There is an irony with Karl Barth, many, but one of them is that he is highly traditional in regard to human sexuality. This is ironic because the places, in the 21st century, that serve as harbingers and promoters of his theology, both Princeton Theological Seminary (and its Center for Barth Studies) and all of those with similar sensibilities, must distance themselves from Barth on these matters; that is, in order to stay politically and socially correct. But it is better to be biblically and christologically correct for my money. Here is a short snippet from Barth on this, with particular application towards, what today, would entail and implicate the LGBTQI+ agenda.
God’s sanctifying command aims at and wills man himself. This means, of course, the man who in his totality is man or woman, who is physical in every filament and cell of his body, who even as the spirit-impelled soul of his body is not sexless, nor above sex, nor bi-sexual, but mono-sexual man or woman, and lives in the presence of and in responsibility to God in this total and definite orientation of his being. . ..[1]
For Barth, human sexuality is something determined not by a particular socio-cultural context, but instead, by the Divine command of God. There is no wiggle room on this with Barth, he is very clear, all throughout the context I have taken the above snippet from.
Indeed, folks who are ostensibly his gatekeepers today must periodize Barth, and simply leave these aspects of Barth to his own historically misogynistic and cis gendered roles that were prominent at that time. In other words, such Barthians must simply make Barth a product of his time on these matters, not fully “come of age” on human sexuality, as we have in the 21st century. This is similar to what this same sentimentality will do with Jesus, in its hard Kenotic iteration. That is, they will attribute human error to Jesus, in regard to history, canonicity, hell, human sexuality, so on and so forth, by making Jesus a product of His time. But of course, this would reject then a strong doctrine of Divine freedom vis-à-vis the incarnation. Even so, Barth is simply reflective of and a witness to the Dominical teaching of our Lord on the implicates of a human sexuality. May the churches take heed.
[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/4 §54 [133] The Doctrine of Creation: Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 126.