Christophe Chalamet

This introduction to the thematic issue on covenant theology sketches some of the contours of the history of this theme in Christian theology, paying closer attention to Protestant voices who, since the early 16th century, have dedicated much attention to it, giving rise, eventually, to what became known as ‘federal theology.’ This maximalist approach to the place and role of covenant within Christian faith and theology was followed by a relative lack of attention by prominent 19th century thinkers (Schleiermacher, Ritschl), before a stunning revival in the 20th century, especially with parts 3 and 4 of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics in the 1950 s. The introduction points out the tension between an affirmation of God’s unconditioned election toward covenant, and the many biblical texts which call for a reciprocity, and thus obedience from the part of human beings.

The theme of covenant leads us to think simultaneously about both God’s freedom and God’s binding to creation. It may thus help us gain a deeper understanding both of the freedom God enjoys and the kind of necessity that ensues from God’s decision to be “God with,” rather than merely God a se, in se, and pro se. In the Scriptures, we see different “models” of covenant – some reciprocal and mutually conditioned, others unilateral and eternal. Rather than systematize these various models by unifying and homogenizing them, discerning their distinctive features may be a better avenue for a covenant theology today. In the New Testament too, we find different ways of presenting the newness of Jesus Christ in relation to the covenant(s) as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. The final section of the paper seeks to show how, in the first two chapters of Luke’s gospel, God’s committed freedom, God’s free commitment, is exercised through this newness, not as replacing or as abrogating ancient traditions, but as fulfilling them: the point is to render witness to the renewing of the one covenant, not to present a “new” covenant in the sense of a “second” covenant.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:God's Triune Life:Engaging Thomas Joseph White's Recent StudyChristophe Chalamet"Deus, ut nos in sobrietate contineat, parce de sua essentia disserit."1At almost seven-hundred pages, Thomas Joseph White's book is an impressive achievement in size and scope, and one of the persons who endorsed the book, Rowan Williams, accurately describes it as "encyclopedic." There are repetitions in it, but these are not easy to avoid in a book that includes a number of surveys on some of the major thinkers in Christian theology.The main thesis of the book is stated both clearly and forcefully by the author: sound Trinitarian theology must learn from Thomas Aquinas that, even if who God is as triune becomes known by human beings through the history of God's act toward and in the world, it is a mistake to elucidate God's own life from that history, since this would state things in the wrong order. It is the processions that ground the missions of the Son and the Spirit, not the other way round. What God does in history does not in any way constitute who God is in God's own life.2 On the contrary, what God does in history, [End Page 475] in the economy, is wholly derivative of who God is eternally.3 "The missions of the persons are the processions with an additional effect ad extra in the world."4 We thus see the direction of the movement the author depicts for us: from God's eternal act of generating both the Son and the Spirit to God's involvement in and with the world. This means, conversely, that projecting back onto God some of the characteristics of God's act in history is not theologically sound. It is much more adequate to see what God does as an outpouring of God's own life.To a large extent, this claim seems to be correct to me. Whether White fully abides by it is debatable, but I wish to inquire about something else, indeed about something that troubles me a bit. Is there not a risk of seeing the Passion narrative as an illustration or a manifestation of an eternal relation, a move which might result in some rather strange connotations? I am thinking here of a claim which is found near the end of the book: "The Son's human self-offering to the Father is a most fitting temporal manifestation of the eternal relation of the Son to Father."5 So, is the Son relating to the Father in an eternal gesture of "self-offering"? Is this how we should understand the relation between the Son and the Father? I wonder if we are not coming a bit too close to some well-known speculative waters, namely Barthian waters, in which it is suggested that there is an "above" and a "below" in God.6Rather than tracing an upward movement, positing Jesus's Passion as a reflection in time of a supposedly eternal relation that bears the same shape of "self-offering," are we not invited by the Gospels themselves to focus instead on what God effects for the world in Jesus's Passion? Is the "self-offering" the Scriptures presents before our eyes not the self-offering of both the Father and the Son, with the Spirit, in and for the world, rather than a self-offering within God from one to the other? Is it not more accurate to state, as White does near the end of the book, that, "in the mystery of the crucifixion, … we come to know who God the Trinity really is in himself"?7 Which then raises the (old) question of the direction or the aim of Jesus Christ's "self-offering" on the Cross.I have begun by highlighting one of the key theses of the book: sound Trinitarian theology moves from God's eternal act of generating both the [End Page 476] Son and the Spirit to God's involvement in and with the world, not the other way round. A number of other suggestions are of course made in the course of the seven-hundred pages of the...

What is it that led Ernst Troeltsch, who for a time belonged to Albrecht Ritschl’s school, to break from the professor he so admired? On the one hand, Troeltsch found fault with Ritschl’s historiography of early Lutheran theology. Where Ritschl saw Melanchthon as someone who had distorted Luther’s original reformatory insights, Troeltsch praised Melanchton for having clarified and systematized Luther’s thought. Troeltsch’s critique of Ritschl’s historiography is as closely connected to Troeltsch’s own theological program as was Ritschl’s interpretation of the development of early Lutheran theology to his (Ritschl’s) own theological intention. The second half of the article examines Troeltsch’s program by looking at the debate between Troeltsch and Julius Kaftan, a prominent Ritschlian in those years, on the supernatural basis of Christianity, the place and scope of metaphysics in theology, and the “absoluteness” of Christianity.

Dans cette leçon inaugurale, l'auteur se penche sur l'Évangile, compris au sens large de «promesse», comme objet et comme source de subversion. Deux textes bibliques illustrent chacun de ces deux aspects : le livre de Job et la parabole matthéenne des ouvriers de la onzième heure (Mt 20, 1-16). Une troisième et dernière partie porte sur la relation entre révélation et mystère. Le style oral a été en partie conservé. In this inaugural lecture, delivered on September 24, 2012 at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Geneva, the author develops the theme of the Gospel — understood broadly as «promise» — as both the object and subject of subversion. Two biblical texts are taken as illustrations of these two aspects: the book of Job and Matthew's parable of the vineyard workers of the eleventh hour (Mt 20:1-16). A third and final part focuses on the relation between revelation and mystery. The original style of the lecture has been partly maintained.

The emergence of a school around the theology of Albrecht Ritschl remains an important aspect of modern Protestant theology. On the basis of previously unpublished correspondence between Ritschl and some of his most celebrated students, we are able to investigate anew the circumstances under which the Ritschlian school was formed, and to ask why Ritschl's theology attracted a new generation of theologians and historians of theology. By focusing on Wilhelm Herrmann, one of the most significant systematic theologians of the Ritschlian school, this article shows how Ritschl's attempt to overcome apologetics and classical metaphysics as well as his way of correlating religion and morality opened a distinctive and appealing alternative to the various theological schools of his time.