Barth: Philosophy's Place is not in Apologetics!

One of the main points of contention that is evident between Barth and Brunner is over the use of philosophy. Brunner had a view toward the world in that he wanted to use philosophy in order to combat various manifestations he thought did not fit within his theology. Sometimes this might be what he called "journalistic" theology or "eristics". It is basically a combative view in the form of using philosophy as apologetics. He believed the prevailing secularism in Europe was a starting point for the church to meet "modern human beings" in their own place and on their own terms.

Barth, on the other hand, thought that theology should have its own space to operate (starting with God's revelation). In short, that one of the problems with theology is when it becomes shaped by a philosophy. Now Barth is often misunderstood at times in thus rejecting philosophy. This he does not do. Here are a few points of what he actually does:

1. There is no such thing as "natural" reason as a first stop before then approaching theology. The point of contact that natural reason is supposedly set up to lead one to the promised land in essence cannot get you anywhere.
2. One should practice the dialectical art of thinking in response to the veiling and unveiling of the event of revelation. This is a continual act because there is no synthesis in Barth's dialectic.
3. Philosophy is to be used as a challenge to theology. We cannot take a triumphalist view toward secular thinkers but should instead listen to what they have to say on their own terms. Much Christian thought, for example, bring out a straw-man Nietzsche or Derrida just to show how bankrupt their thought is in comparison to their theology. If anyone has read Barth, one will see that he learned a lot from atheist/secular thinkers (still, he was not always consistent about this) by listening to their criticisms with open ears.

Not Just Natural Theology for Barth and Brunner: A Problem at the Start

Been speed reading through John W. Hart's Karl Barth Vs. Emil Brunner: The Formation and Dissolution of a Theological Alliance, 1916-1936 the last couple of days. The thesis behind the book is that there were methodological problems between the two theologians before the major break over the doctrine of natural theology.

Now I always understood the break in its historical context (unlike many people who simply think Barth overreacted). Barth's Nein! was motivated in reaction to the German Christians utilization of natural theology in backing up the Nazis as a religious event (this is all around the early 1903s in Germany). In some sense, Brunner's essay was simply bad timing and that is why Barth pounced on it. Nevertheless, one should not think it was just this context that led Barth to utterly despise natural theology. He already came to the conclusion that it was bankrupt and in opposition toward his theology of revelation.

Hart's book shows how Barth had always suspected that Brunner did not really understand him and that they were always somewhat at odds. One example is over the handling of Schleiermacher (who I have learned to respect as a thinker on his own merits). Brunner attacks Schleiermacher in a triumphalist sort of way. Barth, on the other hand, has a weird love/hate relationship with Schleiermacher's thought, but loves the man. One of the arguments between Barth and Brunner are over Schleiermacher's sermons. Barth says you will not understand him really without diving into his sermons, but Brunner does not buy this option.

The other thing featured in the book is just how needy Brunner is and how Barth is a little bugged by it. Here is great quote by Barth: "Do I have to write a commentary to every postcard? Dear friend: take everything in humor and innocence in which it was meant. And above all: don't take me-and yourself-so bloody seriously."

Finally, I actually read "natural" theology through a more poststructuralist mode. In short, there is no such thing as "natural" for us the human viewers. Everything is seen through symbolization. When I get to this part of the book I will post on what I consider Barth's aversion to both natural theology and humanism-which I am currently trying to find links in Zizek's thought.