The Faith of the Church. Karl Barth
Thanks are also due to Mr. Arthur A. Cohen, publisher, for his careful reading of the manuscript and his many corrections. Grateful acknowledgment is, finally, extended to the Westminster Press for permission to quote the Catechism from Calvin’s Theological Treatises, volume 22 of the Library of Christian Classics.
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
April, 1958
PREFACE by Jean-Louis Leuba
At the invitation of the pastors of the Val-de-Travers (Neuchâtel), Mr. Karl Barth, professor at the Theological Faculty of the University of Basle, gave at Travers, on October 2 and December 30, 1940, then in Neuchâtel, on March 31, 1941, March 30 and October 5, 1942, January 11, 1943, six seminars on the first part of the Catechism of Calvin, that is, on the Reformer’s explanation of the Apostles’ Creed. We publish herewith, with Professor Barth’s approval, an adaptation—the closest possible to the “spoken text”—of the stenographic notes taken during these seminars. The origin of this text will account for and, if necessary, excuse its peculiar style, now harsh, now spontaneous. In other respects, it is the very condition of the rich and numberless vistas into Calvin, the Creed and the biblical revelation which Mr. Barth has laid open for his listeners and will open, we hope, for his readers.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CATECHISM •
Questions 1–7
QUESTION 1. What is the chief end of human life?—That men should know God by whom they were created.
In the language of his time, and in Calvin’s own language, “end” does not only mean what comes last and might be static, motionless, but what keeps man company throughout the course of his life. End is thus equivalent to “sense•• of life,” “goal of life.” It is not a terminus to life: it is a continuous action. And this action is “to know God”; it is the primary end, but not the only one. There are secondary ends: family, country, profession, civilization, etc., but all these refer back to the primary end.
Before defining the knowledge of God, Calvin takes two indirect approaches so as to give us a better view of it.
QUESTION 2. What reason have you for saying so?—Because he created us for this, and placed us in the world, that he might be glorified in us. And it is certainly proper that our life, of which he is the beginning, be directed to his glory.
Calvin considers the knowledge of God in relation to his glory. He states (objectively) that God is the beginning of our life and, from that, he infers (subjectively) that our life is senseless except in reference to his glory. In a word, we live for God’s glorification. In the New Testament, to glorify signifies: to make either oneself or someone else appear such as he is; to show forth something in its essence; to reveal the secret either of one’s own existence or of another’s. The New Testament knows three kinds of glorification: a glorification of God by man (this Jesus Christ accomplishes), a glorification of man by God, and a glorification of God by God Himself. But the New Testament does not know of any glorification of man by man himself. Man may glorify only God and not himself, whereas God glorifies Himself and glorifies man. According to Genesis, God created man in His image, that is, in order that man may make God shine forth in his human existence.
Here, we must be specific. When we speak of glory, we always think of an exaggeration. Perhaps you are familiar with the inscription at Versailles: “A toutes les gloires de la France” (To all the glories of France). Man’s glory is like making a big noise, like trying to show off himself greater than he is. God does not need to make any fuss about his glory: God is glorious. He simply needs to show Himself as He is, He simply needs to reveal Himself. That is what He does in man, His creature, in whom He wants to be reflected. To live unto the glory of God then will be “necessary and reasonable”: it will be the consequence of God’s intention in creating man.
QUESTION 3. What then is man’s supreme good?—The very same.
Calvin makes here a distinction between what is reasonable and what is good. What is the chief good of man? What makes man happy? We know that reason (as we often define it) and happiness (as we fancy it) do not always go hand in hand. In his austerity Kant taught us the necessity of thinking only of the reasonable, and of despising happiness. Calvin, too, is an austere man, but for him reason and happiness agree. For him, the supreme reason and the supreme duty of man are identical with his supreme good, with his happiness. And this is man’s happiness: to live for God’s glorification.
QUESTION 4. Why do you hold this to be the supreme good?—Because without it our condition is more unhappy than that of any of the brutes.
I understand this statement in this sense: if man did not accomplish his task of being God’s mirror, he would be inferior to brute beasts. For brute beasts do (and the same can be said of the whole creation) accomplish God’s intention in creating them. To be sure, they are not, like man, God’s very image. But they have their destination, and they move towards it. If man misses his destination, he is inferior to the rest of creation. Not only beasts, but also stones, stars, insects, and all we see around us, leave us behind in this task of responding to the divine destination. Around us, praising is perpetual. The whole creation joins together in order to respond to God who created it. But man, in the midst of this chorus, of all this orchestra of creation, man stands still and does not do what he should do. This is man’s misery: not to fulfill the meaning• of his creation.
QUESTION 5. So then we clearly perceive that nothing worse can happen to man than not to live to God?—It is so.
This statement repeats and explains the meaning of Questions 3 and 4. Calvin resumes his exposition: Created to glorify God, we must know God so that we may and can glorify Him. One cannot live according to God without knowing God. To glorify God, to live according to God, hence is a conscious act, an act of the will; in a word, a human act. The humanity of this act resides in the very fact that it is based upon an act of knowledge.
After these two indirect approaches (Questions 2–5), Calvin now comes back to the knowledge of God (Questions 6–7).
QUESTION 6. What then is true and right knowledge of God?—When He is so known, that His own proper honor is done Him.
The knowledge of God is not absolute, abstract knowledge, a knowledge important in itself. It is not knowledge for its own sake. This is such knowledge as has a direction, which is good for something, which has thus no value in itself, which does not have, or no longer has, a law of its own. “So to know God as to give Him honor”: this knowledge has no value except that of its object, its task, its goal: to honor God. In itself it is nothing more than a service, and yet is all the more important because it does not have its importance in itself, but tends towards a goal that surpasses it: the honor of God which consists in glorifying Him.
So then, it would be absurd to speak of “Calvinistic intellectualism” with regard to the first Question. For the knowledge of God is not a self-satisfying science that might allow us to cut an important figure. It is a service that allows us to honor God.
QUESTION 7. What is the right way of honoring Him?—To put all our trust in Him; to study to serve Him all our life, by obeying His will; to call upon Him, whenever any need impels us, seeking in Him salvation and whatever good things can be desired; and lastly, to acknowledge Him with both heart and mouth to be the only author of all good things.
Once again: the knowledge of God is not a knowledge that leaves us untouched; it draws us along. God takes us into His service. He does not leave us as we were, and He does not let us “know” Him as though we were independent.