Community, State, and Church: Three Essays by Karl Barth With a New Introduction by David Haddorff

COMMUNITY, STATE, AND CHURCH

Three Essays

KARL BARTH

WITH A NEW INTRODUCTION BY

David Haddorff

Wipf & Stock

PUBLISHERS

Eugene, Oregon

The essay Gospel and Law was originally published in German by Chr. Kaiser Verlag under the title Evangelium und Gesetz.

Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

Community, State and Church

Three Essays by Karl Barth With An Introduction by David Haddorff

By Barth, Karl

Copyright©1960 Theologischer Verlag Zurich

ISBN: 978-1-59244-923-1

EISBN: 978-1-4982-7070-0

Publication date 10/5/2004

Previously published by Anchor Books, 1960

CONTENTS

Introduction by David Haddorff—Karl Barth’s Theological Politics

Gospel and Law

Church and State

INTRODUCTION

THE CHURCH AND THE STATE AS THEY CONFRONT ONE ANOTHER

THE ESSENCE OF THE STATE

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STATE FOR THE CHURCH

THE SERVICE WHICH THE CHURCH OWES TO THE STATE

The Christian Community and the Civil Community

Bibliography

Karl Barth’s Theological Politics

David Haddorff

St. John’s University

Writing an essay on Barth’s political thought presents the particular challenge of relating his politics to his theology as a whole. The crucial point is that one must generally begin with Barth’s theology before one ventures into a specific area of his thought, like politics. Failure to do this leads to both theological and political misrepresentations. The most common misreading is that Barth’s Christocentric theology (and rejection of natural theology) leads to an ambivalent and even bewildering view of theological politics. Such is the view of Will Herberg’s extensive essay, The Social Philosophy of Karl Barth, which was the original introduction to the 1960 printing of this book.¹ Known best for his work in sociology of religion, Herberg appreciatively traces the development of Barth’s political thought from Der Römerbrief, whose ‘transcendent word’ breaks asunder all liberal utopian thought, to his defiance against Hitler’s regime and the formation of the Confessing church and the writing of the Barmen Declaration. Herberg rightly argues that it was Barth’s Christological conception of the state (and subsequent rejection of traditional Catholic and Protestant views of the state) that provided the substance of his theological critique of the Nazification of the state and church. Yet, for Herberg, Barth’s heroic stature during the German church struggle eviscerates after World War II against Soviet communism, when a different Barth emerges. The problem is, as Herberg sees is, that Barth uses his Christocentric view to reject the anti-communism of the 1950s, and instead drift toward a middle position ‘between East and West’, condemning German remilitarization and nuclear proliferation. In short, Barth’s theological politics—because it depends on Christology—remains ambiguous and confusing; Barth’s political ethics is relevant in the 1930s but not in the 1950s. It is Herberg’s essay that prompts John Howard Yoder to say that Barth’s political thought is a continuing story rather than … an oscillation between ‘now you have an ethic’ and ‘now you don’t,’ an oscillation for which one cannot find a respectful explanation.² Yoder’s core argument against Herberg is that he misunderstands the later Barth because he misunderstands his theology as a whole, and its relation to the ongoing Evangelical tradition in theology. Yoder, in the 1960s–70s, was one of the first to adequately describe the internal consistency of Barth’s theological ethics, and its how it led to a particular yet open-ended political trajectory.

Since Herberg’s essay there has been renewed interest in the political Barth. In addition to Yoder, a fresh view of the political Barth emerged in Europe, especially through the work of Frederich-Wilhelm Marquardt, who argued that Barth never really broke with socialism, but provided a new Christological foundation for socialism in the Church Dogmatics.³ Although generally rejected today, Marquardt’s thesis rightly presents Barth not as a non-political dogmatician, but as a theologian who politically engaged his own social-historical circumstances. More recently, in Against Hegemony, Timothy Gorringe continues this line of thinking, demonstrating how Barth’s dogmatics must be interpreted in response to the various hegemonies he confronted, including theological liberalism, Religious Socialism, Nazism, political nationalism, lassiez-faire capitalism, and both communism and anticommunism.⁴ Barth offers more than a No to hegemony, says Gorringe; he also offers the Yes of freedom and liberation grounded in the Word of God. Gorringe’s political reading of Barth as a kind of proto-liberation theologian remains one perspective, among many, that have emerged in the last decade exploring his theological ethics, including his political thought.⁵ Perhaps the most important book on Barth’s politics is Frank Jehle’s Against the Steam, which clearly presents a political Barth actively engaging politics throughout his life.⁶ The overall consensus is that he was political, and his thought remains important to this day.

The way Barth addressed political issues always begins with his theological presumptions. In agreement with Alan Torrance, Barth’s thought is better seen as a kind of theological politics rather than the more popular term, political theology.⁷ Unlike many approaches of political theology that tend to speak about theology within a political framework (theology interpreted politically), Barth reverses this view and speaks about politics within a theological framework and its relationship to the church (politics interpreted theologically).⁸ Unlike Barth’s approach, political theology usually begins with a social-scientific analysis of the state and civil society (including the church), and then correlates theological belief or practice. Theology becomes an appendage to language of political science, sociology, or political philosophy. In contrast, Barth develops a political perspective based entirely upon God’s action in and through the revelation of the Word of God. His commitment to the Word of God led him to be a dialectical thinker moving between absolute Yes and No, between absolute positive or negative views of the state, between absolute Christian claims of the legitimacy of the state and anarchic denial of legitimacy, between Marxist socialism and free market capitalism, and between right-wing nationalism and left-wing revolutionary politics. Once these extreme ideologies are ruled out, Barth remains committed to a practical "non-ideological politics, strictly orientated toward political issues themselves."⁹ His practical politics led him to be generally supportive—but not an apologist—for liberal constitutional democracy and a more left-leaning ‘social market’ position of economic justice. And although he presumed that the state was to be the guardian of the common good, which meant using force to protect the state, he also saw the state called to a higher purpose of peace and justice, namely to be a witness to the kingdom of God.

This essay looks more at the issue of how the church and state (and world) relate to one another and less at the issue of war. Nevertheless, it is my contention that Barth moved between the absolutes of just war and absolute pacifism and promoted an active peacemaking role for the state.¹⁰ Barth’s peacemaking perspective (or as he called it, practical pacifism) is not a reversal of an earlier just war position, but remained his continuing perspective, like his commitment to democratic socialism, throughout his life. Once war begins, however, the state (and Christians within it) must choose between participating and not participating, between supporting the state’s decision and not supporting that decision.¹¹ For example, Barth’s general commitment to the state led him to say No to violence in 1914, but Yes in 1939; by the 1950s, in a time of relative peace, he returned to a more definitive No position. This is not a reversal of positions, but movement within a dialectical position that begins with the peacemaking function of the state, but also acknowledges that there are very unusual circumstances when the state can only preserve peace through the use of force. Barth’s understanding of Christian witness allows the Christian to move freely between an affirmative Yes or No, in response to what God’s commands require in particular circumstances. To forget that Barth’s ethics is one of openness and movement is to forget his basic point, namely that ethics is responsible action in relation to God’s command of grace.

Therefore, this essay presents a continuous—yet dialectical—portrait of Barth’s theological politics, which includes the following points: 1) like all theology, his theological politics is not an independent science but one that begins with the revelation of the Word of God and the deliberative response of the Christian community (church); 2) politics begins with God’s action in Jesus Christ, in judgment and grace, which negatively delegitimizes all ideologies, but also positively commands responsible (and non-ideological) political action; 3) like theology, political thought is dialectical, namely, it remains in constant movement of distinguishing and relating without falling into the extremes of separation and identification; and 4) this dialectical movement allows him to move back and forth, taking different positions at different times, while remaining firmly committed to the priority of God’s action in history; and 5) by placing both church and state within the kingdom of God, he rejects the extreme positions of, on one side, the church standing absolutely against the ‘demonic’ state, and, on the other, the church standing absolutely for the ‘divine’ state, and instead affirms the church standing with the secular—yet redeemed—state.

Finally, we must remember that Barth lived this theology as well as wrote about it; we cannot separate the man from his thought. Hence, it is important to examine the historical context of the three essays included in this volume, in light of Barth’s life and the development of his theology as a whole. With this in mind, this essay includes four parts: 1) a brief political biography of Barth; 2) important themes prior to the publication of Gospel and Law (1935); 3) a description of the three essays, Gospel and Law, Church and State, and the Christian Community and the Civil Community"; and 4) Barth’s later thought and his relevance for contemporary discussions in theological politics.

The Political Barth

Barth’s first political involvement was as a theology student in 1904, when he joined the Swiss Zofinger Union of Bern, the oldest student political union in Switzerland, dating back to 1819.¹² This liberal union supported constitutional republican governmental reform, including the rights of public assembly, trial by jury, freedoms of speech and press, and the right of self-government. No doubt as a student he became further interested in Religious Socialism, which was making a significant impact in Switzerland during the first decade of the twentieth century through the efforts of Leonhard Ragaz (1868–1945), Hermann Kutter (1863–1931), and the German Christoph Blumhardt (1858–1919). When Barth was called to his first pastorate at Safenwil in 1911, he not only served the spiritual needs of the congregation, but as a theological liberal and a committed Religious Socialist, he sought to address their economic ones as well.¹³ Later, in 1915, the ‘Red pastor at Safenwil’ decided to join the Social Democratic party, not out of ideological commitment, but to stand in solidarity with the working-class members of his congregation who joined the party, and suffered various injustices in their factory work. In addition to his ministerial duties, he helped form local unions, began serving as a party delegate, and attended socialist conferences.