He may be gone but his Rules live on
With so many other hot-button issues on Civil Religion right now, this one won’t generate much light or heat, but I thought it was worth noting.
The originator of Dana King’s noted Stendahl’s Rules, the Rev. Krister Stendahl has died.
In addition to serving as bishop in the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden and being an ecumenical religious leader, Stendahl was a long-time professor and dean of Harvard Divinity School, and one of the most notable New Testament scholars of his generation.
He helped to pioneer what has become known as the “new perspective on Paul.” Although this “new perspective” is now not-so-new, and has come under much critique, his 1963 essay, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” is still required reading in many divinity school and seminary classrooms.
Yet, perhaps the greatest legacy of the “new perspective” isn’t so much about biblical studies, as it is about how it changed the way we view the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity, making it less antagonistic than it had been before. It opened up new ways for Christians and Jews to talk openly and honestly about their shared histories.
So, in more ways than one, this little corner of cyberspace is indebted to Rev. Stendahl’s legacy.
Ironically, I studied his essay in divinity school and then listened to a sharp critique of it from the teaching fellow of my discussion group, a Reformed Jewish rabbi completing a PhD in New Testament at Yale. How about that for an idea coming full circle?
Travis Scholl, 35, is managing editor of theological publications at Concordia Seminary. A graduate of Yale Divinity School (MDiv), he is an ordained Lutheran minister. Despite some time away, he and his wife are native St. Louisans, as is the child they are now raising. 
Stendahl’s Rules are a thoughtful translation of the “Golden Rule” for all public discourse not just discussions of faith. I have to wonder, however, how such rules can be applied in the age of “Mega-phone man” . . . radio and television personalities that do not seem to adhere to traditional standards of civility in the media. I’m thinking of Bill O’Reilly and similar personalities right & left that at times hi-jack religious position for controversy.
How do those of us that may prefer “civil discourse” respond to such personalities and a culture that seems determined for black-white answers to pressing problems.
I wonder how a Martin Luther King or a Ghandi would be received in in the current world? Part of the reason for their success was an underlying commonality of the morals of civil enlightened society.
Does that common understanding still exist and how does one awaken it to change the tenor of the discussions that must take place over religion and public policy in the coming years?
BBC has interesting story this morning related to this thread. It describes a growing controversy in Indonesia about a minority Islamic movement that is the government is seeking to ban, the Ahmadiyya. This example sums up the tension between secular democracy, religious tolerance, and, minority rights we face here in the U.S. but at geographic distance.
If you were asked to moderate this “civil discourse” how would you proceed?
Thank you for noting the passing of this truly important figure in New Testament studies. While I didn’t know Krister Stendahl personally, I was lucky enough to be at Harvard Divinity School while he was still an active presence on campus. Although retired, he remained a vital part of the community. I remember what a striking figure he cut roaming through the halls, always clad in episcopal purple. He always looked about 7 feet tall to me!
While striking, he was never imposing, or at least not intentionally so; he had a gentleness and a humility about him that spoke volumes for the kind of scholar and the kind of Christian he was. I know he is already sorely missed.