Duncan Reyburn's Unorthodoxy Duncan Reyburn

You can support my work here (if you'd like to): patreon.com/unorthodoxy 
Subscribe to my substack: duncanreyburn.substack.com

Some reflections on the nature of the demon called liberalism. See also: https://duncanreyburn.substack.com/p/when-the-dragon-eats-the-knight

In a strange but philosophically potent story told in the Hebrew Bible, God gives his prophet Hosea some rather odd instructions. God commands Hosea to take for himself a wife of “whoredom” and to raise “children of whoredom” (Hosea 1:2). Hosea will be committed to a focused point of attention. He will be a symbol of the monogamy that loves and cherishes one woman no matter what. But his wife Gomer will remain promiscuous and inattentive. Because she will always look elsewhere for companionship, she will never love very deeply and she will struggle perpetually to receive love. As we'll explore in this episode, this story is mainly about worship. It symbolises the way meaning is made manifest depending on how we attend to reality. In a sense, attention is reality. What we worship determines what sort of meaning we’ll find.

Available in text here: https://duncanreyburn.substack.com/p/to-render-identity-consumable

A recording of a paper delivered during an online conference, Philosophical Theologies in South Africa (hosted by Hugenote Kollege) on 24 March 2022.
Abstract: At the very end of his book Orthodoxy (1908), G. K. Chesterton makes a claim regarding the “pathos” of Christ, which was “natural,” and “almost casual.” However, Chesterton contends that one dimension of Christ’s pathos remained remarkably hidden, namely his “mirth.” The word “mirth” is quite literally the last word of that book. Because we have no record of Jesus laughing in the Gospels, just as we have no idea what he actually looked like, this conclusion is offered as a matter of fancy. It is perhaps not unexpected that Chesterton would say this, though, given his own personality and inclinations. Those familiar with his work will recognise his association with joy and humour. Since Chesterton offers no explicit justification, however, the question remains open as to whether there may be more than a merely subjective reason for it. Perhaps it is possible to account for such a conclusion on a philosophical and theological basis. My aim is to do that in this paper. More particularly, I want to articulate how there is, in Chesterton’s writings—especially exemplified in his novel The Man Who Was Thursday (1907)—a kind of incarnational phenomenology at work that allows him to reconcile other more explicit dimensions of Christ’s pathos with an undisclosed mirthful exuberance. 

A lecture on a foundation for critical thinking.