Today is the fourteenth anniversary of the September 11th 2001 attacks. I remember studying in the Media Union on the University of Michigan's North Campus in Ann Arbor when it happened. There was a network outage in the computer lab, and I remember that the news websites would not load. I went down to the lower lobby where people were crowding around the televisions and that was when I first saw the images of the planes flying into the World Trade Center towers. I remember watching those horrifying events but unable to understand why or how this could happen.
Jürgen Moltmann labels the events of September 11th as "apocalyptic terrorism" in his book In the End, the Beginning: The Life of Hope, and these events were beyond the comprehension of so many people because they were apocalyptic, and not rational. In remembrance of the suicidal mass murders on September 11th, I've provided the following quotation to help understand these events that were beyond comprehension:
The scenario of the crime committed on 11 September 2001 in the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington was beyond the comprehension of so many people because the script it followed was apocalyptic, not rational. If we look at it again: there the World Trade Center, symbol of the globalized progress of the modern world, and the Pentagon, the symbol of America, the superpower—here in the kidnapped aircraft the anonymous mass murderers, executing, as they believed, the judgment of a supernatural power. Rational purposes and goals behind the assassinations cannot be discerned. The voices of Bin Laden and Mullah Omar talk about retribution for the humiliations suffered by Islam, about God's vengeance on unbelievers, and about the destruction of America. Have religious energies turned criminal here?
Ever since 11 September 2001 we have been confronted with a new quality in this active apocalyptic terrorism. A man or woman becomes an assassin for money or out of conviction, but a suicidal mass murderer becomes so only out of conviction. The Islamist terrorists evidently feel themselves to be martyrs for their faith, and are highly reverenced by the like-minded. For what conviction do they murder? For decades, fanatical masses on the streets of the Middle East have denounced the United States as 'the great Satan', and the Western world has been condemned as the corrupt 'world of unbelievers'. Materialism, pornography, the break-up of the family, and the liberation of women are only some of the accusations. Out of ignorance or self-complacency people in the West failed to take this seriously; it was ridiculed as crude and half-baked. But 'the great Satan' is nothing other than the apocalyptic 'enemy of God'. Anyone who weakens him and humiliates him is on God's side, and earns paradise. The idée fixe of fighting together with God in the final struggle against the godless evidently does away with every normal human inhibition about killing, heightens the ecstasy of power, and transforms suicide into an act of worship. The suicidal mass murderers of New York and Washington will have felt themselves to be as God, who in the end annihilates the godless. If they feel that they are divine executioners, they do not need a rational justification for the mass murder. The meaning of terrorism is—terror. The meaning of murder is death. After that nothing more is to follow.
No Jewish or Christian apocalyptist believed that such a destruction of other people and oneself would be followed by a new beginning, a reconstruction, or even a redemption.
Moltmann, Jürgen. In the End, the Beginning: The Life of Hope. Trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004. 50-51. Print.
Header Image Source: "September 11th Tribute in Light from Bayonne, New Jersey" by Anthony Quintano - https://www.flickr.com/photos/quintanomedia/15071865580. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Commons.
What is Man? Karl Barth solves this enigmatic anthropological question with one word: Jesus! Barth fleshes out his anthropology throughout The Church Dogmatics, Vol. 3.2, Sections 45-46: The Doctrine of Creation (CD III/2), beginning with Jesus, Man for Other Men in "§45 Man in His Determination as the Covenant-Partner of God" where Barth declares the victory of the Crucified One over the Dionysus of Nietzsche's Man in Freedom. Barth shifts from the truest expression of anthropology in Jesus Christ to the anthropology of us all in following section: "§46 Man as Soul and Body" where Barth defines our anthropology by the famous phrase "Soul of my Body" as exemplified in the header to this section:
Through the Spirit of God, man is the subject, form and life of a substantial organism, the soul of his body—wholly and simultaneously both, in ineffaceable difference, inseparable unity, and indestructible order.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics III.2 The Doctrine of Creation. Trans. G. W. Bromiley, J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, Harold Knight, J.K.S. Reid, R.H. Fuller, R.J. Ehrlich, A.T. Mackey, T.H.L. Parker, H.A. Kennedy, J. Marks. Vol. 15. London: T & T Clark, 2009. 119. Print. Study Edition. 
Soul of My Body
In this phrase, "Soul of My Body", Barth affirms the dichotomy vernacular of ancient orthodoxy by defining Man in two parts: Body and Soul. Barth's dichotomy of "Soul of My Body" reinforces the inseparability of these two parts as exemplified in the header to §46 Man as Soul and Body where this phrase, Soul of My Body, is terminologically reminiscent of the Chalcedon Christological formulation of the two natures of Jesus as "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably." However, Barth's affirmation of dichotomy is a "yes, but..." because Barth affirms trichotomist, dichotomist and monistic anthropologies and yet denies them all as he strikes out into his own definition in his "Soul of My Body" anthropology.
For a concise summary of Barth's anthropology, the follow quotation from the conclusion of §46 Man as Soul and Body is clarifying:
Our interpretation of those phenomena, formulated as briefly as possible in four propositions would be as follows.
- The soul does not act on the body, but the one man acts. And he does it in that as soul he animates himself and is acting subject, but always as soul is soul of his body, animated by himself, determined and enabled to act, and engaged in action.
- Again, the soul does not suffer from the body, but the one man suffers. And this takes place in that as soul (namely, as acting subject) he is fundamentally exposed and susceptible to such hindrances and injuries, but as soul of his body must actually experience them.
- Again, the body does not act on the soul, but the one man acts. He acts in that as body he is animated by himself, determined and enabled to act, and engaged in action, but as body of his soul, animating himself and acting subject.
- And again, the body does not suffer from the soul, but the one man suffers. When this takes place, it means that as body he really experiences such hindrances and injuries, but that as body of his soul he must really make them his own.
The one whole man is thus one who both acts through himself and suffers in himself, but always in such a way that he is first soul (ruling, in the subject) and then body (serving, in the object)--always in this inner order, rationally and logically of his whole nature.
Ibid. 223-4. [432-3]
Monism: Embodied Soul and Besouled Body
The positive Monistic elements of Barth's anthropology is in his identification of the man Jesus of Nazareth as our true anthropology, and in the inseperability of the Soul and Body of every person. Barth describes the indivisible unity of Man's two parts by this in the dialectical phrase: "embodied soul and besouled body" as exemplified in the following quote:
The Jesus of the New Testament is supremely true man in the very fact that He does not conform to the later definition, and far from existing as the union of two parts of two "substances," He is one whole man, embodied soul and besouled body: the one in the other and never merely beside it; the one never without the other but only with it, and in it present, active and significant; the one with all its attributes always to be taken as seriously as the other. As this one whole man, and therefore as true man, the Jesus of the New Testament is born and lives and suffers and dies and is raised again.
Ibid. 121 
Dichotomy: The Spirit that unifies Soul and Body
Karl Barth identifies the spirit with the Spirit of God. The Spirit is not another part of man. Man exists in a dichotomy of two parts: Body and Soul, and the Spirit of God is what brings to life the Soul of My Body. Man exists because he has Spirit. Barth explains the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Man's Soul of His Body as follows:
Our statement that man is wholly and at the same time both soul and body presupposes the first statement that man is as he has Spirit. We said in our second sub-section [46.2] that it is the Spirit, i.e., the immediate action of God Himself, which grounds, constitutes and maintains man as soul of his body. It is thus the Spirit that unifies him and holds him together as soul and body. If we abstract from the Spirit and therefore from the act of the living Creator, we necessarily abstract between soul and body. If we consider man for himself, i.e., without considering that he is only as God is for him, he is seen as a puzzling duality, his mortal body on the one side and his immortal soul on the other, a totality composed of two parts inadequately glued together, of two obviously different and conflicting substances. And however much we then try to persuade ourselves that this duality is the one man, we stand in the midst of Greek and every other form of heathenism, which sees neither the real God nor real man, and cannot do so, because knowledge of the Spirit is needed for this purpose and this is incompatible with heathenism. Our only relief will then be found in the see-saw movement between ideas and appearance, thinking and speculation and so on, which pervades the history of philosophy in every age.
Ibid. 186. 
The Spirit is Identical With God, Not A Part of Man
The Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and it is the Spirit that makes creation alive, as it is so panentheistically expressed in Acts 17:28: in Him we live and move and have our being. Barth differentiates himself from Pantheism because he does not believe that Creation is in God, but it is the Spirit that is in Creation and brings it into being. It is the movement of the Creator Spiritus towards Creation that makes all things alive, and there is no life or suffering that exists apart from the animation of the Spirit as the next quotation explains:
We thus understand the statement that man has spirit and is thereby man as equivalent in content to our first statement, that he is man, and therefore soul of his body, not without God but by God, i.e., by the ever new act of God. Spirit is, in the most general sense, the operation of God upon His creation, and especially the movement of God towards man. Spirit is thus the principle of man's relation to God, of man's fellowship with Him. This relation and fellowship cannot proceed from man himself, for God is his Creator and he His creature. He himself cannot be its principle. . . . This is what is meant when Scripture says of man that he has spirit or the Spirit, or that he has done this or that in the Spirit or through the Spirit, or has said or done or suffered from the Spirit. This never signifies a capacity or ability of his own nature, but always one originally foreign to his nature which has come to it from God and has thus been specially imparted to it in a special movement of God towards him. . . . The Spirit, in so far as He not only comes but proceeds from God Himself, is identical with God.
Ibid. 149 [355-6]
Barth includes a fascinating discussion about how evil spirits are not excluded from what is given to man from the Spirit:
God remains free to give, to take, and to give again. He shows Himself free in the fact that He can also give an evil spirit to man--this too is a kind of commission imposed on the man concerned--as again with Saul (1 Sam 16:14f) and in 2 King 19:7 with the king of Assur; and it can again happen (1 Sam 16:23) that this evil spirit too can depart from him. Even the "lying spirit in the mouth of all false prophets" is, as we are told in the remarkable passage in 1 King 22:21f, one of the spirits that surround the throne of Yahweh, and it is called and empowered by Yahweh Himself for the infatuation of Ahab. There are other passages (Isa 4:4,40:7;Job 4:9) where the Spirit is the burning blast of divine judgment, a power of destruction and extermination. Hence we cannot be surprised to hear in Job 20:3 of a spirit "without insight" (Zurich Bible), in Isa 29:24 of an "erring spirit," in Zech 13:2 of an "unclean spirit"; and even in the New Testament of a "spirit of bondage" (Rom 8:15), of "another spirit" which presents another Jesus and another gospel (2 Cor 11:4); and further, with a frequency which cannot be disregarded, of evil spirits, unclean spirits and spirits that cause sickness, with all the work of these spirits in and upon men. If God condemns a man and through him other men, He can give him such a spirit.
Ibid. 151. [357-8]
In the previous section, Barth's Anthropology is nearest to the traditional Dichotomists, because he believes that man is constituted in two parts: Body and Soul. Barth does not believe that the spirit is a third part of man, because he identifies the spirit with the Spirit of God. The Creator Spiritus movement towards man is the basis of his life as he exists in his "Soul of My Body."
1 Thess 5:21 is the locus classicus for trichotomy because it contains the phrase "spirit and soul and body" suggesting Man exists in three parts. Barth has an excellent comment on this verse so often used to justify trichotomy by Greek apologists:
The only biblical passage which can be regarded as ambiguous in this regard is 1 Thess 5:23 . . . Scripture never says "soul" where only "spirit" can be meant. But it often says "spirit" where "soul" is meant; and there is inner reason for this in the fact that the constitution of man as soul and body cannot be fully and exactly described without thinking first and foremost of the spirit as its proper basis. We are nowhere invited to think of these three entities. Even Augustine, when he once gave the almost intolerably harsh formulation: there are three things which define a human being: spirit, soul and body, immediately corrected himself: these may, on the other hand, be called two, since often the soul is named together with the spirit. Trichotomism must necessarily issue in the view and concept of two different souls and therefore in a splitting of man's being. This makes understandable the force with which it was condemned at the Fourth Council of Constantinople in A.D. 869-70.
Ibid. 148-9 
Barth is famous for his relentless rejection of Natural Revelation and "non-theological" Anthropology is no exception. Man is unable to know thyself apart from the Word of God and any such non-theological anthropology is a dangerous foe of Christian anthropology. Barth believes the results of non-theological anthropology are hypothetical and non-essential, yet he does not prohibit all non-theological anthropological investigations. Wolfhart Pannenberg's Anthropology in Theological Perspective may be an example of a scientific and theological book on anthropology that meets Barth's qualifications for a scientific and yet theological anthropology. Barth believes that non-theological anthropology collapses in atheistic dogma as the following quotation exemplifies:
It is clear that we must here depart from the way taken by the anthropology which sets itself the aim of understanding man without God. It is of the essence of every non-theological anthropology to set itself some such aim. Of course, it is not essential that this aim be set absolutely and so be intended in the sense of atheistic dogma. It can be intended only hypothetically.
Ibid. 139 [346-7]
To summarize, Karl Barth's anthropology may be identified as Jesus Christ in particular, and as "Soul of My Body" in general. Man exists in two parts: Soul and Body. These two parts are inseparably unified by his phrase, "Soul of My Body". The spirit is not a third part of man, but is identified with the Spirit of God, and it is through the Spirit's free movement towards Man and through Man that Man is brought to life by the operation of God by his Spirit in Creation. Man does not pantheistically exist in God, but there is no life apart from through the Spirit.
Header Background Image: "Illustrations to Robert Blair's The Grave: The Soul Hovering over the Body" by William Blake - http://www.blakearchive.org/exist/blake/archive/work.xq?workid=bb435&java=no. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
The Ethics of Hope is a reoccurring theme at the PostBarthian, and this includes hope for all, not only all people, but all non-human Creation as well, such that nothing is lost in the end when Christ Jesus is all in all (1 Cor 15:28). What is it that separates Man from the Beasts such that only Humans may hear God's Yes and what prevents animals from hearing God's Yes as well? Anthropologists continually erode the wall of separation between humans and the higher primates, such that Bruce McCormmack says those who define the imago dei by how we are different from them are playing a dangerous game.
Karl Barth disagrees. Barth's Anthropology is developed in his Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, Vol. III/2 (CD III/2) in section §46 Man as Soul and Body wherein he pronounces a No to all materialistic Anthropology. It is no surprise that Barth would say No to non-biblical Anthropology, and consider it as atheistic materialism, considering his famous Nein to Natural Revelation. Remember that famous statement by Barth in the preface to Church Dogmatics, Vol. I/1 where the analogia entis is called the "invention of the Antichrist." However strong Barth's opposition may be to Natural Revelation, his no to the higher primates may include a hidden Yes.
The following two quotations from CD III/2 address this question of whether there is a hidden Yes to the higher primates that also opens the door to hope for all (and not for humans only but the entire Cosmos!) Barth concludes that no matter how similar Man and Beast may be, it is Mankind alone that is baptized, and elsewhere Barth has made the persuasive argument that it is Mankind alone of all the animal kingdom in which the incarnation of Jesus appeared.
It is only by the Spirit of God the Creator that they [beasts] also live and are soul of their body. What distinguishes man from beast is the special movement and purpose with which God through the Spirit gives him life; and, connected with this, the special spirituality of his life, which is determined by the fact that God has not only made him in his constitution as soul of his body, but destined him in this constitution for that position of a partner of the grace of His covenant. We know nothing of such a double determination in respect of the beasts; and hence we do not understand the manner of their life or of their souls (though we cannot dispute that they have them) and at very best can only intuit. So far as we know, they lack that second determination by the Spirit which is primary and peculiar. Men and beasts can be born, but men alone can be baptized. Yet in the relation Spirit-life and therefore Spirit-life-body as such, there is no difference between men and beasts. However true this may be, the bible also names beasts among living beings, even before Adam comes into being, the animals are already living beings in Genesis.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics III.2 The Doctrine of Creation. Trans. G. W. Bromiley, J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, Harold Knight, J.K.S. Reid, R.H. Fuller, R.J. Ehrlich, A.T. Mackey, T.H.L. Parker, H.A. Kennedy, J. Marks. Vol. 15. London: T & T Clark, 2009. 152-3. Print. Study Edition. 
And the second quotation is:
It should not be overlooked that it is on the basis of God's free operation that man has Spirit and therefore breathes and lives and may be soul of his body; and further that it is under the judgment of God that, as matters stand, he is placed in his creaturely constitution. This is proclaimed in a fact already mentioned, that he has his breath and life, as well as the Spirit, in common with the beasts. For example, Gen 1:20,25, calls beasts "living beings" before men; and Gen 7:15 calls them expressly "flesh having the breath of life in them." According to the Old Testament, neither soul nor the Spirit can be simply denied to the beasts. To be sure, their creation is not described as an act of special bestowal such as that which takes place in man according to Gen 2:7. Yet even so the creative Spirit which awakens man to life is also the life-principle of beasts (and even of the whole host of heaven according to Ps 33:6). Ecc 3:19ff develops this insight in a shattering way: "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth the beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Yes; who knows? Man has no right to find in his own favour in this respect. All that he can really know and expect of himself is that his breath and life, like that of the beasts, will end as it began, and that like the beasts he must die.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics III.2 The Doctrine of Creation. Trans. G. W. Bromiley, J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, Harold Knight, J.K.S. Reid, R.H. Fuller, R.J. Ehrlich, A.T. Mackey, T.H.L. Parker, H.A. Kennedy, J. Marks. Vol. 15. London: T & T Clark, 2009. 154-5. Print. Study Edition. [361-2]
Even if Barth does not share our Hope for all, we have Jürgen Moltmann on our side.
What is the difference between a Heretic and an Apostate? And how does one become an Apostate? Karl Rahner S.J. answers these questions in his provocative essay What is Heresy? printed in his Theological Investigations, Volume V: Later Writings. Rahner defines the formal difference between heresy and apostasy this way: "Heresy is only possible among brothers in the Spirit". (p.470) and this means that only Christians may become Heretics and therefore it is wrong to call anyone a heretic who has never been a part of the Christian Faith. So calling someone a Heretic is a backhanded and ironic way of calling them a Christian! But what separates a Heretic from an Apostate? Rahner's answer may surprise you!
Rahner says that denying Christian propositions is not enough to become an Apostate! This is an alarming statement to many Evangelicals who are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them a heretic, even on inconsequential issues. Rahner in the following quotation explains that it is not enough to merely deny a proposition to become an apostate, but one must completely leave all Christian environments to truly become an apostate. If a person denies Christian propositions, but is willing to continue to living under the moral reality of those Christian propositions, have they truly denied Christianity? Rahner says in a way, these people who deny Christianity are Heretics, not Apostates! Rahner will go so far to say in the essay (not quoted below) that Christians are expected to have intentional and unintentional heretical beliefs: in other words, we all have heretical beliefs no matter how hard we try to purge them! Rahner says that we are all pluralists because the idea of acquiring universal knowledge ended in the 19th century and we must all assimilate conflicting knowledge. Ironically, these same Evangelicals that might be offended by Rahner's position are also the quickest to deny that a professing Christian is truly a brother or sister in Christ because they do not hold the exact belief sets, or if a Christian holds one belief that is deplorable to another Christian. By denying that a person is what they say they are, one only proves that a person may remain a Christian while denying Christian propositions!
Rahner's answer brings into question the possibility of Apostasy entirely, because at this point in history and with the globalization of Christianity, it is arguably impossible to completely free oneself from Christianity's influence on the world. Is it possible to live without the benefits of Christianity today? In the following quotation, the answer is not explicit, but unavoidable conclusion that if apostasy is a possibility today, in the near future the possibility of apostasy may vanish from the Earth, since all non-Christians live in some way or another as an Anonymous Christian.
If this is remembered, then it will become clear that one of the differences between heresy and apostasy—a difference which is perhaps still quite important in practice but which theologically speaking is not an essential one—consists in whether a person accepts certain (specifically Christian) propositions by an in itself purely human conviction, or whether these propositions are present for him only as a co-determining factors of the spiritual situation in which he inevitably finds himself. Where, when and as long as someone lives unavoidably in an environment which in a thousand ways (even though perhaps quite anonymously and unsystematically) is co-formed by Christianity and by the reality manifesting itself in the (rejected or still accepted) Christian propositions of faith, such a person has always still a chance of coming perhaps quite unconsciously into contact with this reality and of (perhaps quite unsystematically) becoming a Christian. This process is not essentially different in the theological sense from one in which someone takes hold of the full nature of faith and of the reality of salvation by surrendering himself to the inner dynamism of certain Christian propositions to which he had previously adhered in a merely human formation of opinion. In the one case he surrenders himself to the force of the propositions of his environment—to the external, 'public' opinion—and in the other case, to the force of the propositions of his inner, private opinion.
Hence, only where the defection can take place in such a way that the person who defects leaves the historical environment of Christianity altogether—and no longer (as far as the historical dimension is concerned) has to be in a dialogue of 'yes' or 'no' with Christianity—only then would there be a pure apostasy. Whether there can be such a case in those cultures which were at one time Christian, is a question of fact and of basic principles of theology; moreover, it is inevitably perhaps a question which today is already outdated by events. For if there is today anything like a unified planetary civilization, i.e. if today the elements and structures of every culture with their history have become—even though up till now still in different degrees of intensity—co-determining factors of this unified planetary civilization and thus of all individual cultures of the world, and if Christianity continues to exist in the world at all, then no one at all in the world today (although of course, in different but on the whole growing degrees) can withdraw himself from the outset from the dialogue with Christianity (no matter what may be the outcome). To this extent, therefore, no one can any longer live in a purely withdrawn, apo-static relationship to Christianity, but is forced to contradict it by explicitly separating himself from it by heresy. In a theological understanding, everything non-Christian and all non-Christians are somehow moving into a permanent and unavoidable role of explicit opposition towards Christianity and thus precisely of being oriented towards it. For gradually Christianity is coming to belong everywhere in the world to the roots of that (universal) history in which one still remains rooted even while in opposition. Seen in this life, we are completely justified in preferring to call the present-date world—terminologically—heretical rather than apostatical.
Rahner S.J., Karl. "What Is Heresy?" Theological Investigations, Volume V.: Later Writings. Trans. K. H. Kruger. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966. 486-87. Print.
Header Image Source: "Verscheiden wijzen van pijnigen bij de inquisitie gebruikelijk" by Unknown - Scanned from original. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
Are gender roles a permanent fact of creation? Is there a Natural Theology of Gender? And therefore man has a unique leadership role in the Church? David Congdon, author of The Mission of Demythologizing: Rudolf Bultmann's Dialectical Theology answers a decisive "No" to all these questions. In the following quotation, Congdon reveals the danger of elevating any cultural-historical judgement or norm to a first order dogma, and includes a somber warning to those who do:
Indeed, if mythology is defined as the assumption that a certain configuration of cultural-historical judgements and norms is divinely authorized, then Brent Hege is surely right to point out that the parallel between the debate over the Aryan paragraph in the 1930s and the current debate over LGBTQ inclusion within the church. In both cases a particular understanding of a cultural-biological factor—race and ethnicity on the one hand (e.g., the German Volkstum), gender and sexuality on the other (e.g., heterosexuality)—is elevated to the position of a divinely mandated norm, one that has universal validity. Numerous other forms of contemporary constantinianism are readily apparent. At least among Protestant evangelicals, the debate over gender equality and the inclusion of women in ecclesial leadership has revolved around the question of whether there are timeless creational laws or norms.
Congdon, David W. The Mission of Demythologizing: Rudolf Bultmann's Dialectical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. 684. Print.
In the footnote to this quotation, Congdon responds to the icon of complementarianism, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, with the following criticism:
John Piper thus declares: "When the Bible teaches that men and women fulfill different roles in relation to each other, charging man with a unique leadership role, it bases this differentiation not on temporary cultural norms but on permanent facts of creation." See John Piper and Wayne A. Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991; reprint 2006), 35; emphasis added. Piper here advocates what we might call a "natural theology of gender," or to use Bultmann's terminology, a "gender mythology." Piper's claim that certain features of culture are actually permanent elements of creation itself is reminiscent of Thielicke's claim that certain mythical concepts are timelessly valid as the "crib" within which God chose to dwell in the incarnation. Piper seeks to objectify a certain gender hierarchy by finding an acultural zone free from contingencies of history. Such a zone does not exist, however, and what he calls "permanent facts of creation" is simply the constantinian essentialization of particular cultural norms under the fabricated guise of a doctrine of creation. Something analogous take place among the "new natural law" theorists who use appeals to an acultural and timeless "nature" as a way of stabilizing and objectifying certain moral precepts. All this is merely an attempt to justify one's own cultural assumptions—that is, to engage in an act of self-justification according to the law rather than the gospel—by securing a certain understanding of the kerygma. In other words, the contemporary culture wars are simply "hermeneutical wars," and as hermeneutical wars they are in fact "missiological wars." What is finally at stake in these culture wars is the question whether the church is truly and without reserve a missionary church.
Header Image Source: "Lucas Cranach the Elder - Adam und Eva im Paradies (Sündenfall) - Google Art Project" by Lucas Cranach the Elder - Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
The results from my "What's your favorite volume of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics?" are in!
The winner is a tie between The Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God, Vol. II/2 (CD II/2) and The Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Vol. IV/1 (CD IV/1). I'm not surprised that these two volumes would be neck and neck and that each would receive double the votes of the nearest runners up. CD II/2 contains Karl Barth's Doctrine of Election that reconfigures the Horrible Decree of John Calvin's Double Predestination. Many may argue that CD II/2 is the high point of the Church Dogmatics, especially since that Karl Barth described the Doctrine of Election as the Gospel. And CD IV/1 is the fountain head of the fourth volume of the Church Dogmatics, and almost a Dogmatics within the Dogmatics. CD IV/1 contain Barth's introduction to the Doctrine of Reconciliation, including Justification.
Third and fourth place were also a tie between The Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Vol. I/2 (CD I/2) and The Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Vol. 1/1 (CD I/1). Many people expressed surprised that CD I/2 would occupy the third place, and eclipse both CD III/2 and CD II/1. My guess is that it was chosen because it answers questions faced by American Evangelicals today such as Religion vs Jesus, and Inerrancy of Scripture. CD I/2 contains Barth's famous paragraph 17, titled: "The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religion" and paragraphs 19-21 contains Barth's Doctrine of Scripture.
I also was surprised to see sneak Karl Barth's The Church Dogmatics: The Christian Life, Vol. IV/4 (CD IV/4L) sneak into sixth place! These posthumously published lecture fragments by Karl Barth, were not included in CD IV/4 because Karl Barth has abandoned The Church Dogmatics before publishing them. There was a single vote for the officially published Church Dogmatics Vol. IV/4 fragment, but I'm guessing this was a mistaken vote for CD IV/4L.
Thank you everyone who participated in the poll! Voting ended with a total of eighty votes, but I will leave the poll open, if anyone still desires to add their vote. If you would like to purchase Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, the best price for the complete set is usually at christianbook.com
Image Source: "Karl Barth Church Dogmatics" by ThinkingLeaders - Own work http://www.thinkingleaders.com/resources/leadership-philosophy-2/karl-barth. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
An interesting chart drafted by B. B. Warfield unwittingly reveals so much of an outlier rationalistic Calvinism has been within the context of World Christianity. See Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, 30.)
Hunsinger, George. Reading Barth with Charity: A Hermeneutical Proposal. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Xiv-Xv. Print.
B. B. Warfield devised this famous "Orders of Decree" chart in his small book, The Plan of Salvation. Warfield's endorses only the "Consistently Particularistic" plans for salvation that include the Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism swim lanes in the chart. Warfield believes all the Reformed Creeds are more-or-less Infralapsarian, but Supralapsarian is not explicitly excluded as an orthodox option by these numerous sixteenth and seventeenth century Reformed Creeds. Warfield places the "Consistently Particularistic" columns in juxtaposition to all other forms of Calvinism and Christianity listed in the swim lanes (with those increasing in heterodoxy to the right). Amyraldism (or as Warfield calls it, "Hypothetical Universalism") is listed within the "Particularistic" parent swim lane, however, Warfield discretely dismissed Amyrauldism as an "a logically inconsistent form of Calvinism and therefore an unstable form of Calvinism."
What is Rationalistic Calvinism, and how does it differ from non-Rationalistic Calvinism (i.e. Evangelistic Calvinism)? B. B. Warfield is only a footnote to this question, that Hunsinger aims to answer in Reading Barth With Charity. Although Hunsinger is not directly addressing Warfield (or his chart) in the following quotations, these quotations explain the difference between Rationalistic Calvinism and Evangelical Calvinism.
Hunsinger uses T. F. Torrance's definition of Evangelical Calvinism:
Evangelical Calvinism, as explained by [Thomas F.] Torrance . . . was more biblical and less scholastic. It retained a more open-textured structure as opposed to a fast for sharp distinctions and scholastic rigor. It believed that theological statements pointed away from themselves to the truth about God, which by its nature could not be contained in finite forms of speech and thought, but also that without theological statements, such truth could not be mediated. It judged, according to Torrance, that the filial was prior to the legal, that the personal was prior to the propositional, that the indicative took precedence over the deductive, and that spiritual insight placed constraints on logical reasoning.
Again, Hunsinger uses T. F. Torrance's to define Rationalistic Calvinism:
The priorities of rationalistic Calvinism were more or less the reverse. Rationalistic Calvinism, for Torrance, was associated with Theodore Beza, the Westminster standards (1646-48), and the Synod of Dordt (1618-19). It was known for such extreme outcomes as limited atonement, a debate between "supralapsarianism" and "infralapsarianism," and a legalistic construal of "covenant" that tended towards synergism. These unfortunate ideas reflected a certain mode of reasoning. The legal was prior to the filial, the deductive to the inductive, and the propositional to the personal. There was a general tendency to draw logical conclusions from abstract propositions and to arrange the results in water-tight systems. As Torrance saw it, this type of Calvinism predominated from roughly 1650 to 1950 in the Anglo-Saxon world, especially in Scotland and the United States.
And in this last quotation, Hunsinger compares and contrasts Evangelical Calvinists to Rationalistic Calvinists:
Hilary of Poiters . . . might read, "It is not the concepts that dictate the subject matter, but the subject matter that dictate the concepts."
Rationalistic Calvinism tended to reason from the concepts to the subject matter. It argued that certain beliefs must be true because they followed logically from certain abstract propositions. In that sense the subject matter was dictated by the concepts.
Evangelical Calvinism, on the other hand, tended to do the opposite by reasoning from the subject matter to the concepts. It refrained from what it regarded as a false application of logical rigor because of constraints imposed by the subject matter, even if they had to be left in tension.
Rationalistic Calvinists, for example, argued rigorously from double predestination to limited atonement, whereas at least some Evangelical Calvinists resisted those conclusions. Instead they gave priority to scriptural affirmations that Christ died for all, even though they could not resolve all the remaining perplexities. The difference between the two forms of Calvinism was to a significant degree, the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.
Header Image Source:
Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Plan of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., 1966. 31. Print.
Jesus Christ is the Savior of the Whole World (1 John 2:2), but what is the Maximum Inclusion of this statement? Does this include all people, as well as animals, plants and rocks? I provided John Calvin's answer in Part One, and Karl Barth's in Part Two, and now, Jürgen Moltmann in Part Three. Moltmann provides the most inclusive and expansive definition of "Maximum Inclusion" of these three Reformed Theologians. Moltmann speaks the clearest and loudest YES to all humanity, as well to animals, plants, rocks and all Creation!
During the Q&A following Moltmann's lecture at the 2015 Barth Conference, I was able to ask him this question: "Will Non-Human Creation will be saved the same way as non-Human Creation?" He answered: "Look at 1 Corinthians 15:43-48. Where the resurrection embraces animals and flowers and all Creation. Nothing will get lost in the new Creation. So everything will be coming back." Moltmann's answer referred me to 1 Corinthians 15:35–50, which is arguably the most important passage on the Resurrection in the bible, and there in are directly mentioned seeds, animals, birds, fish, the sun, the moon, stars, terrestrial bodies and celestial bodies are all explicitly mentioned. Rather than speculate on the meaning of Moltmann's answer based on this scripture alone, I've assembled the follow quotations from Moltmann's books where I believe he repeats this same answer of hope for the Whole World that includes all humanity, as well as, animals, plants and rocks.
In this first quotation from The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, Moltmann explains that our hope is not to escape from this world, but to be redeemed with the world. The Resurrection will not be an Gnostic escapism, but the resurrection of the flesh, which is made of the dust of the earth, so that in the resurrection of the bodies, the world will be included in it and we will not be cut off from the world:
The conflict between 'spirit' and 'flesh' in human beings is simply the anthropological spearhead of the universal apocalyptic, which says that 'this world is passing away' because the new creation of everything has already begun with Christ's resurrection from the dead. This means that we shall be redeemed with the world, not from it. Christian experience of the Spirit does not cut us off from the world. The more we hope for the world, the deeper our solidarity with its sighing and suffering.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation. Trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. 89. Print.
Bruce McCormack once said, "those who study the higher forms of primate life are eroding those differences left, right and center. And I think, one of the things we may learn from that, is that the Imago Dei is a doctrine about what makes us like god, not what makes us different from the rest of Creation." I appreciated this quotes way of saying that Humans are Creatures, we in the Animal Kingdom and above all a Creature, not a demiurge with dominion over creation. Moltmann has also discusses the Rights of the Earth in his Ethics of Hope, and in God in Creation. In the following quotation from God in Creation, Moltmann demonstrates humanity is a composite of continuous and qualitative leaps in the structure of evolutionary life. This means that for the Resurrection of any person to happen, then all of the parts of that person would be resurrected as well. Therefore the resurrection of any person would include the resurrection of his animal and non-Human components:
The structure of the evolution of life shows both continuity and qualitative leaps. Let us take as stages the following sequence:
- elementary partical
- macro-molecular cell
- multi-cellular organism
- living organism
- organism populations
- living thing
- transitional field from animal to human being
- human beings
- human populations
- community of humanity . . . .
If we look at this sequence, we see that parts always give rise to a whole - that is to say, to a new structure and a new organizational principle. These are 'leaps' from quantity in a particular area into a new quality. It can also be seen that, with the complexity of the structure, the capacity for communication grows. And with this capacity for communication, the capacity for adaptation and transformation increase in its turn. This, again, wides the range of communication of the open life systems are in principle limited. And there is also little sign that the evolution of complex systems and new principles of organization is an end.
Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation. Trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. 203-4. Print.
In The Way of Jesus, Moltmann hears a divine Yes to animals, and extends hope to all Non-Animal Creation with a non-allegorical references to wolves and lambs based on Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 1:27 in this quotation:
He will bring righteousness and peace to the animal world as well, so that the wolves will live with the lambs (Isa 11:6). It is quite clear that the divine righteousness which is under discussion here has nothing to do with rewards and punishments. It is a righteousness that creates justice and puts people right, so it is a redemptive righteousness (Isa 1:27). 'The day of the messiah', like the day of Yahweh, is ultimately not a dies irae, a day of wrath. It is the day on which peace begins. By passing judgment on injustice and enmity, the messiah creates the preconditions for the universal kingdom of peace.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Way of Jesus: Christology in Messianic Dimensions. Trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. 335. Print.
In The Coming of God, Moltmann explains peace will come to the Animal Kingdom, not just Humanity because of the theme that no individual is saved in isolatation, and individual is not isolated from the whole universe:
We are stressing this mediate position here, because historical eschatology too has too has repeatedly been viewed as 'the integral hope', and 'history' has continually been made the quintessence of the whole of reality. But if 'history' is no more than the field of human interaction, the result is an eschatology forgetful of nature, or even hostile towards it. If God's future, as the future of the Creator, has to do with the whole creation, then wherever eschatology is narrowed down to merely one sector of that creation, whether it be the individual sphere or the historical one, that contradiction has a destructive effect on the other sectors, because it deprives them of every hope. The eschatological field of human hopes and fears, longings and desires, has always been a favorite playground for egocentricism and anthropocentricism, and for the exclusion of anything strange and different. But true hope must be universal, because its healing future embraces every individual and the whole universe. If we were to surrender hope for as much as one single creature, for us God would not be God.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. 132. Print.
Moltmann emphatically assert's God's Yes to the Resurrection of Nature in his book, Sun of Righteousness, Arise! The resurrection of of human society is inconceivable without the resurrection of nature in the New Earth. The resurrection of nature is a precondition for the eternal creation.
But if a resurrection of nature is inconceivable in a society of mortal human beings, what can such a resurrection of the natural world lead to? Traditionally, we think of a world beyond this one in a heaven of the blest or an Elysium of pure spirits. But that is closer to Plato than it is to Jesus and the New Testament. The resurrection of the dead takes place on this earth, and leads those who have been made alive to 'a new earth according to his promise in which righteousness dwells' (2 Peter 3:13). The kingdom of God is not just a kingdom in heaven; it comes 'on earth as it is in heaven'. Resurrection and eternal life are God's promises for the human beings of this earth. That is why a resurrection of nature too will not lead to the next world, but into the this-worldliness of the new creation of all things. God does not save his creation for heaven; he renews the earth. 'God's kingdom is the kingdom of the resurrection of the earth.' That puts all those who hope for a resurrection under an obligation to remain true to the earth, to respect it, and to love it as they love themselves. The earth is the stage of God's coming kingdom, and so resurrection into God's kingdom is the hope of this earth.
Are there any pointers in the created world to this future of resurrection? I believe that all created beings are created in the direction of this future, for the consummation of creation 'in the beginning' is the feast of creation in God's creation Sabbath. The seventh day of creation has no evening. God blesses everything he has created through his resting presence. On the Sabbath he is present to all. It is the Sabbath which distinguishes the concept of creation from he concept of nature. A Sabbath doctrine of creation is aligned towards the consummation of the created world in God's eternal presence. The resurrection of the dead, the annihilation of death and the resurrection of nature are the preconditions for the eternal creation which shares in the indwelling of the eternally living God. Creation 'in the beginning' is aligned towards this earth. Afterwards 'the whole creation groans in travail together with us' (Rom 8:22-23), and that is the true resurrection of nature.
Moltmann, Jürgen. Sun of Righteousness, Arise!. Trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. 72-3. Print.
What about the resurrection of inanimate space and time? Once God finds his dwelling place in creation, creation loses its space outside God and attains to its place in God. Just as at the beginning the Creator made himself the living space for his creation, so at the end his new creation will be his living space. A mutual indwelling of the world in God and God in the world will come into being. For this, it is neither necessary for the world to dissolve into God, as pantheism says, nor for God to be dissolved into the world, as atheism maintains. God remains God, and the world remains creation. Through their mutual indwellings, they remain unmingled and undivided, for God lives in creation in a God-like way, and the world lives in God in a world-like way.
The mutual indwellings then in a cosmic communicatio idiomatum, a communication of idioms, to use a scholastic phrase--that is to say, mutual participation in the attributes of the other. Created beings participate in the divine attributes of eternity and omnipresence, just as the indwelling God has participated in their limited time and their restricted space, taking them upon himself. This means that for those God has created, the time (chronos) of remoteness from God and of transience ceases, and eternal life in the divine life begins. It means that for those God has created, the space (topos) of detachment from God ceases, and eternal presence in the omnipresence of God begins. God's indwelling eternity gives to created beings eternal time. God's indwelling presence gives created beings for ever the 'broad space in which there is no more cramping'.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. 307-8. Print.
In conclusion, the answers of John Calvin, Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann on the definition of "Maximum Inclusion" may be harmonized into a universal "Yes" to all humanity, animals, plants and rocks (or maybe even the Multiverse!). The difference being in the confidence of their Yes to them all. John Calvin being the most pessimistic affirmation, Karl Barth is optomistic with man and pessmistic with non-Human Creation, and Moltmann has hope for all Creation without exception. What then is our hope for the "Maximum Inclusion"? It is for all Creation, such that nothing will be lost, whether man, animal, plant, rock or the entire Cosmos!
Header Source: Vienna Genesis, Country: Austria, Site: Vienna: Nationalbibliothek, Millet Number: 1.V839.8, Manuscript Number: Theol.gr.31, Folio Number: 3r, Subject: Noah: Rainbow, Date: 6c., http://ica.princeton.edu/millet/display.php?country=Austria&site=&view=country&page&image=8656
Jesus Christ is the Savior of the Whole World (1 John 2:2), but what is the Maximum Inclusion of this statement? In Part One, I provided John Calvin's dismal answer of twenty percent of humanity will be saved. In Part Two, Karl Barth answers that all humanity may be saved, but he sadly says Nien to the salvation of non-Human Creation.
Karl Barth's YES to All Humanity
Karl Barth is a Reformed Theologian in the Legacy of John Calvin. In a personal letter, near the end of Barth's life, he defines the "whole world" as "all humanity" and this expands the scope of Maximum Inclusion from Calvins twenty percent of humanity to potentially one hundred percent of humanity!
"In the Bible, the world is all humanity. If Jesus Christ is and does what we read here, then he also prays for all men: for those who already pray and those who do not yet pray."
Barth, Karl. Karl Barth Letters: 1961 - 1968. Trans. Geoffrey William. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. 199-200. Print.
Does this mean Barth was a Universalist? No. Jürgen Moltmann recently commented to the Moltmanniac that "Karl Barth did not know whether he was a Universalist" and this letter does not prove that Barth was an Universalist either. Barth once said, "I don't believe in universalism, but I do believe in Jesus Christ, the reconciler of all." Barth is Daring to Hope that All Men Will Be Saved, as echoed by Hans Urs Von Balthasar.
Karl Barth's NO to All Non-Human Creation
We may celebrate Karl Barth's expansion of the "whole world" unto "all humanity", however, Barth's 'Maximal Inclusion' remains pessimistic because it does not include non-human Creation. In the following quotation from the Church Dogmatics III/2, Barth explains that Jesus came as a Man, not as any other Animal, Plant or Rock, and therefore, we may not speak positively for the redemption of non-humans:
It is of a piece with the particularity of human being that the problem of godlessness and therefore of sin seems to arise only in the sphere of man. We have noted that godlessness is the ontological impossibility of man; for man is as he is with God and therefore not without Him. We should have to say the same of other creatures if there were anything resembling godlessness in this sphere too. For as we have seen, all creatures are with Jesus and therefore with God. If there were godlessness in non-human creatures, it would have to be understood as an ontological impossibility. But it would not appear that there can actually. For since we do not know how non-human creatures are with God, we cannot give a categorical denial. On the other hand, we must remember that these relationships are concealed when we think that we can reply affirmatively and speak about "fallen creation" and so on as though it were something generally known and accepted. If I incline to the contrary opinion and say it would not appear to be the case that we have to reckon with any other kind of godlessness than that of man, I do so because the ontological impossibility of sin is only conceivable where the creature is confronted by its Creator in the immediate and direct manner which is the case with human beings. It is not accidental that Holy Scripture tells us a great deal about the sin of man but does not really say anything at all about sin in any other quarter. Would it not tell us plainly if on the basis of self-revelation of God which it attests it had something to say about a cosmic fall contemporaneous with the fall of man? If it does not do so because it cannot refer to any revelation of God and has no real witness to bear on the point, we may well ask whether there is anything at all to say. It is not obvious that the ontological impossibility of sin can be realized only where God is revealed and therefore known to the creature which is with Him, so that the creature can also be revealed and known to itself in confrontation with God? This is the case where Jesus as the Bearer of the uniqueness and transcendence of God is like man. This situation is the peculiarity of the human sphere. Since Jesus did not become an animal or a plant or a stone but a man, and since we have not to reckon with a corresponding identity of Creator and creature in other spheres, it does not apply in non-human spheres, where the divine Counterpart the drama which is the meaning and purpose of human life cannot be played out either in its normal or abnormal, its possible or impossible form. And in these circumstances how can the ontological impossibility be seen in actual operation? Of course even this consideration does not enable us to pronounce a final verdict. But in my view it is a clear indication that a negative answer is at least preferable to a positive.
Barth, Karl. "Church Dogmatics Study Edition 14" Ed. T. F. Torrance and G.W. Bromiley. III.2 The Doctrine of Creation. Trans. G. W. Bromiley, J.W. Edwards, O. Bussey, Harold Knight, J.K.S. Reid, R.H. Fuller, R.J. Ehrlich, A.T. Mackey, T.H.L. Parker, H.A. Kennedy, and J. Marks. London: T & T Clark, 2010. 132-3. Print. 
Karl Barth's No to Non-Human Creation ends with a question mark and not an exclamation point: a "No?" but not a "No!" Barth leaves the door open when he said that "We cannot give a categorical denial."
And there are some passages where the circle of those whom this applies still seems to be open outwards. Even in Mark 10:45 and par. the reference is to the many for whom Jesus will give His life as a ransom, and Calvin himself did not dare to give to this many the meaning of a restricted number of men. In John 11:51f. we have the remarkable saying that Jesus was to die for the people "and not for that nation only, but also that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." The same extension is to be found even more plainly in 1 John 2:2 : "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." And so in 2 Cor 5:14-15 there is the twofold he died for all; in 1 Tim 2:6 we are told that "he gave himself a ransom for all"; and most powerfully of all John 6:51 tells us that "the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" -- a saying which finds an exact parallel in the well-known verse John 3:16, where we read that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." What Jesus is "for us" or "for you" in the narrow circle of the disciples and the community He is obviously though the ministry of this narrower circle, "for all" or "for the world" in the wider and widest circle. And in the majority of this narrower circle, "for all" or "for the world" in the wider or widest circle. And in the majority of the relevant passages this action of Jesus for others (His disciples, His community, the many, all, the world) is His death and passion. This is the primary reference of the more general expressions which speak of His self-offering for men. But we must see the work in its totality.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics III.2 The Doctrine of Creation. Trans. G. W. Bromiley, J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, Harold Knight, J.K.S. Reid, R.H. Fuller, R.J. Ehrlich, A.T. Mackey, T.H.L. Parker, H.A. Kennedy, J. Marks. Vol. 15. London: T & T Clark, 2009. 11. Print. Study Edition. 
G.C. Berkouwer has demonstrated in his book on Barth that elsewhere in the Church Dogmatics, hope is given for Non-Human Creation. In this quotation from Berkouwer's The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Barth, demonstrates that nothing will be lost in Barth's eschatology.
God permits nothing to be lost -- no hue in deepest ocean depths, no wingbeat of an insect that lives but a day, nor the earliest time in earth's history, and certainly nothing in our life. God will not be alone in His eternity, but He will be together with His creature, His creature in its limited duration. "Present before God" -- in this way the creature will be and will remain." This is the way in which it will be enfolded in the great rest of God. This is its preservation in time. This is the mystery of the preservation which must be understood in the light of the expression repeated twenty-six times in Psalm 136, "For His mercy endureth forever." (KD III/3, pg102-3).
Berkouwer, G. C. The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Trans. Harry R. Boer. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1956. 164. Print.
In Part Three, Jürgen Moltmann will speak a definitive "Yes!" to Non-Human Creation, and to the Whole World.
Header Source: "Asiatiska folk, Nordisk familjebok" by G. Mützel - Nordisk familjebok (1904), vol.2, Asiatiska folk  (the colour version is available in this zip-archive).Nordisk Familjebok has credited the image to Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.