Category Archives: Meme

Theological Confessions Revisited

Posted by on October 27, 2008 33 comments

Way back when, Ben Myers posted a meme, about getting theologically “out of the closet” by confessing their idiosyncratic and/or slightly impolite theological beliefs. Here’s the thing about “theological confessions”: they tend to change pretty substantially the more one reads and studies. Or at least mine do. Its not as though fundamental convictions tend to change readily, rather it our sensibilities, tastes, nuances, and emphases that tend to be fluid.

Indeed, when I look over my old list, I am quite embarrassed about a few of them. So, here is a new list of my confessions, which I imagine I will be quite embarrassed about in a year or so:

I confess: I think Karl Barth is the most important theologian of the modern age. No question.

I confess: Sometimes the word “Sola” is necessary for faithful theology and discipleship.

I confess: I think Rowan Williams is the best theologian writing today.

I confess: I think that John Howard Yoder has more to teach us about how to do theology, and the nature of Christology, and ecumenical theology than anyone else in recent theological history.

I confess: I think that Robert Jenson, John Webster, and Bruce McCormack are the best readers of Barth writing today.

I confess: I think that Herbert McCabe was perhaps the smartest modern Catholic theologian.

I confess: I think most attempts to redefine apatheia in recent theology are misguided and misleading.

I confess: I think that the Johannine literature of the New Testament may be the most subversive sector of biblical literature vis a vis modern sensibilities.

I confess: I think the fashionable attempts to contend that “Constantinianism” was not a real thing is just wishful thinking shrouded in silly notions of good ecumenical manners.

I confess: I think that the fashionable attempts to narrate the history of Christian theology as if “Hellenic” influences were not a deeply problematic thing are naive, misguided, and only sustainable on the basis of a lack of critical engagement with the actual historical sources.

The One Movie Meme

Posted by on May 12, 2008 4 comments

Leave it to Ben to start another one of these things.  Oh well, lets have fun with it.

1. One movie that made you laugh
Drowning Mona

2. One movie that made you cry
Pan’s Labyrinth

3. One movie you loved when you were a child
The Karate Kid

4. One movie you’ve seen more than once
The Devil’s Advocate

5. One movie you loved, but were embarrassed to admit it
Bridget Jones’s Diary

6. One movie you hated
Trade

7. One movie that scared you
E.T.

8. One movie that bored you
Gerry

9. One movie that made you happy
The Big Lebowski

10. One movie that made you miserable
The Cider House Rules

11. One movie you weren’t brave enough to see
The Passion of the Christ

12. One movie character you’ve fallen in love with
Dorothy Boyd (Renée Zellweger in Jerry Maguire)

13. The last movie you saw
Walk Hard (There’s a bit of shame in admitting that one)

14. The next movie you hope to see
Pineapple Express

15. Now tag five people: David, Adam, Eric, Christian, and David.

Recommended Reading Meme

Posted by on August 14, 2007 4 comments

I have now been tagged by David with the ‘recommended reading’ meme.  Thus, here are a few of the books that I find myself often recommending to people.  Many of them are also some of my favorite books (as would be expected), but all of them are ones that I find myself recommending often.

  • Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.  This is one of my basic “if you want to know what Christianity is really all about” books.  You won’t find a better book on the nature of Christianity, the church, and mission.
  • Hans Urs von Balthasar, Love Alone is Credible.  This is what people should read instead of anything falling under the rubric of “apologetics”.  There are few other writings more concise which so deeply explore the nature of God and Christian faith.
  • Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom.  There’s no better place to start exploring the relationship between the kingdom of God, the church, and social ethics. 
  • Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship.  An unparalleled treatment of what it means to follow Jesus and to understand the church as his body. 
  • Alan Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection.  If you want to know what God is really like and what it means to understand Christ as the revelation of God, then this is the book for you.  Beautifully written and theologically profound.
  • Lee Camp, Mere Discipleship.  This is a super-readable book that lays out what “radical discipleship” really is.  It has wonderfully concise, yet informative and accurate discussions of the kingdom of God, the gospel, Christendom, baptism, the Lord’s Supper and the other essential practices of discipleship.
  • Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volumes 1 & 2.  This is the best systematic theology of our time, in my opinion.  Jenson’s theology is radical, lively, provocative, erudite, and endlessly profound.

On The Rooftops: Theological Proclamations

Posted by on June 28, 2007 12 comments

Ben’s theological confessions meme is taking off at the moment.  And, as I’m the kind of person who likes to steal, bastardize, and parrot ideas, here’s something similar: Theological Proclamations.  Of course the utility of something like this is that you can be a lot less contrite and confessiony about things and feel free to let the theological crankiness roam.  I have no illusions about this becoming another meme, but if you feel like posting your own, go for it!

 I proclaim:  That Kim Fabricius has done what Carl Henry and evangelicals everywhere have always dreamed of: making the word ‘proposition’ into something theologically tolerable.  If only they liked the content of his propositions…

 I proclaim:  That narrative theology is not a dead end!

 I proclaim:  That Radical Orthodoxy is pretty much all bullshit.  Maybe all of it.

I proclaim:  That one of my biggest theological fantasies is beating John Milbank about the head and shoulders with tire iron.

I proclaim:  That Thomas Aquinas is neither the best nor worst of the western theological tradition.  He is great on some things and out to lunch on some others.

 I proclaim:  That Anabaptism and Roman Catholicism have the most to teach the church universal.

 I proclaim:  That monks, not politicos, economists, or soldiers deserve the credit for the preservation of western civilization.

I proclaim:  That infant baptism obscures the gospel and is one of the most problematic ecclesial practices to come out of Christendom.  And it did come out of Christendom.

I proclaim:  That any theologian worth his salt should drink beer!

I proclaim:  That evangelicalism in North America (at least) is a theological and ecclesial dead end.

I proclaim:  That  Moltmann my be careless and wrong about a lot of things, but he deserves a really, really, careful reading.  And you can learn some great truths from everything he writes.

I proclaim:  That German Theology is not the future.  In fact its pretty much run its course.

I proclaim:  That Lesslie Newbigin is the only modern authority that has carte blanche authority on missiological issues.

I proclaim:  That the future of theology will be in eccleisal communities, not the academy.  In fact I don’t really think that theology can really be done in the academy at all.  It just lives off its ecclesial inertia.

Out of the Closet: Theological Confession Meme

Posted by on June 25, 2007 11 comments

Following Ben Myers’ new meme, here’s a list of my own “theological confessions”:

I confess:  I really do think Balthasar was a better and more interesting theologian than Barth.

I confess:  I’ve never really read much Frei or Lindbeck.

I confess:  If I wasn’t a “new monastic” free-church protestant, I’m pretty sure I’d be a Roman Catholic.

I confess:  I think Rowan Williams is the best archbishop of Cantebury and theologian of the Anglican communion since Cranmer.

I confess:  Whenever I hear the world “sola” I throw up a little bit.  In my mouth.

I confess:  I think Robert Jenson is the best theologian writing today.

I confess:  I stand with the church’s traditional teaching on marriage and sex.

I confess:  I think that T.F. Torrance, Colin Gunton, and Robert Jenson carry on and develop Barth’s theological heritage in a better and more interesting way than John Webster, Bruce McCormack, and George Hunsinger.

I confess:  I think that dogmatic precision can often come at the cost of theological faithfulness and creativity.

I confess:  I think that Henri de Lubac, not Rahner, Schillebeeckx, or even Balthasar is the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th Century.

Worst Theological Probleme Meme: Update

Posted by on June 14, 2007 Comments Off

Well, after a lengthy dead period, this little idea of mine is finally growing some wings. 

Besides the ones that have recenly appeared here as guest-posts, David Congdon has just produced a sucinct critique of Thomas Aquinas, which should stimulate some discussion. 

And for those of you that are interested, here are a few of the other ones that have been posed around the blogosphere since I first started the meme:

 Michael’s critique of Jürgen Moltmann (sorry David H., you weren’t the first)

Derrick’s critique of Wolfhart Pannenberg

I’m still waiting on one of the other Princeton Barthians to give us something on Bart and/or Jüngel. 

Worst Theological Problem Meme: Jürgen Moltmann

Posted by on June 14, 2007 1 comment

A Guest-Post by David Horstkoetter of Flying Farther. 

This challenge exposes a weakness I have, for all the reading I have done, I have rarely focused on one person’s systematic theology. And this limits the choices I feel even somewhat confident enough to talk about. However, if I were to pick someone, it would be Jürgen Moltmann. Given that theology in some areas (most prominently seen in liberation theology) has shifted from a focus upon the believer/atheist dichotomy to the person/non-person, James Cone has made the point that many theologies have lost their relevancy insomuch as they address an old question. However, there is a motif within European-born theology that holds promise for continuous relevancy between old and new theology: the suffering and hopeful Christ. This is why I have chosen Moltmann (no matter how much Halden might dislike him. heh.). Moltmann seems to be able to bridge the gap between many aspects of liberal, liberation, and conservative theology, but still retain a Christocentrism and this strength of Moltmann is very important for me right now.

The truth be told, I’d begun writing a rather lengthy response to this meme sometime ago, only to realize that I should read more to adequately critique and thus I kept putting this off. So now as I actually write this, in an effort to not come off crazy or extend beyond myself, I’ll attempt to level one solid of crititque that I have noticed myself, but have also been vocalized by others as well, particularly by some faculty here.

Despite all that Moltmann has accomplished (helped revive Trinitarian work, helped revive eschatology, a great deal of thought on theodicy, a theology of Creation and even “opened up a veritable new chapter in theology, in which the suffering of God is almost a new orthodoxy” says Grenz and Olson in 20th Century Theology), Moltmann is not flawless – far from it.

In my book the most difficult flaw to deal with, is the lack of method. Moltmann simply does not line out a hermeneutical method (although I hear he says that he will finally write one). I like his writing and understand it well enough, but as far as he approaches the Biblical text or theology as a whole, there is next to no information on method from what I have seen. In fact, this is also a gripe I have heard from a few professors here at Union. So for me, to access Moltmann’s conclusions, I sometimes have to construct my own arguement, an arguement that satisfies me and reaches his conclusion, because it just does not exist in his writings. With a lack of method, the rest of his writings seem to take on a whole other level of difficulty.

For instance, Moltmann came by Union for a Q and A while giving lectures in the city. We were given the lectures ahead of time to read. Here is a section:

The justice which Christ will bring about for all and everything is not the justice that establishes what is good and evil, and the retributive justice which rewards the good and punishes the wicked. It is God`s creative justice, which brings the victims justice and puts the perpetrators right. The victims of injustice and violence are first judged so that they may receive their rights. The perpetrators of evil will afterwards experience the justice that puts things to rights. They will thereby be transformed inasmuch as they will be redeemed only together with their victims. They will be saved through the crucified Christ, who comes to them together with their victims. They will `die` to their evil acts against their victims and the burden of their guilt in order to be born again to a new life together with their victims. Paul also expresses this with the image of the fire through which every human work is proved: `If any man`s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire` (1 Cor. 3.15). The image of the End-time `fire` is an image of the consuming love of God and not an image of the wrath of God. Everything which is, and has been, in contradiction to God will be burnt away, so that the person who is loved by God is saved, and everything which is, and has been, in accord with God in that person`s life is preserved.

The purpose goal of erecting the victims and correcting the perpetrators is not reward and punishment but the victory of God`s creative justice over against all that is godless in heaven, on earth and under the earth. Victorious divine justice will not separate humankind into blessed and condemned at the end of the world, but will unite them for God`s great Day of Reconciliation on this earth. On this day all the tears will be wiped away from their eyes, the tears of suffering as well as the tears of remorse, for there will be no more suffering and pain nor crying (Rev 21, 4). The earth will than be cleaned up from the dirt of sin and death. The shadows of sin will disappear together with the night of death: “And death shall be no more”. Annihilated are the powers of annihilation.

Now, I was curious as to how this plays out in light of the scriptural text, Matthew 25, specifically about the sheep and the goats. I asked him and he said we are misreading the text. Well of course we are reading the text differently, but the only answer he gave to the question was that we are both the sheep and the goats – we are at least one point in our life, the person in prison, the visitor and the one who does not visit. Alright, I got that, but how does this work with the surrounding text? I would love to arrive at his conclusion (and kinda do actually), but he has not voiced well his hermeneutical method. So, the only way I can reach some of his conclusions is by creating my own theology and determining my own method with some goal in mind. Right. ‘Cause thats easy, especially with all the other hermeneutical problems to consider. Sigh. So in the end, until he lines out his method, Moltmann in my book will be someone with great insights and a visionary, but not a very good theologian in the professional sense.

Looking back, I did do a post on Hauerwas that might also apply to Halden’s challenge. While Hauerwas is technically an ethicist and not exactly systematic, he does collapse the categories of theology and ethics into one category and has covered a great deal of territory in his many writings. So I suppose the reader can take their pick between Moltmann’s lack of method, or Hauerwas’ faulty use of history.

Worst Theological Problem Meme: Hans Urs von Balthasar

Posted by on June 13, 2007 16 comments

A Guest-Post by Fred from Deep Furrows

I’m a student of literature and not a theologian, but Hans Urs von Balthasar has had a extensive influence upon my adult life. Criticizing Balthasar is difficult for several reasons: 1. he was broadly and profoundly educated in Western culture as a whole, much more than I or any other; 2. he thinks symphonically, so revising one part in the score impacts everything else; 3. he wrote at a time of intense theological ferment, so the critic has to remember that his theology is part of a larger conversation. I cannot even begin to criticize Balthasar on these terms.

The biggest difficulty for me is how to be critical of Balthasar without substituting my own limited measure for his; that is, how can criticism become an opening to greater and deeper reality and not merely an exercise in affirming my own prejudice and opinion?

The first work of criticism is to look clearly at the object in question. This past weekend a brief conversation with a friend clarified the issue for me. A reader, writer, and teacher of fiction, she expressed a strong distaste for Balthasar’s theologizing of fiction. I suddenly realized that the value of Balthasar’s writings is not for fiction or the arts – instead, the value is for theologians, whose discourses have become too narrowly preoccupied with building theoretical systems. Balthasar opened the dusty ivory tower of theology to human experience in the forms of poetry, music, history, and more.

With this insight, I would offer some criticisms of Balthasar, but more of his theological reception and my own reading.

1. Balthasar does work that extracts key theological themes, often drawing on literary and cultural critics (he also did plenty of first-hand work, but his was a massive undertaking). As literary criticism, Balthasar’s books make great theology. Being a student of literature, I must remember the richness of literature beyond these themes. To impose these themes on literature a priori is to reverse Balthasar’s great adventure.

2. A related point is that to read great literature one needs great humanity, a humanity that is stunted if one replaces reading literature with the theological commentary it inspires.

3. Balthasar writes from Europe, and so he properly takes a European perspective. He notes that he was incapable of broadening his Theological Aesthetics to other cultures and noted that Asia would be especially “important and fruitful” (Vol I, p 11). As an American, I have an American perspective which of course includes England, Europe, Asia, etc., in addition to America.

4. Even Balthasar’s reading of selected European works must be complemented by further theological work which draws upon human culture. If this doesn’t happen, then Balthasar’s opening of theology to human experience as expressed in culture lapses back into abstract theoretical discourse. The Ressourcement series from Eerdmans has made several great works that inspired Balthasar available in English (most beautifully Charles Péguy’s splendid poem, The Portal of the Mystery of Hope).

5. Balthasar frequently lamented the lack of serious, significant creativity in the contemporary West. Of itself, Balthasar’s work doesn’t inspire a renaissance, but only indicates it.

6. What I say here comes from my experience that Jesus Christ renews and deepens my humanity, but also that tenderness for my humanity makes me receptive to Christ. Your mileage may vary.

An earlier, more lopsidedly positive, evaluation of Balthasar by me can be found here: Why I love Hans Urs von Balthasar

Worst Theological Problem Meme

Posted by on April 2, 2007 22 comments

Ok, I’m going to see if I can get something started here that might be interesting. We all certainly have our favorite theologians, with whom we identify and on whom we draw for our theology. Now, of course none of us want to be uncritical readers, so we admit that our fav has “some” problems, of course. But usually when asked we come up with little surfacy things like “She doesn’t write clearly” or “He doesn’t develop this idea fully”, or “He didn’t embody his theology in his life,” etc. In other words our criticisms are often veiled compliments.

So here’s the challenge. Pick your favorite or most influential theologian. I know this will be hard, but just try to be as honest as you can and think of what theologian has really influenced your thought the most.

Then, write at least a solid paragraph about the most problematic aspects of their theology. And it has to be a real criticism that carries some weight. I’ll see what I can do to get us started, so here I go: Robert Jenson.

Jenson is one of my favorite theologians and his theology is very close to my own. I share his trinitarian and ecclesial instincts very closely. I think he is the most conceptually brilliant and substantive American dogmatic theologian since Jonathan Edwards. But he’s got some major problems. The first one that I would identify is his weak theology of the homoousion. Jenson, unlike Torrance, for example does not really discuss this central feature of orthodox trinitarian and Christological dogma. To be sure, he believes Jesus is fully God, but what this means for him, and how it relates to his understanding of the incarnation and preexistence of Jesus are open questions for Jenson. Secondly, I think Jenson is weak precisely where he is strong: ecclesiology. He is right, I think to closely connect Christ to his body, but he comes to close to collapsing Christ into the church. For him, the eucharistic body of Christ is the only body that the Risen Jesus has. The ascension plays no role in his thought whatsoever. Jenson comes at once perilously close to a complete identification of the church with the trinitarian Son, despite his insistence that the church does not become another hypostasis of the Trinitarian life. In the end he is left simply saying that the church does not become a fourth member of the Trinity, simply because he doesn’t wish to say it. Thirdly, I think again, Jenson is weak where he is the strongest, namely in his connection between the being of the Triune God and the narrative of Christ. For Jenson, the resurrection of Christ defines the being of God. He even states that the resurrection is God’s ousia. The question that is inevitably posed to Jenson is whether God “needs” the world to be himself. To this Jenson always responds, that he does not, but seems bereft of resources to show why this so. While I think Jenson is absolutely right to see such a close relationship between the narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection and the being of the Triune God, I think there must be a more adequate way of formulating our trinitarian doctrine to safeguard the transcendence of God, while never claiming that God somehow transcends or is other than Christ. All three of these problems seem to pose the question about whether or not Jenson is a theological liberal. The deep connection between God and the historical process, the loss of Jesus as a distinct personal subject over against the church (and with this, his hesitance toward the bodily resurrection) seem to all add up to some the key features of classic liberalism.

Ok, so, now we have begun. I now ask all you theo-bloggers out there to continue this meme and speak freely about your favorite theologian’s weaknesses. Who will join me?

Switch to our mobile site