The theology of Karl Barth is difficult to fully understand, not only because of the huge volume of Barth’s work, but also because it engages with dense thinkers like Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Hegel, and Rudolf Bultmann. However, his theology is not itself Kantian, Hegelian, or Bultmannian. This is because it has a clear and distinct theological trajectory, focusing on the Word of God and the reality of the Triune God. One thinker who shares a similar theological trajectory with Barth is Søren Kierkegaard because both thinkers put “the reality of God in Jesus Christ at the center of their theologies” (15), as Alan Torrance and Andrew Torrance, a father-son duo, observe in Beyond Immanence: The Theological Vision of Kierkegaard and Barth, which examines key theological ideas connecting the two thinkers in detail.
The book demonstrates the parallels between Kierkegaard and Barth over seven chapters. The first two chapters explore the theological backdrop of Kierkegaard’s work, which was dominated by Hegelian theology and written within a Christian nation. The authors claim that Kierkegaard developed a new theological approach that went against Hegelian approaches. According to the authors, instead of starting his philosophy with the human mind, Kierkegaard begins his project with the changelessness of God and a Christocentric understanding of the world (104). As a result, the theology of Kierkegaard essentially stresses the infinite qualitative difference between God and creatures, unlike many other contemporary philosophies.
The next two chapters discuss Barth’s theological, sociocultural, and intellectual background, and how Barth responds to it. In the third chapter, Torrance and Torrance introduce three big challenges that Barth faced: German biblical studies’ myth theory, as exemplified by Bultmann’s program of demythologizing; the danger of cultural Protestantism and nationalism; and the influence of Neo-Kantian idealism, which makes theology itself into a phenomenological immanent subject. According to the authors, Barth went against these challenges and adopted central themes in Kierkegaard’s theology, such as “the infinite qualitative difference” and “the concept of paradox” (145). Consequently, by focusing on the primacy of God, he attempted to liberate Christianity from Christian nationalism, the distortive elements of the Enlightenment’s theologies, and the potential danger of cultural-driven Christianity.
In the fifth chapter, the authors examine how Barth appropriated Kierkegaard's theology and went beyond it. Here, the book shows that Barth was concerned with the infinite qualitative difference of God and focused on the self-revelation of God in history to construct his theology. As a result, Barth’s theology emphasizes human limitations and affirms the paradox of God’s working in history that centered around Jesus Christ. In this respect, the book notes that Barth developed a new theological vision based on the primacy of God’s revelation, allowing us to understand the Christocentric reality of the world.
The last two chapters examine Barth’s understanding of immanence. The sixth chapter discusses Barth’s controversy with Emil Brunner, which centered on the church’s engagement with secular society. The chapter notes that Barth famously denied the possibility of natural theology because he believed that the proper understanding of immanence should be based on God’s redemptive kinship, established in Jesus Christ. Given the key features of the Kierkegaard-Barth trajectory, the last chapter explains that for Barth, theology is the outcome of hearing the Word of God. According to the book’s conclusion, both Barth and Kierkegaard offer an account of reality based on God’s revelation. In this conclusion, Christians should not rely on their fanciful and limited creaturely minds. Instead, they should live before God and be faithful witnesses to the reality of God, which “prescribes and reconciles the language we use. (356).”
Although the book effectively conveys the Kierkegaard-Barth theological trajectory, the volume is more focused on Barth and could have done more to emphasize the connections between the two thinkers and their legacies. Alan Torrance comes from a long line of renowned theologians, and this work, done in partnership with his son, expands the conversation meaningfully. However, it would have been helpful for the book to explain where Barth criticized Kierkegaard, and clarify how the two thinkers differ. For example, Kierkegaard advances distinctive concepts related to existence, anxiety, and how individuals relate to the world that Barth would not highlight in his theology. Also, some theologians, such as Ernst Fuchs, Eberhard Jüngel, and Ingolf Dalferth, bring the insights of Karl Barth and existential thinkers into fruitful theological conversation, rather than merely highlight Barth’s breaking with German liberal theology, as this volume does. In this sense, the book would be more fruitful if it made more creative theological connections, transporting the insights of Barth and Kierkegaard to new theological territories.
Despite some of these possible points of expansion, this work deserves high praise. The book will be of value to scholars of both Barth and Kierkegaard. It faithfully utilizes an enormous number of primary and secondary sources on the topic. Also, it successfully reveals the key theological concepts of, and similarities between, Kierkegaard and Barth. In this respect, I highly recommend this superb work to readers who are interested in Barth, Kierkegaard, and Christocentric theology.
Heejun Yang is an adjunct professor at Greensboro College and Hampton University.
Heejun Yang
Date Of Review:
June 11, 2024
