Apophaticism has become quite fashionable, for political as well as philosophical reasons: political, because apophaticism opens up space between God and oppressive God-talk; and philosophical, because apophaticism provides theological warrant for embracing our Kantian limits. A correlate fashion has been to broaden our sense of who belongs to the ‘apophatic tradition’ – and Thomas Aquinas has been one of the favourite candidates for such reconsideration. Contrary to this trend, I argue that apophaticism is not a ‘rule’ for Thomas – far from it. Apophaticism is, ironically, one of the steps in Thomas's strategy to assemble the conceptual resources necessary for making positive statements about God. That strategy, in brief, consists of five moves: first, Thomas provisionally defines ‘God’ as the sufficient cause of certain effects ascribed to God; second, using the via negativa to rule out whatever is incompatible with a ‘God’ so specified, he argues that God-in-Godself can be identified with ‘God’; third, Thomas identifies ‘being’ as the common term between God and creatures (which is licit because, Thomas claims, being is not a genus); fourth, he argues that all beings tend toward their perfection, and that God is this perfection; and fifth, he concludes that this tendency-toward-God funds the making of meaningful, positive statements about God-in-Godself.

In recent years feminists and others have taken issue with traditional understandings of the atonement. Part of their criticism has been the assertion that to glorify Christ's suffering entails glorifying all suffering, a connection that potentially leads to abusive behaviour. Suffering, they claim, is not redemptive – ever. In this article I argue that, based on the biblical text, at least one instance of suffering, the suffering of Christ, is redemptive. In addition, I argue that redemptive suffering is unique to Christ. Human suffering is not redemptive and should not be spoken of in those terms.

Poststructural emphasis on the intertextual character of texts appears to threaten the integrity of texts, opening them to a dizzying infinite variety of meanings. One might respond by trying to shore up the boundaries around texts, but it is undeniable that texts take their meaning by harmonising with other texts. How can this dilemma be resolved? Using jokes as a paradigm, the paper defends the notion that texts are ‘porous’. A text has its own integrity and specific meaning, but the boundaries between text and text are permeable. In dialogue with Kevin Vanhoozer, I argue that texts must be permeable if they are to have meaning at all. Jokes only work when the hearer has relevant information from outside the joke itself. The porosity of texts does not destroy authorial intention; the joker intends for the hearer to bring outside information to bear on the text. In these senses, every text is a joke, and a good interpreter knows the information from outside the text and has the wit to know what information is relevant. Good interpretation is always a matter of ‘getting it’.

This essay explores the emphasis on habitus in contemporary approaches to theological education, particularly as developed in the recent volume Educating Clergy. Attention is given to the roots of the concept in the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu, and how it is developed in the work of Talal Asad, in order to illustrate why habitus is frequently emphasised as a helpful way to bridge the gap between theory and practice, knowledge and the good life. The analysis demonstrates a number of weaknesses in the concept, both from a practical and theological perspective. It uncovers some guiding presuppositions about the nature of ‘religion’ in Educating Clergy, which highlights the lack of homogeneity in the concept of habitus, as well as the fact that it is epistemologically ambivalent. The discussion serves to demonstrate the need for theological education to attend to the norms and sources which provide the critical leverage with which to evaluate differing habits and dispositions.

In both world wars, Lutherans of German origin in Australia were used as scapegoats by the government, as that church and its people were regarded as German and therefore a safely bounded object for spite. South Australia, the heartland of Lutheranism, was especially attacked, some pastors and long-settled citizens being interned, restricted and otherwise rejected: actual worship was also affected. The traumatic effects have lasted until now in rural communities such as ‘Hope’, the subject of long-term anthropological research by the writer. These effects are not merely personal, which are grim enough, but inevitably, in deeply religious communities with limited sacred–secular split, also theological. However, given the understandable yet unacceptable unwillingness of the church to face the past, the consequences are ignored. This article argues that crises, whether natural, the result of war, or of wrong behaviour by church officers, are present in every church context through the past to the contemporary world, as is the tendency to ignore the impact in favour of maintaining the institution. The lasting theological effects on laity and clergy should be acknowledged and acted upon in training and ministry for many years after the events, whether they resulted from the behaviour of one person in a parish or an entire government or empire. This may mean accepting the implications of locality for lived theology.

In 2003, the year he was consecrated bishop of Durham, Tom Wright published his magisterial work The Resurrection of the Son of God. This volume of more than 800 pages is a monumental defence of the reality of the resurrection. Immensely learned and circumspect, the book impresses the reader with its academic and theological passion. In my view, Bishop Wright has succeeded in building a theological cathedral of illuminating historical insights, convincing and surprising exegetical observations, and thoroughly argued systematic conclusions. No prophetic intuition is needed to predict that this book will remain a classic among the writings which stimulate further thinking and discourse about this most important and highly controversial topic of faith.