paper 3 all

A01 knowledge about church

APOSTILLIC SUCCESSION

• catholic church is authorative source

• apostles first spread christianity

• make disciples of all nations

• jesus gave church authority

• apostles made bishops their successors

Papal infalibility

• pope never wrong

SACRED TRADITION

• came from apostilic succession

• catholic church can transmit own morals

• magisterium- transmit word of god thru apostles and successors

• sacred tradition and scripture should be equal

• dei verbum- sacred script word of god

issues with catholic church

• paedo scandals

• money scams- sale of indulgences

• facism

• Luther claimed Purgatory was ‘fabricated by goblins’

• expectations of church which it doesnt fulfil

• shouldn’t be equal to bible

counter

• Jesus still gave his disciples that authority nonetheless. 

• Luther’s arguments at best suggest the Church needs reform

• No human like Luther has the right to undo what Jesus has created. Jesus created the Church and gave it authority

issue of reason in ethics

we should use our god given reason

natural theology

counter

• luther/calvin- PREFER bible

  BARTHS CRITIQUE

• if we can learn about god thru reason whats the point of revelation

• ‘finite has no capacity for Infinite’

• we dont have divine thoughts

• we are corrupt so is our reason

• can nevr understand god thru reason or fully prove his existence

• need epistemic distance

eval

tillich

• Barth too negative

• self dec-eption in every denial of natural moral law

• you need conscience to deny the gap between god and us so we must accept our fallen state

• RE and revelation needed for connection

• st paul god written on heart

theonomy bible ao1

• Christian moral principles come directly and only from God – e.g. sola scriptura (protestant view)

• bible inerrancy- never wrong

• The church can make teachings, but those teachings must be subject to correction by the Bible – this is the crucial difference to catholicism. 

• Luther

  • said ‘a simple laymen armed with scripture is greater than the mightiest Pope without it’

  • church is corrupt so we must revert back to biblegrew out of church

  • the priesthood of all believers’- priesthood of all believers is the doctrine developed by Luther that all people have the status of priest

• divine command theory- take ethical theories from god through bible

• Calvin agreed with Luther – arguing that it is an ‘error’ to think that the Church should have authority over the bible

• messer - moral guidance in the Bible can be found not just in the commandments, but also in other passages- against autonomy

• mouw cant cherry pick- against autonomy

• The Bible says that ‘Ru-ach’ – God’s breath, was breathed into the authors of the bible – directly inspiring them

issues with bible

• Sola scriptura is not in the Bible – The Bible says it is authoritative, but it doesn’t claim to be the only source of authority. 

• In fact, there seems to be a lot of biblical evidence supporting the apostolic succession

• illogical to claim that only the Bible is your source of teachings if the Bible itself doesn’t say that

• anagogical interp- mystical interp- can be interpreted many ways- catholics protestants etc

• bible multiple authors not direct word of god

• outdated views- homosexuality

counter fletcher liberal views

eval- not only bible needed

Autonomy love

• the (usually liberal) view that Christians can figure out right/wrong themselves through their conscience – e.g. situation ethics.

• Christian moral principles have to be figured out by individual Christians in a moral situation (Fletcher’s situation ethics)

• Fletcher thought the main theme of the bible was love

• Every situation will be different. There are no intrinsically right or wrong actions, it depends on whether in a situation an action maximises agape or not.

• Fletcher’s rejection of legalism & antinomianism

• BARCLAY- situation ethics has some validity

counter

• Traditional Christians- Fletcher’s theory is not genuine Christian ethics- Bible is full of other commands

• Fletcher fails because he claims to be Christian yet does not follow the Bible

• Mouw pointed out that Jesus made other commands- cant cherry pick

• messer - moral guidance in the Bible can be found not just in the commandments, but also in other passages

• Pope Pius XII- Fletcher is therefore unwittingly attacking Christ.

• we won’t do most loving thing

• stamford prison and lord of flies

• original sin and psychology corrupts us

eval

• Fletcher’s point about the difficulty of interpreting the Bible fails against the catholic approach

• role of the Church is to collectively interpret the bible for Christians. So there isn’t a crisis of interpreting the Bible

• Fletcher’s analysis of the bible as justifying autonomy through following agape fails

fletchers liberal bible view

• we either supposed to interpret bible or we take it literally

• both leads to issues

• not perfect word of god

• not legalistic law book

• should view actions by maximising agape

combination heteronomy

• combination of bible, church and reason (Catholic view)

• ‘go and make disciples of all nations’. 

• Pope Paul VI during the second vatican council, thus feels entitled to create ‘sacred tradition’

• Church equal to the Bible as a source of christian moral principles, because both come from God.

• Reason refers to the use of natural law ethics (reason is how we know the primary precepts and figure out how to apply them). The Catholic Church uses natural law ethics.

• Since Jesus is God – God therefore divinely ordained the catholic church – it is equal to the Bible.

distinctive christian ethics

• scapegoat

• G- all human societies follow scapegoat mechanism - everyone blames someone else for problems they have - immigration, Middle East blames Jews

• exposes persecuting the innocent

• This helps bring people together in society but persecution of another

• Jesus death on the cross exposes mechanism as a lie bc Jesus was innocent even tho everyone blamed him

  Holland said western secularism is founded on this ethic

• clean and unclean good samaritan- led to equality- leads to apolitical view world- caused secularism in western spciety

• principle of love- emphasis bible - Christianity breaks the cycle of violence from the mechanism - love thy enemies ( most rational ethic)

• subverts power sturctures of society

  however

• - dont have to be christian to follow teachings- golden rule- more ethical teachings

advice

SON OF GOD- TALK ABOUT HOW CHRISTIANS GRADUALLY BELIEVED HE WAS SON OF GOD

• TRINITARIAN VIEW- SUPPORTED BY BIBLE

• MIRACLES

• RESURRECTION

• HUME, SHILLEBEECKX, WRIGHTS VIEW

TEACHER OF WISDOM

• MORAL TEACHINGS

• Nietzsche

• DEMYTHOLOGISATION (COUNTER)

JESUS AS LIBERATOR

• AO1 KNOWLEDGE

• AO2 EVALUATION

• GOLDEN THREAD ARGUMENT FEMINISM

The Biblical evidence for the trinity

• HOMOUSIUS- John 10:30. Jesus said, “The Father and I are one”.

• “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God

• John 1:14. “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” - INCARNATION

• ‘YOU ARE MY LORD AND GOD’- doubting thomas

• ‘Abba’ - jesus calls god = father

• Nicene Creed proclaimed the trinitarian view correct. These are its key points:

  • Belief in one God

  • Christ is the Son of God, “eternally begotten” of the Father

  • “Begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father”.

  • “By the power of the Holy spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

  • “Christ is to us One and the same Son … truly God and truly Man

  • The God of Christian monotheism was thereby declared a triune God. He is one Substance yet three Persons (‘hypostasis’). Jesus has two natures (human and divine). He is Fully God and Fully Man

  • The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal.

SON OF GOD- TRINITY AO2

PROBLEMS

• The Incoherence of the trinity. Channing argued “infinite confusion”

• Divinity is infinite, humanity is finite cant be both

• Hick goes on to conclude that Christ being a mere human solves the paradoxical implications of the trinity

• early christians hesitant saying more than 1 god

• arianism- jesus is a demi god not equal to god/ subordinate- bishop arius

  • historical Jesus did not teach that he was God, or God the Son, Second person of a Holy Trinity, incarnate, or the son of God in a unique sense.”

  • - believed he was son of man

  • ‘son of God’ was a common title in Judaism- king david

  • earliest gospel is thought to be Mark, which begins with Jesus’ baptism making no mention of a divine birth and Jesus is depicted as a prophet- synoptic gospels

  • was a later invention and thus an idea of human origin. Hick applies demythologisation to the idea of the incarnation

counter

• Augustine and Karl Barth admit that the trinity is a mystery which must be taken on faith

• all human attempts to fully understand the trinity through reason are misguided- “A really suitable term for it just does not exist”

• christians use the word kyrios (LORD) to combat multiple gods

• docetism- jesus solely appeared to be human- however ‘what cant be assumed cant be saved’- jesus cant save us if not really fresh

• but bible needs to support and natural theology needs to be false

• Karl Rahner's "onion analogy" suggests layers of consciousness in Jesus, with divine consciousness deep within

• SHILLEBEECKX

  • believed that Jesus Christ was "God in a human way and man in a divine way"

  • Jesus was both the Proclaimer and the Proclaimed

  • -johns gospel more clear about divinity then synoptic gospels

  • written into NT- st paul sign father son holy spirit, jesus says to make disciples all nations and baptise in name of father,son HS

  • JESUS MOVED TO BELIEVE HIS DIVINITY IN END OF LIFE

  • “you are my beloved son, with you I am well pleased”

  • Ehrman argues that such features of Mark’s gospel show that Mark understands Jesus to be divine, but that does not show that Jesus himself thought of himself as divine.

Jesus’ miracles

• miracles of Jesus arguably show he was the son of God. He walked on water, turned water into wine, raised people from the dead, cured blindness

counter

• Old testament prophets also did miracles. Couldn’t Jesus’ miracles at most show that he was a prophet- Moses parted the red sea to help the Jews escape from slavery in Egypt

• Reimarus (18^th Century German Philosopher- Jesus was just a human who was deluded about being the Messiah- disciples hid his body so they could pretend he had been resurrected

• language that Palestinian Jews could not understand.- time of ‘greatest disquietude and confusion

• Jesus only did miracles to those who already had faith

• Hume's argument against miracles

  • Insufficient evidence

    Hume argued that there is never enough evidence to confirm a miracle. 

  • Human tendency to believe miracles

    Hume argued that humans are naturally inclined to believe the extraordinary. 

  • Inadequate witnesses

    Hume argued that miracle stories are often told by uneducated people, and that there are no sufficient witnesses to support claims of miracles. 

  • Claims in multiple religions

    Hume argued that claims of miracles in different religions cancel each other out

The validity of the resurrection of Jesus

• Wright defends the son of God view on the basis that the resurrection can be justifiably believed

• radical “mutations”- they occurred because the bodily resurrection of Jesus really happened and the Gospel authors simply wrote down what happened

• The empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances- patriarchal society where women’s testimony

• that is why as a historian I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” – Wright.

counter

• The hallucination hypothesis- kind of visionary/religious hallucination

counter counter

• Wright responds that visions of the dead was a well-known idea in ancient Judaism, so if the disciples were simply having some kind of hallucinatory vision then they would have viewed and understood him as being taken up into heaven by God

eval

• Keith Parsons responds to the argument that the radical transformation of Jewish theology is best explained by an actual historical resurrection

• “hardly seems to require supernatural explanation”

• difficulty of deciding on the criteria by which we could determine whether a change in theological thinking was too great to have been of human origin

The teacher of wisdom view only a teacher

• The Prodigal son- forgives him unconditionally

• The sermon on the mount, including the beatitudes

• These moral teachings suggest that Jesus was a teacher of wisdom.

• Turn other cheek

• Jesus death epitomise Tewching

• His miracles / death on cross

counter

• Jesus gave moral teachings, they are not the teachings that a mere human teacher of wisdom would have the right to give

• to take the teachings of Moses and then say ‘But I tell you’ and then give a teaching that completely contradicts those of Moses implies that Jesus thinks of himself as having greater authority than Moses

• Nietzsche- creates weak ppl w no power- not a moral teacher

eval

• C. S. Lewis’ trilemma develops this kind of point. Lewis argued against the view that Jesus was merely a moral teacher regarded as ‘patronizing nonsense’ and an incoherent interpretation of Jesus’ sayingshere are thus three options; Jesus was either God, insane or evil. He cannot be only a moral teacher

Hick, Bultmann & demythologisation AO1

• Hick claimed that Jesus was not the son of God in a unique sense but was only a human ‘guru’ and moral ‘role model

• Rise of biblical critics in 19th century denying divinity - emphasis wisdom

• influenced by Bultmann’s approach to the Bible called demythologisation

• The literalist approach was to believe the myths literally by denying the modern advances in knowledge that contradict them. Bultmann rejected this sort of blind faith as spiritually empty.

• The liberal approach ignores the myths and focusing only on the moral teachings found in the Bible. Bultmann rejected this approach because it reduces Christianity to a mere moral philosophy

• take them as a record of human spiritual experience which had been put into words fitting ancient culture

• Hick, following Bultmann, thought that the Bible contains ‘true myths’ meaning ‘not literally true’ but inspiring us spiritually and morally

Hick, Bultmann & demythologisation AO2

• Jesus’ role in our salvation shows he was divine. Jesus’ sacrifice of his own life to save us from our sins is called the atonement and is something only a divine being could

• wright says Bultmann goes too far when he reduces the meaning of the Gospels to mere expressions of deeper truths

• Wright accepts that ancient texts involve personal expression on the part of their authors which could include the expression of spiritual experience. However, that only justifies taking a critical view of the text. It does not justify abandoning realism

counter

• The moral exemplar theory- doesn’t require that Jesus’ death had a literal and direct effect on our sinful state- merely as an example of moral life so inspiring- Jesus didn’t have to be a divine being

• Critical Realism is the theory that everyone has their own worldview, their own lens through which they perceive the world, which informs, frames and biases their perception

The liberator view AO1

• Luke 10:25-37 – The parable of the Good Samaritan- samaritan is our neihgbour not enemy- liberates samaritans inclusive as all are our neighbours

• Liberation theology – agreed with Marx’s criticism of capitalism

• They believed that Jesus’ true message was in favour of economic justice.he Kingdom of God is about fixing this world, not about the afterlife

• The preferential option for the poor is a term first used by Father Pedro Arrupe which refers to the way the Bible and Jesus showed a preference for poor people

• “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God’ – Matthew 19:24

• If Jesus is saying give up all your possessions and that there shouldn’t be rich people – that sounds quite anti-capitalist.

The liberator view AO2

• Counter interpretation- doesn’t suggest he wanted to overturn or address the causes of economic oppression/inequality.

• Kloppenburg fusing theology and political action diminishes the spiritual message of Christianity

• gospels surpressed the zealotry of jesus (jewish extremist)- unlikely he was a warrior or messiah as horsley says robin hood

• Jesus spoke about the sin and forgiveness of individual people, he didn’t speak about society in general.

• Jesus said yes: ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesers’. That quotes seems to suggest Jesus saw a fundamental disconnect between the human political society and living for God.

counter

• Exodus story- liberation of Jews from the oppression of the Pharaoh- could be taken to counter Kloppenberg’s argument. God clearly cares about freeing people from social oppression which seems to back up liberation theology. Christianity sees itself as an expansion of the Jewish covenant to all humanity, which would make this quote relevant to all oppressed people.

The golden thread

• Reuther describes this golden thread as the ‘prophetic-liberating tradition’. It includes:

  1. God’s defence the oppressed such freeing the Jews in Exodus.

  2. Jesus’ treatment of marginalised people (including the poor and women).

  3. Jesus’ criticism of the established religious views that serve to justify and sanctify the dominant, unjust social order.

  4. Jesus’ moral teachings like the golden rule.

• Reuther’s golden thread argument depends on her claim that a plausible reading of Jesus’ actions is that they were aimed at liberating of women from the unjust social order

• The woman at the well.- Christian feminists interpret this story as showing Jesus’ willingness to challenge the discriminatory culture of the time

• The adulterous woman (John 8)

• bleeding women (unclean)- mark

• Jesus said to Martha (Luke 10) that she should not prepare food in the kitchen but join everyone else to listen to his sermon

• Galatians. Probably the most significant pro-liberation & feminist Bible verse is from St Paul:

  “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ”. Galatians 3:28.

counter

• unclean doesnt justify women liberation

• This story at most shows that Jesus was against capital punishment for adultery

• Jesus was arguably just saying that his teachings/sermon was more important than preparations in the kitchen

• The non-political reading of Jesus & the Bible

• should pay an unjust tax, Jesus said yes: ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesers’

• hese passages aren’t explicitly patriarchal or pro-oppression passages. They are only suggesting that Jesus is not concerned with political or social engagement.

exclusivism AO1

• Exclusivism – only one religion is true and only members of it can be saved.

• UNIVERSAL ACCESS D’COSTA- RESTRCTIVE ACCESS SOME PPL

• cyprian- ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’-outside church no salvation

• John 14:6 – Jesus said he is the way truth & life

• pluralism can’t be right because it would suggest Jesus is only ‘a truth’, one truth among many – not ‘the’ truth

• historical dominant position

• OT denounces non israelites

• Kraemer- cannot pick and choose as religions are whole systems

• barth- uniqueness of christ as gods self revelation

• relevance of mission and evangelism

• catholics- relate to church saved if in ‘bosom of church- protestants saved if hear the word of god and respons- fides ex auditu- faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ

exclusivism biblical evaluation

• compatible with inclusivism

• However, arguably Jesus was slightly ambiguous in his wording of ‘through me’. He doesn’t explicitly state that ‘faith’

• is sacrifice would enable all humans to be saved through him, since he died for the sins of everyone.

• Inclusivists argue that although Jesus is clearly saying he is ‘the truth’, so Christianity is the only true religion, nonetheless we could interpret the verse as suggesting that non-Christians could be saved.

• Perhaps by ‘through me’ Jesus meant that anyone who is a good person can be saved.

• ‘my fathers house has many rooms’

• barth was open to idea of universalism

Augustine’s ‘limited election’ version of exclusivism AO1

• Only some Christians will be saved by God’s grace

• Original sin gives all humans an irresistible temptation to sin

• original sin damns us to hell by default

• Not all Christians will be granted grace – only some limited ‘elect’ will

Augustine’s ‘limited election’ version of exclusivism counter and eval

• unjust for God to punish us for our sinful behaviour - not ethical

• suggests an indefensible view of moral responsibility

eval

• God punishes us because we are sinful beings

• Augustine is not actually arguing that God himself blamed all humanity

• Augustine argues that predestination is not unjust of God, since we are corrupted by original sin

• Augustine puts it down to the “secret yet just judgement of God”

inclusivism

• Only one religion is true, but members of other religions could be saved

• Rahner- unfair to those never heard of jesus

• seems to conflict with omnibenevolence for them to be sent to hell

• God works through Hinduism & Buddhism to try and save people in them

• have a supernatural divine in all of us allowing us to access divine - supernatural existential

• acting like good Christians – Rhaner calls them ‘anonymous Christians’.

• This could result in their being saved, despite not being Christian

• vatican 2- council- reform church towards a cautious inclusivism- change of attitudes- nostra aetate- ‘rays of truth’- truth but not salvation

inclusivism eval

• Universal access exclusivism – solves the problem of people who have never heard of Jesus without needing inclusivism. - D’COSTA- salvation but no truth

• It proposes that those who never heard of Jesus could still be presented with the Christian message after death and given an opportunity to accept and have faith in Jesus

• both still claim that some people go to hell

further eval

• all-loving God could never send anyone to Hell.

• Hick thinks only universalism is justified

• No human can ever deserve infinite punishment because we can only ever do finite crimes

• combined his universalism with his soul-making theory

pluralism AO1

• All religions are equally true and equal paths to salvation.

• Hick was an exclusivist but changed his mind after living in multicultural birmingham, where he had a chance to witness different religions

• “human beings opening their minds to a higher divine Reality, known as personal and good and as demanding righteousness and love” – Hick.

• golden rule- treat others as you wish to be treated- common denominator of many religions

• ancient Islamic parable of blind men each touching a different part of an elephant- trapped in phenomenal- views of same sea

• hick posits transcategorial real- above limited categories of god- ultimate real

• reliant on kant- exist in phenomenal world (acc world)- variety views of world- limited by faculties- religions limited- noumenal world is true world- none of us can access-

• Hick claimed the same was true for religion as different religions are just different human interpretations of the one true divine reality- religious ambiguity- foundation of world

• Panikkar- had multifaith family- openness to mystery of divine- cant limit god in the way he reveals himself- cant say one religion is better than another- manifest in christophanies- realisation of christ

pluralism counter and eval

• Hume argued that all religions cannot be true however since they make contradictory truth claims. 

• Either Jesus was the son of God (like Christians claim) or he wasn’t (like Muslims claim)

• undermines central christian beliefs

• ignores contradictory history- ignores consensus view of resurrection as reduces

• offends may religions

• reductive- reduces all religions into transcategorial

• is there an ethical core- religions differ in ethics

eval

• Hick responds that they can all be right. 

• He argues that those particular theological details such as the divinity of Jesus or number of Gods are part of the ‘conceptual lens’

• Hick claims they can both be right in the sense that they are both pointing to the same higher divine reality.

• Hick essentially discounts the contradictory truth claims

• “conflict in the sense that they are different’ - religion

Summary terms

Traditional Christians: (Paul Eddy, Ratzinger & JP2) say dialogue and conversion can be combined.

Post-liberal christians (David Ford’s ‘Scriptural reasoning’) who say dialogue and conversion must be separated.

Secular liberals (Hitchens) who argue dialogue and conversion must be separated

The scriptural reasoning movement

• Modern form of inter-faith dialogue

• People of different religions get together and read each other’s holy books, discussing meanings and interpretations.

• The goal is just to promote understanding and friendship- Trying to convert others or criticise other religions is not allowed

• founded by David Ford (Anglican) and Peter Ochs (Jewish- midrash jewish practice analysing texts

• Unlike liberal approaches, it allows people to freely express the value and love they have for their own faith/tradition

• Scriptural reasoning is trying to keep things productive and polite

The scriptural reasoning movement - LIBERAL

• liberal approach forces the acceptance of difference

• Liberal approaches to inter-faith dialogue attempt to bring people together on a neutral ground where no one even professes much about the value they find in their own religion.

• The problem is, this leads to relativism- no absolute truth

That is not genuine inter-faith dialogue – liberalism sacrifices the faith part to enable the dialogue part

The scriptural reasoning movement - counter and eval

• D’Costa argued that scriptural reasoning was relativistic:

• “there is a vaguely pluralistic agenda present.”

• criticising other religions and trying to convert them is part of

• religion, whether you’re an exclusivist or an inclusivist

• scriptural reasoning is actually just like the liberal approach to inter-faith dialogue.

• It prevents the expression of faith to enable dialogue – but ends up not being genuine inter-faith dialogue.

• Scriptural reasoning excludes exclusivism

• interfaith network has been shut down by gov

eval

• Conversion does undermine dialogue, so it’s understandable why liberalism and scriptural reasoning wanted to separate them

• However, conversion is part of faith. Genuine interfaith dialogue has to allow for conversion.

• Scriptural reasoning is a specific activity with a specific goal

• it’s fair to ban criticism and conversion when the goal of the meetings is just to promote understanding.

• This is not promoting relativism – it’s not suggesting there is no one true religion, it’s just trying to get people to understand other religions

issue of secular liberal pressure on exclusivism justified AO1

• push religious people towards pluralism.

• If religious people were pluralists, they wouldn’t seek to convert others. Then, interfaith dialogue could be separated from conversion to enable social cohesion, without sacrificing the ‘faith’ element.

• So, liberal secular culture views exclusivist attitudes and conversion as intolerant and causing social tensions

Paul Eddy (COE) & Ratzinger (became Pope benedict XVI)- counter and eval

• Ratzinger noted this emerging dynamic, that secular culture has started to be intolerant of views such as Jesus being the only (exclusivist) or full (inclusivist) truth

• Eddy made a similar complaint, that Christians are made to feel guilty for believing that Jesus is the way, truth and life and for converting others.

• Christians are being socially pressured into relativistic pluralism

• feel like their religious freedom is under attack and this can cause a backlash

eval

• Hitchens respond that social pressure on traditional exclusivism is justified because exclusivism causes social tensions & problems.

• Liberalism has a tension with religion. Liberalism has to accept conversion increasing levels of religious political activism, such as the overturning of abortion laws in America

• wants everyone to get along and accept each other’s differences, but traditional religion can’t do that

• Religious intolerance and even violence has occured throughout history and still occurs around the world

• Religious freedom includes the freedom to criticise religion. 

• Eddy and Ratzinger think religion should have the power to be above criticism.

• This attitude does have no place in a free secular society

JP2 Redemptoris Missio – JP2 defends an inclusivist approach to interfaith dialogue and conversion AO1

• Inclusivism is the view that Christianity is the one true religion, but God reveals himself through other religions

• JP2 says that this means there is Christian truth in other religions

• Christians should engage in tolerant open-minded dialogue with those of other faiths

• ultimate aim of dialogue is conversion- is mutually enriching and can be done with deep respect and eliminate prejudice and intolerance, thus enabling social cohesion.

• So JP2 would reject the scriptural reasoning separation of dialogue from conversion.

JP2 Redemptoris Missio evaluation

• This is worse than being told they have the wrong religion – inclusivism says non-christians have been worshipping and following the Christian God without knowing it.

• John Paull II talks about ‘deep respect’ and ‘dignity’ and enriching both sides, but these words ring hollow when one realises the reason he is saying them

• under exclusivism, it’s possible for different religions to reach the mutual understanding of agreeing to disagree.

• The Catholic inclusivist approach cannot achieve mutual understanding because it regards other religions as a confused version of christianity.

• So the inclusivist approach to dialogue and conversion is unable to enable social cohesion

arguing that conversion is valid and good AO1

• JP2 Redemptoris Missio – argument for the validity of conversion

• conversion is positive because it is part of a free society that people should be free to try and convert others.

• Furthermore, JP2 points to St Paul who said ‘woe to me if I do not preach the gospel’

• emphasises that conversion must be done in a respectful way.

• Missionaries must be respectful of people’s freedom of conscience

• Church of England document

• ‘highest calling’ of the Church is to proclaim Jesus.

• Jesus is indeed the way, the truth and the life – so Christians should share their religion with others in the hope of converting themarns that conversion should be done in a respectful way.

• It says we shouldn’t view non-Christians as ‘targets’ of an advertising campaign

arguing that conversion is valid and good counter

• Secular liberal progressives would criticise the idea of conversion as insensitive and encouraging of social tensions.

• They would point out that Christianity throughout history has spread itself by the sword – through violence.

• Christianity is still currently benefiting from that history of forced conversion because it now has many colonised countries who are now predominantly Christian – e.g. in Africa and south america

• if Christians really want to make up for and apologize for that history, they should stop trying to convert people completely. (Giles Fraser – priest – accept

• Christians should not engage in conversion at every opportunity – they should instead take more opportunity to try to make amends for the brutal past

problems w religion in society

• southport riots

• divisive

• creates barriers between people

• faith svhools

• rise of populism and far right politics

Bonhoeffer AO1

• criticise the Church if it diverged from the Bible

• Pastors Emergency League in 1934 which evolved into the Confessing Church, made to oppose the state Church controlled by the Nazis

• LUTHERAN PASTOR

• conspiracy to assassinate Hitler which included Hans Oster who had recruited Bonhoeffer

• book on how Christianity needs to focus more on action in the service of God’s will- cost of discipleship

• Finkenwalde was where Bonhoeffer held an illegal secret seminary

• TRAINING SAW SUFFERING IN OTHER COUNTRIES-

• NAZI ARYAN CLAUSE- JEWISH COULDNT WORK- ROOT OUT- BON AGAINST

• Solidarity for Bonhoeffer refers to the purpose of Christian life being about relationship to God by living with and for other people- returned form america- RIGHT BEFORE WW2

• ‘no right’ to help restoring Christianity in Germany after the war unless he shared ‘the trials of this time with my people’

• Barmen declaration- shouldnt follow idolotry nazi agenda- ignore their declaration- led to confessing church

Knowing and acting on God’s will AO1

• thought that the fall corrupted our ability to have knowledge of good and evil- thought traditional human methods of ethics, including reason, conscience, virtue and duty, had all failed

• Our goal should be to become a ‘responsible person’ – someone who acts to stand their ground against evil

• highly risky and difficult, but when faced with evil we must act

• duty to god outweighs duty to state

• CHRIST ALONE WE HAVE OUR DUTY- LEADERSHIP OF CHRIST

• Even though killing is wrong and could destabilize the country, Bonhoeffer had faith it was God’s will

• best we can do is meditate on the bible and pray, hoping to get a sense of God’s will

• must risk a “bold venture of faith”- costly grace

Knowing and acting on God’s will AO2

however

• Taking part in violence goes against pacifism & the will of God- conflicts with Jesus’ teachings which seem to recommend pacifism- turn the other cheek - Jesus died on the cross, he didn’t ever use violence, let alone kill anyone- ‘it is necessary’ that Christians should obey their rulers since the rulers are ‘God’s servant for your good’

• Subjectivity issue. The Neo-Orthodox idea that a person could hear God’s voice through the Bible or by it be brought into a direct encounter with God seems far too subjective

counter

• However: Barth & Bonhoeffer’s Neo-Orthodox view of the Bible- Bonhoeffer doesn’t think the Bible is the perfect word of God- Bonhoeffer told his students to meditate daily on the bible just want to try and hear go speaking through it

• “The will of God is not a system of rules which is established from the outset

• “The knowledge of Jesus Christ … is something that is alive and not something given once for all

• Bonhoeffer called principles from previous times as ‘rusty swords’

Bonhoeffer on Church, state & civil disobedience AO1

• Bonhoeffer agreed with Luther that Christians should obey the state’s laws because order is useful for sinful creatures like us. However, human law is fallible

• rejection totalitarianism

• Church should therefore have the important political role to check gov

• Barmen declaration- shouldnt follow idolotry nazi agenda- ignore their declaration- led to confessing church

• civil disobedience- to disobey their leaders if they act against the interests of the state and God’s will

• taking part in the confessing Church and the illegal seminary at Finkenwalde- NAZI ARYAN CLAUSE- JEWISH COULDNT WORK- ROOT OUT- BON AGAINST

• ‘disciple simply burns his boats and goes ahead’- no going back- have to follow through

• ‘when christ calls a man he simply bids him to die’

Bonhoeffer on Church, state & civil disobedience AO2

• A moral system which justifies evil acts as God’s will is dangerous-

• the Nazis soldiers had the slogan ‘God on our side’ on their belt buckles- justifying the assassination of politicians-

• Hill murdered an abortion doctor and claimed to have been inspired by Bonhoeffer-

• Bush cited Bonhoeffer to justify his war on terror

• paul- ‘submit to governing authorities’ as established by god

• providing people an excuse to do what they want

• rise non violence

counter

• acting according to God’s will for Bonhoeffer requires not just that we put aside human ethic

• Jesus’ injunction to love your neighbour as yourself required selflessness of us- ‘ a new life in existence for others’

• Nazis certainly did not put aside human ethics or their personal desires. Arguably neither did Bush

• bold venture faith- can go wrong- in temporal world but not in gods eyes

eval

• depends on types of disobedience

• complicated matter

• Cox claims that Bonhoeffer’s theology is like a Rorschach test. It reveals the theological presuppositions of the reader

• doesnt always conclude murder- Bon teaching does reflect need- striking is a type of disobedience- ghandi

Bonhoeffer vs secularism

• Secularists would argue against Bonhoeffer for a complete separation between Church and state

• church is even more corruptible than the state because at least the state is voted for in elections in a democracy

• ‘the long peace’, the significant level of peace after the second world war to the present day

• due to the rise of secular liberal democracy

counter

• However, Stanley Hauerwas defends Bonhoeffer. He argues that the Church does protect against authoritarian dictatorship

• Pragmatism without truth leads to indifference which leads to cynicism. Liberal secular western societies have undermined theological and religious truth which creates a void vulnerable to being filled by totalitarian powers

• he loss of God results in a void of purpose which can be exploited by authoritarians to gain power

Cheap vs costly grace AO1 and 2

• Church preaches ‘cheap grace’ as they suggest believers don’t really have to do anything particularly difficult to receive grace

• “Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ” – Bonhoeffer.- ‘too attatched to the world’

• ‘costly grace’ was the true grace and it requires us to truly suffer and sacrifice like Jesus did

• The parable of the good Samaritan also backs up Bonhoeffer’s view

• IMPORTANCE SUFFERING- REDEEMED THROUGH CROSS- become selfless- ‘suffering must be endured in order that it may pass away’

• the cheap grace of their legalistic approach to the bible and inner corruption caused them to fail to act according to God’s will which was the costly grace of putting aside cultural barriers and having faith in loving their neighbour.

counter

• The sacrifice of discipleship is irrelevant today- mphasis on suffering made more sense in his time where he was resisting Nazi rule.

• We live in times of relative peace and security and thus suffering isn’t as required.

• stuck in a negative view due to times of theology- doesnt see positive outcomes

eval

• Sacrifice is still relevant. Jesus called on us to sacrifice like he di

• Our cross might be different from his. Arguably there are still sacrifices we can and should make today to prevent evil.

• x

• There are still cultural issues like racism/sexism and global issues involving war and climate chang

• follow religionless christianity

Non-violent resistance can be successful

• King and Ghandi’s method is morally superior and more true to Christian ethics compared to Bonhoeffer’s which allows violence

• Ghandi’s liberation of India from English colonial rule

counter

• Jesus’ pacifism ‘worked’ because he was raised from the dead and thereby saved us from our sins

• it would not have ‘worked’ against Hitler, which is why Bonhoeffer thought that fulfilling God’s will required taking part in violent action in his time/situation.

• Non-violent resistance only works if the tyrant has a problem with killing peaceful protestors

• God wants of us – he wants us to act. That’s what Bonhoeffer thought he was doing

Bonhoeffer vs Aquinas on knowing God’s will, natural law ethics, civil disobedience & duty to the state AO1 and 2

• Aquinas would have disagreed with Bonhoeffer’s theology for failing to take the natural law into account

• Natural law ethics is the best approach for dealing with the issue of civil disobedience & duty to the state

• If a law goes against the ‘human good’ then civil disobedience might be justified, unless the disorder created by disobeying the law would be worse than the badness of the law itself

• “we ought to obey God rather than man”.

• Aquinas clearly thinks civil disobedience is justified but has a much clearer view than Bonhoeffer about when it is justified

• Aquinas’ approach much safer than Bonhoeffer’ using NL

counter

• Barth’s reasoning for rejecting Aquinas-influenced Catholic natural law ethics. Since human reason is corrupted by original sin, its ability to know the primary precepts of natural law cannot be relied on

• This is a problem for natural theology which wants to make use of reason.

• “the finite has no capacity for the infinite”

• Whatever humans discover through reason is not divine, so to think it is divine is idolatry

religionless christianity

• ‘this-worldliness’ and ‘religionless Christianity’ to address Nietzsche. Bonhoeffer wanted to reform Christianity and make it relevant to the modern secularised world

• about going out into the world- pope francis

• consequence of the “world come of age”

• new kind of Christianity to assert itself

• ‘religion’ cheap grace- instead take out of the curch

• irrelevant the theological baggage, rusty swords and cheap grace of traditional religion and enables us to focus on what it means to live like a disciple of Jesus and trying to follow God’s will.

relevance today

• rise of populism, authoritarianism facist politics- trump far right views

• immigration- victimising migrants by politics- oppression of minorities

• rise materialism and capitalism

• need for solidarity around the world

• southport riots- against minorities

• rise of secularism away from values - pluralism- complicated world now

• continuation of cheap grace

Liberation theology AO1

• Originated in 1950s Brazil.

• Catholic South American theologians emphasized addressing poverty systemically, inspired by Jesus' teachings.

• Influenced by Marx but not as radical; accepts economic inequality's roots.

• Focuses on both theological beliefs (orthodoxy) and action (orthopraxis).

• Gustavo Gutiérrez identified two forms of liberation:

  • Social & economic—poverty and oppression caused by human actions.

  • Spiritual—liberation from sin through reconciliation with God.

Marxism and Christianity

• Marx believed history would naturally lead to workers and peasants rising up against their oppressors.

• Religion kept peasants passive by convincing them to accept inequality in exchange for a promised afterlife.

• He called religion an "opiate," numbing people to their suffering.

• Examples of religious control include:

  • The divine right of kings.

  • The sale of indulgences (paying for forgiveness).

  • Restricting Bible translations to Latin, keeping people from understanding it.

  • The Pope’s involvement in wars and political power struggles.

The preferential option for the poor

• Jesus said the poor and less fortunate were blessed

• mainstream Christian belief

• arx’s economic analysis of society shows that addressing poverty requires addressing the structural causes of economic inequality

• preferential option for the poor meant that Christians should not be neutral when it comes to injustice and its political causes

counter

• Pope John Paul II thought that the preferential option for the poor was an important part of ‘Christian charity’.

• dealing with spiritual poverty was an important focus not just economic poverty

• charity, implying the solution is charity not political action

• overattachment to superficial material things such as drugs, pornography and ‘other forms of consumerism which exploit the frailty of the weak

eval

• Charity is not sufficient to address the causes of poverty and it ignores Guitierez’s argument

• apitalism has failed the basic needs of people in Latin America

• Christianity plus capitalism are insufficient and so true Christianity should advocate for something other than mere capitalism

The Biblical basis for Liberation Theology

• founded on the teachings and example of Jesus

• “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God’ – Matthew 19:24

• “Sell your possessions and give to the poor

• quite anti-capitalist

counter

• Kloppenburg using theology and political action diminishes the spiritual message of Christianity

• Jesus spoke about the sin and forgiveness of individual people, he didn’t speak about society

• he doesn’t seem to be saying that we should actively try to overthrow the unjust social structures that result from living for money

• ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesers’

eval

• Exodus story shows Kloppenberg is wrong:- God is not only concerned about liberation at the individual level.- liberation of Jews from the oppression of the Pharaoh

• God clearly cares about freeing people from social oppression which seems to back up liberation theology

Biblical evidence against Liberation theology

• ‘My kingdom is not of this world’

• focusing on earthly socio-economic progress is “anthropocentric”, meaning human-focused

• Jesus’ injunction to build up spiritual treasure in heaven, not treasure on earth

• secularization

• ratzinger critique

counter

• earlier Gospels present Jesus’s Kingdom as something he was bringing about on earth. Azlan is suggesting this verse was added to de-politicise Jesus so Christianity could better fit into Roman society

• exodus- liberate slaves moses

eval

• Azlan’s conclusion fail- Luke 12:22-31. Jesus said not to worry about your life, even what you will eat because life is “more than food”.

• seems to be against us caring about where someone gets their food, drink or clothes from

• jesus here also seems to contradict Guitierrez’ view that liberation from economic injustice should precede spiritual injustice. Jesus is clear that before dealing with economic concerns you should ‘first’ seek the kingdom of God

• hard to see how Jesus could be considered a political figure aimed at liberating people by changing society

The validity of Marxism

• Marx’s analysis of capitalism is considered useful by liberation theologians.

• The 1968 Medellín document called for social and economic transformation, blaming Latin America's poverty on its export-based economy.

• Marx’s theory lost favor when wealthy countries like the U.S. also became major raw material exporters.

• Latin America in the 1960s was arguably precapitalist, with governments controlling 50-60% of the economy.

• Capitalism did not exist in Jesus’ time, but economic exploitation was even worse.

• Adam Smith, a key philosopher of capitalism, saw poverty as unacceptable and unnecessary.

• Extreme poverty dropped from 70% in 1960 to 17% in 2012.

• Capitalists argue that capitalism is the real path to liberation, as historical attempts at Marxist utopias have failed.

but has always failed

but LT doesnt overly focus

all 5 theologians agree on

• preferential option for poor

• critique of social injustice

• engament w politics

• biblical foundations- exodus, prophets and jesus ministry

• conflict w catholic hierrarchy- faced opposition w the vatican

• structural sin- capitalism- institutions

gustavo gutierrez

• founding father

• theology rooted in action - critical reflection on praxis

• political, spiritual and human revelation

• need a more engaged church but works within church structures

• use marxist social analysis to critique capitalism- dont fully adopt marxism

• criticized but remained w catholics

• founder of liberation theology- developed preferentail options for poor

leonardo and clodovis boff

• strcutural change in society and church reform

• must reform the church and engage the poor

• was censored for critiquing church hierarchy

• highly political- supported left movements

• leonardo silenced by vatican 1985- ‘church charism and power’ book

• explaned LT into indigenou rights and church reforms

jon sobrino

christology of oppressed/ ‘from below’( sermon on mount vs plane)

• liberation and participation in Jesus’ suffering and resurrection

• strong critique of church passivity

• indicts political systems in their role of oppressing poor

• censured by vatican in 2007- wrote jesus the liberator book

• developed radical christology of suffering and liberation

Dom helder camara

• pastoral action, advocacy and non violence- isnt a theologian is a bishop

• inspire direct activism

• non violent resistance and grassroots activism

• ‘a church of the poor’

• ‘when I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why they are poor they call me a communist’

• directly opposed brazil military dictatorship

• critized but not silenced

• a pastoral leader and politcal leader

Ratzinger against LT

• wrote liberatis nuntius- criticising LT

• communism and marxism has failed

• against the influence of liberation theology in Catholicism because of its Marxist influences

• should help poor but in own way not marxist

• ‘atheism and denial of human person are at core marxist theory’- cant pick and mix marxism- is an atheist idea

• ‘from god alone that one can expect salvation and change the situations on suffering’

• cant just use praxis then justify w bible later- bible subjective- need authority not from the people

• put ‘liberation from servitude over liberation from sin’ - focus on sin not just earthly matters

• ‘suffering not purely equated w social condition of poverty’- need to focus on other areas -failure, injustice and death- also a vlaue to suffering

• structural sin is avoiding blame and sinful nature

counter

• liberation theology is not connected to the atheistic anti-religious core of Marxist theory

• Church is fulfilling Marx’s critique of religion as serving the interests of the powerful, by refusing to deal with the economic structural causes of poverty

• McGovern claims that liberation theologians are not Marxist because they are not atheists nor even materialists

The golden thread

• Reuther describes this golden thread as the ‘prophetic-liberating tradition’. It includes: WOMEN

  1. Jesus’ treatment of marginalised people (including the poor and women)..

  2. Jesus’ moral teachings like the golden rule.

• Reuther’s golden thread argument depends on her claim that a plausible reading of Jesus’ actions is that they were aimed at liberating of women from the unjust social order

• The woman at the well.- Christian feminists interpret this story as showing Jesus’ willingness to challenge the discriminatory culture of the time

• The adulterous woman (John 8)

• bleeding women (unclean)- mark

• Jesus said to Martha (Luke 10) that she should not prepare food in the kitchen but join everyone else to listen to his sermon

• Galatians. Probably the most significant pro-liberation & feminist Bible verse is from St Paul:

  “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ”. Galatians 3:28.

counter

• unclean doesnt justify women liberation

• This story at most shows that Jesus was against capital punishment for adultery

• Jesus was arguably just saying that his teachings/sermon was more important than preparations in the kitchen

• The non-political reading of Jesus & the Bible

• should pay an unjust tax, Jesus said yes: ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesers’

• hese passages aren’t explicitly patriarchal or pro-oppression passages. They are only suggesting that Jesus is not concerned with political or social engagement.

Mulieris Dignitatum argument 1

• Motherhood is a woman’s telos; natural purpose

• women are ‘naturally disposed to motherhood’

• motherhood creates a ‘special openness’

• fulfilment and purpose of the female personality, especially that of compassion, comes from virginity and motherhood

• based on Natural law reasoning about telos

counter

• feminists point to anthropological study of different human civilisations, where it is found that there is a large degree of variation regarding gender roles between different cultures

• motherhood is just a cultural invention by men

• so men can be active in the world- overrepresentation in important roles of power in our society (e.g. politics, business, etc).

• women are made not born

• Simone de Beauvoir also rejects the idea that motherhood is a woman’s telos- radical feminist who was an existentialist like Sartre

• no objective purpose/telos because “existence precedes essence”

• people cling to fabricated notions of objective purpose like telos because they are afraid of the intensity of the freedom involved in having to create their own purpose

Mulieris Dignitatum argument

• There are important and valued women in Christian history/theology

• many female European saints and that Jesus coming to earth was only possible because of a woman

• claim is that Christianity can’t be sexist since there are women it holds in high regard

counter

• Simone de Beauvoir argues that the Christian valuing of Mary shows that it is only through being a man’s “docile servant that she will be also a blessed saint” in Christianity

• Mary Daly- Mary is portrayed as a passive empty ‘void waiting to be made by the male’

• ‘rape victim’

• Jesus’ mother Mary is indeed put on a pedestal by Christianity, but only to encourage women to become passive, submissive and obedient so that women would all the better become the sexual property of men.

• slave owner saying they like and respect the subservient obedient slaves

Mary Daly: The maleness of God

• God being male gave people the concept that power was a male thing

• invention of a patriarchal mindset trying to justify its having power

• “If God is male, then the male is God”

• Daly further argued that this association between masculinity and divinity had the function of making male supremacy seem like a fact- beyond challeneg

• Daly’s solution: “God” as a verb. Daly claimed the concept of God needed to be castrated by referring to God as a ‘she’

• God as ‘be-ing’ force in world rather than ‘a being’ transcendent

• God as a verb introduces the flexibility required for a person to see that the unjust state of being is not fixed but may be changed

Daly: the misogynistic teachings of the Bible and Church

• 1 Corinthians 14:34 “The women should keep silent in the churches

• 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man

• Ephesians 5:22-33 ‘Wives, submit to your own husbands as you do the Lord

• Eve as the source of sin- oppress women by portraying them as the source of sin- internalised feelings of guilt and inferiority

• The unholy trinity of rape, genocide and war

• Deuteronomy 21 it states that after a victory in war, soldiers are free to take one of the defeated enemy’s women as a wife.

• “So kill all the male children. Kill also the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18)

AO2 DALY

• Liberal christians & Symbolic view of the bible

• we should take a more symbolic view of the bible

• literal relevance for the time it was produced- human authors, and thereby patriarchy, had a role in writing the bible, not just God

• Christianity is redeemable, if it is reinterpreted

• re-write the bible with gender-neutral languae, for example

counter

• Daly would respond that while much fewer people take the bible literally, Christians are still influenced to view women as inferior by it

• Daphne Hampson agrees with Daly- they all “read the bible as scripture”- cannot just ignore it- subconscious level, the sexist paradigms and themes of the bible will affect them so long as they continue to read it

Sisterhood & The superiority of female spirituality

• Church was irredeemably patriarchal and sexist against women

• isterhood of Feminism can take its place and fulfil many of the traditional spiritual functions of religion without being patriarchal

• protestant women and catholic women and realising their unity as a ‘sexual caste’ in order to ‘live in the future that we are fighting for’.

• Women need a sacred space to escape from patriarchy in order to heal

• Daly argues that men need to reject the old sexist ways- feeding on the bodies and minds of women, sapping energy at the expense of female death’

• Women should therefore have power over men as society- Patriarchal oppression of women has prevented their growth

counter

• Some argue that Daly is advocating female supremacy, which is just as sexist as male supremacy

• Her advocation of separation between men and women is also seen as radical, impractical and too similar to segregationism

Rosemary Radford Reuther

• Jesus and the Bible can be interpreted in a feminist way and therefore Christianity has the potential to be compatible with feminism

• However currently it is sexist because it has undergone patriarchalization

• In Christianity, men and women are both equally created with the imagio dei, which should be a basis for equality.

• In ancient times and in the Bible, divine wisdom is mentioned in female terms. ‘Sophia

• Hebrew Bible God is called Yahweh which means ‘no name’. God is beyond gender

• early Christian sect Montanists had women leaders and prophets but they were violently persecuted into non-existence- Miriam- Deborah

• It is speculated that female prophets in Corinth- priscilla

• establishment of the Christian Church as the imperial religion of the Roman Empire was a ‘decisive step in the patriarchalization of Christology’

• psychological aspects to the patriarchalization. There is a tendency to associate men with the higher part of human nature

Reuther’s Christology

• Women can be saved by Christ but it requires a re-evaluation of the view of Christ

• Jesus was very different to the expected male warrior type of Messiah. Instead, Jesus was a servant King

• Ruether argues that Jesus is better understood as a self-sacrificing non-warrior Messiah, invoking female wisdom

• more gender-inclusive understanding of Jesus which could therefore be the basis for a redeemed Christianity

• ncorporates the female in the concept of God

counter

• Daly argues that a male figure like Jesus cannot provide genuine spiritual salvation to women under conditions of patriarchy:

• “exclusively masculine symbols for the ideal of ‘incarnation’ or for the ideal of the human search for fulfilment will not do.”

• “The idea of a unique male savior may be seen as one more legitimation of male superiority.”

• Daly is arguing that it is simply irrelevant whether Jesus could be seen as being gender-inclusive

eval

• f Jesus is properly understood as embodying female wisdom, as Reuther argued he did, then although he is technically male in appearance, nonetheless spiritually he is more inclusive

• Jesus was a gender inclusive figure which was corrupted by patriarchal reinterpretation. So Christianity can be reformed by this understanding of Jesus.

types of feminism

• Traditionalists see feminists as irrationally attempting to deny the reality of their own nature regarding what would make them happy- Feminists see traditionalism as a man-made ideology

• Liberal feminism is the view that men and women should be equal in their rights and opportunities in society

• Radical feminism is the view that equal rights is not enough to guarantee equality- our culture needs to be challenged and changed.

• Gender Traditionalism is the view that traditional gender roles are natural and that human life is best when following them.

Traditional Christian gender roles

• more fundamental traditionalist views

• Genesis Eve was created to be Adam’s ‘helper’.

• Augustine interprets this as meaning that a man by himself contains the imagio dei, but a woman does not. Only when combined with husband as his helper can a woman be in the image of God.

• Eve’s was the first to fall into sin. Her punishment was pain in childbirth and that her husband will “rule over you”

• St Paul says that because of this, women should not have authority over a man and can be saved through becoming mothers

• “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man

• But women will be saved through childbearing”. (1 Timothy 2:12

• “Wives, submit to your own husbands as you do the Lord- for their “own benefit and good”

• dycotomoy between ytraditional and liberal

Feminist biblical criticism

• Biblical Patriarchy Bible is man-made purpose of subjugating women

• Bible, or at least the sexist parts of it, are not the perfect word of God

• Hume points out, reason is a slave of the passions- women support them by being passive in the home, appeals to the self-interest of men

counter

• Traditional Christians might respond that that the Bible is God’s inspired word. If God wants men and women to be different, then that’s what God wants

• women who reject these bible passages are essentially acting like Eve did

• All humans are called to a high standard by God, but many prefer to disobey

• ephesians tells men to love wives as christ loved the church

Liberal feminist theology

• Bible is not the perfect word of God. It is full of errors- product of the human mind- in enlightenment period Bible was shown to contain scientific and historical errors

• words of the Bible are therefore just human interpretations of divine

• Jesus himself seemed to be progressive- modified some of the old testament laws.

• Christians should follow this example and continually update and improve Christian theology and ethics.

Ruether’s feminist theology  

• Bible contains patriarchal verses, but also verses that are in favour of equality. The Bible is therefore inconsistent on this issue and cannot itself coherently support the traditional patriarchal view of gender roles

• golden thread - Reuther describes this golden thread as the ‘prophetic-liberating tradition’. It includes:

  1. God’s defence the oppressed such freeing the Jews in Exodus.

  2. Jesus’ treatment of marginalised people (including the poor and women).

  3. Jesus’ criticism of the established religious views that serve to justify and sanctify the dominant, unjust social order.

  4. Jesus’ moral teachings like the golden rule.

• women well, adulterous, neither man nor women, martha, galatians, bleedng women

Mulieris Dignitatum argument 1 JP2

• catholic view

• Motherhood is a woman’s telos; natural purpose

• women are ‘naturally disposed to motherhood’

• motherhood creates a ‘special openness’

• fulfilment and purpose of the female personality, especially that of compassion, comes from virginity and motherhood

• based on Natural law reasoning about telos

counter

• feminists point to anthropological study of different human civilisations, where it is found that there is a large degree of variation regarding gender roles between different cultures

• motherhood is just a cultural invention by men

• so men can be active in the world- overrepresentation in important roles of power in our society (e.g. politics, business, etc).

• women are made not born

• Simone de Beauvoir also rejects the idea that motherhood is a woman’s telos- radical feminist who was an existentialist like Sartre

• no objective purpose/telos because “existence precedes essence”

• people cling to fabricated notions of objective purpose like telos because they are afraid of the intensity of the freedom involved in having to create their own purpose

Mulieris Dignitatum argument 2

• There are important and valued women in Christian history/theology

• many female European saints and that Jesus coming to earth was only possible because of a woman

• claim is that Christianity can’t be sexist since there are women it holds in high regard

counter

• Simone de Beauvoir argues that the Christian valuing of Mary shows that it is only through being a man’s “docile servant that she will be also a blessed saint” in Christianity

• Mary Daly- Mary is portrayed as a passive empty ‘void waiting to be made by the male’

• ‘rape victim’

• Jesus’ mother Mary is indeed put on a pedestal by Christianity, but only to encourage women to become passive, submissive and obedient so that women would all the better become the sexual property of men.

• slave owner saying they like and respect the subservient obedient slaves

Simone de Beauvoir

• radical feminist second wave

• wrote ‘ second sex’

• religion is merely a tool of the male oppressor group which keeps women under control

• “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman.”- result of socialisation, not biology

• girls are socially pressured to think the meaning of their life is marriage

• motherhood forces women to sacrifice their own desires and selves for the sake of child-rearing

• Liberal feminism seeks to give women the same rights and choices as men, but de Beauvoir criticised this for being insufficient

• truly combat patriarchy requires people to “destroy the concept of motherhood”

counter

• Radical Feminists are too negative towards motherhood

• any woman who chooses to be a mother is suffering from ‘internalised misogyny’

• need focus on 3rd wave intersectionality etc

• Mary O’Brien is a naturalistic feminist who argued that motherhood can be a positive thing if women are in contro

eval

• women are brought up in an environment which makes them less likely to think of themselves as scientists or business people

• if motherhood is genuinely chosen, it can be positive

• oppressive culture that existed in the 1940s

Pinker

• atheist and scientist

• in favour of biology

• in favour of liberal feminism

• ‘tabula rasa’ meaning ‘blank slate’- zero innate cognitive differences between men and women

• men and women, on average, have different temperaments, interests and goals despite no innate differences

counter

not biology

• Society might condition men and women differently in those traits

• oppression of women and therefore the social conditioning that follows from oppression could be the cause of the universality of gender roles.

eval

• “The gender paradox” is the name given to the statistically observed phenomenon that as gender equality increases in a society, the gender split in terms of the different lifestyle and profession choices men and women make also increases. Some argue this is best explained by biological essentialism

Anne Oakley

• a sociologist

• ‘maternal instinct’ comes from culture rather than biolog

• Paul 11 is wrong to think that God created women with a maternal instinct

• many women found it frustrating to be a stay-at-home mothe

• orroborates de Beauvoir’s claim that women are forced to sacrifice their life goals to bring up their children which seems unfair – why is it not equally the responsibility of the man?

counter

• Alternative explanation of Oakley’s data

• it could be that childhood neglect creates traumas to interfere w maternal

eval

• if the maternal instinct evolved then it might not come from God

• The science of human nature is very controversial and it is extremely difficult to prove anything on either side of this debate

family

• churches rejection of homosexual families

• marriages should be heterosexual and focus on children

• secular feminists have turned relationships into revolving around sex rather than family- contraception etc

counter

some christians believe

• homosexual families can still love and bring up a child

• multiple types of family in modern society- blended, single, married, extended

• same sex marriage legal

eval

• many traditionals see they are called to parenthood

• need traditional heterosexual bible cincerns family

• shows why christian vies are wrong

ADVICE

REASON ALONE CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND GOD

THROUGH REASON AND RELIGION

• polkinghorne

• boyle

• bonaventura

2 WAYS KNOWING GOD- KNOWING ABOUT HIM OMNIBENEVOLENCE AND OMNIPOTENT- PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD - CHRISTIANS ARGUE THAT GOD CAN BE KNOWN IN BOTH SENSES

aquinas arg- WINS

• ST PAUL SUPPORTS AQUINAS

• BRUNNER SUPPORT AQUINAS

• augustine original sin counter

• barth original sin counter

• barth - undermines faith counter

Aquinas’ Natural Theology AO1

• human reason could never know or understand God’s infinite divine nature so we gain lesser law

• God’s moral law through natural law theory- 5 WAYS

• God’s nature by analogy, through the analogies of attribution and proportion

• a posteriori teleological and cosmological arguments which are only evidence for the Christian God that therefore support faith in God

• because if the goodness, beauty and wonder of creation then they will attract us even more strongly to God’s total goodness

• typically catholic

Augustine & Barth on Original Sin vs Aquinas AO2

• Barth reason become corrupted by original sin

• dangerous to rely on human reason

• “the finite has no capacity for the infinite”

• discover through reason is not divine, so to think it is divine is idolatry- lead to nazis- was in germany in ww2

• Only faith in God’s revelation in the bible works

• WE LOST ALL 3 OF OUR GOODS IN THE FALL

counter

• Aquinas argues that our rationality and ABILITY TO DO GOOD was not destroyed by original sin

• only rational beings can sin. It makes no sense to say animals sin- POST FALL WE STILL HAVE RATIONALITY WE JUST LOST OUR JUSTICE

• Our reason therefore still inclines us, through synderesis, towards goodness

• claiming that concupiscence can sometimes be natural to humans, in those cases where our passions are governed by our reason (not hurtful)- e.g laughter

• “Participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law”. – Aquinas

evaluation

• original sin has not destroyed our orientation toward good just put habits in the way

• with gods grace our reason can discover knowledge of gods existence - natural theology is valid

• brunner- claimed the fall destroyed the material imago dei (Adam and Eve’s relationship with God) but not the formal imago dei- gives us lang reason and moral responsibility

• natural knowledge Brunner claims can be gained through reason is knowledge of preserving grace

• Brunner still thinks however that natural theology alone will always, due to our sinful state, result in a distorted knowledge of God. We need the special revelation of Christ to achieve full knowledge.

Barth: Aquinas’ natural theology undermines faith by making revelation pointless AO2

• humans would be able to know God’s existence or God’s morality through their own effort

• make revelation unnecessary

• God clearly thought revelation was necessary as he sent Jesus

however

• intended to show the reasonableness of belief in God

• Aquinas still accepts that we need revelation to gain the divine law

• a posteriori reasoning only provides evidence that a designer or necessary being exists

• knowledge we can gain from natural theology is not the same as revealed theology and therefore cannot not replace or undermine it

Calvin’s Sensus Divinitatis AO1 and AO2

• all humans have an innate sense of the divine

• sense of divinity allows us to sense God’s existence

• no rational way to be an atheist because of this sense. Even “backward peoples” and those “remote from civilization”

• Plantinga defends the sensus divinitatis- sin has a noetic quality, meaning it changes someone’s ability to have knowledge and insight, which could block the sense of God

counter

• Anthropological study of the religion of tribal people remote from civilisation actually shows that they believe in magical spirits of animals and ancestors

• The extent of the spread of atheism- Calvin’s time it may have been unimaginable that someone could rationally be an atheist- Hume there has been significant philosophical defence of atheism

• Response to Plantinga: there are many atheists who are good people

St Paul: Romans 1:20 AO1 AO2

• justify natural theology- Paul here seems to suggest that God’s qualities can be understood from what he has made- NO EXCUSE TO NOT KNOW WE CAN SEE HIS CREATION

• ‘FORSINCE THE CREATION FO THE WORLD GODS INVISIBLE QUALITIES- HIS ETERNAL POWER AND DIVINE NATURE- HAS BEEN CLEARLY SEEN BEING UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MADE SO THAT PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE’

counter

• Calvin- justifies natural theology without using human reason, i.e. the sensus divinitatis-

• Barth- argues humans are too sinful to manage that- Barth claims that Paul is showing that natural theology leads to idolatry

• Grenz and Olson describe Barth’s view- inevitably leads to theology being subverted by human

evaluation

• calvin- understanding is gained from creation itself, which sounds like reasoned inference from the natural world rather than a sense of God which isn’t derived from ‘what has been made’; creation

• Barth is correct

Calvin’s revealed theology  AO1

• suffering brought into the world by the fall therefore disfigures the world to an extent

• difficult for natural theology to reveal

• means natural theology can only reveal the truth of God’s existence, but not the full revelation of God

• “We know God, not when we merely understand that there is a God but when we understand … what is conducive to his glory”

• require revealed theology; faith in Jesus and the Bible to have the full revelation of God’s existence

• We should just have faith in the Bible and that should be our only source of knowledge about God’s existence or moralit

Bonaventura - through reason and religion

• the minds road to god

• mind has 3 different ways knowing god

• ‘eye of flesh, knowing our senses through epiricism of science

• eye of reason- think rationally and solve mathematical problems

• eye of contemplation- knowledge goes beyond the limits of both empiricism and rationalism- god through faith

Polkinghorne- reason and religion

• bincocular vision

• science is one eye to see laws and processes

• spiritual truths about god lense which asks why and sees meaning and purposefullness in the creation of god

• we need both eyes to look through binoculars to understand world fully

Boyle- reason and religion

• two books analogy

• book of science tells us about the world

• book of god (bible) also tells us about the world

• two great books written by same author compliment each other

The fall and orignial sin AO1

• before - Adam and Eve had a harmonious relationship- sex would have been a purely rational act

• Human nature is corrupted by a tendency to do evil- causes an irresistible desire to sin- inherited by every human‘seminally present in the loins of Adam’

• massa damnata (the mass of the damned).

• Cupiditas & Caritas- Cupiditas is love of earthly impermanent things- Caritas is agape

• Concupiscence is a defining feature of original sin- bodily desire overpowers reason- sexual desire

The Fall & original sin AO2

• The scientific evidence is against the fall- we have of genetic diversity- suggests that we evolved and were not created- Augustine’s biological understanding of reproduction is false

however

• Augustine could be defended- views on human nature being corrupted by original sin can still be derived from the evidence of his observations of himself and his society- pear stealing

• G. K. Chesterton agreed with this point sin ‘in the street’,

• R. Niebuhr who said it was the one ‘empirically verifiable’ Christian doctrine

evaluation

• Pelagius: Augustine’s observations reflect his society, not human nature- simply be because of the way we are raised- “educated in evil”

• contemporary historical and sociological evidence-

• Martin Luther King said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”

• pinker attributes to the power of human reason that violence has decreased

• If Augustine were correct that original sin caused an irresistible temptation to sin, then human behaviour could not have morally improved, yet it has

Augustine: Exclusivism, Grace, Predestination & Limited election AO1

• genuine persevering faith in Jesus is only possible with God’s help: his gift of grace, which predestines some people

• St Paul calls grace a “gift”

• getting into heaven is not something that human beings have the power to achieve

• Romans 8, St Paul seems to hold to predestination is already unalterably fixed

• God has either predestined us for heaven, or he hasn’t and our original sin damns us to hell. This view is called double predestination

Augustine: Exclusivism, Grace, Predestination & Limited election AO2

• Pelagius: predestination makes punishment unjust- not ethical for all humanity to be blamed for the actions of Adam and Eve- an indefensible view of moral responsibility

• Pelagius concludes that only our having free will and thus being without coercion from original sin

however

• Punishment is just for sinful beings- It’s not God’s fault, it’s Adams’. So, Augustine argues that predestination is not unjust of God, since we are corrupted by original sin and so if we go to hell it is deserved

• “secret yet just judgement of God”

• Psalm 25:10: ‘All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth,’

evaluation

• It’s not our fault that we have original sin, so it still seems unfair and thus incompatible with omnibenevolence to suggest that we deserve punishment for it

• children w cancer

Pelagius: God commands moral action so we must be capable of moral goodness AO1

• God commanding humans to do morally good actions and avoid morally bad actions

• hard to see what the point of even trying to be good is, if we are so corrupted that we are unable as augustine claims

• accusing God of ignorance as if God were “unmindful of human frailty”

• “imposed commands upon man which man is not able to bear”

• elagius concludes that humans are “to be praised for their willing and doing a good work

Pelagius: God commands moral action so we must be capable of moral goodness AO2

• Augustine: biblical evidence against Pelagian free will

• humans can desire and accomplish good actions, however not by themselves as a result of a free will only with gods grace

• Augustine responds that good acts come from love, which Paul claims is greater than knowledge

• “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the holy spirit”

• If we receive love by divine grace, that suggests our good loving actions resulted from that gift of the ability to love

counter

• Pelagius responded- human will was “always assisted by divine help”- Without that help, we could not choose to do good, but with it we have the power to choose good and thus merit salvation.

• counter against augustine and original sin

• doesnt mean we cannot gain salvation

Rich man + Lazarus

• bible story- rich man ignored L

• RM went to hell, L went to heaven

• RM wanted to dip finger in water to warn family

• L was in heaven seperated by a chasm

• PHYS- HEAVEN AND HELL - WATER AND CHASM

• ETERNAL- CANT LEAVE CHASM

• No final judgement- not end of time- no purgatory- suggests unlimited election tru- RM didnt do good

COUNTER

• LUTHER- only a parable - not literal - it implies a physical resurrection in hell- HOWEVER- not phys res till end of time

• AUG- says predestination - RM didn’t have grace

EValuation

• st jerome claims is real as lazarus has a name however luthers arg is stronger to liberal christians

NEW EARTH THEOLOGY

WRIGHT

• end of time the world returns to eden state

• we are resurrected and world becomes heaven as a future stage

• ‘kingdom come’ - heaven is physical as world is physical - judgement end of time

COUNTER

• biblical evidence heaven currently exists- jesus told sinner they would be together in paradise that day

EVALUATION

• not valid evidence

• punctuation would change meaning of bible as could reference in the future

• new earth theology is true