Karl Barth, The Humanity of God “Essay 2: The Humanity of God”
If one were to attempt to analyze Barth’s arguments in “The Humanity of God,” one might spend pages upon pages explicating all the implications and foundations buried in this concise and eloquent sermon; however, I have two pages, so I will attempt to focus on a brief overview, along with an evaluation of one aspect of Barth’s “consequences” that particularly struck a chord with me.
Question: The primary question, in essence, that Barth attempts to answer in this essay is “What do we know about God?” The secondary question asked by Barth is “What does this knowledge then imply for us?” Barth is nearing the end of his career in 1956, and speaking directly to a group of Swiss Reformed ministers in Aarau, Switzerland (Barth 37). If one understands that Barth is communicating with people in the same tradition as himself, one gets closer to understanding why Barth does not choose to spend time elucidating his reasons for believing in the God-man relationship as found in Jesus Christ; this knowledge also helps us understand who Barth is encouraging and exhorting in his final words.
Answer: Simply put, the answer to the primary question is that we can only know God through Jesus. From this starting point, Barth proclaims that since Jesus is both “wholly” human and “wholly” God (47), we can therefore pronounce that God has both humanity and deity (48). To Barth, “God’s deity does not exclude … [God’s] humanity (49); instead, we both recognize God as human and the implied value of human nature. What does this actually mean? In my own paraphrase, we can’t understand God in any other way than as a human God. Therefore, we are not being superstitious, anthropocentric, or ignorant when we pray to a God who is actually like us. Conversely, we can’t cast aspersion on humanity, since God’s self is revealed as being fully human. This leads to us treating all of humanity as valuable and containing the stamp of divinity (53).
The answer to the secondary question leads out from the previous statement. If God is similar to us in God’s humanity, what does that imply for us? Since the starting point for Barth’s theology is Jesus, then Barth proclaims that God chooses to be for us, even though God doesn’t have to (60). It as if Barth is saying that God could be against us, just as we could be for or against our neighbor. Due to God’s humanity, God can choose any direction; God exists in space and time. This leads Barth to the most powerful aspect of the gospel of grace: God is not constrained to act in any way, but chooses to act for us. This gospel, according to Barth, is the “framework” within which all proclamation in the church must be spoken (60).
Method: Barth uses, on the one hand, a hermeneutic of trust when examining scriptures and history (55). The author also employs the use of analogical thinking and reason to move from point A to point B.
Significance: Within this text, there is a strong call to the church to actually manifest the humanity and deity of God to the world. To a land that was still reeling from the damages of two major and destructive wars – during which the church somehow managed to attach the name of Jesus to both Allied forces, National Socialism, and worst of all, genocide – Barth exhorts the listener and the reader to act as a force for positivity, hope and love on behalf of God and in the power and grace granted by God. Barth’s sermon eloquently encourages a people to continue in the work that was begun in the Event of Incarnation and continued by the church.
Evaluation: Several of Barth’s points ring true with me. Barth’s profound description of human culture (54), his view that all theology must be dialogue over against monologue (57), and his statement that there is no such thing as private Christianity (64) all echoed in my heart and mind as important truths for any Christian theologian. However, Barth’s depiction of the church and his near-commandment to stay within the institution seemed hollow and false. For one, I have yet to discover a church that actually holds to Barth’s view of Jesus, God and God’s humanity. Barth seems to ignore the fact that his own tradition had to move outside the institution, so to speak. Second, I agree with Barth that the Event precedes the institution; unfortunately, I employ a hermeneutic of suspicion when studying church history, and it seems clear that even from the earliest of institutions, the church fails to adequately follow the trajectory that the event established. Therefore, should we not constantly be seeking to be faithful to the Event, over and against the institution? If it is understood that the institution is not in line with this trajectory, then no claim be made on the believer to “affirm … this community in its peculiarity” (64). Instead, the believer should continue, as Barth implores, to be in the family of faith that is most faithful to the Event of God’s descent to humanity and humanity’s ascent to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
