What do you know about God and how do you know it?
Did your reason lead you to a general idea about God?
Did your study of world history, philosophy, or even theology point you to God?
Listen to these words from Karl Barth (1886-1968): “Apart from and without Jesus Christ we can say nothing at all about God and man and their relationship one with another.” (Church Dogmatics: A Selection, 50)
Barth was adamantly opposed to natural theology, or as some call it, general revelation. He defines natural theology in this way: “the doctrine of a union of man with God existing outside God’s revelation in Jesus Christ” (51). For Barth there is no knowledge of God outside of Christ because God has chosen to fully reveal himself in his Son. (See the scriptural support here.)
Why was Barth stridently opposed to natural theology? An event in August 1914 horrified him: almost all of his theological teachers endorsed the military policy of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
What were they thinking?
They believed God was revealing his plan through the Kaiser and they should support it. Since they were so utterly wrong, Barth realized that he could no longer follow their teachings. He had to start fresh and build on a different foundation or he would end up in the same place as his respected professors.
About twenty years later the same process unfolded in the events leading up to World War II. He writes:
The question became a burning one at the moment when the Evangelical Church in Germany was unambiguously and consistently confronted by a definite and new form of natural theology, namely, by the demand to recognize in the political events of the year 1933, and especially in the form of the God-sent Adolf Hitler, a source of specific new revelation of God, which, demanding obedience and trust, took its place beside the revelation attested in Holy Scripture, claiming that it should be acknowledged by Christian proclamation and theology as equally binding and obligatory. (54-55)
Barth continues by claiming that this first demand was followed by a second—to accept the new revelation as the only revelation. Barth explains that this process is something the Church has encountered throughout its history. Humanism, idealism, romanticism, positivism, nationalism, and socialism all demanded to enter the Church then attempted to assume control. “They had all wanted to have their say in the Church” (57). And unfortunately, many within the Church gladly opened the door and allowed these ideas to enter.
So how did Barth respond to the demand in 1933?
He refused to pledge allegiance to Hitler, lost his job, and settled in Switzerland. He also supported the Confessing Church by formulating the Barmen Declaration in 1934. The first article reads,
Jesus Christ, as He is attested to us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God, whom we have to hear and whom we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We condemn the false doctrine that the Church can and must recognize as God’s revelation other events and powers, forms and truths, apart from and alongside this one Word of God.
From what Barth had experienced, the danger in opening the door to general revelation was too great so he sealed it shut—no to natural revelation; yes to revelation in Christ.
This is powerful stuff that remains relevant today.
(By the way, I am aware that Barth’s life was commendable in some ways and not in others.)
After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. My latest book focuses on Paul’s work as a tentmaker and what it means for today.