Karl said, “No!”
1934 was a busy year for Karl Barth. First, he was deported from Germany for his opposition to Adolf Hitler. He was a founding member of the Confessing Church as well as a major influence in the Barman Declaration which denounced the Nazi influence in Germany. Along with all this he also published an essay simply entitled, “Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner,” (No! In Response to Emil Brunner) which still raises eyebrows today.
So, Karl Barth (1886-1968) is considered by many to have been the most important theologian of the twentieth century. His magnum opus is a vast work known as, Church Dogmatics which takes up over nine thousand pages! As one critic bemoaned, “the truth cannot be so long.” Quite the intellectual as well as activist Karl was. But what was his problem with Emil Brunner, a man that many would consider a theological ally? Well, it boils down to this thing called natural revelation. Karl didn’t like it and Emil had just presented his own version in his essay, “Nature and Grace,” in which he had endorsed natural revelation. (In the photo above Karl Barth is on your right and Emil Brunner is on the left.)
Often the greatest arguments are between people having the most in common, and the close friendship that had existed between Karl and Emil became strained. What mattered to Barth, in contrast to the liberal theology in which he was originally trained, was that God reveals himself. God, the real God, according to Barth, will not be discovered by our own endeavor. Liberal theology, as taught by men like Fredrick Schleiermacher and Adolf van Harnack, was doing just the opposite. The liberal theological movement had developed out of the Enlightenment’s version of rationalism and the rejection of the traditional religious authorities of Scripture and Holy Tradition. Instead it focused on individual reason, an emphasis on biblical-criticism, and individual experience. When Barth attempted to preach to his congregation, he found that such an approach to theology had little to say.
Karl turned it around, proclaiming that God is revealed in Christ. Barth’s theology is firmly Christ-centered. It is in Christ, as witnessed to by the Scriptures, in which we see God’s revelation of himself. For Karl the problem with natural revelation is, for one thing, it will not get us there. General revelation will not get us there. It will not bring us to a clean and accurate understanding of the true God. What is needed is often termed, Special Revelation, God’s self-communication, to bring us to the true faith. Without it, all of our intellectual powers and reasoning abilities will fall short. In another words, we need Jesus Christ, the self-revelation of God, for without Christ we are in error. We will not see the truth that is God. Christ is the guiding light; for without him our natural inclinations will lead us astray. (John 14: 6)
The liberal theology that Barth opposed was based on reason, not revelation; it deconstructed theology, including Scripture, as well as the teachings of the Church. The search for the “historic Jesus”, that had been so popular, was destined to fail. Liberal Theology was a “humanistic” endeavor attempting to use reason to rise to where only God’s revelation can take us. If we do not begin with God than the God we end with will not be the true God. Reason walks any path it is placed upon. As the Apostle warned, “their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1)
“Natural Theology,” which is based on natural revelation, Barth would write in his Dogmatics, “is the doctrine of a union of humanity with God existing outside God’s revelation in Jesus Christ” (CD II/1:168). Natural revelation by itself, Karl was concerned, can be used by sinful people to justify anything, even the Nazi Party! Karl witnessed this firsthand as many German Christians, including several well-known theologians, endorsed Adolf Hitler as God’s answer to the troubles of Germany. Barth’s “No” to natural revelation, some would argue, needs to be read as a “No” to Hitler.
Now keep in mind, Emil Brunner had not claimed that natural revelation by itself was enough. He was well aware that God’s self-revelation was essential. Barth’s initial hard response may have been an overreaction due to the theological and political situation in German at the time. Years later, after the war had ended and the dust was settling, Barth returned to Germany and began lecturing again. He eventually wrote a letter, a message for his old friend, Emil, who was near death at the time, in which he stated, “tell him (Brunner) the time when I thought I should say No to him is long since past, and we all live only by the fact that a great and merciful God speaks his gracious Yes to all of us.”
The political situation had changed. It took Barth over 35 years to complete his Church Dogmatics, that massive work, written before, during, and after the war. Not surprisingly his views developed and changed some over time. In the early stages he strongly opposed all talk of natural revelation, but in the final pages he began to develop an appreciation of natural revelation. Jurgen Moltmann explains…
“At the end of his Church Dogmatics, he (Karl Barth) developed his own Natural Theology. After the special Christian Theology, there can and must be a theology of nature about the many lights outside of the one light of Christ, and the many words of truth outside of the One Word of the Incarnate of God, which is Christ. But the relationship between the Light which is Christ and the many lights of the world, is like the rear-reflectors (sic) of your car. If you switch on the lights of your car, then you can see the reflectors of the car in front, so the lights in nature are only a reflection of the Light of Christ. They do not illuminate anything by themselves; only as a reflection of the Light of Christ.” (https://postbarthian.com/2014/07/15/jurgen-moltmann-unfinished-summas-natural-theology/)
The Early Church for Today 