9 thoughts on “Introducing Žižek and Theology

  1. Adam, cheesy as it may seem, I am very proud of you…like just overwhelmed.

    You know, all of you folks are finishing up programs, and have always been doing incredible work, so I shouldn’t be that surprised when I see something like this, but this is still a really amazing shock, and a gift. So, congratulations.

  2. Adam, the cover is perfect and your blog post lays out a very compelling case for the necessity and distinctiveness of your book. (And I say this as someone who has taken a sabbatical of sorts from Zizek over the past couple of years.) I look forward to reading it. And I’m still impressed that you only mentioned it after it was a done deal.

  3. This book looks fantastic. I’m especially excited to see the section on Bonhoeffer – can you offer any hints on the direction you’ll be taking it? Also, the cover is tops. Does it have to do with the gap between cognitive science and mental phenomena that he talks about in the Parralax View?

  4. Adam –

    Are you going to be talking much about the actual theologians that Zizek depends on for his ideas? I’ve just read through the Puppet and the Dwarf, and it seems that much of what Zizek is saying about the gap between us and God being transferred into the being of God himself, Christ as Job, and so forth, could be quotes straight out of Moltmann and Jungel. I suppose this could be their mutual dependence on Hegel. But I have no way to tell. Thoughts? Or do I have to wait?

  5. Adam S. and Adam K.:

    When Zizek was here at Vanderbilt, he was doing his Hegel thing with the Trinity and I said to him: “You know, that’s already been said before, exactly like that.” He said, “Oh?!” (Really — that was his reaction.) I told him that he should read Jurgen Moltmann’s The Crucified God. He did not even know Moltmann’s name. He did say, however, that he would read it.

  6. “He did not even know Moltmann’s name.” Yowser! I feel like in a sense it shouldn’t, but it sort of bothers me that something could be called political theology that doesn’t actually engage with any “card-carrying” theologians. Maybe Chesterton is a theologian, but there’s only so much mileage you can get out of him.

Comments are closed.