You can tell a great deal about a person's approach to theology by how they respond to Karl Barth (1886–1968), rightly acclaimed as the greatest theologian of the last century. (The name is pronounced with a silent "h," thus Bart.) If a person is an avowed opponent of Barth's thought, then they are quite likely either very liberal or very conservative in their methodology. Even the once oft-used terms "Barthian" or "Barthianism," neither of which is now in vogue, are now terms of derision on both the left and the right.

I still recall the day I first became aware that frenzied opposition to Barth's writing, that originated from within certain sectors of my rigid conservative background, was not a helpful response if I was to pursue a rigorous and thoughtful theology. Interestingly, it was under a very conservative, and quite imminently fair, professor of systematic theology that I first began to read Barth for myself. I was not given a "sales pitch" but rather a measured and respectful evaluation. My first response, after truly reading his writing, was utter amazement. I couldn't believe how profoundly biblical this man really was in his impact upon the theological world of Europe and America. Even when I disagreed with Barth, which I did then and still do now, I couldn't deny that his primary goal was to lead the discipline of academic theology away from the flawed foundations of modern religious philosophy. Those modern approaches held an almost entirely positive attitude toward modern science, culture, and art. They also had a great sympathy for mysticism and its corresponding stress upon feeling. Barth sought to bring the study of theology back to first principles, those developed most consistently in the Reformation. This meant that he desired to relate all theology directly to the prophetic teaching and application of the Holy Scriptures. He was, more than any man of his time, a biblicist in his approach. Again and again he seeks to be faithful to Scripture, and even when he appears to be wrong he makes you think beyond the simple categories often forced upon Scripture from outside.

Perhaps even more importantly, Karl Barth regarded human reason as worthless, especially in the light of God's supremacy and transcendence. God's sole revelation, something Barth insisted upon for most of his life, was in Jesus Christ and his Word alone. Though his view of inspiration can be properly challenged, at least at some points, his actual doctrine of revelation literally pulled the church back into the living Word revealed by the Spirit through the Bible. And since man is completely dependent upon the grace of God alone, all his various accomplishments are as nothing in the face of this Word.

Barth's style was graphic and engaging—some might even say bombastic. He was a preacher first and foremost, even before he was a professor. For this reason he proclaimed the gospel with real fervor. And because he was a pastor and preacher, he proclaimed the good news in language that could be understood by ordinary people, using language that was clearly rooted in the text of the Holy Scriptures. While his philosophical underpinnings were deeply rooted in existentialism, and while he did embrace a dialectical theological paradigm that has never endeared him to conservative evangelicals, it is no accident that many today are rediscovering him. They are finding great value in his work, especially in conservative places. I do not find this development surprising at all, especially given the rejection of rationalistic modernism that is presently going on among many in the emerging generation of young adult leaders in the church in North America. I personally expect that Barth's stock will rise even higher in the coming decade. Seminars, conferences, and study groups, all dealing with his massive work, are sure to be on the church's radar screen in the next few years as an entirely new generation discovers this "titan."

Because this journal seeks to engage the types of discussions that are of particular interest to renewing the mind and heart of Christian thinkers in the West, we concluded some months ago that we could ill afford to ignore this man and his thought. Barth's voice is needed if we would think deeply about reformation. He was consistently provocative, always faithful to Christ as the end of revelation, and regularly surprising in his conclusions. He was both willing to offend and willing to encourage. This makes Barth a perfect model for many young leaders who are now willing to ask very hard questions of the theological systems from both the Right and the Left. No matter what you conclude about Karl Barth, you can not afford to ignore him if you are truly serious about theology. To that end, we asked several of our contributing editors to review several new Barth-related critiques. One book even merited two reviews, and from two of the finest evangelical theologians of our time. And John Hesselink, who writes the lead review, actually studied under Professor Barth, completing his doctoral work on the subject of John Calvin and the law of God.

I am quite sure that this interaction with Barth, an interaction with both the particular books mentioned and the reviews we offer, will assist you to understand this amazing man and his considerable thought. I think this material might even remove some of the unjust prejudice that you may have been given about Barth. I certainly hope so. You can afford to disagree with him, but I submit that you cannot afford to ignore him if you would be a thoughtful Christian leader.