Karl Barth. Paul S. Chung

218. Marquardt, “Erster Bericht über Karl Barths ‘Sozialistische Reden,’” 477.

219. Ibid., 477.

220. Ibid.

221. Marquardt, “Aktuar,” 105.

222. Busch, Karl Barth: His Life, 83.

223. Marqurdt, “Erster Bericht über Karl Barths ‘Sozialistische Reden,’” 472–73.

224. Ibid., 482. In Engels’s letter to Joseph Bloch (on 21/22. September 1890): “According to a materialistic interpretation of history, what a moment determines in the last instance in the history is the production and reproduction of actual life. More have neither Marx nor I ever insisted . . . The economic situation is the basis, but the various moments of superstructure . . . exercise also the development in the process of historical struggles and decide predominantly in many cases its form. It is an interaction of all those moments, in which lastly through the infinite amount of accidents . . . the economic movement asserts itself as the necessary thing” (MEW 37:463ff.).

225. Gollwitzer, “Kingdom of God and Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth,” 102. In examining carefully Barth’s “Socialist Speeches,” this runs counter to McCormack’s hunch—“If Barth did study Marxist literature, it was sometimes after 1917, and even then, there is no primary source evidence which would confirm such a hypothesis” (McCormack, Critically Realistic, 88, fn. 27).

226. Gollwitzer, “Kingdom of God and Socialism in the Theology of Karl Barth,” 85.

227. Thurneysen, Karl Barth “Theologie und Sozialismus” in den Briefen seiner Frühzeit, 9.

228. Smart, Revolutionary Theology, 36.

229. Busch, Karl Barth: His Life, 103–4.

230. Thurneysen’s response is different. “When I observe the signs of enjoyment at my local tavern on Saturday evening, I see the same picture. That Hochuli makes the offer in this case is in so far no basic difference, as the people will have their feast, and take it where they can get it. All of this can only strengthen you in your appeal to the little flock.” B-Th I, 123.

231. Marquardt, “Aktuar,” 134.

232. Thurneysen, Karl Barth ‘Theologie und Sozialismus,’ 29.

233. Smart, Revolutionary Theology, 31.

234. Marquardt, Theologie und Sozialismus, 83. In the interpretation of Marquardt, Kutter’s living God was philosophically rather than biblically grounded, while Ragaz’s kingdom of God arose from political principles rather than from Scripture (ibid., 49).

235. Busch, Karl Barth: His Life, 92.

236. Barth, “Righteousness of God,” 9.

237. Ibid., 16.

238. Ibid., 17.

239. Ibid., 19.

240. Ibid., 19–20.

241. Ibid., 20.

242. Ibid., 22.

243. Ibid., 24.

244. Ibid., 25–26.

245. Ibid., 26.

246. Barth, “Biblical Questions, Insights, and Vistas,” 51–96.

247. Thurneysen, Karl Barth ‘Theologie und Sozialismus,’ 18.

248. Marquardt, “Erster Bericht über Karl Barths ‘Sozialistiche Reden,’” 474.

249. Ibid. “It became clear to him that the worker must be a conscious, not a sleeping person, a fighter and not a coward. . . . Hence he had to become a Social Democrat. I say: he must. . . . In him there came to light and breakthrough precisely this, which also moves the great masses unconsciously and spinelessly in their innermost hearts: the realization of the deprivation of the people in their dependence upon capital, and the insight of the sole help, which must consist in solidarity, in the willing and unselfish and brave community of the dependent, and finally the hope and will: Things must change, if only the human beings would come to themselves.”

250. Smart, Revolutionary Theology, 45.

251. Thurneysen’s letter to Barth (January 13, 1919) in B-Th I, 309.

252. Later, in his writing on “Socialism and Christendom” (1923), Thurneysen called for the renewal and repentance of Christianity in the face of the challenge of the proletarian brother. Socialism, argues Thurneysen, is not only the cry for a new world and the longing and hope thereof. It is, when seen in its historical development, necessarily a comprehensive countermovement against the ruling powers and tendency that appeared in the culture and economy at that time. Socialism became the single critique and enemy of mammonism and militarism in the second half of nineteenth century by taking seriously these two forces. Thurneysen, “Sozialismus und Christentum,” 242.

253. Smart, Revolutionary Theology, 45–46.

254. Barth, “Strange New World within