Karl Barth, arguably the most important Protestant theologian of the twentieth century, has been the subject of many books and dissertations in the past few decades. Gabriel notes in his opening chapter that studies of Barth's doctrine of creation have noticeably been lacking. This book addresses the gap.
Gabriel gives an account of Barth's doctrine of creation and stresses that for Barth, Christian affirmation of creation does not merely explain or describe the cause of the world, but also describes the character of the God who created this world. Gabriel writes, “For Barth, the doctrine of creation is not simply a statement that the world was created, but also a recognition of who the Creator is and what the relationship between this specific Creator and the creation implies” (19). Barth's dissatisfaction with natural theology is that it cannot lead a person to say that the Creator is “God the Father of Jesus Christ” (13). This failure does not mean that Barth has no use for philosophy or the natural sciences, as Gabriel demonstrates. Rather, “other sources may be considered after the doctrine has been formed” (20). Barth's prioritizing of revelation can be seen in this part of the book.
The connection between Barth's recognition of God's divine freedom in love and Barth's doctrine of creation are made clear. The author stresses that Barth maintained the freedom of God in the act of Creation. He asserts that for Barth, creation is “not an emanation of his [God's] being that he could not control, nor was creation necessary. There was nothing intrinsic, nor extrinsic, that made creation necessary” (22). Barth's recognition of God's freedom in creation is crucial because it allows Barth to recognize God's freedom to lead creation toward redemption.
Much of the discontentment with Barth's theology of nature is that it subordinates the doctrine of creation to that of redemption. Critics believe that Barth's anthropocentric theology of nature does not leave room for adequate care for creation. However, Gabriel responds to these criticisms in chapter 3 by pointing out that “‘anthropocentrism’ denotes a focus and neglect, but the neglect is not necessarily complete” (57). Gabriel writes that Barth “understands that the covenant includes God's loving and free relationship and lordship over the whole of his creation—after all, God is also God of nature—even though Barth emphasizes God's relationship with humanity” (64). Gabriel's defense of Barth's theology of nature is perceptive because it shows that Barth's theology has room for the care for creation without elevating the nature of creation beyond the biblical account.
In chapter 4, Gabriel defends Barth from accusations of modalism and concludes that those accusing Barth of modalism do so because of their preference for a social model of the Trinity. However, Gabriel critiques Barth for muting the Spirit's involvement in the act of Creation. The author is careful to point out that Barth does not exclude the Spirit from the act of Creation. Rather, he believes that Barth relegates the Spirit to a passive role in the act of Creation (77). Gabriel writes, “The Holy Spirit appears only as the foundation of the unity of the Father and Son in the work of creation” (80). Gabriel's criticisms of Barth here are not that Barth's Trinitarian thought must be overhauled, but that Barth's Trinitarian theology can be modified to recognize a more active role of the Spirit in creation.
Gabriel addresses the critics who claim that the eternal or pretemporal Jesus in chapter 5 swallows up Barth's understanding of history. The author shows that Barth's doctrine of the logos asarkos and the Incarnation does not cast the notion of history aside. Gabriel writes, “In his deliberations regarding creation and the logos asarkos Barth does not intend to suggest that the incarnation existed before creation. Indeed, Barth affirms that the incarnation only came about in history” (94). Gabriel skillfully shows that Barth's theology of election and covenant does not cast history to the side.
The book ably guides the reader through the main contours in Barth's doctrine of creation and is to be highly recommended.
