Karl Barth: Friend or Foe?

For those who do not know him, Karl Barth is a Christian theologian out of the Swiss Reformed tradition who is widely considered the "theologian of the twentieth century." I have, in many respects, a love-hate relationship with his theology, not with him personally (contrary to what many of my peers think). As a person in the Wesleyan tradition, this is evident in the theological differences between the two traditions. I won't go into detail. They should be self-evident to those who continually read my blog.

It might seem strange then that I decided to go to Princeton Theological Seminary, considering that it has a Center for Barth Studies and is the main center for Barthian theology in the states. Basically, I walked into a theological mouse trap here at Princeton. But I endure it nonetheless since I believe PTS to be one of the top seminaries in the country (more on that later--I feel called to write a post that deals extensively with the reason I chose Princeton Theological Seminary to do my graduate work).

Every once in awhile, however, Barth catches me off guard and I learn to appreciate him. He is incredibly smart, after all. This time around I was reading his Dogmatics in Outline and found myself admiring the guy. I chose to read this book because, of all the books he has written, it is perhaps the shortest.

What he had to say about the ridiculous notion that people need 'proofs' of God's existence in order to believe in Him is illuminating. He notes that, "in the whole Bible of the Old and New Testaments not the slightest attempt is ever made to prove God." At first, I kinda chuckled, thinking that was a little off base. But really, upon further consideration, it is true. Barth further explains, "the Bible speaks of God simply as of One who needs no proof." This is quite good stuff, indeed. I like where you are going Barth.

Think about it: As humans, our obsession is to prove to the world, and ultimately to ourselves, that God exists. There is comfort in knowing that we can, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be certain of God. But the Bible does not presume such a notion of God. Of course, it assumes that God exists, but it does not offer historical, cosmological or scientific proofs of God's existence. God proves Himself to us by revealing Himself in Jesus Christ. This is beyond any scientific verification. It simply stands as God's revelation to us.

No argument via Intelligent Design can prove God exists. It might lead one to believe that Something created the universe, but not that this God chose to come to earth as a human. The Bible affirms that God is unprovable, unsearchable and inconceivable. God defies human comprehesion.

The attempt to prove God's existence only proves our inability to accept the revelation of Christ. Sure, it would be nice to be absolutely sure that God exists in terms of historical and scientific verification. But that makes God an object, not a subject. We would rather have God as an object because, for us, subjects are too elusive. Relationships are very fragile and this is why we would rather treat relationships as objects. We can control an object, not a subject.

God will always remain above our attempts to comprehend Him, which is a form of control (for instance, when we read a book we seek to comprehend its contents in order to control it for our own intellectual use). Simply put, God defies speculation.

To accept the revelation of Christ, is to bear the burden of the cross, which means to obey God by completely trusting in Him without certainty. Very illuminating, indeed.

So, I thank you, Karl Barth, for articulating the central truth of Christianity--the revelation of Christ. And I thank you for proving to me that there is value in your theology.

I look forward to many more encounters like this one.