Karl Barth and James Cone on Atonement: Ambiguity in Ontology and the Implications for Ethics

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 res...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Shin, Sarah (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group 2023
In: Black theology
Year: 2023, Volume: 21, Issue: 2, Pages: 143-154
Further subjects:B Reparations
B Ethics
B Atonement
B Cone
B ontological blackness
B Barth
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1853379891
003 DE-627
005 20230723055507.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 230723s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1080/14769948.2023.2232164  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1853379891 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1853379891 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Shin, Sarah  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Karl Barth and James Cone on Atonement: Ambiguity in Ontology and the Implications for Ethics 
264 1 |c 2023 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a 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. 
601 |a Barth, Karl 
601 |a Ontologie 
650 4 |a Reparations 
650 4 |a ontological blackness 
650 4 |a Ethics 
650 4 |a Cone 
650 4 |a Barth 
650 4 |a Atonement 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Black theology  |d London : Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2002  |g 21(2023), 2, Seite 143-154  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)359786022  |w (DE-600)2098224-0  |w (DE-576)255267037  |x 1743-1670  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:21  |g year:2023  |g number:2  |g pages:143-154 
856 |u https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14769948.2023.2232164?needAccess=true&role=button  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [open (via crossref license)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1080/14769948.2023.2232164  |x Resolving-System  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
912 |a NOMM 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 21  |j 2023  |e 2  |h 143-154 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4357048958 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1853379891 
LOK |0 005 20230723055507 
LOK |0 008 230723||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2023-07-22#ED59DB11B58BE569A8FC676CC863E2336ACD7F60 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a TA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
SYE 0 0 |a Stadt Barth