When Barth’s critics attempt to “defeat” him by periodizing him (reducing his theological efforts and their implications to their own space and time in German/Swiss environs and in early to the mid 20th century), they engage in a reductionistic fallacy (if not an inverted golden age fallacy [i.e., genetic fallacy]). It isn’t that the conditions of his theological environment didn’t have basic impact on Barth’s theologizing; but it is a question of whether or not the fundamental questions he was engaging at the time have parallel proponents even now in the 21st century. His anti-natural theology approach wasn’t merely his response to Nazism (even though it was one of the targets of his aim), it primarily was rooted in age old theoanthroplogical issues; particularly as those pertain to a doctrine of sin, and the attendant impact that has on humanity’s capaciousness vis a vis a theological ontology and epistemology. It’s not that human experience has no role in Barth’s theologizing vis a vis the performance of theology, per se. But it is that, for Barth, the conditions for human experience in theology have no ground outwith God’s human experience for us, as that is first established in His firstborn of creation, in the Christ (cf Col 1:15ff). It is plausible to conclude that Barth might flatten everything down by a ‘Christological objectivism’ and or ‘Christomonism,’ as is often the critique levied at Barth. But when Barth is understood from within the broader thematics of his total CD, I would suggest that he offers the only real ground for affectivity and experientiality to obtain within His Church. That is because for Barth’s theology, without the resurrection of the Godman, Jesus Christ, the conditions for *anything* to obtain (like at all) are non-starting. I can agree that there is a lacuna in Barth’s theology in regard to a developed pneumatology (same goes for TF Torrance). But that shouldn’t lead someone to the conclusion that the resources for such development are inherently squashed simply because Barth et al. didn’t fully develop that in toto. Just because Barth has a particular reception history, this does not necessarily entail that he has been received properly (per the “received” and perceived implications of his theology).