Karl Barth on the Idolatry of Religion

In studies of Karl Barth in the past decades, there has been great concern over his position on world religions. Recent scholars, especially, have tried to interpret Barth's position in light of the traditional threefold typology, namely, 'exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism,' in the discipline of religious studies. They particularly appeal to §17 and §69 of Barth's Church Dogmatics I/2 and IV/3 respectively, for the former paragraph explicitly discusses the problems of religion, whereas the latter paragraph seems to show an open minded understanding of world religions as a way of divine communication. The scholarly interpretations of these two paragraphs become problematic because of the isolation of them from their immediate literary contexts. As a result, Barth's theological agenda of the two paragraphs is ignored, and subsequently, the validity for using the threefold typology to interpret Barth's theology of religion should also be called into question. The purpose of this study is therefore to reexamine the two paragraphs in the wider literary contexts, in order to situate the two paragraphs in Barth's original theological agenda in the Church Dogmatics I/2 and IV/3, so as to determine whether the threefold typology is applicable to Barth's theology of religion in these particular texts and to examine in what ways we can bring the text into an interdisciplinary dialogue with religious studies without violating his originally theological agenda.

2007

Christianity reproached heathenism for idolatry, Protestantism reproached Catholicism, or early Christianity, for idolatry, and Rationalism now reproaches Protestantism, at least the older orthodox Protestantism, for idolatry, because it worships a man as God, and therefore an image of God—for that is what man is—in place of the original, in place of real being.

2016

This dissertation analyses and critically evaluates an aspect of Karl Barth’s thought, the understanding of which is important to a broader understanding of Barth, his relationship to other (especially iconoclastic) thinkers, and his relevance for contemporary theology: his understanding and critique of idolatry and the idol. Chapter 2 argues that it was revelation which both drove Barth’s idolatry-critique and determined his concepts of idolatry and the idol. It analyses Bath’s idolatry-critique as it was levelled against natural theology, and offers an evaluation of the picture of Barth’s thought which emerges. Chapter 3 analyses Barth’s idolatry-critique in relation to the doctrine of God. Directives which, for Barth, had to be adhered to within the development of the doctrine of God for the avoidance of idolatry, are discussed. Finally, an evaluation and critique of Barth’s critique of idolatry within the doctrine of God, and of his own adherence to these directives, is offered....

Theological Studies/Teologiese Studies, 2007

The First Commandment played an important role in the theology of Karl Barth. His personal obedience to this commandment contributed to his realization that one cannot be comfortable with the Liberal theology of the early twentieth century and accept the theological thinking that supported National Socialism. The First Commandment opened his eyes to see the idols, worldviews, ideologies and evil of his lifetime. The First Commandment is always in the background of his theology that concentrates on God's revelation in Jesus Christ. Only two of his lectures specifically concentrated on the First Commandment, only one of which was published. Barth, understood the First Commandment as an axiom of theology. It is self-evident; a cornerstone and critical guideline for any theology that is built upon the biblical message. The article argues that if this aspect of Barth's theology received attention in the Nederduitsch Hervormde Church, we would most probably have been saved from the conflicts concerning the ideology of apartheid and the "people's church".

The Journal of Religion, 2008

Although he criticized Barth under the enigmatic phrase "positivism of revelation," 1 Bonhoeffer saw Barth's criticism of religion as "his really great merit." 2 In the present age in which inter-faith dialogue has become more pressing than it has perhaps ever before been, theology can at times engage in two conversations that are not only separate but at worst self-contradictory: in its discussions with secular society, theology can engage in critical discussions about religion, drinking deeply from the well of criticism offered by the likes of Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Durkheim, and Marx; 3 yet, in its discussions in inter-faith settings, the danger can arise that these critiques are thrown out altogether or at least lie in abeyance. If we are truly to realize the potential Bonhoeffer glimpsed in Barth's critique of religion, it is my contention that we must not leave this important piece of theology aside as we enter dialogue with members of other faith communities. 4 Moreover, to engage in two sep-* An earlier version of this article was presented at the Senior Systematics Seminars of Cambridge University and King's College, London. Thanks must be expressed to the participants in these seminars for their critiques and helpful questioning. Thanks must also be given to David Ford, Garrett Green, Paul Nimmo, and (especially) the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggested revisions. Without them, the article would have been much the poorer.

In this examination of Barth I have deliberately focussed on his more accessible shorter works, drawing on some of his early as well as his later works. The major themes in Dogmatics are dealt with in these shorter and seemingly more accessible works and enable the reader to get to grips with the core themes of Barth’s work in a more manageable format. The key themes of Barth’s thought that I want to examine are Revelation, Incarnation, Church and Community, and his own understanding of these within the place and function of theology. I want to examine the content of these themes and also place them within Barth’s own context to see how the context informed the theology and vice versa. I then want to examine Barth’s understanding of these themes with reference to their possible applications for the mission of the church in our own context.

On the basis of a simplistic theological misdiagnosis of an historical problem, Barth maintains a philosophically problematic, unbiblical, and ultimately idolatrous conception of the relation between God and humanity.

Peter Lang Verlag, 2022

Die vorliegende Arbeit möchte zeigen, wie Karl Barth in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit dem Religionsbegriff zu den Thesen ‚Religion als Unglaube‘ und ‚die christliche Religion als die einzig wirkliche und wahre Religion‘ in der Kirchlichen Dogmatik (KD) §17 – Gottes Offenbarung als Aufhebung der Religion –gelangt. Sie beschäftigt sich mit Barths Äußerungen zum Verhältnis von Religion und Wahrheit im Zeitraum von 1909 bis 1938 und richtet sich auf die konstruktive Rolle von ‚Religion‘ und damit auf die Frage, welche argumentative Rolle und Funktion Barth dem Religionsbegriff zuweist. Darüber hinaus könnte die konstruktive Rolle von ‚Religion‘ in Barths Theologie der zeitgenössischen Religionswissenschaft eine neue Perspektive eröffnen

Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans

The focus of this essayisBarth'srelentless critique of an individualized faith as seen duringhis Römerbrief period. His unwillingness to talk of faith only on epistemologicalg rounds reveals the seeming ambiguity and dialectical nuance of his position. Developing ap sychologized, conscious faith was rejected by Barthi nf avor of an objectively conceivedr eality of faith. It will be argued that faith'sp erception can be understood as an imperceptible reality basedi n God'so ntologicallyo bjective being.T oi nvestigate and support this claim, how Barth understands faith in both editions of his Römerbrief will be analyzed. The essayc oncludes by reflecting on the current relevanceo fB arth'su nderstanding. 1I ntroduction Karl Barth'slifelong attempt at alleviating anyform of psychologizingthe Christian faith is no secret.I ti sn ot that Barth sought some form of anti-intellectualism, quite the opposite. Human control and manipulation of the content of the Christian faith was understood by Barth to be one way18 th and 19 th century philosophyand theologyfailed to provide an objective lens through which to engage culturalaffairs,thus succumbingtobeing "pious spoke(s)men of the powers that be."¹ Moreover,a dhering to af orm of Christian faith thatt akes up residence in human consciousness wreaks havoco nt he human'si nability to evade an individualized religion and areligious individualization.² The understanding of faith  TimothyJ .Gorringe, Karl Barth Against Hegemony (Oxford: OxfordU niversity Press, 1999), 3.  BruceMcCormack claims the common threadunitingthe four main loci of Barth'sattention in Romans Iisindividualism. Barth'sresponse was "fundamentallyanti-bourgeois […]instressing that God and the knowledge of God arenever the securepossession of human beings,Barth was at the same time attackingareligion which had assimilated itself to the needs of idealistically construed cultural development; areligion which prided itself on beingthe animatingprinciple for that development.H ew as attackingareligion which provided bourgeois culture with perhapsi ts most crucial ideological support." Karl Barth'sC ritically Realistic DialecticalT heology (Oxford: OxfordU niversity Press, 1997), 141. OpenAccess. ©2 022C hristophe Chalamet, Andreas Dettwiler and Sarah Stewart-Kroeker,p ublished by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsA ttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Dogmatics after Barth. Facing Challenges in Church, Society and the Academy, ed. G. Thomas/R. H. Reeling Brouwer/B. McCormack, 2012