Archive for the ‘Karl Barth’ Tag

Posting of Saints of July to Resume Soon   Leave a comment

Above:  The Author, June 1, 2018

Photograph by Kenneth Randolph Taylor


I understand the age-old desire of many saints to escape into a hermitage, cave, or other place and avoid the outside world.  Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr might criticize me; the latter might remind me of my sad duty to create justice in an unjust world.  I have no such power, however.  My vote is usually in vain, actually.  It will make a difference again, one day–perhaps this year.

I have had enough.  I have had too much.

In my country, the United States of America, the lunatics stormed the asylum, so to speak, in 2016.  My desire to remain sane and not to become a perpetually angry and profane man has outweighed my desire to remain thoroughly informed as I have escaped into hagiographies, saints, and science fiction.  I have chosen the nurturing of piety over getting into pissing contests with skunks.  I have, however, worked political statements into many posts, many of them hagiographies or devotions.

For the last few days I have focused my blogging attention on LENTEN AND EASTER DEVOTIONS, where I have been adding posts for 2019.  I had written those drafts a few months ago, but I was waiting until after Pentecost to begin the process of creating new posts.  Today I began to take notes on saints with feast days from July 21 to 31.  So far I have taken notes on seven saints for four posts, leaving at least eleven saints in nine posts to go.  I have found that I need to set some blogging projects aside to focus on another blogging project for a time.  With the process of updating LENTEN AND EASTER DEVOTIONS nearly complete for another year, I have decided to return to hagiographies for a little while.

At least I am trying to do something positive.









Feast of Jacques Ellul (May 19)   Leave a comment

Above:  Bordeaux Harbor, Bordeaux, France, 1890

Publisher and Copyright Holder = Detroit Publishing Company

Image Source = Library of Congress

Reproduction Number = LC-DIG-ppmsc-04951


JACQUES ELLUL (JANUARY 6, 1912-MAY 19, 1994)

French Reformed Theologian and Sociologist

Jacques Ellul offered a nuanced critique of modern society.  The central theme of his theology was that

The world is in perpetual contadiction with the will of God.

Ellul also argued that God has never abandoned the world.

Ellul, who was French, was of a mixed ethnic background.  He, born at Bordeaux on January 6, 1912, was the son of Joseph and Martha Ellul.  Joseph, frequently unemployed, came from an Eastern Orthodox background, which he had abandoned in favor of Deism.  He, born in Malta, was an Austrian citizen and a British subject of Serbian and Italian ethnicity.  Martha, a French Protestant, was of French and Portuguese descent.  She taught art at a private school.  Religion was a subject of little discussion in the home.  Our saint did not become a Christian until his early twenties.

At his father’s behest Ellul studied law at the University of Bordeaux.  At the university our saint read Das Kapital.  Thus Karl Marx became an influence on his thought.  The Marxian (separate from Marxist) idea of Conflict Theory, or of historical change via clashing social forces, remained a part of Ellul’s philosophy for the rest of his life.

Ellul offered a social critique prior to World War II.  He and friend Bernard Charbonneau (1910-1996) developed a variation on the Personalism of Emmanuel Mournier (1905-1950).  They published their libertarian-anarchist critique in Mournier’s journal, L’Esprit.  Our saint sought to start a cultural revolution opposed to nationalism and political centralism.  He stood in opposition in particular to modern technological structures.

In 1937, the same year Ellul married his wife Yvette, he became a professor of law.  He taught at Montpelier then at Strasbourg.  The government of the French State, or Vichy France, removed our saint from his position at the University of Strasbourg on the grounds that his father was Maltese.  (The Vichy slogan was “Work, Family, Country.”  Ellul was allegedly a foreigner because of his father.)  During World War II our saint supported himself and his family via farming.  He, active in the Maquis, also helped Jews escape from the Nazis.  For this work he received posthumous recognition as one of the Yad Vashem, or the Righteous Among the Nations.

Partisan politics disagreed with Ellul, but social causes did not.  He, the Deputy Mayor of Bordeaux from October 31, 1944, to April 29, 1945, preferred to work for social transformation via the Reformed Church of France and various non-partisan organizations.  Causes that inspired him included ecology and the prevention of juvenile delinquency.  Ellul, a professor at the University of Bordeaux from 1944 until his retirement in 1980, influenced many people around the world via his more than 35 books in the fields of theology and sociology.

Ellul, whose influences included Karl Marx, John Calvin, and Karl Barth, argued that Christians should be, from the perspective of the state and other social institutions, trouble-makers.  The systems, he insisted, are inherently violent, for, even if they do not commit violence, they depend upon it.  His proposed alternative was the “violence of love,” or the application of one’s energies to social change on behalf of the impoverished, especially the forgotten poor.  Regarding technology, Ellul criticized the deification of it.  He was no luddite, however.  No, his attitude toward technology was ambivalent.

Ellul, not a Biblical literalist, recognized that the sacred anthology contains inaccuracies and contradictions.  He dealt with them not by ignoring them, rationalizing them away, or rejecting the Bible, but by focusing on the messages in the Bible and its books as wholes.  The Church had canonized certain books, not isolated passages, he observed.  The best way to read the Bible, Ellul wrote, was to focus on the forest, not to become lost amid the trees.

Ellul died, aged 82 years, at Pessac (near Bordeaux) on May 19, 1994.

Ellul provides much food for thought for me.  I am not a Biblical literalist either, so his advice on reading and interpreting the scriptures resonates with me.  I also agree with Conflict Theory, an approach useful in history, my discipline.  Furthermore, I identify with Ellul’s ambivalent approach toward technology, with its benefits and its dangers.  I am a blogger, so I cannot be a luddite, but the Internet is not unambiguously good.  I appreciate our saint’s recognition of the violence inherent in social, economic, and political systems, whereby all of us become the beneficiaries of that violence, even if we do not commit it.  I also approve of his call to nonviolent social action in response.  Furthermore, the union of church and state perverts the church, transforming into an arm of the state.  Ellul’s cautious attitude toward the state therefore makes much sense to me.

People die yet ideas survive.  Ellul’s philosophy continues to influence people to nonviolent social action, fortunately.







Almighty God, your Holy Spirit gives to one the word of knowledge,

and to another the insight of wisdom,

and to another the steadfastness of faith.

We praise you for the gifts of grace imparted to your servant Jacques Ellul,

and we pray that by his teachings we may be led to a fuller knowledge of the truth

we have seen in your Son Jesus, our Savior and Lord, who lives and reigns

with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.  Amen.

Proverbs 3:1-7 or Wisdom of Solomon 7:7-14

Psalm 119:89-104

1 Corinthians 2:6-10, 13-16 or 1 Corinthians 3:5-11

John 17:18-23 or Matthew 13:47-52

–Adapted from Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), page 61


Feast of Emil Brunner (April 5)   Leave a comment

Above:  Dr. Emil Brunner

Image in the Public Domain



Swiss Reformed Theologian


The Protestant theology of our day is in a state of rapid dissolution….The substance of Christian theology, the content of Christian faith, is in a state of compete decomposition.  Christianity is either faith in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, or it is nothing.

–Emil Brunner, in The Theology of Crisis (1930); quoted in Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman, editors, A Handbook of Christian Theologians–Enlarged Edition (1984) page 410


Emil Brunner and Karl Barth were the most influential Protestant theologians of the twentieth century.  The latter, however, has become more famous than the former.  Furthermore, Willard Learoyd Sperry was openly critical of their Neo-orthodox theology.  Coincidence has caused the feasts of Brunner and Sperry to fall on the same date on my Ecumenical Calendar of Saints’ Days and Holy Days.  This project of mine has sufficient breadth to include theologians who criticized each other.

Brunner was Swiss, as was his contemporary and critic, Barth.  Brunner, born on December 23, 1889, at Winterthur, drew from a variety of influences.  One early influence was pastor Christoph Blumhardt (1842-1919), of southern Germany.  Another influence was Hermann Kutter (1863-1931), a student of Blumhardt.  Brunner studied theology at the University of Zurich.  His professor, Leonhard Ragaz (1868-1945), taught him the works of Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), who influenced our saint profoundly.

Brunner traveled and lectured around the world.  He studied in Berlin for a semester in 1911; he found both the city and Adolf von Harnack 1865-1923) unimpressive.  Our saint visited England in 1913-1914 and quickly became fluent in English.  He was back home, serving in the Swiss army, in 1914-1916, before becoming the pastor at a church in Obstalden, in the canton of Glarus, in 1916.  Brunner studied at Union Theological Seminary, New York, New York, in 1919-1920.  In 1924 he became Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at the University of Zurich.  He also continued to preach in churches.  Throughout the 1920s Brunner lectured in the United States and in the United Kingdom.  The Third Reich banned his books and forbade him to teach in Germany, but he did not slow down.  From 1938 to 1939 Brunner was a visiting professor at Princeton Theological Seminary.  He was also active in the Faith and Order Movement and the Life and Work Movement, forerunners of the World Council of Churches, organized in 1948.  After World War II Brunner became a theological advisor to the Y.M.C.A.  In 1949, for the Y.M.C.A., he traveled and lectured in Asia.  From 1953 to 1955 our saint was a professor at the International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan.  There he engaged in ecumenical and interfaith dialogues.  In 1955, on the way back to Switzerland, Brunner suffered a stroke, which slowed the previously vigorous pace of his scholarly work.

In 1916 Brunner married Margret Lauterberg, niece of his mentor, Hermann Kutter.  Our saint was a loving husband and father.  The couple raised four sons, two of whom they buried.


A person literate in Christian theology can understand why one can find criticisms of Brunner from both the right and the left on the Internet.  According to certain critics from the left, he was much too traditional.  Yet, according to those who condemn our saint from the right, he was a heretic and a destroyer of faith whose insidious influence remains.

Brunner, who considered himself neither a traditionalist nor an innovator, held to a theology based to two related factors:  love and the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.  He rejected fundamentalism and dogmatism on the right  and vague religious values on the left.  Brunner was, simply put, in the middle, with many critics from both his right and his left.  For example, as our saint stressed the primacy of Jesus as the Word of God and insisted upon the unique and unrepeatable nature of the Incarnation, he remained skeptical regarding the Virgin Birth.  The miracle of the Incarnation, Brunner wrote, was greater with a human father.  Furthermore, our saint insisted, one need not affirm the Virgin Birth as being essential to accepting the divinity of Jesus.

Brunner also pondered how God and mere mortals can relate to each other.  Our saint, being himself, rejected the extremes of literalism and dogmatism on the right and of experience and feeling on the left.  He wrote that God and people meet in Jesus Christ and that only God can take the initiative to bridge the gap.  People, he argued, have the ability to reject God or to accept God.  Furthermore, the revelation of God is ongoing–via the Holy Spirit, including in the scriptures at the present time.  The reign of God on earth will become a reality also.  In the meantime, Brunner argued, there must be a point of contact in sinful human nature for one to perceive the divine revelation.  This assertion prompted Barth too write his famous rebuttal Nein! (1934), in which he argued that divine revelation creates its own point of contact ex niliho.  Brunner referred to Nein! as “that terrible book” as late as the 1950s.

For Brunner the definitive Christian virtue was love–self-sacrificing love, the kind Jesus had.  This love, our saint wrote, Christianizing Martin Buber‘s I-Thou theology, binds people to God and to each other in relationships.  The responsibility to live in community with each other and with God, Brunner wrote, is inherent in us.  Furthermore, we might be unaware of this duty or even reject it, but we can never escape it, he argued.  The basis of this responsibility, according to Brunner, was the image of God.  He criticized violations of this responsibility, wherever he saw them–in capitalism, communism, Christian congregations and denominations, et cetera.  Worse than the scandal of schisms, Brunner wrote, was the lack of spiritual brotherhood in Christian community.


Brunner, a man well-informed in matters of theology, science, music, and painting, died at Zurich, Switzerland, on April 6, 1966.  He was 76 years old.








Almighty God, your Holy Spirit gives to one the word of knowledge,

and to another the insight of wisdom,

and to another the steadfastness of faith.

We praise you for the gifts of grace imparted by your servant Emil Brunner,

and we pray that by his teaching we may be led to a fuller knowledge of the truth

we have seen in your Son Jesus, our Savior and Lord, who lives and reigns

with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.  Amen.

Proverbs 3:1-7 or Wisdom 7:7-14

Psalm 119:89-104

1 Corinthians 2:6-10, 13-16 or 1 Corinthians 3:5-11

John 17:18-23 or Matthew 13:47-52

–Adapted from Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), page 61


Feast of Karl and Markus Barth (December 9)   3 comments


Above:  A German Stamp Bearing the Image of Karl Barth

Image in the Public Domain


KARL BARTH (MAY 10, 1886-DECEMBER 10, 1968)

Swiss Reformed Minister, Theologian, and Biblical Scholar

father of


Swiss Lutheran Minister and Biblical Scholar


Karl Barth (whose feast day in The Episcopal Church has been December 10) was arguably the most important Christian theologian of the twentieth century.  Pope Pius XII (reigned 1939-1968) considered him to be the most consequential Christian theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).  Markus Barth, a Biblical scholar like his father, was a prominent scholar of the Pauline epistles.

Karl Barth was Swiss.  He, a son of Fritz Barth, a Swiss Reformed minister and professor of theology, entered the world at Basel on May 10, 1886.  Our saint’s mother was Anna Katharina Sartorius.  Our saint studied at Bern, Berlin, Tubingen, and Marburg, was steeped in Liberal theology, such as that of Adolf Harnack.  That post-Enlightenment theology was anthropocentric (emphasizing the human experience of God) and optimistic regarding human nature.  (World War I called that anthropocentric optimism into question.)

Towards the end of Liberalism’s heyday came the contribution of the doyen of NT Liberal scholars, equally famous but more enduring in influence.  These were the lectures on Christianity, delivered by Adolf Harnack without manuscript or notes, to some six hundred students from all the faculties in the University of Berlin at the turn of the century, at the height of his own powers and at the self-consciously high point of European and German culture.  In these lectures Harnack deliberately turned his back on the Christ of dogma.  Christianity indeed must be rescued from its dependence on metaphysics and philosophy.  What was needed now was a rediscovery of the simplicity and freedom of the gospel which Jesus himself had preached.  Here for Harnack was “the essence of Christianity”–the “historical Jesus” encountered through the Gospels in his own religion and message.  And what was that essence?  Harnack summed up Jesus’ gospel as centering on the fatherhood of God, the infinite value of the human soul, and the importance of love, regularly popularized thereafter as “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.”  These were Jesus’ enduring insights, what was of permanent value when abstracted from the merely transitory.  According to Harnack, “true faith in Jesus is not a matter of creedal orthodoxy but of doing as he did.”

…In this case, the most important hermeneutical principle at work was in effect the conviction that Jesus, the “historical Jesus,” the Jesus stripped of dogmatic accretion, would/must have something to say to modern man, and the consequential desire to provide a mouthpiece for the restatement of that message.

And the result?  A Jesus portrayed and understood as a teacher of timeless morality, Jesus as a good example, Jesus as more the first Christian than the Christ–a flight from the Christ of dogma indeed!  At the same time, we should not decry the Liberal focus on the moral outcome of religion as the test of its character; such concerns had brought the slave trade to an end and achieved political, social and industrial reforms, although the Liberal tendency to understand morality solely in terms of personal and individual responsibility was the stronger influence, and the laissez-faire economics and imperialist hubris of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries seem to have been little affected.  Moreover, the reassertion of the importance of feeling in religion, of faith as a deeply rooted passion, was surely an important correction to a Protestantism still inclined to be too word-focused and still overly dependant on the Enlightenment paradigm of science and reason.  Not least Liberal scholarship deserves credit for its concern to speak meaningfully to its own age.  Here too the motivating force in life of Jesus scholarship was not unfaith but desire to speak in the idioms of the time, desire to be heard.  The trouble was, we may say, it allowed the spirit of the age to dictate not simply the language but also the agenda.

–James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1, Jesus Remembered (2003), pages 37-39

Barth, ordained a Swiss Reformed minister in 1909, served at Geneva (1909-1911) then Safenwill (1911-1911) before teaching at the University of Gottingen (1921-1925).  Then he became Professor of Dogmatics and New Testament at the University of Munster (1925-1930) and Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Bonn (1930-1935).  In 1913 our saint married Nelly Hoffmann (1893-1976).  The couple’s children included Markus (1915-1994) and Christoph (1917-1986).

Barth changed his theological mind more than once.  One break with his training occurred in August 1914, when, much to his dismay, he learned that 93 German intellectuals (including all of his seminary professors) had signed a manifesto endorsing imperial German war efforts.  The church was too close to the state, our saint concluded.  Barth’s break with his training deepened in 1919, with the publication of the first edition of his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.  The Neo-Orthodox phase of Barth’s theology had begun.  Eventually he changed his mind again, becoming, in the estimation of Professor Phillip Cary, in his Great Courses series The History of Christian Theology, simply orthodox, in line with St. Augustine of Hippo and other giants of Christian theology.

Barth’s discomfort with the church being too close to the state deepened in 1933, after Adolf Hitler rose to power.  Hitler sought (quite successfully, overall) to co-opt German churches.  The Confessing Church, of which our saint was a founder, formed in opposition to this effort.  As the first of the Duseldorf Theses (1933) stated,

The holy Christian church, whose only head is Christ, is born from the word of God; in this it abides, and it does not harken to any alien voice.

–Quoted in Linwood Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought, Revised and Expanded Edition (1995), page 346

Barth was among the authors of the Theological Declaration of Barmen (1934), which condemned Nazi ideology.  The following year he had to leave Germany because he refused to pledge allegiance to Hitler.

From 1935 to his retirement in 1962 Barth was Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Basel in Switzerland.  He completed his 13-volume Church Dogmatics (more than 9300 pages long), which he began at Bonn.  Our saint also delivered the main address at the World Council of Churches (1948).  During the 1950s Barth spoke out against the nuclear arms race and for Christians living behind the Iron Curtain.  Our saint followed his conscience, regardless of what was politically popular and acceptable.

Barth, aged 75 years, visited the United States in 1962, with the encouragement of his son Markus, then a professor at The University of Chicago.  For seven weeks the great theologian toured, speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, The University of Chicago, Union Theological Seminary (New York City), and San Francisco Theological Seminary.  Barth met the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., and considered the encounter to have been too brief.

Barth died at home in Basel on December 10, 1968.  He was 82 years old.

Barth’s theology was optimistic and rooted not in human experience but in the love and sovereignty of God.  His theology was Christocentric, about divine purposes, not anything human.  The Trinity, Barth insisted, is the basis of divine revelation; God the Father is the speaker, God the Son is the spoken word, and God the Spirit is the response in the hearts of people.  All of the above are inseparable and essential parts of the act of divine revelation, Barth wrote.  Furthermore, the theologian insisted, God speaks uniquely via Christianity and God reveals the Word of God (Jesus) via the word of God (the Bible).

Barth wrote about dialectical theology.  God says both “yes” and “no,” the theologian taught.  Furthermore, Barth insisted, the divine “no” always serves the divine “yes.”  He wrote that faith is an “impossible possibility;” that is, we cannot reach God yet God can reach us.  Divine revelation, not human perception of God, is the proper basis of faith, the great theologian wrote.  Divine revelation, Barth taught, is a shattering event; the institutional church is the crater the event created.  Furthermore, our saint wrote, there is no need to turn to human experience, nature, consciousness, or existence to hear or relate to God, for God can, metaphorically, give us ears to hear.

Barth redefined the Augustinian and Calvinist doctrine of election, thereby incurring the criticism of many staunch Calvinists.  According to our saint, God chose incarnation.  Furthermore, according to Barth, election is not a hidden decree; it is really about Jesus, is good news, is the basis of the Gospel, and precedes creation.  Our saint explained that the question is the election of Christ, not people.  He taught that Jesus Christ is the covenant in one person and that the covenant is the purpose of creation.  The great theologian insisted that, in Christ, God is for, not against, humans.

Barth also redefined Double Predestination.  It applies only to Christ, he wrote; God the Father has predestined Christ to death on the cross (God’s “no”) and resurrection (God’s “yes”).  Therefore, according to Barth, election always serves blessing, not condemnation.  Barth also taught that God has predestined certain people to Heaven, for the benefit of those not so predestined.  Grace, the great theologian insisted, was crucial.

Some critics of Barth’s theology have detected universal salvation in it.  Barth did not state that explicitly, but he did not think that God saving everyone would be terrible.

Barth, aware that many people identified themselves as Barthians, stated that nobody should think of himself or herself as a Barthian.  People should be and think of themselves as Christians, the theologian insisted.

Two of the sons of Karl Barth became scholars of the Bible.  Christoph Barth (1917-1986) was a scholar of the Old Testament.  He taught in Indonesia then at Mainz, Germany.  At Mainz he organized his lectures on the Old Testament into publishable form and published them in the Indonesian language; the first volume debuted in 1970.  Christoph’s widow, Marie-Claire, also a teacher of theology, supervised the condensation of the four volumes of the Indonesian text in English translation as God With Us:  A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (1991).

Markus Barth, born at Safenwill, Switzerland, on October 6, 1915, was a Pauline scholar and a Lutheran minister.  In 1940 he married Rose Marie Oswald (1913-1993); the couple had five children.  Markus studied theology at Bern, Basel, Berlin, and Edinburgh before receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Gottingen in 1947.  From 1947 to 1953 he served a church at Bubendorf, near Basel.  For 19 years (1953-1972) Markus taught New Testament at, in order:

  1. The University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa;
  2. The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; and
  3. Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Then, from 1973 to 1985, he taught New Testament at the University of Basel, in Switzerland.

Markus wrote about baptism, Holy Communion, the Pauline Epistles, Jewish-Christian dialogue, justification, and the resurrection of Jesus.  His books included the volumes on Galatians and Ephesians for The Anchor Bible series and a posthumously published commentary on the Epistle to Philemon.

Markus died at Basel on July 1, 1994.  He was 78 years old.

The legacies of the Barths glorify God.






O God, you have endowed us with memory, reason, and skill.

We thank you for the faithful legacy of [Karl Barth, Markus Barth, and all others]

who have dedicated their lives to you and to the intellectual pursuits.

May we, like them, respect your gift of intelligence fully and to your glory.

In the Name of God:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9

Psalm 103

Philippians 4:8-9

Mark 12:28-34






Feast of Milner Ball (April 6)   Leave a comment

Image Source = University of Georgia Law School Tribute Page

(Link located in this post)


Presbyterian Minister, Law Professor, Witness for Civil Rights, Humanitarian

From time to time one finds one’s self in the company of greatness.  The greatest of people are those who improve the lives of others, often facing scorn for part or much of their efforts.  Years and decades later, admirers speak of how courageous these great people were, but such high praise was scarce at the time.

Born in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1936, and educated in Georgia and Tennessee public schools, Milner Ball earned his A.B. degree from Princeton University and his Master of Divinity from Harvard University.  A man possessed of a keen intellect and deep Christian faith, he studied with Karl Barth and became a Presbyterian minister.  Lifelong concerns for social justice led Ball to support causes usually described as liberal.  In the 1960s, for example he was openly pro-civil rights.  After a stint as pastor in Manchester, Tennessee, he became the Presbyterian campus minister at The University of Georgia (UGA).  There his demonstrated belief in racial equality aroused much opposition at the recently (1962) integrated campus.  The last straw, however, came when Ball became a delegate to the 1968 Democratic National Convention, but not as a member of the Lester Maddox-approved delegation.  Ball, joined the Julian Bond-led delegation instead.

Ball, fired from his position, entered law school and commenced a career of public service via the law.  Graduating first in his class from the UGA Law School, Ball served as former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s representative to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1971 and 1972.  Then he taught law at Rutgers University from 1972 to 1978 before returning to UGA as a law professor.  He retired in 2006.

A prolific scholar, Ball wrote many law review articles and four books:  The Promise of American Law:  A Theological, Humanistic View of Legal Process (1981), Lying Down Together:  Law, Metaphor, and Theology (1985), The Word and the Law (1993), and Called by Stories:  Biblical Sagas and Their Challenge for Law (2000).  A specialist in environmental law, tribal law, constitutional law, and the intersection of theology and law, Ball challenged his students and readers to improve the lives of the less fortunate and to work for justice.  Law, he wrote, ought to be a force which transfigures society and builds up human community.

Ball’s work extended far beyond Athens, Georgia.  He taught overseas (in Argentina, France, Belgium, England, and Iceland) over the years and served as a judge on the International People’s Tribunal in Hawaii (1993).  Ball was also a member of the Theological Anthropology Project at the Center of Theological Inquiry at Princeton University.  And his influence continues through the careers of his law students.

Locally in Athens, Ball was instrumental in the Athens Justice Project, which, in the words of its website, “assists low income individuals with pending criminal charges in achieving a fair legal outcome and in becoming productive, law-abiding community members.”  Such work, truly a living memorial to Ball’s commitment to social justice, reflects his active belief in helping the disadvantaged and building up human community.  The Athens Justice Project was just one of Ball’s many community-building activities, with others including a soup kitchen and a homeless shelter.

Ball received many civil rights and public service honors.  It is appropriate then that the Working in the Public Interest (WIPI) Law Conference established the Milner S. Ball Lifetime Achievement Award in 2007.

Our love for our neighbors, Jesus said, must be active.  The obligation to love our neighbors as ourselves requires us to reach out to those who need the assistance we can offer.  Following our Lord in this way will cause us to cross lines some of our neighbors consider improper, for we human beings cling to social injustices which benefit us, if only psychologically.  But crossing these lines is part of God’s mandate upon our lives.  Jesus disregarded such barriers, as the canonical Gospels record.  He was (and is) the Master; a servant is not above his or her master.

Milner Ball followed his master faithfully.  He and I participated in the life of the same parish, crossing paths.  Knowing him, even casually, was a great honor.





For More Information:

UGA Law School Tribute Page


A collect and the readings for a Renewer of Society, according to Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), the hymnal and worship book of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:

Holy and righteous God, you created us in your image.  Grant us grace to contend fearlessly against evil and to make no peace with oppression.  Help us, like your servant Milner Ball, to work for justice among people and nations, to the glory of your name, our Savior and Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.  Amen.

Hosea 2:18-23

Psalm 94:1-15

Romans 12:9-21

Luke 6:20-36