Barth is one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century. Even today, theologians are engaging with aspects of Karl Barth’s thought. This is a summary of his achievements and theological contributions in an era of world wars. Work through this short study to potentially discover how Karl Barth’s theology may have contributed to your theological understanding.
Step 1: Watch the Lecture
Step 2: Readings & Research
Theologian Karl Barth, in about 1930. After reading Bonhoeffer’s doctoral dissertation, The Communion of Saints, Barth declared it “a theological miracle.”
Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) rocked the world of theology when he published his commentary on Romans in 1919. His focus on God as truly God and his return to Scripture “destroyed the older liberalism,” in one scholar’s words. Later, Barth helped draft the Barmen Declaration (1934) that declared the true German church could never give ultimate allegiance to the Nazi state. How much did Barth influence Bonhoeffer, who was twenty years younger?
Bonhoeffer studied theology at the great liberal faculties of Tübingen and Berlin. At the University of Berlin, he was especially stimulated by his study of Martin Luther. But the greatest theological influence on Bonhoeffer came from the writings of a Swiss theologian who was then teaching in Germany—Karl Barth. Bonhoeffer never studied with Barth, but he devoured his writings.
Barth led the new “dialectical theology” movement that was rediscovering the great themes of the Reformation and the “strange new world” within the Bible. Like Barth, Bonhoeffer rejected the nineteenth century’s liberal theology, with its focus on human religion. He embraced Barth’s theology of grace revealed in Jesus Christ as the Word of God, attested by Scripture and proclaimed by the church. Barth’s battle cry, “Revelation, not religion!” would remain a fundament of Bonhoeffer’s theology to the end. (But, like Luther, Bonhoeffer would stress that God’s revelation is deeply hidden “in the likeness of sinful flesh.”) Bonhoeffer finally met Barth in the summer of 1931. “I was even more impressed by his discussion than by his writings and lectures,” Bonhoeffer said. The two remained friends, and they became allies, especially in the struggle against the “German Christian” theology that tried to amalgamate Christianity and Nazism. But Bonhoeffer was an independent thinker. Quite early he criticized Barth for interpreting God’s freedom as more a freedom from the world than a freedom for the world. Toward the end of his life he accused Barth of a “positivism of revelation.” He apparently meant that though Barth revived the great doctrines of the church, he failed to adequately interpret their meaning for everyday life in the world.
John D. Godsey, “Barth and Bonhoeffer,” Christian History Magazine-Issue 32: Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologian in Nazi Germany (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 1991).
“All in all, Barth was surprised at the waves he caused. Late in life he wrote, “As I look back upon my course, I seem to myself as one who, ascending the dark staircase of a church tower and trying to steady himself, reached for the banister, but got hold of the bell rope instead. To his horror he had then to listen to what the great bell had sounded over him and not over him alone.”
Barth fought not just with liberals but also with allies who challenged some of his extreme conclusions. When Brunner proposed that God revealed himself not just in the Bible but in nature as well (though not in a saving way), Barth replied in 1934 with an article titled, “No! An Answer to Emil Brunner.” Barth believed that such a “natural theology” was the root of the religious syncretism and anti-Semitism of the “German Christians”—those who supported Hitler’s national socialism. (Later in life, he moderated his views and reconciled with Brunner).
“Jesus does not give recipes that show the way to God as other teachers of religion do. He is himself the way.”—Karl Barth
By this time, Barth was immersed in the German church struggle. He was a founder of the so-called Confessing Church, which was repulsed by the ideology of “blood and soil” and the Nazis’ attempt to create a “German Christian” church. The 1934 Barmen Declaration, largely based on Barth’s initial draft, pitted the revelation of Jesus Christ against the “truth” of Hitler and national socialism:
“Jesus Christ … is the one Word of God.… We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and beside this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.”
When Barth refused to take the oath of unconditional allegiance to the Führer, he lost his position at Bonn. His native Basel offered him a chair in theology and from there he continued to champion the causes of the Confessing Church, the Jews, and oppressed people everywhere.
After the war, Barth engaged in controversies about baptism (though a Reformed theologian, he rejected infant baptism), hermeneutics, and the demythologizing program of Rudolf Bultmann (who denied the historical nature of Scripture, instead believing it a myth whose meaning could heal spiritual anxiety).
Though his later years were relatively quiet, Barth remains the most important theologian of the twentieth century. When it looked as if a moralistic and humanistic theology had won over Christendom, Barth showed Christians—mainline, evangelical, and Catholic—how to continue to take the Bible seriously.
”
“The last 100 years have produced a new wave of approaches to biblical interpretation. One of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, Karl Barth (d. 1968), interrupted the trend of historical-critical methodologies that dominated the landscape of biblical interpretation, particularly in Germany, with a theological hermeneutic. In successive editions of his commentary on Romans, Barth revealed the “values” presupposed by his critics in their alleged “value-neutral” approach to biblical interpretation (e.g., rejection of theological categories of thought or belief in a physical resurrection of Christ). Different from most biblical scholars of his time, Barth admitted his interpretive presuppositions, including beliefs in the transcendence of God and the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. His interest lay not in exegesis as description or historical excavation, but rather in understanding Scripture as a means through which God communicates and makes demands of readers. For Barth, the interpretive act that results in comprehending biblical meaning is openness in reading—through which God reveals His truth. Barth marked the revival of a more theologically oriented hermeneutic that had been characteristic of premodern biblical interpreters.”
Step 3: Application Questions
In every lesson of every course, Redemption Seminary uses a portfolio of answered application questions to assess student achievement (rather than high-stakes term papers or exams). This approach helps people with busy lives chip away at amassing a wealth of their gained wisdom. See how the Lord blesses your work in answering the following questions.
List some questions that you wondered about during the study. Consider posting one (or more) as a comment.
What are the similarities between Karl Barth's perspective on biblical interpretation and those of liberation theologies?
What do you think Barth’s main goal or purpose for biblical interpretation was? What is yours?