Luther, Barth, and Movements of Theological Renewal (1918-1933)

268 Pages·2020·3.564 MB·English

by  Heinrich Assel, Bruce McCormack

Luther, Barth, and Movements of Theological Renewal (1918–1933)
Theologische Bibliothek
Töpelmann
Herausgegeben von
Bruce McCormack, Friederike Nüssel
and Christoph Schwöbel
Volume 188
Luther, Barth, and
Movements of
Theological Renewal
(1918–1933)
Edited by
Heinrich Assel and Bruce McCormack
ISBN 978-3-11-061090-1
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-061206-6
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-061266-0
ISSN 0563-4288
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020933285
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
Detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Druck und Bindung: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Preface
The essays contained in this volume are revisedversions of papers delivered at
a trans-atlantic, interdisciplinary conference held at Princeton Seminary, June
18–21, 2017.The goal of this conference was to place the “dialectical theology”
of Karl Barth and his friends in conversation with other movements of renewal
taking place in the Weimar era (1918–1933). I should note that, although the
Weimar Republic itself came toan end in early 1930,we extended our terminus
adquemtothe 1933, in order to consider aswellthe break-up ofthe dialectical
theologians.
2017 being a year of Luther celebrations, a proposed focal-point of the re-
searchleadingtotheconferencewastoexaminewhetherandtowhatextentLu-
ther provided stimulus for the theologians treated in this volume. Our thought
was to say something about divergent interpretations of Luther that accompa-
niedand,insomecases,informedtheworkofthetheologiansandphilosophers
treatedhere.Intheend,thecohesivenessofthevolumedidnotrequireLuther-
receptionasared-threadthroughalloftheessays,butourhopewasrealizedby
someinathoroughlynaturalwaythroughconcentrationontheologicalrenewal.
Weareespeciallypleasedthatthisvolumecouldcontainahithertounpub-
lished work from the pen of Rudolf Bultmann – his review of Friedrich Gogart-
en’sIchglaubeandendreieinigenGott.AppearingintheAppendix,itisthedis-
covery of Prof. Dr. Heinrich Assel, my co-editor who also served as its editor.
Funding for this project was provide by the German Academic Exchange
Service(DAAD).Wewereabletoworkshopthepapers ofEuropeancontributors
at the University of Greifswald in March 2017 with further financial assistance
fromtheAlfriedKruppWissenschaftskollegatthatUniversity.Oursincerethanks
gotoMichaelThomanekofDAADinNewYorkCityandDr.ChristianSuhmatthe
Krupp Stiftung in Greifswald. And finally, a bigword of thanks todoctoral can-
didateChelseaWilliamsatPrincetonTheologicalSeminarywhoeditedallofthe
papersinthisvolumeforEnglishstyleanddidtheformatting.Dr.KnudHenrik
Boysen, Lena Eke and Florian Pataki at Greifswald Theological Faculty revised
the proof batches and prepared the index of names.
Prof. Dr. Bruce L. McCormack
Director of the Center for Karl Barth Studies
Princeton Theological Seminary
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612066-001

Table of Contents
Heinrich Assel
Introduction
Luther Renaissance and Dialectical Theology – A tour d’horizon 1906–
1935 1
Part I: Anticipations
Hartwig Wiedebach
Karl Barth on Kant’s “Biblical Theology” A Reading with Hermann
Cohen 19
Jacqueline Mariña
The Religious A Priori in Otto and its Kantian Origins 39
Christine Svinth-Værge Põder
Luther’s Lectures on Romans in the Work of Karl Holl, Rudolf Hermann, and
Karl Barth 57
Part II: Parallel Movements
Henning Theißen
Barth’s Explicit Reception of Luther
An Auxiliary Tool for the Study of Karl Barth 77
Claire E. Sufrin
Martin Buber between Revelation and Scripture 93
Volker Leppin
Luther and Mysticism
The Case of the Seebergsand Vogelsang 109
VIII TableofContents
David W. Congdon
Desperatio Fiducialis
Barth and Bultmann on the Anthropological Significance of
Revelation 125
Part III: Disruption
Hent de Vries
Theologia paradoxa, theologia crucis
Heidegger’s Luther 149
Bruce L. McCormack
The Man who became God or the God who became Man?
The Concept of Revelation in the Theologies of Karl Barth and Friedrich
Gogarten 171
Heinrich Assel
Trinity, Incarnation, Political Theology
Gogarten’s Luther between Luther Renaissance and Rudolf
Bultmann 193
Christian Neddens
Werner Elert and Hans Joachim Iwand – Political Theology and Theology of
the Cross 213
Appendix
Rudolf Bultmanns unpublizierter Kommentar (1928)
zu Friedrich Gogartens „Ich glaube an den dreieinigen Gott“ (1926).
Ediert von Heinrich Assel 233
Contributors 261
Index of Names 263
Heinrich Assel
Introduction
Luther Renaissance and Dialectical Theology – A tour
d’horizon 1906–1935
1 Illusions and Origins of a Luther Renaissance
1932
1.1 State of Emergency
A reviewer of the noteworthy new publications on Martin Luther in 1932 and
1933, the period leading up to the election of Hitler as Reich’s Chancellor and
the 450th Anniversary of the birth of the Wittenberg Reformer in November
1933,would scarcely be able to avoid the impression that the leading academic
voicesinLutherantheologywereproclaimingastateofemergency:aworsening
crisisinandoftheorgansofstateregardingtherepublicanconstitutionandthe
democratic sovereignty of the German people. They intensified the crisis with
theirrhetoricof“judgment”and“fatefulplight”¹andtheyrespondedbyproduc-
ingdrafts of “an emerging new Protestant doctrine of the state.”
ThreeprominentauthorsformedthetriumvirateofanillusioncalledAnew
Protestant doctrine of the state²: Friedrich Gogarten’s Political Ethics, Werner
Elert’sMorphologyofLutheranism,andEmanuelHirsch’streatise,OntheHidden
Sovereign.This Protestant doctrine of the state turned into a controversy about
the content and the validity of Martin Luther’s legacy. They wanted to renew
the basic structures of Luther’s political theology in a relevant way for their
time. In particular, they wanted to distinguish a worldly political realm from a
spiritual realm: that is,the distinction between a“worldly kingdom of God” as
the created realm of worldly authority and “natural law,” and a“spiritual king-
dom of God in Christ” as the “priesthood and kingdom of the baptized” and
“Christianity.”
 EmanuelHirsch,“VomverborgenenSuverän,”GlaubeundVolk2(1933):4–13,5.
 FriedrichGogarten,PolitischeEthic:VersucheinerGrundlegung(Jena:Diederichs,1932);Wer-
nerElert,MorphologiedesLuthertumsBd.2,SoziallehrenundSozialwirkungendesLuthertums
(Munich:Beck,1932);Hirsch,“VomverborgenenSuverän,”s.fn.1.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612066-002
2 HeinrichAssel
1.2 Looking Back: Origins
In1932,thepoliticizedLutheranswerereactingtotheglobaleconomiccrisis,the
masssuffering,andtheinsurgenceofterrorismonthestreets.Buttheconceptof
viewingthepoliticalasthehermeneuticallocationforthelawandthegospelof
God had been in preparation for years.We must turn, for a moment,our atten-
tion from1932 back to1921.At the end of1921, Karl Holl’sfamousbook Luther³
andthesecondeditionofKarlBarth’sCommentaryonRomans⁴werepublished.
Holl’s Luther and Barth’s Romans Commentarybecame the best-sellingtheolog-
icalbooksintheWeimarRepublic.Theimpactofbothbooksfrom1923oncanbe
explainedbytheirrivalry,sinceHoll’sLutherbecamethecatalystfortheLuther
Renaissance while Barth’s Romans Commentary was the catalyst for dialectical
theology. However, in 1921, it would be erroneous to understand the origin of
both books primarily in terms of this rivalry. For Holl’s interpretation of Luther,
therivalrywithMaxWeberandErnstTroeltschwastheguidingfactor,andwhat
wasatstakewasthedefinitionofthesignificanceofProtestantism–andthusof
Luther – in the emergence of the modernworld.⁵
This was a struggleabout the final (e)valuation (Werturteil) of Luther’s and
Calvin’spoliticaltheology,theirsocialdoctrine,andtherelationshipoftheirvo-
cationalethostothe“spiritofcapitalism.”Thisdebatecontinuedfrom1906on-
wards and reached its peak in 1920.
ForHoll“Luther”and“Calvin”,takentogether,generatedacertainEthosof
Responsibility springing from early Reformation religion. In 1921, Holl intro-
duced the programmatic formula“Luther’s Religion of Conscience.” It was pio-
 KarlHoll,GesammelteAufsätzezurKirchengeschichte,LutherBd.I.(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,
1921,extendedandrevised19232+3,19274+5,19326,19487).
 KarlBarth,DerRömerbrief(München:Kaiser,19222).
 HeinrichAssel,“KarlHollalsZeitgenosseMaxWebersundErnstTroeltschs:Ethikhistorische
Grundprobleme einer prominenten Reformationstheorie,” ZKG 127 (2016): 211–248. Troeltsch
measured the importance of Protestantism for the modern world not in terms of Luther’s
early reformation, but of those Calvinist churchdoms and Puritan and radical reformatory
sects that Max Weber addressed in his famous studies. Inview of the “madness” of the lost
World War, Troeltsch called for the “development” of Germany towards a republican and
mass-democratic,free-marketcapitalistconstitutionandtoademilitarizedneutralityunderin-
ternationallaw.Cf.ErnstTroeltsch,“DieBedeutungdesProtestantismusfürdieEntstehungder
modernenWelt(1906/1911),”inKritischeGesamtausgabe:SchriftenzurBedeutungdesProtestan-
tismus für die moderne Welt (1906–1913), ed.Trutz Rendtorff, Stefan Pautler, Ernst Troeltsch
(KGA)8(Berlin/NewYork:DeGruyter,2001),183–198,199–316;ErnstTroeltsch,and“Wahnsinn
oderEntwicklung?DieEntscheidungderWeltgeschichte(1917/1919),”inSchriftenzurPolitikund
Kulturphilosophie1918–1923,ed.GangolfHübinger,KGA15(Berlin/NewYork:DeGruyter,2002),
70–94.