I’ve been having an exchange on Facebook with a Lutheran orthodox interlocutor. We remain friendly, and have over the years, but clearly we’re going to disagree over Barth. What remains of issue for many (including myself) is the continuous infidelity of Barth’s life with Charlotte Von Kirschbaum. If I hadn’t so ingested the theological themes of Barth into my own theology over the past many decades it would be easy to say I want nothing to do with him; but of course, I have ingested his themes, theologically. My interlocutor’s critique of Barth is twofold: 1) he thinks Barth’s theology is erroneous, particularly with reference to a doctrine of Scripture (which of course really is just a subset of Barth’s superstructural doctrine of election), and 2) he says he would never learn from someone who lived openly in unrepentant sin. I countered that theologians throughout the centuries of the church’s history is replete with other examples of high profile theologians who lived in unrepentant sin. This neither justifies the sin, nor does it necessarily negate the theologian’s capacity to have spoken accurately about God (Balaam’s ass did, the rocks could have etc.) What this recognition does do though is that it remembers that theology is done by fallen humans who are simul iustus et peccator (‘simultaneously justified and sinner’). This never excuses the sinner from their sin, only the blood of Jesus Christ can do that; but again, it holds things in perspective. I used this logic, with reference to Thomas Aquinas’ apparent sin of gluttony (which isn’t fully established), in dialogue with my interlocutor; this was his response:

It’s reasonable to believe that most of the celebrated theologians in the history of the church have not lived in unrepentant sin for decades. I’m sure it has happened in some cases, but it’s not plausible to think that it has been widespread.

I feel for you man, but there’s no point in trying to insinuate that others did it too to make Barth’s case look like it’s not so egregious. You might be able to make a case that theology and the character of the theologian are two separate things, but suggesting that other theologians might have a similar history of sin is really not the way to go, since this is nothing but speculation and comes close to bearing false witness.

And my response to that:

actually the opposite is the case. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Auggie, Edwards et al. come immediately to mind, and they are of course the higher profiles who we have relatively lots of background info on. It’s reasonable to think that because of the nature of the human heart, even post-justification, that sin remains pervasive and theologians of all periods remain just as susceptible to it as anyone else. This isn’t an attempt to lessen Barth’s sin, but to bring real life perspective to it. I try to avoid golden-age fallacies.

I don’t have to “suggest” anything, it’s the history that witnesses to it.

The reality is, theologians remain human. It aches the heart to imagine that even our most foundational and celebrated teachers and theologians have sin, even unrepentant sin in their hearts; but I would indeed suggest that this is in fact the rule (unless we hold to a Wesleyan doctrine of perfectionism). We are all sinners, and have fallen short of the glory of God. Just because we become justified before God as we come into spiritual union with Jesus Christ, this does not abrogate the fact that we also remain sinners (in these ‘bodies of death’ cf. Rom 7). Unrepented of sin in the Christian’s life is a sin in and of itself, but not a sin greater than the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It implicates matters of fellowship with God, not union, per se. Each and everyone of us lives with unrepentant sins, even if our heart is to do otherwise, each and every day. If Jesus were to come back in the midst of that unrepentant sin, which He surely does, when He takes someone’s life, would that unrepentant CHRISTIAN enter into the final presence of the Lord? According to Scripture: Yes! This doesn’t minimize the stain of sin, the gravity of it all in that person’s life and witness, but it does indicate that they are still a child of the living God.

As I have already exhaustively registered, I believe Barth’s sin was especially egregious; particularly as that implicated his wife and children. I see no way of softening the edge of that as my interlocutor seems to think I am attempting to do. At the end of the day if someone is going to read Barth’s theology it must be read on its merits and capacity to bear witness to Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul thought it was possible for people who had all types of mal-intent (murderous even towards, Paul) to speak accurately and proclaim clearly the entailments of the Gospel reality; to the point that he believed people were being ‘saved’ because of said witness. He writes: “¹⁵ Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: ¹⁶ The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; ¹⁷ but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. ¹⁸ What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice” (Phil 1.15-18). It is certainly not the ideal to go to such people as your “teachers.” But the underlying premise, according to the Apostle, is that it is possible for someone to be living in sin, and at the same time declare, proclaim a saving and true Gospel (it’s just that in Barth’s case he has six million words of that proclamation deposited in his Church Dogmatics).

For me, it is not the ideal to go to Barth as a teacher, but I did so, for many years, without any knowledge of Barth’s life with Charlotte Von Kirschbaum. I have determined that his work, as a development of prior theologians (he isn’t as original as some like to think), in fact bears witness to Jesus Christ; indeed, and as such, it even bears witness against Barth’s own sinful lifestyle. I will never attempt to minimize the destructive, deleterious nature of Barth’s chosen sin with Charlotte; but at the same time, I cannot deny that in spite of that his theological bearings, for the most part, have a proximity to the eschatological Good News of Jesus Christ; such that it remains a weighty thing for me as I attempt to contemplate who God is, the ways of God in the world as that has been pre-destined by His free choice to be God for and with us, and not without us.