OK, so I’ve read the five posts on this ΨΕΥΔΟΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ blog that Esteban linked to, and I suspect that there’s something silly going on, but what shocked me was this quote from Karl Barth (or Carlos Barth as the author calls him) on the most recent post:
Yes, our Childship is occurrence, and as such it is the answer to that insoluble riddle of our existence which religion finally propounds. […] Dissolved also is that embarrassment which everything finite imposes on infinity. Dissolved also is that untrustworthy complacency which clings to bourgeois affirmations and that precarious vagabondage which is the product of the poisons of human negation. […] The Spirit of Childship, this new person who I am not, is my unobservable, existential EGO. (Der Römerbrief, 296-97. Language altered to eliminate Barth’s obvious hatred of women)
I thought to myself, “such nonsense can’t be accurate, can it?” Well, this happens to be the one Barth book that I own (OUP, 1968 edition) and upon checking the reference on pp. 296-297, I learned that Barth actually said these things! Although he said “Sonship” and “man” where Jürgen Hauerwas has “Childship” and “person.” Obviously the ellipses in brackets tell us that portions were left out, but when I read these statements in context I didn’t find them any more comprehensible. This is causing me to rethink the nature of this blog. If Barth, who many consider to be the greatest theologian of the 20th century could write like this, then maybe the author of this blog is serious in the way that he writes.
What do you think?