Service in Christ, Essays Presented to Karl Barth on His 80th Birthday, edited by James I. McCord and T. H. L. Parker. 223 pp. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1966. $6.95

1968 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-544
Author(s):  
James D. Smart
1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-461
Author(s):  
Carl F. Starkloff

Many feel Karl Barth has had his day, Father Starkloff disagrees. He feels a careful study of Barth's theory of religion, within the context of the search for “cultural sensitivity,” can be very rewarding. For it is Barth who reminds us that the central driving force of man's religious life is self-affirmation and self-insurance. Although a solid grasp of the phenomenology of religion is “essential to the training of all missionaries in order to overcome ‘adversaries' and for its positive input into the spiritual life,” the basic issue remains unchanged — the essence of God's unique and once-for-all disclosure and giving of himself to man in Christ.


2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Cortez
Keyword(s):  

Karl Barth's interpreters often characterize him as a ‘christocentric’ theologian. This term, however, is subject to a variety of interpretations, ranging from the totalitarian and isolationist critiques of the ‘christomonist’ objection to the indeterminate and decentred approaches offered by various postmodern readings. The disparity between these two approaches suggests a level of ambiguity in the term that hinders its usefulness unless carefully qualified. Indeed, ‘centric’ terminology itself remains rather ambiguous until the substantive formal and material considerations that lie behind any given form of centricity are addressed. This article proposes to alleviate the ambiguity that has thus clouded the use of ‘christocentric’ as a description of Barth's theology by offering five formal and material qualifications; Barth's christocentricity must be understood in terms of (1) a veiling and unveiling of knowledge in Christ, (2) a methodological orientation, (3) a particular christology, (4) a trinitarian focus and (5) an affirmation of creaturely reality. Using these criteria, the article also argues that both the christomonistic and postmodern interpretations break down at certain points because they fail to appreciate fully these qualifications and thus the particular nature of Barth's christocentrism.


Author(s):  
Günter Thomas

This chapter reconstructs the context and argument of Karl Barth’s innovative account of human sin and evil. For a proper understanding of the shifts in Barth’s treatment of these core themes, some ‘default positions’ are briefly sketched. The chapter next describes the implications that attend a transference of the doctrine of sin from anthropology to Christology. This shift is not only epistemic, changing the basis on which sin is recognized and understood. It is also a significant conceptual move, with sin described as a specific posture towards the grace of God, manifest in Christ. The chapter also shows how Karl Barth resists the temptation to reduce the existence of evil to a manageable deficiency of creation, while avoiding any dramatization of the experience of evil. Barth construes evil (nothingness, das Nichtige) in light of God’s creation as an election, with nothingness being that which is rejected in the divine act of creation. Rejecting a personification of evil (i.e., the devil), Barth nonetheless emphasizes the agency of evil as that against which the sovereign God battles.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document