Revenge of ListTank: Top Five Underrated Theologians

We at ListTank believe that each of the following theologians is seriously underrated.  Each of them, we believe, is a great theologian, but none of them is receiving the attention he deserves.  A note on our selection process: first, we focused on long-dead theologians, which ruled out certain contemporary figures who might make the list (like Oswald Bayer, Robert W. Jenson, Kate Sonderegger).  Second, we only included theologians whose names we’d like to see in front of the word “renaissance.”  We would be interested in seeing a Bonaventura renaissance, for instance, or a Ritschl renaissance, but not, say, a Brunner or Zwingli renaissance.  So then, the list:

1. Cyril of Alexandria: When folks think about the great patristic theologians, they probably think of Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and a host of others…but not Cyril of Alexandria.  That's unfortunate, because there were very few theologians who were more incisive or influential than Cyril in his day.  More than anyone else, Cyril insisted that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Word of God; unlike the Nestorians (and a good many, um, “orthodox” theologians), Cyril unequivocally maintained that Jesus Christ’s actions and passions are the eternal Son’s actions and passions.  The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon endorsed Cyril’s Christology…but Chalcedon also sowed the seeds of an anti-Cyrilline tendency, namely, the hypostatic “division of labor” between Christ’s divinity and humanity.  Christology has been trying to catch up to Cyril ever since…

2. Hilary of Poitiers: If Cyril is the underrated Father of the East, Hilary is the underrated Father of the West.  Actually, it’s more instructive to think of Hilary as the Athanasius of the West: like Athanasius, Hilary was deeply influenced by Origen and other Greek thinkers, and he fought bitterly against the rise of Arianism in the West.  What’s more, he wrote arguably the best treatise on the Trinity of any of the West’s fathers…and yet almost no one reads it. For those who are interested in tightening the connections between Western and Eastern theology, Hilary is an indispensable resource.

3. Bonaventura: Bonaventura is one of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church…and yet he doesn’t get much attention, since one of his contemporaries is the greatest. (Think of Bonaventura as the Scottie Pippin of Medieval theology.)  Still, while Thomas and Bonaventura share most of the same beliefs, Bonaventura’s mystical Trinitarianism (not to mention his platonism) cast a strikingly different light on those beliefs.  Two good reasons to think that there will soon be a “Bonaventura Renaissance”: first, in the near future the Aristotle-Plato pendulum will undoubtedly swing back to Plato; and second, once the mystically-inclined realize that Pseudo-Dionysius is not actually a theologian, they may start looking for one…and Bonaventura is probably their best bet.

4. Isaak August Dorner: A handful of people know about the underground Dorner Society meetings at AAR, and another handful know that Dorner was one of the most innovative and creative theologians of the nineteenth century.  His output was monumental: he wrote a history of Protestant theology, a mammoth five-volume series on the development of the doctrine of Christ, a system of Christian ethics, and countless other works, including a book on the “liturgical conflict in the Reformed Church in North America.”  His most famous work, however, is Divine Immutability: A Critical Reconsideration, which is one of the most innovative theological works of the nineteenth century.  Karl Barth once noted that those who know Dorner’s work “will recognize . . . how much I owe to Dorner’s inspiration.”  Barth’s words are instructive: though Dorner is clearly underrated, those who have taken his work seriously are among the finest recent theologians, including Barth, Robert Jenson, John Webster, and several others.

5. Albrecht Ritschl: What?  A liberal?!  That’s right: Albrecht Ritschl, the arch-liberal, is an underrated theologian.  For starters, Ritschl’s liberalism is a whole different kettle of fish from late-twentieth-century theological liberalism; there’s no question that Ritschl is much closer to Barth than to, say, Gordon Kaufman.  Moreover, some of Ritschl’s peculiar emphases make him a particularly helpful guide through some of contemporary theology’s thickets: his theology nowhere depends upon “substance,” for instance, and he prioritizes sociality over subjectivity & objectivity.  Finally, Ritschl has been treated unfairly for too long—his name is usually invoked, if at all, simply for the sake of being summarily dismissed—and it’s high time for Christians to re-read him with charitable eyes.

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 11/3/2006 6:57:15 AM (GMT-6)

 http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?catid=270

(Six Q&As on the Coptic Orthodox Dioces of the So. U.S. site)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 11/4/2006 8:36:07 AM (GMT-6)