ABSTRACT
At first glance, the omens for fruitful ethical dialogue between Karl Earth and Germain Grisez do not look promising. After all, Barth is usually taken to be extremely Protestant in his rejection of the concept of natural law, his affirmation of Scripture as the primary source of ethics, his use of a Christological canon within the Canon, and the central place he gives to hearing a command of God (the Holy Spirit); whereas Grisez stands firmly in the tradition of natural law, which is commonly accused by Protestant critics of exalting the role of natural reason to the point of marginalising the ethical contributions of Scripture, Christology, and the Spirit.1 It might seem, therefore, that an exchange between Barth and Grisez could only be described euphemistically as a dialogue, since it would consist of little but the mutual contradiction of fundamental premises. Faced with such an unedifying prospect, one could easily be forgiven for doubting its value.
