Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T19:54:59.057Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Evils of Theodicy. Author's Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Laffey is uncomfortable with “speech-act theory of literary criticism.” So am I, especially in the philosophically confused and uncritical forms as exemplified by some of the essays in Speech Act Theory and Biblical Criticism, Semeia 41, ed. White, Hugh C. (Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1988).Google Scholar

2 I take this phrase from Sharon Welch, who brilliantly explores some womanist literature to uncover the strength of and in oppressed communities as a way of developing a viable theological alternative to an ethic of control in A Feminist Ethic of Risk (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990).Google Scholar

3 As a married male, is it too much in my own interest to note that in our tradition, even married males (unless they are conservative converting clergy) are also excluded from “ministry,” and thus males are socialized into one form of exclusionary oppression?

4 This might be construed as making central and rethinking the distinction between operating and co-operating grace (see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Ia-IIae,q. 111, art. 2).