• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Evangelicals and Karl Barth: Friends or Foes?
 byMark DeVine
Delivered at the Annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Societ, Colorado Springs, CO (2001).
In 1980 Gregory Bolich published
Karl Barth and Evangelicalism
in which hedivided evangelicals into two camps in relation to the theology of Karl Barth—namelyfriends or foes. Albert Mohler, now president of the Southern Baptist TheologicalSeminary, further sub-divided evangelicals into three categories in his yet unpublisheddissertation entitled
Evangelical Theology and Karl Barth: Representative Models of Response
. These two works bear witness to the inability of evangelicals, three decadesafter Barth’s death in 1968, even to approach consensus regarding his theology. In this paper I will suggest that Barth should not be regarded as an evangelical. His denial of Biblical inerrancy alone must exclude him from the evangelical ranks. However, I willcontend that Barth’s theology can serve as a model for evangelical theology in certaincrucial aspects. I will also argue that ignorance and misunderstanding of Barth’s work among evangelicals has led to inaccurate construals of his thinking and sad neglect of theBarthian corpus. I will suggest that Barth be viewed by evangelicals as more friend thanfoe, albeit with some serious blind spots. The chief purpose of my paper is to encourageevangelicals to give Barth another look or perhaps, a first look before consigning him tothat contemptible class of dismissable and neglectable heretics one may and perhaps mustcomment upon but need not read.
Evangelical Response to Barth
Evangelical assessment of Barth’s theology presents an extraordinary range of contradictory conclusions. In 1954 Cornelius Van Til virtually identified Barth as the
 
worst heretic in the history of the church: “No heresy that appeared at any of [thecouncils of Nicea, Chalcedon, and Dort] was so deeply and ultimately destructive of thegospel as is the theology of Barth.”
1
Few events frustrated Van Til more than the periodicappearance of favorable assessments of Barth among evangelicals. The above quote was prompted by evangelical praise for Barth’s affirmation of the virgin birth. Van Til’sresponse, published in the
Westminster Theological Journal
essentially insisted thatBarth’s theological system precluded such an affirmation notwithstanding Barth’s ownclear statement on the matter.Meanwhile the fundamentalist Presbyterian pastor and founder of Eternitymagazine, Donald Grey Barnhouse could gush “Barth is in the camp of the true believers.” In 1986 J.I. Packer contended that Barth provided contemporary theologywith a “powerful Bible-based restatement of Trinitarian theism,” “Barth’s purpose of  being rigorously, radically, and ruthlessly biblical and his demand for interpretation thatis theologically coherent, is surely exemplary for us.”
2
Among Evangelicals favorable toBarth, perhaps Bernard Ramm could be viewed as Van Til’s evangelical opposite. In his1983 monograph
After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology
, Rammcalled for recognition of Barth’s theology as the best model for the future of evangelicaltheology.
3
Ramm’s subsequent writings confirm his deep and grateful dependence uponBarth.While Van Til and Ramm retained their respective views, Carl F. H. Henry’sreception of Barth’s theology developed over time. In his 1969 address in a plenary
1
Cornelius Van Til, “Has Karl Barth become Orthodox?”
Westminster Theological Journal
16(1954), p.81.
2
J.I. Packer, “Theism for Our Time,” in
God Who is Rich in Mercy
ed. Peter T. O’Brien(HomebushWest, Australia: Lancer Books, 1986), p.10.
 
session of the Evangelical Theological Society, Henry identified Barth as part of the problem, not the solution, to the ongoing effort by evangelicals to preserve thereformation doctrine of justification by faith within the Protestant community.
4
But by1995 Henry found himself pointing others to Barth as a faithful champion of orthodoxteaching on justification. In the article, entitled
Justification: A Doctrine in Crisis
,Henry quotes Barth again and again against betrayals of the doctrine of justification byfaith he identifies emerging from numerous ecumenical efforts to reconcile longstandingProtestant-Catholic doctrinal differences.
5
 This brief review of the vast range of evangelical opinion of Barth’s theologyonly represents the tip of the iceberg. In certain cases contradictory readings of Barth can be accounted for with some confidence. For example, it seems clear that Van Til ruledout the possibility of development in Barth’s theology over time. Thus, heunapologetically read Barth through the lense of his earliest writings despite Barth’s owndisavowal of many of those early views. Equally certain was Ramm’s insensitivity toevangelical nervousness regarding Barth’s curious double-talk concerning the historicityof Biblical accounts.
Can Barth be Understood?
Barth drew fire from the left and from the right. The difficulty of understandingBarth should not surprise us. The sheer volume of his output alone presents would-beinterpreters with a daunting task. Barth also stands as one of the most original theologicalminds the church has ever produced. Add to the mix profound developments in Barth’s
3
Bernard Ramm,
After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983).
4
Carl F.H. Henry, “Justification by Ignorance: A Neo-Protestant Motif?
JETS
1970.
5
Carl F.H. Henry, “Justification: A Doctrine in Crisis,”
JETS
38/1 (March 1995) 57-65.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...