Old debates and “New Perspectives”
As far as old debates go there is none older1 than Justification either; by faith or “faith + works” since the “Sola” part of “Sola fide” is the issue of contention. This was dug up (not that it was ever buried) once more quite publicly in the theological skirmish now historically known as “NT Wright vs. John Piper“. As usual many lined up on one side or the other and many blog posts were written that mischaracterised the position of either of the theologians. What wasn’t known by outsiders looking in was just how much the two parties agreed on, relying on rhetoric alone, a lot was lost in what Piper or Wright each uniquely offered in their positions. Continue reading “Engaging BHI; Reading Paul in the shadow of Luther”
As a follow-up from yesterday’s post, below is one I wrote on Becky Nightingale’s blog.
As annoying as Stephen Fry is to me as an average religious person, not as a person in terms of personality, though his know-it-all demeanour when presenting QI sure could grate on anyone in real life. I speak instead of his disdain for God albeit a non-existent god. However, this post isn’t about Fry but one of Fry’s many corrections on commonly held historical facts, you know, the type that Alan Davies mentions and Fry’s buzzer goes off to tell Davies he’s wrong (again).
It is commonly (wrongfully) held that the Vomitorium can be found in the average Roman Banquet Hall. After guests have sufficiently gorged themselves and could no more, they had the opportunity to purge their stomach contents, in order to create space for more. This is in fact pure fiction ! The Vomitorium was actually an exit to a Stadium or Amphitheatre.
The myth continues because most are aware of Roman decadence. The idea that they gathered at a particular time and place to feast to their heart’s content, eating so much that they need to purge in order to return to their binging is not hard at all to imagine. Removing the image of excess from this picture, I’d like to argue that our Sunday mornings should feel like a Banquet, a feast for the senses.
Read the rest on her blog here.
This is a guest post by Becky Nightingale. She is a CoE Ordinand training at St Hild and St Bede, Durham. She blogs @ https://inspiredinyork.wordpress.com/
The new film, Silence, by Martin Scorcese focuses on the story of a group of Jesuit priests who go into Japan against the wishes of their elders to find their former mentor who has effectively been ex-communicated for ‘renouncing his faith’ and to continue his mission to spread the Christian message. It’s based on a novel, by Endō and is set in the 1630s, by which time there was already a ban on all foreign missionaries from entering Japan and on all Japanese from leaving. This continued until the 1860’s. Continue reading “A review of Martin Scorsese’s “Silence””
Just as Kierkegaard sought to reintroduce Christ to Christendom; Backhouse has done a great job of introducing Kierkegaard to a popular audience. Soren Kierkegaard as an author has always enjoyed interest from a specialist audience, the average person only speaks of him in unattributed quotes – “leap of faith” or being authentic.
In around 200 pages, the reader will get a good sense of who our subject is but not in a dry academic tone but as an imaginative biography with its very own fascinating love story. In another 115 pages, Backhouse provides a summary of every literary work by the Dane.
A major point of dispute about the book is the ‘fictional’ tone adopted by Backhouse which is sure to annoy Kierkegaard nerds. The popular reader as well might get a feeling that most of the story is being made up by the author though part of the fault is Kierkegaard’s for living such an unbelievable life. I get the feeling that though Backhouse would accept this criticism, he will not take back his decision to write as he did.
On the whole, this is a very enjoyable and needed biography of the danish Philosopher. With such an effort, a biopic is not far off and wider readership is sure to follow. Be warned though, Kierkegaard himself is not easy to read.
The bulk of the argument is in the 3rd chapter where Piper presents exegetical arguments for imputed righteousness, particularly in Romans (and other related pauline texts). Although, the rest of the book – especially the first 3 chapters – could appear to be padding in order to convert an essay into a book (which it is); it does also provide the pastoral and practical background to the arguments presented against Gundry. This sets Piper apart from his opponents in the same way Augustine differed from Pelagius – one was coming from the hard slug of pastoral concerns, the other mostly academic.
Chapter 3 could either be a hard slug or the meat of the matter depending on who is reading. Expect references to the Greek text. The general advice to read just the Introduction and Conclusion (chapter 1,2 and 4) to get the gist of the matter applies here also. Wade into chapter 3 at your own peril.