Written in honour of the Berlin systematic theologian Wolf Krötke, this paper gives an exposition of two propositions. (1) ‘A Christian dogmatics of the divine perfections is a positive science in the church of Jesus Christ whose task is the rational articulation of the singular identity of God the Holy Trinity, freely presented in the works of God's triune being.’ Christian dogmatics is a positive science concerned, not with deity as maximally perfect, but with the singular identity of God in his self-presentation as it is confessed in the sphere of the church. That identity is God's identity as Father, Son and Spirit, confessed as immanently complete and as operative in the economy of God's works. This is applied to the attributes of holiness and love in a further proposition: (2) ‘God's holiness is the majestic incomparability, difference and purity which he is in himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and which is manifest and operative in the economy of his works in the love with which he elects, reconciles and perfects human partners for fellowship with himself.’ God's holiness is self-consecration to be the wholly unique being that he is. But as the triune God, his self-consecration includes his consecration of the creature as he singles out the creature for blessing in his works of election, reconciliation and sanctification. As such, God's holiness is operative as the love which maintains the creature's cause by eradicating all that hinders the creature's consecration to life in fellowship with God.

In light of current discussions in theological ethics, Karl Barth's ethics can be understood within the dialectical relationship of ‘postmodern’ and ‘realism’. Barth shifts theological ethics beyond anthropocentric Kantian or naturalist inspired ‘modern realism’ on the one hand, and a nihilist or deconstructionist inspired ‘postmodern antirealism’ on the other. Beginning with the centrality of the Word of God, Barth deconstructs modern (anthropocentric) moral realism, while at the same time reestablishing this same moral realism on theological grounds, which ironically moves it beyond the claims of postmodernism itself. What makes Barth's thought post-modern, then, is not his similarity to antirealist and deconstructionist thought, but his departure from its secular and anti-theological assumptions. Barth's ‘postmodern realism’, therefore, not only provides a way for contemporary theological ethics to dialectically be critical and hopeful, deconstructive and constructive, decentering and centering, but does so from the anti-anthropocentric and anti-secular standpoint of the Word of God.

The essay begins by noting some of the things Karl Barth might have said to defend himself against Stanley Hauerwas's criticisms, in the otherwise largely appreciative discussion in With the Grain of the Universe, of Barth's anthropology and pneumatology and the consequent problems in his ecclesiology. I then discuss some issues that Barth himself might have wanted to raise with regard to Hauerwas's own ecclesiology, especially in reference to its comparative lack of emphasis upon divine action and the difference that makes to an account of the church's witness. I argue that Barth and Hauerwas differ to some degree in their understanding of the gospel and of Christianity, with Hauerwas emphasizing rather more than Barth the necessity and centrality of the church's work in the economy of salvation. Barth, on the other hand, sees the need rather more than Hauerwas of situating the church's activity within a well-rounded account of the work of the Word and the Spirit. I offer some concluding remarks to suggest that this particular aspect of Barth's ecclesiology is worth preserving as an effective way of responding to modernity.

The anti-episcopal polemic of early Scottish presbyterian historians like Row and Calderwood has misled us to presume that most contemporary presbyterians saw bishops as enemies of the gospel. Instead, both episcopal writings and the manuscript records of kirk sessions, presbyteries, and synods show presbytery within prelacy working quite well in Scotland from the Reformation until the troubled 1630s. William Cowper, minister of Perth from 1595 to 1613 and thereafter bishop of Galloway, illustrates how and why the system worked. Calvinist, visionary, preacher, and vigorous reformer of manners, Cowper as minister joined with the Perth session to impose discipline, administered communion Geneva-style, and enforced the Reformation's abolition of traditional holidays. He was by any definition a puritan, and he remained one after his acceptance of a bishopric in 1612. As bishop of Galloway he declined to enforce kneeling or observance of Christmas despite royal mandate, cooperated with presbyteries and sessions, and continued active preaching and discipline. Charges against him of greed and ambition prove unfounded. His puritan episcopacy represents and explains the success of the kirk's hybrid polity in the post-Reformation period.

The following is a critical appreciation of the Reformation theological foundations of English church establishment which seeks to demonstrate their importance not only for the Church of England in the current political and legal climate, but also for non-established Anglican churches and for the Anglican Communion. It identifies as their central structure the dialectic of church and nation, theologically articulated as the dialectic of proclamation and jurisdiction. The enduring achievement of this dialectic, the paper argues, is to hold in fruitful tension the two unifying authorities of sinful and redeemed human society: the authority of God's word of judgement and grace and the authority of the community of human judgement under God's word. The historical analysis traces the evolving ecclesiastical and civil poles of the dialectic through their Henrician, Edwardian and Elizabethan formulations, from William Tyndale and the early Cranmer to John Whitgift and Richard Hooker, clarifying the decisive late medieval and contemporary continental influences, and the key schematic contribution made by the humanist Thomas Starkey. A continuous concern of the exposition is with the paradigmatic place occupied by interpretations of monarchical Israel in the shifting constructions of both civil and ecclesiastical polity, with the attendant dangers from a relatively undialectical relation between the ‘old Israel’ and the ‘new Israel’. The concluding evaluation and application focuses on the contemporary need for a theological construction of the nation and the church that grasps the complexities of the dialectic of proclamation and jurisdiction, especially as they bear on the unity and discontinuity of ecclesiastical and secular law at the national and international levels.

This article is a critical but appreciative response to the emerging theology and proposed theological method of Stanley J. Grenz. It is appreciative of the way that Grenz is helping evangelicals face the fact that they should be more engaging of the broader theological discussions regarding method if it is to avoid becoming hopelessly irrelevant, both within and beyond evangelicalism. At the same time it is critical of the apparent ambiguity in Grenz's proposals for a revised theological method and its resulting theology. The article reflects on the prior work of Grenz but employs his most recent book, Beyond Foundationalism, co-authored with John R. Frank and published by Fortress Press in 2001. In the final analysis the author takes a cautious approach to Grenz's proposals due to the fact that there seems to be an ambiguous understanding of postmodern culture, an uncritical acceptance of a social trinitarian basis for community and a somewhat conflicted understanding of foundations for theology, understood as ‘(post)foundationalism’.

In his essay ‘Culture, Community and Commitments’, Archie Spencer expresses interest in, and appreciation for, my proposal for evangelical theology, because he finds in me what he characterizes as ‘a moderating voice between the extremes’ in the contemporary discussion. I am deeply gratified that a younger theologian of his potential would look to me as a pioneer and would honor me by taking such keen interest in my work.

Jonathan Sacks's engagement with the major social and economic problems of our time is unique in the modern rabbinate. To the best of my knowledge no contemporary rabbi of any Jewish denomination equals his breadth of reading and concern in matters ranging from globalisation to the well-being of the family. Rabbi Sacks is well equipped in philosophy, politics and sociology and seeks to take part in debates about the great issues of our time from the standpoint of orthodox Judaism. He is a gifted communicator, unusually able to make complex issues intelligible for the general public without reducing them to banality. He is also a fine rabbinic scholar with a particular expertise in Jewish philosophy.