Swiss theologian most associated with Neo-Orthodoxy and acclaim by some to be the greatest theologian of the 20th Cent. He first came to fame with the publication of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans in 1918 (and still in print) but is more well known for his monumental Church Dogmatics which remained unfinished at his death in 1968.
Born in Basel, Barth studied under some of the most famous liberal scholars in Germany. He was serving as a pastor near the borders when WWI broke out. The horror of the inhumanity with which men could treat their fellow men during the war struck Barth in his theological solar plexus, and he found he had nothing to say to his people; the liberal theology he had imbibed was bankrupt. It set him rethinking his theology; rereading the Reformers, Kierkegaard, etc, and, most of all (and most important of all), the Bible. His rebirth into Neo-orthodoxy first made its manifestation in his commentary on Romans, and as commentary goes it burst upon the scene like a bombshell and caught everyone by surprise; God, as the transcendent God who confronts us, came back into the human story after the liberal theology he had imbibed in his younger days had tossed Him out. ". . . God is God, that he will will what he will will . . ." Barth also saw Christ at every juncture of the Christian life and interpreted everything christocentrically (some say too excessively so).
It is impossible to even begin to give a summary of Barth's teachings not only because he took more than 500 books and articles to do it (and often changing his mind from what he had earlier taught) but also because he is not always easy to grasp (some attribute this to him being so profound, though it probably also had to do with him writing originally in German and German does not translate well). He held, e.g., that revelation had to be the final authority in deciding matters of Christian faith, but for him the Bible is not the revelation as evangelicals understand it but only a witness to the revelation of God. He taught the importance of the resurrection of Christ for the Christian faith but is indifferent to whether the resurrection was a historical act or not. As a translator of one of his book confessed, "The experience of discovering Barth was of the bitter-sweet variety . . ."
It is not difficult to see why Barth, for all the attention he had gotten, his influence is rather limited to the more intellectual in the Christian church. There was never any popular interpretation of his work that would enthuse most laymen (though, for a useful summary—which actually follows the outline of Barth's Church Dogmatics, see Geoffry Bromiley cited below). But it is important for us to understand where we have come from in our present point in the journey of Christ's earthly congregation.
But Barth was never an arm-chair theologian. He was socially involved; this new-found theology was birthed, afterall, within his pastoral experience. By 1921 Barth had resigned his pastorate and began teaching at the University of Göttingen, and later at Münster and Bonn. He strongly opposed Nazism and was instrumental in drafting the Barmen Declaration.. For this he was exile from Germany, whence he returned to his native Switzerland to write, until his death in 1968. To Colin Brown, "Barth's main contribution to theology was not the system that he constructed but the many profound insights and incentives to further thought that are to be found in his writings."
After a comprehensive review, topic by topic, of Barth's theology, Bromiley—who probably knows Barth and his work better than anyone else—has this to say:
Barth's theology constitutes no static complex of clear-cut and supposedly definitive theses. It always has a personal and responsive quality. Without undergoing essential change, it grows as different aspects of God and his word and work unfold. As Barth once said, its general course is constant but its detail movements are always changing. Its vitality—and here perhaps is an important clue—derives from its nature. This is not the theology of a man and his thoughts about God. It is the theology of a man meeting God and responding to him. In contrast to so many religious writers, Barth takes God seriously as real object and real subject. His Dogmatics is neither anthropology disguised as theology nor theology as a codification of beliefs about God. It is a scientific attempt to study God as he is and as he has revealed himself to be in word and deed. Whether right or wrong in details, it is always authentic theology. Here perhaps is the secret of its greatness and its power. (Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth, 249)
Further Reading:
Mark Galli, Karl Barth: An Introductory Biography for Evangelicals. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. For a review see MJTM 21 (2019-2020)
Resources:
Christina A. Baxter, "Barth- A Truly Biblical Theologian?" Tyndale Bulletin 38 (1987): 3-27.
Pdf N 6 (Open on Phone)
Oliver Crisp, "On Barth's Denial of Universalism," Thermelios 29.1 (2003): 18-29.
Pdf N 6-7 (Open on Phone)
Further Reading:
Geoffrey Bromiley, Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. If anyone understands Barth, Bromiley—who translated Church Dogmatics into English—should.
Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1988. See esp., pp215-227.
Bernard Ramm, The Evangelical Heritage. A Study in Historical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973. See esp., pp103-122.
G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
Klaas Runia, Karl Barth's Doctrine of Holy Scripture.
Colin Brown, Karl Barth and the Christian Message
Note: We suggest you don't begin with American works on Barth; they don't seem to get him. Of Cornelius van Til's critique of his work, e.g., Barth confessed he saw himself a stranger in it.
©ALBERITH
250520lch