Dialog-A Journal of Theology最新文献

This study aims to look at the development of contextual theology in Indonesia, which is a theology that is intertwined with the characteristics of Indonesia as a nation and a unitary state. The development of contextual theology that is unique to Indonesia cannot be separated from the basic principles of national and state life, such as the five precepts in Pancasila, one of which is the principle of “Indonesian Unity.” This study presents the idea of “Indonesian Unity,” initiated by Soekarno and Mohammad Hatta, which was used by an Indonesian theologian, namely Eka Darmaputera, in developing contextual theology in Indonesia, namely a contextual theology that is not only based on the scriptures but is also based on contextual theology and is limited by the concept of “Indonesian Unity,” which comes from the ideas of the two national figures. The method used in this research is to elaborate on the writings of the three figures, especially those related to the theme of “Indonesian Unity,” and to use some historical records as one of the arguments for the importance of developing contextual theology based on the idea of “Persatuan Indonesia” (Indonesian unity). This study is more focused on contextual theology developed by Eka Darmaputera. His understanding of evangelism, mission, dialogue and concepts related to the field of contextual theology is ethically applied in dealing with challenges that come from the dangers of national disintegration and challenges that come from injustices that still often occur after the independence of the republic of Indonesia.

What are we talking about when we talk about the postsecular? This article looks at the ways articulations of the secular often presuppose the presence – not the absence – of religion and religious plurality. This can be observed even in the work of early theorists of secularism as well as of the first sociologists who observed secularizing tendencies in society and sought to conduct social-scientific inquiry in a way that aimed to be analytically agnostic. At the same time, the return or renewed visibility of religion does not imply a decrease in individualization of religious expression, the disappearance of secularist attitudes, or that challenges of negotiating religious pluralism have been overcome. This more complicated orientation toward relating secularity and religious pluralism shifts the focus away from debates over the truth or rationality of religious beliefs and practices to the need for mutual, voluntary, open, and ongoing communication among them. On the one hand, a commitment is necessary to the creation and maintenance of meaningful participation opportunities in the self-presentation of religious self-understandings in relation to issues of common concern (the mutuality requirement); on the other hand, a steadfast commitment is needed from religious persons and groups themselves to persistent participation in presentation of one's own views or those of one's constituencies in ways that are clear and accessible to all other participants (the voluntariness requirement).

This paper employs the postcolonial concepts of mimicry and hybridity to interpret Wolfhart Pannenberg's understanding of the violence done to Jesus on the cross and the subversive reconciliatory love that it engenders. According to Pannenberg, although the man Jesus was crucified as blasphemer of the Jewish law, the resurrection vindicated Jesus so that the ones accusing Jesus were retroactively deemed to be the actual blasphemers. As a result, Jesus ended up dying not for his own alleged breaking of the law, but as an inclusive substitute for all blasphemers of God (through amour propre) deserving death. Thus, the resurrection confirmed Jesus’ divine identity and his earthly teaching that love supersedes and transforms the law. Applying the concept of mimicry to Pannenberg, on the cross the symbolic and semiotic are held together in tension for in mimicry the “not-quite sameness” menaces the colonizer. The cross, ostensibly a symbolic sign of abjection, is mimicked by the suffering of Jesus and subverted through a practice of inclusive semiotic love which recapitulates sinful human life toward a life of transformed autonomy. Pannenberg displays a pseudo postcolonial understanding of subverting oppressive law into love. However, on account of his futurist ontology, the eschatological totality is underscored relative to formative experiences, leaving him vulnerable to postcolonial critiques of essentialism, which can reinscribe colonialism. I contend that Pannenberg employs a strategy of “strategic particularism” in which concepts such as mimicry and hybridity are helpful as hermeneutical tools but ultimately provisional and temporary relative to the whole.

To take incarnation seriously, Creation Care Christians, such as Douglas and Jonathan Moo, focus on Jesus’ divinity in incarnation. If the divine Jesus was fully flesh, then creation must be good. And if we do not take care of it, we are sinning, they reason. Laurel C. Schneider's promiscuous view of incarnation insists on a porous flesh, one that is materially entangled with the world. This is beyond Sallie McFague's model of the world as God's body. Applying Schneider's promiscuous incarnation, Mary-Jane Rubenstein claims that the world is God's body, and, as such, God does not transcend matter as Ernest Simmons suggests. For Catherine Keller, unknowable divine interdependence must move us to civic action. In the middle of this conversation, I offer the term wicked incarnations to make explicit the intra-action of divinity and the world in its incarnations. To take incarnation seriously is to acknowledge incarnations as a dynamism of divine and material forces, neither of which pre-exist their relationship. I join Keller in hoping that this moves us to care about and for the material world, its changing climate, and our intra-active relationship with nonhuman, divine presence.

This paper provides a rereading of Søren Kierkegaard's attack upon Christendom in light of his theory of spheres of existence to examine whether Christian politics are possible after Kierkegaard. Talking of Christian politics makes sense only in the esthetic and the religious spheres of existence. However, Kierkegaard argues that politics worthy of the title Christian are impossible. Either such politics are simply Christendom far removed from New Testament Christianity, or Christian politics are faced with the paradox of existing before God and cannot proceed.