Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation is the crescendo of the symphony that is his Church Dogmatics. Specifically, in this small (!) section (iv.1.58), one can begin to see how Barth is going to pull his entire theology together through the one moment, the one solitary and essential event of the atonement. He has woven together the previous three doctrines into this one doctrine of Reconciliation. IV.1.58 presents Barth at his absolute Christological best (and at his most un-universalistic). Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation not only emphasizes the triunity of God, but demonstrates how that triunity is expressed in God’s Grace toward humanity, in the being of humanity in Christ, in Jesus, in sin, and in individuality and community. Everything outside of the divine verdict, divine direction, divine promise, outside of faith, love, and hope, outside of Jesus as God, as Man, as God-Man, according to Barth, ceases and is negated; outside of Christ, humanity ceases to be humanity and becomes nothing (we’ll tease this out later). Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation puts fire into the desperate and needy sinner’s heart that burns so passionately, that they (I) can’t help but cry out,
“Save me from the nothing I’ve become!” This series is a mere attempt at summarizing what Barth said in this one section (iv.1.58), while communicating the same passion Barth communicates to his reader. This series will be an interaction with Barth’s train of thought and attempting to see the ways he links together the different parts as he does. In this series, I will simultaneously summarize and interact with Barth’s material and only Barth’s material (as in, I’m not incorporating those who have written on Barth); this is just Barth.
COMMENTS
5 responses to ““Wake me up inside…” (part 1): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)”
Leave a Reply
YES!
Some MB love for Barth is long overdue. Looking forward to the series!
Todd,
the silence has not been an oversight:)
Lauren,
I too look forward to your take on his theology—but, I've always found his fundamental rejection of the (following Schraeder's Elert) "substantive dialectic" between law and gospel to be an insurmountable hurdle w/respect to the rest of his theology.
Certainly, I've been (overly?)influenced by Elert in this regard, but I've had a hard time getting past Barth's view that there is only "One Word of God" in two manifestations. See, for instance, this statement (among others) from his essay "Gospel and Law"
The Gospel is not Law, just as the Law is not Gospel; but because the law is in the Gospel, from the Gospel, and points to the Gospel, we must first of all know about the Gospel in order to know about the Law, and not vice versa.
IMNSHO, this "one word, two manifestations," idea is why what passes for cutting-edge "biblical theology" (c.f IVP Applicaton Commentary series:) is just warmed over Barth (sounds like the name of a band:).
That his "one word," interpretation can handle the weight of an entire Church and Christian Dogmatics testifies to its intellectual consistency; however, it is still worlds away from the idea that 1) the law is only temporal and, 2) that the law only exacerbates and "makes sin the greater."
This is how I see it, but I'm open to correction!
At any rate, I'm sure that my dissatisfaction with him has something to do with my inability to fully realize–hear, maybe?–that despite all experience to the contrary, there really is nothing to be worried about. 😉
Jady, point heard and received! From my study of Bultmann, I too had a deep suspicion of Barth. But Eberhard Jungel has made me a critically sympathetic admirer.