Dear Jim:

 

Thanks for putting Barth before me again. Wonderful pages -- in which I note the following especially:

 

(1) In the section from the first email, II/1, pp. 272ff, there is an interesting parallel to a controversy arising out of Nicaea, namely, whether, to put it crudely, the humanity of Mary's child provides, as it were, one half of the Incarnate Christ. This subverts the unity of the divine and human so emphasized at Chalcedon -- and leads to the confusions of Nestorius condemned there. For Barth, the matter is more about how human personhood is secured in the midst of its various ambiguities and contradictions. It is secured not by our capacities but by divine personhood given in Christ. In this way Barth agrees with Leontius of Byzantium and St. John of Damascus in teaching what was called the "en-hypostasis" of the Logos, namely, that the Word that became flesh had already perfect humanity with which (we might say)  the "human humanity" of Mary/Mary's child was joined. The idea that what is "really real" about human life is found in, and secured by, God is a constant theme in the Dogmatics from Vol. II on.

 

(2) I wonder whether Barth is right about Islam. Historically and with respect to its contemporary radical expression,  no doubt -- but are there elements of its more liberal expression that might give it the status of a "distant cousin" to Christianity -- as Barth sees Judaism  to be "first cousin"?

 

(3) In the attributes of God we see Barth dealing with traditional definitions -- with a decided Augustinian bent. Yet he does so with a dialectical note that avoids some of the traditional conundrums, e.g., our freedom depends upon our accepting divine foreordination, etc.

 

(4) I have always found that concluding statement about the "joy" of theology both encouraging and discomforting, since I, myself, have not been able to avoid the "sulky faces, morose thoughts and boring ways of speaking [that] are intolerable in this science."

 

In the joy of the theological calling,

 

Sandy