Theo-blogology

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.

KBBC: Barth and Tillich, Day 4

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:46:00 +0000

Another essay has been posted for the Karl Barth Blog conference over at Der evangelische. The title of the paper is “Being Well-Read”: Barth in Conversation with Paul Tillich on Reading Scripture and Culture, written by Derek Maris. Go check it out and support the authors of these papers.

Also if you haven't read the three previous essays then do yourself a favor and go read them. So far they have been on Barth and Schleiermacher, Barth and Bavinck (by yours truly), and Barth and Bonhoeffer. All have been excellent. Look forward to more great essays.

KBBC: Barth and Bonhoeffer

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:05:00 +0000

A new paper has been posted over at Der Evangelische Theologe for the KBBC. It is written by Matthew Puffer and the title of the paper is Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the Theology of Karl Barth. Go take a look at it.

Thanks for all of your comments on my paper yesterday, it's a pleasure to be a part of this

KBBC: Barth and Bavinck

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:35:00 +0000

My paper on Barth and Bavinck has been posted at the KBBC. Take a look, I would love feedback and comments. And thanks again to Travis and David for letting me be apart of this.

KBBC: Barth and Bavinck

KBBC: Barth and Schleiermacher

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:16:00 +0000

Definitely go read Matt Bruce's paper. It is very good. He makes some great observations about the differences and similarities between Barth and Schleiermacher and he also notes Barth's interpretive mistakes. I feel like Barth and Schleiermacher are often seen as enemies--or at least Schleiermacher is seen as a bad guy and Barth a good guy, which should not be the case. Essays like Matt Bruce's and books like Matthias Gockel's do a fine and necessary job of defrauding these types of assertions. Do yourself a favor--go read this essay.

Here is the link: Schleiermacher and Barth: On Theology as the Science of the Divine Word By: Matthew J. Aragon Bruce

Round one KBBC: Matt Bruce on Barth and Schleiermacher

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Esqueda) — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:55:00 +0000

Matt Bruce's paper on Barth and Schleiermacher has been posted. Go check it out. I will also be linking every paper and giving updates throughout the week.