From Aquinas to Barth

Some folks who know me know that I'm one of those Protestants who is always talking about Thomas Aquinas. I discovered Aquinas through G.K. Chesterton's biography of Aquinas, which made a big impact on me in a formative time in my life. While Aquinas has always loomed large for me, I've found it increasingly important, important all the more now that I'm studying at a Catholic University, to think about what's distinctive about Protestant theology as Protestant. Because of this I've started studying Karl Barth.

While there are other Protestant figures or theological perspectives I could focus on, I picked Barth because of something Bruce McCormack, a Barth scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary, said about Barth's "comprehensive theology." McCormack says that the Church Dogmatics is "comprehensive" theology because Barth works not only with scripture but also with a real Protestant notion of a "Holy Tradition." In addition, Barth thought Protestants needed a theological system, rather than occasional essays or theological bricolage, to give "rigor, breadth, and beauty" to the Church's preaching. I liked Aquinas back in my Chesterton days because Aquinas's own kind of "comprehensive theology" appealed to me as an expansive meditation on the mystery of human nature and God's graciousness in Jesus Christ. Seeing McCormack recommend Barth as a starting point for contemporary strains of Protestant "comprehensive theology" struck a chord.

McCormack goes on to say that Barth holds up in our “postmodern” philosophical context well, that he does theology in a state of intellectual and personal surrender to God, and - perhaps most interesting for me as a Baptist - that he writes theology with the local congregation more than the large ecclesial body in mind.