Peter Schmiechen is a theologian and President Emeritus of Lancaster Theological Seminary. He attended Elmhurst College (’59), then was ordained in the United Church of Christ after attending Eden Seminary (’62). He recieved his Ph.D. in theology from Harvard University (’69). He began his teaching career in 1966 at Elmhurst College and became Dean of the college from 1975-1985. He went on to lead Lancaster Seminary from 1985 to 2002.
Peter Schmiechen with Bishop Desmond Tutu
and Bishop Nathan Baxter (Left to Right)
in 2001 at Lancaster Theological Seminary.
Welcome to My World
Theology has been my vocational interest since 1959, with a focus on three broad areas. One is the subject of God and the modern age. Once critical reason becomes dominant, how do we speak of God? Protestants had never staked their faith on a philosophical defense of religion, but they still sought a variety of ways to describe, if not defend, the reality of religion. And the debate goes on, in spite of some attempts to claim it has all been settled.
A second has been the struggle for peace and justice. In graduate school my wife and I joined The Congress of Racial Equality and participated in demonstrations at a Woolworth’s lunch counter against racial segregation. It raised lots of issues regarding theory and practice. Then came the struggles over the Vietnam War, the rights of women, Native Americans, LGBT, and environmental issues. All these matters involve questions about how we define Christian faith as well as America. Who belongs? Church and society have never quite decided how inclusive each wants to be. So the struggles have played out as theological issues but also required difficult personal choices.
A third area is the way we name Jesus. This goes to the heart of the way we define the gospel, worship, the sacraments and the Christian life. One soon finds that every major issue reveals multiple options, often at odds. For example, is there only one theory about Jesus’ death on the cross or are there many? Is the cross basically an exchange to meet divine requirements, or is it a demonstration of God’s will to save? The Lord’s Supper also presents us with another set of options: is the Supper something we offer to God or God’s grace toward us? Is the Supper to be directed toward individuals seeking forgiveness or an affirmation of communal solidarity? Is it our remembrance of Christ or an event precipitated by Christ’s presence?
In my book Saving Power I make the case that there are many theories of atonement rather than only one official one, all pointing to forms of grace. But there is one exception: I have spent years arguing that the theory of penal substitution is misleading and ends up denying grace by its reliance on legal images. In Gift and Promise I presented an evangelical view of the Supper, based on the New Testament, the Reformers and contemporary studies. My conclusion is that the Supper is a celebration of the New Covenant in the context of the coming Kingdom of God. Jesus invites us to the table to receive his gifts and promises.
Underlying all these discussions is the traditional view of sin, which is frequently maligned because of all the negative baggage it carries. Some serious work is needed to even find the original intent—pun intended. At the present time both liberals and conservatives seem to reject the idea but demonstrate contradictions: Liberals want to affirm a positive view of individuals though insist we should join in the struggle against social evils, while conservatives affirm sin and the devil as threats to individuals, while denying that such dangers affect society in any way. Neither side asks how individual and society relate. Amid all the confusion I have tried to reclaim the original idea, believing that it is the only realistic way to interpret our lives.
In recent years I have urged Protestant leaders to pray and work for renewal, given the major decline and losses among old mainline Protestants. I have argued in Tradition in Crisis that the tradition represents a distinctive and essential voice in American religion. But can the tradition be revived? I argue that we need to focus on the good news of Jesus Christ, as expressed in the two realities of grace and community.
What I have discovered is that the three books are related: renewal of churches can only take place by clarity regarding who Jesus is, as well as the recovery of worship as a celebration of grace and community in the Lord’s Supper. So I keep moving back and forth between these three issues—talking about God amid the idols of this world, asking for clarity and confidence in the gospel, and praying for renewal in a time of crisis.