Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936

Rating:
Summary: A book Barth would appreciate
Review: Let's be honest -- Barth would despise most contemporary so-called "Barthians." All sorts of folks who are teaching theologies he abhored and risked his career to battle have tried to appropriate his name. Most "Barthians" are far less orthodox than Barth. Often they have affinities to some small aspect of his approach to theology, while rejecting the rest of this thought that hangs with it.

Bruce McCormack is not one of these pretenders! While perhaps not a "slavish" Barthian, McCormack is a Barthian that Barth would recognize, appreciate, and support.

In general, McCormack wants to present Barth as classically orthodox, not "neo-orthodox." This is a difficult task in many ways, because of Barth's novel appraoch and his departure from the theology of the Reformation on many points (outright rejection of all natural theology, Barth's universal salvation, his rejection of Biblical inspiration opting for an emphasis on illumination instead, etc.)

McCormack is one of the sharpest minds in the mainline church. I studied under him for two degrees at Princeton, where he was clearly the brightest theologian in a brilliant department. Unfortunately, like his hero Barth, he is not often kind to his reader. He makes you work very hard. This is a difficult read. But many will find it worth the effort, not matter what their view of Karl Barth.

Rating:
Summary: A book Barth would appreciate
Review: This book won the 1998 Karl Barth prize in Germany, which is awarded to secondary sources on Barth. That is an honorable prize, considering that one of the judges was Eberhard Jungel, who is a great Barth scholar himself. For any interested in Barth, this is a book that must be read in order to understand the current state of discussion.

McCormack manages to trace through the complex world of pre-WW2 Germany to show Barth's influences from the Marburg neo-Kantians, expressionism, socialism, etc. His basic point is that Barth's break with liberalism and his "decisive turn to analogy" were not as radical as one would think. In other words, the Barth of Romans has far more in common with the mature Barth of the Church Dogmatics. This book also proceeds to correct a number of misperceptions about Barth, based on historical work. In the final analysis, McCormack has hoped that his work will press theologians to read the primary sources firsthand, rather than relying on "received interpretations."

I would recommend reading this book, then von Balthsar's _Theology of Karl Barth_ (in that order). The von Balthsar book is interesting, because it tells you how people have understood Barth (up to now), and because of von Balthasar himself. But in the final analysis, I find McCormack's book to be more technically correct.

Rating:
Summary: the best intellectual autobiography of barth
Review: This book won the 1998 Karl Barth prize in Germany, which is awarded to secondary sources on Barth. That is an honorable prize, considering that one of the judges was Eberhard Jungel, who is a great Barth scholar himself. For any interested in Barth, this is a book that must be read in order to understand the current state of discussion.

McCormack manages to trace through the complex world of pre-WW2 Germany to show Barth's influences from the Marburg neo-Kantians, expressionism, socialism, etc. His basic point is that Barth's break with liberalism and his "decisive turn to analogy" were not as radical as one would think. In other words, the Barth of Romans has far more in common with the mature Barth of the Church Dogmatics. This book also proceeds to correct a number of misperceptions about Barth, based on historical work. In the final analysis, McCormack has hoped that his work will press theologians to read the primary sources firsthand, rather than relying on "received interpretations."

I would recommend reading this book, then von Balthsar's _Theology of Karl Barth_ (in that order). The von Balthsar book is interesting, because it tells you how people have understood Barth (up to now), and because of von Balthasar himself. But in the final analysis, I find McCormack's book to be more technically correct.