Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper interrogates critical divergence in interpreting the cross and atonement between James Cone and Karl Barth – and their related ethics. Cone rejects atonement theories and embraces the cross as an interpretative symbol that speaks to the suffering of Black Americans. In contrast, Barth resists interpreting the cross as a symbol and refuses to interpret the cross separately from the atonement. These divergences lead to different conceptions of sin, salvation, and ethical response. Despite their dissimilarities, I argue that Cone and Barth demonstrate a surprisingly similar kind of ambiguity when it comes to ontology and ethics: Cone blurs ontological Blackness and symbolic Blackness while Barth emphasizes divine ontology in a manner that makes it difficult to address of the material, post-colonial world. I conclude, by demonstrating how these ambiguities in both thinkers create challenges to the concrete addressing of ethical concerns, such as reparations in today’s world.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
