EdmundSchlink, <i>Ecumenical Dogmatics</i>. Edmund Schlink Works, Volume 2: Parts 1–2. Edited by Matthew L.Becker. Translated by Matthew L. Becker, Robin Lutjohann, Hans G. Spalteholz, Mark A. Seifrid, Eleanor Wegener, and Ken Jones. Göttingen: Vande

The publication of Edmund Schlink's Ecumenical Dogmatics in English translation is an important event for modern theological scholarship. Principally known within anglophone Lutheran circles for his widely utilized Theology of the Lutheran Confessions, and The Doctrine of Baptism (translated in 1975 and 1972, respectively), Schlink was a pastor and an influential theologian who served as a professor of ‘dogmatic and ecumenical theology’ at Heidelberg University from 1946 until his retirement in 1971 (p. 44). As his title at Heidelberg suggests, Schlink was also a seasoned ecumenist. He served as an official observer at the Second Vatican Council and was closely involved in several of the most significant ecumenical projects of the mid-twentieth century (pp. 45–6). Schlink regarded the Ecumenical Dogmatics as his magnum opus, and his students and colleagues have rightly prized it as a cumulative harvest of the theological and ecumenical labors which gave shape to his life (pp. 18, 22). For Schlink, the purpose of dogmatic inquiry in general is to set forth that which ‘the church body has to proclaim and do if it wants to be and remain the true church’ (p. 139), and thus to facilitate rightly ordered proclamation of the Gospel (p. 140). From this perspective, all dogmatic reflection which ‘takes itself seriously’ rightly bears the adjective ‘ecumenical’ since it is unavoidably concerned with the whole church, and likewise with God in relation to whom all of history coheres. Against this backdrop, Schlink's peculiar aim in the Ecumenical Dogmatics is to consider what it means for theologians (and the divided churches) to pursue this shared task of dogmatic inquiry within a context where ‘the separated parts of Christendom [now] oppose and contest’ one another (p. 140). The heart of Schlink's proposal for ecumenical dogmatics, in this more technical sense, resides in a fundamental contention that dogmatic statements must ultimately be construed in terms of response—that is, response to the divine missions (pp. 79–80, 1079), response to the great deeds of God throughout salvation history (pp. 150–55), and, most decisively, response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (pp. 71–2, 645). Conceiving of dogmatic statements primarily as a particular mode of response to the Gospel opens several avenues for ecumenical reflection within Schlink's proposal. Chief among them is a fundamental principle that not every instance of doctrinal diversity must be regarded as necessarily church dividing (pp. 15, 23). Schlink repeatedly stresses the fact that the Gospel has always evoked diverse trajectories of articulation, even from very earliest stages of Christian theology. It is not generally regarded as a sign of dysfunction or of nascent schism that the various apostolic traditions encompassed by Holy Scripture do not adopt the same dogmatic grammar, but cohere instead as gestures of witness commonly oriented to an inexhaustible reality which no single trajectory of response can plausibly claim to comprehend. With this backdrop in mind, Schlink insists that despite our fractured history it likewise cannot simply be assumed that every instance of doctrinal diversity among the divided churches necessarily bespeaks an irreconcilable estrangement between them (Chapter 22; pp. 997–1002). Centralizing the category of ‘response’ also provides Schlink with a means of emphasizing that ‘doctrinal statement’ is but one mode of the church's response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which exists alongside many others. After all, the church is not simply evoked by the Gospel to the task of formulating theological statements, but also to the responses of witness, confession, proclamation, and, above all, doxology (pp. 115–26). Schlink's purpose in expanding the grammar of dogmatic response is not to gainsay the critical importance of doctrinal statements, but rather to contextualize that importance in relation to a broader field of vision which makes visible conspicuous points of convergence among the divided churches that a purely doctrinal outlook will likely overlook (pp. 1004, 1017). Appeal to the diversity of ‘dogmatic structures’ is a critical strategy Schlink deploys when seeking to address the thorniest and most notorious ecumenical challenges (e.g., pp. 245–59, 713–8, 758, etc.). For example, Schlink is quite forthright about the difficulties and tensions that exist not only between East and West, but also between Roman Catholics and Protestants when it comes to theological anthropology in general, and the doctrine of sin in particular. Schlink softens the force of these tensions first by emphasizing the fact that doctrinal statements are historically conditioned artifacts which are always responding to a distinctive set of circumstances and concerns (e.g., a statement principally designed to oppose Manicheism), and these may or may not align with the circumstances and concerns which animate other statements (e.g., a statement principally designed to oppose Pelagianism) (p. 1034). More fundamentally, though, even if careful historical and conceptual analysis of the doctrinal statements in question reveals unresolved and fundamental divergences of judgment, Schlink insists it is important for the sake of a balanced assessment simultaneously to recognize the profound extent to which all traditions (i.e., East and West; Roman Catholic and Protestant) involve patterns of piety and a structured liturgical life which enacts the helplessness of human beings (‘Kyrie eleison!’). Thus, despite the lingering problem of significant doctrinal disagreements, it is possible to affirm at the same time that all traditions are united in stressing the radical primacy of divine grace through other notable means (p. 247). Recognition of this fact does not by itself resolve all of the important tensions and dissonances which surround this much-contested theological topic, but, for Schlink, it complicates the ecumenical evaluation of those tensions by calling attention to the fact that they exist within a context of profound convergence. Schlink applies a similar strategy to many other contested topics throughout his dogmatics. Schlink presents his Gospel-centered approach to ecumenical dogmatics as a ‘Copernican shift’, because theological traditions are no longer positioned as two sides of a battlefield (where one side or the other must eventually acquiesce to the normative statements advanced by its counterpart), but instead as planets drawn and accountable to the same central axis (pp. 1020–1). Doctrinal disagreements are not hereby reduced to matters of little consequence, nor does Schlink want us to conclude that all trajectories of response to the Gospel should be embraced as equally legitimate. His stated purpose is rather to summon all churches to repent of their postural self-centeredness (p. 526), to recognize the depth of unity that already exists (a unity grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shaped by the dimensions of Nicene orthodoxy, and expressed through a diversity of dogmatic structures), and finally to pursue deepened apprehension of the catholic faith (and deepened ecclesial unity) through dialogical interaction with alternative trajectories of response to the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel (p. 648; Chapter 22). Naturally, these various seminal commitments inform not only the structure of Schlink's dogmatics (e.g., beginning with a section on the Gospel, and culminating in doxologically oriented meditation upon the doctrine of God), but also the manner in which he handles each dogmatic locus along the way (e.g., a dialogical style which seeks not so much to vindicate any particular view as to facilitate thick apprehension of the quaestio under consideration through attentive interaction with the defining concerns of each ecclesial tradition). Schlink's monumental contribution to the field of ecumenical theology is perhaps already obvious by this point in the review. He sets forth a learned and sophisticated proposal both in terms of what an ecumenical dogmatics might look like, and advances a strong case for why one may wish to pursue such a dogmatics in the first place. Even apart from overtly ecumenical aims, readers will find in Schlink an incredibly rich, erudite and profoundly generative set of dogmatic reflections. Not only does he navigate the vastly diverse ecumenical landscape with ease and facility, but he also models thoughtful and non-reactionary engagement with modern currents of thought that impinge in one fashion or another upon the shape of catholic Christianity. It should also be noted that the various supplementary materials provided by the editor and translator in the form of prefaces, introductions, discursive footnotes, and responsive essays are superb, and provide a salutary orientation to those previously unfamiliar with Schlink's work. With the benefit of hindsight, many readers will surely wonder if Schlink's proposal for ecumenical dogmatics can succeed to the extent that he boldly intends. Others may worry that certain concrete aspects of Schlink's oeuvre seem less like a genuinely creative and forward-looking ecumenical proposal, and more like a gentle vindication of the Lutheran tradition, especially in those areas which ostensibly matter most for ongoing ecclesial division (i.e., church order: pp. 835, 913–4, 971–7; and church authority: p. 1011). Either way, whether Schlink's magnum opus is best regarded as ecumenical theology with a Lutheran accent, or as Lutheran dogmatics undertaken from an ecumenical posture (perhaps this is a distinction without a difference?), there should be no doubting that the Ecumenical Dogmatics is a magisterial contribution to dogmatic inquiry which merits careful and sustained attention.