I got a lot of comments on the most overrated theologian. Some were predictable, some were funny, and others were surprising to me. In the end I have to agree with those who listed Karl Barth as the most overrated theologian ever. Why? Well, Qohelet said John Calvin “because his ‘reformed’ intellectual descendants are annoying,” and Diglot concurred. This is true, to an extent, but at least his descendants can be understood. I get Calvinism even though I disagree with significant points of it. Calvinists on a whole tend to make sense when they talk even if what they say ends up being incorrect. Barthians on the other hand are even more confusing than Barth and Barth was confusing as γέεννα! So often when I listen to Barthians wax eloquent I wonder to myself, “Are they serious? Have they been listening to anything they’ve been saying?” So in the end Barth without a doubt gets the top spot in my opinion. His disciples are speaking a language that only they understand. ;-)
B”H
Here! Here! Good choice.
γέεννα (lol)
Yep, we Reformed folk (myself included) can be very annoying. We consistently argue from Scripture against critics. We insist that since God speaks, his words are true, and His revelation trumps our fallen intuitions. And worse of all…we keep telling people this stuff over and over and over like we actually believe it!
(I’m being sarcastic for anyone who has soft skin)
I stand by my original comments. Also, I think that I am right because I was the first to reply in the prior thread.
Three Cheers for Nick! Best post ever!
Barthians speak a language of their own that only they can understand. Preach preacher!
Yeah the Barthians make me not even want to get into theology.
As you know, I understand your reasons very well and am mightily inclined to agree with you, but in the end I just can’t. I do love me some Barth, even if I find Barthianists insufferable — what with their cromulent elucubrations that embiggen the theological craft.
Besides, everyone knows that the most ovverated theologian in the History of Ever was Tillich! That damn pantheist.
Billy: Thanks, I thought so too. :-)
Kyle: Reformed folks like you aren’t annoying. Just those who think that the TULIP is all that Reformed theology has to offer and shout it at the top of their lungs while plugging their ears and ignoring everyone else. (I wasn’t being sarcastic for all those with thin skin). ;-)
Nathan: Nah. I know people who love Benny Hinn but I’ve never seen anyone consider him a great theologian. You were just first to be wrong, but that’s okay, at least you’re blogging again! ;-)
Rod: Can I get an amen?!!
Bryan: Same here, but then I read the Bible, or a great theologian like Norman Geisler (that was a joke; I just threw up in my mouth a little bit) and I’m right back into it. ;-)
Esteban: I don’t even know who this Tillich fellow is! He can’t be that overrated.
First place! ——–>
Nick> Well, I told you who he was: a damn pantheist! Oh, and an adulterer. And the guiding light of mid-20th century liberal theology.
Esteban: Pantheists are a dime a dozen. So are adulterers. But guiding lights of 20th century liberal theology are hard to come by. I suppose that there is a special place in hell for this character! ;-)
Most days I wake up and think to myself, “What damed irrational thing is a Barthinian going to say today?”
Tony: It’s amazing to think that I’m not the only one who wakes up and thinks that!
Pingback: Sunday Amens: Barth Is Overrated and Nonbelieving Scholarship « Political Jesus: Journeys in Non-Resistant Love
@Nick, I did give you an amen on my blog! :)
Tsk, tsk. Those that think Barth is overrated have not read him. In most rational reckonings, he makes the “Top Five Most Important Theologians Of All Time List.” If anything, he is underrated. I think a lot of the disdain for Barth comes from drive-by hits from evangelicals jealous because he loved Jesus more than they do. Seriously–go read the first few hundred pages of Church Dogmatics and see what I mean. Barth was all about Jesus.
Did he desperately need an editor who would have made him cut a few thousand pages? Oh yes. Still, as German theologians go, he is more readable than many.
I agree with Esteban: Tillich was the most overrated, and that is close to being an empirical fact. I like what the EDT says about him: “This leaves one with the impression that Tillich’s philosophy of religious language is not only difficult to understand–it may indeed be impossible to understand.” Indeed.
Tillich definitely has his problems, but his work has not been as glorified in theology circles as Barth’s. there arent as many “how to read tillich this way or that way” as there are for Barth.
And I have read Barth. I think I’ll take a pass on barthianism.
For the record, I do not think Barth is the most overrated, I think Neibuhr is, but it doesn’t change the truly massive heights of irrationality that are hidden by Barthinian piety about God’s freedom and glory, which apparently enable God to be royally and constantly self-contradicting.
Rod: Much appreciated!
Sean: Great to hear from you! I only wish what I was hearing made more sense! ;-) Seriously though; you don’t hear Tillich’s name being bandied about like Barth’s nor has he spawned the following that Barth has. This is about overrated theologians; not bad theologians. Barth might very well be in the top 5 ever (he’s not since you can’t even get out of the 5th century without coming up with those 5) but his disciples would have us believe that he’s on a level that transcends numbers! And it just might be that those who have read him (how much of him do we have to read before we can say we’ve read him?) as well as his followers think he’s overrated for just that reason (i.e., having read him and his fanboys).
Rod: I’m with you!
Tony: Neibuhr is another name I hardly ever hear. Just based on the number of adherents (who seemingly can’t make any sense when they say anything theological) I say Barth gets the top spot.
Nick, good choice. Esoteric doctrine you got to love it ;-)
Robert: Only if you’re one of the elite who understands it! ;-)
Nick, glad you understood my esoteric remark, we have now founded our own group that no one will understand but us, and we will be consider highly evolved humans.
Just read the first two parts of Church Dogmatics on “The Doctrine of the Word of God.” That contains some of his best stuff. Barth was a Cassandra, standing up in his age to proclaim the destructive results of leaning on anything other than Jesus Christ for our knowledge of God, especially so-called natural theology. By and large, he’s gone unheeded, and destruction has indeed come. The evangelicals didn’t listen to him because he had like five pages on the inspiration of Scripture that disagreed with them. Having gone off into the position that “everything proves the Bible/the existence of God” (which are nearly the same thing in their paradigm), they’re floundering against militant atheism and post-modern deconstructionism. On the one hand you have articles in Christianity Today about “God’s Two Books” (i.e., the Bible and natural revelation), which is disturbing, and on the other, you have people using a banana to try to prove to unbelievers that the Bible is correct/that God exists. But Barth contended that “Revelation itself is needed for knowing that God is hidden and man blind,” and that we come to the knowledge of God only through faith, which is a leap, in Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, you have po-mo liberalism (to which I get exposed a lot) also ignoring his warning and taking the point further: “If true knowledge of God is revealed in nature or Greek philosophy or science, then why can’t I put my culture/pre-Christian religion/experience of oppression/psychological issues etc. up there with it?” Theology is determined by human existence & experience and anything goes.
If people had listened more to Barth, both of these problems could have been staved off. I think he is underrated because we could learn a lot from him today, but basically neo-orthodoxy is relegated to the status of “a historical theology of interest” in a lot of texts/courses. Tillich has about the same status, but I can’t figure out why anyone should have listened to him to begin with.
There’s a lot more good stuff in Barth, but this comment is too long anyway–but what do you expect from a (sort of) Barthian? :) I’ll close with Barth’s own summary of his theology: “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”
Robert: We should resolve to speak nothing but Spanglish!
Sean: I’ve read a good chunk of I.1. It’s not the best thing I’ve ever read but it ain’t the worst either. I’d rather read Barth than Rahner but there’s about a hundred theologians I’d rather read than both of them.
BTW, did I ever tell you that I got a hold of your Master’s thesis? I really have to make time to read it.
Nick: Speaking of theses, have you had a chance to check mine out? I made it public on a separate blog even though the library published it as an electronic resource.
Rod: I haven’t. I only saw the page where it was supposed to be uploaded once and when I saw it the thesis hadn’t been uploaded yet. Can you give me a link?
Nick: http://beyondfreed.wordpress.com/
There you go. I think you were on the link the day i added it to Scribd.
I think T.F. Torrance is the most under-rated theologian amongst the “Reformed;” it’s probably because of his association with Barth. But truly, TF’s critical realism is much different and more “Scottish” than Barth’s actualism; more importantly TF is much more traditional vs. Barth’s dialectism.
Rod: Thanks! I’ll check it out as soon as I have time. This was the page where Brian LePort said your thesis was to be uploaded so that’s where I checked.
Bobby: You might very well be right. I personally enjoy Torrance immensely even though I think he can be a bit wordier than he needs to be at times. I’ve recently (just three days ago in fact) started doing a series called “Tuesdays with Torrance” in which I’ll offer select quotations from his works and some brief reflections/commentary.
Nick: Okay, I just editted my page on that site to include the blog with my thesis.l
Rod: Cool. I didn’t know you could edit that page. I assumed the school maintained it.
Hey Nick: Academia.edu is an independent website for professors, students, and independent scholars to network. I am trying to find postcolonial and patristic researchers to see what they are doing. It is a valuable resource.
Hi Nick,
I just scrolled through some of your blog and saw one of your Tuesdays with TFT, that is great! Torrance has really transformed the way I think theologically — in many ways — His “Christian Doctrine of God is awesome! I’m really glad you’re highlighting him. His thought is a little wordy at points (but hey he was/is a theologian ;-). If you get the chance and have the access (it is spendy) you should read his book “Scottish Theology”.
Great blog, I have you linked.
In Christ
Rod: Cool.
Bobby: C’mon, plenty of theologians can make their points through brevity (just not German theologians!), so Torrance doesn’t get a pass there. I can forgive him though because unlike some of his peers he never seemed to flex his intellectual muscle for the sake of flexing. It’ll probably be a while before I can get to Scottish Theology but thanks for the recommendation.
Nick,
I don’t see TFT in the same category of wordiness as Barth. I suppose this is a rather relative thing; he didn’t follow the scholastic methodology so that might contribute to his apparent wordiness, but I would need some examples of other theologians who you think are less wordy.
Bobby: Just glancing over at my bookshelf I’d say William Placher, Rowan Williams, Thomas Weinandy, Benedict XVI to name a few. And Barth is worse than just being wordy; he’s confusing. I think Torrance can make the same points in half the time but at least I understand everything he’s saying.
Like I said, relative ;-). But I agree TFT is way more clear than Barth; but most think TF is confusing, I guess it depends on what you’ve read from TF.
peace out.