|
|
interest because of his significance as an historical figure and the profound legacy he left on America’s religious and intellectual landscapes.” Moreover, Yale has undertaken to publish twenty-six critical editions of his writings, a project which seems to fortify the claim that Edwards was and continues to be an important figure in North American theology. Edwards scholar Robert Jenson titled his book on Edwards America’s Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), which is further suggestive of his stature within the American evangelical tradition. Moreover, books, articles, and conferences on Edwards have burgeoned in the past thirty years. Although Edwards does not embody the totality of evangelical theology (as no single theologian can be expected to do), his status as one of its key figures is widely recognized and secure.
In respect to Coffey, he was a student of Karl Rahner, and his theology clearly falls within the Rahnerian trajectory of thought.8 Rahner is probably the most iconic representative of post-Vatican II Catholic theology. Based on the fact that Coffey clearly represents Rahner’s theology and Rahner’s theology is, at the very least, representative of a major tradition of contemporary Catholic theology, Coffey can be used fairly as a representative of an important line of contemporary Catholic theology. Moreover, the Augustinian mutual love model is the fundamental theological concept of Coffey’s theology. Augustine’s trinitarian theology (and variations of the mutual love model in particular) exerted tremendous influence in the history of Catholic theology and continues to do so. For instance, Pope John Paul II’s 1986 encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem (nos. 10, 34, and 39) endorses it, and Pope Benedict XVI has used the model in his theological work on the Trinity.9 Because Coffey’s theology integrates the traditional Augustinian model and the theology of Rahner, he seems to be a suitable representative of major traditions of Catholic theology both past and present.
As to Edwards and Coffey serving as dialogue partners, first, they both represent major traditions of thought in respect to their theological heritages. Second, they both use the Augustinian trinitarian tradition. Third, they both are innovative theologians who push the frontiers of