subsumed into this section.^87 This overarching emphasis upon activity provides little
freedom to contemplate the mighty acts of God. Moreover, he tends to equate the
term “indolence” with contemplation^88 and perceives it as ultimately hiding or
withdrawal from the world.^89 Barth’s binary thinking imprisons his perception that
contemplation and action are not equally legitimate expressions of the Christian life.^90
While he affirms, “[o]ra! and therefore Labora!”^91 his understanding of the
interaction between these two movements is illuminating:
Where theology is concerned, the rule Ora et labora! is valid under all
circumstances-pray and work! And the gist of the rule is not merely that
orare, although it should be the beginning, would afterward be only incidental
to the execution of the laborare. The rule means, moreover, that laborare
itself, and as such, is essentially an orare. Work must be that sort of act that
has the manner and meaning of a prayer in all its dimensions, relationships,
and moments.^92
Barth’s emphasis on work as prayer dismantles the original bal^ ance of prayer and
work and undermines the centrality of prayer as a significant means for guiding
Christian action. Smedes summarizes the implications of Barth’s active theology, “to
be ‘in Christ’ means being where the action of Christ is going on. The theologian of
the ‘wholly other’ is not likely to be burning the mystic flame.”^93
Further, Barth’s understanding of prayer “is decisively petition” and provides
little room for contemplation. The primary form of prayer becomes invocation, not
interior listening. In reality, for Barth the Lord’s Prayer was focused more upon
87
(^88) Barth, Barth, CDCD III/4, 470 III/4, 473--^564 4.
(^89) Barth, Evangelical Theology, 83.
(^90) Barth, CD III/4, 500-1, cf. 473-4.
(^91) Barth, CD III/4, 534. Barth does not indicate that this is the Benedictine motto
though he does reveal some knowledge of Benedict and refers specifically to the Rule
on a few occasions. CD IV/2, 13, 16, 17, 18, cf. I/2, 783, IV/2, 12, 14. However,
Barth reveals his great displeasure with the final sentence of the 92 Rule. CD IV/2, 18.
93 Barth, SmedesEvangelical Theology, Union with Christ, 63., 160.