Princeton Theological Seminary

Abstract The book’s introduction makes a case for the importance of understanding the German peasants’ revolt of 1525 as a religious, rather than primarily social or political conflict. It contrasts that approach with traditionally dominant trends across several centuries of historiography, which it surveys here. It details the study’s methods, particularly its appeal to the religious and ritual life of rural peasants in order to extract theological positions that are subsequently brought into conversation with those of academic theologians, most importantly Martin Luther. Finally, it offers a sketch of the work’s individual chapters and overarching argument, as well as notes on relevant terminology.

Religious communities have shown a growing interest in social innovation as a way to have impact in their communities, leading some observers to wonder if we are in the beginning of a new social gospel movement. This article explores Christian social innovation's relationship to “social Christianity,” but cautions that faith formation of participants must be improved if we are to expect Christian social innovation to become a social “gospel” movement. Current levels of religious instruction in the US do not seem to help people distinguish Christianity from concepts like “niceness” and “helping,” making it easy to confuse Christian social innovation with secular humanitarianism. This is a problem the original social gospel movement avoided, thanks largely to the era’s practices of religious formation practiced in families and congregations. If the impact of Christian social innovation is to parallel that of the social gospel movement, it needs a coherent theological vision and moral vocabulary to guide social innovators. The author recommends creating systems of formation that will help faith communities embody as well as espouse social Christianity.

How should theological librarians think about and respond to the advent of AI in theological education? What role(s) might theological librarians have in this brave new world? How is AI similar to, and different from, other information technology revolutions (writing, printing, the internet)? Should institutions of theological education consider pursing a kind of new monasticism, leaving the decadent dystopia into which we seem to be heading for the purity of quill and parchment? While we may be unable to provide definite answers, this session offered a forum for raising, considering, and discussing these and related questions.

ABSTRACT In this plenary address given at the 2024 Society of Pastoral Theology Annual Study Conference, I argue that African American pastoral theology, and the broader field of pastoral theology, cannot ignore the growing and profound challenge of Afropessimism. African American pastoral theologians must continue to utilize cognate resources that address the relation between blackness and nothingness that scholars like Frank B. Wilderson III, David Marriott, and Jared Sexton, to name a few, elaborate in their work. This address is therefore an attempt to contribute an African American pastoral theological response to the Afropessimist claim, espoused by Wilderson foremostly, that there is no redemption for persons deemed too black for care – the shepherd’s Black sheep.

Dr. Smith argues admirably for complex, non-binary thinking. In analyzing current attacks on Gaza, though, he fails to exhibit that complexity. He caricatures US pro-Palestinian movements and masks Israel's wildly disproportionate retaliation to Hamas's October 7 attack. Smith oversimplifies, first, with his own binary: “Israel, the United States and their supporters” versus “Hamas and its Palestinian allies” (including “Hezbollah and the Houthis”). Palestinian allies are rendered indistinct from those waging “terrible violence.” This misrepresents Palestinian allies as simply pro-Hamas, not as resisters to US-backed Israeli genocide. Smith's binary also forecloses seeing positive roles played by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. In a second oversimplification, Smith pleas for remembering “the suffering of all parties,” but fails to see that doing so requires our giving an asymmetrical preference to Gazans suffering genocidal assault. Third, Smith sees “some of the animus” leading to encampments for Palestine as being antisemitic. Without acknowledging any virtue to the encampments, Smith's mention here of antisemitism reinforces reactive attacks on them as “antisemitic.” Fourth, Smith's concluding questions chastise encampments for neglecting other struggles, for Syria, the Sudan, Blacks, and LGBTQ + persons. This neglects the ways these struggles have been, in fact, vital to Palestinian activism.