NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 44, Issue 1, 1990

In the past thirty years, African Church History has come of age. It is developing beyond institutional mission history, while taking profit from initial interest of cultural anthropology in indigenous religious initiatives, of colonial history in the unholy alliance between imperialism(s) and Christian missions. Author locates professional tools such as bibliographies and surveys, assesses shifts in African (Church) historiography, highlights some Dutch pioneer studies (J. van Slageren, G. Verstraelen-Gilhuis, G.J. van Butselaar a.o.) and calls attention to many ‘unknown territories’ waiting for pioneer research.

K.H. Miskotte is rightly seen as a pioneer in the rediscovery of Judaism by Christian theology. Especially his monumental dissertation (1932), however, betrays a marked ambivalence vis-à-vis the theological significance of Jewish religion. This article traces Miskotte’s ambivalence by means of a comparison with ancient rabbinic literature and spells out the contradictions he runs into.

The author of the present article shows that contemporary discussion about the question of divine impassibility suffers from a lack of precision regarding the meaning of the terms ‘impassibility’, ‘patripassianism’ and ‘theopaschitism’. These terms are often used in ways that fail to do justice to the meaning they have in the history of doctrine. On the basis of historical and systematical considerations he makes some proposals for a proper use of the terms in the future, and argues that the terminological proposals of Warren McWilliams and Jürgen Moltmann, who introduced the neologisms ‘propassibility’ and ‘patricompassianism’, are not worthy of following.

The author of the present article shows that contemporary discussion about the question of divine impassibility suffers from a lack of precision regarding the meaning of the terms ‘impassibility’, ‘patripassianism’ and ‘theopaschitism’. These terms are often used in ways that fail to do justice to the meaning they have in the history of doctrine. On the basis of historical and systematical considerations he makes some proposals for a proper use of the terms in the future, and argues that the terminological proposals of Warren McWilliams and Jürgen Moltmann, who introduced the neologisms ‘propassibility’ and ‘patricompassianism’, are not worthy of following.