Karl Barth's interpreters often characterize him as a ‘christocentric’ theologian. This term, however, is subject to a variety of interpretations, ranging from the totalitarian and isolationist critiques of the ‘christomonist’ objection to the indeterminate and decentred approaches offered by various postmodern readings. The disparity between these two approaches suggests a level of ambiguity in the term that hinders its usefulness unless carefully qualified. Indeed, ‘centric’ terminology itself remains rather ambiguous until the substantive formal and material considerations that lie behind any given form of centricity are addressed. This article proposes to alleviate the ambiguity that has thus clouded the use of ‘christocentric’ as a description of Barth's theology by offering five formal and material qualifications; Barth's christocentricity must be understood in terms of (1) a veiling and unveiling of knowledge in Christ, (2) a methodological orientation, (3) a particular christology, (4) a trinitarian focus and (5) an affirmation of creaturely reality. Using these criteria, the article also argues that both the christomonistic and postmodern interpretations break down at certain points because they fail to appreciate fully these qualifications and thus the particular nature of Barth's christocentrism.

This article presents a theological engagement with the Christ of the Gospel of John. Christology has two basic responsibilities. First, all Christology is required to demonstrate that it is rooted in scriptural reading. Second, consistent attentiveness needs to be paid to the dynamic relationship between Christ's person and work. The nature of these two responsibilities is elucidated by exploring some recent christological contributions. The remainder of the essay engages with the encounter at the centre of the Fourth Gospel: that in the Word made flesh the eternal love between the Father and the Son is unfolded into the time of this world. Jesus' life and ministry is the decisive meeting of time and eternity. Counsel is then offered for how John's Gospel may faithfully be read in line with this subject matter. Important objections to ‘Logos’ Christologies, and Johannine Christology in particular, are introduced. This article then proceeds to argue for the realistic meeting of all that is human and all that is divine in the person of Jesus who lives a life of loving obedience to the Father. Throughout, this article maintains a conversation with the Fourth Gospel, the ontological implications of this text, and those voices from within Christian tradition that can help us in the reading of John.

Three aspects of Robert Jenson's theology are investigated and then related according to their common pneumatological implications. First Jenson's neo-Barthian doctrine of revelation is considered as it leads him to an immediate or near-immediate relation of the being and act of God. This puts particular tensions on how he maintains the ontological distinction between creator and creation. Second, the same tension is found repeated in the way Jenson rejects the notion of divine timelessness. In bringing the being of God into history, and time into the being of God, he eventually calls the Father, Son and Spirit the ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future’ of the triune life. These tensions are heightened even further in the third section. With his characteristic concept of ‘narrative causality’ Jenson attempts a constructive recovery of Hegelian categories by suggesting the ‘End’ – as brought about by the Spirit-‘Outcome’ of God – is that ‘sublation which is itself not sublated’. The article concludes without entering the specifically Hegelian controversy, rather with more simple questions about the doctrinal integrity of Jenson's eschatology.

This article is a critical assessment of Pannenberg's trinitarian approach in his Systematic Theology. In particular it raises the questions of how far Pannenberg's emphasis on the Trinity affects the practice of theology and of how the theologian should understand his or her task in the light of the being and work of the triune God. It argues that there is an uneasy tension between Pannenberg's commitment to thoroughgoing trinitarianism on the one hand and his commitment to a rational theology that takes account of the modern age. This tension can be seen most clearly in Pannenberg's treatment of christology, faith and theological method. It is at these points, where modern thinking has often been so critical with traditional theology, that Pannenberg's trinitarian commitments are not deployed as consistently or penetratingly as elsewhere.

This article examines the question of Karl Barth's stance on universalism. Setting the question within the wealth of contradictory accounts of Barth on this issue, it seeks to find a way through the opposing views represented in the secondary literature. Following a brief examination of the doctrine of election which is the source of the charge of universalism, Barth's response to Berkouwer's The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth will be considered in detail. This passage helps to place Barth's own reaction to the charge of universalism in a broader framework than that of a simple denial or acceptance, and helps to highlight what Barth does and does not reject regarding universalism. It will be argued that it is the replacement of the person of Jesus Christ with a principle, rather than any limitation of the salvific work of God, that Barth rejects in rejecting apokatastasis. Barth's denial of universalism marks a dismissal of the problematic elements associated with the word, not a denial of the ultimate friendliness of Jesus Christ. The radical newness of Barth's own approach to universalism cannot be overemphasized, and marks the means by which one may pass through the impasse of differing accounts of Barth's eschatology.

Bede's Historia ecclesiastica makes it clear that Theodore of Tarsus, the seventh-century archbishop of Canterbury, is a figure who should command an immense amount of interest. His learning and cosmopolitan formation call upon the scholar to ask what it is that he contributed to the English church in his time and beyond. Yet interest in Theodore as a theologian has been lacking to date, most likely due to the limited amount of material attributable to him. Jane Stevenson's work on the anonymous Laterculus Malalianus in the early 1990s suggested Theodore as the most likely author. That this suggestion has proven consistent with other, cumulative evidence of Theodore's life and work makes the Laterculus an invaluable text for the student investigating his theology. This article seeks to present the theological themes of the text, especially as they relate to the person and work of Christ, and to introduce the reader to Theodore of Tarsus as a figure of interest in the study of early medieval christology.

This article describes the process of the deconstruction and reconstruction of Islam in its transition from an Islamic to a Western culture, and does so from a hermeneutical perspective. In this process of reinterpretation of tradition ‘Western’ Muslims have a number of options: traditionalism, moderate orthodoxy, fundamentalism, radicalism and religious liberalism. On the basis of the process of change in orthodox Reformed churches in the last part of the twentieth century, I describe the process of change among Muslims who have to find a way in Western Europe. This process of reinterpretation in such a different context necessarily triggers off a discussion of the principles of fiqh and the right understanding of the Qur'an and hadith. In this discussion the ‘options’ mentioned arise. This hermeneutical analysis adds theological insights to processes of change and conflict that often are analysed only in terms of social-economic processes, and can help to understand the developments also from a theological perspective.