Re: Successful/Unsuccessful, I’m not sure what the author thought. I reckon Barth’s got some good things to say, and ought to be appreciated for what he was fighting for in his day. But he’s got quite a few hairy ideas too which are a little dangerous. Remember how Mike Ovey engaged with Barth at last year’s Moore Annual lectures? He showed his strengths but also said something like: ‘Soaking up too much Barth can be bad for your health!’

I suppose it’s worth looking at the effects of the churches and/or theological institutions that have drunken deep from his theology (Princeton, Fuller… and the state of the Church of Scotland of which T.F. Torrance was the moderator).

So, my thoughts: some OK things, but many not OK things.

These expeditions do not always meet with great success, however.

A question though, how do you determine unsuccessful? It seems to me that Barth has been pretty influential and is still filtering down from the acedemic world into the pulpit. Is it slowing down?

Or are you defining success in terms of its theological validity?