This latest volume in the T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology series shrewdly analyzes the “role of text-reception in theological construction” by John Calvin and Karl Barth (p. 11), focusing on the exegetical contours of their very different doctrines of election. Originally prepared as a PhD dissertation at the University of Aberdeen under the supervision of Francis Watson, Gibson’s first book deserves a wide audience as an impressive work in historical theology employed for the sake of contemporary dogmatic reflection.

What does it mean to be a “christocentric” theologian? Richard Muller has drawn a distinction between two forms: “soteriological christocentrism,” which opposes synergism by affirming that redemption is solus Christus; and “principial christocentrism,” which battles correlationist epistemologies by stating that Jesus Christ is the one Word of God. Gibson shows that Calvin demonstrates a “soteriological christocentrism,” while Barth pushes toward a “principial christocentrism” (in addition to affirming “soteriological christocentrism”). To this distinction, Gibson adds another:

To describe a hermeneutic as christologically extensive means that the Christology clearly defines the hermeneutical approach, but the centre of Christology points outwards to other doctrinal loci which have space and scope to exist in themselves.… Conversely, to describe a hermeneutic as christologically intensive means that the christological centre defines all else within its circumference. (p. 15)

Gibson argues that these distinctive uses of Christ-centeredness can be seen throughout the works of Calvin and Barth: extensive in the former, intensive in the latter. Gibson makes his point by expositing their texts (both intensively and extensively!).

Gibson traces these two distinctions through three major areas: Christology, election, and hermeneutics. He shows that Calvin and Barth employ many of the same terms and texts, even as they fashion very different theological systems. In both cases, however, he seeks to highlight the exegetical reasoning that lies behind their structures. Eventually, in a very helpful chapter on hermeneutics, Gibson shows (rightly, to my mind) that divergent doctrines of revelation ground the other dogmatic differences between Calvin and Barth. Even here, however, their appropriation of revelation shapes their doctrines of revelation.

Some areas of reflection are not probed to a satisfying degree. First, Gibson notes that both exegetical and polemical interests led to Calvin’s restructuring of his doctrine of predestination in the 1559 edition of the Institutes (p. 164). More widely, however, his book focuses solely on the role of exegesis in shaping the differing theologies of Calvin and Barth. To grasp further nuances of their distinctiveness, polemical differences would have to be explored at greater length (especially to appreciate the nature of Barth’s “principial christocentrism” as a protest to theology done after Kant).

Second, reflection on other gospel texts is surely called for since Calvin and Barth read the life of Jesus in very different ways. Where Calvin sees Christ as both savior and judge (and, thus, interacting with two groups), Barth sees both roles focused upon Christ himself (and, derivatively, on a single group that encompasses all of humanity). To put it bluntly, Barth simply reads the story of Jesus very differently from Calvin (indeed, from virtually the whole of the Christian tradition).

Third, interpreters of Barth and Calvin must ask why Barth seems to care so much more about issues regarding the immanent life of God (known as revealed by the economy of God’s works and by no other means), a doctrinal focus so rarely considered by Calvin? Gibson shows the few places where Calvin traces back the eternal implications of the nature of God’s economy (pp. 83n197, 174). What theological resources, exegetical considerations, or polemical concerns lead Barth to focus on this area of reflection? As reflecting on the actions of God and showing how they reflect God’s very character is one of Barth’s most innovative maneuvers, this line of analysis would surely bear further fruit.

Fourth, what other resources in Calvin and the later Reformed tradition serve the function that election does for Barth? Here it might be useful to reflect on whether the doctrine of the covenant in Calvin links the economy of God’s works revealed in Scripture and the eternal being of God (surely the later Reformed doctrine of the “covenant of redemption” was taken in just this direction and, perhaps, it was preceded by hints of such concern in Calvin’s theology of the covenant).

These calls for further reflection, however, should not be read as dismissals or denigrations of Gibson’s work. Quite to the contrary, this is a fine book that deserves a wide reading from students of Calvin, Barth, and the Reformed tradition, as well as all those interested in the doctrines of Christ and election. Gibson shows familiarity with the works of Calvin (both commentaries and the Institutes) and Barth as well as the vast secondary literature; he also sees the limits in many scholarly tendencies (e.g., the tendency to see primarily philosophical grounds for both Calvin’s and Barth’s doctrine of election). Above all, he shows acuity in tracing the underappreciated influence of exegesis upon two master theologians. One can only hope that many will follow Gibson’s example in showing the way in which biblical exegesis has shaped dogmatic reasoning on various topics within the Christian tradition, and we might pray that many more will be inspired to imitate this biblical pursuit.

---