Objections to Barth and How NOT to Do Theology

Lots of ideas right now, but there seems to be some blockage between my brain and my fingers. I don't feel so much like writing (typing). Anyway, here's a little something...

As far as I can tell in my reading of different sources, there are four major and substantive conservative complaints against Karl Barth's theology:

1. His alleged modalism
2. His alleged denial of the sinlessness of Christ
3. His denial of inerrancy
4. His doctrine of election and its potential for universal salvation

We could also add to this list his total rejection of natural theology and the analogia entis, but it's difficult to say if all conservatives would agree that that was a bad thing, particularly given his context. I still have not made up my mind about this one; I want to read further in his Church Dogmatics (CD) as well as his debate with Emil Brunner.

Number 1 was discussed and dismissed here in my discussion of CD I.1. With a theologian of Barth's caliber, I am willing to take him at his word when he rejects modalism even if his trinitarian language is somewhat different than we are traditionally accustomed to.

Number 2 I have encountered in CD I.2 and will discuss in a later post after I have finished his treatment of the virgin birth, which he affirms. Number 3, which is quite true, will also come up soon in CD I.2., whereas no. 4 comes up much later in subsequent volumes.

As I said, these are the four major complaints that conservative (i.e., evangelical) theologians have with Barth's theology. As has been shown and will be shown further, not all of these complaints are warranted. Barth's positions are what we could nicely describe as "nuanced" or not so nicely describe as "typical of German theologians" in their lack of clarity and conclusiveness.

More important than these specific concerns are the broader issues raised by evangelical objections to Barth in general. While widely acknowledged as one of the greatest theologians in the history of the church and indisputably the greatest of the twentieth century, few theological camps are willing to claim Barth as one of their own. For (American) evangelicals and fundamentalists, the above complaints (especially no. 3), rule him out as "one of their own." Many do not realize, however, that Barth did more than any other to reign in the excesses of 19th century liberalism; in many ways, he was liberalism's complete antithesis. He fit comfortably only in the narrow space of "neo-orthodoxy," the heyday of which is long over.

In my view, this evangelical rejection is quite unfortunate. More than anything, it is the result of a methodological problem I call the "cherry-picking of heresies," a habit derived from the tendency to polemics inherited from the Reformation. Too often, theological works aren't read for the positive contributions to our understanding of theology, which is our understanding of God. Rather, they are first searched for potential errors and heresies to determine if they are one of the "good guys" or not. If any objectionable point deemed serious enough is found, the theologian and his or her writings are dismissed as "liberal," not one of the "good guys," and not necessary for study by the real "good guys." (Barth, while acknowledged as great, isn't always acknowledged as good and therefore not read as widely as he deserves.) Pretribbers won't read (for edification and learning, at least) posttribbers; Calvinists won't read Arminians; supralapsarians won't read infralapsarians (at least not happily). (Arminians read Calvinists because they write all the books.) No, not everyone does this (must every statement be qualified by weasel words?), but the reality of this tendency cannot be denied. Many people refuse to read the primary sources of such theologies, instead trusting the assessments made by other "good guys." This is quite unfortunate as first, the "good guys" aren't always fair and accurate in their representations, and second, a lot of good theology is thrown away with the alleged bad.

Barth's greatness, his brilliance as a theologian, shines forth on virtually every page. Most people could read hundreds of pages in one of his volumes before encountering anything objectionable; should 500 pages of holy insights be thrown away because of five that are found to be disagreeable? Even if one disagrees with the ultimate results of a particular theologians meditations, it's very helpful to read those we disagree with simply to see how they think and how they address different theological problems. (Let's face it: if you've read one traditional 5-point Calvinist systematic theology, you've read them all.) I have problems with Barth's Calvinism--in fact that is my greatest problem with him--but I've been incredibly edified by everything of his that I have studied. The same goes for theologians such as Jürgen Moltmann, the various liberation theologians, even Rudolf Bultmann! And, most who come to disagreeable conclusions do so out of a genuine belief in their approach, their perspective on a problem, not because they are simply anti-God, anti-Bible libruls. (Most conspiracy theories are wrong.) Again, studying their reasoning in such cases helps with our own thinking; we do not have to agree with everything in order to be respectful.

This "cherry-picking of heresies" is one major way in which theology should NOT be done. While there is an essential core we can never safely move away from, we should not become overconfident of our own knowledge and its finality. We must acknowledge that theological knowledge is contingent until the eschaton. Till then, the goal of theology as our talk about God is to try to grow in that knowledge despite its contingency. The way of humility and therefore growth is found in listening to other voices in the conversation and sometimes being surprised by the profoundness we hear from unexpected sources.