The sins of Karl Barth

Okay. So I have had a bit of a revelation lately.

The other day I was rummaging around the internet and reading things on the man who seems to have become my favorite theologian - Karl Barth. I made a disturbing discovery. It is a little embarrassing, to be honest, to have become such a fan of a man and not know such a commonly understood bit of information as this. What I learned was that Karl Barth was an adulterer.

It does not appear that Barth actually had sexual relations with any woman other than his wife, Nelly Barth. However, he built a long going, close, intimate friendship with a woman named Charlotte von Kirschbaum, nicknamed "Lollo." She was an accomplished theological thinker herself. She worked as Barth's assistant in his theological work. Some even say that Barth's works should be considered as having two authors.

"Lollo" and Barth were very close. They worked together and she even moved into the Barth household, which unsurprisingly caused profound stress to the family. She and Barth took vacations together. Barth even asked his wife once for a divorce. When she refused, he dropped the subject.

When I learned all of this, I was absolutely devastated. I really felt betrayed. As silly as it sounds, I felt like one of those folks who find out their pastor is an adulterer. I shelved the book of his I had been reading (Romans). I questioned the validity of the theological tradition I had become a part of. To me Barth had represented the possibility of remaining faithful to the Gospel within mainline religion. Now the Apostle Paul's words rang in my head, "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality" (1 Corinthians 5:11). "Do not be deceived...adulterers....will not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9). Karl Barth was not a Christian. That, at least, was how I felt.

Now I know that it is not "proven" that Barth committed adultery on his wife. By this, most people would mean that he did not have sex with Lollo. He probably did not. However, the relationship was clearly emotional adultery. Unless you are going to split hairs like a Pharisee, what he did was cheat on his wife. Anyone who has not had a close relationship may not understand, but intimacy is really built on the intellectual and emotional level. A woman who plays the kind of role in a man's life that Lollo played for Barth is fulfilling the relationship that God marked out in Genesis for husbands and wives. Their relationship eliminated the possibility of any comparable companionship between Barth and his true wife, Nelly.

Nelly Barth was not very intellectual. She was no match for Barth. Their marriage seems to have been the handiwork of parents. Barth was forbidden to marry the woman he had loved as a young man. After marrying Nelly, he met Lollo. Their relationship was apparently one of pure professionalism, at least at first.

If there is any "saving grace" in this situation, it is that Barth seemed to have absorbed every close friendship into his obsession with theological work. Lollo may have been one of these casualties. She apparently accused him of stealing her ideas at least once. He apparently took advantage of her intellectual abilities. Barth's inability to draw boundaries between work and life was undoubtedly one reason for Lollo's moving in with the family.

Late in Barth's life, while giving the lectures that would become the book Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, Barth would counsel young seminary students with these words:

"In the relationship of man to God's work and word there may exist not only an unhealthy undernourishment but an equally unhealthy overeating. A man perhaps comes from a family in which theology was not only the Alpha and Omega (as the case should be ) but also the substitute, which it should not be, for all the other letters of the alphabet. Or, as a novice, he has devoted himself to theology with the incomparable exclusiveness of a first love; and now he lives not only as a theologian in everything, but entirely as a theologian alone, to the elimination of everything else. He has no basic interest in the newspapers, novels, art, history, sport; and so he reveals that basically he has no interest in any man. He is interested in his theological work and in his theological concern. Who is not acquainted with this situation? Not only are there students and professors of theology who go beyond their calling, but also preachers who live their whole life hermetically sealed off within their congregations. They associate with other men only in a hypertheological way. A dangerous business! The saying in Ecclesiastes 7:16 is not in vain: 'Be not righteous overmuch, and do not make yourself overwise; why should you destroy yourself?' In this way a person can, in fact, destroy himself as a theologian." [pp.115-116]

Perhaps Barth, like all other Christians, understood in a dim way what a mess he really was. Maybe he saw something unhealthy in his exceptional theological output. He was known, as I said, to absorb his relationships into his theological life. He, in a sense, used people. Lollo was probably one of these people. While it does not excuse him, it makes him understandable. It makes him human.

Did Barth ever, like King David, repent? I do not think so. Did he know he was sinning? I am not sure. His friends, Deitrich Bonhoeffer and Edward Thurneyson, were appalled at his decisions. But we can be very blind to ourselves. Until David was confronted by Nathan, he seemed to have made some sort of mental deal with himself too. He still ruled as God's king in the midst of his hypocrisy.

Is Barth forgiven? By me, yes. By many theologians and believers, yes. By his children? I am not sure. By his wife, I don't know. Lollo passed away several years after Barth did and apparently still lived with Nelly Barth until her death. That news carries the mark of dysfunction that every family bears. As God's fallen creatures we are more complicated and messy than we generally would like to think about.

The real question is whether God has forgiven Barth. I can't answer that either. I cannot really even define his crime, though to me it falls under the banner of infidelity. When asked to consider whether Barth "knew Jesus," I think a better answer than "yes" is to say that Barth understood the Cross. I find that very comforting...