Hey, great stuff. Let’s just underline that Barth himself wouldn’t have a bar of the ‘diffuse academic Barthianism’‘!

Michael,

I think it’s fair to say that Barth wouldn’t be happy with where a lot of academic Barthianism has gone.

However, I think he was of the view that all revelation from God had to be self-revelation, hence that our knowledge of ourselves must in some sense derive from our knowledge of who Christ is.  So I think I’d want to say that the concern I raised applies both to Barthianim and to Barth.

Tony,

You’ve raised some big issues, so this comment is going to take a bit of space by way of interaction.

It’s also going to move into areas that a possibly beyond the brief of the Sola Panel.  So I think I’m going to move my substantial answer to my poor neglected blog that I think interested parties should be able to get to by clicking on my name attached to this comment.  You or any other interested readers who are following our discussion can go there. 

For the purposes here, my short answer is yes. I think you and I basically on the same page on all the main points you raise.  In particular, I think Calvin’s insight (which I embrace) could offer a way forward on questions like pragmatism.  And I think that individuals and churches grow in the knowledge of God and themselves as they have a constant interplay between Word and world in their ministry and so speak to real people about the real God.

Thinking it through much beyond that kind of motherhood statement (mine, not yours) I think is a big project.  Because I think Tony, and maybe some other readers, might appreciate it, I’ve written up some thoughts on the blog.  But it’s long, and isn’t an essay so much as some thoughts sparked by things Tony said.