A ‘Glaring Misunderstanding'? Schleiermacher,Barth and the Nature of Speculative Theology

Both Friedrich Schleiermacher and Karl Barth attempted to keep Christian dogmatic theology free from abstract philosophical speculation. However, Barth thinks that Schleiermacher is guilty of the very speculative theology to which Schleiermacher is so averse. This article will defend the claim that Barth misreads Schleiermacher's Glaubenslehre, such that Schleiermacher's theological method and formulations are just as anti‐speculative as Barth's. To defend this claim, this article examines what Barth considers to be speculative theology as well as his accusation that Schleiermacher is guilty of such speculative proposals. After considering Barth's challenges, this article defends Schleiermacher's methodology and theology as anti‐speculative. Finally, several additional accusations against Schleiermacher (those of Bruce McCormack and Thomas Curran) are overcome.     

Barth and the Evangelicals – Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques – Edited by David Gibson and Daniel Strange

This review examines twelve conservative evangelical responses to David Gibson and Daniel Strange's Engaging with Barth. Witten in a charitable spirit that gives deference to Barth, the essayists remained uncomfortable with the prospect of rehabilitating Barth's radical neo‐orthodoxy for contemporary evangelical theology. In the article, I summarize the authors' critiques to Barth's exegetical, historical, and theological program, and locate their contributions pertaining to the reading of Barth's dogmatics. The review concludes with a possibility of interrogating the pneumatological‐underpinnings in Barth's theology as a constructive reworking of Barth's trinitarian theology for evangelical theology. There are ‘spaces’ for evangelicals to mine from the Barthian legacy, albeit via the medium of turning Barth's proposals on its head.     

An Impossible Possibility? Jewish Barthianism in Interwar Germany

In this essay I examine the Jewish reception of Karl Barth's theology in Germany of the 1930s. This I do through an analysis of a disputed exploration into the possibilities and limitations of the theological principles of dialectical theology for the formulation of a Jewish theology that took place at the time. The publication of Karl Barth's Römerbrief (1919, 1922) generated a great stir among Christian circles in Germany. Profoundly challenging the fundamental assumptions of liberal theology, Barth's ‘dialectical theology' was quickly recognized as an epoch‐making work. But the impact of Barth's theology exceeded its Christian readership. As a corresponding disillusionment of liberal theology in its Jewish version took place among Jews, Barthianism presented itself as a compelling theological model offering a profound rejoinder to the spiritual needs of Jews as well. Yet alongside the recognition of the potentially constructive engagement with Barth's radical thought for a rejuvenated articulation of Jewish theology, Jewish thinkers similarly acknowledged the many challenges and difficulties such a theological encounter implied from a Jewish point of view, thereby projecting their understanding of the Jewish‐Christian difference.     

Karl Barth and God in Creation: Towards an Interfaith Dialogue with Science and Religion

Is our neo-orthodox interpretation of Karl Barth correct? Does Barth's theology provide an opportunity to promote creative, equable dialog with natural science and religious pluralism? In this article, I contend that Barth's theological language of analogy, eschatology, nature, and Sabbath integrate with and complement scientific explanations.     

A Reappraisal of Karl Barth's Theological Development and his Dialogue with Catholicism

This article offers a distinct account of Barth's theological development, one that has an eye toward both the historical record and the contemporary debates about the systematic and ecumenical implications of his theology. It establishes that, from the second edition of Romans until the end of his career, Barth's theological development occurs as a series of internal adjustments in four stages along a single christological trajectory. Barth's dialogues with Catholic theologians play a pivotal role in this development, because these dialogues help him arrive at some of his most important insights. Taken together, these conclusions help us push beyond contemporary divisions between historical and systematic readings of Barth's theology and reframe the dialogue between Barth and Catholic theologians.     

BARTH AFTER KANT?

Barth consistently comments on Kant's importance for his early thought in his autobiographical sketches, letters, and even more explicitly in his 1930 lectures on Kant in his Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Interestingly, however, little attention has been paid to these latter lectures on Protestant history in the secondary literature. In part, this oversight has been due to the manner in which Barth's theology has been thought to overcome Kant's influence much earlier on in his intellectual development. Hence, although commentators such as Merold Westphal, Simon Fisher and Bruce McCormack have developed keen interest in Kant's influence upon Barth's early work, even engaging Barth's Neo‐Kantian context in great detail, my contention is that Barth's later interpretation of Kant is crucial to his intellectual development, and gives further insight into Barth's legacy for contemporary theology today. My aim in what follows is to refigure the relationship between Barth's early appropriation and critique of Kant, and the more onto‐theological issues at stake in his later Protestant history lectures. In so doing, we can begin to discern in Barth, not an abandonment or disregard for the metaphysical questions of being, but rather, the call to face them all the more rigorously.     

Is it Possible and Desirable for Theologians to Speculate after Barth?

This essay asks what Karl Barth meant by ‘speculation’ in volume two of the Church Dogmatics. Rather than equating speculative theology with metaphysical theology in general, Barth views speculation not as a monolithic act but as a conglomeration of modes of theological speech that undermine God's revelation in Jesus Christ. This essay argues that Barth's views of speculation, rather than undercutting the use of metaphysics in theology, pave the way for a responsible Christian use of metaphysics by tying one's use of categories and concepts in theology closely to the text of Scripture.     

"DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR PATHOS": KARL BARTH AND THE NAZI REVOLUTION REVISITED

The role of Karl Barth's theology during the church struggle after the Nazi revolution in 1933 has been endlessly debated. I argue, first, that there is more continuity between “1925”, “1933”, and “1938” than most commentators have granted and that Barth never promoted an apolitical option. Second, I maintain that his theological imagination was restrained by the practices and structures of German (and European) Protestantism and his own acceptance at this time of a Christendom order. The church that his theology presupposed did not really exist.     

Friendship and Being: Election and Trinitarian Freedom in Moltmann and Barth

This article constructs two responses to Moltmann's critique of Barth's doctrine of divine freedom in Trinity and the Kingdom, a first on the basis of Barth's programmatic treatment of divine freedom in II/1 of the Church Dogmatics and a second on the basis of Bruce McCormack's reading of Barth's doctrine of election. It shows why the Barth of II/1 must dismiss Moltmann's concern for the priority of God's loving relationship to the world while Barth as interpreted by McCormack can accommodate it. Finally it observes the significance of this twofold defense for mapping Barth onto the terrain of modern theology.     

WHY SHOULD THEOLOGY BE UNNATURAL?

The recovery of theological integrity effected by Karl Barth has very much to do with his polemic against natural theology. Theology has regained credibility, however, at the price of being made unnatural, severed from the world in its own ecclesiastical sphere. This actually represents an indirect endorsement of natural theology inasmuch as the naturalistic understanding of the world is taken for granted as the way the world is. One result of this is the virtual abandonment of nature for theology, reflected in an alienation from science and a disinterest in ecology. The more specific object of Barth's critique of natural theology, Nazism, may also exert a reverse influence on Barth's theology, helping to account for its Christological exclusivism. The implication of this is that the critique of natural theology requires a renewed appreciation of the naturalness of theology.     

SONYA & RASKÓLNIKOV – TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGIN OF BARTH'S DOCTRINE OF SIN AND GRACE1

This paper examines the origin of Barth's understanding of sin and grace in his reading of Dostoevsky in 1915. It is essentially the theological portrait of Sonya & Raskólnikov (Crime & Punishment) that regrounds Barth's understanding of sin and grace in an orthodox forensic model, which in turn develops into the mature doctrine we see in Die Kirchliche Dogmatik IV. The young Barth is exposed to many influences in his move away from nineteenth‐century neo‐Protestant liberal theology (characterized by a sociological‐humanistic model of sin). Mediated by his theological colleague Eduard Thurneysen, Dostoevsky is one such influence amongst many. Barth's reading has a profound effect on him: sin becomes defined by and in relation to God –eritis sicut deus. This sublapsarian perspective can then be discerned in his seminal paper ‘Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes’, delivered within months of his reading of Crime & Punishment, particularly in the Dostoevsky motif of the Tower of Babel (this reading occurs five to seven years prior to the generally accepted period of the influence of Dostoevsky). Barth's understanding then develops through his study of Romans (Der Römerbrief ) and by rediscovering a traditional approach in the Reformed Confessions in the 1920s; however, it is his reading of Crime and Punishment that initiates this model of sin and grace.     

Mozart Among the Theologians

The essay compares and contrasts the philosophical, theological, and aesthetic approaches to Mozart in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard's aesthete A (Either/Or, I), Karl Barth (primarily Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart), and Hans Küng (Mozart: Traces of Transcendence). Whereas Kierkegaard's A outlines a non‐religious ‘daemonic Mozart’, Barth and Küng depict two contrasting theological understandings of Mozart's music. Barth's Mozart reflects a Reformed aesthetic, with Mozart as a ‘parable’ of gospel, whereas Küng's Mozart reflects a Roman Catholic ‘sacramental’ vision of music and religious faith. The essay explores how these different visions of Mozart are shaped by both their theological and aesthetic commitments.     

RECONSIDERING BARTH'S REJECTION OF PRZYWARA'S ANALOGIA ENTIS

Many interpreters argue that Barth's rejection of Erich Przywara's analogia entis is based upon a misinterpretation and that Barth actually incorporated a form of the analogia entis into his mature theology. Through an examination of records from Przywara's visit to Barth's seminar on Thomas Aquinas at the University of Münster in 1929 along with key texts from that period, I argue that Barth did not reject the analogia entis because he misinterpreted it. Rather, he did so on the basis of an accurate account of its meaning and content provided to him personally by Przywara. I also argue that, while Barth's response to the analogia entis did change over the course of his career, he never retracted, either explicitly or implicitly, his rejection of it—nor should he have done so.     

Relocating Barth's Theology of Culture: Beyond the ‘True Words’ Approach of Church Dogmatics IV/3

Barth's writings present two discrete approaches to culture and attempts to link the two overlook Barth's rationale for isolating them. Though interpreters of Barth's theology of culture typically turn to CD IV/3, I argue that this material is not the place to look for insights into his analyses of cultural forms (e.g. the Mozart essays), but is better understood simply as a necessary extension of his doctrine of the Word – identical in content and context to his remarks against theology of culture in CD I/1. Instead, Barth's eschatology provides us with greater insights into his theological approach to culture.     

PHENOMENOLOGY OF DIVINE REVELATION: THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY IN DIALOGUE

Although the relationship between theology and philosophy is a perennial issue in the history of thought, recent debates surrounding the so-called theological turn of continental phenomenology have created a new space in which it can be explored from a fresh perspective. In this vein, I propose three theses concerning the relationship between theology and philosophy of religion, with particular focus on the phenomenon of divine revelation. First, a philosophy of religion that ignores theology's claim about divine self-revelation will remain incomplete and unsatisfactory, at least from the perspective of a Christian theology which begins with the faith in God's self-revelation in one particular human person. Second, a theology that does not acknowledge the possibility of philosophical reflections on the human aspect of divine revelation will not be able to escape blind dogmatism, but rather will isolate itself from the academic community. Third, and finally, despite the concerns of both parties, a dialogue between theology and philosophy centred on the phenomena of revelation can develop into mutually critical and mutually constructive interactions.     

THE QUESTION OF NATURE AND GRACE IN KARL BARTH: HUMANITY AS CREATURE AND AS COVENANT‐PARTNER1

This article describes and responds to criticisms of Karl Barth recently offered by John R. Betz and John Milbank concerning this set of issues in Barth's theology: nature and grace, analogy, and a natural desire for the supernatural. It attempts to defuse these complaints by giving attention to Barth's twofold determination of humanity as both creature and covenant‐partner. Within this material, it is argued, Barth employs doctrines such as election, Christology and analogy in order to orient nature towards grace in such a way that something like a natural desire for the supernatural is present in his theology.     

The Challenge of Postmodernism and the Health of Theology

This article addresses the situation of contemporary theological thinking in relation to postmodernism, or contemporary Continental philosophy. Using a criterion of health from Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, it argues that theology should avoid either simpleminded assimilation of postmodernism or closeminded rejection. After critically surveying some current theological movements and figures, such as Radical Orthodoxy, I turn away from a paradigm of theology based on Barth to one based on Paul Tillich. Finally, an alternative notion of health is elaborated which leads to a deep and transformative encounter between postmodernism and theology.     

NOT EXPLANATION BUT SALVATION: SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY, CHRISTOLOGY, AND SUFFERING

The view that Christian belief is explanatory is widespread in contemporary theology, apologetics, and philosophy of religion and it has received particular impetus from attempts to correlate science and Christianity. This article proposes an account of explanatory thinking in theology based on the principle that theological explanations should be disciplined by the internal logic of Scripture. Arthur Peacocke's biologically construed Christology and Alister McGrath's argument that suffering is an anomaly in the Christian explanatory scheme are shown to yield theological results which are inconsistent with this principle. This article's theological argument complements philosophical criticisms of the view that religious belief is explanatory.     

The Twofold Life of the Word: Karl Barth's Critical Reception of the Extra Calvinisticum

Though the extra Calvinisticum has played an historically important role for Christology, the doctrine has been criticized not only by Lutherans and modern Christologies ‘from below’ but by some Reformed thinkers as well. This article examines the place of the extra in dogmatic thinking about the incarnation: specifically, Karl Barth's critical response to his own tradition. After examining the differences between Lutheran and Reformed construals of the relationship of the Logos asarkos to the Logos ensarkos I take up Barth's views on the extra, which over the course of his career moved from enthusiastic affirmation to a sharp critique. Finally, I suggest that Barth's mature Christology retains the best of both Protestant positions by correcting a critical inconsistency in Reformed thought. He does not reject the doctrine of the Logos asarkos, but he does suggest a way in which this is related to the life of the Logos ensarkos that marginalizes the former. Barth is right not to discard the extra, but also that it has been misused in how it is deployed in dogmatic theology.     

Attending to the Sabbath: An Alternative Direction in Karl Barth's Theology of Prayer

Most accounts of Karl Barth's theology of prayer focus on the active dimensions of prayer, as prioritized in the formal sections on prayer in the Church Dogmatics. This leads to the suspicion that Barth has little time for the contemplative and reflective dimensions of prayer. This article will complement the existing approaches by broadening the scope of inquiry from the formal prayer‐sections into other, less obvious areas of the Dogmatics to uncover an alternative, contemplative, direction in Barth's theology of prayer. It will suggest, therefore, that attending to his rich but often‐neglected account of the Sabbath affords the opportunity to begin the work of reassessing Barth's relation to the contemplative tradition.