Monthly Archives: May 2009 - Page 3

Does Capitalism Work?

Not according to John Médaille at FPR, who is in the midst of an essay on the economics of distributism which looks to be quite interesting:

. . .  there is a certain amount of resignation among distributists, the feeling that they are facing a system that “works,” and that our major task is to add a moral dimension to an already fully functioning system. For example, Daniel M. Bell writes, “The empirical question put to capitalism cannot be ‘does it work?’ The obvious answer is “yes.” At first glance, Prof. Bell’s statement would appear to be true: we do see a working system around us, however imperfectly. However, the working system we see is not capitalism, but Keynesianism. The best one can say from the empirical evidence is that Keynesian Capitalism works. But to say this is to already destroy the argument of the capitalists, or at least of the pure capitalists. If capitalism is a system that requires massive government intervention to balance supply and demand, then it’s purely economic claims must be called into question.

Read more »

Barth on Heresy

In §2 of Cd I/1 Barth has a number of interesting reflections on the nature of heresy and its relationship to faith:

By heresy we understand a form of Christian faith which we cannot deny to be a form of Christian faith from the formal standpoint, i.e., in so far as it, too, relates to Jesus Christ, to His Church, to baptism, Holy Scripture and the common Christian creeds, but in respect of which we cannot really understand what we are about when we recognise it as such, since we can understand its content, its interpretation of these common presuppositions only as a contradiction of faith. (p. 32)

So heresy is paradoxical for Barth. On the one hand it can only be understood as something recognizably Christian. On the other hand understanding it as Christians presents one with a contradiction in terms of the essence of Christianity. Further to this:

Because of its paradoxical nature, heresy is for faith an important factor. Or, as we might say, unbelief in the form of heresy is for faith and important factor—which is not the case when it is present as pure unbelief. Because in heresy it is present as a form of faith, it must be taken seriously at this point and there can and must be serious conflict between faith and heresy. (p. 32)

Heresy is important for faith, not because it is complete unbelief, but precisely because it is a form of faith with which we have to reckon.

In true encounter with heresy faith is plunged into conflict with itself, because, so long and so far as it is not free of heresy, so long and so far as heresy affects it, so long and so far as it must accept responsibility in relation to it, it cannot allow even the voice of unbelief which it thinks it hears in heresy to cause it to treat it as not at least also faith but simply as unbelief. It must understand it as a possibility of faith [Italics added]. To be sure, it will see it as a profoundly incomprehensible one, which can be regarded only as a possibility of disruption and destruction of faith, as a possibility against which it must be on guard. Yet it must still understand it as a possibility of faith, and therefore and to this extent—hence the need for powerful defense—as its own possibility, a possibility within and not without the Church, hard though it may be to think of it as such. This is the reason why this conflict is a serious conflict. (p. 33)

This is also the reason why I often find it more important to criticize other forms of Christian faith and practice than the secular godless liberals of the world. Paganism can never be as important to Christian faith as heresy.

Anyone think Rowan Williams’s take on heresy and orthodoxy might have been influenced by these passages from Barth? There seems to be more than a few similarities to his arguments in Arius here.

Remembering P.T. Forsyth

Jason alerts us to the fact that today is the birthday of Scottish theologian, P.T. Forsyth. Forsyth is one of the great underrated theologians and probably always will be. His books are worth anyone’s time. The Holy Father, The Cruciality of the Cross, and The Soul of Prayer are some of the best books of his.

Here’s a quote of his to add to the one Jason already posted:

Man is indeed incomparable with God, but incompatible he is not. And in Christ the compatibility becomes full communion. In Christ the living God is, to the extent that he lives, the giving God. In Christ we were neither made nor saved to eke out some lack in God, nor to meed some hunger in his being; but of his fullness we have all received. And we are here as the fullness and overflow of his creative love, to his praise and glory in our faith’s receptive and sympathetic love.

God in Christ is the maker of his own revelation. It was God himself that came to us in Christ; it was nothing about God, even about his eternal essence or his excellent glory. It is God that is our salvation, and not the truth about God. And what Christ came to do was not to convince us even that God is love, but to be with us and in us as the loving God forever and ever. He came not to preach the living God but to be God our life; yes, not to preach even the loving God but to be the love that God forever is.”

~ P.T. Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ, 353-54.

The Great Barth Experiment of 2009

There’s every chance in the world that this won’t work out. This is one of those grand types of resolutions that are made to be forgotten about in a matter of days or weeks. Nevertheless I’m going to give it a shot. I mean, seriously, if I’m going to pay for the entire new set of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, it’s only fitting that I actually commit to read the thing. So that’s the plan. I plan to read the whole, entire, complete thing. But don’t worry, I’m not crazy. I will probably skim many of the in-text footnotes. I’m not gonna lie.

The new edition is split into 31 volumes, including the index (which, of course won’t be included in my final count). So that leaves me 30 volumes ranging between 150ish-400ish pages in length. My goal is to shoot for one of these volumes per week. This, of course is ridiculous.

But look, I’m 27 and single. Why would I not do this? Most of you get to have wives and children and mortgages. I get to read Karl Barth. It’s simple physics.

There are  two reasons why this plan will almost certainly fail. Probably more, but two that are relevant to me. First, even the most elementary theomathematician among us can see that pulling this plan off would entail reading the same series of books (all of them on dogmatics, no less) for 30 straight weeks. My attention doesn’t usually remain transfixed for that long, even on a set this awesome. So there’s that. Second, as I’ve already lamented, I watch way to effing much in the way of shows than is conducive to large amounts of reading. This also has retroactive impact on reason #1. The more time I spend watching Deadwood, the less time I have to read a variety of things when I get bored.

So, my steps shall be as follows. Beginning today the goal is one of the (new) Barth volumes per week. Usually this is going to average out to 40 or more (occasionally about twice as much, but not often) pages per day. I think I can pull this off. If and only if I can mitigate the danger posed by visual media burgling my time away. To that end, the laptop is (generally) going to be staying at work during the week from now on. If I can pull that off, I think I have a shot at this.

And lets face it, from a theologically geeking out perspective, there’s not much that’s more awesome than this.

So yeah. There’s every reason why I should fail at this undertaking. But I bought the set, so I’m taking the shot. If all goes according to plan, by December 7th, I should have read the Dogmatics. And watched no Deadwood.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Dogmatics as Persistence

More from the early sections of CD I/1 on the nature of dogmatics according to Barth:

“Dogmatics as an enquiry presupposes that they true content of Christian talk about God must be known by men. Christian speech must be tested by its conformity to Christ. This conformity is never clear and unambiguous. To the finally and adequately given divine answer there corresponds a human question which can maintain its faithfulness only in unwearied and honest persistence. There corresponds even at the highest point of attainment the open: ‘Not that I had already attained.’ Dogmatics receives even the standard by which it measures in an act of human appropriation. Hence it has to be enquiry. It knows the light which is intrinsically perfect and reveals everything in a flash. Yet it knows it only in the prism of this act, which, however radically or existentially it may be understood, is still a human act, which in itself is no kind of surety for the correctness of the appropriation in question, which is by nature fallible and therefore stands in need of criticism, of correction, of critical amendment and repetition.” (p. 13-14)

Best Theology Books of the Last Two Years?

Alright, this question is actually an exercise in my own personal fact-finding. Every year I write this review column on British and American theology. Last year’s was a real winner with J. Kameron Carter’s Race: A Theological Account, Ted Smith’s The New Measures, and Nate Kerr’s Christ, History and Apocalyptic. So, this year I have to, once again choose the books I think most worthy to be included in the column. Sadly, we’re dealing here with constructive (i.e. systematic) theology in this publication, otherwise this would be the year for doing something on the awesome books on Paul that are coming out this year (Campbell and Gorman for starters).

So, if you had to pick 3-4 theology books from 2008-present to review, what would your choices be?

Where God May Speak

And for the first quote from my brand new, and freaking awesome Barth set, I give you a quote from CD I/1 that, contrary to many of the “invention of the antichrist”-type caricatures of Barth, exhibits his quite robust theology of creation, culture, and revelation:

“If the question [of] what God can do forces theology to be humble, the question [of] what is commanded forces it to concrete obedience. God may speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to Him if He really does. . . . God make speak to us through a pagan or an atheist, and thus give us to understand that the boundary between the Church and the secular world can still take at any time a different course from that which we think we discern.” (CD I/1, 55)

And his hair was perfect…

Here’s what’s going on around the theoblogs today:

  • Craig Carter and Peter Leithart go back and forth about Yoder and Constantinianism.
  • Speaking of Yoder, R.O. Flyer takes a look or two at Yoder’s Christology and the question of the Creeds.
  • A Chicagoan weighs in on the row about Obama’s choice of condiments.
  • Chris Spinks also takes a look at Michael Gorman’s latest book on Theosis in Paul.
  • Michael Bird also points us to a new video from N.T. Wright on his latest book on Justification in Paul.

Theosis Defined

Gorman offers the following definition of theosis as it applies to the thought of St. Paul:

Theosis is transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character and life of God through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ, who is the image of God. (p. 125)

The only thing I might tweak here would be to replace “Spirit-enabled” with “Spirit-actualized” or something of that nature. Other than that this seems to be a good definition of theosis, which makes clear that theosis is not about having our human nature changed into divine nature or something like that. Rather it is transformative participation that results in conformitas Christi.

At Last

I’ve been waiting for this set since last October. And finally it is here:

0508091111

I’m delighted with the new edition of the Church Dogmatics. Not withstanding the loss of the prefaces, I still think this edition will be eminently more readable. At least I certainly hope so. Be prepared for a lot of posts on Barth. Because for almost $500, this set is going to get read.

The World of Editing

These seriously are the kinds of questions we tend to ruminate on the publishing business.

Insane Quote of the Day

Oh me oh my

“People in Africa aren’t dying from too much capitalism but too little. Perhaps you want to blame the French or the Americans. But I assure you they are not ultimately to blame. African collectivism is socialism woven into the fabric of the culture itself, and people remain in their poverty because there is no incentive to produce more than a minimum necessary to survive.”

I think I just threw up a little. In my mouth.

Theology and Race

The Princeton Theological Review has issued a call for papers for their upcoming issue, the focus of which is on theology and race. In particular they are looking for articles engaging J. Kameron Carter’s recent (and excellent) book, Race: A Theological Account. A worthy endeavor indeed, as I think this is one of the most important books to come out last year and will totally change the landscape of black theology and any theological approach to racial issues. Here are a couple paragraphs from my own review of the book, which appeared in Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie in the regular review column on British and American theology that Paul Metzger and I write together every year:

What lies behind the modern problem of race is what Carter identifies as the theological problem of whiteness. What he means by this has nothing inherently to do with pigmentation, but rather with the structure of supremacy that was built into the fabric of Western culture under the conditions of the modern racial imagination. What the theological problem of whiteness fundamentally names is the way in which the Oriental other (figured archetypally as the Jew) came to be racialized over-against the givenness of Occidental Christian reality. Carter makes this particularly clear in his discussion of the racial theory of Kant (pp. 89-95). In his taxonomy of races, it becomes fundamentally clear that white Europeans, while technically a race, are for Kant truly the specimens of humanity-as-such. The racialized others are only human insofar as they are, in varying degrees, connected to white humanity.

This racial imagination yields understandably heretical theological conclusions, especially in regard to the Jewishness of Christ. As Carter shows, must Western theological imagination came to cast Christ precisely not as Jewish but as a figure of the Occident, whose proclaimed salvation is precisely deliverance from the sort of mucky particularity that characterizes the Jewish race over against the universal and rational religion of Western Christianity. And here we come to the crux of the issue at play in Carter’s account: the modern racial imagination is at its core a christological heresy that seeks to establish the universality of whiteness over against all other forms of racialized flesh. This is also where certain elements of Black liberation theology have failed to go far enough according to Carter. For programs like those of James Cone, the problem is that in their attempts to exposit the theological importance of blackness, the theological structure of whiteness is simply left in its place (pp. 191–93). The proper response to this situation is, for Carter, a return to certain classical Christological sources and theological sources within the Afro-Christian tradition which offer a distinctly non-racial way of reading Christ’s Jewish particularity. As Cater notes, Christ’s Jewish flesh is fundamentally not racial flesh at all, for biblical Israel is not a race, but God’s covenant people. Christ’s flesh is not racial but irreducibly covenantal (pp. 30–31). As such, salvation as given in Christ is precisely salvation from whiteness, from a theological structure of antagonism that reduces our interhumanity to the polarities of hegemony and counter-hegemony.

Cross Talk

As I’ve been blogging through Mike Gorman’s excellent new book, Inhabiting the Cruciform God, I thought it might be good to mention that Mike is himself now actively blogging. His blog includes a great series on theological interpretation among other things. Definitely worth a look.

The Monstrosity of Milbank

Adam Kotsko has a lengthy and helpful rumination on Milbank’s contribution to the new Milbank-Žižek book, The Monstrosity of Christ. Here’s a bit:

The more serious point, however, is that despite the capaciousness of Milbank’s Catholicism, it seems to be unable to “account for” one thing — precisely Christ. Everything seems to work just fine without him, and the attempts to shoehorn the Incarnation into the system strike me as afterthoughts for the most part. The Neoplatonism is where Milbank’s heart really is, and he’s into his idealized version of “Catholicism” because that’s been the primary historical carrier of Neoplatonism in his part of the world. (Presumably an Iranian Milbank would’ve been a Muslim who believed himself to be providing the Ayatollah with some intellectual “wiggle room,” and an Indian Milbank would be wondering aloud if the caste system hasn’t gotten a bad rap due to poor implementation.) For all his talk about history and thick contingency, he doesn’t seem to me to have any serious sense of the contingent historical event that should be central to all his reflections. And so for me, Milbank’s argument suffers from a problem much worse than being an unconvincing argument for Christianity — it’s unclear to me that what it’s arguing for even is Christianity.

This is like, pretty much exactly what I think. Spot on.

Switch to our mobile site