Can anyone fill me in on Karl Barth?

[JennyG]

I know nothing whatsoever about him, but I've just been talking to a student in the Divinity faculty of the local University.
She tells me that a very big deal is made of Barth by all her lecturers. They make grand sweeping claims for his genius and even more for his crucial, pivotal importance to modern Christian thinking.
When I googled him I found him being described as "in the Reformed tradition".

My question is, how should a Reformed, that is Biblical, Christian view all this?
Sorry to be lazy, but I have no intention of reading it all up and judging for myself! (I've also been told that Barth is almost unreadable)
What I'm hoping for is an answer in very elementary terms, since the closest thing I have ever read to a modern textbook of theology was C S Lewis's non-fiction.
Thank you in advance!

 

[rbcbob]

Barth was the father of Neo-Orthodoxy. Opposed the liberalism of his day although his view of Scripture was itself, not orthodox.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Jenny,

There are times when Barth sounds Reformed (and I think he might have thought of himself as Reformed). His theology has been described as "critical, dialectical, and realistic".

I think a lot of Evangelicals liked Barth because he came out of the liberal, critical movement and chastised the old liberals for downplaying the Word of God. He can be read for large swaths and sound Evangelical.

But, when you start to get underneath what he's really saying, you discover that he essentially denies the real history of revealed religion. The Word is not the Word because it is the record of God's revelation in real human history. Barth considered it pagan to think of the events in Scripture as events that happened in real history. Barth taught of revelation as becoming the Word in the event of interacting with it.

For instance, when asked whether the Serpent spoke, Barth would answer "What did the snake say?" It was unimportant to Barth whether there was a historical Fall but what the revelation was beneath the actual words. There are indications in Barth's writing as well that he believed that God had elected all men to salvation and many neo-Orthodox have seen their mission as making men aware of what has happened and indicated already in God's decision of Creation over Chaos.

I'll be honest with you, dialectical theology gives me a headache. It's an attempt to maintain the man-centered imposition that the noumenal cannot interact with the phenomenal. Barth's theology is an attempt to get over the gap created by Kantian philosophy that insists that God cannot interact in real human history. Consequently, every propositional truth in Scripture that shows God speaking or acting in history is cast into a dialectical form and the dependency between history and theology that is part of Revelation is rent asunder to get to the truth behind the history.

The Christian religion is historical. Barth's theology is a-historical. Barth's theology is not Christian.

 

[Philip]

But, when you start to get underneath what he's really saying, you discover that he essentially denies the real history of revealed religion. The Word is not the Word because it is the record of God's revelation in real human history. Barth considered it pagan to think of the events in Scripture as events that happened in real history. Barth taught of revelation as becoming the Word in the event of interacting with it.

Are you talking about the early Barth or the later Barth? About 1932, his theology shifted with the writing of Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum. The later Barth took scripture much more seriously, saying that man cannot bridge the gap between the noumenal and phenomenal, but God can. His theology was an attempt to rid theological study of man attempting to find God and instead to depend on God's self-revelation in Christ as revealed in Scripture.

His theology is useful at times, but only if one is well-versed in Reformed theology already. I'm divided on whether he personally was saved, but there is much in his thought that is helpful. He is probably the closest post-Kantian theologian to orthodoxy (evangelical theologians aside).

 

[JennyG]

Thank you, all!
That's just what I wanted to know. I had a sneaking suspicion already that the darling of the modern academic theology departments could hardly be a reformed believer in any meaningful sense. Thanks for spelling it out in terms I can understand!

The Christian religion is historical. Barth's theology is a-historical. Barth's theology is not Christian.

That says it all

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

Philip, thanks. I hadn't seen yours when I wrote that last. I have no idea which Barth I'm referring to, I suppose to answer that I would have to interview the Divinity faculty at the University.
I understand that he's not likely to do me much good if I ploughed through him, and that's really all I need to know

 

[jwright82]

I have always enjoyed studying Barth but I don't recomend it to people without a good grasp of theology and maybe even philosophy.
He tried to complete and go "beyond the reformers (especially Calvin)" and complete their reformation, which only took him outside Orthodoxy and closer to Rome. He has been labeled a modern eucumenical thinker, which is suspect in itself, between Protestantism and Catholecism.
Also he made controversial reformulations of key doctrines, which took him supicously outside the bounds. I won't get into these doctrines but if you are curious of specific ones than just ask and me or someone else could probally answer your specific questions.
He did believe in the Trinity and the divinity and humanity of Christ. He seemd to affirm, at least basically, the Apostle's creed. But his views in other areas took outside the bounds of orthodoxy, like I said. He rejected liberal theology in a time when most instutions of learning were liberal so his thinking really resonated with people who were tired of liberalism but not comfortable with orthodoxy. He really is one of the most important thinkers in the 20th century as far as mainline theology goes, although like I said he was outside the bounds of orthodoxy. This might account for his popularity at the college you are refering to. I hope this helps.

 

[jwithnell]

I find neo-orthodoxy even more difficult to handle than liberalism, at least on the practical level of discussion with those whose training is in that tradition. Very orthodox sounding words can have very different meanings. I read a fair amount of this stuff as I was trying to get my theological house together as a young person. I kept sitting there thinking, this is so dense and difficult -- do I really need to understand this to be Christian?

 

[LeeJUk]

What University was this Jenny?

 

[bouletheou]

Wikipedia has a brief, but relatively adequate (though sympathetic) article on Barth. Here is one of the salient points:

One of the most influential and controversial features of Barth's Dogmatics was his doctrine of election (Church Dogmatics II/2). One thread of the Reformed tradition, following one interpretation of its most influential thinker, John Calvin, had long argued for so-called double predestination: that God chose some humans for salvation through Christ and others for damnation. These groups were respectively called the elect and the reprobate. This choice was the "eternal, hidden decree" of God, an absolute, mysterious and fundamentally inscrutable decision which, though it was a decision of ultimate consequence for the individual human, was fundamentally inaccessible and unknowable to him or her. God chose each person to either be saved or damned based on purposes of the Divine will, and it was impossible to know why God chose some and not others. The Puritans generally believed it was only after a long time of introspection that one could come to know whether God had elected or rejected oneself. Calvin himself taught that one could be assured of one's own salvation.
Barth's doctrine of election involves a firm rejection of the notion of an eternal, hidden decree. In keeping with his Christo-centric methodology, Barth argues that to ascribe the salvation or damnation of humanity to an abstract absolute decree is to make some part of God more final and definitive than God's saving act in Jesus Christ. God's absolute decree, if one may speak of such a thing, is God's gracious decision to be for humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. Drawing from the earlier Reformed tradition, Barth retains the notion of double predestination but makes Jesus Himself the object of both divine election and reprobation simultaneously; Jesus embodies both God's election of humanity and God's rejection of human sin. While some regard this revision of the doctrine of election as an improvement[11] on the Augustinian-Calvinist doctrine of the predestination of individuals, critics, namely Brunner[12], have charged that Barth's view amounts to a soft universalism.

 

[Philip]

I can't say a whole lot about Van Til's reading (as I haven't yet read Van Til on Barth) but do not read Schaeffer's take for an in-depth or fair analysis. Schaeffer reads Barth as the poster-child for all of 20th-century theology, which is unfair. If anything, Barth was more opposed to those who followed after than he was to the old liberals.

If there is an aspect of Barth's theology that we should admire, it is his focus on the Christological nature of theology. That is, Barth wanted to refocus all theology on the person and work of Christ. Did he believe in the literal resurrection? Yes, claiming that one cannot really believe in Christ if one does not believe in the literal resurrection.

 

[sastark]

Read Cornelius Van Til, "Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?" Westminster Theological Journal 16.2 (May 1954): 135-182.. Then you will know whether or not Barth's theology was Christian or something else.

 

[JennyG]

All this gets more and more interesting - thanks again everyone.

I read a fair amount of this stuff as I was trying to get my theological house together as a young person. I kept sitting there thinking, this is so dense and difficult -- do I really need to understand this to be Christian?

This was the thought that saved me (when I was young and clueless) from getting into the likes of Tillich, not that I read him but he was still very influential through the medium of that book that made such a sensation in the sixties - "Honest to God" by John Robinson. It made a sensation in Britain, anyway.
Lee, it was the Divinity faculty at St Andrews University I was referring to, once Samuel Rutherford's stamping ground.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I can't say a whole lot about Van Til's reading (as I haven't yet read Van Til on Barth) but do not read Schaeffer's take for an in-depth or fair analysis. Schaeffer reads Barth as the poster-child for all of 20th-century theology, which is unfair. If anything, Barth was more opposed to those who followed after than he was to the old liberals.

If there is an aspect of Barth's theology that we should admire, it is his focus on the Christological nature of theology. That is, Barth wanted to refocus all theology on the person and work of Christ. Did he believe in the literal resurrection? Yes, claiming that one cannot really believe in Christ if one does not believe in the literal resurrection.

I suggest you read Van Til who critiques Barth and Brunner as a New Modernism.

To suggest that Barth somehow "recovers" a strong Christology because he wants to focus all theology on Christ belies the fact that his methodology is a-historical. The "flesh and blood" of real human history was not the interest of Barthian theology. Christian religion has always insisted not in a noumenal-phenomal distinction brought out by autonomous human reasoning but upon the Creator-creature distinction. We don't know things in themselves because God bridges a noumenal-phenomenal gulf but because we are in relation to a Creator Who reveals Himself and causes us to place our trust in a God Who knows comprehensively.

The Apostle Paul consider the historical death and resurrection of Christ so central in 1 Cor 15 that he said that we are most to be pitied if Christ be not raised. This is not a "Revelational Event" where we hear of such things and the Resurrection or Christ become "real" for us at a point of revelation. Rather, it is an external, verifiable fact that Christ stepped into real human history, walked on real dirt, bled real blood, died a physical death, and rose again with a body that could be touched. Barth would consider all those "facts" as inconsequential and would only consider the "event" to be important.

Barth should not be ignored due to his profound influence on 20th Century theology but I would never commend him to anyone as a source for sound Christology.

 

[Mushroom]

Wait 'til Grymir finds this thread. He just LOOOVES Barth! He'll be soo excited! And plenty to say, too!

 

[bouletheou]

As a graduate of a PCUSA seminary and a former PCUSA minister, I find all of this excitement about Barth in the PCA to be more than a bit unsettling.

The good things that Barth had to say are really said better elsewhere. The bad things Barth had to say really damage the historic Christian faith.

The mainline Reformed were enamored with Barth in the 50's and 60's. I echo Martyn Lloyd Jones' sentiments when a bunch of his proteges discovered Barth. "NeoOrthdoxy is not orthodoxy."

 

[MW]

Read Cornelius Van Til, "Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?" Westminster Theological Journal 16.2 (May 1954): 135-182.. Then you will know whether or not Barth's theology was Christian or something else.

Very good. There is also the monograph in the "Biblical and Theological Studies" series entitled "Barth's Christology." This essay suffices to show how shallow is the idea that Barth is to be praised for his "Christological Motif." His Christology is not Christian, and by making it the motif for theology he introduces a leaven which gradually de-Christianises theology the more it works its way through one's beliefs.

 

[Philip]

I was simply giving the impression I got from Grenz and Olson's treatment in 20th Century Theology. I suppose I'll just have to suspend judgment until I reach Barth in my reading.

 

[jwright82]

I was simply giving the impression I got from Grenz and Olson's treatment in 20th Century Theology. I suppose I'll just have to suspend judgment until I reach Barth in my reading.

I loved this book too. It really is a must read.

 

[Carolyn]

As stated above, Karl Barth is a red flag for former mainliners. When my husband and I heard him being quoted in studies, sermons, and denominational publications, we knew it was only a matter of time. We started our "exiting" process at that point. Once the philosophical underpinnings start to shift in a denomination, there's no turning that barge that I've seen. (Actually, we should have seen the non-confessional nature and the ordination of women "for support roles" as the red flag. Clueless!)

I have heard that there is one circumstance that quoting Barth is helpful. If you are in conversation with a mainliner, you can cherry pick his later material and drag the conversation in a biblical direction. The Barth quote serves to relax the mainliner into thinking that he's in conversation with an intellectual powerhouse like himself, and not with one of those born again morons. Again, I have only heard this works. I can't stand reading Barth and I'm not gifted in "strategic" conversation. A "born again moron", I guess!

 

[py3ak]

I can't say a whole lot about Van Til's reading (as I haven't yet read Van Til on Barth) but do not read Schaeffer's take for an in-depth or fair analysis. Schaeffer reads Barth as the poster-child for all of 20th-century theology, which is unfair. If anything, Barth was more opposed to those who followed after than he was to the old liberals.

If there is an aspect of Barth's theology that we should admire, it is his focus on the Christological nature of theology. That is, Barth wanted to refocus all theology on the person and work of Christ. Did he believe in the literal resurrection? Yes, claiming that one cannot really believe in Christ if one does not believe in the literal resurrection.

I was simply giving the impression I got from Grenz and Olson's treatment in 20th Century Theology. I suppose I'll just have to suspend judgment until I reach Barth in my reading.

Not to be hostile or anything, but when I put these two posts together there appears to be a disconnect. You can't comment on Van Til because you haven't read him; but you can comment on Barth though you haven't read him; and you're able to dismiss Schaeffer's criticisms of Barth - have you read those? And how would you know they were inaccurate if you hadn't read Barth in the first place?

I'm not very interested in any of the five people mentioned, so I bring this up not as a matter of substance, but as a question of approach: why express a definite assertion in these circumstances?

 

[Philip]

a) I have read Schaeffer on Barth

b) I have read some (not very much) of the later Barth (Fides Quaerens Intellectum, in which he reveals his method)

c) I have read the detailed outline of Barth's thought given by Grenz and Olson (which I trust over Schaeffer's analysis for various reasons, even though I respect Schaeffer highly).

 

[jwright82]

Anyone who is interested in Karl Barth firsthand should get the book Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom, in the Making of Modern Theology series edited Clifford Green, in fact I recomend any of the books in this series. I hope that helps.

---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

Here is a nice website with some neat scholarly articles on Karl Barth: Princeton Seminary Library.

 

[bouletheou]

BTW, you can all see what I think of K.B. in my little allegory

The Happy T.R.: The Pilgrims' Digress Part the Fourth

 

[py3ak]

a) I have read Schaeffer on Barth

b) I have read some (not very much) of the later Barth (Fides Quaerens Intellectum, in which he reveals his method)

c) I have read the detailed outline of Barth's thought given by Grenz and Olson (which I trust over Schaeffer's analysis for various reasons, even though I respect Schaeffer highly).

That answers my questions with regard to matters of fact, but not about the question of approach. To vary the example, do you think that my reading of various essays about Swift, including the quite detailed treatment in the OHEL devoted to the time-period in which he wrote, as well as my acquaintance with Gulliver's Travels, The Battle of the Books, and a few other scattered pieces qualifies me to make strong pronouncement about the Dean?

 

[Philip]

a) I have read Schaeffer on Barth

b) I have read some (not very much) of the later Barth (Fides Quaerens Intellectum, in which he reveals his method)

c) I have read the detailed outline of Barth's thought given by Grenz and Olson (which I trust over Schaeffer's analysis for various reasons, even though I respect Schaeffer highly).

That answers my questions with regard to matters of fact, but not about the question of approach. To vary the example, do you think that my reading of various essays about Swift, including the quite detailed treatment in the OHEL devoted to the time-period in which he wrote, as well as my acquaintance with Gulliver's Travels, The Battle of the Books, and a few other scattered pieces qualifies me to make strong pronouncement about the Dean?

I probably should have qualified my statements to be less sweeping.

 

[py3ak]

a) I have read Schaeffer on Barth

b) I have read some (not very much) of the later Barth (Fides Quaerens Intellectum, in which he reveals his method)

c) I have read the detailed outline of Barth's thought given by Grenz and Olson (which I trust over Schaeffer's analysis for various reasons, even though I respect Schaeffer highly).

That answers my questions with regard to matters of fact, but not about the question of approach. To vary the example, do you think that my reading of various essays about Swift, including the quite detailed treatment in the OHEL devoted to the time-period in which he wrote, as well as my acquaintance with Gulliver's Travels, The Battle of the Books, and a few other scattered pieces qualifies me to make strong pronouncement about the Dean?

I probably should have qualified my statements to be less sweeping.

Especially if something makes Barth out to be distinctively good (thus incidentally casting aspersions on theologians from our own household), or might encourage people to listen to someone who, whatever his virtues are, undoubtedly has some dangerous ideas.

 

[Philip]

Especially if something makes Barth out to be distinctively good (thus incidentally casting aspersions on theologians from our own household)

I can't speak for Van Til or Clark, but Schaeffer's analysis is suspect due to his misreading of other thinkers, such as Kierkegaard.

At any rate, I would never recommend Barth to any except those already well-grounded in Reformed faith and practice. However, we need to be aware of Barth, particularly when dealing with our brothers and sisters across the pond who see him as an ally in defending against liberalism. I've heard several conservative British Christian academics speak in the past two years and without exception, I heard Barth's name mentioned at least once in a favorable light. Is this indicative of our being too dismissive of Barth, or of just how bad things are for Christianity in Britain? I can't say--possibly both. I just think we have to be cautious and nuanced in our approach, keeping both an open mind and a close guard.

At any rate, I'll leave off with that.

 

[bouletheou]

Pugh,

In my limited experience, it is actually that bad in Britain.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Paging Mr Grymir. Paging Mr Grymir.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

All of Barth's eight volumes were required reading in my seminary days, so there's that.

Only the careful investigators will understand why this applied to me. Sigh.

AMR