Luther and the Eucharistic Controversy

Luther wrote That These Words of Christ … Still Stand Firm to teach people what they should believe about the Lord's Supper and to refute the arguments of his opponents. Luther saw the devil as responsible for the rejection of Christ's substantial presence in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. The disagreement concerning the eucharist rested on the opposing exegesis of key Scripture texts and had implications for Christology and the understanding of the relationship between theology, science, and human reason. Luther believed that his opponents taught a heretical position that endangered people's souls, and so their ideas could not be tolerated.     

The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to the Anglican Communion

As a complement to the many studies pointing to tensions, compromises and juxtapositions in Lumen Gentium (LG), this article, published on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of the dogmatic constitution, aims, by means of a lectio continua, to defend the document's profound coherence. In each chapter the Council fathers made it clear that – whether it pertains to the people of God as a whole or to the laity, the religious, the bishops, the Pope or even the Blessed Virgin Mary – nothing happens in the Church as a merely human act, apart from the will of Christ or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The first image applied to the Church in LG 1 – that the Church shares in Christ's mission – and its explanation in LG 8 that the Church is ‘one complex reality comprising a human and a divine element’, therefore, can be considered as a perfect summary of the entire constitution and of the nature and mission of the Church.     

Nothing Less than Everything: Thoughts on a Sittler Legacy

Universtiy of Chicago theologian Joseph Sittler has left a most valuable legacy. He was a “preacher's theologian.” He distinguished between a literal reading of the Bible from faith in the God of the Bible. He pioneered the interaction between Christology and ecology. Sittler was a pioneer, worthy of being remembered two decades after his death.     

What is Christian about Christian bioethics?

What is Christian about Christian bioethics? The short answer to this question is that the Incarnation should shape the form and content of Christian bioethics. In explicating this answer it is argued that contemporary medicine is unwittingly embracing and implementing the transhumanist dream of transforming humans into posthumans. Contemporary medicine does not admit that there are any limits in principle to the extent to which it should intervene to improve the quality of human life. This largely inarticulate, yet ambitious, agenda is derived first in late modernity's failed, but nonetheless ongoing, attempt to transform necessity into goodness, and second the loss of any viable concept of eternity, thereby stripping temporal existence of any normative significance. In short, medicine has become the vanguard of a profane attempt to save humankind by extracting data from flesh. In response, it is contended that an alternative Christian bioethics must be shaped by the Incarnation, the Word made flesh. This assertion does not entitle Christians to oppose the posthuman trajectory of contemporary medicine on the basis of any natural or biological essentialism. Rather, it is an evangelical witness to the grace of Christ's redemption instead of the work of self-transformation. It is Christ alone who thereby makes the vulnerability and mortality of finitude a gift and blessing. Specifically, it is maintained that the chasm separating necessity and goodness cannot be filled but only bridged through the suffering entailed in Christ's cross, and through Christ's resurrection eternity becomes the standard against which the temporal lives of human creatures are properly formed and measured. Consequently, Christian bioethics should help us become conformed to Christ rather than enabling self-transformation.     

Εὐφραινέσθωσαν οἱ οὐρανοί, ‘Let the heavens rejoice’: an Anglican reflection on the 2014 Agreed Statement on Christology between the Anglican Communion and the Oriental Orthodox Churches

After acknowledging the importance of the Anglican–Oriental Orthodox Agreed Statement on Christology (2014) and explaining the perspective of this article, the rationale of Christology as confession and interpretation is explained and explored: its development of the fundamental theme of Christ the eternal Son, by his double solidarity in incarnation with humanity and Godhead relating and re-bonding Godhead and humanity. This theme, inherent in Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah, is essentially repeated by Paul and continuously interpreted in the Church’s unfolding self-understanding. Criticism of this process is mentioned and briefly countered. The continuity of the theme in the debates of the fourth and fifth centuries, its basis in principles of human relevance and divine commitment and its adequate expression in the Statement are indicated and affirmed. The prudent silence of the Agreement on technical refinements and definitions of Councils is noted. Finally, brief suggestions are offered in explanation of the continuance of the issue in ancient times and reflections on its relevance to modern Christology.     

CHRIST AND EVOLUTION: A DRAMA OF WISDOM?1

Abstract This paper argues that a genuine engagement of Christianity with evolution needs to include a discussion of Christology. Further, it develops a particular approach to Christology through a theo‐dramatic account of incarnation. The somewhat static post‐Chalcedon theological categories of divine and human natures are hard to square with contemporary evolutionary accounts of human origins. Once the divine Logos is portrayed in the active categories of Wisdom it becomes easier to envisage divine and creaturely wisdom coexisting in the person of Christ. I argue, in particular, that a focus on God's agency through a modified version of Hans Urs von Balthasar's account of theo‐drama invites participation and affirms human agency in a way that grand narratives do not. More particularly, drawing on examples from hominid evolution, contemporary discussion of paleontology and cooperative evolutionary theories, I suggest that the most convincing accounts of evolutionary biology fit into this theo‐dramatic account more readily than alternatives. As such, in the spirit of Robert Boyle, this paper deliberately blurs the categories of revealed and natural theology by arguing that we can make sense of the former through concentration on the latter.