Archive for November, 2008

Sunday Reading

Monday, November 17th, 2008

Theology of Hope by Juergen Moltmann

More comments on this after I’ve read more and digested more of what I’ve read (and I only got through a few pages today) but I do have this thought: if the eschatological horizon is a moving horizon does Moltmann expect that history will ever catch up with this horizon? I have yet to see where a total and final fulfillment of promise fits into Moltmann’s system. However, I imagine this will become clear as I go on (I’m only about a chapter into the book, after all).

More some other time. I’m enjoying the book so far. ‘Tis a classic, after all.

Sunday Reading

Monday, November 10th, 2008

Peter Pan by J. M. Barrie

I didn’t read much yesterday but I did read a chapter or two from Peter Pan. There is nothing quite as enjoyable as a good children’s book. See also The Wind in the Willows, The Hobbit, The Last Unicorn, &c.

A comment

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

I hate it when people use `grow’ as a transitive verb. I aware of the fact that there’s technically nothing grammatically wrong about it but I still don’t like it. No sir, I don’t like it one bit.

That is all.

6 year Blogiversary

Monday, November 3rd, 2008

I just noticed that, as of yesterday, I’ve been blogging for 6 years! On November 2nd 2003 I wrote my first post.

Crazy, eh?

I ended the post with the hope that “perhaps some of it [the content of my blog] will rise above the whitenoise of humdrum.”

Let’s make that the aim for the next 6 years also!

Sunday Reading

Sunday, November 2nd, 2008

The Early Church by Henry Chadwick

Chadwick moves on to consider some of the most important of the Church fathers: Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. What is most striking, of course, is the way in which each of them appropriates Greek philosophy — each in their own way — to combat what they saw as heresies and to describe and defend Christian belief. Also interesting, of course, is the growing insistence on a canon of New Testament writings to form a basis from which to argue against such heresies. Another interesting development, with Irenaeus in particular, is the introduction of something like the idea of `apostolic succession’.

It strikes me as I read the accounts of the various doctrinal disputes of this era that much of what I think to be self-evident upon reading Scripture is clearly not so. At the very least much of what appears self-evident to me was clearly not self-evident to many Christians in the second and third centuries. It is another stark reminder that all of our readings of Scripture (and everything else besides) are prejudiced by our preconceptions and cultural setting.