Thanks for excellent review. I’m about at the end of Vol 1, taking my time with a slow read. It’s a real treat for lovers of theology and jazz. Grateful for Carr’s groundbreaking thinking.
To quote your own very fine summary of the 3 volumes, more particularly the 'Key Themes' at the end of the 1st and 2nd volume-summaries: at the end of the 1st: "Barth insists that revelation is solely the work of God, revealed in Jesus Christ and not mediated through human culture or experience"; "Cone sees revelation as inseparable from the lived experiences of Black Americans". At the end of the 2nd: "Barth’s focus on the objectivity of revelation contrasts with Cone’s emphasis on subjective, lived experience as a site of divine truth".
Permit me also to express my reservations regarding your phraseology in your 3rd 'key theme' at the end of the 2nd summary, where you write of, "the gap between Barth's abstract theology and Cone's lived theology". Barth would assuredly not have accepted the description of his theology as 'abstract'. Again and again, he rejects 'abstract' theology; just one instance from his 1920's John lectures" ‘What do church, baptism, God mean, if we have the possibility, or can even reckon with the possibility, of abstracting from it, of suspending our life in this context…?’
As a devoted reader, and yes disciple, of Barth, I'm not persuaded Barth would have approved of Carr's synthesis. I know I'm in a minority; that the Barth/Cone synthesis is very popular, especially in America. Feel most free to ignore my comment.
Thanks for excellent review. I’m about at the end of Vol 1, taking my time with a slow read. It’s a real treat for lovers of theology and jazz. Grateful for Carr’s groundbreaking thinking.
To quote your own very fine summary of the 3 volumes, more particularly the 'Key Themes' at the end of the 1st and 2nd volume-summaries: at the end of the 1st: "Barth insists that revelation is solely the work of God, revealed in Jesus Christ and not mediated through human culture or experience"; "Cone sees revelation as inseparable from the lived experiences of Black Americans". At the end of the 2nd: "Barth’s focus on the objectivity of revelation contrasts with Cone’s emphasis on subjective, lived experience as a site of divine truth".
Permit me also to express my reservations regarding your phraseology in your 3rd 'key theme' at the end of the 2nd summary, where you write of, "the gap between Barth's abstract theology and Cone's lived theology". Barth would assuredly not have accepted the description of his theology as 'abstract'. Again and again, he rejects 'abstract' theology; just one instance from his 1920's John lectures" ‘What do church, baptism, God mean, if we have the possibility, or can even reckon with the possibility, of abstracting from it, of suspending our life in this context…?’
Forgive me for rambling at such length.
As a devoted reader, and yes disciple, of Barth, I'm not persuaded Barth would have approved of Carr's synthesis. I know I'm in a minority; that the Barth/Cone synthesis is very popular, especially in America. Feel most free to ignore my comment.
Where do you discern a critical antithesis between Cone and Barth?