The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. These are the characteristic features of our relation to God, as it takes shape on this side resurrection. Our relation to God is ungodly. We suppose that we know what we are saying when we say ‘God’. We assign to Him the highest place in our world: and in so doing we place Him fundamentally on one line with ourselves and with things. We assume that He needs something: and so we assume that we are able to arrange our relation to Him as we arrange our other relationships. We press ourselves into proximity with Him: and so, all unthinking, we make Him nigh unto ourselves. We allow ourselves an ordinary communication with Him, we permit ourselves to reckon with Him as though this were not extraordinary behavior on our part. We dare to deck ourselves out as His companions, patrons, advisers, and commissioners. We confound time with eternity. This is the ungodliness of our relation to God. And our relation to God is unrighteous. Secretly we are ourselves the masters in this relationship. We are not concerned with God, but with our own requirements, to which God must adjust Himself. Our arrogance demands that, in addition to everything else, some super-world should also be known and accessible to us. Our conduct calls for some deeper sanction, some approbation and remuneration from another world. Our well-regulated, pleasurable life longs for some hours of devotion, some prolongation into infinity. And so, when we set God upon the throne of the world, we mean by God ourselves. In ‘believing’ on Him, we justify, enjoy, and adore ourselves. Our devotion consists in a solemn affirmation of ourselves and of the world and in a pious setting aside of the contradiction. Under the banners of humility and emotion we rise in rebellion against God. We confound time with eternity. That is our unrighteousness.—Such is our relation to God apart from and without Christ, on this side resurrection, and before we are called to order. God Himself is not acknowledged as God and what is called ‘God’ is in fact Man. By living to ourselves, we serve the ‘No-God.’ - Barth
I begin this blog with the above quote because Barth's conception of the 'No-God' served, in a round about way, as the inspiration for the name of this blog. I have long been resistant to blogging, as it seems to me that the great majority of blogs are written by ones who do not truly have much to say that is worthwhile. Yet I find myself having been convinced by a friend to begin this endeavor, for the purpose of forcing myself to process on a more regular basis what I am reading and thinking about, without even the intent that anyone reads it. Whatever I do once I graduate next summer would surely be profit from doing so, and perhaps this format will provide some motivation to do such reflecting. Furthermore, doing so without the purpose of providing reading material for an audience will allow me to proceed without anxiety over the fact that I am doing what I find bothersome about blogging, putting rather uninspiring, less than profound, dime a dozen thoughts out for viewing. So the title 'The No-God' is sort of a disclaimer. The parallel with Barth's conception is obviously very loose. I mean not for this to be, at least not solely, reflections on humankind's constructions of the divinity (and I certainly hope not to join the activity), and I certainly do not understand the average blog which I protest against as corresponding to the antithesis of Barth's 'No-God.' That being said, we may begin. Whether this shall be lasting, at all frequent, and/or worthwhile, we wait and see.
