The revelation of God in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the judging but also reconciling presence of God in the world of human religion, that is, in the realm of man’s attempts to justify and to sanctify himself before a capricious and arbitrary picture of God. The Church is the locus of true religion, so far as through grace it lives by grace.
Barth asserts that the event of Divine revelation can only be understand and expounded through the Scripture. Revelation, both its reality and possibility, comes to the Church only through the action of God through the Holy Spirit. It is this encounter with God that has spawned, says Barth, the many religions of the world. And although Christianity is singular in its message, it is not unique its its encounter with revelation.
So here is where I want to stop and consider what Barth is saying. It is the first time in reading the Church Dogmatics, that I find myself hard pressed to understand Barth. Here is the crux of Barth’s assertion regarding revelation and religion.
From this aspect what we call revelation seems necessarily to be only a particular instance of the universal which is called religion. “Christianity” or the “Christian religion” is one predicate for a subject which may have other predicates. It is a species within a genus in which there may be other species. Apart from and alongside Christianity there is Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism and every kind of animistic, totemistic, ascetic, mystical and prophetic religion. And again, we would have to deny revelation as such if we tried to deny that it is also Christianity, that it has this human aspect, that from this standpoint it can be compared with other human things, that from this standpoint it is singular but certainly not unique. We have to recognise the fact calmly, and calmly think it through. If we are going to know and acknowledge the revelation of God as revelation, then there is this general human element which we cannot avoid or call by any other name. It is always there even apart from Christianity as one specific area of human competence, experience and activity, as one of the worlds within the world of men.*
I understand that Barth, in his later years, became a universalist. Is this the beginning of that theology? Is Barth here saying that revelation is evidenced in all religions and therefore all religions have an unique but equally viable revelation of God? Or is this Barth’s way of saying that all Men are created with the ability to experience God; some are led into a false religion and others into the One Truth of jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament?
So, according to Barth, which is it; Christianity is one option among many or Christianity is one true revelation among many misleading ones? Or is there something else gong on here I am totally not understanding?
* Karl Barth, Geoffrey William. Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance, Church Dogmatics, Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 281.
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
I’m wondering why you use words like “false” and “misleading” towards other religions in reference to Barths thoughts. Those words don’t appear anywhere in that passage of Barth’s you quoted. I think “different” or “incomplete” (maybe even immature – as in not fully mature) might be how Barth would explain the other religions. Like they’ve received unclear glimpses of Him and / or the Spiritual / Supernatural. Religion and Religious Experience isn’t exclusive (or unique) to Christianity – it’s rather universal throughout all cultures. This shouldn’t be too surprising since humans are spiritual beings.
Christian Universalists still believe that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. I don’t think Karl Barth was any different. It’s not the same thing as Unitarian Universalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism – This is a pretty good summary.
the reason I use these words, Cliff, is because I am asking a question about possible meanings. Since that is a possible meaning, I used those words. Then I leave the question open for comments, like yours, to suggest why the words are accurate or inaccurate.
Cliff, you make the conclusion, “Christian Universalists still believe that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. I don’t think Karl Barth was any different.”
What is your source for that conclusion about Barth? Have you actually read Barth’s CD? I don’t know that he was a universalist (or if he was, I don’t know that that is the meaning of this passage), I am only saying that some of his detractors (Van Til and Schaeffer) made this conclusion form his later writings.
As far as I know he wasn’t really vocal as a Christian Universalist (if he was one). He seemed to really love God and never stopped being a Christian that I know of – seems a reasonable conclusion that if he’s a Christian and a Universalist he doesn’t differ from other Christian Universalists. That’s why I phrase it “I don’t think …” I’m just basing it off the few quotes and the accompanying interpretations of his possible universalist ideas. I’ve never read him extensively in any manner.
If I take your post correctly (and I may not be) you are wondering if this passage is showing that Barth might be equating all religions as basically equal to Christianity and your comment about him possibly being a Universalist (and that this passage may be the beginnings of this belief) suggests to me that you might be thinking that Christian Universalists think Jesus isn’t necessary for salvation as long as people are in a different but equal religion.
Right now, all options are open to what the passage means since I don’t know enough to make any firm conclusion. I am still looking for insight and exploring.
BTW Cliff, I should also mention that when I am asking for your source for your conclusions, I am hoping to find some articles or resources that I can study further.
OK – here’s a book referenced on a website I read about some of Barth’s leaning toward Universalism.
Berkouwer, G. C., The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth
No Barth quotes – but this guys convinced Barth was a Universalist and thus not “saved”.
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2006/08/karl-barth-and-universalism.html
Towards the bottom of this page the author discusses Barth’s teachings on this. (It might be some passages further in his books. I’m not sure.)
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/universa.htm
This guy does a good job looking at accusations that Barth was a Universalist with page numbers to reference in some of Barths works. http://asisaid.com/journal/article/1003.html
It seems to me that Barth never stated out-and-out exactly what he believed on Universalism. (Maybe he was still formulating his thoughts on the matter?) Thus it seems mainly the conclusion people have come to is that he had “universalist tendencies” or a “universalist bent” or that some of his writings were vague enough to make people “uncomfortable.”
BTW Cliff, thanks for these article links
I’m equally confused. I’m pretty new to Barth so I’m not exactly sure. I do know that Barth pushed back on the label of “universalist,” even though one Bartian scholar said, Barth SHOULD HAVE been an universalist. Universalist (that is, all religions are equal) is not something Barth would have called himself.
Have you came to a conclusion on this passage? Or do you think there’s not enough information yet to decide and that maybe you’ll need to read more?
Evan, thanks for the input.
In some sense, I would agree with what I think Barth is saying about universal revelation spawning many religions.
Revelation is universal to all people through nature (Romans 1:18-20)
Revelation is universal in that all people are created in the image of God and have his laws written on their heart (Gen 1:26-27).
Revelation is universal in that the Holy Spirit has been sent to ALL the world (John 16:8-11)
But does Barth’s concept of universalism go beyond this? I am not sure? What I don’t totally understand is his usage of things like Christianity is one “species among a genus”
One other consideration is the word “Religion”
I think Barth uses the term in a neutral way so that all religions are on an equal footing. BUT, Christianity is, for him, more than a religioin, it is also a relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit (like he says at the beginning of this chapter where you quoted it).
so maybe he is saying 2 things.
Revelation induced religion is universal, but genuine relationship with God is singular to Christianity.
Good insights Bob, I will have to give that some serious thought. Thanks.
Greetings,
You have undertaken a very worthwhile discipline in reading through the CD, and I hope you still with it – despite the difficulties! It will get easier as you go. That said, I want to make 2 points:
(1) Religion and Christianity
You write: “So, according to Barth, which is it; Christianity is one option among many or Christianity is one true revelation among many misleading ones? Or is there something else [going] on here I am totally not understanding?”
Option 3.
Christianity as such is just another religion. Insofar as it is a human endeavor, it can be nothing but a human cultural construct. In this sense, it is just one instance of the class ‘religion’. Furthermore, speaking of Christianity as the “one true revelation among many misleading ones” would be a category mistake for Barth because there is absolutely nothing revelatory about Christianity. Now, Jesus Christ – on the other hand – is the only true revelation of God. But Christianity is simply the human cultural construct that is built upon that revelation in a more or less successful and fundamentally human way. Still, Christianity is the one religion that stands in such a relationship with Jesus Christ, and it is thus used by God as a witness to the Gospel. Insofar as it is so used, it is the one true religion. Does that help make sense out of it?
(2) Universalism
Regarding universalism, Barth famously said “I do not teach it, and I do not not teach it.” When it came down to it, Barth never affirmed it straightforwardly. That said, a lot of his logic points in that direction. There are 2 helpful articles on this: George Hunsinger’s “Hellfire and Damnation” in his Disruptive Grace, and an article by Tom Greggs published sometime in the last few years in either IJST or SJT. The point of the former is that Barth is agnostic on this point; the point of the latter is that Barth is agnostic because he wants to let Jesus Christ remain a person, not an abstract principle. Hope that helps.
WTM, thanks for taking the time to help enlarge my understanding of Barth. I think my previous posts in the series reflect a pretty fair understanding with a good application for my readers, but this section gave me some problems (as you can tell).
I think I understand your option three. Is it fair to say that for Barth Christianity is one religion among many, but it stands apart in its unique understanding and relationship with Jesus? Therefore, when Barth says, ” “Christianity” or the “Christian religion” is one predicate for a subject which may have other predicates. It is a species within a genus in which there may be other species.” I can see how he means this from a human/religious perspective.
However, the one part that still does not make sense, is the implication in the quote that all religions (many predicates) are built on the same revelation of the Spirit (one subject). Is he suggesting that all religions are traced back to the one revelation of Jesus???
When you say there is nothing “revelatory” about Christianity I do understand what you are saying and that makes sense with what Barth writes in other area of CD where he speaks about the Christian obligation to “reveal” or demonstrate Jesus to the world (see this post here for what I am referring to).
Regarding Universalism, thanks for the article suggestions and summary. I see what you mean about his agnosticism toward it as well. I know his detractors like Van Til and Schaeffer pegged Barth as a universalist, and maybe his logic leads there, but it is interesting to see how it plays out in the details of his thinking. Do you, as a Barthian Scholar, think the necessary extension of Barth’s theology is that all humankind is saved through the cross of Christ regardless of their “religion”?
Thanks again for your time and educated insight brother!
All too briefly,
(1) Religion is the sphere of human endeavor in the midst of which God reveals himself, and Christianity is the particular sub-sphere. In broad strokes: all religion = man’s attempt at self-justification; Christianity = the class of religion where God’s revelation occurs.
(2) I think Barth’s logic moves strongly in that direction; TF Torrance would want to pull it back a little to something like a functionally Arminian position (although promulgated on very different, very Reformed soil). Still, there was (and is) enough biblical material that pointed in the opposite direction to give Barth pause, and I think it should give us pause as well.
WTM,
Thanks, that helps.
You wrote, ” something like a functionally Arminian position (although promulgated on very different, very Reformed soil).”
Very interesting idea! I will look for that in my future readings.