February 16, 2020

Karl Barth Links

Barth-1.jpgSome links on Karl Barth. Those who are forever explaining me to their loyal readership should know this: I rarely disagree with Barth, and whatever names you have for him probably apply to me without exception on my part. (Other than “Lutheran.”)

Must Read: Kim Fabricius: Ten Propositions on Karl Barth: Theologian.

Coming Soon: Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Differences edited by Sung Wook Chung. Contributors include Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Alister E. McGrath, Timothy George, Gabriel Fackre, Stanley Grenz, and Henri Blocher.

Time Magazine’s 1962 cover-story on Karl Barth’s theology.

John MacDowell’s collection of Karl Barth papers, articles and lectures. Includes an excellent outline of Barth’s view of “listening” to Scripture.

Barth Books on a budget (Kim Frabicius again.)

Stanley Hauerwas on Barth’s Theology in outline (with an interesting comment from Barth on non-Christians listening in.)

John Howard Yoder on Barth as a “Witness to Post-Christendom.”

Barth outed as a heretic by Apprising Ministries, which pretty much settles all questions.

Comments

  1. “whatever names you have for him probably apply to me without exception on my part.”

    As in, “Neo-orthodox?” i’ve read some Barth, and while I appreciate his calvinistic tendencies, his rejection of the infallibility of Scripture limits my intake.

  2. iMonk,

    For the record you say: “Those who are forever explaining me to their loyal readership should know this: I rarely disagree with Barth, and whatever names you have for him probably apply to me without exception on my part.”

    You do know Barth’s work is a big influence on Brian McLaren in particular and within the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church itself. Particularly Barth’s wrong view of Scripture upon youngbloods like Rob Bell.

    And as far as the “heretic” label, I will remind you that I quote Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s, as well as Dr. Walter Martin’s, assessment of Barth’s heretical denial of verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture as opposed to Barth’s existential approach to the text of the Bible.

    Just wanted to make sure your readers know the company that helped make sure the questions were all “answered” correctly. 🙂

  3. How much Barth have you personally read? Specifically?

  4. (MODERATOR NOTE: I shouldn’t have allowed this comment to post…but I couldn’t look away…)

    Jimmy Carter says that Karl Barth is his favorite theologian.

    Jimmy Carter says he is a born again Christian.

    One of those statements is not true.

  5. There was a story that when Karl Barth came to America one time, CF Henry, reporting for “Christianity Today” was waiting for him with other jouranlists in the airport. When Barth walked through the terminal Henry said, “Professor Barth, I am from Christianity Today and would like to ask you some questions.” Barth responded, “Are you from Christianity Today, or Christianity Yesterday?” (a jab at the magazine’s conservative innerantist views) To which Henry replied, “Christianity yesterday, today, and forever.”

  6. Thanks for these excellent links. I downloaded the Time feature story from 1962 and read it last night. How amazing that a serious 10 page story on a Swiss Theologian would be a cover story in Time. It is very well written and assumes its readers have an interest and some knowledge of theological matters. Compare that to the annual sensationalisitic stories we’re treated to every year on the historical Jesus, Judas, etc.

  7. I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on Barth. Years ago I read in one of Tony Campolo’s books that Barth taught his students to interpret the Bible according to their own personal experience. That was the first of countless examples I would find of folks feeling compelled to comment on Barth without the slightest compulsion to read him first.

    I suspect that a combination of factors renders Barth particularly susceptible to this kind of thing: (1) Barth is often called the greatest theologian of the past century even by those who regret it, so author’s feel a certain obligation to say something about him; (2) Barth wrote a lot. Who can read it all? Barth once told an audience that he himself had not yet read all he had written! (3) Barth is hard. You really have to want to understand him and even then it can be a tough go.

    Like Calvin or Luther or Wesley or any of the truly great Christian minds of the past who have been found helpful by many believers across time and geography, those who pay the price to read and struggle to comprehend Barth will be rewarded.