Thread: Why is Barth so popular?

Hi Everybody!

Y'all know what I think of Barth. But I have a serious question. How did he get so popular. Why did people promote his stuff instead of the better theologians who are out there?




P.s. This is the best forum I could find to post this question on. If any mod thinks another is better, please feel free to move it. I had a hard time figuring which one to start on.

Tim,

You need to consider the environment in which KB emerged. Liberalism reigned in Continental scholarship. Barth took his theological studies under Harnack's disciple Wilhelm Herrmann. When Barth had his epiphany about the emptiness of liberalism and wrote his Der Römerbrief, it was like someone set off a bomb in theological circles.

Barth's method of dialectical theology may be popular because it tries to forge a middle ground between polarities. Insofar as he lifts up antithetical propositions and is comfortable with paradox and mystery, he seems to give non-fundamentalists a way in which they can claim to be in the orthodox mainstream while not becoming fundys. And, inasmuch as he denied the liberal obsessions with immanence, his writing was a refreshing change stressing the sovereignty of God.

For me, the three issues keeping me from being a Barthian are . . .

1. His problematic view of history (Geschichte vs. Historie).
2. His denial of inerrancy and "propositional revelation."
3. His implicit (albeit never fully admitted) universalism.

Remember, Tim, in academic circles there are precious few defenders of scholastic Protestantism. Guys like Turretin (and Hodge and Warfield for that matter), were treated like the bad guys when I was in seminary. Carl F.H. Henry (despite the role he played in the early history of my alma mater), Francis Schaeffer, and the Princetonians were all treated with the greatest disregard and dismissal by some of my sys theo profs. One of them even used the "facts" of Schaeffer's bio as the basis for a case study where students were encouraged to ridicule old Francis.

Thanks DMcFadden!

"And, inasmuch as he denied the liberal obsessions with immanence, his writing was a refreshing change stressing the sovereignty of God."

Refreshing? I've heard this and just don't get it. The theological liberalism must have been more domminant than I give it credit. I guess that without living in that time, I probably won't. If Paradox and Mystery is something that was lacking, if he brought it back, I guess he actually did some good. (Don't tell anybody I said that) Hmmm.

Tim,

But, one of the most infuriating aspects of his theology is the way he gives with one hand and takes with the other. Against liberals, he affirmed the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. But, when Carl Henry asked him what one would see if he was an eye-witness on Resurrection morning, he asked Henry if he said he was representing Chrisitanity Today or Christianity Yesterday?

It's funny though. A guy like Tillich had no patience for Barth's weasel wording. Are the "facts" of the Gospels historical or not? Liberal Tillich would frankly say "not." Barth would argue that they are historical but could not be proven. Is the Bible the Word of God? For Barth the Bible witnessed to Revelation. Listening to it offers the opportunity for it to become God's Word to you.

Plus, not many theologians write 9,000 page ST.

He certainly considered himself Reformed. However, he would never have been accepted on PB.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Tim,

But, one of the most infuriating aspects of his theology is the way he gives with one hand and takes with the other. Against liberals, he affirmed the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. But, when Carl Henry asked him what one would see if they were an eye-witness on Resurrection morning, he asked Henry if he said he was representing Chrisitanity Today or Christianity Yesterday?

Plus, not many theologians write 9,000 page ST.

He certainly considered himself Reformed. However, he would never have been accepted on PB.

That's good. His followers have been a thorn in my side in the PCUSA. I've studied the good and great theologians. I've been wondering why people don't stick with the greats instead of going for what's trendy or modern? The classical theological categories seem far better than redefining them. The Christianity Today or Christianity Yesterday is hilarious! For He's the same, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow!

Ugh. I grew up in the 60s and 70s listening to Barth, Bultmann, Moltmann, Stendahl, and the like quoted from the pulpit WAY more often than any human should have had to endure. That was liberal mainline life back in the day.

Then there was a time of relief when the liberation theologists and spiritual construct people were trotted out. They were much easier to tune out.

Along the way, my husband and I became Christians and attended a Evang. Cov. church. We started during Experiencing God, went through WWJD, Prayer of Jabez, Secret of the Vine, a couple John Maxwell fund-raisers and finally fled after 40 Days of Purpose, thus avoiding Stepping Out of the Boat.

After all that, we sympathized with the Young Evangelicals, until they started quoted Barth, Bultmann, and the rest of the team. We cried out, "No! Not again!" and "Great idea! Fix broken Evangelicalism by becoming Mainline Heretics!"

We thank God from the bottoms of our heart for our little OPC church. We hope to stay until we die, Jesus Returns, or our Pastor trots out Krister Stendahl!

He is only popular today in liberal circles like the PCUSA and perhaps among leftward tilting evangelicals who will be in the same place as the liberal mainliners before long. As a new Christian I recognized the falsehood of a PCUSA preacherette being interviewed in the local paper and equating Barth with reformed theology.

Tim,

If you want to see two very different "takes" on Barth, try Van Til and Berkouwer. Both claimed to be Reformed, and they reach opposite opinions on Karl. Some have churlishly observed that Berkouwer's The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth should more rightly be named, The Triumph of Karl Barth in the Theology of G.C. Berkouwer.

My major sys theo prof in college was an evangelical Barthian (more the latter than the former ). In seminary, several of my profs studied under Barth and one was the co-translator of his magnum opus, Church Dogamtics. Now that I run a retirement community, one of my residents (Daniel Fuller), did his second doctorate in Basel and had lots of exposure to Barth, and another dear older friend also earned his doctorate in Basel and attended Barth's classes.

Barth-speak drove my wife nuts during college and seminary. She avoided ST like the plague because she could not understand why so many grown men were so infatuated with someone who could not utter a single univocal declarative sentence. (BTW - her degree was a M.A. with a focus in children and family).

In my case, my "issues" with Barth are also more pastoral. I have so little patience with adulterous men that Barth's "unique" relationship with Lollo (e.g., living in the Barth household all those decades and spending summers alone with Barth in his retreat) drives me nuts. What's with that?

For a time in the 60s and 70s Barth was cool for the mainline. Now, they have moved on to the lastest best new nonsense and Barth is cool for leftward evangelicals. Much of his writing is brilliant and worthy of the designation "most important theologian" of his era. He will probably always be on my top 10 list for theologians. However, it is more of a critical appreciation than one of support or endorsement. Last week my CD-ROM of the Church Dogmatics came from Libronix so I sent off my 14 vol. hard copy set to the first bidder on PB who said he will use it on his doctoral dissertation (it should arrive on Monday). But, frankly, at 54, there is too much Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, etc. to read (not to mention the Puritans) before I die to have much time for Barth. He will mainly be used for research purposes in my library.

I have been listening to a Covenant Seminary prof lecture on church history on my iPod this week. He tells that when he was in seminary (Covenant), they told him that Barth was a dangerous liberal. Then, when he did PhD work at Princeton, they told him that Barth was a dangerous conservative (almost fundamentalist). Truth be told: louder than any other theologian of his time, Barth thumbed his nose at reductionistic liberalism with its excessively immanent "theology." For that I am grateful. Or, as one of my college profs used to say: "KB (Karl Barth) will be in heaven, but KD (Die Kirchliche Dogmatic) will not be.

I hope Mr. McFadden or someone else with similar expertise will correct me if I'm wrong, but my general impression is that in the unbelieving scholarly world works become popular and then classic primarily because their devoted readers, by and large, have no solid foundation from which to discern nonsense. Hence there is no defense against Schweitzer, or Davies or Sanders. So the prevailing winds in Pauline scholarship have blown first this way, then that, then the other way again. The scholars have no solid foundation. Now what sets one apart from another or makes him suddenly pre-eminent, when they're all spouting nonsense? Of course a lot of it is is simply the ability to seem profound and to speak or write with an air that is impressive to those in your time and place. But in addition to that, I wonder if it isn't a function of the silent conspiracy to give one another importance. A lot of people will give importance to some scholar by citing them approvingly or at least respectfully; then you'll have someone come along who really has no more wisdom or learning than the other man, but who does have the guts to disagree vigorously and in an engaging fashion. Now they give one another importance through controversy, and the winner becomes the new standard: until another young buck comes along to dethrone him. I think you see the same principles holding true in other fields of academic endeavour --philosophy, linguistics, psychology, etc. There can be real progress only when there is a real foundation (and when that foundation is not despised, but appreciated and built upon).

Originally Posted by py3ak

I hope Mr. McFadden or someone else with similar expertise will correct me if I'm wrong, but my general impression is that in the unbelieving scholarly world become popular and then classic more because their devoted readers, by and large, have no solid foundation from which to discern nonsense. Hence there is no defense against Schweitzer, or Davies or Sanders. So the prevailing winds in Pauline scholarship have blown first this way, then that, then the other way again. The scholars have no solid foundation. Now what sets one apart from another or makes him suddenly pre-eminent, when they're all spouting nonsense? Of course a lot of it is is simply the ability to seem profound and to speak or write with an air that is impressive to those in your time and place. But in addition to that, I wonder if it isn't a function of the silent conspiracy to give one another importance. A lot of people will give importance to some scholar by citing them approvingly or at least respectfully; then you'll have someone come along who really has no more wisdom or learning than the other man, but who does have the guts to disagree vigorously and in an engaging fashion. Now they give one another importance through controversy, and the winner becomes the new standard: until another young buck comes along to dethrone him. I think you see the same principles holding true in other fields of academic endeavour --philosophy, linguistics, psychology, etc. There can be real progress only when there is a real foundation (and when that foundation is not despised, but appreciated and built upon).

Ruben, don't know about having expertise, but with too many years in evangelical institutions, it is my bias that today's evangelicals tend to get infatuated with the toys once the more liberal folks get tired of them. Still, based on the standard criteria of the academy (incuding conservative schools) I have no doubt that Barth will be among the most influential theologians of all time (so is St. Thomas - yech!).

My immediate fear is that if you track what the mainline is saying today, you will have a pretty fair indicator of what the evangelicals will be accepting tomorrow. My pilgrimage to confessional Chrisitianity is an attempt to go against the grain. It is no panacea and certainly no infallible protection against error. But, if we ever needed confessional Christianity it is NOW! May the Lord find us faithful.

From a time management perspective, C.S. Lewis' advice about old books vs. new books is becoming more obvious the older I get. As a kid, my library was full of thousands of the latest and greatest commentators and theologians. Now it is growing with Puritans and Reformation/Post-Reformation dogmatics. Why did it take me until my 50s to figure out such a simple principle of time management and the stewardship of life? If you devote yourself to the classics, it will not matter if you have read the latest tripe that is "popular" for the moment.

I think you're on to something there. It seems that from liberal to evangelical to fundamentalist the difference is often primarily simply how up-to-date one is. May we be given grace to not be out-of-date liberals but steadfast confessors of the faith once delivered.

I always thought people liked Barth because they think he's on The Simpsons...

You mean he's not? You must be one of those people who think that "Calvin and Hobbes" are some old dead dudes instead of comic strip characters!

Barth is not just popular amongst liberals or some post-modern evangelicals. He is very popular in many "Evangelical" seminaries, and I know for a fact his thoughts are the main influences in many of the Asian Protestant Seminaries. Even when people don't quote Barth, but (like the recent WTS seminary controversy) there will be people that sounds very suspiciously like Barth. The genius of Barth is that people take him to be a great defender of the faith, against the scholars, and views him as some champion of Protestantism. Face it, you can a poll today in Protestant churches and there will probably be 10 times more people that knows Barth versus Warfield + Hodge + Turrentin.

While we are well aware of his errors, but they do sound too good and too easy to use to defend Protestant faith against "difficulties."

Because of statements like the following:

"Theology is a peculiarly beautiful discipline. Indeed, we can
confidently say that it is the most beautiful of all disciplines. To find
academic study distasteful is the mark of the Philistine. It is an
extreme form of Philistinism to find, or to be able to find, theology
distasteful. The theologian who labors without joy is not a theologian at
all. Sulky faces, morose thoughts and boring ways of speaking are
intolerable in this field." [Karl Barth]

John,

IMHO, IV/1 is FULL of great quotes! It remains my favorite portion of CD.

Oh my! A good Barth quote. What is this world comming to?

Didnt Barth deny inerencey and said those who believed in it where guilty of createing a "paper pope"? Also didnt his idea of Election boarder on Universalism? That's what I have heard anyway I never read Barth so I cant really comment intelgentlly only off what I have read off of Wikipedia and Theopedia.

His problematic view of history (Geschichte vs. Historie).

It opens the door to anything! You can say Mary was a virgin when Christ was born, and mean that she could have been, or maybe wasn't.

When I first started reading NT Wright I saw the same love of the "edge"; taking radical stands and giving radical interpretations, but giving yourself a back door by hedging your language. Why can't people just say what they mean?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

You mean he's not? You must be one of those people who think that "Calvin and Hobbes" are some old dead dudes instead of comic strip characters!

Took me a long time to convince people that Calvin and Hobbes were named after Tommy and John. Really until Bill Waterston came out and said so.

THe sad thing is there is growing affinity for Barth among the more progressive wings of the PCA, too.

Why do people like Barth? IMHO, it's the Colossian heresy --I understand things, you don't. You just aren't smart enough to have the "secret" knowledge.

I notice, too, that Torranceian-Barthian Baxter Kruger has growing influence in the evangelical world, too. THis does not bode well.

There are no new battles. Our own "friends" are bringing the inerrancy debate back to life --if there's any issue that ought to be completely settled, it's that one. Now, Barth is being resurrected. And, this is happening within our circles, not as an attack from without.

What's next? The virgin birth?

The Torrance Clan has a great influence among the evangelicals in the PC(USA). Tom Torrance is tought with vigor by the most "evangelical" of my Profs at Pittsburgh Seminary.

Originally Posted by holyfool33

Didnt Barth deny inerencey and said those who believed in it where guilty of createing a "paper pope"? Also didnt his idea of Election boarder on Universalism? That's what I have heard anyway I never read Barth so I cant really comment intelgentlly only off what I have read off of Wikipedia and Theopedia.

Aaron, those were two of my three points in post #2 above. The other glaring issue is his odd view of history (Geschichte vs. Historie). You can say that something is "historical." However, you might still be hard pressed to say that it was accessible to a camera. Go figure.

Originally Posted by KenPierce

There are no new battles. Our own "friends" are bringing the inerrancy debate back to life --if there's any issue that ought to be completely settled, it's that one. Now, Barth is being resurrected. And, this is happening within our circles, not as an attack from without.

What's next? The virgin birth?

Yes, sadly.

As I noted above, evangelicals start playing with the toys when the liberals are tired of them. There are few issues that the mainline faced in the 70s until the present that groups like the PCA will not be dealing with soon unless they are careful.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

The Torrance Clan has a great influence among the evangelicals in the PC(USA). Tom Torrance is tought with vigor by the most "evangelical" of my Profs at Pittsburgh Seminary.

Tell me about it! One of my ST profs in college and then later in seminary did his doctorate under T.F. Torrance. He was an interesting instructor. However, my wife took a very long time until she was willing to touch ST again after him. All of the dialectical up is down and down is up stuff just drove her to distraction.

Has anybody here read the whole of his Church Dogmatics? I'm about to read Dogmatics in Outline, just to see if I'd want to work my way through his stuff over a number of years. From what I understand of Barth, I will disagree with him, but it seems that he has had a profound impact on modern theological study, and for this reason, seems to demand my attentive study of him. Any thoughts on his work, and the value of studying him? Is it worth reading the whole set of his Dogmatics?

Jacob,

There are VERY few people who have read all 9,000 pages or so of Barth. Plus, realize that Barth's thinking evolved a bit over the years. When Lollo became his assistant, he bounced pretty much everything off her and it helped him clarify his thinking in many ways. Plus, the further you get away from I/1 the less you feel the attitude and method evidenced in Der Römerbrief.

Dogmatics in Outline is an excellent introduction to Barth's views. My T.F. Torrance educated prof made us read it as sophomores in our general ed doctrine class.

If you want to get a feel for Barth, I would encourage you to read IV/1 where you can get a sense of his Christocentric core in the doctrine of reconciliation.

Beyond that, read Berkouwer and Van Til for an appreciative and critical perspective. A more recent collection of essays would be Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques. It is edited by Gibson and Strange and includes people like Paul Helm, Michael Horton, and a forward by Carl Trueman. That should get you started. Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences, by Sung Wook Chung is also supposed to be quite good and is available in Libronix format too. He is an evangelical theologian at Dever Seminary.

Jacob, if you are very young and have an interest, read away. But, take it from an old guy. Life is too short and there are too many GREAT books out there to get bogged down in the dialectics of Barth's 9,000 pages. Sample, not try to master.

Dennis,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. That is helpful food for thought. I'm 23, so Lord willing, I have years ahead of me to do some study on this. I had thought of doing just a volume a year sort of thing - a slow, interested, but not dominating study. But I'll take it one step at a time.

Do you think Barth has a significant impact on the future of theological study in general?

Jacob,

You may be asking the wrong person. I was force-fed Barth through a fire hose during my days in a leading evangelical college and seminary. And, that was about a 100 years ago. Barth seemed to be the measure of all things back then. It is my impression that as the mainline has moved on to rank apostasy, and the evangelical left has found new toys to play with, just about the only group "discovering" Barth these days are the conservative evangelicals (including Reformed).

On the national scene, Barth is still important, but a bit passé. If you are asking for advice on whether to read 9,000 pages or not, I would say not (unless you are doing a PhD on Barth or a cognate subject). Read IV/1 and one of the secondary sources I suggested. That will give you all that you need to sound intelligent in a conversation if his name ever comes up. Sort of like the line: "I've always found the early Wittgenstein to be ignored in the pell-mell race to focus on his later works, haven't you? After all, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus did not even appear until after his death." Or, "this may not qualify as an example Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical, but . . ."

Listen to an old man: I have few regrets. But, there are a few cosmic lessons that you learn along the way. You know, the kind of things that stand the test of time such as "don't get into a land war in Asia"??? One of my life lessons is as follows: devote your time to studying what is true, right, honorable, and profitable to your soul; only dabble in learning about error.

If you go to seminary, you may conclude that you should read every book that your professor does. No offense to the professors among us, but that is their job. What else do they have to do with their time? Anyone who works for a living (including pastoring a church) can never master the bibliography of a seminary prof, at least not if you intend to fulfill your calling faithfully. So, major in what is valuable, minor in what is merely popular or current today. You will still know enough to engage culture and you won't go insane.

If my life were available to live over, the majority of my ST time would be devoted to Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, Owen, Dabney, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Reymond, Grudem, et. al., and less time (proportionally) on "contemporary" theology.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

If my life were available to live over, the majority of my ST time would be devoted to Augustine, Calvin, Turretin, Owen, Dabney, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Reymond, Grudem, et. al., and less time (proportionally) on "contemporary" theology.

Dennis,

Thanks again for your advice and guidance! Part of my interest in Barth is because I do what you're talking about in the quote above. I basically move from one volume of Owen to the next, and I'd like to see a little of how the "major giants in these here lands" do things these days. Because I was raised in a liberal denomination, I've avoided their material for a long time. Anyhow, thanks for your help! I'll check out Dogmatics in Outline, then see what this "IV:1" is all about!