The von Balthasar Thesis

Hans Urs von Balthasar’s seminal study The Theology of Karl Barth contains some rather harsh criticisms of the “early” Barth (The Epistle to the Romans, 1st and 2nd Editions) and some high praises for the “later” Barth (Church Dogmatics). Barth’s “conversion to analogy” becomes highly significant to von Balthasar’s overall account. In fact, it seems to me that any rapproachment between the two thinkers hinges on this thesis. He writes:

Just as Augustine underwent two conversions…so too in Barth we may find two decisive turning points. The first, his turn from liberalism to radical Christianity, occurred during the First World War and found expression in The Epistle to the Romans. The second was his final emancipation from the shackles of philosophy, enabling him finally to arrive at a genuine self-authenticating theology. This second conversion was a gradual process, indeed a struggle, that lasted nearly ten years, ending at about 1930 (93).

Von Balthasar quotes Barth’s own words about the significance of his 1931 Anselm book for his theology. He clearly states that the conversion process was a gradual one, and indeed, he never stops calling out traces of any residual dialectics in his theology. However, this thesis of Barth’s “conversion to analogy,” known now as the “von Balthasar thesis,” has recently come under fire, especially since the release of Bruce McCormack’s Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology. In this work McCormack argues that “the great weakness of the von Balthasarian formula is that it conceals from view the extent to which Karl Barth remained–even in the Church Dogmatics!–a dialectical theologian” (18). Indeed, McCormack identifies many key developments in Barth’s thought, but the “von Balthasar thesis,” in his mind, is mistaken on a number of fronts, not least in von Balthasar’s insistence that a decisive shift to analogy took place in Barth’s book on Anselm.

Now it is important to note that Barth’s conversion to analogy is never radical enough for von Balthasar’s tastes, as it remains too constricted and never fully allows for an adequate human response to God’s offer of grace in Jesus. However, it remains hugely important to him. If McCormack’s thesis is correct I must say that I am afraid that it could deliver a serious blow to any efforts of rapproachment between the two thinkers.