{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034171249018067555, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00432050274941084, 'mean_word_length': 5.4481012658227845, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Balthasar: A (Very) Critical Introduction. Four Perspectives – IV

In her new book, Balthasar: A (Very) Critical Introduction, Karen Kilby aims to pinpoint both what is worthwhile and what is problematic in Balthasar’s theology. Since unqualified endorsements of Balthasar’s oeuvre overshadow critical resistance to it, Kilby desires to correct this imbalance by emphasizing those aspects of Balthasar’s thought that should worry his readers. For Kilby, these areas of greatest concern include Balthasar’s unwavering confidence in his idiosyncratic aesthetic and dramatic presentations of revelation’s import (chapter ), the holistic and climactic tenor of his theological formulations (chapter ), his seemingly unbounded knowledge of the triune God’s inner life (chapter ), and his narrow vision of gender difference, which relies on a truncated version of the nuptial metaphor conceived primarily in terms of the sexual act (chapter ). In turn, she shows how each of these problem areas substantiates her weightiest charge that Balthasar’s theology in its entirety exhibits a systemic deficit, that of his audacious “God’s eye view” of the shape and meaning of divine revelation. This methodological omniscience has a global impact on Balthasar’s project, thereby canceling out the various local attempts he makes to safeguard a rightful attitude of humility and wonderment in the face of divine mystery. In chapter , Kilby situates her twofold critique of content and method within the general predicament that all readers face when introduced to Balthasar. The voluminous quantity of his literary output is always a challenge to its mastery. Its extensive reach is made more inaccessible by Balthasar’s unsystematic and nonpropositional manner of writing, which twists and turns through an impressive array of theological, philosophical, and literary figures and their time periods, without clear indications of where description ends and where Balthasar’s theological agenda begins. His failure to elucidate plainly the fundamental arguments that govern and connect the disparate pieces of his mammoth project makes it exceedingly difficult for anyone to maintain a solid grasp of what he is about, in order to engage him in a meaningfully constructive way. Kilby endeavors to overcome these impediments by teasing out some of the themes embedded in Balthasar’s meanderings that turn out to be both crucial to his theological enterprise and deservedly Horizons, (), pp. –. © College Theology Society,  doi:10.1017/hor.2013.4