Barry Hamilton on Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth

Karl Barth. Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. xx + 652 pp. $45.00, paper, ISBN 978-0-8028-6078-1. Reviewed by Barry W. Hamilton Published on H-AmRel (March, 2003) While casual observers might regard this should signal readers that Barth mines his book as a survey of eighteenth-and nineteenth- sources from polemical intentions, and caution century philosophy, Protestant Theology in the them from taking his chapters as representative Nineteenth Century is in fact an extensive theolog‐ treatments. Barth's theological interests profound‐ ical critique of the foundations of modernity. As ly influence his reading of sources, to say the such, this new edition of Barth's important histori‐ least. Regarding his sources as "living voices" cal theology--which focuses primarily on the work since God is "the Lord of the Church" as well as of European theologians--can provide help for the "Lord of theology," Barth listens for the Word scholars interested in appraising the development spoken by the living Christ through the Spirit of theological modernism in America. Throughout within the Church, even when that Word appears the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, theolo‐ submerged. The reader must keep this perspec‐ gians struggled to reconcile Christianity with the tive in mind when considering Barth's apparently insights of contemporary thought while others conflicting assessments of these thinkers. fought strenuously to defend traditional Chris‐ Critically assessing the course of human tianity. In this respect, Barth brings to light the thought during these centuries, as it addressed fundamentalist-modernist controversy that erupt‐ the problem of theology, Barth carefully details ed in nineteenth-century American denomina‐ the anthropocentric theology that rose with the tions as an irreconcilable chasm. Certainly Barth Enlightenment, reached its apotheosis in Roman‐ provides a detailed exposition of Enlightenment ticism, and again embraced the Enlightenment at and Romantic thought; but his work far exceeds the end of this period. This anthropocentrism the boundaries of historical examination. Barth manifested itself in terms of absolutism, a self- casts history and philosophy in a theological confidence that proposed an identity between hu‐ mold, and the result is a distinct perspective that manity and God. This self-confidence lies at the judges both. In addition, he lumps together a di‐ root of the explosion of knowledge as a humanis‐ verse range of fgures as theological thinkers. This H-Net Reviews tic endeavor. Absolutism became foundational for posed by theology stand over against humanity political philosophy, as the basis for the state be‐ and authority above and beyond the human race. came co-extensive with human will (whether the If eighteenth-century theology produced an an‐ king or the people). The eighteenth century in swer that corresponded with its own nature, no particular produced a rich harvest of educational one did so more perfectly than Hegel. At no point philosophy, based on the assumed essential good‐ did human self-consciousness reach a higher ness of humanity. Scientific knowledge fourished point than in Hegel's thought, in which Mind as absolute human will imposed form on nature, (thought and that which is thought) is identical bringing the universe within range of human with God. As Barth points out, "Hegel's philosophy comprehension. is the philosophy of self-confidence." Since hu‐ Barth locates the "problem of theology in the manity could no longer doubt itself, it could doubt eighteenth century" in the extension of this an‐ everything else. Hegel was perhaps the greatest thropocentric absolutism, the identification of embodiment of the drive for absolutism. Yet the‐ God within the immanent historical process. The‐ ologians rejected Hegel in his own time, and scat‐ ology became circumscribed within human com‐ tered into multiple directions as they reframed prehension, most notably in the requirement that these answers. theology be "reasonable," adapted to ft the At the heart of the limitations imposed by the canons of reason. The essence of God's nature, im‐ problem of theology is theodicy, the ineradicable planted within human nature, could not stand presence of evil in spite of the eighteenth-centu‐ above reason but was fully co-extensive with ry's "Pelagian" program to rid itself of the corrup‐ comprehensibility. This rationalism rejected mira‐ tion of past ages and return to humanity's essen‐ cles and other references to a supernatural ele‐ tial innocence. As Barth points out, Rousseau de‐ ment beyond human experience, characterizing clared humanity's essential goodness even as he these features as "myth" that belonged to an earli‐ confessed his own sins. Neither could Kant, whom er stage of human tutelage. Thus the "humaniza‐ Goethe accused of having "criminally smeared his tion of theology" historicized doctrine and inter‐ philosopher's cloak with the shameful stain of nalized Christianity with its concern for an ideal‐ radical evil," avoid speaking of "an evil principle" ized human consciousness. In fact, Barth outlines even within reason itself. Every attempt to force this period as humanity coming to full conscious‐ theology into anthropocentric terms failed to ad‐ ness of itself, in the eighteenth century as reason dress the radical conflict of good and evil that ap‐ (the Enlightenment platform) and in the Romantic peared within human consciousness at every reaction as subjective "feeling" (the response to turn. Kant's epistemological divide). Thus absolutism The central fgure in nineteenth-century the‐ brought the universe under the lordship of hu‐ ology was Friedrich Schleiermacher, the "father manity and banished mystery from its domain. of modern theology." For Schleiermacher, faith However, while Barth acknowledges the suc‐ rests on "the basis of a highest knowledge of hu‐ cess of the application of absolutism to other man feeling or immediate self-awareness in its problems, he points out that humanity in its ef‐ correlation to God, upon the basis of a highest forts to deal with Christianity on its own terms ex‐ knowledge of the nature and value of faith and perienced "hesitation and stumbling." While hu‐ the diversity of ways of believing altogether." He manity "framed the question posed to it by Chris‐ thus transformed pistis into gnosis, "faith" as fully tianity" in terms of the answers that human immanent within the human consciousness. This thought could provide, the questions and answers faith is developed through education and through 2 H-Net Reviews educating, defined as mediation between experi‐ the seeds of radical evil--indeed Barth writes in ence and history. As Barth points out, "peace" is a the early years of the Third Reich. Contemporary prominent motif in Schleiermacher's sermons, historians would strongly question Barth's claim signaling that ultimately there can be no "irrecon‐ to allow each source to "speak on its own terms," cilable contradictions and therefore cannot be when his work could be more accurately de‐ any unpeaceful state either in general or in partic‐ scribed as a theological reading of these sources. ular, outwardly or inwardly." Barth locates in his Students interested in Kant or Schleiermacher theology "the point which had come to the center should not make this book their starting point, of the entire thought of modern man. This point nor should they draw information blindly from its was simply man himself." Schleiermacher's theol‐ chapters. Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth ogy thus compels Christianity to be reconciled Century should be read and quoted within con‐ with modern thought and the Church to submit to text and in light of Barth's major thesis. Consider‐ the State. ing the comprehensive vision with which Barth >From Schleiermacher to Ritschl, Barth writes, as well as the consequent possibility for presents a curious mixture of "theologians," some misreading him, no one should miss the indis‐ of them well-known critics such as David Strauss, pensable introduction by Colin Gunton. Neverthe‐ and many of them lesser known German pastors less, this book retains its place as a splendid ex‐ who in spite of their biblicism could never evade ample of historical theology employed in the Schleiermacher's anthropocentrism. Each in one's name of cultural criticism, an indictment of the own way represents "an abbreviated account of flawed foundations of modernity. the nature and purpose of nineteenth-century With these criticisms in mind, church histori‐ theology." Even the Pietists among them such as ans can appropriate Barth's insights to evaluate Richard Rothe could not overcome tendencies to‐ the impact of the Enlightenment and Romanti‐ ward a natural theology that could be developed a cism on American theology, whether one studies priori from the human spirit. Nor could a man the work of Theodore Parker or William Newton like Hofmann, who proposed to develop a "factu‐ Clarke. Even if one cannot agree with his conclu‐ al" theology, escape the influence of Leopold von sions, Barth's rich description of the course of the‐ Ranke's ambition to comprehend history "exactly ology could help scholars appraise the develop‐ as it happened." None of them could fully escape ment of modernism in America, including Boston Feuerbach's reversal of Hegel's dialectic, in which Personalism and the "Chicago School" that began the human spirit mirrors in the communicatio id‐ with Henry Nelson Wieman. Throughout the nine‐ iomatum

Load more