Christiane Tietz's biography of Karl Barth 'A Life in Conflict' is very helpful and informative. Her perspectives in this forum are also heartfelt. This relationship/partnership caused a lot of grief to Barth's wife Nelly but they remained together despite Charlotte von Kirschbaum's presence in the household. The children had a deep affection for their Aunt Lollo as they called her and it is unfortunate that authors like Galli only cite how 'unbearable' the situation was for their mother while not telling how much she recognised von Kirschbaum's support of her husband's work was 'indispensable'. This does not in any way absolve or excuse the fact that it put huge pressure on the three of them and was not a healthy situation. I do think it is wrong to suggest, as Tietz does, that von Kirschbaum was Barth's mistress as there is evidence in the correspondence that he was committed to not be "unfaithful not only towards his wife but also towards his duties in the church and theology". Barth's great old friend Eduard Thurneysen's perspective is instructive though when he wrote to a friend & said "...this cannot go on, it should not go on", and he described it all as a "..heavy crisis .." . I am sure the Barth children must have pondered it all as they grew into adulthood. But I think while it was all wrong, it became redemptive. Ultimately, we all have to stand before God and give an account of our life and the use of the talents He has given us. We all have to step back and give place to the judge of all the earth.
Adultery is nothing but emotional covetousness and covetousness is idolatry. That fact reflects Barth's adulterated theology that has birthed the modern emphasis on emotion over obedience to the Gospel of repentance. The repercussions of all our theology and our lives are long lasting. Let us take heed lest we fall.
The discussion at 41:00 ff is revealing. It assumes that the Christian life of faith and grace is now, even for “reformed” believers, lived by a shared (synergistic) justification. Grace has moved from imputation to impartation and infusion. Many ribbons flow from this maypole. Here, the question is asked, “How did Barth justify this arrangement …” 40:24 The answer given is the only answer available to all but the hypocrite: “He did not justify it …”! Nothing is justified or justifiable thus. The very question implies another way to being a Christian other than by the justification, righteousness, sanctification, glorification of Christ… despite all demands and warnings in the epistles regarding “what manner of lives” believers ought to be living. Whatever those warnings mean, and by whatever power they are supposed to be efficacious, I for one cannot afford to doubt my unwavering perfection in Christ which would be implicit in any justification I might offer for any of my deeds, beliefs or moments, “good or bad” so-called! I live? Not I.
This unrepentant adultery kept him from being a "legalist"? That sounds like an attempted justification to me. Does the author address the contradiction between his supposed wanting to avoid identifying God with human endeavors, and his support of socialism?
Can you clarify this? Wouldn't Weber's thesis on the Protestant underpinnings for capitalism suggest that this would be a natural antithesis? A sharp transcendent doctrine of God leaves us with the mission of realizing the Kingdom on earth by making an egalitarian utopia for mankind on earth, not founded on a series of loyalties to Burke's little platoons of families or national loyalties, or Kuyper's spheres, so to say?
@@reformational My quote was in response to "Does the author address the contradiction between his supposed wanting to avoid identifying God with human endeavors, and his support of socialism?"
@@georgeluke6382 , hm. ok. Well, not sure what you have in mind by Weber and a natural antithesis. But, of course, the church's mission has nothing to do with making an egalitarian utopia. And every form of socialism is, obviously, always dystopic. In any case, I suppose if one had a Barthian view of God's transcendence, human endeavors might be "left to" all sorts of insanity.
… do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers … will inherit the kingdom of God. (-1Cor6:9-10). I’ve noticed this selective favouritism (moral relativism) throughout my personal wanderings through the Christian maze. The passage quoted is not dealt with. It is typically ignored. Some present an image of holy horror, others present an image of outrage on behalf of compassionate understanding (“we’re only human”), none resolve the problem with any convincing hermeneutical coherence. we like Barth, so he gets out sympathy if not an outright free pass, while the average pew sitter is “cast out” and “disinherited”. The variability of the line of tolerance across and within theological streams discredits the whole shebang. Barth could not be conservative in this matter because he could not pretend to be that kind of holy, regardless of any other textual justification he might have for not disqualifying himself. Others are somehow content with their achievements in conformity to their piddling standard of holiness such that they rant about Barth’s honesty in this matter. Their’s is no less a manifestation of moral relativism vs “the righteousness apart from law”. For myself, I’m happy to demolish moral relativism in Karl’s favour and mine, and in the favour of my own “flawed” mentors, by mis-applying Romans 11:32 to our individual cases: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” We claim that mercy in Christ and by that we are and they were sustained in that grace - despite ourselves and our wish to be free of these bodies of death.
There must have been some church supetvision over Karl Barth as a minister/professor. Did this clerical body take any measures to solve his triangular problem?
Christiane Tietz's biography of Karl Barth 'A Life in Conflict' is very helpful and informative. Her perspectives in this forum are also heartfelt. This relationship/partnership caused a lot of grief to Barth's wife Nelly but they remained together despite Charlotte von Kirschbaum's presence in the household. The children had a deep affection for their Aunt Lollo as they called her and it is unfortunate that authors like Galli only cite how 'unbearable' the situation was for their mother while not telling how much she recognised von Kirschbaum's support of her husband's work was 'indispensable'. This does not in any way absolve or excuse the fact that it put huge pressure on the three of them and was not a healthy situation. I do think it is wrong to suggest, as Tietz does, that von Kirschbaum was Barth's mistress as there is evidence in the correspondence that he was committed to not be "unfaithful not only towards his wife but also towards his duties in the church and theology". Barth's great old friend Eduard Thurneysen's perspective is instructive though when he wrote to a friend & said "...this cannot go on, it should not go on", and he described it all as a "..heavy crisis .." .
I am sure the Barth children must have pondered it all as they grew into adulthood. But I think while it was all wrong, it became redemptive. Ultimately, we all have to stand before God and give an account of our life and the use of the talents He has given us. We all have to step back and give place to the judge of all the earth.
Adultery is nothing but emotional covetousness and covetousness is idolatry. That fact reflects Barth's adulterated theology that has birthed the modern emphasis on emotion over obedience to the Gospel of repentance. The repercussions of all our theology and our lives are long lasting. Let us take heed lest we fall.
The discussion at 41:00 ff is revealing. It assumes that the Christian life of faith and grace is now, even for “reformed” believers, lived by a shared (synergistic) justification. Grace has moved from imputation to impartation and infusion. Many ribbons flow from this maypole. Here, the question is asked, “How did Barth justify this arrangement …” 40:24 The answer given is the only answer available to all but the hypocrite: “He did not justify it …”! Nothing is justified or justifiable thus. The very question implies another way to being a Christian other than by the justification, righteousness, sanctification, glorification of Christ… despite all demands and warnings in the epistles regarding “what manner of lives” believers ought to be living. Whatever those warnings mean, and by whatever power they are supposed to be efficacious, I for one cannot afford to doubt my unwavering perfection in Christ which would be implicit in any justification I might offer for any of my deeds, beliefs or moments, “good or bad” so-called! I live? Not I.
This unrepentant adultery kept him from being a "legalist"? That sounds like an attempted justification to me.
Does the author address the contradiction between his supposed wanting to avoid identifying God with human endeavors, and his support of socialism?
Can you clarify this? Wouldn't Weber's thesis on the Protestant underpinnings for capitalism suggest that this would be a natural antithesis? A sharp transcendent doctrine of God leaves us with the mission of realizing the Kingdom on earth by making an egalitarian utopia for mankind on earth, not founded on a series of loyalties to Burke's little platoons of families or national loyalties, or Kuyper's spheres, so to say?
@@georgeluke6382 , I don't know if your question is directed to me. Can you clarify what you're asking about?
@@reformational My quote was in response to "Does the author address the contradiction between his supposed wanting to avoid identifying God with human endeavors, and his support of socialism?"
@@reformational *response
@@georgeluke6382 , hm. ok. Well, not sure what you have in mind by Weber and a natural antithesis.
But, of course, the church's mission has nothing to do with making an egalitarian utopia. And every form of socialism is, obviously, always dystopic. In any case, I suppose if one had a Barthian view of God's transcendence, human endeavors might be "left to" all sorts of insanity.
Was Barth an adulterer?
They talk about it in the video...
Yes he is.
Yes, and it's worse than you think. He moved his mistress into his house and lived with her and his wife.
I'm Sorry for all the....
… do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers … will inherit the kingdom of God. (-1Cor6:9-10). I’ve noticed this selective favouritism (moral relativism) throughout my personal wanderings through the Christian maze. The passage quoted is not dealt with. It is typically ignored. Some present an image of holy horror, others present an image of outrage on behalf of compassionate understanding (“we’re only human”), none resolve the problem with any convincing hermeneutical coherence. we like Barth, so he gets out sympathy if not an outright free pass, while the average pew sitter is “cast out” and “disinherited”. The variability of the line of tolerance across and within theological streams discredits the whole shebang. Barth could not be conservative in this matter because he could not pretend to be that kind of holy, regardless of any other textual justification he might have for not disqualifying himself. Others are somehow content with their achievements in conformity to their piddling standard of holiness such that they rant about Barth’s honesty in this matter. Their’s is no less a manifestation of moral relativism vs “the righteousness apart from law”. For myself, I’m happy to demolish moral relativism in Karl’s favour and mine, and in the favour of my own “flawed” mentors, by mis-applying Romans 11:32 to our individual cases: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” We claim that mercy in Christ and by that we are and they were sustained in that grace - despite ourselves and our wish to be free of these bodies of death.
Barth’s adulterous life didn’t alter my view of him because I never thought he was a Christian to begin with.
There must have been some church supetvision over Karl Barth as a minister/professor. Did this clerical body take any measures to solve his triangular problem?