The topic of the age of the Earth is a matter of debate between theologists and scientists. For the former, the answer is linked to God creating the Earth, while the latter try to discover methods that would provide hints and evidence of the actual date on which the Earth emerged. This paper will summarize the views of different authors on the issue of Earths age and discuss the connection of their views to modern problems and theological perspectives.
Sources Summary
Creationism is one of the central belief systems that the majority of religious people adhere to. According to de Pomerai and Harris, creationists believe that the Earth is only approximately 6,000 years old (2). The fact that from a scientific perspective, it appears older is merely the divine will of God. Christian young-earth creationism (YEC), in particular, rejects the biological evolution theory (de Pomerai and Harris 2).
The conflict between creationism and evolutionism is evident because if the former is false, the sacred texts such as the Bible and their context can be questioned (Age of Earth and Universe). Hence, from a theological perspective, the question of the Earths age implies several other issues that would be used to disprove a religions worthiness. King states that there are other inconsistencies in the Bibles portrayal of Earth, such as the idea that it was created before the solar system (1). However, this points to the fact that during Biblical times, the understanding of chronology and celestial bodies differed from the contemporary one.
Evidently, scientists and theologists have a different outlook on how the age of Earth can be determined and the meaning of it for humanity. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines article suggest that science has substituted religion in many areas of social life (The Intersections of Science and Religion). However, modern science does not provide answers to all questions, even those regarding biological evolution, which is where religion can help people find insight. However, Musharraf et al. acknowledge that there is a lack of agreement on defining how life on Earth began and the creation of Earth itself because the opposing sides offer different outlooks (1). Thus, although religion and science can coexist, the fundamental question of Earths age creates disagreement between the two viewpoints.
Although there are several theoretical and theological concepts related to the age of Earth, scientists have tried to find answers to this question that would be supported by evidence. The biological evolution theory, in particular, explains how the species on Earth developed over the years and directly conflicts with the young Earth theory. According to Poirier, the scientific experiments aimed at determining the exact age of this planet date back to 1775 when Buffon held his cannonball study (223). The goal was to determine how much time is needed for a cannonball to cool down. However, this experiment had many flaws, including the fact that in order to apply the findings to the Earth, one would have to assume that it is made out of iron, similarly to cannonballs.
Currently, scientists believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old with a possible deviation of 50 million years (National Geographic). The scientists use radiometry and apply it to the rocks, which helps them determine their age. However, this theory also has flaws because stones tend to get recycled, which is why evidence from other sources is needed to support this age hypothesis (National Geographic).
According to Biologos, the scientists have actually used different approaches to prove their hypothesis about the Earths age, for example, by examining the different layers of ice (How are the Ages of the Earth and Universe Calculated?). Moreover, apart from reviewing the evidence from the Earth, the scientists used dating methods to study the rocks from the moon, which also supports the 4.5 billion years hypothesis. Astronomers applied their knowledge of the speed of light and the distance to different stars to define the time needed to see the light from a star on Earth (How are the Ages of the Earth and Universe Calculated?). Hence, scientists have collected a large amount of evidence to support their hypothesis that the age of Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years.
Connections to Contemporary Issues
The issue of the age of Earth and the scientific versus theological interpretation of it is linked to the diminishing role of religion in peoples lives. Moreover, this question plays a role in defining the potential intersection between the sciences and religion. Before the 19th century, most people relied on religion as a source of support and hope. However, science provided them with many remedies and prolonged lives (The Intersections of Science and Religion). For example, instead of prayers that were used to ask for good health, scientists developed the medication. Prior to the 19th century, most families lost at least one child due to diseases, which is not the case now (The Intersections of Science and Religion). Hence, the role of religion is being redefined, and theologists have to work towards incorporating it into the modern context to preserve peoples faith. However, the different views on fundamental questions such as Earths age can be a severe barrier to finding this intersection.
Musharraf et al. also acknowledge that the debate about the age of Earth is the focal point of disagreements between scientists and theologists (1). It supports a barrier between the two sides and does not allow religion and science to coexist and help one another develop. Hence, the sources examined above show that there is a disagreement on the basis of understanding life at a global level due to the existence of the disagreement on the question of Earths age. This inevitably leads to similar conflicts on national and local levels, especially between religious communities and atheists.
Connection to the Context, Religion, and Age of Earth
From the theological perspective, the Bible is the ultimate source of information. However, it is impossible to deny the development of science and humanitys understanding of the celestial objects and their creation. Hence, I want my future career and employment to be informed by both the religious perspective and the scientific one. My professional goal, therefore, would be to merge the two domains and help people, especially non-religious individuals understand that the value of religion is not in the precise facts. According to King, the biblical evidence indicates that understanding the time and age (kronos) sequences of the earth lies in the proper understanding of the relevance and operations of the sun, moon, and stars (1). Hence, apart from studying the theological aspects of religion, it is also vital to examine the context.
The perceptions of time and changes of day and night, as well as the sequence in which the universe was created, differed from the modern ones when the Bible was written. Understanding this can help one accept that modern science has found ways to approximate the actual age of Earth, although most scientists know that the current methodology is flawed as well (Musharraf 1). For example, studying the age of rocks is linked to the scientists ability to discover the ancient stones and the natural process of their destruction. Therefore, as I proceed with my studies, I want to ensure that I take a critical thinking approach and review the arguments of both sides, the scientific and the religious. Additionally, understanding the context and beliefs that informed primary religious texts is also essential for finding an agreement and contributing to the development of theology.
Personally, I was very engaged in studying the material because not many sources acknowledged the differences between theological and scientific perspectives, which highlights the contemporary issue of religion and science intersection. An article The Intersection of Science and Religion pointed to the uselessness of explaining the creationists approach to students since it was created by scientists. In Age of the Earth and Universe, the author acknowledges that if theologists were to accept the scientific claims about the age of the Earth, people would question the validity of the Bible. Hence, these readings helped me understand the gap between the two approaches and why the conflict in interpreting religious texts arises.
Evaluation and Reaction
From my perspective, the evident disagreement between creationists and scientists is based on the inability to accept that some parts of primary religious texts may be flawed, misunderstood, or improperly translated and interpreted. Hence, the issue is linking the belief that the Earth is relatively young with the argument that everything in the Bible is false despite a plethora of scientific evidence (Age of Earth and Universe). On the other hand, scientists can be mistaken as well, since even the methods they use today and the collection of evidence from multiple sources, such as rocks, ice, and light, do not mean that their theories are undisputable. Therefore, the main issue within this debate is the inability to listen to the other sides viewpoints and find common ground. The issue is that the dividing line is belief about age, which creates a barrier between creationists and evolutionists (Age of Earth and Universe). However, it is integral to accept the evidence provided by the scientists that point to the fact that the Earth is older than the creationists believe.
Ultimately, religion is about the values and moral development of an individual, and the Bibles teachings have little connection to establishing the exact time at which the Earth was created. Hence, it is important to accept the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions (The Intersection of Science and Religion). However, this does not mean that the Bibles teachings about moral integrity are rebutted and should not be valued.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper examines the evidence on the age of Earth provided by religious organizations and movements as opposed to a scientific view on the matter. Most religions adhere to the creationism approach, which states that the Earth is relatively young and is only 6,000 years old. The scientists, however, disprove this by arguing that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. This fundamental disagreement is the basis of the modern-day conflict between science and religion.
de Pomerai, David and Michel Harris. Creationism and Evolutionary Biology: Science or pseudo-science? Philosophy, Science, and Religion for Everyone, edited by Michel Harris and David Pritchard, Routledge, 2017, pp. 1-16.
The Intersection of Science and Religion. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Web.
Musharraf, Muhammad et al. Age of Earth and EvolutionCan Religion and Science Reconsile? Australian Journal of Humanities and Islamic Studies Research vol. 3, 2017, pp. 1-12.
The perception of God in theological knowledge has been raised many times over thousands of years, during which this ancient discipline has been developing. Starting with the Greek philosopher Plato and continuing with Augustine in the Western tradition, the concept of Divine love for ones creation, man, was studied by theologians. In the modern cultural situation, when human knowledge is enriched with significant scientific achievements and philosophy has reached an unprecedented level of reflection, the concept of God seems to be complicated by many factors. These factors represent modern humans requests for what God should be in order to be able to believe in him.
Modern theology is divided into several schools, each of which represents its own line of view on the question of Gods participation in the life of every person on Earth. There are adherents of the Open View, that is, the idea of practical divine non-interference in peoples lives. However, John Feinberg, one of the thinkers considered in detail, argues that their view cannot, in fact, be registered as truly religious. For the most part, the theological thought of other schools tries to determine the degree of divine presence in peoples lives and the human task in this regard. In essence, modern religious thought is looking for a balance between what would correspond to the category of faith, that is, preserve it, and modern scientific achievements. Theology, according to modern representatives of this discipline, should be able to answer complex and sometimes even cynical questions arising in relation to such an ethically problematic topic as faith.
Speaking of theologians whose developments seek to meet the requirements of all other serious sciences, one should focus on the conceptual developments of John Feinberg. The scientist in his research raises difficult questions about human ethics in relation to the Christian perspective. His concept is considered to be Calvinistic, but with changes or nuances. Feinbergs shift of emphasis is to preserve the idea of the salvation of the human soul and full divine sovereignty but changes the very modality of divine presence. Feinberg is characterized by the so-called soft determinism, the idea that Gods plan is translated into reality, but not directly by every action.
John Feinbergs ideas conceptually fit into the philosophical developments of the second half of the 20th century. In these concepts, the world appears to be a ramified and decentralized system, changing under the influence of virtually any, even the smallest, factors. Feinberg tries to adjust this thought to the divine concept and declares that God is ahead of human actions, making them indirect stages on the way to realizing his own will. Divine will in this aspect remains unshakable since Feinberg is convinced of this from the Bible, which is another similarity with the severity of Calvins concept.
Divine love is thus manifested in Feinbergs teaching, not in full permission for any action, but not in the tyrannical severity of the Lord. Modern religious teachings obviously seek to find common ground between the idea of Gods non-interference and the idea of control over the situation. Feinberg states that God should not directly require a person to be worshiped and strictly abide by the rules. At the same time, modern human seeks in God an essence capable of responding to his momentary desires or superstitions. The idea of a user-friendly God brings the theologian into opposition to both the fatalistic predestined concept and the libertarian camp, claiming complete human freedom as an act of Gods love.
Divine love is an integral part of religious concepts developed by another important theological thinker and Gerard Bray. He is also a religious historian whose work on St. Augustine analyzes his texts and autobiography and highlights the relevance of his concept to modern times. Brays research interests express the importance for theologians of the connection with previous thinkers and the need for the continuity of the religious tradition.
Brays concept is centered around the interpretation of the Bible, a deep knowledge of which and an emphasis on hermeneutic interpretation make the scientist similar to John Feinberg. In his writings, Bray often puts religious texts in a historical and chronological perspective in order to show how their interpretation has been transformed over time. One of his key works deals with the interpretation of the Bible and the problems associated with the division between the academic and practical branches of theology. The scientist calls for joint efforts between these specialists in order to prevent a possible religious schism.
Bray argues that the concept of divine love is revealed in the idea of creating the world as an act of goodness and, at the same time, self-love. Love for God is deserved, and people should worship him. Thus it appears logical and has nothing to do with vanity. The image of the cross, according to Bray, represents a symbol of sacrifice in the name of love for sinful humanity. The love of God and for God in this way is the center of all Christian experience, and it is this concept that Bray seeks to make the most accessible and popular. The scientist emphasizes that theology, although it is based on ancient text, must be accessible and overcome the science that sets the threshold between man and religion.
The third researcher of the Divine concept under consideration, David Wells, introduces the idea of holiness to explain the paradox of divine love. Holy love is sufficient to explain all manifestations of the divine plan and its communication with the world. For Wells, God lies in the compatibility of apparent opposites, in the supernatural overcoming of them; therefore, the image of the trinity and, at the same time, the unity of God is important. This combination of the incompatible explains holy divine love.
Thus, it can be said that for modern theology, it is important to focus both on a solid previous tradition and on the biblical text. Biblical theology is a principled method for all three scholars, and the interpretation of the Bible is at the heart of their concepts. Despite the fact that all three theologians strive to make their developments as accessible as possible to a mass audience of readers, their works also appeal to representatives of their own discipline. Researchers criticize the state of modern theology not only as disconnected and unable to communicate but also as sometimes losing direct connection with God. Only by placing Divine love at the center of modern religious thought can one count on the revival and consistent adaptation of the Christian religion to modern needs. The love-first approach to the Christian religion suggested by the theologians discussed above can help Christian missionaries. Understandable and accessible philosophical models, ethically based on love, are capable of turning even skeptics and those disillusioned with mercy towards the Christian God.
Bibliography
Morrison, John. D. Review of No One Like Him by John S. Feinberg. Liberty University (2003): Web.
Gordon, Timothy. Review of Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present by Gerald Bray. Web.
Parker, Adam. Review of God is Love by Gerald Bray. Bring the Books (2012): Web.
Smethurst, Matt. Systematic Theology of Gods Love: A Conversation with Gerald Bray. The Gospel Coalition. Web.
Trueman, Carl. Review of God in The Whirlwind: How the Holy-love of God Reorients Our World by David F. Wells. The Aquila Report (2014): Web.
The issue of religious variety has sparked major debate in recent decades. Religious diversity refers to the existence of major variances in faith and practice. However, since the early modern era, increased knowledge through travel, writing, and influx of refugees has compelled intellectual people to think more thoroughly about religious differences. Pluralism responses to religious heterogeneity essentially state that, given limits, one denomination is as valuable as any other. Religious Pluralism is a kind of theological doublethink, or, in less dystopian words, the conviction that two or more religious truth claims are equally legitimate notwithstanding significant conflicts1. The emergence of pluralist theologies is a reaction to the understanding that, in a plural society, Christian affirmations are just propositions rather than absolute facts. However, since pluralists end discourse by regarding all major faiths as fundamentally the same, it is necessary to spectacle that there is no universal paradigm for evaluating religious truth claims.
Core Pluralism
Core pluralism recognizes diversity in all areas of religious practice, but distinguishes between marginal and core variations. A core pluralist maintains that all faiths of some form have a shared identity, and that this common foundation is what actually counts about religious beliefs; their equivalent worth is found in this shared core. To some extent, if the foundation has real principles, they will all be accurate. All religions will provide methods to view whatever the elements of religiosity are if the center is verifiable perceptions. Because any core pluralism eventually minimizes the other non-essential parts of religions, this viewpoint has also been dubbed reductive pluralism. As a result, if the core is salvifically successful practice, then all will be equal and should be treated that each is an incredibly viable way of attaining the cure through salvation.
Huston Smith
Huston Smith is by far the most significant modern supporter of a variant of core pluralism. The standard assumption of faiths, in his opinion, is a multi-tiered philosophy. This includes the notion that physical reality, the planetary plane, is included inside and governed by a more substantial transitional level, which in turn is enclosed and regulated by the cosmic plane. This heavenly realm is inhabited by a divine Creator, and beyond this lies a boundless, limitless Being, also known as True Reality. 2 Smith believes that such a mindset was almost widespread in ancient times and is still prevalent among indigenous cultures today. Only contemporary people, who are deluded by the misconception that science discloses everything, have neglected this. In some ways, the greatest level is the human Spirit, the inner self that lies underneath the self of everyday consciousness. Smith, using Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christian terminology, claims that this spirit is the Atman3. Atman, also referred to as Brahman, is a Hinduism deity who appears when ones mortal self departs from its own body and flesh.
The idea of the soul, like ancient faiths, provides a diagnostic of the human situation as well as a treatment. Furthermore, it depicts a descent from primal mysticism into contemporary spiritual impoverishment, which may be reversed by embracing the above-mentioned viewpoint. Most significantly, it allows one to know their true self as Being. While Smiths position is based on faith in an indifferent Ultimate, other forms of core pluralism are based on monotheistic perspectives.
Mikael Stenmark
Mikael Stenmark, a Scandinavian theologian, is another fundamental pluralist who believes in the necessity of religious plurality. Stenmark described a variant of the some-are-equally-right view 4 in which Jews, Christian, and Islamic are regarded to have similar proportions of religiously essential facts. He does not argue for religious plurality, but has analyzed it as a contrast to orthodox theology and inclusivism. From a philosophical approach, Stenmarks idea may also be understood as a kind of core religious stratification, with the core consisting basic facts regarding the one Deity and the requirement of relationship with that God.
Critiques of Core Pluralism
There are various critics of Smiths case for core plurality. Dissenting voices, for example, may be recognized among scholars of theology, who dispute that there is and has always been a unifying foundation in all of the world largest faiths. Others disagree because they embrace the conflicting assessment and treatment offered by another faith, such as Islam or Christianity. Those who think that the ultimate reality 5 is a distinctive deity, for example, disagree to Smiths idea that the ultimate reality is indescribable hence not a deity in and of itself. Regarding Stenmarks some-are-equally-right perspective, all faiths, that is, all variants of monotheistic, are correct to same extent6. As a result, Stenmarks explanation is narrower than pluralistic view and is often considered to be, but it is undoubtedly a variant of it.
Identist Pluralism
According to identist pluralism, individuals from all major faiths communicate with the relatively similar transcendent reason, variably referred to as Deity, the Real, and the Ultimate Reality. As a result, the many religious uncertainties of the one Ultimate are to be understood as distinct but entirely acceptable human reactions to the Real. The Real as it is exists independently of the full matrix of in-sistence conceptions7. This implies that individuals are only allowed to have tangible memories of the Real in as much as they comprehend it in biological terms. As a consequence, religious practices lie between the Real and us, forming various lenses via which it is seen.
Hicks Unitary Approach
The main conceptual foundation for Hicks philosophy of pluralism is Kants assertion in epistemology that awareness is constantly an activity of choosing, organizing, synthesizing, and providing significance to impulses in line with an individualized collection of ideas. Hick argues that cognitivist and information sociologist support Kants philosophy. He used Jastrows perception theory to demonstrate how people in various topographical situations are correct in what they proclaim and incorrect only in their conviction that everyone is misguided8. The spiritual truth that individuals meet in Religion may be perceived in a variety of ways. Hick, for example, thought religious doctrine was logically justifiable and that one might be reasonable in accepting the veridicality from ones spiritual beliefs. However, he considered it illogical and unreasonable to believe that just ones inner self or the memories of an individuals own group are reliable, while those of persons of other faiths are not. Descriptively, those other individuals believe on comparable reasons.
These views, together with the reality that religious dogma is closely tied to origin, persuaded Hick that the realities of theological variety presented irreconcilable challenges for either exclusivist or inclusivist viewpoint, presenting only some kind of heterogeneity as a feasible choice. Hick argues that mankind is in the process of transitioning from a perspective of Christianity as the one and only genuine faith to a novel comprehending of Christianity as part of many global religions, all of which are inevitable9. To be accomplished, this change will involve a rethinking of Christian theology, notably in the areas of Orthodox theology and related damage. In his discussion of Christology, Hick emphasizes the incomplete and confusing character of the material known to mankind regarding Jesus10. As a consequence, a variety of distinct creatures, some of whom are portrayed in very basic situations, have been venerated under the lordship of Jesus or under the designation of Christ.
Hick contends that the concept of God incarnate, which is recognized as unchanging dogma in mainstream Christian tradition, is merely one of multiple viable interpretations of Jesus supremacy. Despite being strong and vital to Christian identity, the imagery of God embodied has never been depicted to have a legitimate factual interpretation. Instead, New Testament study has demonstrated that the real Jesus did not profess to be God incarnate and that the ideas of the Trinitarian, creation, and redemption are all understandable. Hick compares what occurred in the context of Jesus to what transpired in Mahayana Buddhism, where the Buddha began to be respected as considerably more than an extraordinary man who existed and died hundreds of years ago11. In each instance, the evolving legacy was prompted to talk about the person in words that he did not employ and to comprehend him via complicated systems of ideas that were progressively constructed by subsequent generations.
The growth of the myth about Jesus is reasonable since it is clear that people had a definitive contact with God in his life, as well as in the scriptural evidence about him. However, since a religious response to Jesus may be communicated in a variety of ways, it is not essential to enable the concept of the embodiment to speak on behalf of the lordship of Christ. Despite the constraints with the conventional concept of embodiment, and the impossibility of reaching an agreement on what precisely it means in the current context, Hick feels that a Theology of revelation may have more credibility. A factor of consideration is that Christology does not necessitate or accept the concept of three separate people, but rather recognizes three distinct modes in which the ultimate Deity may be encountered as maker, savior, and exemplar12. According to this view, the concept of three people refers to important facets of the one supreme deity rather than centers of awareness13. Responsiveness to humankinds larger spiritual practice, with its diversity of approaches, may liberate consciousness from the infallibility of Christian essentialism.
Hicks assumption is that Christian precepts, such as the Triune god, the embodiment, and soteriology, is not divine revelation of truths, but rather hypothetical structures developed to fix unique challenges, always in terms of the preconceptions and metaphysical and phonetic resources of a given age. As a result, he regards religious teachings as being vulnerable to modification and redefinition in each cultural phenomenon rather than being flawless or immutable. The motifs do not imply the exclusive supremacy of Christian enlightenment, but rather keep the door open to real religious plurality.
Peter Byrne
Peter Byrne has offered an intriguing concept of religious plurality by both his arguments and objections to the concept of religious pluralism. Byrnes idea is a nuanced and comprehensive effort to reconcile a stance that supports the inherent veracity of all major faiths with the belief that theological truths consists in correlation to a consciousness hallowed, a mystical reality14. Byrne offers a pragmatic conception of religious reality while also claiming that all faiths have similar conceptual and sanctifying success.
Byrnes pluralist argument is unmistakably influenced by John Hicks theological plurality. For instance, Byrnes suggestion is separated into three theses and asserts that all faiths are approximately equivalent in that they (1) refer to and enable perceptual interaction with a solitary, transcendent reality, (2) each provides a correspondingly moral- and everlasting cure, and (3) each contains revisable and inadequate profiles of this transcendent reality15. The center of Byrnes religious tolerance is the concept that all significant religious customs prosper equitably well in pointing to a prevalent solemn, ultimate reality16. However, since there are no unbiased ways to rectify discrepancies in the specific allegations that faiths create about that actuality or the existence of and ways of achieving a salvific connection to that reality17. As such, no religious doctrine is vindicated in asserting perceptual or salvific supremacy over the others.
Byrne opposes religious orthodoxy, which holds that religion has an intrinsic essence that all faiths embrace. His pluralism does not believe that all faiths concur on a shared set of basic ideas, but it does assume that the major faiths all have some sense of a holy, universal truth and some understanding that the ultimate objective of human activity entails attaining an adequate connection to that reality. This last element of religions is described variously by several faiths, but Byrne employs the word salvation to encompass a broad variety of notions of the relationship between sentient creatures and the holy, ultimate reality and how that relationship is accomplished.
Critique of Identist Pluralisms
The enormous complaints levied against Hicks pluralist perspective suggest that it is at best problematic as a framework for the pluralistic setting. One area of conundrum is that Hicks plan undermines the individuality that humans naturally associate with their beliefs. The disadvantage of Hicks essentialism is that it draws discourse to a close. According to DCosta, the philosophy of faiths described in Hick pluralism wound up as a neo-pagan Unitarianism. Mark Heim, a Catholic philosopher, similarly rejects Hicks soterio-centric pluralistic thought, stating that in its ultimate expression, postmodernism rejects any assertions to understand a common religious value, which Heim considers to be an impossible stance18. This heterogeneity continues to become a powerful type of exclusivism by attempting to eradicate distinctions and separateness.
Hicks viewpoint has also been called into doubt by Muslim scholars. As per Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the sentimentalist paradigm espoused by Hick, while predicated on fostering greater empathy across faiths, places less emphasis on the whole purity of the past than on common knowledge. For example, the demand that Christians abandon their belief in the embodiment in order to connect to Muslims begs the question of why they should stay Christians rather than accept Islam. Nasr feels that a more reasonable method is to examine at different faiths through the lens of anothers institution.
Byrne believes that his skepticism is not so strong that it precludes the prospect of religious mistake remediation. Religious groups are alive, self-critical, and involved in debate with their adversaries. Byrne accepts both the falsity of religious conviction and its potential of analysis and change. Religious conversation and discussion may lead to development toward more suitable religious interpretations throughout time. Although religions are restricted in the sense that they are essentially socio-cultural constructs and creations of history, pluralism acknowledges their existence. Despite this rather hopeful view of the prospects for Christian theology, Byrnes skepticism does not identify adequate reasons for concluding that any one religious opinion is more valid to all the others.
Post-liberal Pluralism
Post-liberal pluralism is pluralistic in the sense that it seeks to verify the many statements made by each religious book in the framework of the post-liberal tradition. However, it is post-liberal in the way it blames their inconsistencies and proceeds to dismiss them by limiting them to a fabricated whole, based on their ideological frameworks being incompatible. This is apart from John Hicks religious pluralism, which seeks union across religions, as Hick defines the ultimate Real. A pragmatic understanding of truth is rejected, and the incompatibility of religions is emphasized, since they are separated by their distinct communication activities and ideas.
The CulturalLinguistic Approach of Lindbeck
George Lindbecks perspective to plurality is interpreted within the context of his interfaith conversation engagement. He became conscious of the absence of appropriate frameworks for comprehending the challenges linked with ideologies and religious doctrine. Inter-Church dialogue, for instance, aimed at understanding why some ecumenical council preserved exclusivity toward others despite no viable doctrinal foundations for doing so. There was an obvious necessity at the time to correctly understand the basis and purpose of theology, as well as to discover a means to combat and eliminate the abnormalities in inter-Church ties. Lindbeck saw the interplay between Christian ordinations as akin to the interaction between Christianity and other faiths. As a result, he considered that the suggestions he devised to address challenges in inter-Church relationships had ecumenical relevance.
He recommends a radically divergent stance than Hick because, with exception of Hick, he does not consider faiths as being directed toward the same ultimate aim. This leads him to dismiss the notion of a common basic encounter at the heart of all religious doctrines. The experienceexpressive method is described by Lindbeck as the paradigm that recognizes a shared fundamental experience in religious faiths. This framework highlights particular religious perceptual components and the ways ideologies act as instructive assertions of factual claims about observable reality. According to this viewpoint, if a doctrine is once true, it is always true, and if it is once false, it is always false. 19 Modifications in theological stances and the demotion of old mindsets cannot be compensated for in this method, and hence it cannot operate well in a pluralistic situation where theological revisions must be allowed. In essence, Lindbeck regards the Trinitarian idea as an intra-systemic reality which can only be comprehended within the framework of Christendom.
Critique of Lindbecks CulturalLinguistic Approach
Notwithstanding its eloquence, the cultural paradigm is open to at minimum two serious objections. First one, it seems to demand religious beliefs to be regarded as segmented, as entities apart from one another. Lindbeck seems to view religious practice as a pure linguistic or pure heritage where there is no pooling of fundamental shares of conceptions. The assumption that a collection of ideas is exclusive to a certain religious ideology, on the other hand, is more fictitious than actual. What the culturallinguistic model overlooks is that the setting in which religious people thrive is pluralistic, rather than an ethnic isolation.
This implies that theological claims are expressed and must be interpreted in the framework of multiplicity. It is naive to believe that a conservative religious ideology can segregate itself to the extent where the laws controlling its actions and conceptions are believed to be distinct from any other religion and can only be judged from the viewpoint of its adherents. This restricted grasp of setting and ideas does not prove to be possible in a condition of pluralism, with denominational borders crossing and intersecting.
Christs Uniqueness and the Exclusiveness of the Gospel Message
Almost every other question is today doctrinally as intensely debated as Jesus Christs intrinsic peculiarity, not just among philosophers but also among common Religious people. As a result, there is a desire to construct a Christian apologetic response to rebut the claims of religious tolerance and comprehend the notion of Christs Distinctiveness and the Authenticity of the Gospel message. Using an apologetic communication assessment, the act of messaging in contemporary Christian faith is achievable by revisiting the apologetics issues20. Apologetics, in this sense, is just as important in a religiously pluralistic community as it is in a monotheistic culture. While many individuals prioritize their emotions and experiences, this does not imply that they are unaffected by introspection. Alternatively, most of the theological pluralist position is advocated by reasoning and hence requires argument to be addressed. To properly and effectively explain Jesus lordship to a religious pluralist, Christianity through believers must feel that the church as an institution must recover its apologetic mission.
Christians must constantly be ready to protect the promise of redemption. Apologetics is derived from the Ancient Greek term apologia, which meaning defense. 21 Consequently, Christians must be ready and capable of successfully communicating the gospel to their peers, in this instance, the religious variety generated by theological tolerance. Furthermore, it is critical for the Christian faith to embrace Jesus intensely in his critique, distinctiveness, and gospel message. Christianity is a fervently, profoundly, and forcefully exclusive Religious Faith. Therefore, his concept, which relativizes Christ as one of many salvation figures, can only leave one to be completely disappointed. To show other faiths that Christian agreement on Christs peculiarity and exclusivity is beyond dispute, ones zeal for limited truth must unabashedly display a sense of openness.
As such, religious pluralism is a religious belief of knowledge of other faiths a consciousness that neglects and, in reality, disproves Christianitys superiority and finality and demands little worse for other religions. In this scenario, pluralists contend that even the egalitarian faith, which all faiths must be fulfilled in Gods divine message in Christ, must be subject to modification. In other words, pluralists would not grant Christ even a relative status among religious faiths, let alone an exclusive place. One feature of Religious Pluralism is a total disregard for the Biblical message.
Pluralists seldom, if at all, utilize Biblical texts, and when it is (seldom) mentioned, it is by orthodox thinkers. Since there is no Religious text having impact on affairs, the Bible is regarded as if it were without any significance. It is not only few or more verses that compel Christs peculiarity and sovereignty. It is the rule and style of all Religious texts, particularly the Biblical New Testament. The Bible is diametrically opposed to the ideas of religious plurality; the two are incompatible. As a result, proponents of religious diversity despise and reject the supremacy and credibility of the Holy Bible.
Similarities
Religious pluralism in the notion of various religions implies that the other faiths strive and attain genuine and different spiritual atonement, which is the ultimate objective and gospel mission of Christ22. Example, as an inclusivist Christian, staunch pluralist believes that Buddhism genuinely achieves Nirvana23. Similarly, Christian doctrine requires that everyone ultimately reaches either communion or oneness with God. As a result, pluralist proposes that individuals who achieve Nirvana are, from a Christian viewpoint, either a subset of the redeemed or a subdivision of the doomed, based on what is occurring on transcendence with such persons. This is compatible with the Religious theology that the final goal desired by Christ is superior to all others; hence, heaven is superior to Nirvana. However, God has designated Nirvana as a goal that some non-Christians may both seek and achieve. As a result, the theology of the Trinity implies a multiplicity of ordered religious aims.
Differences
A typical point regarding religious pluralism is that it accepts that the Lordship Christ is not transcendent God of God, as Christians adherents have traditionally claimed. Again, one might have predicted that the proclivity to connect Christs glory with idol would be seen in Roman Catholic Christianity a Religion that does not consider worshiping Mary, pictures, or saints to constitute idolatry. Another couple of gods that may be included are Muhammads Allah and Buddhists Buddha. As a result, it is not unexpected that conventional Christian Claims, particularly Calvinist Confessions, are treated with contempt amid religious diversity. The teachings of choice and gratuitous grace are the penultimate to be maintained in theological plurality because they suggest the exclusive preaching of Lord Jesus to be discovered in Him or be destroyed.
According to religious pluralist highlighted above, there are indeed different faiths, each with their own final solutions. What pluralist implies is that Christian has its own ultimate solutions, which for little or no cause may claim sovereignty or incomparability to the ultimate answers of other faiths. The ultimate answers of all faiths are the same24. The numerous is all the identical when one confronts the other. It no longer takes tremendous intellect or care to see the ramifications of pluralist ideas. But it takes trust in Lord Jesus to not confuse Him for the numerous or the multitude for Him, and that belief is required because no human has ever progressed by oneself, no despite how successfully he has grown.
Today, the interconnected world has made mankind more keenly conscious of religious plurality and the many various ultimate solutions than ever before. One is meant to trust that now the ultimate solutions provided by the numerous that comprise religious tolerance will finally all concur, because are they not just one and the same25. However, pluralist is excruciatingly conscious of the reality that they are all diverse in this context26. However, since they are all unique, they all need to be ultimate. 27 As long as all of the responses vary, the ultimate can simply be one, leaving the potential that just one answer might be the absolute pinnacle.
So long as all of the responses disagree, the potential that at the very most one solution may be the ultimate persists. The only other plausible conclusion is that none of them are ultimate. Despite the unpleasant truth that all faiths, each with their own final solutions, are distinct, there is no excuse to take anything completely, to trust any, save for its conflicting qualities, that is, for its lack of credibility. The Christian belief cannot be indicated by the sole rational option that the ultimate can only be Christ28. The Christian Religion defies categorization and lies outside of all classifications. Since it cannot be presented in connection to other religious faiths, the concept of god cannot be the final in respect to other religious beliefs.
Conclusion
To summarize, there are three major orientations to plurality in the current era. The first kind, dedication to another, which regards faiths as almost equal with respect to their salvific capacity. Religious traditions are distinct but ultimately viable pathways to salvation or lenses whereby the Truth is viewed. The second form, dedication to ones institution and heritage, strives to assess other faiths using the criteria of ones own religious culture. Here, ones own tradition is seen as having ultimate salvific potential, even if traces of it may be found anonymously in others. The third method, the culturallinguistic paradigm, falls in between the first two. Truth assertions must be evaluated and examined within the context of each religion under this method. Because there is no standard context for analyzing Biblical infallibility, competing views of truth must coexist.
A key flaw in these methods is that the first and third approaches effectively try to put conversation to a close by seeing all major faiths as inevitably similar or slightly as supreme in their own definitions. These two techniques contradict the apparent need for discussion in a pluralistic society. The second option, adherence to ones own history, seems to be the most beneficial, but not in the form expressed by DCosta. He fails to demonstrate how a Roman Catholic Triune philosophy of religious plurality benefits the plural setting. His methodology has yet to react effectively to other faiths pretension to be the center of transcendent intervention and refuses to address the problem of Christology sufficiently, both of which are critical in the interaction between Christians and the other faiths.
According to the above explanation, Christians should never sacrifice their devotion for Christs peculiarity, since they recognize that it is this unique selling proposition that brings life. However, Christians might forfeit the same admiration and affection for individuals when it comes to the notion of the gospel messages uniqueness and exclusivity. Christian believers are urged to uphold both Christs Sovereignty and dignity for all of mankind, even if it involves anguish in the process. The salvation, as well as the resurrection of Christ, is both examples of how to achieve this. As a result, honoring ones own acquaintances entails Christians allowing them to renounce the gospel. Perhaps it is only the gospel itself that displeases peoples prejudices. Christians, therefore, ought to do everything they can to assure that it is the gospel and its entire message as the only way to redemption, not religious practices, that are generating the controversies.
References
Bartolucci, Chiara, Giovanni Pietro Lombardo, and Giorgia Morgese. Sante De Sanctis Contribution to the Study of Dreams between the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: The Originality of the Integrated Method. Histories of Dreams and Dreaming (2019): 91-120. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16530-7_5
Cheetham, David. Pluralism and Ineffability. Religious Studies 56, no. 1 (2020): 95-110. doi:10.1017/S0034412519000556.
Dag, Esra A. Christian and Islamic Theology of Religions: A Critical Appraisal. New York: Routledge, 2017.
DCosta, Gavin, and Ross Thompson. Buddhist-Christian Dual Belonging: Affirmations, Objections, Explorations. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.
Faber, Roland. The Ocean of God: On the Transreligious Future of Religions, 1st ed. New York: Anthem Press, 2019.
Goble, Geoffrey C. The History of Buddhism: Facts and Fictions. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2019.
Jack D. Kilcrease. The Doctrine of Atonement: From Luther to Forde. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018.
Jim, Kanaris. Reconfigurations of Philosophy of Religion: A Possible Future. Albany: SUNY Press, 2018.
Konadu, Adam. An Overview of the Concept of Religious Pluralism. Case Study of the Ghanaian Milieu. Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2018.
Salamon, Janusz. In Defence of Agatheism: Clarifying a Good-Centred Interpretation of Religious Pluralism. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9, no. 3 (2017), 115-138. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v9i3.2014.
Sikka, Sonia. Descriptive vs. Theological Pluralism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 89, no. 2 (2021): 705-712. doi:org/10.1093/jaarel/lfab052.
Ward, Keith. Religion in the Modern World: Celebrating Pluralism and Diversity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Yip, Man-Hei. Interrogating the Language of Self and Other in the History of Modern Christian Mission: Contestation, Subversion, and Re-imagination. Oregon: Pickwick Publishers, 2020.
Footnotes
Kanaris, Jim. Reconfigurations of Philosophy of Religion: A Possible Future (Albany: SUNY Press, 2018), 112.
Keith, Ward. Religion in the Modern World: Celebrating Pluralism and Diversity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 56.
Geoffrey C, Goble. The History of Buddhism: Facts and Fictions (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2019), 26
Janusz, Salamon, In Defence of Agatheism: Clarifying a Good-Centred Interpretation of Religious Pluralism, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9, no. 3 (2017), 115. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v9i3.2014.
Roland, Faber. The Ocean of God: On the Transreligious Future of Religions, 1st ed. (New York: Anthem Press, 2019), 62.
Janusz, 116.
Roland, 63.
Chiara Bartolucci et al., Sante De Sanctis Contribution to the Study of Dreams between the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: The Originality of the Integrated Method. Histories of Dreams and Dreaming (2019): 91. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16530-7_5
Gavin, D,Costa, Thompson, Ross. Buddhist-Christian Dual Belonging: Affirmations, Objections, Explorations (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), 17.
See note 9 above.
Sonia, Sikka. Descriptive vs. Theological Pluralism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 89, no. 2 (2021): 705. doi:org/10.1093/jaarel/lfab052.
Esra A. Dag. Christian and Islamic Theology of Religions: A Critical Appraisal (New York: Routledge, 2017), 22.
See note 12 above.
Kanaris, 113.
See note 12 above.
Kanaris, 76.
Kanaris, 78.
David, Cheetham. Pluralism and Ineffability. Religious Studies 56, no. 1 (2020): 95. doi:10.1017/S0034412519000556.
Kilcrease Jack D, The Doctrine of Atonement: From Luther to Forde (Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018), 3.
Samuel A, Oluwafemi The Interplay of Christian Apologetics and Christian Philosophy. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (2019), 37.
See note 20 above.
Gavin and Thompson, 19.
Gavin and Thompson, 20.
Man-Hei, Yip. Interrogating the Language of Self and Other in the History of Modern Christian Mission: Contestation, Subversion, and Re-imagination (Oregon: Pickwick Publishers, 2020), 13
Adam, Konadu. An Overview of the Concept of Religious Pluralism. Case Study of the Ghanaian Milieu (Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2018), 6.
The Sermon on the Mount is the Sermon of Jesus Christ, which expresses the essence of the New Testament moral law (moral teaching) and its difference from the Old Testament. There are two points on which the New Testament ethics is based, and the Sermon on the Mount raises two important ideas.
First, we must be perfect and holy because God is perfect and holy, and people must be like him. And second, we must treat God the way He treats us.
All ethical systems have a foundation on which they are built The ethical teaching of Christ is based on the statement that God, who created everything and acted in the history of Israel in the Old Testament, can be known in a real, personal way. The ethical teaching of Christ is completely inseparable from His teaching about the power of God in peoples lives (Mattison III 2). It is the primary meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. The behavior and lifestyle of His followers is the way of knowing God.
The teachings of Christ are his imagery. Sometimes the teaching is given in the form of parables; in other cases, it is just live illustrations from everyday life. Many parables teach moral lessons, but the Sermon on the Mount uses more images from real life. We often talk about ethics in the abstract, but Christ always operates with concrete things.
One of the most characteristic features of Gods action in Israels experience is His willingness to take care of people who dont even think about Him. Abraham was called from Mesopotamia, a new country was given to him, but not because of any moral or spiritual superiority that he would have possessed, but simply because Gods attention and love were poured out on him. Subsequently, Israel was preserved in all the difficulties of the exodus from Egypt, not for its own moral perfection, but because of the care of a loving God. This example from the Sermon supports the idea that people need to act as God does.
In conclusion, the Sermon on the Mount raises essential statements that make the life of the person better. This is what Christ Himself proclaimed as the supreme and twofold commandment of love for God and neighbor. Through love for our neighbor, our love for God is manifested. When we love our neighbor, we try to treat God the way He treats us.
Reference
Mattison III, W. C. (2017). The Sermon on the mount and moral theology: A virtue perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Supersessionism, or replacement theology, is one of many teachings associated with Judaism and Christianity. It is based on the suggestion that God has taken away the blessing gifted to Jewish people because of their sins and has given it to the church (Jewish Voice, 2018). The gift involves the so-called everlasting covenant the pact stating that Jews are Gods chosen people and he is always with them. According to the replacement theology, God reconsidered his decisions after Israel had disobeyed him and lost faith.
Rabbi Jack Zimmerman, the staff evangelist for Jewish Voice Ministries International, provides several arguments in his short video about why the replacement theology is erroneous. Firstly, Zimmerman argues that God is omniscient, meaning he had known that Jewish people would sin long before they did (Jewish Voice, 2018). If God did not want to create an everlasting covenant with people because they were sinful, he would not do it since he could easily predict their actions. Secondly, Zimmerman refers to the Bible: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (The Bible: Authorized King James Version, 2008, Romans 3:23). God knows that all people are sinners, and he accepts them. Therefore, there was no reason for God to take his everlasting covenant from one group of people and give it to another one, considering that both groups are sinful, as all people are. Thirdly, Zimmerman refers to chapter 11 of Romans: I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. (The Bible: Authorized King James Version, 2008, Romans 11:1). Overall, the Bible itself states that God has not rejected his people.
Personally, I do not find supersessionism a convincing theological theory since I do not see any actual reasons for the main principles of the replacement theology to be true. Zimmermans references to the Bible and his arguments about Gods omniscience seem reasonable and conclusive, and I share his viewpoint. I believe that if the replacement theology were true, that would mean that God made a mistake when he entrusted the Jewish people with the everlasting covenant, and God is never mistaken. However, supersessionism is a matter of significant concern for many Jewish and Christian people, being one of the primary interests in interreligious discussion (Levine, 2022). Therefore, I would like to respect other peoples beliefs and keep my own position to myself.
References
The Bible: Authorized King James Version. (2008). OUP Oxford.
Through the years, a large body of knowledge has been attained on what the Bible and other naturalistic and scientific disciplines teach about creation. Although many people, especially Christians, do not want to engage in the often heated debate about creation, it is imperative that such a topic is discussed since it not only enlighten the faithful about the purpose of God in creation, but it also serves to separate the true theological doctrine from science and other dogmas.
It is imperative to note at this early stage that creation theology is undoubtedly evident in the Holy Bible, but the doctrine of creation was nurtured in the early centuries of the church (Russell para. 1). It is the purpose of this paper to evaluate creation theology as expounded in the book of Genesis, with a view of understanding what God meant for us.
The theology of creation as reflected in Genesis presents the Churchs thinking and views about the relationship between the almighty God and the physical world as it is informed by our own comprehension of the Holy Bible coupled with the observations of nature (Lienhard 23).
According to the author, Genesis 1 teaches that one omnipresent God summoned the world into existence, and that all of creation, created by the all-powerful God, responds to His call. Of fundamental importance is the fact that Gods creation as seen in the Book of Genesis has order and structure, and is inarguably transfigured to reveal Gods presence. However, the creation is natural, not divine, and Adam and Eves sinful nature at the Garden of Eden reveals just that.
According to House, it is in Genesis &that the fact that God is the only creator, indeed the only deity, begins its key role in biblical theology (6). In more than one way, other successive doctrines flow from the truths in this Book, and all are founded on the principle and understanding that God is the creator.
Christians must therefore receive and process the knowledge through the art of human reason, but ultimately, they must accept the knowledge as true by faith. The fact that the church of Christ has long confessed creation as a key ingredient of faith is undeniable. Indeed, Genesis 1-2 bears one of the guiding principle of all Biblical Theology that the true living God of the Bible is the maker of heaven and earth, of all things whether seen or unseen (House 6).
It therefore follows that the creation, according to Genesis 1, is inarguably dependent upon the Creator for all of the authority and capacities under its possession, and for its continuous existence in the universe (Lienhard 27). The creation must honour and pay tribute to the Sabbath, the almighty Gods chosen day of celebration and rest since this very special and holy day is anchored in the act of creation, that is, after God created all creations in this universe, He chose to rest on this particular day.
The said days of creation are well documented in Genesis 1:3-5. During these days, God is depicted as intelligent, powerful, authoritative, and orderly as He just orders creations into existence (House 8). The creation phenomenon further implies that God is entirely capable, responsible, and copiously knowledgeable about every single creature in the universe since all that occurs God does (House 8).
Creation theology as accounted for in the Book of Genesis can never be exhausted. However, Genesis 2:1-3 shows Gods satisfaction with His own creation since all what He needed to accomplish in creation has already been accomplished perfectly (House 8). In Genesis 2:4-25, God ceases to create and turns his focus on developing a rapport with human creation at the Garden of Eden.
The book of Genesis therefore enlightens us of the fact that God alone is the Creator; He is the uncaused cause of all creatures in the universe. The Book also teaches that the omnipresent Creator is divine, but also has a personal nature, and as such, He entrusts man with the care of all living creatures in the universe. Lastly, the book illuminates Gods principles of intelligence, power, goodness, and kindness (House 15).
Primarily, one should note that the article is a synthesis, analysis, and generalization of meaningful, significant, and fundamental works in order to competently and correctly consider the process of sanctification in the aspect of Lutheran theology. In this paper, Scaer (1985) inclines to the opinion that sanctification is nothing but the life of a Christian in terms of doing good deeds. Accordingly, faith acts as an instrument through which the Holy Spirit performs works. In this case, good deeds are a comprehensive and multifaceted phenomenon that plays a unique role in matters of salvation based on the Lutheran approach and Christology, as well as originates from the work of the Spirit on a believer, but not from human hands.
The author especially emphasizes explaining good deeds done through a combination of components such as faith fruit, the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, as well as the intervention of Gods power and will. It is noteworthy that these acts are performed mainly not within the walls of the church, but in the world, for example, by helping of an injured traveler (Scaer, 1985). Working in court and public service, trading, participating in just wars, taking oaths, getting married, and owning property are some of the most prominent examples of kind deeds. Thus, the justification of the sinner becomes the basis of good deeds.
Nonetheless, it is also essential to understand that good deeds result from preaching, and justification is a particularly important goal. Good deeds in the life of a Christian are not just abstinence from sin and evil but an opportunity to feel and reflect Gods love. The entire Lutheran doctrine of sanctification is mainly based on these principles, defining the actions and vocation of a believer.
Describing, analyzing, and critically reviewing the book written by James H. S. Steven called Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England , it would be relevant to state that this labor-consuming and scrupulously written literary work should be taken into consideration while creating any plans or, for example, being a leader of Christian worship, as it describes in detail the impact and the influence of the Charismatic movement on the course of public worship in the entire Church of England.
Thesis proposal
Following this, it is necessary to provide these proposals for the subject of the discussion. Those theses might be listed as follows: the identification of reflective practice in the sphere of worship leading; the interrelationship of the already mentioned worship to doctrine, concerning such religious fields of it as atonement , pneumatology and Christology (Steven, 2002); the nature and the history of the church; the relationship of such issues as Eucharist and baptism to the abrogated canons of the church and the modern world as a whole; the history and the methods of the Christian worships elaboration. Another issue that should be recovered is the opinion of different scholars on this topic, on this book, and the author of this book.
Descriptive discussion, critical review, and analysis
With the regard to the above written and tracing the issue of the concern, it is important to note that the Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England can be regarded as a concordant and intellectual study and evaluation of Charismatic worship. This book is the first serious major study of this issue within the context of England Churchs parishes. While examining and studying the history and the methods of the Christian worships elaboration and the historical evolution of the Charismatic movement in the Christian Church of England, this literary work analyzes and researches the issue of the public worship of six Anglican parish case study churches.
Graham Kings, the theological secretary of the Fulcrum organization and the successful vicar of St Marys Church in London, refers to the book in question in his critical article Canal, River and Rapids: Contemporary Evangelicalism in the Church of England . The scholar refers to Steven, identifying Charismatic Evangelicals (described and evaluated in Stevens literary work) as Rapids in his Watercourses (Kings, September 2003, pp. 181 -182).
It might be stated that Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England illustrates two major aspects: the public worship in six Anglican parish churches and it discusses analyzes and focuses on the various churchmanship and worship styles (Steven, 2002). Such patterns and religious models as the liturgical order, prayer ministry, and the congregational singing, as well as a wide variety of worship canons such as cultural influences, leadership, and music, serve as a central concern of the given literary work.
If to refer to Kelvin Randalls Evangelicals Etcetera , sixty-two percent of Pro-charismatic prefer to use the new (widely recognized) International version of the Bible for their Bible Study. With the regard to this, Randall writes: It is interesting that in Stevens (2002) book, Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England neither bible nor pew appears in the index (Randall, 2005, p.206).
This book also covers and represents a theological evaluation of the observations made in the six Anglican churches. The author of the book James H. S. Steven skillfully and masterly describes and analyzes figures of church and music leaders, congregation members as well as independent observers, taking into consideration those peoples views, beliefs, work, and personal experiences.
Conforming to this, the concluding section of Stevens Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England suggests a theological appraisal, investigates and analyzes worship of Charismatic movement from a Trinitarian perspective.
In his book Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism Bryan D. Spinks concludes about this: Likewise the extremely perceptive work of James Steven, Worship in the Spirit , stresses the social character of ritual; his brilliant reflection on Trinitarian theology in Charismatic worship is based on the tied study, as is Christian Scharens study of congregational worship a commitment (Spinks, 2006, p.1). It is possible to conclude from this, that Stevens fundamental ideas are widespread, recognized, and supported by other credible scholars.
The viewpoint of Sydneys archbishop, Peter Jensen, about worship, church leaders, and congregation members, established by him on St Helens Bishopsgate , is similar to Stevens point of view suggested in his book: Some older leaders still encourage a return to the Book of Common Prayer, as being the way to safeguard reformation legacy, but this suggestion seems to have little impact on most younger leaders congregations. In them, liturgy is often used very lightly (Jensen, 2003, video).
It might be suggested to regard one of the six Anglican churches from Stevens case study in detail with the view to understand better the authors message to the reader. The author uses the Charismatic Evangelicals as a part of six Anglican parish churches case study. It would be relevant to cite his analysis and view on the given religious tradition: The development of the Charismatic Movement has led to aspects of Pentecostal spirituality, albeit in adapted form, influencing many parts of the Church of England. Large, successful charismatic parishes have developed, bishops and others in leadership have been baptized in the Spirit& (Steven, 2002, p. 36).
As a result of such development, the number of service agencies and religious conferences has increased. The author attributes such successes to the phenomenon when the religious tradition died and then revived in new habits (look). Following such a revival, the notion charismatic has become generally and widely recognized as a new- accepted churchmanship label. This assumption might be proved by the statement given in Stevens Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England : It seems that the desire of the original pioneers for the new movement of the Spirit to be spread throughout the church has, to a degree, been realized in the Church of England (Steven, 2002, p. 36).
Analyzing the authors ideas provided in his major literary work, one can suggest that Charismatic Evangelicals generally follow a conservative doctrine of the Holy Writ. The given religious tradition does not necessarily insist on such graces of the human being as infallibility and inerrancy. This tradition also believes in the significance of todays receiving of the Lords using the prophecies, which have to be tested by the Holy Writ. Charismatic Evangelicals believe that the Spirit opens the truth of the Lord in the Holy Writ to them with a focal point on listening.
Summarizing Stevens basic ideas about Charismatic Evangelicals provided in his credible and skilled book Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England , this religious tradition might be represented in the division by such criteria as the commitment and the openness to different social groups.
Charismatic Evangelicals tradition is committed to the following issues and ideas: the indisputable authority and credibility of the Bible; the interpretation of the Bible in the context of Spiritual listening; mission in the authority of the Spirit, concerning the encounter of signs and wonders (Steven, 2002); the practice of Spiritual gifts in their church.
This religious tradition is opened to sharing meetings and conferences, various celebrations with the adjacent denominations, including such denomination as Roman Catholics; the ministry of women in various levels of leadership; the medias advantages with the view to present themselves to the public; the various Pentecostal and other Charismatic movements all over the world. Charismatic Evangelicals tradition is concerned about the significance of the congregational side of being church and of the creative, alternate worships studies and explorations.
Conclusion
As a conclusion, it is important to outline, that in his book, Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England , Steven cites words of Jesus that represent one of the highest values of the church: May they all be one as you and I, Father are one (Steven, 2002, cited from John 17).
With the help of this quote, the author brings the following message to the reader: Yet divisions occur from the highest levels of the church to street level projects often neutralizing effectiveness and undercutting the credibility of Jesus message (Steven, 2002, p 197). This book is indeed significant as it enables one, who truly believes, for example, a ministry leader, to turn Jesus ideas written in John 17 into reality. The given book overthrows some stereotypes; it represents an equitable overview of Charismatic churches and of those people who are related to them.
Works Cited
Jensen, Peter. The point about the Book of Common Prayer Carlisle (video). St Helens Bishopsgate. 2003.
Kings, Graham. Canal, River and Rapids: Contemporary Evangelicalism in the Church of England. Anvil Journal. Vol. 20 No 3, 2003, pp. 167-184.
Randall, Kelvin. Evangelicals Etcetera: Conflict and Conviction in the Church of Englands Parties. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2005.
Spinks, Bryan, D. Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From Luther to Contemporary Practices.. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2006.
Steven, James, H. S. Worship in the Spirit: Charismatic Worship in the Church of England. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002.
The theoretical approach of helping the people is found in biblical, Christian, and Church values different from the psychology of helping people. Helping behavior in social psychology entails assisting others voluntarily without expecting a reward in return. Some psychologists also use the social exchange theory to explain the concept of helping people with mutual benefits. In contrast, the religious perspective of helping others should be intrinsic, self-motivated, and approved biblically. The Church forms the foundation of helping from a biblical perspective where people can coordinate to initiate church-led helping projects. Moreover, individuals can participate in helping people by observing the theological values laid down. God calls Christians to pour themselves out for others by being kind, compassionate, and forgiving to one another.
How the Church Helps People
First, Christians are servants of Christ through religious values and acts such as helping the people in need. The value of helping does not rest with those receiving the help but also includes human interaction and community vision. According to Kopiec (2021), Christians demonstrate their love of God through acts and truth, such as helping and rescuing the needy and the poor. Poverty is spread to different demographic levels and geographical areas, and hence the communal approach to poverty can offer help at a higher scale. Churches should not be diverse in themselves and should collaborate in accomplishing the mission of sharing and helping people (Cuadra-Martinez, 2019). Helping the poor and the marginalized people demonstrate lived faith through individual inspiration to work with poor communities. Therefore God uses Christians to deliver help to the needy and poor people. Aside from preaching the gospel, Christians and Churches should uphold their responsibility to help the poor.
People offering help should be humble to avoid humiliation and superiority. The Bible discourages using help to serve self-satisfaction and ego. Helping in theology is a private affair between God, the sender, and the recipient of help. The psychology of help does not describe the relationship between personality and willingness to help. Rather, religious serving and generosity should be compassionate to enable those receiving help to feel loved, valued, and cared for. It is not a Christian ethic to judge. How we treat the poor and the needy determines how God will treat us.
Different people collaborate in church communities to effectively dispense help to the most vulnerable. Churches should hold visions of helping and invest significant resources in helping others. Helping is a broad spectrum that may include material, spiritual, and psychological help hence the need for an organization starting from the Church. Churches also help by speaking up to defend and uphold the rights of the poor and vulnerable in society. God has instilled a mission in Churches to support change in life and fulfill the will of God. Individuals and communities serving God through helping should seek Gods guidance through prayers declared in the book of Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor (Bible, 1985). Helping missions guided by the holy spirit face no obstacles and serve the true purpose of God.
Contrary to the psychology version, the theology of helping people advises Christians that they should also help their enemies. The first step in providing compassionate help to our enemies is loving them and praying for them. Psychology upvotes detaching from the enemies to avoid toxic confrontations and embarrassment. Jesus teaches about loving the enemies as we love our neighbors. The guilt enemies feel when receiving help punishes their humility, love, and kindness to dispel feelings of hate. Rather than self-justification and seeking vengeance against enemies, Christians create their chance of spiritual development by making the hard choices of loving the enemies (Caudra-Martinez, 2019). Jesus calls for believers to love and pray for their enemies in Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27. The aspects of pride, position, and power are discouraged in the theology of helping people.
The reward for helping people, in a biblical perspective, should be expected from God instead of from the person receiving help. God says in Proverbs 19:17, He who is gracious to the poor lends to the Lord, and the Lord will fully reward them (Bible, 1985). The verse implies that being passionate about people attracts Gods blessings. In contrast, the social exchange theory in psychology describes that people only help others when they expect benefits that outweigh the costs of helping. The psychological perspective describes that rewards should be expected from the people receiving the help, different from the theory of helping people where the reward is granted by God (Draper, 2021). Therefore the social exchange theory limits help to those capable of repaying. The theology of helping people is an empathetic approach to helping everyone without expecting their rewards, whereas the social exchange theory in psychology is an altruistic approach that pivots on maximizing rewards out of help.
According to the Bible, there is joy in giving; hence people should live to give to others rather than being selfish. Therefore giving should be prioritized and practiced regularly by Christians for self-fulfillment. Jesus once said in Acts 20:35 that it is more blessed to give than receive (Bible, 1985). Gods favor influences the beatitude of the joy in helping others upon us due to putting ourselves in a place of humility and trust in Gods provision. The Bible also warns those who ignore and abandon those who need help since help is used to demonstrate love (Cudra-Martinez, 2019). People who do not practice helping others lack the love of God inside them and are likely to attract curses. Since God is the Christian helper, sharing his blessings with others illustrates Gods love in our hearts. The redemptive work to help others achieves personal joy through Gods favor and love.
Conclusion
In conclusion, religion is an excellent asset in humanitarian work that differs from a psychological perspective and approach to helping. Generosity in the Christian perspective is not limited to material things like in psychology but includes spiritual and psychological needs. The reward for helping in theology should be expected from the Lord rather than the help recipient. The key to helping is to make a difference in the life of others in the most humble way to avoid dominance and superiority over the people in need of help. Churches form the foundation of organizing help in local and global missions by coordinating efforts of individual members and different ministries. Unlike psychology, the reward for helping others should be expected from God rather than the person in need. Help from a Christian perspective should not be limited to enemies and instead, use help to dispel feelings of hate. Christians take great joy in giving to others, and it demonstrates the love of God.
Neo-orthodoxy is a concept used in advanced contemporary theology, also called liberal theology. The views of neo-theologians are different from those of the orthodoxy on the basis of their approaches to the word of God. Neo-theology is a deviant view of the doctrine of the word and is in complete disharmony with the orthodox views. The orthodoxy doctrines contend that the bible was inspired by God, both mechanically and verbally, and remains the revealed word of God (Grenz, & Olson, 1992). This essay seeks to evaluate the theologies of Barth, Brunner, Bultmann, and Niebuhr. To what extent were these theologies neo-orthodox?
The views of orthodoxy point to the Holy Spirit as the source of inspiration for the person that wrote the script. Orthodoxy holds that the Holy Spirit was in control when the bible was being written. The Holy Spirit worked through a person as the tool of writing or verbally dictated all that was written. Consequently, the orthodox doctrine concludes that the original biblical manuscripts were written without error (Escobar, 2003).
Neo-orthodoxy disputes the approaches of orthodoxy by asserting that the scripture was not written by the Holy Spirit using an individual as a tool of writing. Instead, neo-orthodoxy postulates the bible was an individuals personal interpretation of events or Gods word, thus rebuffing the orthodox claim that the bible is the complete and sufficient revelation of God (Escobar, 2003).
Barths Theology
Karl Barth lived between 1886 and 1968. Barth was a Swiss theologian and one of the most influential Christian theologians of the 20th century (Green, 2006). He began his theological experience with teaching, during which he disapproved of the European Protestantism typical liberal theology of the 19th century. His first theological philosophy came to be known as dialectical theology (Green, 2006). Barths dialectical theology emphasized the contradictory nature of the divine truth. His theology gave much emphasis on Gods sovereignty. He stressed, the interpretation of the Calvinistic doctrine of election (Green, 2006). Most of Barths critics often consider him the finding father of neo-orthodoxy (Grenz, & Olson, 1992).
Neo-Orthodoxy is commonly accredited to Karl Barth as its founding father. The doctrine of neo-orthodoxy, also called the dialectical theology in Europe, is broadly seen to be in gross contrast to orthodoxy. This doctrine continues to evoke conflicting reactions amongst the contemporary theologians. Conservative theologians see it as a deviant doctrine that is quite far fetched from the truth (Grenz, & Olson, 1992).
Barths aim was to transform the Gospel into a language he believed could be understood in modern society. To him, the old Gospel was not sufficient. In his teachings, he was spreading the Gospel of the universal election. In Barths Gospel, the word of God was not the word of God in the absence of the Holy Spirit, which subjectively worked for every individual (Green, 2006). He made an attempt to redeem the doctrine of Trinity, which was purportedly lost in liberalism.
According to Barth, God is the object of His own self-knowledge, and the biblical revelation is the self exposition to Gods humanity (Hordern, 1955). The redemption and development of the doctrine of the trinity is the prime universal enterprise of contemporary theology. Barth inducted the enterprise, and therefore he is accredited for the successful recovery of the doctrine of Trinity (Escobar, 2003).
Brunners Theology
Heinrich Emil Brunner lived between 1889 and 1966. Just like Karl Barth, he was a Swiss Reformed theologian and a key player in the finding of neo-orthodoxy. He also rebutted the European liberal theology, which claimed that Jesus Christ was only a well respected and honored individual and not the son of God. Brunner, however, strongly defended the argument that Jesus Christ was the key to salvation, and He was Gods incarnate (Hordern, 1955). To him, the Christ interposed between the free human credence of the gift of salvation from God and His sovereign approach to humankind (Grenz, & Olson, 1992).
Green (2006) points out that Brunner tried to establish a neutral stand within the continuing Calvinist and Arminian controversy. Given that he was a German-speaking Protestant theologian, his views were seen to be a combination of the Reformed views of Christian theology (soteriology) and Lutheran doctrine. Brunners criticized Barth on the grounds of that Barths take on the liberal pressure on universal salvation and double preordination of Calvin. His theology was focusing on a single preordination (Hordern, 1955).
Brunner, together with his subjects in the neo-orthodoxy, declined in its entirety the conception of human connection with God through salvation. On the contrary, Brunner and his colleagues welcomed the views of Augustine, which were ascertained through the Martin Luther doctrine. He, too, disapproved of the existence of miraculous factors inscribed within the scripture. He was therefore challenging the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible (Hordern, 1955). These beliefs made most theologians from Great Britain and from America to criticize Brunners theological views, even though he was in consensus with evangelical and fundamentalist theologians and also acknowledged the centrality of the Christ (Escobar, 2003).
Apparently, Emil Brunner was a vocal advocate of neo-orthodoxy. Brunner was the proponent of the crisis theology, which states the turning point in history occurs when God in Christ confronts humanity, after which an individual is able to discover the existence of two roads, one leading from God to death, while the other one is leading to God and life (Escobar, 2003).
Boltzmanns Theology
Ludwig Boltzmann lived between 1844 and 1906. Boltzmann is renowned for his idea of the fluctuation of the universe. He posited that as a result of the fluctuation of the universe, the universe existed in a state of entropy, and everything that existed on it had been thermo-equalized and therefore was in an entropy state (Grenz, & Olson, 1992). But what was his take on theology?
As a result of Boltzmanns strong belief in thermodynamics, Boltzmanns brains were conceived. Boltzmanns brains, according to Hordern (1955), are hypothesized phenomenon emerging from the cosmological interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics, which posits the complexness of the universe continues to intensify (Hordern, 2003). Boltzmanns initial theory was that random thermal variations could be attributed to the creation of the universe. He further asserts the human observation of the universe had low-level entropy and high-level organization and was simply a figment of the imagination.
Boltzmanns ideas raised a lot of concern in the field of theology, as his views posed serious implications in the revelation of the truth about the Universe and the connection among humanity, the Universe, and God. His brains could have been used on the basis of a rational and scientific account for the existence of God. He was a pious atheist with great tolerance for the religious discourse. Basically, Boltzmanns doctrine was that of rational theology. His hypothesis for the existence of God was, perhaps, the first to be accredited. In Boltzmanns brains, the existence of God didnt involve mindless veneration and leaps of faith (Grenz, & Olson, 1992).
Boltzmann had what could be seen as a real explanation for Gods existence. In his explanation, he begins by arguing that God came about as a result of the first cause of the universe. The first cause was the thermo-equalized foundation of the universe. Together with his fellow atheists, they believe God spontaneously came into existence from a formless, chaotic state and out of the void. This view also postulates if God came into existence from nothingness and formless chaos, then God Himself is formless and non-existing (William, 2001).
The theology of Boltzmann was in complete contrast with that of Barth and Brunner. While Barth and Brunner accepted the existence of God and, to a great extent, His involvement in the creation of the Universe, Boltzmann has a sharp contradiction of such claims. His theology was neo-orthodox in the sense that, like Barth and Brunner, what is written in the bible is only the imaginations of humankind and not inspired scriptures (William, 2001).
Niebuhrs Theology
Karl Reinhold Niebuhr lived between 1892 and 1971. Niebuhr was both a theologian and a public commentator. Before shifting to neo-orthodoxy in the 1930s, Niebuhr was a shrewd liberal theologian in the 1920s. In his neo-orthodox views, he took issues with the sin of pride, asserting that the sin of pride was the cause of evilness in the world (William, 2001).
Niebuhr was a critic of utopianism, which he held was ineffective in addressing the universal reality. He became an exceedingly influential religious figure in the years between the 1940s and 1950s. In his theological doctrine, Niebuhr challenged the liberal theologians on the basis of their conception of sin and disposition of the social Gospel. He was at the same time against the doctrine of religious conservativism, which he argued had a naïve and narrow view of the truthfulness in religion and a callow perceptivity of the scripture (William, 2001).
Niebuhr spent a good amount of his life, establishing the connection between realism and the Christian faith with regard to foreign affairs. He did not invest any effort in spreading idealism (Grenz, & Olson, 1992). It is important to note here that Niebuhrs views and contributions in contemporary theology had impacts on liberalists who later echo the same realistic views in their foreign policy.
He talked about sin and grace, he discussed faith and reason, and he addressed the issue of love and justice, idealism and realism (William, 2001). All his ideas were under the umbrella of neo-orthodox theology and were greatly influenced by the European dialectical theology and Barths theology.
Conclusion
To the believers of neo-orthodoxy, the biblical scripture is not a revelation in itself as held in orthodoxy, but a medium of the revelation of the word. In the context of neo-orthodoxy, revelation is subject to individual interpretation of each other, and the truth is a mystical experience, not a concrete fact (William, 2001). In the neo-orthodox mindset, there is a clear differentiation between the revealed word of God and the word of God. The revealed word of God is referred to as the spirit world, and the word of God is termed as the letter. Barth, Brunner, Bultmann, and Niebuhrs theologies attempted to continue the doctrine of neo-orthodox.
References
Escobar, S. (2003). The new global mission: The gospel from everywhere to everyone. Downers Grove (IL). Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN-13: 9780830833016.
Green, G. (2006). Introduction to On Religion by Karl Barth. London: T&T Clark.
Grenz, S., & Olson, R. (1992). The 20th century theology: God and the world in atran sitional Age. Downers Grove (IL). Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN-13: 0-8308-1525.
Hordern, W. (1995). A laymans guide to Protestant theology: Revised Edition. Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN-13: 1-57910-925-X.
William, C. (2001). Unapologetic theology: A Christian voice in a pluralistic Conversation. Westminster John Knox Press, 1989ISBN0664250645.