Articles

​In a time of moral ambiguity surrounding discussions of drone warfare, Peters invokes Luther’s “Sin Boldly!” to urge people to adopt a “responsibility ethic” that puts the neighbor’s needs at the forefront of ethical deliberation. ​In our broken world, can we avoid sin? No. Therefore, Peters asks the question–“Should we try?” For him, the answer is no. In order to best serve our neighbors, we need to accept that doing our best is better than doing nothing at all.​

The church is at an important juncture in its public life. How will it respond to the cries for justice bubbling up from the various marginalized sectors of our society?

Since readers have the benefit of two fine reviews that trace the argument of her book plus her own responses, I will refrain from repeating that exercise with its interesting appropriation of Barth and Schleiermacher and its important concern for reconnecting theology and religious studies in the academy. Perhaps what follows may have some implications in that latter case and perhaps suggest another conversation. From the vantage point of my somewhat limited endeavor, however, it will be most helpful to focus on several statements which seem to express her vision of theology’s vocation for the purpose of doctrine.

Is doctrine of interest anymore to theologians and ethicists? If the answer to this is no, if doctrine ceases to incite curiosity and inspire questions, then the work of Christian theology and ethics too, will end. If the answer is no, then theologians will no longer inquire into the nature of doctrine, study doctrinal formulations from the past, and figure out how to best construct doctrine. Ethicists will no longer ask how human behavior relates to God; they will not prescribe action in community that is predicated on the doctrine of redemption. The end of doctrine would be the end of both theology and ethics.​

In her book, Theology and the End of Doctrine, Christine Helmer diagnoses the current subject-matter crisis of academic theology. Does theology belong in the contemporary secularized academy? After evoking a couple of sharp dismissals of the idea that theology still deserves a place on university campuses (including one critic’s rather bloodthirsty suggestion that theologians are now “fair game” to religious theorists), Helmer insightfully points out that it is precisely theologians’ historic focus on doctrine that makes their less charitable colleagues want to hunt theologians down in the enlightened woods of the post-Enlightenment academy.

For many readers this will be a surprising book. Some will find surprising Helmer’s use of Barth and Schleiermacher as allies on the same side of an argument. Some will find surprising her use of Barth in criticizing elements of the so-called Yale School, or at least elements of it. No one familiar with the author will be surprised, though, by the historical erudition and the conceptual creativity of this book.

Regular readers of the Journal of Lutheran Ethics will recall that the July/August edition is the book review edition featuring reviews of a number of different works. This year we have the welcome opportunity to take a different tack and focus on one book, the latest and much discussed publication of Lutheran theologian and scholar, […]

Dialectical Theology and Jacques Ellul: An Introductory Exposition. Jacob E. Van Vleet. Fortress Press, 2014.

Hollowell, Adam Edward. Power and Purpose: Paul Ramsey and Contemporary Christian Political Theology. Grand Rapids, M.I.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2015. x + 230pp. $28.00.

In her article, Surekha Nelavala compares surrogacy practices in India to those in North America. Writing from a feminist perspective, she contrasts surrogate mothers in North America who give “a priceless gift to the intended parents,” with the Indian fertility clinics, often dubbed “baby factories.” The thrust of the article deals with the dilemma that, while providing much needed income to many Indian families and thereby temporarily empowering surrogate mothers, the practices of the Indian surrogacy industry exploit and objectify surrogate mothers, often having disastrous and life-threatening effects on their lives and their families.