Unlike Thurneysen, Barth saw the political nature of the drinking party and its connection to the relationship between the ruling class and the people. Barth rejected the accusations of slander and defamation because he defended himself by saying that he did not characterize the textile work as hell and Mr. Hochuli as the Devil.231 The Hochuli affair tells us the realities of late capitalism. Barth’s politically motivated pastorate had its foundation in his experience of the brutality of social relationships within capitalism. Already in the sermons of 1913, Barth condemned child labor and pleaded with parents to endure economic plight rather than deliver their children too early into the world of the factory. However, those sermons were without success. In this situation he came to a radical, revolutionary conviction that reforming and moderating actions can be explained from the objective misery of this place.
On December 8, 1915, Barth wrote to Thurneysen: “Social Democratic Party and cartel of Worker’s Union Baden. Thursday December 6, 1915, evening 8 o’clock, in Schulhaussaal. Lecture on ‘Are religion and socialism in agreement?’ Presenter: Mr. Barth, pastor, Safenwil. Committee of education expects numerous visits.”232 In a religious socialist conference in Pratteln near Basel, Barth was impressed by Hans Bader’s lecture in which a distinction between Ragaz and Kutter was made. In his letter to Thurneysen (September 8, 1915) Barth outlined this distinction:
For Ragaz: it is of importance to consider “experience of social needs and problems.” The “Ethical demand” is necessary.
For Kutter: What is central is “experience of God.”
For Ragaz: there is an emphasis on “belief in development.”
For Kutter: the kingdom of God is understood as promise.
For Ragaz: there is an “optimistic evaluation of Social Democracy” and “opposition to the church.”
For Kutter: “the Social Democrats can never understand us.” “Religious responsibility” must be taken “in the church in continuity with the pietistic tradition.”
Ragaz calls for “Religious-Socialist Party with conferences and new ways,” and emphasizes sympathy with workers and other laymen. He is in expectation of martyrdom and in protest against war.
Kutter, however, calls for “circles of friends for spiritual deepening and for work.” With concentration primarily on the pastors his concern lies in “the building of dams for a much more distant future.”
Conclusion: the religious socialist thing is finished. Our task is to begin with taking God seriously.233
After this, Barth adds his own opinion of Ragaz’s effort, that is, to put principles into practice. In his approach to Ragaz and Kutter, Barth places himself closer to Kutter theologically, but without losing the practical concern of Ragaz. As Barth asks, “is it not better to strive toward the point where Kutter’s ‘No’ and Ragaz’ ‘Yes,’ Kutter’s radical tranquility and Ragaz’ energetic tackling about the problem ring together?”234
On May 23, 1916, Barth was elected president of the religious socialist conference at Brugg. However, at this time Barth became alienated from the religious socialists. Barth was not regarded as a committed supporter of either Kutter or Ragaz. In coming to terms with Kutter, however, Barth was concerned more about holding for a period of tranquil growth than having time for organized activities. In addition, there occurred an emotional conflict between Ragaz and Barth. Barth wrote a review of Blumhradt’s Hausandachten (House Prayer) in an issue of Neue Wege with the title “Wait for the Kingdom of God.” In his review Barth expressed his critique of religious socialists with the following words: “Our dialectic has reached a dead end, and if we want to be healthy and strong we must begin all over again, not with our own actions, but quietly ‘waiting’ for God’s action.” Ragaz refused to publish it, regarding it as quietistic. This episode severed any contact between Barth and Ragaz. Barth mused, “Ragaz and I roared past one another like two express trains: he went out of the church, I went in.”235 Although Barth was alienated from religious socialism, he still served as a delegate to the SPS Party Congress in Bern (June 8, 1917).
God as the New World in the Bible
In “The Righteousness of God” (“Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes” [1916]), which was given in the Town Church of Aarau in January 1916, Barth elaborated on the social question in light of God’s righteousness. Herein we see Barth’s contrast between God’s righteousness and human righteousness. The former is based on Christ’s way, while the latter depends on the Tower of Babel. What is the deepest and surest fact of life for Barth is that God is righteous.236 Human effort to do righteousness would lead to human construction of the Tower of Babel. Eritis sicut Deus (“You will be like God” [Gen 3:5]) would sound in our attempt at taking divine righteousness under our own management.237 “Apart from God’s righteousness, all clever newspaper articles and well-attended conventions are completely insignificant,” because “the primary matter is a very decided Yes or No to a whole new world of life.”238 In critically dealing with the righteousness of the state and religious righteousness, Barth determines that the righteousness of the state will fail in touching “the inner character of world-will at any point.”239 The state is dominated by this will and the war stands as a striking illustration. Likewise, Christianity as a religion does its job in its uninterrupted way, “in the midst of capitalism, prostitution, the housing problem, alcoholism, tax evasion, and militarism”240 Barth’s critique of Christianity as a religion sounds so hostile because it is regarded as a comforting illusion and a self-deception. It is a product of a human attitude of “as if,” full of pride and despair that come from a Tower of Babel.241
However, in wartime, God’s righteousness becomes a problem and an issue for discussion. Where the human Tower of Babel falls to pieces we look for righteousness without God and a god without God and against God. However, such a god is not God, and is not righteous. “The god to whom we have built the tower of Babel is not God.”242 This god is a dead idol. According to Barth, the righteousness of God can be found only in a wholly other way. God’s will is not a continuation of our own, but God approaches us “as a Wholly Other . . . not a reformation but a re-creation and re-growth.”243 In the presence of God’s righteousness what is needed from us is humility and childlike joyfulness, which are called faith in the biblical context. “Where faith is in the midst of the old world of war and money and death, there is born a new spirit out of which grows a new world, the world of the righteousness of God.”244 The righteousness of God becomes our possession and our great hope in that the way of Christ as “the inner way of simple faith” shows us the love of God.245
In his article “The Strange New World within the Bible” (“Die neue Welt in der Bibel”), which was delivered in the church at Lentwil in the autumn of 1916, Barth finds the Bible to be the canon of theological discourse on God, humans, and the world. In other words, the
