Bullying and What To Do About It

Bully Official Trailer #1

Weinstein Company Movie (2012) HD 

Bully Official Trailer #1 - Weinstein Company Movie (2012) HD

This year, over 5 million American kids will be bullied at school, online, on the bus, at home, through their cell phones and on the streets of their towns, making it the most common form of violence young people in this country experience. The Bully Project is the first feature documentary film to show how we've all been affected by bullying, whether we've been victims, perpetrators or stood silent witness. The world we inhabit as adults begins on the playground. The Bully Project opens on the first day of school. For the more than 5 million kids who'll be bullied this year in the United States, it's a day filled with more anxiety and foreboding than excitement. As the sun rises and school busses across the country overflow with backpacks, brass instruments and the rambunctious sounds of raging hormones, this is a ride into the unknown. For a lot of kids, the only thing that's certain is that this year...

"Bully Trailer" "Bully Movie" "Bully 2011" "Bully HD" "Bully MPAA" "Lee Hirsch" "Cynthia Lowen" "Harvey Weinstein" "Rated R" "bullying" school movieclips movie clips movieclipstrailers popuptrailer

Bullying

 

KIDS REACT TO BULLYING

SHARE- Facebook: http://dft.ba/-13q2 Twitter http://clicktotweet.com/d2NO3
Subscribe for new Kids or Teens React every Sunday: http://bit.ly/TheFineBros
Watch all "KIDS REACT" episodes here: http://bit.ly/AllKidsReacts

Select Videos by Stanley Hauerwas

Wikipedia: Stanley Hauerwas (born July 24, 1940) is a Christian theologian and ethicist. He has taught at the University of Notre Dame and is currently the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke Divinity School with a joint appointment at the Duke University School of Law.

The System vs. The Kingdom

4:12

"Being a Christian should scare the hell out of us"

Prayer is part of the training, part of the preparation for the afterlife. As is being together in community on a regular basis. Going to church is a good place to go to. To worship God with other people. It is essential to helping us live as a Christian. It makes us part of an ongoing history that we cannot make up. Christianity is received. It cannot be done alone but only with others. Having a faith cannot be a private thing. It is all public. And must be shared with others. “Jesus as Lord” makes our lives quite dysfunctional. Being a Christian must make us rush together for protection to discover that, “Oh, I’m not crazy! God IS real!” “God in Christ reconciling the world” makes our lives really weird and gathering together on Sunday pulls us back into the reality of God’s Kingdom lest we lose sight of it. Through baptism, through proclamation of the Word, through communion (Eucharistic celebration), through fellowship.

Stanley Hauerwas on Prayer

2:00

Dr. Stanley Hauerwas, a widely acclaimed Christian theologian, discusses his understanding of prayer.

If prayer has taught me anything it has taught me to wait. The world’s sense of time is based upon speed. Efficiency. The ability to get things done quickly. But God’s sense of time is based upon patience. Faithfulness. Dependence. Prayer has also taught me a sense of humor. That it all doesn’t depend on me which is a deep truth that gives to me a perspective that gets around my foibles and frailties. That God is God and I am not. A truth that gives me both humor and patience and allows me to rest in God’s time.

Stanley Hauerwas On His Evangelical Audience

3:13

Considering that Evangelicals have produced some of the realities that Dr. Hauerwas has spent a career resisting (pietism, 'personal relationships with Jesus, church growth, etc.), he discusses his Evangelical audience with Wunderkammer Magazine.

Evangelicals bring to us “Jesus and energy” both of which I admire greatly insofar as Evangelicals keep a high regard of Scripture, a Christological center, and a great desire to tell people of Jesus as the great joy of their lives. However, the church is not a secondary reality to the Christian’s immediate relationship to God. It is a necessary part of a Christian’s reality because the Church’s function in the Christian life is one of mediating God to the world. The Christian faith is not done alone through pietism and a private relationship with Jesus. Church growth does not mean that we make God up, or that we make Christianity up. It is received through the gifts of 2000 years of Church history. Tradition matters. One of the reasons it matters is because it teaches us of error. And one of the ways that we know error is through remembering and studying the Christian tradition through historical event and occurrence.

Stanley Hauerwas: What only the whole church can do

9:57

Theologian Stanley Hauerwas discusses the term leadership and how he prepares his students to provide it. Leadership cannot be abstracted from the communities that make it possible, says Stanley Hauerwas, a Duke Divinity School professor considered to be one of the nations most influential theologians.

What is Leadership? It’s always persuasion. All the time. All the way through. So much of the time real, creative, authority works through articulating to one’s community what needs to be done in a way that defies limits. Their limits. Your limits. The limits of the system. Leadership reframes issues so that we may discover ways of who and where we are in terms that do not reproduce the necessities of the past. That circumvents them and gives newer methods of formation to one’s present.

Sadly, leadership can be perverted and subverted. We know what leadership is abstracted from communities that make leadership possible. Part of the issue is the usage of power. A gift that God has given us for the formation of community. A gift that makes it necessary for us to discuss amongst ourselves those individuals who give can lead ethically, benevolently, fairly. But this is also the language of leadership that can be perverted. These are matters that must be discussed within communities for the correct apprehension and usage of “power” lest it go awry and is misused and abused.

What do you teach students so that they may make a difference in the world? Don’t lie. Be honest. If you do not know what the truth is then discuss it. Don’t make it up and say that you do. Politics is people. Any person who works with people in a leadership position must be involved with people and be honest with people through their involvements.

How do institutions make space for innovation? One of the elements of producing creativity is the process of “habit” in the sense that creativity is carried through habit. Though we think we are doing the same thing over and over again, in reality we are not. We just think we are. Why? Because we change day-to-day. As does the world. As do events in-and-around our lives. As example, the church’s history of liturgy is constantly evolving through innovation to society. But in a way that we recognize continuities through time. “Habits” evolve. They are familiar. They are repetitive. They are helpful in placing us with others in the larger communal sense of event and time participation. This is how institutions make space for innovation.

People who are called to administrative development have to undergo a deep, aesthetical discipline to help you emotionally deal with people who you recognize as having both possibilities and limitations. Each of which can drive you crazy if these are taken personally. This type of personal discipline will then provides space for communities to develop the diversities of their gifts with one another which is the administrator's charge to discover, and encourage, for community utilization. This is part of the responsibility of an administrator - the gift of recognition and encouragement to the goal of community development.

Overall, leadership recognizes how fragile the gift of power is. A quality that you wouldn’t have be otherwise. A quality that gives to the leader a confidence that you do not need to win all the time. It is a true ascetic discipline in that it disciplines the ego to accept, and promote, the occurrence of consensus among others without the necessity of the leader's will injected into all matters of the community at all times. And that when one wins we all win. But it cannot be limited simply to one person in the dictates of their own spirit over others. For it is absolutely necessary that the leader disciplines his will, his determinations, and his guidance. It is a personal quality that is absolutely crucial to allowing any organization to grow within itself, within its dictates and formations, so that once the leader is no longer there the organization may function independently. And continue  to grow in a healthy relationship to itself, its community and to others. This kind of quality, or structure, makes the community want to serve one another with their gifts, their abilities, their contributions and will. It is a quality that can encourage aspirations and goals.

What’s remarkable is not what the community should be, but that there is community at all! This is the remarkability of the organization of men and women to an entity. And in the church’s case, to the Person of the Living Lord Jesus Christ to whom the Church follows after in obedience to His will, His authority, His desires and example. It is definitely a great work of God through the Holy Spirit to form men and women unto the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And into community with one another. A community that serves both one another as well as the world around itself.

Hauerwas on Language and Ethics

4:34

Taken from a Q&A after a lecture at Azusa Pacific University, this clip is Prof. Stanley Hauerwas, renowned ethicist from Duke University, discussing how DESCRIPTIONS are more determinitive than DECISIONS. "You can only act in a world you see...and you learn to see by learning to say."

Stanley Hauerwas Resources from Jesus Radicals.flv

4:45

On Christians and the State

Stanley Hauerwas, Duke Divinity School's Bricklaying Theologian

2:54

Stanley Hauerwas, Professor of Theological Ethics, Duke Divinity School, on bricklaying, teaching and the satisfaction of completing one's work. Stanley is the author of numerous books, including the recent memoir, "Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir." In 2001 Time magazine named "America's Best Theologian." Stanley responded by saying, "'Best' is not a theological category."

Stanley Hauerwas On Jürgen Moltmann

3:09

Dr. Hauerwas discusses German theologian Jürgen Moltmann with Wunderkammer Magazine. www.wunderkammermag.com.

Insight from Stanley Hauerwas

2:02

Stanley Hauerwas talks about "becoming a friend of time."

The Legacy of Reinhold Niebuhr and the Future of Christian Realism

1:20

Dr. Hauerwas discusses American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr with Wunderkammer Magazine. www.wunderkammermag.com. January 29, 2009 | This video has been excerpted from the Berkley Center's event Brooks, Dionne, and Tippett Discuss the Legacy of Reinhold Niebuhr and the Future of Christian Realism.

Hauerwas on War, American History & the Christian

13:32

Stanley Hauerwas-- the famed ethicist from Duke whom Time magazine called "America's Best Theologian" in 2001-- discusses the confusion between the "American 'We'" and the "Christian 'We'". Included topics are the Christian call to peace-making, the modern context of war and violence, American history, and the need for honesty about our national sins.

Stanley Hauerwas - A Theologian's Memoir

3:04

Exclusive interview with Stanley Hauerwas, named 'America's best theologian' by Time Magazine. Here, he discusses current issues facing Christian communities around the world, along with his new book, Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir.

Stanley Hauerwas On Hannah's Child

2:53

Dr. Hauerwas discusses his recently published book Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir with Wunderkammer Magazine. www.wunderkammermag.com.

Burke Lecture: Stanley Martin Hauerwas

58:45

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is well known for his heroic opposition to the Nazis. Martin Hauerwas examines Bonhoeffer's understanding of lying and why it's appropriate to hold politics to a higher standard of truthful speech. This relationship between truth and politics is a particular challenge for democratic regimes. Series: Burke Lectureship on Religion & Society [4/2004] [Humanities] [Show ID: 8498]

Office Hours with Stanley Hauerwas on the Life of a Theologian

58:48

Duke University Professor Stanley Hauerwas discusses his new memoir "Hannah's Child" and answers questions from online viewers in an "Office Hours" webcast interview, May 7, 2010. Learn more at http://www.dukeofficehours.com

Remembering Great Theologians

 

 

Some criteria for judging theologians

who will be remembered 50 years from now

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/some-criteria-for-judging-theologians-who-will-be-remembered-50-years-from-now/

by Roger Olson

posted on March 18, 2012

Thanks to all of you who have offered answers to my question about Christian (trinitarian) theologians who probably will be included in a book on late 20th century and early 21st century theologians 50 years from now.

I agree with those who have said it’s hard to predict because we live in a time when there are no theological “giants” comparable to Barth or Tillich. That’s what make this so difficult.

Recently I wrote about 19th century Christian (trinitarian) theologians. (This is not yet published.) What criteria did I use? Well, I didn’t exactly have a formal list of criteria, but I had some informal ones that are more noticeable looking back on the project than they were during the selection process. I’m not saying these are the right criteria, but I think they are the ones (more or less) that will be used 50-100 years from now (in academic and semi-academic books on what we call our contemporary theologians).

1) Broad, lasting influence on other theologians and popularizers;

2) Prolific writing widely read (usually in more than one language);

3) Originality and creativity (not just in inventing new ideas but in bridging divides);

4) Engagement with culture (not necessarily accommodation to it);

Usually such theologians were the subjects of many books about their theological contributions. Usually they were read and discussed by theologians and theologically-minded pastors and lay people outside their own denominations or traditions. Usually they received a lot of reaction both positive and negative.

So, about whom did I write? (I began by writing about some philosophers who stimulated theological creativity and reaction such as Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Reid, and Hegel. Kierkegaard could be considered both a philosopher and theologian.) Here are the 19th century theologians I selected: Schleiermacher, Bushnell, Hodge, Ritschl, Dorner, Troeltsch, Blondel and Tyrrell, Harnack and Rauschenbusch.

These 19th century (up to WW1) theologians stand out over a century later as THE giants of that era. Were there others? Yes, but they have been largely eclipsed by these. I could have written about Warfield, but I think I covered his contribution by writing about Hodge on whose shoulders he stood. I could have written about several American liberal theologians, but Bushnell is remembered (e.g., by Gary Dorrien) as THE 19th century American liberal theologian par excellence. (I actually treat him as a mediating theologian.) There is no “stand out” Catholic theologian in the 19th century except Newman and Blondel and I decided to write about the Catholic modernists because of their originality and influence on 20th century Catholic theology (for better or worse).

A perplexing question is this: Who would have been identified by a theological cartographer as the “mountain peaks” of 19th century theology THEN–say, around mid-19th century? I suspect there wouldn’t have been any consensus other than Schleiermacher and maybe Bushnell (in America). What caused these other theologians (e.g., Dorner) to be remembered? In his case, I suspect it is his influence on Barth and the fact that Claude Welch liked him.

When I write about today’s living theologians (or recently deceased) and have to narrow it down to, say four or five, who will they be? It’s a risk because even 25 years later some of them may be forgotten. There are no obvious theological giants stalking the land. (N. T. Wright comes about as close as one can get due to his prolific writing and broad influence but he’s not a systematic/constructive theologian per se; he’s a biblical scholar.)

The name I hear everywhere from almost everybody (whether conservative or liberal or postmodern or nothing) is Hauerwas. Why? Well, I think Time magazine naming him the “best” theologian has something to do with it. Also, he’s an iconoclast; we like iconoclasts. Also, he’s difficult to categorize and we no longer like neat categories. And, he’s prolific, broadly influential and arguably original and creative (at least in the sense of combining Barth and Yoder which is not easy!). Also, he spawned so many doctoral students!

But let’s put Hauerwas up against someone like him (in many ways) 50 years ago. Ever hear of Langdon Gilkey? Fifty years ago he was all the rage. Not only was he prolific, supervised more dissertations in theology than anyone else, and broadly influential, he was a hippy. (He looked kind of like Willy Nelson wore beads and a pony tail, etc.–even into old age.) Hands down, for about twenty years or so, he was considered America’s “best” theologian (even if Time magazine didn’t say so). Yet, now, 50 years after his peak, who even remembers him? Will it be like that for Hauerwas? Will he be remembered and talked about 50 years from now? WILL ANYONE?

Those are my thoughts and questions. Thanks for you suggestions–especially those of you who offered reasons. If you have any thoughts about what I’ve written here please feel free to comment.



Vid Link to Stanley Hauerwas:
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/03/select-videos-by-stanley-hauerwas.html



Responses

be remembered 50 years from now

1. Greg D says:

   March 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm

   I like Hauerwas (Resident Aliens) but it seems his works resonate with only a certain segment of the Christian faith, namely with those of the Anabaptist tradition. I don’t know why, but Hauerwas seems to be synonymous with John Howard Yoder who also is of the Anabaptist tradition. But, it is my hope that these works will indeed resonate with Christians 50 years from now, where I’m certain his theology will be timely just as it is today. Another theologian that comes to mind is Charles Ryrie. I read Basic Theology in seminary and found it to be very insightful, void of biased theologies and politics unlike what is found in Wayne Grduem’s Systematic Theology. And, if I’m not mistaken Ryrie is Arminian although heavily dispensational.
2. • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm

     Is Ryrie read by anyone but conservative evangelicals? Not to my knowledge.
3. Bev Mitchell says:

   March 18, 2012 at 4:02 pm

   Roger, The results of your survey are fascinating, thanks for doing this. Also, thanks, I think, for adding to my pile of books to read. I am surprised that few readers, if any besides myself, seemed to highlight the great importance of scientific discoveries and the urgent need for a “star” theologian to make the connection between our two big sources of information about God – namely, inspired writers of Scripture and inspired studies of creation. The last 100 years have produced unprecedented deep and wide advances in our understanding of the created universe. This new knowledge is so fundamental it will clearly have a revolutionary impact on orthodox theology, as well as profoundly improving the way we read Scripture. A masterful “bridging of divides” between these two sources of information is the single greatest need in post-modern theology. Yet, even most first class theologians don’t seem to have captured the sense of urgency. Torrance constructed a real foundation, but much new evidence has emerged since he stopped writing. People like Polkinghorne are doing a good job on the front lines, but the definitive/defining theology has yet to emerge. I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this observation.
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm

     Yes, I think we need that. Polkinghorne is the best, IMHO. Clayton is doing good work but very speculative and tainted by idealism (IMHO). Peacocke was doing good work in this area until he adopted process theology.
     • C.J.W says:

       March 19, 2012 at 11:14 pm

       But isn’t Clayton Process theology as well? If not, it seems he’s close
       • rogereolson says:

         March 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm

         My understanding is that he is not. But he does call his view of the God-world relation panentheism. However, it is a strange kind of panentheism, a qualified Christian panentheism (to use Niels Henrik Gregersen’s label in “Three Varieties of Panentheism” in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being edited by Clayton and Peacocke. It’s an excellent book, by the way, but in my opinion it stretches the term “panentheism” to the breaking point. I prefer to keep “panentheism” tied to views that make God involuntarily dependent on the world (e.g., Hegel and Whitehead).
4. Joshua says:

   March 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm

   This was humbling to say the least. To think on the many “giants” who walked, talked, thought and taught long before us, and then to realize that their names are long forgotten, well – that’s humbling. I would like to say that, whether I’m happy about it or not, John Piper’s “Desiring God,” will probably be one of the few books still read fifty years from now (perhaps not, but it’s already been around thirty years, and it’s still immensely popular). In that sense, I think it fair to say that John Piper will be remembered as a highly influential theologian. Disagree? I agree with you about N.T. Wright. He will almost definitely be remembered as one of the most influential Biblical scholars in the early 21st century.
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm

     I think Desiring God will be remembered and read as a spiritual classic rather than as a classic of systematic, constructive theology. I didn’t find anything there that can’t be found in, say Jonathan Edwards.
5. Paul Ede says:

   March 18, 2012 at 7:17 pm

   Moltmann? Pannenberg? Volf?
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:43 pm

     Without out doubt Moltmann and Pannenberg. No risk there. Volf? Maybe.
6. CGC says:

   March 18, 2012 at 7:17 pm

   Hi Roger, Not only are there no more theologians like Karl Barth from the 20th century but there are no more biblical scholars who were conversant in so many languages like Bruce M. Metzger. I would also suggest that the Roman Catholic Church produces people with Saint like qualities like Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, and Henri Nouwen. Where is the robust spiritual tradition within Evangelicalism to do something similar?
   I don’t know how long Hauerwas or Wright will be influential after they are gone? (they produce so much more than most for the moment and therefore have great influence on many people studying Christian theology today).
   I will say there would be an irony for Hauerwas to be the postmodern Christian par excellence since he is actually a critic of postmodernism and not an ally. Hauerwas as an iconoclast? I suspect Hauerwas would like to be best remembered as a “Christian contrarian” :–)
7. John Metz says:

   March 18, 2012 at 7:19 pm

   Roger, Why not include some of the Plymouth Brethren teachers in your list of influential theologians of the 19th century? Darby and Mackintosh immediately come to mind. They appear to meet at lest the first 3 of your categories. Although dispensationalism is not popular today, the brethren teachers had a great impact on both theologians and popularizers for many years beyond their lifespans.
8. Craig L. Adams says:

   March 18, 2012 at 9:19 pm

   It’s just my opinion, but I think Wolfhart Pannenberg must be on the list. His is such an intellectually challenging and stimulating theological project.
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm

     Agreed. I studied with him for a year and have kept up with his writing over the intervening years. Sadly, he is not well these days. And I was disappointed in his Systematic Theology. I liked his earlier writings and especially Theology and the Kingdom of God.
     • Craig L. Adams says:

       March 19, 2012 at 4:49 pm

       I’ve long been a Pannenberg fan because he was the first theologian I encountered who seemed to understand how scientific method influences our understanding of knowledge. So, his theology has always been at the interface of science and theology. I think he came to mind so readily because of having recently read F. LeRon Shults book The Postfoundationalist Task of Theology where Shults shows that Pannenberg’s epistemology foreshadows what post-foundationalist thinkers are currently saying. (Thanks for replying.)
       • rogereolson says:

         March 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm

         Pannenberg is post-foundationalist in that he affirms the coherence theory of truth and reserves the totality of truth to the future. However, he is a foundationalist insofar as he believes in a universal rationality shared by all human and that Christian truth claims must be justified by that.
9. Tony Pounders says:

   March 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm

   Dr. Olson, If you were asked to to suggest one current theologian as a “must-read”, who would it be? Thanks for your thought-provoking posts.
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm

     It depends on who’s asking. But generally speaking, for those ready for serious theology, Moltmann.
     • Tony Pounders says:

       March 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm

       Yes, it does depend on who is asking. Allow me to narrow the field. Let’s say someone who graduated seminary 20 years ago and is in full-time pastoral ministry. Would Moltmann still be the one?
       • rogereolson says:

         March 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm

         Yes, assuming the person has an intellectual bent. Moltmann is not easy to read or digest. But first and foremost he or she should read Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace. I truly think it will turn out to be one of a few theological classics written in the latter part of the 20th century.
         • Tony Pounders says:

           March 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm

           Thanks for the recommendations. I wrote a paper on Moltmann’s Theology of Hope for a MDiv Seminar back in 1990. We were studying Paul Ricoeur’s work. I was assigned Moltmann and asked to interpret him in light of Ricoeur. Paul Ricoeur is a name I don’t see or hear anymore. I also read Moltmann’s God In Creation for a second year Theology course.
         • rogereolson says:

           March 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm

           Yes, Ricouer is one of those thinkers whose star rose and fell rather suddenly. When I was doing Ph.D. work we required students in religion classes to read Ricouer’s The Symbolism of Evil. Ricouer was all the rage then (late 1970s, early 1980s). Now, who even knows who he was? I know that’s an exaggeration but not a big one. It’s sad how quickly such an important thinker can be largely forgotten.
10. Just Sayin' says:

    March 18, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    I think it wll be philosophers who will be remembered, discussed and debated, not theologians. Thus: Plantinga, Wolsterstorff, MacIntyre, Swinburne, Lane Craig and some younger philosophers it’s still not possible to single out (there are plenty to choose from). Canada’s bestselling author J. I. Packer will be remembered, conservative publishers will surely be reprinting his major books for the next several decades. But what can future scholars say about his ideas? Not much, not in the way that Barth, for example, is supplying ongoing discussion and debate among today’s theologians. Miroslav Volf might be one candidate for your list. Packer’s successor at Regent, Hans Boersma, is also a favourite of mine — one to watch!
11. ScottW says:

    March 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    Dr. Olson- To broaden your map I think the late Orthodox theologian Fr. Georges Florovsky will continue to be important, along with his student Met. John Zizoulas.
12. Jeremy Myers says:

    March 19, 2012 at 12:42 am

    Can you believe I’ve never read anything by Hauerwas? I guess I better get started. What are some of his best works?
    • rogereolson says:

      March 19, 2012 at 1:07 pm

      I’m asking that, too. Until recently I’ve had very little interest in him. I talked with him a couple weeks ago and found him more personally engaging than I thought. But, then, I didn’t argue with him, either.
      • Darcyjo says:

        March 19, 2012 at 1:32 pm

        You have this current student of Dr. Hauerwas laughing out loud in the library!
        • rogereolson says:

          March 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm

          Explain why.
13. Rob says:

    March 19, 2012 at 6:44 am

    Dr. Olson, This is an interesting topic! Maybe this fits into one of your four categories mentioned above, but I think one way to predict who will be influential 50 years from now would be to think about what the church may look like then. By that I mean in terms of church structure. At least in America, the church is being pushed more into the margins so theologies that square well with that type of environment would have the most influence. For me I think theologians of the Anabaptist/Neo-Anabaptist persuasion would fit this category.
14. Timothy says:

    March 19, 2012 at 8:19 am

    No Hermann or Kahler? “What caused these other theologians (e.g., Dorner) to be remembered?” Interesting question but I have never heard of Dorner so perhaps in UK he is not remembered. And Bushnell would only have been heard of by a few. Is this a very Americo-centric selection?
    • rogereolson says:

      March 19, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      I don’t think so. The only Americans in the list are Bushnell and Rauschenbusch. Dorner was extremely influential on Barth and widely considered, during his own lifetime, the mediating theologian par excellence. Unfortunately, he was eclipsed by Ritschl soon after his death. I don’t think any more have heard of Hermann or Kahler than Dorner and Bushnell (at least in America). The book will be published by an American publisher, so it’s natural to include a couple of influential American theologians others may not be as familiar with.
15. Joshua Penduck says:

    March 19, 2012 at 8:58 am

    I think Hauerwas’ popularity is more than simply his review in Time. Many of the leading Christian ethicists – and many of the new generation of leading ethicists – have been immensely influenced by Hauerwas. For instance, Samuel Wells, Joel Shuman, John Swinton, Brian Brock, Glen Stassen, Robert Song, Michael Cartwright, John Berkman, William Willimon (I could go on) have all counted Hauerwas as an inspiration. Yes, it may be the case that in 50 years, all these might be forgotten – after all, who in 1900 could have imagined the impact a figure such as Barth could have had? – but from the present indications there is no reason to imagine that Hauerwas’ influence will lessen (other than through sheer speculation). Hauerwas’ influence extends beyond the issue of pacificism (though that is where he is most widely known, it is where I think he is at his weakest): he has had an impact on ecclesiological ethics (Wells, Willimon and Cartwright, for example), and increasingly in the area of bioethics (especially on medical practice and posthumanism). In looking through your four categories, I would say that Hauerwas has filled most of them (at least from current trends): I have already noted the influence he has had on many leading Christian ethicists (and he himself is one of the most widely read Christian ethicists); he is a prolific writer (though mainly through the essay format and journals), though I would not want to put too much emphasis on how MUCH a figure has written (after all, Yoder did not write to an extensive degree) – and he is being widely translated (my Ukrainian and Polish friends read him!); much of his originality grows from how he has plausibly started the bridging of the divide between Barthian and Thomist eclesiological ethics; and finally he has had a secondary impact on contemporary culture, in particular through his thinking on cultural and bioethical issues (I have seen at first hand how Hauerwas has had an impact on British politics through his – albeit limited – influence on the cultural philosopher Philip Blond). In terms of Christian ethicists in the second half of the 20th Century, other than O’Donovan and Cavanaugh, I would find it difficult to name someone who has had as much influence has Hauerwas.
16. Chris Criminger says:

    March 19, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Hi Everyone, I would recommend people read Hauerwas’s popular works first like “Resident Aliens” (which he did with William Williman) and I loved his challenging “After Christendom.” Of course, there is a work called a “Hauerwas Reader” which will give you a good overall sense of Hauerwas ideas.
17. Joshua Thiering says:

    March 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    This is partially a list of people I hope will be read:
    Jeremy Begbie, with the Theology through the Arts, could potentially make a sizeable impact to Christian attitudes to art and theology, and his work is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Rowan Williams, I’m continually surprised how many nonAnglican/Episcopalians know, read and quote his work. And he has as Benjamin Meyers puts it “a way of making the familiar strange,” which I think resonates with the darker tones of postmodernism. I’m also a little curious of what people 50 years from now will say of Peter Rollins.
18. Cameron says:

    March 20, 2012 at 10:50 am

    All the names mentioned are worthy contenders. I don’t want to sound like the annoying person three rows from the front of the lecture hall, but they all seem to have one thing in common: they’re (very, very nearly) all white men. I have nothing against white men—I’m proud to call myself one! But I wonder what the fact that few women ( I counted one) or people of non-Northern-European descent have been suggested says.
    Are there really no women theologians with the sort of influence that will be remembered in fifty years’ time? Black? Hispanic? African? Australian Aborigine? Trans-gender? Or homosexual?
    The way we label these sorts of theologians mightn’t help. We’ve already discussed whether biblical scholars count. What about feminist theologians? Are they really theologians, or just feminists who quote the Bible a lot? Would liberation theologians make the cut if they discussed ‘real’ theology more? Do we need to specify what sort of theologian actually counts?
    Similarly, does the list of criteria limit the possibilities to professional, academic theologians? Or do we add that as an unspoken criteria? The fact that no-one remembers Langdon Gilkey suggests that activity within the academy mightn’t be so relevant to the question after all.
    I guess my point is that we must be careful who we include and exclude when we’re having discussions about who might be considered important in years to come.
19. Jamie says:

    March 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Does George Lindbeck fall outside the time frame you are considering? I’m thinking he might be remembered because The Nature of Doctrine could plausibly be seen as an agenda setting work.
    • rogereolson says:

      March 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm

      Ah, but so full of problems! I think Vanhoozer is better. (I don’t even know him and have never met him, but I think his work on the canonical-linguistic theory of doctrine is far superior to Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic one which reduces doctrine to grammar.) But, to the point… Years ago there was a theologian who was saying many of the same things Lindbeck later said. I don’t know why he doesn’t get more credit for postliberalism (a term he didn’t use). His name was Paul Holmer and he was very influential during the 1960s and 1970s. I met him and heard him speak (a sort of debate with Alvin Plantinga) sometime during the 1980s. His book The Grammar of Faith was a classic of what was then called Wittgensteinian fideism (not a term he embraced). I often wonder why people who were so popular and influential for a decade or two drop off the radar so entirely only a few years later. For those of you who may have heard of, read or knew Holmer…He lived not far from me in St. Paul and I ran into him at used bookstores often when he was ancient. I was so young and wet behind the ears I couldn’t get up the nerve to speak to him. But I read him voraciously and went through a Wittgensteinian fideism phase through him and D. Z. Phillips (and Willem Zuurdeeg-another forgotten theologian).
20. Alex says:

    March 20, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    Strongly appreciate Moltmann. I believe he is already demonstrating his “gianthood”; after all The Theology of Hope was written during the Johnson administration and his theology is relevant and widely read today. There are other would be giants but I think we are in an age of synthesizing theologians who combine influences of previous giants and today's more current creative theologians, all with an emphasis on biblical exegesis. You mentioned N.T. Wright. Others come to mind, e.g. Richard Bauckham and even T.F. Torrance. I also think some liberationist theology will be read well into the future – James Cone, Gustavo Gutierrez et al.
21. Daniel James Levy says:

    March 21, 2012 at 12:34 am

    I think if we forget the influence of Moltmann we’re in trouble. Moltmann, I would say was the most influential theological of the second half of the 20th century.
22. MattR says:

    March 21, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Since Jamie mentioned Lindbeck, I’d also say Hans Frei, “The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative.” This was part of my intro (through Hauerwas) to narrative theology. Not talked about as much recently, but you can see the influence on much of post-foundationalist/narrative theology.
    • rogereolson says:

      March 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm

      Agreed. I thought I mentioned Frei, but I might have intended to and got side tracked. My mentor was a student with Frei at Yale. He told me that Frei had a nervous breakdown just before his comprehensive exams. He had to take time off and go sit near the ocean and recover his equilibrium. He told me that to comfort me as I was on the verge of one myself just before exams. I agree that The Eclipse of Narrative is a classic of modern/postmodern theology.