Karl Barth was a twentieth century Swiss theologian. Because he is
often discussed on the religion blogs that I read, I figured that I
should solidify my knowledge about him and his theology. Thus, I
checked out The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth.
Barth believed things that many Christians believe: that God became
incarnate in Jesus Christ, who bore the sins of humanity when he
suffered and died, and who through his resurrection offered hope to
humanity. Some of what I already knew about Karl Barth’s theology was
reinforced or clarified as I read this book: Barth’s belief that humans
could not climb their own way to knowing God but depended on God’s
revelation, that God’s revelation was through Jesus Christ, that the
word of God was God’s illumination of the Scriptures to individuals and
communities, that God elected Jesus Christ and that all of humanity is
in him (implying universalism, according to some), and that the Old and
New Testaments testify to Jesus Christ. The Old Testament does so
restrospectively, while also maintaining its own meaning within its
original historical and literary contexts.
What I learned from this book is that there is a lot that I do not
know about Karl Barth. The scholars in this book were addressing a
variety of questions, concerns, and controversies about Barth’s
thought. Did Barth truly believe in the Trinity, or was he a modalist
who thought that God only manifested himself as Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit? Did Barth really believe in the Chalcedonian creed, that Jesus
Christ was fully God and fully man? One contributor stated that Barth
treated these identities of Christ in functional terms: Jesus as man
means that Jesus submitted to God and served his fellow human beings.
Because of the importance of the incarnate Christ in Barth’s theology,
some have wondered if Barth held that Jesus always had a human
nature, even before Jesus walked the face of the earth. Conversely,
someone in the book expressed the concern that Barth’s belief in the
priesthood of Christ emphasized Jesus’ divinity rather than his
humanity.
A lot of these discussions were rather abstract to me. They remind
me that there is more for me to learn. What I especially appreciated,
however, were the discussions about the down-to-earth topics. What were
Karl Barth’s politics? Many are aware that Karl Barth stood up against
Hitler and the German Christians, for Barth believed that God’s
revelation was through Jesus Christ, not the Volk. But Barth was
criticized for not opposing Communism with the same rigor and for his
stance against Western conduct of the Cold War. Barth was concerned
that Christianity was so often associated with the capitalistic
exploitation that went on in the West. In addition, while some have
maintained that Barth was rather apolitical, Barth did believe that a
governmental system can resemble the Kingdom of God, and he promoted
societal concern for the poor.
What was Karl Barth’s stance on feminism? Many feminists do not like
Karl Barth. Barth emphasized God’s revelation rather than looking to
human experience (such as the experience of women) in doing theology.
He defined God in largely androcentric terms. There was also the issue
of his own personal life: he had a rocky marriage, and people speculate
about what exactly his relationship was with his secretary, who was
close to him, and who endured scandal on account of that. But one
contributor tries to explore how Barth’s thoughts can actually serve, or
coincide with, feminist theology.
My favorite topic in the book was Karl Barth’s attitude towards other
religions. Karl Barth was critical of religion, period, for he saw
that as humans trying to climb their way to the divine. Because he so
emphasized that God’s revelation was through Jesus Christ, many believe
that he simply dismissed other religions as false. One chapter in the
book, however, addressed what Barth thought would happen to those who
held to non-Christian religions, as well as Barth’s thoughts on whether
there could be truth in other religions. According to this chapter,
Barth believed that non-Christians would eventually be saved by grace:
that is their destiny, as part of the humanity that is elected in
Christ. And, while Barth was critical of natural theology—-of
attempting to learn about God from nature and reason—-he was open to the
possibility that Jesus Christ could somehow communicate to humans
through concepts within other religions.
This is an informative book. I did not absorb all of it, even though
I did read it in its entirety. As one essay said, Barth is not easy to
characterize. One has to read all of his thought before one begins to
do so!