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

Abstract

ABSTRACT 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.