Books I Read in 2012

By -
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!


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

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.
February 07, 2013 9:37 AM
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.
February 07, 2013 1:46 PM
Matthew Frost said…
Well, yes, I did say "the American version," I assumed that would be understood. ;) Glad to have the recommendation.
February 07, 2013 3:28 PM
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).
February 07, 2013 3:31 PM
Jason Goroncy said…
What did you make of Green's book on Barth?
February 07, 2013 4:33 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
IJST is sitting on a review of it so you'll just have to wait and see. ;-)
February 07, 2013 4:36 PM
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
February 08, 2013 1:21 AM
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.
February 08, 2013 6:34 AM
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.
February 08, 2013 6:38 AM
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.
February 08, 2013 7:16 AM
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.
February 08, 2013 5:07 PM
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.
February 08, 2013 8:16 PM
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 ;).
February 09, 2013 5:38 PM
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
February 11, 2013 3:28 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