Supporting Theological Reflection and Conversation that Strengthen the Ministry of the Church

The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth is a useful sampler of current scholarship on the theology of Karl Barth. It contains eighteen fifteen- to twenty-page essays on various aspects of Barth’s theology and its reception. Since many of the authors of essays in this volume have written extensively about Barth’s theology elsewhere, these essays provide an introduction to important recent thought about Karl Barth. Given the many rich and insightful essays in the volume, this brief review cannot adequately address all of the issues they raise. So readers should be aware that the volume contains much valuable material beyond what is highlighted below.

In an introductory essay, John Webster offers a good summary of Barth’s career and helpful suggestions on how to read and interpret Barth’s theology. He notes Barth’s astonishing admission that, when he was appointed to teach Reformed theology in Göttingen after a decade as a Reformed pastor, he did not own a copy of—and had not even read—the Reformed confessions.

Christoph Schwöbel focuses on Barth’s understanding of the task of theology, and especially on how Barth’s views developed throughout his career. As Schwöbel observes, although Barth wrote his theology within the context of secular universities, he never submits theology to criteria derived from the academy. Schwöbel also offers a clear and insightful summary of the development of Barth’s understanding of the nature and the object of theology.

Trevor Hart addresses Barth’s view of revelation, the source and norm of theology. Noting that Barth regularly had his students wrestle with Feuerbach’s claim that talk about God is only talk about humanity, Hart highlights the importance of revelation to Barth’s theology and comments on the important connections for Barth between revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity.

In an essay on Barth’s view of the Trinity, Alan Torrance considers the main trinitarian claims advanced by Barth and the main criticisms that have been lodged against Barth’s trinitarian theology. Torrance gives a careful analysis of the accusation that Barth is modalist and shows ways in which Rahner’s theology of the Trinity differs from Barth’s.

Focusing on Barth’s views on creation and providence, Kathryn Tanner notes that, for Barth, these doctrines find their center in the act of God’s love, Jesus Christ. Thus the doctrine of creation must not focus on the first two chapters of Genesis, but must be developed in the light of the history of God’s covenant with Israel that culminates in Jesus. And God’s providence must be seen to reflect and provide a place for the covenant of grace.

In an insightful pair of essays, George Hunsinger examines Barth’s Christology and his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In the first essay, arguing that Barth deliberately alternates between “Alexandrian” and “Antiochian” ways of describing Jesus Christ, Hunsinger offers a strong statement and defense of Barth’s views in relation to the Chalcedonian Definition. In the second essay, Hunsinger notes that, for Barth, our participation in God’s self-knowledge is real but indirect, since it is mediated in and through Jesus Christ. Hunsinger also observes that, in joining believers to Christ, the Spirit joins them to God and to one another.

Nigel Biggar notes the strong connections between theology and ethics for Barth. Early in his career, Barth’s sense of the ethical failure of liberal Protestantism in responding to the outbreak of Word War I led to a transformation in his theological outlook. And in his mature theology, Barth sees dogmatics as the root of ethics and ethics as the flower of dogmatics.

J. A. Di Noia argues that Barth’s understanding of religion and the religions has been misunderstood. Although Barth holds that, viewed in the light of divine revelation, religion must be seen as unwillingness to yield to the saving power of divine grace, revelation does not sweep religion aside but elevates it. Thus, says Di Noia, Barth’s theology offers no basis for devaluing manifestations of human religion.

Katherine Sonderegger notes ways in which Barth’s thought parallels that of some feminists and also ways in which his thought conflicts with feminist thought. For example, postmodern feminist criticisms of foundationalism and essentialism find parallels in Barth’s theology. But feminist views about the place of social action in theology depart quite sharply from Barth’s opposition to “cultural theology.”

In addition to the essays highlighted above, Francis Watson discusses Barth’s understanding and use of Scripture in theology, Bruce McCormack examines his Christocentric view of election, Colin Gunton considers his theology of salvation, while Wolf Krötke looks at Barth’s theological anthropology. James J. Buckley addresses important issues in Barth’s theology of the church and sacraments, William Werpehowski offers insights into his view of church-state relations, and Graham Ward analyzes his thought in relation to modernity and postmodernity.

Alasdair I. C. Heron concludes this fine volume with a helpful summary of the reception of Barth in Great Britain and on the Continent in the years since Barth’s death in 1968. Heron also highlights some significant themes from Barth’s theology that he considers relevant to future theological work.

The Institute for Reformed Theology is an Associated Program of
Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education, Richmond, Virginia
All materials on this site are © The Institute for Reformed Theology, unless otherwise noted.

aaa