I am attracted to Barth’s theology for a variety of reasons. I am quite minimalist when it comes to theology. In other words, as a Protestant (Reformed) Christian I am interested in doing theology of the Word. This is why I am so acutely allergic to speculative theologies of the sorts that we find under the umbrella of classical theism. I repudiate overly metaphysicalized theologies that take shape after Aristotle/Plato, or any other system that accretes the reality (res) of Holy Scripture with barnacles that are unnatural to its existence as the Christ conditioned text that it is. And yet like a machine theologians continue to retrieve these sorts of theologies in the name of service to the church. That’s not for me; if you like that sort of stuff—i.e. talking about God as if you could so through the categories of the philosophers / talking about God with philosophers even if those philosophers aren’t Christian—then we are on different theological planes. Further, the planes we are on are so disparate that I would contend that theologians who do theology with the philosophers aren’t even engaging with what I take to be genuine confessional Christian theology. And this is why I like Barth (and the after Barth tradition like we find in Thomas Torrance et al.) so much.
With the aforementioned noted let’s read along with Barth as he develops his thinking on knowledge of God and its relationship to his reformulated doctrine of election (which in the Church Dogmatics is yet forthcoming, relative to this reading, in II/2). Barth writes:
It is in His love above all that God reveals Himself as the One who is incomparable and therefore unique; which means that He reveals Himself as the true and essential God. This revelation is of such a nature that He accomplishes at one stroke what the idea of uniqueness is unable to accomplish in any of its various forms and applications. We have referred already to the fact that divine revelation has the character of election, and to the twofold aspect, that as He chooses man in order to reveal Himself to him as God, God also chooses Himself, that He may be revealed to man as God. It is not, however, from the principle or concept of this twofold election that the knowledge of the divine uniqueness comes. It is not unique in this character of election as such. The idea of election itself leads us back only to the idea of uniqueness. Knowledge of this does not give or complete knowledge of the divine uniqueness. This takes place in the actuality of the twofold election as it occurs in God’s revelation according to the witness of the Old and New Testament. It is a choice, but it is a choice as an event. It is in this event as such that the love of God reveals itself and acts with the incomparability to which the only appropriate response is the confession of God’s uniqueness. It is in this event that the twofold choice is made which excludes even the very idea that God may be subject to the rivalry of other gods.[1]
If you are familiar with Barth’s theology you will immediately recognize the strong emphasis of actualism in the above passage. All speculation, according to Barth, is besmudged by the very event of God’s free and lively choice to be God for and with and in us through the humanity of Jesus Christ. Barth sees this scandalous particularity as definitive of the ‘events’ of Holy Scripture itself; insofar as those events find their concretion in attestation to their reality in Jesus Christ. But this is the warp and woof of Barth’s theology; he doggishly attempts to follow the contours of Holy Scripture as Scripture’s ontology is grounded in the Self-givenness of Godself for humanity. In other words, outwith Christ, for Barth, Scripture, as all of creation has no context, no telos, no meaningful meaningfulness towards which it might radiate genuine knowledge of God. An implication of this is that there is no space for discursivity, in regard to the theologian’s own capacity to speculate God. In other words, the philosophers have no meaningful contact with God, for Barth, since they are definitionally delimited by their flatlander horizontality. For Barth (and for me) knowledge of God only always comes from the event of God’s election to incarnate and be God with us, that we might be humans with Him, through the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ.
The aforementioned constraints bother many (most) theologians. It cramps their ability to engage, rather nakedly, with the so-called Great Tradition of the church. Indeed, this sort of Barthianizing, ironically, is too solo Christo for them; or, it is too nuda Scriptura for them. There isn’t much respect among other academic disciplines if the theologian takes Barth’s route. If the theologian takes Barth’s route they might as well admit that they are some sort of Uncle Jed backwater only pretending to talk in intelligible ways about God. At best, if the theologian wants to show any sort of charitableness toward Barth, they will attempt to integrate ‘pearls’ of insight from Barth (i.e. contextless and abstract ‘words of knowledge’) into their broader and speculative theological projects (you know, the classical theistics type).
I am ultimately hoping, as you have read this post, that among multiple things I am attempting to introduce folks to, in regard to Barth, that Barth’s theology offers a rather radical Protestant prolegomena. In other words, Barth’s offering is greater than himself. He presents the Christian theological world with what I would call, in orientation, a neo-Luther style; not fully in material or even formal substance with Luther, but definitely in spirit. In my view, Barth extends Luther’s theology of the cross (theologia crucis) while contradicting the Tradition’s theologia of gloriae (theology of glory). Just how I see it. Maybe you will better understand why I reject the academic class. I see most of it so riddled with the pockmarks of theology of glory, and smug classmanship, that I have almost no desire to be part of it in any way; life is much too short for such theatrics.
[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II/1 §31: Study Edition Vol 9 (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 12.
I’m in the middle of a preaching series on “On Being a Theologian of the Cross,” so gladly read the above. Though I am not a Lutheran, I hope always to be a good student of his, along with many others – to include Barth, Torrance and others. I, too, see so much of the theology of glory around the local church – numbers, plans and all the rest. I mention Barth and can expect pushback from my evangelical friends. I wish it were different. So I look forwrard to every one of your articles. Thanks for being a good guide in the things that really matter!
Pastor Mark
Preaching a series on “Being a Theologian of the Cross,” I was particularly drawn to your article above. While I am not a Lutheran, I want always to be a good student of Luther’s and, as well, of Barth’s and others.. I have found too much of the theology of glory in our nearby churches.- seen in budgets, bodies and buildings . I wish it were not so Whenever I bring up Barth’s name, I get pushback from my evangelical pastor friends. Wish that were different as well! Thanks for your blog. I look for it every day and appreciate your excellent, biblical insights!
Although raised Catholic, I’m of the same temperament. I have a chronic aversion to the imposing of Greek philosophical concepts on Hebraic religion. Doubtless I’d be considered “primitive” by Thomists and fellows like David Bentley Hart, but I prefer examine to examine the text itself to see what it’s saying, and of course with as much background and contextual knowledge as possible.
Incidentally, Bobby, have you ever heard of the Jewish thinker Michael Wyschogrod? He was an enormous admirer of Barth and the latter’s fidelity to the text and found it paralleled his own engagement with Hebrew scripture. He has a brilliant essay entitled ‘Why was and is the theology of Karl Barth of interest to a Jewish theologian?’ in his collection “Abraham’s Promise.” I recommend it if you can get hold of a copy.
It’s a joy to find some among whom I feel I am not as “a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.”
(And at this point, for me, life is indeed much too short for such theatrics.)
@Mark,
The cool thing is that you don’t have to be a Lutheran to be a student of Luther, most Lutherans aren’t ;). But glad this post resonated with you. Preach boldly!
@Karl,
We are definitely of the same spirit when it comes to imposing Hellenic categories onto Hebraic thought form (some would say we’re too much under the influence of von Harnack / I’d say: Nah).
And I am familiar with Michael Wyschogrod’s work; I’ve come across it through the second lit reading I’ve done on Barth. I haven’t read him yet, I’ll have to remedy that soon. Thank you for the reminder!
@Richard,
Thank you, it is always nice to be of kindred spirit with brothers and sisters in Christ. Glad we have been able to virtually connect.