A baby boomer Methodist, I grew up in the shadow of Tillich. That existential take merged easily with the Civic Religion of the Post-war generation, of Catholic, Jew and Protestant in one common task. The cultural product was often very good (see our celebration of MLK today), but at the spiritual, individual level it left a void. How does this existential take connect with the place where I was, wanting to believe? It took conservative input from multiple sources to help me develop a mature faith; Barth's "Nein" proved very helpful along this path.
I'm not sure if I buy your conflation of "liberal" and "existential." I don't know a lot about Tillich, but from what I've read, Bultmann wanted an existential theology to combat growing liberalism. To say that an existential experience of the Sovereign Christ is *more than* a discussion of the historicity of his death or the actually of a trip to Emmaus isn't to say those things didn't happen and all we're left with is the warm fuzzies. But it is saying that even if you get all of the historical details of everything right but have not love (an existential encounter with the Christ), you're just a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
I'd love to see/hear/read you debate my friend Jason Lief on this topic.
Here's his analysis of Bultmann (with a little Bonhoeffer thrown in).
I wish you well in getting to the bottom of this:) Both of these men seemed to embrace similar theological territory. Barth simply overwhelmed the academy with more, lots more. Neither were literalists, fundamentalists, and were both strongly opposed Hitler and were harsh critics of 1930’s German Christians, Hitler and the Wehrmacht Republic. Barth, by shear magnitude, seems to garner acceptance with a wide range of christians, or at least grudging approval. Neither one of these gents are viewed highly by the fundy crowd, but I’ve heard Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans and even Orthodox extoll Barth.
A baby boomer Methodist, I grew up in the shadow of Tillich. That existential take merged easily with the Civic Religion of the Post-war generation, of Catholic, Jew and Protestant in one common task. The cultural product was often very good (see our celebration of MLK today), but at the spiritual, individual level it left a void. How does this existential take connect with the place where I was, wanting to believe? It took conservative input from multiple sources to help me develop a mature faith; Barth's "Nein" proved very helpful along this path.
I'm new here. Blame Paul Vander Klay and others.
I'm not sure if I buy your conflation of "liberal" and "existential." I don't know a lot about Tillich, but from what I've read, Bultmann wanted an existential theology to combat growing liberalism. To say that an existential experience of the Sovereign Christ is *more than* a discussion of the historicity of his death or the actually of a trip to Emmaus isn't to say those things didn't happen and all we're left with is the warm fuzzies. But it is saying that even if you get all of the historical details of everything right but have not love (an existential encounter with the Christ), you're just a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
I'd love to see/hear/read you debate my friend Jason Lief on this topic.
Here's his analysis of Bultmann (with a little Bonhoeffer thrown in).
https://reformational.substack.com/p/reading-rudolf-at-christmastime
I’m very curious to see where this goes...
I wish you well in getting to the bottom of this:) Both of these men seemed to embrace similar theological territory. Barth simply overwhelmed the academy with more, lots more. Neither were literalists, fundamentalists, and were both strongly opposed Hitler and were harsh critics of 1930’s German Christians, Hitler and the Wehrmacht Republic. Barth, by shear magnitude, seems to garner acceptance with a wide range of christians, or at least grudging approval. Neither one of these gents are viewed highly by the fundy crowd, but I’ve heard Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans and even Orthodox extoll Barth.