Theo-blogology

The Particularity of God's Knowing

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:58:00 +0000

This post has taken a long time to actually finish. Particularly because it's a lot of thoughts that I am still wrestling with. I think that we need to start thinking differently about God's foreknowledge. I have been reading Barth and Bruce McCormack as of late (what's new), and I am grateful for their stimulating thoughts on this issue.

As of recent divine foreknowledge has been on my mind and I've been reading an essay by Bruce L. McCormack titled The Actuality of God: Karl Barth in Conversation with Open Theism. I've become less concerned with what exactly God knows, but more so the telos of that knowing. Why does, or must, God know all or certain things? Must we proclaim the exhaustive knowledge of God because we are so afraid that if God does not know this or that he might cease to be God, or God in control of the universe? Or, are we so bent on the idea of human freedom that we label a God who knows all things as a dictatorial "Big Other"? Are we afraid that God might actually have more control than we do, and as a result, we create an analogy between our knowing and God's knowing? What ever the reason may be our view of God's divine foreknowledge must be in accordance with the character and witness of God testified in Holy Scripture, and as a result, any conception of Divine foreknowledge must bear primally on the life of Jesus.Talk of God cannot begin with any form of creation for any subsequent adjudication of the scope of God's knowledge would be grounded in creaturely faculties, not God himself. If this were the case then Feuerbach would have certainly been right for our conception of God's knowledge would simply be our creaturely knowledge projected on the screen of eternity. Thus, any and all God-talk must begin with the witness and life of Jesus Christ attested in Holy Scripture.

If we are now to discuss God's foreknowledge then we must begin with God himself, more specifically, we must begin with Jesus. It is not enough to suggest that when we begin with God we begin with the "divine" for God is not divinity in general, but in particularity. We are not philosophizing or mythologizing, we are reflecting upon God's revelation in history. With Jesus as our starting point, our knowledge of God's knowledge must begin with the truth that God knows God-self; and with that God's primary knowledge of himself is that of the covenant. It is knowledge that He is free to be God in se and God pro nobis--that who God is in his acts is identical to who God is in himself. Moreover, knowledge of God's self requires knowledge of this world, of creation, of redemption; for God knows only of himself in light of his relation to the covenant which was established by way of God's own self determination in eternity. Now, it is fine to say that God could have known himself apart from this world, and it is very true that God knows himself and exists entirely in freedom, but it is also a reality that God chose to know himself by way of the cross and not any other, and as such, it is not beneficial to surmise that God could have known himself in any other fashion for that is simply an exercise in mythologizing. From this standpoint God's foreknowledge is linked, in every aspect, to his covenant with creation; it is linked to a specific event in the life of God himself, an event which finds its genesis in eternity and actualization in time qua the life of Jesus Christ. God's knowledge is thus particular and not general--it has a purpose, it has a determination. This knowledge is not knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but knowledge for the sake of grace.

Because the locus of God's knowledge is contained in the covenant of election, and that covenant is one of self-determination for life, death, and resurrection, it then must follow that God's knowledge is that of persons; it is knowledge not only of Himself, but knowledge of those who are elected to participate in God's self knowledge. This knowledge, however, does not necessitate determinism. It does though contain a certainty that God knows all things before the foundation of the world. According to Bruce McCormack, "certainty is a predicate of persons. Necessity, on the other hand, is (or is not) a predicate of events" (Orthodox and Modern, 223). Thus, God is certain that he is himself, and he is certain of "us", as persons, for he has indeed chosen to be God for "us". God's knowledge is not bound by necessary events for events can only take place in light of the fact that persons exist. In this way God's eternal will can be carried out on account of God's certain knowledge of himself and us. Certainty of God's self and of humans is certainty of God's eternally, and autonomously, self determined existence and humanity's determination for autonomy. Thus, "God's way of ensuring that his eternal will is fulfilled in this world must leave room for the autonomy that is proper to the creature" (Orthodox and Modern, 223).

If God's knowledge is contained in the event of election, and it is that event by which God self-determines God's self then it will follow that God's knowledge is contained in his being, thus, God's being is also his will. God's knowledge is encompassed in God's will. This is the extent to which God knows; and it is not that God knows all things because they have happened, but all things have happened because God knows them (Orthodox and Modern, 223). And, such is the consequence of the truth that God knows God's self, and as a result of that knowledge by way of God's self-determination, God knows us, for God, in the person of Jesus Christ, displays his will to be God for us. God's knowledge is not concerned with generalities, but with the particularity of the covenant, which finds its genesis in God's self-determining and eternal act of election.
.

With All of your heart, soul, strength, and mind...maybe

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:08:00 +0000

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strenght, and with all your mind" (NRSV Luke 10:27). I find it to be an ever present battle in both the Church and the Academy to actually fulfill this commandment. There seems to be every excuse in the book not to. "Why do you want to study systematic theology?"; In reference to theology, "you like that stuff?"; "Pastoral minds are simple"; "That's too basic for me". These are all phrases that I have heard either in regards to the Church being too practical/pastoral or the Academy being too abstract/intellectual.This, is indeed problematic.

If Jesus said that we should love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, then we very well should! There is no such thing as the Church having no room for theology or the Academy having no need for pastoral care. If God is lord of our lives and being in toto then he is Lord over all of our physical and mental faculties--we were not meant to love the Lord compartmentally or in a vacuum. Herman Bavinck writes, “Precisely because God is God he claims us totally, in soul and body, with all our capacities and in all our relations.” It is by virtue of being God that he claims us entirely, and as such, our being, in response, must submit entirely. There is no place for a preacher to lack theological knowledge or for the teacher to lack even a hint of care for a person beyond their intellectual capacities. There is a strong disjunction between what the Church and the Academy claim as there foreground, as their gospel. If the body of Christ is to be found in uniformity then the gospel by which any form of reflection upon the Christian faith might take place, must indeed be identical to the Word: Living, Written, and Spoken. Piety is not a sufficient ground for practically oriented reflection to take place, nor are philosophically based principles sufficient. Thus, if both the Church and Academy took seriously the fact that they both reflect upon the Word of God, which is the gospel found in the person of Jesus Christ, then they would realize that their mission, although functionally asymmetrical, is identical with one another. The mind and the heart are two sides of the same coin, but what must be gleaned from such a position is that they are the same coin.

The mission of Christ' church is not about vacuity, but about holism. Loving the Lord your God with only your heart is not wholly loving, and loving the Lord your God with only your mind is equally not wholly loving. There must be another way by which the entirety of the Church can learn to love God entirely. And, it's only by following this commandment that we can actually do so.

A Pastoral Conclusion for a Theology of hope

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:54:00 +0000

I recently wrote an essay for a journal where I expound upon what I call an "eschatologically realized evangelical theology of hope." Much of the essay is theologically and philosophically abstract, but I ended the essay with a pastoral conclusion in hopes that it might bring the academic intensity of the essay down a notch. I want to write intensely theological and philosophical, but at the same time I want my writing to be accessible--and I am still learning how to do all of this. Anyhow, I am posting the conclusion of my essay. It's my hope that whoever reads this might gain something from it regarding Christ and His Kingdom.

C. A Pastoral Conclusion

Throughout my studies and ministry I have come to the conclusion that we hope in a redemption freely given by Christ that is already ours and not yet. It is elected for us prior to the creation of the world, it is ours presently, and it will be fully realized apocalyptically. And it is our evangelical mission to spread this good news and proclaim Jesus Christ as the only true object of hope.

The title of this essay seems a bit conspicuous and has eluded any and all discussion up until now. It is an ambiguous title: Between Two Tides, it is, however, entirely fitting for the topic of this essay. The title here alludes to my growing up as a surfer in southern California. As a teenager and into my twenties I spent a significant amount of time in the ocean. It was my goal on a daily basis to catch the best wave possible because I never knew when it would be my last. I once thought to myself that I better catch as many waves as possible because I wasn’t sure if there would be surfing in heaven. The quality of waves that I was able to surf often depended on the time of day I got into the water—morning and evening were the best. They were the best because it was either high tide, which meant the waves usually had good form and were closer to shore, or it was low tide, which meant the waves were farther out, but probably bigger. Every once in a while you would get caught in a lull; the waves would have just been head high and all of a sudden there’s nothing. The reason that the waves stopped was because the ocean was in-between tides—it was either moving from high to low or from low to high. Although for a period of time the waves would be non-existent, you always knew that either low or high tide was coming, and the waves would once again be good. We currently live between two tides: between the goodness of God’s decision to be God “for us” in the death and resurrection of Christ, and the eschaton in which, in Christ, we too will be redeemed and have conquered death. We live in a world of “nothingness” of evil and despair; there is war everywhere, money is the god of gods, and we have lost any and all notion of loving our neighbors as we would love ourselves. But, as we know, there is a tide coming, a tide where all things will be made right, and all things evil and unjust will be resurrected and used for the glory of God. However, while we are between tides we have a hope that maintains its relation to the scandalous character of the cross, and thereby, gives a guarantee that all things will actually be made well. Nothing sums up this essay better than the words of Julian of Norwich in which she said, “all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”[1]

[1] Julian of Norwich, Revelations-Motherhood of God, edited and translated by Frances Beer (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1999), 6

Pacific Northwest AAR Abstract

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Mon, 14 May 2012 22:46:00 +0000

This is the abstract from a paper that I presented this last week at the Pacific Northwest Regional meeting of AAR. It was a good time. Met some good people and heard some excellent papers.

Metaphysics, Mutuality, and the Suffering of God: An Investigation into the Doctrine of Impassibility and its Implications for the Doctrine of God

The impetus for writing this paper is rooted in and ongoing interest in the historical development of the doctrine of God. More specifically, my interest is in the problem of metaphysics and its place within a proper construction of this doctrine. With this concern in mind, a specific problem, which arises from the presence of metaphysics within the Christian doctrine of God, is a commitment to divine impassibility. Thus, the purpose of this essay is to address problems surrounding the doctrine of divine impassibility in relation to the doctrine of God. Drawing from the theologies of Karl Barth, Eberhard Jüngel, and Robert Jenson I will suggest that the problem at hand is in direct relation to an improper metaphysical understanding of the Triune God. What I mean by this is that the Church’s adherence to a doctrine of divine impassibility is rooted in a prior—and historically ever present—commitment to Greek metaphysics over against the witness of the life of Jesus Christ. The first section of this essay will argue that the consequences of such a commitment are the development of a doctrine of God conceived in abstracto, the danger of arriving at a semi-Nestorian division within the person of Christ, and, as a result, the necessary commitment to a disjunction between the immanent and economic Trinity. The second section will argue that in order to formulate a proper doctrine of God one must develop a theological ontology, which incorporates the history of Christ into the very essence of God thereby establishing the suffering of Christ as fundamentally proper to the Triune life. Moreover, I will show that proclaiming Christ as the “Crucified God” is not incompatible with a conception of immutability provided that Christ’s suffering be understood as eternally incorporated into the Godhead. And in the final section I will address a recent article by David Bentley Hart on divine suffering.

Back to Blogging: The Hiatus Ends

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Mon, 14 May 2012 03:38:00 +0000

It has been over a year since my last blog post. It has been a much needed break and I am glad that I took it. But, I miss the blogosphere and the ability to share ideas with other young theologians. That being said, theo-blogology is back and I look forward to many excellent conversations. It's good to be back.

Adam Neder on the Humanness of Calvin, Part 5

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 01:44:00 +0000

Part 5 of Adam Neder's post/lecture on Calvin is up at DET. I apologize for getting the link up so late. This post revolves around Calvin's relationship to Martin Bucer, to whom Calvin owes much to. Go take a look.

Adam Neder on the Humanness of Calvin, Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:39:00 +0000

Another excellent post by Dr. Adam Neder over at DET. This post deals specifically with Calvin's relationship to William Farel. This is just excellent. These posts bring to light much of what we don't know about Calvin, but should in fact know. Make sure to take a look.

Adam Neder on the Humanness of Calvin, Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:43:00 +0000

Post 3 by Dr. Adam Neder over at DET, is in my opinion, the most telling in regards to the unveiling of Calvin's humanness. Neder focuses on the examination of Calvin's relationships to both his wife and his friends; he also gives an excerpt from a letter that Calvin wrote to the father of one of Calvin's tenants who had died - it is quite moving. All this to say, this post like the last two is well worth your time.

Adam Neder on the Humanness of Calvin, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:50:00 +0000

Over at Der Evangelische Theologe, Travis has posted a lecture series given by Dr. Adam Neder. Adam is professor of theology at Whitworth University in Spokane, WA. Adam was a teacher of mine and a good friend. His lecture brings to light some of the reasons why much of the Church has refused to read Calvin, and why they are missing out. I highly recommend reading these first two posts and the ones to come--they are quite insightful.

Update

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:59:00 +0000

The purpose of this post is to let readers of theo-blogology know my future plans for school, life, and blogging. After winter quarter I will officially be done with my degree from Fuller. It has been a good, but difficult road for both my wife and I, as well as our bank account. That being said, instead of applying to PhD programs this fall, Megan and I have decided to wait until next fall to apply. I am quite burned out from being on the quarter system and going to grad school for two years year around, and Megan has had a very hard time living in the Los Angeles area and finding work. So, we are going to move back up to Spokane, WA, where she is from and we both went to schoool, (I am going to finish my last quarter from a distance and also take one of my courses at Gonzaga University), and work for the next year or so until I, hopefully, am accepted to a PhD program.

We really need a nice break and some time to relax. We also need time to focus on our marriage. When we first moved to Fuller we had only been married for a week - it was a major transition. We simply need time to focus on each other. I think this time will be extremely beneficial for each of us individually and for our marriage, and it will prepare us well for moving across the country and starting a PhD program.

During this time, I will work, study for the GRE, and study for my own general enjoyment - I might also try to publish a paper or present at a conference. I have a great relationship with many of the professors at Whitworth University, so it should be an excellent theological community to be around. But because I will not be in a formal academic setting, I plan to bring much of my thoughts to the blogosphere. My plan is to start blogging on a regular basis starting mid-January. I hope everyone has an excellent Christmas and I look forward to many fruitful discussions.

KBBC: Week 3, Day 4, Barth and Taubes

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 17:53:00 +0000

Ben Myer's fascinating essay on Barth and Taubes followed by a response from Derek Alan Woodard-Lehman.

This is a really excellent essay. Ben sketches Taubes interaction with Barth, and in particular, Barth's interpretation of Romans 13. The essay seeks not only to address some differences and similarities in their interpretation of the text, but more importantly, the apocalyptic method being used to do so.

This essay is particularly fascinating to me because prior to reading it I knew next to nothing about Jacob Taubes. Ben also does a find job of interpreting Barth and bringing to light the apocalyptic nature of his exegesis of Romans 13. This one is a must read.

KBBC: Week 3, Day 3, Barth and Hart

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:03:00 +0000

The third post of week three of the 2010 KBBC is up. Keith Starkenburg has written an interesting essay on the aesthetics of Karl Barth and David Bentley Hart followed by an appreciative yet critical response by Han-luen Kantzer Komline.

Starkenburg's main thesis is that Barth's doctrine of Glory, which can be found in CD II.1, achieves the same purpose that Hart does in the Beauty of the Infinite without falling into an affirmation of the analogia entis. Thus, Hart's criticism of Barth, which is quite incomplete, is misleading for it doesn't fully engage or deal with Barth's use of analogical models as they present themselves in the Church Dogmatics.

Komline's response to Starkenburg is quite good. He appreciates the aim and tenor or Starkenburg's essay, but questions the method employed. He begs the question of whether or not multiple roads to the same theological end, which make room for multiple theological approaches to the same theological question, misrepresent and detract from the particularity of each individual theologian? But, ultimately Starkenburg's essay is profitable for it seeks to find similarity amongst the dissimilarity of two theologians.

Go read this essay and response - it is well worth your time!

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 2 | Der Evangelische Theologe

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:50:00 +0000

Be sure to check out the new KBBC post. Mike Jimenez has written a nice article on Barth and Badiou followed by a fine response by Geoff Holsclaw.

Mike attempts to show the relationship between Barth and Badiou's understanding of "event" particularly as it relates to the "Christ event," for Barth, and knowledge and truth of the "event," for Badiou, which produces a type of de-theologized universal truth empowering a radically non-conformist conviction.

Geoff's response is quite appreciative, but finds Mike's reliance upon Badiou's book "St. Paul," to be a bit narrow. Geoff believes the real point of conversation takes place between the ontologies of the two--a suggestion that I agree with.

Another excellent paper and response for this years KBBC. Remember, Travis and David are turning this years conference into a book, so, if you feel so obliged, please donate (there is a link at the bottom of each post).

KBBC: Week 3, day 1, Barth, Milbank, and Zizek

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:11:00 +0000

Today's opening essay is a must read. Paul Jones writes and exceptional essay on Barth, Milbank, and Zizek followed by a thought provoking response by Adam Kotsko. Go check it out!

KBBC: Session 3

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:28:00 +0000

Hey all, I hope that everyone had as great of a Thanksgiving as I had. Tomorrow starts the third and final session of the 2010 Karl Barth Blog Conference and it's going to be a great finish. I unfortunately won't be able to read or comment on any posts at least until late tomorrow night because I will have the fortunate opportunity to spend the day with my wife at Disneyland. There are going to be some great posts so make sure to go check them out and if you feel up to it drop a comment or two.

2010 KBBC: Session 3 Update

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:14:00 +0000

Travis has just published an update regarding the third session of the KBBC conference. Look out for the posts that are to come. And as Travis has noted, this years conference is being turned into a book, so if you feel so inclined please donate toward some of the publication costs (any donation will help).

Karl Barth on the Scope of God's Rule

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:24:00 +0000

Frank Jehle, in his very fine book Ever Against the Stream: The Politics of Karl Barth, 1906-1968, offers this wonderful quote from Barth.

"There are no areas of which we can say: God has nothing to do here or this is none of God's business. It is not true that there is a religious sphere in which we are willing to listen and, at the same time, another sphere where life has its own laws, where we may not allow the light of God to enter in. But just as the whole is met by mercy, in the same way the whole is also put under the discipline of grace. God wants and needs nothing less than everything!" [Karl Barth, Predigten 1921-1935, ed. Holger Finze (Zürich: Theolgischer Verlag Zürich, 1998), 457f][1]

[1]Frank Jehle, Ever Against the Stream: The Politics of Karl Barth, 1906-1968, trans. Richard and Martha Burnett (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 34

Some Theses on Women in Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:15:00 +0000

I have been thinking lately--very frustratedly--about women in ministry. Here are some thoughts.

1. It is necessary that we understand Paul's letter's as occasional (Here, I am referring directly to 1 Tim. 2). That is, they are written for a specific purpose, in a specific situation, and to a specific group. It is then a question of discernment as to what extent we are to understand Paul's words as being for all people at all times.

2. I have heard it said, that it is not good picking out a couple of prominent women compared to other women in scripture (e.g., Junia, Deborah, Priscilla). If this is the case then it is no good picking some prominent men compared to other men. And as such we must then take all extreme circumstances in scripture and judge them against what we deem to be normative. This type of logic already presupposes a patriarchal framework.

3. Jesus choosing 12 men is significant. So is His sending Mary Magdalene to tell His "12 disciples" that He had risen from the grave. Inevitably, it was "a woman" who proclaimed the good news and led the disciples to believe that Christ had risen.

4. If Paul didn't want women to teach, why is it that we are so caught up in not letting women "preach." These are certainly different words in Greek (didaskein v. kerusso). Yet we let women teach children--who are much more vulnerable and easier to influence then adults.

5. Gal. 3:28 says "there is no male and female." Why is this not sufficient enough for us to believe that the call to ministry, to teaching, to preaching, etc, is one that is not gendered. We certainly believe that when Paul says, "there is no longer slave or free...for all of you are one in Christ" (Gal. 3:28), this is sufficient to rid us of Paul's exhortation for slaves to be submissive to their owners (Titus 2:9). So, why is the same logic not applied to women and men in leadership in the Church?

6. None of this accounts for the call of the Spirit. When a woman preaches a wonderful sermon that stirs the ears and hearts of people, is this in some way idolatrous? Is the work of the Spirit limited to male teaching? What will God say to women pastors at the pearly gates? Will He not say welcome home good and faithful servant? or will He say, I wish you hadn't have preached so much, but thanks for getting the word out anyway.

7. All this said, there seems to be a strange affinity for Paul over Jesus. May we not forget that our ethics and model of the Christian life comes from Christ, and I am quite certain that Christ sent women to tell the good news to men. We have four gospels that speak to women proclaiming the good news, but all anyone every wants to talk about is Paul.

8. No one ever has an answer for Junia. A book edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem attempted deal with the appearance of Junia in Romans by claiming that Junia should in fact be Junias (a male name), but if you have read Stephen Holmes blog post you will find a major error in their historical method.

KBBC: Week2, Day 5

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:53:00 +0000

Scott Jackson's excellent essay on Barth and Tanner is up with plenty of comments already. David Congdon's response offers a very good constructive proposal. This is an excellent essay with and insightful and lucid response. Enjoy.

KBBC: Week 2, Day 3

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:11:00 +0000

Halden Doerge's essay on Barth and Hauerwas has been posted along with a response by Ry O. Siggelkow. This is another fine essay to add to the whole bunch. This is truly a great conference so go check it out.

KBBC: Week 2, Day 3

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:16:00 +0000

A new essay and response has been posted at the 2010 Karl Barth Blog Conference. The essay is written by Shannon Smythe and titled Karl Barth in Conversation with Pauline Apocalypticism, and the response is written by Andrew Guffey. I haven't had much time to comment or write any summaries on my blog, but I hope to shortly. Go check out the essay.

KBBC: Week 2, Day 2

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:07:00 +0000

Blair Bertrand's essay on Barth and Robert Kegan and a response by Katherine Douglass has been posted. Go check it out. I will hopefully have time today to post some comments, and on my blog, a short summary of this post and all subsequent posts.

KBBC: Week 2, Day 1

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:50:00 +0000

This the first day of the second week of the 2010 Karl Barth Blog Conference. Leading off today is a very interesting essay by John Coutts, with a response Brad East, on Karl Barth and the Coen Brothers. Go check it out!

KBBC: Week 2

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:46:00 +0000

Tomorrow will commence with the beginning of the second week of the 2010 Karl Barth Blog conference. The first week was great and I expect nothing less from the second week. Be sure to go read the plenary posts, responses, and comments--there's going to be some great ones!

KBBC: Week 2

KBBC: Barth and Jenson, Day 5

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:47:00 +0000

This years KBBC is awesome--there are some really superb papers. Today's is not an exception. Peter Kline writes and excellent paper on Barth and Jenson followed by a very thoughtful response by William Barnett. This is some really good stuff and there are some great comments on this paper so go take a look.