In §2 of Cd I/1 Barth has a number of interesting reflections on the nature of heresy and its relationship to faith:
By heresy we understand a form of Christian faith which we cannot deny to be a form of Christian faith from the formal standpoint, i.e., in so far as it, too, relates to Jesus Christ, to His Church, to baptism, Holy Scripture and the common Christian creeds, but in respect of which we cannot really understand what we are about when we recognise it as such, since we can understand its content, its interpretation of these common presuppositions only as a contradiction of faith. (p. 32)
So heresy is paradoxical for Barth. On the one hand it can only be understood as something recognizably Christian. On the other hand understanding it as Christians presents one with a contradiction in terms of the essence of Christianity. Further to this:
Because of its paradoxical nature, heresy is for faith an important factor. Or, as we might say, unbelief in the form of heresy is for faith and important factor—which is not the case when it is present as pure unbelief. Because in heresy it is present as a form of faith, it must be taken seriously at this point and there can and must be serious conflict between faith and heresy. (p. 32)
Heresy is important for faith, not because it is complete unbelief, but precisely because it is a form of faith with which we have to reckon.
In true encounter with heresy faith is plunged into conflict with itself, because, so long and so far as it is not free of heresy, so long and so far as heresy affects it, so long and so far as it must accept responsibility in relation to it, it cannot allow even the voice of unbelief which it thinks it hears in heresy to cause it to treat it as not at least also faith but simply as unbelief. It must understand it as a possibility of faith [Italics added]. To be sure, it will see it as a profoundly incomprehensible one, which can be regarded only as a possibility of disruption and destruction of faith, as a possibility against which it must be on guard. Yet it must still understand it as a possibility of faith, and therefore and to this extent—hence the need for powerful defense—as its own possibility, a possibility within and not without the Church, hard though it may be to think of it as such. This is the reason why this conflict is a serious conflict. (p. 33)
This is also the reason why I often find it more important to criticize other forms of Christian faith and practice than the secular godless liberals of the world. Paganism can never be as important to Christian faith as heresy.
Anyone think Rowan Williams’s take on heresy and orthodoxy might have been influenced by these passages from Barth? There seems to be more than a few similarities to his arguments in Arius here.
Recent Comments