#012 Barmen, Barth and King.

Last semester I researched the relationship between Karl Barth’s rejection of natural theology and his political theology. During my excursion into this wide and wondrous theological landscape, I came across some surprising criticisms of Barth made by Martin Luther King Jnr.



 

The Princeton University Chapel, Dr. King on the Chapel steps, with Karl Barth, April 29, 1962’

King made two points. Firstly, that where the liberal theologian must part with Barth is in his rejection of natural theology. This is because ‘we find God in the beauty of the world, in the unpremeditated goodness of humanity, and in the moral order of reality. Secondly, Barth emphasises the unknowableness of God, but if God is unknowable one wonders how Barth came to know so much of the ‘’Unknown God’’ (King 1952, pp.105-106[1]). King’s pithy quip is unmistakable and insightful even if his optimism about humanity in 1952, is overshadowed by the tragic events of early April, 1968. King shows the influence of ‘19^th century liberal protestants, that viewed human culture as being endowed with revelatory potential’ (McGrath 2001, p.255)[2]. In the end King affirms Barth’s theology saying that, ‘much of what Barth has to say is good...may it not be that it will serve as a necessary corrective for liberalism that at times becomes all to shallow?’ (King 1952, p.106) [3]

1962 a stroll on campus at Princeton University,

Source: stanford.edu

When viewed through the lens of World War two and the Barmen Declaration, Karl Barth’s rejection of natural theology is understandable . The Barmen declaration was authored by Barth as part of the Confessing Churches stand against National Socialism in 1930’s Germany. For Barth, natural theology lead to the dehumanization found in Nazi gas chambers, re-education camps, human experimentation, racism and slavery. As Gene Veith points out in his 1993 book ‘Modern Fascism’, Nazism was a calculated crusade to deny the transcendence of God and usurp Christianity. This is because ‘Christianity is the protest against all the high places which human beings build for themselves’ (Barth C.D IV/II p.524). Barth asserted that theology must always critique ideology (cited by Gorringe 1999, p.3[4]). This is why Christians and theologians, both black and white, must fight side by side to avoid the misinformation mudslide pushed along by regurgitated propaganda, neo-fascism and the party line. Theology must challenge ‘the ideas that led to Auschwitz with special scrutiny. This is especially true when those ideas, often adopted uncritically, are still in vogue’ (Veith 1993, Loc.1375 [5]).

 

Despite a clear difference regarding natural theology, the Vietnam War is itself an area where Barth shared common ground with King. They met in 1962 (pictured above) and although what they discussed is left to conjecture, it is not entirely baseless to suggest that the Vietnam War was part of their dialogue. This becomes clearer when we hear echoes of Barth in King’s words to Riverside Church, New York on the 4^th April, 1967. For instance: ‘a time to break the silence’ because ‘’a time comes when silence is betrayal’’ (King). This and the overall content of King’s speech can be measured by the Barmen declaration and matched with Barth’s own opposition to the Vietnam conflict. For example: George Hunsinger reported that Barth ‘called for opposition to the Vietnam War in the 1960s, saying that “It is not enough only to say, ‘Jesus is risen,’ but then remain silent about the Vietnam War’ (cited in ‘Karl Barth and Evangelical theology 2004, p.199)[6].

The relevance of Barth’s ''no'' to natural theology can be seen in its much larger critique of modernist/post-modernist interpretations of Frederic Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin all of whom can be found to have had a direct influence on fascist ideology (Veith ‘Modern Fascism’, 1993). What Barth rejects is natural theologies autonomous rational structure’ (citing Torrance 2001, p.70)[7], and its self-determining knowledge of God which is absent of Jesus the Christ. The importance of the revelation of Jesus Christ is that He teaches us that we are‘ human beings and not pets’ (Olasky 2003, p.80)[8].Perhaps it is fitting 45 years after he was martyred, to summon all Christians to reclaim King from the left and right ideological ism’s that are increasingly binding and blurring his legacy. Whereby we then choose to stand with both Barth and King, jointly proclaiming that ‘8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him’ (Barth, second thesis, Barmen Declaration 1934).

[1] King Jnr, M.L. 1952 Karl Barth’s conception of God sourced 17^th August 2012 from http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol2/520102BarthsConceptionOfGod.pdf

[2] McGrath, A.E. 2001 a scientific theology: nature vol1.  T&T Clark Ltd. Edinburgh, Scotland

[3] King Jnr, M.L. 1952 Karl Barth’s conception of God sourced 17^th August 2012 from

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol2/520102BarthsConceptionOfGod.pdf

[4] Gorringe, T.J 1999 Karl Barth: Against Hegemony Christian theology in context Oxford University Press New York

[5] Veith Jnr, G.E. 1993 modern fascism: the threat to the Judeo-Christian worldview Kindle for P.C. Ed.
[6] Chung, S. W. 2006 Karl Barth and evangelical theology: Convergences and divergences Milton Keynes, Paternoster Press. UK
[7] Torrance, T.F. 1994 Preaching Christ today: the Gospel and scientific thinking Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI, USA
[8] Olasky, M 2003 Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon Crossway Books, Good News publishers Wheaton, IL
[9] Prinston pic source: http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/photos/article/Dr-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-His-life-in-pictures-956071.php#ixzz2CLX2Lgke