DET (Die Evangelischen Theologen) is the theological version of a digital news magazine. The DET authorial team provides insightful, thought-provoking content on a wide range of theological, religious, and even political subjects from current events and culture as well as from the Christian and other religious traditions.
I have a confession to make: I never finished reading CD I/2. (Do I hear a collective gasp of shock emanating from somewhere deep within New Jersey?).
It's not like I didn't have ample chances. I made my first pass at it in 1997 in a seminar on the Dogmatics at the University of Chicago. But Chicago is on the quarter system, and it's physically impossible to read the CD in ten weeks -- unless, that is, one doesn't engage in such other activities as eating, sleeping, laundry, etc. As it was, it was bloody hard enough to keep up with the reading.
Portrait of the author as a young man, attempting to read CD I/2 for the first time.
Eight years later, while I was dissertating, I made another serious go at it; honestly, I truly did. It was the summer of Hurricane Katrina and everyone was on edge. My mother-in-law had lived in New Orleans back in the day, as had my parents and I, when I was a wee lad, back when my dad was in seminary. I recall riding from Amherst, Mass., to New York City in the back seat of my in-laws' Honda Odyssey. Despite imminent van sickness -- the nauseating oscillation between the already and the not-yet in my churning stomach -- I attempted to plow through the seemingly endless discussion of biblical authority toward the end of the volume. I got to within 50 pages or so of the end and I just sputtered out. God, in her infinite providence, led me to skip ahead to II/1 -- Barth's magisterial exploration of the being and perfections of God as the "One who Loves in Freedom". (That's my favorite volume, by the way. I remember reading somewhere that von Balthasar liked to carry a copy of that book on his person most of the time. I don't remember where I read that; perhaps the editorial staff at DET can look up the reference for us.) Still, it always bugged me that I never technically "finished" the treatment of revelation in the CD.
To be sure, I/2 is not the sexiest of Barth's part volumes. Liberals who want to hold their noses skim an overview of Barth's method, so they can promptly dismiss it afterward, often read only I/1. I think that's a mistake: There are much shorter works they could read and be done with Barth much more quickly. People who actually enjoy reading Barth and find him provocative and sometimes even inspiring as I did (do), often turn IV/1, the entree into Barth's magisterial (how many times can I use that word in one post?) doctrine of reconciliation, arguably the capstone of the whole set. Others are obsessed with the ground-breaking interpretation of the the doctrine of God and election in II/2. That volume has occasioned much searching debate -- or perhaps, for some of you, mischief, especially if you happen to be a regular reader of First Things. For my part, with my somewhat Lacugnian tendencies, I'm inclined to think a debate about the imminent Trinity is perhaps unsolvable by the very nature of the case. Other folks, hoping to find something morbid or salacious, turn to Barth's interpretation of evil in III/3, only to turn away in perplexity as, even here, Barth still seems too...well, happy.
By contrast, I/2 seems more plodding to many readers than those other texts. At 905 pages in the English trans., it weighs in as the longest of the part volumes of the CD. The book is so long, in fact, that even the master himself -- who evidently had no phobias about prolixity -- seemed a bit embarrassed by the heft of this "half-volume". Many Barth readers would claim that Barth doesn't really get warmed up until II/1 or until his new insights into election start to emerge in II/2; nonetheless, Barth can pull off some amazing feats even before his second cup of coffee, and I/2, I'm convinced, is worthy of careful attention. John Webster wrote that some of Barth's earliest superb writing in the CD occurs here (Again, DET staff, please look it up for me). I did spend considerable time marveling at par. 15, especially the section on "The Miracle of Christmas." In these pages, we find Barth's controversial defense of the doctrine of the virginal conception and, perhaps, one of the cleverest take-downs of Ritschlian ethicism and Harnackian historicism that's ever been written (whether Barth's critique is completely fair of his liberal forbears here is another matter). Incidentally, a recent monograph explores Barth's discussion of the virgin birth in this volume (see this fine review at the Barth Center).
Even in 2014, evangelicals, liberals and post-liberals still argue tirelessly (sometimes tediously) about the issues of revelation, inspiration, canon and biblical authority. CD I/2 offers Barth's most sustained reflections on these topics. I'm going to make another go at reading it cover-to-cover, mainly because I've already read I/1 through several times. Any of y'all care to join me?
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from
Comments