Karl Barth. Paul S. Chung

of becoming a strong representative of “Culture Protestantism,” a form of Christendom baptized by bourgeois Prussian society. Cultural Protestantism held that the ethical demands of Jesus and cultural values are in harmony; in cultural Protestantism the true ideal of life led to no potential conflict with social or cultural structures. While uncritical of the political social system in Prussia, Ritschl saw Bismarck’s policies as genuine progress, in contradistintion to the aristocratic conservatives and the social revolutionists.

Theologically, as a student of Herrmann, Barth was critical of Ritschl.6 According to Barth, Ritschl’s ideal of the Christian life is regarded as “the very epitome of the national-liberal German bourgeois of the age of Bismarck.”7 In the mid-1890s, Troeltsch had initiated and led the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (history of religions school), focusing on a historical-critical basis that challenged dogmatic assumptions. The belief in the absoluteness of Christianity, which was based on a supernatural conception of revelation and thus at the heart of Ritschlism, became deeply questionable and was challenged by the historical-critical method of Troeltsch. In 1897 a split emerged between the older, dogmatically oriented school of Ritschlians and the younger, historical-critically oriented school of Religionsgeschichte.

In editing Die Christliche Welt Martin Rade supported younger radical members by accepting their contributions as part of the history of religions school. At the start of the twentieth century, Troeltsch emerged as the most important figure, exercising profound influence upon the theological situation in Germany. However, it was Herrmann, with his engaging style, who became the counterpart of Troeltsch, helping Barth to overcome relativism and historicism in theology.8 As a student of Herrmann at Marburg, Barth stated: “The name of Troeltsch, then at the heart of our discussions, signified the limit beyond which I thought I must refuse to follow the dominant theology of the age. In all else I was its resolute disciple”9

      Karl Barth in Berlin

Characterizing the intellectual surroundings of Barth as a student in Germany was his pursuit and penetration of the poles between Ritschl and Troeltsch. Barth became a student with a high regard for Harnack in Berlin. He had little concern about Reinhold Seeberg. Instead of indulging in cultural life in Berlin, Barth saw and heard Harnack very thoroughly. “I . . . wisely avoided Seeberg, foolishly, alas, took no notice of Holl; and instead went enthusiastically to listen to Harnack (and equally keenly to hear Kaftan and Gunkel).”10 Harnack’s great lecture on the history of dogma touched Barth’s heart. According to his recollection, he heard Harnack’s argument directly in the classroom that “the dogma of the early period was a self-expression of the Greek spirit in the sphere of the gospel.”11 In Berlin, furthermore, Barth became preoccupied with the Ethics of Herrmann (1846–1922). Reflecting on this experience, Barth stated, “Herrmann was the theological teacher of my student years. The day twenty years ago in Berlin when I first read his Ethik [Ethics] I remember as if it were today. If I had the temperament of Klaus Harms, I could speak of Herrmann in the way he spoke of Schleiermacher, or I could say as Stilling did of Herder. ‘From this book I received the push into perpetual motion.’ With more restraint, but with no less gratitude, I can say that on that day I believe my own deep interest in theology began.”12

In addition to Immanuel Kant, Schleiermacher became the leading light for Barth during his student time in Berlin. Along with Herrmann’s Ethics, Barth purchased a copy of Schleiermacher’s Speeches on Religion to its Cultured Despisers. In the winter semester of 1906–1907 in Berlin Barth was interested in socialism. Incidentally, he participated in a series of lectures by Walter Simons on “Christianity and the Social Question.” According to Marquardt, Karl Vorländer’s book The New Kantian Movement in Socialism (Die neukantische Bewegung im Sozialismus) is located in Barth’s book shelf with the inscription: “Karl Barth. Cand. theol. Berlin WS 1906/07.”13 Barth would have read it during his time at Berlin. In addition, in 1906 Werner Sombart was a professor in the Department of Economics at Berlin. Sombart’s influence on Barth in Safenwil is evident in Barth’s 1911 lecture “Jesus and the Social Movement.”

In a meeting at the Worker’s Association in Küngoldingen (February 1914), Barth recalled his learning of socialism through someone he called “S.” “Through S. I was acquainted with socialism and I was driven to more exact reflection and the study of the matter. Since that time, I have considered socialist demands an important part of the application of the gospel. Certainly, I also believe that they cannot be realized without the gospel.”14 Although Barth did not identify “S,” Marquardt’s assumption that it was Sombart is credible. Notably, Barth had already read Sombart during his semester in Berlin in 1906.

Sombart (1863–1941) actually started his career with a powerful academic critique of capitalism. During his lifetime he was presumably the most influential and prominent social scientist in Germany. While Heidegger provides a counterexample, Sombart’s embrace of Nazism relegated to near oblivion his fame as one of the most brilliant and influential scholars.15 When Sombart was offered an opportunity to become a successor of Max Weber at Heidelberg, he couldn’t take the position because of his socialistic orientation, which became uncomfortable for Grand Duke Friedrich II (1857–1928). In 1896 Sombart’s first edition of Sozialismus und soziale Bewegung distinguished him as a radical socialist based on his positive acceptance of Marxist historical materialism. However, Sombart did not share Marx’s base-superstructure theorem with which Marx put an excessive emphasis on productive forces influencing and even determining relations between production and the ideological sphere. In Sombart’s view, the primacy should rather be placed on superstructure.16

Because of his ardent fight for the cause of the socialist movement, Sombart received special attention from Friedrich Engels, who mentioned his name in his supplement to the third volume of Capital. According to Engels, Sombart was regarded as giving “an outline of the Marxian system which, taken all in all, is excellent. It is the first time that a German university professor succeeds on the whole in seeing in Marx’s writings what Marx really says.”17 Rather than rejecting or transcending Marx, Sombart added a sociopsychological and sociocultural dimension to the analysis of the genesis and the nature of capitalism. Sombart’s fame drew many students to his lectures both at Breslau, where he held the chair of economics at the university, and at the Handelshochschule in Berlin, where he worked from 1906 to 1917. In 1917 he was appointed a successor of Gustav Schmoller at the University of Berlin.

      Karl Barth in Marburg

      According to Barth’s recollection, he underwent a number of theological and philosophical influences while in Marburg, beginning with his theological foundation under Herrmann and continuing with the philosophical influence of Kant and the neo-Kantians. Barth is explicit about Herrmann’s influence:

I came to Marburg as a convinced ‘Marburger.’ And when on the day I began my ministry the mail brought me, five minutes before I was to go to the pulpit, the new, forth edition of the Ethik as a gift from the author, I accepted this coincidence as a dedication of my whole future. . . . I cannot deny that through the years I have become a somewhat surprising disciple of Herrmann. . . . But I could never inwardly agree that I had really turned away from my teacher. Nor can I so agree today.18

      In addition, Barth encountered the Kantian and neo-Kantian emphasis on practical