Chris Boesel

Summary: A synopsis of the major themes of Barth’s theology and theological ethics, showing how his theology “cuts both ways” against the theological left and right while it centers on God’s “Yes” to us in Christ.

Chris Boesel offers in this book a synopsis of the main ideas one might find in reading the massive works of Karl Barth. A critical part of his approach is to contend that Barth’s theology cuts both against theological liberalism and theologically conservative evangelicalism, coming out approximately where progressive (post-) evangelicals might.

He begins with the centrality of Christ to Barth’s theology. Boesel uses the language of Jesus or Jesus Christ, rather than just Barth’s “Christ” to emphasize that God’s one word to us is Jesus the incarnate one who enters our situation as a lowly babe, which he terms “the last, first,” phrasing to which he recurs. This emphasizes the concreteness of this Word. Furthermore, Jesus is God’s “Yes” to humanity. The good news is truly unqualified goodness. Wrath, judgment, and condemnation are what God reserves for the evil that keeps people of God, freeing them to enjoy God’s yes.

For Barth, the Bible is God’s authoritative human witness, rather than God speaking and acting, which he has done in Christ alone. It cuts against liberalism as being the authority for faith and life, yet also against conservatives in being only a relative authority to the absolute Word of God in Jesus. Barth would see Jesus as not falling somewhere on our liberal to conservative spectrum but speaking into both from another place. The logic of Barth’s theology is centered on God’s initiative, God’s grace. This cuts both against human effort and limits on who may be a recipient of grace. Does this make Barth a universalist? Boesel would argue yes and no. It is a no to all human ways of salvation but a yes to God’s freedom. Humans can say no but Barth would reserve the freedom of God’s yes over the human no. Perhaps a hopeful universalist?

Does that mean we have no agency? Barth would hold that those bound in sin have no real freedom. Freedom comes in receiving God’s yes and the life lived in response to that yes, to live with gratitude toward God and love toward neighbor. Barth considers the integral bearing of this theology on our ethics, and particularly a progressive ethic. He grounds this in the “last, first” character of Jesus, the divine Word, supporting economic justice, anti-colonialism, gender equality, and upholding the place of LGBTQ persons. On this last, Boesel notes his difference to Barth. He believes Barth grounds sexuality in natural theology to which Barth has elsewhere said “Nein!” and that a “last, first” ethic would uphold LGBTQ expressions of sexuality. In turn, it seems to me that Boesel ignores both Jesus’ “yes” to marriage between man and woman and the imagery of marriage reflecting Christ and the church.

And this goes to my critique of this work. While it does reflect some dominant ideas in Barth, I fear Boesel reads his progressive post-evangelicalism into Barth. Furthermore, he doesn’t offer the reader help in her own reading of Barth but simply gives us his. I thought we might find in this work suggestions for reading Barth, which I think might be valued by those of us who aspire to read more of Barth.

That said, I think some of the most helpful material explored how Barth’s theology may “cut both ways” with our theological and cultural divides. Do we not all need this Word which lays bare the various ways we are captive to sin in all its expressions–liberal, progressive, and conservative, socialist and nationalist alike? Do we not all need to hear the good news of Christ, of how he is God’s “Yes!” to us, the revelation of God’s extravagant love for us?

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher through Speakeasy.… (mehr)

Karl Barth's politics were shaped by his experiences living in Germany during the rise of the Nazi party, and he developed a political theology that emphasized the active engagement of Christians in politics. The author notes Barth's opposition to Nazi ideology and negatively referred to the term "Aryan" in his writings but it was in the context of his opposition to Nazi ideology and his support for the unity of the church in Christ. It is problematic to simply maintain the Barth would agree or view contemporary politics in the same vein as his critique of Nazi ideology. There is no evidence that Karl Barth ever used the term "white" referring to race in his voluminous writings. Karl Barth did refer to gender roles and generally promoted the status of women in his writings, but there is no evidence that he referred to men, males, or the patriarchy as an issue. There is no evidence that Karl Barth referred to property or the propertied classes as an issue in his writings. The German anti-Nazi background of Barth runs counter to the tenor of the political aspect of the author's progressive convictions against `straight, white, privileged, and propertied men.'

Barth's politics are shaped by his early experiences. Students of Karl Barth’s thought will likely know that even as a young parish minister he was known as the “Red Pastor” of Safenwil (p. 35). As a student Barth was shaped in the forge of socialist politics, working as an editorial assistant for Martin Rade’s journal, Die Christliche Welt. Barth held that the church as it ought to be is directed toward the same goals as what socialism wants.

Socialism as the primary political guide of Barth might be integrated as key throughout a review of his theology. From the same publisher as the author of this volume is a standout essay by Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt, who demonstrated that Barth’s radical politics were not a fancy of youth but a touchstone of the way he read the gospel throughout his life (Karl Barth and Radical Politics, Ed. George Hunsinger, Cascade Books, 2017). In fact, the Hunsinger book is listed in the bibliography but the author never discusses Marquardt nor delves deeply into Barth's socialism. Socialism is minimized and peripherally mentioned only in passing early on along with several other influences (p. xvi). The author states that real Christianity and real socialism are similar (p.35) but the caveats and differences are not spelled out explicitly. The author states that Barth broke only with the socialist parties because of his disappointment that socialists rallied to their respective nationalist calls for war but Karl remained anti-capitalist (p. 36).

Oddly, a litany of denunciation is leveled against the author's political enemies but without a hint of engagement in order to strengthen his thesis to cut both ways; he writes specifically to the converted as he states "to a particular reader: the perplexed progressive/post evangelical" (p.xiv). The author's target are "within the conservative white evangelism demographic base of the Republican party and of what has become known as Trumpism [presumably to make it sound the same as fascism or Nazism]--increasingly difficult to stomach" (p. xiv).

The politics of salvation are to be found in "the urgency and necessity of the Black Lives Matter movement and prophetically critical of the idolatry of the Make America Great Again movement" (p. xv). There has been criticism of BLM. The BLM Global Network co-founder and former executive director Patrisse Cullors used donation funds to purchase a $6 million house and put her family on the payroll. There are additional critics of the BLM movement, claiming that it is about "black anarchy" and that organizations like GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).exist to spotlight racism and homophobia so that their executives can make money. It is unclear if the author fully considered organizations that he uncritically acclaims as compatible with his progressive politics; or, in a volume about Barth would he have endorsed progressive American groups existing long after his lifetime.

Self-loathing is a part of the author's task since he remarks about writing with "the hands of white, straight, economically privileged, cis-gendered males like me" (p. xvi) and moreover Barth himself is "wholly inadequate" (p. xvi) compared to leading liberationist writers. From this shaky introduction that undercuts Barth, himself, polemical straw men, and without integrating Barth's socialism throughout his reading of theology, we are initiated into a survey of Barth's theology.

The subtitle implies that Barth's theology cuts both ways against both conservatives and liberals but since the political section is so overloaded on one side there really is no cutting against radical, progressive politics. The confusion is caused by conflating liberal and progressive as if the terms meant the same thing.

Liberalism and progressivism are two political ideologies that are often used interchangeably, but they have some differences. Here are some of the differences between liberalism and progressivism in contemporary American politics:

Liberalism:
Liberalism is a political ideology that emphasizes individual freedom, equality, and the rule of law; Liberals believe in limited government intervention in the economy and society, and they support free markets, civil liberties, and individual rights; Liberals tend to focus on issues such as healthcare, education, and social welfare, and they support policies that promote equality and social justice.

Progressivism:
Progressivism is a political ideology that emphasizes social justice, equality, and the use of government power to promote the common good; Progressives believe that government has a responsibility to address social and economic problems, and they support policies such as universal healthcare, free education, and a living wage; Progressives tend to focus on issues such as income inequality, climate change, and racial justice, and they support policies that promote social and economic justice.

Overall, liberalism and progressivism are two political ideologies that share some similarities but also have some differences. While both ideologies emphasize individual freedom and equality, liberalism tends to focus more on civil liberties and limited government intervention, while progressivism tends to focus more on social justice and the use of government power to promote the common good.

A stronger case could be made to distinguish liberal from progressive politics and also to argue persuasively connecting Barth to contemporary, progressive American politics.

There is little evidence that Barth saw homosexuality in a progressive light and numerous commentators have consider Karl as traditionally conservative on gender issues. Barth believed that homosexuality is a sin against God's primal purpose in creation. In his Church Dogmatics, Vol. III/4 (CD III/4), Barth called homosexuality a "malady." In an article on Religion Online, Barth is quoted as saying that homosexuality is unnatural and violates the command of the Creator. However, in an article published in the Journal of Religion, author David Clough argues that Barth's views on homosexuality were not consistent and that he "slipped unequivocally in the direction of the affirmation of homosexuality." In a chapter of the book Gender and Christian Ethics, author Lisa Sowle Cahill argues that Barth's treatment of gender and homosexuality is deeply unsatisfactory and harmful to women. In a doctoral dissertation on Karl Barth's gender trouble, author Faye Bodley-Dangelo argues that Barth's views on gender and sexuality are patriarchal and heteronormative, and that his ordering of the sexes exposes a systemic structure of domination and submission instantiated in many relationships

The subtitle encapsulates the author's goal of cutting both ways. To this end, the advocacy of liberalism, which is actually progressivism in the volume, is clearly favored and a simple nick since those issues are: "what socio-progressives tend to advocate for" (p. 127); on the other, the mutilation against conservatism is cartoonish.

Another favorite progressive cause is environmental justice and ecological sustainability. On the topic the author argues that his politics fulfills the commandment to love your neighbor. The author has the last word: "It may be that one simply needs to obey the damn commandment: be caretakers, not assholes" (p. 148).… (mehr)