Miroslav Volf

Since the publication of Zizioulas' seminal text, Being as Communion (1985), succesive theologians have turned to his work to postulate a social-trinity. The past decade has witnessed a significant repudiation of social-trinitarianism, but such criticism has an implicit tendency to identify Zizioulas as a social-trintiarian. My paper shall consider Zizioulas' ecclesiology in relation to its reception by social-trinitarianism, and ask whether both his social-trinitarian advocates, and their critics, do justice to the problems considered by Zizioulas. Whilst acknowledging that there are significant similarities in their initial engagement, and recognising the limitations of Zizioulas' project, this paper shall maintain that Zizioulas is not ultimately a social-trinitarian because his social-trinitarian advocates are posing different questions to the relationship between the Trinity and the Church than posed by Zizioulas. Although the social-trinitarians draw from Zizioulas' work they do so to answer their own questions, which they resolve by projecting a revised trinitarian schesis, rooted in perichoresis, onto ecclesial and social structures. By attending to the nature of Zizioulas' ecclesiological questions, I shall make the case that Zizioulas exhibits a logic of question and answer that belongs to the neopatristic synthesis which emerged in Orthodox theology in the twentieth century. Zizioulas relates the Trinity to the Church on the basis of theosis as Christification. Consequently, Zizioulas and the social-trinitarians operate within different logical complexes.

Miroslav Volf’s Allah: A Christian Response created a sensation in South Korea in various ways. On the one hand, it made a positive contribution to help many Islamophobics in Korean Churches to better understand Islam and Muslims. On the other hand, it caused much theological debate regarding Volf’s idea of “God” since he suggests reconciling the Christian God and the Islamic Allah. This essay attempts to analyze and evaluate the doctrine of God in Volf’s Allah on four points. First, Volf’s formulation of “God” cannot be harmonized with traditional theology such as that of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Bavinck. Second, the “God” in Volf’s book cannot side with biblical theology. If Volf’s idea of “God” were biblical, Christianity would have to accept a heretical concept of God such as the Jehovah of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Third, Volf’s Allah is logically inconsistent. His doctrine of “God” and his strategy for reconciliation between Christianity and Islam in Allah contradicts with Volf’s previous two books, After Our Likeness, which emphasizes relational Trinitarianism, and Exclusion and Embrace, which prefers “embrace” to “inclusion.” Fourth, Volf’s understanding of “God” cannot satisfy the concept of the Islamic Allah in its traditional description. Most traditional Muslims do not accept the Trinitarian God of Christianity, and they believe that the Quran, not the Christian Bible and Jesus Christ, is the final revelation of Allah. Thus, Reformed theology should not accept Volf’s idea of “God” as conceptualized in his book Allah. Volf theologically excludes Jesus Christ and the Trinity in his formulation of a very curious “God” in order to politically embrace Muslims. // 미로슬라브 볼프의 『알라』(IVP, 2016)는 여러 면에서 센세이션을 불러일으켰다. 특히 이슬람에 대한 무지와 공포가 만연한 한국교회에 이슬람을 제대로 이해할 수 있도록 지적인 자극을 제공했다. 하지만 『알라』에서 제시하는 볼프의 신론(神論)은 여러 모로 정통 기독교 신론을 위협하는 위험한 사상이다. 『알라』에 나타난 신론을 분석하고 평가하는 것을 목표로 삼는 본 논문은 아래와 같은 주장들을 제시할 것이다. 첫째, 볼프가 『알라』에서 제시하는 신론은 아우구스티누스, 루터, 칼빈, 바빙크 등이 가르쳤던 정통적인 삼위일체론적 기독교 신론을 떠난 것이다. 둘째, 볼프의 신론은 성경신학적 측면에서 볼 때에 매우 위험한 사상이다. 볼프의 신론이 기독교의 하나님을 묘사하는 것이라면 이단들의 신론 가령 여호와의 증인에서 제공하는 신론도 역시 기독교의 하나님을 묘사하는 것이 될 것이다. 셋째, 『알라』에서 제시된 신론은 논리적 측면에서 문제가 많다. 그의 신론은 이전에 『삼위일체와 교회』에서 자신이 제시했던 관계적 삼위일체론과 모순이며, 『배제와 포용』에서 제시한 방법과도 맞지 않는 전략을 취한다. 넷째, 볼프가 묘사하는 이슬람의 ‘알라’는 사실상 이슬람에서 보더라도 부족한 모습이다. ‘알라’와 기독교의 하나님을 억지로 끼워 맞추려는 노력은 이슬람 측의 삼위일체론 이해와 종말론의 관점에서 볼 때에 실패할 수밖에 없는 기획인데, 볼프는 이런 점들을 무시하고 있다. 따라서 이 책 『알라』를 통하여 기독교와 이슬람 사이의 정치신학적 대화를 시도하고자 한 볼프의 의도는 이해한다 하더라도, 그의 신론을 개혁신학이 받아들일 수는 없다. ‘알라’를 포용하려다가 ‘삼위일체 하나님’을 배제시켜 버리는 형국이 되기 때문이다.

Abstrak: Dengan semakin majunya teknologi “memori,” sekarang dunia menghadapi cara baru untuk menyelesaikan ingatan-ingatan traumatisnya. Kecenderungan (trend) baru menunjukkan bahwa mengingat, dan bukan melupakan, adalah langkah penting untuk menyelesaikan konflik menuju rekonsiliasi sejati. Teologi Kristen menawarkan kesempatan untuk mengalami kesembuhan dari ingatan yang menyakitkan dalam anamnesis dalam perayaan Ekaristi. Tiga orang teolog dari latar belakang berbeda membantu merumuskan bagaimana mengingat dapat terjadi dalam proses rekonsiliasi. Johann Baptist Metz meminta kita untuk mengingat mereka yang menderita. Alexander Schmemann mengatakan bahwa letak ingatan ada dalam Ekaristi. Miroslav Volf meminta ingatan yang jujur dalam proses mengingat. Penyembuhan dapat terjadi ketika mengingat dilakukan dengan jujur dan ingatan tersebut dibawa menjadi milik komunal, yang akhirnya membebaskan individu dari ingatan pahitnya.

The prospect of human enhancement through the use of genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology is generating increasing interest in academic and commercial circles. Responses to human enhancement technology are derived from, and therefore may illuminate, underlying notions of what human flourishing ought to look like. Miroslav Volf's anatomy of joy is used to compare representative understandings of the good life from transhumanist and secular humanist perspectives as they correspond to attitudes concerning human enhancement, particularly the question of radical life extension. The argument is advanced that a joyful Christian vision of the good life, which answers both the secular humanist respect for creaturely finitude and the transhumanist hope for glorious transformation, possesses strong normative potential for academic teaching and discourse as we contemplate the future of human being.

Miroslav Volf is not just a well-recognized author but also a person whose biography is intriguing. He is a Croatian who was raised in Serbia. He experienced both Eastern and Western Europe and he currently lives in the United States. Although he grew up as a son of a minister in the Pentecostal community, he completed his doctorate study under the instruction of Jürgen Moltmann. He has taught theology at Fuller Seminary and is now teaching at Yale, yet continues to visit Croatia to instruct theology at the Evangelical Theological Institute. Through his experience of diverse cultures, he embraces the multiformity in the catholicity of the church and offers profound wisdom to this conversation.
Many have attested to the importance of the catholicity of the church throughout history. Dulles concluded that the catholicity endorses differences rather than exclusion by assuring “the ultimate coherence of the whole ambit of creation and redemption.”  Congar claimed that catholicity expresses the essence of the church.  Barth also emphatically proclaimed, “Catholic, or it is not the church.”  Nissiotis believed that catholicity is the primary question of ecclesiology.  Agreeing with many others before him, Miraslov Volf writes: “the question of the catholicity of the church becomes one of the main questions, if not the main question, of dialogue between congregationalist and episcopal churches.”
The catholicity of the church surely is a crucial topic. How one perceives the catholicity may exclude churches of other traditions or vice versa. Even though most of the Christian churches confess their faith together through the Apostle’s Creed by stating, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy catholic church”, the identity of episcopal churches as well as free churches hangs on how one understands the catholicity. Thus, a careful study on Volf’s perception of the catholicity of the church is necessary to communicate in this post-confessional world with the arising ecumenical movement.
However, those standing on the legacy of the Reformed Tradition need an appropriate method of adopting Volf’s understanding. I, therefore, suggest a critical study on how Volf understands the catholicity of the church by examining his theological developments and their strengths and weaknesses. Then, I would like to identify some precarious overlook that Volf commits in developing the catholicity of the church. Therefore, I would weigh Volf’s strengths and weaknesses by suggesting that his perception on the catholicity of the church is beneficial but requires a comparative study from a sturdy theologian from the Reformed Tradition.

The paper is to suggest a comparative study of Miroslav Volf and Herman Bavinck in order to present a Reformed dogmatists whose understanding on the catholicity of the church may be more balanced and readily applicable to the conversation we observe in the academy of ecclesiology and ecumenism.

To this, I find similarities in their contextual contexts where they present catholicity as the resolve. Their ground and definition of the catholicity. Their eschatological framework to explain the catholicity in three qualities that are anticipation, openness, and re-creation.

Though, their departing points are where I consider Bavinck is more balanced theologian on the issue of the catholicity of the church. Bavinck compared to Volf presents much more in depth relationship between sin and catholicity. From this, he develops the focus on the church discipline followed by the proclamation of the Word of God and the administration of the Sacraments: other two marks of the true church. We observe Volf's disregard for the Word of God and the Sacraments in his thematic concentration on the egalitarianism. Yet, Volf is misunderstanding the original intention of the reformers that these marks were to return the glory back to God.

To this, I see another possibility of research. Someone who may be interested in the comparative study between Volf and Bavinck may wonder about the structure of paper and how their emphasis of the visible and the invisible church is affecting their catholicity. Though, this is only a possibility for others; not the main focus of this paper.

During the 1980s and 1990s it was common to juxtapose a supposedly Patristic retrieval of a ‘social-trinity’ as opposed to a Latin and Augustinian ‘substantial trinity’- a juxtaposition known as the de Régnon paradigm. This social trinity was used to reconceive personal, human and ecclesial relationships along more egalitarian and relational lines- perichoresis was the operative term. It inspired a great outpouring of ethical and ecclesiological work. As Kathryn Tanner explains:

‘When contemporary theologians want to form judgements about social and political matters they often turn immediately to the trinity for guidance. Rather than Christology, a theology of the trinity is enlisted to support particular kinds of human community- say, egalitarian, inclusive, communities, in which differences are respected- or to counter modern individualism by greater regard for the way personal character is shaped in community’

Miroslav Volf, Colin Gunton and Paul Fiddes are prominent examples of theologians who postulate a social-analogy of the trinity to justify an egalitarian free-Church ecclesiology. All of whom have turned to Zizioulas for a Cappadocian conception of the trinity. This paper examines Stephen Holmes' argument which seeks to abrogate a social trinity on the basis of delineating the problems related to projecting a trinitarian schesis onto ecclesiology. His premise is that Zizioulas and Miroslav Volf are social trinitarians; and although they share a methodology rooted in trinitarian analogy they derive widely different ecclesiologies from the trinitarian communion. Namely, that in the ecclesiology of John Zizioulas the Bishop is a projection of the monarchy of the Father. Whereas the ecclesiology of Miroslav Volf justifies an egalitarian ecclesiology based on the mutuality of the triune persons. Thus, there is a fundamental flaw in the social trinitarian method if the doctrine of the trinity produces different ecclesiologies. However, whilst sharing Holmes' concerns about social trinitarian projection, this paper argues that Zizioulas does not postulate a social trintiarian methodology based on analogy. Instead, Zizioulas argues for theosis on the basis of participation in the person of Christ, and this participation is the foundation for his ecclesiology in dialogue with the historical commitment to apolostic succession in the episcopacy.

The story of Estonian Orthodoxy, as often told through the narrative of collective trauma, is not homogeneous and uncontested. The coexistence of two Orthodox communities in present day Estonia, each insisting on exclusive canonical legitimacy and holding different views of the past, the incomplete work of transitional justice and the untold story of political collaboration appear as irreconcilable differences that challenge the ideals of Christian unity. In order to address these unresolved problems of a traumatic past, the paper will turn to the ascetic theology of the Orthodox saints of the 20th century St Silouan (1866-1938) and St Sophrony Sakharov (1896-1993) and to the musical oeuvres of the Estonian composer Arvo Pärt (b. 1935). The approach of these Orthodox ascetics, the article argues, provides an important perspective on Christian mission in a wounded world.

At the very outset of this study, I would like to justify the title I have chosen for the keynote address: "The evangelical Identity of the Syro-Malabar Church in the twenty first Century". Well, this whole paper revolves around two kinds of ecclesial identity that are complementary to each other.  They are evangelical and institutional identities. These identities could be termed the two halos of the church. Now, after the fashion of Baudelaire, we should ask: which of the halos we could afford to lose in the street? If both are at stake, which one would we afford to shed down in defence of the other: institutional or evangelical? A sincere answer to this fundamental question would sketch the destiny of our church in the twenty first century.

The article inquires into the implications of Christianity not being a religious perspective among others in the contemporary Western debate on religious pluralism. A quick glance at a recent debate in Sweden serves to demonstrate how Christianity, although marginalized in its traditional forms, remains a dominating cultural interpretative scheme that continues to influence the majority’s view on private and public, individual and collective,
rational and irrational. Against this background, the author argues, it is imperative that any Christian theologian who engages in the question of religion in the public sphere in the Western world, also must critically confront the question of Christianity’s particular status. Not least in light of contemporary right-wing rhetoric about the West as an exclusively “Christian civilization,” theologians need to reflect on how to avoid articulations of the Christian vision of the common good that manifest themselves at the expense of other religious traditions. The article ends by sketching a possible
direction for such reflection.

Hospitality is generally defined as the friendly and generous reception of guests, visitors or strangers. Most of us have an understanding of what constitutes hospitable attitudes and actions in a social setting, but my query is this: What is the shape of hospitality within theology? In this paper, I argue for the importance of hospitality in theology by looking at three different aspects.

First, I draw on the work of Miroslav Volf to unpack the necessity of welcoming the theological stranger. Second, the writings of mystics, both ancient and contemporary, are incorporated in exploring the importance of recognising and cultivating theological hunger. Finally, I place theology within the paradigm of gift, engaging with the hospitality parables in the gospels and gleaning insights from sociologist Marcel Mauss and French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion. Theological hospitality, I conclude, is a posture which reflects our own generous and unlikely invitation to the feast of Jesus.

Rhetoric and the Responsibility to and for Language: Speaking of Evil relocates the “problem of evil”— the question of why God would allow for the existence of evil—and surveys it as a rhetorical problem. It raises this question: if we speak evil, how shall we speak of evil? When we communicate, we are naming, and evil as the corruption of language plays a central role in that naming. Evil freezes our words, convinces us we have the sole right to their definitions, and generally stifles the dynamic gift of language. By looking at how people in different eras and situations have named evil, this book suggests how we can better take responsibility for our words and why we owe a responsibility to language as our ethical stance toward evil. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498578431/Speaking-of-Evil-Rhetoric-and-the-Responsibility-to-and-for-Language

Special 30% discount offer!
To get discount, use code LEX30AUTH18 when ordering

This article is an allurement for Christians to make a transformative
action in Indonesia. To achieve this, I will use theatrical ideas from
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, that is the drama of doctrine. As a complement
of Vanhoozer’s ideas, I will use Miroslav Volf’s idea, prophetic
religion. The result of that combination is a transformative drama, a
Christian’s theatrical action that can make a change to impact his/her
nearest society.

(Artikel ini ingin memberikan suatu ajakan pada seorang Kristen
untuk melaksanakan suatu aksi yang mentransformasikan di tengah-tengah bangsa Indonesia. Untuk menjawab tujuan ini, penulis akan
menggunakan pemikiran teatrikal dari Kevin J. Vanhoozer, drama
doktrin. Sebagai pelengkap dari pemikiran Vanhoozer, penulis akan
mencoba menggunakan pemikiran dari Miroslav Volf mengenai
agama profetik. Hasil dari penggabungan pemikiran Vanhoozer dan
Volf adalah suatu drama yang mentransformasikan, suatu aksi
teatrikal dari seorang Kristen yang dapat membawa perubahan dan
dampak pada komunitas di sekitarnya.)

Kathryn Tanner maintains that political theologies based on the Trinity are not only unsound, but potentially dangerous. Her primary concern is that the Trinity, by definition, cannot serve as a “model” for human socio-political organization. Miroslav Volf, while sharing Tanner’s sense that Trinitarian political theologies are fraught, nevertheless, maintains that the Trinity can serve as a “vision” for human socio-political relations, albeit not as a “program”. This article brings Tanner and Volf into conversation with Eastern Orthodox philosopher-theologian Christos Yannaras, whose Trinitarian political theology regards the Trinity as the “prototype” or “archetype” of a mode of existence in which humans can participate by transcending their natures, with the aim of realizing truth. This article argues that Yannaras offers a novel way of conceptualizing Trinitarian political theology which escapes Tanner and Volf’s criticisms, on the one hand, and offers Social Trinitarianism a fresh and fertile perspective that could advance its discourse.

Is eschatology with ethics even possible?

We seem to be stuck straddling a void separating passive-aggressiveness, hyperactivity, and nostalgia.  Passive-aggressiveness and hand wringing over the loss of old, sure and certain ways of thought and knowing and certainty and faith (so we dig in and celebrate non-negotiables and other nonsensical abstractions). Hyperactivity and ego driving recklessly into novelty, technology, globalism and religionless faith (so we are hyper-sensitive to offense and willfully ignorant of identity).

Yes, eschatology with ethics is possible...

This article deals with the question whether it is a problem to use a static imagery of vocation. Four relatively recent systematic theological monographs by Volf, Badcock, Schuurman and Hahnenberg on the topic of vocation criticize the idea that God in heaven has a blueprint for every individual life. This static imagery is assumed to be too uniform, too passive and too conservative to suit the modern way of life. It will be shown, however, that these consequences do not necessarily follow. A static imagery of vocation may be applied in a plu-ralist, active, transformative world; and the proposed alternative of a dynamic imagery of gifts may lead to uniform, passive and conservative living. Therefore, theologians should distinguish between a picture and how it is used. In the final paragraph it will be argued that the imagery of vocation does not need to be salvaged from its static nature, since, the more static features our concept of vocation has, the more dynamic its use may be.

In this study, we will firstly examine The Common Word initiative and its formative roots. Secondly, we will overview some of the subsequent reactions from religious leaders and academic scholars in both the Christian and Muslim communities. While acknowledging that negative responses to The Common Word have arisen, we will rather focus on the perceptions of the majority which reflect more favorably on the impact of the initiative. Finally, we suggest that it is possible to view The Common Word initiative as having been derived from the basic essence of both the Qur’anic and Biblical teachings in regards to the building of one’s social conscience through pluralism, humanism and universalism

Simon János: Mártírok, áldozatok, túlélők. Vizsgálódás a szenvedés és identitásformálódás kérdésében

A győztes és vesztes, hérósz és áldozat vagy éppen mártír társadalmi szerepéről, a szereppel együttjáró lelki folyamatokról a társadalomtudományoknak voltak már korábban is vizsgálatai, de a szerepek felcserélődéséről, emberképre és egyéni identitásra gyakorolt hatásáról alig találunk szakirodalmat. Az áldozatok szerepére elsőként Benjamin Mendelson mutatott rá egy 1947-ben rendezett pszichiátriai kongresszuson A bio- pszicho- szociológia új távlatai: az áldozattan címmel tartott előadásában.  Egy évvel később megjelent művében, Hans von Hentig (A bűnöző és áldozata) még inkább aláhúzta az áldozatokra való odafigyelés szükségességét.  Ezt követően Schäfer István amerikai magyar professzor, Nils Christie norvég kriminológus, valamint Albert Eglash és Howard Zerh mutattak rá arra, hogy mennyire mellőzött szerep jutott az áldozatoknak az igazságszolgáltatás folyamatában.  Elsősorban a kárhelyreállító igazságszolgáltatás irányította rá a figyelmünket az áldozatokra. Ugyanakkor látnunk kell azt is, hogy azért alakulhatott ez így, mert a II. világháborút követően a politikai gondolkodás fókusza az utópisztikus célokról a szenvedő áldozatokra tevődött át.  A továbbiakban ezt a fókuszcserét fogom vizsgálni, és ezen túlmenően a mártírok emlékezetét és keresztyén közösségekre gyakorolt hatását.

Summaries in German and EnglishDiese Arbeit unternimmt den Versuch die Themenfelder Evangelisationstheologie und Friedens- und Versöhnungstheologie gemeinsam zu denken. Dafür fragt sie danach, welche Impulse die deutschsprachige Theologie der Evangelisation aus der „Theologie der Umarmung“ Mirsolav Volfs gewinnen kann. Um dies zu erreichen gibt sie zunächst einen groben Überblick über die geschichtlichen Entwicklungen in der neueren Evangelisationstheologie um dann Leitlinien einer deutschsprachigen Theologie der Evangelisation herauszuarbeiten. Nachdem im folgenden Teil der Arbeit die „Theologie der Umarmung“ umfassende gewürdigt wird, werden beide Denkansätze in einem abschließenden Kapitel miteinander in Dialog gebracht und sowohl inhaltliche als auch methodische Denkanstöße für eine von Volf geprägte Theologie der Evangelisation diskutiert.This work attempts to think together the fields of evangelisation theology and peace and reconciliation theology. Therefore it asks what impu...

Problems of Literary Genres/Zagadnienia Rodzajów Literackich, 58/116.2 (2015), 13–28. Freely available at http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-c48eeea9-899b-4734-869c-fb4145945fd3 .

Abstract:
Many early modern writers were fascinated by the notion of the Adamic language in which Adam named the animals, a language that many believed could express the essence of things perfectly. Umberto Eco has displayed a recurrent interest in Adamic language in both his scholarship and his fiction, and this article pays tribute to Eco through placing his work in conversation with a number of scholarly fields in which the idea of Adamic language occurs, including studies of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, the Qur’an and Islamic tradition, the history of science, and early Mormonism. The article concludes by challenging some of the theoretical assumptions made about Adamic language, both by Eco and in early modern discussions, through a rereading of Adam’s speech in Genesis 2.

This paper proposes that living in a void of some kind is an important part of human and spiritual development and not to be avoided. The aspects of emptiness, unknowing, and waiting are examined by considering storytelling, biblical texts, and the nature of the Trinity. I conclude that empty space is not a sign of lack, but of hospitality.

A reflection on Remembrance. In 1940 Dick Howard turned the bombing of Coventry Cathedral into an opportunity for commitment 'to build a kinder, more Christ-like world'. The Community of the Cross of Nails became a movement of peace and reconciliation workers across the world. In the words of Miroslav Volf, memory can be 'the bridge between adversaries' (The End of Memory). The work of memory, although difficult, is a way in which judgement can 'run down as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream'.

To download, go to http://ssrn.com/abstract=2717133

In the Biblical book of Exodus, Pharaoh at first refuses to let the Israelites go because, despite the onslaught of the first five plagues, he hardens his own heart against any concession. But by the second five plagues, even when Pharaoh seems ready to relent, God steps in and hardens his heart for him. In Exodus 10:1-2, God gives Moses two reasons for hardening Pharaoh's heart: First, “in order that I may place these signs of Mine in his midst.” And second, “that you should tell in the ears of your son, and your son's son, what I have wrought upon Egypt, and My signs that I have done among them; that you may know that I am Hashem.”

This talk plays on those two distinct reasons as the launching point for a set of observations that all center on the common theme of divine "signs." Among the arguments in the talk is that (1) although the Passover seder is a telling and re-enacting of the story of the Exodus, it can also be said that the Exodus from Egypt – ten plagues and all – occurred for the sake of the Seder, and in that sense it is the Seder as much as the event that is the center of spiritual and religious action. (2) In interfaith encounters, the important question is not so much whether different religious traditions "worship the same God," but whether each of us can, with humility, charity, and deep wonder, simply look for God’s signs in other religions, as we look for God’s signs in nature and history and our own scriptures.