Barth, CD I/2, p.691:

From a human standpoint the preservation of the Church depends, therefore, on the fact that Scripture is read, assimilated, expounded and applied in the Church, that this happens tirelessly and repeatedly, that the whole way of the Church consists in its striving to hear this concrete witness. As a rule the step aside which means a step into the abyss of death, the fatal lack of this self-forgetful attention, will scarcely betray itself as such at once. It will normally take the form of great fidelity (to what the Church has said) and great zeal (for what the Church believes that it must itself say). In this way it will apparently bear the seal of divine justification and necessity. Whenever life is exchanged for death, or death for life, in the Church, this fidelity and zeal are usually operative: much good will, much serious piety, wide vision, deep movements, and in it all the sincere conviction of not being in any way self-willed but rather obedient to the Word of God. What is not noted is that this so-called Word of God is only a conception of the Word of God. It may be created freely. More probably and frequently it will take the shape of an old (no longer newly tested), or new (not yet seriously examined) interpretation of Scripture itself, but not the Word of God as it actually lets itself be heard in Scripture. As such, conceptions of the Word of God may be very good, as also, for example, recognised dogmas and confessions, luminous and helpful theological systems, deep, bold and stimulating insights into biblical truth. But in themselves these things are not the Word of God itself and cannot sustain the life of the Church.

So much wisdom here. Barth asserts that it's not passion, faithfulness and zeal - nor vision, creativity and enthusiasm - that breathe life into the Church. What is so needed is the Word of God "read, assimilated, expounded and applied... tirelessly and repeatedly".

1 Peter 1: 22-25 (ESV)

Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for

"All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever."

And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

Barth CD I/2 12:08 am

"it is not the acuity & depth, nor even the holiness of the Christian which builds the Church, but only the Word of God"

10:34 am

"without the No the Yes would obviously not be a Yes, but a Yes & No; perhaps Yes, perhaps No, but certainly not the [decisive] Yes"

11:34 am

"the confessional documents of the Reformation must be regarded not as theological ordinances but as the trumpet call of a herald"

11:47 am

"for those who confess... because of its publicity, they are led into a struggle, into suffering & into temptation"

1:56 pm

barth on confessions, conversations, confutations & theological treachery. feisty stuff. http://goo.gl/lGg5x

4:51 pm

"the churches of india & china may ask what have we to do w/ the heresies to which the dogma of the european churches is an answer?"

4:53 pm

"there is a notorious connexion, even a unity, between the heresies of every age & place"

10:45 pm

"since the Reformation and the time immediately after there has never been a new confession in the Protestant sphere"

hmm...

When Karen Butler went in for dental surgery, she left with more than numb gums: She also picked up a pronounced foreign accent. It wasn't a fluke, or a joke — she'd developed a rare condition called foreign accent syndrome that's usually caused by an injury to the part of the brain that controls speech.

Butler was born in Bloomington, Ill., and moved to Oregon when she was a baby. She's never traveled to Europe or lived in a foreign country — she's an American, she says, "born and bred." But she doesn't sound like one anymore. Her accent is now a hodgepodge of English, Irish and perhaps a bit of other European accents.

Neurologist Ted Lowenkopf, director of the Providence Stroke Center in Portland, diagnosed her with foreign accent syndrome, a rare neurological disorder. "It's usually the result of a brain injury," Lowenkopf says, "which can come from stroke, head trauma or other diseases that can damage brain tissue, like multiple sclerosis."

There have been only about 100 known cases of the syndrome since it was first reported in the 1940s. The most famous case was a Norwegian woman who was hit by shrapnel in World War II; she developed a German accent and was ostracized as a result. Other cases include a British woman from Devon who developed a Chinese accent following a migraine, and another British woman who had a stroke and now sounds French.

via VPR News.

Seriously.

Warren and Maureen Nyerges know how difficult it can be to get Bank of America’s attention. When the lending giant mistakenly attempted to foreclose on the couple’s cash-purchased Golden Gate Estates home in 2010, they spent weeks on the phone and in court before the case was dismissed. A judge ordered the bank to pay $2,500 in attorney fees for the couple’s troubles. Yet after five months and even more phone calls, neither the bank nor its local counsel had paid.

Friday morning, the couple opted for a different tactic. Media in tow, their attorney arrived outside a Davis Boulevard branch of the bank with deputies, a moving company and the court’s permission to seize branch assets.

“I’m either leaving the building with a whole bunch of furniture, or a check or cash or something,” the attorney, Todd Allen, vowed.

It was a scene that turned the foreclosure crisis on its head, if briefly. Collier County sheriff’s deputies entered the bank shortly after 9 am, located the bank manager and presented him with a court writ and a familiar choice: Pay the money or prepare to lose possessions.

A Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman said the agency typically gives a debtor an hour to pay, after which deputies will begin taking possessions.

via Naples News.

Barth, CD I/2, p. 644-646:

If a confession is to stand, everything depends on whether the temptation produced by this counter-pressure (indirectly therefore by its own pressure) is recognised and overcome as such. The temptation naturally consists in the possibility of abandoning the confession. And the basic form of this abandonment is always to deny to ourselves and others the character of the confession as a challenge, question and attack on the world around. Its proclamation is renounced. It is regarded once again only as a theory and collection of propositions. With all the loyalty we might still show it in this immanent character, with all our zeal for the integrity of the theory and statements as such, there is now linked another zeal, to spare our environment the collision on the transcendent character of the confession. And it is this second zeal which - although the confession remains "untouched" - now determines our practical attitude in word and action, in our own initiative and our response to the initiative of our environment. In this practical relationship the confessors no longer stand where they must stand if it really were their confession, that is, in the venture and responsibility of its transcendent character.

Seriously feisty stuff.

Now that they have experienced what it means for its pressure to create counter-pressure, they no longer desire publicity. But this simply means that the confessors have in fact accepted the standpoint of the enemies of the confession. Confession without the desire for publicity, confession without the practical attitude which corresponds to it, is already a confutation of the confession, however "untouched" this may be as a theory and statement, however great may still be their zeal for the maintaining of its immanent character. For what is the meaning and purpose of the hostility and conflict in relation to the confession? As a theory and statement it will not have to suffer attack, whatever may be its content and however definitely it may be maintained and affirmed. As a theory it does not exert any pressure. As a theory it is quite harmless, indeed it is comforting even to those who do not agree with it... But the confession itself has become so much paper. That it is not is the basis of all hostility to the confession, and that it should be is the purpose of the whole attack upon it. We help this attack, we participate most actively in it, when we think that we can retreat in this way. That there is no venture for the confessors means that there is a venture - on the part of the confessors - against the confession. It involves treachery against the confession - pure treachery... It is a great gain, therefore, if this... is soberly recognised for the treachery it is: not merely as surrender, but as agreement and co-operation with the enemy. It is a great gain if to justify it we no longer appeal to humility before the mysteries of God, to which no confession can do justice, or to the love with which we have to spare and carry the weak, or the necessary maintenance of the Church in its existing state, but openly and honestly - and this makes everything else superfluous - to fear of the unexpected or already present counter-pressure. This fear is in fact the temptation which is inevitably bound up with the publicity of a confession.

In essence, Barth distinguishes theological conversation from theological confession, and argues with passion that to reduce a confession to a conversation is theological treachery and results in a confutation of the confession.

I must confess I cannot agree, but would have truly enjoyed a conversation with him on the distinction. I believe that reducing a confession to a conversation might well result in a subsequent confession involving both confessor and opposer in genuine agreement, strengthened further from its original version to include the wisdom that results from honest conversation. Strengthened, not weakened, mind you. I'm not advocating for thin ecumenical gruel masquerading as true confessional substance.

The intensity he calls for in confession is clearly necessary at certain points of our faith, but it's become far too common to make that intensity the norm for all theological debate (and of course, in reaction, to reject that intensity from any theological debate). There are far too many of us declaring "Here I stand, I can do no other" on all sorts of issues that don't matter as much as we imply, or that we really don't understand, or concerning which we haven't really listened to other perspectives. And there are far too many of us staying out of all-in confessional declarations on matters that count, after the respectful and humble listening that Barth advocates.

It seems to me that eventually and at certain points a Barthian confession is absolutely necessary, but provoking hostility with outrageous words ("Farewell...") to self-justify one's position seems silly, and we've seen far too much of that lately.