Christians.^36 Additionally, he recognizes the Old Testament bridal language that
“Yahweh is always the Lover, Bridegroom and Husband.”^37
This leads Barth to a historical excursus on mystical union. He also begins to
display a growing hesitation regarding this foundational concept of union with Christ.
While he reviews both Luther’s and Calvin’s understanding of unio mystica
accurately^38 he previously articulated a very different message, especially in relation
to the biblical foundation and that of Calvin. In speaking of Calvin’s use of the unio
mystica he laments that Calvin ever used it and asserts that this type of language
should never be employed “unless it is highly qualified.”^39 This reflects Barth’s
aversion to mysticism that will be examined in the next section. He recognizes that
mystical union has often been linked with mystical experiences. In an interesting
historical comment Barth refers to A. E. Biedermann, who was the “greatest exponent
of Neo-Protestantism after Schleiermacher” and in relation to his treatment of this
topic declares, “the concept of the unio mystica, ... has been quietly and secretly
filled out in a way which we can only describe as highly questionable.”^40 This
provides a valuable insight into Barth’s polemic, that while he does not object
unilaterally to the principle of mystical union he does raise serious reservations as he
battles the anxieties of his past. It also reminds readers that no one should read Barth
flat-footed without some awareness of his context and audience. Therefore, Barth
cautiously warns, “[u]nless we consider, safeguard and expressly state these things
[i.e. in relation to unio mystica], we do better not to speak of ‘Christ-mysticism’ when
(^36) Hunsinger explores this theme in (^) How to Read Barth, 173-5, 179.
(^37) Barth, CD III/1, 316, cf. 315-8.
(^38) Barth, CD IV/3, 549-54.
(^3940) Barth, CD IV/3, 539-40. The Calvin reference is Institutes, 3.11.10.
Barth, CD IV/2, 57.