Still Awaiting a Barthian Response to Van Til

In my first post on Barth, in 2008, I was excited and interested in him, with no real reservations. By the time I posted on him again, (see here) I had had time to listen to Cornelius Van Til’s critique of Barth. The contrast perplexed me. I trusted my teachers, especially the dean of theology at Briercrest, Dave Guretzki (see blog, or facebook). Because they all recommended Barth, I trusted Barth to some extent as well. However, Van Til’s critiques sounded very tight, and really made a lot of sense. So…whom should I trust?

My usual approach in dealing with a monumental intellect (for example, Schleiermacher or Kant) is to read the competing sides of scholarship about the author. So, first I listened to all the Christian, anti-Kant stuff, then read some pro-Kant stuff, and then dipped into some of the materials myself and after that felt I had a bit of a grasp on his thoughts (See post here). Naturally, I wished to do the same with Barth. I had already heard the “anti-Barth” side of things from Van Til and John Frame. In an e-mail, I requested for Guretzki to refer me to “the other side” of the debate. He did not, but told me he would be presenting a class on Barth. Fair enough.

Then, in class, I learned the following about Van Til and Barth:

1) Van Til is a major interpreter of Barth. His influence has shaped the English-speaking response to Barth, especially in the previous generation.

2) This was validated in the fact that more than one other class-mate (there were only about ten of us) had also read extensively of Van Til’s critiques of Barth

3) Guretzki spoke of once visiting Van Til’s library, and noting how worn out his copy of Church Dogmatics was. Guretzki affirmed that Van Til had engaged in a very thorough and reasoned critique of Van Til.

However, even though Van Til seemed to be such a major voice (for good or ill) on Barth, Guretzki explained that the class was on Barth, not on his detractors. And so after a courteous mention, we zoomed on past the fiery Dutchman and continued with more of Barth.

For class, Guretzki assigned Tim Perry’s article, “Is Barth the Bad-Guy after all?” (Didaskalia 13.2, Spring 2002, 25-50). Between Perry and Guretzki, the following cavils (one cannot really call the critiques) of Van Til’s treatment of Barth were presented:

1) Van Til was embroiled in the Fundamentalist/Modernist (or “liberal/conservative”) debates of the early 20th century. (I wrote a detailed paper on this topic, see The Man Who Wrote “Liberalism and Christianity”) Due to his involvement in that conflict, he (erroneously) painted Barth with the same brush as he painted the Liberals.

This cavil was given, but not really explained. It doesn’t seem to hold much water. After all, later in the class it was noted that while some interpret Barth as being postmodern, others interpret him as being hypermodern. Or, they see him turning back to 19th century Liberalism, to re-pristinize it for a new generation. There is a touching story in the introduction of Dogmatics in Outline where Barth relates lifting a bust of Schleiermacher out of the rubble of his bombed-out school after the war, to place it in a place of distinction. For all his anti-liberalism in The Epistle to the Romans, how far did the apple really fall from the tree? I am not so convinced that the case has been made, that Barth is not a Modernist/Liberal, if anyone is even seriously attempting to make this case.

2) Secondly (and primarily) Guretzki complained that Van Til’s primary objection to Barth is an epistemological objection, rather than a theological one.

This objection seems to hold water until it is examined closely. Tell me, what is the difference between theology and epistemology? If one begins with just a few wrong assumptions (drawn from secular philosophy), isn’t that going to ruin all of the beliefs built upon it? Specifically, if one begins (as Van Til accuses Barth of) with Kant’s division between the “physical” and the “spiritual” – a division which was amplified by Kierkegaard - then one is beginning with a very flawed view of God. So then everything which Barth says about God being “unknowable” has little to do with the God of the Jews and everything to do with the philosophy of 19th century continental Europe. I am not saying that Van Til is right or wrong on this point. Such a question is – to borrow a famous expression – “above my pay-grade”: However, this is not an inconsequential question. It should have been dealt with seriously, if Barth can supply a serious answer.

3) Van Til takes Barth out of context. I was told that there were several works noting the inconsistencies in Van Til’s treatment of Barth – although Guretzki was kind enough to say that Van Til was reading and critiquing Barth immediately as his works were coming out (he published Church Dogmatics over the span of several decades) and so he did not yet have the full picture.

This critique is annoying and useless. So what if Van Til did not quite dot the “i”‘s and cross the “t”‘s quite right? The issue is not about one or two revealing quotes, but about the grand sweep of Barth’s theology. Van Til has read thoroughly of Barth. He was a very educated and smart man. He responded with some very poignant arguments which have made a deep and broad impact.

Now, then, I ask all you Barthians: “Where is the Barthian response to Van Til, which rises above mere cavils and stereotypes?”

Because no such work seems to exist, what else can I conclude but that Van Til has some very solid points, which the dedicated Barthian simply cannot cope with?

 

Barthian Ethics: He Can Negate – But Can He Mandate?

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic. If you have an objection or answer to my thoughts here, I would be hugely grateful for your input!

The entire thrust of contemporary Christian ethics seems to be negative. Whole churches, denominations, and Christians will define themselves against certain doctrines and ethical standards: not patriarchal/chauvinist, not sexually repressive, not homophobic, etc. The only positive all-out it seems to be that of friendship to the world: “open to gay/lesbian/bi/queer (GLBQ)”, “open to feminists,” etc.

Can a church really be “biblical,” however, if it teaches nothing that culture does not teach? Perhaps it is true that our society is perfect, and requires no reproof. What is that? You disagree? On what grounds? Not by playing off “conservative” versus “liberal,” for this is basically subjected. We need a voice of authority. We need a stable compass-point, to keep us from being blown around by every wave of doctrine. Where can we find this?

We all agree it is in the Bible.

However, Barth does not seem to be aware that simply saying that we must live in a matter corresponding to our redemption is meaningless. Britney Spears whereas (or wore) a WWJD bracelet: apparently, her message and lifestyle were compatible with her conception of Jesus. And this is precisely wherein is the rub: the fact is that we each construct an (idolatrous!) Jesus of our own imaginations. But, you object, Scriptures correct us!

Do they? Do they really? How many people do you know who are blatantly living in sin, while reading the Bible day by day?

Usually, sins only get dealt with when we are confronted by them. But if you remove the possibility of propositional revelation, you have removed any ability of Christian brothers and sisters from correcting in love the sinful party. Or, put another way, you have gagged Christ.

If I had a dollar for every time somebody said “I can’t ignore Jesus’ clear teaching on ask (usually marriage/sexual ethics) because ‘the Jesus I know wouldn’t have a problem with what I am doing…’ ” I would be a rich man, or at least would have my school debts paid off.

“Christocentricity” Which supersedes Biblical orthodoxy reduces inexorably towards and unaccountable “spirit of prophecy,” such that we are in danger, as Luther accused the Zwikau Prophets of, of “swallowing the Holy Spirit whole, feathers and all!”

Let another way, Barthian ethics seems to lead simply and directly to end a list and unaccountable subjectivity.

In practice, it is likely limited by habits and Christian culture: but who will stem the flood of antinominalism among our youth and new converts without some real, concrete commands of God?

 

How Barth “Actualized Chalcedon”

In studying Barth, I have often heard it said that Barth “actualized Chalcedon.” However, I have not really understood what this mean. During a recent class on Barth, my teacher explained this concept to me, and I would like to share it with you all.

I. Of being and actingTraditionally, we have been accustomed to thinking of the essence of personhood as “being.” That is, you are a human because you are a human “being.” A thing that is. You have certain human characteristics, a human “essence.” To look really closely at this idea, we would see that it originates with the Greek thinkers around the time of Christ: and it is not really compatible with modern scientific discoveries. We now know, for example, that as far as our “being” or “essence” is concerned, there is only a very minute (almost non-existent) difference between human “being” and animal “being.” We are both made out of the same living tissue, molecules, similar DNA, etc. What really differentiates human and non-human (animal) is not so much being but action. Thus, humans are humans in that they act humanly.
.Thus, it is more common today (in academic, philosophical circles) to speak of “actions” of “actors” in approximately the same way that we may be used to thinking of “beings.” Thus, a human “being” would be referred to as a “human actor.” Or, more correctly, we would not speak of the human “being” at all, but only the “action.” In acting humanly (for example, in crying or loving, or doing a distinctly human action) this one is, or becomes human. One cannot neatly devide between being and action: it is in acting humanly that the essence of “human” is attained.

This is known as “actualism.”

II. Chalcedon

The essence of Chalcedon is that Jesus was “fully God, fully man – without division or confusion.” Traditionally, this has been understood through Greek “being metaphysics.” Or, to put it in plain English, people have thought of Jesus’ divine “nature” as being united with His human “nature” in the incarnate Jesus.

Barth, however, takes the new philosophical “advances” (whether there is actually anything new, or better, in actualism is not the point of this article, nor am I really able to comment on that question) and applies them to Chalcedon. So Jesus “acted” humanly, and also “acted” divinely, and so was both God and man.

“But,” you ask, “how could Jesus have acted as a human without sin? Isn’t the essence of humanity sinful?”

III. Christ as the New Adam

To understand Barth’s Anthropology, we must understand his Christology. You see, although Jesus was born in the middle of human history, Christ was still the quintessential, or archetypal human. In a sense, Barth’s Christ fills a role which is traditionally reserved for the “first Adam.” Humanity is patterned after Christ, not Adam: thus, “Adam” becomes rather insignificant, as only “the first human, who happened to sin,” rather than the father and federal head of us all.

How then were we patterned after Christ? What is the essence of humanity, the image of God (imago Dei) which is the basic essence of humanity? Here, Barth “actualizes” humanity by saying that to be human is basically to “act” in a right relationship with God. It is, in short, to “worship” God. A human which responds to God in worship and gratitude is a true human: a human which responds in idolatry and ingratitude/anger is not a true human. Thus, the only “true human” is Jesus Christ – this is the God-man who incarnated in the midst of time, to perfectly exemplify the quintessential humanity.

Christ is fully human in that He worships God. He is fully God in that in the very act of worshipping God, He also redeems and saves humanity. Thus, actions which only God does and only humanity do come together in this God-man, Jesus Christ.

CONCLUSION:

Thus, when it is said that Barth “actualizes Chalcedon,” what is meant is that he replaces “being metaphysics” for “action metaphysics.” Rather than seeing essential nature as “being,” he sees it as “action.” Jesus is fully God and fully man in His actions, not in His essential nature, or “being.”

 

Barth in Conversation with a JW

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic. If you have an objection or answer to my thoughts here, I would be hugely grateful for your input!

Jehovah’s Witness: “What do you have to offer that the Church does not?”

Barthian: “I do not merely teach dead creedal orthodoxy. I strip down barriers and walls. For me, theology is fresh and alive, a living breathing object rather than dead orthodoxy.”

Jehovah’s Witness: “How so?”

Barthian: “I believe that theology is all about Jesus.”

Jehovah’s Witness: “I agree.”

Barthian: “I mean, the Jesus of the Bible.”

Jehovah’s Witness: “I agree.”

Barthian: “I mean, the Jesus of the Bible as interpreted by the historic creeds.”

Jehovah’s Witness: “Sounds like ‘dead, creedal orthodoxy’ to me!”

 

Barth: Postmodern and Christian?

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic.

Perhaps there is a way to speak Christianly within every epistemological/philosophical framework.

Is it possible to be a Christian Platonist? I certainly hope so – otherwise Augustine is “out.”

Can one be a Christian Aristotelian? If so, Thomas Aquinas certainly was one.

Can one be a Christian “Post-Modern” (for lack of a better term)? If so, then Barth shows us the way, if we wish to follow.

 

Barth: Ever Learning, Never Understanding?

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic. If you have an objection or answer to my thoughts here, I would be hugely grateful for your input!

How can “the kingdom” the open to children if even mostlay-people are unable to engage in the costly art of “dogmatics,” those whodoengaged can do so only by reading all of Barth, and even Barth was only provisionally successful at finding any real information about God, his requirements of humanity, the mechanisms of salvation, and our eternal destiny!

I used to believe that we simply read the Bible, applied to our lives and live it. However, Bart would have us believe that the solution is:

1) Exegesis, exegesis, exegesis…

2) …in the context of the whole tradition of the church…

3) …in dialogue with culture…

4) …continually starting again at the beginning.

No wonder he saw dogmatics as an “impossible possibility.” This approach leaves no time for anything but endless study, which produces no real results. (2 Tim. 3:7).

At the end of the day, is Barth really any closer to understanding God then at teen in awe, staring at the heavens and saying, “Wow!”?

 

Barth: Influenced, but not yet Convinced

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic. If you have an objection or answer to my thoughts here, I would be hugely grateful for your input!

It would be disingenuous to say that I am untouched by Barth. Directly and indirectly, I have basked in the glow of his raging intellect. I am tanned from his radiation. Whether or not I have become or will become similarly irradiated, however, is the question under consideration. At any rate, might options are radical detox, or radical emergent: simple avoidance is no longer an option, if it ever was.

 

My Barthian Breakdown

The first two days of class were an absolute blur for me. Having spent over two years pondering this topic, and several months intensively pondering it, the moments were almost frosted with an aura and a glow, as I realized “I am finally here! This is finally happening!” After the first day, I told my wife, “I know for sure I want to be a theologian!” My excitement level was electric. I was jogging everywhere, not even taking time to eat. Reading, listening, thinking, writing, preparing, thinking, listening. Go, go, go! I was in my element!

Towards the end of the second day, however, the strain began to catch up to me. Having already decided that I did not trust Barth, I refused to simply sit and absorb his thought (if you haven’t already, please read, A Wise Shepherd of a Wandering Mind). I wanted to listen critically, and retain my own identity as a thinking individual, rather than simply becoming subsumed into Barthianism. In the terms of the above-mentioned post: I refused to enter the labyrinth, but wanted to take it all in from an aerial view, understanding without becoming overcome.

It was all too much. After putting energy into a poorly prepared presentation (time, alas, was not on my side!), my energy levels began to lag early in the afternoon on the second day. The mental strain was becoming unbearable. My head began to pound terribly, I felt what little food I had eaten begin to churn and tie my stomach in knots. Determined to get my money’s worth, I resolutely soldiered on, but finally had to call it quits: I set up my computer to record the rest of the lecture and whimpered off to bed.

My head hit the pillow at 4:00 and I descended into a dark and dreamless place until about 10:30. When I awoke I stumbled around to find food and a pen. In desperation and despair I scribbled these words out to the Lord:

“God, I really, really feel like just throwing in the towel.

“God, is it really as complicated as all this? Is all this stuff really helpful? Do we really need to be theologians after all? What is the point of this?

“On the other hand, can I really retreat into a non-theological teaching ministry? Can I pretend that the Enlightenment didn’t happen, or that Barth didn’t live?

Jesus: “Do not retreat – ride forth, mighty warrior and conquer”

“But a lifetime would not be sufficient to learn, to conquer, to master it all!

“My hope is in you, Jesus – please, please make all this clear!!”

I fell back into sleep and the next morning awoke refreshed. A decision had been made, although I don’t remember making it: I would simply give in. For the remainder of the week, I slowly allowed myself to be sucked into the vortex of Barthian thought. I did not resist. I began to understand. I made a beginning of letting myself think like he did. By the time I was ready to drive home, I was wondering what my problem with Barth had been after all? I even apologized for my candor in critiquing Barth in my assignment “Quotes from Barth.”

Sometime on the road, about 40 miles from Caronport, I began to emerge. I poked my head out of the rat-race, climbed up on top of the cage and scampered back to my Evangelicalism. I spent the next two months intensively deconstructing Barthianism and reconstructing Evangelicalism in opposition to him from Scriptures.

The result of these labors is the paper, “The Gospel According to Barth.”

 

Barth Class

Well, it is finally here! After pestering my teacher twice (see here and here), Dave Guretzki (see blog, or facebook) has finally offered to teach a class specifically on the theology of Karl Barth. That I am excited about this class is an undstatement of epic proportions. For better or worse, Barth is the most important theologian of the last century, and perhaps since the Reformation. Guretzki has written a major book on Barth (Karl Barth on the Filioque) and is an emerging leader on Barthian studies.

What better topic to pour my energies into? And who better to do it under? I am pumped!!

With his permission, I have included the syllabus from the class: BT859 Theology of Karl Barth January 2011.

For those following my journal posts, please contextualize my thoughts on Barth by noting which come before, during, and after this class, which stretches from January 3-6.

Yahoo!! I am so excited to begin!!

 

Pre-Class Questions for my Barthian Teacher

Before class, Dave Guretzki (facebook, blog) asked us to prepare a few questions, to guide our class-discussions. I think I went a little over-board. I created and e-mailed the following questions to him. I also printed these questions and – although we did not have time to cover all of them – I jotted down the answers which I believe are appropriate under most of them. (You can see the word document Here) I will answer my own questions in an upcoming series of posts entitled, “Some questions for Barth”

 

WHAT ABOUT BARTH?

 

Josiah Meyer

 

“Questions I have for Barth”
MAJOR GOALS FOR CLASS:

 1. Understand Barth’s central message. If Barthianism is a real system, I want to be able to comprehend it well enough to enunciate at least the basic tenets of it. If Barth wrote a gospel tract, what would it contain? When I go home, my pastor will ask me, “So, what does Barth teach?” In under five minutes, I want to be able to answer him.

2. Understand Barth’s Christology. Everybody always says it is all about Jesus. From hippies to fundamentalists, from Mormons to Liberals, from Marcionites to Muslims, everybody says they are “Christ-followers.” To say that one’s theology is “Christocentric” is about as useful as saying that it is “good.” I want an answer to the question of the ages: “Who does Barth say that Christ is?” I hope the answers are very specific, and get into the nitty-gritty details, where we all know the Devil is lurking.

 3. What in the world does Barth mean: “I have actualized Chalcedon”? It’d just be nice to know what he means by this phrase.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CLASS

General Questions

What is “Dogmatics”? How does it differ from “Dogma” and from “Systematics”?

1. Is Barth arguing for a minimalistic systematic theology, an open-ended systematic theology, a non-systematic theology or some other option…?

Scripture

1. If Scriptures do not deliver propositional information, how do they reveal Christ to us?

(e.g. no existential meeting of one person with another will be completely devoid of propositional information. Personhood is more, not less, than propositional information: generally, the more complex the individual, and the deeper the relationship, the more facts one will learn about the other)

1. If Scriptures are not inerrant, by what cipher can we “edit” out the less “human” portions?

Doesn’t this editing demonstrate that some other filter (e.g. the human mind, science, “the scholarly consensus,” etc.) is the actual, normative norm to which we are forcing Scriptures to submit?

1. If Scriptures are not inerrant, is it not arbitrary to say that Christ meets us only here?

1. Did miracles happen: 1) in the events recorded, and/or 2) in the act of recording them?

(e.g. did Moses really see a real pillar of fire, which hovered over his camp, and did he really speak to God face to face, and receive real information about events long since past and some events yet to come – e.g. his death – and was he then guided by the Holy Spirit to write these events down inerrantly?)

1. Or, conversely, did God in some way inspire the writing or redacting of various “opwards-questing” human authors?

(e.g. were the writings of the Pentateuch the result of some over-zealous Babylonian captive, desperate to create some sense of national identity, who pasted together Jewish, Palistinian and Babylonian myth, along with some fallible histories and folklore, thus creating the Pentateuch?)

1. Is there a difference between the historicity of the OT and that of the NT?

1. How does the OT testify to the NT?

• Is it fluke? (I assume not)
• Is it revelation? In that case: a) how can the OT be part of the upwards-questing religious attempt of Judaism? b) why did God reveal His will imperfectly?

1. Where does Barth get his propositions from?

(e.g. How does he know the details of the Trinity? Also, where does “the command” come from, in his doctrine of gender? Gollwitzer, 194-229)

1. Since Barth gets propositional information (from “somewhere”) why does he object so strongly to systematics?

Orthodoxy

1. 1.      Barth often speaks of “orthodoxy” and “heterodoxy:” against what concrete standard are heretics called out, since all Christian heretics (by definition) use Scriptures?

Soteriology

1. Is there now any distinction between the “saved” and the “lost”?

(if not: 1) why does God through the prophets/apostles call people to repentance? 2) in what way is the Church called to be, and actually considered to be hagios? 3) in what way is the church given the keys of the kingdom, or actually made the agents of reconciliation in the world?

1. Will there be, in the future, a distinction between the “saved” and the “lost”?

(If not: what is the point of all our costly and at times brutally disastrous missionary ventures? Also: 1) what do we make of all the “hell” and “wrath” passages, 2) what do we do with the reward passages? 3) in what way do we tell people that choosing God now will be a “good” choice, even if it means immediate torture and death in this life? 4) in what way will the righteous be “vindicated” over the unrighteous in the final judgment?

1. Rob Bell seems to utilize Barthian concepts, and draws his line of distinction between Christian and non basically as a distinction of works: what would Barth say to that?

(Bell describes salvation as sitting in a restaurant and being told by the waitress that your bill has already been paid. One must not live in the reality of believing that the bill still must be paid: they must live in the new reality that it really is paid. How do they do so? Be a good person. Don’t be a bad person. As he summarizes: “Heaven & Hell are both full of people God loves and died for. The difference is how they lived their lives.” Because this system has no real place for repentance – and thus faith – the pull towards a works-based salvation seems to be virtually irresistible)

Anthropology

1. 1.      If God did not redeem all mankind (as Barth repeatedly claims he does), would He still be just and loving? Barth seems to say that He would not be as loving, and perhaps not as just: but does this not imply that humanity is in some sense loveable and deserving of mercy?

 

1. Yes, technically Barth is orthodox. But practically speaking, isn’t he saying that all will be saved in the end? Isn’t this universalism? Why, then, the run-around: “just come out and say it, why don’t you!”
2. Isn’t Barth conflating and confusing the “two Adams”? Functionally, the first Adam seems to have been completely replaced. What is his real use or function today?

Christology

1. What is “the Christ event”?

1. Who was/is the historical Jesus?

1. What is the relation between the Johannine doctrine of “Logos” and the Greek notion of “logos”?

1. Who was/is the second member of the Trinity?

1. Who was the first Adam? ______________ Who was the second Adam? ____________

How are the two related to: 1) each other, 2) the human race?

6. How are all these persons related to one another? Specifically:

• In what manner was Christ pre-existent?

• Did the man, Jesus, contribute a separate volitional mind, or only a physical container for the divine substance?

• Where is Christ now?

• How does Christ impact us/speak to us now?

• What is the living Christ’s relationship with the Christ of paper?

On Preaching

1. What does Barth do with the many conversion stories, of people who experience/hear from God only with Scriptures, without a preacher present?

1. Doesn’t Barth place preaching/prophecy over Scriptures, rather than (as he should) placing prophecy/preaching under the scrutiny/power/norming influence of Scriptures?

Eschatology

1. In God Here and Now, as well as in a few other quotes, Barth seems more than a little agnostic about the actual events of the eschaton, specifically on judgment, etc.:

• Does this agnosticism flow (as Van Til posits) from a Kantian division between nominal and pneuminal (inherited through Kirkegaard, and thus through Hegel and Kant, and flowing ultimately from Descartes)?

• Barth leaves the possibility of real shock and surprise open: do you think (this question is subjective) Barth has really wrestled with the question of “what if eternal, conscious torment is really meted out on all who make no profession of faith in this life?!” This question haunts my dreams, and ignites my prayers.

• What does he do with the Scritures on Hell/fiery judgment?

• What does he do with the passages motivating us to sanctity, perseverance and mission, based explicitly on the judgment? (e.g. 1 Pet. “since all these things will be consumed in this way, consider what lives you should live…”)

 

Barth Quotes, with Interactions

It has been said that “it is almost always better to read Karl Barth than to read about him. He has a wonderful way of dispelling any caricatures that may have arisen at second hand.” (George Hunsinger, foreword in God Here and Now, vii). If this is true, I can give you no better gift than some words from Barth himself, so that you can make up your own mind on the man.

Below is a collection of quotes which I was required to assemble for my upcoming Barth class. For a more thorough and organized list of quotations (which apply more directly to Barth’s core theology, or Gospel) see here. For my final opinion on Karl Barth, see my paper, “The Gospel According to Barth.”

INTERACTIVE QUOTATION JOURNAL

In the very fact that man is, and that he is man, he is as such chosen by God for salvation…// not because God owes it to him; not in virtue of any quality or capacity of his own being; completely without claim.[1]

Here Barth underlines the essential nature of humanity: man is a creature favored of God, and thereby destined for salvation. This naturally leads to the questions: 1) why is he favored? (the answer here given is simply free grace), 2) is this grace in spite of sin? 3) what will be the mechanism of man’s salvation? And 4) will all men be saved?

The riddle of the existence of Jesus Christ, // which is the point of reference for the Christian answer and Christian faith and confession, is thus the fact that in the humiliation of the Son of God there is actualized and revealed the exaltation of the Son of Man, and our own exaltation in Him as our Brother and Head.[2]

The subject-matter, origin and content of the message received and proclaimed by the Christian community is at its heart the free act of the faithfulness of God in which He takes the lost cause of man, who has denied Him as Creator and in so doing ruined himself as creature, and makes it His own in Jesus Christ, carrying it through to its goal and in that way maintaining and manifesting His own glory in the world.[3]

Because He is God, He has and exercises the power as this man to be His own partner in our place, the One who in free obedience accepts the ordination of man to salvation which we resist, and in that way satisfies us, i.e., achieves that which can positively satisfy us. That is the absolutely unique being, that attitude and activity of God to which the ‘God with us’ at the heart of the Christian message refers. It speaks of the peace which God Himself in this man has made between Himself and us.[4]

In these quotes we receive one answer to the above questions: it is in Christ, as the second Adam, that man is saved. This point is more fully explained elsewhere: as with Schleiermacher, Barth believes that Calvinism has placed too heavy of an emphasis on the “first Adam,” without allocating adequate attention to the “second Adam.” For Barth, the two work very similarly: in the same way that “in Adam all died,” in Christ, all will be made a live (Romans 5). Thus, God’s identification with the human race in Jesus is the mechanism of salvation for men.

If it is not indifferent, incidental or subordinate but ontologically decisive, that one man among all others is the man Jesus; if to be a man is to dwell with this man who is our true and absolute Counterpart; if to be a man is to be concretely confronted with this man who is like us for all that He is so unlike in the full majesty of God, then the fact that we are with God is not merely one of many determinations of our being derivative and mutable, but the basic determination, original and immutable.[5]

We have now to show the fact and extent that the ontological determination of man results from the fact that one man among all others is this creaturely being the man Jesus.[6]

I find these quotes confusing: don’t we receive our ontological determination primarily from the first human, Adam. Even Jesus is born “of a descendant of David [and thus of Adam] according to the flesh,” (Romans 1:3) and so the incarnate Jesus too owes the human aspect of his nature to the first human, Adam. Barth seems to be conflating the “second” Adam with the “first” Adam. Surely he isn’t deifying the first Adam, or equating him with Christ, is he? If all are in Christ, does “Adam” have any ontological significance at all?

I could not believe in the Church if in it and by it I did not find hope even for man as such. We could call this awareness of the destiny of man the Christian conception of humanity.[7]

At every corner, everywhere I turn, everybody is telling me not to proof-text Barth. With this quote, I am sorely tempted to violate this maxim!

Throughout Gollwitzer, I continually asked, “where does this great drive, this need to see all humanity redeemed come from?” Certainly it does not come from Scriptures, which ascribe glory to God equally for His justice as for His grace. From whence comes this positivism towards humanity? Barth here seems to be fairly admitting that external and previous to exegesis, he has a commitment to a human positivism: when pushed he would rather drop Christianity than give up on his “hope for all of humanity.”

Even to the sayings on the cross, the tradition likes to see Jesus speaking in direct or indirect quotations from the Old Testament, and it sets him generally in the confines, not merely of the world religion, but of the special religious promise given to His own people. [more examples from passages, then] …in the later search for the so-called “historical Jesus” the suggestion could be made that He might be reduced to the figure of a (very outstanding) representative of a reformed and deepened Judaism.[8]

I am stupefied by this quotation. Religion is a man-made invention. It is “from below, earthy,” not “from above, heavenly,” (John 8:23). How then can how can this be reconciled to the Christian idea that Jesus is from above, penetrating time and history, shocking in His revelation, opening mysteries hidden from ages past to the view of humanity? The two concepts are as dissimilar as hockey and skinny-dipping. I don’t’ see how any fusion or even a dialectical tension is possible.

But we have not yet mentioned the decisive point at which the man Jesus is the image and reflection of God Himself. …  We have been forestalling the opinion that what we have to call the decisive point is something that can be attained and conceived and controlled by men, and incorporated into the scale of known relationships of magnitude and value. … We do not know God at all if we do not know Him as the one who is absolutely opposed to our whole world which has fallen away from Him and is therefore self-estranged; as the Judge of our world; as the One whose will it is that it should be totally changed and renewed. If we think we know Him in any other way, what we really know (in a mild or wild transcendence) is only the world itself, ourselves, the old Adam. … we do not really know Jesus (the Jesus of the New Testament) if we do not know Him as this poor man, as this (if we may risk the dangerous word) partisan of the poor, and finally as this revolutionary.[9]

Relating to the tension I see above, I would like to put the question to Barth in this manner: from whence arises the similarity between Christ’s and the Father’s basic message? Did the Father place His stamp of approval on the Jew, operating within a Jewish religious worldview, the man, Jesus, thus making him the Christ? Or, conversely, did the Trinity penetrate and invade history in the incarnation with a message radically new to the world, but identical to the message within itself?

As I said above, the two concepts are antithetical and irresolvable.

 [sin is not worshipping as he should] This is the sin of man which is judged and forgiven in Jesus Christ, which God Himself has made good and cast behind man’s back.[10]

In the fact, revealed to us in God’s Word, that God is gracious to man in Jesus Christ, we do not see any of these views of man, either // confirmed or questioned, nor do we see any new view of man, but we see man himself, what and how he really is.[11]

 If this strange judgment had not taken place, there would be only a lost world and lost men. Since it has taken place, we can only recognize and believe and proclaim to the whole world and all men: Not lost. And since it did take place, what does it matter what may be said against the possibility of it? // But what did take place? At this point we can and must make the decisive statement: What took place is that the Son of God fulfilled the righteous judgment on us men by Himself taking our place as man in our place undergoing the judgment under which we has passed. That is why He came and was amongst us.[12]

 This grace of God decides and has already decided concerning our human existence.[13]

 Who is this Lord? He is the God of Israel who in Jesus Christ has loved man, and sought and found him in his lostness and drawn him to Himself, averting from him the suffering of His righteous judgment, and in grace giving him life with the promise of eternal reward.^[14]

I had heard that Barth is often accused of being a universalist, but that this is an unfair caricature. Considering these quotes (and his message throughout), I do not know what is so “unfair” about calling him such.

 he creature [man] itself cannot decide either why it moves or whither it moves. This decision belongs to God who rules the creature. In His action which determines the world-process in its true and definitive form. …It is God who arranges for each creature its end and ends. Thus He subordinates all creatures to Himself. And under Himself He co-ordinates all the ends, and therefore all the activities and effects of all creatures into a totality. [which together tell the story of His redeeming love][15]

Within this quote Barth seems to be negating free will. In what sense, then, is God not responsible for sin? Perhaps Barth answers this elsewhere. At any rate, man’s fate is not determined by his own free volition, but by God’s absolute sovereignty, as He works in history to enact the great saga of His redeeming grace.

Because the eternal divine predestination is identical with the election of Jesus Christ, its twofold content is that God wills to lose in order that man may gain. There is a sure and certain salvation for man, and a sure and certain risk for God.[16]

Perhaps Barth is more “neo-Calvinist” than “neo-orthodox.” Calvin’s system is left basically intact: the one element which is changed is the portion of Calvin which was always the weakest and most suspect anyways: the Barth replaces Calvin’s God who elects some to damnation with a more beneficent deity who elects all to salvation in Christ. Makes sense: if God really does have all the power which Calvin ascribes to Him, why would He not elect all to salvation, since he really takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23, 32, 33:11), and desires all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9)?

Between God and man there stands the person of Jesus Christ, Himself God and Himself man, and so mediating between the two. In Him God reveals Himself to man. In Him man sees and knows God. In Him God stands before man and man stands before God, as is the eternal will of God, and the eternal ordination of man in accordance with this will. In Him God’s plan for man is disclosed, God’s judgment on man fulfilled, God’s redemption of man accomplished, God’s gift to man present in fullness, God’s claim and promise to man declared. In Him God has joined Himself to man. And so man exists for His sake. …  And there is nothing that is not from Him and by Him and to Him. He is the Word of God in whose truth everything is disclosed and who se truth cannot be over-reached or conditioned by any other word.[17]

God with us means… that God has made Himself the One who fulfils His redemptive will.[18]

When we say ‘man’ we have to remember above all that there is one man among many who is this Word, and in respect of the many that it is in their sphere that this Word is to be found – the Word which is for them, which is the Word of their hope, and which in defiance of every threat promises them freedom, security and life.[19]

It is only in the Church or from the Church that there has ever been a free, strong, truly open and confident expectation in regard to the natural man, a quiet and joyful hope that he will be my neighbor, a conception of humanity which is based on ultimate certainty.[20]

I would like to know how Barth deals with all of the wrath passages, all of the passages dealing with hell, and of God’s wrath falling on “sinners” (plural). Also, in assuming Calvin’s system, he has inherited all of the problems therein, especially all of the passages which call to repentance, predicated on free-will. I wonder if he has engaged the Ante-Nicene Father’s continual championing of free-will as over against Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Gnosticism and (by extensions) Augustinianism?

[Barth is commentating on the disciples, alone and without Christ in the boat during the storm, before Christ met them. He draws a parallel with the church:] The church of Jesus Christ in the world – oh, what is it, this church? Must we not continually acknowledge that it is no different than any of those many other more or less good and hopeful human ventures? But especially full of sin and especially threatened because people are attempting something especially bold here: to proclaim the truth about the true God, to serve and worship this God! How could humankind in all its dubiousness and all its defenselessness emerge any more clearly than it does here? And how could this venture not continually be met by difficulties from the inside and from without? And how could this venture not secretly be afflicted, and in a particularly intense and sever way at certain moments in time such as the one in which we are now living? What remains of the church then? Where should it turn? What is to become of Jesus’ disciples when they find themselves in exactly the same boat as the rest of humanity? They are no better off or stronger than the rest, no less lost and helpless than the world as a whole: indeed, more lost and helpless, perhaps, than all the rest. “The wind was contrary.” What do they have of Jesus to hold on to now? Surely only a memory? The memory of his word and the expectation of his help. But how weak our memory often is, and how weak this expectation! What else can we do, then, but cling to what has been given us, cling to the word, and, in spite of our weak attempts tat remembering and hoping, to be obedient as far as our ability and understanding allow.[21]

This quotation seems to me completely consistent with Barth’s larger system. He has elsewhere gone to great lengths to bring non-Christians into the “boat” of salvation: here he puts the church into the same “boat” as the world. Since he has amplified Calvinism to the exclusion of free will, there can be no genuine decision and thus no repentance – the essence of the division between Christian and non.

The Holy Spirit is the coming of the man Jesus, who is the Son of God, to other men who are not this but with whom He still associates. And the witness of the Holy Spirit is the disclosure to these men, and therefore their discovery, of the fact that because they are associated with Him they can be called what they are certainly not called of themselves, and be what they can certainly never become or be of themselves – children of God, children of light who in the midst of death are freed from the fear of death because as sinners they are freed from the curse of sin, and as such messengers to all those who, because they do not see the light, are still in darkness, but are not to // remain in this darkness.[22]

In this quote, Barth seems to contradict the previous quote. If the Spirit is present in the Church, how could the Church be understood as being “in the same boat as the World?” Wouldn’t her ventures – however also characterized by sin and ambition – also contain this fundamental difference from other human ventures, namely that they are touched by the leading and empowering Spirit of Truth?

 Yet there were others – and it is here that the word [discipleship] acquires its pregnant meaning – who are called by Jesus and follow him in the sense that they accompany him wholeheartedly and constantly, sharing his life and destiny at the expense of all other engagements and commitments, attaching themselves to him, placing themselves in his service, and thus showing that they are qualified to be his disciples; not as though the messianic salvation is ascribed only to them, or even to them in particular, but as those who particularly attest and proclaim it. Their qualification as disciples, and therefore for discipleship, n this pregnant sense, is a gift, a “being fit” for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62), a capacity with which they are endowed. Normally the fact that they are endowed in this way means also that they accompany him. Yet here are some qualified disciples who do not do so, and on the other hand there are others who accompany him but are not qualified disciples in this sense.[23]

To me, the phrase “ “the messianic salvation is [not] ascribed only to them” stands out in a harsh antithesis to the rest of this passage. Again, Barth seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. Is the Savior’s the call to discipleship a harsh one, a steep one, an all-consuming one? Then it must necessarily be exclusive: those who reject this call are excluded. If salvation is available to non-disciples, then discipleship is optional to salvation. If so, is there some two-tiered “Romanish”[24] division between priesthood (who heed the call) and the laity (who do not, but are saved notwithstanding)?

 That a person should come to him is the one complete work that one is called to do. We say, therefore, that in practice the command to follow Jesus is identical with the command to believe in him. It demands that a person who is as such brings no other presuppositions that than one is entangled like all other people in the general sloth of humanity, and has to suffer the consequences, should put one’s trust in God as the God who is faithful to the unfaithful, who in spite of their own forgetfulness has not forgotten them, who without any cooperation or merit on their part wills that they should life and not die. In the call of Jesus one is met by the fulfilled promise of God as valid for her or him. In and with the command of Jesus, solid ground is placed under their feet when they are on the point of falling into the abyss. What the command requires of them is simply, but comprehensively, that in practice as well as in theory they should regard it as able to bear him, and stand on it, and no longer leave it.[25]

Honestly, I have a hard time getting excited about telling somebody they are “already saved.” This doesn’t sound like being an “agent of reconciliation,” but a mailman, announcing a reconciliation which has already occurred. True, a few people may have a marginally better life, but then also some will have a harder road in Christ – and ultimately, “so what?” If they’re saved, they’ll find out eventually anyways. Why sacrifice my life, and the lives of my family for that? A straight job sounds very appealing right about now…

If along the third main line of the texts in question we have to do with the overcoming, proclaimed with the incursion of the kingdom of God, of the false separation between man and man revealed in the friend-foe relationship and concretely expressing itself in the exercise of force along a fourth line we have, conversely, the dissolution of self-evident attachments between one person and another.[26]

In this passage, and the surrounding texts, Barth seems dangerously close to pacifism. The connection would be logical, since Harnack and other Liberals leaned towards pacifism at times, and also because Bonhoeffer was a pacifist. So far as I could tell, he never concretely stated his position in this text: I wonder what his stance was?

 As a medium, what is historical, the human word of the witness to revelation, demands our total, concentrated, and serious attention. But only as a medium, not for its own sake and not to be understood in terms of itself, but as witness which itself needs witness and expects witness – the witness that its subject must give. This giving is an event, an action, the action of God in the strictest sense of the term. The point of our own action as hearers and expositors of the gospel stands or falls with God’s action through the instrument with which we have to do.[27]

If I hear him correctly, Barth is saying that Scriptures require the Holy Spirit to be interpreted. This is true and valid up to a point. For example, the non-Christian scholar Harnack was able to read Jesus and understand certain things about his message. Even when the Spirit comes, He opens our minds to learn real truth not merely (although this in itself would be no small thing) to present us with the person of Jesus.

What might at first seem to be exegetically very remote in the passage from Augustine is in fact typically Johannine. There is said in it by way of introduction something which has to be said by way of introduction to the exposition of all biblical books as such: the great Yes and No with which these books call us to themselves only to point us to the Lord, as the Baptist pointed his disciples. This is the radical procedure of the Gospel, or at least a distinctive example of it.[28]

This passage is, I believe, a summary of Barth’s hermeneutical system. I am still just struggling to know: 1) how can the witnesses be trustworthy if they are fallible? 2) how can the witnesses lead us to a relationship if they reveal no propositional information? 3) if propositional revelation is not contained in Scriptures, then where does Barth get his propositional information about, for example, the Trinity?

He [Jesus] did not represent or defend or champion any programme – whether political, economic, moral or religious, whether conservative or progressive. He was equally suspected and disliked by the representatives of all such programmes, although he did not particularly attack any of them. …he enjoyed and displayed…a remarkable freedom which again we can only describe as royal // …He simply revealed the limit and frontier of all these things – the freedom of the kingdom of God. He simply existed in this freedom, and summoned others to it.

Freedom is a statement of negation. It is meaningless without a captor to which to be enslaved: therefore, isn’t making “freedom” a fundamental attribute of Jesus dangerously close to a relationship of necessity? Without humanity, this attribute would be meaningless.

The statement “he did not particularly attack any of them” is surprising – certainly the Pharisees felt singled out!

“He did not represent or defend or champion any programme” – really? What was he doing in the statements, “You have heard it said, but I tell you…”?

Bibliography

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. trans. T & T Clark inc. ed. Helmut Gollwitzer, Church

Dogmatics: A Selection with Introduction. Louisville, LD: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.

Barth, Karl. “The Bremen Sermon,” in Two Sermons by Karl Barth. Edited by Kurt I.

Johanson. Translated by Christopher Asprey. Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 2007.

Barth, Karl. The Call to Discipleship, Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edited by K. C.

Hanson. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. [kindle book] available from Amazon.ca

Barth, Karl. Witness to the World: A Commentary on John I. Edited by Walther Furst.

Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers,

1986.

---

[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. T & T Clark inc. ed. Helmut Gollwitzer, Church Dogmatics: A Selection with Introduction, (Louisville, LD: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 151-152.

[2] Gollwitzer, Church Dogmatics, 132-133.

[3] Ibid, 110.

[4] Ibid, 112.

[5] Gollwitzer, Church Dogmatics, 170.

[6] Ibid, 167.

[7] Gollwitzer, 171.

[8] Gollwitzer, Church Dogmatics, 100.

[9] Gollwitzer, Church Dogmatics, 110

[10] Gollwitzer, Church Dogmatics, 164.

[11] Ibid, 165-166.

[12] Ibid, 126-127.

[13] Ibid, 166.

[14] Ibid, 152.

[15] Gollwitzer, 153.

[16] Gollwitzer, 121.

[17] Gollwitzer, Church Dogmatics, 110-111.

[18] Ibid, 111.

[19] Ibid, 117.

[20] Ibid, 172.

[21] Karl Barth, “The Bremen Sermon,” in Two Sermons by Karl Barth, ed. Kurt I. Johanson, trans. Christopher Asprey, (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 2007), 48-49.

[22]

[23] Karl Barth, The Call to Discipleship, trans. G. W. Bromiley, ed. K. C. Hanson, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press) [kindle book] section 62 of 545. [Note to Guretzki: kindle books don’t have page numbers, they have “sections”]

[24] When in Barth, do as the Barthians do!

[25] Barth, The Call to Discipleship, sec. 111.

[26] Barth, The Call to Discipleship, sec. 433.

[27] Karl Barth, Witness to the World: A Commentary on John I, ed. Walther Furst, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1986), 7.

[28] Karl Barth, Witness to the World, 18.

 

Stubborn Theology

Ezekiel 3:7-9, “Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate. Behold, I have made your face as hard as their faces and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. Like emery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house. …So the Spirit lifted me up and took me away; and I went embittered in the rage of my spirit, and the hand of the LORD was strong on me. Then I came to the exiles who lived beside the river Chebar at Tel-abib, and I sat there seven days where they were living, causing consternation among them.”

This is a hard saying! I am not exactly sure how it fits with “let your speech be always with grace” “do not rebuke an older man, but appeal to him,” etc. However, I see now that I have at times used emotional sensitivity as an excuse for intellectual laziness.

Today, as I wrestled with Karl Barth, I kept these words in mind. Stubborn, angry resistance is at times necessary in the pursuit of truth.

 

Barth: Theology of God

Okay, so I am just blazing my way through Gollwitzer’s “Church Dogmatics.” Got five pages done already!!

So far, I think I agree with Barth on the theology of God, but I still have questions…

I agree with Barth that God cannot be simply the human ideals about “excellence” and “perfection” and “timelessness.” These ideas are just the opposite of what we experience on earth (the mundane, the imperfect, the time-bound). Unless God reveals Himself to us, we could not know Him: if we know God without Him revealing Himself to us, I would suspect that He is not really “super-natural,” but only part of the created world. To say it another way – if I could find God in the same way that I could find the periodic table, I would assume that God belonged in the same category as the periodic table. He would belong to the “created order.” That would make me a pantheist, not a Christian.

What Barth has to say about God revealing Himself to us through Jesus, as revealed in the Word all sounds very orthodox. Now, I only feel some hesitation about some things I have heard people say about Barth. They say that Barth doesn’t like systematic theology, since that is taking ownership over the object of revelation. The point about not owning God is excellent, and a much-needed correction over Liberal theology, which had the audacity to come up with “existentialist theology,” “platonic theology,” etc…as though God was what we wanted Him to be.

My question is, however, “Is it possible to really know God, as He has revealed Himself to us in the Scriptures?” If so, is it then possible to construct a very comprehensive systematic theology? Not because we are smart, you see, but because God has very mercifully revealed so much of Himself? Elsewhere, I believe He has called such an approach a “Paper-pope” (note: actually, I think that was his associate who said that…what was his name?). Since we cannot really know the God who is so much beyond us.

So which is it? Is God knowable or unknowable? Is systematic theology in or out? This is what my reformed heart wants to know…

 

Questions for Barth on Scripture

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic.

Barth seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he seems to want to affirm Liberal scholarship. On the other, he wishes to affirm Evangelical faith and piety. But these two are as incompatible as fire and water. Here are some questions I would like to ask my Barthian professor Dave Guretzki when I get the chance. I think they get to the bottom of the issues surrounding Barthian Hermeneutics:

1) Is Israelite religion part of the upwards-questing march of human ingenuity and evolution, or is it a product of God’s revelation of Himself?

2) Are Scriptures:
a. Records of real events, where God interacted with humanity and revealed
Himself
b. Merely stories invented by humans, meant to convey information about a
God they had some personal/internal relationship with?
i) If these myths are in some way inspired, are they not a product of
“natural revelation”?

3) How are the Old Testament prophecies (fulfilled in the NT) explained?
a. Is it fluke?
b. Did New Testament writers forge the supposed “fulfillment”?
c. Did God reveal the future in the OT, then fulfill it in the NT?
i) If so, why did He do so imperfectly? (since Barth does not affirm inerrancy)

 

Barth: Musings on “God Here and Now”

Barth seems basically agnostic about the details of the Final Judgment and afterlife. This has me wondering:

1) Does this flow basically from Kant (who placed an impassible chasm between the realm of the physical/material/scientific and the spiritual/emotional/religious?)

2) Does Barth leave open the possibility that Hell really may be as bad as the Church has (almost) always said it is?

3) What does he do with:

a. The clear teachings of Scripture on this point?

b. The Scriptures where God uses the coming judgment as a motivation for action
(e.g. 2 Pet. 3:10-13)?

 

Barth: Goals for Class

I could study Barth all my life, and still not understand the man. However, here are my two rather modest goals for the upcoming class on Karl Barth:

1) Understand Barth’s unique take on the Gospel, and be able to briefly and succinctly express it, especially in differentiation from Evangelical and Reformed Orthodoxy

2) Understand Barth’s unique Christology, especially his take on the historical Jesus, the Jesus of Scriptures, the second member of the trinity, the Greek “Logos” and John’s “Logos,” etc. I also really want to know what in the world people mean when they say Barth “actualized Chalcedon.”

 

Barth at the News-Stand

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic.

[Note: I need a cartoonist! If you can draw, and you think this cartoon is note-worthy, by all-means draw it and send it to me!]

The image is this: a news-stand with various magazines, all portraying various messages:

Vanity Fair: “Red is in, Blue is out.”

Sports Illustrated: “Anorexic is in, Fleshy is out.”

Wheels: “Fuel-Efficient is in, Gas-Guzzling is out.”

Theology Today: “Barth is in, Calvinism is out.”

The collective message of all of the above (Theology definitely included) is that there seems to be a consensus of style, a heirarchy of opinion driving theology. Is Barth worthy of the attention he receives? Perhaps. Perhaps not. At any rate, it seems very difficult to question him, since “all the cool theologians” have read him and rave about him. It seems like it would be a long and difficult road to walk, to be a theologian who dislikes or refutes Barth.

Exactly how much of this “peer-reviewed” science is dominated by peer-pressure, do you think?

 

Barth: The Gospel in Moderation

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic.

“Neither rain, nor sleet, nor gloom of night stays these holy couriers from the swift delivery of the Gospel message, ‘You are already saved, every one of you, in Jesus Christ!!’

….however, when it comes to losing homes and possessions, to enduring physical violence, death, hardships, persecutions, martyrdoms…? Well, you can just forget it! After all, it’s just the mail, right? If it’s really true, they will get the message soon enough, and it won’t make much difference in the end anyways, will it?

 

Barthianism: Panacea, or Placebo?

This is an excerpt from my journal, which I kept while studying for a class on Karl Barth. It does not represent my finished thoughts on Barth. Please read my later posts on Barthianism, and especially my paper “The Gospel According to Barth” for my finished thoughts on the topic.

Like Liberalism, Barthianism answers many thorny questions for that most troubled of creatures – the Christian trying to swim upstream in the mighty torrents of Modern/Postmodern intelligentsia. It provides a method of integrating Christianity with Enlightenment Rationality, it eases our concerns over Hell (the Christian doctrine which provides a frontal assault on Humanism!), and it provides a path for radical ecumenism and unity. However, it proposes nothing basically new or compelling for the average non-Christian.

At best, the non-Christian will likely say, “Oh! My sins are already paid for? That’s great! Hope you’re right! Guess I’ll just go on with life as usual…”

That is why the great missionaries of Barthianism have gone not to the missions fields – where they have gone, they have chilled revival flames – but have gone instead to seminaries, churches and denominations of Christians. To the world, Barth offers nothing but sugar-water: “what you are doing is great! Do it more-so, and have a nice day!” But to the troubled Academic/Christian, Barth is water in a dry and thirsty land.

Barthianism is a panacea for the troubled Christian’s conscience, and a placebo to a dying world…

 

Initial Musings on Barth

While preparing for a class on Karl Barth, I was assigned quite a few books by Barth. As I read, I was desperately seeking some way of summarizing, contextualizing or understanding Barth. Below are some of my early attempts to comprehend where this theologian is coming from. These musings do not represent my finished thoughts on Barth: please continue reading my posts on Barth to see my final convictions.)

“Barth can only be understood within his Reformed tradition. He seems to be taking sovereignty to such an extreme that man is neither  free nor really culpable for his sin. Thus God can and must save all in Christ.”

“Barthianism is a plea bargain with the Devil! With it, the scholar gains his own soul, but forfeits (a mission for) the world in the process!”

“You can always tell when Barth is feeling intellectually cornered. This is when he comes up with his most pithy, prosaic statements. In so doing, he is often able to turn the tables on his opponents, throw dust in their eyes, and slip out of their intellectual grasp. His rhetorical maneuverability is ingenious! However, for those truly concerned with seeking after truth, his methodology cannot be anything other than frustrating…”

“When followed to its logical conclusion, Barthianism seems to provide no distinction between the Christian and non-Christian except for the rather flimsy dilineation that one side knows they are saved, while the other does not yet know.”

“I now know where Rob Bell gets his theology from! He seems to utilize this very theology to state that the only meaningful distinction between the Christian and non is works. I wonder how Barth would respond to this?”

“The problem with the human race is not that we are sick with sin – it is taht we are dead in it. Our soul putrifies while our flesh clings to a fleeting half-life. We do not need the deadly tourniquitte of religion to bring new life. But neither do we need this deadly salve, this false Gospel, of Barthianism – this message that “We are saved already,” and should just start living as though this were true.

In repentance and rest is our salvation – but there is no rest for the wicked. Therefore, when we hear His call, let us not harde our hearts, as they did in the wilderness, when thousands died as a judgment on their heard hearts. Rather, what is the word from Heaven? “Behold, I set before you death and life. Therefore, choose life!” 

 

Questions for My Barthian Teacher

Below is an e-mail which I wrote to Dave Guretzki. Rather than taking up my (rather impractical and imposing) invitation to conversation, Dave informed me that he would be offering a class on this subject, which he did in January of 2011.

Dear Dr. Gruetzki:

Hello there!

It has been a while since we talked in person, and it will be a while until we talk again, since I am hoping to take most of the rest of my seminary by correspondence. There are some things which I am really struggling with, however, and you seem to be the natural person to talk to about them, since they all tie back to Karl Barth.

Would it be possible to schedule a meeting by phone in the next few weeks, to talk about some of my questions? Mondays work best for me, if that works for you. I will leave it up to you to pick the time, since you have the busier schedule.

If nothing works out soon, I am fine with waiting: my questions do not come with a “deadline,” or anything.

I know that your time is limited, and so I have chosen to write this rather long e-mail to maximize efficiency. In this way, you will be able to skim quickly over a concise presentation of my thoughts, rather than listening to my faltering attempts at verbal precision on the phone.

I had never heard of Barth until I entered seminary, and since that time, it seemed at times like I was hearing of no-one else! Naturally, this lead to a desire to know more about this man. Because there did not seem to be classes at Briercrest which studied Barth as an objective subject, I looked online – specifically at iTunes U – to find some scholarly voices on the subject.

Those who seemed to have the most to say about Barth were Reformed “VanTillian” thinkers. You will probably not be surprised that these people had more critiques than affirmations when it came to Barth. Some of the material is beyond me, but in what I understand, I am feeling myself siding against Barth. I am hoping that you can present the other side of this debate, or at least point me to some names and titles which can speak in favor of Barth, as I continue to grow in my understanding of 20^th century theology.

OVERVIEW OF MY EMERGING THOUGHTS

I am beginning to see Barth as analogous to Brevard Childs. Childs was a man who excelled for years at Liberal (secular?) hermeneutics, but eventually felt a distinct lack when he realized that the theology which he was practicing was different from the faith of the Reformers and left no room for the faith which he cherished in his own heart. The rest of his legacy could be described as a monumental striving to bridge the impossible gap between the historical-critical method and the Christian faith.

I mention Childs not to say that I have formed a final opinion of the man, but by way of illustration: Increasingly, I am seeing Barth’s legacy in a similar light – as a monumental attempt to bridge an impossible gap.

BARTH’S OBSTACLE: LESSING’S UGLY DITCH

It seems to me that Barth is stumbling over that same obstacle which Kierkegaard and others struggled with – Lessing’s ugly ditch. If I can put this problem into my own words, Lessing understands that history as based ultimately on sensory data, which is flawed. Also, in no time or place does anybody have a “God’s-eye-view” of events, and so it is impossible to draw true applications from the disparate events of one’s day. Finally, the transmission of data from one generation to the next is flawed. The upshot of this is that we cannot know with absolute certainty exactly what Matthew originally wrote about what he thinks he saw, even if we were to trust his words (which we should not).

By the time Barth comes on the scene, the Liberal wing of the church had become quite comfortable setting up shop on “their side” of the ugly ditch: however, Barth found this “faith” to be quite lacking in view of the crises of his era. His solution is to engages in a thorough deconstruction of Liberalism (which I approve of), and then to spend the rest of his life trying to bridge Lessing’s ditch for himself, through existentialism (which I am not so sure about).

BARTH’S SOLUTION: EXISTENTIALISM

I find epistemology to be an ironic discipline, because while it is supposedly the study of “knowing,” those who spend too much time formulating a comprehensive epistemology almost inevitably end up with a system which warps all of knowledge around only one aspect of knowing. Thus, philosophers seems less in touch with reality, more inclined to insanity, and less able to function in the real world than their contemporaries, who apprehend reality in a more ad-hock fashion.

Existentialism, as I understand it, is an epistemological system which interprets all of reality around human experience. The old question, “If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, did it really fall?” seems to be a watershed question: an existentialist would answer “no:” since no human had an experience of a tree falling, it did not occur.

Barth seems to tip his hat to Lessing’s ditch in his discussion of “Historie,” then builds his theology of “Geshichta” around a basically existential understanding of God: we know God because we experience Him.

How? When? Where?

First, we must understand that God is timeless – He is eternally present to us all, in Himself. Even as we rush through time, He is always near us, in the present. His entering into history seems historical to our perspective: however, to Him all of His intrusions into calendar-time are one – they all happen in “Geshichta,” in God’s special “time-space bubble,” if you will. God intruded into this world by setting it in motion, by talking to the patriarchs, by coming at Pentecost, by revealing Himself in sermons, etc. – but all of His intrusions are echoes forwards or echoes backwards to His prime revelation of Himself as Christ on the cross. The prime experience of God with this world was that moment when “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself,” (2 Cor. 5:19): that is, the moment at which the “being” in God overcame the “non-being” in God. All other events participate in that one event, but they are subordinate to it.

How is Lessing’s ditch bridged, then? God meets with His people ultimately in Christ, who is mediated through Scriptures and through preaching. These encounters are momentary from our perspective – but they are true existential occurrences of meeting with the divine. It is in these events – and in the fact that they are mediatedonly through Scriptures and Christian preaching (most definitely not through natural revelation!) – that a Christian may/must place their faith and trust.

Thus, Barth sees Scriptures as fallible, in agreement with Lessing and the Liberal camp: however, he sees God’s use of fallible Scriptures not as contradictory, but as an example of His great grace. The God who could speak through Balaam’s donkey, can also speak through such a book as Isaiah – a book written by three authors, handled roughly in transmission, and redacted beyond recognition by who-knows-who.

IS BARTH BIBLICAL?

I am not sure whether I am understanding Barth correctly: I would very much like to know whether my brief sketch above is accurate!

If my sketch is accurate, I would tend to see Barth as “the best option, considering a poor starting-point.” If one accepts Lessing’s presuppositions, I suppose that Barth’s solution to the problem is among the best out there: but isn’t Lessing’s ditch the unique problem of a modern/scientific/empirical worldview?

LESSING’S UGLY PRECIPICE

I mentioned that Lessing has some dangerous presuppositions. I believe that the chief of these is one that runs deep to the core of our modern/scientific worldview: the belief that until science has spoken, there is no truth. No herbal remedy or folk cure should be trusted until “the experts” have done their job. Likewise, no text or document should be trusted until the experts have combed over it and sorted out the truth from the errors.

Here there is a problem, however. Although pop-scientists talk often about “facts” and “proven realities,” the real scientists know that nothing is certain. Even something as basic as the boiling point of water is only likely to be at a certain temperature, given the known variables. Nothing is known for certain – there are only probabilities. Also, every few generations, the established norm is overthrown for a completely new paradigm.

For this reason, the most logical stance of a scientist is “skepticism.” Until a thing is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it should not be believed. Even when it is believed, the thing must be held loosely – nothing can be known for sure.

I do not debate at all that Lessing’s ditch exists: however, you notice that it did not emerge until the modern era. It is the skepticism of the empirical worldview which creates this ditch. The ditch is not the problem: it is standing on top of “precipice” of the modern/scientific worldview which creates the problem!

TOWARDS A SCRIPTURAL HERMENEUTIC

According to Scriptures, there is no ditch. Rather, the Biblical writers predicate their words on accuratesensory-experience (1 John 1:1). They write their accounts guided by inspiration (1 Pet. 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:16), and bequeath their testimonies to “faithful men,” (2 Tim. 2:2, Col. 4:16) to be held to and expounded form (2 Thess. 2:15) without diminution or alteration (2 Pet. 3:16, [Rev. 22:18-19?]), as an enduring and accurate possession of the Church and foundation for faith (John 20:31).

No bridge must be built from our side: God has already built one from His side, in the holy writ of Scriptures!

Of course this doesn’t make any sense to the modern scholarly community…but whose approval/disapproval do we fear in the end?

RETURNING TO BARTH

In reading Childs and Barth, I kept feeling like they were working very hard…but I had no connection with the enemy against which they fought. (At least not until I took “current issues in Biblical interpretation.”) At the end of decades of hard-won ground, it seemed they had returned again (and only barely!) to the level of my Sunday-school teacher. Finally they were able to speak of a God who communicates to us through Scripture, who died for our sins, who loves us and who made a wonderful place for us to be with Him after death. Although I greatly admire their wisdom on some points, and stand in awe of their monumental careers, I cannot help but wonder if these two (particularly Barth) have spent their lives climbing out of a hole which I could just as easily walk around?

A TENTATIVE WAY FORWARD

Evangelicals, of course, default to saying that the Bible is “inerrant.” I like it that this provides a quick and easy path across the ditch, but it seems to be a bridge of glass. This is saying, in effect, that Scriptures have passed all of the tests of science, before and in spite of any evidence to the contrary. As soon as someone comes in contact with Liberal scholarship, or one error (no matter how tiny or inconsequential!) the entire system shatters. Also, it affirms the critical flaw with the whole system – it allows Science to set itself up as judge and jury over God’s word.

My thoughts on this are very tentative: however, perhaps what must be done is to begin with God, and allow every man to be a liar. What do Scriptures say? They begin with a God who is, and a God who speaks. He is the judge of all the earth, and none judge Him. The grass withers, the flowers fade – but the word of our God stands forever.

In ancient Greece, the cross of shame and “folly” was a crucified Lord, and a bodily resurrection: perhaps our cross of shame in this day is a Bible which demands that we hold it above the opinions and preconceptions of the ever-shifting scientific consensus.

When we talk next, then, I will be curious about the following things:

1)    Do I have Barth nailed, or am I seeing him too much through the lenses of the secondary material?

2)    Short of reading the entire Dogmatics, where can I go to hear the other side of the perspective?

3)    Do I have Lessing, the ditch, and Liberalism somewhat figured out?

4)    Do you agree with me that there may be a way to circumvent the ditch, by abandoning some aspects of modern/scientific thought?

5)     (Most importantly) do you see a thesis in here somewhere?

I look forward to our conversation, even if I have to wait for it!

Thank you and God bless!

- Josiah

SOME ADDITIONAL MISC. POINTS, JUST IN CASE THERE IS EXTRA TIME

1. I have also heard that Barth conflates the person and work of Christ, by saying that Christ is the work of God. This makes sense in an existential framework (I am my experiences, as I progressively reveal/discover who I am by making free choices which lead to new experiences), however I don’t see it borne out in Scriptures, where the Father and the Son and the Spirit act – at times simultaneously, in harmony but distinction. (e.g. who was speaking in Mat. 3:17? Who was coming down from the Father, and resting on Jesus?)

2. Barth says that when we meet with God, it is instantaneous, and we are immediately left with only memory and longing. This, to me, places Barth exactly where he started – trusting faltering sensory data and memory/memory-transmission. If there is an ugly ditch separating us from Matthew, how can I trust Barth – or, for that matter, my own memory – when relating a more recent occurrence of “Geshichta”? The difference between trusting your own memory and trusting the gospel accounts is not a difference of quality, but of quantity: you still must blindly place your trust in potentially flawed systems of data-recognition and information storage and transmission.

3. In “Evangelical Theology,” Barth says that the love of God comes before the wrath of God. How does this fit with the teachings of Scripture that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”? Also, when Peter preached on Pentecost, he started with the bad news. Once people were “cut to the heart” over their sin and the wrath to come, he shared the gospel. Barth seems to have things backwards here…

4. Perhaps tied to the above comment…I have heard that Barth talks of sin/salvation/redemption as all occurring within God. This is the moment when God’s “non-being” is overcome by His “being.” How does this fit with the Scriptural teaching that “there is none righteous, no, not one.” Also, there is that tired out accusation that Barth can’t seem to free himself from….isn’t Barth being a universalist here? I heard that in one of Barth’s books (a collection of sermons), Barth reveals that his sermon which he preached to convicts in prison was that, “You are already redeemed – now live like it!” Is this a misrepresentation? If not, isn’t this promoting works-righteousness, and false security? I have also heard that Barth’s theology on this point has dramatically reduced the desire and effectiveness of missionary work in the 20’th century. Again…just wondering how much of this is true, and looking forward to some answers or hints towards resources.

 

Pestering my Barthian Teacher

This e-mail is OLD: however, it represents my first interest in Barth, and a request for a class exclusively on Karl Barth, which (perhaps because of my pestering) finally came to fruition in 2011.

Dear Dave,I am not sure whether this e-mail will catch you before your sabbatical. If so, I was intending to inject a thought into your mind, to mull over for a while. My thought is this: why not write a new elective for Briercrest, called “An introduction to Barthian Theology.” I say this because I feel like I am continually behind the 8-ball, so to speak, because I am not more familliar with Barth. For one thing, nearly all of my theology papers – graded by you or anyone else – come back with variations of the comment “very good…but if you would just consider THIS aspect of Barth’s theology, it would make all the difference….” Also, most of the modern theology texts I read  use Barth extensively, and I feel that if I graduate without being able to do the same, there will be a significant lack in my education. Of course I COULD pick up Barth and start reading…but I honestly do not have time for such “hobby-reading.” Also, I doubt that I would know where to start, and would never get to the real meat of his theology, in the same way as I would in an actual class. To me, there does not seem to be a reason why the school should NOT dedicate a class to him. After all, we study the patristics, the Reformers, and modern scholars. From what I hear, Barthian theology is something of a fourth era of theology – “the wave of the future” (if you will allow the sci-fi lingo into theological dialog!). This being said, it is strange that a school such as Briercrest does NOT offer classes on his work, life and thoughts directly, and only allows their students indirect acces to him, as he intersects with various topics. I know that such a class would be a massive undertaking: however, I have heard light-hearted comments about you adopting Barth as your patron saint, and you certainly seem to enjoy reading him. So you seem like a likely candidate to teach this class. Likely it would be massively enjoyable and beneficial both to yourself and to your students. Think about it. Enjoy your time off!! - Josiah PS – Thank you for your kind words on my paper. They have deeply encouraged me!