Barth refused to recognize nationhood as anything more than a historically mutable extension of kinship. National identity does not require and should not receive an exclusive political expression. He opposed the idea that “every nation must have its own state”. Nationhood, he declared, is prior to the state and there is no necessary connection between the two. In fact, Barth was an advocate of multiculturalism avant la lettre, frequently holding up multi-national Switzerland and the polyethnic Holy Roman Empire as the ideal model of the “just state”.383 He was reluctant to identify even Old Testament Israel as a nation. In particular, he was “extremely concerned to repudiate any possibility of constructing a natural theology from the history of Israel”. No historical investigation or sociological study of the distinctive attributes of ancient Israel can prove that God revealed himself to that nation alone. Barth was permanently on guard against any attempt to translate God’s covenant with Israel into the “dogma or mysticism of a national religion”. There is “a providential, or rather Christological, necessity to the events of Israel’s history” but “[r]evelation is possible in and to Israel” only “because God transcends all historical periods and all nations”. Needless to say, therefore, Barth denied that a Volkskirche — in Germany or any other once-Christian nation — has a biblical foundation.384
Indeed, Barth abhorred the very idea of Christian nationhood. His deepest commitments are to socialism and internationalism. The inclusive Christology inscribed in his understanding of the Kingdom of God served “to pull nationhood away from any possible dogmatic underpinning”. Its purpose was “to render impossible the construction of an essentialist ontological concept of nationhood”.385 Its effect was to confirm “the difference between God and ourselves. The unveiling is always accompanied by a veiling”. Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation forever severs the identity between “the God of cultural religion and the God of Christian faith”. In fact, his universalistic theology signals — and welcomes — the death of Christendom.386 Barth taught mainstream theology to find in Christ “the center of its conception of God’s immanence within the world”.387 It is more than a little ironic that in the process he helped to undermine the communal foundations of Christian nationhood.
The Barthian Church
The practical effect of Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation was to privatize the Christian faith. Barth is so concerned to undercut the political identification of the transcendent Holy Spirit with the particularistic spirit of nations that he makes “the world too much a function of God’s presence to it, too little its own autonomous reality”. It is widely acknowledged that “the work of the Spirit is not given adequate weight in Barth’s christology”.388 Barth denied, of course, the common charge that his theology makes God everything and man nothing. But even the most sympathetic treatment of his work cannot avoid the “question: does God need the church?” Indeed, Joseph Mangina acknowledges that “In an important sense, the answer must be ‘no’. Only God can save; the church, its sacraments, and its moral life can at best be witnesses to that salvation”.389 In the end, everything turns on the private conscience of the individual Christian believer.
In “the actual living of the moral life, each individual must make his or her own answer before God”. But “God’s action always precedes that of human beings; but because grace creates new realities, it also empowers human beings to be responsible agents”. The individuals gathered together in the church have been summoned by God “to do something, namely to bear public and embodied witness to the gospel”. The church does not exist for its own sake: “The world does not need the church so much as it needs to hear the gospel”. The church is the paradigmatic product of responsible human action. A man cannot be more active than in taking the “obedient step into freedom” that consists “of associating oneself with the community of the coming kingdom”.390
Apart from the church, Barth counselled, “Christians cannot be apolitical, but should participate in the life of the state” as responsible citizens. He denied that there exists an inevitable or essential antithesis between the universal church and the just state because both have been instituted by God. A Christian may be “a loyal citizen of a National State…and a loyal member of the universal church” provided always that the former “in its sphere” remains in essence an “international, God-instituted [just] State”. Should the nation-state serve “only national interests” it ceases “to be a righteous state. In this unrighteous state the Christian can show his civic loyalty only by resistance and suffering”.391 In hindsight, it seems obvious that Barth’s understanding of the righteous state was one-sided, partisan, and probably disingenuous, if not downright delusional.
Conclusion
Clearly, in giving voice to such profound animus towards the modern European experience of nations and nationalism, Barth’s over-inclusive Christology joined the winning side of history. His universalistic theology may have been relevant to the liberal and communist crusade against an aroused and militant German nationalism; it has since become part of the problem rather than the solution to the demographic crisis facing every Western ethno-nation. Hitler’s Germany was crushed by the wartime alliance between the revolutionary liberalism of the USA and the revolutionary communism of the USSR. Following the Allied victory it became clear that ethnic nationalists will never again be allowed to regain control over a Western nation-state. Speaking during NATO’s war on Serbia in 1999, General Wesley Clark laid down the law of the new world order in no uncertain terms, warning his listeners never to “forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states”.392
Indeed, for all practical purposes, the postmodern, post-Christian nation-states of the Western world have been wholly absorbed into the globalist political economy of transnational corporate capital. As a consequence, the civic space open to responsible civic action (whether as citizens in the public sphere or as shareholders in the corporate sector) by patriotic individuals has shrunk to the vanishing point. The state, at local, national and international levels, has joined with global corporations and the neo-communist left to undermine the social cohesion and demographic integrity of every once-Christian nation. Karl Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation has provided mainstream and evangelical Protestant churches with a convenient theological rationale to justify their complicity with the corporate, political, media, and academic élites now parroting the nation-destroying ideology of multiculturalism.
The biocultural and genetic interests of Anglo-Australians and other white, European peoples have been seriously (and measurably) injured by a theology of universal reconciliation which sanctifies their ongoing demographic displacement.393 But a neo-pagan cult of race-as-biology is a poor substitute for Barth’s “pathological altruism”.394 Our salvation lies elsewhere, in an old-time covenantal theology of providential wrath coupled with a postmodern ecclesiology. Both will recognize autonomous Christian nationhood as an essential bulwark against the enemies of God securely established as the rulers of this world. The historic mission of the church has always demanded more than passive witness to the Word of an otherwise unknowable God; now, nothing less than a resolute, religious commitment to collective resistance will be necessary to reverse the precipitous decline of Christian civilization.
The Bible is more than a witness to the actuality of God; it also provides the church with a warrant to recover its former spiritual dominion within the historic boundaries of Christendom and a warning against the self-righteous hubris of the cosmopolitan powers and deracinated principalities who deny that nations are created “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). When neo-paganism has become the only apparent alternative to corporate-sponsored cultural degeneracy and demographic displac
ement, Christ’s Great Commission to the early church takes on a renewed urgency — not at the far ends of the earth but right here at home. Once again, it is time for the church to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
4: Postscript: The Barth Paper Protest
This paper on Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation received a Credit 70 grade from the lecturer, Dr Benjamin Myers.
His comment: “There’s no question that this is a HD-level paper. It’s a deeply-researched, passionately argued, original reading of Barth’s theology. Fine! The only problem is that you haven’t really engaged with the essay question; even the direct engagement with Barth’s text is pretty scant. And (I know I’m stating the obvious here): there’s nary a mention of the Trinity! So, on the strength of the paper you did write, I’ve given you a Credit: but in light of the essay question I asked you to answer, it’s only a Credit!”
Now I wasn’t entirely satisfied with Dr Myers’ explanation as to why an admittedly HD-level paper was given a Credit grade but, after my experience with the New Testament grade appeal, I wasn’t game to bang my head against bureaucratic walls again. Instead, I sent him the following e-mail message hoping (naïvely, as it turned out) that he might be willing to engage in an academic discussion of the issues raised therein:
G’day Ben,
I was pleased to learn that you recognized my Barth essay as “a HD-level paper”. Needless to say, therefore, I was disappointed by your peevish decision to award it no more than a Credit grade. I was puzzled in particular by the stated reasons for that grading decision.
You suggest:
1. I “haven’t really engaged with the essay question”; and,
2. “even the direct engagement with Barth’s text is pretty scant”; and
3. “there’s nary a mention of the Trinity”.
On the first issue, since you recognize the high academic standard of the paper it cannot be the case that I stupidly missed the point of the question. You imply instead that I was acting in bad faith, ignoring the set question in order to write an essay on another topic altogether.
I feel I must respond to such an aspersion upon my academic bona fides. The fact is that I carefully studied the set topic and organized my essay around it. To establish that fact I first remind you of the topic as it appeared in the Subject Outline:
V. Trinity and humility: Karl Barth sees Jesus’ obedient humility not as an abandonment of the divine nature, but as the perfect outward expression of God’s life. How does Barth argue for this position? How might this position make a difference to the way we think about divine power? How might it make a difference to the way we think about the Christian life? What are the benefits and potential dangers of Barth’s view?
The Introduction to my essay sets out to explain what Barth means by “Jesus’ obedient humility”. It also sets forth the thesis of my paper; namely that Barth’s “inclusive Christology” is a form of the Christian universalism which is seen by many as a real and present danger to the survival of every white Western nation. The introduction also signals the essentially apologetic function of the paper. The paper is pitched towards a sceptical audience of neo-pagan White nationalists.
It may be that the target audience of a Christian apologetic aimed at countering Barth’s influence is not to your taste. Barth himself was notoriously indifferent if not actively hostile to Christian apologetics. For that reason you may not have been sufficiently sensitive to the way in which the rest of the paper sets out to answer the four questions posed by the essay topic itself in the context of what might be described as a mission to White nationalists.
How Does Barth Argue for This Position?
In the section entitled Interpreting Barth, I began to answer that question by making it clear that Barth’s “Christocentric theology” was based neither on liberal Protestant nor on orthodox Reformed premises. In the section on Van Tils Critique, I continue to describe how Barth argued for an understanding of the Christ-Event which would “purify and radicalize” the theology of the Reformers.
I enlist Van Til’s work to set out Barth’s argument. It is true that in the course of that discussion there is nary a mention of the Trinity. That omission simply reflects the effectively virtual representation of both the Father and the Spirit by Christ in Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation. Discussion of the Trinity is otiose given Barth’s radical Christology. If “God was truly and wholly present in Christ,” God becomes “wholly identical with this rejected man”. After all, Barth himself declares that “[t]he doctrine of the trinity is nothing more than the development of the confession that Jesus is the Christ or Lord”. (CD I: 1, p 313, as quoted in Van Til, p 34) Why should I be expected to establish more than the fact that Barth makes such arguments?
How Might This Position Make a Difference to the Way We Think About Divine Power?
The section on Van Til’s Critique also addresses the second question on Barth’s understanding of divine power. There I develop Van Til’s complaint that by insisting on the universality of grace, Barth deprives the Father of his sovereign character. For Van Til, it was clear that Barth denied the possibility of a formal or logical foundation for the “doctrine of the trinity back of the revelation of God in Christ”. (36) It follows that “there can be no such thing as a wrath of God that is not borne by God himself in Christ for all men”. Indeed, divine power is negated by the “ontological impossibility of sin”.
Later in the essay, I quote Gunton to the effect that Barth taught mainstream theology to find in Christ “the center of its conception of God’s immanence within the world”. In other words, Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation subordinates not just the Father but also the Holy Spirit to a radically inclusive Christology that downgrades not just the role of the visible church but also the life of Christian nations in salvation history.
How Might [Barth’s Position] Make a Difference to the Christian Life?
Clearly the entire section of the essay entitled Political Theology aims to deal with the impact of Barthian universalism on the sustainability of Christian nationhood in the post-Christian, postmodern world. Barth’s insistence that Heaven is the true Heimat or homeland of all Christians has lent legitimacy to the globalist project of corporate neo-communism while subverting what remains of Christian nationhood. My extensive discussion of the relationship between such issues and Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation is hardly an attempt to avoid engagement with the third question posed by the essay topic.
Similarly, the section entitled The Barthian Church is a good faith effort to deal with the implications of Barth’s theology for the life of the church. This discussion, too, is directly responsive to the third question posed by the essay topic.
Benefits and Potential Dangers of Barth’s View
The Conclusion of my essay points to the dangers posed by Barth’s universalistic doctrine of reconciliation for the Christian life generally, and, in particular, to any Christian mission to disaffected White nationalists in Australia and elsewhere in the Western world. Indeed, the same theme appears throughout the paper. On the other hand, early in the paper I do acknowledge Barth’s positive contribution to a critique of liberal Protestantism.
One final point may be worth making in relation to your second criticism; namely, that “direct engagement with Barth’s text is pretty scant”. If you examine my citations to the Church Dogmatics, you will observe that I made use of much more of CD IV than the reading prescribed for class. In addition, it is clear that I used many quotations from Van Til’s critique of Barth precisely because, as is well known, Van Til assumes Barth’s voice when setting out his views. He also ranges far and wide in the Church Dogmatics, certainly well beyond the limits of CD IV. That is to say, Van Til served as such a convenient surrogate for Barth himself that I might be said to have engaged with a virtual representative of Barth when citing Van Til.
I trust
I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of any fair-minded reader of my essay that I did engage with both the letter and the spirit of the essay topic, as set out in the Subject Outline, that I did deal in more than a “scanty” fashion with Barth’s text, and that it is not I but Barth himself who is responsible for any suggestion in my essay that the Father and the Holy Spirit play, at best, a subsidiary role in his putatively Trinitarian theology.
That being so, I submit that your decision to penalize me for my alleged failure to address the set questions (note the plural) is patently unfair.
That message was sent at 1:07 pm on 29 June 2013. Just 33 minutes later, I received the following reply:
Drew — thanks for this. I appreciate your disappointment with the result, and I can see that you worked very hard on the paper. I have no objection to the essay you wrote, and (as I hope you’ve learned by now!) I would never penalise a student just because they happen to disagree with my own views. If the subject had been on Christianity and politics, your essay would easily have received an HD — it’s just that I wanted an essay about the Trinity! (I suspect that if you gave the paper to someone, they wouldn’t guess that it had anything to do with the Trinity, or that it was written for a subject on the Trinity — that’s the problem!)
So anyway, that’s just to reiterate why I marked it the way I did. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you had “acted in bad faith” or anything like that: I was just trying to evaluate the essay as fairly as I could.
But if you don’t feel satisfied that the essay was fairly marked, it’s fine to appeal it. If that’s what you’d like to do, I’d be happy to forward this on for appeal. (I’d just [need] a copy of your essay: so if you’d like to appeal, would you mind replying with a copy of the file?)
Dissident Dispatches Page 26