The Paradoxical Vision: A Public Theology for the Twenty-first Century. - book reviews

Christian Century, Oct 11, 1995 by Michael J. Himes

By Robert Benne. Fortress, 237 pp.,$13.0Q.

PUBLIC THEOLOGY, the exploration of the Christian tradition's resources for understanding the church's public role, is necessarily confessional. Different understandings of the church's mission lead to distinctive public theologies. The Calvinist tradition has produced influential public theologians; one only need think of the Niebuhrs. Recently Catholic theologians have tried to build on and expand the foundation laid by John Courtney Murray. In this book Robert Benne, professor of religion at Roanoke College in Virginia, sets out a distinctively Lutheran public theology.

Defining public theology as "the engagement of a living religious tradition with its public environment--the economic, political, and cultural spheres of our common life," Benne describes the contemporary American context for public theology, explains the Lutheran "paradoxical vision" and examines the direct and indirect ways in which the church affects its social environment. He briefly depicts post-Enlightenment America with its privatized religion, radical individualism and pragmatic utilitarianism, and then turns his attention to the various theological responses. Mainline Protestantism has largely failed, he maintains, because of a basic theological flaw. The Calvinist mainstream's attempt to construct the kingdom of God in America was too optimistic about the possibilities of history. It lost its transcendent perspective and thus its ability to make crucial distinctions and critical judgments. Some Protestant voices are now raised against this--Stanley Hauerwas gets special mention--but the primary alternatives have been Catholic and what Benne describes as "neoconservative" attempts at public theology.

The second part of the book explains how the "paradoxical" theological stance of classical Lutheran theology--including the "two kingdoms" doctrine and a view of the human person as simultaneously justified and a sinner--can contribute to a more adequate public theology. Benne agrees with Mark Noll's charge that the Lutheran viewpoint has not been sufficiently valued in public theology but disagrees with his claim that Lutherans have not articulated their vision in relation to public life. To support his argument, he examines various official statements by the Lutheran churches since 1960. Evaluating them on their fidelity to the paradoxical vision, he gives them mixed grades. Looking beyond official statements, he considers the public theology of three writers, Reinhold Niebuhr, Glenn Tinder and Richard John Neuhaus, who he thinks have been especially marked by the paradoxical vision.

In the third and shortest part of the book, Benne sketches the ways in which the church affects society, and he lays out guidelines for effective direct influence on public debate, cautioning against too often or too quickly adopting advocacy positions.

As a Catholic who has written on public theology from within that tradition, I welcome this book as a valuable contribution to the discussion. Benne's argument that the Lutheran tradition has important things to say on the subject is convincing. Judging by the three individuals whom the author cites as working within the paradoxical vision--Niebuhr, who sharply criticized Luther's social ethics; Tinder, who is an Anglican; and Neuhaus, who is now a Catholic--it's clear that Benne regards this vision as common property of Christians.

Benne is admirably clear in his presentation, careful in his judgments and gracious to those with whom he disagrees. However, he does not address the key issue for public theology until the third section of his book, and others working in the field will find that section disappointingly brief.

Also, his treatment of Catholic public theology relies exclusively on official documents and ignores the important methodological questions that Catholic writers have debated. He warns of the corrupting effect of power on the churches but does not define "power"; he seems to understand all power as in some way coercive. Finally, although Benne warns against identifying the church's mission with any political platform, his paradoxical vision tends to sound very Reviewed by Michael J. Himes, who teaches in the department of theology at Boston College. much like what he describes as the neoconservative agenda.