The Humanity of God

by Karl Barth, John N. Thomas (Translator)

Karl Barth is generally regarded as the greatest Protestant thinker of modern times. The three essays in this book, "The Humanity of God," "Evangelical Theology in the 19th Century," and "The Gift of Freedom," show how Barth's later work moved beyond his revolt against the theology dominant in the first decades of the twentieth century.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Christianity, Christian, Essays

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1960

About the author

Protestant theologian Karl Barth, a Swiss, advocated a return to the principles of the Reformation and the teachings of the Bible; his published works include Church Dogmatics from 1932.

Critics hold Karl Barth among the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century; Pope Pius XII described him as the most important since Saint Thomas Aquinas. Beginning with his experience as a pastor, he rejected his typical predominant liberal, especially German training of 19th century.

Instead, he embarked on a new path, initially called dialectical, due to its stress on the paradoxical nature of divine truth—for instance, God is both grace and judgment), but more accurately called a of the Word. Critics referred to this father of new orthodoxy, a pejorative term that he emphatically rejected. His thought emphasized the sovereignty of God, particularly through his innovative doctrine of election. His enormously influenced throughout Europe and America.

Reviews

[Alex Szatmary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here, Karl Barth is more comprehensible than the writing about him. In three essays, Barth respectfully refutes the narcissism of theological liberalism, talks about how we can go about knowing God, through his revelation of himself through Jesus, and ends with how we can live as free people, being God's partners, children, and creatures.

Barth writes plainly about profound things. He talks about God in ways that get me excited.

I got my copy for free at Bookthing. It's very old and smells great.

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Remember how you said the 19th century was a disaster for Christianity and any theology worth the name would have to accept that God is virtually unreachable by human beings? That was awesome."

"Yeah, but then other people said those things, and I realized it was probably a good idea to be a bit more nuanced."

"You're probably right. Why are you always right?"

"Dialectics."

[Dave Brown · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a quick read, and certainly a much more accessible introduction to Barth's thought that the infamous and multi-volumed Church Dogmatics. Very early in the three essays we see Barth's confusion in the midst of theological history: he claims that Kierkegaard had "no influence" on 19th century theology, yet most historians would agree that, when Barth wrote his commentary on Romans that launched the movement of neo-orthodoxy, he was standing on Kierkegaard's shoulders. He spends a significant amount of the essays defending his definition of evangelical theology and what he calls the "humanity" of God. However, in his discussion of God's human-ness, he lapses into the process theology error of claiming that God needs humans in such a way that He cannot function without them. He also articulates his lapse into universalism, as well as hinting at his famous non-answers to the accusations in this regard by peers. All in all, an easy read by Barth's standards, but I find his thought to be seriously wanting. What I appreciated most is his closing to the essays, in which he encouraged his audience to approach the discipline of theology accepting each other's faults in thought while working toward a common goal (essentially, the edification of the saints), and not tearing each other down. Those closing paragraphs earned a star of this rating in and of themselves, and is a call that all in the discipline of theology today would do well to take to heart.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essentially Barth argues that 19th century philosophers asked the wrong questions of Christian "faith," reducing it to a "religion" of historical and anthropological origin. These questions and conclusions rested on sloppy intellectual/psychological/sociological assumptions. He teases them apart here-- pretty convincingly I'd say.

[Ryan Hawkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first time reading Barth. I enjoyed him in a similar way to how I enjoy reading C.S. Lewis, that is, he's evidently a brilliant mind, he says things uniquely, and he stimulates thoughts and ideas. (That being said, I think Lewis is much better for numerous reasons.)

This book was a collection of three essays, and each of these essays proved his creativity. And to my suprise, they actually all three went together really well. In many of Lewis' essay books (such as *The Weight of Glory* collection), they are usually just randomly put together. Here, each of these essays had to do with God and humanity and how we interrelate.

The best essay was the essay from which the book gets the title, "The Humanity of God." Here Barth argues convincingly and I believe rightly that God's deity is not seen in the abstract, but as God communicates to and through man, namely, in Christ. There, in Christ, we see that God isn't the God of the philosophers—aloof and in abstract deity. Instead, he is the God of man, meaning, he does, sacrifices, incarnates, becomes a servant, etc. *This* is God. And his main point is that, if we therefore want to become God-centered (in opposition to so much man-centered theology), we must actually focus on how God reveals himself in man—so, we must focus on Christ. In sum, we don't become God-centered by neglecting man. We become God-centered by seeing the full feity of God as when he was manifested in his dealing with man, especially in Christ.

To me, this is brilliant. Now, I'm sure people could take this too far and actually become man-centered in their theology. But what a great way for arguing for a Christocentric theology! He's right on.

As a result, this was the best essay of the book by far, in my opinion. Many insightful paragraphs and sentences.

My second favorite was the first essay, "Evangelical Theology in the 19th Century." Here Barth essentially showed how the (what we would call) 'liberal' theology of the late 1800s and early 1900s went astray, namely, in that they thought they had to begin with the world's worldview and assimilate Christian beliefs. In my opinion, Barth is way too sympathetic to this liberal theology, with people such as Schwietzer and von Harnack. But his point is apt: their big error was they started with culture and then tried to contextualize Christian doctrine accordingly. As a result, in my opinion, no Christianity remained. Barth's main point was that the Christian doctrine should be the starting point.

The third essay, "The Gift of Freedom: The Foundation of Evangelical Ethics," was the least intriguing. It was a little too philosophical and unhelpful. I was confused at what exactly he was getting at. But he does argue that any freedom man has first begins with God's freedom—in other words, God alone is totally free. What exactly he means by man's freedom, I'm not entirely sure. But his upholding of God was good to read. Then he had a final section in this essay about the 'free theologian.' I thought this section would be more helpful than it was.

Overall, it was stimulating. I'll probably read his *Dogmatics in Outline* soon since I also own that. He clearly is more liberal and less Bible focused in his theology than I'd like (for example, at the end of his Humanity of God essay, he started to hint at universalism, with some weird and weak rationale). But I also recognize that he was a bastion for the true God and Christ in compared to his much more liberal German counterparts. For this, and for the fight he put up, the whole Christian church, has been helped. I personally saw that God- and Christ-centeredness in the pages of this book.

[Philip Worrall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Listen, I read this book every year around this time because it is just that good. IT is an older mature Barth, who is seeking to give a proper picture of the centrality of the Word become flesh and the flesh that became the Word.

Additionally, the essay on the 19th century is critical for all young enthusiastic theologians to read because of Barth's still critical view of his German liberals that signed the Manifesto of the Ninety-Three. Yet, they can not erase that history...instead, it must be unlearned and remember the pitfall for why the Word of God was given up. A timely word for liberal and conservative theologians today.

Last, the essay on ethics gives someone the richness that could come towards ethical thinking when it embraces its theological reflection, in particular, if that ethicist happens to follow Jesus. This ultimately gives way for someone like Stanley Hauerwas. Who has countlessly said that he is interpreting Barth.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to get into Barth's theology and don't have time or the interest in reading all the volumes of the Dogmatics then this is your book. It is a collection of three essays that he has written, which (I am told) represent his theology very well. It is an interesting read and there are even some fun biographical bits in there (like why he left liberal protestant theology). I was lost in some of (what I assumed to be) the technical theological language that he used, but I was able to still get an idea of what he was talking about. I am looking forward to reading it again.

[Tim Kimberley · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent very accessible snapshot into the thoughts of Karl Barth. I read this with a friend over three weeks in a coffee shop...was good to read and discuss with a friend.

[Nikki Stahl]

Very readable and a total theological goldmine. We American Christians in 2017 would do well to read and reread and re-reread this collection of essays (lectures?).

[Corey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Liked each essay more than the last

[Melvin Kauffman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A refreshing perspective on theology and God's relationship with humanity! Inspiring! Devotional.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic in my opinion. I think he has some timeless insights about the nature of theological study, with his firm commitment to, and great exposition of, the Gospel revealed in Jesus.

[John Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I definitely just read an epistle/lecture to a particular crowd of a much different time, but there are apparently some timeless matters spoken of with which perhaps we should still be wrestling.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Karl Barth starts by thinking about "the science and doctrine of the commerce and communion between God and man" (11) in evangelical theology. These are roots that he planted in previous theology. In these three essays, he declares G0d's gifts of humanity and freedom.

The humanity of God is a partnership in which He is the superior partner. God gives freedom to man: freedom is the joy for man. The nature of His freedom is that chance and ambiguity have no place; is for us as God's friend; and is freedom from limitations and threats.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THREE ESSAYS BY THE FAMED THEOLOGIAN

Karl Barth (1886-1968) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, who was (arguably) the greatest Protestant theologian of the twentieth century.

This book contains three essays that were originally published as separate monographs in Germany. The Translator’s Preface to this English edition notes, “the essays contain a concise and recent treatment of some of the central issues in Barth’s theology… [two of the essays] outline Barth’s approach to Christology and to ethics respectively. Both of these areas are treated by him much more thoroughly in various parts of his Church Dogmatics, but the sheer length of that work may rather limit its reading audience … Hence it is hoped that the publication of these shorter writings will make more widely accessible some of the basic emphases in the recent and most mature form of Barth’s theology… The three essays published here illustrate in brief form both the fat and the direction of the development of Barth’s thought.”

In the first essay, Barth recalls, “One day in early August 1914 stands out in my memory as a black day. Ninety-three German intellectuals impressed public opinion by their proclamation of support of the war policy of Wilhelm II and his counselors. Among these intellectuals I discovered to my horror almost all of my theological teachers whom I had greatly venerated… I suddenly realized that I could not any longer follow either their ethics and dogmatics or their understanding of the Bible and of history. For me at least, 19th century theology no longer held any future… Evangelical theology in true spirit and style of the 19th century continued to exist and some vestiges still remain. But in its former wholeness it is a cause which today is significantly represented by only a few.” (Pg. 14-15)

He states, “when the Christian gospel was changed into a statement, a religion, about Christian self-awareness, the God was lost sight of who in His sovereignty confronts man, calling him to account, and dealing with him as Lord… The Christian was condemned to uncritical and irresponsible subservience to the patterns, forces, and movements of human history and civilization. Man’s inner experience did not provide a firm enough ground for resistance to these phenomena. Deprived of a guiding principle man could turn anywhere… leaving the faithful to whatever impressions and influences from outside proved strongest.” (Pg. 27)

He begins the second essay with the statement, “What began to press itself upon us about forty years ago was not so much the humanity of God as His DEITY---a God absolutely unique in His relation to man and the world… yes even wholly other. Such was the God with whom man has to do when he takes the name of God upon his lips, when God encounters him, when he enters into relation with God… Unfortunately for us the HUMANITY of God at that time moved from the center to the periphery… Our problem is this: to derive the knowledge of the humanity of God from the knowledge of His deity.” (Pg. 37-38)

He asks, “Was the impression of many contemporaries wholly unfounded, who felt that the final result might be to stand Schliermacher on his head, that is, to make GOD great for a change at the cost of MAN?... Was it only obduracy when… so many others preferred to shake their heads, nonplussed or… even angry over such an innovation? Was there not perhaps in their obduracy the dark presentiment that, in… the ill-fated humanism of the earlier theology, there might have been something at work that could not be given up? Is it possible that… the HUMANITY of God did not come quite into its rights in the manner in which we… lifted up His deity on the candlestick?” (Pg. 43-44)

He cites several biblical passages which [to some] suggest universalism, and comments, “Does this mean universalism? I wish here to make only three short observations, in which one is to detect no position for or against that which passes among us under this term. 1. One should not surrender himself in any case to the panic which this word seems to spread abroad, before informing himself exactly concerning its possible sense or no non-sense. 2. One should at least be stimulated by [Col 1:19]… to consider whether the concept could not perhaps have a good meaning… 3. … What of the ‘danger’ of the eternally skeptical-critical theologian who is ever and again suspiciously questioning, because fundamentally always legalistic and therefore in the main morosely gloomy? Is not his presence among us currently more threatening than that of the unbecomingly cheerful indifferentism… to which one with a certain understanding of universalism could in fact deliver himself? This much is certain, that we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ.” (Pg. 61-62)

He asserts, “there is no private Christianity… theology cannot be carried on in private lighthouses of some sort of merely personal discoveries and opinions. It can only be carried on in the Church---it can be put to work in all its elements only in the context of the questioning and answering of the Christian community and in the rigorous service of its commission to all men.” (Pg. 64)

In the final essay, he says, “God wants man to be His creature. Furthermore, He wants him to be His PARTNER… He wants man to administer and to receive justice rather than to inflict and to suffer injustice… It is enough to say that God’s ‘Yes’ and ‘No,’ spoken in His act of reconciliation, is not proclaimed apart from man. Even in this central act God declines to be alone, without man.” (Pg. 80-81)

He argues, “The question of good and evil is never answered by man’s pointing to the authoritative Word of God in terms of a set of rules. It is never… imposed on the self and others as a code of good and evil actions, a soft of yardstick of what is good and evil. Holy Scripture defies being forced into a set of rules; it is a mistake to use it as such… To offer ethical norms to man in this predicament is to hold out a stone instead of bread.” (Pg. 85)

He states, “A free theologian starts steadily and happily with the Bible. Here must be his starting point, but not because any old or new orthodoxy knocked it into him; it is not a law but a privilege to start with the Bible… He starts with the Bible because in the Bible he learns about the free God and free man, and as a disciple of the Bible he may himself become a witness to the divine and human freedom. He does not start with a doctrine of the canon and of the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture. But he does begin, not without inspiration, with daily searching of canonical writings. They informed and still inform him. He listens to them… in order to gain a better understanding.” (Pg. 90-91)

He also suggests, “A free theologian thinks and speaks within the CHURCH… In the Church there are CONFESSIONS… Why should a free theologian not pay loving respect to these confessions as guidance in reading, explaining, and applying the Scriptures?... In the Church there are FATHERS: father Luther, father Calvin, other fathers. Why should a free theologian not be their son and disciple? But why should he insist on complete agreement with them?... Why should he not respect the freedom of the fathers and let them express their wisdom and then learn from them what in his own freedom he may and can learn more from them?” (Pg. 93-94)

The essays in this brief book are indeed an excellent “introduction” to this important theologian; and even for those familiar with Barth’s theology, they may still contain interesting formulations of principles expressed at greater length elsewhere.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not what I expected, but a great read nevertheless. The book contains three lectures given by Barth in 1956 and 1957 that give a taste of his later and more developed theology. The first lecture is an overview of the failure of 19th Century German theology. The second and third lectures relate the relationship between God and humanity as foundational for evangelical theology. Barth does seem to get into a bit of Process Theology in the second lecture. The third lecture, "The Gift of Freedom", is a wonderful summary of Barth's theology of human freedom in Christ and how it relates to Christian ethics. The second and third lectures are brief and worth two or three readings, which likely what it will take to absorb everything he's got to say.

[Ed]

I really liked Barth's discussion about the history of modern theology and where he felt they went right and where they went wrong. His conception of freedom confused me. It didn't sound like what I would describe freedom, quite the opposite actually. I don't know if it's because I didn't understand what he was actually saying or I did but what he was saying is crazy. It's interesting to see the way in which theology evolved, with this swing back to emphasis of God's humanity from emphasis of his transcendence. It's a short little book but worth reading for someone who's looked into modern protestant theology.

[Garrett Cash · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm reading Barth on the recommendation of Flannery O'Connor, who said that there would most likely never be any Catholic theologians as great as Barth or Tillich. I found this short, yet somewhat dense work to be quite interesting. I went into this not knowing a single thing about Barth or his theological views, so I might have been a little more lost in his arguments than the average seminary student who's going to read this. I believe I got the gist of the essays though, and I found them to be quite intellectually delectable.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe I'm dumb, but this didn't stir my chili. Pretty dull.

[Scott Barber · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpfully concise introduction to the development of Barth's thought and the modern theological context from which it was developed.

[Jon Beadle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not unlike bathing in lukewarm water. Meh.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review title: Free to be God, free to love God

In the second of what will be a trio of books on Protestant theology (each book was added to my reading list from a separate source, and not intended as a series), Karl Barth talks briefly about what it means that God in the person of Jesus is human, and how man is related to God through that humanity. This slim volume of less than 100 pages was originally three different addresses given to theologians and clergy in the mid 1950s, near the end of Barth's long and honored career.

The first essay, "Evangelical Theology in the 19th Century", covers much of the same ground that J. Gresham Machin in Christianity and Liberalism, the first in my trilogy, covered starting from a different tradition (American Presbyterian fundamentalism) but arriving at very much the same end. As the transcript of a verbal presentation which is translated into a second language, Barth's essay is not as tightly argued, but would certainly have made a shorter and livelier presentation than Machen. Interestingly, even though their careers overlapped and these two pieces cover the same topic, neither directly mentions the other by name; however, in a separate short address Machen did analyze another aspect of Barth's theology disapprovingly, for what that's worth. I found both to be very compelling and sound thinkers about things that matter in these two books.

The second essay is the most famous and justly gives its name to the collection. "Fully God, fully man" is a neat formulation in most protestant catechisms, but what does it mean, and how do we (whether theologians or clergy or lay people) keep from over stressing one and diminishing the other? Barth's solution is to "derive the knowledge of the humanity of God from the knowledge of His deity." (p. 38):

"In Jesus Christ there is no isolation of man from God or of God from man. Rather, in Him we encounter the history, the dialogue, in which God and man meet together and are together.... Jesus Christ is in His one Person, as true God, man's loyal partner, and as true man, God's. " (p. 46)

And rest assured that Barth is not placing man in equality with God, but showing how we are cannot be equal or even in communication with God without the mediator of Jesus the man who is one with God in His deity. This essay glows off the pages.

In the final essay," The Gift of Freedom," Barth addresses one of the ramifications of the humanity of God. While God is sovereignly free, man's freedom is the gift of God to man, which has implications for how we use that gift, and how we live together in free communities sharing that gift of freedom. In its simplest form, "Glorifying God and loving his neighbor are sure signs of man's commitment" to freedom (p. 80).

While Machen's argument and style appealed to the rationalist in me, Barth appeals to my soul. I will definitely put these two books on the same shelf side by side, and hope that in eternity these two men share the same closeness as their books.

[Steve Irby · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just finished "The Humanity of God," by Karl Barth.


Slim read here. This is composed of three lectures delivered in the late '50s on Christology. 


The first is on the 19th century liberal Protesrant theologians. I'm trying to grasp where he's going with this first monologue. One of the first main points seems to be that the 19th century theologians took it upon themselves to become also philosophers. In so doing they they traded "Christian faith" in for "Christian religion." I believe this is a great insight which we are still fighting today. Yes, tons rest on how one defines (and lives) religion and faith. I think what this section is digging at is the low Christological perspective of 19th century liberal Protestants gives them nothing upon which to establish an ethic; the less Godlike one sees Jesus the less importance His words have.


The second lecture is on the Humanity of God which to Barth is God's relation to and turning towards man. He states that the problem has been to derive a knowledge of God's humanity from His Deity. (I read that four times because my contention is the opposite; the humanity of God as seen in Jesus is the perfect representation of His Deity.) Barth heads down the Wholly Other road speaking to the transcendence of God. Finally he shifts into gear speaking to how Christ is man-before-God and God-before-man in a wonderful way that seems rare for Barth and constant for Brunner.


"If [Jesus] is the Word of Truth, then the truth of God  is exactly this and nothing else," p 49.


It makes a bit more sense now: Barth suggests that the nature of God has and has always had an aspect of humanity therein. The big crux here is relationality and that is fully expressed in incarnation. I think what threw me was that Barth, according to the preceeding, could say "the humanity of God" before the incarnation; I'd just never thought about it that way. It makes sense if one considers it's like saying the Imago Dei is that humanity: given from God to man and recognized in God by man.


The gift of freedom; foundation for Christian ethics:

Not going to lie here, Barth's and my views of freedom differ quite a bit here.


#KarlBarth #Barth #TheHumanityOfGod #Christology #ChurchDogmatics 

[Caleb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historical theology is so important, and this is definitely a worthy read. He leans too far towards liberal theology—even after his rejection of 19th century philosophy, but there are so many good things that Barth stressed. Theology is, at its best, Christocentric, because Christ shows us God’s decision to be man’s God. Every theologian is working from a specific philosophical framework which no one can escape from. Theologians should not reject the study of the historical Jesus and the cultural background of the time, even though 19th century theologians abused this tool. We should always read history, and our brothers and sisters from the past, to gain a better understanding of where we’ve been and where we are going. And, my favorite point of his, we should never be ashamed of the Church. God chose the Church to be His vehicle of love, grace, and mercy. And he chose to give the Church his all-encompassing loving-kindness. God is unashamed of His Church with all of its shortcomings and failures; we, likewise, should accept the church in all of its brokenness and finiteness. This is what Jesus has done and what he wishes for us as brothers and sisters.

[Dan Glover · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this retraction of the hyper-transcendent view of God of the early post-liberal Barth by the later Barth. Here he argues for the immanence of God as well as his transcendence, for the humanity of God in Christ alongside his divinity. This is a really wonderful work. Conservative Reformed Christians tend to hate on Barth a fair bit, and he deserves some of it, particularly the early Barth (not to mention his longstanding domestic situation). But no matter how you fall out on Barth, it needs to be remembered that he took a courageous stand against both the vacuous human-centric Liberal theology of his day, as well as the Nazi party's political agenda and subjugation of the Church. I will be reading this again.

[Kaleb Blackburn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is three separate essays written by Barth at the height of his prominence.

The first is quite forgettable. It revolves around a critique of liberal evangelical theology which is what his neo-orthodoxy is known for. But not very practical beyond his critique of modern theologian embracing the Enlightenment ideas too much.

The second essay which is the namesake of the book is the best. It certainly takes shots at more reformed takes on the relationship between God and man that I haven’t thought of before (Too much to elaborate on in this short of a space). It’s as if he expands on the early creeds and uses them as a template to prove his point that modern theology does not embrace enough of the humanity of God, in fear that it would edge towards heresy.

The third essay is about Gods freedom and how that alone allows for man’s freedom. The second best of the trio and challenged me in regards to the use of man’s freedom in the context of Gods sovereignty.

[Kendall Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good summary of Barth's thought in a more approachable and doable form than in his dogmatics. I particularly appreciated the first essay's discussion of the good and the bad of 19th century theology. I was fascinated to see how much good Barth had to say about it, but his analysis is very helpful even well-beyond mere historical curiosity. I believe Barth is right when he says that 19th century theology is still alive, even though it is no longer tenable. I also appreciated his discussion of the relationship between divine freedom and human freedom in the final essay. I don't think he developed the implications for ethics the way he seems to set out to.

[Elliot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely the best entry to Barth's thought. So many people introduced to Barth repeat the nonsense that God is "wholly Other" (I can't tell you how many people I heard repeat that in college intro courses). If one starts here they find that Barth came to radically change that view (beginning really with volume 2.2 of the Church Dogmatics) with the recognition that God is revealed fully in the humanity of Jesus Christ. For Barth, there is no God behind the back of Jesus Christ. That is the Good News.

[Luke Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Barth being Barth! There’s a lot to say about Barth’s theology outside of what he presents in this book, but mostly I think he proves himself more than his own theology in this as one who truly does desire the good of the church, while also asserting the absolute utilitarian nature theology must in some way have. Barth’s two-sided method doesn’t just describe unresolved tensions of God’s transcendence and immanence, but moves beyond the two categories to a new one altogether: God’s free decision to create man free and thus freely involve Godself as covenant partner, brother, and friend.

[Carsten Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Evangelical Theology in the 19th Century was more interesting for methodological purposes (how do you both appreciatively and critically assess your immediate predecessors?). The Humanity of God illustrates why so many have found Barth's Christology so compelling. The Freedom of God distinguishes divine and human freedom before sketching how our contingent human freedom is the condition for Christian ethics. Good way to get to know Barth.