In April of 2006, a post of mine brought about a thoughtful critique of Barthianism by Eduardo. He gave a three point critique of Barth's theology focusing on its antagonism of natural theology, unique perspective on revelation and its implicit universalism. I have already provided a response concerning natural theology and universalism, but I do not believe I ever responded in full concerning Barth's view of revelation. Barth's view of revelation works into the theological framework I've been tinkering with here and here, so now seems like a great time to deal with this.

Let's set everything on the table from the start. Barth rejects the inerrancy of Scripture. That's the basic matter of contention, perhaps an even worse stumbling block to Barthian theology in Evangelical churches than the accusations of universalism (and, unlike the other accusation, I cannot deny that Barth indeed does hold the position he is accused of here). So my task today is not to explain why I think those who accuse Barth of rejecting inerrancy are wrong, but to show, if possible, that Barth's view is really inconsequential in itself and to the overall usefulness of Barthian/Neo-Orthodox theology. Before you prepare to burn me at the stake, bear with me and I'll explain why; don't put away the torches either -- you still may want to burn me in a little while.

Though of the three points, I am least familiar with Barth’s view on Scripture, I think I am justified in saying that while Barth rejects inerrancy, he would certainly approve of the idea that the Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and morals. Barth was a huge advocate of returning to Biblically-based theology, which is obvious to anyone who opens up his massive 13 book, 7,000+ page Church Dogmatics and looks at all of the footnotes. But, Barth followed the line of thought of Higher Criticism, which frequently rejects the inerrancy of Scripture, citing internal contradictions, the varying views of authors and the like. A contention of mine is that this is not the fault of Higher Criticism so much as it is of Evangelicals, who generally have avoided using critical methods out of fear and hence forfeited the field to liberal theologians while the discipline was still in its infancy. As a religious studies student, I spent a decent amount of time in the realm of higher criticism, and do not think that higher criticism necessitates a liberal view of Scripture, and even accepting hypotheses such as the Wellhausen (JEDP) source view of the development of the Torah need not necessitate a rejection of infallibility (in point to fact, Deut. 34:5 calls into question the view that Moses was sole author of the Torah).

That said, whatever I may think of JEDP, Second and Third Isaiah, the Q community and other good higher critical concepts, Barth felt that higher criticism’s insights required him to reject Scriptural infallibility, while still being one of the most Biblically focused theologians in ages. I can hear your question now: “How can he believe the stuff in the Bible, how can he take it for more than a grain of salt, if he says there are errors? If you pull into question part of the Bible, the whole thing collapses.” Such a response is not a straw man I am creating, but my own genuine view of the issue from not too many years ago.

Imagine you open up a book entitled the History of Western Civilization and start reading it. It describes the rise and fall of the Greek and Roman empires, the spread of Christianity, the Renaissance and all kinds of other things you know to be true. As you read along, you pick up some facts you did not know, but because they come from an authority that seems reasonable, you accept them from that authority. You may stumble on a point or two you disagree with or know to be of dubious quality, but that does not mean you will throw the book out — you will still probably accept most of it. For Barth and others (such as C.S. Lewis), this is precisely the view they take to the Bible. They may feel there are errors, but they are confident the vast majority is truthful. We’ve set the bar too high. We tell people they must either accept the Bible as infallible or reject it entirely, and in doing so, we add a difficult requirement for faith for many people, which goes entirely against the principle of union with Christ as the one and only point of what it means to be a Christian (anyone in Dr. Douglass’s Spiritual and Ministry Formation class will hopefully appreciate that point). I’m not saying I agree with Barth, but I think to attack him too seriously for it is missing the bigger picture.

But, you say, “The Bible is different from a history text! It is the sole authority of our faith — sola Scriptura.” I’ve said that too. Let’s start with the easy critique: sola Scriptura does not come out of the Bible, so you have invoked an external authority (no matter how worthy) already. But let’s ignore that bone of contention. Does one really believe the Bible because it says one should believe it? Does one believe the Bible is without error because of its claims to being useful? If so, it has become an idol for that person, because one is essentially turning the Bible into a god that can be listened to. Moreover, this is not helpful for the non-believer, because you are still appealing to an authority, one must always appeal to an authority at some point. Most Protestants appeal to the Bible as authority. Catholics will appeal to the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church. Neo-Orthodox Christians appeal to Christ as the incarnate Revelation of God.

An appeal to Christ. This is the beauty, in my opinion, of Barth’s theology. We are told by John that “the Word was made flesh,” and the Neo-Orthodox believer will say, “absolutely, that’s our point.” In appealing to the Word, Barth advocates not attempting to read Scripture in isolation, instead appealing to the Scripture enlived and made true as it can be only through the indwelling of God’s Spirit. Neo-Orthodoxy, sharing something in common with the unrelated, but similar sounding, Orthodox branch of Christianity, is Christocentric rather than Bibliocentric. Hence, the authority of Scripture is rooted not in its accuracy alone, but in the fact that God reveals Himself personally and actively to us in the reading of the Word. This does not mean the Bible cannot be infallible in the Neo-Orthodox system: on the contrary, it makes perfect sense to affirm the infallibility of Scripture and still argue that God’s self-Revelation is not Scripture but rather Christ to whom Scripture is the best and chosen witness. Note that the rooting of Biblical authority in the self-Revelation of God is not really all that different from John Calvin’s own view on Biblical authority, which appeals to self-authentication by the Holy Spirit. Basically, Barth is making the same point with more “twenty dollar words.”

Let me relay a realization that hit me one day. I was talking to one of my mentors about coming to Christ a few weeks ago, and something dawned on me. He mentioned he guessed the church of his childhood never really preached the Gospel because he did not hear it until much later. I felt the same way about my past, but that did not make sense for me, because I grew up in the same church I am in now, and I think it is unreasonable to suggest my pastors suddenly changed their tune. Instead, it dawned on me, that despite reading the Bible and despite hearing the preaching, I was unable to go from hearing and seeing to comprehending because God had not yet chosen to reveal His saving grace to me. Mark 4.11-12 strikes me in this context:

And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

"they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven." (ESV)

This is not proto-Gnosticism, rather it is a recognition that God's truth is something that can be understood only by the power of His Spirit and His revelation in the Word made Flesh. Plenty of people far smarter than I have rejected the message of the Bible and this truth is a sobering reminder that it is not by my wisdom that I avoided following them down that path. That, to me, is what Barth reminds us of, and it is something we as Evangelicals ought to heed.

The value of Barth's view of Scripture is not his view on infallibility precisely, but rather the fact that he shakes us out of our comfort zone that often idolizes the Bible. In doing so, he reminds us that we need not waste our time constantly sweating every fire that critics may lodge against the Bible's errorlessness (all of which is really a mind game anyway, since we do not have the original manuscripts that are all that can be defended as infallible anyway). One can defend the Bible's integrity until one turns blue in the face, and without God's spirit no one will be convinced. Instead we must rest on Christ alone, the full and complete self-Revelation of God who lived and died to bring us into union with Him; it is only through Him and by Him that we have any hope of understanding the Bible.