Karl Barth's evangelical theology

Almost a quarter of a century ago, I first encountered and engaged with the theology of Karl Barth. It blew my mind and invigorated my spirit. Perhaps there were two main reasons why Barth resonated so well with me.

First, Barth seemed to have a deep respect for and appreciation of the Bible (and secondarily the historical Christian faith), without degenerating into a faith or perspective that was uncritical, naive, tribal, or simplistic.

Second, there seemed to be parallels with my scientific/academic mindset. Barth created for me an avenue to constructively engage my mind in my Christian life like what I enjoyed so much in my scientific life.

This month at the theology reading group, we are discussing Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. The book is based on lectures that Barth gave in Chicago and Princeton in 1962, during the only visit that he ever made to the USA. You can even listen to a live recording here.

The book is a wonderful entry point to Barth's rich and complex theology.  One measure of the influence of the book on me is that 18 previous posts on this blog consider quotations from the book. There 128 posts that are tagged Barth, more than just a handful of other topics (e.g., books, justice, history, politics,...)!

What does Barth mean by evangelical theology?

Theology is a "science" [wissenschaft = an academic discipline of study] in the following sense.

Theology is one among those human undertakings traditionally described as "sciences." Not only the natural sciences are "sciences." Humanistic sciences also seek to apprehend a specific object and its environment in the manner directed by the phenomenon itself; they seek to understand it on its own terms and to speak of it along with all the implications of its existence. The word "theology" seems to signify a special science, a very special science, whose task is to apprehend, understand, and speak of "God."  (page 3)

The object to study is the triune self-revealing God. In other words, Barth's perspective is that ontology determines epistemology. The method we use to find the truth about an object (epistemology) is determined by the nature of that object (ontology).

The qualifying attribute "evangelical" recalls both the New Testament and at the same time the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Therefore, it may be taken as a dual affirmation: the theology to be considered here is the one which, nourished by the hidden sources of the documents of Israel's history, first achieved unambiguous expression in the writings of the New Testament evangelists, apostles, and prophets; it is also, moreover, the theology newly discovered and accepted by the Reformation of the sixteenth century. 

The expression "evangelical," however, cannot and should not be intended and understood in a confessional, that is, in a denominational and exclusive, sense. This is forbidden first of all by the elementary fact that "evangelical" refers primarily and decisively to the Bible, which is in some way respected by all confessions. Not all so-called "Protestant" theology is evangelical theology; moreover, there is also evangelical theology in the Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox worlds, as well as in the many later variations, including deteriorations, of the Reformation departure. What the word "evangelical" will objectively designate is that theology which treats of the God of the Gospel. "Evangelical" signifies the "catholic," ecumenical (not to say "conciliar") continuity and unity of this theology. " (page 5).

Evangelical theology is modest, happy, free, and critical.

Photo is of my son reading the book back in 2017.

In passing, I mention a paper that I wrote with Ben Myers is Dialectical Critical Realism in Science and Theology: Quantum Physics and Karl Barth.

With ambivalence and confusion, I should mention that my original Barth enthusiasm is tempered by more recent revelations about his inappropriate relationship with his assistant, Charlotte von Kirschenbaum. This raises thorny questions about how to separate the evaluation of a person's written work from their life. Is such a separation possible, appropriate, or essential?