Non‐Lutheran Influences, Scholarly Impasses, and Spiritual Authority: A Response to Mawson, Harvey and Plant

The argument of Bonhoeffer's Reception of Luther is that Bonhoeffer's thinking was Lutheran and ought to be interpreted as such. In a section of the book's Introduction I explain what I mean by “Lutheran” in connection with the book's thesis. Mike Mawson's review begins with...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	Modern theology 2019-04, Vol.35 (2), p.374-381
1. Verfasser:	DeJonge, Michael P.
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	eng
Schlagworte:	Authority Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Reception (Artistic works) Religious studies Theology
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

container_end_page	381
container_issue	2
container_start_page	374
container_title	Modern theology
container_volume	35
creator	DeJonge, Michael P.
description	The argument of Bonhoeffer's Reception of Luther is that Bonhoeffer's thinking was Lutheran and ought to be interpreted as such. In a section of the book's Introduction I explain what I mean by “Lutheran” in connection with the book's thesis. Mike Mawson's review begins with a charitable and reliable summary of this section that relays a number of the definitional and methodological clarifications I put forward while also indicating the reasons standing behind some of them. He then offers an interesting account of MacIntyre on tradition and Bourdieu on habitus, aligning my thinking about “the Lutheran tradition” with the former.
doi_str_mv	10.1111/moth.12474
format	Article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2187707523</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2187707523</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2604-e1448319f37a1df1b38b0c26627e71099ae740086cc3d5172edac204e1424ea23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFOwzAQRS0EEqWw4QSW2KGmeBw3TthVFdBKhSJa1pabOGqq1A52QpUdR-CMnAS3Yc1sZmS_NyN9hK6BDMHX3c7UmyFQxtkJ6gGL4oAQOjpFPUKjKODA-Tm6cG5LCABPSA_pF6N_vr7nTb1RVmo803nZKJ0qN8DLdGNKacsWz3aVdO7wJnWGl1Vhi7qRJR57zfi5vcdj_KZcZbRTuDb4We6d0QM8lfZTtUfrtZS6vkRnuSyduvrrffT--LCaTIP54mk2Gc-DlEaEBQoYi0NI8pBLyHJYh_Ga-K-IcsWBJIlUnBESR2kaZiPgVGUypYR5jzIladhHN93eypqPRrlabE1jtT8pKMScEz6ioaduOyq1xjmrclHZYidtK4CIQ57ikKc45ulh6OB9Uar2H1I8L1bTzvkFA4l4iw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2187707523</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Non‐Lutheran Influences, Scholarly Impasses, and Spiritual Authority: A Response to Mawson, Harvey and Plant</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>DeJonge, Michael P.</creator><creatorcontrib>DeJonge, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><description>The argument of Bonhoeffer's Reception of Luther is that Bonhoeffer's thinking was Lutheran and ought to be interpreted as such. In a section of the book's Introduction I explain what I mean by “Lutheran” in connection with the book's thesis. Mike Mawson's review begins with a charitable and reliable summary of this section that relays a number of the definitional and methodological clarifications I put forward while also indicating the reasons standing behind some of them. He then offers an interesting account of MacIntyre on tradition and Bourdieu on habitus, aligning my thinking about “the Lutheran tradition” with the former.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-7177</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-0025</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/moth.12474</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Authority ; Bonhoeffer, Dietrich ; Reception (Artistic works) ; Religious studies ; Theology</subject><ispartof>Modern theology, 2019-04, Vol.35 (2), p.374-381</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fmoth.12474$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fmoth.12474$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>DeJonge, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><title>Non‐Lutheran Influences, Scholarly Impasses, and Spiritual Authority: A Response to Mawson, Harvey and Plant</title><title>Modern theology</title><description>The argument of Bonhoeffer's Reception of Luther is that Bonhoeffer's thinking was Lutheran and ought to be interpreted as such. In a section of the book's Introduction I explain what I mean by “Lutheran” in connection with the book's thesis. Mike Mawson's review begins with a charitable and reliable summary of this section that relays a number of the definitional and methodological clarifications I put forward while also indicating the reasons standing behind some of them. He then offers an interesting account of MacIntyre on tradition and Bourdieu on habitus, aligning my thinking about “the Lutheran tradition” with the former.</description><subject>Authority</subject><subject>Bonhoeffer, Dietrich</subject><subject>Reception (Artistic works)</subject><subject>Religious studies</subject><subject>Theology</subject><issn>0266-7177</issn><issn>1468-0025</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEFOwzAQRS0EEqWw4QSW2KGmeBw3TthVFdBKhSJa1pabOGqq1A52QpUdR-CMnAS3Yc1sZmS_NyN9hK6BDMHX3c7UmyFQxtkJ6gGL4oAQOjpFPUKjKODA-Tm6cG5LCABPSA_pF6N_vr7nTb1RVmo803nZKJ0qN8DLdGNKacsWz3aVdO7wJnWGl1Vhi7qRJR57zfi5vcdj_KZcZbRTuDb4We6d0QM8lfZTtUfrtZS6vkRnuSyduvrrffT--LCaTIP54mk2Gc-DlEaEBQoYi0NI8pBLyHJYh_Ga-K-IcsWBJIlUnBESR2kaZiPgVGUypYR5jzIladhHN93eypqPRrlabE1jtT8pKMScEz6ioaduOyq1xjmrclHZYidtK4CIQ57ikKc45ulh6OB9Uar2H1I8L1bTzvkFA4l4iw</recordid><startdate>201904</startdate><enddate>201904</enddate><creator>DeJonge, Michael P.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>C18</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201904</creationdate><title>Non‐Lutheran Influences, Scholarly Impasses, and Spiritual Authority: A Response to Mawson, Harvey and Plant</title><author>DeJonge, Michael P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2604-e1448319f37a1df1b38b0c26627e71099ae740086cc3d5172edac204e1424ea23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Authority</topic><topic>Bonhoeffer, Dietrich</topic><topic>Reception (Artistic works)</topic><topic>Religious studies</topic><topic>Theology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DeJonge, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Humanities Index</collection><jtitle>Modern theology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DeJonge, Michael P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Non‐Lutheran Influences, Scholarly Impasses, and Spiritual Authority: A Response to Mawson, Harvey and Plant</atitle><jtitle>Modern theology</jtitle><date>2019-04</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>374</spage><epage>381</epage><pages>374-381</pages><issn>0266-7177</issn><eissn>1468-0025</eissn><abstract>The argument of Bonhoeffer's Reception of Luther is that Bonhoeffer's thinking was Lutheran and ought to be interpreted as such. In a section of the book's Introduction I explain what I mean by “Lutheran” in connection with the book's thesis. Mike Mawson's review begins with a charitable and reliable summary of this section that relays a number of the definitional and methodological clarifications I put forward while also indicating the reasons standing behind some of them. He then offers an interesting account of MacIntyre on tradition and Bourdieu on habitus, aligning my thinking about “the Lutheran tradition” with the former.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/moth.12474</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 0266-7177
ispartof	Modern theology, 2019-04, Vol.35 (2), p.374-381
issn	0266-7177 1468-0025
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_journals_2187707523
source	Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects	Authority Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Reception (Artistic works) Religious studies Theology
title	Non‐Lutheran Influences, Scholarly Impasses, and Spiritual Authority: A Response to Mawson, Harvey and Plant
url	https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T17%3A50%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Non%E2%80%90Lutheran%20Influences,%20Scholarly%20Impasses,%20and%20Spiritual%20Authority:%20A%20Response%20to%20Mawson,%20Harvey%20and%20Plant&rft.jtitle=Modern%20theology&rft.au=DeJonge,%20Michael%20P.&rft.date=2019-04&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=374&rft.epage=381&rft.pages=374-381&rft.issn=0266-7177&rft.eissn=1468-0025&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/moth.12474&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2187707523%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2187707523&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true