Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
2007.
Theology and Families.
p.
257.
Article contents
The Child as Solution: The Problem of the Superordinate-Subordinate Ordering of the Male-Female Relation in Barth's Theology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
Extract
In examining the similarities and differences between God and humanity in his analogia relalionis, Karl Barth correlates three I-Thou relations: God to Godself in similarity and difference (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); humans to humans in similarity and difference (male and female); God to humanity and humanity to God in similarity and difference. For all three, Jesus Christ is the master analogue. Christ relates to God in a God-God ‘I-Thou’ relationship, to humanity in a human-human ‘I-Thou’ relationship, and God to humanity and humanity to God in a God-human ‘I-Thou’ relationship.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1994
References
1 Russell, Letty, The Future of Punership (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979).Google Scholar
2 Jewett, Paul K., Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975).Google Scholar
3 Campbell, Cynthia, Imago Trinilatis: An Appraisal of Karl Barth' Doctrine of the Imago Dei in Light of His Doctrine of the Trinity (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. 1981). p. vii.Google Scholar
4 McKelway, Alexander J., ‘Perichoretic Possibilities in Barth's Doctrine of Male and Female’, The Princeton Seminary Bulletin. Vol VII, No. 3, New Series (1986), pp. 231–243.Google Scholar
5 von Balthasar, Hans Urs, Theology of Karl Barth, translated by Drury, John, Garden City, New York: Doubleday &. Co., 1972, p. 170.Google Scholar
6 Loder, James E. and Neidhardt, W. Jim, The Knight's Move: Kierkegaard and Modern Science (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard 1992).Google Scholar
7 See, Ibid., pp. 54–58; and Neidhardt, W. Jim, ‘The Creative Dialogue Between Human Intelligibility and Reality – Relational Aspects of Natural Science and Theology’, The Asbury Theological Journal Vol 41, No 2, 1986, pp. 59–83.Google Scholar
8 Marginal control represents a condition in which the bipolar structure's “lower” level is controlled by the laws governing its constituent components, but is also controlled by being subject through its boundary conditions to determination by the laws regulating the “higher” level. In other words, the “lower” level is said to be subject to dual control by thelaws applying to its component particulars in themselves and by the distinctive laws that govern the comprehensive entity, i.e. the “higher” level, formed by them.' Ibid., pp. 54–55. See, Polanyi, Michael, The Tacit Dimension (Glouchester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1983)Google Scholar; and Personal Knowledge (Chicago: The University Press, 1968).
9 Ibid., p. 57.
10 Ibid. pp. 56–57.
11 Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik, Müchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlage and Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1932–1959, III/1, p. 221.Google Scholar
12 Williams, John Rodman Jr, The Doctrine of Imago Dei in Contemporary Theology: A Study in Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, Ann rbor: University Micro-films, 1954.Google Scholar
13 Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics 4 vols., eds Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936–1962). III/1, p. 183Google Scholar. Although all references from the C.D. will be to this English translation, the passages will at times be re-translated by this author to reflect current English usage, particularly with regard to gender inclusive language.
14 Barth, K.D.II/1, p. 207.
15 Barth, C.D. III/1, p. 185.
16 Ibid., p. 184.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., p. 185.
19 C.D. III/4, p. 150.
20 C.D. III/1, p. 196.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., p. 288.
23 Ibid., p. 290.
24 Ibid.
25 Woman is dependent upon man in that she is ‘bone of his bone’ and ‘flesh of his flesh’. Man is dependent upon woman for completion.
26 Ibid., p. 311.
27 Ibid., p. 308.
28 Ibid., p. 306.
29 C.D. III/2, p. 297.
30 Ibid., p. 219.
31 Ibid., p. 218.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid., p. 134.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., p. 148.
36 Ibid., p. 207.
37 Ibid., p. 221.
38 Ibid., p. 219.
39 Ibid., p. 220.
40 Ibid., p. 222.
41 Ibid., p. 314.
42 Ibid., p. 142.
43 Ibid., p. 247.
44 Ibid., p. 285.
45 Ibid., p. 286.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid., p. 288.
49 Ibid., p. 324.
50 Ibid., p. 320.
51 Ibid., p. 321.
52 C.D. III/4, p. 169.
53 Ibid., p. 170.
54 C.D. III/2, p. 314.
55 C.D. III/4, p. 173.
56 Ibid., p. 171.
57 Ibid., p. 170.
58 Ibid., p. 169.
59 Neidhardt, p. 65.
60 Barth, C.D. III/2, p. 79.
61 Fisher, K. W. and Watson, M. W., ‘Explaining the Oedipus Conflit’ in Cognitive Development (New Directions for Child Development, No. 12), San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, 1981, p. 81.Google Scholar
62 See Spitz, Rene, The First Year of Life, New York: International Universities Press, 1965Google Scholar: Bowlby, John, Attachment (2nd edn.), New York: Basic Books, 1973Google Scholar; and Klaus, M. H., and Kennell, J.H., Parent-Infant Bonding, St Louis: C. V. Mosly, 1982.Google Scholar
63 Barth, C.D. III/4, p. 240.
64 Ibid., p. 243.
65 Ibid., p. 245.
66 Youniss, James, Parents and Peers in Social Development: A Sullivan-Piaget Perspective, Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1982, pp. 168–187.Google Scholar
67 Damon, William, Social and Personality Development, New York: W. W. Norton, Co. 1983, p. 269.Google Scholar
68 McKelway, p. 232.
69 Barth, C.D. IV/2, p. 690.
70 C.D. III/4, p. 245.
- 1
- Cited by