Just heckign, does anyone read scholarly wortk on theology? Not apologists like Scitt Han or Josh Macdowell, but real scholarship liek Descsre or Menes?

If so, what thinks ye of them?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 05, 2004

Answers

Response to QUEASTION OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS.

B@ump.com

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 05, 2004.

Response to QUEASTION OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS.

Please define what you mean by "scholarly." For example, why isn't Scott Hahn in this category?

Where would I find scholarly work if not in such books?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 05, 2004.

Response to QUEASTION OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS.

Books abou e rleigionand religious thought that are NOT simpley argumens for a position.

As much as I disagree with Spong, his books are good examples. Likewise, Augistines City of God and the Confessions wouidl be considered commentaries.

C.S. Lewis is also a fine scholarly spurc eon Christainity.

They arent simole defences of thefaith but explanation or exploratio of theological thought.

These books arent apologetics

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 05, 2004.

Response to QUEASTION OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS.

In that case, yes I have read some scholarly material. I read parts of Augustine's City of God (required for a class), and I've read some of CS Lewis' theology books. I find such things difficult to understand, as they tend to be very dry. I think CS Lewis is too theoretical, and I have to read a sentence over and over sometimes in order to understand what he's saying. I don't prefer this type of writing style. Once I understand it, it usually makes sense and I get a lot out of it, but I have found other books to be equally as beneficial along with more enjoyable to read (ease of understanding).

That said, I still don't understand why some of Scott Hahn's works do not fit into this category. Not everything would of course (such as his story about his life), but he does more than defend the faith. He also explains the thought behind it. Perhaps it is at a more "readable" level than say CS Lewis, so if it is less formal, does that make it less scholarly?

I think my mom is the type who likes to read scholarly works on theology. She loves CS Lewis' theology books, for example. She also loves reading/listening to Scott Hahn. I enjoy these to some extent, but after awhile my brain starts to hurt, lol. I prefer stories or examples mixed in with the material.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 05, 2004.

Response to QUEASTION OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS.

Hans Kung is a very accessible writer. I found his book "The Catholic Church... a short history" to be fascinating and an easy read.

Father Kung's take on Church history is sometimes at odds with traditional Catholic teaching (in some) areas, so he's under a cloud as far as the Church is concerned. I believe you could say he's on the "avoid" list.

I still can't help enjoying his work even though many Catholics find him unreliable about certain issues.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), June 06, 2004.

Response to QUEASTION OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS.

Also, Hans Kung - "On Being Christian," John Calvin - "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," H. Richard Niebuhr - "Christ and Culture." Anything by Barth, Bonhoeffer and Huston Smith.. Also, a good starting place are the entries of the 4 volume set of "The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible." While the entries are informative, it is a good thing to read the books and articles by the contributors.

Two other interesting books that make you think theologically are, Viktor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning" and Bertrand Russell's, "Why I Am Not a Christian." The last one shouldn't be used as an exercise for your debating skills to come up with the right answers, rather - It should be used as an internal "Devil's Advocate," where the answers are between yourself and God.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 06, 2004.

Response to QUEASTION OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS.

Kung is good but a bit contraversial. Likewise he does seem to veer off into the whole "W ell here is my take" direction a bit too often in his historical work, but I idgress.

Emily, Lewis sint dry and formal, and I think the reason you have a hard time with his words is mainly due to his use of old speakign style. I mean no offnece, but you are an merican who was born in the 1980's. Lewis was born in 1898 and write his books largley in the 1950's in England. The speakign style has changed in the last half century sicne he put hisworks to print, and that added tot he natural drift of language between British english and American english will cause soem difficulty till you are use to it.

Me beign a brit and a lvoer of old books, I have no difficulty at all understanding Lewis, and I think Fretz and Furst, who are older, woudl find hiw writign style a whole lot easier as well.

Not to offend, as if you read enough old books you gradually pick up how peopel spoke back then and it becomes easier, but I htink the dated language is what turns most off to lewis.

As to hahns, he sint considered a scholar because he doesnt rely on academic standards and scholarly neutrality whoile makign staements about general theological principles, but rather largley simpley presents a defence ofthe Catholic Faith, which is his opbective. he even defines himself as an apologest.

I have nohtign agaisnt apologists, but I simpley prefer more general duiscussions oand overveiws of the subkject matter.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 07, 2004.

Zorove,

I know what you mean. I tend to separate "scholarly" theological works, from "faith based scholarly" theological works. Lets face it though, all authors have an agenda even when they try their best not to.

I almost didn't mention Father Kung "because" of his association with Catholicism. His "take" could be considered fairly objective by some or perhaps even anti-Catholic by others. The study of the Catholic Church is certainly an important if not a central componant to understanding Christianity as it has come down to us today... (my opinion, many will disagree.)

His treatment of the apostolic succession of popes for instance, would certainly not seem to clearly classify him as an apologist. Still I think there is a lot to be learned from him, but not as a source to deepen understanding or faith in Catholicism as it is traditionally viewed. I guess I'm saying I would not use him as a "Catholic apologetic" source, or as recommended reading for faithful people trying to better understand how to be Catholic. But he does present a more than a few pieces of the puzzle. Its up to the reader to decide what to do with them.

Rev. Fretz, Thanks for the literary recommendations. I'll be visiting "Amazon" soon and will look into them.

-- JimFurst (furst@flasfh.net), June 09, 2004.

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

I knwo what you mean, but bias is one thing, activley arguing only one side is another.

I prefer books that explain the theological belifs rather than oen that simpley takes a side and then procceeds to fidn arguments to validate the claims on said side.

Lewis, for instance, explained the rleigion, whereas Hahn mainly defends the faith, this is the key distincton in my mind, Lewis is far friendlier to read than an apologetic work.

Kung is a good read, but as I said he ventures too much into the "WQay I see it" mode for my tastes, but on the whle excellent choice.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 11, 2004.