This week a Barth reading group began at the place where I study. We began with Rom1:18-32 in Der Romerbrief. Barth provides a quite compelling piece of exegesis which I will outline and elaborate on a bit. I have not checked over at Travis’ blog, but there is probably some more helpful material over there from the recent Barth blog conference. This is just an initial foray into the commentary and some of the arguments expressed in it. If you have not read it I would strongly suggest you do. If not for the theology, for the argumentative and creative genius expressed in it.
(18) The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (19) since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (20) For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Barth begins by arguing what he sees as the basis for the wrath of God being revealed. Barth’s creative exegesis leads him to say that the wrath is the “Judgement under which we stand in so far as we do not love the Judge; it is the ‘No’ which meets us when we do not affirm it…” That is to say the wrath of God is revealed in that we do not acknowledge the one who is Lord. But what is fascinating is what he then goes on to argue. That is, the attempt to acknowledge itself becomes the judgement. Barth continues to argue that what happens is “we suppose we know what we are saying when we say ‘God’. We assign to Him the highest place in our world and in so doing we place him fundamentally on one line with ourselves and with things. We assume that he needs something and so we organise our relationship with Him as we would with others… in this we confound time with eternity. That is our unrighteousness.-Such is our relationship to God apart from and without Christ…”
So what is really going on here? What Barth is saying is that all that could ever really be known of God from the creation is the unknowability of God, His ‘wholly otherness’. In failing to recognise in “awe and amazement” this unknowability we in fact slip into idolatry. So:
(21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
(24) Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (25) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
This idolatry is then an expression of the rejection of the unknowability of God, and so they create gods after the image of the creature rather than let the creator be the creator. “That is to say, the understanding of what is characteristic of God was lost… [and so] it is not long before the Truth is exchanged for a lie. The tiny mist between God and man by which the far distance is obscured, soon becomes a veritable sea of clouds. Some half conscious resentment of the unknown God becomes fully conscious.” Ultimately the Light of God is diminished and replaced with other lights “which are no light” but rather are darkness. So we descend into “the night” and the operation of man in the night. What is then the result? Death.
What I find so compelling about this account, despite any modification I would make and in fact Barth would, is that Barth is internally very consistent. If we allow him the initial presupposition that what can be known is the unknowability of God, then all the rest flows very nicely. This means that we can then actually go on the offensive in the natural theology debate from this passage rather than having it thrown back as the first line of defense for those who would like to defend natural theology.
I guess the question really is, if Barth is not right, what is the alternative? This all becomes very messy. What can we really say? What can be known? If something positive could be affirmed from a natural theology, how do we determine its truth? Would not the idols be quite sensible? So… how convinced are we? Any thoughts?
Scott Kirkland
