tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post116250472199487346..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Paul J. DeHart: The Trial of the WitnessesBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1162588658679557082006-11-03T16:17:00.000-05:002006-11-03T16:17:00.000-05:00Thanks, Mark, for the notice about the 2007 Southe...Thanks, Mark, for the notice about the 2007 Southeast AAR panel. If anyone happens to be there for the discussion, I'd love to hear about how it pans out!<BR/><BR/>Yes, Joshua, DeHart is deeply appreciative of Tanner’s work. Although he critiques her reading of Frei (pp. 145-46), he praises her <I>Theories of Culture</I> as a book that helped “to displace the methodological categories at work among interpreters of the Yale legacy” (p. 52). And he notes that Tanner’s work, with its “profound admonitions on the nature of culture” and its “powerful argument that churchly identity is a site-specific negotiation with the world beyond the church,” has been an important stimulus for the present book (p. 280).Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1162580294278291062006-11-03T13:58:00.000-05:002006-11-03T13:58:00.000-05:00DeHart's exciting new book will be the subject of ...DeHart's exciting new book will be the subject of a panel discussion at the 2007 Southeast AAR meeting in Nashville. The panelist include: Curtis Freeman (Duke Divinity School), Philip Kenneson (Milligan College) and Bill Placher (Wabash College). Of course, DeHart will offer a response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1162577475009898922006-11-03T13:11:00.000-05:002006-11-03T13:11:00.000-05:00Excellent, excellent review. After reading his fi...Excellent, excellent review. After reading his first book, I have been hoping for more from DeHart. I am glad to see his first work was indicative of more great things to come.David W. Congdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009330707703611224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1162575676495174382006-11-03T12:41:00.000-05:002006-11-03T12:41:00.000-05:00Ben,Please tell me you've submitted this wonderful...Ben,<BR/>Please tell me you've submitted this wonderful review to IJST or SJT! It deserves to be published. Thanks for sharing it with us.Chris TerryNelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03160910808665941467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1162523955005866852006-11-02T22:19:00.000-05:002006-11-02T22:19:00.000-05:00The Christian semantic network is systematically i...<I>The Christian semantic network is systematically irreducible: it cannot be translated into or grounded on the terms of any other semantic order (pp. 234-35). </I><BR/>This is such an important point.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the review Ben - you're really churning them out!byron smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17938334606675769903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1162513427787745852006-11-02T19:23:00.000-05:002006-11-02T19:23:00.000-05:00In my view, what has been wrong with the term "pos...In my view, what has been wrong with the term "postliberal" has not been including both Lindbeck and Frei under the same term, but LIMITING that term to the "Yale School" of text-centered Barthians. I always thought the term should be used for people who have come FROM a liberal perspective and rejected anthropocentric starting points in attempting to do theology: That would include Catholics like von Balthasar and it would include some (not all)liberation theologians, the creative Barthians, others who are not conservative or liberal. <BR/><BR/>I never felt the "Yale School" (which seemed really to be a Yale-Duke-Fuller axis and then spread to Oxford) was actually coherent enough to be a "school." But I could easily be wrong and will certainly check this book out.Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06343135380354344847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1162510599603568592006-11-02T18:36:00.000-05:002006-11-02T18:36:00.000-05:00a great review of what sounds like a great book! ...a great review of what sounds like a great book! you are only increasing my already strong desire to read deharts work on this. a few comments/queries...what, if any, use does dehart make of tanner's book on culture? if i recall she made similar critiques of lindbeck on the myth of a monolithic and stiff community/tradition. since dehart worked with tanner and tracy and chicago, i would expect her influence (as well as his) to come through.<BR/>second, i found his comments about schleiermacher and barth to be particularly apt. i have similar feelings about the area between faithfullness and appropriate coherence in contemporary language. i personally hope to use rahner and barth this way in my own future phd work (with the added catholic/protestant divide). if you can in fact call rahner intelligible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com