What do you think?
Rate this book
Evangelical Theology: An Introduction
In this concise presentation of evangelical theology -- the theology that first received expression in the New Testament writings and was later rediscovered by the Reformation--Barth discusses the place of theology, theological existence, the threat to theology, and theological work.
222 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 30, 1962
107 people are currently reading
1062 people want to read
About the author
Karl Barth
453 books262 followersProtestant 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
April 1, 2024
One of the best Christian theologians; however, this lecture is not very systematic as it only touches on several points of “Evangelical Theology”. Barth's English is not very good and it can be difficult to follow him – especially for the first hour or so.
January 31, 2020
"If anyone should not find himself astonished and filled with wonder when he becomes involved, in one way or another with theology, he would be well advised to consider once more, from a certain remoteness and without prejudice, what is involved in this undertaking," writes Barth.
Consider then the 'unastonished' theologian. Who might that be? None other than someone who studies the most astonishing being in all existence, yet remains unimpressed, unmoved, uninspired. Barth does a good job of spelling out the logic here: Either the wonderment of God fails upon examination, or the theologian's 'study' fails to perceive it.
Consider then the 'unastonished' theologian. Who might that be? None other than someone who studies the most astonishing being in all existence, yet remains unimpressed, unmoved, uninspired. Barth does a good job of spelling out the logic here: Either the wonderment of God fails upon examination, or the theologian's 'study' fails to perceive it.
May 2, 2019
This author was vacuous in his approach by defining his theology as the science of studying the object of the Word (Logos) of the living God as presented in the New Testament and understood retroactively by the Old Testament such that understanding hovers between the inside of the self with the outside of the self while providing no foundation beyond saying that the Truth (alethia) of the object studied by Evangelical Theology presents itself as itself.
Faith, the pretense of pretending to know something you don’t know, and for this author it is a means to an end in itself while providing its own meaning before death and will lead to something that he calls ‘salvation’ after death, and has something to do with what he calls ‘God’ coming down to the earth in the guise of a man who we today are apparently magically connected to that man because that man had a lot of pain and suffering at his death and will allow fundamental change in one’s own nature if one only accepts that as a fact.
I don’t really understand what he is getting at, but for those who all of this makes sense to and accept that kind of circular reasoning with no foundations whatsoever this book will explain the sagacity of believing in a science with no evidence except for the extraordinary assertions made by others who claim to understand.
The author does re-work Kierkegaard but only to Kierkegaard’s detriment. I don’t particularly care for Kierkegaard’s conclusions, but at least I can appreciate the way he gets there and actually always rate his books five stars. In contrast, this author makes only vacuous assertions and expects the reader to be awed because of bewilderment.
I’m so grateful we don’t live in 1963 the year this book was written, because a book like this one will only get read and appreciated by a smaller and smaller number of fundamentalist evangelicals who are slowly becoming as irrelevant as Franklin Graham (the son of the odious Billy, and who was mentioned somewhat favorably by this author in this book), and who by the way, wants those ‘homosexuals to stop flaunting their homosexuality’. Yes, I’m grateful, we no longer live in 1963 and that we really don’t need to ‘make America great again’ and bring back in force the homophobia, misogynists, the privileging of the privileged over all others, and the mindless vacuous truth this author claims to represent.
I read this book in order to understand why 80% of white Evangelical Christians would vote for such a corrupt person as Donald Trump. Trump and white Evangelical Christians at their core are anti-humanist and any disturbance with that mindset is an attack of their primal being. Recall, the first modern Humanist was the very religious Catholic Erasmus and one can still believe in things not seen and still be a Humanist.
This book has reverberations of Martin Luther’s (he was the first evangelical theologian) anti-humanist mind set. Explain to me again, why Luther did not support the ‘Peasants Revolt’, oh yeah, it was due to his reliance on authority when he agrees with it and dismissal of authority when he does not based on nothing but his feelings of the certainty of his privileged perspective bestowed upon him through God’s Grace.
This book is nothing but ‘thought without content’ (vacuous thinking) and ‘intuition without concept’ (using feelings as ones guide posts for truth absent of an empirical foundation), and in the end (or more properly, the beginning) believers in Trump believe in ‘alternative facts’ which are always vacuous and let their feelings be their Truth revealer.
For those who are fluent in Heidegger I want to note this author’s use of the words Logos and aletheia. The author clearly was influenced by Heidegger and used those words in the same esoteric way.
Faith, the pretense of pretending to know something you don’t know, and for this author it is a means to an end in itself while providing its own meaning before death and will lead to something that he calls ‘salvation’ after death, and has something to do with what he calls ‘God’ coming down to the earth in the guise of a man who we today are apparently magically connected to that man because that man had a lot of pain and suffering at his death and will allow fundamental change in one’s own nature if one only accepts that as a fact.
I don’t really understand what he is getting at, but for those who all of this makes sense to and accept that kind of circular reasoning with no foundations whatsoever this book will explain the sagacity of believing in a science with no evidence except for the extraordinary assertions made by others who claim to understand.
The author does re-work Kierkegaard but only to Kierkegaard’s detriment. I don’t particularly care for Kierkegaard’s conclusions, but at least I can appreciate the way he gets there and actually always rate his books five stars. In contrast, this author makes only vacuous assertions and expects the reader to be awed because of bewilderment.
I’m so grateful we don’t live in 1963 the year this book was written, because a book like this one will only get read and appreciated by a smaller and smaller number of fundamentalist evangelicals who are slowly becoming as irrelevant as Franklin Graham (the son of the odious Billy, and who was mentioned somewhat favorably by this author in this book), and who by the way, wants those ‘homosexuals to stop flaunting their homosexuality’. Yes, I’m grateful, we no longer live in 1963 and that we really don’t need to ‘make America great again’ and bring back in force the homophobia, misogynists, the privileging of the privileged over all others, and the mindless vacuous truth this author claims to represent.
I read this book in order to understand why 80% of white Evangelical Christians would vote for such a corrupt person as Donald Trump. Trump and white Evangelical Christians at their core are anti-humanist and any disturbance with that mindset is an attack of their primal being. Recall, the first modern Humanist was the very religious Catholic Erasmus and one can still believe in things not seen and still be a Humanist.
This book has reverberations of Martin Luther’s (he was the first evangelical theologian) anti-humanist mind set. Explain to me again, why Luther did not support the ‘Peasants Revolt’, oh yeah, it was due to his reliance on authority when he agrees with it and dismissal of authority when he does not based on nothing but his feelings of the certainty of his privileged perspective bestowed upon him through God’s Grace.
This book is nothing but ‘thought without content’ (vacuous thinking) and ‘intuition without concept’ (using feelings as ones guide posts for truth absent of an empirical foundation), and in the end (or more properly, the beginning) believers in Trump believe in ‘alternative facts’ which are always vacuous and let their feelings be their Truth revealer.
For those who are fluent in Heidegger I want to note this author’s use of the words Logos and aletheia. The author clearly was influenced by Heidegger and used those words in the same esoteric way.
January 2, 2015
I would love to call myself a Barthian. I love people of his school: Yoder (though I have qualms about his sexual-predator-tendencies), Hauerwas, Willimon, Webster, McCormack, Hart. I also once participated in a reading group that took a slow (50 pages a week) reading of the Dogmatics. However I feel like I haven't read enough Barth to really call myself a Barthian. However I have imbibed his suspicion of subjective religion and affirm his christocentric theology.
This is a good, if rambling book, which explores Barth's theology and suggestively instructs would-be-theologians with what theology should occupy itself with: the one true God and the one true man. This is worth reading and rereading.
This is a good, if rambling book, which explores Barth's theology and suggestively instructs would-be-theologians with what theology should occupy itself with: the one true God and the one true man. This is worth reading and rereading.
June 6, 2022
I’m really glad I begun my cursory little glance back into theology with this work after a little over three years of having done virtually zero serious work on the subject. Having possessed both a feigned belief in Christianity during my enrolment at a Catholic primary school in my youth and a subsequently confrontational style of discussion during my predictable, yet still intensely irritating, stage of adolescence where I thought that New Atheism was the real deal it was refreshing to come at things from a Protestant perspective.
The series of lectures that Barth has penned here has its slow moments but the two central chapters on theological existence and the threats that the discourse of theology faces both internally and externally were incredibly enlightening and enjoyable. In particular the lecture on Temptation was very moving, causing a momentary atheistic vitriol to be stirred in my gut which I hadn’t felt in years. Thankfully this quickly subsided, but nevertheless the idea that God’s righteous wrath can cause Him to up and turn his back completely on a devoted community’s intellectual and practical efforts, ‘disdain[ing] these offerings of your fatted calves’, was a pretty difficult to pill to swallow. Tough love I guess, eh? The assertion by Barth that one should study the secondary witnesses (say, for instance, the Church doctors who never directly encountered Christ), with their theological systems which stand as the very pinnacles of Christianity, only to have to remain constantly aware while doing so that they too possess a danger which all must be cognisant of, was particularly striking. I can understand why Barth posits this, simul justi et peccatores and all that, but it’s an insight so novel to me to that I haven’t quite got round to fully digesting it yet. I was always a staunch proponent of the idea of Sola Scriptura, a clear heresy decried by my teachers, even during my atheist days - but the idea that some of the finest theologians may have written during periods of God’s withdrawal was patently dismaying.
That’s all to say that only one small discussion within this slim volume was enough to set me down a whole trail of thought I hadn’t considered in years. There are plenty of insights to be gleaned in here and I’d highly recommend it. I’ll close this out with a some fairly sizeable quotes that resonated with me fairly strongly:
‘So excellent may be the theologian's work. But of what help is it? Everything is in order, but everything is also in the greatest disorder. The mill is turning, but it is empty as it turns. All the sails are hoisted, but no wind fills them to drive the ship. The fountain adorned with many spouts is there, but no water comes. Science there is, but no knowledge illumined by the power of its object. There is no doubt piety, but not the faith which, kindled by God, catches fire. What appears to take place there does not really take place. For what happens is that God, who is supposedly involved in all theological work, maintains silence about what is thought and said in theology about him’
‘The God of whom we speak is no god imagined or devised by men. The grace of the gods who are imagined or devised by men is usually a conditional grace, to be merited and won by men through supposedly good works, and not the true grace which gives itself freely. Instead of being hidden under the form of a contradiction, sub contrario, and directed to man through radical endangering and judgment, man's imagined grace is usually directly offered and accessible in some way to him and can be rather conveniently, cheaply, and easily appropriated. Evangelical theology, on the other hand, is to be pursued in hope, though as a human work it is radically questioned by God, found guilty in God's judgment and verdict—and though collapsing long before it reaches its goal, it relies on God who himself seeks out, heals, and saves man and his work. This God is the hope of theology.’
‘In this love there is no fear. This perfect love drives out fear because in it God loved man for his own sake and man loved God for his own sake. What took place on both sides was not a need, wish, and desire but simply the freedom to exist for one another gratis. This was God's own primal freedom for man and at the same time man's freedom which was granted him by God. This was Agape, which descends from above, and by the power of this descent, simultaneously ascends from below. Agape is both movements in equal sovereignty, or, rather, this single movement.’
‘But theological observation of God cannot be a genial and detached survey. Theology cannot be an easygoing (or even interested and perhaps fascinated) contemplation of an object. For in the last analysis the attitude of the more or less enraptured subject toward this object might remain indifferent or skeptical, if not spiteful. If this object allowed its beholder to protect himself behind a fence of reservations, it would not at all be the wonder of God of which we spoke. When this object arouses wonderment of the type we have described, transforming the man whom it involves into an astonished subject, this man also becomes concerned.’
‘The question about truth, therefore, is not stated in the familiar way: is it true that God exists? Does God really have a covenant with man? Is Israel really his chosen people? Did Jesus Christ actually die for our sins? Was he truly raised from the dead for our justification? And is he in fact our Lord? This is the way fools ask in their hearts—admittedly such fools as we are all in the habit of being.’
March 10, 2023
If you are trying to get into reading Barth I think this book is probably a good place to start, one of the last books he writes, a short summery of his theology broken down by subject, and without such much of the crazy terminology from the Romans Commentary.
September 17, 2025
Humbled by the intro, but wholly won over by the end of chapter 17. 😌
for those who don't want to dig into this work themselves (and I cannot blame you, i think i averaged 4-5 minutes PER PAGE) some highlights:
1) we're all theologians because we all think about God (be it as an abstraction, a role within the cosmos, or living person).
2) The work of a Christian theologian must be done in a posture of perpetual wonder and astonishment at the work and Word of God (the Word=Jesus Christ).
3) Theology is meant to be done in and for a community. There is no solitary of individualistic theology that is also good.
4) Prayer and sabbath rest are not companions or simply a step one of theological work: its the state of being for the work as a whole.
5) Theology, and the theologian, are wholly dependent on God. For his Spirit to work in our work, for the formation of our character as we do the work, and even for the faith necessary to do the work. vibrant dependance is a dominant theme.
for those who don't want to dig into this work themselves (and I cannot blame you, i think i averaged 4-5 minutes PER PAGE) some highlights:
1) we're all theologians because we all think about God (be it as an abstraction, a role within the cosmos, or living person).
2) The work of a Christian theologian must be done in a posture of perpetual wonder and astonishment at the work and Word of God (the Word=Jesus Christ).
3) Theology is meant to be done in and for a community. There is no solitary of individualistic theology that is also good.
4) Prayer and sabbath rest are not companions or simply a step one of theological work: its the state of being for the work as a whole.
5) Theology, and the theologian, are wholly dependent on God. For his Spirit to work in our work, for the formation of our character as we do the work, and even for the faith necessary to do the work. vibrant dependance is a dominant theme.
October 20, 2019
“Whoever calls on His name will be saved. That is to say, whether or not the thunderstorm bursts [our awareness of His love] such a person may live and work with a promise. He is promised that perfect love is the heaven spread out over him, whether or not this love is momentarily clear or hidden from him. Protected and encouraged by the promise of this love, she may pray, study and serve; and trusting in it, she may think, speak and finally also die.”
Page 205
My friends, that is the work of theology as it is grounded, sustained and completed by God’s love which does not fail us.
Your welcome.
Page 205
My friends, that is the work of theology as it is grounded, sustained and completed by God’s love which does not fail us.
Your welcome.
October 4, 2024
I was brought here by the great Flemming Rutledge who described Karl Barth as the greatest theologian of the last 50 years. There’s something ironic about that because Barth himself has an entire section about the stupidity of calling any theologian great.
I must say there were some wonderful takeaways from these lectures:
- The important of making the main thing the main thing. IE worship of god must be preeminent over the “science” of theology. And it is god acting with and upon us.
- His views on election and predestination, most notably that God says yes and no, but his no is placed on Christ alone
- I appreciated his final descriptions of eros and agape love. The purity of agape’s between man and man and man and god is something to be greatly desired.
I must say there were some wonderful takeaways from these lectures:
- The important of making the main thing the main thing. IE worship of god must be preeminent over the “science” of theology. And it is god acting with and upon us.
- His views on election and predestination, most notably that God says yes and no, but his no is placed on Christ alone
- I appreciated his final descriptions of eros and agape love. The purity of agape’s between man and man and man and god is something to be greatly desired.
April 7, 2024
A challenging and encouraging examination of the practice of theology. Barth's burden in this collection of lectures is the formation of theologians as theologians; a very much needed topic in our day, as I'm sure it was in his day.
April 7, 2024
Jeder Theologiestudent sollte dieses Buch lesen.
July 20, 2013
Recently I had the interest in reading Barth, so I attempted his Church Dogmatics. After a failed attempt to understand his writing, a friend recommended starting with Evangelical Theology...and a great recommendation it was!
This book was a great reminder of what the goal of theology is and who it is about. Barth does a great job of reminding us of the active living God, the Jesus who is always on the move, lest we confine him to static human laws, principles, and ideas. I think it's such a poignant read in a time of the church when principles of the Christian faith, the church, and culture are being questioned (and with good reason). And also when many, such as the Neo-Reformed movement, have dug their heals into the dirt. Barth reminds us not to get caught in the static web that stubborn theology can create.
The book structure was great with the 4 main sections: the Place, Existence, Threat, and Work of theology. And each section ended with an indispensable idea: The Spirit, Faith, Hope, and Love.
Even if you're not that into academic theology books or theologians, I would recommend this book to anyone who is at least a little bit curious. This work by Barth is a prophetic statement in our day.
This book was a great reminder of what the goal of theology is and who it is about. Barth does a great job of reminding us of the active living God, the Jesus who is always on the move, lest we confine him to static human laws, principles, and ideas. I think it's such a poignant read in a time of the church when principles of the Christian faith, the church, and culture are being questioned (and with good reason). And also when many, such as the Neo-Reformed movement, have dug their heals into the dirt. Barth reminds us not to get caught in the static web that stubborn theology can create.
The book structure was great with the 4 main sections: the Place, Existence, Threat, and Work of theology. And each section ended with an indispensable idea: The Spirit, Faith, Hope, and Love.
Even if you're not that into academic theology books or theologians, I would recommend this book to anyone who is at least a little bit curious. This work by Barth is a prophetic statement in our day.
February 9, 2018
Barth is often named as one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century. After reading this introduction to what theology is for, I have to agree. But given the state of the modern church, that’s no compliment. His denial of election, his repudiation of presuppositionalism, his demotion of scripture to merely a word about God, and his playing footsie with universalism are now chronic plagues among us. I would expect to see his works on Rob Bell’s desk, and on the mantle in the Shack.
But even so, he says many true things well, and I would recommend a familiarity with his work.
But even so, he says many true things well, and I would recommend a familiarity with his work.
November 27, 2017
This book is a good primer on the what, why, and how of Christian theology as a spiritual discipline. The book does not delve into doctrine or dogma.
Don't get hung up on the word "evangelical" in the title. Karl Barth would not recognize the group that claims that word lately.
Don't get hung up on the word "evangelical" in the title. Karl Barth would not recognize the group that claims that word lately.
April 29, 2024
Full of really helpful material on the practice of doing theology
April 26, 2022
I just finished "Evangelical Theology: An Introduction," by Karl Barth.
I tried reading this about five years ago and it didn't really hit. I dropped it. Going to give it another shot. Going in I'm not a fan of Barth when propped up along side Brunner. It doesnt help that as i read him i have a picture in my mind of Billy Bob Thornton doing the typing: "Im your oldest boy, name of Karl" and then "Ummmmmhummm." This is a series of lectures he gave in the US back in the 60s on the person and work of a theologian.
Insert: Barth's use of "evangelical" is drawing from the translation "good news" as opposed to a "bad news" theology. Why this is important is simply because we have to ask ourselves what kind of news are we hustling?
Barth begins by stating that theology is a study of what we worship, so the real question is "what do you call 'god'?" "Evangelical" has to do with what is scriptural--NT inspired by the OT--and Reformed. Three parts fit under the whole of this theology: one is the transcendence of God, the second is the three subordinate presuppositions of Evangelical Theology being existence, faith, and reason, finally the third is the revelation of God. And seriously, one could sit here and contemplate these three for hours or years. This theology is done in a relationship of man to God not God to man. To confine God to our box is the "new Babylonian captivity."
"[God] exists neither next to man nor merely above him, but rather with him, by him and, most importantly of all, for him. He is man's God not only as Lord but also as father, brother, friend; and this relationship implies neither a diminution nor in any way a denial, but, instead, a confirmation and display of his divine essence itself," p 11.
Barth hits a great point here which is quite often missed or obscured: the Apostles were sent into the world to testify that Jesus is the Word of God. Scripture witnesses to the word; Jesus is the Word (calm down and read Rev 19:13).
He makes a great statement that theology should freely discuss the reservations and proposals for improvement with reflection in the inherited witness. Theology says I believe but I do so to understand. Theology task is to investigate the historical witnesses for the word of God. While doing so theology must be sensitive when listening to the voice of the Old and New Testaments and to the word of God witnessed in this voice. Lack of sensitivity to finding the word of God is shown by the creation of dogma, creed and confession which is a reaction to those who aren't sensitive. This sensitivity to the righting of historical wrongs found in dogma, creed and confession are respected (faith) while plowing forward to discover (so I may understand).
Barth gives us a definition of theology based on the previous chapters which are lectures in this book.
"Theology is science seeking the knowledge of the Word of God spoken in God's work--science learning in the school of Holy scripture, which witnesses to the Word of God; science laboring in the quest for truth which is inescapably required of the community that is called by the word of God," p 49.
Barth in dealing with the theologian (read: people who think about God) speaks about how wonder must be in front of them, wonder must be the primary aspect of the one who thinks God's thoughts after Godself (faith seeking understanding). I believe I see the issue: one who does the same thing all day every day professionally can easily grow to the place to where his subject (theologys object) is stale and all that's really required is to do X, Y, and Z. Barth is saying that the theologian must approach their subject with wonder at all times or they are saying that the subject of their study is boring. God is much more than punching the clock or for us in the pew clocking time in prayer and reading scripture. Wonder transforms that be it for the professional or lay reader (thinker). Wonder, though, cant be forced; its like forcing oneself to fall in love.
For as much as Barth is monochromatic in his writing there are places where one says "you get it." Here is one:
"Whoever takes up the subject of theology discovers himself immediately, reoccurringly, and inevitably banished into a strange and notoriously oppressive solitude," p 110.
Barths section on the theologian and doubt is good. Roughly, The reformation is essentially a doubting movement where nothing is taken as self-evident and questions are how one pursues a healthy faith. Doubt is not negating a thing but a shifting between yes and no.
His last lecture on Love was good. But as a whole Barth to me reads like Tillich very monochromatic as compared to Brunner and Moltmann who explode with colors.
#KarlBarth #Barth #EvangelicalTheology #Theology #SystematicTheology #GermanTheologians I know he's a #SwissTheologian who is #NeoOrthodox and speaks #German
I tried reading this about five years ago and it didn't really hit. I dropped it. Going to give it another shot. Going in I'm not a fan of Barth when propped up along side Brunner. It doesnt help that as i read him i have a picture in my mind of Billy Bob Thornton doing the typing: "Im your oldest boy, name of Karl" and then "Ummmmmhummm." This is a series of lectures he gave in the US back in the 60s on the person and work of a theologian.
Insert: Barth's use of "evangelical" is drawing from the translation "good news" as opposed to a "bad news" theology. Why this is important is simply because we have to ask ourselves what kind of news are we hustling?
Barth begins by stating that theology is a study of what we worship, so the real question is "what do you call 'god'?" "Evangelical" has to do with what is scriptural--NT inspired by the OT--and Reformed. Three parts fit under the whole of this theology: one is the transcendence of God, the second is the three subordinate presuppositions of Evangelical Theology being existence, faith, and reason, finally the third is the revelation of God. And seriously, one could sit here and contemplate these three for hours or years. This theology is done in a relationship of man to God not God to man. To confine God to our box is the "new Babylonian captivity."
"[God] exists neither next to man nor merely above him, but rather with him, by him and, most importantly of all, for him. He is man's God not only as Lord but also as father, brother, friend; and this relationship implies neither a diminution nor in any way a denial, but, instead, a confirmation and display of his divine essence itself," p 11.
Barth hits a great point here which is quite often missed or obscured: the Apostles were sent into the world to testify that Jesus is the Word of God. Scripture witnesses to the word; Jesus is the Word (calm down and read Rev 19:13).
He makes a great statement that theology should freely discuss the reservations and proposals for improvement with reflection in the inherited witness. Theology says I believe but I do so to understand. Theology task is to investigate the historical witnesses for the word of God. While doing so theology must be sensitive when listening to the voice of the Old and New Testaments and to the word of God witnessed in this voice. Lack of sensitivity to finding the word of God is shown by the creation of dogma, creed and confession which is a reaction to those who aren't sensitive. This sensitivity to the righting of historical wrongs found in dogma, creed and confession are respected (faith) while plowing forward to discover (so I may understand).
Barth gives us a definition of theology based on the previous chapters which are lectures in this book.
"Theology is science seeking the knowledge of the Word of God spoken in God's work--science learning in the school of Holy scripture, which witnesses to the Word of God; science laboring in the quest for truth which is inescapably required of the community that is called by the word of God," p 49.
Barth in dealing with the theologian (read: people who think about God) speaks about how wonder must be in front of them, wonder must be the primary aspect of the one who thinks God's thoughts after Godself (faith seeking understanding). I believe I see the issue: one who does the same thing all day every day professionally can easily grow to the place to where his subject (theologys object) is stale and all that's really required is to do X, Y, and Z. Barth is saying that the theologian must approach their subject with wonder at all times or they are saying that the subject of their study is boring. God is much more than punching the clock or for us in the pew clocking time in prayer and reading scripture. Wonder transforms that be it for the professional or lay reader (thinker). Wonder, though, cant be forced; its like forcing oneself to fall in love.
For as much as Barth is monochromatic in his writing there are places where one says "you get it." Here is one:
"Whoever takes up the subject of theology discovers himself immediately, reoccurringly, and inevitably banished into a strange and notoriously oppressive solitude," p 110.
Barths section on the theologian and doubt is good. Roughly, The reformation is essentially a doubting movement where nothing is taken as self-evident and questions are how one pursues a healthy faith. Doubt is not negating a thing but a shifting between yes and no.
His last lecture on Love was good. But as a whole Barth to me reads like Tillich very monochromatic as compared to Brunner and Moltmann who explode with colors.
#KarlBarth #Barth #EvangelicalTheology #Theology #SystematicTheology #GermanTheologians I know he's a #SwissTheologian who is #NeoOrthodox and speaks #German
May 14, 2023
"PENGANTAR KE DALAM TEOLOGI BERDASARKAN INJIL" - Karl Barth (Kekristenan, teologi)
Karl Barth, pendeta-teolog Kristen Reformed Swiss-Jerman favorit saya, di akhir karir mengajarnya merangkum rangkaian materi perkuliahan terakhirnya di Universitas Basel dalam buku ini.
Buku ini hadir dari pengalaman panjang & hikmat dari naik-turun kehidupan, kejayaan sekaligus kejatuhannya, kebaikan2nya sekaligus dosa2 busuknya. Tak heran bila buku ini terasa mendewasa, tidak bertele2, bahkan dihadiri momen2 di mana saya bisa bayangkan Barth menertawakan dirinya soal perjalanannya mengenal Allah yang dinyatakan dalam Yesus Kristus melalui hikmat Roh Kudus.
Barth melihat teologi sebagai ilmu yang mencoba menyelami Allah yang bebas, dinamis, tak terduga, & bisa menyatakan diri sesuka Dia. Ilmu yang dengan sukacita menghargai misteri kebebasan Sang Objek yang juga Sang Subjek, bersedia dikagetkan dengan kejutan2 menyenangkan namun juga bisa menguras tenaga karena panggilan Allah yang seringkali kita sebagai manusia memiliki keterbatasan dalam mengerjakan panggilanNya.
Dalam prosesnya, Barth menegaskan bahwa teologi berdasarkan Injil Kristus tentunya memiliki kepedulian mendalam terhadap janji Imanuel (Allah beserta kita). Keberpihakan Allah ada pada kita yang menyambut teologi dengan kerendahan hati & kerinduan penuh sukacita. Barth pun melihat teologi sebagai ilmu penuh sukacita.
Melawan banyak pujian yang menyebutnya teolog "besar", Barth menampiknya & menyebut bahwa tidak boleh ada teolog besar. Semua teolog adalah teolog kecil, karena teolog hanya berupaya memantulkan anugerah Allah sebagai respons & rasa syukur.
Maka Barth melihat teologi bukan sebagai arena membela diri atau adu pintar bahkan mencari jaminan surga. Teologi perlu berdialog dengan kemajuan zaman, namun tetap mengingat bahwa Allah selalu berhak menjadi Allah yang bebas menyatakan diri. Teologi perlu menjadi ilmu yang rendah hati & bebas sebagai bentuk pujian kreatif kepada Sang Pencipta.
Barth menutup kuliahnya dengan uraian indah akan 1 Korintus 13, bagian Alkitab terkenal tentang kasih. Ya, memahami segala kedalaman ilmu2 yang membuat kita lebih cerdas & berdaya, tapi tanpa kasih, apa artinya?
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Karl Barth, pendeta-teolog Kristen Reformed Swiss-Jerman favorit saya, di akhir karir mengajarnya merangkum rangkaian materi perkuliahan terakhirnya di Universitas Basel dalam buku ini.
Buku ini hadir dari pengalaman panjang & hikmat dari naik-turun kehidupan, kejayaan sekaligus kejatuhannya, kebaikan2nya sekaligus dosa2 busuknya. Tak heran bila buku ini terasa mendewasa, tidak bertele2, bahkan dihadiri momen2 di mana saya bisa bayangkan Barth menertawakan dirinya soal perjalanannya mengenal Allah yang dinyatakan dalam Yesus Kristus melalui hikmat Roh Kudus.
Barth melihat teologi sebagai ilmu yang mencoba menyelami Allah yang bebas, dinamis, tak terduga, & bisa menyatakan diri sesuka Dia. Ilmu yang dengan sukacita menghargai misteri kebebasan Sang Objek yang juga Sang Subjek, bersedia dikagetkan dengan kejutan2 menyenangkan namun juga bisa menguras tenaga karena panggilan Allah yang seringkali kita sebagai manusia memiliki keterbatasan dalam mengerjakan panggilanNya.
Dalam prosesnya, Barth menegaskan bahwa teologi berdasarkan Injil Kristus tentunya memiliki kepedulian mendalam terhadap janji Imanuel (Allah beserta kita). Keberpihakan Allah ada pada kita yang menyambut teologi dengan kerendahan hati & kerinduan penuh sukacita. Barth pun melihat teologi sebagai ilmu penuh sukacita.
Melawan banyak pujian yang menyebutnya teolog "besar", Barth menampiknya & menyebut bahwa tidak boleh ada teolog besar. Semua teolog adalah teolog kecil, karena teolog hanya berupaya memantulkan anugerah Allah sebagai respons & rasa syukur.
Maka Barth melihat teologi bukan sebagai arena membela diri atau adu pintar bahkan mencari jaminan surga. Teologi perlu berdialog dengan kemajuan zaman, namun tetap mengingat bahwa Allah selalu berhak menjadi Allah yang bebas menyatakan diri. Teologi perlu menjadi ilmu yang rendah hati & bebas sebagai bentuk pujian kreatif kepada Sang Pencipta.
Barth menutup kuliahnya dengan uraian indah akan 1 Korintus 13, bagian Alkitab terkenal tentang kasih. Ya, memahami segala kedalaman ilmu2 yang membuat kita lebih cerdas & berdaya, tapi tanpa kasih, apa artinya?
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
February 1, 2025
America ruins everything it touches
Okay, don't let the two-star fool you. If you are serious about theology, want to understand why and how we do theology, and come from a more conservative background - you will love this. It could very well be paradigm shifting for you. If I read this in 2021 I would probably give it 4-5 stars. It's just for me, I grade Barth on his own scale.
And on this scale, the mature Barth does not get a passing grade from me (for the record, if I graded this as I do other books, it would probably be a 3.5). My anti-Americanisms might be showing, but unironically I knew from the introduction when I realized that these were lectures given in the USA and how he chronicles his enjoyment of Civil War re-enactments and that he thought the highways in Chicago were beautiful...
Okay, let's talk theology. I am only going to provide quotations that I love, and there is a lot I love. Barth demands that as theologians we have the uptmost amount of humility. Theology is said to be an echo, a simulacra, a secondary and lesser work than the divine message communicated in the prophets and apostles. He repeatedly calls the theologian "a little man". The theologian for Barth is called to live in service of the church and the world. The theologian has to constantly re-evaluate himself and never assume he got it right because we are always doing human theology as corrupted and failing humans. I think that posturing is exactly right.
Here's some fun snappy quotes of Barth's that I love:
- God is man's God and man is God's man
- The true God exists not in his aseity and independence but in his union with the one true man.
- Christian faith occurs in the encounter of the believer with him in whom he believes.
- A condemnation is undoubtedly pronounced and executed at this juncture, but in this very condemnation reconciling grace is clearly displayed, as in the decisive execution of this condemnation on the Cross at Golgotha.
- The content of God's Word is his free, undeserved Yes to the whole human race, in spite of all human unreasonableness and corruption.
And here is an absolutely beautiful longer passage that I find to be super powerful.
Barth is at his best when talking about God's unconditional and universal Yes to us: that God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ by His death on the cross. This Yes triumphs over even God's condemnatory No against our sin. Any preaching (and certainly much of what I heard growing up falls in this) that emphasizes God's No to the diminishing of God's Yes (and even complete neglect of it) is absolutely missing the point.
You might say "wow it seems Josh really loves this book". And the thing is, I love Barth and his theological project. But there are major problems I have with this book. They are:
(1) Barth's back-and-forth with whether we have to affirm the text reporting something that happened in history (+ Barth's muddy hermenutics)
(2) Barth's polemics
For (1), Barth in one sentence will say we have to use the historical-critical method when doing theology & positively refers to Pentateuchal source criticism and in the next say that we have to submit ourselves to the Word and that it reports God's actual action in history. Maybe there is a resolution found buried in Church Dogmatics on how Barth reads Saga, but I just don't think that it can stand. The text-critical approach + archaeological evidence show that a large swath of the Bible simply did not happen. He starts of his lectures strong by saying we need to move away from questions about historicity and fact, and towards questions of faithfulness and sincerity in our lives, but then starts saying that God acted in history to establish these covenants matters. Can we do Barthian style evangelical theology in light of contemporary critical scholarship? Second, because of this back-and-forth, I actually have no idea what it means to do exegesis according to Barth. He says that we should every tool available to us, but then say its super important we know who the author of the text is. He will say we can't go beyond the intention of the human authors, but then say we can impose and extract the divine meaning revealing the Word of God to us. What do you want Barth. He does reject every single philosophical and methodological framework explicitly a priori (because God is free) and says we can choose to adopt what is useful to us, but how can you do that consistently? How can Barth both affirm and reject methodological frameworks at the same time? Another thing I find strange about the mature Barth that I think actually contradicts the younger Barth of CD I.1 is that he insists that by the Bible we can judge the content of even the creeds. But in CD I.1 Barth is clear that the Bible nowhere claims Jesus to be God (in fact it can contradict such claims in clear terms) and the same for the Spirit. And yet Barth there affirmed that Trinitarian doctrine is the right exegesis by a process of reflective theology by the fathers. If you combine both what ET says here with his comments at the end of CD I.1, it would seem that Barth would have to be at best an Arian. Which I don't think he intends to do. I think he is just inconsistent across his theological project, and I much prefer the early Barth here to the late (I have not as of yet read CD II so don't come with quotes for me from there!). Is the mature Barth just flatly contradicting the early Barth?Finally, Barth is really nasty in this book. Normally I am here for a catty bitch, but Barth's comments against Tillich, Bultmann, and generically those who adopt a historical-critical approach to Scripture and doctrine is just wrong. He clearly does not see them as comrades, and goes as far to ask plainly if they can even call themselves Christian at all. And it's ironic because he also will use the language of kerygma and myth, will hint at the importance of demythologizing, and will say we can criticize the creeds. Why is the mature Barth so jaded?
All this to say, I love Barth. He opens this book in the foreword by saying he hopes that he comes off as just another person, and not a towering theologian & that his aim is to start new vectors in theology, not close and establish what must be. And I totally see that in this project. The more I think about it, the more I take seriously reading Church Dogmatics this year in its entirety. I just wonder if in 2026 I will feel the need to move past Barth completely (likely for liberation theologians), or if I can keep him in my back pocket.
Okay, don't let the two-star fool you. If you are serious about theology, want to understand why and how we do theology, and come from a more conservative background - you will love this. It could very well be paradigm shifting for you. If I read this in 2021 I would probably give it 4-5 stars. It's just for me, I grade Barth on his own scale.
And on this scale, the mature Barth does not get a passing grade from me (for the record, if I graded this as I do other books, it would probably be a 3.5). My anti-Americanisms might be showing, but unironically I knew from the introduction when I realized that these were lectures given in the USA and how he chronicles his enjoyment of Civil War re-enactments and that he thought the highways in Chicago were beautiful...
Okay, let's talk theology. I am only going to provide quotations that I love, and there is a lot I love. Barth demands that as theologians we have the uptmost amount of humility. Theology is said to be an echo, a simulacra, a secondary and lesser work than the divine message communicated in the prophets and apostles. He repeatedly calls the theologian "a little man". The theologian for Barth is called to live in service of the church and the world. The theologian has to constantly re-evaluate himself and never assume he got it right because we are always doing human theology as corrupted and failing humans. I think that posturing is exactly right.
Here's some fun snappy quotes of Barth's that I love:
- God is man's God and man is God's man
- The true God exists not in his aseity and independence but in his union with the one true man.
- Christian faith occurs in the encounter of the believer with him in whom he believes.
- A condemnation is undoubtedly pronounced and executed at this juncture, but in this very condemnation reconciling grace is clearly displayed, as in the decisive execution of this condemnation on the Cross at Golgotha.
- The content of God's Word is his free, undeserved Yes to the whole human race, in spite of all human unreasonableness and corruption.
And here is an absolutely beautiful longer passage that I find to be super powerful.
God's Yes and No are not ambivalent. Gospel and Law do not possess a complementary character. There is no balance, rather there is the greatest imbalance... Although [theology] may not reduce what God wills, does, and says to a triumphal Yes to man, it may also not let matters stand by a No that with equal authority and weight match God's Yes. Any precedence of God's No over his Yes (not to speak of a disappearance of his Yes in his No so that, in short, the light would be set in shadow instead of what is shadowy being brought into the light) is altogether out of the question...
The community knows from experience that it is a lost flock, but it does not know, or never knows adequately, that it is God's beloved and chosen people, called as such to praise him. And the world knows from experience that it lies in the power of evil (no matter how much it may continually delude itself about its predicament). But it does not know that it is upheld on all sides by the helping hands of God.
Barth is at his best when talking about God's unconditional and universal Yes to us: that God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ by His death on the cross. This Yes triumphs over even God's condemnatory No against our sin. Any preaching (and certainly much of what I heard growing up falls in this) that emphasizes God's No to the diminishing of God's Yes (and even complete neglect of it) is absolutely missing the point.
You might say "wow it seems Josh really loves this book". And the thing is, I love Barth and his theological project. But there are major problems I have with this book. They are:
(1) Barth's back-and-forth with whether we have to affirm the text reporting something that happened in history (+ Barth's muddy hermenutics)
(2) Barth's polemics
For (1), Barth in one sentence will say we have to use the historical-critical method when doing theology & positively refers to Pentateuchal source criticism and in the next say that we have to submit ourselves to the Word and that it reports God's actual action in history. Maybe there is a resolution found buried in Church Dogmatics on how Barth reads Saga, but I just don't think that it can stand. The text-critical approach + archaeological evidence show that a large swath of the Bible simply did not happen. He starts of his lectures strong by saying we need to move away from questions about historicity and fact, and towards questions of faithfulness and sincerity in our lives, but then starts saying that God acted in history to establish these covenants matters. Can we do Barthian style evangelical theology in light of contemporary critical scholarship? Second, because of this back-and-forth, I actually have no idea what it means to do exegesis according to Barth. He says that we should every tool available to us, but then say its super important we know who the author of the text is. He will say we can't go beyond the intention of the human authors, but then say we can impose and extract the divine meaning revealing the Word of God to us. What do you want Barth. He does reject every single philosophical and methodological framework explicitly a priori (because God is free) and says we can choose to adopt what is useful to us, but how can you do that consistently? How can Barth both affirm and reject methodological frameworks at the same time? Another thing I find strange about the mature Barth that I think actually contradicts the younger Barth of CD I.1 is that he insists that by the Bible we can judge the content of even the creeds. But in CD I.1 Barth is clear that the Bible nowhere claims Jesus to be God (in fact it can contradict such claims in clear terms) and the same for the Spirit. And yet Barth there affirmed that Trinitarian doctrine is the right exegesis by a process of reflective theology by the fathers. If you combine both what ET says here with his comments at the end of CD I.1, it would seem that Barth would have to be at best an Arian. Which I don't think he intends to do. I think he is just inconsistent across his theological project, and I much prefer the early Barth here to the late (I have not as of yet read CD II so don't come with quotes for me from there!). Is the mature Barth just flatly contradicting the early Barth?Finally, Barth is really nasty in this book. Normally I am here for a catty bitch, but Barth's comments against Tillich, Bultmann, and generically those who adopt a historical-critical approach to Scripture and doctrine is just wrong. He clearly does not see them as comrades, and goes as far to ask plainly if they can even call themselves Christian at all. And it's ironic because he also will use the language of kerygma and myth, will hint at the importance of demythologizing, and will say we can criticize the creeds. Why is the mature Barth so jaded?
All this to say, I love Barth. He opens this book in the foreword by saying he hopes that he comes off as just another person, and not a towering theologian & that his aim is to start new vectors in theology, not close and establish what must be. And I totally see that in this project. The more I think about it, the more I take seriously reading Church Dogmatics this year in its entirety. I just wonder if in 2026 I will feel the need to move past Barth completely (likely for liberation theologians), or if I can keep him in my back pocket.
January 24, 2011
Short review: this is a relatively short, dense and interesting series of lectures of what is means to be a theologian from one of the most important theologians of the 20th century. I am sure I missed more than I got because it very dense (and I listened to it). I plan on reading it again in print form later.
I do think it is important to actually read theologians, not just read what other people say about them. Many people will have heard of Karl Barth but very few will have actually read him.
My full review on my blog at http://bookwi.se/evangelical-theology...
I do think it is important to actually read theologians, not just read what other people say about them. Many people will have heard of Karl Barth but very few will have actually read him.
My full review on my blog at http://bookwi.se/evangelical-theology...
October 4, 2015
I found the work engaging rather than dry, conveying the wonder and humility that flows from the author's heart. This is an invitation to theology rather than a self-confident pronouncement of everything one is likely to encounter there.
August 27, 2025
This is a very difficult book to review. It is my first introduction to Barth and, as a confessional Presbyterian, it is a book that contains "the good, the bad, and the ugly."
On one hand, Barth makes assertions in this book that are inconsistent with Scripture and Protestant confessions. Barth redefines terms like Scripture and Covenant. At times, I think he crosses the line into implicit universalism and he has precious little to say about sin and Jesus' work on the cross (which seems like an important point for a book supposedly on "Evangelical Theology"). How anyone could claim that Barth is part of the Calvinist tradition seems absurd to me based on his conclusions: he cites Calvin a handful of times and uses vaguely Reformed terminology, but in his doctrine of the Word of God, of the Church, and of Soteriology, Barth does not align with historic Reformed thought. If I had to categorize Barth, he seems to me more influenced by a pietist mindset rather than a Reformed mindset, although he borrows terminology from both spheres.
On the other hand, Barth is a very gifted communicator and thinker who, in the midst of statements that are inconsistent with Scripture, expresses ideas that are, in fact, insightful. Part of the unevenness of this book comes because Barth hardly references or quotes or exegetes Scripture along the way to make his points. Rather, Barth throws out his own ideas about Scripture and God and Christ and then occasionally throws in a verse to highlight his point. In other words, Barth never develops any of his assertions from a text, but after the fact, sometimes cites a text to support a point he already made.
The book itself is very well structured: it starts with Theology objectively considered, then moves to Theology as experience subjectively in people, then goes through problems facing theology, before concluding with how to do theology. Each section is broken into four subsections with the final subsection in each section discussing the most important underlying reality (Spirit, Faith, Hope, Love, respectively). I personally had a lot of issues with the first section, really enjoyed the second section, and had mixed feelings with the final two sections.
After reading this book, I am reminded of a Martin Lloyd-Jones quote regarding Barth: that Barth leads to preaching about the Word of God rather than leading to preaching the Word of God. I think that is exactly what Barth does in this book; as a work of speculative theological inquiry, it is useful. As an actual introduction to Evangelical Theology, I think it is insufficient and at times dangerously incorrect. Is it a thought provoking read? Yes. Do you need to examine the thoughts it provokes with Scripture? Yes.
I read this book right after reading "A Treatise on True Theology" by Junius. That book is a much harder read than Barth, but as an introduction to what theology is, it is more thorough, biblical, and overall consistent in dealing with its subject. Junius also better represents what Reformed Protestants actually believe about Theology and the Word of God.
On one hand, Barth makes assertions in this book that are inconsistent with Scripture and Protestant confessions. Barth redefines terms like Scripture and Covenant. At times, I think he crosses the line into implicit universalism and he has precious little to say about sin and Jesus' work on the cross (which seems like an important point for a book supposedly on "Evangelical Theology"). How anyone could claim that Barth is part of the Calvinist tradition seems absurd to me based on his conclusions: he cites Calvin a handful of times and uses vaguely Reformed terminology, but in his doctrine of the Word of God, of the Church, and of Soteriology, Barth does not align with historic Reformed thought. If I had to categorize Barth, he seems to me more influenced by a pietist mindset rather than a Reformed mindset, although he borrows terminology from both spheres.
On the other hand, Barth is a very gifted communicator and thinker who, in the midst of statements that are inconsistent with Scripture, expresses ideas that are, in fact, insightful. Part of the unevenness of this book comes because Barth hardly references or quotes or exegetes Scripture along the way to make his points. Rather, Barth throws out his own ideas about Scripture and God and Christ and then occasionally throws in a verse to highlight his point. In other words, Barth never develops any of his assertions from a text, but after the fact, sometimes cites a text to support a point he already made.
The book itself is very well structured: it starts with Theology objectively considered, then moves to Theology as experience subjectively in people, then goes through problems facing theology, before concluding with how to do theology. Each section is broken into four subsections with the final subsection in each section discussing the most important underlying reality (Spirit, Faith, Hope, Love, respectively). I personally had a lot of issues with the first section, really enjoyed the second section, and had mixed feelings with the final two sections.
After reading this book, I am reminded of a Martin Lloyd-Jones quote regarding Barth: that Barth leads to preaching about the Word of God rather than leading to preaching the Word of God. I think that is exactly what Barth does in this book; as a work of speculative theological inquiry, it is useful. As an actual introduction to Evangelical Theology, I think it is insufficient and at times dangerously incorrect. Is it a thought provoking read? Yes. Do you need to examine the thoughts it provokes with Scripture? Yes.
I read this book right after reading "A Treatise on True Theology" by Junius. That book is a much harder read than Barth, but as an introduction to what theology is, it is more thorough, biblical, and overall consistent in dealing with its subject. Junius also better represents what Reformed Protestants actually believe about Theology and the Word of God.
March 6, 2019
The main subject of the book is the “question of proper theology”. In this “swan song” Barth expresses his theology in a succinct way, hence the word introduction in the subtitle. The purpose is to provide an account of evangelical theology and aimed as an alternative to the trend among the younger generation of mixing philosophy and theology. A secondary aim is responding to uneasiness on what Barth has “supposedly been heard to say about the authority of the Bible and the relationship of Geschichte and Historie”. Barth’s thesis is that proper theology is evangelical theology which is different from all other theologies and philosophies, as it “…treats of the God of the Gospel”, hence the appropriate emphasis on evangelical theology in the book’s title.
The book is presented in three main parts. Part I focuses on the question why our modern view of work is not working. Part II evaluates biblical clues on the question whether earthly work will have any heavenly future. Part III unpacks how work, spirituality and mission go together by being heavenly minded and of earthly good.
Chapter 1 introduces the distinctiveness of evangelical theology as (i) a modest theology as its object is a wholly different God, (ii) a free science presupposing human existence, particular faith and reason, (iii) a critical science following the living God in history, and (iv) a theology that expresses the good Word of mercy that calls for gratitude (Chapter 1). Throughout the book these distinguishing characteristics reappear as Barth expounds on his thesis. Theology is preceded by the Word of God and responds modestly as human logic is only analogy to the Word. Freedom is found by obeying God’s Word (Chapter 2). The biblical and secondary witnesses of the Word confront theology to seek the truth, a task that demands critical scientific effort (Chapter 3) and freedom to reflect on a community’s inherited witness and confessions (Chapter 4). Freedom is found in the Spirit and bestowed in free mercy on theologians (Chapter 5). Treating of the God of the gospel demands a personal response from the theologian. Wonder at biblical miracles, culminated in the new event of Jesus Christ is a concrete fact of grace, responded to in gratitude (Chapter 6). God meets, encounters and challenges the “little theologian” who is “freed to be concerned with his object” (Chapter 7). To be assigned this duty is a privilege, requires commitment and is terrifying. Theology cannot be bound by general regulations, as it is a free science that is only bound to its object alone (Chapter 8). The existential phenomena (wonder, concern and commitment) come from the event of faith; that is when someone is “overcome by God’s Word and its Spirit of power”, and freed to affirm God’s Word. Faith keeps on seeking reasoned understanding (Chapter 9). As the theologian often works in solitude from the world and in the Church, it is an exclusive faith in and obedience to God’s Word that distinguishes theology from other human experiences (Chapter 10). The never-ending quest for truth (reason) and uncertainty gives rise to doubt, as all humans (including theologians) are sinful (Chapter 11). God may even withdraw himself from human theological work (an event referred to as “temptation”), being only useful by the mercy of God (Chapter 12). Such dangers to theology call for endurance, in the face of God’s judgment in solidarity with everyone else, but it also receives hope in the grace of God (Chapter 13). Theology can only be done in the act of prayer and begins when humans place themselves modestly out of the picture (Chapter 14). Theological study is conversing with prophets, apostles and other theologians in a critical, reasoned way, yet theologians are free to read biblical texts with a “Yes of faith” (Chapter 15). The basis of modesty that befits theology is service towards the purpose of others. The special service of theology is the “question about truth”, standing in a “salutary tension” with the Church’s course and direction (Chapter 16). Finally, biblical love (“Agape”) is a new freedom for the other one, and because of this freedom for the other there is love. The object of theology is the one true God and one true man Jesus Christ, and in him the indispensible condition of perfect love (Chapter 17).
Barth succeeded in setting evangelical theology apart from any other philosophy or theology. Not only does he clearly root his theology in the Word of God, as revealed in Jesus Christ, and testified to through the Spirit, but he also expounds deeply on the existential implications of a confrontation with the object of theology, the God of the Gospel. Barth clarifies that theology is not one’s own ideas and abstractions, but the Word of God to which it responds. Barth affirms the reality of revelation in the history of Jesus Christ as rooted in Israel’s history and soaring high above it. Barth clarifies that he does not dispute the authority of the Bible. The Word of God in both histories was heard by several primary witnesses, and later testified to by secondary witnesses. God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, an event on which Scripture is the only authoritative Word. Through the powerful work of the Spirit God discloses himself freely to humans anew. Evangelical theology can only be spiritual theology and it is only by the demonstration of the powerful work of the Spirit that proper theology can prove itself. That is why Barth can make the claim that the living Word demands a personal response from the theologian. What might have been initially treated as an object of philosophical study is in reality the living God demanding an answer to his revelation. Barth wants to prepare his readers for the existential implications of meeting the living God, and keep on pointing them to the indispensible conditions of theological science already granted by its object, namely the power of the Spirit and a response of faith, hope and love.
What impressed me most is that Barth takes human existence seriously. The reality of the living God meeting me, a theological student, finds a place in his theology. His emphasis on the Spirit also resonates. That I can trust the Spirit and be receptive to Him as a life-giving force for theology everyday anew is a vital reminder for anyone schooled in modern academic philosophies. I also appreciated his emphasis on the fundamental act of obedience. Freedom in the Spirit is not something to use theologically at my own will, but only in a framework of obedience cultivated by an active spirituality in study, prayer and Sabbath-keeping. I am interested in Barth’s ideas that the integration of theology with science and culture cannot be carried to completion and appreciate his insistence that the unity of divine and human knowledge cannot be achieved.
I wonder how a workable engagement between theology and other sciences can still be achieved though. For years I have felt the pulsating movement of what Barth refers to as “scientific Eros” - the desire to know. I am intrigued by Barth’s proposal that it is still valid as a serving and not a ruling motive. But, what is the structure of the ruling motive “Agape”? A negative aspect of the book is that Barth leaves the reader with little to go on. By appealing to the altogether different source of knowledge of perfect love in Jesus Christ, evangelical theology may paradoxically cut itself of from actively witnessing in science and in culture. Another real negative impression is that the book lacks an index, which is a vital oversight.
In summary, this book by the later Barth is not only a succinct reaction to his critics, but also highly recommended to every theological student serious about the inevitable response to their object, the living God himself.
The book is presented in three main parts. Part I focuses on the question why our modern view of work is not working. Part II evaluates biblical clues on the question whether earthly work will have any heavenly future. Part III unpacks how work, spirituality and mission go together by being heavenly minded and of earthly good.
Chapter 1 introduces the distinctiveness of evangelical theology as (i) a modest theology as its object is a wholly different God, (ii) a free science presupposing human existence, particular faith and reason, (iii) a critical science following the living God in history, and (iv) a theology that expresses the good Word of mercy that calls for gratitude (Chapter 1). Throughout the book these distinguishing characteristics reappear as Barth expounds on his thesis. Theology is preceded by the Word of God and responds modestly as human logic is only analogy to the Word. Freedom is found by obeying God’s Word (Chapter 2). The biblical and secondary witnesses of the Word confront theology to seek the truth, a task that demands critical scientific effort (Chapter 3) and freedom to reflect on a community’s inherited witness and confessions (Chapter 4). Freedom is found in the Spirit and bestowed in free mercy on theologians (Chapter 5). Treating of the God of the gospel demands a personal response from the theologian. Wonder at biblical miracles, culminated in the new event of Jesus Christ is a concrete fact of grace, responded to in gratitude (Chapter 6). God meets, encounters and challenges the “little theologian” who is “freed to be concerned with his object” (Chapter 7). To be assigned this duty is a privilege, requires commitment and is terrifying. Theology cannot be bound by general regulations, as it is a free science that is only bound to its object alone (Chapter 8). The existential phenomena (wonder, concern and commitment) come from the event of faith; that is when someone is “overcome by God’s Word and its Spirit of power”, and freed to affirm God’s Word. Faith keeps on seeking reasoned understanding (Chapter 9). As the theologian often works in solitude from the world and in the Church, it is an exclusive faith in and obedience to God’s Word that distinguishes theology from other human experiences (Chapter 10). The never-ending quest for truth (reason) and uncertainty gives rise to doubt, as all humans (including theologians) are sinful (Chapter 11). God may even withdraw himself from human theological work (an event referred to as “temptation”), being only useful by the mercy of God (Chapter 12). Such dangers to theology call for endurance, in the face of God’s judgment in solidarity with everyone else, but it also receives hope in the grace of God (Chapter 13). Theology can only be done in the act of prayer and begins when humans place themselves modestly out of the picture (Chapter 14). Theological study is conversing with prophets, apostles and other theologians in a critical, reasoned way, yet theologians are free to read biblical texts with a “Yes of faith” (Chapter 15). The basis of modesty that befits theology is service towards the purpose of others. The special service of theology is the “question about truth”, standing in a “salutary tension” with the Church’s course and direction (Chapter 16). Finally, biblical love (“Agape”) is a new freedom for the other one, and because of this freedom for the other there is love. The object of theology is the one true God and one true man Jesus Christ, and in him the indispensible condition of perfect love (Chapter 17).
Barth succeeded in setting evangelical theology apart from any other philosophy or theology. Not only does he clearly root his theology in the Word of God, as revealed in Jesus Christ, and testified to through the Spirit, but he also expounds deeply on the existential implications of a confrontation with the object of theology, the God of the Gospel. Barth clarifies that theology is not one’s own ideas and abstractions, but the Word of God to which it responds. Barth affirms the reality of revelation in the history of Jesus Christ as rooted in Israel’s history and soaring high above it. Barth clarifies that he does not dispute the authority of the Bible. The Word of God in both histories was heard by several primary witnesses, and later testified to by secondary witnesses. God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, an event on which Scripture is the only authoritative Word. Through the powerful work of the Spirit God discloses himself freely to humans anew. Evangelical theology can only be spiritual theology and it is only by the demonstration of the powerful work of the Spirit that proper theology can prove itself. That is why Barth can make the claim that the living Word demands a personal response from the theologian. What might have been initially treated as an object of philosophical study is in reality the living God demanding an answer to his revelation. Barth wants to prepare his readers for the existential implications of meeting the living God, and keep on pointing them to the indispensible conditions of theological science already granted by its object, namely the power of the Spirit and a response of faith, hope and love.
What impressed me most is that Barth takes human existence seriously. The reality of the living God meeting me, a theological student, finds a place in his theology. His emphasis on the Spirit also resonates. That I can trust the Spirit and be receptive to Him as a life-giving force for theology everyday anew is a vital reminder for anyone schooled in modern academic philosophies. I also appreciated his emphasis on the fundamental act of obedience. Freedom in the Spirit is not something to use theologically at my own will, but only in a framework of obedience cultivated by an active spirituality in study, prayer and Sabbath-keeping. I am interested in Barth’s ideas that the integration of theology with science and culture cannot be carried to completion and appreciate his insistence that the unity of divine and human knowledge cannot be achieved.
I wonder how a workable engagement between theology and other sciences can still be achieved though. For years I have felt the pulsating movement of what Barth refers to as “scientific Eros” - the desire to know. I am intrigued by Barth’s proposal that it is still valid as a serving and not a ruling motive. But, what is the structure of the ruling motive “Agape”? A negative aspect of the book is that Barth leaves the reader with little to go on. By appealing to the altogether different source of knowledge of perfect love in Jesus Christ, evangelical theology may paradoxically cut itself of from actively witnessing in science and in culture. Another real negative impression is that the book lacks an index, which is a vital oversight.
In summary, this book by the later Barth is not only a succinct reaction to his critics, but also highly recommended to every theological student serious about the inevitable response to their object, the living God himself.
June 28, 2018
3.5 Sterne
Dies ist die Druckversion der Abschlussvorlesungsreihe Karl Barths, des meines Erachtens bedeutendsten Theologen, der nicht nur die konkurrenzlose Kirchliche Dogmatik verfasst hat, sondern in seinem sozialen Engagement in den Weltkriegen sowie in der Aufrüstungsdebatte bewiesen hat, dass Theologie sich im wahren Leben bewähren muss. Dieses Werk konnte mich im Gegensatz zur KD leider nicht so begeistern, was weniger an Barths brillianter theologischer Konzeption als vielmehr an den angesprochenen Themenbereichen liegt, die mich nur teilweise interessiert haben.
Es handelt sich bei diesem Werk im Übrigen NICHT um eine Einführung in die Systematische Theologie, sondern eher um eine Metainterpretation dessen, was Theologie ist, leisten kann und welchen Hindernissen sie sich konfrontiert sieht. Dabei ist Barth sehr selbstkritisch und hinterfragt, was alle theologische Bemühung und das Schreiben ellenlanger Dogmatiken bringt, wenn sich in der Welt doch nichts verändert. Für alle Theologen mit Sicherheit ein anregendes Buch; für Leute, die sich für die Inhalte der christlichen Theologie wie Sünde, Auferstehung etc. interessieren, nicht zu empfehlen. Generell m.E. eher für fortgeschrittene Studenten oder Theologen zu empfehlen :)
Dies ist die Druckversion der Abschlussvorlesungsreihe Karl Barths, des meines Erachtens bedeutendsten Theologen, der nicht nur die konkurrenzlose Kirchliche Dogmatik verfasst hat, sondern in seinem sozialen Engagement in den Weltkriegen sowie in der Aufrüstungsdebatte bewiesen hat, dass Theologie sich im wahren Leben bewähren muss. Dieses Werk konnte mich im Gegensatz zur KD leider nicht so begeistern, was weniger an Barths brillianter theologischer Konzeption als vielmehr an den angesprochenen Themenbereichen liegt, die mich nur teilweise interessiert haben.
Es handelt sich bei diesem Werk im Übrigen NICHT um eine Einführung in die Systematische Theologie, sondern eher um eine Metainterpretation dessen, was Theologie ist, leisten kann und welchen Hindernissen sie sich konfrontiert sieht. Dabei ist Barth sehr selbstkritisch und hinterfragt, was alle theologische Bemühung und das Schreiben ellenlanger Dogmatiken bringt, wenn sich in der Welt doch nichts verändert. Für alle Theologen mit Sicherheit ein anregendes Buch; für Leute, die sich für die Inhalte der christlichen Theologie wie Sünde, Auferstehung etc. interessieren, nicht zu empfehlen. Generell m.E. eher für fortgeschrittene Studenten oder Theologen zu empfehlen :)
June 12, 2024
A great set of lectures from Barth's only visit to the US in 1962. Here you'll find a concise but comprehensive Barth with a surprising quote from Stonewall Jackson (59). The book also contains great reminders for theologians (he calls them little theologians, 77).
Compelled by Barth's writing; not so much by his life.
Favorite quotes:
A community that is awake and conscious of its commission and task in the world will of necessity be a theologically interested community (41).
There may be great lawyers, doctors, natural scientists, historians, and philosophers. But there are none other than little theologians, a fact that, incidentally, is a fundamental to the "existentials" of theology (77).
Faith is a history, new every morning (103).
...God himself, the subject of all predicates (104).
God's wrath is the fire of his love (151).
Any theology which would not even consider the necessity to respond to God personally could only be false theology (165).
Theological work can be done only in the indissoluble unity of prayer and study. Prayer without study would be empty. Study without prayer would be blind (171).
Compelled by Barth's writing; not so much by his life.
Favorite quotes:
A community that is awake and conscious of its commission and task in the world will of necessity be a theologically interested community (41).
There may be great lawyers, doctors, natural scientists, historians, and philosophers. But there are none other than little theologians, a fact that, incidentally, is a fundamental to the "existentials" of theology (77).
Faith is a history, new every morning (103).
...God himself, the subject of all predicates (104).
God's wrath is the fire of his love (151).
Any theology which would not even consider the necessity to respond to God personally could only be false theology (165).
Theological work can be done only in the indissoluble unity of prayer and study. Prayer without study would be empty. Study without prayer would be blind (171).
October 30, 2021
Karl Barth has written a book worthy of engagement. It is a collection of four sets of lectures on what he calls evangelical theology. His definition of “evangelical” is different from the working-definition of the Western Hemisphere today. There are important points made: that Jesus is the Word of God and that church always means community and that theology is always incomplete and others. However, there are incredibly deep flaws with Barth’s work. His identification of Jesus with the Word of God moves from a useful identification to a devaluing of the Bible which in its own way is also the Word of God. Barth ignores the tension and resolves it by making the identification of Word entirely with Jesus. He makes a similar move with church when his identification of church with community ignores the spiritual union we have with Jesus. Barth goes so far to urge the disuse of the word “church.” There is no mystery left with Barth for the church, but in the scriptures (dare I say Word of God?) there is plenty of mysterious connection and power in the church.
October 24, 2020
Note: This is not a book about what is called “Evangelicalism” in modern America. It is not a book about the theology of “Evangelicals” (whether wrongly understood as an American voting block, or rightly understood as as a broad movement characterized by a commitment to the Bible, the cross, conversion, and activism). Barth was a German theologian in the early 20th century. In his context, “Evangelical” meant “Protestant,” or more broadly, centered on the evangel, that is the gospel of Jesus Christ. So don’t read this book to learn about the American movement by that name.
If you know Barth, you know what to expect. If you don’t, this might not be the place to start.
The book is really about the role of the theologian. What does it mean to be a theologian and do theology? His chapters on “Wonder,” “Doubt,” “Prayer,” “Service,” and “Love,” are great. I love how he treats theology as an act of faith, hope, and love.
If you know Barth, you know what to expect. If you don’t, this might not be the place to start.
The book is really about the role of the theologian. What does it mean to be a theologian and do theology? His chapters on “Wonder,” “Doubt,” “Prayer,” “Service,” and “Love,” are great. I love how he treats theology as an act of faith, hope, and love.
November 9, 2020
The term “evangelical” has come under serious scrutiny over the last couple of years. Partisan affiliation and power jockeying – all done under the heading of “evangelicalism” – has given evangelicalism in general and evangelical theology in particular an unfair reputation as having to do exclusively with fundamentalist white American men. Of all people to turn to for help in clarifying the goal of evangelical theology, Karl Barth may come as a surprise, as he is traditionally identified as “neo-orthodox.” Ironically, Barth despaired of such a description, and Evangelical Theology: An Introduction is his attempt to (1) define “evangelical theology” and (2) locate himself squarely within that tradition. According to Barth, evangelical theology “intends to apprehend, to understand, and to speak of the God of the Gospel.” A good book, and a very present help in times of trouble.
May 11, 2025
What is the essence of theological work? This is the question that Karl Barth tries to address in this little (by Barth's standards).
This book is taken by lectures given by Barth at the University of Chicago in the early 1960s in which he focuses on the Word of God.
Barth takes a look at a few areas of theological inquiry including the theological task, threats to the theological task, helps to the theological work and the theological work itself.
Barth himself is much more clear to understand in these lectures as compared to the Church Dogmatics. This is probably because of the nature of delivery.
More than likely the reader will either like or hate Barth and this will be based on presuppositions concerning Barthian theology.
I highly recommend to pastors and those interested in theology.
This book is taken by lectures given by Barth at the University of Chicago in the early 1960s in which he focuses on the Word of God.
Barth takes a look at a few areas of theological inquiry including the theological task, threats to the theological task, helps to the theological work and the theological work itself.
Barth himself is much more clear to understand in these lectures as compared to the Church Dogmatics. This is probably because of the nature of delivery.
More than likely the reader will either like or hate Barth and this will be based on presuppositions concerning Barthian theology.
I highly recommend to pastors and those interested in theology.
April 28, 2018
This is a great introduction to Barth if you have never read him, laying out both his prime directive and his motivation for it. As with much of his work, there is much to cheer for and much to shrug about. The format and lecture-style of the writings (they were originally his American lectures) makes it fairly easy to follow along, even if the idea is lofty, but the overuse of Latin and dialectic double-speak can be a bit of an annoyance. All in all, I think this is a good toe-dipper for those interested but intimidated by his project.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews