DOCSLIB.ORG

The Cross of Reality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Cross of Reality Introduction Toward the end of his life, in a letter written on April 30, 1944, Dietrich Bonhoeffer posed the question that may well serve as a summary of his life and his theology: “What keeps gnawing at me is the question, what is Christianity, or who is Christ actually for us today?”1 From beginning to end, Christology was the driving force that gave shape to Bonhoeffer’s theology,2 marked by an intense 1. This is from the April 30, 1944 letter to Eberhard Bethge, in which Bonhoeffer begins reflecting on “non-religious interpretation of Christianity,” and is included in his final Letters (DBWE 8:362). While this has long been recognized as a decisive and Papers from Prison statement for understanding Bonhoeffer’s prison reflections, it must be emphasized that it does not represent a new departure in his thinking; rather, it is the culmination all of his thinking up to this point, bringing to clear expression the driving center of his entire theological enterprise. An example of this can be seen in that long before this question was posed, he raised a similar question in 1928 at the beginning of his career: “What does the cross say to us today?” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, – (DBWE 10:358). Barcelona, Berlin, New York, 1928 1931 2. From John Godsey’s earliest interpretive reflections to Ralf Wüstenberg’s more recent comments, the key to understanding Bonhoeffer’s theology and witness is Christology. According to Godsey, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer 264, “The unifying element in Bonhoeffer’s theology is his Christology, and it is precisely the Christology that impelled his theological development.” In fact, “for Bonhoeffer theology was essentially Christology” (ibid.). “It is his Christological concentration, that is, his meditation upon and understanding of the person and work of the living Christ, which accounts for his drive toward concretion. In fact, the Christocentric focus and the demand that revelation be concrete are characteristics of Bonhoeffer’s theology from the beginning, but it is his understanding of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ which develops and thus provides the real clue to the development within his theology itself” (265). Developing that same line of thought, Wüstenberg, after noting the misinterpretations of the 1960s, says they failed “to take into account how profoundly his theology was informed by his Christology. Ignoring the christological center in Bonhoeffer’s theology inevitably means misconstruing him altogether.” 1 THE CROSS OF REALITY concentration on the person Jesus and the cross. In both his life and his theology, Bonhoeffer was concerned to give expression to the presence of the living Christ in the world. Bonhoeffer’s question is our question. Each generation of Christian believers, indeed every believer, must answer that question for themselves, which is what the church has been doing for nearly two thousand years. Reflecting on the biblical witness, the early church spent centuries sorting out the various answers to that question. The answer Bonhoeffer arrives at is a particular Christology, shaped by the tradition with which he identified. It was on based solidly on Luther’s (theology of the cross), with the theologia crucis (communication of attributes) at its center.3 communicatio idiomatum When seen from this perspective, his Christology became the definition of all reality in his and came to full expression as Ethics etsi (as if there were no God)4 in the theological letters deus non daretur from Tegel prison, where he was imprisoned after his arrest in 1943. While finding his answer in Luther’s , at the same theologia crucis time Bonhoeffer recognized the difference between Luther’s time and his own. In the same letter, he acknowledges that the time of religion is past. “We are approaching a completely religionless age; people as they are now simply cannot be religious anymore. Even those who honestly describe themselves as ‘religious’ aren’t really practicing that at all; they presumably mean something quite different by ‘religious.’” In fact, “the foundations are being pulled out from (“‘Religionless Christianity:’ Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Tegel Theology,” in Bonhoeffer for a New , ed. John de Gruchy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 58. Day: Theology in a Time of Transition 3. For an analysis of this point in Luther’s theology, see Johann Anselm Steiger, “The as the Axle and Motor of Luther’s Theology,” Communicatio Idiomatum Lutheran Quarterly 19 (2000): 125–58; Dennis Ngien, “Chalcedonian Christology and Beyond: Luther’s Understanding of the ,” 45 (2004): 54–68; and Neal J. Communicatio Idiomatum Heythrop Journal Anthony, (Eugene, Cross Narratives: Martin Luther’s Christology and the Location of Redemption OR: Pickwick, 2010), esp. ch. 3. 4. DBWE 8:476. 2 INTRODUCTION under all that ‘Christianity’ has previously been for us, and the only people among whom we might end up in terms of ‘religion’ are ‘the last of the knights’ or a few intellectually dishonest people.”5 This means that Bonhoeffer’s goal was not simply to replicate Luther’s theology; however, what he finds in Luther is the key to unlocking the church’s witness for this new time. Seen in this light, the challenging and, to some, disturbing thoughts at the end of his life, rather than marking a decisive break from his earlier theological formulations, were the culmination of his theological orientation. Because God in Christ is never absent or detached from the world but is intimately involved with the world, Bonhoeffer’s theology was always contextual. He never dealt with the traditions of the church simply as doctrines to be handed down from one generation to the next as if they were entities separated from the lives of people and of daily living; Christian doctrine, if it was to be true to Christ, was to be placed in the service of Christian living. This, in turn, necessitated giving attention to matters like reality and the world, which for Bonhoeffer were simply opposite sides of the same coin. As a result, the contours of his thought appeared to change and take on different accents from one period to the next. However, when his writings are viewed from the perspective of the core of his thinking,6 his life and thought are marked by continuity. The continuity is provided by his christological question, which in one form or another stands in the center of his theology. When this christological orientation is examined at its core, one key element 5. Ibid., 363–64. 6. Hans Pfeifer, “The Forms of Justification: On the Question of Structure in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Theology,” in ed. A. J. Klassen A Bonhoeffer Legacy: Essays in Understanding, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 14ff, for example, states “that certain characteristics of Bonhoeffer’s theology can only be understood if one pays attention to the core of his thinking,” which is centered on Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith. 3 THE CROSS OF REALITY emerges. Bonhoeffer’s portrayal of Jesus is carried out in a consistent manner: Jesus is always the crucified Christ. In other words, the cross looms on the horizon, casting its shadow over Bonhoeffer’s entire theological enterprise. Defining the Problem Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology invariably has been labeled a theologia . The reason for this designation becomes even more apparent crucis when the christological core of his theology is examined. That Bonhoeffer’s christological orientation shares many common elements with Luther’s becomes obvious when Bonhoeffer is compared to other theologians with whom he was in dialogue; when there are disagreements, for example, it is usually in the area of Christology that he levels his harshest judgments.7 Therefore, in order to understand Bonhoeffer’s Christology, both in terms of its foundations and developments, the role of Luther and Luther’s theological heritage are essential elements. This is not to say, however, that there were not other influences at work in the background shaping Bonhoeffer’s emerging theology.8 Nevertheless, 7. Gerhard Ebeling, “The ‘Non-Religious Interpretation of Biblical Concepts,’” in Word and trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 106, makes the point that Faith, in areas where Barth and Bonhoeffer were the closest, it is there that they have the greatest disagreement. This is especially true in the area of Christology, in which such difference emerges most clearly. It is on the basis of Christology that Bonhoeffer states his strongest criticism of nineteenth-century liberalism, as well as of Barth’s dialectical theology. Among others making this point, see James Woelfel, Bonhoeffer’s Theology: Classical and Revolutionary (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), who stresses the Lutheran character of Bonhoeffer’s Christology as dominant. See also Martin Rumscheidt, “The Formation of Bonhoeffer’s Theology,” in The , ed. John W. de Gruchy (Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer University Press, 1999), 50–70; Hans-Jürgen Abromeit, Das Geheimnis Christi: Dietrich (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991); Andreas Bonhoeffers erfahrungsbezogene Christologie Pangritz, , trans. Barbara and Martin Rumscheidt Karl Barth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 18ff; and Joachim von Soosten, “Editor’s Afterword to the German Edition,” in , by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ed. Clifford J. Green, trans. Sanctorum Communio Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 290–306. 4 INTRODUCTION it is Luther and his theology that were the predominant influences; it was in Luther that Bonhoeffer found a common ally and readily turned to him as his line of defense, even in the case of disagreement with Karl Barth,9 with whom he shared much in common. In spite of the importance of Luther’s thought for understanding the developing trajectory of Bonhoeffer’s theology, this is not a subject that has been emphasized enough—this, in spite of Bonhoeffer’s own claims to be consciously Lutheran.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE HERMENEUTICS of the REFORMERS in This Article I Shall Not Deal with the Whole Doctrine of Scripture As We Find It in The
    THE HERMENEUTICS OF THE REFORMERS by KLAAS RUNIA INTRODUCTION In this article I shall not deal with the whole doctrine of scripture as we find it in the works of the Reformers, but with their hermeneutics. Naturally, the two subjects are interrelated, but they are not identical. The doctrine of scripture deals with scripture as the Word of God, its inspiration, authority, sufficiency, infallibility, and/or inerrancy, etc. In short, it concentrates on the essence of scripture and its attributes. Hermeneutics deals with the interpretation of scripture. How is it being read and used in the theology of the Reformers? It is obvious that one cannot deal with the latter question without at the same time touching again and again upon the doctrine of scripture. Yet the emphasis is on the hermeneutical question, and the doctrine of scrip­ ture itself will be dealt with only in a secondary way. But what do we mean by "hermeneutics"? In recent years there has been a considerable shift as to the meaning of the term.1 In the past, hermeneutics was that part of theology that tried to formulate the rules of exegesis. Since the Second World War the term has obtained a new meaning. Now it no longer refers primarily to a set of exegetical rules, but rather to the whole process of interpretation itself, by which con­ temporary believers are brought into an understanding relation to the biblical message. It is interesting to note that this new concept of hermeneutics applies very much to the understanding of the Bible by the Reformers them­ selves.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Barth, Martin Luther and John Calvin
    http://ngtt.journals.ac.za Hesselink, I. John1 Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law? Karl Barth, Martin Luther and John Calvin ABSTRACT For Calvin the order of the law-gospel relation may be put this way: Law of creation (natural law) – revealed law (the law of Moses) – the gospel – the gracious law (third use) as a norm and guide for believers. The same outline would follow for Luther except that the third or positive use of the law plays a minor role in his thinking. On the surface Barth would seem to have more affinity with Calvin but the differences are significant because of Barth’s rejection of any notion of the antithesis of law and gospel and his subsuming the law in all its functions under God’s grace. INTRODUCTION Karl Adam, a German Roman Catholic theologian, is reported to have said that Karl Barth’s Commentary on Romans “dropped like a bomb on the playground of theologians.”2 It immediately established Karl Barth, then a pastor in a small Swiss village, as a theological force to be reckoned with. It was a striking challenge to the German liberal theological establishment of the first half of the twentieth century from which it never completely recovered. Not long afterwards Barth published a little monograph entitled Evangelium und Gesetz (Gospel and Law) in 1935 in the journal Theologische Existence heute, No. XXXII.3 Barth had planned to give this as a lecture in Barmen that year but was prevented from giving it by the Gestapo. As he was being escorted across the border to Switzerland by the German police, someone else read the lecture in his place.4 This little treatise did not evoke much of a response in either the liberal theological world nor the evangelical world in Britain or the United States, but it was regarded as a frontal attack on a key Lutheran doctrine by the Lutheran establishment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Apocalyptic in the Lutheran Reform
    Word & World Volume XV, Number 2 Spring 1995 The End of the End: The Role of Apocalyptic in the Lutheran Reform JAMES ARNE NESTINGEN Luther Seminary St. Paul, Minnesota NE OF THE PERPLEXING QUESTIONS OF LUTHERAN CONFESSIONAL SCHOLARSHIP Ois the relation between Luther andMelanchthon. For all their friendship and theological agreement, they could come to deep conflict at both levels.1 In fact, in Luther’s last years, Melanchthon was attempting a theological overhaul of the Lu- theran witness which subsequently divided the church into contending parties and necessitated the Formula of Concord. Most of the Lutheran confessions, all but the Formula, were complete before Melanchthon’s proposed theological revisions came to light. Questions have been raised about some of Melanchthon’s formulations in the prior confessions; there is evidence of some shifting assumptions as early as 1528.2 But well into the 1530s, the differences were more a matter of nuance than genuine alternatives. The 1539 Variata or altered edition of the Augsburg Confession was the first published evi- 1The best single-volume introduction to the problem is Luther and Melanchthon in the History and Theology of the Reformation, ed. Vilmos Vajta (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, l961). 2See, for example, Leif Granes comments on Article 6 of the Augustana in The Augsburg Confession: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, l987) 83, and Gerhard Ebelings observations in The Doctrine of Triplex Usus Legis, in Word and Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, l975) 66, 69. JAMES ARNE NESTINGEN, professor of church history, is widely known as a speaker on Lutheran themes. Copyright © 1995 by Word & World, Luther Seminary, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Word and Faith in the Formation of Christian Existence: a Study in Gerhard Ebeling's Rejection of the Joint Declaration Scott A
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Word and Faith in the Formation of Christian Existence: A Study in Gerhard Ebeling's Rejection of the Joint Declaration Scott A. Celsor Marquette University Recommended Citation Celsor, Scott A., "Word and Faith in the Formation of Christian Existence: A Study in Gerhard Ebeling's Rejection of the Joint Declaration" (2010). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 41. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/41 WORD AND FAITH IN THE FORMATION OF CHRISTIAN EXISTENCE: A STUDY IN GERHARD EBELING’S REJECTION OF THE JOINT DECLARATION by Scott A. Celsor, B.B.A, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2010 ABSTRACT WORD AND FAITH IN THE FORMATION OF CHRISTIAN EXISTENCE: A STUDY IN GERHARD EBELING’S REJECTION OF THE JOINT DECLARATION Scott A. Celsor, B.B.A, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2010 In 1998, the theologian Gerhard Ebeling helped to initiate a rancorous, public debate among theologians in Germany over whether the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification presents “a consensus in the basic truths of the doctrine of justification” by co- editing the famous letter of protest. Why would he want to do this? The fact that some argue he held a distinguished position in ecumenical circles during the 1950s and 1960s makes this question somewhat intriguing.
    [Show full text]
  • Bonhoeffer Thesis Final
    This thesis is submitted to Charles Sturt University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Beyond, in the Midst of Life: An Exploration of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Religionless Christianity in its Christological Context. Peter Hooton, BA Hons. (LTU), M.Th. (CSU), St Mark’s National Theological Centre, School of Theology, CSU. Submitted: November 2018 1 / Peter Hooton 11435588 Table of Contents Abstract 5 Introduction 6 Chapter 1 “We are approaching a completely religionless age” 17 Chapter 2 Bonhoeffer’s critique of religion 46 Chapter 3 Religionless Christianity in its christological context 83 Chapter 4 Non-religious interpretation 132 Chapter 5 Mystery, faith, and wholeness 161 Chapter 6 Christ without religion 186 References 228 2 / Peter Hooton 11435588 “I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at Charles Sturt University or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. “I agree that this thesis be accessible for the purpose of study and research in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Executive Director, Division of Library Services or nominee, for the care, loan and reproduction of theses.” Peter Hooton 3 / Peter Hooton 11435588 I am deeply grateful to my supervisors, the Reverend Dr Jane Foulcher and the Reverend Dr Ockert Meyer, for their wise and warm support and encouragement on this journey. This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Gerhard Ebeling Again Sam
    The Once and Future “Pulpit”: Hearing Gerhard Ebeling Again Sam Persons-Parkes Ph.D. student, University of Toronto Abstract: The hermeneutical theology of Gerhard Ebeling has been tremendously influential upon New Homiletic preaching. This influence has been rightly critiqued. Ebeling’s theology, when pushed too far, invites pastors to overconfident and irresponsible uses of language and reinforces a hierarchical gap between preacher and hearer. Nevertheless, Ebeling’s encouragement to vigorously engage secular life with a public homiletic is a crucial aspect of his thought. This aspect was present in some early writings of the New Homiletic, but has been largely ignored by subsequent practitioners. Developing a more public homiletic prevents proclamation from becoming ingrown and calls preachers to a greater linguistic engagement beyond church walls. This paper will examine the relationship between the New Hermeneutic and New Homiletic, focusing in particular on the theology of Gerhard Ebeling. My central purpose is to identify a thread within the work of Gerhard Ebeling which seems to have been dropped in the practice of the New Homiletic, a thread which, I propose, homiletics would do well to take up once again. Homiletics has tended toward fascination with the contents of New Hermeneutic theology and has largely ignored the linguistic contexts that concerned Ebeling. We will establish the paths by which the New Hermeneutic traveled into the early literature of the New Homiletic and outline some critiques of that influence. Last, I will offer a fresh reading of Ebeling and thereby suggest a potential path for contemporary homiletics. The Development of the New Hermeneutic Gerhard Ebeling and Ernst Fuchs are together considered the progenitors of the New Hermeneutic.
    [Show full text]
  • Scripture and Myth in Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    Fides etffistoria 25,1 (1993): 12-25 SCRIPTURE AND MYTH IN DIETRICH BONHOEFFER By Richard Weikart, University of Iowa Dietrich Bonhoeffer has become a mythic hero in the pantheon of late twentieth-century Christianity. Admiration for him flows from such diverse and contradictory movements as fundamentalism and radical death-of-God theology, as well as from most groups located between these poles. American evangelicals1 have joined the chorus of his praise and actively promote his works. A recent review of A Testament of Freedom: The Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Christianity Today enjoins a predominantly evangelical audience to "sit... at the feet of Dietrich Bonhoeffer," whose life "rings with Christian authenticity."2 Two guidebooks to evangelical literature list Bonhoeffer's writings as important reading material for evangelicals.3 My own contacts with evangelicals and funda- mentalists confirm that Bonhoeffer enjoys widespread approbation among them. Numerous factors have contributed to the popularity of Bonhoeffer among evangelicals. Unlike so many of his contemporaries, he showed great courage in opposing Hitler's policies. However, this could also be said of Karl Barth, the theologian exercising the greatest influence on Bonhoeffer. Barth took a decisive stand against Nazism and penned the Barmen Declaration, which was the manifesto for the Confessing Church, yet most evangelicals reject his neo- orthodox theology. Of course, Bonhoeffer gained great stature by his death at the hand of the Nazis, which is usually described as a Christian martyrdom. Bonhoeffer's reputation among evangelicals, however, does not rest solely on his political involvement. Two of his theological works, The Cost of Discipleship 12i ' The words evangelical and evangelicalism will be defined in this essay as pertaining to the movement in the late twentieth century (especially in the United States) that emphasizes the inerrancy of scripture and is exemplified by Carl F.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article
    Word & World Volume 36, Number 1 Winter 2016 Faith under Fire A Review Article RICHARD L. JESKE Preaching in Hitler’s Shadow: Sermons of Resistance in the Third Reich, ed. by Dean Stroud. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Pp. 215. $20.00 (paper). aul Schneider (1897–1939) was the first Protestant pastor to die in a concen- Ptration camp. We should at least know his name. He died because he preached a sermon. People cared about what he preached, especially the Nazis, who had al- ready forced his exit from his first church, which led to his reassignment to a two-point country parish more amenable to his preaching. Arrested several times during his first call, the harassment continued in his second: twice detained by the Gestapo. In late 1937, after leading the earlier service of his two-point parish, he didn’t show up at his second parish: he had been intercepted on his way there by the Gestapo, arrested, imprisoned, and finally taken to Buchenwald, where he was severely tortured and eventually murdered. Again, we should at least remember his name, if not those of many others who shared the same fate. In this important book, Dean Stroud has compiled a collection of sermons indicating that not all voices were silent in Germany during the time of the Third Reich. In addition to two sermons by Paul Schneider, there are others by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, Martin Niemöller, Julius von Jan, Helmut Gollwitzer, Gerhard Ebeling, Rudolf Bultmann, Wilhelm Busch, and the Roman Catholic It is always good to consider those who have risen to the challenge and to ask whether we would be up to it ourselves.
    [Show full text]
  • God the Son and Hermeneutics: a Brief Study in the Reformation,” Concordia Theological Quarterly, 59 (1995) No
    David P. Scaer, “God the Son and Hermeneutics: A Brief Study in the Reformation,” Concordia Theological Quarterly, 59 (1995) No. 1-2:49-66. God the Son and Hermeneutics: A Brief Study in the Reformation David P. Scaer I. Hermeneutics in General A. A Christological Skill In his Evangelical Interpretation: Perspectives on Hermeneutical Issues, the Evangelical New Testament scholar Millard J. Erickson makes this observation on theology: Frequently those who are the most effective practitioners of a given skill cannot explain how they do it. They either possess this ability intuitively, like musicians who play "by ear," or they have so assimilated the methodology that they are no longer conscious of the steps that they go through in executing that action, like experienced drivers driving an automobile .... Likewise, many of the most important theologians in the history of the church did not write discourses on theological methodology. They simply proceeded to do theology, correlating their statements with the pressing issues and thought forms of the day. Erickson offers Augustine and Martin Luther as examples.1 Instinctively one knows that Erickson is right. Dance lessons by themselves no more produce great dancers than do piano lessons great pianists. Hermeneutics requires a method, but ultimately it is a skill grounded in the faith of the interpreter within the context of the church.2 In a Lutheran context the intuition of faith is christological. B. The Failure of Humanism All Lutheran theologians from Luther to Pieper have made this fact clear when they claim that suffering (Anfechtung; tentatio) is a component of the theological task.3 Theology, especially hermeneutics, originates and finds its goal within the context of the Christian life, denoted not by proscriptions (law), but comprehended in and by christology (gospel).
    [Show full text]
  • Gerhard Ebeling
    HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies ISSN: (Online) 2072-8050, (Print) 0259-9422 Page 1 of 6 Original Research ‘Doctor of the Church’: Gerhard Ebeling Authors: This article’s point of departure is the camaraderie of two eminent Protestant theologians, 1 Tanya van Wyk Gerhard Ebeling and Ernst Fuchs. From the perspective of Eberhard Jüngel, Ebeling is Andries van Aarde2 described as a ‘doctor of the church’. Focusing on Ebeling’s autobiographical notes, the article Affiliations: describes his upbringing in a solid churchgoing family, the effect of critical theological training 1Department of Systematic in Marburg and the influence of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Rudolf Bultmann on his theological Theology and Christian convictions. It points out Ebeling’s interest in the Reformer Martin Luther. The article follows Ethics, Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria, Ebeling’s career in Zürich and Tübingen, and the way in which his visits to the US positively South Africa influenced his life and thinking. 2Department of New Testament Studies, Faculty of This article is dedicated to Professor Dr Graham Duncan, a church historian who has introduced to his Theology, University of Pretoria colleagues the truism that reformation means transformation, and that transformation is Pretoria, South Africa conversion’s other side of the coin. Project leader: T. van Wyk Project number: 22153145 A prelude Project leader: A.G. van Aarde Project number: 2334682 With this collaboration, we would like to pay tribute by means of two articles to scholars who succeeded to interconnect church history with systematic theology and biblical hermeneutics. Description: This research forms part of The German theologians Gerhard Ebeling and Ernst Fuchs were such encyclopaedic scholars.
    [Show full text]
  • Luther on Faith and Love
    1 Research on Faith and Love in Luther Previous Research Although the literature on Luther’s teaching on faith and love is sparse in comparison with that on his teaching on justification by faith alone (and on other topics), some valuable research is available.1 1. Though I cannot expound upon the contents in detail, the books, articles, and essays that aided me in my research on Luther’s teaching on faith and justification can be selectively illustrated as follows: Virgil Thompson, ed., Justification is for Preaching: Essays by Oswald Bayer, Gerhard (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 15–119; Timo Laato, “Justification: The O. Forde, and Others Stumbling Block of the Finnish Luther School,” 72 (2008): Concordia Theological Quarterly 327–46; Piotr J. Malysz, “ as the Basis of Law, Justice, and Justification Nemo iudex in causa sua in Luther’s Thought,” 100, no. 3 (2007): 363–86; Veli-Matti Harvard Theological Review Kärkkäinen, “‘Drinking from the Same Wells with Orthodox and Catholics’: Insights from the Finnish Interpretation of Luther’s Theology,” 34, no. 2 Currents in Theology and Mission (2007): 85–96; Bruce L. McCormack, ed., Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006); R. Scott Clark, “ and Contemporary Challenges Iustitia : Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification,” Imputata Christi Concordia Theological 70 (2006): 269–301; Alister E. McGrath, Quarterly Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine , 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Joseph A. Burgess of Justification and Marc Kolden, eds., By Faith Alone: Essays on Justification in Honor of Gerhard O. Forde (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); Mark C.
    [Show full text]
  • Radical Theology
    1 Hermeneutical Theology Everything has its time. Hermeneutical theology had its time—in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. That is a significant duration. In contrast to some other theological movements, it did not simply remain an announcement and an agenda; it actually has a history that is worth remembering. But does it have a present that is worth mentioning? Or any future at all? Are there reasons to continue that which students of Rudolf Bultmann such as Ernst Fuchs, Gerhard Ebeling, and Eberhard Jüngel—and their own students—began two or three generations ago? And what would there be to continue, if one wanted to? I am not suggesting that there is only one answer.1 But to be able to answer at all, one must first take a look backward, for orientation, before looking ahead. What goes by the name of “hermeneutical 1. See U. H. J. Körtner, “Zur Einführung: Glauben und Verstehen. Perspektiven Hermeneutischer Theologie im Anschluß an Rudolf Bultmann,” in Glauben und Verstehen. Perspektiven hermeneutischer Theologie, ed. U. H. J. Körtner (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 1–18; H. Vetter, “Hermeneutische Phänomenologie und Dialektische Theologie. Heidegger und Bultmann,” in Körtner, Glauben und Verstehen, 19–38; O. Bayer, “Hermeneutische Theologie,” in Körtner, Glauben und Verstehen, 39–55; Körtner, Theologie des Wortes Gottes. Positionen—Probleme—Perspektiven( Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001); and Körtner, Hermeneutische Theologie. Zugänge zur Interpretation des christlichen Glaubens und seiner Lebenspraxis (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008). 1 RADICAL THEOLOGY theology” within Protestant theology cannot easily be reduced to a single type or common denominator. Of course, there are similarities, but there are also significant differences.
    [Show full text]