DET (Die Evangelischen Theologen) is the theological version of a digital news magazine. The DET authorial team provides insightful, thought-provoking content on a wide range of theological, religious, and even political subjects from current events and culture as well as from the Christian and other religious traditions.
*stage whisper from Scott in the wings* “Who cares? Just get on with it, already.”
*clears throat*
Welcome to 2018, folks! DET is awakening from its holiday slumber, and we’re looking forward to another great year of blogging! What will that year hold? What exciting new highs or lows with DET achieve? Only time will tell!
One thing I do want to apprise you of, gentle readers, is that Scott and I are a little uncertain about this year. It has become increasingly difficult for us to keep up our usual posting pace as other demands mercilessly encroach upon our time. So, sadly, I must tell you that DET blogging this year is likely to be much more of an ad hoc sort of thing.
But, we’re not dead yet (*chuckles*), so make sure you’re subscribed whether through email or in some other way (like Facebook), follow us on Twitter (WTM / Scott / DET contributor’s list) if you want to hang out in between blog posts, as it were, and consider submitting a guest contribution. In the meantime, here are some things that we DET folk have been up to since you last heard from us.
Third, speaking of Richard, he also included my book in his recap list, Good Reads: 2017. This guy has good taste in books.
Fourth, I appeared on episode 133 of the Thinking Religion podcast, along with some friends from the interwebs (click the podcast link to get the first cast list). It was fun, and I even got to talk about Gollwitzer a bit at the very end! More importantly, though, I got to wisecrack through the whole thing so…you probably want to just skip to the bit at the end. We’ll see if they invite me back.
Fifth, my Lindenwood colleague, Nichole Torbitzky, and I filmed and posted another installment on our series exploring process theology and Barthian theology together. Click below to watch!
Sixth and finally, you may have missed it but DET awoke briefly from its holiday slumber to offer you an advent reflection from our own Alex DeMarco. It’s never too late or too early for a good advent reflection, so here you go: Looking Back to See Ahead: An Advent Reflection .
Ok, that should have you all caught up on DET goings-on. Now, here’s the list of links from around the interwebs that you’ve been waiting for!
“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...
This could be unique to me, but at some point between informal conversations, research, and classes I've gotten the impression that when it comes to Pannenberg, there is a ton of interest in how his work relates to Hegel. For example, it seems that people want an answer to the question “to what degree is Pannenberg’s system ‘Hegelian’?” In one of my courses a couple years ago my professor spent some time on Pannenberg, discussing sections of his Systematic Theology and the reasons for / the rationale behind Theology and the Philosophy of Science . He also took special care to note that while Pannenberg resisted being seen as a disciple of Hegel, the footnotes may have told a different story. In the light of this interest, below is a lengthy quote from an interview with Pannenberg that I have not seen referenced elsewhere. Maybe later I can make an argument, but for now, here is part of his answer to the question put to Pannenberg: “What aspects of your thought do theologians c...
Barth and Hauerwas in Con-verse By Halden Doerge The topic with which I am concerned is what it might mean to bring Karl Barth into conversation with Stanley Hauerwas. As such I will try to avoid simply contrasting the two figures, or lodging a critique of one’s thought based on the other’s. Rather what is vital here is to investigate what it might mean to place these two figures in conversation with one another, and most specifically, as the theme of this year’s conference is “Karl Barth in Conversation,” my central concern will be with determining how we ought to read and appropriate the theology of Karl Barth in light of the work of Stanley Hauerwas. In short, my concern is what impact or opportunities Hauerwas makes for our reception of Barth. Toward this end I will pursue two lines of inquiry. First, I will examine Hauerwas’s own articulation of his theological relation to Barth, showing how Hauerwas seeks to “place” himself and Barth in relation to one another theologically....
DET readers are occasionally treated to reflections on or pertaining to Wolfhart Pannenberg , perhaps more recently when contributor Derek Maris wondered about “Pannenberg’s ‘Supposed’ Hegalianism.” There’s even a mini-series of admittedly dubious value buried among the other DET Serials . So it is fitting that we gather together and harken unto Diller as he raises the question of Pannenberg’s criticisms of Barth’s fideism. Kevin Diller, Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma: How Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga Provide a Unified Response (IVP Academic, 2014), 72–73 (italics is original; bold is mine). Pannenberg determines that Barth’s rejection of an earthbound scientific epistemology must leave Barth hopelessly mired in subjectivism. Pannenberg believes that if human reason and experience are subjugated, only two options remain: subjectivism and fideism. In explicit agreement with the Enlightenment, Pannenberg states that “a ‘positive’ theology of revelation which does not depend on...
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...
Comments