THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FAITH AND RELIGION

The “revelation of God” is Jesus, the Word made flesh. We tend to think of revelation as primarily a book, the Bible. Barth views the Bible as a witness to the real revelation, the true Word – Jesus (John 1:14). This Word reveals to us that no religion “contains” that revelation but is rather grounded in unbelief. A typical Barthian quote to that effect: AMEN AMEN 

If a man tries to grasp at truth of himself, he tries to grasp at it a priori. But in that case he does not do what he has to do when the truth comes to him. He does not believe. If he did, he would listen; but in religion he talks. If he did, he would accept a gift; but in religion he takes something for himself. If he did, he would let God Himself intercede for God: But in religion he ventures to grasp at God. Because it is a grasping, religion is the contradiction of revelation, the concentrated expression of human unbelief.” (I.2, pp 302-303; emphasis mine)
amen to that sir.

“Sin is always unbelief. And unbelief is always man’s faith in himself. And this faith invariably consists in the fact that man makes the mystery of his responsibility his own mystery, instead of accepting it as the mystery of God. It is this faith which is religion. It is contradicted by the revelation in the New Testament, which is identical with Jesus Christ as the one who acts for us and on us. This stamps religion as unbelief.” (I.2, p 314)
amen sir
Christian religion does not get a pass. It would be easy to read Barth and see how his critique of religion was against all “other” religions, giving Christianity a pass as the true religion.  But when Barth turns to discussing true religion he first points out that “we can speak of ‘true’ religion only in the sense in which we speak of a ‘justified sinner.'” (I.2, p. 325) Perhaps we could put it this way: Christian religion is forgiven unbelief. With that in mind, we should have an attitude of humility when it comes to religion:  “It is our business as Christians to apply this judgment [that religion is unbelief] first and most acutely to ourselves: and to others, the non-Christians, only in so far as we recognize ourselves in them.” (I.2 p 327)  amen sir  love humble....

Referring to this Dr. Norman Park wrote:

"These writers made short shrift of the claim that elders have the authority to 'rule.' They knew the history of the 1611 version and the determination of King James to confer on both bishop and king the divine right to rule: 'No bishop, no king.' Hence his demand that the Greek word proistmi be rendered 'rule,' though it actually carried no connotation of authority, power, or governance. It merely meant that elders should be 'foremost' in zeal, knowledge, quality of life, and concern for the welfare of the church - a quality which rightfully should be embodied in all saints. In a very real sense, then, 'ruling' was not the preserve of the few, but the duty of all." (Dr. Norman Park "It Shall Not Be So Among You")

Inside the truth  of the matter