Tuesday, 19 June 2007

Here and there

Halden discusses radical trinitarianism, and he also describes a fascinating and unlikely debate about same-sex relationships. In case there was any doubt, Shane makes it clear that Thomas Aquinas is not a semi-Pelagian, while Aaron asks who can hope, and Michael raises the important question whether jazz is the meaning of life.

Meanwhile, Andy asks whether Moltmann is a theological giant (the answer is No: but Pannenberg is another story). Scott gives some nice insight into theology at Aberdeen, and he also alerts us to some online lectures by Slavoj Žižek (I was especially interested in these, since I’m currently reading Žižek’s Interrogating the Real). Last but not least, Chris has come up with own new statement of biblical inerrancy (here and here) – and for his trouble, he was even branded a “faithless demagogue”!

12 Comments:

WTM said...

Of course, the Barth Blog Conference is still going strong (http://derevth.blogspot.com). Stay tuned for closing remarks from our dear Ben Myers.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Yes, Moltmann is a theological giant and so is Pannenberg. (Pannenberg has the greater intellect, but Moltmann interweaves doctrine and ethics seamlessly.) Andy has too narrow a list of who counts as a "theological giant."

Halden said...

Thanks for the links, Ben. They're pumping my stats through the roof!

Pastor Bob Cornwall said...

My sense is that any listing of great theologians is going to be subjective. I would place Moltmann in the top tier, but then I have found him personally compelling and formative to my theology. Will he still be read a century from now? Well none of us will be around then.

As for Pannenberg I haven't found him nearly as accessible or as useful as Moltmann -- but then again that's just me!

Pastor Bob Cornwall said...

As an addendum, let me throw in Bonhoeffer. His life shortened by premature death, leaving many of his thoughts unfinished, his influence has been tremendous. Is he among the greats? Again, it's hard to know. Besides we don't know where he would have gone with his thoughts had he lived as long as Barth and others! 39 is awefully young, but then that was also the age at which Martin Luther King died.

Shane said...

Thanks for the mention Ben!

shane

Chris Tilling said...

A tough question: Is a faithless demagogue better than an australian demagogue?

Ben Myers said...

No: as a general rule of thumb, Australian demagogues are always better.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

"As a general rule, Australian demagogues are always better." Hmm. Including PM John Howard? Just asking.

Ben Myers said...

No, except for him. He's definitely worse....

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Yeah, I kind of figured that would be your reaction to the only PM ever officially censured by Parliament and a man who treasures being, in George W. Bush's words, "the sheriff of Asia and the South Pacific!" Sheesh.

Still, it seems to me that Oz has FEWER demagogues and should treasure that distinction. :-)

Bruce Yabsley said...

Thanks for the link to the debate in Commonweal, which I've discussed in my own blog. I wouldn't otherwise have seen this.

Post a Comment

New book

Archive

Contact

Although I'm not always able to reply to all emails, please feel free to contact me.

Faith and Theology © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO