Thanks for this beautiful reflection Dr. Barton. Your critique of Barth's lack of lament in his theodicy seems to me to open the space to bring him into conversation with another great theologian, Jurgen Moltmann. In "The Crucified God", Dr. Moltmann writes beautifully of Jesus' cry on the Cross as the ultimate lament of God for God's very own people and the suffering we all experience in life.
Thank you for this, Justin. This is a very fruitful connection indeed.
I have been reading a fair amount of Jewish theology of lament, especially that of Gershom Scholem. I think there is a renewed interest in lament in many areas of theology these days. Sadly, our world seems to inspire this interest. Best wishes to you in your research.
Several years ago Robert Scharlemann of the University of Virginia gave his Presidential Address to the American Academy of Religion comparing and contrasting the respective theologies of Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. The title of that unforgettable address touches on your excellent appreciative and critical reflection: "The No to Nothing and the Nothing to Know." Barth's "No to Nothing" exemplifies the Triumph of God's grace, but it is difficult to hear or share it in light of such recurring events whether at Auschwitz or Palestine and Gaza. There is, therefore, a "Nothing to Know" as Tillich holds, and not just noetically, but experientially--albeit sometimes vicariously--and to which only the laments of both Testaments attest. Thank you for your insightful and timely paper. James Kay
Thank you, Professor Kay, for reading my piece. I don’t know Tillich very well, but I think the messianism of Benjamin does speak implicitly about triumph and about knowledge of redemption. And because of this, until every child’s corpse is resurrected, we lament. That’s how radical the promise is!
Admittedly, as you write, "one can ask...", and "the theological question remains...". But surely one must go on to give an answer that does justice to the fullness of Barth's account of 'das Nichtige'. A 'caricature' (and I hold to my description) is unfair in face of the profundity of Barth's multi-faceted exposition.
For me, Jane's eloquent invitation to lament would have been the richer without its being grounded in a claim regarding the insufficiency of Barth's 'das Nichtige'. There are too many such 'misleading caricatures' of Barth out there. Which is, incidentally, one among many reasons why I'm so grateful for the Barth Center at Princeton and your faithful leadership, Kait.
Thank you, Jane, for your most helpful reflection on/invitation to lament. My only reservation is with your decision to ground it in a critique of Barth's theology of 'das Nichtige'.
You acknowledge that you "cannot hope to do justice to these interlocking and large themes in Barth's theology", but only after having argued that he "fails to give adequate voice to the terrible reality and persistence of suffering and evil in history", "relative[ing] the power of evil as mere 'shadows and echoes'", etc.
In light of his careful account of das Nichtige in CD III.3 349ff., let alone elsewhere in CD and beyond, I fear you've left us with, at best, a misleading caricature of Barth's theology of evil and suffering.
Furthermore, his refusal to so magnify evil as to eclipse God's redemptive victory in Christ may be said even to set a limit to the extent of our lamentation, so as not to exclude the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) or along similar lines, the joy, forbearance, anxiety turned into prayer and thanksgiving, etc. of Phil 4.
Blah, blah, blah.
Please forgive me if I've misrepresented your piece. And thank you again for your profound and winsome reflection on, and invitation to, lament.
Hi Patrick, thank you for your comment and for engaging this short post.
I'm not sure that Jane's presentation of paragraph 50 here on das Nichtige is "at best, a misleading caricature" of Barth's theology. That seems a bit unfair. Jane is pressing into something she finds lacking in Barth, which is his conceptual inability to give witness to the atrocities in Gaza in light of how Barth present's God's redemptive victory in Christ to seemingly eclipse the full reality of evil we experience. One can ask whether or not Barth's emphasis on the reality of Christ over and against the reality of on-going evil and suffering in this world fully captures our lived concrete existence among those whom the world deems the least of these.
I think the lines of difference between what you've presented in your comment and what Jane has written above, if I may be so bold to say, is that Jane wants to bear witness to the depth of evil occurring in Gaza as I type this. Even though Barth may very well share Jane's instincts if he were alive today, the theological question remains whether his account of das Nichtige sufficiently bears witness to said evil.
Thanks for this beautiful reflection Dr. Barton. Your critique of Barth's lack of lament in his theodicy seems to me to open the space to bring him into conversation with another great theologian, Jurgen Moltmann. In "The Crucified God", Dr. Moltmann writes beautifully of Jesus' cry on the Cross as the ultimate lament of God for God's very own people and the suffering we all experience in life.
Thank you for this, Justin. This is a very fruitful connection indeed.
I have been reading a fair amount of Jewish theology of lament, especially that of Gershom Scholem. I think there is a renewed interest in lament in many areas of theology these days. Sadly, our world seems to inspire this interest. Best wishes to you in your research.
Dear Professor Barter,
Several years ago Robert Scharlemann of the University of Virginia gave his Presidential Address to the American Academy of Religion comparing and contrasting the respective theologies of Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. The title of that unforgettable address touches on your excellent appreciative and critical reflection: "The No to Nothing and the Nothing to Know." Barth's "No to Nothing" exemplifies the Triumph of God's grace, but it is difficult to hear or share it in light of such recurring events whether at Auschwitz or Palestine and Gaza. There is, therefore, a "Nothing to Know" as Tillich holds, and not just noetically, but experientially--albeit sometimes vicariously--and to which only the laments of both Testaments attest. Thank you for your insightful and timely paper. James Kay
Thank you, Professor Kay, for reading my piece. I don’t know Tillich very well, but I think the messianism of Benjamin does speak implicitly about triumph and about knowledge of redemption. And because of this, until every child’s corpse is resurrected, we lament. That’s how radical the promise is!
Thank you for this, Kait.
Admittedly, as you write, "one can ask...", and "the theological question remains...". But surely one must go on to give an answer that does justice to the fullness of Barth's account of 'das Nichtige'. A 'caricature' (and I hold to my description) is unfair in face of the profundity of Barth's multi-faceted exposition.
For me, Jane's eloquent invitation to lament would have been the richer without its being grounded in a claim regarding the insufficiency of Barth's 'das Nichtige'. There are too many such 'misleading caricatures' of Barth out there. Which is, incidentally, one among many reasons why I'm so grateful for the Barth Center at Princeton and your faithful leadership, Kait.
Thank you, Jane, for your most helpful reflection on/invitation to lament. My only reservation is with your decision to ground it in a critique of Barth's theology of 'das Nichtige'.
You acknowledge that you "cannot hope to do justice to these interlocking and large themes in Barth's theology", but only after having argued that he "fails to give adequate voice to the terrible reality and persistence of suffering and evil in history", "relative[ing] the power of evil as mere 'shadows and echoes'", etc.
In light of his careful account of das Nichtige in CD III.3 349ff., let alone elsewhere in CD and beyond, I fear you've left us with, at best, a misleading caricature of Barth's theology of evil and suffering.
Furthermore, his refusal to so magnify evil as to eclipse God's redemptive victory in Christ may be said even to set a limit to the extent of our lamentation, so as not to exclude the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) or along similar lines, the joy, forbearance, anxiety turned into prayer and thanksgiving, etc. of Phil 4.
Blah, blah, blah.
Please forgive me if I've misrepresented your piece. And thank you again for your profound and winsome reflection on, and invitation to, lament.
Hi Patrick, thank you for your comment and for engaging this short post.
I'm not sure that Jane's presentation of paragraph 50 here on das Nichtige is "at best, a misleading caricature" of Barth's theology. That seems a bit unfair. Jane is pressing into something she finds lacking in Barth, which is his conceptual inability to give witness to the atrocities in Gaza in light of how Barth present's God's redemptive victory in Christ to seemingly eclipse the full reality of evil we experience. One can ask whether or not Barth's emphasis on the reality of Christ over and against the reality of on-going evil and suffering in this world fully captures our lived concrete existence among those whom the world deems the least of these.
I think the lines of difference between what you've presented in your comment and what Jane has written above, if I may be so bold to say, is that Jane wants to bear witness to the depth of evil occurring in Gaza as I type this. Even though Barth may very well share Jane's instincts if he were alive today, the theological question remains whether his account of das Nichtige sufficiently bears witness to said evil.
—Kait Dugan