Repository index

Az identitás szó általános jelentése a valamivel való azonosság, azonosulás, valamely közösséghez való tartozás. Önazonosságról akkor beszélhetünk, ha az énképünk vagy önazonosság-tudatunk (mindenkinek az önmagáról alkotott elképzelése) megegyezik vagy hasonlít valaki más, mások, tehát egy közösség önazonosság-tudatával. A keresztyén éntudat és a krízistudat is egyidős a keresztyén közösséggel, a gyülekezettel. Az őskeresztyéneknél a megkeresztelkedés jelentette az újjászületést, az új identitás kezdetét (Róm 6,4). Ez nem kettős identitást jelentett, az óemberét és az új emberét, hanem egyetlen identitást, a Krisztus által újjászült ember önazonosságát. Református identitásunk állandó része tehát a Krisztusban való lét, mert Isten kegyelme által vagyok, ami vagyok. Identitásunk változó része az a szituáció, amelyben élünk, s amelyben naponta erkölcsi felelősségünk az adódó helyzetre, konfliktusra az állandó identitásunknak megfelelően erkölcsi választ adni.

My colleague Kees van der Kooi will say something about the “what” of our book, the substance matter, whereas I will try to explain its “why” and “how”: why did we write this book, and how did we do it?

Dogmatics is not a static whole, systematic reflection on Christian faith. It is itself part of history and participates fully in it. Sometimes, even colleagues in the theological faculty still have the idea, that dogmatics is a field that pretends that God can be fully comprehended, that everything can be explained. Some might even think that the best theologian is the best believer. That is certainly not what we imagine that dogmatics is all about. It is a reflection on practices of faith, on the actual relationship with God, informed by the Bible and the teaching of the Church. Sound reflection on the Christian faith is a task that has to be done by every generation. Sheer repetition of what former generations said and wrote would be irresponsible. Every age is confronted with new challenges. The promise of the Holy Spirit should encourage us to fresh reflection.

In his 1583 ritual entitled Agendarius, which was innovative in many respects in comparison to its Hungarian predecessors, Bishop Miklós Telegdi of Pécs, the administrator of the diocese of Esztergom, added sample-like sermons to the rituals of the administration of the sacraments accompanying the great turning points of life (viz. baptism, confirmation, wedding etc.). He was presumably guided chiefly by pastoral considerations. For the second edition of 1596 (published after Telegdi’s death), the editors added a second funeral sermon, clearly intended for a more educated, urban audience – judging from the scholarly Latin quotations and the general tone. A comparison of the structure and content of the two speeches provides useful conclusions as to what the ecclesiastical authorities of the time considered advisable to preach at the time of death to mourners lacking basic schooling and what to the more learned audience.

My study approaches Unitarian sermon literature from the perspective of church discipline. There are several reasons for this: 1) Historical records of reception are scarce because in the early modern age, only a handful of Unitarian sermons could be published. 2) it was uncommon among Unitarian preachers to use theoretical works (ars concionandi/praedicandi) until the end of the 17th century, they learned instead by observing the written and oral practices of their colleagues. 3) Because of the medium of the manuscript, most early modern Unitarian sermons did not survive beyond the 17th–18th century. Therefore, in our exploration of the rules and ideals of sermon literature as well as the attitudes of followers, preachers, and schoolmasters to the genre, we are forced to rely on inferences based on the norms, especially the offences recorded in (ecclesiastical) court protocols.