Though Barth and Cone share a christocentric lens and believe God bestows freedom, they have different theological methods. These methods lead them to believe different things about the way God acts in the world and the way in which we encounter the divine. In the following essay, I will discuss Barth and Cone’s theological methods in order to explain the way each arrives at a doctrine of revelation as well as a claim about the mode of God’s presence in the world. After discussing their unique methods and doctrinal differences, I will briefly discuss their points of convergence.
To understand Barth’s theological method, one must realize that Barth’s mode is corrective. In Barth’s view, an overreliance on reason and a glorification of technological advances led to the unprecedented bloodshed in WWI. Therefore, Barth is distrustful of theology that concerns itself with the human relationship to God rather than God’s relationship to humans. He …show more content…
For oppressors, dehumanizers, the analysis is correct. However, when we speak of God’s revelation to the oppressed, the analysis is incorrect. God’s revelation comes to us in and through the cultural situation of the oppressed. God’s word is our word; God’s existence, our existence. This is the meaning of black culture and its relationship to divine revelation. (30)
Cone takes issues with Barth’s universality; he believes we can locate God in experience in oppressed communities because God has committed God’s self to oppressed people in the incarnation. Barth wants to say that he cannot predict how, when, and where God will freely order a revelation of God’s self. He simply believes it will happen in the context of a Christian community. Cone, by contrast, says that God faithfully shows up at every Black Lives Matter protest and all other lived experiences of black suffering and black
To understand Barth’s theological method, one must realize that Barth’s mode is corrective. In Barth’s view, an overreliance on reason and a glorification of technological advances led to the unprecedented bloodshed in WWI. Therefore, Barth is distrustful of theology that concerns itself with the human relationship to God rather than God’s relationship to humans. He …show more content…
For oppressors, dehumanizers, the analysis is correct. However, when we speak of God’s revelation to the oppressed, the analysis is incorrect. God’s revelation comes to us in and through the cultural situation of the oppressed. God’s word is our word; God’s existence, our existence. This is the meaning of black culture and its relationship to divine revelation. (30)
Cone takes issues with Barth’s universality; he believes we can locate God in experience in oppressed communities because God has committed God’s self to oppressed people in the incarnation. Barth wants to say that he cannot predict how, when, and where God will freely order a revelation of God’s self. He simply believes it will happen in the context of a Christian community. Cone, by contrast, says that God faithfully shows up at every Black Lives Matter protest and all other lived experiences of black suffering and black