What do you think?
Rate this book
Gaming and the Divine: A New Systematic Theology of Video Games
This book formulates a new theological approach to the study of religion in gaming. Video games have become one of the most important cultural artifacts of modern society, both as mediators of cultural, social, and religious values and in terms of commercial success. This has led to a significant increase in the critical analysis of this relatively new medium, but theology as an academic discipline is noticeably behind the other humanities on this subject.
The book first covers the fundamentals of cultural theology and video games. It then moves on to set out a Christian systematic theology of gaming, focusing on creational theology, Christology, anthropology, evil, moral theology, and thanatology. Each chapter introduces case studies from video games connected to the specific theme. In contrast to many studies which focus on online multiplayer games, the examples considered are largely single player games with distinct narratives and 'end of game' moments. The book concludes by synthesizing these themes into a new theology of video games.
This study addresses a significant aspect of contemporary society that has yet to be discussed in any depth by theologians. It is, therefore, a fantastic resource for any scholar engaging with the religious aspects of digital and popular culture.
The book first covers the fundamentals of cultural theology and video games. It then moves on to set out a Christian systematic theology of gaming, focusing on creational theology, Christology, anthropology, evil, moral theology, and thanatology. Each chapter introduces case studies from video games connected to the specific theme. In contrast to many studies which focus on online multiplayer games, the examples considered are largely single player games with distinct narratives and 'end of game' moments. The book concludes by synthesizing these themes into a new theology of video games.
This study addresses a significant aspect of contemporary society that has yet to be discussed in any depth by theologians. It is, therefore, a fantastic resource for any scholar engaging with the religious aspects of digital and popular culture.
266 pages, ebook
Published March 4, 2019
2 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 16, 2026
Perhaps one of the most creative and bold studies I have read, Frank G. Bosman’s Gaming and The Divine: A New Systematic Theology of Video Games is a fun read with moments of theological insightfulness and interesting connections between theological principles and video game characters, quests, and stories. I am not confident, however, that Bosman’s study deserves the title of systematic theology. This is due to largely inadequate theologizing, both in terms of quantity and quality. Moreover, Bosman does not sufficiently, or at least clearly, prove his thesis; almost every chapter in this book can be a stand alone article in how disjointed each chapter is with each other and the overall argument of the book itself. Bosman’s central hypotheses, namely that “video games are genuine loci theologici: sources of God’s self-revelation as Creator (Father), Savior (Son), and Whole-maker (Spirit)” (6), and “the act of playing particular games can, in some specific cases, be interpreted as a religious act itself” (8), are only explicitly and/or extensively discussed in the beginning chapters of the book and then the conclusion. At best, Bosman has provided an introduction to systematic theology for Christian gamers who are much more familiar with video games than the tenets of their own faith; at worst, Bosman has provided a work that provides a generally Christian theological interpretation of a broad set of video games that provides more detailed analysis of video games than it does of Christian theology. This review will not touch on all aspects of Bosman’s work, but will highlight portions that I saw as significant and feasibly discussed in a Goodreads review.
One of Bosman’s central hypotheses is that video games constitute a genuine locus theologicus in that the Triune God is revealed in and through video games (6). It is important to correctly understand how Bosman is understanding loci theologici because the term has been understood differently in theological method. For Bosman, the term is understood in light of the Dominican Melchior Cano (1509–1560), and therefore “loci theologici [are to be understood as] sources of God’s self-revelation, which are — from universally accepted to highly debated — Scripture, Tradition, Creation and Culture” (7). This understanding of loci theologici is different from other, perhaps more familiar understandings to Protestants, that derive from Philip Melanchthon (whom Bosman does credit as the first to use the term). For example, Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck contends that “in Melanchthon… the term loci communes thus did not yet refer to fundamental truths but to the formal rubrics or schemes under which the truths of Scripture could appropriately be subsumed and discussed” (RD 1:27). Bavinck then goes on to Melchior Canus (same person as Melchior Cano) and explains the importance difference between Melanchthon and Canus on this point: “Melchior Canus’s famous work, which was published in 1563 under the title of Loci Theologici, does not deal with dogmatics itself but with its sources, of which there are ten: Scripture, tradition, pope, councils, church, church fathers, scholastics, reason, philosophy, history. On the other hand, numerous Lutheran and Reformed theologians, like Chemnitz, Hutter, Gerhard, Calovius, Martyr, Musculus, Hyperius, Ursinus, Maccovius, Chamier, and others, did adopt Melanchthon’s term loci communes” (RD 1:27). Bosmon thus argues that video games constitute a locus theologicus as a source of revelation from God after the manner of Canus. This will impact how he frames the relationship between nature, culture, and revelation.
Bosman’s first chapter on fundamentals to the theology of culture provides helpful orientation to the subject and introduces Bosman’s own approach. After outlining the various ways in which religion is negatively perceived in contemporary Western culture, especially in Europe, Bosman critically describes various proposals for how Christianity relates to unbelieving culture around it. Bosman specifically discusses spolia Aegyptiorum, logoi spermatikoi, preparatio Evangelica, finding God in all things, implicit theology, ultimate concern, and the signs of the times. Spolia Aegypriorumi harkens to the Exodus story wherein upon leaving Egypt, the Jews were able to take with them Egyptian gold and riches. These riches were later used both negatively and positively: fashioning the golden calf and contributing to the construction of the Tabernacle. As a theological and apologetical concept it has been used since the early church to denote the ability to appropriate truth from non-Christian philosophies and religions into the Christian system. Logoi spermatikoi denotes a similar concept, albeit more theologically and philosophically robust. Especially articulated by Justin Martyr, this concept teaches that seeds of the Logos can be found in all genuinely rational claims and positions, irrespective of their religious orientation to Christianity. Martyr in particular found such seeds in the teachings of Plato and other Greek philosophy, which actually informed his theology of the Logos. The preparatio Evangelica was once understood in a very similar way as the logoi spermatikoi, however, in contemporary theological approaches to culture, it denotes more of an active process that non-Christian religions go through as they approach truthful, albeit incomplete, conceptions of divinity. “Finding God in all things” refers to the theological cultural approach of Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits. “When applied to the domain of cultural theology, Ignatius’s adage to find God in all things is very appropriate to understand that God’s love, beauty and truth can be found everywhere, since everything that exists longs to bear witness to its divine source” (24). Although this approach sounds good in theory, in practice it has been difficult to fully implement without over-capitulating to non-Christian religions and cultures. “Implicit theology” refers to the theological approaches to culture of both Jurgen Moltmann and Paul Tillich. Moltmann’s approach is rather straightforward: any and all cultures have a theology and it is the task of the theologian to affirm what is true and good and to deny what is false and evil. This task is particularly shaped by political and social liberation and its concrete manifestations in culture. For Tillich, whose theological project is built upon the relationship between theology and culture (i.e., correlation), it is the task of the theologian to relate the teachings of Christianity to whatever the “ultimate concerns” (which are existentially inflected) of his culture are. Bosman appraises Tillich for not “Christianizing” other religious beliefs (the error of logoi spermatikoi and the “anonymous Christian” of Karl Rahner, according to Bosman), while also not defaulting to a pure religious pluralism: “On the one hand, Tillich refrains from interpreting everything good and true outside Christian tradition as being covertly still Christian and, on the other hand, refrains from stipulating that all religions are equal per se. Tillich seems to suggest that God’s goodness and grace can be found everywhere people are contemplating their own existential motives but that Christians are especially able to identify this. In other words, God is to be found everywhere in our culture but is mostly unnoticed by artists, politicians, economists, and the like. The task of the theologian is to pinpoint this hidden God, equipped as he is by his Christian supposition” (27). As we will see, Bosman will take up Tillich’s approach more than the others, especially in the shared emphasis on God as hidden. The final approach to culture that Bosman addresses is “signs of the times,” a phrase that comes from Jesus’s own teaching regarding his second coming (Matthew 16 and 23), but is appropriated by Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes to denote “those events or phenomena in human history which, in a sense, because of their impact or extent, define the face of a period, and bring to expression particular needs and aspiration of humanity at that time” (this definition comes from a later document curated by the International Theological Commission in 2011 that clarifies what exactly Vatican II meant by the phrase). Bosman seems to approve of this approach, although he does frame it in Tillich terms (28).
For Bosman’s own approach, he juxtaposes Deus abitus and Deus incognitus. The former denotes the departed God while the latter denotes the hidden God. Bosman argues that it is not that God has departed his creation, but rather is hidden in it and through it. “Instead of speaking about a God having left, a Deus abitus, I suggest speaking of a hidden God, a Deus incognitus, only noticeable for those who have the ability to recognize Him” (31). The hiddenness of God can apply to a religious context and a theological context. For us, Bosman’s explanation of the theological context is more important: “the notion of the Deus incognitus denotes two fundamental theological propositions and requires one supposition. The required supposition is the acceptance of our reality as a created reality, thus preventing a natural theology in which the existence of God could be argued for on rational grounds only. The two propositions of the Deus incognitus are (1) God’s self-revelation is not finished in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ and (2) God’s continuing self-revelation can be traced within and outside Christian tradition, both within an explicit religious context and outside of such a context” (32). The goals and intent of Bosman here are to be applauded, but his model is insufficient and problematic in several ways.
Unfortunately, the middle chapters of the book generally discuss video games in greater depth than the theological loci that Bosman is supposedly focusing on. For example, Bosman’s chapter “Homo roboticus” devotes around sixteen pages to discussing depictions of AI in the Talos Principle and The Turing Test, but then only three pages to how AI relates to the imago Dei. Similarly, Bosman’s chapter “Game Over” spends over twenty pages elaborating on Bosman’s taxonomy of death in video games, with six pages of explicit theological discussion on sin and death, which is also inadequate in terms of content, something that is addressed below. Moreover, Bosman’s chapter on ethics, “The wicked problem of being alive”, has no explicit theological discussion at all (150–168), and is solely an exposition of morality systems in various video games. To be fair, “Kyrie eleison”, Bosman’s chapter on theodicy and the problem of evil, more consistently interweaves video game exposition and theological reflection. The structure of this chapter, however, is at variance with the majority of all other chapters, which have the basic format of the majority of a chapter being given to video game analysis and then theological application/reflection. Some chapters do this better than others (the theomorphism and christophorism chapters), while others do this poorly (the chapters on AI and ethics).
As mentioned above, some of the explicitly theological sections are inadequate in terms of content. Bosman’s treatment of the doctrine of sin is one such section (192–198). In this section, Bosman discusses death as the result of Adam’s sin, death as the result of individual sins, and death as defeated by Christ on the cross. In his discussion of original sin, Bosman cites Romans 5:12 as a locus classicus supporting original sin, but then associates the Augustinian understanding of original sin on a faulty translation from the Vulgate (192). Bosman (rather naively) cites the English translation (unspecified by Bosman): “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Bosman then states that “the preceding quoted text is a good translation of the Greek original: death spread to all man, because everyone sinned. Adam was just the first one to sin, and therefore to die, but every man and woman also individually sinned, and therefore died” (192). Bosman thus interprets Romans 5:12 as self-evidently individualistic, agreeing with the apparently modern interpretation of the doctrine of individual sin too:
“‘Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come’. Although, as we have seen, the death of every individual human is frequently connected to the fault of Adam and Eve, modern interpretations argue that death is upon us all because of our individual behavior and not because of our Adamic nature…. Every individual dies, not because of Adam’s sin but because every human being sins individually” (194).
Although Bosman gives some further explanation concerning the Augustinian understanding of original sin, especially as it relates to sexuality and procreation (193), Bosman quickly moves to modern conceptions of original sin that emphasize numerous areas of human existence affected by sin that humans are born into and are thereby themselves affected and influenced by sin (e.g., environmental pollution, corruption political regimes, economic destitution, etc.).
In his discussion of the final context for sin, namely how sin and death are defeated by Christ on the cross, Bosman elects to forgo the parallel issues between Adam and Christ, especially as it relates to justification (196). Moreover, Bosman does provide a brief discussion that acknowledges the potential parallels and analogies between death in a video game and Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. This would be interesting, but Bosman’s discussion is only about one page long.
It is alarming that Bosman’s discussion of sin in its three contexts seems to betray a Pelagian tendency; Bosman seems to prefer such a strong discontinuity from Adam’s nature to individual humans that the main conduits of relationship are influence, not imputation or propagation. Moreover, it is not self-evident at all that the Greek of Romans 5:12 favors an individualistic reading. In fact, taken in its whole context, Paul’s login necessitates the Augustinian view of original sin, especially as it is received and understood within the Reformed tradition. It makes sense that Bosman, who is a Roman Catholic, does not adhere to a strong view of original sin that is characteristic of Calvinistic/Reformed positions, but it is still alarming nonetheless that he seems to prefer a modern interpretation of the doctrine that is reminiscent of Pelagianism, or at least semi-Pelagianism. At least, Bosman should have elaborated much more on this doctrine to clarify his own position.
An interesting and more helpful theological discussion Bosman offers (albeit still brief) is his notion of digital iconoclasm, which is his proposed way of how Christians ought to interpret video games that level criticisms at religion in general and Christianity in particular. In essence, digital iconoclasm denotes a dispositional approach to critiques of Christianity that do address legitimate problems in the history of Christianity (e.g., religious justification for violence, slavery, and abuse), and allows the critiques to destroy distortions of the faith. Bosman fits digital iconoclasm within the notion of semper reformata, that the church is to always be reforming, sharpening its doctrinal articulations and improving its moral witness to the world.
As mentioned in the beginning of this review, the concluding chapter is where Bosman returns to his hypotheses, now working the content he has covered into them. I found this structure to be unhelpful; it would have been much better for each chapter to have an explicit argument that included his main hypotheses. Despite this structure, I broadly agree with Bosman’s conclusions, albeit I would frame them with different theological vocabulary and concepts that I think are more appropriate (e.g., loci theologici as discussed above). Out of the two conclusions, Bosman could have discussed the religious/ritual nature of playing games much more extensively. Bosman does offer an interesting discussion regarding the sacramental nature of playing video games, wherein he proposes that since video games are legitimate loci theologici (as he has defined the term), then there is a broad sense in which video games are sacraments through which God’s self-revelation is transferred and sanctifying mysteries are able to be communicated (256). I am still convinced that a strong understanding of general revelation found within the Reformed tradition is a better framework for understanding the revelatory quality of video games (and everything else in creation and culture), but the sacramental framework does at least more directly explain specifically redemptive notions that can be communicated through video games, which speaks to the complexity of how general revelation and special revelation relate in a culture that is broadly influenced by Christian values.
In the end, Bosman’s book is a fun but imperfect read. There are some chapters that are very beneficial to the more theologically-interested reader, and there are some chapters that are more beneficial for the gamer-oriented reader. Perhaps this was intentional, but as someone adept in theology and familiar with, and perhaps somewhat skilled in, gaming, I found the theological component of this work largely wanting. Nonetheless, Gaming and The Divine remains an essential contribution to thinking theologically about video games and will function as a platform for future research in this area, which is a laudable achievement.
One of Bosman’s central hypotheses is that video games constitute a genuine locus theologicus in that the Triune God is revealed in and through video games (6). It is important to correctly understand how Bosman is understanding loci theologici because the term has been understood differently in theological method. For Bosman, the term is understood in light of the Dominican Melchior Cano (1509–1560), and therefore “loci theologici [are to be understood as] sources of God’s self-revelation, which are — from universally accepted to highly debated — Scripture, Tradition, Creation and Culture” (7). This understanding of loci theologici is different from other, perhaps more familiar understandings to Protestants, that derive from Philip Melanchthon (whom Bosman does credit as the first to use the term). For example, Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck contends that “in Melanchthon… the term loci communes thus did not yet refer to fundamental truths but to the formal rubrics or schemes under which the truths of Scripture could appropriately be subsumed and discussed” (RD 1:27). Bavinck then goes on to Melchior Canus (same person as Melchior Cano) and explains the importance difference between Melanchthon and Canus on this point: “Melchior Canus’s famous work, which was published in 1563 under the title of Loci Theologici, does not deal with dogmatics itself but with its sources, of which there are ten: Scripture, tradition, pope, councils, church, church fathers, scholastics, reason, philosophy, history. On the other hand, numerous Lutheran and Reformed theologians, like Chemnitz, Hutter, Gerhard, Calovius, Martyr, Musculus, Hyperius, Ursinus, Maccovius, Chamier, and others, did adopt Melanchthon’s term loci communes” (RD 1:27). Bosmon thus argues that video games constitute a locus theologicus as a source of revelation from God after the manner of Canus. This will impact how he frames the relationship between nature, culture, and revelation.
Bosman’s first chapter on fundamentals to the theology of culture provides helpful orientation to the subject and introduces Bosman’s own approach. After outlining the various ways in which religion is negatively perceived in contemporary Western culture, especially in Europe, Bosman critically describes various proposals for how Christianity relates to unbelieving culture around it. Bosman specifically discusses spolia Aegyptiorum, logoi spermatikoi, preparatio Evangelica, finding God in all things, implicit theology, ultimate concern, and the signs of the times. Spolia Aegypriorumi harkens to the Exodus story wherein upon leaving Egypt, the Jews were able to take with them Egyptian gold and riches. These riches were later used both negatively and positively: fashioning the golden calf and contributing to the construction of the Tabernacle. As a theological and apologetical concept it has been used since the early church to denote the ability to appropriate truth from non-Christian philosophies and religions into the Christian system. Logoi spermatikoi denotes a similar concept, albeit more theologically and philosophically robust. Especially articulated by Justin Martyr, this concept teaches that seeds of the Logos can be found in all genuinely rational claims and positions, irrespective of their religious orientation to Christianity. Martyr in particular found such seeds in the teachings of Plato and other Greek philosophy, which actually informed his theology of the Logos. The preparatio Evangelica was once understood in a very similar way as the logoi spermatikoi, however, in contemporary theological approaches to culture, it denotes more of an active process that non-Christian religions go through as they approach truthful, albeit incomplete, conceptions of divinity. “Finding God in all things” refers to the theological cultural approach of Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits. “When applied to the domain of cultural theology, Ignatius’s adage to find God in all things is very appropriate to understand that God’s love, beauty and truth can be found everywhere, since everything that exists longs to bear witness to its divine source” (24). Although this approach sounds good in theory, in practice it has been difficult to fully implement without over-capitulating to non-Christian religions and cultures. “Implicit theology” refers to the theological approaches to culture of both Jurgen Moltmann and Paul Tillich. Moltmann’s approach is rather straightforward: any and all cultures have a theology and it is the task of the theologian to affirm what is true and good and to deny what is false and evil. This task is particularly shaped by political and social liberation and its concrete manifestations in culture. For Tillich, whose theological project is built upon the relationship between theology and culture (i.e., correlation), it is the task of the theologian to relate the teachings of Christianity to whatever the “ultimate concerns” (which are existentially inflected) of his culture are. Bosman appraises Tillich for not “Christianizing” other religious beliefs (the error of logoi spermatikoi and the “anonymous Christian” of Karl Rahner, according to Bosman), while also not defaulting to a pure religious pluralism: “On the one hand, Tillich refrains from interpreting everything good and true outside Christian tradition as being covertly still Christian and, on the other hand, refrains from stipulating that all religions are equal per se. Tillich seems to suggest that God’s goodness and grace can be found everywhere people are contemplating their own existential motives but that Christians are especially able to identify this. In other words, God is to be found everywhere in our culture but is mostly unnoticed by artists, politicians, economists, and the like. The task of the theologian is to pinpoint this hidden God, equipped as he is by his Christian supposition” (27). As we will see, Bosman will take up Tillich’s approach more than the others, especially in the shared emphasis on God as hidden. The final approach to culture that Bosman addresses is “signs of the times,” a phrase that comes from Jesus’s own teaching regarding his second coming (Matthew 16 and 23), but is appropriated by Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes to denote “those events or phenomena in human history which, in a sense, because of their impact or extent, define the face of a period, and bring to expression particular needs and aspiration of humanity at that time” (this definition comes from a later document curated by the International Theological Commission in 2011 that clarifies what exactly Vatican II meant by the phrase). Bosman seems to approve of this approach, although he does frame it in Tillich terms (28).
For Bosman’s own approach, he juxtaposes Deus abitus and Deus incognitus. The former denotes the departed God while the latter denotes the hidden God. Bosman argues that it is not that God has departed his creation, but rather is hidden in it and through it. “Instead of speaking about a God having left, a Deus abitus, I suggest speaking of a hidden God, a Deus incognitus, only noticeable for those who have the ability to recognize Him” (31). The hiddenness of God can apply to a religious context and a theological context. For us, Bosman’s explanation of the theological context is more important: “the notion of the Deus incognitus denotes two fundamental theological propositions and requires one supposition. The required supposition is the acceptance of our reality as a created reality, thus preventing a natural theology in which the existence of God could be argued for on rational grounds only. The two propositions of the Deus incognitus are (1) God’s self-revelation is not finished in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ and (2) God’s continuing self-revelation can be traced within and outside Christian tradition, both within an explicit religious context and outside of such a context” (32). The goals and intent of Bosman here are to be applauded, but his model is insufficient and problematic in several ways.
Unfortunately, the middle chapters of the book generally discuss video games in greater depth than the theological loci that Bosman is supposedly focusing on. For example, Bosman’s chapter “Homo roboticus” devotes around sixteen pages to discussing depictions of AI in the Talos Principle and The Turing Test, but then only three pages to how AI relates to the imago Dei. Similarly, Bosman’s chapter “Game Over” spends over twenty pages elaborating on Bosman’s taxonomy of death in video games, with six pages of explicit theological discussion on sin and death, which is also inadequate in terms of content, something that is addressed below. Moreover, Bosman’s chapter on ethics, “The wicked problem of being alive”, has no explicit theological discussion at all (150–168), and is solely an exposition of morality systems in various video games. To be fair, “Kyrie eleison”, Bosman’s chapter on theodicy and the problem of evil, more consistently interweaves video game exposition and theological reflection. The structure of this chapter, however, is at variance with the majority of all other chapters, which have the basic format of the majority of a chapter being given to video game analysis and then theological application/reflection. Some chapters do this better than others (the theomorphism and christophorism chapters), while others do this poorly (the chapters on AI and ethics).
As mentioned above, some of the explicitly theological sections are inadequate in terms of content. Bosman’s treatment of the doctrine of sin is one such section (192–198). In this section, Bosman discusses death as the result of Adam’s sin, death as the result of individual sins, and death as defeated by Christ on the cross. In his discussion of original sin, Bosman cites Romans 5:12 as a locus classicus supporting original sin, but then associates the Augustinian understanding of original sin on a faulty translation from the Vulgate (192). Bosman (rather naively) cites the English translation (unspecified by Bosman): “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Bosman then states that “the preceding quoted text is a good translation of the Greek original: death spread to all man, because everyone sinned. Adam was just the first one to sin, and therefore to die, but every man and woman also individually sinned, and therefore died” (192). Bosman thus interprets Romans 5:12 as self-evidently individualistic, agreeing with the apparently modern interpretation of the doctrine of individual sin too:
“‘Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come’. Although, as we have seen, the death of every individual human is frequently connected to the fault of Adam and Eve, modern interpretations argue that death is upon us all because of our individual behavior and not because of our Adamic nature…. Every individual dies, not because of Adam’s sin but because every human being sins individually” (194).
Although Bosman gives some further explanation concerning the Augustinian understanding of original sin, especially as it relates to sexuality and procreation (193), Bosman quickly moves to modern conceptions of original sin that emphasize numerous areas of human existence affected by sin that humans are born into and are thereby themselves affected and influenced by sin (e.g., environmental pollution, corruption political regimes, economic destitution, etc.).
In his discussion of the final context for sin, namely how sin and death are defeated by Christ on the cross, Bosman elects to forgo the parallel issues between Adam and Christ, especially as it relates to justification (196). Moreover, Bosman does provide a brief discussion that acknowledges the potential parallels and analogies between death in a video game and Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. This would be interesting, but Bosman’s discussion is only about one page long.
It is alarming that Bosman’s discussion of sin in its three contexts seems to betray a Pelagian tendency; Bosman seems to prefer such a strong discontinuity from Adam’s nature to individual humans that the main conduits of relationship are influence, not imputation or propagation. Moreover, it is not self-evident at all that the Greek of Romans 5:12 favors an individualistic reading. In fact, taken in its whole context, Paul’s login necessitates the Augustinian view of original sin, especially as it is received and understood within the Reformed tradition. It makes sense that Bosman, who is a Roman Catholic, does not adhere to a strong view of original sin that is characteristic of Calvinistic/Reformed positions, but it is still alarming nonetheless that he seems to prefer a modern interpretation of the doctrine that is reminiscent of Pelagianism, or at least semi-Pelagianism. At least, Bosman should have elaborated much more on this doctrine to clarify his own position.
An interesting and more helpful theological discussion Bosman offers (albeit still brief) is his notion of digital iconoclasm, which is his proposed way of how Christians ought to interpret video games that level criticisms at religion in general and Christianity in particular. In essence, digital iconoclasm denotes a dispositional approach to critiques of Christianity that do address legitimate problems in the history of Christianity (e.g., religious justification for violence, slavery, and abuse), and allows the critiques to destroy distortions of the faith. Bosman fits digital iconoclasm within the notion of semper reformata, that the church is to always be reforming, sharpening its doctrinal articulations and improving its moral witness to the world.
As mentioned in the beginning of this review, the concluding chapter is where Bosman returns to his hypotheses, now working the content he has covered into them. I found this structure to be unhelpful; it would have been much better for each chapter to have an explicit argument that included his main hypotheses. Despite this structure, I broadly agree with Bosman’s conclusions, albeit I would frame them with different theological vocabulary and concepts that I think are more appropriate (e.g., loci theologici as discussed above). Out of the two conclusions, Bosman could have discussed the religious/ritual nature of playing games much more extensively. Bosman does offer an interesting discussion regarding the sacramental nature of playing video games, wherein he proposes that since video games are legitimate loci theologici (as he has defined the term), then there is a broad sense in which video games are sacraments through which God’s self-revelation is transferred and sanctifying mysteries are able to be communicated (256). I am still convinced that a strong understanding of general revelation found within the Reformed tradition is a better framework for understanding the revelatory quality of video games (and everything else in creation and culture), but the sacramental framework does at least more directly explain specifically redemptive notions that can be communicated through video games, which speaks to the complexity of how general revelation and special revelation relate in a culture that is broadly influenced by Christian values.
In the end, Bosman’s book is a fun but imperfect read. There are some chapters that are very beneficial to the more theologically-interested reader, and there are some chapters that are more beneficial for the gamer-oriented reader. Perhaps this was intentional, but as someone adept in theology and familiar with, and perhaps somewhat skilled in, gaming, I found the theological component of this work largely wanting. Nonetheless, Gaming and The Divine remains an essential contribution to thinking theologically about video games and will function as a platform for future research in this area, which is a laudable achievement.
Displaying 1 of 1 review