No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 January 2015
One of the most significant studies of Barth's theological ethics to have appeared in recent years is The Analogy of Grace by Professor Gerald McKenny of the University of Notre Dame. In this article review, I seek to accomplish three things. First, I will offer a concise introduction to the form, content and purpose of this book. Second, I will attend to some of the volume's core claims in greater detail, exploring areas of potential exegetical and theological divergence. And finally, by way of conclusion, I will comment on the work against the backdrop of contemporary studies of Barth's theological ethics.
1 McKenny, Gerald, The Analogy of Grace: Karl Barth's Moral Theology (Oxford: OUP, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; hereafter indicated by page number in parentheses.
2 Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, 4 vols in 13 parts, ed. Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–75)Google Scholar, the English translation of Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, 4 vols in 13 parts (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1932; Zürich: EVZ, 1938–65); hereafter indicated by KD/CD, followed by volume number, part-volume number, and respective page numbers.
3 The role of the church in theological ethics is an issue I explore – briefly – in Nimmo, Paul T., Being in Action: The Theological Shape of Barth's Ethical Vision(London and New York: Continuum, 2007), pp. 68–73Google Scholar.
4 See Nimmo, Being in Action, pp. 41–61.
5 This contention, however, does not seem to be logically necessary, as will be suggested below.
6 §38.2: KD II/2, pp. 737–91; CD II/2, pp. 661–708.
7 The simple justification that Barth gives for insisting upon the concreteness of the divine command is that this is the witness of scripture in respect of the command of God (KD II/2, p. 748; CD II/2, p. 671). It is on this basis, then, that Barth adamantly opposes ‘to the heathen statement of the emptiness and indefiniteness (Leerheit und Unbestimmtheit) of the divine command that of its fullness and definiteness (Fülle und Bestimmtheit)’ (KD II/2, p. 749; CD II/2, p. 671). The insistence on the concreteness of the divine command is reprised in Barth's rejection of casuistry in KD III/4, pp. 5–15; CD III/4, pp. 6–15.
8 A mistranslation also plagues the following paragraph: ‘the unavoidable venture . . . of understanding God's concrete specific command here and now in this particular way’ (CD III/4, p. 9) should really read ‘the venture, which is not to be avoided (nicht zu vermeidenden Wagnis)’, cf. KD III/4, p. 8, thereby also explaining why Barth writes that the final judgement on this venture rests with God (KD III/4, p. 8; CD III/4, p. 9).
9 Indeed, it is perhaps in this connection that the dialectic of veiling and unveiling – or concealment and revelation – more appropriately belongs; cf. §27.1, KD II/1, pp. 200–29; CD II/1, pp. 179–204.
10 Nimmo, Paul T., ‘Barth and the Christian as Ethical Agent: An Ontological Study of the Shape of Christian Ethics’, in Migliore, Daniel L. (ed.), Commanding Grace: Studies in Karl Barth's Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 216–38Google Scholar.
11 Some of the insights of this article review were offered in telegrammatic form in my book review of McKenny, Gerald's The Analogy of Grace: Karl Barth's Moral Theology in Journal of Theological Studies 63/2 (2012), pp. 787–9Google Scholar. An early version of this article review was delivered at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Karl Barth Society of North America in Chicago: I am grateful to Professor George Hunsinger, President of the Society, for the invitation to speak at that event.