Evangelical Theology: An Introduction by Karl Barth

Evangelical Theology: An Introduction by Karl Barth, 1979, Eerdmans

This post is not intended to be a review of Barth's book, originally published in English translation in 1963. Here, I simply want to reflect on my initial encounter with the Swiss theologian's writings.

I suppose that I first became aware of Barth's theology when I read through much of The Complete Works of Francis A Schaeffer in my early 20's. Schaeffer was critical of Barth's doctrine of Scripture. He also accused Barth of having a scant regard for the historical basis of the Christian faith. These negative early impressions did not exactly inspire me to invest much time studying the theologian. But Karl Barth's thinking has been attracting renewed attention of late. Many theology bloggers cite Barth as an influential figure in their theological development. Ben Myers' Faith & Theology is probably the foremost Barth-inspired blog. See here for my interview with Ben where, amongst other things, we discuss the resurgence of interest in Barth's theology. All this helped to persuade me that I aught to at lest try to read something by the man. I'm certainly not going to devote my life to reading his voluminous Church Dogmatics, but I thought that I'd have a look at this Evangelical Theology.

I'm not altogether sure that I bought the right book, as this is not really an introduction to Barth's teaching on evangelical doctrine. The first section contains some theological discussion. But in the rest of the work, Barth reflects on the challenges of theological existence. When reading the book I tried to keep my mind as unclouded by prejudice as possible. I wanted to give Barth a fair hearing. What I have to say in this post is based simply on my reading of this book.

Studying Evangelical Theology was a rewarding experience. I enjoyed Barth's pacey style and found his arguments stimulating. He defines evangelical theology not in terms of the sixteenth century Confessions but "as that theology which treats the God of the Gospel." (p. 5). In thinking of the place of theology, Barth focuses first of all on the Word of God. This is God's redemptive historical action by which he reveals himself to us in word and deed. In this context Barth discusses God's covenant with Israel, which culminates in the coming of Christ whereby the Word became flesh. Barth's evangelical theology is admirably Christ centered. "This whole Word of God in Christ is the word to which theology must listen and reply." (p. 23).

Although Barth sees Scripture as a witness to the Word of God rather than the Word of God written, he has a high view of the authority of the biblical witnesses. The theologian must not exalt himself above the Bible,

"He cannot grant of refuse them a hearing as though they were colleagues on the faculty. Still less is he a high-school teacher authorised to look over their shoulder benevolently or crossly, to correct their notebooks, or to give them good, average, or bad marks. Even the smallest, strangest, simplest, or obscurest among the biblical witnesses has an incomparable advantage over even the most pious, scholarly and sagacious latter-day theologian". (p. 31-32).

This is hardly a commitment to biblical inerrancy on Barth's part, but contemporary Barth scholars who snigger at the traditional evangelical attitude to the Bible would do well to heed these words. For Barth, the theologian's main work is to prayerfully study and set forth the teaching of Scripture. The theologian is also part of the Christian community. Barth was a pastor before he became a professional theologian. His magnum opus is his Church Dogmatics. Theology has a responsibility to the Church, especially her pastors,

"Theology is committed directly to the community and especially to those members who are responsible for preaching, teaching, and counseling. The task theology has to fulfill is continually to stimulate and lead them to face squarely the question of the proper relation of their human speech to the Word of God, which is the origin, object, and content of this speech." (p. 41).

This emphasis on the relationship between theology and ministry is welcome. Barth's reflections on theological existence are thought provoking. The God of the Gospel demands wonder, concern, commitment and faith. Theology cannot be studied with an air of impersonal detachment. "The living object of theology concerns the whole man. It concerns even what is most private in the private life of the theologian." (p. 84). While the theologian may have doubts, he must be a person of faith, hope and love.

Despite Schaeffer's misgivings, I found Barth to be pretty firm on historical basis of the faith in the face of rationalistic scepticism. He distances himself from those who would demythologise, "Jesus' birth from a virgin and his descent into hell, or the resurrection of the flesh and the report of the empty tomb, or the trinitarian dogma of Nicaea and the Christological dogma of Chalcedon" (p. 103). Such theologians should ponder whether they believe in quite another God than the God of the Gospel.

But, and there must be a "but", there are problems with some features of Barth's theology. He takes an actualistic view of the being of God so that, "God's being, or truth is the event of his self-disclosure, his radiance as the Lord of all lords" (p. 9). This sounds very impressive. But Barth has collapsed God's being into his acts. He is the event of his self-disclosure. I also disagree with Barth's insistence that the Bible is simply a witness to the Word of God. As John Murray writes, "Scripture is God's own witness to us, borne through the instrumentality of men but borne by such a unique mode that the witness of men is God's own witness." (See here). The Bible is the inscripturated Word of God.

Unfortunately, Barth teaches that "the Word became flesh, miserable and sinful, flesh of sin like our own (p. 70). But Christ did not have a fallen human nature. How could the holy Son of God take sinful flesh into union with himself? There are hints of Barth's universalism here too. For him, God's Yes to man always takes precedence over his No (p. 93-94). Certainly, God says Yes to all who trust in Christ. In the Gospel, his Yes triumphs over his No. But God utters a condemnatory No to all who remain in sin and unbelief. Sometimes Barth is downright idiosyncratic. He treats the theologian's accountability to God as a Temptation (p. 133ff). Barth has some salutary things to say about theology being judged by the Lord, but is this God tempting theology? Strange.

So, my initial impression of Barth at first hand is that he was a stunningly creative and original theological thinker. That cannot be denied. But his theology is not sufficiently rooted in the Scriptural revelation of the gospel. I can see why people find his writings attractive. Theology should be original and fresh. However, Christian theology must also be faithful to God's written Word. Barth himself said, "the hearing, understanding, and application of the biblical message... is the fundamental task of all theological study." (p. 175). But some aspects of Barth's teaching in Evangelical Theology fall seriously short of biblical teaching. The main problem area is his weak doctrine of Scripture. This enables him to ignore what the Bible actually says if it contradicts what he considers to be the message of the Word of God. We may no doubt find much that is stimulating and helpful in Barth. But his theology should be given a suitably dialectical "Yes" and "No" from discerning evangelicals.

To further get to grips with some of Barth's key ideas, I recently read Karl Barth And Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences, edited by Sung Wook Chung. I hope to post a review of this book in the next week or so. [Update: see also my review of Engaging with Barth, edited by David Gibson & Daniel Strange].