The Barth Letter (Feminism)

Came across this now 20 year-old Baylyblog article: Barth on similarity between feminism and antisemitism... | BaylyBlog. It’s excellent, and I’m so glad Tim posted it.

A follow up Baylyblog post (Read the Barth Letter! | BaylyBlog) had a link with more details, but the link no longer works. This led me to find a long biographical essay on Mr. Visser Hooft, and in it I found the following (read Barth and Mrs. Visser Hooft’s correspondence first for context):

In 1936, [Jetty Visser ’t Hooft-Boddaert] published the booklet Eva waar zijt Gij? in which she related the conversation with Barth that followed their correspondence:

“In a conversation with Karl Barth, who kept to the Pauline line: God-Christ-husband-wife, whereby the first is the head of the next, I said to him, that I could understand less and less how even the most orthodox Christian would accept that line. He was silent for a moment and then answered seriously: ‘But don’t you believe that this is a heavy burden (schwere Last) for us (men)?’ I was deeply moved: is this not the first time in the history of the Church that a man, a Christian, communicated his tragic situation in this way? But a moment later I thought: No, no, this can’t be. God, who does know what he can expect from people, so much so that he even offered his only born Son for them, cannot send him to the world with a heavy burden for the one half of mankind, on which the salvation of the other half depends to a large degree.”
(pgs 123-4 or 119-20 according to the PDF page number)

Barth has his problems, but he is right here and in the letter: Male headship is a heavy burden placed on us by God. And God has cosmically ordered the universe that the burden doesn’t go away just because you swap out Adam for Eve.

4 Likes

From CS Lewis, The Four Loves:

… The sternest feminist need not grudge my sex the crown offered to it either in the Pagan or in the Christian mystery. For the one is of paper and the other of thorns. The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it.

(From Chapter V, “Eros”).

6 Likes

A little more. My suspicion is the broken link you refer to above, Matt, pointed to this piece by Moltmann titled, “Henriette Visser ’t Hooft and Karl Barth” published in Theology Today, [Volume 55, Issue 4; January 1999].]

Near the beginning, Moltmannn writes:

Karl Barth was the most influential theologian from the 1930s until
today. [Henriette Visser ’t Hooft] had an intense confrontation with Barth in an early exchange of letters in 1934 and was rejected by the theologian in a very scornful manner because of her feminist thoughts. In his Doctrine of Creation (Church Dogmatics III/4), in which Barth in 1951 examines in detail the relationship of man and woman, her name is unfortunately not mentioned-much to the detriment of Barth’s anthropology.

I was never personally acquainted with Henriette Visser ’t Hooft. She
died in January 1968. But since my wife made me aware of Visser ’t Hooft’s exchange of letters with Barth.

Here Moltmann’s footnote 3 cites the same volume where I read the exchange between Barth and Henriette Visser ’t Hooft back around 1982. As readers will note, Moltmann is filled with the conceit of the modern, and hence their bondage to the latest rebellion against God.

Moltmann’s piece is well worth reading. Always know your enemies unless you disdain the duty of guarding your sheep.

In another place, we read of Henriette Visser ’t Hooft’s husband, Willem Adolph:

After his return from America, Visser ’t Hooft regularly presented himself in Europe as an expert in the church and the life of Christian societies in America. In his view… one of the major problems of the future was the opposition between the character of Europe and that of America, not least with respect to Christianity. The differences in mentality were enormous, and the gap was increased even more by misunderstandings in the images they had of each other. In Germany, according to Visser ’t Hooft, Americans were viewed as the equivalent of barbarians.

Thought you’d get a kick out of this given our present diplomatic relations with Europe, and specifically Germany, with respect to Ukraine. Love,

2 Likes

… Thought you’d get a kick out of this given our present diplomatic relations with Europe, and specifically Germany, with respect to Ukraine.

Or as Oscar Wilde put it, “America and Britain are two countries divided by a common language”. E.g. early on in my time in the UK, I had a lot to do with various Americans who were involved in mission work, and it took time for all of us to recognise quite where the other parties were coming from. @aaron.prelock may have more to say here.

2 Likes

In one of our recent podcasts, Juergen was outed and admitted to regularly saying to me that Germans, like Europeans generally, consider Americans “stupid.” He adds that depending on an ally you regularly sneer at and call “stupid” to pay for your military security is an untenable position.

5 Likes

Further from that chapter:

… As Christ sees in the flawed, proud, fanatical or lukewarm Church on earth that Bride who will one day be without spot or wrinkle, and labours to produce the latter, so the husband whose headship is Christ-like (and he is allowed no other sort) never despairs.

2 Likes

Yeah, it seems really hard for people of different backgrounds to take the time to listen to and understand each other. Whether it’s why Americans support 2nd Amendment rights, why much of the rest of the world doesn’t get Americans and guns, why British folk so love the NHS, why politically conservative Americans are suspicious of nationalised healthcare, Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Gaza, Trump/Brexit, so many people are so much more interested in talking than in listening. Even in the church. Add in working class vs middle class values and communication styles…

The number of times I’d go to a conference and get asked something, ‘as an American,’ only to watch their eyes glaze over as soon as I started giving an answer different to what they were expecting…it was wearying. Tribalism and shibboleths are far too common in Christian circles.

[edit] - I should add, that this tribalism goes every which way. No one ethnicity/class/group has a corner on the insensitivity market. Took me a long time - too long really - to work out how to communicate well in a ‘foreign’ context.

4 Likes

Aaron - and of course, in the UK the other difficulty you would have had is in the language: words or phrases which mean one thing in American English and something else, often quite coarse, in British English … :wink:

1 Like

So humbling…

I would routine describe something or someone as ‘top shelf,’ meaning high quality, because of more expensive items being higher up on the shelves. Only a couple years before leaving someone (not in my church!) explained ‘top shelf’ meant pornographic in the UK, out of the reach of children.

I’d used that expression from the pulpit! No one told me…

That said, courseness and profanity are almost an art form in the UK. Had to clean up my language a bit when looking at US churches.

This is really helpful. Thanks for writing this!

I was struck by how seriously Barth takes the role of manhood and husbandry. It seems like a lot of the fight against feminism today centers around getting back authority for men without a sober realization that it in order for that to happen it means a return to taking manly responsibility and dying to self to lead well and keep to the our God-given calling.

In a different context, VP Vance said,

What has seemed a little bit less clear to me, and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe, is what exactly it is that you’re defending yourselves for.

I think there’s a parallel between what Vance said and the situation of what’s going on today among Christians. Without understanding why we’re fighting for a return of male headship, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere fighting for the position alone. It looks to me like the younger generation (Including me!) needs to step up, take responsibility, be men, and lead boldly, not for our own sake but because it is our duty and because it honors God!

3 Likes

Absolutely. I heard it said recently “The genius of masculinity is strength on behalf of others.”

Giving our strength to loving others. Serving women and children. Dying for others. Just like our Lord.

If we were honest, what father hasn’t struggled with his selfishness waking up in the night to burp his infant? To having mercy on his wife? You won’t hear theo-bros talk like this, but they do tell you what they can squat…

A must-read for today: When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe. Ozment writes:

“Boomed Luther, still unmarried: ‘When a father washes diapers or performs some other mean task for his child, and someone ridicules him as an effeminate fool…God with all his angels and creatures is smiling.’”

8 Likes

Some men best known for teaching manhood don’t take responsibility for others—including especially their own sons and daughters. Responsibility is the key, and it’s helpful in taking the focus off ourselves. But it’s not to be reduced to servant leadership.

Adam was manly because he was perfect, and his manliness continues to produce repercussions of sickness, sin, death, and Hell to every man outside of Christ. Why? Because Adam is our federal head and, bearing responsibility for us all, he failed. Why did he fail?

Because he was a servant leader. Because he listened to the voice of his wife.

We seek the reformation of sexuality and return of manhood so we may be led back to fearing God the Father Almighty. The real wickedness of all things gay (malakoi) is that God’s Fatherhood has died, and thus the fear of God that is inseparable from the obedience of God, our Heavenly Father. Which is to say feminism or egalitarianism are not a battle between man and woman, high and low, but a rebellion against God’s Father-authority and His distinctions among us. Just as Barth said. Love,

6 Likes

Thank you for this correction. Many may read your words and say, “Well I guess Tim doesn’t serve/love/die for his wife,” which is ridiculous. What you have said makes all the difference. Much to reflect on.

On this point, here are the words of Karl Barth’s son, Markus, writing about his father:

The secret of my father’s authority is in the way in which he is under the authority of Jesus Christ.

We can speculate as to how well Barth fulfilled his responsibilities to God, given his adultery and theological errors. Then again, David murdered Uriah…. Us sons of Adam must live under the authority of Jesus, fearing His name: “Unite my heart to fear Your name” Psalm 86.

May God have mercy on us

2 Likes

Adam neither served his wife nor led his wife.

Squishy Evangelicalism’s use of ‘servant-leadership’ to neuter masculinity in the home and in the church was wicked. But I am personally watching the reaction to their sin in our circles produce selfish and arrogant men, men who are full of bravado and insensitivity to their wives and children, men who will be absolutely useless for building up and serving Christ’s church. You’re absolutely right that ‘it’s not to be reduced to servant leadership’, but let’s not remove servant leadership from the equation. Maybe that is a ridiculous conclusion to draw, but I’m watching men draw precisely that conclusion just the same.

The Apostle Paul commands husbands to love their wives, to give themselves for their wives, to repent of being harsh with them, and the Apostle Peter commands husbands to be considerate with their wives and treat them with respect.

Overemphasis of ‘servant leadership’ was the last generation of evangelical leaders’ sins. These are our sins.

1 Like

I don’t think Tim is doing that. As I said above, many may read Tim’s corrective and conclude “Tim doesn’t serve/love/die for his wife,” but that is ridiculous. We can condemn effeminate ‘servant leadership’ without tossing out the baby with the bathwater, i.e. the wonderful verses you quoted.

It does seem that the sins of our day (or at least ‘in our circles’) are hyper-patriarchy. But this may be an incorrect perception. Theo-bros are certainly the loudest voices, but only because it is an over-correcting fad. The sins of both hyper-patriarchy and squishy evangelical ‘servant leadership’ continue on to this day. Every man falls into both of these ditches, some more than others, and both sins bring terrible fruit. They are different sides of the same coin. Why not condemn both?

Tim’s corrective above is precisely the way to do that: the root of true masculinity is man’s responsibility to God the Father (and Jesus our Lord and brother) which ought to make us fear Him and live accordingly. Take these two things away and my initial comment drives men into effeminate ‘servant leadership,’ obeying your wife instead of leading her. Conversely, the hyper-patriarch (as well as the servant leader) needs to feel the ‘heavy burden’ of male headship and plead with God for mercy, just as David did after God punished him for taking a census of the people:

Then David lifted up his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord standing between earth and heaven, with his drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, covered with sackcloth, fell on their faces. David said to God, “Is it not I who commanded to count the people? Indeed, I am the one who has sinned and done very wickedly, but these sheep, what have they done? O Lord my God, please let Your hand be against me and my father’s household, but not against Your people that they should be plagued.” 1 Chron. 21:16-17

I stand by my above comments, but I am thankful for Tim’s corrective. Responsibility and fear of God are key.

I hope this brings some clarity, because I know you don’t disagree with the details, just the approach/emphasis/rhetoric?

Much love to you,

Also, since I am fairly young and barely married, I would love to hear what other older men think of all this. 3 years of marriage and 2 boys have taught me a lot about myself, but I have so much to learn. Thankful for the older men in my life who have taught me all I know.

1 Like

This is what I’m concerned about. I don’t think over-correcting in any direction or from any direction is helpful. Whether hyper-patriarchy or servant leadership is the biggest issue in our circles…I don’t really care (and I’m frankly tired of talking about both). Both groups need to be exhorted to love, to lead, to serve, and to sacrifice for their wives. Yes, yes, I know the Theo-bro-influences and individuals you’re talking about. I also know the history of ‘servant-leadership’ and its abuses among the Evangelical establishment in the last generation (and the abuses that ‘servant leadership’ was an overcorrection to in the first place!). But what I see in our churches today, what I see as a pastor today, what I see in my very own home right now, is that men need to be taught how to love their wives, to deal gently with them, to be tender with them, to lead them yes, but do so as Christ leads his church.

Regardless of the sins of our fathers, we have a responsibility to teach the whole counsel of God well in our day. And in our day (as in every day), men must be taught to love their wives, to be considerate with their wives. Shepherds, whether in the home or in the church, must be taught to exert their authority for the benefit of their sheep. Think of all Jesus’ rebukes to his disciples on how they understood authority. Think of Mark 10.45. There were the same kinds of abuses of authority and abuses of servant leadership in Jesus’ day as there are in our own. There were authoritarian men throughout scripture and there were effeminate men throughout scripture. What are we going to do for the care of our own flocks today?

But today, in our churches, in our circles? I see over-confident men and I see exhausted women. Our churches are filled with men and women who have rejected feminism, but now they have to be taught how to live out of more than just a reaction. The couple who was converted out of a life of college fornication who now have a handful of children, what do male headship and femininity look like? What do marriage dynamics look like for them? They get it! They’re repenting of feminism, both of them. The husband who comes home tired at the end of the day from trying to make a living for his family in an expensive city, how does he need to be exhorted and helped in how he treats his wife? How does caring for his wife and loving her and sacrificing himself for her figure into his understanding of male headship and authority? What does that look like in his home? How does the physically and mentally exhausted mother of a small colony of children need to be exhorted and helped when she has sacrificed through her very body to be fruitful, and in doing so her family has all but rejected her because she’s ‘weird’ now? The woman who is married to a man who’s being an absolute…pain…to her because he thinks that’s what leadership and male headship are all about, what do femininity and submission look like for her?

Men in every age are tempted to use authority for their own benefit, and in our circles we’ve hammered the softness and effeminacy of squishy-evangelicalism (and rightly so). But I’m concerned we’re producing a crop of young men who aren’t biblically solid, they’re rigid, crusty, harsh, domineering, looking down on their wives or on women in general. I’m concerned that it’s a lot easier to talk about male headship than it is to gently and lovingly yet firmly lead a wife. I’m concerned that it’s far easier for husbands to make a bunch of babies than it is to really love a woman and to raise godly children.

Tell me all of us who are pastors here don’t have these problems in our church, and I’ll laugh at you to your face.

Look, who in our churches even thinks Tim Keller’s book is good counsel on marriage anymore? Who still goes to yesteryear’s big proponents of ‘servant leadership’ today? Okay, so we understand the bad. We got that. Lesson learned. Let’s start helping our people understand more of what marriage does look like (without ceasing the warnings about influences that aren’t biblical; yes we need those too).

Otherwise we’re just going to be preparing the next crop of the next generation’s Tim Keller fan club.

4 Likes

The men who match this description in my church have ultimately been changing or left the church because of the way that they were challenged and disciplined.

[quote="Aaron Prelock, post:17, topic:4126, username:aaron.prelock”]
Okay, so we understand the bad. We got that. Lesson learned. Let’s start helping our people understand more of what marriage does look like
[/quote]

I would love a book specifically on marriage, in the meantime, I think you will find Daddy Tried does a lot of this.

4 Likes

And The Really Helpful Marriage book. Both are excellent. And the marriage/parenting podcasts still up on Warhorn…oh so helpful. And a delight to listen to.

Please sir, may we have some more?

3 Likes

Ha. I forgot about the Helpful Marriage Book. Oh my.

Also, I’m not sure why that second quote isn’t rendering properly.

I think you underestimate the number of people who need to hear exactly the warnings against feminism, etc. I mean it’s practically universal still as far as I can tell. But the dangers of reactionism are certainly real.

1 Like

You’re right. These aren’t themes we can ever assume people just have. New converts and new members attracted to our churches will always need to be brought up to speed.

But the sort of people attracted to our churches, in the main, will be people who already want at least something of what we believe on these subjects. People today don’t try out a church cold. They webstalk, they listen to sermons, they get input from people they trust.

I’d love to see more proactive teaching about what we do need to hear as well as the warnings against what we need to flee. Not because I’m addicted to ‘yes’ over ‘no’, but because as a pastor these are the resources I need to shepherd my flock.

1 Like