Confronting Confucian Understandings of the Christian Doctrine of Salvation : A systematic theological analysis of the basic problems in the Confucian-Christian dialogue

The aim of the present study is to analyze Confucian understandings of the Christian doctrine of salvation in order to find the basic problems in the Confucian-Christian dialogue. I will approach the task via a systematic theological analysis of four issues in order to limit the thesis to an appropriate size. They are analyzed in three chapters as follows: 1. The Confucian concept concerning the existence of God. Here I discuss mainly the issue of assimilation of the Christian concept of God to the concepts of Sovereign on High (Shangdi) and Heaven (Tian) in Confucianism. 2. The Confucian understanding of the object of salvation and its status in Christianity. 3. The Confucian understanding of the means of salvation in Christianity. Before beginning this analysis it is necessary to clarify the vast variety of controversies, arguments, ideas, opinions and comments expressed in the name of Confucianism; thus, clear distinctions among different schools of Confucianism are given in chapter 2. In the last chapter I will discuss the results of my research in this study by pointing out the basic problems that will appear in the analysis. The results of the present study provide conclusions in three related areas: the tacit differences in the ways of thinking between Confucians and Christians, the basic problems of the Confucian-Christian dialogue, and the affirmative elements in the dialogue. In addition to a summary, a bibliography and an index, there are also eight appendices, where I have introduced important background information for readers to understand the present study.

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context : Brevard S. Childs' Methodology of Biblical Theology

Modern Christian theology has been at pain with the schism between the Bible and theology, and between biblical studies and systematic theology. Brevard Springs Childs is one of biblical scholars who attempt to dismiss this “iron curtain” separating the two disciplines. The present thesis aims at analyzing Childs’ concept of theological exegesis in the canonical context. In the present study I employ the method of systematic analysis. The thesis consists of seven chapters. Introduction is the first chapter. The second chapter attempts to find out the most important elements which exercise influence on Childs’ methodology of biblical theology by sketching his academic development during his career. The third chapter attempts to deal with the crucial question why and how the concept of the canon is so important for Childs’ methodology of biblical theology. In chapter four I analyze why and how Childs is dissatisfied with historical-critical scholarship and I point out the differences and similarities between his canonical approach and historical criticism. The fifth chapter attempts at discussing Childs’ central concepts of theological exegesis by investigating whether a Christocentric approach is an appropriate way of creating a unified biblical theology. In the sixth chapter I present a critical evaluation and methodological reflection of Childs’ theological exegesis in the canonical context. The final chapter sums up the key points of Childs’ methodology of biblical theology. The basic results of this thesis are as follows: First, the fundamental elements of Childs’ theological thinking are rooted in Reformed theological tradition and in modern theological neo-orthodoxy and in its most prominent theologian, Karl Barth. The American Biblical Theological Movement and the controversy between Protestant liberalism and conservatism in the modern American context cultivate his theological sensitivity and position. Second, Childs attempts to dismiss negative influences of the historical-critical method by establishing canon-based theological exegesis leading into confessional biblical theology. Childs employs terminology such as canonical intentionality, the wholeness of the canon, the canon as the most appropriate context for doing a biblical theology, and the continuity of the two Testaments, in order to put into effect his canonical program. Childs demonstrates forcefully the inadequacies of the historical-critical method in creating biblical theology in biblical hermeneutics, doctrinal theology, and pastoral practice. His canonical approach endeavors to establish and create post-critical Christian biblical theology, and works within the traditional framework of faith seeking understanding. Third, Childs’ biblical theology has a double task: descriptive and constructive, the former connects biblical theology with exegesis, the later with dogmatic theology. He attempts to use a comprehensive model, which combines a thematic investigation of the essential theological contents of the Bible with a systematic analysis of the contents of the Christian faith. Childs also attempts to unite Old Testament theology and New Testament theology into one unified biblical theology. Fourth, some problematic points of Childs’ thinking need to be mentioned. For instance, his emphasis on the final form of the text of the biblical canon is highly controversial, yet Childs firmly believes in it, he even regards it as the corner stone of his biblical theology. The relationship between the canon and the doctrine of biblical inspiration is weak. He does not clearly define whether Scripture is God’s word or whether it only “witnesses” to it. Childs’ concepts of “the word of God” and “divine revelation” remain unclear, and their ontological status is ambiguous. Childs’ theological exegesis in the canonical context is a new attempt in the modern history of Christian theology. It expresses his sincere effort to create a path for doing biblical theology. Certainly, it was just a modest beginning of a long process.

Avioliiton teologia Englannin kirkossa ja Suomen evankelis-luterilaisessa kirkossa vuosina 1963-2006

The theology of marriage in the Church of England(CofE) and in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland(ELCF)1963–2006 The method of the study is a systematic analysis of the sources. In the CofE marriage stems from creation, but it is also sacramental, grounded in the theology of love and redemption. Man and woman have a connection between them that is a mystical union in character because of the one between Christ and the Church; therefore every marriage is sacramental. The purposes of marriage have been expressed in a different order than earlier. A caring relationship and sexuality are set before childbirth as the causes of marriage. The remedial cause of marriage is also moved to the background and it cannot be found in the recent wedding formulas. A personal relationship and marriage as a school of faith and love have a central place in the theology of marriage. The theology of love unites the love of God and marriage. In the CofE the understanding of divorce and co-habiting has changed, too. Co-habiting can now be understood as a stage towards marriage. Divorce has been understood as a phenomenon that must be taken as a fact after an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Thus the church must concentrate on pastoral care after divorce. Similarly, the ELCF also maintains that the order of creation is the origin of marriage as a lifelong institution. This is also an argument for the solemnization of marriage in the church. Faith and grace are not needed for real marriage because marriage is the culmination of reason and natural law. The society defines marriage and the church gives its blessing to the married couples if so requested. Luther’s view of marriage is different from this because he saw marriage as a school of love and faith, similar to CofE. He saw faith as essential to enable the fullfillment of natural law. Marriage in the ELCF is mostly a matter of natural ethics. An ideal form of life is sought through the Golden Rule. This interpretation of marriage means that it does not presuppose Christian education for children to follow. The doctrine of the two kingdoms is definitely essential as background. It has been impugned by scholars, however, as a permanent foundation of marriage. There is a difference between the marriage formulas and the other sources concerning the purposes of marriage in the ELCF. The formulas do not include sexuality, childbirth or children and their education as purposes of marriage. The formulas include less theological vocabulary than in the CofE. The liturgy indicates the doctrine in CofE. In the Lutheran churches there is not any need to express the doctrine in the wedding formulas. This has resulted in less theology of marriage in the formulas. The theology of Luther is no longer any ruling principle in the theology of marriage. The process of continuing change in society refines the terms for marriage more than the theological arguments do.