Karl Barth’s Criticism of Religion: What Might This Mean For Us Today?
Part 5: A Critical Appraisal of Barth’s Criticism of Religion
Context
Karl Barth (1886-1968) had a passion for theology because he had first of all a passion for God. The aftermath of ‘the black day’ of August 1914 began Barth’s radical re-evaluation of his old liberal theological position. It marked his own serious search for God. Retracing his steps to Luther and Calvin, Barth rediscovered the sovereignty and centrality of God as revealed in the Bible. But more than this, Barth’s discovery was also of the joyful stress on life in God as a gift made possible for people of all ages and which overcomes human depravity, and negates all human pride.
These stresses on affirmation and negation were a particular hallmark of Barth’s creative and prodigiously productive theological career. Most relevant to our concern in this 5-Part substack series has been the impact of “God in God’s revelation” and of “God’s grace” on Barth’s theological criticism of religion. In “religion” Barth understood humanity in its greatest and most vulnerable before God. And it is because God in God’s revelation as “God in the world of human religions” that Barth is more ambiguous in his theological treatment of religion than many of his critics will allow.
The scope of Parts 1 to 4 in this 5-Part substack series has been a limited one which could not take into its orbit the variety of important questions which usually beg for attention when the topic of religion is addressed. Rather, our essential aim has been to explore, examine, and analyse aspects of Barth’s own criticism of religion against those who reject Barth’s criticism as exclusively negative. Our central contention in this series of essays has been to demonstrate that Barth’s positive evaluation of religion is as strong.
Properly interpreted, the dialectic in Barth’s early theology in Romans (Der Romerbrief, 1919, 1922) must be seen as persisting in this theological focus on religion throughout his Church Dogmatics and other writings, even if in varying degrees of intensity. However, beyond the negative and the positive in Barth’s criticism of religion, and for all the numerous inadequacies and limitations for our contemporary world, what is of outstanding significance is its liberatory quality.
First time readers of this series of essays on Karl Barth’s criticism of religion are invited to make time to read Parts 1 – 4 before venturing into Part 5. Here are all the links:
Part 1 locates Barth’s criticism of religion in brief socio-historical context.
Go to: https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/karl-barths-criticism-of-religion
Part 2 describes Barth’s own theological approach to and criticism of religion.
Go to: https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/karl-barths-criticism-of-religion-0b1
Part 3 examines Barth’s negative criticism of religion.
Go to: https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/karl-barths-criticism-of-religion-c13
Part 4 of our ongoing series, we now move on to examine Barth’s positive criticism of religion.
Go to: https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/karl-barths-criticism-of-religion-07e
Our final essay (Part 5), offers a critical appraisal of Barth’s criticism of religion where we briefly engage in conversation with some key elements discussed in Parts 1 to 4. In particular, we identify the liberatory significance of Barth’s perspective for our world contexts today.
Note: The substance for this 5-Part series of essays derives originally from a Term Paper I wrote in June 1989 as part of a Master of Arts (MA) first semester course completed at the University of Cape Town (UCT). The course was entitled: Christian Theology: The Enlightenment to the Present. Some content has been amended for publication here.
My contention in these series of essays, as elsewhere in my essays on Barth, has been to demonstrate that the theological criticism of this 20th century theologian warrants fresh re-interpretation and re-application in our 21st century times confronted as we are by (too much) liberal and conservative thought and systems (theological, cultural, political, economic, ecclesiastical, educational, medical, and more) which show themselves to be captive to and co-opted (too easily) by the Globalist ideologies which serve anti-God, anti-human agendas.
Introduction
In Parts 1 and 2, we insisted that Barth’s criticism of religion needed to be understood within the broader socio-historical context of the 18th and 19th century theologies, and the outworking of these within early 20th century Europe. Vital to appreciate is that Barth did not intend his criticism of religion to be interpreted as a definitive theological criticism of religion valid for all ages. Even in his preface to the 6th English edition of his very early and critical commentaries on Romans (Der Romerbrief, 1919 and 1921 respectively) that appeared in 1933, Barth stressed that in these he had not attempted to “set out to compose a free fantasia upon the theme of religion, nor to evolve a philosophy of it. (His) sole aim was to interpret Scripture” (Barth 1933:ix). Yet he accepted that in Romans his own scriptural interpretation was “open to criticism” (ibid.).
Since Barth’s definition and criticism of religion derive so strongly from what he accepted in such biblical themes as revelation and faith, it is necessary now to critically appraise Barth’s own criticism of religion. We attempt to do so on just two levels. Firstly, we undertake a brief, yet critical evaluation of Barth’s own scriptural understanding of revelation. How valid a criterion is it for an evaluation of religion? Secondly, and more importantly for our purposes, we assess the liberatory quality and potential for Barth’s criticism of religion. Here I bring Barth’s own wrestling with specific theological and political concerns in Nazi Germany into dialogue with similar concerns which were confronted within Apartheid South Africa (my own context), especially in the late 1980s. I also suggest the importance and pertinence of Barth’s criticisms for our own 21st century world contexts.
1. Barth’s concept of revelation: a valid criterion for an evaluation of religion?
The centre of Barths’ interpretation of Scripture (Old and New Testaments) and the basis for his theological criticism of religion is clearly derived from his understanding of revelation (see note 1). This understanding repudiates any acceptance of ‘general’ or ‘original’ revelation being in any way the revelation of God. Barth’s is a strong criticism of all religion ever laying claim to a possession of revelation in itself (Note 2).
However, the critical question arises: “Is the concept of revelation in the theology of Karl Barth either meaningful outside his own structure, or biblical?” (cf. Veitch 1971:21-22).
The late Scottish biblical scholar, James Barr (1924-2006) understands Barth’s concept of revelation as introducing “a damaging contradiction” (1982:90), and as such is “extremely fateful” (ibid.:91). This is especially so because Barth “does not provide a preliminary exegetical establishment of what might, on grounds of biblical evidence, form the contours of the concept of revelation” (ibid.). Barr finds “several particular problems” with Barth’s revelation-centred theology connected as it is “with a close use of the Bible” (ibid.:92).
Only those problems pertinent to the debate with Barth’s criticism of religion will be mentioned in this essay.
While acknowledging the great value of Barth’s concept of “a justified sinner” (Barr 1982:95; cf. Barth 1939:325), Barr asks: “Why should we not say that the Bible is the expression of a justified-sinful religion, and that it is just this justified-sinful religion that has produced the Bible as its expression” (Barr 1982: 95).
What Barr is stressing is that Barth’s criticism of religion, even of Biblical religion, is made on the basis of an apriori theological interpretation of ‘revelation’ which is not necessarily derived from the Bible. Furthermore, Barr states, “The passages which Barth cites as biblical material for his concept of ‘religion’…appear to be cases chosen to represent a sort of momentary look by the Bible at religion ‘in itself.’ But it is only the fact of the revelation-religion distinction that makes one anxious about the questions of religion ‘in itself’” (ibid.). The theological bias of Barth is decidedly “in favour of biblical religion against extra-biblical Christianity and other religion” (ibid.).
Before proceeding, we do well to clarify and understand Barr’s own bias. Barr states: “we hope to give more positive place to the history of religion and also to the place of historical-criticism as a discriminating element in theological interpretation” (1982:102). In this, Barr fails to appreciate, seriously enough, the necessary bias of Barth’s own theological criticism of religion within his social-historical context.
This said, Barr is somewhat justified in alluding to a hint of ‘imperialism’ in Barth’s stress on “biblical religion” in this theological interpretation of what “true” religion and “false” religion is. The real thrust of Barr’s critique is that Barth’s dialectic between Revelation and religion aligns the Bible within the revelation concept in such a way that “it becomes impossible to value the Bible positively while placing it on the religion side of the revelation-religion distinction” (ibid.:95-96).
Barr’s appeal for a greater critical appreciation of the history of religion, and especially the importance of this for a better interpretation of the religion of Israel in the Old Testament is pertinent to the debate on any theological criticism of religion (see Note 3). Barr feels that Barth reflects an “embarrassment with historical criticism” (ibid.:92) which leads to Barth’s underplaying and even ignoring the challenges from the history of religions school, especially with regard to the Old Testament. Barr acknowledges Barth’s insistence on “the legitimacy of historical criticism” (ibid. see Note 4). But he argues that Barth does not apply the historical-critical theory sufficiently “as a central discriminating element in the choosing between one possible theological meaning and another” (ibid.). What results is that Barth’s concept of revelation becomes the determiner of what is theologically valid exegesis and what is not. Yet ‘revelation’ is understood as simultaneously synonymous with the Bible and also distinguishable from it. The effect is the negative one, in Barr’s estimate. It makes “biblical interpretation…into a blurred patterning of those biblical aspects which would admit conformity to a revelational viewpoint” (ibid.94), while not taking account of the historical and linguistic form of the biblical text. For example, a revelation paradigm does not take seriously enough the origins of the biblical faith of Israel. It too quickly suggests “that the initiating element is an act done by God unilaterally, from which the biblical response derives” (ibid.:92). Barr maintains that these “origins,” however, can be traced, not to a ‘special act of God,’ but to the Near Eastern environment in which the Israelite faith was formed and where it developed its own discernible character, “In this sense…religion came before revelation and provided concepts within which revelation had meaning” (ibid.:99).
Certainly, the questions which Barr raises in relation to Israelite faith are relevant to any critical understanding of other living faiths. Barr throws the spotlight on the revelation-religion debate, and suggests, in the context of religious pluralism, that special revelation as an act of God from outside history cannot be assumed uncritically or accepted too hastily as an apriori determiner of what “true religion” is. This is not to suggest a canonisation of cultural or religious factors over against that of ‘special revelation.’ Rather, we are reminded that a closer interrelationship exists between religion and revelation than a revelation model like Barth’s seems to allow (cf. Hertzog 1956:330); Kraemer 1956a:120-121; Kraemer 1956b:191-196).
2. A liberatory dimension of Barth’s criticism of religion
We begin our discussion here with an observation from a contemporary of Karl Barth, the Dutch missionary, linguist, and scholar of religion, Henrik Kraemer (1888-1965).
Photo: Hendrik Kraemer
Among Kraemer’s reservations on Barth’s theological criticism of religion is that “it becomes oppressive” and even “inhuman” (Kraemer 1956b:192). These judgements are made despite Kraemer’s appreciation of Barth’s legitimate concern to “demolish radically all modern relativism and the hybris of modern humanism in its many forms” (ibid.).
A major criticism of Barth’s theological approach to religion inter alia at this point seems to be that it is not liberatory, or is not liberatory enough. This criticism maintains that Barth’s insistence on the freedom of God in revelation, often quite independent of the historical, cultural, philosophical and ideological factors of influence on religion, especially the Christian religion, develops into a counterrevolutionary theology. Barth seems to fail “to deliver the necessary liberating thrust in a concrete situation of oppression” (Villa Vicencio 1988a: 52). Such a criticism appears valid, given that Barth’s own theology is itself often captive to bourgeois Christian faith and understanding, especially in his evaluation of other religions. This is so despite Barth’s attempts, with a like passion to Marx, to remonstrate vehemently against bourgeois trends in liberal theology.
All this said, however, we must as strongly observe that limited as Barth’s criticism of religion may be in terms of a greater historical-critical analysis of biblical religion (cf. Barr), or oppressive as it may end up being for understanding the issues raised by Christianity within a world of religious pluralism (cf. Kraemer; see Note 5), its liberatory thrust cannot be denied. Nor should it be missed!
As stated before in this series of essays, Barth had been profoundly convinced of the legitimacy of the materialist criticism of religion, especially in view of the cultural and ideological captivity of liberal theology to German Nationalism in the early 20th century (cf. Part 2.1). An essential concern of Barth’s criticism was precisely “to rescue the truth of God from its captivity to ideological suspicion” (Petersen 1988:65). Barth’s understanding of the Aufhebung of religion has, therefore, not only a negative and positive meaning, but also a liberatory dimension.
Barth’s theological insistence that “man’s relation to God is in every respect, in principle, an irreversible relation” (ibid.) leads also to a fresh and liberatory emphasis on “the reality and relevance of God” (ibid.) in contexts where dominant ideology and theology hold sway and blurs the fact of God who is against oppression and for the oppressed.
Barth’s Christological centre in his theology reflects the God who has revealed Himself as a God committed to humanity. This is especially seen in Barth’s rediscovery of the ‘two natures’ doctrine, according to which God and human beings are held together in inseparable unity” (ibid.). But more significantly, the God revealed in the poor man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ, means good new especially to all the poor and oppressed. This has profound theological and political implications for an understanding of God in terms of society and Christian praxis in a way that breaks free from any dominant religion (or irreligion).
Barth’s theological criticism of the kind of religion that was promoted by German Nationalism and Nazi ideology, and the political implications of this criticism, have been widely discussed and engaged with (see Note 6). More relevant to the South African context are the remarks of Professor Jaap Durand (1934-2022), an Afrikaner theologian who broke with dominant Afrikaner ideology and demonstrated his solidarity with anti-Apartheid activism (Durand 1985: 40; cf. 1988:121-137).
Durand implies that had the liberatory stress of Barth’s criticism of religion and natural theology been understood and applied to Kuperian theology, then Afrikaner civil religion might well have been thwarted in its formative years (1930-1960).
The radical Christology of Barth in contrast to that of Kuyper’s (especially in the form it was appropriated by mainstream Afrikaner theologians) brings all civil religion under the judgment of the ‘revelation of God’ declared in Jesus Christ, the Lord, “the King of God’s kingdom and the Kingdoms of the Earth” (Durand 1988:129). Kuyper’s Christology and Cosmology permitted a Lutheran ‘two kingdoms’ theology which gave theological impetus to the ideology of Apartheid which characterised Afrikaner civil religion (ibid.126-128). Barth’s Christology, by sharp contrast, brings the totality of humanity and the world under the salvific act of God in Jesus Christ and challenges the Christian community to engage prophetically with the totality of state and society, especially when each becomes oppressive (ibid. 128-130).
In contrast to Marx who may have underestimated or even ignored the liberatory thrust of religion in his primary focus on dominant religion represented in Lutheran Protestantism in Germany at the time, Barth declares that in the “true religion” demonstrated by the act of God in Jesus Christ we see a revolution centred in and controlled by God who “brings something really new, something which actually transforms the existing order from the ground up” (Jungel 1986:102).
In South Africa, still controlled at the time by an Apartheid ideology which greatly shaped and influenced so much of Christian theology and praxis, this theology of revolution advocated by Barth came to have abiding liberatory significance. The god of the State or the god of domination in the Christian religion and indeed in all religion, needed to be rejected as a ‘false god,’ an idol who is an enemy of the God revealed in Jesus Christ and the enemy of humanity, especially the poor and oppressed.
The State in its oppression of the people makes use again and again of the name of God. Military chaplains use it to encourage the South African Defence Force, police chaplains use it to strengthen policemen and cabinet ministers to use it in their propaganda speeches. But perhaps the most revealing of all is the blasphemous use of God’s holy name in the preamble to the new apartheid constitution: “In humble submission to Almighty God, who controls the destinies of nations and the history of peoples who gathered our forebears together from many lands and gave them this their own; who has guided them from generation to generation; who has wondrously delivered them from the dangers that beset them.” This god is an idol. It is as mischievous, sinister and evil as any of the idols that the prophets of Israel had to contend with. Here we have a god who is historically on the side of the white settlers, who dispossessed black people of their land and who gives the major part of the land to his “chosen people.”
…As Christians we simply cannot tolerate this blasphemous use of God’s name and God’s Word. ‘State Theology’ is not only heretical, it is blasphemous…What is particularly tragic for a Christian is to see the number of people who are fooled and confused by these false prophets and their heretical theology.
Source: The Kairos Document: Challenge to the Churches, pp.7-8.
Barth insists that God can never be akin to “power in itself” (1949:47) as this was evidenced in Hitlerism in the 1930s, and which became typical of Christian Nationalism during the Apartheid era in South Africa. For Barth, “where poser in itself” is honoured and worshipped, where it wishes to impose law, then we are dealing with the “revolution of nihilism” (ibid.48) rather that the revolution of God. But “God says NO to this revolution of nihilism” (ibid.).
Barth’s criticism of religion has liberatory significance in any religious basis for social action. Even in his search for a theological basis for social action (cf. Villa Vicencio ed. 1988:147-151), Barth remained deeply conscious of the permanent nature of God’s revolution. The God revealed in Jesus Christ is never under the control of the ruling class nor the God absolutely connected with the political struggles of the oppressed. Besides his stress here on the freedom of God, Barth also provides an eschatological basis of critique of all religious support which may presume to be given unconditionally to revolutionary struggle, whether in South Africa or anywhere else. In a particular sense, the criticism of Barth against the more ethical Christology which characterised liberal theology in his own context becomes as relevant for any brand of theology (liberation theology and otherwise) in South Africa and elsewhere which neglects its responsibility ‘to critically reflect on its own praxis.’ Therefore, Villa Vicencio’s observation regarding Barth has particular import:
In his context, [Barth’s] deabsolutizing of the revolution and his relativizing of impetuous activism are shaped by his commitment to ensure that all political action remains human, in what is all too often a dehumanizing struggle (1988:56).
And so, Barth’s stress on orthopraxis rooted in God is the persistent challenge to all human praxis. It is also the joyous declaration that the praxis of God has become a human reality and possibility in Jesus Christ and contains within it the means of the complete liberation of humanity and the world.
And perhaps, this Barthian challenge is even more pertinent now in our 21st century struggles for the liberation of humanity and world against the anti-God and anti-human systems and forces of Globalist totalitarianism and tyranny.
Final Conclusion (Parts 1 -5)
Karl Barth did not always demonstrate sufficient empathy as he might have done for the boldness of the 18th and 19th century religious traditions within its own socio-historical context of modernism and secularism. Nineteenth century theology and religion had been prepared to make new starts, to ask radical questions, and to confront pressing challenges of the age. It had also attempted to express the Christian religion contextually, that is, in intelligible ways to the modern mind.
Yet, for all the deficiencies in Barth’s criticism of this “religion,” his verdict remains a sober and striking one. He recognised that the dominant religion of the 19th century and early 20th century was far more the defence of bourgeois European culture and civilisation than the defence of a ‘biblical Christianity’ or of ‘religion’ in the interests of human liberation, especially the liberation of the poor and oppressed. Barth understood better than most Christian theologians of his day, the validity of the materialist criticism of religion which 19th and early 20th century religion had merely served to confirm, rather than overcome.
Our 5-Part series of essays have explored, analysed, and assessed Barth’s criticism of religion primarily within its own socio-historical context and within the framework of his own revelation-centred paradigm. We have attempted to uncover something of the nature of Barth’s criticism which can be applied as a theological challenge to all religions. The dialectic in Barth’s evaluation of religion, in its appreciation of both the negative and positive dimensions of religion, refutes the testimony of those who would see in Barth an exclusively negative criticism. His desire to unite divine judgement and divine grace his criticism of religion, especially from the basis of God’s supreme revelation in Jesus Christ, is particularly helpful for interpreting theologically the positive and negative sides of religion. More especially, the liberatory dimension of Barth’s criticism is impressive once we see that Jesus Christ who expresses the being and act, the divine and human unity of God has declared a God for us, for all humanity.
The ‘revolution of God’ brings about the transformation, not only of religion, but also of the whole of human existence. Barth understands this revolution to be more revolutionary than any Marxist revolutionary theory and praxis. But the challenge which Barth directs specifically to Christians in a world of religious pluralism (emphasised today perhaps more seriously than in Barth’s own context) is that we should succumb to neither arrogance nor despair. Rather, we who call ourselves Christian and followers of Jesus Christ are called to unite our lives, in both belief and praxis, with the world of humanity, and more particularly with the poor, oppressed, and most vulnerable among us. .This is because Jesus Christ, in his 1st century Palestinian context, identified with the marginalised and dominated in his own life and ministry. And Jesus’ challenge is as strongly directed to any context where the matter of religion has an explicit or implicit socio-political character.
In the 21st century, religion, even the Christian religion, continues to be appropriated, and even co-opted and captured, to legitimate one or other socio-political reality. So Barth reminds us, in the midst of these conflicting realities, that within the scope of the permanent ‘revolution of God’, religion can and must become truly liberatory and transformational. Only then will religion, will the Christian Church, ever hope to be free from the Feuerbachian and Marxist criticism of religion. Only then will we present to our world a God who is more than human projection or human illusion. But never before then.
Our searching as well as our mistaking the way, our standing as well as our feeling, our remembering as well as our forgetting, our Yes as well as our No, is compassed about and upheld by him. He knoweth our frame; he remembreth that we are dust. We are known before we know. This is saying neither too much nor too little. And this is certainly the ultimate Biblical vista (Barth 1957: 95-96).
Notes
1. Barth’s understanding of ‘revelation’ is alluded to in Part 2.2
2. Cf. Part 3.2
3. Barr’s arguments should be understood in their entirety (1982:88-102). I have only selected what is more crucial in Barr’s argument against Barth at this point.
4. I address this more fully in my unpublished B.A. Honours Term paper: R Arendse (1988), “Barth’s understanding of the Bible,” pp.12-15, 28-30).
5. This essay has deliberately omitted a discussion on such ecumenical concerns as inter-faith dialogue which has gained particular attention in many contexts, including South Africa, notably in relation to socio-political struggle. However, the liberatory dimension of Barth’s theological criticism (cf. Part 5.2) is relevant to the debate.
6. In this essay, we draw particularly on relevant content in C. Villa Vicencio (ed.) 1988, On Reading Karl Barth in South Africa.
Reflection and Journalling Exercise
What are the main arguments presented in Part 5 for the liberatory dimension in Barth’s criticism of religion?
How significant is this liberatory quality in Barth’s theology for our own 21st century contexts?
What questions do you still have after reading this 5-Part series, and where will you find the answers?
References
Books
Barr, J. 1982. Old and New in Interpretation – A Study of the Two Testaments. London: SCM Press
Barth, K. 1933. The Epistle to the Romans, tr. from the 6th edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: OUP
Barth, K. 1939. Church Dogmatics I.2, ‘The Doctrine of the Word of God,’ ed. G. Bromiley and T. Torrance, tr. G.B.Bromiley, 1975. Edinburgh: T& T Clark
Barth, K. 1949. Dogmatics in Outline. London: SCM Press
Barth, K. 1957. The Word of God And The Word of Man, tr. with a foreword by Douglas Horton. New York: Harper & Row Publishers
Durand, J. 1985. “Afrikaner piety and dissent.” In C. Villa Vicencio and J.W. de Gruchy (ed,), Resistance and Hope. South Africa: David Philip
Durand, J. 1988. “Church and State in South Africa.” In C. Villa Vicencios (ed.) On Reading Karl Barth in South Africa. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing
Jungel, E. 1986. Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, tr. by G.E. Paul. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press
Kraemer, H. 1956a. The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, 3rd ed., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications
Kraemer, H. 1956b. Religion and Christian Faith. London: Lutterworth Press
Petersen, R. 1988. “Theology and Socialism.” In C. Villa Vicencio (ed.) On Reading Karl Barth in South Africa. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing
Villa Vicencio, C. 1988. “Karl Barth’s ‘Revolution of God’: Quietism or Anarchy? In C. Villa Vicencio (ed.) On Reading Karl Barth in South Africa. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing
Journals and Documents
Hertzog, F.L. 1956. “Theologian of the Word of God.” In Theology Today, Vol. XIII, No. 3, pp 315-331.
Veitch, J.A. 1971. “Revelation and Religion in the theology of Karl Barth.” In SJT, Vol. 24, pp.1-22
1986. The Kairos Document – A Challenge to the Church. A Theological Comment on the Political Crisis in South Africa, revised 2nd ed. Johannesburg: Skotaville Publishers
Additional substacks on Karl Barth
Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom in the Face of Fascism: Explorations in Barth’s Neo-orthodoxy and the Revolution of God
https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/karl-barth-theologian-of-freedom
Liberating dimensions of Church-State relations during Third Reich Fascism: Explorations in the theologies of Karl Barth and Diedrich Bonhoeffer
https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/liberating-dimensions-of-church-state
Karl Barth – Talk About God and Church Proclamation: Critical explorations in Barth’s treatment of Church Proclamation as the material of Church Dogmatics
https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/karl-barth-talk-about-god-and-church
Karl Barth – The Supreme Self-Unveiling of the Unknown God: Explorations in Barth’s Christological emphasis on the Revelation of God in Jesus Christ
https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/karl-barth-the-supreme-self-unveiling
Joy To The World - Jesus Christ is Risen!: Resurrection reminiscences
https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/joy-to-the-world-jesus-christ-is
Karl Barth: God The Holy Spirit - Pentecost Day Explorations in Barth’s Teaching on the Holy Spirit
https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/karl-barth-god-the-holy-spirit
Thank you for making time to read this series of 5 essays on Karl Barth’s criticism of religion. My hope is that you make time to familiarise yourself with other content in the works of this prodigious and important theologian of the 20th century. We do well to reappraise Barth’s theological (and political) significance for our own times, confronted as we are by rising tides of Global fascism and Transhumanist Technocracy, with its luciferian lust for ‘power over’ God, creation, faith, and humanity.
Kindly consider sharing these essays with any interested readers in your networks.
Blessings!