Quote of the day:
"If it looks like an Evangelical duck and it quacks like an Evangelical duck, it may not be an Evangelical duck. The quacks may have different semantic content." - Dr. Vanhoozer, in a discussion of Van Til's take on Barth

New Semester

Currently reading: The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright

So, the new semester begins. I'm actually having to go back to tests and textbooks; I think that my independent studies and seminars have made me soft. Although it may be nice to actually have fellow students to talk to - it gets a little lonely being the only person working on certain research interests.

So, here's the schedule for the semester:

• Intro to Old Testament
• Intro to New Testament
• Systematic Theology II: Christ, Sin, and Salvation
• Karl Barth
• Religious Epistemology

I'm looking forward to the last two classes the most; systematic theology had looked interesting, and the subject material certainly is, but I'm currently a bit disappointed while reading the first book for the course. I've gotten used to rigorous argument and analysis, which some theologians don't really seem to use that well. I suppose that they are much better than I am in putting theory into practice and making doctrine relevant; I'm just tired of:

• The awful presentations of medieval views (whether Aquinas by Evangelicals, or Scotus by Radical Orthodoxy, or Augustine by various people)
• Being told how we should all live based on a couple poor inferences (even if the Biblical picture of the person is as a mind-body unity, this doesn't jusify the statement that we need to play sports or we are not "full-orbed" Christians)
• Lack of interaction with various sources (I don't care if one regards the Catholic view of justification and merit to be blatantly wrong; at least take more than a sentence to dismiss it. Aquinas does regard Scripture to be foundational and has read it and written a few commentaries; I think he is most likely fully aware of Ephesians)
• The type of argument that goes something like "The Bible says A; we use similar or the same words to describe B and C, so therefore to reject B and C is to be unbiblical" (*cough* discussions of sovereignty *cough*). This often is attended by a "attempts to dismiss B and C come from being philosophical rather than Biblical," despite the often quite philosophical framework which is being used for the "Biblical" view.

This is not to say that all theologians are of this sort (I like reading many theologians, even at times those who aren't as rigorous; Moltmann comes to mind), but I hear the basic lines often enough that it is getting rather tiring.

Now that I've ripped apart one book, here's one to commend: Intimacy or Integrity by Thomas Kasulis. It's a fascinating study of comparative philsophy and trying to understand different ways of thinking. In particular, he is focusing on inter-cultural conflicts in which the two parties agree on all of the facts, and simply think that the other side is irrational in acting as it does. Kasulis traces this back to a difference in understanding how things relate and the different focuses that the given cultures have; he then takes this insight on an extended thought experiment to show how these different views of relations have implications for epistemology, rational argument, metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics, and politics. I'm mostly interested in the difference between Analytic philosophy and East Asian thought (Kasulis himself developed many of his thoughts on the matter in thinking about Japanese philosophy), but the main points are applicable to many other areas (he brings up a few times the traditional thought patterns ascribed to men and women in Western culture; in addition, I think it would be relevant to differences between Western and Eastern Christianity).