Suchergebnisse

The purpose is to bring up to date Barth's theological contribution in relationship with what is at stake in the academy where theology receives a scientific duty (1), in the Church, where theology has to take responsibility for a critical status (2) and finally, in society, where theology assumes a public status (3). Following in Barth's footsteps means promoting theological rationality as a specific rationality among the other modern ones. Here the relationship with the political order has to be tackled. Politics and religion are the two main 'existentials' of social life. It is not possible to give a theological account purely on the basis of revelation alone. Political realities and logic have to be analyzed in themselves. This is a presupposition for a balanced theological position. To understand what is going on on a theological-political level, it seems necessary to distinguish between these two fundamental dimensions but not in a way that separates them. This way of proceeding is analogous to the relationship between faith and science. Following in Barth's footsteps means speaking as a theologian on matters that concern society. An expert in religious matters does not speak from the same standpoint. What is the difference? The latter is speaking from a so-called objective point of view, claiming an axiological neutrality to describe facts and to prescribe right behaviour; the former is telling a story as an insider, as member of a community of faith. The theologian assumes a religious identity, from which he is thinking and speaking whilst the religious expert does not do so. Following in Barth's footsteps means defending the right to speak as a theologian on community matters. Religion is marginalized in a secular society that suspects religious people of having a hidden agenda. The fear is that Christians or Muslims will always prefer their religious faith to their civic citizenship. In the decision-making process, Christians cannot accept exclusion on the assumption that only arguments, based on reasonable public relevance may be proposed. The evolution of Jürgen Habermas' thought on this is highly significant. Religion may have a positive and even decisive function in strengthening the sense of social solidarity as well as the sense of human dignity.

The purpose is to bring up to date Barth's theological contribution in relationship with what is at stake in the academy where theology receives a scientific duty (1), in the Church, where theology has to take responsibility for a critical status (2) and finally, in society, where theology assumes a public status (3). Following in Barth's footsteps means promoting theological rationality as a specific rationality among the other modern ones. Here the relationship with the political order has to be tackled. Politics and religion are the two main 'existentials' of social life. It is not possible to give a theological account purely on the basis of revelation alone. Political realities and logic have to be analyzed in themselves. This is a presupposition for a balanced theological position. To understand what is going on on a theological-political level, it seems necessary to distinguish between these two fundamental dimensions but not in a way that separates them. This way of proceeding is analogous to the relationship between faith and science. Following in Barth's footsteps means speaking as a theologian on matters that concern society. An expert in religious matters does not speak from the same standpoint. What is the difference? The latter is speaking from a so-called objective point of view, claiming an axiological neutrality to describe facts and to prescribe right behaviour; the former is telling a story as an insider, as member of a community of faith. The theologian assumes a religious identity, from which he is thinking and speaking whilst the religious expert does not do so. Following in Barth's footsteps means defending the right to speak as a theologian on community matters. Religion is marginalized in a secular society that suspects religious people of having a hidden agenda. The fear is that Christians or Muslims will always prefer their religious faith to their civic citizenship. In the decision-making process, Christians cannot accept exclusion on the assumption that only arguments, based on reasonable public relevance may be proposed. The evolution of Jürgen Habermas' thought on this is highly significant. Religion may have a positive and even decisive function in strengthening the sense of social solidarity as well as the sense of human dignity.

Un constat et trois thèses. Le constat : si les Juifs d'Europe occidentale éprouvent aujourd'hui un sentiment d'insécurité croissant au point que certains envisagent un changement de domicile, la menace ne vient pas d'abord du christianisme : elle ne vient ni des autorités des Églises ni des chrétiens ni d'une argumentation relevant de la doctrine chrétienne. Or cela est nouveau en Occident. Il faut nuancer ce constat. Première thèse : il y a dans le monde chrétien un double antisionisme, selon une distinction due à Yves Chevalier, il y a un antisionisme théologique et un antisionisme politique. L'antisionisme théologique a un aspect folklorique et inoffensif. Quant à l'antisionisme politique, il n'est pas de soi antisémite, mais peut le devenir et l'est effectivement devenu. Deuxième thèse: S'agissant des Chrétiens, la mémoire de l'histoire donne infiniment plus de devoirs que de droits. Beaucoup de chrétiens font preuve d'une réelle conscience de l'infamie que représente pour le christianisme historique le symbole de la Croix compromis par son retournement criminel en instrument de persécution des Juifs. Or si cette mémoire donne infiniment plus de devoirs que de droits, où sont les chrétiens lorsque le danger menace les Juifs ? Troisième thèse: Dialoguer avec l'héritage : l'antijudaïsme chrétien n'est pas une fatalité, les Églises l'ont prouvé après la Shoah. Il n'y a pas de raison que du sein de l'islam, qui est ce que les musulmans en feront, ne puisse également être extirpé le mépris des juifs.

Un constat et trois thèses. Le constat : si les Juifs d'Europe occidentale éprouvent aujourd'hui un sentiment d'insécurité croissant au point que certains envisagent un changement de domicile, la menace ne vient pas d'abord du christianisme : elle ne vient ni des autorités des Églises ni des chrétiens ni d'une argumentation relevant de la doctrine chrétienne. Or cela est nouveau en Occident. Il faut nuancer ce constat. Première thèse : il y a dans le monde chrétien un double antisionisme, selon une distinction due à Yves Chevalier, il y a un antisionisme théologique et un antisionisme politique. L'antisionisme théologique a un aspect folklorique et inoffensif. Quant à l'antisionisme politique, il n'est pas de soi antisémite, mais peut le devenir et l'est effectivement devenu. Deuxième thèse: S'agissant des Chrétiens, la mémoire de l'histoire donne infiniment plus de devoirs que de droits. Beaucoup de chrétiens font preuve d'une réelle conscience de l'infamie que représente pour le christianisme historique le symbole de la Croix compromis par son retournement criminel en instrument de persécution des Juifs. Or si cette mémoire donne infiniment plus de devoirs que de droits, où sont les chrétiens lorsque le danger menace les Juifs ? Troisième thèse: Dialoguer avec l'héritage : l'antijudaïsme chrétien n'est pas une fatalité, les Églises l'ont prouvé après la Shoah. Il n'y a pas de raison que du sein de l'islam, qui est ce que les musulmans en feront, ne puisse également être extirpé le mépris des juifs.