Personally, I haven’t been able to find the motivation necessary for a sustained engagement with the writings of Karl Barth. When I was a student at Western Seminary it was apparent that he was becoming more and more popular among Evangelicals. I wanted to understand all the hoopla, but whenever I’d go to read something written by Barth I couldn’t maintain interest. Maybe I am not bright enough, or maybe I’m not asking the questions that Barth has answered for others, who knows? Maybe someday? At this juncture in my life “you must read Karl Barth” doesn’t make anymore sense to me than “you must read Thomas Aquinas” or “you must read Paul Tillach Tillich.”
For those who care there has been a lot of intense discussion across the blogosphere taking place regarding Barth whether or not he is a “must read.” Janice Rees’ “On Not Reading Barth: my measly resistance” got the ball rolling. Peter Kline responded with “On not reading Karl Barth anymore: a white male’s perspective”. Kait Dugan provided another perspective explaining why as a woman she does read Barth in “On Reading Karl Barth: Another Form of Feminist Resistance (A Response to Janice Reese)”. If you want a quick summary of these three post read Rodney Thomas’ “THREE Must Read Posts on Karl Barth and Theology”.
Today I’ve seen David W. Congdon post “On still reading Barth: some sympathetic reflections” and Brandy Daniels’ “Un-Womanly Me? (A post about, and full of, paradoxes)” which are further contributions to the discussion. I read Rees’ post and I found it to be very though provoking. Apparently others have as well! Update: Amanda MacInnis has joined the discussion with her post “Reading Barth, Not Reading Barth, and Reactions to the Barthian Industry”.
Update 09/11/2013: Joel Watts weighed in with “On Not Reading Barth—or, Academic Fundamentalism” which received a response from Rodney Thomas titled “On Karl Barth and Refusing to Read Barthians: The Patristics, Contemporary Theology, and Privilege”.
the archives near Emmaus 
Who’s Paul Tillach? Tillich I know….
Exactly! That guy….
Well… at least you’ve tried! (And actually read some, so that counts for something!) As usual, I’ll propose a third way (well, sort of, as you DID post a binary choice): Read just a few select, easier-to-read samples, not his heavy Church Dogmatics. I haven’t read much of his Romans commentary myself, but if one wants a decent grasp of 20th century history of theology, that WOULD be a must. Otherwise, at least a flavor can be gotten from a few of his less famous works. E.g., at least one sermon… the one that stood out to me was, I think “The Yes and No of God” (probably published with another in “The Word in This World: Two Sermons…”). I’d also read the Barmen Declaration, principally authored by him for a flavor of his thinking about the world and its governance. On the same vein, very interesting is something I can’t recall the title of or where/how it is now in print (or obtainable… probably somewhere online). It was an article or perhaps a booklet by Barth in about 1933 I believe, or very soon after Hitler came to power, if not just before. He lays out the dangers of the man and the Nazis in pretty clear terms, as I recall, well before almost anyone else was speaking out.
Christians in the US, including many Evangelicals, are generally analyzing and discussing his theology. Evangelicals, especially now when so many of them are aligning much to the “right” politically, should be looking at the likes of Barth (and other insightful Europeans, etc.). As far as I know he “began” (early adulthood) a social Democrat and remained so though his period of becoming much more traditional or “confessional” (he claimed to remain loyally Reformed) leading to his book on Romans. But, unlike so many other church leaders of Europe at the time, of all theological “stripes”, his keen observation of world affairs kept him realistic and pragmatic. I certainly don’t think he’d be any supporter of the kinds of thinking and approaches of the “Religious Right” in this country. (Of course, we Americans don’t tend to much understand the political systems of Europe, know its history, etc. tho the right wingers feel very free to lampoon it constantly…. much less do we know Switzerland, Barth’s main location, specifically… a unique system it seems).
Barth was from the German-speaking part of Swiz., educated theologically in Germany and certainly in “German theology”, and seemed to identify strongly with Germany (not sure all the story re. that). In that Bonhoeffer (who Barth was enthusiastic about) gets most of the Nazi-opposition attention, people don’t tend to know how key also was the work of Barth, esp. on the Barmen Declaration. If I recall rightly, Barth was among those kicked out of Germany early on (or was already out and couldn’t return?).
As to readings, you might also try, as a good sampling of his thought that is NOT detailed and dense, a small volume on the basics which I can’t find or recall the title of quickly. I think it may be on one of the creeds (Apostles’?) but I’m not sure. Whatever it is, it has been looked on as the best summary of his main thinking on several core doctrinal areas (in which he is relatively traditional, as I call) and in pretty plain language.
@Howard:
If a black-and-white binary is present in my post then I failed to communicate. It is not that I haven’t read any Barth. What I mean is I haven’t been able to maintained sustained engagement with Barth’s massive corpus of work. I agree that a little here and there is helpful. That may be a good general rule: read a little here and there of famous authors, if for nothing else than to become somewhat familiar with their thought. Now, there are pragmatic limitations to this and there is no way one person can read every author that is a “must read” but it doesn’t hurt to read a bit here and there.
I’ve read quite a bit of his commentary on Romans. There were some interesting one liners here and there, but overall I wasn’t following Barth’s reading of Paul and it seemed too ahistorical for my taste. I’ve read the Barmen Declaration and The Humanity of God along with some of the Dogmatics in abbreviated form. At the end of the day, it was a bit to ethereal and ahistorical for me. But, as I said, maybe someday I’ll be in a different place asking different questions and then Barth will prove more helpful or easier to understand. Who knows?
@ Brian:
I guess I communicated poorly re. the “binary” approach issue: I only meant in your title, not the post itself. Sorry.
Sounds like you may have read almost as much as I have of him (which was many years ago, except maybe a look again at the Barmen Decl. more recently). I certainly agree with the “ethereal” aspect… very philosophical. But I’m not following re. the “ahistorical” aspect. At least in some of the lengthy parts of “Dogmatics” I recall slogging through (because it was assigned!), I was amazed at how historical it was on the development of theology and such. But I never read much of the Romans commentary, which you may be mainly referring to, or other parts of Dogmatics (it’s huge, as you know).
As to “ethereal”, further: I noted what I considered inconsistency or perhaps lack of self-insight during my course on Barth, so chose for a 20 pg. paper, the subject of mysticism in Barth. It seemed to me that he was “protesting too much” about mysticism in relation to a couple factors in particular. Mainly that his own approach seemed pretty “mystical” (and/or philosophical) itself. (I don’t recall that he made any clear distinction between his approach and how HE was defining mysticism, though he may have… I can’t even recall much of the paper, tho I do still have a copy.)
Secondly, Barth WAS very interested in and influenced by the German Pietists, Johann C. Blumhardt and his son, Christoph — mainly the son who I think was only several years or maybe 10-20 yrs. older than Barth. Both the father and son were “charismatics” before the main time of such (and unconnected with American pentecostalism). There was the famous Gottlieben Dittus demonic “cure” (not exactly an excorcism!) situation with the father, and subsequent big regional revival of sorts with healings, etc. Then they both were involved in a “retreat” (Bad Boll) which Barth visited at least once (I believe after Johann’s death); and Barth spoke and wrote some about the work of the Blumhardts, which included both the spiritual ministry and the political involvement of Christoph in local/regional governance (I think only briefly in a direct manner).
The implication: The importance, often bypassed, of Barth’s concern for personal/pastoral ministry and of his concept of the Kingdom of God in relation to the kingdoms of the world (again, the governance issues when Hitler rose). I can’t recall title or author, but there is an obscure but fascinating book on the influence of the Blumhardts on Barth… the title having phrasing to that effect. If you go further into this in formal studies, an interesting topic of a paper or article (or at least a blog post!) might be the relative influences of Harnack (and Tubingen) and the Blumhardts (or other Pietists) on Barth.
Final thought: if you haven’t read the section in Dogmatics that is particularly of interest theologically and in the “debates” about him and universalism, you might want to read the one(s?) about Christ as the Elect of God… the idea that the election of all is in/through him (thus implying universalism).
Bit of a correction: My curiosity and fuzzy memory “forced” me to ck. on C. Blumhardt’s dates. Born in 1842, so over 40 (not 10-20) years the sr. of Barth. Died in 1919, so Barth’s visit(s) with him must have been before he finished 1st. ed. of “Romans” (1919), relatively early in his career. But pretty sure it was after his PhD work (Europe’s system had many of the bright PhD’s finishing by their early 20s…. wish it were so here, huh?).
When I was interesting in reading Barth it was because of my respect for how he handled the situation with the Nazis. Personally, I had become quite weary of watching my fellow Evangelicals refuse to do anything but blindly support the militant policies of the Bush Administration (I’m happy to report far more resistance to the Obama Administration, though I think motivations are far from purely anti-war there). I wanted to hear voices that had stood against their fellow Christians idolatrous submission to the every whims of the State. Bonhoeffer was another, and I read a bit of his work as well, though when I realized I didn’t plan on doing academic theology but instead academic biblical studies it became harder to find time and motivation to read about this particular subject.
Then I met the Barthians and there was something seriously wrong there. It was as if Barth had solved every theological quagmire and I knew that couldn’t be true. I lost interest. Sadly, Barthians make me leery of Barth. I know that may not be fair, but its honest. You look at those who read Barth, how they talk, how they engage real world issues theologically, and in my case I thought, “I don’t want to be like them. If this is what happens when you read Barth, I’m not interested.” That isn’t true of everyone. Marc Cortez has read a lot of Barth and I have admired his theologizing since I met him a few years ago. Ben Myers of the blog Faith and Theology is another person whose blogging made me interested in Barth. Now, I just don’t have the time to engage someone who has written so broadly.
I get you completely about “…don’t have the time to engage…” Priorities! Nor do I… But can’t avoid musing and “conversing” on occasion about formative figures, why they were, etc. I don’t know much about “Barthians”… never really did, but esp. not in the last couple decades. Personally, though there are overlaps of Barth’s thinking and Process, I find the latter more clearly and consistently developed. And I’m not sure there is much if any developmental relationship. Process comes clearly out of Whitehead (except maybe Chardin… not sure), who was mathematical (first) and very philosophical but not “existentialist” influenced that I’m aware, as was Barth, I gather.
I’ve never known just WHY Barth is often called “the most influential theologian of the 20th century”… maybe bec. he wrote and did so much, lived long; or bec. he gets most credit for “neo-orthodoxy”?… Not that I care much, but am curious. With that, that neo-orthodoxy was SOME kind of a bridge betw. “modernism” and “fundamentalism”, the only major paradigms at the time, and Barth indeed seemed to have a foot in both camps. I suppose issues surrounding this are my best guess as to his notoriety being much greater than his clarity and accessibility (even to serious students and scholars). Maybe his occasional gift for simplification DID help: I think every theology student, of whatever orientation knows his “greatest lesson” mentioned on his sole visit to the US: “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so”. (Ever the student of culture as well as theology, Barth.)
Maybe American thinkers respected B. a lot for how he may have (I’m not sure how much) influenced some of our key leaders and cultural critics of the pre and post-WWII period, such as the Niebuhr brothers; also his supposed (much debated) defense of orthodoxy and of revelation in particular.
Barth provides a human framework by which we understand the bible, just as Calvinism does, just as feminism does.
The question is not do we need to read Barth to understand the bible, for all Barth does is provide his framework for reading the bible. In the marketplace of ideas his framework is as valid or as invalid as the next (such as feminism). All of these frameworks for reading the bible simply reflect our frail human predilections. We look at the text to see ourselves.
The question isn’t “Do we need to read Barth to understand the text? No, we read Barth to understand Barth, just as we read feminist theology to understand feminist theologians. Rather, the question is “Can we read the text and NOT see a human constructed framework?”
The answer, of course, is a matter of faith. One who believes in, and trusts a Holy Spirit one can respond “Yes, we simply replace a humanly constructed framework for one constructed by the Holy Spirit“. One who lacks faith communion with the Holy Spirit is possible is committed to the position that all frameworks by which we see the text are human.
@ Andrew T
I get what you are suggesting here. The main aid in it, or one might say “hope” for at least improved personal understanding is for a gradual process of the “replacement” you refer to. Yes? I’d say I’ve had that, for decades as an “orthodox” Evangelical and now, ongoing the last couple decades, but with many different perceptions and conclusions, as a not-so-orthodox Process Christian.
In the orthodox position, one problem with your construction is answering whether the HS gets stopped, effectively, from “his” work if one starts believing the supposedly wrong (or heretical) things. Otherwise put, does the HS only do that replacement work in Christians, or certain KINDS of Christians? I guess, other than internally-felt or held changes, I’m having trouble seeing how we can distinguish a humanly-constructed from a HS-constructed framework in many (if not most or all) cases… Or determine if one framework is relatively MORE HS-constructed than another. Are you suggesting we can?
@Howard – even if there is this question about what constitutes true HS inspired insight and what is humanly-constructed I still place stock in personal understanding. Insight is insight is insight. Just as the HS can inspire true insight, He can also correct false insight as well as make understood someone’s insight to another. I don’t worry about it in other words.
On the principle, the bible says (about something else – [Rom 14:5]) everyone should be convinced in their own minds. This principle suggests that we should not simply adopt the insight of others as our own, or as true without first critiquing the merit of the insight.
I argue, whether or not one is a believer all insight is of the Lord (meaning the HS). The atheists scientist who discovers something true about reality is in fact receiving insight from the Lord. This insight, in the market place of ideas, is weighed against the other false notions of man. The HS is able to illuminate it to be true against other false ideas, to those who recognize it as true. The HS doesn’t just inspire the birth of ideas in the mind of the thinker, but also illuminates them in the mind of the hearer.
Whether or not we can perfectly gauge what has been inspired by the HS at all times, we can at least engage in dialogue speaking about our thought-life experience. If our insights are from the HS we speak on His behalf. Just as the HS works on our thoughts, He also works within our speech and the ears of our listeners; so withhold the dialogue, withhold a medium by which the HS works. The prophets of old had a sense that God was speaking through them, but their sense was not perfect (nothing about man is perfect even his knowledge about when the HS is working through him and for what purpose).
Accordingly, even the prophets of old had to simply rely on the HS being fully convinced in their own minds – and be honest in their communication. As long as they did not speak beyond their convictions they were safe. There were times they knew they had been instruments of the HS because their words came true, and other times their words did not come true but had affect in favour of YHWH (such as the immediate destruction of Nineveh). These were instances of prophetic pronouncements.
However, the HS does not lie, so when they spoke beyond their conviction and added thoughts of their own – they were speaking falsely.
Does orthodoxy stifle the HS? Absolutely (because it confirms man to some framework favoured in time – if you look closely enough at orthodoxy you’ll notice that it too has even changed with time)! However if God is indeed without shade or variation (and so the HS) what the HS reveals over time must be a progressive revelation towards something eternal (so the picture He reveals must be something timeless and without change).
The question is, does what we see (comprehend) now match what was seen in the past and comprehended then? Remembering that their understanding was not even perfectly understood or communicated, something about true revelation was then, eternal and unchanging, as now.