Reading Karl Barth is difficult to categorise. It is neither an introduction, nor an in-depth analysis, nor an attempt to correlate Barth's thought to current theological or philosophical schools. Nevertheless, the book is appropriately titled in that Richardson seeks to provide a ‘reading’ of Barth's theology via important, often North American, representatives of Barth scholarship in the past quarter-century. Richardson contends that ‘Barth should be read not in terms of systematic uniformity but always as a developing theologian’ (p. 37). He appeals for a ‘back-to-front’ reading of the Church Dogmatics such that IV/4 is made ‘essential to comprehending [Barth's] entire enterprise’ (p. 17).

Richardson skilfully weaves threads of current Barth scholarship throughout the book. For example, Richardson interacts extensively with Graham Ward's post-modern assessment of Barth, even though he ultimately finds it wanting. He especially seeks to bring the work of Eberhard Jüngel and John Webster into sharper focus for North American students of Barth. However, more attention to Bruce McCormack's genetic studies of Barth would have been welcome.

One of the more controversial aspects of Richardson's ‘back-to-front’ reading will be his defence of Barth's doctrine of baptism espoused in CD IV/4. While the last penned volume of the CD is often viewed with suspicion from within Reformed circles, Richardson argues that those who reject Barth on baptism have failed ‘to grasp fully the progressively reforming intent on Barth's part’. Richardson thus argues that scholarly ‘commitment to coherency and consistency can obscure Barth's keen reforming interest as a never-ending task placed on the theologian by the Word of God and the Spirit of God’ (p. 197).

The core of Richardson's own reading of Barth's development is that the basic structure of the divine–human relationship comes to fruition in CD IV in the formula ‘Extra nos – pro nobis – in nobis’ (outside us – for us – in us). There ‘Barth's discussion of God's election gives way to dealing with the command of God.’ Consequently, Barth gradually lets go of an earlier emphasis on ‘participation in God’ in favour of gracious ‘correspondence to God’ in human obedience. This is Barth's way of ensuring that the church is not viewed as a ‘new incarnational form of Christ’. Barth's late emphasis on believers’ baptism is thus entirely consistent with this developmental shift and Richardson marshals the oft ignored view of Jüngel (who tends to view Barth as being right on baptism) as major support.

Overall, the book is a welcome addition to the swelling Barth literature. Richardson's discussion of Barth's doctrine of baptism will likely spark important debate between those who identify internal coherency in Barth's work over against those who are ready to admit to internal shifts and changes in his thinking.