This Christmas my wife gave me one of my favorite Christmas presents of all time: the complete set of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics. I cannot remember receiving a Christmas or birthday gift that moved me so close to tears! Over the past couple of years, Barth has become a helpful and influential voice in my thinking and praying. Now that I have his magnum opus at my fingertips, I am blessed to daily converse with this great Christian thinker and spiritual companion.

In my excitement for the gift, I posted a picture of the set of books on my Facebook page. Was I bragging? Perhaps. But I had to share the good news!

It was not until a couple weeks ago that I was first questioned on my affinity for Barth. For those who do not know, I am a pastor in the Church of the Nazarene. Nazarenes are a Wesleyan-Holiness people, thus we are Arminian as opposed to Calvinist. Karl Barth, on the other hand, is grouped firmly in the Calvinist/Reformed tradition. At a district meeting, a colleague graciously brought up my Facebook post about Barth and shared his concern: “That’s not us.”

It is fair to share where my friend was coming from: there are “movements” (so called) within and adjacent to the Church of the Nazarene that would like to see our denomination become a fundamentalist denomination (something we have never been). These “Concerned Nazarenes” and “Reformed Nazarenes” have theology that would be much better suited in a fundamentalist Baptist church than the Church of the Nazarene. Thus, there is some understandable concern about ordained elders in our church promoting either Reformed or fundamentalist theology.

As an ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene – and as someone who holds leadership positions on the district – I am accountable to my peers and colleagues for my theology and teaching, that I remain within the bounds of the tradition in which I am a part.

My initial response to my colleague’s question was to assure him that Barth had nothing in common with the Reformed Nazarenes. Barth would ironically be one of the “liberal” theologians the Concerned and Reformed Nazarenes complain about. I also pointed out that, despite being Reformed, Barth’s theology is more compatible with Wesleyan theology as one might think.

This brief conversation inspired me to think a bit more about why I, as a Wesleyan pastor, so appreciate the work of Karl Barth. This topic probably requires a whole book’s worth of work and thought. Maybe someday I could write that book. I picture an imaginative work of theological fiction where Barth and Wesley converse over a cup of coffee: Wesley, Barth, and Coffee – I call dibs on the title! For now, here are a few thoughts that I have about Karl Barth from a Wesleyan perspective.

1) Wesleyan theology leave itself open to Barth

Wesleyan theology does not leave itself open to fundamentalism. By its nature it welcomes a “big tent” of theological ideas and insights. John Wesley himself was Anglican. The Church of England sought to be a middle ground between Protestantism and Catholicism. Via media. This is one of my favorite components of my theological heritage: there is an openness to a broad range of theological ideas and insights.

Methodism has been, from the beginning, eclectic in its theology. The Wesleys themselves may have been Arminian, but others early Methodists, such as George Whitefield, were Calvinist. Their theological differences did not keep them from working together and learning from one another. Wesley spoke of a “catholic spirit”. It is this “catholic spirit” that leads me to read and listen to a wide range of theological thinkers without dismissing anyone based on preconceived notions and labels.

The fact that Barth is “Reformed” in no way disqualifies him from joining the conversation of Wesleyan theology. Our catholic spirit compels us to give him our ear.

2) Barth’s theology leaves itself open to Wesley

Like Wesley, Barth’s theology is no friend to fundamentalism. Barth strongly emphasized God’s transcendence: we cannot get to God, but God comes to us in the person of Jesus Christ. We cannot know God unless God reveals Godself to us. Fundamentalism, like the modern liberalism which Barth spoke so vehemently against, is a way of us trying to get to God on our terms: reducing God to our systems of understanding.

For Barth, the purpose of “dogmatics” is to examine what the church says about God. Thus, any and every theological system (whether Calvinist or Arminian or any other) must submit to the Word of God.

Barth’s theology does not dismiss Wesley any more than it does the theology of Augustine, Aquinas, or Calvin. All theologians (including Barth himself!) and theologies must submit to God revealed in Jesus. Barth says, “[God] exercises law and justice when he makes the theologians, the church, and the world realize that even the best theology is in itself and, as such, a human work, sinful, imperfect, in fact corrupt and subject to the powers of destruction. It is God’s right to show that, in itself, this work is wholly incapable of service to God and his community in the world. Only by God’s mercy can it become and remain fitting and useful.”¹

3) There is more resonance between Wesley and Barth than some might think

Despite being considered “Reformed” and “Calvinist” in his theology, there is much in Barth that resonates with a Wesleyan perspective. Part of this is because Barth is more committed to God than a theological tradition that gets labeled “Reformed”. He writes, “In the truest sense there is no such thing as Reformed doctrine, except the timeless appeal to the open Bible and to the Spirit which from it speaks to our spirit.”² If this is the definition of Reformed theology – then call me Reformed! John Wesley himself would easily agree with such a statement – especially with the highlight that we are reliant on the Holy Spirit in our reading and interpretation of scripture!

As I read Barth, I find that there is much that resonates with me, not in spite of my Wesleyan theological heritage, but because of that heritage. There are amazing points of resonance between Barth and Wesley that have at times surprised me, whether these are points of agreement or points that can easily compliment one another. For example, I find that Barth’s Christocentric doctrine of election can be reconciled with a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective far more easily than many other Calvinist articulations. This is because, for Barth, election is not an abstract concept of God choosing individuals but God choosing salvation to be found in Christ and Christ alone. Far more can and needs to be said here, but it would require a lengthy essay in and of itself.

John L. Drury – another Wesleyan lover of Barth – has a helpful essay discussing the overlap between the Wesleyan quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience) and Barth’s threefold Word of God (The Word Revealed, The Word written, and the Word preached).³ Both articulations center on the person of Jesus Christ: the Incarnate Word of God. But to see and hear the incarnate Word, we are reliant on the written Word of the Bible (Scripture). We are also reliant on the historical and ongoing proclamation of scripture in Christian preaching (Tradition and Experience). As to the fourth point in the quadrilateral, Reason, Drury quotes Barth’s terse response to the question: “What is the status of reason in your theology?” Barth’s response: “I use it.”⁴

Much of the points of resonance between Barth and Wesley are not in these macro doctrinal articulations. As I read Barth, I regularly find statements and ideas that make this Wesleyan feel right at home. For example, in discussing the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord, Barth says, “The fact that Christ becomes the Lord of my whole life is not something that I can have alone. I can have neither the Gospel nor the Law by myself. I can neither be justified by myself nor sanctified by myself.”⁵ In other words, we need the community of faith. Wesley famously said something quite similar:  “The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social holiness.”

I find little points of resonance, such as this, to be the norm while reading Barth.

4) Barth provides a helpful correction to the worst temptations of Wesleyan theology

Do not think that I am naïve. I in no way consider Barth and Wesley to be the same and always in agreement. They are not. While there are points of resonance, there are plenty of points of dissonance. Yet, even these are helpful in breaking me out of what could otherwise be a Wesleyan echo-chamber where I only hear and read perspectives that agree with me and with each other. It is dangerous for any theologian to only read theologians in their own tradition!

Every theological stream of thought comes with temptations to unhelpful and unhealthy extremes. Wesleyans rightly proclaim the optimism of grace. We refuse to accept any theology that says we are hopelessly trapped in sin. God’s grace is sufficient to free us from the power of sin. God can take our hearts of stone and give them hearts of flesh. I believe this and preach it regularly.

And yet, this good and biblical teaching comes with temptation: to forget that we are sinners and, by our strength, have no ability to escape the power of sin. We are optimistic about God’s grace, not human effort. We are optimistic about the power of the Holy Spirit to transform hearts and lives, not our own power to overcome sin. As the great hymn says: “Not my own righteousness, but Christ within living and reigning and saving from sin.”⁶

Barth constantly reminds me of human fallibility. We are who we are in Christ only because God comes to us in grace, not for any merit within ourselves. Barth does not refute the possibility of sanctification or the power of the Spirit to transform hearts and lives. But he cautions us that any good work we accomplish is only by the power of God. He writes: “The heart of man, and even of believing man, can grasp faith and works as a unity only in so far as he perceives God’s sovereignty in both.”⁷

Those who come from a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective have a constant temptation to overestimate the power and goodness of human beings. We emphasize the ability of humans to do good work that is pleasing to God. We emphasize human freedom. These are good and helpful in their place, but without regularly being checked by a voice like Barth, we can become too human-focused in our thinking. Barth reminds us to start all our thinking and theology with God, not with man. Wesleyans, perhaps more than most, need to heed this voice.

One of my first introductions to Barth was an article that gives an excerpt from a book called God in Action.⁸ It is worth noting that I found this post in a citation from an article by Stanley Hauerwas – a Wesleyan theologian!

The article regards a conversation between Barth and those who say that Barth ought to give more credit to humans and our work and effort. Barth says, “We are human beings, even very nice people. But Christ was not able to help us in any other way than by dying for us. There is no other help for us than this.”⁹ As the conversation continues, Barth gives what is probably my favorite quote from Barth or any theologian: “Let me warn you now. If you make a start with ‘God and…’ you are opening the doors to every demon. And the charge which I raise against you I lay before you in the words of Anselm: Tu non considerasti, quandi ponderis sit peccatum! You failed to consider the weight of sin! And this is the sin: that man takes himself so very seriously.”¹⁰

Wesleyans, like myself, are constantly tempted to take man “so very seriously”. Barth is a helpful reminder that anything man achieves is by grace and grace alone.

5) Before I am a Welseyan or Barthian, I am a Christian

This final point connects to the first and to the whole. One of the reasons I am comfortable drawing from an eclectic range of sources and voices in my theology is because I never want to mistake a particular theologian or theological stream for Jesus. I do not follow Karl Barth. I do not follow John Wesley. I follow Jesus. Wesley, Barth, and any and every other theologian is flawed in some way: and they would say the same! At their best, theologians point to the One beyond themselves: Jesus Christ. I do not want to mistake these signposts for the destination. Wesley and Barth are both helpful companions on the journey who point me to Jesus.

This should not be a controversial point. But sometimes we get so stuck within our theological systems and frameworks that we forget the basics: Jesus is Lord. I am not. John Wesley is not. Karl Barth is not.

I read Barth because I find his voice helpful in pointing me to Jesus.

It was not until after I started reading Barth more seriously that I discovered that Karl Barth kept the same painting above his desk as I do: the Isenheim altar piece by Matthias Grünewald.¹¹ In this crucifixion painting, John the Baptist stands to the side, holding a Bible, pointing to Jesus. This is the call of every pastor and theologian – to get out of the way, proclaim the written word, and point to the living Word crucified, who, by dying, gives us eternal life.

When I discovered Barth’s fascination with the painting I keep above my own desk, I realized that even though we come from different theological traditions and lived in different times, Barth and I are kindred spirits. We both seek God revealed in Christ crucified, and we both do our best to direct others to Him.

1. Barth, Karl. 1979. Evangelical Theology : An Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Pg. 137 ↩︎
2. Barth, Karl. 1957. The Word of God & the Word of Man. Translated by Douglas Horton. New York: Harper & Row. (Orig. pub. 1928.). Pg. 229 ↩︎
3. JohnLDrury. 2025. “What Wesleyans Can Learn from Karl Barth (Part One): The Threefold Word of God and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.” Blogspot.com. March 2025. https://drulogion.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-wesleyans-can-learn-from-karl.html. ↩︎
4. Ibid. ↩︎
5. Barth, Karl. 1935. Credo. Anthem Publishing. Pg. 64 ↩︎
6. “Holiness unto the Lord,” by Lelia N. Norris, Sing to the Lord Hymnal, Kansas City, MO: Lillenas Publishing Company, 1993, p. 503. ↩︎
7. Barth, Karl. 1957. The Word of God & the Word of Man. Translated by Douglas Horton. New York: Harper & Row. (Orig. pub. 1928.). Pg. 267 ↩︎
8. Sanders, Fred. 2013. “‘You Are Opening the Doors to Every Demon’ (Barth circa 1935) – the Scriptorium Daily.” The Scriptorium Daily. May 31, 2013. https://scriptoriumdaily.com/you-are-opening-the-doors-to-every-demon-barth-circa-1935/. ↩︎
9. Ibid. ↩︎
10. Ibid. ↩︎
11. “Isenheim Altarpiece.” 2023. Wikipedia. October 12, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isenheim_Altarpiece#/media/File:Grunewald_Isenheim1.jpg. ↩︎