The book's stated aim is “to model courteous and critical engagement with Barth” without infatuation or caricature (pp. 15, 19), and this is what the essays deliver. But considering Barth's influence, is that enough? If the conclusions that most of the contributors reached are true, the weight of those conclusions seemed to be lacking. There was a lot of light, but not much heat; most of the essays tended to frame Barth's theology as being wonderful, but also inadequate or unsatisfactory, rather than pastorally dangerous.
(from the review).
Here's something I wrote featuring various quotes from the book.