The Enduring Value of Lonergan’s Realms of Meaning for Understanding Scripture and the Development of Christology

On occasion an issue of Teaching Theology and Religion is planned around a theme. At other times, one emerges from the contributions. This issue fits into the latter category: a theme that explicitly structures one piece, the conversation on teaching the history of Christianity, threads through other contributions in 12:3. The theme is pivotal choices – the choices a professor makes about the “what,” the “how,” the “why,” and the “so what” of a class, a course, a curriculum. Pivotal choices are determinative decisions regarding the content, structure, and pedagogy of a course. Pivotal choices propel the form and process of a course in a particular direction. They close off other options for a course. Sometimes determinative decisions are made thoughtfully, sometimes carelessly. Pivotal choices also tend to be those around which professors' commitments and visions of teaching, the nature of the material and the methods of the discipline, and the intellectual, developmental journeys of our students join. They are at one and the same time personal and professional, passionate and detached, autonomous and informed by contexts – institutional, guild, global. It is easier to discuss the state of one's field than to turn sustained attention to pivotal choices in teaching. Professors are trained to think about their fields. Raising issues about one's field is done within a guild community, in which rules about how to engage, and assumptions about the significance of the field, are relatively broadly shared, even when contested. Reframing a field and persuading one's peers of the significance of the shift is a mark of accomplishment. Turning attention to pivotal choices in one's teaching is another matter. There is nothing neat about the classroom, especially when one succeeds in luring students into the material. The rules for how to make sense of and respond to unanticipated questions and frequent misalignments between what one says and what students make of it, are far less clear than the rules for participating in the guild. Teaching shows up the constructed nature of subject areas, guilds, cherished research projects, and the process of “professing” itself. That is what makes our pivotal choices both rich and raw as material for reflection. They are veins to be mined for understanding of one's own motivations and commitments, conceptualizations of craft, of field, and of self in role, and for understanding one's pedagogical skill. Pivotal choices reveal far more about teaching than do formally prepared statements on philosophy of teaching, and they tend to be closer to the truth of one's practice. Pivotal choices are the unvarnished embodiment of a teacher's aspirations, ambitions, and actual practice. Consider the lament, “I cannot cover everything that should be covered in this course.” Or, “I could teach this, if only the students were prepared.” Or, “How could a student who came to class prepared come up with such an odd reading?” Or, “How could they learn so little when I worked so hard on this course!” Such comments, common and heartfelt, are not only expressions of frustration. They are interpretations of teaching and learning issues. But they are interpretations that stop with recognition of the gap between a professor's aspirations and students' performance, and emotional distress in the face of that gap. But consider what might result from shifting the lament toward an inquisitive exploration of the pivotal choices that just may have contributed to students' odd handling of course material. What might be learned from intentionally tracking back from a student's off the mark essay answer to the activities, material, and structure of a course? Might there be value in a professor at least imaginatively reconstructing a course assuming that he or she contributed to the real ways that students made meaning of the material? Such an approach offers a move beyond frustration and emotional distress. That discovery carries the potential to narrow the gap between a professor's aspirations and students actual performance. It is a path to discovering how “scholar” and “teacher” actually come together in concrete practice. Eugene Gallagher's “Teaching for Religious Literacy,” indicates steps in this move. Beginning with Stephen Prothero's influential Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – And Doesn't (HarperCollins 2007), Gallagher argues that teaching for religious literacy must move beyond the “what” of religious ideas and practices that Prothero emphasizes. It needs to include students coming to understand the “how” and the “why” of religious ideas and practices as well. No real claim to “understanding” is possible without these. Gallagher illustrates an approach to designing the introductory course with the intent of realizing religious literacy in this fuller sense. Isaac Alderman and Donald J. Beyers engage in sustained reflection on a pivotal choice deliberately made for their introductory theology course. Working with department defined content – all sections include working with the theological themes of God, creation, revelation, Jesus, and the Church – Alderman and Beyers used an assignment designed to promote inquiry-based learning. They incorporated documentary film making into the study of historical theology and found that it contributed to the students becoming better historical theologians. Susan Willhauck accepted an invitation to teach at the Yucatan Theological School in Merida, Mexico. Teaching in this multi-cultural context, through a translator, forced careful attention to every choice she made. Drawing on the work of Henry Giroux and others on borders and border pedagogy, Willhauck analyzed pedagogical strategies that promoted understanding across disciplinary and cultural borders. Her conclusion –“theological reflection on pedagogy that crosses and softens boundaries will change our teaching,” and, she believes, the field of theology itself. “Pivotal choices” constitutes the organizing spine for the conversation in this issue's “In the Classroom.” Under the auspices of the History of Christianity section at last November's annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Madeline Duntley, W. Clark Gilpin, Constance Furey, and Horace E. Six-Means discussed critical themes and issues in teaching the history of Christianity. The topics of change, continuity, difference, interpretations of texts, ethnographic research, and more weave through this discussion. The conversation displays how attention to pivotal choices discloses the melding of field and pedagogy. Using a textbook – or not – is also a pivotal choice and the one we posed for TTR's second call. Kate Blanchard, Margaret Parks Cowan, and Bruce Forbes provided different answers with different rationales for three decidedly different kinds of courses. Four more professors share teaching tactics in this issue. From a strategy for using textbooks, to using cupcakes for teaching feminist theology, to utilizing treasure hunts to communicate biblical theology, to how a rotating role as teaching assistant can increase students' stake in courses – your pedagogical creativity will be stimulated. And don't miss the book reviews.

This chapter presents methodological and thematic considerations for a dialogue between the Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. It argues for the need to take more account of the character of the Catholic Church as a communio that also includes Eastern Churches. Despite the thorny problem of Uniatism, Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christians share a common heritage and face many similar challenges in the field of theology and with regard to current issues. The thematic areas of papal primacy and the filioque remain controversial, and there does not seem to be much leeway for the Eastern Catholic Churches on these topics. However, there are also signs of movement toward a broader common understanding. The search for complementarity and the development of a dialogue of life could help the churches to re-examine theological issues and their relationship, and to strengthen the ties between them, thereby deepening unity.

The issue of primacy divides Roman Catholic (RCC) and Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) in theological field. Painful historical heritage from Second World War is also the great obstacle. Yugoslav atheistic state supported development of inter-church relations in acceptable proportion that would increase national relations in Yugoslav federation. Its fear was related to possible 'common front' against ideological system. Regional inter-church relations were initiated by Vatican and Pope Paul II, while SOC accepted it particularly in the social field. Both agreed on common responsibility for the evangelization an atheistic society. The variety of institutional forms of cooperation was also agreed, Common Commission for dialogue of SOC Council and Yugoslav Bishop Conference, and Theological Faculties Conferences in Post World War II Vatican period. In post-conflict Balkan Societies, RCC and SOC agreed to continue common activities for post-conflict rehabilitation and evangelizational purposes.

Stem Cells, Embryos and Cloning—Unravelling the Ethics of a Knotty Debate

Editor's Note

During the Hungarian domination of Transylvania, Romanian priests, the Orthodox ones as well as the Greekcatholics – were strongly involved in the struggle for the defense of the Romanian national and for the union of this historic province with the mother country, Romania. The priest Miron Cristea was an emblematic personality of political militancy, on a national field. After the Great Union of December 1, 1918, Miron Cristea had to take the most important political positions in the Romanian state: member of the Regency (July 1927 – June 1930) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers (February 10, 1938 – March 6, 1939).Miron Cristea was an excellent leader of the Romanian Orthodox Church, who has linked his name that not only was the first patriarch, but also for his contributions in the field of theology, monastic life organization etc. He was involved in the Romanian state politics in the difficult moments of Romania’s existence, with the hope that through his balance spirit he will succeed to end the disputes, to introduce an atmosphere of normalcy in the Romanian society. Unfortunately, his good intentions were canceled by the interwar Romanian realities.

One of the most important developments in the field of theology in the last two decades has been a genuine revival of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. “Its roots are hard to isolate, and the styles of theology within it vary widely, but the current trinitarian revival itself is unmistakable. … [V]irtually every serious theological movement of recent years has sought in its own terms to state and shape trinitarian doctrine.”1 Feminists, liberationists, process thinkers, and more traditionalist Catholic and Protestant theologians as well as Eastern Orthodox desire to free the Trinity from its isolation in traditional statements with the consequent lack of relation to practical Christian faith and life. The realization that in the economy of salvation we have to do with God as he is in himself has radically focused thought in a new way on the being and act of God as triune. Further, the emphasis on the liberation of human beings and the concomitant social and political thrust has undoubtedly been a contributing factor. This poses a question: Is God as triune not only the source of our salvation but also the ground and paradigm of true social life and liberation?

Black Liberation Theology and the Lynching of Jesus

The interpretation of the concept of κένωσις in Philippians 2:6–7 has been widely approached using the historical critical method, which is mostly western oriented, but a contextual approach of κένωσις in Philippians 2:6–7 from the perspective of African Christology in relation to African leadership style is lacking. Therefore, using the African biblical contextual approach, the article reinterprets the term κένωσις based on African christology with the aim of reinterpreting κένωσις in Philippians 2:6–7 in the context of African leadership style, and also with intension to critique the African model of leadership. It argues that Jesus as a leader figure as represented in the concept of κένωσις in Philippians 2:6–7 is a model of selfless leadership which is lacking in African leadership figures. The article also intends to show how the description of Jesus’ attitude in Philippians 2:6–7 reflects humility, selflessness and servant-leadership as against African leadership style, which is characterised by self-conceit, selfishness, ostentations, splendour and bossiness.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This essay reinterprets the concept of kenosis in Philippians 2:6–7 in the context of African Christology and how it resonates with selfless leadership as exemplified in Pauline description of Jesus Christ in the text. From observation, leadership in various spheres of the society in Africa, such as ecclesiastical, political and traditional, lack selflessness as indicated in this article. This article, therefore, cuts across the field of biblical theology, historical theology, political science and African cultural studies.

In this paper, I seek to provide insight into Rudolf Bultmann’s work by engaging with it through the lenses of biblical theology. To do so, I first describe the presuppositions behind Bultmann’s approach to biblical theology by discussing three polarities crucial to his thinking: (1) mythology versus science, (2) Historie versus Geschichte, and (3) objective knowledge versus revelation. I then explore Bultmann’s exegetical methods under three headings: (1) historical-critical methods, (2) demythologizing, and (3) existentialist interpretation. Lastly, I locate Bultmann within the field of biblical theology by concluding that he was a theologian who (1) rejected the unity of the Scriptures in favor of their diversity, (2) bridged the gap between history and theology through prioritizing Geschichte over Historie, (3) included extra-canonical materials within the scope of biblical theology, and (4) viewed the kerygma as normative in an existentialist fashion.

The article considers international justice as a political issue in social doctrines of the Orthodox Church. The author focuses on the social doctrines of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church and on the social-political provisions of the documents adopted by the Council of Crete (2016). Social doctrines of the Orthodox Church mention some issues that can be attributed to the discursive field of political theology. Thus, international justice is a part of the Orthodox Church concept of contemporary international relations and global human challenges. Such social doctrines state the impossibility of achieving international justice due to the sinful depravity of human nature. This human sinfulness determines all types of global discrimination not only against individuals or social groups (religious, racial, national, gender, etc.), but also against peoples and states. In social doctrines, war is defined as an unacceptable way to solve world problems. Orthodox churches call for fair international relations based on Christian values, thereby criticizing the existing world order based on the ideology of liberal globalism and secularism. Documents of the Council of Crete directly state that true peace (international justice) is possible only after the universal triumph of Christian principles. In conclusion, the author summarizes the features of the Orthodox Church approach to international justice and political theology.

The article is devoted to the models of ecumenical dialogue in the Russian context on the example of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The wide-spread and flourishing discussions about ecumenism in the religious studies and theological fields constitute the problem of this study. The author investigates the problem with the aim to identify existing models of an ecumenical dialogue. Following from this purpose the most significant and discussed concepts of ecumenical dialogue in Russia are noted. The emphasis is placed on the widespread concept of two ecumenisms, most fully disclosed by A. V. Shishkov, and related discussions in the scientific and theological fields. Also, a discussion in the church discourse was revealed, which is based on the concepts of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church: prot. M. Kozlov, mitr. Hilarion (Alfeyev), fr. Georges Florovsky, archm. Sophronia (Sakharova) and others. To outline the broad picture, there was established the position of the Roman Catholic Church as well as its messages addressed to Orthodoxy. In addition, three main trends in the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to ecumenism are identified and described. The first is anti-ecumenism, its members are against any dialogue with non-Orthodoxy. The second is moderate ecumenism, where participants advocate the idea of acceptable and unacceptable forms of ecumenism without making edits to the Church doctrine, and the third are modernist ecumenists who are ready for changes in the teaching of the Church for the sake of the dialogue. Then, there was a transition to the term ecumenism in the context of modern conceptions about the phenomenon and also in the context of the history of the ecumenical movement of the 20th century. The author makes a conclusion about a fundamental importance of the idea of the unity of Christians for the identification of models of ecumenical dialogue. The unity can be determined as unity in one Church, as well as unity within a common space of communication without crossing borders and making one united church. It is noted that the existing concepts and terminology do not reflect this aspect, thus the author suggests the possibility of using such terms as adaptive and integrative dialogue, and lays out prospects for solving the problem.

Contemporary issues in biology and Christian theology are still dominated by the legacy of 19th-century biologist Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Debates in evolutionary biology in relation to religious belief have been reinforced by historical myths that stress conflict over integration. More conservative branches of Christianity, often allied to particular Protestant traditions, argue for a form of popular theology that attempts to compete with science, namely, creationism. More sophisticated versions of this position may appear under the guise of intelligent design, though creationism and intelligent design are not synonymous. The mirror image of this position has developed among biologists who identify themselves as new atheists, adding further fuel to the fire of an existing controversy. Methodologically speaking, the engagement of biology and theology will depend on different philosophical presuppositions according to basic models of (a) conflict, (b) independence, (c) dialogue, and (d) integration. The biological sciences also have broader relevance to allied subject domains including, for example: (a) ecological, agricultural, animal, and environmental sciences; (b) anthropological, social, and political sciences; (c) medical sciences, including genetic science and embryo development; and (d) new technologies that include bioengineering. Theological engagement with the biological component of each of these domains is particularly intense where there are controversial ethical issues at stake that seem to challenge specific Christian beliefs about human nature or divine purpose. A more positive approach to the biological sciences that draws on research in the constructive systematic theological task, while avoiding historically naïve forms of natural theology, is starting to emerge in the literature. Within Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christian traditions, there is a spectrum of possible positions, such that the field of science and theology as a whole tends to be ecumenical in orientation rather than divided along denominational boundaries. The Catholic and Orthodox churches, however, give greater precedence to official statements by their respective churches that then influence public reception of controversial issues in biology and theology in particular ways.

Studies have shown that a preference for male children is prevalent in many parts of the world, including Africa. In Nigeria, with its patriarchal family structure, a preference for sons has become an institutionalised way of life. Hence, the Hannah narrative in 1 Samuel 1 is of high relevance in Nigeria. The story of Hannah’s barrenness has often been employed to encourage childless Christians to have faith in God for children, but not many have paid attention to her request specifically for a male child in verse 11. To this end, Hannah’s prayer for a male child is examined in this article against the context of the strong desire for male children in Nigeria. The article employed the historical-critical and descriptive methods. Apart from the exegesis of 1 Samuel 1:11, using the descriptive approach, the author interacted with and utilised relevant material on preference for male children in Nigeria. The research found that Hannah’s request for a son is consistent with the pattern of the narratives of barren mothers in the Old Testament in which all asked for male children. Hannah’s specific request for a male child is therefore a reflection of the preference for sons in ancient Israel, which derived principally from the fact that, in that society, male children were greatly desired for the purpose of the perpetuation of the husband’s lineage, as well as for land inheritance. Understanding Hannah’s prayer for a son in this way, makes 1 Samuel 1:11 relevant in Nigeria where people prefer male children for similar reasons. In view of the fact that the preference for sons has a fatal effect on female children, as well as their mothers, it amounts to women abuse, which makes it an issue of pastoral significance in Nigeria. 1 Samuel 1:11 is thus relevant in the context of marital conflicts among Nigerian Christian couples arising from male child preference. To this end, teaching to illuminate this preference for sons should form an integral part of the marriage theology of the church in Nigeria.Contribution: The article is a contribution in the field of marriage theology, in that it identifies the preference for male children as a possible factor for marital disharmony among Nigerian Christian couples.

This paper attempts a careful reading of chapter I of Division Two, particularly section 53, on death in Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927). Our aim is to deconstruct some of Heidegger’s assumptions while imagining the margins of his text that could warrant a comparison and contrast with the biblical theological material of the New Testament. In parallel by reading the Synoptic Gospel of Mark on Jesus’s agony in the garden prior to his arrest, trial, death, and resurrection, we can initiate a series of comparisons and contrasts. For Heidegger, there is no conception or idea beyond death, and yet death itself as a possibility, even as the greatest possibility to be, is not like any other point in time that a human being can experience, grasp, remember, or anticipate while they are alive. It is not the witnessing of the medically certified death of another person or animal. Out of this paradox, we will argue for a greater philosophical degree of complexity that Jesus the human being experiences when it comes to the possibility of death and the impossibility to surmount it. In the same token we cannot exclude the theological doctrine of the single hypostatic substance (as two natures) of the historically finite person Jesus as human flesh and divine transcendence. So philosophically speaking, his death is unique even though its event as physical expiration on the Cross is like any other human being. However, the physical death of the human called Jesus does not answer the question of the meaning of death in the split-natured unified hypostatic substance of Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Christian God, which includes the First Person of the Father and the Third Person of the Holy Spirit. By tracing a series of complicated philosophical relations, we hope to contribute to the fields of philosophical theology, albeit a heterodox one, and the philosophy of religion while attending to the inherent secular limits that Heidegger’s philosophy requires in so far as he imagines his project as ‘ontological,’ and not ‘theological’ or ‘historical.’ We conclude with certain philosophical speculations to what is other to both Heidegger’s ontology and mainstream Christian theology.