A perhaps confusing conclusion to an inadequate essay

Having looked at history through the eyes of Barth, it seems that he understood his great battle to be with prolegomena to Scripture. His view of revelation and his Christology were driven by his attempt to escape from the epistemological presuppositions of his time and to establish a pure way of allowing God to speak. McCormack rightly makes the point that while Schleiermacher was concerned to establish the independence and absoluteness of religion, Barth was seeking to establish the independence of revelation. In this, the two men find both their similarity and their difference. In his desire to remove God’s Word from underneath the scalpel of historical criticism, Barth separated the Word of God from the Bible and located it in an experience of the Bible instead. In this, Barth was unable to himself escape from a philosophical prolegomena which he himself had inherited from Kierkegaard, despite distinguishing himself from some aspects of it. Having charged others with the crime of the possession of a theological prolegomena, Barth himself is not immune to the charge.

The Spiritual Meth-od

Feelings of uncleanness? Freaking out about your sinful heart? Need some accountability in your life?

You need John and Charles Wesley's Holy Club!

Seriously. That's what they called their accountability group. Bet they didn't cop any flak for that one.

And really, 'methodist'? Surely they could come up with a better name than that! They even had two hymn writers on staff! Even just one Simone would come up with something far snappier than that.

And their hymn didn't even come close in the poll...