Themes will be Organized, Investigated, and Actualized in this Monograph?
Given the debates about political radicalism, theologia naturalis, and Israel in Barth’s theology, in this monograph I am interested in tracing and analyzing the particular and inclusive dimension of Barth’s theology of God’s Word in action and how this dimension effects the development of his dialectical theology via analogical theology; I am interested, further, in his dogmatic theology. For this task I will deal with Barth’s reflection of God’s Word in action with respect to political ethics, Israel, and recognition of religious others.
Barth’s concept of God’s Word in action for the world was shaped and influenced considerably by his practical-socialist experience and thus is inseparable from society, culture, and politics. However, Barth’s profound elaboration of theological Sache is not reducible merely to an anthropological experiential-expressive quarter. As Schellong cautions about Marquardt’s interpretation, a reading of Barth through his social biography should not fall into reductionism.75
Therefore, my concern in this monograph is to show a relation between Barth’s theological thinking about current issues in his time (such as political radicalism, Israel, natural theology, and religious others) by examining and analyzing the development of Barth’s theology biographically and contextually from his earliest writings on toward his dogmatic theology. Here it is of special importance to scrutinize and reflect on what basic theological factors of God’s Word in action interact with Barth’s political engagement taking issue with a social, political, and cultural agenda. The relevance of theology to social questions or, in other words, a connection between theology and political involvement, would be formulated and conceptualized in various contextual stages with respect to Barth’s attitude of “beginning always at the beginning.”
His continual correcting and deepening of God’s action of theological Sache corresponded with his experience of contemporary social questions. Authentic theology does not fall from the sky or rise from below without reference to what enables, stimulates, and sharpens human experience from below. This is characteristic of the antibourgeois, irregular character of Barth’s mode of thought. I agree that Barth would come to a radical understanding of God through his socialist praxis, but socialist praxis should also be reformulated critically in accordance with his radical concept of God’s Word in action for the world. As Gollwitzer says rightly about Barth’s theology, “his spirit cannot be reduced to a simple or a single formula.”76
In fact, Barth did not want to be venerated by his followers but to be understood in a genuine sense. This book finds itself, therefore, as a contextual-hermeneutical and historical-genetic reading of Barth especially in light of God’s Word in action for the world. To say the least, Barth’s theology can be seen as world-affirming in terms of a dialectical and analogical relation in speaking of the mystery of God and the grace of God in Jesus Christ for the world. The former dimension of God’s mystery is related to Barth’s eschatological proviso while the latter dimension of God’s grace actualizes God’s radical concern for the world in light of reconciliation in Jesus Christ with the world. This refers to his metaphor of Theanthropologie, which I would like to call cantus firmus in the polyphonies of Barth’s thought-form and motif. This characterizes Barth’s theology of God’s Word in action in terms of Keine Weltlosigkeit Gottes: “The theology which I tried to fashion out of scripture was never a private affair, foreign to the world and humanity. Its object is: God for the world, God for human beings, heaven for the earth. It followed that my whole theology always had a strong political component, explicit or implicit . . . this interest in politics accompanies me to the present day.”77
In the first chapter I will focus on an organic connection of theology to social-political consciousness in Barth’s train of thought. Here I will attempt to construe his early writings in Safenwil in light of Barth’s intellectual background and his theological development in his social life-setting. Barth’s understanding of God’s action as the in-breaking reality of God’s future will be seen and discussed in relation to his political direction.
Chapter 2 will shed light on the genesis of and social context producing the first edition of Barth’s commentary on Romans. In the analysis of Romans I, special attention is given to Barth’s eschatology in regard to its social and political significance. In Romans I we explore how Barth shaped and developed his controversial relation to religious socialism (Leonhard Ragaz), and, furthermore, his confrontation with Leninism will bring to the light a lasting relationship between Barth and Blumhardt’s movement in terms of christological eschatology. At this juncture there will be an outline of theology and social questions in Germany, especially a comparison between Friedrich Naumann and Blumhardt.
Chapter 3 will examine Barth’s Tambach lecture of 1919. His Tambach lecture shows the unique way and orientation of Barth’s development, especially as this development concerns a relation between dialectical theology and parable theology. In fact, it is not a mere middle part, mediating as an intermezzo Romans I to Romans II. This lecture rather provides an initial and profound insight of Barth in his approach to Blumhardt’s message of the kingdom of God in light of parable teaching. Furthermore, it needs to be discussed in relation to his Amsterdam lecture (1926), in which Barth’s genuine quest for a relationship between God’s kingdom and natural theology resurfaces.
In chapter 4, I will discuss Barth’s theology of Krisis in Romans II from a social and political perspective. It is alleged that Barth turned away from social questions and human praxis unilaterally by focusing on God as wholly other. However, his Romans II cannot be properly understood without reference to Romans I. Therefore, in this chapter his time-eternity dialectics will be examined and discussed in social and political perspective, and I will bring to the fore Barth’s confrontation with the postwar situation in Russia.
In chapter 5, I will shed light on Barth’s theological development between his time in Germany, namely, in his teaching positions in Göttingen, Münster, and Bonn. An analysis will be given of Barth’s developments in political ethics, the Word of God, and dialectical theology. Then I will discuss Barth’s confrontation with Erik Peterson. In Münster, Barth’s encounter and debate with Roman Catholicism (especially Przywara) regarding the analogia entis and the anlogia fidei occurred. This problem will be examined in relation to Barth’s seminal study of St Anselm. In this context, it is significant to discuss Barth’s understanding of Feuerbach.
In chapter 6, I will deal with Barth’s political stance towards National Socialism in Germany and his confrontation with Brunner regarding theologia revelatus and theologia naturalis. I will further discuss the unresolved problem of the analogia entis and the analogia fidei in Barth’s theological structure more broadly, in view of a relation between covenant and creation. In speaking of the analogia relationis as a central motif in Barth’s theology of analogy, I will evaluate the analogia relationis with regard to natural theology, especially in the context of Barth’s doctrine of lights.
In chapter 7, there will be a discussion of Martin Luther and Barth regarding Christology in regard to anhypostasis and enhypostasis. I will explicate the extent to which Barth integrates and expands Luther’s theses—“Jesus was born a Jew” and Jesus Christ as “the mirror of the fatherly heart of God”—into his inclusive understanding of anhypostasis and enhypostasis Christology. At this point I attend to Barth’s Christology, admiring its mediating position between the Lutheran est and the Reformed however. In it, a Lutheran dimension is not excluded, but included, in Barthian thought.
In chapter 8, I will deal with Barth’s doctrine of election in the Church Dogmatics. In scrutinizing Barth’s doctrine of Israel, I will compare Barth’s positive assertions of Israel to his critics’ analyses. In a discussion of Barth’s theology of Israel and reconciliation, it is important to evaluate Barth’s legacy after the Shoah in a positive way. In chapter
