On Barth’s “Lack” of an Experiential Theology: A Brief Impression on Zahl’s Reading

Posted on by

I am just starting to read Simeon Zahl‘s book, The Holy Spirit and Christian Experience. I think overall it is going to be an excellent read. But he is, right off the bat, critical of both Martin Luther and Karl Barth, respectively, when it comes, to what he claims to be their theological penchant to squash a place for human experience in the performance of theological activity. The following is what I just punched out quickly (on my phone) as a first impression on my Facebook timeline. I’m sure there will be more to come, but I wanted to share my initial impressions here and now.

When Barth’s critics attempt to “defeat” him by periodizing him (reducing his theological efforts and their implications to their own space and time in German/Swiss environs and in early to the mid 20th century), they engage in a reductionistic fallacy (if not an inverted golden age fallacy [i.e., genetic fallacy]). It isn’t that the conditions of his theological environment didn’t have basic impact on Barth’s theologizing; but it is a question of whether or not the fundamental questions he was engaging at the time have parallel proponents even now in the 21st century. His anti-natural theology approach wasn’t merely his response to Nazism (even though it was one of the targets of his aim), it primarily was rooted in age old theoanthroplogical issues; particularly as those pertain to a doctrine of sin, and the attendant impact that has on humanity’s capaciousness vis a vis a theological ontology and epistemology. It’s not that human experience has no role in Barth’s theologizing vis a vis the performance of theology, per se. But it is that, for Barth, the conditions for human experience in theology have no ground outwith God’s human experience for us, as that is first established in His firstborn of creation, in the Christ (cf Col 1:15ff). It is plausible to conclude that Barth might flatten everything down by a ‘Christological objectivism’ and or ‘Christomonism,’ as is often the critique levied at Barth. But when Barth is understood from within the broader thematics of his total CD, I would suggest that he offers the only real ground for affectivity and experientiality to obtain within His Church. That is because for Barth’s theology, without the resurrection of the Godman, Jesus Christ, the conditions for *anything* to obtain (like at all) are non-starting. I can agree that there is a lacuna in Barth’s theology in regard to a developed pneumatology (same goes for TF Torrance). But that shouldn’t lead someone to the conclusion that the resources for such development are inherently squashed simply because Barth et al. didn’t fully develop that in toto. Just because Barth has a particular reception history, this does not necessarily entail that he has been received properly (per the “received” and perceived implications of his theology).

2 thoughts on “On Barth’s “Lack” of an Experiential Theology: A Brief Impression on Zahl’s Reading”

  1. This is a discerning observation of the theological “lay of the land” with regard to Barth’s framing of human experience in theology… he rightly observed the conditions for “human experience in theology” as flatlands, whereas the actual ground of conditions for human experience in theology is found only in the elevated ranges, established first in “God’s firstborn of creation,” as divine archetype of theological ontology and epistemology.

    (Thanks for sharing your initial impression of Zahn’s book… I’ve been considering obtaining it.)

  2. Richard, amen. I think the book is ultimately going to be good. His argument won’t make or break based on his reading of Barth. To me his critique of Barth is the all too common and reductionistic one. I just felt I had to get that off my chest before I continued to read. My mentor recommended the book to me, as it dovetails with his own work on Affective theology.

Comments are closed.