GRACE MINISTRY MYANMAR

John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Saturday, October 17, 2020

LEITUNG TANGTHU AH PUULNATNA( BUBONIC PLAGUE-BLACK DEATH) LAKAH ANASIA PEN

 By. Cope Langh Khan Kam

Hih Black Death pen leitung tangthu ah asia huai pen dingin kiciam teh hi. Black Death cih min pen Great Plague, the Black Plague, or the Plague ci-in min vawh in zong kilo hi. (AD-1342-1353) kum sawm leh kum khat huam sungin Europe gam mun tampi leh Mediterranean tuipi gam te ah puulnatna nasia takin kizel in Europe gam mi seh li suah seh khat (75-200 millions) bangin sihna thuak lawh uh hi.

Hih natna apian hun leh apian zia hang (a cycle ) pen Black Death ci-in min vawh uh hi. Hih puulnatna lungno te pen zusa vom (Black Rats ) te tung pan in kingah hi ci uh hi.

Hih natna pian zia pen akilawh baih natna ahih dungzui in natna ngah mi khat pen zatui, zaha hoih tak tawh akibawl kei leh cinate 60% bang pen ni nga sung in sih lawh uh hi. Hih hun lai pan kipan Kum zalom 18 hun ciang dong hih natna bei lo hi. Europe gam ading anung pen hihna natna pianna Marseille, France (1722) ahihi.

Tu hun ciangin leitung khantohnatawh kizui in hihnatna abei siang ahih loh hangin hih natna tawh asi kitam nawnlo cih ding ahihi.


BLACK DEATH KIPATZIA

Black Death min apian zia pen scientist te leh tangthu kan te na ngawn in athu akician in telkheh zo nailo suak hi. Hih puulnatnapianzia pen mitphial lah bang phial mawkin manlang takin kizel ziau natna hi a, Sen gam pan kipan hi ci-in Europe gammi te in ummawh uh hi.

Natna pian zia asulzuih uh ciangin ahi thei pen ding upmawh sansaat/ngaihsutna ah ni suahna lam laizang gam lam pan in Russia khang lam Black Sea (Tuipi vom) kipan tui lam kizopna pan Europe gam dong hong zel hiding hi ci-in ciamteh uh hi.

AD 1346 hun Russia gam khang lam ateng mite' tung pan kipan in Black sea gam ke (Tuipi vom)pan in khualzin sum bawl ten hih natna hong pua in Egypt gam Alexandra khuapi ah AD 1348 in hih natna hong zelin, 1348 ciangin Damascus khuapi leh Eygpt gam dong ciang hong kizel ziau mawk hi.

Tua pan kizom in Venetian, Genoese, Pisa, Florence, Rome, Venice, Germany gam khanglam, Australia, Spain gam barcelona၊ Marseille, France akipan kizel in, 1349 ciangin England gam khuapi tampi te na ngawn-ah hong kizel to in, Europe ni suahna lam dong ciang ah hih natna hun tomno sungin hong kizel hi.


PUULNATNA(BUBONIC PLAGUE) LEH KHANGLUI MITE MUHNA

Hih natna pen siampu/dawi thoihte, leh biakna lam mipilte' muhna cih bangin muhdan, sandan hong om pah hi. Pawl khat te in hih puulnatna athuak te pen Pasian tawsatna thuak uh hi ci-in, pawl khat in pumpi tungah natna lungno dal hat lohna hang hi, cihna bangin amau muhdan, sandan ciat tawh kikem, kikhoi uh hi.

Manchukuo a om zato lam Syavuan ten ahih leh mihing pumpi tungah akisam cidamna vitamin kicin lohna hang hi a, hih natna hangin sihna ii thuak loh nadingin vitamin a om an le tui te nek le dawn ding, lungsim linglawng loin om ding cihte amau muhnate zuih ding seppah pulak uh hi.


KIBAWL KIKEP ZIA

Kum zalom 14-15 bei kuan ciangin abeisa zah in misi hong tam nawn loin hih natna pen Khua lum hun leh khuadam hun te ah adiakin piang a, adiakdiak in mihon tenna mizawng te tenna/omna mun te ah hong piang hi cihte hong mukhia uh hi.

Hih natna nei te tuam kep, tuam khoi cih bang leh Syavuan, Syama kawm in kibawl cihte hong hah bawlna hangun natna abei siang ahih loh hangin natna apian ma-in kidal kholhna cih te hong lim sepna hangun natna tampi hong kiam suak hi.

Kum zalom 16 hun ciangin Europe gam te ah natna kilawhbeh loh nadingin tuam om kisawh khalo (Quarantines) cihte naseppi in hong nei uh a, Hih nasepna lian te hangin hih natna lian neite bek kibawlna zatote kipan hong nei zo uh hi. Kum zalom 17 ciangin natna pianna mun/khua ah azin kha te cidamna en/sit loin midang tawh kithuah kikhawl saklo cih te hangin Europe gam ah hih natna damdam in ahong bei ahihi.


THU-KHUPNA

Hih Black Death hangin Europe gam mipi seh thum suah seh khat bangin sihna thuak uh hi. Europe mi alang kiim phial bang bei mawk cihte ngaihsun leng giipngek na mahmah hi. Mihing 12,000 tenna Berlin khuapi ah mihing 7,000 bangin anuntakna uh bei lawh hi

Mihing 90,000 tenna Italy gam Florence khuapi ah mihing 40,000 bangin sihna thuak lawh mawk hi. Mihing 180,000 tenna Peris khuapi ah mihing 50,000 bangin sihna thuak lawh hi. Hih puulnatna in mizawng,mihau, mipil, mihai deidan hetlo ahihna te tulaitak ii thuak ahi Corona virus in hong phawk sak kik zel!

Hih puulnatna hangin Europe gam nakpi takin hamsatna athuak uh hangin Pope leh biakna makaite hanciamna, hanthawtna tawh Europe gam asawt hetloin hong dingtang bek hilo tu in eite' etteh gam leh ii tennop, ii pai nop mahmah na gamte hong suak hi.

Hih mun ah bang hong musak hiam cih leh natna adam nading kibawl sangin natna apian ma-in kidal kholhna athupitna hong musak hi (Quarantines).

Hih puulnatna damna zatui amukhia pa pen Germany gammi Robert Koch ahihi. 1905 kum in Nobel prize ngah a, hun thak natna lungno kidalna (bacteriology) pilna ii pa hong suak hi.

Share:

ALUNG LEN’ KHASIATHUAI TAIWAN CINDERELLA HIGH-HEEL PAWLPI II TANGTHU



By- Cope K.

Hih numei te' khedap tulsang pawlpi om na ahih leh Taiwan gam nitumna khanglam Chiayi khuapi huam sunga om ahi Budai khua ah kiphut pawlpi ahihi. Cinderella High-Heel pawlpi ci-in kisam a, hih pawlpi ahih leh Taiwan kumpi ii vangil (Southwest Coast National Scenic) sungah kihelkha ahihi. 10,02,2016 in biakinnpi lam zo in tua kum mah in biakinn hon pawi bawlna neipah uh hi. Leitung ii (Guinness World Records certification as the world's largest high-heel shoe)

leitungah asang pen khedap tulsang inn ci-in ciaptehna pia uh hi.

Hih biakinn ahih Taiwan gam ii khualzin mite ading mun thupi khat ahih banah Taiwan gam khanglam numeite adingin ngilhmawh atangthu uh omna inn pi khat hong suak hi.

Biakinn lamna sum bei usd 686,000$ bei in inn lam hun kha nih sawt hi. Biakinn asunglam pen maan panel 320 (glass panel-320) leh kahpasiik 1269 (steel-1269) tawh kilam in asanna 55'ft, adung 82'ft, avai 36'ft tawh kilam biakinn pen khuami te in Khedap tulsang biakinn (Cinderella High-Heel Church) ci-in min vawh uh hi.

Ahizong akhasiat huai mahmah thu ah tu ciangin Christian Biakinn hinawnlo mawkin kipi kiteenna (wedding hall) leh maan kizaihna mun (photo studio) suah mawk ban-ah nek theih anlim nono omna, kiten, kipi nadingin azat theih van hoih nono omna mun suak mawk ta cih hi.

Hidan thu tampi kawlkal-ah hih biakinn ahong pian nadingin abeisa 1960s hun ma-in thu meilet tangthu khat aneih uh ii gen loh phamawh zel hi.

Adiakin, Taiwan nitumna khanglam ateng numeite-in pasal aneih uh ciangin maan khedap tulsang( glass high heel Shoe) bulh kawm in kitenna pawi kham uh a, pawi hun abei ciangin tua maan khedap tulsang (glass high heel Shoe) satkham uh hi. Bang hang hiam cih leh tua khedap asaatkhap akipan un a nungak hihna abeita cih lahna ahihi.

Tua hi a,abeisa 1960s ma hun in Taiwan nitumna khanglam ah guahtui om lohna nasia takin thuak uh a, tua tui hamsatna hangin tui sianglo, tui nin adawnna huhau un khe meima/khemuat (Blackfoot disease) natnagilo vei uh a, khe kitan tampi om in tua sungah nungak tampi mah zong kihel hi. Taiwan numei te' sunmang ahih leh maan khedap tulsang (glass high heel shoe) bulh kawm in puan san kiphah innpi sungah kiteenna pawi bawl ding ahihi.

Hih natna gilo (Blackfoot disease) huhau in nungak tampi te' sunmang kisia in alamet bei nungak tampi te' mangsia phawkna in kilam inn ci uh hi.

Bangbang ahizongin himun ah thu nih tawh ii thugen ii tawlnga nuam hi. 1). Khe kitan Taiwan numei te phawkna ban ah, ei tapidaw ta dingin biakpiakna inn tu-in ahih leh kitenna inn (wedding hall; photo studio) suak lel cih te ii ngaihsut ciang lunglen khasiat huai zel...(lungdam hun ngah ciang zom zel ni).


Share:

SAKHI TUINEK IN PAN LENG

Rev. Dr. S. Pau Khan En

Khanglui te-in thu abul patnop ciangun sakhi tuinek in pan leng, cithei uh hi. Keizong Zomi Tuiphum Pawlpi sung a ki- itna khau i kitol sak khak ciilciilna hong gen nuam kahih man in hih kamciin thulu hong zang ka hihi.

Bangci lawmlawm a Zomite banglam banglam ah kithu tuak liailiai a mapang khawm thei lo i hiam? cih keikiapi taldom ngiungeu in ka ngaihsun thei zel hi.

Keipen gam kiukna (politics) lam sem hi lo- in, ka lunggulhgulh biakna lam sem ka hihman in biakna kiu pan in atom mahmah in ka en nuam hi. Kei mimal khat ngaihsutna agen ding ka hi- a, a khial a om hial leh zong keima' mawhpuakna hi ding hi.

I. ABUL KITOLKHIA BAIH

Japan gal a kici Leitung Galpi Nihna (WWII) khit 1950 ciang Zogam ah Baptist leh Roman Catholic pawl nih bek om in Baptist ah hong makai pen Sangmang te leh Sia Thuam Hang, Sia Pau Suan Sia Vial Nang, Sia Dam Suan leh Cope topa tawh nasem khawm i Sia masa te- uh a hihi. Makai omsun tengmah na na kihuan lingling uh a tawm tase le-uh agim atawl lam uh theilo zah in nuam nasa mai uh hi.

Hih hun laitak mah in Sia S.T. Hau Go Madras pan in M.A (Phil) ngah in 1946 kum in ong ciah a, ei! Zomi sung gentakloh a Kawlgambup ngiatah zong tuabang degree saang ngah ki tam nai hetlo ahihman in gamuk mangkang H. N. C. Stevenson in zalianpi pia dingin nana dawntuah pahlian hi.

Tuabek hi lo, Yangon Judson College ah Siapi asem Khristian Dr.Hla Bu in zong Judson College a Philosophy department ah Professor sem dingin nasam lailai hi. Tua tegel sang lo in ama' kipiakna zui in Baptist pawlpi ah Pasian nasem dingin hong kipia hi.Ama' honggen ngiat kazak ngei khat in " Zingsang khat Tedim biakinn lui gei a mawngkung nuai ah Sia Vial Nang in, ko, Japan galsung sangmang te India a, a va galtai sung un thu um mite bang isuak zentam ci-a, na khalaulau keei unga, tu'n nang pilna hizah tawh nongciah a biakna lam nong bawh theih, nuam mahmah hang, ci-in mittui luang gilgial in awliing delhdelh in hong gen" ci hi.

Tualai a Kawlgam Sangmangte Thuzeekpi

Erville Sowards tawh kikum in ama' lunggulh sa a hi, Khamtung gambup ading Tuiphumte Kipawlna Zomi Baptist Convention 1953 in hongphut khia a, amahmah in General Secretary sem in Falam ah om a, a hizong in cidam loh na hangin sauveipi sem zo lo- in 1955 ciangin Tedim gam ah hong ciah kik hi.

Tedim gam hongciah ciangin pilna i kisap luatlam muhna tawh pilna khuk ZOMI BAPTIST ACADEMY hong phuan khia hi. Sum mah kisam ahihman in America gam a Baptist thu um mite lungsim khoih ding in BURMA NEWS a kici thuki zakna ah thuluui ( article) khat at a pilna kisapna teng agen ngelhngelh khitciang in, Where are the helping hands? cih tawh thu khum sawn sawn ahih man in mite lungsim khoih tham in a vei ngiat nupinu khat bang in hoh ama' gou ( will) pan in tualai sum MMK 150,000 na pia zen a, tua hun sum manphat lai hi-in, na lianpi a kisem zo lua ding a hi hi A lungtho tampi mah zong om lai hi. A hizongin Kawlgam hong tunciang in hih sum pen angen te kiang tung lo- in ki belhei sak a, ZBC sung a om Association teng (HBA, FBA, KVBA, TBA) ah saseh hawm in kihawm sak dihzen hl.

Siapa pen anatna khuadam gam tawh kilem lo semsem ahih man in khamtung om ding piang theinawn sa lo- in, Mandalay University ah Sya va sem hi. Tua lai ah Sya a vasep kawm in i La Bu hongtei sak hongpuah sak ding in kiseh hi. Ama' lampan haksatna kiphawk sak kha lo- in ei ngaklah bekmah kisuang in amah pen bangmah semlo bangin ki ngaihsun in, kikhawl sak mai- a; i kizopna khau atol khia leh atolh khia hong suak hiau hi.

Kum tampi mun khat a Pasian' na kaseppih i Zomi Pasian nasem masa khat ahi, Rev James Sang Awi thugen khat ka bilkha ah gingging lai a, tua in, "Sia Hau Go tekhawng ZBC Meeting ah hongtu le- uh i khamuan dan! Bangmah gen sese takei le- uh hong tu himhim leh kikha lum mai hi" hongcih pen ka bil ngiat a ka zak a hihi.

Amau hileh pawh, " Na sep nop peuhpeuh na ngapngap in sem in la, biakna huangsung ah ong ompih hamtang in" ci ngelngel ding in ka ngaihsun hi. Pasian nasem ding a hong kipia lingliang sam a mataw, en kemcing thei lo khakhong! I liim i vaang hipan mahmah a tolh sak khamai!
( I Sam. 4 : 21-22 I'chabod )

Hih i thubulpi pan in atuung apat a,kihuaina, kikhual na om lo in kitolkhia baih lua kha aihciang a, i Pawlpi leh i minam taangthu pen kikhih kipehna sang in kitol khiat na lam vive ah tolhkhia, tolhkhia pahpah i hi khatam, ci giauguau ing.

II CILIAP HUAI VE VE

Kongpat phot buangin sau taleh hong zom vet hoh ning. Burma Dinity School (MIT) ong Rev. Dr. Kam Khaw Thang in 1957 pawlpan in TBA General Secretary ongsem in 1960 khit Tedim Laisiangtho tei ding in hong kipat ciang in 1960 kum a Insein pan a hong ong thak lawmta 4 hongom uh a, kinuam mahmah hi. Adang nih in a khua Pawlpi tek ah Pastor sem in, khat in Falam Laisiangtho Sang ah Sya sem a, Tedim tualsuak Rev.Kai Khaw Thawn in TBA General Secretary hong sem in lungdam, thanuam tak in gambup kikal suan hi. Tualaitak in thubuai khat hong piang dihdih a, tuapen Sia Thang Za Kam thuhilhna a hihi.

Ataktak in Sia Thang Za Kam bel kha lam nuntakna a tawisang nuam (promotion of spirituality)hi zaw hi. Kum 1965 Taungphila ZBC Kum Thum sim Khawmpi ah hih thu pen Agenda thupi khat in so tak in kigen a, MBC te leh sangmang te- in, "ZBC te'n hithu bangci muh na hi uh hiam?" ci-in adot ciang un, "ZBC pan hepkhiat liang dingzah in upna pial hilo hi" (this is not heretical enough to excommunicate with the ZBC) ci- uh hi.

Ahizongin khua pawlpi pawl khat pan in a sangthei het lo- a om ciangin Secretary pa in zong, do acih in do keei leh ut mawk uh hi. Doctrine in lah tua zah a, a khial hi lo, cih atheih ban ah, ama' sepding pen mido ding hi lo, mihuai dinglam hi zaw ahihman in, a tuaci do loh pen GS pa in Sya Thang Za Kam pawlpih hi, cih hi den hi. Tua a hihman in mihing mah ahi, GS pa Rev. Kai Khaw Thawn in zong, "Pawlpih keng kong cihcih hinapi, hong um thei lo na hih uh leh thuman akhen Pasian khen dingin LST hong nam sak un" ci tagiap hi. Chairman pa in zong, "Nam mah ou leh!" cingam nawn lo hi. A za khempeuh ki ciliap tek a, tawlpi khat sung tua meeting bawlna Tedim biakinn lui sungteng, sual tung a phim khat kia kiza ding khop, in dai khipkhep hi. Ki ciliap a, na kisak pihtek hi.

Tuabang teng hi keei sam napi- in adeih lo te'n khauh langpan lua uh ahih man in 1965 TBA Kumcin kikhop teh TBA GS pan in kikhawl sakta hi.Tha khat thu in Homalin bulphuh Kuki Chin Baptist Association te hongpai litlet in amau kiang ah General Secretary sem ding in nuikawm litlit in mu aktuah in tuah khia hiau uh hi Amau bel hampha uh mataw!

Thu hiteng, la hiteng, kong sut detdut ciangin thusia pholhsuah nuam a hong gen ka hi het kei hi. Thusia sutsut cih khawng a hih theih liai laiteng apeel nuam pa kahihi.Tedim gam Khristian te- in i thupha leh i liim i vaang hoh tolhsak baih lua khadeuh i keinam, cih kei lungpuak a hong suutsuut ka hihi.

Hih hun lai te- in tulai a TTBA, SRBA, ZBA leh ZBCM, TABC, EBC, AG, UPC khempeuh zong TBA i hi khin hi. Banghang a tolhtolh in bangcia aliailiai adiamdiam a nungta khawm theilo i hiam? cih abul pan a i ki itna khau ( cord of love ) i kitol sak khakna thu sakhi tuinek a, apan ka hi hi. Pasian thu ah hi ci mawk i hihman in, leitungthu ah zong akua akua in thupha sangin mainawt veva ka kisa het kei hi. I minam cinatna, i tual niamna leh i daubei ki patna mun (locus of evil) leh ahang pen hih thusia teng pan a hihi.

PASIAN' na ka seppih ka zahtak mawhloh i sanggam Chin maikai te khat in simmawh na leh kona tawh hihet lo- in, veitakpi a, hong gen thu khat hiah kong hawmsawn nuam hi.

"Buaina khat peuhpeuh hong omteh no, Tedim lam ten bel damsak ding lam ( remedial method ) zang lo- in atkhiat ding ( surgical method) lam bekbek zang uh teh" hongci hi.

Tu aciang beek hi tabuang le ung maw, Van Pasian! Ka tuailai te-uh hong siamthak sak in, ka gam uh hong cidam sak ta- in aw!

A nunung bel in maivom maikang ki deidan na (apartheid) hang a gambuai South Africa ah tua hunlai a biakna leh minam makai Archbishop Desmond Tutu thugen, tulmawh kamciin khat tawh ka thuluui article khum nuam ing. Tua in,

Understanding the past,
Acting in the present
Building the future.
cih ahihi.

Hih thuluui asim kha khempeuh i biak i paai Tung Pasian in thupha hong pia tahen!

Share:

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Three Types of Today Theology

 Three Types of Today Theology

"Pluralism," the day's catchword, reigns in theology as well as culture. Gone are the towering figures and their entourages (Barth vs. Tillich, for example), or the simplistic 11 conservatives contra liberals" of another day. Now it's a bewildering array of traditions and tribes. How do we sort and sift this diversity?

George Lindbeck, whose postliberal school has current high visibility, offered a threefold typology at the 2001 meeting of the American Theological Society: academic, political and ecclesial theologies. Readers of The Clergy journal live and work in the third arena, so we narrow the focus to that circle, using another threesome within that category from a recent study of trends in systematic theology in the English-speaking world: evangelical ecumenical and experiential (As examined in the issue, "The Resurgence in Systematic Theology," Interpretation, Vol. XLIX, No. 5, July 1995.)

Evangelical theology is grounded in a "convertive piety" (Stanley Grenz), giving pride of place to Scripture; ecumenical theology draws deeply on the church and its traditions, bringing them into relationship to an authoritative biblical text and a catalytic social context; experiential theology uses human experience, broadly conceived - "thinking or doing or feeling" - as its fundamental referent relating traditional authorities to it.

Evangelical Theology

Evangelicalism shares in today's diversity, ranging from old evangelicals of revivalist tradition (Billy Graham) to new evangelicals geared to apologetics (Carl Henry), from charismatics (Nicky Gumbel) to confessionalists (Mark Noll), from political fundamentalists (Jerry Falwell) to justice and peace evangelicals (Jim Wallis), and more. These sharp differences drive its theologians today to search for the things that unite them as in the recent Christianity Today project, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration" signed by a list of luminaries (Thomas Oden, Charles Colson, James Packer, David Wells, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc.). For all the agreement, other notable evangelicals are busy challenging the presumed consensus.

Another sign of the search for centralities is the outpouring of evangelical works in systematics. Major efforts that cover all the doctrines include those of Millard Erickson, Donald Bloesch, Thomas Oden, Alister McGrath, Wayne Grudem, Stanley Grenz, Paul Jewett, Robert Lightner, James Leo Garrett, Richard Rice, Gerald Bray, A. J. Conyers, and coauthors Gordon Lew and Bruce Demarest.

On the specifics of doctrine, current evangelical thought (in North America and Europe) moves between the poles of stability and change, wariness about modernity-postmodernity, on the one hand, and on the other, a curiosity about and even cautious welcome of the same. At one end are theologians like David Wells who indict popular evangelicalism as well as mainstream theology for their bondage to contemporary culture, Millard Erickson warning of the seductions of postmodernism and Ronald Nash, Wayne Grudem, and D. A. Carson castigating other evangelicals for their accommodationist tendencies. At the other end are Clark Pinnock and John Sanders vigorously arguing for an "open view of God" in contest with the perceived rigidities of the foregoing (Sanders in a lively debate forum in Christianity Today on the subject). Others in that camp are Stanley Grenz who wants to stake out a "center" but is seen by his critics as stained by his postmodernist sympathies and Pannenbergian allegiances, and Roger Olson, vocal critic of "Celebration" and its perceived Calvinist captivity.

A bipolar view of today's evangelical theology, however, is inadequate, for it obscures a large middle ground where some of its major theologians, and probably many grassroots evangelicals, dwell. Among its formative theologians are Donald Bloesch, influenced also by Karl Barth and P T. Forsyth; Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, known for his "generous orthodoxy"; Timothy George, dean of Beeson Seminary, active in catholic-evangelical exchange; the prolific British evangelical Anglican, Alister McGrath; and popular writers like Eugene Peterson and Philip Yancey.

Evangelical women theologians? Roberta Hestenes and Beverley LaHaye signed "Celebration" but there is no counterpart here to the influential experiential or ecumenical feminists. However, emerging figures appear in the Fall 2001 Women's Bible Commentary edited by Catherine Clark Kroeger, to date mostly unknown and from around the world: Elaine Phillips, Molly Marshall, Camilla Blessing, Kay Jobes, Rosemary Dowsett. Others are associated with the journal of Christians for biblical equality, Priscilla Papers - Aida Besancon Spencer, Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Rebecca Grothius, Lynn Smith, Loretta Finger. Evangelical women also have their spectrum, from Sarah Foy on the right to Nancy Hardesty on the left.

Ethnic evangelical theologians? Broadly conceived, yes: educators like Robert Pazmino, ethicists like Eldine Villafane, communicators like William Pannell, but few formative self-defined systematic theologians, though Samuel Solivan or Luis Pedraja who teach the discipline show promise. Assemblies of evangelicals drawing up their "essentials" are still in the main white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males. For all that, evangelical theology as now written cannot be dismissed with a wave of a politically correct hand for its influence is considerable, as indicated by the circulation figures of the evangelical journal, Christianity Today, five times that of the ecumenical journal, The Christian Century.

Ecumenical Theology

Identity is also a key concern of ecumenicals. This quest for essentials has taken place prominently in official church dialogues, some of them coming to fruition in the last few years with notable influence on denominational histories (an interesting example of how the work of theologians can have significant institutional impact). Cases in point are the 1997 Lutheran-Reformed Formula of Agreement, the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and the 2000 Lutheran-- Episcopal "Called to Common Mission." A comparable breakthrough involving new ecclesial relations for nine denominations in this country is scheduled for 2002, based on the "COCU consensus." Paralleling these are a World Council of Churches global study, "The Nature and Purpose of the Church," and preparations for a 2003 North American assembly on ecclesiology marking an anniversary of the 20th-century Montreal Faith and Order meeting. The doctrine of the church, after an eclipse, is once again to the fore.

The ecumenical identity quest is apparent in its own outpouring of new works in systematics, like the ecumenical dialogues, often self-consciously rooted in ecclesial traditions, rather than as private entrepreneurial ventures. Roman Catholic works include a joint project edited by Francis Fiorenza and John Galvin, individual ventures by Frans Josef van Beeck and Richard McBrien, and the continuing influence of liberation theology's Gustavo Gutierrez: a Lutheran coedited work by Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson and others by Ted Peters and Robert Jenson himself- Reformed volumes by Daniel Migliore, John Leith, Shirley Guthrie and Gordon Spykman; Methodist-steeped but ecumenically oriented projects by Geoffrey Wainwright and Thomas Oden; works in the Baptist tradition by James McClendon (deceased) and Thomas Finger; Eastern Orthodoxy's contribution by Michael Pomanzansky. Attempting an ecumenical approach to doctrinal basics, but with varied contextual emphases are the volumes of John Douglas Hall, Christopher Morse, Gustavo Guitierrez, Peter Hodgson/Robert King, Fred Herzog (deceased), and the writer. Two of the world's best-known theologians, themselves deeply involved in ecumenical dialogue, have completed major projects: Jurgen Moltman's five-volume series and Wolfhart Pannenberg's trilogy.

The religious pluralism of the day is another setting that contributes to the identity quest. A range of ecumenical responses are to be found, marked by the effort to strongly affirm Christian particularity but also to honor the role of world religions in the purposes of God, notably recent works by Joseph DiNoia and Mark Heim. Concern about the erosive effects of religious pluralism produced the recent and much-discussed Vatican statement, Dominus Iesus. Ecumenical dialogue with Judaism is a separate agenda, as is seen by the growing literature asserting the continuing covenant with Israel ("anti-supersessionism"). New Testament scholars N. T. Wright, leader Keck, Paul Achtemeier, Elizabeth Achtemeier, and Richard Hays stress the Christian debt to Hebrew traditions while making a strong case for a high Christology contra the Jesus Seminar.

Influential voices in all three of these arena - ecumenism, systematics, and interfaith issues - include: an "evangelical catholic" perspective with its voice in the journal Pro Ecclesia, with older theologians, Lindbeck, Jenson, Braaten, Wainwright, and newer voices, Bruce Marshall, David Yeago, R. R. Reno, Christopher Seitz; a rising neo-- Barthian school with formative figures George Hunsinger, Bruce McCormick, William Placher, and William Stacy Johnson, and British theologians John Webster and Colin Gunton, with the new International Journal of Systematic Theology as a prominent venue; a self-described "radical orthodoxy" group in Great Britain with John Milbank as a formative figure.

A "resident alien" theology has made great strides among clergy restive with politically correct trends and/or culturally accommodative thought, articulated by the influential writings of Stanley Hauerwas and John Yoder with William Willimon interpreting these themes in a more mainline churchly vein. Also taking up a critical stance toward culture-Protestantism are "center" movements in mainline churches (the label referring to Bonhoeffer's "Christ the Center" in the tradition of the 1934 Barmen Declaration).

The attention to "tradition" in ecumenical theology is reflected in the current retrieval of the doctrine of the Trinity. Moltmann and Pannenberg have led the way, but important contributions have been made by Orthodox John Ziziolas, Roman Catholic Catherine Mowry LaCugna (deceased) and liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, Reformed thinkers Thomas Torrance and Gunton, Lutherans Jeson, Ted Peters and Eberhard Jungel, and free church traditions Miroslav Volf Also retrievalist in a general sense, but with a sensitivity to the new in piety and mission, are Marva Dawn and Kathleen Norris.

The concern for context is represented by a lively exchange on science and faith and also the specifics of such issues as genetic ethics, with John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, and Ronald Cole-Turner making major contributions. Other issues of moment are on the boundary of culture and theology, with the pros and cons of postmodernism taken up by Anthony Thiselton, David Tracy, and "Reformed epistemologists" Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff. The meaning of "public theology" is much discussed by Max Stackhouse and also by the heirs of Leslie Newbigin in "Gospel and Culture" networks in North America and Great Britain. An ecumenical feminism that seeks to bring together the texts of Scripture and tradition with social context is represented by Letty Russell, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Elizabeth Johnson, Ann Carr, and new voices that range from tradition-oriented Ellen Charry and Catherine Greene-McCreight to culture-- oriented Kathryn Tanner and Serene Jones.

Experiential Theology

Human experience, as it is shaped by culture, is diversity multiplied, so reflected in the advocacy theologies that make it their orientation point. Among the current are:

Gender Theologies

Feminist theology that still finds a place for "the Jesus story" (in contrast to a Mary Daly or Daphne Hampson who reject such), though now relativized and revised, includes such early leaders as Rosemary Radford Ruether reconceiving redemption in an exclusively this-worldly way as a "feminist ecological liberation theology." Elizabeth Shussler Fiorenza and Phyllis Tribble deconstructing and reinterpreting Christian Scripture in the light of feminist categories. Joining them are Carter Heyward arguing a post-colonial and post-patriarchal "lesbian feminist" point of view, Korean Chung Hyun Kyung merging goddess traditions with Holy Spirit themes, Sallie McFague seeking 11 to relativize the incarnation" vis-a-vis a cosmic inclusivity, Rita Nakashima Brock replacing the classical Christ with the "erotic" Chrita/Community, Ada Maria Isasi-Dias espousing a mujerista theology that interprets redemption in terms of the liberation of Hispanic women, womanist theologian Dolores Williams viewing Calvary as a "double cross," coauthors Susan Brookes Thistlewaite and Mary Potter Engel, and political theologian Dorthee Solle redoing the standard loci in min-systematics that picks up many of the foregoing accents. The Re-Imagining Conference of 1993 and its smaller sequels proved a platform for North American feminist-womanist concerns. Gay/lesbian theologies join the gender category drawing on the earlier work of John Boswell.

Pluralist and Postmodern Theologies

"Plural shock" (like culture shock and future shock) requires the abandonment of classical claims that Christ is 11 the way, truth, and life" for all human beings, according to a group of theologies that takes the contemporary experience of religious diversity as normative. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, John Hick, and Paul Knitter are formidable figures in this school of thought. Ninian Smart and Steven Konstantine have coauthored the first full-scale systematic theology based on the pluralist premise. The much-publicized Jesus Seminar is its own kind of theological pluralism viewing Jesus as a human-scale social reformer, mystic, or philosopher, one among many rather than the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, notables in this camp being Robert Funk, Dominic Crossan, and Marcus Borg.

Postmodern Theologies

Harvard scholar Gordon Kaufman's move from a Mennonite heritage to an "historicist" view of the Christian tradition and then on to a reconception of God and theology as imaginative human construals reflect the impact of postmodern times and interpreters. Edgar McKnight argues for a "postmodern use of the Bible" giving full play to "reader response" rather than submitting to the claims of authorial intention or historical critical retrieval. Rebecca S. Chopp and Mark Lewis Taylor have coedited an intentionally postmodern systematics collection with a focus on the fragmentary, ambiguous, and open 

Process Theologies

We leave this category to the end, for depending on the priorities in authority (Scripture as source and philosophy as a resource, or vice versa), process theologies could be placed in either "ecumenical" or "experiential" categories. Today's leading proponents, John Cob, David Griffin, Margaret Hewitt Suchocki are church thinkers, and their seminary-based Institute of Process Theology influential in some mainline church settings. However, our "experiential" rubric is its present locale, as the process philosophical self-designation suggests the normative role of the thought of Alfred North Whitehead.

Conclusion

Guidelines for clergy confronted with this cacophony? Here are a few:

1. Note the common concern for identifying the essentials in all three kinds of theology, especially so in the writing of systematics that cover all the basic Christian doctrines. Find an author in your ecclesial tradition, or one who shares your perspective - evangelical, ecumenical, experiential-- and study that persons careful attempt to do theology in the round. Do the same with another from a different tradition or point of view. The discipline will refresh you on the key Christian teachings and equip you for preaching and teaching in response to the "what do we believe?" questions of your parishioners. Find a comparable book on theological basic for laity that could be used in a course of parish study.

2. Familiarize yourself with your denomination's ecumenical involvements. Make use of the documents on theological agreement for a study group in the congregation or with local congregations of the communion with which you are, or will be, in new relationship. Or take a breakthrough ecumenical document such as the Lutheran-Catholic joint Declaration on the Doctrine of justification and invite other congregations in the community to share in an Advent or Lenten series on the same. (The popular Living Room Dialogues after Vatican 11 were fruitful venues for theological deepening and interchurch amity.)

3. In terms of evaluation of trends and perspectives, look with an ecumenical eye for the gifts giveable in traditions different from your own. Paul, confronted with diversity in the Corinthian church, spoke of a body with many parts, each bringing its charism. Learn what you can from where you can.

4. When surveying the field and clarifying your own point of view, don't settle for reductionism. Paul didn't and warned us that no body is made up of just one organ. Theological tribalism today flirts again with that kind of rigidity. Better the newly formulated ecumenical wisdom of "mutual affirmation and mutual admonition," saying a grateful "yes" where we can see commonalities and offering to, and receiving from the other a teachable "no."

5. Write on your banner this updated and slightly revised version of the aphorism of pseudonymous Rupertus Meldinius coined in the midst of the 17th-century theological warfare not unlike our own: "In essentials unity, in perspectives diversity, in all things charity!"

Source: The Clergy Journal, Nov/Dec 2001.

Share:

The Theological Use of Scripture in Process Hermeneutics

 By David H. Kelsey

What follows are reflections on two marvelously rich and suggestive sets of essays, one dealing with "New Testament Interpretation from a Process Perspective’ (JAAR, March 1979) and the other dealing with Old Testament Interpretation from the same perspective. It is important, I think, to set candidly into the record (what will be clearly enough revealed in what I say, anyway) that my standing in the process philosophy game is strictly amateur. Because of that, and of my rather more long-standing interest in how theologians argue in defense of their theological proposals, these reflections will deal far more with formal questions about the use of process categories and doctrines than with material questions about the cogency or truth of process theses. After reading these essays, I find myself with three major questions about "process hermeneutics." I will state them briefly now, and then develop each of them in turn.

One: What makes interpretation of a Biblical text an exercise in process hermeneutics -- that is, is it the application of process theory of interpretation, or that it involves the use of process categories?

Two: These essays seem ordered to at least two quite different ends. Is "process hermeneutics" an equivocal notion, naming quite different enterprises?

Three: If process hermeneutics is important to process theology in order to make clear its rootage in Scripture, is process hermeneutics able to provide any guidance to what is normative in Biblical texts?

It will be useful at the outset to distinguish two matters that the very title of this response tends confusingly to run together, viz., (1) "Hermeneutics," in particular hermeneutics as shaped by commitments to the conceptuality and doctrines of process philosophy, and (2) the use of Scripture-as-interpreted in the course of doing theology. Questions about hermeneutics, I take it, are questions about what is involved in understanding, especially in understanding Biblical texts, questions often answered by developing a theory about understanding. Questions about the use of Scripture in theology are questions about how the texts, once they have been understood, are to be brought to bear on the making of (Christian) theological proposals. Answers to the first set of questions do not necessarily answer or entail answers to the second set; nor do answers to the second set answer or entail answers to the first. They seem to be logically separate sets of questions. With regard to what these essays say and do concerning hermeneutics, it will focus the discussion to ask two diagnostic questions: (a) What does a process perspective tend to lead one to concentrate on in the Biblical texts? What about the texts is taken to be of central importance? (b) What kind of logical force is ascribed to Biblical texts insofar as they are important for theology? Are they taken to have the force of descriptive reports, or the force of injunctions, the force of emotive expressions, or some other kind of force? And secondly, with regard to what these essays say and do concerning the bearing of Scripture thus construed on doing theology, it will focus the discussion to ask two further questions: (a) How are Biblical texts brought to bear on the making of theological proposals? (b) Why focus on the aspect of the Biblical texts that is focused on? What is it about Scripture-as-construed that makes it important to attend to in this way?

I. Hermeneutics from a Process Perspective

(a) What does a "process perspective" tend to lead one to concentrate on in the Biblical texts?

One of the claims made on behalf of a process hermeneutics is that it can invite and empower the interpreter to be equally attentive to all aspects of Biblical texts. That is, in contrast to various phenomenological hermeneutics (notably, in the Bultmannian tradition) which systematically constrain the interpreter to attend only to that in Scripture ("kerygmatic" statements) which can be shown to be an expression of certain modes of subjectivity (e.g., "faith") and not to that in Scripture which seems to describe the cosmic context of human life (except insofar as such descriptions can be shown to be culturally conditioned, archaic and misleading expressions of modes of subjectivity), process hermeneutics leads one to attend to both. And in contrast to structural hermeneutics that constrain the interpreter to attend only to formal binary patterns in the text and not to the relation between the text and its author’s intent or to the relation between the text and its readers, process hermeneutics leads one to attend to any or all of the above. This inclusiveness is exhibited everywhere in these essays.

This raises my first critical question: Is this inclusiveness of other methods of interpretation in the actual practice of interpreting text really rooted in hermeneutics properly so called, or is this hospitality to any and all disciplined methods of interpretation simply an ad hoc collection of exegetical tools? That is, is the hermeneutical pluralism reflected in these essays rooted in a distinctive process theory of meaning or, perhaps, to put it less misleadingly, a process theory of interpretation that systematically synthesizes the central theses of alternative (and perhaps more one-sided) hermeneutics? The issue is not whether there is a process theory of interpretation. If nothing else, the fact that there are published efforts to lay out a process theory of meaning is evidence that there is such a thing. The question is whether the pluralism of methods of interpretation in these essays claiming to exhibit a process perspective is in fact rooted in such a theory. If it is, then these essays can fairly be said to exhibit that a process theory of interpretation can in fact be applied (and so is not so abstract or vague as to turn out to be vacuous when applied to cases) and that it is fruitful when it is applied. On the other hand, if the pluralism is simply an ad hoc collection of exegetical tools, then, for all their several excellencies, these essays do not show much of anything about whether there is a useable process hermeneutics. My uncertainty about how to answer this question can partly be brought out by turning to the second question.

(b) In these essays, what kind of logical force is ascribed to Biblical texts insofar as they are important for theology?

There seem to be two quite different kinds of answers given to this question in these essays.

One answer takes Biblical texts to function as "lures for feeling." This is explained and warranted by Whitehead’s doctrine of "propositions." In their theoretical essays in JAAR Beardslee and Woodbridge sketch the theory. The theory is relied on explicitly in Beardslee’s and Pregeant’s exegetical essays in the same volume, and it seems to me it is implicitly at work in Coats’s essay in the OT collection. As I understand it, the relevant features of a "proposition" are these: A "proposition" is a "concrete possibility ; it is abstracted from some objective event in the actual world; it is proposed as a possibility that an entity may want to consider for itself in a future moment in its process of self-creation; it is apprehended by the entity in "feeling" and so is preconceptual and largely preconsciously apprehended; it stands in a complex of relationships with other "propositions," and the set of propositions presupposes a systematic universe; its "interest" (as "lure") is more important than its "truth." Given all this, one knows that every Biblical text expresses a proposition, indeed may express several propositions. That is, Biblical texts, even when they might plausibly be said straightforwardly to be describing some objective event or state of affairs, are to be construed as having he force of proposing deal possibilities. A conscious conceptual account of these possibilities would include an account of the actual objective "systematic universe" they presuppose. But that account of the actual universe would somehow be derived from the "possibilities" expressed by the text and not from the text directly -- for even if the text seemed on the face of it to be offering a description of the universe, that description is not what is important or interesting about it; rather "propositions" or ideal possibilities it expresses is what is important about it.

In the essays by Beardslee, Pregeant, and Coats, the various exegetical methods employed do seem to be governed by a hermeneutical theory central to which is the process doctrine of "propositions." Here there does seem to be evidence that there is a process theory of interpretation that can be fruitfully applied to the interpretation of texts. These same essays do go on to offer conscious conceptual accounts of some of the possibilities presented by the texts they study, construing the texts as expressions of "propositions." The accounts are explicitly cast in terms of process categories. But note: What makes them exercises in applied process hermeneutics is not that they explicitly use process categories to describe the "propositions" expressed by the text and to describe the systematic universe presupposed by those propositions, but rather what makes them exegetical studies that exhibit the applicability and fruitfulness of process hermeneutics is that they more or less implicitly rely on a process theory about understanding, central to which is the doctrine of "propositions."

Some of the essays, however, seem to ascribe a quite different kind of logical force to the texts they examine. Certainly, in Janzen’s essay, probably in Weeden’s (cf. pp. 114-17), and possibly in parts of Beardlee’s exegetical essay (cf. p. 68f.), the texts studied seem to be taken as having the force of straightforward descriptions, even ontological descriptions, of actualities (in contrast to ideal possibilities). Collins quite rightly points out (1.13) that Janzen’s exegesis presumes that Hosea 11 gives metaphysical information about God. Similarly, Weeden sometimes, and perhaps even Beardslee sometimes, seem to presume that NT texts give metaphysical information about the Kingdom of God. In these essays the exegetical methods are as plural as are those employed in other essays. But the judgment that the texts are to be construed to have the force of giving (metaphysical?) information does not itself seem to be warranted by any theory of interpretation, process or otherwise. The process perspective" comes into play at quite another point. It comes into play as process categories are used to provide an alternative, presumably more sophisticated and precise, statement of the "same" metaphysical descriptions. This second way of construing the force of Biblical texts, viz., as giving descriptions of actualities, seems part of a quite different enterprise than the first construal of the force of Biblical texts (viz., as expressing "propositions" that are "lures for feeling"). I suggest that it really is not "hermeneutics" at all, neither "process" hermeneutics nor any other, although it nonetheless is certainly a kind of theology, even a kind of "Biblical theology." To exhibit that, it is necessary to turn from hermeneutics to the topic of the uses of Scripture in theology once the Scripture is interpreted.

II. Uses of Scripture in a "Process Perspective"

(a) In these essays how are Biblical texts brought to bear on the making of theological proposals? It seems to me that Biblical texts are put to two quite different uses in these texts. It is as though there are two quite different claims that are being defended.

1.         Some of the essays seem designed to argue in defense of some claim such as this: Such-and-such a theological tenet is a truly Biblical tenet, that is, is part of the doctrinal theology of a Biblical writing. Thus: (Beardslee)

Text (Data) shows that Tenet in Biblical Theology (Conclusion) Gospel sayings about finding The theology of this text and losing life construed includes a tenet in which as expressing both a these two are held up "proposition" re breaking up together in a framework continuity of my existence of "rightness" or "creativity" and "proposition" re a context creativity giving meaning to my response of breaking continuity if: one can rely on the doctrine of "propositions as lures for warrant for the move, as backed by Whitehead’s entire theory of perception.

Or: (Coats)

Text (Data) shows that Tenet in Biblical Theology (Conclusion) Balaam story combines a Obedience is life-in-legend re Balaam as saint blessing in which the and a fable re Balaam as saint remains free to sinner obey or not; disobedience is life-in-curse in which the sinner is (relatively) unfree to obey.

if: one can rely on the doctrine of "God as lure" for warrant for the move as backed by Whitehead’s process cosmology. (So too, so far as formal matters go, in Pregeant’s essay on Romans 2:6;13).

In these arguments the move from data consisting of Biblical texts construed in a certain way to conclusions concerning what truly is a tenet in some Biblical theology is warranted by process hermeneutics, strictly understood, i.e., a process theory of understanding.

(2) Some of the essays seem designed to defend a quite different kind of claim. It is some such claim as this: Such-and-such a doctrine in process theology is truly in accord with tenets of some Biblical theology. Thus: (Janzen)

Process Doctrine (Data) shows that (Conclusion). Without losing ontological Process doctrine of identity, God undergoes God is compatible growth in God’s knowledge and with a Biblical therewith change in God’s description of God "being." undergoing "existential" development via changing God’s mind. If: one can rely on an interpretation of Hosea 11 as a description of God’s "growing" through asking Godself an existentially decisive question, backed by (Janzen’s) exegetical analyses and arguments. (P. 185.)

Note the difference: The first kind of argument mounted under the banner of process hermeneutics supports a claim that such-and-such a theological tenet is authentically a tenet of "Biblical theology" in the sense of being a statement of what the text in its present complexly layered and polysemous form says on a theological topic. It is a hermeneutical remark resting for its warrant and the warrant’s backing on a distinctively process doctrine of interpretation.

By contrast the second kind of argument mounted under the banner of process hermeneutics supports a claim that such-and-such a tenet of process theology is "Biblical theology" in the sense of being compatible with what some Biblical texts say on a theological topic. This is "Biblical theology" in quite a different sense of the term. It is not itself a hermeneutical remark, process or otherwise, about Biblical texts.

The way in which it might be part of "process hermeneutics" in a derivative sense of the term, can be shown by considering how these two sorts of argument might be related to each other. The second sort of argument, designed to show that certain process doctrines are compatible with certain Biblical texts, was warranted by interpretations of certain Biblical texts that were hacked by exegetical studies. It is always possible for someone to challenge the bearing of that backing (exegetical studies, say of Hosea 11) or the warrant it is alleged to back (a given overall interpretation of Hosea 11, say). In that case, a second argument would need to be mounted to show that the exegesis really supports the generalizations made about what the text says. But that is precisely what the first sort of argument does! The first sort of argument is designed to show that what functions as warrant in the second sort of argument is indeed the conclusion one should come to from certain data that function as backing for the warrant in the second sort of argument. In short, the first sort of argument is supportive of the second. If the first sort of argument itself is warranted by the doctrine of "propositions" backed by Whitehead’s theory of perception -- if, that is, the first sort of argument itself is warranted by process hermeneutics, and then it in turn is used to support a second sort of argument about the compatibility of various process tenets with tenets of Biblical theology -- then in a derivative sense of the term the second argument too is an exercise in "process hermeneutics." But only, it must be stressed again, if it relies on a process theory of interpretation to show that its backing does indeed support its warrant (and that is precisely what our instance of this second sort of argument -- Janzen’s discussion of Hosea 11 -- does not do and does not seem to need to do; and perhaps so too Weeden’s argument).

Note how very modest is the achievement of this structure of argument. At most it demonstrates that certain process doctrines are compatible with certain alleged tenets of the theology of some Biblical writings. It does not tend to establish the truth of the process doctrines; Collins surely is correct in saying that their truth would have to be demonstrated on their own terms and not in this way. It does not show that process theological doctrines are somehow more compatible or more broadly compatible with some or all of the tenets of some or all identifiable Biblical theologies than are some alternative (and rival?) theological positions (say, Tillichian, Rahnerian, paleo-Thomistic----to confine the list to positions couched in ontological conceptualities). Nor does it tend to demonstrate the superiority of a process hermeneutics, i.e., a process theory of interpretation. It merely shows that given process theological doctrines are indeed compatible with certain tenets in some Biblical theology.

The (in my view) modest outcome of all this labor prompts me to ask the final, and in some ways most troubling, question in this section: If one is concerned to interpret Biblical texts, why bother with process doctrines and conceptuality? Why should exegetical Davids encumber themselves with philosophical Sauls’ armor?

The obverse of that question needs to be asked too, of course. Why should process theologians concern themselves with the Bible? In their Introduction to the JAAR collection of essays, Cobb, Lull, and Woodbridge say that "Any form of systematic theology is fundamentally truncated where its rootage in Scripture is not clear and strong" (p. 25). Why so -- from a process perspective? That leads into our fourth question.

(b) What is it about Scripture-as-interpreted that makes it important to attend to in this way? I am aware I am making some large assumptions here, but I venture the guess that the reason a systematic theology is truncated when its rootage in Scripture is not clear has something to do with the question of what is normative for a Christian theology. I use the term "normative" deliberately, to avoid the enormous conceptual confusions and red-herrings attendant to, say, "revelation." So my question is: Is there a distinctively process doctrine about how and why Scripture is related to and normative for Christian theology that would explain why it is important to attend to Scripture in these ways?

Woodbridge points out that "Hermeneutics has been founded on the distinction between what the text meant and what it now means. All too often this temporal and epistemological distance has been viewed as a negative factor to be overcome" (p. 124). He goes onto note that the traditional way to "overcome" this negative factor was to try to establish what the text meant at or near the time of its composition and treat that as a kind of "essence" of the text’s meaning which thereafter is taken as the retrospective norm by which all proposals of what the text might mean now are to be assessed. This generates the assumption -- which I take to be very misleading -- that contemporary theological proposals ought somehow to be translations of the "meant" into contemporary idiom -- translations that convey over the ugly ditch of long history the same self-identical "meaning." That is objectionable on at least two grounds. It is demonstrably false historically: There is constant material change through the history of doctrine. Newer formulations change and do not simply "translate" the "old" meanings. And the old formulations, when used in later times and contexts, "mean" different things. And it is a view objectionable on religious grounds. It suppresses the freedom of the Spirit to bring new truth out of the texts: it forbids the religiously exciting possibility that what the text might come to mean could be more important than what it has meant.

In these essays process philosophy is employed to cope with this problem in two ways. In some of the essays, process philosophy seems to be commended on the grounds that its categories do better what the categories recommended by alternative hermeneutics (notably, Bultmann’s demythologizing by way of "existential interpretation") do poorly. I submit that that is a very dangerous move for process hermeneuticians to make because it threatens self-contradiction. It seems to me that almost all of the alternative hermeneutics propose to do precisely what we have agreed cannot and ought not to be done: provide a conceptuality into which to translate what the texts originally meant in such a way as to preserve that self-same essence of meaning but render it more intelligible today. It would be self-contradictory to press process categories into service to do better a task that process hermeneutics itself sees is misguided from the outset!

In a few of the essays process philosophy is used to cope with the meant/ means problem in quite a different way. Cobb sketches a process theory about historical change and historical movement, grounded in Whitehead’s notion of "living historic routes." He argues that this theory allows one to make all the points that can be made about theological changes through history by using Robinson s notion of "trajectories," but without its postulation of some "essence" of meaning that perdures through the change. And Richards sketches an application of this theory in the interpretation of Lev. 27:1-8. This theory has clear systematic connections to the doctrine of propositions as "lures for feeling" which are linked with possibilities as "a line to creative emergence in the transcendent future." That is, it clearly is integral to a process theory of interpretation, a process hermeneutics in the strict sense of the term. I find it a very suggestive and rich way to describe the process of historical change from "meant" to "means."

My question is whether the theory about the process of historical change that seems to be ingredient in process hermeneutics can also serve as a theory about what is normative for Christian theology. I can only say that I do not yet grasp its normative import. The issue is crucial. For if a process theory of interpretation does not include a theoretical basis for judgments about what is normative (in this case for theology) in the texts being interpreted, then it is entirely unclear how a process hermeneutics is going to head off the truncation of theology whose roots in Scripture are not clear. For the roots cannot be simply genetic in the historical order; they need to be normative in the logical order.

To summarize: I find myself with three major questions after reading these two sets of essays.

One: What makes a mode of interpretation of texts an exercise in precisely process hermeneutics -- that it is the application of some distinctively process theory of interpretation, or the use of a characteristically process conceptuality to formulate a proposal about the "meaning" of a text?

Two: It seems that these exercises in process hermeneutics are done as exercises in Biblical theology; but it is "Biblical theology" in two quite different senses of the term (although they could be interrelated).

Three: If these essays are written to deepen process theology as a mode of systematic theology on the supposition that a theology is truncated if its rootage in Scripture is not clear, then it is crucial to be clear -- in ways in which these essays do not make it clear -- how process hermeneutics warrants any judgments about what is normative for Christian theology.

David Kelsey is Luther A. Weigle Professor of Theology at Yale University Divinity School in New Haven, Connecticut.

Source: Process Studies, Vol. 13, Number 3, Fall, 1983, pp. 181-188.

Share:

Process Theology

By David Ray Griffin

Although the term "process theology" is occasionally used more broadly, it usually refers to the theological movement based primarily on the "process philosophy" of Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and Charles Hartshorne (b. 1897).

After having focused on mathematics and the philosophy of nature in his native England, Whitehead came to Harvard University at age sixty-three and quickly created the most extensive philosophical cosmology of the twentieth century. In Science and the Modern World (1925), he argued that our cosmology should be based on aesthetic, ethical, and religious intuitions as well as on science, and that scientific developments themselves were pointing away from a mechanistic toward an organismic world view. This new world view led Whitehead, who had earlier been agnostic, to an affirmation, on strictly philosophical grounds, of the existence of God as the "principle of limitation," which accounts for the basic order of the world. In later books, especially Religion in the Making (1926), Process and Reality (1929), and Adventures of Ideas (1933), Whitehead developed his idea of God far beyond this suggestion of an impersonal principle.

Hartshorne had formed his own philosophical theology considerably before coming to Harvard, from 1925-1928, where he served as an assistant to Whitehead. Although Hartshorne has had his own emphases and has even differed with Whitehead on some issues, he has adopted large portions of Whitehead's thought (see Lewis Ford, ed., Two Process Philosophers: Hartshorne s Encounter with Whitehead). He has given special attention to the idea of God and to arguments for the existence of this God, most thoroughly in Man's Vision of God (1941). His overall theistic metaphysics is expressed most comprehensively in Reality as Social Process (1953) and Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method (1970).

Based on the thought of Whitehead and Hartshorne, process theology is one of the few types of theology in the twentieth century grounded in a metaphysical position in which theism is defended philosophically and science and religion are included within the same scheme of thought. The term "process" signifies that the "really real" is not something devoid of becoming, be it eternal forms, an eternal deity, bits of matter, or a substance thought to underlie changing qualities. The really real things, the actual entities, are momentary events with an internal process of becoming. This internal process, called "concrescence" (meaning becoming concrete), involves some degree of spontaneity or self-determination. It is also experiential. Actual entities are thus said to be "occasions of experience." The experience need not be conscious; consciousness is a very high level of experience, which arises only in high-grade occasions of experience. But, even though events at the level of electrons, molecules, and cells do not have consciousness, they have feelings and realize values, however trivial. The term "panexperientialism" can be used to describe this view, but it means not that all things, but only that all individuals, have experience: Things such as rocks are aggregates, which have no experiential unity, therefore no feelings or purposes

This view provides a solution to the modern mind-body problem created by the assumption that' 'matter'' is completely devoid of spontaneity and experience and therefore different in kind from "mind." Because the mind is different only in degree from the brain cells, not in kind, the interaction of brain and mind is not unintelligible. One can therefore avoid materialism's reductionistic treatment of mind and idealism's reductionistic treatment of matter, affirming instead the equal reality of the human mind, with its freedom, and of the rest of nature, with its integrity apart from the human perception of it. This resolution provides the basis for a theology of nature that not only reconciles science and religion (see Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science) but also supports a religious ecological vision and ethic. Four features of the portrayal of nature are crucial for this ecological vision.

First, there is no dualism between humanity and nature. All individuals are said to have intrinsic value and therefore to be worthy of respect as ends in themselves. The anthropocentrism of most Christian theology, especially in the modern period, is thereby overcome. God did not create nature simply as a backdrop for the divine-human drama, and certainly not for human plunder, but cherishes individuals of each kind for their own sakes.

Second, unlike Albert Schweitzer and some forms of "deep ecology," process theology does not proclaim the idea that all individuals have the same degree of intrinsic value. A chimpanzee has more intrinsic value than a microbe, a human more than a malarial mosquito. A basis is thereby provided for discriminating value judgments.

Third, the units of which the world is composed are momentary events (not enduring substances), which constitute themselves by unifying aspects of other events in the environment into a creative synthesis. Relations to others are therefore internal to an individual; these relations are constitutive of what the individual is. One's welfare is therefore tied up with the welfare of one's world. This idea completely reverses the picture, pervasive especially in the modern period, of a world made up of substances whose relations to others are mainly external to them. Some have come to refer to process theology as "process-relational theology" in order to emphasize this point; it has also been called the "postmodern ecological world view." One implication for an ecological ethic of this point about internal relations is that it prevents the hierarchy of intrinsic value from leading to the conclusion that species with less intrinsic value should be eliminated to make room for increased populations of those with greater intrinsic value. The ecological as well as the intrinsic value of all things must be considered.

A fourth point is that the "others" included in each event are not simply the other finite processes in the environment but the all-inclusive process. God. God is therefore pervasive of nature, present in every individual, from electrons to amoebae to birds to humans. Each species is worthy of reverence as a unique mode of divine presence.

The point about internal relatedness can also be made in terms of perception. The idea that all individuals, including those without sensory organs, have experience means that sensory perception is not the basic form of perception. It is a special form of perception derivative from a nonsensory "prehension," which is common to all individuals and in which aspects of the prehended objects are taken into the prehending subject. This doctrine allows process theologians to speak of human religious experience as one in which God is directly experienced and thereby becomes incarnate in the experiencer. This idea provides, in turn, the basis for a Christology in which incarnation is spoken of literally. The task for Christology proper is to show not how God could have been present in Jesus, but how this presence could have been different enough from the divine presence in all people, indeed in all individuals, to justify taking Jesus as of decisive importance (see John B. Cobb, Jr., Christ in a Pluralistic Age).

Correlative with process theology's doctrines of nature and experience are its doctrines of God and the God-world relation. Process theology rejects the idea that the world is a purely contingent product, wholly external to God. Rather, God is essentially soul of the universe, so that God has always interacted with some universe, in the sense of a multiplicity of finite actual entities. Our particular world is contingent, but its creation involved not a creation ex nihilo, in the sense of an absolute beginning of finite things, but a bringing into dominance of new forms of order.

This position has special importance for the problem of evil. It implies that evil exists because all creatures have some degree of the twofold power to determine themselves and to affect others (for good or ill), which can be influenced but not controlled by God, and it suggests that this would have been a necessary feature of any world God had created. This position also implies that the great degree of freedom possessed by humans, which includes the power to go radically against the divine will, is a necessary concomitant of their high level of experience, which includes their language and self-consciousness. Contingency in the world in general, and freedom in humans in particular, are therefore not due to a divine self-limitation that could in principle be revoked now and then to prevent especially horrible evils. Process theologians believe that this set of ideas makes the defense of God's perfect goodness more plausible than it is in those theodicies that say that God does, or at least could, control all events (see Burton Z. Cooper, Why, God? and David Ray Griffin, Evil Revisited).

Implicit in this point that all creatures necessarily have the inherent power both to determine themselves (partially) and to influence others—a power that is not overridable by God—is a distinction between God, as the ultimate actuality, and creativity, as the ultimate reality. Creativity is the twofold power to exert self-determination and to influence others. As the ultimate reality it is that which is embodied in all actualities. It is thus the "material cause" of all things, except that it is not passive matter but dynamic activity, like Tillich's being itself. Unlike Tillich, however, who identified God with being itself, process theologians say that God is not creativity but the primordial embodiment of creativity. This distinction between God and the ultimate reality has provided the basis for a new understanding of the relation between the theistic religions, such as Christianity, and nontheistic religions, on the grounds that creativity is parallel to Buddhist Emptiness and Advaita Vedanta's Brahman (see Cobb, Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism).

Another distinctive feature of process theology is the doctrine of divine dipolarity. Whitehead and Hartshorne portray the dipolarity differently. Whitehead speaks of the "primordial nature" and the "consequent nature." The primordial nature is God's influence on the world in terms of an appetitive envisagement of the primordial potentialities ("eternal objects") for finite realization. This is God as the Divine Eros, who lures the world forward with a vision of novel possibilities. This is the side of God discussed earlier. The consequent nature is God as affected by and responsive to the world. Hartshorne speaks instead of God's "abstract essence" and "consequent states." The abstract essence has most of the attributes given to God as a whole by classical theism—immutability, impassibility, eternity, and independence, leading Hartshorne to refer to his doctrine as "neo-classical theism." But this pole, even more clearly than Whitehead's "primordial nature," is a mere abstraction from God. God as consequent upon the world, for Hartshorne as for Whitehead, is God as fully actual. And this pole, and therefore God, is in process and emotionally affected by the world.

Whereas classical theism, following Greek philosophy, equated perfection with completeness and therefore unchangeableness, Hartshorne argues that we must think of God in terms of two kinds of perfection. God's abstract essence exemplifies the unchanging type of perfection. For example, to say that God is omniscient is to say that God always knows everything knowable; this abstract feature of God does not change. But God's concrete knowledge does change because, given the ultimate reality of process, new things happen and therefore become knowable. God's concrete states thereby exemplify the relative type of perfection, a perfection that can be surpassed. Of course, God in one moment is surpassable by no creature but only by God in a later moment. The same distinction can be made with regard to other attributes. For example, God at every moment loves all creatures perfectly, wishing them all well and feeling their experiences sympathetically—suffering with their pains, rejoicing with their joys.

To say that God grows is not to say that God becomes wiser or more loving; it means only that, as new creatures arise and new experiences occur, the objects of the divine love have increased and therefore the divine experience has been enriched.

Process theologians have used the doctrine of the consequent nature of God to recover the biblical view that God responds to the world and in particular the view, symbolized by the crucified Christ, that God suffers with the world. This doctrine of the consequent nature has also been used to explain our sense that life has an ultimate meaning, even if there be no life after death, because all things are said to have "objective immortality" in God, who cherishes them everlastingly (see Schubert Ogden, The Reality of God).

One division within process theologians is between those who stress God's activity in the world and those who, like Hartshorne, give primary attention to the world's contribution to God. Some process theologians stress both ideas, giving equal weight to the two sides of panentheism as the doctrine that all things are in God and God is in all things.

The distinction between the creative and the responsive sides of God provides the basis for two meanings of salvation, one in which God alone provides salvation and one in which we must cooperate. On the one hand, we are taken up into God's consequent nature willy-nilly, so we are saved from ultimate meaninglessness by God alone. On the other hand, we are saved to the degree that God becomes actually effective in our lives—to the degree that we become "deified," as Eastern Orthodoxy says—so that we feel and act in harmony with the divine grace luring us forward; our salvation in this sense depends upon our free response. It depends, however, not simply on our free response in an individualistic sense, but on the response of others to whom we are internally related, because God is indirectly present in us through others insofar as they are internal to us, as well as being directly experienced by us. Furthermore, the ways in which God can be directly experienced by and present in us are largely determined by the ways in which God is present, or not present, in those around us. These reflections provide the basis for a strong doctrine of the church (see Bernard J. Lee, The Becoming of the Church) and for thinking of process theology as political theology (as in Cobb's work so titled). Although process philosophy allows for the possibility of life after death, as Whitehead recognized, neither he nor Hartshorne has affirmed it; but some process theologians do, so that the process of creative transformation through divine grace would not come to an end with bodily death.

From the 1930s until the late 1960s, process theologians devoted their attention primarily to three tasks: defending the need for a philosophical theology against analytic philosophers of religion and neoorthodox theologians; defending the "heresies" of process theology (especially regarding divine power and becoming) in conversations with neo-Thomists and other classical theists; and showing how process philosophy can be employed to make sense of traditional Christian doctrines and traditional problems of philosophy of religion (such as the relation between science and religion and the problem of evil). The leading theologians of the early decades were Bernard Loomer (who is usually given credit for coining the terms "process philosophy" and "process theology," and who later came to speak of "process-relational" modes of thought), Bernard Meland (who concentrated on the theology of culture), Norman Pittenger (who has written some hundred books, many of which serve as quite readable introductions to process theology), and Daniel Day Williams (whose The Spirit and the Forms of Love has been hailed as the first process systematic theology). Among the next generation John Cobb and Schubert Ogden have been dominant.

Since the 1970s, process theologians have been bringing their perspective to bear on a number of issues of the times, such as liberation theology (Ogden, Faith and Freedom ; Delwin Brown, To Set at Liberty), ecological theology (Cobb, Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology; Cobb and Charles Birch, The Liberation of Life; Jay McDaniel, Of God and Pelicans), feminist theology (Catherine Keller, From a Broken Web: Separation, Sexism, and Self; Rita Brock, Journeys by Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power), Christianity and Judaism (Clark Williamson, Has God Forsaken His People ?; Bernard J. Lee, Conversations on the Road Not Taken [3 vols.]), Christianity and other religions (Cobb, Beyond Dialogue), biblical hermeneutics (Lewis Ford, The Lure of God; William A. Beardslee, A House for Hope; Beardslee et al., Biblical Preaching on the Death of Jesus), and postmodernism (Griffin, Beardslee, and Joe Holland, Varieties of Postmodern Theology).

One sign of the growing visibility of process theology in recent decades is the increasing attention, mainly but not entirely negative, given to it by evangelical theologians (Ronald Nash, ed., Process Theology; Royce Gruenler, The Inexhaustible God: Biblical Faith and the Challenge of Process Theism).

Bibliography. Delwin Brown, Ralph E. James, Jr., and Gene Reeves, eds., Process Philosophy and Christian Thought. Harry James Cargas and Bernard Lee, eds., Religious Experience and Process Theology: The Pastoral Implications of a Major Modern Movement. John B. Cobb, Jr., and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Ewert Cousins, ed., Process Theology: Basic Writings. Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, God-Christ-Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology.

Source: Musser/Price, A New Handbook of Christian Theology.

Share:

COPE LANGH KHAN KAM

Featured Post

URBAN YOUTH LEADERSHIP

By: Cope Langh Khan Kam Youth Urban Leadership One of the possible issues that cause Youth Leadership Instability in the Church m...

Wikipedia

Search results

´