reject them, but it is entirely another thing to simply not be conversant with them. A
review of the index to the Church Dogmatics reveals that Barth does not mention
Granada or Gerson, two names that specifically influenced Isaac Ambrose.
Additionally Barth’s references to Bernard are extremely weak, not to mention his
absence of Sibbes, Baxter, and Owen. However, there are a few references to
William Ames and one to William Perkins. Therefore, it appears at least part of his
confusion towards contemplative piety was his lack of awareness of the primary
sources. While it is certainly appropriate to challenge Calvin’s interpretation of
Scripture as Barth does, it is obvious that his own selective reading of Scripture
distorts the biblical witness to contemplation. The central weakness of Barth in
relationship to this present study is his binary thinking. His tendency of arranging
topics as polarities in tension with themselves prevents him from recognizing that
opposites are required to bring balance and not to create division as he assumes.
Barth appears intent to separate what Scripture and the best of the history of Christian
spirituality has sought to integrate. His divisive either/or position radically shifts the
focus to one side or the other rather than integrating two biblical truths. This is most
clearly evinced in his perception that contemplation is at odds with action.
Further, Barth’s perception that God cannot be the object of contemplation
and that it is nothing more than a self-centered cul-de-sac reveals his foundational
fear regarding experience. While all people have been shaped by their past, Barth’s
anxieties from his earlier years appear to have made him unduly apprehensive about
engaging in a relationship of devotion and love to God through union and communion
with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Alan Torrance, a Barth scholar,
perceptively observes that Barth stressed “Christian experience” over “Christian