Showing papers in "Theology in 1987"
TL;DR: B Barton as discussed by the authors discusses the sharp break between pre-exilic prophets and their postexilic successors, and the great variety among the pre-Exilic prophets, concluding that one sociological classification is appropriate for them all.
Abstract: (Tobit 14) and in Josephus than in the New Testament (though note 2 Peter 2-3). Finally, the fourth mode saw the prophet as theologian and mystic, with special insights into God's secrets. Philo and some of the Jewish mystical writers are characteristic here, though such an understanding is found also in the epistle to the Hebrews. The concluding chapter serves both as a summary and as a sketch of unfinished business. Two particular issues are raised: the sharp break between the pre-exilic prophets and their post-exilic successors; and the great variety among the pre-exilic prophets. Is one sociological classification appropriate for them all? Did they embody a new and original religious phenomenon? These provide the agenda for Barton's next study, which will be awaited with interest. In the mean time, the present book is fascinating not only for its main themes but also for some of its provoking sidelights. Just one example: was the choice of the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4.17 determined by the simple fact that it was the only scroll a modest synagogue would have? If so, farewell to some ingenious lectionary theories and some of the wilder flights ofChristology. The book is full of provoking thoughts like this; it is commended most warmly.
5 citations
5 citations
TL;DR: The Redemptorists have been helped by clinical theology courses or by individuals running local courses in counselling as discussed by the authors, which can be found in The Good Shepherd Newsletter published from 38 Beeches Avenue, Carshalton Beeches, Surrey.
Abstract: 6 See note 3. 7 Kenneth Leech, Soul Friend (Sheldon Press 1977)· 8 See Robin Greenwood, 'Towards a Church of the People', The Clergy Review, January 1987. 9 Kenneth Leech, Spirituality andPastoral Care (Sheldon 1986), p. 48. 10 See Robin Greenwood, 'Ministering to the Ministers', Church Times, 31 May 1986. I I Martin Thornton, Spiritual Direction, A Practical Introduction (SPCK 1984). 12 Newsletter published from The Good Shepherd, 38 Beeches Avenue, Carshalton Beeches, Surrey, SMS 3LW. Some have been helped by clinical theology courses or by individuals running local courses in counselling. 13 The Redemptorists, St Mary's, Kinnoull, Perth, PH2 7BP. 14 Richard Holloway, Seven to Flee, Seven to Follow (Mowbrays 1986), p. 100.
3 citations
2 citations
TL;DR: The New Testament resounds with this reiterated message, especially in the parables of Jesus: the Pharisee and the publican, the labourers in the vineyard, the prodigal son as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Something more is needed and the scriptural term for it is repentance, metanoia. Hence JOy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance' (Luke 15.7 AV). The New Testament resounds with this reiterated message, especially in the parables of Jesus: the Pharisee and the publican, the labourers in the vineyard, the prodigal son. We are called to a new life of loving response to the love of Godto do his will and to love those whom he loves. That this is incompatible with demonic pride and inordinate self-esteem is obvious enough, but it also goes beyond the discharge of moral obligations and the cultivation of moral virtues. And, as Coleridge was so keenly aware, human complacency and capacity for self-deception are such that conscientiousness on its own can and does become an expression of pride and a barrier to love-that charity of which the hymn reminds us:
2 citations
2 citations
TL;DR: Morris as mentioned in this paper argues that it is possible to believe that Christ has two wills and that these two wills 'operate' through his human body, and that the definitions of Nicea and Chalcedon were intended above all as 'protocols' or heuristic devices designed to exclude certain heterodox positions.
Abstract: wanted him to write. After all, he is extremely-indeed surprisinglymodest in his assessment of what he achieves in this treatise: he professesonly to show that '[it] is possible that it be rational to believe Jesus to be God Incarnate' (p. 204). But this circumspection does not prevent this from being a highly speculative, quasi-gnostic, kind of book. The assertions that it is possible for there to be a multiplicity of divine incarnations (albeit only one involving a human nature), that Jesus Christ has two minds (one of which cannot know what the other is up to), that these two minds 'operate' through his human body, and so on, are made with an apparently straight face. Moreover, these assertions are made in the name of 'orthodoxy' and 'tradition'. But Morris evinces no recognition that the definitions of Nicea and Chalcedon were intended above all as 'protocols' or heuristic devices designed to exclude certain heterodox positions. The 'classical' christological formulations function-'negatively'-as 'meta-linguistic' or 'grammatical' principles, and not as ontological 'descriptions' of the 'mind' or 'will' of Christ. Thus, as Charles Gore has rightly indicated, if the church Fathers declared that Christ has two wills, this was because they had no other way of safeguarding, theologically, the humanity of Jesus. To view their pronouncements-'positively'-as relatively straightforward 'descriptions', in the way that Morris seemingly does, is effectively to overlook the essentially historical character of incarnational theology. I would venture to say that this oversight creates difficulties that are perhaps even graver than the allegedly 'philosophical' objections posed by, say, the authors of The Myth ofGod Incarnate (some of whose objections Morris purports to surmount). The objections of the socalled 'mythographers' stem (principally) from a similar overlooking of the essentially historical character of the notion of 'incarnation', and it is perhaps deeply ironical that Morris should share so much common ground with the very thinkers he sets out to criticize.
TL;DR: In the early 1970s, it was clear from the 1962 report which prefaced the draft Series Two proposals for Morning and Evening Prayer, and the debate speeches reported in Liturgical Revision: Some Basic Principles (1966), that no new radical forms were to be expected, and indeed none appeared as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: 12 B. Martin, A Sociology ofContemporary Cultural Change (Oxford 198 I ), pp. 53-78. 13 It is clear from the 1962 report which prefaced the draft Series Two proposals for Morning and Evening Prayer, and the debate speeches reported in Liturgical Revision: Some Basic Principles (1966), that no new radical forms were to be expected, and indeed none appeared. GS 2 15, Alternative Services Series 3, Morning and Evening Prayer described the services as being substantially those of Series 2 Revised, put into modern English. 14 In particular by Juan Mateos on the Eastern rites. 15 Paul Bradshaw, 'The Origins of the Daily Office' in Alcuin Club Occasional Journal (1978), p. 10. 16 W.J. Grisbrooke, 'A Contemporary Liturgical Problem: The Divine Office and Public Worship' in Studia Liturgica 8 (1970/7 1), pp. 12g-68; 9 (1973), pp. 3-18, pp. 8 I I 06. Thaddaeus A. Schnitker, 'The Liturgy of the Hours and the History of Salvation; Towards the Theological Penetration of \"the Public and Communal Prayer of God'\" in Studia Liturgica IS (1982/3), pp. 145-57. 17 This is disputed by Paul Bradshaw, Daily Prayer in the Early Church (Alcuin Club Collection 63, London, Ig81). But see Robert Taft, 'Qjiaestiones Disputae in the History of the Liturgy of the Hours: The Origins of Nocturns, Matins, Prime' in Worship 58 (1984), pp~ 130-58, and The Liturgy ofthe Hours (Collegeville 1986). 18 Judging from the response that I get as a teacher showing a thurible as a religious artefact to secondary school children, children at a family service would be only too pleased to assist with putting incense into a hanging thurible, without having to be dressed up as a boat-boy, or -girl! There must be some audacious evangelicals who could use it intelligently at Morning or Evening Prayer. 19 For the use of this term see K. Stevenson, 'On Keeping Holy Week' in Theology 89 (1986), p. 34·
TL;DR: In this article, the authors give a useful survey of the various theories about punishment in the Bible, including the Devlin-Hart controversy, and a discussion of Paul's views on law and punishment.
Abstract: common, when did it begin-or had it never ceased? Or, again, can one really-especially in the light of the start to the first chapterassume without more ado (not even a footnote) that the Bookof Daniel indicates 'how the exiles endured punishment at the hands of their captors', or that the Pauline epistles include 1 Timothy? Can one really assume the historicity of Acts? Even if the anachronism is acceptable, where is the evidence that Paul was a 'graduate of the university of Tarsus'-even if he were brought up in that city (Acts 22.3) ? Is not the epistle to Philemon relevant to a discussion of Paul's views on law and punishment? I have already quoted the author's own conclusions concerning his biblical survey, although this fascinating topic certainly deserves a deeper study. I only wish that the author had given (had been given?) greater space to consider Christian insights into law, morality and punishment. As a lawyer I would have appreciated a discussion of the Devlin-Hart controversy, particularly from someone with an intimate knowledge of the 'inside' picture. None the less, in the space available the author gives a useful survey of the various theories about punishment. His conclusion that Christians, because of the theology of the cross and 'the biblical doctrine of the Holy Spirit, who sheds abroad in the human heart the love which takes no account of evil and never despairs (I Cor. 13.4-7)', have much to contribute to modern discussions on the problem of crime and punishment is an important and valid one. That journey of contribution is one that all Christians should travel-and should travel hopefully.
TL;DR: Ratzsch as discussed by the authors pointed out that there is no real acknowledgement of the possibility that science might help us to understand how to treat Scripture (as I believe has happened in the reassessment of Genesis I -3 in the light of evolutionary knowledge).
Abstract: distinctly tails off Ratzsch pussyfoots around creationism in an inconclusive listing of possible modes in which the book of nature and the book of Scripture might be held to relate to each other. Although he rejects a rigid separation of science and religion into nonoverlapping domains, there is little sense of a flow between them. In particular, there is no real acknowledgement of the possibility that science might help us to understand how to treat Scripture (as I believe has happened in the reassessment of Genesis I -3 in the light of evolutionary knowledge) or that it might provide insights valuable for doctrine (in the way that the recognition of the role of chance in the process of the world affords help in considering problems oftheodicy). It is a disappointing ending to a book which began promisingly.