Karl Barth and Neoorthodoxy CH512 LESSON 03 of 24 Lubbertus Oostendorp, ThD Experience: Professor of Bible and Theology, Reformed Bible College, Kuyper College We must turn once more to the radical change in the young Pastor Barth. As we have seen this transformation involve the kind of existential view of things, to speak, however, in such general terms is hardly adequate. History, I believe, was to prove that the dialectical form was one thing while the essential content of Barth s method was something else. In other words, I think we would be doing him an injustice if we should imply that here is a man who is trying to teach us some existentialism. Rather, one must say here is a man who was most earnestly trying to discover the message of the Word of God. In 1916, he had discovered what he called the strange new world within or behind the Bible, and notice he called it the strange world within or the world behind the Bible. There is no doubt that he wanted to take the Bible seriously. He did not only take the Bible as a human book, but he wanted to take this human book as the source of the Word of God. We shall ask, did he take the Bible seriously enough? For Barth, one does not take it seriously by considering it as an inspired book or by considering it an infallible and historically accurate document. It is true for him only when it becomes true and it does not become true by faith in its factual accuracy. In fact, this kind of faith in its factual accuracy for Barth stands in the way of accepting the Bible as he wishes it to be accepted. And here we have constantly our problem with Barth and the Bible. It is indeed for him a very human book full of all kinds of errors, yet somehow it is this human book in every way the word of man in which God speaks. The only real way to name the theme of the Bible is to have it, to show it, to live it. One senses here a kind of corrective vitalism. Barth had nothing but contempt for men who claim to know God and to have God and to hold God in a kind of abstract and theoretical and dogmatic way. But there is more to the matter. This becoming can only be in the moment. It is like a flash of lightning. 1 of 9
It cannot be a horizontal line, but it must be a vertical line, making its momentary contact with the horizontal. God stands in contrast to man as the impossible in contrast to the possible, as death in contrast to life, as eternity in contrast to time, and yet by an absolutely new event, the impossible becomes possible; and note it is by an event and only an event that the contact can be made between God and man. Death then becomes life, eternity becomes time, and God becomes man. But this is not all. Barth s existential study of the Bible cannot in honesty be reduced to a kind of beneficial and necessary vitalism. We could certainly all sympathize with such an emphasis on the mystery of the relationship between the living God and His creature. Certainly, our God cannot be the mere construction of our mind, a mere idea, or a mere formulation of doctrine however well formulated in its propositions. We must believe also in the living God and the personal God, that we must have a personal relation with this living God. Even in the Scriptures, and particularly in the Scriptures, it must be the living God who is doing the speaking. As for Barth, God is always the subject and not primarily the object of Scripture revelation. He is the one who is doing the revealing, and He is doing this by speaking to us. He speaks to us only in a mysterious way. Unless we hear the voice of this living God, we cannot truly say that we have heard the voice of the Scriptures. Unless we hear the voice of this living God, for example, speaking to us and telling us about the forgiveness of our sins, we cannot believe that He has forgiven us our sins. We must hear Him speaking. Whether we hear Him in flashes or more continuously is, for me, a very important question. For Barth, it was also an important question; and in his earlier days he stressed very much the momentary, the flash of lightning. We must try to enter more fully into the implications of this walking this narrow ridge between the yes and the no; in other words, of the limitation of a dialectical structure upon the Scripture and God s revelation. We shall try to do this later. There is, however, another very important aspect of Barth s existential approach. We ask more concretely, just how does God speak to us? Once more, we are cast almost with vehemence into the crisis. In a lecture on the Biblical Questions, Insights, and Vistas, Barth points out how we must come to that one possibility which lies beyond all thinking and all things. The affirmation of God in the New Testament is based exclusively for him upon the possibility of a new order absolutely beyond human thought. 2 of 9
Therefore, as a prerequisite to that order, there must come a crisis that denies the legitimacy of all human thought about God. All the yes of the Bible is meaningless without this no. Life comes from death. Death is the source of all. We must come to the boundary of all possibility and somehow or other having reached beyond that boundary of possibility, we enter with fear and trembling into this world of faith. This is indeed a very complex way of saying that we must abandon all the human to rest exclusively in the revealing act of God. In Barth s existentialism, we are not only dealing with an effort to have a living faith in the living God or in the moment to hear the voice of the living God, we are definitely dealing with a system that tries to tell us how and how only this can take place. And it seems to me that we ought to again make a distinction between some of the true elements that Barth is stressing and the insistence that this can only and does only take place according to his system. There is still another aspect of Barth s existential approach to the Scriptures which deserves our careful attention. Let me say at the outset that we are now to deal with a matter which lies at the basis of much of the criticism of Barth. When we come to a more thorough evaluation of various aspects of Barthianism, we shall find his view very unsatisfactory as to what is held about the infallibility of the Scriptures. Those who hold to an infallible Scripture find themselves here in conflict with Barth from the very beginning. But even if he should have held an infallible Scripture, he has a way of interpreting the truths of the Bible, which itself is objectionable; that is, his method of interpreting the Bible existentially has in it a radical evil and a radical mistake. An example of this kind of explanation is found in Biblical Questions, Insights, and Vistas. Here he states that, for example, our resurrection that is, the resurrection of ourselves means really eternity. It is beyond the point of time. Barth at this stage of his development refuses to ask whether such a resurrection is historical and possible and is in any way the continuation of our life. It really has nothing to do with the last moment of time, he says, or with the sounding of the trumpet. It is the nontemporal limit and end, the eternal now. The resurrection of Christ and the second coming, which is for him the same thing, is also for the early Barth not a historical event. Later he was to modify his views about this, but at this time he frankly says resurrection means a new kind of world. 3 of 9
Thus, it may be said that resurrection is the one experience of man, and note here the word experience. In the crisis of our experience, in the fear of God, man experiences resurrection. It was this kind of interpretation that led C. Van Til of Westminster Seminary to call Barthianism The New Modernism, the title of a book which he wrote about Barthianism. In fact, in his book under that very title, Van Til wonders whether we are not here dealing with a total subjectivism, which has little or no room for an objective reality and objective history. In other words, are we dealing here with something which takes place only in the mind of man, or basically in the mind of man? Does this new man and this God who is Wholly Other, together with the various events and things which are represented, refer to an objective ontologically real world, or has ontology and ontological reality been replaced by some kind of new reality? And whatever we may call this new reality, it is not to be described as objective or as historical or as ontological reality and, therefore, somehow or other it must be described as a kind of subjective reality or a reality which at least in large measure has a subjective element in it. We may call it existential reality; however, we are concerned with Dr. Van Til that we have here an element, a large element of the subjective, and may be translating all our Scripture into the area of the subjective. If Barth himself does not do this, we know that there are theologians who have been influenced by the Barthian thinking who are doing this very thing. And here again, I want to make the distinction, which I made earlier, that at some point we may have to make a distinction between Barth himself the earlier Barth and the later Barth and in a quandary as just to what Barth believed, and this is not within our province to be able to say whether Barth in his own mind actually held this or this. But when we read his language, when we read the very words and give the words the best meaning that we can, we cannot help but feel this element of subjectivity. Men like Pannenberg were later to discover this in him and to object to it, and we find even a man like Bonhoeffer objecting strenuously to the subjectivity of Barth. At this point, we must not forget again, however, that the later Barth tried to free himself from the dominance of his existential philosophy. He claimed not to be able to recognize himself in the very picture of his critic. We shall have to come back upon this again. We are apt to bog down at this point in the question of the exact personal matter with Barth. 4 of 9
There is, however, another way of looking at the problem. VanTil and others have undoubtedly pointed to a very fundamental difficulty in this dialectical or existential language. And we may say that there is certainly a wing of Neoorthodoxy which has drifted farther and farther into existentialism. There are many existential philosophers, both Neoorthodox and otherwise; and the Neoorthodox existential philosophers are no less existentialists than the others. If anyone is tempted to move in that direction and find the reality of the things of the Scripture in a kind of psychologically determined existential world, he will do well to read Van Til s The New Modernism. Van Til s indictment thus may not stand against the later Barth. There may have been changes, he may not stand against all Neoorthodoxy; but certainly, if there is an existential Neoorthodoxy which tends to make subjective that which is objective in the Scriptures, Van Til s criticism is still to the point. And whatever we may say about Barth himself, and especially again about the later Barth, this warning must be well taken. From the Barthian Movement there has come a wave of Christian existentialism. At this point, we must return to the biographical. Are you wondering just what happened to Barth after his transformation, after he left liberalism and found a new road? Somehow or other the change that was taking place in Barth became known here and there. Barth had a close friend who was a neighboring pastor, Eduard Thurneysen. He became a spiritual help and companion. In their mutual spiritual crises, they were determined to get serious with God. In 1917, they published a little volume of sermons under the title Seek God and Ye Shall Live. Barth might have, however, remained in comparative obscurity if he had not been the author of a book. Yes, he wrote a book. It was a book which fell like a bombshell in the playground of the theologians. The book to which we must now turn our attention was a commentary on the epistle to the Romans. Barth gave it the simple title Der Römerbrief; that is, The Epistle to the Romans. It was a sizable book. In fact, 436 pages in its original German edition. So when it was to be enlarged to 520 pages, the comparatively obscure pastor found it rather difficult to get a publisher, but finally was able to publish a thousand volumes in Switzerland. Of these, 300 found their way into the hands of native Swiss theologians and pastors, and except for the rare exception of the theological professor Emil Brunner, 5 of 9
who was much impressed, the commentary got little favorable response from either conservatives or liberals within the Reformed Church. However, in Germany things were quite different. It seems that the German theologians with all their discussions were just ready for this kind of thing. Almost overnight its author became comparatively famous. In no time, an enlarged edition was published in Germany. On the strength of this book, the young author received an invitation early in 1921 to become honorary professor of Reformed theology at the University of Göttingen. And the University of Göttingen, by the way, had a Lutheran theological faculty; and the Frisian churches, the churches of most Frisians in Germany, wanted a Reformed theologian to uphold the Reformed thinking. And they were helped in this by American money from the Presbyterian Church; and Barth was appointed to this exceptional position of the Reformed professor of theology at the University of Göttingen. Thus at the age of 35, Barth was to begin his most influential career as a professor, a professor of theology, a career which he was to continue virtually until his death. Barth s Römerbrief may certainly be classed as more than an ordinary commentary. There were enough ordinary commentaries of every type available. If he had merely wanted to add to the voluminous literature and almost endless speculations on the great epistle, his efforts would hardly have made any splash. Barth s book was different. Perhaps we might say that it was different because of its desperate earnestness. Certainly not all commentaries are written in this style. Certainly not all commentaries are written with a desperate earnestness. It was different too because one might call it theological exegesis, but the great thing about the book is that in it Barth was able first to present to a wider audience the very new and different approach which he had taken. The Barth of the early edition of the Romans is very definitely still the early Barth. From the first, critics accused him of superimposing a kind of system upon Paul s letter and a kind of system upon God s revelation. God, according to him, can reveal Himself and does reveal Himself only according to a certain system. To this Barth replied in the preface to the second edition, If I have a system, it is limited to the recognition of what Kierkegaard calls the infinite, qualitative distinction between time and eternity, 6 of 9
and to my regarding this as possessing negative as well as positive significance, God is in heaven and thou art on earth. In other words, Barth here recognizes that he does carry out this system which negates all of our human thinking and our human approach and brings all man and mankind under condemnation in a more shocking way. And that the God who speaks in the Bible and the God who speaks in the epistle to the Romans is a God who tells us things which we by nature do not know. Who tells us things which can be recognized only when we are humbled in our human nature and come to rest under the no of God, and that we may listen to what He has to say and His yes. Barth goes on to explain that while secular philosophers have called this existential experience of the crisis, and they have called it a first cause which has given them the experience. For him, the Bible presented this same kind of existential crossroad in the figure of Jesus Christ. In other words, he virtually calls himself here a Christian existentialist who has found a similar thing in Jesus Christ which others have found in their existential philosophy. They in a secular way; he in a Christian way. Here then we find Barth frankly admitting that he is developing or, to put it more accurately in his own thought, discovering a kind of Christian existentialism in the epistle to the Romans. What is this commentary like? We are dealing here with a truly epic-making book; and incidentally, Klooster has pointed out in his book The Significance of Barth s Theology that with this book there s a beginning made of a tremendous revival in biblical study, a study which has led to the writing of commentaries not only various commentaries, but also various lexicons and other studies. A great deal of Old and New Testament study has been precipitated by this work of Barth. But what did the book offer? Was it the new method that made it attractive? Or was it the prophetic message which showed man that the Bible was not talking about religion nor about sociology, nor about psychology, or any such thing, but that its one and great message was the Word of the living God and that its message was about God and about God in Jesus Christ? Here was a man who spoke about God with certainty and conviction. The God of Paul said such different things than the old liberals had been used to. He spoke of the righteousness of God, of the sovereignty of God, of the election of God, and above all, about the judgment of God, and we shall not forget, the grace of God. 7 of 9
Here was a message about God; that is, the living God in a new and modern form. No doubt, many who read this startling commentary took a scholarly, theological, or philosophical interest in the matter. The great scholars of the German universities often seemed to us outsiders, at least as though they are playing a kind of intellectual game with these theologians. And when we mention that it fell like a bomb on the playground of the theologians, it was a theologian who suggested that very thought. But for many of these theologians and for many pastors, this message came as a vital and transforming power. They took it to heart and tried in this way to hear the word of God, the word of God s judgment and the word of God s triumphant grace. There were many who then were impressed. Some were impressed by the method. This method seemed to offer a way out for those on the left and for those on the right. As we have already mentioned, we are dealing in Neoorthodoxy with a kind of third way. Some way between liberalism and fundamentalism. And so, by those on the left, we mean those who have been completely captivated by the messages of modern science and have virtually lost the Bible to the higher critics. There seemed to be a way out for them in this way of Barth. On the other hand, there were conservatives who held to the Bible but were deeply disturbed by the various forms of criticism and by the works of science, and by the various problems of our modern day. Here for them later also was to what appeared to be a way out. Barth could read and use the Bible as a message from God and still accept the givens of science and the higher critical attitudes toward the text. He could use it as a word of man full of mistakes and full of errors. For him it made no difference whether the details related in Romans 4 about Abraham were historical or not. In fact, he was very happy to say he does not care whether they are historical, and it s a great thing to know that it doesn t make any difference whether they are historical. One must know the truth behind the message and if Paul was thus speaking the Word of God even though he was speaking things which were not historically accurate. In fact, it is just when we recognize this very human character of the Bible and go beyond all these historical questions that we shall be able to hear the voice of the living God in the Bible. We shall discuss this matter of Barth and the Bible more fully in a later lecture. At this point, it is sufficient to note this aspect of the appeal which men to the right and men to the left, and especially first men to the left and later men to the right, were to find in Barth s method. 8 of 9
The door for a liberal conservativism or a conservative liberalism was thus opened. In a formal way, this use of the Bible as a witness to the truth or a pointing to the truth, rather than as a literal statement of the facts about God has its appeal. It was, however, the content of the message which also gripped the minds and hearts of men. The message was one of judgment. It was a man who, in the light of the New Testament, could expose the folly and futility and boastfulness of humanism which was fast going on the rocks. Here was a man that could call the god of liberalism an idol. Somehow men felt and knew that he was right. In speaking God s no over modern man, he was speaking the truth; and when the truth first came home how a civilization theology religion and all of mankind on this crisis, there certainly was a kind of shockwave felt amongst the theologians and the pastors. For the first time they had come to know man under judgment, man under condemnation, man lost in sin. Perhaps some wallowed gloriously in their pessimism and moaned with inner satisfaction about how sinful, how sad, and how lost we are. Men fear judgment, but they re often intrigued by it too; and if it is eloquently and powerfully expressed, it seems even to bring a kind of satisfaction. But it was not only God s no as reflected by Barth that struck home. God s no was always accompanied with God s yes. Note that it is always accompanied with God s yes. Beyond the death-line lies God; beyond judgment lies grace. The greatest distance from God is the point of His nearness. God s wrath is the beginning of His love. There is as Berkouwer has so correctly shown in the title of his book The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Barth: Do not despair, or rather, do despair. Admit your finitude. Come to the end of your road. Admit that you re nothing. Recognize your nothingness. Beyond this death-line is the God who is man. The faithful God who says no only that He may say yes. And He is the God for us. The God who is man. The God who came to us in Jesus Christ. The God for every man. What a wonderful message of judgment and hope for Europe of 1920. Christ-Centered Learning Anytime, Anywhere 9 of 9