Andrew Torrance

The word 'accountability' is often used without much thought being given to what precisely it means. It is especially common in Christian circles, where there is frequent talk about being accountable to God, yet, still, without a clear grasp of this word. Accountability to God proposes, develops, and analyses two concepts of accountability as both a condition and a virtue. It also engineers these concepts to make them particularly apt for thinking about (1) accountability to God and (2) other relationships of accountability that exist under God. In its first part, the book builds a theological and general case for its particular views of accountability. In its second, it engages in the constructive work of developing a theology of accountability in relation to the doctrines of the Trinity, participation in Christ, the Fall, the fear of God, reconciliation, baptism, repentance, faith, and conversion.

In developing this theology, Torrance interacts with a number of major theologians, such as the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Karl Barth. He also extensively engages with contemporary work in analytic philosophy, systematic theology (including analytic theology), biblical studies, and psychology. By bringing a diverse range of scholarship into discussion, Accountability to God is the first book to focus specifically on what it means to be accountable to God. It thereby proposes a more positive, constructive, and theologically apt way to think about accountability.

Karl Barth was often critical of Søren Kierkegaard’s ideas as he understood them. But close reading of the two corpora reveals that Barth owes a lot to the melancholy Dane. Both conceive of God as infinitely qualitatively different from humans, and both emphasize the shocking nearness of God in the incarnation. As public intellectuals, they used this theological vision to protect Christocentric faith from political manipulation and compromise. For Kierkegaard, this meant criticizing the state church; for Barth, this entailed resisting Nazism.  

Meticulously crafted by a father-son team of renowned systematic theologians, Beyond Immanence demonstrates that Kierkegaard and Barth share a theological trajectory—one that resists cynical manipulation of Christianity for political purposes in favor of uncompromising devotion to a God who is radically transcendent yet established kinship with humanity in time.

The Kierkegaardian account of becoming a Christian has come to be perceived in radically egocentric terms. This study serves to challenge this perception by demonstrating that Kierkegaard was devoted to expounding Christian conversion as a transformative process of becoming that is grounded in an active relationship initiated through the agency of the eternal God who has established kinship with us in time.
At the same time, this study will also explore the way that Kierkegaard confronts some of the key errors that arise in overly systematic accounts of Christian conversion: (1) the inherent weakness of approaches that seek to dichotomise, and then quantify separately, the contributions of God’s grace and human freedom; (2) the inclination to objectify God and human beings in ways that neglect their existence as living agents; (3) the overemphasis on conversion as a monadic event of individual transformation rather than an event of reconciliation; (4) the tendency to prioritise epistemology over ontology in discussions of becoming a Christian; and (5) the propensity to lose sight of God’s all-embracing purpose of reconciling persons into their one true form of existence ‘before God’.
Finally, this study will also consider how Kierkegaard was able to negotiate his emphasis on the God-relationship with his emphasis on the importance of individual reflection, decision and action in the Christian life. It will conclude that, for Kierkegaard, the freedom to become a Christian is not the freedom to awaken ourselves into the Christian life but a decision to embrace the Christian life into which God awakens us.

Contents

Introduction
I. Listening to Kierkegaard Alongside his Pseudonyms
a. Kierkegaard and Climacus
b. Anti-Climacus and Kierkegaard

Chapter One: The Communication of the Christian Truth
I. Can the Truth Be Learned?
II. The Relationship or Non-Relationship between Subjectivity and Objectivity
III. The Revelation of Sin
a. Despair
b. The infinite qualitative difference and sin-consciousness
IV. Being in the Truth
V. Passion in Kierkegaard’s Thought
a. The Passion of Thought
b. Passionate Responsibility
c. The Passion of Faith
VI. Conclusion

Chapter Two: The Possibility of Reconciliation
I. The Tale of the King and the Maiden
II. Drawing Another to Oneself
III. The Possibility of Reciprocity
IV. The Possibility of Offense
V. Encountering God in Time
VI. Conclusion

Chapter Three: The Orientation of a Life Lived in Relationship with God
I. The Religious Category of Existence
II. Søren Kierkegaard’s Christian Realism
III. Immanent Religiousness and Christianity
IV. Sin-consciousness and Guilt-consciousness
V. Repentance
VI. Conclusion

Chapter Four: The Orientation of a Life Lived in Relationship with God
I. Following Scripture Faithfully
a. Reading a Letter from a Beloved
b. The Perspicuity of Scripture
c. The Uncertainty of Scripture
II. The Single Individual
III. Christ is the Way
a. Following Christ
b. Following Christ Voluntarily
c. Christ as Prototype and Redeemer
IV. Becoming a Christian in the World
V. Conclusion

Chapter Five: The Freedom to Become a Christian in Relationship with God
I. Approaching Christianity
II. The Passionate Transition
a. Venturing the Leap
b. Preparing to become a Christian?
c. Relationship with “the paradox”
III. Faith in the Presence of God
IV. The Choice to Become a Christian
a. The Freedom of the Individual to Relate to God
b. Willing Beliefs
c. Human Responsibility for Sin
d. Transforming the Will
V. The Freedom to Love
VI. Conclusion

Closing Reflection
I. Kierkegaard’s Low Pneumatology
II. Communion with the One Who Establishes Kinship with Us in Time
III. Conclusion

It is hard to think of an area of Christian theology that provides more scope for interdisciplinary conversation than the doctrine of creation. This doctrine not only invites reflection on an intellectual concept: it calls for contemplation of the endlessly complex, dynamic, and fascinating world that human being inhabit. But the possibilities for wide-ranging discussion are such that scholars sometimes end up talking past one another. Productive conversation requires mutual understanding of insights across disciplinary boundaries. Knowing Creation offers an essential resource for helping scholars from a range of fields to appreciate one another's concerns and perspectives. In so doing, it offers an important step forward in establishing a mutually-enriching dialogue that addresses, amongst others, the following key questions:

- Who is the God who creates?
- Why does God create?
- What is "creation"?
- What does it mean to recognize that a theology of creation speaks of a natural world that is subject to the observation of the natural sciences? What does it mean to talk about both a "natural" order and a "created" order?
- What are the major tensions that have arisen between the natural sciences and Christian thinking historically, and why? How can we move beyond such tensions to a positive and constructive conversation, while also avoiding facile notions such as a "god of the gaps"?
- Is it feasible for a natural scientist to maintain a belief in God's continuing creative activity?
- In what ways might a naturalistic understanding of the natural world be said to be limited?
- How can biblical studies, theology, philosophy, history, and science talk better together about these questions?

At a time when the doctrine of creation - and even a mention of "creation" - has been disparaged due to its supposed associations with anti-scientific dogma, and theological offerings sometimes risk appearing a little more than reactionary exercises in naive apologetics, ill-informed by science or distinctly wary of engagement with it, it is more important than ever to offer a cross-disciplinary resource that can voice a positive account of a Christian theology of creation, and do so as a genuinely broad-ranging conversation about science and faith.

According to the Christian faith, Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation not only of the nature of God the Creator but also of how God the Creator relates to the created order. The New Testament explicitly relates the act of creation to the person of Jesus Christ - who is also a participant within creation, and who is said, by his acts of participation, to have secured creation's ultimate redemption from the problems which presently afflict it. Christian theology proposes that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word and Wisdom of God, the agent in whom the Spirit of God is supremely present among us, is the rationale and the telos of all things - time-space as we experience and explore it; nature and all its enigmas; matter itself. Christology is thus utterly fundamental to a theology of creation, as this is unfolded both in Scripture and in early Christian theology.

For all this, the contemporary conversation about science and faith tends, to a remarkable degree, to neglect the significance of Jesus Christ, focusing instead on a generic "God of wonder" or "God of natural theology." Such general theism is problematic from the perspective of Christian theology on many levels and has at times led to a more or less deistic theology: the impression that God has created the world, then largely left it to itself. Such a theology is far removed from classical Christian renderings of creation, providence, redemption, and eschatology. According to these, the theology of creation is not just about remote "beginnings," or the distant acts of a divine originator. Rather, the incarnate Jesus Christ is himself - remarkably - the means and the end for which creation itself exists. If we would think aright about our world, study it and live within it wisely, we must reckon centrally with his significance.

What might such a bold claim possibly mean, and why is Jesus Christ said by Christian theology to be so important for understanding God's overall relationship to the created order? What does this importance mean for science?

Christ and the Created Order addresses these questions by gathering insights from biblical scholars, theologians, historians, philosophers, and scientists. This interdisciplinary collection of essays reflects on the significance of Jesus Christ for understanding the created world, particularly as that world is observed by the natural sciences.

This volume focuses on Soren Kierkegaard as a theologian of the gospel of God's grace, rather than as the "Father of Existentialism." In so doing, it illuminates his vision of humans as relational beings who find fulfillment in the loving embrace of God with us (thus making him a would-be critic of later secular forms of "Existentialism").

This article addresses the question of what it means to be accountable to God based on a baptismal theology that we find in the New Testament. It argues that various passages in the New Testament lead us to the view that we are accountable to God in Christ. Such a view is not straightforward, and so much of this article will be spent unpacking what this could mean. To do so, I elaborate on what it means for God to create humanity to find fulfilment in and through Christ. This leads me to argue that humans experience fulfilment in and through the body of Christ into which baptism initiates a person. It is by participating and finding belonging in the life of the Church that humans can begin to discover what it means to be accountable to God in Christ, and, in so doing, form the virtue of accountability.

This opening article will offer a brief introduction to what it means to understand accountability as a virtue. To do so, I first propose a definition of the condition of accountability, which I go on to distinguish from responsibility. Based on this definition, I then present an account of the corresponding virtue of accountability.

A question that is often asked of analytic theologians is: what, if anything, distinguishes analytic theology from philosophy of religion? In this essay, I consider two approaches to what is called "analytic theology." I argue that the first approach, which I associate with the common practice of analytic theology in the university, is very difficult to distinguish consistently from philosophy of religion. I also argue, however, that there is another approach that can be more clearly distinguished from philosophy of religion (generally understood). Following Aquinas, I associate this with a scientific approach to analytic theology: an approach that is distinguished by a specific commitment to understanding the mind-independent reality of God and all things in relation to God. The primary aim of this essay is to present an account of this latter approach and ask whether it might be possible to take such an approach in the contemporary university.

This article provides a response to John Perry and Sarah Lane Ritchie’s article, “Magnets Magic, and Other Anomalies: In Defense of Methodological Naturalism.” In so doing, it provides a defense of some of the arguments I made in my article, “Should a Christian Adopt Methodological Naturalism?” I begin by addressing some of the confusion about my position. However, it is not simply my intention to address confusions. There remain some fundamental differences between my position and Perry and Lane Ritchie’s. It is on these differences that I wish to focus––differences that enable me to maintain my critique of methodological naturalism without falling prey to the problems they raise. Constructively, I advance the argument that the Christian scientist should be open to the possibility of theology-engaged science, as well as the science engaged theology that Perry and Lane Ritchie advocate.

It has become standard practice for scientists to avoid the possibility of references to God by adopting methodological naturalism: a method that requires scientists qua scientists to assume that the natural world can only be explained by natural phenomena. In this essay, I critique the Christian commitment to this method, arguing that a Christian’s practices should always reflect her belief that the universe is created and sustained by the triune God. This leads me to contend that the Christian should adopt a theologically humble approach to the sciences (instead of methodological naturalism), with which she humbly acknowledges that special divine action is not discernible by empirical science. To further my critique, I consider three ways in which the practice of methodological naturalism can be problematic for Christianity.
For a copy, drop me an email at [email protected]

This essay considers T. F. Torrance’s assertion that Kierkegaard’s
paradoxical Christology seeks to draw attention to God’s nearness to humanity. I begin by looking at what Kierkegaard has to say about the union between God and humanity in Christ. I then turn to look at how his paradoxical understanding of the God-human relationship helps him to understand two difficult issues in theology: (1) God’s relationship to Christ’s suffering; and (2) the changelessness of God. Following this theological reflection, I examine the practical role that paradox
played in his theology. Finally, I conclude by offering a brief account of how Kierkegaard’s paradoxical Christology relates to the mediation of Christ — a connection that would come to be taken up in the Christocentric theologies of Barth and Torrance. What I show is that, despite his limited understanding of Kierkegaard, the above statement from Torrance shows a deep appreciation for Kierkegaard’s theology on an issue that is often both overlooked and misunderstood.

Is it possible to prepare oneself to become a Christian? For Kierkegaard, there is no straightforward answer to this question, especially since such a transition depends upon a divine activity that is outside the realm of human control. Despite the challenge that this question poses, Kierkegaard’s writings do provide us with a way to respond, and this response will be the subject matter of this article. Following an analysis of his position, this article will conclude that, although Kierkegaard recognizes that there are precedent ways of existing that are more conducive to becoming a Christian, it is not helpful to describe them as preparatory.

When reading through certain areas of Kierkegaard’s writings, there is room to misinterpret his vision of Christianity as being grounded solely in a person’s subjective commitment to her own idea of what Christianity is. In large part, this has contributed to the perception of Kierkegaard as an existentialist who disregards the objective reality of Christianity. In this essay, I contend that Kierkegaard understands the Christian faith as being grounded in a human response to the (mind-independent) reality of the living God who personally involves himself with persons, in history, and does so over against independent or predetermined human ideas of God. To do so, I begin with a close reading of Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, in which I focus on the ways that Kierkegaard’s pseudonym, Johannes Climacus, distinguishes Christianity from immanent forms of religiousness. Following a detailed exposition of Climacus’ argument, I then consider, albeit very briefly, two ways in which Kierkegaard employed this position in his own authorship, looking specifically at his understanding of sin-consciousness and repentance.

Recent scholarship argues that, for Kierkegaard, God's absolute alterity is a consequence of sin that is overcome by the redemptive activity of Jesus Christ. On such a reading, the work of Christ delivers individuals to lives of faith that are not infinitely qualitatively different from God. This fails to recognize that the absolute otherness of God is overcome not simply by the redemptive work of Christ but in and through the person of Christ. The failure to grasp this has tied Kierkegaard to an anthropocentric theology that prioritizes Christ's contribution to existential human development. This article challenges this perception by establishing Kierkegaard's emphasis that God would remain infinitely removed from humanity were it not for the continuing mediation of Jesus Christ.

In Practice in Christianity, Søren Kierkegaard's pseudonym, Anti-Climacus enters into an extended engagement with Matthew 11.6, ‘Blessed is he who takes no offense at me’. In so doing, he comes to an understanding that ‘the possibility of offense’ characterises the ‘crossroad’ at which one either comes to faith in Christ's revelation or rejects it. Such a choice, as he is well aware, cannot be made from a neutral standpoint, and so he is led to propose that it is ‘the thoughts of the heart’ (i.e. a person's disposition) that constitute the pivotal factor in determining whether or not God will reconcile a person into the Christian faith. In this paper, I discuss Anti-Climacus' interpretation of Mt. 11.6 and consider his reasons for interpreting a person's predisposition as being so decisive for faith.

Kierkegaard is well known for being critical of a scholarly reading of the bible. It is generally understood that his primary concern was that “objective” biblical scholarship was undermining the possibility of a reader's subjective life being affected, challenged and provoked by its message. That is, it encourages an overly detached reading of Scripture that distracts persons from responding to its call to discipleship. It is indeed the case that Kierkegaard devoted himself to challenging the fact that the nominal Christians in Denmark were not actively responding Scripture. However, I shall argue that there is something much more fundamental to his critique of biblical scholarship. For Kierkegaard, the faithful reader is not primarily called to respond to the message of Scripture but to the living God who communicates to persons through Scripture. This paper will look at how Kierkegaard sought to remind Christians that Scripture is not an end in itself but a witness to the living God (who is the primary focus of the Christian life).

Overshadowed by a superficial reading of his pseudonym, Johannes Climacus’ statement “subjectivity is truth,” Søren Kierkegaard has come to be perceived in the theological world as overly individualistic and anthropocentric in his thinking. This has contributed to the perception that, for Kierkegaard, it is the individual Christian who is in charge of her Christian faith. In this essay, I endeavor to challenge this perception through an analysis of Climacus and Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the outward nature of the God-relationship.

Few issues have been as divisive for the contemporary church as the doctrine of irre- sistible grace. In the debates surrounding this doctrine, there has been an overwhelm- ing tendency for theologies of grace to focus on the effects that grace has on particular human beings. Alongside this tendency, there has arisen a danger that we forget that God’s grace is God’s grace; that it is God’s free, personal, and beneficent disposition and action. In this article, I turn to Karl Barth to consider a way forward for interpreting the irresistible nature of grace that does not focus on its effectuality but on its theocentric, participative, and covenantal character.

At the heart of James B. Torrance’s theological project was a concern to demonstrate the importance of an evangelical account of repentance, over against a legal account. This was a concern that he inherited from John Calvin, who stood as the greatest theological influence on Torrance. Out of his respect for Calvin, Torrance did not seek to commandeer Calvin’s work on this topic for his own project. Rather, he sought to communicate Calvin’s own vision of evangelical repentance to a new generation. Accordingly, this essay will primarily devote itself to exploring Calvin’s position. Before so doing, however, I shall provide a brief analysis of the distinction between the “covenant God” and “contract God,” which underlays Torrance’s emphasis on Calvin’s distinction between legal and evangelical repentance. Also, following our exploration of Calvin, I shall look briefly at Torrance’s own account of evangelical repentance, as it followed Calvin’s trajectory.

The purpose of this essay is to explore, albeit in a very limited way, the profound importance of the concept of the person not only for the wellbeing of the church, our society and our culture, but also for the wellbeing of the academy that in so many ways and greatly to its detriment has lost sight of this massively significant element in the legacy of the Christian tradition.

This essay will be divided into three parts. First, we shall describe the contemporary challenge. Second, we shall consider insights that are highly pertinent to the analysis and critique of contemporary approaches. Third, we shall consider, albeit briefly, the emphases that Christian theology must recover here if it is to be an effective witness in the context of the threat to contemporary culture.

Kierkegaard is never more lyrical than when writing about the beauty of creation. Throughout his authorship, there are numerous passages where he waxes poetic on the natural world, whether it be on the colors of an autumn scene, a sunset, or a moonlit evening. At the same time, he also thinks that the beauty of creation runs much deeper than the attractions that appear on its surface. Beauty is not decided by the eye of the beholder; it is not simply measured by one's aesthetic sensibilities. For Kierkegaard, there is a reality to the beauty of creation; it has existence independent of the human imagination.