Empirical theology and methodology

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

With the use of the questionnaire within my PhD project, this type of approach is considered empirical (based on experience and observation, through physical senses) theology, which is an aspect of practical theology. I shall explain in brief terms where I support and do not support this type of theological approach.

Definitions (in my own words, as I have been taught at Wales):

Practical theology:

Charles E. Winquest describes practical theology as the theological specialty that deals with, and is grounded in theory and practice and the need to bring self-consciousness to ministry. Winquest (1987: 1).

Don Browning writes that practical theology should be a public enterprise that consists of theological reflection on church ministry in the world and should also deal with the theology of professional ministerial activity within the church. Browning (1985)(2005: 2).

Paul Ballard and John Pritchard note that it is a particular field of theology that specifically deals with Christian life and practice within the Church community and in relation to society. Ballard and Pritchard (2001: 1).

Empirical theology:

Leslie J. Francis explains that an element of practical theology is the use of empirical data. Francis (2005: 1).

William Dean reasons that empirical theology begins with a particular speculative view of life, which in turn leads to the use of the empirical method. Dean (1990: 85-102).

Clive Erricker, Danny Sullivan and Jane Erricker comment that empirical theology questions how theology relates to social sciences. Erricker, Sullivan and Erricker (1994: 6-7).

Empirical Methodology

The disciplines of the social sciences will be applied as methodology for studying practical and empirical theology. Francis (2005: 2-3). The work of practical and empirical theology can be tested by the social sciences. Francis (2005: 4). For R. Ruard Ganzevoort, theology is a forum where various scientific disciplines meet. Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 2). Hans-Gunter Heimbrock notes that since religion and faith is experimental within empirical theology, the social sciences have been used to examine social dynamics, conditions and contexts of religious life. Heimbrock (2005: 273-299). Karl E. Peters reasons that empirical theology is like science in that it affirms naturalism, accepts limitations on human knowledge, and therefore makes all religious knowledge tentative. Peters (1992: 297-325). Y. Krikorian provides the idea that nature contains nothing supernatural, and that the scientific method should be used to explain all aspects of reality, including those assumed to be ‘spiritual’. Krikorian (1944)(2007: 1).

My approach to empirical theology:

I can support practical theology in general terms, as it complements Biblical doctrines, philosophical theology and theory and explains practical application of theology for those within the Christian Church. Practical theology can assist professional theologians, and likely even more so, professional pastors in applying doctrines and theory from the Bible in every day life for those that attend Christian churches. I can support empirical theology as a form of practical theology that provides questionnaire propositions within a survey and then takes the data from respondents and analyses how Biblical doctrines and philosophical theology are being interpreted within the church. This can lead to changes of presentation and application of doctrines, but in my view, should not alter the doctrines themselves.

I do not support notions of empirical theology that view theology as strictly experimental and speculative. Within my moderate conservative, Reformed perspective, I reason that God has revealed himself supernaturally in Scripture and that he has provided doctrines and theology that correctly reflect his will and plans for the world and church. J.S. Whale writes that all Christians believe in the Bible as God’s word and that Scripture provides testimony rooted in history. Whale (1958: 17). Through Scripture God has taken the initiative to make himself known in an understandable way for human beings. Erickson (1994: 198). The Bible is therefore the primary and supreme source of theological understanding. Erickson (1994: 36). This means the empirical data will not equal or surpass Scripture in explaining God’s plans for humanity.

Since I reason that God has revealed himself in Scripture, essential and primary Biblical doctrines taken from a textual evaluation of Scripture are therefore not tentative. There is Biblical truth that God revealed to selected persons for them to write down and theology should be primarily developed based on God’s revelation. Granted, no two human theologies will be exactly the same as persons process information in different ways, but Scripture exists in order to provide a consistent message to humanity. Therefore, primary doctrines within Christianity should be agreed upon by all that take a contextual, grammatical, and historical evaluation of the Bible seriously. Naturalism assumes that nature is viewed as the fundamental and original source for all that exists, and therefore all reality needs to be explained in terms of nature. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). All events find an adequate explanation within nature itself. Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Thiessen explains that since naturalism holds that nature is the whole of reality, everything that occurs is due to the laws of nature. Thiessen (1956: 186). He comments that Scripture recognizes the existence of the laws of nature, but it is reasoned that they do not operate independently of God. Thiessen (1956: 186). With Thiessen’s concept naturalists and Christians would not necessarily disagree on scientific facts, but those who trust in New Testament revelation would reason that God is the revealed supernatural source behind nature. In Romans 1:18-32, through natural theology, God is viewed as revealing himself as the creator. God cannot be demonstrated empirically as the cause of matter, since God is spirit in nature (John 4:24), and his existence cannot be proven through the use of a scientific test using matter. However, God has revealed himself supernaturally in Scripture, in human history, and this serves as the primary evidence for his existence within Christian thought. God's special revelation provides salvation for the elect through the Holy Spirit and Scripture, and natural revelation provides evidence for all, of God's existence.

BALLARD, PAUL AND JOHN PRITCHARD (2001) Practical Theology in Action, London, SPCK.

BROWNING, DON S. (1985)(2005) ‘Practical Theology and Political Theology’, Theology Today, Volume 42, Number 1, Article 2, Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary.http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-article2.htm.

DEAN, WILLIAM (1990) ‘Empirical Theology: A Revisable Tradition’, in Process Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 85-102, Claremont, California, The Center for Process Studies.http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2791.

DUBRAY, C.A. (1911)(2007) ‘Naturalism’ in New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, Robert Appleton Company.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERRICKER, CLIVE, DANNY SULLIVAN, AND JANE ERRICKER (1994) ‘The Development of Children’s Worldviews, Journal of Beliefs and Values, London, Routledge

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor.http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/ptunit/definition.php.

GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2004)(2005) ‘Van der Ven’s Empirical/Practical Theology and the Theological Encyclopedia’, in Hermans, pp.53-74, C.A.M. & Moore M.E. (eds), Amsterdam.http://www.ruardganzevoort.nl/a04vdven.htm.

HEIMBROCK, HANS-GUNTER (2005) ‘From Data to Theory: Elements of Methodology in Empirical Phenomenological Research in Practical Theology’ in International Journal of Practical Theology, Volume 9, December, Berlin, Walter D. Gruyter.
KRIKORIAN, K. (1944)(2007) (ed.), Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York, Columbia University Press, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

PETERS, KARL, E. (1992) ‘Empirical Theology in the Light of Science, in The Journal of Religion and Sciencee, Volume 27 Issue 3 Page 297-325, September, Oxford, Zygon, Blackwell Publishing.http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9744.1992.tb01068.x

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=586&C=850

The problem of evil: Defence vs. Theodicy

Tofino, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Restoration Why Later 

I had the vitrectomy and lens replacement please see section D of post above. June 21, 2012 Before I discuss my work of the problem evil, I will explain that I have decided after over a year and a half of research, and discussing my vitreous floaters with seven ophthalmologists and my local general practitioner, not to pursue the vitrectomy and the related cataract and lens replacement surgery. A major problem is that with my amblyopic, long eye, by the surgeon’s standards, there is a significant risk of retinal detachment at 5% to 15% with the vitrectomy, and a significant risk of retinal detachment with the cataract surgery as well. I do not want to risk blindness in one eye, or having my eye end up in a jar. The doctors have mentioned these risks to me. I have decided to wait and see if the floaters do eventually sink below my line of sight, or if in the next few years there is a new and better treatment for severe floaters, such as eye injections which one surgeon suggested. 

In the meantime, I have purchased a pair of polarized Ray-Bans (Black: RB3293) to wear while typing on the computer and for bright room, and future public speaking. The Ray-Bans block out much light and the floaters are significantly less noticeable. I am now the Bono, or Ringo of theological blogging. Don’t hate me because I look cool, it is just floaters! So, I have skipped the opportunity to, while under local anesthetic, have a portion of the back of my eye scraped away, while hopefully not dislodging the retina that is a bit back further in the eye. I suppose some of you are disappointed that since the vitrectomy will not take place, I will not be posting photos.;) Please let me know your disappointment. Remember, in a previous posting concerning vitreous floaters, a commenter stated that he would be pursing the vitrectomy soon, but he may not have an amblyopic eye and therefore faces less risks. www.dvra.net/dvra_vitrectomy.jpg

 

If one studies the problem of evil thoroughly he/she will come across the issue of a defence in regard to the problem, and a theodicy that deals with the problem. Theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and perfectly good God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists. Alvin C. Plantinga differentiates between his own free will defence and a free will theodicy. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He states that his defence is mainly a logical presentation, attempting to maintain logical consistency, whereas theodicy is more dogmatic in approach, Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). Within my MPhil and PhD dissertations, I view defence and theodicy as equally speculative. Philip L. Quinn notes that Plantinga’s view of a defence in contrast to theodicy means Plantinga does not speculate on God’s reasons for permitting evil, but merely argues that God’s existence is logically consistent with the problem of evil. Quinn (1996: 611). I agree with Quinn, somewhat. Plantinga is mainly arguing that God’s existence can be shown as logical in regard to the problem of evil with his defence; however, Plantinga as does every scholar with any type of explanation for the topic of the problem of evil, speculates within his defence. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 45-59). This type of speculation is perhaps not done as forcefully as some in theodicy. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). 

I therefore reason that a defence can be reviewed under the umbrella of theodicy and do so within my PhD dissertation. Theodicy is by nature somewhat speculative and therefore, theodicy, like a defence, is also dealing with a possible reason for God to permit evil. A theodicy may be more dogmatic than Plantinga’s defence in its assertions and arguments, but it is still speculative, as is my own work on theodicy. Plantinga comments that one who writes a theodicy assumes that it is true, while one who writes a defense is stating that it is possibly true. Plantinga (1982: 192). However, even a person writing the theodicy does not have exhaustive knowledge of God and his reasoning in regard to the problem, and I therefore conclude that theodicy and defence are both equally speculative, although perhaps not equally dogmatic. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, Robert Audi (ed.), in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Fatalism

Edinburgh, Scotland (photo from trekearth.com)

Edinburgh: 1995

I find a rare Jazz Fusion unofficial CD, featuring an artist I was looking for at a flea market. I explain this to the seller and he states. ‘It was fate’ with a strong Scottish accent. ‘Pardon’ I said, ‘It was fate’, he stated. I thought he had said ‘It was fiit’.

Last week someone at church asked me if my views within my MPhil and PhD dissertations, which feature compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, are equated with fatalism. I reason that I do not hold to fatalism. Here is a comparison between compatibilism/soft determinism, fatalism and hard determinism. Thanks to Big D for the idea.

Compatibilism/soft determinism:

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

Fatalism compared with hard determinism:

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137). Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for determined actions as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

Fatalism should not be equated with compatibilism/soft determinism, but if fatalism states that no human actions can influence or cause events, and hard determinism holds that human beings do not cause actions or are morally responsible, there is clearly a similarity in definitions. D.G. Bloesch explains that fate is not chance, but instead is cosmic determinism that has no meaning or purpose. Bloesch (1996: 407). He writes that fate/fatalism would differ from a Christian idea of divine providence and its implied use of determinism, in that fatalism is impersonal and irrational, whereas providence is personal and rational. Bloesch (1996: 407). Thiessen comments that fatalism is not determinism because fatalism holds that all events are caused by fate, and not natural causes, and nothing can change these events. Determinism in contrast, holds that all events occur by necessity. Thiessen (1956: 186). Compatibilism and soft determinism does hold that what God determines must happen by necessity, but reasons that rational beings with a significant use of free will are not coerced or forced to commit acts, which must occur by necessity. A person can hold to hard determinism and believe that God determined all events without the significant use of free will of rational creatures, and a fatalist can also believe that events are determined without the use of significant free will of rational creatures, and yet this is caused without any meaning, and without the understanding that God or any rational entity is behind these events.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Fatalism’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 137. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLOESCH, D. (1996) ‘Fate, Fatalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland.
http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/PGreenspan/Res/gen2.html

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/religious-album-covers-iii.html

Vitreous Floaters and PhD updates

Fraser River, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Restoration Why Later
I had the vitrectomy and lens replacement please see section D of post above.

June 21, 2012

Vitreous Floaters update

In my August archives one can find my article entitled ‘Vitreous Floaters’. My floaters have nothing to do with cancer.
http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/umlsdef.asp?glngUserChoice=31270
Vitreous floaters:
"A blurry spot that appears to float around in the eye but does not block vision. The blur is the result of debris from the vitreous humour casting a shadow on the retina."Source: National Cancer Institute Thesaurus, 2006_03D

Vitreous floaters:
"Floaters; spots before the eyes caused by opaque cell fragments in the vitreous humor or lens."
Source: National Cancer Institute Thesaurus, 2006_03D

I have visited several eye surgeons here in the Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver) and my local surgeon/ophthalmologist provided the reference in order that I could go ahead and pursue a vitrectomy from a surgeon in Vancouver, as my local surgeon/ophthalmologist does not perform a vitrectomy.
http://www.stlukeseye.com/Surgical/Vitrectomy.asp
Vitrectomy

Overview

The vitreous is a normally clear, gel-like substance that fills the center of the eye. It makes up approximately 2/3 of the eye's volume, giving it form and shape before birth. Certain problems affecting the back of the eye may require a vitrectomy, or surgical removal of the vitreous. After a vitrectomy, the vitreous is replaced as the eye secretes aqueous and nutritive fluids.

A vitrectomy may be performed to clear blood and debris from the eye, to remove scar tissue, or to alleviate traction on the retina. Blood, inflammatory cells, debris, and scar tissue obscure light as it passes through the eye to the retina, resulting in blurred vision. The vitreous is also removed if it is pulling or tugging the retina from its normal position.

I visited with the surgeon in Vancouver and he stated that there was a 5-10% chance of retinal detachment from a vitrectomy since I have an amblyopic (weak eye) right eye. Retinal detachment is defined below.
http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/retinaldetach/index.asp
What is retinal detachment?The retina is the light-sensitive layer of tissue that lines the inside of the eye and sends visual messages through the optic nerve to the brain. When the retina detaches, it is lifted or pulled from its normal position. If not promptly treated, retinal detachment can cause permanent vision loss.
In some cases there may be small areas of the retina that are torn. These areas, called retinal tears or retinal breaks, can lead to retinal detachment.

Since there is significant chance of detachment by a medical definition, I was asked to get a second opinion from the surgeon across the hall in the Vancouver office. I went yesterday and this slightly more experienced surgeon/ophthalmologist stated there was a 15% chance of a retinal detachment since my right eye, which has the more serious floaters, is amblyopic. This doctor stated that 95% of the time a retinal detachment can be fixed, but I know that things are always different after a surgery, and the eye would not be exactly like it was prior to having floaters. He stated categorically, unlike any of the other surgeons I have visited, that the floaters in both eyes will all eventually sink below my line of sight. I had read that floaters can sink below the line of sight, and he agreed with my suggestion that in ten years that floaters would not be seen anymore. He stated that the vitreous jell shrinks and the floaters will therefore sink below my sight line, in particular in my myopic (near sighted), amblyopic (weak eye) sooner than in my 20 vision left eye. The right eye has by far more floaters, and previously had a large clump in it, which was destroyed by Dr. Scott Geller in Fort Myers, Florida with a YAG laser.
http://www.vitreousfloaters.com/

If this doctor with the second opinion is correct, I am seriously considering holding off on surgeries and I will continue to wear dark sun glasses as I work on the computer (now) and when I am outside, which I do because of light sensitivity anyway. I can see over the next year or so if things improve. There is another consideration as a vitrectomy leads to a cataract, which is a clouding of the lens. A lens replacement with my myopic, amblyopic eye is possible, but the question is how much increased or decreased double vision will there be with a new lens. I will visit the cataract surgeon soon.

PhD update

I received good news today. I was without an academic advisor for 8-9 months, as my original advisor changed jobs. Today, Wales sent me a letter stating that I received a 12 month extension from the last day of this year. This is excellent as I now probably have three months work to do in thirteen months, but trust me I am going to try hard to get it done in three months.

I would be interested in reading comments and entering discussion, in regard to the chart below. But of course feel free to comment on other blog related topics.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_judaism.htm

History & Stats	Christianity	Judaism
date founded	c. 30 AD	c. 1300 BC
place founded	Palestine	Palestine
founders & early leaders	Jesus, Peter, Paul	Abraham, Moses
original languages	Aramaic and Greek	Hebrew
major location today	Europe, North and South America	Europe, Israel, North America
adherents worldwide today	2 billion	14 million
adherents in USA	159 million	5.6 million
adherents in Canada	21 million	350,000
adherents in UK	51 million	320,000
current size rank	largest	12th largest
major branches	Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant	Orthodox, Conservative, Reform
Religious Authority	Christianity	Judaism
sacred text	Bible = Old Testament (Jewish Bible) + New Testament	Tanakh (Jewish Bible)
inspiration of sacred text	views vary: literal word of God, inspired human accounts, or of human origin only	views vary: inspired human accounts or of human origin only
status of biblical prophets	true prophets	true prophets
status of Jewish Bible	canonical	canonical
status of Jewish Apocrypha	canonical (Catholic); useful but noncanonical (Protestant)	noncanonical but useful
status of New Testament	canonical	noncanonical, not useful
other written authority	church fathers, church councils, ecumenical creeds (all branches); papal decrees, canon law (Catholic)	Talmud, halakhah
modern human authorities	pope (Catholic); each Christian with aid of Holy Spirit (Protestant)	rabbis
summaries of doctrine	Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed	13 Articles of Faith
Beliefs & Doctrine	Christianity	Judaism
ultimate reality	one God, Jehovah, the God of Abraham	one God, Jehovah, the God of Abraham
nature of God	Trinity - one substance, three persons	unity - one substance, one person
other spiritual beings	angels and demons	angels and demons
revered humans	saints, church fathers	prophets
identity of Jesus	Son of God, God incarnate, savior of the world	false prophet
birth of Jesus	virgin birth	normal birth
death of Jesus	death by crucifixion	death by crucifixion
resurrection of Jesus	affirmed	denied
second coming of Jesus	affirmed	denied
divine revelation	through Prophets and Jesus (as God Himself), recorded in Bible	through Prophets, recorded in Bible
human nature	"original sin" inherited from Adam - tendency towards evil	two equal impulses, one good and one bad
means of salvation	correct belief, faith, good deeds, sacraments (some Protestants emphasize faith alone)	belief in God, good deeds
God's role in salvation	predestination, various forms of grace	divine revelation and forgiveness
good afterlife	eternal heaven	views vary: either heaven or no afterlife
bad afterlife	eternal hell, temporary purgatory (Catholicism)	views vary: either eternal Gehenna, reincarnation, or no afterlife
view of the other religion	Judaism is a true religion, but with incomplete revelation.	Christianity is a false interpretation of Judaism.
Rituals & Practices	Christianity	Judaism
house of worship	church, chapel, cathedral, basilica, meeting hall	synagogue, temple, schul
religious leaders	priest, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, pope, pastor, minister, preacher, deacon	rabbi, rebbe
sacred rituals	sacraments	mitzvot (commandments)
major sacred rituals	baptism, communion (Eucharist)	observing Sabbath, wearing tallit and tefilin, prayer services
head covered during prayer?	generally no	generally yes (especially men)
central religious holy days	Lent, Holy Week, Easter	Yom Kippur, Days of Awe, Passover
other holidays	Christmas, saints days	Chanukah, Purim
major symbols	cross, crucifix, dove, anchor, fish, alpha and omega, chi rho, halo	Star of David, chai, hamsa, tree

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/busted-unlike-beckham.html

Theology and Religion

Blue Mountains, Sydney

photo from Richard Cross

Richard's website:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_richard_x/

My dialogue with Rick in the comments in the last article has provided some ideas for this article. We were discussing academic and common evangelical ways of interpreting the word ‘religion’. Religion can be correctly understood in evangelical circles as human attempts to know God, whereas Biblical Christianity originates from God revealing himself to humanity in Scripture. I can agree with this explanation, but since I am completing a PhD at a major secular University, I must be prepared to use academic definitions. I am sharing in small amounts some of my dissertation material on this academic philosophical theology blog.

According to S.A.Nigosian, religion is derived from the Latin religio, but its etymology is disputed. Some scholars have tried to connect religio with other Latin terms such relegere (to reread) relinquere (to relinquish), and religare (to relegate, to unite, to bind together). The last word has often been connected to religio, but overall this is too narrow of an approach. Nigosian (1994: 1). Nigosian notes that the term religion has little significance to non-Western persons, who would view religion as some type of relationship between God and human beings. Nigosian (1994: 1-2). Lewis M. Hopfe explains also that the word religion comes from the Latin religio, which refers to fear or awe one feels when in the presence of a spirit or a god. Hopfe (1991: 3). Hopfe writes that religions often deal with the relationship between the unseen world of spirits, demons, and gods, have a system of myths and attempt to commune and appease these unseen forces, are organized and have places of worship and scripture, have statements about the afterlife, and have some type of following. Hopfe (1991: 7). Nigosian comes up with a definition, which states that religion is the creative activity of the human mind that satisfies inherent spiritual needs. Nigosian (1994: 6). Although I acknowledge these are acceptable academic definitions, and would be suitable for my PhD dissertation and questionnaire, they do not accurately fully describe my philosophical theology. There is definitely an element of Christian theology, which understands human beings as seeking to learn more about God, but within my Reformed perspective this would take place through the guidance of God’s Spirit. It has been stated repeatedly on this blog in several ways that God predestines those who shall follow Christ as in Ephesians 1:4-12, and that God makes the choice to regenerate a certain individual and moulds a person through the work of the Holy Spirit to freely believe. Following Christ is not a human choice primarily, but I do not believe persons follow Christ through compulsion. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). A person is regenerated by God’s choice and freely believes simultaneously. Therefore in the context of this blog, the term religion may suffice in a limited way to describe Christianity as one theological perspective among many claiming to be true, but in a deeper sense the term religion fails to adequately deal with many aspects of my philosophical theology. It must be remembered that when one is writing academic material there needs to be objectivity used at all times and in certain contexts by classifying Christianity as religion in enables the reader to understand that the writer at least can intellectually grant that many in the world, both scholars and students, view Christianity as merely a religion among many. My writings will of course counter this understanding, but the use of the term religion can allow the Christian theologian to enter Biblical Christianity into the debate among what are deemed as world religions, and then respectfully argue for the truth of Christian theological systems.

My approach in dealing with the term ‘religion’ demonstrates how this blog works. On one hand, the material is academic and slightly watered down from what appears in my PhD, and on the other hand, I attempt to make it as readable and relatable as possible to scholars and students alike who may read and comment on this blog. Satire and theology deals with this material at times as well, but I have opted there to make the articles shorter and with less use of citation. On thekingpin68, however, I am dedicated to this being an academic, philosophical theology blog from which I learn more about theology and related subjects, and hopefully help some others. The tension of remaining true to academic criteria and also being understandable to the average reader will always exist. This will take continued learning for all involved in this blog, for myself and my readers and those who comment. But, 1 Peter 3:15 tells the believer to always be ready to give a defense to everyone that asks, and therefore Christians, both scholars and student alike are compelled to learn everlastingly.

On a side note, I am interested with linking in blog links with others. If anyone is considering placing a link to this blog (and/or satire and theology) on your blog or website, I would seriously considering linking you back.

Cheers

Russ:)

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/facebook-quotes-2-post-halloween_01.html