Paul writes – I recently read an interesting interview with Croatian-US theologian Miroslav Volf. You’ll find the full interview here (this links to part 2, but in it is the link to part 1). At many points I thought of the really useful work of Rene Girard (and those who’ve creatively built upon his work: James Alison, and to a lesser degree someone like Richard Rohr (cf. his DVD The Spiral of Violence). If you wanted a really useful and accessible introduction to Girard, I’d recommend Discovering Girard by Michael Kirwan SJ.). The two books by Volf woven into the interview are his latest Allah: A Christian Response and an earlier book, The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World. Both of which are extremely good and I recommend both.
Meantime here’s an excerpt:
"...DAVID: Readers who have followed news of interfaith relationships through the years are surely asking themselves: Why is anyone still debating this issue of whether we share one God? The single largest Christian denomination in the world, the 1-billion-member Catholic church, settled this question in a document in 1965. Then just before the year 2000, John Paul II again wrote about how urgently he hoped people would realize that the three faiths founded by Abraham—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—worship a common God. Many Protestant denominations have similar statements. Why do we still need books like “Allah”?
MIROSLAV: In part, people still are debating this because there is this image of who Muslims are, and who their God is, from the media. The media consistently report on Islam in relation to incidents of violence. The question keeps arising: Can we square our concept of God, which Christians think of as a God of sheer love, with the idea that God might be a part of violence.
DAVID: And Pope Benedict XVI also raised that question in his 2006 talk at Regensberg that touched off a new debate about this issue. Do you think Benedict is trying to roll back the earlier affirmations?
MIROSLAV: Benedict did not deny that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, but he did
starkly raise differences. So, here was the top leader of the majority of Christians in the world, one of the most theologically learned human beings in the world, raising different angles about our understanding of God. The question remains, then.
DAVID: But, are you saying that Benedict may actually backtrack on the famous 1965 declaration and declarations by John Paul II?
MIROSLAV: I think that Benedict is less irenic toward Islam. I think he still does affirm 1965, but I think that he feels it is important to describe differences between Christianity and Islam. John Paul II was a bridge builder toward Muslims and felt it was important to describe similarities. But, in many areas of Benedict’s work, he sees himself as strongly consolidating orthodoxy. He’s been known as a watchdog of orthodoxy as a theologian. So, he raises these questions of difference.
Then, another factor in the world now is that we are in a situation of conflict. If you are someone who has determined to resort to animosity and violence, then I think it’s very hard not to exaggerate differences in our fundamental values. In a sense, hatred needs to emphasize difference so it can appropriately latch itself onto the object of our hatred. Violence needs difference so it can unleash itself. That’s why Jews were called vermin in the Holocaust. That’s why Tutsis were called cockroaches in Rwanda. Emphasizing difference precedes violence. We need to see each other as alien in order to unleash our hatred in violence…”
And finally, Benedict XVI has a new book out, a sequel to his Jesus of Nazareth (pub. 2008), Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection.
From an Amazon reviewer:
“…In Pope Benedict XVI's second volume of "Jesus of Nazareth" the Pope continues to explore the
life of Jesus. This time it is from Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem until the time of his Resurrection. His purpose for writing the book is stated in the introduction, when he says, "I have attempted to develop a way of observing and listening to the Jesus of the Gospels that can indeed lead to personal encounter and that, through collective listening with Jesus' disciples across the ages, can indeed attain sure knowledge of the real historical figure of Jesus." …
…The current state of biblical studies in most of Christianity is still heavily dependent upon the historical-critical method of study. This method is really a compilation of various methods of trying to look into the past to examine the Biblical text in light of what we know about them during the time they were written. It tries to understand, as best as can be done, what the human authors of Scripture understood about the world, culture, themselves, God, etc. to draw out the meaning of the text.
Benedict XVI stated in volume I that the method is limited in what it can do for us, because it remains a method, which leaves "the biblical word in the past". It also does not approach the text with the eyes of faith, but with a critical eye. This means that it is very limited in the scope of what it can do for us and it cannot bring us to a real encounter with a God who comes to us as a Living Word today.
Because of these limitations inherent to the historical-critical method, the Pope believes it has "yielded its essential fruit", even while it is indispensably helpful for a study of the Bible.
With this in mind, Benedict sets out to help us see the historical figure of Christ through the eyes of faith. This faith should be informed by the historicity of the Gospels, but never devoid of seeing Christ as He should properly be seen - not merely a figure of the past, but someone who is alive and present to us today. This takes faith…”
Recent Comments