Karl Barth-Archiv December 10, 2009 - No.

11

Letter from the Karl Barth-Archives

Lollo Closer Up
First impressions of the Barth – von Kirschbaum correspondence

Suzanne Selinger
Drew University

This first volume (one more is planned) of the Karl Barth – Charlotte von Kirschbaum Briefwechsel, covering the years
1925-1935, is entirely welcome. It functions as a zoom lens, deep and wide, into the complex relationship of Barth and
von Kirschbaum. Readers will encounter here a multitude of details that fill gaps and thicken and color existing portraits
of the two, while new information expands and shifts the contours of what we know. Those eager to know more of von
Kirschbaum the person — which includes both personal and professional ”sides” — will find, as I did, their
understanding of her deepened, sometimes in surprising and moving ways. Rolf-Joachim Erler, editor of the volume, is to
be thanked greatly for carrying out this publishing project and providing the historical notes and indexes. We are also
indebted to Barth’s children Franziska, Markus, and Christoph (Matthias and Hans Jakob were deceased) who made the
decision to publish the correspondence.

Immediately: there is just so much text here! And so much of it is intimate text. I did not anticipate that Barth, in
his many trips within Germany and Switzerland, especially as he became involved in church and political strife, would be
writing at length to von Kirschbaum. Nor did I expect that the two would write at length about their personal relationship:
I thought the risk of discovery would be a natural restraint. Yet here are 162 letters from Barth and 70 from von
Kirschbaum. (The greater number of letters from Barth indicates only that what we have are the extant, known letters.
This is also the reason for the uneven distribution of letters through the decade covered by this volume.)

There is so much joy and so much sadness and pain in this correspondence. And repeatedly, von Kirschbaum and
Barth remind each other that their relationship consists of both emotions. The letters seem to insist that we give full
recognition to their reasons for staying together despite the costs. Repeatedly, the two speak of their love for each other.
They use endearments. They yearn to be with each other. They worry about each other. In the midst of one of the tensest
moments in the Kirchenkampf, Barth playfully lists the reasons why he misses her. Each of them needs reassurance of
being loved by the other, and provides it in response. And each speaks of the increasing strength of their love and
increasing certainty of their commitment to each other as the decade goes by. Barth says he is no longer lonely; he cannot
convey how grateful he is to von Kirschbaum for answering his deepest need. Two refrains sound especially in von
Kirschbaum’s letters: the importance and rightness of being together with Barth (“das Gefühl der Zusammengehörigkeit”)
and her sense of belonging entirely to him.

1
Karl Barth-Archiv December 10, 2009 - No. 11

The two also spend considerable time trying to explain their relationship to their families and close friends and to
fully fathom it themselves. Within days of the meeting in Münster on 24 February 1926, at which they confronted their
uncanny rapport and committed themselves to work together and, within the confines set by Barth’s marriage, to a life
together, Barth wrote to von Kirschbaum of grappling with the great riddle “das du für mich bedeutest.” Von Kirschbaum
responds that the love she has for Barth is stronger than she ever thought possible, “aber nun ist es so und ist schwer.”

They buoy each other up; they bring each other back to earth. Barth makes it clear that he will always feel guilty
about the impact of their relationship on his wife and, in a different way, on von Kirschbaum. He refers to his situation as
his double life. He also refers to “fate” to explain the situation. He once suggests to von Kirschbaum that they limit
discussion of their relationship—and almost immediately demonstrates that he cannot. As the Nazi Party gains power and
it becomes evident that the church will be included in its reach, Barth’s involvement in church opposition increases and
keeps him away for meetings, lectures and sermons throughout Germany. He makes time to write to Lollo because he
needs the peace and respite it provides.

In the late 1920’s the German political situation and the personal one become concurrent in their letters. The
correspondence also demonstrates the inseparability of theology from politics—rather, the primacy of theology in
decisions on action for both Barth and von Kirschbaum. And the letters demonstrate von Kirschbaum’s ready,
independent, and improvisatory role on behalf of Barth and the agenda they shared. Three fraught situations seem to
demonstrate both teamwork and a common mindset: the ending of Barth’s participation in the journal Zwischen den
Zeiten in 1933, and, in late 1934 and 1935, the unraveling of Barth’s relationship with the Bekennende Kirche and the
ending of his professional career in the German University system.

One of von Kirschbaum’s tasks as theological assistant was to screen new publications in theology and to alert
Barth about potential colleagues and likely enemies. She assumed a parallel role sounding out people during the
Kirchenkampf. The criteria for trust were clear: unambivalent thinking on the extreme dangers of the German Christian
movement and rejection of any degree of tolerance for the new German nationalism. In September 1933, she went to
Munich (her former home, and still the home of her mother) to meet with Albert Lempp, head of Christian Kaiser Verlag.
Her letter of 19 September 1933, which reports on the meeting, also comments on the Lutheran-dominated Bavarian
church (in which she had been raised): she took a very dim view of it in its present form. She attended a centennial
celebration of the Matthäuskirche which included welcoming speeches by two officials in S-A uniform. The speeches that
followed further contributed to this painful “silent betrayal of a church.” Georg Merz, who introduced von Kirschbaum to
Barth and who is a recurring presence in their letters, participates in this occasion; von Kirschbaum refers to him here as
“das Problem Georg”. She advises Barth to be wary with him: Merz’s conversations with her indicate that he does not and
cannot understand the two. Following a lecture by Paul Althaus, which she found both historically masterful and blind to
the current situation, she met with a small group of trusted friends—Barth’s students Hellmut Traub and Karl Gerhard
Steck and her own friends Emmy Lentrodt and Hertha List. Of this restorative encounter she writes, “Wir müssen uns an
diese Jungen halten, Karl. Die hören vielleicht noch... Man muss ihn [sc. Steck] trösten, bestärken.”

Albert Lempp, of the Christian Kaiser Verlag, was the publisher of Zwischen den Zeiten, the journal founded as an
organ for the early dialectical theology by Barth, Thurneysen, and Gogarten in 1922 and edited by the three. (Barth had
been introduced to the publishing house by Merz, its most important advisor at the time.) Barth had become increasingly
suspicious of Gogarten in the 1920’s for his untroubled acceptance of political authority in the secular sphere as one of the
orders of creation. Von Kirschbaum’s mission at the Munich meeting was to explain Barth’s increasing withdrawal from
the production of Zwischen den Zeiten as well as his alienation from both Gogarten and Merz. Lempp, reliably loyal to
Barth, presented some alternatives. Von Kirschbaum told him that the new German context made the divisive issue
central, and no compromise was possible. They agreed to an informal meeting to discuss Lempp’s alternatives with Barth
and Thurneysen. The meeting, which also included Merz and Ruedi Pestalozzi, took place on 30 September, and there
Barth ended his connection to Zwischen den Zeiten. Both Lempp and von Kirschbaum were aware of the isolating effect
of actions such as this. However von Kirschbaum reinforced Barth’s difficult choice. She wrote to him that she told
Lempp: “Es käme mir vor, ich sei bei dir im Krieg gewesen, und hier ist Alles nur Manöver.” Barth echoed this feeling in
his response to her.

As the Nazi movement gained strength, church leaders and teachers were pressured to define themselves in
relation to the state-supported German Christians. Colleagues and friends were sometimes surprised to find themselves on

2
Karl Barth-Archiv December 10, 2009 - No. 11

different sides in the Kirchenkampf—and, within the anti-Nazi side, divisions on tactics were becoming evident. Barth
was eager and grateful for von Kirschbaum’s readings of situation and individuals, all the more when she reported on the
relations of like-minded university teachers and the German state. Thus her news of the dismissal of Karl Ludwig
Schmidt is both saddening and alarming to Barth.

In the Fall of 1934, Barth made it known to university authorities that he could not take the oath of loyalty to the
German state, just as he would not bring the Nazi salute into his classroom in 1933. In December, after frantic meetings
and travels to and from Berlin, he was summoned to an administrative tribunal in Cologne and dismissed from university
teaching in Germany. He considered an appeal and, had he had the support of the Bekennende Kirche, he might have been
in a stronger position. However his relations with the BK had undergone a radical shift in November 1934. His letters in
that month describe his frustration with the encroachment of nationalism into the BK and the weakening of the focus that
had been established in the Barmen Declaration. It was also clear that he was considered by some to be a dangerous
presence in the governance structure of the BK. He resigned from his position on the National Council of Brethren and its
executive council.

On 2 January 1935, Barth briefly visited a working session of the Council of Brethren in Bad Oeynhausen. He
found the council members evasive on the question of support for his resumption of teaching in Germany. (He also
reports that he has heard enough to doubt whether the council members could reach agreement on the church-state
question.) In contrast, he met with the Lutheran Asmussen, whom he respected (and who had participated, peripherally, in
the writing of the Barmen Declaration), and concluded that they shared a good understanding of the important issues.

Independently, von Kirschbaum attended a three-day preparatory session (Rüstwoche) of the Council at Bad
Oeynhausen later in January. She writes on each of the three days at length: these are the longest letters in the volume.
She was variously presented, she reported, as Barth’s representative, as the representative from Bonn, or as (implicitly) a
token presence of Barth. She analyzes individuals and trends in relation to Barth; she explores possible support for him.

In the course of three days she attended many formal meetings (some of which she found pointless) and heard
speeches by some of “the greats of the Kirchenkampf.” Between sessions and in late evenings she got together with
trusted colleagues and students of Barth. The informal groups often talked about Barth’s situation and its possible
outcomes. The young Heinrich Vogel, a Lutheran, is an especially good comrade. Von Kirschbaum was clearly accepted
as an equal in theology and church politics in these informal meetings, and seems pleased to be such. At one discussion
over coffee about congregational life, she notes, “ich vergass fast, dass ich kein Pastor war.” Vogel asks her opinion on so
many theological matters—“as if I were you”—that she is embarrassed. Much self-discovery is occurring here—another
dimension that these letters show forth.

Merz, too, was a participant at the Rüstwoche. Lollo attended his lecture and described it as a catastrophe. He
invited her to have coffee with him and professed his friendly feelings about Karl. Lollo told him his lectures
demonstrated an incompatibility with Barth’s theology beyond reconciliation. Her recurring forthrightness is delightful
(and Barthian). Von Kirschbaum was most interested in the sessions on church-state relations on the second day. She tells
Barth she has revised her understanding of the core problem of the BK. The problem is not a split between Lutheran and
Reformed members but within Lutheranism. The majority of German Lutherans and their churches were comfortable, or
comfortable enough, with state authority. Those in the BK were united in their rejection of the German Christian
movement but less so on the theological basis for this rejection. Asmussen, who was one of the leaders of the Bad
Oeynhausen proceedings (it was he who introduced von Kirschbaum as the representative from Bonn), was very much
interested in the split that von Kirschbaum discusses. He sees the error of the Lutherans he opposes as their rejection of
Article VII of the Augsburg Confession on the nature of the church as communio sanctorum. He insists that he is
Lutheran. Von Kirschbaum notes that some thought Asmussen was self-defeatingly preoccupied with establishing his
identity as a Lutheran, which may be one of the reasons for an apparent distancing of himself from Barth. Asmussen
would prefer that Barth be allowed to remain and teach in Germany, but his support for Barth vis-à-vis the State is
limited.

Von Kirschbaum’s most immediate task at the meetings is to gauge the strength of BK support for Barth—or in
Barth’s phrase, to determine whether the BK is against him or just not for him. She is not optimistic. Her advice, realistic

3
Karl Barth-Archiv December 10, 2009 - No. 11

and protective alike, is that he should devote his time to dogmatic theology. His dispute with Brunner on natural theology,
she tells him, may prove to have been more effective in the church’s struggle than the deliberations at Bad Oeynhausen.

Barth tells her how impressed he is by her work at the Bad Oeynhausen sessions: he thinks he should employ others to do
her secretarial work so that she can be free for the higher functions that she has demonstrated. (Nice idea!) Von
Kirschbaum and Barth both want to get back to the rigorous work of dogmatics and the academic life, and, in July 1935,
the crisis-driven move to Basel does bring that about. In the difficult pre-war and war years ahead, they will at least have
some stability and the camaraderie of colleagues and friends, and certainly the respites at the Bergli will continue. An
unexpected development begun in Germany brings pleasure into von Kirschbaum’s daily life inside the Barth household:
she finds herself getting to know and enjoy the Barth children, especially Markus and Hans Jakob, in long talks that they
initiate.

So we know more about the often rich, active professional life of Lollo von Kirschbaum. We also read of more
sorrow. In 2000, the publication of the Karl Barth-Eduard Thurneysen Briefwechsel, Band III, 1930-1935, which included
correspondence between Thurneysen and von Kirschbaum, provided a window into the tension and frequent emotional
turmoil in the Barth household, at a time of acute external crisis (Hitler seized power on 30 January 1933). The volume
documents Barth’s request to Nelly (in Basel in March 1933) for a divorce and her refusal, and the further deterioration of
the atmosphere of the household. In fact, the letters in this new volume make it clear that lengthy, intense discussion of
von Kirschbaum’s place in the context of Barth’s marriage began soon after the two met. Nelly Barth is constantly
referred to in these pages. For a short time, Barth continued to speak warmly of Nelly, and he, Nelly, and Lollo (still “the
Rotkreuzschwester”) exchange friendly letters and visit the Bergli together. By February 1926, this moment in the
relationship of the three was over. Barth reports that Nelly and his mother, Anna, talk to him and to each other about the
decision that he and von Kirschbaum made on 1 January 1929 to incorporate von Kirschbaum into the Barth household,
which they can only find objectionable: they refer to it as the “Plan mit der Sekretärin.” On 14 October 1929, despite
enormous and continuing resistance from Nelly, von Kirschbaum moved into the family home in Münster, and when
Barth was forced to leave Germany, she accompanied him and his family to Basel.

4
Karl Barth-Archiv December 10, 2009 - No. 11

Barth and von Kirschbaum further discuss the divorce proposal and its rejection in these letters. Barth reports that
Nelly has been talking about her position on the divorce with his brother Heiner (who has long opposed the relationship
with von Kirschbaum), Anna, and Gerty Pestalozzi, among others. Barth himself turns to Marguerite and Eduard
Thurneysen for advice. Neither they nor he sees a solution. He and von Kirschbaum will somehow have to continue
without change. At least, he writes, he will not be separated from his children, and he alludes to von Kirschbaum’s good
relations with them too.

To von Kirschbaum, the situation is as dreadful and frustrating as it is to Barth. But she hopes for a still-to-be-
discovered alternative. She tries to understand Nelly better; she pities Nelly for her helplessness though sees no way for it
to change. She, like Barth, acknowledges that sometimes Nelly has good days. She appreciates the reasonableness of
Nelly’s demand for an equal role in the triad (which the three refer to as a Notgemeinschaft) while she knows the demand
is impossible.

We learn more about von Kirschbaum’s family. She is close only to an older aunt. Relations with her mother and
brother Maximilian were doubly difficult, incorporating political differences as well as strong disapproval of her life
choice with Barth. That von Kirschbaum nevertheless continues to visit her mother and write to her, amidst her difficult
personal situation and her very full workload, is cause for further admiration.

In a letter in October 1934, von Kirschbaum refers sadly to the children that she and Barth will never have. From
time to time she speaks of feeling sad, usually near the end of a letter. I am not inclined (as some commentators are) to
take these remarks to refer to depression in the medical sense. Von Kirschbaum had real, present reasons to feel depressed
—especially when Barth was away, as he is in most of these letters. But one must acknowledge an undercurrent of
sadness throughout this volume. Wistfulness is another presence, as in the ending of von Kirschbaum’s letter of 17
September 1933 which also seems to be a succinct characterization of her predicament: “Lieber, die Welt ohne dich ist
nicht schön—aber sie ist ja nicht ohne dich.”