Undergraduate Papers Now Online: Take 2

By -
I tried this once before, but that attempt didn’t take for a number of reasons. So, I’m trying again. These are papers that I wrote while studying in the BITH department at Wheaton College (IL), from which I graduated in 2004.

Final Essays from My Class on Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Election

Reading Scripture: A Typology of Denominational Positions on the Question of Women in Ordained Ministry

Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology: A Look at 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5

Melkizedek Through the Testaments

An Evangelical Doctrine of the Eucharist: Sacrament, Gospel, and Witness

N.B. Just in case anyone for some reason inconceivable to me wants to quote from or otherwise make use of these materials, I want to make it perfectly clear that I retain full copyrights. If you would like to make some use of them, please contact me first to get my permission.

Comments

Jon said…
Just read your essay on Barth's doctrine of election - you seem to say B is unique in that he make his doctrine of election christocentric.

I disagree - I find that B is unique in that he places his doctrine of election WITHIN the doctrine of God. On my reading of the Reformed tradition - the doctrine of election is not construed apart from Christ but Christ is often the foundation. I'm thinking Calvin who talks of Christ as the "auctor" of election etc. etc. and even Turretin I think links to Christ although in a nuanced way. You should read Stephen Holmes chapter on B's doc of election in 'Listening to the Past'
June 05, 2007 7:38 AM
W. Travis McMaken said…
Yeah, that thing is more than three years old, so I can't be held responsible for mistakes. :-)

Which means that I think you are right. I think Barth is unique in the way in which he makes election Christocentric, but he is certainly not the first to think about election in relation to Christ.

In a similar way, others have thought about election in relation to the doctrine of God. The Reformed scholastics are a shining case in point of this with their concern about the divine decrees. However, again, Barth is unique in how he treats election in relation to the doctrine of God.
June 05, 2007 7:45 AM
Anonymous said…
I was wondering on your typology of positions on ordination you had no category for "those who say 'yes' from careful exegesis," as if all who say yes appeal only to experience and/or culture? Would you modify this typology if you were writing today?

BTW, I don't think any of us should be held eternally responsible for what we write in college. I shudder when I look back. :-)
June 09, 2007 3:52 AM
W. Travis McMaken said…
MWW,

I certainly think such a position is possible, and I would change this typology if I was writing today. Two things: (1) I don't think I found any denominations with much exegesis done in support of women in ministry, (2) if you read the conclusion, you will see that I actually accuse those who in the typology say "no" because of exegesis (that's their self-understanding) of doing poor exegesis.

As I recall, the typology deals with the self-understanding of the various denominations, not what I actually think is at work.
June 09, 2007 6:40 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

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

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