360 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

Paul Louis Lehmann...
By Nancy J. Duff

I first met Paul Lehmann in 1973, when he retired from Union Theological Seminary in New York and went to teach at the "other" Union Seminary, in Richmond, Virginia, where I was beginning my second semester as a seminary student. On what was scheduled to be his first day of class-an introductory course in Christian ethics-he arrived surprisingly late. We soon learned that this inveterate New Yorker had attempted to hail a cab from his downtown Richmond apartment to take him to Union's campus. Of course, cabs don't ramble through the streets of Richmond the way they do through the streets of New York. In southern cities, cabs are called, not hailed.

LEHMANN AND NEW YORK CITY

Paul Lehmann belonged to New York City. In the sermon he preached at my husband's and my wedding, he could remark that "some years ago, there was in my town, a Summer Production in Central Park, of The Taming of the Shrew."¹ Only Paul could so casually refer to New York City as "my town." When I first arrived at Union Seminary in New York to begin my doctoral studies, I called to tell him that I had survived the trip and was greeted enthusiastically with the words, "Welcome to the center of the civilized world!" When church denominations began to move their headquarters to other locations, Lehmann insisted that their offices should remain at 475 Riverside Drive in New York-a location that, he believed, could prevent the provincial myopia that sometimes plagues ecclesiastical bodies.

Nancy J. Duff is Associate Professor of Theological Ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary and author of Humanization and the Politics of God: The Koinonia Ethics of Paul Lehmann (1992).

¹ Paul Lehmann, "For David and Nancy: A Guardian Word for Their Life Together," a wedding sermon preached at First Presbyterian Church, Jacksonville, Texas, April 13, 1985.

361 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

Certainly, the cultural sophistication and achievements of New York City were appreciated by both Paul and Marion Lehmann. New York provided them with a cosmopolitan perspective on the human community, its achievements and its failures.² The Lehmanns appreciated the opera and the theater as well as local specialized food markets; Paul loved to entertain guests at New York restaurants, and Marion often expressed her generosity through purchases from Tiffany's.

It was not only the sophistication and privileges offered by New York, however, that affected Lehmann. Rarely yielding to self-deception, he was aware of the daily dose of misery New York City presented to thousands of people. In response to the stress caused by working in the City, he would quote a psychologist's remark that psychosis begins and ends for many commuters as they cross the George Washington Bridge. Even more to the point, beyond work-related stress, he never overlooked the ever-present suffering offered on the streets of New York to the homeless and the disenfranchised. He never forgot that the "center of the civilized world" tolerated an attitude of neglect and brutality toward the "least of the brothers and sisters."

For many of us who had the extraordinary opportunity to visit Paul and Marion Lehmann in their small but elaborately furnished apartment, "the center of the civilized world" was not located in New York City at large, but at number 4F on 176 East 77th Street. There, Paul, in his three-piece suit and Phi Beta Kappa key, and Marion, with all her humor, grace, and charm, were always able "to keep life from being daily."³ There one discovered old-world sophistication coupled with New York wit and wisdom, and something that always reminded me of southern gentility.

Paul Lehmann, however, was not from the South-nor was he originally from New York City. He was born on September 10, 1906, in Baltimore, Maryland, to Martha Emilie Menzer and Timothy Lehmann, a pastor of the German Evangelical Church and, later, president of Elmhurst College in Illinois. Paul graduated from Ohio State University in 1927 and married Marion Nelle Lucks on August 29, 1929. Over the course of his career, he taught at Elmhurst College, Eden Theological Seminary, Wellesley College, Princeton Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, and Union Theological Seminary in New York. Upon retiring as Professor Emeritus from Union, he continued to teach as visiting professor at various schools, including Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, San Francisco Theologi-

² In her tribute at Lehmann's funeral, Fleming Rutledge could appropriately claim that the day after his death, she found Paul in the newspaper. "I don't mean the obituary," she said, "for I did not find him dead; I found him living. I found him in the news, where the human story is being told in all its terror and wonder every day" (Fleming Rutledge, "A Tribute to Paul Louis Lehmann," The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 15 [1994], pp. 165-169). Wallace Alston, Director of the Center of Theological Inquiry and Paul Lehmann's long-time friend, also officiated at Paul's funeral. Alston is presently editing a book of Paul's essays.

³ This was a phrase Lehmann loved to quote. No bibliographical information is ever given by him except to say that it is "from Sister Corita."

362 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

cal Seminary, and Moravian Theological Seminary in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.⁴

AT UNION AND AT PRINCETON

Just as Paul and Marion belonged to New York City, Paul's career belongs 'most prominently to Union Seminary in New York. Prior to his eleven years of teaching there (1963-74), he received his B.D. from Union in 1930 'and his Th.D. in 1936. Union put him in contact with theologians who would, greatly influence his work. Among them were Reinhold Niebuhr (already an old family friend), who chaired his dissertation committee; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, his friend and fellow student at Union, whose work' is frequently quoted throughout Lehmann's essays and books; and Karl Barth, whom Lehmann met as a result of receiving Union's Fogg Traveling Fellowship and who includes "the really delightful Professor Paul Lehmann from Princeton" among "the ants" who came from America to his classroom in Switzerland.⁵ Many among the faculty at Union Seminary today hold vivid memories of Lehmann as either friend or foe; among his friends who are still there are Christopher Morse and James H. Cone.

However closely Paul Lehmann is associated with New York and Union Theological, Seminary, he also continues to exert a profound influence at Princeton Theological Seminary. Princeton Seminary held significance for his personal as well as his professional life during the nine years he taught there (1947-56). It was there that Marion gave birth to their first and only child, Peter. Years later, when I told her of my uneasiness over having my first child at what I considered a rather advanced age for a new mother (I would be two weeks shy of thirty-eight when my daughter was born), she chided me, saying, "Nancy, you're only a baby! I was forty-five when I had Peter." Living at number 20 Alexander Street when Peter was born, Marion used to put him in a stroller and say to him, "Let's go for a history lesson," and then take him to the historical monument outside the Princeton police station. Sadly, Princeton would hold life-long significance for the Lehmanns for a reason, that went beyond the close friendships that were forged here

⁴ From 11933 until 1940, he served as Assistant, Associate, and then full Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Elmhurst College. He served one year (19401) as Associate Professor of Bible and Systematic Theology at Eden Theological Seminary. From 1941 until 1946, he served as Assistant and then Associate Professor of Biblical Literature; History, and Interpretation at Wellesley College. After a brief stint as Associate Religious Editor at Westminster Press (during which time he was also a visiting lecturer in the Social Sciences at Princeton Seminary), he taught both Christian ethics and systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. While at Princeton, he was the first recipient of the Stephen Colwell Chair. From 1956 to 1957, he was the Parkman Professor of Theology at Harvard Divinity School and from 1957 until 1963, Florence Corliss Lamont Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School. From 1963 until 1974, he taught at Union Theological Seminary in New York, where he was the Charles A. Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology. I am grateful to Michelle Bartel, who provided me with a chronology of Paul Lehmann's career recorded in the archives at Princeton Seminary.

⁵ Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth-.- His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), p. 369.

363 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

between them and numerous students and colleagues. Beginning in 1977, they would mince regular pilgrimages to the Witherspoon Cemetery in Princeton to visit Peter's grave. Twenty-six years after his birth, Peter Lehmann died of a rare blood disease, filling Paul and Marion's hearts with a sorrow from which they never fully recovered.

Among the many relationships at Princeton Seminary that were significant for Lehmann's personal and professional life was that with John Mackay, president of the Seminary from 1936 to 1959. Mackay brought Lehmann back into teaching after an unhappy hiatus away from the classroom and supported him in ways he would never forget. When his highly respected friend and teacher Reinhold Niebuhr sought to persuade Lehmann to step down as chairman of the National Civil Liberties Committee, claiming that he was being used without his knowledge by a Communist front, John Mackay backed Lehmann's decision not to resign.⁶ When a wealthy opponent offered to give a large donation to the Seminary if Lehmann were forced to give up his teaching post, John Mackay stood firmly on Paul's behalf. On both occasions, Mackay stood not only as Lehmann's advocate but also on the side of academic freedom and, hence, won his lasting respect. Lehmann held John Mackay in such high esteem that his last book, The Decalogue and a Human Future, published thirty-six years after John Mackay's death, is dedicated to his memory.

"He was never content to let sleeping dogs lie by keeping his critical analysis of a sensitive situation to himself."

After leaving Princeton to accept a post at Harvard Divinity School, Lehmann returned to Princeton Seminary for at least two official occasions. In 1979, he gage the Warfield Lectures on "The Commandments and the Common Life," lectures that provided the foundation for his last book, The Decalogue and a Human Future. In 1982, he was a speaker for a celebration of the fifteenth anniversary of the Confession of 1967. His introductory remarks (which, in typically cryptic fashion, criticized the funding of the Center of Theological Inquiry) angered many of his listeners, secretly pleased others, and left many baffled by what he meant. It was a typical Paul Lehmann address. He was never content to let sleeping dogs lie by keeping his critical analysis of a sensitive situation to himself. While many enjoyed his barbed wit, those who were the targets of his accusations felt (sometimes with justification) that they had been wrongly accused. Perhaps because of his apocalyptic understanding of revelation, or perhaps for other, more personal, reasons, he had an

⁶This story is recorded by Richard Fox in his book Reinhold Niebuhr: A Biography (New York: Pantheon, 1585), pp. 252-253.

364 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

unsettling ability to make enemies-sometimes out of former friends-and the hurt he caused at times ran deep.

THE STYLE AND CONTENT OF HIS WORK

Over the course of his career, Paul Lehmann published four books: Forgiveness: Decisive Issue in Protestant Thought, Ethics in a Christian Context, The Transfiguration of Politics, and The Decalogue and a Human Future.⁷ Forgiveness, which compares the work of Albrecht Ritschl and Karl Barth and is still worthy of attention, went out of print during World War II, its plates sacrificed for the war effort. The Ethics book established his reputation as a theological ethicist worthy of attention. With the publication of this book, he identified his approach to ethics, like that of his teacher Karl Barth and his friend Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as "contextual." The Transfiguration of Politics emphasizes Lehmann's persistent interest in the connection between theology and political issues. His last book, The Decalogue and a Human Future, a long-promised book on the role of the commandments for Christian ethics, was published shortly after his death and though occasionally esoteric, demonstrates the significant contribution that his 'work still has to make.⁸

In the first few pages of his third book, The Transfiguration of Politics, Lehmann says that, having given a brief presentation on the "world of meaningful order," he will now turn to the "world of orderly meanings," a claim that is likely to make those who are familiar with his work smile.⁹ If there is any one thing that Lehmann's work lacks, it is "the world of orderly meanings." A persistent complaint from friend and foe alike centers on the difficulty of untangling his unusual use of words and manner of expression. More than one former student remembers leaving one of Lehmann's lectures spellbound, exclaiming to anyone within hearing how incredible the lecture was and then pausing to ask, "But what exactly was he talking about?"¹⁰

⁸ I am grateful to William B. Eerdmans of Eerdmans Publishing Company for his
commitment to Lehmann's work. Not only is he responsible for publishing Paul's last book, he also published my book on Lehmann's work, Humanization and the Politics of God: The Koinonia Ethics of Paul Lehmann (1992). I am also grateful to Edward M. Huenemann, whose commitment to Paul's work and to my own has been of enormous help to me. Ed died this past June; I will miss our periodic telephone conversations and his wise and gracious perspective.

⁹ Lehmann, Transfiguration of Politics, p. 10.

¹⁰ It is, in part, for this reason that I have chosen to give this essay a title composed of Paul Lehmann's name followed by an ellipsis, for an ellipsis indicates "the omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding." Since Paul Lehmann's death on February 27, 1994, many of us have longed for "a complete syntactical construction" of his argument that would add to our understanding of what he meant by his sometimes cryptic forms of expression. Furthermore, although he lived until his eighty-seventh year, we are acutely aware of the words and phrases that have been

365 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

While he never sought to baffle or impress, he could draw on a large store of knowledge, which he was forever replenishing. His tendency to quote in German, French, and Latin and his ability to draw from literature (especially Shakespeare, e.e. cummings, and W. H. Auden), from classical and contemporary works in theology, from recently published essays, and from the daily newspaper revealed a scholar who never stopped reading, thinking, and collating what he read and thought with what he saw in the world around him in order to find new ways to describe the dynamic presence of God in "this world of time and space and things." They also, however, revealed a scholar who was not always easy to understand.

"He believed that both those who misuse the Bible to oppress women and those who throw out significant portions of the Bible to protect women are guilty of biblical literalism. "

When one expected a clear definition, he would quote e.e. cummings. ("A world of trade is not a world of born.")¹¹ When one does stumble upon a definition, its meaning can be unclear. ("Apperception is the uniquely human capacity to know something without knowing how one has come to knew it, and to bring what one knows in this way to what one has come to know in other ways, and, in so doing, to discern what is humanly true or false.”)¹² When a concrete illustration is provided, it takes on such a fascinating life of its own that its connection to what is being illustrated is lost-if not for Lehmann, at least for the reader or listener. Lehmann loved to play with language, twisting phrases and images in a manner always: grammatically impeccable, creative, and intellectually provocative, but not always understandable, prompting one close critic to claim that he never learned to write a clear sentence in English. ¹³

One can perhaps attribute his unusual style of address to his being born a second-generation German American¹⁴ and not speaking English until he entered the first. grade. This, however, provides only the most mundane of explanations. An important aspect of Lehmann's work is lost when its style is divorced from its content. Although he never intentionally set out to confuse, he died purposefully leave aside exact definitions, claiming that theology had more to do with poetry than with metaphysics. He created an ethos, especially when he spoke but also in his writing, that captivated

omitted over the last two years. Nevertheless, the addition of those unspoken words is not necessary for understanding what Lehmann's work and life were about or for recognizing their continued significance.

¹¹ Lehmann, Decalogue and a Human Future, p. 169. No reference is given for the e.e. cummings quotation.

¹² Lehmann, Decalogue and a Human Future, p, 23.

¹³ This comment was made by Marion Lehmann.

¹⁴ His father was actually born in Russia.

366 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

his listeners and readers. One was not simply overwhelmed or left behind by the freight and depth of his erudite prose. Even if sometimes unclear about the details of what he said, one had a feel for what he meant.

Key to understanding the style and content of Lehmann's work is his affirmation that divine revelation is never static, never stationary, but always in motion. God's activity is dynamic (a "moving strength")¹⁵ and cannot be captured by a snapshot or fixed in print through the formulation of an exact definition. Just as Karl Barth once described divine revelation as a "bird in flight,"¹⁶ so Paul Lehmann sought to describe the dynamic movement of God and the ethos or arena of human life created by God's activity.

The same impulse that kept Lehmann from providing narrowly formulated definitions also led to the rejection of absolute standards of truth in his ethic. Because God's activity is dynamic, if cannot be captured by the formulation of an absolute standard of conduct anymore than it can be captured, by precise definition. According to Lehmann, an absolute is "a standard of conduct which can be and must be applied to all people in all situations in exactly the same way."¹⁷ His critics have persistently claimed that no one has ever used absolutes in this way and that he is, therefore, fighting la straw opponent. In some ways, the critics are right. Only the most irresponsible legalist would apply absolute standards of conduct without any attempt to adjust them to a particular situation. (Of course, it is no small point that many of us have encountered these irresponsible legalists; they do indeed exist, not as straw opponents but as mean-spirited adversaries!) A responsible casuistry¹⁸ seeks to apply rules and principles to particular cases in appropriate ways (not always "in exactly the same way") by making provisions for exceptions and by acknowledging that moral agents can only approximate-never entirely fulfill-ideal standards of conduct. Lehmann's critics charged that he overlooked the approach of these responsible casuists.

"For Paul, the saving story of the gospel is an event that occurs when the biblical story is put in conversation with the human story. "

Lehmann, however, acknowledged that such adjustments occur, but still insisted that casuistry is an inadequate way to proceed. Applying absolute standard to particular cases fails, in his opinion, to bridge the gap between

¹⁵ Paul Lehmann, "The Dynamics of Reformation Ethics," The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 14 (Spring 1950), p. 18.

¹⁶ Karl Barth, "The Christian's Place in Society," in The Word of God and the Word of Man (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1978), p. 282.

¹⁷ Lehmann, Ethics in a Christian Context, p. 125.

¹⁸ Casuistry is the application of principles or nouns to particular cases.

367 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

the ethical demand and the ethical act.¹⁹ Furthermore-and at the heart of the matter for Lehmann-the most elaborate or carefully thought-out casuistry does not adequately represent the nature of divine revelation. That "God's grace is new every morning" (in Karl Barth's words) indicates that what God demands in one situation may be different from what God demands in another. God's will can never be captured; it can never be so tightly grasped in our hands or so firmly fixed in our hearts and minds that we no longer need to hear God's word anew. What Dietrich Braun said of Karl Barth's ethic could very well have been written about Paul Lehmann's:

Not man but the Word of God as the commanding and claiming of man is, as the acting subject, the theme of theological ethics. It would be a misunderstanding to conceive of the Word as an abiding objective truth which is inscribed somewhere mid formulated in some way, which man may know or not and acknowledge or not, and over which he can gain the mastery by insight or act. Instead, it is expressly understood as the revelation of the command of God, as a present event in the midst of the reality of our life which he who hears God's Word cannot overlook.²⁰

At the heart of Lehmann's theology and ethics (just as for Karl Barth) stands the affirmation of the freedom of God. For Lehmann, what is revealed by the; divine movement on our behalf is not "objective truth" but the living God. As "the One in whom the heart trusts completely,"²¹ God cannot be reduced to an abstract formula or an absolute command but becomes known as "a present event in the midst of the reality of our life."

CONTEMPORARY SIGNIFICANCE

Lehmann's emphasis on the freedom of God, his rejection of absolutes, his staunch refusal to equate faith with intellectual assent to right doctrine, and his tendency to stand to the right theologically and to the left politically and socially all contribute to the significance of his work for theological conversation today, a conversation that sometimes degenerates into heated debate between conservative and liberal voices. On the one hand, biblical literalism continues to exact a toll on the human intellect, and legalistic ethicists are ever-willing to diminish the human heart. Interestingly, what has been called "the Old Princeton Theology," which spanned the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and has recently found resurgence in a Princeton Seminary student group reportedly sponsored by a para-Presybyterian organization, embraces both biblical inerrancy and a legalistic ethic of the worst sort. So certain are those who uphold the Old Princeton Theology that they have captured God's will for entire groups of people, they not only oppose the ordination of gay Christians, but some among them also call into question the ordination of women. They indeed "conceive of the Word as an abiding objective truth" over which they

¹⁹ Paul Lehmann, "Comments on a Critique," THEOLOGY TODAY 22 (April, 1965), p. 124.

²⁰ Dietrich Braun, "Editor's Preface," in Ethics, by Karl Barth (New York: Seabury, 1981), p. vii. Emphasis mine.

²¹ Lehmann, Decalogue and a Human Future, p. 21; quoting Martin Luther.

368 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

believe themselves to have mastery. The resurgence of this kind of theology would, of course, find no friend in this former Princeton Seminary professor.

On the other hand, as readily as Lehmann's work challenges such defenders of orthodoxy, it also places him in trouble with feminists. Although he rightly understood why the feminist protest had arisen (and, in spite of some evidence to the contrary, was determined to take that protest seriously), he believed that both those who misuse the Bible to oppress women and those who throw out significant portions of the Bible to protect women are guilty of biblical literalism. Both groups represent an "ideological astigmatism" and, when reading the Bible, have "lost the imagination to read between the lines. "²² For Paul, the saving story of the gospel is an event that occurs when the biblical story is put in conversation with the human story. One does not discover the will of God by transforming biblical narrative into abstract and inflexible rules for living.

Lehmann had a wonderful way of describing a momentous and timely event as "almost providential." This phrase was his way of refusing to freeze the action of God into a rigid pattern while at the same time affirming its trustworthiness. In faith, one walks a path that avoids despair, on the one hand, and arrogant certitude, on the other. Paul's affirmation of the providence of God had special significance for me in remarks he made a both before and during David's and my wedding. Some time before the wedding, I spoke to Paul about my understanding of what keeps marriages together. I explained that I thought a couple needs to work hard at staying together and to trust in one another, but must also carry a big stick to stave off all that seeks to destroy marriages. Paul didn't like my formulation. With a twinkle in his eye he said, "That's because you don't trust enough in the angels." A few weeks later, when he preached at our wedding, he chose as one of his texts: "For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways."

It has often seemed to me that amidst the hustle and bustle, the haste and the hassle of our daily comings and goings, it is more than a little too bad that we have neglected the angels. I think you will agree that this is especially the case when one is involved in preparations for a marriage. Except for the angels, would you really have gotten to "this point in time" in time, or even, on time? Indeed, could you really have gotten here at all? I mean-beyond the fuss and factiousness, the turmoil and the tension, the doubts and diversions-would you, could you really say that you could, or would, have made it without the angels?²³

Rejecting a rigid interpretation of providence .that would have every event in the world specifically ordained by God, Lehmann affirmed that God guards us in all our ways. From him, I learned that although not every event in our lives and the lives of those around us can be said to have meaning, human lives, have meaning not only when life is full of blessings but also in

²² Lehmann, "For David and Nancy."

²³ Lehmann, "For David and Nancy."

369 - Paul Louis Lehmann...

the midst of senseless events. Having angels to guard us in all our ways . does not mean being protected from sorrow, as the Lehmanns knew all too well. Divine providence, however, gives us the freedom to accept who God has called us to be in all our limitations and gifts, never longing to be someone else, and trusting in the One who has provided a world fit for being human in.

Lehmann's understanding of the providence of God led him to a strong sense of vocation, believing in God's purpose for us at each stage of life. I once remarked to him how sad it made me to see my children grow up so fast. Instead of the sympathetic response I expected, he asked rather abruptly, "But you do appreciate your children as they are right now, don't you?" His affirmation of divinely appointed vocation in life included a keen awareness of human mortality. I remember his telling a class at Union Seminary how odd it was to know that he had lived longer than he had years left to lire. Then, after reflecting a few moments on the impact that realization had on his own life, he turned to this room full of students several generations younger than he and said, "But it is arrogant of you to believe with any certainty that I will die before you do."

During their last years, the Lehmanns experienced the frailty and fatigue that sometimes; accompany older age. Marion Lehmann once said to me, "Oh, Nancy, don't ever grow old." I ventured to point out to her that the alternative to growing old was rather grim. Paul also made similar comments from time to time until finally I told him that his protests against old age challenged all that he had taught me about vocation and God's purpose for us at every stage of life. Years after that conversation, Paul responded to may gentle rebuke through an essay he wrote long ago and that I only recently reread. In the essay, he tells of his last visit with a friend and former colleague, Louise Pettibone Smith:

As we took leave of one another (she was then in her ninety-fourth year) she said, "Paul, one should not live so long." It was an unforgettable sign of her intelligence and her integrity, her diffidence and her forbearance, her faith and her faithfulness that, on the tightrope of faith and doubt, death found her waiting for God's next move.²⁴

Now, Paul and Marion both have discovered "God's next move -a move that no doubt has them rejoicing with Peter Lehmann, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, John Mackay, and Louise Pettibone Smith. We who remain in "this world of time and space and things" thank them for all the ways they taught us how "to make and to keep human life human."

²⁴Paul Lehmann, "Louise Pettibone Smith, Rudolf Bultmann, and Wellesley," in Bultmann: Retrospect and Prospect: The Centenary Symposium at Wellesley, edited by Edward C. Hobbes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 101.