The following comes from a reader of the blog. He contacted me recently to give me a word of encouragement, and I gratefully received it (I need words like this every now and then). He would like to remain anonymous because of his stature, and the circles he runs in. It is still damaging to one’s career and person, in certain circles, in the circles my anonymous reader (and now presenter at the blog) inhabits, to openly recognize appreciation, and maybe even some zeal, for the theology of Karl Barth. Like my reader I am still largely Baptist (I grew up the son of a Conservative Baptist pastor), and it is no mistake that Barth resonates with the impulses of many of us Baptists; as our anonymous presenter will make clear in his own experience. So, without further ado, here is Barth Fan X:

I thought that I might very briefly share with you how this particular British Evangelical, indeed this Reformed Baptist, has found himself interacting positively with Barth over the years. You may perhaps find some of it interesting. As you’ll see, Barth has had quite an impact on me. So, briefly, here are just a few areas in which I’ve found Barth helpful and edifying:

The Trinity. Masterful discussion! I especially resonate to his careful, profound, nuanced, and non-Sabellian description of the meaning of hypostasis as “mode of being”.

Providence. I am very struck by Barth’s point that providence doesn’t operate in some bland, flat, non-teleological manner. It always has a Christological telos. And that wholly differentiates a biblical understanding of providence from both a Stoic and Islamic view.

The Incarnation. Barth’s discussion of the Son’s assumption of fallen humanity keyed very nicely into my PhD thesis, which has a significant focus on 19^th century Scottish theologian Edward Irving who held a similar view. Barth’s excursus helped me to my current understanding, which may possibly not be quite Barthian, maybe more a synthesis of Irving’s view with a patristic understanding. The Son took from Mary a fallen humanity, and by so taking it, sanctified it. Augustine teaches as much. But Barth played a part in the whole process of my thinking this through.

 The Virgin Birth. Barth’s “The Miracle of Christmas” kind of stunned me by its biblical brilliance, when I read it as a young Christian, and it has ever since provided the guidelines for my thinking on the topic.

The Atonement – “the Judge judged in our place”. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve described the cross in these terms in my preaching. It helps tie together the New Testament theme of eschatological judgment with the Saving Event of the cross. And Barth’s way of viewing Incarnation and Atonement has made me very wary of those (unfortunately popular) ways of presenting the cross as a merciful Son pacifying a mercilessly angry Father, rather than seeing the cross as a properly Trinitarian event.

The Second Coming. I have quite often been somewhat unsettled by a not uncommon Evangelical style of preaching the Second Coming, as a sort of “terror device” to frighten folk into repenting. A little too much evangelism has a tendency towards “ranting and raving” at people, pretty remote from anything like good news. But I agree with Augustine that one simply cannot terrify people into the kingdom – all one can do is terrify them into making a false profession of faith. And Barth has made me think hard about how to preach the Lord’s Coming as an integral element of the GOOD news. Not that I’m an eschatological universalist. I suppose I’m trying, so to speak, to find some wholesome middle ground.

 Apologetics. From Barth I learned that biblically, the ultimate standard and criterion of truth is Christ Himself. Thus one should work outwards from the self-evidencing Christ, not towards Him by lesser standards and criteria, as if Christ had to go cap-in-hand to them to get His “proof”. As Barth says somewhere, you end up having non-Christian reasons for believing in Christ. But there isn’t any “truth” autonomous from Him.

 Preaching. Barth taught me that it isn’t enough to set orthodox truths before people from the pulpit. This by grace can, and hopefully will, become a vehicle for the living speech of the living Lord. For this I pray whenever I preach.

 I also find Barth to be a fine historical theologian (indeed a fine historian of philosophy and culture), and there’s an unusual spiritual vibrancy in his sermons, especially the collections he did with Thurneysen.

So there you have it – a precis of Barth’s positive effect on this Evangelical Reformed Baptist. Of course, you might wish to say, “But didn’t you get what he says on….” (fill in the blank). And maybe I didn’t. As I mentioned, I’m still learning.

All I’m saying here is simply that as a person of Evangelical and Reformed identity and churchmanship, I’ve found it an easy and joyful thing to learn from Barth. I’m just sad that so many of my spiritual family have demonized him, can’t and won’t learn anything from him, and think that one is bound to go wildly off the theological rails merely by reading him. I count Barth as one of the Church’s theological giants, along with Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, et al, at whose feet I’m happy to sit and learn (under Scripture, of course). One of my greatest wishes is that folk in my church-circles would see what a positive resource we have in Barth (and T.F.Torrance) for exploring and refining our Biblical, Evangelical, and Reformed theology.

Thank you, Barth Fan X! Your thoughts are most appreciated. I hope you all, my readers, find benefit in this thinker’s thoughts on Barth as I have. Maybe you, like this reader, are in a similar situation and feel the pressure of remaining “quiet” because of your own ecclesial affiliations. If so, take heart, you aren’t alone. It is sad that this is the way it is; a result of a demonization of a whole cloth Barth that does not actually exist when someone actually engages with his theology. Contra mundum.