Is it just me who gets frustrated by Barth’s theological anthropology? I was in a seminar today on the subject and we had to read through §§ 43-44. What confuses me the most is his anthropological ontology viz. what does it mean to be human. It seems to me that Barth is a little confused himself on this matter or perhaps that Barth wants the benefits of both worlds as he attempts to talk about man in light of God. In light of his ‘actualistic’ ontology (for more on this see Paul T. Nimmo Being in Action which was released earlier this year) which he develops in his doctrine of God (i.e. using divine election so that God determines to be who he will be) it appears that Barth furthers this idea in his section on theological anthropology – Man is what he is in light of what God determines for him in Christ.

However, later on in the section, Barth talks about ‘creaturely essence or nature’ and the peduring of this creaturely essence through the various antitheses of sin, redemption and reconciliation. The problematic is this – in light of his prior anthro-ontology, Barth seems to be saying that one is not human unless one realises the possibilities which God has opened up for man in Christ. This leads to either universalism or a mixture of humans and not-humans (not doubt as a corollary of his notion of sin/evil as non-being – Das Nichtige.

On the other hand, unless Barth can maintain some ontological continuity (i.e. creaturely essence) then there is no redemption or reconciliation – only re-creation. There needs to be some form of continuity so that our salvation is a history in which Christ rescues us and consummates our fallen, sinful beings, healing the rending of sin and evil upon us.

On top of this confused ontology you have the almost formulaic statement that “anthropology is christology”. Barth wants to make constant recourse to the ‘human nature’ of Jesus Christ as the point of departure for any theological anthropology. This leads to two problems – firstly, ontological – there are differences between man and Jesus even though Jesus was fully human. This is all well and good but the problem is highlighted in the realisation that the first problem presupposes the second problem – epistemology – we cannot know what man is without looking to Christ. Why is that? Because we are sinful, self-contradicting beings – Christ is not so we look to him – but we are still sinful, self-contradicting beings. How will we get around this problem. (There are also problems of a more Hegelian nature too but I don’t have time to elaborate)

So please will someone try to convince me that there is something of worth in Barth’s theological anthropology!