Thursday, February 07, 2013

Books I Read in 2012

Just for fun last year I decided to keep track of books that I read cover to cover. Reading in this way has been a bit of an anomaly for me the last couple years laboring under the burden of teaching lots of things for the first time, so that is my excuse in advance for why this list is rather short. But I did get to work through some good and rewarding books, and I thought that I would share them with you, gentle readers. Enjoy!


==================================

14 comments:

Matthew Frost said...

How was the Austin Dogmatics? I flipped through that at AAR, and noted it as something I ought to play with later, but it didn't make the budget. It looked a bit like the American version of Colin Gunton.

W. Travis McMaken said...

Van Buren is much more fruitful than Gunton. I'll be posting more about that particular text in the future. You should read it.

Matthew Frost said...

Well, yes, I did say "the American version," I assumed that would be understood. ;) Glad to have the recommendation.

W. Travis McMaken said...

LOL!

The two are very different. Gunton is someone who was distantly appreciative of Barth. Van Buren was one of Barth's students with a bit of an independent / rebellious streak (but one which I suspect he got from Barth).

Jason Goroncy said...

What did you make of Green's book on Barth?

W. Travis McMaken said...

IJST is sitting on a review of it so you'll just have to wait and see. ;-)

Jason Goroncy said...

btw. Did you see Terry Wright's review of Green's book? It's here: http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2013/02/book-review-doxological-theology-1.html

Matthew Frost said...

Travis, it's students like Van Buren that encourage me in my work. :) I have little doubt that his rebellion from Barth's conclusions and approaches was encouraged by his teacher—not exactly a man who insisted on being reproduced in the work of his students, from what I gather.

Matthew Frost said...

It always strikes me how much more I find the resonance of Barth in people who try to fix him. It's my hunch on why Barth also approves, so often, of readings of his theology that are not exactly right—but are perhaps how he thinks it should have been.

W. Travis McMaken said...

Thanks for pointing that out, Jason, I hadn't seen it.

Matt, in this particular case Barth wasn't too pleased. He basically disowned PMvB after Secular Meaning (which came after the Austin Dogmatics). But I suspect that Barth might have been a bit hasty there.

Matthew Frost said...

Hm. I suppose I can see how his involvement with the "death of God" movement in particular might have set Barth off, yeah. As well as the linguistic philosophy bit, perhaps. I was thinking more of the Jewish angles that he worked in. But one can only depart so far from Barth before one isn't fixing him, and is fixing to part company.

W. Travis McMaken said...

It was the "death of God" association that I think put Barth off, but I wish he had looked more closely. PMvB always rejected the idea that he was a part of that.

Derek Maris said...

Thanks for this list Travis! I enjoyed seeing what books got a significant amount of your attention these past several months.

Matt, in light of our conversations on Barth & Pannenberg these two quotes made me smile:

"It always strikes me how much more I find the resonance of Barth in people who try to fix him."

"But one can only depart so far from Barth before one isn't fixing him, and is fixing to part company."

The latter sounds like you, but the former ... ;). Of course to be fair, in the case of Pannenberg I doubt that Barth always saw the resonance himself. His comments about/to Pannenberg in the "Letters" are quite, um, blunt ;).

Anonymous said...

Hey W. Travis,

Thanks for reviewing my book. I'm an internet recluse, but I sometimes see my own name out there when I'm snooping around!

Hope you enjoyed it above all. Blessings in Christ,

Christopher Green