Frei on Barth and Barthians
Hans Frei, Types of Christian Theology (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992): 157.I am happy to agree with Frei’s description of Barth, and with his implicit warning to would-be-Barthians concerning the extra effort that should be taken to avoid being boring, but I cannot say that I have myself found reading ‘Barthians’ boring. The only way that I know how to explain this is by saying that the Barthians I read all came along after Frei passed from the scene. Perhaps there were earlier Barthians who were boring in the way Frei suggests, whom history has – mercifully – allowed to pass from the scene such that I have not come across them. Perhaps, also, who Frei has in mind here are the North American neo-orthodox of the mid 20th-century.
“Readers of Barth’s Church Dogmatics usually come up with the same experience: Whether one agrees with Barth or not, and despite the endless repetition of themes and the stylistic heaviness, much increased by the translation, which loses the almost colloquial vigor of the German original, there is an increasingly compelling, engrossing quality to the material. And it is much more accessible than much Modern theology: Even the technical terms don’t lose sight of ordinary language, and Barth possesses astonishing descriptive powers. But then, as one tries to restate it afterwards the material dies on one’s hands. It can be done, but there is nothing as wooden to read as one’s own or others’ restatements of Barth’s terms, his technical themes and their development. It is as though he had preempted that particular language and its deployment. For that reason, reading ‘Barthians,’ unlike Barth himself, can often be painfully boring.”
In any case, may God save me from – among other things – being or becoming a painfully boring Barthian!
Comments
I suggest that the ones who repeat Barth most beautifully are usually more aesthetically, poetically and rhetorically inclined rather than those who are more philosophically inclined and try to unpack his logic. While both kinds of reiteration may be necessary and helpful, the former read Barth as a humanist,or at least one who attends to the "humanity of God". Good reiteration of Barth's CD requires us to see it more as literature rather than a long series of theological propositions. Understanding both the architechtonics and distinct genre of the CD (esp. as opposed to some books that exist out there entitled, Systematic Theology) is vitally important.
Of course, such poetic/literary reiteration is much easier dictated than done...
David - Thanks for stopping by. I think you are right - the genre of CD is not something easily imitated, and that contributes as much to Barth's greatness as his also rather aesthetically breathtaking arguments. Let me know what you have successfully reiterated it - I haven't even tried!!!
b. George Hunsinger is not boring, but he's much closer to boring than I wish he was. . . .
As for Hunsinger, I cannot endorse the limitations of your endorsement.
To sympathize with Frei just a bit, I think some "Barthians" can sound a little bit like theologians-in-a-can. They'll serve up gems like, "God is who He is in the act of His revelation." But when someone serves that stuff up in a journal article, I'm always left wondering whether they really mean that (ontology and everything included), and if so, if they understand what they mean (Barth doesn't suffer from lack of interpretation).
On the other hand, what makes reading Barthians more dissatisfying than reading Thomists is that Barthians tend to be less comfortable, less conversant with and more dismissive of philosophical discourses of various kinds--and are therefore less rational than Barth himself was.
I think "Anons." points on Thomists and Barthians is very interesting --- and in my brief and under-exposed life experience --- I think he's right! This guy, Anon. is quite insightful.
Andrew - Look through the T&T Clark theology catalog, and through the authors in the Ashgate Barth studies series, and you will find a number of young Barth scholars. Then, of course, there are a number of us bloggers... ;-)
Oh, but Travis, surely self-publication is by definition not scholarly publication.
I, for instance, have two articles on Barth in print in respected academic journals. Cf. the CV page (linked in the blog header) for more details, if you're interested.
I couldn't agree more that a blog does not a scholar make. The point I was trying to communicate is simply that many of the theo-bloggers you see around also have scholarly qualifications, and some of those work on Barth, and some of those are - I like to think - worth paying attention to.
I hope you enjoy the IJST piece. I've already spotted one particularly egregious typo - perhaps I can get it changed for the print version.
Point taken. I stand by my conviction that blogging as a form of self-publication is energy better spent elsewhere and otherwise. You obviously disagree at an existential level with that conviction. ; )
Also, I'd have to demur here. Rather few of the theo-bloggers I've ever seen have substantial scholarly qualifications. And in point of fact, most of the individuals I know with scholarly qualifications do not have theo-blogs.
And that's neither good nor bad- I'm not intending to use "scholastic" in the pejorative sense that it is sometimes employed. But my sense is that the debates and ongoing conversations of much Barth scholarship are exceedingly intricate compared to other areas of theological inquiry these days, and they tend to swarm around particular loci of critique that have been enshrined over time.
It may be that such a situation is an indicator of the significance of Barth, and of his ability to establish lasting modes of thought for future generations. I'd venture to guess that it also has a bit to do with the community of Barthians and their own systematizing priorities. It may also be that there's nothing special going on, and this is just what happens when a whole lot of people choose to write about the same thing.
In any case, that's been my main observation w.r.t. Barth scholarship and Barthians. I think the most obvious good that comes of this "scholasticism" is that we have some quite impressive thinking going on- it's really amazing to consider the sort of impact that Barth has had in just a little over 40 years since his death. A possible danger, however, might be that Barth becomes inaccessible (for scholarly treatment, at least) as a result of the thick hedge of midrash around him. I don't think that's an immediate danger- indeed, I think many Barth scholars have done a wonderful job of keeping Barth's thought conversational and fresh. But it's probably worth considering the potential danger nonetheless.
Yes, the final paragraph. Its one of those errors that gets edited in rather than out.
As far as the judicious use of energy, I think its true that some bloggers put far too much time into things. But, blogs can serve functions other than as one's primary (even if only in terms of sheer quantity) intellectual outlet. For instance, I tend to think of mine as a digital commonplaces book, with the added benefit of communal interaction. In any case, blogging claims much less of my time these days than it did 2 or 3 years ago.
As far as bloggers with scholarly credentials, perhaps it is simply the case that most of the bloggers whose blogs I read do in fact have them.
Evan - Good insights. There is certainly a Barthian neo-scholasticism developing. This doesn't bother me in and of itself, but the dangers you highlight are worth keeping in mind.
1. There are many, many important ideas that are worth putting into words and discussing with peers that are simply not substantial enough to warrant a journal article, book chapter, or monograph. For example, I might pick up the latest IJST issue and discover that, lo and behold, our friend Travis has a very interesting piece on TFT in its pages. Now, this piece may inspire someone like myself to think new ideas or refine older thoughts. Before the blog, such ideas could either go into a notebook, be discussed among friends (after which they disappear into the air), or be completely forgotten. Today, however, I can put them into a short blog post, where not only do I have a digital record of this idea, but it can also foster further ideas and conversations — some of which, I daresay, will indeed produce a scholarly article, book chapter, or even monograph. In short, the blog may indeed be a catalyst for scholarly, not a distraction from it.
2. In addition to everything just stated, it's worth adding that the current state of the academy does not do a very good job of fostering and promoting these ideas. As some of us know, most journals have editorial boards that toe a particular party line or restrict submissions to a very narrow focus. Many are downright dismissive toward creative and thoughtful theological thinking. There is also a distinct lack of decent journals to which one might want to submit work. All that's to say, for those of us who are not established enough to demand attention, a blog is a way of entering into the conversation without having to placate certain authority structures. This, of course, means that people can and do publish worthless material in the blogosphere. But at the same time, this freedom means that others can produce work that is far more stimulating and interesting than much of what passes for "established" academic theology. For my part, this is a risk worth accepting. It does not and never could mean that the blog should replace the standard academic channels by which we engage in scholarly discourse; it only means that such channels should not restrict us from writing and discussing ideas which do not fit within them.
Blogs are informal places where, often, "formal," even important ideas can broached (like "thinking outloud") in a public way; a way that might just promote whole new avenues of thought, that erstwhile may never have been considered. (Beyond that, blogs provide connections for likeminded "people" who w/o this sphere would never connect --- like I never would've "met" Travis, or even David, w/o the blog . . . to me that makes blogs worth the time in themselves).