Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

This article examines the standard English translation of the Theological Declaration of Barmen, by Arthur C. Cochrane, and argues that a more literal translation demonstrates more forcefully just how much the Declaration challenges notions of “lordship” that continue to distort the life of the church and of society. While Cochrane's translation is fluid and reliable, it does not convey the way in which the Declaration plays with the cognates of certain key German words. Moreover, Cochrane uses the RSV for biblical quotations, rather than translating Barmen's Luther Bible. The article focuses especially on how Barmen pairs and contrasts “lording” (and its cognates) with “serving” (and its cognates). Further, the article carefully explicates the Declaration's attention to Christ as the Word who, as free and enduring, frees and claims us for this service. The article concludes with a retranslation of the Declaration as a whole

Abstract All the gospels narrate the death of Jesus in such a way that his crucifixion by parodic exaltation (so Joel Marcus) becomes a testament to the truth of his messiahship. This article contends that there is a further eschatological dimension to Mark’s account that tends to be overlooked in exegetical discussion: the death of Jesus has been narrated in such a way as to foreshadow the return of the Son of Man. For Mark, then, the cross not only makes a claim about the eschatological “already” but brings to mind the “not yet” that was expected to happen soon: Jesus’s glorious return. I support this reading by identifying overlooked connections between the crucifixion scene and the Sanhedrin trial, locating the death of Jesus within the broader themes of suffering and vindication in Mark, and situating the earliest gospel in the context of related traditions in other Jewish sources about the suffering of the righteous.

Abstract Does the idea of human enhancement presuppose a goal or an ideal to direct technological modifications? In the absence of such an agreed ideal in today’s culture, can Christian theology help clarify the goal or the meaning of “perfection” when applied to human beings? A theological perspective rooted in scripture and in the writings of theologians such as Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nyssa suggests that theology instead of offering its own definition of the human ideal, theology rejects the possibility of any defined human goal. An analysis of the biblical word teleios (“mature” or “perfect”), along with Gregory’s view of infinite ascent, leads to the conclusion that the human goal is found in relationship to the triune God and not in any anthropologically-definable status.

Abstract Supralapsarian christologies all hold that the incarnation is not contingent upon sin but may differ on the nature of the gift given to us in the incarnation. In this essay I conceptualize and evaluate a crucial difference between two supralapsarian strategies. One strategy, exemplified by Kathryn Tanner, focuses on the natures of the incarnate One: it argues that in the incarnation the Word takes on a human nature which, being transformed in the act of assumption, becomes the conduit of grace for those who share in the same humanity. The other, represented by Samuel Wells, thinks of the incarnation as a gift of a transforming presence of the incarnate person. In taking on human form, the person of the divine Word comes as close to us as God can – the invisible God now can be seen, touched, heard – and draws us into a community of friendship and love.

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

In Pastoral Care and Counseling – An Introduction, Philip Browning Helsel orients readers to the purpose and practice of pastoral care, which the author defines as ‘a determined, supportive ministr...

Clergy responses to economic formation and de-formation within American ‘Rust Belt’ cities such as Pittsburgh and Detroit are examined in the light of conceptions of civic and Christian ‘community’ as drawn from select sources in ethics and political philosophy. The relative absence of clergy from urban economic restructuring efforts within these contexts is noted in the essay, while also paying attention to several notable clergy exceptions to this pattern who provided important critiques of corporate sector economic predations and of clergy moral indifference or active complicity.

This article explores the following question: how can Christians negotiate differences in theological perspective with others in their individual faith communities? I refer to this particular challenge as the task of ‘dialogue in congregations’, and suggest that it requires imagining a unique approach to theological method. In this essay I argue for a theology that is grounded in religious communities, is public and vulnerable to correction, and both informs and is informed by practice. The essay concludes with reflection on how such a vision of constructive theology might be applied in a concrete situation of theological disagreement.

Abstract In both Matthew and Luke, Satan offers Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world” in exchange for his obeisance. Only in Luke, however, does Satan make an intriguing claim about his “authority” over the kingdoms and his prerogative to “give” such “to whomever he wishes” (4:6). Richard Hays lamented in his recent Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels that this unique detail has not been given thorough attention in exegetical studies of Luke-Acts. This study takes up the question of Satan’s claim in detail and suggests that Satan’s words are informed by a phrase that appears multiple times in the book of Daniel: “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals and gives it to whomever he wishes.” This intertextuality is important for the larger narrative of Luke-Acts in two respects. First, it presses the question of whether, from the perspective of the larger narrative, Satan’s claim is truthful. The article concludes that an answer to that question is not immediately clear; the narrative permits varied readings. Secondly, it is argued that the Danielic background of Luke 4:6 intensifies the Christological drama of the narrative. Jesus is here tested with what is legitimately his as Daniel’s “Son of Man,” and we soon find that he will receive such not from the hand of Satan but from obedience to God.