Within the context of contemporary art history where there was so
much critical bias against figuration I would have to agree that it was indeed heroic.
Not exact matches
Its imagistic character means it stands as a corrective to the
bias of
much constructive theology toward conceptual clarity, often at the price of imagistic richness.11 Although it would be insufficient to rest in new images and to refuse to spell out conceptually their implications in as comprehensive a way as possible, the more
critical task is to propose what Dennis Nineham calls a «lively imaginative picture» of the way God and the world as we know it are related (Nineham, 201 - 2).
The Christian Century's series, by example and not by intent, continues by and large to hold up this truncated model of a less - than -
critical theology which proceeds without
much awareness of its own class
bias.
We have done
much the same in these pages, but have attempted to sidestep the
critical consensus by honoring the idiosyncrasy of our writers and wholeheartedly supporting our
bias for the old over the new.
I have found from
much lesser edified posts here that there is little (but not no) need for apology, since
much of the
critical comment stems from
bias or ignorance.