Everyone once and awhile I believe it’s good practice to engage in one’s own ressourcement. For me, this entails going back to a few texts that radically changed my thinking in order to read again with fresh eyes.

Two books in particular come to mind: Rowan Williams’ Arius and Peter Leithart’s Against Christianity. There are many, many more, but these two have stood out.

Arius because of his concluding chapter and his brief foray into Barth. Williams highlights some hesitations toward Barth, hesitations that I’ve had myself. Williams writes that character of apophatic theology maintains an “intimate involvement in the life of God, rather than of absolute disjunction,” or as standing over, above and against us. Williams writes that “the disjunction is there, in the fact that created sharing in the life of the divine is precisely a ceaseless growing into what is always and already greater and does not itself either grow or diminish: the fullness of the divine eludes us because it is further ‘back’ than our furthest and remotest origins, and beyond all imaginable futures” (243).

This might be to contrast theologies of God as “wholly other” vs. “interior intimo meo et superior summo meo;” German dialectical theology vs. 20th century Catholic theology of Abyssus abyssum invocate.

Leithart’s book is pithy, polemical and out to pick a fight. It’s interesting to see how certain selections, that I might have glanced over, now stand at the forefront:

“Typology is often seen as a marginal enterprise – cute, but not the stuff of serious biblical scholarship nor important to the Church’s mission. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Typology is one of the chief weapons in the Church’s war against Christianity.

Which is to say, typology is one of the chief weapons in the Church’s war against secular modernity” (58).