Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Seeing Two Worlds: The Eschatological Anthropology of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification Jakob Karl Rinderknecht Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, and the Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons Recommended Citation Rinderknecht, Jakob Karl, "Seeing Two Worlds: The Eschatological Anthropology of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (2015). Dissertations (1934 -). 513. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/513 SEEING TWO WORLDS: THE ESCHATOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by Jakob Karl Rinderknecht, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2015 ii ABSTRACT SEEING TWO WORLDS: THE ESCHATOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION Jakob Karl Rinderknecht, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2015 The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed in 1999 by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, represents the high-water mark of the twentieth-century ecumenical movement. It declared that the sixteenth- century condemnations related to the central question of the Reformation do not apply to the theology of the partner church today. This declaration rests on a differentiated consensus on justification that emerged over forty years of bilateral dialogue. Within this consensus, Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologies of justification, while different and possibly even incompatible, need not be understood as contradictory. This claim has proven to be controversial regarding both the particular consensus on justification and the logical possibility of such a differentiated consensus. Members of both churches have insisted that the division cannot be overcome unless the questions of the sixteenth century are answered in their favor, making use of their cherished theological terminology. This dissertation reapproaches the question of differentiated consensus using the tools of contemporary cognitive linguistics. It investigates the embodied character of human knowing to demonstrate that conversation between communities of understanding requires attention to their particular structures of language and knowledge. In particular, attention to the “metaphoric blends” that structure meaning can reveal underlying agreement within seeming contradiction. The anthropological claims of the Joint Declaration, namely the Tridentine insistence that concupiscence in the baptized is not sin properly-speaking, and the Lutheran dictum simul iustus et peccator, meaning that the Christian is at the same time justified and a sinner, serve as test cases for the thesis. These seemingly contradictory assertions each seek to describe a double-vision of the Christian as already saved by God’s action, but not-yet fully remade. The Roman Catholic claim is shown to depend on the cognitive blend SIN IS JUST CAUSE FOR DISINHERITANCE, interpreted within the cognitive frame provided by THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. The Lutheran position is a development of Luther’s contrasting blend SIN IS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH GOD’S LAW, understood within the framing provided by the distinctively Lutheran space THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jakob Karl Rinderknecht, B.A., M.A. Writing this dissertation has required a kind of bilingual facility with the languages of Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism. I need to thank those who taught me to speak the language of Lutheranism: my parents, family, and godmothers; David G. Truemper and the faculty at Valparaiso University; the residents of Homer Court and the extended community of Holden Village. I also need to thank those who taught me to speak Roman Catholic: Abbot John Klassen, OSB and the monks of Saint John’s Abbey; the faculty and students of the Saint John’s School of TheologySeminary and of Marquette University; and the cathedral parishes in Salt Lake City and Milwaukee. Learning to hold both kinds of speech in mind without confusing them has been made easier by ongoing conversation with many, chief among them Timothy A. Johnston, who is perhaps the most naturally and natively Roman Catholic person I know. Finishing this project has required the support of many. I would like to especially thank the Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation, which supported my final year of writing. Invaluable editorial assistance was provided by Gail Rinderknecht, Steven Zittergruen, and Lisa Lunsford. My gratitude belongs to the librarians and archivists of the Raynor Memorial Libraries at Marquette; the Salzmann Library in Milwaukee; the Centro Pro Unione in Rome; the ELCA Archives in Elk Grove, IL; and the Lutheran World Federation Archives in Geneva. This project would neither have been begun, nor assumed its final form, without the support, guidance, and friendship of Susan K. Wood, SCL, or that provided by the other members of the board: Robert L. Masson, Mickey R. Mattox, and Michael Root. Thank you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... xi HISTORICAL TABLE OF JDDJ-RELATED DOCUMENTS ...................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................xv INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF ECCLESIAL DISUNION ................................1 Theological Diversity and Ecclesial Division ......................................................... 1 Justification and the Reformation ............................................................... 4 The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) ............................... 5 Outline of the Project .............................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER ONE: JUSTIFICATION AND ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE JDDJ ............11 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 11 The Joint Declaration and its Reception ............................................................... 13 A Brief History of the Joint Declaration ................................................... 13 The Predecessor Documents to the JDDJ ..................................... 13 Writing the Joint Declaration ........................................................ 20 Major Doctrinal Critiques ......................................................................... 25 Überholte Verurteilungen (1990) ................................................. 27 Response of Six Luther Seminary Faculty (1997) ........................ 32 Votum der Hochschullehrer zur GE (1998) .................................. 34 “No” Votes from LWF Churches ................................................. 35 Public Critiques by non-LWF Lutheran Churches ....................... 40 Critiques by Lutheran Theologians After Signing ........................ 45 Critiques by Catholic Theologians After Signing ......................... 45 v Summary of Critical Evaluations .................................................. 48 Scope and Argument of the Project .......................................................... 49 The Question of Method – Differentiated Consensus............................... 50 A Remaining Need for Anthropological Clarity ....................................... 51 Seeing an Eschatological Reality .............................................................. 54 Proclaimed Justification and the Experience of Sinfulness ...................... 58 Concupiscence in the Baptized ..................................................... 59 Simul Iustus et Peccator................................................................ 64 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................... 70 CHAPTER TWO: TRUTH, CONSENSUS, AND THE ECUMENICAL WAY ............73 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 73 Truth and Consensus ................................................................................. 77 Consensus as Übereinstimmung, Zustimmung, and Übereinkunft ............ 81 Übereinstimmung .......................................................................... 81 Zustimmung ................................................................................... 84 Übereinkunft ................................................................................. 86 Übereinkunft and Ecumenism: Three Positions ........................................ 87 Daphne Hampson: Übereinkunft as Uniformity ........................... 89 Ulrich H. J. Körtner: Plurality without Übereinkunft ................... 91 Ingolf U. Dalferth: Übereinkunft by Differentiated Reception ..... 96 Consensus with Difference and Differentiated Consensus ................................... 98 Harding Meyer .......................................................................................... 99 Differentiated Consensus as “Method” ....................................... 100 Differentiated Consensus ............................................................ 102