What do you think?
Rate this book
Karl Barth in Plain English
"This is a book for beginners, by a beginner..." (from the author's preface) "Karl Barth in Plain English," by Stephen D Morrison, is a clear and concise introduction to the theology of Karl Barth. Written from one amateur to another, Stephen hopes to introduce you to Barth's complex thought without all the confusing theological jargon often involved in discussions of his work. By focusing on eight major ideas central to Barth's thought, Stephen provides you with a profoundly helpful study of one of the greatest minds in modern theology. This book is the product of years of reading and studying Barth as an amateur theologian, and presents an accessible guide to Barth with the hopes of making his theology more understandable to other "amateurs." As Barth himself once said, “In the Church of Jesus Christ there can and should be no non-theologians.” It is in this spirit that Stephen humbly presents, “Karl Barth in Plain English.” In this book Stephen covers a wide range of subjects in Barth's thought, working from a careful reading of Barth's "Church Dogmatics," alongside his other popular books and sermons. Topics discussed include Barth's rejection of natural theology, the doctrine of revelation and the Trinity, the threefold Word of God, Barth and Biblical inerrancy, the doctrine of election, Barth and universalism, creation and the covenant, reconciliation, the Church, and theological ethics. "This book strives for simplicity without oversimplification, clarity without skimming over the details, and brevity without lacking in depth. I hope to present a fair and accessible look into Barth, because I believe his work deserves a wider audience not just among the 'professionals' but among us 'amateurs' too." (author's preface)
200 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 5, 2017
44 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
About the author
Stephen D. Morrison
19 books70 followersStephen D. Morrison (MA, Luther Seminary) is a prolific author and theologian whose work online and in print focuses on making modern theology accessible. He is known for the Plain English Series, which includes his latest work, "Paul Tillich in Plain English."
Stephen is currently a PhD student at the University of Aberdeen studying Karl Barth’s theology of resistance. He is the author of fifteen books, as well as several academic articles and book reviews. He is also a video essayist on YouTube with over 5k subscribers and 320k lifetime views. For a full CV and to learn more about Stephen, visit his website: SDMorrison.org.
Stephen is currently a PhD student at the University of Aberdeen studying Karl Barth’s theology of resistance. He is the author of fifteen books, as well as several academic articles and book reviews. He is also a video essayist on YouTube with over 5k subscribers and 320k lifetime views. For a full CV and to learn more about Stephen, visit his website: SDMorrison.org.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 17, 2017
Makes Karl Barth understandable
I have tried to read his works but didn't understand it. This book gives us a summary we can understand of Barth's works, and then examples from his writings. The explanations by the author helped me to then understand what Barth said
I have tried to read his works but didn't understand it. This book gives us a summary we can understand of Barth's works, and then examples from his writings. The explanations by the author helped me to then understand what Barth said
June 7, 2018
Morrison clearly accomplished what he set out to do with this book. Because of the length of Barth, and honestly he’s confusing to begin with, I was glad to read an introduction to Barth’s major points before I read Church Dogmatics directly.
Most of the disagreements I have, and there are quite a few, were directed at Barth’s thoughts rather than the book. I especially enjoyed the sidebar points of the chapters, because most of those clarifications dealt with misunderstandings that I either heard or held myself.
There are only two points that I disagreed with Morrison himself. First, I didn’t think he fairly dealt with biblical inerrancy and evangelical scholarship. I do completely agree that Barth needs to be studied, especially by Christians that hold to inerrancy; however, I think that should be a two-way street. It can’t just be assumed that inerrantists make rash judgments to preserve a paper pope. Both sides should be reading Karl Barth and G.K. Beale, E.J. Young, and Ned Stonehouse. It seems like a broad brush to think American Evangelicals ignore or misunderstand Barth.
Second (and significantly smaller), I just can’t see Barth’s doctrine of election as really that groundbreaking, but I will have to read it for myself. I’m skeptical of this because Barth’s grounding of election in Christ seems to be dealt with by Francis Turrentin in his Institutes (Volume 1, fourth topic, tenth question), and this was back in 1679-85.
Besides that, Morrison was extremely helpful with introducing me to Barth. For those, that are interested, this is definitely a worthwhile read.
Most of the disagreements I have, and there are quite a few, were directed at Barth’s thoughts rather than the book. I especially enjoyed the sidebar points of the chapters, because most of those clarifications dealt with misunderstandings that I either heard or held myself.
There are only two points that I disagreed with Morrison himself. First, I didn’t think he fairly dealt with biblical inerrancy and evangelical scholarship. I do completely agree that Barth needs to be studied, especially by Christians that hold to inerrancy; however, I think that should be a two-way street. It can’t just be assumed that inerrantists make rash judgments to preserve a paper pope. Both sides should be reading Karl Barth and G.K. Beale, E.J. Young, and Ned Stonehouse. It seems like a broad brush to think American Evangelicals ignore or misunderstand Barth.
Second (and significantly smaller), I just can’t see Barth’s doctrine of election as really that groundbreaking, but I will have to read it for myself. I’m skeptical of this because Barth’s grounding of election in Christ seems to be dealt with by Francis Turrentin in his Institutes (Volume 1, fourth topic, tenth question), and this was back in 1679-85.
Besides that, Morrison was extremely helpful with introducing me to Barth. For those, that are interested, this is definitely a worthwhile read.
August 17, 2020
It is rare that I write a review, but this short book was the first to actually open up Barth's dogmatics to me in an immediate manner. Morrisons presentation of Barth was concise yet powerful, and I am left not only wanting to read more of Barth, but feeling genuinely excited as a result of Barth's evangelical presentation of the gospel message. Thank you Mr. Morrison!
July 30, 2022
Karl Barth in Plain English makes for an intriguing and thoughtful synopsis of Karl Barth’s views. I had figured that I needed to try to understand Barth sooner or later because he has become such a fad for Christians that reject both hyper-conservativism and extremely liberal theology. And, indeed, there clearly exists a great deal to appreciate and savor about Barth’s theology. He captures and conveys the hope and joy of the gospel with greater zeal than almost any theologian that I have read. His doctrine of election is revolutionary, and his insistence on beginning all of His theological reflections by first focusing on the Person of Jesus Christ is ever so important, even if I do not always concur with the conclusions that he reaches from this starting point. What’s more, I eat up Barth's teaching that true ethical behavior aligns with true freedom because it means merely accepting God’s invitation to live more fully into who we were created to be. Since God writes the law on our heart, God's law is not a set of "do this," "don't do that" instructions, but rather a joyful beckoning into true freedom: a "you may." This may prove monumental in my thinking about my faith. Morrison does an excellent job at relaying all of these ideas to the reader.
Having said all this, I still do not foresee myself becoming a Barthian. I noticed many potential holes in his theology—or, perhaps merely things that did not make sense to me personally. For instance, how does Barth align his insistence that no man can find God by His own efforts or reasoning with his view that all of humanity is elect in Christ without arriving at dogmatic universalism as a logical necessity? If humanity is incapable of discovering God by its own efforts, then does mean that God must effectually draw a man to Himself in order to cause him to realize that he has been reconciled to God? That is what Barth’s position views most sounded like to me—but this would certainly result in all of humanity being saved, seeing that God almost undoubtedly wills the salvation of all according to Barth. So this explanation involving effectual calling cannot do, at least without winding up with something like double predestination, which Barth passionately rejects. Or, perhaps, does God impart to all men a miraculous but ultimately resistible capability to come to Him and break free from their delusions and realize that they have been reconciled to God—an ability that they could not have mustered on their own, but one which may nonetheless be resisted? Perhaps this would make for the most sensible and likely answer, but it is never explicitly spelled out in the book. And I wonder why Barth would be considered a type of Calvinist by many people if this were the case because this view does not sound at all like Calvinism by any definition to me.
And there were a few other aspects of Barth’s theology that left me less than entirely satisfied—grappling with more questions than answers—but it would take too long to unpack all of these points of confusion. I noticed such a tendency to occasionally seem to speak out both sides of one’s mouth in the works of other Barthians that I have read, too, such as Douglas Campbell, even though I am quite a fan of Campbell’s work. But, as for Barth, I do not know whether these constitute genuine holes in his system—or whether Morrison merely did not flesh out his theology as well as he could have when it comes to addressing these questions—or whether it would be simply impossible to fully unpack all of Barth’s complex ideas in one small book—or whether I am simply being a little dense here. Regardless, I found myself generally more satisfied with Morrison’s portrayal of Schleiermacher’s theological system than with Barth’s. Schleiermacher’s theology moved me less than Barth's did, but I comprehended its intricacies better.
Having said all this, I still do not foresee myself becoming a Barthian. I noticed many potential holes in his theology—or, perhaps merely things that did not make sense to me personally. For instance, how does Barth align his insistence that no man can find God by His own efforts or reasoning with his view that all of humanity is elect in Christ without arriving at dogmatic universalism as a logical necessity? If humanity is incapable of discovering God by its own efforts, then does mean that God must effectually draw a man to Himself in order to cause him to realize that he has been reconciled to God? That is what Barth’s position views most sounded like to me—but this would certainly result in all of humanity being saved, seeing that God almost undoubtedly wills the salvation of all according to Barth. So this explanation involving effectual calling cannot do, at least without winding up with something like double predestination, which Barth passionately rejects. Or, perhaps, does God impart to all men a miraculous but ultimately resistible capability to come to Him and break free from their delusions and realize that they have been reconciled to God—an ability that they could not have mustered on their own, but one which may nonetheless be resisted? Perhaps this would make for the most sensible and likely answer, but it is never explicitly spelled out in the book. And I wonder why Barth would be considered a type of Calvinist by many people if this were the case because this view does not sound at all like Calvinism by any definition to me.
And there were a few other aspects of Barth’s theology that left me less than entirely satisfied—grappling with more questions than answers—but it would take too long to unpack all of these points of confusion. I noticed such a tendency to occasionally seem to speak out both sides of one’s mouth in the works of other Barthians that I have read, too, such as Douglas Campbell, even though I am quite a fan of Campbell’s work. But, as for Barth, I do not know whether these constitute genuine holes in his system—or whether Morrison merely did not flesh out his theology as well as he could have when it comes to addressing these questions—or whether it would be simply impossible to fully unpack all of Barth’s complex ideas in one small book—or whether I am simply being a little dense here. Regardless, I found myself generally more satisfied with Morrison’s portrayal of Schleiermacher’s theological system than with Barth’s. Schleiermacher’s theology moved me less than Barth's did, but I comprehended its intricacies better.
September 2, 2021
This book did exactly what it set out to do.
An excellent summary of a huge body of work!
My interest in Barth is born from my study of Bonhoeffer.
Although i cannot agree with everything i have read, (neither did Bonhoeffer) this book has shed light on Barth’s theology and has shown me that my tradition can be too critical of him. There is clearly far more that unites our schools of thought.
This book has made me go back to the Bible to question the Barthian lens and this is never a bad thing.
Highly recommended to anyone who wishes to dip a toe in!
An excellent summary of a huge body of work!
My interest in Barth is born from my study of Bonhoeffer.
Although i cannot agree with everything i have read, (neither did Bonhoeffer) this book has shed light on Barth’s theology and has shown me that my tradition can be too critical of him. There is clearly far more that unites our schools of thought.
This book has made me go back to the Bible to question the Barthian lens and this is never a bad thing.
Highly recommended to anyone who wishes to dip a toe in!
April 9, 2020
First book I read on Barth. I appreciated it as I think it covers all the basics in very readable language, and gives readers an overview of Barth's Theology. The author has a charismatic evangelical background as do I, and I think this means he speaks a language I find easy to understand.
May 24, 2020
Barth is always challenging
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews