We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Karl Barth was the greatest theologian since the Reformation, and his work is today a dead letter. This is an extraordinary irony. Barth aspired to free Christian theology from restrictive modern habits of mind but in the end preserved the most damaging assumptions of the ideas he sought to overcome. This does not mean he no longer deserves serious attention. Barth now demands exceptionally close attention, precisely because his failures can teach us how profound the challenges of modernity are for theology—and show us the limits of a distinctly modern solution to them.
it was an interesting piece; but i dont think Rose fully makes his case. Barth was surely mostly correct in his diagnosis of liberal theology even if some directions he went in seem questionable. And surely his rejection of natural theology is mostly well taken, although there is scriptural warrant for some measure of that. I was left wondering how one might best reconcile a legitimate natural theology with the necessity of revelation as per Barth. The threat to "classical theism" from Barth seems overblown and just how vital and important is Rose's classical theism anyway?