Tuesday, 29 March 2016
Wednesday, 23 March 2016
Jenson about Barth on Jenson on Barth: a review-anecdote
Posted by Steve Wright 2 comments
In a “review” of D. Stephen Long’s Saving Karl Barth published in Pro Ecclesia last year, Robert Jenson offers a corrective and an anecdote. Long, like many others, takes exception to Bruce McCormack’s view that II/2 forms the metaphysical centre of Barth’s theology. Students of Jenson will know that Jenson himself made the same claim—well before McCormack—in his PhD, which was revised and published as Alpha and Omega. Long claims that there is “no positive statement by Barth of II/2’s centrality.” Jenson is amused at this argument, since “there is in fact such a statement, and I am its most direct witness.”
In the summer of 1959 we moved our young family from Heidelberg to Basel in hope of my consulting Barth himself during the final drafting of my Heidelberg dissertation, which was on ‘The Election of Jesus Christ in the Theology of Karl Barth.’ Barth was open to this, reading a final version before we returned to Heidelberg. In it I argued, as bluntly as possible, that his doctrine of election in II/2 upended traditional understandings of the relation between time and eternity and thus inaugurated an innovative ontology, and that this complex was then—for better or worse—the ruling center of his subsequent theology. Barth invited me to his study, and after some conversation said, "Aber Herr Jenson—Sie haben mich verstanden," "But Mr. Jenson—you have understood me." A bit later an interviewer for the Christian Century asked Barth if anyone had grasped the real center of his thinking. Barth answered that there was ‘one, a young American.’ Subsequently I was identified by name in the journal as the one—not by me.
McCormack's theology is hardly identical to Jenson's, but they accord the same status to II/2. The result, Jenson claims, is that Barth's imprimatur extends to McCormack on at least this point. One who wishes to disagree with McCormack’s central thesis about election, Jenson concludes, is not discrediting McCormack, but “it is Barth’s teaching that is thus discredited.”
And so the Barth-wars continue.
Labels: Bruce McCormack, election, Karl Barth, Robert W. Jenson
Related posts:Sunday, 20 March 2016
Donald doodlings
Posted by Kim Fabricius 1 comments
– Donald Trump [oops, sorry – Hazel Motes, in Wise Blood]
Of course Trump does not need to confess his sins. Or haven’t you heard of the Immaculate Deception? My wife – he makes her want to have a shower.
If you want to understand the phenomenon, go with the fact that Trump is not running a campaign but building a church. The ugly rhetoric and half-assed policy proposals are primarily a means to the end of selling himself as a charismatic Saviour. The traction of his teaching lies precisely in its apocalyptic promise to resentful and credulous marginalised and patronised white males, as well as to an assortment of chauvinists and bigots. Trump is the fearless frontier Übermensch who shouts “Fuck you!” to the establishment and “Trust me!” to the hoi polloi. What makes him so toxic is the combination of faux authenticity and can-do nihilism.
Trump has got it all wrong about asylum seekers. He should welcome them, while encouraging violence against them. “It’s good Yankee hospitality,” he could claim: “we’re making them feel right at home.”
Spot the homophonic error in Trump’s “Making America Great Again”.
I hear that 86-year-old Hal Lindsey is working on a new edition of The Late, Great Planet Earth. November 8th 2016 looks to be a key date in the End-Times scenario. Otherwise we can only be sure that the Last Trump will follow the first.
Three characteristics of the anal expulsive character are overweening self-belief, emotional dysregulation, and casual cruelty. And in his Assholes: A Theory (2012), Aaron James observes that the asshole is characterised by his failure “to recognize others in a fundamental, morally important way.” To coin a phrase, one might speak of the “anality of evil”.
Meanwhile, back at the Temple …“We thank you, God, that we are real Christians, living the Beatitudes, welcoming migrants, supporting ‘Black Lives Matter’, and not hypocrites, xenophobes, and racists like those (Re)publican Trumpvangelicals. Enlighten them, O Lord. Amen.”
The answer to an America full of lapsed Christians is a Christianity full of lapsed Americans.
Here in the UK, we are preparing for a wave of penitent prodigals, sick of presidential pig shit, returning from the far colonies later this year.
Three books being written about the Republican campaign for the presidency: From Ronald to Donald: The Decline and Fall of the GOP; Cruz Control; and O Rubio, Rubio, Wherefore Art Thou, Rubio?
The problem with Twitter is that it’s easier to hate than to love in 140 characters.
The doctrine by which the contemporary Church of Health and Beauty stands or falls is justification by face.
Everyone becomes a sacrifice. The only question is whether you are a self-offering or the immolation of someone else.
Love or certainty? You can’t have both.
Great novelists start by observing their characters and end by being observed by them.
It is said that belief in God begins with wonder. It ends there too.
Blessed are those who read and travel widely, for theirs is the kingdom of Odd.
The dead don’t haunt the living, but the living torment the dead.
We must handle our secrets with care and discernment, because some are to be cherished, while others are half way to being lies.
We are always trying to get away with something. Jesus never tried to get away with anything. I think that’s one way to parse his sinlessness.
Be a guitarist, not a guitar.
The reality of evil and suffering makes some people lose their faith in God. For me, it has the opposite effect.
I used to hate weeding, working with impatience. Now that I’m a drain on society, however, I identify with dock and dandelions, and I dispatch them reluctantly.
I once was lost, but now am found. Otherwise, I’m as screwed up as the next guy.
Labels: current affairs, doodlings
Related posts:Thursday, 17 March 2016
How the ontological argument succeeds
Posted by Steve Wright 2 comments
Labels: apologetics, philosophical theology
Related posts: