Being is becoming in Bavinck

I've just finished reading Bavinck on 'Revelation in Nature and Holy Scripture' in Reformed Dogmatics: Volume One. The great Dutch theologian anticipates the language of Karl Barth, who famously suggested that 'God's being is in becoming.' Bavinck rightly relates the being and becoming of God to the enfleshment of Christ,

"The incarnation is the unity of being (ἐγὼ εἰμί, John 8:58), and becoming (σὰρξ ἐγένετο, John 1:14). - p. 380.

Engaging with Barth in the USA

Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques, edited by David Gibson and Daniel Strange has now been published in the USA by T&T Clark. With Barth's theology gaining influence in Reformed circles, this really is a must read for those who wish to engage with his thinking in a critical yet constructive way. With a stellar list of contributors including Henri Blocher, Oliver Crisp, Paul Helm, Donald Macleod and Carl Trueman, this is the book for a Classic Reformed perspective on Karl Barth. You don't know what you've been missing across the Pond. This most helpful work has been out over here since early 2008! See here for an interview with co-editor David Gibson on the occasion of the book's publication in the UK by IVP/Apollos, and here for my review.

'Engaging with Barth' by David Gibson and Daniel Strange (eds.)

Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques,
Edited by David Gibson and Daniel Strange, IVP Apollos, 2008, 403pp.

Karl Barth (1886-1968) is often hailed as the greatest theologian of the twentieth century. There has been a resurgence of interest in his work in recent years. Fresh attention is being given to key aspects of his theological legacy. Witness the work of Barth-influenced scholars such as the Torrance brothers, George Hunsinger, Bruce McCormac and John Webster. Not to mention the numerous Barthian theology blogs like Ben Myers' Faith & Theology.

Barth represents something of an enigma for those in the classic Reformed tradition. He famously turned his back on the Liberal theology of his student years and found a resource for theological renewal in the God-centred teaching of the Reformers. But Barth did not simply become a Calvinist in the sense that he embraced Reformed Confessional theology. At certain important points, he consciously differed from the tradition. Early Reformed reaction to Barth was decidedly negative, with Cornelius Van Til classifying him as a 'new modernist'. This led to Barth and some of his followers tending to dismiss evangelical critiques as prejudiced and uninformed. So, this being the 40th anniversary of his death, the time has come for Reformed theologians to reassess the legacy of Karl Barth in a critical, yet fair and constrictive way. The editors, David Gibson and Daniel Strange have assembled a stellar cast of top Reformed theologians to undertake this important task. A glance at the contributors on the front cover of the book will bear this out (see the Engaging with Barth website for more details).

An attempt to analyse the contents of each chapter would make this an unduly long review. What I intend to do is say a word or two about the general thrust of the book and then focus on a few matters of particular interest. The editors say that their aim in this work is to "model courteous and critical engagement with Barth" (p. 19) and each contribution ably matches that criterion. The writers, all steeped in the classic Reformed tradition, are familiar with the primary Barth material and the growing body of secondary literature. Barth fans will not find their hero mindlessly torn to shreds in a fit of heresy hunting zeal. But that is not to say that the various authors give him an easy ride. Barth is pressed hard on some of his most cherished themes.

Take the subject of Christology. Barth was a self-consciously Christ-centred theologian. The Reformed tradition, with its emphasis on solo Christo might be expected to welcome this. But Barth pushed Christocentrism too far. In the opening chapter on Karl Barth's Christocentric Method, Henri Blocher discusses the effects of Barth's Christological concentration. The theologian was so fixated with Jesus Christ that he tended to dislike talk of of the pre-incarnate Logos (Logos asarkos), which he regarded as a rather "abstract" concept. God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ and only in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the first man, not simply in terms of preeminence over all other men as God incarnate, but also chronologically. Contrary to the Biblical narrative, Barth asserts that Jesus was man before Adam. Adam's humanity was modelled on that of Christ, who is the Only Real Man. All humanity belongs to Jesus Christ. He is the subject of God's decision to be God for us. For Barth, election is not about God choosing some human beings for salvation, while others are appointed to judgement. Christ is both elect and reprobate on behalf of all human beings.

Where Scripture seems to speak of individual men being either elect or reprobate, Barth exegetes those texts Christologically. David Gibson's chapter on Barth's treatment of Romans 9-11 shows that the theologian's approach has a distorting effect on the plain teaching of Scripture. Oliver Crisp helpfully contrasts Barth's teaching on reprobation and hell with that of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards' account is not without its problems, but Crisp complains that Barth's proposal lacks consistency and coherence. If Jesus Christ stands as elect and reprobate on behalf of all humanity, then surely all human beings will be saved. But Barth denies that this is necessarily the case, suggesting at one point that it is possible for us to reject our election (see p. 308). The standard Reformed teaching exemplified by Edwards gives a better reading of God's "No" to lost human beings.

When it comes to Barth's Christology, it is difficult to resist the conclusion of Garry Williams in his chapter on the atonement that, "Barth's Christ is at decisive moments an abstracted and enforced principle rather than the Christ of the Scriptures." (p. 272). Donald Macleod also makes an important point regarding Barth's Christological concentration. The theologian held that Christ alone is the Word of God, while Scripture is the human witness to that Word. Now, Scripture may become the Word of God in an event of divine self-revelation, but the Bible is not revelatory in itself (see also Mark Thomson's chapter on Barth's doctrine of Scripture). According to Barth, Scripture may err theologically as well as on matters of history and cosmology. In that case, it may bear false witness to Christ. But Macleod points out that, "there can be no other Christ behind and above the Scriptures, no word behind the written word, casting the church into doubt, enveloping her in a cloud of uncertainty and raising the possibility that the Christ of Scripture is not the real Christ or the final Christ." (p. 342).

Barth is widely credited with drawing attention to the doctrine of the Trinity after years of neglect by Liberal theologians. Michael Ovey discusses Barth's contribution to this field as does Sebastian Rehmnman in his chapter considering Barth on logic and theology. Barth did not like to use the the word "person" in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He preferred to think in terms of "modes of being". For him, the Son and Spirit are "repetitions" of the Father. In Barth's construction, God can seem like a unipersonal being, leaving little room for "I-Thou" relationships within the godhead. This flies in the face of the Bible's testimony to the "I-Thou" relationship between the Father and the Son in the economy of redemption. It also suggests that God's love is reflexive rather than a self-giving love expressed between the persons of the Trinity. In some accounts of Barth's doctrine of the Trinity, God's lordship over his own being extends to his choosing to become the triune God for the sake of our salvation. If this is the case, then the "primal" God who lay behind the choice to become trinitarian is hidden from view. We cannot know him. This proposal undermines Barth's claim that his Christological doctrine of election eliminates the hiddenness of God. Besides, as Paul Helm points out, the idea that God might have chosen not to be trinitarian "is like supposing that I could have chosen to have the mind of a bat." (p. 284).

I've only just dipped my toe into the wide, deep and turbulent sea of Barth's theology. Others are being tempted to take the plunge, urged on by the theologian's many admirers. The ocean shores can certainly seem alluring and there is much to admire in Barth's work. But this book will help evangelicals to navigate these theological waters with a clear idea of the dangers that lie beneath the surface. Michael Horton fittingly concludes the book with some discerning reflections on the legacy of Karl Barth for evangelical theology. I welcome this serious and timely attempt at engagement with Barth. He makes an interesting conversation partner for contemporary Calvinists. Those who tend to be Barthian in their theology should give careful consideration to the critical appraisal that is offered in these pages. For me, reading this book has reaffirmed the biblical cogency and coherence of historic Reformed faith.

See here for my interview with co-editor David Gibson.

'Dogmatics in Outline' by Karl Barth

Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth, SCM Press, 2007 edition, 146pp.

I don't suppose that I'll ever get round to reading Barth's mighty Church Dogmatics. Life's too short and I haven't even got started on Bavinck's much more profitable Reformed Dogmatics yet. But I thought that I would give Barth's Dogmatics in Outline a read. This little book is not a precis of his larger opus. It is an independent study of the Apostle's Creed, based on a series of lectures in post WWII Germany. The setting gives added power to these extemporary talks as Barth eloquently exposes the evils of National Socialism and anti-Semitism.

There is much helpful and stimulating material in these lectures. Dogmatics is defined as "the science in which the Church in accordance with the state of its knowledge at different times, takes account of the content of its proclamation critically, that is, by the standard of Holy Scripture and under the guidance of its Confession." (p. 1). Barth is familiar with the Reformed tradition and often draws upon the insights of Luther, Calvin and documents such as the Heidelberg Catechism.

Throughout the book, Barth argues that only God can reveal God to us. The Creator is not known to man via a natural theology that is accessible to all human beings. "What the meaning of God the Creator is and what is involved in the work of creation, is in itself not less hidden from us than everything else that is found in the Confession." God's self-revelation as Creator is received by faith. That faith is itself the God-given freedom to take God at his word. Barth's emphasis here resonates with the presuppositional apologetics of Bavinck, Van Til (an arch critic of KB), and John Frame.

The God who reveals himself to us is the triune God of the gospel, "By being the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost in his work in Jesus Christ, God is in the highest." (p. 31). Barth prefers to speak of "three ways of being" in God rather than three persons as he judges that our modern understanding of personhood is different to that of the early Church. But as John Murray has shown, there is no reason for us to abandon the term 'person' in the sense of distinct centre of self-consciousness when applied to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (The Collected Writings of John Murray, 4: Studies in Theology, 1982, Banner of Truth Trust, p. 277ff.). With this qualification in place, it is gratifying to note that Barth's lectures are insistent that the Christian God is none other than One who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God does not appear in trinitarian mode for the sake of redemption. He is Trinity all the way down,

"But when the Christian Church speaks of the triune God, it means that God is not just in one way, but that he is the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Three times the One and the Same, threefold, but above all triune, he, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in himself and in the highest and in his revelation." (p. 34).

My first encounter with Barth was through the writings of Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer was suspicious of Barth's commitment to the historical basis of the Christian faith. The later work of the theologian may modify what he says here, but at least in this book, Barth is found confessing the historicity of the virgin birth (chapter 14) and resurrection of Christ (chapter 18). He clearly and vigorously affirms the full deity and humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Touching on a area of controversy among contemporary evangelicals, I was interested to see Barth teaching a penal substitutionary view of the atonement. He spells out most helpfully that in Jesus Christ, God took upon himself the penalty for our sin,

"But now the Confession tells us that the execution of this verdict is carried out by God in this way, that He, God Himself, in Jesus Christ His Son, at once true God and true man, takes the place of condemned man. God's judgement is executed, God's law takes its course, but in such a way that what man had to suffer is suffered by this One, who as God's Son stands for all others. Such is the lordship of Jesus Christ, who stands before God, taking upon himself what belongs to us. In Him God makes Himself liable, at the point at which we are accursed, guilty and lost. He it is in His Son, who in the person of this crucified man bears on Golgotha all that ought to be laid on us." (p. 109-110).

But there are problems here. It is a matter of dispute among the experts whether Barth was a universalist. Some of his thinking in this book certainly tends toward universalism. According to him, in Jesus Christ we see God's decision concerning his purpose for every man (p. 80). When it comes to the day of judgement, humanity will meet Jesus as the judge who himself was judged for the sin of all men. The only difference between the world and the church is that the church knows this and the world does not (p. 123). Barth denies that his account leads to Apokatastasis or universal restoration (p. 127), but it is all rather ambiguous.

This little book may not give Barth's definitive view of dogmatic theology. For him, theology was very much a work in progress. Karl Barth was most unlike Calvin, who expanded the Institutes, but hardly changed his mind on any substantial point. Andrew McGowan warns, "It is notoriously easy to read one section of Barth and to assume that one understands his view on a particular subject only to turn to another section of the Church Dogmatics and to find the subject examined from a different perspective that sheds new light on the whole matter." But for those like me who simply want to sample Barth's theology, Dogmatics in Outline may be a good place to start. There is much here that is recognisably Reformed. But there are also some indications of Barth's attempt to challenge, subvert and rework historic evangelical orthodoxy. Reformed Evangelicals certainly need to get to grips with the theologian. His views are once more helping to set the theological agenda. No doubt there are things that we can learn from him. But a new "Barthianism" is not the way forward. See here for an interview with David Gibson, co-editor of the newly published Engaging with Barth: Contemporary evangelical critiques. I recently received my review copy of this book and very good it is so far. [Update - see my review of this most helpful book here].

Engaging with Barth: An interview with David Gibson

David Gibson is co-editor with Daniel Strange of
Engaging with Barth, 18th January 2008, IVP

Karl Barth, portrait by Oliver Crisp

GD: Hello David Gibson, and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

DG: I’m married to Angela, and we have a one year old son who gives us a lot of joy and amusement. We currently live in Aberdeen, Scotland, where I’ve been working on a PhD in Divinity at Aberdeen University. With the mixture of staff and fellow students it has been a wonderful department to be a part of for three years. My life background before the Aberdeen years was really quite varied (my dad is Northern Irish, my mother is English, I was born in America, spent my early years in E. Africa, later years back in N. Ireland, and a long time in England. I have an Irish accent, an English wife, and a Scottish son)! My main academic interest is John Calvin.

GD: You are involved in a forthcoming book, Engaging with Barth. When did you start engaging with Barth?

DG: Both Daniel and I first encountered Barth as undergraduate students, myself at Nottingham University and Dan at Bristol University. We say a little about what this was like in the Introduction to the book. I then read Barth a lot more extensively during my MA at King’s College London, and my Ph.D here in Aberdeen reads the exegesis of election in Calvin and Barth. I didn’t actually come to Aberdeen to work on Barth, but my Doktorvater, Francis Watson, persuaded me to have a look at the use of the Bible in Church Dogmatics II/2 and I’ve never looked back!

GD: This is a good time for such a volume, as Barth seems to be enjoying something of a resurgence at the moment, especially among theological students. Any idea why?

DG: It’s hard to generalise here, and the situation varies from place to place, but I think you’re right that Barth is the man to be reading in quite a number of places around the world. This interest is probably caused by the number of leading theologians operating at present who have been deeply influenced by Barth in one way or another – they teach courses on Barth, write good books on Barth, and so attract good students to study Barth under them. In reading Barth seriously, I think theological students soon find themselves inside what Henri Blocher refers to as ‘a doctrinal cathedral’. Barth was off the scale in terms of individual brilliance and the sheer size and scope of what he attempts is intoxicating.

GD: Why do you think that Barth's theology is proving attractive for evangelicals at this time?

DG: It’s probably even harder to generalise here, and I don’t want to steal too much of Carl Trueman’s thunder as he comments on this in his Foreword. There’s the obvious attraction of Barth’s desire to be creedally orthodox in a way which is just absent in so much of modern theology. Allied to this there’s probably something of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ approach which sees in Barth both a kindred spirit and superb resource for responding to theological liberalism and cultural hostility to the gospel. Barth is passionate, often quite moving, and he writes about God and Christ and the gospel in deep and profound ways. There’s plenty more things which could be said like this.

At the same time, a complete answer would have to engage with the fact that Barth’s attractiveness to evangelicals is hardly explicable without reference to the increasing fragmentation and diversity within worldwide evangelicalism. When we talk about evangelical theology and Barth, one of the least addressed questions is: what do we mean by ‘evangelical’? To give just one example of the problem, in some quarters today a distinction might be made between being ‘evangelical’, and being ‘an evangelical’. The former is someone committed to the gospel; the second is someone committed to the gospel and its understanding within one particular tribe within a particular cultural world, and so on. The former might be seen as biblical and Christ-centred; the latter might be seen as parochial, sectarian, or even as a relative (modernist) new-comer to the theological scene. As a profound gospel thinker, Barth’s thought lends itself more easily to those who want to describe themselves as ‘evangelical’, but not as ‘an evangelical’ – and I think that’s because this distinction recognises that there are aspects of Barth’s thought that are at odds with how historic confessional evangelicalism has understood the gospel and its various entailments. Where ‘evangelical’ is understood with some of these blurred edges, never mind the massive diversity that exists within the ‘evangelicalism’ tribe, then the answers as to why Barth is attractive to ‘evangelicals’ depends on where we are along that spectrum. Barth himself was fairly hostile towards conservative evangelicalism as he knew it. Doubtless there were caricatures and misrepresentations on both sides, but it is also probable that underlying the antipathy was the recognition of a fundamental clash on certain theological issues. You could argue that where historic confessional evangelicalism is increasingly attracted to Barth it is because, at least in some areas, we see the issues less clearly than either our predecessors or Barth himself.

GD: What, in your view, are some of the problem areas of Barth's thought as far as evangelicals are concerned?

DG: Classically, I suppose the problem areas have been Barth’s doctrine of Scripture and the issue of his incipient universalism (or not). I think these remain important topics and vital areas of concern. But evangelicals have been less interested in the fact that what Barth thinks in these areas is simply the logical consequence of prior decisions taken most notably in his doctrine of God, and in his understanding of revelation and Christology. Focussing on certain problem ‘topics’ in Barth can run the risk of misrepresentation because of the complex web of his thought, and some kind of comprehensive analysis is required. Obviously, the book highlights what we feel are some of the main problem areas within this matrix.

In brief, I would say some key areas are: (i) Barth’s understanding of election in relation to the triune being (and here I’d say that a McCormack-ian type reading of Barth on this topic is a major problem); (ii) his understanding of Christology and theological method (a big part of my thesis is expanding and developing Richard Muller’s distinction between soteriological and principial christocentrism, with Barth offering an example of the latter which is problematic in many areas); (iii) certain aspects of Barth’s exegesis. Brevard Childs has commented that Barth’s theology is the most ambitious 20th century attempt to rest dogmatics on exegesis, and this is a tremendous opportunity for worthwhile engagement with Barth. Evangelical engagement here can bring a depth of exegetical seriousness to bear on what Barth does with the biblical text and, with humility and grace, ask probing questions about whether in certain cases the exegetical foundations truly support the dogmatic edifice.

GD: You have assembled some of the big names in Reformed theology to contribute to Engaging with Barth- Oliver Crisp, Paul Helm, Donald Macleod, Henri Blocher and so on. I can't think of another book with such a stellar cast. How did you manage to get so many top theologians on board?

DG: Daniel and I wrote each of them a letter outlining the project and promised them that if we sold more than fifteen copies of the book we’d enter each of their names into a hat for a free prize draw, with the winner receiving an all expenses paid holiday of a lifetime.

GD: Oh, that explains it! Now, Sung Wook Chung's Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology was published in 2006. Why do we need another book on Barth and evangelical theology?

DG: The Chung volume interacts with Barth from different points along the kind of evangelical spectrum I mentioned above. It’s a valuable book for showing the diversity of possible responses to Barth within the ‘evangelicalism’ stable. At the same time, when you talk of Barth’s convergences and divergences from evangelical theology in this way then it’s not always completely clear what exactly Barth converges with or diverges from. Although not all the contributors in our book are coming from exactly the same place, the engagement with Barth is more from the perspective of classic Reformed theology and we think this makes for a very interesting kind of interaction.

GD: Why do you think that a distinctively Reformed Theology is best placed to respond to Barth?

DG: When we press Barth with questions from within the Reformed tradition we are engaging him on the terms of a theological impulse which he himself favoured. (Garry Williams is particularly good at making and modelling this point in his chapter on the atonement in Engaging with Barth). Many of Barth’s radical theological revisions start from the foundation of Reformed presuppositions before Barth then goes off in his own direction, and so engaging with the new direction means unpacking such presuppositions and exploring the validity or otherwise of what happens to them in Barth’s hands. To discuss theology with Barth in a Reformed accent means you can cut out a lot of the prolegoumenal throat-clearing and get straight down to business. At the same time, because of Barth’s own love of the Reformed Scripture principle, Reformed theology is only really best placed to respond to Barth as it shows itself to be faithful to Scripture.

GD: What do you think that evangelicals have to learn from Karl Barth?

DG: The most profound lessons are probably still ahead of us; in many ways it is still too early to assess Barth’s legacy, either for evangelicalism or anything else. But in the meantime my own list would be a big one, consisting of both the specifics of his thinking on certain issues (some of my favourites – alongside reservations – are in the area of his theology of interpretation), as well as more general issues.

Limiting myself to the generalities, I’d say three things: (i) he teaches us to be catholic, (ii) to be Reformed (ii) and to do theological theology.

(i) Catholic. Barth’s doctrine of election is a good case in point. I think what Barth attempts here is magisterial simply because of the sheer range of material he commands. The extent of his engagement with a diverse chorus of witnesses within the theological tradition is really very impressive indeed. But it’s not just impressive – it’s instructive, and on a whole range of issues such as theological method, historical theology, and the analysis of presuppositions in doctrinal formulations. Evangelicals can tend to talk about the doctrine of election in terms of Calvinism vs Arminianism, and reading Barth shows you just what an emaciated conception of the doctrine this is.

(ii) Reformed. Barth’s own theological development is explained at least in part by his discovery of the theology of Reformed Orthodoxy during his Göttingen years and its subsequent impact on his thinking. The way Barth engages with this tradition and lets it seep into his own thinking is a pointer to its possession of resources which are capable of powerfully reconfiguring a theological landscape. At the same time (and here I’m really thinking of his doctrine of election) I have found that Barth teaches me to be Reformed precisely by the ways in which he departs from classic Reformed theology – his new path is not as satisfying as the old path properly understood. I know that’s counter-intuitive and certainly on election many of his readers go the other way. But wrestling with how Barth reads election in Scripture alongside wrestling with how Calvin reads election in Scripture, I have come to feel that Barth’s position sits uncomfortably across the biblical testimony whereas Calvin’s position (and I don’t think it’s perfect) emerges more comfortably from a straight-forward exegesis. Barth’s theological critique of Calvin has a conceptual and rhetorical power that I don’t think he is ever able to match exegetically. Eventually, that is problematic for the theological critique.

(iii) Theological theology. I agree completely with Ben Myers’ earlier observation on your blog [here] about the immense value of reading Barth to learn to think theologically. Barth’s writings contain the kind of engagement with theological material which I don’t think evangelicals are always very good at reckoning with (e.g. detailed discussion of the divine perfections; thinking through the meaning of divine aseity). The way Barth articulates doctrines functioning in relation to each other within the dogmatic enterprise has a range and depth to it which I think modern evangelical systematics rarely achieve. (In this regard see John Webster’s essay on ‘Jesus Christ’ in The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology – you don’t have to agree with everything he says here to feel the weight of a lot of his insights about the shortcomings in evangelical theology). Of course, there are other resources within Reformed theology for these ends, but Barth makes an important contribution here too.

GD: I really enjoyed Webster's Holiness and found his theological method very refreshing. Famously Barth loved Mozart, what are your three favourite songs or pieces of music?

DG: I won’t impugn the good reputation of your blog or humiliate myself by telling you!

GD: You must like some really silly stuff! Care to tell us the best work of theology that you've read in the last 12 months? It is a must read because?

DG: I’m afraid I’ve broken the rules here. Apparently good Ph.D students read widely in a number of different fields to come out properly rounded individuals. My wife thinks that possibility for me was lost a long time ago, and over the last year I’ve pretty much only been reading Calvin and Barth, or books on Calvin and Barth. I’ve found Richard Muller’s work to be immensely helpful: he’s a formidable scholar and the breadth of his learning means that he sees across the centuries very clearly. My thesis, building on some of Stephen Edmondson’s work and on the basis of the preface to the 1539 edition of the Institutes, argues that Calvin’s Institutes is itself a hermeneutic i.e. it offers a reading of the biblical plot-line (meant to guide others in their reading of Scripture) which is reflected in the way Calvin reads the biblical texts in his commentaries (historically there is a developmental relationship between the Institutes and the commentaries, with the former being shaped by the latter). Wrestling with the argument of the Institutes has been an extremely valuable exercise for me. It is a deeply pastoral work, with immense riches for preachers, and for those reasons it’s probably the best thing I’ve been reading this year.

GD: Nice. I'm enjoying reading through the Institutes at the moment. Now, what do you hope to do once you have finished your studies?

DG: I have just submitted my Ph.D thesis and so am nervously waiting for my viva! But at the same time I have just started working at High Church, Hilton, Aberdeen, as the Associate Minister. It’s where Angela and I have been since arriving in Aberdeen and it’s a great church family to be a part of and to serve. We’ll be here for at least three years and after that, who knows …?

GD: David, thanks for dropping by. I wish you all the very best and hope that my copy of Engaging with Barth arrives soon! [Update the book has now been published, see my review here].

Book Website

Engaging with Barth

BOOK PROMOTION

Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques
David Gibson & Daniel Strange (eds.)
(Nottingham: Apollos, January 2008)
ISBN: 978-1-84474-245-5

Engaging with Barth Website

From the publisher:

Karl Barth’s theological legacy provides both opportunity and challenge for historic, confessional evangelicalism. While there are now numerous excellent studies highlighting the value of Barth’s theology, often receiving it with ringing endorsement, there are fewer more cautionary or critical responses.

This volume engages critically and courteously with Barth on a range of vital topics where, for the contributors, his interpretation of Scripture, reading of church history, and confession of Christian doctrine are unsatisfactory. This engagement is offered as a positive contribution to the wider programme of constructive theological reflection that seeks to articulate the gospel of Jesus Christ in and for the contemporary world, in the conviction that the ‘pattern of sound teaching’ (2 Timothy 1:13) really matters.

Evangelical reception of Barth's theology takes a step forward in this well-informed collection. These are articulate, confident appraisals which take Barth seriously enough to press him hard on what the authors consider his divergences from the classical Reformed tradition. Whether correct in their judgements or not, these essays warrant careful thought from those concerned for theology's orientation to the gospel.
John Webster
University of Aberdeen

Karl Barth was the most dominant theologian of the twentieth century, at once brilliant and baffling, majestic and frustrating. His influence, though, has scarcely waned. That is why this book is important. What we have here are some of the best essays I have read on Barth. They combine sure-footed knowledge of his ideas with critical insight into what those ideas mean. They are appreciative but also tough-minded and this combination is rare today. I commend this book highly.
David F. Wells
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

The house that Karl Barth built continues to loom large in the neighbourhood of evangelical theology. The authors of Engaging with Barth are not content to admire it from the outside but survey it from within, carefully moving from room to room, noting both positive and negative features. They do a particularly good job examining the structural integrity (read “orthodoxy”) of Barth’s house, detecting here and there both worrying cracks and uneven surfaces. At the end of the day, they neither raze nor condemn the dwelling, but offer a fair and sober assessment that is invaluable for potential buyers - even for those thinking of staying only overnight.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Looks like getting hold of this book will be my first New Year's resolution.

Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology

Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences,
Sung Wook Chung (Editor), Paternoster & Baker Academic, 2006

This is the second of the two Barth books that I read while on holiday. (See here for my thoughts on his Evangelical Theology: An Introduction). This title is a compilation of essays on key ideas in Barth's theology by leading evangelical scholars. All are agreed that Barth is worth studying and that evangelicals have something to learn from him. Most of the essays are appreciative and yet critical of his theological proposals.

The book has twelve chapters, each by a different scholar. The contributions vary in quality and tone. One problem with the work is that it lacks a coherent understanding as to what constitutes authentic evangelical theology. While several writers are Reformed in outlook, others are from a variety of camps including Pentecostal and Postevangelical. So, the book lacks an agreed starting point for assessing Barth's theology. That said, several of the essays are really outstanding. The opening chapter on Revelation by Gabriel Fackre helpfully introduces and critiques Barth's understanding of this important subject. In his A Person of the Book? Barth on Biblical Authority and Interpretation, Kevin Vanhoozer reflects on the hostile reaction to Barth's doctrine of Scripture amongst evangelicals. Cornelius Van Til and Carl Henry were especially critical of Barth in this respect. But as Vanhoozer points out, while Barth taught that the Bible is the authoritative witness to the Word of God rather than the Word of God written, he nevertheless had a high view of Scripture. His Church Dogmatics is full of careful and detailed scriptural exegesis. But Barth disagreed with the traditional evangelical teaching on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. For him, this "materialised" revelation and made it subject to human control. The Bible only becomes the Word of God in an event of divine self-revelation. Vanhoozer attempts to resolve differences between Barth and evangelicals by appealing to speech-act theory,

"The Bible is the word of God insofar as its witnesses - which is to say the inspired locutions, illocutions - really do present Jesus Christ. Yet the Bible also becomes the word of God when its illuminated readers receive and grasp the subject matter by grace through faith, which is to say, when the Spirit enables what we might call the illocutionary uptake and perlocutionary effect. The full measure of Scripture as a communicative act of God, then, involves the-Spirit-testifying-about-Jesus-through-Scripture-to-the-church". (p. 57)

Will this proposal effect a reconciliation between Barthians and evangelicals on Scripture? It is difficult to say. But it has the merit of insisting on both the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and recognising the importance of the Spirit's witness to the word of God.

Oliver Crisp's Barth on creation discusses agreements and differences between the theologian and traditional reformed teaching. He deals with Barth's attempt to "christologise" creation, his rejection of natural theology and his unusual ideas on God's relationship to time. Henri Blocher on Barth's anthropology untangles his fusing of anthropology and Christology. For Barth, Jesus was the first man, not Adam. This seems to suggest that Christ was eternally incarnate. But this undermines the event character of the incarnation, whereby the Word who was God became flesh. Barth's denial of a historical fall and his insistence that human beings were created fallen are also subjected to rigorous analysis. Blocher gets the prize for the best Barth joke by way of a footnoted Balthasar quote, "in this theology of event and history, nothing seems to happen, perhaps because everything happened in eternity." (p. 110).

Alister McGrath's chapter on Karl Barth's Doctrine of Justification from an Evangelical Perspective is full of useful insights. He proposes that for Barth with his background in Liberal theology, the big issue was not primarily, "How can a sinner be right with God?" What he wanted to know was whether God has revealed himself to human beings. Revelation, not justification is what lies at the heart of Barth's theology. In the light of Barth's teaching, McGrath calls upon evangelicals to reflect afresh on whether justification should be regarded as a centrally important doctrine. The editor, Sung Wook Chung's contribution on A Bold Innovator: Barth on God and Election, is helpful on Barth's actualistic theology. But the discussion of his views on election is a little confused. He accuses the theologian of being both a Calvinist and an Arminian. I'm not sure how that can be the case. For a Calvinist, God in Christ has chosen his people (not all humanity) for salvation despite their sin and unbelief. For an Arminian, God chose those whom he foresaw would believe in Christ. Barth's teaching that Christ is elect and reprobate for humanity is quite different from both Calvinist and Arminian constructions. The universalistic overtones of Barth's views on election are discussed here and elsewhere in the book.

John Bolt in Exploring Karl Barth's Eschatology: A Salutary Exercise for Evangelicals, related his distinctive form of amillenialism to the concerns of Americal dispensationalist teaching. The conjunction of Barth's Christ-centred vision and the unaccountably popular Left Behind novels made this an intriguing chapter. The book also features essays on other aspects of Barth's thought: Kurt Anders Richardson on realist christology, Frank D. Macchia on pneumatology, Timothy George on church and sacraments, Veli-Matti Karkkainen on theology of religions and John R. Franke on the postmodern turn and evangelical theology.

Each contributor seems to have thought long and hard about Barth's theology in relation to evangelical teaching. They show familiarity both with Barth's own writings and the secondary literature. Convergences are noted, but points of real difference are not ignored. The book has one or two little typos and would have benefited from at least a subject index. Full and detailed footnotes are provided.

There has been a resurgence of interest in Barth's theology in the last twenty years or so. It is good that evangelical theologians are getting to grips with his teaching in a serious way. Many pastors like myself do not have the time to pursue Barth's mighty Church Dogmatics. But this book is a helpful introduction to his thinking from an evangelical point of view.

[Update: See the newly published Engaging with Barth edited by David Gibson and Daniel Strange. Contributors include, Henri Blocher, Paul Helm, Donald Macleod and Garry Williams. This work critiques Barth from a definite Reformed perspective].

Evangelical Theology: An Introduction by Karl Barth

Evangelical Theology: An Introduction by Karl Barth, 1979, Eerdmans

This post is not intended to be a review of Barth's book, originally published in English translation in 1963. Here, I simply want to reflect on my initial encounter with the Swiss theologian's writings.

I suppose that I first became aware of Barth's theology when I read through much of The Complete Works of Francis A Schaeffer in my early 20's. Schaeffer was critical of Barth's doctrine of Scripture. He also accused Barth of having a scant regard for the historical basis of the Christian faith. These negative early impressions did not exactly inspire me to invest much time studying the theologian. But Karl Barth's thinking has been attracting renewed attention of late. Many theology bloggers cite Barth as an influential figure in their theological development. Ben Myers' Faith & Theology is probably the foremost Barth-inspired blog. See here for my interview with Ben where, amongst other things, we discuss the resurgence of interest in Barth's theology. All this helped to persuade me that I aught to at lest try to read something by the man. I'm certainly not going to devote my life to reading his voluminous Church Dogmatics, but I thought that I'd have a look at this Evangelical Theology.

I'm not altogether sure that I bought the right book, as this is not really an introduction to Barth's teaching on evangelical doctrine. The first section contains some theological discussion. But in the rest of the work, Barth reflects on the challenges of theological existence. When reading the book I tried to keep my mind as unclouded by prejudice as possible. I wanted to give Barth a fair hearing. What I have to say in this post is based simply on my reading of this book.

Studying Evangelical Theology was a rewarding experience. I enjoyed Barth's pacey style and found his arguments stimulating. He defines evangelical theology not in terms of the sixteenth century Confessions but "as that theology which treats the God of the Gospel." (p. 5). In thinking of the place of theology, Barth focuses first of all on the Word of God. This is God's redemptive historical action by which he reveals himself to us in word and deed. In this context Barth discusses God's covenant with Israel, which culminates in the coming of Christ whereby the Word became flesh. Barth's evangelical theology is admirably Christ centered. "This whole Word of God in Christ is the word to which theology must listen and reply." (p. 23).

Although Barth sees Scripture as a witness to the Word of God rather than the Word of God written, he has a high view of the authority of the biblical witnesses. The theologian must not exalt himself above the Bible,

"He cannot grant of refuse them a hearing as though they were colleagues on the faculty. Still less is he a high-school teacher authorised to look over their shoulder benevolently or crossly, to correct their notebooks, or to give them good, average, or bad marks. Even the smallest, strangest, simplest, or obscurest among the biblical witnesses has an incomparable advantage over even the most pious, scholarly and sagacious latter-day theologian". (p. 31-32).

This is hardly a commitment to biblical inerrancy on Barth's part, but contemporary Barth scholars who snigger at the traditional evangelical attitude to the Bible would do well to heed these words. For Barth, the theologian's main work is to prayerfully study and set forth the teaching of Scripture. The theologian is also part of the Christian community. Barth was a pastor before he became a professional theologian. His magnum opus is his Church Dogmatics. Theology has a responsibility to the Church, especially her pastors,

"Theology is committed directly to the community and especially to those members who are responsible for preaching, teaching, and counseling. The task theology has to fulfill is continually to stimulate and lead them to face squarely the question of the proper relation of their human speech to the Word of God, which is the origin, object, and content of this speech." (p. 41).

This emphasis on the relationship between theology and ministry is welcome. Barth's reflections on theological existence are thought provoking. The God of the Gospel demands wonder, concern, commitment and faith. Theology cannot be studied with an air of impersonal detachment. "The living object of theology concerns the whole man. It concerns even what is most private in the private life of the theologian." (p. 84). While the theologian may have doubts, he must be a person of faith, hope and love.

Despite Schaeffer's misgivings, I found Barth to be pretty firm on historical basis of the faith in the face of rationalistic scepticism. He distances himself from those who would demythologise, "Jesus' birth from a virgin and his descent into hell, or the resurrection of the flesh and the report of the empty tomb, or the trinitarian dogma of Nicaea and the Christological dogma of Chalcedon" (p. 103). Such theologians should ponder whether they believe in quite another God than the God of the Gospel.

But, and there must be a "but", there are problems with some features of Barth's theology. He takes an actualistic view of the being of God so that, "God's being, or truth is the event of his self-disclosure, his radiance as the Lord of all lords" (p. 9). This sounds very impressive. But Barth has collapsed God's being into his acts. He is the event of his self-disclosure. I also disagree with Barth's insistence that the Bible is simply a witness to the Word of God. As John Murray writes, "Scripture is God's own witness to us, borne through the instrumentality of men but borne by such a unique mode that the witness of men is God's own witness." (See here). The Bible is the inscripturated Word of God.

Unfortunately, Barth teaches that "the Word became flesh, miserable and sinful, flesh of sin like our own (p. 70). But Christ did not have a fallen human nature. How could the holy Son of God take sinful flesh into union with himself? There are hints of Barth's universalism here too. For him, God's Yes to man always takes precedence over his No (p. 93-94). Certainly, God says Yes to all who trust in Christ. In the Gospel, his Yes triumphs over his No. But God utters a condemnatory No to all who remain in sin and unbelief. Sometimes Barth is downright idiosyncratic. He treats the theologian's accountability to God as a Temptation (p. 133ff). Barth has some salutary things to say about theology being judged by the Lord, but is this God tempting theology? Strange.

So, my initial impression of Barth at first hand is that he was a stunningly creative and original theological thinker. That cannot be denied. But his theology is not sufficiently rooted in the Scriptural revelation of the gospel. I can see why people find his writings attractive. Theology should be original and fresh. However, Christian theology must also be faithful to God's written Word. Barth himself said, "the hearing, understanding, and application of the biblical message... is the fundamental task of all theological study." (p. 175). But some aspects of Barth's teaching in Evangelical Theology fall seriously short of biblical teaching. The main problem area is his weak doctrine of Scripture. This enables him to ignore what the Bible actually says if it contradicts what he considers to be the message of the Word of God. We may no doubt find much that is stimulating and helpful in Barth. But his theology should be given a suitably dialectical "Yes" and "No" from discerning evangelicals.

To further get to grips with some of Barth's key ideas, I recently read Karl Barth And Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences, edited by Sung Wook Chung. I hope to post a review of this book in the next week or so. [Update: see also my review of Engaging with Barth, edited by David Gibson & Daniel Strange].