Bruce L. McCormack, Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008).

Bruce McCormack is the Frederick and Margaret L. Weyerhaeuser Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. He instantly became one of the world’s leading interpreters of Karl Barth’s thought with the publication of Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development, 1909-1936 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995). The present book, a collection of essays from journals and books, is the long-awaited follow-up punch to that 1995 book. “Punch” is not too strong a word, as these essays should go a long way toward revising the dominant North American view of Barth’s theology. It will be interesting to see how it stirs things up.

I personally do not agree with Barth’s theology, so there is much about this book that I cannot accept on a prescriptive, theological level. But when judged in comparison with other books on Barth, especially those under the influence of “Yale theology” and its attempt to turn Barth into a narrative theologian, I find the theology here much more philosophically consistent than anything that English-speaking Barthians have produced in the past forty years. It is also much more palatable to a student of the New Testament. I am thus torn. I am not in favor of Barthianism, but if there must be Barthians, then I much prefer that they be of the McCormack sort (which appears to be more faithful to Barth himself) than of the Hans Frei sort.

The writing in this book is always clear, even when the subject is obscure. One drawback for the beginning reader, of course, is that much of the discussion will seem in-house, as inevitably is the case with anything that is Barth-related but which is not an introduction. Those coming to Barth studies from the side of biblical studies will especially have a difficult time making out the terrain. Nevertheless, the importance of Barth for understanding present-day theology makes this an important book for teachers of theology.

This book is unfortunately marred by an instance of verbatim repetition: some of the wording on p. 273 is identical with wording found on pp. 296-97. (If students are punished for recycling their own words, then why is it alright for scholars to recycle their own words? That spate of laziness comes back to bite when the essays in question are gathered into a single collection, as they are here.)

Reviewed by John Poirier

Preview Orthodox and Modern: books.google.com/books?id=60bomlwgOB0C

Excerpt from the publisher: assets.bakerpublishinggroup.com/processed/book-resources/files/Excerpt_McCormack_Orthodox.pdf?1362589720

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]