December 6, 2010
Two Comments on Reading Barth
I left these comments a couple of months ago on a post that cautioned people not to read Barth. I stumbled on them again today and thought they were worth sharing here. In this first comment I address Wally, who too easily dismisses Barth:
Wally – You are going to Barth with your set of categories and forcing him to answer your questions. That’s not fair, especially when you don’t want to take the time to listen to him. Barth is not the kind of theologian you can approve of or dismiss by “quoting verses” from his corpus. You have to get the ideas. If you get to that part, you get that he is very much worth your time. His Romans is a poor book on which to judge him as it is his first work and lacks the depth of his later books. Try reading Evangelical Theology. I think you will be surprised and encouraged!
In this second comment I address Tony Reinke, the author of the post, who is apparently writing a book on how to read literature as a Christian.
Brother Tony – You are writing a Christian guide to reading literature. It seems a bad sign that you are recommending people NOT read the books of a major thinker. Is your agenda really “how to read” or “what to read and what to not read?” Christians need to learn how to read critically, by which I mean with the mind engaged, in dialog, accepting the good and setting aside the bad, being appreciative of what others have said even when it is not correct. You can’t protect people from ideas, specially in this day and age. Rather, we have to teach them to think. Barth himself can show us the way forward, who has been described as a thinker “generous with both resonance and critique.” When Barth critiqued a position he knew it inside out, and he also learned from its good points and affirmed them. Evangelicals today just want to be told what is right and what is wrong, if it’s absolute truth or heresy, whether the author is a hero or a heretic. I think we have to do better than that. So, instead of saying “don’t read Barth” why not say, “here’s a good book by Barth.” Obviously most non-theologians aren’t going to get much out of Church Dogmatics anyway.
Posted In: Barth, Bible, Books, Criticisms, Interpretation, Theologians, Theology
Facebook
RSS
5 Responses to Two Comments on Reading Barth
I got some input on Facebook that I include here. The writer has a point, but I won’t edit because the comment is already there on the other site.
Comment
Rob, you’re done Tony a disservice. Surely you know that “I don’t recommend reading Barth” is not logically equivalent to “I recommend not reading Barth.”
My response:
You might be right. I’m not sure I would call the difference “logical.” But my description might give the impression that Tony is running around saying “Don’t read Barth!” when that is not the force. He just passively refrains from recommending Barth. Still, when said in the context of a discussion about Barth, and when placed in red and underlined… I don’t think I’m really missing the force of his intention. He really wanted people to know that he doesn’t recommend. Fair, though, that I said it differently.
I very much agree with your idea of giving authors our time and respect even when we don’t necessarily agree with everything they say. I’ve found the “hero or heretic” philosophy very prevalent in conservative circles.
I’m very troubled at Christians who feel we can’t disagree on anything (specially when it’s minor issues). I’ve found that as most Christian leaders I respect keep maturing, they become more aware of the unity in diversity that exists in the true body of Christ.
I learned in Galatians 2 that even true and inspired apostles like Peter made mistakes in what they said and taught. Let’s be more gracious even when heresy is said! Not agreeing with someone doesn’t necessarily make them a false teacher, even when they’re not thinking correctly.
Still, it’s important to challenge each other to think biblically and be humble enough to learn from people we don’t like or agree with.
Good take on Gal 2. Hadn’t considered it like that. Paul and Barnabas over Mark, too.
Interesting as always. I must confess a much less sophisticated to reading: if I like the writing I read it. I disagree with Paul Johnson on many issues and interpretations, but enjoy his books, so far. Likewise, Richard Foster, with whom I don’t believe I share much theologically, I also enjoyed his books.
Enjoyment of literature and criticism should not be confused with enjoyment of pulp. We seem to be in a pulp-religion world, and few people really want to invest in a difficult read.
So says I.
I hear you Scott. There are authors that I just like – for example Nietzche. He’s just a good read. It’s kind of having a connection with someone even if you disagree on major issues. I’ve never really operated in that “banned list” mode, where you should not read certain books or authors. In the end the most challenging books are generally unexpected anyway.