This book examines the relationship between divine in/activity and human agency in the five books of the Megilloth-the books of Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther. As works of literature dating to the early Second Temple period (ca. 6th-3rd centuries BCE), these books and the implicit interpretation of these particular themes reflect the diverse cultural and theological dynamics of the time. Megan Fullerton Strollo contends that the themes themselves as well as the correlation between them should be interpreted as implicit theology insofar as they represent reflective interpretation of earlier theological traditions. With regard to divine in/activity, she argues that the Megilloth presents a certain level of skepticism or critical analysis of the Deity. From doubt to protest, the books of the Megilloth grapple with received traditions of divine providence and present experiences of absence, abandonment, and distance. As a correlative to divine in/activity, human agency is presented as consequential. In addition, the portrayal of human agency serves as a theological response insofar as the books advance the theme through specific references to and reevaluations of earlier theocentric traditions.

This volume puts Barth and liberation theologies in critical and constructive conversation. With incisive essays from a range of noted scholars, it forges new connections between Barth's expansive corpus and the multifaceted world of Christian liberation theology. It shows how Barth and liberation theologians can help us to make sense of - and perhaps even to respond to - some of the most pressing issues of our day: race and racism in the United States; changing understandings of sex, gender, and sexuality; the ongoing degradation of the ecosphere; the relationship between faith, theological reflection, and the arts; the challenge of decolonizing Christian thought; and ecclesial and political life in the Global South.

In The Peaceable Kingdom Stanley Hauerwas claims that "to begin by asking what is the relation between theology and ethics is to have already made a mistake." Hauerwas's claim, and his contribution toward a socially constituted and historically embodied account of the moral life and moral reason, are often charged with sectarianism, relativism, and tribalism. Emmanuel Katongole defends Hauerwas's dismissal of the traditional philosophical "problem" of the relation between ethics and religion. It is, he argues, part of Hauerwas's wider attempt to set aside the dominant Kantian moral tradition. Standard fare in moral philosophy, inspired by that tradition, fosters a highly formal, ahistorical view of ethics that does not do justice to our experience of ourselves as moral agents.