SPCK Introductions

Densil Morgan

• Publisher: SPCK Publishing
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9780281065691
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christianity

Terrific... This really is a readable, accessible introduction that takes account of some of the most recent Barth scholarship. It is highly recommended for those coming to Barth's work for the first time' Oliver D. Crisp, Reader in Theology, University of Bristol D. Densil Morgan makes Barth's often complex, rich and provocative thinking accessible to a wide audience. He provides an introduction to the daunting, multi volume The Church Dogmatics, sketches the central themes of Barth's work and familiarizes the reader with the way Barth approached theological issues.

1

Young man Barth

The early years

Karl Barth was born in Basel, Switzerland, on 10 May 1886, the first son of Johann Friedrich (‘Fritz’) and Anna Barth. Fritz, like his father before him, was a minister of the Reformed Church and a scholar in his own right, having gained his doctorate in theology for a treatise on Tertullian, the early African church father. A conservative scholar, though not dogmatically so, he had undergone a conversion experience as a young man that had confirmed his loyalty to the Swiss Calvinism in which he had been raised. If Fritz was somewhat pensive and retiring, Anna was vivacious and outgoing. She too had been raised in a Reformed Church manse, though her background was more pietistically inclined than that of her husband. Her brother, father and grandfather were Reformed ministers in the city or environs of Basel, which was Fritz’s home city as well. The couple had married in 1894 and two years later, a month before Karl was born, Fritz was called from his country parish to teach at the Basel College of Preachers, a seminary supplying biblically orthodox pastors for congregations of the Reformed Church.

Although his upbringing was strict, Karl would never find it oppressive. In fact both he and his brother Peter, who was born in 1898, would follow the family route into the pastorate. Peter, who died in 1940, became a Calvin scholar of repute.

The young family remained in Basel until 1889, when Fritz proceeded to Bern, some 60 miles to the south, to take up a university post first as assistant lecturer in New Testament and patristics, and in 1895 the chair in early church history. There Karl and Peter were joined by a brother and two sisters: Heinrich, who would become a philosopher, Katharine, who died in childhood, and Gertrud.

Family life was boisterous and Karl, though engaged with his lessons, was hardly overtly studious. He was prepared for confirmation by Robert Aeschbacher, a dynamic young pastor and former pupil of Fritz’s who shared his teacher’s basic theological orientation and social concern. And like Fritz he was evangelical but always sensitive to orthodoxy’s tendency to become ossified and lifeless. For him, sound theology had more to do with spiritual ebullience than strict notional correctness. Karl was so inspired that he felt he would have to know more. Following confirmation on 23 March 1902 he decided that he would become a theologian.

In theological terms, Bern at the time was something of a backwater. Despite this Karl, now 18, matriculated at the theological faculty of his father’s university in October 1904 and spent the next four semesters, until summer 1906 (German university semesters numbering two a year), being instructed in the academic bases of Christian faith: Old and New Testaments, Hebrew and Greek, along with courses in church history and systematic theology. He was not inspired. He was surprised to find that his father was the most conservative member of the faculty. The speculative liberalism that dominated Bern theology was better typified by one rather ancient New Testament professor, a disciple of F. D. Baur’s radical Tübingen school, who held that not one of St Paul’s letters was authentic but all had been written as late as the second century. Most faculty members held to a superseded Hegelian idealism and rather deplored Albrecht Ritschl’s insistence that Christianity was a historically based religion or it was nothing. If this old-fashioned idealism failed to resonate with Karl, his father’s ‘positivism’ or middle-of-the-road orthodoxy fared little better. Fritz Barth’s son was convinced that Protestant theology had more to offer, and in October 1906 he ventured abroad to study something more potent. Karl wanted to go to Marburg, where liberal theology was at its most vital and exciting, but Fritz, fearing his son would lose his doctrinal bearings, steered him to the more conservative Halle or Greifswald. They compromised, and decided that Karl should spend a single semester studying theology in Berlin.

The lure of liberalism

The ghost who stalked the corridors and classrooms of the University of Berlin was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), its first professor of dogmatics, the so-called ‘father of modern theology’ and one whom Barth would always regard as ‘this great, bold and truly religious theologian’ (T&C, ‘Schleiermacher’ 159–99). It was Schleiermacher who had attempted most vigorously to bridge the divide between the naturalistic, non-revelatory preconceptions of the Enlightenment and the ongoing truths of the Protestant and evangelical faith. Although some of the Berlin professors were uncomfortable with the subjective romanticism of Schleiermacher’s scheme and sensitive to the weaknesses of his use of the concept of ‘feeling’ as a key to understanding Christianity, others felt that his was the only valid way of doing theology in the modern world. Barth avoided the former – most pointedly his father’s friend, the systematic theologian Reinhold Seeberg – and eagerly attended the lectures of the latter.

The one living scholar who made a deep impression on Barth in Berlin was the immensely erudite church historian Adolf von Harnack, who six years previously had charmed the university with a series of popular interfaculty lectures that would be translated as What is Christianity? For Harnack, there was a difference between the kernel of the faith and the transitory doctrinal husk in which it had been enveloped. The ‘essence of Christianity’, as the series had been titled, was simply the benign nature of God’s fatherhood, the solidarity or ‘brotherhood’ of humankind and the infinite value of each individual soul. Such had been the essence of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels, which had been obscured by a speculative dogmatism beginning even in the New Testament with the complex theologies of St Paul and the apostle John. Whereas traditional Christianity had majored on the transcendent holiness of God, the sinfulness of humankind through the fall and the unique and supranatural quality of the atoning work of Christ, Harnack’s God was immanent within creation, human life was imbued with inherent capabilities, and the concept of progress was taken for granted. This was hardly what Karl had been taught at home, and it diverged spectacularly from the sharp dichotomies of his inherited Reformed faith. Yet the young Swiss was transfixed.

If Barth was being drawn by the progressive teaching of Harnack, he was being even more stimulated by his own reading. It was at Berlin during the winter semester of 1906–7 that he first read and mastered Immanuel Kant’s Enlightenment classic, The Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Schleiermacher’s Speeches on Religion to its Cultured Despisers (1799) and the contemporary Marburg thinker Wilhelm Herrmann’s Ethics (1901). It was Kant who, in a celebrated essay of 1796, had urged his contemporaries to cast away the props of external authority including, presumably, the Bible and the Church, and be bold enough to think for themselves. He had equally famously posited a divide between the phenomena of human knowledge and existence, and the noumena of ultimate reality – those things beyond reason’s ability to grasp. These included God, freedom and immortality which, if they existed at all, could only be presupposed on the basis of intuition and people’s ethical sense. Kant’s God was a postulate of the moral consciousness. This deity was very much a God of the philosophers and not necessarily the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A radical critique of traditional Christianity was implicit in the Enlightenment scheme. The deity of Christ, the New Testament miracles, the supposition that human nature was fundamentally impaired, were challenged and rejected. It had been left to Schleiermacher to devise a scheme that retained Christianity’s religious potency while accepting much of the intellectual criticism inherent in the Enlightenment project. Having been brought up a Pietist, he retained an appreciation for the value of experiential religion and a warm faith in Jesus as saviour.

He was convinced, nevertheless, that the rationalists’ critique could not be avoided. For Christians, at least Christ may still be the saviour, but it was no longer possible to think of him as the unique Son of God born of the Virgin, whose death was an atoning sacrifice for sin. He was, rather, the human bearer of God’s gracious revelation to humankind. In his Speeches, Schleiermacher had argued that religion was not so much a set of doctrines or dogmas to be affirmed as a matter of experience, an emotional awareness of the divine. Whereas knowledge was confined to the phenomena of this world, as Kant had so compellingly shown, religion functioned in the realm of spiritual perceptions (or affections, the term used by psychologists of religion). What made a person religious was not, in the first instance, his or her innate ethical sense or the appropriation of a creed. It was, rather, the soul’s awareness of the divine. The cultured despisers of late-eighteenth-century Berlin had rejected Christianity, believing it to be intellectually discredited. Schleiermacher, religion’s equally cultured apologist, had insisted that it was not a matter of embracing implausible beliefs or practising a cold morality, but of being open to transcendent mystery that would enrich rather than impoverish lives. Christianity was the cultural form in which the universal religious impulse had expressed itself in the context of European life.

Schleiermacher’s Speeches marked the beginning of an epoch in modern religious history and a new way of doing theology: that of Protestant liberalism, which would be expressed most fully in the Berlin professor’s systematic theology, The Christian Faith (1830). It was the early Schleiermacher of the Speeches, however, who would retain a hold on Barth’s imagination, and for the next decade the theme of Karl’s sermons would be the reality of the religious consciousness and God as a function of human experience of the divine. Schleiermacher, who had left his professorship at the University of Halle in 1807 to become pastor of Berlin’s Trinity Church, a post he would combine with his teaching in the city’s new university, would always retain a Christ-centred faith. In Barth’s words:

He was determined to preach Christ as the bearer of the great peace, as the original source and bringer of life. He pursued this purpose with an inner passion which is unmistakably clear to everyone, in his writings, in his sermons especially. And the method by which he sought to achieve it made a deep impression on his contemporaries.

(T&C, ‘Schleiermacher’ 183)

It was not, however, an historical thinker but a contemporary figure who most affected Barth’s awareness during the winter of 1906–7, namely, the Marburg theologian Wilhelm Herrmann (1846–1922). Herrmann’s Ethics stirred him to the depths, but no sooner had he finished reading it than his single semester in Berlin ended, signalling his return to Bern.

His next rather dissolute semester at his home university was taken up not with theology but with unruly student affairs in which beer drinking and strong tobacco played a not insignificant part, while Karl clashed with his father over how religion should be expressed in the modern world. An increasingly despairing Fritz was insistent that his son should be exposed to sound theology rather than the heresies of liberal Marburg, and the next semester, autumn 1907, took Karl to conservative Tübingen, where the systematician Adolf Schlatter and a friend of his father’s, the New Testament scholar Theodore Häring, reigned supreme. It was, alas, a disaster: Karl rebelled forcefully not only against Fritz’s positivism but against orthodoxy in all its forms.

Theology at Marburg

Sensing that he was in danger of alienating Karl terminally, Fritz relented, and in the spring of 1908 finally allowed his theologically wayward son to make the trek to Marburg. Karl would soon be revelling in the delights of a new world. On the one hand, he was afforded the opportunity of experiencing the teaching of such luminaries as Martin Rade, the engaging and open-hearted professor of social ethics, and sitting at the feet of the great Wilhelm Herrmann himself, and on the other, of striking up friendships with other students of his own ilk. One of them, his fellow Swiss Eduard Thurneysen (1888–1977), who happened to be the son of one of Fritz Barth’s oldest friends, would in turn become Karl’s closest associate in the momentous break with liberalism that would occur a decade or so later. But Herrmann was the star. ‘Herrmann’, Barth would reminisce in 1925, ‘was the theological teacher of my student days. The day twenty years ago in Berlin when I first read his Ethik I remember as if it were today … I can say that on that day I believe my own deep interest in theology began’ (T&C, ‘Herrmann’ 238–71 [238]).

Herrmann belonged to the school of liberal theologians who had taken their lead from Albrecht Ritschl (1822–89). Unlike Schleiermacher, Ritschl was uncomfortable with the concept of feeling, emotion and subjective experience as the criteria for discovering theological truth, but was convinced that Christianity was, in essence, a phenomenon of history. History was open to scholarly scrutiny, and it was along historical lines that God’s disclosure of himself could be ascertained. Ritschl was an avowed enemy of metaphysics and abhorred Hegel’s idealism as a corruption of religious truth. Rather than existing as some abstract ‘Absolute’ only tangentially connected to ordinary existence, God had committed himself to the historical process and could be known through the moral and spiritual impact he had made on humankind. This had occurred exquisitely in the person of Jesus Christ.

Unlike the radical New Testament critics of the Tübingen school, Ritschl believed that the Gospels were dependable portraits of actual events showing that the person of Jesus had made a profound impact on the lives of his followers. While he rejected the way complex and unnecessary doctrines had later evolved, obscuring the immediacy of the historical Christ, there was no doubt that Jesus was the bearer of a divine salvation and that God had been uniquely active in his life. Although not directly perceptible by human means, God was unquestionably discernible through the moral effect he had on human life. For those not prejudiced against God, God’s existence could be perceived in the actions of those who believed in him. History revealed that Jesus had preached the coming of God’s kingdom, that the lives of those who had responded to his proclamation had been changed and that human society had improved as a result. This reality was still open for people within the Church, and for subsequent believers Jesus, who could be accessed by means of the New Testament Gospels, conveyed the value of God to us.

By the time Barth arrived in Marburg, Ritschl’s scheme had long been assailed by theologians on the left and on the right. Conservatives believed that he had conceded too much to Kant in asserting that God was not directly perceptible to human consciousness, and accused him of undermining the factual nature of such key doctrines as Christ’s objective divinity and the miraculous occurrences that, in the New Testament, had accompanied the proclamation of God’s kingdom. Radicals and progressives, however, were convinced that his historicism had not gone far enough. If revelation occurred within the realm of sober, objective, mundane history, then surely it could not be confined to the sphere of the Christian Church. Was it not special pleading to claim that God was only to be found in Jesus and the impact he had made on his followers?

It was Ernst Troeltsch, one of Ritschl’s most brilliant pupils, who had asserted this view most cogently. Historical research was bound by the historical method and not dogmatic convictions concerning the religious value of Christ. As an historical phenomenon, Christianity could claim no special dispensation. It was, in fact, only one religion among many, and all the scholar could do was study the thought, worsh...

Table of contents

• Cover
• About the authors
• About the eidtor
• Title page
• Copyright
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Date chart
• 1. Young man Barth
• 2. The pastor of Safenwil
• 3. Göttingen and Münster
• 4. The Bonn years
• 5. The doctrine of the Word of God
• 6. The doctrine of God
• 7. The doctrine of creation
• 8. The doctrine of reconciliation
• Notes
• A guide to further reading
• Search items