Archive for the ‘2010’ Category

Titlu: Spirit and Sonship. Colin Gunton’s Theology of Particularity and the Holy Spirit

Autor: David A Höhne

Localitate: Farnham & Burlington

Editura: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Anul apariţiei: 2010

Nr. de pagini: 185

ISBN: 9780754669111

Preț: de la 76 $

 Recenzie de Alexandru Nădăban

Reading the book I had several questions in my mind. One of them was: „Can a Ph.D. of a highly specialized theological subject become a book so tempting that you want to buy it and read it?” Strictly speaking the book is about the work of the Holy Spirit enabling, opening and preserving the Sonship of Jesus Christ the Messiah. But I dare say that apart from some small technicalities left over by the Ph.D. supervisor (i.e. engaging with primary sources of ancient writers through secondary ones and using Basil’s Latin version of De Spiritu Sancto in the footnotes while using its French translation in the bibliography) David Höhne sets out to demonstrate that.

At the first glance the book seems to illustrate a typical case of writing a boring book to demonstrate that the author is both right in what he affirms and in what he concludes, or being a little bit politically correct in what she concludes. In doing that he/she is logically achieving five steps: 1. establishing an exegetical description, 2. establishing a theological alternative, 3. the Spirit enabling Sonship, 4. the spirit opens Sonship, 5. the Spirit preserves Sonship and of course conclusion. So, apart from the introduction where he sets the goal, and the conclusion where he confirms the development of the plot, confirming the introductory theory, Höhne does justice to the subject. However, if we regard the book as just a(nother) ”theological description of human personhood grounded in a sustained engagement with, and critique of, Gunton’s theological description of particularity” we would lose more than we got.

His initial brilliant idea, that Colin Gunton’s theology of particularity and the Holy Spirit should engage Dietrich Bonhoeffer in a conversation might look odd for some traditional thinkers. At first glance one can not find many common points between Gunton and Bonhoeffer. We are used to judge an old author by a more recent one, closer to our way of thinking, one of our contemporaries being critical about someone who died and can not defend him/herself.  But that would be the easier way, wouldn’t it? However, Höhne is not doing that. On the contrary it is the other way round. He is engaging Bonhoeffer to support or complete Gunton, not so much to criticize him and to prove his point.

  (mai mult…)

Read Full Post »

%d blogeri au apreciat: