In this study of Marshall’s Christology in Conflict, the author deals with three questions and issues which can be raised regarding Marshall’s argument: his account of the historical shape of the problem, his critique of Rahner, and his use of Barth’s christology.

David Kelsey's Eccentric Existence argues that what we need is a “systematically unsystematic” account of human existence, a set of “buoys” or non‐negotiable convictions articulated on the basis of canonical Scriptures, leaving abundant room for philosophers and other non‐theologians to make their contributions. Embodied persons themselves/ourselves are constituted in three irreducibly complex canonically biblical narratives as creatures, reconciled, and consummated—although it is not always clear what aspects of these narratives are “buoys” and which are more negotiable. The God who constitutes (...) embodied persons is the triune God of Nicaea who operates as one but in irreducibly distinct ways as Father and Son and Spirit—and cannot be mere instrument of human purposes. Kelsey intentionally leaves a number of Trinitarian and Christological questions open for further treatment, creating remarkable challenges for traditionalists and modernists alike. (shrink)

Roger Haight's Christology is an instance of distinctively modern Vermittlungstheologie, to be distinguished from biblical or traditional versions of mediation because it employs an apologetic method to restore putatively lost Christological immediacies. In so far as such a theology seek to communicate Christian doctrine “in a language of commonly shared principles”, it cannot do justice to Jesus Christ's singularity—although the best way to further criticize any mediating Christology would be by developing an alternative neither traditionalist, modernist, or mediating.