Tim,
If you want to see two very different "takes" on Barth, try Van Til and Berkouwer. Both claimed to be Reformed, and they reach opposite opinions on Karl. Some have churlishly observed that Berkouwer's
The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth should more rightly be named,
The Triumph of Karl Barth in the Theology of G.C. Berkouwer.
My major sys theo prof in college was an evangelical Barthian (more the latter than the former
). In seminary, several of my profs studied under Barth and one was the co-translator of his magnum opus,
Church Dogamtics. Now that I run a retirement community, one of my residents (Daniel Fuller), did his second doctorate in Basel and had lots of exposure to Barth, and another dear older friend also earned his doctorate in Basel and attended Barth's classes.
Barth-speak drove my wife nuts during college and seminary. She avoided ST like the plague because she could not understand why so many grown men were so infatuated with someone who could not utter a single univocal declarative sentence. (BTW - her degree was a M.A. with a focus in children and family).
In my case, my "issues" with Barth are also more pastoral. I have so little patience with adulterous men that Barth's "unique" relationship with Lollo (e.g., living in the Barth household all those decades and spending summers alone with Barth in his retreat) drives me nuts. What's with that?
For a time in the 60s and 70s Barth was cool for the mainline. Now, they have moved on to the lastest best new nonsense and Barth is cool for leftward evangelicals. Much of his writing is brilliant and worthy of the designation "most important theologian" of his era. He will probably always be on my top 10 list for theologians. However, it is more of a critical appreciation than one of support or endorsement. Last week my CD-ROM of the Church Dogmatics came from Libronix so I sent off my 14 vol. hard copy set to the first bidder on PB who said he will use it on his doctoral dissertation (it should arrive on Monday). But, frankly, at 54, there is too much Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, etc. to read (not to mention the Puritans) before I die to have much time for Barth. He will mainly be used for research purposes in my library.
I have been listening to a Covenant Seminary prof lecture on church history on my iPod this week. He tells that when he was in seminary (Covenant), they told him that Barth was a dangerous liberal. Then, when he did PhD work at Princeton, they told him that Barth was a dangerous conservative (almost fundamentalist). Truth be told: louder than any other theologian of his time, Barth thumbed his nose at reductionistic liberalism with its excessively immanent "theology." For that I am grateful. Or, as one of my college profs used to say: "KB (Karl Barth) will be in heaven, but KD (
Die Kirchliche Dogmatic) will not be.