Karl Barth lived intensely. As a corollary, his theology can-not be adequately understood without reference to his life of social commitment. His thought-form is contextual and dynamic, sometimes repulsive. He was keen and open to modification, clarification, and correction in his theological trajectory. Barth, moreover, was not averse to self-critique and turnabout in his theological pilgrimage. Although there are many followers and movements of Barthianism, he remained hesitant and even averse to identifying himself with any form of “ism.” In Barth’s words we hear: “God is not identical with any ideology, and is not to be confused with such. Hence, conversion to Him is not to be confused with any human decision for rearmament or disarmament in orientation to any ideology” (CD IV/4:140). Understanding Barth this way implies an ongoing resistance to any real attempt at a systematization of his theology although, paradoxically, he is the systematic theologian of Church Dogmatics.
Barth’s expressive style of writing and his point of departure along the lines of “beginning anew at the beginning” aroused many different interpretations and called for variegated dialogues with him. For Barth, “in theological study, continuation always means ‘beginning once again at the beginning.’”1 In this light, for Barth, doing theology means that it must be established through nothing but audacity. His break with established theology invoked such a spirit of audacity. Although different in intention from Franz Overbeck, Barth cited him approvingly for his theological direction. “It was over forty years ago that I read this remark by Franz Overbeck, ‘theology can no longer be established through anything but audacity.’ I paid attention to it. The liberal theologians will have to pay attention to it as well.” 2
In his commentary The Epistle to the Romans (8:24) Barth states: “If Christianity be not altogether thoroughgoing eschatology, there remains in it no relationship whatever with Christ” (R II:314). Barth’s dialectical theology is basically and definitely oriented toward eschatology. Needless to say, Barth’s dialectical-organic theology in the 1919 edition of Romans I, in fact, assumes an eschatological character and horizon. “Trust in God cannot be separated from eschatology.” “Solving the riddle of the world cannot be separated from eschatology” (R I:241, 246). The theology of Ursprung associated with the immediacy of God in Romans I and the theology of Krisis in Romans II can be understood first of all in light of God’s eschatology, God’s in-breaking reality into the world. Here, Barth cross-examines his theological development and exercises a self-criticism, especially in relation to his theological subject matter. When we read Barth from a political perspective, an expectation associated with eschatological longing constitutes his hurrying involvement in the political world, but at the same time we see him as a waiting theologian, remaining sober and down-to-earth, free from any political fanaticism.
The Grounding Break in Karl Barth
As far as Barth interpretation is concerned, it was Hans Urs von Balthasar who noticed two decisive turning points in the development. The first is the conversion from theological liberalism to Christian radicalism during the First World War, the expression of which we find in Barth’s two Römerbriefe. The second liberation comes through his reading of Anselm of Canterbury’s proof for the existence of God (1931) rather than in the brochure Nein! (1934) against Emil Brunner as is commonly assumed.3 Balthasar’s insistence on the second turn, from dialectic to analogy, gained prominence as the catalyst for advancing successive research on the theological unfolding of Barth’s thought.
T. F. Torrance, by contrast, marks three developmental stages in Barth’s thought as he moved from the new starting point via dialectical thinking to dogmatic thinking. These stages are as follows: (a) In the new starting point of dialectical thinking there occurred a break with liberal theology during the year 1914, a break that reached its climax with the first edition of Romans in 1919; (b) the second principal stage began in the 1920s, when the thorough revision of his first Romans commentary came out, and the first volume of Barth’s projected Dogmatics exhibited the influence of Kierkegaard in a dialectical and realistic fashion; (c) the third stage came through Barth’s study of St. Anselm when Barth made the really decisive transition from Christian Dogmatics (Christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf [1927]) to the Church Dogmatics (Kirchliche Dogmatik [1932]).
Barth’s Christian Dogmatics met opposition and resistance from his critics. In the Germany of the 1920s, phenomenological, psychological, numinous, and existentialist interpretations of Christian faith were in fashion. Barth realized that he was not able to escape the remnants of existential philosophy in his Christian Dogmatics. Eventually, through his study of St. Anselm in the summer of 1930, Barth was able to emancipate himself from a preunderstanding of human existence by purging the language of Kierkegaard from his discourse and by stepping over the eggshells of philosophical systematics.4 As a result, Barth eventually referred to his Christian Dogmatics as a false start (CD III/4:xii).
Like Balthasar, Torrance interpreted the turn from dialectical theology to analogy as a radical paradigm shift, marking a new theological development. According to Bruce McCormack, this reigning paradigm—as represented by Balthasar and Torrance—has been influential especially on English-speaking Barth scholarship. Following this paradigm, Hans Frei takes Barth’s study of Anselm as representing a revolution in Barth’s thought.5
In contrast to this standpoint, Eberhard Jüngel, in dealing with the development of Barth’s theology, argues for one decisive break in Barth’s theological development, that is, Barth’s break with theological liberalism during the year 1914. In Jüngel’s words we read: “This expression [a theology of the Word of God] is . . . better suited than the alternative ‘dialectical theology’ to describe the continuity in the path which Barth followed after the break with the theology of his teachers—though it was, to be sure, a winding path with several turns.”6 According to Jüngel, the theology of the Word of God can be portrayed as a terminus a quo (as a starting point) and a terminus ad quem (as an aim or terminal point in time), which can be perceived in a shift from Barth’s dialectical thinking to his dogmatic theology. Jüngel quotes Barth’s own remark about “the inner dialectic of the subject matter [Sache]” in the preface to the second edition of Romans. With the phrase “the inner dialectic of the subject matter,” Barth intended to express the idea that not only speech about the Sache but also the Sache itself should be conceived of as being dialectical.
However, Barth’s turn to dogmatic theology expresses a change in his thought that reveals a turn from the assertive dialectic to a dialectical style of assertion. This dialectical style of assertion undialectically affirms the Word of God. For Jüngel, Barth’s turn to an undialectical Word of God becomes possible only by way of “a completely different reorientation of the previous thought-movement.”7 For this reorientation, Barth improves himself through his study of Anselm of Canterbury, whose influence can be already seen in Christian Dogmatics (Die christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf [1927].) However, Barth’s revision of Christian Dogmatics did not reach its goal by simply eliminating a basis, a support, or even a mere justification by means of existential philosophy (CD I/1:ix). With his move to the undialectical Word of God, Barth began to develop his doctrine of the analogia fidei. Therefore, in dealing with Barth’s turn to Anselm, Jüngel insists that Barth’s theology of analogy increasingly exhibited a hermeneutical circle and established the confessional and narrative character of his dogmatic argumentation. In this regard, analogy becomes the formal foundation and structure of Barth’s dogmatic assertions.
Given this fact, Jüngel expresses his agreement with Balthasar and Torrance’s high regard for Barth’s study of Anselm. Likewise Frei contrasts analogy as “an analytical, technical category” with dialectic as “anti-liberal
