther found himself breaking new ground (or recovering lost ground) in the understanding of divine grace. Luther “broke” with those theological forebears who taught that divine grace was, in one way or another, partly dependent on human willing and doing. For Luther, God graciously wills and works “all in all.” Nevertheless, when Luther’s many descriptions of what it is to “have a gracious God” are analyzed, a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between the One giving the gift and the ones receiving it begins to reveal itself. For Luther, faith—that gracious means through which God graciously bestows the righteousness of Christ—creates a dynamic rather than static experience of possessing and being possessed of a God of grace. Indeed, scrutinizing Luther’s writings for descriptions of the experientia of sola gratia continues to be a promising direction for future Luther research.


Author(s):  
Gerald McKenny

Karl Barth’s theological ethics is a version of divine command ethics. Its distinctiveness is rooted in its identification of the command of God with the Word of God. The same Word of God that declares to us what God does for us in Jesus Christ (Gospel) also claims us as those for whom God acts, summoning, directing, and empowering us to confirm in our conduct what we are by virtue of God’s conduct towards us (Law). This chapter examines the relationship between theological ethics and other kinds of ethics, what is involved in the claim that the Word of God is also the command of God, how the command of God claims us (general ethics) and what specifically it requires of us (special ethics), and how it exhibits continuity despite its character as an event. Brief comparisons of Barth’s ethics with contemporary eudaemonistic ethics and ethics of witness are made throughout the chapter.


2001 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-274
Author(s):  
Valentin Dedji

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to introduce the work of the Congolese philosopher and theologian Kä Mana2 to the Anglophone audience. After an explanation of his use of the concept of imaginaire, his approach to the redemption of Africans' imaginaire from its present 'brokenness' will be explored. KM's proposal for a 'theology of reconstruction' will form the third part of the article. The deduction will be that in KM's project the ultimate objective of the theology of reconstruction in Africa consists in training 'anti-crisis human beings' who are equipped with new models of rational, ethical and spiritual convictions. This implies first the re-evangelisation of the institutions and structures that determine the existence of African societies today, and second the re-orientation of the global imaginaire of African people according to the fundamental vision of humankind that the word of God proposes through the revelation of a 'new reality' embodied by Jesus Christ.


2018 ◽  
pp. 139-180
Author(s):  
Anthony Briggman

The aim of Chapter 4 is to explain how Irenaeus conceives of the union between the divine Word-Son and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, thereby preparing the way for a study of the work of Christ in Chapter 5. To that end, this chapter contends that Irenaeus uses Stoic mixture theory to conceptualize the Christological union, including the relationship between the human and divine in the experiences and activities of Christ. This chapter demonstrates that Irenaeus used Stoic mixture theory to explain the interaction of the soul and body in human beings, the salvific joining of human beings to the Word of God, and the union of and interaction between the divine and human in Jesus. It concludes by highlighting the connection Irenaeus draws between the person of Christ and the mixed cup of the Eucharist.


2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-34
Author(s):  
Francis Anekwe Oborji

AbstractAlthough there is some debate, Francis Oborji in this article argues that one should speak of African Traditional Religion (ATR) in the singular. He then reflects on five "essential aspects" of ATR--God and the human being, good and evil, sacrifice, ancestorship, and the afterlife and final end of human beings. After discussing several problems connected with a Christian approach to ATR, the author makes a positive evaluation of the practice of traditional religion as a supernatural reality that is a true preparation for a full understanding of God's grace in Jesus Christ.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document