Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:34:06.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Directed, ordered and related: The male and female interpersonal relation in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Lisa P. Stephenson
Lisa P. Stephenson*
Affiliation:
Lee University, 1120 North Ocoee Street, Cleveland, TN 37320, USAlstephenson@leeuniversity.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines Karl Barth's conception of the interpersonal relation of male and female and demonstrates that, although Barth superimposes the concept of order within the Trinity onto the specific interpersonal relation of male and female, there is provision within his anthropology concerning interpersonal relations in general (i.e. interpersonal relations which are irrespective of sexual distinctions) to correct this error. I focus on Barth's exegesis of the creation narratives in Church Dogmatics III/1 and his discussion of the interpersonal relation of male and female in Church Dogmatics III/4. Then, because of Barth's principle of analogia relationis, I will briefly examine his doctrine of the Trinity in Church Dogmatics I/1. Whereas the role of christology in Barth's anthropology is frequently highlighted, there is often little regard for the trinitarian grounding of Barth's anthropology, especially with regard to the interpersonal relation of male and female. Finally, I will look at Barth's discussion of interpersonal relations in general in Church Dogmatics III/2 where he delineates a principle of the ‘priority of the other’, which serves to redeem his anthropological statements on the humanity of male and female. I contend that the recognition of the imago Dei in the interpersonal relation of male and female, sustained by the priority of the other, is a better way to achieve the personhood of both sexes than Barth's proposed static relational order.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , November 2008, pp. 435 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2008

Introduction

The assertion that humans are made in the image of God is an anthropological affirmation, but exactly what it implies has been debated for centuries. A more contemporary voice in this discussion is Karl Barth, who locates the imago Dei in the relationality of humans. That people exist in interpersonal relations, particularly the interpersonal relation of male and female, images the trinitarian God who also exists in an interpersonal relation. Yet, while this concept appears initially to be a beneficial assertion because it conceivably embraces both the humanity of male and female as worthy vessels to bear this image, Barth also includes the notion that the interpersonal relation between male and female contains a static order. Consequently, due to this idea of an ordered relation, many have cried out in strong protest against Barth's anthropological ideas regarding the relationship between male and female. Joan Romero condemns his theological anthropology as characterised by structures of domination and oppression, primarily with regard to male and female relations. Romero says that Barth has made male and female persons unequal.Footnote 1 Another scholar who has spoken out against Barth's theological anthropology is Letty Russell, who believes that his idea of an ordered relation is more appropriate for describing the relationship between male and female after the Fall rather than as God's original intention of this partnership.Footnote 2 And finally, there is Mary Daly who viciously attacks Barth's theology by describing it as ‘sadomasochistic’.Footnote 3

In light of the critiques of Barth's statements on the interpersonal relation of male and female, this article will begin with a survey of Barth's theological anthropology and focus on what Barth says about the interpersonal relation of male and female, as well as why he says it. Frequently, Barth's ideas on the interpersonal relation of male and female have not been read within the context of the rest of his theology in the Church Dogmatics.Footnote 4 As Gary Deddo rightly notes, ‘The study of Barth's theology requires a synthetic approach. All too often sections of Barth's work are considered in relative isolation. The result, often, has been a truncated interpretation and skewed critique.’Footnote 5 It is my contention that in the instance of the interpersonal relation of male and female, the trinitarian grounding for this content is often ignored. More particularly, in view of Barth's trinitarian thought, it becomes apparent that his ideas regarding the interpersonal relation of male and female, that so many have taken offence at, are not exclusive to this relation. They appear first in Barth's trinitarian section and then in his section on the interpersonal relation of male and female. Yet, while reading the latter in the context of the former will clarify some of the more controversial aspects of Barth's theological anthropology, ultimately it does not validate the end result. Rather, it brings to light Barth's superimposition of the concept of order as constitutive for the Trinity onto the interpersonal relation of male and female.Footnote 6 Therefore, this article will also highlight the methodological error which Barth has made in allowing a static order to constitute the personhood of male and female, rather than the experience of encounter as he himself suggests. Once this is realised, and the interpersonal relation of male and female is governed by the four principles that Barth purports characterise a genuine I–Thou encounter, then Barth's move of locating the imago Dei in the relationality of humans can be maintained without being burdened with an unnecessary sexual hierarchy. The interpersonal relation of male and female can now be characterised by mutuality.

I will proceed by focusing on the interpersonal relation of male and female as it is delineated by Barth in CD III/1 with his exegesis of the creation narratives and in CD III/4 with his particular discussion of the interpersonal relation of male and female. Then, because of Barth's principle of analogia relationis, it will also be necessary to examine briefly his doctrine of the Trinity found in CD I/1. In observing Barth's doctrine of the Trinity it will become evident that for Barth, being made in the imago Dei is more specifically to be made in the imago trinitatis. Finally, I will utilise Barth's discussion of interpersonal relations in general (i.e. interpersonal relations which are irrespective of sexual distinctions) in CD III/2 to amend his idea of an ordered relation between male and female. This will result in a theological anthropology which embraces the humanity of both sexes in a more appropriate way. Barth's anthropological statements concerning the humanity of male and female are not altogether irredeemable. There is much that is meritorious in conceiving the imago Dei as interpersonal relationality. However, this concept must be cleansed of any unjust anthropological notions before it can function in a helpful manner.

The interpersonal relation of male and female

In order to understand Barth's construction of the interpersonal relation of male and female it is advantageous to begin with Barth's exegesis of the creation narratives in CD III/1 because it is here that two important principles are developed. First, the imago Dei is located in the encounter of the male and female as an I–Thou relationship. Second, there is a relational order present between male and female which derives from the creational order of the female from the male. These two principles are then developed further in CD III/4 where Barth specifically discusses the interpersonal relation of male and female. Here the relational priority of the male is underscored as the male is described as the ‘A’ and the female as the ‘B’. Moreover, it is here that fixed traits are attached to this relational order.

CD III/1: creation narratives

According to Paul Jewett there are three primary schools of thought which have been represented by Christian writers regarding the anthropological significance of the imago Dei as found in Genesis 1:26–7. The first position upholds that the male/female distinction has nothing to contribute to the understanding of humans being created in the imago Dei. True humanity transcends human sexuality and thus necessitates the need to think in terms of oneness and unity, rather than diversity and polarity. The second position asserts that, even though the male/female distinction is not an essential part of the doctrine of humanity, male and female both participate in the imago Dei because they both have been endowed with features which separate them from the animals. Thus, there is no need to transcend the duality. The third position goes even further than the second and explicitly states that to be made in the imago Dei is to be made male and female. It is this third position that Barth proposes, and according to Jewett he is in fact the first major theologian to do so.Footnote 7

This effort by Barth to locate the imago Dei in the interpersonal relation of male and female is not a haphazard one. K. E. Greene-McCreight notes that Barth feels at liberty to disagree with tradition where he sees fit. When this occurs in Barth's exegesis, it is based on the literary features of the text itself, and not on some arbitrary notion.Footnote 8 With regard to Genesis 1:26–7, Barth notes that for the first time in the creation narrative a reference is made to the plurality of the Godhead through the words ‘let us’. Barth understands these words to reflect a divine consultation among the Godhead. The words ‘made in our image’ mean ‘to be created as a being which has its ground and possibility in the fact that in “us”, i.e., in God's own sphere and being, there exists a divine and therefore self-grounded prototype to which this being can correspond’.Footnote 9

It is important to note that for Barth humans are not created to be the imago Dei, but to correspond with it; a correspondence that Barth refers to as an analogia relationis.Footnote 10 In this analogy of relation, God is the original prototype and humans the imitation. Barth says,

In God's own being and sphere there is a counterpart: a genuine but harmonious self-encounter and self-discovery; a free co-existence and co-operation; an open confrontation and reciprocity. Man is the repetition of this divine form of life; its copy and reflection. He is this first in the fact that he is the counterpart of God, the encounter and discovery in God Himself being copied and imitated in God's relation to man. But he is it also in the fact that he is himself the counterpart of his fellows and has in them a counterpart, the co-existence and co-operation in God Himself being repeated in the relation of man to man. Thus the tertium comparationis, the analogy between God and man, is simply the existence of the I and the Thou in confrontation.Footnote 11

Therefore, humans display the imago Dei in a twofold sense: by being created as a ‘Thou’ whom God as an ‘I’ can confront, and by being created as male and female, existing in an I–Thou relationship to one another. This article is only concerned with the latter.

Barth continues to expound on the interpersonal relation between male and female by directing his attention to Genesis 2:18–25. He notes that it is in this biblical text that what was initiated in Genesis 1:27 is developed further. After being created, the male needs a partner whom he can address as a ‘Thou’. This partner is to be one who resembles the male and is recognisable to him, but also one who is different from him and able to confront him as another. It is only with the creation of the female that the male finds this partner. The female is created from a part of the male, yet the female also possesses an autonomous nature and structure. God's creative act now reaches its goal in the creation of the female because she becomes the ‘Thou’ who confronts the male as the ‘I’.Footnote 12

While what Barth has put forward thus far has significant value for theological anthropology, his concept of imago Dei now gains unnecessary baggage. Continuing with his exegesis of the text, Barth identifies a static relational order present in the interpersonal relation of the male and female which he attributes to the temporal sequence of creation. That is, Barth believes that because the male was created first and the female was then taken out of the male and created second, the male possesses a certain primacy in his interpersonal relation with the female. Barth says:

The fact that the relationship is not one of reciprocity and equality, that man was not taken out of woman but woman out of man, that primarily he does not belong to her but she to him, and that he thus belongs to her only secondarily, must not be misunderstood. The supremacy of man is not a question of value, dignity, or honour, but of order. It does not denote a higher humanity of man. Its acknowledgement is no shame to woman. On the contrary, it is an acknowledgement of her glory, which in a particular and decisive respect is greater even than that of man.Footnote 13

Two things are important to note from this excerpt. First, there is no reciprocity and equality between the interpersonal relation of male and female. Yet, one must be careful to observe how this statement is to be understood. This is not an ontological evaluation. Barth is not saying that the male is a superior being to the female. Instead, he is referring to the difference between the point of origin of the two sexes. Namely, Barth is stating that the origin of the female is dissimilar to that of the male's because the female came from the male and not vice versa. Thus, there is an order and direction of creation which cannot be reversed, which means that it is not reciprocal or equal. Second, this lack of reciprocity and equality between the sexes' point of origin in creation bestows upon the male a certain primacy in his interpersonal relation with the female. The male gains relational priority because of his creational priority. However, what Barth means when referring to the ‘supremacy’ of the male is not fully evident until his particular discussion of the interpersonal relation of male and female, to which I will now turn.

CD III/4: an ordered relation

Here Barth once again highlights the static relational order which is present in the interpersonal relation of the male and female, and now assigns certain characteristics to each sex based on this order. Barth illustrates the distinctiveness of each sex, as well as their respective order, by describing the male as an ‘A’ and the female as a ‘B’. They are not an ‘A’ and an ‘A’, two halves which are symmetrical and interchangeable. The female will never be ‘A’ and likewise the male will never be ‘B’. They each have their unique positions and functions, and, therefore, cannot be equated. Barth says, ‘A precedes B, and B follows A. Order means succession. It means preceding and following. It means super- and sub-ordination.’Footnote 14

Nevertheless, Barth is quick to clarify what he is not meaning to convey. ‘A’ does not have an advantage over ‘B’, and in turn ‘B’ is not at a disadvantage to ‘A’. There is essential equality between male and female. They are both equal before God and equal in their need for one another. But even though there is essential equality, this does not negate the observance of a relational order. For Barth, the concept of relational order is not mutually exclusive of essential equality between the two sexes. These two ideas can coexist.Footnote 15

Precisely what Barth's A/B division implies for the male and female is now made more concrete. Barth claims that because the male is an ‘A’ in the interpersonal relation of male and female, he occupies a preceding position in his relationship with the female. This is his particular sexual nature and relational order. And since the male is in the preceding position he is to be the ‘inspirer, leader, and initiator in their common being and action’.Footnote 16 Likewise, because the female is a ‘B’, she occupies a position which comes after and under the male's position. This is her particular sexual nature and relational order. She has ‘to follow the initiative which he must take’.Footnote 17 Barth believes that when the female follows the male initiative, the female actualises the fellowship that they both participate in together. Of course the male's standing is not a self-serving position but is to be occupied with humility, and the female's position has its own unique honour and greatness.Footnote 18

Made in the image of this God

Given that humans are made in the image of God, and more specifically that the interpersonal relation of male and female is to reflect the interpersonal relation among the Godhead, it is important to understand who this God is whose image humans reflect. Cynthia Campbell notes that for Barth what is indicated to be the imago Dei in humans becomes more distinctively the imago trinitatis.Footnote 19 Moreover, Gary Deddo describes Barth's doctrine of the Trinity as a tree being planted which afterward becomes fruitful in Barth's anthropology.Footnote 20

Barth's doctrine of the Trinity begins with an emphasis on the unity and equality present among the divine beings. Yet, even though there is an essential equality among the Godhead, there is also a difference which is present between the three modes of being. God is one, but God is also Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is what God is in all three modes of being, but God is God three times in three different ways. This threefold difference is essential to God and cannot be removed or exchanged. It is permanent.Footnote 21

However, one cannot obtain the three distinct modes of God by separating out the material differences (i.e. divine attributes) of the three distinct revelations. This cannot be done because the attributes of God belong to the Father, the Son and the Spirit equally. There are specific and different qualities which are revealed to us and make clear to us God's being as Father, Son and Spirit. Yet, ‘because it is of the essence of the revealed God to have these attributes, in His essence they, too, are indistinguishably one, and they cannot, therefore, be distributed ontologically to Father, Son and Spirit’.Footnote 22

Nevertheless, while Barth rejects the possibility of obtaining the distinctions of the three modes of being from the material differences, he does affirm that formal differences can be obtained. Barth points to the distinctive genetic relations which exist between the divine modes of being as the basis of the distinction within them. The Father, Son and Spirit are characterised by their distinctive relations of origin to one another. They exist in begetting, being begotten and a bringing forth from the begetter and the begotten.Footnote 23

Therefore, Barth wants to bring to light that although there is no distinction of being, there is a distinction in the modes of being. And in this distinction in the modes of being, there is a superordination and subordination present in the Godhead. There is a static relational order. Barth says:

To this order of creation and reconciliation there corresponds christologically the order of Father and Son or Father and Word. Jesus Christ as the Reconciler cannot precede the Creator, ‘our Father in heaven’. He stands to him in the irreversible relation of following on Him and from Him as the son follows on the father and from the father and the word follows on the speaker and from the speaker. But again this subordination and sequence cannot imply any distinction of being; it can only signify a distinction in the mode of being.Footnote 24

Furthermore, although Barth does not explicitly use the terms superordination and subordination with regard to the Holy Spirit, in CD IV/1 he describes the Godhead as a first, a second and a third.Footnote 25

Explicit connections

Although various parallels between Barth's construction of the interpersonal relation of male and female and his doctrine of the Trinity may already be apparent, I suggest that there are three correlations which must be particularly noted. The first parallel between the interpersonal relation of male and female and that of the Godhead is that there is a static relational order. While one may protest at Barth's characterising the interpersonal relation of male and female in terminology such as ‘A’ and ‘B’, first and second, superordinate and subordinate, it must be realised that this does not stand in contradistinction to the notion that the interpersonal relation of male and female correlates with the image of God. As has been noted above, this same type of relational ordering is present in the Godhead. For Barth, the order which is reflected in the interpersonal relation of male and female is initially an order found within the Trinity.

Moreover, this relational order which is present between the interpersonal relation of male and female and that of the Godhead is a fixed relational order. With the former, the male is an ‘A’ and the female a ‘B’, but ‘B’ cannot be ‘A’ and ‘A’ cannot be ‘B’. This order between male and female cannot be removed or exchanged. Yet, with the latter does Barth not say the same thing? Within the Trinity there is a threefold difference among the modes of being, which has resulted in a first, second and third. God's modes of being exist in an irreversible relation which also cannot be removed or exchanged. Thus, just as there is a static order in the interpersonal relation of male and female in which there is an asymmetrical direction of orientation which cannot be reversed, within the Trinity there is also a static order in which there is an asymmetrical direction of orientation which cannot be reversed.

The second parallel between the interpersonal relation of male and female and that of the Godhead is that although there is a static relational order between these relations, equality is still maintained. Barth is emphatic in his discussion of the male and female, as well as about the Trinity, that order is not mutually exclusive to equality. This is true even with regard to perichoresis. The issue of perichoresis is an especially important point for the male and female interpersonal relation because several scholars argue that there does not appear to be room for this dynamic in Barth's anthropology. Clifford Green, Paul Fiddes and Cynthia Campbell all contend that if the interpersonal relation of male and female and the Trinity are to exist as an analogia relationis, in light of perichoresis there should be mutual initiative and mutual response between the male and female. That is, there should be a correspondence to the quality and character of the relations within the Godhead to those between male and female. Yet Green, Fiddes and Campbell all conclude that Barth's model of an ordered, interpersonal relation between male and female does not exhibit mutual initiative and response between the two sexes and thus does not reflect the quality and character of the internal interpersonal relation of the Godhead.Footnote 26

Nevertheless, although these critiques and concerns do highlight a lacuna in Barth's theological anthropology (i.e. the absence of mutual initiative and response between the two sexes), perichoresis is not the solution. These scholars have overlooked a fundamental aspect of the function of perichoresis within Barth's doctrine of the Trinity. This oversight is clearly demonstrated by Alexander J. McKelway in his article ‘Perichoretic Possibilities in Barth's Doctrine of Male and Female’. He says, ‘Barth employed the ancient doctrine of perichōrēsis to describe an interpenetration and exchange of functions among the three divine persons without the loss of their individual distinctiveness’.Footnote 27 McKelway believes that this exchange of functions includes the interchangeability and reciprocity of the positions of superordination and subordination. However, McKelway and the others mentioned above have made an erroneous assumption in their definition of trinitarian perichoresis. Barth does not define perichoresis as a loss of the distinctiveness of the three modes of being within the Trinity or as the ability for the trinitarian order to be interchanged – this includes the positions of superordination and subordination. Even though one understands that there is a unity within God, this unity includes a distinction and an order. While it is true that within the Trinity the divine attributes (i.e. material distinctions) cannot be assigned to a particular member of the Godhead, there still remains a formal difference within the Trinity because of their relations of origin. Therefore, perichoresis does not contradict or eliminate these formal distinctions which are present within the Godhead. Likewise, even if Barth had described some form of perichoresis within the interpersonal relation of male and female, the formal distinctions between male and female would not be erased. There would still be a relational order based on the creational order.

The third parallel between the interpersonal relation of male and female and that of the Godhead is that the logic upon which Barth derives these relational orders is the same. Within the Trinity the order is distinguished by the genetic relations of origin which are present between the three modes of being. There is a first, second and third, because one follows after the other. Yet, is it not the same with male and female? Does their order not arise because of their relation of origin? The male was created first and the female second, thereby causing an essential relation of existence between the male and female, which gives credence to this order of ‘A’ and ‘B’ that Barth insists on.

But herein lies the problem. For the Trinity, the order present in the modes of being is an order of relations which is proper to God because the origin of relations, and the order which arises in this origin of relations, is constitutive of the distinct modes of being in the Trinity. The Father is the Father because he is unbegotten. The Son is the Son because he is begotten from the Father. The Spirit is the Spirit because he proceeds from the Father and the Son. This order is essential to the being of God and is thus a distinction which is permitted to remain.

Yet, contrary to the Trinity, this order is not proper to the relation of male and female because the origin of relation (i.e. the creational order) and the order which arises from this origin of relation (i.e. the relational order) is not constitutive for the persons of male and female. The male is not a person because he is first, or superordinate, or the leader. The female is not a person because she is second, or subordinate, or the follower. On the contrary, as Barth states himself in CD III/2, personhood is constituted in the encounter with the other. ‘[H]umanity is the determination of our being as a being in encounter with the other man’.Footnote 28 While Barth has superimposed the concept of order as constitutive for the Trinity onto the relation of male and female, the creational priority of the male does not lead to any relational priority because it is not order which constitutes a person, but encounter.Footnote 29 However, this inadequate realisation of the personhood of the male and female by means of the concept of order can be amended.

Genuine I–Thou relations

As noted above, when one compares Barth's description of the particular interpersonal relation of male and female with his discussion of interpersonal relations in general (i.e. interpersonal relations which are irrespective of sexual distinctions), one concludes that Barth has inadequately realised the personhood of both the male and the female. Yet, if the four principles characteristic of a genuine I–Thou encounter (found in Barth's section on interpersonal relations in general) are allowed to guide the interpersonal relation of male and female, then the personhood of both sexes can be realised without a static order. This genuine I–Thou encounter is not to be understood as the priority of the male, but rather as the priority of the other. Elouise Renich Fraser suggests that affirming the priority of the other ‘is to accept, freely and gladly, the particular help which I need from another person, and to give to him or her, freely and gladly, the help needed from me. . . . These encounters bind us to each other in solidarity which freely and gladly accepts our dependence on each other and offers each other aid in the task of being human. This is genuine I–Thou encounter.’Footnote 30

The four characteristics which Barth deems to be necessary in constituting a genuine I–Thou encounter begin with one person looking the other in the eye. The significance of seeing ‘eye to eye’ is the fact that only humans are seen in this way and can see in this way. What follows from one human looking the other in the eye is that the one initially looking automatically permits the other human to look directly back. Looking at each other, persons open themselves up to each other. One is open to the other and vice versa. While there is vulnerability in this openness, there is also genuine interest in the existence of the other. The being of another then becomes important.Footnote 31

The second characteristic is that there is to be mutual speaking and hearing between the two persons. Although openness within an encounter is vital and lays the groundwork for humans, they must go beyond being open and move into the experience of speech. In this experience and event of speech the ‘I’ has to express verbally and address itself to the ‘Thou’ in a genuine self-expression. And in conjunction, the ‘I’ has to accept the expression and address of the ‘Thou’. The speaking of both the ‘I’ and the ‘Thou’ serve to convey the image of the one to the other and foster an opportunity for the one to come to knowledge of the other. It is necessary, though, for both the expression and address between the ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ to be reciprocal in order for there to be a true encounter between the two.Footnote 32 It is a dialogue, not a monologue, which constitutes a being in encounter.

The third characteristic is that mutual assistance is provided between the two persons. It is yet another step in the process of encounter. Each ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ needs assistance, and at the same time is capable of assisting. Although the one cannot be ‘for’ the other as Christ is ‘for’ us, one can still be available to help in whatever way necessary. Self-sufficiency undermines the goal of human fellowship.Footnote 33

Finally, the fourth characteristic is that the three features of a genuine I–Thou encounter listed above are to be performed with gladness. That one looks another in the eye, offers to speak and listen to another, and gives and receives assistance is not an imposition from without, but a ‘self-determination which is free and intrinsic to [one's] essence’.Footnote 34 This self-determination is true freedom and resists any type of absorption of the ‘I’ into the ‘Thou’, or vice versa, as well as any type of manipulation of the ‘I’ or the ‘Thou’. As a result, this freedom is not the high point of interpersonal relationships, but the very root. And as the root, there is then established an interpersonal relation which exhibits itself not in the fact that ‘I’ is a slave or a tyrant, or that ‘Thou’ is a slave or tyrant, but that ‘both are companions, associates, comrades, fellows and helpmates’.Footnote 35

Therefore, with the absence of a static order in the interpersonal relation of male and female and an inclusion of Barth's characteristics of genuine I–Thou encounter, the notion of mutual initiative and response between male and female is regained. ‘[T]ruly human encounter happens when one acknowledges the priority of the other, not the priority of the male’.Footnote 36

Conclusion

Due to the static relational order which Barth posits in the interpersonal relation of male and female, many have overlooked the merits of Barth's locating the imago Dei in sexual duality. However, there is much to gain for theological anthropology in such a move. First of all, the imago Dei is not signified in solidarity, but community. This conception resists the precedence of individuality and points persons toward the other. It rejects the Cartesian ‘I think, therefore I am’ philosophy in which it is possible to be an ‘I’ without a ‘Thou’. In addition, this conception of the imago Dei embraces the totality of the human person. The image is not to be found only in one aspect of a person (e.g. soul, reason), but includes all aspects. Furthermore, Barth's particular attempt to locate the imago Dei specifically in the interpersonal relation of male and female does not just affirm the existence of the totality of the human person, but affirms the existence of the sexuality of persons. What it means to be human is connected with what it means to be male or female, male and female. By predicating the imago Dei in the sexual distinction of male and female, sexuality is rescued from the category of sin and fallen nature and elevated as proper to human's original nature. Moreover, sexual differentiations can be celebrated rather than loathed. Sexual distinctions become more than just a means for procreation or an aspect to transcend. These differences become grounded in the imago Dei and are integral to the constitutive encounter of I–Thou. Therefore, although Barth is not without his own methodological errors – particularly his superimposition of the concept of order within the Trinity onto the interpersonal relation of male and female – because there is provision within his anthropology concerning interpersonal relations in general to correct these errors, perhaps Barth's theological anthropology is worth revisiting in light of some of the other potential gains.

Footnotes

Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid

References

1 Romero, Joan Arnold, ‘Karl Barth's Theology of the Word of God: Or, How to Keep Women Silent and in their Place’, in Goldenberg, Judith Plaskow (ed.), Women and Religion (Missoula, MT: University of Montana, 1973), p. 35Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Protestant Principle: A Woman's-Eye View of Barth and Tillich’, in Ruether, Rosemary Radford (ed.), Religion and Sexism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974), p. 324Google Scholar.

2 Russell, Letty, Becoming Human (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), p. 68Google Scholar.

3 Daly, Mary, Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), p. 2Google Scholar.

4 Hereafter Church Dogmatics will be abbreviated as CD.

5 Deddo, Gary, ‘Karl Barth's Theology of Relations: Trinitarian, Christological, and Human. Towards an Ethic of the Family’, in Molnar, Paul D. (ed.), Issues in Systematic Theology, vol. 4 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), p. 3Google Scholar.

6 I am not aware of any place where Barth explicitly notes the parallel function of the concept of order between the Trinity and the male and female interpersonal relation, although, as this article seeks to demonstrate, the same logic is at work.

7 Jewett, Paul K., Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 23–33Google Scholar. While Jewett wants to attribute to Barth this move of correlating the imago Dei with the interpersonal relation of male and female, Barth's ideas concerning the imago Dei did not originate entirely with him. In CD III/4 he credits Charlotte von Kirschbaum for contributing her authority on the subject of the correlation of the imago Dei with the I–Thou relationship between male and female, although to what extent and in what manner she influenced him is not known. See Selinger, Suzanne, Charlotte Von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth: A Study in Biography and the History of Theology (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), pp. 89–90Google Scholar.

8 K. E. Greene-McCreight, ‘Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of Genesis 1–3’, in Molnar, Paul D. (ed.), Issues in Systematic Theology, vol. 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), p. 213Google Scholar.

9 Barth, Karl, ‘The Doctrine of Creation’, in Church Dogmatics III/1, ed. Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F., trans. Edwards, J. W., Bussey, O. and Knight, Harold (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1958), pp. 182–3Google Scholar.

10 Barth borrows this phrase analogia relationis from Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The difference between the two theologians is that Bonhoeffer understands the I–Thou relation to be independent of the gender distinction, whereas Barth does not. Relationality for Barth is ultimately dyadic, rather than communal. See Selinger, Charlotte Von Kirschbaum, p. 136. Barth's emphasis on the significance of the other lies primarily in ‘sexuality’ rather than in ‘sociality’. See Clifford Green, ‘Karl Barth's Treatment of the Man–Woman Relationship: Issues for Theological Method’, in Kelly, Geoffrey B. and Weborg, C. John (eds), Reflections on Bonhoeffer: Essays in Honor of F. Burton Nelson (Chicago: Covenant Publications, 1999), p. 29Google Scholar.

11 Barth, CD III/1, p. 185.

12 Ibid., pp. 288–92.

13 Ibid., pp. 301–2.

14 Barth, Karl, ‘The Doctrine of Creation’, in Church Dogmatics, Vol. III/4, ed. Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F., trans. Mackay, A. T., Parker, T. H. L., Knight, Harold, Kennedy, Henry A. and Marks, John (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961), p. 169Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., pp. 169–72.

16 Ibid., p. 170.

17 Ibid., p. 171.

18 Ibid.

19 Campbell, Cynthia M., ‘Imago Dei Reconsidered: Male and Female Together’, Journal for Preachers 4/2 (Lent 1981), p. 10Google Scholar.

20 Deddo, ‘Karl Barth's Theology of Relations’, p. 4. This concurs with George Hunsinger's assessment of Barth's style of writing that ‘[i]t is [Barth's] method of alluding to themes previously developed while constantly enriching the score with new ideas . . . Themes or fragments of themes, once dominant, are constantly carried forward into new settings where other themes take the ascendancy. Materials are constantly being combined, broken up, recombined, and otherwise brought into contrapuntal relationship.’ See Hunsinger, George, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 28Google Scholar.

21 Barth, Karl, ‘The Doctrine of the Word of God’, Church Dogmatics I/1, ed. Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F., trans. Bromiley, G. W. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), pp. 360–1Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., p. 362.

23 Ibid., p. 363.

24 Ibid., pp. 413–14. In CD IV/1 Barth says that ‘there is in God Himself an above and below, a prius and a posterius, a superiority and a subordination’. See Barth, Karl, ‘The Doctrine of Reconciliation’, in Church Dogmatics IV/1, ed. Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F., trans. Bromiley, G. W. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1974), pp. 200–1Google Scholar.

25 Barth, CD IV/1, pp. 202–3.

26 Green, ‘Karl Barth's Treatment of the Man–Woman Relationship’, p. 235; Fiddes, Paul S., ‘The Status of Woman in the Thought of Karl Barth’, in Soskice, Janet Martin (ed.), After Eve (London: Collins Marshall Pickering, 1990), p. 150Google Scholar; Campbell, ‘Imago Dei Reconsidered’, p. 13.

27 McKelway, Alexander J., ‘Perichoretic Possibilities in Barth's Doctrine of Male and Female’, Princeton Seminary Bulletin 7/3 (1986), p. 240Google Scholar.

28 Barth, CD III/2, p. 248.

29 Clifford Green rightly notes that Barth's exegesis, including Old Testament and New Testament passages of scripture, also contributes to the troubling issue of the ordered relation between male and female. While the brevity of this article has not allowed me fully to explore this aspect, after observing this theological error which is operating in Barth's understanding of the function of order in the interpersonal relation of male and female, one might contend that this misunderstanding partially prejudices his reading of the texts. See Green, Clifford, ‘Liberation Theology? Karl Barth on Women and Men’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 29/3–4 (Spring and Summer, 1974), p. 230Google Scholar.

30 Fraser, Elouise Renich, ‘Jesus' Humanity and Ours in the Theology of Karl Barth’, in Shuster, Marguerite and Muller, Richard (eds), Perspectives on Christology: Essays in Honor of Paul K. Jewett (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), pp. 194–5Google Scholar.

31 Barth, CD III/2, p. 250.

32 Ibid., pp. 252–9.

33 Ibid., pp. 260–3.

34 Ibid., pp. 265, 267.

35 Ibid., pp. 271, 274.

36 Fraser, ‘Jesus' Humanity and Ours’, p. 194.