Theology of Karl Barth

by Hans Urs von Balthasar

Written in 1951 (with a second edition in 1961), this book takes its place within an impressive array of attempts to wrestle with Karl Barth's theology from a Catholic point of view. The book adopts the twofold strategy of presenting an exposition of "the whole of Barth's thought," while doing so for the purpose of a confessional dialogue among theologians. Not to be construed as an "Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth, Balthasar's effort is to provide a Catholic response which, though not "official", nonetheless seeks to express a common direction and movement within Catholicism. The Theology of Karl Barth shows how a rethinking of basic issues in fundamental theology—concerning the relation of nature and grace, philosophy and theology, the "analogy of being" and the "analogy of faith"—might lead to a rapprochement between the two great rivers of Christianity, without compromising the center of gravity of either. In the process the book makes a major contribution to renewed understanding of Christianity in a secularized modern world. Co-published with Communio Books. "No one should think he can quickly dispose of questions posed here offhandedly. It was precisely because writers were in the habit during the time of the Reformation of theologizing with a hammer that the split in the Church became irreparable. And to work at overcoming this split means much effort. Only the patient need apply."
— Hans Urs von Balthasar

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christianity

444 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1951

About the author

Hans Urs von Balthasar was a Swiss theologian and priest who was nominated to be a cardinal of the Catholic Church. He is considered one of the most important theologians of the 20th century.

Born in Lucerne, Switzerland on 12 August 1905, he attended Stella Matutina (Jesuit school) in Feldkirch, Austria. He studied in Vienna, Berlin and Zurich, gaining a doctorate in German literature. He joined the Jesuits in 1929, and was ordained in 1936. He worked in Basel as a student chaplain. In 1950 he left the Jesuit order, feeling that God had called him to found a Secular Institute, a lay form of consecrated life that sought to work for the sanctification of the world especially from within. He joined the diocese of Chur. From the low point of being banned from teaching, his reputation eventually rose to the extent that John Paul II asked him to be a cardinal in 1988. However he died in his home in Basel on 26 June 1988, two days before the ceremony. Balthasar was interred in the Hofkirche cemetery in Lucern.

Along with Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan, Balthasar sought to offer an intellectual, faithful response to Western modernism. While Rahner offered a progressive, accommodating position on modernity and Lonergan worked out a philosophy of history that sought to critically appropriate modernity, Balthasar resisted the reductionism and human focus of modernity, wanting Christianity to challenge modern sensibilities.

Balthasar is very eclectic in his approach, sources, and interests and remains difficult to categorize. An example of his eclecticism was his long study and conversation with the influential Reformed Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, of whose work he wrote the first Catholic analysis and response. Although Balthasar's major points of analysis on Karl Barth's work have been disputed, his The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation (1951) remains a classic work for its sensitivity and insight; Karl Barth himself agreed with its analysis of his own theological enterprise, calling it the best book on his own theology.

Balthasar's Theological Dramatic Theory has influenced the work of Raymund Schwager.

Reviews

[Jonathan Gill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone for whom the word "ecumenism" is meaningful ought to take note of this book. It represents Hans Urs von Balthasar's critical engagement with the entire career of Karl Barth, arguable the biggest names of twentieth century Catholic and Protestant theology, respectively. The two were friends; and Barth even called this the greatest effort in interpreting his own work, even recommending it to his friends. The book, published in 1951, was immediately influential in both Catholic and Protestant circles.

The book is divided into 4 parts. It opens with a lengthy meditation on the possibility of genuine dialogue amongst the fractured Church. Balthasar pulls no punches in critiquing Protestant and Catholic alike for their failings, and demonstrates a thorough understanding of what is actually required for such a dialogue. This section alone deserves the attention of every intellectual Christian.

Part 2 is a lengthy exposition of Barth's entire career, showing the development yet continuity between the early stages of his thought and his mature work, the extensive systematic theology titled Church Dogmatics. Balthasar does his best to do justice to Barth's thought, while also looking at the underlying forms that structure his (heavily Christological) thought.

Part 3 is Balthasar's attempt to give a Catholic response to Barth's mature output. It's the densest part of a very dense book. But the payoff, particularly in the eloquent and quite edifying final chapter, justifies the effort.

Part 4 is a brief summary of the current state of Catholic theology and the constructive potency of dialoguing with Barth. It concludes with an Afterword written ten years later looking at the impact the book made, at a time when Balthasar is now turning to his own theological magnum opus.

[Adam Wilcox · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a challenging read, but it is a powerful work of fundamental theology. I am aware that many people do not consider the book to be a very good introduction to Barth's thought, and in terms of surveying the content of Barth's Church Dogmatics I am sure that it is not. All the same, I cannot help feeling that this book gave me an understanding of the spirit of Barth, the fundamental insight and vision which drove the particular elements of his theology.

I think that Balthasar achieves his stated goal of showing that Barth's objections to Catholicism on the level of fundamental theology and Christology are not sufficient to maintain the division of the Church. Of course, as Balthasar himself says, there are still the more intractable issues of ecclesiology and sacramental theology, not to mention mariology, which could remain to divide us. Still, if Barth and Balthasar are right about their christocentrism, perhaps there is more possibility for reconciliation than many would think.

Of the pouring out of grace into nature, Balthasar writes on page 389:

"Protestantism hesitates to acknowledge this disappearance of grace in nature. Would not the life of heaven harden in the foolishness of such a total immersion? It prefers to see the Church on earth as the image of the heavenly, eschatological Jerusalem to come. But we must allow this grace the foolishness of naturalizing itself. This is indeed the very pinnacle of grace: revealing its sheer gratuity in this ultimate moment of alienation - in the cry of forsakenness on the Cross, when Christ gave up his Spirit to the Father and the world. For it is this Spirit, poured out from a dead body, that is renewing the face of the earth."

[Nathan Porter · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book about Barth by one of the most interesting theologians of the last century. Tolle lege!

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ok, I didn't actually read all of this but did read parts of it and found it very helpful not only in understanding Barth but also for understanding Roman Catholic theology and Von Balthasar in particular. VB's discussions of Barth on election, Barth's rejection of the analogia entis and VB's defense of that doctrine helped clarify each of these debates for me (especially historically-theologically). The final section on recent 'Christ-centered' Roman Catholic theology was great as well.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 3 out of 5]

Von Balthasar (hereafter HuvB) recognizes the difficulty of a Catholic theologian writing a book largely defending the reading of Karl Barth. (For this review I must note the page numbers come from the Holt edition.) If Catholicism possesses the “full truth” in one way or another (as any good Catholic must confess), then what's the point of reading a Protestant schismatic? Presumably, parts of Barth's theology are not all that different from later Vatican II theology, and where Barth disagrees with “Catholic” theology, he is disagreeing in the midst of theological disputes currently engaged by Catholic theology. Even in disagreement, he can clarify the situation.

At the back of HuvB's argument is Barth's attack on the analogia entis, the analogy of being. Barth call is “the artifact of Antichrist.” HuvB's longer response is at the end of the book and end of this article. HuvB begins with a passionate discussion on the current schism between Rome and Protestantism and notes the only way it will be healed is if dialogue begins (whether or not it will be healed is a different story). He notes some of Barth's own comments, including Barth's own penchant criticisms against the Protestant idea of “the invisible church.” Barth writes,

“The New Testament, to be sure, recognizes a multiplicity of communities...--within the one church. But the multiplicity, of itself, has no meaning. It's origin, its justification, it's limits are to be found in the unity of Jesus Christ; or rather, the one Jesus Christ...The first epistle to the Corinthians shows us how vigorously opposed the first stirrings of such a process [e.g. schism], and there it was only a question of party factionalism, not of separate churches” (Barth, quoted in HuvB, 2).”

In short, this provides HuvB the justification for writing: the unity of the Church.

However, it didn't provide HuvB with the coherency of thought. This book does not work as a guide to Barth's theology. HuvB spends very little time on the key elements as they are worked out in CD. Rather, he focuses on the issues where Barth is most in agreement and most in disagreement.

HuvB begins by noting the Origenist tendencies in Barth's early editions of Rommerbrief, and how this Origenism would give way to another form of dialectics. By dialectics HuvB means "setting one word against another to allow a way through the unavoidable” (59). HuvB points out that Barth cannot simply be labeled a “dialectic theologian,” for he did not always rely on dialectics (earlier editions of Rommerbrief), and dialectics anyway is a sort of method in theology, not a new form of theology.

Analogia fidei: By this Barth wants to focus on action, not being. Being is a vague and generic category. Analogy by itself is not a bad thing (94). How one is using the analogy is key: are we making analogies between man's essence and God's essence, or man's acts and God's acts?

So what is the issue with the analogia entis? Here is where I think both Barth and HuvB miss the point. Barth was correct to identify the key problem as analogia entis. I suspect, though, he failed to fight the battle on the right fronts. He was not clear about the key problems. At the end, HuvB is able to rebut all of Barth's objections. Neither, though, saw through to some of the key issues. Had Barth said that Rome does start with a Hellenistic metaphysics (e.g., Plotinus's “One” handed down through Augustine's doctrine of simplicity, which Aquinas will significantly harden), he would have been able to show some real problems in the analogia entis. He didn't do that. Instead he kept asserting, per HuvB's gloss, that analogia entis is wrong because it posits a continuity between God's nature and man's, robbing God of the prerogative to be God.

I think Barth is correct, but he phrased the issue in such a way that allows HuvB to rebut him thoroughly. 20th Century Roman Catholicism faced the “sunaturel” controversy ala Henri de Lubac. To what extent is nature graced, or something like that. I am not going to pretend I understand the ins and outs of the controversy, suffice to say that HuvB had done his homework in this field and competently responded to Barth.

HuvB begins this section, which is the last major section of the book, with a warning to Protestants on what happens when one utterly identifies the imago dei as grace, so when Adam falls—presumably a “fall from grace--” he also falls from God's image. HuvB's comments on Calvin are interesting: “In the hands of Protestant thinkers, therefore, the concept of nature is used dialectically. For Calvin nature can mean the pristine creation of human nature as it really is. 'Here the ambiguity of the concept of nature reaches its high point. It can be something positive of something negative. Calvin can say that sin is unnatural or that it is the epitome of human nature'” (220).

At this point, though, HuvB's argument meanders. He continues with an exposition both of Chalcedon and the development of doctrine, presumably to point towards a good use of analogia entis. He finishes this section with a 20th century “Catholic Roll-Call,” where he identifies the key theses of his friends' works on nature and grace. Barth has since been eclipsed from the picture.

In conclusion we must note this is not HuvB's best work. Students who come to this book having read his watershed book on St Maximus will be thoroughly disappointed. It simply does not have the same “flavor.” (It is much easier to read, though.) One is also reminded that things which appear most dissimilar are actually most similar. While Barth and HuvB disagree on key issues, one also suspects they are operating from the same presuppositions. If one is doing post-graducate work on Barth, or wants a decent introduction to Barth, this book is worth reading. True, there are better and more scholarly books on Barth, but this book isn't bad, either. As an exposition of Barth's thought, however, this book certainly is not.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

An engaging and helpful text for those grappling with Barth’s theology.

[John Mann · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful though obtrusive work on the work of Barth and his view of the relation between theology and philosophy. Von Balthasar is keen and comprehensive in his view, but did not succeed in escaping his Catholic presuppositions in order to understand Barth's intent. One must engage with Von Balthasar if he will succeed in interpreting Barth.

[Bobby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice!

[нєνєℓ ¢ανα · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very Good!