tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post2726473415460956415..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Bruce McCormack: Orthodox and modern: studies in the theology of Karl BarthBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-84416945609041957562009-08-09T10:26:06.194-04:002009-08-09T10:26:06.194-04:00Thanks for the review Ben. I always find Barth a l...Thanks for the review Ben. I always find Barth a little unaccessible and you've helped me somewhat.<br /><br /><br />On a side note...for years i confused in my mind Roland Barthes and Karl Barth. I think they call it a fossilized mistake. It led to some rather curious internal intellectual machinations.Anna Blanchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13485487679026159856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-62627616585768821952009-08-09T10:24:38.467-04:002009-08-09T10:24:38.467-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anna Blanchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13485487679026159856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-34183640224892760842008-10-02T10:18:00.000-04:002008-10-02T10:18:00.000-04:00A fine review Ben.A fine review Ben.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-6366682084631528972008-09-21T17:14:00.000-04:002008-09-21T17:14:00.000-04:00Thank you Ben, that does help!Thank you Ben, that does help!Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-73686407082879374162008-09-21T04:41:00.000-04:002008-09-21T04:41:00.000-04:00Thanks for these various comments. A few quick res...Thanks for these various comments. A few quick responses:<BR/><BR/>Nate: I really appreciate your probing comment here! I myself would take your critique of Barth's actualism very seriously, since you're really grappling with some of the core issues that were driving Barth's thought. (And I think your own work on Barth's relation to Troeltsch is extremely challenging and important.) Anyway, I don't have any substantive responses to your comment at the moment — but I hope we can revisit these questions when we come to discuss your own new book in a couple of weeks...<BR/><BR/>Skeeter: No, I'm afraid this has nothing to do with process theology! For an explicit treatment of how McCormack's approach differs from process thought on the one hand and open theism on the other, see another of his recent essays (not included in this volume), "The Actuality of God: Karl Barth in Conversation with Open Theism," chapter 10 in <I>Engaging the Doctrine of God</I> (Baker, 2008).<BR/><BR/>Bobby: Yes, you're right — McCormack doesn't think Torrance is the best guide to Barth's theology; he thinks the work of Eberhard Jüngel is a much better guide. McCormack once reviewed a book by Torrance (in <I>SJT</I>, I think), and he remarked there that Torrance tends to efface the differences between Barth and himself — a tendency which both hinders the interpretation of Barth, and conceals the real distinctiveness and independent importance of Torrance's own thought. <BR/><BR/>Doug: No, McCormack isn't advocating any sort of deification — he critiques deification in chapter 9, and he argues for a <I>historicised</I> understanding of "participation in God". The Son of God is not a metaphysical substance which we could indwell realistically; he is rather a specific <I>history</I> into which our own histories have been scripted through the decree of election. On the question of justification etc., you could also see another of McCormack's recent essays: "Justitia aliena: Karl Barth in Conversation with the Evangelical Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness," in <I>Justification in Perspective</I>, ed. Bruce McCormack (Baker, 2006), 167-96.<BR/><BR/>Hope that helps!Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-25257424164002400822008-09-20T23:17:00.000-04:002008-09-20T23:17:00.000-04:00Thanks, Ben,It's always great to hear the latest i...Thanks, Ben,<BR/><BR/>It's always great to hear the latest in process theology!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1795487175854844802008-09-20T19:06:00.000-04:002008-09-20T19:06:00.000-04:00Thank you for this review, Ben!So are you saying (...Thank you for this review, Ben!<BR/><BR/>So are you saying (or McCormack) that Torrance isn't the best guide for getting to know "Barthian" theology?<BR/><BR/>What distinction does McCormack offer between "neo-orthodox" theologians vs. "real Barth" theology?Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-40528176271966698512008-09-19T19:01:00.000-04:002008-09-19T19:01:00.000-04:00Wow, Ben. Thank you for the brief answer. I person...Wow, Ben. Thank you for the brief answer. I personally think it is very important to be able to say succinctly what we also say in prose. I think you did well. I actually think this pattern (saying things in brief overviews as well as through longer articulations) is actually a biblical, even when I read the apostle Paul. Short hand and long hand. Good accouterments for any soldier or ambassador of grace. <BR/><BR/>Balthazar (spelling?) and Theo-drama, from another response after yours. I have a Catholic friend who has spoken about these matters Interesting stuff. <BR/><BR/>MattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-55344246513193881362008-09-19T18:23:00.000-04:002008-09-19T18:23:00.000-04:00Ben,insofar as I grasp what you're saying (or inde...Ben,insofar as I grasp what you're saying (or indeed what the book is saying) – you know I'm not a systematician – can I ask whether this "christological actualism" can lead anywhere but to a model of salvation that is exclusively <I>theopoiesis</I> and which all the other language we use in connection with atonement and salvation is partial metaphor for this fundamental transformation? (Which would be fine by me, but I'm curious whether McCormack goes there.)Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10326403777027937887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-35863475281032175692008-09-19T18:03:00.000-04:002008-09-19T18:03:00.000-04:00Ben:Thanks for the helpful review. It looks as if...Ben:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the helpful review. It looks as if I'll need to pick up this text, as McCormack and I share much as regards our assessment of Barth's relationship to 19th century theology (particularly vis-a-vis) Troeltsch but put this assessment to very different constructive theological "uses," if you will. As you might imagine, I would really want to probe you on what you mean by "a far reaching appropriation of Barth's christological actualism." This is in part because I'm not sure Barth's actualism works as an ontology as such, insofar as it does not avoid the same kind of metaphysically transcendental appeals that is sought to be avoided in the particular modes of Chalcedonianism and incarnationalism that you reference. It might be that Barth here diverges from Troeltsch so as to converge with him again at the point of a residual Hegelian idealism, as regards "history." If that's the case, Barth's historicizing is actually too-Troeltschian. But I've yet to read McCormack on this and I'll have to engage him. If I shoot from the hip here, I hope it will at least be excused by the fact that I don't shy away from really questioning Barth's actualism at this point in print. All of that is to say that I'm not sure its actualism "per se," that we need, but a real probing of what is at stake in Barth's christology throughout -- which I think is what you are pointing to. A far-reaching "christological actualism" may not be a "Barthian" actualism at all. You of course know that; and are doing much to help us understand that. It is at this point, however, that you are most exactly right: The inevitable divergences of interpretation I think will be the most fruitful and generative of theological conversations at present. Thank you for being a part of initiating this conversation and helping to carry it forward.<BR/><BR/>NateUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584371933193379683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-63546804414794694752008-09-19T16:23:00.000-04:002008-09-19T16:23:00.000-04:00Great review, thanks Ben. It's heartening to see t...Great review, thanks Ben. It's heartening to see that <I>some</I> Barth scholarship today has real value for positive theology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-82142313419977407862008-09-19T15:32:00.000-04:002008-09-19T15:32:00.000-04:00Ben, glad you've seen the article, the book Incarn...Ben, glad you've seen the article, the book Incarnation Anyway, responds to McCormack's response, and from an amateur's perspective is quite forceful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-20748797506554324012008-09-19T14:52:00.000-04:002008-09-19T14:52:00.000-04:00I'd love to a see the following cage match:Hunsing...I'd love to a see the following cage match:<BR/><BR/>Hunsinger v McCormack<BR/>Webster Gockel<BR/>Molnar Hector<BR/>Van Driel Myers<BR/><BR/>Such a good contest but let's be honest, once big mac goes down the other three will run and molnar will chase them out of the arena and give them the fore-arm shiver in the parking lotAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-3137016801462911932008-09-19T13:34:00.000-04:002008-09-19T13:34:00.000-04:00There's a response to the review here.There's a response to the review <A HREF="http://www.entangledstates.org/2008/09/ben-myers-on-ba.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-6660585074543378292008-09-19T13:29:00.000-04:002008-09-19T13:29:00.000-04:00Hi Anon. Yes, van Driel's essay on McCormack is a ...Hi Anon. Yes, van Driel's essay on McCormack is a good piece — and McCormack's response to him is also printed in this volume. <BR/><BR/>Paul, one of the recurring themes of all McCormack's work is his critique of "neo-orthodox" appropriations of Barth. It's in this context that he links Frei and Torrance — he sees both of them as proponents of "neo-orthodox" theology. To quote a bit more from the same page: "the attempt to find in [the early volumes of <I>CD</I>] a 'revelational positivism' must surely fail. And this means, too, that the neoorthodox project could not appeal to Barth as its guarantor. The followers of Frei and Torrance must look elsewhere for resources for their various projects" (p. 294).Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-41839460351055970902008-09-19T13:13:00.000-04:002008-09-19T13:13:00.000-04:00You should check out Edwin Chr. Van Driel's work o...You should check out Edwin Chr. Van Driel's work on what Bruce McCormack has to say..."The Eternal Existence of Jesus Christ" in Scottish Journal of Theology and <I>Incarnation Anyway</I> Oxford 2008.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-23250501752959607112008-09-19T09:28:00.000-04:002008-09-19T09:28:00.000-04:00Ben:“The followers of Frei and Torrance must look ...Ben:<BR/>“The followers of Frei and Torrance must look elsewhere for resources for their various projects” (p. 294).<BR/>I am surprised that Frei and Torrance are linked. Can you expand this a little? What is common between these two men, in their use of Barth?<BR/>Thanks,<BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-55857307191110965152008-09-19T08:59:00.000-04:002008-09-19T08:59:00.000-04:00Wow, thanks for the review. You've forced me to or...Wow, thanks for the review. You've forced me to order a copy!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-82653083038479744702008-09-19T08:45:00.000-04:002008-09-19T08:45:00.000-04:00Ben, excellent review. This is a great volume...I ...Ben, excellent review. This is a great volume...I had previously read some of these articles, but I am enjoying them thoroughly (not quite to the good stuff in part 3 yet though!). <BR/><BR/>The opposition of Milbank and McCormack was most interesting...I think this might be right, but it will have to be -- as all critiques of RO must eventually be -- very nuanced. I mean, we can already anticipate Milbank's response here: "Precisely. Barth's actualistic ontology is thoroughly voluntaristic, and thus has its real root in a late medieval Scotism, whereby we lose any real account of transcendence, and thus any true account of mediation." But, of course, the penultimate sentence to this great review already anticipates the necessary response: "<I>christological</I> actualism"...don't think Milbank knows what to do with Christology without making the Logos into some cipher for linguistic mediation...McCormack (and McCormack's Barth) certainly do a little better with Christology! <BR/><BR/>Thanks again.Dave Belcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964414652031988664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-46943662655568900272008-09-19T05:38:00.000-04:002008-09-19T05:38:00.000-04:00Most excellent as always. Thanks.The Trinity as ac...Most excellent as always. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>The Trinity as act and decision sounds a lot like what Balthasar was trying to achieve with Theo-Drama, furthering the comparisons between the two theologians.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03158652865099115440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-3346857500138057502008-09-19T02:39:00.000-04:002008-09-19T02:39:00.000-04:00Hey Matt,Barth's contribution to theology is rathe...Hey Matt,<BR/>Barth's contribution to theology is rather immense and I don't think a comment on a blog is going to help you find an answer to your question. I'd suggest that you try to find and read Barth's "Evangelical Theology." It's a great introduction and will help you to see that he has a lot to offer Reformed/Evangelical Packer types like you and me. Here's a great quote from it:<BR/><BR/>"Evangelical theology, on the other hand, is to be pursued in hope, though as a human work it is radically questioned by God, found guilty in God's judgment and verdict-and though collapsing long before it reaches its goal, it relies on God who himself seeks out, heals, and saves man and his work. This God is the hope of theology...We say this simply in view of the fact that the God of the Gospel is the God who has acted and revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God's work and word. He is the fire of God's love, by which all theological existence is consumed even more radically than all human existence. He is the Judge before whom all men can only fall and perish along with their knowledge and deeds-and this is known best by those who know Him best. Ecce homo! Behold the man!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-37095123312967765852008-09-18T23:08:00.000-04:002008-09-18T23:08:00.000-04:00Yikes. Is it true that Barth's words only exist wh...Yikes. <BR/><BR/>Is it true that Barth's words only exist when we encounter them? <BR/><BR/>Anyways, in real basic language, what would you say is Barth's contribution to theology? Please remember I am a layman that easily get's lost by real technical language. <BR/><BR/>Also, where do you more or less place yourself theologically. I was just wondering, looking over your site. <BR/><BR/>I guess I am kind of J.I. Packer Reformed/Evangelical, for what it is worth. <BR/><BR/>MattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com