“Karl Barth is Evil”: The Strong and the Weak

In the undergraduate class I am teaching this semester, one of the research assignments students can choose is an analysis of the Barth and Bultmann debate over the nature of Jesus’ resurrection.  One student who chose this assignment later changed their mind; this person sent me an email asking if it would be possible change to another assignment  because, they asked rhetorically, “Isn’t Karl Barth heretical?”  In fact, this person went so far as to say, “I am not sure why you would have us read such heretical authors for this class.”  Now, this did not entirely surprise me, unfortunately.  There is a much-loved theology instructor at this same university who has been known to say unequivocally, “Karl Barth is evil.”  Unfortunately: monkey see, monkey do.

This particular student has no idea about what makes Barth worthy of the term “heretical”–they simply heard it on good authority.  But what about the instructor?  Is this blanket condemnation warranted?  As far as I can see it, there are two general issues that evangelicals have with Barth’s theology, maybe three.  On scripture: Barth would laugh at the doctrine of inerrancy, and he has some serious reservations about inspiration.  On the destiny of human beings: Barth’s doctrine of election, coupled with his Calvinist tendencies, lead him to what many have called a “hypothetical universalism”.  And maybe for those who are uptight about postmodernism: Barth’s understanding of “truth” goes beyond the propositional.

Now, Barth can, at some level, be defended against these charges.  I do not intend to stick up for Barth today.  My concern is over the deep fear behind the anecdotes I have only briefly outlined above.  I do not think these are isolated incidences; in fact, I think that a solid percentage of evangelicals–even some who are fairly well-educated–live in intellectual fear.  It’s almost pathological.  They cannot even bear to hear the name of someone who teaches something contrary to what they believe.  It is the professor who thinks she is in the wrong even exposing a student to a contrary idea.  It is the parent who cannot fathom to see their child attend a day of secular education.  It is the pastor who counsels a young doubter with, “you’re just thinking too much.”

I am aware the Christian anti-intellectualism has been written on quite a bit hitherto. Ad nauseum, in fact.  I think it is worth pointing out, however, that what is at play here is clearly more than an intellectual issue; it is an issue of spiritual weakness.  In fact, as I think about those evangelicals who gladly read and discuss Barth and those who make statements like “Barth is evil,” I cannot help but be reminded of the passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians about “the strong” and “the weak”.  These passages reveal that the weak are those who struggle mightily to grasp the extent of Jesus’ lordship over all domains.  As a result, they lash out in condemnation at those Christians who sit down at a meal over some questionable fare–or in our day: those who sit down with a beer, or hang out with a homosexual, or read the Church Dogmatics!

Paul’s command to the weak: grow up in your faith and stop judging your fellow Christians.  And to the strong: do not use your liberty to mock or oppress the weak.  Of course, these come in the context of eating meat sacrificed to idols.  However, I think that the parallel with, say, reading Karl Barth is clear.  And in this case–which is just an example–both commands remain radically relevant.  Those of you who think it is inherently dangerous to engage with someone other than John Calvin, Wayne Grudem, Louis Berkhof, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll: you need to grow up–in Christ!  Jesus is the Lord of all realms, and he has called you to encounter those realms and rule over them as agents of the kingdom.  Plus, you might just learn something: after all, God is bigger than your field of awareness, is he not?

As for the strong, we need to maintain the unity of the Spirit.  It is all too common for Christians to see themselves as “enlightened” as opposed to the rest of those in their ecclesiastical or institutional contexts.  This breeds contempt for those around them, for the weak.  This contempt can quickly become rather consuming.  It leads Christians to perpetrate acts of spiritual and intellectual violence against their sisters and brothers.  If this is you, you need to grow up too: who are you to pick on those weak in faith?  Try to lead them to a deeper realization of the liberty they have because of Jesus’ lordship, but don’t rub their faces in their weakness.

Note: This post is rather ridiculous in that it compares Barth–a wonderful Christian theologian–with “meat sacrificed to idols”. This does not reflect my view of Karl Barth.

You might also enjoy…

19 responses to ““Karl Barth is Evil”: The Strong and the Weak”

  1. John Anthony Dunne

    Excellent Matt. I was just reading some Barth today and was reflecting on this very issue. A very apt post.

  2. Isai

    Well said, Matt. Karl Barth has gotten a bad rap in the general evangelical populace when he instead should be read because of his importance to the development of historical theology, dogmatics, reformed theology, and so on. When I finished reading, I couldn’t help thinking that if Barth’s name was substituted with N. T. Wright, the same argument would still apply. Good insight about the spiritual aspect of the fear of Karl Barth.

    1. John Anthony Dunne

      Isai, its funny that you mentioned that about NT Wright. Did you read my post from last week? (http://www.thetwocities.com/theology/is-the-anti-wright-polemic-justified/). We’re all about reconciling Evangelicals with the “Bad Guys” here at the Two Cities : )

  3. Wait, Dr. Karl is not evil? I am so confused!

    Oh and John, ask you Doctorvater when he plans on finishing his Philippians ICC commentary.

    Cliff

  4. Tanner Gish

    Matt,

    I appreciate the encouragement towards letting people explore the ideas and minds of those in history, and to go through the exorcise of reconciling each of them with the truths of Scripture, rather than looking to accept a “good guy” / “bad guy” sticker that someone they respect puts on them, hook line and sinker.

    However… for the sake of continued discussion, I don’t think I’m sold on Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8 as applying to this situation.

    Do these passages not seem to be a little more of a focus on condemnation of orthopraxy (living/ lifestyle choices) vs. orthodoxy (as in theology, the world of the academy and thought)? I can see how you can tie the actual behavior of eating food sacrificed to idols to a “theological” or spiritual conviction about and individuals doctrinal conclusion about whether eating/ not eating is justified- but is that the same as what is going on with the student? It seems slightly different to say “You’re wrong! You need to eat as I do, and think like I think,” and to say “You’re wrong! You can’t think like that guy, because he’s not like this guy, and that theologian, and this person in history.”

    As I re-read this, I feel like my distinction is coming through, and almost like the effort to clarify in my example above ends up looking like an argument even for the other side…are my ponderings making any sense here?

    1. I think I see what you’re saying: the issue in the 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 is an issue of praxis, and the issue I am raising is intellectual. I think that your objection holds–if the distinction between doctrine and praxis is something that is biblically or theologically warranted. It may be, and I thought about this before I put up the post. I tend to think, however, that the practical issue (meat) is so contentious because of two doctrinal failures: both the weak and the strong have failed to grasp different aspects of Christ’s sovereignty.

      That’s my tentative grasp of the matter; you and John usually have more exegetical insight than me though.

  5. Well first off, I am glad the person emailed you and defended what they thought was biblical. I think that shows some guts and good theological thinking. Second, I am glad you are at Biola so you can undo the “not to be named” teachings on these issues. Thirdly, I guess I am okay in Matt’s book since I try my best to stay away from the so bluntly named: John Calvin, Wayne Grudem, Louis Berkhof, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll.

    1. Super thoughtful, Carrie. I love your commendation of the person’s email on those grounds. It’s important to keep the human/emotional element of all this in mind.

      1. Again, points well taken. My response to the student was, essentially, “of course you can change”. In fact, no attempt was made to dissuade this person about their position on Barth. It’s not important to the class, and not something worth arguing for in that situation. Not at all.

        1. Matt, I know that you would never try to convince the student of a position, which is why I am so happy you are teaching there. I just thought it was great that the student approached you about it because a huge problem (tied into this this bigger issue) is that students just listen to whatever the professors are telling them without questioning the material (not all the time… but a lot of the time – in referring to Biola Biblical Studies classes). I feel as if this isn’t such a huge issue in the 30 units of introductory “minor” classes, but for the Bible Majors who are not getting a broader look at scholars who would not be considered “evangelical”. It is actually Dr. Klink’s fault 😉 that I decided to go to Fuller because I will never forget him drawing a big circle in class and then putting a little dot of a circle within the big circle and saying that the little dot was the “evangelicals”. I was like, “What?! Not all Christians should think exactly like me?!” It rocked my world in my young age.

          But still, I will always be thankful for the education I received at Biola, but I do wish I would have been able to learn what you are teaching in your class now. So I think you should just keep encouraging your students to be introduced to these different writers so that they can form their own opinions.

        2. I’m with Carrie, again: I didn’t mean to come off as accusing you of saying anything negative about the girl’s questioning. I just thought it was a good point that Carrie had thought of.

          In fact, I would’ve suspected that you would have been quite fine for her to change the topic and all that. That’s just an aspect of the whole thing I wouldn’t have thought of that Carrie was attuned to. That’s all I meant.

  6. Edward Klink

    Maybe the first hurdle, Matt, is to foster a need for theology of some sort in American Evangelicalism. Once theology is back on the menu, the best chefs, even the unconventional ones, are more likely to be invited.

    1. Excellent point, EK. And that decides it, my next few posts will be on the need for, and the nature of, theological reflection. Essentially, I’ll do an exposition of “fides quarens intellectum”.

      1. Pet peeve time: if you want to encourage people to do theology, start by not including needless Latin. Doesn’t that just mean “faith without thoughtfulness/intelligence”? Why is English not appropriate there?

        I don’t mean to be harsh. But it’s like when people insist on calling it the imago dei.

        Andrew

        1. Andrew, point well taken, but do you have to hold my feet to the fire for the content of a comment?! 🙂

          1. Only because you wrote a post that said, “It is all too common for Christians to see themselves as ‘enlightened’ as opposed to the rest of those in their ecclesiastical or institutional contexts. This breeds contempt for those around them, for the weak. This contempt can quickly become rather consuming.”

            Not that those words describe you at all. But since you brought up not wanting anyone to have contempt…

            Andrew

  7. I think your overall point is worthwhile. I’m sure future-Doctor-Dunne’s mind went toward the LDS aversion to anything that is considered “anti-Mormon”. That’s outright bad for people.

    But I’m curious: you certainly must think that there is a time to discourage someone from reading outside of orthodoxy, right? Where is that line?

    By the way, that line is obviously not in an upper level Biblical Studies elective at a Christian university. So again, your point is taken.

    Andrew Faris
    Someone Tell Me the Story

    1. Andrew, that’s a good question. I think it’s all about the setting (as you briefly note). I would probably be more careful than you might think. I want to be edifying and constructive. I want people to walk away with a deeper love for God and his mission in the world.

      In the particular case referred to herein, Barth is actually arguing for the fact that Jesus’ resurrection was a real event in time and space. Barth is present as a combatant of Bultmann. So the specific material being introduced is not in any way there just to shake the person up. For instance, I would not, in this setting, just unleash Bultmann or, say, Crossan on these students–no, not without a response.

      Thoughts?

      1. Matt,

        Good thoughts. I didn’t mean to come off accusatory: I wouldn’t have expected you to do what you said you didn’t do.

        I think setting and past education probably do determine how we’d do this. I was just curious for your thoughts on this. It sort of comes back to Dr. Klink’s comment: the more people are actually engaging with theology (with, like anything, some wise teachers guiding them), the less this will be an issue, right?

        Andrew Faris
        Someone Tell Me the Story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *