Graham A. Cole is professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL. He is an ordained Anglican minister, and has written several other books regarding Evangelical theology. This book is an addition to Crossway’s Foundations of Evangelical Theology series, and discusses the role of the Holy Spirit within Evangelical doctrine. Cole is an ardent Trinitarian theologian and offers here one of the most definitive treatments of pneumatology available today. Cole approaches this from a solidly Reformed theology, but he is notably ecumenical in his treatments of contentious issues regarding pneumatology. Authors from both the Eastern and Western traditions are covered, and at the end of each chapter many questions for our generation are raised and various implications to pneumatology are highlighted. So then, the book is practical and well-written. Taking this ecumenical approach allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the differences for him/herself, and thus enables them to become better theologians. The book is thoroughly biblically-based (Cole admits to a high view of Scripture in the introduction, calling it the “norming norm,” whereas tradition, experience and reason are “ruled norms”), and is illuminated by theological reflections on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In engaging theology, Cole brings Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Barth and Moltmann to bear on issues of pneumatology.

Cole demonstrates an evidence-based approach to theology within this book in that he engages information bearing on the truth of falsity of a proposition. Cole invokes Bonhoeffer in stating that we must learn to know the Scriptures once again, for they are the basis of our evidence for forming a doctrine of the Spirit. Cole acknowledges four distinct periods of Pneumatological discussion, to which I would a fifth. First, Cole recognizes the Patristic era, which was concerned with the ontology (derivation of, i.e.) the Spirit. Second, Cole recognizes the Medieval period, which saw the schism between the Eastern and Western branches of the church in due part to the doctrine of the Spirit’s ontology. Third, Cole recognizes the Reformation period, in which more emphasis was given to the works of the Spirit over the ontology of the Spirit. Fourth, Cole notes that the Modern period, characterized by Whitefield and Wesley, highlighted the Spirit’s role in regeneration and sanctification. The fifth period, which Cole does not directly indicate but does peripherally allude to, is what I refer to as the Post-modern period, in which pneumatology is beginning to be seen as the avenue to engage a theology of religions (reference Amos Yong’s groundbreaking work in Beyond The Impasse).

In the first part of Cole’s book, he addresses the mystery of the Spirit. Also within this first part of the book, Cole examines the personhood of the Spirit, the deity of the Spirit, and the relation of the Spirit to the Godhead. In the second part of this book, Cole turns from the person of the Spirit to the works of the Spirit, for, as Cole indicates, operation follows being. So then, Cole agrees with the notion that what can be said of the work of the Spirit is predicated on what can be said of the person of the Spirit. In this second part, Cole explicitly interacts with the Old Testament, and derives from it what can be predicated to the Spirit (though he acknowledges that the writers of the OT were not “Trinitarian” per se). In the third part of this book, Cole turns his attention to the New Testament, and continues to explore the work(s) of the Spirit. In this third part, Cole highlights the Spirit’s empowering Jesus as Messiah, the role of the Spirit in the life of God’s people, and the role of the Spirit in fostering community amongst God’s people.

Bruce McCormack, the Frederick and Margaret L. Weyerhaeuser Professor of Theology at Princeton, is the most interesting and helpful Barthian working today. He has made his mark working to correct a certain North American distortion of Karl Barth’s thought. His contributions now include a number of edited works, including this one, which gathers the essays presented at the 2005 Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference.

As always with an edited work, the articles collected here are of uneven quality. They are also of varying atmosphere. Most of the essays breathe the air of British evangelicalism (which theologically has a lot of variation within it), while others are academic versions of something one might find in Christianity Today. Now and again, the staler air of the World Council of Churches wafts through the volume. The contributors vary from biblical scholars, to historical theologians, to systematic theologians. McCormack classifies some of the contributors as holding to a form of “classical theism”, and others as being more “‘progressive’ … in their willingness to pose questions to concepts of divine timelessness, impassibility, and so forth” (pp. 9-10). The decision to include biblical scholars was perhaps a move toward a broader outlook, but as everyone’s topic appears to have been assigned, the gain of including biblical scholars in the program has been minimized. The program as a whole has a systematic-theological stamp through and through. Topics like “divine simplicity” and “divine aseity” are not on the radar screen of biblical scholars, and for a good reason: they’re not on the radar screen of the Bible.

McCormack’s own contribution consists of a suit against Open Theism. Although McCormack’s admirers have already applauded this essay (on the internet), it ultimately fails to convince. He tries to show that Barth’s dissolution of metaphysics (as if that were conceptually possible!) presents a better solution to the problems that Open Theism has adduced. (McCormack prefers to think that God’s election “stands at the root of God’s being” [p. 210], but I think that is as nonsensical as it sounds. I much preferred Paul Helm’s case against the McCormack-Barth dissolution of metaphysics, found earlier in the same volume.) Much depends on one’s starting point. McCormack really only shows that Open Theism is incompatible with Reformed presuppositions, but he in no way shows that it is a poor fit for Christian theology in general. (Throughout many of these essays, this reader was constantly reminded that, for the Reformed tradition, the word “Protestant” basically means “Reformed”.)

This volume packs a lot of food for thought, and should be rewarding reading for those interested in a somewhat safe entry into the speculative side of modern theology. Those interested in biblical theology, however, will find considerably less of a reward.

Reviewed by John C. Poirier

Read an excerpt from Westminster Theological Seminary: www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/Excerpt_McCormack_Engaging.pdf [available as of June 6, 2014]

Originally published on the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization of PneumaReview.com) website. Later included in the Summer 2024 issue.

Karl Barth and Pentecostal Theology: A Convergence of the Word and the Spirit, edited by Frank D. Macchia, Terry L. Cross, and Andrew K. Gabriel. London: T & T Clark, 2024.

The book is published in the growing academic book series Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology.

The book is currently very expensive (US$150), but in a year or two the publisher should release a paperback version that will be closer to US$50. That is still expensive, but a little more reasonable for an academic book.

Description (from the Publisher):

The essays in this volume evaluate and build on Barth’s theology from the perspective of Pentecostal theology and, thereby, contribute to constructive Pentecostal systematic theology by using Barth as a valuable dialogue partner. At present, a theological conversation of Pentecostals with Barth does not exist and this volume fills this void. More widely, it will aid all those who seek a convergence of the Word and the Spirit in theology.

Barth and Pentecostals share some important common theological interests. Barth’s mature theology has a decidedly christological emphasis. Likewise, historically, Pentecostals have often spoken of a “full gospel” with an emphasis on Christ as savior, healer, baptizer (in the Spirit), and soon-and-coming King, with some Pentecostal traditions also adding a fifth emphasis on Christ the sanctifier. Furthermore, near the end of his life, Barth anticipated “the possibility of a theology of the third article, a theology where the Holy Spirit would dominate and be decisive.” The realization of Barth’s dream is no doubt coming to pass in part through the development of Pentecostal theology in as much as pneumatological theology (exploring how pneumatology affects, supplements, and might reform other doctrines) is an emerging paradigm for Pentecostal theology.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction, Frank D. Macchia (Vanguard University, USA), Terry L. Cross (Lee University, USA), Andrew K. Gabriel (Horizon College and Seminary, Canada)

Part One: Theology and Revelation

2. Theology as a Pointing Finger: Barth and Pentecostalism on the Nature of Theology, Todd Pokrifka (Institute for Community Transformation, USA)
3. Revelation as Encounter: Karl Barth, Pneumatological Realism, and the Pentecostal Notion of Prophetic Preaching, Gary Tyra (Vanguard University, USA)

Part Two: God and Creation

4. Oneness, Pentecostals and Karl Barth: Theological Cousins Who Never Met? David A. Reed (Wycliffe College, Canada)
5. Barth and Pentecostals on the Divine Perfections of (Im)mutability and (Im)possibility, Andrew K. Gabriel (Horizon College and Seminary, Canada)
6. Barth, Election, and the Spirit, William Atkinson (London School of Theology, UK)
7. Empowered by the Spirit: A Pneumatological Revision of Karl Barth’s Theological Anthropology, Lisa P. Stephenson (Lee University, USA)

Part Three: Christ and Salvation

8. Jesus the Spirit Baptizer: A Pentecostal Revision of Karl Barth’s Spirit Christology, Frank D. Macchia (Vanguard University, USA)
9. On Giving the Devil (No More Than) His Due: Karl Barth, Pentecostalism, and the Demonic, Michael McClymond (Saint Louis University, USA)
10. Subjects and Predicates: Barthian Grammar and Pentecostal Soteriology, David J. Courey (Continental Theological Seminary, Belgium)
11. Slamming the Door and Cracking a Window? Pneumatological Investigations for Possible Openings in Karl Barth’s Generally Closed Theology of Religions, Tony Richie (Pentecostal Theological Seminary, USA)
12. Barth, Pentecostalism, and the Eschatological Cry for the Kingdom, Christian T. Collins Winn (Augsburg University, USA)

Part Four: Holy Spirit and the Church

13. Spirit, Love, and Charisma: Pneumatology in the Theology of Karl Barth and Pentecostalism, Peter Althouse (Oral Roberts University, USA)
14. Let the Church be the Church: Barth and Pentecostals on Ecclesiology, Terry L. Cross (Lee University, USA)
15. You Wonder Where the Real Presence Went: The Sacraments and the Pentecostal Experience, Chris E. Green (Southeastern University, USA)

Bibliography

Index

PR

Publisher’s page: Karl Barth and Pentecostal Theology: A Convergence of the Word and the Spirit

More by authors appearing in this book:

The theology and influence of Karl Barth: an interview with Terry Cross

Terry L. Cross, Answering the Call in the Spirit: Pentecostal Reflections on a Theology of Vocation, Work and Life (Lee University Press, 2007) as reviewed by Mara Lief Crabtree

Frank Macchia: Assessing the Prosperity Gospel

John Wesley and Pentecostalism: an interview with Frank Macchia

Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Zondervan, 2006) as reviewed by Tony Richie

Frank D. Macchia, Tongues of Fire: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Cascade, 2023) as reviewed by Wolfgang Vondey

Robert W. Graves, ed., Strangers To Fire: When Tradition Trumps Scripture (The Foundation for Pentecostal Scholarship, 2014) as reviewed by Tony Richie

Tony Richie, Essentials of Pentecostal Theology: An Eternal and Unchanging Lord Powerfully Present and Active by the Holy Spirit (Wipf & Stock, 2020) as reviewed by John Lathrop

Tony Richie, “Do All Abraham’s Children Worship Abraham’s God?”

PneumaReview.com: You have been working with the theology of Karl Barth for many years. What has drawn your long-term interest?

Terry Cross: I began reading Barth seriously in 1980 while working on the MDiv thesis. I was comparing Karl Barth and the evangelical theologian, Carl Henry, on their views of revelation. Henry was quite adamant about some of Barth’s errors in relation to the Word of God—as were a number of evangelical scholars. However, when I actually read Barth himself, I realized that the caricatures made of him by many evangelicals did not hold water. Barth actually said in numerous places the direct opposite of what Henry thought he said. I began to wonder, ‘If Henry can read this incorrectly, what else has been written by Barth that deserves closer attention?’ That started my journey through the 13 volumes of the Church Dogmatics. It also fueled the flame to learn German well enough to read Barth in the original language he wrote. Over and over I have discovered that rather simplistic thumbnail sketches of Barth’s ideas on any one theological position have missed the complexity and nuance of Barth’s own words. In addition, as a Pentecostal theologian I became fascinated with some of Barth’s ideas as related to Pietism and, by extension, to Pentecostal thought. For example, in Church Dogmatics I/1, Barth expounds his idea that the Word of God has a threefold form—Jesus Christ (Word in flesh); Scripture (Word in writing); and Preaching/proclamation (Word of God in preaching/teaching). Barth has a rather “occasionalist” view of what occurs. The Scripture, for example, becomes the Word of God but may not be the Word of God (in some fundamentalist sense) because such equation of God’s Word in revelation with written Scripture can make the Bible into a “holy” book that has almost magical qualities instead of a record that becomes God’s Word when God’s Spirit enlivens it to our hearts. Indeed, Barth is the only theologian I know who has a pentecostal-like theology of preaching: our human words are taken up by God’s Spirit and are made clear and powerful as it becomes the Word of God to individual believers in the community of faith. In many ways, this seemed reminiscent to me of the high respect for preaching that Pentecostals have whereby a “word” from the Lord becomes clear and really rings true when the Spirit drives it home in our hearts.

PR: Some argue that Barth was the most important Protestant Theologian of the Twentieth Century. Do you agree?

Terry Cross: Barth is the only theologian I know who has a pentecostal-like theology of preaching: our human words are taken up by God’s Spirit and are made clear and powerful as it becomes the Word of God to individual believers in the community of faith.

Terry Cross: Yes, I do. While others have had long-lasting impact from the 20^th century (e.g., Tillich, Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, Juergen Moltmann), Barth’s herculean shift of the balance of the weight off of the old Protestant liberalism of his professors (like Harnack and Herrmann) that signaled the immanence of God in human lives and onto a view of the transcendence of God in which God is entirely other than humans. The old liberal school had proposed that Jesus taught a valuable morality that we should follow, but was not divine. For them, God’s Spirit was to be equated with the human spirit—the human personality. Faith, then, was some psychological commitment that connected on a deep emotional level with God. Into this situation that seemed to glorify humans, Barth became frustrated with the easy manner in which his German professors rushed to support Kaiser Wilhelm going to war in 1914. Barth was a pastor in a small village in Switzerland at the time (Safenwil) and gave himself totally into the socialism of the day, working as the “red pastor” in assisting laborers to form unions and more equitable wages. By 1915, his excitement for socialism began to run dry and his theological source for preaching was no longer effective. Into this setting in 1915, Barth and his close friend (a nearby pastor named Thurneysen) began to study Scripture again, but this time not through the lens of historical criticism or psychological critique of the authors. They studied the book of Romans, all the while Barth wrote his thoughts about each verse in a notebook. In a later lecture, he described this encounter with Scripture as a “new world of the Bible.” What was this? He tried to listen to and read Scripture as if God himself were speaking to him today from this long-ago text. The result was a vivid freshness of his preaching and interpretation. Some called this a “pneumatic exegesis” because of the emphasis on the Spirit but also because of his sense that the Spirit operates with the text and with the hearer. The freshness of letting God be transcendent and speak to the Church through the Scriptures today was so powerful that one theologian described his commentary on Romans as a “bomb on the playground of theologians.” Instead of starting theology from the human dimension and attempting to build one’s way up to the divine (a la Schleiermacher), Barth began theology from the divine dimension and asked what God was saying to us through his revelation. While some folks during the decade of the 1920s called Barth’s theology “dialectical,” Barth himself preferred to speak of it as “a theology of the Word of God.” Almost singlehandedly Barth turned the theological trajectory away from the old Protestant liberal school of thought to a new, fresh way of viewing God that tended to sound more like the Protestant Reformers of the 1500s. To be even more precise, some felt they saw in Barth a simple rehashing of old Protestant Scholastic Orthodoxy of the 1600s and 1700s. For this alone, he could be considered an important theologian of the 20^th century, but add to that the depth of his understanding of the connections between Christology and various doctrines as well as his dogged determination to keep Christ as the center of the revelation of the triune God and we have someone who is not only innovative and interesting, but paradigm-setting for the future of the theological task.

Stephen Long, Saving Karl Barth: Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Preoccupation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 272 pages, ISBN 1451470142

Stephen D. Long, professor of systematic theology at Marquette University, presents a remarkable rendering of the long ecumenical discussion and theological friendship between Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Barth. While Balthasar received significant backlash for this friendship, he felt that in Barth he had discovered a Protestant theology grand enough to enter into a discussion with Catholic theology. Long primarily follows the younger Balthasar’s interpretation of Barth and traces the influence of Barth’s theology—albeit not uncritically—on Balthasar. This relationship allowed both theologies to interact, challenge, and shape the other at their strongest and most divisive points. While disagreements continued to exist, Long suggests ultimately a stronger theology emerged.

The work begins with a description of Barth’s and Balthasar’s largely unknown friendship that involved not only Balthasar’s book on Barth, but vacations, participation in each other’s seminars, and extensive letter writing. Balthasar rarely made the friendship public due to both Catholic and Protestant disagreement with his Barthian preoccupation. This chapter alone will be of interest to scholars. The second and third chapters set out Balthasar’s reading of Barth and the contemporary rejection of that reading from both Catholic and Protestant theologians. The remainder of the work rehabilitates Balthasar’s reading of Barth for contemporary theology. In turn, Long examines Balthasar’s interaction with Barth on the realm of God dealing with the question of natural theology and revelation, the realm of ethics dealing with the move from a propositional ethic to one that spreads the glory of the Incarnation to creation, and the realm of the Church as means for both renewal and unity.

Barth and Balthasar agreed that the incarnation, rather than a conception of God constructed from within the realm of natura pura (a state of pure nature), was the starting point of theology. Theology radiates outward from the incarnation into nature to define nature in light of the person and work of God-in-Christ becomes the challenge and beauty of the theological enterprise. To first discover God from nature and only then move towards the Incarnation and Trinity, places the unity of God ontologically prior to the Trinity and risks constructing a god from abstraction that inevitably conforms to the image of man rather than the particularity of the revealed God. Barth argued a natura pura does not exist for there is no place that exists into which God has not spoken in Christ (3); as such there is no need for an analogia entis (analogy of being) to bridge the creature-Creator gap. The dividing difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, therefore, was to be found in the analogia entis dogmatized in the Vatican I’s duplex ordo cognitionis (two-fold order of knowledge) that asserted a natural realm in which God could be known via reason outside of God’s revelation in Christ (155).