GIANNI VATTIMO AND RENÉ GIRARD ON THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRISTIANITY

The possibility of a naturalistic explanation of religious phenomena (including Christianity) which is offered by natural science gives the question of the uniqueness of Christianity a new urgency, for it raises the question of whether an irreducible otherness in Christianity vis-à-vis a generally-human, natural religiosity (which may be explained naturalistically) can be demonstrated. In what follows, we shall discuss the answer of two contemporary thinkers to this question: that of the Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo and that of the French-American literary critic and fundamental anthropologist René Girard. There is also an interesting link between both thinkers, as we shall see below – Vattimo has stated that it was his reading of Girard which made him return to Christianity after having abandoned it earlier in his life.     

DARWIN AND CHRISTIANITY: TRUTH AND MYTH

In recent years many historical myths about the relations between science and religion have been corrected but not always with sensitivity to different types and functions of “myth.” Correcting caricatures of Darwin's religious views and of the religious reaction to his theory have featured prominently in this myth‐busting. With the appearance in 2017 of A. N. Wilson's depiction of Darwin himself as a “mythmaker,” it is appropriate to reconsider where the myths lie in discourse concerning Darwin and Christianity. Problems with Wilson's account are identified and his provocative demeaning of Darwin is contrasted with an image gleaned from Darwin's friend and colleague George Romanes. The article concludes with a brief reference to the problem of suffering and to the work of Christopher Southgate.     

CHRISTIANITY AND POSSIBILITY: ON KEARNEY'S THE GOD WHO MAY BE

Abstract: This essay interprets and responds to Richard Kearney's metaphysics of possibility and hermeneutics of religion against the background of Nietzsche's proclamation of the death of God and the theodicy problem. Kearney's work is thus read as an interesting but ultimately problematic attempt to preserve or perhaps reinstate religious thought after the modern critique of idols. In addition, his positions are compared and contrasted with some of authors with whom he seems to be in limited agreement (for example, Plotinus, Hillesum) as well as some with whom he clearly breaks (for example, Girard, Sölle).     

CREATED CO-CREATOR IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF CHURCH AND ETHICS

Abstract Philip Hefner's work on created co‐creator is presented for consideration as a contemporary theological anthropology. Its reception within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America falls into three main lines, which are reviewed here because they are suggestive of its potential impact on Christian thinking. This review raises two major questions and leads to a critique. The first question is whether created co‐creator should be replaced by another term for the sake of more clearly encapsulating the ideas represented in Hefner's work. The second question concerns the moral “payoff” of created co‐creator. Such questions lead to the critique that Hefner's corpus gives insufficient attention to responsibility as integral to freedom and that it lacks a theory of obligation. I then sketch the amenability and benefit of linking created co‐creator with “responsibility ethics,” exemplified by the work of Hans Jonas.