Scan barcode
drbobcornwall's review
4.0
It has been fifty years since the death of Karl Barth, but despite the passage of time he remains relevant to our theological conversations. He is best known for his massive Church Dogmatics and his boundary breaking Romans Commentary, but perhaps one might best encounter him in more informal modes. Years ago I read his letters, including a volume of letters passed between him and Rudolph Bultmann. In what apparently is the first of three volumes, we encounter Barth through transcripts and reports of conversations held between 1959 and and 1962. By this time he was in his 70s. He was, by his own admission an "old theologian." What we have here in this volume is an opportunity to encounter Barth the person, often in unfiltered ways.
The book, which is edited by his former student and biographer Eberhard Busch, includes reports from conversations that range from visits with prison chaplains to groups of theologians. For my part, I was most interested in the conversations held during his visits to the United States. He had learned English as early as the 1930s, and was very conversant in English, which enabled him to engage in direct, unfiltered discussion. At times it was profound and at times rather humorous.
On the serious/profound side, he takes seriously matters of theology, and is willing to dive deep into conversations about the centrality of Jesus to his theology. We see his hesitancy about bringing in philosophy into the conversation, as well as too great an emphasis on anthropology. Regarding philosophy, in a conversation with theologian Schubert Ogden, Barth declared the independence of theology from philosophy, for philosophy deals with human issues, while theology is centered on God. He recognizes the need to study philosophy, but in large part so as to be aware of the traps set by it. He notes in answer to Ogden's questions, "I think of worldviews making themselves absolute bias ultimate reality and truth, systems built up (before theology begins) of preconceived ontology or anthropology. IN order not to fall into those traps, a theologian must earnestly study philosophy" (p. 169). This was his greatest concern with Bultmann, whom he acknowledged as a friend and one who shared his commitment to hearing the Word of God in Scripture. Their differences, however, centered on Bultmann's desire to begin with anthropology and experience. In Barth's mind, Bultmann was a pietist!
We see Barth get testy with questioners. We also see him have fun with them. He could also leave them somewhat speechless, as when he answered evangelical theologian Edward Carnell's questions about Barth's view of scripture being both sullied with errors and Word of God. After Barth gave his answer, which recognized that there are tensions and contradictions in scripture, or what Carnell might call errors "in its time bound human statements," and ending with "Is that enough to encourage you to continue to confess that here is a problem also for you?" All that Carnell could answer was "thank you, sincerely, Dr. Barth" (p. 179). On one occasion when asked to answer Reinhold Niebuhr's charges that Barth would not speak about the situation in eastern Europe, he simply retorted that he would speak about what happens in eastern Europe when Niebuhr spoke out against what happened in American prisons.
It would seem that he rather enjoyed debate and conversation. He could be humorous when he desired. On the humorous end (at least to me) is his response to a BBC interviewer, who asked him if hadn't become a theologian, what would he have liked to have become. He answered: "If I were not a theologian, I would like to be a traffic policeman. Look at these men, at their power and authority with which they direct twenty cars to one side and twenty to the other. That's real business and something necessary to be done. I would like to be such a man. And perhaps it wouldn't be so far from what I'm doing now, Church Dogmatics, because dogmatics is also a kind of traffic police, showing where to go" (pp. 108-109).
This is the kind of book that one might pick up and peruse, settling in on one conversation or another. Some are highly theological, as seen in his conversations in Chicago and at Princeton, where he engaged with trained theologians. They could be pastoral, as when he spoke with prison chaplains. In whatever mode we engage these conversations, we see something of the humanity of Barth the great theologian, a designation he refused to own for himself, letting the angels make that determination.
The book, which is edited by his former student and biographer Eberhard Busch, includes reports from conversations that range from visits with prison chaplains to groups of theologians. For my part, I was most interested in the conversations held during his visits to the United States. He had learned English as early as the 1930s, and was very conversant in English, which enabled him to engage in direct, unfiltered discussion. At times it was profound and at times rather humorous.
On the serious/profound side, he takes seriously matters of theology, and is willing to dive deep into conversations about the centrality of Jesus to his theology. We see his hesitancy about bringing in philosophy into the conversation, as well as too great an emphasis on anthropology. Regarding philosophy, in a conversation with theologian Schubert Ogden, Barth declared the independence of theology from philosophy, for philosophy deals with human issues, while theology is centered on God. He recognizes the need to study philosophy, but in large part so as to be aware of the traps set by it. He notes in answer to Ogden's questions, "I think of worldviews making themselves absolute bias ultimate reality and truth, systems built up (before theology begins) of preconceived ontology or anthropology. IN order not to fall into those traps, a theologian must earnestly study philosophy" (p. 169). This was his greatest concern with Bultmann, whom he acknowledged as a friend and one who shared his commitment to hearing the Word of God in Scripture. Their differences, however, centered on Bultmann's desire to begin with anthropology and experience. In Barth's mind, Bultmann was a pietist!
We see Barth get testy with questioners. We also see him have fun with them. He could also leave them somewhat speechless, as when he answered evangelical theologian Edward Carnell's questions about Barth's view of scripture being both sullied with errors and Word of God. After Barth gave his answer, which recognized that there are tensions and contradictions in scripture, or what Carnell might call errors "in its time bound human statements," and ending with "Is that enough to encourage you to continue to confess that here is a problem also for you?" All that Carnell could answer was "thank you, sincerely, Dr. Barth" (p. 179). On one occasion when asked to answer Reinhold Niebuhr's charges that Barth would not speak about the situation in eastern Europe, he simply retorted that he would speak about what happens in eastern Europe when Niebuhr spoke out against what happened in American prisons.
It would seem that he rather enjoyed debate and conversation. He could be humorous when he desired. On the humorous end (at least to me) is his response to a BBC interviewer, who asked him if hadn't become a theologian, what would he have liked to have become. He answered: "If I were not a theologian, I would like to be a traffic policeman. Look at these men, at their power and authority with which they direct twenty cars to one side and twenty to the other. That's real business and something necessary to be done. I would like to be such a man. And perhaps it wouldn't be so far from what I'm doing now, Church Dogmatics, because dogmatics is also a kind of traffic police, showing where to go" (pp. 108-109).
This is the kind of book that one might pick up and peruse, settling in on one conversation or another. Some are highly theological, as seen in his conversations in Chicago and at Princeton, where he engaged with trained theologians. They could be pastoral, as when he spoke with prison chaplains. In whatever mode we engage these conversations, we see something of the humanity of Barth the great theologian, a designation he refused to own for himself, letting the angels make that determination.
More...