Language of Delight and Enjoyment
Reflective of his time Barth read the Song of Songs in a purely literal manner.
In fact, he baldly declares that this book “is not an allegory.”^98 Therefore, one would
not expect to find the devotional language of delight and enjoyment such as
“ravishment” that was so prominent in Ambrose and other Puritans in Barth’s
writings. However, due to his allergic reaction to mystical experiences Barth’s
assessment of the German pietistic hymns of Nicolai and Gerhardt is surprising. He
asserts that it is better to have some “religious eroticism” than simply sterile dusty
dogmatic correctness. Barth continues by declaring “[b]ut how arid would be our
hymn-books if we were to purge out all elements of this kind! ... If a choice has to be
made, is it not better to say a little too much and occasionally to slip up with Nicolai
and even with Zinzendorf and Novalis than to be rigidly correct with Kant and Ritschl
and my 1921 Romerbrief and Bultmann.”^99 Though once again, Barth asserts the
opposite perspective with equal force speaking of “debased religious eroticism” of
pietistic hymns.^100 Therefore, a deeper consideration once again requires a tempering
of Barth’s initial enthusiasm for devotional language. This was demonstrated
previously in the discussion on subjectivity and Barth’s fear that this language could
turn the focus inward and away from Christ.
To summarize, it is obvious Barth was no champion of contemplation. While
at times he can speak favorably of a highly qualified form of Christian mysticism his
inconsistency of expression often communicates greater confusion than clarity. It is
one thing to know the sources of contemplative piety and adamantly disagree or even
98
99 Barth, CD III/1, 319, cf. III/2, 294.^
100 Barth, Barth, CDCD IV/2, 798. IV/2, 795.^