Mapping the Differentiated Consensus of the Joint Declaration

282 Pages·2016·4.328 MB·English

by  Jakob Karl Rinderknecht (auth.)

E c u m e nical and Interreli
ys fo r gious
wa Di
h al
t o
Pa g
u
e
MAPPING THE
DIFFERENTIATED
CONSENSUS OF THE
JOINT DECLARATION
Jakob Karl Rinderknecht
Pathways for Ecumenical and
Interreligious Dialogue
Series Editors
Mark   Chapman
Ripon College Cuddesdon
Cuddesdon Oxford ,   United Kingdom
Gerard   Mannion
Georgetown University
Washington ,   D.C., USA
Building on the important work of the Ecclesiological Investigations
International Research Network to promote ecumenical and inter-faith
dialogue, the Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue series
publishes scholarship on interreligious encounters and dialogue in relation
to the past, present, and future. It gathers together a richly diverse array of
voices in monographs and edited collections that speak to the challenges,
aspirations, and elements of interreligious conversation. Through its pub-
lications, the series allows for the exploration of new ways, means, and
methods of advancing the wider ecumenical cause with renewed energy
for the twenty-fi rst century.
More information about this series at
http://www.springer.com/series/14561
Jakob   Karl   Rinderknecht
Mapping the
Differentiated
Consensus of the
Joint Declaration
Jakob   Karl   Rinderknecht
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue
ISBN 978-3-319-40098-3 ISBN 978-3-319-40099-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40099-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954570
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2 016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Cover illustration: © F1online digitale Bildagentur GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For
Joseph F. Rinderknecht,
David G. Truemper, and Susan K. Wood, SCL,
in gratitude for their dedication to the cause of unity. 
And for Søren and Robin,
in the hope that they will see its fruits.
C
ONTENTS
1 Introduction: Th e Problem of Ecclesial Disunion 1
Part I Th e Joint Declaration: History & Critiques 9
2 J ustifi cation and Anthropology in the JDDJ 11
3 Th e Problem of Diff erentiated Consensus 39
Part II Consensus and Conceptual Mapping 53
4 What Is Ecumenical Consensus? 55
5 C onsensus Despite Diff erence 77
6 C ognitive Linguistics and Consensus 99
7 C ognitive Linguistics and Th eology 117
vii
viii CONTENTS
Part III Mapping the Diff erentiated Consensus
in the JDDJ 145
8 M apping the Catholic Blend: Trent and Concupiscence 147
9 Th e Catholic Blend Sin and the JDDJ 167
10 Mapping the Lutheran Blend: S imul Iustus Et Peccator 195
11 Th e Lutheran Blend S in and the JDDJ 219
12 Conclusion: Diff erentiated Consensus in the JDDJ 245
Selected Bibliography 265
Index 277
L F
IST OF IGURES
Fig. 6.1 B asic network diagram 1 10
Fig. 6.2 S implex network—“Kathryn is my grandmother” 111
Fig. 6.3 M en’s 100m world record progression 1 12
Fig. 6.4 M irror network—Men’s 100m dash records 1 13
Fig. 6.5 S ingle-scope blend—“Achilles is a lion” 1 14
Fig. 6.6 D ouble-scope blend—“…I thought his head would
explode” 115
Fig. 6.1 D ouble-scope blend: “Jesus is the Messiah” 1 19
Fig. 6.2 D ouble-scope blend: “The eucharist is a sacrifi ce” 135
Fig. 9.1 S ingle-scope blend—“Sin is debt” 1 70
Fig. 9.2 C omplex network—“Sin is cause for disinheritance” 1 71
Fig. 9.3 C omplex network—“Sin is cause for disinheritance” 2 1 73
Fig. 9.4 D ouble-scope blend—“Justifi cation is a proleptic reality” 1 77
Fig. 11.1 S ingle-scope blend—“Sin is anything against God’s law” 2 22
Fig. 11.2 C omplex network—“Ruled sin” in the Christian 2 25
Fig. 11.3 S ingle-scope blend—T otus-Totus 227
Fig. 11.4 D ouble-scope blend—T otus-Totus and
Partim-Partim 229
Fig. 12.1 C omplex network—“Justifi cation is Forgiveness of Sin
and Making Righteous” 249
ix
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: The Problem of Ecclesial
Disunion
THEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND ECCLESIAL DIVISION
Pope John Paul II termed the second millennium of Christian history
“the era of Christian division.”1 It is an apt description, as this era saw the
formalization of many divisions between Christians. Division grew from
acrimonious politics, mutual distrust, cultural chauvinism, and sometimes,
real disagreements in theology. As the contemporary participants in ecu-
menical dialogues attempt to discern what differences are properly theo-
logical and which require division, they have often discovered much more
commonality than they expected. But real differences remain.
Which theological differences are worthy of the designation “c hurch-
dividing ” is dependent on context. Churches that have inherited a bro-
ken communion seem to require a higher standard of theological unity
to reestablish visible unity than would be required to maintain it. When
the delegates to the Lutheran World Federation’s (LWF) 1963 Assembly
in Helsinki were unable to agree on a statement about justifi cation in
the modern world, it was a source of frustration, but not a reason for
disunion among the LWF churches.2 Among Catholics, the case of the
1 Pope John Paul II, encyclical letter, “Ut unum sint” (May 25, 1995), §1.
2 See Jens Holger Schjørring, Prasanna Kumari, and Norman A. Hjelm, eds., From
Federation to Communion: The History of the Lutheran World Federation, (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1997), 375–81.
© The Author(s) 2016 1
J.K. Rinderknecht, Mapping the Differentiated Consensus of the Joint
Declaration, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40099-0_1