scholarly journals ‘Getting the Reformation in America’: The Making of Paul Lehmann as a Public Theologian

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-107
Author(s):  
Philip G. Ziegler

Paul L. Lehmann (1906–1994) was one of the leading Protestant theologians and ethicists of his generation. Working directly from archival sources and early writings, this article offers an account of the formation of key features of his distinctive theological perspective up to and including the first decades of his professional career. It argues that Lehmann prosecutes a distinctive and markedly Protestant form of public theology, centred on an understanding of the Word of God as a present, dynamic and humanising power, to which Christian faith, life and thought give witness and serve catalytically. In this, Lehmann shows himself to be a premier advocate for lines of thinking he first encountered in the work of Karl Barth and of his friend, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah K. Tenai

As an emergent and rapidly growing international field of study, public theology has its focus on how Christian faith and practice impact on ordinary life. Its principle concern is thewell-being of society. In Africa, and in Kenya in particular, where poverty levels are still high, there is a need to enquire into the value and efficacy of the poverty discourses in publictheology, for the calling of the church to respond to poverty. One of the main and fast growingchurches in Kenya, the Africa Inland Church (AIC), has vast resources used for, amongst otherthings, various on-going work amidst the poor and the vulnerable in remote and poor areas. Due to the unrelenting nature of poverty in Kenya, the AIC needs a theological perspective, which is sufficiently sensitive to poverty and can enable it to respond to poverty moreeffectively. Public theology’s emphasis on gaining an entrée into the public square andadopting the agenda of communities, including public theology’s calling on churches toactively participate in rational and plausible public discourses, can assist the AIC to respondeffectively to the challenge of poverty in Kenya.


1974 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-161
Author(s):  
Carl F. Starkloff

Ten years ago it might have seemed odd to place side by side two men like Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the former considered a ‘modern church father’ of the Reformation and the latter an implacable foe of that tradition in its fledgling state. What is significant however is that their essential spiritual thrust took such similar directions. It is the similarity in essentials that first drew this writer to begin comparing the thought of the two men, but more than a similarity is involved here. An examination of the attitudes of the two towards Christian proclamation and communication provides striking ecumenical possibilities, and allows Roman Catholics and Protestants to see how close their traditions are in so many cases, if only a careful effort is made to understand the other's language. Loyola himself, at the outset of his spiritual manual, offers us a pattern for sensitivity in theological discussion:To assure better cooperation between the one who is giving the Exercises and the exercitant, and more beneficial results for both, it is necessary to suppose that every good Christian is more ready to put a good interpretation on another's statement than to condemn it as false. If an orthodox construction cannot be put on a proposition, the one who made it should be asked how he understands it. If he is in error, he should be corrected with all kindness. If this does not suffice, all appropriate means should be used to bring him to a correct interpretation, and so defend the proposition from error.


2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 246-257
Author(s):  
Michael Welker

Abstract This paper examines two ingenious theological contributions by Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer: the famous Tambach lecture by Barth, given 100 years ago, and the concept of the »deep worldliness« (tiefe Diesseitigkeit) of the Christian faith developed by Bonhoeffer in his prison letters. It shows why even today both contributions have orienting power for church and society in situations of radical transition and change. Both contributions derive their strength from the fact that they have a clear theological and at the same time realistic orientation, Christologically and implicitly also pneumatologically founded. On this base they link a serious theology and a vigilant critical contemporaneity.


2008 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia A. Lamm

The title of this essay is meant to be perplexing. Schleiermacher is not known for his treatment of grace, much less for a treatise on grace. Few scholars of Schleiermacher's theology have devoted attention to his doctrine of grace, with two notable exceptions. Karl Barth, in his lectures on Schleiermacher, did not hesitate to thrash his nemesis on this point, although to him it was so obvious that Schleiermacher's understanding of grace was not a Christian doctrine of grace, at least not in the Reformation sense, that he barely felt the need to argue the case. “What kind of God is this,” he asked, “What kind of grace?” Richard R. Niebuhr, in his apologia for Schleiermacher, which inspired a new age of scholarship on Schleiermacher in America, included a section entitled “Grace and Nature,” but its focus was on the Christmas Eve Dialogue, not Schleiermacher's dogmatic theology. Neither Barth nor Niebuhr took note of Schleiermacher's more formal, dogmatic treatment of grace—what I am calling Schleiermacher's “treatise on grace”; in the several decades since their influential works, very few have attempted to correct this oversight. Such neglect by specialists has no doubt contributed to a wider sense that, despite the importance of his The Christian Faith (Glaubenslehre), Schleiermacher does not merit a place alongside other theologians when it comes to the history of the Christian doctrine of grace. None of the major scholarly books on the history and development of the doctrine of grace include a chapter or section (or even reference) to Schleiermacher's treatment of grace. Schleiermacher himself almost seems to have anticipated this oversight—worse, really, than any criticism—when he asked, “Does my Glaubenslehre in any way fail to give due honor to divine grace?”


Author(s):  
G. Sujin Pak

The Reformation of Prophecy presents and supports the case for viewing the prophet and biblical prophecy as a powerful lens by which to illuminate many aspects of the reforming work of the Protestant reformers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It provides a chronological and developmental analysis of the significance of the prophet and biblical prophecy across leading Protestant reformers in articulating a theology of the priesthood of all believers, a biblical model of the pastoral office, a biblical vision of the reform of worship, and biblical processes for discerning right interpretation of Scripture. Through the tool of the prophet and biblical prophecy, the reformers framed their work under, within, and in support of the authority of Scripture—for the true prophet speaks the Word of God alone and calls the people, their worship and their beliefs and practices, back to the Word of God. The book also demonstrates how interpretations and understandings of the prophet and biblical prophecy contributed to the formation and consolidation of distinctive confessional identities, especially around differences in their visions of sacred history, Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, and interpretation of Old Testament metaphors. This book illuminates the significant shifts in the history of Protestant reformers’ engagement with the prophet and biblical prophecy—shifts from these serving as a tool to advance the priesthood of all believers to a tool to clarify and buttress clerical identity and authority to a site of polemical-confessional exchange concerning right interpretations of Scripture.


Author(s):  
Joshua Mauldin

Recent political events around the world have raised the specter of an impending collapse of democratic institutions. Contemporary worries about the decline of liberal democracy harken back to the tumult of the 1930s and 1940s in Europe. Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer lived in Germany during the rise of National Socialism, and each reflected on what the rise of totalitarianism meant for the aspirations of modern politics. Engaging the realities of totalitarian terror, they avoided despairing rejections of modern society. Beginning with Barth in the wake of the First World War, following Bonhoeffer through the 1930s and 1940s in Nazi Germany, and concluding with Barth’s postwar reflections in the 1950s, this study explores how these figures reflected on modern society during this turbulent time and how their work is relevant to the current crisis of modern democracy


Author(s):  
Randall C. Zachman

Friedrich Schleiermacher reformulated the doctrines he inherited from the Reformed and Lutheran dogmatic traditions, in order to demonstrate that the certainty of faith in God, as well as faith in the redeeming power of Christ, could be maintained in an age of scientific and historical criticism of the Christian faith. He located faith in God in the immediate consciousness of being absolutely dependent, which he claimed emerged in the development of every human consciousness. And he located faith in Christ in the way the influence of the sinless perfection of Christ, mediated through the testimony of the Christian community and supported by the picture of Christ, strengthened the consciousness of God so that the inhibition of the God-consciousness by sin could be overcome. His hope was that such a reformulation of doctrine would not only clarify the meaning of faith in the modern world, but would also reunify the Christian traditions that had been divided since the Reformation.


Author(s):  
Joshua Mauldin

Recent political events around the world have raised the specter of an impending collapse of democratic institutions. Contemporary worries about the decline of liberal democracy harken back to the tumult of the 1930s and 1940s in Europe. Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer lived in Germany during the rise of National Socialism, and each reflected on what the rise of totalitarianism meant for the aspirations of modern politics. Engaging the realities of totalitarian terror, they avoided despairing rejections of modern society. Beginning with Barth in the wake of the First World War, following Bonhoeffer through the 1930s and 1940s in Nazi Germany, and concluding with Barth’s postwar reflections in the 1950s, this study explores how these figures reflected on modern society during this turbulent time and how their work is relevant to the current crisis of modern democracy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document