But not Walter Hüssy, the grown son of the
local factory owners who had financially paid for the bulk of the church
building’s construction a few years earlier. He penned an open letter to Barth,
published in the town newspaper: “Barth’s agitating speech was an attempt to
sow discord between employers and employees. The owners after all are those who
pull the cart, and need some elbow room.”
Barth replied, in the same newspaper: “My honored sir, may I loan or give you a few good books where you can teach yourself some things? You address me in my role as pastor, that I should have a mediating effect. That would suit you! With your permission however, as pastor I set myself a different program, over which I owe no accounting to you. You may be older than I, but nonetheless you are still young enough to develop better insights. I sincerely wish you that.”
The following Sunday, the church was packed
beyond capacity! The slugfest was all the talk of Safenwil. The paper published
an anonymous column entitled “The Red Danger in Safenwil,” noting Barth’s
subversive agitation, and stating uncertainty whether he was really a good
Christian or not. The Hüssys promptly departed the church – with their large
donations.
His professor of theology in Basel, Paul
Wernle, corresponded with him, leading him to rethink not the content but the
tone of his remarks. Wernle suggested he’d answered “crudeness with crudeness
and rudeness with rudeness.” Pondering this, Barth admitted “When I read Hüssy’s
attack, I didn’t feel any personal offense, but a desire to fight: take up the
sword of the Lord and Gideon! I didn’t intend anything but to run down an enemy
of a good cause. But now, fourteen days later, as the smoke has cleared, I must
acknowledge that I behaved in an Old Testament-like fashion. My gesture appears
less heroic now, and I can sense all the egocentric aspects that contributed to
it.”
He resolved to do better next time. On this, he never made significant progress. Preaching five years later, he asked out loud if Safenwil didn’t need a different pastor, “a pastor from whose sermons the love of God emanates with such power that you have to feel it, that you are moved. I apparently am not able to speak to you in such a way, because apparently in myself there is something very deeply not in order with God.”
I am moved by these words, and hope they were
genuine. Barth, I believe, trusted so firmly in the power of the Word to effect
change that, when he observed a listlessness, a lack of response in his people
and the town, he looked within seeking an explanation.
Soon thereafter, he grew more acerbic: “You
wish for me to be a false prophet, the pastor who pleases the people. To have a
pastor in this village means to have eternal unrest in the village, a person
who in the most uncomfortable way will continually question everything and give
unexpected replies to all questions.”
And so, bugged by all of this, but also mortified by theologians who could curtsy to the German war efforts, he wrote his Epistle to the Romans, called by theologian Karl Adam “a bomb on the playground of the theologians.” A new congregation gathered around him: countless young theologians and pastors around the world breathing in his fresh new life. And his days of pastoring in a small village were over. Should we say … thankfully?
For all of us screwing up the courage to say what we need to say, and searching for the right tone, in some little church somewhere, we want what is within us to be "in right order," and we want to speak truly - even if they do not ask or pay us to stir up eternal unrest. For me, noticing a titan like Karl Barth walked this same difficult road, is encouraging.
***
Check out Will Wold's "Preacher Lab" podcast, on which I was his guess in his latest episode - talking about the preaching life, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.