The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barth's Theology
Eberhard Busch
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004
302 pages, paper, $29.00

Introduction

Karl Barth has unfortunately gotten a bad rap in some evangelical circles. As a result, he has been dismissed as a wolf in sheep's clothing, since he often sounds orthodox. Accordingly, he is considered more dangerous than liberals, since the naïve and unsuspecting may not see through this orthodox façade. This approach to Barth stems largely from the influence of Cornelius Van Til and Westminster Seminary. What Van Til does, in short, is to interpret Barth's theology on the Procrustean bed of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy and thereby dismiss Barth's claims to believe in a historical virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. This was the approach in Van Til's The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner (1946), Christianity and Barthianism (1962), and a host of books and articles, all in the same vein.¹

Fortunately, there have been other evangelicals who have been willing to read Barth on his own terms. They have not been uncritical but have appreciated Barth's creativity and the contributions he has made in breaking the back of nineteenth-century liberalism. A turning point was the publication in 1956 of the conservative Dutch Reformed theologian G. C. Berkouwer's The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth and the English evangelical theologian Colin Brown's Karl Barth and the Christian Message (1967). Both authors found various aspects of Barth's theology problematic, but they came to their task with an openness and sympathy quite unlike that of Van Til and his disciples. Subsequently, numerous evangelicals have written appreciatively, albeit not uncritically, of Barth's contribution to theology. Some of the more prominent evangelical theologians of this type are Geoffrey Bromiley, Dale Moody, Bernard Ramm, and Donald Bloesch, to name but a few. This more positive evaluation of Barth's theology has been fully documented by Gregory Bolich, Karl Barth and Evangelicalism (1980), and Phillip R. Thorne, Evangelicalism and Karl Barth: His Reception and Influence in North American Theology (1995). It should not be surprising that most evangelical theologians find much more to agree with in Barth than do their liberal counterparts.

Eberhard Busch and Recent Barth Expositors
In the United States there are a number of excellent Barth interpreters, but pride of place must go to Bruce McCormack, whose book Karl Barth's Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909–1936 (1995) was a turning point in contemporary analyses of Barth's theology, and to George Hunsinger, whose work How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (1991) is the best guide to Barth's theology as a whole. The more recent study by Kurt Anders Richardson, Reading Karl Barth: New Directions for North America Theology (2004), does much the same thing as Hunsinger's book, but the approach is quite different.²

In Great Britain the Edinburgh theologian Thomas Torrance has long been a promoter of Barth's theology as has also the Irish theologian John Thompson. However, the leading interpreter today is John Webster of the University of Aberdeen. He is the author of Barth's Ethics of Reconciliation (1995), Barth's Moral Theology (1995), and is the editor of The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (2000).

All these able interpreters of Barth notwithstanding, it is generally acknowledged that the foremost interpreter of Barth in the world is the author of the book under consideration, namely, Eberhard Busch, professor of theology at the University of Göttingen in Germany. Busch was Barth's last assistant (1965–68) and lived in Barth's home during that period. He was with Barth the night before he died and recounts movingly one of Barth's last requests, as he sensed that death was near, to sing some of the songs Barth had learned as a boy. This and much more is found in Busch's definitive biography, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (1976; a fifth German edition was published in 1994). Since the publication of that monumental biography, Busch has published several books and numerous articles about Barth and his theology during the past thirty years.

There are at least four things that make this book unique: (1) Busch's intimate, personal knowledge of Barth; (2) Busch's lifelong study of Barth; (3) his vast, comprehensive knowledge of all of Barth's writings, not just the thirteen volumes of the Church Dogmatics and other major works of Barth, but also over sixty monographs, articles, and letters, many of which have never been translated, some never published; and (4) the beautiful way in which Busch weaves together a wide variety of sources with brief but deft interpretative comments into a seamless robe.

Hence, if one wants to get into Barth's theology and understand him on his own terms, this is the book to read. A warning is, however, in order. Barth's theology is complex and unconventional. And while Busch does a skillful job in trying to make Barth's theology as clear and meaningful as possible, this still is not an easy read—at least not for the newcomer. Ideally, this will move the reader to examine some of Barth's key works, such as a volume of the Church Dogmatics or Barth's swan song, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (1963).

The Great Passion

The title of this book is significant, for Barth was, to an unusual degree, deeply passionate about theology. But his passion was not only for theology but also for what was happening both in the church and in the world. Ultimately, it was a passion for God's glory. In one of the last unfinished portions of his Church Dogmatics, written at the age of seventy-five, Barth could speak of the great passion by which those who know God "are ‘filled, impelled, guided, and ruled (7).'"³

He was, however, no mere ivory tower theologian. He frequently was immersed in both church and world politics. He even enlisted in the Swiss army at the age of 54, "ready to stand up for democracy against the Hitler hordes" (5).

In a brief opening chapter, Busch gives a profile of the great Basler. His father was a conservative professor of New Testament in Bern, but as a young theological student Barth had become a liberal. He studied in Germany under some of the leading liberal theologians of the time, but all that changed after World War I. His experiences as a pastor in the Swiss village of Safenwil from 1911 also caused him to see the emptiness of the liberal position. The result was the famous commentary on Paul's Letter to the Romans, which "dropped like a bombshell on the playground of theologians" (so Karl Adam, a Roman Catholic theologian). Other early influences were the music of Mozart and the discovery of the Reformers. The net result was that Barth came to see that theology was not primarily about man (anthropology) but about the living God (theology). Only as we stand before God can we know God (9).

Moreover, "the task of theology is the same as the task of preaching" (K. B.), namely, to proclaim the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Barth's theology must also be seen in the context of worship as the community's (the church's) service of God. Accordingly, Barth began his Church Dogmatics with a prayer and in his final work, Evangelical Theology, maintains that "theology can be performed . . . only in the act of prayer" (K. B.). In this same book he reiterates a point made much earlier, that theology is also a science, but now he adds that theology "is the most beautiful of all the sciences." Earlier, he had said, "the theologian who has no joy in his work is not a theologian at all" (K. B.).

This is one of the faces of Karl Barth, the theologian who found great joy in his calling, the man who was rightly noted for his wit and great sense of humor. But another side of this theologian was his intolerance of lazy, sloppy thinking and theological waffling. He could be ruthless in his criticisms of what he deemed theological nonsense and angry about flippancy and irreverence. To appreciate Barth's theology one must understand something of his colorful personality and his distinctive vision of the theological task.

Even where it [Barth's theology] is modern, it repudiates what is coquettishly novel. Even where it stands in the tradition of the church, it plows a new furrow. When speaking about what concerns it deeply, it refrains from subjective emotionality. And yet when it thinks "strictly objectively," it does so with perceptible warmth. It speaks often in an elementary way, yet avoids catchwords. It goes into detail at times but steers clear of what is unimportant. It focuses on the singular center of faith, yet sees it from different concrete angles. It does not address a detail without keeping the total picture always in view. It gets down to the root of things, yet keeps in mind the possible and necessary ramifications. It steadfastly puts to scripture the question whether this is how it is, and it does not separate from dogmatics the ethical question: "What shall we do?" It professes a definite knowledge but does not ride certain principles to death, because it is always engaged in a long march forwards, without ever roving around short of breath and purpose. Even in difficult movements of thought it never loses the childlikeness of faith. Starting with faith, it relentlessly seeks insight, enlightenment. It never flees from problems, and it recalls forgotten issues. . . . In addressing its temporal context, his theology was more like the needle of a compass than a weather vane. Reflecting on the eternal truth of God, it spoke not from the rocking chair but from the trenches of the church militant. It looked at the church's present status but also looked beyond the horizon at the presence of worldwide church history, the history of our Christian forebears (14).

The Shape of His Theology

In the next two chapters Busch describes the "path" of Barth's theology and the nature of the Church Dogmatics. "Whoever engages Barth's theology," says Busch, "does not enter a building of ideas but embarks upon a path" (16). This path was not always a smooth or even path. Eleven months after he wrote his commentary on Romans he completely revised it. As a young professor in Germany he made two early attempts at writing a dogmatics, but he never completed the publication of the second attempt in 1927 entitled Die christliche Dogmatik. He had not yet achieved the clarity he needed for proceeding with his theology. Yet, in spite of breaks and reversals there still were some remarkable continuities in his theological development.

What becomes particularly prominent as his theology develops is the emphasis on reconciliation in Jesus Christ as the heart of the gospel. Hence, The Doctrine of Reconciliation (four volumes) is the centerpiece of his massive Church Dogmatics, which comes to about ten thousand pages! The other thing that is significant about this theology is that it is a church dogmatics. This implies the ecclesial and confessional nature of theology, although Barth did not hesitate to differ with the church's tradition, if he felt the object of theology, the Word, justified it. That Word is expressed in Scripture but ultimately is identified with Jesus Christ.

Some Distinctive Motifs in Barth's Theology

Part II of this volume deals with the themes of Barth's theology. The chapter titles indicate, in Busch's terminology, the nature of those themes:

1. "The Wonderful Beginning—The Doctrine of Revelation and of the Knowledge of God"
2. "The Fulfilled Covenant—Israel and Christology"
3. "The Divine Freedom—Trinity and Predestination"
4. "The Disconcerting Truth—The Problem of Religion"
5. "Exacting Exhortation—Gospel and Law, Ethics"
6. "The Good Creation—Its Basis and Preservation"
7. "The Critical Reconciliation—The Doctrines of Sin and Justification"
8. "The Prevailing Spirit—Pneumatology"
9. "Moving Out Together—The Doctrine of the Church"
10. "Limited Time—Time and Eternity, Eschatology"

It is impossible to develop at length any of these themes, but a few comments are in order. At times Busch's comments are tantalizingly brief. An example is his treatment of Barth's view of revelation. He notes that Barth speaks of Scripture as a witness to Jesus Christ, "the one Word of God," a familiar notion. But then he cites Barth to the effect that we cannot "take part" in the thing attested unless "the Spirit himself who has spoken to the biblical writers" also speaks "to their hearers and readers" (C.D. III, 1, 92). One would like the implications of that statement spelled out a bit more, but Busch drops it there.

The same thing happens in his discussion of Barth's doctrine of the Trinity. On pages 43 and following is the major discussion of the Trinity, but he does not refer to Barth's definition of the Trinity until page 227 in the context of Barth's pneumatology. Here he rightly points out that Barth does "not understand the Trinity as a collective of three ego-like persons ‘in the modern sense of the term,' but rather as three ‘modes of being' (Seinsweise) . . . of the divine Subject'" (C.D. I, l, 469). This approach can be defended, but Busch never mentions the fact that Barth has been accused of modalism.

Busch does justice, however, to Barth's interest in Israel, both as a historical phenomenon and as a faith community. For Barth, the revelation of Christ can never be separated from the history of Israel. He was a fierce opponent of anti-Semitism and maintained that "in rejecting the Jew one rejects God" (C.D. I, 2, 511). Barth was not a Zionist, but he takes seriously God's election of Israel and insists that the unfaithfulness of Israel cannot dissolve the covenant (C.D. IV, 1, 23).

Also of particular interest is Barth's view of religion, which is not simply comprehended by his striking heading, "The Revelation of God as the Abolition (Aufhebung) of Religion" (C.D. I, 2). Strangely, Busch doesn't mention this, but he does mention other passages, which, he acknowledges, "have always caused offense" (141). For example, Barth states: "In religion man bolts and bans himself against revelation by providing a substitute for it" (C.D. I, 2, 303).

Of more concern to evangelicals, however, is Barth's unique view of predestination, which results in what has been dubbed his incipient or latent universalism. Busch discusses the latter issue at great length and, not surprisingly, finds no difficulty here. The most penetrating discussion—and criticism—of this issue is still Berkouwer's The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Busch regards Barth's view of the election of grace (predestination) as "a high point in Barth's dogmatics" (47). For Barth, the doctrine of predestination is only good news; it is "the sum of the Gospel" (C.D. II, 2, 10, 12). Busch does not, however, spell out why that is true, except to focus on God's sovereign freedom and the Trinitarian basis for predestination. (The same weakness is found in Hunsinger's How to Read Karl Barth. There is no reference to either election or predestination in the index.) As over against Calvin, for Barth, Jesus Christ is not only the object (in Calvin's terms, "the mirror") of our election but also the subject of election. In Jesus Christ, God has from eternity chosen the whole human race as his covenant partners. Barth teaches a form of double predestination, but one that is quite different from the traditional Calvinistic view. For God in Christ has taken upon himself the rejection and reprobation which man deserved. Christ is both elected and rejected man. God himself ordained this in pre-temporal eternity (C.D. II, 2, 162-8). This is, in short, Barth's unusual view of election, but, unfortunately, one is hard pressed to find it discussed in Busch's study.

Such a view would seem to point toward a universalistic conclusion. Busch recognizes this and asks the question, "Does Barth's train of thought then require that this goal must be a ‘universal reconciliation?'" (217). He gives three answers, the last one being a key quotation from the last complete volume of the Church Dogmatics (IV, 3, 477–78):

There is no good reason why we should forbid ourselves, or be forbidden, openness to the possibility that in the reality of God and man in Jesus Christ there is contained much more than we might expect and therefore the supremely unexpected withdrawal of that final threat, i.e., that in the truth of this reality there might be contained the super-abundant promise of the final deliverance of all men. To be more explicit, there is no good reason why we should not be open to this possibility. If for a moment we accept the unfalsified truth of the reality which even now so forcefully limits the perverted human situation, does it not point plainly in the direction of the work of a truly eternal divine patience and deliverance and therefore of an apokatastasis or universal reconciliation? If we are certainly forbidden to count on this as though we had a claim to it, as though it were not supremely the work of God to which man can have no possible claim, we are surely commanded the more definitely to hope and pray for it as we may do already on this side of this final possibility, i.e., to hope and pray cautiously and yet distinctly that, in spite of everything which may seem quite conclusively to proclaim the opposite, His compassion should not fail, and that in accordance with His mercy which is "new every morning" He "will not cast off forever" (Lam. 3:22f., 31).

Thus Barth does not explicitly teach a doctrine of apokatastasis—that all people will eventually be saved, but he says we may hope for it. Busch has no further comment on this issue (218).

The last three chapters treat Barth's ecclesiology, pneumatology, and eschatology. The latter two are especially helpful since Barth has been charged with shortchanging the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and since he never completed his dogmatics he thereby never got to the doctrine of eschatology. However, Busch handles the question of the Spirit fairly and helpfully points out that Barth had much to say about eschatological subjects, particularly the relation of time and eternity. Here Barth's originality is especially evident. He is critical both of the modern concept of time and the notion of God's eternity as timelessness (268). God "has time, that is true . . . time in His eternity" (C.D. II, 1, 618).

Barth also has much to say about Jesus' parousia, his coming again. This assumes three forms: his Easter appearance, the coming of the Holy Spirit, and his final "coming again," the so-called second coming (C.D. IV, 3, 293f.).

What we have to do is simply to take this consequence as our starting-point, to enjoy this Sabbath rest with Him as those who hear the message of Easter Day and are obedient to the verdict of the Holy Spirit pronounced there, praying that it may daily be disclosed afresh to us, looking forward in hope to the consummation of His parousia and therefore to our redemption, which is grounded in our reconciliation with God as it has already taken place on His cross, which has already begun in His resurrection, in which the disciples beheld His glory. (C.D. IV, 1, 345-6)

One may raise questions about several aspects of Barth's theology, but evangelicals can ill afford to ignore this titan of twentieth-century theology who firmly believed, and powerfully expounded, what he believed to be the historic Christian faith. Few will undertake the daunting task of reading the whole of the Church Dogmatics, but one will not find a better guide to its riches than Eberhard Busch's introduction to Barth's theology.