I really enjoyed this book, but it definitely was limited by what it was, a selection. Though I am grateful to be able to read pieces of the Church Dogmatics without wading through many volumes, I was very aware I was reading snippets and not getting the full idea, to no fault of the editor, but that is simply the nature of a selection.
It was enlightening to see how Christ-centered Barth's theology is. I always have heard that about Barth, but it was a different thing to actually read it. For Barth, Christ is the center of revelation. He is the one Word of God, and we must look to Him for all our knowledge of God and even our knowledge of ourselves. Christ, as the true man, is intimately bound up in what it means to be human. His existence is definitional for humanity, and the incarnation raises up all mankind.
Also, reading the short section of Barth on Mozart was amazing. After reading this passage, listening to Mozart's Great Symphony had extra meaning:
"I must again revert to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Why is it that this man is so incomparable? Why is it that for the receptive, he has produced in almost every bar he conceived and composed a type of music for which 'beautiful' is not a fitting epithet: music which for the true Christian is not mere entertainment, enjoyment or edification but food and drink; music full of comfort and counsel for his needs; music which is never a slave to its technique nor sentimental but always 'moving,' free and liberating because wise, strong and sovereign? Why is it possible to hold that Mozart has a place in theology, especially in the doctrine of creation and also in eschatology, although he was not a father of the Church, does not seem to have been a particularly active Christian, and was a Roman Catholic, apparently leading what might appear to us a rather frivolous existence when not occupied in his work? It is possible to give him this position because he knew something about creation in its total goodness [...] in the music of Mozart—and I wonder whether the same can be said of any other works before or after—we have clear and convincing proof that it is a slander on creation to charge it with a share in chaos because it includes a Yes and a No, as though orientated to God on the one side and nothingness on the other. Mozart causes us to hear that even on the latter side, and therefore in its totality, creation praises its Master and is therefore perfect. Here on the threshold of our problem—and it is no small achievement—Mozart has created order for those who have ears to hear, and he has done it better than any scientific deduction could" (159-161).
Barth was, surprisingly to me, very poignant on man and woman. For Barth, man is only truly man in light of woman and vice versa. Man and woman display humanity in diverse ways in such a way that they need each other to complete the picture, and this is not just for man and wife but also for the single man and woman, and not just for man and woman in general but for the particular man and woman. They are to live up to their God-given role and rejoice in it, resulting in the flourishing of humanity. In male and femaleness, there is equality but order.
"All is well so long and so far as man and woman, as they seek to be man individually and together whether in or outside the union of love and marriage, are not merely fully aware of their sexuality, but honestly glad of it, thanking God that they are allowed to be members of their particular sex and therefore soberly and with a good conscience going the way marked out for them by this distinction. But things are far from well if man or woman or both seek to be man in such a way that in virtue of a fancied higher being their sex becomes indifferent or contemptible or vexatious or even hateful, a burden which they bear unwillingly and from which they would gladly emancipate themselves as they ask after God and seek to be human. This is the starting point of the flight from God which inevitably becomes a flight into inhumanity" (209).
However, I did not find all of Barth's ideas stimulating. One area I found particularly irritating was his outright rejection of natural theology and his accusation that it is idolatry. Nevertheless, this was a great read.