A Response to Barth

“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians?” [1] So says Tertullian, called founder of Latin Christianity, in a much used, little understood statement. The second and third centuries in which he was writing was fraught with heresies and interpretations of all sorts. Many of these arose from the attempt, sometimes with a good motive, to adapt the thought of the Gospel to a prevailing philosophical school. And this era was abounding in philosophical schools. Tertullian, in an anti-heresy tirade, realizes that many of the heresies of his day resulted from the less than successful attempt to make the adaptation and still retain what was essential to Christianity. What usually happened was that Christianity was twisted and lost, and a new way of thinking arose, one which actually threatened orthodox beliefs. Jump ahead seventeen hundred years or so and we find a era with a very similar climate, the nineteenth century. In his tiny book God, Grace, and Gospel Karl Barth, one of the greatest theological minds of the Twentieth century, looks back on the theology which arose during this time of philosophical exploration. He very briefly examines the history, and then examines the thought of the major German theologians of that era. [2] In this paper I will briefly provide an overview of his thought and conclusions followed, also briefly, by my own thoughts on the matter. It was an exciting time for theology, but was it necessarily a good time? Let’s see.

Barth does not directly follow the standard calendar dates in his definition of the 18^th century. The first difference is that, despite the title, the article is actually referring to the 19^th century throughout. With this in mind, there still are differences. He begins this era with the publication of Schleiermacher’s Addresses on Religion to its Cultured Despisers in 1799. The end is extended past the turn of the calendar 20^th century to 1914, and the beginning of World War I. This was a decisive moment in virtually every academic field, and theology was no exception. Having set the dates, Barth proceeds to set up the philosophical situation of the time, which was very dominated by rationalism. It was difficult for theology to compete against the new heightened views of the capability of mankind to progress and achieve great things on his own. As Barth asked rhetorically, “What was it to do in face of a man for whom in view of the fulness of his time the idea of eternity was so remote, who was so sure of himself, had such an unshakable confidence in himself, as the normal man of the 19^th century?” [3]

What theology did was seek to find a common ground, attempting to address itself to the great thought and thinkers of the day. It sought to become relevant and answer the “impressive questions which it saw presented.” [4] Barth, while commending the attempt, felt that the weakness was that it went too far in trying to adapt itself to its era, so consumed with response that it lost touch with “its own most proper business.” [5] They focused so much on the competing philosophies of their day, and found so much to be credible within them, that they lost their foundation, and in their attempt to make Christianity credible in the age of the Enlightenment, they designed a discreditable Christianity. Not only were they not successful in their attempt to make Christianity acceptable to those outside the tradition, they succeeded in gutting Christianity of its tradition. In taking out the supernatural elements, in reducing Christian beliefs to a historical-religious model of development, they lost sight of the power and Spirit which guides and builds Christianity. Barth commends them for their passion in seeking to come to terms with the text and history, but faults their conclusions. They raised a lot of questions, but no longer had the foundation to provide any answers. Ultimately, their attempt to set their academic and philosophical presuppositions over Christianity and raise man to a place of judging God, failed academically, philosophically, and especially Spiritually.

In many ways these scholars are still with us, in thought if not in body. Their influence indeed spread beyond the German borders and with it raised a new generation of critical scholars. While most of their specific arguments were dealt with, the general mode of thought still pervades the academic world. The theologian and scholar is now seen as being in a position of standing over the texts, forcing the thoughts into proving themselves, and shaping the general theology into something that is more acceptable to an enlightened person of the Twentieth century. This is no longer a shock, but an accepted reality to one from a conservative tradition. Barth was right in commending the Germans of the 19^th century for raising the questions they did. It forced all Christians to strengthen their faith, to seek to come to terms with the fact that Christianity is also a reasonable religion. We read the Bible better now because of the historical-critical method which they developed. We realize that there is a need to adapt our terminology to fit the understandings of each era. And conservative theology has itself proven the strength of the Gospel as opposed to other religions. What other major religion could not only survive the massive critical questioning, but thrive and become better from it? The loss however, from their philosophical adaptations was the soul of Germany. How different would our century be if those scholars in Germany had explored without losing sight of the God of peace and light? A sobering thought indeed.

Another lesson that can be drawn from the errors of the 19^th century theologians is to watch how we in conservative Christianity work out our theology. How much of the modern popular movements have their basis, not in revelation, but in their adaptation to current modes of thought? We need to remember that Christianity, while flexible and encompassing a wide range of thought, is limited by the self-revelation of God. Materialism, individualism, postmodernism, and many other philosophical influences have indeed been planted within the Church. As Christians we need to make sure that in our attempts to meet those outside of our circle, we ourselves do not fall outside our circle. It is good to want to be relevant, but Christianity is its own world-view which defines how we see the culture around us. Our goal should be to help people come to terms with the truth of Christianity, not change Christianity to come to terms with the people. So “Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition. We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the Gospel!” [6]

[1] Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics. Ante-Nicene Fathers, V.III. Alexander Roberts, and James Donaldson, eds. ( Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.) chap. VII.

[2] His justification for this is that German scholars were “the pioneers in fundamental matters for theology of other countries as well.” (“Evangelical Theology”, 55)

[3] “Evangelical Theology, 59)

[4] ibid., 61

[5] ibid.

[6] Tertullian, chap. VII.

A Response to “Evangelical Theology in the Eighteenth Century”