Karl Barth and Charlotte von Kirschbaum, a topic I’ve written much about three years ago; and which got me in hot water with many. You can re-read those posts, or read them (and listen to a podcast) by clicking here. Someone I’ve had contact with online for many years, Derek Rishmawy, just tweeted about Barth’s relationship with Charlotte. The tweet is rather unfortunate, and biting; no matter what Barth did. I have continued to struggle through this issue ever since it hit me square between the eyes in 2017 (when I wrote all those posts). It has been like a wrestling match, and I have had to seek out counsel from other theologians who appreciate Barth. Indeed, just recently, and ironically (given who it was vis-à-vis Rishmawy’s relationship with this same person) I reached out to someone who isn’t necessarily a “Barthian,” but as a Reformed evangelical theologian (of some renown) he is still appreciative of Barth in particular and critical ways. I was at a point (and this is just last week), as I am reading linearly through the Church Dogmatics, of maybe shelving that project because this Charlotte issue continues to cause me conflict. I wasn’t sure what this guy would say to me, the theologian I reached out to, but he encouraged me to stay the course with Barth; and I’m going to. But again, this takes us to Derek’s tweet; let’s take a look at that, and then I’ll follow up:

Was Barth a “cheating low-life?” And if he was, what would this do to his capacity to do good Christian theology? Derek seems to think Barth was a cheating low-life. Without attempting to excuse Barth’s behavior to be in an actively polyamorous relationship in his own house, against his wife’s will (at first), does this qualify Barth into a low-life status? You see, on the one hand, I would have to say that I would never place myself under a teacher who was alive, right now, who I knew was in the sort of relationship Karl Barth was with Charlotte. On the other hand, Barth is dead. Does Barth being dead make his relationship with Charlotte a dead-issue? Can we just get on with it, and attempt to cull his work for all its theological worth? This is what the theologian I contacted encouraged me to do; other theologians I know have likewise encouraged me to do this—i.e., get on with it!

Beyond, Derek, I also just received an email from an almost 70-year-old widow who has read my blog a bit. She stumbled across my blog as she searched, as I recall, for Barth and John MacArthur; quite a pairing! Of course, when she did that, she got a hit on my blog because I have written a post on just that. After she read that post of mine, she wanted to know if I had apologized to MacArthur and Ricarrdi for my “coming at” them, particularly MacArthur. She seems to have an implicit trust in MacArthur because he has been in the “ministry for 50 years,” and believes that me, a young whipper-snapper (I’m almost 46), should not dare to have the audacity to challenge or question someone as esteemed as JMac. So, there was that part of her concern. But then she read on. She read my series of posts on Barth and Von Kirschbaum. She recognized that we’re all sinners, but that because of Barth’s ongoing and ostensible infidelity, that this surely has besmirched his theology to the breaking point of anything holy and valuable. (and ma’am rather than responding to you via email, this part of my post is my response to you)

So, we have multiple, but overlapping issues to deal with. I will say to my anonymous female interlocutor, that nobody is above being scrutinized and ‘tested’; not even John MacArthur. If the Apostle Paul commended the Bereans for testing him, an Apostle!, then we are clearly in our rights to question a mere pastor per the dictates and reality of Scripture. As Protestants we operate in and from a tradition that has its genesis in a pro-test against the Holy Roman See, based upon appeal to Scripture; of course, I am referring to Martin Luther. This is the spirit I operate in as I engage with MacArthur, or anyone for that matter. And since we are supposed to be ‘people of the truth,’ according to the Apostle Paul, it behooves us to challenge error when we see it. MacArthur is clueless when it comes to Barth’s theology, and only repeats well-worn evangelical caricatures of Barth’s theology that have no grounding in the actual reality. Which means that MacArthur is repeating lies about Barth’s theology. Since Scripture tells us to speak the truth in love, irrespective of who we are speaking to, I had to call Johnny Mac and son (Ricarrdi) out for spreading malicious lies about Barth’s doctrina.

But now my two interlocutors, even if Derek doesn’t know he is one, merge. Was Barth a dirtbag “cheating low-life” son-of-a-gun whose theology has been besmirched beyond recovery? If you read my other posts (the series) you will see how I have ended up in an attempt to still critically engage with Barth’s theology. The outstanding question still remains: is it possible for a sinner of Barth’s caliber to offer up the sort of pristine theology that apparently so many others in the church have achieved? Was Barth the ‘scum of the earth?’ By all human measurements we might say: Yes! I cannot excuse his behavior. But then, I cannot excuse mine either. No, I’m not cheating nor have I ever cheated on my wife. But I have my own ongoing problems with sin. When I become aware of them, and some I am constantly aware of, I repent, out of Christ’s repentance, and ask for God’s forgiveness. He forgives me 70 x 7, and tells me to ‘go sin no more.’ I don’t for a while, but then I do again. This sort of pattern is what caused Luther to emphasize his maxim of simul justus et peccator (simultaneously justified and sinner).

If Barth was in the pulpit today, as he was back in Safenwil (before the Charlotte affair), or behind the lectern, and I was aware of it, I wouldn’t go sit under him; not till he dealt with and repented of this particular disqualifying sin. But this is not the scenario we find him in. He is dead. We have his body of work. We can attempt to engage it, if we dare, to see if what he has written ‘be so.’ This tension will always be present when engaging with Barth’s theology; for those of us who are sensitive to things like this.[1] But it is always possible for the Light of Christ to shine through these dark broken and sinful bodies we inhabit as justified sinners. This is why I think it is still possible to find Christ, and ironically with a concentration in Barth’s theology, that no other theologian in the history of Christianity has attempted to have in their respective theologizing; not in the methodological way that Barth attempted. This is my draw to Barth. He is a thoroughly sui generis theologian. I don’t know how to explain the doxological brilliance of his theology, except for the fact that his dogged commitment to focus on Jesus Christ as the centraldogma of the theological task, that grace encountered, was greater than the theologian himself. Jesus Christ was able to use this fallen vessel, Barth, in ways that surpass my full ability to resolve. I only hope to be used maybe a fifth (or even less) of Barth’s ability to concentrate the reader on Jesus Christ. I mean I would like to be used more than that by Jesus, but I am attempting to quantify the depth dimensional realities that Barth was able to hit in his ‘christologizing’ that nobody else I’ve come across has come close to (except maybe Barth’s best Anglophone student, Thomas F. Torrance).

Was Barth a ‘cheating low-life?’ Maybe. But it is too flippant to simply throw this out there, in that way, in a people-pleasing-appealing tweet. It might get some laughs, some clicks, and likes; but the whole scenario is much more somber than the tweet lets on. Have I written my own share of immature, flippant tweets? Sure, particularly if the reference has to do with Herman Bavinck or classical Calvinists! Does this make it okay? Nein! But in all seriousness, Derek’s tweet is out of line, and appears to be one for the people’s consumption. When the issues are considered beyond the level of tweet, this represents a sober issue, that deserves something greater than some caviler sneer at Barth; queued up, as it were, for the wittiest memes the commenters can muster.

And to my anonymous interlocutor (my emailer): Just to reiterate, MacArthur, and this is me being charitable, is clueless when even beginning to grasp the merits or even demerits of Barth’s theology; saying so is the Christian thing to do. Hopefully the rest of my response above helps clarify further why I still think Barth’s theology is worthwhile and valuable to consider as we attempt to think about the mysterium Trinitatis in Jesus Christ.

[1] Apparently, many aren’t sensitive to this, and so they ridicule and walk away from those of us who are. They told me I was a moralist for even considering such things within a conflictual frame.