tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post5429085923506002725..comments2024-03-12T03:53:57.725-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Lieven Boeve: God interrupts historyBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-50851864654638827182008-03-17T22:08:00.000-04:002008-03-17T22:08:00.000-04:00Readers of this article interested in religion, di...Readers of this article interested in religion, dialectic, and history, may wish to check out God, History, & Dialectic by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell. http://www.filioque.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-68480830049778031912008-02-09T22:56:00.000-05:002008-02-09T22:56:00.000-05:00Very interesting review and topic. I have added it...Very interesting review and topic. I have added it to my wish list.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>Natanael Disla<BR/>Santo Domingo, Dominican RepublicNatanael Dislahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02398071558454738803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-47996726568723514342008-01-11T14:24:00.000-05:002008-01-11T14:24:00.000-05:00Thanks for the great review, Ben! We've created a ...Thanks for the great review, Ben! We've created a link to it on our blog. Have a great weekend!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-14663056025650136422008-01-10T18:13:00.000-05:002008-01-10T18:13:00.000-05:00Interruption is the event in which an existing nar...<I>Interruption is the event in which an existing narrative is sharply halted and problematised</I><BR/><BR/>I'm interested in the way <I>history, event</I> and <I>narrative</I> are used here. The interruption of history itself is a narrative, which in turn, is interrupted. So then, it's interruptions all the way down? ie. The choice between the three simplified options Ben presented above is never actually resolved. The interruption is a kind of erratic oscillation and (could you say a kind of contamination) of the options? <BR/><BR/>Or is this completely off the planet?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03148452877425621293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-43170721118854376862008-01-07T02:23:00.000-05:002008-01-07T02:23:00.000-05:00Hi Ethan,Thanks for that. Allow me to withdraw th...Hi Ethan,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for that. Allow me to withdraw the word "sectarian", which, particularly in the US, after Hauerwas, admittedly now suffers from runaway inflation. What I'm getting at is that Barth would refuse Milbank's relentless, resentful assault on the "secular". One can't imagine him using Marlene Dietrich in his eschatology!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-405100080006653952008-01-06T18:37:00.000-05:002008-01-06T18:37:00.000-05:00Thanks for these very helpful comments.Just to ret...Thanks for these very helpful comments.<BR/><BR/>Just to return to CP's question for a moment: <I>"can somebody can explain to me how this 'interruption' theology relates to life and worship at the parish level?"</I> This is an excellent question, and it's worth noting that pastoral questions are very much the driving engine of this whole debate over methodology.<BR/><BR/>One way of looking at the debate would be to say that we're discussing three broad approaches to preaching. Should the preacher use scripture to reflect on meanings which are already immanent within the surrounding culture (David Tracy)? Or should the "world of scripture" be expounded without any direct reference to culture (Barth)? Or, again, should the preacher reflect on the way in which the world of scripture has invaded and altered the surrounding culture (Boeve's proposal)?<BR/><BR/>Obviously that's a very crude sketch of the three approaches — but I hope that still gives you a rough picture of the kind of pastoral questions that are driving the (seemingly abstract) methodological discussion.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-83287616043686774542008-01-06T18:11:00.000-05:002008-01-06T18:11:00.000-05:00Yes Kim your right. But remember that they both d...Yes Kim your right. But remember that they both do invoke Christian socialism. I think any sectarian tag on Milbank is a profound misreading. Not because I wish to defend him here (though he is very useful at some points), but rather because his church has no real distinction from creation as such. He is very critical of liberalism yes (and this is, along with the intro to TST make people read him as a theoretically oriented hyper Hauerwasian), but is quite open to many forms of political thought that are not Christian; Anarchism, communism, etc. Ultimately the two gifts are one for Milbank and so I would claim he is ultimately incapable of consistently offering a Hauerwasian counter-politics or a Barthian dialectical "No!" However, the language if (absolute?) interruption in Barthian dialectic or Yoderian apocalyptic should consider deeply the theoretical challenges that Milbank offers in his Bulgakovian and Lubacian moments (even if his reading de Lubac is atrocious at just this point).<BR/><BR/>I really appreciate this blog and the regular commentators (especially Kim's). This is fantastic theological exchange.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>EthanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-25580593043949785982008-01-06T17:54:00.000-05:002008-01-06T17:54:00.000-05:00This sounds like a useful proposal. Thanks for the...This sounds like a useful proposal. Thanks for the review.::aaron g::https://www.blogger.com/profile/03849988327077565616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-78388900108136117822008-01-05T18:02:00.000-05:002008-01-05T18:02:00.000-05:00Ben,Not having read Boeve I can't critique him on ...Ben,<BR/><BR/>Not having read Boeve I can't critique him on this score, but I can say that I would be interested in whether he engages Barth's critique of "a certain kind of Kierkegaardianism" in his essay, "Nein!" Because judging by what you say here, it seems Boeve is actually advocating just that position Barth was critiquing there, and if so would need to answer the critique. <BR/><BR/>Barth considers the possible theological relevance of a despair and loss of certainty on the immanent plane, seemingly at least similar to Boeve's "interrupted context," and rejects it as actually more Promethean than any other type of natural theology. Therefore he would not see it as some kind of compromise position between him and natural theologians. See Brunner and Barth, _Natural Theology_, Wipf and Stock, pp. 119-20.<BR/><BR/>Parenthetically, I suspect that much contemporary theology that ostensibly rejects natural theology and/or metaphysics actually, if unwittingly, falls into this category of a certain kind of Kierkegaardianism.JKnotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13567721786402019427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-53811063717595345362008-01-05T16:44:00.000-05:002008-01-05T16:44:00.000-05:00Okay, I admit that I haven't a clue what you guys ...Okay, I admit that I haven't a clue what you guys are talking about. Perhaps we can bridge the chasm here between lectern and pew if somebody can explain to me how this "interruption" theology relates/ could relate to life and worship at the congregational/ parish level?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-85966011097120263642008-01-05T14:46:00.000-05:002008-01-05T14:46:00.000-05:00Yes, Ben, a fantastic review. It is good to see s...Yes, Ben, a fantastic review. It is good to see someone invoking a plague on the houses of both correlation/mediating theologies and RO, which has become for me more and more like the proverbial Chinese meal in UK parlance - a great rush, but you find yourself hungry again a few hours later. <BR/><BR/>And full marks to Ethan for alerting readers to the profound differences between Milbank and Barth on the matter of nature and grace - particularly, I would add, as it plays itself out in politics, where Barth, unlike Milbank, did not refuse the secular as taboo and irretreivably benighted, and thus could be radical (and progressive) without being sectarian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-76450207890726694012008-01-05T12:21:00.000-05:002008-01-05T12:21:00.000-05:00Excuse the poorly structured last sentence. I mea...Excuse the poorly structured last sentence. I meant to say that Barth's account of the first and second gifts of grace is not as problematic as Milbank's actual collapsing of the two nor with how liberals often misread his harsh tone as implying a type of hyper seperation of the two. Apologies for the clumsy post.<BR/><BR/>EthanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-25767036069192802262008-01-05T12:18:00.000-05:002008-01-05T12:18:00.000-05:00Thanks for the great review Ben. I would add that...Thanks for the great review Ben. I would add that Boeve is often guilty of lumping all of the "anti-moderns" together such that justice is not done to any of them and in which he is unable to see their varied critiques of modernity as prudential judgments (not necessarily as principled rejections of the sacramentality of nature). Thus linking Barth and Milbank together in stressing discontinuity misses how importantly they differ from each other. Milbank's extreme intrinsicism collapses the nature/grace distinction as well as the church/world distinction. Barth's account more genuinely and complexly articulates an account of how creation and grace ought not be conflated with either Milbank's actual collapsing or with Boeve's misread of Milbank which reads his harsh rhetorical tone as simple rejection of God's work of creation.<BR/><BR/>EthanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-81880483419277573722008-01-05T03:59:00.000-05:002008-01-05T03:59:00.000-05:00This is great - just in time for this next semeste...This is great - just in time for this next semester. Thanks for the review.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-59546984837615902492008-01-05T03:51:00.000-05:002008-01-05T03:51:00.000-05:00Hi Nick. Yeah, a "novice" could certainly read thi...Hi Nick. Yeah, a "novice" could certainly read this. It might presuppose some basic understanding of Catholic correlation-theologies, but it's really not a difficult book.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-65138627366772188922008-01-05T03:30:00.000-05:002008-01-05T03:30:00.000-05:00Great review Ben! Would you recommend this to a n...Great review Ben! Would you recommend this to a novice? And if not then what are a few works you'd suggest before moving on to this one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com