God in a Shrinking Universe

Blog closed

2011-02-25T14:29:00.001+02:00

I have decided to finally retire this blog - my way of thinking hase moved so much since when I was active writing it that I do not really want to associate myself with what I wrote four years ago anymore. I might delete it soon.

I have started a new blog at my University's site. There I will comment on reading and write about what I publish and so on. If you want to, head over.

Good Introduction to Zizek

2009-11-17T13:14:00.003+02:00

I just want to recommend a good short Introduction to Slavoj Zizek's thinking about Christianity: Frederiek Depoortere's book Christ in Postmodern Philosophy which treats Gianni Vattimo, René Girard and Zizek. I have only read to part on Zizek but it was extremely helpful, giving a good simple introduction to Lacan and a very acessible treatment of Zizek's Christology. Highly recommeded.

The City of God V, 10: The freedom of God

2009-09-24T17:50:00.003+03:00

In book five Augustine suddenly gets all theological (finally!). The main theme of the book is astrology ets. However, in V, 9 he discusses the possibility of prophecy with Cicero (who maintained that foreknowledge is impossible since it would make freedom of will impossible.

In V, 10 gets to answer the standard smartass question most theology teachers will face one day: How is it that God who is omnipotent cannot die or err.

For we do not make the life of God and the foreknowledge fo God subject to necessity if we say that it is 'necessary' for God to live forewer and to foreknow all things. By the same token, His power is not diminished when we say that He 'cannot' die or err. For this is impossible to him in such a way that, if it was possible, He would have less power. He is indeed rightly called omnipotent even though he cannot die or err. For He is called omnipotent because he does what he wills and does not undergo what He does not will: if this were not so, He certainly would not be omnipotent.

Of course, this makes it dificult for Augustine to approach the problem of theodicy, but that question is not treated here. This is to me very much not the Eastern concept of pantokrator that might be defined as to have the ability to do what one wills, but perpaps not always not undergo what one does not will.

The City of God IV, 3:Freedom and Virtue

2009-09-13T15:18:00.002+03:00

The pace up significantly in book IV. Augustine is now attacking the belief in the pagan gods by mocking their multitude. If they are som many, surely this means that they are very weak. But he gets into som interesting questions here. This is the first mention of the now famous "Augustinan" notion of freedom.

Whatever evils are inflicted upon just men by unjust masters are not the punishement of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man is free even if he is a slave, wheras the bad man is a slave even if he reigns: a slave, not to one man, but, what is worse, to as many masters as he has vices.

I.e. freedom is freedom to do good, not freedom to do whatever one wants.

The City of God III: The Impotence of the Gods

2009-09-12T15:51:00.002+03:00

In book three, not one of the most memorable texts written by Augustine the argument is that the Roman Gods didn't really protect Rome while they were worshiped. Augustine retells various tradgedies and catastrophes that happened to Rome and its allies. Rhetorically mildly interesting, Augustine is constantly speaking as if the gods did exist, but just did not bother to do anything.

The City of God II: Demons and Morals

2009-09-06T16:01:00.003+03:00

It seems my idea that Augustine here tries to develop a distinction between pagan and Christian virtues was really flawed. Rather, the concept of suicide seems to be the great exception in a discourse where Augustine essentially thinks of morality as basically universal (he constantly brings up pagan writers as witnesses for the same virtues that Christians strive for. If Augustine in book one argues that the Sack of Rome is not the consequence of the Romans abandoning their old Gods, in book II he argues that the lack of morality that he (and his antagonists?) feel are the true cause, was not caused by Christianity but had developed much earlier.

An interesting item is the way Augustine now turns up the "Pagan Gods are really demons" rhetoric. I wonder to what degree this is really A:s conviction and to what degree it is part of his attempt to make them look ridiculous. I am sure there are a dozen thesis's written on the topic. This is a fun quote, from II, 25.

Once upon a time, on a broad plain in Campania, where not long afterwards citizen armies came together in an awful combat, they [the demons/gods] were even seen to fight among themselves. At first, great crashing sounds were heard there. Then, shortly afterwards, many men reported that they had seen two armies fighting for several days. When this battle ceased, they also found marks there, as of men and horses, such as might have been imprinted by conflict. If, therfore, the divine beings truly fought among themselves, the civil wars of human beings now at any rate have an excuse. Consider, though, the malice or misery of such Gods! If, however, they only pretended to fight, is it not surely clear that they did this so that the Romans, in waging civil war as if by example of the gods, should seem to commit no wickedness?

Does Augustine really believe this?

The City of God I, 30: Fear and Virtue

2009-09-04T22:04:00.003+03:00

In the final part of book on Augustine discusses another legendary Roman, Scipio Nasica, the Pagan High Priest and Senator that opposed the destruction of Carthago. Augustine's take on this complicates my interpretation in the previous post. Scipio's point was that the romans would be corrupted if they did not have a strong enemy.

For Scipio feared security as the enemy of weak spirits. He saw that fear was necessary to the citizens: to act, as it were, as a suitable tutor during their pupillage. Nor was he mistaken in his judgement; for the outcome proved how truly he had spoken. For when Carthago was destroyed and the great terror of the Roman commonwealth thereby repulsed and extinguished, the prosperous condition of things immideately gave rise to great evils.

The lack of an outer enemy lead the romans into civil wars and more importantly "lust for mastery" and the avarice and luxury.

Now, I don't know about you, but to me this sounds more like the arguing of a fascist than of a Christian. And Augustine keeps this up, he nowhere (at least not in book I) criticises this way of reasoning. In my dissertation I show how Isaac of Nineveh interprates fear in a similar way but draws the opposite conclusion from it. Empire needs fear to function - it is the way the citizens are controlled. But for Christians this means that we have to denounce empire and let Christ free us from all fear. In fact, Augustine here does not at all problematize the connection of Christianity to empire he is merely concerned with pointing out that the Romans were not corrupted by Christianity but by their own power befor the rise of Christianity. It is as if he is arguing against Gibbon! (also, it is a weak argument - Rome did not really lack enemies outside its borders during the time when Roman virtues were weakned...)

Isaac's view is far better I think, and still, of course, perfectly valid today.

Update: In IV, 3 Augustine has a more negative view of fear: "The wealthy man, however, is troubled by fears; he pines with grief, he burns with greed." It seems to bea feature of Augustine's rhetorics that he feigns agreement on his supposed opponents in all issues but the one discussed at the moment.

The City of God I, 19: Rape and Suicide

2009-08-31T21:50:00.002+03:00

For some reason not entirely clear to me, Augustine now enters on a long argumentation against suicide (17-27). He starts by discussing the opinion that consecrated virgins maybe should considering taking their lives rather than getting raped (this appearently happened during the Sack of Rome).

In chapter 19 he refers to the Roman legend about Lucretia, who after being raped took her life. This legend is one of the legends that was thought to all children in the Roman Empire, and Lucretias courage and sense of justice was seen as a great example of Roman virtue. So when Augustine criticises her and upholds the Christian idea that suicide is always wrong (unless God commands it, Augustine is not entirely sure about the storis offChristian saints that did the same, 26), he is engaging in a nice little piece of culture criticism, displaying how Christinaity values different virtues from the (pagan) empire.

In that case, therefore, when she slew herself because she had endured the act of an adulterer even though she was not an adulteress herself, she did this not from love of purity, but because of a weakness arising from shame. She was made ashamed by the infamy of another, even though comitted against her without her consent. Being a Roman lady excessively eager for praise, she feared that, if she remained alive, she would be thought to have enjoyed suffering the violence that she had suffered when she lived. ...
But this is not what those Christian women did who suffered the same way yet are still alive. They did not avenge another's crime upon themselves; and it was because they feared adding to the crime of others a crime of their own that they did not do so.

But this is not what those Christian women did who suffered the same way yet are still alive. They did not avenge another's crime upon themselves; and it was because they feared adding to the crime of others a crime of their own that they did not do so.

I wonder what the raped women would think of this.

The City of God I,9: Why Bad Things Happen to Good People

2009-08-30T18:05:00.003+03:00

So, I am reading Augustine, The City of God Against the Pagans. Since I kind of want to do political theology based on the early Church, it is more or less mandatory reading, isn't it? I'll be posting down the things that strike me as interesting, mostly for future reference. I have only read parts of it before, even though Augustine was a kind of first love to me as a undergraduate.

Augustine's argument here is simply that everybody do commit some sins, so everybody deserves the bad things that happen to them. He qualifies this a bit later on, but what strikes me about this is how very "western" this kind of thinking in, perhaps even Augustinian. Augustine refers to the difference between laymen and ascetics. Even those that have chosen "a higher order of life" do commit the sin of not rebuking other peoples crimes.

This, I would argue, is an idea that is not very likely to show up in the eastern fathers. First of all, they would not actually refer to sin to answer the question, they would say that God lets bad things happen to people in order to make it possible for them to improve their way of life. "Without temptations, no one could ever be saved". (Isaac of Nineveh)

Secondly, at least among eastern ascetics, to argue that people should pay more attentions to other people's sins would be very unusual. In fact, I think that would be considered a very grave temptation!

John Milbank: The Future of Love

2009-05-28T21:28:00.003+03:00

If you, like me, have had a hard time to really understand what Milbank is really about, this is the book for you. What these essays do is really to clarify a lot of things that remains unclear in his other books. This happens in different ways. In the first section we get (mildly updated) versions of Milbanks really early eighties stuff, and this for me shows where he is coming from. These are readings of English theologians (!) that I have never heard of ( apart from Newman). These texts are mostly interesting to someone who wants to study Milbanks own development, but for the rest of us they are mainly interesting beacuase they are fairly ordinary. This is before TST, and he is not as well read as later (he mainly sticks to the writer at issue).

The fun begins with the TST era writings. There are two chapters (I think) must have been written while he was working on TST and here we see the Milbankisms starting to appear (sociology in inverted commas, references to nihilism and french philosophy by the truckloads). Then there are three chapters made up of responses to criticism of TST and these really help to answer some of the questions I had after reading it. In particular, Milbank really fleshes out his vision of the Church, the major flaw of TST, IMO. And obviously his politics is made much more explicit here.

But the most impressive part of the book is the three chapters under the header "Political Theology Today". Here Milbank uses his wide knowledge of western intellectual history to comment on current affairs, in he does this extremely well. In particular the essay on 9/11 is among the best I have read on the topic. As a critic of US policy he is defintiely on par with the chomsky's and Klein's of the world, and original too. I do not think I could say this about another theologian. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Then follows a part on theology and pluralism, and obviously this is much more problematic at least for me. If the "political theology" part is what attracts me to Milbank, this is what makes me hesitant. His stand on dialogue between religions goes beyond merely pointing out real problems in the field. His conclusion is bascially "convert!" and clearly this is a bit disappointing. I am not sure either that his rather fanatical view of theology as a field in academia is very helpful.

In the final part we find the superb "Postmodern Critical Augustinianism", which probably is the best text Milbank has written. Had I not chanced on this I would not have bothered reading a word more from him after TST. Why is it so good? Not only is it concise and well argued. It has a tone that is somewhat different from most of Milbanks writings, maybe because this is a rare moment where he is not polemicising against anyone (there are parts of "Being reconciled" that are similar in this sense). This feels like an important point to make, but I do not know what to make of it myself. It is clear that to be able to say what he says hear about Christianity and Theology would not be possible for him to say had he not first "liberated" himself from so much of the liberal and secular thinking he fights against elsewere.

All of these texts are published elsewere, so they can be dug up in the library. But the volume is really worth its price for anyone interested in political theology today.

On Theology as "Resource"

2009-05-21T14:57:00.003+03:00

This recently occured to me and I haven't really worked out the implications of this notion yet. There are certain kinds of theology that I just do not like, even if I agree with lots of what is said. I can be certain kinds of political theology, ecotheology, some feminist theology and so on. Why? Because it tries to make use of theology for other non-theological purposes. It speaks a lot of the Christian tradition as a resource for tackling various issues.

There are some obvious problems with this approach. Most importantly, it seems to imply that theology itself is not involved in the actual engagement with these problems, that happens on some different arena, be it the political world, everyday life or some kind of activism. Theology is then seen as a reserve of ideas or structures of thinking that can be taken out of its context and "applied" (is there any use of that world that is not corrupt?). Obviously very few of these theologians would agree with this image of theology, because paradoxically, that would be a extremely "conservative" view of theology, and the theologies I am now talking about usually thinks of themselves as progressive or even radical. So what is going on here?

What seems to be the motivation for this move is a wish to be relevant in a larger sphere of society than academia or church. This in itself is commendable, but there are a number of possible preconceptions that seem to be at work here that are problematic.

First, there seems to be an idea of the church as either isolated or insignificant, or both. To be relevant one has to engage with the secular, and then on secular terms, that is to bring in isolated ideas without connection to the messy religious stuff. Like, "See you can view nature as creation, with all the nice possibilities that opens up, without really having to think about God", which is obvious nonsense. So, instead of being relevant, you end up being incoherent or just confused.

Further, is not this an essentially market-based view of the world? Theology is then the production of marketable "ideas" as semi-products, competing in a imaginary marketplace of ideas. This is especially ironic if the "ideas" created are supposed to be a criticism of capitalism.

Ultimately this is a view of theology that presupposes that theology in fact is not "relevant" and thus has to become something else to be that. I wonder if one can say anything with some kind of importance if one starts by believing that one in fact cannot. Yet this seems to be the logic behind this kind of reasoning.

This brings me to the kind of theology that I do like. This would be the kind that instead of "exporting" ideas from theology to the outside, incorporates the world into theology. (see that I tried to continue with the market metaphor and say "import" but it would not fit). Now this is exactly what Tillich did, but I have to say that the ones that understand themselves to stand in some tradition from Tillich today are very often doing theology of the other kind. However, theologians that do theology more or less consciously against that tradition (Hauerwas, Milbank) end up doing what he did.

More on the Monstrosity of ZIzek

2009-05-12T18:02:00.007+03:00

Adam Kotsko of An und für sich do not see what my problem is with Zizek's position in The Monstrosity of Christ. Adam clearly knows much more than me about Zizek, so it might just be me who do not understand Zizek, or (more likely) that this is what Zizek always have been saying.

My point is simply this: The way I read Zizek's response to Milbank is as an attempt to show that even though he finds some aspects of Christianity interesting (The death of God as a basis for Athesim), he really has no interest in ledning his support to theological projects of other kinds. He simplt isn't interested in love as Christianity understands it, in redemption and so on. It seems to me he wants to make clear how far away he is from any more properly Christian position on ethics, on community or on a vision of a good society. In seeking to avoid the "disgusting proximity" of other humans, Zizek effectively and completely rejects the idea of Church.

In short: I read him as saying: "Fu*k off stupid theologians stop bothering me".

Louth on Litugy, Tradition and the Child

2009-05-11T18:48:00.002+03:00

This is from Andrew Louth's Discerning the Mystery:

The importance of liturgy, then, for tradition is that by the very fact of its being performed, of its being the doing of something that others have done before us, of its being a matter of significant actions that suggest meaning rather than define it, it introduces us into a context, a realm of values, in which the significance of tradition can be seen. By the fact that it goes beyond speech, it impresses on us the importance of the inarticulate: and it is not without significance that inarticulateness about what is deeply important is characteristic of the child, whom we have to be like if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is exactly right. Isn't it so that traditions with little appreciation of liturgy either have little appreciation of tradition or a very legalistic understanding of tradition, as something that has to be obeyed? And his incredibly exact comment on the child has a very deep meaning, not only about how adults should approach the liturgy, but about how essential it is that we have children there - as teachers.

Kathryn Tanner: Economy of Grace

2009-05-10T09:51:00.003+03:00

A collegue, upon hearing that I was reading a lot of Milbank, focusing on the political and ecclesiological implications, groaned and told me I should read Kathryn Tanner instead. Why not, I thought, there is plenty of room for other perspectives in relation to Milbank that is for sure. And the text on the back of this one was very promising, speaking of "alternatives to global capitalism" and "specific principles of economics and economic justice".

However, this is in my opinion false advertising. Tanner is not proposing an alternative to capitalism, she is concerned with modifying it in a slightly more humane direction. This is a pragmatic move, she wants to avoid utopia. Fair enough, I can accept that, although I personally think that we need a utopia to imagine what really needs to change.

Tanner's criticism of capitalism is rather shallow however. She criticises the rather obvious consequences of global capitalism - rampaging unfairness rather well, although anybody even remotely familiar with "leftist" writings will find little new here. She also argues for some "theological principles" based mainly on creation, trinity and grace in general that she maintains offers an alternative to capitalist economics.

But from a theological point of view i find the main part of the book "Putting a theological Economy to Work" the most problematic. None of the suggestions she actually makes here seems to need ant theological underpinning whatsoever. The Marxist "to each according to his needs" will work just as well. Furthermore, in order to be "realistic" she compromises each of the principles she argued for in the preceding chapters. In the end she ends up arguing for a model that "everybody" is profiting from, including (especially) the capitalist. In other words, what we have here is little but the now traditional "third way" socialism, an improved capitalism in an essentially Keynesian tradition.

This means that Tanner has to pass over some extremely important points. One, isn't it from a theological point of view less important if capitalism works or not, compared to what it does to us, what kind of human beings this system produces? In essence, capitalism in all its knows forms (including the famed Scandinavian model) makes use of (and thus encourages) greed, a vice an almost unanomous Christian tradition claims corrodes the soul. To try to improve this system thus ammounts to giving it a "human face" while its heart remains decidedly rotten.

There is a good discussion on method here, but apart from that, this just isn't very good theology. However, in the end that is not the point of this book. It is not driven by a theological motive, but a political one.

This book tries to provide such grounds for Christians, especially in the United States, advantaged beyond all decent proportions by the present system. The more economic benefits we enjoy, the more power we are likely to have to change things. We should use that power - say, the power of our vote in the most economically dominant nation on earth - to put pressure on the U.S. government to change its policies for international trade and financing agreements that only further disadvantage the already disadvantaged around the globe. (p 142)

While I do think a lot of the things she writes makes political sense, I would really like to see a more radical alternative than "vote for change".Because it is the lack of alternatives that at the moment continues to further capitalism today more than a real belief in its superiority.

Milbank vs. Zizek: The Monstrosity of Christ

2009-05-04T21:08:00.003+03:00

I guess there should be a spoiler warning here, at least for me this book had what can be best describe as a surprise ending: I threw it away in disgust. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

A lot has happened since this infamous (in my universe anyway) post, where I went my frustration over Milbank's Theology and Social Theory. I have to admit that I am at the moment compeltely fascinated by Being reconciled, although there are large chunks of it I do not agree with, either regarding method (the chapter on forgiveness) or substance (violence, of course). However, the chapter on Church, Politics and Culture are about the best I have read in a long time.

I also enjoy(ed) Zizek a lot. His way of reading texts (in a very broad sense) is incredibly creative, and I will never see The Sound of Music the same way again.

This book leaves a lot of shattered dreams behind, I'm sure. A lot of attempts to do theology in dialogue with Zizek that will now have to be rethought, or abandoned. Because at least as far as I know, In his past discussion of Christian theology, he has always remained somewhat ambigous, always left things a bit open for interpretation. Not this time.

But no one can possibly be more disappointed than Milbank. I do not know where that blurb on the back of Being Reconciled comes from (does anyone know if there is an actual review of it out there somewhere?) where Zizek basically says that this is finally the real shit. Milbank must have been so proud of that. What theologian would not be when hearing praise like that from one of the worlds most famous intellectuals? And then this.

The first part, where Zizek presents his reading of Christianity adds little to The Puppet and the Dwarf. The most striking thing here is that it is really apparent that Zizek's knowledge is of theology is really patchy. He makes som really far fetched claims about Eastern Orthodoxy based on Lossky alone, and makes some rather obvious mistakes that Milbank rather kindly points out later on.

Milbanks part of the book, is not that revealing either. Lots of discussion on Hegel and more interestingly, Meister Eckhart. Milbank accuses Zizek of being protestant, basically. And for me this was the most interesting aspect of Milbank's text, his criticism of Lutheranism is fleshed out a lot more than what I have read so far. His attempt to make Kierkegaard an "Catholic honoris causa" is a bit awkward though.

So obvious it is Zizeks response to Milbank's criticism that is what ultimately makes this book worth its prize. After som niceties about the "authentic spirituality" of Milbank's position, he bluntsly states: "Of course i fail to see this ... because to me, there is no transcendent God-Father. " What that basically says is: "Nice120 pages, but did do miss the part about me being an atheist?" But it gets worse, much worse. For then he goes on to show Milbank that his Catholicism is basically a form of paganism, that is protestantism that is the kind of Christianity he finds interesting, with the focus on the Cross, and especially, get this, radical death-of-God theology in the vain of Thomas Altizer. Poor Milbank.

So that is the one big point of this book. Now a completely different kind of theology is endorsed by the great Zizek. However. The other point is that I am not sure if any theologian actually want tha endorsement anymore. Because the dialogue form of this book makes Zizek come clear on several areas at least I was not aware of his stance on. Maybe it is just me, but I kind of felt all this talk about being stalinist and so on was ironic posturing. Not so. Not only does Zizek's atheism in the end be like any other atheist's, only slightly more educated. But his ethics are described in a way that made me, as a christian, loose al my interest in whatever else he has to say.

At one points he discusses the situation where he would encounter one of thos doctors that aid in torture, helping the torturers decide how much the victim can take.

I must admit that if I were to encounter such a person, knowing that there was little chance of bringing him to legal justice, and be given the opportunity to murder him discreetly, I would simply do it, without a vestige of remorse about "taking the law into my own hands."

In another instance he seems to endorse a "violent totalitarian regime", but here there is some ambiguity. But no matter, for his final definition of his moral ideal in itself is enough, and that was where to book flew out of my hands in disgust.

This is where I stand - how I would love to be: an ethical monster without empathy, doing what is done in a weird coincidence of blind spontaneity and reflexive distance, helping others while avoiding their disgusting proximity. With more people like this, the world would be a pleasant place which sentimentality would be replaced by cold and cruel passion.

Surely, after this any theological engagement with this kind of philosophy will be nothing but a waste of time, a way of keep missing the point about Christianity?

Done!

2008-10-11T19:25:00.005+03:00

On Friday I publicly defended my dissertation Understanding Asceticism. Body and Society in the Asceticism of St Isaac of Nineveh. During three hours Professor Samuel Rubenson (right) of Lund University examined every aspect of my book and I did my best to defend it. It was a good experience, though it certainly felt eerie to hear somebody else retell what I have written. It was a good day in all, both the Disputatio and the dinner in the evening.

And my dissertation? Here's what its about:

The scholarly understanding of asceticism has in the recent decades shifted away from a negative view where asceticism is primarily seen as (self-)renunciation, towards a view where the focus is on asceticism as performance and recreated identity. In this study the texts of St Isaac of Nineveh (7th century) is read in order to clarify the role of the body in asceticism and the relationship between asceticism and society.

For Isaac ascetic life is a way to manage the universally human fear of death. This fear can be detected beneath several everyday worries, such as fear of sickness and other hazards, but also in the form of pursuit of riches and power. It is a central aspect of Isaac’s thinking that society works by exploiting the human weaknesses called passions. This means that a life focused towards God is a life directed against life in society, in the “world”.

In order to understand ascetic techniques such as fasting, vigils and prayer, it is helpful to see them as symbolical acts similar to rituals. A person going through a ritual is on the one hand transformed; on the other hand a message is communicated to the community. Ascetic life can be seen as such a ritual that encompasses the entire life of the ascetic. The ascetic separates him- or herself from society in order to enter into community with the angels and the coming world. In this way the ascetic communicates a distancing from society and its structures.

To understand the symbolical content of the ascetic techniques it is necessary to know their original context. To fast will send out completely different signals in a society where all meals signify community, than in a society where meals are often taken alone. In general the ascetic techniques can be interpreted as either ways to distance oneself from society or for integration into the community of the coming world (or both).

In these techniques the body plays a special role. Isaac talks about the body in two contrasting ways. When describing the role of the body in prayer it is something very positive; when describing human weaknesses the body is very negative. This duality in body-talk suggests an awareness of the capacity of the body to function as a symbol rather than some extreme body-soul dualism. Within the framework of a certain ascetic technique the body comes to represent human weakness, a body of passions. In a different context the body will signify something else.

For Isaac ascetic life is a parallel to the sacraments of the Church. Both phenomena are understood as the breaking in of the next world in this one, and thus creating in this world a tangible image of a different possible world. When Isaac is describing ecstatic experiences he does it in terms of a union like that of human and divine in Christ, or in terms of the unity between the persons of the Holy Trinity. Through asceticism the ascetic becomes theology.

Milbank discussion

2008-06-26T23:08:00.002+03:00

There is a extremely revealaing discussion with John Milbank posted at livedtheology.org (HT: Theopolitical.com, F&T). It discusses the last chapter of Theology and Social Thery, but it goes off in all kinds of directions, and Milbank talks a bit about his background and stuff. For those of you, like me, still trying to figure out what it actually is Milbank wants to accomplish this is a great source.

Otherwise, the book came to be written really by accident in the sense that I was asked to write a textbook, and the publishers were totally horrified when I didn’t produce a text book. And when I set out to write it I really honestly and truly assumed I was going to talk about the mutual help that theology, sociology, and Marxism could give to each other. But somehow quite quickly when I started to get into that I felt that there was an incredible assumption going on in the usual approaches, that somehow social/scientific discourses were sort of theologically innocent or neutral, and that theology wasn’t inherently itself a social theory and an account of history. And I suppose that is the main methodological point in a sense that is being made.

Meme: The Academy and the Poor

2008-06-24T12:14:00.002+03:00

Dan asks the difficult question: when confronted with 'the Poor' of our day, how do you justify your own academic endeavours?

As I have said before, living in Finland, "the poor" tend to be arather abstract concept. Although the divide between those that have and those that don't has widened considerably in Finland during the last few decades, what goves for poverty here is still being privileged if want takes the global perspective.

But that does not really change things that much. So I would answer the question this way.

1. The Academy has not given me very much in terms of money, power or security. I'm really badly paid (mind you I'm not complaining), my wife works in a kindergarten and she has a lot more than I. Which is ok, because I love my job. People that have jobs that need big salaty as motivation are kind of sad. What I'm saying with this is that working in the academy has for me moved me closer to the "poor" of our community, in that I share with them the constant feeling that when my short term working contract ends (next month) I have no real idea how to pay the mortages on our house.

2. I would never ever ever accept to do academic work that I do not feel in the long run at least serves to somehow change this world a little. Be it by teaching future pastors to see the global implications of their future work, or by working on theology in a way that asks the questions about the way our world functions. I cannot honestly say that I know of a way that I could hope to do more good than in the way I hope to do inside, or one the margin of academia. For me, in my situation, the university is still a place where there is at least some space for thinking against the powers of the world. As long as that is true (and that space is shrinking all the time), I'll try to hang on.

I'm not sure if a meme on a subject like this can work (a bit easier to name your favourite book!), but do feel tagged if you like to.

Book Review: Theology and the Political - The New Debate

2008-06-09T11:52:00.002+03:00

I was very excited about this volume, since it seems to take the Radical Orthodoxy in the direction I find most interesting, and because it has such a impressive list of writers from outside of Theology, many of which I regard highly (Zizek, Toni Negri, Simon Critchley to a degree). And there is much of interest here (and a lot of filler, that has to be said), but still one comes away from it with some sense of disappontment. None of the writers from outside theology engage with the RO perspective, nor, with the exception of Zizek, with theology properly. Thus the title is kind of misleading.

In this volume the bad i mostly boring so I won't waste time on that. The writers that stand out for me in this volume is Zizek, Daniel M. Bell, Catherine Picstock (much better here than in "Radical Orthodoxy"), Graham Ward and John Millbank. In other words, the core of the RO-Movement all give good contributions here.

Zizek reads Chesterton like no other, and comes out with very interesting things about paganism and Christianity. Only Christianity gives us possibility to enjoy this world, because unlike for pagans, Christians do not belive that "tomorrow we will die". Funny as hell also, although I still do not understand why he insists on describing Christianity as perverse.

Bell reads Deleuze, and more interestingly, Anselm. To read Anselm away from the ususal economic framwork is fruitful, and of the many criticisms of Capitalism that are found in this book, Bell's is the one I feel most likely to return to.

Ward does Marx. His argument, that is repeated in many of the other essays, is that capitalism and marxism share too much in terms of basic premises, and that Christianity offers a radically different view of man and the world, one that is based on gift instead of contract, on love instead of fear and so on.

Millbank discusses the Christian claim to universality based on Badiou and Zizek. I think a lot of this is solid stuff. I have been hesitant to think much about the idea of universal truth and Milbank does have some interesting points. But there is an obvious problem, that is not so much visible here as in this interview.

(The ‘other religions’ thing doesn’t matter. The world as a whole is rapidly Christianizing and even in Islamic countries Muslims are finding their own intriguing Islamic way to Christ in ever increasing numbers; this is readily verifiable).

What on earth can he possibly mean? Is this Milbank's suggestion for how Christianity is to deal with "other religions". It seems absurdly naive, to the point of delusional. If this is what his notion Christian universalism is like, I think we'd better pass on it.

Can anybody possibly shed som light on what he could be referring to?

The Real Method of Correlation

2008-05-29T20:31:00.008+03:00

This recently occured to me, and I am a fool for just spilling it out on the net and not writing an article for some famous periodical on it.

I now why Tillich fell out of favour. It's David Tracy's fault.

See, every time I see a reference to correlation in theology these days, I always have the same feeling that there is something wrong. I always feel that what the writer is criticising has little resemblance to what Tillich intended with his correlation method.

Let me first describe what I feel is the usual notion of what the method of correlation does, then describe what Tillich really meant, and finally describe how this is the fault of poor Tracy.

It may all be down to a poor choice of term (English, as you know, was not one of Tillich's strengths). Usually people think that when using a correlation method in Theology you seek for similarities in the Christian tradition on the one hand, and for example (secular) philosophy on the other. In effect you would be saying something like "The Christian doctrine of sin is the same as Heidegger's notion of guilt". This method is correctly criticised for in effect using semi-religious language to re-tell the secular story.

However, this was not what Tillich meant with the method of correlation. For Tillich the point is to use philosophy, psychology, art and similar discourses to describe relevant questions in the present cultural situation. Theology then seeks to give answers to these questions, based on revelation (scripture, tradition and so on). Interestingly a few decades ago this idea was considered to be to give theology a to great role, believing that theology could actually provide answers to common human problems. Wouldn't it be better to just let Theology deal with religious problems?

I guess this is one of the reasons Tracy developed Tillichs method by adding the idea of the hermeneutic circle. No longer would Theology give answers to problems in the human situation but there would be a going back and forth where theology and the situation would interpret each other. This, however, seems to lead to a situation where theology looses its right to interpret itself by its own rules, which is what the method is usually criticised for.

Of course, Tracy is not completely wrong. What he describes does take place. But it is not a method for theology. What he describes is something that has to do with being a theologian, which is a slight but important difference.

Tillich's point was that Theology always has used the method of correlation and always will. And I still can't see how it could be otherwise if theology want to be relevant in any way. So, case in point. In the introduction of "Radical Orthodoxy - a New Theology" we read:

The present collection of essayes attempts to reclaim the world by situating its concerns and activities within a theological framework. Not simply returning in nostalgia to the premodern, it visits sites in which secularism has invested heavily - aesthetics, politics, sex, the body, personhood, visibility, space - and resituates them from a Christian standpoint; that is in terms of the Trinity, Christology, the Church and the Eucharist.

This is exactly what Tillich meant with correlation, to address concerns in the present world from a theological standpoint. Clearly, depending on what questions are asked, different aspects of the Christian tradition will be emphasized, but the fact that Tillich would put the focus on creation and salvation rather than Trinity and Christology is more down to him being Lutheran and not a (roman/anglo) catholic in an age where that mattered.

Radical Orthodoxy - a book review

2008-05-16T14:19:00.003+03:00

Here's some thoughts on Radical Orthodoxy - A New Theology. I have to say that on the whole I am glad I read it. A few of the essay's are really good, and a few are quite bad, and a few are somewhere in between.

My faviorites are John Montag's essay on Revelation, and William T. Cavanaugh's text on the state. Montag's article for me cleared up why the reason-revelation dichotomy is false. That it is false i pretty obvious, but it was interesting to see how we got into that place.

Cavanaugh's text is my favorite of the bunch. I am actually discussing it more thoroughly in an article I'm writing at the moment. He shows how the state is a parody of the Church, that fails to deliver what both Church and State promises to deliver - peace. A Church that has given up this task (to bring peace) and delegated it to the secular state is to me a good definition of a State Church. We have a lot of those, and it really is a good question to ask if the can properly be called churches at all.

While I agree that the Eucharist should be the place where true peace is fostered, I wonder what we should do when it in practice clearly isn't to most. Most people that care about the Eucharist see it as some form of spiritual reload, and most, at least in Lutheran Finland, seem to see it as a nice coda after the sermon. These questions I discuss in my article...

But yeah, that bad ones. I already wrote on the one on Wittgenstein. I didn't understand a word of Catherine Pickstock's text on music. Graham Ward's text on the Body of Christ is interesting, but some of the themes hinted at there are quite disturbing... I am NOT sure if it is a good idea to explore Christ's relationship to Mary in terms of incest.

But the real rotten egg of the bunch is Philip Blond's essay on art. While he clearly knows way more about art than I do, I still feel he is in no position to lecture on what art should be like. I won't even go into why he makes these recommendations nor what they are, simply the idea that theology should somehow dictate art is preposterous. If that is his vision of a Christianity free from secular bonds, I'll go with the seculars, thank you. His vision of an art that correctly portays the real makes me think of Christian pop music, another disgusting concept.

Anyway, what I find inspiring with this book is that it covers such a wide area of themes, yet manages to keep one distinctive approach to them. This, I guess, is what has made Radical Orthodoxy so popular (for want of a better word). That, and the cool name. Although it is a bit ironic that a theology that carries a criticism of capitalism with it would make use of such a central capitalistic concept as the brand.

Next, I'll tackle the newer volume on Politics and Theology edited by Milbank.

Wittgensteinian metaphysics

2008-05-07T22:33:00.004+03:00

I bet that header will get me a lot of google hits.

So, well, yeah, I am reading Radical Orthodoxy - a New Theology. The first two essay's I like. Millbank is doing his "I know how secularism came about" thing, and manages not to be very obnoxious... In the second essayJohn Montag traces the reason/revelation division back to Suárez, thus creating another theology bad guy. This is very good stuff.

But the third essay is much weaker. Here Conor Cunningham tries to show a few things. First that the "two Wittgensteins" are in fact rather close to each other, which is probably not very surprising. More importantly, Cunningham tries to show that Wittgenstein in spite of claims to the contrary, in fact builds his philosophy on (you guessed it) secular metaphysics. I do not find this convincing at all.

It is one thing to state that Wittgenstein in some sense stands in the tradition of Kant. This I can accept: there are clear parallels between Kant's critique of reason and Wittgenstein's "critique" of language. But when Cunningham tries to show that the (mostly later) Wittgenstein's ideas about language is a kind of undercover metaphysics the arguing becomes almost embarrassing.

Let me state first that I am no expert on Wittgenstein. The fact is I have read very little by him. But I do work in a very Wittgensteinian environment. Philosophy at my University is very much Wittgenstein so one tends to pick up a lot of Wittgensteinian influences by osmosis. (We actually have something of a tradition. Finland's greates philosopher, Georg Henrik von Wright, who succeeded Wittgentein as professor of Philosophy at Camebridge came here for the later part of his carreer. Besides being a close friend of Wittgentein he also oversaw the publication of most of the posthumous writings). Anyway, I do have some sense of what is usually considered to be themost central points in Wittgenstein's philosophy.

Cunnigham basically suggests that because Wittgenstein says that "language games" are given, this is to say that they have some kind of metaphysical status, analogous to Kant's categories. This seems to me to be to willfully misunderstand W's point. Cunnigham seems to think that Wittgenstein means that language game and the grammar of language games "exist" prior to the actually situation where they are put to use. This would indeed be some kind of covert metaphysics.

But what W means when he says that language games are given is rather that they are not constructed, that they are not "made up" and that they therefore could be in need of some kind of improvement by philosophers. They are the way they are. But it is absurd to read this as a kind of metaphysics. A language game does not exist prior to the life-form it functions in. When a new life-form arises (I guess by and by) a new language game arises with it. There is nothing mysterious about this. Language games are not like Kant's categories, they do not shape our use of language, the notion of language games just helps us describe how language functions.

I read this essay as a symptom of some kind of theological paranoia. A more generous approach would be to grant that Wittgenstein's philosophy accepts that various sorts of language, including Christian language does not have to measure up to some universal standard (reason, secular or otherwise), but functions according to its own logic. Isn't this pretty close to what RO is about?

Back?

2008-05-07T11:20:00.003+03:00

I'm not sure if I feel ready to get back into theology-blogging, but maybe I'll give it a try. I'm reading theology again, and in the past blogging has been a good way for me to organize my reading.

First some updates, if anybody has wondered what I have been up to.

My thesis is more or less finished. Actually, It would have been finished already if a certain famous professor had not taken quite a bit more time than expected to read it and give it a go ahead...

As the last few posts showed, my interest in politics has lately overtaken my interest for theology... That may be changing at the moment, but as I say that is too soon to say. The combination of theology and politics is still my major area of interest.

If some of my more regular readers are still around, they will find this very ironic, but what I'm currently doing is trying to get a deeper understanding of, yep, postmodern theology. Particularly Radical Orthodoxy. I'm still not 100% convinced that it is worth while doing, but there are some aspects of it that intrigue me, and I have a hunch that my "expertise" on asceticism actually may have some value in this discussion... More about that later, maybe.

What I like about radical orthodoxy is that it shuns both conservative and liberal theology, although I do not at all agree with the image of 20th century theology that the foster. There seems to be a will to completely by-pass this century (and the 19th) among these writers. I don't think this is a valid way to be post-modern.

I am also intrigued my some of the political ideas around among these writers, but I'm still not sure about the way they fit together with the other ideas.

And I'm still to find a proper worked out radical orthodoxy ecclesiology - is there one? The entire concept points towards ecclesiology, but exactly what that ecclesiology is like seems to be difficult to articulate. But I may just have missed it. Suggestions welcome.

Anyway, I might post some on my continued reading of radical orthodoxy texts. Or not. Will see.

New Radiohead album!

2007-10-01T18:54:00.000+03:00

I knew they were up to something!

This appeared on the Radiohead blog today:

Hello everyone. Well, the new album is finished, and it's coming out in 10 days; We've called it In Rainbows. Love from us all. Jonny

Radiohead has been without a recording contract since the last album, and there has been much speculation on what they would do with this new album. Well their sollution is quite radical.

There are two options. Either you chose to download it from the "In Rainbows" site. Hear this: You decide what to pay for it.

Or you order the "Discbox" which includes two cd:s and vinyls, a book with artwork and lyrics, and the download. Price 40 pounds.

So this is Radiohead's bid for the future of the musicindustry then.

Why Bush Invaded Iraq and How it Went Wrong

2007-09-22T19:54:00.000+03:00

Ok, this is a long speach, but it is really the best account of the US occupation of Iraq that I have come across. Naomi Klein deals with the motives for the occupation - military bases and a free market economy - and tells how the Amercan administration did anything but bring democracy to Iraq. They actually fought every tendency towards democracy in Iraq with everything the had.

It's a fascinating story, and it makes one quite angry. Hopwfully it will make some angry enough to act.

Muslim Creationism - A Case of Interfaith Dialogue?

2007-08-27T16:30:00.000+03:00

Just as some Christians feel the Theory of Evolution stands in conflict with the Bible, some Muslims feel it is in Conflict with the Quran. This is perhaps not so odd in itself, but I at least was surprised to find out that these groups actually stand in contact with each other.

During a visit to the University of Göttingen in Germany last week, I was given a publication in which Dr. Martin Riexinger tells the interesting story of Turkish Creationism. The history goes back to the 19th century, but gets interesting during the 1980's, when the school books in the (until then?) rigorously secular state schools were modified so that not only were creationism introduced as an alternative to evolution in biology, but fierce anti-evolution polemics was introduced in the books on religious education (a subject introduced at the same time).

The Turkish found inspiration among American Evangelicals, who were often cited as western scientists. The reason that evangelical protestants were noted in Muslim circles in Turkey also had to do with the fact that US creationists repeatedly visited Turkey to look for Noak's ark on mount Ararat. However, the evangelical argumentation for a young earth was of no interest to the Turks, since the Quran does not contain any narrative comparable to that of Genesis regarding the early generations of humans.

Even more fascinating is the fact that the contacts have also gone in the other direction, from Turkey to the US. In 2004, Mustafa Akyol, who teaches an Islamic variation of the "Intelligent Design"-theory, was invited to a hearing at the Kansas Department of Education, at which the question if ID was to be taught in Kansas Schools was discussed. The idea was to bring in a Muslim in order to rebut the argument that ID is based on Christian Theology.

Monbiot sums up the Cliamte Camp

2007-08-21T22:15:00.001+03:00

Here.

(Note: I will post some religion-relevant material soon, I promise...)

Heathrow Climate Campaign

2007-08-19T15:35:00.001+03:00

So far the protest against the building of a new terminal at Heathrow Airport, London, seems to have gone well. Read the news coverage at indymedia.org. Don't miss this amazing video of a successful non-violent confrontation with the police.

Monbiot and Reducing Climate Change

2007-08-15T21:03:00.000+03:00

I read George Monbiot's Heat last week (which makes this post very outdated indeed...). Its very good, everybody should read it. The thing is that it deals with how it is possible to, with a decent amount of probability, prevent that global warming goes into the beyond tolerable. It will be hard but doable.

The effect this book had on me is that I now feel ready to act. Monbiot basically shows what needs to be done, now we have to get about doing it. It won't be enough just to change one's own life, we have to start putting pressure on those in power.

Here is a good interview that will give you a good idea about what needs to be done (and why for those of you who do not know that). My favorite line is the one comparing what is required from us to face this crisis compared to WWII.

You say that flying less is a sacrifice too great for the people of this country to bear. But the last time the world was faced with an existential crisis - the rise of the Axis powers - millions of people were asked to sacrifice their lives to prevent it. Now, we are being asked to sacrifice our holidays in Florida and Thailand.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. (YouTube)

Now, there are some things about which I do not agree with Mr. Monbiot. They are not central to the argument. He essentially says that the controversy over what the scientific position on climate change is cause by people not understanding what science is. This I think is only part of the problem. Climate change reveals problems in the very scientific method itself. It clearly seems to be beyond what is possible for todays scientists to reach a scientific conclusion about the entire phenomenon. All the experts deal with small aspects in which the method works, but it seems that when it comes to compiling all this data it is no longer possible to keep the same methodical stringency. Hence the controversy over IPCC:s reports.

While there certainly does not exist any better tries as assessing the entire phenomenon then IPCC, it is still open to criticism, which sadly is used to prevent the needed the decisions to being taken.

Oxford Patristics Conference

2007-08-15T14:16:00.000+03:00

Last week I attended the biggest conference of my academic career, the fifteenth International Patristics Conference in Oxford. For those of you outside the field, this is a conference that is held every four years and had about a thousand scholars from around the globe attending.

It was fun to see the faces of all the people whose books I have been reading, and also the possibility to talk to some of them. Over all the social aspect of the event was what inspired me. To be perfectly honest, I did not find the actual papers and lectures that exciting, except four a couple that have direct relevance for my work. I guess I had hoped for more discussion on methods and the relation between Early Christian Studies and our present situation, which is what I am interested in. Now we had mostly very historical papers from the lesser scholars, while the giants presented overviews and synthesis of ancient thought. Impressive, but not exciting.

However, to meet these scholars was still interesting. Discussions of meals in St Edmund's Hall cover very interesting areas, and here I felt I was not alone in trying to seek contemporary relevance in the early Church. Somehow this interest, clearly present in the people I met, just did not seem to translate into the official proceedings. It was also interesting to see that - generalizing here - to most radical papers came from mostly female scholars of some maturity. There has been for some time a group of great women scholars in patristics, and the same group still is very good. But among the younger presenters, regardless of sex, it seemed people were dealing mostly with quite safe subjects.

This experience of mine could be caused by me not actually attending the right kind of conference, but I do not think this is the case, especially since I so much enjoyed spending time with these people. Rather, I have a feeling many shared my experience, which tells me that the problem seems to be in the general academic atmosphere at the moment, which seems to shy away from the radical and new.

Still, it was a great conference, well organized, and I especially appreciated again to meet my friends and colleagues in the now quite sizable group from the Nordic Countries.

Direct Action against SUV's

2007-08-13T11:24:00.000+03:00

A new activist group in Stockholm has today been able to publish an article in one of Sweden's biggest newspapers about why they go around letting the air out of the tires of big 4WD's in the inner city.

A great initiative if you ask me. I would join the group (they call themselves "Asfaltdjungelns Indianer" (a bit difficult to translate that one - asfalt jungle native americans?) if I had the courage.

The article in swedish is here.

New Blog of the Month at Theology Blogs

2007-07-06T15:23:00.001+03:00

Check it out.

More on Peak Oil and Climate Change

2007-06-27T14:15:00.000+03:00

Here's a good article on the subject, by David Strahan. He discusses why Climate Change campaigners don't want to discuss Peak Oil and vice versa, despite the obvious interdependence of the two subjects.

Peak oil could also sabotage attempts to fight climate change by paradoxically increasing greenhouse gas emissions, if oil depletion forces us to exploit the wrong kinds of fuel. The alternatives to crude oil are all resource constrained and unlikely to fill the gap – at least not in time – but they still have the potential to do enormous climate damage. Burning rainforest and peatlands to create palm oil plantations for biofuels releases vast amounts of CO2, and has already turned Indonesia into the world’s third biggest emitter after America and China.[4] Synthetic transport fuels made from gas using the Fischer-Tropsch chemical process emit even more carbon on a well-to-wheels basis than conventional crude. When the feedstock is coal the emissions double. So in the unlikely scenario that we manage to replace more than half the yawning conventional deficit with coal-based fuel, but not all of it, we would still suffer fuel shortage while emitting even more CO2 than in the current business-as-usual forecast - the worst of all possible worlds.

Climate Change and Peak Oil

2007-06-21T16:25:00.000+03:00

I'm no expert on neither Climate Change nor Peak Oil. However, The more you look into the two issues, I have to say that the more convinced I become that global warming is something we can do quite little about, while peak oil is something that is very real indeed. To be clear, it seems clear that the climate is changing, and that greenhouse gases play a role here (though probably not a decisive one). That we could make decisive changes to the climate in the coming decades by changing our behavior now (short of going cold turkey on fossil fuels) seems improbable.

But, it seems to be clear that energy prices will rise a lot in the coming years and that this will have effects on our lives comparable in gravity to those thought to be caused by climate change.

Still, it is climate change that has become a big issue in politics lately. Now, so far I have been of the opinion that this actually is not so big a problem, because the two problems are so closely related. Most sane actions taken to counter climate change reduces use of fossil fuels.

However, it seems that the politicians really can't do anything right when it comes to the environment. Rather than taking sane actions, like supporting the development of alternative - clean - sources of energy, we see Nuclear Power coming back on a big scale. We hear that it is carbon neutral and safe and clean. Obviously it is none of these things. Energy is used for transports both of Uranium and the waste. It is not safe nor clean: especially the mining of uranium is increasingly messy because it is found in so difficult places. And obviously the waste will be with us forever.

Even worse, the other solution now getting much more political momentum is coal plants that collect the carbon emissions. This is a solution typical of the generation that has always felt that problems out of sight are solved. There are no good solution for storing these emissions, and there are good reasons to believe such deposits will become new environmental hazards.

But putting real effort into developing real renewable energy sources or encouraging people to save energy, that is to much to expect.

The problem here is that future historians - if such will exist - will have a great problem of understanding why we put so much effort into a problem that we was not sure existed while at the same time ignoring a problem plane to see for anyone who cares to look, thus destroying our civilization ourselves.

The Yes Men Strike Again

2007-06-20T10:54:00.000+03:00

While we're on the oil theme... You might have heard of this already:

June 14, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

EXXON PROPOSES BURNING HUMANITY FOR FUEL IF CLIMATE CALAMITY HITS
Conference organizer fails to have Yes Men arrested

Text of speech, photos, video: http://www.vivoleum.com/...
GO-EXPO statement: http://newswire.ca/...
Press conference before this event, Friday, Calgary: http://arusha.org/...
Contact: mailto:fuel@theyesmen.org
More links at end of release.

Imposters posing as ExxonMobil and National Petroleum Council (NPC)representatives delivered an outrageous keynote speech to 300 oilmen at GO-EXPO, Canada's largest oil conference, held at Stampede Park in Calgary, Alberta, today.

The speech was billed beforehand by the GO-EXPO organizers as the major highlight of this year's conference, which had 20,000 attendees. In it, the "NPC rep" was expected to deliver the long-awaited conclusions of a study commissioned by US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. The NPC is headed by former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, who is also the chair of the study. (See link at end.)

In the actual speech, the "NPC rep" announced that current U.S. and
Canadian energy policies (notably the massive, carbon-intensive exploitation of Alberta's oil sands, and the development of liquid coal) are increasing the chances of huge global calamities. But he reassured the audience that in the worst case scenario, the oil industry could "keep fuel flowing" by transforming the billions of
people who die into oil.

"We need something like whales, but infinitely more abundant," said "NPC rep" "Shepard Wolff" (actually Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men),
before describing the technology used to render human flesh into a new Exxon oil product called Vivoleum. 3-D animations of the process brought it to life.

"Vivoleum works in perfect synergy with the continued expansion of fossil fuel production," noted "Exxon rep" "Florian Osenberg" (Yes Man Mike Bonanno). "With more fossil fuels comes a greater chance of disaster, but that means more feedstock for Vivoleum. Fuel will continue to flow for those of us left."

The oilmen listened to the lecture with attention, and then lit "commemorative candles" supposedly made of Vivoleum obtained from the flesh of an "Exxon janitor" who died as a result of cleaning up a toxic spill. The audience only reacted when the janitor, in a video tribute, announced that he wished to be transformed into candles after his death, and all became crystal-clear.

At that point, Simon Mellor, Commercial & Business Development Director for the company putting on the event, strode up and physically forced the Yes Men from the stage. As Mellor escorted Bonanno out the door, a dozen journalists surrounded Bichlbaum, who, still in character as "Shepard Wolff," explained to them the rationale for Vivoleum.

"We've got to get ready. After all, fossil fuel development like that of my company is increasing the chances of catastrophic climate change, which could lead to massive calamities, causing migration and conflicts that would likely disable the pipelines and oil wells. Without oil we could no longer produce or transport food, and most of humanity would starve. That would be a tragedy, but at least all those bodies could be turned into fuel for the rest of us."

"We're not talking about killing anyone," added the "NPC rep." "We're talking about using them after nature has done the hard work. After all, 150,000 people already die from climate-change related effects every year. That's only going to go up - maybe way, way up. Will it all go to waste? That would be cruel."

Security guards then dragged Bichlbaum away from the reporters, and he and Bonanno were detained until Calgary Police Service officers could arrive. The policemen, determining that no major infractions had been committed, permitted the Yes Men to leave.

Canada's oil sands, along with "liquid coal," are keystones of Bush's Energy Security plan. Mining the oil sands is one of the dirtiest forms of oil production and has turned Canada into one of the world's worst carbon emitters. The production of "liquid coal" has twice the carbon footprint as that of ordinary gasoline. Such technologies increase the likelihood of massive climate catastrophes that will condemn to death untold millions of people, mainly poor.

"If our idea of energy security is to increase the chances of climate calamity, we have a very funny sense of what security really is," Bonanno said. "While ExxonMobil continues to post record profits, they use their money to persuade governments to do nothing about climate change. This is a crime against humanity."

"Putting the former Exxon CEO in charge of the NPC, and soliciting his advice on our energy future, is like putting the wolf in charge of the flock," said "Shepard Wolff" (Bichlbaum). "Exxon has done more damage to the environment and to our chances of survival than any other company on earth. Why should we let them determine our future?"

About the NPC and ExxonMobil: About the NPC and Exon Mobil
About the Alberta oil sands: About Alberta oil sands
About liquid coal: Sierra club on liquid coal

Expensive Oil

2007-06-17T21:28:00.001+03:00

Higher oil prices was supposed to lead to the development of cleaner technology, right. Well, why would the oil industry suddenly develop morals?

Naomi Klein's got the story.

It has become fashionable to predict that high oil prices will spark a
free-market response to climate change, setting off an "explosion of
innovation in alternatives," as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote recently. Alberta puts the lie to that claim. High prices have indeed led to an R extravaganza, but it is squarely focused on figuring out how to get the dirtiest possible oil out of the hardest-to-reach places. Shell, for instance, is working on a "novel thermal recovery process"--embedding large electric heaters in the deposits and literally cooking the earth.
And that's the Alberta tar sands for you: The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat.

Arcade Fire Early Demo

2007-06-07T18:02:00.001+03:00

If there is anyone else out there who feels that one classic album (Funeral) and one great album (Neon Bible) and on maybe not so great EP is enough Arcade Fire, do check out these early demo's from 2001. Some of the songs are really good, others rather mediocre, as you would expect from a band like Arcade Fire.

Apparently Mr. Butler went through a C.S. Lewis period at some point, too:

Oh my God, a winter for a year
Oh my God, a winter for a year
And I cleaned out the back of my wardrobe for a year
Jackets never turn into branches
Not while you're not here
Winter for a Year

Female Theology Bloggers

2007-06-07T13:46:00.001+03:00

I have from time to time commented on how few women feel the need to blog on theology, especially when it is time to create a list of some kind. Well Michael L. Westmoreland-White has gathered together a list of the actually-not-so-few exceptions.

Nationalism and Patriotism

2007-06-06T10:48:00.000+03:00

There has been some discussion recently in the blogosphere about nationalism and patriotism, and either's relation to Christianity. Read in particular this posts by Michael J. Iafrate (and the follow-up), this post at Vox Nova and this one by Halden.

Coming from a small country like Finland, nationalism and patriotism clearly means something else than in the US, for example. Patriotism here means honoring those that took part in Finland's wars against the Soviet Union, but there is little notion of what Finland should be like today. Very few Finns have any concept of some glory of the Finnish nation, and no idea of any special status of our country compared to others.

Still, as I wrote in my post on Gutierrez last week, there is also an ugly flip side to the comparably weak Finnish nationalism, and this is I think true of all forms of nationalism. Nationalism will be used as an excuse to limit solidarity to our group. I mean, it is natural to have special concern for your family, relatives, the people who live in you home town, because you see them quite often and share much with them. In general we could say that we identify with people we share an experience with.

The problem is that identification with the nation is manufactured. My life resembles that of PhD students in other countries much more than that of a farmer in Carelia or some suit in Helsinki. What binds Finns together is the created common narrative of history taught to us in school and through media. Nothing else.

The point is, national narratives are created by the state ultimately for one purpose. To make it possible for the state to recruit people for the army. (Ok, they are some added "benefits" like shared experience of watching hockey and, but that's about it). This is the historical background to nationalism (to create empires) and it is still true today. Support for a nation's army is strongly correlated to the prevalence of nationalist ideals in that country.

The idea that something has a special value because it is Finnish is fake. One could argue that we need a Finnish culture to withstand "American" culture, but here too nationalism leads us wrong, since the problem is not about creating a Finnish alternative to for example the American, but about creating a local alternative to the global or commercial and upholding cultural diversity in general.

An identity based in real experience do not have sharp borders. The further away from Me we move, we share less experience but we can probably find something that connects us even if we move very far. But manufactured identities draw sharp lines, creates us vs. them scenarios. Finns against Russians, Christians against Muslims, Humans against nature. This is the mindset nationalism fosters. If we avoid nationalism we can learn to recognize what we share rather than what separates us.

(BTW, Our neighbours the Swedes celebrate their national holiday today. Since nationalism is very weak in Sweden (they have not fought a war in almost 200 years) they don't really know what to do on their national holiday. Very refreshing that. Hoppas ni njuter av vädret, vänner!)

Lost in the Flood

2007-06-04T22:08:00.000+03:00

There's a new song up on my band's MySpace-site. I'm rather proud of it, so you might want to give it a listen.

We play Springsteen songs. We're not aiming for the note-perfect xerox-copies of the originals but try to play the songs the best way we can. This song I think we succeeded pretty well. It's one of Springsteen's best songs in my opinion with somewhat cryptic but very strong lyrics. Though what he means by "Nun's run bald through Vatican Halls, Pregnant, pleading Immaculate Conception" is anybody's guess.

New Blog of the Month at Theology Blogs

2007-06-04T09:55:00.001+03:00

Check out who Lawrence chose.

Gustavo Gutierrez: We Drink from Our Own Wells

2007-05-31T17:06:00.000+03:00

Let's get one thing straight right away: I think liberation theology is great and feel very strongly that all theology needs to be contextual to be relevant. That said, this book didn't do much for me. There are several reasons for this. I am familiar with most of the ideas central to liberation theology, so there were few "new ideas" here. More importantly this really is "spirituality of Latin America". It s not even supposed to be particularly relevant for me.

This is not criticism then, but rather an effort to clarify the major differences between the Latin American outlook of Gutierrez and my North European outlook.

Of course, poverty is a rather abstract thing for me. There is very little poverty in Finland, because we still have a great social security system. It is being torn down as we speak, but still extreme poverty is not something you encounter here. This means that I can agree in principle that God has a preference for the poor, it is not something that has much existential meaning for me.

This does not mean that all is well in the Republic of Finland, because the solution to poverty is not more money, but liberation. People in Finland, too, needs liberation, but not so much from poverty as from the tyranny of the accepted opinion, as one might call it. Sure, people in Finland are free to express their opinion (if they have one), and to live their life in any way (within reasonable limits), but most people still live a rather destructive life, destructive not only for the environment (only USA and some other country (was it Australia?) produce more CO2 per capita than Finland) but also for their own souls.

In a way - and I do not say this to in any way downplay the atrocity of extreme poverty - we are little better off, because most Finns have no idea they are oppressed, because we are oppressed by a system so efficient that it has made itself nearly invisible. Why use violence when there is television? Still, we are forced to live a life centered of producing value for the system, by working way more than is healthy and to put any creativity we still have after what is commonly called education to the service of that same system. What this means is that there is way too little joy in our lives, way too little beauty. Instead of joy we have entertainment.

Surely this is a situation where salvation is deeply needed.

Another thing that is difficult for me with Gutierrez book is that is so much a spirituality of a people. I just cannot relate to that. Here again our situation is so different. If they are a people oppressed by an elite, then we are oppressed in part by the idea of being a people. Nationalism is still strong in Finland, as in the rest of Europe, and it seems to be even worse in the US where it is called patriotism. Nationalism is clearly the most destructive idea in the history of mankind (only religion comes close in the amount of blood shed), and even though we have few wars today in this corner of the world, people still argue with this completely abstract notion of the nation as a basis. For example, we hear people argue that "we" must work so that "all Finns" will have a better life. How about all humans? All lifeforms? Why draw any line based on who belongs to this made up concept the Finnish nation? Well, of course the reason is to make it OK to exploit the others, ow wage war against them if need (such as high petrol prices) arises.

I really like how Gutierrez lifts up death as the central symbol for evil, in part replacing for example sin, that is always transformed into some abstract form of spiritual aids. Death is real; it is there. We can be made aware how poverty (in their case) or compliancy (in our) is death. You do not live when you're working 14 hours a day, be it because you have to to put food on your family's table or because a bigger car seems to be a good idea. That is death. From that we need salvation.

Gutierrez is in this book also concerned with dispelling the idea that liberation theology is merely thinly veiled Marxism. Of course it is not. I doubt anyone who believes that has read this far, but if this is the case, do read the book. For the rest of us, we need to keep on working on a liberation theology of our own.

Another Excuse for not Posting

2007-05-28T21:57:00.001+03:00

This time the bass is even audible. Slightly loud in fact.

Theology Blogs reaches 100 listed blogs

2007-05-27T12:53:00.001+03:00

My other blog, Theology Blogs now lists 100 blogs that deal with theology. Not bad, huh? I bet there are some that you have missed!

Elizabeth A. Johnson: She Who Is

2007-05-14T17:10:00.000+03:00

Johnson's book was the only one written by a woman that featured in the list of the fifteen most important books of the last 25 years. That's just sad. I hope it says more about who writes and reads theology blogs than about what is really the state of theology today. At least in my own field, the study of Early Christian Asceticism, there are lot's of great female scholars. In fact, from the top of my head I could probably mention more female scholars of note than male.

In any case, this just makes a book like Johnson's all the more important. The book tries to sum up the main insights of the first few decades of feminist theology in a systematic manner. Of course it cannot be complete, it focuses mostly on theology and Christology, and does not treat for example ecclesiology or the ministry. This has the clear advantage that she can avoid much disputed areas and that what she says is applicable in any church regardless of confession.

Johnson presents the case for the need of a feminist theology very convincingly and in a manner I think most people would find reasonable. There are still people out there who think feminism is dangerous (it is, but not in the way they think!), but Johnson writes in a way that is more likely to convince than anger.

I had a fair knowledge of feminist theology prior to reading the book, but I still learned a thing or two of great importance. For example, I was not aware of how sentimental my image of the symbol "Mother" actually was. I guess many a reader would be surprised at the multitude of female symbols for God found in the Bible. But more important is that I have tended to see the value if feminist discourse in theology mostly as criticism: the necessary pointing out of a deeply rooted problem in the Christian tradition. While Johnson does present this criticism, she spends more time in showing in what ways womens perspective actually helps moving the theological discussion forward. Particularly in the area of Christology I found many inspiring insights.

In conclusion, this book should be mandatory reading for all theologians. It (or another one like it) should be on every curriculum. It clears up so many misconceptions and brings home so many significant insights. It is not the best theology I've ready, but it may be among the most important.

One year, 25 000 visits

2007-05-04T16:44:00.001+03:00

Yes, this blog is one year old (and two days). Appropriately enough, today visitor number 25,000 found her or his way here.

Also, there is a new blog of the month over at Theology Blogs. A personal favourite of mine, I might add.

Naomi Klein on Wolfowitz

2007-05-02T16:03:00.000+03:00

I signed some internet petition to sack Paul Wolfowitz today, because they guy stands for everything I am against.

Naomi Klein has better arguements:

The more serious lie at the center of the controversy is the implication that the World Bank was an institution with impeccable ethical credentials--until, according to forty-two former Bank executives, its credibility was "fatally compromised" by Wolfowitz. (Many American liberals have seized on this fairy tale, addicted to the fleeting rush that comes from forcing neocons to resign.) The truth is that the bank's credibility was fatally compromised when it forced school fees on students in Ghana in exchange for a loan; when it demanded that Tanzania privatize its water system; when it made telecom privatization a condition of aid for Hurricane Mitch; when it demanded labor "flexibility" in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami in Sri Lanka; when it pushed for eliminating food subsidies in post-invasion Iraq. Ecuadoreans care little about Wolfowitz's girlfriend; more pressing is that in 2005, the Bank withheld a promised $100 million after the country dared to spend a portion of its oil revenues on health and education. Some antipoverty organization.

Tillich Review

2007-05-02T09:57:00.000+03:00

In the recently published issue of the Princeton Theological Review there is a review I wrote on Theology at the End of Culture by Russell Re Manning. It is a book about Paul Tillich's theology of art, and gave me a reason to take a look at this aspect of Tillich's theology. It eventually resulted in my series on "Paul Tillich's theology of Indie Rock".

There are lots of other blogger invovled in the same issue, for a full list check out this post over at Disruptive Grace.

Thinking Blogger Awards

2007-04-25T17:44:00.001+03:00

krister of theoblogia has awarded me a "Thinking blogger Award". Read his nice motivation here.

The honour involves naming a few other thinking bloggers. Easy! In no particular order:

Elizaphanian - Rev. Sam has not written that much lately (like me!) but if one goes a bit further back one will find insightful post on films, theology and Peak Oil. Lots of post on Peak Oil. He also has a deeply honest attitude to things that moves me deeply.
revolt in the desert - It's a very special blog and I have to admit that I read a lot less at it than I look, because Lawrence usually illustrates his posts with beautiful images, mostly paintings, that usually manages to kick me out of my usual lines of thought. Also, lots of good thoughts on Islam.
Sandalstraps' Sanctuary - Although Chris apparently plays Bela Fleck to his poor two-year old son, his blog is filled with thoughtful posts on theology, religion and politics.
On Journeying with those in Exile - Dan's blog is informed by his experience of life among the home-less, the drug addicts and the prostitutes on the streets of Vancouver. It makes his theology all the more relevant.

Worst theological inventions!

2007-04-24T21:54:00.001+03:00

Ben is holding a vote on the "Worst theological invention" and is now accepting nominations.

I nominated (in no particular order)

Double predestination
Sola Scriptura
Male-only priesthood
cuius regio, euis religio
Just war

Double predestination not only turns God into a demon, but it also, according to Max Weber is responisble for capitalism. That's hard to top.

Sola Scriptura is just silly, there where Christianity long before the NT existed. I like to see the new testament and all subsequent theology as a commentary to the Eucharist.

Male-only priesthood, a case of the Church mirroring earth rather than heaven. Mary Magdalene was the first apostle, and Pete was the first man who didn't get it.

Cuius Regio, eius Religio is together with Constantinism (nominated by Halden) the foundation of the State Church. It is the notion that the ruler decides the faith of the citizens. A bit hard to swallow that one, still, very popular during the reformation. It was always bad, today it still keeps the post-state churches of Northern Europe to be, you know, Church.

Finally, Just war, a natural consequence of the state church, where the church has to be "reasonable" in the eyes of the rulers. Without it, no Crusades, no 30-year war etcetera. For crying out loud, we believe in a God who let himself be killed. Is there anything less warlike than that?

Tracy's Imagination

2007-04-23T17:46:00.000+03:00

I've been reading David Tracy's book The Analogical Imagination lately. It came in on a shared 14th place on my list of recent theological works, the oldest work to do so, just making the time frame allowed (it was published in 1981).

The book is a kind of overview of the (then) present state of systematic theology, and as such a very good one. Tracy is balanced, he has a very wide knowledge of different kinds of theology, and he presents the works he cites fairly.

As a person deeply influenced by Tillich, it is nice to read Tracy's appreciation of Tillich which is very high. At least back in -81 Tillich's influence was still strong apparently. Whatever happened then?

I like Tracy's discussion on the public and publicness of theology. Theology has three audiences: the church, academia and society, and it need to be public in all areas. This is an insight that seems to be lost on many writers today, that write for the church, uses the academia and neglects the rest of society completely.

So, Tracy's book is good to read, it might broaden your knowledge in many areas. That said, it seems to me that Tracy's own ideas are not really as important as he seems to think. His talk of classics, religious and otherwise may have some pedagogical value, but beyond that I am unsure... I don't really know what I'm supposed to do with it. He also has a language that is a bit irritation at times. I order to try to communicate the significance of the gospel, he uses words like danger and risk a lot, and it doesn't really work, it just strikes you as odd.

This criticism apart, I tend to agree a lot with Tracy's views of theology and how it should be done. I feel much more at home in this kind of theology than, for example more recent kinds of "post-modern" theology. Does that make me old-fashioned or conservative. Or has theology lost its way? At the moment I'm leaning towards the second alternative.

The "excuse for not posting much lately"-post.

2007-04-22T22:14:00.000+03:00

A part of the explanation is here.

Internet is for Making Lists

2007-04-16T16:09:00.000+03:00

So there is this unspun thing over at amazon. Now we can vote on the top Theology Blogs.

Is this a good thing? Is popular always the best and most in need of recognition. Of course not, but it is still fun.

Yes I put my blog in the top spot. You can do, too.

Of course, You can also make your own list. I did one about theologians and one about Systematic Theologies. Join in! (It's totally silly of course, how do you rank things like this? But I listed the once I found important and that I like...)

So...

2007-04-10T13:20:00.000+03:00

the Muse B-side I stole the name for my blog from, "God of a Shrinking Universe", is used in the trailer of the new zombie-flick 28 weeks later... Wonder what kind of impact that will have on my google hits.

Didn't like the first one very much. But its a good song.

New Theology Blogs Blog of the Month

2007-04-05T17:06:00.001+03:00

Check it out.

No Powerpoint

2007-04-04T20:36:00.001+03:00

We all knew this, of course, but now it is proven, that PowerPoint is worthless as a pedagogical tool. (HT: Byron).

I am Origen

2007-04-04T20:24:00.000+03:00

This, of course, comes as a surprise to no one.

You’re Origen!

You do nothing by half-measures. If you’re going to read the Bible, you want to read it in the original languages. If you’re going to teach, you’re going to reach as many souls as possible, through a proliferation of lectures and books. If you’re a guy and you’re going to fight for purity … well, you’d better hide the kitchen shears.

Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

Democracy or Liberty

2007-03-31T14:06:00.001+03:00

Lawrence of Arabia has a great post on the failure of American and European foreign policy in the Middle East.

The failure, then, is the inability of the United States, among others, to recognize and articulate that it does not want democratization but liberalization in the middle east: something that is not tied, initially in any case, to a particular form of choosing one's rulers. Monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, etc. are all capable of being liberal, and it was only the liberal revolutions in France in and the United States that made democracy something more than the tyranny of the mob (and that only after a great deal of bloodshed at the hand of the mob in France).

I'm a strong believer in democracy, that is, the right and duty of the citizen to be involved in the governing of the society. Of course, elections is a very small part in this. True democracy is about the individual haveing the possibility to control his or her life. This is exactly what liberty is about.

Making Consumers - BBC documentary on Edward Bernays

2007-03-30T13:24:00.000+03:00

How did we end up being consumers? Well, it did not happen by chance, and there certainly is nothing natural about it. This fascinating documentary tells the story of Edward Bernays, the man that more than anyone else worked out how to turn people into consumers by tying products to their deepest desires, thus shifting our behavior from buying things we need to buying things we want.

Agressive Peacemaker - Peaceful aggressor? David Bentley Hart

2007-03-26T16:42:00.000+03:00

If David Bentley Hart's The Beauty of the Infinite is the best thing theology has to offer at present, I'm not sure that theology is in such a good place at the moment.

Don't get me wrong, large parts of it is brilliant. The Dogmatica Minora at its center is very good, even if I am a bit hesitant about elevating beauty quite to the heights Hart does. In the end of the day, one man's beauty will be another man's porn, and I'm not sure it is ever a good idea to try to contain all of Christian doctrine in just one concept. But the account of the Trinity as Peaceful Difference is a very good idea, I think and it is the one idea I will keep with me from reading Hart.

But there is a lot of stuff here that troubles me greatly. One thing is that Hart does not seem to want to acknowledge his dependence on earlier (academic) theology. He is very critical of almost everyone he mentions except for Milbank, still he operates totally within the framework created by 19th and 20th century academic theology. He does not seem to be aware of the direct continuity between his work and that of the 20th century Germans he looks down upon. Like them, Hart retells the Christian story in the language of contemporary philosophy, as when he calls Christ the Father's "supreme rhetoric".

As I said, the thing I appreciate the most is Hart's location of peace at the absolute center of the Christian dogma. However, the way he does it - in the sense of his attitude and style of writing - all but destroys this achievement. As I said in my last post on this book, Hart's attitude to philosophy (and indeed most theology) is that it is something that has to be violently torn down. I realize this is not original criticism, but I find it extremely important. You can't talk about the beauty of peace and then have this arrogant attitude towards all that think differently. It is that kind of attitude that creates violence in the world, much more than certain ethical or philosophical ideas.

The biggest problem is that most of the trashing that goes on ends up in ad hominem attacks. After several pages of intense discussion, Nietzsche in the end just has atrocious taste. Heidegger is an old Nazi. And the attack on Levinas is so over the top ("I know of no modern philosophy of 'values' more morally hideous than that of Levinas") that one can't help but thinking that Hart must be completely off the mark. If all these great names of modern and post-modern thought are such imbeciles, how come no one has noticed before?

Who does this Hart character think he is?

Some would argue that this kind of rhetorics makes for a more enjoyable read. Well, if you want to enjoy yourself, go watch TV.

I can't help but thinking that Hart's way of doing theology (as opposed to his theology) is the exact equivalent of US Foreign policy. A potential threat from the outside to the peace within should be bombed out of existence. Carthago delenda est.

13 Letters by St. Augustine

2007-03-22T13:50:00.000+02:00

I usually do not advertise books on my blog, but this is a bit special... It is the first book published in my name, and I'm quite proud of it. It is a Swedish translation of 13 of St. Augustine's letters, that I co-edited with Anni Maria Laato. I worked mainly on turning rough translations into nice Swedish and wrote parts of the introduction (on Asceticism and on Pelagianism.)

It is a nice little introduction to Augustine. People who read Swedish and are interested can order the book here for merely 98 Swedish crowns.

More on Arcade Fire

2007-03-20T09:39:00.000+02:00

Somebody left a link to this article in a comment to my post on Neon Bible. It's an article that explores some of the biblical language on the album, some of it very interesting, some of it a bit far-fetched... Turns out Win Butler is a former theology student, which explains a lot of things. Like these quotes:

I wrote that song after our first headlining tour of the States....It was the first time in my life that I felt like I was visiting my own country as some sort of outsider. I had lived in Montreal for a few years at that point, but I didn't realize that I had really made it my home until that trip. In theology there is this idea that it is easier to say what God isn't than what God is, and in a way that song is my trying to say everything about my country that is not what makes it great or beautiful. In a way it makes what is great and beautiful and worth fighting to preserve more clear.

and:

A good percentage of rock bands, when they perform it's a totally sexual thing. But I don't think we're that sexual. At least that's not what we're singing about or acting out. On a good night, it's more like the ecstasy of St. Theresa.

Do we know of any other theologians turned rock stars? The last quote is not only a rather good description (check out these clips on YouTube), but rather funny, since, as most of you know, St. Theresa is known for using quite sexual language to describe her ecstatic experiences.

Arcade Fire - Black Mirror

2007-03-19T17:02:00.000+02:00

This is just a post to say that the new Arcade Fire is really really good.

Ok the music is a bit samey as the last one, but the lyrics are so marvelous - especially set to this music. I get a very similar feeling as when Radiohead's Hail to the Tief came out: the music just blends in with the way you look at the world and becomes a seamless whole. This is rock music when it is as its best - rather then being an escape from the world it is takes you in deeper into reality, making the things that happen around you even more real.

There is a lot of paranoia on this album (yes the Radiohead link is not just in my head). This is from Keep the Car Running:

If some night I don’t come home
Please don’t think I’ve left you alone
The same place that I must go when they die
You can’t climb across a mountain so high
The same city where I go when I sleep
Can’t swim across a river so deep

They know my name ‘cause I told it to them
But they don’t know where and they don’t know when
It’s coming or when
Is it’s coming? Keep the car running

A lot of the songs deal with the feeling of living in post 9-11 land, where the state distrusts us and feels it needs to monitor us (A feeling very close to me today as dark forces won the elections yesterday...). One of the most beautiful songs is the thoroughly depressing Ocean of noise. But religion is a really big theme, from The Well and the Lighthouse that seems to be about Christ, to (Antichrist Television Blues) that is about, well, anti-Christ, in the form of a parent that exploits his child for fame. In the next song, Windowstill, we get the other perspective, the kid's:

MTV, what have you done to me?
Save my soul, set me free!
Set me free! What have you done to me?
I can't breathe! I can't see!

But the penultimate song, No Cars Go, is really joyful, that seems to suggest a way out from all this paranoia and violence, in the moment "between the click of the light and the start of a dream".

The last song is a chapter of its own. Stong platonic languge, "My body is a cage, but my mind holds the Key". Several possible interpretations for this one. Like in antiquity (as I argue in my dissertation ;) ) the body is a metaphor for all those things that hold us back, in this case, "from dancing with the one I love".

I've listened to the album about ten times now, and, as you see, my impressions are still very sketchy. There is that feeling that there is still a lot more to discover here.

Interview with me

2007-03-14T08:12:00.001+02:00

Michael L. Westmoreland-White has posted an interview with me at his blog. Check it out (you can find out the well kept secret of my denominational background, among other things), and support his Christian Peace Blogger initiative!

Hart on Tillich

2007-03-13T18:59:00.001+02:00

I'm about half-way through David Bentley Hart's The Beauty of the Infinite, and I will reserve my judgement of the whole book for a later post. Since Hart's criticism of Tillich is, as far as I can see, fairly irrelevant for his intentions, I will treat it separately.

I'm really curious as to what provoked this attack (it comes so surprisingly that an attack is exactly what it is). It can't be Tillich's use of the concept of symbols, since Hart makes no attempt to understand it. Rather than discussing this concept, Hart quickly moves on to a quote about demythologization, which Hart misunderstands completely. Tillich was not really doing demythologization. Hart is reading Tillich through Bultmann, who actually did reduce some myths to existential philosophy - notably the resurrection. Tillich did not do that. When Tillich is defending demythologization, as Tillich understands it, it is because unlike the literalists (fundamentalists as we call them today) demythologization, resists the temptation to reduce myth to propositions. In more modern vocabulary (that did not exist in Tillich's time), Tillich is defending the narrative structure of the biblical texts against those that read the bible as a science-book.

This is really ironic, since this is part of Hart's program as well. And it is not the only area where similarities can be found. Harts ontology is really similar to Tillich's, though Hart does ground his better in the trinity (a real weakness of Tillich's). Both work out their theology in dialogue with the present-day philosophy.

It is often the case when theologians criticising the theologians of the preceding generation, that what is criticised is not so much what they say, but what they do not, i.e. that they do not answer the same questions. Tillich has little to say about theology in the post-modern discussion - as understood by Hart.

I guess this attack is just another example of how Tillich in America has become a symbol for liberal theology - which is odd since he of course was part of the first (real) post-liberal generation.

Of course there are real differences between Tillich and Hart. Tillich used philosophy as a means of communicating theology to the secular. Hart uses theology to do battle on philosophy as a proponent of the secular.

I, for one, prefer Tillich's attitude.

New Blog of the Month at Theology Blogs

2007-03-04T11:43:00.001+02:00

Check it out.

A Rant on John Milbank

2007-03-01T09:25:00.000+02:00

Yes, I have read Milbank's Theology & Social Theory. All of it. My original intention was to write a critical and serious review of it, but then I thought what the heck, I'll just write what I feel about it instead.

To be honest, Milbank lost me even before the "acknowledgments" part. In the dedication. "For Alison (fair enough, that's presumably his wife) and the Remanant of 'Christendom'." How is it possible to get so much arrogance, snottiness and sentimentality into a single line? Ok, here we have a guy that feels nostalgic about a time when dissent from "Christian" faith would mean death by fire.

I won't deny that Milbank's book has its merits. The very first paragraph: "Once, there was no 'secular'" is an important point to make and Milbank's arguing for the invention of the secular is very good. He has a width of knowledge about the history of modern philosophy and sociology that is nothing short of amazing, even though he presents it in a way that seems to be intentionally difficult. The ironic thing is that his sense of Christianity is so puny. First of all, and this really annoys me, he is constantly arguing out of what "Christianity" is and what is "Christian", as if the content of these concepts were given and clear. It gets absurd at times because Milbank nowhere gives his criteria for what is genuinely Christian theology, he just refers to it as if he had a secret knowledge about what this really is. What do we call that, again? Yeah, right: gnosticism.

Here's my favorite example: "Eriugena's ontology, based on God as internally 'maker' and then on different degrees of participation in creation, is therefore more profoundly Christian than that of Aquinas." Incidently I agree with him here, Eriugenas understanding of creation is really good, but how can one just claim that it is more Christian than Thomas? According to what? Who?

The problem for me with Milbank's theology is that is so lacking in religious value. Milbank's entire credo seems to be "I believe in the Church". God Father, Son and (especially) Spirit all play very peripheral roles in his theology. His alternative to a world based on secular reason is the Church, which is not so much a place where the Word of God is preached nor where the sacraments are celebrated and the Mystery is worshiped, but a kind of alternative society. And what kind of society is this? This is again extremely ironic, but it seems that Milbank's vision of a society based on Christian Socialism is essentially a kind of liberal state where some aspects of life are centrally governed but for the most part it is a free market economy. Sounds familiar? That's exactly what we have in the Western world today. Only Milbank would like people to be a bit nicer, because that is more "Christian".

Another problem with this book is that the practical applications of his argument always come as complete surprises, like the half-hearted criticism of capitalism mentioned above, or the championing of non-violence. It has a very loose connection to his over-all line of argument.

An then we have the final chapter. In these few last pages we find out that Milbank actually don't think the Church is such a great place after all. It has failed miserably at what it was supposed to be and do, and created liberalism, nihilism, violence and power-politics in the process. And then it stops with a kind of "but at least it is better than secular reason". And that's it. 433 pages to get to this result?

How about an eschatological perspective on the Church? Nope. How about some notion about the importance of the believers relation to the ultimate? No, not that either. How about the Church as place of overcoming of sin and learning the behavior of the citizens of the Kingdom of heaven? Not in there.

Not much of a point then, really?

The Jesus Tomb

2007-02-27T17:48:00.001+02:00

Weekend Fisher has devoted maybe a bit more effort than it merits to the "Jesus tomb" hype. But his posts sum up well why this nonsense is - yes nonsense. A strange way to celebrate easter the media has developed...

Post 1
Post 2

Biblicalia: Sayings of the Desert Fathers

2007-02-27T17:38:00.001+02:00

Kevin P. Edgecomb has started to post his translations of the Apophthegmata Patrum, one of the most important and interesting of the early Christian texts. If you're not familiar with these sayings, here's you chance.

Eddie Izzard - Mother Nature handing out methods of procreation.

2007-02-24T15:58:00.001+02:00

This is the best piece of comedy ever. Ever.

Eddie Izzard on Creationism

2007-02-24T01:49:00.001+02:00

Rev. Sam posted a Eddie Izzard clip. I want my own.

Exit Q.

2007-02-19T17:35:00.001+02:00

Looks like they finally solved the synoptic problem.

A shame, I was always a "priority of Matthew" kind of guy. You gotta trust the fathers.

HT: Connexions

A day in your life.

2007-02-09T08:54:00.001+02:00

Mike Bird has posted his daily routine... I thought I'd do the same. I think this speaks for itself.

6.55 Radio turns on. Lies in bed for half an hour listening to the news and morning, talking to my wife if she is conscious. Pondering what the day will hold.

7.30 gets up, gets dressed, eats breakfast and reads the paper.

8.30 gets on bus. I read theology on the bus that is not related to my PhD.

9.15 at work. Checks e-mail, reads some blogs, checks some internet news pages. Start "working"

10 -10.30/10.45 Tea Break. If something interesting is discussed, might be even longer.

10.30/10.45 - 11.15 Work.

11.15 - 12.30 or longer Lunch. I make it a point never to do less than an hour of lunch. I consider this the most important part of the day. Lunch discussions are on of my main sources of inspiration for work and life. I consider long lunches my most important counter-cultural activity.

12.30-15 Work. I usually need a break at some point here, maybe to go to the library or just surf the net.

15-15.30 Tea break. If work has been good - longer break.

15.30-16.15 Work. Usually ends with ten minutes or so of doing whatever feels interesting at the moment, reading articles on the net and so on.

16.15 - 17 Bus home. More reading.

Evenings consist of Karate practice 2-3 times a week, Band practice now and then, whatever extra projects I have going on. If my wife and I are both at home, we try to spend time together. No tv. Some blogging perhaps. In summer garden work.

In bed by ten. Asleep by eleven. That hour can be spent in different ways.

I have been constantly ahead of schedule on my PhD project. I consider myself to be very disciplined. People just work too much.

New Blog of the Month at Theology Blogs...

2007-02-07T18:57:00.001+02:00

And guess what? It's not a blog!

Christian Peace Bloggers

2007-02-05T10:46:00.001+02:00

A new webring has been created by Michael Westmoreland-White to bring together bloggers from all kinds of backgrounds who reaced the conclusion that Christian faith means taking a stand against war. A very diverse bunch so far, alway a good thing in matters like this. If you are interested you can join by scrolling down and looking for the webring links on the right side and hit "join".

Great initiative!

Miroslav Volf on John Milbank

2007-01-31T14:04:00.001+02:00

One way to embrace the evildoers would be simply "to act as if their sin was not there", as John Milbank has suggested in Theology and Social Theory. Jesus on the cross would then be our model. Like him we would say of the perpetrators, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing". In an act of sheer grace, justice and truth would be suspended, and reconciling embrace take place. We seriously misconstrue forgiveness, however, if we understand it as acting "as if sin was not there". More significantly , whereas the suspension of truth in an act of forgiveness is meant to help create a new world, a world without deception and injustice. Suspend justice and truth, and you cannot redeem the world; you must leave it as it is. Acting "as if not" in the face of sin might indeed anticipate heaven in which there will be no sin, as Milbank argues. However, the price of such anticipation is abandonment of the world to the darkness of hell; the world will remain forever awry, and the blood of the innocent will eternally cry out to heaven. There can be no redemption unless the truth about the world is told and justice is done. To treat sin as if it were not there, when in fact it is there, amounts to living as if the world was redeemed when in fact it is not. The claim to redemption has degenerated into an empty ideology, and a dangerous one at that.
Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, p. 294.

I haven't read all of the Milbank book yet (and reading the first hundred pages makes me wonder how many who applaud it actually has), but this criticism of Volf's seem to me to be very apt. I wonder if this is in fact the major division line within modern theology, oh sorry, that is post-modern: between those who feel the gospel should work towards to redemption of the world and those that don't.

The 15 Most Important Theological Works of the Last 25 Years

2007-01-28T13:35:00.001+02:00

Here are the most important works in recent theology as voted by the theo-blogosphere. About 50 people participated in the survey, which was made in January 2007. For more about the process see these posts.

1. John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (1985) 21 votes
2. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theodramatik (completed 1983) 17 votes
3. George A Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (1984) 16 votes
4. John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (1990) 13 votes

A Rant on John Milbank

5. Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (1996) 12 votes
6. John Paul II, Theology of the Body (1979-1984) 11 votes
7. Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer on Christian Ethics (1983) 10 votes
7. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology (1988-93) 10 votes
9. Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life. A Universal Affirmation. (1991) 9 votes
10. Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is (1992) 8 votes

A review

10. T. F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith (1985) 8 votes
12. Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink From Our Own Wells (1984) 7 votes

12. Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology (1997-99) 7 votes
14. Jean-Luc Marion, God without Being (Dieu sans l'être) (1982) 6 votes
14. David Tracy, The analogical imagination: Christian theology and the culture of pluralism (1981) 6 votes

A Review

As I said when starting this project, I want to make this list into a source for info on these works, so now I invite those of you that have written something on these works - reviews, comments and so on - on you blogs to list such post in a comment to this post. I will move these links into the original post, so they will be easy to find. I won't be too strict when deciding what goes on the list, but it has to be a little bit more than just a quotation.

A lot of works came in on a shared sixteenth place: Borg, Childs, Cavanaugh, Hart, Newbigin, Ratzinger, Vanhoozer, Williams and Wright all got five votes each. Six votes thus seemed a good place to draw the line.

The full list of works nominated for this list is here.

I for one will do my best to read all the works on this list that I haven't read (the majority of them). It seems like a really good way to expand one's knowing on the current theological climate (in the English-speaking world, one should add).

The list shows commendable ecclesiastic width, and about half of the works are by writers that do not have English as first language. It sadly male-heavy, though, Johnson being the only woman to make the list. There were a number of other female theologians on the long list, but none of them got more than two votes. But then I don't think there were more than two female voters...

I also asked you which one work you find to be the most important. Many decided not to name one such work, but it is still interesting to see that these votes gave quite a different result:

1. John Paul II (6 votes)
2. Lindbeck (5 votes)
3. von Balthasar, Millbank (4 votes)
5. Pannenberg, Zizioulas ( 3 votes)
7. Gutierrez, Moltmann, (2 votes)

A big thank you to all the people who participated in the creation of this list, and since I'm sure theology giants like these also google their name every now and then, my congratulations to all the writers who made the list.

It'll be really interesting to see what kind of a list we'll get in 2012.

Solar Lunar Power Stations

2007-01-26T12:58:00.001+02:00

Jonny Greenwood posted this Link on the Radiohead website today. It's a (serious) article about solving the earth's energy problems by building solar power stations on the moon and beaming the energy here as microwaves.

I obviously cannot vouch for the solidity of this research, but since Jonny posted it I think we can trust it. :)

Voting Still Open

2007-01-23T10:05:00.001+02:00

I will keep the voting open maybe a day or so more, it would be great to have some more votes. It would make it possible to make the final list a little longer without too much random in the lower regions. I feel I can already announce the top three, since these are right now in a class of their own.

1. John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (1985)
2. George A Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (1984)
3. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theodramatik (completed 1983)

I wonder if an Orthodox theologian could have made it to the top of a list like this even ten years ago. Right now, Zizioluas leads of Lindbeck with two votes, and over von Balthasar with three, so things can still change.

So congratulations to Zizioulas and the others!

And remember, you can still contribute to the list by voting, as well as by linking to bring in more people!

Update: actually, I won't have time to look at this today, so the voting remains open for some time still.

Paul Tillich's Theology of Indie Rock Series

2007-01-22T17:53:00.001+02:00

This series is an attempt at applying some aspects of Tillich's theology of art to popular music. The music I have chosen is not particularly indie (what is?), but it sounded good as a title.

In spite of the numerous video-examples, posted lyrical examples and graphics, nothing I have written on this blog has gathered less interest, at least measured in comments... I wonder why this is - maybe the Tillich fans and Indie Rock fans are mutually exclusive groups. :)

Anyway, there are six parts in the series:

Part I Gehalt, Inhalt and Form
Part II Subjective and Objective attitude, Categorising music
Part III Categorising music continued
Part IV Some problems
Part V "Christian" music
Part VI Music and Christian Theology

Paul Tillich's Theology of Indie Rock VI

2007-01-22T17:35:00.001+02:00

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.

It is time to look a bit closer at the kind of experience we have been exploring in this series. I think most people would agree that we experience something extraordinary when listening to some kinds of music, and many would agree that this experience is spiritual in character. The question I want to ask now is, however, if it makes sense to call this experience Christian?

This is a difficult question, and we would have all kinds of methodological issues to deal with if this was done properly. More recent research on mystical experiences has emphasized the importance of the interpretation of the mystical experience as a central aspect of the experience itself. This means that it makes sense to speak of a Christian mysticism where the mystic interprets the experience using Christian language, especially language associated with central Christian doctrines.

Could Christian doctrinal language be used to describe what we experience listen to music?

I think so. First of all, this experience is a experience of creativity, of creation. It is far from rare that musicians, even those that otherwise shun identification with any religion, claim that they cannot explain the process of writing a song, that "the best tunes just appear". Music - as well as other forms of art - is in a way a celebration of this experience of creation. I think this notion is related to the religious idea of creation on several levels, as I have argued elsewhere.

Secondly, the experience we have when listening to this kind of music is relational. Music is about communication, and the magic, if you forgive my casual use of the word, happens in the contact between the performer and the listener. Music is never about listening to a thing, a product - it is about listening to a person who is giving something to you.

Thirdly, the experience is one of meaningfulness. When listening to something that grabs you deeply you experience that this is something that is of the highest importance, it concerns who you are on a very fundamental level

Creation, relation, meaning - there's some Trinitarian thought for you. Can we go further?

Music is an incarnational experience. I have a home-made theory about music being the source for the original concept of a bodyless existence, because music does seem to have an existence that is not tied to matter: a melody exists even if no one is at the moment singing it, even if no recording of it is made, even if it has not been written out. However, unless the music becomes flesh - in the performer and the listener - there is no experience. Does this not point towards the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ?

These ideas should not be taken as expositions of the Christian doctrine. I just want to show how Christian language can be applied to the experience we are dealing with here.

Why, then, is this important? Why have I bothered to work out this theology at all? Well, for two reasons primarily. First, as someone who loves music, and someone who understands myself as a Christian I want these to aspects of my life to be in unity. I want to be able to express why Radiohead means so much to me, without creating an inner conflict in me.

The second reason is that I see an tendency in modern theology to make religion this separate compartment in the world - a neat post-modern haven with its own rules and reality, without any connection to the lives of a wider public. I think Tillich's theology is needed to counter this.

Christian theology needs to interact with culture to be relevant.

Keep those votes coming!

2007-01-20T18:53:00.001+02:00

Man, this is fun! About fourty people have voted so far, and right now, three title share the top spot, and these three seem to be pulling away from the rest. I won't tell you which titles these are, it would affect the result of the vote.

Right now, the votes indicate that about ten titles seem to be more popular than the rest. But the more votes we have coming in, the more titles will pull ahead, so we can make the list a bit longer. I'd like the final version of of the list to have 20-25 titles on it, so keep spreading the word that the vote is open!

The voting takes place here.

Byron on Peak Oil

2007-01-19T08:06:00.001+02:00

Byron has posten som thoughts on theology and Peak Oil.

The problem is that we have artificially inflated our needs to include cheap transport, easy energy, comfort and inordinate and ever-expanding wealth. And so the primary theological 'solution' to Peak Oil is thankfulness, which is the key to contentment. Listen to the Apostle Paul: I have learned to be content with whatever I have.

Best Contemporary Theology: Final Vote

2007-01-18T18:07:00.000+02:00

Ok, here is the list we will no vote on. Using the form below you can vote for as many of these titles you like (ok, if you vote for more than, say, 20 titles it is already a bit silly). Of course, you may vote only once. Asking for name and e-mail is only for the purpose of making it at least a little bit harder to cheat. I won't spam you.

My thanks to everyone who has participated so far! It has been fun, the meme, though not a perfect tool for gathering data, proved to be a lot fun - many people wrote small essays on theology in the last 25 years, well worth reading. If your nominations do not appear, I am sorry, I must have missed them (except in the case you nominated Dan Brown. That I ignored).

James Alison, Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981)
Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theodramatik (completed 1983)
Carl Bangs, 'Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation' (1985)
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses: the Gospels as eyewitness testimony (2006)
Oswald Bayer, Living by Faith - Justification and Sanctification
Kwame Bediako: Christianity in Africa: The Renewal of Non-Western Religion
Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (2002)
Michael Buckley, At the origin of modern atheism
Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments
Leonardo & Clodvis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology (1986)
Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith
Ion Bria, Liturgy After the Liturgy
Benezet Bujo, African Theology in its Social Context
D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God
William T. Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist
Louis-Marie Chauvet, Symbol and Sacrament: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence
Carol Christ, She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World.
James Wm McClendon, Systematic Theology
Sarah Coakley, Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender
John Cobb, Christ in a Pluralistic Age
James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (1981)
Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity in Christian Life.
Marva Dawn, Reaching Out without Dumbing Down
John Dear SJ, Living Peace: A Spirituality of Contemplation and Action
Oliver O'Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (1994)
Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Relgion 1805-1900
Vincent J. Donovan, Christianity Rediscovered
Marc H. Ellis, Ending Auschwitz: The Future of Jewish and Christian Life
Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology
Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (1999)
David Ford, Self and Salvation: Being Transformed (1999)
Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross (1997)
Matthew Fox, A New Reformation: Creation Spirituality and the Transformation of Christianity, 2006.
Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom (1981)
Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 2000
Bede Griffiths, Return to the Center, 1982.
Colin Gunton, The One, The Three, and The Many
Vigen Guroian, Ethics After Christendom
Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink From Our Own Wells (1984)
Douglas John Hall, The Cross in our Context
David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite (2003)
Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer on Christian Ethics
John F Haught, God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, 2001.
J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race (2003)
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (1989)
Carter Heyward, Touching Our Strength: The Erotic As Power and the Love of God
Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity (2003)
Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (1997-99)
John Paul II, Theology of the Body (1979-1984)
Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is
Luke Timothy Johnson, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church
Serene Jones, Feminist Theory and Christian Theology (2000)
Eberhard Jüngel, Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith
Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God (2003)
Walter Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi (1982)
Emmanuel Katongole, The Future of Africa
Hans Küng, Theologie im Aufbruch
Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People
Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy
Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity
George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (1984)
Jean Marc-Ela, African Cry
Jean-Luc Marion, Dieu sans l'être (1982)
Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History and Society
John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (1990)
R.W.L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment
Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life
Richard A. Muller, Post Reformation Dogmatics, Volumes I-IV. 2003
Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission (1995)
John T. Noonan, A Church that Can and Cannot Change (2005)
Henri J.M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982)
Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation. 1992.
Mercy Amba Oduyoye: Beads and Strands: Reflections of an African Woman
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie, 3 vols. (1988-93)
Catherine Pickstock, After Writing. On the liturgical consumation of philosophy.
William Placher, The Domestication of the Transcendence, 2000
Jeffery Pugh, Entertaining the Triune Mystery: God, Science, and the Space Between
Joseph Ratzinger, Werte in Zeiten des Umbruchs: Die Herausforderungen der Zukunft bestehen (2004)
Stephen G. Ray, Jr, Do No Harm: Social Sin and Christian Responsibility
Rosemary Radford Reuther: Sexism and God-Talk (1983)
Peter Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God
Hieromonk Seraphim Rose: The Soul After Death
Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations
Lamin Sanneh, Translating the Message
Edward Schillebeeckx, Pleidooi voor mensen in de kerk. Christelijke identiteit en ambten in de kerk (1985) (The Church with a Human Face)
David L. Schindler, Heart of the World, Center of the Church (1996)
Harold Senkbeil, Dying to Live: The Power of Forgiveness (1994)
Stephen Sizer, 'Christian Zionism: Road Map to Armageddon?' (2004)
Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, The Law of God
Jon Sobrino, The Principle of Mercy
John Stott, The Cross of Christ (1986)
Dorothee Sölle, To Work and To Love: A Theology of Creation
Kathryn Tanner, Jesus, Humanity, and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology
Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text (2000)
T. F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith (1985)
David Tracy, The analogical imagination: Christian theology and the culture of pluralism (1981)
E. Frank Tupper, A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of God's Compassion
Denys Turner, The Darkness of God
Kevil Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine
J. Danny Weaver, The Non-Violent Atonement
Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology
Clark Willimanson, Way of Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology
Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.
Telford Work, Living and active: scripture in the economy of salvation (2002)
N. T. Wright, Simply Christian
John Howard Yoder, Body Politics.
Yogananda, Paramahansa, The Second Coming of Christ: The Resurrection of the Christ Within You, 2004.
John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (1985)

Church and World

2007-01-17T13:04:00.001+02:00

In such a catholic outlook the entire problem of the relationship of the Church to the world receives a different perspective. The separation and juxtaposition of the two can have no essential meaning because there is no point where the limits of the Church can be objectively and finally drawn. There is a constant interrelation between the Church and the world, the world being God's creation and never ceasing to belong to Him and the Church being the community which through the descent of the Holy Spirit transcends in herself the world and offers it to God in the eucharist.
John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, p. 162.

This bold statement seems to point in the same direction as my thoughts in this post.

Best Contemporary Theology Meme Update

2007-01-16T20:16:00.001+02:00

After arriving at one title per writer these are the 108 titles on the list. If there are any comments that you want to make, you still have on day before I will finalize the list and start the voting. I would especially appreciate it if titles that do not fit the timeframe (1981-2006) are pointed out. Also, I someone notes a title that is missing, it is still possible to add it.

James Alison, Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981)
Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Dramatik (completed 1983)
Carl Bangs, 'Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation' (1985)
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses: the Gospels as eyewitness testimony (2006)
Oswald Bayer: Living by Faith - Justification and Sanctification
Kwame Bediako: Christianity in Africa: The Renewal of Non-Western Religion
Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (2002)
Leonardo Clodvis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology (1986)
Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith
Ion Bria, Liturgy After the Liturgy
Walter Brüggermann, The Prophetic Imagination
Benezet Bujo: African Theology in its Social Context
D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God
William T. Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist
Louis-Marie Chauvet, Symbol and Sacrament: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence
Carol Christ, She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World.
James Wm McClendon, Systematic Theology
Sarah Coakley, Powers and Submissions: Philosophy, Gender, and Spirituality
John Cobb, Christ in a Pluralistic Age
James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (1981)
Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity in Christian Life.
Marva Dawn, Reaching Out without Dumbing Down
John Dear SJ, Living Peace: A Spirituality of Contemplation and Action
Oliver O'Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (1994)
Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Relgion 1805-1900
Vincent J. Donovan, Christianity Rediscovered
Marc H. Ellis, Ending Auschwitz: The Future of Jewish and Christian Life
Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology
Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (1999)
Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross (1997)
Matthew Fox, A New Reformation: Creation Spirituality and the Transformation of Christianity, 2006.
Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom (1981)
Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 2000
Griffiths, Bede. Return to the Center, 1982.
Colin Gunton, The One, The Three, and The Many
Vigen Guroian, Ethics After Christendom
Gustavo Gutierrez, We Drink From Our Own Wells (1984)
Douglas John Hall, The Cross in our Context
David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite (2003)
Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer on Christian Ethics
Haught, John F. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, 2001.
J. Daniel Hays, 'From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race' (2003)
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (1989)
Carter Heyward, Touching Our Strength: The Erotic As Power and the Love of God
Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity (2003)
Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (1997-99)
John Paul II, Theology of the Body (1979-1984)
Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is
Luke Timothy Johnson, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church
Serene Jones: Feminist Theory and Christian Theology (2000)
Eberhard Jüngel, Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith
Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God (2003)
Walter Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi (1982)
Emmanuel Katongole: The Future of Africa
Hans Küng, Theologie im Aufbruch
Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People
Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy
Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity
George A. Lindbeck: The Nature of Doctrine (1984)
Jean Marc-Ela: African Cry
Jean-Luc Marion, Dieu sans l'être (1982)
Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History and Society
John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (1990)
R.W.L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment
Jurgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life
Richard A. Muller. Post Reformation Dogmatics, Volumes I-IV. 2003
Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission (1995)
John T. Noonan, A Church that Can and Cannot Change (2005)
Henri J.M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982)
Heiko A. Oberman. The Dawn of the Reformation. 1992.
Mercy Amba Oduyoye: Beads and Strands: Reflections of an African Woman
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (1988-93)
William Placher, The Domestication of the Transcendence, 2000
Jeffery Pugh - Entertaining the Triune Mystery: God, Science, and the Space Between
Joseph Ratzinger, Werte in Zeiten des Umbruchs: Die Herausforderungen der Zukunft bestehen (2004)
Stephen G. Ray, Jr, Do No Harm: Social Sin and Christian Responsibility
Rosemary Radford Reuther: Sexism and God-Talk (1983)
Peter Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God
Hieromonk Seraphim Rose: The Soul After Death
Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations
Lamin Sanneh: Translating the Message
Edward Schillebeeckx, Pleidooi voor mensen in de kerk. Christelijke identiteit en ambten in de kerk (1985)
David L. Schindler, Heart of the World, Center of the Church (1996)
Harold Senkbeil, Dying to Live: The Power of Forgiveness (1994)
Joseph Sittler: The Care of the Earth.
Stephen Sizer, 'Christian Zionism: Road Map to Armageddon?' (2004)
Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy: The Law of God
Jon Sobrino, The Principle of Mercy
John Stott, The Cross of Christ (1986)
Dorothee Sölle, To Work and To Love: A Theology of Creation
Kathryn Tanner: Jesus, Humanity, and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology
Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text (2000)
T. F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith (1985)
David Tracy, The analogical imagination: Christian theology and the culture of pluralism (1981)
E. Frank Tupper, A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of God's Compassion
Kevil Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine
J. Danny Weaver, The Non-Violent Atonement
Rowan Williams: On Christian Theology
Clark Willimanson, Way of Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology
Miroslav Wolf : Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.
Telford Work, Living and active: scripture in the economy of salvation (2002)
N. T. Wright, Simply Christian
John Howard Yoder, Body Politics.
Yogananda, Paramahansa. The Second Coming of Christ: The Resurrection of the Christ Within You, 2004.
John D. Zizioulas: Being as Communion

Best Contemporary Theology work: Preliminary votes

2007-01-15T16:27:00.000+02:00

As explained here, some of the writers that have been nominated for inclusion on the list of the best contemporary theological works have been nominated with more than one title. For fairness, we will now vote on which work by these writers will be nominated. I will have the polls open as long as I feel is need, maybe a day or two.

The meme continues to live its own life (it has already mutated quite a bit). As long as the preliminary voting is going on I will add titles to the list. (If another title is added by a writer who is already nominated, I will, however, discard it. Too complicated otherwise...)

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6907.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6908.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6909.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6910.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6911.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6912.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6913.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6914.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6915.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6916.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6917.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6918.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6919.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6920.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6921.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

&amp;lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/poll-6922.html"&gt;Take the poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://polls.blogflux.com/"&gt;Free Poll by Blog Flux&lt;/a&gt;

Sin and Deification

2007-01-15T12:49:00.001+02:00

While the deification view may at first glance appear to take sin and evil less seriously than the atonement view, it actually takes them more seriously. It views them not simply as individual failings for which human beings need forgiveness, but rather as all the forces - individual, systematic, institutional - that thwart the flourishing of God's creation. "Sin" is not mainly or only a personal problem, the solution for which is divine forgiveness. Rather, sin is living a lie, living contrary to the way the christic lens tells us is God's desire for all of us. "Evil", in this understanding, is to collective term for the ancient, intricate and pervasive networks of false living that have accumulated during human history.
Sallie McFague, Life Abundant, p. 185-186.

I think this understanding of sin and its relation to salvation has a lot of potential. McFague is here not actually dealing with sin in particular, and maybe it should be worked out a bit more. But I think a reading of the eastern fathers, for whom deification was the obvious way to understand salvation, would prove that McFague's interpretation is sound. They tend to use the tricky term "nature" to describe what is corrupted, but it would certainly be wrong to reduce this term to biology as we perhaps tend to do. History certainly place a great part in creating human nature.

Tillich on Symbols an Myth

2007-01-15T11:06:00.001+02:00

Andrew has a good post on Tillich and demythologization. Here's a part of the text he is quoting.

The presupposition of such literalism is that God is a being, acting in time and space, dwelling in a special place, affecting the course of events and being affected by them like any other being in the universe. Literalism deprives God of his ultimacy and, religiously speaking, of his majesty. It draws him down to the level of that which is not ultimate, the finite and conditional.

I think what is interesting about Tillich's criticism of literalism is that it is profoundly religious. He is not criticising literalism primarily because it turns religion into something that has to be accepted against better knowledge, but because it is bad theology. It deprives God of his otherness.

Paul Tillich's Theology of Indie Rock V

2007-01-13T21:47:00.001+02:00

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.

Paul Tillich developed his theology of art, that I have applied to rock, partly in order to address the notion that art had to have a clearly religious content to be considered religious (see this post.) This can the be applied to music as well.

I'm under the impression that the commercial success of "Contemporary Christian Music" peaked a few years ago. I could be wrong, I am completely disinterested in this kind of music. Still, much of this kind of "Christian music" for me seems to be completely irreligious in character. If we use Tillich's scheme, this kind of music, while having a religious Inhalt, it is not Gehalt-oriented, but oriented towards form. There seems to be a will to create a Christian alternative to whatever is playing on the radio. This means that the attitude that Tillich considers particularly religious is lacking: Form does not serve the Gehalt but is itself the focus.

Of course, it would be absurd to state that a religious Inhalt makes it impossible to consider a piece of music truly religious. And I am sure we can find plenty of examples of music where the lyrics religious in content, and where the deeper Gehalt dictates the form of the song. (One example, though definitely not CCR, is Brompton Oratory by Nick Cave - incidently also a proof that you can make music on those cheap Casio Keyboards, as this Youtube clip shows...) The point is, and this is what is important: if you limit yourself to only opening yourself up to art and music with a Christian Inhalt, you are likely to miss out on much of true spiritual value.

In the final part of this series I will offer some final thoughts on the nature of this experience, and suggest that this kind of theology can actually be very important in our time.

Best Contemporary Theology Meme Update

2007-01-13T17:28:00.001+02:00

The Nominations keep coming in (117 at the latest count). A potential problem has occurred to me.

My plan was to have the vote happen so that everyone can vote for as many titles as she or he wants to (maybe a maximum of 20 or so). The problem is that several writers have more than one work nominated. This could lead to several problems, either that a writer looses out because votes are split between several works, or than one writer gets to much attention because of several titles in the list.

This problem could be solved in a few ways. On possibility is a pre-vote where the we vote on which title of these writes will go on the official list we vote on.

Another way would be to say that one writer can only have one title on the final list, so the title with the most votes will go on even if another title would have more votes than a different title by another writer.

Any suggestions?

Best Contemporary Theology Meme Update

2007-01-12T21:12:00.001+02:00

Just a quick note to tell you that I know have 107 titles on my list. However, only 14 of those have received more than one nomination, so it will be very interesting to see what will happen when we start voting.

I will close the nominations on Monday evening, and post the entire list of nomination, with instruction on how we will go about voting for the titles that will go on the final list.

Conventional Theology

2007-01-12T11:22:00.001+02:00

In conventional theology Jesus Christ takes the sins of the entire world - past, present and future - upon himself. Through his sacrificial death he achieves forgiveness for all sins; through his resurrection we are assured of eternal life. Since Jesus Christ is "fully God and fully human", the second person of the trinity, according to the orthodox position he can accomplish redemption: as God he has the power to do so and as man he stands for and includes all human beings in his saving death and life-giving resurrection. ....
Personally, I have never been able to believe it.
Sallie McFague: Life Abundant, p. 157-158.

Almost had you going there, eh? According to McFague this is a theology that today, for North-American Middle-class Christians, is "not believeable and bad theology". It does not correspond to today's understanding of reality. This kind of theology, she says, puts the "offense of Christ in the wrong place", that is, it makes faith about a conflict with science rather than with a conflict with a sinful way of life.

It is bad theology only from our particular perspective of course. It is bad because in this kind of Christology "Jesus does it all". It does not engage us in creation, it does not motivate us to get involved in the "project in which we join God in Christ to help all creature's flourish".

Best Contemporary Theology Meme Update

2007-01-11T18:23:00.000+02:00

A day has passed since the meme was set loose and so far (about) 20 people have responded. Keep passing the word by tagging, the list will only be better the more people get involved. If you want to know how the meme spreads, you can follow it here.

The list so far looks like this:

James Alison, Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Was dürfen wir hoffnen? (?)
Carl Bangs, 'Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation' (1985)
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the eyewitnesses: the Gospels as eyewitness testimony (2006)
Leonardo & Clodvis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology (1986)
Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith
D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God
Carol Christ, She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World.
Sarah Coakley, Powers and Submissions: Philosophy, Gender, and Spirituality
John Cobb, Christ in a Pluralistic Age
* Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity in Human Life.
John Dear SJ, Living Peace: A Spirituality of Contemplation and Action
Oliver O'Donovan, Desire of the Nations
Marc H. Ellis, Ending Auschwitz: The Future of Jewish and Christian Life
Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology
Sallie McFague, Models of God
Colin Gunton, The One, The Three, and The Many
Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 2000
Gustavo Guttierez, The Power of the Poor in History
David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite (2003)
* Stanley Hauerwas, With the Grain of the Universe
J. Daniel Hays, 'From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race' (2003)
Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity (2003)
* Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (1997-99)
* Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is
Eberhard Jungel, God's Being is in Becoming
Hans Küng, Theologie im Aufbruch
Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity
* George A. Lindbeck: The Nature of Doctrine (1984)
Jean-Luc Marion, God without Being (1982)
John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body
* John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory (1990)
Jürgen Moltmann: Das Kommen Gottes: Christliche Eschatologie.
Jürgen Moltmann: Trinität und Reich Gottes (?)
Richard A. Muller. Post Reformation Dogmatics, Volumes I-IV. 2003
Richard A. Muller. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. 2001.
Heiko A. Oberman. The Dawn of the Reformation. 1992.
* Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (1988-93)
William Placher, The Domestication of the Transcendence, 2000
Stephen G. Ray, Jr, Do No Harm: Social Sin and Christian Responsibility
Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations
Joseph Sittler: The Care of the Earth.
Stephen Sizer, 'Christian Zionism: Road Map to Armageddon?' (2004)
Jon Sobrino, The Principle of Mercy
Dorothee Sölle, To Work and To Love: A Theology of Creation
* Kathryn Tanner: Jesus, Humanity, and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology
Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text (2000)
T. F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God
* T. F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith (1985)
* David Tracy, The analogical imagination: Christian theology and the culture of pluralism (1981)
E. Frank Tupper, A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of God's Compassion
* Kevil Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine
Rowan Williams: The Body's Grace
* Rowan Williams: On Christian Theology
* Miroslav Wolf : Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.
Telford Work, Living and active: scripture in the economy of salvation (2002)
* John D. Zizioulas: Being as Communion

Titles with an * has more than one nomination. 56 Titles so far.

I am unsure if the titles marked with (?) fit within the time frame... Can anyone confirm this?

Best Contemporary Theology Meme

2007-01-10T14:09:00.001+02:00

This meme exists because of an effort to create a kind of canon of contemporary theology. See more about it here.

Update: The voting for the final list is now underway!

Name three (or more) theological works from the last 25 years (1981-2006) that you consider important and worthy to be included on a list of the most important works of theology of that last 25 years (in no particular order).

1. John D. Zizioulas: Being as Communion
2. George A. Lindbeck: The Nature of Doctrine
3. Jürgen Moltmann: Das Kommen Gottes: Christliche Eschatologie.

Just to get this started, I'm tagging everyone in my blogroll (please tag a few of your friends to spread the word):
Kevin, Chris Tilling, Rev. Sam, Chris, Ben, Rich, Joshua, Joey, Byron, Dan, Cynthia, Lawrence of Arabia, Chris Baker, D.W. Congdon, Krister, John, Thomas. Of course, anyone else who sees this can and should join in!

(No sweat I you find it hard to name three... I know some of you have other things to think about than this...)

Compiling a list of the Best Contemporary Works of Theology

2007-01-10T13:35:00.001+02:00

Ok, its time for a bit of fun now. My request for tips on great contemporary books on theology got me thinking... Wouldn't it be great if we had a kind of canon on great new theology, that would reflect not the ideas of a single person, or a group of people, but the international community of theologians? I think this could be done without to much trouble and it could even be a bit of fun.

So here's what I thought we could do. I'll do the compiling here at God in a Shrinking Universe. The titles will be picked in two steps. First a nomination round; and then among these nominations, we will vote on which titles make it to the final list.

I think the best way to do the nominations is by creating a meme. I will do that in a separate post. The I will compile the results of that meme and among the titles that get a certain amounts of votes (I'll have to decide on the exact number when I see to what degree this picks up), I will compile the list of titles that participate in the final vote.

The reason I want to do it in two steps is that I think that it can be difficult to remember all books that are important when you chose from the top of your head, and with a list in front of you, you may chose somewhat differently. Also, it is more exciting. When I have the list of nominees that we will vote on, I will also ask for links to reviews on the various works (I'm sure many of you have such reviews in you blogs), and make it not only a list of good books, but also a list of more info on them.

So while spreading the meme, you can refer to this post for an explanation of what we are doing. By linking to this post, it will be easier for me to track the meme, but I should be able to find it also with search engines.

I won't be too strict when it comes what titles qualify, but let's focus on theology (not biblical exegesis, historical studies and so on - unless these are of special theological interest!). I'll let popular consensus decide. But the titles have to have been first published in the last 25 years, that is, from 1981 to 2006. (If it is published last week that will be ok too, but I doubt enough people will have had time to read it.)

If you do not have a blog of your own, you can give you nomination in a comment to this post.

Fisk on Saddam's Execution

2007-01-09T21:58:00.001+02:00

As always, Robert Fisk tells it like it is:

Note how the best "our" Iraqi government's officials could do by way of reply was to order an "enquiry" to find out how mobile phones were taken into the execution room - not to identify the creatures who bawled abuse at Saddam Hussein in his last moments. How very Blairite of the al-Maliki government to search for the snitches rather than the criminals who abused their power.

Read the rest here.

Radically Dependent

2007-01-09T14:10:00.001+02:00

We need, then, first of all to reconceive ourselves. We need to think differently about who we are. The eighteenth-century individual, isolated from other people except through contracts and from nature except as the resource base from which to amass wealth, is false according to the picture of reality current in our time. The postmodern picture sees us as part and parcel of the earth, not only as dependent on it and its processes but since we are high on the food chain, as radically dependent. ... We are simply not who the reigning economic model says we are, so says our current story. We may be greedy, but more basically, we are needy, terribly needy.
Sallie McFague: Life Abundant, p. 102.

This book as actually rather brilliant. So far, McFague has given an analysis of the current economic model and how it is unable to provide humans with true fulfilment, and how it is responsible for the sorry state of planet earth. Even if I am not sure about the use of that term postmodern (is there anything this word cannot mean??!?) I think she is very right in saying that those that advocate free-market capitalism today are living in yesterdays world. Too bad they still hold the power.

I really look forward to the theological chapters that make up the second half of this book.

Paul Tillich's Theology of Indie Rock IV

2007-01-08T17:43:00.001+02:00

Part I, Part II, Part III.

So what are the problems with this approach to the religious or spiritual dimension in music? Well, first and foremost, and this may also be considered a strength depending on you point of view: it presents an objective criterion to religious music, while most people spontaneously would feel that what constitutes a spiritual experience in music is something extremely subjective.

However, it seems to me that this criterion is not really objective, it is rather to be understood as a more specific way of saying 'to me this song is spiritual'. It says goes a bit further than merely stating a subjective feeling, it describes why I have this feeling. The interpretive element is not removed completely: what specific pieces of music that is considered Gehalt-oriented is not something 100% objective. So one could claim that Tillich's approach gives a way of avoiding both the 100% objective approach (a kind of ex opere operato notion of religious music) and a 100% subjective approach (Which of course turns religion into a part of the individual, and removes the ultimate aspect completely).

Another problem with this approach is that it does not seem to fit all kinds of music as well. I chose these example because even though they are very different they all share the same basic aesthetics: It is the kind of music where melody, sound and harmonies are important but there is also a notion that these cannot be made into a goal in themselves.

If I however took this same mode of analysis, and looked at for example an artist such as Bob Dylan, I would not really get any results. Now it is undeniable that many feel that Dylan is very spiritual (in parts), yet - it has to be said - melody, sound and chords rarely seem very important to him. For him, the Form of the music is almost irrelevant. However, it may be possible to treat these kinds of artists (see also Nick Cave, Johnny Cash, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen etc.) by focusing more on the lyrics themselves, and apply the Gehalt-form scale to just the lyrics, and maybe to the way the artist performs them.

Another similar comment is that there seems to be something very existential in the mere performance of music. Could this be another area where these tools could be used? How about instrumental music?

I will in another post (this series just keeps growing), address the question of so called Christian music, and then finally address why I actually feel this is important. Until then, go back to the previous parts and check out all those youTube clips once more!

Liberating Theology

2007-01-08T14:11:00.001+02:00

Let us look at this rather unattractive suggestion more carefully. It is unattractive because it is not like other liberation theologies. Other liberation theologies arise from the cries of the oppressed; but we are not oppressed. This theology will not liberate North Americans from chains of oppression (except, of course, the chains of consumerism!); rather, it implies that we are the oppressors and must, if we are Christians, liberate others from our domination. That is, a liberation theology for us North American Christians should be based on a cruciform lifestyle, expressing and embodying a way of life that will be liberating to others.
Sallie McFague: Life Abundant, p. 34.

First, I have to note that see anything in this paragraph that does not apply to North Europeans as well as Americans. It is perhaps a matter of difference in scale, certainly not in attitude.

Second, I think that even if I agree in general notion that a contextual theology for the Western World should be primarily about liberating the others (bringing freedom to the Middle East, for example, should primarily be about giving them freedom from us), there are some problems with this notion as well. On the one hand I think consumerism is only one of the things we actually need to be liberated. We need to be liberated from our belief in that our leaders are basically morally good and want what's best for us. We need to be liberated from the notion that competition in any area of life produces the best results (it brings out the alternative that is best at competing, nothing else), among other things. So even if the end result is the same, a western liberation theology should also be about liberating us, not only the others.

But a more difficult problem is that notion that the purpose of a western liberation theology is to liberate others risk falling in line with the age-old western belief that it is our purpose to help (read: civilize, Christianize, democratize... colonize), the rest of the world. There is an inherent belief in the supremacy of the White man contained in it. Of course this is not what McFague is intending, but it is still worth noting that liberation must come from within, not from without.

(Yes I chose this book (thanks, Chris!), but I still will chose one more, probably Hart...)