I think the quotes you mentioned highlight some of the key areas of concern conservative evangelicals will normally have about Barth - election, atonement, scripture.
Whilst he is someone that those in ministry and theological training need to be aware of and prepared to engage, I’m often surprised that orthodox reformed folk are quick to recommend, endorse and encourage reading his work. It’s almost done in a type of pseudo intellectual pride! This is not a case of eating a chicken - ie take the meat and throw out the bones - more like negotiating a very bony fish - you’re not likely to take a single mouthful without getting a sharp and dangerous bone stuck in your throat.

Perhaps, as you mention at the end of your articule, this work will help clarify and challenge some of those who have been a little too taken, IMHO, by Barth. I look forward to the Briefing review.

Gordon,

Great post! And helpful quotes too - thanks.  Being a Moore college student who hears Barth’s name flying about from time to time, I took and up read a few books about him last year, and am reading through his Evangelical Theology at the moment.  Engaging Barth has certainly been a very helpful book indeed for getting my head around him, and I think it’s great to give this book attention in The Briefing - so thanks!

In Christ (in the Reformed, non-Barthian sense!),
Mark

Oh, and Mark Barry, if you submit such a comment it clearly demonstrates that you haven’t understood Barth correctly.

I am told this is a problem, but I haven’t yet seen why. If you haven’t understood a confusing person correctly, is it possible to raise the possibility that they are a confusing person?

They are funny little thingies aren’t they.

I haven’t worked out yet how many variations there are.