Ever since all fourteen volumes of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics went on sale for the ridiculous price of $99.99 it seems Karl Barth madness is everywhere. Well, I for one plan on skipping the fun fest surrounding this German Swiss saint of Protestantism. Why? Let me tell you why.
(1) I don’t have much room left on my book shelves, and my wife is not going to let me by another book shelf, so I wouldn’t be able to store fourteen volumes of anything in my home.
(2) I’ve made it through half of N.T. Wright’s three volumes on Christian origins, a half of a book in Dunn’s series, and that is the most of any one author who has written multiple volumes on one subject.
(3) I’ve heard the Germans don’t understand him. How can I, an English speaker reliant on translators, do any better?
(4) Almost everyone I have ever met that has read any significant portion of Barthian literature loses some of their ability to communicate with the average person.
(5) Everyone I have ever met that tries to speak in Barthian terminology may as well be speaking in tongues with no interpretation.
(6) There seem to be more people reading Barth than Scripture these days so I think I’ll buck the trend. It is very theologically hipster to read Barth. We’ll see where that is in ten years.
(7) I don’t plan on studying at Princeton or Aberdeen.
(8) Anyone who uses very philosophical language to promote their theological agenda while denouncing philosophy seems suspect to me.
(9) I think Kierkegaard was a tad more interesting anyways.
(10) Why read Barth when I can read who Barth read–namely the Apostle Paul?! Don’t Barthians says that Barth’s theology disallows for Barthianism? Well then!
the archives near Emmaus 
and he repeats himself. and he is a fideist. and he did not live long enough to discuss his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. and he is over-studied. and im sick of Germany and France being the centers of the theological universe. and i cannot afford a $99 set of books even if i wanted to. ah.
Well said, Brother LePort. Well said.
@Rod: Ha! Yes, it is a bummer he didn’t get to discuss the Holy Spirit. I may have been interested in at least reading that point. While I understand why Germany and France are considered important I hope by the time I die this is not so. And as with you so with me: I don’t really have the money!
I’m going to assume that a fair amount of this is tongue-in-cheek, otherwise I’d have to arrange for the other Th.M. students to throw stuff at you the next time you’re in class. But, I still thought I’d make at least some response to your little Barth tantrum here. Actually, I thought that your points required a little more interpretation. So, let me paraphrase your points for you:
(1) I desperately want to buy the Dogmatics, but my wife won’t let me. So, I’m going to go on a diatribe to explain why this is actually better for me. It’s either that or throw stuff around the room and punch my pillows.
(2) I’ve never had a long enough attention span to read more than one book in a series (besides Little House on the Prairie. Why think that I can change now?
(3) Deep down I think Germans are smarter that all of us.
(4) I don’t understand what Barth people are saying, therefore they must not be saying anything important.
(5) I really don’t understand what Barth people are saying, therefore they must be speaking gibberish.
(6) If lots of people think something is important, they must be wrong. (I’m very good at logic.)
(7) I have something against good doctoral programs. (Does the University of Phoenix offer PhDs yet?)
(8) I still don’t understand what those Barth people are talking about.
(9) I’m pretty sure I can do just fine reading the Bible all by myself. (By the way, should “fundamentalism” be capitalized?)
There, I think that’s much clearer.
@Marc: Awesome! (Yes, it was filed under humor) But let me say:
(1) If I wanted to throw stuff I’d do that because I really like doing that. I don’t like punching my pillows.
(2) I didn’t get close to finishing any of Little House on the Prarie
(3) I know Germans are not smarter! I’m French. We are smarter than the Germans. Have you ever eaten a crepe?
(4) I am sure Barthians are saying something important. I am also sure space aliens say important things, if they exist, but what is that to me?
(5) Tongues are ok…if there is an interpretation. Sadly, all Barthians speak in tongues and none have the gift of interpretation.
(6) I don’t like joining the crowds, unless they are rooting for the San Francisco Giants, and then it really should be said they are joining me.
(7) I don’t mind good doctoral programs, but I wouldn’t go for to Texas Tech for their awesome agricultural department either.
(8) True.
(9) I don’t read it by myself…I have Gordon D. Fee thank you very much!
(10) I knew you’d agree ol’ Soren was more interesting!
😉
Oops. I missed the Kierkegaard point. Oh well, it’s Friday. And, nice response. But I don’t think any out there really believes that you didn’t finish Little House on the Prairie. You’d probably have enough books on your bookshelf if you’d get rid of those books and the Twilight series.
In all seriousness, as you know I agree with some of your points. I do think that Barth people tend to get too wrapped up in the language and rhetoric of Barth’s theology and completely forget that normal people don’t talk like that. (I’d like to believe that I’ve managed to resist this problem, but that could be sheer delusion.) And, I really struggled with making Barth a focus of my doctoral research because of contrarian tendency to resist popular things.
But, having said all that, I really think that spending significant time on Barth was one of the best things I did during my doctoral work. Not only did I find it personally challenging, but there’s really no way to navigate contemporary biblical/theological discourse without knowing Barth reasonably well (even if you don’t like him).
@Marc: I am sure there is value in Barth. I fear though that if Barth who else? It seems that while I know “the Bible and I” is mistake the “the Bible, and I, and theologian A,B,C,D,E,F….” approach can be exhausting, distracting, and depending on how much time someone has available, impossible. Who knows, maybe I will read Barth someday. Maybe.
Marc, he should be beaten and the event should be filmed an uploaded to Youtube for all of us to enjoy!
Brian, your star has fallen! 😉
Yes, Barth.. like Calvin is still well beyond us! But Kierkegaard is always a good challenge also.
Rod, I hope you were somewhat kidding?
Nice Marc!
(1) They don’t take up that much space and there’s plenty on your shelves that you’ve read and won’t read again or haven’t read and won’t read at all — in other words, you can make room!
(2) So now you can set your sights higher and read more of one author! And Barth has almost as many fanboys as Wright so he must be worth reading, right?
(3) Because part of good translation is making a text that the reader can understand! Besides, Germans don’t understand all kinds of things, like their own language (it sounds like they’re talking with mouths full of phlegm and peanut butter).
(4) No sir! That’s only the people who’ve decided to adopt significant amounts of what they’ve read! The folks who disagree with Barth and criticize him because they’ve read him still retain their comprehensibility!
(5) True, but they’re trying to sound smarter than their master (although he could be incomprehensible at times — read his commentary on Romans!).
(6) Yeah, but better Barth than Twilight novels or The Shack! And Barth read Scripture so reading Barth is reading Scripture by proxy.
(7) Yeah, but do you plan on studying theology?
(8) What’s philosophical language?
(9) Nah, not even a little bit.
(10) See #6.
There’s always, Torrance; he’s neither French or German 😉 . You need to read his “The Mediation of Christ” to start out with, Brian. Then move into his recently (posth.) published “Incarnation,” and then if you’re daring enought his “Atonement.” He was a student and collegue of Barth, which ties him into the post (and of course he wasn’t just a fanboy, but he’s his own theologian, and influenced Barth as did HR Macintosh, TFT’s teacher).
I do understand personal preference in re. to teachers; I’ve read Wright, and don’t prefer him, much (he traces into theology when he’s a Bible scholar).
Yes, Torrance’s Incarnational theology was born from/of Barth!
@Mark: I may do a Barth book burning and post that on YouTube! 😉
@Nick: Twiwhat?! Just because I live in Oregon doesn’t mean I like vampires!
@Bobby: My problem with Torrance is like that of Barth…it just seems so ahistorical, so systematized, so ripped right out of it’s narrative. I like Wright for those equal and opposite reasons.
That being said I’ve read more Barth than Torrance so feel free to correct me.
As I have said before, every theological student and serious pastor should read T.F. Torrance’s: The Trinitarian Faith…a very least!
Brian, I don’t really know what you mean about Torrance and “history”; although those aren’t uncommon charges levied his way (I’m reading Letham’s new book on the Westminster Assembly, where he takes Torrance to task on these very points — I plan on taking Letham to task in a certain writing project I’m involved with, btw 😉 ). If you haven’t read TFT’s “Atonement,” then I think your caricature of him is way too quick (in re. to “context”). Anyway, I suppose you’ll never really know until you actually read him (but, I realize, seriously, we all have our priorities . . . and if I were you I would finish Wright since you benefit from him — but I still think down the road, you should give TFT a fair shake [Barth too]). The reality is, is that Torrance (like Barth) is a dogmatician; but that is not also to say they neither of them aren’t “Biblical scholars” (I would say Torrance more so, even though the typical caricature of him is that he’s not . . . but those who say such things, again, haven’t read him — he was steeped in biblical and Evangelical [e.g. his emphasis on Trinity] categories of thought).
Anyway, it is up to you; most don’t like Torrance, I never knew of him for years either (even in seminary) — I wish I did!
I have responded on my blog. You are now dead to me Brian unless you repent! 😉
Wow I’ve never read anything from Barth, have read a bit Torrance and he was understandable. And I don’t I was reading “Torrance for Dummies”?
@Bobby: When I read Barth is sounds like he is trying to make everything timeless and above the historical context of the text. Maybe Torrance avoids that. I don’t know since I am very unfamiliar with his writings.
@Mark: Awesome!
@Brian, Actually, Barth is trying to make everything “non-metaphysical” which I think you would like.
@Robert J., Do you mean Torrance is understandable, but you didn’t understand him? I’m confused.
I can understand why folks wouldn’t want to be associated with dogmaticians as well. I’m really a “Bible guy,” and find theologizing a necessary evil 🙂 .
Bobby, that’s what I get for trying to respond while watching the Lakers spank the Suns. Lakers win 114-106
😉 Yes! Do you get to watch them on KCal, channel 9?
Tonights game was on Kcal and ESPN ;). Going to the Lakers game on Sunday night I got some great tickets.
Shoot, I missed it then; I could’ve watched it, dang it! 😉 I miss L.A. (Lakewood). Have fun at the game, I’ve never been to the Staples center; I’ve been to quite a few Laker’s games, but a while ago . . . they still played at the “Great Western Forum.” 🙂
Would you say the Lakers are inerrant? 😉 Or into non-metaphysicalism, like Barth (I’m trying to keep us on topic — sorry Brian)?
They played an inerrant game tonight. We should just advance to the finals now 😉 I don’t speak Barth.
Brian,
For any western Christian theolog to miss both Barth and Torrance, is a huge loss to my mind! This deal from CBD on the whole of Barth’s CD was wonderful!
@Robert/Bobby: Lakers?! Really. I feel like this blog has been violated. 🙂 But lucky for you this year the Lakers are only my second most hated team. The Heat are number one.
@Robert: I must say when I read portions of Barth’s commentaries on Romans and Philippians it felt like a super-devotional. I know that is called a “theological” reading, but it really felt no different that a sermon.
Brian, I have read several chapters from Torrance’s book The Incarnation and found it readable and not difficult to understand, sure I had to stop and reflect on what I just read, but I actually enjoyed it.
I may take a look at Torrance at some point. It seems like people are saying he is easier to read than Barth. Of course, if anyone wants to gift me with a copy I won’t refuse. 😉
Indeed, the idea of an Incarnational theology and salvation is the top stone for Torrance.
And for Barth theology and dogmatics are always an act of faith. And as Barth says, “the Church tests itself by essaying it.” And, “to the Church is given the promise of the criterion of the Christian faith, namely, the revelation of God.” (Barth, CD. 1.1) Of course this is simply the study of the Word of God itself.