An Introduction to Christian Theology // Richard J. Plantinga, Thomas R. Thompson, and Matthew D. Lundberg.

51y5tooZduL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

An Introduction to Christian Theology, to be sure, is quite a pedagogical feat. More specifically, condensing 2000 years of (mostly Western) Christian Theology into moderately accessible 600 pages of reading. However, it is its versatility that I find is its most praiseworthy feature. Though more systematic in its approach, the historical chapters are crucial to its argumentation. Although it is an introduction/reference — therefore, not limited to be read linearly — I wish its historical chapters (Part III) were either prior or sparsed through its systematic chapters (Part II). Its prolegomena (Part I) is also helpful and well worth the read.

Not everything Plantinga, Thompson, and Lundberg wrote I agree with, and I do not have to. Some chapters really show their cards and impress their biases (e.g., social trinitarianism, sanctioning mutability for the doctrine of God, and kenotic Christology), and other chapters are more distant (perhaps, much less is at stake for them).

$35 might seem a steep price for a book, but it is actually cheap for a theological reference/introduction.

Advertisements

Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross // Hans Boersma.

41++hMGOKJL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Inspired by Miroslav Volf’s ground-breaking Exclusion and Embrace (1996), Hans Boersma sets on a bold endeavor to face and redefine the meaning of violence at the cross-event through a divine hospitality lens.

God is, for Boersma, divine–absolute–hospitality. God wants–nay, wills–all to be welcomed into the Godhead. Yet, post-fall, all of creation is sin-stricken. Therefore, some degree of violence, “conditional violence,” is required to welcome (as much as possible) creation into the Godhead. Thus, Levinas and Derrida’s call for “absolute hospitality” here and now, for human society and by human means, is impossible and undesirable (because with “absolute hospitality” here and now, save the eschaton, even the devil can be invited). Instead, conditional hospitality is wanted: not all, certainly not evil, are equally welcomed. Some amount of conditional violence is needed to fence out said evils.

Boersma is bred within the Reformed tradition. So, it is noteworthy that Boersma begins with critiquing “high calvinism” and some of its violence-approving interpretations. These, he finds, are unsatisfactory. Better to start with Irenaeus’ recapitulation because, according to Boersma, recapitulation is able to subsume the three atonement model: Aberlardian (moral influence), Anselmian (satisfaction), and Christus Victor. He backs this up by relating these three models with Calvin’s doctrine of threefold offices of Christ: Prophetic with moral influence, priesthood with satisfaction, and kingship with Christus Victor. In this way, Boersma reappropriates the Reformed tradition along conditional hospitality lines.

I said above that Boersma undertook a bold endeavor. Well, was he successful? Perhaps. This is a relatively short book that covers a vast amount of complicated issues: violence, atonement, reformed tradition, ethics, etc. There are many sections that are wantings; others that are tangential. In the end, Boersma is worth the read, but I am not confident enough to say you’ll find the answers to the questions he raises and the ones you might have.

The Christological Controversy // Richard A. Norris.

51Ro903Z3YL._SX312_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

It is always surprising to see how much a scholar can put together in less than 200 pages (and in this case, 159!). Richard A. Norris, Jr., has canvased the landscape of the early stages of Christological formation and brought this important, accessible, and resourceful primer together: The Christological Controversy. Landmark Church Father figures, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril, are listed with checkered figures, such as Apollinaris, Theodore, and Nestorius (Origen can be argued to be listed here, as well). And in this way, the tensions are real.

It would be ironic to say that heresies make orthodoxy, but that seems like the case for early Christological controversies. These heresies and the condemned heretics who espoused them were either trying to say too much or too neatly fixed that they suffocate orthodoxy. Most, or all, of the precise wordings of the Great Ecumenical Creeds were hammered during and after heated debates. So, it’s important to keep in mind not only that these great creeds are in a very Hellenistic worldview but also in very complicated, drawn-out debates (via pony express). To say Jesus is “true God from true God” shocks Arius, and “true man from true man” shudders gnostics and docetics.

To be sure, Norris nor even the great Church Fathers were attempting to solve a problem or fix a paradox. Jesus as God-Man is, utterly, mysterious. Yet, in the spirit of Augustine, so that we would not be silenced, we must say something — rightly and worshipfully, within orthodox and orthopraxis.

The Crucified God // Jürgen Moltmann.

197365.jpg

The Crucified God is one of Jürgen Moltmann’s earliest and, undoubtedly, most seminal works. In classic Moltmannian fashion, the theology of The Crucified God is done “on the way.” It would be a misnomer to classify this treatise, or any Moltmann’s works, as “systematic” theology. If anything, it is more “constructive.” So, Moltmann constructs “on the way,” and — in his case — on the way from POW camps.

Moltmann’s POW experience cannot be overstated in importance and inception for his theology. He found God in the camps, or rather God found him in his own suffering. Since then, Moltmann has been obsessed — possessed? — by Jesus’ cry of dereliction (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). What does this mean for christology, theology, anthropology, ecclesiology, and ethics? In short, Jesus, as true God, died; death was taken into God. The cross was God abandoning God, God against God. In other words, God has chosen to be the God for the godforsaken by being godforsakened — the truest and deepest level of solidarity.

Moltmann is, in a word, prolific; he is the most productive liberation theology. People of all stripes would do well to read him, particularly theologians who disagree with him. Read him to, at the very least, feel his suffused compassion for the poor, vulnerable, disenfranchised, and oppressed.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius // Ray Monk.

51RdRJbBeXL._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

“Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5.15 train” (quoting Keynes, 255).

“Then the startling words; said Black, ‘I wonder if you would be so kind, Professor Wittgenstein…’ Well, when Black said ‘Wittgenstein’ a loud and instantaneous gasp went up from the assembled students. You must remember: ‘Wittgenstein’ was a mysterious and awesome name in the philosophical world of 1949, at Cornell in particular. The gasp that went up was just the gasp that would have gone up if Black had said ‘I wonder if you would be so kind, Plato…'” (quoting Nelson, 558).

Ludwig Wittgenstein was, as the above quotations betray, a towering philosophical giant in the 20th century — possibly, the greatest of his generation. In this fine, magisterial biography, Ray Monk details this illustrious yet tortured life.

Born into an lucrative family of immense wealth in Austria, young Ludwig displayed no early signs of “genius,” unlike his older siblings. Eventually, though, Ludwig would be possessed by his own “genius,” not of musical talent but of intellectual rigor. One could say that the impetus of Wittgenstein’s philosophical career is to learn how to say something clearly. Clarity was his obsession: “What can be said, can be said clearly” (credits to Michael Pierce’s YouTube, “Wittgenstein in a Nutshell”). This will be the extend of my summary of Wittgenstein’s thought (to be honest, this was the most arduous task of Monk’s book, personally speaking, not because Monk was unclear but the concepts were quite difficult to grasp).

Wittgenstein had a long list of friends-become-“fri-enemies.” This is due partly to his passionate, self-assertive nature and his incredulous reaction when learned people (e.g., professors of philosophy) cannot understand or grasp his self-proclaimed clear reasonings. On more than one occasion, Wittgenstein would storm out in frustration if he sensed his audience or interlocutor misunderstand and misappropriate his words and sentences. Yet, this is not to mean that Wittgenstein did not cherish friendships — but the very opposite. Yes, he would dominate most conversations about his own philosophical inquiries. Yes, he would, at times, escape the lurid, egoistic life of London to be isolated in Norway. But he would also regularly mail impassioned letters to old and new friends, watch movies (Westerns were his favorite), attend concerts, and go on long walks coupled with intimate conversations. Moments before he lost consciousness, he told his host-friend, Mrs Bevan (the wife of the doctor who treated during Wittgenstein’s last years), to tell his friends: “Tell them I’ve had a wonderful life.”

The Nonviolent Atonement // J. Denny Weaver.

51cFKZjefOL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Inspired by John Howard Yoder and the pacifist tradition, J. Denny Weaver revisits in this second edition the perceived need for a “nonviolent atonement.” Incubated for more than 25 years of reflection, Weaver presents “Narrative Christus Victor” as the most comprehensive and faithful witness to the biblical text. Narrative Christus Victor is drawn from primarily the cosmic battle in Revelation and Jesus’ life and ministry in the gospels. In short, Narrative Christus Victor is (chiefly) against satisfaction atonement theories (especially an Anselmian bred), because any satisfaction based theory is “inherently violent.” This, in Weaver’s understanding, easily jumps to the egregious conclusion that God sanctions — therefore divinizes — violence. He corroborates Narrative Christus Victor with Black, Feminist, and Womanist critiques and theologies, though without accepting them wholesale. Weaver’s Narrative Christus Victor is certainly a great addition to nonviolent atonement and theology.

In my reading, however, Weaver is found wanting. Weaver’s stringent commitment to nonviolence seems to flavor his theology and readings of the scriptural text more than the overarching narrative of the Bible. Perhaps the “narrative” in Narrative Christus Victor is the narrative he “weaves” for himself? What’s more, his nonviolent commitment leads him to omit any divine will for Jesus’ death, which inevitably leads him to claim that sin is dealt with through forgiveness of sins — excluding the cross. The cross was an abrupt end at Jesus’ mission to witness to the kingdom. Yet, at the same time, the cross has cosmic significance: it unveils or reveals the true nature of evil and, thereby, breaks their grip. How this is done objectively is not satisfactorily answered.

Another and, in my opinion, far better Christus Victor account that is not afraid to face the cruelty, severity, shamefulness, and gruesomeness of the cross is Fleming Rutledge’s The Crucifixion.

The Role of Women’s Experience in Feminist Theologies of Atonement // Linda D. Peacore.

71nzNO64V4L.jpg

In 1960, Valerie Saiving sparked a controversy by critiquing some of the 20th c. theologians, Anders Nygren and Reinhold Niebuhr, and their androcentric theologies, which don’t always speak into or adequately of women — sometimes, even, against them. Feminist theologies and critiques against said theologies have burgeoned. The spectrum is wide, the map convoluted. To say “all feminists theologies are ____” betrays ignorance. Thus, nearly 50 years after Saiving’s seminal article, Linda D. Peacore surveys the various feminist trends and reactions, especially with regards to (arguably) the most central yet most criticized Christian doctrine by feminists in recent decades: atonement.

In a word, Peacore is very charitable, which, sorrowfully, is a lost virtue when entering conversations with feminists, womanists, Asian feminists, mujeristas, or any “controversial sides” one disagrees with. These thinkers and theologians are certainly worthy of fair, civil discourse and debate. This word, however, is not to say that Peacore is uncritical and relativist. In fact, her critique is sharper, precisely because she delved deeply into their assumptions and questioned the durability.

On the one hand, women’s experiences are what women drew from to rightly critique blatant androcentric theologies and oppressive interpretations. On the other, women’s experiences, especially how they are used as sole (key word!) source and norm, are volatile and individualistic. It is undeniable that experience has been and should be used as a source of theological imagination, however if it is given primacy above all else, then its theology will suffer limitations and blind-spots. Womanist (black feminists) theologians were the first few to bring some of these blind-spots to light when they critiqued feminist (often white, middle-class) theologies as being ignorant or dismissive of the racial elephant in the room. Just as modern Western theologies do not speak for global Christianity, one feminist theology does not speak for all women. Therefore, Peacore’s survey is welcomed.