ABSTRACT
The first section of the book lays the groundwork for this new interpretation of Barth’s understanding of beauty by countering a significant potential objection to it, namely, Balthasar’s suspicion that Barth does not have a coherent concept of analogy in general. This chapter begins by arguing that, in fact, Barth consistently develops a coherent and increasingly sophisticated analogy between theological and ecclesial realities throughout his career. It opens with a genealogy of Balthasar’s suspicion of Barth’s concept of analogy which traces its origin to Erich Przywara. Driven by a fear that Barth’s theology would prompt a renewed withdrawal of the German Catholic Church from modern culture which would undermine his own ambitions for it, Przywara claimed that Barth’s theology, like Luther’s, simply rejects the metaphysical tradition of the analogia entis, assumes a metaphysical dialectic between divine and creaturely being, propounds the doctrine of divine Alleinwirksamkeit, and is consequently a form of identity-philosophy or ‘theopanism’. In response, this chapter demonstrates that across the course of his career, Barth develops an analogia crucis (1919–1924), an analogia fidei (1924–1942), and then a distinct form of analogy of being (1942–1968) which are each innocent of these charges. Barth does not reject but develops the tradition of the analogia entis through his dialogue with Przywara. His early eternity-time dialectic appears metaphysical but is actually soteriological in nature. Barth gives an increasing role to objective and subjective secular form in his concepts of analogy which means that a determinate form of human activity is essential to all Christian knowledge of God. His theology, therefore, assumes not an identity but an analogy between God and redeemed humanity. And contrary to Przywara’s fears, Barth’s mature concept of analogy grounds cultural engagement, not retreat.
