R.O. Flyer has a great post up on Dan Barber and Nate Kerr’s recent exchange in Political Theology that gets at the way in which, for Yoder, apocalyptic theology functions as a different account, both of the “doctrine of creation” and offers a new perspective on transcendence and immanence. Definitely worth a read. I think this discussion is of the utmost importance in the future of Yoder scholarship and the direction of theology as a whole.
Calendar
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Blogroll
- A Greater Courage
- ad absurdum
- After Existentialism, Light
- an(Other) Blog
- Beyond the Secular Canopy
- bLogos
- Church and Postmodern Culture
- Clavi Non Defixi
- Consuming Jesus
- Cross Talk
- Crunchy Con
- Daily Dish
- Der Evangelische Theologe
- Disruptive Grace
- Double Movement
- Euangelion
- Eunomia
- Faith and Theology
- Fire and the Rose
- Flying Farther
- Harvard Ichthus
- Intersections
- James K.A. Smith
- JRidenour
- Katagrapho
- Kooy to the World
- La Perruque
- Loretta’s Basement
- Matt Wiebe
- Moving Image
- My Diaspora
- Narrative and Ontology
- Notes for the Coming Community
- Objet petit a
- On Journeying with Those in Exile
- Ortus Memoria
- Per Caritatem
- Per Crucem ad Lucem
- Peter Leithart
- Questionable Answers
- Rain and The Rhinoceros
- Resident Theology
- Retired Pastor Ruminates
- Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
- Rwanda and Theology
- Sign on the Window
- Sub Ratione Dei
- Sub Specie Aeterni
- Theology Forum
- Theophiliacs
- Theopolitical
- Two Friars and a Fool
- Victus Sententia
Archives
- September 2010 (6)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (9)
- June 2010 (19)
- May 2010 (16)
- April 2010 (15)
- March 2010 (24)
- February 2010 (61)
- January 2010 (42)
- December 2009 (10)
- November 2009 (23)
- October 2009 (29)
- September 2009 (44)
- August 2009 (44)
- July 2009 (20)
- June 2009 (41)
- May 2009 (58)
- April 2009 (71)
- March 2009 (112)
- February 2009 (26)
- January 2009 (22)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (10)
- October 2008 (37)
- September 2008 (50)
- August 2008 (30)
- July 2008 (29)
- June 2008 (32)
- May 2008 (32)
- April 2008 (44)
- March 2008 (45)
- February 2008 (38)
- January 2008 (37)
- December 2007 (25)
- November 2007 (32)
- October 2007 (33)
- September 2007 (21)
- August 2007 (22)
- July 2007 (39)
- June 2007 (33)
- May 2007 (8)
- April 2007 (15)
- March 2007 (18)
- February 2007 (9)
- January 2007 (14)
- December 2006 (17)
- November 2006 (10)
- October 2006 (14)
- September 2006 (5)
- August 2006 (8)
- June 2006 (4)
Why is “doctrine of creation” in scare-quotes? One of the main questions that both Barthians and Yoderians need to answer (although probably not Barth and Yoder themselves) is what to do with a doctrine of creation.
I suppose I didn’t need the jerk quotes. What I was trying to get at though, was how, for Yoder there is no such thing as a doctrine of creation that could be understood as something independent of the New Testament’s theology of Christ and the powers.
Ken:
I am working on this exact question right now. It will be the first essay in my next book.
Nate,
Your productivity puts us more snail-ish type scholars to shame.
If your piece doesn’t already have a name, may I suggest a working title that Scott Prather and I have been kicking around for some book that will probably never be written: “A Good Doctrine of Creation – Finally!”
Hey Nate, while you’re at it, could you write the last chapter of my thesis?
We’ll ask him to write it while we haunt the finer place of the Athens of the South he has shown us.
I don’t know Yoder half as well as most people here, but from conversations with some friends, putting the issue of a doctrine of creation solely in terms of a doctrine of Christ and the powers seems fairly restrictive, and might not fully represent the scope of Yoder’s position.
In one sense, I can agree with you. My worry would be that a doctrine of creation done in this way becomes a wholly reactive and negative undertaking (retrospective yes, and that aspect is fine with me), and will probably lack a full account of God’s creative intentions that were then and now being thwarted. It is the *positive* side of a doctrine of creation that interests me, and that is what I think is absent from a lot of works done in a more Barthian or Yoderian vein.
I’m sure we will both be eagerly awaiting Nate’s next book, for precisely these reasons.