"But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it [theology] as a science, namely, the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatly disowned as theology" (Dogmatics, 1.1, The word of God, pp. 9,10).
When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments, they cannot possibly understand what Barth is all about. He is as "conservative" as one gets - if being centered in the Word is a definition of same.
Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider theology as a "science" :
1. freedom from contradiction
2. Unity in the sphere of its object. [read: subject matter].
3. The willingness to accept request for verification.
4. Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible.
5. Freedom from all prejudgments.
6. The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions].
Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic.
[] are my additions.
jd
