Mark Husbands and Hope College

By -
Mark Husbands was my adviser during my time at Wheaton College. He was, at that time, in the midst of completing his dissertation under John Webster on Barth’s ethics of prayer. (I’ve read the MSS, and you will definitely want to pick up a copy when Columbia finally gets around to publishing it.)

Mark is one of those rare teachers of theology who has the inexplicable gift of passing on to his students the joy of studying theology. So, when I heard a number of months ago that he would be leaving Wheaton College this past summer to take up a post at Hope College, I was torn between excitement for Mark and sadness for Wheaton College.

In any case, Hope has published a press release detailing Mark’s new position, giving a quick introduction to his theological work, etc. I recommend that you check it out (all you Wheaties especially) and keep your eye on Mark's scholarship as it continues to blossom.

Comments

James said…
This was a bittersweet move. But in the midst of our sadness we need to ask who will carry on the tradition of wearing bow ties at Wheaton. At present Dan Master seems to be the last representative in BTAWR.
October 14, 2007 3:00 PM
Shane said…
Bow Tie = overrated.

I just never saw the appeal.
October 14, 2007 11:16 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
Mark wore the bow tie out of respect and in memory of his late professor George Schner.

Baring a similar reason for wearing them, however, I side with Shane - with the exception of wearing them to potluck dinners, where they are quite practical. :-)
October 15, 2007 5:40 AM
Darren said…
GO MARK GO!

I was only a lowly part-time, commuter, grad student at Wheaton ... and as a result I feel I have a much greater fondness for and commitment to my professors than to the institution in particular. Sad as it is for Wheaton, who needs strong, no-nonsense instructors like Mark, it's a great move for him. The endowed chair makes it all the nicer.
October 16, 2007 12:10 AM
Shane said…
I'm not rejecting the bowtie as such, merely pointing out that it can be fetishized.

I think they fit dr. husbands.
October 16, 2007 10:27 AM
W. Travis McMaken said…
They certainly do suit him.
October 16, 2007 10:31 AM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri
Keep reading

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 1, Day 5

By -
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from
Keep reading