Theology/Denomination Tags

(one is ordained into the rite of the ordaining bishop)

Thanks, MJ.  I wasn't sure about the effect of being consecrated by Pope John Paul II, but if it's his ordination that counts then I'm happy to accept that.  I've changed the spreadsheet, though I'll make more changes before republishing it.

I couldn't find Chacour at Logos.com.

Check Vyrso.

Quick comments:

• Forigno should be Foligno.
• Change Discalced Carmelite (OCD) to Carmelite, Discalced (OCD), so that the two branches sort together.
• I suspect OFS and TOSF are simply the Latin and English abbreviations for the same branch of secular Franciscans. MJ?
• It seems Jean Marie Vianney and Jeanne d'Arc were both TOSF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Order_of_Saint_Francis#Notable_members (which also mentions a number of popes).
• As MJ states above, Francis de Sales was an Oratorian, not a Capucin.
• I've never heard the word Visitationist. I'm used to Visitandine. But then I'm not a native speaker. MJ?
• I'd still prefer Brennan Manning as an ordinary lay Catholic, since he left both the order and the priesthood. And I'd still prefer von Balthasar as Jesuit, as that's where his spirituality comes from. 

Lutheran / Church of Sweden:

• Bo Giertz 1905-1998
• Cristina Grenholm 1959->
• Lars Hartman 1930->
• Bengt Hägglund (not Hagglund!)  1920->
• Antje Jackelén 1955->
• Krister Stendahl 1921-2008
• Gustaf Wingren 1910-2000

Swedish Mission Covenant Church:

• Paul Petter Waldenström 1838-1917

(I guess you'll have to list him under Reformed, since internationally that's where they're organized, though in many ways they're more Lutheran than Reformed.)

Swedes of unknown confession:

• Karin Hedner Zetterholm
• Magnus Zetterholm
• Samuel Byrskog 1957->

I've added Chacour, corrected Foligno, changed to Carmelite (Discalced), and changed Brennan Manning.

It looks like OFS is a subset of TOSF, as they can be Regular, rather than Secular. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Order_of_St._Francis#Third_Order_Regular)

Apologies over Francis de Sales.  I didn't read carefully enough.  He was only an associate member of the OFM Cap and although the foundation he started died out soon after, the Oratory is still strong today.  I've changed his category to the Oratory.

Visitandine looks better, though it looks like they're known as both.  I've changed it.

The normal rule (suggested long ago by MJ) is that we categorise with what was applicable at the time of writing.  Therefore von Balthasar would be a diocesan priest.  However, there may be a better reason, as you argue, to leave him as a Jesuit.  MJ?

Thanks for all the Swedes.  I've added all except the unknown confessions.  I'd rather wait until someone provides evidence for their confessions.

Von Balthasar is now Jesuit.

It's a good question about updating the collections.  I usually try to publish the spreadsheet and collections at the same time, but it takes quite a while to go through all the collections, so there may sometimes be a lag.  I'd be only too happy if someone offered to republish all of the collections each time the spreadsheet is updated.  I don't have much time at the moment, so updating the collections means less work on the spreadsheet, and there's still a lot I'd like to do to it.

Any offers to update would be greatly appreciated. [:D]

The plan is to publish all of the Denomination Streams and Theologies, but only the Denominations with the most authors, simply because it takes so much time.  I'd be only too happy for them all to be done.  Other Denominations can be updated from the spreadsheet by anyone interested.

Of course, the original plan was to simply show it was achievable and suggest Logos did it all for us.  Much of it could then happen automatically.  Occasionally Logos change the way an author's name is listed, but I can only change the spreadsheet and collections if someone lets me know.  If the project was taken over by Logos, it could be automatic.

I've learned a lot from the project, but the bigger the project, the more time it takes.  It either needs more crowdsourcing, to be taken over by Logos, or to slow down a bit.

Kenneth Keathley ought to be listed in the Southern Baptist denomination (note, click "K" to sort by last names that start with K and scroll down).

He has a book in Logos & Vyrso I believe. Also He is a Molinist (the topic of his book).

Thanks, abondservant.  I thought Kenneth Keathley already was marked as Southern Baptist.  Please let me know if not.

There currently is no category for Molinism,  If anyone provides me a sufficiently large list, preferably with evidence, then I could create one.

...

Also I made a spread sheet to show what I'm about to suggest... But I would love to be able to list different theological perspecitves of individual authors as well... Are they dispensational  & Reformed? Are they presbyterians that dunk, or Baptists that sprinkle? Do they hold the pre-wrath rapture view? What about their ecclesiology?

...

Some of this should be easier to achieve using the new filter facility.  It allows you to search for Dispensational and Reformed for example by creating a collection rule that can be pasted into a Logos collection.  There is no category for mode of baptism at present, such as dunking or sprinkling, only Infant or Believers Baptism, which is quite different.  Some dunk babies and some sprinkle adults.  Some denominations dunk some adults and sprinkle others.  Finding evidence for individuals could be tough, but I'd be happy to add a suitably large category that had good supporting evidence.  This goes for many of the other types of categories you suggest as well.

That's probably my protestant leanings coming out.

Probably. But somewhere in the last 2-3 years, I learned that Methodists use a quadrilateral: scripture, tradition, reason and experience - having added the experience to the Anglican 3 legged stool. And in the last 4-5 years, a Lutheran group put out a small book on confessional interpretation. I wish there were an easy way to track down some other major groups' practices.

Each aspect of the quadrilateral is debated, and many Anglicans talk about the quadrilateral as well now.  The original three legs are often attributed to Hooker, and seen as being equal, though "his relationship to the Reformation and particularly one of its cardinal themes of sola scriptura continues to be a hotly contested topic." (Chapman, M. D. (2012). Anglican Theology (p. 103-5). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.)

E.g. Should Scripture be primary, with tradition and reason simply assisting interpretation, or should they be equal?  Where does experience fit in?  I don't think it would be easy to argue that there is only one Anglican view.  Hooker's views are often claimed to be Evangelical by some and Anglo-Catholic by others.  Chapman tries to present a more balanced view:

"it is the figure of Hooker who is credited with the creation of the distinctive emphasis of Anglican moderation, of formulating the carefully balanced three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the sources of Anglican theology."

Chapman, M. D. (2012). Anglican Theology (p. 103-4). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

"While Hooker did not fundamentally depart from the basic principles of the supremacy of Scripture, he nevertheless was clear that it was not self-authenticating"

Chapman, M. D. (2012). Anglican Theology (p. 116). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

On interpreting Scripture more generally, I think this paragraph tries to do justice to how a number of different traditions use Scripture, before adding the authors' own view:

"Understanding Jesus’ kingdom theology enables interpreters to make good sense of his ethical demands. Interpreters have regularly puzzled over their stringency. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Sermon on the Mount. Did Jesus seriously expect his followers to view hatred as murder, to view lust as adultery, never to retaliate when abused, and actually to love their enemies (Mt 5:21–48)? We have already noted the traditional Catholic response: only select disciples are expected to follow these more austere rules. Lutherans often viewed Jesus’ ethics as “law” (rather than “gospel”) meant to point out the hopelessness of our sinful condition and drive us to our knees in repentance and faith in Christ. Against both these views note that Jesus addressed his words to all his disciples, as well as to the crowds of would-be followers who flocked to hear him (Mt 5:1). Anabaptists frequently took these commands as seriously applying to public life and to all people on earth, so they renounced all violence and became pacifists. Tolstoy adopted a similar response on a personal level, as do many Mennonites and others today. But Jesus nowhere teaches that his kingdom principles should form the basis for civil law. Nineteenth-century liberals often preached a “social gospel” of human progress and moral evolution apart from the personal transformation of conversion to Christ, but twentieth-century worldwide warfare squelched much of their optimism. Existentialists see in Jesus’ teaching precedent for decisive calls to ethical action without viewing any of his teaching as absolute. Dispensationalists have traditionally reserved Jesus’ kingdom ethic for the millennial age and have not found it directly relevant for Christians now. But this requires a greater disjunction between Israel and the Church than Scripture allows. Jesus’ choice of twelve disciples, for example, almost certainly was deliberate—to match the twelve tribes of Israel and portray the community of his followers as the new locus of God’s saving activity.

None of these approaches, furthermore, does justice to the interpretive framework of Jesus’ inaugurated eschatology. Most of Jesus’ teachings apply to all believers in all situations, unless Scripture itself clearly imposes certain limitations. When Jesus concludes the section of the Sermon on the Mount alluded to above, he declares: “Be perfect [whole, mature; Greek teleios], therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect [whole, mature]” (Mt 5:48). This remains the standard or ideal of discipleship for all Christians. We will not attain wholeness in this life, but we can arrive at a measure of maturity. Jesus’ standards should be our constant goal (“already but not yet”). He intended his ethic for all believers, not just a select few. But inasmuch as his ethic is primarily for believers, we dare not impose it on those outside the faith. We cannot expect unbelievers to follow or appreciate God’s will, though (through common grace) we are sometimes pleasantly surprised when they do. We must not try to coerce an unregenerate world to conform to his standards, though surely believers ought to use all legal measures available to foster an ethical society."

Klein, W. W., Blomberg, C., & Hubbard, R. L. (2004). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (pp. 409–410). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.