This book is about theology. Specifically, it is about how one does theology. Even more specifically, it is about how Karl Barth does theology. I freely admit that I believe that the way Karl Barth does theology is the only sensible way to do theology today. I cannot exclude the possibility that someone might one day convince me otherwise, but thus far no one has. For me, then, coming to understand how Barth does theology is coming to understand how doing theology is as much as possible today.
In this book I argue that there is an essentially speculative aspect to Barth’s theology. I argue that if one focuses on this speculative aspect and determines how it comes about and what its consequences are, one will get to the heart of Barth’s theology and thus understand its basic “mechanism.” Furthermore, I argue that seeing this aspect opens up new conversations. First, it opens up a conversation about Barth’s relationship with German Idealism . It seems that German Idealism is once more in vogue, which means that noticing this aspect of Barth’s theology opens up another conversation about the relationship between his work and our contemporary intellectual situation.
To formulate the title of this book, The Affirmations of Reason, I use the old rhetorical trick of playing with the subjective and objective genitive. It is meant to suggest that Karl Barth’s theology is characterized by a fundamental affirmation of our capacity to reason as self-conscious subjects—and that this capacity is brought within a particular logic of affirmation that excludes even the thought of the nonexistence of God. In other words, in light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ the self-conscious human subject cannot not affirm the sovereign existence of the free and loving God as unconditional.
The book is roughly divided into two parts. The first part tells the story of how the self-conscious human subject assumes the place that it does in modern thought. It is essentially the story of the development of German Idealism from Kant to Hegel . The second part tells the story of how Barth’s theology both affirms and reforms our understanding of the self-conscious human subject within the praxis of theology. This is where I develop the notion that Barth is a speculative theologian. It was important to trace the development of German Idealism in some detail to emphasize that we cannot dispense with the essential insights of that great philosophical movement. In my view Barth is the theologian who has seen this most clearly, and, since I wanted to do him justice, I had to do them justice as well. That is what I have tried to do—in some detail.
The first part of the book is thus not directly concerned with theology. I suggest that readers who do not feel the need to run through the conceptual development of the nexus of self-consciousness, reason, and freedom in German Idealism go directly to the second part, on Barth’s theology, after having read the second chapter. This is not to suggest that the second part could stand alone. The book was written as a whole, and each step was important and shaped what came after. To avoid confusion, however, I am simply pointing out that the full-blooded theology is found in Chaps. 5, 6, and 7.
I also want to say something about my use of the term “speculative theology ” to prevent misunderstanding. This concept has had two distinct, if related, uses. It can denote a particular way of doing theology that roughly resembles that of philosophy. A figure such as Anselm of Canterbury has been described as a speculative theologian in this sense of the term. It can also denote the theology practiced by the mediating theologians of the nineteenth century—theologians who worked in light of the philosophy of the German Idealists. I take both uses to reveal something important about the concept. In this book, I argue for a third aspect or use of the concept, which is explicit in Hegel and implicit in Barth. For Hegel, speculative thought denotes the form of knowledge as knowledge.1 That is, speculative knowledge is immune to attacks by skepticism and doubt —it is absolute. Something very similar goes for Barth’s account of the knowledge of God that we can acquire in faith . While I invoke the two more conventional senses of “speculative theology ,” I add this third aspect concerning the certain form of our knowledge. In other words, Barth’s theology is also speculative because it is immune to the usual forms of relativism, skepticism , and subjectivism that have marred the discipline of theology. In the end, I think, this third aspect provides an essential link that enables us to hold the two somewhat distinct if more established senses of the concept together in a more intuitive way.
I am aware that it may be considered provocative to call Barth’s theology speculative. I am not particularly worried about that. Throughout I insist that Barth’s theology is essentially grounded in the deeply Protestant praxis of reading and rereading the Biblical scriptures. This is the measure of any legitimate, speculative theology : it is ultimately a form of reading , a way of understanding and obeying the inner structuring logic of the biblical texts. Anything that departs from this grounding praxis immediately ceases to be theology and becomes poor philosophy, anthropology, or theosophy. It immediately becomes open to doubt and thus ceases to be speculative in the sense in which I develop the concept in light of Hegel and Barth. In this sense, all theology is essentially practical and biblical.
This practical aspect is what I love most about Barth’s theology. The Kirchliche Dogmatik occupies nine thousand pages of unfinished dogmatic theology. It is incredibly stringent and employs sharp criteria for judging what can and cannot count as a legitimate theological insight. It is unfinished because theology cannot end. As a living praxis, there is always more to say. We can always read the biblical texts again and discover something new and challenging that overturns our previous assumptions, requires a sharper formulation or a clearer distinction. Thank God for that.
In 2013 I defended my Ph.D. dissertation, “Seeking out the Enemy on His own Ground – Problems and Proof in Dialectical Theology ,” at Princeton Theological Seminary. In a way, this book begins where my dissertation left off. According to Hegel, when one thinks dialectically one has yet to grasp knowledge as knowledge. Once one has understood that the form of knowing must be absolute, one begins to think speculatively. Whether I accomplish the latter is certainly an open question, but I do see a clear progression in my own theological thinking, which is reflected in the titles of the dissertation and this book. There is, of course, a conceptual continuum between the two texts (how could there not be?), but as far as I know there is an overlap of only about one-and-a-half paragraphs on Hegel’s treatment of judgment.
I was very privileged to write my dissertation with Dr. Bruce L. McCormack as my doktorvater. Anyone who knows his work will immediately recognize his influence on my thinking. In his classic study, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909–1936, he argued that Barth must be understood in light of the work of the German Idealists. He argued that the most fruitful way to approach Barth was to ask the epistemological question: how does Barth know what he claims to know? He argued that to understand this one must engage with his early theology in detail, and determine how it fits with Barth’s 1931 book on Anselm of Canterbury . He argued that Barth’s doctrine of election was the culmination of Barth’s development as a theologian. In all this, I remain a student of McCormack and follow his lead. Now, within this framework, I find myself arguing against many of McCormack’s specific positions, but that is how it ought to be between master and student. How boring it would be, if there was nothing more to say. The aim is for students to think for themselves. On this point too, I am a very grateful student of Bruce McCormack .
Throughout my work on Barth, I have had the great privilege to be in constant conversation with dr. teol, Bent Flemming Nielsen. Again, anyone who knows his work will also recognize his influence on my thinking. His book, Die Rationalität der Offenbarungstheologie, is one of the most insightful studies of Barth that I have ever read. Taking someone else’s thoughts beyond what they themselves have written and said is a subtle form of criticism . That is how Hegel, in his subtler moments, critiques Kant. In this sense, my book is a thorough critique of Bent Flemming Nielsen’s lovely reading of Barth, written with deep gratitude.
I owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr. John R. Bowlin. Dr. Bowlin is one of the liveliest and most intelligent theologians I have ever encountered. As anyone who knows him will agree, he embodies the noblest academic virtues.
I want to thank Dr. Ola Sigurdson for his continued support and encouragement. He has been an ideal interlocutor since I returned to Denmark four years ago. There are few dialectical theologians in Scandinavia, and I count myself very lucky to have come to know this engaging and insightful fellow traveler. I am grateful to all his colleagues and the Ph.D. students in the department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion at the University of Gothenburg, who have been great conversation partners and critics these last four years.
As I was writing the book, the Faculty of Theology at the University of Copenhagen offered me a position as associate researcher in the Department of Systematic Theology. Working at the Faculty of Theology has made all the difference. I am very grateful to the dean, dr. teol Kirsten Busch Nielsen, for her help and support. I am also incredibly grateful to all my wonderful colleagues at the Department of Systematic Theology, especially the department chair, Dr. Johanne Stubbe Teglbjerg Kristensen, who has been both a great supporter and an insightful critic of my work on Barth.
Several colleagues and friends have accompanied my thinking and writing along the way. Dr. Yoshiyuki Kato helped shape the thoughts that became this book. Without whom not. Dr. Anthony Feneuil read and discussed several of my chapters along the way, which has always helped me see things more clearly and formulate my thoughts more effectively. Dr. Lars Nørgaard and I have discussed how to do (and not do) theology for over sixteen years. I am privileged to have such a knowledgeable and quick-witted man as my friend. I want to thank Pastor Caspar Wenzel Tornøe for all our lovely, long, and symphonic talks on speculative theology and I. A. Dorner . Pastor Thomas Emil Hornemann Thielcke has been an ecclesial voice of reason throughout my writing and has helped me never lose sight of the true purpose of theology: to serve the Church.
I am also grateful to the Copenhagen association of psychoanalysts at Freuds Agora. The discussions there provided an intellectual community when it was truly needed. I am also very grateful to Dr. Salvatore F. Guido of New York. I want to thank Dr. William E. Barnett of WordCraft Editing & Writing Services for all his help throughout the years. I also want to thank my editor at Palgrave Macmillan, Phillip Getz, and his assistant editor, Amy Invernizzi, for their help and support.
My family has supported me throughout. My parents, Lisbet Rasmussen and Erik Baark, have been the most engaged, supportive, and loving parents one could wish for. I love you both. The enormous breadth of knowledge, keen mind, and loving friendship of my sister and colleague, Josefine Baark, continues to inspire me. Thank you, sister!
My wife, Kimberly Martin Hendler, has loved, supported, and kept me sane for nine years. I am grateful to your family for the love and support they have given you and me through this process. I love you, Kim, you make me free. Together we had our beautiful son, Oliver Hendler Baark, who has accompanied this book all his little life. His love provided a refuge, not least by demanding my full attention and by not being this book. Thank you, son.
Finally, I write and think as a pastor in the German Reformed Church in Copenhagen. I am eternally grateful to my senior colleague, Pastor Axel Bargheer, and to the entire presbyterium, Jytte, Sten, Wera, and Anette, for the love and support that they have shown me throughout this process. I am deeply grateful to the entire congregation for their continued care and encouragement.
This book is dedicated to the German Reformed Church...