Barth’s modernity

Discussing Barth’s distinction of the “church of Esau” and the “church of Jacob” in the Romerbrief , Michael Horton ( People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology ) gets Barth’s weaknesses exactly right.  First, “Barth seems to assume that ‘secularity’ is neutral, objective, descriptive science” and second “Barth can only place the visible-historical form of the church on the ‘secular’ side of the ledger upon the presupposition that God works and the church works, but these parallel tracks do not intersect, at least not to such an extent that the actions of preaching and sacrament can be considered means of grace.”

Horton notes the impression that “for Barth the content (revelation-as-reconciliation) is wholly divine and eternal, while the form is entirely human and historical.”  Thus “his dualistic ecclesiology . . . surrenders the latter to the presumed neutrality of the secular.”

Which is why – to say the same thing – Barth needs de Lubac.