Skip to main content

God, metaphysics and morals

In a recent post on Gerald McKenny's latest book on Barth's moral theology I discussed his handling of the 'primordial ethical question' of how human action relates to God's grace. That book proposes a very interesting argument about analogy and continues to fuel my thinking on the subject - something to which I hope to return in blog form in coming days. It is a major question for protestant theology, and moral theology in particular. Barth proves to be an interesting dialogue partner for this discussion. I have recently heard good things about this new volume by Mattew Rose, Ethics With Barth: God, Metaphysics and Morals (Ashgate, 2010). From what I've heard, the author develops an account of Barth's moral theology that argues that his work is best understood along Catholic lines - with nature not as the epitomy of all that opposes grace, but as it fulfilment. This locates nature in the grand narrative of God's gracious dealing with creation, and thus means that, for Barth, the human agent's conformity and obedience to nature is correspondence with divine grace.

There are no doubt good reasons why a Reformed theologian might sit uncomfortably with this appraoch, not least if that theologian is trained in the Barthian tradition (Nein!). I haven't yet read the book to assess the quality of the argument, but I am expecting it in the mail soon enough (I have agreed to review it for The Evangelical Quarterly). I am really interested to see what Rose does with Barth in order to make his case. Certainly some of my own work recently on the Muenster Ethics would concur with the view that obedience to God's command is equivalent to fulfilment of our own humanity, but I have so far understood this along the reformed lines offered by Paul Nimmo - so I'm excited about the Catholic persepctive Rose offers. I will report further in due course.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Paul Nimmo on Schleiermacher

Once again it's been a while since I blogged anything, but I thought I would flag-up this clip from the increasingly successful Modern Theology  Timeline created by Tim Hull at St John's College Nottingham, UK. This is a recent interview Tim did with the Edinburgh based scholar Paul Nimmo on Friedrich Schleiermacher. It is a really good interview, and will go a long way to rehabilitating FDES for those who mis-read Barth and reject him outright. Happy watching!

What Do You Call a Group of Theologians?

I think the answer should be "an argument", but perhaps that's unfair. I can test my theory this next week, which sees the start of the annual Society for the Study of Theology (UK) conference on the theme of Holy Writ? (The question mark is very suggestive). It looks really good, and the list of plenary speakers is great: Alex Samely (Manchester); Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter); Henk van den Belt (Amsterdam); Walter Moberly (Durham); Anthony Thiselton (Nottingham); Hugh Pyper (Sheffield). The conference lasts several days and is convening this year at York University. I hope to be able to blog a few thoughts from the conference and some info about the plenary sessions, but I shall be presenting a paper at one of the themed seminars on Wednesday afternoon on the interpretation of Barth's ethics of responsibility so may be a bit distracted until then. So watch this space for more info...

Humble Confidence: The Appropriate Theological Attitude

I've just got round to reading January's  International Journal of Systematic Theology  (IJST). I really look forward to it coming in the post: it is the universal problem of research-students-who-are-within a-few-months-of-submission that we become so engrossed in the topic at hand (in my case Karl Barth) that other things pass us by. So, IJST affords me the opportunity to lift my head from the Barthian-pit and read a few other things and have those bits of my mind that remember what it was like to read freely in any area of systematics re-enlivened (avoiding the Barth essays within the journal...for now). Normally I skip over the editorials and head for the articles, but last night I read Steve Holmes' editorial for the January edition. In it Holmes, senior lecturer in Systematic Theology at St Andrews University, considers with what attitude the discipline of theology must engage with other academic disciplines. He outlines two, before settling on the third.