.
This paper outlines Barth's pragmatic approach to borrowing from philosophical figures and schools and provides the underlying convictions that made such pragmatic borrowing intelligible for Barth. In so doing, it will argue that: 1) Barth had no firm committment to a philosophical school or inordinate attention upon answering a modern epistemological question; 2) Barth's use of philosophical terminology displays a pragmatic and idiosyncratic character; 3) Barth rooted his resistance to a systematic philosophical viewpoint in a strict adherence to the freedom of God, of theology, and of its subject matter, displaying a philosophical pluralism that resists any form of philosophical hegemony, and; 4) Barth's resistance to a hegemony of a specific philosophical school or system was part of a larger rejection of ideology of any kind. In fact, I will conclude, Barth's anti-ideological conviction is one of his most valuable lessons for the work of theology in the present.
Karl Barth often remarked that he “liked to do a little bit of Hegeling” in his theology. This enigmatic remark illustrates the ambiguity surrounding the presence of philosophy in Barth’s theology. It indicates the controversy attending its influence. Taking this remark as its point of departure, this paper counters conventional interpretations of Barth’s use of philosophy as “eclectic” (Beintker), “improper” (McCormack), or “tactical” (Oakes) which minimize its influence on his theology. It defends a constructive interpretive proposal grounded in a critical reading of Barth’s account of the relationship between philosophy and theology. On that basis, it develops a specific interpretation of Barth’s “Hegeling” and its influence on his moral theology. It argues that philosophy is more influential on Barth’s theology than he himself or his readers admit, yet less detrimental than he or they fear. Indeed, Barth’s broadly Hegelian account of “autonomy” is essential to his Reformed account of Christian freedom.
Kierkegaard’s notion of “offense” offers theological push-back on Rahner and philosophical push-back on Barth which leads to new insights about the relation between philosophy and theology.