When feminists interrogate the symbolic realm of religion, they often expose much of theological discourse as an idealized projection of a masculine subjectivity. In response to androcentric theological discourse, some feminists’ approaches have reframed religion in support of feminine subjectivity. For example, Luce Irigaray experienced an important, constructive turn to religion in her writings in the 1980s and 1990s following her early criticism of phallogocentric Western philosophy. She argued provocatively:

Since its publication, Franz Rosenzweig's magnum opus, The Star of Redemption, has remained a challenge to its readers and a source of wildly conflicting interpretations. It should be a matter of great consternation to Rosenzweig's readers that, shortly after his publication of the Star, he came to identify the work with common sense. This article traces the emergence of common sense within Rosenzweig's thought and undertakes a critical analysis of his use of the term. In contrast to other efforts to address this topic, I argue that Rosenzweig's belated appeal to common sense is a useful heuristic tool for understanding his account of God, the divine-human relationship, and the power and limits of theological language in the Star.

Amid a scholarly rediscovery of Protestant forms of theosis, questions of whether Jonathan Edwards developed a theotic account of redemption have received increased attention. Ironically, however, interest in Edwards's doctrine of theosis has emphasized the philosophical rather than the theological bases in ways that seem to set him outside the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy. Yet if we shift our attention away from the neo-Platonic explanations of Edwardsian theosis and place it instead where Edwards himself focused—on the communicable nature of the triune God within the economy—we see that his notions of theosis rest on firmly Protestant foundations and result in recognizably Reformed conclusions. But to say that attention to Edwards's trinitarian and incarnational theology reveals an orthodox form of theosis is not to say that his theotic soteriology lacked distinctive and even innovative elements. Unlike other theologians whose accounts of theosis bifurcated God's communicable nature from the creatures’ relational participation among the divine persons, Edwards's theology made room for and insisted on both.

The theme of this article takes us to the field of ecumenical theology understood as a dialogue between theologians from particular Christian traditions. These theologians relate through their common roots in Scripture and early Christian heritage, but they interpret these roots in their own particular way. In our case the focus will be on the German Lutheran theologian Paul Tillich (1886–1965), the Russian Orthodox theologian George Florovsky (1893–1979), and the French Catholic theologian Yves Congar (1904–1995), who all, at one time, shared the same premises, though not necessarily the same opinions.

Recent publications concerned with attitudes to the human body in the religion ofMani have revealed a complex spectrum of ideas. A reading of the“Manichaean body” informed by a gnostic polarity of fleshversus spirit has been largely rejected, and a more complex, ambivalentportrayal of the body, shaped by specific cosmological and theological readingsof its origin and purpose, has come to light. New interpretive tools andapproaches have changed perceptions of classical texts and revealed how the“subjugated, perfected [Manichaean body was] put into use in theprocess of salvation.” For example, rereading chapter 70 of theCoptic work the Kephalaia of the Teacher, we encounter acomplex lesson that betrays the Manichaeans’ understanding of thedual heritage of the human body. Here the Mani of the Kephalaiainstructs his disciples about the correspondences that exist between the fleshlybody and the universe and formulates them in a manner that suggests asimultaneous patterning of the two forms: “Mani says to hisdisciples: ‘This whole universe, above and below, reflects thepattern of the human body; as the formation of this body of flesh accords to thepattern of the universe’” (70.169.28–170.1).The organs and limbs of the body resemble specific astral structures andelements in the universe, and both body and universe are afflicted by a range ofcompeting powers. Chapter 70 offers a melothesiac reading of these archonticpowers as zodiacal signs fused with the organs, bones, and sinews of the body(cf. chapter 69). As archons they exercise a malevolent influence over theflesh. However, they are also constantly in conflict with each other, and thecause of bodily sickness lies in their “creeping, and moving withinthe body. . . [where] they shall beset and destroy oneanother. . . they shall erupt from the body of the personwho will die; and make putrid boils and sores and burning wounds in thebody” (70.175.12–14, 16–18). Leaving suchcolorful descriptions of lesions aside, chapter 70 also indicates that humanbeings, specifically the Manichaean elect, possess enormous potential as theones who are able to facilitate the release of the “light”by subduing the activities of the “five camps” (i.e., theface, heart, genitalia, stomach, and ground).

In his expository remarks on 1 Pet 5:13, Clement of Alexandria portrays Mark as the preserver of the apostle Peter's gospel proclamation to those who not only dwell in Rome, but also belong to the Roman elite. In this regard, Clement's testimony coincides with the near unanimous voice of the Church Fathers, who locate the composition of the Gospel of Mark in the city of Rome (e.g., Irenaeus Haer. 3.1.1; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.15.2).

These are encouraging days for the discipline of systematic theology. Recent seasons have seen the publication of a number of one-volume accounts of Christian dogmatics, with parts of various multi-volume offerings also appearing with regularity. This exuberance for serious enquiry into the meaning, coherence, and implications of Christian doctrine has been present not only in those areas of theological inquiry which have consistently exhibited a long-standing passion for such endeavor; an important feature of recent trends is a passion for systematic work also becoming evident in confessional domains which on occasion in the past have treated such activity with indifference or even suspicion. The result is an increasingly rich and contoured landscape in contemporary dogmatic theology, hopefully to the benefit not only of the academic scholar but of the churches both challenged and sustained by such work.

Due to a Publisher's error, the article by Paul Gavrilyuk published in November 2013 via FirstView was duplicated in the April 2015 issue of Harvard Theological Review. The article should be cited using the doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0017816013000321.

The publisher regrets the error.