Barth
May 30, 2008
Mulling over Del's sharp question about what can be learned from Barth, beyond the abandonment of inerrancy, I'd like to suggest the following:
1. Barth was a great mind. Reading the works of a great mind is never a waste of time, even (perhaps especially) at those points where one disagrees.
2. Barth and evangelicals share many of the same enemies, even if they do not stand in the same place to critique them (cultural accommodation, classic liberalism etc).
3. The fine print sections of the Church dogmatics (Ok, I know that it is possible von Kirschbaum wrote more than a little of those parts) offer a kaleidoscopic tour of church history, even if it is not always obvious as to whether Barth is using primary sources or compendia such as Schmid or Heppe.
4. Barth's understanding of Reformed Orthodoxy is better than that of many of his followers, especially people like Ernst Bizer. Where he disagrees, his analysis is oftentimes helpful.
On balance, I no longer find Barth as helpful as I once did. His verbosity, apart from anything else, is very unhelpful and makes him (I supect) more honored than he is actually read; and his theology is too octopus-like -- you get hold of one arm and seven others are flailing around. And I have yet to see Barthian preaching fill a church (there is an irony that Barthian preaching, with its `dynamic' God is so often bland, while the `static' God of fundamentalism (according to the Barthian critique) has generated some of the most dynamic preaching the world has ever seen). He is, for me at least, not a source for positive doctrinal construction but rather a significant sparring partner for sharpening orthodox thinking.
So there's a few pointers, for what they are worth.
1. Barth was a great mind. Reading the works of a great mind is never a waste of time, even (perhaps especially) at those points where one disagrees.
2. Barth and evangelicals share many of the same enemies, even if they do not stand in the same place to critique them (cultural accommodation, classic liberalism etc).
3. The fine print sections of the Church dogmatics (Ok, I know that it is possible von Kirschbaum wrote more than a little of those parts) offer a kaleidoscopic tour of church history, even if it is not always obvious as to whether Barth is using primary sources or compendia such as Schmid or Heppe.
4. Barth's understanding of Reformed Orthodoxy is better than that of many of his followers, especially people like Ernst Bizer. Where he disagrees, his analysis is oftentimes helpful.
On balance, I no longer find Barth as helpful as I once did. His verbosity, apart from anything else, is very unhelpful and makes him (I supect) more honored than he is actually read; and his theology is too octopus-like -- you get hold of one arm and seven others are flailing around. And I have yet to see Barthian preaching fill a church (there is an irony that Barthian preaching, with its `dynamic' God is so often bland, while the `static' God of fundamentalism (according to the Barthian critique) has generated some of the most dynamic preaching the world has ever seen). He is, for me at least, not a source for positive doctrinal construction but rather a significant sparring partner for sharpening orthodox thinking.
So there's a few pointers, for what they are worth.
