The Spirit of Logos in Barth's Theological Orientation

Barth Review
Part 1
The main ideas of Barth’s Evangelical Theology are that it is a combination of New Testament theology and early Reformation theology. It is not meant to be confessional or denominational. Evangelical in this instance refers to the Bible—and thus it might be better to describe what Barth has written as biblical theology. Thus Barth relies on the principles of biblical theology to explain his perspective in writing his work. One should use the Bible to clarify one’s theology; one should do so impartially and without bias. He also asserts that theological exegesis is necessary, meaning that one must not attempt to discern more in the Bible than what is deduced from the standpoint of faith. This is an important idea and serves as the foundation for Barth’s approach to Evangelical theology. It is essential that readers of the Bible interpret it in good faith, not attempting to see more than what God has allowed.
The rule of biblical theology is that faith is demanded and will be confronted by the reader in the text. The spirit must animate the interaction, just as the Spirit animated the Apostles on the Pentecost. Without that spirit, there is no Church, argues Barth. It is in communion with such spirit, therefore, that evangelical theology must be approached. If it is approached critically but without a willingness to be animated by the Spirit, the fruit of the text will not be understood.
Since the Bible represents the Word of God, and the Word is the Spirit, one must think of theology as direct confrontation with the Word, i.e., the Spirit. That is main gist of what Barth imparts in the text. One should not be concerned with interpretation of the Word, for no man can interpret the Word. One must rather be open to interacting with the Word, just as the disciples were open to receiving the Spirit after Christ ascended into Heaven.
The message contained in Barth’s argument is that Word is beyond the ken of man, and therefore it is absurd or vain to think that man can understood it simply be bringing what contextual analysis he has hobbled together and applying it to the text found in the Bible.
One other important point that Barth makes is that the Word is Logos, which is to say it is the idea at the center of all time, the beginning of the Universe, the essence of the act of creation. Logos is the reason and the essence of God, the Word that was in the Beginning as the Gospel proclaims. The Word is also the Gospel and the work of God. Barth thus does not attempt to describe the Word in any other terms than in those used by the Spirit. The Logos is there in the Bible from the Old to the New Testaments, and this is what Barth indicates the reader must appreciate.
The Logos is “I am who am,” and in that name contains all the meaning and mystery that one might gain from any theological study. Barth’s thoughts on the matter a rather abstract and opaque, but the essence of the thought is that God’s Word cannot be understood without acquiescence to God’s Spirit, and God’s Spirit cannot be known unless one is open to the Logos that has existed from all eternity.
One should be clear, but also aware of one’s own limitations, and one should also be oriented in the right way when engaging in theological study. That is the final point of Barth. The orientation should be communal, for the Spirit is interested in community, in establishing community, in fostering the Church. Keeping that idea in mind while engaging in evangelical theology will help to keep one grounded but also illuminated.
Part 2
Barth makes the rather curious assertion that the best theology would manifest itself by its spirit, yet in doing so it would also betray itself as being that which seeks to better than others. For Barth, theology is not permitted to announce itself as true or best. It is sufficient only unto itself and is not meant to be drawn into comparison with other theologies. McDowell argues that what Barth is saying is that theology is like a prayer and prayer is a practice, whose form cannot be considered outside of engagement with and consideration for God as well as one’s human identity. McDowell’s argument is somewhat vague and obtuse, because it includes in the concept of prayer a consideration for world and human identity. But in prayer, none of these considerations should be absolutely necessary. Indeed, if one is going to pray to God, one should be able to think wholly on God.
Anderson and McCormack note that Barth was interested in exploring a theology of freedom and that this is what he recommended to his American audience when he visited the country in the 1960s. Barth’s theology of freedom as a concept is evident in his Evangelical Theology, particularly in the rather unsystematic manner in which he approaches the concept of theology. Barth is not approaching theology in the manner of Thomas Aquinas, i.e., as a scholastic. He is rather insisting that one feel it out and not think too critically about what is happening. It is a somewhat visceral and emotional approach to theology, with the justification for this approach being that the Church itself would not exist were it not for the Holy Spirit descending up on the Apostles on Pentecost and that it is this same Spirit that keeps the Church in existence today.
While all that may be true, the Church has also been kept in existence through the zeal and work and thought of the Doctors of the Church, who have addressed important issues and questions. Aquinas is but one of these Doctors, and his Summa Theologica approaches the issue of theology from a very systematic and rigorous orientation. It is a far cry from what Barth recommends. One has the feeling that one might learn substantially more about God and religion from reading the Summa, too, than from reading Barth’s rather flowery explanation of what evangelical theology should be. One can read Barth’s entire work and not come away with anything other than a vague sense that the Spirit is what motivates understanding.
It is understandable that Barth wants the reader or student of theology to consider the primacy of the Spirit and of Logos. It is not an illegitimate or invalid argument to make. Primacy should be given to the Spirit, to the Word, to Logos. But one also needs more direction beyond that, and it is this type of instruction that Barth seems reluctant to give. He wants the theology of freedom to be the guide; he does not want anything he says to constrict or restrict the student from exploring and discovering on his own what there is to see in his own personal interaction with the Word.
On the one hand, it is a commendable approach to theology; on the other hand, it is a difficult one to reconcile with the actual text of Scripture. For if this was all there was to theology, it is doubtful Christ would have taught so often in parables. His teachers presuppose the idea that He did have something specific to teach and that those following Him had something to learn. What then is the purpose of promoting a theology of freedom and allowing the student to wander, especially if that wandering can lead to error or illusion?
Bibliography
Anderson, Clifford B., and Bruce L. McCormack, eds. Karl Barth and the making of Evangelical theology: a fifty-year perspective. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015.
Barth, Karl. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction
McDowell, John C. "“Openness To The World”: Karl Barth's Evangelical Theology Of Christ As The Pray?Er 1." Modern Theology 25, no. 2 (2009): 253-283.