Busch does an impressive job with handling Barth’s work and forming it into a coherent whole. I didn’t enjoy it as much as I thought I would but it was extremely informative.
Really accessible and inspiring biographical and theological work on Karl Barth and his theology. I read only the introduction to Barth the man and the chapter on Barth’s theology of revelation, but I gained a lot of insight from it. Bromiley’s translation read intelligently well and was even inspiring at times.
Sadly, in researching further into Barth’s life I found out about his adulterous life, which was the nail in the coffin regarding my consideration of Barth as my theological mentor. That doesn’t mean I don’t agree with his theology - I am especially inspired by his emphasis on and insights into revelation - but I am wary about the influence of his habitual sexual sin on his thinking. I am humbled and solemnly warned about my own role as a wannabe theologian. Indeed, as Douglas Campbell advised Caleb and I: “There are some scholars who are Christians, and there are some Christians who are scholars. Be a Christian first.”
Nevertheless in awe of Barth’s life and theological insights, especially in his courageous stand against Nazi German leaders. May we learn from both his successes and failures.
I would say this book gave me a clearer picture of about 40% of Barth's theology.
The sections of the book that were helpful were phenomenal--I was highlighting and making notes everywhere. Then there were sections that I just could not follow. I think some of it has to do with me being stupid and some has to do with the particular words translated from German that made some concepts unclear. I've also noticed that German writers (at least German theologians) tend to write in a much different style. They will say the same thing in several ways but rarely give a summarizing statement. Sections and chapters rarely crystalize the overall idea and that's a little frustrating. Still, this introduction was really helpful. As I read Barth more I'll come back to this as a reference.
Not engaging, rather boring really. I'm not sure if that is from Barth, or Eberhardt, or the trasnlator--or all of them. Or maybe it's just because I don't like Barth very much. There are other introductions to Barth that are probably more suitable.