New Center for Barth Studies Book Review

By -
Andrew Root reviews Rosalene Bradbury, Cross Theology: The Classical Theologia Crucis and Karl Barth’s Modern Theology of the Cross (Pickwick, 2011). If you are interested in exploring Barth's Lutheran side (I feel compelled to insert an asinine remark here, such as
"although I don't know why you would be" . . . but I'm not going to sink to such), then this book might be for you. Check out the review to see!


P.S. For those of you who don't already know, I am (and have long been) the Center for Barth Studies book review editor. So if you have written a book about Barth - or know of a good one - that has not yet been reviewed on the site, feel free to contact me with that information: barth [dot] reviews [at] ptsem [dot] edu.
==================================

Comments

Matthew Frost said…
Barth's retrieval of Luther is an insuffciently-explored vein. Good topic selection on her part.
June 27, 2012 12:03 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
Have you read Hunsinger's essay on the subject, Matt? If so, what are your thoughts?
June 27, 2012 12:07 PM
Alexander said…
What I would like to see more of is a focused analysis of individual works of Barth's with regard to Luther's influence. One thesis for which I argued is that the influence of Luther's deus absconditus (de servo arbitrio) on Barth's early thought is quite underrated.
June 28, 2012 4:26 AM
Matthew Frost said…
Sorry for the delay in response, Travis. You mean the 1999 article in LQ, I assume? It's a great piece. He has a quote near the beginning that is a guide to my own critiques of Barth:

"Almost every objection that Barth ever made against Luther was ventured on "Lutheran" grounds. If he sometimes criticized Luther, it was for the sake of Luther—with questions that would never have become possible without all that Luther had bequeathed to him."

And his genealogical method is exemplary. If I ever manage to have time to demonstrate the ethical debt Barth has to Nietzsche in particular, I could definitely do worse.

It's also a great piece of scholarship in that it opens up avenues of further exploration. Amy Marga has a good followup, from the Aug. 2007 Currents in Theology and Mission, exploring the substantive Christology aspect. Her debt in that article is both obvious and acknowledged, and she puts some detailed examples into the structure.

Formal pandering aside, I think he hits the ways that Barth is engaged in a kind of retrieval of Luther, and especially in ways that the Lutherans were not. It's like the line from Young Werther, "Be a man, and do not follow me," in many ways. Barth is a way out of Protestant Orthodox doom, and his quarrels with Luther over precisely Luther's insights are a significant part of that. But he does so without ceasing to be Reformed, and he does so in many of the same ways that Luther did, by attention to scripture, the Fathers, and the early church in pursuit of the truth. I like to demonstrate Barth's debt to Luther by comparison with Torrance, as an example of what a difference a generation makes: a theologian who is so clearly Reformed without the obsession with Luther, but also without the need to break the ground Barth needed him for.
July 03, 2012 1:21 PM
Matthew Frost said…
A lot of Lutheran retrieval of Luther is for specific bits and pieces. Things we have to flesh out ourselves to make anything out of, like the priesthood of all believers, or the theology of the cross. Or law/gospel dialectic. But Barth is never "doing Luther" the ways that we tend to be. He's doing dogmatics. And that makes so much difference!
July 03, 2012 1:28 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
"A lot of Lutheran retrieval of Luther is for specific bits and pieces. Things we have to flesh out ourselves to make anything out of, like the priesthood of all believers, or the theology of the cross."

*resists mightily...
July 03, 2012 3:32 PM
Matthew Frost said…
Aw, play along. :) I don't know you well enough to know which direction you'd leap.

I'm not saying the emphases aren't there, and I've seen any number of pieces attempting to correct the popular versions in light of Luther, but it's a Sisyphean task.
July 03, 2012 5:51 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
I've been *trying* to be less polemic about Lutherans lately, for a number of reasons, so...

Get behind me, Satan!

;-)
July 05, 2012 9:15 AM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri
Keep reading

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 1, Day 5

By -
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from
Keep reading