Karl Barth and Comparative Theology, edited by Martha L. Moore-Keish and Christian T. Collins Winn, makes an impressive, highly interesting, and substantial contribution to the modest field of Karl Barth and comparative theology, and to the related field of Barth and theology of religions. It joins monographs on such topics by Paul S. Chung, Hu˘b-yo˘ng Kim, John N. Sheveland, Sven Ensminger, Glenn A. Chestnutt, and Tom Greggs, and essays, articles, and chapters by others. What most differentiates this volume from its predecessors is its ambitious scope and unusual dialogical format. More specifically, the volume consists of five parts in which aspects of Karl Barth's theology are put into conversation with texts, ideas, practices, and objects from five different religious traditions: Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and African traditional religions. Each part contains two comparative chapters that are followed by a response to both, which is written by an adherent of the respective tradition or by a person highly familiar with it.

The sophistication and specificity of each chapter mean that only the broadest of details can be mentioned here. In the part on Judaism, for instance, there are considerations of the helpfulness of Barth's doctrines of Israel, of gospel and law, and of the Word for Jewish-Christian dialogue, and his understanding of revelation and history in the context of the Shoah in conversation with Emil Fackenheim, Eliezer Berkovits, and Joseph Soloveitchik. There are reflections in the part on Buddhism on Barth's theology of religions alongside Dōgen's skepticism about religious activity and nondualism of practice and enlightenment, as well as a discussion of Barth's tendency toward soteriological universalism and the figure of Amida, the use of skillful means when instructing others, salvation for those in the hell realms, and the Buddhahood of all sentient beings in Pure Land Buddhism. The chapters in the part on Islam compare Barth's understanding of revelation to that of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, particularly in his Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God and The Incoherence of the Philosophers, and Barth's account of Christ's twofold parousia of Jesus (his appearances between Easter and the ascension, his final return, and his invisible presence in the meantime) with the eschatology of Shi'ite Islam and its beliefs regarding the figure, occultation, and eventual reappearance of the Madhi. The chapters dealing with Barth and Hinduism include a discussion of the non-objectifiability of brahman in Adi Śaṅkara's reading of Kena Upaniṣad and the inalienable subjectivity of God in Barth's Church Dogmatics I/1 and an exploration of divine-human reconciliation in Barth and Vedanta Desika, especially in the latter's interpretation of Bhavagad Gita 18:66 (the Carama sloka). In the final part on Barth and African traditional religions, attention is given to similarities and dissimilarities between Barth's doctrine of Scripture and the multifaceted and highly significant ọfọ of the Igbo people and among the transcendence of the Creator, the effects of human disobedience and their remedy, and the destiny of individuals in Barth's theology and in African traditional religions more generally. The responses to these chapters that round out each part, typically and helpfully, provide a combination of reflection on comparative theology in general, remarks on the content of the chapters, and probing questions for future consideration.

In their introduction to the volume, Martha L. Moore-Keish and Christian T. Collins Winn explain that the intended purpose of this exercise was twofold: to offer to those in comparative theology the presence of a surprising and, yet hopefully, enriching conversation partner in the figure of Barth and to offer to those interested in Barth's theology new and potentially fruitful ways to engage his theology and legacy through the methods of comparative theology. As I belong primarily to the latter audience, I shall leave judgments regarding the first goal to those with more familiarity regarding the field of comparative theology. As for the second goal, I think that the volume has readily succeeded, and I am grateful to the editors and contributors for taking on such a daunting task and producing such a fascinating series of reflections.