Full Text for Karl Barth (Text)

"Une theologie du desespoir" (A. Keller). "A species of agnosticism akin to that of Herbert Spencer" (W. P. Patterson), etc. The Anglican Theolog- ical Review 13b) regards Barthianism as "Protestantism with a vengeance," as a "School of New Reformation Theology," protesting against the [humanistic] theory that there is a fairly uniform development or evolution in Christianity; against the attempt to make theology the expression of the religious experience of the Church of today; against the attempt to restate Christianity in terms of the religious consciousness or teaching of Jesus.14) H. Sasse, in Here We Stand, writes, "In Karl Barth liberal theology brought forth its own conqueror. He could overcome liberal the- ology because it is bones of its bones and flesh of its flesh." 14b) The American Lutheran (Vol. 22, No.10,p. 9) declares that Barth- ianism is not Lutheran and that its influence (quoting Koeberle's Quest f01' Holiness) threatens to destroy the specifically Lutheran understanding of the nature of the Church, the Sacraments, and the nature of the gift of the Spirit." 15) While orthodox Lutherans do not acknowledge Barthianism as Lutheran, orthodox Calvinists refuse to accept it as truly Calvin- istic. One may think of the remark of Wilhelm Pauck in his work Karl Barth: Prophet of a New Christianity? who points out that Barth "cites the authority of Luther just as often as he does that of the Genevan reformer." 16) Very definite is the denial of the Calvinistic character of Barthianism made by Cornelius Van Til in Christianity Today.16b) Asserting that Karl Barth's theology is based upon an antitheistic theory of reality and an antitheistic theory of knowledge, he says: "His theology is a 'sport' and will soon revert to type. Professor McGiffert of Chicago predicted last summer that Barthianism would not last because it was really a recrudescence of Calvinism. If we might venture a prediction, it would be that Barthianism may last a long time because it is really Modernism." Writing in Bibliotheca Sacra, F. D. Jenkins of Princeton declares that Barthianism constitutes "a complete antith- esis to the Reformed Theology on the subject of the knowability of God as Creator as based upon His creation, including the con- stitution of man";17) And after having discussed his theology qua theology in detail, he remarks: "Let not the reader think that this is Calvinism. 'The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the 13 b) Vo1.14, No.1; p.13 f. 14) Karl Barth, Prophet and Theologian. Pp.13 ff. 14 b) P.155. 15) The State of Visible Christendom. VI- Soeren Kierkegaard and Karl Barth. By O. P. Kretzmann. pp. 8 ff. 16) P. 9 f. 16 b) Vol. I, No.lO, p.l3 f. 17) Vol. 83, No. 332, p.431. Karl Barth 365 hands of Esau.' Neither is it Augustinianism nor Paulinism, as is so presumptively claimed for it." 17b) Kai E. Jordt Joergensen, of Copenhagen, Denmark, in The Lutheran Church Quarterly, writes: "In 1918 Karl Barth published his Roemerbriej, which is not a cormYtentary, but rather a world view, or theology. This began the movement known as 'Dialectic Theology.' It has as its aim a fight against what Barth calls 'the misery of Protestantism': Orthodoxy, Pietism, Enlightenment, and Schleiermacher. These, says Barth, are the four cornerstones of the prison in which we are all living." 18) The CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLI)r speaks of Barthianism thus: "It has somewhat modified the parent system (Neo-Calvinism), but has retained its essential feature (Neo- Calvinism)." 1n) M. Channing-Pearce, in The Hibbert Journal, de- scribes Barthianism as "the sudden combustion of a general and long-gathering reaction against the overweening immanentism of nineteenth-century evolutionary thought, and Karl Barth, in the main, a modern Luther pitted against the Papacy of Science." ~O) F. D. Jenkins, in Bibliotheca Sacra, closes his keen investigation of Barthianism with the words: "We must end as we began with the statement that that which we have before us is not a theology, but a religious philosophy (as much as Barth decries it), only another attempt in company with Schleiermacher, Troeltsch, Otto, and others, but as variant to them, to find the religious a priori. The a priori he found, the religion he missed." 21) But just what value have these variant opinions to the reacier? They show that even the most learned students of Barthianism have not been able to agree on the real nature and scope of this movement, no matter whether they were orthodox or liberal, Lu- theran or Reformed. They also point out the predicament in which the essayist finds himself who wishes to tell his readers in simple and clear language just what Barthianism is. In his famous work Karl Barth and Christian Unity A. Keller says of it: "One is reminded not only of Marcion, but also of the 'Yes-and-No- Theology' of John Scotus Erigena and of the dialectical theologians of scholasticism or of Lagrange, the French-Catholic theologian of the seventeenth century, of Pascal and of Augustine." 22) And C. C. McCown in his book The Search for the Real Jesus complains: "One of the chief objections to his theology is the kaleidoscopiC 17 b) Ibid., p. 461. 18) Vol. 4, p.175, April, 1931. 19) Vol. 7, No.5, p.329. 20) Vol. 35, p. 365. On page 366 the author says: "The pH' of his prophecy was the re-affirmation of a transcendentalism which scientific and secular humanism increasingly denied." 21) Germany's New Paradox Theology, Vol. 83, p.462. 22) P.18. 366 Karl Barth changes through which it has passed and the paradoxical and con- tradictory utterances which disfigure its presentation. It is, there- fore, extremely difficult to say what he believes ... hardly a page, certainly not a complete chapter, but is disfigured by the ego- tisti""l dogmati!''''' which insists that God is the 'Wholly Oth ' and that only Barth's ex cathedra definitions of the terms within which the subject is to be considered are correct." 23) One thing, however, is clear. As Barth is casting aside the o~d terminology and is speaking and writing in simpler terms, it will be easier rightly to appraise him; though what A. Keller says in his Karl Barth and Christian Unity is still true: "Barthianism is as yet no theological system, even though the usual volumes on dogmatics are even now being published. It is still in the form of a struggle in which the old and the new are fighting for survival and of a condition of distress in which there is a battle with in- visible powers." 24) It is, however, only after Barth will have published his Dogmatik completely that the estimates of his theology and influence will be fairly reliable, unless, of course, Barth after that should again make sweeping changes, either toward the orthodox or the liberal wing. III The very names of the theology of Karl Barth have been found perplexing. It has been called "Dialectic Theology" (a term 'NJ.,inJ., Barth hir~AH hnn not favore,;j\. hnnn'1se it uses "the method of statement and counterstatement." 25) But in his well-written, keenly analytic article in the Journal of Religion Paul Tillich declares that Barth's theology is not dialectic. "A dialectic theol- ogy," he contends, "is one in which 'yes' and 'no' belong insep- arably together. In the so-called 'dialectic' theology they are irreconcilably separated, and that is why this theology is not dialectic." 26) Tillich suggests that Barth's theology rather is paradoxical and that therein lies its strength." 27) Barthianism is indeed a "Theology of Paradoxes" because of its constant emphasis on the "Yes-and-No" aspects of its internally contradictory theological propositions. God thus is timeless; yet He enters time. God is the unknowable; yet He makes Himself known. Of course, Ba th's paradoxical propositions are not quite as simple as all that; we have chosen these simplest of all paradoxes merely to give the 23) P.296. 24) P.36. 25) H. R. Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology, p.266. 26) What Is Wrong with the "Dialectic" Theology? Vol. IS, No.2, p.127. 27) Ibid., p. 127. Karl Barth 367 reader an idea of the essence of a paradox. Barth rather puts the paradox like this: "If you ask about God, and if I am really to tell about Him, dialectic is all that can be expected of me. Neither my affirmation nor my denial lays claim to being God's truth. Neither is more than a witness to that Truth which stands in the center between every Yes and No." 28) Another name given to Barthian theology is that of "Theology of Crisis." Perhaps the clearest explanation of this term is given by W. M. Horton in his very helpful work Contemporary Con- tinental Theology, in which he writes: "The term 'crisis' here refers not only to the crisis of modern civilization and modern theology, but to the perpetual crisis in which man is always involved when he tries to solve his problem by his own powers. Over every man,. every institution, every culture, every so-called Christian church that takes this anthropocentric and self-reliant attitude, God's judgment (Greek krisis) lowers like a thunder cloud, and sooner or later it descends senkrecht von oben, straight down like a thunderbolt, to proclaim that all things human are bounded by the 'death-line.''' 29) H. R. Mackintosh describes the meaning of crisis in' Barthianism thus: "Man, the world, religion, the Church- all for this theology are under the judgment and demand of the Word of God. . .. To understand Revelation, man must listen with the consciousness of standing at the bar of God." 30) Because of Barth's continuous stress on the chief content of theology as such, namely, the Word of God, Barthianism is now generally known as the "Theology of the Word of God." However, - Barth's concept of the Word of God is not that of Luther or that of the Protestant Reformation in general. Barth does not identify the Word of God with Scripture. The Word of God is not the written Word of the Holy Bible. Barth is not a Reformed Funda- mentalist. So he does not identify the Bible with the Word of God. The Word of God is rather "God himself as He speaks to men; as He meets them in the ever-recurring crises of their lives. It is, ""above all, Christ, Christ who bridges the gulf between God and man." 31) Therefore the name "Theology of the Word of God" is mi~leading; upon hearing it, the uninitiated is likely to confound it with the theology of the Reformation, the theology of the Sola Scriptura, which Barth, however, disavows. For this reason, perhaps, the name Barthianism is after all the most ~gnificant term for this type of theology, since it identifies that \fhich Barth teaches as theology in quite unmistakable terms. 28) Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology, p. 267. 29) Pp. 100 if. 30) Types of Modern Theology, p. 265. 31). Anglican Theological Review, Vol. 14, No.1, Karl Barth, Prophet and Theologian, p. 20. 368 Karl Barth We have said before that Barth has changed not only his expres- sions, but, in part at least, also his theological emphases. While that is true, the Barthian fundamentals remain. Even in the latest edition of his Dogmatik Barth remains Barth. It may be a more mellow Barth, a more mature Barth, a more readable and likable Barth, but it is Barth all the same, as we intend to show later on. One more thought. Barth has evidently been regarded by some as a thoroughly original theologian. Certain accidents in Barth's theology, or, let us say, certain approaches of his, are indeed novel; but, no doubt, M. Channing-Pearce is correct when he avers that "the utterances of Barth and his school of prophets seem to be neither original nor in any 'major' sense of the word prophetic." 32) This will become obvious as we study his theological Werdegang. IV While Karl Barth's life has been rich in agreeable and dis- agreeable experiences, it has been in no wise tumultuous. He was born on May 10, 1886, in Basel, Switzerland, where his father, Fritz Barth, later a rather conservative professor of Reformed theology at Bern, was then minister. With his older brother Hein- rich and his younger brother Peter (both of whom have since achieved success in their respective fields) Karl thus grew up in the ministerial and theological atmosphere of his parental home.aa) At Bern, B~~+h ~H~~rl~rl ... h~ local gymnasium until 1904. Fl":::rr. 1904 to 1908, he studied theology in Bern, Berlin, Tuebingen, and Marburg. In 1908-1909 he served as associate editor of Rade's Christliche Welt. After that he was assistant pastor of the German Reformed Church in Geneva; and, beginning in 1912, pastor in Safenwil, Canton Aargau. Here as a pastor he wrote his famous . Roemerbrief, the first edition of which appeared in 1919. In 1921 he became professor of Reformed theology at Goettingen; then professor of theology at the University of Muenster, in Westphalia, and finally professor of theology at the University of Bonn, where he was dismissed for his outspoken testimony against the rising power and effrontery of the new Nazi government. He returned to his native city of Basel, where he is now teaching theology and where he is working on his six-volume Dogmatik, which is to be his real life work. 32) "Karl Barth as a Post-War Prophet." The Hibbert Journal, Vol. 35, p.378. 33) Cf. Karl Barth's Idea of Revelation, by P. H. Monsma, pp 3 fl.; The Kart Barth Theology, by A. S. Zerbe, pp. 38 ff., containing biographical sketches also of E. Thurneysen, F. Gogarten, Emil Brunner, A. Bultmann, Heinrich Barth, Hinrich Knittenmeyer, W. Kolfhaus, all of them influenced by Barth; Types of Modern Theology, by H. R. Mackintosh; pp. 271 ff.; etc. Karl Barth 369 Behind this simple recital of studies and teaching ventures may be found a most interesting theological Werdegang. It has been said that Barth's theology is eclectic.34) Barth's theology could not be otherwise. Dr. P. H. Monsma in his Karl Barth's Idea of Reve- lntion (among others) points out with much detail how his various teachers have influenced his theological growth and development. From his father he inherited a rather conservative (though not Fundamentalist) form of Christianity, "reasonable and hence ac- ceptable." 35) "Such was Karl Barth's father - a man who ac- cepted the Bible as the Word of God and rejected radical criticism of it, who believed in the peculiar sonship of Jesus, who believed in the unlimited power of God to do miracles, who believed Jesus had the power to raise people from the dead and to work other miracles both upon men and upon things, who believed in the atoning death of Jesus, in His resurrection, and in a life hereafter; but who also believed the Bible was imperfect, limited the authority of the writers to things they could witness, rejected the Virgin Birth, sought secondary causes in miracles, and objected to a ma- terialistic conception of the bodily resurrection of Jesus - a man who championed a faith based on the life of Jesus rather than a system of doctrine, who had a strong ethical interest, an evident religious nature, a love of truth and respect for facts as well as a great loyalty to Christ." 36) In many respects the theology of the now aging son, as revealed in his Dogmatik, comes quite close to that of his liberal-conservative father; at any rate his is the liberalizing (though generally conservative) Reformed theology of Bern and Basel. At Tuebingen, Barth was greatly influenced by the teaching of Adolph Schlatter, from whom, according to Dr. Monsma, he received his low estimate of philosophy -and his attempt to divorce theology from it, his aversion to system building, his emphasis on actuality, and the prominence he gives to the idea of God's 10rdship.37} In Berlin, Barth studied under Harnack, re- nowned because of his extreme Ritschlian Einstellung, and it may be that Harnack's strong criticism of the Bible affected his attitude toward Scripture. But still more decisive was the influence of Wilhelm Herrmann (a Ritschlian like Harnack) on the young stu- dent. Of Herrmann, Barth speaks as "my unforgettable teacher." 38) 34) H. Sasse, Here We Stand, p.167. 35) Cf. Fritz Barth's Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu. 36) Karl Barth's Idea of Revelation, p. 9. 37) Ibid., p. 4. 38) Types of Modern Theology, p.271. "Herrmann, accepting the Kantian idea of science as the only possible one, denies the possibility of any proof of God's existence." Karl Barth's Idea of Revelation, p.20; cf. the whole chapter, in which Dr. Monsma shows Herrmann's influ- ence on Barth; also Barth's confession: "It was he who showed it [.- ~ new theological method] to me" (p. 19). 24 370 Karl Barth But also other men influenced Barth's Werdega'l1g, such as Kant, Troeltsch, and Schweitzer.39) In Switzerland the Swiss Religio- Social Movement made a deep impression on Barth. Johann and Christoph Blumhardt, Hermann Kutter, and above all, Soeren Kierkegaard, all these and many others, no doubt, directed Barth's theological thought into the channels in which we find them re- vealed in his Roemerbrief and other writings. Barth began his theological career in turbulent times, and obviously the tragic effects of the outcome of the World War on Central Europe had as much to do with Barth's theological modus and message as the influential men who at this time appeared with stirring messages.40 ) Barth, then, left a relatively conservative Reformed theological atmosphere, entered with zest into an extremely Modernistic area, then revolted against it, though still bound largely by the fetters of Liberalism, and is now slowly returning to the liberal-conservative Reformed theology of his homeland. When teaching his peculiar type of liberal Calvinistic theology, Barth in the beginning employed as a sort of Glockenlaeute'l1 (to attract attention - wisse'l1schaftlich muss die Geschichte eben sein!) a peculiar theological jargon, which to a great extent he has now given Up.41) These terms were not distinctively Barthian, but borrowed from others (many from Soeren Kierkegaard). Wilhelm Pauck is no doubt right in saying that Rudolph Otto, a mystical theologian, was the first to introduce into modern theological terminology ~he CO~~~~l."'t of=~': as tL" Ganz Andere, the "Totally Other." 42) So also Pauck rightly regards Barth's description of faith as Hohlraum (a void) as of mystic origin.43) Since this essay is intended for popular study, we spare our reader the long, painful discussion of what Barth's storm-and-stress terminology might mean. In his Dogmatik Barth has happily returned to a language 39) Karl Barth's Idea of Revelation, pp. 29 ff. 40) Cf. Rudolph Otto's Das Heilige (1917); Friedrich Heiler's Das Gebet (1918); Franz Overbeck's Christentum und Kultur (1919); etc.; d. KarL Barth's Idea of Revelation, pp. 65 fT. In Die christHche Dogmatik im Entwurf (1927), Vorwort VI, Barth himself mentions among those to whom he owes much of his theological development: Blumhardt d. Ae. und d. J., Is. Aug. Dorner, Soeren Kierkegaard, Hermann Friedrich Kohlbruegge, Hermann Kutter, Julius Mueller, Franz Overbeck, Aug. F. C. Vilmar. 41) Cf. Types of Modern Theology, pp. 263 f.: "Simplification has come, in part, as the result ef his discarding, amongst other things, the 'existentialism' which perplexed his earlier readers." 42) "Barth's Religious Criticism of Religion"; The JournaJ of Re- ligion, Vol. 8, p. 458. 43) Ibid., p.468. Karl Barth 371 which, for the greater part, is generally intelligible, and for this we are grateful to him.44l At first Barth found many co-workers. Of these Eduard Thurneysen, Reformed pastor near St. Gall, Switzerland, a student of Franz Overbeck and of Wilhelm Herrmann, was perhaps his most intimate friend. Others were Friedrich Gogarten, Lutheran pastor near Jena; Emil Brunner, professor at the University of Zurich (known in America largely for his teaching at Princeton Theological Seminary); Adolf Bultmann, liberal Lutheran pro- fessor of the New Testament at Marburg; Heinrich Barth, pro- fessor of philosophy at Basel; Hinrich Knittenmeyer; W. Kolfhaus, Paul Burckhardt, Georg Merz, etc. But of these many have deserted him, especially Brunner, who has become a thorough liberal, Gogarten, Merz, and others.45l But as Barth's theological terminology, so also this topic is too extensive to be treated ade- quately in a brief and popular essay. V It would-be wrong so to represent the work of Karl Barth as if it had no merit at all in those evil postwar years when utter despair faced the desperately bankrupt Liberal circles of theological Germany. The three outstanding German theologians who had so bitterly attacked and all but destroyed the traditional Christian faith in learned circles were Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and Troeltsch, and they had hosts of followers, some of whom became almost as destructive as the masters whom they followed. Their theologies, while differing from each other, were all directed toward human- izing God, doing away with the concept of sin, and deifying man as his own savior. By the time when the German armies marched 44) So also not only in his Credo, but also in his helpful, learned and timely Vortraege, e. g., Das Wort Gottes und die Theologie: Gesam- melte Vortraege. Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen, 1925 (viertes bis sechstes Tausend); Die Theologie und die Kirche: Gesammelte Vortraege (2. Band); Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen, 1928; The Resurrection of the Dead. Translated by H. J. Stenning. Fleming H. Revell Co., N. Y. (1933); God's Search for Man. Sermons by Karl Barth and Eduard Thurneysen. Translation by G. Richards, E. Homrighausen and K. Ernst. Round Table Press, Inc., N. Y. (1935); The Church and the Churches. Wm. E. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. (1936); etc. The Concordia Seminary Library has only relatively few Barthian works. Much better is the collection of Barthian books in the Eden Seminary Library, Webster Groves, Mo.-To understand the Barthian terminology, let the reader also remember that Barthians generally are students of Plato, Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, Luther, Calvin, Kant, Fichte, Kierkegaard, Dostojewski, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Nietsche, Kutter, Ragaz, Wm. Herrmann. Cf. The Karl Barth Theology. A. S. Zerbe, p. 42. 45) H. Sasse, Here We Stand, p. 54; Th. Haitjema, Karl Barths "Kritische" Theologie, pp. 86 ff.; cf. also the chapter "Karl Barth als Kind seiner Zeit," pp. 61 ff. 372 Karl Barth into Belgium to subdue France, Germany as a nation had berome desperately wicked, desperately ungodly, desperately atheistic. God's "seven thousand," of course, were still there, but they were a sorry "little flock," despised and rejected of men. Germany as a nation had lost its faith in God, had become vainglorious. Its theology was utterly anthropocentric, egocentric; its heart vain, proud, hardened. Then 'came the great "surrender," when the German armies returned home, a beaten host, with Socialists and Communists subverting law and order and with all of Germany in slavish fear, disappointment, and desperation. To this estranged German people, Barth, with the thunders of Sinai, preached, in the main, a threefold doctrine of Law: the sovereignty of God, the sinfulness of man, and the helplessness of man to return to God. Barth seemingly regarded it as his mission to make every mountain and hill low and the crooked straight. He did not do this orthodoxly; he perhaps did not do this even wisely and well; he himself indeed had to put on sheep's clothing to conceal wolfish traits, which he inherited from Harnack, Herrmann, Kierkegaard, and others, who had been his teachers. But the repercussions of his preaching were so tremendous that he himself was amazed at the unexpected success. Overnight, so to speak (after his Roemer- brief had gone out), he became the theologian of Central Europe and of Great Britain and Scotland, hated by the old Ritschlian school, but adored by those who found in his preaching a new note of conviction, whi"'~ they hail ~i~~",d in the emj:'ty teachings of their former leaders. Barth preached the sovereignty of God. He preached it wildly, loudly, in terms of gross exaggeration. The simple but basic Cal- vinistic concept of his youth he made a new shibboleth; and it was gladly heard. "God" again became "God." "God is God, and 1 man is man!" God is the Ganz Andere, the "Wholly Other," the "Impossible Possibility," the "Unknown," the "Remote." 46) His concept of God was, of course, not Biblical, but Kierkegaardian; his was not the God of the Gospel, but that of the Law, of Mount Sinai. , But how different, nevertheless, was Barth's God from the God of Schleiermacher, of Ritschl, of Troeltsch! Over against the Im- rnanentism of his decadent theological age, over against the human- izing of God and the deifying of man, he preached that the dif- ference between God and man is a qualitative difference,H) No wonder that Ritschlians raved! No wonder that Harnack found 46) "Barth's Religious Criticism of Religion," The Journal of Religion, p.458; Vol.15, pp.128 ff. 47) Cf. in this connection the excellent article "With Kierkegaard on the Way to the Altar," Journal of the American Lutheran Conference, Vol. 3, No.9, pp.13 ff. Karl Barth 373 in Barth's teaching Gnosticism, Marcionitic tendencies. No wonder that Modernists in our own country vented their spleen when they analyzed Barthianism.48 ) When Barth preached God, he did not mean man; not an idol made in the image of God, but God, the Creator, the Master, the Sovereign. And Barth preached man's helplessness over against God- man's sin. Barth again dared speak of original and actual sin. Of course, his definition of sin was not that of traditional Christianity. "Sin,~arth, is man's taking himself for qod. It is the deifica- tion of man." 49) As Barth re-affirmed divine transcendentalism, Which '~~1entific and secular' Humanism had denied, so he re- affirmed man's sinfulness, man's utter helplessness over against God.50 ) Man cannot come to God! "God is in heaven, and thou art on earth!" Man can never become creator Creatoris. "Between God and man there is a hollow space which man is unable of him- self to penetrate. The contention that the creature possesses this power is idol worship." 51) Finitum non est capax infiniti. Hence if man is to be saved, God' must save him. Man is helpless over against God, is lost. A bas with man's effort to be his own savior! And God does desire to save man! That was Barth's great cor- ollary which he proclaimed to a world fuath~ been ~nt to sarvation. To establish this truth, Barth went back to Luther a"ildCalvin, less to Luther, though, than to Calvin. Of course, here again Barth did not preach the full clear Scripture truth, not the blessed Gospel in its winning sweetness. He did indeed speak much of the Wort Gottes. But his Word of God is not the Word of Scripture. "Als inspirierte Schrift sagt die Bibel Gottes Wort. Und doch sagt sie ja nichts, denn sie ist ja heilige Schrift. Das unterscheidet sie von den Propheten. Aber die Bibel ist nun auf der andern Seite auch nicht Gottes Wort. Denn Gottes Wort ist nur der Logos. Wenn die Bibel aber nicht Gottes Wort sagt und auch nicht Gottes Wort ist, dann folgt, dass die Bibel erst darin Gottes Wort sagt, dass sie gesagt wird.52 ) Nevertheless, de- spite his rationalistic monstrosities about the Word of God, Barth once more taught the need of divine revelation, not in experience, 48) "A 'wholly other' God is no God for me." H. E. Luccock, "With No Apologies to Barth." The Christian Centu,ry, Vol. 56, No. 32, pp. 971 ft. 49) "Barth's Religious Criticism of Religion," The Journal of Re- ligion, Vol. 8, pp. 459 fl. 50) "Karl Barth as a Post-War Prophet," The Hibbert Journal; pp.36fl. 51) "What Is Wrong with 'Dialectic' Theology?" The Journal of Religion. Vol. 35, pp. 36 fl. 52) Was ist Theologie? Erik Peterson. Friedrich Cohen Verlag in Bonn (1926). 374 Karl Barth not in nature, not in SchleienTlacher's way, not in Ritschl's way, not in Troeltsch's way, but in a way that led anxious believing searchers after the truth back to Scripture and Christian theology. Germany's theological world would not listen to orthodox theology; but it did listen to Barth! F. Kattenbusch summarizes Barth's message in the following words: "Was Sprengler als HistorL"ker kommen sieht, wieder einmal der Zusammenbruch einer Kultur, taucht vor Barths Auge als ueberhaupt die Weltkrise auf! Er predigt neu den Glauben an einen 'kommenden,' den verheissenen, gedrohten 'Tag,' der das 'Gericht' Gottes ueber die Welt als solche, in diesem Sinn den An- bruch eines anderen Aeons darstellen wird. Nicht als ob Barth phantastisch auf 'geschichtliche,' gar 'baldige' Katastrophe rechnete, er vergegenwaertigt sich nur 'alles' unter dem absoluten, begriff- lichen Kontrast vorl Gott und Welt, Ewigkeit und Zeit, Jenseits und Diesseits, Geist und Fleisch, Gerechtigkeit und Suende, Leben und Tod, und meint, es sei wahrlich an der Zeit, 'alles,' endlich mal 'das Zeitliche' in dem Lichte dieser unerbittlichen Gegensaetze, die doch nur das Eine zum Bewusstsein bring en wollten, dass 'Gott' nicht mit sich handeln laesst und allein gelten, herrschen, segnen, Buchen will, zu schauen und zu bedenken." 53) In The Colgate- Rochester Divinity School Bulletin, Liberal J. B. Anderson sums up Barth's merits as follows: "For sinful man does need God and needs Him desperately! And Barth's exaltation of God and putting God and righteousness absolutely first, and his tremendous stress upon the reality of God working a divine work of revealing and cleansing and empowering within the soul of the penitent and trusting man- Barth's fervent and uncompromising proclamation I of man's awful need and God's marvelous grace sufficient to meetl that need - these are the strong points and the much-needed; emphases in Barth's thought." Nevertheless back-leaning Mod- ernist that he is, he adds venomously in the concluding paragraph: "But, on the other hand, the pity of it is that all this is linked up, with a tragic retreat, a turning back from the priceless fruits of '\ recent centuries of culture in science and philosophy and sOciall enlightenment and development in order to hark back to hyper- Calvinism, to an extreme supernaturalism, total depravity, special revelation, election, predestination, and a revolting emphasis upon_ the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God." 54) This fierce attack upon Barth shows definitely that Barth's theology is certainly not after the heart of American humanistic Modernists. But neither is it Christian, in particular, Lutheran, orthodoxy. 53) Die deutsche evangelische Theologie seit Schleiermacher, p. 96 f. 54) The Theology of Karl Barth, p. 303. !'tad Barth 375 VI There remains, then, the task of pointing out in a general overview some essential points in which Barth differs from orthodox Christian, and especially Lutheran, theology. The first difference between orthodox Lutheranism and Barth- ianism is found in their differing attitudes toward Scripture. To the orthodox Lutheran, Scripture is God's Word in all its parts, so that whatever Scripture says must be received as the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God. This doctrine Barth rejects. He does not acknowledge the Schriftprinzip. Indeed, he advocates historical (i. e., destructive) criticism of the Bible. Paul Tillich writes: "Historical criticism is of so little concern to Barth that he ,can quite avowedly express his indifference toward the question of the existence or non-existence of the 'historical Jesus.' He does not reject the historical research of the Liberals, but he treats it as a trifling matter, of which his Christo logy is independent." 55) Th. Haitjema writes of Barth's rejection of Scripture as the norma normans of the Christian faith: "W ohl ercheine Karl Barth in seinem Glauben an die Heilige Schrift naiver, aber das sei im Grund doch eben nur Schein, da Barth ja im Vorwort zur zweiten Ausgabe des Roernerbriefes seinen voreingenommenen biblizisti- schen Standpunkt dahin erlael'ter e, dass or 'das Vorurteil habe, diz Bibel sei ein gutes Bueh und es lohne sieh, wenn man ihre Gedanken ebenso ernst nehme als die eigenen' - wobei Messer der fel:.le Spott, der den 3atz wuerzt, entgangen ist." 56) How greatly Barth despises Scripture as the true principiurn cognoscendi, he shows, for example, in his article "Das Wort in der Theologie von Schleiermacher bis Ritschl," in which he writes: "Es erweckt eben- falls Aufmerksamkeit, dass die Kategorie, unter der die Biblizisten [How he hates the adherents to Scripture as the inspired Word of God!] die Bibel betrachtet haben, die Geschiehte ist. Wer Ge- schichte sagt, der sagt jedenfalls damit noch nicht Offenbarung, noch nicht Wort Gottes, wie die Reformatoren die Bibel genannt haben, noch nicht Subjekt, dem man sich zu fuegen hat, ohne dar- ueber verfuegen zu koennen. Auch dann nicht, wenn er, wie die Biblizisten taten, Heilsgeschichte sagt." 57) At times Barth becomes downright blasphemous when he argues against Bible theologians who defend Scripture as the inspired Word of God and the only source and norm of faith.58 ) Barth, then, rejects in unmistakable terms the Sola Scriptura of the Lutheran Reformation. 55) Journal of Religion, Vol.15, p.133. 56) Karl Earths "Kritische" Theologie, p.1l7. 57) Zwischen den Zeiten, 6. Jahrgang (1928), p.l03. 58) Cf. A. S. Zerbe, The Karl Barth Theology, "How Barthians Undermine the Credibility of Scripture," pp. 107 fr. Cf. also Kirchliche 376 Karl Barth But what, then, is to Barth das Wort Gottes which so definitely he has placed in the center of his theology? As in other places, so also at this point Barth refuses to speak in clear terms, so that it is hard to say with certainty just what he regards as the Word of God. In the 13th edition of Luthardt's Kompendium der Dog- matil" R Jelke says: "In der neuesten Theolo~ie wird mit dem Begriff 'Wort Gottes' vielfach recht wiUkuerlich "umgegangen. Die radikalsten modernen Theologen bestimmen Wort Gottes - ohne jede inhaltliche Kennzeichnung - einfach als Anrede, als Anspruch, der den Menschen zum Befremden seiner Ichsucht in der Totalitaet seiner Existenz trifft und fuel' sich behaftet. Damit ist natuerlich jeder Zusammenhang mit der Theologie der Reformation au£ge- geben. Wo es sich nicht eindeutig urn das Zeugnis von Jesu Christo und dem in ihm verwirklichten gnaedigen und heiligen Willen Gottes handelt, hat man nicht 'Wort Gottes' im Sinn der Reforma- toren." 59) This criticism strikes at the very core of Barthian theology. To Barth the Wort Gottes is simply the Deus dicens,\ God's voice heard, directly, in His revelation to Apostles and Prophets; indirectly, in the written records of that revelation (the Bible), and still more indirectly, through Christian preach- ! ing. 60 ) In his Dogmatik (1/2) Barth declares: "Das Wort Gottes ist nicht mehr und nicht weniger als der Schoepfer des Menschen und also die Instanz, durch deren Spruch und Udell er ist oder eben nicht ist." Tne Word or uod, according to Barth, then, is the ~"~~Hrhelmi~"" ~"erpow6~;nr' God, revealing Himself to man as such, either via the Word of Scripture or via Christian preach- ing. Barth's doctrine of the Word therefore belongs into the field of mysticism or enthusiasm. It subverts SCDpture as the founda- tion of faith and puts in the place of objective Christian truth I (Holy Scripture) man's' subjective impressions of God's specific address. Of course, Barth,' in his general exposition of Christian truth, moves within the Confession of the Church, as he, for ex- ample, does in his Credo and, in general also, in his Dogmatik; but by rejecting Scripture as the norm of faith and basing his \\ theology on the Credo of the Church, he makes the confession of the Church a norma normans and thus, after the fashion of Roman- ism, exalts the Church over Scripture. Mter all, however, Barth's dDctrinal background is the basic ~dea of Calvinism, which teaches Dogmatik (1/2) (1938), p.575: "Von Verbalinspiriertheit duerfte auch im Raum der Kirche nicht geredet werden, wenn sie sich des Wortes Gottes nicht irrtuemlicherweise in der Weise versichern will, wie es die Juden und Heiden allerdings un, um doch gerade dadurch zu verraten, dass ihnen das wirkliche ' . .'ort Gottes fremd ist." 59) P.336. 60) A. B. Hoyle, The Teaching of Karl Barth, pp. 250 ff.; H. R. Mack- intosh, Types of Modern Theology, pp. 287 ff. Karl Barth 377 the immediacy of God's operation and rejects the means of grace. We have spoken of the greater clarity that is to be found in Barth's Dogmatik; but just at this essential point, at the definition of the Word of God, Barth veils his doctrine in obscure and unintelligible exp don: Doe 'larf - 'lism here not revert to type? Has enthusiasm not always veiled itself in darkness to mystify and confuse? Certainly, by its most misleading doctrine of the Word of God, Barthianism reveals itself as something else than orthodox Christian theology. An almost tragic error of Barthianism is its thorough mingling I of Law and Gospel. Barth presents, on the one hand, the angry, I sovereign God and, on the other, the sinful, helpless man, leaving, however, no bridge to span the gulf between the sovereign God and helpless man. Perhaps in his Credo Barth comes nearest to outlining an ordo salutis. But nowhere does the reader find that) clear and comforting doctrine of the Gospel, the very contradictory of the Law, which Luther proclaims with so much clearness and emphasis. In God's Search of Man (sermons by Barth and Thurn- eysen), for example, we read: "We can come before God only in that we admit what was covered in the temple with offerings and prayers: I am poor, naked, before Thee; I am utterly at Thy mercy and in Thy hand; I am guilty! Before God man must at least become perfectly humble. To seek God, certainly that is what is involved in all religions. But we seek God in that we realize this: I cannot find Him; I can.,.,,.,t h"""l" H;~ I Cr'--ot r--',e Y'-- as I should. He must seek and find me; then I shall have what I need. He must raise me up and take pity on me. The shadow of great humility must fall over us, so that we only stand afar off and dare not lift up our eyes, but smite our breast and say, 'Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner!' Wherever that takes place in the temple, there the temple has again become a house of prayer. Then the praise of God has again broken forth from the little ones, the babes." 61) Barth here makes the great mistake against which I Dr. C. F. W. Walther so earnestly warns in his Law and Gospel I and other writings, namely, that of trying to bring sinners to sal- vation by the Law. Lutheranism insists that not merely the Law, \ but also the Gospel, in its full, rich sweetness, must be proclaimed to the sinner, in order that he might believingly pray: "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." But Barthianism is not Lutheranism. Barth's consistent mingling of Law and Gospel leads to another serious error, namely, that of wrongly defining repentance. To thel Lutheran believer repentance means both contritio cordis, worked by the Law, and fiducia cordis, wrought by the Gospel. Now, Barth certainly preaches contritio, as he is indeed a fierce Law 61) P,130. 378 Karl Barth preacher. But he is no true preacher of the Gospel, no winning pr~acher of faith. Faith to Barth does not mean trust in the universal Gospel promises set forth in Scripture. Barth, in fact, knows of no gratia universalis in the Lutheran sense. As said 1: )re, Barth's Dogmatik is not yet complete; but even his Pro- legomena leave no room for a penitent sinner's trust in God's grace secured for all sinners by Christ's obedientia activa et pas- siva. Barth does define faith, but his definition is almost terrifying; there is no Gospel background to his "faith." For Barth, faith is "respect for the divine incognito," "the horrified 'stop' before God." To have faith means "to be silent," "to adore in ignorance," "to:\ know that death alone can be a simile of the Kingdom of God." 62) Barth has now given up the definition of faith as Hohlraum (void, hollow space), an expression which was used no doubt to point out man's utter passivity and receptivity in the act of conversion. But faith is not merely a passive act, but an active act, a taking, receiving, appropriating by the believing penitent of what God gives, namely, the gracious forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus, offered in the Gospel. But of that Barth says nothing. Barthianism does not give to the anxious sinners the full, sweet Gospel comfort which Luther so gloriously unfolds in his Gospel sermons. In his Dogmatik (1/1) Barth writes: "1m Glauben wird das Gericht Gottes anerkannt und seine Gnade gepriesen. 1m Glauben wird Selbstpruefung im Blick auf die Verantwortung vor Gott not- wendig. Der GlanD'? ergreift die Verheissung eines 'Gefuehrt- werdens in alle Wahrheit' (Joh.16: 13). Der Glaube erkennt Gott. Der Glaube ist die Bestimmtheit menschlichen Handelns durch das Sein der Kirche, also durch Jesus Christus, durch die gnaedige Zuwendung Gottes zum Menschen." 63) The ancient Greeks used to say: "Simple is the word of truth"; 64) Barth, however, does not tell the anxious sinner in simple terms the whole precious Gospel truth regarding faith and its glorious effect. But, after all, is Barthianism so very far removed from Calvinism? Calvinism has defined the Gospel as God's declaration of conditions under which He is willing to receive the sinner. Has not Barth adopted this formula, expressing it, however, in modern philosophical terms? Since Barth does not define faith rightly, he is unable also to define justification correctly. For God to justify a sinner means, in Lutheran theology, for Him to declare a believing sinner right- eous for Christ's sake. In his Dogmatik Barth often speaks of justification, very often even in terms of Christian theology, justification meaning forgiveness of sins. He writes, for example: 62) "Barth's Religious Criticism of Religion," The Journal of Religion, Vol. 8, p.464. 63) P.16. 64) • A1tA.ou~ 0 ~il\}o~ "tij,; uA'll-frda<;. Karl Barth 379 "Nicht urn seiner Notwendigkeit und Totalitaet, sondern um seines Gegenstandes, urn Jesu Christi willen, rechtfertigt er [del' Glaube] den Menschen.65l But nowhere does Barth clearly define justifica- tion or declare the Scripture doctrine of justification. W. Kemner in his article "Die Theologie Karl Earths" presents a rather favor- able view of Barth's doctrine of justification, which he professes to have received from Luther, but it is obvious that Barth does not teach Luther's comforting doctrine of justification.66 ) It is interest- ing to consider the closing paragraph of Kemner's very -helpful ar- ticle. He writes: "Gerade auch die dialektische Theologie liefert, wie der ganze kirchliche Wirrwarr in Deutschland, wieder den deutlichsten Beweis dafuer, dass aile Theologie und ailes kirch- liche Wirken in der Luft schwebt, wenn man kein festes Wort hat. Weil Barth, ebensowenig wie die andern Theologen, die Absicht hat, zu Schrift und Bekenntnis zurueckzukehren, wird er mit all seiner Dialektik den Zerfall del' evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands nicht aufhalten koennen. Das deutsche Kirchenvolk wird seinen Weg nach Rom auf del' einen Seite und seinen Weg ins aIte Heidentum auf der andern Seite fortsetzen. Dabei ist es ziemlich gleichgueltig, welchen Weg die Mehrzahl einschlaegt; denn sowohl Rom als auch das Heidentum hat sich wider Gott fuel' den Menschen ent- schieden.67 ) Also Barth's doctrine of justification "hangs in the air!' It would lead us too far to consider other doctrines of Barth- ianism in detail. But a few points may yet receive emphasis. Bart~ !~acl:-=-:; no cc;--:;~tudc ::,uJuti::.; lior can he teach any assurance ,. of salvation, since he denies the means of grace in the Lutheran sense. Well does Wilhelm Pauck write: "Both Calvin [?] and Luther stressed the certitude of salvation. Justification meant to I them the assurance of God's grace in spite of sinfulness, by the mere apprehension of God's love in faith. Barth cannot give such an assurance. The hope of standing under God's 'Yes' is only a perspective, the direction of the narrow path in this world. It means walking on the edge; it means that it is possible to take the smallest step only in a desperatio fiducialis, in faithful despair, in expectation of a futurum aeternum, which man as man shall never attain, which he can only divine in the experience of the complete annihilation of his being as such." 68) As Barth denies the means of grace in the Lutheran sense, so, \' in particular, also the objective gift of Baptism, regeneration, and I the objective gift of the Lord's Supper, the true body and blood· 65) Kirchliche Dogmatik (1/2), p. 402. 66) CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, Vol. 5, N.n, p.824. 67) Ibid., p. 828. 68) "Barth's Religious Criticism of Religion," The Journal of Religion, Vol. 8, pp. 463 fl. 380 Karl Barth received under the bread and wine for the remission of sins.69 ) Also at this point Barth has returned to the Calvinistic conception concerning the Sacraments. So also with regard to the doctrine of the Church. Barth's definition of the Church is essentially Calvin- istk He defines the Church as "a people consisting of those who have found in Jesus Christ their own comfort and hope and the comfort and hope of the whole world, and who therefore have discovered their service in bearing witness before the world, which without Him is lost, to Jesus Christ in His offices of Prophet, Priest, and King." Of the witnessing to Christ he writes: "True witnessing to Jesus Christ occurs necessarily in the unity of two things, a definite repetition of the confession of Him as the One who has come to us as Son of God and Savior and will come again, and of the actualizing of this comession in definite decisions in relation to those contemporary questions which agitate the Church and the world [italics our own]." 70) Is Barth Trinitarian? While he professes to be Trinitarian, he has substituted for the term "person" the term "Seinsweise" (modus subsistendi), though he wishes this term to be understood in the sense of the traditional word "person." But his definitions of the three "persons" in the Godhead certainly are misleading. He Clennes God the Father thus: "Der eine Gott offenbart sich nach der Schrift als der Schoepfer, d. h., als der Herr unsers Daseins. Er ist als solcher Gott unser Vater, weil er es als der Vater Gottes des Sonnes zuvor in sich selbst 1st." 71) He describe::, :::::v~ the Son as follows: "Der eine Gott offenbart sich nach der Schrift als der Versoehner, d. h., als der Herr mitten in unserer Feindschaft gegen ibn. Er ist als solcher der zu "LIDS gekommene Sohn oder das uns gesagte Wort Gottes, weil er es als der Sohn oder das Wort Gottes des Vaters zuvor in sich selber ist." 72) Of the Holy Ghost he writes: "Der eine Gott offenbart sich nach der Schrift als der Erloeser, d. h., als der Herr, der uns frei macht. Er ist als solcher der Heilige Geist, durch dessen Empfang wir Kinder Gottes werden, weil er es als der Geist der Liebe Gottes des Vaters und Gottes des Sohnes zuvor in sich seIber ist." 73) How is the reader to understand these definitions? Whoever reads Barth becomes confused. Just What does he I mean? Barth does not bind himself to Scripture as the sole source and rule of faith nor to the Confessions as declarations of the Scripture truth. His only principium cognoscendi is the Wort Gottes, the "speaking God," whose address comes to man as he 69) Cf. H. Sasse, Here We Stand, pp.162 ff., p.175. 70) The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day, pp.5 and 12. 71) Dogmatik (1/2), p.404. 72) Ibid., p.419. 73) Ibid., p. 470. Karl rth 381 contemplates Scripture. So, then, what? Ultimately, every doc- trine that Barth teaches, schwebt in der Luft. The complaint has been made that one cannot take Barth seriously; indeed, that he does not take himself seriously.74) Barth thus writes: "Damit, dass Gott in seiner Freiheit, Barmherzigkeit und Allmacht Mensch wird und als solcher am Menschen handelt, besteht das Geheimnis der Offenbarung und Versoehnung. Durch dieses Tun Gottes wird die Suende ausgeschlossen und zunichte gemacht." 75) Does this not make the satisfactio vicaria unnecessary? Does Barth still be- lieve in Christ's atoning death? Barth speaks in riddles, and as long as he does that, no one can take him seriously. It is an interesting and perhaps true word picture of Barth which W. M. Horton paints of him in his widely read Contemporary Continental Theology. He writes: "Karl Barth is not (like Bishop Manning) a constitutional conservative. With quizzical eyes, peer- ing out from behind thick lenses, and a satirical, lopsided grin, he looks more like a Bolshevik than like an ecclesiastic, and his appearance is not deceptive." 76) As the reader painfully plods through Barth's repetitious Dogmatik, he feels as if Barth's "quiz- zical eyes, peering out from behind thick lenses," were upon him, and he senses, almost with a shudder, the "satirical, lopsided grin of this Bo]-l..-vik ~l-'olof'-"," a- 1,= is ~-'estling with this or ti1at unintelligible expression or this or that Barthian dogmatical enigma. Is Barth deceiving himself and others? There have been many criticisms of Barth, and many of them are quite just. But there is none that the writer values more highly than that given by Dr. Theodore Engelder in the closing paragraph of his excellent series of articles on "The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology" in THE CONCORDIA THEO- LOGICAL MONTHLY. With much charity and also much truth the writer says: "The truth of the matter is that the dialectical theology has cast overboard much of the old Calvinistic theology which is good and never had what is best in the Lutheran theology." 77) We cordially recommend this series of articles (which we did not reread while writing this article for fear of repeating needlessly what Dr. Engelder has already said) to our readers. The study of that series is timely and needful; for Barthian half-truths are infiltering America's Lutheran theological circles, and persons who have not carefully studied Barthianism are inclined to view it as a real salvation theology for today. Whatever good Barthianism 74) "Das ist die Nemesis, die den Dialektiker erreicht, dass er vUL lauter Ernstnehmen nicht zum Ernst kommt." E. Peterson, Was ist Theologie? P.7. 75) Dogmatik (1/2), p.209. 76) P,97. 77) Vol. 7, No.6; p.409. 382 Karl Barth offers has been presented much better by Luther; and Luther, by the grace of God, has kept us from the confusing dogmatic jargon which Barthianism had gleaned from all manner of theological gutters therewith to torment those who endeavor to understand and interpr et his wor ks. The hope has been expressed that when the influence of Kierkegaard and Barth will reach Lutheranism in our country, the full impact of their thinking will so change things that Lu- theranism will no longer face even the remnants of Modernism. "History will turn back four hundred years, and the historic con- troversy between conservative Calvinism and confessional Lu- theranism will return to the center of theological conflict." 78) A beautiful hope, but too good to be true! Barthianism cannot prevail against Modernism, for intrinsicaily it itself is Liberalism, because a priori it rejects the sola Scriptum. Already many of the companions and followers of Barth have espoused extreme Mod- ernism, and as long as Barth himself refuses to acknowledge the sola Scriptum, his feet are planted in sinking sand. JOHN THEODORE MUELLER Bibliography 1. Books by Barth Come, Holy Spirit. Round Table Press, New York. 1934. Credo. Translated by J . S. NcNab. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 1936. Das Wort Gottes und die Theologie. Gesammelte Vortraege. Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen. 1925. Der Roemerbrief. 3. Abdruck der neuen Bearbeitung. Chr. Kaiser Ver- lag, Muenchen. 1925. Die christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf. Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen. 1927. Die kirchliche Dogmatik. Die Lehre vom Wort Gottes. Prolegomena zur kirchlichen Dogmatik. Erster Halbband. Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen. 1932. Die kirchliche Dogmatik. Zweiter Halbband. Verlag der Evangelischen Buchhandlung Zollikon. 1938. Die Theologie und die Kirche. Gesammelte Vortraege. 2. Band. Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen. 1928. God's Search for Man. Translated by G. Richards, E. Homrighausen, K. Ernst. Round Table Press, Inc., New York. 1935. Revelation. The Macmillan Co., New York. 1937. The Church and the Churches. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mich. 936. The Church and the Political Problem. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 1939. The Resurrection of the Dead. Translated by H. J. Stenning. Fleming H. Revell Company, New York. 1933. 78) American Lutheran, Vol. 22, No. 10; p. 9. Karl Barth 383 In Zwischen den Zeiten 2. !Essays by Barth "Bemerkungen zu Hans Michael Muellers Lutherhuch." VoL 7. "Das Wort in der Theologie von Schleiermacher bis RUsch!." V.6. "Der Roemische Katholizismus als Frage an die protestantische Kirche." V. 6. "Die Lehl'e von den Sakramenten." V.7. "Schicksal und Idee in del' Theologie." V.7. "V am rechten Beten." V. 7. In Theologische Existenz Heute "Calvin." Vol. 37. "Das Bekenntnis der Reformation und Unser Bekenner." V.29. H135. "Das Evangelium in der Gegenwart." No. 25. 1935. "Der Christ als Zeuge." V.12. 1934. "Der Dienst am Wort Gottes." No. 13. 1934. "Der Gute Hirte." No.5. 1934. "Die Kirche Jesu Christi." No. 10. 1934. "Die Kil'che und die Kirchen." No. 27. "Die theologische Voraussetzung Kirchlicher Gestaltung." No. 28. 1935. "Evangelium und Gesetz." No. 13. 1934. "Fuer die Freiheit des Evangeliums." No. 32. 1935. "Gotteswillen und unsere Wuensche." No.7. 1934. "Lutherfeier." No.4. 1933. "Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner." No. 14. 1934. "Offenbarung, Kirche, Theologie." No.9. 1934. "Reformation als Entscheidung." No.3. 1933. "Vier Bibelstunden ueber Luk. 1." No. 19. "Vier Predigten." No. 22. 1935. :1 R""L::s on B~!'!~ianism Camfield, F. W.: Revelatic·n and the Holy Spirit. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 1934. Haitjema, Th. L.: Karl Barths "kritische" Theologie (uebersetzt von Peter Schumacher). A. Veenman und Zonen Verlag, Wageningen (Niederlande). 1926. Hoyle, R. Birch: The Teaching of Karl Barth. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 1930. Kattenbusch, F.: Die evangelische Theologie seit Schleiermacher. A. Toepelmann Verlag, Giessen. 1924. Keller, A.: Karl Barth and Christian Unity. Translated by W. Peters- mann, M. Manrodt, revised by A. J. Macdonald. The Macmillan Company, New York. 1933. McConnachie, John: The Barthian Theology and the Man of Today. Harper and Brothers, New York. 1933. Monsma, P. H.: Karl.Barth's Idea of Revelation. Somerset Press, Inc., Somerville, N. J. 1937. Pauck, Wilhelm: Karl Barth: Prophet of a New Christianity. Harper and Brothers, New York. 1931. Peterson, Erik: Was ist Theologie? Friedrich Cohen Verlag, Bonn, 1926. Rolston, Holmes: A Conservative Looks to Barth and Brunner. Cokes- bury Press, Nashville, Tenn. 1933. Zerbe, A. S.: The Karl Barth Theology or The New Transcendentalism. Central Publishing Company, Cleveland, Ohio. 1930. 4. J:i:s, ~s on E nism Anderson, J. B.: "The Theology of Barth." (In Colgate-Rochester Division School Bulletin, V. 3.) Case, S. J.: "The Ethics of Jesus from Strauss to Barth." (In Journal of Religion, V. 15.) 384 Karl Bart~ Chaning-Pearce: "Karl Barth as a Post-War Prophet." (In The Hibbert Journal, V. 35,3. 1936, 1937.) De Moor, Leonard: "The Concept of Revelation in Barthianism." (In Journal of Religion, V. 17,2. 1937.) Engelder, Theo.: "The Principles and Teachings of the Dialectical Theology." (In CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, V, VII. Nos. 2-6.) England, F. E.: "What Is Barthianism?" (In Religious D'igest, V. 5, 27. 1937.) Gronli, John: "Barthianism Today." (In Theological Forum, V. 6, 4. October, 1934.) Homrighausen, E. G.: "Karl Barth and American Christians." (In Religious Digest, V. 1,3. 1935.) Horton, W. M.: "Extreme Confessionalism: Karl Barth and His Critics." (In Contemporary Continental Theology. 1938.) Harper and Bros., New York. 1938. Jagnow, Albert: "Karl Barth: Theologian." (In Journal of the American Lutheran Conference, V. 3,10,11. October, November, 1938.) Jenkins, F. D.: "Karl Barth." (In Bibliotheca' Sacra, V.83.) Joergensen, K. E. J.: "Karl Barth in the Light of Danish Theology." (In Lutheran Church Quarterly, V. 4,2. 1931.) Kemner, W.: "Die Theologie Karl Barths." (In CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, V. 5.) Kretzmann, O. P.: "Soeren Kierkegaard and Karl Barth." (In American Lutheran, V. 22,10. October, 1939.) Lehmann, Paul: "Barth and Brunner: The Dilemma of the Protestant Mind." (In Journal of Religion, V. 20. April, 1940.) V. 56, 32. August 9, 1939.) Luccock, H. E.: "With No Apologies to Barth." (In Christian Century, VoL 56, No. 32, pp. 971 fl. Mackintosh, H. R: "Karl Barth and Theology of the Word of God." (In Types of Modern Theology). Nisbet and Co., Ltd., London, 1939. Manrodt, M.: "Barthianism." (In Theological MagaZine, V. 61,4. July, 1933.) Mueller, W. A.: "Karl Barth on Christian Theology." (In Religious Digest, V. 3,11. August, 1936.) Oesch, W.: "Freie reformierte Synode und Prof. Karl Barth." (In CON- CORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, V. 6.) Pauck, W.: "Barth's Religious Criticism of Religion." (In Journal of Religion, V. 8. July, 1928.) Petersmann, W.: "The Rediscovery of Eschatology." (In Bibliotheca Sacra, V. 89.) Robinson, W. Childs: "An Interview with Prof. Karl Barth." (In The Presbyterian, V. 108,43. October, 1938.) Sasse, Hermann: "Lutheran Doctrine and the Modern Reformed Theology of Karl Barth." (In Here We Stand, 1938.) Schempp, Paul: "Randglossen zum Barthianismus." (In Zwischen den Zeiten, V. 6.) Stonehouse, N. B.: "Jesus in the Hands of a Barthian." (In Westminster Theological Journal, V.1, 1. November, 1939.) Til, Cornelius Van: Book Review on Karl Barth's Idea oj Revelation. (In Christianity Today, V. I, No. 10. February, 1931.) Til, Cornelius Van: "Changes in Barth's Theology." (In Presbyterian Guardian, V. 5,12. December, 1938.) Vlastos: "Barth Rethinks Barthianism." (In Christian Century. V. 56, 36. September 6, 1939.) lood, W. L.: "Karl Barth, Prophet and Theologian," (In Anglican Theological Review, V. 14.) ~ .