Roland Barthes, the French critic and semiotician, was one of the most important critics and essayists of this century. His work continues to influence contemporary literary theory and cultural studies. Image-Music-Text collects Barthes's best writings on photography and the cinema, as well as fascinating articles on the relationship between images and sound. Two of Barthes's most important essays, "Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative" and "The Death of the Author" are also included in this fine anthology, an excellent introduction (...) to his thought. These essays, as selected and translated by Stephen Heath, are among the finest writings Barthes ever published on film and photography, and on the phenomena of sound and image. The classic pieces "Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative" and "The Death of the Author" are also included. (shrink)

La « théorie » de la prédication de Barth comme « théologie de la Parole de Dieu » a été remise en question au début des années 60 alors qu’elle était constituée depuis les années 20. Qu’en est-il exactement de cette conception trop peu connue dans son exactitude, en France notamment ? Soucieux de pratique, Barth conçoit d’abord la prédication comme une Theologia viatorum et semble affirmer le caractère divin de la parole de la prédication. Or, la difficulté, (...) voire l’échec, de celle-ci en rappelle le caractère de terrible humanité. Ainsi passe-t-il « d’une attestation indirecte du Christ » dans la prédicaiton de l’église, à une « prédication, service de la parole de Dieu », compte tenu de ce que seul le Christ, en définitive, est Parole de Dieu, et que la charge de prédication appartient à toute la « communauté de témoins ».Barth's « theory » of preaching as « theology of the World of God » was put into question at the beginning of the 60's, although it goes back to the 20’s. What is it exactly about this conception, too little known in its details, especillaly in France ? Concerned with practice, Barth first conceived preaching as a Theologia viatorum and seems to have confirmed the divine character of the preached word. But the difficulty, indeed the failure, of the latter recalls the character of terrible humanity. Thus there evolves from « an indirect attestation of Christ « in the preaching of the Church, to a « preaching service of God’s word », taking into account that only Christ, finally is Word of God, and that the role of preaching belongs to all the « community of witnesses». (shrink)

Presque contemporains, Scholem et Barth ne se sont jamais rencontrés. S’ils avaient pu le faire, ils n’auraient sans doute pas été d’accord en tout point, mais on peut risquer l’hypothèse qu’ils se seraient entendus en profondeur. Ce qui fonde cette hypothèse, c’est la similitude du comportement de l’un et de l’autre à l’égard de leurs communautés religieuses respectives, qu’ils tenaient pour complices des aveuglements séculiers du monde où elles vivaient et coupables de ne pas élever les responsabilités séculières sur (...) le terrain de la liberté éthique. Les débats de l’un avec Rosenweig et de l’autre avec Troeltsch établissent Scholem et Barth dans un réel voisinage théologique, dans le même souci de la référence théologique de leurs communautés et de l’éthique des engagements séculiers. Dans ses recherches sur la Kabbale, Scholem veut réactiver la problématique de la création dans laquelle Dieu fait du néant son être. De façon semblable, Barth fonde sa Dogmatique sur la problématique de s. Anselme qui se refuse à penser Dieu dans un ordre du monde qui serait immuable. Dans des contextes différents, tous deux s’opposent à l’assimilation passive de leurs communautés au monde séculier, tout en soutenant leurs responsabilités éthiques à son égard. Un même message se dégage de leur rencontre posthume.Almost contemporaries, Scholem and Barth never met each other. If they had done so, they undoubtedly would have not agreed on everything, but the chances are that they would have had a fundamental understanding. This hypothesis is based on the similarity of each one’s attitude towards their respective religious communities, which they saw as accomplices of their world’s secular blindness, and its guilt in not raising secular responsibilities to the level of ethical freedom. Their debates – Scholem with Rosenweig and Barth with Troeltsch – made them theological neighbours, i.e., expressing identical concern for the theological implication of their communities and the ethics of secular committments. Scholem, in his research on the Cabala, wanted to revive the problem of God’s making his being from nothing. In the same fashion, Barth founded his Dogmatic on the problem of St. Anselm, who refused to think God in a world order that would be immutable. In different contexts, both were opposed to a passive assimilation of their communities to a secular world, while sustaining their ethical responsibilities to it. The same message comes out of their encounter. (shrink)

IN RECENT YEARS SEVERAL IMPORTANT PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES ON THE ethical and political character of Pauline messianism have been published by continental philosophers such as Alain Badiou, Stanislaus Breton, Jacob Taubes, and Giorgio Agamben. In contrast to the Weberian "secularization thesis," which interprets Paul's eschatological messianism as one of indifference to worldly conditions, these authors—more in keeping with Walter Benjamin and Karl Barth—interpret it as radically political: a challenge to conventional modern politics of human and especially national sovereignty. In this (...) essay I bring these studies of Paul into conversation with recent critical discussions of Christian political theology to consider how messianic ethics may or may not be relevant to contemporary political theory, particularly in reformulating a "secularity" that neither excludes nor privileges particular religious voices and traditions. (shrink)

Basing his detailed exposition of Barth's understanding of our knowledge of the divine existence chiefly on volume II, part 1 of the Church Dogmatics, this American Catholic scholar exhibits the thorough-going consistency of Barth's exclusively a prioristic approach, while indicating some fundamental difficulties for it, and arguing the superiority of the Thomist position. One of the fundamental issues discussed is whether God discloses himself only through special, "vertical" acts of grace, or whether, as the Thomists affirm, the abstractive (...) power of the intellect, itself a gift of God, may not apprehend the radical dependence of all finite things on a first, unique, cause. The critical problem is whether or not the perfect certitude of faith demands a "sacrifice of the intellect," as Barth seems to contend.--P. K. J. (shrink)

Once considered inimical to ethics, Karl Barth's theology is now rightly recognized for the central role ethics plays in it. But can Barth be safely placed in the mainstream tradition of Christian moral theology or does he offer a challenge to the latter? Gerald McKenny argues that the claim that God not only establishes the good from eternity but also brings it about in time is of fundamental importance to Barth's mature ethics. The good confronts us from (...) the site of its fulfilment in Jesus Christ, who has accomplished it in our place. The result is a vision of the moral life as a human analogy to God's grace, a vision which contrasts with the bourgeois vision of the moral life as an expression of human capability. Barth's moral theology is presented here as the attempt to reorder ethical thought and practice in light of this fundamental claim. This lucid and well-argued study is the most comprehensive treatment of Barth's ethics to date, offering a thorough account of the development of Barth's ethical thought and a wide-ranging analysis of its chief concepts and arguments. McKenny explains why certain widespread assumptions about Barth's moral theology are mistaken and explores the rich, complex, and often surprising ways in which Barth's position engages the traditions of Christian ethics and modern continental moral thought. Above all, McKenny shows why Barth's moral theology deserves our attention in spite of, or rather because of, its uneasy fit in the mainstream tradition of Christian moral theology. (shrink)

Sweeping denials of the story's capacity to accurately reflect the past are ever catalyzing equally misleading global affirmations. The impositionalists, such as theorist Hayden White, view historical narratives as imposing a falsifying narrative structure on the past, and conclude that narratives cannot be true. Plot-reifiers, such as Alasdair MacIntyre, David Carr, and Frederick Olafson, posit that the past is already narratively structured; historical plots are reified in order for there to be something in the world to which narrative structures can (...) correspond in being true. The antireferentialists such as JeanFrançois Lyotard and Roland Barthes deny that narrative histories even claim truth. Escaping this trilemma of theoretical interpretation involves accepting the idea that construction of a history does not entail its falsification. Historical narrative need to be allowed to function both figurally, in the sense of generating new discursive figures, and at the same time literally, in the sense of asking to be understood literally. Narratives need to be understood on their own terms, and not treated as an approximation to some foreign ideal. (shrink)

This is a very readable theological attack on current religious journalism about "the death of God" and its moral consequences. Rightly chiding the "radical" theologians for their tendentious use of words like "new," Hamilton wrongly equates their talk of "the secular" with support of the profane and so sometimes misses the import of their groping for new ways of thinking and acting as Christians. Seen through his eyes, much of their thought is really nineteenth century liberal humanism repackaged for the (...) suburban market. Recognizing the incoherence of the Barth-Bonhoeffer concept of religion, he nevertheless uses it when accusing Bishop Robinson, van Buren, and the rest of replacing Christianity with religion, rather than inaugurating a "religionless Christianity," as they intend. The best part of the book is an analysis of what Bonhoeffer really meant by "religionless Christianity" and other such provocative phrases. Like those he criticizes, Hamilton is quite sure that the Bible supports only his version of Christianity. His unabashed neo-orthodoxy commits him to conceiving of God as an arbitrary dictator, but it also provides him with a keen critical vantage-point, by reference to which all philosophical theologies are damned as modernizing, hypothetical, Hegelian, and un-Christian at heart. His own preference for talk of "natural piety" instead of "secular Christianity" is too sketchily presented to be assessed.--C. P. S. (shrink)

In debate on faith and reason two opposing positions have dominated the field. The first position asserts that faith and reason are commensurable and the second position denies that assertion. Those holding to the first position differ among themselves as to the extent of the compatibility between faith and reason, most adherents relegating the compatibility to the ‘preambles of faith’ over against the ‘articles of faith’ . Few have maintained complete harmony between reason and faith, i.e. a religious belief within (...) the realm of reason alone. The second position divides into two sub-positions: that which asserts that faith is opposed to reason , placing faith in the area of irrationality; and that which asserts that faith is higher than reason, is transrational. Calvin and Barth assert that a natural theology is inappropriate because it seeks to meet unbelief on its own ground . Revelation, however, is ‘self-authenticating’, ‘carrying with it its own evidence’. 1 We may call this position the ‘transrationalist’ view of faith. Faith is not so much against reason as above it and beyond its proper domain. Actually, Kierkegaard shows that the two sub-positions are compatible. He holds both that faith is above reason and against reason . The irrationalist and transrationalist positions are sometimes hard to separate in the incommensurabilist's arguments. At least, it seems that faith gets such a high value that reason comes off looking not simply inadequate but culpable. To use reason where faith claims the field is not only inappropriate but irreverent or faithless. (shrink)

Faruqi's book is more about Christian dogmatics than about ethics. Its interest stems from the fact that the author is a Muslim who knows recent Protestant thought well and is not afraid to call Karl Barth a bigot. After an interesting but unrelated introduction on methodology in the history of religions, the author settles down to some pet Muslim peeves concerning the doctrines of original sin and the divinity of Christ. Instead of the Jesus of history he presents us (...) with the Koranic Jesus, the universalizing reformer whose mission was to undo Jewish, racialist separatism. Faruqi's Sufi sympathies blind him to the real problems of historical, biblical criticism and his moralistic rationalism allows no place for significant differences amongst men in the coming great brotherhood. For him, Jesus' achievement was to develop an ethic of intent against pharisaic legalism. But this ethic needs to be supplemented by the Muslim emphasis on performance if it is to be transposed from the realm of ideals to the realities of contemporary political life. Considering the history of Christian interpretations of Islam, Faruqi is entitled to retaliate--and so he does, in an overburdened series of footnotes. He is much more tolerant of Arab expansionism than of Western imperialism, and completely insensitive to the psychological power of Judaism. Too often he substitutes derogatory labeling for constructive criticism and so fails to illumine the concepts of love, power, and justice on which any religious ethic must depend. Even so, his scholarly achievement is remarkable, and one learns more from his misunderstanding than from most of the religious apologetics being published today.--C. P. S. (shrink)