Article

Theology Today
2017, Vol. 74(2) 86–111
Karl Barth and Charlotte ! The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:

von Kirschbaum sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0040573617702547
journals.sagepub.com/home/ttj
Christiane Tietz
Universität Zürich Theologische Fakultät, Switzerland

Abstract
In 2008, the letters between Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth from 1925–1935
were published in German. They reveal the love between them, but also the conflicts
between Barth, von Kirschbaum, and Barth’s wife Nelly Barth and how much all three
suffered from this constellation. The paper first discusses if and how we are allowed to
read these letters and then describes their love relation as well as the conflicts and the
importance this experience had for Barth’s theology.

Keywords
Karl Barth, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, letters, love relation, marriage crisis

Are we allowed to read their letters?

When I began reading the letters between Karl Barth and Charlotte von
Kirschbaum I often asked myself: Am I allowed to do this?1 Is it correct, even
Christian, to intrude on this personal and intimate relationship? What authorizes
us, scholars as well as ordinary people, to sneak into those very personal thoughts
and feelings of others, even if they are considered persons in public life?
Karl Barth and Charlotte von Kirschbaum themselves did not decide to publish
their letters. But the children of Karl Barth did. Thus, in 2000 the first letters were
presented to the public: The edition of Karl Barth’s correspondence with Eduard
Thurneysen from the years 1930–1935 includes several letters about the personal
relationship between Karl Barth and Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Nelly Barth,
Karl Barth’s wife.

1. This was a paper at the Meeting of the Karl Barth Society of North America at the American
Academy of Religion in San Antonio, November 18, 2016.

Corresponding author:
Christiane Tietz, University of Zurich, Faculty of Theology, Kirchgasse 9, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland.
Email: christiane.tietz@theol.uzh.ch
Tietz 87

For the earlier volumes of Karl Barth’s correspondence with Eduard

Thurneysen,2 his close friend and colleague, edited in 1973 and 1974, Thurneysen
had decided not to publish passages which deal with the privacy of the three.3 This
was at the least because Thurneysen wanted to show consideration for Nelly Barth
who died only in 1976.4 In those earlier volumes, Thurneysen did not hide the aca-
demic importance of Charlotte von Kirschbaum as Barth’s personal secretary, but he
did not want their private life to be public.5
In 1991, Barth’s descendants, who administer his literary estate, decided to no
longer hold back letters of the correspondence between Barth and Thurneysen
which touch the intimacy of those three.6 The volume of Barth’s letters with
Thurneysen from the years 1930–1935 was the first volume for which this decision
of Barth’s descendants had consequences.7 The children also decided to print three
letters from Barth to his wife Nelly in this volume.8 This decision was a bit tricky,
as Karl Barth stressed in his will, that all letters between him and his wife are
excluded from his ancestors’ disposal over his literary estate.9 But the children
consulted a notary public and came to the conclusion that printing these three
letters would not be in contradiction to Barth’s will.10
So, since 2000 we know officially about the love relation between Karl Barth and
Charlotte von Kirschbaum. There had been lots of rumors before, but since then

2. These two volumes cover the years 1913–1921 and 1921–1930.

3. Cf. Hinrich Stoevesandt, ‘‘Zur Editionsgeschichte des Briefwechsels zwischen Karl Barth und
Eduard Thurneysen,’’ in Karl Barth—Eduard Thurneysen, Briefwechsel, Vol. 3: 1930–1935, ed.
Caren Algner, (Zurich: TVZ 2000 [¼BW. Thurneysen III]), xvii–xxv, xxi.
4. Cf. ibid. Nelly Barth, née Hoffmann was born on August 26, 1893, in Rorschach and grew up in
Zurich and Geneva; her father died when she was only a year old. Karl Barth confirmed her
in 1910; they became engaged in 1911. Nelly had learned to play the violin at the conservatory in
Geneva but gave up her plans to study music after her engagement with Barth. They married in
1913 (cf. Eberhard Busch, Karl Barths Lebenslauf. Nach seinen Briefen und autobiographischen
Texten [Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1975], 70f., 83). They had five children: Franziska (1914–1994),
Markus (1915–1994), Christoph (1917–1986), Matthias (1921–1941), and Hans Jakob (1925–
1984); vgl. Hans-Anton Drewes, ‘‘Vorwort,’’ in Karl Barth—Charlotte von Kirschbaum.
Briefwechsel, Vol. 1: 1925–1935, ed. Rolf-Joachim Erler (Zurich: TVZ 2008 [¼BW. Kirschbaum
I]), xix–xxviii, xix.
5. Cf. Stoevesandt, ‘‘Editionsgeschichte,’’ xxi.
6. Cf. ibid., xxf.
7. Cf. ibid., xxi. Why this decision? Hinrich Stoevesandt, the general editor of the Gesamtausgabe at
that time, argues that it would not correspond with Karl Barth’s stance towards life to hide these
documents for ever, as ‘‘[t]he burdensome life together as three, which lasted for almost four
decades, was an important factor in Barth’s biography, but also for the larger family and close
friends’’ (Stoevesandt, ‘‘Editionsgeschichte,’’ xxi: ‘‘Das für die drei Hauptbeteiligten, aber auch für
die weitere Familie und die nahen Freunde belastende Leben zu dritt, das fast vier Jahrzehnte
währte, ist ein zentraler Faktor in Barths Biographie’’; the English here and in the following is my
translation).
8. Reprinted also in the edition of the letters between Karl Barth and Charlotte von Kirschbaum.
9. Cf. Stoevesandt, ‘‘Editionsgeschichte,’’ xxii.
10. Ibid.
88 Theology Today 74(2)

you could read something about it, especially about the conflicts this caused in the
marriage between Karl and Nelly.
In 2008, the letters between Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Barth of the years
1925–1935 were published. Now it was not only the conflicts which one could become
aware of, but also the deep, intense, overwhelming love between those two human
beings. Already in 1985, the decision to publish these letters had been made by Barth’s
children, who were also the legal heirs of Charlotte von Kirschbaum.11 In 1993,
Franziska and Markus Barth confirmed this decision, proclaiming,

As the only living children of Karl Barth we decided, after a long time of reflection and
because many who were close and not close at all urged us to do so, to publish this
partially very intimate correspondence. In face of the tittle-tattle which has been circu-
lating since the middle of the 1920s, we thought the time has come to bring the bright
and the bleak aspects of that very special and unique love in which our father was
bound to our ‘‘aunt Lollo,’’ out into the open. Our beloved mother, Nelly Barth,
unfortunately does not get a chance to speak in this volume. In Eberhard Busch’s
book ‘‘Karl Barth. His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts’’ it is made
clear in an adequate manner, how difficult the life of three in the same household
was. ‘‘Unreasonable,’’ we children say now. Yet our mother held on and through this
made her large contribution to the work of our father. For, she knew how irreplaceable
Lollo von Kirschbaum’s theological assistance and constant support was for the real-
ization of this large work. That there was no break in family life on the human level was
magnanimous of our mother and we are wholeheartedly grateful to her for that.12

Coming back to my questions if we are entitled to read these letters, I think those
who knew best the situation and the persons involved have already answered the
question by publishing those letters. They wanted us to know the whole story,
because they wanted the rumors to end and to make visible how the relations
actually were.
If we are allowed to read these letters, another question pops up:

11. Cf. Drewes, ‘‘Vorwort,’’ xix. The decision was taken by Franziska, Markus, and Christoph;
Matthias and Hans Jakob had already died.
12. Franziska and Markus Barth, From the draft of a preface for this edition, BW. Kirschbaum I, xix:
‘‘Als einzige noch lebende Kinder Karl Barths entschlossen wir uns nach langem Überlegen und
auf das Drängen Näher- und Fernstehender zur Publikation dieser zum Teil sehr intimen
Korrespondenz. Angesichts des seit Mitte der zwanziger Jahre umlaufenden Geschwätzes halten
wir die Zeit für gekommen, die hellen und die trüben Seiten der ganz besonderen und einmaligen
Liebe, welche unsern Vater mit unserer ‘Tante Lollo’ verband, ans Licht zu bringen. Unsere liebe
Mutter, Nelly Barth, kommt leider in diesem Briefbande nicht zum Wort. Im ‘Lebenslauf’ Karl
Barths von Eberhard Busch wird gebührlich herausgehoben, wie schwer das Leben zu Dritt im
selben Hause war: ‘Unzumutbar’, sagen wir Kinder im nachhinein. Und doch hat es unsere Mutter
durchgehalten und trug somit ihren großen Teil an der Arbeit unseres Vaters bei. Wußte sie doch,
wie unersetzlich Lollo von Kirschbaums theologische Assistenz und unaufhörliche Mithilfe für das
Durchführen des großen Werkes war. Daß es auch menschlich zu keinem Bruch im Familienleben
kam, war großmütig von unserer Mutter und wir sind ihr dafür von ganzem Herzen dankbar.’’
Tietz 89

How should we read these texts?

Before I started reading these letters, I was afraid of getting into two different,
but both wrong perspectives: into voyeurism on the one side and into moralism
on the other.
I asked myself: Even if I am allowed to have a look at these letters, how am
I able to look at them not with a voyeuristic view, in which I enjoy sneaking in their
privacy, lose distance to the object and behave as if I—like God himself—knew all
their secrets?
How would it be possible for me not to judge them in a moralistic manner? Is it
not too clear that marriage is marriage and that Karl Barth should not have fallen
in love with Charlotte von Kirschbaum or at least not have met her again? And
that Charlotte von Kirschbaum should have respected his marriage? Or: Is it not
too obvious that Nelly Barth did not love Karl Barth the way he needed it, other-
wise he would not have fallen in love with Charlotte von Kirschbaum or would, at
least, after a certain time have returned to Nelly?
Actually, it is the letters themselves which help avoid both, voyeurism and mor-
alism—if you read them carefully and with an open-mind.
The letters show how each of the three did not know what to think of the
situation, of oneself, of one’s own feelings. They struggled with interpreting the
life they were living. If the authors of the letters do not know, how can I behave as
if I, the reader, would know all their secrets? The letters themselves admonish us
not to do this. Barth writes to von Kirschbaum, ‘‘how different are human beings
mirrored in the eyes of the other, and how good is it that this in the best case leads
to a photograph ‘somehow’ not inappropriate, while it is up to nobody to see [. . .]
the whole film.’’13
The letters furthermore reveal how much all three suffered from the situation
and how each of them, as honest as possible, tried to be responsible to the other
two.14 The letters speak of long, difficult periods of worries, fights, searches for
another solution. In face of this, how can I judge them? Who would be entitled to
be the first to throw a stone at them (John 8:7)? Here again the letters admonish us.
Charlotte von Kirschbaum writes to Gertrud, the sister of Karl Barth, in 1935,
The question of guilt is something ‘‘which we have to ask us, but nothing that you
can ask us, you only could if you in a very different manner would know about the
concrete difficulties of our existence together and would ask this question from the
reality of jointly carrying these difficulties.’’15

13. BW. Kirschbaum I, 162: ‘‘wie verschieden spiegeln sich doch die Menschen einer in den Augen des
anderen, und wie gut ist es doch, daß es dabei im besten Fall zu ‘irgendwie’ nicht unzutreffenden
Momentaufnahmen kommt, während den ganzen Film zu sehen [. . .] niemand zukommt.’’
14. Cf. Stoevesandt, ‘‘Editionsgeschichte,’’ xxi.
15 . BW. Thurneysen III, 839: ‘‘das [. . .] wir uns zu fragen [haben], aber das könnt nicht ihr uns fragen,
es müßte denn sein, ihr wüßtet in ganz anderer Weise um die konkreten Schwierigkeiten unserer
gemeinsamen Existenz und stelltet uns diese Frage wirklich mittragend an diesen
Schwierigkeiten.’’
90 Theology Today 74(2)

In the following, after a short biography of Charlotte von Kirschbaum, I will

give an overview about her and Karl Barth’s personal relationship. Yet I will touch
only shortly her influence on his work, as much has already been said here.16

A very short biography of Charlotte von Kirschbaum

Charlotte von Kirschbaum was born on June 25, 1899, in Ingolstadt, Bavaria.17
She was the daughter of the military general Maximilian von Kirschbaum and his
wife Henriette, born Freiin von Brück, both members of the nobility. Charlotte had
a younger and an older brother.18
After having finished girls’ schools, Charlotte went to a women’s school in
Munich at which she studied in the department for children’s education.19
During World War I and shortly thereafter, Charlotte worked in the military
sanitary in Munich, then as short-hand typist and as a secretary.
In January 1922, she began her education as a nurse in the Bavarian Red Cross,
which she finished in 1927. From September 1925 until August 1926 she worked at
the city hospital of Krefeld, a town close to Dusseldorf. In April 1927 she started
studying at the ‘‘social women’s school’’ in Munich, which trained women for
social work. In 1929, Charlotte finished the studies with an excellent state exam.
In the same year, she stopped working for the Red Cross and making her own
money and became financially dependent on Karl Barth.20
Since 1921, Charlotte von Kirschbaum had established a close friendship with
Georg Merz, a Munich pastor, who was in intense exchange with Barth since he
had read Barth’s first version of his Epistle to the Romans. Charlotte and Georg met
almost every day for theological exchange, and Barth’s theology was certainly an
important subject in their conversation.21

16 . Cf. Renate Köbler, In the Shadow of Karl Barth: Charlotte von Kirschbaum, transl. by Keith Crim
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock 2014 [German Orig. 1987, English Transl. first published by Eugene,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1989]), and especially Suzanne Selinger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum
and Karl Barth: A Study in Biography and the History of Theology (University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State, 1998), which only in the German version of 2004 could include the letters
from 2000, but still not the letters of 2008.
17. Cf. Rolf-Joachim Erler, ‘‘Biographische Daten zu Charlotte von Kirschbaum von 1899 bis 1935,’’
in BW. Kirschbaum I, xxxv–xli, and Hinrich Stoevesandt, ‘‘Charlotte von Kirschbaum,’’ in Barth
Handbuch, ed. Michael Beintker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 54–58.
18. Maximilian Eduard Karl had been born two years before and later became customs official and
lieutenant in the German Wehrmacht. The younger brother, Hans Friedrich Karl, was born in
1902 and was reported missing in World War II.
19. In 1917 she passed the exam for educators. The year before her father had died at the Western
Front in France.
20. Except for a salary of 100 Marks, which she got from him as his secretary each month (cf. BW.
Kirschbaum I, 111).
21. Charlotte von Kirschbaum might have seen Karl Barth for the first time, when Barth visited the
parish of Georg Merz in 1922 and 1923.
Tietz 91

Von Kirschbaum’s and Barth’s first direct contact took place in the summer of
1925. Rudolf Pestalozzi, a hardware dealer from Zurich, and his wife Gerty, friends
of Karl Barth and Georg Merz, had a holiday home above Lake Zurich, in the
small village of Oberrieden, called ‘‘Bergli.’’22 Here Charlotte von Kirschbaum and
Karl Barth got to know each other in August 1925, when they spent time at this
retreat with a bunch of friends. After those two weeks, they started exchanging
letters and met several times.23 On New Year’s Eve 1925/26, Charlotte von
Kirschbaum visited Karl Barth in Göttingen and got to know his wife and their
five children.
On February 24, 1926, she visited him in Munster, where he had started teaching
in the winter of 1925/26. Directly afterwards, they declared their love for each other.
On October 15, 1929, Charlotte von Kirschbaum moved into Barth’s household
in Munster. For almost 40 years she would live there, moving with the family to
Bonn and then to Basel.
Charlotte von Kirschbaum continued her personal studies in education after
1929; in 1933, she passed examinations which entitled her to study theology. She
not only worked with Barth but also participated in several conferences of the
Confessing Church, raising her own voice, and also wrote a few theological texts
of her own.24 Her book The True Woman (1949) is a document of this.25
In 1962, she got ill from an organic brain disease.26 In 1966, she moved into the
Sanatorium of Riehen, a town close to Basel.27 On July 24, 1975, seven years after
Karl Barth, she died.

‘‘I really have never known that something like this

would be possible’’
Their letters to each other begin in October 1925. Unfortunately, between the first
love letter from her dated February 27, 1926 and a letter of her dated March 15,
1932, no letters of Charlotte have survived. This means that in the ‘‘correspond-
ence’’ of those six years you can only hear Karl’s voice—and Charlotte’s contri-
bution only indirectly as he is reacting to what she wrote. Why is it that only his
letters survived? Very likely because Barth might have told Charlotte that

22. The ‘‘Bergli’’ became their regular place for time together. In summer 1926, they again spent
several weeks there as well as in spring 1927, in the late summer of 1928 and during Barth’s
sabbatical in summer 1929.
23. Cf. Stoevesandt, ‘‘Charlotte von Kirschbaum,’’ 54.
24. It seems that she had not missed a theological career of her own; there exists a letter to Georg
Merz in which she makes clear that she is happy about her anonymity.
25. Charlotte von Kirschbaum, Die wirkliche Frau (Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1949).
26. The concrete diagnosis is unclarified (cf. Selinger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, 10); presumably it
was Alzheimers. There is a thesis that this was caused by her overwork (cf. Köbler, In the Shadow
of Karl Barth, 70–73), but medically this is impossible (cf. Selinger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, 10).
27. Barth visited her every Sunday. When she was no longer able to understand words, he sang hymns
to her, which he knew she loved.
92 Theology Today 74(2)

both should destroy the letters—and that he did this, but she did not follow his
instruction.28
The first letters show how quickly they felt close to each other. From the very
beginning,29 Barth sends her theological material30—the theological exchange
becoming and staying an important part of their relationship. Quite frankly he
speaks of his insecurity about the direction his dogmatic is taking,31 of his difficul-
ties with his work.32 He also tells her about his loneliness in Münster, as his family
has not yet moved to Münster33 and of a sadness which he experiences in the very
depth of his psyche—and which he also senses in her.34 She seems to be able to
address his moods in an adequate way, telling him that it is good that he exists.35
He enjoys receiving letters from her whom he very soon nicknames ‘‘Lollo’’: ‘‘Dear
Lollo! [. . .] Whenever I discover your handwriting amongst the post, I settle myself
especially contentedly, and then I read and consider it two or three times and see
you in front of me with your stern nurse’s uniform [. . .] and say: Welcome and nice,
you are here!’’36
He urges her to visit him in Münster, and she does on February 24, 1926. After
her visit, he sends her another letter:

There were many, many things which I needed to write to you, but I will let it unwrit-
ten. I was unable to find sleep that night, again and again I had to look to the corner
of my desk where you were sitting and kept struggling with the great mystery which
you mean to me . . . Enough, I don’t want to say stupid things. Do write a good word

28. Cf. Stoevesandt, ‘‘Charlotte von Kirschbaum,’’ 55.

29. Already in this first letter from October 4, 1925, he is addressing her as ‘‘Du’’; cf. BW. Kirschbaum
I, 3.
30. Cf. ibid.
31. Cf. ibid.
32. Cf. ibid., 7: ‘‘Very often, I wish not to exist, especially in those weeks in which I need to get used to
a new subject and then first of all see only black before my eyes and only know for sure that I don’t
know anything of it. This always is a very miserable condition, now especially for the full professor
I have become.’’ (‘‘Ich habe umgekehrt oft den Wunsch, nicht da sein zu müssen, besonders in
solchen Wochen, wo ich mich in einen neuen Stoff hineinarbeiten muß und dann zunächst alles
schwarz vor den Augen sehe und nur sicher weiß, daß ich von Allem nichts weiß. Das ist dann
immer ein sehr kläglicher Zustand, jetzt für einen ‘ordentlichen Professor’, was ich ja nun bin,
noch ganz besonders.’’).
33. Cf. ibid., 6, 8.
34. Cf. ibid., 9. Yet he adds that he also senses it in all human beings.
35. Cf. ibid., 7.
36. Ibid., 14f.: ‘‘Liebe Lollo! [. . .] Ich setze mich immer besonders behaglich zurecht, wenn ich unter
meinen Postsachen deine Handschrift entdecke, und dann lese und bedenke ich es zwei- bis
dreimal und sehe dich vor mir in der strengen Diakonissentracht [. . .] und sage: Grüß Gott und
fein, daß du da bist!’’.
Tietz 93

to me, you are such a much better human being than I am, and I feel I have disap-
pointed you terribly.37

She responds already the next day: ‘‘Dear Karl, you want me to write a good word?
I can’t. I can only say this, what maybe I am not supposed to say: Since last
Wednesday, I simply know that I am very fond of you, more than I can think.
I don’t know if I didn’t want to know this before, or if I really walked through this
world with covered eyes. But now it is such and it is hard.’’38
He again responds the following day. He is relieved that through her letter the
situation is becoming clearer and simpler.

Despite all the grave and bitter things which are to come [. . .], I am happy about that. Not
only because for the most obvious reason: for . . . yes, out with it, it’s no use, it is just so:
because I as well am very fond of you, ‘‘more than I can think.’’ But also because now I
know that I am not alone in my trouble and can speak openly to you about how we can
help each other now or, rather, let us be helped.39 Until last Wednesday I thought [. . .] it
all could remain in the setting of a good friendship. But when in our conversation it again
became so clear how perfectly and naturally we suit each other, the situation was so
insincere to me that I needed to indicate what I saw.40

From the very beginning, Barth tries to be very honest with her and to develop a
realistic sense of the situation:

But now we need to think about presence and future. If we both were single, then the
discovery which is now made irrevocably would be one of these moments of spring,
joy and life with which God sometimes blesses us foolish, topsy-turvy human

37. Ibid., 21: ‘‘Vieles, Vieles sollte, wollte ich dir schreiben, will es aber schön ungeschrieben lassen.
Ich habe die Nacht nachher fast schlaflos zugebracht, und immer wieder muß ich nach der Ecke
meines Schreitisches gucken, wo du gesessen hast, und mich mit dem großen Rätsel herumschla-
gen, das du für mich bedeutest. . . Schluß, ich will keine Torheiten reden. Schreib mir einmal ein
gutes Wort, du bist ein so viel besserer Mensch als ich, und mir ist, ich habe dir eine schreckliche
Enttäuschung bereitet.’’
38. Ibid., 22: ‘‘Lieber Karl, ein gutes Wort soll ich dir schreiben? Ich kann es nicht. Ich kann dir nur
eines sagen, was ich vielleicht gar nicht sagen darf: ich weiß einfach seit dem letzten Mittwoch, daß
ich dich lieb habe, lieber, als ich es zu denken vermag. Ob ich es vorher nicht wissen wollte oder ob
ich tatsächlich mit verhüllten Augen durch diese Welt gegangen bin, ich weiß es nicht. Aber nun ist
es so und ist schwer.’’
39. Ibid., 23: ‘‘Ich bin [. . .], trotz allem Ernsten und Bitteren, das nun kommt, froh darüber. Nicht nur
aus dem naheliegendsten Grund: weil. . . ja nun, heraus damit, es hilft ja doch nichts, es ist einfach
so: weil ich dich eben auch liebhabe, ‘lieber, als ich es zu denken vermag.’ Sondern auch darum,
weil ich mich nun in meiner Not nicht allein weiß und ganz offen zu dir reden kann über die Art,
wie wir uns nun gegenseitig helfen oder vielmehr beide helfen lassen müssen.’’
40. Ibid., 23f.: ‘‘Bis zum letzten Mittwoch meinte ich [. . .], Alles im Rahmen einer schönen
Freundschaft sich abwickeln lassen zu können. Als es sich dann in unserem Gespräch wieder so
deutlich zeigte, wie unheimlich gut und selbstverständlich wir uns ineinander fügen, da kam mir
die Situation auf einmal so unaufrichtig vor, daß ich andeuten mußte, was ich sah.’’
94 Theology Today 74(2)

creatures in the middle of our darkness. But as things are, the same discovery is a
moment of suffering and of renunciation. As we believe in God’s justice even here, we
should not be astonished about the necessity of this [suffering and renunciation], but
in the same way we are allowed to accept the other [the discovery] as self-evident.’’41

Already in this letter from February 28 he realizes that this new reality will be most
difficult for his wife Nelly. ‘‘You have seen our family life. The story of our
marriage was until now despite all difficulties a happy story. We knew that there
are no ‘smooth’ marriages. But we were not prepared for such an incident.’’42 Barth
already in this early context also speaks of guilt to his wife and his children.43
What should they do now? Barth excludes the possibility of a spiritual, mystic
love because this would deny ‘‘that it definitely is the human earthly love between
us, which under different circumstances had bound us together as man and
woman.’’44 Barth also excludes a farewell because this would be forced and not
be worthy of them. Only if they will not be strong enough to realize the alternative,
only then they still can choose this drastic remedy.45
Now, what does Barth suggest? First of all, he wants Nelly to know about this. And
he tells her about it immediately.46 Second, he makes clear that they should not move
forward; for this would mean even more guilt, not only to his wife and family, but also
to the matter (‘‘die Sache’’) for which he is working, the matter of theology and
church.47 He concludes, ‘‘We would not love each other, if we would not realize
that this love between us (we cannot and do not want to deny or to minimize its
reality) is something, which we have to understand and to deal with as a possibility
true, given, not to abolish, but also as a possibility which cannot be developed
more.’’48 He suggests maybe fewer letters and personal encounters (including the

41. Ibid., 24: ‘‘Aber nun müssen wir an die Gegenwart und an die Zukunft denken. Wären wir beide
ledige Leute, so wäre die Entdeckung, die nun unwiderruflich gemacht ist, einer von jenen
Augenblicken von Frühling, Freude und Leben, mit denen Gott uns törichte, verkehrte
Menschenkinder mitten in unserer Finsternis manchmal segnet. So wie die Dinge stehen, ist
dieselbe Entdeckung ein Augenblick des Leides und der Entsagung, über deren Notwendigkeit
wir uns, wiederum im Glauben an Gottes Gerechtigkeit, so wenig wundern dürfen, wie wir das
Andere als selbstverständlich hinnehmen dürften.’’
42. Ibid.: ‘‘Du hast unser Familienleben gesehen. Die Geschichte unserer Ehe war bis jetzt bei allen
Schwierigkeiten eine glückliche Geschichte. Wir wußten, daß es keine ‘fugenlosen’ Ehen gibt. Aber
wir waren auf einen solchen Zwischenfall nicht gefaßt.’’ He continues that he thinks he is able to
understand at least a bit how this ‘‘incident’’ was possible from the situation of his marriage; but
he does not want to talk to her about this (cf. ibid.).
43. Cf. ibid., 24f.
44. Ibid., 28: ‘‘daß es sich durchaus um die menschliche irdische Liebe handelt zwischen uns, die uns
unter anderen Umständen als Mann und Frau zusammengeführt hätte.’’
45. Cf. ibid., 28.
46. Cf. ibid., 31.
47. Cf. ibid., 25.
48. Ibid., 27: ‘‘Wir würden uns nicht liebhaben, wenn wir nicht einsehen würden, daß eben das
Liebhaben zwischen uns (wir können und wollen seine Wirklichkeit nicht leugnen und nicht
Tietz 95

advice not to speak about ‘‘it’’ in letters).49 And he encourages her and himself to get back
to work with all their energy—he to his lectures and she to her work as a nurse.50 Finally,
he sets her free to sometime give her heart to another man.51
In this letter, Barth seems to be very sure about which way to take. But just the
next day, he sends her another letter.52 He wants to explain that this security has
not come easily, but is the result of a fight within himself. He had the feeling that he
should take the lead in this issue and point into the future.53
Charlotte von Kirschbaum does not react for three weeks, which worries him.54
But then she meets with Nelly Barth for a good conversation and starts writing him
again.55 This gives Karl Barth the hope that things will turn out peacefully.56
Emotionally, Barth’s letters of this early period go back and forth between
realizing the problems of the situation and feeling hope and confidence that
things somehow will turn out well,57 between the attempt to be the reasonable
and sovereign one and the strength of his feelings which he cannot hide.58 He
feels understood by Charlotte,59 begs her to write more often,60 regularly expresses
his concerns about her health and is worried she might work too much.61 And he
realizes he would have difficulties with setting her free for another man62 and
considers it unnatural that she is not with him day by day.63

kleiner machen) eine Sache ist, die wir nur als eine zwar wahre, zwar gegebene, nicht wieder zu
beseitigende, aber auch keiner weiteren Entfaltung fähige Möglichkeit betrachten und behandeln.’’
49. He feels that if more people would know about it, things would become more and more compli-
cated (cf. ibid., 28–30)—and this is actually what happened later.
50. Cf. ibid, 29.
51. Cf. ibid.
52. Which he names an ‘‘afterword’’ to the letter from February 28, 1926, cf. ibid., 30.
53. Cf. ibid., 31.
54. Cf. ibid., 33.
55. The letters between the two now deal with his theological writings which he again is sending her,
with the planning of her next visit to him and with his wish that they would meet again at the
Bergli in summer 1926.
56. Cf. ibid., 34.
57. Cf. e.g. ibid., 50. He is confused by the fact that, what is clear as daylight and deeply inevitable
between them, is at the same time something embarrassing and outraging to the outer world (cf.
ibid., 58).
58. Cf. e.g. ibid., 51.
59. Cf. ibid., 66.
60. Cf. e.g. ibid., 52.
61. Cf. e.g. ibid., 61. 71. He also sends her two poems which he wrote about their relationship and
which reflect both joy and pain. Cf. ibid., 59f. It is about their meeting in Dusseldorf, dealing with
time: how much they seemed to have at the beginning of the day, how quickly they moved on,
about time as moment of eternity, and as parable for God’s eternity.
62. Cf. ibid., 56.
63. Cf. ibid., 65. They plan another date for July 1926, a visit of an exhibit on hygiene and social care
in Dusseldorf. It is very touching to read how Barth—like an adolescent who has just fallen in love
96 Theology Today 74(2)

They again spent the late summer of 1926 at the Bergli. All others persons
present there already knew about their love.64 Barth had long conversations with
Georg Merz and Rudi and Gerty Pestalozzi about their relationship;65 only Gerty
seems to fully understand them.66
Between late summer of 1926 and spring 1929 only two short letters of Barth
have survived. The conversation continues in March 1929.67 For his sabbatical in
192968 he asks her to work as his ‘‘secretary.’’69 This included reading reviews of his
theology, getting an overview about the headwords of his theology which he col-
lected in his ‘‘Zeddelkasten,’’70 searching for good quotes in Luther’s sermons and
reading the manuscript of his lecture on dogmatics and taking notes about prob-
lematic points.71 And he asks her to read literature ‘‘in accordance with my wishes’’
(‘‘‘in meinem Sinn’ lesen’’).72 In this context, he confesses in astonishment, ‘‘Say,
what is it, that we almost cannot any longer be without each other now. [. . .] And
that one does not feel happy anywhere else than just with the other, and especially
as close as possible with the other? I really have never known that something like
this would be possible.’’73 Yet the letters of that time also tell about his and her
sadness.74 Both wonder if the other has forgotten them.75

for the first time—wants to get up pretty early to catch a train which is arriving at Dusseldorf
already at 6 or 7 o’clock in the morning, to spend as much time with her as possible (cf. ibid., 57).
64. Cf. ibid., 66.
65. Cf. ibid., 68.
66. Cf. ibid., 70f. Barth is afraid that a ‘‘cloud of tittle-tattle around them’’ (ibid., 69: ‘‘Wolke von
Geschwätz um uns her’’) could develop, but is convinced that everything will depend on the
question whether Nelly and Charlotte will get to a clear relationship with each other (cf. ibid.).
At that point, Charlotte seems to have been a bit too intuitive in Karl Barth’s view. He asks her
not to make any intuitive decisions herself, but to solve the problems together (cf. ibid.).
67. In summer 1927, she typed his lecture on Prolegomena which he dictated—the manuscript of the
Christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf (cf. Stoevesandt, ‘‘Charlotte von Kirschbaum,’’ 56; cf. BW.
Kirschbaum I, 77f.). This remained the patter: he dictated, still working on formulations, while
she typed it (cf. Stoevesandt, ‘‘Charlotte von Kirschbaum,’’ 56). In spring 1929, she ends her
studies with very good marks; he shows his admiration for that and wonders if he is really allowed
to have her for his own work, if she is so excellent (cf. BW. Kirschbaum I, 83). But then he
confesses honestly that he wants her to stay with him forever, cf. ibid., 89).
68. He had planned to continue working on the next volumes of the Christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf,
but then decided only to read theological literature.
69. BW. Kirschbaum I, 81: ‘‘Sekretärin.’’
70. Cf. ibid., 87.
71. Ibid., 79.
72. Ibid., 176. It is very obvious that he already trusted in her theological judgment.
73. Ibid., 81: ‘‘Sag, was ist auch das, daß wir jetzt fast nicht mehr ohne einander sein können? [. . .]
Und nirgends mehr wohl ist als eben beim Anderen, u. zw. so nahe als möglich beim Anderen? Ich
habe doch nie gewußt, daß es so etwas geben könne.’’
74. Cf. e.g. ibid., 89.
75. Cf. ibid., 90.
Tietz 97

They spent Barth’s sabbatical from April until September 1929 together at the
Bergli, in a small wooden house called ‘‘Törli,’’ which Pestalozzi has built above the
summer house. The house (actually a garage) had two rooms, in which Barth and
von Kirschbaum worked together. At the end of that summer, Charlotte von
Kirschbaum moved into his household.

The ‘‘Notgemeinschaft zu dritt’’—the union of necessity

and trouble as a threesome
Before I continue, I need to recall, that only very few letters of Nelly Barth to
others were published, and only three of Barth to her. Some were lost. For the topic
of the ‘‘Notgemeinschaft’’ this means that most of the time we hear Nelly’s voice
only through the letters of others.
As already mentioned, Nelly Barth knew about Karl Barth’s and Charlotte von
Kirschbaum’s love from the very beginning. In May 1926, Charlotte von
Kirschbaum visited Barth and his family in Münster which led to long, distressed
conversations between Barth and his wife after her departure.76 For Nelly Barth, it
was difficult to understand why Karl did not try to find his way back to a fulfilled
marriage.77 He then thought about absolute distance to Charlotte von
Kirschbaum, but had to acknowledge that this was impossible for him.78 Barth
explained to both that he did not search for a substitute to his marriage instead of
working for an improvement of this marriage. He just found Charlotte and only
then realized what was missing in his marriage. And now, because he had found
her, it did not make sense to get rid of her.79
In 1926, he finds the solution in sticking with Nelly as his wife and having
Charlotte as his ‘‘indispensable comrade.’’80 He decides to continue their mar-
riage—in his own words—‘‘with all earnestness, under the equally earnest acknow-
ledgment of the fact, that Lollo is there as well and that I just love her and will
love her.’’81 Barth is convinced that he cannot avoid ‘‘a certain double life.’’82

76. Cf. ibid., 45.

77. Cf. ibid., 46.
78. Cf. ibid., 45f.
79. Cf. ibid., 46.
80. Ibid., 45: ‘‘unentbehrliche Kameradin.’’
81. Ibid., 72: ‘‘wir setzen unsere Ehe mit allem Ernst fort unter ebenso ernster Anerkennung der
Tatsache, daß Lollo auch da ist und daß ich sie nun einmal lieb habe und haben werde.’’ This
perspective on the situation remains through all the letters: The love between him and Charlotte is
real, and he is not able and not willing to deny this reality. Cf. e.g. ibid., 46. It would mean to tear
out his eye if he would ask her to disappear from his life (cf. ibid.). Barth is convinced that there is
one path which is impossible for him, and this path would be to try to like Charlotte less (cf. ibid.,
49) or to forget her (cf. ibid., 51).
82. Ibid., 73: ‘‘Ein gewisses Doppelleben.’’
98 Theology Today 74(2)

He expects of himself to save both as much suffering and give both as much love as
possible.83
In August 1927, Charlotte joined the family for vacation in the Harz mountain
range. In this situation Nelly as well as Charlotte had the feeling of an Either–Or.84
But on a walk, Karl held the hands of both.85 Thurneysen later took this scene as a
symbol for the problem of the ‘‘triangle’’86 as the constellation was called by them:
This triangle for Nelly was ‘‘the impossible possibility,’’87 because Nelly understood
this holding of hands as other than Barth.88 She could not accept that Barth held
the hand of Charlotte different than her hand.89 This is why Nelly kept feeling
betrayed.90
Barth kept missing Charlotte in his daily life. On January 1, 1929 he suggested to
her that she should move into his household.91 In the months after that decision,
Barth and his wife had several very problematic discussions about this plan. Nelly
explained to him how difficult the situation was for her and mentioned the option
of a divorce.92 She said, Karl was too cold, only playing a role.93 Barth realized
that Nelly did not really agree to the situation of a triangle which for Barth
included that all three had to think and to act jointly.94 In August 1929 Barth
told von Kirschbaum that he wanted to drop the plan of her moving in, as Nelly
was not capable of it.95 Barth did not want to force her into something which she
simply could not do and did not want to do.96
Nevertheless, on October 15, 1929, Charlotte moved into the house in Münster.
The letters before that date show that really no alternative seemed possible to
Barth. They speak about his difficulties to get along with Nelly’s personality.97
He is shocked how little he is attracted to Nelly and how strange the smallest
care for her is to him.98 Karl feels absolutely lonely without Charlotte who

83. Cf. ibid.

84. Cf. Nelly Barth in BW. Thurneysen III, 396.
85. Cf. Nelly Barth in ibid., 396; Eduard Thurneysen in ibid., 408.
86. E.g. BW. Kirschbaum I, 100: ‘‘Dreieck.’’
87. Eduard Thurneysen in a letter to Nelly Barth, BW. Thurneysen III, 408: ‘‘unmögliche[. . .]
Möglichkeit.’’
88. Cf. ibid.
89. Cf. ibid.
90. Cf. ibid.
91. Cf. BW. Kirschbaum I, 100.
92. Cf. ibid., 98f. Barth complained that Nelly sees only her own suffering (cf. ibid., 98).
93. Cf. ibid., 98f.
94. Cf. ibid., 100.
95. Cf. ibid., 101.
96. Cf. ibid., 102.
97. Cf. ibid., 106; in his view, they both have—even in technical questions—a very different perspec-
tive towards life.
98. Cf. ibid., 123f.
Tietz 99

understands him so well; he longs for the ‘‘little sister.’’99 And he is deeply worried
when she does not respond for a while: is she sick, depressive, no longer ‘‘my
Lollo’’?100 Charlotte seemed to have been insecure about the right path. She obvi-
ously was sad and depressive, accused him of being occupied with other things.101
After Charlotte has moved into the household, she and Karl exchange letters
only if one of them is travelling. As before, they spend vacations together at the
Bergli above Lake Zurich. On March 19, 1930, the whole family, together with
Charlotte von Kirschbaum, moves to Bonn where Barth has started to teach. Karl
Barth’s and Charlotte von Kirschbaum’s two offices are located close to each other,
only connected by a door and are called ‘‘Vatican City.’’102
The situation in the family stays difficult. The letters of these years show a
sensible, insecure Barth (again and again expressing his wish that everything
should be different103)—which stands in some contrast to the theological Barth
with his clear judgement and harsh opinion. In letters to Eduard Thurneysen104
Charlotte complains that Nelly and she hardly get through the days; Nelly inwardly
protests against the situation, and Charlotte reacts with inner rebellion.105 Yet in
the same letter Charlotte also notes: ‘‘And sometimes it might be that especially
that’s why one is allowed to know that it is grace to be in such a situation.’’106
For Barth, the negative emotions of Charlotte von Kirschbaum are even more
difficult to handle107 than those of Nelly. In June 1930, he expects from Charlotte
‘‘a very great progress in the school of Angels,’’ in saintly patience.108 When
Charlotte uses the words ‘‘rasend’’ or ‘‘wahnsinnig,’’ expressing that something
makes her ‘‘furious’’ or ‘‘crazy,’’ he is not able to stand this. He begs her to stop
it, otherwise this project of life together will end soon and he will get insane. If
‘‘there is something which drives me to despair slowly but surely, then it is this that
now you as well allow yourself to torment me with hysteric appearances.’’109

99. Ibid., 108: ‘‘Schwesterlein’’.

100. Ibid., 111f.: ‘‘meine Lollo.’’
101. Cf. ibid., 114f.
102. Ibid., 155: ‘‘Vatikanstadt.’’
103. Cf. e.g. ibid., 130.
104. He is the friend who understands the situation best and will do pastoral care to all three during
the next years (cf. e.g., BW. Thurneysen III, 16f.).
105. Cf. ibid., 15.
106. Ibid., 15: ‘‘Und manchmal darf man aber vielleicht gerade darum stärker als je zuvor wissen, daß
es Gnade ist, so dran zu sein.’’
107. Cf. also already in 1929, when there were lots of tears and anger on her side which for Barth were
difficult to deal with (cf. BW. Kirschbaum I, 93).
108. Cf. ibid., 135 (the original is in English).
109. Ibid., 140: ‘‘denn wenn mich etwas langsam, aber sicher zur Verzweiflung treibt, so ist es das,
wenn du es dir nun auch noch leistest, mich mit hysterischen Erscheinungen zu quälen.’’ In April
1931, he reports back to her that she has made lots of progress in the ‘‘school of angels’’ (cf. ibid.,
175; cf. also 177, 200) as she is now so warm and nice to him. One and a half years later, he again
complains that he would need her ‘‘wiser, more graceful, more relaxed’’ and that it is even
100 Theology Today 74(2)

But there are also letters which point to the opposite direction: He is struggling
with his own negative, hopeless feelings, and she seems to be calm and hopeful.110
Regularly, both try to comfort each other that things are good as they are.111
But this is not true. In the first days of August 1930, Nelly Barth writes to
Barth’s mother that she is not able to live this way anymore.112 One letter of
Nelly to Barth’s mother is especially moving. She reports of Barth’s visit in her
holidays in Adelboden in the Swiss Alps, alone, without Charlotte. She is so, so
happy about having only him with her and the family.113 And she argues that she
would feel new energy if she only would be allowed to lay out the new home in
Bonn by herself, without Charlotte. Then Karl could feel comfortable again with
her. Charlotte should move out and live close by, coming after Barth’s lecture and
working with him till the evening.114 ‘‘I then would cause her less trouble. I could
encounter her somewhat more freely, could see her come into my home, in which
I can breathe and which I can more easily build in my own ability.’’115 To her,
Charlotte looks like a martyr at her side.116
Only a few days later, Nelly gives both the ultimatum that Charlotte should
move out.117 Karl tells Nelly that this is unacceptable.118 Karl and Charlotte agree
that the situation is not ‘‘ripe for an extreme decision either to one or the other
side.’’119 Charlotte also wants to tell Nelly that during the first year she was not
open enough for Nelly.120
By the end of August 1930 Karl and Nelly reach the agreement to continue with
Charlotte in the household for another three months and only then reflect about

impossible to talk with her about the situation in a quiet manner (cf. ibid., 246: ‘‘weiser, gütiger,
lockerer’’). She later reported to Eduard Thurneysen that at a certain point she realized through
Barth’s sadness that she would destroy Barth and herself through this (cf. BW. Thurneysen
III, 390).
110. Cf. BW. Kirschbaum I, 205.
111. Cf. ibid., 207. 216.
112. Cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 31. She is considering the option to step by quietly, until a new option
opens up to her (cf. ibid., 31).
113. Cf. ibid., 37. She wants to ignore her own wish and wants to only be there for him, without
hoping in a different direction than he did (ibid., 36).
114. Cf. ibid.
115. Ibid.: ‘‘ich würde ihr dann weniger Mühe machen. Ich könnte ihr etwas freier begegnen, sie in
mein Heim kommen sehen, in dem ich atmen und das ich eher aufbauen könnte, nach der mir
gesetzten Möglichkeit.’’
116. Cf. ibid.
117. Cf. BW. Kirschbaum I, 138f. Nelly names several situations which make her jealous (e.g. when
guests were present, Barth would only look to Charlotte and would only talk to her, ignoring
Nelly).
118. Cf. ibid., 139.
119. BW. Thurneysen III, 34: ‘‘nicht als reif für eine extreme Entscheidung nach der einen oder
anderen Seite.’’
120. Cf. ibid., 35.
Tietz 101

what do to.121 But already in October 1930 the situation again becomes difficult.
Charlotte writes to Eduard Thurneysen that this constellation might lead to a
catastrophe.122 She and Nelly have only very little access to each other.123 Barth
and von Kirschbaum often intend to be nicer to Nelly, but obviously without great
success. Nelly reports to Eduard’s wife Marguerite, that she very often lies down
crying.124 Charlotte is depressed as well. She names the situation a ‘‘theatre of
war’’125 and also expresses her ‘‘right’’ against Barth very emotionally.126 Barth
is getting tired of the conflicts and hopes for peace and a quietness in which he can
‘‘build his dogmatics tower.’’127 He feels extremely lonely and unable to fulfill his
theological task.128 Eduard at that time expresses his worries to a friend whether or
not all three will stay alive internally and externally.129
In spring 1933, the crisis escalates.130 And when I am describing this situation
now, please have in mind that we are in the year 1933. On January 30, 1933, Adolf
Hitler has come to power. In a very difficult political situation which deeply
afflicted the church, Barth is dealing with tremendous familial problems.
In March 1933, Nelly tells Barth that she thinks about a divorce. In a letter to
Thurneysen she explains that she forced Barth to an honest decision, as she has
realized that in the Notgemeinschaft more than one side has not been characterized
by that love which she would have needed. Barth writes to Charlotte during these
days, that of course something in him likes the idea of divorce, but he nevertheless
wonders if they really have exhausted all other options.131 Charlotte reacts a bit
differently. In face of the insecure political situation she would be glad to officially
be at his side. She also recognizes that Nelly is not able to deal with the triangle.
121. Cf. BW. Kirschbaum I, 144.
122. Cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 47.
123. Cf. ibid., 47. During the following months, the theological work of the two becomes more and
more intense. Barth sends Charlotte the first paragraph of the Church Dogmatics, commenting
that if he will continue in the way the text is written now ‘‘our dogmatics would thus become a
very beautiful book’’ (BW. Kirschbaum I, 174: ‘‘Unsere Dogmatik würde so sicher ein schönes
Buch’’).
124. Cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 147.
125. BW. Kirschbaum I, 217: ‘‘Kriegsschauplatz’’. ‘‘Life there is so difficult, and very often I have no
power of resistance any more against this sad piteousness.’’ (‘‘Das Leben dort ist so schwer, und
ich hab oft so gar ((oft so gar keine)) keine Widerstandskraft mehr gegen diese ganze traurige
Armseligkeit.’’ [Ibid.]) She really likes his children and often cares for them. But she is also sad
that they will never have children of their own (cf. ibid., 218, 392).
126. Cf. ibid., 246: ‘‘Geltendmachung deines Rechtes.’’
127. Ibid., 202: ‘‘an seinem Dogmatikturm bauen’’.
128. Cf. ibid., 246.
129. Cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 921.
130. Eduard Thurneysen in 1932 spoke about the option of divorce (cf. ibid., 233). And Nelly had
already in 1923 suggested to Karl Barth a divorce (cf. Barth’s letter to Karl and Dorothee
Stoevesandt, in Karl Barth, Briefe des Jahres 1933, ed. Eberhard Busch [Zurich: TVZ,
2004], 166).
131. Cf. BW. Kirschbaum I, 275.
102 Theology Today 74(2)

She concedes honestly that de facto they have already got divorced from her and
only avoid the risk to the outer world. But she also assures Barth that she will stay
with him no matter which way he chooses.132
Barth responds to Nelly’s idea of a divorce with a long letter on March 31,
1933.133 In this letter, he explains his idea of the ‘‘Notgemeinschaft zu dritt
(as a threesome),’’ which they have lived for now seven years. In his view, this
Notgemeinschaft—a word which has the ambiguous meaning of ‘‘union in necessity
and of trouble’’—meant that each was connected and not connected to the two
others in different ways, had his or her own place, his or her special security, but
also his or her special burden and pain.134 Barth makes clear that he never thought
of an isosceles triangle, with an equal relation of him to both women. But Barth
now also recognizes that Nelly is not able to bear this situation any longer.135 Barth
again excludes the possibility of returning to a marriage with Nelly without
Charlotte. He notes that Nelly very often had wanted this and will never stop
wanting this, which he can understand. But in his view this wish has made the
Notgemeinschaft impossible, because it does not realize that it really was a com-
munity of necessity, not of arbitrariness.136 The necessity lays in this: He wants to
keep the outer order of marriage but also to be true to his love to Charlotte.
He confesses his guilt: that in a situation where he was still immature, he had
asked Nelly to become his wife, that he was not what a man should be for his
wife, and that he finally was unable to remain faithful to her.137
Barth then suggests a divorce, but a divorce in which Nelly and he still remain
responsible and caring for each other.138 Barth stresses that he only wants a unani-
mous divorce.139 This would be a step of love.140 Barth explains that neither he nor
Charlotte had considered this option before; he even more fought against it. But
now the time has come.141
Nelly responds that she does not want a divorce. Karl keeps arguing in the next
letter from April 5, 1933 that to go for a divorce and to let each other live freely is a
form of faithfulness to each other.142 At first sight this sounds a bit feeble. But one
should have in mind how much all three suffered and that Barth really felt obliged

132. Cf. ibid., 286.

133. Charlotte seems to have the same view as Barth in this situation on the issue of a divorce, cf. von
Kirschbaum’s letter to Anna Barth, Barth’s mother, in Barth, Briefe 1933, 194–196.
134. Cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 372.
135. Nelly speaks of herself as somebody dying but somehow still living. He confesses to be guilty that
he was not able to better help her bear the situation. Cf. ibid., 372f.
136. Cf. ibid, 373.
137. Cf. ibid., 373f.
138. Cf. ibid., 374.
139. Cf. ibid.
140. Cf. ibid.
141. Cf. ibid.
142. Cf. ibid., 377.
Tietz 103

to his wife. He again assures her that divorce for him does not mean the end of their
relationship but a necessary change in their relationship.143 Divorce is a little door
in the ‘‘prison’’144 which has become unbearable for all three. In his view, it is too
late to return to the Notgemeinschaft as before.145 Why would it be easier now, why
would Nelly better be able to deal with it?146 Why would she not experience every-
thing as insult?147 He and Lollo are too exhausted to try it again.148 And he hon-
estly confesses that he does not want to try it again, that he somehow wants to be
free.149 He now wants to marry Lollo.150 He also suggests who should take which
children.151 He concludes, ‘‘Now is the time to prove the unity which we until now
have owed each other. I call you to save the meaning of our marriage through
this.’’152
The developments of the following weeks show the complexity of the situation.
Nelly tells Eduard Thurneysen about her feeling that their marriage is acknowl-
edged by God, that she would give up her hope for their marriage if she would
declare to judges that she would want a divorce.153 She also feels responsibility
towards the church community. And of course she does not like Barth’s idea of
splitting the children into two groups.154
Dorothee Stoevesandt, a friend of the family, has a long conversation with Nelly
on April 11.155 She then writes a long letter to Barth on April 12 to which she feels
entitled because of the understanding of the Bible which she has learned through
Barth.156 She reminds Barth of Nelly’s loneliness and forsakenness.157 Nelly is
given to him by God as the poor Lazarus, as the one who has fallen.158 He
should not try to avoid Nelly as his cross.159 Dorothee’s husband Karl writes

143. Cf. ibid.

144. Ibid.: ‘‘uns allen [. . .] unerträglich gewordenen Gefängnis.’’
145. Cf. ibid.
146. Cf. ibid., 378.
147. Cf. ibid.
148. Cf. ibid.
149. Cf. ibid., 379.
150. Cf. ibid.
151. Cf. ibid., 380. Barth wants to take the two older sons with him.
152. Ibid., 381: ‘‘Es gilt jetzt die Einigkeit zu bewähren, die wir einander bis dahin schuldig geblieben
sind. Zu dieser Rettung des Sinnes unserer Ehe möchte ich dich aufrufen.’’
153. Cf. ibid., 382.
154. Cf. ibid.
155. Cf. the introduction to Barth’s letter to Karl and Dorothee Stoevesandt, in Barth, Briefe 1933,
161. Nelly read to her the two long letters of Barth.
156. Cf. ibid., 162.
157. Cf. ibid., 161.
158. Cf. ibid., 162.
159. Cf. ibid.
104 Theology Today 74(2)

another letter to Barth the same day, reminding him of his exposed position and
responsibility to the church.160
Barth is offended by their letters.161 It is only he, Karl, who has experienced the
marriage with Nelly.162 And he admits, ‘‘we all are not able to achieve what we
should, in this combination of guilt and guidance and essence.’’163 Barth explains
that he does not want to flee the cross of an unfulfilled marriage.164 But why should
God not allow us to take the cross on the other shoulder?165
Charlotte von Kirschbaum feels the same in face of Karl’s mothers’ critique of a
divorce. She explains to her in a letter from May 4, 1933, ‘‘Do we have to withstand
a path which has become hopeless for us [. . .] until one of us will perish, or are we
allowed to once more try a different path?’’166
Nevertheless, on April 19, Barth responds to Nelly that he will accept her deci-
sion against a divorce while still assuming that in the long run this will be the only
solution.167 He asks her to let him move into the room of their grown-up daughter
Franziska after his return to Bonn.168
160. Cf. ibid.
161. Cf. ibid., 163, because he does not have the impression that they really try to understand where
all three are.
162. Cf. ibid.
163. Ibid., 163: ‘‘wir Alle können das nicht leisten, was wir in der uns durch Schuld und Führung und
Wesen zuteil gewordenen Kombination sollten leisten können.’’
164. Cf. ibid., 166.
165. Cf. ibid.
166. Ibid., 196: ‘‘Müssen wir einen aussichtslos gewordenen Weg [. . .] aushalten, bis eines von uns
zugrunde geht, oder dürfen wir noch einmal einen neuen Weg versuchen?’’ On April 15, Nelly
tells Eduard Thurneysen that she cannot agree to a divorce as she feels responsible that Barth
does not cause offense to the church community. She feels she is responsible for the fact that
Barth committed adultery (cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 388). April 16, Charlotte writes a very sad
letter to Karl Barth: ‘‘I am very sad. The ‘loud’ letter of D. St[oevesandt] yesterday let me see the
whole misery with N. I want to be able to shout to the world: ‘All this is not true. Everything is
totally different.’ But I know that this is not possible. And that we simply can’t justify our way’’
(‘‘Ich bin sehr traurig. Der ‘laute’ Brief von D. St. gestern hat mir das ganze Elend mit N. so vor
Augen geführt. Ich möchte laut in die Welt hinausrufen können: ‘Es ist ja alles nicht wahr. Es ist
ja alles ganz anders.’ Aber ich weiß, daß man das nicht kann. Und daß wir unseren Weg ja eben
nicht rechtfertigen können’’) (BW. Kirschbaum I, 288). She expresses her difficulties with Nelly’s
argument that for the sake of Karl’s soul she is not leaving. At the same time, she prays that God
will open their eyes and ears that they will find the right way. She honestly confesses that it is
difficult for her to now just forget the option of a divorce and a new marriage with Karl Barth,
but at the same time wants him to know that he should be free to figure out which way is right for
him (cf. ibid., 289). Barth immediately expresses his concern that sharing her life with him might
become too depressing for her (cf. ibid., 293).
167. Cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 399.
168. Cf. ibid., 400. This development is difficult for Charlotte; she tells Eduard Thurneysen on April
17 that she again and again will fail in the attempt to support the life together as three (cf. ibid.,
389). Going back to the situation before seems so difficult for her as in the time before she had,
especially through focusing on her work with Barth, the impression that things were getting
easier. The fact that Nelly exactly then wanted divorce lets her no longer believe that they
Tietz 105

Yet on May 2, Nelly agrees to a divorce. But because this change has
come so immediately, Karl and Charlotte do not agree to this. They do not see
that this is really what she wants—which makes this solution impossible for
them.169 So they decide to continue in the former manner which Nelly seems to
be happy with.170
But the situation at home remains difficult. Charlotte expresses her resignation
to Eduard Thurneysen; it is impossible for her to not rebel against the situation.171
It is impossible for her to express gratitude to Nelly for her decision which Nelly
obviously expected.172 She is able to live beside Nelly, but no longer with her.173
But Charlotte also suffers in that she is not able to be a better companion to Nelly,
not able to love her more.174
Nelly complains to Marguerite Thurneysen that she no longer gets to read
Barth’s correspondence and that she feels excluded even more than before.175
She now has moved ‘‘to my lonely place, without accusations, without any attempt
to demand any favor.’’176 Nelly is so depressed in the summer of 1934 that she is
unable to manage the household. Charlotte tries to help, but this causes new
problems.177
Charlotte still encourages Barth in the intensifying conflicts in the church. She
understands that he is really lonely, but that his voice is so important: ‘‘I would
prefer going only with you into the wilderness than with the others in crowded
churches.’’178 From time to time, the letters of those years after the large crisis of
spring 1933 show a happier, easier mood at least between Karl Barth and Charlotte
von Kirschbaum.179 The church conflicts of that time might have become more
important, so that the private problems move into the background. Both keep

really will be able to get along with each other again (cf. ibid., 390). Nevertheless, Charlotte again
expresses her will to trust Karl Barth and to follow his decision (cf. ibid., 392).
169. Cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 406.
170. Cf. ibid., 406f. Eduard Thurneysen reminds Nelly that this will only be successful if she no longer
wishes for ‘‘more’’ which Karl cannot give and if she realizes the difference of Barth’s relation to
Charlotte (cf. ibid., 409f.).
171. Cf. ibid., 418.
172. Cf. ibid., 418f.
173. Cf. ibid., 419.
174. Cf. ibid., 675f.
175. Cf. ibid., 425.
176. Ibid., 425: ‘‘Wer unsere Tage sähe, dürfte bezeugen, daß ich meinen einsamen Ort bezogen habe,
ohne Anklagen, ohne jeden Versuch, etwas Liebes zu verlangen.’’
177. Cf. ibid., 674.
178. BW. Kirschbaum I, 317: ‘‘ich wolle lieber mit dir allein in die Wüste gehen als mit den Anderen in
volle Kirchen.’’
179. Cf. ibid., 363f.
106 Theology Today 74(2)

telling each other how much they love and need each other.180 Now, it sometimes
seems easier to them to accept the situation as it is: ‘‘Maybe well and truly paying
the price for our weird life, which is weird in so many dimensions, is the only
possibility we have, with all its sorrow and sadness which others are spared. But
what do we want?—this is just our life, against which we cannot complain, but
which we also could not have taken away from us.’’181
One of the problems of that Notgemeinschaft was that from the very beginning
too many people felt entitled to say something about it. Very often, letters were
shown to a third party.182 Gerty Pestalozzi and Eduard Thurneysen really tried to
understand the different problems each of the three had and did not advise a
certain direction. But others seemed to be sure what was right and what was
wrong.183 There were thousands of conversations, of all three separately, with
his siblings and his mother.184 His mother very often expressed how little she
agreed to what he was doing.185 In 1933, when they consider the option of divorce,
he tells his mother that he is tired of having to discuss all issues with her: ‘‘Again: I
would be so happy if you could tell yourself that a man who is 47 years old should
be able to know what he does when he comes to such a conclusion after a marriage
of 20 years, and if you could trust this son of yours who after all is not unfamiliar

180. In January 1935, Barth writes to Charlotte of his vacation in the Berner Oberland, ‘‘I do know
what or who I am missing here. Who takes care of my portion of vitamins? Nobody. Who
corrects my collar and tie? Nobody. Who from time to time gets furious? Nobody. [. . .] Who
hinders me to fall back into Swiss middle-class way of life? Nobody. [. . .] Who accompanies me
here loving, laughing, crying, teaching, protesting. . .? Nobody. Who is my joy here—by virtue of
all her spiritual-bodily existence, by virtue of her little voice, by virtue of the contours of her
shape and by virtue of the changing colors of her dresses, by virtue of the 921 expressions of her
face and her posture, by virtue of the richness of her heart and intellect, by virtue of the energy of
her will and by virtue of the depths of her mind? Who? Nobody, nobody. Yes, this is true.’’ (‘‘Ich
weiß wohl, was oder wer mir hier fehlt. Wer überwacht hier meine Vitaminversorgung? Niemand.
Wer richtet mir hier Kragen und Krawatte? Niemand. Wer rast mir hier gelegentlich etwas vor?
Niemand. [. . .] Wer verhindert hier meinen Abfall in die Zonen schweizerischer Bürgerlichkeit?
Niemand. [. . .] Wer begleitet mich hier liebend, lachend, weinend, lehrend, protestierend. . .?
Niemand. Wer ist hier kraft seines ganzen seelisch-leiblichen Bestandes, kraft seines
Stimmleins, kraft der Konturen seiner Gestalt und kraft der wechselnden Farben seiner
Kleider, kraft der 921 Möglichkeiten seines Gesichts und seiner Haltung, kraft des Reichtums
seines Herzens und Verstandes, kraft der Energie seines Willens und kraft der Tiefe seines
Gemüts meine Freude? Wer? Niemand, niemand! Ja, so ist es’’, ibid., 437).
181. Ibid., 484: ‘‘Es wird wohl nicht anders möglich sein, als daß wir den Preis für unser nun einmal
nach allen Seiten so seltsames Leben ganz gehörig bezahlen müssen mit allerlei Bekümmernissen
und Bedrücktheiten, die Anderen erspart bleiben. Aber was wollen wir?—das ist nun einmal
unser Leben, gegen das wir nicht murren können, wie wir es uns auch nicht nehmen lassen
könnten.’’
182. Even Barth showed some of his letters to Charlotte to Nelly and vice versa (cf. e.g. ibid., 103).
183. Cf. e.g. ibid., 147.
184. Cf. e.g. ibid.
185. Cf. ibid., 201.
Tietz 107

to you that he does not want unscrupulously.’’186 His mother responds the follow-
ing day harshly that God’s commandments are for all. ‘‘What is the most brilliant
theology good for, if it is to be shipwrecked in one’s own house?’’187

The theological dimension

How did Barth’s theology and theological existence influence this experience?188
All three were aware of the responsibility Karl Barth had for the theology and
the church of his time. In his first love letter to Charlotte von Kirschbaum from
February 1926, he declares, that he has to deal with all this in a way which is true to
his responsibility for his work.189 He is aware of the discrepancy in which he as an
individual now stands with ‘‘the Sache’’ (the matter) which is in the center of this
theological work and expresses his wish to fight against this discrepancy. Not
because of moral reasons, ‘‘but for the matter which [. . .] I have taken on, and
which I am not allowed to will to harm [. . .] or to compromise.’’190 He tells her that
he has never preached morally, but that he has preached discipline as the other side
of faith and hope.191

186. Barth, Briefe 1933, 170: ‘‘Nochmals: ich wäre so froh, wenn du dir jetzt sagen könntest, daß ein
47jähriger Mann schließlich wissen muß, was er tut, wenn er nach 20jähriger Ehe zu einem
solchen Entschluss kommt, und wenn du diesem deinen dir doch schließlich nicht unbekannten
Sohn auch das Vertrauen schenken könntest, das er nicht gewissenlos will’’.
187. BW.Thurneysen III, 403 n. 7: ‘‘Was hilft die scharfsinnigste Theologie, wenn sie im eigenen
Hause Schiffbruch leidet.’’
188. Barth confesses that without her his work could not have the extent which is has; cf. BW.
Kirschbaum I, xxi n. 2. As I mentioned above, there has already been a great deal of research
on the question how much Charlotte von Kirschbaum’s work was indispensable for Barth’s
theology. Some people argue that it was she who wrote the exegetical excurses of the Church
Dogmatics and those dealing with the history of theology, not Karl Barth (cf. the report of this
position in Gerhard Bergner, Um der Sache willen. Karl Barths Schriftauslegung in der Kirchlichen
Dogmatik [For the Sake of Matter. Karl Barth’s Exegesis of Scripture in the Church Dogmatics]
[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2015], 42). There is no doubt (because it is documented in
the letters) that she wrote excerpts of books and articles for Barth, analyzed literature of his
contemporaries which criticized his theology, put together quotes, for example, from Luther’s
writings and enlarged his ‘‘Zeddelkasten’’ (cf. ibid., 42). In his book, Bergner could show that it
was Barth who wrote the excurses. The handwritten manuscripts of the excurses show the hand-
writing of Karl Barth. And it is not likely to assume that Barth copied out Charlotte von
Kirschbaum’s texts as usually she had to type his handwritten manuscripts with the typewriter.
And even when you compare the handwritten manuscript and what she typed (and he corrected)
no additional excurses of hers which she might have entered during typing can be found (cf. ibid.,
42–44).
189. He explains, that in his view, both, Nelly and Charlotte, fell in love with him also because of his
theology and faith.
190. BW. Kirschbaum I, 25: ‘‘sondern um der [. . .] übernommenen Sache willen, der ich [. . .] nicht
schaden wollen, die ich nicht kompromittieren wollen darf.’’
191. Ibid., 26.
108 Theology Today 74(2)

After he had realized that he could not live without Charlotte and after several
years of trying to live close only with Nelly, he decided for ‘‘the less imperfect
solution’’192 and to let Charlotte move into the household, trying to avoid causing
offence to the church by introducing her to the public as his secretary.
In 1933, when they discussed the option of divorce this view seems to have changed.
Civic habit should not have the last word.193 As he considers his authority in the church
somehow unreal, he now thinks that a divorce would not harm his reputation.194
But Barth’s experience also influenced his theology. Already in his first love
letter to Charlotte he expresses his awareness of the hard tone of his theology:

I have taken away from many people many things (namely beautiful and dear and
high things!), because I pointed to the question, to the claim, which is posed to human
beings, to the judgment to which they are subject and to which they have to submit
themselves. I certainly think I very often spoke too strictly, too securely, having to
sacrifice concretely only very little myself.195

And he adds in brackets, ‘‘a strange consequence of our ‘experience’ will be that my
seminar this summer about the recent history of theology will turn out much more
lenient, merciful, cautious than it would have been the case otherwise!’’196
Barth interprets his own situation theologically as standing in tension between
‘‘order’’ and that which ‘‘has come upon us unintentionally out of the mysterious-
guilty depth of the human,’’197 between ‘‘the holiness of the command,’’ and ‘‘that
you and I (I don’t know on which level) are together,’’198 between the right and the
‘‘natural event’’ (‘‘Elementarereignis’’199).200

192. Ibid., ‘‘Vorwort,’’ xxii n. 3, letter of 1947: ‘‘die am wenigsten unvollkommene Lösung’’ (original
in French).
193. Cf. Barth, Briefe 1933, 167.
194. Cf. ibid., 167f.
195. BW. Kirschbaum I, 26: ‘‘ich habe Vielen Vieles (und zwar Schönes und Liebes und Hohes!)
genommen mit meinem Hinweis auf die Frage, auf den Anspruch, die an den Menschen gerichtet
sind, auf das Gericht, dem er unterworfen ist und sich unterwerfen muß. Ich denke wohl, daß ich
vielfach zu scharf, zu sicher geredet habe, zu wenig konkret selber dabei opfern mußte’’.
196. Ibid.: ‘‘eine merkwürdige Folge unseres ‘Erlebnisses’ wird die sein, daß mein Kolleg im Sommer
über die neuere Theologiegeschichte sicher viel milder, barmherziger, zurückhaltender ausfallen
wird, als dies sonst der Fall gewesen wäre!’’ In several conversations with his sister Gertrud he
expressed his conviction that without that experience he might not have been able to understand
and unfold the essence of grace the way he did in his Church Dogmatics (cf. ibid., xxiii).
197. Ibid., 50: ‘‘was da ungewollt aus der rätselhaft-schuldvollen Tiefe des Menschlichen über uns
gekommen ist.’’
198. Ibid.: ‘‘Alles kreist nun immer wieder um die zwei Punkte: der eine die Heiligkeit des Gebots, der
andere, daß du und ich (ich weiß nicht auf welcher Ebene) zusammen sind.’’
199. Ibid., 72f.
200. It might be interesting to note that his brother Heiner accuses Barth of ‘‘Naturalism’’ (cf. ibid.,
271) and that Barth in no letter about their situation argues with christological figures.
Tietz 109

Barth also stands in the tension between ‘‘the shadow of guilt and suffering and
renunciation’’ and a ‘‘right to each other which is difficult to outline’’ and which
leads to joy.201 Barth is convinced: ‘‘it cannot just be the devils work, it must have
some meaning and a right to live, that we, no, I will only talk about me: that I love
you and do not see any chance to stop this.’’202 Barth has the feeling that somehow
God did this203 and speaks of ‘‘the two who are ordained to me.’’204
Barth does not escape this tension and decides to stick to both realities of his life:

The way I am, I never could and still cannot deny either the reality of my marriage or
the reality of my love. It is true that I am married, that I am a father and a grand-
father. It is also true that I love. And it is true, that these two facts don’t match. This is
why we after some hesitation at the beginning decided not to solve the problem with a
separation on one or the other side.205

Because Barth feels responsible to the 7th commandment206 he chooses

the least imperfect solution, the ongoing crises. The triangle is his attempt

201. Ibid., 72: ‘‘der Schatten von Schuld und Leid und Verzicht, unter dem du und ich stehen, ist da
und wird da sein, aber er ist nicht das Einzige, was da ist, sondern es gibt ein freilich schwer zu
umschreibendes gewisses Recht, das wir aufeinander haben, und dieses Rechtes dürfen und
werden wir uns freuen.’’
202. Ibid: ‘‘es kann ja nicht einfach Teufelswerk sein, es muß ja doch irgend einen Sinn und ein
Lebensrecht haben, daß wir uns—nein, ich will nur von mir reden: daß ich dich so lieb habe,
so gar keine Möglichkeit sehe, das zu lassen.’’
203. Cf. ibid., 118. In a letter from May 1926, Barth writes about a verse in Jonah which contrasts
human desperation and prayer and trust in God; he continues: ‘‘On this ground, our distress and
confusion cannot be the last word or can be at least a subordinated reality and thus finally ‘Breslau’
[the option that she might move to Breslau] can only be a stupidity.’’ (‘‘Auf diesem Boden kann ja
die Not und Verwirrung, in der wir stecken, nicht das letzte Wort oder jedenfalls nur noch eine
untergeordnete Wirklichkeit sein und ist dann am Ende ‘Breslau’ wirklich eine Torheit.’’ Ibid., 48).
204. Ibid., 127: die ‘‘zwei mir verordneten.’’
205. Ibid., ‘‘Vorwort,’’ xxii n. 3, letter of 1947: ‘‘So wie ich bin, konnte ich und kann ich immer noch
weder die Realität meiner Ehe noch die meiner Liebe leugnen. Es ist wahr, daß ich verheiratet bin,
daß ich Vater und Großvater bin. Es ist auch wahr, daß ich liebe. Und es ist wahr, daß diese beiden
Tatsachen nicht übereinstimmen. Deswegen haben wir uns nach gewissem anfänglichem Zögern
entschlossen, das Problem nicht durch die Trennung nach der einen oder der anderen Seite zu lösen.’’
206. It might be important to mention that Barth was not strictly against divorce as such. Concerning
another couple he expresses his understanding for the decision of the wife for divorce (cf. ibid., 36).
110 Theology Today 74(2)

to live not in disorder, but in order.207 It is an attempt to ‘‘re-order’’ the

situation.208
And divorce for him is not only disorder as it is possible in our public law.209
Barth argues that it would be incorrect to identify the public order of marriage with
the order of God; it is related to God’s order within certain boundaries.210 And he
draws the consequence that we should not be too secure about how the order of
God can be realized in our life and in the life of others.211
Charlotte in a letter from February 1935 shows a similar understanding. The
triangle is a way of responsibility, an ‘‘order in the disorder.’’212 Charlotte is con-
vinced that there is order and command of God in both relationships: not only that
Karl’s and Nelly’s relationship is marriage, but also hers is ‘‘marriage.’’ Her rela-
tionship to Karl as well stands under the command of God as in a responsible
relationship.213
As a summary, one might take a letter of Barth to pastor William Lachat from
Neuchâtel in 1947:

It is precisely the fact which is the greatest earthly blessing given to me in my life which
at the same time is the strongest judgement against my earthly life. Thus I stand before
the eyes of God, without being able to escape from him in one or the other way [. . .] It
might be possible that it is from here that an element of experience can be found in my

207. Cf. ibid., ‘‘Vorwort,’’ xxiif. n. 3: ‘‘Ich befinde mich in einer Situation, in der es nur unvollkom-
mene Lösungen gibt. Ich zweifle keinen Augenblick daran, daß das siebte Gebot in seiner chris-
tlichen Auslegung die Monogamie und die Unlöslichkeit des ehelichen Bandes impliziert. Um
meine Verantwortung diesem Gebot gegenüber zu wahren, hatte und habe ich nur die Wahl, die
am wenigsten unvollkommene Lösung zu wählen: an Stelle einer Trennung nach der einen oder
der anderen Seite die ständige Krise, die [. . .] für alle drei Betroffenen sehr schwer zu ertragen ist.
Ich muß es auch ertragen, daß es sogar für meine Freunde schwierig ist, wahrzunehmen und zu
verstehen, daß ich mit dieser Entscheidung mich bemühe, nicht in Unordnung, sondern in der
Ordnung zu leben.’’
208. Cf. Barth, Briefe 1933, 167: ‘‘Um-Ordnung.’’ Already in May 1926, he understands the solution
of a triangle as some kind of ‘‘order’’: one being the wife and one being his comrade—two
different relations but still with some order (cf. BW. Kirschbaum I, 45).
209. Cf. Barth, Briefe 1933, 167.
210. Cf. ibid.
211. Cf. ibid. To his mother Barth writes that in his generation they are not able to be so secure about
the will of God as the former generation was. He wants to do what is right in the eyes of God; but
human concepts and habits change (cf. ibid., 171).
212. Cf. BW. Thurneysen III, 837: ‘‘die Ordnung in der Unordnung.’’
213. Cf. ibid., 837f. Charlotte therefore differs between ‘‘Gebot’’ and ‘‘Gesetz,’’ between command-
ment and law (ibid., 839f.).
Tietz 111

theology, or, to put it in a better way, an element of lived life. I have been forbidden in
a very concrete manner to become the legalist that under different circumstances I
might have become.214

Author biography
Christiane Tietz is Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Zürich,
Switzerland. She is the president of the German Language section of the
International Bonhoeffer Society. Her recent book is Theologian of Resistance.
The Life and Thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (2016).

214. BW. Kirschbaum I, ‘‘Vorwort,’’ xxf. n. 1: ‘‘Gerade die Tatsache, welche die größte irdische
Wohltat ist, die mir in meinem Leben geschenkt wurde, ist zugleich das strengste Urteil wider
mein irdisches Leben. So stehe ich vor Gottes Augen, ohne daß ich ihm auf die eine oder andere
Weise entkommen könnte [. . .] Es ist durchaus möglich, daß sich daher in meiner Theologie ein
Element der Erfahrung findet, oder besser gesagt: ein Element von gelebtem Leben. Es wurde mir
auf eine sehr konkrete Art verboten, der Legalist zu werden, der ich unter anderen Umständen
hätte werden können.’’