Karl Barth’s Reflections Christianity in America vs. in Switzerland
Finally, a quote I can present entirely without comment!
*pauses*
Did that count as a comment?
*sighs*
Karl Barth, Fragments Grave and Gay, 49.
==================================
Follow @WTravisMcMaken
*pauses*
Did that count as a comment?
*sighs*
Karl Barth, Fragments Grave and Gay, 49.
As for Christian America and Christian Switzerland, one thing struck me most of all, and that was that in American Christendom the congregation is still a real thing. People do not just attend divine service and then go home again, as they do with us; they do not go just to listen to the minister, but also to be with one another. They ‘gather together’ for worship. Even in the big cities I visited, such as Chicago, Washington and Richmond, they knew, greeted, talked to one another. Going to church is not a mere private matter; it is a ‘social gathering’, as the Americans call it. This may have its dangers, but basically it is a good and gratifying thing; the Gospel binds people together. On the other hand, with us the preaching is on the whole better, or at any rate deeper. American Protestantism is still strongly marked by the somewhat superficial reasoning of the Enlightenment movement.
==================================
Follow @WTravisMcMaken
Comments
You don't think American Evangelical preaching is not marked by the enlightenment movement?
I can't speak for Swiss preaching, but American Evangelical preaching (and Liberal for that matter) is markedly marked by a style of pietistic rationalist exegesis that is more me driven (i.e. answering applicational questions based on my "feelings") than Christ driven. At least this is my experience of American Christianity in general, and in particular its preaching.
You don't think American Evangelical preaching is not marked by the enlightenment movement?
I can't speak for Swiss preaching, but American Evangelical preaching (and Liberal for that matter) is markedly marked by a style of pietistic rationalist exegesis that is more me driven (i.e. answering applicational questions based on my "feelings") than Christ driven. At least this is my experience of American Christianity in general, and in particular its preaching.
I think Barth must be read contextually, just like every other theologian (and thinker in general). That said, answering your questions would require a monograph. Want to write it? ;-)