Sexuality and Christian Tradition

This essay aims to clarify the debate over same‐sex unions by comparing it to the fourth‐century conflict concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. Although some suppose that the council of Nicaea reiterated what Christians had always believed, the Nicene theology championed by Athanasius was a dramatic innovation that only won out through protracted struggle. Similarly, despite the widespread assumption that Christian tradition univocally condemns homosexuality, the concept of sexuality is a nineteenth‐century invention with no exact analogue in the ancient world. Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is addressed directly in Christian tradition; for this reason, the significance of older authorities for the modern debate is necessarily indirect. The dichotomy between progressive and conservative positions is therefore misguided: it is necessary neither to abandon tradition for the sake of progress nor to oppose innovation for the sake of fidelity.     

James Baldwin,Christian Ethics,and the Recovery of Tradition

This essay uses James Baldwin’s thought about racism and homophobia as a critical lens for thinking about some influential strands of Christian ethics. The first part shows how Baldwin understood racism and homophobia and related them to one another by framing them as instances of spirit/flesh dualism and as effects of Christian supremacy. The second part relies on Baldwin’s categories to analyze and juxtapose the thought of select neo-Anabaptist and neo-Augustinian social ethicists. Like Baldwin, the ethicists I engage respond to the distorting power of Christian supremacy and of spirit/flesh dualism. Unlike Baldwin, these ethicists frame their response to Christian supremacy and dualism as a recovery of a more authentic or faithful Christian tradition. Baldwin, who often relied rhetorically and morally on Christian claims and frequently called on Christians to reflect the example of Jesus and the precepts of love, related to the tradition from the perspective of someone who had become an outsider to the church. He tended to focus instead on what the problems he described reflected about Christianity. The contrast with Baldwin helps identify two distinct retrieval strategies, which characterize the neo-Anabaptist and neo-Augustinian ethicists I discuss. One strategy seeks to preserve the integrity of Christian faith, and the other seeks to protect its essential decency. In what follows, I highlight some of the weaknesses of these approaches to tradition retrieval.     

基督教传统对美国政治、社会的认知及影响

基督教传统从北美大陆殖民地时期开始就一直主导着这一地区的政治倾向和社会发展,在确立了政教分离的建国原则后,这一传统在影响美国政治与社会发展的进程中,也在不断适应着变化的时代。本文以美国历史为主线,分析了不同历史时期基督教传统对政治体制、社会变迁等问题作出的认知与判断,并简述其对美国政治领域和社会领域的影响。     

John Wesley's Doctrine of Grace in Light of the Christian Tradition

This ecumenically minded article explores Wesley's understanding of grace both in its relation to experience – inward religion – and in relation to his doctrines of justification and sanctification. Wesley's treatments of justification and sanctification are compared to those of Luther, Calvin and Trent. His unique and ecumenical blending of traditions allowed Wesley to develop a doctrine of grace which offers significant resources to contemporary understandings of Christian life and practice.     

Aquinas's Opposition to Killing the Innocent and its Distinctiveness within the Christian just War Tradition

This essay argues that Aquinas's position regarding the killing of innocent people differs significantly from other representatives of the Christian just war tradition. While his predecessors, notably Augustine, as well as his successors, from Cajetan and Vitoria onward, affirm the legitimacy of causing the death of innocents in a just war in cases of necessity, Aquinas holds that causing the death of innocents in a foreseeable manner, whether intentionally or indirectly, is never justified. Even an otherwise legitimate act of just war cannot legitimate causing the death of innocent people, as this can never advance the common good. This stance also contrasts sharply with much modern and contemporary double effect theorizing in relation to jus in bello. In this regard, Aquinas's position, shaped decisively by his biblical and theological commitments, may point the way towards an ethical orientation beyond the typical divisions of “pacifism” and “just war.”     

Globalisation and global justice

The discussion about justice has often been limited to a specific territory, i.e. a nation. However, globalisation has undermined the relevance of this presupposition. John Rawls's theory of justice is a starting point for contemporary discussions about justice. But, contrary to Rawls's view, principles of global justice should not only include principles of non-interference and respect for universal human rights, but also a principle of democratic legitimacy of global governance and a principle of global distributive justice. The notion of global justice is not uncontroversial. It is argued that the meaning of justice differs between different communities and, thus, one cannot hope for a universal approval of the concept of global justice, that a principle of global distributive justice does not take into account that global differences in wealth are caused by differences in the ambitions of individuals and nations and that the idea of global justice overlooks crucial institutional differences between a nation and the global situation. However, these arguments are not conclusive.     

On the Christian in Christian bioethics.

What is Christian about Christian bioethics? And is an authentically Christian bioethics a practical possibility in the world in which we find ourselves? In my essay I argue that personhood and the personal are so fundamental to the Christian understanding of our humanity that body, soul, and spirit are probably best understood as the components of a triune (as opposed to dual) aspect theory of personhood. To confess to a Christian bioethics is to admit that Christians cannot pretend fully to understand either cures or their meaning. However effective and "knowledge-based" contemporary medical interventions are, a Christian must humbly and honestly confess a lack of complete knowledge on both levels. At the same time, a Christian bioethicist must express a total personal commitment to Christian Faith.