1. In relation to mystery, it’s important to notice that Barth does not view “mystery” as synonymous with “unknowability” or “incomprehensibility.” It’s easy to get this confused, but Barth has a very paradoxical position. He says that God is fully and utterly revealed precisely as a mystery. The self-communicating light of God is not faint and hard to see; rather it is too bright and too overwhelming. And this isn’t a light that produces some vague sense of awe and wonder, but is instead a light that produces a “firm and certain knowledge” (Calvin). Barth thinks that God gave us a full and complete revelation of who God is. Barth would have no patience with the postmodern emphasis on apophaticism or negative theology (the notion that we can only say what God is not). I actually think the emerging church emphasis on mystery is closer to people like Rudolf Otto and Schleiermacher, not Barth. This isn’t a bad thing (I happen to think Barth gave Schleiermacher a bad rap that wasn’t really deserved), but it’s worth pointing out.

2. The idea about applying the motif of particularism to leadership is interesting, but Barth would have a problem with the set-up from the beginning. That is, he wouldn’t recognize the problem of a pastor imposing his (or her) own vision upon the congregation, since that is not a possibility within his Swiss Reformed tradition. The pastor does not impose an individual vision for the community; rather, the vision comes to us from the Reformed tradition itself — and in their perspective, this tradition comes from Scripture. So while it might be a worthwhile idea for American evangelical/emergent communities, it’s not an idea that Barth would understand because the problem is so foreign to him. The whole notion of independent free churches would be problematic.

3. Finally, I think we have to be cognizant of the major critique that I believe Barth would level against the emerging church. Specifically, he would firmly reject their emphasis on being “relevant.” I have written about this elsewhere in much more depth, so I will simply summarize by saying this: I think Barth would see in the emerging church an unsettling reminder (however faint) of the presuppositions that were operative in the German church that capitulated to Hitler. I’m not saying that the emerging church would ever actually capitulate, only that the relation between church and culture that we see in the emerging church is something that Barth would have rejected. To put the point differently, I think there is something actually anti-missional about the ecclesiology of some of the key emerging church representatives.

In any case, thanks for this post. I really appreciate Franke and the work he’s doing (not to mention you and your own work!), and while I’m doubtful about some of the connections being made with postmodernity, I want to encourage any attempt to make Barth speak to a new generation.