there is obviously no compelling reason to do so.”^41 Strangely Barth affirms that it is
only John and Paul who provide a biblical sanction for employing the living “in
Christ” passages in the New Testament. Additionally, in commenting on these two
biblical authors he mentions their “disturbing boldness” in using the language of
mystical union.^42 It is one thing to challenge Calvin’s use of mystical union, but it
seems inappropriate to cast the same judgment upon the writers of Scripture. This is
all the more bewildering when one realizes that John and Paul contribute over half of
the New Testament writings.
Experience
Barth’s name has become synonymous with challenging humanity’s ability to
experience God.^43 In fact a contemporary Barthian interpreter has remarked, “[o]ne
can read many pages of ‘The Word of God and Experience’ before realizing that
Barth wants to affirm the necessity of ‘Christian experience’.”^44 Indeed he does, for
Barth declares “[e]xperience therefore, of the Word of God must at least also be
experience of His presence.”^45 Barth’s reticence to give proper weight to experience
is a radical shift from his early emphasis upon the experiential that was indebted to
Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Herrmann.^46 However, World War I created a personal
crisis that deeply shook Barth’s theological foundations. He was deeply troubled to
discover that many of his liberal theological professors including his own highly
respected mentor Herrmann supported the Kaiser’s justification for Germany’s
(^41) Barth, CD IV/3, 540.
(^42) Barth, CD IV/3, 549, cf. 54 for Barth’s nervousness of speaking of biblical
mysticism. 43
Barth bemoans that fact that his critics were continually accusing him of placing
“revelation and faith from the believer’s stan 44 dpoint up in the clouds.” CD I/1, 239.
45 Mangina, Barth on the Christian Life, 49n39.^
46 Barth, Mangina, CDBarth on the Christian Life I/1, 235, cf. 238, 239, 256., 21 and Busch,^ Karl Barth: His Life, 62.