Category: Theology

The doctrine of God is complex and central to the tenets of the Christian Church. One of the crucial aspects to reflect on within the study of this subject is the existence of the Lord, which is questioned by atheists and agnostics. However, as per the Bible, God’s presence and his divine attributes are evident from the act of the creation itself, despite the fact that humans distort their knowledge of the Lord due to their sinful nature. According to Feinberg, “belief in God … comes not merely from a perceived need to explain the existence of the cosmos, nor merely from a need to have a grounding of morality … [but] stems as well from a desire to understand who we are and why we are here.” Both the Old Testament and the New Testament proclaim God’s “eternal power and divine nature” suggesting that unbelief is irrational since there is no basis for doubting the existence of the superior creator (Rom. 1:20). The Scripture does not seek a rationale and proof of the Lord’s presence but questions who he is and explores his divine attributes.

In this regard, the postulates of Christian theism are challenged by non-Christian theism and atheism. In the contemporary world, it is required to have sufficient arguments to make a statement that will hold true. I have myself reflected on this subject and attempted to find evidence of the divine presence in this world. However, the Scripture assumes God’s existence and claims that “whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb. 11:6). The theistic perspective that supports the existence of the Lord includes cosmological, teleological, moral, and transcendental arguments. At the same time, the primary reasons used to deny the presence of God are based on certain conceptions of his divine nature. The existence of the evil and the divine is perceived as logically incompatible. Nevertheless, many Christians believe that the Lord has its reasons, and finding Christian faith can dramatically change one’s life.

Contemporary Theology

Contemporary theology refers to the study of theological tendencies and ideas within the recent time. Academic research often involves both Christians and non-Christians, which allows for obtaining various perspectives on relevant issues and definitions. In my view, people who seek to live a godlier life would turn to and interpret the Scripture itself, while contemporary theology comprises a broad range of questions and considers different viewpoints on the Lord and his attributes. As per Feinberg, God in contemporary thought is explored through modern and postmodern theologies. Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Kierkegaard, and Barth are significant figures for theology and philosophy with regard to the modern mindset. In turn, Feinberg explores the role of the theology of hope, liberation theology, feminist theologies, the New age theology, and process theology as perspectives that aim to “”resurrect” the notion of God” through the application of the postmodern mindset. Some theologians rethink metaphysics and truth, bringing new concepts to the forefront and emphasizing various themes, such as social and political issues. With this regard, the practical theology shift has altered the implications on church life and human ethics.

A historical perspective on Christian doctrines suggests a difference in the field of practical theology. Christianity and Greek dualism, which suggest splitting the body and the soul, the physical and the mental, prioritize theory over practice. Early Churches that began through Jesus Christ emphasize practice over theory. The Triune God and the threefold love of Trinity, involving the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, have become fundamental in the postmodern era. Such a paradigm shift illustrates the changes in contemporary theology and emphasizes the role of modernism and postmodernism in the Christian faith. In my viewpoint, a modern outlook on the subject allows for gaining a better understanding of the doctrine of God and its evolution throughout the history of Christianity.

Non-moral Attributes

Attributes of God should be viewed as his essential characteristics rather than elements that comprise a complex whole. As I can conclude, based on the research done on the Christian doctrines, Lord is not merely a set of godly components. Some people have a misconception of the divine attributes due to the difference in interpretation; however, both moral and non-moral concepts of the Almighty’s nature are critical to consider for a better understanding of this doctrine. The creative purpose of God provides a foundation for drawing connections among his love, wrath, and holiness. Moreover, mercy and rage can be viewed as the divine qualities deriving from the Almighty’s striving for justice.

Non-moral attributes raise conceptual problems which need to be addressed since they affect personal, practical, and ministry applications of the doctrine of God. From Feinberg’s perspective, aseity, infinity, immensity and omnipresence, eternity, and immutability are the primary non-moral characteristics of God. Omnipotence is integral with the Lord’s nature, as the apostle Paul states, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made” (Rom. 1:20). Moreover, God is unchangeable due to his holy nature, which prevents him from being more truthful and perfect than he already is. Sovereignty is another attribute proclaimed in the Scripture in the following way: “being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). Furthermore, judgment and discernment are aligned with God’s righteousness and commitment to justice and can lead to punitive wrath. Overall, the essence of God lies beneath the outward manifestation and is reflected in his non-moral attributes as inherent features.

Moral Attributes

The moral attributes of God derive from his divine holiness and absolute purity. According to Feinberg, “God is free from the pollution of sin, for he cannot sin … [and] is so pure and perfect that Scripture says he cannot even be tempted to sin (James 1:13).” As a result, the Almighty demands purity from his creation and presents himself as the standard. Furthermore, he offers his Son as a sacrifice on people’s behalf to regain their innocence and purity. As stated by Feinberg, the moral attributes of God are his holiness, righteousness, love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, goodness, lovingkindness, and truth. Love is inseparable from divine nature and is considered a prerequisite for justice. As per the unitary account, God’s punishment is an expression of his kind nature, in contrast to the divergent account, which views wrath and love as two opposites. However, divine rage pursues the purpose of guiding the wrongdoers, while the creative purpose prevents the Lord from executing punishment in ways incompatible with mercy. Moreover, the ethic of love depicted in the New Testament suggests that the Lord avoids severe retribution.

God’s moral attributes revolve around the idea of his righteousness. As the creator, he establishes the moral order of the universe maintains a fair approach to all his creatures. In my view, God can be described as a balanced essence that is merciful and full of love towards his children. At the same time, I find the unitary account logical in terms of manifestation of the Lord’s love since sin must be punished and corrected. God in Christianity is the guardian of the moral world order whose acts derive from his holiness, love, and commitment to justice.

Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the central concepts in the Christian faith, critical for the historical development of its tenets. By asserting the Almighty’s triune nature, Christianity proclaims the existence of only one God while recognizing the Father, the Son, incarnate as Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as three persons in one. I find Trinity one of the most significant theological doctrines due to its uniqueness within the Christian faith. It causes numerous misconceptions because of the complexity of this notion, which defines the need to study the triune nature of God for a better understanding of the Scripture and personal, practical, and ministry applications.

In particular, the doctrine of the Trinity proclaims that Jesus dying on the cross is equally God and human, which adds to the idea of salvation. The Son states that people who were able to meet him have seen the Father (John 14:9). Furthermore, the concept of the Trinity can be viewed as an example of interpersonal, namely, family relations. According to Feinberg, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit deeply love one another, work together to accomplish their goals in our universe, and when needed, submit their individual will to the wishes and plans of the other members of the Godhead.”⁸ Such a framework presents a significant practical implication of this doctrine. Another aspect I would like to discuss is the consistency of the divine attributes of the Trinity. The triune nature of love can be found in the Bible since God is all-loving and merciful. At the same time, the Scripture does not teach the trinitarian doctrine explicitly. However, many philosophers and theologians suggest that it is implied by the portrayal of the Lord and his attributes.

Creator

God is depicted as the creator in the Bible, which defines his omnipotence and creative purposes. The Almighty brings everything into existence through his glory. I believe that the act of creation manifests three essential attributes of God: his authority in the universe, control over all the processes and phenomena, and omnipresence. It is worth noting that the Scripture introduces the divine power through the act: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). There is no list of attributes presented explicitly, but people can draw upon the Lord’s purposes and actions which are aligned with his characteristics such as love and holiness.

The act of creation establishes that God owns everything that is present on earth and in heaven. As a result, all creations are expected to worship the creator and his blessings. Bringing praise is the reasonable reaction which people should express in response to the formation of the world. In turn, God is resentful towards those who worship idols and other people rather than the creator. The Scripture provides an idea of the conception of the universe and manifests the Lord’s six-day creation culminating in a day of the divine respite as the model for people to build their workweek resulting in Sunday as the holy day of rest. As can be seen, creation is an essential concept that provides a foundation to understanding the doctrine of God.

Providence

The doctrine of creation is interconnected to the concept of divine providence, which refers to the Lord’s governance and intervention in the universe. In my view, this concept can leave people wondering about eternal questions regarding the meaning of life and the presence of evil in the world. It appears contradictory that an all-loving and all-powerful God coexists with human sin. However, the Christian faith suggests that a divine plan defines the Almighty’s interactions with the universe and people. The providence is God’s sovereignty and omnipotence that guides, loves, and cares for his creation. Christian theology suggests that there is no possibility of another power competing with the Almighty, who provides all creatures to act and exist in this world.

With this regard, it is critical to discuss the difference between the holy nature of God and the sinful nature of people. While the Lord created the universe and human beings in his image, it would be misleading to compare divine nature with that of people. God’s attributes such as love, truth, righteousness, justice, and wrath do not suggest that these qualities are comparable with human traits. As per Feinberg, the Lord “has them to an infinite degree, whereas we have them only to a limited degree, but they still rightly fall in the communicable group because both creator and creature possess them.”⁹ Therefore, the doctrine of providence should be viewed with regard to the eternal divine attributes that manifest God’s omnipotence.

Bibliography

Calloway, Colin. New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America. New York: JHU Press, 2012.

Cummings, John. “The Quality of Online Social Relationships.” Communications of the ACM 45, no. 7 (2014): 103–108.

Introduction

Theology should reflect a form that God chooses to manifest Him to humanity in the contemporary society. In that way, humanity is faced with the challenge whether there has to be Charismatic theology in the modern Christian society. In a bid to establish a theology, there must be talks concerning God, but this should be handled in a critical manner.

This translates that the apprehension of God generated becomes the formulae in tackling the dilemma the contemporary religious fraternity manifests to theology. Moreover, the theology that develops must also reflect the tradition of the religious fraternity from which it emanates. The theology must also mirror the manner in which God has been presented concerning the religious past¹.

Consequently, to be Charismatic entails how humanity acknowledges the existence of the Holy Spirit. In practice, charisma entails receiving and presenting the works of the Holy Spirit to the contemporary society. In other words, Charismatic is a term referring to Christians who hold the notion that the doings of the Holy Spirit experienced in the early Church, such as miracles, tongue speaking, and healing, are also promises to the modern Christians.

Therefore, to be genuinely charismatic, a doctrine should assume its meaning from the basis of the existence of the Holy Spirit as transcribed in the scriptures. Thus, a charismatic theology needs to consider the experience of the existence of the Holy Spirit as manifested in the Holy Scriptures².

It is only through the working of the Holy Spirit that a charismatic doctrine is established. Contrary to this claims, theology is seen to bring a misunderstanding about God and may fail to influence the believers. This paper seeks to show that the doctrine often spread within the Charismatic movement regarding self-imparted uniqueness, is widely uninformed and unbiblical. Since the movement accredits itself as sent by God to continue with his divine undertakings, it does not grant it a Christian experience.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the various controversies surrounding the Charismatic doctrine as well evaluate diverse opinions from different quarters sharing or refuting the claims of the Charismatic movement. Much attention will focus on St. Paul’s perspective of spiritual gifts as it is written in 1 Corinthians 12- 4. Eventually, this paper will assess whether the Scriptures affirm exceptional Charismatic gifts to the modern Church.

Background information

The proliferation of the Charismatic renewal can be traced in the early 1960s³. The idea of filling with Holy Spirit diffused swiftly via the mainstream denominations. Many conventional churches were highly influenced by the Charismatic renewal, and later independent Charismatic churches started to emerge. Currently, most Charismatics have shifted from the mainline denominations to independent Charismatic churches.

Following their break from the mainline denominations, these churches abandoned the doctrinal traditions that shaped them and then formulated others that guide the modern Charismatic. Following this freedom, the church started to transform in many ways.

Apparently, charismatics of diverse faith and beliefs exist all over the world making it difficult to define the movement. Despite the fact that many people have joined the Charismatic movement, there are still problems that face this movement. Most Charismatic argues that their teachings supplement the traditional teachings.

The distinctive contentions

In the current decade, Charismatic Christians have experienced vast criticism by both Christians and non-believers. Just because the Charismatic movement or rather belief is widely spreading does not imply that its entire creed is justified. It is critical to consider the scriptures and examine the Church background in tackling the theological dilemma that is brought forth by the Charismatic values, practices, and beliefs⁴.

It is highly disputable claiming of a second blessing or speaking in tongues as a proof of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, some of the gifts of grace and miracles are bizarre. In essence, the Holy Spirit dwells in the souls of all true believers, and this is not always evidenced by divine powers.

The miracles manifested in the Bible were accrediting the scriptures. The “primary theological distinctiveness of the Charismatic movement includes speaking in tongues, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the power of healing, and the importance of having a personal experience”⁵.

These factors have contributed to the movement’s proliferation and popularity. While everyone cherishes growth and change, these two attributes cannot be employed as evidence for divine accredits. False religions and cults have also enjoyed massive growth and popularity.

Regarding blessings and worldly possessions, Charismatics believe in a Christian life that is far much better than a non-Christian life. They claim that their faith leads them to riches, better health, and joyful lifestyle. However, it is clear that many Charismatics have good health, worldly possessions, and happiness⁶.

The promise of good health and material possession has made new converts eager to abandon their ways to join the Charismatic theology for a better life. Unlike Charismatics, Evangelicals indicate that God is not fascinated by worldly things. For Evangelicals, the Christianity should not entail worldly possessions but heavenly wealth granted freely upon salvation. Thus, this claim is misleading for anyone to believe that the Christian faith will unconditionally result in wealth, happiness, and good health.

Thus, Christians should expect it but the absence of such blessings should not mean the absence of God. Both non-believers and Evangelicals have condemned such focus on worldly riches as diverting believers away from heavenly riches promised in the Scriptures. Evangelicals hold that Christ is the light all Christians need and promise for worldly prosperity manifests serious theological error⁷.

Common viewpoints held by Charismatics

Undoubtedly, Charismatic Christians demonstrate a high knowledge of the Scriptures but they often fail to abide by its content. In most instances, Charismatic Christians rely on what they believe rather than what is written in the scriptures. During the apostolic times, those who joined the faith in Christ went through water baptism.

However, they also expected to go through a second step involving baptism with Spirit. The baptism in the Holy Spirit was highly valued as it was evidenced by characteristics of the Spirit particularly tongue speaking. The many gifts of the Holy Spirit transcribed in the Bible are also promises of the modern Church.

Charismatics believe there are steps followed for one to attain baptism in the spirit. First, full commitment to Jesus Christ’s will, continuous prayer for the gift, waiting for the gift patiently and by faith, glorifying God for the gift, and freeing the Spirit by glorifying God in an unknown tongue.

According to 1 Corinthians, as a Christian praise God in tongues, his/her mind rests as the spirit engages in prayer⁸. Despite the view that the Christian may not comprehend with the mind the utterances one says; there is a clear communication with the Lord.

Charismatics also believe that speaking in tongues is an authority that Christ bestows upon the Christians to express and exalt the Lord in a new language. Thus, this gift should be respected and encouraged in the church. Charismatics also view that speaking in tongues does not divide the Christian family since division is only brought by the sinfulness nature of man⁹.

Charismatics claim that the gift of healing is evidence that God exists, and there is the unquestioned truth about His word. Charismatics go further to show that the gift of miraculous healing is still availed to the modern Christian Church as it were in the first Church. However, since there is no ready reception in modern Church because of the influence of Western beliefs, Christians may not appreciate the divine intervention and the God’s healing.

Tongue speaking

Tongue speaking is a common practice to all Charismatics as well as Pentecostals. However, despite this being a common practice, there are variations in how these two denominations understand and define tongue speaking. Charismatics often believe in three varying applications of tongues. First, a massive number of Charismatics claim that speaking in tongues is the baseline proof of acquiring the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Charismatics believe that what transpired during the historical events as manifested in the teachings of Acts as extending to the contemporary Church. Second, “tongue speaking should be utilized in public worship for the elevation of the body”¹⁰. However, this tongue speaking must be meaningful and translatable to enhance clarity to all people. The comprehension that anyone experiences the baptism of the Holy Spirit should proof it by speaking in tongues is misleading since it blatantly contravenes the Bible.

A third “use of tongues is meant for personal edification”¹¹. In this case, tongue speaking is perceived as a personal connection language to God. These claims manifest a poor understanding of the Holy Scriptures. This assertion contributes to dividing the Christian family because not all Christians can speak in tongues yet they abide by the true word of God.

Tongues are confirmed in various scriptures to be real languages rather than what Charismatics argue is special undefined personal prayer language. In most cases, it is agreeable that tongues are meaningless to the listeners merely because they are presented in a foreign language.

Thus, tongues should be translatable to bring meaning to the listeners. According to 1 Corinthians, 14:12-13, Paul emphasizes the need to interpret tongues¹². In this passage, Paul claims that anyone who uses tongues edifies himself. The Charismatics misinterprets this passage since Paul is defining a person who uses tongues in public worship without an interpreter.

However, tongue speaking in a Church without an interpreter does not benefit anyone and results to self-edification. Charismatics should ensure that what speaking in tongues is not viewed as a primary tool that every Christian must possess.

Undoubtedly, it is essential to view tongue speaking as a foreign dialect but not meaningless utterances¹³. It is fundamental since it provides an objective criterion to establish if contemporary tongue speaking is valid or constructed utterances.

Due to these contentions, many observers have called into question the authenticity of the Charismatic theology as a representative of the divine work of God. If contemporary tongues differ from the Biblical tongues, then it means that the Charismatic movement has abandoned true Biblical teachings. Unless, Charismatics can translate tongues, then tongues will have no impact in edifying the Church.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Spirit baptism is one of the cornerstone ratification of the Charismatic theology. Charismatics refer the Spirit baptism as an experience that one acquires following conversion. As evidenced in the book of Acts 11: 13-18, God is said to have poured out His Holy Spirit on the Gentiles, who had come to Him¹⁴.

As shown in this passage, true believers in the early Church always acquired the baptism of the Holy Spirit free, but not as a reward gained, based on one’s doing. Contrary, Charismatics hold that Christians have to devote themselves in the course of seeking the Holy Spirit. Looking keenly at the events that transpired before the day of Pentecost, Jesus promised His disciples the Holy Spirit would descend to dwell in them.

There were no requirements needed of the disciples before the Holy Spirit would pour on them. Jesus did not require them to pray or work hard for the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is no evidence in the Scriptures that some of the followers of Christ were declined the spirit due to inadequate preparation.

The contemporary Christian Church should expect any gift from God, different or similar to those provided by the apostolic Church. However, with the massive spread of false prophets, it is critical for Christians to seek guidance from the Scriptures to know the true prophets guided by God. Charismatics admit that many members of the movement are taught the process of speaking in tongues, and others acquire the gift through prayer.

During the apostolic times, tongue speaking was not learned or earned but God gave the gifts freely. However, training people to speak in tongues misleads the Christian community to believe of extraordinary need for having such gifts. The Holy Spirit shows Himself to the humanity through gifts with which He bestows the Christians.

As mentioned in 1 Corinthian, 12: 8-10, such gifts include several tongues as well as the ability to interpret them¹⁵. These gifts are not meant for a particular group of believers, but rather to Christians who are given different gifts. The spiritual “gifts endowed by Spirit to every believer are meant to benefit the whole Church because Spiritual gifts are granted for the common good”¹⁶.

Prophecy

The question whether God is still communicating with the modern Church through direct revelation is debatable. The Holy Scriptures in the book of Acts 2, 10 and 19 interprets the gifts of prophesy, healing or raising the dead as historical events that happened in apostolic times. Charismatics have caused the controversy as to whether these gifts are provided by God to His people in the modern society. Charismatics still hold that believers “still experience direct revelation from God”¹⁷.

Most Charismatics refute the claim that contemporary prophecies should reflect the Scripture. Consequently, Charismatics underrate the New Testament prophecy as a lesser revelation. In a bid to solve this controversy, it is essential to understand what prophecy is. True prophecy manifests the words of God passed to humanity via a prophet. Thus, a real prophet must speak the correct doctrine in the name of the real God.

Additionally, all that is prophesied must happen with time. If a person proclaimed as a prophet and never makes a genuine prophecy, then there is no point to believe that person has a gift of prophecy. The Old Testament prophets manifested the qualities of real prophets because what they said happened.

The teachings of Luke “present the story of the gifts of the Spirit as historical events and no attestation that such gifts are also pledged to the future generations”¹⁸. However, the Church should expect that the Holy Spirit would provide it with the blessings that are required to develop the Church over years. Besides, God has other reservations for His people rather than those He gave the early Church.

The contemporary Church must refrain from the assumption that because the Holy Spirit granted Daniel, the authority over Lions, the modern church should also expect God to provide such powers. Similarly, the modern Church should not argue that since the early Church had Christians with the gift of tongues, thus the modern Church must be endowed with matching gifts.

When it comes to physical healing of the body, God wants Christians to focus on earthly ways that God has offered to for healing of the physically challenged. In this case, Christians are taught that they are yet in the existence of glory where pain and suffering will cease. Furthermore, Christians should never expect to undermine the control of God, through prophecy or prayer. The Charismatics should refrain from thinking that they have the power to avoid suffering because they still live in a realm where sin and suffering are prevalent.

Conclusion

Even in the early Church, not all believers were granted with the gifts of prophecy or tongue speaking. Thus, the modern Christian Church must be cautious not to impart excessive concerns on such gifts. For instance, when tongue speaking is viewed as the key feature it results into a perception that undermines other benefits of the Holy Spirit.

Through the Holy Spirit, the Christian fraternity is united to fellowship together in the glorification of God. Thus, it is lamentable that the Charismatics differentiate between those Christians baptized with the Spirit and other Christians. This divisive inclination fosters false belief that the former include a spiritually advanced cadre of Christians.

The ultimate approach to determining a Spiritual gift should entail seeking whether it builds the Church and abides by the written word of God. Christians should assess the impact that speaking in tongue has in building the Church. At times emphasizing on speaking in tongues might have negative effects to unbelievers for it might cause them think they are troubled. In many cases, these Spiritual gifts have been misused but these should not be used to discredit that such gifts exist.

God has the power to bless the people with gifts that build the Church to future generations. Since they are no compelling Biblical evidence to discredit the existence of these gifts, it is upon the Christians to seek guidance from the Bible to understand genuine gifts. In a bid to reduce the confusion pertaining Charismatic theology, it is essential for Christians to learn from the Scripture and let it guide them in every matter.

Bibliography

Middlemiss, David. Interpreting Charismatic Experience. London: SCM Press, 1996.

Mühlen, Heribert. A Charismatic Theology. London: Burns & Oates, 1978.

Peppiatt, Lucy. “New Directions in Spirit Christology: A Foundation for a Charismatic Theology.” Journal of Theology 117, no. 1 (2014): 3-10.

Pinnock, Clark. “The Work of the Spirit in the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from the Perspective of a Charismatic Biblical Theologian.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18, no. 2 (2009): 157-171.

Poloma, Margaret. “Practical Theology: Charismatic and Empirical Perspectives.” Pneuma Journal 29, no. 2 (2007): 335-336.

Quash, Ben. Found Theology: History, Imagination, and the Holy Spirit. Oxford: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Spawn, Kevin. “Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament.” Pneuma Journal 30, no. 1 (2008): 174-175.

Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.

Thomas, John. “The Charismatic Structure of Acts.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13, no. 1 (2004): 19-30.

Williams, Rodman. Renewal Theology. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1988.

Footnotes

¹Heribert Mühlen, A Charismatic Theology (London: Burns & Oates, 1978), 24-25.

²Lucy Peppiatt, “New Directions in Spirit Christology: A Foundation for A Charismatic Theology,” Theology 117, no. 1 (2014): 7.

³David Middlemiss, Interpreting Charismatic Experience (London: SCM Press, 1996), 41-42.

⁴Ben Quash, Found Theology: History, Imagination and the Holy Spirit, (Oxford: Bloomsbury, 2014) 76.

⁵Kevin Spawn, “Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament,” Pneuma Journal 30, no. 1 (2008): 174.

⁶Clark Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit in the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from the Perspective of a Charismatic Biblical Theologian,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18, no. 2 (2009): 159.

⁷Margaret Poloma, “Practical Theology: Charismatic and Empirical Perspectives,” Pneuma 29, no. 2 (2007): 335.

⁸Poloma, Practical Theology, 336.

⁹Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology Of St. Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 65-68.

¹⁰Ibid, 71.

¹¹Ibid, 71.

¹²Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Academie Books, 1988), 15-17.

¹³John Thomas, “The Charismatic Structure of Acts,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13, no. 1 (2004): 19-30.

¹⁴Ibid, 19-30.

¹⁵Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology, 19-20.

¹⁶Ibid, 72.

¹⁷Ibid, 78.

¹⁸Quash, Found Theology, 93.

Introduction

Mythology has been studied since the pre-Socratic era. In ancient times, it tried to account for actual events and closely linked to theology. They both derived theories from actual events and tried to explain or explore reasons for their existence. This has changed in the modern era, where myths are increasingly focusing on imaginations. On the other hand, theology tries to explain facts, which affect religion. Theology refers to a rational and systematic study of religion. This paper will try to explore the relationship between theology and mythology in respect of Joseph Campbell. It will also endeavor to analyze a paragraph on Campbell’s criticism of theology (Lane, 1989, p. 1).

The paragraph

According to Campbell, in his article “The Power of Myth,” mythology relates very closely to theology. Moreover, they work to serve similar mysteries. Campbell believes that traditional western culture has tried to authenticate myths to imprison its audience. In this regard, he speaks of the imprisonment of Christian believers with social order. He also believes that theology emphasizes too much on explaining the meaning of life as opposed to its intended purpose of seeking the experience of life. According to him, theology works to turn metaphors into facts as well as poetry into prose. This makes it difficult to live a free life, or at least, according to Campbell. He seeks myths that are centered on the globe and not on individuals or a given community. To this extent, he shares these views with theorists of planetary theology (Lane, 1989, p. 1).

Discussion

Based on Campbell’s foundation, he is well placed to criticize traditional Western theologies since it does not provide him with sufficient evidence as to its validity. Otherwise, Campbell’s critique is not well-founded. This is mainly because some of the theories or supposed myths from theology actually happened and have been proved by, among others, archeologists. The last 20 years have seen several changes in theology and myths. This has been attributed to technological advances, which have unraveled new things to the world. For instance, myths on the Solar system and the earth as its center have since been withdrawn with research showing that it is later that revolves around the former. However, Traditional western theology has not had a significant change except on its followers who are continually coming up with contrasting ideas to initially established ones (Lane, 1989, p. 1).

The relationship that exists between theology and mythology depends mainly on the individual or group of associations. For instance, Christians believe in things that can be interpreted differently by other people. Those who experience faith believe that it is real while the others do not; instead, they assume that it is just a myth aimed at imprisoning people. I believe that there exists a close relationship between theology and mythology, and this happens mainly at the beginning of theology when facts are still unclear.

At this stage, where one gets to understand theology, myths serve as a consolation to that individual. For instance, Stories about the nation Israel would seem like a myth until one gets its facts. The two theories are, therefore, closely related except in the latter stages of theology where they diverge. At this stage, theology has facts that may not be present in mythology. Theology and mythology can be considered as stepsisters of truth even though theology is more authentic, especially to those who understand it (Lane, 1989, p. 1).

Conclusion

Both theology and mythology studied in the ancient times derived theories from actual events and tried to explain or explore reasons for their existence. They have since undergone various changes, which edges towards imaginations, especially in respect of mythology. The two theories are, therefore, closely related except on some occasions in which they diverge (Lane, 1989, p. 1).

Reference

Lane, B. (1989). “The Power of Myth: Lessons from Joseph Campbell”. Religion-online. Web.

Introduction

The Fall of Satan is a biblical episode that has continued to raise fascinated debates and discussions by commentators for centuries. The story of Satan goes like this: Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, with a good majestic appearance and status next to Jesus Christ. When God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus and rebelled. It was the highest sin to rebel against the order and will of God.

Some of the angels sympathized with Satan in his rebellion and others felt he was wrong to go against the will of God and his Son. It was decided by the Father that Satan should be expelled from heaven along with the angels who supported him. Then, there was war in heaven. But the good and true angels prevailed and Satan, with his followers, was ousted from heaven. Thesis: Though the fall of Satan has been narrated and interpreted in multiple ways, the underlying theme is that Satan is an angel who falls as a result of his envy, pride, and arrogance and his fall is the reason for the fall of Man.

The Fall and the New Testament

In the New Testament, there is verbal evidence that Satan is a fallen angel who is “chief among a class of fallen angels”¹. II Peter 2:4 refers to angels that have erred and were punished by being thrown into hell… Jude 7 writes: “the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling…” No reasons have been provided for the throwing of Satan from heaven in the New Testament. However, two passages in scripture are frequently quoted by experts in the context of the fall of Satan². The first is Luke 10:18, He (Jesus) said to them (the seventy sent out into the harvest-field), “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning”.

The second is Revelation 12:1-12, in which John claims to have had a vision of the great red dragon, which he describes using the words, “that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan” (v9). Michael and his angels were on God’s side and they fought against Satan who rebelled against God till Satan was defeated and was thrown to earth along with his angels.³. When did the fall of Satan take place? That question is answered in verse 10, when the loud voice in heaven says: “now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down”.

However, the salvation, the power, and the kingdom of God did not happen at the beginning of time, but during the crucifixion, when, through the suffering of Jesus, salvation was obtained, the power of the Kingdom of God was established and the enemy was defeated⁴. Jesus too had commented on this timing and the fall of Satan in a statement he made shortly before his death, “Now is the judgment of the world; now the ruler of this world (Satan) be driven out.

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth (on the cross), will draw all people to myself” – John 12:31. Though it is possible to argue that the two oft-cited passages: Luke 10 or the Revelation 12 passage do not necessarily refer to the fall of Satan from heaven before the beginning of time, it is very clear that both these passages refer to the defeat of the Satan that is wrought by the ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.

Luke 10 has also been interpreted as referring to the defeat of Satan⁵ and not literally to his fall. This latter interpretation is supported by R. Leivastad, Christ the Conqueror, Page 49, who says that Jesus’ statement is “a dramatic, illustrative way of expressing the certainty of the ruin of Satan”. A contrary view is expressed by G. B. Caird⁶ who says that “….in the main Biblical tradition the fall of Satan from heaven coincides with the ministry of Jesus and in particular with the Crucifixation⁷. Up to that point, Caird says that Satan was an angel who lived in heaven.

Pre-cosmic and Post-cosmic theories

In the Books of Adam and Eve⁸ there is an account of Satan’s fall after the creation of Adam. Satan as one of the angels of God had refused on the grounds of seniority to obey Michael’s command to worship Adam.

The Book of the secrets of Enoch⁹ provides an example of a theory of the fall of Satan before the creation of Adam. Satan, or Satanic, as one of the higher angels, “having turned away with the order that was under him, conceived an impossible thought, to place his throne higher than the clouds about the earth, that he might become equal in rank to…(God’s) power”. He was thrown from the height with his angels and flies in the air continuously above the bottomless abyss¹⁰. When man was created Satan envied him and sought to rule the world.

The Book of Enoch¹¹ narrates how the angels saw and lusted after the daughters of men, fell and were punished. Justin Martyr suggests it was the illicit union between angels and the daughters of men that resulted in the fall of angels, although another interpretation is that there had been a previous fall of the angels, a pre-cosmic event before the creation of man¹². Irenaeus only hints at a theory of the fall of Satan. Araneus says that the devil is a creature of God, like the other angels¹³, but transgressed and became an apostate¹⁴ by becoming envious of man¹⁵.

The idea of the envy of man being the cause of Satan’s fall places the event after the creation of man (post-cosmic) but long before the ministry of Jesus. Pre-cosmic theory of the fall of Satan does not appear explicitly in the texts as they do in apocalyptic literature¹⁶. Thus, there are no clearly uniform theories as to the origin of Satan in the selected literature of the early Christian tradition. There is a common belief among these diverse theories that Satan is a fallen angel, though the time and reason for the fall is a matter of varied opinions¹⁷.

The Fall in 2 Enoch

In 2 Enoch, there is reference of the creation of Adam and of Satan’s fall. Satan, according to chapter 31 of Recension J explains, was originally an angel called Satanail. Because he rebelled against the creation of Adam in the image of God, he was exiled from Heaven and received a shortened name. The text continues: “His nature did not change, his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed.

And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously” (2 Enoch 31:5–6). This clearly refers to the fall of Satan before Adam. When Satan realized that he cannot get back to heaven, his inherent evil nature surfaced. He planned against God’s government. When Adam and Eve were placed in the beautiful garden, Satan plots to destroy them. He realizes that the couple would remain happy as long as they obeyed God and enjoyed his favor¹⁸. So, scheming with his evil angels, Satan decides to assume the form of the serpent and tempt them into disobeying God¹⁹. Thus, in 2 Enoch, there is reference to the fall of Satan as leading to the fall of Adam and Eve.

Jealousy over Adam

After the creation of Adam, God asked all the angels to come and pay their respects. That was when Satan, the greatest angel in heaven who had twelve wings instead of the usual six, refused to obey God saying: “Thou didst create us angels from the splendor of the Shekinah, and now Thou dost command us to cast ourselves down before the creature which Thou didst fashion out of the dust of the ground!” God answered, “Yet this dust of the ground has more wisdom and understanding than thou.”

After a trial of wits with Adam, Satan understood the superiority of Adam and raged. Michael addressed Satan: “Give adoration to the image of God! But if thou doest it not, then the Lord God will break out in wrath against thee.” Satan replied: “If He breaks out in wrath against me, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will be like the Most High!” At this arrogance of Satan, God flung him and his host away from heaven, down to earth. The Fall of Satan marks the beginning of animosity between man and Satan.

Impact of the Fall – Fall of Man

Adam and Eve, while searching for food outside heaven, find themselves starving. They desire to go back to Eden. In order to persuade God to take them back to Eden or reduce their suffering, they undertake a forty-day rite of fasting²⁰. When they are halfway through, Satan appears before Eve in the form of an angel and tempts her to give up her fasting. abort their penitential rite. He is successful.

When Adam hears about how Satan has successfully aborted the penance of Eve, he is outraged. He demands that Satan explain why he was so full of enmity towards Adam and Eve. Satan answers that his wrath is due to the respect showered upon Adam and Even at the time of their creation. “When God blew into you the breath of Life,” he recounts, “your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God.” Satan, further explains to Eve that the angel Michael presented Adam to God, and Adam did obeisance. Michael then ordered the angels to worship Adam. Satan was outraged and furious: “I do not have it within me to worship Adam,” he replied, “I will not worship him who is lower and posterior to me.

I am prior to that creature. Before he was made, I had already been made. He ought to worship me.”²¹ The counterclaim of Satan is as true as it is remarkable²². Biblically, it is often seen that God favors the latter-born over the first-born. Esau, though born before Jacob, is doomed to eternal servanthood: “The older shall serve the younger” – Gen 25:23. Joseph, the son of his father’s old age, becomes master over his brothers in Egypt as predicted in his dream²³. Under these events, it is only natural that Satan considers himself above Adam based on the order of birth ²⁴.

When Satan was asked by God to show his respects to Adam, he refused and said that he will not worship someone who was inferior to him. He further says that as he was made before Adam, it only right that Adam should worship him.²⁵ The counterclaim of Satan is as true as it is remarkable²⁶. Biblically, it is seen repeatedly that God favors the latter-born over the first-born. Esau, though born before Jacob, is doomed to eternal servanthood: “The older shall serve the younger” – Gen 25:23. Joseph, the son of his father’s old age, becomes master over his brothers in Egypt as predicted in his dream²⁷. Therefore Satan’s argument is quite valid ²⁸.

In his anger he decides to win over the serpent, then Eve and ultimately Adam and lead to their downfall. Thus the major impact of the fall is the fall of Man. Augustine regarded the fall of the angels as an anticipation of the fall of Adam.

Genesis B

As a poem that uses the technique of converting heroic motifs to Christian uses, Genesis B²⁹ characterizes Satan as a disloyal thane of God who is exiled to Hell, where he plots out his revenge against God and schemes malevolently to push Adam and Eve into a similar fall as he has experienced ³⁰. However, Gen 1-3, that deals directly with the theme of the fall, there is no explicit description of Satan.

The Apocalypse of Moses

The Apocalypse of Moses does not have the story of Adam and Eve’s repentance and of the fall of Satan, which form the opening part of the other recensions of the primary Adam book. But at one point, Apocalypse of Moses implies knowledge of this story. There is a scene in Apocalypse of Moses 16:3 during which Satan talks to the serpent and encourages him to serve as the instrument of Eve’s deception. This assumes that the fall of Satan has taken place.

Theological Problems with the Story of Satan’s Fall

A theological doubt regarding Satan’s fall in the Life is whether its provenance is Jewish or Christian. Christian arguments regarding this event are found in a set of questions attributed to Athanasius³¹. “Question: When and on account of what reason did the Devil fall? For certain mythmakers have said that he received a command to venerate Adam (and having refused to do so) fell. Answer: Such is the nonsense of foolish men. For the Devil fell prior to the existence of Adam.

It is clear that he fell because of his arrogance as Isaiah the prophet says: “I shall place my throne upon the clouds and I will become like the Most High.” – Isa 14:14. This text suggests that Satan does not fall due to envy toward Adam but rather due to envy toward God. And, as such, the fall takes place prior to Adam’s creation. Augustine, sets the fall as happening close to the time of creation.

Bartholomew of Edessa claims that the story is not Christian at all, but rather Islamic in origin. “For the Muslims say,” Bartholomew writes, “that when Adam had been made, all the angels worshipped him at the command of God. But Beliar alone did not obey this command to worship Adam and on this account he fell.”

The reasons why the Life of Adam and Eve traditions became objectionable were Christological. If the entire angel community were to venerate Adam, he would have received the ultimate glorification. There would be no greater glory left for the second Adam, Jesus. Adam cannot be shown in more glorious light than Jesus Christ. This Christological aspect can be clearly seen in St. Ephrem, the Syrian and John Milton, the English Puritan.

The Fall of Satan and Scala Naturae

In Milton’s Paradise Lost, the fall of Satan is described not only as a fall from Grace but also as an ontological fall down the scala naturae. During the War in Heaven, those who rebelled against God became soaked in their own evil nature and thereby became corrupted physically. God notes that “though spirits of purest light, / Purest at first, [they are] now gross by sinning grown”³², and this ontological descent down the scale of Being is evident in all subsequent scenes involving Satan ³³. The descent continues even after the fall. In Book 4 when Satan takes the toad form to disturb the sleeping Eve, he is depressed to note that when he reassumes his angelic form, his luster is visibly impaired³⁴. In Book 9 Satan voluntarily adopts the form of the snake to facilitate the Fall of Eve, but he detests the “foul descent” down the scale of being³⁵.

The Fall and Paradise Lost

Milton changed the story of Satan’s fall as in the Life of Adam and Eve³⁶ in one manner. He focuses on the elevation of Christ rather than to the creation of Adam. God says: “This day I have begot whom I declare / My only Son, and on this holy hill / Him have anointed, whom ye now behold / At my right hand; your head I him appoint; / And by my self have sworn to him shall bow / All knees in heaven, and shall confess him Lord.” This decree to elevate God’s Christ is based on many biblical texts including Colossians 1:16, Psalm 2:6-7, and Philippians 2:9-10. The elevation of Christ is the provoking moment that triggers Satan to rebel openly against God.

It smokes-out the evil thoughts and secret hatred of Satan³⁷. Moreover, Christ’s elevation prior to the creation of man is also meant to be protective to humanity. It is said that the war between God’s Christ and His armies and Satan and his angels was very intense and took place over a period of three days. Considering this intensity, it is likely that humanity would have been destroyed if the satanic fury was unleashed upon Adam and Eve. The status of Christ has thus been closely juxtaposed with that of Adam and Eve. In Milton’s “Paradise Lost” the plot line of the Life of Adam and Eve has been changed to put the main focus on Christ, but the respect due to Adam, man who was made in the image of God, is not neglected.

The Fall of Satan in Carmina Nisibena

The figure of Satan occupies a large place within the theology of St. Ephrem. Ephrem does not directly link Satan’s jealousy with the fall of Adam and Eve³⁸. But he indirectly suggests it. This is evident from the way in which he tries to motivate the serpent to take his side and help him make Adam and Eve disobey God. Consider the conversation Satan has with Eve. In Carmina Nisibena, Eve gives a response that would have suited the snake in Genesis 3:29³⁹.

In these stanzas, the snake, Ephrem reasoned, should have been reproved by Eve for not paying heed to his subservient role. However, the snake had to be docile mainly because he was created after Adam and Eve and was junior to them. This assertion contradicts the narrative order of scripture, for in the first chapter of Genesis the animals are created prior to human beings⁴⁰. Nevertheless, Ephrem seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were the true first-born, and it was because of their creation that all other matter was created by God to help them in their existence. In Ephrem’s story, the main character is Christ and not Adam. Satan falls, when he realizes the true nature of Christ.

And he falls again and again every time a Christian disciple comes to the baptismal front and lays claim to the Kingdom of God The ‘Fall of Satan’ is not just a literary motif in the theology of Ephrem, it is part of the fabric of Christian life⁴¹.

The Fall of Satan in the Vita and Related Apocrypha

In the Vita the story of Satan’s fall is told in a flashback manner by Satan himself⁴². He recounts the story of his fall after Adam becomes aware of Satan’s second successful temptation of Eve (9–11). Adam, in his anger, questions Satan as to why he is so hostile towards him⁴³. Satan responds⁴⁴” “On account of you [Adam] I was cast out from heaven …

When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance⁴⁵ and likeness were made in the image of God⁴⁶, Michael led you and made you worship in the sight of God. The Lord God then said: “Behold Adam, I have made you in our image and likeness.” Having gone forth Michael called all the angels saying: “Worship the image of the Lord God, just as the Lord God has commanded.” Michael himself worshipped first, then he called me and said: “Worship the image of God.” I answered, “I do not have it within me to worship Adam.” When Michael compelled me to worship, I said to him: “Why do you compel me? I will not worship him who is lower and posterior to me. I am prior to that creature. Before he was made, I had already been made. He ought to worship me.”

The story continues that after Adam was created by God⁴⁷ the angels were assembled and God showcased Adam as one created “in our image and likeness”⁴⁸. The angels are asked to bow before him. This act seems to suggest that the authority of Adam over the angels is as high as that of God⁴⁹. It was only then that Satan expresses his refusal: “I will not worship him who is lower and posterior to me. I am prior to that creature… He ought to worship me.” Satan is flung from Heaven to earth. It is then that Satan decides to have his revenge by plotting the fall of Adam and Eve⁵⁰. This is the story of the fall of Satan in the Vita and related Apocrypha.

Conclusion

The fall of the Satan is a crucial moment which has been narrated in different texts in different ways. While some texts hold direct reference to the event, there are other texts that reference it indirectly. The timing might be pre-cosmic or post-cosmic. The fall might refer to the literal fall directly or to the defeat of Satan. Satan might have felt jealous over Adam or over the Son of God. But the truth is that the jealousy of Satan leads to his fall and consequently to the fall of Man.

Bibliography:

Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000.

Anderson, A. Gary. The Genesis of Perfection. Westminster John Knox Press. 2003.

Anderson, Gary; Stone, Michael and Tromp, Johannes. Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays. Brill Publishers. Boston. 2000.

Bernstein, E. Alan. The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds. UCL Press. London. 1993.

Boyd, W. James. Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Brill Archive. 1975

Graves, D. Neil. Infelix Culpa: Milton’s Son of God and the Incarnation as a fall in Paradise Lost. Philological Quarterly. Volume: 81. Issue: 2. 2002.

Jager, Eric. The tempter’s voice: language and the fall in medieval literature. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. 1993.

Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Harvard University Press. 1851.

Spriggs, Julian. The fall of Satan – does the Bible teach it? 2008. Web.

Summers, H. Joseph. The Muse’s Method: An Introduction to Paradise Lost. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. Publication Year: 1962.

The Holy Bible. NRSV (New Revised Standard Version).

White, Gould Ellen. The great controversy. 2007.

Footnotes

1. The Book of Enoch. Chapter XV, pp. 82ff.
2. Spriggs, Julian. The fall of Satan – does the Bible teach it? 2008. Web.
3. Boyd, W. James. Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Brill Archive. 1975.
4. Spriggs, Julian. The fall of Satan – does the Bible teach it? 2008. Web.
5. The present interpretation follows R. Leivestad Christ the Conqueror, p. 49, who says that Jesus’ statement reflects the certainty of the ruin of Satan. It refers to the defeat of the fallen angel and not to the historical fall of Satan.
6. Principalities and Powers, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, p. 31.
7. Lk. 10:18; Jn 12:31; Rev. 12:10.
8. cf. The Apocrypha, II. pp. 137ff.
9. cf Apocrypha, II, p. 447.
10. Boyd Boyd, W. James. Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Brill Archive. 1975 pp. 38.
11. ch. 6, pp. 62ff.
12. Boyd, W. James (1975). Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Brill Archive. pp. 40.
13. IAH, IV, XLI, 1 (ANCL, II, 51).
14. IAH, I, X, 1 (ANCL, I, 42).
15. IAH, I, X, 1 (ANCL, I, 42).
16. Boyd Boyd, W. James. Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Brill Archive. 1975 pp.40.
17. Boyd Boyd, W. James. Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Brill Archive. 1975 pp. 41.
18. White, Gould Ellen. The great controversy. First published 1858. Republished 2007. Forgotten Books. 2007 pp. 2.
19. Isaiah 14:12-20; Ezekiel 28:1-19; Revelation 12:7-0.
20. Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000 1-38..
21. This text is taken from the Latin version of the tale, 12:1–14:3, which cites Isa 14 as a proof text for the rebellion of Satan (15:2-3)/
22. Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000. pp. 1.
23. “The Exaltation of Adam and the Fall of Satan,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 6 (1997), 107-109, 131-34.
24. Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000. pp.86.
25. This text is taken from the Latin version of the tale, 12:1–14:3, which cites Isa 14 as a proof text for the rebellion of Satan (15:2-3).
26. Anderson, Gary; Stone, Michael and Tromp, Johannes. Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays. Brill Publishers. Boston. 2000. pp. 1.
27. “The Exaltation of Adam and the Fall of Satan,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 6 (1997), 107-109, 131-34.
28. Anderson, Gary; Stone, Michael and Tromp, Johannes. Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays. Brill Publishers. Boston. 2000. pp.86.
29. Genesis Bernstein, E. Alan (1993). The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds. UCL Press. London. 1993. B (or The Later Genesis) is so-called to distinguish it from the older (8th c.) Genesis A into which it is interpolated in Oxford Bodleian MS. Junius II.
30. Jager, Eric. The tempter’s voice: language and the fall in medieval literature. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. 1993 pp. 146.
31. Quaestiones ad Antiochum, PG 28:604C.
32. Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Harvard University Press. 1851. Lines 660-61.
33. Graves, D. Neil. Infelix Culpa: Milton’s Son of God and the Incarnation as a fall in Paradise Lost. Philological Quarterly. Volume: 81. Issue: 2. 2002. pp. 159.
34. 84950.
35. 163-167.
36. Because of the history of this tale’s publication, citation of the document has generally followed either the Latin or the Greek version. In the case of the story of Satan’s fall, the reference is Life, 12-17. The story occurs in the Latin, Armenian, and Georgian versions of the Life; the Slavonic and the Greek omit it.
37. Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000 pp. 1.
38. Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000. pp. 1.
39. Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000 pp. 1.
40. Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000. pp. 1.
41. Anderson, A. Gary. The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton. Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1. 2000 pp. 1.
42. Vita 12–17.
43. Anderson, A. Gary. The Genesis of Perfection. Westminster John Knox Press. 2003. pp. 27.
44. 12:1, 13:2–14:3.
45. Gen 2:7.
46. 1:26.
47. Gen 2:7.
48. Gen 1:2.
49. Anderson, A. Gary. The Genesis of Perfection. Westminster John Knox Press. 2003. pp. 27
50. Anderson, A. Gary. The Genesis of Perfection. Westminster John Knox Press. 2003. pp. 27.

Theological Basis for Missions

Missions work is the reason for the global presence of Christianity. Without missions, Christian believers in the 1st century A.D. had no compelling reason to venture out the beyond the boundaries of Israel. Before going any further, it is important to clarify the meaning of missions. This particular concept is a Christian jargon that has gone through various interpretations. Thus, the said term can be used in different ways. It must be made clear that missions work is not the same as medical missions and other related activities. A missionary is not someone who sets up a foundation to help the less fortunate. Global missionaries are not ordinary Christian workers. The primary goal of global missions is to reach out to a group of people characterized by a difference in language and culture.¹ It also makes sure that every nationality, tribe, and clan are represented in heaven. Missionaries work in partnership with the Lord, so that the whole world learns how to worship the one true God.

Evidence from the Old Testament

Abraham is known as the Father of faith. It can be argued that Abraham had to play a major role in God’s plan to save mankind. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob, and Jacob was the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Therefore, God’s words regarding Abraham’s destiny plays an important part in the preaching of the Gospel. Take a closer look at the first major encounter between God and Abraham, and carefully scrutinize the words that were spoken that day.

In the context of missions work, the key phrase is the following: “And in you all the families of the Earth shall be blessed.”² There are two insights that leads to the assertion that “global missions” is not just about preaching the Gospel to neighbors and countrymen. God’s words to Abraham clarifies the claim, that missionaries are supposed to reach out to people that are different from them in terms of language and culture.

The first key insight is the use of the word nations or families. The concept of a geopolitical nation is a new invention. Before the concept of geopolitical countries was invented, people were identified under the authority of a king, feudal lord, and tribal leader. Thus, the word “nation” must be interpreted in a different way. It must be interpreted as God’s desire to reach out to different ethnic groups, tribes, or clans. This is the reason why in other versions the word “nation” was replaced with the word family.

The second key insight is the use of a global reference. God told Abraham that all the families of the Earth must receive the blessing from the Almighty. The blessing that God was referring to was the blessing that he gave to Abraham. In other words, Abraham’s descendants are not only expected to talk about God, they were expected to help other people experience the same type of blessing that they received from God.

Evidence from the New Testament

In the Gospel according to Matthew, one can find the following: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the of the Holy Spirit.”³ In the Book of Acts one can read the following command: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the Earth.”⁴ When these verses were examined using the framework discussed above, these verses provided the New Testament and Old Testament basis for global missions.

The Nature of God

There are two aspects of God’s nature that is related to world missions. The first one is the concept of love. God is love.⁵ The second concept is justice. The Lord is a God of justice.⁶ The Lord will do everything right, and it is not right to judge people without giving them a chance to rectify the errors they have made. The concept of justice is not enough to explain the necessity of global missions. People are without excuse, according to St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. He wrote: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”⁷ Love justifies the need to send missionaries.

Trinity and Ecclesiology

The Triune God initiates global missions. Without the unique attributes of the Trinity, global missions is an impossible goal. God the Father initiates the process. His major contribution was made evident when he shared his vision to Abraham. The life of Abraham was a prophetic picture of God’s fatherhood to all nations.⁸

The Son of God was the manifestation of God’s love for all mankind. Jesus’ actions revealed the hidden mysteries of God. It is impossible to understand global missions without a role model who will explain using human terms the intricacies of God’s plan. The Son of God became flesh, and he demonstrated how to communicate God’s love to other people. The intricacies of global missions was clarified when Jesus interacted with a Samaritan woman and the foreigners in Galilee. They were separated from the blessings of God because of the difference in language and culture. However, Jesus narrowed the gap.

The Holy Spirit plays a critical role in global missions. Without the Holy Spirit it is hard to imagine how frail men and women are able to bring the Gospel to the ends of the Earth. The Holy Spirit is the assurance that there is no physical barrier that can stop the penetration of the message. This means that God’s work is sustainable, even if missionaries are unable to align their activities with the will of God. For example, the Holy Spirit can help prepare the hearts and minds of a remote tribe even if missionaries are still making preparations to enter that region.

When it comes to the Body of Christ, it has to behave like Jesus, and it must become the holy vessel for the Holy Spirit. As a result, the Church becomes the Body of Christ on Earth.⁹ In the context of ecclesiology, the Body of Christ is not statistic, but moving forward as it heeds the call of the Father. Like the Son of God, the Church must work with the Father. The Church must rely on the Holy Spirit for power and guidance.

Kingdom of God and Shalom

In the context of global missions, the Kingdom of God is the seat of operations.¹⁰ At the same time, the Kingdom of God is the goal. The Kingdom of God is the seat of operations, therefore, it is the seat of power. Missionaries will have a hard time understanding this concept if they have no personal encounter of God’s supernatural power. The New Testament documents the numerous instances of supernatural healing. Blind men were able to see, and people with various ailments were healed when Jesus laid his hands on them.

It is impossible to understand the healing power that works through the hands of Christian believers, if there is no concept of an invading force that is far superior to the laws of nature. It can be argued, that the blind man in the New Testament account was born blind. He was blind because of the consequences of natural laws. It would have been impossible to restore the blind man’s eyesight if the Kingdom of God has no power to overrule the laws of nature.

The Kingdom of God is invisible, and yet it exists within the realm of men. In other words, those who believed in Jesus, they became citizens of that kingdom. Its power is available to those who are able to enter into the Kingdom of God. One of the main goals of missionaries around the world is to help people enter into God’s government on Earth.

The Kingdom of God is differentiated from the worldly kingdoms of this planet, because of its approved methods, strategies, and goals. Missionaries are not allowed to coerce people to enter the Kingdom of God. Thus, a major component of global missions is shalom or peace. Missionaries are expected to enter an area, and transform it to show that the Kingdom of God is at work.

Shalom is therefore interpreted as the absence of strife or the administration of justice. However, there is a controversial issue connected to this topic. There are leaders who believed in the idea of secular weapons to administer justice. The United States went through a bloody Civil War to end slavery. It can be argued that war is justified in order to set things right. However, the example of Jesus must prevail, as he shunned violence in order to accomplish his goals. Nevertheless, it is hard to condemn those who took up arms to liberate the oppressed.¹¹

Missionary, Church Leaders; and Lay People

In Tennent’s book entitled Invitation to World Missions, he devoted a significant portion of one chapter to discuss the main reason for the sinking of the Titanic. Tennent said that it was not the weather, or the failure to anticipate the impact of icebergs that caused the demise of the great ship. Tennent revealed that the main reason for the disaster was the use of substandard rivets. Forensic scientists were able to examine at least 14 rivets from the doomed liner, and they discovered the presence of significant amounts of slag inside each rivet.¹² The presence of slag indicated impurities. Therefore, the rivets were brittle, and unable to handle the pressure caused by the sudden rush of water inside the flooded compartments. Never underestimate the work of role players.

Church leaders must have a clear theological basis for discipling missionaries. They must possess a clear theological framework for sending missionaries to the mission field. However, the burden of sending missionaries to Asia and Africa must not rest only on the shoulders of church leaders. Lay people are important contributors. Their contribution paves the way for the establishment of a powerful mechanism that will sustain the missionary movement.¹³

Bibliography

Glasser, Arthur. Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God’s Mission in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Moreau, A. Scott, et al. Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004.

Ott, Craig, et al. Encountering Theology of Mission: Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993.

Radmacher, Earl, D., ed. The NKJV Study Bible: New King James Version. TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007.

Tennent, Timothy. Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the 21^st Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010.

Footnotes

1. Arthur Glasser, Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God’s Mission in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 17.

2.Gen. 12:3 (NKJV)

3. Mat. 28:19 (NKJV)

4. Acts 1:8 (NKJV)

5. 1Jn. 4:8 (NKJV)

6. 1Pe. 4:5 (NKJV)

7. 1Rom. 1:20 (NKJV)

8 World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the 21^st Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010), 492.

9. Tennent, 486.

10. Scott Moreau, et al., Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 81.

11. Craig Ott, et al., Encountering Theology of Mission: Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 127.

12. Tennent, 486.

13. John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 262.

After the Second World War, many cases of different forms of oppression within American societies were reported to be on the rise. Some of the main reasons behind the increase in the cases of oppression include racial discrimination and the use of power to subject other individuals to circumstances against human rights, such as slavery. The development of various religious groups in the United States of America marked the beginning and development of liberation theology (French et al., 2019). Various groups and individuals who were subjected to various forms of oppression used different religious concepts and principles to fight and end different forms of oppression within the society. This paper strives to highlight how the concepts and principles of religion significantly contributed to the development of liberation theologies in the United States.

Liberation theology was a movement that Christians around the world greatly advocated for to fight for individuals who suffered due to various political and social injustices. It aimed to ensure that the poor and marginalized groups were effectively aided in acquiring an appropriate position within the society (French et al., 2019). The population of the United States of America is made up of both native and immigrant individuals are amongst the communities that embraced the development of various religious groups. One of the main reasons that contributed to the rapid development of liberation theology in America was the increased cases of oppression to the minority.

Many immigrants in the American territories have greatly suffered due to the oppression from the white American-born citizens. The minority groups, such as the African American and Asian American individuals, make up the population of the minority group in America. Racial discrimination has been one of the most significant social problems in the United States of America, where minority groups have been the major victims (French et al., 2019).

The main cause of racism in America is a superiority complex from the American-born citizens because they feel that the immigrants are in their territory to compete for the available resources. Most of the white American-born citizens believed that the immigrants did not deserve a share of the national resources. This concept resulted in most of them subjecting the minority groups to various forms of oppression.

Due to the devastating effects of racial discrimination and oppression, most individuals opted to join the various religious movements to fight oppression in America. The groups joined such movements with the aim of getting liberated from the negative impacts of oppression, such as racial discrimination (French et al., 2019). As the number of individuals joining different religious groups increased, more religions in American societies developed. This greatly contributed to the development of liberation theology in the United States of America. The main pioneers of the liberation theory concept were the Roman Catholic Church activists who were majorly from Latin America in the early 1960s.

One of the major factors that motivated the catholic activists to introduce the concept of liberation theology was the need to fight for social justice for the victims of oppression. The oppressed individuals within the American societies majorly consist of minority groups and poor individuals (French et al., 2019). The minority groups were majorly subjected to various forms of racial discrimination that had a negative impact on their quality of life. For example, many black individuals were being used as slaves and were put to work under poor working conditions by white American-born citizens and elite individuals. According to the Christian faith and principles of life, no human being should subject another fellow to environments and activities against human rights.

Many individuals from marginalized groups also embraced the concept of liberation theology. This enabled them to acquire social justice for the inhumane acts they were subjected to by the powerful oppressors. Catholic humanitarians and activists formed various movements that advocated for implementing laws that would punish the perpetrators of multiple injustices (French et al., 2019). This helped ensure that all the individuals affected by discrimination and oppression were in a position of getting justice regardless of their status in society. Achieving social equity within the society was a significant contribution to social liberation among the marginalized groups in the United States of America.

The fight to ensure equality amongst the citizens, regardless of their place of origin, was also a major contribution to developing liberation theology in America. Negative parities were a major cause of oppression in American communities. For example, the minority groups and the low-income individuals living in America were greatly affected by parities in different sectors, such as the healthcare sector.

Healthcare parity was a major problem in the American communities where healthcare institutions mostly offered services to the elite and white individuals while they looked down upon the minority groups. Police brutality was also a major concern where many black individuals were being murdered under unclear circumstances by the police force, with no justice being offered to the oppressed (French et al., 2019). Liberation theologies majorly developed in America due to the need of ending oppression to the minority groups and ensuring humanity in the United States of America.

Reference

French, B. H., Lewis, J. A., Mosley, D. V., Adames, H. Y., Chavez-Dueñas, N. Y., Chen, G. A., & Neville, H. A. (2019). Toward a psychological framework of radical healing in communities of color. The Counseling Psychologist, 48(1), 56–78. Web.

Abstract

In the following work peculiarities of the process known as the Reformation are investigated. The figure of Martin Luther and his importance for the appearance and development of new ideas is described. Moreover, the phenomena of the Peasants War and the Twelve Articles are investigated. Understanding the ideas of Reformation by participants of this war and by Martin Luther is described and compared. The main differences and consequences of various approaches to these ideas are pointed out and analyzed. At the end of the work, conclusions are made.

The Main Body

Society of the beginning of the 16th century was very religious. Every aspect of the life of people, starting with kings and ending with peasants, was determined by religion. The Church was a very powerful institution that dominated the world. Its richness, influence, and territories made the Holy See the most powerful state of the Middle Ages. The Pope had the influence which no one had. However, the rule corrupts, that is why more and more people became unsatisfied with the Church, considering it to become venal and dissolute. Especially revolting was the practice of selling indulgences, which meant the absolution of past sins in return for money. Contradicting to all principles of Christianity, this practice triggered the process which became known as the reformation, which in turn was one of the main reasons for the Peasants War. However, Reformation did not mean total control over the church by common people and revolutionary movements, while participants of this war demanded their ability to interfere in the church affairs, referring to Luthers ideas.

Martin Luther, a priest from Germany, is considered to be the founder of this movement. Being disappointed by the existing Church and its rules, he suggested his idea of divine service which became revolutionary for that time. In general, Luther was sure that the idea that the Church is an integral part of the faith is wrong, as it is the creation of a man. He proclaimed the Bible to be the only source of faith and religion. Being revolutionary, his ideas influenced society greatly, being one of the main causes of the German Peasants War and producing chaos, dissent, and rebellion (Germany During the Reformation, n.d.). However, the understanding of reformation was different. Luther never meant revolutions and conflicts, while leaders of the Peasants War interpreted his ideas in their way. With the development of reformation, even more differences emerged. Luthers words “A Christian man is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none” (Luther, 1916, p. 312) peasants understood directly. The problem was that lower social strata appraised the Reformation as the movement against existing order and traditions, trying to act by principles that Martin Luther had never proclaimed and created.

Twelve Articles can be taken as the highest point of the Peasants War and attempt to create reasonable demands for society, lords, and church. The very first article states that participants of this protest demand the right to choose the priest according to their taste and to get rid of him in case of his inappropriate behavior or his interpretations of the Bible, in correspondence with the ideas of Reformation (“Twelve Articles of the Upper Swabian Peasants”, 1991) as they understood them. However, it was different from what Martin Luther meant. Peasants based their demands on the document known as Sola Scriptura, which stated that the Bible was the only source for a religious denomination. Created by Martin Luther, this principle stated that representatives of the Church had no right to change something in the main rituals of the faith according to their desire or the Popes order. However, Luther did not mean that the Church had no more right to exist and people had the right to interfere in its work. Moreover, Luther condemned this revolutionary movement as it caused hundreds of death and devastation all over the country. Having organized a great number of curacies on these lands after the Peasants War, Luther was shocked by the ignorance of people and even priests, and the way they interpreted his ideas. This fact can serve as the best evidence of controversies that existed between Luther and the creators of the Twelve Articles.

Conclusion

Having analyzed the main ideas of reformation and Twelve Articles, it is possible to come to certain conclusions. Having the main aim to epilogize the strangle of the Church and its interpretation of the basic notions of the faith according to the needs of the Pope or other priests, Martin Luther created his principles which served as the basis for the Reformation. They promoted great mayhems and shifts in society. However, Luther hoped for the peaceful reformation of society and church. Though, being wrongly interpreted, these principles served as one of the main reasons for the war known as Peasants’. Famous Twelve Articles proclaimed the ability of the congregation to rule the work of the church, stating their performance to the principles, described in Sola Scriptura. However, this interpretation of Luthers work was erroneous. Further development of actions showed the aberration of the participants of the Peasants War as even Luther condemned this development of actions, is not able to understand the ignorance of priests and people, which wrung his words from their true mining.

References

Germany During the Reformation. (n.d.). Web.

Luther, M. (1916). Works of Martin Luther with introduction and notes. Philadelphia: General Council Publication Board.

Twelve Articles of the Upper Swabian Peasants. (1991). In M. Baylor (Ed.), The Radical Reformation (pp. 231 – 238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

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 one’s 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 human’s 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 God’s 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 people’s 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 people’s 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. Feinberg’s 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 God’s plan is translated into reality, but not directly by every action.

John Feinberg’s 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 Calvin’s concept.

Divine love is thus manifested in Feinberg’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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. Bray’s research interests express the importance for theologians of the connection with previous thinkers and the need for the continuity of the religious tradition.

Bray’s 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 God’s 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 subject for the present review is the book Powers that Be by Walter Wink published in 1999. The topic of the book is spiritual and religious; it is the continuation of previous works of the author on the exploration of the powers that guide human lives, and the way they may provide a positive or a negative impact on people (Wink, 1999, p. 13). Wink (1999) also speculates on the philosophy of redemptive power of violence nurtured in Christianity and offers a new concept of active non-violence that can substitute both violence and passiveness in oppression (p. 42, 112).

The main themes of the book circle around the ways Christians react to oppression, and the challenges in the way of Christians to react to violence conducted over them. The concept of “Jesus’ Third Way” is introduced as an alternative standpoint regarding both violence and perception thereof that should be nurtured by genuine Christians as a way to the peaceful future.

Speaking about the evaluation of the book and the critical review of the author’s goals, one should first of all note that the author seems to have coped with the established goals quite well, which can be seen from the comprehensive outlook at the history of religion, history of violence and non-violence, and the delineation of objectives for the future action for all Christians to reform their lives. Wink offers a deep insight into what non-violence represents, and how it has been successfully introduced in many countries’ practices. One of the examples he provides is one of treating Nazis after all evil they have done to Jews and other nations:

“the churches as a whole were too docile or anti-Semitic, and too ignorant of the nonviolent message of the gospel, to act effectively against the Nazis. Because the churches had failed to train members in the nonviolent resistance, no alternative to violence was available” (Wink, 1999, p. 153).

However, the most remarkable part is that Wink (1999) offers a deep and thoughtful, historically based reconsideration of the modern Christian perception of their religion’s history and main postulates. This way, Wink (1999) deconstructs the notion of violent response to the threats to religion, believers, etc. However, the author does not offer Christians to sit and patiently wait while they are abuse, discriminated, and neglected (p. 128). Wink (1999) has something alternative to offer instead of violence, and the way he proves violence is not a way out for the genuine Christian. It is through a detailed and skillful historical review that the reader can understand the true meaning of some Biblical truths in the way they were initially designed. The author explores the fundamental guideline of the gospel – to turn the right cheek to the offender who has already beat one in the left cheek:

“The left cheek now offers a perfect target for a blow with the right fist; but only equals fought with fists, as we know from Jewish sources, and the last thing the master wishes to do is establish this underling’s equality. This act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in this relationship” (Wink, 1999, p. 102).

The way out supposed by Wink (1999) is very logical and innovative, giving both the freedom of action to a Christian, but letting him or she has an alternative standpoint about good and bad events occurring in each person’s life. Wink (1999) explains that the Bible in its original, true meaning supposes that people should not make enemies of those who have done evil to them, but should give them space for transformation, as every person in the world has capabilities for improvement and change for the good (p. 101). Thus, the “Jesus’ Third Way” is the new interpretation of redemptive violence as an empty and wrong dogma. The “Jesus’ Third Way”, instead, offers the way of non-violent change and resistance to violence and aggression, which includes positive and constructive efforts to transform bad objects, people, and institutions into good ones (Wink, 1999, p. 98).

Coming to personal critical remarks, one can consider it appropriate to note that the book is truly transformative and innovative for all Christians, all believers who were critical about adopting either a violent response or passive submissiveness to aggression from the powers that rule the world. Brussat and Brussat (n.d.), for example, characterize the work as “ethically challenging reframing of angels, demons, principalities, and powers”, which is totally true about the book. Since it is not a new dogma, and not a new rule or direction for people, but an interpretation of what most believers already know, it offers much space for personal reflections and considerations.

Reflecting on the present book, I may personally say that it produced a tremendous impression on me as I was reading it, realizing from chapter to chapter that there are some ways to fight the injustice, evil, and aggression in a positively easy and non-violent way. I found so much new about interpretations of Biblical truths, and I was excited about how much it explained in Christianity. It is by means of such books like the work of Wink (1999) that people can learn to pursue their religious beliefs correctly and thoughtfully, for their own delight and pleasure, for their spirituality, and not to be misguided by false assumptions and propaganda.

References

Brussat, F., & Brussat, M.A. (n.d.). Book Review: The Powers That Be. Theology for a New Millennium.Spirituality Practice. Web.

Wink, W. (1999). The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

The Black Liberation Theology, which originated in black churches of the United States, contexualizes Christianity in such a way that it manages to give religious, political, and economic freedom to people of color. Black people are subjected to multiple injustices as a result of segregation. It interconnects the power of liberation to the essence of the Gospel. Thus, the principles of Christianity overlap with human and civil rights. The idea of equality in the face of God is the major point of connection between the Black Theology and the Black Power Movement. Nothing could be more important for Black Liberation Theology.

Thus, I will argue throughout this newsletter, despite the fact that the text of the Holy Scriptures was often misused by advocates of racism and segregation to justify slavery, it was the indubitable power of the Gospel that inspired millions of black slaves to struggle for freedom. This is the ultimate goal of the Black Church. The way it chooses to achieve it is non-violent and is connected only with inspiring people to obtain what they deserve as Christians regardless of their background.

The Black Church did not directly initiate the Black Power Movement. Yet, saw the victims of the oppression as catalysts for the change that was inspired by the theological perspective of liberation. According to Warnock, the theological meaning of the Black Power Movement and the Black Theology was integrated gradually, in four steps, into which the history of the Black Church can be subdivided. These are: 1) Christianization – “the formation of a liberationist faith”, which “endeavored to work out an antiracist and holistically salvific appropriation of Christian faith.”¹ 2) Institutionalization – “the founding of a liberationist church.”² 3) Conscientization – a church-led liberationist movement (the civil rights movement). 4) Systematization – the development of “a liberationist theology” or Black Theology addressing the mission of the Black Church.³

The divided mind and mission of the Black Church is explained not by the attempt to find equality where there is none. Rather, the division is due to the difficulty to hold together the holy and civil sides. The problem is that any struggle for rights has a strong potential to be aggravated to the point of an armed conflict, which is contrary to the ideas of tolerance and peace promoted by the church. There is no ambiguity to be found in the Bible concerning the issue of freedom and equal status of people regardless of their race – it clearly states that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). To this point, as Christians, we have a human responsibility to fight for the rights that are granted by God and evidenced in the Holy Scriptures.

Therefore, the Holy Scriptures fully reflect the idea of standing behind the Black Church but do not specify its exact mission. There arises a question formulated by Raphael Warnock in his book The Divided Mind of the Black Church: As a community formed in memory of Jesus Christ and informed by the gospels, what is it that makes it a faithful and authentic witness, and what exactly is it called to do?”⁴ To answer this question, we should place it in the context of the killings experienced by the African-American population. This leads us to the notion of “the memory of Jesus”, which is “the distinctive resonance that occurs when the church is one built by slaves and formed, from its beginning, at the center of an oppressed community’s fight for personhood and freedom.”⁵

Jesus, in his turn, sacrificed his life in order to redeem people’s sins making it possible to create the world free of oppression and inequality as all people are equal in the face of God. Thus, the Black Church not only reflects the mission of Jesus that consists of saving souls and spreading the word of God but also expands it to the idea of comprehensive liberation including liberation from sin, political oppression, and even sexual restrictions. All the enumerated aspects of freedom constitute the overall liberation that makes the soul and body free. To sum it up, the Black Church with its “double-consciousness” strives to integrate the notion of slavery and sociopolitical freedom into the idea of individual salvation achieved through piety and faith. Its mission is both the liberation of souls and the elimination of social injustices that the black community has to experience despite being granted equal rights by God.

Both the slavery of sin and the sin of slavery are addressed in the Biblical text, either directly or indirectly, as diminishing the soul regardless of the fact that the Scriptures were often accused of promoting the idea of inequality of races in the face of Jesus Christ. Principally, we can be either slave of sin as our natural state of body and mind or slaves of Christ.

The analogy with the slave, which is translated as “servant” in many versions of the Bible is based on the idea of submission to the master because of the inability to control your destiny. When the sin is our master, we cannot resist it and allow it to ruin our soul. Only the power of Christ can help overcome the power of sin. In contrast, the sin of slavery is not directly explained in the text of the Bible. The major difference in understanding of the notion is that slavery of the Biblical times was purely economic as people sold themselves when they could not pay their debts. This had nothing to do with their skin color. The Bible condemns race-based slavery indirectly, by teaching that all men and women were created equal in the image of God.⁶

Thus, the two viewpoints are connected by the idea of sin as an obstacle to soul salvation. The difference is that the slavery of sin is a more general notion that covers all possible sins. Whereas, the sin of slavery is mostly connected with the deadly sin of arrogance that makes people find others inferior on the basis of their racial identity. Thus, the double-consciousness allowing us to have double standards for us and people of different backgrounds actually lead us to the sin of slavery.

This view regarding the Black Church’s motivation for the struggle is supported by James Cone in his book The Cross and the Lynching Tree. In chapter three, he gives the story of Emit Till and his mother, Mamie Till, who was encouraged by her faith to put an end to injustice by the power of the Gospel. Cone demonstrates an irony of the great power of the cross that is alleviated by the disappointment in the face of the tragedy of the lynching tree. Cone compares the experience of Till’s mother to Job’s suffering. Mamie Till came to the conclusion that the death of her son was not in vain as it triggered the liberation movement. Cone also touches upon the life of Martin Luther King as another person who endured a lot of hardships in order to reconcile the message of Christ with the lynching tree injustice.⁷ For instance, when he had to go to prison for his views.

Therefore, Black Theology was far from violence that was sometimes practiced by the Black Power Movement to achieve empowerment. It inspired people to reconcile themselves with their position promoting the idea of peaceful liberation. I firmly believe that the Black Church will stay committed to its mission and will continue to promote justice and equality. The Black Theology placed in the context of modernity will not necessarily become relativistic, which means that it would promote double standards trying to stay afloat. It will rather modify its methods and objectives but its ultimate goal will remain the same. As soon as it reaches profound self-understanding, it will contribute to intercultural theological comprehension. Is experience may be used by representatives of other confessions seeking the ways of liberation.

Footnotes

1. Raphael G. Warnock, The Divided Mind of The Black Church, 10.
2. Ibid., 32.
3. Ibid., 33.
4. Raphael G. Warnock, The Divided Mind of The Black Church (New York: NYU Press, 2013), 1.
5. Ibid., 2.
6. Holy Bible, 1. Provide Biblical reference in parentheses in text to stay consistent.
7. James H. Cone, “Bearing the Cross and Staring down the Lynching Tree,” in The Cross and the Lynching Tree (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2013), 66-92.