For those interested in serious theology, Patrik has posted the results of a meme and poll of the theo-blogosphere through which he sought the most important theological works to be published in the last 25 years.
Patrik (of world cup for theologians fame) is running a poll on the most important theological publications of the last 25 years. Go and have a look if you're a newcomer to reading theology, or go and vote if you think you know your stuff.
Patrik, having successfully steered Moltmann to victory in Finland, has launched a new project: a blog to provide links to any and all blogs on systematic theology. It's only just starting up, but if you have a blog that might qualify or if you're interested to watch a new meta-blog under contruction, mosey on over.
News and links for those who (like me) have been away for a little while.
In world news, Germany looks set to defeat Switzerland in the World Cup. Earlier, Germany took 3rd place over USA in the bronze-medal match. Controversially, Cup favourite Switzerland was disqualified prior to the tournament. In the other World Cup, Germany takes on Greece: don't miss it.
Ben over at Faith and Theology has two posts from Kim offering thought-provoking ten-point advice to preachers and congregations.
Aaron on the loss of grief in our culture. Also here.
Oh, and we can all rest easy now that Noah's ark has finally been found in Tennessee.
I'm sure many will be pleased to know (though of course, you would have already heard and don't need me to say so!) that Colin Gunton, Jürgen Moltmann, T. F. Torrence, Robert Jenson, and Eberhard Jüngel have all survived their various pool games and are through to the round of sixteen. For those who haven't been following the Theologians World Cup over on Patrik's blog, this may make little sense. Go and support some quality names in 20thC theology and experience all the thrill the masses get from the round-ball game but without the hooliganism.
Round of 16 starts Monday (Finland time).
(And in the other World Cup, Australia are of course through to the round of 16, where they will face, and unfortunately, lose to the Italian team that knocked the US out).
If you've been slow off the mark to post your nominations, may you ever live in regret. No Australians made the final 32 and German speakers continue to dominate the line-up. However, the first round of matches has already begun. Vote here, here, and here. And here are the results from the first three games. Go Moltmann, Torrance, Gunton, Jüngel and Jenson!
UPDATE: More results here. Latest games/results always here.
The Barneys fire (see various previous posts, such as this) has been investigated and declared accidental. Either sighs of relief or congratulations to the arsonist are in order.
Patrik and Chris are starting a conversation about the Christian hope of resurrection: symbol or something more?
And another lecturer has joined the rush to be famous before it becomes popular. Here's the opening of Mark Thompson's new blog Theology for the Brave.
Patrik has hit on a way of simultaneously avoiding the 'I don't have a TV during the World Cup' blues (for all you who, like me, suffer under this terrible condition) and maximising his blog hits with a nifty idea: a Theologians' World Cup. The idea is simple, go and vote now to ensure the starting line-up includes at least a few English-speaking names. Then keep voting for your favourite theologian until the winner takes all.
PS Patrik's idea has certain similarities with a suggestion I made on Ben's blog about holding a 'Theological Idol' series in which contestants were progressively voted off. Ah well, too slow once again. Well done, Patrik for inhaling the Zeitgeist.
My new-found Scandinavian friend Patrik has responded at length to my first post on time and eternity, which in turn was a response to some of his earlier posts (he's already done a good job of cataloging the history).
My own grip on patristics being somewhat slim, I nonetheless realise that the idea that God is somehow outside of time has a long and noble history reaching back into the first few centuries of the church. Yet I just don't buy it. Let me fly a kite and see what happens. Happy for it to be shot down...
Can God change? A fascinating question. The early fathers argued that change either means God's getting worse (and so is no longer perfect), or better (and so wasn't perfect before). However, I guess I find problematic the notion of perfection that lies behind the Greek fear of transience. I'm not sure that mathematical perfection is the most fruitful model for conceptualising divine perfections. And there's the key: perfections. God's perfections remain open-ended and so capable of growth and multiplication. For instance, although he was Father (and Son, and Spirit) without the world, he is now Creator, a new perfection. In a similar manner, the Incarnation brings about a new state of affairs for divine identity. There is more that can be said of him now. Not because he was deficient prior to the Incarnation, nor because he was already incarnate and we just didn't know it yet. But his perfections have been multiplied.
Does this threaten divine faithfulness? No, in fact, I sometimes wonder whether temporality is a condition of faithfulness. If God is outside time, then does his ability to stay true to himself constitute a virtue? Do we praise a triangle for its faithfulness - always, no matter what, having three sides?
Paul Ricoeur makes a very useful distinction between ipse and idem identity. Both are Latin words translated 'same', but with a slightly different spin. Am I the same person I was yesterday? Yes, and no. No, many of my atoms have changed, millions of cells have died, I have different memories, a slightly different outlook on life, a little less hair, a little more weight, a little more wisdom (I hope). But yes, it's still me - I'm still the same character in the story of my life. The former kind of identity (mathematically exactly totally the same) is idem identity - the same what-ness (unchanging substance). In this sense, I am not the same as yesterday. But the second, ipse identity, is the same who-ness. Self-same versus same self. I believe that God's faithfulness, his constancy, consists of ispe, rather than idem identity.
Years ago, a friend of mine said, 'at least we won't have to deal with time once the Last Day comes.'
Until that point, I'm not sure I'd ever really thought about time and eternity, or at least not in terms of time versus eternity. I'd always assumed there would still be time for time after the Last Day, after 'the end'. But apparently not. Apparently, "It is a firm belief of the Church that time will not be a part that existence," as a much-loved fellow blogger recently said. And then I looked, and behold, he was (more or less) right: for most of its history, much of the Church has been looking forward (or sideways, or upwards, or inwards, or something), for the dissolution of time, the defeat of transience through sneaking out of the whole equation into the realm of a timelessly eternal God.
Why is that? I've never felt the reason for it. Certainly Moltmann rejects any conception of a 'timeless eternity'. If time is part of God's good, very good creation (rather than part of the fall, as Augustine needs to end up saying, since he is the one who really introduced this time/eternity split), then won't it too be redeemed in the 'restoration of all things'? Moltmann develops the concept of 'the fullness of time' - at the end, every moment will be completed, summed up, gathered together, purified and transformed into redeemed time. God will have time for us, because he takes his time with us. Let's have a good time with God.
See also here for more.
Patrik has a post on 'The need for eschatology'. It is worth a read. He explores the necessity of some kind personal eschatology in the face of death. I agree, but would like to take his thought further. I believe that any biblical theodicy (defence of God in the face of manifest evil and suffering) must at some point be eschatological, that is, it must refer to the future for which Christians hope. Let me clarify. I begin with three biblical characters who each acutely faced the problem of evil in their experience, not simply as an intellectual puzzle.
Joseph, for being an arrogant prat to his brothers, is sold into slavery. Twenty years later, he ends up being in the position to take revenge and humiliate, enslave or kill them. Apart from a little test to see whether they'd learnt anything from their years to reflect on their actions, he rescues them from their peril (and ends up enslaving their descendents in the long run - poetic justice? or not...). As he reflects on his suffering caused by their overreaction to his youthful boasting, he says 'You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good.' There was no mention of God's activity in the narrative during this account, but Joseph could see above or behind or through the seemingly random nastiness of his brothers (and others later in the narrative), that God was at work to create the conditions under which his family of promise would be rescued from famine. Paul says 'We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.' One of the most quoted (and misunderstood) verses in the Bible. This, though a response to suffering, is not a theodicy.
Job faces the question of suffering. He wants to take God to court and argue his case, to accuse God of injustice for the evil he experiences. God's response takes the form of a counter-offensive against Job, silencing his questions with more of his own. Job ends up placing his hand over his mouth. This, though a response to suffering, is not a theodicy.
Jesus' suffering and death pose the problem of evil in an acute form. Pilate's wife, a Roman centurion, and Judas all testify that he was innocent (Matt 27.4, 19; Luke 23.47), yet he was betrayed, condemned on the testimony of 'false witnesses' (Matt 26.60), and brutally tortured and executed. If, as Christians claim, his identity was included in that of the one true God, then suffering is not unknown to God. He's been there and experienced it from the inside. As we groan about a world where things fall apart painfully, God's Spirit is groaning too (Rom 8.18-25). God is with the one who suffers. No one suffers alone: even where we cry 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?', Jesus is there too. This, though a response to suffering, is not a theodicy.(next)
Series: I; II; III; IV; V; VI.
Posts
All Comments
All photos and text by Byron Smith, unless noted otherwise. 
Nothing New Under the Sun blog by Byron Smith is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Site feed
Fave on Technorati Blogs that link here
