Karl Barth. Paul S. Chung

Frei, “Doctrine of Revelation,” 194. Cf. McCormack, Critically Realistic, 4.

6. Jüngel, “Von der Dialektik zur Analogie,” in Jüngel, Barth-Studien, 128.

7. Jüngel, “Die theologische Anfänge: Beobachtungen,” in ibid., 47.

8. Frei, Types of Christian Theology, 160.

9. See Spieckermann, Gotteserkenntnis: Ein Beitrag zur Grundfrage der neuen Theologie Karl Barths.

10. Beintker, Dialektik in der ‘dialektischen Theologie’ Karl Barths, 261–62. Cf. McCormack, Critically Realistic, 10.

11. McCormack, Critically Realistic, 18.

12. We also take note of the coexistence of dialectic and analogy in Eberhard Mechels’s writing in 1974; cf. Mechels, Analogie bei Erich Przywara und Karl Barth.

13. Cf. Marquardt, Christ in der Gesellschaft.

14. Marquardt, Theologie und Sozialismus, 208–9.

15. Barth, Humanity of God, 40–41.

16. Barth, Christian Life.

17. Cf. CD I/2:50; II/1. § 31. 3; CD IV/3.2 § 71. 4. 6.

18. See “Brechen und Bauen: Diskussion mit Prof. Karl Barth am 5 August 1947.” In Barth “Der Götze wackelt,” 112. Cf. McCormack, Critically Realistic, 452.

19. Klappert, Versöhung und Befreiung, 330.

20. Barth’s letter to Thurneysen on January 1, 1916. In B-Th I, 119–22, 121. See also Smart, Revolutionary Theology, 36.

21. Jüngel, “Die theologischen Anfänge: Beobachtungen,” in Jüngel, Barth-Studien, 98.

22. Marquardt, “Exegese und Dogmatik in Karl Barths Theologie,” 381–406.

23. Ibid., 396–97.

24. Marquardt, Theologie und Sozialismus, 291; cf. Gorringe, Karl Barth: Against Hegemony, 16.

25. Hunsinger, Karl Barth and Radical Politics, 58.

26. Dannemann, Theologie und Politik, 19–20.

27. Hunsinger, Karl Barth and Radical Politics, 181.

28. Ibid., 191.

29. “The fact that not only sheds new light on, but materially changes, all things and everything in all things is the fact that God is” (CD II/1:258).

30. Hunsinger, Karl Barth and Radical Politics, 225.

31. Gorringe, Karl Barth: Against Hegemony, 13.

32. Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century, 58.

33. Scholder, Churches and the Third Reich, 45.

34. Sauter, “Soziologische oder Politische Barth-Interpretation?” 176–77.

35. Jüngel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, 14.

36. Wagner, “Theologische Gleichschaltung: Zur Christologie bei Barth,” 41; cf. Jüngel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, 139.

37. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology 2:477–78.

38. Jüngel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, 14.

39. Ibid.

40. Barth, Briefe 1916–1968, 404.

41. Jüngel, Karl Barth-Studien, 27.

42. McCormack, Critically Realistic, 80, 88, 173, 175, 177, 184, 194.

43. Cf. Heron, Century of Protestant Theology. The term neo-orthodox, in a pejorative sense, connotes a theology of resorting to a one-sided emphasis on biblical revelation and dogmatic reaffirmation of Christian confessions and dogmas. As a twentieth-century theological movement, neo-orthodox theology is understood as a radical break with the heritage of nineteenth-century liberalism. Karl Barth is counted as one of the most important representatives of the neo-orthodox movement.

44. According to Barth, a dogmatic theology that understands itself as theologia viatorum must necessarily be the reflection of the church and the task of the church that engages itself concretely in its time and always for a particular time (CD I/1:281). Christian thinking and discourse must lead to its own responsibility for the present time. Thus, Barth is perplexed when both Ragaz and Tillich look upon their work as dynamic while regarding his as static for no reason (CD I/1:74–75).

45. Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 82.

46. Ibid., 82–83.

47. Ibid., 148.