Holiness, virtue, and social justice: contrasting understandings of the moral life.

Being a Christian involves metaphysical, epistemological, and social commitments that set Christians at variance with the dominant secular culture. Because Christianity is not syncretical, but proclaims the unique truth of its revelations, Christians will inevitably be placed in some degree of conflict with secular health care institutions. Because being Christian involves a life of holiness, not merely living justly or morally, Christians will also be in conflict with the ethos of many contemporary Christian health care institutions which have abandoned a commitment to Christian spirituality. In this regard, managed care raises the special question of how Christian institutions can act morally under financial constraints and maintain their character while under the control of secular managers. This question itself raises the further question as to why health care institutions need even pose this query when there are Christian physicians and nurses who could work for less, or Christian men and women who could become sisters and brothers and work for nothing. Contemporary challenges to Christians to maintain their integrity in a post-Christian world have much of their force because Christians have failed to maintain traditional Christian sprituality. In the face of that failure, Christian physicans and nurses will find themselves in greater conflict with health care institutions, because few will any longer understand the requirements of traditional Christianity. In its place, they will have put a generic spirituality, a value-neutral understanding of the role of the health professional, and an anonymous commitment to social justice.     

Natural death and the work of perfection.

The historic or traditional Christian view of pain (suffering) and death, especially as preserved by the Christians East (i.e., the Orthodox), is radically opposed to the modern secular obsession with avoidance of pain. Everything about this life has its goal or aim in a mystical reality, the Kingdom of Heaven, for which earthly life is a preparation. While neither illness nor health are seen as ends in themselves, both are viewed as proceeding from the will of God for our benefit and have no ultimate meaning or purpose outside of eternal life. Death may be a relief or an ending of suffering, but in itself it is not "good" but evil. Because they are the embodiment of lived theology, saints' lives can be a sure guide to understanding how to die as a traditional Christian. To illustrate this, I have chosen some examples from the lives of relatively recent saints. I myself am from the Russian Orthodox spiritual tradition, so all but one of my examples come from pre-Revolutionary Russia. The question is not so much whether or not a traditional Christian can countenance physician-assisted suicide, but rather, what is the meaning or purpose of pain and suffering in general. Is it part of the "work of perfection" required of those who wish to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore not to be completely denied?     

Does hope morally vindicate faith?

Much attention in philosophy of religion has been devoted to the question of whether faith is epistemically rational. But is it morally and practically permissible? This paper explores a response to a family of arguments that Christian faith is morally impermissible or practically irrational, even if epistemically justified. After articulating the arguments, I consider how they would fare if they took seriously the traditional notion that genuine faith is always accompanied by Christian hope. I show how the norms of hope regulate Christian faith in such a way that it does not involve, and certainly does not entail, the morally and practically problematic attitudes and behaviors with which it is associated.     

The Problem of Criteria and the Necessity of Natural Theology

Most streams of Christianity have emphasized the unknowability of God, but they have also asserted that Christ is the criterion through whom we may have limited access to the depths of God, and through whose life and death we can formulate the doctrine of God as Triune. This standpoint, however, leads to certain complications regarding ‘translating’ the Christian message to adherents of other religious traditions, and in particular the question, ‘Why do you accept Christ as the criterion?’, is one that Christian thinkers have attempted to answer in different ways. There are two influential responses to this query in recent Christian thought: an ‘evidentialist’ approach which gradually moves from a theistic metaphysics to a Christ‐centred soteriology, and an ‘unapologetic’ standpoint which takes God's self‐disclosure in Christ as the perspectival lens through which to view the world. The opposition between these two groups is primarily over the status of ‘natural theology’, that is, whether we may speak of a ‘natural’ reason, which human beings possess even outside the circle of the Christian revelation, and through which they may arrive at some minimalist understanding of the divine reality. I outline the status of ‘natural theology’ in these strands of contemporary Christian thought, from Barthian ‘Christomonism’ to post‐liberal theology to Reformed epistemology, and suggest certain problems within these standpoints which indicate the need for an appropriately qualified ‘natural theology’. Most of the criticisms leveled against ‘natural theology’, whether from secular philosophers or from Christian theologians themselves, can be put in two groups: first, the arguments for God's existence are logically flawed, and, second, even if they succeed they do not point to the Triune God that Christians worship. In contrast to such an old‐fashioned ‘natural theology’ which allegedly starts from premises self‐evidently true for all rational agents and leads through an inexorable logic to God, the qualified version is an attempt to spell out the doctrinal beliefs of Christianity such as the existence of a personal God who interacts with human beings in different ways, and outline the reasons offered in defence of such statements. In other words, without denying that Christian doctrines operate at one level as the grammatical rules which structure the Christian discourse, such a natural theology insists on the importance of the question of whether these utterances are true, in the sense that they refer to an objective reality which is independent of the Christian life‐world. Such a ‘natural theology’, as the discussion will emphasize, is not an optional extra but follows in fact from the internal logic of the Christian position on the universality of God's salvific reach.     

Christian Bioethics in a Western Europe after Christendom

Europe has taken on a new, post-Christian, if not a somewhatanti-Christian character. The tension between Western Europe'sever more secular present and its substantial Christian pastlies at the heart of Western Europe's current struggle to articulatea coherent cultural and moral identity. The result is that WesternEuropean mainline churches are themselves in the midst of anidentity crisis, thus compounding Western Europe's identitycrisis. Christian bioethics in Europe exists against the backdropof these profound cultural cross currents that define the Europeancondition, engender conflicts regarding the meaning of beingWestern European and being Christian, and bring the public significanceand role of Western European bioethics, especially Western EuropeanChristian bioethics, into question. The dominant culture ofthe public forum is post-Christian and post-traditional, althoughtraditional Christianity still asserts its voice. Denis Müllerin his paper has clarified the choice between a traditional-fundamentalistChristian Bioethics and a revisionist, progressive ChristianBioethics.     

CAN NATURE TRULY BE OUR FRIEND?

Abstract. The question of whether nature can embody love or be considered in this sense as "friend" is a thorny problem for Christian theology. The doctrines of finitude and sin argue against nature as a realm of love, whereas the doctrine of creation out of nothing, which links God and the creation so forcefully, would seem to argue for such a view of nature. This paper explores the thesis that Western culture has not offered a concept of nature rich enough to allow for an understanding of it as a domain of gracious-ness. From pre-Socratic times through the Enlightenment and the rise of modern science, nature was conceived of as a realm of defect or lacking in creative possibilities. Christian theology has consistently spoken of nature in terms that defy the limitations of the authorized views proposed by the ambient Western cultures. The present times, under the influence of the sciences, have furnished for the first time an authorized concept of nature that is large enough and dynamic enough to entertain the dimension of grace. Consequently, ours is a time of great promise for developing a more adequate theology of nature.     

Christian ethics and empirical research

What significance might empirical research have for a constructive theory of Christian ethics? This article discusses this question by bringing results from a concrete empirical study of aspects of Christian ethics into conversation with two theories of the same phenomenon: those of William Schweiker and Stanley Hauerwas/Samuel Wells. After mapping the results of the empirical study to the views offered by the two constructive accounts, I discuss more generally whether empirical studies of this kind can have significance for constructive ethical theory. I discuss three possible objections against such a position: that introducing empirical research to constructive theory of Christian ethics undermines normativity, that it blocks criticism, and that its contributions are likely to be divergent, incoherent and unsystematic, thus adding little of significance to constructive theory. I argue that none of these objections can definitively exclude empirical research from constructive theory. But they certainly have implications concerning not only how empirical research might have significance, but also regarding criteria it must meet in order to legitimately claim constructive relevance. Some concrete suggestions to this effect are launched in a final argumentative move.     

Cultivating Christians: North American family cultures and religious identity formation

North American Christian families face many challenges as they try to live faithfully in an intercultural, multi-religious, secularising world, particularly with regard to the formation of religious identity in children. Answering the question of how children become Christian is more complicated today than it was for previous generations because adults cannot assume that the Christian vestiges of a civil religion will be sufficient to help children embrace a robust sense of themselves as God’s beloved and called people in a divinely created world. Thus, this essay explores what social science research and theological reflection might offer religious leaders as frameworks and tools for encouraging family cultures that cultivate young Christians, focusing particularly on strategies for sharing religious language, communicating beliefs and values, modelling spiritual practices, encountering symbolic images, and participating in congregational life.     

Christian bioethics, secular bioethics, and the claim to cultural authority.

Though the papers in this volume for the most part address the question, "What is Christian about Christian Bioethics", this paper addresses instead a closely related question, "How would a Christian approach to bioethics differ from the kind of secular academic bioethics that has emerged as such an important field in the contemporary university?" While it is generally assumed that a secular bioethics rooted in moral philosophy will be more culturally authoritative than an approach to bioethics grounded in the contingent particularities of a religious tradition, I will give reasons for rejecting this assumption. By examining the history of the recent revival of academic bioethics as well as the state of the contemporary moral philosophy on which it is based I will suggest that secular bioethics suffers from many of the same liabilities as a carefully articulated Christian bioethics. At the end of the paper I will turn briefly to examine the question of how, in light of this discussion, a Christian bioethics might best be pursued.     

The Theological Misappropriation of Christianity as a Civilizing Force

The theological misappropriation of Christianity as a civilizing force occurs when individuals convert to Christianity due to deception that ignores the faith-based aspect of Christianity. The history of Western education in India illustrates the hidden curriculum that Christian missionaries employed to disrupt the Indian educational system. This unnerving pedagogy points to the need for a postcolonial theoretical framework that relates the inescapable hybridity of religion and culture where Orientalism has the potential to occur. To press the ongoing urgency of this discussion, I convey how the history of British India connects to my lived-reality as an American Hindu. Overall, I point to hybridity as a lived paradox of ambiguous conflict that embraces interfaith relations. I offer implications for Christian missionaries today to foster authentic interfaith connections without engaging in colonizing ideologies.     

IN WHAT SENSE EXACTLY DID CHRISTIANITY GIVE US RACIAL SCIENCE?

In my contribution to the interdisciplinary discussion of Terence Keel's study on the Christian roots of modern racial science, I focus on its philosophical assumptions and implications. My primary concern is to relate the findings of this study to recent appraisals of the philosophical notion of a secularized Western modernity. I raise a twofold question: in what sense can one say that traditional Christianity links intimately to modern racial science, and which historiographical decisions inform the substantiation of such links?     

TECHNO‐SECULARISM: COMMENTS AND REFLECTIONS

Abstract. I comment on some of the points made in John Caiazza's thesis on techno‐secularism and offer some of my own further reflections on the subject. Tertullian's rhetorical question about Athens and Jerusalem has universal relevance, not just for Western culture, and, notwithstanding the many positive contributions of science and technology to human culture and civilization, they may not take the place of religion of one kind or another in the foreseeable future. What is needed is to transform religions in ways that meet the challenges of a world drastically transformed by science and technology.     

Is the faith of faith development Christian faith?

The major research with a theological and developmental psychological perspective on the meaning and development of faith has been produced by James Fowler of Emory University and the Candler School of Theology. In this paper, I will present challenges by important critics who pose a significant question. Is this faith of the faith development research Christian faith? To provide an initial answer to the question, I will offer brief summaries of some of Fowler's writings that he has listed as most important for responding to the question. I will also present evidence from his writings and from the writings of other authors that he is indeed interpreting Christian faith.     

Narratives and References

In this article, I will argue that the presentation of Greek ontology as a dichotomy between the intelligible and the material is an oversimplification. Combined with a tendency to place too much stress on the distinction between creator and creation within Christian theology, this oversimplification seems to have led to a overestimation of the dichotomous relationship between Greek philosophy and Christian theology, whereby too much weight is placed on Christian theology as the driving force behind the development of a pessimistic and voluntaristic anthropology. To illustrate this point, I will compare the theology of Origen and Augustine and thereby hope to show the important role of the Roman rhetorical and legal tradition when it comes to the development of Christian theology in Western Europe.     

A critique from within: some important research issues that psychologists of religion and spirituality should further work on

ABSTRACT

Operating from a perspective of an empirical psychologist of religion and spirituality, in this paper, I point to some areas of improvement in our field. Specifically, I (1) briefly target the lack of consensus in defining religion and spirituality; (2) point to the need for answering the crucial question: How unique is religion? (3) tackle the Western/Christian bias of the field; and (4) address three fundamental methodological issues (generalisability, self-report, and cross-sectional design) and their implications for research.     

On Faith,Merit, and Eternal Life

Can eternal life be merited? The traditional Lutheran answer to this question has been negative. However, the question is not as simple as it first seems. For example, recently, Mats Wahlberg has argued that Lutherans should admit that eternal life can be merited, especially if they support the “Finnish Luther interpretation.” Although I find much to commend in Wahlberg's reading, there are at least two problems in his proposal. First, the language of merit is tied to a particular philosophical framework that is not shared ecumenically; and second, all Lutherans do not share all the details of the Finnish reading of Luther. However, both Wahlberg's proposal and the Finnish interpretation of Luther have genuine ecumenical potential if they are developed so that they can address the concerns related to the philosophy of action and Christian life.     

The Other Side of their Zeal

Abstract

This article tracks the harsh reality of homophobia in Korea, focusing on the homophobic rhetoric of Korean Christian fundamentalists. I suggest that the fundamentalists’ homophobic rhetoric can be looked at in line with their attempt to build up their bases of support. Facing the loss of their privileged social status in Korea, the fundamentalists have been seeking out a secure road through which they can survive and regain their influence. What they have found was, in addition to literal belief in the Bible, a political alliance with greater powers, namely, Korean right-wing politics and american Christian fundamentalism. Korean fundamentalists’ homophobic rhetoric reveals a crack through which we can observe how they have served as resident ministers of american Christian fundamentalists’ imperialistic vision of the world. This vision couples with the US government’s military deployments and its projects for global domination—whether it is to be proved as an unqualified failure or not.     

Western Cultural Psychology of Religion: Alternatives to Ideology

This essay is an extended reflection on Belzen’s (2010) groundbreaking book Towards Cultural Psychology of Religion: Principles, Approaches, Applications. We will critically examine the terms culture, psychology, and religion separately and in relation to each other. The question we address is whether unconsciously Western understandings underlie these concepts and then are exported into non-Western cultures. The concept of ‘culture’ may reflect a Western bias and may be injurious when exported if culture means de facto becoming self-consciously modern, remains an abstract idea, reinforces “othering,” and serves to colonize the other. It is proposed that we listen to voices of non-Western scholars as they reflect on what ‘culture’ means to them rather than assuming that the meaning of the word ‘culture’ is universally the same. Second, we examine briefly the ways in which our understanding of religion reflects our Western biases in terms of the presumption of secularization, the meaning of religiousness, the Christian influence on defining religion, the use of religion in Western colonization, and the degree to which religion is defined abstractly. Third, we are concerned that the psychology utilized in the emerging discipline of psychology of religion is Western in that it reflects a capitalist, industrialized, individualistic, and pluralistic culture that may be less present in other cultures and perhaps even eschewed. Further, we think that in various cultures of the world, psychological knowledge emerges less from scientific observation but from the local religious/cultural traditions themselves. Finally, we examine how cultural psychology intersects with religion. We propose a model in which the specific religious cultures nurture the attitudes, emotions, behaviors, and relationships that reflect their critical values.     

Why ecumenism fails: taking theological differences seriously.

Contemporary Christians are separated by foundationally disparate understandings of Christianity itself. Christians do not share one theology, much less a common understanding of the significance of sin, suffering, disease, and death. These foundational disagreements not only stand as impediments to an intellectually defensible ecumenism, but they also form the underpinnings of major disputes in the culture wars, particularly as these are expressed in healthcare. There is not one Christian bioethics of sin, suffering, sickness, and death. In this article, the character of the moral-theological visions separating the various Christianities and thus their bioethics is examined. Particular emphasis is placed on the differences that set contemporary Western theology at odds with the theology of the Christianity of the first millennium. As is shown, the ground for this gulf lies in the divide between traditional and post-traditional views of the appropriate role of philosophy in theology, a difference rooted in disparate understandings of the meaning of church and of the meaning of the logos, the Son of God.     

From Ousia to Sophia: The Patristic and Classical Background to Twentieth‐Century Essentialism and Personalism

Both Classical Greek philosophy and the early Christian theology that often drew upon it reflected a tension in their understanding of essence (ο?σ?α). Was it a concrete thing, something that could assume agency and be related to, or did it refer only to the shared characteristics that reflect things and persons of a common kind? In this article I first establish that this question pertains, mutatis mutandis, to the Platonic forms, as well as to Christian concepts of essence and nature. I then argue that the Christian theology of the conciliar period sided against the reification of essence/nature, noting that their misplaced concreteness resulted in problematic doctrines. In conclusion I briefly explore how this same dynamic plays out in twentieth‐century Orthodox theology, as expressed by Sergius Bulgakov, Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas.