Wikipedia Deep Dive

Karl Barth

14 min read

In 1914, a young Swiss pastor opened his newspaper and felt his world collapse. His most revered teachers—the brilliant theologians who had shaped his mind at Germany's finest universities—had signed a manifesto supporting Kaiser Wilhelm's war. For Karl Barth, this wasn't just a political disappointment. It was a theological earthquake. If these great minds could so easily bend their Christianity to serve nationalism, then something had gone terribly wrong with the entire intellectual tradition they represented.

That crisis of conscience would launch one of the most influential theological revolutions of the twentieth century.

The Red Pastor of Safenwil

Karl Barth was born in Basel, Switzerland, in 1886, into a family where theology was the family business. His father Fritz was a professor and pastor who wanted Karl to follow a conservative, traditional form of Christianity. Karl had other ideas. He wanted the cutting edge—the liberal Protestant education that was reshaping European religious thought.

So he went to Germany to study under the masters. At the University of Berlin, he sat at the feet of Adolf von Harnack, one of the most celebrated church historians of the age. He moved on to Tübingen, then settled at Marburg to study under Wilhelm Herrmann. These men represented liberal theology at its finest—a movement that tried to reconcile Christianity with modern science, historical criticism, and Enlightenment philosophy.

Liberal theology, to understand it simply, was an attempt to save Christianity by updating it. Its proponents applied the same historical and scientific methods to the Bible that scholars used on any ancient text. They questioned miracles, reinterpreted doctrines, and tried to extract the ethical essence of Jesus's teaching while discarding what seemed like ancient superstition. The goal was noble: make Christianity intellectually respectable in an age of Darwin and higher criticism.

Armed with this education, Barth took a pastoral position in 1911 in Safenwil, a small village in the Swiss canton of Aargau. There, something unexpected happened. The young pastor who had learned sophisticated theological methods at elite universities found himself utterly unprepared to preach.

What do you say to textile workers struggling to feed their families? What comfort does historical criticism offer to someone facing death?

Barth threw himself into the workers' cause with such passion that locals nicknamed him the "Red Pastor." He advocated for unionization, publicly clashed with factory owners, and aligned himself with Social Democratic values. But even as he fought for social justice, he felt a growing emptiness in the theology he had been taught. It seemed to have nothing to say that couldn't be said better by sociology or ethics.

When the Teachers Betrayed the Teaching

Then came August 1914 and the "Manifesto of the Ninety-Three." This document, signed by leading German intellectuals including Adolf von Harnack himself, defended German militarism and the invasion of Belgium. For Barth, watching from neutral Switzerland, it was devastating. These were the men who had taught him that Christianity was essentially about love, ethics, and human progress. Now they were blessing artillery shells.

The problem, Barth realized, wasn't that his teachers had personally failed. The problem was structural. Liberal theology had worked so hard to make God relevant to modern culture that God had become captive to that culture. When the culture went mad with nationalism, there was no independent ground from which to resist. Christianity had become a chaplain to civilization rather than its judge.

Barth needed a different foundation entirely.

He found allies in his quest. Eduard Thurneysen, a pastor in a neighboring village, shared his disillusionment. Together they searched for what Barth called a "wholly other" starting point—something fundamentally different from Friedrich Schleiermacher's influential nineteenth-century approach, which grounded religion in human feeling and experience.

In 1915, Barth and Thurneysen visited Christoph Blumhardt, a remarkable figure who combined deep Christian faith with socialist politics. Blumhardt made a profound impression. "Blumhardt always begins with God's presence, power, and purpose," Barth later observed. That was the key insight: start with God, not with human experience or culture or religious feelings. Start from above, not from below.

A Bomb in the Playground of the Theologians

Barth's theological revolution took the form of a commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans, written in the study of his Safenwil parsonage during the summer of 1916. The first edition appeared in 1918. But it was the drastically rewritten second edition of 1922 that detonated in the theological world.

One Catholic theologian described it as "a bomb on the playground of the theologians." The image captures the disruption perfectly. Where liberal theology emphasized continuity between human striving and divine grace, Barth emphasized rupture. Where liberals saw God working through culture and history, Barth saw God breaking into culture and history from outside—"vertically from above," as he put it.

Barth's approach was dialectical, a philosophical term meaning he worked through contradiction and tension. He would affirm something, negate it, then reach a higher synthesis. God's righteousness, he argued, "is revealed like a trumpet blast from another world that interrupts one's obligation to nation, and also interrupts the nurturing of religious thoughts and feelings." A divine "No" knocks humanity to the floor; a divine "Yes" sets it back on its feet.

This was thrilling and terrifying. It meant that human achievements—including religious achievements—could never capture or contain God. Every church, every theology, every pious feeling stands under judgment. God is not the highest value in our value system. God is the one who overturns all our value systems.

The commentary launched Barth from pastoral obscurity to academic stardom. He was invited to teach at the University of Göttingen in 1921, then moved to Münster in 1925 and Bonn in 1930. He was building what would become the most significant body of Protestant theology since the Reformation.

Saying No to Hitler

In 1933, Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. The Nazi regime quickly moved to bring all institutions under its control, including the churches. The "German Christians" movement enthusiastically embraced Nazi ideology, decorating their altars with swastikas and preaching that Hitler was a gift from God to the German people.

Barth had spent years arguing that God cannot be domesticated by human culture. Now that argument faced its supreme test.

In 1934, representatives of Protestant churches opposed to Nazi influence gathered in the city of Barmen. Barth was the primary author of the declaration they produced—except, he later noted with precision, for a single phrase. The Barmen Declaration became one of the founding documents of the Confessing Church, the movement of Christians who refused to bow to Nazi ideology.

The declaration's central claim was simple but revolutionary in that context: Jesus Christ is the one Word of God whom we must trust and obey. Not Jesus Christ plus German national destiny. Not Jesus Christ plus racial purity. Jesus Christ alone. The church's allegiance to God must give it the resources to resist all other lords—including the German Führer.

Barth personally mailed a copy of the declaration to Hitler.

The consequences were predictable. In 1935, Barth was forced to resign from his professorship at Bonn for refusing to swear an unmodified oath of loyalty to Hitler. Only one other professor at Bonn refused: Kurt von Fritz, a classical philologist. Barth returned to Switzerland and took a position at the University of Basel, where he would remain for the rest of his career.

When Swiss officials asked the routine question put to all civil servants—whether he supported national defense—Barth replied: "Yes, especially on the northern border!"

The Cathedral of Dogmatics

Even as political crisis swirled around him, Barth was constructing something monumental. The Church Dogmatics, begun in 1932, would eventually run to over six million words across more than nine thousand pages—one of the longest works of systematic theology ever written. Barth worked on it for the rest of his life, aided significantly by Charlotte von Kirschbaum, who served as his secretary, research assistant, and, as biographers have documented, his lover. She lived in the Barth family home for thirty-seven years, creating an arrangement that scandalized some and puzzled others.

The Church Dogmatics was planned in five volumes: the Doctrine of the Word of God, the Doctrine of God, the Doctrine of Creation, the Doctrine of Reconciliation, and the Doctrine of Redemption. Barth never completed the project. The fifth volume was never written, and the fourth remained unfinished at his death.

What Barth did complete, however, represents a comprehensive reimagining of Christian theology. His central move was to make everything revolve around Jesus Christ. This sounds obvious—isn't Christianity supposed to be about Christ? But Barth meant something radical. He didn't just mean that Jesus is important. He meant that every theological question must be answered by looking at Jesus.

Take the doctrine of election, traditionally one of the most troubling ideas in Protestant theology. John Calvin and his followers taught that God, before creating the world, chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. Why these and not those? The divine will is inscrutable. This "double predestination" seemed to many to make God arbitrary and cruel.

Barth kept the language of double predestination but transformed its meaning entirely. Jesus Christ, he argued, is both the electing God and the elected human. In Jesus, God chose to be for humanity and against sin. If anyone is predestined to rejection, it is Jesus on the cross, bearing the judgment we deserved. Election is not a hidden decree sorting individuals into saved and damned. Election is God's gracious decision, revealed in Jesus, to be for us.

Critics, including the theologian Emil Brunner, accused Barth of sneaking universalism—the belief that everyone will ultimately be saved—in through the back door. Barth never explicitly affirmed universalism, but his doctrine of election certainly pushed in that direction. If Jesus bore the rejection meant for humanity, what remains to keep anyone out of God's grace?

The Cold War Controversies

After the Second World War, Barth helped author the Darmstadt Declaration of 1947, a statement of German guilt that went further than earlier confessions. The Stuttgart Declaration of 1945 had acknowledged German wrongdoing in general terms. Darmstadt was more specific and more uncomfortable: it pointed to the church's willingness to ally with anti-socialist and conservative forces as a factor that made it susceptible to Nazi ideology.

This analysis infuriated people on both sides of the emerging Cold War. Western anti-Communists thought Barth was equating opposition to socialism with support for fascism. East German dissidents thought he wasn't being hard enough on Communist tyranny.

Barth's position on Communism remained controversial throughout the 1950s. He sympathized with peace movements and opposed West German rearmament. In 1960, he wrote an article for The Christian Century that crystallized his stance: he had no desire to live under Communism and wished it on no one, but he regarded "anticommunism as a matter of principle an evil even greater than communism itself."

This statement baffled many. How could opposition to Communist tyranny be worse than the tyranny itself? Barth's reasoning was that anti-Communism as an ideology—especially when it became the organizing principle of Western foreign policy—risked becoming another false god, another absolute that demanded ultimate loyalty. He had watched German Christianity baptize nationalism. He feared American Christianity baptizing capitalism and militarism.

Whether this analysis was wise or naive remains debated. What's clear is that Barth applied the same theological critique to East and West: no political system, no ideology, no nation deserves the church's ultimate allegiance. Only God in Jesus Christ commands that.

The Theologian as Cultural Phenomenon

On April 20, 1962, Karl Barth appeared on the cover of Time magazine. For a Swiss theologian who wrote multi-volume works in German about the doctrine of reconciliation, this was remarkable. It signaled that Barth's influence had escaped the seminary and reached mainstream American culture.

That year, Barth toured the United States, lecturing at Princeton Theological Seminary, the University of Chicago, Union Theological Seminary in New York, and San Francisco Theological Seminary. He was invited to attend the Second Vatican Council as a guest, though his health prevented attendance. In 1967, he was finally able to visit the Vatican and meet Pope Paul VI, an encounter he memorialized in a small book titled Ad Limina Apostolorum—At the Threshold of the Apostles.

Pope Pius XII allegedly called Barth "the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas." Whether Pius actually said this is uncertain—scholars note there's never chapter and verse for the quotation, and it's sometimes attributed to Paul VI instead. But the fact that such a claim circulated indicates how seriously the Catholic world took this Protestant revolutionary.

Barth's influence extended far beyond people who agreed with him. He shaped the thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed by the Nazis for his resistance activities. Jürgen Moltmann built his theology of hope in dialogue with Barth. James Cone, the founder of Black liberation theology, drew on Barthian insights even while criticizing Barth's blindness to racial injustice. Reinhold Niebuhr, who disagreed with Barth on political engagement, nonetheless wrestled with his ideas throughout his career.

Even novelists felt Barth's gravitational pull. Flannery O'Connor, the Catholic Southern Gothic writer, absorbed his ideas about grace and judgment. John Updike, chronicler of suburban Protestant anxiety, was a serious reader of Barth. The Hungarian writer Miklós Szentkuthy engaged with Barth's theology in his avant-garde fiction.

The Final Night

Karl Barth died on December 10, 1968, at his home in Basel. The evening before, he had spoken with Eduard Thurneysen—the same friend with whom he had searched for a new theological foundation more than fifty years earlier in neighboring Swiss parsonages.

Thurneysen was discouraged. The world seemed dark. Barth offered comfort that was entirely characteristic: "Things are ruled, not just in Moscow or in Washington or in Peking, but things are ruled—even here on earth—entirely from above, from heaven above."

It was the same message he had proclaimed since that devastating day in 1914 when his teachers signed the Kaiser's manifesto. Human powers rise and fall. Ideologies come and go. Nations make their claims and wage their wars. But the God revealed in Jesus Christ is not contained by any of them. That God speaks a Word that judges and saves, that breaks into history vertically from above, that cannot be domesticated by culture or captured by any political program.

Whether this theology is liberating or escapist, prophetic or quietist, remains debated. What's undeniable is that Barth changed the conversation. After him, theology could never again be quite so comfortable as the chaplain of Western civilization. The bomb he dropped in the theologians' playground is still sending out shockwaves.

Why Barth Still Matters

Reading Barth today, you might wonder why anyone would wade through thousands of pages of dense German prose about doctrines most people have never heard of. The answer lies not in the details but in the fundamental move Barth made.

Every age faces the temptation to make God useful—to harness religion for national purposes, to turn churches into supporters of whatever cultural consensus prevails. In Barth's time, that meant German Christianity blessing German nationalism. In our time, it might mean something else: Christianity as self-help, as political tribalism, as cultural identity marker.

Barth's theology is a sustained protest against all such domestications. God is not useful. God is not the highest value in your value system. God is the one who interrupts all your systems with a Word from outside.

This can sound abstract, but its implications are concrete. If Barth is right, then the church can never simply be the religious department of the state or the spiritual wing of any political movement. It must always maintain a critical distance, always be ready to say no as well as yes, always remember that its ultimate loyalty lies elsewhere.

That message found its test in Nazi Germany, where saying no cost people their careers and sometimes their lives. It found its test in the Cold War, where Barth refused to let anti-Communism become a new absolute. It finds its test wherever Christians are tempted to confuse the gospel with their cultural preferences.

The Red Pastor from Safenwil, who started out trying to find something to preach to textile workers, ended up giving the twentieth century one of its most powerful theological voices. He never finished his Dogmatics. But in a sense, that incompleteness was fitting. The Word he pointed to is not something any human work can capture or complete. It keeps breaking in, from above, still today.