Last year I was very vocal on the importance of recovering the Protestant Scholastics for today. Recently, however, many of my posts and much of my reading has seemed slightly pro-Barth. Does this mean I have rejected the Scholastics and become a Barthian? Of course not. One should never reject a foundation (and correspondingly, it is doubtful Barth could provide one). I remained convinced as ever that the lack of knowledge in Protestant scholasticism represents a gaping wound in Reformed discourse today (not least of all Reformed publishing).
Here is the problem: we live in a post-Kantian, post-Hegelian, post-Heideggerian world. We have to meet people (epistemologically) where they are. Barth can do this. Barth’s strength lies in a philosophical awareness of where modernity was heading. Barth can guide us in a philosophical critique while while we can simultaneously avoid his theology. Even N.T. Wright admits that little of Barth’s exegesis has stood the test of time, so we have nothing to fear from that front.
Therefore, for those who can take it, Barth can guide us into a philosophical critique. What I mean by that is Barth does a very good job in clarifying challenges from and to modernity. This does not mean we should endorse his theology, but neither does it mean we should hysterically over-react. We live in an age where we can not simply chant platitudes. This is most evident in my recent conversations on Orthodox Bridge. I try to get behind the discourse of “We have apostolic succession and the church fathers agree with us” and focus on actual logical arguments. In fact, when I bring up Turretin and Muller, they get very annoyed. They won’t touch these guys with a ten foot pole.