Sunday 17 February 2008

Here and there


::aaron g:: said...

I wonder how much Goodchild’s book on money will sell for?

Erin said...

The article on death is fascinating. Glad to see Becker's work used. Prof. Anderson, of course, turned my attention towards the Denial of Death, interrupting my Lacanian mood for valuable moment. :)

Anonymous said...

The best guide to Barth's place in German political and intellectual history is Arne Rassumsson.

He has distinguished himself with a series of excellent articles. He contradicts those who (absurdly) would make Barth responsible for the rise of Hitler. (Cf. Ex. 20:16.) You may be able to access some of his writings online through Google Scholar.

1. Rasmusson, “’Deprive Them of Their Pathos’: Karl Barth and the Nazi Revoution Revisited,” Modern Theology 23 (July 2007).

2. “Historiography and Theology: Theology in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich,” Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte (Heft 2, 2007).

3. “Church and Nation-State: Karl Barth and German Public Theology in the Early 20th Century,” Ned Geref Teologiese Tydskrif 46 (2005).

Danny said...

I just want to reiterate that the point of my post on Barth is that his work is currently being assessed from a non-theological vantage point by American intellectual historians, which I find significant.

Further, it was not my intention to critize representives of this trend (all, though, I agree with Husinger's take on Lilla and appreciate the references)but simply to highlight it and to ask the question why Barth is now being considered.

Anonymous said...

My question: What do Halden and Rowan have against Kathleen Turner?! She singlehandedly redeemed _Romancing the Stone_.

Post a Comment


Contact us

Although we're not always able to reply, please feel free to email the authors of this blog.

Faith and Theology © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.