The title of this post is borrowed from the T&T Clark blog which posted a brief tribute to Barth yesterday.Earlier this year, T&T Clark published a revised edition of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics (see an announcement here). The newly revised and digitized edition is the result of a close co-operation between Princeton Theological Seminary and T&T Clark Publishers.The new version of the Church Dogmatics will be made available in three ways:
1. A fully searchable CD-ROM version from Logos Bible Software, available from April 2008.
2. As part of the Digital Karl Barth Library in German and English from Alexander Street Press.
3. A new paperback print edition in 31 volumes, presenting the text in a new layout, incorporating the translations of Greek and Latin texts in a student-friendly format, available from December 2008 through T&T Clark at an introductory price of $750/£449 (also available as ebook). [This set is due to be available in the US by mid February, 2009. Amazon (currently $648.78) | CBD (currently $425.00)]
I do not consider myself to be a Barthian, Neo-Barthian, or anything of the stripe, yet I enjoy reading about prominent figures from church history; so, herein lies my fundamental interest in Karl Barth. Shortly after I began directing book review, two years ago, I request a copy of Barth for Armchair Theologians from Westminster Jonn Knox Press. I quickly read this book, but sat on it, not quite sure of what to say about it. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, finding it to be the an excellent read for someone who knows next to nothing about Karl Barth, like me. However, I feared that my readers would either be disinterested or offended simply because the subject was Barth.
Well, I hate that I have sat on this for so long because I am truly grateful for the generosity of WJK Press for sending me this review copy. At that, I nearly missed a great opportunity to mention this book. December 10th was the 40th anniversary of the passing of Karl Barth.
Karl Barth was born in the Swiss city of Basel on May 10, 1886 and died in Basel on December 10, 1968.
Barth for Armchair Theologians (WJK, 2006) is the seventh installment in WJK's Armchair Series. Each volume is illustrated by Ron Hill who adds energy, movement, and a lot of good-natured humor. These illustrations made this book even that much more enjoyable to read.John R. Franke, professor of Theology at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, PA, offers a very readable and informative introduction to the life of Karl Barth; intermixed with ample contextual material describing the social, political, and theological backdrop of his life; along with an introduction to his major writings; and a statement regarding his legacy. Regarding Barth's life, Franke chronicles Barth's conservative upbringing, his interest in the scholasticism of the liberal schools, his pastoral ministry, his early commitment to theological liberalism, his move toward religious socialism, his subsequent departure and rejection of theological liberalism, and his attempt to pave a "new" way between conservatism and liberalism.
The journey is fascinating and extremely informative. John Franke is an excellent guide. What I found to be most informative was, first, Barth's humility--at least in this sense:
Barth was always somewhat amused by the amount of extended and detailed attention his theology received, as though its study and contemplation could be viewed as an end in itself.Second, reading this book provided me with a clearer backdrop, not only to Barth's theology, but also to the theology of many contemporary writers. Many evangelicals are quoting Barth frequently in there works. For instance, the renewal of Trinitarian studies is indebted to Karl Barth, and if you read very far into the literature you will surely be brought into contact with him. In his recently published, The Renewal of Trinitarian Theology, Roderick Leupp argues that "Barth (1886-1968) is the chief instigator of and inspiration for today's trinitarian renewal, at least among Protestant theologians" (p. 29). Also, many evangelicals are espousing theological viewpoints that are Barthian at heart, yet they do not necessarily disclose this fact. Gaining a better understanding of Barth and his theology is helping me to be able to identify when this is happening.
"The angels laugh at old Karl. They laugh at him because he tries to grasp the truth about God in a book of Dogmatics. They laugh at the fact that volume follows volume and each is thicker than the previous one. As they laugh, they say to one another, 'Look! Here he comes now with his little pushcart full of volumes of the Dogmatics!'--and they laugh about the men who write so much about Karl Barth instead of writing about the things he is trying to write about. Truly, the angels laugh." (Karl Barth, quoted in Barth for Armchair Theologians, 165-66)
Sure, Franke appears to be sympathetic to Barth and his theology, however, I came away from the book informed without sensing any pressure to conform. As I have already mentioned, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and recommend it to those seeking a simple, informative, and enjoyable introduction to the life and writings of Karl Barth.
In Closing -
Yesterday, Reformation 21, the online magazine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, posted a very helpful article, "Comments on Karl Barth, Bruce McCormack, and the Neo-Barthian View of Scripture" by William B. Evans (Erskine College, Due West, SC). In this article, Evans critiques the current revival of interest in the theology of Karl Barth. His conclusion is very perceptive:
I am also struck by the parallel to Friedrich Schleiermacher--a comment that will probably surprise those who hold to the conventional view of Barth as an implacable opponent of the "father of liberal theology." In the mid-nineteenth-century context Schleiermacher was trumpeted as a bridge from the barren rationalism of Kant to orthodoxy. The church historian Philip Schaff, for example, argued in this fashion (see his Germany: Its Universities, Theology, and Religion [Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1857], 320). But bridges can be crossed in both directions, and while initially the preponderance of traffic over die Schleiermacherbrücke was toward more conservative forms of theology, the long-term story has been quite the opposite. I sense that the same is and will continue to be true of Barth.
Armchair Series
- Aquinas for Armchair Theologians. (2002) Renick p $16.95/£9.99
- Augustine for Armchair Theologians. (2002) Cooper p $16.95/£9.99
- Calvin for Armchair Theologians. (2002) Elwood p $16.95/£9.99
- Luther for Armchair Theologians. (2004) Paulson p $16.95/£9.99
- The Reformation for Armchair Theologians. (2005) Sunshine p $16.95/£9.99
- Wesley for Armchair Theologians. (2005) Abraham p $16.95/£9.99
- Barth for Armchair Theologians. (2006) Franke p $16.95/£9.99
- Jonathan Edwards for Armchair Theologians. (2008) Byrd p $16.95/£9.99
- Heretics for Armchair Theologians. (2008) González & González p $16.95/£9.99
- Martin Luther King, Jr. for Armchair Theologians. (forthcoming, 2009) Burrow p. $16.95/£9.99
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that Evans' article should count as a critique: what he did to McCormack - offer a very truncated restatement of some criticisms - is not, I think, helpful to anyone. To those who don't know anything about Barth or McCormack, it just gives them a completely improper context for viewing his work ("oh yeah, that guy who has a dubious Trinitarian theology"). For those who do know something about Barth and/or McCormack, it does not help them at all. Unfortunately, then, I think all pieces like this (Evans') do are reinforce prejudices.
The end was especially disappointing: for who actually reads Schleiermacher as they ought (sympathetically, genuinely trying to understand his concerns and why he felt it necessary to do theology as he did it, etc. - this is how we should anyone)? His name among conservatives is just a stand in for "liberal theology," which is unfortunate.
Bringing down scholar material to a non-scholarly audience is helpful - so, if someone were to give the basic overview of problems in Christology that McCormack is wrestling through with Barth, that would be very helpful. But he is a scholar of the first rank, and I am not sure what scholarly right Evans has (perhaps he is a Barth scholar, but I could not obtain any information to this effect) to simply disagree with McCormack's now canonical interpretation of Barth's development, which gives readers the impression that it's somehow "up for grabs."
I understand readership concerns, but it frustrates me when material like this is endorsed - we need to learn how not to engage scholarly issues, and I don't think Evans' article is helping us in that regard.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI should clarify that I appreciated your comments on Franke's book. I just felt it was unfortunate to end with the Evans' quote - that seemed to counter the open, critical, and sympathetic kind of reading you seem to (quite rightly) be encouraging.
Joseph:
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit perplexed by the dismissiveness of your response. You suggest, in essence, that my piece on Ref21 was a hatchetjob on McCormack's "now canonical interpretation of Barth's development."
May I kindly suggest that you go back and read it again. The thrust of it has to do with what I consider a facile assumption--that a "consistently dialectical" reading of Barth effectively answers all the objections that have been raised by conservatives regarding Barth's view of Scripture. The business about trinity is relevant given the parallel drawn between Scripture and theology proper, and a subordination of being to becoming in one area seems to have implications for the other.
I am also disturbed, as the article indicates, by the uncritical adulation that is directed by many toward Barth, though I understand why Barth is attractive in the current cultural context. There seems to be a new "Barthian fundamentalism" afoot that questions the "scholarly right" (your term) of others who are not part of the "club" to say anything about Barth, McCormack, et al.
And just for the record, my own sense is that McCormack IS correct on the Barth development question, and that he MAY be correct in his reading of Barth's trinitarianism (though I think it is not good theology, and that it is more likely that Barth himself is ambigious on this point and can be read either way). The previous sentence should indicate that I have great respect for McCormack, whom I regard as one of the two or three really significant Barth scholars active today. It is not McCormack that I find tedious, but rather some of his acolytes.
As for Schleiermacher (whom I have spent a good deal of time reading and reflecting on, by the way), the point in the last paragraph had to do with a parallel of use and appropriation rather than content. There are some remarkable content parallels, but that is a different question for another time.
Cordially,
Bill Evans
Jason,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for mentioning Alexander Street's online version of Barth's complete works, The Digital Karl Barth Library.
To commemorate the anniversary of his passing, we are offering scholarly access to The Digital Karl Barth Library from now through the end of the year. If any of your readers would like to access it, they may do so at this URL:
http://alexanderstreet.com/dkbl_trial.htm
Sincerely,
Meg Keller
Alexander Street Press
Joseph,
ReplyDeleteHmm... Thank you for the feedback! I will admit that I am trying to tread lightly, and err to the side with which I am most familiar. I still have a great deal to learn about Barth (and Schleiermacher).
Bill,
Thank you for the article and for weighing in on this discussion of it. I quoted your concluding paragraph because it seemed to illustrate Barth's eventual rejection of liberal theology. He initially embraced it because it appeared to be the most exciting and promising option, but soon enough, found it to be empty. He, too, seemed to have considered Schleiermacher's bridge to be problematic.
From my perspective (which has a lot of room to grow), Barth did well by leading the way out of dead, empty liberalism. However, I don't believe that he went far enough away.
Jason:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to the Ref21 article, and for your own stimulating and substantial website.
I quite agree with your assessment that Barth's break with liberalism's method and content, while substantial, did not go far enough.
Cordially,
Bill Evans
By way of preliminaries: First, I appreciate your response and the time you took to write it.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I believe it is unfair (and probably not helpful) to my words and intentions to use the word “hatchetjob,” which goes far beyond anything I explicitly or implicitly attributed to your article.
Regarding the main points you raise, after rereading your article, I must disagree with your assessment. First, what you call the “thrust” of your article is not at all clearly the center of your article, and what you add in your response assumes that your reader is familiar with the issues surrounding McCormack’s reading of Barth (which I am, to a limited degree). On two reading of your article, I still do not have the sense that your “thrust” was to indicate that a “’consistently dialectical’ reading of Barth effectively answers all the objections etc.” I am not sure who makes this assumption; presumably, you are not attributing it to McCormack. Dr. Morrison, a teacher of mine, whom you cite, does not make this assumption (in his book “Has God Said,” which contains the article you reference, he defends his own constructive doctrine of Scripture, drawing on but also criticizing both Barth and Torrance). So, again, I’m not sure who makes that assumption, or why it is relevant in this context even if your article clearly was responding to it
But your article was not giving an outline or example of how McCormack’s reading fails to answer conservative objections.
You (and this is what I object to) simply write as if alternative reading of Barth are equally viable or plausible. (Obviously, your general academic qualifications are hardly in question here, but from what I can gather of your publications, you are not a Barth scholar (and me far less! Let’s be clear on that – I’m just a student) and seem respectful of McCormack's stature as a Barth scholar.) I therefore do not see how it is appropriate or in good academic form to issue the following statement: “I would argue that in broad outlines it has grasped rather well the practical implications of Barth's view.” The clear implication here is that these reading are not as wrong as McCormack (et al.) has indicated that they are.
While you say "would," you obviously are, in a sense, arguing just that in the article except that you do not provide any argumentation to that effect. I understand that your article is informal, but that is part of my point: McCormack is a scholar – he’s not working on the “practical implications” of Barth views per se – and therefore the only appropriate and fair way to engage his work critically would be in a scholarly manner.
So, while it is not a hatchet job, by making the above comments and simply listing areas of McCormack’s theology that you know are questionable to conservatives, you are certainly predisposing the reader towards a view of McCormack (and Barth) which does not seem profitable or charitable. I find particularly uncharitable the listing of questionable areas – under the heading “McCormack on Barth,” no less – completely bereft of any contextual information as to why such data is being adduced, why Barth and/or McCormack holds such questionable positions, or what they have to do with McCormack’s reading of Barth, which you were presenting an overview of.
What is probably the most objectionable and least defensible (without substantive documentation, even if only informally referenced) claim that you make, is this: “Moreover, the historic influence of Barth--with his problematic view of Scripture, implicit universalism, and low ecclesiology--on churches in Europe, Scotland, and America suggests that the current renaissance of interest in Barth is unlikely to empower the mission of Reformed churches today”
There are two separate problems with this. First, demonstrating the validity of any claim of this type is very difficult, even where one has clear lines of influence (and that is hardly the case with Barth’s theology – it is not like Vatican II or a confessional creed, imposed upon or adopted by denominational bodies).
Second, it seems to commit the false cause fallacy of attributing an enormously complex effect to a single cause that is wholly incommensurate to the effect it is said to have produced. Sociologists have been and still are debating what has caused the decline of Christianity in Western Europe, and while conservatives take great comfort in blaming it on liberalism or what have you, that is hardly an adequate or defensible explanation for the secularization of Europe and, to a lesser extent, America.
I think we ought to own up to the fact that we, as Evangelicals (and Fundamentalists?) misread Barth.
We should not try to defend such misreadings, which, although it may not have been your intention, seems to be one of the functions of your article: a defense of the discredited readings in terms of their supposedly accurate analysis
of the “practical implications” of Barth’s theology. Such is a dubious line of argumentation in any event (due, in large part, to its tendency to over-simplify complex events and their causes).
As you have seniority here in every sense, if you decide to respond, unless you indicate to the contrary, I will consider such a response the last word on this subject.
Again, I appreciate your response.
Cordially,
Joseph
Dr. Evans,
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, the beginning of my response did not post, but I began with "Dr. Evans" etc., and I wanted to clarify that the ommission of your title was accidental.
Joseph
Joseph:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your extended response. I have just a couple of comments that I hope will bring some closure to this interchange:
1) Leaving aside your charges of "unfairness" and lack of charity, a major concern of yours seems to be that I did not engage McCormack "in a scholarly manner." I would respond by simply pointing out that the essay in question was written for a popular Internet venue and dealt with matters that are of intense practical and theoretical importance for the church. While context is always a problem in such formats, I did provide cites that would enable interested readers to follow up and decide for themselves. You may not like the context provided but it was there. Which leads to the next point . . .
2) It is apparent that we disagree strongly on the key issue here--the viability of Barth's view of Scripture. You believe that Cormack's "canonical" interpretation of Barth is right, that Evangelicals have "misread Barth," and that "we should not try to defend such misreadings." I'm saying that it's much more complex than that, and that the weaknesses in Barth's bibliology pose a huge threat to Reformed churches. Moreover I was quite specific in noting why the older Evangelical interpretation did in fact grasp the "practical implications" of Barth's bibliology--"Because of Barth’s insistence on the fallibility of Scripture and his focus on Scripture as “act” rather than text, we only apprehend Scripture as it “becomes” God’s Word to us. Thus the problem of subjectivity looms, and appeals to Scripture as text are rendered problematic and even suspect." Here I am in essential agreement with Geoffrey Bromiley's critique in his “The Authority of Scripture in Karl Barth,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995, 290-292). I would submit that the objections that can with some justification be lodged against Van Til and Schaeffer don't really apply to Bromiley. Evangelicals (such as yourself?) who seem to be running headlong in a Barthian direction need to look very carefully at the theological goods being purchased.
Cordially,
Bill Evans