THE SIGNIFICANCE OF KARL BARTH’S CONCEPTION OF PETITIONARY
PRAYER AS DIVINE–HUMAN CORRESPONDENCE IN CHURCH
DOGMATICS, IV/4 AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: CD, IV/4: LECTURE
FRAGMENTS
by
SUZETTE BENJAMIN

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Master of Theological Studies, Theology Stream

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard
...............................................................................
Dr. Archibald Spencer, PhD; Thesis Supervisor
................................................................................
Dr. Ken Radant, Ph.D.; Second Reader
................................................................................
Dr. Ross Hastings, Ph.D.; External Examiner

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY
March, 2016
© Suzette Benjamin

Abstract
Karl Barth claims in Church Dogmatics that calling upon God as Father in prayer
(invocation) is exemplary human action. Barth’s treatment of prayer in this way provides a
different vantage point on the topic of prayer than is often studied in contemporary
Christian scholarship, where Christian prayer is studied to establish its devotional or
community value. Barth’s presentation of prayer is worth studying because it reveals
prayer as the vehicle through which humans learn about themselves and about God.
Moreover, prayer reveals God’s divine nature as He connects with the Christian pray-er.
Barth calls this relationship between God and the Christian divine–human correspondence.
My focus is to explore Barth’s theology to determine the significance of prayer in the
context of divine–human correspondence and then to relate it to prayer in everyday
Christian life. I conclude that prayer, as effective human action, is inherent to human
correspondence with God.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Dr. Archibald Spencer, my thesis Supervisor, for sharing his
expertise on Barth and for his immensely invaluable guidance in this task.

Copyright © 2016 by Suzette Benjamin
All rights reserved.
Waiver: I hereby grant permission for the photocopy of portions of this work for research
purposes according to the limits outlined by laws pertaining to the photocopying of
copyrighted materials.

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ........................................................................................................... 4
Procedure................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 1: Biography ................................................................................................... 7
Early Influences on Barth’s Concept of Prayer..................................................... 11
Historical Development of Petitionary Prayer in Barth’s Later Theology (19361968) ..................................................................................................................... 23
Literature Review: The Significance of Barth’s Theology of Prayer ................... 24
Eberhard Jüngel ..................................................................................................... 24
John B. Webster .................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 2: Historical Development of Prayer in Barth’s Early Theology (1915–1935)
................................................................................................................................... 44
The Epistle to the Romans .................................................................................... 44
The Epistle to the Romans Commentary: Connection to Barth’s Theology on Prayer
............................................................................................................................... 47
The Göttingen Dogmatics ..................................................................................... 50
Ethics ..................................................................................................................... 55
Chapter 3: Prayer as a Divine Action: Command and Reconciliation ...................... 60
The Doctrine of the Command of God (CD, II/1, §30) ........................................ 60
The Doctrine of Reconciliation (CD, IV/1, §58 and IV/4, §60) ........................... 65
Chapter 4: The Lord’s Prayer .................................................................................... 73
The Lord’s Prayer in CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments ............................................ 77
Chapter 5: Prayer as Divine-Human Correspondence ............................................. 101
Divine–Human Action in Petitionary Prayer ...................................................... 106
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 115
Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 122

iv

Introduction

Research Problem and Background
Karl Barth, one of the foremost theologians of the twentieth century, claims in his
Church Dogmatics (CD)1 that petitionary prayer is “the most intimate and effective form
of Christian action,” wherein God acts first in correspondence towards humanity.2 If
Barth’s claim is correct, the question must be asked: What then is the significance for the
Christian life? The answer(s) necessitates a clearer understanding of Barth’s concept of
petitionary prayer as Christian action and its place within the broader theological
purview. Generally speaking, there are two conventional expressions of prayer within
contemporary Christianity: devotional3 and providential.4 Barth’s explication offers a
unique way. The action of prayer is located ontologically, specifically, as an expression
of the human position in relation to God. As such, Barth’s treatment of prayer cannot fit
into either of the two prescriptive expressions, in the sense that he does not deal with
prayer as a theological category relating to the doctrine of God, nor does he see it
exclusively as devotional. Instead, prayer is a theological category relating the human
person to his or her capacity for action that is rooted in the command of God and the
doctrine of reconciliation. Because Barth locates prayer where human action is

1

The Church Dogmatics will be shortened to CD henceforth.
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. III/3, trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 264, 270; CD, III/4, 87. In this document footnote references to Church
Dogmatics will follow the format CD or KD (for the German), volume/part, page number.
3
O. Hallesby, Prayer, trans. C. J. Carlsen (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1953). Hallesby addresses
prayer as an attitude of the heart with an emphasis on the practice of prayer as essential to the individual
Christian life. Cf. N. T. Wright, The Lord and His Prayer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).
4
Terrance Tiessen, Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? (Downers Grove: IVP
Academic, 2000). For an academic comparison, Tiessen treats prayer in relation to the providence of God.
2

1

conformity to, or correspondence with, the revealed command of God (Christian ethics),
the practice of prayer for the believer has significance beyond its devotional and
providential dimensions into that of divine-human correspondence.
A Definition of Divine–Human Correspondence in Barth’s Church Dogmatics
Barth’s theme of correspondence, more rightly termed divine–human
correspondence, can be characterized as a sequence of communicative events that begin
and end with God. Divine–human correspondence is a relationship wherein God first
speaks and in speaking, reveals Himself as God, the God who calls the human agent to
prayer. In prayer, human action takes the form of petitions, addressing the God of the
Bible as Father. Then, corresponding to the human act of praying, God continues to
respond (in speech and act) to the praying human agent. Thus, Barth’s theme of divine–
human correspondence captures the sum total of these actions between God and the
human agent, that is, Barth’s theo-anthropology. Therefore, as a part of this study I
explore Barth’s theo-anthropology in order to illuminate more precisely the meaning of
prayer and its significance for the whole of the Christian life. Along the way, I show how
Barth’s conception of divine–human correspondence makes this act (i.e. prayer) all the
more significant, and consequently the human agent’s obedience to the command to pray
even more necessary.

2

The scholarly community has given much attention to Barth’s concept of
Christian ethics,5 among many others in relation to the individual Christian life.6 But little
attention has been given to the placement of prayer as divine–human correspondence
within that context; divine–human correspondence referring to the relationship in the
form of dialogue between God and the redeemed human agent through the vehicle of
prayer.
In this study, I investigate the significance of Barth’s placement of prayer within
the context of Christian ethics and suggest that Barth’s concept clarifies the significance
of prayer in the Christian life. Ultimately, this thesis demonstrates that Barth’s concept of
Christian petitionary prayer as divine–human correspondence in his CD, IV/4: Lecture
Fragments indicates his moral ontology and confirms the inseparability of theology and
ethics for the Christian life. Consequentially, the question must be asked and answered:
What then is the significance of Barth’s conception of petitionary prayer as divine–
human correspondence for the Christian life?
The subject matter and methodology of this thesis offers fresh insight into
Barth’s theology of petitionary prayer and its contribution to the larger body of
knowledge on prayer. Through the practice of petitionary prayer, the human agent is not

5

For example, see Archibald James Spencer, Clearing a Space for Human Action: Ethical Ontology in the
Theology of Karl Barth (New York: Peter Lang, 2003); Eberhard Jüngel, “Invocation of God as the Ethical
Ground of Christian Action,” in Eberhard Jüngel: Theological Essays, vol. I, trans. John B. Webster
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989). In this article, Jüngel asserts that Barth locates the analogy between divine
and human action, in invocation (prayer), 160; Paul T. Nimmo, Being in Action: The Theological Shape of
Barth’s Ethical Vision (London: T&T Clark, 2007); John Webster, Barth’s Moral Theology: Human Action
in Barth’s Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Through several essays on Barth, Webster clarifies
Barth’s ethics as the human agent’s acknowledgement that human action, in its origin, basis and center, is
divinely motivated, 109; and William Werpehowski, “Command and History in the Ethics of Karl Barth,”
Journal of Religious Ethics 9, no. 2 (Fall, 1981): 298-320.
6
Paul T. Nimmo, Being in Action: The Theological Shape of Barth’s Ethical Vision (London: T&T Clark,
2007), 185. Nimmo argues that for Barth, God’s action and human action are connected through the ethical
agent’s participation in glorifying God.

3

only brought under God’s command, but also is free to correspond to the command of
God in the day-to-day affairs of life. Through prayer, the human agent self-identifies as a
member of God’s covenant people “through the covenant that took place in Jesus
Christ.”7 Barth also teaches that God corresponds precisely to the action of prayer, and
thus his concept adds to the church’s broader discussion on the efficacy of prayer in the
modern age.
Methodology
My assessment of the significance of Barth’s theology of prayer takes an historical
approach. I trace the genesis and development of Barth’s ideas on prayer with special
attention given to his moral ontology in relevant sections of the CD. First, I examine the
historical development of Barth’s thought on prayer in the context of his early material.
Second, I explore and critique Barth’s basic moral ontology. The works of Eberhard
Jüngel8and John Webster9 on Barth’s moral ontology—that is, their understanding of the
inseparability of theology and human action—will be the overarching idea from which
prayer in the CD is explained. Third, I assess Barth in context, analyzing sections of the
CD in relation to the whole. I focus on portions such as Command of God (CD, II/1),
Doctrine of Reconciliation (CD, IV/1 and IV/4), and Lecture Fragments (CD, IV/4). The
following procedural details demonstrate how I apply this method of research.

7

CD, IV/4, 65.
Eberhard Jüngel, Theological Essays 1, trans. John B. Webster (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000).
9
John B. Webster, Barth's Ethics of Reconciliation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
8

4

Procedure
Following an introduction, chapter 1 considers influences on Barth’s thinking,
particularly with regards to piety and prayer as found in his letters and his earlier works.10
Such an approach allows me to feature Barth the theologian, with specific attention to the
historical development of his ideas on prayer.11 I further this chapter by presenting a
literature review of the contemporary debate on the significance of Barth’s moral
ontology with respect to his theology of prayer. Here the relevant works of Eberhard
Jüngel and John Webster are examined in detail. The three benchmarks of the literature
review are (1) the secondary source understanding of Barth’s theology on prayer, (2) the
conclusions that these authors have drawn, and (3) an identification of how my thesis
differs from, adds to, or is supported by these sources. All of which sets the stage for
identifying where my thesis makes its contribution. In chapter 2, I expand the historical
investigation into Barth’s development of prayer to include key works, namely his Epistle
to the Romans, The Göttingen Dogmatics, and Ethics. Chapter 3 begins with my analysis
and reading of Barth in context. I investigate prayer in the context of Barth’s CD,
focusing on Command of God (CD, II/1, §30), and Doctrine of Reconciliation (CD, IV/1,
§58 and §60, and CD, IV/4). Continuing my reading in context, chapter 4 investigates
how Barth infuses the theme of divine–human correspondence in CD, IV/4: Lecture
Fragments as a key to petitionary prayer. In chapter 5, I evaluate the significance of

10

Secondary sources include: Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists: The Young Karl Barth's
Critique of Pietism and Its Response (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004); John Webster, Barth's
Earlier Theology: Four Studies (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2005); Thomas F. Torrance, Karl
Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology, 1910–1931 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000).
11
Secondary sources include: Archibald James Spencer, Clearing a Space for Human Action; Bruce
McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909–
1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); Joseph L. Mangina, Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian
Witness (Louisville: Westminster, 2004).

5

Barth’s theology of prayer as divine–human correspondence in the context of the CD as a
whole. Finally, I conclude with how Barth’s legacy of ideas on divine–human
correspondence situates prayer in ethics and I offer suggestions on its potential relevance
to the church today.

6

Chapter 1: Biography
Introduction
Karl Barth—theologian, pastor, and teacher—was born into a family of pastors
and academics on May 10, 1886 in Basel, Switzerland; “His family and background
placed him at the center of Basel religious and intellectual life.”1 Barth’s father, Johann
Friedrich Barth (Fritz), earned his doctorate in theology with a thesis on Tertullian’s
interpretation of Paul and lectured at the College of Preacher in Basel. Barth’s
grandfathers were also pastors and teachers. J. T. Beck was a prominent influence and
teacher of Franz Albert Barth (1818–1879), Barth’s grandfather on his father’s side. So
close was the relationship that he officiated Franz’s wedding. Franz taught religion and
music at an all-girls high school. Barth’s father was also heavily influenced by Beck.
Fritz regarded him as a spiritual father who brought him “out of the barren wilderness of
self-satisfied criticism into the green pastures of the word of God.”2 Barth regarded
Beck’s interpretation of the Bible highly; writing to his friend Edward Thurneysen that
Beck, as an interpreter of the Bible, “towered above the rest.”3 What Barth found in Beck
(and Blumhardt) was not only a new reading of Scripture, but also a reading that revealed
the future kingdom of God.
What he found in Beck was in close conjunction to what he found in Blumhardt.
It focused on the goal of the kingdom of God, understood not as the fulfillment of
the desire for an individual salvation of the soul but as a comprehensive, holistic,
spiritual and physical “living organism” that is established by divine “forces,”
where Christ is the center and “is understood as the first seed.4

1

John Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, Cambridge Companions to Religion
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 2.
2
Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (London: SCM Press,
2011), 3.
3
Ibid., 99.
4
Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists, 34.

7

Later in his life, Barth recalled that he obtained his first theological instruction as a young
child (in the last decade of the nineteenth century) through the songs of theologian Abel
Burckhardt, taught to him by his mother, Anna Katharina. Burckhardt’s songs made an
indelible impression on him in the “homely and unpretentious self-assurance with which
the events of Christmas, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, [and] Pentecost”
were presented.5 Barth’s reflection on that influence was, “that the words give one a firm
foundation of faith on which to stand despite trial and temptation, but in the end he will
be brought back relatively unscathed to firm ground.”6 Barth’s parents brought up their
five children (Barth was the eldest) in “good Christian spirit.”7 Barth was introduced to
the ideas of Christian socialism as a young child through the newspaper his father read.
Barth recalls that Friedrich Naumann’s ideas made an influence on him in his youth:
I still remember the subtitle of his newspaper Die Helfe (Help), which I
sometimes saw on my father’s desk, “Help for God, help for one’s brother, help
for the state, help for oneself.” These strong words made an impression on me,
though I could hardly understand them. I felt that something strong, great and new
was on the way.8
Beginning in 1904 Barth studied at Berne and made the acquaintance of many
people, such as Thurneysen, through his involvement in the students’ association,
Zolfingia. Thurneyson was to become a lifelong friend. Barth’s love of music was a
lifelong treasure. He played the violin and earned money during his years at Berne (19041906) by giving violin lessons.
It is no doubt that Barth’s university studies influenced his reading. He read
Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, Schleiermacher’s Speeches on Religion to its

5

Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters, 8.
Ibid., 9.
7
Ibid., 11–12.
8
Ibid., 14.
6

8

Cultured Despisers, and William Herrman’s Ethics.9 In Berlin, Barth studied under
Willhelm Herrman,10 much to his father’s disapproval. Barth felt that Herrman’s Ethics
was a pivotal point in his theological development. He says, “This book started me off in
perpetual motion. With more restraint, but no less gratefully, I would prefer to say: I
think that my personal interest in theology began on that day.”11
In July of 1911, following his seminary training, Barth, like his father and
grandfather, served as a pastor of a congregation of less than 1500 registered Protestants
in Safenwil, Switzerland.12 His appointment lasted a decade. Historically, early twentiethcentury Europe exemplified social and political upheaval. “By the time Barth began his
pastorate, what seemed like a prosperous, secure time of cultural self-confidence was a
sham.”13 The young pastor found preaching difficult and preparing his sermons a
painstaking exercise.14 He wrestled with how to present the Bible’s theological
significance to his Safenwil parishioners. In part, Barth’s struggle involved a realization
that “the true theme of theology”15 was in fact to express God as He wants to be known
by His creatures; that God is totally unlike His creations, yet seeks to be known by
humanity and to allow them to participate in His future will. It was this task of addressing
the question of the sheer otherness and distance of God “which then came down on me
like a ton of bricks,” Barth later commented.16 Such a realization began his pursuit of

9

John Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 2.
Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters, 40.
11
Ibid., 41.
12
Karl Barth and William H. Willimon, The Early Preaching of Karl Barth: Fourteen Sermons with
Commentary by William H. Willimon, trans. John E. Wilson (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2009), ix. A collection of Barth’s sermons preached from 1917 to 1920.
13
Ibid., xi.
14
Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 3.
15
Karl Barth and William H. Willimon, The Early Preaching of Karl Barth, xi.
16
Ibid.
10

9

reading the Bible with more avid diligence and writing down its message. As a result, his
entrance into theology and biblical exegesis commenced with a commentary on Romans.
The work qualified him for a post at the University of Göttingen where his lectures
formed his first attempt at dogmatics, later titled The Göttingen Dogmatics. In 1935 he
returned to Basel (having been discharged from his post due to his political position
against the status quo between the two world wars in Germany) and continued his career
until his retirement in 1962. He continued to teach, preach, and lecture until his passing
on December 10, 1968.17
Barth’s corpus includes works on the Lord’s Prayer and the nature of ethics in his
Ethics I and II. His interest in the nature of God as revealed in the Bible, God’s
relationship with His creatures, and the centrality of Jesus Christ to the Christian life is
best viewed in arguably his greatest work, a work left unfinished at his passing, his CD
and the fragments of his lectures published as The Christian Life (CD, IV). In 1962,
Barth’s retirement was commemorated by a series of lectures published as Evangelical
Theology: An Introduction in which he addresses prayer in the context of theological
work.
In sum, Barth’s theological influence spans the periods from WWI to the present
day. His work suggests for us a new way to explore prayer through the lens of how God
chooses to communicate with His creature in the divine command to pray. Barth
understood prayer to be more than devotion or petition to God. Rather, prayer was an
essential part of the fabric of the divine–human connection, which God Himself devised
and requires of His creatures, the call to prayer for the future that God wills for creation

17

Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 8.

10

as a whole—“Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew
6:10). The next section provides an overview of some of Barth’s early influences and
highlights formative moments in his ideas on prayer.
Early Influences on Barth’s Concept of Prayer
When attempting to understand great thinkers it is useful to consider their
historical context in addition to their perspectives and influences.18 T. F. Torrance
suggests that Barth’s influences and immediate historical context “[are] very much
concerned with the great movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”19 For
Barth, prayer was critical to his life’s work. In one of his early sermons he writes, “As
one prays so one lives and walks and behaves.”20 Don Saliers notes that Barth’s theology
and his life manifest what it means to “begin and end in prayer.”21 In terms of influences,
Barth was a product of his time, but he was not constrained by it. Webster observes that
from 1911 to 1923 Barth’s theological development was marked by Reformation
theology, specifically that of John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli. John Webster states
that, “The Church Dogmatics did not come from nowhere. Its first volumes arose out of a
decade of extraordinary activity which has to be borne in mind to catch the full resonance
of what Barth is presenting there.”22 Webster argues that these three avenues of influence
present in Barth’s early theology are reflected in his later works.
The Early Reformation

18

Thomas F. Torrance, Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology, 1910–1931 (London: SCM
Press, 1962), 30.
19
Ibid.
20
Karl Barth, Come Holy Spirit, trans. George W. Richards (New York: Round Table Press, 1934), 24. A
collection of Barth’s sermons prepared from 1920 to 1924.
21
Ibid., ix.
22
John Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology: Four Studies (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 13.

11

It was Barth’s influences from the Protestant Reformation, specifically Calvin,
that show their impact on his ideas about prayer. He does give Martin Luther some
attention, but his focus is on Calvin and the Swiss Reformer, Zwingli. The influences
seem to have come from “Barth’s desire in the first half of the 1920s to be instructed by
the traditions of the Reformed Christianity,”23 to meet his commitment to the role of
Honorary Professor of Reformed Theology from 1921 to 1925 at Göttingen. About the
Protestant Reformation, he writes that it
Appears to us as a great whole: a labour of research, thinking, preaching,
discussion, polemic, and organization. But it was more than all that. From what
we know, it was also an act of continuous prayer, an invocation, and let us add, an
act of human beings, of certain persons, and at the same time a response on the
part of God.24
In one of his earliest recorded prayers during his pastoral days in Safenwil, Barth reflects
on the influence of the Reformers thus “the voices of Luther and Calvin are heard at
times quite distinctly.”25 A sample of one of these prayers seems modeled after Calvin’s
rules of right prayer, which Calvin modeled after the Lord’s Prayer. Calvin’s rules of
prayer are that prayer should first demonstrate “a reverence for God.”26 Second, it should
express “a sense of our want.”27 Third, that prayer must occur in an attitude of humility,
putting aside all pride. And fourth, prayer should be said with a “sure confidence of being
heard.”28 Barth prayed:
By your judgment, Almighty God we stand and fall. Grant that we may see our
weakness and powerlessness…Help us to let go of all trust in ourselves…Grant
that we may constantly call upon you and cast our sorrows upon you until we
Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology, 15.
Karl Barth, Prayer, 50th ed., ed. Dan E. Saliers, trans. Sara F. Terrien (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2002), 3.
25
Ibid., xi.
26
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.20.4–11.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
23
24

12

have finally escaped all dangers and come to that eternal peace prepared for us by
the suffering, death and resurrection of your only begotten Son.29
Further evidence with regards to prayer in Barth’s early years (1911-1935) is
reflected in his sermons. On May 19, 1918 Barth preached from Acts 2:1–4. In his
sermon he discusses the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer in the context
of prayer. He suggests that prayer is an act wherein we are confident that God hears us.
“Oh we need not pray in vain,” He writes, “we need never forget what is necessary when
we pray; we can find what we seek.”30 Thus, in these early years the great Reformers
influenced Barth and as a result he focused on the enabling power of the Holy Spirit in
the work of praying.
Calvin’s theology appears to have influenced Barth’s life’s work. In a letter to his
friend Thurneysen, Barth speaks of Calvin’s theology as “inaccessible,” an inaccessibility
that “spurred him on” to pursue understanding.31 He carried forward his interest and
pursuit of Calvin’s theology into his lectures, particularly “The Word of God and the
Task of Ministry” (1922) and “The Doctrinal Task of the Reformed Churches” (1923).
Calvin’s influence also impressed upon the The Göttingen Dogmatics and the whole of
his theological career. In sum, “the attention Barth gives to Calvin in his later work, CD
and in lectures exceeds the attention given to any other theologian.”32 It is suggested that
even Barth’s exegetical starting point, being the book of Romans, was spurred on by
Calvin, as his first commentary of 1540 was on Romans.33

29

Barth, Prayer, 71.
Karl Barth and William H. Willimon, The Early Preaching of Karl Barth, 62.
31
Richard Burnett, ed., The Westminster Handbook to Karl Barth, Westminster Handbooks to Christian
Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 26.
32
Ibid., 26.
33
John McConnachie, The Significance of Karl Barth (Liverpool: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931), 42; John
Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians: Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by David W. Torrance
and Thomas Forsyth Torrance, trans. Ross MacKenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
30

13

Huldrych Zwingli
Barth says that Zwingli was relevant because of his useful critique of Luther’s
ideas. Furthermore, Barth writes of Zwingli:
He was really no great spirit, but rather it is only in the context of the whole
Reformation that one can recognize him as the man who brought to express the
(necessary!) protest against Luther . . . besides he is an excellent representative of
the humanistic-Christian type . . . however not to be spoken of as a “Reformer.”34
Barth’s proposal of prayer as human action that is obedient to God reflects Zwingli’s
themes. Webster suggests that Zwingli’s theology of the “world as a distinct sphere of
human activity where the knowledge of God and obedience defined human action in
relation to God”35 impacted Barth strongly. “Barth was—and would remain—strongly
attracted to this aspect of Zwingli: the exposition of Christian baptism and the Lord’s
Prayer in the late ethics of reconciliation is undergirded by a similar sense.”36
Yet, Barth did not accept Zwingli’s theology completely. He was uneasy about
Zwingli’s quickness to set the matter of the relationship between God and the world as
one definite principle. As a result, Barth saw Zwingli as being “too undialectical.”37
However, one of the things that attracted Barth to Zwingli, as Webster notes, is the idea
of participation of God in the human “sphere” as an encounter between God and creature.
Webster notes that Barth’s development of these ideas in his early theology is still rough
around the edges. He writes,
Ethics is not concerned with “union with the Godhead” it is, instead, a matter of
“human creatureliness” which comes from knowledge of “the deity of the
Creator.” Barth’s presentation of these themes is undoubtedly abstract, rather
34

Karl Barth and Edward Thurneysen, Revolutionary Theology in the Making: Barth–Thurneysen
Correspondence, 1914–1925, trans. James D. Smart (Richmond: Westminster John Knox Press, 1964),
125.
35
Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology, 18.
36
Ibid.
37
Karl Barth, Die Theologie Zwinglis 1922/1923, Vorlesungen Göttingen Wintersemester 1922/1923
(Zurich: TVZ 2004), 321; quoted in John Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology, 30.

14

jagged, and not fully at ease with these concepts. He is it should be remembered,
at a very early stage in his maturation as dogmatic thinker.38
While Barth himself strongly disagreed with any influence of Zwingli in his later works,
for example his doctrine of baptism in CD, Webster notes—and I agree—that Barth’s
attempt to understand the substance of Zwingli’s theology is reflected in his later works
as he grapples with the theology of contemporaries in his later and mature writings.39
Webster states correctly, I believe, that Barth’s challenge of Zwingli’s ideas helped him
to develop his own theological voice in dogmatics. Webster concludes, “As Barth
interprets Zwingli, that is, he is already formulating in a rudimentary way a pattern of
thought which is to play a commanding role in the Church Dogmatics, namely the very
perfection of God’s free sovereignty is the ground of the moral life.”40 The pattern of
thought that Webster describes is very much present in Barth’s Romans and other
exegetical papers.
Influences on Barth’s Exegesis
Barth’s emphasis on the Bible as the source of the Word of God is to some extent
a product of Zwingli’s thinking. Webster states, “If we stand back from Barth’s very
dense exposition, we can see that it was from his reading of Zwingli (alongside of course,
much else) that Barth began to acquire a set of categories and patterns of thought . . .
which were to be a permanent principle of his thought.”41 Webster is referring to what

Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology, 27.
For example, “Nein!” in response to Emil Brunner’s article “Natural Theology: Comprising Nature and
Grace.”
40
Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology, 26.
41
Ibid., 30.
38
39

15

Barth had discovered in his renewed reading of the Bible regarding the transcendence of
God and “a deep and disturbing sense of the aseity of God in relation to the world.”42
Also, Barth’s interest in the Bible was fuelled by his work as a pastor, particularly
the task of preaching. Barth confessed that “preaching gets more difficult for me every
time.”43 The concept of the “otherness of God” sparked his theological mind with greater
force as he searched the Bible. Although, the obvious distress of the political climate and
WWI played a part in Barth’s challenge of preaching, the key reason according to his
friend Bonheoffer “came from a new reading of Scripture, not from the trenches but from
a Swiss village pulpit.”44 Therefore, “the brash young scholar who burst on the
theological scene in Romans had a couple of hundred sermons to prepare him to lead a
theological insurgency.”45
In 1915 Barth discovered the works of Johann Blumhardt and his son Christoph.46
The Blumhardts were prominent Württemberg Pietists whose ideas appear to have
influenced Barth’s work in Romans and in CD. Although there are various traditions
within Pietism, the general idea is that Pietism espouses deep religious faith, the truth of
the Bible as God’s word, and the authentic evidence of a personal relationship with
Christ. Authentic evidence meant the individual’s role in social welfare and spiritual
devotion. The engagement of the Pietist in these activities is believed to be the
outflowing of the divine work of rebirth, made possible through Christ.

42

Ibid.
Barth and Willimon, The Early Preaching of Karl Barth, xii.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.
46
Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists, 31. Busch notes that Barth’s grandparents, Karl and Elizabeth
Sartorius, were deeply interested in the Blumhardts’ work.
43

16

Eberhard Busch suggests that Barth’s discovery of the Blumhardts was one of the
reasons for his clarified position on religious individualism. Joseph Mangina proposes,
and I agree, that Barth’s interest in the Blumhardts was due to his “interest in rethinking
the gospel in a more eschatological and God-centered framework.”47 Not only the
opening petitions, but also his approach to the whole of the Lord’s Prayer is
eschatological. “This is linked to Barth’s fundamental conviction that God is faithful to
God’s self-given Word . . . [meaning] that prayer is an eschatological cry based precisely
on the acknowledgement of God’s name, will and reign.”48
In Barth’s early life, being Christian meant living a certain way so that one is
freed to provide assistance to those in need rather than the individual efforts to “get into
heaven.”49 Thus, Barth’s desire to clarify the relationship between God and the human
creature preceded his interpretation of Romans. He had discovered the “wholly otherness
of God.” His discovery was influenced to some extent by his encounter with the
Blumhardts “about one year before he began his interpretation of the epistle to the
Romans in April 1915. He felt that Christoph Blumhardt’s message was ‘immediately
true.’”50 Mangina observes that Barth’s “encounter with Blumhardt seemed to shift his
thinking into a new key.”51 The theologian’s emphasis was no longer on a “position” or
point of view but his new approach was on divine action. Busch notes that the
Blumhardts’ influence impacted Barth’s ideas in Romans and his later works, all of which

47

Mangina, Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian Witness, 10.
Barth, Prayer, xvi.
49
Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists, 30.
50
Ibid., 31.
51
Mangina, Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian Witness, 11.
48

17

helped Barth express two viewpoints.52 The Blumhardts were known for their “hearing of
prayer” and their theology of hope.53 “That Barth’s theology has the outspoken character
of a ‘Theology of Hope’ he owes in part to Blumhardt.”54 The second viewpoint is the
divine human relationship as a “legal” relationship evident in Barth’s sermons from
approximately 1913 onwards.55 The “legal” relationship is based on truth.56 Barth
clarifies what he means by this relationship:
It is a relationship different from an animal with its young. It is something
different from the love of parents who find their highest good in always seeing
their darlings satisfied. The relationship of God to His own is a legal relationship.
It does not rest on whim and inclination, but rather on truth.57
Another influence on Barth’s exegesis was Beck. Barth writes to Thurneysen on
July 27, 1916, “Discovery of a gold mine. J. T. Beck! As a biblical expositor he simply
towers far above the rest of the company...Also in his systematic approach he is in part
directly accessible and exemplary for us.”58
Conclusion
Barth soon found that the many voices he had read and was using in his exegetical
practice, including Beck, did not entirely express what he wanted to say. He wanted to
say something new and fresh. He wanted to say “that all the Christian groups and trends
could not carry on as they were doing...The fear of the Lord did not stand objectively at

52

Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists. Busch notes that although Barth wrote an acknowledgment of his
indebtedness to Blumhardt in his first book Briefweschsel 1, that sentence was omitted in a later version
edited by Barth’s friend Edward Thurneysen.
53
McConnachie, The Significance of Karl Barth, 40.
54
Ibid.
55
Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and
Development 1909–1936 (Milton Keynes: Oxford University Press, 1997), 94.
56
Karl Barth, Sermon 27, April 1913; quoted in McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical
Theology, 94.
57
Ibid.
58
Barth and Thurneysen, Revolutionary Theology in the Making, 38.

18

the beginning of our wisdom; we always attempt as it were to snatch at his assent in
passing.”59 Barth was concerned that there was little desire for the kingdom of God. He
argued that “humanity could not make [its] partisan standpoint God’s own. But rather all
share responsibility before God!”60
Two central themes began to surface in Barth’s exegesis and are later reflected in
his first edition of Romans and even more so in the second. These central ideas represent
his break with “the Romantic movement on the one hand and with pietism on the
other.”61 These ideas are: hope in the “completion” in God of all things, that is, “the great
future of God” and the fact that His “hope” is behind everything.62 As such, God is
understood as “the living God,” and as the One who can bring something completely
new. Busch observes that with these ideas, Barth had moved comfortably away from the
individualism that is characteristic of Pietism.63 The second is that this new life, this real
life, this “new order”64 can come only from God Himself. It is a newness that comes
“quietly and gently” in which “we are not seeking anything of our own” and do not want
to grow ourselves. Rather “we allow God to grow in us.”65
In July of 1916, Barth wrote a review of Christoph Blumhardt’s “House Prayers”
for the Neue Wege. In Blumhardt’s prayer of September 18th he prays: “Only you,
through your Spirit, can awaken something in us to help us go toward your goal. Keep us
from being caught up in what men do. The greatest help for our hearts is what you do,

59

Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters, 99.
Ibid., 100.
61
Ibid.
62
Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists, 32.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid., 33.
65
Ibid., 33.
60

19

and each of us can tell something about it.”66 In Barth’s review of these prayers, he
criticized religious socialism arguing that we must “quietly wait for God’s action,” 67 as
opposed to giving primacy to human action. It was prayers like this that reflected
Blumhardt’s influence on Barth.
In 1920, Barth wrote to Thurneysen that he was working on a prayer book using
the Psalms that was to be used in the worship service of his pastorate. He expressed his
amazement that the Psalms had not been more often used because they were “remarkable
literature.”68 He notes that “there are shocking things in it about ‘the wholly other’ that
form a background for an ‘edification’ that has a very different appearance from what is
usually called by that name.”69 Thus, Barth, from the beginning of his exploration on
prayer in his work as a pastor, expresses that he appreciates prayer as more than a
devotional exercise for the individual, but rather a human activity in response to God’s
divine command. Around this same time, Barth was reading Heiler’s book Prayer, which
from his letters he found “a disagreeable reading.”70
Around the same time as Barth was writing his prayer book, he delivered a lecture
at a sanatorium in Tambach, Germany. The lecture “made his name known in
Germany”71 and thus, Barth’s ideas on theology had moved from his personal milieu to a
wider audience. Until then, his first version of Romans was known only in Switzerland.72
What was new about Barth’s lecture at Tambach was that he presented a kingdom focus

66

Christoph Blumhardt, Lift Thine Eyes: Evening Prayers for Every Day of the Year, accessed May 21,
2014, http://ibobs.org/reading/Blumhardt/LiftThineEyes.pdf.
67
Karl Barth, Action in Waiting, trans. and ed. Society of Brothers (New York: Plough Publishers, 1969);
quoted in Archibald Spencer, Clearing A Space, 133.
68
Barth and Thurneysen, Revolutionary Theology in the Making, 50.
69

Ibid.

70

Ibid., 51.
71
Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters, 109.
72
Ibid., 110.

20

to a relationship with God. Busch states: “It was striking that Barth then went on to make
a clear and fundamental distinction between Christ or the kingdom of God on the one
hand and human actions, whether conservative or revolutionary, on the other.”73 Barth
said in that lecture that the kingdom of God is first and before all revolutions. What Barth
was saying was a radical shift from the social movement of his time and showed also that
he had begun to disassociate himself from the “the danger of which he now recognized as
such, ‘of secularizing Christ for the umpteenth time, e.g., today for the sake of
democracy, or pacifism, or youth movement . . . or for the sake of liberal culture.’”74
Mangina notes that Barth warned his audience in his lecture at Tambach in 1919, “God’s
action is precisely God’s.” For Barth, God’s action is not religion. He declares:
Our concern is with God, the movement originating in God, the motion which he
lends us—and it is not religion. Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy
will be done. The so-called “religious experience” is a wholly derived, secondary,
fragmentary form of the divine.75
Pietism Influence
In addition to being struck by the specific brand of Pietism of the Blumhardts,
Barth was no stranger to the traditions of Pietism. The ideology had influenced Barth’s
family’s thought for generations. “His early history shows that Pietism was not foreign to
his background but was familiar to him so that he got to know it in the best light in the
environment in which he was first at home.”76 Barth’s great grandfather, Johan Rud
Bruckhard (1738–1820), was a Pietist. In his later life, Barth characterized his great
grandfather as “not a dark pessimistic Pietist, but a joyous one. He was not a hard,

73

Ibid., 111.
Ibid., 111.
75
Karl Barth, The Word God and the Word of Man, trans. Douglas Horton (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1978), 285.
76
Ibid., 10.
74

21

legalistic Pietist who was oppressive to his surroundings, but an edifying and pleasing
Pietist in the best sense of the word.”77 Busch states that it was especially this ancestral
line that made its greatest impact on Barth as a young child.78 In addition to his
introduction to theology by way of the Pietist songs taught to him by his mother, Barth
attended the “Lerber” school in Bern as a young child, a school “established to promote
the cause of Pietism in contrast to the ‘liberal state schools.’”79
Barth’s influences reveal that he was not inclined to all the ideas of Pietism but
rather to specific aspects of it, particularly in his early life (1907–1912). A lecture from
1910 reveals Barth’s ideas on faith as morality—individual morality linked to religion. In
this respect Barth was agreeing with the Pietist idea, that “it is important for the person to
become acquainted with Jesus of Nazareth.”80 Here, we can see in the Pietistic view,
which focuses on the individual, the movement of the individual to God as the human
person’s first act on the basis of faith. Barth’s ideas on the nature of faith as individual
morality, a morality with its basis in religion, reveals his early teacher Herrman’s
influence. For Herrman, “the prerequisite for religion is the morality of man.”81 Barth’s
early sermons also reflected his Pietist influences with respect to the individual’s role in
faith. He says in a sermon from 1909, quoting Angelus Silesius, “It is not outside, the
fool seeks it there/it is in you, you bring it forth eternally.”82 Again in a later sermon in
1911, Barth says Christians believe what they themselves experience in this way “God is
awakened in us.”83 T. F. Torrance suggests, and I agree, that Barth’s thinking in his early

77

Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists, 11.
Ibid.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid., 14–15.
81
Ibid., 14.
82
Ibid., 15.
83
Ibid..
78

22

theology moved “between two poles, from the new world within the Bible and the
concrete life of human beings around him “forcing Barth to come to terms with the whole
pietistic traditions of inwardness and diluting it to a purely individual hope.”84
Barth’s treatment of Pietism with respect to the individual’s role in faith forms a
key aspect of his critique of Pietism that was to be reflected in the first edition of his
commentary on Romans. Archibald Spencer argues that what Barth discovered in the
Bible was “revolutionary.”
It was not a rejection of “idealism, pietism and socialism . . . it was not right
human thoughts about God but right divine thoughts about men...This was the
overriding purpose of his composition of the commentary of Romans in the first
edition.”85
Historical Development of Petitionary Prayer in Barth’s Later Theology (19361968)
Introduction
The development of petitionary prayer in Barth’s later theology represented by his major
work, the CD, is presented in the form of a literature review with attention given to his
later works by Jüngel and Webster. Such theologians have written on Barth’s works with
respect to his ethics and moral ontology. They have examined Barth’s claims of divinehuman correspondence, prayer, invocation, and the nature of Barth’s theology. The
following section presents their individual ideas on Barth. It also explains where their
ideas support this thesis.

84

Thomas F. Torrance, Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology, 1910–1931 (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 2000), 36.
85
Spencer, Clearing a Space for Human Action, 135–136.

23

Literature Review: The Significance of Barth’s Theology of Prayer
Eberhard Jüngel
Jüngel was Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy of Religion at
Tübingen University from 1969 until his retirement in 2003. He authored a number of
articles and books on Christian theology including Theological Essays I and II. He
authored two books on Barth and wrote several essays on Christian ethics and invocation
(prayer). He considered the writings of Barth as “seductive and impressive, they demand
something more than to be read with approval (or rejection)… they demand to be
studied.”86 Jüngel’s attention to Barth’s exegesis and his ethical ideas form the majority
of his attention to and critique of Barth’s overall contribution. Jüngel believes that
Barth’s overall contribution is his demonstration of the Word of God as the Yes of God.87
Jüngel states,
We are indebted to his realization of the unsurpassability of the divine Yes for
what may be his most significant work: the doctrine election. From his realization
of the humanity of the God who says Yes came his masterwork, the Christology.
And with the realization of how the divine Yes can be answered in a Christian
life, his unfinished lifework came to an end.88
Jüngel’s goal in studying Barth is to show the consistency of his theology throughout his
life, to show the dimensions of Barth’s dogmatic style and to display its unique qualities.
Jüngel aims to show that from the beginning of Barth’s theological career to his later
works Barth continually revisited and rethought his ideas as new beginnings. Barth, he
says, was not afraid to reconstruct his ideas and begin anew (even in CD).89 “Barth’s path
from the Epistle to the Romans to the Church Dogmatics, with all its carefully considered

Eberhard Jüngel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press,
1986), 12.
87
Ibid., 18.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid., 13.
86

24

self-corrections and turnabouts, was consistent.”90 Jüngel believes that at the very least
the theologian’s life’s work should “provoke us the desire . . . to continue to build in the
same way.”91
God’s being, Jüngel argues, flows both from who He is as God and from His
actions towards us as human individuals. Although God is hidden from us, He chooses to
reveal Himself to us. We come to understand that God is hidden through revelation.92
Jüngel states that “revelation means God’s self-interpretation as Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.”93 It is God who acts first in choosing to reveal Himself to us.
God is thus not to be thought of “only in a functional sense,” although God’s
being can be conceived only as a “personal being” according to Gollwitzer, “may
be, at any rate used theologically, only as a concept of relationship.”94 This
relationship is revealed, that is, becomes visible to us in Jesus Christ in the
“antithesis of the cross thus on the basis of the action that is our salvation.”95
Thus, the Christian can be in relationship with God in Jesus Christ because God has made
it possible through the divinity and humanity of Jesus. Jüngel concludes that “the
significance of the historical Jesus consists in the fact that he is the human person in
correspondence to God and as such is the Son of God who also wishes to make us into
human persons in correspondence to God, which means, into human persons who, instead
of being unhappy gods, are content to be truly human persons.”96 Thus, God’s
relationship to the human person “can only be made on the basis of this one event,”97 the

90

Ibid.,.
Ibid., 21.
92
Eberhard Jüngel, Theological Essays, vol. 2, ed. and trans. John B. Webster (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1995), 124.
93
Eberhard Jüngel, God’s Being Is in Becoming: The Trinitarian Being of God in the Theology of Karl
Barth, trans. John B. Webster (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 77.
94 ̈
Jungel, God’s Being Is in Becoming, 106–107.
95 ̈
Jungel, Theological Essays, vol. 2, 137.
96
Ibid., 119.
97
Ibid., 132.
91

25

death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God chooses to define Himself as God revealed to
us in the human person, Jesus Christ. “Everything here depends upon the fact that for the
Christian faith the meanings of ‘God’ and ‘humanity’ are defined by reference to the
person of Jesus Christ.”98 In Jesus Christ, God made a decision about humanity’s future
and the relationship between Himself and humanity. “The person called by that name is
humanity in correspondence to God.”99
On the basis of this one man, Jesus who corresponds to God then all of humanity
now consists in corresponding to God. Jesus does not exist to correspond to God
solely for his own sake, but in his being God makes a decision about all, in that
this one man who corresponds to God brings into that correspondence all who do
not correspond to God. Paul calls this event, in which we are brought into
correspondence with God, justification.100
Thus, Barth regards the connection between the human person and God as a distinctive
relationship based on God’s grace to pardon sin because of Jesus Christ on one hand and
the deep appreciation of the human agent towards God for His loving kindness on the
other.101
Jüngel explains that in Barth’s theology God’s grace has two foci. First God’s
revelation, the fact that He spoke to the human agent is grace. Second the words that He
spoke, the Word of God is also grace. “But if the very fact that God speaks to us is
already grace, then the content of what God speaks must also be grace in all
circumstances.”102 Jüngel uses his discussion on Barth’s approach to the gospel and the
law in order to reveal the nature of Barth’s insight on God’s covenantal relationship with

98

Ibid., 132.
Ibid.
100
Ibid., 133.
101
CD, II/2, 564.
102 ̈
Jungel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, 111.
99

26

the human creature.103 Barth’s theology begins with God first acting in relation to
humanity and then the human responding. Because “the relation of God to humankind is
first and foremost an expression of the divine disposition . . . [his] loving action in
accordance with his being, his gracious action towards the sinner.”104
Jüngel suggests that human action corresponds to God’s action in Barth’s
anthropology where “human decision corresponds to divine action.”105 Therefore, “where
God acts and we receive (and only then can begin to act) . . . there we are seen to act—
precisely in receiving. God as Lord of the covenant . . . necessarily becomes the judge of
man, the law of his existence.”106 The analogy between God and humanity that Barth
orders as the gospel and law defines his anthropology in that the connection between
gospel and law is a correspondence between God and the human person. The work of
God’s grace reaches us through the gospel, humanity, who was under the law because of
sin, is now commanded to and empowered to act like Christ. “It is precisely as a doer that
a person corresponds to God.”107 Jüngel believes that such an analogy of gospel and law
defines Barth’s understanding of correspondence or analogy of God and humanity. It also
propels Barth’s insistence that the ethics, the nature of good human action (the goodness
of human action in relation to divine command), is tied to dogmatics in its role of
expounding the Word of God for the church.
Jüngel’s summary of Barth’s ethics throughout the CD supports this thesis in
tracing the placement of prayer as within the command of God and reconciliation. First,

103

Ibid., 118.
Ibid., 118.
105
Ibid., 124.
106
Ibid.
107 ̈
Jungel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, 125.
104

27

Barth develops his ethics in the doctrine of creation, reconciliation, and redemption by
way of his examination of the command of God as the Reconciler and the Redeemer.
Next, Jüngel regards the command of God in relation to the human action. Human action
is defined as “good” only when the human person responds to God’s command in
obedience. The doctrine of creation then shows us that God is Creator and we therefore
exist and live before Him. We live before God in freedom, a freedom that comes from
God’s grace and the freedom of the human person to respond to that grace. Next, the
doctrine of reconciliation heralds God’s call to the human person by rendering eternal
relief from His judgement through the covenant fulfilled in Jesus Christ.108 In this way,
the “reconciled God lays claim to humanity through his command, in so far as we are
judged and uplifted, justified and sanctified in the gospel.”109 The human person
acknowledges and obeys God’s command/claim through three actions, two of which
Barth links to prayer—baptism and praying—and living in agreement with the Lord’s
Prayer.110 These actions are the elements of the daily working out of the command God in
the Christian life.
Jüngel considers Barth’s The Christian Life: CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments111 in
his essay “Invocation of God as the Ethical Ground of Christian Action,” which will
prove useful both in the discussion of prayer as invocation and in the context of Barth’s
ethics. Jüngel argues that the central premise of Barth’s The Christian Life is redemption
grounded in revelation and reconciliation.112 Jüngel argues, “We are to understand both
In CD, I/IV, 22 Barth states that “The fellowship which originally existed between God and man, which
was then disturbed and jeopardised, the purpose of which is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in the work of
reconciliation, we describe as the covenant.”
109 ̈
Jungel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, 126.
110
The third action is observance of the Lord’s Supper.
111
Title will be reduced to The Christian Life henceforth.
112 ̈
Jungel, Theological Essays, Volume I, 155.
108

28

the being, action and commanding of God creator and redeemer and the being and action
of the human person as creature and ‘future heir’ out of the event of the reconciliation of
God.”113 Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation (under his “special ethics”) presents a model
of God and human interaction made possible through the covenant as realized at its core
in Jesus Christ. God’s speech in creation and redemption through the covenant is to be
regarded (according to Barth and Jüngel agrees) as one and the same command but in
different forms.114
Jüngel explains Barth’s definition of ethics in several ways. First he suggests that
what Barth means by ethics is good human action in relation to Jesus Christ. He states
“And the same is true of the action which is to be called good. It is not ethically
constructed. It is not ethically deduced . . . it is the event—the many events—of the
encounter between the commanding God and the [person] who acts.”115 Thus for Barth,
ethics, good human action, seeks to answer questions of what is good action by directing
the human agent “in the most profound freedom through God’s gracious command.”116 In
turn, the human agent “corresponds to these imperatives through love for God and
through action which is in conformity to that love.”117 The response to God’s command is
obedience in love because the human being is claimed by God’s love118 and has its
identity through the covenant, which came out of that love. Jüngel regards this entire
argument as the fundamental elements of Christian ethics “which equally makes human
action thematic from the point of view of free decision.”119 Specifically, Barth says that

113

Ibid., 155.
Ibid., 156.
115
Ibid.
116
Ibid., 157.
117
Ibid.
118
Ibid., 157–158.
119 ̈
Jungel, Theological Essays, Volume I, 158.
114

29

the human person is humbled for invocation, calling upon the name of God in prayer in
gratitude and in petition. The Christian is “empowered for this and obligated to it, by
God’s grace…as the one thing in many that God who has reconciled the world to himself
in Jesus Christ demands.”120
Jüngel’s second point about Barth’s ethics is that the definition of good comes
from how Barth regards value. He states that the only being and action that can be
defined as good are God’s (Luke 18:19; Mark 10:8; Psalm 34:8, 145:9). Therefore, it
rests with God to define the good on the part of His creation. Such defining requires a
human response that is “analogous to the act of God himself.”121 In close analogy to this,
Jüngel argues that Barth attributes the existence of the Christian community as the
continuing work of Jesus Christ. The Christian life is action. The action of calling upon
God (invocation) “is speech in the ethical context from the point of view of its
accomplishment of the act in which we lift up or hearts to invoke God as “our Father.”122
Barth regards the proper ethical question not of an individual nature but that of the
community of faith, not “what should I do?” but rather “what should we do?” Hence we
call upon God as “our Father.”
Third, Jüngel argues that this leads Barth to position the Lord’s Prayer as the
building blocks for his doctrine of reconciliation. “The Lord’s Prayer is laid out in
manifest analogy to the architecture of the dogmatic parts of the doctrine of reconciliation
which are constructed in parallel to each other.”123 Jüngel argues that Barth’s analysis of
the Lord’s Prayer presumes divine and human action based in a relationship of invocation

120

CD, IV/4, 43.
Jüngel, Theological Essays, Volume I, 159.
122
Ibid., 160.
123
Ibid.
121

30

on the human side, asking God on the divine side for a response/action that is distinct
from our own work/capacities. Jüngel regards Barth’s invocation of God as divine human
action in correspondence, that is, “in our invocation of God commanded of us by the God
whose ‘being is in act,’ we are exalted to a life in act which corresponds to God, so that
in our very relation to God we ‘may and should be truly active.’”124
Jüngel suggests that in the CD is Barth’s discovery of the “call on me” as the
basic meaning of every divine command. Thus, calling upon God in prayer is ethics as
instruction. Jüngel understands Barth to show throughout the doctrine of reconciliation
that the ethical question: “What shall we do?” is replaced with a request for instruction:
“How then shall we pray?” The response Jesus Christ provides is, “this then is how you
should pray, ‘Our Father in heaven hallowed be your name . . .’” (Matthew 6:9). The
human’s decision to call upon God in obedience to this command is at the heart of
Barth’s understanding of ethics. Jüngel addresses the obvious objections by explaining
that human moral will is contrary to the will of God. The statement refers not only to the
Christian life, rather it is how the Christian includes the whole of humanity in prayer as
he or she calls upon the name of God for the hallowing of God’s name and His will to be
done.
At this point, attention turns to Webster’s literature on Barth. Webster is linked to
Jüngel in that he introduces the English-speaking world to Jüngel through his
dissertation, which included translations of some of Jüngel’s works.

124

Ibid., 161.

31

John B. Webster
Webster wrote the introduction to and is editor of the Cambridge Companion to
Karl Barth. In this work he provides an extensive biographical sketch of Barth’s life and
works. Webster believes that Barth’s life and his works “are inseparable because his
writings need to be read in light of biography and vice versa. He was close to the center
of most of the major developments in German-speaking Protestant theology and church
life from the early 1920s to the early 1960s.”125 In contrast to Jüngel’s penchant for
Barth’s rebirth of ideas, Webster highlights the consistency in Barth’s train of thought
throughout his theological career. Both Jüngel and Webster, however, want to show that
Barth’s work is not reducible to one idea, principle, or theme. They support Barth’s
multifaceted ideas and a theological method that sought to challenge the established
traditions of the church. Webster is sympathetic to the bulk of Barth’s ideas but provides
a balanced critique of many of his works. He calls Barth a “vivid, provocative, at times
infuriating but never dull pupil of the Word.”126
Webster studied Barth’s life and writings at great length. His insight into Barth’s
work is evident in a number of places. His expertise is able to offer reasons for Barth’s
intent. For example, he notes that Barth was “going against the grain of some of the most
settled intellectual habits of modernity.”127 He says of Barth’s CD that it was unified
around a twofold concern “for God and humanity, agents in covenant, bound together in
the mutuality of grace and gratitude.”128

125

Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 1.
Ibid., 14.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid.
126

32

In addition, Webster’s expertise on Barth allows him to provide insight into how
to read Barth’s works. First, he suggests that one way to read Barth is to remember that
the theologian was “distancing himself from idealist and subject-[centred] tradition.”129
Such traditions opposed his views on ethics and human moral selfhood. Webster suggests
that Barth was offering “a different way of doing Christian theology.”130 Second, reading
Barth is not a matter of taking one theme and trying to understand a linear progression.
Instead, the observant reader must examine the extensions, development, and
recapitulation of that theme as Barth discourses with the reader. Thus, “no one stage of
the argument is definitive; rather, it is the whole which conveys the substance of what he
has to say. As a result, Barth’s views on any given topic cannot be comprehended in a
single statement, but only in the interplay of a range of articulations of a theme.”131
Additionally, Webster reviews Barth’s ideas on Scripture by examining how his
Göttingen lectures on the Reformed tradition (specifically, the Reformed confessions of
E. F. K. Müller) impacted his ideas on God’s revelation as an expression of His mercy,
which figures prominently in Barth’s commentary on Romans. “This event of revelatory
mercy constitutes not only the formal but also the material center of the Reformed
confessions.”132 Webster points to Barth’s purpose in examining the Reformed
confessions. He states that ultimately, Barth is interested in the Word of God as stated in
Scripture. Webster’s point in highlighting Barth’s examination of the confessions of the
church is to point out that Barth would carry these ideas into this doctrine of
reconciliation in CD. Webster sums up his arguments as follows:

129

Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 11.
Ibid.
131
Ibid., 9.
132
Ibid., 47.
130

33

There is much in these opening lectures of the cycle that anticipates Barth’s
ecclesiology in the doctrine of reconciliation from the 1950s—above all, the
emphasis on the way in which the visible forms of the church testify to (rather
than replace, embody or realize) the communicative presence of the activity of
God.133
Webster explains that in addition to Barth’s focus on Scripture as God’s Word, his
attention to the Reformed confessions “pressed him to clarify the significance of
Christian theology as doctrine, and the normativity of Holy Scripture for doctrinal
construction.”134 Doctrine is an expression of the church’s activities towards God.
Moreover, the life of the church is in looking outwards to the world for the purpose of
proclaiming the gospel. “Doctrine is thus crucial to resisting immanentizing of the life of
the church, to ensuring its reference outwards.”135
Webster highlights Barth’s lectures on the life of the church in the nineteenth
century.136 Webster notes that it is in this work that Barth presents Christian theology as a
“conversation” with others (that is with both Christians and non-Christians), “a
conversation which deeply and intensively engaged him from the beginning of his career
as a theological professor until the end of his life.”137 On several occasions Webster
makes the point that Barth’s interest was in historical theology that looks to the past life
of the church and the church’s doctrines. His purpose, Webster states, was to explore how
church doctrine reveals God’s history in relation to the human creature, “which is the
history of God’s sanctification of human thought and speech in the life of the church.”138

133

Ibid.
Ibid., 59.
135
Ibid.
136
Karl Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century: Its Background and History, 2nd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
137
John B. Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology, 91.
138
Ibid., 117.
134

34

In Barth’s Moral Theology: Human Action in Barth’s Thought Webster presents a
convincing and positive view of the continuity of Barth’s thoughts, specifically his views
on the human ethical agent acting in the context of God’s command. He engages with
several scholars (for example, Hans Urs von Balthasar) who suggest that Barth’s early
theology does not extend into his later works (meaning CD). Webster believes this to be a
misunderstanding of Barth’s ethical stance in his early work because his later works were
not “freshly minted convictions,”139 but lavish expansions on ideas already expressed in
his early materials. Webster regards that Barth himself agreed with this position later in
his life.
But he also took pains to state the continuity of his work: reflecting on the past ten
years in 1938, for example, he saw the period as a matter of deepening and
applying what he had been brought to think before 1928, so that his ethical–
political engagements in the 1930s are only the making visible of what had
already been there.140
Webster’s expression of Barth’s overall theology can be found in his book Barth. Once
again, Webster emphasizes that Barth’s theological ideas and themes in CD were not a
mature voice. Rather, Barth’s development was already in place in his early theology to
one extent or another. For example, he states that Barth’s early lectures (namely those
from the 1920s) and occasional writings are “at least as important as the commentaries
and essays which Barth published at that time.”141 In fact, Webster states that Barth’s
early theology shows “striking continuity with the later Church Dogmatics. The tying
together of the doctrines of Trinity and revelation that will form Barth’s basic approach to
theological prolegomena in the first volume of the Church Dogmatics in 1932 is already

John Webster, Barth’s Moral Theology: Human Action in Barth’s Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 3.
140
Webster, Barth’s Moral Theology, 4.
141
John B. Webster, Barth, Outstanding Christian Thinkers (London: Continuum, 2000), 23.
139

35

firmly in place in 1924.”142 Barth’s materials on ethics are taken with only slight
revisions into his CD. Furthermore, Webster suggests that by his first job as professor,
Barth had already made theological decisions that would shape the form and content of
his work done in CD.143
Webster’s assessment of Barth supports this thesis in the following ways. First,
Webster’s description of correspondence as a theme within Barth’s ethics144 proves
valuable. For instance, Webster suggests that when Barth says “correspondence” he
means “conformity.” That is the correspondence between our human action “the life-act”
of repenting of sin and turning to Christ, and the divine action (God’s will and plan in the
work of salvation through Jesus Christ) from which it derives.145 Webster argues that this
is Barth’s basis for human morality. “On Barth’s terms, moral responsibility is not
defined by reference to an inner deliberative sanctum, but by the closely allied notions of
‘response’ and ‘correspondence.’”146 Thus, the human decision to act or not to act, for
example to pray or not to pray is a response to the Word of God “spoken to us as
command.”147 “The grace of God wills and creates the covenant between God and man. It
therefore determines man to existence in this covenant. It determines him to be the
partner of God. It therefore determines his action to correspondence, conformity,
uniformity with God’s action.”148 Webster suggests that the language of correspondence
is central to Barth’s understanding “of the relation of God to the human creature.”149

142

Ibid., 23.
Ibid.
144
John B. Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
145
Ibid., 57.
146
Ibid.
147
Ibid.
148
CD, II/2, 628.
149
Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 58.
143

36

Second, Webster’s attention to the connections between Barth’s early and later
theology supports my approach to Barth’s ideas on prayer. In Barth’s Earlier Theology:
Four Studies Webster examines Barth’s theology in his works from the 1920s. Webster
explores what Barth was learning from his intense readings of Calvin, Zwingli, and the
Reformed Confessional writings.150 Webster’s goal here, as in most of his writings on
Barth, is to examine how his thought in CD is reflected in and develops from his earlier
theology. Webster is of the mind that Barth’s work in CD is evident from his very early
theological efforts to one extent or another. He does not believe that Barth’s ideas in CD
were the result of a final maturation of Barth’s theological efforts. For example, on the
influence of Zwingli and others, Webster writes: “even in Gottingen there was beginning
to coalesce in his mind the basic shape of the account of Christianity rendered in the
Church Dogmatics.”151 Webster wants Barth’s readers to understand that although his
“so-called break with Protestant liberalism” did occur, Barth “from the beginning was a
moral theologian, and so he remained.”152 Likewise, Webster regards that Barth had the
idea of divine human correspondence from very early on and his later articulation of
these ideas in CD gives them “a greater profile to and a massive amplification of the
affirmations.”153 Essentially Webster is saying is that Barth’s theological ideas were more
complex than they appear in his early development. The noted “break” from liberalism,
Webster suggests, was Barth’s attempt to make sense of his own path “towards

Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology, 4.
Ibid.
152
Ibid.
153
Ibid., 23–24.
150
151

37

understanding of God’s freedom in which he will later root his convictions about God’s
humanity. From the very beginning, Barth says ‘no’ in order to learn how to say ‘yes.’”154
Furthermore, Webster argues that Barth’s ideas on human action were already
formed in his 1922 lectures on Calvinist and the Reformed confessions. He proposes,
“God’s mighty acts necessarily, inescapably, include talk of human action: this
conviction, already present in Barth’s earliest reflections on social ethics, was to remain
one of his most consistently emphasized theological motifs.”155 The best examples of
these are his lectures on ethics from the late 1920s. “They lay characteristic emphasis on
the inseparability of ethics and dogmatics and the importance of moral action as the locus
of human response to the divine initiative—themes that will subsequently be explored at
great length in Barth’s magnum opus.”156
Third, Webster’s presentation of Barth’s moral ontology supports my ideas on
Barth’s location of prayer in ethics. In Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, Webster attempts
to show that CD in addition to being a work of systematics is also Barth’s moral
ontology, which is “an extensive account of the situation in which human agents act.”157
Barth, Webster argues, “describes the space the agents occupy” with only minimal
attention to the predicaments in which humans find themselves, predicaments which may
require a moral response.158 This lack of attention to the predicaments that bring about
moral thought places Barth’s moral ontology on a different footing than is commonly
understood in Christian traditions. “Yet Barth pushes this kind of moral selfhood out of

154

Webster, Barth, 24.
Ibid., 146.
156
Ibid., 147.
157
Ibid., 1.
158
Ibid., 2.
155

38

the way in order to introduce in its place what is to him a more theologically—and
humanly—satisfying account of moral life as genuine action in analogy to prior divine
action.”
Webster argues throughout Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation that moral ontology
in CD is an account of “what the good is, rather than is chosen or desired.”159 The action
of the human agent and the human agent themselves are inside of God’s prescribed plan.
They act within certain limits when they obey God’s commands. “To be ‘inside’ moral
space in this way is to be circumscribed by a morally textured reality that is inexhaustibly
independent of our private and public dispositions.”160 Christian ethics, and by extension
theological ethics, attempts to answer the question: What is good human action from
within that moral space defined by God’s commands?
The command of God is to be understood, Webster suggests, as separate and
distinct from human ideas and thoughts; it is a gift.161 Obligation is given along with this
gift “at the hands of a gracious God.”162 Commands then are gifts that the human agent
responds to in freedom, a freedom that is on God’s side as He freely addresses the human
agent and freely offers His salivation.163 By contrast, the human agent is freed to respond
to God’s actions and in responding finds freedom through responding to the command of
God, responding to the grace of God.
Webster’s brief attention to Barth’s contribution on the Lord’s Prayer and its
significance is expanded upon in this paper to examine what prayer means for the

159

Ibid., 216.
Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 216.
161
Ibid., 112.
162
Ibid.
163
Ibid.
160

39

Christian today, beyond the element of personal and private devotion. The foci of
Christian and theological ethics are the practices of the Christian life in faith, of which
prayer is one such common practice. Webster suggests that Barth’s use of the Lord’s
Prayer to elaborate on this theme is not an accident. He says, “Barth’s use of the Lord’s
Prayer as a framework for expounding the Christian life is no mere incidental device, but
consistent with his understanding of the theological task as a whole...It is an explication
of that which is given to faith as faith hears and obeys the command of a gracious
God.”164 This is how prayer fits into Barth’s moral ontology. He describes prayer as
divine and human action in correspondence. The “prior divine action of prayer” is God’s
command to pray. “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and
pray” (2 Chronicles 7:14) “and call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you and
you shall glorify me” (Psalm 50:15). “This then is how you should pray, ‘Our Father in
heaven hallowed be your name’” (Matthew 6:9). Addressing God as Father, Barth states,
is appropriate because that is who and what He is. Webster states, “‘Father’ is not to be
construed as human naming, but as a predicate identifying that which properly (not
merely by attribution or metaphorical transfer) belongs to God.”165 Calling upon the
name of God as Father is Barth’s idea of the Christian response to the covenantal grace of
God. Barth states, “In the sphere of covenant, this is the normal action corresponding to
the fulfillment of the covenant in Jesus Christ. Man is empowered for this, and obligated
to it, by God’s grace. In it man in his whole humanity takes his proper place over against
God.”166

164

Ibid., 217–218.
Ibid., 178.
166
Barth, CD, IV/4, The Christian Life: Lecture Fragments, 43.
165

40

Webster’s explanation of Barth’s human and divine action as the fruit of
communion between God and the human agent will also be helpful in the discussion on
divine human correspondence in the context of prayer. Webster notes that because
Barth’s CD is an extended treatise on the statement “God is,” it is also anthropology
because it examines the form of God’s being, His chosen path as specified in the history
of Jesus Christ, and the place that He has willed for human participation with Himself
(that is, in Jesus Christ). But Barth addresses both human action and divine action; hence
his “anthropology” is really “Theo-anthropology, an examination of the doctrine of God
and the doctrine of man, the commerce and communion between God and man.”167
Prayer fits precisely into Barth’s “theo-anthropology” because it is a transaction
(commerce) between human and divine as they correspond in communion. The
communion is based on God’s covenant, which He planned in advance in His freedom
for His partnership with humanity through Jesus Christ. Webster suggests rightly,
“because the theme of Church Dogmatics is this God in covenant with humanity, the
dogmatics is intrinsically an ethical dogmatics, and includes description of the human
covenant partner as agent.”168 In short, in Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, Webster uses
CD to tease out from Barth’s ideas a “Christian theological account of human agency”169
that can be useful for the Christian community today.
In Barth’s Moral Theology, Webster clarifies Barth’s thoughts on the human
agent, moral ontology, and ethics as he critiques Barth’s ethics. Webster suggests that the
human agent finds its best definition in the context of God’s self-limitation. “God’s self-

Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 4; Karl Barth, The Humanity of God (Richmond:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 11.
168
John B. Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 4.
169
Ibid., 13.
167

41

limitation in the person and activity of Jesus Christ . . . fulfills the covenant between God
and his human creation.”170 Calling on the name of God, or invocation, represents the one
human action that is consistent with God’s self-limitation. “Where God as the one who
has reconciled the world to himself in Jesus Christ encounters man . . . and where it is a
matter of the commanding of God and the responsibility of man in this particular
encounter, we stand as it were before the model of all that takes place between God and
man.”171
Thus, prayer or calling upon God in prayer (invocation) becomes exemplary
human action. Webster notes that Barth’s language throughout the doctrine of
reconciliation (CD, IV/4) is on partnership between God and the human agent made
possible by the covenant of grace. “What this means is that invocation of God is
attributable to the immediate self-bestowal of God in the Holy Spirit, and is at the same
time the ‘dynamic actualization’ of our partnership in the covenant.”172 For Barth, prayer
is at the “innermost center of the covenant between God and man.”173 Prayer is also
genuine human action, “the primary motif of the Christian’s ethical life.”174 Prayer directs
human action to God’s action, actions He alone is able to bring about as He chooses. In
chapter 3 I focus on Barth’s interplay between the themes of the command of God,
prayer, and the doctrine of reconciliation. The goal is to establish the significance of
Barth’s ideas on the meaning of prayer beyond its devotional dimension. By devotional
dimension, I mean the focus of prayer as a way to build relationship with God through

Webster, Barth’s Moral Theology, 168.
Webster, Barth’s Moral Theology, 169.
172
Ibid., 171.
173
CD, III/4, 93.
174
Karl Barth, The Christian Life: CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 103.
170
171

42

the act of regular individual or communal prayer. In addressing the devotional nature of
prayer, Tiessen suggests that prayer as devotion trains the individual to recognize God’s
actions in the world, specifically with regard to the providence of God.175 Barth raises
objections to prayer in the context of devotion. He states that God’s actions demonstrate
that prayer goes beyond devotion to a wider context, that is, that prayer is human speech
uttered to God and in this apparent simplicity lies the mystery of the gift of prayer, the
ability to call upon God as Father knowing that He hears and responds.176 In the next
chapter, I discuss Barth’s works Romans, Gottingen Dogmatics, and Ethics, examining
the historical development of his early theology of prayer.

175

Terrance L. Tiessen, Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press), 108.
176
CD, III/4, 92.

43

Chapter 2: Historical Development of Prayer in Barth’s Early Theology (1915–
1935)
Introduction
In a sermon delivered in the early in his theological development (1920–1924),
Barth says that the one “who prays the Lord’s prayer aright will be heard: in difficult and
adverse circumstances; his way will become clearer, more steady, more perfect, as
perfect as the way of a man can be.”1 The assurance of being heard continued for Barth
into his somewhat reformed creedal understanding of prayer, particularly in his early
development. He did not simply duplicate the ideas of the reformers, but rather engaged
their voices along with other influences. The following section considers these other
influences around the time that The Epistle to the Romans was published.
The Epistle to the Romans2
In Romans, Barth criticizes Pietism because it claims that being is in God and
God is in being, which cannot be realized in an individualistic way.3 Barth’s influences,
particularly those of Pietist ideals of individualism and religious morality, never quite
settled in Barth’s mind. He wrestles throughout his theology to reveal the distinctness
between religion and God’s revealed word. “Religion is one thing,” he writes,
“Revelation is quite another thing.”4 He questions these ideas often. But, because of who
God is,5 Barth argues “we may not pursue talk of divine action in isolation from talk of

1

Karl Barth and Edward Thurneysen, Come Holy Spirit, trans. George W. Richards, Elmer G.
Homrighausen, and Karl J. Ernst (New York: Round Table Press, 1934), 24–25.
2
The Epistle to the Romans will be shortened to Romans henceforth.
3
Busch, Karl Barth and the Pietists, 66.
4
John McConnachie, The Significance of Karl Barth (Liverpool: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931), 67.
5
Spencer, Clearing a Space for Human Action, 68.

44

human ethical realm.6” In other words, “he never speaks of God without at the same time
speaking about man.”7 The first edition of The Epistle to the Romans8 was “an assault on
individualism. The understanding of the individual as the ‘creative subject’ of culture,
history, and moral values was, for Barth, the real enemy of any truly theological
understanding of the human agent.”9 Human action stems from God’s action (from divine
action) as the human agent responds not as an individual, not even an individual with a
conscience, but as part of the body of Christ.10 While writing Romans I Barth’s influences
included Calvin, Luther, Overbeck, Beck, and Pietist writers. In the summer of 1916 in a
letter to Thurneysen regarding his exegetical work. Barth explained that “with great
excitement he found in J. T. Beck a guide who led him in this exegetical work.”11
In the second edition of The Epistle to the Romans,12 Barth quotes Overbeck as he
addresses with confidence the idea that “God knows us.”13 In his exegesis of the verses
on justification (Romans 5:9–11), Barth quotes Calvin: “We praise God as God; and the
fountain of all possible good things is opened unto us.”14 Barth seems to quote Calvin to
support his idea that the nature of divine human relationship rests in peace with God.
Calvin writes, “Peace with God is contrasted with every form of intoxicated security of
the flesh.” Christians have this peace through faith in Christ, which is, Barth suggests,
“the proper ordering of the relation between man as man with God as God.”15

6

Webster, Barth's Moral Theology, 18.
McConnachie, The Significance of Karl Barth, 65.
8
The first edition of The Epistle to the Romans will be shortened to Romans I henceforth.
9
Spencer, Clearing a Space for Human Action, 137.
10
Ibid., 146–147.
11
Paul S. Chung, Karl Barth: God’s Word in Action (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2008), 114.
12
The second edition of The Epistle to the Romans will be shortened to Romans II henceforth.
13
Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed., trans. Edwin C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford, 1968), 162.
14
Ibid., 164.
15
Ibid., 151.
7

45

Among his Pietist influences, Barth echoes Johannes Bengel, C. H. Rieger, and
August Tholuck. In addition, his studies included the biographies of David Spleiß and
Ludwig Hofacker.16 Barth’s treatment of individualism in Romans I bolsters his assault
on liberalism, pietism, and nineteenth-century beliefs about the individual as the pivot in
culture and history.17 In this way, “he was attacking a religion which provided bourgeois
culture with perhaps its most crucial ideological support.”18
In Romans I and II, Barth’s primary concern is exegesis. Through exegesis he
attempts “to see through and beyond history into the spirit of the Bible, which is the
eternal Spirit.”19 Romans I and II demonstrate that God purposed to build relationship
with His human creation before time, in other words, predestination. “Thus before every
moment in time, God foreordains; and the very brokenness and indirectness of our
relationship with Him sanctions and authenticates the calling of those who love Him: if
any man love God, the same is known by him” (1 Corinthians 8:3).20 In Romans I, Barth
describes God’s action and God’s history as unique from human history.21 In Romans I,
he wants to make it clear that “the movement and action of God in history is beyond the
reach of historical investigation.”22 Historical investigation is accomplished through
human effort as it explores events in time. God’s history is completely apart from any
such investigation. God provides the way to correspond with His creation through Jesus
Christ. It is God who acts first in making this correspondence possible by allowing
Christians to hear and understand His Word, the truth. “The truth of the love of men

16

McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, 136.
Ibid., 141.
18
Ibid.
19
Barth, Romans, 1.
20
Ibid., 324.
21
McCormack, Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, 143.
22
Ibid., 147.
17

46

towards God is His Truth, not man’s...It must therefore be distinguished absolutely from
temporal human knowledge.”23 I agree with Jüngel, who says that “we are dependent
upon . . . a word which is to be measured against the God who speaks, which theology
calls the Word of God.”24 Barth’s overall aim in Romans I (and to a greater degree in
Romans II) and in his early theological development (1910–1931) was to allow the Word
of God to direct the doctrine and work of the church and the life of the Christian “in the
whole realm”25 of their existence.
The Epistle to the Romans Commentary: Connection to Barth’s Theology on Prayer
Prayer, as an idea beyond personal devotion, is evident in Barth’s commentary on
Romans in three ways. First, in his exegesis of Romans 3 he argues that the motive
behind the individual act of praying is an acknowledgement of the limits of human
existence. Barth seems to be saying that the motive reflects the fact that the human agent,
in his or her own being acknowledges (at some level) that he or she cannot escape the
limits of humanity and the consequence of sin. The essential element in prayer, from
which this motive stems, is not personal devotion, communion with God, or even an
experience. Rather, the individual prayer has confidence that his or her existence is bound
up in the plan and limitless purpose of God, in Jesus Christ. It is He, the Risen Lord, who
justifies the Christian’s prayer. But Christians need not despair. The Holy Spirit
intercedes for the Christian when he or she prays with incomprehensible “groanings”
(Romans 8:26). Barth interprets these “groanings” as songs of worship, which, when
combined with our prayer, justifies the words of the prayer. He writes, “the justification

23

Barth, Romans, 325.
Jüngel, Theological Essays, Volume 1, 125.
25
Torrance, Karl Barth: An Introduction, 47.
24

47

of our prayer is not that we have attained some higher eminence on the ladder of
prayer...The justification of our prayer and the reality of our communion with God are
grounded upon the truth that Another, The Eternal, the Second Man from heaven (1 Cor.
15: 47), stands before God pre-eminent in power and—in our place.”26 Thus, justification
of Christian prayer is a consequence of Christ’s salvific and redemptive efforts. It is a
gift. Therefore, Christological justification supersedes individual motives for praying.
Second, Barth’s expression of the problem of ethics in Romans “reminds us that
our act of thinking cannot be justified.”27 Barth equates the problem of ethics with
dogmatics.28 He regards ethical behaviour or “goodness” in the Christian’s life as “living
holy and acceptable to God,” which assumes a life of prayer. Barth believes that this is
the kind of life that God wills for the individual. Later in his career, Barth presents a
more fully formed idea of prayer within the context of the problem of ethics (the question
of human existence) in the CD. In the doctrine of God, the theologian observes that
God’s will is the life of “the praying man,” meaning Jesus Christ, and by association, all
who are in Christ. Barth articulates,
God’s eternal will is the act of prayer (in which confidence in self gives way
before confidence in God). This act is the birth of a genuine human selfawareness, in which knowledge and action can and must be attempted; in which
there drops away all fear of what is above or beside or below man, of what might
assault or threaten him; in which man becomes heir to a legitimate and necessary
and therefore an effective and triumphant claim; in which man may rule in that he
is willing to serve. If Jesus Christ was that man, if from the very beginning He
was elected man, then we have to say that God’s eternal will has as its end the life
of this man of prayer.29

26

Barth, Romans, 317.
Barth, Romans, 426.
28
Barth, Romans, 431; see also Karl Barth, Ethics (New York: Seabury Press, 1981).
29
CD, II/2, 180.
27

48

The idea of prayer being a part of ethics and ethics a part of dogmatics is evident from
early on in his theological development. Later works flesh out the idea of prayer as
human action in the realm of what is “good” human action. For example, such a theme is
present in CD, IV, where he regards prayer as “the primal and basic form of the whole
Christian ethos.”30
Third, Barth’s idea of invocation, as calling upon the name of God and that
calling upon God as Father, presumes knowledge of God and is evident in Romans in his
treatment of the gospel, specifically with reference to hearing the message of the gospel
in faith. Barth refers to the knowledge of God, the Redeemer who calls all to repentance.
In later works, Barth expands his ideas on invocation to refer to the individual Christian
life. More specifically, he regards invocation as a response in the context of the believer’s
ability to respond (responsibility) to God’s claim, God’s claim being his claim on
humanity made possible through His redemptive plan in the person of Jesus Christ.
Because of this claim, God comes to the believer in freedom and invites him or her to
pray. This action, which God initiates, highlights for Barth the very real sense that God
and the human creature are in completely separate spheres. God chose revelation to
bridge this divide and to help the believer comprehend who He is as God. In gratitude for
this gracious divine action, the human act is to respond by calling on the name of God
(invocation). Barth incorporates the nature and limits of human existence, God’s divine
nature, God’s covenant, and the response of God versus the response of the human
person, into the theme of invocation. Thus, invocation in Romans is more formative in his
later works. In the forward to the second edition of Romans Barth notes his indebtedness

30

CD, IV/4, 89.

49

to Luther, Calvin, and Beck in so far as they reveal the nature of the Christian life
according to God’s Word. He writes,
I call real understanding and explanation, that activity which Luther practiced in
his expositions with intuitive sureness, which Calvin obviously and systematically
set as the goal of his exegesis and which has at least been clearly attempted by the
more recent writers such as Hofmann, J. T. Beck, Goder and Schlatter.31
While Barth acknowledges early influences he does not cling slavishly to their ideas in
Romans II. Instead he moved in a new direction. He considers the meaning of freedom
before God in light of sin.32 He summarizes his departure from these influences:
We may, however, judge the relentlessness of Calvin, the dialectical audacity of
Kierkegard, Overbeck’s sense of awe, Dostoevsky’s hunger for eternity,
Blumhardt’s optimism, too risky and too dangerous for us. We may therefore
content ourselves with some lesser, more feeble possibility of religion. We may
fall back on some form of rationalism and pietism. Yet these more feeble types of
religion are also pregnant with implications pointing towards that outermost edge,
and some day they may bring this harsh and dangerous reality to birth.33
Barth’s departure resonates specifically in his views on election and predestination,
which challenge the classical Reformed tradition’s doctrines on these subjects,
formulating as a result his own style of dogmatics. I turn next to Barth’s first offering of
dogmatics in The Göttingen Dogmatics.
The Göttingen Dogmatics
On the strength of his work in Romans, Barth was offered a teaching opportunity
in Göttingen. While at the university, his class lectures were his first attempt at sustained
dogmatics. Barth defines dogmatics as “the basic statements and presuppositions of

31

James M. Robinson, ed., The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology, vol. 1, trans. Keith R. Crim and Louis
De Grazia Robinson (Richmond: Westminster John Knox Press, 1968), 93.
32
Barth, Romans, 253.
33
Barth, Romans, 252.

50

Christian proclamation.”34 In The Göttingen Dogmatics, Barth examines God’s being,
specifically, God as subject and object in the context of the revelation that comes from
His Word. When Barth says God’s Word, he is thinking and speaking of God’s Word in
three forms: The Word spoken by God Himself, the Word from God spoken by the
prophets and apostles and finally, the word of God proclaimed by individuals of all kinds
“in which the number of its human agents or proclaimers is theoretically unlimited.”35
For Barth, God’s Word is alive and active. God’s Word as Holy Scripture (the canon) is
complete and closed; it “took place as the witness given to revelation.”36 The Word of
God that is being proclaimed (Barth’s third form of the Word of God) includes both the
present and future components of God’s living word evident in the preaching of the Word
of God.
Barth divides his discussion of God’s being into the following categories: Word
of God, humanity in relation to the divine (God), the doctrine of the trinity, Jesus,
incarnation, predestination, and God’s revelation. Barth argues that the individual alone
has no capacity to comprehend God or His revelation. Specifically, no human body part
or organ can comprehend God. Therefore, understanding God’s revelation requires God’s
assistance. Barth presents the case that God is Himself “the content as well as the subject
of revelation.”37 God does not wait for humanity to identify this contradiction, namely,
that humankind cannot know God without God’s help. Therefore, Barth argues, God
acted first in opening humanity’s eyes to comprehend what He has revealed to them.

Karl Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion, ed. Hannelotte Reiffen,
trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 475.
35
Ibid., 14.
36
Ibid., 15.
37
Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, 174.
34

51

In other words, there will have to be an activation of the humanity that is
entangled, definitively entangled, in the contradiction. God will have to bear and
fill and make good our human incapacity by the capacity, the sufficiency, the
adequacy which can be present only in God himself for God himself . . . granting
us his good pleasure of his own free grace, that is granting us meaning, truth,
power and success.38
In summary, God’s Word is not only God’s speech, but also God’s speech that is heard
by the human.39 Revelation is God speaking in person.40
Barth sets the whole process of his dogmatic work in The Göttingen Dogmatics
invoking the “Name of the Most high” that is, calling upon God in prayer. Barth feels that
dogmatics is a “mortally dangerous undertaking,”41 and as such must be bathed in prayer.
Therefore, he begins his Göttingen lectures with the prayer of Thomas Aquinas put at the
head of his Summa Theologica: “Merciful God, I ask that you grant me as it pleases you,
to seek earnestly, to investigate carefully, to know truthfully, and to present perfectly, to
the glory of your name. Amen.”42 Barth emphasizes that while Aquinas presents an
already established viewpoint on the nature of God, he anxiously tries to learn anew what
Aquinas and the theologians of his day “took for granted.”43
Barth references prayer throughout The Göttingen Dogmatics. For instance, he
points to Solomon’s prayer, where Solomon asks God to “look upon the prayer and
petition of his servant, that his eyes may be open day and night to this house where he has
promised to set his name”44 in order to counter Solomon’s location of God in a specific
“house.” Barth describes God’s freedom as one that has no limit in time or space in that

38

Ibid., 175.
Ibid., 192.
40
CD, I/1, 304.
41
Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, 3.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid., 4.
44
Ibid., 435.
39

52

He is not present in any one “house” or place. “God’s freedom has to be God’s lordship
over time and space.”45 God as Creator rules over that which He has created (the past),
while simultaneously ruling over the present and the things to come.
Prayer also plays a significant role in the human aspect of preaching. He explains,
“Prayer is offered before and after preaching, and he seems to indicate that we are
pressing on to the frontiers of human existence between such acts.”46
Moreover, Barth regards prayer as a continuous action of the human person with
regards to faith and obedience in view of God’s relationship to humanity. He says,
And if we know that for us the only issue is that we should know God in this
fellowship with God, then how can our worship in spirit and in truth [John 4:24],
how can our watching and praying and beseeching ever cease or change
themselves into possessing and enjoying . . . this relation takes place (for if it does
not continuously take place, it is not this relation).47
Barth appears to consider continuous prayer as a relationship with “unequivocal
humanity on one side of the relation; the sure, distinguishable, personal presence of God
himself on the other side.”48
Barth characterizes the second powerful work of the Holy Spirit49 as the miracle
that allows the Christian to watch and pray on the one side and God on the other, divine
side. In the “human stammering and stumbling, God recognizing his own work in these
human marvels and weaknesses, so that it can be true.”50 Barth seems to be saying that
because human beings are human, prayer with all its weakness is made true when the

45

Ibid.
Ibid., 71.
47
Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, 181.
48
Ibid.
49
The first miracle of the Holy Spirit, according to Barth, is the Spirit’s ability to reveal human sinfulness
and that the human is willing to hear Him speak on this matter. See Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, 193.
50
Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, 194.
46

53

Holy Spirit empowers human speech in prayer to be truth according to God’s truth not by
the words that are spoken per se but in the obedience to God’s command to pray.
Throughout The Göttingen Dogmatics, Barth is drawing attention to prayer and
specifically to the Lord’s Prayer as the framework for his arguments. For example, in his
discussion on the attributes of God he outlines how incomparable God is to any idea that
humans have about Him. He explains that God is unique, that “he cannot be united with
anything else.”51 Moreover, the idea that God is unique is revealed in God’s word: “I am
the Lord your God you shall have no other gods but me” (Exodus 20:3) and “I am the
way the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Throughout the discussion on God’s divine
nature, Barth is repeating the Lord’s Prayer, using it as a framework for his examination.
He notes that God is hallowed, that He is the past, present, and future ruler of the present
kingdom and the kingdom to come. He expresses the nature of human need with respect
to safety and security in the section of The Göttingen Dogmatics on the nature of
humanity. He outlines Christ as God’s elect and incarnation in defense of his ideas on
predestination. He explains, for example, in his section on God’s attributes, that if the
reader “understood what I have been trying to say in this whole section, then you have
gathered that with each attribute I was trying to say: ‘Thine is the kingdom . . .’”
(Matthew 6:13).52
Moreover, Barth reiterates that prayer sustains his ideas on the nature of God. For
him, God is not confined to a particular place or time, as in the house that Solomon built
and dedicated with the prayer in 2 Chronicles 6:19–20. Barth argues that instead of being

51
52

Ibid., 431.
Ibid., 439.

54

contained by space, God Himself “gives space and the things that are in it their being.”53
In addition to his first attempt at dogmatics, Barth presents lectures on ethics wherein he
discusses God’s role in the command to pray. These lectures were published
posthumously with the title of Ethics.
Ethics54
Barth’s Ethics is a collection of lectures on ethics delivered first in his Münster
professorship (1928/29) and then again in Bonn (1930/31). These early lectures prefigure
his writings on ethics in CD.55 The conversation begins with the argument that ethics is
an appropriate task of theology. If such a statement is true, then it follows, Barth claims,
that ethics is also a task of dogmatics, which is the science of the content of the revealed
Word of God preached in the church. All of which is because preaching “is God’s Word
to real man, and because real man is caught at work, in the act of his being.”56
In Ethics, Barth seeks to establish a connection between ethics and the Word of
God. The subject of ethics is the response to the question—what shall we do—with the
answer being “good human conduct.”57 He approaches the question of human existence
(expressed for example in the question: What is good human conduct?) in three stages.
First is his assertion that the revealed Word of God is the command of God, which
sanctifies the human person. Barth writes, “we shall be concerned to understand as truly
good conduct the human conduct which is thus understood to be set under God’s
command.”58 Furthering his explanation, he suggests, “we believe that in theological

53

Ibid., 435.
Karl Barth, Ethics, ed. Dietrich Braun, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (New York: Seabury Press, 1981).
55
Barth, Ethics, vii; see also Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 5.
56
Karl Barth, Ethics, 15.
57
Ibid., 3.
58
Ibid., 59.
54

55

ethics we have to seek and find the goodness of human conduct in the event of an act of
God himself toward man, namely, the act of his speech and self-revelation to him.”59
Barth presents his ideas on revelation through the three-fold witness of God’s being:
Creator, Reconciler, and Redeemer.60 Such ideas he calls the “great orientation points of
the whole course of Christian dogmatics.”61 For this reason, Barth argues for ethics to be
a part of dogmatics throughout Ethics. Barth follows the pattern of God’s three-fold form
(regarded as one) to express the nature of God’s relationship to humanity and at the same
time to explain Jesus Christ and His pivotal involvement in creation, reconciliation, and
redemption. Jesus is the “specific fellowman” whom God chose to convey His command
to the human agent.62 Jesus shows us what it means to be good, consistent (meaning
obedient to) with the command of God. God’s goodness is shown to us in Christ’s
humanity.63 “But God, God in Christ, God revealed and incarnate, is not good for
himself.”64 He is good for our sake. He turns to us, His creations, reconciles us to
Himself consistent with His covenant. “God in this turning and relationship to us he
reveals himself in Jesus of Nazareth.”65
Second, Barth considers the nature of good through his idea of the human person.
The human person and his or her good action are contained in God’s Word and not in
philosophy. Philosophy, he says furthering the argument, can only comment on what
God’s Word already has to say. Only the command of God in the Word of God provides

59

Ibid., 49.
Ibid., 55.
61
Ibid., 52.
62
Ibid., 349.
63
Ibid., 337.
64
Ibid., 339.
65
Ibid.
60

56

fresh insight into the concept of humanity and the nature of what is to be considered
“good.”66 Barth considers it unwise to rationalize Christian action. He says,
We are not Christ. We never shall be. Hence it is only with great caution and
reserve that we can say that we are commanded to be Christ to our neighbor...We
live our lives bad and good...Even fellowship with God is for us a supreme and
secret image...Our goodness is human goodness. In it we are sinners—at best
moral and devout sinners—but still sinful sinners.67
However, these human limitations notwithstanding, believers are ambassadors for Christ
and such humans occupy the role of being “in Christ” because they are forgiven.68 A
human life “in all its unsaviourlike orientation to itself is not set under the Saviour’s
command, that it be fundamentally open to others in and with their sin.”69 These actions
are based on faith, believing that the individual has been pardoned and is reconciled to
God because of Jesus Christ.
Third, God the Redeemer reveals the nature of good as the “command of
promise.”70 By this Barth is referring to the eschatological reign of God and the promised
return of Jesus, Lord of all. Argumentation here shifts from the nature of human good to
the goal of the human person,71 which is the future divinely willed reality for the human
person.72 Barth says all that can be said, that this future relationship of Creator to creature
is as Father to His children, what Barth terms “the goal of creation”—not the first
creation but the completed creation, to which the present creation only points.73 “For it is
true in Jesus Christ that God is our Father and we are his children . . . as the Word of God

66

Ibid., 41–44.
Ibid., 342.
68
Ibid., 343.
69
Ibid., 344.
70
Ibid., 461.
71
Ibid., 462.
72
Ibid., 463.
73
Ibid.
67

57

is spoken to us.”74 Thus, God’s claim on believers is that they are obedient children to the
Father and in agreement with His will, His kingdom to come in which believers will
participate as heirs of Christ. As a result, the clearest evidence of human action in
correspondence to God’s command is to pray. Barth writes, “Perhaps all that needs to be
said about our claiming by God from this third standpoint may best be understood if it is
seen in the light of prayer. From this ethical standpoint our conduct must conform to the
measure of our being truly related to God as we are when we truly pray.”75
Summary
Thus, prayer is the basic human response, the created being’s innate answer to the
Creator. In prayer, the human person reaches beyond his or her own reality. In prayer, the
human person acts as one who belongs to God the Father76 and calls upon His name
(invocation). Prayer in the manner of the Lord’s Prayer instills hope, for it is looking
towards the promised future that only God can create in His covenantal reconciliation
with His creation, those redeemed by His grace through Christ.
Chapter 3 further explores the significance of Barth’s position of prayer in the CD
(CD, II/1, §30; CD, IV/1, §58, and §60; CD, IV/4) both as a command of God and as part
of his doctrine of reconciliation. Expressing the idea of prayer as a command of God is
certainly not new. However, the meaning that Barth attributes to the command of God
seems unique. Further discussion on this point commences in the first section of chapter
3. The second section looks at Barth’s position of prayer within the doctrine of
reconciliation. It is my view that Barth’s placement of prayer in the doctrine of

74

Ibid., 467.
Ibid., 473.
76
Ibid.
75

58

reconciliation determines his location of prayer within ethics. By ethics, I mean the
essence of human action; that is, what is good human action.

59

Chapter 3: Prayer as a Divine Action: Command and Reconciliation
The Doctrine of the Command of God (CD, II/1, §30)
In §30 of CD, II/I, Barth argues that the basis of Christian prayer is what God has
revealed about His attributes through His Word and by the power of the Holy Spirit.1
Therefore, our decision to pray to God, that is, to be in His presence in prayer, is our
acknowledgement of the nature of God as He has revealed Himself. He has revealed
Himself by His commands. Barth perceives the command of God to be an instrument to
prayer in the context of good Christian action. Prayer for Barth is part of “special ethics”
or action solely in the Christian context, where God treats the human person seriously
because of His claim, His decisions, and His judgment concerning humanity.2
The human agent, as a free subject, responds to God in obedience or
disobedience. The free choice to obey or not to obey is at the core of Barth’s ideas on
human freedom in the light of God’s commandment to pray. By the expression “the
command of God” Barth does not mean principles, rules, or precepts, but rather how
God’s covenant is revealed through Christ as the living Word, the living command of
God expressed as the election of Jesus Christ in humanity’s place. Webster explains
Barth’s use of the term “command of God” as “the history of Jesus Christ—this subject,
this sequence—forms a series of events in which the claim and command of God can
appropriately be specified.”3 Barth explains the command of God as the manner by which
God sanctifies sinners as they grow in Christ. He explains further:
We are sinners before God, but this fact is covered by the high righteousness of
the divine forgiveness. That we are judged in this way is the purpose of the divine
1

CD, II/1, 229.
CD, IV/3, 23.
3
John Webster, Barth's Ethics of Reconciliation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 52.
2

60

judgment as it is not merely attempted but actually fulfilled. It is on this basis that
God will again see and address us. It is as such that we are sanctified by the
command of God. It is as such that God will take us seriously the next hour and
the next day.4
Thus for Barth, the command of God sanctifies. In other words, God’s command (spoken
word) confirms humanity’s covenantal relationship to Him through Christ’s election. It is
on this basis therefore that believers come to God in prayer.
In terms of understanding prayer as a command of God, Barth examines how
God’s attributes bring humanity to a deeper knowledge of who He is. Such knowledge
should instill a deep gratitude for God’s command to allow Christians to call upon Him.
“Call upon me in the day of trouble; I shall rescue you, and you will honour me” (Psalm
50:15). Moreover, God’s justification of humanity through Jesus Christ brings them to act
in a specific way. Humans are called to be disciples to which the right human response is
invocation, or calling upon the name of the Lord, which for Barth is another name for
prayer.5
Barth examines the nature of God’s being to whom we pray by first suggesting
that humans do not know who they are until God reveals it to them, in the person of Jesus
Christ. In addition, human beings do not know their own actions until God shows them.
“What do we know of our selfhood before God has given us His name, and named us by
our name?”6 In that regard, when a human prays how does he or she know what it means
to say “Thou” when one refers to God, that is, when one calls upon His name (invoke).
Barth argues that it is thanks to God’s revelation that humans know what they mean when
they refer to God and when they refer to humanity. “God demonstrates as deserving and

4

CD, II/2, 765.
Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 154.
6
CD, II/1, 306.
5

61

answering prayer. He does and will demonstrate himself as the object of man’s awareness
and at the same time has illuminated man’s mind to grasp this object.”7 Thus, God
commands humans to approach Him and call upon His name. For this grace, which God
has extended because of God’s love for His creation, Christians are invited to join in
relationship with God in prayer. The grace and love of God comes to humanity through
the gift of God, Jesus Christ. Barth explains the relationship between Christ and
Christians as follows:
The One, the person, whom we really know as a human person, is the person of
Jesus Christ, and even this is in fact the person of God the Son, in which
humanity, without being or having itself a person, is caught up into fellowship
with the personality of God. This one man is therefore the being of God making
itself known to us as the One who loves.8
Thus, Barth says, and I agree, that a person’s prayer should always be in some way shape
or form a cry for God to be gracious. Barth states, “This is what God’s inclination, good
will and favour means for God Himself and for us. It is always God’s turning to those
who not only do not deserve this favour, but have deserved its opposite.”9 For Barth,
prayer is a grateful, thankful turning to God knowing that God at the same time is turning
to us in Christ.
The fact that God is merciful and righteous encourages one to pray and also
encourages people as they enter into prayer. Such encouragement comes from Christ’s
completed work on the cross, which freed us from the bondage and penalty of sin (that is,
death). As we pray, such knowledge revealed through Jesus Christ gives the person hope.
Barth examines the Psalms and suggests that there is a confidence expressed in them

7

CD, II/1, 334.
CD, II/1, 286.
9
CD, II/1, 356.
8

62

when the authors speak of God’s righteousness. Barth says, “by allowing that God is in
the right against him, and accepting God as his only righteousness, his own but his real
righteousness. It is in this sense that Zion boasts of its hope in Micah 7:7f. ‘Therefore I
will look unto the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me.’”10
The patience and wisdom of God also bring the Christian hope as he or she calls
upon God in prayer. Barth examines God’s forbearance as indicative of his patience. He
overlooked sin so that Christ would be the one and only who suffered instead of
humanity, as is proclaimed in Romans 3:23: “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God.” Barth references Christ primarily as the way that God’s wisdom to forbear brings
hope to the believer. Barth says,
By His own suffering He has characterised our suffering as a token of life and not
of death, as a token of His friendship and not of His enmity, as a token which is
meant to awaken and maintain and not destroy our faith. It is the shadow of death
under which our life stands the shadow of the eternal death which Jesus Christ has
suffered for us. It is this which lends it its seriousness, but takes from this
seriousness its absoluteness, thus preventing it from giving rise to fear.11
God’s love is bound up in His attributes of constancy and unity. “For each of God’s
qualities and perfections declared and knowable in His revelation is at the same time His
one, complete essence. This is also true of God’s constancy and omnipotence.”12 All the
perfections of God’s freedom (and therefore of His love, and therefore of the one whole
divine essence) can and must be recognized and expressed by acknowledging and
proclaiming that God is constant.13

10

CD, II/1, 413.
CD, II/1, 420.
12
CD, II/1, 491.
13
CD, II/1, 551.
11

63

The eternity and glory of God for Barth are God’s essence unencumbered by time.
Eternity exists only in God. Eternity is not a very long time as one may think in order to
understand it better. Barth says that humanity cannot express eternity because it is an
element of God’s love and His glory. Eternity is God in the sense in which in Himself
and in all things God is simultaneous (i.e. beginning and middle as well as end, without
separation, distance, or contradiction).14 When a person prays the Lord’s Prayer, wherein
they declare, “thy kingdom come” and later in the closing “for thine is the kingdom, the
power and the glory now and forever,” one is praying with the expectation that God’s
divine nature will reign eternally.
Therefore, we can ascribe attributes to the being of God only in so far as God has
revealed them to us. In Barth’s thinking, one reason for God’s decision to reveal Himself
through these qualities is to establish a relationship with the human person. I agree with
McCormack who interprets Barth by explaining that “the being of God is self-determined
being; it is a being which God gives to himself in the primal decision in which God
determines himself for this gracious relation to humankind.”15 As a result, prayer is an
unpretentious act; it stakes no claim to selfhood. The Christian in the act of prayer
acknowledges the Lordship of Christ, whose saving work has made the Christian prayer
His own prayer. In response, prayer “can and should be ventured with childlikeness,
without hesitation, confidently, as a genuine act of hope in Jesus Christ.”16

14

CD, II/1, 608.
Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2008), 59.
16
CD, IV/4, 210.
15

64

The Doctrine of Reconciliation (CD, IV/1, §58 and IV/4, §60)
Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation speaks to Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology,
anthropology, and ethics. “For Barth these loci are inseparable because the history of
Jesus is once again, the history of covenant.”17 Covenantal and reconciliatory language
interact, but are not separate from each other in CD.18 Barth is consistently presenting
these elements in the context of the work of Jesus Christ as the eternal and central focus
of God’s plan. In the case of God’s reconciliation of the world, the basis is the two roles
of Christ—as fully God and fully human.19 Christ’s dual natures are inseparable, but
rather combined to form a whole. “Understood by this the history in which Jesus Christ is
not only very God but also (and this is our particular concern for the moment) very man,
whose existence, as seen from below, is the basis of the reconciliation of the world with
God. The first role is Jesus as the Son of God who took on sin and its penalty of death
and stood in humanity’s place to fulfill God’s judgment. The second role is Jesus as the
Son of Man, wherein Christ acts rightly in the place where humanity acts wrongly (active
obedience).20 Barth suggests,
He who is in the one person the electing God and the one elect man is as the
rejecting God, the God who judges sin in the flesh, in His own person the one
rejected man, the Lamb which bears the sin of the world that the world should no
longer have to bear it or be able to bear it, that it should be radically and totally
taken away from it.21

Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 81.
Joseph L. Mangina, Issues in Systematic Theology, vol. 8, Karl Barth on the Christian Life: The Practical
Knowledge of God (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 154.
19
CD, IV/2, 116.
20
George Hunsinger, “Karl Barth’s Christology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John
Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 137.
21
CD, IV/1, 237.
17
18

65

Barth defines reconciliation as the event that God planned in advance and for which He
elected Christ. He determined and revealed Himself as “an electing God” who
participates in human history (God with us) for the purpose of human salvation. The
history of “God with us” represents God’s divine action in relation to His human creation.
In this one divine act, God reveals Himself as capable of a relationship with us as His
covenant partners.22
Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation pivots on his unique description of election,
God’s election of Jesus Christ. As fully human, Jesus Christ “the eternal Word of God,
chose [to be] sanctified and assumed human nature and existence into oneness with
Himself, in order thus, as very God and very man, to become the Word of reconciliation
spoken by God to man,”23 which signifies the mystery of the revelation of God in Jesus
Christ. Barth argues further that revelation begins with Jesus Christ. In sum, God’s
revelation was for the purpose of reconciliation.
For Barth, Christ is divine and He is God simultaneously. Moreover, “God
becomes the companion of man” in Christ. That is the foundation-plan and sign of all His
works.24 Here, Barth’s presents clearly the qualifying character of Christ as the Lamb of
God in God’s salvific plan and covenant. For Christ’s divinity and humanity bridge the
chasm of death (the penalty for sin) as nothing or no one else can. Hans Schwarz
describes this reality clearly: “It is not a human act or a human and divine cooperative
act, but completely and totally God’s own doing.”25 God prostrated Himself by His own
self-will for His creation’s deliverance. The result is that God enables a relationship with

22

CD, IV/2, 344.
CD, II/2, 122.
24
CD, II/2, 11.
25
Hans Schwarz, Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 195.
23

66

humanity because of Christ. Therefore Barth makes the point that “God does not will to
be God without us, that He creates us rather to share with us and therefore with our being
and life and act His own incomparable being and life and act, that He does not allow His
history to be His and ours to be ours, but causes them to take place as a common
history.”26 That is, “the exaltation of our humanity as it takes place in Jesus Christ, to
fellowship with God.”27 The manner prescribed is God’s command. Barth states, “His
one primal decision, not only in the fellowship of God with man as established by the free
grace of God . . . not only in the divine movement from above to below but also in the
human movement from below to above.”28 Barth’s description gives an indication as to
how prayer is an act in the presence of God, how it is divine human correspondence.
In the doctrine of reconciliation, Barth suggests that prayer rights the relationship
between the human agent and God. He says, “Where there is prayer, man’s relationship to
God is corrected and it is in order.”29 It is in the doctrine of reconciliation that Barth
claims that human beings are in Christ and exclusively in Him.
The doctrine of reconciliation must end where it began. We shall speak correctly
of the faith and love and hope of the individual Christian only when it remains
clear and constantly becomes clear that, although we are dealing with our
existence, we are dealing with our existence in Jesus Christ as our true existence,
that we are therefore dealing with Him and not with us, and with us only in so far
as absolutely and exclusively with Him.30
Prayer and other activities of the church (confession, humility, and baptism) attest to one
activity, that is, Christ at Golgotha. Barth explains, “In His death He dies the death of
man. Order is created, then, not by any setting aside of sins, but by that of the sinner

26

CD, IV/1, 7.
CD, IV/2, 383.
28
CD, IV/2, 32.
29
CD, IV/4, 45.
30
CD, IV/1, 154.
27

67

himself.”31 In §60 of Barth’s doctrine of God, he regards the weight of the resurrection in
so far as it reveals God’s verdict about human sin. He writes,
The verdict of God … took place once and for all for us. It is also decided what it
incontrovertibly means for the human situation. This verdict has been revealed in
the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in the first instance to those to
whom it is proclaimed and who can confess it in faith.32
Christ passed beyond the limits of death and carried every person in Him. In Christ,
through the power of the Spirit, humanity hears the death sentence spoken by God to
Adam in Genesis 2:17: “for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Thus,
there was no possibility of appeal in God’s judgment against humanity’s disobedience.
But, in Christ’s resurrection, God has had mercy on all with the same universality with
which He pronounced all in disobedience.33 Barth sums up the atonement as the
relationship between Jesus Christ and Adam. “That is the relationship between the
offence of men in the person and act of one and the free gift of righteousness and life
which comes with the judgment of God in the person and act of this other.”34
As a result, a new history begins, Barth says. It is a history within world history,
and a new fellowship begins, namely, the community of believers—the church.
Its members are those who can believe and understand that sentence, and
therefore regard as accomplished the justification of man in Jesus Christ. It is not
the faith and understanding of its members which constitute the community, but
the Word and verdict of God believed and understood, Jesus Christ Himself in
whose death on the cross that verdict is pronounced.35
Prayer is the faithful act of the community as it acknowledges the work of Christ whom it
represents and in whom it flourishes. The church, in its humanity, is constantly gathering

31

CD, IV/I, 296.
CD, IV/I, 358.
33
CD, IV/1, 513.
34
Ibid.
35
CD, IV/1, 151.
32

68

repeatedly praying in anticipation of the promise to come. “A continual awaiting of the
Holy Spirit as pictured in its constant gatherings, its ever renewed proclamation of the
Word, its repeated prayer, its celebration of baptism; but an awaiting in the certainty of
receiving, and therefore of its own life in His presence.”36
For Barth, baptism is prayer to a large extent because baptism, as analogous to
invocation, is the act of calling upon the name of God. Barth uses several Scripture
passages to support this claim. First, he argues that Jesus’ baptism was His own calling
upon the name of God. In this act, Jesus receives a response “this is my son in whom I am
well pleased” (Mark 1:11; Matthew 17:5). God responds to His son’s act of baptism, His
“prayer” to the Father. Second, Barth points to 1 Peter 3:21 as a witness to viewing
baptism as an appeal to God for His saving action and in baptism the believer makes a
request for “a good conscience.” “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the
removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter3:21). Contemporary Christians rarely express
baptism as prayer, as a calling upon the name of God and a request. But arguably, Barth
makes an interesting point, because baptism as an act represents faith in the saving grace
of Jesus Christ. Today, many Christians choose to be baptized in order to acknowledge
what God has done in their lives through Jesus Christ. In this way, the act of baptism, as a
human act, is an expression of the gift of salvation. Yet the Scriptures support that
baptism, like prayer, is a command of God. Jesus commanded His disciples to teach and
“baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
Barth suggests that baptism is a petition and also an acknowledgement and thus a calling

36

Ibid.

69

upon God in acknowledgement for His saving grace. Barth sums up his argument as
follows:
This act, however, consists in a request and a petition which is directed to the God
in whom they believe and to whom they are obedient, and which corresponds to
His relation to them and theirs to Him. This request and petition is the active
knowledge and confession of their God. In and with this request and petition they
affirm the covenant which God has made with them. See Deut. 26:17f.37
Human action, in the form of baptism, is an obedient response to God’s command. It is a
petition directed to God. These aspects also reflect the nature of prayer. Webster
attributes Barth’s ideas here to Zwingli’s influence. He writes, “Barth was—and would
remain—strongly attracted to this aspect of Zwingli: the exposition of Christian baptism
and the Lord’s Prayer in the ethics of reconciliation is undergirded by a similar sense that
divine perfection and human morals alike are disrupted by attempts to find creaturely
images or mediations of the divine.”38
In connection to the doctrine of reconciliation, Barth regards speech in the form of
prayer as an effective form of Christian service as it rights the relationship between God
and humanity.39 Barth supports his claim by suggesting that Jesus reduced Himself to
serve humanity rather than to be served. He represented humanity at the place where they
met divine judgment. Barth uses Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane to make his case. He
argues that it reveals the “shrinking” of Jesus in obedience to God’s will, the reversal of
roles for humanity’s sake. As such, the “prayer is, as it were, a remarkable historical
complement to the eternal decision taken in God Himself.”40 The obedience of Christ
demonstrates the obedience that God requires. “The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the

37

CD, IV/4, 45.
Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology, 18.
39
CD, IV/1, 1.
40
CD, IV/1, 238–239.
38

70

dead, as a second and new divine act, was the revelation of the meaning and purpose of
the obedience demanded from and achieved by Jesus Christ.”41
Barth’s ideas about correspondence evolve around God’s relationship with His
human creation. Barth expresses this relationship as correspondence first on God’s side
(divine correspondence) and then on humanity’s side as human correspondence with
God. This divine–human relationship or correspondence is worked out in CD through the
themes of covenant, partnership, and invocation. Barth’s understanding of prayer is as the
expression of covenantal relationship with God in which God chooses to partner with
human beings because of the work of Christ. Thus, “an active life in obedience must
obviously consist in a correspondence to divine action.”42 In this relationship, God
corresponds to the human act of prayer because of the covenant fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
The person has no reason to boast or to consider this correspondence as co-regency with
God.43 The obedient act of calling upon God (invocation) in and through prayer is one
way that human nature reflects the generative nature of the effect of Christ’s death and
resurrection on the human life as God’s covenant partner.44 “Hence in prayer as a
confession of God’s free grace we do not have a purely subjective exercise of piety with
only subjective significance” but we become “an active partner in the covenant which He
has established.”45

41

CD, IV/1, 312–313.
CD, IV/3, 474.
43
Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 80.
44
Ibid.
45
CD, IV/3, 883. Here Barth is referring to the community of believers, but his point applies to the
individual equally.
42

71

Summary
In this chapter, I discuss the significance of Barth’s location of prayer in ethics in
the context of God’s reconciling actions towards humanity. It is through this
reconciliation that Christians can pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ and in the
manner that He taught the disciples to pray. My intention has been to describe how Barth
explains baptism as a form of divine–human correspondence, wherein it is human action
in response to Christ’s command that Christians be baptized. Moreover, Barth considers
baptism as a form of invocation, that is, calling on the name of God. Barth addresses
invocation more specifically in His work on the Lord’s Prayer in CD, IV/4, to which
attention is given in the following chapter.

72

Chapter 4: The Lord’s Prayer
Introduction
The previous three chapters demonstrate that Barth, from the beginning of his
theological career, regards prayer as more than a devotional exercise. Prayer is viewed as
the ethical task associated with the command of God and the doctrine of reconciliation,
equating the entire Word of God with His command. In essence, Barth suggests that the
Word of God in its pronouncements is intended to elicit a divine–human relationship of
correspondence, which is powered by covenantal responsibility on both sides. God’s
responsibility is reflected in His faithfulness to humanity, His redemptive grace, and His
will to be reconciled to His creation. In doing so, He bridges and forgives the massive
divergence brought into the divine–human dynamic by sin. Human responsibility is
obedience. Obedience is true or good human action when it is a response to God’s
command—not because human action in itself is good, but because the source and
prototype of the requested action is God, who is the good. In chapter 3, I examine CD to
demonstrate where and how Barth locates prayer in the command of God, highlighting
His actions in reconciling humanity to Himself. In addition to the command of God,
Barth reveals that it is in the doctrine of reconciliation that divine-human correspondence
is made explicit.1 Moving forward, I consider Barth’s ideas on prayer as expressed in the
final fragments of his major work to explore his thinking on prayer in the realm of God's
reconciliation with humanity. Chapter 4 features Barth’s attention to the Lord’s Prayer, as
an expression of petitionary prayer, with the intent of revealing the act of praying itself,

1

See Eberhard Jüngel, Theological Essays, 156.

73

beyond its obvious devotional character, as carrying with it a responsibility to correspond
to God as He corresponds with the believer and the community, His church.
Both Barth’s final lecture tour2 and his failing health pre-empted the completion
of CD, IV/4. The theologian had intended to write a volume on the ethics of
reconciliation as an appropriate close to the place of ethics within the doctrine of
reconciliation. CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments would have, in some form, been included in
that chapter. It is noted, in agreement with Jüngel, that Barth’s CD, IV/4: Lecture
Fragments on the Christian life should be treated with caution since it is not clear as to
the degree of completion. However, this document is a valuable source in understanding
Barth’s theology of prayer in the context of ethics, particularly because it establishes
anew his ideas from CD, II/2 with regards to the command of God.3 In the Lecture
Fragments (CD, IV/4), Barth discusses ethics as a concept within reconciliation, the
command of God, the nature of the Christian life, and the Lord’s Prayer (the opening
invocation and the first two petitions). In the final section, Barth explores an application
of invocation in Christian day-to-day living, namely, the genuineness of the Christian’s
zeal for the manifestation of God’s honour in the world.4
The main arguments in CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments are as follows. First, Barth
revisits, albeit with greater clarity, themes he previously discussed in his discourse Ethics,
with attention given to ethics as a command of God.5 In CD, II/2 Barth examines ethics
as a task within dogmatics because dogmatics helps the church understand the command

2

Barth toured and lectured in the United States in 1962, on the state of Evangelical theology, which
included a section on prayer, study, service, and love under the rubric of theological work. See Karl
Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1992).
3 ̈
Jungel, Theological Essays, 154–156.
4
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments , 205.
5
See CD, II, §36.

74

of God. He explains that it is God in His grace towards humanity that determines and
makes possible the answer to the question that concerns ethics, namely, what is “good”
human action? Barth argues in the doctrine of God that:
This, the grace of God, is the answer to the ethical problem. For it sanctifies man.
It claims him for God. It puts him under God’s command. It gives
predetermination to his self-determination so that he obeys God’s command. It
makes God’s command for him the judgment on what he has done and the order
for his future action. The ethical task of the Christian doctrine of God is to attest
this answer to the ethical problem.6
Thus, Barth is saying in CD, II that good human action is obedience to God’s command.
Such obedience is made possible by God’s grace towards humanity.
In CD, IV/4, Barth expands on the idea by way of his claim that the Word of God
is God’s command “to the extent that in it the sure and certain goodness of God’s
goodness confronts the problematical goodness of man’s as its standard, requirement, and
direction.”7 As a result, Barth argues that human action may be considered “good” insofar
as human action is an obedient response to God’s Word. By this line of reasoning, Barth
maintains a view of ethics that is within the dogmatics of the church because the context
of good human action has no other location than in the command of God, as it is revealed
in the Word of God. Barth thinks of ethics as the framework for the relationship between
God and the human agent. Moreover, he regards Jesus Christ as the mediator in that
relationship. He considers the human agent’s responsibility in this framework as the
human agent’s continued obedience, an obedience that has been made possible through
the outpouring of God’s grace.8 Barth states that “man derives from the grace of God, and
therefore he is exposed from the very outset to this question. Before he was, before the

6

CD, II/2, 516.
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 3.
8
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments , 12.
7

75

world was, God drew him to Himself when He destined him to obedience to His
command.”9 So the human agent’s ultimate response is to act in obedience to the
command of God, who is the prototype and the “good.”
Second, Barth explains that God, while being the good, is also gracious and
commanding. In this way, God can be expressed as the commanding God. Barth connects
the idea of prayer to the discussion by re-establishing it as invocation, calling upon the
name of God. He argues that God is the living God. He has, continues, and will continue
to make Himself known in Jesus Christ. This, Barth says, is how God brings Himself into
history for and with the human agent,10 “that among and with and for and to men He acts
and speaks as Himself .”11 God takes this action because of His covenant to reconcile
humanity to Himself. Barth states that God acts with power, freedom, and grace as He
discloses Himself in the form of Jesus Christ. “His powerful action is the great and active
Yes of his free gracious address to the world created by him. . . God reigns unequivocally
by pronouncing this Yes and putting into action in the instituting, upholding, executing,
and fulfilling of his covenant with man.”12 Barth’s rationale for God becoming flesh in
order to be reconciled to humanity is that God freely chooses to both build relationship
with, and to include humanity in His act of being God, thereby revealing “his willing in
no circumstances to be God merely in isolation and therefore without man.”13
Third, included in Barth’s assessment of the being of God as commanding, is the
faithfulness of God. Barth makes a similar point in Ethics wherein he discusses God’s

9

CD, II/2, 516–517.
Barth describes the act of God taking on human form in Jesus Christ as the “dawning” of the rude
incursion of His kingdom, which services reconciliation. See CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 16ff. See also
Spencer, Clearing a Space for Human Action, 299.
11
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 13.
12
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 15.
13
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 16.
10

76

faithfulness in the context of the command of God from the perspective of the human
agent’s response. Barth suggests that God’s faithfulness illuminates human action where
that action is obedience to God’s command.14 In CD, IV/4, Barth describes the
faithfulness of God as entirely consistent with God’s actions in relation to His divine
being and in relation to the human person. Barth says that God’s faithfulness to Himself,
His Word, His covenant, His fellowship with humanity, and His command to humanity is
inviolable. Barth’s aim is to build the case for God’s faithfulness revealing that His
commands are true. “He makes no mistakes” Barth writes, “his power never fails...There
is none that he does not precede from all eternity...The multiplicity of his ways is endless,
but his will and resolve in all his ways is one and the same.”15 In sum, God, who is Jesus
Christ, “is the one true God . . . who commands.”16 Turning his attention to the human
action that corresponds to the command of God, Barth suggests that the human agent’s
action in calling upon the name of God, or invoking the name of God in prayer illustrates
God’s faithfulness. Prayer is so important to the Christian life that God ensures that
believers receive instruction on how to pray. Christ’s teaching on prayer, known as the
Lord’s Prayer, is that explicit instruction.17 An examination of the invocation and the first
two petitions reveal the rich dimensions in prayer. As divine–human correspondence,
therefore, the act of prayer has deeper implications than simply being a devotional aid.
The Lord’s Prayer in CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments
The significance of Barth’s consideration of the Lord’s Prayer underscores his
view on divine–human correspondence in his examination of the invocation (our Father),

14

Barth, Ethics, 53, 101.
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 18.
16
Ibid.
17
See Luke 11:1–4; Matthew 6:9–13.
15

77

and the first two petitions. The following section shows how Barth understands prayer as
ethics—the human action in the context of the Christian life—and reveals prayer to be
more significant than its devotional elements, which are commonly understood in the
church today. David W. Haddorff summarizes Barth’s attention to human ethical action
in prayer by suggesting that invocation directs divine and human correspondence to
covenant-partnership, which in turn sets the stage for human ethical action. Moreover,
Haddorff affirms, “Christian ethics is an ethics of correspondence between divine and
human action, but that correspondence is grounded in God’s covenantal partnership with
humanity.”18
Barth’s attention to the Lord’s Prayer as the primary human action in relation to
ethics (the human as ethical agent) demonstrates his practical regard for the nature of
human action in relation to calling upon God as Father. Thus, the theologian’s attention
to the Lord’s Prayer in CD, IV/4 demonstrates his perspective on Christian moral
responsibility; namely, the action that has as its outcome, the specific act of praying the
Lord’s Prayer. Spencer argues that Barth’s treatment of the Lord’s Prayer is the grounds
for the Christian life “where Barth’s ideas on correspondence find its most advanced
expression.”19
Invocation for Christians (those who are in Christ) must address God as “Father,”
Barth explains. The mindset is one of speaking to the Father rather than about Him. Barth
continues, “The Father invoked by Christians is not just called such when deep down and
in truth he is no more than idea or epitome of fatherhood.”20 What Barth means here is

18

David W. Haddorff, Christian Ethics as Witness: Barth's Ethics for a World at Risk (Eugene: Cascade
Books, 2010), 266.
19
Spencer, Clearing a Space for Human Action, 298–299.
20
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 52.

78

that at its root, Christian speech should begin with the word “Father.” This speech act
should represent what the Christian believes to be true at his or her core, which is, that
God is the believer’s Father.
Thus, the act of speaking the name “Father” should be congruent with the
Christian’s thoughts about God. The speech act of calling God “Father” reflects human
thought at its basic level. Barth works out this idea as the primal speech act through his
location of invocation, or calling upon the name of God as Father, as the most primary act
of obedience—the act of obedience that occurs in the act of praying itself. As a result,
obedience becomes the human agent’s response to the primary command to speak and
think of God as Father. This is the basic premise of correspondence. Barth says, “It is the
primal act of the freedom Christians are given, the primal form of faithfulness with which
they may correspond to his faithfulness.”21 Scripture tells that Christians call upon God as
“Abba Father” (Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:15). For “the Spirit you received does not make
you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about
your adoption to son-ship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’” The work of the Holy
Spirit, the seal of God’s reconciliation, teaches believers to call upon God as Father.
Barth gives particular attention to the New Testament’s reference to Jesus, who stands as
the example of calling upon God as Father. Barth says, “Thus our freedom to call upon
God as Father is grounded absolutely in the way in which Jesus Christ called upon
him.”22 While Barth regards the New Testament witness to Christ’s references to God as
Father (Matthew 11:27–29), there are also Old Testament references to God as Father,
where God requires His chosen people, Israel, to call Him Father. Deuteronomy 32:6

21
22

Ibid., 51.
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 65.

79

states, “Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?” Also,
Jeremiah 3:19 states, “I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from
following me.” God’s own nature and work makes the self-claim and “inescapable
demand” that Christians approach Him as Father.23 Barth makes an interesting point that
calling God Father underlines the Christian faith even from its early beginnings “the one
miracle which draws people out of all nations . . . as children to their Father.”24 Thus,
when Christians approach God as Father with petitions in prayer, they “come to him as
petitioners not their own postulate or venture but their due acknowledgement of his being
as the Creator who is good to his creatures, as the Lord, King, and Judge who wills and
achieves the best for all the members and inhabitants of his house.”25
The Christian approach to God as Father in prayer implies a certain closeness to
the one who is addressed; it has a familiar and intimate character. The contemporary idea
of prayer as a devotional effort to draw closer to God seems problematic because
Christians are already in a position of intimacy with God in prayer. Barth says of these
types of teachings, particularly Schleiermacher’s claims, that such teaching is “fatal”
because its presupposition could be regarded as an attempt to control God. However, in
Barth’s thought, he argues that when Christians pray, they know by faith and Scripture
(Jeremiah 33:3; Matthew 7:7; Mark 11:24; John 16:23) that God hears and responds.
With such confidence, Christians also know that God freely “corresponds to their action
with His.”26 Thus, in the act of drawing closer to God in invocation, “by the power of

23

Ibid., 59.
Ibid., 66.
25
Ibid.
26
Spencer, Clearing a Space for Human Action, 299.
24

80

God the human can transcend the self.”27 Therefore in prayer, whether the act of calling
upon God is attended with the semblance or absence of human emotion, the human
person is intimately connected to God corresponding with Him and He with the Christian.
The act of asking God the Father suggests a deep-seated bond based on the dual response
where, in relation to prayer, God the Father hears and responds to the obedient response
of His children who pray.
Prayer then is not a “shot in the dark, an experiment or a gamble.”28 Christians
call upon God as Father in a corresponding partnership. Barth states that this partnership
is one of sharing in the history that God has created where He participates with the
human agent. Barth suggests, therefore, that in Christian prayer, the requestor is speaking
with God with a confidence “that their calling upon him does not fade away in the void
and is not just heard but is also answered.”29 At this point, a question must be posed:
Does God always answer the Christians prayer? Barth says yes; he argues further that the
only unanswered prayer is “one uncertain of an answer.”30 I agree with Barth on this
point. The nature of God’s answer may not be a response with which one agrees or in the
“timely” manner that one might hope. However, God commands men and women to call
on Him as Father and promises that He will hear and act on their behalf. It is perhaps the
absence of what God does with the Christian’s prayer that may lead to the assumption
that He does not answer. In response, I propose that if God asks the human to pray, and to
pray in a specific way to which our actions correspond, then He will respond. He has
assured the believer in Scripture that He will hear and respond (Psalm 50:15; 91:15;

27

Ibid.
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 104.
29
Ibid., 105.
30
Ibid.
28

81

Isaiah 58:9; 65:24; John 15:7; Matthew 18:19; 21:22; Mark 11:24). “And if we know that
He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked
of Him” (1 John 5:15). Praying with confidence that God hears and responds is an act of
service.31 On the divine side God makes use of the human person’s service in prayer.
This, Barth argues and I agree, does not mean that God is in any way limited by Christian
prayer, nor that the human agent can manipulate God into acting outside of His will. It is
more to the extent that God allows Himself to be “touched and moved”32 by the action of
prayer. Because He understands the human person to a greater extent than they know
themselves, Barth says. God does not consider the quality of the Christian’s prayer.
Rather, “his divine hearing always consists of the fact that in corresponding to it, he
understands it infinitely better than they understand themselves and therefore gives place
to their invocation in an infinitely better sense than that in which even at their best they
can perform it.”33 The significance of Barth’s point is that in prayer, God’s corresponding
action adds value to human obedience. As the human agent obeys by praying then, God
blesses the words of the prayer. Thus, God responds to the Christian’s stumbling and
mumblings in the act of prayer with His full understanding of the totality of the needs of
the human person. God lets Himself be moved by Christian prayer because of His
covenant in Jesus Christ. As Christians petition God in prayer, “their weak and dissonant
voices are sustained by the one strong voice of the one by whose Eucharist the
inadequacy of theirs is covered and glorified in advance.”34 In this Christological context,
prayer is fulfilled.

31

Ibid.
Ibid.
33
Ibid., 106.
34
Ibid.
32

82

Barth argues that every prayer of the Christian is fulfilled because God has a
better knowledge of the needs, wants, and desires of the human person. He knows a
believer’s meaning even when his or her intent, words, and expectations are unclear.
Christian prayer reflects the believer’s hopes and dreams for others and for themselves.
As limited beings, human prayers cannot see the full picture. Christians pray with the best
of intentions. Every prayer to the Father by His children is fulfilled in the sense that as a
request God will correct, amend, and transform it as the one to whom the request has
been brought.35 Barth suggests that as children of God, it would be unwise to expect that
prayers be fulfilled precisely as they are spoken. The best hope is that prayer is
transformed into accordance with God’s will and that having fulfilled the believer’s
request, “He will correspond to it more surely and more gloriously in this corrected and
amended form.”36 Accepting that as children of God, the believer’s prayers are amended
with a view to being transformed requires not only faith, but also humility. Humility in
the acknowledgement that human words in prayer are not and never will be completely
comprehensive. The Christian’s assurance, however, is that only He knows what the true
needs or wants. Humbling oneself therefore in prayer, according to the words God
commanded His people, Israel comes with a covenantal promise of God’s
correspondence, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and
pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and
will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14). Moreover, humility is
responding in obedience to His command for Christians to perform the act of praying
itself.

35
36

Ibid., 107.
Ibid., 108.

83

The act of praying for the Christian attests to the work and word of God in the
world. Christians pray to glorify God. Barth considers this glorification as an “attestation
to the work and word of God.”37 It is a testimony to honour God’s name as holy by living
the Christian life in a manner congruent with honouring God’s holiness. Barth calls this
zeal or passion “the sacred fire of Pentecost, which one hopes will not be confused with
emotional and rhetorical enthusiasm. . . .There is also a resting of the Christian life in
God.”38 Passion for the hallowing of God’s name results in rest.
Hallowed Be Your Name
Barth’s approach to the first two petitions of the Lord’s Prayer seems
eschatological to the extent that the petitions suggest a list of the areas that God has
deemed it appropriate to partner with His children on the future of His kingdom. Barth
focuses on the world as being adversarial to God. He views the calling for the “hallowing
of God’s name” as a call for God to bring in the future promise. In addition, Barth
presents this world as problematic to the Christian’s life. He argues that the Christian is in
the world but not of it. He views “Hallowed be your name” as petition because it reveals
the Christian’s cry to God to remove disorder caused by darkness in the world brought on
by the failure to hallow God’s name. This disorder is also a struggle against the Lordless
powers and their “false lights.”39 For Barth, it is analogous to three intertwined spheres of
relationship with God: the world system, the church, and the Christian.

37

Ibid., 112.
Ibid., 115.
39
Ibid., 233. Barth states that these Lordless powers are rebellion against God. The outcrop of this is
disorder of all kinds in the individual’s life and society at large. He considers these powers to be demonic in
origin.
38

84

The Christian and the community of believers enjoy a unique relationship with
God based on His covenant of grace. The world knows about God and of His name but
has not yet or will not hallow His name and thus has a different relationship (or lack
thereof) with God. The result is a division of “light and darkness.”40 Barth suggests that
the petition for the hallowing of God’s name is a call for God to remove that division,
“that darkness of ignorance of thyself! Let there shine wholly, unequivocally, and
exclusively the light of thy countenance and therefore the knowledge of thyself! This is
the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer.”41 In other words, God is being asked to sanctify
His name Himself.42
I do not agree entirely with Barth that this petition for the hallowing of God’s
name is a call for God to act in obliterating darkness. The destruction of the powers of
darkness is in God’s domain without His children’s active participation. While Christians
may “wrestle” with these forces as a consequence of being God’s children, the battle is
clearly God’s alone. From the very beginning, God alone separates light and dark
(Genesis 1:3–4) and tends to these matters without corresponding human action.
Further, God has revealed Himself to us as Creator, Redeemer, and Reconciler.
His name is holy; He has called His children to be holy as He is holy. He is Holy and
God. Asking God to do what He is in His being does not appear to be the focus of this
petition. Whether or not the world agrees, it has already been accomplished that in God’s
being, in the totality of who He has revealed Himself to be, His name is hallowed. In
addition, God’s being is in no way limited by whether or not the world attests to His

40

Ibid., 122ff.
Ibid., 153.
42
Ibid., 158ff.
41

85

name as holy. Nowhere in the Lord’s Prayer does it imply that the world is the focus. In
fact, it is explicit that the believer’s invocation is to the “Father” located in heaven. His
relationship with the world is through His Son (who is God), Jesus Christ.
I do agree, however, with Barth that this phrase is a petition about struggle. Others
have argued that this expression in the Lord’s Prayer is a pronouncement, a declaration
for God to be who He is. Jüngel argues that Barth’s interpretation of the hallowing of
God’s name is the Christian’s zeal and passion for God’s word. Jüngel sums up his
assessment of Barth’s ideas on invocation by suggesting that the Christian’s zeal for
God’s word is Barth’s approach to bringing ethics to speech. Jüngel states, “By
interpreting the word ‘Father’ as a word of invocation and correspondingly the Christian
life as a life in the act which lifts itself up in invocation. Barth brought to speech the
‘basic act of the Christian ethos.’”43 As Jüngel addresses the basic act of prayer as the
ground and basis for ethics with regards to prayer as evidences in this petition of the
Lord’ Prayer, Webster considers Barth’s attention to the intercessory element in this
petition. For instance, he emphasizes Barth’s ideas on the struggle with the world and
against its influences, suggesting that the battle necessitates God’s children’s passionate
cry for assistance to resist these forces because He hallows His name. Webster’s
viewpoint on Barth’s interpretation of this petition is that it is reflective of Barth’s
treatment of human agency in general. Webster suggests that Barth is setting the limits to
human action in God’s eschatological plan by noting that humans can act according to
limits God sets. Therefore, Webster argues, Barth defines the limits of human action in
his anthropology through how he addresses this petition. Human action occurs “in our

43

Jüngel, Theological Essays, 163.

86

human place and our human manner, only within the limits of our human capacities and
possibilities.”44 Therefore, the Christian’s petition for the hallowing of God’s name
evidences the Christian’s agreement that God’s claim is granted as He so chooses in all
the implications He desires for the world.
Moreover, while I agree with Barth’s attention to ethics as human action in this
petition, for God commands His children to be holy as He is holy,45 I do not think that
“Hallowed by thy name” is calling God to act on behalf of the world who does not yet
know Him. I think that “Hallowed be thy name” relates to the ethics and the Christian’s
life insofar as it is a petition to God to bring about the only good human action possible.
That is, to participate in and contribute to the believing community, which lives fearing
(respecting that God’s name is holy) the Lord and lifting up the needs of the world to
Him in prayer.
Finally, the words to hallow God’s name presume that the speaker is aware that
there is a requirement that his or her new life (redeemed by God’s grace) is a daily
witness to God’s name being honoured, which he or she knows, by faith, is a work in
progress. This activity requires God’s empowerment by His Holy Spirit. Christians need
to live continually hallowing God’s name. This part of the Lord’s Prayer is a consistent
and powerful reminder to His children that they need the Lord’s help in every way to live
the Christian life of holiness. It is the primary concern of God’s children and it becomes
the petition above all other petitions when the believer invokes God the Father so that
they might live uprightly before Him as His children. 1 Peter 1:15–21 sums these ideas
up well:

44
45

Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 196.
See Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7; 1 Peter 1:16.

87

Be holy, because I am holy. Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s
work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. For you
know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were
redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors,
but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was
chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for
your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and
glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
Since according to the Scriptures, Christians live as foreigners, traveling through this
world to a better place, they do not need to call upon God in order to bring about
destruction of darkness in the world. Rather, the believer must live in the hope of
newness of life made possible by Christ’s demolition of the division between the
darkness of the penalty of sin (death) and brought those who believe into His resurrected
life. Living in this new life is difficult. Hence, the cry to hallow God’s name is the
primary petition, to sanctify His children to be holy as He is holy. Ultimately, I agree
with Tertullian’s interpretation of this clause when he says, “when we say, ‘Hallowed be
Your name,’ we pray this; that it may be hallowed in us who are in Him, as well in all
others for whom the grace of God is still waiting.”46
In my understanding, the first petition is a request to continue in obedience. Barth
does not disagree with this viewpoint; however, he considers it incomplete. He believes
that it focuses attention on human action against an action that he believes only God can
accomplish.47 I argue that only God can sanctify His children to be holy as He is holy. In
sanctifying His children, God is hallowing His name. First, a person has no understanding
of the depth of holiness that God expects. Second, any human effort to work out
“holiness” falls short of God’s command. Third, only God knows how to enable His

46

Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, Its Founder, Tertullian,
Three Parts (New York: Cosimo Classics, 2007), 682.
47
CD, IV/4. Lecture Fragments , 157.

88

children to be holy. Barth counters this point with a new perspective. He suggests that
this petition is eschatological, “looking beyond all present future human zeal, volition,
ability, and achievement to a work whose subject God alone can be and which will be
that of his own volition, ability, and achievement.”48 Barth is referring to his contention
that this petition calls for God to take charge and demolish the world’s desecration of His
name. I suggest that God can handle any aspersions cast on His name.
Also, the first petition is a request from God’s children for protection under His
name. Recall that when Jesus prayed for His Disciples He made a similar request. John
17 records Jesus’ prayer: “Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the
name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I
protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me.” The name of God brings
protection to those who believe. Jesus prayed that His disciples would continue to be
protected by the power of God’s name, the name that Jesus came to reveal for God’s
glory. It is also interesting to note that Jesus makes this request while still on earth. There
seems to be something appropriate that comes from seeking the protection of God’s name
while on the earth. It is perhaps also worth noting the reasons that Jesus asked for the
name of God to continue to protect the disciples was to glorify God, to attest to the work
of Christ, and so that they might be “one.” The unity of Christians as “one” as God is one,
stems from the hallowing of God’s name through the protection that comes from being a
people called by the hallowed name of God.
Therefore, I submit that this first petition calls God to establish the hallowing of
His name in the present circumstances of His children for their divine protection. Not that

48

Ibid., 156.

89

His children may achieve so called “holiness,” but that He might establish a people called
by His name and protect them by His name for His glory. In essence, in the first petition
of the Lord’s Prayer, God is being asked to establish His name according to His covenant
in and through Jesus Christ. Christians pray out of obedient need and because God
commands it. Our obedience corresponds to His covenant. In this way, God hallows His
name in correspondence with the obedience of His children and in response to their
request. God’s response to the believer’s prayer in this way affects life in general. Thus,
this first petition reveals that prayer, beyond devotion, seeks God’s protection in all of the
Christian life.
Your Kingdom Come
The second petition, “your kingdom come,” draws the attention of the prayer from
his or her present circumstances to consider and request the fruition of the kingdom of
God, the capstone to God’s reconciliation plan. Barth’s attention to the second petition
reveals how he connects reconciliation with eschatology. He says that Christian prayer
for God’s kingdom reveals two things: (1) that Christians are aware that the human
sphere has its limits and that believers are looking to another kingdom, “that other
kingdom is obviously if conceivably confessed and known;” and (2) that here is an “open
looking in the direction of this kingdom.”49 Barth’s suggestion that the kingdom is known
implies the knowledge about the kingdom has been revealed in God’s Word (Mark 1:15;
Matthew 3:2). Barth says that this petition is a looking forward to a new reality in which
Christians will experience true peace.50 “This peace on earth, actualized when God

49
50

Ibid., 236
Ibid., 237.

90

himself comes as King and Lord and creates and establishes it, is the kingdom of God.”51
Barth admits that since the kingdom of God is a new thing and outside the limits of our
comprehension, it is difficult to describe what the term means apart from what is known
in the Scriptures. Thus for Barth, the kingdom of God, for which Christians pray, breaks
through humanity’s present reality in order to point to a real kingdom wherein God is
Ruler and King of all creation. In this case, only He can respond to this petition. Barth
says, “The second petition looks toward this special dynamic reality, to the coming of
God’s kingdom as the coming God himself, to its breaking forth and breaking through
and breaking into the place where those who pray the petition are, to encounter with them
and therefore all creation.”52
But, Barth notes that there is a trichotomy in what is known about the kingdom of
God. The kingdom of God as revealed in the Scriptures describes that it has come
(Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20), is yet to come (Mark 9:1), and is an everlasting kingdom
(2 Peter 1:11). Scripture also gives a picture of what the kingdom of God is “like”
(Matthew 13; Luke 13:18), but not what it is specifically. It is now and not yet. It is a
mystery (Luke 8:10). Praying “thy kingdom come” calls for God to act in His own
freedom, Barth suggests, “Which in its purity and freedom is God’s gracious, reconciling,
and finally redeeming action. As such it is to be gratefully, joyfully and humbly affirmed
in Christian faith.”53 In other words, God the Reconciler has revealed the continued
primacy of His kingdom through His redeeming action.

51

Ibid.
Ibid., 236.
53
Ibid.
52

91

With regard to God’s redeeming action and the kingdom of God, the Scriptures
identify Christ with God’s kingdom. “For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or
greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ
and of God” (Ephesians 5:5). And, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my
servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from
another place” (John 18:36). Moreover, Jesus states explicitly that His mission on earth
was to proclaim the kingdom of God: “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of
God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent” (Luke 4:43). God’s
revelation of the kingdom of God is found in Jesus Christ, His person, and work. When
the Christian prays the second petition, he or she affirms Christ’s completed mission and
looks forward to the new reality to come in His kingdom. As the writer of Revelation
records:
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth
had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new
Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully
dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look!
God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them.
They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.”54
Barth argues, and I agree, that Christ is the “new thing,” the kingdom of God. “He
is the mystery that cannot be imprisoned in any system of human conceptuality but can be
revealed in parables. He is God acting concretely within human history...He at that time
was in his history, on the path that he trod to the end in his time, the imminent kingdom
of God.”55 Barth makes an interesting point that the second petition can also be stated as
“come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20) or “Our Lord come” (1 Corinthians 16:22). Barth

54
55

Revelation 21:1–3.
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 252.

92

believes that these expressions have the same meaning as the second petition. He makes
this point to substantiate his idea that this second petition was not an addition to
Christianity, but “an ancient and even, it would seem, a particularly venerable
tradition.”56 Therefore, when the believer prays “thy kingdom come” they are praying in
unison with the many that have gone before in the Christian faith, including those who
were alive at the time of Christ. Barth suggests that those who believed Jesus’ words
during the time of His ministry on earth witnessed the dawn of the kingdom of God.
“Jesus Christ being its beginning, he who was, and also its goal, he who is to come.”57
When the second petition is prayed, the individual joins with the voices in an ancient cry
for the coming of God’s kingdom. Barth says that praying for and speaking about God’s
kingdom is the gospel, it is telling the story of Jesus, “his life and word and work and
passion and death.”58 Barth notes the influence of the Blumhardts on his ideas on the
kingdom of God. He explains that although the work is his own effort, “it could not have
been stated and developed as it has without the impulse they gave and their influence
through other mediations and modifications.”59
The significance of Barth’s attention to the first two petitions of the Lord’s Prayer
in divine–human correspondence is his contention that “the prayer for the coming of
God’s kingdom, like that of hallowing God’s name, is pure prayer.”60 Barth considers
pure prayer to be prayer offered with a certain attitude. The appropriate attitude is as
children of God, invoking the Father in obedience to His command. It is pure because it

56

Ibid., 255.
Ibid., 254. See Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 33:13.
58
CD, IV/4: Lecture Fragments, 253.
59
Ibid., 257.
60
Ibid., 245.
57

93

is an authentic relationship between God and His children. “Prayer in this relationship
finds the criterion of its authenticity as invocation of the Father by his children in that the
fact that it is pure prayer.”61 This mindset has the following parts. Barth says pure prayer
is unavoidable because it is uttering this cry for God’s kingdom to come because God
frees His children to turn to Him, to respond to Him in this way. Their prayer then is in
free obedience to pray to God. Pure prayer rises out of a confidence in the absolute
superiority of God’s name, word, and kingdom over the vicissitudes of the human
situation in the world.62 The prayer for the coming of God’s kingdom is pure because the
action required to affect the coming of God’s kingdom rests exclusively on God. Barth
says, “it is also pure prayer because in it they turn to God, with whom alone rests that his
kingdom should come, that is, that he himself should come as King and Lord, by his
intervention putting an end to human unrighteousness.”63
Pure prayer, Barth says, “carries with it the unreserved certainty of being heard.”64
Barth suggests that doubt and concern with regards to God not answering this prayer does
not enter into the prayer for the coming of God’s kingdom because these words, when
addressed to God as Father, carry their own answer that comes from being heard. In
addition, as the prayer is made in obedience to God’s command, “it has an objectively
and subjectively solid basis that is protected against all doubt.”65 Barth says that when
God commands that His children request something of Him, inherent in that command is
the provision for His fulfillment of that request (John 13:13–14). In this way, God

61

Ibid.
Ibid.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid., 246.
62

94

directly corresponds to the action of the human agent in the act of praying “thy kingdom
come.” “‘Thy kingdom come’ should anticipate and reflect, without ceasing to be human
prayer, the answer of the reality and truth of the coming of God’s kingdom.”66
Barth’s idea of pure prayer in the doctrine of reconciliation seems to advance his
earlier description of “true” prayer in his doctrine of God. For instance, he describes true
prayer in the doctrine of God as follows. First, true prayer is not the act of praying out of
necessity. Instead, the Christian who prays a true prayer wants to utter the prayer. Then
he argues that the words of true prayer “want to be taken in hand and carried through as
an act” of factual appreciation for the free gift of God and His grace. The words of true
prayer acknowledge the certainty of the presence of God. True prayer carries its answer
within. “It is pure seeking knocking and asking, ‘Come Lord Jesus, come.’”67
Elsewhere in CD, Barth’s idea of true prayer advances his exposition of it in CD,
IV/4 in two ways. First, it demonstrates a movement away from Calvin’s rules of right
prayer where prayer builds Christian faith to an understanding of prayer as a command of
God.68 His treatment of pure prayer propels his ideas towards eschatology, unlike
Calvin’s rules of right prayer. With regard to his views on the Reformer’s perspective of
the Lord’s Prayer, Barth says he hopes to bring a “corrected” viewpoint. Furthermore, he
says that “We must go a little further than the Reformers, who have not discerned here, or
elsewhere, the eschatological character of the reality of God’s kingdom.” 69 Second, Barth
adds to the idea that prayer not only carries the answer within it (true prayer) but pure

66

Ibid.
CD, IV/4, 209.
68
John Kelsey, “Prayer and Ethics: Reflections on Calvin and Barth,” The Harvard Theological Review 82,
no. 2 (April 1989): 169–84.
69
Karl Barth, Prayer, ed. Don E. Saliers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 35.
67

95

prayer has the certainty of being answered. Therefore, true prayer is the Christian’s free
act before God, an act he or she has been freed to do because of God’s grace. True prayer
is primarily petition and worship. Worship defines the limits of the petitions of prayer.
Barth suggests “that we can only worship as we ask means that our asking must be
directed to this God, to the One who gives us the wonderful freedom, permission and
summons to do so.”70
Barth did not complete his analysis of the Lord’s Prayer in his doctrine of
reconciliation, but in an earlier publication where he exposited this prayer according to
the great Reformers, Calvin, and Luther. However, he does refer to the Lord’s Prayer
throughout CD. For example, he considers that the love of God is His divine self-offering
to humanity, and the human act that corresponds to God’s divine offer of love is human
obedience in giving himself or herself fully to God. Barth says that this human self-giving
corresponds to the divine gift as God fullfills His will as revealed in the petition of the
Lord’s prayer “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Barth explains further,
the eternal love which is in God, and with which He has turned to man, there
corresponds the fact that man may love God. Is not the mystery of reconciliation
almost greater on this human side, from below, than it is on the divine? It is at
least as great. For how can it be true, possible and actual, that a man loves God as
God loves him?71
This is the will of God, and it takes place in fulfilment of His will—which is done
on earth as it is in heaven. God wills that this should take place, and He sees to it
that He acquires that which He does not need, which adds nothing to Him, which
does not make Him richer, which He might just as well do without, but which He
does not will to be without—the self-giving of man, and therefore man as the one
who imitates and copies him, and the action of man as the echo of His own.72

70

CD, III/4, 100.
CD, IV/2, 790.
72
Ibid., 791.
71

96

As Christians give themselves in obedience in prayer by praying “thy will be done on
earth as it is in heaven,” they demonstrate obedient human self-giving to God.
Second, he summarizes the prayer as a total human act of freedom in light of
God’s grace. Barth’s use of freedom here seems to hinge on the fact that in all the
petitions and invocations of the Lord’s Prayer, there is nothing that the human agent can
do for himself or herself. Christians have all been directed to pray the same prayer; they
have this in common. Therefore, when Christians meet they ought to pray. The Lord’s
Prayer is both a picture of the total admission of all Christians concerning the glory of
God and expressions of the Christian faith and hope in God. In sum, Barth’s comments
demonstrate the unique quality of his theology of petitionary prayer and therefore its
significance for the church today. He illustrates throughout the doctrine of reconciliation
that the language event Christians call prayer is analogous to the nature of human
relationships with God and God with humanity. Prayer rebuilds or revisits the
relationship that humanity once had with God in the beginning. There is no mention of
prayer in the Garden of Eden in Genesis. However, evidence exists of God’s relationship
with Adam, both in the fact that He sought a mate for him and allowed Adam to seek that
mate in His creatures and that God called to Adam in the cool of the day. God also
expresses His command to Adam in that he not eat of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. Thus, the relationship with God from the beginning has been
one of language on both sides, divine and human. Original correspondence was affected
by humanity’s sin. Jesus was the covenant worker, God’s elect who paid the penalty for
sin in humanity’s place. In God’s command to pray, Barth is suggesting that God has
given the language of prayer as the event through which He rebuilds relationship with His

97

children, who have been reborn in Christ. The language is a correspondence to which
God responds. By consequence, the value of the Lord’s Prayer in Barth’s theology is his
contention that prayer is human action analogous to the relationship humanity once had
with God in the beginning. The Lord’s Prayer as the task of the human agent—the
Christian believer—is performed, not out of need, but in faith, love, and hope in
obedience to God’s direction. Jüngel suggests that for Barth invocation is a partnership of
freedom to love that “the human person for his or her part to correspond to these
imperative through love for God.”73 Prayer is ethical action because it encourages
Christians to examine their existence in the context of God’s will for His children. In the
Lord’s Prayer, His children invoke Him with the words “our Father.” Christ has given the
Lord’s Prayer not to the individual but to those related to one another in Him. The body
of Christ is unique. Scripture explains that Christians “are a chosen people, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of
him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9). Prayer is
ethical action because in prayer, “we discover a purpose in and for relation, a discovery
which aids in moral development.”74 Barth’s explains:
Where two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, they are called by
Him to pray with one another. Those gathered by the revelation of His name are
men who are wholly referred and directed to God. That they are referred to God is
something that they have in common with all men. But they are also directed to
Him. They know that in the last resort they are not in their own hands and under
their own control. They know that they are only creatures and not the Creator.
They know also that they are God’s sinful creatures; that because of their own
corruption their activity is a corrupt activity. They thus know that they cannot
avert the sorrow and suffering of the world; that they cannot avoid their own
misery; that they cannot alter the human situation; that they cannot accomplish the
reconciliation of the world with God as a genuine transformation; that they cannot
Jüngel, Theological Essays, 158.
David L. Reinhart, Prayer as Memory: Toward the Comparative Study of Prayer as Apocalyptic
Language and Thought, vol. 186, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene: Pickwick, 2012), 63.
73
74

98

hallow God’s name as they should; that they cannot bring in the kingdom of peace
and salvation; that they cannot do His will. Hence they know that they cannot and
will not of themselves receive their daily bread, know the forgiveness of their
debts, withstand temptation and overcome evil and the evil one. They know that
they can only pray that these things should happen. They will do so in faith and
love and hope.75
Jüngel argues that to the extent that humans correspond to God, they “remain human
among others, becoming ever more human through them and for them and so with
them.”76 Praying in chorus with the family of God in the Lord’s Prayer helps the believer
understand humanity in the way that God intends fellowship with one another and with
Him. Jüngel suggests that in prayer, as Christians invoke “our Father,” they are lifting up
not only the community of believers, the children of God, but are bringing the whole
world before God. Such an act is analogous to humanity’s primal speech act in obedience
to God and is in stark contrast to the world’s propensity for individual uniqueness, that is,
“its uncompromising way . . . to absolute itself.”77
Summary
In the first two petitions of the Lord’s Prayer Barth seems to suggest that prayer,
beyond its devotional aspect, has meaning. It is divine and human action in
correspondence. It is this correspondence that is the vehicle through which Christians
address God as Father. When Christians pray they self-identify as members of God’s
family. On God’s side, He is the architect of prayer, He commands its use, and He
implements the believer’s petitions according to His will. God’s correspondence with the
human agent through prayer accents His redemptive claim on humanity. The following

75

CD, IV/2, 704.
Jüngel, Theological Essays, 153.
77 ̈
Jungel, Theological Essays, 162–163.
76

99

chapter brings together Barth’s treatment of prayer as human moral action and examines
how his ideas contribute to an understanding of Christian prayer in daily life.

100

Chapter 5: Prayer as Divine-Human Correspondence
Introduction
Thus far I have demonstrated that in selected sections of Barth’s CD he presents
petitionary prayer as correspondence between God and the human agent in that it is
action in response to God’s command. In the final chapter, I examine how and in what
ways prayer is action—action that is a consequence of this divine–human
correspondence. I attempt to tease out the various forms of action that prayer takes in
Barth’s CD, linking them to prayer in the Christian life as a whole. Ultimately, I
demonstrate that prayer, as human action, is a state of being, predicated in the human’s
identity in Christ as Saviour, Lord, Redeemer, the archetype of prayer itself. Such a
conception of prayer reveals that human nature (being) or identity (in Christ) and
humanity’s doing (responding to God’s command to pray) is the significance that Barth’s
ideas of prayer contribute to the understanding of the nature of prayer as a command of
God in correspondence with Him. Prayer defines the limits of who humans are as
Christians in terms of how they are to respond both to God and to their community, the
world, and God’s overall plan. At the same time, prayer is the vehicle through which God
corresponds with humanity to reveal some aspects of His divine being.
God is incomprehensible and unexplainable. However, He has chosen to reveal
Himself to humanity, His creation through His Word by the power of His Holy Spirit.
God’s being with regards to prayer unfolds a three-fold action: His spoken command to
call the human agent to prayer, His hearing, and His answering prayer. God’s being as
revealed to us in His word can be classified as God Creator, God Redeemer, and God
Reconciler. He calls the human agent to prayer under His authority as Creator. He

101

responds to prayer through His relationship with believers via His Son, Jesus Christ,
Redeemer, through whom He has elected to reconcile Himself to the Christian in prayer.
The Lord’s Prayer reveals both elements of God’s identity and human identity as His
children in Christ. In the Lord’s Prayer, God has revealed the boundaries of this
relationship with Him highlighting the essential themes that should concern humans in
daily Christian living (that is, our daily bread, forgiveness, temptation and God’s
protection).
Prayer as human action in relation to God defines the nature of the Christian life
in relation to God. Because, Barth says, “the very highest honour that God claims from
man and man can pay Him is that man should seek and ask and accept at His hands, not
just something, but everything he needs,” that is, petitioning God in prayer.1 Such a
special form of human action is also quite natural according to Barth.2 He argues that
prayer is the natural posture in the relationship between God and the human agent. Barth
supports his contention by suggesting that on the human side one can approach God only
as “suppliant . . . and is directed to do so.”3 Thus, Barth is suggesting that God is granting
permission for the human agent to act in such a way that reveals God’s covenant partner
relationship with redeemed humanity.4 Barth further suggests that supplication and asking
of God is the very core of the covenant between God and the human. “It is so superior, so
majestic, so clear that it makes man’s prayer immediately necessary. It is the basis,

1

CD, III/4, 87.
Ibid., 93.
3
Ibid.
4
William Werpehowski, “Narrative and Ethics in Barth,” Theology Today 43, no. 3 (October 1986): 334–
53, 341.
2

102

permission and necessity of prayer, the basis which the man who is free before Him
cannot escape.”5
Webster suggests that “in linking prayer to ethos, Barth’s interest is not in cultic
or liturgical formation or moral dispositions, but in prayer as a human venture.”6 Webster
suggests that human action has the attribute as a “pure gift of grace.” He argues that
“human action is that of a servant, servant in the sharp sense of slave, of one who no
longer owns himself but is owned by another. Human action is now good when it takes
place within this bondage.”7
William Werpehowski suggests that in Barth’s ethics, there is no human action
outside the command of God because the divine command is “absolutely binding” and
“there can be no human action which does not stand under the divine command.”8
Werpehowski further suggests that the nature of Barth’s pattern of human action in
relationship with God in Christ is really his anthropology, as it ascribes Jesus as the basis
and pattern of the history of the Christian.9 Werpehowski states that Barth’s ethics reveal
a relationship between God and the human agent and the human agent with God. On the
human side, the human agent has changed (born again) and is being changed
(sanctification). Growth-in-continuity is the history of the relationship between God and
the human agent. Werpehowski states,
This is just a less interesting way of saying that Barth incorporates a conception of
“history” which grounds reasons for action, character, and growth-in-continuity in
his category of “history of relationship with God.” The everyday conception of
history, remember, explains the changes through self-expressing actions of a
5

CD, III/4, 93.
Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 77.
7
Ibid., 155.
8
William Werpehowski, “Command and History in the Ethics of Karl Barth,” Journal of Religious
Ethics no. 9 (1981): 298–321, 301.
9
Werpehowski, “Command and History in the Ethics of Karl Barth,” 303.
6

103

continuous subject. As continuous, Barth’s Christian person stands loyal to the
cause of Jesus Christ. As changed through his or her actions, he or she comes to a
deeper self-understanding through a deeper understanding of God’s plans for him
or her. And as changing, he or she approaches concrete ethical events…which
help to frame and limit the possibilities of obedient action.10
Prayer is concrete action because it is consistent, repetitive, and active in the life
and history of the Christian. Prayer, Barth suggests, and I agree, is “the content of
particular moments in the history of biblical man.”11 Prayer marks the events of human
life and particularly so when that life is lived in Jesus Christ as “Christian.” Thus the act
of praying is no small thing. Each prayer, each moment of prayer, is a significant moment
in the Christian life. It is invaluable. Over and above the precious nature of prayer in the
individual Christian’s life, prayer of the Christian community as one whole is also
significant. Barth suggests that prayer is the basic act, the main force of the whole
Christian community past present and to come. “Prayer is, therefore, the acknowledgment
that the community which exists in time, as it has performed and does and will perform
its ministry, has lived and does and will live by the free grace of God addressed to it
rather than by the inner meaningfulness and power of its own action.”12
Prayer as Effective Action
Prayer is effective human action in as much as prayer is not a lonely event. It
includes other members in the family of God and first and foremost Christ as the ultimate
pray-er accompanying the believer in prayer, and it calls upon the family of God to
petition God as Father together as each one of us prays the Lord’s Prayer. “Because
Christ’s prayer is his action ‘for others,’ we may also pray with him.”13 Webster suggests

10

Ibid., 316.
CD, III/4, 88–89.
12
CD, IV/3.2, 882–883.
13
Ibid.
11

104

that Barth’s attention to the multiplicity of ways in which Christian life is associated,
linked, and espoused to the life of Christ is not merely Barth using literary emphasis
through “reduplication as an emphatic device; rather they are means of identifying the
range of ways in which we are to conceive of the relationship of Christ’s humanity to our
own.”14 The range of ways includes the act of asking, which evidences in petitionary
prayer and arises out of the gift and will of God through Jesus Christ. Other ways include
the grace of God directed to humanity “as distinct from himself,” and the hearing of
God’s word/command actualized in the Christian’s response (by asking) in freedom.15
Prayer is effective action when Christians pray with assurance, as a
community/church. The assurance lies in the promise given to the church, which is
received continually by its members. The promise is the ability to make direct appeals to
God’s free grace and that He will hear and respond. “He speaks individually to each
individual, again for its own sake it cannot take away from the individual the calling on
this Lord, the direct appeal to His free grace.”16 In prayer the community of believers
opens to love of their neighbor and to casting of cares upon God. Barth suggests that
loving one’s neighbor and casting away individual cares can come only through prayer.
He states,
In the last resort we can only love the neighbour by praying for ourselves and for
him: for ourselves, that we may love him rightly, and for him, that he may let
himself be loved; which means that either way prayer can have only one content
and purpose: that according to His promise Jesus Christ may let His work be done
for and to ourselves and to our neighbour. Praying, asking of God, can consist
only in receiving what God has already prepared for us, before and apart from our
stretching out our hands for it.17

Webster, Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation, 185.
Ibid., 186.
16
CD, I/2, 453–454.
17
Ibid.
14
15

105

Prayer is effective action also because it is a willingness to receive. Barth states
that God gives the gift of prayer. Prayer is a gift because God, by His grace, grants
humanity the freedom to approach Him and to ask. As prayer is a gift, so too is receiving
from God in response to prayer and asking, knowing that God hears the prayers of His
children and promises to act. Thus, prayer on all sides involves the giving and receiving,
both on the human side and on the divine side. God gives the gift and receives the
human’s prayer. The human agent prays as he or she is commanded, seeking and receives
from God what only He can do. Barth sums it up by saying, “perhaps the very highest
honour that God claims from man and man can pay Him is that man should seek and ask
and accept at His hands, not just something, but everything that he needs?”18
Divine–Human Action in Petitionary Prayer
God makes His being known to the human creature in such a way that the creature
may recognize Him through Jesus Christ. Humans derive their existence from God’s
action, the fulfillment of His own actions through creation, redemption, and
reconciliation. Barth claims that God’s action must be by the vehicle of correspondence
because God’s response is the divine work. Divine work, Barth suggest, centres on the
kingdom of God in Jesus Christ where “God speaks His Word to which man must reply
and to which his active life must correspond if lived in obedience.”19 In this sense,
petitionary prayer seems to connect God’s plan of salvation to human action. Such a
concept does not to imply that Barth believes that human effort is involved in accepting
Christ as Saviour. What I think he is suggesting, however, is that the act of petitionary

18
19

CD, III/4, 87.
CD, IV/3, 474–475.

106

prayer is an obedient response that centres on God’s work in the life of the believer.
Barth’s word for this response is “application.” Barth states that the Christian, in prayer
“acts in the form of what we might call an application. If he is a man free before God, he
is free to will and therefore to do this too—to present himself before God wholly and
utterly as an application directed to Him.”20 Application can come in the form of
confession.
Barth suggests that one cannot seek God in prayer and not find Him and for that
reason prayer incorporates confession and praise. First, for Barth any type of prayer
includes confession, as a part of “confession” seeking God. “And conversely, he cannot
really seek God in prayer without finding Him and for that very reason being called upon
to confess.”21 Confession in prayer points to one’s knowledge of God. The human action
of applying human reason to arrive at the idea, by faith, that God is Father and Creator is
the basic act of human reason. Therefore, calling upon God as Father in prayer (including
but not limited to the Lord’s Prayer) expresses a confessing knowledge of God grounded
and won in prayer. Barth argues that this knowledge of God makes the believer God’s
witness, a confessing witness expressed in fresh newness each time one calls upon God as
Father. He says, “the knowledge of God is newly grounded and won in prayer. One
becomes God’s witness only by becoming ‘anew’ which is what happens in prayer.”22 In
prayer, one finds God afresh each time. Barth says God is gracious; He has found the
human agent, but calls them to come to Him repeatedly.
That God loves man is the meaning of His command on this side too. Because He
is gracious to him and regards him as His own, God wills that even when he has
already found Him he shall seek Him and find Him again. On this side, too, God’s
20

CD, III/4, 87.
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
21

107

command is proof of the fact that He has made common cause with man and wills
to do so again.23
Praise is another form of action in prayer. Praise, in this sense, is not equivalent to
the common perception of a response by song and hand clapping. Prayer is inward praise
of God. By this, Barth means that prayer is a free willing acknowledgement of God that is
meant for His ears alone. In his expression of praise, Barth is referring to the hiddenness
of prayer. Prayer is not a demonstration of faith, disguised preaching, or an instrument of
edification. Prayer is not prayer, Barth says, when addressed to anyone else but God.24
Matthew 6:5–6 reads:
When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the
synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they
have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close
the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what
is done in secret, will reward you.
In this way, the action of prayer, as inward praise, is twofold: it promises a quiet
rest in God the Father in the Christian’s secret (physical and spiritual) place and a
promise of “reward” from God for this internal readiness and act of praise. I agree with
Barth that both praise and confession suggest the act of honouring God through prayer.
Barth states, “Even he who leads the congregation in prayer can only want to summon
them to their praise of God as intended for His ears alone. From this standpoint we must
say that no less in prayer than in confession we are concerned with the honour of God.”25
This inward praise is free from concerns about how and what is said, its gift is the act of
going to God as an offering. Inward praise, in this way, is free from the concern to pray a
certain way. I like Barth’s comment that prayer simply has to be the Christian’s concern

23

Ibid., 88.
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
24

108

only with God. He says, “It does not have to be beautiful or edifying, logically coherent
or theologically correct...Its formation can be determined only by its own inner law,
where man is concerned only with God.”26 Here Barth suggests that Christians need not
be overly spiritual or ethereal because prayer is a Christian responsibility before God; and
as such, is a responsibility that he or she chooses freely to honour.27 In all this, prayer is
sincere correspondence with God.
Therefore, God’s divine action, the first of which is His command to pray, should
propel one to God when in need and prompt one to reject any alternative (for example
self-reliance or works). For, “If prayer really has its basis in the order and command of
God, all the difficulties which arise apart from this basis are dispelled.”28 Barth says that
in receiving from God, one knows the giver and source of provision. Thus, one continues
to pray in all things and for all things with thanksgiving because each occurrence of one’s
request to God and receipt from Him necessitates the understanding that, “everything is
from the hand of God even that perhaps which one may take because of one’s work or
other circumstances.”29 Not only does God’s command to pray propel believers to Him,
He also assists them in the act of praying itself. In fact, when Christians pray the Lord’s
Prayer, Barth says they are also recalling their need, in every instance, to know how to
pray. Recall that the Lord’s Prayer, as it is often termed, was Jesus’ response to the
request of the disciples to teach them to pray (Luke 11:1–13).
Secondly, divine action, in prayer, not only teaches one how to pray, but also
teaches that when believers pray, they do so because they do not know what to pray, the

26

Ibid.
CD, III/4, 89–90.
28
Ibid., 95.
29
Ibid., 95–96.
27

109

Holy Spirit (Intercessor and Translator) interprets and intercedes for them. Necessarily it
is a continual part of prayer. However, it does not mean that the Christian does not pray at
all while waiting and hoping that the Holy Spirit will make a more eloquent entreaty on
his or her behalf. Rather, I agree with Barth that “in prayer one must do what one can in
one’s own weakness and allow God Himself to speak by His Spirit the true and decisive
Word...It is for this feeble performance that the Spirit intercedes.”30 Always weak in its
relationship to God, this human speaking is what He “forestalls and helps.”31
Thirdly, divine action in prayer occurs when God answers prayer as part of the
making of human history. The Bible describes prayer in the midst of or as a precursor to
defining moments in the history of the children of God, which takes concrete form in the
prayers of individual people in the biblical narrative. The first example of a prayer and its
significance in the history of God’s people is Hannah’s prayer for a son (1 Samuel 1:10–
12). God answered her prayer and she gave birth to Samuel. Hannah kept her covenant to
God and gave Samuel to God. Samuel became one of God’s prophets and a judge in
Israel. The second example is Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39–
46) wherein He submitted to the Father’s will His life for the sins of the world. I believe
that in each moment Christians spend in prayer, they recall and call upon this relationship
with Christ as they live in this new history that His sacrifice alone made possible. Thus,
each moment of prayer marks a moment of life in this new history as a believer in Christ
Jesus. Moreover, the act of praying connects humanity to one another (believers and nonbelievers) and to the community of believers past, present, and future as intercession is
made for the needs of God’s kingdom.

30
31

Ibid., 90.
Ibid.

110

While prayer marks moments in the history of individual lives, the overarching
human action in prayer is correspondence with God. Barth indicates that what God wills
of humans is that they bring their requests in their simplicity, their complexity, their
urgency to Him as a natural consequence of the covenantal bond between the gracious
God and His people, a bond He created from creation and set in motion for humanity’s
benefit.32 From God’s side, Barth says, it is God’s will; His covenantal relationship laid
out in creation. “He is the God who lets man come to Him with his requests, and hears
and answers them. He is God in the fact that He lets man apply to Him in this way, and
wills that this should be the case.”33 On the human side, it is the purest form of human
action on a daily basis. As a result, the life of prayer can be described as a necessary
action of human existence in relation to God. Barth argues, and I agree, that the children
of God are called to prayer as the single human act to which God promises to correspond
(Jeremiah 29:12, 33:3) and to respond. It is necessary because God makes Himself
available in an urgent way to the human agent through prayer: “Seek ye the Lord while
he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near.”34 Prayer is necessary because it
keeps the Christian close to the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ in the present time and
“unto eternal life” (Jude 1:21). But when the Christian says, “I cannot pray,” Barth says
this is untrue because God calls men and women to pray and in the calling lies the
enabling to pray. Thus, “it is no good lying, for what one really means when one says one
cannot pray is . . . I will not to pray.”35 However, if praying makes humans free before
God then the first component of that “freedom” is obedience. As Barth suggests:

32

Ibid., 93.
Ibid.
34
See also CD, III/4, 93–94.
35
Ibid., 96.
33

111

The first criterion, then, to be noted in regard to prayer is whether it is an act of
obedience and can stand as such before God. It cannot stand before God except
when it has its basis in His command, the commandment of His grace.36 Thus,
when the bolt of disobedience is pushed back, anyone can pray.37
I agree with Barth that prayer is a task to be undertaken by all believers. There are
specific dimensions of prayer that Barth has covered in some lesser detail than his focus
on prayer as ethics. They are prayer as devotion, private prayer and church liturgies,
prayer as thanksgiving penance and worship, prayer on behalf of and participating in the
community of believers. They are worth noting because these dimensions of prayer fold
in on the main theme of prayer as correspondence between God and the human agent.
Prayer as Devotion
Prayer as devotion—that is a focus on private individual prayer as a means to
cleanse oneself—is as Barth suggests, perhaps contrary to God’s command to pray.
Prayer begins, Barth says, “neither in the collected man nor the distraught, neither the
deepened nor the superficial, neither the purified and cleansed nor the impure, and not
even the clear and strong, has anything whatever to represent or offer to God, but
everything to ask of Him.”38 In sum, one can never be purified enough to come to God on
one’s own. The approach to prayer that God commands is twofold: to come to Him and to
ask. For Barth says, this is the only way one can come to God. In prayer, there is no
camouflage or mask; one must step out of one’s roles in life. In prayer one cannot give
oneself in “service.” God has already offered Christ as the ultimate servant.
Barth suggests that prayer books and church liturgies are useful if they position

36

Ibid., 97.
Ibid.
38
Ibid., 98.
37

112

the prayer before God in supplication and nothing else.39 Barth is suggesting that prayer
books, of which the contemporary church has a vast number, need only present the
Christian with the information necessary to realize that prayer is a simple expression of
need to God in response to command.
Barth argues that prayer includes thanksgiving, penitence, and worship. He
suggests that Christians pray with the mindset that there is a great chasm between God
and them. Barth suggest that one’s thoughts about that distance between God and the
human agent lead to giving of thanks for the freedom to pray, penitence for sin, and
worship for the grace of God to cleanse them by the blood of Jesus Christ. Thus, the
believer is thankful in all actions particularly in prayer because it is God who chooses to
respond to human action in prayer. Barth says, “We certainly cannot pray gratefully
without realizing the abyss between God and ourselves, and therefore confessing to
ourselves and God that, as we are unworthy of His grace and blessings in general, so we
do not deserve to be summoned and required to come before Him with our requests.”40
Commonly understood dimensions of prayer such as thanksgiving, repentance,
and worship, are dimensions of seeking, thanking, and worshiping God at His request.41
Barth seems to be suggesting the devotional aspects of prayer when he speaks of pure
prayer in the order of penitence, thanksgiving, and worship. However, his focus is to
point the reader to something far greater. He builds on prayer as devotion or pure prayer
by suggesting that petitionary prayer is something quite different, while it has its roots in
these forms of prayer. For example, Barth suggests that while devotional prayer focuses

39

Ibid.
Ibid., 99.
41
Ibid., 101.
40

113

on the nature of human reaching for God in obeying His command in the present time,
petitionary prayer is a looking forward to God’s action in relation to humanity in the
dimension of prayer for the community.
Prayer for the community should be entered into confidently, Barth suggests that
prayer as a part of and for the community of believers is confident human action. The
individual who upholds his or her community of faith in prayer, trusts that God will be
faithful to His word and that He will be consistent in maintaining His covenant not only
in the present but in His kingdom to come in the future. Interestingly, Barth seems to
suggest that communal prayer “keeps God to His Word...It keeps Him to the fact that its
cause is His. Appealing to His free grace, it expects quite simply that He will let Himself
be kept to His Word.”42 Barth seems to be suggesting that God chooses to define Himself
by His Word. In fact, Barth notes elsewhere that God accepts community prayer and
prayer for the community as an offer of free action, which He presents to the human
agent as a way to partner with Him in His fulfillment of His covenant with humanity.
Summary
Prayer, as effective human action, is inherent to human correspondence with God.
It also describes how God’s action in regards to prayer corresponds with humanity in
revealing some of His divine attributes. Barth’s contribution in teasing out this theme of
prayer, in my view, is ground breaking for today’s Christian as he or she calls upon God
as Father in prayer.

42

CD, IV/3.2, 883.

114

Conclusion
The Significance of Barth’s Theology of Prayer
The Christian act of praying to God as Father is effective because it is action
between God and the human agent predicated on God’s act of divine grace in permitting
(commanding) prayer followed by His corresponding action to hear and act on prayer.
Throughout his theological career, Barth attempts to locate prayer within this notion of
effective human action. More precisely, his ethical ontology sets prayer as the human
activity that positions Christians at the heart of God’s covenant action with humanity. He
thus expresses prayer as action beyond its devotional dimension to its impact on the
whole of the Christian’s life. Barth’s idea of locating prayer in ethics is why I believe that
the CD makes a significant contribution to the theology of Christian prayer. Barth’s ideas
on prayer reveal that prayer is more than an act of devotion.
Barth draws attention to the Christian act of prayer as ethics, that is, the basis of
overall human action. He suggests, and it is significant to his contribution to theology,
that prayer is a correspondence between the divine and the human. The action is first and
foremost God’s work, through His Word, solidified by His will for humanity and
reconciling us to Himself through the elected One, the Christian’s true hope, Jesus Christ.
As a result, prayer takes on a new light in Barth’s ethics; it suggests that God commands
in all of His Word that Christians pray. God gives this gift of renewed relationship in
keeping with His plan and purpose for the human creature. Thus, the act of praying itself
carries importance to the Christian life both as effective action in the sense that it can be
considered good human action because of God’s role as the giver who is the only true
good, and in its assurance that God hears and answers.
115

Prayer carries its own reward as it imparts a new freedom by building faith, by
sanctifying the believer, by fuelling human relationships in the Christian community, and
by lifting up the world’s needs to God as Christians cry “our Father” in unison throughout
the history of Christianity. Prayer in the context of ethics under the command of God
gives the Christian life the attributes expressed in Psalm 1. The author of that Psalm
eschews the virtues of the person whose actions are directed to the thinking, doing, and
regarding for God’s law/word against behaviour in juxtaposition to those virtues. The
psalmist’s division of these attitudes and actions emphasize their value on the one hand in
the life of God’s followers, and on the other hand, the negative consequences implied for
all those who follow “the path of sinners.”1 By extension, the act of prayer, that is, the
command of the Word of God, sanctifies us by the giving of the gift of new lives as
children of God.
Barth’s examination of Christian prayer is multi-dimensional. He explores prayer
as invocation, petition, and Sabbath rest (which includes his ideas on the ethical
dimensions of prayer, specifically, his ethical ontology).
Prayer as invocation, calling upon the name of God in prayer is eschatological in
its perspective of God in relation to human action with regards to prayer.2 The Lord’s
Prayer presupposes the coming of God’s kingdom, of the second coming of Christ and of
the parousia. Invocation becomes not only a prayer of individual assent to the will of
God, but a prayer of watchful expectation of the promised time to come. “They pray like
the watchmen on the walls of sleeping Jerusalem … to the glory of God and the salvation

1
2

Benjamin J. Segal, A New Psalm: The Psalms as Literature (Springfield, NJ: Gefen Books, 2013), 3.
Jüngel, Theological Essays, 172.

116

of all who dwell within the walls.”3 Prayer as invocation is prophetic and can be a
looking forward to the fashioning of the world in the light of what God has declared is to
come for all.
Prayer as petition is one of Barth’s primary points in his analysis of the Lord’s
Prayer from his early work to the CD. In his sermons, he explains the Lord’s Prayer as
petition.4 In his mature work, The Holy Spirit and the Christian life (and perhaps, CD,
IV/4: Lecture Fragments). Prayer, however, in the example of the Lord’s Prayer is also a
sample of the way believers should pray. Each “petition” in the Lord’s Prayer can be
itself a prayer. As the believer prays “give us this day our daily bread,” an entire prayer is
sought for the wellbeing of all that requires the believer to receive from God’s hand the
support needed to live in the way of food, clothing, and shelter for the community.
By praying in the manner of the Lord’s Prayer, believers join their voices with all
the saints past, present, and future for the community and for the world. Thus, in prayer
one may be praying in an individual closet as Barth observes, but in reality they are never
alone in their petition, they are praying in the manner of the many who believe in Jesus
Christ—praying in the manner divinely taught to the community.
Why Prayer Matters to the Church
Petitionary prayer is not an individual human action. Consider the Lord’s Prayer
as the example of petitionary prayer and note first that it is a prayer of all Christian
believers as one. The group is entirely comprised of believers in Jesus Christ, the elected
One. Here is where I add to Barth’s ideas on human action. His argument seems to
suggest that humans can be individually focused, specifically, an individual act of

3
4

Ibid.
See Barth’s Come Holy Spirit for details.

117

obedience to God’s command. However, I argue that petitionary prayer is speech of the
whole community as one voice before God. God’s command to prayer calls for His
children (plural) to call upon Him. “If my people who are called by my Name” in this
verse God calls the children of Israel as a group to prayer. The verse continues to explain
the blessing that God imparts when His people approach Him as one voice, as
commanded, namely that He will hear and moreover, He would heal their land. When
Jesus’ disciples ask Him to teach them to pray, He speaks to the group and responds with
a prayer that calls for the community of disciples to invoke God not as individuals but as
the children of God, as one voice calling upon their Father in heaven.
Moreover, when the Christian community comes together as one voice, Christ’s
sacrifice is commemorated. A formal expression of this observance is the Eucharist, or
Lord’s Supper, or Communion. Therefore, I am suggesting that calling upon God as
Father (invocation) in prayer as one voice (that is, the community of believers, the family
of God) is an expression of the observance of the Eucharist. What, I mean here is that
prayer not only forms part of the Eucharistic element of a church service (for example,
opening with a word of prayer), but that the totality of the meaning of “Eucharist” is
expressed in prayer, specifically the Lord’s Prayer. Because in partaking of the “bread”
which God provides (in response to the prayer “give us this day our daily bread” (Matt
6:11)), the Christian community acknowledges the giver of that bread, the sacrifice He
made (the breaking of His body for sinners (1 Cor. 11:24)), His promised return and the
eternal kingdom to come. “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26).

118

Finally, prayer, as a concrete activity, is an act that repeats and represents the holy
day, the Sabbath. Barth says,
If prayer is to become and be the underlying note and basis of all human activity,
it needs to be continually exercised in particular. Prayer as a particular act in some
sense repeats and represents the holy day in the midst of the week. In these
sayings, then, Paul was not merely pointing to a perennial attitude of prayer, but
also to the fact that the concrete activity of the community and of each individual
Christian in observance of the holy day may and must have its continuation and
concrete correspondence on the work-day.5
It is also a Sabbath resting in God. Barth says,
But so long as it is a request brought before God, God will hear it and understand
it, and He will accept it as right, as the prayer demanded by Him, as an act of
obedience, infinitely preferring it to the sublimest liturgy which does not fulfill
this condition. It is as well to recall the primary meaning of the Sabbath
commandment. In the supreme sense to pray is to observe a Sabbath rest from all
one’s cares, even the best.6
Barth considers this rest God’s fulfillment of His promise in the salvation that came
through Jesus Christ. Barth says, the Sabbath is “the day of God’s rest and of the rest also
promised to His people, is fulfilled ‘after so long a time’ in the day of Jesus.”7
The Sabbath rest brought in by the work of Christ is a consummation between
God and His chosen people, what Barth calls God’s will to preserve the believer in Jesus
Christ. Barth says that Christ “became and was, is His overflowing goodness in the
preservation of the creature. We must reiterate that it is His free and unmerited
goodness.”8 Thus, prayer can be considered a covenant consummation between God and
His children in Christ through grace as He hears and responds to their petitions.

5

CD, III/4, 89.
Ibid., 88.
7
CD, I/2, 52.
8
CD, III/3, 71.
6

119

Moreover, it is an assurance that brings about a “rest” or confidence in God’s Word
because of what Christ has done on the human’s behalf.
Prayer is also rest, Barth suggests, in that it is a looking forward to something new
and wonderful in humanity’s coming redemption when Christ returns. This rest is a future
hope, which has been promised to the children of God through Christ. Barth combines the
ideas of prayer as consummation and the return of Christ suggesting that Christians pray
each day for a fresh revelation of this hope that is to come. Barth says,
What we have to do is simply to take this consequence as our starting-point, to
enjoy this Sabbath rest with Him as those who hear the message of Easter Day
and are obedient to the verdict of the Holy Spirit pronounced there, praying that it
may daily be disclosed afresh to us, looking forward in hope to the consummation
of His parousia.9
Sabbath rest in relation to prayer suggests developing a heart of compassion
through praying. Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8) desires compassion more
than the obedience to the letter of the law. Responding to God’s command to pray,
particularly when Christians pray the Lord’s Prayer, reveals Christ’s heart of compassion.
Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. As Lord, He contains the meaning and scope of what it
means to show compassion. Therefore as Lord, He is compassionate to us as He comes
along side us praying with us and for us.
In conclusion, the Christian first walks uprightly before God in the act of prayer in
service to God. Then he or she stands with the righteous, invoking God as “our Father,”
steadfastly following the way brought about by God’s covenantal reconciliation through
Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. And at the same time he or she rests in the
assurance that the act of prayer encapsulates its own reward by virtue of it being effective

9

CD, IV/1, 345–346.

120

and obedient human action in the Christian life in correspondence with God. In prayer the
Christian, the child of God in Jesus Christ, is never freer than when he or she leaves the
vicissitudes of this life behind, if even for a moment, and attempts to grasp and
communicate with the divine.

121

Bibliography

Books
Barth, Karl, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Thomas F. Torrance. The Doctrine of the Word of
God. Vol. 1. Part 1. Church Dogmatics. London, New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
________. The Christian Life: Lecture Fragments. Vol. 4. Part 4. Church Dogmatics. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
________ and Edward Thurneysen. Come Holy Spirit. 1933. Translated by George W. Richards,
Elmer G. Homrighausen, and Karl J. Ernst. New York: Round Table Press, 1934.
________. Die Theologie Zwinglis 1922/1923. Vorlesungen Göttingen Wintersemester
1922/1923. Zurich: TVZ 2004. Quoted in John Webster, Barth’s Earlier Theology: Four
Studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2005.

________ and William H. Willimon. The Early Preaching of Karl Barth: Fourteen Sermons
with Commentary by William H. Willimon. Translated by John E. Wilson. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.
________. The Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed. Translated by Edwin C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford,
1968.

________. Ethics. Edited by Dietrich Braun. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. New York:
Seabury Press, 1981.
________. The Göttingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion. Edited by
Hannelotte Reiffen. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1991.
________. The Humanity of God. Richmond: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
_________. Prayer. 50th ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
_________. Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century: Its Background and History. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

________ and Edward Thurneysen. Revolutionary Theology in the Making: Barth–Thurneysen
Correspondence, 1914–1925. Translated by James D. Smart. Richmond: John Knox
Press, 1964.
________ The Word of God and the Word of Man. Translated by Douglas Horton. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1978.
122

Blumhardt, Christoph. Lift Thine Eyes: Evening Prayers for Every Day of the Year. Accessed
May 21, 2014. http://ibobs.org/reading/Blumhardt/LiftThineEyes.pdf.
Burnett, Richard, ed. The Westminster Handbook to Karl Barth. Westminster Handbooks to
Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013.

________. Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis: The Hermeneutical Principles of the Römerbrief
Period. Vol. 145. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Busch, Eberhard. Karl Barth and the Pietists: The Young Karl Barth’s Critique of Pietism and
Its Response. Translated by Donald W. Bloesch. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004.
Busch, Eberhard. Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts. Translated by
John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.

________. Romans and Thessalonians: Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 8. Translated by
Ross MacKenzie. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas Forsyth Torrance. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Chung, Paul S. Karl Barth: God’s Word in Action. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2008
Clark, Tony. Divine Revelation and Human Practice: Responsive and Imaginative Participation.
Eugene: Cascade Books, 2008.
Gignilliat, Mark S. Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel: Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009.
Jüngel, Eberhard. Karl Barth, a Theological Legacy. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.
________. God’s Being Is in Becoming: The Trinitarian Being of God in the Theology of Karl
Barth. Translated by John B. Webster. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001.

________. Theological Essays. Translated by John B. Webster. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.
________. Theological Essays II. Edited and translated by John B. Webster. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1995.
Mangina, Joseph L. Karl Barth on the Christian Life: The Practical Knowledge of God. Vol.
8. Issues in Systematic Theology. York: P. Lang, 2001.

________. Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian Witness. Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2004.
123

McConnachie, John. The Significance of Karl Barth. Liverpool: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931.
McCormack, Bruce L. Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and
Development, 1909-1936. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997

________. Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2008.
McDowell, John C. Hope in Barth’s Eschatology: Interrogations and Transformations Beyond
Tragedy. Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Theology and Biblical Studies. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2000.
Reinhart, David L. Prayer as Memory: Toward the Comparative Study of Prayer as Apocalyptic
Language and Thought. Vol. 93. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene:
Pickwick, 2009.
Robinson, James M., ed. The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology. Translated by Keith R. Crim and
Louis De Grazia Robinson. Vol. 1. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1968.
Schwarz, Hans. Christology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Segal, Benjamin J. A New Psalm: The Psalms as Literature. Springfield: Gefen Books, 2013.
Spencer, Archibald James. Clearing a Space for Human Action: Ethical Ontology in the
Theology of Karl Barth. Vol. 10. Issues in Systematic Theology. New York: Peter Lang,
2003.
Torrance, Thomas F. Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology, 1910–1931.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
Webster, John. Barth’s Earlier Theology: Four Studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2005.
________. Barth’s Ethics of Reconciliation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
________. Barth’s Moral Theology: Human Action in Barth's Thought. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998.
________, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. Cambridge Companions to Religion.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

________. Barth. Outstanding Christian Thinkers. London: Continuum, 2000.
Periodicals
Kelsey, John. “Prayer and Ethics: Reflections on Calvin and Barth.” The Harvard Theological
Review 82, no. 2 (April 1989): 169–84.
124

Neven, Gerrit W. “Just a Little: The Christian Life in the Context of Reconciliation.” Zeitschrift
Für Dialektische Theologie 18, no. 3 (January 1, 2002): 353–363.
Werpehowski, William. “Command and History in the Ethics of Karl Barth.” Journal of
Religious Ethics 9, no. 2 (Fall 1981): 298–320.
________. “Christian Love and Covenant Faithfulness.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 19, no.
2: 103–132.
________. “Divine Commands and Philosophical Dilemmas: The Case of Karl Barth.” Dialog
20, no. 1 (December 1, 1981): 20–25.
________. “Hearing the Divine Command: Realism and Discernment in Barth’s Ethics.”
Zeitschrift Für Dialektische Theologie 15, no. 1 (January 1, 1999): 64–74.
________. “Narrative and Ethics in Barth.” Theology Today 43, no. 3 (1986): 334–353.
________. “Practical Wisdom and the Integrity of Christian Life.” Journal of The Society Of
Christian Ethics 27, no. 2 (September 1, 2007): 55–72.

125