Monday, May 7, 2012

The Christian Message: What is the Gospel? How is it perverted?

Nathan Bickel


The Christian Message: What is the Gospel? How is it perverted?:


I often take walks while listening to my audio Bible. What I have found, is that my “intake” of God’s Word, seems to be heightened. Most of my life, I’ve read the Bible, material about Scripture and listened to preached sermons. But in my (now) later years, I very much enjoy uninterrupted hearing from the Biblical (spoken) text.

This last week, on one of my walks, I listened to the New Testament book of Galatians 1:1f and some of Ephesians 1:1f. I was particularly struck by the references to “faith” in Galatians – specifically, Galatians 2:16:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. [KJV] - Galatians 2:16

Now, I don’t by any stretch of the imagination claim to be an expert Bible scholar, steeped in the Scripture languages of Hebrew and Greek. Nor do I tout any worldly titles and / or degrees. But, as an aging emeritus Christian pastor and continued student of God’s Holy Scriptures, I, would just like to simply think of myself being in the same simple league as (were) my first century ancestor Christian brothers and sisters:

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. [KJV} - Acts 4:13


'via Blog this'

Extra Nos: BM's comments on Hunnius' book contra Huber

Dr. Lito Cruz


Extra Nos: BM's comments on Hunnius' book contra Huber:


Brett Meyer has a good comment on the book, Theses Opposed to Huberianism: A Defense of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification by Aegidius Hunnius,  translated by Paul A. Rydecki. It is found at Ichabod and can be read here.

Samuel Huber ( c. 1547-1624) was a former Reformed pastor/teacher who converted to Lutheranism. While teaching at Wittenberg, he espoused UOJ from which the present Waltherian UOJers have taken their present theory. Huber was rejected by the BoC writers. To say that he was treated as a heretic will be too mild.

Of course the UOJ myth makers will say, following Tom Hardt that - Huber's version of UOJ is bad, but the right version of UOJ is that of Walther's version. This again is a myth. To test this hypothesis, one just has to look at Hunnius' book then to see if Hunnius espouses Walther's version of UOJ. Now that will be an interesting scholarly exercise if ever they can show this. Then they have extended themselves. I doubt it.

Do you know also what is interesting during this controversy? Huber charged the BoC authors who espoused JBFA of Calvinism! Now does that not ring a peculiar bell?

Is it not interesting that the present UOJ defenders are doing the same in charging JBFA people of the same?

Like father, like son, so the saying goes. Present UOJ defenders are just like their father Huber. The fruit does not fall too far from the tree. This saying is solemnly true.


'via Blog this'

---


LutherRocks said...
Have you read the book, Lito? I have it on order and am looking forward to reading it. From what I have gleaned, Huber took his reformed double predestination and eliminated the condemned part flinging him into full fledged universalism (all are saved without faith). Hopefully the book gives the Huber statements that the 200 some thesis are rejecting.

Although many agree that the term objective justification is ripe with red herrings, properly taught is not universalism. God's promise of the forgiveness of sins to all men given in Eden; culminated at the Cross and Resurrection, delivered on God's promise. In Christ is the forgiveness of men's sins. Had Christ not paid for every sin making forgiveness a reality for all men (since His will is for all to be saved), our faith would be in vain. Salvation consists of God's grace, Christ and His merits and faith in Christ and those merits. A man's rejection of these gifts (lack of faith) condemns him and he takes back the responsibility for his sins.
Brett Meyer said...
Hunnius addresses and condemns not only Huber's errors but Joe Krohn's too.

Enjoy the book.
Gregory L. Jackson said...
Here is a link that shows the link between UOJ and Halle theology, via Karth Barth and his Commie mistress -

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/05/breaking-news-barth-kirschbaum-braaten.html
LutherRocks said...
Lenski was wrong on justification because he was wrong on election. It is my opinion based on recent discussion that since you guys extoll his teachings, you make the same errors. Lenski gave faith the same role in justification as he does election while denying universal grace and that election is particular.

Answer this for me...Is our faith the cause of our election; or is our election the cause of our faith?
LPC said...
Joe,

I have not read the book only the Introduction at Amazon. BM has read the entire book.

You said Although many agree that the term objective justification is ripe with red herrings, properly taught is not universalism. 

This is according to Rydecki the same denial that Huber made. See p.5-6 of the book. Your denials reminds me of a person who says "I believe there is no God, but I am not an atheist"!

Regarding Lenski. Firstly can you point where Lenski is wrong on Election?

At any rate, I will answer you regarding you logic. You claim that Lenski must be wrong on X because he was wrong on Y. That is your claim.

Joe, no offense, but like your fellow UOJers you are a bit recalcitrant when fallacies are being presented to you. Joe, you are into a fallacy called non sequitur. If a man is wrong on X that does not mean he was also wrong in Y. However, I will not grant you that Lenski was wrong on Election.

Once again, you are practicing another form of fallacy. However, I will not grant Lenski wrong in election.
Answer this for me...Is our faith the cause of our election; or is our election the cause of our faith?

I am happy to answer you through the Errors of Missouri book. Also I have dealt with this using Hutter's argument which is following the one of the Church Father John of Damascus .

You can find my reply in an old post http://extranos.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/gross-kilcrease-calls-leyser-and-hutter.html

I repeat my argument to you...Do you believe you are justified through faith? If so, then you should believe that you are elected through faith too! Why? It is because there is no justification with out faith. Since, there is no justification with out faith, there is no election/predestination with out faith too, for the two are correlative to each other. You can not have justification with out the other, election. For what is election without justification? That is meaningless. If one is through faith, the other is through faith too. Hutter was being ultra reasonable in his logic. Romans 8:28-30 says that.


And I remind you that faith through which we are saved and that elected is a gift of God

Go ahead, repeat the same mantra against us and practice self delusion.

LPC
LPC said...
I repeat this expression of Barth...
There is not one for whose sin and death he did not die, whose sin and death he did not remove and obliterate on the cross...There is not one who is not adequately and perfectly and finally justified in HimThere is not one whose sin is not forgiven sin in Him, whose death is not a death which has been put to death in Him...There is not one for whom he has not done everything in His death and received everything in His resurrection from the dead. (Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, 1, 638)

I have highlighted the in Him language so that all may note how the same language is used by UOJers like Joe Krohn and Jim Pierce. Notice how similar the two groups corrupt the "in Him" expression found in Scripture. Here the "in Him" language is twisted.

LPC
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
The first 165 theses in the Hunnius book deal specifically with the role of faith in election. I highly recommend reading what this orthodox Lutheran theologian has to say before engaging in false dichotomies of which causes which. Hunnius clearly shows how faith proceeds from election, but neither is faith somehow discounted or "unregarded" by God in election, as if God turned a blind eye in eternity to faith or unbelief.
LPC said...
Hi Pr. Paul,

Thank you for your wise input. Your suggestion is very sound. I just ordered my book yesterday and it will take sometime before it gets here.

The discussion of this thread is right now on justification and throwing issues about election right out of the bat before dealing with what Huber might have taught is a red herring in my view.

One can be right in one thing but wrong in another.

So I wish to paraphrase a quote from Luther ---- you can get all of the Doctrines in the Bible right [even election], but if you get Justification wrong, you are still stuffed. Sorry for my crude Aussie slang, Luther used the word "error".

LPC
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
These Theses demonstrate that Huber was not a "Universalist" in the sense that he taught all people go to heaven. He did not, although, as Hunnius points out, by teaching that all men were elected and justified, the Scriptural conclusion should be their eternal salvation. But Huber expressly denied that conclusion, so the orthodox theologians did not accuse him of it.

Thesis 12
In addition, whether all men are, in fact, saved, including those who do not believe in Christ. This, likewise, is not, at the moment, being called into question.

Thesis 13
For although that conclusion can most definitely be reached from Huber’s doctrine as a consequence affirmed by the testimonies of Christ and the apostles, nevertheless, since Huber directly and intentionally does not teach in such a way, we are still willing not to charge him directly with that paradox.
LPC said...
This is fair enough. Rob Bell is the same, he denies universalism though he speaks that way.

At any rate, there was a problem with Huber's language for otherwise why would Hunnius write against his teachings and not only him but Leyser too.

And so is true for UOJers which was already pointed out by well meaning people of the past, that in their manner of speaking they distort the Scriptural teachings.

I was a Calvinist and I leaned my lesson not to defend a theological language that is in-defensible.



LPC

Icha-boat Ignition Key Breaks.
No Back-up Key

Like a boss.

Like a Mighty River - Styx:
Mainline Theology and Liberal Philosophy


Few "conservative" Lutherans study liberal theology, which began in earnest in the 19th century. If graduate students do research about that era and love it, they leave and join ELCA or one of liberal circles of Missouri.

Relatively few Lutherans are armed against the onslaught of liberal theology and philosophy, because Luther's Biblical exposition is avoided and his doctrine is rejected by Lutheran leaders today. The crossover point is best represented by F. Schleiermacher, Halle University, the transition between old and new theology.

Traditional theology in all Protestant branches remained faithful to the authority of the Scriptures as God's revealed Word, inerrant and infallible. Schleiermacher may not have been the first, but he was the most significant in using "Biblical studies" to inject rationalism into church teaching.

Once the rationalistic assumptions are accepted, anything can be claimed in the name of God's Word, although clues come from the philosophical language used.

Universal Objective Justification comes from this era. Knapp, Schleiermacher, and Tholuck taught it, and they had earlier authorities, such as Rambach (Halle) and Huber (Calvinist Lutheran). Knapp remains in print and the English translation still powerful in establishing an imaginary double justification. Schleiermacher and Tholuck simply dropped the second justification, making them Universalists, loud and proud.

Universal forgiveness became the hallmark of 19th century Protestant theology, but WELS and Missouri claim they are orthodox in aping Huber, Knapp, and the rest. The language of double justification makes it easy for dissenters from the old order to pass from the rigid legalism of Old Pietists (can we dance?) to the rigid legalism of neo-Pietist activism (can we eat grapes or is the boycott still on?).

Some of the youngsters are saying, "What is this about grapes?" That was one of the big signs of Leftist purity, especially among the academics. The head of my program at Notre Dame hosted a dinner where he served grapes during the famous boycott over union leadership. One student, now a college president, said, "It was not because he served grapes that everyone was appalled. He did not even know what the issue was." The director's sin was the equivalent of serving Jack Daniels at meeting of the Nazarene ministers and wondering about the big fuss afterwards.



The Scriptures clearly teach the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace. The Book of Concord clearly abhors Enthusiasm - separating the Holy Spirit from the Word. But Lutherans do not teach either. I see them popping off with "raising for our justification" all over the Net, citing Romans 4:25 but not Romans 4:24.

Synodical Conference Lutherans get brain-washed in UOJ because schools cannot teach the Biblical Means of Grace and UOJ. One displaces the other. Each synod spends enormous amounts of time proving  that their sect is vastly superior to all others, teaching that changing to another group is the greatest possible betrayal. They never mention how much time and money they spend on unsafe sects, thanks to Thrivent.

That is why the Synodical Conference has become a rump movement of liberal theology and philosophy, unable to separate itself from ELCA, eager to be the Mini-Me of ELCA while publicly distaining ELCA. (See the Hochmuth-Schroeder letter panning ELCA over homosexuality.)

This will continue until the pastors and laity alike become familiar with Luther's sermons and the Book of Concord. Remember - Luther does not start out with carnal sins, which is where the Pietists start and stop. He begins with faith in Christ, unbelief as the foundational sin - John 16:8ff.

The peculiar glory of the Lutheran Church has departed. Ichabod.




Barth Impresses Nathan Bickel - But Not in a Positive Way.

Nathan Bickel


Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Breaking News: Barth-Kirschbaum, Braaten, and UOJ....":

Ichabod,

Thank you for posting this about the late liberal esteemed Karl Barth. I say, "Liberal, esteemed," because, up until this Ichabod posting, I never knew anything much about Barth, except that he was highly regarded by some, to be, a first rate (questionable and liberal) theologian.

I offer a few comments of this Ichabod posting regarding Suzanne Selinger's book, as it is reviewed by George Hunsinger. By reading his review, I think that it leaves the reader with more questions, than answers - most, likely, better, that way....:

Hunsinger says the following:

(1) "........This arrangement -- convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys -- lasted for nearly 35 years until 1964 when von Kirschbaum had to be admitted to a nursing home with Alzheimer's disease. These were exactly the years of Barth's most productive intellectual life.......

My comment:

Oh! really? - I wonder why that was so? I thought Barth's attraction to this highly intelligent woman was her love of theology, - and that they "shared" this mutual "interest?"

Hunsinger says the following:

........From her first encounter with his theology in her youth to the very end of her life, she felt gripped by a sense of the greatness of Barth's contribution, an excitement that she once described simply with the words, "This is it!" During one of Barth's last visits to her in the nursing home, she said, "We had some good times together, didn't we?".......

Barth's helper, Charlotee Kirschbaum, was so productive
that he wrote almost nothing after she became ill.
Frank Fiorenza, Harvard professor, said most of Barth is now considered Kirschbaum's work.
Either way, Barth is UOJ, as expressed by Schleiermacher (Halle).


My comment:

"Gripped?" "Was Charlotte von Kirschbaum's "gripping experience" that mutual love for theological stimulation?"

Hunsinger says the following:

......Nelly honored Karl's wishes by having Charlotte buried in the Barth family grave. Nelly herself died in 1976. Visitors to the Basel Hörnli cemetery today can see the names of all three together engraved one by one on the same stone......

My comment:

"Were they all buried horizontally? And, if so, in what order? Right to left or left to right? Or, were they all buried vertically? And, if so, - in what order?

As I intimated earlier, this review leaves much to be desired - many questions still linger.....

Ichabod - Thank you for the great read! It has inspired me, enough now, that I feel that I can throw away all my drug store tabloids and save the 3 dollars plus per issue! I'd rather read about some past theological history, instead of all those drug store scandal sheets.

Finally – I feel that I can now appreciate, Barth! I never knew how much effort, Barth put into all his liberal theology! How much he is to be admired! I wonder if he is (now) being commensurately rewarded for all of his endeavors. I suppose that last statement, could have ended with another question mark.....Or, maybe not......

Nathan M. Bickel - emeritus pastor

www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org 

***

John Howard Yoder headed the Mennonite seminary and taught at Notre Dame.
He studied under Barth and was the Mennonite super-star theologian.


GJ - My dissertation advisor, John Howard Yoder, studied under Barth. Yoder got himself into trouble with a group of Mennonite women, but repented just before he died. Apparently, ELCA Seminex Pastor Bruce Foster and his anonymous Mennonite pals (Jenswold? Lindemann?) cannot read. The story of Yoder's problems and repentance is told in Stanley Hauerwas' Hannah's Child.

Labyrinth? - I Have Already Seen the LCMS Organizational Chart - Community Garden & Labyrinth Coming To Springfield | Metro Jacksonville



Community Garden & Labyrinth Coming To Springfield | Metro Jacksonville:


Community Garden & Labyrinth Coming To Springfield

A new community garden and prayer labyrinth will soon rise on a vacant lot in Springfield. Pastor Hamilton and Pastor Vicki of St. Johns Lutheran Church recently received a sizable grant to construct the sustainable community project on land adjacent to the church building at 1950 Silver Street.


'via Blog this'

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Labyrinth? - I Have Already Seen the LCMS Organiza...":

Prayer Labyrinths, like this one, are popular in ELCA churches. They are purely Satanic in nature and purpose. Those who participate are instructed to walk the path while emptying their minds in meditation in order to allow god to speak to them.

It is no different than the Satanic New Age Taize worship that the (W)ELS has been practicing and promoting for years. No wonder the local (W)ELS church hosted a children's play where in one skit a little girl walked to the front of the stage and said that in order to know if her decision concerning what to do in life was right or wrong, she listens to the small voice inside of her.

(W)ELS and LCMS clergy guru and Satanic New Age practitioner Leonard Sweet teaches the same demonic doctrines in his popular book Quantum Spirituality.

Breaking News:
Barth-Kirschbaum, Braaten, and UOJ.
Same Theology as WELS, Webber, Buchholz


Charlotte Kirschbaum was the Commie babe who bedded Barth in his own home, moving in shamelessly. Many Barthians claim she was a major contributor to the gaseous Church Dogmatics that Barth claimed as his own. Note the Church Growth parallels with adultery, apostasy, and plagiarism.


Karth Barth was so cute in his Swiss Army uniform - I had to post this photo for laughs. It looks like a scene from Laugh In.


My friend from Yale explored Barth's love for Marxism and his known affinities with the red cause. Barth-Kirschbaum is the official theologian for Fuller Seminary, where most of the leaders of WELS, Missouri, the ELS, and ELCA have attended.



Here ve haff da luffly Barth family, Karl mit Charlotte, und Kinder, und Frau Barth way over on da outside right. Das machen me schniffle ein bischen. Zo touching und varm. Der kleine Hans hat two mommies - eine Hausfrau und eine va-va-voom Commie. [Translated into German to keep the caption G-rated.]


Carl Braaten, the son of missionaries, latched onto Leftist theologians, incorporating Barth-Kirschbaum and Tillich (another adulterer) into Lutheran theology. Barth's $1,000 set now sells for $99. Tillich is a has-been, known chiefly for his promiscuity and sadistic fetishes.

Note the catchy subtitle, which came from an orthodox Lutheran.
The UOJ dimwits use that phrase in all their essays attacking justification by faith.

Carl  Braaten, Justification, 1990:

We cannot hold a universalism of the unitarian kind. People are not too good to be damned. There is no necessity for God to save everybody nor to reject anyone. God is not bound by anything outside of himself. He is not bound to give the devil his due. If we take into account God's love, he would have all to be saved. If we reckon with his freedom, he has the power to save whomsoever he pleases. This does not lead to a dogmatic universalism. But it does mean that we leave open the possibility that within the power of God's freedom and love, all people may indeed be saved in the end. This follows as a possibility from the fact that God is free from all external factors in making up his mind. (p. 139)

...

Then Why Evangelize? (heading, Braaten, p. 140)

...

Barth's doctrine is radically objective. [Bratten now quotes Barth-Kirschbaum verbatim.]

There is not one for whose sin and death he did not die, whose sin and death he did not remove and obliterate on the cross...There is not one who is not adequately and perfectly and finally justified in Him. There is not one whose sin is not forgiven sin in Him, whose death is not a death which has been put to death in Him...There is not one for whom he has not done everything in His death and received everything in His resurrection from the dead. (Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, 1, 638)
In the face of literally hundreds o fsuch beautiful passages, evangelicals understandably ask, Then what is the point of evangelism? If the heathen are already saved in Christ, and nothing more needs to be added, then where is the urgency in world evangelization? (Braaten, p. 140)


Universalism-Denying
The parallels with WELS, Jon Buchholz, Jay Webber, and Don Patterson are obvious. They deny they are Universalists while confessing the basics of Universalism. Texas WELS even featured an essay where someone read from the Universalist creed and said, "See - we are not Univesalists." The truth hurts.

The language is borrowed the Halle's Knapp, because Halle was pivotal in the transition from a Biblical Pietistic school to a Rationalistic university.

Earlier, Samuel Huber taught the same way, but the Wittenberg theologians crushed him like a bug. The same kind of Enthusiasm came back via Pietism, since that movement was allergic to orthodox confessions but overly fond of unionism. Spener was the first union theologian, but not the last.

UOJ makes anything possible (except rejection of UOJ). Take money from unrepentant adulterers? No problem? Plagiarize the false doctrine of Fuller Seminary? That is spoiling the Egyptians. Engage in child porn file swapping? You are forgiven because you are sorry you got caught again.

---

From Wikipedia and George Hunsinger:


Relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum

When Barth first met Charlotte von Kirschbaum in 1924 he had already been married for 12 years to his wife, Nelly, with whom he had also had five children.[14] In 1929, von Kirschbaum, with Barth's consent, moved into the Barth family household. This arrangement–described by one scholar as "convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys"–lasted for 35 years.[15]
A kind of household of three relationship developed between Barth, von Kirschbaum and Barth's wife, Nelly. The long-standing situation was not without its difficulties. "Lollo",[16] as Barth called the 13-year-younger von Kirschbaum, once wrote to Barth's sister Gertrud Lindt in 1935, where she expressed her concern about the precarious situation:
"The alienation between Karl and Nelly has reached a degree which could hardly increase. This has certainly become accentuated by my existence."[17]
The relationship caused great offence among many of Barth's friends, as well as his own mother.[18] Barth's children suffered from the stress of the relationship.[18] Barth and von Kirschbaum took semester break vacations together.[18] While Nelly supplied the household and the children, von Kirschbaum and Barth shared an academic relationship. Barth has fallen victim to criticism for his relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum. One critic has written: "Part of any realistic response to the subject of Barth and von Kirschbaum must be anger."[19] Hunsinger summarizes the influence of von Kirschbaum on Barth's work: "As his unique student, critic, researcher, adviser, collaborator, companion, assistant, spokesperson, and confidant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum was indispensable to him. He could not have been what he was, or have done what he did, without her."

  1. ^ George Hunsinger's review of S. Seliger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth: A Study in Biography and the History of Theology.
  2. ^ Hunsinger
  3. ^ Eberhard Busch, Karl Barths Lebenslauf, München: Kaiser, 177ff.
  4. ^ Karl Barth: Gesamtausgabe, Teil V. Briefe. Karl Barth – Eduard Thurneysen: Briefwechsel Bd. 3, 1930–1935: einschließlich des Briefwechsels zwischen Charlotte von Kirschbaum und Eduard Thurneysen, eds. Caren Algner; Zürich: TVZ, Theologischer Verlag, 2000, p. 839.
  5. a b c Busch, Karl Barths Lebenslauf, 199 = Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (Fortress Press, 1976), 185-6.
  6. ^ S. Seliger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth; quoted in K. Sonderegger's review.
---

hunsinger, george
Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology
Department of Theology
102 Hodge Hall
Phone: 609.252.2114
Fax: 609.497.7728
Email: george.hunsinger@ptsem.edu
(Presbyterian)

Profile
George Hunsinger is Princeton Theological Seminary’s Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology. He earned his B.D. from Harvard University Divinity School and his M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Yale University. He served as director of the Seminary’s Center for Barth Studies from 1997 to 2001. He has broad interests in the history and theology of the Reformed tradition and in “generous orthodoxy” as a way beyond the modern liberal/conservative impasse in theology and church. An ordained Presbyterian minister, he was a major contributor to the new Presbyterian catechism. He teaches courses on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Reformed tradition, the theology of the Lord’s Supper, the theology of John Calvin, and classical and recent Reformed theology. He is the founder of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

---
George Hunsinger is an ordained Presbyterian minister and theologian. He is currently the Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, NJ. Hunsinger was the director of the Center for Barth Studies at Princeton from 1997 - 2001. Hunsinger received a BD from Harvard University Divinity School and an MA, MPhil, and PhD from Yale University. His work has focused primarily on the theology of Karl Barth. Hunsinger was the recipient of the 2010 Karl Barth Prize and joins previous prize recipients Eberhard JüngelHans Küng, John W. de Gruchy, Johannes Rau, Bruce McCormack, and others.
Hunsinger has also been associated with the postliberal movement and is an authoritative interpreter of Hans Frei. He has a long history of anti-war and human rights activism and is also an open critic of the war in Iraq. Since 2003 he has been active in the Ecumenical movement through the Faith and Order commission and recently completed a book on The Eucharist and Ecumenism: Let Us Keep the Feast, published by Cambridge University Press in 2008.

---



Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth:
A Study in Biography and the History of Theology

Suzanne Selinger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth: A Study in Biography and the History of Theology (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), viii + 206pp. $29.00
Reviewed by: George Hunsinger

When Charlotte von Kirschbaum first heard Karl Barth lecture in 1924, she was 24 years old, financially almost destitute, and in poor health. Deeply religious and a voracious reader with a keen interest in theology, she had already devoured Barth's 1919 Römerbrief, at the recommendation of her pastor, shortly after it had appeared, and then avidly kept up with Barth's work through the journal Zwischen den Zeiten. At a time when only a tiny fraction of the general population, virtually all male, went on for a university education, she had been trained for a career as a Krankenschwester or Protestant nurse. It was George Merz, her pastor, who first recognized her intellectual gifts. After guiding her through confirmation in the Lutheran church, Merz included her in the intellectual circle he had gathered around him in Munich, which included Thomas Mann. It was also Merz, by then editor of Zwischen den Zeiten and godfather to one of Barth's children, who had taken her with him to that lecture, and who introduced her to Barth afterwards. Barth invited them both for a visit to his summer retreat, the Bergli, in the mountains overlooking Lake Zurich.

Merz and von Kirschbaum went to the Bergli that summer and returned the next. Von Kirschbaum made a very good impression. She was drawn into the circle of theological friends who spent their summers at the chalet. Pastor Eduard Thurneysen, Barth's closest friend, and Gerty Pestalozzi, owner with her husband of the Bergli, took an interest in furthering her education. (Becoming a Krankenschwester had required no special academic training or higher degrees.) Ruedi Pestalozzi, Gerty's husband and a wealthy businessman, paid for her to receive secretarial training, after which she became a welfare officer at Siemans, a large electronics firm in Nuremburg.

In October 1925 Barth switched university teaching appointments from Göttingen to Münster. His wife and family remained behind until a suitable residence could be found. In February 1926 von Kirschbaum visited Barth for a month in Münster, shortly before his family was to join him, but while he was still living alone. Barth's situation at this time is worth noting. He was 39 years old, had been married to Nelly (then aged 32) for nearly 13 years, and had five young children. The marriage, not a particularly happy one, had by his own account left him feeling resigned to loneliness. After his parents had prevented him in 1910 from marrying Rösy Münger, whom he deeply loved and never forgot -- and who died in 1925 -- he had submitted in 1911 to an engagement and then in 1913 to a marriage, with Nelly, that had in essence been arranged by his mother. (Barth always carried a photograph of Rösy with him for the rest of his life, sometimes wept when looking at it, and would continue over the years to visit her grave.) Although we do not know exactly what happened between Barth and Charlotte von Kirschbaum in that fateful encounter of 1926, we do know that from that point on they were in love with each other, that Barth immediately gave her manuscript after manuscript for advice and correction, and that she committed herself henceforth to doing everything she possibly could to advance his theological work.

After spending a sabbatical at the Bergli in the summer term of 1929, with von Kirschbaum at his side as his aide, Barth announced in October that she would be moving into the family household to be a member of it. This arrangement -- convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys -- lasted for nearly 35 years until 1964 when von Kirschbaum had to be admitted to a nursing home with Alzheimer's disease. These were exactly the years of Barth's most productive intellectual life. As his unique student, critic, researcher, advisor, collaborator, companion, assistant, spokesperson, and confidant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum was indispensable to him. He could not have been what he was, or have done what he did, without her.

The reverse would also seem to have been true. Von Kirschbaum was a strong, noble and unconventional woman who made her own choices and willingly bore their great costs. The costs of the arrangement with Barth were many, not least a total rejection by most of her own family, and a thousand constant humiliations from church, society, and the larger Barth clan (not excluding Barth's mother, who eventually tempered her harsh disapproval). Many real exits opened up along the way (such as a proposal of marriage from the philosopher Heinrich Scholz), but she never took any of them. What she once wrote in particular to a friend would seem to hold true of her whole life: "It is very clear to me that Karl had to act in this way, and that comforts me whatever the consequences." From her first encounter with his theology in her youth to the very end of her life, she felt gripped by a sense of the greatness of Barth's contribution, an excitement that she once described simply with the words, "This is it!" During one of Barth's last visits to her in the nursing home, she said, "We had some good times together, didn't we?"

We may well wonder also where Nelly Barth was in the midst of all this. There is undoubtedly much we will never know. But we do know that in her own way she never ceased to believe in her husband and his work. We know that the two of them experienced a reconciliation after Charlotte departed the household, that she and Karl both visited her at the nursing home on Sundays, that she continued those visits after Karl died in 1968, and that when Charlotte herself died in 1975, Nelly honored Karl's wishes by having Charlotte buried in the Barth family grave. Nelly herself died in 1976. Visitors to the Basel Hörnli cemetery today can see the names of all three together engraved one by one on the same stone.

The book by Suzanne Selinger is not the first to cover this territory, nor will it be the last. As a study in the history of theology, it succeeds reasonably well. The sections on how Barth and von Kirschbaum respectively viewed male/female relationships as bearing the image of God are interesting and worth reading. As a biographical study, however, the book seems less successful. The author seethes with so much resentment toward Karl Barth that as I closed the book I had an image of him as St. Sebastian. At the level of adjectives, he takes a lot of hits. Unfortunately, Charlotte von Kirschbaum fares little better. The author unwittingly undermines her purposes of sympathy and compassion -- unless one can persuade oneself that it is not demeaning to scorn the life that Charlotte von Kirschbaum actually chose for herself and openly affirmed, as opposed to one that could not have been and never was.

---

http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01824-0.html

---

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1465536?uid=3739536&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698978832417