coComments related to danielmcclain

Taylor, Anglicanism is not sim

2007-09-28T18:14:52.007+02:00

Taylor, Anglicanism is not simply a Sola Scriptura appeal. If you read Wright's document in response to Kasper, you see clearly that he is responding to Kasper's appeal to tradition as well as Kasper's scriptural arguments. However, as a "mediating" denomination (in some sense) Anglicanism is involved in dialogue with Protestant groups that do hold to a view of Sola Scriptura. Thus, it only makes sense that you would find in other documents Wright interacting on a purely exegetical level. Further, and this is important, Wright is by vocation not only a Bishop but also a professional exegetical theologian. It's not surprising that he's operating from that venue, is it? Read Abp Rowan Williams and you'll find a much different m.o. He's a systematic theologian and one who is comfortable in dialogue about tradition. You'll not be able to write him off as Sola Scriptura so easily. I have to admit to a certain amount of frustration at how quickly some Roman Catholics in this discussion have written off Anglicans and Protestant using straw man and ad hominem arguments. It's strange to me that when Roman Catholics so clearly want all denominations to "return to Rome" (if I may use that phrase here), many (but certainly not all) Roman Catholics don't know much about many of the denominations aside from generalized notions of Luther and the southern baptists they see on TV. Of course, the same phenomenon can be found among Protestants - but the stakes are lower for them, one might argue.

Father Kimmel, we will have to

2007-09-25T20:28:24.177+02:00

Father Kimmel, we will have to remain in disagreement about NT Wright's following re women's ordination in evangelical protestant churches in the United States. However, let my last word be this: current statistics for show that still a profound minority of churches and denominations agree to women's ordination in North America. It goes without saying that those most opposed to it among protestants fall into the evangelical camp (with Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopals largely assenting to it. IF it were the case that NT Wright had the following among Evangelicals in this issue that you seem to think that he does, then one would wonder why it has not influenced a change in those evangelical churches. "What is this difference that causes them to read the Bible so differently? This is the question that I think we need to be addressing." I would be interested in your own answer to this question. I imagine you have quite an insight considering your own experiences pre-and post reception by the RC. Although, I still don't buy that harsh dualism between the two you've set up in your question. Granted, there are differences, and they're important. But difference need not be a violent and exclusionary factor.

"But on re-reading your commen

2007-09-23T23:07:51.326+02:00

"But on re-reading your comments I must say that it is not at all clear to me that you have read what I have written." Maybe I haven't understood all your arguments as you've intended them, but I'm not at all sure how to respond to this. "Anglican Churches have acted as if they enjoyed the authority of the catholic whole, even though they admit that they do not possess an exclusive catholicity. The result has been theological chaos and ecclesial disintegration." I'm assuming that you don't count the following as examples of the Anglican Churches acting as if they had all of catholic authority: 1. the invitation for Kaspar to come and speak to the General Synod (something which the RC could do more of, that is invite real theological dialogue between RC and Anglican theologians), 2. two bishops counting it worthwhile to spend the time to engage his ideas at length, and 3. countless visits by the Abp. of Canterbury to Rome, etc..

Thanks for this series on Newm

2007-08-24T20:04:45.968+02:00

Thanks for this series on Newman. I've pointed to you in a new post on TLOU. DWM

Che, I would suggest you try N

2007-08-10T14:06:25.640+02:00

Che, I would suggest you try Neil Gaiman's Stardust and Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, both fabulous books and have met rave reviews from respectable critics. I've recommended both to friends and colleagues, and have always received excited replies upon finishing. incidentally, Stardust has been made into a movie that's being released today.

I see what you're driving at,

2007-08-09T16:50:07.535+02:00

I see what you're driving at, although for one like Wolterstorff who I think is trying to live on both sides of the atlantic by reading Ricoeur and Barth, for example, as well as engaging Aesthetic and Philosophical Theology throughout his careeer, I think a nuanced critical realism seems to be getting the job done. On the other hand, he isn't - and most philosophers and theologians aren't - engaging social constructionism and contructivism, so there may be an impasse in our conversation, unless you can answer the question: What will get it done?

Maybe one more helpful clarifi

2007-08-09T04:23:06.646+02:00

Maybe one more helpful clarification on WOlterstorff is that he, like RIcoeur, affirms the preverbal aspect of art (whatever that may be). As such, aesthetics and the philosophy of art, both Analytic and Continental, turned toward art criticism and merely talked art to death. But that talk wasn't really about the art itself, but just talk about art criticism. Wolt. emphasis on examining the "reality" - what a loaded term - is more about looking at the social practices that engender the work of art. On the similarities of Analytic and Cont. I found this quote enlightening: "Where Continental and analytic philosophers disagree is not the priority of the aesthetic but on the benefit to be gained from our contemplative engagement with the aesthetic dimension of works of art. Even that disagreement should be seen within context, however. On this point there has always been disagreement within he aestheticist tradition; it is, I would say, the principal point of dispute among those who share the aestheticist ideology." Wolterstorff's position, on the other hand, is, as my grad advisor chuckled afterreading my thesis, more akin to the speech-act theory. Hope that's helpful for understanding how I'm coming at Wolterstorff.

Get us where? And, what will

2007-08-09T04:05:37.569+02:00

Get us where? And, what will? I would disagree though, about the foundationless foundationalism, although I'm not even sure what that looks like! :) His Art in Action works more with the social practices that works of art participate in. That _seems_ to be in a completely different arena than the Plantigas and Alstons of the world reside in. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, though.... But I doubt it, in my NSHO !! Cheers! Dan

I don't have a hang up - as yo

2007-08-08T21:01:58.211+02:00

I don't have a hang up - as you put it - I'm just had my share and now I'm ready for desert! While we're on the topic of Anglo-Analytics, might I recommend you spend some time with a quality AA, namely Nick Wolterstorff, and especially his two books Art in Action and Divine Discourse. Without going into it, I suggest he has a fantastic grasp of this bridge, while choosing to work in a fairly realist mode, circumventing a lot of the Kantian baggage his peers have. More on that later, maybe...

why do you tease me fireworks.

2007-08-08T14:53:45.472+02:00

why do you tease me fireworks. I'm ready for them. Bring it on!

"God's incomprehensibility is

2007-08-07T14:46:23.171+02:00

"God's incomprehensibility is now no longer a mere deficiency in knowledge, but the positive manner in which God determines the knowledge of faith: that is the overpowering and overwhelming inconceivability of the fact that God has love us so much that he surrendered his only Son for us, the fact that the God of plenitude has poured himself out, not only into creation, but emptied himself into the modalities of an existence determined by sin, corrupted by death and alienated from God. This is the concealment that appears in his self-revelation; this is the ingraspability of God, which becomes graspable because it is grasped." - HUVB, GL I, 461 "...often inquisitors create heretics. And not only in the sense that they imagine heretics where these do not exist, but also that inquisitors repress the heretical putrefaction so vehemently that many are driven to share in it, in their hatred for the judges. Truly, a circle conceived by the Devil. God preserve us." Brother William of Baskerville, The Name of the Rose

I wonder at those that prefer

2007-08-07T14:25:49.812+02:00

I wonder at those that prefer Pullman to Rowling, as I was sadly disappointed with his development of the characters as the books progressed. They seemed to loose a lot of vitality toward the end. Additionally, Rowling's hand at weaving allegory and concepts into the fabric of the story, as many have attested to here and elsewhere, feels not only more masterful, but also more subtle, imho. Thanks for the great discussion! Dan

David, thanks for your comment

2007-08-06T23:50:31.090+02:00

David, thanks for your comment and helpful remarks on Jeff's post over at TLOU. I noticed the excellent range of topics in your posts and am excited to continue perusing. btw: any summary of Milbank is extremely helpful. :) we've added you to our formidable ninja theologian list. Because it's alphabetical, you're above Per Caritatem. Unfortunately, this same feature means we're usually featured at the bottom of Blogrolls. Cheers! Dan

How about Owen Wilson's Dignan

2007-06-06T18:10:01.027+02:00

How about Owen Wilson's Dignan in Bottle Rocket (1996)? Although his "Christlike" was necessary due to his own devices and schemes, his action at the end is really powerful.