tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74021067949782282772024-03-08T10:18:34.580-08:00Wolfhart PannenbergGeorge Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-14161032465356296392024-02-27T13:48:00.000-08:002024-02-27T13:48:21.150-08:00Process Philosophy<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgprda6LIZGkk0-o5W287DiuOztfllLaUaR-tZ7dFs3MwAgMi-10dS-_Xd_fWyrJhQB6zHmRXt3cH9lWvCvEGXi8yfhF0wRneaFksWGyzdaeVn1waQLPD3HCdVAZrvJy8FstOtEXC8FBPp54xkvvGUDz30HWyNQkM1BPu24YmuS6bCRCcTR5DNb-RdAo8_m/s1280/maxresdefault-1923152816.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgprda6LIZGkk0-o5W287DiuOztfllLaUaR-tZ7dFs3MwAgMi-10dS-_Xd_fWyrJhQB6zHmRXt3cH9lWvCvEGXi8yfhF0wRneaFksWGyzdaeVn1waQLPD3HCdVAZrvJy8FstOtEXC8FBPp54xkvvGUDz30HWyNQkM1BPu24YmuS6bCRCcTR5DNb-RdAo8_m/s320/maxresdefault-1923152816.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">The importance of a process-oriented philosophy patterned after Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) is its thorough grounding in science combined with its metaphysical dimension that makes it like the systems of Leibniz and Hegel.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Events are the basic components of nature and passage, or creative advance, is its most fundamental feature. Such views are like the anti-mechanistic philosophy of change we find in Henri Bergson. Charles Hartshorne would expand his influence in the United States. He also saw the definite character of events as due to the ingression of timeless entities, a Platonic notion. He understood religion as reaching its deepest level in the solitude of humanity as it forms the attitude of the individual toward the universe. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He called his metaphysics the philosophy of organism. The universe consists of becoming, each moment a process of appropriating and integrating the infinity of reality provided by the antecedent universe and by God as the abiding source of novel possibilities. He wanted to provide a scheme of ideas broad enough to overcome the classic dualisms. However, the infinite nature of existence meant that all any system can do is approach reality and provide more adequate schemes than predecessors. He saw the long-entrenched Newtonian system of physics collapse before Einstein, so dogmatic assurance was his enemy. The impulse of life is toward newness that arise out of societies stable enough to nourish an adventure that is fruitful rather than anarchic. His metaphysics elucidated the nature of beauty, truth, art, adventure, and peace. Peace was a religious attitude that is primarily a trust in the efficacy of beauty. His sense for the fullness of existence led him to urge upon philosophy the task of making good the omissions he saw in strict scientific materialism by reverting to the variety of concrete experience and then framing broader ideas.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Process philosophy leads to the metaphysical and ontological belief that reality consists of an ever-expanding system in which the patterns of existence and activity that exists between and among spatial-temporal finite material objects are more important than the parts.<a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> The system of the universe consists of a hierarchical subset of systems consisting of local arrangements of galaxies and within galaxies the arrangement of various star systems and planetary systems. This suggests the metaphysics of substance (Aristotle, Aquinas) used to explain enduring objects is replaced by the interrelationships of finite-temporal objects within the system. This suggests a metaphysics of becoming, in contrast to a metaphysics of being, and an event ontology. This suggests that what common sense thinks of as enduring objects and persons is an illusion in the sense that all objects and persons are byproducts of interrelated transient events. If everything is becoming, then there is always a tension between identity and difference, between presence of being and the absence of being. The same stuff can have mental and physical properties that have an information-bearing pattern within the metaphysical system. The body is a set of dynamically interrelated and hierarchically ordered processes that are constantly undergoing minor changes in their internal relations to each other and in their collective relation to an ever-changing physical environment.<a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">To exist is to be a finite temporal object within a system of finite-temporal objects, in which the process of the system determines success, regardless of what happens to individual entities. Each finite-temporal object is a momentary self-constitution in such a way that it looks like an enduring entity while the system remains hidden. Cooperation between the constituent actual entities of any given system, and cooperation between systems in the gradual emergence of an even more comprehensive higher-order system in the hierarchy of systems, is the way nature works. Organisms with part or members that cooperate with each other will survive to pass on their genetic inheritance to offspring. This suggests a metaphysics of integrated systems of dynamically interrelated subjects of experience. Lower-order systems have their ontological value, but they exist to support the existence and well-being of the higher-order processes. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The universe exists as an open, unbounded, finite system. Science projects a steadily declining universe, consistent with the entropic force of decay defined the second law of thermodynamics. The universe will go through the dominance of black holes, and finally, in the 100<sup>th</sup> cosmological decade, the black holes will give way to a universe of electrons, positrons, neutrinos, and photons of enormous wavelengths. Yet out of this moribund expanse of space-time, new universes can emerge. Truly, all things must pass, everything has its time, even the massive, beautiful, expanding, violent, and chaotic universe, of which we are a small part. As an open system, the relation of spatial-temporal objects and persons is one full of opposition and tension (and therefore dialectical) in a way that has both creative and destructive possibilities.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Nature organizes itself into increasingly structured societies. God’s purpose in the creative advance is the evocation of intensities. The immanence of God gives us reason for the belief that pure chaos is intrinsically impossible. Yet, the immensity of the world negates the belief that any sate of order can so established that beyond it there can be no progress. The environment consists of two layers, the immediate relevant background provided uniformity, and the remote chaotic background. Experience is the self-enjoyment of being one among many, and of being one arising out of the composition of many. The satisfaction of an actual entity lies beyond itself and constitutes the solidarity of the universe. Feeling aims at their subject. The sense of order merges into novelty, so that massiveness of order does not degenerate into mere repetition, and that novelty always reflects upon a background system. The universe craves novelty and yet terror at the loss of the past haunts it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Personal unity is an inescapable fact. There is a unity in the life of each person, from birth to death. How such identity occurs in the context of process and becoming is a challenge. This identity must consider the unity of nature and the unity of each individual human life. Our consciousness of the self-identity pervading our life-thread of occasions, is nothing other than knowledge of a special strand of unit within the general unity of nature. It is a locus within the whole, marked out by its own peculiarities, but otherwise exhibiting the general principle that guides the constitution of the whole. This general principle is the object to subject structure of experience. The immanence of the past energizes the present. Our sense of unity with the body is the same as our sense of unity with our immediate past. The universe itself is both transient and eternal. Each actuality is physical and mental. Each occasion is immediate and other. Here is where the future becomes immanent in occasions in the present, because without this influence, the present would become empty of content. The future works itself into the crannies of the present. The future is immanent in the present. The future is significant for the process of self-completion of each occasion as an anticipation. The constitution of the present will be embodied by a future that will re-enact its patterns of activity, making the future immanent in the present occasion. Each individual occasion is transcended by the creative urge. The anticipation of kinship with the future assumes the form of purpose to transform concept into fact. The future is immanent in the present because the present bears in its own essence the relationships that it will have to the future. It thereby includes in its essence the necessities to which the future must conform. The future is there in the present, as a general fact belonging to the nature of things. It is also there with such general determinations as it lies in the nature of the present to impose on the future that must succeed it. All this belongs to the essence of the present and constitutes the future. However, since future occasions do not exist (obviously), the future is present in the mode of anticipation. The independence of the present is the ground for the “freedom” within the universe.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> <a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></a></span> This lure or attraction toward complexity and harmony suggests the strength of aesthetic attention at the heart of the universe. Beauty is the internal conformation of the assorted items of experience with each other, to produce maximum effectiveness. Beauty thus concerns the inter-relations of the various components of reality, and the inter-relations of the various components of appearance, and the relations of appearance to reality. Thus, any part of experience can be beautiful. The teleology of the universe is directed to the production of beauty. Thus, any system of things that in any wide sense is beautiful is to that extent justified in its existence. If truth concerns the conforming of appearance to reality, then beauty is broader than truth is. It also has a broader impact than does goodness. Science becomes the determined pursuit of truth and art the determined pursuit of beauty.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> <a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></a></span> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Self-identity as person emerges from moment to moment as already involved in various activities while we reflectively understand that identity over time, thereby learning what makes us unique in relation to others. Human cognition involves a community of inquiry concerning an objective order of reality. Such ontological objectivity is a presupposition. Without it, communication would be impossible. This mind-independent reality outdistances the range of human cognition. Real things have a cognitive depth we cannot reach. Realistically, this means the limits of “our” world do not define the limits of the real world. Such metaphysical realism is a presupposition or postulate for our inquiries that allows us to learn from our experiences. Such a view preserves the distinction between true and false regarding factual matters, it preserves the distinction between appearance (our picture of reality) and reality itself, it serves as a basis for intersubjective communication, it furnishes the basis for a shared project of communal inquiry, it provides for the fallibilistic view of human knowledge, and it sustains the causal mode of learning and inquiry and to serve as basis for the objectivity of experience. Such would be my statement of being as becoming in general. This would be my outline of an ontology of anticipation, which would show how at each level of finite-temporal objects, the previous level contains traces of what would become. Higher levels are not the necessary outcome, but higher levels necessitate the past out of which they arise.<a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Process philosophy is, thankfully, becoming a common influence upon theology. The God of a universe that is in process may well be a God in process, in open-ended interactivity with each of its many creatures. The divine process is one of inexhaustible life.<a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> God is the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth of potentiality. God patiently provides the tender care of all things in such a way that nothing is lost. We can expect novelty to emerge out of the basic structures of order. Here is a creative wisdom that that calls forth self-organizing complexity through the lure or initial aim of divine activity on each emerging occasion. God is the poet of the world, with tender patience leading the world toward truth, beauty, and goodness. God and world are in a creative advance into novelty. At the smallest level of nature, in its subatomic particles, the principle of uncertainty reigns. These small “particles” can act like a thing, but then disappear and reappear. They can act like a point and then like an extended wave. The rules of cause and effect do not apply there. They can have a strange influence upon other subatomic particles at vast differences. The regularity that we experience in our world is not there in the quantum world, but the quantum world may well explain things in our world that are difficult to explain, such as migrations of butterflies and birds over vast territories and even across their generations. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Remembering the uncertainty and relatedness of the quantum world in nature can form an analogy for theology in that theology needs to be careful not to invest too much certainty into the finite formulations of the various denominational families. Openness to novelty, as well as proper respect for the efforts of the past, are important in theology. Theology is at risk when it engages in “misplaced concreteness,” projecting onto an historical moment an absolute quality. It is at risk when it commits the dogmatic fallacy of hardening a belief into an absolute truth. The history of the church is full of such fallacies. They have led to schism and violence. The theologian today needs to avoid such fallacies. The church today needs to learn how to argue faithfully and in a trustworthy way. The richness of its faith and its inexhaustible quality of facing the challenges presented by changing historical circumstances too often succumbs to the temptation of totalizing truth claims that perpetuates an antagonistic polarity that paralyzes faith rather than fostering its life-enhancing qualities. It can lead to a theological dishonesty motivated by pleasing those in authority rather than embracing a future that is pressing upon the church to receive its time as well. A progressive theological hierarchy can be just as stifling to pastors and laity as can any conservative hierarchy. We need to remember that truth sets us free. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Process philosophy has the potential to encourage a conversation between normally vigorously opposed communities of faith. How one uses such a world view often depends upon other decisions one makes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A theological thinker will make a choice regarding the tradition of theology. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If one wishes to be faithful to the biblical and Christian tradition, one could simply reshape notions of the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Christian life with the forms of thought developing in our era. This would be a conservative use of process thinking in a way that preserves the past, incorporates valid thinking of today, and leaves one open to new possibilities for the future. Such a use would lead one to respect the contribution of the past and lead to a desire to have some consistency with the church of Jesus Christ through the ages. Karl Barth would not be a process theologian, yet, because of the depth of his understanding of the Incarnation and the cross, he can sound like a process theologian in places of his <i>Church Dogmatics. </i>Pannenberg has process elements of his theology, but Hegel was his path toward this philosophical perspective. Some evangelical theologians have gravitated toward this perspective, with pan-en-theism being the theological perspective. Its ability to bring the transcendence and immanence of God into a philosophical perspective is beneficial. Progressive theologians have also found in the process philosophy of Whitehead a helpful means of integrating modern scientific approaches in physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and ecology with the biblical and theological tradition. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One could also use such a worldview to replace the tradition with a perceived newer and better thinking of today. This would lead to a revisionist theology that would look with skepticism upon the contributions of the past, since it was a patriarchal and hierarchal intellectual environment, and shape a theology for a new age. Such a view would count it admirable and prophetic to separate itself from the church of the past and rely upon new revelations of Christ for today. Its advantage, that it is free to develop a theology embedded in the whims of at least one vocal part of the present age, is also its weakness, for I am not sure why anyone would feel the need to add a troublesome ancient text and tradition to something they can believe without that baggage.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I want to admit openly that the view of God in process theology is not the God of the Exodus, Yahweh, the tribal deity who is truly present to a people who needed a liberator and one who would fight for them, a Divine Warrior who was clearly on the side of the oppressed slave rather than the oppressing Egyptians who were themselves imprisoned within their fear of the slaves and their possible rebellion. Viewing God as active in the world through the Spirit in a way that persuades and attracts seems like a weak view of God. I want to suggest that truth lays in another place.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In Season 4, episode 15 of Fringe (2012), we have a big reveal in the series. The Observers thought they had erased Peter from existence, which they wanted to do because he was not supposed to have lived through childhood. The intervention of an Observer preserved his life, but that intervention had other unpleasant ramifications for the future of humanity, so the Observers devised a plan to erase him from the memories of those with whom he had interacted. It worked for a while, but Peter kept showing up in dreams and daydreams of those closest to him. He became incarnated in a moment, as he rose out of the water in a nearby lake. Olivia, his romantic interest, at first does not recognize him. Therefore, Peter spends much of the season trying to get back to another timeline, a different potential future. It is his desire to get home. However, she starts having memories from the “other” Olivia in a different potential future. In this episode, an Observer reveals that the plan to erase Peter from this timeline did not work. The love of those around him would not allow him to be erased. In a dramatically high moment, the Observer reveals that this potential future is his home. He admits he cannot prove it scientifically, but he thought that the love of those around him had for him would not allow the erasing of him from their potential future. Thus, he was, as in the Wizard of Oz, already home. The Olivia that was recovering memories from the “other” Olivia was his Olivia. Such a moment in a television series can be sappy, but I did not experience it that way. My point is that while the way process philosophy can speak of a divine lure or attraction toward certain forms of life that enhance human flourishing can sound like weakness, a story like this is a reminder of the type of power love and attraction can hold over people. Nor must we shy away from recognizing that it has an erotic quality to it that may take us beyond scientific analysis, although I must grant that science may well explain even that.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Process theology has another potential within it to highlight the significance of the revelatory moment of Jesus of Nazareth. The way he led his life, the self-sacrifice of his life that culminated in the cross, and the vindication of his life and death and resurrection, reveal a creative transformation of the relation between God and humanity. Jesus lived his life in obedience to his Father. However, we dare not minimize the significance of his death. His cross exposes the depth of human sin in its turn from the source of what is life-giving. It reveals the human self-deception of acting righteously while also acting violently and coercively. In a personal way, it reveals my identification with those who judged Jesus and put him to death. It reveals my sin, my waywardness, and … my need of forgiveness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> 1 What can wash away my sin?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Nothing but the blood of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> What can make me whole again? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Nothing but the blood of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> 4 This is all my hope and peace: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> nothing but the blood of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> This is all my righteousness: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> nothing but the blood of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The creative transformation that occurs in Jesus of Nazareth puts the people of God on notice that the notion of God as Divine Warrior who would command the ban of every man, woman, child, and beast of a village is no longer a possibility. It puts behind the people of God a prayer to bash the heads of the children of the enemy upon the stones. It puts behind the people of God stoning people because of adultery, homosexual practice, misusing the name of the Lord, breaking Sabbath law, and breaking any of the Ten Commandments. As Jesus of Nazareth took within himself the sin and disobedience of the people of God, represented by the Jewish leaders of his day and his disciples, as well as the sin and disobedience of humanity, represented by the Roman leaders of his day, he bore the burden of the sin and evil of humanity. He absorbed the violence toward which human beings are prone. The loveless cycle of racism, greed, and envy is repetitive in every generation, for which I could site many biblical passages. The Father, to whom Jesus owed his obedience, honored the way of Jesus with resurrected life through the life-giving power of the Spirit, giving the people of God that same Spirit by which to build community and life in faith, hope, and love. Granted, the people of God have been weak reflections of this creative transformation, but enough faithfulness has remained to witness to its truth. Thus, it opens the door for a liberating, healing, and guiding presence and power of the Spirit in personal, communal, and institutional life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Process theology, through its version of pan-en-theism, can pave the way for developing an understanding of both the transcendence and immanence of God. God provides the structuring conditions out of which novelty arises. There is a logos in creation out of which new themes emerge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Process theology also has the potential to bring convergence of various denominational families in eschatology. All Christian communities might be ready to put behind them <i>The Late, Great, Planet Earth </i>of Hal Lindsey and dispensational thinking. It was disappointing for me to learn that John Wesley in his comments on the Book of Revelation adopted the views of J. A. Bengel on chiliasm. Such a view inevitably looks toward a time when the scientific description of the end will not be, which is a problem for many conservatives as well as the progressive. It also inevitably looks forward to a time when the Father, acting in concert with the Crucified Son, and in the power of the life-giving Spirit, becomes a coercive and vengeful force rather than a persuading and luring one. Process theology holds out a view of Jewish apocalyptic that allows it to be as it is but focusing upon its vision of a creative transformation between God and humanity that allows the life-giving energies of the Spirit to bear fruit in an increasingly free, peaceful, and just future. It recognizes the intensity and even violence of the process, and is thus not utopian about the process, but it also holds forth a powerful vision of a loving and just potential future for humanity, while always recognizing the self-destructive propensities of humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Let us pause here to consider the religious notion of an end. If God is the transcendent source and goal of the cosmic process, another picture emerges. As the source of the processes of the universe, God will redeem it from transience and decay. Persons have a destiny beyond their deaths in which all hurts will be healed and the purpose of God for them will reach fulfillment. In the transition from time to eternity in which this redemption occurs, there is sufficient continuity to ensure that individuals share in the life to come as their resurrected selves, but sufficient discontinuity to ensure that the life to come is free from the suffering and mortality of the old creation.<a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> When human beings as complex systems die and are fully incorporated by God into the divine life, they experience themselves for the first time as a completed reality. The human experience of time is always an experience of perpetual perishing, a flow from the future in terms of what one sees as possible for oneself right now, into the present where one decides about what to do next, and from there into the past as a fully determined event in one’s life history. In contrast, eternity will be experienced as a dynamic togetherness of past, present, and future. In eternity one sees the fullness of one’s life-history as an integral part of a higher-order process that never ends in the inner trinitarian life of God. Time exits within eternity and time shapes eternity.<a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The dissolution of the universe through entropy means physical entities will not survive, but patterns of existence and activity will survive within the inner life of God as shared with finite creatures. The past universe exists within the divine memory as the sole non-temporal reality. Everything is preserved within the inner life of God. The end is a triumph of divine and creaturely activity. The end gives glory to God and satisfaction to finite creatures as they appreciate their role in being part of this end. Our personal end and the biblical vision of a last judgment unite in one event. As Genesis 1-3 are metaphors regarding the beginning, so biblical talk of an apocalyptic end are metaphors of human accountability to God.<a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> It is in this way that the immediacy of sorrow and pain is transformed into an element of triumph. This is the notion of redemption through suffering, which haunts the world. It is the generalization of its minor exemplification as the aesthetic value of discords in art. All the opposites are elements in the nature of things and are incorrigibly there. The concept of God is the way in which we understand this incredible fact, that what cannot be, yet is. God is the great companion, the fellow-sufferer who understands.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-310096896">(Bracken 2014)</w:sdt>, although he is expressing a view based on Whitehead, and which I incorporate throughout this part of the essay. This is also a brief way of re-thinking Pannenberg and his notion of field theory and the field of force.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-370691296">(Bracken 2014)</w:sdt> 220-4.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1217393327">(Whitehead, Adventure of Ideas 1933)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="370812872">(Whitehead, Adventure of Ideas 1933)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1277787681">(Rescher, Objectivity: The Obligations of Impersonal Reason 1997)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2127035186">(Keller 2008)</w:sdt>, 4-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> These statements are consistent with John Polkinghorne. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1185712081">(Bracken 2014)</w:sdt> 225.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6B34EFC8-C85D-436D-864B-CB3E6C15E6F9#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1255435869">(Bracken 2014)</w:sdt> 225-30.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-59268154921263035982024-02-16T13:58:00.000-08:002024-02-17T11:51:56.231-08:00A modest critique of Karl Marx<p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKPbnhjs6QSjimcnoHZYAH_UIemG40wHkQiQK2DneRGgZO6mpct1BgauC7wiovZ-xH30AGi0V2KKw2ujE0FT11PQmmMVT3LSAQmA3ej5VYTt6cAABEbJIaW61ICdhqgoqkBQ1BTaybI_clN1MAhO8DdEIK3u8PNZknAvYd1sS6ZxYl8YhH7LGtdzW68W7r/s1280/maxresdefault-1318741496.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKPbnhjs6QSjimcnoHZYAH_UIemG40wHkQiQK2DneRGgZO6mpct1BgauC7wiovZ-xH30AGi0V2KKw2ujE0FT11PQmmMVT3LSAQmA3ej5VYTt6cAABEbJIaW61ICdhqgoqkBQ1BTaybI_clN1MAhO8DdEIK3u8PNZknAvYd1sS6ZxYl8YhH7LGtdzW68W7r/s320/maxresdefault-1318741496.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />What I propose to do here is to offer a moderate critique of Karl Marx. What I am exploring here is in the context that he raises a valid question regarding the human condition.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a> Hannah Arendt is the inspiration for this approach to this topic, although I have been reflecting for decades upon the insights of Marx. I would view this essay as on the way toward an understanding of Marx that holds in tension what is valuable with what needs to be discarded.<o:p></o:p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">I want to begin with a brief reflection involving some of the insights Karl Marx had.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx perceived the shift that took place in the rise of modernity. The philosophical tradition placed contemplation ahead of all human activities, for the wonder of the world human beings inhabit stimulated wonderment that led to the contemplation of truth, goodness, and beauty. As Arendt put it, Marx grasped that modernity placed emphasis upon labor, work, and action. Properly understood, labor, the biological life of man as an animal, work, which corresponds to the artificial world of objects that human beings build upon the earth with relative durability, where the task and potential greatness of mortals lie in their ability to produce things — works and deeds and words, and action, which corresponds to our plurality as distinct individuals, can lessen the space between us, give us the opportunity to build worlds together that turn our plurality, or difference, into productive engagements, and enable us to make ourselves visible and knowable to one another. This places human beings as social animals prior to human beings as political animals. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">This suggests that natality and the miracle of the beginning are central to consider the human condition. The capacity of human beings to give birth to new realities means a constant need to reconsider the basics of the human condition. It is quite reasonable to expect the unexpected, and that new beginnings cannot be ruled out. Yet, this means that human beings can lack control of the effects of such beginnings. In this case, modern, automated societies engrossed by ever more efficient production and consumption encourage us to behave and think of ourselves simply as an animal species governed by natural laws. This suggests the vital importance for civilized existence of a durable human world, built upon the earth to shield us against natural processes and provide a stable setting for our mortal lives. Thus, human action is the process which human beings act together to make the world an increasingly friendly place in which human beings live. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Here is the problem. The existence of a realm of the social world free of direct government involvement called civil society is the realm Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forms of communism negated. The virtue of the model for its proponents was that it offered a total mobilization of society toward goals set by the communist revolution he envisioned. The central instrument was a vanguard party dominated by a revolutionary elite. A crucial feature of this system was to make all aspects of social life satellites to this party. Thus, trade unions, leisure clubs, even churches, had to become transmission belts for the purposes of the party.</span><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx had an ideal of community, promising to save culture from technical civilization, an ideal that has its origin in the age of romanticism. We find it in the <i>Communist Manifesto, </i>as the goal of revolution in a free association of free individuals. In that community of the future in which division of labor is abolished, in which humanity is the highest being in the eyes of humanity, which each can exchange love only for love, trust only for trust, which produces human beings with all-embracing and profound mind as its constant reality, in which the total loss of humanity in capitalist society is followed by the recovery of humanity.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a> He is part of the Romantic movement or the expressivist tradition. This tradition is estranged from modern, complex, liberal-democratic-capitalist social arrangements. For Marx, the estrangement leads to revolutionary action.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a> He embraced the Enlightenment ideal of shaping nature and society to the purposes of humanity. He also agreed with much of the Enlightenment regarding the inhumanity of the present order. The Enlightenment protested the injustices and suffering in the world. Society is the common instrument of people who must live under the same political roof to pursue happiness. Therefore, the burdens and deprivations of this station are a savage imposition against reason and justice, maintained only by force. The Enlightenment provided a new consciousness of inhumanity of gratuitous and unnecessary suffering, and an urgent determination to combat it. Nothing compensates for the loss of happiness.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Here is the reality. Modernization has turned out to be extraordinarily good at increasing production, consumption, and procreation. however, the labor theory of value claimed that each article has an inherent value and that automation would increase the cost of the material, thereby making competition resulting in the further oppression of labor. This theory has been invalidated by history, in which prices have decreased in capitalism with technology. Marx understood history in terms of processes of production and consumption much closer to animal life. His vision of human history as a predictable process is a story not of unique, mortal individuals but of the collective life - process of a species. The costs have been an ever-increasing tendency for human beings to conceive of themselves in terms of their desire to consume. Promethean powers — releasing processes with unfathomable consequences — are being exercised in a society of beings too absorbed in consumption to take any responsibility for the human world or to understand their political capacities. What we consume daily is far more urgent to sustaining life than the durable goods we produce. Their consumption barely survives the act of their production. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>The Marxist today must be willing to accept as universal the conditions that Marx saw through his analysis of the social situation of his time in those countries that the industrial revolution had recently transformed. That is a highly questionable thesis, unless one is simply blind to the economic mobility and flexibility that capitalism has brought. People move up and down various economic classes based upon their stage of life and productivity. The workers became part of the bourgeois class Marx so detested. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>We also need to explore the vision of a classless society. At the same time, Marx would criticize all existing societies using as his yardstick the </span><span>indeterminate and psychologically empty idea of a classless society. He places himself in an historical-timeless realm that does not exist, and from this privileged vantage-point he has confidence that an event or institution is not in keeping with the meaning of history.</span><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></span></a><span> Thus, social classes of the type defined by Marx no longer function as such today. They have been displaced by different, non-class formations such as bureaucracy and technocracy. The empirical question about the mood or influence of workers in this or that society today is no longer revolutionary but have become primary examples of bourgeois.</span> <span>The dynamic of perpetual change is, as Marx showed in the Manifesto, not some alien rhythm within capital, but rather is the very permanent revolution of capitalist production. At which point, the exhilaration with such revolutionary dynamism is a feature of the bonus of pleasure and the reward of the social reproduction of the system itself.</span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span> <a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a></span></span><span></span><span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Marx is known for his perspective on the bourgeoise. The hostility that Marx expresses toward the bourgeoisie and their conventional lives has its roots in envy for what they accomplished. This hostility places sin in the one envied and virtue in the one who envies, which can lead to the violent overthrow of those envied by those who envy them. This violence abandons rational discourse with the one envied, now looking at the acquisition of power as the key to justice. Power determines what is right. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>The bourgeois are simply people in a city. They focus upon the horizontal relationship. The mindset accepts calculation of our own minds to manipulate things around us. It wants a reasonable religion. It excludes irrational elements. It has humanistic assumption of continuous progress of humanity. It is secular. It relies upon common-sense morality. It practices tolerance and self-discipline that results in an inner asceticism and a strong work ethic. They accept splitting of reason and feeling, making possible uncontrolled emotions.</span><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a><span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx is also known for his view of private property. Hannah Arendt makes the point that private property provides a hiding place from the public sphere and what a society holds in common. It provides individuals a location within which to stand. This has led to the glorification of work over contemplation, thereby setting aside the ancient use of slavery for laborious tasks that deal with the necessities of life, freeing the owner of slaves to engage in the public realm of free thought and discourse regarding what society held in common. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">In contrast, the Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. His criticism of private property is the sign of a failure to allow due importance to the individual in the life of society.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><sup><span><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></sup></span></sup></a> Marx focuses upon the alienating power of private property and the autonomous movements of capital over the hearts of human beings. Marx saw human beings as naturally related to objects. Their processing and production of objects part of their nature. He saw in this activity the natural manifestation of life for human beings. Given the result of this activity he could speak of it as alienation. Alienation means the alienation of the acting person that occurs because the product of this activity becomes the exclusive property of another. For this reason, private property is the expression of alienated human life. Private property signifies the spoiling of those who possess nothing. Thus, the manifestation of the life of human beings is their alienation, and their self-realization is their loss of reality, an alien reality, because now the property of another. The argument assumes that the activity of human beings is a manifestation of their being. It also assumes that in their activity they realize and possess their own being. Let us ask a simple question. Would humanity experience no alienation if active individuals remained in possession of their own activity and products? Such a view betrays a romantic idealization of the kind of work done by preindustrial workers. Further, the romanticism goes so deep and is so individualistic that the exchange of products by individuals become suspect. Such views presuppose that the active ego already possesses its nature, which finds expression in its activity. This means estrangement occurs from themselves in the medium of a thing that they already have or produce. Marx will later admit that only in community can the division of labor and the resultant one-sidedness of individuals be eliminated. Only in community is personal freedom possible. This was also the view of Rousseau. He says the human essence is the ensemble of social relationships. In this view, there can be no antagonism between individual and society since the individual is a function of social relations. However, the division of labor restricts the free development of individuals. He saw in the division of labor the self-alienation of human activity that makes possible both exchange and dependent work. The division of labor and exchange expresses an alienation of laboring human beings from their human nature. This alienation reaches its extreme form in salaried work, where money is exchanged for the capacity for work.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><sup><span><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></sup></span></sup></a> The expectation of doing away with the division of labor is as romantic as is the idea of individual self-realization through work. In the later works of Marx, he has the hope of a lessening of the work time of the individual.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></span></a> He thought in his early days it would be possible on the ground of his social pathology of early industrial conditions to realize the classical German educational ideal of the profound and thoroughly versatile human being, by means of the revolutionary abolition of capitalist exploitation, class society, and division of labor in a future association of free individuals.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p align="center" class="MsoListParagraph" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0in 1in; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">I.Labor<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The glorification of labor in modernity was because of its productivity, which meant that it was labor that distinguished humanity from other animals. This productivity does not lie in any of labor’s products but in the human “power,” whose strength is not exhausted when it has produced the means of its own subsistence and survival but can produce a “surplus,” that is, more than is necessary for its own “reproduction.” Viewed as part of the world, the products of work — and not the products of labor — guarantee the permanence and durability without which a world would not be possible at all. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx adds that the circulation of money as capital is an end, for the expansion of value takes place within this constantly renewed movement.<span> </span>This circulation of capital has therefore no limits.<span> </span>The possessor of money becomes a capitalist.<span> </span>The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what the capitalist aims at.<span> </span>The boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange value, is common to the capitalist and the miser. It is easy to criticize the role of money in assessing value in a capitalist system. However, if not that, what, or more importantly who, will assess value? The issue here is that money is an objective assigning value and thereby distributes labor, capital, and resources throughout society. The market will do this far better than politicians or bureaucrats. The reason this process is restless and never-ending is that new possibilities keep emerging out of the hopes and dreams of the people: producers, investors, workers, and consumers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The central notion of socially necessary labor times is itself defined in terms of the processes and exchange ratios of a competitive market. Marx attempts to answer the following Kantian-type question: how are profits possible? How can there be profits if everything gets its full value, if no cheating goes on? The answer for Marx lies in the unique character of labor power. Its value is the cost of producing it, yet it itself can produce more value than it has. In view of the difficulties with Marxist economic theory, one would expect Marxists to study carefully alternative theories of the existence of profit, including those formulated by bourgeois economists. Such theories focus on the value of risk and uncertainty, but also include the value of innovation and alertness to and search for new opportunities. Such an alternative explanatory theory, if adequate, would remove much of the scientific motivation underlying Marxist economic theory.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">He will also say that the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus value.<span> </span>Surplus value presupposes capitalistic production.<span> </span>Capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labor power in the hands of producers of commodities.<span> </span>We had, historically, a transformation from feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. Scattered private property becomes capitalist private property. However, with the crumbling of the labor theory of value, the underpinning of its theory of exploitation dissolves. The charm and simplicity of this theory’s definition of exploitation is lost when it is realized that according to the definition there will be exploitation in any society in which investment takes place for a greater future product.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx’s theory is one form of the productive resources theory of value. An alternative might say that the value of productive resources is determined by the value of the final products that arise from them, where the value of the final product is determined in some way other than by the value of the resources used in it, such as the concept of simple, undifferentiated labor time. For Marxist theory does not hold that the value of an object is proportional to the number of simple undifferentiated labor hours that went into its production. Rather, the theory holds that the value of an object is proportional to the number of simple undifferentiated socially necessary labor hours that went into its production. What is socially necessary, and how much of it is, will be determined by what happens on the market. There is no longer any labor theory of value.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">He then says that if the worker is deprived of the means of production, he or she is also deprived of the means of subsistence. Marx is wrong here. The producer owns the vision and direction of a business, which also has a value that the market will determine. Not everyone has the desire or ability to engage in business at that level. Employees choose to be part of the vision and direction of the business, or they look elsewhere. Further, if government agencies own the means of production, everyone becomes a slave of the State. Everyone would serve the interests of the State. While Marx fears the exploitation and enslavement of the worker in capitalism, his communist system would result in slavery of the masses as they serve the interests of the State, which in turn is set by the elite of the Communist Party. Marxist theory explains the phenomenon of exploitation by reference to the workers not having access to the means of production. It follows that in a society in which the workers are not forced to deal with the capitalist, exploitation of labors will be absent. In our society, large sections of the working force now have cash reserves in private property, and there are also large cash reserves in union pension funds. These workers can wait, and they can invest. This raises the question of why this money is not used to establish worker-controlled factories. Why haven’t radicals and social democrats urged this? Often people who do not wish to bear risks feel entitled to rewards from those who do and win. Yet, these same people do not feel obligated to help out by sharing the losses of those who bear risks and lose.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">II. Work<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">All this raises the issue of meaningful and satisfying work, which is often merged with discussions of self-esteem. This question is of importance for what remains of Marxist economic theory. In any society in which those unable to work, or to work productively, are subsidized by the labor of others. One might be left with the view that Marxian exploitation is the exploitation of people’s lack of understanding of economics. We should note an interesting feature of the structure of rights to engage in relationships with others, including voluntary exchanges. Individuals might choose to help support types of activities or institutions or situations they favor. However, will even those people who favor these causes choose to make such charitable contributions to others, even when their tax burdens are lifted? Do they not want the elimination or abolition of poverty, of meaningless work, and is not their contribution only a drop in that bucket? Another view that might lead to support for a more extensive state holds that people have a right to a say in the decisions that importantly affect their lives. The entitlement conception would examine the means whereby people’s lives are importantly affected. Since inequalities in economic position often have led to inequalities in political power, may not greater economic equality be needed and justified to avoid the political inequalities with which economic inequalities are often correlated? Economically well-off persons desire greater political power, in a non-minimal state, because they can use this power to give themselves differential economic benefits. Where a locus of such power exists, it is not surprising that people attempt to use it for their own ends. The illegitimate use of a state by economic interests for their own ends is based upon a pre-existing illegitimate power of the state to enrich some persons at the expense of others. Eliminate that illegitimate power of giving differential economic benefits and you eliminate or drastically restrict the motive for wanting political influence. True, some persons still will thirst for political power, finding intrinsic satisfaction in dominating others. The minimal state best reduces the chances of such takeover or manipulation of the state by persons desiring power or economic benefits, especially if combined with an alert citizenry, since it is the minimally desirable target for such takeover of manipulation. One might think that the minimal state also is non-neutral regarding its citizens. It enforces contracts, prohibitions on aggression, on theft, and so on, and the result of the operation of the process is one in which people’s economic situations differ. There is an independent reason for prohibiting rape. People have a right to control their own bodies, to choose their sexual partners, and to be secure against physical force and its threat. To claim that a prohibition or rule is non-neutral presupposes that it is unfair. Similarly with the prohibitions and enforcements of the minimal state. That such a state preserves and protects a process that works out with people having different holdings would be sufficient to condemn it as non-neutral only if there were no independent justification for the rules and prohibitions it enforces. It has often been noticed, both by proponents of laissez-faire capitalism and by radicals, that the poor in the United States are not net beneficiaries of the total of government programs and interventions in the economy. If correct, this explanation implies that a society whose policies result from democratic elections will not find it easy to avoid having its redistributive programs most benefit the middle class.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">III. Action<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The processes of growth and decay through which nature forever invades the human artifice, threatening the durability of the world and its fitness for human use, demands constant human action. The protection and preservation of the world against natural processes are among the toils which need the monotonous performance of daily repeated chores. This daily task bears little resemblance to the heroic deeds of legend. The sudden, spectacular rise of labor from the lowest, most despised position to the highest rank, as the most esteemed of all human activities, began when Locke discovered that labor is the source of all property. It followed its course when Adam Smith asserted that labor was the source of all wealth and found its climax in Marx’s “system of labor,” where labor became the source of all productivity and the expression of the very humanity of man. Locke introduced money as that which was lasting, and for which could work. The productivity of labor begins with reification, the erection of an objective world of things. Modernity has leveled all human activities to the common denominator of securing the necessities of life and providing for their abundance. The emancipation of labor and the concomitant emancipation of the laboring classes from oppression and exploitation meant progress in the direction of non-violence. Many intellectual analyses of capitalist economies share the concern that the extensive use of machinery and the division of labor has led to the loss of individuality of the worker.<span> </span>The worker has lost charm.<span> </span>The worker has become an appendage to the machine.<span> </span>The process would lead to the same low wages everywhere. Yet, these fears have not become reality. Workers today require increased education due to the computerization of much of production. Shorter work weeks have led to leisure time potential for many workers. It is much less certain that it was also progress in the direction of freedom. It could result in all human beings focusing upon the necessities of life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The work of fabrication is reification in a world of things. The process of making is itself entirely determined by the categories of means and end. The fabricated thing is a product in the twofold sense that the production process ends in it and that it is only a means to produce this end. Human beings adjust themselves to the world of things human beings have created which in the modernity means its machines. The discussion of the whole problem of technology, of the transformation of life and world through the introduction of the machine, has been strangely led astray through an all-too-exclusive concentration upon the service or disservice the machines render to humanity. The public realm for the fabrication of products is the exchange market, where one can show the products of one’s hand and receive the esteem which is due to one. The last meeting place which is at connected with the activity of human fabrication is the exchange market on which the products are displayed. Commercial society sprang from conspicuous production and resulted in a society of labor that shaped a society of conspicuous consumption. The exchange market is the most important public place and where therefore everything becomes an exchangeable value, a commodity. Their value is relative to other things in the market. Universal relativity, that a thing exists only in relation to other things, and loss of intrinsic worth, that nothing any longer possesses an objective value independent of the ever-changing estimations of supply and demand, are inherent in the very concept of value itself.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The commodity is a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of the labor of people appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labor. As Adam Smith would put it, the pencil is such a trivial thing. Yet, it will take materials from around the world to create a simple pencil in England. Producing any product requires a dynamic of social interaction across international boundaries. As a rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labor of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other.<span> </span>The sum of the labor of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labor of society.<span> </span>Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labor does not show itself except in the act of exchange.<span> </span>In other words, the labor of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labor of society only by means of the relations that the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers.<span> </span>It is only by being exchanged that the products of labor acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility.<span> </span>The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like forms.<span> </span>They are forms of thought expressing with social validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically determined mode of production of commodities.<span> </span>The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labor if they take the form of commodities, vanishes as soon as we come to other forms of production.<span> </span>For a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter social relations with each other by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labor to the standard of homogeneous human labor.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx adds that the circulation of money as capital is an end, for the expansion of value takes place within this constantly renewed movement.<span> </span>This circulation of capital has therefore no limits.<span> </span>The possessor of money becomes a capitalist.<span> </span>The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what the capitalist aims at.<span> </span>The boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange value, is common to the capitalist and the miser. It is easy to criticize the role of money in assessing value in a capitalist system. However, if not that, what, or more importantly who, will assess value? The issue here is that money is an objective assigning value and thereby distributes labor, capital, and resources throughout society. The market will do this far better than politicians or bureaucrats. The reason this process is restless and never-ending is that new possibilities keep emerging out of the hopes and dreams of the people: producers, investors, workers, and consumers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Human plurality, the basic condition of both action and speech, has the twofold character of equality and distinction. If people were not equal, they could neither understand each other and those who came before them nor plan and foresee the needs of those who will come after them. If people were not distinct, each human being distinguished from any other who is, was, or will ever be, they would need neither speech nor action to make themselves understood. Signs and sounds to communicate immediate, identical needs and wants would be enough. People can liberate themselves from labor and work, but they cannot liberate themselves from action and speech. To act is to take initiative and begin. It is in beginning that something new is started which cannot be expected from whatever may have happened before. In acting and speaking, people show who they are, reveal actively their unique personal identities and thus make their appearance in the human world, while their physical identities appear without any activity of their own in the unique shape of the body and sound of the voice. This revelatory quality of speech and action comes to the fore where people are with others and neither for nor against them, and thus, in sheer human togetherness. Many theories of human nature overlook the inevitability with which people disclose themselves as subjects, as distinct and unique persons, even when they concentrate upon reaching an altogether worldly, material object. The realm of human affairs consists of the web of human relationships which exists wherever men live together. The disclosure of the “who” through speech, and the setting of a new beginning through action, always fall into an already existing web where their immediate consequences can be felt.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The chief characteristic of this specifically human life, whose appearance and disappearance constitute worldly events, is that it is itself always full of events which can be told as a story, establish a biography; it is of this life, bios as distinguished from mere zōē, that Aristotle said that it “somehow is a kind of praxis.” It produces stories with or without intention as naturally as fabrication produces tangible things. These stories may then be recorded in documents and monuments, they may be visible in use objects or art works, they may be told and retold and worked into all kinds of material. They themselves, in their living reality, are of an altogether different nature than these reifications. They tell us more about their subjects, the “hero” in the center of each story, than any product of human hands ever tells us about the master who produced it, and yet they are not products, properly speaking. <span>The reason is that the intricate web of human relationships involves many persons in the unfolding story of each of our lives. The contribution others make to our story is beyond our control. </span>Although everybody started life by inserting oneself into the human world through action and speech, nobody is the author or producer of his or her own life story. In other words, the stories, the results of action and speech, reveal an agent, but this agent is not an author or producer. Somebody began it and is its subject in the twofold sense of the word, namely, its actor and sufferer, but nobody is its author. That every individual life between birth and death can eventually be told as a story with beginning and end is the pre-political and pre-historical condition of history, the remarkable story without beginning and end. But the reason each human life tells its story and why history becomes the storybook of humanity, with many actors and speakers and yet without any tangible authors, is that both are the outcome of action. The specific revelatory quality of action and speech, the implicit manifestation of the agent and speaker, is so indissolubly tied to the living flux of acting and speaking that it can be represented and “reified” only through a kind of repetition, the imitation or mimēsis, which according to Aristotle prevails in all arts but is appropriate only to the drama.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Montesquieu realized that the outstanding characteristic of tyranny was that it rested on isolation — on the isolation of the tyrant from his subjects and the isolation of the subjects from each other through mutual fear and suspicion — and hence that tyranny was not one form of government among others but contradicted the essential human condition of plurality, the acting and speaking together, which is the condition of all forms of political organization.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">One who acts never quite knows what one is doing, that one always becomes guilty of consequences one never intended or even foresaw, that no matter how disastrous and unexpected the consequences of one’s deed one can never undo it, that the process one starts is never consummated unequivocally in one single deed or event, and that its very meaning never discloses itself to the actor but only to the backward glance of the historian who, paradoxically, does not act. All this is reason enough to turn away with despair from the realm of human affairs. The capacity to act freely produces a web of relationships that entangles its producer to such an extent that the producer appears much more victim and sufferer than the author and doer of what the producer has done.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Dealing with the unexpected consequences of human plurality in a redemptive way requires two qualities. Only the human capacities to forgive and to promise can deal with these problems, and then only in part. The two faculties belong together in so far as one of them, forgiving, serves to undo the deeds of the past, whose “ sins ” hang like Damocles’ sword over every new generation; and the other, binding oneself through promises, serves to set up in the ocean of uncertainty, which the future is by definition, islands of security without which not even continuity, let alone durability of any kind, would be possible in the relationships between people.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">A. Redemptive action through making and keeping promises<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The remedy for unpredictability, for the chaotic uncertainty of the future, is contained in the faculty to make and keep promises. If we are going to engage in redemptive behavior in dealing the unexpected consequences of human action, let us consider binding ourselves through the promise, thereby setting up an island of security that can give the gift of continuity and durability in the complex web of human relationships, amid the ocean of uncertainty that defines the future. The human capacity to make and keep promises is a way we can cope with the unpredictable consequences of plural initiatives. People can experience meaningfulness because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves in ways that faithfulness and promising creates a safe space for that to occur. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The story contained in the biblical book of Ruth is a story of laudable people who keep covenant with each other. The story occurs in a time when relationships within Israel were falling apart.<span> </span>In chapter eighteen of Judges, the tribe of Dan attacked the peaceful town of Laish.<span> </span>In chapter nineteen, a priest cuts up his wife into twelve parts.<span> </span>He sent one part to each tribe in Israel to deliver a message.<span> </span>In chapter twenty, the other eleven tribes attack the tribe of Benjamin.<span> </span>They almost destroy the entire tribe.<span> </span>They feel sorry about it afterwards.<span> </span>They give the few remaining men of the tribe of Benjamin the right to rape some of the women from another city.<span> </span>The book ends with the phrase: "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes." Something was happening in their society.<span> </span>Relationships of hospitality, of caring for one another, of being in connection with one another, were falling apart.<span> </span>They had a covenant with the Lord that bid them to act in faithful ways toward each other and toward the stranger in the land. In some ways, I am sure that last phrase represents sadness in the heart of God.<span> </span>People simply doing what they please.<span> </span>People acting with little sense of responsibility toward one another. They had promised to live with loyalty and kindness to each other, and they were breaking that promise.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The story of Ruth invites listeners and readers to share in the life struggles of the characters. It becomes what we would call a short story. It has an earthy spirituality in that it deals with ordinary people coping with everyday life. Life is messy. The characters in the story are faithfully obedient to the life envisioned in the covenant Israel had with the Lord. Boaz becomes an example of an Israelite who has regard for the stranger or foreigner in the land. Given the history of contention between Israel and Moab, this graciousness on his part might be surprising. An Israelite is to offer welcome to the foreigner. This story values simple acts of kindness. The story of Ruth connects an example of simple covenant faithfulness during the Tribal Federation period, a time understood as one of steady deterioration. The short story of Ruth has no murders and no villains, as do the books of Joshua and Judges. The story portrays life in a peaceable village setting among hardworking agrarian peasants. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Apart from passing references, the deity plays almost no direct role in the book. There are no great miracles. The Spirit of the Lord descends upon no one and the angel of the Lord visits no one. If the Lord is working at all, the Lord does so through blessing people who remain faithful to their covenant with the Lord and with each other. If the Lord is working at all, it is in the random happenings of life, accomplishing the divine purpose through ordinary people who overcome adversity by means of personal initiative, ingenuity, and acts of selfless devotion. If there is a theological perspective here, it suggests that divine activity is in the shadows, in the way people act toward one another. If the Lord is present, it is through responsible and faithful human beings. The story is the gentle folk tale of two women — one Israelite, one Moabite — and the circumstances that brought them together, kept them together, and bequeathed their story to Israel’s national epic, to world literature, and to the liturgies of both synagogue and church. It is among the briefest in the Hebrew Bible (only four short chapters). It is peopled by only a small handful of characters, who, apart from Boaz, are not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It focuses on the plight of a single imperiled family in a confined locale, with no sustained attention to national or international concerns. Its main characters are women. Its hero is (initially, at least) a non-Israelite. In fact, her gentile origins may also explain her general lack of reference to God. Naomi, Boaz, and the women of Bethlehem express belief in divine intervention. She does express fidelity. Yet, her confidence is primarily in herself.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The story of Ruth takes place in this type of society. Just an ordinary family with ordinary people involved.<span> </span>Naomi and her husband moved to a foreign land.<span> </span>While there, her husband died, and her two sons died without having children through their wives.<span> </span>She determines to leave the country and return to Israel.<span> </span>She tells Orpah and Ruth to return to their own families.<span> </span>That is what would make sense.<span> </span>Orpah would do so.<span> </span>Ruth, on the other hand, was determined to stay with Naomi.<span> </span>There was no law that would force her to do this.<span> </span>She freely chose to remain in a committed relationship with Naomi.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Despite the company of Ruth, Naomi is embittered at her many losses. Over the coming weeks, these losses are all reversed. This theme is important in our time, when the suspicion of so many is that all we have emptiness and all we must look forward to is emptiness. Granted, we may inappropriately emphasize finding significance, meaning, and purpose. We may boast too quickly that we have found them. There is some freedom to be had in viewing our lives as a trace. Even world-historical figures fade with the centuries. Authors and politicians once commonly known are known no longer. You and I are traces, barely leaving a mark upon the lives of those we touch. Yet, we do leave a mark, no matter how small it may be. Such humility regarding our “self” is a good wisdom to learn. The short story of Ruth would remind us that a life of losing ourselves in faithful relationships is the path to whatever meaning we may find in this life. Leaving a mark of such qualities upon the lives of others may be the modest hope we carry with us. We may not be “full,” but we are not empty either, as we act faithfully in our daily relationships. We have learned to scale back our expectations from life and offer what we can. We may die without knowing what the trace our lives might leave.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The book of Ruth is an altogether remarkable addition to the biblical canon. It is simply a tale, parabolic in its presentation of the importance and role of divine and human <i>chesed</i>, traditionally translated as “loving-kindness,” but also as “kindness” (2:20), “loyalty” (3:10), and in its verbal form, “deal kindly with” (1:8). The word denotes willful, directed compassion and faithfulness arising out of a committed relationship. Any action here is human activity within the mundane affairs and interrelationship of human beings. People are doing hesed, acting loyally and faithfully. They are keeping their promises. Even in the intentionally provocative setting of Boaz and Ruth on the threshing floor, <span>the point remains that simple acts of covenant loyalty keep moving this story forward to its conclusion. </span>If Ruth becomes an Israelite, it is because she behaves like one. Here is the kind of life that God blesses. <span>When Naomi says that the hand of the Lord has turned against her, she puts herself on a par with the suffering of Job. She has a complaint against the Lord. She has no husband. Her sons die. She has tried to inflict more pain on herself by her actions. The Lord is at fault for her misfortune. The implicit complaint becomes explicit in 1:21, as she pictures herself as a defendant in a legal battle in which God has brought charges against her, but she does not know what they are. Job has a similar complaint. Orpah</span> <span>was a worthy woman, dismissed with the blessing of the Lord. Ruth, however, clung to Naomi, even as a man leaves his parents can clings to his wife (Gen 2:24). Ruth will become even more worthy.</span><i> <span>Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. </span></i><span>This line is so memorable, in part, because it captures the entire story of the little book of Ruth. We remember these words because they reveal something essential about Ruth: She was a woman of deep love and faithfulness. I think it is also memorable because, like most famous and memorable lines, it has a power to shape lives. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Ruth is willing to leave her family and religion and unite to another. For a woman from Moab to do this is remarkable. Did she see something in this Israelite family that attracted her not only to the family but to their God? She would be loyal to Naomi and to her God. She exchanges her ethnic and religious heritage for the people, culture, and religion of Naomi. An ironic twist is that after Naomi just lamented the impact of the cruel hand of the God, Ruth offers her allegiance to God. She gave up all she had known. She faced an unpromising future, which makes her resolve hall the more remarkable. Like Abraham (Gen 12:1-6), Ruth sets out for a new land, among a new people, trusting Yahweh as her God. And God will bring about remarkable things through her. Ruth becomes a Jewish proselyte in the sense that human loyalty, self-renouncing fidelity, and doing the kindness of covenant loyalty to each other, become part of her life. She behaves like an Israelite. Jewish sources affirm this shift in her religious loyalties. However, the focus is on human loyalty and self-renouncing fidelity.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>I Chron 2:10-17 gives the genealogy in greater detail. Judah had a son, Perez, through Tamar, his daughter-in-law. He had a son, Hezron, who had a son, Ram, who had Amminadab, who had Nahshon, who was a prince of the descendants of Judah. He had a son, Salma, and Salma had a son, Boaz. Boaz takes Ruth for his wife and has a son, Obed, a striking contrast to ten years of barrenness in Moab. The women encourage Naomi with the blessing of the Lord now upon her, reminding us that at the beginning of this little story, she thought of the hand of the Lord being against her. The child symbolizes the complete reversal of the ill-fortune of Naomi. She has been restored to fullness with the continuation of her family. Naomi has received new children. While the text does not fully answer the complaint of Naomi, she receives new tasks. The neighbors have a part to play in the naming of the child, as we also see in Luke 1:59. <i>He became the father of Jesse, the father of David, </i>the youngest of either four (I Samuel 17:12-14, 17), seven (I Chronicles 2:12-15), or eight (I Samuel 16:7-11)<i>.</i> Thus, through a series of events, she marries Boaz. Ruth bore a son in Bethlehem.<span> </span>She had been alone, vulnerable, at a dead end, with no future or hope.<span> </span>Yet, she had a child, who would be the grandfather of David, who would be the ancestor of Jesus. In a strange sense, everything works out in the end.<span> </span>Naomi does not get her sons or husband back.<span> </span>Nevertheless, Boaz is there.<span> </span>Moreover, a grandson is there.<span> </span>In addition, of course, there is Ruth.<span> </span>Ruth, a far-from-royal, down-on-her-luck outsider, is the great-grandmother of the greatest king in the history of Israel, David. In a sense, the story of Ruth and Naomi is a story of David. As readers, we know this genealogy. Ruth did not. She knew only to be faithful to the relationships she valued. She was like Rahab, who broke from her people to join the Israelites and give herself to the Lord. Ruth was faithful in her relationships throughout the story. How ordinary can you get?<span> </span>People making choices in which they live responsibly, righteously, and faithfully.<span> </span>People choosing lovingly committed relationships.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>The story of Ruth is a secular one. However, Naomi and Ruth are part of religious community that assumed the presence of the Lord in it. We need to recognize that while some people do have a life journey that leads them down the path of the extraordinary, for which we can all be grateful, the reality is that most people, including pastors, lead ordinary lives of daily faithfulness. They do so without receiving heights of emotion, lofty visions, or obvious miracles. To put it another way, we need to see the goodness and beauty of the ordinary life of faithfully and daily living an earthy and human life. Knowing what to do today to live faithfully may be all the insight we need to live this life.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>The evangelical, holiness, Pentecostal, and charismatic traditions, based on experiences of mystics in previous centuries, look to certain profound experiences that are essential to a life-changing relationship with Jesus. I admit that I still long for such an experience. I have grown in my trust and faithfulness. I at least think I have. I have grown in my ability to give myself to others, especially to my wife. However, certain experiences, whether in some love songs or in some hymns and songs of the church, seem beyond me. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>In that regard, I have a scary admission to make. The most moving emotional experience I have had in my life was attending a Paul McCartney concert in Indianapolis, my two sons on either side of me. As much as we disagree on everything, that night, we agreed. We knew we were in the presence of greatness. Even at his advanced age, I heard the young man I knew as a teen. We were in an auditorium of people of multiple generations united in our appreciation for the music this man had produced. I thought I would not know the music as well from after the Beatles, but I knew many of them as well. The three of us could sing the words to most of the songs. I could not believe that I was in the same room with Paul. It was beyond anything I could have dreamed. It still is. It still brings tears of joy to my eyes. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Most of my experiences do not stand out. I keep doing boring things like circling around the Bible, as well as philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, Hegel and Kant, Kierkegaard, and theologians like Barth and Pannenberg. I keep learning more of who I am and keep opening what I know of myself to others, especially my wife, with less concern about what they will think. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>All of us have a gift to give.<span> </span>As we go through life, we discover that gift and offer it to others.<span> </span>That is the best any of us can do with our lives.<span> </span>It is so easy to think only of how others can give to us and nourish us.<span> </span>Part of maturing in life, part of the growth we need, is to discover what we can give back to others.<span> </span>We are so often impressed with the larger-than-life heroes of the big screen.<span> </span>In this part of the Bible, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Joshua come to mind. The Hebrew people looked bac to a dramatic and divine moment in which the Lord delivered them from slavery and established a covenant with them, a covenant that bound them to each other as well. Later, there were the anointed King David and his descendants. There were prophets invited into the inner divine circle to hear the will of the Lord and receive a commission to proclaim that will. Such dramatic moments are memorable, the basis for many stories and songs. However, the book of Ruth brings out a side of life that I find reassuring. I find myself increasingly impressed by the heroes of daily life.<span> </span>They do not get to the front page of the paper.<span> </span>They are the ones who get up every day and have a reason for living this day.<span> </span>They find meaning and purpose in the dimension of the ordinary and mundane aspects of love and work. They are faithful in their work. They are faithful in their family and friendship circles.<span> </span>They are willing to live the values and principles in which they believe.<span> </span>They do these boring things every day.<span> </span>I am finding as many different ways to say it, but they keep their promises, stated and unstated, within the complex web of their relationships. They are the ones who make the world a happier and safer place in which to live.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>B. Redemptive action through forgiveness<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">If we are going to engage in redemptive behavior in dealing the unexpected consequences of human action, let us turn to forgiveness, which serves to undo the deeds of the past, whose sins hang like Damocles’ sword over every new generation. Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Reflect upon the difference between karma and grace. What you put out comes back to you, as in “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, or even “as you sow, so you will reap.” You know the law of physics that for every action is an equal and opposite reaction. Karma is at the heart of the universe. It seems like grace has come along to upend all of this on the level of personal relationships. Grace upends our relationship with God. It defies reason and logic. Grace interrupts the consequences of your actions. In my case, and I suspect in your case as well, that is good news. Most of us have done plenty of stupid things, and much worse. Grace does not excuse our wrongs. Grace acknowledges in personal relationships that none of us will live our lives perfectly. We need to give and receive grace to maintain relationships that matter. In our relationship with God, grace acknowledges that we will never be religious enough. Somewhere, probably where we least expect it, we will fall short. Fortunately, we do not have to depend upon our religiosity. We know of this grace because God has offered it in Jesus Christ. Because of Christ, grace defeats religiosity and replaces it with grace.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><sup><span><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></sup></span></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The letter to the Hebrews places so much emphasis upon forgiveness of sin. It does so based upon the Old Testament sacrificial system in the First Temple and the Jewish practice in the Second Temple. I would like to ponder for a moment why giving and receiving and forgiveness is so important. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The focus of the sacrificial system was forgiveness of sin. The problem with this focus is that it is too narrow. The web of human relationships is so intricate that even when we act out of the best of intentions, our actions can negatively affect others as well as ourselves. We may not have all the evidence that we could have had. We may act too quickly. We may not act quickly enough. We may not have developed the insight necessary into ourselves, the nature of people involved, or the seriousness of this moment, to act appropriately and courageously. Human action is always open-ended and therefore ambiguous. We may be physically sick, and this causes us to act in a confused way. We may never learn of the harmful effects of our well-intentioned actions. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The point is, there are many reasons to give and receive forgiveness that do not reflect the moral implications to which sin points us. Forgiveness helps to keep us going, not allowing a past act, whether a mistake or a sin, to define us. The human condition is such that we need forgiveness, and we need to extend forgiveness far more than we realize. We must not forget that we need to direct this redemptive activity toward ourselves.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>The wearisome sequence of revenge for past wrongs that only provokes further revenge is a chain people can break only through forgiveness. Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover. We would remain the victims of its consequences forever. Yet, a path needs to become open human relationships that says that what is done is not always done, the broken can be fixed, that the ravaged can be restored. That you can have another swing, that you can wife the slate clean, and you can go back to square one. </span><span>Forgiveness is costly primarily to the one who forgives. The one who forgives gives up the right to justice or revenge and chooses mercy. Anyone who has truly forgiven another knows what this means. </span><span>Respect for the person is sufficient to prompt forgiveness for the sake of the person. To think that we owe respect only where we admire or esteem the person constitutes a clear symptom of the increasing depersonalization of public and social life.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>I direct your attention to a few sayings of Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Matt 6.12 And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Matt 6.14-15 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Luke 11.4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us;<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Mark 11.25And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">One who acts never quite knows what one is doing, and thus everyone becomes guilty of consequences they never intended or even foresaw, that no matter how disastrous and unexpected the consequences of one’s deed one can never undo it, that the process one starts is never consummated unequivocally in one single deed or event, and that its very meaning never discloses itself to the actor but only to the backward glance of the historian who does not act. All this is reason enough to turn away with despair from the realm of human affairs and to hold in contempt the human capacity for freedom, which, by producing the web of human relationships, seems to entangle its producer to such an extent that one appears much more the victim and the sufferer than the author and doer of what one has done. To condemn action, the spontaneous beginning of something new, because its results fall into a predetermined net of relationships, invariably dragging the agent with them, who forfeits one’s freedom the very moment one makes use of it. The possible redemption from the predicament of irreversibility — of being unable to undo what one has done though one did not, and could not, have known what he was doing — is the faculty of forgiving.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Jesus is consistent with his Jewish tradition in its emphasis of forgiveness. The entire sacrificial system was a way of helping people confront their need for forgiveness. That system dealt with sin, but also with unknown transgression. The story of Joseph in Genesis is a profound reflection on family relationships and the need for forgiveness in the realm of human affairs.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></span></span></span></a> Jesus maintains against the “scribes and pharisees” first that it is not true that only God has the power to forgive, and second that this power does not derive from God — as though God, not humanity, would forgive through the medium of human beings — but on the contrary must be mobilized by men toward each other before they can hope to be forgiven by God also. Jesus’ formulation is even more radical. Human beings in the gospel are not supposed to forgive because God forgives and they must do “likewise,” but “if ye from your hearts forgive,” God shall do “likewise.” But trespassing is an everyday occurrence which is in the very nature of action’s constant establishment of new relationships within a web of relations, and it needs forgiving, dismissing, to make it possible for life to go on by constantly releasing people from what they have done unknowingly. In this respect, forgiveness is the exact opposite of vengeance. The alternative to forgiveness, but by no means its opposite, is punishment, and both have in common that they attempt to put an end to something that without interference could go on endlessly.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The most plausible argument that forgiving and acting are as intricately connected as destroying and making comes from that aspect of forgiveness where the undoing of what was done seems to show the same revelatory character as the deed itself. What was done is forgiven for the sake of who did it. This, too, was clearly recognized by Jesus. An example is Luke 7:36-50, “Her sins which are many are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little,” and it is the reason for the current conviction that only love has the power to forgive. For love, although it is one of the rarest occurrences in human lives, indeed possesses an unequaled power of self - revelation and an unequaled clarity of vision for the disclosure of who, precisely because it is unconcerned to the point of total unworldliness with what the loved person may be, with qualities and shortcomings no less than with achievements, failings, and transgressions. Love, by reason of its passion, destroys the in-between which relates us to and separates us from others.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The modern loss of respect, or rather the conviction that respect is due only where we admire or esteem, constitutes a clear symptom of the increasing depersonalization of public and social life. Respect, at any rate, because it concerns only the person, is quite sufficient to prompt forgiving of what a person did, for the sake of the person.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">IV. Marx and the Philosophers of Modernity<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Modernity has thrown human beings upon the self. It encourages an exclusive concern with the self, as distinguished from the soul or person or humanity in general, an attempt to reduce all experiences, with the world as well as with other human beings, to experiences between the individual and the self. Modern humanity did not gain this world when it lost the hope of another world. Modern humanity did not gain life either, being thrust back upon it, thrown into the closed inwardness of introspection, where the highest modern humanity could experience was the empty process of reckoning of the mind and its play with itself.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx recognized the weakness in the argument of Hegel that self-consciousness arises in the process of self-alienation. He describes the appropriation of objective reality by the spirit as a process of self-alienation and subsequent sublimation. The movement of the spirit consists in becoming something other as an object for itself, sublimating this other. The self estranges itself from itself, but then returns to itself in its estrangement. He was the first to conceive of this alienation as a phase in the self-consciousness of the spirit. The problem Hegel has here is that alienation involves separation. It would be a strange understanding of self-alienation that would be self-preservation. It would be better to think of the process as self-consciousness arising in the self-divestiture involved in interaction with others. This would mean that those enclosed within themselves are self-alienated in the sense that they never become their true or authentic self through engaging others. Marx was quite right to reject the Hegelian notion that the objectification of human knowledge is a sign of alienation. Marx also rejected the notion that one could reduce the relation to the world to a relation of possession. The alienation Marx describes regarding social structures is vivid and true to life because these structures manifest the traits of objective alienation.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> <a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">We need to be clear that objective alienation does not occur, since there is always a question of the identity that individuals make their point of reference in their relation to themselves and their feelings. Subjective identity formation is a confusing and ambiguous process. One may miss the true meaning of their lives. Their identity may express their alienation from the authenticity of their true identity. Alienation in profession or family life may express a deeper alienation from the true self. One may have the feeling of being at one with oneself, but it may be a delusion or a symptom of false security. Religious consciousness may also be under the spell of alienation. It may miss the reality of God. If talk about God no longer contributes to our understanding of the experienced reality of the world, then the religious consciousness is in the grip of alienation. For writers like Feuerbach and Marx, the religious consciousness is always an alienated consciousness, but even religious persons can admit that at times, they are right.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[21]</span></span></span></span></a> In contrast, he envisioned the communist society of the future as a condition in which individuals freely choose their activities. Society regulates the general production, making it possible for me to be one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fishing the afternoon, breed cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I like. However, in later years Marx recognized that labor cannot become a form of play. It would be necessary to limit the time spent in working and to increase leisure time, for only beyond the world of work does the true realm of freedom begin. All this sounds romantic, but has it proved true? An increase in leisure does not automatically assure an increase in human freedom or better opportunities for self-realization. For that reason, some Marxists have corrected Marx and promoted the idea that the communist society of the future must find freedom in labor rather than simply beyond it.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[22]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx departs from the Enlightenment in identifying the atomistic, utilitarian philosophy of the Enlightenment itself, principally as expressed in its economics. The power of his thought is the union of this radical notion with the expressivist tradition. Individuals in modern society experience alienation because work and the product of work are separated from the individual and become an alien reality, with a dynamic of their own that resists and opposes the individual. This notion of alienation belongs to an expressivist structure of thought. The loss of the product involves self-diremption and its recovery is wholeness and freedom. He denounces a society that makes possession the central human goal at the expense of expression. The drive for possession belongs to the alienated world where human powers are detached from the individual and transferred to property and circulate as property. Humanity makes over nature into an expression of itself, and the process becomes human. This self-creation of humanity occurs through the fashioning of an adequate external expression. However, the first attempts at a human made world is division. By a cruel irony, the first step towards a higher life, takes humanity out of the paradise of primitive communism to the pain and cruelty of class society. However, divided people cannot achieve an adequate expression. Under class society, humanity is not in control of its own expression. They suffer alienation in their lives. This is matched by an alienated consciousness in which they take this estranged world seriously as though it were the locus of an alien force. Generic humanity does not recognize itself in its own objectification. Such class division is temporary, for once humanity has achieved sufficient mastery over nature, this division can be overcome. Generic humanity will return to itself, entering a realm of freedom, of integral expression, one which will belong to the whole society, in which human beings will experience reconciliation. Communism will be the abolition of human self-alienation. In this sense, communism is a form of humanism and of expressive fulfillment as it promises overcoming the divisions and oppositions to which human life, thought, and history have been prey. This reconciliation occurs because humanity has made nature over into its own expression. Reconciliation must come through transformation, because the subject is generic humanity; and humanity can only recognize itself in nature when it has put itself there through work. Such reconciliation will always be incomplete, for the frontier is always receding. Humanity is engaged in the Promethean notion of self-creation. The differentiated structure in Hegel becomes oppression and injustice masquerading as divine order. Marx released all the indignation of the radical Enlightenment at his conception of the state, and in the process distorted the Hegelian notion of the state. Marx did not reflect upon the transition to communism. His concern was with the practical need for revolution against capitalism. Speculation regarding the transition held little interest, likely because he had a simple-minded view of the transition. He seemed oblivious to the opacity and indirectness of communication and decision in large bodies of humanity. The promise of a leap into communism blinded Marx from seeing the social predicament of communism itself, including its limits of actualizing freedom. The practical problems of administering the freedom promised in communism is one that eludes Lenin as well and later communist thinkers.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[23]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">V. Marx and Alienation<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">As Arendt put it, science is giving humanity an Archimedean Point. Philosophically, the ability of humanity to take this cosmic, universal standpoint without changing its location is the clearest possible indication of its universal origin. It is as though we no longer needed theology to tell us that humanity is not of this world even though it spends its life on the earth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Arendt will say that it would be folly to overlook the too precise congruity of modern humanity’s world alienation with the subjectivism of modern philosophy, from Descartes and Hobbes to English sensualism, empiricism, and pragmatism, as well as German idealism and materialism up to the phenomenological existentialism and logical or epistemological positivism. However, it would be equally foolish to believe that what turned the philosopher’s mind away from the old metaphysical questions toward a great variety of introspections — introspection into sensual or cognitive apparatus, into consciousness, into psychological and logical processes — was an impetus that grew out of an autonomous development of ideas, or, in a variation of the same approach, to believe that our world would have become different if only philosophy had held fast to tradition. Events rather than idea have changed the world. Philosophers have experimented with their own selves no less radically and perhaps even more fearlessly than the scientists experimented with nature. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">We have the curious discrepancy between the mood of modern philosophy, which from the beginning had been pessimistic, and the mood of modern science, which until very recently had been so buoyantly optimistic, has been bridged. There seems to be little cheerfulness left in either of them. Doubt has replaced wonderment as the origin of philosophy. The outstanding characteristic of Cartesian doubt is its universality, that nothing, no thought, and no experience, can escape it. No one explored its true dimensions more honestly than Kierkegaard when he leaped — not from reason, as he thought, but from doubt — into belief, thereby carrying doubt into the very heart of modern religion. Cartesian doubt did not simply doubt that human understanding may not be open to every truth or that human vision may not be able to see everything, but that intelligibility to human understanding does not at all constitute a demonstration of truth, just as visibility did not at all constitute proof of reality. This doubt doubts that such a thing as truth exists at all, and discovers thereby that the traditional concept of truth, whether based on sense perception or on reason or on belief in divine revelation, had rested on the twofold assumption that what truly is will appear of its own accord and that human capabilities are adequate to receive it. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">That truth reveals itself was the common creed of pagan and Hebrew antiquity, of Christian and secular philosophy. This is the reason the new, modern philosophy turned with such vehemence — in fact with a violence bordering on hatred — against tradition, making short shrift of the enthusiastic Renaissance revival and rediscovery of antiquity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>The relationship between Hegel and Marx is known well. He viewed himself as one who took the idealist dialectic of Hegel and transformed it into dialectical materialism. He claims to be anti-idealist, but he builds upon the Hegelian conception or idea of universal contradiction and movement.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[24]</span></span></span></span></a> His rejection of Hegel’s <i>Geist </i>was an essential step from Hegel to the revolutionary dialectic identified by Marx. In doing so, he made humanity or the human species as the subject of history to which he could point to the proletarian revolution.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[25]</span></span></span></span></a> </span><span>Marx fused the dialectic of Hegel with the materialism of Feuerbach to develop his notion of dialectical materialism. It has three fundamental principles. First, interpenetration of opposites. Second, the negation of the negation, Third, transformation from quantity to quality. Marx rejected idealism and said he understood Hegel better than Hegel understood himself. </span><span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Dialectical movement is basic to his understanding. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>First, historical materialism was his analysis of history along purely economic lines. </span>Historical materialism is a critique of the previous curse of human history. It identifies the purpose of history worked out in the clash of economic classes that results in the in the victory of the oppressed.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[26]</span></span></span></span></a> <span>Each economic system has its interpenetrating opposite because they were all based on the domination of one class over another. This is true until we get to socialism, in which case this system is not built on class, and there is more the possibility of peaceful movement to pure communism. Each change is achieved only through violence and revolution, and that by the workers or proletariat. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx accurately saw the problem in the view of history we find in Hegel. Hegel helped all thinkers after him to focus upon the problem of estrangement or alienation. However, through the dialectical processes he saw alive in history, he thought he could show that humanity could find some degree of reconciliation in the historical process. Since Hegel is the primary philosopher of modernity, the perception that he thought the social arrangements of liberal democracy and capitalism held the possibility of reconciliation seemed contradicted by experience. For his critics, neither the individual nor the society finds reconciliation in modern social arrangements. It was easy for Marx to move from the obvious discontent with modern social arrangements to a revolutionary stance toward modernity.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[27]</span></span></span></span></a> Of course, the revolutionary movements inspired by Marx have led to discontent among many. The criticism by George Orwell remains true. Victorious revolutionaries, supposed acting on behalf of the oppressed, begin to look like the previous oppressors. <span>To reduce society to just the economic is simplistic. Society is far more complex than he thought. In addition, the Marxist is blinded by his faith and does not allow himself to face facts, but only his theories. He is far too dogmatic. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Second, economic determinism grew out of his basic materialism. This determinism rests on the fact that one can classify society into two areas. One is the superstructure, which is the ideas, institutions, and all that is not economic, and the substructure, which is the economic or technological. The superstructure reflects the substructure, and thus the only way to change the society is to change the substructure. But those who control the substructure will not give up willingly, and violence must bring about the change. Marx also declared capitalism to be dying, and it must necessarily fall because of the force of history. His dialectic becomes obtuse to force everything into this mold. One should not try to force history into guiding presupposition, but rather should try to understand what it says in itself.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">For Marx, an action is moral because it agrees with a law of historical development. If history operates by this law, why does it stormily demand that human beings must make this history through work and sacrifice, with many conflicts and tribulations? It would seem a different law of human will and action intervene. The question of the validity of this other law, the ethical question, is still open. The question is open the more violently people try to ignore it and the more wildly they anticipate the answer to it.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[28]</span></span></span></span></a> One of the historical limits of Marxism is that it has bound itself so closely with materialism. In fact, materialism acquired weight only as historical materialism discovered and appropriated it. Historical materialism is the affirmation in which the history of humanity is the history of human economic or an economic history. The control over nature that the science and technology of modern culture brought also led to submerging humanity to the natural and historical necessity or determinism of history. The tension present is determinist metaphysics combined with rational economic and political freedom.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[29]</span></span></span></span></a> It expresses the belief that the economic-social conditions of a society determine all other cultural forms and that the movement of the economic-social basis has a dialectical character that produces tensions and conflicts in a social situation and drives beyond them toward a new economic-social stage, which will be a synthesis that involves historical action. Every cultural form, such as science, art, the state, morality, and religion, are only phenomenal accompaniments of this one reality, expressions of the current relations of economic forces, attempts to disguise, beautify, justify. They may also be expressions of its discontent, instruments of its criticism, means of its alteration. No matter what, however, they are secondary forms or ideologies from which economics is differentiated as true historical reality. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">One cannot deny the relative truth that social dialectics, rooted as they are in economic conflicts. However, truth becomes error if dialectics becomes a law for all history. At that point, it becomes a quasi-religious principle and loses any empirical verifiability.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[30]</span></span></span></span></a> As economic history, it is the history of a struggle between the ruling and ruled strata or classes of the community. History is the struggle between the economically strong and weak. The workers have been the losers, and under modern dominance of anonymous capital they are losers with accentuated necessity, in terms of the exploiter and exploited. There are accompanying phenomena to the economic, but these do not stop the class war which is waged with unequal weapons. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Historical materialism also predicts the future. The dominance of the possessors of capital will lead to crises of production and consumption, to warlike developments and revolutionary catastrophes. The masses become proletariat and creates pressure upon the middle class. The class of the oppressed will gradually be compelled to unify itself and seize the power lies in its hands and set up its own dictatorship. It erects a welfare social state, in which all other social sicknesses vanish with their common cause, and in which morality can become reality. Such was the eschatological hope of Marx. Historical materialism is a summons to the proletariat. It appeals to the insight of the proletariat in its openness to the economic meaning of history and the critique that leads to class warfare. It has faith in the goal, with the restoration of economic and political solidarity through unions and co-operatives and the dissolution of the present class relationship. In fact, what Marxism failed to foresee was that capitalist countries would freely erect barriers to the exploitation of the economically weak.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[31]</span></span></span></span></a> Such materialism led to the soulless human being. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Even if the Marxist analysis has a dimension of truth, it remains faulty. To explain ideas as the result of class and economic interests destroys the basis of rational discussion and must lead to anti-rationalism and mysticism. If one was from a particular economic class, unless properly re-educated considering the oppressed class, he could dismiss your ideas.<span> </span>If the ideas one has is from the underlying ideology, and that ideology is from the dominant class that must be overthrown, then one’s ideas can be negated.<span> </span>This development of what we later called the hermeneutics of suspicion has far-reaching consequences. As expressed in critical theory, it is a significant obstruction to the rational discussion of truth. The essentialist and metaphysical approach of Marx interprets ideas and norms as the mere appearance of the economic reality of the oppressed/oppressor relationship. The workers party cannot make mistakes of consequence. All government, including democracy, is a dictatorship of the ruling class over the ruled. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">However, as intellectuals could no longer apply this perspective to the economic realities they saw in the West, they started to apply a similar critique, critical theory, in a feminist critique, a critique of sexual expression, and a critique of race. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The primary inhibiting of the rational discussion of truth here is that truth resides only with those who embrace the ideology. The failure is clear – evil cuts through every economic class, every gender, and every race, piercing the heart of every person. No one, not even the enlightened ones who have grasped the truth of the critique, is immune from evil. It may well be that the privileged position of those who embrace the critique expose them to more evil than they imagine present in their opponents.<span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The insight of Marx led to the fundamental experience behind the reversal of contemplation and action was precisely that the thirst for knowledge that could be assuaged only after humanity had put trust into the ingenuity of its hands. Truth and knowledge could be won only by action.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The result was that philosophers became either epistemologists, worrying about an over-all theory of science which the scientists did not need, or they became, indeed, what Hegel wanted them to be, the organs of the Zeitgeist, the mouthpieces in which the general mood of the time was expressed with conceptual clarity. In both instances, whether they looked upon nature or upon history, they tried to understand and come to terms with what happened without them. Philosophy suffered more from modernity than any other field of human endeavor; and it is difficult to say whether it suffered more from the almost automatic rise of activity to an altogether unexpected and unprecedented dignity or from the loss of traditional truth, that is, of the concept of truth underlying whole tradition of the west. Productivity and creativity were to become the highest ideals and even the idols of the modern age. The shift to “how” suggests the priority of process over Being. Process remains invisible, inferred from the presence of certain phenomena.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">VI. Marx and Religion<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>By the end of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, some important Marxist opinions were no longer valid. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Instead of one class or no class it was more probable that modern societies were heading towards a diversity of classes. The rich were not becoming richer while the poor became poorer. The middle class was not disappearing. It was growing larger. Society was not splitting into the two great hostile camps of the bourgeoise and the proletariat. If it was splitting it was into factions and into pressure groups.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>It did not look as if the state would wither away. In fact, reforms were requiring a rapid enlargement of the powers of the state and an expansion of the bureaucracy. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>The Marxian predictions were not being fulfilled. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Lenin resolved the crisis within the revolutionary movement by committing it to the totalitarian solution. The terrible doctrine was that utopia must be brought about by an indefinitely prolonged process of unlimited revolution that would exterminate all opposition, actual and potential. Utopian thinkers view themselves, when their people are in power, as the ones to punish the persecutors and rescue the victims. This system of a society of victims creates an antagonistic relationship in society.<span> </span>In the words of Karl Marx, it creates a dominant class and an oppressed class, thereby creating a revolutionary situation. But how is it that Lenin, and so many after him, have accepted easily and without apparent qualms the repulsive process of violence, executions, suppressions, deception, under the unlimited rule of self-appointed oligarchs? Why do the full-fledged totalitarians not shrink from the means they adopt to achieve their end? The answer is that the inhuman means are justified by the superhuman end: they are the agents of history or of nature. They are the people appointed to fulfill the destiny of creation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>They have been known as atheists. But in fact, God was their enemy, not because they did not believe in the deity, but because they themselves were assuming divine functions and claiming divine prerogatives. This is the root of the matter, and it is here that the ultimate issue lies. Can people, acting like gods, be appointed to establish heaven on earth? If we believe that they can be, then the rest follows. To fulfill their mission, they must assume a godlike omnipotence. They must be jealous gods, monopolizing power, destroying all rivals, compelling exclusive loyalty. The family, the churches, the schools, the corporations, the labor unions and co-operative societies, the voluntary associations and all the arts and sciences, must be their servants. Dissent and deviation are treason and quietism in sacrilege. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>However, the monopoly of all power will not be enough. There remains the old Adam. Unless they can remake the fallen nature of a human being, the self-elected gods cannot make a heaven of the earth. In the Marxist gospel, the new person was emancipated by the revolutionary act from the deformation imposed upon the person by the few elites (usually capitalists). The delusion of some people that they are gods is, says Aeschylus, “the blind arrogance of childish thought.” It can become “the very madness of a mind diseased.” <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Yet it is not a new and recent infection, but rather, the disposition of our first natures of our natural and uncivilized selves. People have been barbarians much longer than they have been civilized. Marx did not introduce new impulses and passions into humanity. Marx and his descendants exploited and aggravated impulses and passions that are always there. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span>Marxism founded a political religion upon the reversal of civility. Instead of ruling the elemental impulses, they stimulated and armed them. Instead of treating the pretension to being a god as the mortal sin original, they proclaimed it to be the glory and destiny of humanity. Upon this gospel they founded a popular religion of the rise of the masses to power. Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin carried this movement and the logical implications of its gospel further towards the end. And what is that end? An everlasting war with the human condition: war with the finitude of humanity and with the moral ends of finite people, and, therefore, war against freedom, against justice, against the laws and against the order of the good society, as they are conserved in the traditions of civility, as they are articulated in the public philosophy.</span><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[32]</span></span></span></span></a><span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">This age needs less Messianic ardor, enlightened skepticism, and toleration of idiosyncrasies, ad hoc measures to achieve aims in a near future, more room for the attainment of personal ends by individuals and by minorities whose tastes and beliefs find little response among the majority. What is required is a less mechanical, less fanatical application of general principles and a more cautious and less arrogantly self-confident application of accepted, scientifically tested, general solutions to unexamined individual cases. It requires a loose texture and toleration of minimum of inefficiency, even a degree of indulgence in idle talk, idle curiosity, aimless pursuit of this or that without authorization, which may allow for more spontaneous, individual variation and will always be worth more than an imposed pattern. People do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals, a vast variety of them, seldom predictable, and at times incompatible.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[33]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marx viewed religion as the expression of compensation for the real misery of social alienation. It can also serve as a protest to the misery. Marx's analysis of religion led him to the conclusion that while religion was concerned with the lofty issues of transcendence and personal salvation, its true function was to provide a "flight from the reality of inhuman working conditions" and to make "the misery of life more endurable." Religion in this way served as "the opium of the people," recalling that opium was widely used for medical purposes as a painkiller. Religion made the suffering of the worker bearable. He looked forward the time when workers could face their condition directly and dispense with an illusion that alleviated the suffering contained in their condition.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[34]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">The Marxist view is that all ideas and cultural forms reflect material motivations, especially the struggle of economic classes. This analysis was true of religion. Despite their high-minded doctrines, organized religion did not reflect the plight of the oppressed worker. This contradiction held because they reflected the interests of the oppressing class. The role of the churches within modern society was to keep oppressed workers at peace with their oppression. As a social opiate, religion served the interests of the ruling class. It encouraged workers to forego their legitimate concerns regarding their economic condition now to secure the false promise of eternal happiness. It enabled the entrepreneurial class to keep workers oppressed. Religion lulled the oppressed into self-defeating inaction. It wanted to replace the action of religion, which was inaction regarding anything that mattered, with the revolutionary action urged by Marxism.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[35]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Marxism denounced the faith of the church as a relic of capitalism. Granting the dangers that capitalism presents, what have the churches done positively to prevent the rise of the soulless human being? The churches have too often stood with ruling classes and favored the economically strong. It is culpable in making the concerns of the body less important than the needs of the soul. It has stressed the immortality of the soul rather than the resurrection of the body in which the promise of God includes the whole person. In disobedience to its sacred text, it proclaimed the separation of soul and body. The church will always have a bad conscience in the face of both materialism and Marxism so long as it does not undertake an energetic revision of its anthropology in the light of its eschatology, thereby arriving at a quite different practical position towards action in history.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[36]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">However, the churches do not have to move in the direction that Marx had analyzed. Religion in modernity has the role of encouraging co-humanity as community. The industrial revolution led to a romanticist reaction to the conditions that rob humanity of its humanity and leads to the idea of community. True human community is that in which one finds oneself by surrendering oneself to the other. Such disclosure of personal co-humanity in community is polemically set against the concept of society as an artificial, arbitrary, organized arrangement of individuals for practical and businesslike purposes. Given large industrial cities, community means in this context the idyllically conceived village conditions of pre-modern times.<a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">[37]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.4in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0.5in; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><span><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
h1
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.3in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.3in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:1;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.4in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:2;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
h3
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Heading 2";
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.4in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:3;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:4;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
h5
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:10.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:5;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
font-weight:normal;}
h6
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 6 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:6;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
font-weight:normal;}
p.MsoHeading7, li.MsoHeading7, div.MsoHeading7
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 7 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:7;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
font-style:italic;}
p.MsoToc1, li.MsoToc1, div.MsoToc1
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
p.MsoToc2, li.MsoToc2, div.MsoToc2
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:12.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoToc3, li.MsoToc3, div.MsoToc3
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:24.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc4, li.MsoToc4, div.MsoToc4
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc5, li.MsoToc5, div.MsoToc5
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:48.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc6, li.MsoToc6, div.MsoToc6
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:60.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc7, li.MsoToc7, div.MsoToc7
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc8, li.MsoToc8, div.MsoToc8
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:84.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc9, li.MsoToc9, div.MsoToc9
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:96.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Header Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 249.3pt right 431.95pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Footer Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 3.0in right 431.95pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoCaption, li.MsoCaption, div.MsoCaption
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-style:italic;}
span.MsoFootnoteReference
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
span.MsoCommentReference
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;}
span.MsoEndnoteReference
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
vertical-align:super;}
p.MsoEndnoteText, li.MsoEndnoteText, div.MsoEndnoteText
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Endnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoList, li.MsoList, div.MsoList
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Body Text";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoTitle, li.MsoTitle, div.MsoTitle
{mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Title Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:15.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid #4472C4 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:accent1;
padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;
font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoTitleCxSpFirst, li.MsoTitleCxSpFirst, div.MsoTitleCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Title Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid #4472C4 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:accent1;
padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;
font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoTitleCxSpMiddle, li.MsoTitleCxSpMiddle, div.MsoTitleCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Title Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid #4472C4 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:accent1;
padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;
font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoTitleCxSpLast, li.MsoTitleCxSpLast, div.MsoTitleCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Title Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:15.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid #4472C4 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:accent1;
padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;
font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent
{mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:.25in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent2, li.MsoBodyTextIndent2, div.MsoBodyTextIndent2
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:.25in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoBlockText, li.MsoBlockText, div.MsoBlockText
{mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:.5in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:navy;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
strong
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
em
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:justify;
line-height:12.0pt;
mso-pagination:none;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
cite
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:green;
font-style:normal;}
p.MsoCommentSubject, li.MsoCommentSubject, div.MsoCommentSubject
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-next:"Comment Text";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoRMPane, li.MsoRMPane, div.MsoRMPane
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBibliography, li.MsoBibliography, div.MsoBibliography
{mso-style-priority:37;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoTocHeading, li.MsoTocHeading, div.MsoTocHeading
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Heading 1";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:16.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
mso-ansi-font-size:16.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading5Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 5 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;}
span.Heading6Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 6 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 6";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;}
span.Heading7Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 7 Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 7";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;
font-style:italic;}
span.WW8Num2z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num2z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num3z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num3z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num3z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num4z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num4z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.Absatz-Standardschriftart
{mso-style-name:Absatz-Standardschriftart;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.DefaultParagraphFont1
{mso-style-name:"Default Paragraph Font1";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.DefaultParagraphFont
{mso-style-name:"Default Paragraph Font*";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW8Num4z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num4z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num8z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num8z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num8z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num10z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num10z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num10z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num11z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num11z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num11z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num12z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num12z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num20z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num20z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num20z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num22z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num22z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num30z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num30z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num30z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num31z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num31z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num32z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num32z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num32z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num33z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num33z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW-DefaultParagraphFont
{mso-style-name:"WW-Default Paragraph Font";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
p.Heading, li.Heading, div.Heading
{mso-style-name:Heading;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-next:"Body Text";
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.BodyTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Index, li.Index, div.Index
{mso-style-name:Index;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Caption, li.Caption, div.Caption
{mso-style-name:Caption*;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
p.Index0, li.Index0, div.Index0
{mso-style-name:Index*;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.DocumentMap, li.DocumentMap, div.DocumentMap
{mso-style-name:"Document Map*";
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
background:#00007F;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.CommentTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.CommentSubjectChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FooterChar
{mso-style-name:"Footer Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Footer;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Framecontents, li.Framecontents, div.Framecontents
{mso-style-name:"Frame contents";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Body Text";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.HeaderChar
{mso-style-name:"Header Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Header;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FootnoteCharacters
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Characters";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
p.H3, li.H3, div.H3
{mso-style-name:H3;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:4;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
layout-grid-mode:line;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.BodyTextIndentChar
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Indent Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.EndnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Endnote Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Endnote Text";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.grame
{mso-style-name:grame;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.spelle
{mso-style-name:spelle;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.BodyTextIndent2Char
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2";}
span.TitleChar
{mso-style-name:"Title Char";
mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Title;
mso-ansi-font-size:26.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;}
span.versetext4
{mso-style-name:versetext4;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
p.Illustrationsources, li.Illustrationsources, div.Illustrationsources
{mso-style-name:"Illustration sources";
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:right;
text-indent:9.0pt;
line-height:13.0pt;
mso-pagination:none;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"ITC Garamond";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"ITC Garamond";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.WW-FootnoteReference
{mso-style-name:"WW-Footnote Reference";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
p.line, li.line, div.line
{mso-style-name:line;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.text
{mso-style-name:text;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.indent-1-breaks
{mso-style-name:indent-1-breaks;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-font-kerning:0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page
{mso-footnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fs;
mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fcs;
mso-endnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") es;
mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") ecs;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:-2;
mso-list-type:simple;
mso-list-template-ids:-1;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:*;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:0in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1;
mso-list-template-ids:1;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.3in;
text-indent:-.3in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.4in;
text-indent:-.4in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.5in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.6in;
text-indent:-.6in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.7in;
text-indent:-.7in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.8in;
text-indent:-.8in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.9in;
text-indent:-.9in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-1.0in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.1in;
text-indent:-1.1in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2;
mso-list-template-ids:2;
mso-list-name:WW8Num2;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:3;
mso-list-template-ids:3;
mso-list-name:WW8Num3;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.75in;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:4;
mso-list-type:simple;
mso-list-template-ids:4;
mso-list-name:WW8Num4;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:16930871;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2110335272 1119264080 67698709 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:81.75pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:81.75pt;
text-indent:-45.75pt;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.25in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:63845097;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2008794590 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l6:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:99496445;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-757197870 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l7:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l8
{mso-list-id:406802773;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-902806402 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l8:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9
{mso-list-id:453062310;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-894027502 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l9:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l9:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l9:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l10
{mso-list-id:462818131;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1802200616 -1326650346 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l10:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l10:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l10:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l10:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l11
{mso-list-id:1070663775;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2000543758 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l11:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l11:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l11:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l11:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l11:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l11:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l11:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12
{mso-list-id:1072434472;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1755567560 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l12:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l12:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l12:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l12:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l12:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l12:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l12:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l13
{mso-list-id:1177844192;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-320811050 2010035072 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l13:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l13:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l13:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l13:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l13:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l13:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l13:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l13:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l13:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l14
{mso-list-id:1190295133;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1031168400 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l14:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l14:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l14:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l14:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l14:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l14:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l14:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l14:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l14:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l15
{mso-list-id:1210385719;
mso-list-template-ids:-1562760418;}
@list l15:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l15:level2
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:0in;}
@list l15:level3
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:.85in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.85in;
text-indent:-.35in;}
@list l15:level4
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.2in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.2in;
text-indent:-.45in;}
@list l15:level5
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.55in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.55in;
text-indent:-.55in;}
@list l15:level6
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.9in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.9in;
text-indent:-.65in;}
@list l15:level7
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:2.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.75in;}
@list l15:level8
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.%8\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:2.6in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.6in;
text-indent:-.85in;}
@list l15:level9
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.%8\.%9\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-1.0in;}
@list l16
{mso-list-id:1330712967;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:810459918 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l16:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l16:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l16:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l16:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l16:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l16:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l16:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17
{mso-list-id:1367213592;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1738765188 67698689 67698691 67698715 -919930140 -1427178346 935498526 68702720 67698713 67698715;}
@list l17:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l17:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l17:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l17:level4
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l17:level5
{mso-level-text:"%5\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l17:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-text:%6-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:333.0pt;
text-indent:-.5in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:#202122;}
@list l17:level7
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-upper;
mso-level-text:"%7\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l17:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l17:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l18
{mso-list-id:1514028767;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:898014794 -629621732 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l18:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l18:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l18:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l18:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l18:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l18:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l18:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l18:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l18:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l19
{mso-list-id:1625237233;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1789710682 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l19:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l19:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l19:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l19:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l19:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l19:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l19:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20
{mso-list-id:1772818403;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1465627122 -770919106 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l20:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l20:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l20:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l20:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l20:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l20:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l20:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l20:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l20:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l21
{mso-list-id:2034529921;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-105629534 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l21:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l21:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l21:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l21:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l21:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l21:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l21:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22
{mso-list-id:2056271328;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1835815518 1773836412 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l22:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l22:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l22:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l22:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l22:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l22:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l22:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l22:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l22:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level1 lfo5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-numbering:continue;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
mso-level-legacy:yes;
mso-level-legacy-indent:.25in;
mso-level-legacy-space:0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
-->
</style></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1758897951">(Arendt 1971)</w:sdt> This book forms the basis of the following reflection.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="972408135">(C. Taylor, Philosophical Arguments 1995)</w:sdt> 204-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2083019916">(Moltmann, Theology of Hope 1965, 1967)</w:sdt> 317.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-665784712">(C. Taylor, Hegel 1975)</w:sdt> 542.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-188676019">(C. Taylor, Hegel 1975)</w:sdt> 547-8.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-615053183">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt>, p. 37.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-862212627">(Lyotard 1979, 1984)</w:sdt>, Foreword by Fredric Jameson.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> Contemporary Philosophy course taught by Dr. Duane Thompson in the Spring of 1973 at Indiana Wesleyan.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-2128144733">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt> 425.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="76793886">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt> 421. Durkheim is a better guide than Marx on the subject of the division of labor.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2137675561">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt> 271-6.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-440760523">(Moltmann, Theology of Hope 1965, 1967)</w:sdt> 336.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1719192132">(Nozick 1974)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="408810791">(Nozick 1974)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-197085560">(Nozick 1974)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1465234345">(Nozick 1974)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1878385274">(Nozick 1974)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> <i>Bono: In Conversation, </i>inspired some of these reflections on karma and grace.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> Hannah Arendt says too much when she said that the discoverer of the role of forgiveness in the realm of human affairs was Jesus of Nazareth.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="812055902">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt> 285.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn21"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="272450196">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt>, 276-81.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn22"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1730373077">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt>, 334, referring Moltmann as support.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn23"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1040328561">(C. Taylor, Hegel 1975)</w:sdt> 548-55.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn24"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1220252615">(C. Taylor, Hegel 1975)</w:sdt> 271.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn25"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="171304605">(C. Taylor, Hegel 1975)</w:sdt> 425.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn26"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-116913828">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> III.3, (48.2), 22.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn27"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-13926733">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt> Volume 2, 45.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn28"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-324128171">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> II.2 (36.1), 514-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn29"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1435479502">(Tarnas 1991)</w:sdt> 332.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn30"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1889984295">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Volume 3, 329-30.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn31"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1708143971">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> III.4 (55.3), 543.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn32"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1100409434">(Lippmann 1955)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn33"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-833602039">(Berlin 1969)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn34"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 1843.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn35"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-770698252">(Tarnas 1991)</w:sdt> 314.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn36"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1097214228">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> III.2 (46.3), 387-90.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn37"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://86343AA5-0211-455F-99CA-6AD5C28AEB30#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1154062467">(Moltmann, Theology of Hope 1965, 1967)</w:sdt> 316-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-18984198162797974082023-10-24T09:57:00.002-07:002023-10-26T12:35:49.829-07:00Heidegger's Confession<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU4wp1Qya5fcwtOt3zYgtvkh2LihAbtcw_xl-1Nxjg96wT0l3oBjNKSE-tFr3tm8GA0FaqRN0t08V8QPlqRRXUcTJXedBfCwMqNwqiT2hMMkLgUZysYrmougP8OgJBxhCNqfimrPxH8aGxxvdcKPEu4gnLXCKNY02GEWLsxYEr-6yzeJJ9SEj2ViAn7hhB/s1280/81Y5V0LeZmL._SL1280_.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="853" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU4wp1Qya5fcwtOt3zYgtvkh2LihAbtcw_xl-1Nxjg96wT0l3oBjNKSE-tFr3tm8GA0FaqRN0t08V8QPlqRRXUcTJXedBfCwMqNwqiT2hMMkLgUZysYrmougP8OgJBxhCNqfimrPxH8aGxxvdcKPEu4gnLXCKNY02GEWLsxYEr-6yzeJJ9SEj2ViAn7hhB/s320/81Y5V0LeZmL._SL1280_.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">Heidegger’s Confession, Ryan Coyne, 2015<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">This was a difficult read but also a rewarding one. It brought back some good memories of my early reading in philosophy. Glenn, your friend was right in identifying the book as a difficult read. I was not aware of the interest in either Paul or Augustine. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">When I first read Heidegger, I thought of how much of his philosophy could be put into theological terms. What I now realize is that my thought would have been re-theologizing of Heidegger. If he is thinking of his version of existential philosophy as de-theologizing philosophy, I do not think he was successful. The notion of being thrown into existence contrasts with creation in the image of God and being-toward-death contrasts with the notion of eternity with God. His notion of the fallenness of Dasein through the temptation of inauthentic existence toward They, evidenced in everydayness, contrasts with the fallenness of humanity through the temptation to richer life in disobedience to God, especially in the failure to love God (Gen 3) and neighbor (Gen 4). His notion of the decision to resolutely face finitude and death contrasts with the decision of faith in what God has done for humanity in Jesus Christ. Conscience addresses the human being as guilty, having the impact of fracturing human existence. This guilt is the result of surrendering to everydayness and its inauthentic existence. I exist, I am, as guilty. My experience of care for the world leads me to a sense of indebtedness in failing to satisfy the claims of others upon my life. I can also be guilty in the sense of being responsible for something, such as, the Other becoming endangered in his or her existence. Such endangerment is separate from the traditional notion of transgression of a norm which then causes guilt. If I transgress a norm, I have not done my duty, and if I am indebted to the Other, then the Other does not have something owed. This “not” is an important aspect of guilt. These two sides of the ”not” of being guilty give unity to the care we have for the world. “I am” is not the result of my own accord, for I am thrown into the world. “I am” is not the result of me living in authenticity, but the result of the temptation of allowing They to shape my existence. Most significantly, however, “I am” as fallen from authentic self and into They and everydayness. His notion of the call of conscience contrasts with the notion of God having a vocation for each is us, an important aspect of which is to accept my guilty existence. What the author is suggesting is that in secularizing theological notions, Heidegger is still dependent upon a theological ontology for his existential philosophy. He used theology as his silent interlocutor, which is why so many of his concepts have religious overtones. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">Heidegger wrestles with why theological concepts arise in <i>Being and Time</i>, which to Coyne is because he is unwilling to think of Being as intimately connected to beings. The fact that the later Heidegger is wrestling with this is his confession that he never left his early theological training behind. If we gain access to Being through beings, then access to Being would be through our experience of beings, which would be tradition. Metaphysics would be the history of Being, and the history of Being would be the cultural and material forces that determine our encounter with beings. The philosophy of religion becomes an investigation of the historically conditioned statements that are spiritual-meditative and deriving from religious communities. This approach lifts critical and analytical thought to a new level of thinking above its materiality and toward carving out new spaces for critical reflection. The point of such reflection is not reduction, but lifting critical thinking to new areas of thought, a lifting that occurs through engagement with spiritual and meditative thinking. Although the spiritual and analytical thinking is illogical from the standpoint of critical and analytical thinking, it is also the power of the religious community out of which theology arises. The philosophy of religion concerns itself with the transcendental essence of objects, building upon the historical and being a product of its historical findings. His main purpose was to find a basis for the philosophy of religion after Heidegger. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">I appreciated the point that one can read tradition faithfully, draw from it, and even engage in the transformation of that tradition, while being faithful to both the tradition and to the moment in which one lives. Thus, reciting the creed is not necessarily being faithful if one abandons the need to communicate to a new historical setting.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">My criticism of the book would be that he kept going over fine points and details so much that it was difficult to stay focused on the target. Had he not kept going over the same material and re-working it, it would have been a shorter but more powerful essay.</span>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-28683811005831893062023-09-16T11:24:00.001-07:002023-09-16T11:24:10.302-07:00Hope Within Human Systems: Theological Reflection on Culture<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; text-indent: -0.4in;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJd6SiNpuDGbCLwGhM1lp3rc8_9WXMz4oNuKUscVuGxQ6z5mD08CLzuUjanWDM1NVXiyBvW5J5AEEQ2tzYHXyZAY1LGgN_kmVe_Npubw2J-A7yM3nxqHY_DQay9agoZgJIxsdtVRjl4Ltd65KF1yyHFCplli9gdMxxJeAsAgfuvHzfOImjhG-spXqxthHi/s1280/maxresdefault1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJd6SiNpuDGbCLwGhM1lp3rc8_9WXMz4oNuKUscVuGxQ6z5mD08CLzuUjanWDM1NVXiyBvW5J5AEEQ2tzYHXyZAY1LGgN_kmVe_Npubw2J-A7yM3nxqHY_DQay9agoZgJIxsdtVRjl4Ltd65KF1yyHFCplli9gdMxxJeAsAgfuvHzfOImjhG-spXqxthHi/s320/maxresdefault1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />I want to offer a way of thinking about the systems in which human beings participate. The attempt here will be to explore a systems theory regarding culture that will be descriptive, in contrast to the attempt to ascribe moral superiority to any existing system.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The core element of Niklas Luhmann's theory pivots around the problem of the contingency of meaning, and thereby it becomes a theory of communication. Social systems are systems of communication, and society is the most encompassing social system. Being the social system that comprises all (and only) communication, today's society is a world society. A system is defined by a boundary between itself and its environment, dividing it from an infinitely complex, or (colloquially) chaotic, exterior. The interior of the system is thus a zone of reduced complexity: communication within a system operates by selecting only a limited amount of all information available outside. Such a zone is an event. Society consists in these events, and these are communication events. This process is also called "reduction of complexity". The criterion according to which information is selected and processed is meaning (in German, Sinn). Meaning being thereby referral from one set of potential space to another set of potential space. Both social systems and psychic systems operate by processing meaning.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Furthermore, each system has a distinctive identity that is constantly reproduced in its communication and depends on what is considered meaningful and what is not. If a system fails to maintain that identity, it ceases to exist as a system and dissolves back into the environment it emerged from. Luhmann called this process of reproduction from elements previously filtered from an over-complex environment autopoiesis (self-creation), using a term coined in cognitive biology by Chilean thinkers Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Social systems are operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Communication is autopoietic. Communication is made possible by human bodies and consciousness, but this does not make communication operationally open. To "participate" in communication, one must be able to render one's thoughts and perceptions into elements of communication. This can only occur as a communicative operation (thoughts and perceptions cannot be directly transmitted) and must therefore satisfy internal system conditions that are specific to communication: intelligibility, reaching an addressee and gaining acceptance. We interact with the expressions of people and only rarely with a person. Interaction involves participation in a communication system that gives self-definition and guidance for behavior. The system shapes the peole. Participants in the system of communication are anonymous. People are expressions of the communication that occurs within the system. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Luhmann likens the operation of autopoiesis (the filtering and processing of information from the environment) to a program; making a series of logical distinctions. Here, Luhmann refers to the British mathematician G. Spencer-Brown's logic of distinctions that Maturana and Varela had earlier identified as a model for the functioning of any cognitive process. The supreme criterion guiding the "self-creation" of any given system is a defining binary code. This binary code is not to be confused with a computer's operation: Luhmann (following Spencer-Brown and Gregory Bateson) assumes that auto-referential systems are continuously confronted with the dilemma of disintegration/continuation. This dilemma is framed with an ever-changing set of available choices; every one of those potential choices can be the system's selection or not (a binary state, selected/rejected). A biological cell reproduces itself within an environment to perpetuate its own existence, making it a closed system. A cell makes a cell because that is what cells do. This closed system action of the cell is poiesis. The purpose of autopoiesis is self-production. If people are more like cells within a system of then poiesis rather than praxis is the proper designation. Luhmann treats systems as autopoietic and operationally closed. Systems must continually construct themselves and their perspective of reality through processing the distinction between system and environment and self-reproduce themselves as the product of their own elements. Modern society is defined as a world system consisting of the sum of all communication happening at once, and individual function systems (such as the economy, politics, science, love, art, the media, etc.) are described as social subsystems which have "outdifferentiated" from the social system and achieved their own operational closure and autopoiesis.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Luhmann starts with the differentiation of the systems themselves out of a nondescript environment. He does observe how certain systems fulfill functions that contribute to "society" as a whole. For Luhmann, functional differentiation is a consequence of selective pressure under temporalized complexity, and it occurs as function systems independently establish their own ecological niches by performing a function. Functions are therefore not the coordinated components of the organic social whole, but rather contingent and selective responses to reference problems which obey no higher principle of order and could have been responded to in other ways.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Finally, the systems' autopoietic closure means that system works strictly according to its very own code and can observe other systems only by applying its code to their operations. For example, the code of the economy involves the application of the distinction between payment and non-payment. Other system operations appear within the economic field of references only as far as this economic code can be applied to them. Hence, a political decision becomes an economic operation when it is observed as a government spending money or not. Likewise, a legal judgement may also be an economic operation when settlement of a contractual dispute obliges one party to pay for the goods or services they had acquired. The codes of the economy, politics and law operate autonomously, but their "interpenetration" is evident when observing "events" which simultaneously involve the participation of more than one system.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One peculiar, but, within the overall framework, strictly logical, axiom of Luhmann's theory is the human being's position outside the strict boundaries of any social system. Consisting of, but not being solely constituted by, "communicative actions" (a reference to Jürgen Habermas), any social system requires human consciousnesses (personal or psychical systems) as an obviously necessary, but nevertheless environmental resource. He refers to the difference in an environment as a social system, a life system, such bodies, and consciousness systems or minds. We are closed systems in that we interact with others, we are affected by the environment, but we are not integrated into the environment. In Luhmann's terms, human beings are neither part of society nor of any specific system, just as they are not part of a conversation. People make conversation possible. Luhmann himself once said concisely that he was "not interested in people". That is not to say that people were not a matter for Luhmann, but rather alluding to the scope of the theory where the communicative behavior of people is constituted (but not defined) by the dynamics of the social system, and society is constituted (but not defined) by the communicative behavior of people: society is people's environment, and people are society's environment. Systems organize themselves to perpetuate their own order. Everyone is in service to these patterns and subservient to them, making them passive participants in a system that is without moral purpose. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Thus, sociology can explain how persons can change society; the influence of the environment (the people) on a given social system (a society), the so-called "structural coupling" of "partially interpenetrating systems". In fact, Luhmann himself replied to the relevant criticism by stating that, "In fact the theory of autopoietic systems could bear the title Taking Individuals Seriously, certainly more seriously than our humanistic tradition" Luhmann was devoted to the ideal of non-normative science introduced to sociology in the early 20th century by Max Weber and later re-defined and defended against its critics by Karl Popper. However, in an academic environment that never strictly separated descriptive and normative theories of society, Luhmann's sociology has widely attracted criticism from various intellectuals, including Jürgen Habermas.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Change occurs in modern societies because of the mutual benefit it produces, the securing of freedom, and the expansion of individual rights. It focuses upon the improvement of ordinary human life. Such a statement does not derive from ideology, but from measurable data. Autopoietic systems do not have goals other than their own perpetuation, but modern systems perpetuate by adapting to new historical moments, technological changes, advances in sciences, and to expansion in freedom.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I can choose which differentiated systems will bear the priority for my self-meaning, but I cannot disassociate from any of the systems in which I participate. I will always be dis-integrating. Since I experience divergent self-meaning depending upon which divergent system I participate. I must rationalize how what one system requires does not bear on my attempt an integrated sense of self. My mind is good at providing me with rational coherence where my lived experience is inconsistent or incoherent. I can hold one belief, that growing the federal government for compassionate reasons is a good thing, while incoherently minimizing my share of the tax burden. Such justified social behavior is a sign that the goal of the system is not the fulfillment of my self-hood, the discovery of my integrated or authentic self, but is the perpetuation of the distinct systems in which I participate. The communication events within distinctive systems within society use me to perpetuate the system. The social identity of the person arises from participation in these distinct systems. I may have a personal goal of discovering my unique calling, discovering who I am and why I am here. But as a participant the various systems of society I am anonymous, for anyone willing to satisfy what that system requires will do. I am not integrated into any system because I am only fulfilling a role within the system. The various systems of society (legal, economic, political, religious) are integrated with each other, except as they share a common environment, namely, the people needed to perpetuate the system.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Understanding the oppressor in this context is complex, since praxis, rational reflection, and choice, are not part of the system. Participants are not cohesive wholes, but amalgamations of anonymous participation. Each system perpetuates itself independently. It has a function of the law as Paul describes in Romans 7. Morality and spirituality function within the system but is not a goal of the system. Oppressor and oppressed participate an emerging social system and by that participation allow the self-perpetuation of the system. Participation in the system brings dissipating personal responsibility in such systems. “It is just business,” or “that is way it is” reflect such submission to the reality of the system. Those who oppress are just as much oppressed by the patterns of the system as are those oppressed by it. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Fulfilling one’s role in the system will lead to some satisfaction, but it does not satisfy human longing or sense of personal cohesion. Our societal value derives from our satisfactory acceptance in our system-specific roles. Systems are concerned only that we participate in society. It has no interest in our moving us toward fully formed persons or toward human flourishing. We assume this is how society must be, so we seek acceptance in these systems and compete over privilege or power within these systems. People are committed to distinct operationally closed systems for identity substantiation. Each system has its own rationality, and if we are to fulfill our role in that system, we will need to learn its logic. This explains why we can be successful in one system and dysfunctional in another. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The restrictive forms of thought and action imposed by any existing social makes all human beings unfree, apart from some event that brings awareness of their lack of freedom to their consciousness. All such systems are open-air prisons, where people adapt to these conditions rather than resist them. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Unless a person is a sociopath, we can assume that people do not wake up and decide to be an oppressor. Modern society, like all human societies, have a natural tendency toward oppression, in which individuals will be oppressors in one setting and oppressed in another.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This understanding of all social systems contrasts sharply with the critique of liberal democracies we find in all forms of Marxism and Critical Theory. It contrasts with attempts to create a revolutionary moment through ideological critique. What I want to explore now is why ideological critique of one form of human societies, must always be wrong.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A shared initial cause pointing toward a desired end, the overturning of a government, is only loosely cohesive and vaguely rational. As with all such critiques, they want to limit themselves to the critique of liberal democracies and capitalism, oblivious to the oppressive systems of totalitarian and communist regimes. All this is done to divert attention from the horrors perpetrated upon citizens who have the misfortune of living under the saintly tutelage of Marx. Such critiques could not arise in any system other than liberal democracy. One can shut down discussion since the Other has become an object of deserved hate (fascist, racist, misogynist, capitalist, and so on). The lack of genuine evil in the Other creates the need to create imaginary evil in the Other. A devout person or a reasonable political opponent become evil in the revolutionary mind. The critique relies upon a myth of imperialism, it defines private property as theft, exploitation explains why there is wealth and poverty. Such an assemblage has an identity structured around exteriority. Those involved protest their positions in the system, so those lower in the social hierarchy temporarily organize as part of an antagonistic struggle, Us against Them. This protest rests upon a static view of culture, which was true in non-modern societies like feudalism, military dictatorships, and so on. They assemble to face an obstacle that thwarts their self-identity. They imagine that revolutionary violence is the only path to such self-identity, for the movement from oppression to liberation is one of dismantling social structures. When the external revolution is achieved, cohesion among the players dissolves. This Us against Them mentality does not have the tools for a critique of its own assemblage. The cost of banding together for such a purpose is perpetual alienation between races. It identifies virtue and evil self-confidently, not recognizing that all human societies are oppressive, as well as all classes, races, and genders.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Such a view allows us to be brutal, transgressing respect for life in the service of the utopian vision of classless society. It allows for a form of purity and righteousness for those who adopt the ideology and deny kinship with those outside the believing group. We can also adopt the victim scenario, in which goodness belongs to the victims of the evil oppressor, while righteousness and purity belong to the rescuer. The cost of projecting evil onto the other is ruthlessness. It sanctifies violence, war, sacrifice of others, and denial of equal humanity. Religion can do this, largely because sacred killing offers a form of purification. The stronger we feel that we engage in a battle with evil, the greater the temptation is to reach a mode of projection in which evil is external to us and in anyone we view as our opponents. We are pure because we have identified the other as the enemy of good and the embodiment of evil. It is another case of the scapegoat mechanism, where we place the pollution of evil on to the other. In this case, our violence transforms into a higher unity of the warrior who has meaning and purpose for their battle and if necessary, their death. Our violence serves a higher purpose. Such a vision can transform into an ideological and atheist one, as it does in communism. Such violence affirms the purity of the one performing violence and the evil contained in the victims.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The revolutionary believes that any amount of suffering and death is worth the implementation of the ideas the revolutionary holds dear. The desire and hope for freedom and justice inevitably leads to the destruction of the present order and the birth of a new order. However, the new order will always, in the context of modernity, bring greater tyranny than the previous order. The technological means to do so are present and the revolutionary will use them to impose the ideas of the revolution. One who loves a friend loves in the present, while the revolutionary loves a person who has not yet appeared. If one is of a revolutionary mindset, one needs to recognize the limits of the human condition and recognize that the suffering death required to implement one’s revolutionary ideas are not worth the price. The revolutionary mind might go the path of establishing organic communities. Such communities would have deliberate freedom against the rational tyranny of the State, altruistic individualism against the colonization of the masses, which would express the endless opposition of moderation to excess that has animated history. Such life would be in perpetual conflict with the established order. Excess will keep its place in our heart, the place where we find solitude. We carry within us our places of exile. Our task is not to unleash our crimes and ravages upon the world. We must fight them as they exist within us and in others. We may need to see the inborn impulse of revolt inspired by a new spirit of action. Such rebellion cannot exist without a strange form of live. The revolutionary spirit and the rebel within all of us can show that real generosity toward the future lies in giving our all to the present.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> Although I doubt the revolutionary mind can accept such limits on their dreams and activities, we need to remember that great ideas come into the world as gently as doves.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">After this digression, we can continue with the understanding the role of human beings in a system that does not care about them. Systems are dehumanizing. Human beings provide the environment out of which social systems arise and continue to exist. Systems are not oppressive. The system has roles for individuals to play. This participation can deceive us into believing the system is the primary player in forming our identity. What I want to explore is the experience of alienation and exploitation that one needs to have before one can become open to new ways of living. Thus, the themes identified by Marx re-discovered as applying to the human experience of all systems. The genuine subjective experience of alienation is a necessary negative experience of one’s social reality that can open the way toward a new way of life that does not depend upon the system for achieving one’s true or authentic self, one’s sense of meaning and significance, and a genuine enjoyment of human flourishing and happiness. One abandons the desire to discover one’s identity through absorbing one’s beliefs and values into the system. The extent to which you think involvement in the system will give meaning and purpose to your life is the extent to which you surrender your unique self to the control of the Other. One’s identity derives from that which transcends the self and the system. The genuine objective experience of exploitation by the system can open the way for reform, the type of change that the system allows so that it can perpetuate itself. The system will adjust to any changes within that environment to perpetuate itself. The complexity of civilization allows for multiple systems within it, which means that one can be oppressor in one segment and oppressed in another. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Persons lose awareness of the sense of the ontological or Being. Persons who participate in complex societies become an agglomeration of functions. This treatment leads to an inward life of dread. A functionalized world offers stifling sadness. The imposition of rationality on increasing sectors of social life means that the individual becomes increasingly controlled, administered, and engineered. Rationalization shapes the meaning structures of modern societies. It creates dullness and intolerable unease. The distinction between full and empty is the most significant philosophical issue. Life in a world centered on function is liable to despair because such a world is empty. It rings hollow. To eliminate mystery is to move in that psychological and pseudo-scientific category of the purely natural. It becomes a degraded rationalism. In such a world the ontological need is exhausted and brings the consequent atrophy of the faculty of wonder.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The existentialist concerns regarding the complex economic, social, and political arrangements of modern, technological, and capitalist societies, are well worth pondering. An increasingly functional and technical culture has led to an acute lack, impoverishment, and aridity of the experience people have of their lives.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> One may simply learn the rules of the game and participate in the game. One participates by finding an occupation through which one is productive, and which might contribute to a meaningful life, by establishing a household, and by practicing respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in self and others. One can also reflect upon the qualities necessaries to participate in such a complex society, such as the willingness to take risks, which will involve faith in oneself and others, to invest in the future, which will involve hope, and to care about the needs of one’s co-workers, employees, and customers, which will involve a form of love. In an economics organized around the market, it will be the free exchange of goods and services that will determine the economic plan of the nation, and thus will guide millions of people regarding what is produced and what the price is for what is produced. Political freedom will always mean vigorous debate that usually has limits because the majority in one election may be the minority in the next. If one changes one’s stance toward economically and politically free societies from that of oppressed/oppressor, to a stance of appreciating the creativity and responsibility that such a society offers, one can meaningful participate in ways that can lead to a full and authentic life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This leads me to discuss existentialism as viable way of focusing upon the existing individual.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> Whatever part of humanity that trends toward the irrational and mystical will resist rationalization that modernity demands.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Existentialism will grant science its vital role in understanding humanity and world, but it refuses to submit to the objectification all science requires as a model for the way human beings ought to exist in the world. The scientific path of objectifying that which it studies, if applied to the way one exists in the world, can only lead to homelessness. It refuses to view the human being as a subject removed from nature, persons, and culture as objects. The person develops the self out of its emergence in the world. We dwell in the world and the world dwells in us. This means ontology is prior to epistemology.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Those who provide the environment for the system – you and me – need a moment to arise in us where we sense the emptiness that comes from fulfilling our various roles in the system. While still participating in the system, we experience our alienation from it, since it is insignificant to that which is of ultimate concern to us, namely, the discovery of our true self, the fulfilling of the unique calling, vocation, and calling we have. The system, the presence of other selves, become our environment as we pursue the self we will be. Each part of the system will entice to be in a way that conforms to that system. The crisis presented here is that the challenge of the individuality of our unique self occurs in a social setting that does not care if we ever discover our true self. It will take courageous praxis, thoughtfully considered action, to pursue such a course. Such is the heroism involved in the ordinary lives we will live. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">While social validation occurs through participation in the system of communication, our concern in our participation is that the unique self we are is at stake. We can have a derived sense of self that is socially derived and determined by the system. The system rewards us with a sense of self. Undoubtedly, some people will live their lives satisfied with this derived sense of self. However, for many others, it leads to emptiness. The system assumes there is no self outside the system. The system entices us to live with this false self. The system thinks of us as anonymous, but we are not anonymous to ourselves. The system dehumanizes us, but we cannot dehumanize ourselves to us. We have profound concern with our self as self. If this leads a person to seek freedom and identity as a coherent self, this journey creates a tension. Existentialism provides some important insights for this journey. Such an approach identifies individuals within a community. The dissolution of the self that participation in the system brings can be resisted if one has the proper tools to do so. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If one seeks a point of contact between theology and nontheological anthropological studies, existentialism, especially as seen in Heidegger, may be of assistance. Paul Tillich wanted his systematic theology to correlate with philosophy,<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></sup></sup></a> his primary dialogue being existentialism as the best interpretation of the situation faced by his generation. Existentialism was his way of sharing common ground with the questions his generation were asking. His famous notion of “ultimate concern” as defining this common ground acknowledges the existential character of religious experience. The questions of disruption, conflict, self-destruction, meaninglessness, and despair reveal the situation of his time, to which the New Being appearing in Christ is an answer that overcomes the self-estrangement of human existence, offering reconciliation, creativity, meaning, and hope. These answers contained in revelation are already implied in the questions that arise from human existence.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></sup></sup></a> John Macquarrie is explicit about the role of Heidegger in his approach to theology. He refers to it as a contemporary style of natural theology that that begins with the common humanity that each of us knows as those existing in the world. He refers to it as existential rather than rationalistic.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></sup></sup></a> It will want to find ways of describing who we are as human beings in our normal, average, everyday experiences. our perception of reality is through a community of persons. We experience our freedom as we set aside the past. The intentional object of consciousness already discloses that the person values, enjoys, loves, and hopes. We direct our attention in numerous ways to our world and proposed the notion of regional ontologies like the physical sciences, psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and philosophy. The concern of the existentialist was to use phenomenology to describe accurately the everyday experience of human beings in modern culture, which they would view in negative ways, but also provide a way of lifting ourselves out of the ordinary identification of ourselves with the crowd or mass and into some form of illumination that will help us see the potential of our unique lives.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We are thrown into a world that does not have a clear map to wholeness. The uncertainty about who to be and what to do engenders anxiety and even despair of never becoming who we truly are. The desire to find fulfillment, to have our happiness or human flourishing, gives rise to the anxiety or despair of having actualized that possibility. Pondering the possibilities and the freedom involved is not itself the dissolution of the self, but it does provide the setting for that dissolution. Out of desperation, we will move toward pride or apathy, both of which involve the dissolution of the self. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Some notion of self is important here. The self is always in the process of forming and is therefore incomplete. Human beings are potentialities that must be responsibly and courageously actualized during the process of living. We can miss an authentic life. Human existence involves living in the tensions or polarities that constitute a human life. We are the facticity of birth, gender, nationality, and death, but we are also possibility in the fulfillment of our projects. We are beings who rationalize, and we are beings of moods like anxiety, despair, and dread. We are individuals and we are communal beings. We are responsible, guided by conscience, but we are also impotent. The polarities lead to an anxiety that expresses a concern for our existence with its potential and its precariousness. Such anxiety is a mode of awareness of nothingness or nullity and thus the precarious dimension of human life. We employ various devices and illusions to tranquilize our anxiety. The tensions and polarities of a human life will end when death overtakes us. The fact that we continued living with the tensions suggests that our lives make sense to us and are meaningful. We experience the disorder of our lives. We can describe it as fallen, alienated, and estranged. An authentic life will have a unity, stability, and structure that have held the polarities of existence in balance and allow the person to reach fulfillment. When one becomes aware of the possibility of living an authentic life, the imbalance implied in tensions and polarities resolve themselves in a temporal balance of commitment to our possibility and acceptance of our facticity. Our care for the world unites the decisions we make, but an ultimate concern or commitment has greater potential to unite the various tensions of a human life. Embracing the call or vocation that arises out of life experience is a leap, a faith commitment that takes us beyond simple rational analysis.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">As Heidegger posed the question, what is the meaning of Being? The answer will not arise in metaphysical speculation. The answer will not come from any fanciful appeal to a world beyond the world of human experience. Human beings are the ones who raise the question of meaning. The meaning of our lives arises because we do not naturally live our lives meaningfully. We naturally fall into a life dominated and dictated by the Other/They. Something will need to change if a life of everydayness is to become an authentically lived life. The underlying fear and anxiety of everydayness can lead us to search for something different. One possibility is that meaning arises as we have a mystical encounter in facing the nothingness of death. We courageously accept the project of living by living with the shadow of death in every decision we make. Another possibility is that meaning arises as we live our lives and accepting full responsibility for our decisions. Some truth may reside in both possibilities.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Existentialists are aware of the scientific approach to humanity that merges humanity with nature. Humanity is a complex entity within a system of entities that are in relation to each other. Being is simply there. Existentialists will want to distinguish humanity from such generalized Being. The appearance of Being has an absurd quality to it. It has no reason to be, it has no meaning, and it has no purpose. It is undifferentiated and meaningless massiveness. Something is simply there. We might think of it as the ontological shock that there is something rather than nothing. Such questions do not arise with the inanimate universe or even with low level biological life. Such questions arise only with the appearance of the human being. The development of consciousness required the pre-existence of Being, so the human being arises out of the generalized stuff that is already there. We are the ones who raise the question of why we are here, of what our destiny might be, and what our role might be in the world. We did not ask to be born. We simply are – and are not. The contingency of human existence is such that our “being” is not determined. We create our unique mode of being in a way no other being in the world can claim to do. We must bear this responsibility that our freedom has been placed upon us.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The only possibility of finding fulfillment, of finding the true self, is outside the system. This will require becoming aware of the system and its requirements. One becomes aware of the dissolution of the self toward which the system entices us. It will mean awareness of the ways in which the system has shaped us. Being a self means separation from everything else while also belonging to that at which it looks. The self-world polarity is the basis for the subject-object structure of reason. Existentialism will resist every attempt to turn a subject into an object. The ontological shock that there is something rather than nothing is matched by the ontological shock that contained within Being is the possibility of non-being. Existentialism wants us to face this nothingness and the threat of meaninglessness, which would mean the destruction of the structure of Being. The only way of dealing with the threat lies in the courage of taking it upon oneself. Finitude is unintelligible without nonbeing. To be something is to be finite. We anticipate that end. To be aware of moving toward death, we must look out over our finite being and move beyond it, imagining infinity. The notion of infinite directs the mind to experience its unlimited potential. The fact that we are never satisfied with any stage of our finite development, the fact that nothing finite can hold us, although finitude is our destiny, indicates the indissoluble relation of everything finite to Being. Thus, awareness of finitude is anxiety. Such a mood is ontological. Time is the central category of finitude, negatively suggesting the transitoriness of everything and positively suggesting the creative character of the temporal process. Time unities the anxiety of transitoriness and the courage of a self-affirming present. <a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One difficulty in the journey of self-discovery is that human beings are so open to the world into which they have been thrown by birth that they naturally absorb what they experience. The self of the individual identifies with Others in a way that becomes a prison.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> The question will become how we gain access to the unique self we are when the dominant forces that determine who we are derive from They/Others.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One path to the self is that of feeling or mood. All moods have intentionality in that they refer so some state of affairs beyond themselves or situations in which the person participates. A mood attunes us to the environment and is an awareness and response to the situation we face. Emotional life is shot through with intelligence. It is thought that does not yet have words. A feeling or mood is our receptivity to our experience of the world. They become signs of our welcome or rejection of what we discover in our world. We can try the role of a spectator of the world around us and never participate. However, contemplation is an intimate mode of participation in the world.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> Contemplation is a form of looking that receives an object into oneself. It transcends inward and external. It arises from anxious self-questioning of the relation between me and my life.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> Fear is a mood that discloses who we are in a unique way. One experiences fear of something that is out there. Such anxiety is near to awe in that it opens our eyes to the wonder of Being.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> This mood underlies most of ordinary encounters with the world. Existentialism will want to elevate the experience of a mood into significant place in philosophical reflection. It will disclose the phenomenon of our everydayness. Existentialism is confident that deep down in every person there dwells an anxiety that he or she become alone in the world, forgotten, overlooked among this huge household of millions upon millions. One keeps this anxiety at bay by seeing many people around one who are bound to one as kin and friends. Nevertheless, the anxiety is there all the same. One dare hardly think what it would feel like if one could take away all this anxiety.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We are not now whom we shall be, for we create ourselves with every decision we make. Our anguish or dread over this reality reveals our fragility. Being is everywhere, but our lack of Being, our lack of the fullness we desire, haunts us. This emptiness of the future is our anguish. Our freedom is how this emptiness of the future enters the world. Anguish is my consciousness of this empty future. Consciousness of my freedom also generates this anguish. I may await myself in the future, but my anguish is the fear of not finding myself at that appointment. My anguish is a distraction from my responsibility for my future and an attempt to disarm the past of its threat to imprison me.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This discussion of mood changes significantly if we consider the experience of love, the aesthetic, and even sheer sense of wonder that this life can stimulate. I am struck by the laughter, joy, humor, and happiness of which human beings are capable. The truth will confront us with discomfort, but sometimes, we receive it into our lives, and it brings joy. When we think of the struggle involved in finding our place in life, finding the unique reason for which we are here, the serious ethical question of the manner of relating to the natural world and to the world of people, we can still pause for expressive enjoyment, exuberance, pleasure, fun, and amusement. I would imagine sexual pleasure would be part of this discussion. When such moments are genuine and spontaneous, we do so for no deeper reason than the desire to do them. Given the structure of existentialism, one must show how each of these experiences of our average everydayness descends into inauthenticity. I do not think that would be difficult to do, as appreciation of the beautiful becomes obsessive possession, as the sense of wonder descends into unproductive daydreaming, and as enjoyment descends into the shallow pursuits of hedonism. We repeatedly know the original joy in life, joy in the richness, breadth, and beauty of creation and in each new day, joy in the illuminations of the life of the spirit, power from action within the order of community life, and a turning to others and participation in their joys and sorrows. We have achieved astonishing things and known periods of high cultural blossoming.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In his journal entry for 1834-6, Kierkegaard said he no interest in his theological examinations, suspecting he engages them to make his father happy. He desires clarity for “what I am to do.” He wants knowledge, but only because it must precede action. He wants to know his destiny. He wants to know what Deity wants of him. He wants “to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die.” He will find it primarily in becoming an author. He thinks one must know oneself before one will learn the path of life one must choose. He refers to people who, because of “spiritual laziness,” satisfy themselves with the crumbs of the tables of others. He starts seeing himself as different from “ordinary” people and not interested in “practical life.” He commits himself to an inward journey, and thereby to what he knows will be a battle. In one aphorism, he notes, “It is very important in life to know when your cue comes.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The primacy of the individual and the struggle involved in a human life is the primary concern. This path rejects a philosophy that absorbs the individual into a system. It also means rejection of the scientific and mathematical method as providing a model for way of existing in the world as an authentic human being.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></sup></sup></a> To be oneself and to remain oneself is a trickier matter than most people think. We are involved in situations within the world that presses upon us from within as well as from without. Our ontological bond with the world precedes our knowledge of it. We are in a unified whole that we might call world or universe. Yet, such a notion of the involved self in its social world leads to an indeterminate notion of self. Science addresses the universally human, but philosophy must address the individual in a way that assists people in their chosen way of existing in the world.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> Existentialists will keep pushing us to engage in the tricky journey to know ourselves, believing that such knowledge will yield the meaningful life we seek.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Human systems provide for some segments of society that will assist individuals in their journey of self-discovery, the family and religious organizations primary among them. The hope contained here is that there is the possibility, even for the oppressor, to start anew. Human beings are not defined by their yesterdays or defined by the roles they have in the system. It involves the dawning of light upon our darkness. It involves a new birth. In contrast to the autopoietic nature of the system, one becomes tuned into the pneumapoietic movement toward respect and mutual regard. Within the Christian perspective, the way of life represented by Jesus was a challenge to the experience of exploitation within both the Jewish and Roman systems. His path was to refuse to dehumanize those who had power. He violated purity legislation, prophesied the destruction of the Second Temple, healed, cast out demons, taught people rather than gather Jewish armies against Rome, and peacefully confronted the violence brought by the Romans. The way of liberation is always the way of the cross, a death to the patterns of life exalted by the system. Liberation comes through a new way of life. He was among the oppressed but refused to allow that oppression to define him. The story of liberating the those who operated within the system as oppressors could begin with looking closely at the Apostle Paul, as well as his concern in his letters to live the calling Christians have received in their union with Christ. Reconciliation of oppressed and oppressor will involve both justice and forgiveness.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The intellectual rift between individual and community that many people seem to experience needs a path toward healing. The loss of meaning structures leaves participants in modern society open to the threat of isolation and meaninglessness. One is no longer at home in society, the cosmos, or with oneself. Social systems exact a high price on the level of meaning one experiences by participation in those systems. Social architecture reflects the urge human beings have toward meaning, purpose, creativity, and wholeness. In short, it reflects the longing for human flourishing. Our desire to have our individuality respected by the institutions of society, even though such respect is not forthcoming, has the balancing desire to participate meaningfully in the various aspects of institutional life. Such meaningful participation that the individual discovers and brings to the roles one fulfills within the system has anticipatory healing power as we confront the ambiguities of life.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[21]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Religion that subsumes itself to the economic or political system becomes a problem or obstacle that one will need to overcome to find freedom, purpose, and the unique calling or vocation one has in this one life one has the privilege of living. However, religion can aid persons to move from poiesis into praxis. Religion offers the possibility of a transcendent immanence that points toward a new way of life lived within a society. This will involve a confrontation with the system of communications in which we find ourselves and a new pattern of life in, with, and for this world.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Secularization involves the progressive reality loss of traditional religious interpretations of the world. Modernity smashes traditional institutions and traditional structures of meaning. It gives participants freedom, but also produces a condition in which the individual is deprived of stable, secure ties with other human beings and thus lacks meaning that provides adequate direction for life. Persons who live with their faith traditions within the blending encouraged by modernity can feel on the defensive. What they hold dear can seem implausible to their neighbors. In that sense, within the world created by modernity, all faith traditions seem implausible. It creates a crisis of credibility. Faith traditions become a colony within the larger culture created by modernity. Such a situation can generate uncertainty among individual adherents and the felt need among faith traditions to adjust to the new cultural reality. It becomes a matter of faith traditions accommodating themselves to a form of religious free enterprise. A faith tradition can refuse to accommodate the pluralistic situation of modern life and profess old images of the social order as if nothing has happened. It can engage in massive resistance to pluralism. The fundamental problem for faith traditions is how to keep going in a cultural setting that no longer takes for granted their definitions of reality.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[22]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Modern life opens the possibility of a purely secular experience of the world. The secular setting of the North Atlantic can take the form of devaluing faith commitments and the cumulative tradition because they think it is inseparable from mindless or unreflective external conformity. It contributes to the desacralization or disenchantment of the world. Such a world has no interruption. Rather, the continuous experience of space and time is central to the secular experience. Yet, the secular person may well experience his or her own terror in the face of a history that is full of suffering and evil that has no meaning or purpose.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[23]</span></sup></sup></a> Secularity applies to processes inside the mind. Faith traditions are on the margins of the present cultural and political battle. Faith traditions had a place at the table of reasonable discourse, but that place is increasingly questionable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Within the systems of communication are practices of civility that build upon respect for the worth and dignity of persons. the best prospect for reducing violence and suffering is one that provides minimal rules of mutual respect and mutual benefit as individuals pursue their sense of personal happiness, an approach that relies upon our natural sociality as creatures and therefore the bond of altruism. Such sympathy becomes the basis for the spread of benevolence and justice. Such recognition of the individual expanded to include imagination and feeling. It became a moral imperative to reduce suffering. Within the differentiated systems, such systems invite a discourse among people willing to offer rational disagreement. Some participants will resist participating in such a discourse, but short of dropping out, that will be difficult. The discourse allows for reform movements to correct its oppressive aspects.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Moral reflections are part of the journey toward self-discovery. A code will never adequately capture our moral life. Events have so much variety that we cannot develop a formula that will capture all of them. The good person needs the flexibility to act in the uniqueness of the moment. The plurality of good things for which to strive inevitably leads to a conflict between goods that no formula can resolve. We need training in goodness and a worthy life so that the inevitable conflicts of daily life do not immobilize us. We will still need flexibility and wisdom beyond the rules. Code fixation forgets the goal, such as tolerance and mutual respect, and uses speech codes, for example, as justification for intolerance and disrespect. We need a sense that we have both the horizontal space of relating to others and the vertical space of accountability to a higher order that lifts us to higher dimensions. In Christianity, this would be the eschatological dimension that relativizes all codes and institutions, making it troubling when Christian communities absolutize either. The eschatological dimension moves us to the higher dimension of reconciliation and trust. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If existentialism is right, the moral life is part of the losing ourselves in the anonymous other, guilt and conscience arising from inauthentic life. The authentic call of conscience is to face one’s life and possibilities. Here is a synoptic awareness of human being in its authentic possibility and its actual disorder.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> The call is toward leading one’s life apart from fixed moral standards. One thinks through to the end, not for fixed standards, but to find one’s deepest aspirations given the preciousness of time. Since no one has the perspective of God, only I can take responsibility for my life in this time and place. The moral is partial because it does not disclose a way of existing in the world, is evasive because it is motivated by a flight from anxiety, and derivative because the capacity for moral obligation presupposes that one is guilty in one’s very Being. Morality loses its fundamental place in human existence because it is an escape into the universal. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Most existentialists will question conventional morality as a way of hiding in the Other rather than embracing the full responsibility of the freedom of this moment. Therefore, they will shift the traditional view of moral instruction as guidance that will lead to a full, meaningful, and happy life to a notion of living authentically out of the personal calling and insight one receives, the courage to see anew the inauthentic life one has been leading, and the courage to live our lives in its finitude and movement toward the nullity of death. The traditional view would look upon sin as crossing the line established by accepted and officially recognized codes that could lead to persons to their own prison and self-destruction. Not yet thinking of criticism, we should note that this shift in language is not a denial of moral concern, for authenticity becomes the new moral compass and inauthenticity becomes the new sin from which one needs liberation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Authentic life arises from morally conscientious individuality. This moral posture would provide corrective for inauthentic selfhood and losing oneself in the anonymous other. Morally conscientious individuals lift themselves above the prevailing expectations of the group to do justice to the Other by considering a higher standard than what anonymous others find respectable. Morally conscientious individuals do not drift along impelled by the social tides. They subject their prejudices and public opinion alike to critical scrutiny. Authentic life may open the possibility of authentic co-existence. Authentic individuality opens one up to others in a new way and makes liberating solicitude possible. A relation of authentic care in which one can help others become transparent to themselves in their care and to become free for it. Moral conscience separates one from anonymous others. It also enables the individual to treat others as ends in themselves beyond the horizon of their public roles and situations. Authentic life, understood in this way, does not isolate the individual from others. Crucial to genuine moral conscience is the refusal to lose oneself in the dictates of the anonymous other. It involves willingness to take one’s stand against what is fashionable, to criticize public opinion for the sake of the community, to judge what is right beyond the horizon of the taken for granted. That one thinks for oneself does not guarantee wisdom. However, the habit of critical reflection puts an obstacle in the way of banal evil. The presence of moral conscience attests to authentic individuation and freedom. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If existentialism is right, the development of a worldview with its assertions and opinions about the world can lead to a dehumanizing relation to the world. One develops assertions or opinions about the world. The worldview develops for some as they thematize their understanding and interpretation of the world. In these ways, the world becomes an object and they become the subject. They have separated themselves from a world that they inhabit and from a world that is already within them. This subject-object split is the source of the experience of alienation from the world, especially as embodied in other persons. Less authentic information leads to greater aggression, while authentic information will lead to lessening unilateral judgments. The most common mode of thinking is calculative. We use it in our everyday activities. Such thinking is in the subject-object pattern, for what we think about is an object to us, standing outside us. The direction of such thinking is toward handling, using, and manipulating the object, incorporating it within our instrumental world. Technology is a sophisticated use of such thinking. Theoretical science reduces the elements of utility and concern to the point where the scientist becomes a spectator. The knowledge we gain in such thinking is objective. We transcend or rise above what we know as an object and master it. We gain control over our environment, even if all we can is predict the course of events. Existentialism is among the primary ways of resisting the dehumanizing element in technical reason. Since cognitive reasoning aims at truth, the existential-ontological reason finds verification only in a life-process. Although this approach can lead us to embrace the risk contained in life, it is also threatened by meaninglessness.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If existentialism is right, language itself can lead to an inauthentic experience with others and with the world. A distinctive path to self-knowledge is our capacity for language. We engage each other in discourse and tell each other stories. Narrative is the unique capacity of language for people to express themselves. Yet, our talk is often nothing more than idle talk. Talking is the way we significantly articulate our life in the world. It is important for hearing, listening, and keeping silent to take place. If we want to discover the passion of the other person, we need stillness and stillness so that we may discover the secret of the other.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> Our everyday and average life as determined by our interaction with others indicates the alienation of our own human nature. Idle talk is the everyday disclosure of relationship to others as conversation. Instead of disclosing one another, it closes us off to each other. It does not take into one's self the other. It removes understanding from true relating to the world. Our desire to understand is little more than shallow curiosity. Curiosity is the everyday disclosure of others as sight. This act sees only to see, not understand. It seeks novelty, is restless movement to a variety of entities, and does not dwell anywhere. Our interpretation often yields nothing more than ambiguity. Ambiguity is the everyday disclosure of our relation to others as interpretation. All action is seen as unimportant. The result is that we have fallen into the crowd and experience our random thrownness into life. The self is lost in the They-self. We lose the self in the babble of the crowd. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In these ways, our sense of alienation belongs to our everyday life. We have fallen from the true possibility of self. We have fallen to the demands, dreams, and expectation of others. We live with the temptation of becoming only what others desire, rather than living out of the unique possibility that belongs to us. In fact, we can deceive ourselves that such a life is true life, rather than alienation. True life hides itself from us. Yet, far from being separated from ourselves, we are entangled in ourselves. Thus, we fall into everyday life. The possibility of true living blinds our understanding.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I have shame of myself before the Other. “Once bitten, twice shy” is a saying that displays the intuition of the power of the Other. Negative appraisals of us carry more weight than positive appraisals. Yet, I am so open to the world, so with the Other, that I need the Other to become my true self. The Other occurs in the gestures, expressions, acts and conducts. The Other is the self that is not me. We depend on the Other in our being. In the look of the Other, we are seen. I am the object at which the Other is looking at and evaluating. I offer myself to the appraisal of the Other. <a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If the mood of fear, the desire to understand, and the capacity for narrative are essential ways that human beings exist, then what unites them is that human beings care for the world in which they are and which is within them. This form of care for the world means that epistemology is not the primary question of philosophy. Rather, ontology is the primary issue. That which is true is that which has disclosed itself, created a clearing, and giving space and time for self and others. Truth is not a matter of scientific calculation of objects in the world and truth is not a matter of developing propositions that correspond to the world, that are part of a coherent system, or that contain a pragmatic truth. The truth we seek, the meaningful life we seek, is through disclosure. We are the ones who uncover and disclose. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Our ordinary, everyday, average experience of the world, through which the mood of fear, the rational attempt to understand, interpret, and develop assertions regarding the world, and the use of language with idle talk, express shallow curiosity, and be ambiguous as we can, eventually becomes a source of dissatisfaction. Our need for transcendence will arise out of our dissatisfaction.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> The temptation to surrender the question asked in our existence is to surrender the answer to someone else, such as a religious sect or a political ideology. Delegating this responsibility discloses our alienation from our Being.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In his journal entry for 1840-5, Kierkegaard points to the difficulty of the inward journey.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;">It is quite true that philosophy says: that life must be understood backwards. But then one forgets the other principle: that it must be lived forwards. Which principle, the more one thinks it through, ends exactly with the thought that temporal life can never properly be understood precisely because I can at no instant find complete rest in which to adopt the position: backwards.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The suspicion that we cannot get into a place or position in the flow of life to properly rest and look backward to gain understanding of our lives is a lively one for most existentialists. He may be referring to Hegel, who contemplated the past to show the development of the world process. Such a philosophy means we gain understanding of our lives too late. We are alive now and must properly live our lives while we live. His point is that Hegel has not considered the ethical dimension of the future. We need to choose to live forward in the direction of our calling or vocation. We will fill our lives with what meaning we can. If we have the Hegelian glance backward, we seem for a moment to be an existing individual with an ethical orientation toward the future.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> In <i>Concept of Anxiety</i> (1844), he says that our anxiety is over the possibility contained in our freedom. We may leap toward authenticity, but most of us leap into the inauthenticity of everydayness, which leads to our guilt and shame. Too many rush headlong into life, continue to rush forward, and yet never find life. The rush of modern life does not give one pause to reflect upon how a religious existence pervades and interweaves the outward existence. He seems to think that denying the Infinite and Eternal is a way of saying “goodnight to all meaning in life.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Sartre may be right in his stress upon discovering meaning in amid the everydayness of our lives. We do not know our calling or vocation inherently, as if it were our predetermined destiny. Most of us find our calling with great difficulty. We make mistakes before getting it right. We may discover talents there were not in our skill set at age 25. Contrary to the secular mysticism of Heidegger, most of us do not get epiphanies. We get a whisper or faint urge. That is all. It barely deserves the name “call.” It is up to us to do the work of discovery and connect it to an answer.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What unifies mood, understanding, and language is our care for the world. The world is not a separate thing from us, but we are intimately related within the world and the world is within us. Dread of our end in death arises because that about which we care so much will no more be with us. Death is the loss of that about which we care. That in which we have invested our lives, such as a cause or people, will continue to feel the influence of our lives. We will still be with them. Our dread is that we will not be with them. Yet, as we come-face-to-face with nothingness as our future, we increase the possibility that we will have the courage to live out of authenticity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The temporality of human existence discloses itself as existentialism will look upon an authentic way of existing as an event of anticipatory resoluteness. Anticipatory resoluteness arises because there is a future now. Time is what it means for the human being to be. Anticipatory resoluteness shows itself as being toward one’s possibilities. We can be “toward” anything because there is a future. The future is meaningful to one because one goes toward the future, and therefore the future is meaningful. Awareness and consciousness presuppose the basic attitudes of living toward a future or from a past. The past is meaningful because I am its result, and the future is meaningful because I am coming toward it. The present is meaningful because the present is the place in which something occurs and in which I carry out an action. The present is making present and carrying out an action makes the present significant. Care is aware of its possibilities, it is already in the world, and it is alongside the entities it discovers in friendship with others and concern for things in the world. Such an understanding of care is possible because of its grounding in time. Authentic life anticipates the future and moves toward it as its own possibility. In authentic living, the present becomes the moment of vision. It refers to the resolute rapture with which the person carried away to whatever possibilities and circumstances are encountered in the situation as objects of concern. Resoluteness, in a moment of vision, looks at the situation with equanimity that are possible in the potential for the wholeness of Being as disclosed in anticipation of death. The meaning of our lives becomes the expectation of death. When death occurs, it can only put its seal upon the life we have lived. In this resolute decision, we can make death our own. Our attitude toward death anticipates the final note our lives will play. Facing the present mood of fear, anxiety, anguish, and despair generated by our death with intentionality and courage opens the way for a light to be shed upon the way we choose to exist in the world. The unity of temporality makes humanity possible. Here is a clearing where light shines. Our destiny is nothing other than our resolute moment of vision handing down what our heritage has handed down to us. Authentic Being unto death leads to the appreciation of one’s finite freedom. It leads to recognition of the compelling situation of the actual historical world and to urgent commitment to what is unique about one’s way of being here. Only as a member of a community with a shared heritage does one seek to own up to one’s fate in relation to a wider destiny that we all face. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Yet, we could look upon death in another way. To say that death is absurd as the inevitable ending is to say that life is void of meaning, or that if meaning exists humanity is unable to know it. From the perspective of human existence, human beings simply need to embrace its truth. The contingent quality of human life has no external justification. The universe is unintelligent and immoral. The meaning and values that consume so much of human energy have no solid external component. Human beings need meaning, significance, and purpose, a need that confronts the unreasonable silence of the world. Thus, the absurdity of human life is inescapable. <a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For these reasons, it may well be that we need to remove death from consideration of the ontological structure of the human being. I cannot discover my death or wait for it or arm myself against it or adopt an attitude toward it that will open the way for authenticity. One can adopt many attitudes toward death, some helpful and some not so much. Death and birth are facts. They come to us from outside. Yet, we still have the choice of freely giving to our being a meaning for which we are responsible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What does it say about us that, despite the nothingness of the end toward which all of us move, despite our loss of all that about which we care and love, we have the capacity for gratitude for having lived, open ourselves to love and friendship, stop what we are doing to gaze upon beauty, and stand in awe of the mystery that surrounds us and resides within us? It seems obvious to me that each of these further constitutive aspects of human existence unite around Being as care in that each expresses the care each of us has for the world into which we have been thrown.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In fact, what if the end toward which we move is not nullity, void, or nothingness? I am thinking only of the phenomenon of the human at this point. We received the gift of life because of togetherness. Not only was sexual desire present, but someone nurtured us through the initial stages of our lives when we were dependent upon the care of others. No one could substitute themselves so that we could receive that gift. Only I can receive the gift. In an analogous way, the end toward which we all move is an end only we can experience. No one can take my place. However, as we received the gift of life, we will surrender our lives as well as the things and people about which we have cared and loved. That is what causes our fear, anxiety, or dread. We have cared and loved our world. Our world has touched us profoundly. We do not want to lose that about which we have cared, but we have experienced such losses throughout our lives. Death is the final surrender not only of our lives, but of that about which we have cared and loved. However, even in death, togetherness is present. What we have given to others will continue in them. We have given money, time, talent, and passion, to causes and people. What we have given will continue in them. We are social beings, we are Beings-in-the-world, in birth, in the living of our lives, and in our deaths. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">How can we give to Being a meaning that is intelligible for us? Such questions have behind them a felt need to devote ourselves to understanding our lives and experiences as fully possible. We can embark upon this enquiry only if some fullness of life is our starting point in a way that also assumes relation, togetherness with, and the intersubjective dimension of human life. The underlying reality of human life is the presence of a community. We concern ourselves with questions of Being because we have a consciousness of the underlying unity that ties us others. They are fellow-travelers and fellow-creatures.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The fulfillment of our finite life requires participation in that which transcends the self and the system, which philosophy as called the Eternal, and therefore, in theology, life with God. Awareness of our finitude includes awareness that death is ahead of us. Facing this end, we still have a feeling for life as we pursue the course of a human life to its end. Heidegger describes this process quite well. Life lived in time did have to be broken by the separation of past, present, and future. We have our self and identity only in anticipation of the totality of our lives. The self forms in relation to that which is other than itself. Yet, its self-seeking is such that remains with itself. Our now goes with us through the changes of time. Our sense of time is participation in eternity and awareness of the division and opposition of the moments of time. The end of this tension in a human life is death. Our finitude becomes death for us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The notion of the Infinite remained an important part of the philosophical tradition through the early 1800s. Descartes could say that as he became aware of the finite, he had intuitive awareness of the Infinite. He could see that his finite life was part of the Infinite totality. Hegel developed a notion of the Infinite embracing the finite. Kierkegaard speak of the anxiety of modernity arising from being cut off from the Infinite.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Heidegger and Sartre reflect on time while dropping its connection with the eternal. Yet, we experience life with an anticipation of its wholeness. Hearing a melody, which has a sequence of notes, we hear the whole. Speech is a sequence of syllables, but we hear it as a whole. In an analogous way, duration occurs in our attention to the movement of time and in the movement of every ordered series. The view of duration as the synthesis of what is separated within the flow of time is significant from a psychological perspective as well as its application to non-human creatures. The being of a creature relates to its duration, and therefore, every creature participates in divine eternity.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Let us consider the limited duration we experience in time. Limited duration is self-evident in the phenomena of the world. We can measure time only based on the notion of limited duration. We develop our identity in the course of the time we have. Even self-identity has its root in a notion of limited duration. A notion of limited duration is decisive for the independent existence of creatures. Life is present for us as we sense duration against the background of indefinite totality. Eternity represents unlimited duration. Thus, our experience of limited duration is anticipation of the unlimited duration of eternity. Our experience of time is participation in eternity in the sense that we experience the limited duration that anticipates the unlimited duration of Eternity. We receive hints of the contours of Eternity through recollection and expectation. Expectation takes precedence as we anticipate a future that completes time. An analogy might help. You hear a song, not simply in its individual notes, but as you think toward an ending the song has not yet reached. Our experience of time separates past from future, while the present bridges time in a way that offers limited duration to the individual. Continued objective individual duration in recollection and expectation corresponds to the duration we find in the Eternal. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Since the system dehumanizes everyone, we find our freedom in finding our identity in that which transcends the system, and therefore in God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I shift now to consideration of the liberal-democratic institutions in which I live.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Genuine pluralism in the public square urges opposing views to offer rational interpretations of their positions but does not assume this will lead to cognitive agreement. We accept the reality of difference. Co-ordination and co-operation are possible and rational even in the face of a disagreement of facts or values. The penchant for consensus is the last stand in an ethos of democracy of a pre-democratic insistence on social co-ordination that is unwilling to let people go their own way into a social diversification that affiliates each to such kindred spirits as circumstances may offer. Such an approach legitimates diversity, offers the reality of restrained dissonance that leads to constructive interaction, accepts different in opinion, evaluation, custom, and modes of action, and respects the autonomy of others that goes beyond tolerance. Such an approach looks to incremental improvements within the framework of arrangements that none of us will view as perfect but with which all can live. We live in an imperfect world. We have limited resources at our disposal. Consensus is unattainable. In a world of pervasive disagreement, we must take recourse to damage control. The way forward is pluralism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Our conceptions of things are always provisional. A correct perception of things requires getting all the properties of a thing right, and this is not something any of us can do. We are led back to the thesis of the great idealist philosophers, such as Spinoza, Hegel, Bradley, and Royce, that human knowledge inevitably falls short of the perfect, the Idea or the Absolute. Our knowledge of the objects in the world is deficient both in completeness and correctness. This epistemic modesty is crucial if we have any hope of maintaining the idea of America.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I would include myself among those who think that the best prospect for reducing violence and suffering is one that provides minimal rules of mutual respect and mutual benefit as individuals pursue their sense of personal happiness, an approach that relies upon our natural sociality as creatures and therefore the bond of altruism. While associated with libertarian political theory, John Rawls and Thomas Friedman, as well as Francis Fukuyama, have varying forms of this argument. Such a view of liberal democracy builds within itself the possibility of reform. It does so through its encouragement of real conversation that encourages participants to have humility toward their views and openness to learning from the views of others. It distributes power over a broad range of levels of government and institutions of civil society. This regard for the individual becomes the basis for the legitimacy of all institutions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The problem is that violence continues, likely because the liberty promoted in the theory eventually becomes morally unstable. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Among the frustrations of the revolutionary mindset that derives from Marx is that liberal democracy has shown a capacity for reform. The anti-slavery movement arose precisely because individuals perceived the moral failure of slavery: it denied to a race of people their right to express their worth and dignity and develop their plan of life. Although many fought to preserve the union of the states, without the moral agitation generated in newspapers and churches, the war to end slavery would not have occurred. The Civil Rights movement continued the expansion of rights. The point is that the system absorbed the need for change. Even some of the items in the Communist Manifesto, such as a graduated income tax, public education, and child labor laws, were incorporated into the liberal democracy system.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Yet, tensions in free societies exist.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Free markets produce negative consequences for some people who will respond with some form of resentment. Further, the rules of fully free market do not guarantee allegiance to the common interest. Yet, undercutting liberty through increased central control in favor of enforced common interest can also threaten desired freedom. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">It can be hostile to diversity. It can encourage one group to build its sense of moral integrity by projecting evil onto the other, reinforcing its conviction of its purity and self-righteousness by waging violent persecution or war against the other. Any conception of purity can make the move of scapegoating, in which we can affirm our righteousness by our violent combat against those projected as evil. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Supplementing liberty with our natural sociality and the hope for altruism would also appear to be a weak bond. Even the attempt to ground mutual respect in the recognition that human beings are rational agents deserving of such respect does not seem to be a strong enough basis for the reduction of violence. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Our sense justice is a possibility, but it can give way to the cause of the month. Further, the stronger our sense of injustice, the more powerfully will be the pull toward the dialectic of sacred killing. As Nietzsche pointed out, the hatred by the weak for the strong can be a powerful motivation that we mask with affirmations of love and justice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Simple love of human beings can become contempt, hatred, and aggression as we face the reality of human shortcomings. It can lead to despotic socialism. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Exploitation within the liberal-democratic system calls for reform of the social setting for those exploited. The obvious example of the removal of slavery and the legislation rooted in prejudice is before us as students of American history. Such changes in those involved in the political, economic, and legal system are part of what this system had to do as it perpetuated itself. The environment of the system, us as a people, changed significantly enough that the system needed to change. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Liberation involves freedom from that which constrains choice and limits expression.<a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> Liberation is the freedom to discover and express one’s identity, using the limited resources one has available to do that. Such freedom is the capacity to weigh alternatives, make decisions, and assume responsibility for the decisions one makes. Such freedom becomes complex, whether we think of our immediate neighbors, who may express their freedom on their property that interferes with what my freedom, or the complex arrangements of the international economic and political system. Competing expressions of freedom and liberation can mean little more than a pursuit for power. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">While it is easy to think that those who exploit deserve only vilification and portrayal as evil, I want to suggest another path. Those who exploit, unless they are sociopathic, have the need to find their true and authentic self. A liberated oppressor remains free but uses their freedom in a separate way as they respond to others. They adopt a new of living that involves them in loving and respecting others. They will make space for others rather than restrict, control, and dominate others. The endless cycle of the oppressed defeating the oppressor, the elevation to power leading to their transformation into oppressors themselves, expressed so well <i>Animal Farm, </i>by George Orwell, can be broken only as oppressed and oppressor refuse to the play the game and deal with each other as people in need of liberation. Such a path moves toward reconciling and redeeming relationships, so that foes become friends. Helping oppressors, who have power, to see the cost involved in their repression, is a liberating act toward the oppressor. What is needed is a new way of life that, from a Christian perspective, is nothing less than aligning ourselves with the coming rule of God. Such vision involves seeing that the ontological value of the person is not affected by the position one holds in the social hierarchy of the moment. Sin imposes patterns of meaning and value that are imposed by that hierarchy. Both oppressed and oppressor are not free and thus both need liberation. The path is different for each, but the goal is the same for both – genuine community. Such a transformative path becomes a creative passion for the possible. It can lead people toward new discoveries of the possibilities for human life together. Looked at in this way, oppression is part of human nature. All of us are oppressors and need liberation, if only we could see the ways in which we oppress others. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The task of liberation is for each of us. The attempt to secure one’s own sense of self within the system sets up a path of human interaction and response within those autopoietic models that causes oppression within those systems to endure. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The issue in exploiting settings is that even the oppressor is isolated from the movement toward discovering the true and authentic self. Oppressors need liberation from their dysfunctional self. Since outward actions reflect the inner self, changing just the environment of the oppressor will repress the dysfunction rather than liberate the self. The way of hope for the oppressor involves embracing a new way of life that involves embracing a person as person, engaging their personhood in a community of other persons. The oppressor needs to discover a new pattern of life. The appeal for the oppressor is what they must gain by a new pattern of living. Liberation addresses the underlying issues for what they are and offers a holistic alternative. Our instinct is to attribute blame and tell others how they need to act better. The underlying issues that provoke people to respond to life in certain ways is a critical issue. Oppressors do not lack material necessities or apparent freedoms. It is easy to miss where they might need liberation. Since they perceive themselves to be more rational and more integrated than they are because they are playing their part in the system and may be doing well within them. The system also promises substantive resolution. The appearance of community becomes an opiate that numbs one from the realities of the oppressed and oppressor situations. The promises of self and community provided by the system is always an illusion. The way forward, which is the way of hope, comes through a reconstituted unity of self in the context of diversity of other realized selves. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If the Christian vision of the highest good as communion, mutual giving and receiving, as part of the eschatological banquet that we are to actualize in the present becomes a possible ethical motivation, we can see a way out of the dialectic and dilemma. We may need to divest ourselves of power or seek to liberate others. Alternatively, we may need to acquire power and liberate ourselves by dismantling social structures.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="253718599">(Oden 2019)</w:sdt>, Chapter 1.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2097435068">(Camus, The Rebel 1951)</w:sdt>, Foreword by Herbert Read.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-223614132">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 272<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1020666283">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter III.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="744996924">(Oden 2019)</w:sdt> Chapter 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-592934703">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Volume I, Preface.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="119281247">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Volume I, Introduction, 4, 5, 6, 12, 49<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2044012900">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter II, 50, 51.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1053352275">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt> Part One, Chapter III, 54-74, Chapter IV, 77<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1958019683">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt> Introduction<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-692000131">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt> Vol I, 163-203.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="611552229">(Heidegger 1962, 1927)</w:sdt> Much of what I describe as existentialist is from Heidegger.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="869033978">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt>Vol I, Chapter VI.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="878900539">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt>Vol I, Chapter VII<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1476563949">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV, 89.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> Journal of Kierkegaard, 1846-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="943573998">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt>, Part One, Chapter One.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-716734541">(Jaspers, Reason and Existenz 1935)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1202819857">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt> Vol I, Introduction<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1102765335">(Oden 2019)</w:sdt>, chapters 3-6.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn21"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> Paul Tillich (<i>Systematic Theology, </i>1951, Volume III, 275-82).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn22"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="585585960">(Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion 1967)</w:sdt>, <w:sdt citation="t" id="1132365925">(Berger, The Noise of Solemn Assemblies: Christiam Commitment and the Religious Establishment in America 1961)</w:sdt>.<i><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-164323814"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal;">(Berger, A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural 1969)</span></w:sdt></span></i>. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn23"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1581824188">(Eliade 1957)</w:sdt><i>;</i> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1455758642">(Smart 1996)</w:sdt>.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn24"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1547171725">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV, 92.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn25"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1556435386">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Vol. I, 94-105.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn26"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1739239478">(Kierkegaard, The Concept of Anxiety: A Simple Psychologically Orienting Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue of Hereditary Sin 1844,, 1980)</w:sdt>, Section II.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn27"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1214696893">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt>, Part Three, Chapter One and Two.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn28"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="986508681">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt>Vol I, Chapter III<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn29"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="499698774">(Kierkegaard, On Authority and Revelation: The Book on Adler: or, A Cycle of Ethico-Religious Essays. 1846)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn30"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1896922092">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 27-28, Letters to a German Friend.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn31"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1389406057">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt>, Vol II, Chapter I.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn32"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-81221617">(Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God 1988, 1990)</w:sdt>, 79-82.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn33"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://3F8BA5A5-CE28-4C7B-8318-74D31FBE8751#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1456294948">(Oden 2019)</w:sdt>, Part III.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-62638317436980812312023-08-08T12:20:00.000-07:002023-08-08T12:20:01.682-07:00Considering the Action and Attributes of God Through the Trinitarian Event<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span> </span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkAbt54QlzyrlSQb0Q-1Bb9D8m-eo7gFGj_8mDKHAfenjdWllnoq3mG3VgBT8dszFED_zz3vafWdzbI80kbTcGw_X8Gu_NgQd7WMxo0BXNjC3Z4hhdCFXn0MtyFQ3sWjoHiV7vO5GwQRabcQN5P-xmGhCr58DplHMagHN-0HhfNfRVXqHo1-oHrFv8H4W4/s400/Attributes-of-God-photo-400x400-10-1167058182.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkAbt54QlzyrlSQb0Q-1Bb9D8m-eo7gFGj_8mDKHAfenjdWllnoq3mG3VgBT8dszFED_zz3vafWdzbI80kbTcGw_X8Gu_NgQd7WMxo0BXNjC3Z4hhdCFXn0MtyFQ3sWjoHiV7vO5GwQRabcQN5P-xmGhCr58DplHMagHN-0HhfNfRVXqHo1-oHrFv8H4W4/s320/Attributes-of-God-photo-400x400-10-1167058182.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> The first task of theology is to talk about God. What I would like to do is start the process of identifying God from the perspective of Christian belief. This means we will need to discuss the Trinity.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="color: purple; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">Christianity thinks that in the Trinity we gain clarification rather than confusion as to the nature of God. The fact that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible gives the impression within Protestant Christianity that the doctrine is not biblical. It shows that the church has not classically understood the Bible in a wooden or literal way. It has understood the Bible, as the primary witness to revelation, deserving of faithful interpretation in every age and culture.</span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The Christian notion of the Trinity is the distinctive Christian contribution to identifying God. This means that the Trinity is not the result of philosophical speculation. Christians have not developed a fascination with the number three. Identifying God in a Christian way does not begin with some vague notion of the oneness of God that evolves into a reflection on three modes. Beginning with revelation means that the being of God and the act of God are one. Revelation is the criterion of being. The attributes of God derive from the event of revelation. The being of God, who God is within the nature or essence of God (aseity) has its truth apart from the words we use to describe God. We do not know God so much through intellectual contemplation as through response to the action of God in creation, reconciliation, and in the movement of holy love that brings all things to their completion.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Revelation is an event within history. One can hardly overestimate the importance of the notion of event in theology. One way to get at event is to contrast it with object. In philosophy, an object exists while events occur or happen. Ordinary objects have clear spatial boundaries but vague temporal boundaries. Events have vague spatial boundaries but clear temporal boundaries. We can locate an object in space while co-location of events is common. Objects move while events cannot. Objects are in time and persist through time by being present at every time at which they exist. Events take up time and persist in time by stages at different. However, philosophers like Whitehead, Goodman, and Quine will suggest that objects are four-dimensional entities that extend across time and space. Such a notion rejects the metaphysical distinction between object and event. Event and object are entities of the same kind. The distinction is one of degree. An event will develop rapidly in time while an object strikes us as firm and internally coherent. If one maintains an event and object distinction one will need to explain the relation between them. Yet, an event-based ontology runs the risk of not providing enough structure for events. Regardless of such metaphysical issues, one will need to consider other distinctions. For example, one can distinguish between event and fact. A fact is abstract and a-temporal, (Julius Caesar died) while an event is specific and temporal (Julius Caesar dying violently on a certain date). An event is individual and thus is not a property that recurs. Yet, some events, such as the sun rising each day, recur. Thus, events may be properties of times. Going back to Whitehead, if we think of events as a primitive ontological category, then we can think of them as derived entities. Temporal instants become maximal sets of simultaneous events. Such a notion is congenial with reducing time to relations among events and is thus congenial with the relational conception of time known as space-time.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">It would at least appear that theology must give ontological priority to event. An event-based ontology will provide deep connections between who God is from eternity and who God is in revelation. The being of God is self-related being. Being is a structured relationship. This relational structuring of the being of God constitutes the being of God. The relationship structuring of the being God is the expression varying relations and issues of the being of God. The being of God is as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is thus a being in becoming, which defines the notions of perichoresis and appropriation. God is already our God in advance, since the divine being is a being in becoming from eternity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The event of revelation we find in Easter helps Christians clarify certain images in the Old Testament. Here are just a few of the images. 1) Wisdom in the Old Testament seems closely related to God almost like a person. 2) “Lord” in the New Testament is a title applied to the exalted Jesus, suggesting the full deity of the Son. 3) The Spirit of God in the Old Testament becomes the medium of communication between Father and Son. The Spirit gave life to creation, inspired the prophets, and was the mode of the presence of God in the ministry of Jesus. 4) Certain images of God in the Old Testament, such as Torah, the name of Yahweh, the glory of God, gain clarity as well. Such notions distinguish God from the mode of the presence of God in the world. They point to a tension between the transcendence and immanence of God in the Old Testament. The only way Christianity can resolve the tension it finds in the Old Testament is to focus upon the event of revelation, out of which arises the distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit. In classical discussions, the immanent Trinity (the nature of God) and the economic Trinity (the historical revelation of the Trinity) are separate. However, we need to bring them together.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We can see here that the closer we keep to the event of revelation as we discuss the Trinity the further away from vague philosophical speculation we will be. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The Trinity is the Christian way of discussing distinction and unity of the divine persons. The sending of the Son and the Spirit by the Father is the biblical basis for discussing movement and fellowship within the Trinity. What we find in the New Testament is reciprocal self-distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit. The Son witnesses to and establishes the lordship of the Father. The Father would not be Father without the relation with the Son. The Son will hand over his work to the Father so that God may be all (I Corinthians 15:24-25). The silence of the Father in the cross is deafening, placing the deity of the Father in question. Yet, it also makes clear the self-distinction of Jesus of Nazareth from the Father. Easter says the Father takes the passion (suffering) of the Son within Trinitarian relations. The unique calling of the Son is to be the suffering servant in obedience to the will of the Father, fully identifying with the lost condition of humanity, who then receives the eschatological and life-giving redemption of his suffering through the power of the Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> To come full circle, Easter is the result of the Spirit, who gives life to creation, giving eschatological life to the Son. In the event of revelation, then, we see the relations of the Trinity at work.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Given such distinctions within the Trinity, we also need to explore their unity. We might think of the distinctions as living realizations of separate centers of action. Through their personal characteristics, they dwell in each other and communicate eternal life to each other. Son and Spirit serve the monarchy of the Father. Another way to think of this is that the monarchy of the Father is the result of the common operation of the three persons. The Trinitarian relations mediate the monarchy of the Father.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The event of revelation, then, is internal to deity, thereby uniting the immanent and economic Trinity. There is no rupture between the being and action of God. We know who God is from what God does.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> We limit what we say of God to the action of God in creating, reconciling, and redeeming the world. God acts with intentionality toward a transformation of the world into a reflection of the holy love that motivates God throughout. This transformation originates with the Father, becomes effective in the Son, and is brought to its completion through the Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> The Incarnation is a work of the Trinitarian God that embraces the economy of salvation. Incarnation brings creation within the relations of the Trinity. The Trinitarian God opens divinity to the world and time as the transcendent Father sends the immanent Son and Spirit. The Trinitarian God of salvation history and the event of revelation is the same God of eternity. Humanity will experience this reality fully in the eschatological consummation of history. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Such considerations raise the philosophical question of the relation between essence and history. Our destiny is the completion and fulfillment in God in a way that the world continues to endure. The reconciliation, redemption, and consummation that the Bible envisions embrace our time and history. Such a saving end for humanity addresses the anxiety and dread that dominate so much of human life. The same God who creates is also the destiny toward which God has oriented all things. History has an eschatological orientation toward its emerging essence. This way of thinking about eschatology means the promised end influences the entire journey of the cosmos, human history, and individual life to arrive at that end. The end God has already established is already at work because God at work in opening people to faith, hope, and love. Far from speculation, such a notion has its basis upon the fulfillment of Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic promises reaching substantial fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Based upon that fulfillment, Christians have confidence in the gospel they proclaim. We pray in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The lordship of God over creation, including humanity, becomes reality. The silence of God in the presence of so much evil and suffering always makes the denial of the lordship of God over creation a possibility. Within the flow of history, we can see anticipations of that lordship. Those who live their lives in fellowship with Christ must do so humbly, recognizing that their decision is always a faith and a hope of the promised end. We have already seen that attempts to replace this notion of the future rule of God with an ethical kingdom (Kant, Ritschl) or fellowship with Jesus that death cannot break (Schleiermacher) is hardly sufficient. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 34.8pt;">We will have no answers to questions regarding last things so long as we do not clarify the relation of time and eternity. John Wesley, in a sermon “On Eternity,” puzzles about time and eternity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 30.55pt 0.0001pt 34.8pt;">But what is time? It is not easy to say, as frequently as we have had the word in our mouth. We know not what it properly is. We cannot well tell how to define it. But is it not, in some sense, a fragment of eternity, broken off at both ends? — that portion of duration which commenced when the world began, which will continue as long as this world endures, and then expire forever? — that portion of it, which is at present measured by the revolution of the sun and planets; lying (so to speak) between two eternities, that which is past, and that which is to come. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">His suggestion that the time we experience is part of eternity is insightful. What we do with our time has an influence upon eternity. Further, whatever eternity is, it influences our time. One of the ways he sees this influence occurring is that only God everlastingly endures, but God shares limited endurance with the things God has made. I think this quite insightful, for a preacher.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Our attempts to identify God continue with a discussion of the unity of God and the attributes of the divine essence. Of course, the inconceivable majesty of God means we will never fully identify God. We will never give a rational account of who God is. We never receive a vision of the inner life of God in its richness and fulness. We know God by the actions of God in creation, reconciliation, and bringing what God has created into a relation of holy love.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a>Yet, God is an active presence in the world, the power of Being as Hodgson puts it. Essence must appear (Hegel). Essence appears in time, becoming a moment of the existence of God. We can see the connection between essence and event. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Essence shows itself in the attributes. With the help of Hegel, we can see qualities like Infinite, Eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, mercy, righteous, and love are such only in relation to the world. If God is merciful, it relates to our experience of mercy. If God is righteous, it relates to our experience of goodness. If God is love, it relates to our experience of love.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> The attribute of infinity relates the richness and fulness of the divine being, an attribute to which we relate in our experience of life in its fullness or its lack of fullness.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> Such terms relate to the ontological self-sufficiency of God (aseity), the indivisibility of the divine action in its holy love (simplicity), the constancy and consistency of divine action (immutable), the indefectible movement of the divine purpose toward the fulfillment of creation (impassible), and the guarantee that what God began in creation God will bring to completion (omnipotence).<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a>We can use such words regarding self, world, and God because of the redemptive possibilities in language. We can speak truly because of that redemptive quality of language.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> As Hegel would put it, essence is always in relation to something else.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> The attributes of God are not parts of God. God is the hidden, secret, and invisible presence that can be a refuge, shield, and hiding place, even when God is no longer part of the plausibility structures of the intellectual work of modernity.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> God is present in a way that points us toward divine reality. God is power in the sense of holy dynamism, vitality, and life, even when we are suspicious of absolute power. This divine power arises out of divine goodness. We can have confidence in the goodness of divine power.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> God is knowledge, wisdom, reason, and truth, knowing all future contingents, all possibilities, all concepts and logical relations.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> God is personal and communal in the sense that God is the one true and perfect person, whose acts of love and freedom constitute divine personhood in three modes of being or existence. Such modes are moments of relating, modes of being, and shapes of acting. The absolute quality of God includes relation, where the Father (I), Son (You), and Spirit (We as the intersubjective social matrix of relation within God) form the Trinity. Hegel established a dialectic of identity (unity), difference (separation), and mediation (reunification), in common language, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Hegel referred to this as the “play of love.” Yet, it includes the serious relation to the world and its suffering. Regardless of the problems such a notion raises, we have opened the possibility of a new discussion of the relation between the divine persons, the divine essence, and the Trinity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Identifying God will always have a metaphorical dimension. The Bible can refer to God as a rock or light, but it can also refer to God as Spirit, knowledge, and as having a will. Even Hegel viewed the Absolute or Concept as having a creative power to constantly realizing itself, making “it” have personal qualities. We can think of the anticipatory nature of human thought as opening the door for the reality of freedom and the significance of the future. In affirming the knowledge of God, we are saying that nothing in creation has escaped the attention of God. The will of God presses upon with a power oriented toward the creative and life-giving Spirit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The nature of divine action can be difficult to express. The problem arises in part because of the silence of God while creation and human history is so full of suffering. Christianity can only point to the future consummation and redemption as an action of God in which we will gain clarity. The goal of divine action throughout the course of history is to bring the things God has made into the loving fellowship of the Trinity. We can think of this action as divine self-actualization within the world. Divine action is always a gift of giving and sustaining life toward the things God has made. God is never aloof from creation. In the gift of being, God knows, wills, and relates to every creature. Divine fullness sustains every creature in every moment. The will of God is intentional and always active in each moment of contingent creatures even in the “not-yet” in the unfolding of time.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We can hardly discuss the identity of God without discussing the Infinite, by which we will also mean the holiness, eternity, omnipotence, and omnipresence of God. With this notion, we move toward the unthematic awareness of God. Philosophy offers the notions of the Infinite and Eternal for this unthematic awareness. We move away from the notion of first cause that we find in Aristotle and Aquinas. As Hegel as clarified for us, the Infinite embraces the finite. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Divine holiness embraces the profane and brings it into fellowship with the holy God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The eternity of God embraces time and becomes the basis for our experience of time. Eternity is the simultaneous and perfect presence of unlimited life (Plotinus, Boethius). We experience life with anticipation of its wholeness. A melody has a sequence of notes, but we hear the whole. Speech is a sequence of syllables, but we hear it as a whole. True eternity includes this possibility, the potentiality of time. True eternity has the power to take time to itself. In virtue of Trinitarian differentiation, the eternity of God includes the time of creatures in its full range, from the beginning of creation to its eschatological consummation. The eternity of God accompanies time. Time may also accompany the eternity of God which creates it and in which it has its goal. The eternity of God goes with time. The eternity of God is in time. Time itself is in eternity. Its whole extension from beginning to end, each single part of it, every epoch, every life-time, every new and closing year, every passing hour, are all in eternity like a child in the arms of its mother. Time does not limit eternity. Eternity is in the midst, just as God is in the midst with us. It is not a divine preserve. On the contrary, by giving us time, God also gives us eternity. Our decisions in time occur with a responsibility to eternity that is not partial but total, and we may and must understand and accept the confidence with which we can undertake them as a complete confidence that we gain from eternity. Having loved us from eternity, and granted us from eternity our existence, fellowship with God, life in hope and eternal life itself, God also loves us here and now, in the temporality ordained for us from eternity, wholeheartedly and unreservedly. We move to God as we come from God and may accompany God. We move towards God. God is, when time will be no more.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">With the notions of the omnipresence and omnipotence, we can see the Infinite as the presence and power of God as comprehending all things. The Trinity makes the transcendence and immanence of God compatible. To turn aside from the source of life is to fall into nothingness, while the omnipotence of God shows that God can save the creature from the nothingness the creature chooses.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">With the Christian notion of God, it seems appropriate to conclude with a discussion of the God of love. The traditional notion of the simplicity of God is understandable in this context as that which unites the trinitarian relations.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> A doctrine of God that does not call a reader to love, even long for the taste of love, would not serve God well. God is love in the way Paul describes in I Corinthians 13. Regardless of relation, God is love and loves.<a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> One can examine John 3:16, Romans 5:5ff, and Romans 8:31-39. We can also refer to Hosea 11:1ff, 14:8, Jeremiah 31:3, Deuteronomy 7:8, 10:15. Further, in I John 4:8, 16, God is love. God and love are identical ontologically. Love is the power or spirit that animates the relations of the Trinity. If “spirit” is like the scientific description of field theory, the divine Spirit is the power and fire of love glowing through the divine persons, uniting them and radiating from them. The divine Spirit fulfills itself as love. Among the many gifts of the Christian notion of Trinity is that its discussion of the divine persons led to a relational understanding of the human being as person. Love is also a divine attribute in Exodus 34:6, Psalm 103:8, and 145:8. In order to further understand divine love, we can discuss goodness and mercy, righteousness, faithfulness (leaving room for becoming in God because time matters), patience (in moving creation toward the saving purpose of God), and wisdom in divine governance of the world (which is always in question due to the unreconciled nature of the history). <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The difficulty anyone would have in believing what I have written is that the world and humanity do not correspond to the living will of the creator. Once again, we need to bring eschatology into the discussion. The consummation of the world in the rule of God will mean that divine love has reached its goal. Yet, on the way to the goal of history, atheism remains a live option. Failure to admit this option as a possibility on the part of any religion would be proof that its claim to truth is false.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Of course, this view of the identity of God will contrast strongly with both Jew and Muslim. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A hymn often sung on Trinity Sunday is Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I will not bother to recount some harmless humor regarding the Trinity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I will not bother with the debate between Athanasius and Arius.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The historic creeds are the basis for my reflections, even if I am re-thinking in light of our new historical setting. For those denominations who are suspicious of creeds, confessions, and articles of religion, they are attempts to summarize biblical teaching. <o:p></o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p align="left" class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> This entire section moves against a theological tradition known as the negative way. It is a form of unbelief, seeking God prior to and other than through the incarnation and sending of the Spirit. We might say the same of the whole programme known as analogy, because it is tied up with it. Because we fail to realize that the (human) love that Jesus is is at the same time the love of God in action, we fail to accept the univocal language which it licenses, indeed, requires, and seek instead a form of language that effectively ively ignores the means given.<w:sdt citation="t" id="-160852674"> (Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 1466.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="316533583">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 372, 394.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events/" style="color: purple;">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/events/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1950353347">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 1199-1237.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="942809592">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> 908-910.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-391974065">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 722-737.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-985937536">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 1038-1042.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1582555261">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 660-667.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="149480432">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 803.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="992602893">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 1255.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1174458946">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> loc 688-709.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> For some thinkers, God simply is the identified attributes, regardless of relation. God is omnipresent, of course. God is knowledge, power, and love, regardless of relation. <w:sdt citation="t" id="1471936299">(Sonderegger 2015)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-526801040">(Sonderegger 2015)</w:sdt>, Volume I, 51, 56<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1596599165">(Sonderegger 2015)</w:sdt>, Volume I, 243.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-495803535">(Sonderegger 2015)</w:sdt>, Volume I, 351.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> Robert F. Fortuin, <a href="https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/is-god-living-up-to-his-potential/" style="color: purple;">https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/is-god-living-up-to-his-potential/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1623498276">(Gunton 2002)</w:sdt> 1156.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://96C0097D-898E-4665-9888-B543A27359F2#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1014121807">(Sonderegger 2015)</w:sdt>, Volume I, 495.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-36143696944775653112023-06-24T13:29:00.000-07:002023-06-24T13:29:00.007-07:00Jonathan Edwards<p> </p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNTUztDFqF2a2HXJdUsXHNdDfDe0aFhqdnN5K1AoQxUpsXcgesrkR-HvKzZabFD4WKLKfeqFFPqB3bMMVO3Jp-ja5Gn585RFkQUrV1hTznI_5jeiqUf3zsSFYHz1UMDWaN369gi9VYPWVATI7mTIa5IdJtjhnAgVKc-djFaU7bHvm-lbC39kr3rE0ZCUTg/s900/jonathan-edwards-4-1592684225.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="900" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNTUztDFqF2a2HXJdUsXHNdDfDe0aFhqdnN5K1AoQxUpsXcgesrkR-HvKzZabFD4WKLKfeqFFPqB3bMMVO3Jp-ja5Gn585RFkQUrV1hTznI_5jeiqUf3zsSFYHz1UMDWaN369gi9VYPWVATI7mTIa5IdJtjhnAgVKc-djFaU7bHvm-lbC39kr3rE0ZCUTg/s320/jonathan-edwards-4-1592684225.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Jonathan Edwards (October 5, 1703 – March 22, 1758) was an American revivalist preacher, philosopher, and Congregationalist theologian. A leading figure of the American Enlightenment, Edwards is widely regarded as one of America's most important and original philosophical theologians. Edwards' theological work is broad in scope but rooted in the paedobaptist (baptism of infants) Puritan heritage as exemplified in the Westminster and Savoy Confessions of Faith. Recent studies have emphasized how thoroughly Edwards grounded his life's work on conceptions of beauty, harmony, and ethical fittingness, and how central the Age of Enlightenment was to his mindset. Edwards played a critical role in shaping the First Great Awakening and oversaw some of the first revivals in 1733–35 at his church in Northampton, Massachusetts. His theological work gave rise to a distinct school of theology known as New England theology.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Edwards delivered the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", a classic of early American literature, during another revival in 1741, following George Whitefield's tour of the Thirteen Colonies. Edwards is well known for his many books, such as <i>The End for Which God Created the World</i> and <i>The Life of David Brainerd</i>, which inspired thousands of missionaries throughout the 19th century, and <i>Religious Affections</i> which many Calvinist Evangelicals still read today. Edwards died from a smallpox inoculation shortly after beginning the presidency at the College of New Jersey in Princeton.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Jonathan Edwards was born on October 5, 1703, the only son of Timothy Edwards (1668–1759), a minister at East Windsor, Connecticut (modern-day South Windsor), who supplemented his salary by tutoring boys for college. His mother, Esther Stoddard, daughter of Rev. Solomon Stoddard of Northampton, Massachusetts, seems to have been a woman of unusual mental gifts and independence of character. Jonathan was the fifth of 11 children. Timothy Edwards held at least one person in enslavement in the Edwards' household, a black man named Ansars. Jonathan was prepared for college by his father and elder sisters, all of whom received an excellent education. His sister Esther, the eldest, wrote a semi-humorous tract on the immateriality of the soul, which has often mistakenly attributed to Jonathan.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">He entered Yale College in 1716 at just under the age of 13. In the following year, he became acquainted with John Locke's <i>Essay Concerning Human Understanding</i>, which influenced him profoundly. During his college studies, he kept notebooks labeled "The Mind," "Natural Science" (containing a discussion of the atomic theory), "The Scriptures" and "Miscellanies," had a grand plan for a work on natural and mental philosophy, and drew up rules for its composition. He was interested in natural history and, as a precocious 11-year-old, had observed and written an essay detailing the ballooning behavior of some spiders. Edwards edited this text later to match the burgeoning genre of scientific literature, and his "The Flying Spider" fit easily into the contemporary scholarship on spiders. Although he studied theology for two years after his graduation from Yale, Edwards continued to be interested in science. Although many European scientists and American clergymen found the implications of science pushing them towards deism, Edwards believed the natural world was evidence of God's masterful design. Throughout his life, Edwards often went into the woods as a favorite place to pray and worship in the beauty and solace of nature.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Edwards was fascinated by the discoveries of Isaac Newton and other scientists of this time period. Before he was called to full-time ministry work in Northampton, he wrote on diverse topics in natural philosophy, including light and optics, in addition to spiders. While he worried about those of his contemporaries who seemed preoccupied by materialism and faith in reason alone, he considered the laws of nature to be derived from God and demonstrating his wisdom and care. Edwards's written sermons and theological treatises emphasize the beauty of God and the role of aesthetics in the spiritual life. He is thought to anticipate a 20th-century current of theological aesthetics, represented by figures such as Hans Urs von Balthasar.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">In 1722 to 1723, he was for eight months an un-ordained "supply" pastor (a clergyman employed to preach and minister in a church for a definite time but not settled as a pastor) of a small Presbyterian church on William Street in New York City. The church invited him to remain, but he declined the call. After spending two months in study at home, in 1724–1726, he was one of the two tutors at Yale tasked with leading the college in the absence of a rector. Yale's previous rector, Timothy Cutler, lost his position when he defected to the Anglican Church. After two years, he had not been replaced.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">He partially recorded the years 1720 to 1726 in his diary and in his resolutions for his conduct which he drew up at this time. He had long been an eager seeker after salvation and was not fully satisfied as to his own conversion until an experience in his last year in college, when he lost his feeling that the election of some to salvation and of others to eternal damnation was "a horrible doctrine," and reckoned it "exceedingly pleasant, bright and sweet." He now took a great and new joy in taking in the beauties of nature and delighted in the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon. Balancing these mystic joys is the stern tone of his Resolutions, in which he is almost ascetic in his eagerness to live earnestly and soberly, to waste no time, to maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">On February 15, 1727, Edwards was ordained minister at Northampton and assistant to his grandfather Solomon Stoddard, a noted minister. He was a scholar-pastor, not a visiting pastor, his rule being 13 hours of study per day. In the same year, he married Sarah Pierpont. Then 17, Sarah was from a notable New England clerical family: her father was James Pierpont (1659–1714), a founder of Yale College; and her mother was the granddaughter of Thomas Hooker. Sarah's spiritual devotion was without peer, and her relationship with God had long proved an inspiration to Edwards. He first remarked on her great piety when she was 13 years old. She was of a bright and cheerful disposition, a practical housekeeper, a model wife, and the mother of his 11 children, who included Esther Edwards.[9] Edwards held to complementarian views of marriage and gender roles.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Solomon Stoddard died on February 11, 1729, leaving to his grandson the challenging task of the sole ministerial charge of one of the largest and wealthiest congregations in the colony. Its members were proud of its morality, its culture and its reputation. Summing up Edwards' influences during his younger years, scholar John E. Smith writes, "By thus meditating between Berkeley on the one hand and Locke, Descartes, and Hobbes on the other, the young Edwards hoped to rescue Christianity from the deadweight of rationalism and the paralyzing inertia of skepticism."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">On July 8, 1731, Edwards preached in Boston the "Public Lecture," afterwards published under the title "God Glorified in the Work of Redemption, by the Greatness of Man's Dependence upon Him, in the Whole of It," which was his first public attack on Arminianism. The emphasis of the lecture was on God's absolute sovereignty in the work of salvation: that while it behooved God to create man pure and without sin, it was of his "good pleasure" and "mere and arbitrary grace" for him to grant any person the faith necessary to incline him or her toward holiness, and that God might deny this grace without any disparagement to any of his character. In 1733, a spiritual revival began in Northampton and reached such an intensity in the winter of 1734 and the following spring that it threatened the business of the town. In six months, nearly 300 of 1,100 youths were admitted to the church.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The revival gave Edwards an opportunity to study the process of conversion in all its phases and varieties, and he recorded his observations with psychological minuteness and discrimination in <i>A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton</i> (1737). A year later, he published Discourses on Various Important Subjects, the five sermons which had proved most effective in the revival. Of these, none was so immediately effective as that on The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners, from the text, "That every mouth may be stopped." Another sermon, published in 1734, A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God, set forth what he regarded as the inner, moving principle of the revival, the doctrine of a special grace in the immediate, and supernatural divine illumination of the soul.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">By 1735, the revival had spread and appeared independently across the Connecticut River Valley and as far as New Jersey. However, criticism of the revival began, and many New Englanders feared that Edwards had led his flock into fanaticism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Over the summer of 1735, religious fervor took a dark turn. Many New Englanders were affected by the revivals but not converted and became convinced of their inexorable damnation. Edwards wrote that "multitudes" felt urged—by Satan—to take their own lives. At least two people committed suicide in the depths of their spiritual distress, one from Edwards's own congregation—his uncle Joseph Hawley II. It is not known if any others took their own lives, but the "suicide craze" effectively ended the first wave of revival, except in some parts of Connecticut.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Despite these setbacks and the cooling of religious fervor, word of the Northampton revival and Edwards's leadership role had spread as far as England and Scotland. It was at this time that Edwards became acquainted with George Whitefield, who was traveling the Thirteen Colonies on a revival tour in 1739–40. The two men may not have agreed completely on every detail. Whitefield was far more comfortable with the strongly emotional elements of revival than Edwards was, but they were both passionate about preaching the Gospel. They worked together to orchestrate Whitefield's trip, first through Boston and then to Northampton. When Whitefield preached at Edwards's church in Northampton, he reminded them of the revival they had undergone just a few years before. This deeply touched Edwards, who wept throughout the entire service, and much of the congregation too was moved.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Revivals began to spring up again, and Edwards preached his most famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, in Enfield, Connecticut, in 1741. Though this sermon has been widely reprinted as an example of "fire and brimstone" preaching in the colonial revivals, that characterization is not in keeping with descriptions of Edward's actual preaching style. Edwards did not shout or speak loudly, but talked in a quiet, emotive voice. He moved his audience slowly from point to point, towards an inexorable conclusion: they were lost without the grace of God. While most 21st-century readers notice the damnation looming in such a sermon text, historian George Marsden reminds us that Edwards was not preaching anything new or surprising: "Edwards could take for granted... that a New England audience knew well the Gospel remedy. The problem was getting them to seek it."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The movement met with opposition from conservative Congregationalist ministers. In 1741, Edwards published in the defense of revivals <i>The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God</i>, dealing particularly with the phenomena most criticized: the swoonings, outcries, and convulsions. These "bodily effects," he insisted, were not distinguishing marks of the work of the Spirit of God one way or another. So bitter was the feeling against the revival in some churches that in 1742 he felt moved to write a second apology, Thoughts on the Revival in New England, where his main argument concerned the great moral improvement of the country. In the same pamphlet he defends an appeal to the emotions and advocates preaching terror when necessary, even to children, who in God's sight "are young vipers... if not Christ's."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">He considered "bodily effects" incidental to the real work of God. But his own mystic devotion and the experiences of his wife during the Awakening (which he recounts in detail) make him think that the divine visitation usually overpowers the body, a view in support of which he quotes Scripture. In reply to Edwards, Charles Chauncy wrote Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England in 1743 and anonymously penned The Late Religious Commotions in New England Considered in the same year. In these works, he urged conduct as the sole test of conversion. The general convention of Congregational ministers in the Province of Massachusetts Bay seemed to agree, protesting "against disorders in practice which have of late obtained in various parts of the land." Despite Edwards's able pamphlet, the impression had become widespread that "bodily effects" were recognized by the promoters of the Great Awakening as the true tests of conversion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">To offset this feeling, during the years 1742 and 1743, Edwards preached at Northampton a series of sermons published under the title of <i>Religious Affections</i> (1746), a restatement in a more philosophical and general tone of his ideas as to "distinguishing marks." In 1747, he joined the movement started in Scotland called the "concert in prayer," and in the same year published An Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God's People in Extraordinary Prayer for the Revival of Religion and the Advancement of Christ's Kingdom on Earth. In 1749, he published a memoir of David Brainerd, who had lived with his family for several months and had died at Northampton in 1747. Brainerd had been constantly attended by Edwards's daughter Jerusha, to whom he was rumored to have been engaged to be married,[32] though there is no surviving evidence of this. While elaborating his theories of conversion, Edwards used Brainerd and his ministry as a case study, making extensive notes of his conversions and confessions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">In 1748, there had come a crisis in his relations with his congregation. The Half-Way Covenant, adopted by the synods of 1657 and 1662, had made baptism alone the condition to the civil privileges of church membership, but not of participation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Stoddard had been even more liberal, holding that the Lord's Supper was a converting ordinance and that baptism was a sufficient title to all the privileges of the church.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">As early as 1744, Edwards, in his sermons on Religious Affections, had plainly intimated his dislike of this practice. In the same year, he had published in a church meeting the names of certain young people, members of the church, who were suspected of reading improper books, and also the names of those who were to be called as witnesses in the case. It has often been reported that the witnesses and accused were not distinguished on this list, and so the entire congregation was in an uproar. However, Patricia Tracy's research has cast doubt on this version of the events, noting that in the list he read from, the names were distinguished. Those involved were eventually disciplined for disrespect to the investigators rather than for the original incident. In any case, the incident further deteriorated the relationship between Edwards and the congregation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Edwards's preaching became unpopular. For four years, no candidate presented himself for admission to the church, and when one eventually did, in 1748, he was met with Edwards's formal tests as expressed in the Distinguishing Marks and later in Qualifications for Full Communion, 1749. The candidate refused to submit to them, the church backed him, and the break between the church and Edwards was complete. Even permission to discuss his views in the pulpit was refused. He was allowed to present his views on Thursday afternoons. His sermons were well attended by visitors but not his own congregation. A council was convened to decide the communion matter between the minister and his people. The congregation chose half the council, and Edwards was allowed to select the other half of the council. His congregation, however, limited his selection to one county where most of the ministers were against him. The ecclesiastical council voted by 10 to 9 that the pastoral relation be dissolved.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The church members, by a vote of more than 200 to 23, ratified the action of the council, and finally a town meeting voted that Edwards should not be allowed to occupy the Northampton pulpit, though he continued to live in the town and preach in the church by the request of the congregation until October 1751. In his "Farewell Sermon" he preached from 2 Corinthians 1:14 and directed the thoughts of his people to that far future when the minister and his people would stand before God. In a letter to Scotland after his dismissal, he expresses his preference for Presbyterian to congregational polity. His position at the time was not unpopular throughout New England. His doctrine that the Lord's Supper is not a cause of regeneration and that communicants should be professing Protestants has since (largely through the efforts of his pupil Joseph Bellamy) become a standard of New England Congregationalism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Edwards was in high demand. A parish in Scotland could have been procured,[further explanation needed] and he was called to a Virginia church. He declined both to become pastor in 1751 of the church in Stockbridge, Massachusetts and a missionary to the Housatonic Indians, taking over for the recently deceased John Sergeant. To the Indians, he preached through an interpreter, and their interests he boldly and successfully defended, by attacking the whites who were using their official positions among them to increase their private fortunes. During this time, he got to know Judge Joseph Dwight who was trustee of the Indian Schools. In Stockbridge, he wrote the Humble Relation, also called Reply to Williams (1752), which was an answer to Solomon Williams, a relative and a bitter opponent of Edwards as to the qualifications for full communion. He composed the treatises on which his reputation as a philosophical theologian chiefly rests, the essay on <i>Original Sin</i>, the <i>Dissertation Concerning the Nature of True Virtue</i>, the <i>Dissertation Concerning the End for which God created the World</i>, and the great work on the Will, written in four and a half months and published in 1754 under the title, <i>An Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions Respecting that Freedom of the Will which is supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Aaron Burr, Sr., Edwards' son-in-law, died in 1757 (he had married Esther Edwards five years before, and they had made Edwards the grandfather of Aaron Burr, later U.S. vice president). Edwards felt himself in "the decline of life", and inadequate to the office, but was persuaded to replace Burr as president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). He was installed on February 16, 1758. He gave weekly essay assignments in theology to the senior class.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Edwards was involved with slavery during his lifetime. Beginning in June 1731, he pushed a young black teenager named Venus who was kidnapped in Africa and whom he purchased; a boy named Titus; and a woman named Leah. In a 1741 pamphlet, Edwards defended the institution for those who were debtors, war captives, or were born enslaved in North America, but rejected the Atlantic slave trade.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Attention to this fact became prominent during the 2010s and 2020s. Responses have ranged from condemnation to the view that he was a man of his time. Other commentators have sought to maintain what they see as valuable in Edwards' theology, while deploring his involvement in slavery.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Almost immediately after becoming president of the College of New Jersey, Edwards, a staunch supporter of smallpox inoculations, decided to get inoculated in order to encourage others to do the same. Never having been in robust health, he died because of the inoculation on March 22, 1758. Edwards left behind eleven children (three sons and eight daughters). The grave of Edwards is located in Princeton Cemetery. Written in Latin, the long emotional epitaph inscription on the horizontal gravestone eulogizes his life and career and laments the great loss of his passing. It draws from the classical tradition in extolling the virtues of the deceased and directly inviting the passerby to pause and mourn.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The followers of Jonathan Edwards and his disciples came to be known as the New Light Calvinist ministers. Prominent disciples included the New Divinity school's Samuel Hopkins, Joseph Bellamy, Jonathan Edwards Jr., and Gideon Hawley. Through a practice of apprentice ministers living in the homes of older ministers, they eventually filled many pastorates in the New England area. Many of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards's descendants became prominent citizens in the United States, including Burr and college presidents Timothy Dwight, Jonathan Edwards Jr. and Merrill Edwards Gates. Jonathan and Sarah Edwards were also ancestors of Edith Roosevelt, the writer O. Henry, the publisher Frank Nelson Doubleday, and the writer Robert Lowell.[citation needed] The eminence of many descendants of Edwards led some Progressive Era scholars to view him as proof of eugenics. His descendants have had a disproportionate effect upon American culture: his biographer George Marsden notes that "the Edwards family produced scores of clergymen, thirteen presidents of higher learning, sixty-five professors, and many other persons of notable achievements."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Edwards's writings and beliefs continue to influence individuals and groups to this day. Early American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions missionaries were influenced by Edwards's writings, as is evidenced in reports in the ABCFM's journal "The Missionary Herald," and beginning with Perry Miller's seminal work, Edwards enjoyed a renaissance among scholars after the end of the Second World War. The Banner of Truth Trust and other publishers continue to reprint Edwards's works, and most of his major works are now available through the series published by Yale University Press, which has spanned three decades and supplies critical introductions by the editor of each volume. Yale has also established the Jonathan Edwards Project online. Author and teacher, Elisabeth Woodbridge Morris, memorialized him, her paternal ancestor (3rd great grandfather) in two books, The Jonathan Papers (1912), and More Jonathan Papers (1915). In 1933, he became the namesake of Jonathan Edwards College, the first of the 12 residential colleges of Yale, and The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University was founded to provide scholarly information about Edwards' writings. Edwards is remembered today as a teacher and missionary by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on March 22. The contemporary poet Susan Howe frequently describes the composition of Edwards' manuscripts and notebooks held at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library in several of her books of poetry and prose, including Souls of the Labadie Tract, 2007 and That This, 2010. She notes how some of Edwards' notebooks were hand sewn from silk paper that his sisters and wife used for making fans. Howe also argues in My Emily Dickinson that Emily Dickinson was formatively influenced by Edwards's writings, and that she "took both his legend and his learning, tore them free from his own humorlessness and the dead weight of doctrinaire Calvinism, then applied the freshness of his perception to the dead weight of American poetry as she knew it."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><i>A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections</i> is a publication written in 1746 by Jonathan Edwards describing his philosophy about the process of Christian conversion in Northampton, Massachusetts, during the First Great Awakening, which emanated from Edwards' congregation starting in 1734. "Religious Affections" remains popular and modern-day evangelists and writers such as Tim Keller and John Piper often refer to this and other Edwards works as models for their ministry.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Edwards wrote the <i>Treatise</i> to explain how true religious conversion to Christianity occurs. Edwards describes how emotion and intellect both play a role, but "converting grace" is what causes Christians to "awaken" to see that forgiveness is available to all who have faith that Jesus' sacrifice atones for all sins. This salvation is not possible through believers' imperfect good works which are simply evidence of faith, only through Christ's sacrifice which is free to all. Edwards describes the importance of testing new faith and discerning whether it is legitimate. He lays out twelve tests of true conversion, including ways of measuring allegedly fruitful works.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">In his preface, he believed that Satan prevailed against revivals of religion in America by quenching the love and spoiling the joy, especially in the recent revival, the Great Wakening in the 1730s and 1740s. He thinks this prevailing by Satan will continue until the people of God learn to distinguish between true and false religion, between affections and experiences that are saving and those that are only for appearances and are thus counterfeit. He sees people working wickedness under a notion of doing the work of God, but in the process sin without restraint and with zeal, bringing the friends of religion, unaware of the destructive nature of their activity, to do the work of the enemy by destroying true religion more effectively than an open enemy can do, scattering the flock of Christ by setting the flock against each other. Thus, he wants to consider in what true religion consists of. He says that his purpose in this book is to show the nature and signs of the gracious operations of the Spirit of God, by which such operations distinguish themselves from things that are not of a saving nature.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Part One considers the nature of the affections and their importance in religion. He distinguishes in the soul between the mind, which shows itself in perception, speculation, and understanding, and the heart that shows itself in our not living as uninterested spectator of our world and thus that toward which we are inclined to like or dislike, approve or disapprove, and is thus intricately connected with the will. He proposes that true religion consists in the affections. We see this in the Bible when it calls upon us to love God with all the heart, bringing a liveliness and power to true religion. Such true religion is practice, recognizing that human action springs from that toward which the will is inclined, and thus from the heart. Take away love and hate, hope and fear, and humanity would be motionless. Coveting, ambition, love of pleasure, derive from worldly affections while love divine things derive from religious affections. Many hear the word of God, but it does not touch their affection, their heart and will. Love of God and neighbor, which is the sum of all true religion, hatred of evil, fear of God, hope in the promises of God, and joy in the Spirit, compassion, mercy, zeal, are the exercise of holy affections. Prayer, singing, sacraments, and preaching have the purpose of stirring in participants holy affection. Thus, it is not surprising that sin arises from a hard heart. Edwards will then draw some inferences from the principle. The fact that some people who display holy affection fall into error of the mind does not mean we should dismiss the importance of holy affection, for their affections were false. We need to discern the difference between false affection and those that derive from the Spirit. Our worldly interests arouse our affections, but it seems rare that divine interests arouse our affections toward spiritual things. The Lord is the one worthy of our admiration and love. The Lord shows this in the most affecting manner, shining in all its luster, in the face of the Incarnate, infinitely loving, meek, compassionate, and dying redeemer. His virtues of humility, patience, meekness, submission, obedience, love, and compassion are exhibited in a manner the most tending to move our affections. In his greatest trial, in his last sufferings that he endured from his tender love and mercy toward us. His suffering also revealed the hateful nature of our sins and their dreadful effects in the most affecting way possible. His suffering revealed the hatred the Father has for sin and the divine justice and punishment of that sin.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Part Two considers the aspects of religious affection that are not signs of the gracious working of God upon the heart. High affection is not such a sign. High affection is testified to in scripture, but its manifestation is not a sign of true religion. Bodily manifestations are not such a sign. The knowledge which the saints have of God’s beauty and glory in this world, and those holy affections that arise from it, are of the same nature and kind with what the saints are the subjects of in heaven, differing only in degree and circumstances. What God gives them here, is a foretaste of heavenly happiness, and an earnest of their future inheritance. Talking fluently, fervently, and abundantly of religious matters is not such a sign. That such affections may derive from the Spirit or from one’s own personal development is not a sign either way. Religious affections that come to the mind from a remarkable text of scripture is not a sign either way of a holy affection. The devil can abuse scripture as well. The appearance of love in holy affection is not a sign either way of a saving affection. Having many affections together is not a sign of genuine affection, for there are counterfeits to all religious affections. Comfort and joy following in a certain order is not such a sign. Spending much time in religion and the external duty of worship is not a sign of holy affection. Persons disposed to glorify and praise God with their mouths is no sure sign of holy affection. Abundant confidence is not such a sign. One who relates such affections in a way that affects others is no sure sign of true religion. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Part Three discusses the genuine signs of gracious and holy affection arise from spiritual, supernatural, and divine influences and operations upon the heart. He draws a contrast, based upon Pauline writings, between the spiritual or sanctified person and the carnal or unsanctified person. The term “spiritual” relates to be born of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit dwells within such persons and produces holiness as an effect. This Spirit bears witness to our spirits that we are children of God. The first objective ground of gracious affection is the excellence and amiable nature of divine things. Holy affections have their foundation in the moral excellence, the beauty and sweetness, of divine things. Gracious affections arise from a rightly enlightened mind and that spiritually apprehends divine things. Conviction of the reality and certainty of divine things, especially the certainty of participating in divine glory, attend gracious affections. Evangelical humiliations attend gracious affections. It leads to self-denial. It leads to an appreciation of the vast difference between oneself and the infinite nature of God. Thus, high religious affection and discovery hide in them the corruption of their hearts. True religion recognizes that whatever love one may have in one’s heart is small in comparison to what it could be. Such a person is more likely to see their own failing than the failing of others. Gracious affections are also attended with a change of nature: born again, becoming new creatures, renewed in the spirit of the mind, dying to sin, living to righteousness, putting off the old person and putting on the new person, and partakers of the divine nature. If there is no remarkable and abiding change in a person, then the testimony of conversion is vain. [I must confess that when I look back upon what I view as my conversion at ten years of age, I do not see much change. If a change has occurred, it has been steadily over the years.] Truly gracious affections give birth to and promote a spirit of love, meekness, quietness, forgiveness, and mercy, as shown in Christ. Gracious affection softens the heart with a tenderness of the human spirit. Truly gracious affection leads to a beautiful symmetry and proportion. The higher gracious affections are raised the more the longing of the soul for spiritual attainment increases. Gracious and holy affections display their fruit in Christian practice. Christian practice, which consists in a holy life, a sanctified life, is a sign of the sincerity of the professing Christian before others. Such Christian practice is a sign to the conscience of the person, in which he considers the witness of the Spirit with our human spirit. [He can sound much like John Wesley on this point.]<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">He concludes that the fruit of the Spirit are the religious affections, love being the chief affection, and that all other fruit (or Christian virtues) flow from this. "Love is the chief of the affections, and as it were the fountain of them." (p. 76, Banner of Truth Edition). He further says, "for it was not by men's having the gifts of the Spirit (referring to spiritual gifts), but by their having the virtues of the Spirit, that they were called spiritual." (p. 127). This is how you can distinguish between carnal people and spiritual people. Carnal people do not produce the fruit of the Spirit, but spiritual people do. So it was with Christ. "All the virtues of the Lamb of God, His humility, patience, meekness, submission, obedience, love and compassion, are exhibited to our view in a manner the most tending to move our affections of any that can be imagined." (p. 53).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-31350261093042687972023-06-24T13:27:00.001-07:002023-06-24T13:27:05.817-07:00Holiness Movement<p> </p><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:4;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.MsoFootnoteReference
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-font-kerning:0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page
{mso-footnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fs;
mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fcs;
mso-endnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") es;
mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") ecs;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1070663775;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2000543758 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
-->
</style><h4><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbiZ2RSSwQjrWM5zMxkDMU6GvfSjM1Zz3tmmFDiZjDSZIQcJEsN8Ag6mWLybaUiStrN38ldH54_YlC5IXRrG0Btl4ptEvb9UJOlvn8E0thtT7_THbMdoMoRsBf8jZwNEnAROb9Uj8naclsVDPV0dDzj2VZk2-nwWpIY9UNfB_TXdCoBplhiVXjp0IGRV0S/s700/a3377469520_5-2597038157.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="700" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbiZ2RSSwQjrWM5zMxkDMU6GvfSjM1Zz3tmmFDiZjDSZIQcJEsN8Ag6mWLybaUiStrN38ldH54_YlC5IXRrG0Btl4ptEvb9UJOlvn8E0thtT7_THbMdoMoRsBf8jZwNEnAROb9Uj8naclsVDPV0dDzj2VZk2-nwWpIY9UNfB_TXdCoBplhiVXjp0IGRV0S/s320/a3377469520_5-2597038157.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Holiness Movement in America 1839-1858<o:p></o:p></h4><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Timothy Merritt, a Methodist Episcopal pastor, became the first editor of the <i>Guide to Holiness </i>in 1839. The first issues emphasized the need for special promotion of holiness, and a connection with the Wesleyan revival in England.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></sup></sup></a>These emphases would become central to the holiness revival throughout the century.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> One individual who gave concrete expression to Merritt’s concern in the <i>Guide </i>was Luther Lee. Lee’s purpose was to defend the view of the Methodist Episcopal Church on sanctification. His biblical base was Mark 12:30, which spoke of loving God with all the heart and the neighbor as oneself, and I John 4:17-18, which spoke of perfect love. On this basis, he defined sanctification as conformity to the image of God, and therefore, a state of entire renewal. It was a state of perfect love, having the whole person renewed and brought under its influence, so that love, as the ruling passion, controls the entire person.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></sup></sup></a> The next section of his article distinguished between justification, regeneration, and sanctification. Justification and regeneration occurred at the same moment, the first changing one’s relation with God, and the second changing the person from sinfulness to holiness. Yet, there was still a degree of depravity remaining in the soul that was removed in sanctification. Support for this view was seen in II Corinthians 7:1, which encourages perfection of holiness, and I Thessalonians 5:23, which includes a prayer for God to sanctify. Additional support was found in Christian experience, in which this crisis after conversion was seen as the moral way of God dealing with people. Final support was discovered in the sermons of Wesley, such as “On Sin in Believer,” “Scripture Way of salvation,” “New Birth,” and “On God’s Vineyard.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></sup></sup></a> As will be seen, Lee is heavily indebted to his theological formulations of Joh Wesley regarding holiness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Another writer about holiness who had a slightly different approach that Lee was Henry W. Adams, who wrote a series of articles on Christian holiness from 1846-7. In his first article, he considered the common objections raised against the doctrine. He declared the doctrine did not intend to teach: 1) freedom from ignorance, errors, or all moral infirmities; 2) freedom from temptation; 3) incompatibility with the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our debts”; 4) the blood of Jesus was no longer necessary; 5) impossibility of growing in grace; 6) no one had attained this state since Adam;; 7) incompatibility with the union of the soul and body; 8) certain passages of Scripture deny such a possibility.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></sup></sup></a> After removing these objection, Adam went on to discuss the obligation for Christians to be holy. For biblical support he went to 1) the positive command of God contained in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, combined with Mark 12:30, to love God with all one’s heart. 2) passages that required the practice of holiness in this life as a prerequisite for heaven, such as Hebrews 12:13. 3). Matthew 5:8, which makes a high state of grace essential for the full enjoyment of God. 4) II Corinthians 7:1, which exhorts Christians to complete holiness in this life. 5) I Thessalonians 5:23, a prayer for Christians to enjoy this blessing. 6) I John 3:8 and Hebrews 2:14-15 which express the purpose for the coming of Christ.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></sup></sup></a> His next article distinguished between justification, regeneration, and sanctification. Here Adams parallels the explanation of Lee. Justification was what Christ did for us. Regeneration was, first, a new moral creation effected by the Spirit, then it was an infusion of spiritual life, and lastly, it implanted new graces in the person. The two works of justification and regeneration occurred together. He used Wesley, Watson, Dwight, and Fisk for support.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></sup></sup></a> His final article defined the steps involved in the moment when one became holy. First, entire self-consecration to God was necessary, for it dealt with the depravity of the soul. Then God would cleanse the person from all unrighteousness. Third, there was the crowning step of Christian holiness – the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This baptism was defined as an infusion of divine life, dominion over sin, heavenly boldness, divine love, exaltation of Christ, casting down self, and lifting the soul above the world. Then he distinguished between three dispensations – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The latter was the present dispensation. In this context the baptism with the Spirit gave power and perfected the work of holiness.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Lee and Adams offered slightly varied explanations of holiness. The key difference was that Adams gave three elements that occurred at entire sanctification: one’s own act of consecration, God’s act of cleansing, and the Spirit’s act of baptism. Thus, already there was a recognized variety of expressions used to explain the experience of holiness. As will be seen, differences may also be found within the English revival itself. This diversity will increase as the study progresses. The main question would be whether Lee and Adams disagreed as to the content of the experience they were describing. Both emphasized the moral aspect of having sin removed. Both talked about this experience occurring after justification. Both talked about the victory of love over sin in the believer. Adams did add the element jof dispensations and power. Thus, there appeared to be substantial agreement though conceptual modifications did occur. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The <i>Guide</i> revealed theological controversy at an early point. A convention held at Rochester, NY, in July 6-8, 1841, gave this definition of holiness: Entire sanctification in this life is attainable, in such a sense as to be the object of pursuit, with a rational expectation of attaining it.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></sup></sup></a> Later, the Presbyterian synod of New York and New Jersey rejected all forms of perfectionism, including the above definition. Two ministers, Harry Belden and William Hill, desired a moderate stance, but the synod stood firmly opposed. Most importantly, the controversy was between Methodist and non-Methodist traditions. Another significant point was that the Methodist understanding of sanctification was already making inroads into non-Methodist churches. The Presbyterian synod urged “progressive sanctification,” by which they meant a degree of piety that was in degrees perfectly attainable and should be an object of pursuit. They were clearly making some concessions to the Methodist understanding. This point should be amplified by reference to the teaching on sanctification of Charles Finney and Asa Mahan, neither being Methodist by background, though essentially Methodist in doctrine. Mahan’s work, Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, gave a clear account of his views. His controversy with Leon Woods would be an instructive study. In addition, Mahan’s philosophical adherence to Scottish realism introduces another dynamic into the holiness tradition. The purposes of this paper must be adhered jot, however, though the author admits this element should be considered closely.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The year 1853 marked the beginning of a shift to the second phase. An editorial entitled, “Our Feast of Tabernacles,” note that some people within the Methodist Episcopal Church had rejected the doctrine of entire sanctification. They admitted this may have been the result of abuse by its adherents. Nevertheless, “…Painful as is the admission, we cannot avoid the conviction that, in our own beloved communion, there are some who discard Mr. Wesley’s views on this subject altogether, while others vainly imagine that a justified state will allow the idols to which they cling with such tenacity. But truth must and will prevail. A brighter day is dawning on the church.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></sup></sup></a> The editor of this paper was now H. V. Degen. Clearly, this editorial reflected his own views of the denominational situation. The editorial also showed that a disagreement was arising in the church over the understanding of entire sanctification. The controversy about the doctrine was no longer restricted to non-Methodist traditions. Finally, the editorial revealed strong concern for maintaining a truly “Wesleyan” understanding of entire sanctification.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Degen’s understanding of sanctification might best be seen in an editorial he wrote later in the year entitled, “Regeneration and Entire Sanctification.” He began by rejecting the view that conversion must be perfect because it is a work of God. His basis for believing this was divided into three sections. First, Scripture implied the opposite in its distinction between childhood and adulthood. Justification was pardon, not perfection. Second, scripture taught the opposite in passages that urged perfection upon believers and where the graces of the perfected are contrasted with those who are not perfected. Third, experience of holy people argued that an experience after conversion was necessary. Jonathan Edwards, Edward Payson, and Hester Ann Rogers were cited as examples. He concluded by noticing three objections to his view. One was an objection to the term “second blessing,” which he agreed was to be rejected. Perfection must be seen as a completion of the one blessing of conversion. Another objection was that it denied growth, which he rejected by saying it promoted growth. Finally, the objection that the converted soul was jeopardized as to his salvation was rejected by affirming their salvation, while at the same time urging them on to perfection.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></sup></sup></a> As can be seen, Degen’s explanation of sanctification closely paralleled that of Luther Lee. The Wesleyan character of the distinction made between conversion and entire sanctification, and the biblical base used, as well as the appeal to experience, as firmly rooted in the Wesleyan tradition. In the view of Degen, this understanding was meeting with opposition in the Methodist Episcopal Church.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The strong emphasis on Wesley was combined with an admiration for mysticism. In 1848 and article by “E. M. B.,” “The Relation of Quietude and Energy,” declared that there could be no energy of action without quietness of spirit. The author pointed to Fenelon as an example of holiness, though he admitted Fenelon was not accepted by some. Madame Guyon was also rejected by some because she was a Romanist, a visionary, or fanatic, by which was meant a mystic. However, the author accepted her as a witness to holiness within the darkness of Catholicism.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></sup></sup></a> The influences of mysticism came through the writings of Thomas Upham, a professor of moral and mental philosophy. In fact, his influence has been neglected. His name would appear frequently when later holiness people referred to the beginnings of the movement. The references in the <i>Guide</i> to certain mystics were through his influence. Many books by Upham were respected<i>, such as Principles of the Interior or Hidden Life, Life of Faith, A Treatise on Divine Union, </i>as well as his lives of Madame Guyon and Fenelon. The belief of the author is that his influence was so significant that he deserves intensive study to clearly understand the persistent references to mystical writers in the holiness revival. In this study it is enough to say that his emphasis on union of the soul with God maintained its influence, no matter what changes the revival sent through subsequently.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The basic structure of the understanding of holiness within the first phase was determined by the theological framework of Joh Wesley. Therefore, it would be best to briefly outline the position of Wesley himself. There have been various positions taken regarding what he actually taught about entire sanctification. The author was admittedly limited in what he could do on this point. The explanation that follows will rely on lectures by his professor, dr. Allan Coppedge, interpreting one of the accepted works on this question, <i>Wesley and Sanctification,</i> by Harald Lindstrom.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Wesley’s understanding of humanity fell within the categories of Reformed theology. The natural person, that is, humanity without the grace of God, was extremely far gone from the original righteousness of Adam and eve. Humanity was created in the image of God, which he divided into three aspects: the natural image, or the will; the political image, or rule over creation; and the moral image, or love being the guiding principle of all actions. The Fall was brought about by a misuse of the will, and total corruption was the result. Humanity was now infected with sin, which brought about corruption within each person and guilt before God. Wesley’s emphasis was on the psychological effects of sin, what sin did to one’s self-awareness. Humanity was born with a tendency to sin, as well as being affected by sin in the totality of human experience.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Wesley clearly presented the order of salvation. The first stage was prevenient grace. This was grace given to every person by God to draw people to God. The second stage was repentance and its fruits, by which Wesley meant a conviction of one’s sin and a desire to do good. This was not conversion, but the first step toward it. The third stage was justifying faith. Wesley used strongly personal terms to describe this experience. He rejected a purely intellectual concept of the affirmation of certain doctrines and instead insisted that faith is when one had a sure trust and confidence in Christ, that he died for the individual, had forgiven sin, and was accepted by God. Justification was pardon from sin with adoption and reconciliation occurring at the same time. The redeemed person was no longer separated from God, for the guilt was removed. Concurrent with justification was regeneration, or new birth, which was the subjective application, or new birth, which was the subjective application of justification. The image of God was recreated to give power over sin. The fourth stage was the witness of Spirit that one has indeed a child of God. He went to Romans 8 for the biblical basis and saw two aspects of this witness. There was a direct witness of the Spirit of God to one’s own spirit that he was a child of God. There was also an indirect witness of the conscience that bore witness that one was manifesting the marks of a Christian, especially the fruits of the Spirit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> These four stages represented the process of conversion, or initial sanctification. The next stages represent the process toward entire sanctification. The fifth stage was progressive sanctification, which began at conversion. One had power over sin, grew in grace, and may have thought experienced full purification. However, the believer would soon become aware of an inward struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Thus, one became aware of the depths of one’s own sinfulness. This was the beginning of the sixth stage, the second repentance. The believer would become steadily aware of the conflict and do acts of piety to help one remove it. During this period there was growth in holiness, by which Wesley meant love toward God and humanity. This process was brought to a climax in the seventh stage, which was entire sanctification. In this experience the person was cleansed from self-will, the tendency to sin, or original sin. The person was thereby made free from the conflict within and enabled to jlove God and neighbor purely and entirely. One was conformed to the iamge of God, and would take on the mind that was in Christ. The eighth stage was the witness of the Spirit that God had indeed performed this work of grace\, along the same pattern as the witness to conversion. The ninth stage was progressive sanctification, in which a person grew in ever increasing intensity. The problem of infirmity, as part of the general condition of humanity after the Fall, caused the person in this stage to make bad judgments, or have wrong emotions, and so on. But the source from which all one’s actions arose was a pure love for God and humanity. Thus, growth and victory over infirmities wre infinitely more realizable. The tenth and final stage was glorification, in which the infirmities were removed, but where there was yet unending growth through eternity.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Wesley’s biblical basis was found in three types of scriptures. One group promised that God would deliver the individual from all sin, such as Psalms 130:8, which speaks of Israel being redeemed from all sin; Ezekiel 36:25,29, which speaks of God cleansing the people form their filthiness, idols, and uncleanness; Deuteronomy 30:6, whre God circumcises the heart to love God with all the heart and soul; and II Corinthians, where Paul encourages the people to cleanse themselves from all filthiness. The New Testament claims these promises found their fulfillment under the new covenant. This was the meaning of I John 3:8, which claims Christ appeared to destroy the works of the devil; Ephesians 5:25-27, where Paul says Christ gave himself for the church in order to make it a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or blemish; and Romans 8:3-4, where Paul says the law was fulfilled by those who walk in the Spirit. <a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The second class of scriptures was found in prayers for entire sanctification, which would be a mockery if it were not possible. For example, in Matthew 6:13 the Lord’s Prayer contains a petition to deliver the person from evil; John 17:20-23, Jesus prays that his disciples would be perfect in one; Ephesians 3:14, where Paul prays they would be filled with the fullness of God, and I Thessalonians 5:23, where Paul prays the God of peace would sanctify them entirely. The third class of scriptures was the various commands for perfection, especially in Matthew 5:48, where Jesus tells the people to be perfect, even as their Father in heaven is perfect; and Matthew 22:37, where Jesus tells them to love God with all their heart, all their soul, and all their mind.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Finally, Wesley often distinguished his concept of perfection from absolute perfection and from Adamic perfection. The first applied only to God. The second applied only to Adam who had to obey the law perfectly. Thus, he could say the only perfection that was scriptural was by degrees, what allowed for growth.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> There were the aspects of Wesley that were especially pertinent for this study. Wesley was also strongly influenced by the liturgical aspects of Anglicanism. He was a scholar in his own right, having wide knowledge of the biblical languages, early church fathers, Catholic and English mystics, and the Reformation. His emphasis on perfection, or holiness, should be seen in this light. His fresh insight was that perfection of the will was possible in this life. This insight became the raw material out jof which Methodism in America was to find its reason for existence, as well as cause for great conflict. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Another English Methodist by the name of John Fletcher must also be noted. Fletcher, becoming part of the Methodist revival in 1756-7, soon became close friends with both John and Charles Wesley. In fact, he had been chosen by John to be his successor as head of the revival, but he unfortunately died at an early age. He came upon an understanding of Christian perfection that he suggested John Wesley should incorporate into his own understanding. The suggestion was to use terms referring to the Holy Spirit, such as baptism, fullness, and receiving, as part of the language of entire sanctification. Wesley rejected this terminology in two letters to Joseph Benson. On December 28, 1770, Wesley told Benson that to call entire sanctification a matter of receiving the Holy Ghost is neither scriptural nor proper, for all believers received the Spirit at their conversion. On marcy 9, 1771, Welsey’s letter to Benson showed a concern for the unity of the revival. This wuse of terminology may cause dissension. In addition, fletcher also tried to enlist Charles Wesley’s support. There as good reason to suspect he would be successful because of the Pentecostal nature of many of the hymns of Charles. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Fletcher’s proposal was that the language of the Spirit needed to be incorporated into the Wesleyan understanding of Christian perfection. He set this forth in section 19 of his last <i>Check to Antinomianism. </i>It is addressed to those who accepted Wesley’s concept of perfection and were earnestly desiring it, but had an imperfect grasp of what it meant. First, they must accept precept and promise in scripture as their foundation for seeking this perfection.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></sup></sup></a> He went on to quote extensively from both Old and New Testaments as to the content of perfection, much of them in the same vein as the already noted passages cited by Wesley. The promises of circumcision, cleansing, clean water, Spirit, and emphasis on a new heart, were all accomplished in the Christian dispensation.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></sup></sup></a> After referring to the Spirit as the promise of the Father, he said, “This promise, when it is received in its fullness … is pure love and unmixed holiness.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></sup></sup></a> The great manifestation of the Spirit at Pentecost was the fulfillment of the Lord’s Prayer in John 17:17-23 for the oneness of the church and for their perfection.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></sup></sup></a> His conclusion was that:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;">Upon the whole, it is I think undeniable, from the four first chapters of the Acts, that a particular power of the Spirit is bestowed upon believers, under the gospel of Christ; that this power, through faith on our part, can operate the most sudden and surprising change in our souls; and that, when our faith shall full embracy this promise of full sanctification, or of a complete circumcision of the heart in the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, who kindled so much love on the day of Pentecost, that all the primitive believers loved, or seemed to love, each other perfectly will not fail to help us to “love one another” without sinful self-seeking; and as soon as we do so, “God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;">Fletcher then asked how many baptisms were necessary to cleanse a soul from sin and bring perfection in love. His answer was that it would vary from person to person: “If one powerful baptism of the Spirit seals you unto the day of redemption and cleanses you from all moral filthiness, so much the better. If two or more are necessary, the Lord can repeat them.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[21]</span></sup></sup></a> The content of perfection was what must be applied to the heart, and that meant the pure love of God and humanity shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us, and to be filled with the meek and lowly mind that was in Christ.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[22]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Fletcher was suggesting a new way of expressing holiness by using the languae of the Spirit. Wesley did not develop this concept. In fact, he had reservations about his suggestions. The result was that the Methodist tradition had two dynamics from the very beginning. The effects of tis fact can be seen in the two articles by Lee and Adams at the beginning. Wesley and Fletcher both had strong influences on the theological development of early American Methodism. For obvious reasons, Wesley’s conceptuality prevailed, at the same time, if a movement were to arise that emphasized the Spirit, the Methodists would be thoroughly prepared for it, both in the respect Fletcher maintained and in the hymns of Charles Wesley. If the situation were right, they would welcome it with open arms.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In conclusion, the first phase of the holiness movement was largely dominated by the theological formulations of early English Methodism, especially Wesley and Fletcher. This fact was illustrated from the writings of Lee, Adams, and degen. The unique emphasis of Wesley was that perfection was attainable in this life., that the moment when perfection occurred was part of a process in the order of salvation, and that the content of perfection was love to God and humanity. Other theological emphases were subsidiary to this Wesleyan framework. Mysticism through Upham played an important role that was felt throughout the history of the revival. The revivalism of Finney was greatly respected in the course of the revival. The Scottish Realism of Upham and Mahan also had a large, though largely tacit, influence on the theological formulations of the holiness movement, these wlements were the basic ingredients that shaped the theological understanding of the beginnings of the holiness movement, as expressed in the <i>Guide.</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The Evangelical revival of 1858 had a dramatic effect on the holiness movement of the nineteenth century. This revival came out of prayer meetings in Hamilton, Ontario, rapidly spreading to New York City, and then to the North and West, and to the South as far as Tennessee. From America it spread to Europe, especially to England. This revival was characterized by extensive lay leadership, lack of machinery to spread the revival, and ecumenicity.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[23]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The influence of the revival on the holiness people may be seen in the great outpouring of experiences of the Spirit. Phoebe Palmer, one of the leaders of the revival, wrote a book called, <i>Promise of the Father,</i> in 1859. H. V. Degen, in commenting on the book, called the revival a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit and an expression of Pentecostal showers. Then he commented on the content of the book, which encouraged women preachers. “Surely we are living in the latter part of the last days, when God pours out his Spirit not only upon his sons, but his daughters also are permitted to share largely in the gift of prophecy.” If this were honored, “We doubt not but a Pentecostal flame would be kindled, which would result in the salvation of tens of thousands.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[24]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Jesse Peck claimed the church had been in darkness until 1857. Then lay people and ministers began praying for a great revival and an “outpouring of the Holy Spirit.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[25]</span></sup></sup></a> After tracts were printed, there was a great “manifestation of grace” in 1858. Thus, “The infidelity of the times gave way before the burning power of truth.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[26]</span></sup></sup></a> Sinners fell in the streets to pray for salvation. Sectarianism was destroyed. He saw it as a deep work of the Holy Spirit that had already spread throughout the world.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[27]</span></sup></sup></a> An editorial in May 1860 concurred with Peck, saying the revival had as its essential elements the influence of the Holy Spirit and the basic condition of the cooperation of God’s people.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[28]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Amos Norton Craft wrote an article in 1865 entitled ”Holiness a Millennial Theme.” He made the point that Wesley completed the Reformation. The latter emphasized justification by faith, whereas Wesley emphasized the witness of the Spirit and experimental religion. The reformation being complete in this sense, it must now be completed in the experience of the church. “Hence, I say that holiness is the doctrine that shall usher in the millennium.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[29]</span></sup></sup></a> The millennium would occur when the piety of the church allows it. Therefore, “God is ever ready to subdue sin, hence, the day of millennial glory shall dawn, when a sanctified church shall bring all their consecrated powers to bear upon the one great object of the world’s conversion.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> These passages indicate that the evangelical revival injected a spirit of optimism, a strong emphasis on experiences of the Spirit, a sense of break with the past because of the newness of the revival, a sense or continuity with Wesley, a strong ecumenical concern, and an emphasis on the coming of the last days. The character of the holiness aspect of the revival in the <i>Guide </i>will now be examined more fully.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> For revival to spread, people must sense the need for revival. That is, people must sense a lack in the times as well as in the church and in personal experience. This feeling provided the seed for revival in 1858 that “the times” were such as to indicate error was making great advances. Though the machinery of the church was vast, he asked if it could meet the urgent need of the present, which was the salvation of souls. “And now everything favors the triumph of the cross,” but only if every department of the church is committed to conversion.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[30]</span></sup></sup></a> “W. S. T.” added that many Christians recognized they were living below their privileges.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[31]</span></sup></sup></a> D. Nash, in an article in 1864 entitled, “The Great Want of the Church,” said the church was deficient of the Holy Spirit. What was necessary now was a “living baptism of hallowed fire.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[32]</span></sup></sup></a>”M.D.W., in 1868, said the church needed power to overthrow iniquity, dethrone infidels who undermine religion and weaken faith in the Bible, and counteract formality and worldliness.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[33]</span></sup></sup></a> Later in the same year, he said only the primitive power of the Holy Spirit could break the educated minister and make such a one filled with power.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[34]</span></sup></sup></a> In 1873, D. Nash wrote another article, “The Revival the Church Needs,” in which he admitted the membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church was converted, but that they lacked spiritual power. As evidence, he pointed to reduction of attendance at prayer meetings and class meetings, as well as sermons and prayers that did not change the lives of people.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[35]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The stress on the need for revival and power necessitated a criticism of the present reality. Thus, though writers varied in the types of criticism, as well as the strength of these criticisms, they would invariably imply some criticism of the present. For the phenomenon this essay is now focusing on, that meant a criticism of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Revivalists criticized the church at several points. As to church organization, they rejected formalism, an undue emphasis on education, a focus on the middle-class while rejecting the poor, extravagant church buildings and non-attendance at class meetings and prayer meetings. As far as the spread of the revival was concerned, they rejected the concept that promotion of holiness was either schismatic or sectarian, and that special meetings for holiness were not legitimate. As to theology, the revivalists rejected the biblical criticism of the day, as well as any departure from orthodoxy and especially emphasized the concept of perfection as preached by Wesley.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Most of the aspects of church organization that were criticized by holiness revivalists have already been noted. Formalism was one of the most consistent criticisms of the revivalists. In their attitude toward wealth, Phoebe Palmer shoed the central concern of the revivalists when she said that a church building should not be extravagant because the money could be better used for those who have no church.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[36]</span></sup></sup></a> In 1873, she quoted from a letter by John Wesley of August 6, 1768 to support her contention that Methodism was wrong in becoming too fashionable for the poor.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[37]</span></sup></sup></a> The holiness revivalists of this period were clearly having difficulty with the way the Methodist Episcopal Church was developing ecclesiastically. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The second area where there was conflict was in the way to spread the revival. The denomination was afraid there would be a schismatic tendency crated by new organizations to spread the revival. The revivalists were convinced that holiness organizations that were not tied to a denomination were signs that holiness promotion was becoming a part of all denominations. Jesse Peck emphasized that sectarianism was destroyed by the revival. The fluidity of terminology was another indication of such ecumenicity. Thus, “E.E.R.” suggested terms like, fullness of God, being complete in Christ, sanctification by faith, and higher Christian life, were all synonymous.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[38]</span></sup></sup></a> An editorial by H. V. Degen in 1860 claimed that A. A. Phelps and William Boardman were correct, though not complete. This editorial concluded by stressing the universal character of the holiness revival, cutting across both denominational and national lines.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[39]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The issue of the way to spread the revival was closely allied with the question of making holiness a specialty, by which was meant holding special meetings or creating special organizations for the spread of holiness. In 1860, H. V. Degen was calling for holiness to be a specialty to make the doctrine clear and give it its rightful place as the central concept of Christianity.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[40]</span></sup></sup></a> These sentiments were shared later by Phoebe Palmer when she said, “With too many sincere people it (holiness) has been regarded rather as a doctrine of a sect, than as the all-crowning doctrine of the Christian dispensation.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[41]</span></sup></sup></a> The intent of the holiness revivalists of this period was to make “holiness” the property of all denominations. They refused to be limited to any one church, even if it happened to be the denomination incipiently organized by John Wesley himself. In doing so, they believed they were fulfilling the vision of Wesley. Their purpose was that all denominational barriers would crumble with the proper understanding of this doctrine: “Holiness! Power from on high, empowering all the Lord’s redeemed family to live right, and bring a ransomed world back to the world’s Redeemer.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[42]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The revivalistic interpretation of Wesley continued along the same lines as that of the previous phase. It eventually became the center of theological conflict between Methodism and the holiness movement. The distinction between justification and sanctification was clearly maintained. G. H. Blakesles in 1860 said the two could not occur concurrently because that view was opposed to the scripture when it exhorted Christians to go on to perfection; it was also opposed to Methodist authorities since they were in line with scripture, and finally, it was contrary to the experience of believers.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[43]</span></sup></sup></a>Whedon, in an article in August 1860, made these comments on Wesley. First, entire sanctification did not remove a person from the human condition. Second, experience was used to define the work. Third, feelings were not enough, for one must have the witness of the Spirit. Fourth, regeneration and entire sanctification were distinguished. Finally, a person attained this blessing by having a deep conviction of depravity, followed by entire devotion to God, and with simple and direct faith, expecting it every moment. <a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn44" name="_ftnref44" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[44]</span></sup></sup></a> in the same line, William Wesley Totherch made a clear distinction between justification of God’s grace act of pardon, and sanctification as God’s grace which renewed the whole person in the image of God.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[45]</span></sup></sup></a> William I. Gill said Wesley used the term “Christian perfection” to mean giving up heart and life to God. Entire consecration and entire sanctification were seen as co-instantaneous, perfection not going beyond that of motive or intention. Growth would always be necessary.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[46]</span></sup></sup></a> John A. Wood described the steps necessary to attain entire sanctification in Wesleyan terms. First, there must be a clear understanding of what one was seeking, which was freedom from sin, purity, renewal of the soul in God’s image, so that the source of one’s life was pure. Second, one needed to have a firm resolution to seek this blessing until it was obtained. Third, it was necessary to feel the need for it by repentance, self-abasement, and an ardent desire for holiness. Fourth, one needed to make an entire consecration of oneself to Christ. Sanctification would immediately follow. Faith was the immediate condition of holiness. That is, faith that God had promised it, faith that what he promised he was able to perform, faith that God was willing to do it now, and faith that God had indeed performed the work.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[47]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The revivalist interpretation of Wesley was the context out of which two major controversies arose. One issue was how soon after justification one expected to be entirely sanctified. An article by H. H. Beegle was a good example of this conflict. He began by saying he was considering the question of why Christians expect justification in a few days, but sanctification in many years. Then he stated the proposition he hoped to defend: “believers ought to obtain the blessing of perfect love, in as short a space of time, as they expect penitents to obtain the blessing of pardon.”<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn48" name="_ftnref48" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[48]</span></sup></sup></a> He went on to give reasons why a person would not receive entire sanctification as soon as justification, which would have its source in unwillingness:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;">to bear the cross<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;">to seek earnestly<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;">to seek definitely<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;">to consecrate fully<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;">to trust Christ completely.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn49" name="_ftnref49" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[49]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;">Beegle’s view was that the only obstruction to holiness was a person’s will, which was the result of revivalistic methodology. The respected book by John A. Wood, <i>Perfect Love,</i> concurred with this position, and then used Wesley as support, primarily from his journal and his letters.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn50" name="_ftnref50" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[50]</span></sup></sup></a> Finally, William I. Gill suggested most people in the Methodist Episcopal Church believed perfection was the fruit of a lengthy process of ripening. His objection was that naturalism and gradualism ignored God. He then appealed to Wesley’s Journal for support in his contention that one should expect entire sanctification at once and suddenly.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn51" name="_ftnref51" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[51]</span></sup></sup></a> Thus, the “battle lines” were drawn. Revivalists urged converts to expect entire sanctification at the beginning of Christian experience. This was because holiness was now made the object of revivalistic promotion, just as conversion had been previously. Indeed, the similarity between the experiences of conversion and holiness were urged as justification for this approach. On the other hand, most people in the church appeared to believe that one should seek entire sanctification but not expect it to occur until after a lengthy process of ripening.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> A second major area of conflict was when, where, and how one should give testimony to the work of the entire sanctification. “W.S.T.” suggested there was some division even among friends of the doctrine. He took his side with those who said it should be confessed even before unbelievers. He also said there must be humility in testimony.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn52" name="_ftnref52" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[52]</span></sup></sup></a>Another person lamented that so few in the church who had experienced entire sanctification have testified to the experience, which may be the major reason there was less power in the church there should be.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn53" name="_ftnref53" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[53]</span></sup></sup></a> John Wood said Wesley did not oppose testimony to holiness.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn54" name="_ftnref54" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[54]</span></sup></sup></a> He also said one must testify tto retain the blessing, that one should use scriptural terms in doing so, and that one must be humble and stay away from pride. He admitted there was no record of Wesley’s own testimony, but offered these considerations: 1) Wesley said many things that were not handed down; 2) if he did not testify he was inconsistent because he urged others to testify; 3) his journal did not record personal experiences.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn55" name="_ftnref55" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[55]</span></sup></sup></a> William I. Gill disagreed, suggesting Wesley both explicitly and implicitly testified to his experience. However, the passages he uses were clearly twisted to arrive at this conclusion. He did agree that Wesley would be inconsistent if he urged others to testify but did not testify himself.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn56" name="_ftnref56" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[56]</span></sup></sup></a> Gill pointed to many of his journal entries that indicated Wesley’s joy over those who did testify.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn57" name="_ftnref57" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[57]</span></sup></sup></a> The revivalists conceived themselves to be true to Wesley on the issue of urging people to testify to the point of making it a necessity for the continued experience of entire sanctification. This testimony must be given in humility and with discretion as to the nature of the audience. On the other side were many members of the church who feared such emphasis on testimony might lead to spiritual pride and that it was contrary to Wesley’s own lack of testimony to entire sanctification.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The theological conflicts described above were important in considering the nature of the relationship between the revivalists and the organization of the relationship between the revivalists and the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. As to the content of entire sanctification, there appeared to be little controversy. Wesley’s distinctions and definitions were common to both. The tensions created by immediacy and testimony, however, plagued their relationship from the beginning, but especially after 1858. The tension might be expressed in the context of revivalism. Wesley’s revivalistic expression was oriented to the conversion experience, while his preaching on holiness was confined to the nurture of those in the Societies he formed. For the revivalists, however, holiness was taken from this context and made the object of revivalistic promotion. In this way, entire sanctification was expected toward the beginning of Christian experience. Wesley’s theological explanation of holiness was maintained, but the expectations for achieving it had heightened. In this context, it was natural to encourage testimony of what God had done in their lives. Revivalism had a strong emphasis on personal experience, and testimonies were part of this concern. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Before the theological influence of altar terminology can be examined, the sociological and cultural tensions must be mentioned. Some of these conflicts are seen in other contexts. However, they were also part of the cultural tension that existed between the revivalists and the church. One such conflict was over slavery. A southerner wrote to the <i>Guide </i>in 1861, saying that after she was entirely sanctified, she was led to free her slaves.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn58" name="_ftnref58" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[58]</span></sup></sup></a> Phoebe Palmer wrote a letter to the <i>Guide </i>in June 1863 from England, in which she said that the great sin of America has been her complicity with slavery. The great sin of England is intemperance.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn59" name="_ftnref59" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[59]</span></sup></sup></a> The revivalists firmly rejected costly clothing, in line with Wesley’s instruction in the matter.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn60" name="_ftnref60" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[60]</span></sup></sup></a> They criticized the church for leaving poor sections of cities, thereby becoming too fashionable for the poor.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn61" name="_ftnref61" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[61]</span></sup></sup></a> H. W. Beecher declared there was no purpose or earnestness in singing when he visited a fashionable church.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn62" name="_ftnref62" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[62]</span></sup></sup></a> The result of all this was that the sociological difference increased the tensions between the church and the revivalists. Ministers were becoming better educated, better paid, more widely read, while churches were becoming more formal, losing some of ther earnestness, and there was general acceptance of slavery. The gap was therefore widened by revivalistic concern for the wealth, education, and formalism that they felt were strangling the spirit out of Methodism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"><b>Altar Terminology and Phoebe Palmer<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> There can be little question that the more traditional Wesleyan definition of holiness was able to exist with altar terminology, often in the same person. Thus, the impression should not be given that altar terminology could be divorced from Wesley entirely. Yet, there was a difference that was recognized even by leaders in the movement. Altar terminology, then, did not go uncriticized. A. A. Phelps thought there was a tendency to stand still by an effort to induce seekers of holiness to believe themselves saved without the inward consciousness of it written by the finger of God on the heart – to believe they are cleansed, ‘on the strength of the naked promise of God,’ without respect to the living attestation of the Spirit of the fact, that we are constrained to give this point, the direct witness of the Spirit, unusual prominence. He urged that one never be persuaded that one is entirely sanctified till God, the Holy Spirit, announces the blessed fact, in terms so clear that one cannot mistake their origin.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn63" name="_ftnref63" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[63]</span></sup></sup></a> Phelps clearly feared what Wesley called enthusiasm, the danger of claiming a spiritual experience that one did not have. He felt this was a problem with Palmer’s formulation of holiness. Whether or not this fear was justified is a matter for debate. The wide-spread use of this terminology, however, cannot be denied.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> J. E. Joyner gave a brief rendition of altar terminology and combined it with mystical expressions. Sanctification was defined as consecration on the person’s part, and acceptance on God’s part. Consecration was resigning one’s own will to God, which included everything a person possessed. The person placed everything on the altar, and then pledged oneself to perfectly perform his/her part of the covenant. Then the person looked to God for strength to perform it. God would then accept the sacrifice of self and save the person from indwelling sin. The soul was filled with love, and the Spirit given as a testimony that the offering was accepted. The union between the soul and God was now complete. The graces of the divine Spirit have now reached a state of maturity, which the soul is conscious of nothing contrary to perfect humility and perfect love. The result of the mysterious unity of our nature with God was that growth could occur unimpeded by pride, self-will, and anger. <a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn64" name="_ftnref64" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[64]</span></sup></sup></a> Joyner had combined elements of Wesley, altar terminology, and the mysticism of Thomas Upham. He did not see these as being incompatible. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Phoebe Palmer described her views well in an article on December 1869. She defined holiness as a state of the soul in which all the powers of the body and mind are consciously given up to God. It was also a work in which we must most emphatically be workers together with God. Though holiness was received by faith, and not by the law, yet it is impossible to exercise that faith that brings the blessing, until we are willing ot bring the sacrifice of the body, soul, and spirit and leave it there.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn65" name="_ftnref65" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[65]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The biblical base for this position was found, first, in passages that commanded holiness, an understanding that she shares with most revivalists. Another biblical base was discovered in the combination of Matthew 23:19 with Exodus 29: 37-8, which say that whatever touches the altar is holy. For Palmer, Christ was the altar. The individual’s responsibility was to place everything on that altar, and by virtue of the altar upon which the offer was laid, becoming holy and acceptable.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn66" name="_ftnref66" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[66]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Stress must be placed on the phrase “by virtue of the altar,” for her constant emphasis was to have naked faith in a naked promise. By this, she meant that one could rest in the knowledge that God accepted this offering. Feelings were not to be expected when one was sanctified. She encouraged people to remember that the just shall live by faith, not ecstasies. They were to resolve that they will not make feelings, as they may vary by the way God sees most for your good to try your faith, as a standard for your faith. True faith will produce feeling, but it may at first be little other than solid satisfaction arising from an implicit reliance on God.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn67" name="_ftnref67" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[67]</span></sup></sup></a> Thus, the witness of the Spirit was knowledge that the individual had offered up all one has to God, and that God had promised to accept the offering, based on Romans 12:1-2. She was also clearly fighting the idea that one’s experience of holiness was dependent upon one’s emotion. Rather, one must cling to the promises of God, even if emotion appeared to contradict the promise. The distinction Wesley made between the direct and indirect witness was dissolved. In addition, holiness was seen as two elements that were logically distinguishable, but not temporally distinguishable. The first step was offering of one’s self ot God, the second was God accepting the offering. This distinction was common in the holiness revival. Its purpose was to facilitate revival preaching by making holiness attainable in simple, clearly defined steps.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> A place where Phoebe Palmer has received criticism is tht her altar terminology did not allow for spiritual growth after entire sanctification. Though as a revivalist she emphasized a crisis experience, she did not exclude the importance of growth. Thus, she said holiness was a condition of the person who had ceaselessly presented the self as a living sacrifice, the soul thereby being steadily bent to know nothing among people, save Christ and him crucified. The summit of Christian experience will never be reached and growth in love, knowledge, light, and power must never end were recurring emphases. She also used the term “symmetrical holiness” to refer to the harmony and unity of individual character, which is achieved in the perfect consistency and agreement between the various elements of the character possessing it.<sup> <a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn68" name="_ftnref68" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[68]</span></sup></a></sup> Finally, she perceived that holiness was a continual act of self-denial, of bearing the cross, the cross being the only way for growth and discipleship.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn69" name="_ftnref69" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[69]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> One of the phenomena of this period described previously was the spread of the experience of the Spirit after the 1858 revival. Phoebe Palmer welcomed this new emphasis. Though she continued to use her own altar terminology to explain what holiness was and how to attain it, she began to use the language of the Spirit to express what was going on in the revival. As early as 1859, she wrote a book, <i>Promise of the Father: A Neglected Specialty of the Last Days.</i> In it, she defended the right of women to preach based on Acts 2, in which the Holy Spirit was poured out on both men and women. In describing a camp meeting, she referred to urging others to receive the full baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that it is the baptism of the holy Ghost that is the great want of the church. In one of her explanations as to how to attain sanctification, the last step was that the faith exercised in entire sanctification would bring power, even if the emotion was not present. In reporting another camp meeting in 1868, she used power, baptism, fire, and the Holy Spirit to explain what was happening. She called holiness the all-crowning doctrine of the Christian dispensation. At other times, she applied the experiences of the Spirit to holiness. She referred to her own experience as the momorable baptism of the Spirit, in July 26, 1837. She also regarded the condition for the baptism of fire as being full surrender to Christ. Phoebe Palmer saw no contradiction between her altar terminology, which appeared as early as the 1840s, and the new language of the evangelical revival. She adopted the language of the Spirit freely, and incorporated it into her description of religious experience, while her theologizing about holiness remained tied to her altar terminology.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn70" name="_ftnref70" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[70]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Palmer never clearly stated the social implications of holiness in direct terms. However, she did drop hints of her perspective in bits and pieces. On the issue of women’s rights, she denied that they had the right to preach until after the 1858 revival, when she wrote <i>Promise of the Father.</i> She declared herself in opposition to novels and amusements, such as the theater, even if they were by Christians.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn71" name="_ftnref71" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[71]</span></sup></sup></a> She was opposed to extravagant church buildings because there were too many places where people could not afford churches.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn72" name="_ftnref72" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[72]</span></sup></sup></a> She believed one must testify to the experience of entire sanctification.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn73" name="_ftnref73" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[73]</span></sup></sup></a> She also aligned herself against slavery, declaring that the great sin of America has been its complicity with slavery.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn74" name="_ftnref74" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[74]</span></sup></sup></a> The Five Points Mission for the poor in New York City was probably the greatest single expression of her social concern. These expressions of social concern were very significant for Palmer but were not related to her altar terminology.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The implication of holiness is one’s life was worked out more along personal than social lines. This can be illustrated by the shift in the covers of the <i>Guide </i>from the editorship of Mr. and Mrs. French to Phoebe Palmer. The French’s had four circles on the cover. The upper left circle was split in two. One side showed a teacher instructing children, the other side had a person visiting the sick. Deuteronomy 6:7, which commands the Hebrews to teach their children God’s law, was used for support. The circle in the upper right showed a group of people of devout women was also significant. These were not her exclusive concerns, for evangelism was very important as well. However, the covers of the French’s and Palmer represented a shift of emphasis from a true concern for society as well as personal holiness, to a more privatized faith. This did not mean Palmer had no concern for social issues, for she opposes slavery, supported women’s rights, and was active in the temperance movement. She was also concerned about how the church utilized its resources in reference to extravagance. However, these concerns were not directly tied to the doctrine of oliness in the way prayer, Bible study, and church attendance were.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Phoebe Palmer’s influence was widespread during this period. The focus here has been on her formulation of holiness, which spread throughout the revival through her Tuesday Meeting and camp meeting engagements. Charles Jones indicated how wide her influence was when he said that while the holiness movement always regarded John Wesley asits great authority, the movement owed many of its distinctive ideas and practices to Phoebe Palmer. The confidante of powerful people in the church, she permanently modified American Methodist teaching through them. Taken over by Methodist camp meeting promoters, Mrs. Palmer’s ideas were to pervade all future Methodist debate concerning holiness. Attractive to Methodist church leaders at mid-century, her perfectionism was to create division by the end of the century.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn75" name="_ftnref75" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[75]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> In conclusion, the period of 1858-78 was marked by several distinctive features. The revival of 1858 brought great optimism about the progress of the work of God. Along with this came a strong emphasis on experience of the Spirit. The revivalists were prepared to accept this terminology because their heritage included such emphases, especially through Fletcher and Charles Wesley. At the same time, Phoebe Palmer had already introduced her altar terminology. This explanation of holiness was oriented to the revivalists mileau of camp meetings for the promotion of holiness. She later accepted the experiences of the Spirit as a major way to explain what was happening in the revival. However, when she explained the content of holiness, she remained committed to her altar terminology. Other writers of the period would explain holiness in more traditional Wesleyan categories. These various explanations of holiness were seen as being consistent with each other, and both were seen to be consistent with the new emphasis on experiences of the Spirit. The fact that there was this shift to an emphasis on the Spirit has been clearly shown. The importance of it can be seen by a reference from Bishop Janes. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">I understand such persons when in describing this experience, they refer only to Christ, to speak to Him as our ‘great High Priest” by whose atonement and intercession we receive the Holy Spirit who transforms us, ‘By the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.’ Still, the usefulness of their testimonies will be greatly enhanced, but the distinctness with which they state this operation of the Holy Spirit in their sanctification.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn76" name="_ftnref76" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[76]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The revivalists became deeply concerned over the state of the church. It was too formal, too educated, too wealthy, and lacking spiritual life. The optimism about the revival, combined with this negative attitude toward the spiritual life of the church, led to a strong emphasis on reviving the church, but which was meant calling the church back to a time when it was more spiritual and pushing it forward to new heights of spiritual commitment. To the revivalists, the church was more concerned about numbers, money, and education, than it was about people. Revivalists were also concerned about possible theological shifts from Wesley, which was an additional sign that the church was in decline. They saw themselves as the defender of the Wesleyan understanding of perfection. The result was growing conflict with the church. These characteristics of the revival became intensified by the emphasis on a theology of the spirit and the expectation for Pentecost.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;">THE THIRD PHASE: THE DEVELOPING THEOLOGY OF THE SPIRIT 1878-1908<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Asa Mahan wrote a book in 1870 called <i>The Baptism of the Holy Ghost.</i> This book gained a broad hearing among holiness revivalists. It prepared the way for developing a theology of the Holy Spirit, in that the language of the Spirit was now being incorporated into the doctrinal expression of holiness. Henry Belden appeared to be a forerunner of this development within the <i>Guide </i>when he wrote an article in July 1874, called “Frequent Baptisms of the Holy Ghost.” He defined baptism of the Spirit as an refreshing along the stages of the Christian life. Thus, the baptism was temporary, and was given only to those seeking it. He then shared a rather unique concern. Those who had experienced purity, he cautioned, would be dead without further baptisms. Clearly, eh was referring to the emotion of joy and happiness, a sense of aliveness. Later, he also said the purpose of this baptism was to become more like Christ and bear fruit, not simply personal happiness.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn77" name="_ftnref77" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[77]</span></sup></sup></a> The indication that a major change eventually took place may be seen when the article by Belden was reprinted in the <i>Christian Witness </i>on September 26, 1895. The editors commented that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is once for all and is never repeated. He suggested the use of another word than baptism, such as renewals or refreshings.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn78" name="_ftnref78" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[78]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The revivalists soon began to call for a theology of the Spirit. The most significant contribution to this endeavor in the <i>Guide </i>was by George Hughes. He began a series of articles in January 1878 called, “The Glorious Dispensation of the Spirit.” He opened by declaring that this glorious dispensation of the Spirit is fully opened. The full-orbed revelation of divine truth and mercy throws its radiant light upon humanity. He stated his purpose in the series was the exploration of the nature of the Holy Spirit, his relations, and his mode of administration. He declared this subject had not been discussed enough by the Christian world. The result had been that the compass of our spiritual vision is entirely too limited, our grasp of faith weak, and our religious activities entirely too circumscribed.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn79" name="_ftnref79" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[79]</span></sup></sup></a> Hughes continued to be optimistic about the progress of the revival yet, he declared the subject of the nature of the Holy Spirit had not been discussed enough. This assertion would not be true if he meant it as a revivalist expression but would be true if he meant it theologically. Thus, Hughes himself implies the division between experiences of the Spirit and a theology of the Spirit. He also implied that an understanding of the nature of the Spirit would bring stronger faith and more freedom to develop new ministries for the present age. The spread of the revival would be enhanced by this new emphasis.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The final article in the series by Hughes was also significant. Hughes began by making some general comments about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. First, he declared this baptism to be the crowning office of the Spirit. He defined the baptism as the conscious filling of the soul, or rather, the entire being, with the presence and power of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit revealed to the person’s consciousness that he or she was filled with the Spirit. There may be great emotion, and there may be stillness. In either case, the person would ask for no more emotion, for the person has received the one who blesses. Net, he showed how the Spirit gave three distinct revelations to the individual. One was conviction of sin, two was regeneration and justification, and three was the baptism of fire and power. The latter revelation usually occurred after conversion and was identical with other expressions that the revival had used, such as entire sanctification, entire holiness, the higher life, and the baptism with the Holy Ghost. He used the biblical imagery of John the Baptist, waiting at Jerusalem, and Pentecost, as a type for these three stages. He concluded the article by showing five ways in which this baptism was proven to the consciousness of the individua: fellowship with the trinity, new light on the Bible, removal of inhibitions to witness, attractiveness of life, and immense joy. On the last way, he said that without such joy the danger was intellectualism.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn80" name="_ftnref80" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[80]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Some general considerations of what Hughes was suggesting the above articles would be appropriate. He remained true top Wesley in his emphasis on the necessity of a direct and indirect witness of the Spirit. He also showed some ambivalence about Palmer’s concerns along these lines. He conceded that this baptism must not necessarily be accompanied by emotion, but at the same time emotion would be manifest to avoid intellectualism. In addition, he showed himself to be ecumenical in the sense that he perceived himself as adding to already established terminology. There was the suggestion that Pentecost was the basic pattern for the entirely sanctified. This led him to think of the newly converted person as waiting for Pentecost, which was to be expected soon, with a consequent tendency to play down the conversion experience. Finally, the emphasis on the effects of this baptism was clearly inward, toward personal ethics and oriented to devotional life and evangelism. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">This emphasis on the role of the Spirit continued to be developed throughout the century. In an editorial in 1880 Hughes made the claim that we have long believed and taught that all disciples of our Lord, under the present dispensation of power, may and must receive the baptism of fire. That it is an endowment of power available to all by an act of faith, and a gift of believing power that must be obtained by all who would be true to the duties of their heavenly calling.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn81" name="_ftnref81" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[81]</span></sup></sup></a> This claim could be substantiated only by identifying the baptism with entire sanctification, for, as has already been shown, this language was rare in the <i>Guide </i>before 1858, and was not incorporated into theology until later.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In January 1882, F. G. Hibbard submitted a sermon an spiritual gifts in which he declared that the non-miraculous gifts were natural abilities that become consecrated to God, and must be placed above the miraculous gifts.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn82" name="_ftnref82" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[82]</span></sup></sup></a> This article was interesting because he was apparently concerned that some people in the revival were emphasizing miraculous gift too much. In addition, the sermon showed continued interest in developing an understanding of the w3ork of the Spirit. This concern for an over-emphasis on the miraculous may have been legitimate. Mrs. Mahan authored an article in the <i>Guide </i>entitled, “Holiness and Healing.” She urged a connection between holiness, or baptism with the Holy Spirit, and faith healing. The truer the holiness anyone possesses, just so much more will there be manifested the healing power of the Holy Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn83" name="_ftnref83" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[83]</span></sup></sup></a> She then noticed that the revivals in Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway had healing as a prominent characteristic. She concluded by saying that we hail the new baptism of the Holy Spirit, and enduement of power for service and faith-healing, as well as salvation from all sin, as Pentecost come again.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn84" name="_ftnref84" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[84]</span></sup></sup></a> Though this emphasis on healing was far from common in the <i>Guide, </i>it does show that some people in the revival were going in this direction.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">W. H. Poole continued the effort to understand the work of the Spirit in an article entitled, “the Gift of the Holy Ghost.” He explained the order of salvation as being pardon, purity, and power. The converted were reconciled to God, but were still distant. The Spirit brought God to dwell in them.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn85" name="_ftnref85" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[85]</span></sup></sup></a> James Harris suggested that the dispensation of Christ could not have been completed without Pentecost.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn86" name="_ftnref86" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[86]</span></sup></sup></a> Clearly, this was the result of theologizing about the three dispensations of Father (law), Son (Gospels), and Spirit (acts to present).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Finally, in an editorial in 1886 entitled, “honor the holy Ghost,” Hughes declared that the Spirit does not receive the honor to which the Spirit is justly entitled. We should think more about the Holy Spirit familiarizing ourselves with the names, character, and offices of the Spirit. We should enjoy close and blessed fellowship with the Spirit. We should pray and testify in the Holy Spirit. We should undertake nothing without the aid of the Spirit. In trouble and sorrow, we should seek the counsel and support from the Spirit. The Spirit is the Comforter. If the church understood as it should that this is the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, it would be mighty.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn87" name="_ftnref87" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[87]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Other evidence for the increased theologizing on the Spirit was the appearance of many books reviewed in the <i>Guide </i>about the Spirit. Besides the one by Mahan, there was Octavius Winslow, <i>The Inquirer Directed to the Work of the Spirit</i>; W. B. Poole, <i>Ripe Grapes, or the Fruit of the Spirit</i>; Dougan Clark, <i>The Offices of the Holy Spirit,</i> and <i>The Holy Ghost Dispensation</i>; L. B. Dunn, <i>The Holy Spirit in His relations to the Work of Entire Sanctification.</i><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The significance of the emphasis on theologizing about the Spirit was not lost on the participants themselves. The above passages have showed how the holiness revivalists recognized a break with the past. The emphasis they placed on the lack of thinking that had been done on the Spirit, as well as their desire to fill this lack, was evidence enough for this. In 1900 an editorial called the present emphasis on the Spirit a peculiarity of the times.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn88" name="_ftnref88" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[88]</span></sup></sup></a> The emphasis on the Spirit was seen as the distinguishing mark of the revival. Of course, the holiness revivalists did not reject their Methodist heritage. Rather, they were conscious that they were involved in doing something new that they believed was consistent with their tradition. In the process, modification of that tradition was inevitable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">At this point note of a further shift among the revivalists must be taken. As the end of the century grew near, there was an increasing expectation of a worldwide Pentecost, which meant a general worldwide revival. In 1888 Gideon Draper wrote an article entitled “Pentecost and Evangelization,” in which he claimed the church had the resources to accomplish a general revival, penetrating Islam and other religions, in the Holy Spirit. This would be the needed “general Pentecost.” The believer has the right to look for the miraculous and is guilty if he or she does not.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn89" name="_ftnref89" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[89]</span></sup></sup></a> An editorial by Hughes showed how strong this desire had become. The article was entitled, “Pentecost Expected,” and commended camp meetings. The summer of 1889 should bring a full-orbed Pentecost to a multitude of Christian hearts. Then he made the bold assertion that the Jerusalem Pentecost is undoubtedly intended to be duplicated.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn90" name="_ftnref90" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[90]</span></sup></sup></a> Another editorial claimed that Pentecost is the central and all comprehending thought of the New Testament dispensation.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn91" name="_ftnref91" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[91]</span></sup></sup></a> An editorial entitled, “The Great Century Pentecost,” said that we have been pleading in successive numbers of the <i>Guide,</i> for such a manifestation of the power of God as to the worthy of the period, worthy of this high dispensation, to commemorate the outgoing of this illustrious and unparalleled nineteenth century.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn92" name="_ftnref92" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[92]</span></sup></sup></a> In a supplement to the 1900 edition of the <i>Guide,</i>Hughes declared he would maintain the Pentecostal emphasis and continue examining the offices of the Spirit. He concluded by saying that we cannot afford, in the new century year, to have any but burning pages.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn93" name="_ftnref93" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[93]</span></sup></sup></a> This expectation for a worldwide, Pentecostal revival was so strong that in July 1901 I. E. Page wrote of a revival begun in Great Britain, asking if this was the beginning of the great revival that they had longed for.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn94" name="_ftnref94" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[94]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Further evidence for this shift may be seen in the books that gained popularity in the <i>Guide</i>.<i> </i>S. A. Keen, <i>Pentecostal Papers: Pentecostal Wine from Bible Grapes; </i>Seth Cook Reese, <i>The Ideal Pentecostal Church,</i> and <i>Fire from Heaven; </i>T. Waugh, <i>The Power of Pentecost; Electric Shocks From Pentecostal Batteries;</i> Martin Wells Knapp, <i>Flashes From Lightening Bolts;</i> Charles J. Fowler, <i>Back to Pentecost.</i> On top of it all, <i>The Guide to Holiness and Revival Miscellany </i>changed its title to <i>The Guide to Holiness and Revival Miscellany </i>Changed its title to <i>The Guide to Holiness and Pentecostal Life.</i> Some of the divisions of the paper were called, “The Pentecostal Pulpit,” “Pentecostal Bible Hour,” “Pentecostal Blessing,” “Pentecostal Church,” and “The Fire.” By 1900 the <i>Guide </i>determined to change the format of the magazine every three months to encourage freshness. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The consciousness of the revivalists that their emphasis on a theology of the Spirit was new, combined with their firm expectation of a Pentecostal revival, was in line with the general optimism generated by the revival during the second phase. This optimism became intensified during the third phase. In 1889 Hughes wrote two editorials. One, “A Bright Transition,” declared that everything awaited the consummation, such as the stoning blood of Jesus, the Bible, and the almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, the sovereign of the dispensation that now is.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn95" name="_ftnref95" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[95]</span></sup></sup></a> The second editorial was, “Reigning with Christ,” in which he referred to the future reign of Christ and that Christians would reign with him. Now the prelude to that glorious heavenly dominion, is a spiritual reign with Christ on earth. Christ reigned within, but he not only reigns triumphant within, but he makes us reign triumphantly without. In Christ, and through him, we are more than conquerors. We tread down the world beneath our feet.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn96" name="_ftnref96" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[96]</span></sup></sup></a> The fact that thi optimism already was widespread was shown by the ninth resolution adopted at a holiness convention in August 1882. Since this was the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, which gave power to the latter-day glory for success, revivalists should be encouraged in their work.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn97" name="_ftnref97" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[97]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">This optimism about the possibilities of the growth of the revival was combined with a pessimism about the state of the world. A good example was an editorial by Hughes in 1878 in which he related his reflections on a pre-millennial conference. He called those in attendance brothers, thereby recognizing a basic unity with them. He then referred to a talk by Dr. Goodwin of Chicago, who called the second coming, that which is sweetest in the gospel. The comment by Hughes was that he thought the center of the gospel wa pardon and salvation, and we cannot regard without concern an effort to make a chronological mystery sweeter than redeeming love. He did not like the tendency to either overlook or fail to apprehend the glories of the present dispensation. He concluded by admitting the end waw near, and that the church needed a spirit of wwork for the souls of people. Happily, we are authorized to believe that this work prepares for the second coming of Christ.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn98" name="_ftnref98" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[98]</span></sup></sup></a> Though Hughes rejected pre-millennialism because he waw it as inconsistent with his own postmillennial tendencies, many people in the revival were becoming influenced by a pessimistic attitude toward the world around them. As will be seen, Hughes and the holiness revivalists shared the pre-millennial concern for the degeneration going on around them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The criticism of the present condition of the world was unmistakable evidence of encroaching pessimism. William Reddy wrote an article in August 1889 called, “The Old Paths.” The gospel was the old path, while he rejected progressive theology, science, and philosophy. He suggested it was all progressive degeneracy, and concluded that the tendency to deterioration, and a decline from the higher to the lower plans, especially in morals and religion. The history of all ages shows an alternation of rise and fall of revival and declines, of advances and retrogression, of success and defeat.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn99" name="_ftnref99" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[99]</span></sup></sup></a> The author saw that the world was in great trouble, which only Pentecost could resolve. Hughes re-enforced this view in an editorial of the same year, called, “The Trumpet Call.” He gave support to the revival efforts of Moody and agreed with Moody that there was a crisis period for the country now, and that the very existence of the United States was threatened unless there were a general revival.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn100" name="_ftnref100" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[100]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">A second area of pessimism in the view of the holiness revivalists was the tendency of some adherents to become involved in fanaticism and error. This tendency was recognized early, even in the first phase. This concern now became intensified. A holiness convention of August 1882 listed four errors into which those involved in the revival were most likely to fall. First was holding to the theory of perfect love but neglecting its practice. Second was an unwillingness to endure opposition. Third was exalting non-essentials over essential truths. Fourth was wrongly interpreting being led by the Spirit to mean beyond the Bible.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn101" name="_ftnref101" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[101]</span></sup></sup></a> Some people involved in the revival had clearly fallen into extremism. An editorial of 1886 by Hughes emphasized the last error given above, saying these people hurt their cause. Then the writer made the interesting comment that there is but one step from the highest experience in divine grace and the rankest fanaticism.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn102" name="_ftnref102" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[102]</span></sup></sup></a> Hughes recognized those whom he considered fanatics were close enough to his own position to cause it harm. J. R. Jacques wrote that young ministers must beware of extravagant perfectionism. The errors he mentioned were that the holy were infallible, making no mistakes or errors; that one was governed by impressions, not reason or the Bible; that one should expect perpetual joy, and that one should divine the church.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn103" name="_ftnref103" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[103]</span></sup></sup></a> The revivalists recognized that some people who were part of their revival had been led astray by certain kinds of errors. The revival, when viewed historically, was not monolithic. The holiness revivalists were part of a diversified historical movement.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Another major error the revivalists were concerned about was the relationship between entire sanctification and the baptism of the Spirit. Dougan Clark, in October 1889 recorded that some people testified to being sanctified first and baptized later. Others claimed both occurred at the same time. Clark believed the two works were in such a relation to each other that whoever had one also had the other. He then suggested that those who testified to the contrary were dead to sin, but not yet alive to God.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn104" name="_ftnref104" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[104]</span></sup></sup></a> An editorial in February 1898 took an even stronger stand. It was impossible to be sanctified without also having the fire. Thus, entire sanctification, heart purity, perfect love, holiness, and Christian perfection, exist resplendently in a soul filled with the Holy Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn105" name="_ftnref105" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[105]</span></sup></sup></a> As a result, some people involved in the revival were testifying to three works of grace, the third work being a baptism of the Spirit that gave power. The strong tiies of the holiness revivalists to their Methodist tradition did not allow them to go in that direction. Rather, they brought the content of the baptism experience within the total experience of entire sanctification.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">A third concern of the holiness revivalists was the condition of the Methodist Episcopal Church. An editorial in 1885 claimed tht the church was decling spiritually. The most obvious sign was the pulpit, where ministers were being educated by schools that were not permeated with the Spirit. A second piece of evidence was that the laity demanded artistic worship and architecture, ritualism, music, floral decorations, and craved wordly amusements like fairs, festivals, and dramas.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn106" name="_ftnref106" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[106]</span></sup></sup></a> Daniel Steele wrote two interesting articles lin 1885 on the educational issue, which were titled, “The Holy Spirit the Conservator of Orthodoxy.” His claim was that detailed doctrinal statements could not preserve orthodoxy. What was needed was piety, the universal baptism of the Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn107" name="_ftnref107" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[107]</span></sup></sup></a> An editorial in 1889 commented on why the church had not been making more progress. The desire of the people was to give us a pulpit on fire, not with eloquence or logic, or science, but, red-hot with the Holy Spirit first.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn108" name="_ftnref108" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[108]</span></sup></sup></a> The focus of the criticism was that lack of power in the pulpit was brought about by education. Hughes went on to say in the same issue to suggest there were unfriendly signs, such as formalism and worldliness.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn109" name="_ftnref109" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[109]</span></sup></sup></a> Several bishops shared these concerns. Bishop Fostor said there were some ministers who did not believe the teachings of the church.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn110" name="_ftnref110" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[110]</span></sup></sup></a>in 1900 a bishop claimed that many Methodists did not have a present experience with Christ.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn111" name="_ftnref111" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[111]</span></sup></sup></a> Hughes wrote an editorial 1888 that shared some of these concerns. He was distressed, saying that there was much that was discouraging in the churches. He longed for the church to measure up to the standard of Christ, the spiritual leaven of holiness is working in all evangelical denominations, and the time is not for distant, we hope, when the moral aspects of Zion will be wondrously changed.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn112" name="_ftnref112" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[112]</span></sup></sup></a> Hughes combined a pessimism about the present situation in the church with an optimism about the hope for a revival that would sweep away many difficulties.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In conclusion, the revivalists had three concerns that led them to be pessimistic. They saw degeneration of the world order, a fracturing of the revival, and a deterioration in the spirituality of the church as cause for alarm. These negative factors were combined with the positive pull of the twentieth century and the optimism about the progress of the revival. The tendency was to see the great revival as coming just before the return of Christ, thereby preparing the world for his coming. This Pentecostal revival would remove the negative factors described above. All hope was seen to reside within the context of a revival of holiness throughout all denominations and the world, while everything outside the revival was seen as being in degeneration.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The desire of the holiness revivalists was that their message wouild reach other denominations. Holiness was to be the basis for unity between churches. Hughes declared in an editorial that the doctrine of holiness was no longer confined to Methodism.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn113" name="_ftnref113" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[113]</span></sup></sup></a> The report of the Holiness convention in 1882 declared that entire sanctification was the property of the whole church.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn114" name="_ftnref114" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[114]</span></sup></sup></a> Another assembly meeting in 1885 stated that the ecumenical character of the revival was the basis for associations that were separate from the church.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn115" name="_ftnref115" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[115]</span></sup></sup></a>this concern to be ecumenical may also be suggested in the terminology. Thus, M. Annesley said in 1878 he preferred terms like sanctification, purity of heart, perfect love, and oneness with Christ, but discouraged the use of the term second blessing.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn116" name="_ftnref116" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[116]</span></sup></sup></a> G. Burrows, a Presbyterian, declared he did nto like the trem perfection, but preferred the term filled with the Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn117" name="_ftnref117" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[117]</span></sup></sup></a> Of Coruse, the <i>Guide </i>had long used the term perfection, but the editors were willing to accept other terms than the standard Mathodist expressions. N. Burns, in 1882, said the term “blessing of holiness” was the most common term in testimonies. Synonymous terms were: entire sanctification, the blessing of perfect love, Crhistian perfection, the higher life, and the rest of faith. Then he made the significant comment that those who would limit such testimonial expressions to scriptural words were too narrow.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn118" name="_ftnref118" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[118]</span></sup></sup></a>This was interesting because Wesley himself tended toward scriptural words. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The point is that there was a deep concern on the part of the revivalists to be broad enough in their terminology to relate to other traditions. As has already been shown, this ecumenical emphasis was the motivating force behind the spread of non-denominational organizations. These assemblies must be seen as part of a wider phenomenon. As Hughes admitted in 1885, holiness assemblies were no different in principle than assemblies for Sabbath schools and temperance.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn119" name="_ftnref119" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[119]</span></sup></sup></a> Hughes also pointed to the needs for the holiness cause that demanded public attention, for a protracted crisis was forced upon them.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn120" name="_ftnref120" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[120]</span></sup></sup></a> The holiness associations now existed not only for fellowship but also because of controversy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">A final issue that threatened the revivals intended ecumenicity was that of sectarianism, which was concerned with the tendency of some to leave the institutional church. The revivalists were adamantly opposed to such attitudes. In 1880 Hughes declared that holiness was not schismatic, declaring that the processes of grace are working out this grand ideal of the Christ-spirit, and life, holiness, as it advances, will contribute to the sublime consummation. Holiness is not schismatic and has no fellowship with division and strife. Its beautiful province is in the church to purify, transform, and beautify it, hastening the answer to the prayer of the Redeemer. At home and abroad, in church and state, holiness people must show that they are followers of the Prince of Peace.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn121" name="_ftnref121" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[121]</span></sup></sup></a> At a Holiness convention of 1882 it was stated that followers after holiness must remain in their respective churches.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn122" name="_ftnref122" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[122]</span></sup></sup></a> In July 1885 another such assembly said followers of holiness must be part of an organized church, because holiness conserves and builds, not disintegrates and destroys. However, if a person were oppressed solely for professing holiness, one should look elsewhere.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn123" name="_ftnref123" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[123]</span></sup></sup></a> The assembly experienced some debate over “comeoutism,” which was firmly rejected.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn124" name="_ftnref124" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[124]</span></sup></sup></a> In 1885 Hughes said in an editorial that he would not indulge in controversies, and he would respect the ministers of the church, while not questioning their motivation.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn125" name="_ftnref125" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[125]</span></sup></sup></a> In another editorial he declared that unity was increased by holiness, since holiness the great unifier. He encouraged all to push on the work, and let the people be one in spirit if not in ecclesiastical organization.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn126" name="_ftnref126" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[126]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">There continued to be modifications of the formation of the doctrine of holiness by revivalist. A classical approach was taken by John Summerfield, who wrote a sermon in 1882 called “Christian Perfection.” His text was Hebrews 6:1. The perfection mentioned was not absolute, but relative to fallen humanity. It could only be a perfection of degrees, essential conformity to the purpose for which one was created. Not a perfection of knowledge, but a perfection of love. He defined perfection as the harmony of the whole person with the abounding principle of love.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn127" name="_ftnref127" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[127]</span></sup></sup></a> Though traditional Wesleyan definitions like these continued, some changes began to take place when the revivalists begin to formulate their doctrine of holiness in the context of conventions that sought to formulate the accepted definitions of holiness among the adherents of the holiness movement.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The 1882 holiness convention at Round Lake defined entire sanctification as involving the utter destruction of the carnal mind, instantaneously wrought and attested by the Holy Spirit on the sole condition of faith, the possession of the full image of Christ and the complete indwelling of the Holy Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn128" name="_ftnref128" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[128]</span></sup></sup></a> The convention went on to stress that those who profess this work must search themselves constantly.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Another assembly was held in July 1885, in which they accepted a declaration of principles. The first principle was to define justification as pardon from sin, the new birth or spiritual awakening, and adoption to which the Holy Spirit was witness. The second principle defined entire sanctification as that magnificent work wrought after justification by the Holy Spirit, upon the sole condition of faith in the infinite efficacy of Christ’s all-cleansing blood, soul and spirit, and of all earthly possessions to God. This work has three distinct elements. First, the entire extinction of the carnal mind, the total eradication of the birth principle of sin. Second, the communication of perfect love to the soul that washed from all moral defilement. Third, the abiding indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. This work of grace also had a direct witness associated with it. The second witness was intricately connected with the first, and thus all who were converted should be exhorted immediately to go to perfection.<sup> <a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn129" name="_ftnref129" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[129]</span></sup></a></sup><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">These conventions expanded the element of crisis. This emphasis was the result of two key factors. One was the revivalist promotion of holiness. Revivalist preaching emphasized the moment and a decision for what was being preached. These definitions were designed to enhance the revivalist preaching of holiness. In addition, these definitions were forged in the context of conflict. The revivalists needed to defend what they perceived to be the Wesleyan position, and they needed a standard of judgment for orthodoxy. These two forces led to a hardening of definitions and terminology. The tendency was to describe justification in such a way that the need for entire sanctification would be clearly seen. This was part of the immediacy controversy. The nature of the relationship between justification and sanctification was the result of the revivalist concern to place the second crisis early in Christian experience. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">An editorial in April 1888 showd this concern of the revivalists to distinguish between justification and sanctification. The article stated it was not their intention to depreciate justification. The entirely sanctified person was cleansed from inward impurity, was pwerfected in the Christian graces in nature, but not in degree, and was filled with the Holy Spirit. Justification, on the other hand, was a mixed moral state. He had the graces of the Spirit, but not purely.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn130" name="_ftnref130" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[130]</span></sup></sup></a>This point was elaborated further in an editorial in August 1889. Justification was pardon from sin. Regeneration was enjoyed when the soul was made alive to God and had power over sin. Adoption into the family of God then occurred. All of these occur in one moment. Thus, justification is indescribably gllrious. Yet, believers still had original sin, which meant they had a mixed moral condition. There was still a tendency to sin that caused bondage, creating the need for further cleansing. Entire sanctification was defined as the entire eradication of inward carnality. Later, it was defined as the perfecting of all the graces of the Spirit, with love as the central grace, so that they exist free from alloy or antagonisms. Thus existing, there is chance for subsequent growth and development to an infinite degree.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn131" name="_ftnref131" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[131]</span></sup></sup></a> The revivalists were not deliberately degrading justification. Rather, the controversies over the nature of entire sanctification led them to emphasize the inadequate condition of the converted. This point will be amplified when we discuss the Mudge controversy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The ethical concerns of the revivalists were also significant for the theological development of the holiness revival. The revivalists continued the same concerns they had in the first two periods, however, so little time will be spent here. They continued their dedicated support for women preachers, going so fas to say this was one of the two reasons why the revival had advanced.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn132" name="_ftnref132" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[132]</span></sup></sup></a> The Holiness Convention of 1885 affirmed that holy character patterned after the Sermon on the Mount and I Corinthians 13 was necessary. The quiet graces, like humility, meekness, gentleness, kindness, patience, should be earnestly sought. The believer should separate himself from worldly relationships. He also should adopt a lifestyle of simplicity and plainness in dress, home, business, and every part of life.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn133" name="_ftnref133" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[133]</span></sup></sup></a> Hughes felt so strongly on the necessary ethical impact of holiness that he wrote an editorial in 1888 condemning an error that entire sanctification was only inward, and thus had no effect on the believer’s life. He agreed it was a thorough inward work, but it also brings to perfection in nature rather than degree all the graces of the Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn134" name="_ftnref134" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[134]</span></sup></sup></a> The concerns for worldliness and formalism in the church have already been mentioned in another connection. Thus, slight change can be detected in this area. The ethical concerns remained oriented to personal concerns. This would be expected, for revivalism by its nature tends to individualism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In conclusion, the revivalists were caught between continuity and discontinuity with their tradition. The experiences of the Spirit in their midst, consequent theologizing about the Spirit, and the final expectation for Pentecost, were new elements that they sought to incorporate into their tradition. They saw themselves as in the process of ding something significantly new, the emphasis on the Spirit being the unique quality that they had to offer. In embracing this new element of the Spirit, they did so because they perceived it to be consistent with their tradition, though not identical with it. At the same time, their tradition modified their acceptance of the Spirit. The best example was their refusal to accept three works of grace. They also maintained a strong emphasis on the nature of entire sanctification as love to God and humanity, thereby continuing the strong ethical foundation that Wesley laid. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">An editorial in 1878, entitled, “What Hath God Wrought,” gave a history of the holiness movement. In it, Hughes gave the same basic points already mentioned in this essay. First, he declared holiness was not a new doctrine, but was taught in Scripture and there were examples within Catholicism. Even here he recognized the influence of mysticism, especially Guyon and Fenelon. Then he emphasized the role of Wesley and early American bishops who brought holiness into clearer focus. Until 1836, therefore, holiness was a Methodist doctrine. In that year the non-Methodist Finney and Mahan proclaimed holiness. Thomas Upham joined them. Timothy Merritt began the <i>Guide </i>in 1839. The influence of the revival spread through the Palmers, as well as by Bishops Hamline and Janes. The National Association for the Promotion of Holiness, founded in 1867, was a continuation of the revival. Now, the doctrine could not be called a Methodist teaching. It had spread to all denominations, and had spread even to leaders of Europe, especially Emperor William of Germany.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn135" name="_ftnref135" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[135]</span></sup></sup></a> The revivalists were conditioned by their Methodist tradition but were also involved in incorporating the newness of the 1858 revival. They knew this would take them beyond the Methodist denomination. In fact, this was seen as the triumph of holiness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">HOLINESS MOVEMENT AND THE MUDGE CONTROVERSY <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> We need to remember that the great commission of early Methodists in America was to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn136" name="_ftnref136" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[136]</span></sup></sup></a> However, by the middle 1880s, many people within the Methodist Episcopal Church felt the denomination had lost it holiness movement. The <i>Guide to Holiness</i> was first published in 1839 with the explicit purpose of making the promotion of holiness a specialty. Holiness needed to be lifted before Christians in an intentional way. Names like Timothy Merritt, Jesse Lee, Phoebe Palmer, George Hughes, as well as bishops like Randolph S. Foster, Edmund S. Janes, and Leonidas L. Hamline, were strongly associated with the Holiness Movement. As the movement began to develop organizations outside Methodist structures, the leadership of the denomination began to warn of schism. At a theological level, toward the end of the 1800s there was an increasing interest in the work of Holy Spirit. These new organizational and theological currents within the Holiness Movement, along with theological shifts in Methodism, created a perfect setting for tension. This potential came to a climax in the James Mudge Controversy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> James Mudge was born in 1844 to a family strongly influenced by English Methodism. His family was personally close to Jesse Lee, one of the most influential early holiness writers. His mother was a close friend of Phoebe Palmer, one of the best-known writers and evangelists in the Holiness movement. Mudge could remember that as a child, the books of Phoebe Palmer and the <i>Guide to Holiness </i>were always present in the home. He heard holiness preaching every Sunday, he attended holiness camp meetings, and he rad holiness literature. So, at the age of 16, while listening to a Congregational minister, he experienced what he then called entire sanctification or being cleansed from all sin.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Mudge was not writing as an isolated critic of the Holiness Movement. Nor did he write as an abstract analysist of the revival. He was deeply influenced by the spirituality of the Holiness Movement. The difference between himself and those involved in the revival was that he could not apply his understanding of holiness teaching to his own spiritual life. Lewis R. Dunn, a holiness writer, could say that heard many good reports about him. The experience of Mudge with the holiness of revival shaped his understanding of its teaching. One must not think this decision was easy for Mudge. He was breaking with his family and close friends. Yet, when he went to a Methodist college, he discovered many of the students shared his disillusionment with holiness teaching. These early experiences shaped the way in which Mudge looked at the issue of holiness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> By the end of the 1800s Mudge had been a Methodist pastor, missionary, and editor. In 1895 he authored a book that created extensive controversy between Methodist leadership and participants of the holiness movement. The title of the book was <i>Growth in Holiness Toward Perfection, or Progressive Sanctification. </i>The title gave away the focus of the book. Mudge would emphasize holiness as a growth process, while the Holiness Movement would emphasize the attainment of holiness in a crisis experience after conversion. The debate between these two forces became intense.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">As Mudge relates his teen experience, one is reminded of how easily a young person may adopt words to describe an experience without understanding the meaning of those words. In the same way, it was not long after this crisis experience that he had feelings of pride, ambition, discontent, and selfishness. In his understanding of holiness teaching, after the crisis experience these feelings should no longer be present. He had to make a choice. He also discovered this was the experience of many others. He became convinced there was continual need for further consecrations that deepen, extend, and perfect the previous work. Sanctification was entire only to the point of the light given. Though every year since his full consecration had been marked by growth, there were times of special refreshing, such as 1873, 1882, and 1887. But none of these experiences meant absolute perfection, by which he meant a condition in which the self-life was dead. His experience was that a little of self always showed itself, and there this need for further consecration.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn137" name="_ftnref137" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[137]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> In another account of his life Mudge reported that he called his experience at 16 Christian perfection, entire sanctification, and the being cleansed from all sin. He had long since ceased using these terms because they gave offense to many, though he admitted there may be an understanding of these terms that was appropriate. He then explained his teenage experience. It was simply that apprehension of Jesus to be my all-sufficient power for every occasion that naturally comes upon a consecration increased in thoroughness and made complete up to the measure of light as that granted. It marked a new beginning in the religious life and opened the way at once for an indefinite but rapid increase in knowledge and faith, in self-crucifixion, and in the acquisition of divine love. It put an end to the old stumbling and the old hesitation and set the soul forward on a keen hunt for the best things made possible by atoning blood. It was not the end of sanctification, as at that time I supposed. It was not the beginning. It was an immensely important stage in the process, since it settled the point that all known duty was to be promptly done and all known sin resolutely refrained from. What had happened since? Self had steadily decreased and Christ had increased, faith had gained growing dominion, and love had steadily gained possession of him.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn138" name="_ftnref138" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[138]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Was his experience an illusion? He could not believe that. Was the interpretation of his experience wrong? Mudge came to answer this question affirmatively. His holiness teachers were wrong.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Mudge concluded the chapter on his experience by relating significant works for growth in holiness. His list included Fenelon, Francis of Sales, Thomas a Kempis, Scupoli, Rodreguez, Jeremiah Taylor, Rutherford, John Wesley, Faber, T. C. Upham, and Dean Goulburn. It should be noted that most of these works were respected by holiness revivalists as well. Unlike the leadership of the holiness of revival, who accepted the concepts and applied them to their lives, Mudge represented one who grew up with the holiness revival as a teen and had to break with them because he could incorporate what he understood the holiness people to teach into his life. This understanding of the spiritual experience of Mudge will enlighten the context out of which he authored this book.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Chapter One was called, “Preliminary.” The Mudge controversy reflected a tension between relating to philosophical shifts on the one hand and the holding to traditional formulations on the other. Mudge contended that the Methodist tradition was unclear. He referred to theologians like Jonathan Fletcher, Adam Clark, Richard Watson, George Peck, Randolph Foster, Daniel Steele, Miner Raymond, and John Miley, all of which were ambiguous in their terminology concerning the nature of sin and holiness. Wesley did not understand the nature of sin or holiness, so he should be improved upon, or better, transcended. Thus, Mudge readily admitted he departed from Wesley, for Methodist theology needed to be reshaped considering modern thought. Mudge desired to relate Methodism to the emerging wholistic view of human personality as well as the emphasis on process. The need he perceives was for a restructuring of Methodist thought in the light of modern thought. In contrast, the Holiness Movement held on to Wesley as being both biblical and clear in his thoughts on holiness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The effects of the view held by Mudge of the Methodist tradition became crystalized when he discussed the nature of sin and holiness. This can be seen from the background of what John Wesley taught about these subjects. For Wesley, the sin of Adam has three results. First is the tendency to selfishness. Every person is infected with the desire to act in selfish ways. Second is the actual act of selfishness, or self-will, thereby placing one’s own will in priority over the will of God. The third result of the sin of Adam is what Wesley called infirmities. These are various physical, mental, and emotional problems that are present in the world in which we live. These distinctions are important because there was need for much growth after the second crisis, for one needed continual conquering of infirmities. They are also errors of judgment, mistakes, and other acts that affect people every day. Therefore, sin for Wesley could refer to the tendency toward self-will, the act of self-will, or infirmities. Though this may be confusing at times, the distinctions are clear.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Wesley’s view of holiness is related to his understanding of the nature of sin. Wesley operated with a three-fold distinction of the effects of original sin. Sin was an act of self-will, the tendency to selfishness, and infirmities. As soon as a person is converted, he will no longer commit intentional acts of self-will. The believer desires the will of God, not one’s own will. However, as one grows in grace, one discovers a tendency toward selfishness in the heart. At this point, the believer is being led to entire sanctification, the removal of this tendency toward selfishness. Once the believer experiences this crisis, the believer would still have to battle with infirmities, which would always be with the believer. Yet, the believer can now testify to the love of God with all the heart. At this point, Mudge disagreed with Wesley while the Holiness Movement stayed with him. Wesley would teach that while infirmities remained, the believer would continue growing in grace to overcome them. Thus, the Holiness leadership was aware of the theological shift Mudge was making. He classified sin with infirmities, a judgment repeated often. He had a Calvinist view of sin. Some drew an analogy between Mudge and Count Zinzendorf. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Mudge could not accept the distinctions of Wesley, a fact that was at the heart of the controversy. For Mudge, the term sin should refer only to the selfish intention contained in an act. The converted person did not commit acts of sin in this sense. At this point, Wesley, the Holiness Movement, and Mudge agreed. However, Mudge also suggested that the term depravity should be sued to cover both the selfish desire and infirmities. The tendency to self-will could not be removed, as Wesley had said, but only suppressed. At this point, the Holiness Movement attacked Mudge vigorously. His view of sin was non-Wesleyan, a contention that was correct. They called for his removal from the Methodist ministry. When this did not happen, the gap between the Holiness Movement and the Methodist leadership was unbridgeable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Another area of controversy was the language used to describe holiness. Mudge claimed that the biblical terms like regeneration, holiness, and sanctification all referred to the same experience. He defined holiness as the condition of human nature wherein the love of God rules. He rejected terms like cleansing and eradication because they led to confusion. He preferred the terms of empowering, for it suggested power over the rebel of sin rather than the removal of the rebel. The term perfection meant mature, established, and adult in the Bible. This experience could not occur at the beginning of Christian life, but only after a lengthy process. Every converted person was perfected in the lower sense of not committing acts of sin, but no one would achieve the higher type of perfection until death, when depravity was removed. Finally, Mudge contended that the term of baptism with the Spirit in the New Testament referred to conversion. Other times, such anointing, earnest, indwelling, filled, gift of, falling upon, poured out, or descending upon, were synonyms with baptism all believers were baptized at conversion. Pentecost was the unique experience of the inauguration of a dispensation. It was not intended to be repeated. The record of the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19 and Cornelius in 10-11, 15 were those who were not yet part of the Christian dispensation. He cited Wesley for support in his journal entry for October 29, 1762 and his letters to Joseph Benson in 1770. The holiness people adopted traditional Methodist terminology like holy, entire sanctification, and cleansing. Some holiness groups used second blessing, though there was debate within the movement over the use of the term. They also adapted the emphasis in the latter part of the 1800s on the work of the Holy Spirit to Methodist theology. Thus, they could only refer to the experience of entire sanctification, but they could also refer to being baptized or filled with the Holy Spirit. In one sense, then, the Holiness Movement altered the Methodist tradition, though from distinct perspective from that of Mudge. They pointed to the contrast between the disciples before Pentecost and after Pentecost as the contrast between the justified and the sanctified. They also applied the Cornelius incident in Acts 10-11 to the second crisis after conversion. Such exegesis is highly questionable. While the revivalist situation at the end of the century shaped the Holiness Movement, Mudge had become influenced by emerging philosophical trends.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> For Mudge, the Holiness Movement wrongly interpreted the Bible, just as Wesley had done. Classical Methodist terminology relating to a crisis after conversion was biblically related by Mudge to conversion. Perfection meant maturity. The terms relating to the Holy Spirit all refer to conversion. Thus, there was no biblical basis for using the terms as Wesley, and through him the Holiness Movement, were using them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> These theological issues directly influenced the way the two sides interpreted Christian experience. The Holiness Movement viewed conversion and entire sanctification as two critical moments in a person’s walk with God. Mudge viewed Christian experience as growth and maturity in the love of God, periodically punctuated by special moments of intense growth. His own experience at 16 was a special awareness of the love of God, but in no sense could it be described as perfection. For the Holiness Movement, the root of sin was removed; for Mudge sin was a rebel that was suppressed. The battle cries became growth or crisis. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Mudge charged the Holiness Movement with depreciating justification to make room for a second blessing. This was done by reserving terms like holy, perfect, and baptism with the Spirit only for those who had a second crisis. When these terms were applied properly to the converted person, the justified state is lifted to its proper place. Lowrey reversed the charge by saying that Mudge made the converted state so high there was no room for a second work. In contrast, the Holiness Movement responded that they had a high view of the justified state because it was necessary preparation for the second work. They knew of no one within the movement who belittled conversion. The tendency of the Holiness Movement was to separate themselves as the only ones who were holy, thereby putting the converted person on unsure footing as to salvation. He conceded that many people in the church were living below their privileges and that crisis experience akin to conversion may be necessary. Yet, depravity remained. He stressed that spiritual growth could occur only as one grew by faith. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Another point of contention was over the special means of promoting holiness. For Mudge, the Holiness Movement had special meetings, leaders, and literature. Making holiness a specialty implied that what the church did elsewhere was not holy. A proper understanding of the church would make one see that the church was a holiness league in all it did. Mudge agreed that the Holiness Movement had become schismatic. Methodist leaders agreed with this criticism. As of yet, however, no churches existed, so the leaders could justly ask where the churches were. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> As with most church fights, it did get personal. Attacks against the character of the opposition were abundant. Mudge said participants in the Holiness Movement were censorious, dishing out harsh judgments against anyone who disagreed with them. He charged that there was a lack of Christian character among those who professed the second blessing. Galbraith claimed these criticisms were justified and given in a gracious spirit. Even Bishop Granberry agreed that the participants often were not loving. Too many professed the theory while neglecting the appropriation of the content of the experience. In response, some said Mudge lacked integrity because he denied his ordination vows and should have resigned. The M. E. Church was denying its heritage by not firing Mudge. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Methodist leadership responded to this section of the work of Mudge in a positive way. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Bishop J. C. Granberry cautioned that Mudge had not deal fairly with Methodist authors in trying to show their inconsistency. He admitted that many neglected the appropriation of the content of the experience of entire sanctification, which was humility, modesty, gentleness, meekness, and so on. He was convinced there was a more advanced state for believers, but that even that persons in that advanced state had faults. He admitted that the process of purification and transformation into the image of our Lord is sometimes slow and other times rapid. Yet, there was general agreement that Methodist theology needed restructuring, and that the book by Mudge was a significant contribution to that endeavor.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn139" name="_ftnref139" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[139]</span></sup></sup></a> William Kelley the editor of the <i>Methodist Review, </i>said it was a breakthrough in understanding sanctification and a significant contribution to the restructuring of Methodist theology as it considers the philosophical shifts of the 1800s. However, he claimed that Mudge was fundamentally orthodox and that he agrees with the general Methodist consensus as to substance of doctrine and that his attacks on the holiness movement were justified.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn140" name="_ftnref140" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[140]</span></sup></sup></a> John Galbraith went as far as to praise Mudge for having the courage to break with tradition by seeing through the ambiguities of Methodism and Wesley. His criticism of the holiness was justified and given in a gracious spirit<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn141" name="_ftnref141" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[141]</span></sup></sup></a> The point is that much of the Methodist leadership reflected favorably upon the interpretation of the ambiguity of the Methodist tradition as presented by Mudge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">These writers claimed Mudge was consistent with Methodist authorities, but that he was also going toward a restructuring of Methodist theology in light of modern trends. It was seen as a theological enterprise. Though Granberry cautioned that Mudge was too critical, he still accepted the idea that a restructuring of Methodist theology was necessary. Another positive concern was Mudge’s criticism of the holiness people. Mudge’s comments in this regard were said to be in a gracious spirit and justified. The censoriousness and schismatic tendencies were especially emphasized. Finally, Granberry stressed the need for balance in Christian experience. Some may be perfected quickly after conversion; others may require long periods of time. The point was that growth and progress were seen as being more significant than crisis and attainment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Holiness revivalists had a negative response to Mudge and his book that one can classify into personal, ecclesiastical, and theological responses. The focal point of much theological disagreement was the nature of sin and depravity. The core of this disagreement was that Mudge had made self-will a part of depravity that is part of being human. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Ottis Cole commented that Mudge identified being finite with depravity.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn142" name="_ftnref142" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[142]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Mudge classified sin with infirmities.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn143" name="_ftnref143" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[143]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Asbury Lowrey lamented that Mudge had become a critic of Wesley and those who followed him. Thereby elevating the present over the past and overthrowing our ancestral ideas about holiness. This was a standard reaction by leaders of the Holiness Movement.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn144" name="_ftnref144" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[144]</span></sup></sup></a> John Wood commented that the view of Methodist theologians as being confused led to the desire to revolutionize Methodist teaching. He denied such a revolution was necessary.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn145" name="_ftnref145" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[145]</span></sup></sup></a> Lewis R. Dunn drew an analogy between Mudge and Count Zinzendorf of day of Wesley. In this view, the converted person was said to be holy and perfect. Thus, Mudge did not recognize that original sin remained after conversion.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn146" name="_ftnref146" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[146]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The revivalists agreed with Bishop Granberry that Mudge placed too much emphasis on sin as a voluntary act, thereby neglecting sin as a condition.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn147" name="_ftnref147" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[147]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Theologically, holiness revivalists wanted to maintain Wesley’s distinctions of sin as act, sin as self-will, and infirmities. In this way, justification would remove acts of sin, while entire sanctification would remove self-will. Growth would center in the steady conquering of infirmities. Mudge, on the other hand, was influenced by the developmental model. For him, sin should refer only to deliberate acts of self-will and disobedience to God, which would be removed at justification. The positions were agreed on this point. However, Mudge did not grant the distinction between self-will and infirmities. Both were considered under the term depravity, which would never be eliminated in the present life. Of course, the revivalists would agree if he were referring only to infirmities, but when self-will was included.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The rest of the theological disagreements focus on the direct charges Mudge made against the holiness people. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">One major criticism by Mudge was the holiness people denied the importance of justification to make room for a second blessing. He charged them with having a low view of justification, and thereby expecting this second crisis early in Christian experience. The response of the revivalists was to deny the charge. One editorial said the charge was evidence that the one making it was either dishonest of or had not read their literature. Holiness people had a high view of justification, which was shown by their belief that a solid foundation was necessary for a second work, that the converted would not commit acts of sin, that those who did not accept a second blessing do accept worldliness, and they did not simply have people sign cards to show one was converted.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn148" name="_ftnref148" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[148]</span></sup></sup></a> Dunn objected that he had never heard the phrase “merely justified,” nor did he know of anyone who belittled the converted condition.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn149" name="_ftnref149" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[149]</span></sup></sup></a> Finally, the charge was reversed by Lowrey against Mudge, that he had made the converted state so high that there was no room for a second work.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn150" name="_ftnref150" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[150]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> A second criticism by Mudge was that a second blessing tended to decrease responsibility for growth. It attained so much that it was not practical to anyone who was sensitive to his own spiritual growth. Temptations still arose from within. There was a constant suppression of a rebel within. No blessing after justification could remove this struggle. The result of belief in a second blessing was to make some Christians holy, and other unholy, thereby creating a tendency to pride. John Wood responded that the holiness people had always said entire sanctification encouraged growth by removing self-will. He denied that there was the highest attainment of Christian experience by faith, because there was need for growth after the blessing of sanctification.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn151" name="_ftnref151" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[151]</span></sup></sup></a> Dunn added that he knew of no one in the revival who would claim there was no more room for growth. Most who had attained this blessing continued pressing toward the mark.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn152" name="_ftnref152" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[152]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> A third criticism by Mudge was that the revivalists twist Scripture to conform to their own pre-conceived notions. “Holy” and “regenerate” referred to the same experience in the Bible but were separated by the second blessing people. “Perfect” meant maturity, not a point beyond which one could not go. The term “baptism with the Holy Spirit” was synonymous with other terms in the Bible, such as dwelling, seal, receiving, filling, and so on. Thus, it should not be used to refer to a second crisis. All Christians shared in this experience of the Spirit. Wood defended both baptism with the Holy Spirit and Pentecostal baptism by saying that Mudge’s exegesis was faulty. He pointed to the experience of the disciples and the Cornelius account as support for applying these terms to a second crisis.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn153" name="_ftnref153" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[153]</span></sup></sup></a> Dunn agreed that many of the trms used in reference to the Spirit were synonymous, but there is a larger and fuller and more distinctively conscious experience of the Holy Spirit than the justified and regenerated soul enjoys. The experience of the disciples was used as support, in that they were Christians before Pentecost, but after Pentecost they had new power.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn154" name="_ftnref154" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[154]</span></sup></sup></a> The other basis for scriptural support referred to above have already been mentioned and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that the holiness people rejected the exegesis of Mudge of biblical texts that had come to be used regularly by them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Mudge did not limit his criticisms to theology. The extended them to an understanding of the church. He rejected the concept of special promotion for holiness. The whole church promoted holiness, not just these groups. These special organizations were also schismatic in tendency, and encouraged criticism of the Methodist Episcopal Church, even in claiming those without a second blessing would not reach heaven. The rest of the church was considered apostate. Wood responded by denying that special promotion of holiness accomplished any of these results. He knew of no one lwho said the rest of the church was apostate. He also said holiness people always believed the justified would attain heaven.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn155" name="_ftnref155" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[155]</span></sup></sup></a>Dunn asked that if special promotions were schismatic, where were the churches? There were many meetings that promote special concerns, and one of these should be condemned.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn156" name="_ftnref156" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[156]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Another criticism by Mudge was that the testimonies of those who claimed a second blessing were misguided. They claimed too much for any experience. The experience they had was a rededication to God after a period of backsliding. Therms he to which he objected were phrases like living without sin, being perfectly holy, and being perfect. Wood challenged Mudge to find anyone who used such terms as part of their testimony. He also wondered if Mudge could claim to know their experience better than they do themselves.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn157" name="_ftnref157" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[157]</span></sup></sup></a> Dunn added that the reason some find such testimonies offensive was because they take offense at the work of God.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn158" name="_ftnref158" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[158]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> These criticisms of Mudge were returned with criticisms by the holiness revivalists against Mudge. These attacks were both theological and personal. The theological criticism was that Mudge departed from Methodist. Cole said he preferred the practical account of Wesley to the theory of Mudge.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn159" name="_ftnref159" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[159]</span></sup></sup></a> C. Munger said Mudge felt free to write against Methodist authors.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn160" name="_ftnref160" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[160]</span></sup></sup></a> Wood disagreed with Mudge that Methodist writers had been confusing. Mudge did not try to clarify Methodism, but rather openly and unhesitatingly disagreed with it.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn161" name="_ftnref161" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[161]</span></sup></sup></a> Lowrey lamented that Mudge had put himself on record as a critic of Wesley and his co-thinkers ancient and modern.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn162" name="_ftnref162" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[162]</span></sup></sup></a> Dunn agreed that Mudge had rejected Wesley and the standard Methodist authors.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn163" name="_ftnref163" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[163]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> This concern for maintaining the Wesleyan foundation of the Methodist Episcopal Church brought the revivalists to a criticism of the present state of the church, as well as a criticism of Mudge personally. For example, John Parker claimed Mudge had denied Methodism, denied his vows to the church, and no longer had any integrity. Thus, no one is of sufficient importance to remain in the M. E. Church and the allowed to antagonize her doctrines and thereby weaken the motives of her best types of spiritual life and usefulness.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn164" name="_ftnref164" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[164]</span></sup></sup></a> Dunn agreed by saying that the ordination vows of the church should be taken seriously. While Mudge accepted them once, he did so no longer.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn165" name="_ftnref165" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[165]</span></sup></sup></a> Parker concluded his article by criticizing the church by saying that we are gaining what we are seeking, numbers, institutions, and machinery. We are educating the pulpit away from the common people and the pew but we have lost our early simplicity, godly enthusiasm, class meetings, love feasts, watch nights, camp meetings, because we have lost the experience that made them necessary.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn166" name="_ftnref166" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[166]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> C. Munger concurred with the judgment of Parker when he said that Mudge had exalted the present over the past, concluding that these people who are using the columns of <i>Zion’s Herald </i>and the press of the Methodist Book Concern to propagate this damnable stuff, are the very people who were clothed with the powers and privileges of Methodist ministers upon their public declarations that they examined the Methodist doctrines, believed they were taught in the scriptures, and would maintain them. Surely, we have fallen upon perilous times.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn167" name="_ftnref167" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[167]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The theological issue in the Mudge controversy should be clear. The nature of sin was a major difference of opinion. As was said earlier, the revivalists wanted to maintain Wesley’s distinctions of sin as act, sin as self-will, and infirmities. Mudge refused to grant this division, combining the latter two under the concept of depravity. In this sense, Mudge was a departure from the more traditional Wesleyan distinctions. A second theological controversy was the relationship between justification and entire sanctification. Mudge denied any temporal distinction, while the revivalists insisted on the separation between the two works of grace. A third disagreement was the holiness interpretation of scripture. Mudge charged scripture was distorted to pre-conceived notions. The revivalists appealed to Wesley’s use of scripture when understanding perfection, sanctification, or holiness, and to a typological interpretation of Acts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> The ecclesial issues were also clearly defined. Mudge saw the church as a promoter of holiness in everything it did. Creating organizations outside the institutional church was schismatic. It led to separation of the holy from others in the church. The revivalists responded by asking; where was holiness preached in the church? These organizations were needed both to proclaim holiness clearly and to make it available to all denominations rather than just Methodism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> In a controversy of this nature, personal attacks often overshadow the theological issues involved. Mudge set up this dimension with his charge that the revivalists claimed too much in their testimonies, were censorious in their attitude toward others, lacked love to those who disagreed with them, and were schismatic. The revivalists responded by saying Mudge had rejected his ordination vows and therefore should resign. When he did not, his integrity was challenged. It was unfortunate the controversy degenerated to this level. However, controversy in the church is rarely limited to the intellectual. In this case, Mudge and the revivalists share responsibility.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Another issue this controversy revealed was the importance of the philosophical shifts going on in America at large and particularly Methodism. This element was more implicit than the other issues. The reaction of wood to a comment made by Mudge is a good example. Mudge had said spiritual perfection was not compatible with the imperfection of the body and mind. Wood” response was that according to this oen cannot be made perfect in live if one had a blind eye, broken leg, or a sick body.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn168" name="_ftnref168" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[168]</span></sup></sup></a> This reveals that even someone of the stature of Wood did not perceive the philosophical issues involved. The point has already been made that the revivalists were implicitly dependent on Scottish Realism, primarily through the influence of Mahan and Upham. By the end of the century, Methodism was becoming influenced by developmental thought. This view stated that humanity must be seen wholistically and in the context of the growth of the total personality. One element within the individual, such as the will, could not be isolated from the rest of the person and be perfected. Consequently, holiness underwent alteration when the developmental model was used. In addition, many teachers were going to Germany for their education, becoming acquainted with the higher criticism of the Bible and modern philosophy. The result for the purposes of this study was that the philosophical shifts affected how the theological issues were framed. This was especially true in the understanding of the nature of sin.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Finally, the Mudge controversy also raised a serious historical question. The reader may have had a challenging time understanding the criticisms by Mudge in light of the evidence about the holiness revival presented in this paper. The criticisms of Mudge that the holiness people were schismatic and censorious might seem especially stranger. Tjis author would suggest that the primary reason for this fact may be contained in the diverse elements that comprise the revival. This paper hs limited itself to that aspect of the revival that would be presented by the <i>Guide.</i> The Mudge controversy suggests other components must be investigated to gain a complete picture of the theological character of the holiness revival. The result of these theological, philosophical, ecclesial, and personal conflicts was that the revivalists and the church parted ways. The division had become too wide. Many people in Methodism wanted ot re-interpret Wesley, make Methodism relevant to modern thought, and wanted to move beyond their revivalist heritage. The holiness revivalists, on the other hand, saw no need to re-interpret Wesley, and tried to maintain a pure revivalism. These forces were found to be inconsistent with each other.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> In conclusion for the third phase, several facts emerge. Within the revival itself, there was a growing emphasis on developing a theology of the Spirit. As the 20<sup>th</sup> Century arrived, there was an increasing expectation for a Pentecostal revival that would remove worldliness, skepticism, and sin, and thereby prepare the world for the coming of Christ. As the revival related to denominational structures, especially that of Methodism, its criticism intensified. There criticism focused in the church’s acceptance of worldliness, such as amusements, novels, and theater, the increased education of the clergy that appeared to decrease their spirituality, the removal of the church from a focus on th personal to a focus on the institutional, and the movement of the church to bthe middle class and urban culture, neglecting the poor and rural areas. Theological criticisms centered on the gradual rejection of Wesley as the one who most clearly defined holiness, their emphasis being on the crisis experience after conversion. An implicit philosophical shift from Scottish Realism to developmentalism was found to be essential in understanding the nature of the theological tensions between Methodism and the revivalists. The revivalists were quick to accept newness when it would advance the revival. However, modern thought wa rejecged because it was perceived as a threat to revival. There was, then, a negative attitude toard what the revivalists saw as an epression of the degeneration of the orld. Only the Pentecostal revival would stop this degeneration, a revival built on Wesleyan thought, not modern thought. Yet, it wa Wesley with a difference. Wesley emphasized entire sanctification in the context of the small group meetings, and thereby saw it as part of discipleship. The holiness revivalists made entire sanctification part of the revivalist preaching for evangelical decision, which necessitated placing the experience at the beginning of the Christian walk.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn169" name="_ftnref169" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[169]</span></sup></sup></a> These cultural, theological, ecclesial, and philosophical elements appeared to be the major points of tension that led to the break between revivalism and Methodism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The leadership of Methodism and the leadership of the Holiness Movement were at odds as to the nature of the Methodist tradition. The leaders of Methodism felt their heritage had an ambiguous theological framework and that it needed restructuring as it considers modern thought. The Holiness Movement said the tradition was clear, biblical, and not in need of change. Thus, two approaches of the tradition were at the root of the conflict.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">CONCLUSION<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The evidence presented in this paper is intended to offer some basis for determining the theological shifts that occurred in the holiness movement of the nineteenth century. The three phases that have been identified should not be seen as isolated from each other. Rather, each phase is incorporated into the next phase, in a kind of synthetical movement in the Hegelian fashion. Yet, this movement accomplishes something new that did not exist before, it might be good to review this movement.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The first phase was dominated by the theological framework established in the early English Methodist revival. This fact was established using Luther Lee, Henry Adams, and H. V. Degen as representatives of how the holiness movement explained entire sanctification. These men were seen to be using the theological structure established by early English Methodism. Especially Joh Wesley and John Fletcher. Largely because of Wesley’s status as founder of the Methodist revival, tis formualtions were preferred over Fletcher. However, Fletcher’s theological influence on erly methodism should be overlooked. In addition, the mystical tradition had a major influence on this phase of the holiness revival, largely through the writings of Thomas Upham. Methodism was prepared for the influence by Wesley’s use of the mystical tradition, but the unique contribution of Upham should not be overlooked. Finally, the early holiness revival was influenced by the revivalist tradition in general, and Charles Finney in particular. In fact, the promotion of holiness in nineteenth century America cannot be understood apart from revivalism. These explicit influences on holiness revivalism were combined wit the implicit philosophical influence of Scottish Realism, through Upham and Asa Mahan. Though few holiness revivalists were consciously aware of this influence, the framework of much holiness theology in the century was dependent of Scottish Realism. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The second phase of the development of the theology of the holiness movement was initiated by the Evangelical Revival of 1858. The primary impact of the revival was an emphasis on experiences of the Spirit, which led to a strong spirit of optimism, newness, and ecumenism. The experience of the revival led many to criticism the world around them. The secular world was seen as degeneration. More importantly to holiness revivalists, the Methodist Episcopal Church was degenerating. That denomination was becoming too formal, too wealthy, and too educated. Spiritual decline was indicated by lack of powerful preaching, lustful singing, and attendance at prayer meetings and class meetings. These concerns of the holiness revivalists led to several conflicts with the M. E. Church. One point of tension was how to spread holiness. The denomination believed holiness promotion should occur within the church. The revivalists believed non-denominational agencies were essential to the continued spread of holiness into other denominations. The M. E. Church believed special promotion was schismatic. Holiness revivalists believed special promotion was a sign that holiness was becoming the property of all denominations. These ecclesial controversies were compounded by theological disagreement. The question of when a believer should expect to be perfected was an important battlefield. The M. E. Church said entire sanctification was the result of a prolonged process of growth. The holiness revivalists were guided by an analogy with conversion. One should expect to be perfected in as short a time as one should expect to be converted. The only hindrance to perfection was the will, and emphasis that had its source from the framework provided by revivalism. Another theological disagreement was the controversy over testimonies. The M. E. Church was saying that testimony to entire sanctification should occur only where it would be received well. Nor should one emphasize the necessity of giving testimony, for it could lead to pride. The revivalists, on the other hand, believed that giving testimony to entire sanctification was necessary for maintaining this experience, while agreeing with the denomination that humility was important. As can be seen, the issue at each level of conflict between the M. E. Church and the holiness revivalists was centered on the revivalist experience.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The second phase was dominated by the above emphases and conflicts. Expressions used to explain what was happening in the revival were oriented to the work of the Holy Spirit and Pentecostal terminology. The traditional Methodist explanation of holiness, however, continued to be used. Yet, Phoebe Palmer’s altar terminology gained dominance as the primary framework for explaining entire sanctification. Despite some reservations expressed by various revivalists, palmer’s terminology was accepted. The primary reason for this development was the revivalist emphasis. The contrast between Wesley and Palmer may be seen at this point. Wesley usually limited his revivalist promotion to conversion, while he explained holiness in the context of the Societies he had formed. In this way, entire sanctification as a part of a process could be more easily seen. However, the holiness revivalists made entire sanctification the object of revivalist promotion. The moment of decision, and clear, simple steps as to how to make that decision, were necessary. Palmer’s altar terminology met this need in the best ay discovered to this time. Hence the emphasis on special means to promote holiness, the push for the attainment of entire sanctification at the beginning of Christ experience and the necessity of testifying to entire sanctification. The influence of revivalism clearly shaped the theological emphases of the holiness movement.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The third phase began in the <i>Guide </i>n 1878, with the publication of George Hughes articles on the Holy Spirit. In a sense, this phase was logically built from the previous one. While the second phase emphasized experiences of the Spirit in describing what was happening in the revival, it rarely brought that emphasis into its theological formulations. The third phase sought to achieve this objective. Terms like baptism, and fullness of the Spirit, as well as fire and power, became identified with entire sanctification. Holiness revivalists were aware they were doing something new. The emphasis on the Holy Spirit was considered unique to their age. This new emphasis led t to a typological interpretation of Acts as the needed biblical basis for their theologizing. however, they brought the experiences of the Spirit within traditional Methodist theology. Therefore, suggestions that there were three or more works of grace were rejected. Yet, when they incorporate the new emphasis on the Spirit and the revivalist promotion of holiness with the traditional Methodism, changes were likely to occur. The expectation for perfection to occur early in Christian life was part of the modification of Methodist theology. The technical definitions of holiness that arose out of holiness conventions were also part of this trend. Their emphasis was on elucidating the crisis experience of entire sanctification. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In this phase there was an intensification of the previously noted concern for the degeneration of the world around them. Though the revivalists were convinced the world faced a crisis, they were more specifically concerned with developments within the M. E. Church and within the revival itself. The concern over the decline of the M. E. Church have been mentioned already. The specter of schism had to be faced directly, for many within the revival were calling for separation. The leaders of the revival went to extreme lengths to keep the revival within the established churches. These concerns were compounded by the Pentecostal emphasis on the holiness revivalists as the 20<sup>th</sup> century drew near. Revivalist expectations were heightened. The signs of degeneration would be re<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:George%20Plasterer">The signs of degeneration would be removed by the great, worldwide revival, thereby preparing the way for the coming of Jesus Christ. The Pentecostal revival was seen as the cure</ins></span>, or better, the radical surgery, needed to remove evil from the world, the M. E. Church, and the present revival itself. The power of revivalist expectations also led to a greater emphasis on the ecumenical nature of the revival. Holiness revivalists saw their task as bringing holiness to every denomination that would then form the basis for unity between churches.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The James Mudge controversy arose in the theological-ecclesial milieu described above. Mudge may be seen as an expression of fundamental Methodist hierarchical concerns over the holiness movement. The revivalists were seen as lacking the qualities of perfect love, having schismatic tendencies, being hyper-critical of the church, having a low view of justification, and leaving little room for growth. Theological conflict focused on the nature of sin. Mudge saw a distinction between sin as an act and depravity. The converted would not commit the former. The latter included both self-will and infirmities, thereby making it impossible for depravity to be removed. There was a de-emphasis on a second experience after conversion, while at the same time emphasizing the necessity for growth and maturity. The holiness revivalists, however, desired to maintain Wesley’s three-fold distinction of sin as act, sin as self-will, and infirmities. In this case, the first was removed in conversion, the second was removed in entire sanctification, while the third must be conquered every day. This conflict over the nature of sin was compounded by differences in biblical interpretation. As has already been shown, the revivalist wanted to place the experience of the Spirit theologically under entire sanctification and biblically within the Pentecost experience in Acts. Mudge claimed that this typological interpretation of Acts was wrong on biblical grounds. The experiences of the Spirit were said to refer to conversion rather than a crisis after conversion. More than any other incident, then, the Mudge controversy revealed some of the basic differences between Methodism and the holiness revivalists.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The author is aware that the conclusions expressed above need to be understood considering the limitations of the paper. The most important is that the evidence presented in this paper drives from the <i>Guide.</i> When describing holiness revivalists, or the holiness movement, therefore, the is basing his comments on what he found in that magazine. Though it is a major source for the holiness movement, it is far from the only one. To understand fully the theological shifts other sources would need to be investigated.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Other limitations focus on areas for further study. For example, the influence of mysticism through Upham, and of Scottish Realism through Upham and Mahan, has not been studied enough. This would lead to a better understanding of the nature of the conflicts between Methodism and the holiness revivalists. The Evangelical Revival of 1858 needs to be seen in its larger context before its specific influence on the holiness movement is studied. This would help to elucidate the significance of the emphasis on the Hly Spirit and Pentecostal terminology. In a sense, a history of the theologizing about the Holy Spirit in 19<sup>th</sup> century America needs to be undertaken. Obviously, the larger context of revivalism needs to be understood far better than it is now. Methodist history needs to be seen as part of the immediate historical background of the revival. Finally, the secular history of the Unites States needs to be related far more directly to the shifts that occur within the holiness revival.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">As can be seen from this paper, biblical, theological, philosophical, and historical issues are raised by the holiness movement of the 19<sup>th</sup> century. Indeed, the holiness movement itself had varied expressions when it touched denominations outside of Methodism. True, a mainline holiness movement may be identifiable. But his should not blind the researcher to the variety that it contained within any revival, and which is manifest in the holiness revival. Though much has been accomplished in this paper, much more needs to be done.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Later in the 1900s and again in the early 2000s, this conflict with Methodist leadership finds a reflection. The charge was made by Mudge and the Methodist leadership that the Holiness Movement as divisive. It had spawned several magazines, it had its own meetings, it printed its own literature, and it had its own speakers. Though the first-generation holiness leaders were faithful to the church, many newly converted people did not have the same ties. The Holiness Movement had gone beyond Methodism, spawning Keswick and Pentecostal movements as well as the more narrowly defined Holiness Movement. The new denominations that grew out of the Holiness Movement were only a matter of time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; vertical-align: baseline;"> Many of the controversies at the turn of the century remain with us. <o:p></o:p></p><ul style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">What is the place of the revivalist tradition within Methodism?<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">How does Methodism apply the classical doctrine of Christian perfection considering the psychological emphasis on the wholistic nature of personality?<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">How do we interpret the biblical data that emphasizes the necessity for holiness?<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">From a biblical view, how is the Holy Spirit related to our understanding of holiness?<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-hyphenate: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">How does a movement designed to effect change keep from defining the issues so clearly between themselves and the structure they hope to change so that division is the only alternative?<o:p></o:p></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">What is the relation of the language of the Spirit to the experience of entire sanctification? One can raise the question at both biblical historical levels. I will focus upon the historical question.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 40.5pt; vertical-align: baseline;">The beginning of the holiness revival was around 1839, with the publication of the first issue of the <i>Guide to Holiness.</i> Timothy Merritt, the first editor, emphasized the need for the special promotion of holiness and a strong adherence to early English Methodism, especially the theological formulations of John Wesley. The early development of the holiness revival was governed by these emphases. The call for holiness to become a specialty became the watchword of the revival. Combined with this was the belief that John Wesley had most clearly defined the theological and practical implications of biblical holiness. In addition, mysticism through Thomas Upham, Scottish realism through and Upham and Asa Mahan, revivalism through Charles Finney, and altar terminology through Phoebe Palmer, made ther impact on the early development of holiness thought.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn170" name="_ftnref170" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[170]</span></sup></sup></a> These factors provided the material out of which the holiness revival began to theologize.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The year 1858 marked a turning-point for the holiness revival. The great evangelical revival, that began in Canada, was spreading throughout America and the entire world. Along with this revival came an emphasis on describing what was happening in the revival by referring to the language of the Spirit. For example, H. V. Degen reviewed the book by Phoebe Palmer, <i>Promise of the Father, </i>which gave biblical support for women preachers by appealing to acts 2. Degen called the revival a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit and an expression of Pentecostal showers. As to the content of the book, he said that we are living in the latter part of the last days, when God pours out the Spirit not only on sons, but daughters also, permitting them to share in the gift of prophecy. The result of allowing women to preach? His answer was that we do not doubt that a Pentecostal flame would be kindled that would result in the salvation of tens of thousands. Their experience in the revival forced the members of the holiness movement to go to the only paradigm for revival they knew, that of Pentecost and the language of the Spirit found there. These references to the Spirit became the primary means of expressing what was occurring in the revival.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The original call to make the promotion of holiness a specialty implied that the churches were not fulfilling their commission in this area. For holiness revivalism, this criticism would be directed at the M. E. Church. The denomination was reproved for its formalism, lack of fervor, reduction of attendance at class meetings and prayer meetings, too much emphasis on education, and its movement from the rural and poor people to the urban and middle class. The thrust of the criticisms by the revivalists was that Methodism was in need of the same outpouring of the Spirit that they had received, which would then give the church the spiritual power necessary to fulfill its mission.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Special promotion was the source of great conflict between the M, E. Church and the leadership of the Holiness Movement. The revivalists wanted to make holiness the property of all denominations, thereby forcing revivalists to be ecumenical in relation to established denominations. They were convinced that the only way this would happen would be by creating new organizations that would not be tied to any denomination. Their vision was that this promotion would fulfill the vision of John Wesley. The revivalists were convinced that the message of holiness should not be confined to Methodism, but rather should be brought to the entire church. Denominational barriers and sectarianism were to crumble at the feet of the holiness message.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The ecumenical character of the holiness revival had the effect of a willingness to accept varied terminology for the one experience of entire sanctification. Classical Methodist terms like sanctification, perfect love, and perfection were widely in use. Other terms also became standard: fullness of God, compete in Christ, higher kife, and the rest of faith. The use of the term “second blessing” was usually discouraged, for it implied too much of a distinction between conversion and entire sanctification. The criticism that these terms were not scriptural was countered with the view that such a limitation was too confining. In the contest of an openness to new terminology, the use of expressions referring to the work of the Spirit can be readily understood. The holiness revival generated a dynamic into its adherents that allowed them to experiment freely in this area.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The ecumenism of the holiness revival was not the only source of conflict with the M. E. Church. One significant example was over how soon after conversion one should expect entire sanctification. For the revivalists the answer was determined by analogy with conversion. As soon as one could expect conversion, therefore, was as soon as one could expect entire sanctification. H. B. Beegle stated this view most clearly when he said that believers ought to obtain the blessing of perfect love in as short a space of time, as they expect penitents to obtain the blessing of pardon. As we will see, Methodism began to emphasize that entire sanctification could occur only after a long process of growth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Before the 1870s, the holiness revivalists explained the theological content of entire sanctification either by classical Wesleyan terms or by the altar terminology of Phoebe Palmer, while the language of the Spirit a\was used to explain what was happening in the revival however, by January 1878 in the <i>Guide </i>George Hughes charged that the nature of the Holy Spirit had not been discussed enough in the Christian world. He could not have said this unless even he distinguished between revivalist expressions referring to the Spirit and a conscious theologizing about the Spirit. In the next eleven issues of the <i>Guide </i>Hughes proceeded to examine the nature and work of the Holy Spirit. For the rest of the century there were extensive discussions of spiritual gifts, healing, and especially the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The intensity with \which this project was carried out was exemplified by Hughes when he said that the Holy Spirit does not receive the honor to which the Spirit is justly entitled. We should think more about the names, character, and offices of the Spirit, so that the church may understand that this is the dispensation of the Holy Spirit and become mighty. The revivalists were conscious of departing from their Methodist tradition. The emphasis on the Holy Spirit was seen as the distinguishing mark of the revival and the peculiarity of the times.<a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftn171" name="_ftnref171" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[171]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">A further development of the emphasis on the role of the Spirit occurred as the 20<sup>th</sup> century drew near. The holiness revivalists had a steadily increasing expectation for a Pentecostal revival. By this was meant a world-wide revival that would remove evil and prepare the church as well for the coming of Christ. Many editorials from the <i>Guide </i>revealed this emphasis on Pentecost. Thus, they can write that the Jerusalem Pentecost is undoubtedly intended to be duplicated. Pentecost is the central, all comprehending thought of the New Testament dispensation. They could connect the arrival of the 20<sup>th</sup> century with the expectation for a Pentecostal revival, viewing it as a time for the manifestation of the power of God as worthy of the period, worthy of th is high dispensation, to commemorate the outgoing of the illustrious and unparalleled nineteenth century. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The commitment to early English Methodism was modified by the acceptance of the terminology that arose out of the evangelical revival. The experience of the holiness revival gradually led to a theologizing about the Spirit. Though some people in the revival went to three works of grace, the strong ties of the leadership of the holiness revival to Methodism led them to incorporate the language of the Spirit into their understanding of entire sanctification. The needed biblical base was discovered in a typological interpretation of Acts. These theological shifts were accompanied by fundamental ecclesial differences with Methodism. While the holiness revivalists saw non-denominational promotion of holiness as a positive sign, Methodist leadership saw it as schismatic. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The James Mudge controversy arose within this setting. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The third phase was characterized by a conscious development of a theology of the Holy Spirit, which led to a strong expectation for a Pentecostal revival before the return of Christ. Combined with these optimistic elements were more negative concerns for the state of the world, the fanaticism of some people in the revival, and a concern for the condition of the Methodist Episcopal Church. All of this made the ecumenical character of the revival even stronger than before. The earnestly expected Pentecostal revival would remove the negative forces against the revivalists and allow the spread of holiness. The effect of these elements on the interpretation of Wesley was to emphasize the crisis element in Wesley’s thought as a revivalist theme, rather than as part of the order of salvation. For Wesley, the latter meant entire sanctification was part of the ongoing process of salvation. For the holiness revivalists, it was a crisis experience that was intended to occur early in the Christian experience. The hardened definitions of holiness in the 1880’s made this fact clear. As the examination that follows will show, this complex of theological and cultural concerns gave birth to much controversy. One of those conflicts was the controversy surrounding James Mudge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The present Christian Holiness Association represents the center of the revival. This includes the OMS, Nazarene Church, Wesleyan, Free Methodist, Salvation Army, Evangelical Friends Alliance, Evangelical Church of North American, Brethren in Christ, Evangelical Christian Church, Evangelical Methodist Church, Missionary Church, and other smaller groups. On the Calvinistic side were the Keswick and Deeper Life movements. On the Arminian side are the Baptist and Pentecostal movements. The latter have been expanded from their source in the holiness movement.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Another aspect of reform was the spread of holiness teachings. This movement arose because of a desire to give Christian perfection at the center of Methodism. It had become accepted in principle, but vaguely understood. In addition, while any doctrine faces the tension of the gap between what is taught and what is practiced, this tension is heightened when the doctrine involved is something called "perfection." It would appear that there was a decline of preaching on perfection in the 1800's. This may have been because Wesley's primary tract on the subject was dropped from the discipline of the church. Also, Methodism grew large enough that many laity no longer had a knowledge of the teaching. There was also a lack of theological education in general. The members of the holiness movement eventually became inflexible in their definition of holiness and became increasingly critical of Methodism. Though at first desiring to reform the Methodist Church, the movement eventually spread beyond Methodism. People by the end of the 1800's were much more ready to leave Methodism. The denomination itself lost control of the situation, and it began to push these reformers out of the church. Benjamin Roberts founded the Free Methodist Church in 1860. The National Camp Meeting Association for Promotion of Holiness was formed in 1867 as a result of a revival begun in 1858. The leader was John Inskip. Phoebe Palmer, the female evangelist of the movement, was the most popular and influential leader of the holiness movement. Her Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness and her periodical, <u>Guide to Holiness</u>, spread her views far and wide. Denomination officials viewed this with suspicion. The insistence upon identifying Christian perfection as a "second blessing" and as a "baptism of the Spirit" led to doctrinal disputes with the hierarchy of the Methodist Church. The controversy with James Mudge, a professor of theology who stressed the growth elements in sanctification, proved to be too much for the advocates for holiness. Many left the church.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> Luther Lee, “Sanctification: What it is – and How it Differs from Justification and Regeneration,” <i>Guide, </i>III (September 1842), 65-66.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 67-71.<i><o:p></o:p></i></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> Henry W. Adams, “Christian Holiness,” <i>Guide, </i>X (1846), 119-24. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> Henry W. Adams, “Christian Holiness,” <i>Guide, </i>XI (1847), 49-54.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> Henry W. Adams, “Christian Holiness,” <i>Guide, </i>XI (1847) 97-101.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> Henry W. Adams, “Christian Holiness,” <i>Guide, </i>XI (1847), 125-9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> “Minutes of the Convention,” <i>Guide, </i>III (September 1841), 70.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> “The Synod of New York and New Jersey, On the Subject of Christian Perfection,” <i>Guide, </i>III (December 1841), 148-9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Our Feast of Tabernacles,” <i>guide </i>XXIII (September 1853, 96.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Regeneration and Entire Sanctification,” <i>Guide, </i>XXIII (December 1853), 184-88.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> E. M. B., “The Relation of Quietude and Energy,” <i>Guide, </i>XIV (1848), 110-11.<i><o:p></o:p></i></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> See Dr. Alan Coppedge’s notes on Wesley’s view of sanctification, as well as Harold Lindstrom, <i>Welsley and Sanctification, </i>translated by H. S. Harvey (London: Epworth Press, 1946), p. 105-25. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> John Wesley, <i>A lain Account of Christian Perfection </i>(Kansas City, Mo: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1966), 43-4.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> Ibid, 44-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> John Esley, “Christian Perfection,” Sermon xL <i>The Sermons, </i>(Salem, OH: Schmul Publishers, 1967) 397.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> John Fletcher, <i>The Last Check to Antinomianism: A Polemical Essay on the Twin Doctrines of Christian Imperfections and a Death Purgatory </i>(No title page), 158. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 161.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 163.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 165.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 167.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn21"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> Ibid.,167-8.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn22"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 168.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn23"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> Howard Fenimore Shipps, <i>The Revival of 1858 in Mid-America, </i>NP, ND, 8.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn24"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> <i>Guide </i>XXV (Jan 1859), 31.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn25"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> Jesse Peck, “The Form of the Fourth in the Midst of the Fire,” <i>Guide </i>XXXV (February 1859), 33.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn26"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 34.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn27"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 34.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn28"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “The Revival,” <i>Guide </i>XXXVII (May 1860, 156.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn29"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> Amos Norton Craft, “Holiness a Milenial Theme,” <i>Guide </i>XLVII (April 1865), 80.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn30"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> E. R. Wells, “The Times,” <i>Guide </i>XXXVI (July 1859), 7-10.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn31"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> W. S. T., “A Few Kind and Candid Thoughts to Unbelievers in a Full, Present Salvation,” <i>Guide, </i>XXXV (May 1859), 132.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn32"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> D. Nash, “the Great Want of the Church,” <i>Guide </i>XLVI (September 1864), 50.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn33"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> M.D.W., “the Gift of Power Still Essential,” <i>Guide </i>LIII (May 1868), 147.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn34"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> M.D.W., “Gift of Power Still Essential,” <i>Guide </i>LIV (August 1868), 44.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn35"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a> D. Nash, “The Revival the Church Needs,” <i>Guide </i>LXIV (November 1873), 145-6.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn36"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Costly Churches, <i>Guide </i>LIII (April 1868), 123.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn37"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> “A Voice from Wesley,” <i>Guide </i>LXIV (Octobr 1873), 104.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn38"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a> “E.E.R.,” “The Higher Christian Life,” <i>Guide </i>XXXVI (October 1859), 109.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn39"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Holiness as a Specialty” <i>Guide </i>XXXVIII (December 1860), 184.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn40"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Holiness as a Specialty,” <i>Guide XXXVIII (December 1860, 184. <o:p></o:p></i></p></div><div id="ftn41"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a> “News Along the Line,” <i>Guide </i>LVIII (December 1870), 185.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn42"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 185.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn43"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[43]</span></span></span></a> G. H. Blakeslee, “Entire Sanctification, and Experience Distinct From Conversion,” <i>Guide </i>XXXVII (February 1860), 36-40.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn44"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[44]</span></span></span></a> Whedon, “Wesley Upon Entire Sanctification,” <i>Guide </i>XXI (August 1861), 233-36.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn45"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref45" name="_ftn45" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[45]</span></span></span></a> William Wesley Tothesch, “Is There a Necessity of a Distinct Work in the Soul After Conversion?” <i>Guide </i>LIII (January 1868), 25.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn46"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref46" name="_ftn46" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[46]</span></span></span></a> William I. Gill, “Wesley’s Journal on Entire Sanctification,” <i>Guide </i>LVIII (September 18700), 79-81.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn47"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref47" name="_ftn47" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[47]</span></span></span></a> John A. Wood, “Directions for Attainment of Perfect Love,” <i>Guide </i>XIV (January 1863), 19.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn48"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref48" name="_ftn48" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[48]</span></span></span></a> H. B. Beegle, “An Important Question,” <i>Guide </i>LVII (June 1870), 176.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn49"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref49" name="_ftn49" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[49]</span></span></span></a> H. B. Beegle, “An Important Question,” <i>Guide </i>LVIII (July 1870), 18-20.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn50"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref50" name="_ftn50" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[50]</span></span></span></a> John A. Wood, <i>Perfect Love </i>(Chicago: the Christian Witness Co., 1910), 30-33.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn51"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref51" name="_ftn51" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[51]</span></span></span></a> William I. Gill, “Wesley’s Journal on Enitre Sanctification,” <i>Guide </i>LVIII (December 1870), 166-69.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn52"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref52" name="_ftn52" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[52]</span></span></span></a> W. S. T, “Entire Sanctification: To be Confessed,” <i>Guide </i>XXXV (June 1859), 175-8.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn53"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref53" name="_ftn53" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[53]</span></span></span></a> “The Christian’s Privilege,” <i>Guide </i>XIII (July 1862, 226.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn54"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref54" name="_ftn54" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[54]</span></span></span></a> J. A. Wood, “Mr. Wesley on Profession of Holiness,” <i>Guide </i>XIV (January 1863), 23.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn55"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref55" name="_ftn55" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[55]</span></span></span></a> J. A. Wood, “The Profession of Perfect Love,” <i>Guide </i>XIV (February 1863), 43-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn56"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref56" name="_ftn56" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[56]</span></span></span></a> William I. Gill, “John Wesley’s Profession of Sanctification,” <i>Guide </i>(July 1870), 9-11.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn57"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref57" name="_ftn57" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[57]</span></span></span></a> William I. Gill, “Wesley’s Journal on Entire Sanctification,” <i>Guide </i>LVII (October 1870), 103-06.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn58"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref58" name="_ftn58" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[58]</span></span></span></a> A Southerner, “Holiness and Emancipation,” <i>Guide </i>XII (August 1861), 247-8.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn59"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref59" name="_ftn59" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[59]</span></span></span></a> “A Letter from Phoebe Palmer,” <i>Guide </i>xIV (June 1863), 131.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn60"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref60" name="_ftn60" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[60]</span></span></span></a> “John Wesley on Dress,” <i>Guide </i>XV (January 1864), 11).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn61"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref61" name="_ftn61" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[61]</span></span></span></a> “A Voice from Wesley,” <i>Guide </i>LXIV (October 1873), 104.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn62"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref62" name="_ftn62" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[62]</span></span></span></a> H. W. Beecher, “Methodist Singing,” <i>Guide </i>LXIV (February 1874), 63.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn63"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref63" name="_ftn63" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[63]</span></span></span></a> A. A. Phelps, “Evidences of the Sanctified Stte,” <i>Guide </i>XXXVII (March 1860), 76.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn64"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref64" name="_ftn64" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[64]</span></span></span></a> J. E. Joyner, “Nature and Extent of Sanctification,” <i>Guide </i>XXXVI (August 1859), 44-5.<i><o:p></o:p></i></p></div><div id="ftn65"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref65" name="_ftn65" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[65]</span></span></span></a> Phoebe Palmer, “Entire Sanctification: How Received – How Retained,” <i>Guide </i>LIV (December 1869), 170.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn66"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref66" name="_ftn66" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[66]</span></span></span></a> Phoebe Palmer, <i>the Way of Holiness </i>(New York: Printed for the Author, 1852), 63.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn67"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref67" name="_ftn67" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[67]</span></span></span></a> Phoebe Palmer, “Entire Sanctification: How Received-How Retained,” <i>Guide </i>LIV (December 1869, 170.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn68"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref68" name="_ftn68" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[68]</span></span></span></a> Phoebe Palmer, <i>Present to my Christian Friend </i>(New York: Foster and Palmer, 1852), 38. Phoebe Palmer, <i>The Way of Holiness, </i>30-32, 62.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn69"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref69" name="_ftn69" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[69]</span></span></span></a> Phoebe Palmer, <i>Faith and its Effects </i>(London: Alexander Heylin, n.d.), 4.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn70"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref70" name="_ftn70" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[70]</span></span></span></a> “Letter from Mrs. Palmer,” <i>Guide </i>XXXV (March 2859), 72-3. “The Tuesday Meeting,” <i>Guide </i>LIII (June 1868), 191. “National Camp Meeting,” <i>Guide </i>LIV (July 1868), 26-8. “News Along the Line,” <i>Guide </i>LVIII (December 1870), 185. “Letter From Mrs. Palmer,” <i>Guide </i>XXXV (March 1859), 72. “the Tuesday Meeting,” <i>Guide </i>LXIII (February 1873), 64.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn71"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref71" name="_ftn71" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[71]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Pious Novelists and Pious Amusements,” <i>Guide </i>LIII (January 1868), 28-30.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn72"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref72" name="_ftn72" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[72]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Costly Churches,” <i>Guide </i>LIII (April 1868), 123.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn73"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref73" name="_ftn73" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[73]</span></span></span></a> Phoebe Palmer, “Holiness,” <i>Guide </i>LXIV (August 1873), 42-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn74"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref74" name="_ftn74" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[74]</span></span></span></a> “Letter From Mrs. Palmer,” <i>Guide </i>XIV (June 1863), 131.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn75"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref75" name="_ftn75" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[75]</span></span></span></a> Charles Edwin Jones, <i>Perfectionist Persuasion </i>(Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Prress, 1974), 5. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn76"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref76" name="_ftn76" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[76]</span></span></span></a> <i>Pioneer Experiences: or, The Gift of Power Received by Faith,</i> Phoebe Palmer, ed. Introduction by Hishop Janes. (New York: W. C. Palmer, Jr. 1868), 7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn77"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref77" name="_ftn77" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[77]</span></span></span></a> Henry Belden, “Frequent Baptisms of the Holy Ghost,” <i>Guide </i>LXV (July 1874), 3-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn78"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref78" name="_ftn78" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[78]</span></span></span></a> Henry Belden, “Frequent Baptisms of the Holy Ghost,” <i>Christian Witness and Advocate of Bible Holiness,</i> XXV (September 26, 1895), 2. Hereafter this paper will be called <i>Christian Witness.</i><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn79"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref79" name="_ftn79" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[79]</span></span></span></a> George Hughes, “the Glorious Dispensation fo the Spirit,” <i>Guide </i>LXXI (January 1878), 1.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn80"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref80" name="_ftn80" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[80]</span></span></span></a> George Hughes, “the Glorious Dispensation of the Spirit,” <i>Guide </i>LXXII (December 1878), 161-65.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn81"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref81" name="_ftn81" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[81]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “What we Believe and Teach,” <i>Guide,</i> LXXVI (August 1880), 52.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn82"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref82" name="_ftn82" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[82]</span></span></span></a> F. G. Hubbard, “Sermon: Spiritual Gifts,” <i>Guide, </i>LXIx (January 1882, 4-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn83"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref83" name="_ftn83" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[83]</span></span></span></a> Mrs. Dr. Mahan, “Holiness and Healing,” <i>Guide, </i>LXX (October 1882), 115.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn84"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref84" name="_ftn84" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[84]</span></span></span></a> Ibid, 116.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn85"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref85" name="_ftn85" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[85]</span></span></span></a> W. H. Poole, “the Gift of the Holy Ghost,” <i>Guide, </i>LXIX (February 11882), 38-39.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn86"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref86" name="_ftn86" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[86]</span></span></span></a> James Harris, “the Holy Spirit,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXXII (November 1888), 134-35.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn87"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref87" name="_ftn87" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[87]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Honor the Holy Ghost,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXVIII (August 1886), 58.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn88"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref88" name="_ftn88" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[88]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Holiness Unity,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXII (December 1900), 184-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn89"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref89" name="_ftn89" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[89]</span></span></span></a> Gideon Draper, “Pentecost and Evangelization,” <i>Guide </i>LXXXVIII (January 1888), 8-9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn90"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref90" name="_ftn90" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[90]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Pentecost Expected,” <i>Guide </i>LXXXIV (July 1889), 25.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn91"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref91" name="_ftn91" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[91]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Pentecost Terminology,” <i>Guide </i>LXVIII (February 1898), 49.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn92"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref92" name="_ftn92" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[92]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “The Great Century Pentecost,” <i>Guide,</i> LXX (April 1899), 112.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn93"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref93" name="_ftn93" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[93]</span></span></span></a> <i>Supplement: The New Century Union Forward Movement of the Guide to Holiness, </i>LXXII (1900), 163.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn94"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref94" name="_ftn94" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[94]</span></span></span></a> I. E. Page, “The Work in Great Britain: Has the Great Revival Begun?”<i> Guide</i>, LXXV (July 1901), 11.<i><o:p></o:p></i></p></div><div id="ftn95"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref95" name="_ftn95" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[95]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “A Bright Transition,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXXIII (January 1889), 25.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn96"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref96" name="_ftn96" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[96]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Reigning with Christ,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXXIII (January 1889), 25.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn97"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref97" name="_ftn97" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[97]</span></span></span></a> “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” <i>Guide, </i>LXX (August 1882), 59.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn98"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref98" name="_ftn98" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[98]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “The Prophetic Conference,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXII (December 1878), 180-81.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn99"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref99" name="_ftn99" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[99]</span></span></span></a> Joseph H. Smith, “A Divine Visitation,” <i>Guide, </i>LXV (December 1896), 200-02.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn100"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref100" name="_ftn100" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[100]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “The Trumpet Call,” <i>Guide, </i>LXV (December 1896), 232.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn101"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref101" name="_ftn101" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[101]</span></span></span></a> “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” 59.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn102"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref102" name="_ftn102" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[102]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Led by the Spirit,” <i>Guide, </i>LXVIII (November 1886), 152.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn103"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref103" name="_ftn103" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[103]</span></span></span></a> J. R. Jacques, “Open Letter to Young Pastors on Holiness and the Christian Pastorate,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXXIV (September 1889), 68-70.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn104"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref104" name="_ftn104" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[104]</span></span></span></a> Dougan Clark, “The Reckoning of Faith,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXXIV (October 1889), 98-100.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn105"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref105" name="_ftn105" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[105]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Pentecostal Terminology,” <i>Guide, </i>LXVIII (February 1898), 49.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn106"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref106" name="_ftn106" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[106]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Signs of the Times,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXV (January 1885), 26.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn107"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref107" name="_ftn107" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[107]</span></span></span></a> Daniel Steele, “The Holy Spirit the Conservator of Orthodoxy,” <i>Guide </i>LXXV (February and March 1885), 34-37, 66-72.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn108"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref108" name="_ftn108" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[108]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “What is the Matter?” <i>Guide </i>LXXXIV (December 1889), 185.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn109"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref109" name="_ftn109" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[109]</span></span></span></a> “Address to Our Patrons, <i>Guide, </i>LXXIV (December 1889), 162.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn110"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref110" name="_ftn110" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[110]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Large Margins,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXI (June 1878), 175.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn111"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref111" name="_ftn111" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[111]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “What is the Trouble?” <i>Guide,</i> LXXII (April 1900), 116.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn112"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref112" name="_ftn112" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[112]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Grateful Memories,” <i>Guide, </i>LXXXII (December 1888), 184.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn113"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref113" name="_ftn113" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[113]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “What God Hath Wrought,” <i>Guide </i>LXXI (March 1878), 86.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn114"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref114" name="_ftn114" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[114]</span></span></span></a> “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” <i>Guide </i>LXX (August 1882), 59.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn115"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref115" name="_ftn115" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[115]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “General Assembly” <i>Guide </i>LXXVI (July 1885), 28.<i><o:p></o:p></i></p></div><div id="ftn116"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref116" name="_ftn116" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[116]</span></span></span></a> M. Annesly, “The Second Blessing, or Sanctification,” <i>Guide </i>LXXI (February 1878), 46.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn117"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref117" name="_ftn117" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[117]</span></span></span></a> G. Burrows, “A Presbyterian Testimony,” <i>Guide </i>LXIX (January 1882), 15.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn118"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref118" name="_ftn118" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[118]</span></span></span></a> M. Burns, “The Profession of Holiness,” <i>Guide </i>LXIX (February 1882), 46-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn119"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref119" name="_ftn119" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[119]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Holiness General Assembly,” <i>Guide </i>LXXV (March 1885), 89.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn120"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref120" name="_ftn120" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[120]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “General Holiness Assembly,” <i>Guide </i>LXXV (April 1885), 154.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn121"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref121" name="_ftn121" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[121]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Christian Unity,” <i>Guide </i>LXXVI (December1880), 178.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn122"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref122" name="_ftn122" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[122]</span></span></span></a> “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” <i>Guide </i>LXXX (August 1882), 59.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn123"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref123" name="_ftn123" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[123]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “The General assembly,” <i>Guide </i>LXXVI (July 1885), 28.<i><o:p></o:p></i></p></div><div id="ftn124"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref124" name="_ftn124" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[124]</span></span></span></a> Ibid, 26.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn125"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref125" name="_ftn125" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[125]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “A Talk with our Subscribers,” <i>Guide </i>LXXVI (November 1885), 153.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn126"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref126" name="_ftn126" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[126]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Holy Unity,” <i>Guide </i>LXXVII (January 1886), 25.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn127"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref127" name="_ftn127" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[127]</span></span></span></a> John Summerfield, “Sermon; Christian Perfection,” <i>Guide </i>LXIX (April 1882), 102-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn128"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref128" name="_ftn128" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[128]</span></span></span></a> “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” <i>Guide </i>LXX (August 1882), 59.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn129"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref129" name="_ftn129" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[129]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “The General assembly,” <i>Guide </i>LXXVI (July 1885), 27.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn130"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref130" name="_ftn130" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[130]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “An Error Corrected,” <i>Guide </i>LXXXI (April 1888), 120.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn131"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref131" name="_ftn131" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[131]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Two Christian Verities,” <i>Guide </i>LXXXIV (August 1889), 57.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn132"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref132" name="_ftn132" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[132]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “The Advance of the Church,” <i>Guide </i>LXXI (February 1878), 53-4.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn133"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref133" name="_ftn133" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[133]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “The General Assembly,” <i>Guide </i>LXXVI (July 1885), 27.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn134"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref134" name="_ftn134" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[134]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “An Error Corrected,” <i>Guide </i>LXXXI (March 1888), 88.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn135"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref135" name="_ftn135" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[135]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “What God Hath wrought,” <i>Guide </i>LXXI (March 1878), 84-6.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn136"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref136" name="_ftn136" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[136]</span></span></span></a> A part of my paper presented to Melvin E. Dieter in 1979 contained a discussion of theMudge controversy. The following is from a paper I wrote in hopes for publication in the Good News Magazine in 1981. I refer to Lewis R. Dunn, <i>A Manual of Holiness and Review of Dr. James B. Mudge, </i>Cincinnati: Jennings and Rye, 1895; Asbury Lowrey, <i>Methodist Review, </i>LXXVII (Nov 1895), p. 956; John A. Wood, <i>Christian Witness, </i>October 3, 1895-Novemver 7, 1895; Harold Lindstrom, <i>Wesley and Sanctification,</i> translated by H. S. Harvey, London: Epworth Press, 1946, p. 105-125. I also wrote a paper on August 23, 1979 that I have incorporated into this material. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn137"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref137" name="_ftn137" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[137]</span></span></span></a> James Mudge, <i>Growth in Holiness Toward Perfection, or Progressive Sanctificatiion </i>(New York: Hunt & Easton, 1895), 263-75.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn138"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref138" name="_ftn138" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[138]</span></span></span></a> Ibid., 275-80.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn139"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref139" name="_ftn139" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[139]</span></span></span></a> J. C. Granberry, “Dr. Mudge on Growth in Holiness,” <i>Methodist Review, </i>XLIII (March-April 1896), 198.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn140"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref140" name="_ftn140" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[140]</span></span></span></a> <i>The Methodist Review, </i>LXXVII (July 1895), 663-65.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn141"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref141" name="_ftn141" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[141]</span></span></span></a> John Galbraith, “Growth in Holiness,” <i>Zion’s Herald, </i>LXXIII (July 3, 1895), 419.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn142"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref142" name="_ftn142" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[142]</span></span></span></a> Ottis Cole, “Mudge’s Growth in Holiness,” <i>Zion’s Herald </i>LXXIII (July 3, 1895), 419.<i><o:p></o:p></i></p></div><div id="ftn143"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref143" name="_ftn143" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[143]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Change of Name Does alter the Fact,” <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (August 1, 1895), 1. See also Editorial, “Alas Poor Paul,” <i>Christian Witness, </i>XXV (October 3, 1895), 1; Editorial, “Is Deprivity Unclean?” <i>Christian Witness, </i>XXV (November 7, 1895), 1.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn144"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref144" name="_ftn144" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[144]</span></span></span></a> Asbury Lowrey, “Dr. Mudge and His Book,” <i>Methodist Review, </i>LXXVII (November 1895), 956.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn145"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref145" name="_ftn145" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[145]</span></span></span></a> John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness, by Rev. James Mudge, D. D.,” <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (October 3, 1895), 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn146"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref146" name="_ftn146" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[146]</span></span></span></a> Lewis R. Dunn, <i>A Manual of Holiness and Review of Dr. James B. Mudge </i>(Cincinnati: Jennings and Rye, 1895), 31-33.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn147"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref147" name="_ftn147" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[147]</span></span></span></a> Cole, 418.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn148"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref148" name="_ftn148" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[148]</span></span></span></a> Editorial, “Current Misrepresentations,” <i>Christian Witness, </i>XXV (October 3, 1895), 1.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn149"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref149" name="_ftn149" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[149]</span></span></span></a> Dunn, 122.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn150"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref150" name="_ftn150" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[150]</span></span></span></a> Lowrey, 957.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn151"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref151" name="_ftn151" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[151]</span></span></span></a> John Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D.,” <i>Christian Witness, </i>XXV (October 31, 1895), 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn152"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref152" name="_ftn152" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[152]</span></span></span></a> Dunn, 58.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn153"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref153" name="_ftn153" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[153]</span></span></span></a> John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D., <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (November 7, 1895), 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn154"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref154" name="_ftn154" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[154]</span></span></span></a> Dunn, 92.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn155"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref155" name="_ftn155" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[155]</span></span></span></a> John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D., <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (November 7, 1895), 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn156"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref156" name="_ftn156" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[156]</span></span></span></a> Dunn, 121.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn157"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref157" name="_ftn157" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[157]</span></span></span></a> John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D., <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (November 7, 1895), 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn158"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref158" name="_ftn158" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[158]</span></span></span></a> Dunne, 125.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn159"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref159" name="_ftn159" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[159]</span></span></span></a> Cole, 419.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn160"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref160" name="_ftn160" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[160]</span></span></span></a> C. Munger, “A Brick From the New Babel,” <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (August 15, 1893), 3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn161"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref161" name="_ftn161" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[161]</span></span></span></a> John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D., <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (November 7, 1895), 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn162"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref162" name="_ftn162" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[162]</span></span></span></a> Lowrey, 954.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn163"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref163" name="_ftn163" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[163]</span></span></span></a> Dunn, 7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn164"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref164" name="_ftn164" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[164]</span></span></span></a> John Parker, “Great Truths, Great Errors in Two Recent Books,” <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (November 14, 1895), 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn165"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref165" name="_ftn165" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[165]</span></span></span></a> Dunn, 48.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn166"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref166" name="_ftn166" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[166]</span></span></span></a> Parker, 2-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn167"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref167" name="_ftn167" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[167]</span></span></span></a> Munger, 3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn168"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref168" name="_ftn168" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[168]</span></span></span></a> Munger, 3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn169"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref169" name="_ftn169" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[169]</span></span></span></a> John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness, by Rev. James Mudge, D. D.,” <i>Christian Witness </i>XXV (Octobrer 31, 1895), 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn170"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref170" name="_ftn170" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[170]</span></span></span></a> Melvin E. Dieter, <i>Revivalism and Holiness, </i>dissertation presented to Temple University, November 1, 1972<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn171"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://253F5217-EA00-4E7A-97D4-730C3489CCCD#_ftnref171" name="_ftn171" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[171]</span></span></span></a> <i>Guide to Holiness, </i>Editorial, LXXVIII, August 1886, 58 and LXXII, December 1900 184-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-46401879958085431622023-06-24T13:24:00.002-07:002023-06-24T13:24:22.899-07:00John Wesley<p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgud1GT01dTsOHLGgnSG1_YFD_O4SWqitMjUL_PjSi__evJJ_Zuc4kgfct2DYeTG59NEmmH_qV61f9UqfRHLCgAMcg3iqgH7rAc_EXtAb_648deB8R1Aezf3HoOSAemyfOy97YA4MUqyT55Jr2r0F854I7nf_ULeIMkE2BXJ2HEiEF3HwbtsApDTH7BztSi/s2342/johnwesley.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2342" data-original-width="1920" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgud1GT01dTsOHLGgnSG1_YFD_O4SWqitMjUL_PjSi__evJJ_Zuc4kgfct2DYeTG59NEmmH_qV61f9UqfRHLCgAMcg3iqgH7rAc_EXtAb_648deB8R1Aezf3HoOSAemyfOy97YA4MUqyT55Jr2r0F854I7nf_ULeIMkE2BXJ2HEiEF3HwbtsApDTH7BztSi/s320/johnwesley.jpeg" width="262" /></a></div><br /><a name="_Toc160981895" style="color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Biographical Sketch</a><p></p><h5 style="break-after: avoid; color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><o:p></o:p></h5><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">John Wesley (1703-91) was an English theologian, evangelist, and founder of Methodism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley was born in the rectory at Epworth, Lincolnshire, on June 17, 1703, the 15th child of the British clergyman Samuel Wesley. He was educated at Charterhouse School and Christ Church, University of Oxford. Ordained deacon in 1725 and admitted to the priesthood of the Church of England in 1728, John Wesley acted for a time as curate (assistant) to his father. In 1729, he went into residence at Oxford as a fellow of Lincoln College. There he joined the Holy Club, a group of students that included his brother Charles Wesley and, later, George Whitefield, who became the founder of Calvinistic Methodism. The club members adhered strictly and methodically to religious precepts and practices, among them visiting prisons and comforting the sick. Their schoolmates derisively called them "Methodists." In 1735, Wesley went to Georgia as an Anglican missionary. On the ship to Savannah, he met some German Moravians, whose simple evangelical piety impressed him. He continued to associate with them while in Georgia and translated some of their hymns into English. Except for this association, Wesley's American experience was a failure.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">On his return to England in 1738, he again sought out the Moravians; while attending one of their meetings in Aldersgate St., London, on May 24, 1738, he experienced a religious awakening that profoundly convinced him that salvation was possible for every person through faith in Jesus Christ alone.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In March 1739, George Whitefield, who had met with remarkable success as an evangelist in Bristol, urged Wesley to join him in his endeavors. Despite his initial opposition to preaching outside the church, Wesley preached an open-air sermon on April 2, and the enthusiastic reaction of his audience convinced him that open-air preaching was the most effective way to reach the masses. Few pulpits would be open to him in any case, for the Anglican Church frowned on revivalism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley represented the whole of the evangelical movement, though the movement was greater than him. That movement consisted of Wesley, Calvinism through Whitefield (1714-70) and Lady Huntington (1707-97), and Anglican evangelicals like Samuel Johnson, Bishop Lowth, and Bishop Hebber. These people emphasized salvation by faith through the atoning work of Christ. They rejected the sacraments or works as means of salvation. They also developed new methods of preaching, such as directness of preaching, a disciplined life, and a negative outlook on entertainment which it got from the Puritans. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley attracted immense crowds from the outset of his evangelical career. His success also was due, in part, to the fact that contemporary England was ready for a revivalist movement; the Anglican Church was unable to offer the kind of personal faith that people craved. Thus, Wesley's emphasis on inner religion and his assurance that God accepted each person as a child of God had a tremendous popular appeal.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">On May 1, 1739, Wesley and a group of his followers, meeting in a shop on West St., London, formed the first Methodist society. They formed two similar organizations in Bristol the same month. Late in 1739, the London society began to meet in a building called the Foundry, which served as the headquarters of Methodism for many years.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">With the growth of the Methodist movement, the need for tighter organization became acute. In 1742, he divided the societies into classes, with a leader for each class. These class meetings contributed greatly to the success of the movement, but equally important were their leaders, many of whom Wesley designated lay preachers. Wesley called the first conference of Methodist leaders in 1744, and they held conferences annually thereafter.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In 1751, at the age of 48, Wesley married Mary Vazeille, a widow with four children. The marriage was not successful, and she finally left him; Wesley had no children of his own.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">An untiring preacher and organizer, Wesley traveled about 8000 km (5000 mi) a year, delivering as many as four or five sermons a day and founding new societies.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley parted with the Moravians in 1740 because of doctrinal disagreements, and he rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, thus breaking with Whitefield. He also discarded many tenets of the Church of England, including the doctrine of the apostolic succession (the maintenance of an unbroken line of succession of bishops of the Christian church beginning with St. Peter), but he never voiced any intention of establishing the movement as a new church. His actions made separation inevitable, however. In 1784, he issued the deed of declaration, which provided rules and regulations for the guidance of the Methodist societies. The same year he appointed his aide Thomas Coke, an Anglican clergyman, a superintendent of the Methodist organization in the U.S., empowering him to administer the sacraments; other ordinations followed. Ordination represented the biggest step in the direction of a break with the Anglican Church. Separation did not take place, however, until after Wesley's death.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley was deeply concerned with the intellectual, economic, and physical well being of the masses. He was also a prolific writer on a wide variety of historical and religious subjects. He sold his books cheaply, so that even the poor could afford to buy them; thus, he did much to improve the reading habits of the public. He aided debtors and those trying to establish businesses and founded medical dispensaries. He opposed slavery and was interested in social reform movements of all kinds.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley compiled 23 collections of hymns, edited a monthly magazine, translated Greek, Latin, and Hebrew works, and edited, under the title The Christian's Pattern, the noted medieval devotional work <i>De Imitatione Christ</i>i, generally ascribed to the German ecclesiastic Thomas à Kempis. His personal Journal (1735-90) is outstanding for the frank exposition of his spiritual development.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In the latter years of his life, the hostility of the Anglican Church to Methodism had virtually disappeared, and many of his fellow Anglicans admired Wesley. He died March 2, 1791, and was buried in the graveyard of City Road Chapel, London. In Westminster Abbey is a memorial plaque inscribed with his name.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Famous quotes include the following. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">My ground is the Bible. Yea, I am a Bible-bigot. I follow it in all things, both great and small.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones. All men mean well.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Once in seven years I burn all my sermons; for it is a shame if I cannot write better sermons now than I did seven years ago.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley first struggled with justification. In 1725, he determined to seek ordination. He went to Oxford, becoming a tutor. He sought holiness through leadership in two groups, especially the Oxford Methodists. He would become a curate of his father. He begins to see that the teaching of the church that mental assent to teachings of the church and works of charity are not enough. He went back to Oxford and continues to read the mystics. He is becoming convinced that reason is not enough. He commits himself to works of charity now. He went to Georgia to convert Indians and continue working on his own salvation through such acts of charity. On his journey to Georgia, he met some Moravians and was impressed with their piety and spirituality and the assurance they had in salvation. His ministry in Georgia was a failure, having to steal away at night. He returned to England, and in May of 1738 went to a Bible study. While Luther's preface to the Romans was being read, he experienced a new degree of assurance in the grace and forgiveness of God. This is how he put it:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;"> In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">This led to the development of his conception of Justification, in which he saw it primarily as forgiveness of sin and restoration to the favor of God. Thus, works done before one experiences this assist one along the way, but they do not by themselves make it happen. As he brought together terms in the Bible, he believed that adoption and regeneration also occurred at this time, which mean that there was a new relationship with God established and that there was a inner change of the person. He came to believe that some measure of repentance preceded justification and that there was an assurance given at justification through the witness of the Spirit, meaning both the spirit of God and one's own spirit, an inner awareness of the new relationship combined with one's own awareness of bearing the fruit of the Spirit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">His reflections upon original sin suggest that while he agreed with Calvin on some points, he came to believe that humanity was not helpless. He came to believe that Christ removed any possibility that anyone could be damned just because of original sin. He viewed the sin of Adam, as representing humanity, leading to the individual's own corrupt, sinful nature, personal acts of sin, and general imperfections. Prevenient grace comes to all persons since all need grace because of their sinful nature. All are assured of this grace because of the atonement. It is expressed in the form of a conscience. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley's views on sanctification or perfection were controversial in his own day and continue to be so. Historically, Wesley believed the vision of perfection and holiness as contained in the devotional writings of the Roman Catholic church could be applied outside the monastery. He did not believe that the mystical emphasis upon union with God and love and perfection should be reserved for the few. He came to believe that sanctifying faith was available to the believer, in which one could be saved from sin and be perfected in love. This is where the sinful nature was dealt with through grace and faith. Though he believed this could happen in a moment and at any time, he often said it usually did not happen until near one's death. However, his primary contribution at this point is that this perfection was centered in love and in the fruits of love. The negative aspect of this experience was purification and cleansing, the positive aspect was love, both of which led to outward conduct and ethical living. Wesley often used the language of relationship and family to describe this experience. This contrasts with the Reformed tradition at this point, which focused upon the language of the court room to describe justification and sanctification. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Sin is the basic problem humanity faces. Objectively this means separation from God. Objectively, sin results in guilt and punishment. Subjectively, it involves loss of holiness, righteousness, and the image of God. The solution God offers objectively is justification, which involves a relative change that includes divine acceptance, adoption, pardon, and reconciliation with God. It is deliverance from guilt. The solution God offers subjectively through the Spirit is sanctification, which results in an inward change that includes regeneration and new birth. It is deliverance from the power of sin. The atonement means that Christ as our representative absolves us of the guilt of original sin. The atonement is the basis for the prevenient grace that is applied to all persons. Wesley rejects the determinism of the reformers in this area, all persons having responsibility for accepting or rejecting this grace. This grace restores to us a measure of freedom. It reflects itself in our conscience. It is the source of our desire for God. No one receives punishment for this, at this point parting ways with Calvin. Our experience corroborates the doctrine of original sin. We have an evil inclination due to original sin, but again, no one receives divine judgment because of this. He could picture the inherent corruption of humanity with that of disease, with salvation and the subjective work of the Spirit being the cure. Think in the terms of Wesley, original sin is an evil root, while specific sins are a shoot. He thought of personal sin as have an inward dimension, both of omission and transgression, with outward sin being the outcome. Original sin has the effect of producing in us a corrupt, sinful nature which leads to personal acts of sin. Importantly, original sin also has the effect of infirmities or general depravity, which are involuntary. The divine solution to our personal acts of sin is conversion. Conversion is ethical in that it deals with voluntary transgression of a known law of God. This new birth frees from the power of sin. Entire sanctification is the solution for our sinful nature, dealing with our pride and self-will. It frees the believer from the root of sin. Its chief mark is the perfection of love and the fruits of love. Its positive dimension is love, while its negative dimension is purification and cleansing from sin as self-will and pride. On analogy with justification, he believed one could experience such entire sanctification or perfection in life in an instant and by faith, although it was usually not experienced until many years after conversion and maybe only shortly before death. Our only release from infirmities and general depravity is glorification or final salvation at death. I would note the teleological orientation of subjectively applied salvation. Another way to think of it is in relation to the holiness of God. God is holy and therefore righteous, a term drawn from the courtroom. God is just judge that offers justification before an absolute law, in which sin is any transgression, known or unknown, and sanctification is a change in position. Perfection does not factor here. A different dimension of the holiness of God is that of the love of the Father. This language draws from family life. It provides us with the image of new birth, which focuses upon a law of the intention of the heart, where sin is willful transgression, where sanctification is subjectively applied through the Spirit, and perfection involves the intention of the will or heart. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">One of the great gifts which Wesley brought into Christianity was his vision of pastoral care and discipleship. The proliferation of religious societies in England formed the background out of which Wesley formed his own Methodist societies, though the experience in the parsonage at Epworth and the Oxford Methodists were undoubtedly influential as well. He preached to large crowds in the open field, an innovation. He formed weekly large group meetings called the Society. The only condition, as stated, was "to flee the wrath to come." These were divided into small group fellowships. Bands, specialized bands, and class meetings were formed for this purpose. They provided opportunities to receive help from one another in their Christian journey, encouraged the spirit of fellowship, opportunities for confession, and gave pastoral oversight. Lay leadership was developed. In this way, Christian life was not just an individual experience and discipline, but also a corporate discipline. In this way, he developed the "church within a church" concept. The above took place within an historical institution called the Church of England. That institution provided the sacraments, an order of worship, an order of ministry, and orthodox theology. Within societies the fellowship and the pure word preached were to be provided. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Wesley's own views concerning predestination followed closely those of Arminius. The sovereignty of God cannot be understood apart from the total character of God. Thus, one's view of the sovereignty of God cannot be separated from one's view of the righteousness, love, and purity of God. Sovereignty implies a distinction and distance from humanity, while righteousness implies a demand for ethical for living, love implies the acceptance into a family and purity implies acceptance of a sacrifice and cleansing. He came to believe the decrees of God were based upon God's foreknowledge of the events. The atonement is universal, Christ died for all. Though humanity was fallen in Adam, humanity also experienced the prevenient grace of God to the point were there was needed free response from humanity in order to bring one toward salvation. The grace of God could be resisted, and any Christian remained free to turn away at any time.<o:p></o:p></p><h5 style="break-after: avoid; color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><a name="_Toc160981896">Religion of the Heart</a><o:p></o:p></h5><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">For the following devotion, the heart carries our identity, that sense of who we are that is composed of both our history and our vision of what we want to become. The Reformation concerned itself with right doctrine, maintaining that a biblical faith defines truth and adherence to it would bring about the unity of the church. John Wesley assumed right doctrine, except when it came to his denomination's acceptance of apostolic succession and George Whitefield's acceptance of predestination. He was more concerned with two other issues in the England of his day. He wanted right action, which he defined as works of mercy and works of piety. Yet, he went a step further. He believed that one could believe and do the right things, and still be "almost" a Christian. That is why we can speak of his presentation of Christianity as a "religion of the heart." This heart religion was not simply feeling, for one's feelings can change in a moment. Love from the heart requires an object. It can be lust, wealth, or fame. He urged that the object of the love in one's heart be God. If we resolve such matters of the heart, we will be disposed toward certain types of behavior. The root of love toward God will sprout branches consistent with that root.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In his "Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained," John Wesley made the following statement. "Our main doctrines, which include all the rest, are three -- that of repentance, of faith, and of holiness. The first of these we account, as it were, the porch of religion; the next, the door; the third, religion itself." This image of a house to describe Christian discipleship has some drawbacks. For one, the image is a logical one, not a temporal one. People do not experience God in such a neat pattern. We should not expect a rigid conformity to some external form of religious experience. For another, it suggests that once we go past the porch of repentance and the door of faith, we never have to deal with them again. However, Wesley is clear that Christians need repentance and faith throughout their lives.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></sup></sup></a> Though it is fine to remember past spiritual experiences, the focus needs to be upon the present experience of God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">With some modifications, I would like to use Wesley's own statement of his central themes as the core of this devotion.<o:p></o:p></p><h5 style="break-after: avoid; color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><a name="_Toc49468173"></a><a name="_Toc160981897">a. The Grace of God surrounds us</a><o:p></o:p></h5><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">First, I want to begin with a modification. Wesley began and ended his theology with grace. To expand on the image of the house of religion, grace is the air that surrounds the house, and the sun that shines upon it. God is the loving parent who seeks to gather humanity and hold each and all as close as possible. Nothing is impossible for God, and so Wesley prayed for the unthinkable. All of life is a gift from God. The Christian life is impossible without God's grace extended to the believer. God is the seeker and always initiates every relationship with us. Even our awakening to God is a response to the Holy Spirit at work within us. We cannot control the ways or means that God will choose to use in our transformation any more than we can command God to transform us. Wesley believed that God offered this grace freely to all. No one is ever outside the reach of the loving presence of God. God is always actively engaged on our behalf. Therefore, no one had to suffer from unforgiven sin. No one had to walk alone. No one had to be a prisoner of fear. No one had to stay as she or he was. All could know the assurance and comfort of the Savior's presence in their lives. All could be redeemed and all could, by the grace of God, travel the road of holiness. It was the grace of God that made this possible. As we mature in the Christian life, we increasingly recognize the priority of the grace of God over our own decision. We recognize that God apprehended us, not the other way around. God sought us, wooed our attention, and called forth our love. The grace of God makes our relationship with God right. The grace of God calls and strengthens us in living the way God intends. Our lives begin surrounded by the grace of God, the grace of God continues to draw us and lead us into a relationship with God, and the grace of God brings us to holy living. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Just a few remarks from Wesley concerning prevenient or preventing grace follow. I will reserve references to justifying and sanctifying grace for later. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">For allowing that all the souls of men are dead in sin by <i>nature</i>, this excuses none, seeing there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man, unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called <i>natural conscience</i>. But this is not natural: It is more properly termed <i>preventing grace</i>. Every man has a greater or less measure of this, which waiteth not for the call of man. Every one has, sooner or later, good desires; although the generality of men stifle them before they can strike deep root, or produce any considerable fruit. Everyone has some measure of that light, some faint glimmering ray, which, sooner or later, more or less, enlightens every man that cometh into the world. And every one, unless he be one of the small number whose conscience is seared as with a hot iron, feels more or less uneasy when he acts contrary to the light of his own conscience. So that no man sins because he has not grace, but because he does not use the grace which he hath.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The First I shall mention, as being more especially grievous to the Holy Spirit, is inconsiderateness and inadvertence to his holy motions within us. There is a particular frame and temper of soul, a sobriety of mind, without which the Spirit of God will not concur in the purifying of our hearts. It is in our power, through his preventing and assisting grace, to prepare this in ourselves; and he expects we should, this being the foundation of all his after-works. Now, this consists in preserving our minds in a cool and serious disposition, in regulating and calming our affections, and calling in and checking the inordinate pursuits of our passions after the vanities and pleasures of this world; the doing of which is of such importance, that the very reason why men profit so little under the most powerful means, is, that they do not look enough within themselves, they do not observe and watch the discords and imperfections of their own spirit nor attend with care to the directions and remedies which the Holy Spirit is always ready to suggest. Men are generally lost in the hurry of life, in the business or pleasures of it, and seem to think that their regeneration, their new nature, will spring and grow up within them, with as little care and thought of their own as their bodies were conceived and have attained their full strength and stature; whereas, there is nothing more certain than that the Holy Spirit will not purify our nature, unless we carefully attend to his motions, which are lost upon us while, in the Prophet's language, we "scatter away our time," -- while we squander away our thoughts upon unnecessary things, and leave our spiritual improvement, the one thing needful, quite unthought of and neglected.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">In this state we were, even all mankind, when "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end we might not perish, but have everlasting life." In the fullness of time he was made Man, another common Head of mankind, a second general Parent and Representative of the whole human race. And as such it was that "he bore our griefs," "the Lord laying upon him the iniquities of us all." Then was he "wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities." "He made his soul an offering for sin:" He poured out his blood for the transgressors: He "bare our sins in his own body on the tree," that by his stripes we might be healed: And by that one oblation of himself, once offered, he hath redeemed me and all mankind; having thereby "made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." <a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">How truly wise is this man! He knows himself; -- an everlasting spirit, which came forth from God, and was sent down into an house of clay, not to do his own will, but the will of Him that sent him. He knows the world; -- the place in which he is to pass a few days or years, not as an inhabitant, but as a stranger and sojourner, in his way to the everlasting habitations; and accordingly he uses the world as not abusing it, and as knowing the fashion of it passes away. He knows God; -- his Father and his Friend, the parent of all good, the centre of the spirits of all flesh, the sole happiness of all intelligent beings. He sees, clearer than the light of the noon-day sun, that this is the end of man, to glorify Him who made him for himself, and to love and enjoy him for ever.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">From hence it manifestly appears, what is the nature of the new birth. It is that great change which God works in the soul when he brings it into life; when he raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. It is the change wrought in the whole soul by the almighty Spirit of God when it is "created anew in Christ Jesus;" when it is "renewed after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness;" when the love of the world is changed into the love of God; pride into humility; passion into meekness; hatred, envy, malice, into a sincere, tender, disinterested love for all mankind. In a word, it is that change whereby the earthly, sensual, devilish mind is turned into the "mind which was in Christ Jesus." This is the nature of the new birth: "So is every one that is born of the Spirit."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><h5 style="break-after: avoid; color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><a name="_Toc49468174"></a><a name="_Toc160981898">b. The Porch of Repentance</a><o:p></o:p></h5><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Second, let us focus on the porch of repentance. People often have ideas of repentance that do more harm than good. Too often, we think of a nagging and judgmental authority. We do not spend much time talking about sin in our culture. We should, however, for sin is real, contagious, and deadly. For Wesley, repentance is the beginning of true self-knowledge. When we conceal or suppress the knowledge that we are sinners, we become phony. Repentance means admitting who we are. Biblically, we can see this awareness in Isaiah 6:1-5, Luke 5:1-11, and 15:11-32. Yet, pointing people to their sins may only bring guilt. If we look closely at these stories, we see that directing people to the holiness of God brings us to a genuine awareness of their sinfulness. The biblical concept of repentance involves turning from our sin, who we are in our heart, more than turning from sins, the things we do. That root sin in each of us the Christian tradition calls pride. Many people reject this notion today, for they believe their sin is to value themselves too little. However, I suspect that if we look more deeply into this behavior, we would notice people who seek sympathy from others, and hope others will rescue them, thereby still getting their own will accomplished. Pride is that desire to manipulate the world to get what we want. The role of victim has just as much pride in it as that of persecutor of others. True repentance brings a burning desire to change. Therefore, it is not just remorse or regret. Too often, these feelings come from the reality of being caught.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><h5 style="break-after: avoid; color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><a name="_Toc49468175"></a><a name="_Toc160981899">c. The Door of Faith</a><o:p></o:p></h5><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Third, I want to focus our attention on the door of faith. The reward system is operative in almost every enterprise and relationship. Work hard and get a raise. Study hard and get good grades. Be extra nice and grandpa may give you a dollar. Simile and you may get a large tip. Salvation by faith, however, means that God excludes no one from the table. God has spread a heavenly banquet for all. Now, it is one thing to state that you believe that something is the case. It is another to stake your life on it. The word "faith" can refer to those central teachings that describe a religion. Faith can also be as simple as "trust." The object of trust or faith is the work of Christ on the cross. Unforgiven sin is a burden too heavy for any of us to carry. It leaves little room for joy and assurance in the life of a Christian. Unforgiven sin often lingers in the shadows of our lives, constantly reminding us of our inadequacy, or incompleteness, and our unworthiness. The longer we put off dealing with sin and forgiveness, the more difficult it is for us to receive this free gift of grace. Forgiveness is not something we earn. Only God can fill or satisfy the emptiness that many feel. John Wesley had no doubt about the reality of sin. It took him some time to discover the reality of forgiveness. In a culture that applauds independence, self-reliance, and self-centeredness, it is difficult to admit that we are hopeless and helpless without the saving work of Christ within us. Hebrews 9 speaks of the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sin. Colossians 1:13-14 speaks of Christ rescuing us from darkness. Galatians 3:13-14 contrasts the forgiveness through the cross with what the law offers. Ephesians 1:7-10 and 4:31-32 speak of the power of this forgiveness. All can have access to this forgiveness if they have faith. They trust that God has in fact worked in the cross and resurrection of Christ to forgive our sins. This pivotal moment Wesley, consistent with most theologians, called justification. Everything is for sale today. If you have enough money, you can buy anything. Everyone has a price. Such a concept influences the views of the church as well. We often teach that the cost of discipleship is severe and that faithful Christians practice what the Sermon on the Mount proclaims. We can easily take the next step and believe that we can earn salvation. If we do not have the peace of God in our hearts, our tendency is to try harder in busyness. If we work hard enough, we think, the peace of God will belong to us. The bible convinced Wesley that salvation was not for sale. We try to justify ourselves by comparing ourselves to others. The remedy for the sickness of humanity is salvation. Salvation encompasses all of life, including deliverance from the bondage of sin and enjoyment of the fruits of faithfulness in this life, as well as life in the world to come. Faith is the only requirement for salvation. We can never justify ourselves. The marvelous good news is that God offers it all to us as a gift. Yet, people can observe and evaluate the consequences of saving faith. It results in acts of mercy, compassion, devotion, and witness. Repentance, and faith in the forgiveness of our sinfulness, together frees us from sin. While we may receive the gift just as we are, we do not stay just as we are. However, for what are we freed?<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></sup></sup></a> Let us read a few comments from Wesley.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Thus "look unto Jesus!" There is "the Lamb of God," who "taketh away thy sins!" Plead thou no works, no righteousness of thine own! no humility, contrition, sincerity! In nowise. That were, in very deed, to deny the Lord that bought thee. No: Plead thou, singly, the blood of the covenant, the ransom paid for thy proud, stubborn, sinful soul. Who art thou, that now seest and feelest both thine inward and outward ungodliness? Thou art the man! I want thee for my Lord! I challenge "thee" for a child of God by faith! The Lord hath need of thee. Thou who feelest thou art just fit for hell, art just fit to advance his glory; the glory of his free grace, justifying the ungodly and him that worketh not. O come quickly! Believe in the Lord Jesus; and thou, even thou, art reconciled to God.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Proceed we now to the Second point: If God worketh in you, then work out your own salvation. The original word rendered, <i>work out</i>, implies the doing a thing thoroughly. <i>Your own</i>; for you yourselves must do this, or it will be left undone forever. Your <i>own salvation:</i> Salvation begins with what is usually termed (and very properly) <i>preventing grace</i>; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him. All these imply some tendency toward life; some degree of salvation; the beginning of a deliverance from a blind, unfeeling heart, quite insensible of God and the things of God. Salvation is carried on by <i>convincing grace</i>, usually in Scripture termed <i>repentance;</i> which brings a larger measure of self-knowledge, and a farther deliverance from the heart of stone. Afterwards we experience the proper Christian salvation; whereby, "through grace," we "are saved by faith;" consisting of those two grand branches, justification and sanctification. By justification we are saved from the guilt of sin, and restored to the favour of God; by sanctification we are saved from the power and root of sin, and restored to the image of God. All experience, as well as Scripture, shows this salvation to be both instantaneous and gradual. It begins the moment we are justified, in the holy, humble, gentle, patient love of God and man. It gradually increases from that moment, as "a grain of mustard-seed, which, at first, is the least of all seeds," but afterwards puts forth large branches, and becomes a great tree; till, in another instant, the heart is cleansed, from all sin, and filled with pure love to God and man. But even that love increases more and more, till we "grow up in all things into him that is our Head;" till we attain "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">"However, may not the speaking thus of the mercy of God, as saving or justifying freely by faith only, encourage men in sin?" Indeed, it may and will: Many will "continue in sin that grace may abound:" But their blood is upon their own head. The goodness of God ought to lead them to repentance; and so it will those who are sincere of heart. When they know there is yet forgiveness with him, they will cry aloud that he would blot out their sins also, through faith which is in Jesus. And if they earnestly cry, and faint not, it they seek him in all the means he hath appointed; if they refuse to be comforted till he come; "he will come, and will not tarry."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Ye are saved_ (to comprise all in one word) from sin. This is the salvation which is through faith. This is that great salvation foretold by the angel, before God brought his First-begotten into the world: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins." And neither here, nor in other parts of holy writ, is there any limitation or restriction. All his people, or, as it is elsewhere expressed, "all that believe in him," he will save from all their sins; from original and actual, past and present sin, "of the flesh and of the spirit." Through faith that is in him, they are saved both from the guilt and from the power of it. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves." Of yourselves cometh neither your faith nor your salvation: "it is the gift of God;" the free, undeserved gift; the faith through which ye are saved, as well as the salvation which he of his own good pleasure, his mere favour, annexes thereto. That ye believe, is one instance of his grace; that believing ye are saved, another. "Not of works, lest any man should boast." For all our works, all our righteousness, which were before our believing, merited nothing of God but condemnation; so far were they from deserving faith, which therefore, whenever given, is not of works. Neither is salvation of the works we do when we believe, for it is then God that worketh in us: and, therefore, that he giveth us a reward for what he himself worketh, only commendeth the riches of his mercy, but leaveth us nothing whereof to glory.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Hear ye this, all you that are called Methodists! You, of all men living, are most concerned herein. You constantly speak of salvation by faith: And you are in the right for so doing. You maintain, (one and all,) that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. And you cannot do otherwise, without giving up the Bible, and betraying your own souls. You insist upon it, that we are saved by faith: And, undoubtedly, so we are. But consider, meantime, that let us have ever so much faith, and be our faith ever so strong, it will never save us from hell, unless it now save us from all unholy tempers, from pride, passion, impatience; from all arrogance of spirit, all haughtiness and overbearing; from wrath, anger, bitterness; from discontent, murmuring, fretfulness, peevishness.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></sup></sup></a> <o:p></o:p></p><h5 style="break-after: avoid; color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><a name="_Toc49468176"></a><a name="_Toc160981900">d. The House of Holiness</a><o:p></o:p></h5><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Fourth, I want to focus our attention on the house of holiness. This word is uncommon. More than that, it triggers unpleasant images of persons who claimed the concept but whose lives were anything but holy. We can tolerate almost anything more easily than a "holier than thou" attitude. Many would consider the concept of holiness of heart as being too otherworldly or too far removed from the activist life style that most of us live. We live in a time of turbulent, rapid, and radical change. This cultural context makes living a life of holiness difficult. Can we be good on our own? Can we do good on our own? Can we live a life of goodness, holiness on our own? The thriving business of self-help books and programs suggests that we can. Some believe that if we are wise enough, tough enough, persistent enough, and try just a little harder we can do it all on our own. In our better moments, all of us want to walk with Jesus in faithful companionship. We know from experience that it is not easy to do in our complex and broken world. The temptations and opportunities to be less than God intends surround us daily. However, the grace to be more than we are is even closer. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">From at least 1725 until the end of his life, Wesley committed himself to a life of holiness. Though he changed his ideas about the concept, this was the aim of life, the organizing center of his thought, the spring of all action, his one abiding project. This meant becoming a creature worthy of the creator, a finite representative and image of the divine subject. A life of holiness meant a break with the world and inward transformation. John Wesley believed that the life of holiness was impossible without the help of God. Grace did not grant mean holiness was not required. Just as salvation is out of reach without the grace of God, so is a life of holiness. Wesley knew the power of sin, both in his own life and in his observation of human nature. The justifying grace of God is the remedy. We can have forgiveness of sin and assurance of forgiveness. This grace is what God does for us. However, he also preached the good news that God works in us. That is the work of sanctifying grace and the life of holiness. Precisely because sin is so powerful, the only possible way to victory is grace. Salvation is not only for the world to come. He believed salvation was for everyday life. Holiness and sanctifying grace are not only for an elite that withdraws from the world. All people everywhere could correspond to the divine nature. The grace that would make such a correspondence real God offered to all. The sanctifying grace of God leads to the inner transformation we need. By the grace of God, we receive strength to practice what the bible requires. No Christian needs to live with the weight of sin that is not forgiven. However, this is not the end of our relationship with God. This experience begins the quest for a life of holiness. This grace coupled with our disciplined life, leads to a life of peace, assurance, faithfulness, and usefulness. Sanctifying grace leads us on the journey toward Christian holiness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">They speak of sanctification (or holiness) as if it were an outward thing; as if it consisted chiefly, if not wholly, in those two points, the doing to harm and the doing good, that is, the using the means of grace, and helping our neighbour. I believe it to be an inward thing, namely, the life of God in the soul of man; a participation of the divine nature; the mind that was in Christ; or, the renewal of our heart, after the image of him that created us.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">There is, likewise, great variety in the manner and time of God's bestowing his sanctifying grace, whereby he enables his children to give him their whole heart, which we can in no wise account for. We know not why he bestows this on some even before they ask for it; (some unquestionable instances of which we have seen;) on some after they have sought it but a few days; and yet permits other believers to wait for it perhaps twenty, thirty, or forty years; nay, and others, till a few hours, or even minutes, before their spirits return to him. For the various circumstances also which attend the fulfilling of that great promise, "I will circumcise thy heart, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul," God undoubtedly has reasons; but those reasons are generally hid from the children of men. Once more: some of those who are enabled to love God with all their heart and with all their soul, retain the same blessing, without any interruption, till they are carried to Abraham's bosom; others do not retain it, although they are not conscious of having grieved the Holy Spirit of God. This also we do not understand: We do not herein "know the mind of the Spirit."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">John Wesley believed that human beings want happiness. He also believed that the only way to achieve real happiness is to achieve holiness. He believed the bible required holiness from believers. What did he mean by holiness? He saw it as nothing more or nothing less than love. He believed many Christians choose a lower path, but that the Holy Spirit calls all Christians to a higher path of life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">From long experience and observation I am inclined to think, that whoever finds redemption in the blood of Jesus, whoever is justified, has then the choice of walking in the higher or the lower path. I believe the Holy Spirit at that time sets before him "the more excellent way," and incites him to walk therein, to choose the narrowest path in the narrow way, to aspire after the heights and depths of holiness, -- after the entire image of God. But if he does not accept this offer, he insensibly declines into the lower order of Christians. He still goes on in what may be called a good way, serving God in his degree, and finds mercy in the close of life, through the blood of the covenant.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[21]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">But, supposing you had, do good designs and good desires make a Christian? By no means, unless they are brought to good effect. "Hell is paved," saith one, "with good intentions." The great question of all, then, still remains. Is the love of God shed abroad in your heart? Can you cry out, "My God, and my All"? Do you desire nothing but him? Are you happy in God? Is he your glory, your delight, your crown of rejoicing? And is this commandment written in your heart, "That he who loveth God love his brother also"? Do you then love your neighbour as yourself? Do you love every man, even your enemies, even the enemies of God, as your own soul? as Christ loved you? Yea, dost thou believe that Christ loved thee, and gave himself for thee? Hast thou faith in his blood? Believest thou the Lamb of God hath taken away thy sins, and cast them as a stone into the depth of the sea? that he hath blotted out the handwriting that was against thee, taking it out of the way, nailing it to his cross? Hast thou indeed redemption through his blood, even the remission of thy sins? And doth his Spirit bear witness with thy spirit, that thou art a child of God?<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[22]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">He that thus <i>loved</i> God could not but love his brother also; and "not in word only, but in deed and in truth." "If God," said he, "so loved us, we ought also to love one another" (1 John 4:11); yea, every soul of man, as "the mercy of God is over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). Agreeably hereto, the affection of this lover of God embraced all mankind for his sake; not excepting those whom he had never seen in the flesh, or those of whom he knew nothing more than that they were "the offspring of God," for whose souls his Son had died; not excepting the "evil" and "unthankful," and least of all his enemies, those who hated, or persecuted, or despitefully used him for his Master's sake. These had a peculiar place, both in his heart and in his prayers. he loved them "even as Christ loved us."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[23]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">In this I endeavoured to show, (1.) In what sense Christians are not, (2.) In what sense they are, perfect. "(1.) In what sense they are not. They are not perfect in knowledge. They are not free from ignorance, no, nor from mistake. We are no more to expect any living man to be infallible, than to be omniscient. They are not free from infirmities, such as weakness or slowness of understanding, irregular quickness or heaviness of imagination. Such in another kind are impropriety of language, ungracefulness of pronunciation; to which one- might add a thousand nameless defects, either in conversation or behaviour. From such infirmities as these none are perfectly freed till their spirits return to God; neither can we expect till then to be wholly freed from temptation; for `the servant is not above his master.' But neither in this sense is there any absolute perfection on earth. There is no perfection of degrees, none which does not admit of a continual increase. "(2.) In what sense then are they perfect? Observe, we are not now speaking of babes in Christ, but adult Christians. That Christian perfection is that love of God and our neighbour, which implies deliverance from all sin. "QUESTION. What is Christian perfection? "ANSWER. The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. ^ SOME thoughts occurred to my mind this morning concerning Christian perfection, and the manner and time of receiving it, which I believe may be useful to set down. 1. By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God, and our neighbour, ruling our tempers, words, and actions. I do not include an impossibility of falling from it, either in part or in whole. Therefore, I retract several expressions in our Hymns, which partly express, partly imply, such an impossibility. And I do not contend for the term +sinless,+ though I do not object against it. 2. As to the manner. I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently, in an instant. But I believe a gradual work, both preceding and following that instant. 3. As to the time. I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before. I believe it is usually many years after justification; but that it may be within five years or five months after it, I know no conclusive argument to the contrary. If it must be many years after justification, I would be glad to know how many. LONDON, Jan. 27, 1767.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[24]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">Mark 12:28-34 summaries the whole of the law as love to God and humanity. In John 13:34-35 Jesus offers a commandment to the disciples to love each other. In I Corinthians 8:1-3 Paul shows that we should desire love more than knowledge. Why should we love be the highest virtue? Luke 7:36-47 shows that those whom God forgives leads to a life of love. I John 4:19-21 shows that God loved us first, and therefore we ought to love others. Victor Hugo wrote <i>Les Miserables</i> in 1862. Its story of a man forgiven at a crucial moment, and then occasioning his change of heart and life, is a good reminder of the power of forgiveness. What is love? I John 3:10-24 defines love as laying down one's life for others. I Corinthians 13:4-8 compresses a lifetime agenda of developing the qualities of love. Galatians 5:22-24 describes the fruit of the spirit. In this context, Wesley spoke of sanctification and perfection. He defined sinful acts as voluntary transgressions of a known law of God. We get into trouble in Christian life when we focus on feelings, when we repent in an incomplete manner, or when we experience great temptation. Wesley also spoke of what he called "infirmities" that could hold a person back in spiritual growth, yet not be "sin" as such. Today, we might refer to the need for inner, psychic healing. Jesus came, not just to forgive sin, but to heal.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[25]</span></sup></sup></a> An orientation toward others starts us on the path toward full Christian love. This love calls us beyond the normal boundaries of human relationships. This love includes family and friends. It also includes the enemy. Holiness is love, and especially love of the enemy. Therefore, happiness is best understood as a by-product of loving service. Happiness is our evaluation that we are leading the kind of life for which we are made. Happiness is the deepest sense that we are on the right course, and that we are living out a life of being who God calls us to be.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[26]</span></sup></sup></a> Let us read what Wesley said about holiness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Not that this forbids us to love anything besides God: It implies that we love our brother also. Nor yet does it forbid us (as some have strangely imagined) to take pleasure in any thing but God. To suppose this, is to suppose the Fountain of holiness is directly the author of sin; since he has inseparably annexed pleasure to the use of those creatures which are necessary to sustain the life he has given us. This, therefore, can never be the meaning of his command. What the real sense of it is, both our blessed Lord and his Apostles tell us too frequently, and too plainly, to be misunderstood. They all with one mouth bear witness, that the true meaning of those several declarations, "The Lord thy God is one Lord;" "Thou shalt have no other Gods but me;" "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength" "Thou shalt cleave unto him;" "The desire of thy soul shall be to His name;" -- is no other than this: The one perfect Good shall be your one ultimate end. One thing shall ye desire for its own sake, -- the fruition of Him that is All in All. One happiness shall ye propose to your souls, even an union with Him that made them; the having "fellowship with the Father and the Son;" the being joined to the Lord in one Spirit. One design you are to pursue to the end of time, -- the enjoyment of God in time and in eternity. Desire other things, so far as they tend to this.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[27]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Yet, on the authority of God's Word, and our own Church, I must repeat the question, "Hast thou received the Holy Ghost?" If thou hast not, thou art not yet a Christian. For a Christian is a man that is "anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power." Thou art not yet made a partaker of pure religion and undefiled. Dost thou know what religion is? --that it is a participation of the divine nature; the life of God in the soul of man; Christ formed in the heart; "Christ in thee, the hope of glory;" happiness and holiness; heaven begun upon earth; "a kingdom of God within thee; not meat and drink," no outward thing; "but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;" an everlasting kingdom brought into thy soul; a "peace of God that passeth all understanding;" a "joy unspeakable, and full of glory"?<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[28]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">But suppose perfect obedience, for the time to come, could atone for the sins that are past, this would profit thee nothing; for thou art not able to perform it; no, not in any one point. Begin now: Make the trial. Shake off that outward sin that so easily besetteth thee. Thou canst not. How then wilt thou change thy life from all evil to all good? Indeed, it is impossible to be done, unless first thy heart be changed. For, so long as the tree remains evil, it cannot bring forth good fruit. But art thou able to change thy own heart, from all sin to all holiness? to quicken a soul that is dead in sin, -- dead to God and alive only to the world? No more than thou art able to quicken a dead body, to raise to life him that lieth in the grave. Yea, thou art not able to quicken thy soul in any degree, no more than to give any degree of life to the dead body. Thou canst do nothing, more or less, in this matter; thou art utterly without strength. To be deeply sensible of this, how helpless thou art, as well as how guilty and how sinful, -- this is that "repentance not to be repented of," which is the forerunner of the kingdom of God.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[29]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><h5 style="break-after: avoid; color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><a name="_Toc49468177"></a><a name="_Toc160981901">e. The Life of Holiness: Works of Piety/Means of Grace</a><o:p></o:p></h5><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"> Fifth, we can continue growing in this life of holiness through what Wesley called the works of piety, or what we recognize today as the means of grace. They help focus our hearts on the right objects. If the goal is holiness as love, then one must use the means to get there. Baptism, prayer, searching scripture, the Lord's Supper, fasting, and Christian conference or covenant groups.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[30]</span></sup></sup></a> The means of grace are not a way to control God. We can choose to use those means of grace that God consistently uses to draw persons toward goodness and God. Unless we use these channels of sustenance, it is unlikely that we will experience the joy or fruit of discipleship. God freely offers this grace. God has given us the means of grace to offer the fruits of grace to every believer. The urge to find spiritual power and inner security without any major shift in lifestyle was as prevalent in the eighteenth century as it is today. Spiritual disciplines empty the self so the radiant spirit of God can enter in. Wesley was convinced that an awakened heart would return to the old ways of rebellion and death without the regular practice of the means of grace. The means of grace give access to God's active presence in the world. They provide the pathway back to God for those who have wandered and prevent us from wandering away in the first place. God gives us the means of grace for our salvation. They are gifts that we must use if we are to enjoy the benefit. If we were to ask Wesley why our relationship with God seems more distant than what the book of Acts describes, he would likely ask us if we are fully using the means of grace. Do you want a more vital relationship with God? Use the means of grace. Do you long for the assurance of sins forgiven? Use the means of grace. Do you feel a great need for God's intervention in your life? Use the means of grace. Do you want to experience growth in your Christian life? Use the means of grace.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">John Wesley believed that Methodists should be as difficult to hide as visitors in a foreign land. It was his conviction that authentic Christianity carried with it some distinguishing characteristics that would set Christians apart from the rest of society. One could not easily hide the first Methodists. They were interested in saving faith, the practical ways to keep that faith alive and a living out of that faith in every aspect of daily life, both private and public. Their goals and priorities were not determined by the culture, but by a daily companionship with Jesus Christ. They love of God and neighbor led them to stand against all that was destructive of humanity. The only thing that mattered was faithfulness to God. The lives of Methodists were marked by deep and personal piety and by social involvement. They built houses of prayer and worship as well as visited in prison and built schools and hospitals. Methodists today live in a world that seeks to press everyone into its own mold. The world encourages us not to make waves. People discourage us from being too radical in our life of faith, lest we be labeled as fanatics. When the mainstream assimilates us, we experience benefits. We may get along more easily with those around us. We may even feel less stress in our work place. Are these benefits greater than the value of walking faithfully with Jesus in all of life? We live in a broken age, in the life of the individual and growing fractures in the human family. Could such a practical, simple, and yet radical Christianity as outline by John Wesley, be a way of life today? We walk this road with Jesus, and therefore do not walk alone. We recognize our weakness in this journey. This is not a self-help project, but a faith project. He wrote the following in a wonderful tract in which he sought to explain what a Methodist is.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">"A Methodist is one who loves the Lord his God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his mind, and with all his strength. God is the joy of his heart, and the desire of his soul, which is continually crying, `Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth whom I desire besides thee.' My God and my all! `Thou art the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.' He is therefore happy in God; yea, always happy, as having in him a well of water springing up unto everlasting life, and over-flowing his soul with peace and joy. Perfect love living now cast out fear, he rejoices evermore. Yea, his joy is full, and all his bones cry out, `Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten me again unto a living hope of an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, reserved in heaven for me.' "And he, who hath this hope, thus full of immortality, in everything giveth thanks, as knowing this (whatsoever it is) is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning him. From him therefore he cheerfully receives all, saying, `Good is the will of the Lord;' and whether he giveth or taketh away, equally blessing the name of the Lord. Whether in ease or pain, whether in sickness or health, whether in life or death, he giveth thanks from the ground of the heart to Him who orders it for good; into whose hands he hath wholly committed his body and soul, `as into the hands of a faithful Creator.' He is therefore anxiously `careful for nothing,' as having `cast all his care on Him that careth for him;' and `in all things' resting on him, after `making' his `request known to him with thanksgiving.' "For indeed he `prays without ceasing;' at all times the language of his heart is this, `Unto thee is my mouth, though without a voice; and my silence speaketh unto thee.' His heart is lifted up to God at all times, and in all places. In this he is never hindered, much less interrupted, by any person or thing. In retirement or company, in leisure, business, or conversation, his heart is ever with the Lord. Whether he lie down, or rise up, `God is in all his thoughts:' He walks with God continually; having the loving eye of his soul fixed on him, and everywhere `seeing Him that is invisible.' "And loving God, he `loves his neighbour as himself;' he loves every man as his own soul. He loves his enemies, yea, and the enemies of God. And if it be not in his power to `do good to them that hate' him, yet he ceases not to `pray for them,' though they spurn his love, and still `despitefully use him, and persecute him.' "For he is `pure in heart.' Love has purified his heart from envy, malice, wrath, and every unkind temper. It has cleansed him from pride, whereof `only cometh contention;' and he hath now `put on bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering.' And indeed all possible ground for contention, on his part, is cut off. For none can take from him what he desires, seeing he `loves not the world, nor any of the things of the world;' but `all his desire is unto God, and to the remembrance of his name.' "Agreeable to this his one desire, is this one design of his life; namely, `to do, not his own will, but the will of Him that sent him.' His one intention at all times and in all places is, not to please himself, but Him whom his soul loveth. He hath a single eye; and because his `eye is single, his whole body is full of light. The whole is light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth enlighten the house.' God reigns alone; all that is in the soul is `holiness to the Lord.' There is not a motion in his heart but is according to his will. Every thought that arises points to him, and is in `obedience to the law of Christ.' "And the tree is known by its fruits. For, as he loves God, so he `keeps his commandments;' not only some, or most of them, but all, from the least to the greatest. He is not content to `keep the whole law and offend in one point,' but has in all points `a conscience void of offence towards God, and towards man.' Whatever God has forbidden, he avoids; whatever God has enjoined, he does. `He runs the way of God's commandments,' now He bath set his heart at liberty. It is his glory and joy so to do; it is his daily crown of rejoicing, to `do the will of God on earth, as it is done in heaven.' "All the commandments of God he accordingly keeps, and that with all his might; for his obedience is in proportion to his love, the source from whence it flows. And therefore, loving God with all his heart, he serves him with all his strength; he continually presents his soul and `body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God;' entirely and without reserve devoting himself, all he has, all he is, to his glory. All the talents he has, he constantly employs according to his Master's will; every power and faculty of his soul, every member of his body. "By consequence, `whatsoever he doeth, it is all to the glory of God.' In all his employments of every kind, he not only aims at this, which is implied in having a single eye, but actually attains it; his business and his refreshments, as well as his prayers, all serve to this great end. Whether he `sit in the house, or walk by the way,' whether he lie down, or rise up, he is promoting, in all he speaks or does, the one business of his life. Whether he put on his apparel, or labour, or eat and drink, or divert himself from too wasting labour, it all tends to advance the glory of God, by peace and good-will among men. His one invariable rule is this: `Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God, even the Father, through him.' "Nor do the customs of the world at all hinder his ` running the race which is set before him.' He cannot therefore `lay up treasures upon earth,' no more than he can take fire into his bosom. He cannot speak evil of his neighbour, any more than he can lie either for God or man. He cannot utter an unkind word of any one; for love keeps the door of his lips. He cannot `speak idle words; no corrupt conversation' ever `comes out of his mouth;' as is all that is not `good to the use of edifying,' not fit to `minister grace to the hearers.' But `whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are' justly `of good report,' he thinks, speaks, and acts, `adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.'"<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[31]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"> Christian conference, or involvement in discipleship/covenant groups, is an important part of leading a life of holiness. For Wesley, the goal of the societies, bands, and classes was to help people live the holy life. The stated purpose was to promote holiness of heart and life. The meetings, confessions, prayers, admonishment, encouragement, and teaching focused on bringing Christianity into ordinary life. He identified the principles of Methodism as people "who so strenuously and continually insist on the absolute necessity of universal holiness both in heart and life; of a peaceful, joyous love of God; of a supernatural evidence of things not seen; of an inward witness that we are the children of God; and of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order to any good thought, or word, or work."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[32]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"> Christian discipleship requires good stewardship of time. Wesley had the ability to do the work at hand and avoid the paralysis of being swamped by the work that remained. To make the most of the present moment and to trust God for the rest was a quality that marked his entire ministry. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"> Wesley believed fasting was exalted by some beyond scripture and reason, while others disregarded it. He practiced fasting from morning until evening. He also connected prayer closely with fasting.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">A life of prayer is the result of disciplined effort. Without that effort, it becomes secondary. Our relationship with God suffers as we bear the weight of the cares and delights of the world. Prayer did not diminish Wesley's involvement in the world. In fact, his life of prayer gave his involvement in the world direction and power. He attributed the soon end of a revival in Kingswood to "their total neglect of private prayer."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[33]</span></sup></sup></a> The chief means of grace is prayer. He lived to pray and prayed to live. He knew that Christian faith was a life lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Prayer was the key to maintaining that relationship. His life of prayer did not demand that remove himself physically from the daily concerns of the world. Rather, he cultivated the habit internally. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Scriptural Christianity was the goal of Wesley. The bible continues to be a best seller. Then why does the influence of the scriptures in our time seem so minimal? Wesley believed that scripture should be central to all belief and action. What is the "true north" for the Christian? Where do Christians get their bearing, their map for faithfulness? How should life be lived as a Christian? Where does one find direction in seeking to live the faithful life? From the very earliest, this intense and focused desire to help all who desired it to live out the principles and practices of scriptural Christianity marked the Methodist movement. This was not a political decision, but a spiritual and practical decision. This was not the action of a political discontent, but the decision of a heart yearning for and touched by God. The key to live closer to God and in greater faithfulness to God was scripture. It bothered Wesley that those who professed Christian faith looked so much like those who made no profession of faith. He emphasis on grace and holiness was an effort to change all that. The same concerns are with us today. We are often preoccupied with good but not essential things. It is common for the church in our time to have worthy goals, but no means to achieve them. We have a desire to be faithful, but no carefully considered and taught way to access the means of grace that lead to faithfulness. The need for scriptural Christianity in our time is just as strong as in the days of Wesley. We need to ask simply and honestly, "In the light of all I understand of the scripture, what is God saying to me in this text today?" do you wish to live a life of inward and outward holiness? Do you desire to live with God in the midst of this broken world? Do you want the assurance and comfort of sins forgiven and guilt removed? Do you desire some guiding principles that can bring direction to your personal and corporate decision-making? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, you will want to read and reflect upon the scriptures. Scripture remains the primary source of revelation and authority for those who are descendants of Wesley. Wesley once said:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Judge not one another; but every man look into his own bosom. How stands the matter in your own breast? Examine your conscience before God. Are you an happy partaker of this scriptural, this truly primitive, religion? Are you a witness of the religion of love? Are you a lover of God and all mankind? Does your heart glow with gratitude to the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Do you "walk in love, as Christ also loved us, and gave himself for us?" Do you, as you have time, "do good unto all men;" and in as high a degree as you are able? Whosoever thou art, whose heart is herein as my heart, give me thine hand!<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[34]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"> The Lord's Supper testifies to what God has done and is doing. It says little and cares less about what we have done or are doing. We divide humanity into various classes and make many distinctions between one group over another. The table of the Lord is the one place where such distinctions evaporate. We are all equal in receiving the gifts of bread and cup. Here we have a glimpse into what God intends for all humanity. Wesley observed the testimony of some persons who came to the Lord's table without Christian faith, and were converted at that moment of receiving the bread and cup. He draws from this the following conclusion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">That there are means of grace, that is, outward ordinances, whereby the inward grace of God is ordinarily conveyed to them who before had it not. That one of these means is the Lord's Supper. And that he who has not this faith ought to wait for it, in the use both of this, and of the other means which God hath ordained.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[35]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">I showed at large, (1) that the Lord's Supper was ordained by God to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. (2) That the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel they want the grace of God, either to restrain from sin, or to show their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God. (3) That, inasmuch as we come to his table, not to give him anything, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to give. And, (4) That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[36]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><h5 style="break-after: avoid; color: #1f3763; font-family: "Calibri Light", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><a name="_Toc49468178"></a><a name="_Toc160981902">f. The Life of Holiness: Works of Mercy</a><o:p></o:p></h5><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Sixth, we can continue growing in this life of holiness through works of mercy, which express the love that is in our hearts. We often see children take on the qualities of their parents. Students often reflect the lives of their teachers. To live in an intimate relationship with Christ is to begin to act like Christ, to think like Christ, and to be Christ-like in all of our living. Wesley summarized them as "do no harm" and "do good." In his 1745 letter to "John Smith," he warned that "faith working by love" not degenerate into a works righteousness:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I would rather say faith is productive of all Christian holiness than of all Christian practice; because men are so exceeding apt to rest in practice, so called, I mean in outside religion; whereas true religion is eminently seated in the heart, renewed in the image of him that created us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">For Wesley, the religion of the world is not enough. Let us hear from his words. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">And it is as impossible to satisfy such a soul, a soul that is athirst for God, the living God, with what the world accounts religion, as with what they account happiness. The religion of the world implies three things: (1.) The doing no harm, the abstaining from outward sin; at least from such as is scandalous, as robbery, theft, common swearing, drunkenness: (2.) The doing good, the relieving the poor; the being charitable, as it is called: (3.) The using the means of grace; at least the going to church and to the Lord's Supper. He in whom these three marks are found is termed by the world a religious man. But will this satisfy him who hungers after God? No: It is not food for his soul. He wants a religion of a nobler kind, a religion higher and deeper than this. He can no more feed on this poor, shallow, formal thing, than he can "fill his belly with the east wind." True, he is careful to abstain from the very appearance of evil; he is zealous of good works; he attends all the ordinances of God: But all this is not what he longs for. This is only the outside of that religion, which he insatiably hungers after. The knowledge of God in Christ Jesus; "the life which is hid with Christ in God;" the being " joined unto the Lord in one Spirit;" the having "fellowship with the Father and the Son;" the "walking in the light as God is in the light;" the being "purified even as He is pure;" -- this is the religion, the righteousness, he thirsts after: Nor can he rest, till he thus rests in God.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[37]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Christian discipleship requires a good stewardship of financial resources. Many in our culture live with a fear that they will not have enough to provide for their needs until they retire. The scripture suggest that being in want is not the greatest danger we face. There is something that is much more powerful and much more destructive than being in need. We can have abundance of the goods of this world and believe they belong to us and not to God. We desire comfort and ease. Advertisers bombard us with the message that useless luxuries are in fact necessities. Wesley encouraged hard work, good stewardship, and wise living that would lead to receiving wealth. He spoke strongly against the accumulation of wealth. He taught and practiced giving as essential to any appropriate use of the gift of wealth. He gave away most of what he gathered through his own labors. He practiced what he preached. People needed to use the excellent gift of money to alleviate the suffering of humanity and to proclaim the reign of God. He believed that when we purchase something unnecessary or extravagant, we steal from the poor and take bread from the hands of the hungry. The use of money is no longer a decision made by the believer alone. The use of money is toward God and faithfulness to what God requires. Part of moving toward mature Christian living is respect for the danger and benefit of wealth. Let us hear from Wesley.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;"><i>Desire of ease</i> is another of these foolish and hurtful desires; desire of avoiding every cross, every degree of trouble, danger, difficulty; a desire of slumbering out life, and going to heaven (as the vulgar say) upon a feather-bed. Everyone may observe how riches first beget, and then confirm and increase, this desire, making men more and more soft and delicate; more unwilling, and indeed more unable, to "take up their cross daily;" to "endure hardship as good soldiers of Jesus Christ," and to "take the kingdom of heaven by violence."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[38]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">From that express declaration of our Lord, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven," we may easily learn, that none can <i>have</i> riches without being greatly endangered by them. But if the danger of barely having them is so great, how much greater is the danger of <i>increasing</i> them! This danger is great even to those who receive what is transmitted to them by their forefathers; but it is abundantly greater to those who acquire them by their skill and industry. Therefore, nothing can be more prudent than this caution: "If riches increase, set not thine heart upon them." Whosoever has food to eat, and raiment to put on, with something over, is rich. Whoever has the necessaries and conveniences of life for himself and his family, and a little to spare for them that have not, is properly a rich man; unless he is a miser, a lover of money, one that hoards up what he can and ought to give to the poor. For it so, he is a poor man still, though he has millions in the bank; yea, he is the poorest of men."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[39]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">The love of money," we know, "is the root of all evil;" but not the thing itself. The fault does not lie in the money, but in them that use it. It may be used ill: and what may not? But it may likewise be used well: It is full as applicable to the best, as to the worst uses. It is of unspeakable service to all civilized nations, in all the common affairs of life: It is a most compendious instrument of transacting all manner of business, and (if we use it according to Christian wisdom) of doing all manner of good. It is true, were man in a state of innocence, or were all men "filled with the Holy Ghost," so that, like the infant Church at Jerusalem, "no man counted anything he had his own," but "distribution was made to everyone as he had need," the use of it would be superseded; as we cannot conceive there is anything of the kind among the inhabitants of heaven. But, in the present state of mankind, it is an excellent gift of God, answering the noblest ends. In the hands of his children, it is food for the hungry, drink for the thirsty, raiment for the naked: It gives to the traveller and the stranger where to lay his head. By it we may supply the place of an husband to the widow, and of a father to the fatherless. We maybe a defence for the oppressed, a means of health to the sick, of ease to them that are in pain; it may be as eyes to the blind, as feet to the lame; yea, a lifter up from the gates of death!<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[40]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">"Gain all you can." Here we may speak like the children of the world: We meet them on their own ground. And it is our bounden duty to do this: We ought to gain all we can gain, without buying gold too dear, without paying more for it than it is worth. But this it is certain we ought not to do; we ought not to gain money at the expense of life, nor (which is in effect the same thing) at the expense of our health. We are, Secondly, to gain all we can without hurting our mind any more than our body. For neither may we hurt this. We must preserve, at all events, the spirit of an healthful mind. We are. Thirdly, to gain all we can without hurting our neighbour. But this we may not, cannot do, if we love our neighbour as ourselves. We cannot, if we love everyone as ourselves, hurt anyone <i>in his substance</i>. We cannot devour the increase of his lands, and perhaps the lands and houses themselves, by gaming, by overgrown bills Neither may we gain by hurting our neighbour <i>in his body</i>. Therefore we may not sell anything which tends to impair health. Having gained all you can, by honest wisdom and unwearied diligence, the second rule of Christian prudence is," Save all you can." Do not throw the precious talent into the sea: Leave that folly to heathen philosophers. Do not throw it away in idle expenses, which is just the same as throwing it into the sea. Expend no part of it merely to gratify the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, or the pride of life. Do not waste any part of so precious a talent merely in gratifying the desires of the flesh; in procuring the pleasures of sense of whatever kind; particularly, in enlarging the pleasure of tasting. I do not mean, avoid gluttony and drunkenness only: An honest heathen would condemn these. But there is a regular, reputable kind of sensuality, an elegant epicurism, which does not immediately disorder the stomach, nor (sensibly, at least) impair the understanding. And yet (to mention no other effects of it now) it cannot be maintained without considerable expense. Cut off all this expense! Despise delicacy and variety, and be content with what plain nature requires. But let not any man imagine that he has done anything, barely by going thus far, by "gaining and saving all he can," if he were to stop here. All this is nothing, if a man go not forward, if he does not point all this at a farther end. Nor, indeed, can a man properly be said to save anything, if he only lays it up. You may as well throw your money into the sea, as bury it in the earth. And you may as well bury it in the earth, as in your chest, or in the Bank of England. Not to use, is effectually to throw it away. If, therefore, you would indeed "make yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," add the Third rule to the two preceding. Having, First, gained all you can, and, Secondly saved all you can, Then "give all you can." In order to see the ground and reason of this, consider, when the Possessor of heaven and earth brought you into being, and placed you in this world, he placed you here not as a proprietor, but a steward: As such he entrusted you, for a season, with goods of various kinds; but the sole property of these still rests in him, nor can be alienated from him. As you yourself are not your own, but his, such is, likewise, all that you enjoy. Such is your soul and your body, not your own, but God's. And so is your substance in particular. And he has told you, in the most clear and express terms, how you are to employ it for him, in such a manner, that it may be all an holy sacrifice, acceptable through Christ Jesus. And this light, easy service, he has promised to reward with an eternal weight of glory.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[41]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">We live in a time when much of the world, both secular and religious, has turned its back on the pain and suffering of the least and lost. We have developed immunity and blindness to the enormous suffering of the world. How is it with Methodism or Christianity as you know it? Is there consuming passion for the poor, the needy, the prisoner, the sick? A passion that is second only to love for God? Wesley believed it was far better to carry relief to the poor than to send it. He believed that such personal involvement with the poor would soften our hearts and help us to care for each other. Let us hear from Wesley.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">But I will not talk of giving to God, or leaving, half your fortune. You might think this to be too high a price for heaven. I will come to lower terms. Are there not a few among you that could give a hundred pounds, perhaps some that could give a thousand, and yet leave your children as much as would help them to work out their own salvation? ~With two thousand pounds, and not much less, we could supply the present wants of all our poor, and put them in a way of supplying their own wants for the time to come. Now, suppose this could be done, are we clear before God while it is not done? Is not the neglect of it one cause why so many are still sick and weak among you; and that both in soul and in body? that they still grieve the Holy Spirit, by preferring the fashions of the world to the commands of God? And I many times doubt whether we Preachers are not, in some measure, partakers of their sin. I am in doubt whether it is not a kind of partiality. I doubt whether it is not a great sin to keep them in our society. May it not hurt their souls, by encouraging them to persevere in walking contrary to the Bible? And may it not, in some measure, intercept the salutary influences of the blessed Spirit upon the whole community?<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[42]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">For Wesley, faith is not the end, but the means. The end is love. He once said, "Let this love be attained, by whatever means, and I am content; I desire no more. All is well if we love the Lord our God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[43]</span></sup></sup></a> We live in a time when people do not seem to evangelize. One question we might ask is this: "Do you see such a surplus of profound Christian love in the world that you see no need to share the good news?" We hide behind words like tolerance and diversity. I wonder how long we can avert our eyes from the suffering, evil, and hate that so dominate the world that we get off our backsides and make a difference. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.25in; vertical-align: baseline;">We do not take heaven seriously. Preachers give few sermons on the topic. We have thought that such talk is “other worldly” and therefore not relevant to this world. Our desire to make this world better may have blinded us to the truth that we are, like John Wesley, “a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air.” Advances in health care and self care have made life in the world longer. However, it is certain to end for all. Wesley believed that he was a spirit come from God and returning to God. While heaven may not hold much interest for us, it did for Wesley. He said, “I want to know one thing, the way to heaven.” John Wesley integrated salvation in this world and the next in his preaching, teaching, and daily living. He did not separate them. Too many of us have lost the joy of our salvation. Part of the reason is that we no longer believe with much certainty that we have all come from God, live with God now, and return to God at the end. Could such a belief reduce anxiety and stress? Would our priorities change? Would we embark upon an intentional life of holiness? Christians at their best look life and death full in the face without fear because they know to whom they belong and where they are going. Wesley believed everyone was on the road to somewhere. He wanted to be on the way to heaven. The biblical witness made that way clear. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air. I am a spirit come from God, and returning to God: Just hovering over the great gulf; until, a few moments hence, I am no more seen: I drop into an unchangeable eternity! I want to know one thing, -- the way to heaven; how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself as condescended to teach the way: for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it: Here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be <i>homo unius libri</i>. Here then I am, far from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In his presence I open, I read his book, for this end, to find the way to heaven. Is there a doubt concerning the meaning of what I read? Does anything appear dark or intricate? I lift up my heart to the Father of Lights: “Lord, is it not thy word, ‘If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God?’ Thou ‘givest liberally, and upbraidest not.’ Thou hast said, ‘If any be willing to do thy will, he shall know.’ I am willing to do, let me know, thy will.’ I then search after and consider parallel passages of Scripture, ‘comparing spiritual things with spiritual.’ I meditate thereon with all the attention and earnestness of which my mind is capable. If any doubt still remains, I consult those who are experienced in the things of God.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn44" name="_ftnref44" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[44]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">But "without holiness no man shall see the Lord," shall see the face of God in glory. Of consequence, the new birth is absolutely necessary in order to eternal salvation. Men may indeed flatter themselves (so desperately wicked and so deceitful is the heart of man!) that they may live in their sins till they come to the last gasp, and yet afterwards live with God; and thousands do really believe, that they have found a broad way which leadeth not to destruction. "What danger," say they, "can a woman be in that is so <i>harmless</i> and so <i>virtuous?</i> What fear is there that so <i>honest</i> a man, one of so strict <i>morality,</i> should miss of heaven; especially if, over and above all this, they constantly attend on church and sacrament?" One of these will ask with all assurance, "What! Shall not I do as well as my neighbours?" Yes as well as your unholy neighbours; as well as your neighbours that die in their sins! For you will all drop into the pit together, into the nethermost hell! You will all lie together in the lake of fire; "the lake of fire burning with brimstone." Then, at length, you will see (but God grant you may see it before!) the necessity of holiness in order to glory; and, consequently, of the new birth, since none can be holy, except he be born again.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[45]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">Therefore strive ye now, in this your day, to "enter in at the strait gate." And in order thereto, settle it in your heart, and let it be ever uppermost in your thoughts, that if you are in a broad way, you are in the way that leadeth to destruction. If many go with you, as sure as God is true, both they and you are going to hell! If you are walking as the generality of men walk, you are walking to the bottomless pit! Are many wise, many rich, many mighty, or noble travelling with you in the same way? By this token, without going any farther, you know it does not lead to life. Here is a short, a plain, an infallible rule, before you enter into particulars. In whatever profession you are engaged, you must be singular, or be damned! The way to hell has nothing singular in it; but the way to heaven is singularity all over. If you move but one step towards God, you are not as other men are. But regard not this. It is far better to stand alone, than to fall into the pit. Run, then, with patience the race which is set before thee, though thy companions therein are but few. They will not always be so. Yet a little while, and thou wilt "come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and Church of the first-born, and to the spirits of just men made perfect."<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[46]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 6pt 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline;">And what is it which He is teaching? The Son of God, who came from heaven, is here showing us the way to heaven; to the place which he hath prepared for us; the glory he had before the world began. He is teaching us the true way to life everlasting; the royal way which leads to the kingdom; and the only true way, -- for there is none besides; all other paths lead to destruction. From the character of the Speaker, we are well assured that he hath declared the full and perfect will of God. He hath uttered not one tittle too much, -- nothing more than he had received of the Father; nor too little, -- he hath not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God; much less hath he uttered anything wrong, anything contrary to the will of him that sent him. All his words are true and right concerning all things, and shall stand fast for ever and ever.<a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[47]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> "Wesley, John," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> John Wesley (1703-91), English preacher, founder of Methodism. The Journal of John Wesley (ed. by Nora Ratcliff, 1940), entry for 5 June 1766.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. Man and Superman," Maxims for Revolutionists: Good Intentions" (1903). The saying is an old one, traceable at its earliest to St. Francis of Assisi, and picked up by John Wesley and Samuel Johnson, among others.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> John Wesley (1703-91), English preacher, founder of Methodism. Reporting the words of "a good man," in journal entry, 1 Sept. 1778.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> See sermon 2, "The Almost Christian," sermon 17, "The Circumcision of the Heart," and discourses one, two, three, and thirteen of "Upon Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount." Also, see the hymn, "I Want a Principle Within."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> See sermon 13, "On Sin in Believers," and sermon 14, "The Repentance of Believers."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 85, "On Working Our own Salvation."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 138, "On Grieving the Holy Spirit."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 5, "Justification by Faith."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 33, "Sermon on the Mount, Discourse 13."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 45, "The New Birth."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> See sermon 43, "The Scripture Way of Salvation," as a good summary. See sermon 44, "Original Sin," sermon 19 "The Great Privilege of those that are born of God," and sermon 61, "The Mystery of Iniquity," for his view of sin. For his views on the holiness of the law, see sermon 34, "The Original, Nature, Properties, and Use of the Law. For repentance and self-knowledge, see sermon 14, "The Repentance of Believers." See the hymn, "Depth of Mercy." <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> See sermon 1, "Salvation by Faith," sermon 45, "The New Birth," and sermon 5, "Justification by Faith." See also, sermon 106, "On Faith," sermon 117, "On the Discoveries of Faith," and sermon 132, "On Faith." See the hymn, "And Can it be that I should Gain." <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 5, "Justification by Faith."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 85, "On Working Out our own Salvation."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 1, "Salvation by Faith."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 1, "Salvation by Faith."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 91, "On Charity."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a><span lang="FR"> Journal, vol. 1, p. 225.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 69, The Imperfection of Human Knowledge.”<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn21"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 89, "The More Excellent Way."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn22"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 2, “The Almost Christian.”<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn23"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 4, “Scriptural Christianity.”<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn24"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn25"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> Struggles in Christian life, see sermon 41, "Wandering Thoughts," sermon 42, "Satan's Devices," sermon 46, "The Wilderness State," sermon 47, "Heaviness through Manifold Temptations." For assurance, see sermons 10 & 11, "The Witness of the Spirit," and sermon 12, "The Witness of Our Own Spirit."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn26"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> See sermon 17, "The Circumcision of the Heart," sermon 18, "The Marks of the New Birth," and sermon 19, "The Great Privilege of Those that are born of God." See the hymn, "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn27"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 17, "Circumcision of the Heart."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn28"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 3, "Awake, Thou that Sleepest."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn29"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 7, "The Way to the Kingdom."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn30"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> See sermon 16, "The Means of Grace," and sermon 43, "The Scripture Way of Salvation."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn31"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> <i>The Character of a Methodist</i>.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn32"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> <i>Advice to the People Called Methodist</i>, vol. 8, p. 353.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn33"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a><span lang="FR"> Journal, vol. 3, p. 479.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="ftn34"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 132, "On Laying the Foundation of the New Chapel."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn35"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a><span lang="FR"> Journal, vol 1, p. 248.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="ftn36"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> Journal, vol. 1, 280. He mentions the same points in <i>A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London</i>, vol. 8, p. 486, responding to the criticism that only people full of faith and the Holy Ghost ought to be allowed to the table of the Lord.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn37"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 22, "Sermon on the Mount," Discourse Two.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn38"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 87, "The Danger of Riches."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn39"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 126, "On the Danger of Increasing Riches."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn40"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 50, "Use of Money."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn41"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a> Sermon, 50, "The Use of Money."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn42"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 116, "The Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn43"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[43]</span></span></span></a> Letters, June 25, 1746, 203.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn44"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[44]</span></span></span></a> <i>Preface (to the Sermons)</i>. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn45"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref45" name="_ftn45" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[45]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 45, “The New Birth.”<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn46"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref46" name="_ftn46" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[46]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 31, Discourse 11, “Sermon on the Mount.”<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn47"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://1008F8DE-368B-45BB-ACB2-41F160399664#_ftnref47" name="_ftn47" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[47]</span></span></span></a> Sermon 21, Discourse 1, “Sermon on the Mount.”<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-32525967482016289752023-06-24T13:21:00.003-07:002023-06-24T13:32:00.177-07:00Evangelical Tradition<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVCRAdUBdZokiLUvM2koh62QUAwtrwLVvJbccF3Z915lV1hzNj15kAvqphUZ5S-4IJs2iyraYTYwXIgYTKaQHG9bI2WU3tylDcZQjdIDUo9opT9H9TAKhluBACZCo2eqjjrtwMQJ5ty89EhuXoqkpy_f1B1Xt82epMyHqRw0MH3RZ31sKVnCLKjROiMh0p/s1280/evangelicalism.jpeg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVCRAdUBdZokiLUvM2koh62QUAwtrwLVvJbccF3Z915lV1hzNj15kAvqphUZ5S-4IJs2iyraYTYwXIgYTKaQHG9bI2WU3tylDcZQjdIDUo9opT9H9TAKhluBACZCo2eqjjrtwMQJ5ty89EhuXoqkpy_f1B1Xt82epMyHqRw0MH3RZ31sKVnCLKjROiMh0p/s320/evangelicalism.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;">I am exploring aspects of the evangelical tradition. I want to set some of its emphases within a broad philosophical concern for the role of feeling in human life. This means that the central event nature of Christian faith that we find in evangelicalism is set aside for a moment. This event separates into two. One is its focus upon the event of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ that has a reconciling and redeeming impact upon the relationship between God and humanity. The second is the inward event through the work of the Spirit in a human life today that allows the person to participate in the saving work of God in Christ. The validity of these two events would require a separate philosophical and theological discussion.</span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">My concern here is to show that that evangelical in interest in feeling, which unities it to a broader mystical and pietist tradition, has some validity philosophically.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Our notion of reason needs to expand. It includes reasoning, and thus the capacity for logical thinking and the capacity for inference (drawing conclusions from premises). It includes conceptualization as an expression of the intellect that emerges out of sense perception. Since both thought and feeling can be irrational, our notion of reason needs to embrace thinking and feeling as important dimensions of our experience. Faith or trust is as deeply personal activity as is rationality and thus rationality embraces faith as well. We are not simply computers that dispense information and ideas. Thus, there are cases when it is reasonable for us to believe and trust where we are not able to adequate logic, inference, or conceptualization. The context of reasoning is the mutuality of us as persons, identified well by Martin Buber and Gabriel Marcel. Personhood and sense of self arises out of relatedness. Implicit in the mutuality of the personal is a principle of personal growth and the rhythm of withdrawal and return. the original field of interpersonal relatedness, the withdrawal of the individual from the field into the self to develop identity and individuality, in the return of the individual to the interrelation of persons to enrich it with the fruits of individuality and to endow individuality with its fullness and significance, is central to this rhythm. This suggests that we are first acting and engaged agents of relatedness, and thus, thinking follows this activity, which may well be rational, even if our action arises out of feeling and faith more so than conceptualization. Our withdrawal from relatedness provides the opportunity to reflect rationally upon our activity and thereby either verify or amend that behavior. Rational activity is self-transcendent in that it is both free and it reacts to the drives, impulses, and instincts of the other. Our capacity to act irrationally is part of our human rational nature, which in turn implies an agent who is free, finite, and fallible. Still, irrationality is a subordinate aspect of reason. For rationality ought to predominate over irrationality, keeping the latter in potency, we should always act rationally rather than irrationally. We apply rationality to matters involving action/behavior and the practical, feeling/emotion, and the intellectual/conceptual. Science is the obvious mode of conceptual rationality, the aesthetic is the mode of rationality in feeling, and morality is the mode of rationality in action. Philosophy is the synthesis of feeling and the conceptual. Since rationality is deeply relational, its structure is determined by the object to which it relates. The sub-personal realms of the inanimate or the biological, the relatedness of human beings in political and economic systems, the validity or falsity of moral action, and the supra-personal relation to ultimate reality (the spiritual realm or the divine). Each will require a different form of personal engagement of faith, feeling, logic, inference, and conceptualization. Since moral action arises from the field or interrelation of persons as persons, its primary purpose is to promote and maintain the good or well-being, the rationality or transcendence, of persons in relation. Freedom implies acquired freedom, which signifies two interrelated qualities that of being oneself, and that of self-mastery. Equality denotes the personal rather than the net the natural, social, or legal equality. Personal equality simply denotes the intention of the self to treat their personal other as a person and with the respect that is commensurate with the dignity of a person and thus as Kant put it to treat the other person as an end and never simply as a means. Justice is giving the other person what is due as a matter of right. The concern of religion also emphasizes human well-being, rationality, and community. It goes beyond it in three significant respects. First religion is unlike morality in that it is explicitly and necessarily based upon the human relation to God. The second difference between religion and morality is that religion involves the celebration of community especially in rituals and ceremonies. And thirdly religion involves reference to the realm of the Infinite and Eternal, what we might also call ultimate reality or the divine and the relation of the finite and temporal to it.<sup> <a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></sup></a></sup><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">We reveal the brokenness of the human condition as we clearly see the anxiety and dread (Kierkegaard) with which human beings approach their lives. Anxiety is a form of bondage. Our anxiety about the future creates bondage in the present. It becomes a prison. Anxiety leads us to grasp at things that cannot give us the security we desire.<a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></sup></sup></a> Isolating the Infinite and Eternal as a context for our personal lives, our striving for self-fulfillment takes on a desperate character. Our legitimate striving for self-fulfillment becomes excessive desire and focus upon self. We care for self and security, but the striving then becomes an unhealthy form of self-love.<a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></sup></sup></a> Anxious striving for wholeness invites us to grasp at transitory and finite things to give us the wholeness for which we long.<a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></sup></sup></a> It becomes a deforming of our lives. It becomes the source of despair, care, and aggressiveness. We seek recognition by others at any price. Our brief time and limited space become our sole definition of any fulfillment we can expect to have in this life. Further, the uncertainty of the future leads to anxiety. Anxiety keeps us from a thankful and confident approach to life. It diverts our attention from the possible wholeness of life. It reflects our basic alienation from the world. We fall from our true and authentic life. Our experience of everydayness and idle talk reflect boredom of life. It shows itself in slothful approaches to life. It reveals our misery. It leads to seclusion and isolation. Anxiety reveals the basic alienation we have from our true and authentic self, from others, and from our world. The state of alienation makes itself known to us in feelings of malaise, discontent, anxiety, and general depression; alienation makes its presence known by means of such feelings. Such feelings reveal the attempt to find our identity through preoccupation with self. Our anxious striving for personal identity reveals the brokenness of human existence. Our anxious striving becomes dread when destiny discloses the real possibility that Nothingness is the end.<a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></sup></sup></a> Mood discloses our brokenness and our striving toward wholeness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Our alienation is a form of bondage that we experience in individual and corporate ways. Political power tends toward its absolute exercise over the lives its citizens. Money is a form of alienation in that it reduces humanity to an abstraction. Technology expresses the attempt to create a world that is exclusively human, betraying its spiritual implications. Religious ideology is alienating because it can dream up an illusory supreme being out of all that we think is best about us as individuals. It degrades itself toward formulas, dogmas, and morality. Religion becomes an opium at that point because it impedes action by causing individuals and groups to transfer human possibilities to another being. Religion becomes the moral sanction of this alienated world. Civilizations advanced in democracy, science, and technology still reveal alienation and therefore bondage. Socialism or capitalism do not change this situation. The tendency of each of these alienating forces toward totality makes them spiritual forces that seek to place people in bondage. Although humanity creates these forces, they develop a life of their own that places participants in bondage. As the struggle to provide the basics recedes into the background, questions regarding meaning and purpose assert themselves. We experience the alienation brought about by loss of ends or reasons for which we engage daily life. Science would focus upon the ways in which genetics and culture determine us. Human history has focused upon the constant profound needs for security, conformity, adaptation, happiness, economy of effort, and so forth. Many would gladly sacrifice freedom to gain these conditions. Little wonder that existentialism as a philosophy focused upon the experience of the absurd. The first step toward genuine freedom is the recognition of the forces of bondage.<a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Our anxiety and alienation heighten with the prospect of our death. We approach death with fear. True, birth and death have facticity to them. Yet, we wrestle with the meaning of both. We rarely take the time to reflect upon meaningfulness. Instead, we seem content with malaise, discontent, anxiety, and depression that express our alienation. We could receive the gift of our allotted time. We have received the loan of life (Barth). It has its limits. The loan is full of meaning. We need to receive the loan seriously and joyfully. The loan begins with birth and death removes the loan. The period in which we have the loan is our unique opportunity to seize and use the loan. The allotted time is a precious gift. The challenge is to use it fully. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The struggle between actualizing our true self and finding a reliable basis for trust on the one hand with our anxiety and alienation from the world on the other, provides significant background for understanding the evangelical tradition.<o:p></o:p></p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">I will center my discussion two significant thinkers within that tradition: J<a href="https://wolfhartpannenberg.blogspot.com/2023/06/john-wesley.html" target="_blank">ohn Wesley</a>, with a discussion of the <a href="https://wolfhartpannenberg.blogspot.com/2023/06/holiness-movement.html" target="_blank">Holiness Movement</a>, and <a href="https://wolfhartpannenberg.blogspot.com/2023/06/jonathan-edwards.html" target="_blank">Jonathan Edwards</a>.</span><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> Walter G. Jeffko, “A Personalist Concept of Human Reason,” <i>International Philosophical Quarterly</i> XIV (June 1974), 161-80. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="53204717">(Barth, Church Dogmatics 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt>, Volume II.2, 598-9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1022130258">(Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament 1951)</w:sdt><i>,</i> I, 243-44 on fear in Paul and 241-42 on care.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1964687367">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt>, 96-104.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1750879522">(Barth, Church Dogmatics 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> Volume III.3 [50.3] 334-49.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6CD2D013-CE5D-41A3-880B-48F9B712DABC#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1418604465">(Ellul 1976)</w:sdt>, 23-50, stressing again that writing of alienation and bondage in this way is a way to discuss the traditional doctrine of original sin in Christian theology.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-46378884579010487342023-05-19T09:56:00.000-07:002023-05-19T09:56:08.119-07:00Reflection on the Christian Notion of the End<p> </p><h2 style="break-after: avoid; color: #4f81bd; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 13pt; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRsZgASHiNlx-NjWZTOr7slfP53h9ehFk1r5rkwpiXyLL-YP5PEEXUTtFpkJqHDn8dP1O8FS9aFQ7Kfe6RJ_WTcmtiRSyyN7MOcrzZRXi1Uxz2BmfqYyCcPq4dO_AKv973Rz4YzC8yZoIO2rb03OK2T7HJOqaS90c9tOMz-rsT-U0OP70rdJOwpQvM7w/s1280/maxresdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRsZgASHiNlx-NjWZTOr7slfP53h9ehFk1r5rkwpiXyLL-YP5PEEXUTtFpkJqHDn8dP1O8FS9aFQ7Kfe6RJ_WTcmtiRSyyN7MOcrzZRXi1Uxz2BmfqYyCcPq4dO_AKv973Rz4YzC8yZoIO2rb03OK2T7HJOqaS90c9tOMz-rsT-U0OP70rdJOwpQvM7w/s320/maxresdefault.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> </span></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I am thinking that a systematic presentation of Christian teaching needs to consider examining eschatology immediately after considering the event of revelation as Christianity views it as having occurred in Jesus Christ. Many theologians have wrestled with the practice of placing eschatology as the last chapter. It too easily becomes an after-thought. By placing specific consideration of the Christian hope after considering faith in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, we can give proper weight to the hope that springs from this faith. By placing consideration of the community and the individual after hope, we can consider the content of the anticipatory nature of the community and individual life. Such a structural change of the traditional presentation of Christian teaching would make clearer the way in which the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love connect. It should also make clearer how the True and the Beautiful provide the power for the Good in real life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"> In philosophy, the notion of where to begin is a puzzling question. Yet, even if you can figure out where to begin, where and how does it end? As in any story you tell, something drives us toward the end. What is the point of it all?</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;">Yet, any conclusion to the human story or the story of this universe would seem to fall under the spell of a transcendental illusion that befalls any speculation.</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;"> Is it better to remain silent?</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;"> Any notion we as modern persons might have of the end is a natural one. The end is breaking off into nothingness. We may simply need courage rather than hope.</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 32px;"> The future, the destiny of humanity and therefore of the universe, remains an open possibility that no amount of popularizing of the end times can close.</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In <i>Phaedo</i>, Plato presents a speech of Socrates on the last day of his life, delivered to Phaedo. Plato moves toward the end of with a mythological story of the nature of the afterlife (107c). If the soul is immortal, we need to cultivate it in this life for the sake of its life in eternity. The guardian spirit of each soul will judge the goodness and piety of their lives. He thinks those who lived pious lives will have release from the prison that earth had become. Those who purify themselves with philosophy will live in the future without the body. They make their way to beautiful dwelling places. We need to share our virtue and wisdom in the course of our lives because the reward is beautiful, and the hope is great. Yet, he grants that a sensible person would not insist upon the truth of the myth. He does think it worth risking the belief, for the risk is a noble one. One can be cheerful of one’s soul because one has ignored the pleasures of the body and concerned oneself with the pleasures of learning, such as moderation, righteousness, courage, freedom, and truth (114c-115a). <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="line-height: 32px;">The philosophical intuition here is that our lives are part of a larger story, a larger picture, which we cannot see. To think of our lives in this way is to think of them morally. We are accountable for the way we live our lives. As individuals, we contribute to the story or painting, but we as individuals are not the only ones involved. Rather, human history makes us part of a larger story that humanity itself is writing.</span><span style="line-height: 32px;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="line-height: 32px;">The God of Israel is a God of the promise. The promise keeps pushing us toward a future that, in the Christian view, Jesus Christ defines. In one sense, the matter of the end (telos) is with us throughout this discussion of Christian teaching.</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;"> We need to have the courage to think things through to their end. The ambiguities of history need to gain clarity considering the fulfillment of the promise of God we find in Jesus Christ. Our unanswerable questions, especially regarding suffering and meaning, must cease. Our notion of the end must enliven our present, or it would be better to set it aside. If the end is the beginning of eternal life with God, then Christ is the pioneer of that life who leads us.</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;"> God makes eternity available to us within time. </span><span style="line-height: 32px;">We live in a temporal reality that moves towards a real future that is open and still coming.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a></span><span style="line-height: 32px;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">As much as many of us, as modern Christians, might want to dismiss eschatology and apocalyptic, their basic themes are part of core statements of faith and liturgy. In the Nicene Creed, we read, “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” The same Jesus of Nazareth, whom human beings crucified and rejected, but whom God raised from the dead, and who now is with his Father, will be the one who comes at the “end” of human history as its judge. He will judge me – and you, as a reader. The creed concludes by affirming, “We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” Such a statement affirms that the life we have lived here on earth, in the body, remains significant for any notion of life after death. It also signals that whatever such a “life” is, it will be quite different from the life we now lead. In the liturgy of the great thanksgiving used by many denominations, the church proclaims the mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. We pray to be one in ministry to the world, “until Christ comes in final victory, and we feast at his heavenly banquet.” In the funeral liturgy used in many denominations, the church affirms that “Christ will come again in glory.” Later in the same prayer, we affirm “What we shall be has not yet been revealed; but we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” Even as one whom people have loved had died, Christians affirm that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Because Christ lives, we shall live also. Such statements affirm that the same Son of God through whom God created all things, through whom God worked in reconciling love, is the same Son of God who will come at the “end.” He is Lord, and therefore the source of life, Christians affirm in their teaching on creation. He is Lord, and therefore the “end” will be a saving end, one that brings to a meaningful conclusion creation as a whole and human history. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">God is present when we are most alive and when we are dying. God is always available in a way that brings liberation, healing, and life. Christian eschatology will need to show explicitly that the promised “end” influences the entire journey of the cosmos, human history, and individual life to arrive at that end. To put it simply and directly, the end God seeks is already at work, because God is at work in opening people to faith, hope, and love.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What if we dare hope that the times of human misery are transforming into something beautiful? Is human time worth saving? Could it be that the time is coming when the destructive forces arrayed against God, the forces of oppression and violence, will be defeated? If so, those in political and economic power need to be sure they do not get in the way of the transformation that is coming, for the battle of the future has already begun.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The silence of God at the sight of the persistent suffering of finite and temporal reality is a strong objection. If we carefully consider the cross of Jesus of Nazareth in its historical reality, we see a major objection to the reality of God. One who dedicated his life to his heavenly Father faces opposition, trial, torture, and a cruel end of his life. Given the way Jesus lived his life, the cruelest aspect of the end of his life was the silence of God. God appears to have forsaken him in that moment. The reason the resurrection of Jesus by the Father and through the life-giving power of the Spirit is so powerful is that it provides a counter-ending to the story of Jesus of Nazareth. God is not silent. In the Christian notion of the end of all things, God will act on behalf of creation, end its suffering, and redeem it to the fullness of life. With all the times in human history and in individual lives that the silence of God was so disturbing, Christian teaching affirms that this silence will end. The resurrection of Jesus is a promise of this end for creation. Such a promise is one in which we can have a faith. The promise becomes a hope that is beyond a wish. The resurrection of Jesus turns the promise into a reliable hope.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The gospel must promise a describable something. Physics determines the course of the world and the universe that assumes the universe will continue a certain trajectory toward its death, obeying the law of entropy. Physics determines there will be no decisive change. In the teaching of the church, the risen Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, will act as judge at the end of history, making the outcome of history different from what we have any reason to expect. What is the nature of that difference? What does the gospel promise? The simple and direct answer is that the gospel promises inclusion of the created order in the triune life of God by virtue of the possibility of union with Christ, a promise of a perfected human community governed by justice and peace. The tradition has thought of this as deification, the concluding gift of God to us. If the goal of the action of God is the glory of God, then this glorification includes all that God has made in that glory. We need to have the freedom of the biblical writers in moving from proper direct propositions to metaphor and simile. Much of the content of the images of the fulfillment of the promise is cast in the dialectic of the hope and fear of the moment. Interpreters of New Testament eschatology need some way of dealing with a recurring feature of New Testament eschatology: the chronologically speedy return of its Lord. This expectation proved wrong. The pattern for such expectation was the exilic experience of the Jewish people, in which prophets envisioned a glorious restoration of Zion/Jerusalem that never happened. Even the rebuilding of the Temple did not bring the restoration and renewal proclaimed by the prophetic imagination. Dispensationalism, with its use of Daniel, Revelation, and the letters to the Thessalonians, are 20<sup>th</sup> century attempts at this form of expressing the Christian hope. The persistent failure of this expression does not seem to lead to the insight that this approach to expressing the Christian hope may be wrong. <span style="line-height: 32px;">The whole notion of a divine intervention and the false kind of supernaturalism that it implies does not become more plausible by making it remote. Such a notion of an abrupt and catastrophic end is a literal and misleading myth. It also robs the vision of its significance. It encourages a focus upon another world rather than significance of this world to us. </span>The metaphorical background of this expectation in Jewish apocalyptic requires greater theological and philosophical reflection to perceive the reality behind the metaphor. Christian hope must have a basis in something other than a speedy return of its Lord. <span style="line-height: 32px;">We need to re-think eschatology in the light of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in a way in which our understanding of the end is as Christ-centered as our notion of the Triune God and the salvation offered in Christ. </span>In this sense, the hope finds its basis in present communion with Christ so that this experience becomes the propositional content of the promised future. The Christian hope, the heart of New Testament eschatology, is to be with the Lord forever (I Thessalonians 4:17). At death, whether of ourselves, a loved one, or the universe, the promise is that on that day, we will be with the Lord (Luke 23:43). Christian life is a matter of living in union with Christ, while death means union with Christ in a deep, fulfilling, and satisfying way (Philippians 1:22-23).<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> Such a hope provides a limit to the limit Christian imagination regarding the end. Could you invite Jesus into your imagined end? Another limit is that the end is the rule of God, which means it is a moral end controlled by the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, and thus controlled by the love of God and neighbor, and thus controlled by the Ten Commandments. The Christian hope is nothing other than this: love never ends (I Corinthians 13:8).<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What does Christian teaching mean when it says that its Lord will act as judge at the end of history? If human history and individual human life were out of joint, divine judgment would mean correction. Such correction would be painful. Christian hope envisions the defeat of evil and violence precisely because it refuses to give ontological status to them. Creation is good, while evil has entered as a threat that will one day receive its judgment.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> The entrance of eternity into time will mean the purging of the perversions and woundings of earthly existence as traces and consequences of evil in seeking autonomy from God. The accumulated mutual wrongs must be rectified. The controversies between individuals, between nations, and between generations, will have a final judge, Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Jewish Messiah, and Lord of all. This judgment will be the rectification of the human community before God by bringing it into harmony with the triune life of God. Powers hostile to the rule of God, such as death and sin, must be consigned to the past so that the full power of the redemption of creation toward which God is moving becomes reality. The Jewish hope for resurrection found in Ezekiel and later writings of the Old Testament is a hope for which Christians find certainty in the resurrection of Jesus. The return of Christ is the arrival of the rule of God, even as Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed the coming rule of God. The entrance of the Eternal into time is judgment, for it also means confrontation of our destructive drive toward autonomy from God and therefore alienation from each other and from creation. We must also face the conflict we have with ourselves. We have made shipwreck of the opportunity God has given. Our moments of time and events as separate moments make suppressing, disguising, and masking possible. Eternity brings our identity to light, disclosing the truth of earthly life. Such truth will bring shrill dissonance. To bring earthly life into eternity is first a picture of hell. In fact, if we let this sink in, it becomes a strong and terrifying conception of judgment and hell. Divine judgment executes that which is the nature of case, delivering us to the consequences of our own conduct, as Paul put it in Romans 1:24, 28, their lives perishing due to the inner contradictions of their existence. However, God is also creator. God will not allow creatures to make shipwreck on the dissonance of their existence as eternity discloses it. God has gone after us to move us to reconciliation. For those reconciled with God, judgment will mean purifying from the discord of sin, as in Isaiah 1:24 and Malachi 3:2ff. Fire purges that which is incompatible with participation in the eternal life of God, as in Isaiah 66:15ff, I Corinthians 3:12-15, I Peter 1:7. The person and word of Jesus is the standard of judgment in John 12:48. The word of Christ is the offer of salvation, for which see Luke 12:8-9 and Mark 8:38. The last judgment will confirm the word of Jesus, which we also see in Matthew 25:31-46 and Luke 13:25-27, Matthew 7:22-23. The message of Jesus is the standard of judgment, while who executes judgment is a subordinate matter. Judgment remains Christ-centered, while escaping the charge of unfair particularism in that salvation depends on our fellowship with Jesus Christ. Such a notion contradicts the love of God for the world. For those who have not heard the proclamation of the gospel, judgment based upon such a contingent and historical factor is not decisive for salvation. The question for them in judgment is whether their lives agree with the will of God. The beatitudes themselves could apply to many persons who have not heard the gospel. This idea is consistent with Matthew 8:11-12 as well as I Peter 3:19-20. Christians know the standard of judgment and receive assurance of future participation in salvation. They have already received justification and pardon. Judgment is in the hands of the one who died for us. Judgment will mean the purifying fire. The returning Christ is the transformation of our human existence into the image of the Son.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The hope of resurrection is the undoing of death. Death reveals the brokenness of time. Death is the end of our experience of time. Our death is the culmination of the experiences of dying we have had throughout our lives. <span style="line-height: 32px;">W</span>e are dying all our lives. Every moment of life is a stage on the way to this final goal. Life is a process of dying, where we experience it through loss, illness, or moving from one phase of life to the next. Going through death is the only way to get to that condition where there is no longer any dying. Dying takes place throughout life. Death is the completion of this process. This death in life or living death can have two outcomes in the way we live our lives. We can accept this fact, renouncing claims on the things of this life and freeing ourselves for the hand of God, who has the power and grace to dispose of us as God wills. We can also protest this destiny by clinging to finite things for happiness.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> Death brings final validity to our lives. One affirms life by its practice of faith, hope, and love. Death is a definite end. God in Jesus Christ has conquered the enemy that faces every human being. We can grant that death is the result of our finitude, our difference from the infinite and eternal nature of God. The television series Sopranos suggested that we simply fade to black. Nothingness would be the end. If this is so, then our human striving for wholeness and totality will end in failure. The hope of going to a better place with loved ones is common but false. Our temporality deeply conditions our experience as human beings. The question before us is whether we can say the same thing about eternity. The path to this conclusion lies in two areas of the human experience of temporality. One is through the experience of duration during our fragmentary experience of our historicity. Such duration becomes a hint (not proof) of eternity. Two is through our experience of the sensed totality of a human life. Death will not bring our lives to their totality. Thus, only eternity can give us the totality our lives toward which our lives in temporality seem to move. What makes death an enemy is that it separates lovers. We are those who live our lives in the shadow of death (Luke 1:79). <span style="line-height: 32px;">Awareness of my death can help me appreciate the worth and dignity of everyone. It can lead to heroic enterprises. Fear of death can also pierce deep into life. It motivates us to unrestricted self-affirmation. It robs us of the power to accept life. Fear of death pushes us deeply into sin. Acceptance of our finitude is hard for us because of the self-affirmation of our lives and projects. It can lead me to cling inappropriately to the things of this world. </span>When the loved one dies, part of those who loved them dies as well, giving them the experience of what death is. Death undoes love. To love is to live from hopes invested in the other, to learn what is my good from what the other does for me. When I must look forward to death, I face the emptiness of hopes and expectations, and so of love. The work of grief detaches me from the loved one who has died, but the work of grief also involves the renewal of the self that died with the death of the one we have loved. Such grieving leads to the opening of the well of life, giving a new will to live, and the courage to face new experiences of life. The work of grief remembers the dead without allowing oneself to sink into the bottomless pit of grief, having gratitude for the life shared and the happiness experienced. The work of grief allows us to participate in their transformation into that other world of God and the eternal.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> The overcoming of death is a transformation of temporal finitude so that it can achieve its divinely appointed end. Death gives our lives meaning precisely because our lives have the finality that we take with us into eternity. Our decisions have eternal meaning because they have the urgency and seriousness that death gives them. To think morally about our lives is to live with the reality that death is close. Death is the judgment placed upon us all, whether it comes today, tomorrow, or decades from now. <span style="line-height: 32px;">The things that matter to us now will not matter after death. To use an old phrase, we need to put our souls in order. The way to do that is to allow the light provided by Jesus to guide us. This means love of God and neighbor. It means living with faith, hope, and love. Such abiding truths remain matters of final importance. They are truly the things that matter. Our personal history begins at birth. We will live our lives, of course, but eventually, someone prepares the couch of death for us. Someone will regularly turn us on our side. Family and friends will visit. Yet, a time will come when the last friend and the last family member leaves. Someone will bend over us, and for the last time, turn us on our side. Everything will become quiet. Yet, one is still present and remains at our side. God was there at our birth. God will be there at our death.</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;"> </span>Eternal life is the simple validation of these decisions we have made toward faith, hope, and love. God does not lose us, for even when we cease to be, God will be for us. Even in death, we are the property of God and objects of the love of God. God remains our helper and deliverer. The task of living is to engage in meaningful life and accept its hard realities.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> <a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></a></span> <span style="line-height: 32px;">It takes courage to embrace the challenge the gift life brings to us. Yes, our birth is just a fact. Our lives are like a drama in that each life has its time. Death is the frontier of our time. This unknown point is ahead of us and draws us as we approach it every moment. We shall be no longer. Our birth is the frontier behind us and is just as real and it ought to be just as disquieting. As our beginning recedes into the background of our lives, it yet needs to reclaim our attention.</span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"> <a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></a></span></span><span style="line-height: 32px;"> To live the gift birth gives to us will require courage. In an analogous way, death is a fact. Yet even this facticity requires courage to live our lives despite the inevitable end to our temporality. Paul Tillich refers to this as the anxiety generated by fate and death. Quite simply, it is the threat to one who obviously has being of becoming non-being. We turn this ontological anxiety into a fear, so that we can then have courage in the face of it.</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What makes sin an enemy is that it undoes love. The previous discussion of death has already hinted at the close connection between death and sin. Sin promises a richer and fuller life. Yet, in its turn from God, who is the source of life, it leads to death. The overcoming of sin and liberation from it occurs through union with Christ, as an important part of the promised blessedness of human life incorporated into the triune life of God is freedom from the burden of sin. Such liberation from is also liberation for love, and therefore for community and mutuality. In this way, the final or last judgment brought by Christ is the closure of the human narrative.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Death and sin are such dangers because they undo what that which gives human life its meaning – the mutuality of love. Each individual experience finds definition in relation to a context that stands within a larger context until we arrive at the totality of all experiences and events. Individual meaning depends on the total meaning of all experience and therefore on the totality of all the events that can be the object of experience. Our experiences are temporal. Each experience is open to the future contexts that will come. The total meaning of our individual contexts remains incomplete. Our individual experiences presuppose a totality of reality that remains indistinct. An appropriate analogy is our use of language. A letter is not an isolated fragmented. It is part of an alphabet. The alphabet is part of a full language. We write a word, but it is part of a sentence, which is part of a paragraph in an essay. In one sense, each letter depends upon its context within the essay. Further, the essay of a writer is often one essay among many that may require one to read it in that larger context. My point is that individual things depend for their significance and meaning upon their larger reality. To put it another way, each individual thing exists as an anticipation of what it will be in its larger context. In fact, that larger context will work its way back to influence each individual thing. Now, I hope that what I have just written makes sense in the context of language and writing. Yet, I want it to say more about the lives we lead.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> If we apply this notion to an individual life in time, what might we find? Just as a book provides the context for the individual words it uses, so the duration of time is necessary for the independent existence of individuals, and therefore for their distinction from each other and from God. Of course, words are not the center of their own activity. Finite things that exist in time can engage in independent action only in the process of time. The independent existence of individuals has the form of duration as an overarching present, by which they are simultaneous to each other and relate to each other in the distinction of space. Since they do not exist in themselves, their present is distinct from their derivation as their past. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 26.666664px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">Such analogies are powerful for me in that they ring true. Yet, we need to push further and reflect upon the importance of anticipation in our human experience of sensed totality. Life is present for us as we sense it in its indefinite totality. Sensed totality is constitutive for a temporal sense of duration.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> Yet, this presence of the sensed totality is vague when considered in isolation.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> However, sensed totality can gain definite contours by means of recollection and expectation. Expectation takes precedence, for the future that completes life will define this individual life. In that sense, the end of time for us is more important than the beginning of time for us. As an analogy, we grasp the totality of a song only as we think ahead to the ending that has not yet come.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> Anticipations look forward to the occurrence of future experience. They also look forward to the content of such experience. Yet, the temporal distance between the anticipation and what the content of that anticipation. Alternatively, the temporal distance between what we have been and are from what we shall be in the end, can create a difficulty with our notion of time. To state the obvious, the anticipation is “not yet” identical to the anticipated future. Temporality determines the relationship between identity and difference. Anticipation means that the present remains exposed to the risk of untruth. What exists in anticipation now may fail to come to be. Yet, anticipation means that the future anticipated content is already conditioning the present. In some form, the anticipated future is already present. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 26.666664px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">We can apply the notion of time, anticipation, and sensed totality to human knowledge as well. The form of anticipation must correspond to the peculiar character of whatever it is that we claim we grasp in anticipation. The anticipatory form of knowledge corresponds to an element of the Not Yet within the reality toward which we direct human knowing. Given the limits of finite knowledge, anticipation is not just a preliminary stage in knowing. Anticipation is the nature of human knowing. Further, the identity of things themselves is not yet present in the process of time. Even the events and things that we experience change with the alteration of the context over the course of time. Initially, this is a matter only of their meaning for us; we cannot equate the essence of things and events with their meaning for us. Events and things stand within contexts that change over time. Even the essence of events and forms within the natural world will change over time. What they are changes. Only at the end of movement through time could anyone decide what makes up their distinctive character or essence. One would have to maintain that this had been the essence of the thing in question from the beginning. The decision concerning the being that stands at the end of the process has retroactive power.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If you have travelled with me this far, you might be willing to consider that our experience of time leads us into a discussion of eternity. Eternity becomes the term for the totality and wholeness of life and meaning toward which our fragmentary experience points. Thus, the experience of duration in time is the basis for the philosophical notion of the eternal. The existence of finite, independent things in duration is the basis for thinking of eternity as the future that gives both duration and identity. In that sense, the notion of the eternal provides a way for us to think about preserving independence and individuality. Individuals are not now what they will be, and therefore are different from their future identity. Their future is outside themselves. Further, the future toward which creative forms move in the duration of their existence has an ambivalent face. Individuals have little control over that future. The threat of the future, of course, is that we may not be in it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="line-height: 32px;">Eschatology points to the wholeness of finite life that cannot exist in time. The hope of resurrection involves the transformation of present life in a way that means triumph over the wrongs, hurts, and failures of this life. This pitiable life will share in eternal salvation and therefore redeem it. The risen Jesus is the first one to rise from the dead. He is the captain of our salvation. His individual destiny anticipates the universal resurrection of the dead.</span><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="line-height: 32px;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[23]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="line-height: 32px;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="line-height: 32px;">Eschatology points to reality that involves transformation of creation and human history so that both can live in the eternal life of God. Eternity will come into time, revealing that eternity has embraced time throughout. Therefore, the question of when and where this “happens” becomes inappropriate. If Eternity enters time, it will occur everywhere. This reality will resolve two issues, namely, the debatable quality of the existence of God and the questions related to theodicy. I can agree with Paul, who said in I Corinthians 15:12-23, that God has raised Jesus from the dead, making the early preaching of the church full of meaning and purpose. The apostolic witness truly represents what God wants to say to humanity about God, creation, humanity, and the destiny of creation. Christ becomes the paradigm of the destiny of creation in his resurrection to life with God. Our destiny is completion and fulfillment in God in a way that the world continues to endure. The reconciliation and consummation that the Bible envisions may embrace our time and history, rather than come from beyond it. A vision of a saving end for humanity brings hope and meaning into the picture. The same God who creates is also the destiny toward which God has oriented all things.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 26.666664px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">In the boundless temporality of the Trinitarian life, we can envision the redemption of creation as participation in the eternal life of God. Thus, eternity is the source of time. Eternity is also the goal of time. Time has a teleological nature. Time is a gift that allows the transformation of time into the new creation anticipated in the resurrection of Jesus. Time is for the healing, sanctifying, and bring to fulfillment of the purpose of God for creation. Events remain distinct while eternity overcomes their separation. Such eternal temporality allows for events to be re-experienced, forgiven, and savored endlessly. We see here the combination of judgment and reconciliation finding their fulfillment.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 26.666664px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">What this discussion of time and eternity suggests is that Christian theology needs to show at every stage that eternity is a fulfillment of who we are as human beings. The truths of religion and metaphysics must prove themselves in the field of philosophical anthropology. This will mean that careful attention to our experience, limited to historicity and temporality, must find an intimate connection with eternity. Eternity, rather than contrasting in an oppositional other way, must bring human experience to its fullness. Thus, if our present is a fragment of reality, we can think of eternity as the presumed future and ultimate wholeness. What we say about the consummation of reality becomes a repetition of a philosophical anthropology.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[25]</span></sup></sup></a> Thus, the Christian notion of time and eternity require anthropological demonstration.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[26]</span></sup></sup></a> We will have no answers to questions regarding last things so long as we do not clarify the relation of time and eternity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 26.666664px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">This discussion of time and eternity allows us to explore traditional themes in Christian theology regarding the anticipated end.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The transformation that occurs through the final judgment can be stated with simplicity. Christ will know himself in the people of God without reservation. This one body will adore the Father as those whom the Father ordained for him and whom the Spirit has brought to him. The Spirit will be free to play infinitely with the possibilities of love between the father and the embodied Son, and the Father will simply rule and love and be loved. The redeemed become participants in Christ and become God-bearers to each other. The vision of God, when we shall be like God, for we shall see God as God is (I John 3:2). Such seeing is the illumination by which other things become visible. We now live by hearing; in the transformation brought by the rule of God the hearing of the redeemed will be itself a seeing.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> The work of the Holy Spirit at this point is that of the glorification of God in creation and the gathering and transforming of creation into offering this glory to God. The Spirit will transform creation to make it possible for it to participate in the eternal glory of God. Thus, the Son and Spirit work together in judgment by completing the work of reconciliation so that creation may participate in divine life. Such a future transforms creation into union with Christ in such a way that it becomes the Body of Christ. As eternity enters time, all that happens in creation becomes a revelation of the love of the Creator and Reconciler of the world. The power of the divine Spirit transforms the dissonance of judgment into the peace of the rule of God and the many-voiced harmony of the praise of God that will sound out from the mouth of renewed creation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In the spirit of being clear about that for which Christians hope, we need to re-consider popular notions. If fulfillment of the promise involves the restored Body of Christ, then our personal restoration to life is significant only as a part of that Body. This hope is different from the dissolution of the self, or rescue from the wheel of karma, reincarnation, for the transmigration of the soul. The redeemed will live with and in Christ. The redeemed will be available to each other. They can locate each other. Personal embodiment in resurrected life involves personal location, so the redeemed will have their space, but a transformed space of the new heaven and the new earth which will be the process of their discourse with each other. The question arises as to who these redeemed are. Matthew records Jesus as saying that just because some calls him Lord, does not mean the person will enter the rule of God, for many will even prophesy and cast out demons, when they are engaging in iniquity that will lead the risen Lord to say that he does not know them (Matthew 7:21-3). Paul hints that those who hope for the return of Christ must do so with trembling as all persons must pass through the fire of judgment, with the possibility that there will be nothing left (I Corinthians 3:10-15). It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31). Such statements are consistent with Israelite prophecy, which focused upon the faithful remnant within Israel while judgment was reserved for the rest of Israel. All this suggests that some who are within the boundaries of the people of God will not become part of the rule of God in the future. They will not reach their divinely appointed destiny. We can assume this will be true for those outside the people of God. Under this scenario, followers of other religions, or of no religion at all, arrive at salvation, could receive the gift of salvation because the course of their lives coincide with the course laid out by Jesus. Since they anticipate a future different from that of Christian hope, the content of their unintended future will become a surprise. If parts of creation will never reach their divinely appointed end, then the judgment will consist of the eschatological erasure of that finite, temporal being from existence. This closes the door to the popular notion of an eternal punishment for human beings who, no matter how evil they were, did so in a finite and temporal fashion. At the same time, Paul can also affirm the life of obedience reflected in Jesus will mean justification and life for all (Romans 5:18). Despite the presence of rebellious Israel, he affirms that all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26-32). God has reconciled all things into the divine life through Christ, whether in heaven or in earth (Colossians 1:20). The plan of God in the fullness of time is to gather up all things in Christ, whether in heaven or on earth (Ephesians 1:10). Such statements led Origen and minority early Christian thinking to affirm the restoration of all things (apokatastasts panton). Since the Father has called one person, Jesus of Nazareth, is it not possible that the calling of the Father goes to all persons, and that in him our response is to fulfill our divinely appointed destiny, even when we out of our strength and wisdom are weak and rebellious? This would suggest that at death, the Spirit, who knows us better than we know ourselves, will have just the right word of truth that will lead to the conviction and repentance of that person, so that the Spirit will be successful in bringing all persons to the Father through the Son. If this is so, God loses nothing that takes place in time. The redemption of creation becomes an act of the Spirit that restores all finite things to their divinely appointed end. They do not lose their existence in the eternal present of God. God becomes the future that receives finite forms and creates a space for them alongside God in eternity. This will mean that multiplicity will find reconciliation. Former antagonism is gone. This will mean the full actualization of individual identity and social relations. Only the breathing of the eternity of God can constitute human society in a way that embraces individuals as well. Such participation by individuals in the eternity of God occurs only after a radical change. While the majority tradition sides with the first scenario and a minority with the second, wisdom suggests that while we will develop our individual opinions, the available biblical evidence is inclusive.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In the end, God will rule. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Everything else that Christians say about this rule of God in the future has an intimate connection to the vision of the reign of God, what it will look like and feel like. This statement means that anything that I say about the future involves a time when the “lordship of God” over individuals, human community, and creation, becomes a reality. The suffering and pain of human community and history, and the suffering of creation, is a denial that the lordship of God is universally a reality. Creation sighs under the dominion of corruptibility and death. Individuals may well persist in accusing the Creator and demonstrate their unwillingness for reconciliation with God by focusing on the misery we find in the world and individual life. The Christian concept of God is an anticipation of the reality whose concept it claims to be. Eschatological consummation will bring definitive proof of the existence of God and final clarification of the nature and work of God. Before then, of course, the absurdity of suffering and wickedness provide material enough for atheism when it comes to the postulate of a loving and wise Creator. The eschatological perfecting of the world for participation in the glory of God will show unbelief and doubt its wrong basis. It will prove the love of the Creator for the world. If we are to have reconciliation, it will be transformation as well. Within the flow of history, we can only see anticipations of that lordship. For that reason, the hidden quality of the rule of God will always make it deniable and debatable. Christians who believe that in Jesus Christ we have found the “truth” need to humbly admit that this belief remains “belief,” a trust in what we “hope” will be in our lives and Christian communities at one level, and a “hope” of what will be in the “end.” Confirmation of the truth of what we preach will not occur until the promised future arrives, bringing about a consummation of the intent of God in creation and in the sending of Jesus Christ. Christ is still in the process of coming. The appearance of the Son in the form of a slave was only the beginning of the coming of Christ. In that first coming, Christ redeemed humanity by embracing the slavery from which Christ wants to free it. Christ is coming again, for the fact that Christ has come already come must continue to gain clarity. Christ has already transformed the heart of all things because Christ has taken all things into his heart.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> The rule of God is not obvious during our personal or communal histories. If the affirmation of the providential care of God for the world is true, it demands eschatological verification. However, traces of that rule show up in Jesus and therefore in the history of Israel. The election of a people is a sign of the future, when human beings will give proper recognition and respect to each other, to the created order, and to God. The rule of God will bring peace and reconciliation. Sin and its alienation will give way to communal peace. Thus, we already are, in some sense, what we shall be. Identity involves integrating the facts of present life into what we can be and shall be. Our present situation anticipates this future and defines our lasting identity. The eyes of love see in us the potential of our destiny that we can realize here only in a fragmentary way. Of course, God sees us with these eyes of love. What we accomplish in this life points beyond the fragmentary way we have actually lived our lives. Our successes and failures experience change in the eschatological transformation of our lives. The reconciliation already embraced in the cross is a foretaste of the future consummation. Thus, the end of our time is the revelation of the love of God shown in the consummation of creation. Eschatology fulfills independence rather than negates it. In the end, divine love declares itself. God does not remain silent forever. Creation is already an expression of the divine love that grants existence. We see this love most clearly in the reconciling work of the cross. The coming of divine love into time culminates in the Incarnation, God with us. The eschatological future will consummate this revelation of love for participation in the eternal life of God. The gift of the Spirit is a pledge for this participation, allowing believers to experience peace with God. Such a revelation will remove all doubts. The “very good” pronounced in Genesis 1 is true throughout history, since God is present in its history, leading us through the hazards and sufferings of finitude to participate in divine glory. Creaturely reality has an orientation toward its future consummation. Further, if the end reveals the righteousness of God, then this righteousness has an ambiguous presence in history. The praise of creatures anticipates the eschatological praise of God. Considering this future of salvation, history is a manifestation of divine love. We find here the basis for the immanent Trinity calling itself out of itself and becoming the economic Trinity. The distinction and unity of the immanent and economic Trinity constitute the heartbeat of the divine love. With a single such heartbeat, this love encompasses the entire world of creatures. The rule of God is the end of history, as we know it, while also becoming the completion and fulfillment of human history, and with it, the acts of God in creation and redemption.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">God will harmonize created time with triune time and created powers with the communal life of the Trinity. The redeemed will know themselves as personal agents in a life shaped by Trinitarian life. The Father through the Spirit will give the redeemed the eyes of Christ so that they can see God and each other in new ways. All this suggests mutuality and harmony within the communal life and within the Trinity. The end is the harmonization of the conversation of the redeemed and their conversation within the eternal conversation occurring within the Trinity. Within the conversation, the meaning and the melody are one. The end is music.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The event of Jesus of Nazareth is the central event of the acts of God. Many people think well of Jesus. I am glad for that. It remains easy for people to think Jesus was a great man who taught worthwhile things. One might even argue that he had a gift for leadership. He certainly displayed courage in the presence of capital punishment. One could argue that he was a great prophet, calling the Jewish people to renew their faith in God. Even today, many people look upon him as a great moral force in the world. Yet, such language makes me aware of the strangeness of the language of the church regarding Jesus. To speak of Jesus as a unique, yet universally significance act of God is to speak the language of the sacred and holy. To many in the world, it will be a strange language indeed. In our time, if we cannot analyze it in a scientific way, we are suspicious. Christian teaching is willing to speak the language of miracle, mystery, and resurrection, which is quite different from speaking well of Jesus. Christians are willing to witness with a language strange to the world. The mission of the church becomes nothing less than letting the miracle and mystery shine through, knowing the world will view it as a strange witness. We must take ourselves less seriously and turn toward this event as the determining factor of our thought and life. In acknowledging this event we do so through the enlightening and awakening work of the Spirit in faith. Such faith allows us to view the event of creation and the event of human creatures in a new way as works of God. The event of Jesus of Nazareth is not simply a past event, as if we only look backward to the fact that he came at a moment of time and a place on earth. The event of Jesus of Nazareth, through his resurrection and glorification with the Father, through the life-giving work of the Spirit, continues in the hope that he will come again in the future. That Already and the Not-yet of Jesus of Nazareth is a pattern for creation, for humanity, and for the people of God, that we must hold together in thought and life. The hope of Christian teaching is that the secret history of the plan of God in Jesus Christ will have an event of clarification for all to see. This clarification will occur through the work of the Spirit, who continues and completes the creative work of the Father and the reconciling work of the Son. Time will not cease. Space will not disintegrate. Rather, time and space will find their fulfillment in the eternity of God. Finite things will find their reconciliation in peace and justice within the eternal life of God. That future eschatological event will mean that faith will cease, for all things will know and have their life within the eternal life of God. Hope will cease since that for which Christians have hoped will become reality. That which remains will be love. Love endures, for God is love. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">As I write the previous paragraph, I do so with some confidence. Yet, I have a confession to make. It hinges upon the witness of the apostles that God raised Jesus from the dead. Such faith is not easy for me. I wrestle with it. I keep trying to believe it and live in accord with it. If it is true, then the destiny of creation, and therefore our destiny as human beings, is indeed beautiful. As Christian communities and as individuals who have responded with faith and live with this hope can stride into the future with confidence. Thinking and living with such faith and hope fills our present with meaning and significance as we fulfill the unique vocation God has given us in the brief time we have here. As I say: I keep trying to believe. I do not find it easy. But then, I also do not find it easy to let go of Jesus. A better thought is that Jesus keeps holds of me.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><i>In the Bible, hopes for the end have Jewish apocalyptic as their background and substance.</i> Apocalyptic is “the mother of Christian theology.”<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> What type of mother does Christian theology have? Does apocalyptic literature contain, within its myth, an understand of the world and our place in it that still has relevance? Apocalyptic writers share some general teaching. We might even call it a worldview or cosmology. First among them is that they continue the prophetic notion that God has providential care of human history. History is a unity because God is a unity. History has gotten particularly bad due to human moral corruption. The writers of this literature have profound awareness of the difference between what is in the world and what in fact should be. Yet, as people of faith, they looked forward to redemption that would come, not in and through history, but from beyond history. Given the immensity of human corruption at this moment in history, they believed God would soon fulfill the promises made to the prophets. The more darkly looms the immediate future, the higher rises certainty that human opposition can thwart the establishment of the rule of God. They taught a discontinuity between this age and the age to come. She taught a scheme of history that claims to know the inner plan of God, who is Lord of history and vindicator of Israel as the people of God. The plan was divinely ordered to bring humanity to this moment. God arranged this scheme from or succession of the ages from the beginning. They veil their own perspective in time, for what they offer is a survey of history in which everything turns upon predetermined ages of world history. This may suggest a connection with the wisdom tradition, which also concerns itself with the timeless. She had a highly developed system of angels and demons. The fall of supernatural beings, based as it was on Genesis 6:1-4, shows the depth of corruption. She developed an air of urgency, even desperation, that the time of the end was at hand. Her knowledge of the inner plan of God gives her confidence that she can assure believers that present distress will end, and an age of bliss will follow in the reign of God. Now, for the prophets, eschatology meant the restoration of Israel, through the renewal of the Davidic line of royalty, and therefore largely political and military in character, using human weapons to defeat national enemies. In contrast, for apocalyptic, salvation from God is universal, directed toward the individual through resurrection, a defeat of demonic powers, deals with cosmic forces, a focus upon transcendent power that has the age to come coming from the world above to the earth, and it will mark the fulfillment of the purpose of God. To clarify the coming new age, we can identify apocalyptic eschatology in the following way.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a>The hope has a dualistic view of the world, expressing itself a doctrine of the two ages and a transcendental coming kingdom. It will be a new beginning free of the corruption of this age. The new age will come in a cataclysmic way (not by evolution into a new age). It will come through divine power. Therefore, the eschatological creator is not the enemy, but the perfector of the first creation. The pure miracle of this new creative act, which rules out any form of gradual evolution, corresponds plainly enough to the idea of creation out of nothing. The new age is part of a cosmic drama involving demonic powers. It has a concern for the destiny of the individual, especially expressed in resurrection and judgment. The completion of this eschatology is the work of God and marks the fulfillment of the divine plan for the world. For some writers, a Messianic Kingdom marks a transitional phase between this present age and the new age. This vision can include a generous view toward Gentiles (the righteous Gentile will come to Jerusalem to worship), a harsher view (Gentiles who did not oppress Jews will be servants in the Temple), and a still harsher view (condemnation for being Gentiles). When the Messiah is mentioned, he is a secondary figure.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title=""><span class="WW-FootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="WW-FootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I want to take the Book of Revelation seriously, but from unpopular perspective. Anything the theologian says about the end must have everything Chiliastic purged out of it.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> This means painting a picture that decidedly does not envision the return of Christ to defeat armies on earth and establish a kingdom on earth for one thousand years. This view, adopted by early authors like Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, envisioned Jesus ruling the earth from a restored Jerusalem. For Augustine, this notion had to be set aside in favor of what we now call an a-millennial view, in which Christ has already bound Satan so that the church will not experience the full onslaught of the forces and evil and therefore be allowed to carry out its mission and ministry. Christ now reigns with the saints (the church), although this is reality seen with faith.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Revelation says it is “apocalypsis,” a disclosure, an unveiling, that the author has received concerning from Christ. John says he gives testimony to the word of God. In fact, one way to read this book is an extended meditation on the Old Testament, applying it to the struggles of the church at the close of the first century. He receives a message from the risen Lord for seven churches in Asia, present-day Turkey. However, these letters are clearly for every church. The letters have the intention of warning them of the dangers they face within from heresy and immorality, and the dangers they face from Judaism and the persecution to come from the Roman Empire. Now, the important point here is that Domitian was one of the emperors who stressed the importance of emperor worship. He insisted on being addressed as “lord and god.” For John, this was not acceptable. The visions of the throne of God in Chapters 4 & 5 have the intent of showing who the true Lord and God are, namely, Father, Son, and Spirit. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The author will show that certain experiences on earth, in nature (famine, earthquake, and volcanoes) and certain self-destructive behavior by political authority (war, creating Christian martyrs, oppression of the church, tyranny) will afflict the earth. He looks at all of this from two vantage points.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> One vantage point is through his series of three numbered visions, the seven seals, seven trumpets (which come out of the seven seal) and the seven bowls. This way of repeating a similar event is familiar to the students of the Old Testament. It was an ancient way of stressing its importance. One can find examples of these disasters within the first century and within the literature of the Old Testament. In particular, the plagues of Egypt seem to be re-visited upon the earth. Further, the “curses” of the Holiness Code in Leviticus 17-26, especially the seven-fold judgment described in Chapter 26:16-45, and Deuteronomy 28:15-29:1, where the curses fall upon the land due to disobedience of the people. However, in Revelation, such judgment falls upon the earth. True, Revelation may well be looking upon the destruction of Rome and Jerusalem, as the preterist interpretation of the book suggests. Yet, it would be a mistake to tie the images too closely, for the point is that throughout human history, such natural and political disasters afflict humanity, as the idealist interpretation would insist. One way of thinking of the seals, trumpets, and bowls is that while looking at the “end” from three different perspectives, thereby heightening its importance, since they are a continuous part of human history, humanity is always at its “end.” Granted, it portrays a general view of how terrible it will become. Yet, it also looks back to the plagues of Egypt to explain what has been “disclosed” or “unveiled” to him by the risen Lord. Just as the pharaoh of Egypt would not let the people of God go, so now in the present time, the modern pharaoh will not let the church live its life in peace. Pharaoh did not “repent,” but “hardened his heart,” and the same is true of human being at all times. No matter how terrible things become, repentance is not the response. Yet, if we look carefully, what John has done is say that the world as it always was, with its natural disaster and self-destructive political entities, will continue. True, such events are expressions of the wrath of God, yet, such wrath shows itself in letting human beings be self-destructive. Further, the intent is to bring people repentance, acknowledging who the true Lord of their lives and of human history is. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The other vantage point is that of the unnumbered visions. These grow in specificity and intensity. They begin with an identification of the martyrs with the seal upon their heads (144,000), describe the courage necessary to witness (the two witnesses in 11:1-14), and in the final unnumbered visions (Chapter 12ff) show the cosmic dimensions of the battle individuals and churches actually face. In other words, God will “protect” martyrs, not from martyrdom, but from becoming faithless. Yet, behind all tyrannical forms of government is the “dragon,” the forces of evil, which show most obviously in the persecution of the church. With the coming of Christ, Satan, who was still in heaven bringing accusations against human beings, the heavenly war intensifies. The coming of Christ means the excommunication of Satan from heaven, thereby creating a situation where the will of God is done in heaven. In this way, the author stresses the significance of the coming of Christ, birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Further, political authority can show qualities of a “beast.” In contrast, the faithful community is quite human (woman, child, the children of the woman, and the heavenly bride). For this author, Rome (beast from the sea, 666) and the local authorities of Rome (beast from the land) was also a prostitute (Chapter 17). When it (Babylon) falls, it will cause mourning among the economic leaders of the world but rejoicing in heaven. With the fall of Babylon, Christ defeats the beasts, casts the dragon into the lake of fire, and judges people. Yes, this is “retributive justice,” in that the earth needs to be cleansed. If scholars are right about connecting the numbered visions to the judgments in the Holiness Code and in Deuteronomy 28, then the point of judgment is that the holiness of God will be protected.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The author has taken seriously the victory won by Christ at the death and resurrection of Jesus, has limited the powers of evil by this victory (regardless of how powerful, terrifying, and beastly they appear to us), and therefore church and world live now in a symbolic millennial reign of Christ, the true King of kings and Lord of lords. This would be the position of Augustine and John Calvin, an a-millennial understanding of this passage. There is only one true judge of the behavior of humanity. The judgments rendered by human courts, especially tyrannical ones, is a false and invalid judgment. The God present to humanity in the historical person Jesus will be same God present to humanity at the end. In the face of Jesus Christ is seen the one who shall also appear at the end, when he has finally brought all history under his sway, and thus to its consummation. The judgment is of sin and death, the last enemies of God and of humanity. This judgment will bring closure. The ease of victory of the “King of kings and the Lord of lords,” a name that totals 777, is a testimony that what to us is a powerful beast is weak when confronted with the presence of Christ. In the end, the heavenly bride, New Jerusalem, coming from heaven, would be symbolic of the protection that God provides the church here and now. Christ will bring to completion of the millennial world in which we already live. the various anticipations of the end throughout Revelation is singing (4:8, 11, 5:9-14, 7:12, 11:15-18, and 19:1-5). It may be that in the end, music, which now often touches us in ways we may find difficult to put into words, is the vehicle to express the inexpressible, the new earth and new heaven. Revelation envisions a time when the dwelling of God is with human beings, that the estrangement that presently exists will be overcome. It ends in a vision, one might call it a beatific vision, of God making a home with humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> What I am suggesting is that this cosmic background, covered as it is in myth, is a powerful myth that should make us consider the nature of the “battle” human beings face. The battle human beings face is not simply within the heart, as important as that battle is. The battle between good and evil is played out on much larger canvas. We create beastly powers that cause death and destruction, while God creates “one like a human being,” a humane power, that gives life. Our individual decisions are part of a much larger picture that human beings are creating, a picture that involves the political decisions they make regarding their life together. Apocalyptic myth refuses to let Christian faith become only private, inward, and personal. It forces us to consider the cultural and political context of human life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The word “myth” can be off-putting to many Christians. Myth reveals its exploratory significance and its contribution to understanding, which is its symbolic function, precisely in its explanatory pretentions. Exploring its world will disclose what is still pertinent to human understanding. Myth has the power to discover and reveal the bond between people and what they consider sacred. When we approach it from its symbolic function, it will have to be a dignified dimension of modern thought. Such myths relate to beginning and end, to good and evil. For such reasons, the myth places humanity in a larger context, a cosmic context, which, when approached in a symbolic way, becomes challenging and meaningful for us as modern readers. Myths communicate with symbols from nature, from the human psyche, and from a poetic imagination. This means entering the world of the myth in a first naivete, in the mode of “as if.” It requires a sympathetic imagination to re-enter this world from the modern world. Yet, once we enter into the symbols of myth, they will give rise to thought. One way to think of it is that in a culture without the advantages of modern science, human beings still wrestled with a view of the world in which they could place their individual lives. It would be impossible for us to place ourselves in such a world. Yet, some individuals get close. The fantasy “Lord of the Rings,” for example, is a world of myth. Now, I am not saying to Christians that we should look at eschatology exactly in that sense. I am saying to the modern person in general that if you ask of “Lord of the Rings” to be true in the sense of “did that happen,” the answer would be no and irrelevant. However, given its popularity in literature and movies, it may well be “true” in the way it considers the cosmic dimensions of the struggle between good and evil, and the significance of the role of the individual in that cosmic drama. It may be “true” in the wisdom it offers for living a well-lived human life. I am asking the reader to consider the possibility that the biblical materials regarding the end should be read in a comparable way.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Faith rooted in eschatology contains a form of defiance of common-sense appearances. In the face of suffering, violence, and hopeless injustice and tragedy, such faith is bold to believe that these are not the deepest and truest realities.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> The discussion of the end involves us in suggestive, metaphorical, testimonial, and narrative language. Much of the New Testament is more in the form of word pictures that present visual scenes. In presenting us with a picture of the end, it also presents the people of God with a directive as to its life in the present. They speak to a coming event that will inaugurate a genuinely new age.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> Even the natural sciences can lead us to a notion of the universe as open to newness and emergence, which suggest that new and unpredictable phenomena naturally arise through the interactions of nature. This means nature itself has an anticipatory structure. The future makes a quiet entrance to the present. A dynamic tension exists between increasing entropy and the higher structuring we observe in nature. The dissolution of finite things in the law of entropy interacts with the openness of process structures to future events. New structures constantly form.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a>Science yields a future of decay and annihilation.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a> The Christian hope is in tension with the scientific description of a distant end to the universe.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a> To believe that Christ is risen and will come again is to insist that laws of nature, with their steady march toward disintegration, decay, and death, are not the ultimate reality.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a> The emphasis upon anticipation allows us to think of an inaugurated eschatology, in which, while already having arrived, the rule of God has not yet appeared in fullness.<a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What are we to think of the promised cosmic transformation? It is in direct conflict with the scientific explanation of the end. However, the possibility that the natural world as we know it will dissolve has long been part of Christian song. Since I mentioned that the end is music, I would like to close with a few musical reflections. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I would note the beauty of “Amazing Grace” as it nears the end. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The Lord has promised good to me <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">His word my hope secures; <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He will my shield and portion be, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">As long as life endures. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">and mortal life shall cease, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I shall possess within the veil, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A life of joy and peace. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">When we've been there ten thousand years <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Bright shining as the sun, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We've no less days to sing God's praise <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Than when we've first begun. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">--John Newton, 1725-1807<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;">Here is a poet holding onto a promise that secures hope. He recognizes that he will die., but that the promise is that he will receive the gift of a joyful and peaceful life. Chris Tomlin has added a line that is powerful for this discussion:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">The earth shall soon dissolve like snow<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">The sun forbear to shine<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">But God who called me here below<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">Will be forever mine<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">Will be forever mine<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">You are forever mine<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;">Here is a recognition that as we die, so the universe will die, embracing the broader eschatological promise of a transformation of nature into participation in divine life. In the end, the promise is that God will be present, and such a hope can have only one basis – a word from God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I would like to offer a few reflections on hymns that I find meaningful. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> "Abide with Me" is a Christian hymn by Scottish Anglican Henry Francis Lyte, most often sung to William Henry Monk's tune "Eventide." Lyte wrote the poem in 1847 and set it to music while he lay dying from tuberculosis; he survived only a further three weeks after its completion. The hymn is a prayer for God to remain present with the speaker throughout life, through trials, and through death. He refers to the darkness deepening and the failing of help and comfort. He refers to the joys and glories of earth passing away, for all he sees is change and decay. Yet, God is help of the helpless, the one who does not change and the friend of sinners. He wants God to “abide” with him amid it all. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A much more joyful approach is one we find in “When We All Get to Heaven,” where we will find rejoicing when we see Jesus. We will celebrate the love, mercy, and grace of Jesus in mansions he has prepared. We travel this world as pilgrims who will experience clouds, but when traveling is over, we will have no shadows or sighs. We need to be true, faithful, and trusting, for then heaven will repay us for the toils of life. The prize is before us. We will see his beauty as we go through pearly gates and tread streets of gold.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Natalie Allyn Sleeth wrote a hymn was composed as an anthem and dedicated to her husband, who was diagnosed with cancer very soon after its composition. It was written for the Pasadena Community Church, St. Petersburg FL, conducted by C. Frederick Harrison, and first performed by their choirs in March 1985. It was also performed at the funeral of her husband.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In the bulb there is a flower; in the seed, an apple tree;<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> In cocoons, a hidden promise: butterflies will soon be free!<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> In the cold and snow of winter there’s a spring that waits to be,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Unrevealed until its season, something God alone can see.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">There’s a song in every silence, seeking word and melody;<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> There’s a dawn in every darkness, bringing hope to you and me.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> From the past will come the future; what it holds, a mystery,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Unrevealed until its season, something God alone can see.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In our end is our beginning; in our time, infinity;<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> In our doubt there is believing; in our life, eternity,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> In our death, a resurrection; at the last, a victory,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Unrevealed until its season, something God alone can see.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A praise song that can get tears easily to flow is “10,000 Reasons,” by Jonas Myrin and Matt Redman. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The sun comes up, it’s a new day dawning<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">It’s time to sing Your song again<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Whatever may pass and whatever lies before me<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Let me be singing when the evening comes<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Bless the Lord<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Bless the Lord<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Oh my soul, oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Worship His holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Sing like never before<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I’ll worship Your holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">You’re rich in love<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">And You’re slow to anger<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Your name is great<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">And Your heart is kind<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For all Your goodness<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I will keep on singing<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">10, 000 Reasons for my heart to find<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Bless the Lord, oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Bless the Lord<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Oh my soul, oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Worship His holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Sing like never before<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I’ll worship Your holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Sing my soul, sing my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Bless the Lord<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Oh my soul, oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Worship His holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Sing like never before<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I’ll worship Your holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">And on that day when my strength is failing<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The end draws near and my time has come<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Still my soul will sing Your praise unending<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">10, 000 Years and then forever more<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Bless the Lord<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Bless the Lord<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Oh my soul, oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Worship His holy name (For all Your Goodness)<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Sing like never before<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Oh my soul<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I’ll worship Your holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I’ll worship Your holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I’ll worship Your holy name<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A song I have come to appreciate by Paul McCartney, The End of the End, says it well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">At the end of the end<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> It's the start of a journey to a much better place<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> And this wasn't bad<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> So a much better place would have to be special<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> No need to be sad<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">On the day that I die, I'd like jokes to be told<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> And stories of old to be rolled out like carpets<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> That children have played on and laid on<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> While listening to stories of old<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">At the end of the end<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> It's the start of a journey to a much better place<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> And a much better place would have to be special<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> No reason to cry<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">On the day that I die, I'd like bells to be rung<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> And songs that were sung to be hung out like blankets<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> That lovers have played on and laid on<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> While listening to songs that were sung<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">At the end of the end<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> It's the start of a journey to a much better place<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> And a much better place would have to be special<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> No reason to cry, no need to be sad<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> At the end of the end<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">Worship is at the heart of any religion. In Christianity, hymns and songs touch the heart of worship. In my case, three songs express the sense of life here being out of joint, in need of something “beyond” to bring it to its fullness. The “beyond” of which I speak, however, is the visual of “above,” but the visual of “ahead.” The beyond of which I speak comes from the future and embraces us. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> One example we find, as the popular spiritual says, “Swing low, sweet chariot, coming for to carry me home.” True, another hymn praises God for this world, “This is my Father's world.” A thorough theology of creation helps us to feel and behave in ways in which this world is our home. If we do, we will seek to make it a better home. Yet, the suffering and evil in this world, its sorrows and anxieties, can make us feel we are not home. It makes us sense our uniqueness in a way that can alienate us from this world. I doubt that anyone can identify with the hopes of eschatology and apocalyptic without a sense that this world is not fully our “home.” Something in us (most of us, I suppose) realizes that our lives will not have their fullness or completion here. We long for that “sweet chariot, coming for to carry me home.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> A second example is the flow of thought in a favorite hymn of mine, “It is Well with my Soul,” written 1873. It begins with these words:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 30pt 0.0001pt 34.8pt;">When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 30pt 0.0001pt 34.8pt;">When sorrows like sea billows roll;<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 30pt 0.0001pt 34.8pt;">Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 30pt 0.0001pt 34.8pt;">It is well, it is well, with my soul.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">Rivers can be peaceful. As Psalm 23 puts it so beautifully and memorably, “He makes me lie down in green pastures; he leads me beside still waters; he restores my soul.” Yet, life has another, darker dimension to it. The sea of life can indeed by rough, dangerous, and life-threatening. As I understand it, the waves of the sea can be relentless. Life can feel that way. Again, as Psalm 23 puts it, “Even though I walk through the darkest valley ...” Now, the Christian has the assurance of the presence of God even then: “you are with me. Your rod and your staff - they comfort me.” As Horatio G. Spafford penned the words, “It is well with my soul.” The companion he had in good times remains his companion when life is difficult. Yet, the writer of this hymn seems to know that this answer to human trials, as meaningful as it is, needs more. The final verse of this hymn becomes apocalyptic.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;">And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;">The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;">The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;">Even so, it is well with my soul.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">Maranatha – Come, Lord Jesus. I wonder if one can have genuine, vital faith, if that prayer is not in some way powerful. “Haste the day” when the times that seem so out of joint now, the times that are so ambiguous today, the times today when I can see no further than the nose on my face, yes, haste the day when it shall all become clear. I have pondered why it is that this hymn has affected me so powerfully for so many years. It may be the possibility and hope I find in it. My life has had its share of joys and sorrows, of everything moving easily and when life seems burdensome. Clouds rolling back, trumpets sounding, and the Lord descending, with all its “mythological” language, still speak to me. At times, when I contemplate whatever such images may mean, “it is well with my soul.” I am not sure that apocalyptic will make much sense to you, if some part of you does not have that hope. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> A third hymn, “Be Thou my Vision,” is an Irish hymn, possibly from the 8<sup>th</sup> century, as I understand it. It concludes with these verses:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;">High King of heaven, my victory won,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;">May I reach heaven's joys, O bright heav'ns Son!<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;">Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;">Still be my vision, O ruler of all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 0in 35.45pt;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">The Book of Revelation concludes with the rider on the white horse, the Word of God, who also is King of kings and Lord of lords. If the God of Israel and the Father of Jesus Christ truly is Lord, he must be Lord of the “end.” If God is the source of life, and therefore Lord of the beginning; if God is present now through suffering, and therefore Lord of life now; then the hope, the promise, is that God will be Lord of the “end,” resolving the conflicts, tensions, burdens, suffering, and evil in this world. The hope is more than wishful thinking. The hope, the promise, has its basis in the victory won in Jesus Christ, in his cross and resurrection. The confidence of Christians in the promise contained in its teaching on eschatology could be illusory, of course. As Paul puts it at the Romans 8, creation still awaits, and even we who live with the Spirit, still “groan inwardly” for redemption. For that reason, it always remains faith and hope, by which we are saved. Salvation is not a full and perfect present possession. It was not fully “won” in the past, in the cross and resurrection. It awaits the God who is still to come. When we go through personal trials or are forced by world events into the critical cosmic struggles of good and evil, our prayer remains: “Still be my vision, O ruler of all.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> (“Hope and the Structure of Philosophical Systems,” (1970) in<w:sdt citation="t" id="-1866046351"> (Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination 1995)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <i>Critique of Pure Reason </i>(Book II, Chapter 2, section 3)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-650990601">(Kaufmann, Systematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective 1978)</w:sdt>, p. 314)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> Paul Ricoeur (“Freedom in the Light of Hope,” 1968)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> Karl Rahner <w:sdt citation="t" id="2131662891">(Buller 2014)</w:sdt>, Kindle edition 357.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="200366025">(Tillich, Systematic Theology 1951)</w:sdt><i>, </i>Volume III, 298. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="201989063">(Moltmann, The Coming of God 1995, 1996)</w:sdt> x-xi.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> Karl Rahner, “The Hermeneutics of Eschatological Assertions,” <i>Theological Investigations </i>IV, 323-46, as summarized in <w:sdt citation="t" id="-304552836">(Buller 2014)</w:sdt>, Kindle edition 1695ff.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2090965666">(Hodgson 1994)</w:sdt><i>, </i>1994, p. 327)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1868358678">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 309-14.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1383135245">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 317-321. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1144387604">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, Chapter 8.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> Karl Rahner, <i>Theological Investigations </i>VII, p. 287-91. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1790658490">(Moltmann, The Coming of God 1995, 1996)</w:sdt> 124.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> Kierkegaard, <i>Works of Love </i>(Part One, Chapter IIIB).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> Karl Rahner, <w:sdt citation="t" id="-640193451">(Buller 2014)</w:sdt> Kindle edition 1851ff.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> Barth, (<i>Church Dogmatics,</i> III.3 [49.3], 226-236).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> (<i>Courage to Be, </i>1952)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="861017610">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 322-337.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> Henri Bergson, <i>Creative Evolution, </i>1-8, 210-212<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn21"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-285200078">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt>, p. 243ff, esp. 247ff<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn22"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a><span lang="FR"> (Augustine, <i>Confessions</i>, 28.38)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="ftn23"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1034551486">(Pannenberg, Systematic Theology 1998, 1991)</w:sdt> Volume II, 8.4 and Volume III, Chapter 15.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn24"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="267980162">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, 96-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn25"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> Karl Rahner (<i>Theological Investigations, </i>IV, 323ff)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn26"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="554429096">(Pannenberg, Systematic Theology 1998, 1991)</w:sdt><i>, </i>Volume 3, 586-607)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn27"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1953204111">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 338-352.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn28"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2078629338">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 353-68.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn29"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> Karl Rahner, Encounters With Silence (St. Augustine's Press, 1999).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn30"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="135459688">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 369.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn31"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> (“On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” <i>New Testament Questions of Today, </i>1965)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn32"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> Mowinckel (<i>He That Cometh, </i>p. 270ff)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn33"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title=""><span class="FootnoteCharacters" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="FootnoteCharacters" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-685365768">(Russell 1976)</w:sdt>. This paragraph is a summary of Russell.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn34"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> (<i>The Christian Faith, </i>par. 160)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn35"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1391079775">(Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil 1967)</w:sdt>, 5<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn36"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1453126076">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, 15.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn37"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="663438777">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, 20-21.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn38"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="822552480">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, 25.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn39"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1712838432">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, 27.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn40"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1133900695">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, 34, referring to Pannenberg.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn41"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1580025570">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, 38.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn42"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://0F51DC74-047B-4FE8-8DEB-CE244C71B78A#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1393116707">(Karkkhainen 2017)</w:sdt>, 91.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-75976220130314408962023-04-06T11:43:00.003-07:002023-05-19T10:25:57.345-07:00Robert Jenson Systematic Theology<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcwbx-H59bJB55DoeMHTqYieiEbs0STx0PaSXGQbfL_L0BGtQAJmfk0qCyohbmFkp0uaXVrbAb4FrFmwucyatqMSGj73E-yA4M9yCuwogctCkYQ6WugAHSXKa0jAZr5zh7rOxHNy0YmtlzPPJmFeRblhPxE7K_OdmKFjVSGK45Xpvq0Lt066KqTFxf3w/s1320/jenson.jpeg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1320" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcwbx-H59bJB55DoeMHTqYieiEbs0STx0PaSXGQbfL_L0BGtQAJmfk0qCyohbmFkp0uaXVrbAb4FrFmwucyatqMSGj73E-yA4M9yCuwogctCkYQ6WugAHSXKa0jAZr5zh7rOxHNy0YmtlzPPJmFeRblhPxE7K_OdmKFjVSGK45Xpvq0Lt066KqTFxf3w/s320/jenson.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Systematic Theology, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-1-Triune-God/dp/0195145984/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2AKN3WQF6WLGZ&keywords=robert+jenson+systematic+theology&qid=1680806542&s=books&sprefix=robert+jenson%2Cstripbooks%2C110&sr=1-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc" target="_blank">Volume I, The Triune God</a>, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Vol-Works-God/dp/0195145992/ref=sr_1_3?crid=24DZ3CU4K8SAQ&keywords=robert+jenson+systematic+theology&qid=1684517085&sprefix=robert+jenson%2Caps%2C159&sr=8-3" target="_blank">Volume II, The Words of God,</a> New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.</span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">I find it interesting that Robert Jensen identifies the church as the unique and unitary Church of the creeds. And he stresses that the denominational age has introduced a contradiction in the theological enterprise. Therefore, theology can only be in anticipation of the one church. He is impacted by the secularizing of the gospel I appreciate his reference to Nietzsche’s prophecy neutralism must be the fate of a once but no longer Christian culture. his insight that nihilism might itself only appear as a threat of its appearing is an interesting. It suggests that nihilism is not a sustainable position to hold but a moment that helps gain clarity. He admits that for the near future the threat of nihilism determines the culture religion and theology that the gospel must interpret. He admits that the innovations and the conservations of the following system respond to questions posed to the church in a world religiously determined by the awaited advent of nothingness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">His prolegomena has three sections to it. First what systematic theology is about. The gospel is the first order proclamation of the church. God is the object of theology only to the extent To which its central affirmation of the risen Lord is true. He classifies theology as speculative, practical, and hermeneutic. Hearing something as gospel leads us to ask how we can speak it in our time as gospel. Gospel is promise and this opens us to a history. Second is the norms of theological judgment. He considers these to be scripture both Jewish and Apostolic proclamation, liturgical institutions such as baptism, the Lord's supper, ordination, prayer to our Father, as well as the dogma in the creeds. He says that if the apostles did not get it right then no one ever did when we arrive at the apostles, we have no place else to go. He says that A3 article confession is directed to the father with the sun and in the spirit. I appreciate it his honesty that no one could know the whole tradition and that therefore the appearance of some theologians and the omission of others that makes it kind of biography of the author showing where he or she has been drawn into the long discussion and where her or his judgment is to be received with caution. Third he discusses the identification of God. Identity here means with the devil narrative such as the exodus event with the resurrection of Jesus. The God of the Bible is identical with these events. Thus, to the question who is God the only answer for one who gives priority to the word of God is that God is the one who liberated Israel from slavery and raised Jesus from the dead. I think he makes a particularly good point that If God is only projection, if good is only perception of an interest group, then no statement can be made in good faith.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">Part 2 is a discussion of the triune identity. It covers chapters 4 through nine. I appreciate his emphasis on dramatic coherence in his reference to Aristotle on that point. His emphasis on II Isaiah is from my recent studies in the Old Testament very appropriate since he is the one who games clarity about there being one God for all humanity. He emphasizes that God is the opponent of death. God is eternally one with God's self as God anticipates in the end that God will be. This future that moves a story must be available within the story. In the gospel this occurs by God making promises. The promise begins with Abraham and the patriarchs this promise continues in the covenant on Mount Sinai and although there is a contrast with the covenant with David the moral content of the covenant remains the same. Palace and temple show God as invested in the reality of this world. The coming of exile made an eschatological transformation of the promises. Even the covenant with David is transformed into a royalty that embodies the people. He stresses that the mystery of suffering must be part of God's story. He then identifies the persons of God's identity in the Old Testament the notion of the son, the word, the servant, and the spirit of the Lord. What I appreciate here is that I have slowly been seeing that the story of Jesus as portrayed in the gospel narrative is a fulfillment of what Israel could have been and might have been had it been able to be faithful. His discussion of one being with the father seems mostly the contrast modalism and subordinationism. His statement that referring to the stages of God's work as creator Redeemer and sanctifier is modalistic. He is helpful I believe in showing that these statements are not identical or equivalent to notions of Father, Son and Spirit. Of course, I appreciated his references to both Justin Martyr and Origen. I also appreciated that post-apostolic authors were still wrestling with the relationship within divine life. I appreciated his discussion of Athanasius as well as the Cappadocians. The occurrence and plot of the life of God's people with God depends upon the occurrence and plot of the life of God with the people. It does so as this one life is in both aspects constituted in the father's originating, the spirits perfecting, and the Son’s mediating of the two, and as it is the whole reality of God on the one hand and of the creature on the other.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">Chapters 7-9 deal with problems related to the persons of the Trinity. First, he discusses the problem of the Father. He gets into the monarchy of the Father. To discuss the persons of the Trinity is to say that they can engage in conversation that they address others and that others can address them. In his terminology the persons of the Trinity have identity but the Trinity itself is not an identity. Here is where he finds some help from Jonathan Edwards. A person is one whom other persons may address in hopes of response. Christian speech to God is an address to the Father, with the Son, and in the Spirit. We stand before the Father, speaking in community with the Son, and are impelled by the Spirit. Second, he discusses the problem of Christology. He says Maximus the confessor may well be the last creative thinker of antiquity. I have not read very much of him. He gets into discussions of the Monophysites and those who believed in one nature in Christ. Much of these discussions revolve around whether the Son as deity suffered. He thinks we have gotten beyond this. He agrees with Karl Barth. Before the existence of the Incarnate there is the eternal triune life, in the actuality of which it is decided that there be a created history and a life of the Son in that history. If we then ask who the second identity of this eternal triune life is, in which the created life of the Son is decreed, we must answer that is it is the same Incarnate Son. He points out that an unfortunate legacy of the Logos theology regarding the pre-existence of Jesus is the ignoring of the Old Testament anticipations of the appearance of the Son. The third problem relates to pneumatology. With Augustine the Spirit is love that binds the Father and Son together. As a personal being the Spirit has only himself to give. In the biblical narrative the Spirit indeed comes to us not only from the Father but also from the Son. I appreciated his comment that <i>Church Dogmatics</i> is a parade of trinitarian solutions to questions that modern theology had answered in Unitarian fashion. Yet as significant as the doctrine of the Trinity was for him it often is a doctrine of bi-unity. This criticism while valid does not do justice to the incompletion of church dogmatics. I wonder if Karl Barth had not gotten so wordy in the church dogmatics and completed it if this criticism would still be appropriate. He points out that most of postmodern thought supposes that all personal converse is openly or hiddenly a struggle for domination. If there is to be love freely given there must be a third party in the meeting who becomes our Liberator. The Spirit is indeed the love between two personal lovers, the Father and the Son, but the Spirit can be this just in that the Spirit is also an identity. The Spirit is another who liberates Father and Son to love each other. The Father begets the Son, but the Spirit presents this Son to the Father as an object of the love that had begotten the Son and thus to be actively loved. The Son adores the Father while the Spirit is the one who shows the Father to the Son as the available and lovable Father. He admits that the tradition has not construed the divine life by the biblical narratives as eschatological character. The Spirit stands at the end of all of the ways of God because the Spirit is the end of all the ways of God. The Spirit is the liveliness of the divine life because the Spirit is the power of the divine future. The Spirit is the one who, when the Spirit in time gives a down payment on the rule of God, gives precisely the gift of the personal presence of the Spirit. The Spirit is the love into which all things will at the last be brought, who is thus the fulfillment not only of created life but the divine life. The divine goal at which relations of fulfillment focus should be acknowledged as the Spirit’s Archimedean standpoint. There is a problem with such thinking only if we focus on the origin of the Trinity and not its goal. I was surprised that he did not refer to Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, 1980, which makes the same point: the goal of the divine activity is toward the presence and power of the Spirit. In this way, the presence and power of the Spirit, as transforming and life-giving, within finite and temporal life, means the Spirit the destiny of the Trinity and of the creative work of the Father and the reconciling work of the Son.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Part Three deals with the Triune Character. Chapter 10 deals with Jesus. Since the gospel says of Jesus that he is risen from the dead the name Jesus must denote an accomplished human life. The Jesus of history is risen to be the word, so the Jesus of history must somehow be what God says by raising him. Rudolph Bultmann has contributed to the recovery of the biblical notion of the word. He refers to this as the word event being an understanding existence and meeting what one has and what one counts for are intrinsically mutual is therefore also what one is at one word and what one is not yet the past and the future what is real is what has a future. He held to a strict correlation between faith in the actual proclamation of the gospel. Faith is the eschatological mode of existence. God is the coming one whose deity is a constant reference to the future. We cannot free ourselves by an act of the will but only as they proclaimed the word it comes from outside of us word that challenges us to live from God's future rather rather than The possibilities of this life. This opens and eschatological life for us. The question Bultmann Never successfully addressed was why the proclamation of the historical event of Jesus is the eschatological event as over against any other historical event. Eternity becomes the timelessness of the moment of decision. For him myth is any sequential narrative pretending to be about deity. Another problem with his position is that the Old Testament serves only as an antithetical background for the eschatological proclamation in the New Testament. The position of Jensen in this book is that the eschatological proclamation needs the narrative of Jesus to identify the eschaton that in fact is proclaimed. To believe to exist authentically is to be unconditionally open to the future but what future the future being fully open to the future as determined by fellowship with Jesus. Jesus the Christ and his full historical reality of birth life death and resurrection is the word of God in that he is the identity of the future opened by the word of God. He is the word of God in that he is the narrative content of the proclamation that because it poses eschatological possibility is the word of God. He is the word of God because he is the narrative content of the word event that is the word of God. Jesus the Christ is the word of God and so is word as he is the content of the proclamation whose power is the spirit and whose source is the father. Jesus would not be the word without the resurrection. If he is risen we may trust him to accomplish a sufficient and sufficiently coherent self-identification even by means of lapses and biases of the tradition about him. This trust must guide scholarship within the church. If the history of Jesus does not include his resurrection the word that grounds faith does not include his risen. It would be mistaken to view the phrase Jesus is risen simply as a confession of faith. It is the ground for faith. Chapter 11 deals with the crucifixion. The crucifixion is God's salvific action just in that God overcomes it by the resurrection. This is the event in God that settles what sort of God he is over against following creation. The crucifixion given the resurrection settles also our situation as creatures. The resurrection was the father's yes. The resurrection settled that the crucifixion sort of God is indeed the one God the crucifixion settled what sort of God it is who establishes deity by the resurrection. The crucifixion settled who and what God is. The resurrection settled that this God is. The crucifixion settled also who and what we are. Why did Jesus have to die? Christ suffering is the anguish God undergoes to be merciful within history it is the pain of truly loving us. How was this death a sacrifice? The new testaments particular use of sacrificial language to interpret the crucifixion and the life of faith obliterates the common distinction between the offerer and what is offered. How was jesus's death a victory over the powers and principalities? We answer this first by saying that Jesus defeated the high priest and the Roman governor the powers and principalities of a political empire and religious self assertion. Chapter 12 deals with the resurrection Jesus is risen into the future that God has for his creatures which certain persons saw after his death was a reality of that future. Love perfected at the cross is now active to surprise us. The risen one is Jesus in the identity of his person. He lives in the glory of God. Jesus's resurrection has confessed by the church as a bodily resurrection with or without and emptying of the tomb. Somehow there now exists a body that is the living Jesus 's human body. The only body of Christ to which Paul ever actually refers is not an entity in this heaven but the eucharists loaf and cup and the church assembled around him. But what can Paul mean speaking of Christ body? Neither the bread and cup Northern faithful gander gathered around them look and react like a human body. Chapter 13 deals with the being of the one God. In Greek philosophy being satisfied the longing of the mind for absolute assurance for transcendence over times surprises. Christian theology must devise A trinitarian concept of being and Gregory of Nyssa is a good mentor here. The difference between essence and being or essence and existence and their identity and God is one of intellectual history's most powerful and tantalizing ideas. Refers to the mutual action of the identities divine energies to the periodic triune life. And since all divine action is the singular mutual work of father son and spirit there's only one such life and therefore only one subject of the predicate God. The divine nature or osia is infinite. Such an infinite being cannot be something other than its own Infinity. Deity that is Infinity and nothing else can only be Infinity as such. This can only be what God picks out as the mutual action of father son and spirit. What father son and spirit have from each other to be 3 identities of God and what characterizes their mutual act as God his limitlessness. What happens among them accepts no boundaries. God is infinite because no temporal activity can keep up with the activity that he is the transcendent and blessed life as neither interior nor exterior measure and no temporal process can keep pace with it. The being of God it keeps things moving. To be God is always to be open to and always to open a future transgressing all past imposed conditions. The temporal Infinity that opens before us and so embraces us as the triune God's eternity is the inexhaustible ability of one event. At that event is the appropriation of all other events by the love in the fullness of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. There's one God is an event a person it's a decision and a conversation. Chapter 14 deals with our place in God. Whatever is must be true in good and beautiful. God is being and therefore God is truth goodness and beauty. God is this because of the knowledge love and enjoyment first in the triune life. God is this because God is roomy including other persons in that divine life. To know God is to know God's moral will that God honors and benefits us is there any buying goodness to us. This is the gift of the commandments. This is the gift of the tradition of wisdom. And this is also the source of the lovability of God which allows people to delight in God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Part IV deals with creation. Chapter 15 deals with the act of creation. Chapter 16 deals with the character of creation. Chapter 17 deals with time, created being, and space. He does not seem to appreciate reflections on time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Part V deals with the creature. Chapter 19 deals with the image of God. An interesting possibility here is exploring the image of God in Genesis from the perspective that God addresses creation in a personal way and engages humanity in a conversation, which is the basis for the notion of personhood. We can speak in ways other than language. God is making room for reality other than God, thereby creating spatio-temporal reality together.<a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="color: purple;" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></sup></sup></a> The address of God toward us is the Word, who is the human person of Jesus of Nazareth. To receive a word from God is to be also directed toward a fellow human being. The humanity of individuals consists in their being with their fellow human being. <a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="color: purple;" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></sup></sup></a> Chapter 20 deals with politics and sex. Sensuality and the dual reproductive apparatus provides for new human beings in succession. Inescapably, the vagina and the penis are made for each other. Sexuality is this coincidence of sensuality and male-female differentiation. The union occurs is not an impersonal event, but an event in which we captivate each other and become bodily present to the other. Sexuality rescues the human communal character from being a mere ideal. We have no choice but to be fellow-human, and this receives emphasis in that we cannot say “human” without saying man and woman. The woman is for this man, and the man is for this woman, which is the eminent and decisive fellow-human moment. This difference is the only structural difference between human beings, for all other distinctions are human creations. One may hate the shape of one’s body, but maleness or femaleness are not the product of malleable or contingent psychology or social construction. Such givenness of our maleness or femaleness does not allow us to shirk the responsibility of embracing the task and opportunity of being the man or woman whom God has called us to be.<a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="color: purple;" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></sup></sup></a> A consequence of this sexual reality is that the family is the essential institution of any community. The laws that regulate sexuality, that stipulate what constitutes a family and enforce its integrity, are a condition of all other law-making. Laws regarding sexuality are the reality test of law, for the future of society is at stake. Sexual anarchy will lead to rule by arbitrary force, for it brings with it the weakening of the home. A second consequence of sexuality is its humanizing rule. Intercourse is a gesture toward another, a promise of shared life, as one body engulfs another and that body enters another, abolishing the distance between the two. We can agree that intercourse is something less than this type of communication. A final consequence of this view of sexuality is that a society will do all it can to encourage heterosexual monogamy. A form of serial polygamy occurs as divorce legislation liberalizes. <a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="color: purple;" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></sup></sup></a> Chapter 21 deals with other creatures. I know that a chapter on angels and devils is part of theological texts. I must confess that my view of the Trinity would make me focus on the personal relationship within divine life in such a way that makes a discussion of angels unnecessary. I am also not interested in a discussion of Satan and demons, although a discussion evil in its personal and corporate nature. Chapter 22 deals with sin. I appreciated the notion of original sin as beginning with our manipulation and lying of others and our suspicion that others are manipulating and lying to us. Chapter 23 deals with God’s speech in creation. I appreciated the application of the word-event to how God speaks through creation. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Part VI, Chapters 24-30, deals with the church. God institutes the church by not letting the resurrection of Jesus be the end of world history as we know it, thereby immediately bringing the world into the rule of God of which Jesus preached. Jesus anticipated the formation of this community in the formation of a community with the Twelve, in the prayer Jesus taught the disciples to pray in anticipation of the rule of God, and in the meals he shared with the disciples and the marginalized of that society, a meal-fellowship broken by crucifixion and restored by the risen Lord. The baptism of Jesus by John makes of baptism as practiced by the church a mark of its missionary nature. Baptism is sign of justification and sanctification because it anticipates the righteousness and holiness of the rule of God. Baptism is an initiatory anointing of a community of priests and prophets. Baptism unites those who receive it into the fate of Jesus and this forms the body of Christ, making Christ available to the world. Baptism is a mark of the saving, liberating, and healing work of the Spirit in dealing with the weakness and rebellion that is part of the human condition. The delay of the rule of God gave to the disciples a mission, vocation, and task to form a community that would anticipate in its life and its proclamation the coming rule of God. Thus, it is true that while Jesus preached the soon arrival of the rule of God, what came was the good news, the kerygma, through which God through the agency of the Holy Spirit called a community into existence. The gospel or kerygma defines what the church is to prophecy. The community faithful to Scripture is one that most often and thoughtfully read and hear it, in light of its creeds, liturgies, and statements of faith. This word is a lively word present in the church and shapes its life, giving it a privileged status within the living discourse of the church. Luke has dramatically pictured the process of creating this community in having the disciples asking when the restoration of the kingdom to Israel would occur, and the risen Lord avoids answering the question and instead promises the gift of the Father, the Holy Spirit, who will empower them to witness in word and deed. The church becomes the detour toward the God of Israel fulfilling the promises to Israel. The Lord is patient for the sake of fulfilling the mission of Israel. The people of God anticipate the coming rule of God, doing so as the body of Christ and as the Temple of the foretaste or down payment it receives in the outpouring of the Spirit. Thus, we could imagine a different scenario in which the Father determined that the saints of canonical Israel would rise together with Jesus, so that the resurrection of Jesus would be the end, brought about the arrival of the rule of God Jesus preached through the power of the Holy Spirit. There would have been no church. Pentecost is the contribution the Spirit makes to the delay of the rule of God preached by Jesus, opening the time for the church. The Spirit frees a human community for union with the Son and to be in its life, as defined by its embodiment of the Lord’s Prayer, its genuine hearing and doing of the Ten Commandments, and its adherence to the Love of God and neighbor, and in its proclamation, as defined by the gospel or kerygma, an anticipation of the fulfillment of creation as it moves toward its transformation into the rule of God. A proper understanding of the Christian life occurs within the context of an understanding of the doctrine of the church. Once the delay of the rule of God became reality, so did the need for offices within the church become necessary to continue the church beyond the apostolic generation. History shows that the basic cannons, liturgies, and creeds of the church arose within a church also united by an episcopal form of governance. However, a coherent narrative of the church hangs together not by its beginning but by its anticipation of its end, a notion that must not be used to set aside the past but be used to open the future to the transformation necessary for life in the rule of God. The nature of the Infinite and Eternal God means that creation in every time and place is just one place for God. The difference between the consummation of the ages in the coming of Christ in the future and presence of God now is one of style, for God is not coming from one place where God is to a place where God is not now. The rule of God comes where the rule of God already is.<a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="color: purple;" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part VI deals with the fulfillment. Chapter 31 deals with the promise, which provided some insights based upon Isaiah 11:1-10, which I have incorporated into <a href="https://lectionarypondering.blogspot.com/2019/12/isaiah-111-10.html" style="color: purple;">my reflections on the text</a>, where I especially appreciated his approach to the fears and hopes we might find in every culture. I also offer my <a href="https://wolfhartpannenberg.blogspot.com/2023/05/reflection-on-christian-notion-of-end.html" style="color: purple;">reflections on eschatology</a>, in which I incorporate my reflections on the Book of Revelation. Moving Christian reflection on the end away from the expectation of direct divine intervention is not an easy task, but one I find necessary.</span><span face="-webkit-standard"></span></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="967322412">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 63-68.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="822003794">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 73<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-483314643">(Jenson, Systematic Theology, 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 88-90.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-643659043">(Jenson, Systematic Theology, 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 90-93.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://787B6FF9-29D9-41DE-BAA6-DACAA88E7F4D#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1307926800">(Jenson 1997)</w:sdt> Vol II, 167-73, 178-9, 183-88, 196, 230, 239, 254, 273, 289.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-77741711619790747912023-02-13T12:05:00.001-08:002023-02-13T12:14:48.557-08:00Alexandrian School and Eastern Christianity Before Nicaea<p> </p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Cambria, serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 10pt 0in 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8iD9OeyQu2EmSg1SJ-xxsVeBTmVJBw8M6rz2VQbQCeTCRbRr5VWOradTul6gkIfyosOtjXHX0bZ6uZP2usIuD6CxywYaQce5gVnaW1UWXRK01e1-P65mSbFbhFN7ivib7gatTOxccq95ayykKKwIFsYdWF8S3v6FvrVuu4p22L6bkj6tuY2TWVF3cMA/s900/origen-of-alexandria-christian-writer-mary-evans-picture-library-2096939050.jpeg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="592" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8iD9OeyQu2EmSg1SJ-xxsVeBTmVJBw8M6rz2VQbQCeTCRbRr5VWOradTul6gkIfyosOtjXHX0bZ6uZP2usIuD6CxywYaQce5gVnaW1UWXRK01e1-P65mSbFbhFN7ivib7gatTOxccq95ayykKKwIFsYdWF8S3v6FvrVuu4p22L6bkj6tuY2TWVF3cMA/s320/origen-of-alexandria-christian-writer-mary-evans-picture-library-2096939050.jpeg" width="210" /></a></div><br /> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;">I want to explore the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Among the benefits of doing so is that we are dealing with authors after the post-apostolic leaders of the church. Thus, we are dealing with authors who, although they acknowledge a tradition of which they want to give faithful exposition, are before the official formulations of the Council of Nicaea in 325. We can see both the consistency of belief between the Alexandrian School and that formulation, but we can also see some of the differences. It was a time before the primacy of Rome was the official position of the church, and thus the less influential leaders of Antioch and Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome, represented the diversity of the church. One will also see this diversity with writers in Gaul (France), in the early formulation of Latin Christianity in North Africa.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal;"> </span></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The second century saw the continued growth of the church. By the end of this century, the number of Christians was extensive, but it was by no means a majority. Some of the reasons for its success involved the conditions within the Roman Empire at this time. The physical movement of ideas was easy. There was an atmosphere of tolerance, despite isolated persecution. The increasing centralization of authority in Rome, which took away the authority of local units, led to people increasingly turning inward for personal needs to be met. People felt no personal involvement with their government. The centralization of politics implied the need for one religion. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> In addition, Christianity had its own appeal. It addressed personal needs. It believed in one God, rather than many. This God was all-powerful and full of love and mercy. Eternal salvation was based on individual worth and universal human family, not on social standing. People could relate to God who becomes one with us in Jesus. The leadership presented the teachings in a dramatic and uncomplicated way from the scriptures. The organization of the church remained simple. It met in homes, which gave a sense of intimacy. The people, once they felt a part of the group, participated. The organization of the church became such that it was a "state within a state," the bishops area coinciding with the old city-state system. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The rise of persecution and doctrinal issues gave rise to increased centralization of authority, especially moving toward Rome. The rise of a more systematic theology was because of a need to answer accusations and the need to resolve differences. They developed ritual, sometimes borrowed from other religions. They began to build churches. They placed art within them. They used prayer and music as part of the services. Because of its increasing social consciousness, turning everything toward religious ends, it became the most dynamic organization in Rome.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> This period is dominated by continuing to define the church, coming to a consensus on the documents that would form scripture, periodic persecution by emperors or local leaders, and the challenge that Gnosticism presented. The church at Rome became increasingly important, but so was the Alexandrian school. To a large degree, the church was aligned to the lower classes during this period. This meant some use of trickery to avoid the harshest aspects of oppression. Though there were varieties of militant movements, the church, consistent with its founder, did not participate. The expectation that Christ would return soon receded into the background. In its place was proselyte resistance, attempting to convert the upper classes to bring them within the hoped for Messianic victory.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The concern for heresy arises. The notion is difficult, for one experiences the paradox that heresy is a form of Christian faith formally in that it relates to Jesus Christ, the church, baptism, scripture, and the creeds, but we recognize its content as a contradiction of Christian faith.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The relationship between Rome and the growing Christian community varied with the emperor. Trajan, 99 to 117, was tolerant. One of the early earliest records of how the Romans looked at Christians was the letter of Pliny to Trajan in which he expresses his desire to learn what to know how to deal with Christians. They do not offer sacrifices, and so they must be atheist. They meet early in the morning to sing to Christ and God, they are moral, they pledge secretly. Then there was Hadrian 117 to 138. False accusers were punished. Any persecution was local. There is the charge of atheism, cannibalism, and secrecy. Pius ruled from 138 to 61. He was tolerant. However, there were still local persecutions. Polycarp was martyred during this time. Marcus Aurelius ruled from 161 to 180. He attempted to restore the old faith of Greek religions there was concept of separation between church and state. To restore the state, he needed to restore religion. He was stoic and liberal. Yet, he was a more avid persecutor of Christians. This is when Justin was martyred. The death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD brought an imperial crisis. Civil wars developed. In the past, emperors chose the most talented person as their successors. <span lang="FR">Marcus Aurelius chose </span>his <span lang="FR">son, Commodus, </span>who ruled from<span lang="FR"> 180 to 190. </span>He was a strong stoic. Christians were protected. Marduana was martyred as was Apollonius, a Roman senator. One of his mistresses was a Christian, and one of his slaves Callistus was a Bishop. Though others resisted, he had them killed. Eventually, the Praetorian Guard killed Commodus. This led the way for the army to become the dominate force in the 200s. Many emperors were assassinated by the army, which led to the civil wars. This meant the emperor, as a military man, simply did not understand civil administration. Society became a tool for the army. The army became the pampered class. The bureaucracy became filled with military men, in many cases barbarians, who cared little for the cultural traditions that supported Graeco-Roman society.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The growth of Christianity in the 100s occurred in the context of some key Gnostic opponents in the second century such as Cerinthus, Menander, Valentius, and Marcion. Gnosticism was a danger to the church because it cut out the historical foundation with Judaism. The "knowledge" they possessed was that of a myth which dealt with the creation of the world and its evil as well as the soul and its salvation. This world was evil. Salvation could be won by knowing the right words to say as one died and passed through the spirit-world. The ethic of the majority was ascetic, usually demanding celibacy. A minority believed it did not make any difference what one did to the body, becoming immoral. For the Old Testament, there was speculation about Eve and the serpent. For Judaism, apocalyptic was utilized. For Christianity, it used the concept of redemption, though Jesus was not always in that role. The concept of the Incarnation was rejected. A rigid fatalism and predestination was proposed, granted only to the elect. Marcion logically rejected the Old Testament, especially the use of allegory and rejecting the interpretation of the first-generation Christians of who Jesus is. Valentius accepted the Old Testament and apostles, but taught the latter passed on a secret knowledge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The growth of apostolic Christianity continued while there was also intense competition from mystery religions. Cult of Cybele was based upon the myth of Cybele, who married Attis, who dies and is reborn every year. He is united to the earth. It was closely aligned with fertility rites. Its practice of ritual was much like Christianity. It began in 400 BC. The Cult of Isis was much like the former cult. The cult of Mythra was especially appealing to the army. It centered upon power and light. The sun became a sign. There were seven initiation rites. Physical toughness and self-denial were main points.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In terms of the development of the Christian community, the Apostolic fathers were primarily concerned with discipline and structure. There is doctrine, but it is not as clear as we might like. In contrast, the apologists, writing from 150-250, represent the attempt of converted philosophers who used their abilities to defend and explain their faith. An apology is addressed to the presumed basic fair mindedness of the unconvinced, or the partly convinced, on the plea that the dispelling of misconceptions will move against the prejudice and encourage the growth of goodwill. Biblically, Paul usually dealt with Jews. Yet, at Athens and Lystra Paul used natural theology. Even Paul gets in trouble when he uses this approach. So these apologies get in trouble with modern neo orthodoxy, and so on. For example, Karl Barth would not like them, while Brunner would be more sympathetic to the apologists. The apologist argues from the order and goodness of nature to the existence of one righteous God. They argue that idolatry is folly. They do not emphasize the distinctiveness of Christian doctrine. There is not proclamation, but there is preparation. They also preached, but these were not handed down. Christians present themselves as rational, dignified, Roman citizens, as over against rash extremists. To the Romans, Christians were suspected of secret vices, reserved toward military service, and against polytheism. Justin Martyr would emphasize fulfillment of prophecy and the universal, rapid dissemination of the faith. It was indeed remarkable that the church grew from such humble origins to what it was in the second century. Melito, bishop of Sardes in 160-170 AD, believed the destiny of Rome and Christianity were linked. Yet, the church's primary mission was to the people and not to centers of power. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Justin Martyr, among the greatest of the apologists, wrote the <i>Dialogue with Trypho</i>. Celsus was an anti-Christian pamphleteer who upheld polytheistic tradition because he saw the dangers of the faith to the empire. He was the first to perceive that the non-political, quietist, and pacifist community had the power to transform Roman society. Origen wrote <i>Contra Celsus.</i> The apologies are addressed to prominent people. Molito sent his apology to Marcus Aurelius. Tertullian sent his to the emperor. Justin sent his to the Roman Senate. Theophilus sent his to Autolycus, who was persecuting Christians. Diognetus sent his to stoics. It is not known how much these people were read by the world, but their work probably had more effect on the church, to clarify its position. Diognetus denounced Jewish religion. Tatian attacked Greek culture and philosophy, of which he knew stoicism best. In contrast, Mencius Felix said that all truth is one, and not unique to Jew or gentile. God used philosophy to prepare people for the final revelation in Christ. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The primary impact of Justin Martyr, who lived from 110-165, was his positive evaluation of Greek philosophy. He was converted in 130. He was murdered at Rome in 165. His <i>Dialogue with Trypho</i> is the first systematic attempt to show differences between Christianity in the Jewish religion. He had a deeper respect for Greek philosophy, even considering them to be saints. He searched in many different philosophies. He kept his philosophical robe. He encouraged respect for rulers. He spoke of the evils of persecution saying that it was that they were instigated by evil passions and that the Roman state is evil and unjust. He then said that the state is subject to God threatening the emperor with hell and that the rulers will be judged. He says that God originally appointed demons, but they rebelled against God. Through sacred writings and the activity of demons, paganism developed. They deceive people into thinking that they are gods. Christ defeated the demons on the cross, but only partially. The church shows that the demons are in retreat and look forward to their final overthrow. The demons are in control of the state. The rulers themselves are unwitting subjects to them. Christ will judge the state and demons. The state is not intrinsically demonic, but the present Roman state is given over to it. He then says that Christians are not subversive they are law abiding Roman citizens. They would do better to propagate the gospel than persecuted. Their morals are higher, they have love, they do not resist oppression, nor do they wish harm upon their enemies. This is the new society towards which Justin pointed. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He was born in Samaria, near Jacob's well. He believed Plato drew from the Pentateuch and that there is a universal conscience apart from any special revelation. This led him to appreciate the concept of the Logos as the Son and begins Trinitarian thinking along these lines. He believed in a 1000-year reign of Christ on earth. Prophecies from pagan authors or Jewish were often accepted freely. In his <i>First Apology</i>, Christians are not atheists, for they worship the Father of the universe, but do not worship the Greek and Roman gods. This God is to be served with a worthy life, not offerings. Christians are to be chaste, patient in the face of injury, do not swear but speak truth in all things, obey civil authorities, and they believe the soul is alive after death for reward or punishment. There are analogies among the Greeks to what Christians teach about Jesus, therefore providing a touching point with them. 1) Christians speak truth, abandoning false gods, not trusting magicians, God delaying judgment of the world because God foreknows that some will be saved. 2) Christ is the Son of God, demonstrated by prophecy. This does not mean a fatal determinism. God foreknows and judges on that basis. Each person is free to choose. Note that he stresses an eternal punishment for the wicked. He also has negative comments about the Jews. 3) Christ imitated by demons. He believes Plato borrowed from Moses. He has good statements on baptism, Eucharist, and weekly worship. Baptism is Trinitarian, and the newly baptized are called illuminated. In his <i>Second Apology</i>, God delays the judgment because of the seed of the Christians. Eternal punishment of the wicked shows God is just. Refers to "senseless Jews." Plato and the Stoics saw through a glass darkly, they had seminal word, or saw part of it. He defends Christians by pointing to their lives and to the pluralism of Roman society. In <i>Dialogue With Trypho</i>, Justin stays close to the Old Testament. In Christology, he focused on Jesus as the suffering and coming Christ. Thus, the redemption that God brings in Jesus is an expression of the faithfulness of God to creation and consistent with this is the belief that salvation history aims at human fulfilment in Jesus Christ.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a>Although he would not focus upon the notion of revelation, he clearly stresses proof from the Old Testament as a form in which the truth of Christianity is revealed.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> He stresses two advents, suffering now but coming in glory. Trypho cannot believe the Messiah would suffer. Justin believes recent calamities that have befallen Israel are because of their unbelief. That is why they are persecuted. The covenant with Israel no longer has validity. The church is the new Israel and inherits the promises to them. Jesus is Christ, Priest, King, Angel, Son. He explains baptism and Eucharist. Justin clearly leaves the way open for Jews to follow their own traditions and believe in Jesus. He attempts to demonstrate the divinity of Jesus. He interprets Isaiah as "virgin" rather than "young woman." Trypho finds the Incarnation incredible. In eschatology, he seems to believe in "man of apostasy", everlasting punishment and definitely believes in a thousand year reign. Trypho stresses that Israel waits for the Messiah, but not a suffering one. He believes all persons have a judgment of right and wrong. He gives a lengthy exposition of Psalm 22. He views Christ as the Passover lamb. He views Christ as appearing throughout the Old Testament. In <i>Discourse to the Greeks</i>, he ridicules the poetic mythology, especially its morality. Then he appeals for the Christian faith, to be instructed by the divine word, in doing so bringing peace of soul by conquering the sensual passions. In <i>Hortatory Address to the Greeks</i>, since poets and philosophers disagree, they are not to be the foundation of religion. Christianity's earlier than Greeks, because of Moses. He then tries to prove that Plato got his ideas of God, origins, and form from Moses while he went to Egypt. In <i>The Sole Government of God</i>, he simply wants to demonstrate that Greek writers themselves express a belief in one God and in judgment and that these are reminders of what the Greeks have forgotten through the influence of culture that there is one God. In <i>On the Resurrection</i>, he deals with objections to the resurrection; 1) It is impossible to reconstitute, 2) the flesh causes sin, 3) the body must be raised in all its imperfections. Though he admits some believe Jesus was raised spiritually, he proves there is a general resurrection by the fact of Jesus' own resurrection. Justin's pupil Tatian took an anti-Greek twist.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Justin Martyr, the typology developed by Niebuhr in <i>Christ and Culture, </i>thought of the church as standing in the breach when the culture breaks down, and thus, Christ as above culture.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The following are topics I found in interesting.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Christology--For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and he is preached as having the everlasting kingdom...Trypho says that those who affirm Jesus to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions of Justin...Trypho suggest that Jesus could be recognized as Lord and Christ and God, as the scripture declares, by the gentiles, who have from his name been called Christians; but we who are servants of God that made this same Christ, do not require to confess or worship him.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Eschatology--Trypho asks of he really expects Jerusalem shall be rebuilt; and does he expect Christians to be gathered there, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and they prophets, both the people of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before his Christ came? He accepted what would later be labeled premillennial teaching, expecting a literal fulfillment of the unconditional promise to Abraham and David. He expected Christ to return before the millennium to institute the kingdom promised to David. On the basis of Revelation 20:5-6, he expected a first resurrection at the beginning of the millennium, the saints ruling with Christ on the earth for a thousand years, and then a second resurrection that will occur after God releases Satan from the bondage he endured for that thousand years. Satan will fail again, and God will bring judgment. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Jews--For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer...These things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One...For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him...the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. Jesus Christ circumcises all who will--as was declared above--with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace. Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem...Openness to Jewish-Christians: There are such people, Trypho, and these do not venture to have any intercourse with or to extend hospitality to such persons; but I do not agree with them. But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people's hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and wish to perform the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as family.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Gnostics--And there are some who maintain that even Jesus himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh; these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Religious experience--I will also relate the way we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same way we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed...Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the fellowship bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he takes them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at God's hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people express their assent by saying Amen. Then, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. And this food is called among us the eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but those who believe that the things which we teach are true, and who have been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of God's word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through the Son, Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, if time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> It was at this time, between 150-200 AD, that the Muratorium fragment was written. It clearly had begun with reference to Matthew and Mark and continued with comments upon those books which are accepted within the church. Luke is called the physician, who associated with Paul, though he did not see the Jesus himself. John, the disciple of Jesus, wrote the fourth gospel, but only after a time of fasting and prayer, with Andrew suggesting that John write the gospel in his own name. It is then stated that: "...although different points are taught us in the several books of the gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers..." Acts is written by Luke, based upon what he saw himself, since the death of Peter and Paul are not related. The text refers to the journey of Paul to Spain as well. Paul wrote, first, to the Corinthians, then to the Ephesians, then the Philippians, then the Colossians, then the Galatians, then to the Romans. This makes seven letters, the perfect number. The text refers to letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians which were forged under Paul's name. The General epistles are two by John and one by Jude. The Wisdom of Solomon is also accepted in the churches. The Apocalypse of John is accepted, and the Apocalypse of Peter is also accepted among many, but not all. The Shepherd of Hermas is respected a great deal but is not to be read along with the prophets and apostles. In Persia and India, the <u>Acts of Thomas</u> became an example of Christianity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Throughout the 200s, there was a mounting social and political crisis. The Graeco-Roman civilization was in decline. The civilization that dominated for two centuries was beginning wane. The Rhine and Danube rivers formed the northern boundaries of this civilization. Greek culture dominated in the empire. This cultural unity was just as important as political unity. This decline, which began in 180, will continue for three centuries. It shows the strength of the civilization, as well as the weakness of the alternatives. The cause was not simply foreign aggression, but also internal sickness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> A school of Christian theologians and bishops and deacons developed in Alexandria. The teachers and students of the school were influential in many of the early theological controversies of the Christian church. It was one of the two major centers of the study of biblical exegesis and theology the other being the School of Antioch. Jerome said John Mark the Apostle founded the school. However, the earliest recorded dean was Athenagoras. He was succeeded by Pantaenus, who was succeeded as head of the school by his student Clement of Alexandria in 190.Other notable theologians with a connection to the school include Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Heraclas, Dionysius "the Great", and Didymus the Blind. Others, including Jerome and Basil, made trips to the school to interact with the scholars there. The Coptic Theological Seminary, Cairo claims continuity with the ancient school. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The school did not attain a world-wide fame till Pantaenus became its teacher. He was a native of Sicily, and, before his conversion to Christianity, a Stoic philosopher. It is said that he was converted by one of the disciples of St Mark. He became head of the Catechetical School about 180. He immediately set about introducing those changes that contributed to its future celebrity. The union which he effected between theology and philosophy. The supporters of Pantaenus "looked on this philosophy as a 'Gift of God', a 'Work of Divine Providence,' which was intended to be for the Gentiles what the Law has been for the Jew, viz,. the means of their justification and a preparation for the Gospel. They held, that between revealed religion and philosophy, thus understood and explained, there can be no antagonism; but that, on the contrary, the latter can be made subservient to the interests of the former in various ways: (a) by training the mind to think and reason accurately, and thus prepare the mind for the higher study of theology. (b) by supplying proofs and illustrations of many truths common to the two sciences. (c) by unfolding and throwing into scientific shape the truths of Revelation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Pantaenus' successor was Titus Flavius Clement, Clement of Alexandria. Clement was appointed in 192. His lectures were attended by large numbers of pagans. He commenced with those truths that could be demonstrated from philosophy, for the purpose of leading his hearers by degrees to embrace the Christian faith. He did not confine himself to oral instruction. He wrote numerous works for the benefit of those who could not attend his lectures.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Clement was born around 150. He was educated as a Pagan. He traveled extensively. He asked typical questions concerning meaning and purpose. When he got back to Alexandria, he was taught by Pantanaeus. He taught at his school until 202., when he was driven out by officials. He went to Cappadocia, where he did most of his writing. Between 211 and 215 he died. He was a saint to his contemporaries. In terms of the history of the church views of him suffered because of his association with Origen and the school at Alexandria.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Clement was a teacher in Alexandria, where non-Christians were frequent visitors, it was a cosmopolitan city. It was the center of scholarship, especially geometry and math. The school of Euclid lasted 700 years in the city. Their astronomers already knew the earth was round. Maps of China were discovered. One of its scientists estimated the diameter of the earth to within 50 miles of what we know it to be. Aristides had believed the earth revolved around the sun. Philo’s synthesis of Plato and Torah is parallel to that developed by Clement. Alexandria was also the home of Neoplatonism. Ammonius Sakas was a contemporary of Clement and taught Origen and Plotinus.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Clement reminds us that in the gospel of John, the logos permeates the whole of creation. He loves eternal life, the cosmos, and creation. There is a sense of participation in the divine nature. Christ brings the universe together. He speaks of the liberation that comes to the Christian. All things, especially truth, belong to the Christian. There is victory over sin, death, and confusion. He displayed great optimism. He wants to save everything that has been tainted by sin. There is the discovery of everything that is of worth in the world and humanity. Clement was not afraid to recognize truth wherever he found it. Truth is one, it comes from God, and the Christian has the right to it. Greek philosophy has truth. The truth finds its fullest expression in Christ. True knowledge is Christ living in his church. We could consider him the father of Christian humanism and the father of Christian mysticism. Clement is unique. He pioneered the idea of teaching intellectuals and societal people. He attempted to bring Christianity to bear upon the culture of his day. His teaching was an exposition of the culture to the cultured Alexandrian. His style is informal, witty, and uses imagery appropriate for the time. His hermeneutical principle is the presence of Christ. Christ is seen as master and teacher. All truth is caught up in Christ. Through Christ the world is full of light. He is conscious of the cosmic Christ.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> He quotes Plato and Greek philosophy as truth. He is not syncretistic. He quoted as truth because it belongs to Christ. However, a valid question is whether it is a cop out for a Christian to say that truth discovered outside of revelation is actually from God. He knows the difference between revelation and metaphysics, the poverty of philosophy and the primacy of the gospels. Revelation outside of scripture is meager and cannot bring a person to Christ.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He had two choices. He could accept either the intellectual Gnostic school of Valentinus or the obscure orthodox community in Egypt. Pantanaeus helped Clement to see that the church could utilize philosophy. The church did not have to be on the defensive. He was prepared to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, for example, with Neo-Pythagorean terms while assuring readers of his biblical thought, even if not biblical terms. The focus of his theology was creation, the ground of redemption. Wherever truth and goodness are found, there is the stamp of the creator. In reviewing the sex ethic, he rejects Gnostic view that marriage is incompatible with the higher Christian life. He acts much like a spiritual director. He viewed spiritual life as unending progress. His temperament was much different from Tertullian.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He had some views of what we might think of as natural theology. But what is loveable, and is not also loved by God? And people have been proved to be loveable; consequently, God loves people. For how shall all persons not be loved for whose sake the only begotten Son is sent from the Father's breast, the Word of faith, the faith which is superabundant? Now, it is incumbent on us to return God's love, who lovingly guides us to that life which is best; and to live in accordance with the injunctions of God's will. For wandering in life as in deep darkness, we need a guide that cannot stumble or stray; and our guide is the best, not blind.... Clement is among the early leaders of the church who derived the relative viewability and conceivability of God bestowed upon us derives from natural theology.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. No one can rightly express entirely who God is. For on account of God's greatness God is ranked as the All and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of God. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is Infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore, it is without form and name. We do use good names, in order that the mind may have these as points of support, so as not to err in other respects. For each one by itself does not express God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Pannenberg discusses the infinity of God in the context of omnipresence and omnipotence (ST 6.3). God is present to all things at the place of their existence. Such presence has the character of the power that is identical with the divine essence. God comprehends all things with the divine presence. In a separate essay, Pannenberg discusses the otherness of God as incomprehensibility and ineffability. He connects this notion with the early Christian theological attempt to relate to the philosophy of Middle Platonism of the time. He sees this idea in Clement of Alexandria. This meant development of the notion of the simplicity of God and the idea that no category can comprehend God. He connects this philosophical notion with the notion in Israel of the hidden quality of God, where even in the historical acts of God, God remains hidden, as in Isaiah 45:15, 40:28, and Deuteronomy 4:12ff. The point is that with revelation, God remains incomprehensible to humanity.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> When Clement discusses natural theology, for example, he admits the difficulty, for the first principles of anything are difficult to discover. Thus, no one can rightly express entirely who God is. The greatness of God leads us to think of God as the All or the Father of the universe. God is indivisible and Infinite and therefore without dimensions and having no limit. Thus, God is without form or name, even though we use names so that our minds can relate to God, even though no single name expresses who God is. Thus, as Pannenberg puts it, the presence of God wherever the creatures of God are has the form of the creative presence of the Spirit by which God calls them into existence and upholds them. The transcendence of God is compatible with the earthly presence of God through the doctrine of the Trinity, which holds in union and tension the transcendence and immanence of God. Such omnipresence is the condition for the omnipotence of God. God is omnipotent in that divine power knows no limits. Since God wills the existence of the creatures of God, God does not oppose them. The goal of the act of creation is the independent existence of creatures. No one can escape the omnipresence and power of God. When creatures turn aside from the source of its life, it falls into nothingness. The omnipotence of the Creator shows itself in that God can save the creature from the nothingness to which the creature has subjected itself by its conduct. The subjection of the Son to the Father is a pattern for how creation could have independent existence but remain related to its origin. The omnipotence of God comes into action as love through the self-distinction of the son from the Father, the begetting and sending of the Son, and finds fulfillment through the Spirit to whom creatures owe their lives. The omnipotence of God is the power of divine love, and not the assertion of a particular authority against all opposition. That power alone is almighty that affirms what is opposite to it. It gives the creature the opportunity by accepting its own limits to transcend them and in this way itself to participate in Infinity. John Wesley (The Unity of the Divine Being, Sermon 114) also discusses the intimate connection of the all-pervading presence, power, and knowledge of God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In considering church and world, he could say that the philosophers of the Greeks, while naming God, do not know God. They spend life in seeking the probable, not the true. Reinhold Niebuhr classes <span style="font-family: Times;">Clement of Alexandria among those who think of the community “above” culture, in that Christian reflection represents a synthesis of biblical teaching and cultural influences. When a breakdown of the culture occurs, as it did at the beginning of the Medieval period, the church stood in the breach and held European life together in a synthetic way.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He considered the social issues of the day.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding women, So the Church is full of those, as well as chaste women as men. For self-control is common to all human beings who have made choice of it. And we admit that the same nature exists in every race, and the same virtue. As far as respects human nature, the woman does not possess one nature, and the man exhibit another, but the same: so also, with virtue. As then there is sameness, as far as respects the soul, she will attain to the same virtue; but as there is difference as respects the peculiar construction of the body, she is destined for child-bearing and housekeeping. We do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war, since we wish the men even to be peaceable. In this perfection it is possible for man and woman equally to share. He points to Judith, Susanna, the sister of Moses. The wise woman, then, will first choose to persuade her husband to be her associate in what is conducive to happiness. And should that be found impracticable, let her by herself earnestly aim at virtue, gaining her husband's consent in everything, so as never to do anything against his will, with exception of what is reckoned as contributing to virtue and salvation. For with prefect propriety Scripture has said that woman is given by God as "an help" to man. It is evident, then that she will charge herself with remedying, by good sense and persuasion, each of the annoyances that originate with her husband in domestic economy. And if he does not yield, then she will endeavor, as far as possible for human nature to lead a sinless life...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding ethics, our instructor Jesus draws for us the model of the true life, and trains humanity in Christ. Our superintendence in instruction and discipline is the office of the Word, from whom we learn frugality and humility, and all that pertains to love of truth, love of humanity, and love of excellence. There is a generous disposition, suitable to the choice that is set upon moral loveliness, resulting from the training of Christ. For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity. Christian conduct is the operation of the rational soul in accordance with a correct judgment and aspiration after the truth, which attains its destined end through the body, the soul's consort and ally. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding the ethical issues related to diet, we must now describe what people who are called Christians ought to be during the whole of their lives. We must accordingly begin with ourselves, and how we ought to regulate ourselves. We will need to regulate the body. The Instructor enjoins us to eat that we may live. For neither is food our business, nor is pleasure our aim. Wherefore also there is discrimination to be employed in reference to food. We must therefore reject different varieties, which engender various mischiefs, such as cookery, making pastry, gluttons. Alcohol--He counsels abstinence from alcohol. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding ethical issues related to marriage, he said it exists for pro-creation. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding ethical issues related to jewelry, How much wiser to spend money on human beings, than on jewels and gold! <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Ethic, Such ought those who are consecrated to Christ appear, and frame themselves in their whole life, as they fashion themselves in the church for the sake of gravity; and to be not to seem such--so meek, so pious, so loving. After having paid reverence to the discourse about God, they leave within the church what they have heard. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He encouraged perfection in love. The perfect person ought therefore to practice love, and thence to haste to the divine friendship, fulfilling the commandments from love. Love joins us to God, does all things in concord. In love, all the chosen of God were perfected. They who have been perfected in love, through the grace of God, hold the place of the godly. Here I find perfection apprehended variously in relation to Jesus who excels in every virtue. Accordingly, one is perfected as pious, and as patient, and as continent, and as a worker, and as a martyr, and as a Gnostic. But I know no one of people perfect in all things at once, while still human. Who then is perfect? Those who profess abstinence from what is bad. But gnostic perfection in the case of the legal person is the acceptance of the Gospel, that those who obey the law may be perfect. Only let us preserve free will and love. We are then to strive to reach maturity as befits the Gnostic, and to be as perfect as we can while still abiding in the flesh, making it our study with perfect concord here to concur with the will of God, to the restoration of what is the perfect nobleness and relationship, to the fullness of Christ, that which perfectly depends on our perfection. Uniting the soul with light, through unbroken love, which is God-bearing and God-borne. Thence assimilation to God the Savior arises to the Gnostic, as far as permitted to human nature, he being made perfect as the Father who is in heaven. Baptism--The sins committed before faith the Lord accordingly forgives, not that they may be undone, but as if they had not been done. It ought to be known, then, that those who fall into sin after baptism are those who are subjected to discipline; for the deeds done before are remitted, and those done after are purged. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding sin, Let them not then say, that those who do wrong and sin transgress through the agency of demons; for then they would be guiltless.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding martyrdom, We call martyrdom perfection, not because they come to the end of their lives as others do, but because they have exhibited the perfect work of love. But say they, if God cares for you, why are you persecuted and put to death? Has God delivered you to this? Although we do not wrong, yet the judge looks on us as doing wrong, for he neither knows nor wishes to know about us but is influenced by unwarranted prejudice; wherefore also he is judged. Accordingly, they persecute us, not from the supposition that we are wrong doers, but imagining that by the very fact of our being Christians we sin against life in so conducting ourselves, and exhorting others to adopt the like life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding theodicy, Some will say that if God uses the rod and threatening and fear, God cannot be good. Yet, even here the Lord the Instructor is best. The Lord hates none of the things which were made. Therefore, God loves them. Much more than the rest, and with reason, God loves humanity, the noblest of all objects created by God, and a God-loving being. Therefore, God is loving; consequently, the Word is loving. Yet, if you love something, you wish it good. Yet, if the Lord loves humanity, and is good, can God be angry and punish? The answer is that reproof and reproach and admonition are surgery to the passions of the soul, medicine to the soul. While God threatens, God obviously is unwilling to inflict evil to execute God's threatenings; but by inspiring people with fear, God cuts off the approach to sin, and shows God's love to humanity. Nor does God inflict punishment from wrath, but for the ends of justice; since it is not expedient that justice should be neglected on our account. Each one of us, who sins, with our own free will chooses punishment, and the blame lies with the one who chooses. See how God, through love of goodness, seeks repentance; and by means of the plan God pursues of threatening silently, shows God's own love for humanity. I will Grant that God punishes the disobedient, but I will not grant that God wishes to take vengeance. Besides, the feeling of anger is full of love to humanity, God condescending to emotion on humanity's account; for whose sake also the Word of God became a human being. "To speak briefly, therefore, the Lord acts towards us as we do towards our children."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Bible interpretation, He insisted that the operation of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the biblical writers extended to the individual phraseology used by them in the grammatical sense of the concept. Thus, the idea that not even the slightest joy or tittle of Scripture can be destroyed is based on the truth that it the mouth of the Lord through the Holy Spirit has spoken all.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. ...These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning....The blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute...The apostle John: For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit....They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Christology, beneficent exceedingly, and loving to humanity, in that, when he might have been Lord, he wished to be a brother to us all; and so good was he that he died for us. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Mary, Jesus is the fruit of the Virgin, the only virgin mother. "I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother--ever as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord swathed in his precious blood....But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the perpetual state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined to be a virgin.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding predestination, Whether, then, the Father draws everyone who has led a pure life, and has reached the conception of the blessed and incorruptible nature; or whether the free will which is in us, by reaching the knowledge of the good, leaps and bounds over the barriers, as the gymnasts say; yet is not without eminent grace that the soul is winged, and soars, and is raised above the higher spheres, laying aside all that is heavy, and surrendering itself to its kindred element....People are not saved against their will, but will be so voluntarily and of free choice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding eschatology, And how is Jesus Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all? But he is the savior of those who have believed, because of their wishing to know; and the Lord of those who have not believed, till, being enabled to confess him, they obtain the peculiar and appropriate boon which comes by him...But, on the other hand, they allowed those who had been delighted with vice to consort with the objects of their choice; and, on the other hand, that the soul, which is ever improving in the acquisition of virtue and the increase of righteousness, should obtain a better place in the universe, as tending in each step of advancement towards the habit of impassibility...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Christian hope directs itself toward eschatological salvation (Pannenberg, ST 15). This hope fulfills the deepest longing of humans and all creation, even when explicit awareness of the object of this longing is lacking. This longing transcends all our concepts. The reason is that this longing means participation in the eternal life of God. “Thy kingdom come” is the prayer of the Christian community in the Lord’s Prayer and the perfect example of this hope. When Christians discuss the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment, they have a relationship to the coming of God that consummates divine rule over creation. He notes the reduction of interest in the rule of God in the post-apostolic period. Yet, in its debate with Hellenistic philosophy, we also find an increase of interest in the resurrection of the dead and conforming to the likeness of Christ as the heart of Christian hope for the future. They viewed the lordship of God over history as present already rather than awaiting future consummation. The basis of this thought is creation, working itself out in debate with Gnosticism. Thus, the reduction of interest in eschatology occurred largely because of the debates the post-apostolic period had within its religious and philosophical environment. Later Christian reflections, such as Clement of Alexandria, will continue the reduction of interest in the rule of God and emphasize resurrection and last judgment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding ecclesiology, For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the church. This temple is better for the reception of the greatness of the dignity of God...The altar, then, that is with us here, the terrestrial one, is the congregation of those who devote themselves to prayers, having as it were one common voice and one mind....One objection against the church is that there is discord among the sects. The truth is not seen when distorted in several dogmas. He answers that it is worse in other religions....From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honorable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects...He calls it the ancient and Catholic Church.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding spiritual Experience, What then, is the exhortation I give you? I urge you to be saved. This Christ desires. In one word....Hence accordingly ensues the healing of our passions, in consequence of the assuagements of those examples; the Pedagogue strengthening our souls, and by God's benign commands, as by gentle medicines, guiding the sick to the perfect knowledge of the truth....We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing... He urged that the church not use music, for it is too much like the entertainments of the world....He has a prayer for assimilation to the divine: But I shall free myself from lust, let them say, O Lord, for the sake of alliance with you. For the economy of creation is good, and all things are well administered: nothing happens without a cause. I must be in what is yours, O Omnipotent One. And if I am there, I am near you. And I would be free of fear that I may be able to draw near to you, and to be satisfied with little, practicing your just choice between things good and things like....As then, those, who at sea are held by an anchor, pull at the anchor, but do not drag it to them, but drag themselves to the anchor; so those who, according to the gnostic life, draw God towards them, imperceptibly bring themselves to God: for those who revere God, revere themselves. In the contemplative life, then, one in worshipping God attends to themselves, and through their own spotless purification beholds the holy God in a holy way; for self-control, being present, surveying and contemplating itself uninterruptedly, is as far as possible assimilated to God....It ought to be known, then, that those who fall into sin after baptism are those who are subjected to discipline; for the deeds done before are remitted, and those done after are purged....uniting the soul with light, through unbroken love, which is God bearing and God borne. Thence, assimilation to God the Savior arises to the Gnostic, as far as permitted to human nature, he being made perfect...Prayer is converse with God. Though whispering, consequently, and not opening the lips, we speak in silence, yet we cry inwardly. For God hears continually all the inward converse. So also we raise the head and lift the hands to heaven, and set the feet in motion at the closing utterance of the prayer, following the eagerness of the spirit directed towards the intellectual essence; and endeavoring to abstract the body from the earth, along with the discourse, raising the soul aloft...Some assign definite hours for prayer, yet the gnostic prays throughout his or her whole life, endeavoring by prayer to have fellowship with God. And having reached to this, they leave behind all that is of no service, as having now received the perfection of those who act by love....In prayer, the gnostic is better prepared to fail when he or she asks, than to get when they do not ask...The gnostic is always pure for prayer. They also pray in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and they are never out of their holy keeping; and though they pray alone, they have the choir of the saints standing with them....Gnostics fast with their life, in respect of coveting and voluptuousness, from which all the vices grow...Gnostics are consequently divine, and already holy, God-bearing and God-borne.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">During the 200s, the pattern of worship was scripture reading, preaching, prayers, hymns. The great event of the year was Easter. In Rome, there was a 40 hour fast and vigil. By early in the next century this was extended to the 40 days of Lent. Martyrs were commemorated with a celebration of the Lord's Supper annually on the days of their death. Prayers for the dead in general were in use by the beginning of this century.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Baptism by the middle of this century was believed to wash away all previous sins. Irenaeus made an obscure reference to infant baptism in 185 AD. Tertullian refers to it and discourages it. Origen approved it as an apostolic custom. The practice was not universal until the sixth century. As to method, the New Testament was mainly immersion, but not always complete. In the middle of the third century there was heated discussion of the validity of heretical baptism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The Lord's Supper was viewed by most to be a real presence of Christ at the Eucharist, though this was left undefined. The struggle with Docetism brought an increasing emphasis in the passion of Christ symbolized in the Eucharist. Cyprian completed the movement toward it being viewed as a sacrifice. But this demands a priest.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">There was controversy over the forgiveness of sins. This issue began with controversy over the nature of sin after baptism. Callistus would also open the church to those who lapsed after baptism in a way much too liberal for Hippolytus. Callistus argued by an analogy from the Noah's Ark, that the church is like the ark, with the clean and unclean within it. The main issue was concerning those who denied their faith during the persecution of 250 AD. Once the persecution was over, could they be allowed back into the church? Novatian believed that such a sin was unforgivable. The bishop of Rome, Cornelius, believed in a milder position, and this is what prevailed. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Yet another controversy was whether the baptism of those determined to be heretics was valid. Cyprian would say no. The bishop of Rome, Stephen, disagreed, claiming sacraments were Christ's, not the church or minister. Stephen denounced Cyprian. He is also the first to used the text "Thou art Peter..." to support the view that the bishop of Rome was the first of all the bishops. For Cyprian, all bishop were equal. In any case, the bond between the written and preached Word makes it understandable that early authors singled out the bishop as the embodiment of the unity of the church.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The Monarchian controversy arose, based on discussions in the second century. In Logos Christology developed by Justin, the Logos was called a "second God." Irenaeus affirmed the "threeness" of God in the Father, Son, and Spirit. In Rome, where Zephyrinus (198-217) was the bishop, there was debate between Sebelius and Hippolytus. For Sebelius, the Monarchian position was developed from the standpoint that the Father and the Son are essentially the same, the distinction being one of nomenclature. There were two brands of Monarchianism. One was a dynamic brand, that Jesus was the Son of God by adoption. This was the position of Paul of Samosato in the East and Theodotus, Ascelepiodorus, and Artemon in the West. The Modalist or Patripassionists believed Jesus was a temporary manifestation of the one God. Noetus of Smyrna, Praxeas, and Sabellius, the last being supported by Zephyrinus who was bishop of Rome, defended this position. It earned the title "Patripassianism" in the West and is now known as Modalism, because the Father, Son, and Spirit are viewed as three modes of the one being. Hippolytus affirmed Logos Christology and developed it. Ohers to do so were Tertullian, Novatian, and Dionysius. The Father and Son were two distinct <i>prosopa</i> or persons. Callistus in 217, a slave who became bishop of Rome, tried to form a position between the two. Hippolytus believed strongly enough in this position that he could not have communion with this bishop. He left the church and wrote the well-known, <i>Apostolic Tradition</i> for the churches faithful to him. Tertullian wrote a tract called "Against Praxeas" for the purpose of refuting modalism. Tertullian would admit that the common believer accepted one true God, and they did not think in terms of Trinity. Praxeas was from Asia Minor and also offended Tertullian by his attacks against Montanism. Tertullian was the first to use in Latin the terms <i>substantia</i> to describe oneness and <i>persona</i> to describe threeness. It is likely that the former came from the Stoic view that what is immaterial does not exist, and thus "spirit" is an invisible, intangible, but material force. Around 250 AD, Novatian would write "On the Trinity" defending Logos Christology in clear terms and without a hint of the former battles. The triumph of the Logos Christology would be in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Origen, 185-254, read Clement, though he was more austere, believing even the good of the world can be an obstacle to higher ends. He was centered in Alexandria and was typical of that school in many ways. He quoted Scripture from memory, a source of some pride. His desire was to defend the church against Jews, heretics, and pagans. With Jews, he discovered there needed to be common texts used. His Hexapla defended the LXX, though he knew Jews did not accept the additions we call the apocrypha. In conversation with Julius Africanus, he disputed that "Susanna" must be a Greek addition based on Julius' observation of a pun possible only in Greek. Julius was a wide traveler and intellect who was the first Christian to write about things other than the faith. The exposition of Scripture was primary, and he wrote many such works and sermons. His ascetic standards did not endear him to many in the church. Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, tried to get the church more orthodox and this came across to Origen as autocratic. Some even accused the bishop of being jealous of Origen. He was invited to Transjordan to refute the monarchist Heraclides. In 229 he went to Athens to refute the Valentinian Candidus. When the gnostic said the orthodox could not disagree with him on predestination because of their view of the devil's destiny, he responded that even the devil could repent. This branded him a heretic, and he could not return to Alexandria. He would live in Caesarea till his death. His friend Ambrose in 248 persuaded him to write <i>Against Celsus</i>. Both were Platonists, with Origen upholding freedom to be in God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The truth of Christian teaching is part of the theme of theological reasoning. When we study doctrine, which in the New Testament would be “teaching,” we are studying teaching we believe God has authorized, which gives the word “theology” its basic meaning. Theology clarifies the content of Christian teaching. The term “systematic theology” did not arrive on the scene until the 1700s. One primary criterion of the truth of Christian teaching is its systematic presentation. A systematic presentation of the articles of faith involves consideration of their truth. Thus, theology and philosophy are not in opposition since both have only a provisional grasp of a history that transcends every concept. The superiority of history over the concept suggests that the plurality of viewpoints in the struggle for the one truth becomes intelligible because of the openness of history. Further, the relationship between theory and practice changes in that allows practice to exert its influence on the understanding of the nature and truth of Christianity.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> Preaching or proclamation presupposes the coherence of Christian teaching and its truth. The simplest reception of the Christian message by the person in the pew makes legitimate assumptions about that proclamation. Instruction contained in catechism and confirmation and other membership classes assumes the truth and coherence of the message. The person called to action on behalf of the Christian message makes assumptions about that message. Systematic theology engages the question of the coherence of the teaching. Such activity within Christian tradition extends back to the time of Origen, even though the term “systematic theology” did not exist. For him, the issue was the unity of Christian doctrine and consistency with the principles of reason or rational knowledge. Even though the philosophical and cultural context has altered significantly since then, the underlying interest of the unity of Christian teaching and its agreement with rationality remain valid. An important distinction here, however, and one that is a problem for philosophers and scientists alike, is that, due to the historical origin of Christian teaching, one cannot “deduce” its truth from either science or basic philosophical principles. Thus, one will need to develop a notion of the variety of ways in which we express our rationality, as Paul Tillich has done.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">His work for orthodoxy was <i>On First Principles</i>, a comprehensive exposition of theology. He is the first who have written his theology in form that would become standard for dogmatics and systematic theology to the present. God first created spiritual beings endowed with freedom. The structure of his dogmatics/systematic theology has the topics that most attempts to comprehend rationally Christian theology have taken. He engages those who attack Christian teaching. He uses philosophy and science to explain and support Christian teaching. He acknowledges differences within the Christian community. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Based on Philo, he believed they became sated with worship and slowly grew cold. God created freely because of this Fall. The problem of evil is dealt with from the standpoint of its apparent purposelessness. He combined the view of Plato of evil being a privation of goodness and that evil is the result of the misuse of freedom. Jesus is the only soul to never turn from God. All revelation is conditioned by the capacity of the recipient. At death, all persons must go through a purging process, the wrath of God always having a remedial purpose. He rejected a literal interpretation of heaven, hell, resurrection, the second coming, though this seems to have been the view of the person in the pew. The devil was a fallen angel, but even the devil has freedom to repent. The atonement is not complete until all are brought to redemption. He defended the use of allegory, though he got into trouble because of an apparent devaluing of the literal, historical sense. This would influence Gregory the Great and Jerome. Origin's doctrine of prayer and mysticism was rooted in the Bible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In Book I.1 he discusses God. Early Christian theology, with the background of Greek philosophy, wrote of God is supreme reason or <i>nous.</i> We will see this in Origen. In I.1.5, after dismissing the idea that God has a body, We go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured. For whatever be the knowledge which we can obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be….what is so superior to all others — so unspeakably and incalculably superior — as God, whose nature cannot be grasped or seen by the power of any human understanding, even the purest and brightest? In I.1.6, But it will not appear absurd if we employ another similitude to make the matter clearer. Our eyes frequently cannot look upon the nature of the light itself — that is, upon the substance of the sun; but when we behold his splendour or his rays pouring in, perhaps, through windows or some small openings to admit the light, we can reflect how great is the supply and source of the light of the body. So, in like manner. the works of Divine Providence and the plan of this whole world are a sort of rays, as it were, of the nature of God, in comparison with His real substance and being. As, therefore, our understanding is unable of itself to behold God Himself as He is, it knows the Father of the world from the beauty of His works and the comeliness of His creatures….for we human beings are animals composed of a union of body and soul, and in this way (only) was it possible for us to live upon the earth. But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called composite. In I.2 he discusses Christ as Wisdom, Truth, Life, Light, and Glory, which the Father never did not have, and thus the generation of the Son has no beginning, but was always within the divine nature, so to speak. In I.3 he discusses the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. And in discussing these subjects, it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the special working of the Holy Spirit, and of the Father and the Son. I am of opinion, then, that the working of the Father and of the Son takes place as well in saints as in sinners, in rational beings and in dumb animals; nay, even in those things which are without life, and in all things universally which exist; but that the operation of the Holy Spirit does not take place at all in those things which are without life, or in those which, although living, are yet dumb; nay, is not found even in those who are endued indeed with reason, but are engaged in evil courses, and not at all converted to a better life. In those persons alone do I think that the operation of the Holy Spirit takes place, who are already turning to a better life, and walking along the way which leads to Jesus Christ, i.e., who are engaged in the performance of good actions, and who abide in God. … Having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, let us return to the order in which we began the discussion. God the Father bestows upon all, existence; and participation in Christ, in respect of His being the word of reason, renders them rational beings. From which it follows that they are deserving either of praise or blame, because capable of virtue and vice. On this account, therefore, is the grace of the Holy Ghost present, that those beings which are not holy in their essence may be rendered holy by participating in it. Seeing, then, that firstly, they derive their existence from God the Father; secondly, their rational nature from the Word; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy Spirit — those who have been previously sanctified by the Holy Spirit are again made capable of receiving Christ, in respect that He is the righteousness of God; and those who have earned advancement to this grade by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, will nevertheless obtain the gift of wisdom according to the power and working of the Spirit of God. … Whence also the working of the Father, which confers existence upon all things, is found to be more glorious and magnificent, while each one, by participation in Christ, as being wisdom, and knowledge, and sanctification, makes progress, and advances to higher degrees of perfection; and seeing it is by partaking of the Holy Spirit that any one is made purer and holier, he obtains, when he is made worthy, the grace of wisdom and knowledge, in order that, after all stains of pollution and ignorance are cleansed and taken away, he may make so great an advance in holiness and purity, that the nature which he received from God may become such as is worthy of Him who gave it to be pure and perfect, so that the being which exists may be as worthy as He who called it into existence. For, in this way, he who is such as his Creator wished him to be, will receive from God power always to exist, and to abide forever. That this may be the case, and that those whom He has created may be unceasingly and inseparably present with Him, Who IS, it is the business of wisdom to instruct and train them, and to bring them to perfection by confirmation of His Holy Spirit and unceasing sanctification, by which alone are they capable of receiving God. In this way, then, by the renewal of the ceaseless working of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in us, in its various stages of progress, shall we be able at some future time perhaps, although with difficulty, to behold the holy and the blessed life, in which (as it is only after many struggles that we are able to reach it) we ought so to continue, that no satiety of that blessedness should ever seize us; but the more we perceive its blessedness, the more should be increased and intensified within us the longing for the same, while we ever more eagerly and freely receive and hold fast the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In I. 6, The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place when everyone shall be subjected to punishment for his sins; a time which God alone knows, when He will bestow on each one what he deserves. We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued. Seeing, then, that such is the end, when all enemies will be subdued to Christ, when death — the last enemy — shall be destroyed, and when the kingdom shall be delivered up by Christ (to whom all things are subject) to God the Father; let us, I say, from such an end as this, contemplate the beginnings of things. For the end is always like the beginning: and, therefore, as there is one end to all things, so ought we to understand that there was one beginning; and as there is one end to many things, so there spring from one beginning many differences and varieties, which again, through the goodness of God, and by subjection to Christ, and through the unity of the Holy Spirit, are recalled to one end, which is like the beginning. And hence it is that the whole of this mortal life is full of struggles and trials, caused by the opposition and enmity of those who fell from a better condition without at all looking back, and who are called the devil and his angels, and the other orders of evil, which the apostle classed among the opposing powers. But whether any of these orders who act under the government of the devil, and obey his wicked commands, will in a future world be converted to righteousness because of their possessing the faculty of freedom of will, or whether persistent and inveterate wickedness may be changed by the power of habit into nature, is a result which you yourself, reader, may approve of, if neither in these present worlds which are seen and temporal, nor in those which are unseen and are eternal, that portion is to differ wholly from the final unity and fitness of things. For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view. For this renewal of heaven and earth, and this transmutation of the form of the present world, and this changing of the heavens will undoubtedly be prepared for those who are walking along that way which we have pointed out above, and are tending to that goal of happiness to which, it is said, even enemies themselves are to be subjected, and in which God is said to be all and in all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Book II.1 deals with the world. He wants to reflect upon the world itself, i.e., its beginning and end, or those dispensations of Divine Providence which have taken place between the beginning and the end, or those events which are supposed to have occurred before the creation of the world or are to take place after the end. For it is one power which grasps and holds together all the diversity of the world, and leads the different movements towards one work, lest so immense an undertaking as that of the world should be dissolved by the dissensions of souls. And for this reason we think that God, the Father of all things, in order to ensure the salvation of all His creatures through the ineffable plan of His word and wisdom, so arranged each of these, that every spirit, whether soul or rational existence, however called, should not be compelled by force, against the liberty of his own will, to any other course than that to which the motives of his own mind led him (lest by so doing the power of exercising free-will should seem to be taken away, which certainly would produce a change in the nature of the being itself); and that the varying purposes of these would be suitably and usefully adapted to the harmony of one world, by some of them requiring help, and others being able to give it, and others again being the cause of struggle and contest to those who are making progress, among whom their diligence would be deemed more worthy of approval, and the place of rank obtained after victory be held with greater certainty, which should be established by the difficulties of the contest. … I am of opinion that the whole world also ought to be regarded as some huge and immense animal, which is kept together by the power and reason of God as by one soul. … And I cannot understand how so many distinguished men have been of opinion that this matter, was uncreated, i.e., not formed by God Himself, who is the Creator of all things, but that its nature and power were the result of chance. And I am astonished that they should find fault with those who deny either God's creative power or His providential administration of the world, and accuse them of impiety for thinking that so great a work as the world could exist without an architect or overseer; while they themselves incur a similar charge of impiety in saying that matter is uncreated, and co-eternal with the uncreated God. For it has been said that we must suppose either that an incorporeal existence is possible, after all things have become subject to Christ, and through Christ to God the Father, when God will be all and in all; or that when, notwithstanding all things have been made subject to Christ, and through Christ to God (with whom they formed also one spirit, in respect of spirits being rational natures), then the bodily substance itself also being united to most pure and excellent spirits, and being changed into an ethereal condition in proportion to the quality or merits of those who assume it (according to the apostle's words, We also shall be changed), will shine forth in splendor; or at least that when the fashion of those things which are seen passes away, and all corruption has been shaken off and cleansed away, and when the whole of the space occupied by this world, in which the spheres of the planets are said to be, has been left behind and beneath, then is reached the fixed abode of the pious and the good situated above that sphere, which is called non-wandering (ἀπλανής), as in a good land, in a land of the living, which will be inherited by the meek and gentle; to which land belongs that heaven (which, with its more magnificent extent, surrounds and contains that land itself) which is called truly and chiefly heaven, in which heaven and earth, the end and perfection of all things, may be safely and most confidently placed — where, viz., these, after their apprehension and their chastisement for the offenses which they have undergone by way of purgation, may, after having fulfilled and discharged every obligation, deserve a habitation in that land; while those who have been obedient to the word of God, and have henceforth by their obedience shown themselves capable of wisdom, are said to deserve the kingdom of that heaven or heavens … Having now briefly arranged these points in order as we best could, it follows that, agreeably to our intention from the first, we refute those who think that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is a different God from Him who gave the answers of the law to Moses, or commissioned the prophets, who is the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For in this article of faith, first of all, we must be firmly grounded. … according to which they have declared that justice is one thing and goodness another, and have applied this division even to divine things, maintaining that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a good God, but not a just one, whereas the God of the law and the prophets is just, but not good; I think it necessary to return, with as much brevity as possible, an answer to these statements. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In II.6 he discusses the Incarnation of Christ. 3. The Only-begotten of God, therefore, through whom, as the previous course of the discussion has shown, all things were made, visible and invisible, according to the view of Scripture, both made all things, and loves what He made. For since He is Himself the invisible image of the invisible God, He conveyed invisibly a share in Himself to all His rational creatures, so that each one obtained a part of Him exactly proportioned to the amount of affection with which he regarded Him. But since, agreeably to the faculty of free-will, variety and diversity characterized the individual souls, so that one was attached with a warmer love to the Author of its being, and another with a feebler and weaker regard, that soul (anima) regarding which Jesus said, No one shall take my life (animam) from me, inhering, from the beginning of the creation, and afterwards, inseparably and indissolubly in Him, as being the Wisdom and Word of God, and the Truth and the true Light, and receiving Him wholly, and passing into His light and splendor, was made with Him in a pre-eminent degree one spirit, according to the promise of the apostle to those who ought to imitate it, that he who is joined in the Lord is one spirit. This substance of a soul, then, being intermediate between God and the flesh — it being impossible for the nature of God to intermingle with a body without an intermediate instrument — the God-man is born, as we have said, that substance being the intermediary to whose nature it was not contrary to assume a body. But neither, on the other hand, was it opposed to the nature of that soul, as a rational existence, to receive God, into whom, as stated above, as into the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Truth, it had already wholly entered. And therefore, deservedly is it also called, along with the flesh which it had assumed, the Son of God, and the Power of God, the Christ, and the Wisdom of God, either because it was wholly in the Son of God, or because it received the Son of God wholly into itself. And again, the Son of God, through whom all things were created, is named Jesus Christ and the Son of man. For the Son of God also is said to have died — in reference, viz., to that nature which could admit of death; and He is called the Son of man, who is announced as about to come in the glory of God the Father, with the holy angels. And for this reason, throughout the whole of Scripture, not only is the divine nature spoken of in human words, but the human nature is adorned by appellations of divine dignity. More truly indeed of this than of any other can the statement be affirmed, They shall both be in one flesh, and are no longer two, but one flesh. For the Word of God is to be considered as being more in one flesh with the soul than a man with his wife. But to whom is it more becoming to be also one spirit with God, than to this soul which has so joined itself to God by love as that it may justly be said to be one spirit with Him?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In II.7 he returns to a discussion of the Holy Spirit. the same God was the creator and founder of the world, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., that the God of the law and of the prophets and of the Gospel was one and the same; and that, in the next place, it ought to be shown, with respect to Christ, in what manner He who had formerly been demonstrated to be the Word and Wisdom of God became man; it remains that we now return with all possible brevity to the subject of the Holy Spirit. It is time, then, that we say a few words to the best of our ability regarding the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Savior in the Gospel according to John has named the Paraclete.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In II.8 he considers the soul (anima). Now, that there are souls in all living things, even in those which live in the waters, is, I suppose, doubted by no one. For the general opinion of all men maintains this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In II.10 he considers the resurrection, judgment, fires of hell, and punishments. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching — viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners — let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be. But that these subjects may be arrived at in proper order, it seems to me that we ought first to consider the nature of the resurrection, that we may know what that (body) is which shall come either to punishment, or to rest, or to happiness; which question in other treatises which we have composed regarding the resurrection we have discussed at greater length, and have shown what our opinions were regarding it. … This transformation certainly is to be looked for, according to the order which we have taught above; and in it, undoubtedly, it becomes us to hope for something worthy of divine grace. … And so also to those who shall deserve to obtain an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, that germ of the body's restoration, which we have before mentioned, by God's command restores out of the earthly and animal body a spiritual one, capable of inhabiting the heavens; while to each one of those who may be of inferior merit, or of more abject condition, or even the lowest in the scale, and altogether thrust aside, there is yet given, in proportion to the dignity of his life and soul, a glory and dignity of body — nevertheless in such a way, that even the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments. If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from the dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire. … Of this fire the fuel and food are our sins. … when the soul has gathered together a multitude of evil works, and an abundance of sins against itself, at a suitable time all that assembly of evils boils up to punishment, and is set on fire to chastisements; when the mind itself, or conscience, receiving by divine power into the memory all those things of which it had stamped on itself certain signs and forms at the moment of sinning, will see a kind of history, as it were, of all the foul, and shameful, and unholy deeds which it has done, exposed before its eyes: then is the conscience itself harassed, and, pierced by its own goads, becomes an accuser and a witness against itself. … Now I am of opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist; because, as we feel that when the limbs of the body are loosened and torn away from their mutual supports, there is produced pain of a most excruciating kind, so, when the soul shall be found to be beyond the order, and connection, and harmony in which it was created by God for the purposes of good and useful action and observation, and not to harmonize with itself in the connection of its rational movements, it must be deemed to bear the chastisement and torture of its own dissension, and to feel the punishments of its own disordered condition. And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected. … Certain persons, then, refusing the labor of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body. And consequently, they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. … Origen will disagree with this notion: And thus the rational nature, growing by each individual step, not as it grew in this life in flesh, and body, and soul, but enlarged in understanding and in power of perception, is raised as a mind already perfect to perfect knowledge, no longer at all impeded by those carnal senses, but increased in intellectual growth; and ever gazing purely, and, so to speak, face to face, on the causes of things, it attains perfection, firstly, viz., that by which it ascends to (the truth), and secondly, that by which it abides in it, having problems and the understanding of things, and the causes of events, as the food on which it may feast. For as in this life our bodies grow physically to what they are, through a sufficiency of food in early life supplying the means of increase, but after the due height has been attained we use food no longer to grow, but to live, and to be preserved in life by it; so also I think that the mind, when it has attained perfection, eats and avails itself of suitable and appropriate food in such a degree, that nothing ought to be either deficient or superfluous. And in all things this food is to be understood as the contemplation and understanding of God, which is of a measure appropriate and suitable to this nature, which was made and created; and this measure it is proper should be observed by every one of those who are beginning to see God, i.e., to understand Him through purity of heart.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III, Rufinus refers to one who is desirous of being trained in divine learning, while retaining in its integrity the rule of the Catholic faith.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.1, he deals with freedom of the will. The preaching of the Church includes a belief in a future and just judgment of God, which belief incites and persuades men to a good and virtuous life, and to an avoidance of sin by all possible means; and as by this it is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our own power to devote ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise, or to one that is worthy of censure, I therefore deem it necessary to say a few words regarding the freedom of the will…. And that we may ascertain more easily what is the freedom of the will, let us inquire into the nature of will and of desire. He begins with motion, of which inanimate objects move from an external force while living entities have motion from within themselves. Living things have a soul that a desire can cause to move in a certain direction. Entities that have soul must will to move in certain directions. … a rational animal not only has within itself these natural movements, but has moreover, to a greater extent than other animals, the power of reason, by which it can judge and determine regarding natural movements, and disapprove and reject some, while approving and adopting others, so by the judgment of this reason may the movements of men be governed and directed towards a commendable life. … You will find also innumerable other passages in holy Scripture, which manifestly show that we possess freedom of will. … But, seeing there are found in the sacred Scriptures themselves certain expressions occurring in such a connection, that the opposite of this may appear capable of being understood from them, let us bring them forth before us, and, discussing them according to the rule of piety, let us furnish an explanation of them, in order that from those few passages which we now expound, the solution of those others which resemble them, and by which any power over the will seems to be excluded, may become clear. … Let us therefore view those signs and miracles which were done by God, as the showers furnished by Him from above; and the purpose and desires of men, as the cultivated and uncultivated soil, which is of one and the same nature indeed, as is every soil compared with another, but not in one and the same state of cultivation. From which it follows that every one's will, if untrained, and fierce, and barbarous, is either hardened by the miracles and wonders of God, growing more savage and thorny than ever, or it becomes more pliant, and yields itself up with the whole mind to obedience, if it be cleared from vice and subjected to training. … God also, who knows the secret things of the heart, and foreknows the future, in much forbearance allows certain events to happen. … For God gave no one a stony heart by a creative act; but each individual's heart is said to become stony through his own wickedness and disobedience. … For God the Creator makes a certain vessel unto honour, and other vessels to dishonor; but that vessel which has cleansed itself from all impurity He makes a vessel unto honor, while that which has stained itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto dishonor. The conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then everyone, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honor or dishonor. Therefore, every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of itself the causes and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either a vessel unto honor or one unto dishonor. And if the assertion appear correct, as it certainly is, and in harmony with all piety, that it is due to previous causes that every vessel be prepared by God either to honor or to dishonor, it does not appear absurd that, in discussing remoter causes in the same order, and in the same method, we should come to the same conclusion respecting the nature of souls, and (believe) that this was the reason why Jacob was beloved before he was born into this world, and Esau hated, while he still was contained in the womb of his mother.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Predestination--There is a diversity of spiritual natures due to their conduct, which has been marked either with greater earnestness or indifference, according to the goodness or badness of their nature, and not to any partiality on the part of the Disposer. According to our view, there is no rational creature which is not capable both of good and evil...And for this reason we think that God, the Father of all things, in order to ensure the salvation of all creatures, through the ineffable plan of God's word and wisdom, so arranged each of these, that every spirit, whether soul or rational existence, however called, should not be compelled by force, against the liberty of their own will, to any other course than that to which the motives of their own mind led them, and that the varying purpose of these would be suitably and useful adapted to the harmony of one world, by some of them requiring help, and others being able to give it, and others again being the cause of struggle and contest to those who are making progress...But since those rational creatures themselves, were endowed with the power of free will, this freedom of will incited each one either to progress of imitation of God, or reduced them to failure through negligence...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In <i>De Principiis</i>, Book III, Chapter 1, he gives a lengthy discussion on the freedom of the will. It reads as if those who believed in predestination are the heretics. He asks whether environment determines who we are, but he views this as shifting of responsibility from ourselves to the environment in which one lives. Those things which happen to us from without are not in our own power; but that to make a good or bad use of those things which do so happen, by help of that reason which is within us, and which distinguishes and determines how these things ought to be used, is within or power. Some might believe in fate as that which determines our behavior, but he rejects this as well. However, since there are in the Scripture certain expressions occurring in such a connection, that the opposite of freedom of will may appear capable of being understood from them, let us discuss them. He refers to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart [explaining that the miracles will harden the heart or increase faith], the statement that seeing they may not see, the statement that it is not for the one who wills or runs[the human will alone is not sufficient to obtain salvation; nor is any mortal running able to win the heavenly rewards, and to obtain the prize of our high calling of God in Christ Jesus, unless this very good will of ours, and ready purpose, and whatever that diligence within us may be, be aided or furnished with divine help. So also is our own perfection brought about, not indeed by our remaining inactive and idle, and yet the consummation of it will not be ascribed to us, but to God, who is the first and chief cause of the work], but of God who shows mercy, the statement that to will and to do are of God, the statement that God will have mercy on whom God wants, and hardens whom God wants. Those who use the Scriptures to argue against the freedom of the will are viewed as heretics. His opponents say: "If those who shall hear more distinctly are by all means to be corrected and converted, and converted in such a manner as to be worthy of receiving the remission of sins, and if it be not in their own power to hear the word distinctly, but if it depend on the Instructor to teach more openly and distinctly, lest they should perhaps hear and understand, and be converted, and be saved, it will follow, certainly, that their salvation is not dependent upon themselves. And if this be so, then we have no free will either as regards salvation or destruction." We are not to suppose either that those things which are in our own power can be done without the help of God, or that those which are in God's hand can be brought to completion without the intervention of our acts, and desires, and intention...The result of all the foregoing remarks is to show, that all the occurrences in the world which are considered to be of an intermediate kind, whether they be mournful or otherwise, are brought about, not indeed by God, and yet not without God...He distinguishes between foreknowledge, which allows for God to see the future, and God actually determining that future. He thus held to the notion of the of a divine knowledge of the conditionally future free actions of the creatures that is apart from a direct decree of God.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding predestination, the mistakes Origen made shows up again in Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin. The discussion by Paul in Romans 9-11 and 8:28-30 focus on the plan of God for salvation. The plan involves the divine acts in history, especially relating to Jesus Christ. Later theology shifted the focus to elect individuals. Determinism arose through Gnostic influence. Origen treats election as an act of God that takes place in eternity before time. He also sees eternal election relating directly to individuals with restriction to the theme of their participation in eschatological salvation. These presuppositions guide the discussion in scholastic theology of the Middle Ages, Aquinas, and Calvin. This is an abstract view of election in contrast to the biblical statements of the electing activity of God in history. Such an abstract view of election makes the divine decision timeless, detaches individuals from all relations to society, and restricts the purpose of election to participation in future salvation. Such an abstraction moves against the historical nature of election in the Bible to a people who have a role in history. The Bible refers to God choosing individuals, such as kings and patriarchs, but the election serves the historical purposes of God. The early church realized God had called them into a new divine act of historical election by founding the church and its mission of offering salvation to the nations. The idea that God first foresees and then determines that we find in Origen rightly has the suspicion of Pelagianism. This view dominated in the Middle Ages.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.2 he deals with the opposing powers, or the devil himself, who contends with humanity, inciting and instigating men to sin. … holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves. Whence, also, the simpler among the believers in the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which men have committed are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers exerted upon the minds of sinners, because in that invisible struggle these powers are found to be superior (to man). For if, for example, there were no devil, no single human being would go astray. We, however, who see the reason (of the thing) more clearly, do not hold this opinion. … we understand the procedure of divine providence, which arranges on most impartial principles all who descend into the struggles of this human life, according to the nature of everyone’s power, which is known only to Him who alone beholds the hearts of men. … it is in proportion to our strength that we are tempted; and it is not written that, in temptation, He will also make a way to escape so as that we should bear it, but a way to escape so as that we should be able to bear it. But it depends upon us to use either with energy or feebleness this power which He has given us. For there is no doubt that under every temptation we have a power of endurance, if we employ properly the strength that is granted us. … But this power which is given us to enable us to conquer may be used, according to our faculty of free-will, either in a diligent manner, and then we prove victorious, or in a slothful manner, and then we are defeated. … Now from these points which we have discussed to the best of our power, it is, I think, clear that there are certain transgressions which we by no means commit under the pressure of malignant powers; while there are others, again, to which we are incited by instigation on their part to excessive and immoderate indulgence. Whence it follows that we must inquire how those opposing powers produce these incitements within us. … With respect to the thoughts which proceed from our heart, or the recollection of things which we have done, or the contemplation of any things or causes whatever, we find that they sometimes proceed from ourselves, and sometimes are originated by the opposing powers. … And therefore, holy Scripture teaches us to receive all that happens as sent by God, knowing that without Him no event occurs. … Let us notice next, how men fall away into the sin of false knowledge, or with what object the opposing powers are wont to stir up conflict with us regarding such things.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.3 he deals with the three-fold wisdom of this world, of the princes of this world, and the wisdom of God. … by means of which false knowledge is introduced into the minds of men, and human souls led astray, while they imagine that they have discovered wisdom. This wisdom, however, possesses in itself no fitness for forming any opinion either respecting divine things, or the plan of the world's government, or any other subjects of importance, or regarding the training for a good or happy life; but is such as deals wholly with the art of poetry, e.g., or that of grammar, or rhetoric, or geometry, or music, with which also, perhaps, medicine should be classed. In all these subjects we are to suppose that the wisdom of this world is included. The wisdom of the princes of this world, on the other hand, we understand to be such as the secret and occult philosophy, as they call it, of the Egyptians, and the astrology of the Chaldeans and Indians, who make profession of the knowledge of high things, and also that manifold variety of opinion which prevails among the Greeks regarding divine things.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.4 he deals with human temptations. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.5 he considers that the world took its beginning in time. I think one more properly thinks of the Infinite and Eternal as beyond time, which would be the divine life of the Trinity, and that time was created with finite things. Finite things share in the entropy that is of the nature of finite things and thus in time degenerate. If, then, that subjection be held to be good and salutary by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful; as if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist. This subjection, however, will be accomplished in certain ways, and after certain training, and at certain times; for it is not to be imagined that the subjection is to be brought about by the pressure of necessity (lest the whole world should then appear to be subdued to God by force), but by word, reason, and doctrine; by a call to a better course of things, by the best systems of training, by the employment also of suitable and appropriate threatenings, which will justly impend over those who despise any care or attention to their salvation and usefulness. In III.6 he deals with the end of the world. … I am of opinion that the expression, by which God is said to be all in all, means that He is all in each individual person. Now He will be all in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God; and when it will no longer behold or retain anything else than God, but when God will be the measure and standard of all its movements; and thus God will be all, for there will no longer be any distinction of good and evil, seeing evil nowhere exists; for God is all things, and to Him no evil is near: nor will there be any longer a desire to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, on the part of him who is always in the possession of good, and to whom God is all. So then, when the end has been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared with their commencement, that condition of things will be re-established in which rational nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; so that when all feeling of wickedness has been removed, and the individual has been purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one good God becomes to him all, and that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a considerable number, but He Himself is all in all. And when death shall no longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God will be all in all. … We, however, who believe in its resurrection, understand that a change only has been produced by death, but that its substance certainly remains; and that by the will of its Creator, and at the time appointed, it will be restored to life; and that a second time a change will take place in it, so that what at first was flesh (formed) out of earthly soil, and was afterwards dissolved by death, and again reduced to dust and ashes (For dust you are, it is said, and to dust shall you return), will be again raised from the earth, and shall after this, according to the merits of the indwelling soul, advance to the glory of a spiritual body. … Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily substance of ours will be brought, when all things shall be re-established in a state of unity, and when God shall be all in all. And this result must be understood as being brought about, not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection, while others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings who are being reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the last enemy is finally reached, who is called death, so that he also may be destroyed, and no longer be an enemy. When, therefore, all rational souls shall have been restored to a condition of this kind, then the nature of this body of ours will undergo a change into the glory of a spiritual body…. As, therefore, there is a kind of advance in man, so that from being first an animal being, and not understanding what belongs to the Spirit of God, he reaches by means of instruction the stage of being made a spiritual being, and of judging all things, while he himself is judged by no one; so also, with respect to the state of the body, we are to hold that this very body which now, on account of its service to the soul, is styled an animal body, will, by means of a certain progress, when the soul, united to God, shall have been made one spirit with Him (the body even then ministering, as it were, to the spirit), attain to a spiritual condition and quality, especially since, as we have often pointed out, bodily nature was so formed by the Creator, as to pass easily into whatever condition he should wish, or the nature of the case demand. … In this way, accordingly, we are to suppose that at the consummation and restoration of all things, those who make a gradual advance, and who ascend (in the scale of improvement), will arrive in due measure and order at that land, and at that training which is contained in it, where they may be prepared for those better institutions to which no addition can be made. For, after His agents and servants, the Lord Christ, who is King of all, will Himself assume the kingdom; i.e., after instruction in the holy virtues, He will Himself instruct those who are capable of receiving Him in respect of His being wisdom, reigning in them until He has subjected them to the Father, who has subdued all things to Himself, i.e., that when they shall have been made capable of receiving God, God may be to them all in all. Then accordingly, as a necessary consequence, bodily nature will obtain that highest condition to which nothing more can be added. Having discussed, up to this point, the quality of bodily nature, or of spiritual body, we leave it to the choice of the reader to determine what he shall consider best. And here we may bring the third book to a conclusion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Book IV will deal with the scripture. We must, in order to establish the positions which we have laid down, adduce the testimony of Holy Scripture. It seems necessary to show, in the first place, that the Scriptures themselves are divine, i.e., were inspired by the Spirit of God. … These points now being briefly established, viz., regarding the deity of Christ, and the fulfilment of all that was prophesied respecting Him, I think that this position also has been made good, viz., that the Scriptures themselves, which contained these predictions, were divinely inspired. … These particulars, then, being briefly stated regarding the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, it seems necessary to explain this point also, viz., how certain persons, not reading them correctly, have given themselves over to erroneous opinions, inasmuch as the procedure to be followed, in order to attain an understanding of the holy writings, is unknown to many. … so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the introduction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their bodily meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many. … Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being observed. … But let it be sufficient for us in all these matters to adapt our understanding to the rule of religion, and so to think of the words of the Holy Spirit as not to deem the language the ornate composition of feeble human eloquence, but to hold, according to the scriptural statement, that all the glory of the King is within, and that the treasure of divine meaning is enclosed within the frail vessel of the common letter. … Let everyone, then, who cares for truth, be little concerned about words and language, seeing that in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech; but let him rather direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words, than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning, especially in matters of such importance and difficulty.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He offers a summary. Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son … we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. Nor, seeing He is called the Son of (His) love, will it appear absurd if in this way He be called the Son of (His) will. Nay, John also indicates that God is Light, and Paul also declares that the Son is the splendor of everlasting light. As light, accordingly, could never exist without splendor, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the express image of His person, and the Word and Wisdom. How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fullness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. This Son of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the beginning with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any place; nor yet in respect of His being Wisdom, or Truth, or the Life, or Righteousness, or Sanctification, or Redemption: for all these properties do not require space to be able to act or to operate, but each one of them is to be understood as meaning those individuals who participate in His virtue and working. … Having, then, briefly restated these points regarding the nature of the Trinity, it follows that we notice shortly this statement also, that by the Son are said to be created all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all, and all things consist by Him, who is the Head. In conformity with which John also in his Gospel says: All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made. And David, intimating that the mystery of the entire Trinity was (concerned) in the creation of all things, says: By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth. … After these points we shall appropriately remind (the reader) of the bodily advent and incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, with respect to whom we are not to suppose that all the majesty of His divinity is confined within the limits of His slender body, so that all the word of God, and His wisdom, and essential truth, and life, was either rent asunder from the Father, or restrained and confined within the narrowness of His bodily person, and is not to be considered to have operated anywhere besides; but the cautious acknowledgment of a religious man ought to be between the two, so that it ought neither to be believed that anything of divinity was wanting in Christ, nor that any separation at all was made from the essence of the Father, which is everywhere…. He is in all things, and through all things, and above all things, in the manner in which we have spoken above, i.e., in the manner in which He is understood to be either wisdom, or the word, or the life, or the truth, by which method of understanding all confinement of a local kind is undoubtedly excluded. The Son of God, then, desiring for the salvation of the human race to appear unto men, and to sojourn among them, assumed not only a human body, as some suppose, but also a soul resembling our souls indeed in nature, but in will and power resembling Himself, and such as might unfailingly accomplish all the desires and arrangements of the word and wisdom. … As now by participation in the Son of God one is adopted as a son, and by participating in that wisdom which is in God is rendered wise, so also by participation in the Holy Spirit is a man rendered holy and spiritual. For it is one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding anthropology--It is evident from all this that no one is pure either by essence or nature, and that no one was by nature polluted. And the consequence of this is, that it lies within ourselves and in our own actions to possess either happiness or holiness; or by sloth and negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin, to such a degree that, through too great proficiency, so to speak, in wickedness one may descend even to that state in which one will be changed into what is called an opposing power ... humanity received the dignity of God's image at their first creation; but that the perfection of humanity's likeness has been reserved for the consummation...All human beings are dependent upon faith, to believe God rather than humanity. For who enters on a voyage, or contracts a marriage, or becomes the father of children, or casts seed into the ground, without believing that better things will result from so doing, although the contrary might and sometimes does happen? And yet the belief that better things, even agreeably to their wishes, will follow, makes all people venture upon uncertain enterprises, which may turn out differently from what they expect. And if the hope and belief of a better future be the support of life in every uncertain enterprise, why shall not this faith rather be rationally accepted?...Celsus, however, says that faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus; for of a truth it is faith which does produce such an assent. Believe, if you will be saved, or else begone, says the Christian. What shall those do who are in earnest about their salvation?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding social issues, Question: What would happen of the Romans were persuaded to adopt the principles of the Christians, to despise the duties paid to the recognized gods and to people, and to worship the Most High? ...War: Neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savor rebellion. For God did not deem it in keeping with such divine laws, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever...We are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to cut down our hostile and insolent wordy swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war. For we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader instead of those whom our parents followed... Pannenberg (Human Nature, Election, and History, 1977) notes that the tendency to look negatively upon the church after Constantine considers the period the downfall of the moral authority of the church since it united with the Empire and thereby was no longer the church of the martyrs. The historian has much evidence to support the charge. First century Christianity viewed the Roman Empire as the last and worst world empire. However, Origen argued against Celsus that if Christianity would become the dominant faith of the empire, it would not lead to the destruction of the empire. Rather, the peace that Rome brought to this part of the world met a counterpart in the peace that Christ seeks to bring. Eusebius, an early author of the church, sought a unity between Christianity and State. Richard Tarnas (The Passion of the Western Mind, 1991) says the church became the only institution capable of sustaining some semblance of social order and civilized culture in the West, and the bishop of Rome, as the traditional spiritual head of the imperial metropolis, gradually absorbed many of the distinctions and roles previously possessed by the fact, the Western church assumed an extraordinarily universal authority in medieval Europe. The Roman Church became not just the religious counterpart to the Empire, but its historical successor. Rome the persecutor became Rome the defender, progressively uniting itself with the church.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding the social issue related to women: For such was the charm of Jesus' words, that not only were men willing to follow him to the wilderness, but women also, forgetting the weakness of their sex and a regard for outward propriety in this following their teacher into desert places. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding the social issue related to homosexuality: Lists sins as fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate, idolaters, murderers. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding other matters related to sex: assumes married clergy at this point, and some married twice. He seems to frown upon remarriage while the partner is still alive. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Scripture Interpretation: Paul, as he refers to a treasure in earthen vessels, suggests the words of the Bible are the earthen vessel, while the spirit of the Bible is the treasure. Three-fold interpretation of the Bible: There is the very body of Scripture, the common and historical sense, the very soul of Scripture, and the spiritual law itself, as if by the Spirit. For as people consist of body, soul and spirit, so also does Scripture...For it belongs only to those who are wise in the truth of Christ to unfold the connection and meaning of even the obscure parts of prophecy, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," and interpreting each passage according to the usage of Scripture writers...When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus may follow the letter which kills, but we say that it refers to those riches which enlighten the eyes...Celsus makes fun of this arrangement, for it tries to ignore the obvious deficiency of the Bible...For even those narratives which God inspired the evangelists and apostles to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of God. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. We must remember that it is extremely easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. There are in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification...The object of referring to the historical errors of the Bible is to show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it, a thing which we see to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result. At the same time, let no one entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real. The truth of history may and usually ought to be preserved. For the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning. Let it be sufficient for us in all these matters to adapt our understanding to the rule of religion, and so to think of the words of the Holy Spirit as not to deem the language the ornate composition of feeble human eloquence, but to hold, according to the scriptural statement, that all the glory of the king is within, and that the treasure of divine meaning is enclosed within the frail vessel of the common letter. Let everyone, then, who cares for truth, be little concerned about words and language, but let them rather direct their attention to the meaning conveyed by the words...We have to remark that the endeavor to show, with regard to almost any history, however, true, that it actually occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility. There is need of candor in those who are to read, and of much investigation, and, so to speak, of insight into the meaning of the writers, that the object with which each event has been recorded may be discovered...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Apocrypha: I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you (Africanus) mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bell and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Old Testament and New Testament: The difference between the constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which the Christians, under the direction of Christ's teaching, we would observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the Gospel...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In the slaying enemies: In the spiritual interpretation of Origen, this becomes a slaying of sin in the physical body of the believer... <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">With the sin against the Holy Spirit: All rational beings have a part in Christ, whether they know it or not. Those who have a part in the Holy Spirit, and then fall away, have truly no part in the Spirit. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">With Ezekiel 28:11-19, Prince of Tyre is identified as Satan. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">"Satan fallen from heaven" suggests he was at one time light, but now is darkness...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Old Testament prophecies of Christ: He was aware that Jews interpreted such statements as referring to the whole people, regarded as one individual. What escaped their attention was that there are two advents of Christ, one in humility, and the other in glory and divinity...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Magi: The star they followed may have been a comet or other natural phenomenon. Gold was given as to a king; myrrh as to one who was mortal; incense as to a God... <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Peter left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Healing: The story of being cleansed of leprosy in the Jordan is a symbol of cleansing from sin. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The Gospels: He believes that if we cannot harmonize the gospel narratives, we must give up our trust in them. This cannot be done if we focus only on their history. However, if the spiritual interpretation has value, then it is possible. Matthew: The confession of Peter's is our confession; the promise given to Peter is given to all of us. Hades is internalized. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The apostles: It was by help of a divine power that these men taught Christianity and succeeded in leading others to embrace the word of God. For it was not any power of speaking, or any orderly arrangement of their message, according to the arts of Grecian dialectics or rhetoric, which was in them the effective cause of converting their hearers...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding the Affirmation of Faith--And now, what we have drawn from the authority of Scripture ought to be sufficient to refute the arguments of the heretics. It will not, however, appear improper if we discuss the matter with them shortly, on the grounds of reason itself...With respect to topics of such difficulty and obscurity we use our utmost endeavor, not so much to ascertain clearly the solutions of the questions, as to maintain the rule of faith in the most unmistakable manner...If there is a time coming which will necessarily circumscribe the duration of the world, it will be incumbent on those who treat the declarations of the gospels philosophically, to establish these doctrines by arguments of all kinds, while the more numerous and simpler class of believers, and those who are unable to comprehend the many varied aspects of the divine wisdom, must entrust themselves to God...The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: First, That there is one God; Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself was born of the Father before all creatures; Thirdly, the Holy Spirit was associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. To depart from Origen in his speculations, if we take seriously the notion of the Trinity as already engaging in actions of Father, Son, and Spirit, creation becomes an outpouring of divine activity outside of this inner relation. Therefore, God is active by nature and eternally, apart from the specific act of creation. Creation is not a different type of divine activity. Rather, as the Trinity is a relation of divine activity within the divine, so creation is a turn of this divine activity outward. The importance of the Trinity is that one can avoid the question that puzzled Origen. Origen speculated that if God is Creator, then God must have always created, and therefore the world always existed.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></sup></sup></a> After these points, also, the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts. This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church, that every rational soul is possessed of free will and volition. He insisted upon the gulf between Creator and creature but dealt with the origin of the soul that suggested the pre-existence of created souls.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> Creation out of nothing appears at the beginning of the confession of faith and it later became one of the firm parts of the teaching of the church regarding creation.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> The work of creation is an act of the pure and free goodness of God.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> This also is a part of the church's teaching, that the world was made and took its beginning at a certain time and is to be destroyed on account of its wickedness. Then, finally, that the Spirit of God wrote the Scriptures, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. This also is a part of the teaching of the church, that there are certain angels of God, and certain good influences, which are God's servants in accomplishing the salvation of humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Christology--Christ is wisdom of God, "we understand her to be the Word of God."...Could Christ sin? Of course, since Christ was a rational soul and as such was capable both of good and evil. However, the soul which belonged to Christ elected to love righteousness, so that in proportion to the immensity of its love it clung to it unchangeable and inseparably, so that firmness of purpose, and immensity of affection, and an inextinguishable warmth of love, destroyed all susceptibility for alteration and change; and that which formerly depended upon the will was changed by the power of long custom into nature; and so we must believe that here existed in Christ a human and rational soul, without supposing that it had any feeling or possibility of sin...He defends the virgin birth, suggesting that the adultery which is suggested by opponents is designed to divert attention away from the miracle...He defends the resurrection of Jesus, rejecting the notion of a dream or vision...He defends the notion of Jesus descending to Hades...He rejects the notion that Jesus was only a man...He quotes Celsus as saying that the Incarnation is ridiculous. God is good, and beautiful, and blessed. But if God comes down among humanity, God must undergo a change, and a change from good to evil, from virtue to vice, from happiness to misery, and from best to worst. Who, then, would make choice of such a change?...Celsus notes that Jesus is not the only one to be recognized by followers as divine...Celsus says the suffering of Jesus is offensive, that if the prophets foretold that the great God would become a slave, or become sick, or die; would there be therefore any necessity that God should die, or suffer sickness, or become a slave, simply because such things had been foretold? Must God die to prove divinity? Thus, Origen did have a place for suffering in God, but this was unusual in the history early history of Christian theology.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He rightly perceived on the New Testament view the lordship of God is identical with Jesus Christ, and thus, that Christ is the kingdom and sets up the lordship of God in the world. The kingdom is not separate from Christ.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the teaching of the church has laid down that these beings exist; but what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained with sufficient clearness. Regarding angels, he thought that they belonged to the proclamation of the church, but there is no sure knowledge of them.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> He thought of them as personal, perfected creatures that have become pure spirit. Such perfected persons are the unity of a personal I and a spiritual body, distinctively belonging to this I. Unrestricted by space and time, the universe is open to them without limitation by which they exercise an influence on this imperfect sphere, through which such good angels share in the divine rule and to a degree mediate that rule.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding eschatology--When I John 1:29 says Jesus is taking away the sins of the world, he declares that he is still taking away sin, from every individual in the world, till sin be taken away from the whole world, and the savior deliver the kingdom prepared and completed to the Father, a kingdom in which no sin is left at all, and which, therefore, is ready to accept the Father as its king, and which on the other hand is waiting to receive all God has to bestow. The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place when everyone shall be subjected to punishment for their sins. We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through Christ, may recall all God's creatures to one end, even God's enemies being conquered and subdued. I am of opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to God, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of Christ. Seeing, then, that such is the end, when all enemies will be subdued to Christ, when death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed, when the kingdom shall be delivered up by Christ to God the Father; let us, I say, from such an end as this, contemplate the beginnings of things...The subjection of Christ to the Father indicates that our happiness has attained to perfection, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful. When enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist of. For it is not to be imagined that the subjection is to be brought about by the pressure of necessity, but by word, reason, and doctrine; by a call to a better course of things, by the best systems of training, by the employment also of suitable and appropriate threatenings. In a word, we human beings also, in training either our slaves or children, restrain them by threats and fear while they are, by reason of their tender age, incapable of using their reason... <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The resurrection of the flesh was a major theme of the early church. It could speak of the literal collection of the particles that would occur in the return of Christ in a way that preserves the individuality and identity of the person. We see this view in Jerome, Augustine, and Aquinas. Another way of describing the resurrection of the flesh was that it occurred as God takes fleshly existence into divine life and allows flesh to participate in that divine life. We see such views in Origen, Athanasius, and Maximus. Both views can treat the flesh as an appendage to a process of increasing spiritualization of the notion of resurrection.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></sup></sup></a> Barth can speak of the resurrection of the dead in a way that invites a focus upon participation. God takes human existence into the presence of God, thereby we (the dead) become what we are not (resurrected). The resurrection of the flesh occurs because we who are in the flesh now receive the miracle of resurrection now in life with God.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In the interpretation of some thinkers, the millennium is either already present or an emerging reality. The millennium is now emerging on earth. What the people of God can expect is the fruits of that emerging but secret reality. The emerging millennial rule of God will conclude with the return of Christ and the judgment that will accompany it. this view resists detailed speculative explanations of present history as the fulfillment of specific prophecies, as if they are signs of a literal end of the times. It rejects all forms of Chiliasm and Millennialism. We see this view in Augustine, <i>City of God </i>(20.7-14). His view prevailed in various forms, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, Tyconius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Roman Catholic teaching. In this view, “thousand” refers to the entire age of the church (Aquinas, B. B. Warfield). Although sometimes called a-millennialism, such a name suggests no interest in the millennium. This view would criticize all forms of premillennialism for depending too much upon a literal ready of a highly symbolic passage in Revelation 20:1-6. Conservative authors like A. Kyuper, H. Bavinck, G. Vos, A. Hoekema, and Jay Adams support such a view of realized millennialism. This view has the political tendency to unite the institutional church with the protection of the state. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Celsus argues that Christians believe that when the end of the world comes, the world will be destroyed by fire, and that only Christians will be left. This is viewed as vengeful. Origen counters that the fire spoken of is purifying fire, not of individuals, but of behavior...What is the meaning of fire as a term of judgment? When the soul has gathered together a multitude of evil works, and an abundance of sins against itself, at a suitable time all that assembly of evils boils up to punishment, and is set on fire to chastisement; when the mind itself, or conscience, receiving by divine power into the memory all those things of which it had stamped on itself certain signs and forms at the moment of sinning, will see a kind of history, as it were, of all the foul, and shameful, and unholy deeds which it has done, exposed before its eyes: then is the conscience itself harassed, and, pierced by its own goads, becomes an accuser and a witness against itself. God our Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our souls, which they had contracted from their different sins and crimes, should employ penal measures of this sort, and should apply even, in addition, the punishment of fire to those who have lost their soundness of mind!...It think, therefore, that all the saints who depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some place of instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls... Thus, Origen has what we might think of as a modern notion of divine judgment. Christians know the standard of judgment and receive assurance of future participation in salvation. They have already received justification and pardon. Judgment is in the hands of the one who died for us. Judgment will mean the purifying fire. Origen, and along with him Alexandrian theology, went down this path. This purifying fire is not the same as purgatory. This purging and cleansing fire effects the transformation necessary for participation in eternity, for which see I Corinthians 15:50ff. The returning Christ is the transformation of our human existence into the image of the Son.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Jews--He states that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and it was indeed punishment for their part in the crucifixion of Jesus, which would have happened, according to him, in 28 AD. They will not be restored to their former condition as the people of God. God's invitation to happiness has passed on to others, that is, to Christians...<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding ecclesiology—With the theology of infant baptism in mind, Origen is a witness to its presence in his lifetime.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Celsus claims that if the world wanted to be Christian, Christians themselves would not desire it. Origen notes that this is contradicted by the fact of that Christians do not neglect, as far as in them lies, to take measures to disseminate their doctrine throughout the whole world....Celsus criticizes Christians for all thinking alike. Origen notes that there were differences among Christians even within the apostolic churches...Celsus criticizes the church for appealing to the foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts." Origen responds that the Gospel does invite them, to make them better; but it also invites others who are quite different from these. Christians carefully choose their members, testing the souls of those who wish to become their hearers, and having previously instructed them in private, when the appear to have sufficiently evinced their desire towards a virtuous life. But let us hear what kind of persons these Christians invite. Everyone, they say, who is a sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak generally, whoever is unfortunate, these will the kingdom of God receive...Preaching is termed vulgar by Celsus. Yet, it is also filled with power to bring people from a life of wickedness to a better, and from a state of cowardice to one of such high-toned courage as to lead people to despise even death through the piety which shows itself within them, why should we not justly admire the power which they contain? For the words of those who at the first assumed the office of Christian ambassadors, and who gave their labors to rear up the churches of God were accompanied with a persuasive power...Celsus accuses the Christians of not having a nation to which they are bound, or customs by which they live. He answers that Christians do obey the law of God, yet when not conflicting, they also obey the laws of the nation ... And for this reason, although the Romans desired to perpetrate many atrocities against the Christians, to ensure their extermination, they were unsuccessful; for there was a divine hand which fought on their behalf, and whose desire it was that the word of God should spread from one corner of the land of Judea throughout the whole human race. ... Celsus writes against humility. ... We say that the holy Scriptures declare the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to be the whole church of God, and the members of this body, considered as a whole, to consist of those who are believers, so the Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the church, to befitting action awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word. ... Celsus criticizes that Christians shrink from raising altars, statues, and temples; and this has been agreed among Christians as the badge of distinctive mark of a secret and forbidden society. Origen answers that it is not true that Christians object to building altars, statues, and temples, because we have agreed to make this the badge of a secret and forbidden society. Rather, we do so because we have learnt from Jesus Christ the true way of serving God, and we shrink from whatever, under a pretense of piety, leads to utter impiety those who abandon the way marked out for us by Jesus Christ. ... Some new thing, then, has come to pass since the time that Jesus suffered, that, I mean, which has happened to the city, to the whole nation, and in the sudden and general rise of a Christian community.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding religious experience--"the Holy Spirit, in whom is contained every kind of gift." ... The mind burns with an inexpressible desire to know the reason of those things which we see done by God. This desire, this longing, we believe God unquestionably implants with in us to be unquestionably implanted. ... And thus the rational nature, growing by each individual step, not as it grew in this life in flesh, and body, and soul, but enlarged in understanding and in power of perception, is raised as a mind already perfect to perfect knowledge, no longer at all impeded by those carnal senses, but increased in intellectual growth; and ever gazing purely, and, so to speak, face to face, on the causes of things, it attains perfection, firstly, that by which it ascends to, the truth, and secondly, that by which it abides in it, having problems and the understanding of things. So also, I think that the mind, when it has attained perfection, eats and avails itself of suitable and appropriate food in such a degree, that nothing ought to be either deficient or superfluous. This measure it is proper be observed by every one of those who are beginning to see God, to understand God through purity of heart ... By all this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves. Whence, also, the simpler among the believers in the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which people have committed are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers exerted upon the minds of sinners. We, however, who see the reason of the thing more clearly, do not hold this opinion, considering those sins which manifestly originate as a necessary consequence of our bodily constitution. That there are certain sins, however, which do not proceed from the opposing powers, but take their beginnings from the natural movements of the body, is manifestly declared by Paul, "the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh." <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> If we start with our soteriological interest, one wonders if we will ever speak truly of Jesus. Origen opens himself to this criticism when he reflects upon the deification of humanity through assimilation to God, in which Origen focuses upon the ethical form of salvation. The way to the salvation of the world is through overcoming the opposition to God into which sin and death have plunged us. Thus, the sending of the Son by the Father and the Incarnation reveal their goal as the salvation of the world. The work of Jesus sought renewal of human society. Its fulfillment of Jewish messianic hope extended to humanity. Paul, to express these ideas, used the imagery of the eschatological human contrasting with the first Adam. Jesus was a particular human being but connected to the saving function of the person and work of Jesus. It has been natural in history to attract all different forms of the hope of salvation to the Son. Yet, as Christological reflection reshaped and qualified the Jewish messianic hope, the same must happen to other hopes that might attach themselves to Jesus. The point here is that the statement in theology that “Christology is a function of soteriology” is a mistake in the sense that the contents of Christology become a projection of various changeable expectations of salvation. Rather, our soteriology must submit to our understanding of Christology.<a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">... The angels are not to be worshipped or prayed to. Prayer is to be given only to God. ... For what reasonable people can refrain from smiling when they see that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them their prayers, or imagines that by gazing upon these material things they can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial. But a Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God's temple. In whatever part of the world they are, they pray; but they rise above the universe, shutting the eyes of sense and raising upwards the eyes of the soul. And they stop not at the vault of heaven; but passing in thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of Spirit of God, and having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, they offer prayers to God. But they pray for no trivial blessings, for they have learnt from Jesus to seek for nothing small or mean, that is, sensible objects, but to ask only for what is great and truly divine; and these things God grants to us, to lead us to that blessedness which is found only with God through God's Son, the Word, who is God. ... Christians tend to observe certain days, such as the Lord's day, the Preparation, the Passover, Pentecost. However, the perfect Christian, who is ever in their thoughts, words, and deeds serving their natural Lord, God the Word, all their days are the Lord's, and they are always keeping the Lord's day. Every day is a day of preparation. Every day is an Easter day. Every day is a Pentecost. All this, as we hasten toward the city of God. However, most Christians are not of this advanced class. They require some sensible memorials to prevent spiritual things from passing altogether away from their minds.<span style="font-size: 11pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Gregory Thaumaturgus (Wonderworker) lived from 205 to 265, in Alexandria. He was a student of Origen. He became bishop of Neo-Caesarea. In a testimony concerning Origen, he said he as a teacher had a desire "to save us and make us partakers in the blessings that flow from philosophy, and most especially also in those other gifts which the Deity has bestowed on him above most people, or as we may perhaps say, above all people of our own time." Therefore, "love was kindled and burst into flame within us, --a love at once to the Holy Word, the most lovely object of all, and to this man, God's friend and advocate." Philosophy, Origen taught, educated people to prudence, "teaching to be at home with ourselves, and to desire and endeavor to know ourselves, which indeed is the most excellent achievement of philosophy."<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, lived from 200-265. He was also a student of Origen. It was a time of persecution and suffering of the church. He was appalled to find believers in the earthly millennium. This led him to do a penetrating study of the apocalypse concluding that on stylistic grounds John the Apostle could not have written it. In his rejection of modalism, he said that Father and Son were as different as a boat and a boatman and denied they were of one substance or <u>homousios</u>. The bishop of Rome stressed the unity of God and condemned those who would turn the monarchy into three deities.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Regarding sacraments. He does not allow women to come to the sacrament if they are during their period. Eucharist: the giving of thanks, and who had answered Amen; who had stood at the holy table, and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food, and had received it, and for a very long time, had been a partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Henceforth I bade him be of good courage, and approach to the sacred elements with a firm faith and a good conscience and become a partaker of them." <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Easter: He defends the practice of fasting three days before Easter, though women should not. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">He also has some comments upon Ecclesiastes 1-3, focusing on the need to direct our attention beyond our toils to a goal beyond the sun, recognizing that wealth does not make us better in soul or gain friendship with God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding martyrdom. He gives various accounts of the "those perfected and blessed martyrs." <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding Scripture. He defends the harmony of the gospels, especially with the accounts of the resurrection, though he clearly recognizes the rational problem. In terms of the Book of Revelation, some have set the book aside, viewing it as a work of heretic like Cerinthus. He believes too many value it for that to be true. After a commentary, in which he shows it could not be taken literally, he also could see no way the book was written by John, the son of Zebedee, nor could it be the same person who wrote the fourth gospel. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Regarding eschatology. Some local pastors had a book which preached an earthly reign of Christ. He rejects this notion, and in a calm discussion of the matter at a meeting, where there was much study of the Bible and prayer, the issue was resolved, mostly by the repentance of the person who brought forward this position.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 10.95pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 10.95pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0in 10.95pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-556317814">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt>, Vol I, 32.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2003777796">(Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)</w:sdt> Vol 2, Chapter 9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-163324319">(Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1998, 1991)</w:sdt> Vol 1, Chapter 4.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1812366835">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> Vol II.1, 200.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1216006796">(Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology (2 Volumes), 1967, 1971)</w:sdt>, Volume II, “The Appropriation of the Philosophical Concept of God as a Dogmatic Problem of Early Christian Theology,” 150-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1571149003">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> I.2, 517.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-11304732">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt>, Vol I, 97.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1179619057">(Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, 1973, 1976)</w:sdt>, 404-23.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="316540925">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt>, III.1, 571.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, ST, Chapter 7, Part 1.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-328986027">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt>, III.2, 573.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-512065676">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> III.2, 153.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1201853726">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> III.1, 29.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom, Chapter 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1022981458">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt>, IV.2, 658.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1110475213">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt>, III.3, 370.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1422755685">(Barth, 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt>, III.3, 406.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> Hitchcock, 2013, Chapter 1.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> Hitchcock, 2013, Chapter 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;"><a href="applewebdata://A3E2DFBF-C753-46C9-B635-C12859CC9FF2#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, ST, Chapter 11.1.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-81894892120140222912022-11-22T16:11:00.002-08:002022-11-22T16:11:40.541-08:00Kierkegaard: Philosophical Fragments<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8SI8mU5jF5u3EjbS0-m5uqzfhZWKyj5J77dwQ-taZ9FjrWhX5mzxAz7TH5c45EXap-gt0anf5H391BMo5iESOO3D1E7q5y2acbBHqGjslmPkorFMqko8QysFZ_VXswW6vPqVUmRkix7SgB6BXPCh4UDKP0gZ-2HPDOuuY9QRHBor78BMDoo-UFoB-Yw/s667/Soren-kierkegaard-Kierkegaard-filosofo-escritor_1408669878_112433482_667x386-3757624853.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="386" data-original-width="667" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8SI8mU5jF5u3EjbS0-m5uqzfhZWKyj5J77dwQ-taZ9FjrWhX5mzxAz7TH5c45EXap-gt0anf5H391BMo5iESOO3D1E7q5y2acbBHqGjslmPkorFMqko8QysFZ_VXswW6vPqVUmRkix7SgB6BXPCh4UDKP0gZ-2HPDOuuY9QRHBor78BMDoo-UFoB-Yw/s320/Soren-kierkegaard-Kierkegaard-filosofo-escritor_1408669878_112433482_667x386-3757624853.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">In 1843, at the age of 30, Kierkegaard wrote</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">Philosophical Fragments: or, A Fragment of Philosophy,</i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">under the name Johannes Climacus. He lists himself as responsible for publication. He describes it in his journal as a book about Jesus Christ without mentioning his name.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">On the title page, Climacus asks three questions. Is an historical point of departure possible for an eternal consciousness? In one sense, Christianity will say yes to this question. Yet, in another sense, the historical point of departure will do the individual no good until he or she appropriates it. How can such a point of departure have any other than a merely historical interest? Responding with faith rather than offense is what makes it more than merely an historical interest. Is it possible to base an eternal happiness upon historical knowledge? In one sense, Christianity will answer yes. In another sense, your personal response of faith and willingness to live your life according to this knowledge is what provides eternal happiness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This first section is a brief “Preface,” which he signs “J. C.” He admits that he does not serve the Hegelian system. He wants to “execute a sort of nimble of dancing in the service of Thought,” as well as honor “the God.” He has had to resign domestic happiness, civic respectability, and glad fellowship. He is ready to risk his life in order “to play the game of thought with it in all earnest.” His partner in the dance is thought of death. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Chapter I has the title, “A Project of Thought.” Climacus asks the question, “How far does the Truth admit of being learned? He takes a lesson from Socrates, who would begin with the notion of recollection. Therefore, he assumes that the individual already has the Truth within. Socrates was a midwife for thought in others. In fact, the highest relation between one person and another is bringing forth thought. For Socrates, each point of departure in time is accidental, an occasion, a vanishing moment. In Socratic thought, self-knowledge is knowledge of God. Each person becomes his or her own center. In one sense, every person becomes a teacher. The teacher who brings forth truth, in which I rest, is incidental. Socratic questioning assumes that I have the truth within myself and can acquire it myself. Now, if things are to be otherwise, the moment in time must have decisive significance. The previous state of the learner must be that of error, and therefore the learner is not even a seeker. The teacher gives the learner the knowledge that the learner is in error. The teacher must bring the truth to the learner and provide the condition necessary for understanding it. Yet, such a teacher is more than a human being. Rather, the teacher is “the God.” The destitute condition of the learner is one we might call sin. What shall we call such a teacher? We should call him Savior and Redeemer. He becomes an atonement that removes the wrath justly directed to the prior condition of the learner. This teacher is more of a judge than a teacher. Such a moment must, in fact, have a distinctive name that we call the fullness of time. As we shift our attention to the learner, we can see that he or she becomes a disciple, a new person. We might call the change conversion. Yet, what precedes conversion is repentance. We might call the transition a new birth. The disciple owes everything to the teacher. He concludes the chapter by imaging someone say that this is a ridiculous project of thought. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Chapter II has the title, “The God as Teacher and Savior: An Essay of the Imagination.” Socrates wanted no praise, honor, or money, unlike modern philosophers. However, in terms of the God as teacher, what would motivate the God to come into finite existence? Love is the motivation. Love motivates the God to reveal who God is. The God loves the learner and desires to win the learner as a follower. Only in love does the unequal become equal. The love is unhappy due to the great distance between the God and the learner. They cannot understand each other. Climacus offers a story as an analogy. How can the God and the learner ever understand each other? Well, an erotic form of love might elevate the learner. The God might show who God is in a dramatic way, making the learner forget whom he or she was. Alternatively, an agape form of love would cause the God to come in the form familiar to the learner. If the moment is to have eternal significance for the learner, the learner will owe everything to the teacher. The union between the God and the learner will occur through a descent. The God must become a servant. Every other form of “revelation” would be a form of deception. Suffering will be the life of this servant. The cause of this suffering is love. Contrary to Feuerbach, humanity would not produce such a story. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Chapter III has the title, “The Absolute Paradox: A Metaphysical Crochet.” A “crochet” can mean a trick or an odd notion. The Paradox is the source of the passion of the thinker. The supreme paradox is to discover something that thought cannot think. Reason collides with the paradox. That which it collides is the unknown, which we might also call “the God.” One cannot derive proof of the God from nature. When I let go of the need for such proof, I am ready for “the leap.” The Unknown is absolutely different from reason.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The next section is “Appendix: the Paradox and the Offended Consciousness.” If the paradox and reason meet and acknowledge their unlikeness, the meeting is a happy one. However, if reason cannot accept this, and still seeks understanding, we have an offended consciousness. The offense causes reason to stand apart from the paradox. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I will have to say that Climacus has helped me on this point. In my Christian journey, I cannot say that the Christian message ever offended me. Yet, I have always wanted to know more and to practice more. I have close friends, however, who clearly experience offense. They ridicule the notion that God became a human being, putting it on the level of fairy stories. They distance themselves from everything related to the church and ridicule Christians. Climacus has helped me understand why my continual attempts to understand Incarnation and Trinity presuppose faith. My own efforts in understanding Christian teaching have not been so much for the outsider but for the Christian. I have no desire to come to an understanding of Christian teaching that removes offense. However, I do want Christians to have some confidence in the message.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Chapter IV has the title, “The Case of the Contemporary Disciple.” In the form of a servant, the God seeks to win disciples. The God seeks the love of disciples. Even the contemporary of the teacher faces the question of an historical departure for the truth. The learner does not need to understand the paradox but understand that this is the paradox. When reason and paradox have a happy meeting, we call it faith. In this sense, the historical makes no difference. Historical knowledge alone is not enough to bring a person to faith. Any knowledge about the teacher is accidental. Since the entire situation is non-Socratic, the learner owes everything to the teacher. Faith is not knowledge, for one cannot have knowledge of the absurd. Since the teacher has provided the condition for the learner, the object of faith is the teacher rather than a body of doctrine. The contemporary may see the teacher, but this does not make the contemporary a disciple. Really, only the believer, the non-immediate contemporary, knows the teacher. Every non-contemporary can become a contemporary disciple. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The next section has the title, “Interlude.” The word suggests a resting place, which is ironic, for this section is the most difficult philosophically. It considers these questions. Is the past more necessary than the future? Or, When the possible becomes actual, is it thereby made more necessary than it was? I think the answer is “no.” I think the point of the section is that God acts freely, and then Climacus discusses the consequences of this. In what sense is there change in that which comes into existence? The answer is that the possible becomes actual. Coming into existence suggests suffering. All of this suggests that what comes into existence is not “necessary.” Everything that comes into existence is historical. The past has necessity, but the apprehension of the past has enough uncertainty that apprehending it makes one a prophet in retrospect. Faith shares a paradoxical quality with the paradox, for faith will always involves the risk of committing itself to error. To remove the risk would be like saying that you have learned to swim before getting into the water. The struggle of faith is resolution, and therefore will, rather than a logical conclusion one draws. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Chapter V has the title “The Disciple at Second Hand.” Climacus now makes the point that the disciple at second hand is in the same situation as the disciple at first hand. The first generation of secondary disciples has an advantage over modern secondary disciples, but this is an illusion. In fact, recent generations might gain some comfort from the fact that so many people all over the world have faith. It may seem to naturalize the paradox. However, faith in every generation means reason colliding with the paradox. For that reason, the first generation of secondary disciples has the advantage of experiencing the full reality of paradox, while we have the temptation to remove it. What Climacus affirms is that he finds no such thing as a secondary disciple. The first disciples have the responsibility of reporting that they have believed and relate the content of the paradox for faith. The contemporary generation only needs to trust the credibility of the report that God has in fact become a human being. In fact, the historical contemporary with the paradox wants no special treatment. God brings the contemporary and all other generations together. Unfortunately, a generation could come that would look at Christian faith as triumphant. Yet, faith that celebrates its triumph would be ridiculous. It would never actually believe. Faith is always militant, in the battle, and therefore, the possibility for defeat is always present. Faith is always moving out into battle to confront the enemy. Faith is never returning home in victory. Climacus says he may have another section, which became <i>Concluding Unscientific Postscript.</i> He finally answers the questions of the title page. Christianity proposes that an historical point of departure exists, not for its own sake, but for the single individual, significant for his or her eternal consciousness. Christianity intends for this historical point of departure to become more than just an historical interest. In fact, Christianity proposes that the eternal happiness of the individual rests upon a relationship with this historical point of departure. Human beings could not make this up. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Climacus even has a moral of the story. He thinks he has made an advance on Socrates by proposing a new organ in faith; a new presupposition in the consciousness of sin, a new decision in the Moment, and a new teacher, the God in time.</span></p>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-62850374299041941842022-09-29T10:50:00.003-07:002022-10-04T09:45:49.314-07:00On the Mystery, by Catherine Keller: A Reflection<div class="separator"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3bnI9Tq7FRjfwOdXUknWVaZPl_GWE4ycQjq1aYsz-suUoV7NXsVcbXluZJsP0NMt35I1g8iaqbwW9VobJ03sH7XSJEfSFUpOi0Ng6rXvd0MXJYacuDZSHYRlwG3Kl20FsNLXBr9ej6QrSaocpLdFZXK0aDcL2zjOQZc_2Bfl571LB4ilnOstmCDmtcg/s637/onthe-mystery-1763167833.jpeg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="637" data-original-width="415" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3bnI9Tq7FRjfwOdXUknWVaZPl_GWE4ycQjq1aYsz-suUoV7NXsVcbXluZJsP0NMt35I1g8iaqbwW9VobJ03sH7XSJEfSFUpOi0Ng6rXvd0MXJYacuDZSHYRlwG3Kl20FsNLXBr9ej6QrSaocpLdFZXK0aDcL2zjOQZc_2Bfl571LB4ilnOstmCDmtcg/s320/onthe-mystery-1763167833.jpeg" width="208" /></a></div><p style="clear: left; direction: rtl; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></p><p style="direction: rtl; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></p><p style="direction: rtl; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <b style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Catherine Keller, On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process<br /></b></p><p style="direction: rtl; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2008</span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> My reaction to the book will not be in the form of a review. I will use the book for some of its themes and topics and offer my perspective. That means I will be using terms of the author that sometimes I would not use outside the context of a discussion of this book. When she refers to evangelical or conservatives her comments are negative, and when she refers to her politics, she is reliably progressive. Since the context of this article is a response to her statements, this article will need to be a reversal of her thinking. </p><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:184636597;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-795340860 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:186066751;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1524609706 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
-->
</style><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Process philosophy is, thankfully, becoming a common influence upon theology. It has the potential to encourage a conversation between normally vigorously opposed communities of faith. How one uses such a world view often depends upon other decisions one makes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> One choice a theological thinker will make regards the tradition of theology. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> If one wishes to be faithful to the biblical and Christian tradition, one could simply reshape notions of the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Christian life with the forms of thought developing in our era. This would be a conservative use of process thinking in a way that preserves the past, incorporates valid thinking of today, and leaves one open to new possibilities for the future. Such a use would lead one to respect the contribution of the past and lead to a desire to have some consistency with the church of Jesus Christ through the ages. Karl Barth would not be a process theologian, yet, because of the depth of his understanding of the Incarnation and the cross, he can sound like a process theologian in places of his <i>Church Dogmatics. </i>Pannenberg has process elements of his theology, but Hegel was his path toward this philosophical perspective. Some evangelical theologians have gravitated toward this perspective, with pan-en-theism being the theological perspective. Its ability to bring the transcendence and immanence of God into a philosophical perspective is beneficial. Progressive theologians have also found in the process philosophy of Whitehead a helpful means of integrating modern scientific approaches in physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and ecology with the biblical and theological tradition. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> One could also use such a worldview to replace the tradition with a perceived newer and better thinking of today. This would lead to a revisionist theology that would look with skepticism upon the contributions of the past, since it was a patriarchal and hierarchal intellectual environment, and shape a theology for a new age. Such a view would count it admirable and prophetic to separate itself from the church of the past and rely upon new revelations of Christ for today. Its advantage, that it is free to develop a theology embedded in the whims of at least one vocal part of the present age, is also its weakness, for I am not sure why anyone would feel the need to add a troublesome ancient text and tradition to something they can believe without that baggage.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> I want to admit openly that the view of God in process theology is not the God of the Exodus, Yahweh, the tribal deity who is truly present to a people who needed a liberator and one who would fight for them, a Divine Warrior who was clearly on the side of the oppressed slave rather than the oppressing Egyptians who were themselves imprisoned within their fear of the slaves and their possible rebellion. Viewing God as active in the world through the Spirit in a way that persuades and attracts seems like a weak view of God. I want to suggest that truth lays in another place.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In Season 4, episode 15 of Fringe (2012), we have a big reveal in the series. The Observers thought they had erased Peter from existence, which they wanted to do because he was not supposed to have lived through childhood. The intervention of an Observer preserved his life, but that intervention had other unpleasant ramifications for the future of humanity, so the Observers devised a plan to erase him from the memories of those with whom he had interacted. It worked for a while, but Peter kept showing up in dreams and daydreams of those closest to him. He became incarnated in a moment, as he rose out of the water in a nearby lake. Olivia, his romantic interest, at first does not recognize him. Therefore, Peter spends much of the season trying to get back to another timeline, a different potential future. It is his desire to get home. However, she starts having memories from the “other” Olivia in a different potential future. In this episode, an Observer reveals that the plan to erase Peter from this timeline did not work. The love of those around him would not allow him to be erased. In dramatically high moment, the Observer reveals that this potential future is his home. He admits he cannot prove it scientifically, but he thought that the love those around him had for him would not allow the erasing of him from their potential future. Thus, he was, as in the Wizard of Oz, already home. The Olivia that was recovering memories from the “other” Olivia was his Olivia. Such a moment in a television series can be sappy, but I do not experience it that way. My point is that while the way process philosophy can speak of a divine lure or attraction toward certain forms of life that enhance human flourishing can sound like weakness, a story like this is a reminder of the type of power love and attraction can hold over people. Nor must we shy away from recognizing that it has an erotic quality to it that may take us beyond scientific analysis, although I must grant that science may well explain even that.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Process theology has another potential within it to highlight the significance of the revelatory moment of Jesus of Nazareth. The way he led his life, the self-sacrifice of his life that culminated in the cross, and the vindication of his life and death and resurrection, reveal a creative transformation of the relation between God and humanity. Jesus lived his life in obedience to his Father. However, we dare not minimize the significance of his death. His cross exposes the depth of human sin in its turn from the source of what is life-giving. It reveals the human self-deception of acting righteously while also acting violently and coercively. In a personal way, it reveals my identification with those who judged Jesus and put him to death. It reveals my sin, my waywardness, and … my need of forgiveness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> 1 What can wash away my sin? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Nothing but the blood of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> What can make me whole again? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Nothing but the blood of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> 4 This is all my hope and peace: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> nothing but the blood of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> This is all my righteousness: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> nothing but the blood of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The creative transformation that occurs in Jesus of Nazareth puts the people of God on notice that the notion of God as Divine Warrior who would command the ban of every man, woman, child, and beast of a village is no longer a possibility. It puts behind the people of God a prayer to bash the heads of the children of the enemy upon the stones. It puts behind the people of God stoning people because of adultery, homosexual practice, misusing the name of the Lord, breaking Sabbath law, and breaking any of the Ten Commandments. As Jesus of Nazareth took within himself the sin and disobedience of the people of God, represented by the Jewish leaders of his day and his disciples, as well as the sin and disobedience of humanity, represented by the Roman leaders of his day, he bore the burden of the sin and evil of humanity. He absorbed the violence toward which human beings are prone. The loveless cycle of racism, greed, and envy is repetitive in every generation, for which I could site many biblical passages. The Father, to whom Jesus owed his obedience, honored the way of Jesus with resurrected life through the life-giving power of the Spirit, giving the people of God that same Spirit by which to build community and life in faith, hope, and love. Granted, the people of God have been weak reflections of this creative transformation, but enough faithfulness has remained to witness to its truth. Thus, it opens the door for a liberating, healing, and guiding presence and power of the Spirit in personal, communal, and institutional life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Process theology, through its version of pan-en-theism, can pave the way for developing an understanding of both the transcendence and immanence of God. God provides the structuring conditions out of which novelty arises. There is a logos in creation out of which new themes emerge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Process theology also has the potential to bring convergence of various denominational families in eschatology. All Christian communities might be ready to put behind them <i>The Late, Great, Planet Earth </i>of Hal Lindsey and dispensational thinking. It was sad for me to learn that John Wesley in his comments on the Book of Revelation adopted the views of J. A. Bengel on chiliasm. Such a view inevitably looks toward a time when the scientific description of the end will not be, which is a problem for many conservatives as well as the progressive. It also inevitably looks forward to a time when the Father, acting in concert with the Crucified Son, and in the power of the life-giving Spirit, becomes a coercive and vengeful force rather than a persuading and luring one. Process theology holds out a view of Jewish apocalyptic that allows it to be as it is but focusing upon its vision of a creative transformation between God and humanity that allows the life-giving energies of the Spirit to bear fruit in an increasingly free, peaceful, and just future. It recognizes the intensity and even violence of the process, and is thus not utopian about the process, but it also holds forth a powerful vision of a loving and just potential future for humanity, while always recognizing the self-destructive propensities of humanity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> To shift gears, another choice a theological thinker will need to make within process theology regards the politics of the day. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> One could decide to view the process as one that gives room for economic and political freedom within a relational and communal decision-making process. Such a concern recognizes the fragile nature of freedom and its rarity in human history. It will trust the competitive and cooperative process of consumers, workers, and producers will result in what is best for the flourishing of humanity. It has concern for the environment but trusts that education process and the decisions of millions of people to result in the healthiest environment possible. It will persist in educating processes that will encourage respect for the worth and dignity of individuals, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. It recognizes the importance of the black family, for example, while having a concern for the human family as well, recognizing that we must learn to live together, or we will perish together. It will distrust corporations that wed themselves to a left-wing or right-wing political agenda, wanting them to stick to their business. It will distrust coercive efforts of politicians, in cooperation with an interweaving and complex set of overlapping institutions of media, academia, entertainment, and corporations, put into effect by bureaucratic powers in the federal government. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Such a view would also be considered right-wing by one devoted to the progressive ideology. Thus, the theological thinker could also decide to wed oneself to a left-wing ideology. Such a thinker might do so and not want to admit the bias such a commitment creates. Their view would be that they simply are on the side of love and (social) justice. To resist their views means their opponents are racist, against women, and against respect for those of sexual orientations other than heterosexual. They have created their progressive universe in which their propositions are uncontroversial while another side does not rationally exist. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Thus, the progressive can say that:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";">o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Nobody believes traditional ideas about biological sex for only dinosaurs would believe such antiquated notions. It takes shared concern for respect and use it to advance peculiar notions of gender, denying biological reality in favor of the truthiness of how I perceive myself to be. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";">o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Everyone believes climate change is a crisis that threatens life on earth and not to do so is like Holocaust denial. The West does not need fracking or nuclear energy, but needs to switch to renewables fast and degrowth an economy or face extinction. Therefore, the main concern about a war between Russia and Ukraine is its effect upon the environment (John Kerry), whereas it was the movement of Europe natural gas and nuclear that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over the energy supply of Europe. The West fiddled by its anxiety over carbon footprints, soft energy, and put itself in a hypnotic trance about healing the earth, while Putin made his move, with China doing the same, both nations happy the West remains in its trance. Such a view will take the shared concern to live in a healthy physical environment and turn it into a coercive expansion of government power through a fanciful notion of an ecological crisis to justify intrusive economic coercion by government into matters that ought to be left to the free and relational process of producing and consuming. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Courier New"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";">o<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Everyone believes America is systemically racist, and not to do so makes one a bigot. Such a view will take the shared concern for the sin of racism and transform it into a crisis that requires coercive action by government and, to continue gaining votes and expanding government, the creation of hatred and division, over something as minor as the color of skin. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">What if everyone does not believe the propositions within the progressive universe? Such opposition might suggest that any basis for concern in these areas of life in the West are matters that can be healed, in a way that brings liberation and wisdom toward that which will advance human flourishing. Creating a fallacious crisis allows leaders to expand the coercive interference of government into a process that could, if allowed to flow freely, while bringing the needed healing, liberation, and guidance into the culture. Thus, it may be that many Americans do not believe the crisis, even if they share reasonable concerns in each of these areas. The only option by the progressive is to reinforce denial with censorship. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> An intriguing aspect of this is that such a progressive view will be negative toward corporactocracy while reaping the benefits of the wealthy and the corporations that advance their preferred left-wing ideology. Another intriguing element is that such a view will be fearful of a theocracy on the right, while becoming the devoted religious arm of left-wing political ideology. From the perspective of a conservative, the danger here is the worldview of the progressive seems so comprehensive and utopian that it removes any need for God, replacing the hunger for God with devotion to a political ideology. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Particularly dangerous for the progressive theologian is that becoming overly embedded in this Left-wing view will lead to not seeing and/or justifying violence of the left-wing. I am going to suggest that, for many on the Right, are simply facts, but which a progressive would like view as nonsense. Those of us on the Right would refer to the persistent and violent intimidation in the streets that we find in Antifa and BLM. For the Right, the focus on the one-day event of January 6 blurs the persistent intimidation from these two groups. For the Right, it will also lead to the Left considering a political victory by their opponents as a threat democracy, thereby justifying turning the FBI and CIA into political weapons for the Democrat Party. Such a view will project onto the political conservative a fascism that they themselves practice in the form of what the Right views as show-trials and the use of intimidation, whether in the streets with Antifa and BLM, with the power of the FBI or the CIA, and with the power of shaming and canceling in social media. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">Such a progressive view often creates shibboleths of its own for those of an evangelical persuasion and a conservative political bent, such as summarizing them as anti-gay and anti-abortion. Behind the evangelical, holiness, deeper life, and orthodox communities, many of whom may lean conservative in their politics, are far deeper and broader than many progressives will allow. Their leaders are aware of classic conservative perspectives by Edmond Burke, Russel, Kirk, and Roger Scruton. What drives them is an instinct for home and living life by covenantal relationships between the living, the dead, and the unborn future generation. Such conservatives want to be left alone by the party in power.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> I am enough of a liberal of the old sort to remain concerned about encouraging a political and economic environment that advances human flourishing. I believe the best way to accomplish that is by freeing up states and localities to be the laboratories of experimentation they can be, but this means lessening the regulatory and tax burden of the coercive powers of the federal government. This would require national politicians who are willing to trust the process of local freedom to deal with the challenges of environment and poverty unique to their areas. It would also align me, in the minds of most progressives, as a right-winger and even of the extreme right.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> I also remain concerned that Christianity be free to make its various contributions to human flourishing, including an orthodox perspective that is messier, more complex, and broader than many progressives would think. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Some theologians become deeply embedded in an oppositional form of thinking. They are sure of the righteousness of their cause and their ideology. The inference they draw is that an opposing form of thought is the negation of themselves and their beliefs. Theologians of the right and left may succumb to this form of thinking. However, in this moment, the danger is from the left-wing of political discourse. The reason is their power. For several decades, academia, major media sources, social media, and the entertainment have thrown their weight behind changing culture to its left-wing views. It seems clear that major corporate power has embraced the left-wing progressive ideology, so that this ideology is never short of the funds to advance its cause. When we add to this the administrations of Obama and Biden, we see the effect in the weaponizing of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ against the political opponents of the Democrat Party, the house of progressive politics today. Here is one the way one progressive on Twitter put it:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;">We seem to be at a point that the FBI could come out and say “of course he is one of us and there were several others, but we had to do something to prevent Trump from being able to run again” and the statement would strengthen many people’s support for them and their actions. @smbodie3 <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;">Mentioning Trump has a way of making his attackers and defenders alike lose their minds. I would like him to be quiet, be thankful for the years he had as President and what he did accomplish, and let younger, dynamic, and more appealing GOP candidates emerge. I would rather not get into why I think he will not do that, mostly because it would require an insight into his mind and heart that I do not have. However, rest assured that if he did step aside, the GOP candidate will also be branded as fascist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, and so on. For me, that is a big problem in the political environment today. My point, to be clear, is that those who have power have a responsibility to use it in a way that is not coercive or violent. I am suggesting that progressives in powerful positions of culture, economics, and politics have not been good practitioners of a peaceful or respectful use of their power. For theologians of the Left, this is a unique challenge, for if they are to be prophetic within their Left-wing communities, they must have the courage to denounce the use of force, intimidation, and violence to those who possess power in their own community of beliefs. It does no good for me, as someone they would view as extreme right-wing, to do so. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> As one example of the hardened positions, for a progressive theologian to see in Marvin Olasky someone to oppose or belittle is to miss opportunity to explore how best to express compassion for those in need. The same is true of George H. W. Bush, who proposed his “thousand points of light” to expand a compassionate response by the country to those in need. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> As a second example, <i>The Cornwall Declaration On Environmental Stewardship</i> (2000) is a powerful statement on proper care for the environment, but rejects the ideological perspective of those who embrace the notion of an ecological crisis that requires massive intrusion by government into the individual decisions of producers and consumers. It includes as signers Richard John Neuhaus and Marvin Olasky. Here are the aspirations of those who designed this document.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->We aspire to a world in which human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures, first and foremost for their fellow human beings, recognizing their proper place in the created order.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->We aspire to a world in which objective moral principles—not personal prejudices—guide moral action.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->We aspire to a world in which right reason (including sound theology and the careful use of scientific methods) guides the stewardship of human and ecological relationships.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->We aspire to a world in which liberty as a condition of moral action is preferred over government-initiated management of the environment as a means to common goals.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->We aspire to a world in which the relationships between stewardship and private property are fully appreciated, allowing people’s natural incentive to care for their own property to reduce the need for collective ownership and control of resources and enterprises, and in which collective action, when deemed necessary, takes place at the most local level possible.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->We aspire to a world in which widespread economic freedom—which is integral to private, market economies— makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]-->We aspire to a world in which advancements in agriculture, industry, and commerce not only minimize pollution and transform most waste products into efficiently used resources but also improve the material conditions of life for people everywhere.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> I understand that some of these aspirations may not be for the Left-wing. They are not for that reason wrong or offensive. There ought to be room for some reasonable conversation instead of simple negation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> I said at the beginning of this reflection that I would some terms I would prefer not to use. The use of the terms of Left-wing and Right-wing, and even extreme in front of the terms, is not one I would use apart from a context like this. I adopted it here because it is so typical of progressive writers to refer to anyone who disagrees with them as extreme Right-wing, with the recent election of a new female leader of Italy an example. Granted, her party has a checkered past, but it has renounced its fascist origin and has persuaded one-quarter of the people that they have a solution to the pressing issues the country faces. As for political parties with a checkered past, the Democrat Party has put behind it its relationship with the KKK, so we know it is possible. Such terminology, as I have tried to show here, is a form of dismissal and misdirection that denies to opposing views any legitimacy in the public square. Further, this reflection is weighted on the side of responding to the dismissal of evangelical and conservative views by this author. I present some ways one could adopt a position counter to what the author offers and do so reasonably. In a different context, I would want to add my concerns for the views of some on the right as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In contrast to the progressive, and here is my hope, which may be a pipedream, a thinker can assume that behind the clash of persons, communities, and ideologies is an underlying unity. The task of thinking becomes diffing deeply enough into oneself and the other to discover the passions and desires that which unifies. Instead, most people in the public square seem energized by that which divides, an approach we might call a negative dialectic, using oppositions to separate people even further. A positive dialectic, which admits the power of the negative and its clash of oppositions, while also acknowledging the clash occurs because there are underlying commonalities that deserve exploration, is also a potentially reconciling use of dialectic. One would also be assuming that the clashing of opposing visions can become clarifying to both sides. Thus, on the practical side, and ending on a positive note, when a church has the courage, in its missional context, to use some of its land as a community garden, it may do so for reasons for which I disagree, but I can celebrate its action on behalf of its community and maybe even provide other reasons for churches of an orthodox/evangelical/conservative persuasion to do the same.<o:p></o:p></p><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:184636597;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-795340860 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:186066751;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1524609706 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
-->
</style>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-11608005119571041722022-09-05T04:59:00.001-07:002022-09-05T05:01:56.901-07:00The Predicament of Belief: A Reflection<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWqZ0lnA_pOLJ7yw_dt70WsKqdb-QGE7KJJ9rwVRFefhBG-bp3tAZlhsuhPxX75SnzUzikiJrcODzKoHR8wEOQRhSLkSVuUQxo8uNkz0DhGo_Cciiftps6QqJfLwULBmYoJHKYjniC3tRVMY04UNDPg6lFrtH7mZc-v1_T5A4QEkVTPrCfmiAVC3ywGQ/s400/13062206.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="249" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWqZ0lnA_pOLJ7yw_dt70WsKqdb-QGE7KJJ9rwVRFefhBG-bp3tAZlhsuhPxX75SnzUzikiJrcODzKoHR8wEOQRhSLkSVuUQxo8uNkz0DhGo_Cciiftps6QqJfLwULBmYoJHKYjniC3tRVMY04UNDPg6lFrtH7mZc-v1_T5A4QEkVTPrCfmiAVC3ywGQ/s320/13062206.jpg" width="199" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Philip Clayton & Steven Knapp,</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy, Faith</i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY, 2011.</span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I want to invite you to reflect upon the difficulty and dilemma we face in our secular setting with holding a set of convictions that include a religious dimension. Secularity presents no challenge to all forms of such commitments, for one can hold passionately held ideological or political views. Our historical setting does present some a dilemma for religious community, for their reference to and their commitment to a divine reality around which they are willing to organize their lives has become increasingly doubtful.Churches of many denominational traditions need to be going through some wrestling with their relationship with the secular culture and the mindset it forms in minds and hearts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">First, the challenge from the scientific mind-set is deeper than many devotees of religions will admit. All religions face a difficulty in the modern setting. Science is the authority regarding the nature and source of the universe. It is rational, objective, and dispassionate. The universe has become a closed and self-explanatory system. The presumption of the scientific method is that cause and effect natural explanations are present or will be discovered for every event. It is a rule regarding how scientists must about the universe. The most sustained direct challenge to religion from secularism is by intellectuals like biologist Richard Dawkins (author of 2006's <i>The God Delusion</i>) and journalist Christopher Hitchens (who wrote the 2009 bestseller, <i>God Is Not Great</i>). Before his death from esophageal cancer in 2011, Hitchens relentlessly criticized all religions -- and particularly Christianity -- as outmoded attempts to explain the intricacies of the natural world. He jeers, "Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, [religion] no longer offers an explanation of anything important."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Is it really the purpose of religious faith to explain how the natural world works? Christianity was not meant as an explanation of anything. Both science and religion require creative imagination and are closest to each other in this. Such a response to the atheist critique is more sophisticated than the blunt-force counterattack of those who dig for the remains of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat or surmise that God buried dinosaur bones in certain rock strata solely to test 21st-century human faith. Such responses merely buy into the atheists' assertion that truth begins and ends with scientific evidence. There are different facets of truth, which science and religion illuminate in parallel, complementary ways.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Christians need to stop thinking that God gave Scripture as a witness to revelation to provide answers to all things scientific, whether it is paleontology or cosmology. We need not get frustrated when scientific research is at odds with the written Word. Divine revelation relates to our desire to participate in what is true, good, and beautiful. This desire is what makes human beings who they are. Revelation addresses that need. As important as logic, math, and science are in our quest to understand the universe in which we live, and to improve our daily lives, they are not everything. In fact, we cannot reduce some of the most critical areas of human individual and corporate life to the scientific. To put it bluntly, anyone who would reduce to scientific explanation Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, poetry, novels, religious sensibility, witness to divine revelation, and so on, is going down a path that will lead to a dead end.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Second, secularity seems open to the mystery of immanence. If the proper object of the search of modern persons is God, this God is not served by human hands like the gods in the temples (and the gods in our kitchens, on our computer screens, and in our social media feeds) who require constant maintenance. This God is the source of life. This God has made us in such a way that our search for meaning and purpose is a valid one and indicates that this God is not far from any of us. In the play <i>Inherit the Wind</i>, one of the characters says: “He got lost. He was looking for God too high up and too far away.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">To relate an experience I had, one assured of his atheism described his experience of naming his child. Several incidents during a few days led him to think that the universe was trying to tell him something. Of course, the universe could not tell him anything, and he nodded and smiled to himself. The notion of luck or happy circumstance replaces the notion of divine guidance or influence upon life. A fortunate set of circumstances can feel like luck or good fortune, but we dare not think that it might be the Spirit of God luring and guiding us in a certain direction. If we listen to the movies, television shows, and literature of this secular generations, we will see that the hunger for transcendence, to connect with something beyond and larger, remains deep within us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">We live in an age that respects individual fulfillment above all. Properly understood, I can say yes. However, I am going to suggest that individual fulfillment is a by-product of other commitments we have made in our lives. Many people today have no higher good than self-fulfillment. We abandon the struggle when we adopt a form of relativism that removes any communal and historical standard. We are in danger of removing the heart, our struggle with truth, goodness, and beauty, out of the body of humanity. Truth, goodness, and beauty direct our attention away from self. They represent human aspiration. Yet, in focusing our attention on that which is beyond self, we return to the self, hopefully expanded and deepened by the journey. I can affirm this aspect of German Idealism. Yet too many act surprised when, with the heart removed, we no longer develop the basic virtues and character necessary for a free society.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Third, the way religion listens to secularity is important. Secularity is not simply an opponent. It has much to teach religion about the importance of this world, individuals, and freedom. Religious institutions are better off if they separate from the governing relations of a country. Yet, such separation need not lead us toward privatizing religious beliefs and values. Rather, religion teaches secularity that matters of “infinite disclosure” and meaning remain important. Experiences of the infinite questioning of human beings, the advancing of the finite through community and sociality, and the way time finds its fulfillment in eternity, form the basis for all religious talk. The religions offer a challenge to secularity to discuss honestly matters of supreme importance. Humanity wrestles with a reliable basis in life, the Infinite as the basis for finite experience, awareness that our finite life is part of a universal or whole, openness to the world and questioning of human existence, and the use of language as ultimate disclosure. Such human wrestling forms the basis in human life for discussion of God. To the secular culture in which I live, I invite you to consider the religions as providing a framework for wrestling with such experiences. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One way forward in the relation of the secular and religious mind is the language of disclosure, total commitment, and complexity. The basic issues of human beings are still present in a secular culture. Most human beings will not be content with the meaninglessness of human history. They will want to believe that the slaughter-bench of human history and its sacrifices have a purpose (Hegel). They still find many sources of wonderment and amazement, from the birth of a child to the beauty and vastness of the universe (Aristotle, Kant). Suffering and death still give them pause to consider the meaning of their lives and at times larger issues related to why human beings are here (existentialism). Human beings have enquiring minds, even if our minds may cause us to stretch beyond our capacity (Kant). Human beings want to know. The word of caution here is that the point of such a disclosure is not an elevated human experience, but rather, a disclosure of the divine and the disposition of the divine toward humanity. Such frontier or limit situations of suffering and death may provide a hint of transcendence. Yet, human beings are tough. The search for transcendence may be nothing more than a quest for self. A demon may lurk there in the frontier of human experience. We need to exercise care in ascribing too much to such disclosure experiences.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></sup></sup></a> Yet, such disclosures can reveal our participation in and encounter with wholeness.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></sup></sup></a> It suggests a contemplative approach to reality in which we have an immediate awareness of the Infinite and Eternal. This devotion would perceive the presence of the Infinite and Eternal in all things, and of all things in the Infinite and Eternal. Religion in this sense does not arise from the desire to know. Religion arises from a desire to connect the part to the whole, the finite to the Infinite, the temporal to the Eternal. Religion arises from a desire for meaning and wholeness.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></sup></sup></a> Religion arises out of the encounter between the finite and temporal I with the Infinite and Eternal as divine.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The insight of Robert Jenson is helpful here. He directs us to Aristotle (<i>Poetics </i>1452a, 3), who noticed that a relevant story is one in which events occur unexpectedly but on account of each other, so that before each decisive event we cannot predict it, but afterwards see it was just what had to happen. He refers to it as dramatic coherence, a notion he uses to make sense of the notion of divine identity in the long history of revelation in the Bible. He notes the dramatic shifts of patriarchs, tribal federation, sacral kingship, exile, and the crucifixion-resurrection, all of which is a narrative of divine disclosure. The point is that dramatic coherence requires closure to the story to constitute identity, for so long as the story simply continues the narrated individuality remains uncertain. The story of God remains committed to a story with the creatures God has made. This means divine identity is a matter of anticipation of the end. In fact, in the history of religion, gods whose identity relies upon the persistence of a beginning view the changes of history and the future as a threat. We do not know the narrated story until the end, but the way the sentences, paragraphs, and chapters fit together should anticipate that end.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Fourth, the classical philosophical notions of the true, good, and beautiful have much to teach secularity about itself. Although I will focus upon truth for the sake of brevity, much of what I say here could be said about the good and the beautiful as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">We all want truth. The search for truth is deep within the human spirit. Deep down inside all human beings, is the desire to know the truth, regardless of how good that may be or how painful it may be. A sign of health in us is that we search for the truth. The opposite is also true. We human beings want to avoid people or events that deceive us. We do not want the deception of lies, distortions, and half-truths. A sign of sickness in us as human beings is that we try to avoid, distort, or manipulate the truth. Moreover, we want to find the truth out about everything. All human beings have this spirit of truth, the desire to find truth in all aspects of our lives. For example, we want to find out the truth about our universe, including how it works. We want to find out the truth about the sun, moon, and the stars. We want to find out the truth about the origins of our universe and the destiny of our universe. We want to find out the truth if there is life living out there somewhere in the universe. The purpose of the science of astronomy is to discover the truth about how our universe works. We want to know the truth. That is just the way we human beings are. We want to find out the truth about ourselves. What makes us tick? Why do we do the things we do? Why do we not do other things? We have an interest in psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Why are human beings such warring animals? Why were there so many kamikaze pilots in World War II and so many terrorists willing to be human bombs? So much about humanity perplexes us. We human beings want to know the truth about everything. It is like we human beings are on a quest, not for the Holy Grail, the cup of Christ from the Last Supper, but we are on a quest to find the Holy Grails, the truth about life in all its infinite variations.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></sup></sup></a> Yet, only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></sup></sup></a> Our dreams and aspirations motivate us. If we lose them, we may still exist, but fail to live.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Fifth, the notions of the true, good, and beautiful require a community of reasonable discourse regarding these matters. The truth will disclose itself in the practice of reasonable discourse and the action of people who freely live their lives in accord with its teaching. This means truth itself has a historical dimension, revealing itself in the lives of individuals, social institutions, and world history. The truths of science are flat in the sense that the current state of scientific knowledge reflects what it has to offer humanity. The same is true of math. We must not minimize the importance of these truths, for they have improved the quality of human life. Yet, other areas of exploration whether in religion, philosophy, political theory, economic theory, psychology, have a historical dimension. Truths in areas that matter yield themselves with an awareness of the insights gained in history. As such, some insights of the past, we forget and need to recover. We need to liberate ourselves from some truths that must yield to new historical settings. Compared to science and math, such a reasoning process is not truth at all. Such a reasoning process is difficult. Opposing ideas, represented by groups of persons who believe in them, do battle against each other. In our physically violent world, one can only hope that the battle is in the pages of books and articles and in interpersonal debate. Such engagement of opposing ideas may well allow a truth to emerge at an historical moment. Yet, that truth will carry the seeds of its own weakness and generate an opposing position. We might call it a dialectical form of reasoning, a process quite different from the mathematical form of reasoning we find in science.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">I am suggesting that truth emerges in events and encounters. The smooth and flat knowledge we gain through science and math does not operate in other realms of human experience. In fact, if it did, the people would have to deliver themselves to the elite in possession of such knowledge. Instead, as we consider the things that matter, ranging from personal meaning to how we organize our life together, we need the free and conflicting engagement of groups and ideas for truths to emerge. Such truths have a strong historical dimension. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Religion must fit itself into such a community of reasonable discourse. Religion has a right to expect others to respect its sacred texts. Religion has no right to assume their truth. The truths of religion originate in and receive validation from testimony. Testimony is notoriously subjective. Yet, I will suggest that testimony is a valuable element in a community of reasonable discourse. This means all views have the nature of a hypothesis that remains open to criticism. It means no one has the right to retreat to dogmatism, ideology, or revelation from God to avoid engaging discourse. It means all of us engage in the everyday learning process of trial and error.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></sup></sup></a> In fact, Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn have shown us that science is not as objective as many would like to think. The development of large hypotheses in physics and biology have the nature of providing a perspective that proves helpful in understanding the world combined with openness to new discoveries that may amend or overthrow the hypothesis. Such hypotheses provide coherence within itself as well as enable scientific engagement with the world. Let us consider this way of acting within science as a way of understanding what happens in other realms of human experience. If we think at this level, we become aware of a certain view of the world that guides us. If we approach these matters in a healthy way, we aim for a coherent view of the world that also helps engage the world in a way that leads to human flourishing. It will be a guide. It will also have openness to innovative ideas, insights, and experiences that allow for amendment or even an overthrow. We might call such an overthrow of a worldview a conversion. Such a worldview will cohere with other forms of human experience. I want to be quite clear that in this process, no religion, scientific theory, or theories in the human sciences of psychology, sociology, or philosophy, has a prior claim to truth. Given the historicity of human beings, we develop such views of the world while renouncing any prior claim to truth. This also means that appeals to authority are not enough in making the case. The process I have described seems like giving rational assent to a set of beliefs. Yet, such is not the case. Taking the risk of total commitment of one’s life recognizes that one place one’s trust in the wrong thing. Since none of us likes to admit we are wrong, conversion is rare. Yet, admitting one has lived in accord with wrong commitments is also part of why engage in this process of reasoning.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Religious communities have been around for a long time. Quite they have been around from the beginning of the humanity as a species of animal. Many such religions have died. I think it proper to assume that their death means that whatever truth they had was no longer able to meet the challenges of their times and places. An opposing religion has absorbed into itself any truth it might have had.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">All of this suggests that truth is always open to further verification or falsification. Core affirmations are always debatable along the course of history. We know only in part (I Corinthians 13:12). We need to admit that especially in the commitments related to ultimate matters we are in the realm of faith, making provisional and anticipatory commitments. History is always open. Communities are historical. Even communities that can claim a certain degree of longevity live and believe quite differently than their ancestors. Such re-thinking shows the vitality of the community to face new challenges that new historical settings provide. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Truth is not a finished product. Our quest for truth keeps pushing us toward the wholeness of truth, but we never arrive. We cannot determine the true meaning of things and events so long as the course of history continues. The inner dynamic of the process becomes visible only at the end of the process. We are still on the way. The inner contradictions of each preliminary stage drive the moment beyond itself. They find their truth beyond themselves. Each stage is the provisional whole of the entire path. If we apply this notion to a human life, we must wait for the end of a life and survey the whole and the relation between the parts. We must wait for the end of history of history to have all the material necessary to determine its meaning.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></sup></sup></a> This means that all experiences of meaning are hypothetical in that they are part of our everyday reasoning process of trial and error. Such experiences are an anticipation of the totality that is still in the process of formation. Every experience of meaning is an implicit anticipation of the totality of meaning. Admittedly, religion seeks to make the totality of meaning explicit and clear. Such a worldview or model becomes tenable when we recognize the world, humanity, and history in the model.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Sixth, a philosophy of religion will have a modest objective. It will explore human experience, using the tools that philosophy, psychology, and sociology provide. One can have no theology without interaction with philosophy. Yet, if a philosophical perspective or worldview dominates the theologian, the theologian has adopted a questionable authority. At the same time, interaction with philosophy, psychology, and sociology will sharpen and clarify the thinking of the theologian and yield an improved theology. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">A proper philosophy of religion will suggest that our human experience provides hints of the divine. If it finds too much of the preferred theology of the writer in human experience, then it goes too far. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Such hints occur in the overwhelming context of human pain, suffering, and tragedy. Suffering and evil are perennial obstacles to belief, at least in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Reconciling the notion of an all-powerful, good, and compassionate God with the presence of evil and suffering can be done in some cases, but it will never satisfy fully. I will not want to minimize this reality. Amid so much random, meaningless suffering, human beings desire the truth in the sense of wholeness of life, the good in the sense of morality, and the beautiful in the sense of profound aesthetic experience. We express this desire in our personal lives in how we think and live. We also express the desire in the institutions we build. Behind such desires and the expressions in personal and corporate life is a type of love for life. We want to see the flourishing of life in general and of human life in particular. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The desire for truth, goodness, and beauty has a darkness as well. Such is the nature of the dignity and misery of humanity. We have the capacity to turn that which is our gift into a curse we inflict upon self and others. Our experience, as reflected in philosophy and psychology, discloses both the dignity and misery of humanity. Our experience reveals both our quest for wholeness and the brokenness that plagues our personal and corporate lives. Our human experience of openness to our world, which shows itself in our capacity to learn across time to improve the human condition, meets its counterpoint in our tendency to close ourselves off from world. The infinite horizon of life meets the resistance within us to close off questions and think we have reached the end of such explorations. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">I am suggesting that talk of the divine is at least reasonable and worthy of our pursuit. Of course, my specific goal is that you will find talk of God as revealed in Jesus of Nazareth is a worthy discussion for us to have. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">A modest form of natural theology is an aid in presenting Christian teaching. This will mean that a philosophy of religion will be an important way to begin our reflections. However, such theology has many difficulties.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Seventh, the difficulty from science regarding the notion of divine agency is one with which all religions will need to wrestle. The scientific theory of the emergence of complexity can explain much regarding how beings like us emerged from a universe like this. Yet, there are what Peter Berger called signals of transcendence, that a reality behind this natural world is benevolent toward humanity and desires our flourishing. Such signals are far short of sufficient evidence that such a reality exists. Even if such a reality exists, does it have intentions that it can communicate. It seems like the personal acts we would expect from such a divine being. It reminds me of a Thomas Hardy poem, God-Forgotten.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">I towered far, and lo! I stood within <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> The presence of the Lord Most High, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Sent thither by the sons of earth, to win <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Some answer to their cry. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> --"The Earth, say'st thou? The Human race? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> By Me created? Sad its lot? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Nay: I have no remembrance of such place: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Such world I fashioned not." - <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> --"O Lord, forgive me when I say <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Thou spak'st the word, and mad'st it all." - <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">"The Earth of men--let me bethink me . . . Yea! <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> I dimly do recall <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "Some tiny sphere I built long back <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> (Mid millions of such shapes of mine) <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">So named . . . It perished, surely--not a wrack <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Remaining, or a sign? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "It lost my interest from the first, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> My aims therefor succeeding ill; <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Haply it died of doing as it durst?" - <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "Lord, it existeth still." - <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "Dark, then, its life! For not a cry <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Of aught it bears do I now hear; <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Of its own act the threads were snapt whereby <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Its plaints had reached mine ear. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "It used to ask for gifts of good, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Till came its severance self-entailed, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">When sudden silence on that side ensued, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> And has till now prevailed. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "All other orbs have kept in touch; <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Their voicings reach me speedily: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Thy people took upon them overmuch <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> In sundering them from me! <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "And it is strange--though sad enough - <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Earth's race should think that one whose call <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Frames, daily, shining spheres of flawless stuff <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Must heed their tainted ball! . . . <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "But say'st thou 'tis by pangs distraught, <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> And strife, and silent suffering? - <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Deep grieved am I that injury should be wrought <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Even on so poor a thing! <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> "Thou should'st have learnt that Not to Mend <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> For Me could mean but Not to Know: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Hence, Messengers! and straightway put an end <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> To what men undergo." . . . <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> Homing at dawn, I thought to see <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> One of the Messengers standing by. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">- Oh, childish thought! . . . Yet oft it comes to me <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"> When trouble hovers nigh.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;">Can one give an account of divine motive and action that can explain what can seem like divine neglect?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> In a universe that gives rise to beings like us, doing so by its internal regularities, requires a degree of regularity. Abrogation of this regularity by divine will is morally inconsistent with the divine nature. This may mean that the personal agency of God becomes irrelevant to human experience and action. However, we may have opened the door for the notion of the divine lure upon human thought processes. Anomalous monism suggests the nomological (non-lawlike) operations of mind. It suggests irreducibly holistic features of life in this universe. In the realm of mind, human actions are not determined by natural laws or regularities. [This would go against the Isaac Asimov science fiction series Foundation]. An emergent theory that there are influences higher up the hierarchy of complexity that influence the lower forms of complexity, but that there are also influences from the lower forms of complexity to the higher. This influence occurs within the regularities of the natural world. This opens us to the possibility of a noninterventionist understanding of divine action. The divine attraction is toward luring all creation into conformity with the divine will. In this sense, the big bang theory does a disservice as a model for divine action. A divine word speaks into existence the conditions for all things? The event that looks like a big bang to science is an example of a divine action that emerged out of the divine Infinite and Eternal life and that desired the existence of finite-temporal things to exist within and to be embraced by divine life. Such a view would be panentheist. God engages us in the modes of gentle guidance, growing illumination, and persistent attraction. The question arises as to why God did not create a world already in conformity with the will of God to have fellowship with what God has created. However, such a fellowship can emerge only from a process designed to endow part of that creation with relative autonomy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Such reasoning is general. Its benefit is that it opens the door for the possibility of divine personal agency in a way that is consistent with the scientific notions of complexity and the emergence of life out of inanimate forms. However, assessed from the standpoint of the central affirmations of all religions, it does not accomplish much. The passionate devotee of any religion would not be moved by this argument. All we have done is provide a rationale for believing that has some consistency of current science.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Eighth, the sense of the wholeness of life, of its meaning and significance, will require finding a way to reconnect with the philosophical notions of the Infinite and Eternal. The scientific notion of complexity and the emergence of life out of inorganic matter is a help here. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Some persons will find the flatten and purposeless nature of the world described by science and technology as enough. For such persons, all we need to know in ontology is that atoms and cells exist. Such a naturalist and materialist view of ontology assumes that science is the only arbiter of truth. I am not satisfied by that. I find myself amazed that such beings as us exist, who are conscious of our lives and the life around us. We are beings who try to figure out truth, who evaluate goodness, and who find ourselves attracted to the beautiful in nature and in our creations. We are beings who wonder about our world and the self. We have questions that suggest the mystery that surrounds us the mystery within us. However, the classical quest for truth, goodness, and beauty suggests that there is something more for us to ponder than simply what science would allow. As powerful as science is, it does not represent the totality of human reasoning. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The intuition of the wholeness of life is an important one. While we may have moments when we feel have arrived at that point of wholeness, we inevitably find reminders that we are only on the way toward it. Our lives often degenerate into fragments, but something within us longs for wholeness. The opposing forces of life keep moving us toward fragmentation. In that sense, wholeness stands between fragmentation and completion. We exhibit the power to be and to develop; we exhibit the capacity to recognize or produce minimal structure; we exhibit the mystery of the indeterminate nature of a human life.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We will need to recover the connection between philosophical notions of time, the Infinite, and the Eternal. We will not truly grasp the significance of individual things or beings in the world without making this connection. We will not deal with death (finitude and temporality) until we make this connection. “Infinite” is the way in which we express our awareness of the interconnected quality of reality. Individual things participate in this wholeness, and this participation is what we mean by “Infinite.”<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></sup></sup></a> Thus, our perception of the Infinite is “in some way” prior to that of finite things. Since we perceive the passing away of the finite, and yet, the continuation of reality, the Infinite has more reality than do finite things.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></sup></sup></a>Our grasp of the Infinite is unthematic and confused. The finite has its limit in the Infinite. If so, he is thinking of an intuition of the Infinite that precedes the contents of consciousness. We might think of this experience as a transcendent mystery or silent Infinity of reality beyond our control, but which also constantly presents itself to us as a mystery. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We may well ponder whether creaturely experience has the capacity for such lofty thinking. Yet, Aristotle said that knowledge begins in wonder. It begins with a form of learned ignorance, recognition that not knowing something, and the suspicion that what you do not know is both important and wonderful. Such wonder can lead us to explore our world so that we can understand it better. Any of the sciences can help us move that direction. We are trying to push back the frontiers of our own ignorance of the world in which we live.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Ninth, our notion of reason needs to expand. It includes reasoning, and thus the capacity for logical thinking and the capacity for inference (drawing conclusions from premises). It includes conceptualization as an expression of the intellect that emerges out of sense perception. Since both thought and feeling can be irrational, our notion of reason needs to embrace thinking and feeling as important dimensions of our experience. Faith or trust is as deeply personal activity as is rationality and thus rationality embraces faith as well. We are not simply computers that dispense information and ideas. Thus, there are cases when it is reasonable for us to believe and trust where we are not able to adequate logic, inference, or conceptualization. The context of reasoning is the mutuality of us as persons, identified well by Martin Buber and Gabriel Marcel. Personhood and sense of self arises out of relatedness. Implicit in the mutuality of the personal is a principle of personal growth and the rhythm of withdrawal and return. the original field of interpersonal relatedness, the withdrawal of the individual from the field into the self to develop identity and individuality, in the return of the individual to the interrelation of persons to enrich it with the fruits of individuality and to endow individuality with its fullness and significance, is central to this rhythm. This suggests that we are first acting and engaged agents of relatedness, and thus, thinking follows this activity, which may well be rational, even if our action arises out of feeling and faith more so than conceptualization. Our withdrawal from relatedness provides the opportunity to reflect rationally upon our activity and thereby either verify or amend that behavior. Rational activity is self-transcendent in that it is both free and it reacts to the drives, impulses, and instincts of the other. Our capacity to act irrationally is part of our human rational nature, which in turn implies an agent who is free, finite, and fallible. Still, irrationality is a subordinate aspect of reason. For rationality ought to predominate over irrationality, keeping the latter in potency, we should always act rationally rather than irrationally. We apply rationality to matters involving action/behavior and the practical, feeling/emotion, and the intellectual/conceptual. Science is the obvious mode of conceptual rationality, the aesthetic is the mode of rationality in feeling, and morality is the mode of rationality in action. Philosophy is the synthesis of feeling and the conceptual. Since rationality is deeply relational, its structure is determined by the object to which it relates. The sub-personal realms of the inanimate or the biological, the relatedness of human beings in political and economic systems, the validity or falsity of moral action, and the supra-personal relation to ultimate reality (the spiritual realm or the divine). Each will require a different form of personal engagement of faith, feeling, logic, inference, and conceptualization. Since moral action arises from the field or interrelation of persons as persons, its primary purpose is to promote and maintain the good or well-being, the rationality or transcendence, of persons in relation. Freedom implies acquired freedom, which signifies two interrelated qualities that of being oneself, and that of self-mastery. Equality denotes the personal rather than the net the natural, social, or legal equality. Personal equality simply denotes the intention of the self to treat their personal other as a person and with the respect that is commensurate with the dignity of a person and thus as Kant put it to treat the other person as an end and never simply as a means. Justice is giving the other person what is due as a matter of right. The concern of religion also emphasizes human well-being, rationality, and community. It goes beyond it in three significant respects. First religion is unlike morality in that it is explicitly and necessarily based upon the human relation to God. The second difference between religion and morality is that religion involves the celebration of community especially in rituals and ceremonies. And thirdly religion involves reference to the realm of the Infinite and Eternal, what we might also call ultimate reality or the divine and the relation of the finite and temporal to it.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> <a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">These realities of our intellectual setting can lead us to re-think traditional beliefs and hold a minimal set of beliefs that are consistent with modern forms of thinking. Regardless, all devotees of a religion need to consider holding their beliefs lightly in the sense that one believes the central witness is true is only slightly more credible than its falsity. One can still believe passionately, but with openness to the possibility that one is wrong and may gather added information and experience that will lead one to amend their belief. It would not make sense to organize one’s life around a set of beliefs one had no evaluate or confirm. The divine reality behind religious beliefs has made itself known in such a way that human beings can respond. One can respond with strong personal commitment that exceeds the certainty with which one holds to this belief. Further, not all beliefs will not have the same rational justification. Some beliefs will be beyond the ability of the believer to justify fully even to oneself.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Behind my argument are at least two important assumptions. One is the significance of the future in orienting our thinking and life. Openness to the future means that we do not allow any of our beliefs to close back upon themselves. We are always in dialogue for amendment and even radical change. Two is that any religion must have the ability to change as it moves through human history and enters multiple cultures. This means valuing a form of syncretism. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Is there room in the modern setting for what devotees of a religion consider its most cherished and distinctive beliefs? This question raises the challenge of the plurality of religious claims to what is true.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Theology needs to discuss freely its way of knowing. Theology is not myth or superstition. Theology is an intellectual exploration. It must be a description of reality. A theological exploration examines the claim of church proclamation that Christ is the center of reality. It examines the truth of this testimony. Yet, theology recognizes that any talk of God is also talk that concerns humanity in a unique way. It claims to point people to the meaning and purpose of their lives. Its aim is human action. This means the focus is salvation. In fact, talk of God communicates salvation. Such a notion is Christ-centered.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For theology, the significance of the particularity of revelation is great. If you are philosopher or scientist who thinks of truth as only that which is most universal and general, this will frustrate. The subjectivity of testimony, which is the basis for the core teachings of all religions, makes the core teachings of all religions less credible. It is personal and passionate biography. Added to this is that the plurality of competing passionate testimonies regarding who God is and the basis for such claims opens the door for a deepening of the obstacle of testimony. It seems like God could have avoided confusion by providing in some way the same revelation and witness. Religions have competing truth claims. One needs a means to treat all religions respectfully enough not to reduce them to a preconceived notion of their commonality. For Christianity, the obstacle is increased when we consider the complexity and uncertainty regarding the sources of what we know about Jesus of Nazareth. The difficulties raised by the narratives regarding the appearances of Jesus after his death place the resurrection of Jesus, the provocative central claim of Christianity, becomes even less believable. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> The Christian tradition rests upon the provocative thesis that the God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead after his crucifixion at the behest of Jewish leaders and with the cooperation of Rome. If one can cross the threshold of belief, it will open the door to believing that the power that is behind all that exists is a force intended us as human beings and desires our flourishing. Jesus forms the “controlling story” for human life as the Christian sees it. In a culture exploring secular forms of religious feeling and expression, Christians must become storytellers who point to the climax of the story in Jesus Christ. Such a presentation will show that the false gods of secularity will not deliver on the promise of happiness. It will show that the truth revealed in the event of Jesus of Nazareth can lead to truly satisfying and meaningful way of life lived in the context of a beautiful hope for humanity and the world.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Most traditions look back to a significant event in history, although myth-oriented religions like Hinduism and traditional African religions would not do so. Applied to Christianity, to have faith in what the God of Israel did in and through the live of Jesus of Nazareth is to open oneself to the new possibility for a human life lived with the power that gave new life to Jesus after his crucifixion. Knowing the details of what that new life was is not important to us, other than recognizing that it gives to the revelation of God in Jesus a definitive, unique, and universal disclosure as to the quality and nature of the life of God. This includes the Trinitarian insight into the divine life, which shows the relational quality of divine life finds its parallel in the relational quality of life in this universe. Embracing the submission of Jesus to the will of his Father is to open oneself to the new life of the Spirit that in some way raised him from death. Jesus gives us insight into the divine intention and action toward humanity in what he said and did, but especially in his death. It was an ontological breakthrough accomplished through human obedience and divine love. Such a notion is consistent with the idea of the emergence of divine life and love during the historical course of the life of Jesus that would find affirmation in the core Christian affirmation of the Incarnation. Such an idea finds expression in the first witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as they discovered a new possibility of the divine and human encounter beyond the boundaries of law-relation as defined in Judaism. It opened the door for a new covenant between the God of Israel and humanity. The Spirit at work in Jesus that culminated in his resurrection also transformed the lives of the first witnesses to embrace a new possibility in their relation to God and in their relation to other human beings, especially the gentile.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If we consider all this in terms of the degrees of justification, we can see readily see a spectrum that moves from beliefs that most of the community of persons who might believe in the divine would embrace, or would embrace if given good reasons, or would embrace if the community could see its mistaken reasoning. However, another set of beliefs is irreducibly controversial, are attractive by one can only hope will be true, and another set are metaphorically valuable. Life experience and reasoning will mean shifting positions for us as individuals who believe. Josh McDowell may hold to the historicity of the resurrection tightly. Richard Swinburne does so as well. While metaphysically possible for one who believes in divine agency, it would be a unique event, which is the point. Granted, the narratives of the appearances of the risen Lord found in Matthew, Luke, and John, the foreshadowing of those appearances we find in Mark in the walking of Jesus upon the Sea of Galilee and in the Mount of Transfiguration, are reflections of the theology of the authors long after the death of Jesus. However, the first preaching of the believing community affirmed that the God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the realm of the dead and brought him into life with God, who was his Father. Paul thought of the appearance to him as of a similar type as that to Peter, the apostles, James, and the 500. He put the matter sharply: If Christ is not raised our faith is vain. My point here is that one can hold lightly the matter of how this happened, but I think it questionable for Christian thinking to set it aside. I think it also questionable for Christian thinking to set aside the connection with the Old Testament, the fulfillment of Jewish hope and divine promise, and its effect upon the Trinitarian notion of God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If we step back, what I am arguing is that religious beliefs, when thoughtfully contemplated, are an expression of the depth and breadth of our rationality. For that reason, we rightly seek a degree of rational justification for what we believe. In fact, given the violent nature of humanity, we want to encourage such reasoning as much as possible. However, we need to learn the various degrees to which we justifiably hold our beliefs. The core beliefs of religions are typically beliefs for which rational justification is for the devotee only slightly more likely than not accepting them, and thus can be held passionately in the sense that one might choose to organize one’s life around them, but also held lightly, in the sense that all human decisions are open-ended, that one may amend one’s beliefs at a future date, and that one recognizes may with rational justification make an opposing decision to one’s own. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I offer a few closing remarks.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In his famous 1896 lecture, <i>The Will to Believe</i>, American philosopher and pioneer psychologist William James defends the adoption of certain beliefs that are, by nature, incapable of empirical proof. Within this category, he includes religious belief. James summarizes his argument by saying that our passion, will, intuition, are valid ways in which to make decisions when logic or science does not provide the tools to make the decisions. We can do so without risk of losing our concern for truth.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></sup></sup></a> James says that the scientific method is of tremendous value, but when it comes to weighty matters of the heart, there are certain propositions that can only remain as hypotheses. There is no way to prove such hypotheses, but there is likewise no way to disprove them. In the absence of such empirical proof, there is a recognition we experience as we encounter faith-propositions: "Of some things we feel that we are certain: we know, and we know that we do know. There is something that gives a click inside of us, a bell that strikes twelve, when the hands of our mental clock have swept the dial and meet over the meridian hour" (13). It would be absurd, in committed human relationships like marriage, to base our participation solely on empirical evidence. No one would ever make it to the wedding chapel on that basis! Because faith is about having a personal relationship with God, James continues, a similar dynamic pertains: "The universe is no longer a mere It to us, but a Thou, if we are religious; and any relation that may be possible from person to person might be possible here" (27-28).<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The human faculty that allows us to make faith-commitments is the will. People of faith can admit that matters of faith involve us in a different type of reasoning than one finds in science. Yet, science often makes advances that arise out of intuition (Michael Polanyi). Even scientists must rely upon a sense of where the answer may lay. Decision-making is not a matter of strict logic or a scientific formula. It will involve our will to believe.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If the only God I were allowed to believe in was the God described by atheists like Nietzsche and Camus, I too would be an atheist. I could never believe in a God who did not suffer — given the suffering of the world. I could never believe in a God whose chief characteristic was power rather than goodness. In the Christian view of God, the chief characteristic of this God is pain. The one who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep. This God hangs upon a cross, a victim not an executioner; the quarry, not the hunter; and one who not only suffers with me but for me, seeking not only to console but, beyond consolation, to strengthen me. Such a God I can affirm and a world with such a God in it I can affirm too. The metaphysical and ontological issues related to suffering are difficult. I can only resolve it by sharing it — by holding hands with the dying, by protesting in the name of my crucified Lord against war, hunger, oppression, torture, against suffering inflicted by our own human injustice. I know that the worst of all evil is indifference to evil. What I need to do with my life is to keep vigil with the one who neither slumbers nor sleeps — that is the way to live.<a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1885786836">(Barth, Church Dogmatics 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt><i> </i>III.2 (44). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-118222838">(Schleiermacher 1799)</w:sdt>, First Speech, 21, 36, 39)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a><w:sdt citation="t" id="179405474"><i> </i>(Schleiermacher 1799)</w:sdt>, Second speech, 36, 45-58.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2020038040">(Barth, Church Dogmatics 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> III.2 [Chapter 10])<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1158657540">(Jenson, Systematic Theology 1997)</w:sdt>, 64-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> Edward F. Markquart, The Spirit of Truth <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> --T.S. Eliot<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> Do not lose hold of your dreams or aspirations. For if you do, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. --Henry David Thoreau.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1749886236">(Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science 1973, 1976)</w:sdt>, 44-47. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="549033685">(Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology (2 Volumes) 1967, 1971)</w:sdt>, Volume I, 163-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1491607004">(Vaught 2004)</w:sdt>, 129-140.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> Nicolaus Malebranche (<i>The Search for Truth,</i> Book Three, Part Two, Chapter 6, 1674-75).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> Descartes, <i>Meditations on First Philosophy </i>(Third Meditation, par. 24, 1641).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> Walter G. Jeffko, “A Personalist Concept of Human Reason,” <i>International Philosophical Quarterly</i> XIV (June 1974), 161-80. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-424496108">(Jenson, Alpha and Obega: A Study in the Theology of Karl Barth 1963)</w:sdt>, 112. <w:sdt citation="t" id="-638341699">(Congdon, The God Who Saves: Dogmatic Sketch 2016)</w:sdt>, Kindle edition, 813, 823, 856, 860, 869, 1145, 1261<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> <span style="font-family: Cobb;">"Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances, 'Do not decide, but leave the question open,' is itself a passional decision, -- just like deciding yes or no, -- and is attended with the same </span>risk of losing the truth" (11).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://FE9FD968-41B0-4AA5-84B4-756C0818A260#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> Inspired by William Sloane Coffin, “The Uses and Misuses of Suffering,” in Collected Sermons of William Sloane Coffin: Volume 1 —The Riverside Years (Westminster John Knox, 2008).<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-75939960520410226732022-07-31T11:22:00.001-07:002022-07-31T11:23:52.560-07:00Kara N. Slade The Fullness of Time<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNr7L_krQ3LXqVoD_267BIn3wz3q7nAqcz6N1-USa8UOBgMgMR3bEWOG2PSYAImXbDLxEex8LwpeE1BPvNczTLlWcyjY5Go923s0fUTMIiRIV18xWmsSLQ5G-iFo5t_PH6wNTAAGjPB2Yl8skg1E4OiXrnLCWgoJHjIV6DSJ2TP3MpGyo8-soDXSNUxQ/s500/51ySpSGd5HL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="333" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNr7L_krQ3LXqVoD_267BIn3wz3q7nAqcz6N1-USa8UOBgMgMR3bEWOG2PSYAImXbDLxEex8LwpeE1BPvNczTLlWcyjY5Go923s0fUTMIiRIV18xWmsSLQ5G-iFo5t_PH6wNTAAGjPB2Yl8skg1E4OiXrnLCWgoJHjIV6DSJ2TP3MpGyo8-soDXSNUxQ/s320/51ySpSGd5HL.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><br /> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Here is a reflection stimulated by my reading of The Fullness of Time: Jesus Christ, Science, and Modernity Kindle Edition, 2021 by Kara N. Slade.</span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> In my studies of philosophy, I weaned myself away from finding a philosopher that I thought approximated the truth. I approach philosophy as a means toward helping me think through a viewing of the world that seems right to me. Such a view of philosophy is always open to further amendments that may make me shift my perspective. What this means is that I can read both Plato and Aristotle with great profit, and not think I must choose between them. The same is true of Hegel and Kierkegaard, both of whom have perspectives that have nourished me in my intellectual journey. Hegel, for example, has a powerful critique of the “scientific human being” of his time, represented in both Rationalism (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza) and Empiricism (Hume, Locke). His insight is correct as to the limits of the scientific method, even if his limitation to a higher form of reasoning through the dialectical method is questionable. Kierkegaard has a notion of the self with which I disagree, for he tended to think of the self as an isolated, weak, and fragmented self. In contrast, Hegel had a deeply communal notion of the self with the result that we gain our identity through encounter with the other. Reading some philosophical journal articles lately, I have become aware of my appreciation for Wittgenstein as well, as he kept pushing us as readers to see the theory-laden perspectives of philosophers that often get them into intellectual puzzles of their own making. His push to make us see how our ordinary use of language could resolve many philosophical puzzles is refreshing. Our book group readings have reminded me of how Hegel approached the process nature of the human mind or spirit and the process nature of reality through logic, while Whitehead perceived the depth of process in science in a way that everything that exists involves the polarity of the physical and mind. To see the potential for mind or consciousness in subatomic particles is a gift of scientific discovery. Science has much to teach regarding the vastness of the universe, that everything “is” only in relation to the other, that the largest other is the totality of the whole, the All, or the Universe, that human beings have a humble role in it all. At the same time, we must not lose the significance of this moment. For this reason, I have suggested that some form of process thinking that respects the influence of science and an existentialism that is keenly aware of the importance of this individual and this moment help shape a worldview that remains open to further changes. I discuss this briefly as I used the notion of Big History in a lectionary post: <a href="https://lectionarypondering.blogspot.com/2019/06/psalm-8.html" style="color: purple;">https://lectionarypondering.blogspot.com/2019/06/psalm-8.html</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> This leads me to suggest that natural theology made errors when it saw too much of Christian theology in the experience of the world. Its errors are a cautionary tale in that way. However, a natural theology that is modest is biblical. In assuming that it can use the word “God” and have confidence that readers will know of which it speaks is a modest form of natural theology in which it assumes some orientation of humanity toward the divine. A modest form of natural theology is the most natural reading of Paul’s sermon on Mar’s Hill, the first Chapter of John, Psalm 8, and many other passages. The fact that the various authors of the Bible felt free to utilize mythic, poetic, and religious images from Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, and Babylon says to me that the people of God always need to be open to all such aspirations of the human spirit. Luke incorporates methods and language of Greek peripatetic philosophers of his time, John incorporated Platonic images, and Paul valued the insights of Greek moral instruction (Stoics). The first millennium of the church saw the influence of Plato, and it transitioned to Aristotle. Such openness of the Christian tradition to the insights of pre-Christian authors ought to be instructive for us as we continue the theological journey. It is also the understanding of the later perspective of Karl Barth, who began to see parables of the kingdom in the world. I would also suggest that he had a deep engagement with Hegel, Kierkegaard, Buber, Heidegger, and Sartre. I see those parables in many places: Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein among them. I could add Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Marx as well. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Thus, when I think of an ad hoc relationship with the philosophical journey, it means that one is wide open to the successes and failures of a philosophical perspective. One develops a discerning reading of philosophers, rather than devotion to one (such as Kierkegaard) and having a shallow reading of another (such as Hegel). To do this is to use philosophy ideologically rather than to develop a perspective/worldview that remains modest and open to further adjustments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> Yet, it is so true that Christians need to be skeptical of anyone who says, “just trust the science.” The elevation of the scientific method into a role that it is not fit to have is a problem. Fundamentalists make this mistake when they try to prove the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Secularists do this when they use science to dismiss the religious quest as useful in earlier stages of human evolution but can now in the age of science cast it off. However, theology does not have to isolate itself from the influence of science and modern philosophy to avoid this problem. Science is a theory-laden practice, as are all human endeavors. Through Polanyi and Kuhn, we have become aware of the shifts in theory that have determined what scientists see. Science is not as objective as its practitioners want to think. Science can also serve political agendas, as we can see with climate change agendas, which advance a bureaucratizing of the economy that is destructive of economic growth and harmful to the poor and middle classes. We see the effects today in the farmer revolts in the Netherlands and in Sri Lanka. Using either science or a shallow understanding of the philosophical journey to advance a political agenda is not the way I want to do theology. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> A political agenda that undermines the cultural and intellectual home of the West developed by white men is not one of which I want to be a part. To think of the western philosophical tradition as uniquely sinful and unworthy of Christian engagement in such a way as to learn from it as well as critique it is a peculiar form of self-loathing to which many in academia have succumbed, wearing such disgust as a badge of honor that expresses a self-righteous contempt for those who do not share their lofty, arrogant, and judgmental reading of the western philosophical tradition. Luke says Jesus told a parable directed at those who viewed themselves as righteous and looked upon others with contempt (Luke 18:9). Rather than opposition to the Enlightenment tradition, I see myself in dialogue with it because it expresses aspirations of the human spirit, and not just an expression of the sinfulness of the human spirit. One might even refer to it as the operation of prevenient grace. I would also see such grace operative in the African religions, India, and the ancient Chinese and Japanese traditions, but the topic here is whether the western philosophical tradition is worthy of engagement by the church and its theologians. I am decidedly on the side of an affirmative answer. Yes, the West has its sins. However, the West did not invent slavery. Not only is it in the Bible, but it was a prevalent use of tribes as they defeated other tribes in Africa and South America. Racism is not the invention of the West or the Enlightenment. It remains a deep issue among cultures like China and Japan. The failure to appreciate women is universal, as they were to keep to their subordinate place. Colonizing other lands and subjugating them is not the invention of the West, which again we see in the Bible and the rise and fall of Empires. However, as academics are prepared to continue beating up the West for its sins, usually with a conflict-based and alienating ideology devoted to a Marxist critique of liberal democracy, only now applied beyond economics to race, sexual orientation, and gender, the same people are not prepared to see that the intellectual tradition of the West has been recognizing these sins for what they are and embarking upon a journey of liberation of both oppressed and oppressor from the viciousness of this pattern and embarking upon a new journey of mutual recognition and respect. Such a notion is the the Hegelian view of the intellectual climate created by modernity. I would refer to this as the education of the West in its morality and the institutionalizing of the principle of freedom, especially its economic and political leaders. The utopian vision always blinds one to the progress made in forming a good (not perfect) society. America was recognized by both Hegel and Marx as having the potential to actualize the best of the Enlightenment idea of freedom. It still can be such a leader of the world toward mutual recognition and respect. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> The way forward for anyone who values the religious impulse that human beings have is to value the scientific application of rationality, but not to elevate it to a status of determining truth, morality, or a notion of a good (not perfect) society. This means moving away from attempts to prove the existence of God from our experience of the world, such as we find in Aquinas, and a move toward recognizing that human beings often express their most profound aspirations in other ways, such as myth in the ancient world, and in the modern world in poetry and the arts, in stories and narratives, and in reflection upon the divine. Such expressions of rationality are attuned to the individual, the moment, the “existing individual,” as Kierkegaard would put it, as well as to the experience of wonder, amazement, and mystery. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> I want to say this carefully. A shallow reading of Hegel is common, even in scholarly circles. Prejudicial and shallow reading of the western intellectual tradition is becoming increasingly common. I am inclined to value the insights into modernity we find in Jurgen Habermas, Stephen Toulman, and Charles Taylor. A limited reading of great thinkers like Kierkegaard and Barth, one that cherry-picks to serve a political agenda, is becoming an all-too-common approach in academia. It begins to look like a modern version of idolatry and functions more like an ideology. Reading the great philosophical minds ought to shift perspectives, but it ought never to close them.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> I reflected on matters closely related to these concerns in a lectionary post: <a href="https://lectionarypondering.blogspot.com/2019/10/jeremiah-291-4-7.html" style="color: purple;">https://lectionarypondering.blogspot.com/2019/10/jeremiah-291-4-7.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-60208725471117559992022-06-15T05:50:00.004-07:002023-04-06T11:28:00.947-07:00A Personal Trinitarian Statement<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEighF-77FPObxuZqDfhbk9PPejhbXFt0_VYofAYSdYLq8zbNFtaVZFB1j7dfjndru9FjEAyQOKsqYoTm4S7rcGKFhrNQxPpTl06iOgzM9TZKhbb-6ZdxEZ8wRz1siqs5n-jPP3_NHo13aHHm6QVr604ey3muZQqOdXXBheeF87cIdhWPGT3PNIfU0phQw/s464/trinity-knot-logo-934117259.jpeg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="464" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEighF-77FPObxuZqDfhbk9PPejhbXFt0_VYofAYSdYLq8zbNFtaVZFB1j7dfjndru9FjEAyQOKsqYoTm4S7rcGKFhrNQxPpTl06iOgzM9TZKhbb-6ZdxEZ8wRz1siqs5n-jPP3_NHo13aHHm6QVr604ey3muZQqOdXXBheeF87cIdhWPGT3PNIfU0phQw/s320/trinity-knot-logo-934117259.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and John of Damascus were among those who urged church councils to adopt a set of beliefs regarding God, Christology, and the Holy Spirit. They would present their beliefs in concise, summary form. I thought I would put my mind to the same task. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Christian theology builds upon the ambiguous human experience of the divine, the sense that our finite and temporal lives connect to something much larger, and we are accountable for the lives we lead. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The Trinity is the way Christians identify God. This doctrine seeks a glimpse into the inner life of God, even though God is beyond our comprehension. God is Infinite and Eternal, meaning that God is present in every place and in every moment, giving God intimate knowledge of every place and every moment. The Infinite and Eternal essence of God means that the energy, grace, and presence of God is a reality for every finite and temporal thing. Yet, the Infinite cannot enter a relationship with the finite without becoming finite; thus, the infinite must embrace the finite. (Hegel). This suggests that God as the absolute Power of Being must be an activity shared between God and creature without undermining the ontological difference between them. We can think of the Trinity as the force-field proper to the divine persons as one exemplar of an analogous concept to that of “substance” in classical metaphysics, a generic concept denoting something that endures with a given structure in a world marked by constant change. The divine persons are interrelated lower-order person-making processes that co-constitute a single higher-order process that is constitutive of their life together as divine community. This higher-order process or system proper to the divine persons serves both as the transcendent origin and the goal of the cosmic process since it is a dynamic unity-in-trinity. This means the Trinity becomes an illustration of a philosophical paradigm for the complex relation between the One and the Many at various levels of existence and activity within reality.<a href="applewebdata://E381A8B5-BDAF-426B-AF75-1749E48D65E9#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> A person is one whom other persons may address in hopes of response. Christian speech to God is an address to the Father, with the Son, and in the Spirit. We stand before the Father, speaking in community with the Son, and are impelled by the Spirit. The mark of deity is endless futurity. The divine essence keeps things moving forward to an open future in a way that transcends past conditions and remains open to newness. The essence (οὐσία) of God is energy and movement. The Father has always generated the Son and the life-giving gift of the Spirit has always proceeded from the Father. The Spirit as an identity or a person, is the love between Father and the Son, liberating Father and Son to love each other, presenting the Son to the Father as an object of the love that generated the Son, while the Son adores the Father and the Spirit shows the Father as the available and loveable Father. The Spirit stands at the end of all the ways of God because the Spirit is the end of all the ways of God. The Spirit is the liveliness of the divine life because the Spirit is the power of the divine future. The Spirit is the one who, when the Spirit in time gives a down payment on the rule of God, gives the gift of the personal presence of the Spirit. The Spirit is the love into which all things will at the last be brought, who is thus the fulfillment not only of created life but the divine life. Thus, the goal of the divine activity is toward the presence and power of the Spirit. In this way, the presence and power of the Spirit, as transforming and life-giving, within finite and temporal life, means the Spirit is the destiny of the Trinity and of the creative work of the Father and the reconciling work of the Son.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> <a href="applewebdata://E381A8B5-BDAF-426B-AF75-1749E48D65E9#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Therefore, the inner life of God always included humanity and the finite and temporal world from which humanity would emerge. The Father was always moving outward toward all that the Son and Spirit embrace about our world. The three as ὑ πόστασις have always self-distinguished themselves from each other, recognizing that in distinguishing oneself from another defines oneself as also dependent upon that other. The essence of God is the loving embrace of this mutual relationship and dependence upon each other. The Father, through the Son and Spirit, has brought finitude, temporality, and therefore suffering, into the inner life of God, having done so eternally. Suffering, being the open would in the life of the world, will find healing only in the arrival of future of God.<a href="applewebdata://E381A8B5-BDAF-426B-AF75-1749E48D65E9#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What Christians say about the essence of God has its basis in revelation witnessed to in scripture. The Old Testament movement toward the affirmation of faith in the one of us all, confronting the enemy of death, the acceptance of an exclusive covenant with Yahweh that forms a relationship of Parent to child, establishing the calling to be servant of the Lord as a witness in the world, the presence of the Lord (Glory, Word, Spirit) as a power that moves persons and communities toward their divinely appointed destiny. This future that moves a story must be available within the story. In the scripture this occurs by God making promises, which makes history open to newness. The divine promise to the Patriarchs, to Moses and the Israelites, and to David, will find fulfillment in the exilic calling to Israel to be holy, devoted to the Lord, to be a royal people, to be a servant of the Lord witnessing to the nations. The Torah becoming an obstruction to the witness of these people, the promises would find fulfillment in the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The event of the Jewish teacher and prophet Jesus of Nazareth is the heart of this revelation. What some would say is impossible, the humbling of divinity to embrace a human being in his finitude, temporality, suffering, and death, Christianity proclaims as good news for the world. Raised by Jewish parents, Mary and Joseph, raised in the humble setting of Nazareth and distant from Jewish political and religious authority in Jerusalem and Roman political and economic authority in Rome, he received baptism by John the Baptist, taught using the humble form of parable and aphorism rather than the exalted form of learned discourse, and performed healings and exorcisms. Jesus lived a Spirit-filled life and ministry, led a life faithful to the Shema of Israel and the Jewish people, faithful to a loving embrace of the neighbor, and faithful to the proclamation to the rule of God. He lived out of an intimate relationship with his Father and invited others to participate in that relationship, and he proclaimed the arrival of the coming rule of God in his ministry. In the gathering of the Twelve he united himself with the continuing history of Israel. As the word and deed of Jesus reveal the significance of his person, so the Pauline gospel focused as well upon the significance of Jesus as the promised Messiah of Israel.<a href="applewebdata://E381A8B5-BDAF-426B-AF75-1749E48D65E9#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> The Son or Word of the Father, in this event that embraces finitude, temporality, suffering, and death, is revealing what it is to be God and determines the nature of divine infinity and eternity. Jesus of Nazareth is the Incarnation of the Son. As the Triune God is a communion within divine life, so is the life of Jesus an intimate communion of the divine and human. While differing in gender, race, and economic settings, what makes us human transcends such differences, making the incarnation of the Son of saving significance for all persons. The oneness of the divine essence has a parallel in the oneness of human essence. The self-actualizing of divine life within the relations of the Trinity has a parallel in the actualization of a human life in relation to others. Despite sin and suffering in this world, the Father lovingly embraces this world and finds it worthy of reconciliation and redemption. The event of Incarnation discloses the enslavement of humanity by sin. The cross reveals the extent of the love of God for humanity, bringing forgiveness of sin. He surrendered to the will of the Father by enduring the suffering and shame of the cross in his death for others and for their sin, but also received exaltation by the gift of life through the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit, being raised into the coming glory of the Father.<o:p></o:p></p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span> </span>Those who turn toward this event live their lives in Christ and Christ lives in them, through the life-giving power of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit gathers a people called the church who place their faith in the truth of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, thereby experiencing justification with God, builds them up in love toward God and their neighbor, thereby experiencing sanctification through the Spirit, and enlivens them to a life of hope, thereby living with a meaningful vocation. They can live in reconciliation with God and with their world. They honor the disciples and other saints, leaders, and teachers of the church throughout its history. The focus of this life is no longer inner-directed but directed outward, under the power of the Spirit, toward faithfully embodying the truth of the event of revelation through prayer and meditation upon the biblical witness, especially in living the Lord’s Prayer, in love toward God and neighbor, in the Ten Commandments, the vice-virtue lists in the New Testament, and leading a faithful, loving, and hope-filled life. In this way, embracing the truth expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity by faith will not be an abstraction, but engages those who believe it in an ongoing process of transforming love through the Spirit and into the image of the Son. One becomes part of a community united with Christ in his baptism, a symbol of moral cleansing, and in the Supper over which he presides, in communion with Christ and with fellow believers. One can then live with a future that includes the hope of personal and cosmic redemption, in which finitude and temporality will find their completion in the loving embrace of the Trinitarian relation through resurrection into the glory of the Father.</span><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://E381A8B5-BDAF-426B-AF75-1749E48D65E9#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="483212980">(Bracken 2014)</w:sdt>, 160-1. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://E381A8B5-BDAF-426B-AF75-1749E48D65E9#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1465934367">(Jenson 1997)</w:sdt>, Chapter 9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://E381A8B5-BDAF-426B-AF75-1749E48D65E9#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1495067107">(Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God 1980, 1981)</w:sdt>, Chapter 2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://E381A8B5-BDAF-426B-AF75-1749E48D65E9#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1177622716">(Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God 1980, 1981)</w:sdt>, Chapter 3.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-59766822922343774072021-12-05T12:31:00.000-08:002021-12-05T12:31:06.910-08:00Kierkegaard: Purity of Heart and Works of Love<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The following two works,</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Purity of Heart </i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">and</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Works of Love,</i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ought to have placed Kierkegaard in the ranks of classic devotional works.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 1846, Kierkegaard published <i>Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing </i>as part of the volume, <i>Edifying Discourses in Various Spirits.</i> He wrote it in his name. He dedicated it “that solitary individual.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> He wrote a brief “Preface.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 1 has the title, “Introduction: Man and the Eternal.” He quotes from Ecclesiastes 3:11, “God made all things beautiful in his time; also he hath set eternity within man’s heart.” Eternity must be able to exist within us. A discussion of it must have a different ring. Something shall always have its time. For some people, repentance came late. Outgrowing the eternal is to fall away from God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 2 has the title, “Remorse, Repentance, Confession: Eternity’s Emissaries to Man.” Some things should always be done. Some things should never have their time. There must be repentance and remorse. Grieving after God shall always have its time, and the option of not being in that condition ought not be present. Providence watches over the wandering of each human being through life. It provides the person with two guides. One calls the person forward. The other calls the person back. The two are in eternal understanding with each other. Sadly, many went astray through not understanding how to continue in a good beginning. Repentance and remorse know how to make sure of time in <i>fear and trembling.</i> In the eleventh hour one understands life in a wholly different way than in the easy of youth or in the busy time of adulthood or in the final moment of old age. One who repents at any other hour of the day repents in the temporal sense. The eternal enters our lives with its “obey at once.” It can come as a sudden shock that confuses the temporal. On the contrary, it should assist the temporal throughout life. One who becomes at one with oneself is in silence. What silence means, what the surroundings will say in this stillness, is the unspeakable. The unspeakable is like the murmuring of a brook. If you go buried in your own thoughts, if you are busy, then you do not notice it at all in passing. You are not aware that this murmuring exists. However, if you stand still, then you discover it. Of course, when it comes to confession, God is not learning something about you that God did not know. However, you learn something about yourself. The prayer does not change God, but prayer does change the one who offers it. The ignorance many have of their lives is their self-deceit. Only one thing can remove this ignorance.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 3 has the title, “Barriers to Willing One Thing: Variety and Great Moments are not one thing.” James 4:8 says, “Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts ye double-minded.” First, if it is to be possible, that people can will only one thing, then they must will the good. To see people rush toward their destruction is horrible. To see people dance on the rim of the abyss without any intimation of it is horrible. In the anxiety of death, people cry out for help, “I am going under, save me.” Yet, to see people quietly choose to be a witness to their own death is horrible. To will one thing is to allow it to fashion the individual into conformity with itself.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 4 has the title, “Barriers to Willing One Thing: the reward-disease.” Second, if it be possible for people to will one thing, then they must will the good in truth. If this is possible, then they must be at one with themselves in willing to renounce all double-mindedness. Kierkegaard prays that one might wound no one except for the purpose of healing. He does not want this talk to embitter anyone, yet, he wants his talk to reflect the truth. He wants the talk alone with truth to become sufficiently penetrating to reveal that which is hidden. He wants the talk to wipe out double-mindedness and win hearts for the good. However, people who desire the good for the sake of reward do not will one thing. They are double-minded. Such persons stand at the parting of the way, for two visions appear, the good and the reward. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 5 has the title, “Barriers to Willing One Thing: Willing out of fear of punishment.” People who will only will the good out of fear of punishment do not will one thing. They are double-minded. Such a person becomes the obstacle that keeps him or her from fulfilling his or her desire. The problem is that punishment may be the medicine one needs. A destructive spiritual illness is to fear what a human being out not fear. The only proof of the eternal is faith in it. Fear is a deceitful aid, while the good teaches and helps the one who strives toward it. The good and the punishment the world metes out are not identical. To think they are suggests that the world has become so perfect and so holy, that it is like God, ad that what it rewards is the good and what it punishes is evil. One may hear magnificent words about how the world progresses, and about our age and about our century. However, would you dare, as a parent say to your child as you send him or her into the world, “God, with your mind at ease, my child, pay attention to what they many approve and what the world rewards, for that is the good, but what the world punishes, that is evil.” As people grow older, they grow accustomed to a great deal in life. What we need is a dose of <i>fear and trembling</i> for what the world has become. Of course, the world has power to lay many a burden upon people, make their lives sour and laborious, and rob them of life. It cannot punish an innocent one. When good people stand within the fortification of eternity, they are stronger than the world. They are strongest of all at the time when they seem to be overcome. However, the impotent double-minded people have removed the boundary, because they will the good out of ear of punishment from the world. If the world is not really the land of perfection, then by their double-mindedness they have surrendered themselves to the power of mediocrity or pledged themselves to the evil. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 6 has the title, “Barriers to Willing One Thing: Egocentric Service of the Good.” Kierkegaard makes his third point that people who will the good and will its victory out of a self-centered willfulness do not will one thing. They are double-minded. The point, of course, is that the good wins, not that the person wins. Eternally, the good is always victorious. However, in time it is otherwise. Temporally, it may take a long time. The victory is slow. Its uncertainty is a slow measure of length. People confuse impatience with enthusiasm. People do not take time for things. We see this in children, of course. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 7 has the title, “Barriers to willing one thing: commitment to a certain degree. Kierkegaard wants to focus his fourth point upon weakness as it appears in the common things of real life, as people will the good only to a certain degree. Temporality and busyness make it appear as if eternity is far away. This press of busyness is like a charm. Its power swells. It reaches out, seeking always to lay hold of every-younger victims so that childhood or youth are scarcely allowed the quiet in which the eternal may unfold a divine growth. Such busyness and noise cause truth to slip steadily into oblivion. The mass of connections, stimuli, and hindrances make it increasingly difficult for people to win any deeper knowledge of themselves. A mirror can enable people to see their image, but they must stand still. If they rush past, they see nothing. We can keep mirrors in our pockets, but if we never take it out, we receive no image of ourselves. In this fashion, busy people hurry on, with the possibility of understanding themselves in their possession, but it never downs upon them that they are rapidly losing the capacity. Such people have plenty of excuses as to why any pause they do make in their lives makes them worse than before. Of course, general approval is on the side of the busy people among us. Such people have sentimental feeling toward the good, but the feeling is a deception. Time has no right to deny that the good has the advantage. However, time can stretch itself out and make it more difficult for the one who pauses and sees with clarity the victory of the good. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 8 has the title, “The Price of Willing One Thing: Commitment, Loyalty, Readiness to Suffer All.” What does it mean when we say that we want to accomplish something in the world? The temporal order cannot become a transparent medium of the eternal. In its given reality, the temporal order conflicts with the eternal. This makes the determination to accomplish something less plain. The more active the eternal is toward the witness, the stronger is the cleavage. The more the striver, instead of willing the eternal, is linked with the temporal existence, the more he or she accomplishes in the sense of the temporal existence. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 9 has the title, “The Price of Willing One Thing: The exposure of evasions.” At birth, everyone has an eternal vocation uniquely for that person. To be true to ourselves in relation to this eternal vocation is the highest thing we can practice. As Shakespeare in Henry V, Act 2, Scene 4 put it, “Self-love is not so vile a sin as self-neglecting.” We face one potential fault and one offense as to how we chose to live our lives: we have disloyalty to self or the denial of this better self. Some think that people can grasp truth, good, and beauty while being at least a little unfaithful to oneself. However, Kierkegaard does not think so. Truth does not need people, but people need truth. People true to their vocation have the pleasure of dying and losing nothing, for God is there all in all. They take everything with them into eternity. They lose nothing at death. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 10 has the title, “The Price of Willing One thing: An Examination of the Extreme Case of an Incurable Sufferer.” Willing the good involves willingness to suffer. Even the sufferer wishes for a happier temporal existence. The wish also causes increased pain. The wish is the life in suffering and the health in suffering. The comfort of temporal existence is a precarious affair. It lets the wound grow together, although it is not yet healed. The physician knows that the cure depends upon keeping the wound open. The wish keeps the wound open, in order that the eternal may heal it. Some wishes die in being born. We forget some wishes like our yesterdays. Some wishes we outgrow and later can scarcely recall. Some wishes one learns to give up, and how good it was to have given them up. Some wishes one hides away, as the cherished memory of a loved one. The active person may need a cure for such a wish. Some wishes die slowly. It remains with the sufferer even in the pain of loss. It will die only when the sufferer dies. The wish apples to one’s whole life. In contrast to the sadness of the wish, think of the joy attached to hope, faith and love. Kierkegaard makes an appeal to the reader that the journey of relief from the suffering brought by the wish is not long. The journey requires a single, decisive step. You can then emigrate to the eternal, for it lies much nearer to you than any foreign country. Yet, when you are there, within the eternal, the change is infinitely greater. So then, go with God to God, continually take that one step more, that single step that even you are still able to take. You can take that single step, even if you are the prisoner who has lost freedom and in chains. You are still able to take the step. Nobody, not even the greatest that has ever lived, can do more than you can. Now, the edifying contemplation finds no rest until it finds you. When the sufferer takes suffering to heart, the eternal offers help that move the person toward decision.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 11 has the title, “The Price of Willing One Thing: the sufferer’s use of cleverness to expose evasion.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 12, has the title, “What Then Must I Do? The Listener’s Role in a Devotional Address.” Such a talk must demand something from the listener. It must demand that the reader share in the work with the speaker; it must also demand decisive activity from the reader. What is the relationship between the speaker and the listener in this form of address? On the stage, someone sits and prompts by whispers. The person is the inconspicuous one. The person wants others not to notice his or her presence. Another person strides prominently and draws every eye to himself. He is the actor. He impersonates a distinct individual. Each word becomes true when embodied in him and true through him. Yet, he is told what he shall say by the hidden one that sits and whispers. Of course, no one is so foolish as to regard the prompter as more important than the actor. The foolishness of many is that they look upon the speaker as an actor, and the listeners as theatergoers who are to pass judgment upon the artist. However, the speaker is not the actor. Rather, the speaker is the prompter. Further, no mere theatergoers are even present, for each listener will be looking in his or her own heart. The stage is eternity. The true listener stands before God during the talk. The prompter whispers to the actor what he or she is to say, but the repetition by the actor is the main concern. The speaker whispers the word to the listeners. However, the main concern is the earnestness of the listeners, who are silent before God, but may learn to speak with the help of this devotional address. The speaker does not give the address for the sake of the speaker, so that others would offer praise. The repetition of the address is that at which the speaker aims. The speaker has the responsibility for what he or she whispers. The listener has an equally great responsibility not to fall short in his or her task. In the devotional address, God is present. God is the critical theatergoer, who looks on to see how the speaker delivers the lines and how well those on stage listen. The speaker is the prompter. The listener stands openly before God. The listener is the actor, who in all truth acts before God. The devotional address calls listeners to ponder whether they will one thing. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 13 has the title, “What Then Must I do? Live as an Individual.” People find it easier to hide in the crowd. One might also call it cowardly. In eternity, each of us shall give an account to God. Many fools do not make one wise. The crowd is a doubtful recommendation for a cause. The larger the crowd, the probably that it praises folly and the less probably that it praises truth. Are you conscious of your individuality? If someone stands outside of the crowd in a fearful way, not of the crowd, but of God, he or she will be a target of ridicule. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 14 has the title, “What then Must I Do? Occupation and Vocation; Mean and End. The talk now asks, “What is your occupation in life?” the point of the question is not whether your occupation is great or common, political leader or worker, wealthy or poor. The crowd is curious about these things. The point of the question in the devotional address is whether you dare to think of your occupation together with the responsibility you have toward eternity. Christ does not desire the crowd. Rather, the risen Lord desires the individual. The end is the good; the means is willing the good. Reaching the goal is like hitting the mark with a shot. Using the means is like taking aim. The aim is a more reliable indication of the goal than the spot the shot strikes. One can hit the mark by accident. One cannot blame the one taking aim if the bullet does not fire. However, that at which one aims can have no irregularity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Chapter 15 has the title, “Conclusion: Man and the Eternal.” Given that people are frail, Providence offers two companions for the human journey. One calls us forward. The other calls us back. People keep going further. Does nothing ever give you pause? Pausing is not a sluggish repose. Pausing is also movement, but an inward movement of the heart. To pause is to deepen oneself in inwardness. If you keep moving, you may go straight toward superficiality. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 1847, Kierkegaard finished <i>Works of Love: Some Christian Reflections in the Form of Discourses. </i>He published the book in his own name as one of his many “edifying discourses.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In the “Forward,” Kierkegaard says that what he writes is something can understand slowly, but also easily. He writes for “the single individual” who will ponder slowly. Since these are Christian reflections, they are not about love, but the works love. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In the “Prayer” that follows, he wonders how we could ponder love if we forget God, who is the source of love and is love. God shows us what love is in the Redeemer. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part One, Chapter I has the title, “Love’s Hidden Life and Its Recognizability by its Fruits.” Kierkegaard quotes from Luke 6:44. If it were true that we should believe in nothing we cannot see, we should give up believing in love. In temporality, one might slip through life without love. Eternally, however, one cannot escape love without discovering that one has lost everything. Love binds the eternal to the temporal. The place from love comes is hidden. Love is inward, while it also casts its influence upon all of life. Hidden springs may feed the quiet lake. The love of God is the ground of all human love. Yet, we know this hidden life of love by its fruits. I John 3:18 reminds us of this truth. True, love comes from the heart, but we also find it true that love forms the heart. It seems rare that eternity so invades a human life that it forms the heart. The gospel does to speak to us about other people. It speaks directly to us, as single individuals. We should fear only God in life. We should fear only one person – ourselves. Our awareness that we know love by its fruits should not lead us to judge others. Like knows like – therefore, only one who abides in love can recognize its fruits. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part One, Chapter IIA has the title, “You <i>Shall </i>Love.” Kierkegaard begins with Matthew 22:39. This Scripture wants to teach proper self-love. Christianity presupposes that people love themselves, and adds only that they need to love their neighbors the same way. Yet, an eternal difference exists between the two. Are we not able to love the neighbor more than self? The neighbor includes all people, friend, lover, and enemy. If you perceive what is best for your neighbor when your neighbor does not perceive it, the neighbor may receive it as harmful. Your desire to love the neighbor more than yourself will lead to complying with the neighbor no matter what or even adoring the neighbor because that the neighbor wants it. In philosophy, “neighbor” is “the other.” The Parable of the Good Samaritan should remind us that in recognizing our duty, we find our neighbor. The point is not to recognize the neighbor, but to be the neighbor. Finding a lover or friend is difficult, but finding the neighbor is easy. In fact, one way to read the command is this, “You shall love yourself in the right way.” The world rightly talks of treachery and faithlessness in the world. Let us not forget, however, that we are most in danger of being faithless and treacherous to ourselves. In the West, most of us grown up this command. Yet, we are in danger of being like a child who grows up in a beautiful home and forgets to have a grateful heart for daily bread. Love is common to all human society, but the command to love is the eternal invading the temporal. We are ungrateful for this extraordinary gift. What would we think of someone who was in love, but said it was a matter of indifference? In the same way, if we say we are Christian, we need to be Christian. The duty love makes love eternally secure. Spontaneous love can become jealous and a source of torment. The duty to love makes love eternally free. One defense against despair is the duty to love. Further, when the eternal commands us to love, it accepts the responsibility to make sure that we can do it. One may still experience misfortune, but the command to love keeps one from despair.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part One, Chapter IIB, has the title, “You Shall Love Your <i>Neighbor.</i>” Christianity discovers the neighbor and roots out all preferential love and moves toward the equality of the eternal. Some will offer their disagreement with Christianity here. To defend it is like fighting with air or coming to an agreement with air. Praise of erotic love and friendship belong to those outside of Christianity. Love of neighbor is the Christian concern. In Christendom, we are all baptized and instructed in Christianity. Consequently, any contrast between Christian and non-Christian is meaningless. However, for the single individual, being Christian is the highest aim. To the poet, the command to love is senseless, for the poet has in mind erotic love. Christianity dethrones the idolization of erotic love and friendship. For the poet, love and friendship are the ethical task and good fortune. The point is that erotic love and friendship can be another form of self-love. In fact, we often call the friend or the focus of erotic love the “other I” or the “other self.” We love this “other self,” but with more intensity. The fires of erotic love and friendship ignite self-love. Jealousy often shows itself. Christianity does not teach that we admire our neighbor. It only teaches that we shall love our neighbor. Love God, and then love the neighbor, and the neighbor in every person you meet. Yet, to one the one not attuned to this command, it becomes an offense. In fact, the way to being Christian is through offense. We find it hard to believe in the power of love to break all distinctions. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part One, Chapter IIC has the title, “<i>You </i>Shall Love Your Neighbor.” Take away all distinctions in love, says Kierkegaard, but do not stop loving those closest to you. Let love of neighbor sanctify the covenant of your marriage and deepen your friendships. Since God is love, since we are to be like God, we become co-workers with God in love, as the Danish of I Corinthians 3:9 suggests. You can lose your beloved. You can lose a friend. You can never lose your neighbor. We may think to praiseworthy to make love extraordinary toward a few persons. If this were so, God would be perplexed, for the love of God is equal to all. The object of our love is not extraordinary. Rather, love itself is extraordinary. The distinction of friend or enemy is a distinction in the object of love, but not for the commanded to love neighbor. The Christian view of neighbor causes us to look away or close our eyes to distinctions in the neighbor. In one sense, such love is blind. Of course, earthly distinctions clothe the neighbor. We cannot love a human life apart from the body. In the same way, such earthly distinctions are part of a human world. However, the Christian seeks victory over the temptations these distinctions represent. Walk with God, and God will show you what love for the neighbor means, even to your disadvantage. Love of neighbor is a thankless task. We strive with ideas and battle in dispute. However, to become victorious over our own minds in the reality of life is the great battle. Battling at a distance is like shadow-boxing. Our true battle is close to hand. Luther said it well when he said that he can do no other, for here he stands. In fact, love of neighbor seems both too large a task, and too little. To feed the poor and not see in it a feast is to see them as poor and unimportant. To feed the poor, and see it as a feast, is to see them as neighbors. At the hour of death, what is important is not that one has avoided opposition, but that one has survived it. All any of us can do is place ourselves at the disposal of divine governance. If we place ourselves in any other position, even if we accomplish “the remodeling of the world,” accomplish an illusion. Let me try an analogy. The world we experience is like a play. Every individual has a role to play, whether political leader or beggar. When the curtain falls – death – they are all alike. They are human beings. The stage of art is an enchanted world. If on the stage of actuality, the actors all thought they were the role they played, would this not be a bewitching spirit, an evil spirit? We forget that the distinctions of earthly life are costumes that we will one day shed. Love of neighbor is to remember that these earthly distinctions are a disguise. Christianity has no desire to abolish such distinctions. However, it does desire that they hang loosely on us. Kierkegaard concludes with a strong appeal. A characteristic of childhood is to say Me want – me – me. A characteristic of youth is to say, I want and I. The mark of maturity and the dedication of the eternal is to will to understand that this I has no significance if it does not become the you, to whom the eternal incessantly speaks and says, “You shall, you shall, you shall.” Youth want to be the only I in the whole world. Maturity is to understand this you as addressed to oneself, even though it were not said to a single other person. You shall, you shall love your neighbor. O, my reader, it is not to you I speak. It is to me, to whom the eternal says, “You shall.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part One, Chapter IIIA has the title, “Love is the Fulfilling of the Law.” Kierkegaard refers to Romans 13:10. Later, he refers to Matthew 21:28-31, a parable rarely heard preached. He thinks the text shows the danger of saying “Yes” in too great a hurry. The yes-brother was not a deceiver when he said yes, but became one when he failed to keep the promise. His eagerness became his snare. The yes of the promise is sleep inducing. The way that leads from no to repentance is easy to find. The no uttered, and then heard by him, was stimulating. Repentance was not far away. The one who says, “Sir, I will,” takes pleasure in the promise. The one who says no has fear of oneself. A no hides nothing. A yes can easily become self-deception, which of all difficulties is the most difficult to conquer. The saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is all too true. The most dangerous path for a human being is to go backward with good intentions and promises. We do not praise the son who said no, but the gospel warns us of the danger of saying, “Sir, I will.” In the question, “Who is my neighbor,” the questioner thought he would enter a dialogue with Jesus that would satisfy his curiosity. It would take a long time and end with how difficult it would be to answer to the question. He wanted to escape, to waste time, and to justify himself. Yet, the answer Christ gives contains the task, and imprisons the questioner, binding him to a task. The hypocritical questioner received the answer he deserved, but not the answer he wished. It is infinitely important that Christ said it, and to this person that he said it, even if, in a sense, the saying is to all. “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” Love in Him was pure action. His love was present in the least as well as the greatest. It did not gather in strength. It was equally present in every moment. It was the same love on the cross as it was when born. It was the same love that said that Mary has chosen the better part as rebuked, or forgave, Peter with a glance. It was the same love that received the disciples when they returned joyfully from their mission as when he found them sleeping. The law defines and defines, but love fulfills. Yet, law and love do not quarrel. The law causes people to groan because they see its endless demands and do not see the boundary it provides. Love fulfills the law because it is no shirker of tasks. For Christianity, teaches that love is human being – God – human being, that God is the middle term in the relationship of love. Regardless of how wonderful a relationship between two or more people may be, Christianly understood, it is an illusion of love without God in the middle of it. To love God is to learn to love self properly. To help another human being to love God is love that person. To receive the help of another human being to love God is to be loved. With the coming of Christ came the divine explanation of love. The friend we love may be one who helps us to love God, but may also be one who diverts us from that path. If God is in the relationship, God saves us from the illusion and self-deception of love. The talk of the world about love is confusing. When we tell a youth going out into the world, “Love, and you will be loved,” we say a true thing, if the youth goes into the land of perfection. However, we send the youth into this quite human world. We need to remind the youth to hold fast to God to learn what love is, for the world has a quite different conception of love. The world thinks of love in half-measures and secular associations. The highest that the world teaches about love is to love humanity and the good in such a way that you still watch out for number one – yourself. One can be deceived, but it takes time to recognize it. If your ultimate purpose is to have an easy life and be sociable, then do not choose Christianity. It will make your life difficult by placing you alone before God. The world deceives by keeping to its promises. Its friendship will lead one to forget God. The fulfilling of the law is a demand for inwardness and perseverance. As soon as you think you have done enough in loving, you are learning the demand of love.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part One, Chapter IIIB has the title, “Love as a Matter of Conscience.” Kierkegaard quotes from I Timothy 1:5. He notes that Christianity has not wanted to hurl governments from their thrones to put itself on the throne. The world makes a great noise merely to bring about a minor change. It sets heaven and earth in motion for nothing, like the mountain that gives birth to a mouse. Christianity makes the transformation of infinity in all stillness as if it were nothing. Christianity has not come into the world to teach this or that modification in how you in your particularity should love your wife or friend, but to teach how you in your universal humanity shall love all people. We may think that what we want is a free heart. The free heart has no concern. The heart bound to God has infinite concern. The free heart has no history. The heart bound to God understands the history of erotic love and friendship. Yet, these forms of love are just a little snippet within eternity. Your history began with birth. When someone prepares the couch of death for you, when someone turns you on your side, when the last friend and family leave, when someone bends over you for the last time to turn you on your side, and everything becomes quiet, one still remains at your side. God was there at your birth, and God will be there at your death. If your heart is pure, it becomes such because of your love for God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part One, Chapter IV has the title, “Our Duty to Love Those We See.” Kierkegaard refers to I John 4:20. Love is deeply grounded in human beings. Yet, people often find escapes to avoid this happiness. They manufacture deceptions to make themselves unhappy. We become judgmental of others, preferring to be fastidious about everyone else rather than severe toward oneself. To love the one we see is not the task of finding the loveable object, but rather to find the object already given loveable. One needs to love actual individuals and not slip into fanciful ideas about what we would like the person to be. We do not become alien to the other because of their weakness. Rather, the weakness becomes an alien, and we work on it together.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part One, Chapter V has the title, “Our Duty to be in the Debt of Love to Each Other.” Kierkegaard refers to Romans 13:8. The essential characteristic of love is that the lover by giving infinitely comes into infinite debt. The more love we give, the more debt of love we owe. Suppose someone were to do an act of love toward his beloved that everyone praises and recognizes as such. What would happen if the next thing he said was, “Good, now I have paid my debt.” Would we not all agree that this would be cold? An accounting can exist only in a finite relationship. One who loves cannot calculate. God brings up love in us. Yet, God does not do this simply to rejoice at the sight. God does this to send love into the world, continually occupied with the task. Kierkegaard advises that if the reader follows the advice in this book, tt will go hard for you in the world. Too many sermons leave out this warning. Christianity cannot avoid such adversity. The opposition that Christians experience in the world is not an accidental relationship to the world. Rather, the opposition of the world is the essential relationship of Christians to the world. No one should promise youth what Christianity cannot deliver. It delivers the ingratitude of the world, opposition, and mockery. This is the final difficulty of being a Christian. In this sense, Christian sermons need to preach against Christianity. To the world, Christianity is a form of lunacy. Being a Christian means listening to music others do not hear. The world cannot get into its head that everyone should not have the same inclinations and passions as it does. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter I has the title, “Love Builds Up.” Kierkegaard directs us to I Corinthians 8:1. He refers to the common expression of “to build up,” as in construction. He then notes that all of us, through our lives, conduct, behavior, relationships, language, and expression, can build up, and we will do so, if love is at the center. To build up is to construct something from the ground up. In the simple illustration of a house, everyone knows the significance of a foundation. However, what can we consider the ground and foundation of the spirit that can bear the building? Properly understood, love is the deepest ground of the life of the spirit. The foundation is already there, every person who loves. Love is what edifies. The lover presupposes that love is in the heart of the other person. Through this presupposition, the lover builds up love in the other person. A teacher presupposes the student is ignorant. A disciplinarian presupposes the corruption of the other person. The lover presupposes love in the other person. The lover entices good out of the other person. Reflect upon the “work” of nature. It continues, even while we sleep. The forces of nature do not sleep. Love does not sleep. It continues its work, forming us even when we are not aware of it. If it succeeds in its work, it bears the fruit of love. Of course, love is not always present. For that reason, one can always presuppose something else in the other person by focusing upon the flaw we have seen. One may even try to remove the flaw to build up love. Love builds up, even when the instinct is to tear down because of some flaw we have seen. What Paul describes the character of love in I Corinthians 13.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter II, has the title, “Love Believes All Things – And Yet is Not Deceived.” The text is I Corinthians 13:7. Kierkegaard points out, based upon I Corinthians 13, that when everything is gone, love remains. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter III, has the title, “Love Hopes All Things And Yet is Never Put to Shame.” Kierkegaard points out that the Bible seeks to bring festive dignity in earthly life through its metaphorical expressions through relationship with the eternal. The earthly evaluation of life can enclose itself in a prison of God forsakenness. We can experience time as going so slowly one time, and then so rapidly. We are hardly aware of the vanishing quality of time or the stagnant quality of time. In either case, time becomes a falling away from the eternal. We feel the need for a refreshing and enlivening gale, which would cleanse the air of its poisonous vapors. We feel the need for a saving moment from the stagnation. We feel the need for an enlivening expectation. We do not want the suffocation of worldliness to destroy us. The moment can be like a whirlpool. The moment can be stagnant. To hope in all things lovingly is the opposite of despair. When one has hope, the future is in mind, and therefore possibility rather than actuality. The possibility is for advancing or retrogressing, rising up or going under, good or evil. The eternal simply is. When the eternal touches time, they do not meet each other in the present, for then the present would itself be eternal. The present is so quickly past that it is hardly present at all. The present is a boundary and therefore transitional. The past is what was present. If the eternal is in the temporal, it is in the future or in possibility. The reason for this is that the present cannot get hold of the eternal and the past is past. The eternal is eternal, but when the eternal is in time it becomes possibility. When the duality of possibility impinges upon us, we are in expectation. To relate oneself to the possibility of the good is to hope, which is a relationship to the eternal. To relate oneself to the possibility of evil is to fear. Both are in expectation. When one chooses hope, one is choosing something infinitely more than what it might appear. The reason is the eternal nature of the decision. The reason hope is not deceived is that hope always has a relationship to the possibility of the good. To hope is to make oneself light by means of the eternal. In some ways, hope is for youth. As we age, our lives dissolve into dull repetition and re-writing. No possibility arouses one to wakefulness. Hope becomes something that does not have a home and possibility becomes rare. When the eternal is not present, one lives by the help of habit, prudence, conformity, experience, custom and usage. Yet, no particular age is an age of hope. The whole our lives is a time of hope. Think of it this way. When an adult teaches a child to accomplish a task, the adult does not lay everything out at the beginning. It would overwhelm the child. The eternal does not lay out our tasks all at once. Yet, it is wonderful that the eternal can make itself so small. The eternal clothes itself in the form of the future, of possibility, and of hope. The eternal lays out only a small piece at a time. In possibility, the eternal is near enough to be at hand, but far enough away to keep us advancing toward the eternal, on the way, in forward movement. In this way, the eternal lures and draws us toward the possible, if only we will hope. Nothing can put hope to shame, and thus it will always receive honor, because of what we expect when we hope. However, the unloving person perhaps proved right by what he or she expected in a small-minded way, is the one who will experience shame.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter IV, has the title, “Love Seeks Not Its Own.” Kierkegaard chooses I Corinthians 13:5 as his text. If we seek to become the object of the love of another person, we seek our own. The proper object of love is God, and that means that God is the only proper object of love, for God is love. Love is a change. Love is a revolution. Love is a life-giving confusion. Without you and I, there is no love. With mine and yours, there is no love. The lover understands that every person stands alone. The lover seeks to help the other become who he or she is. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter V, has the title, “Love Hides the Multiplicity of Sins.” Human life and experience teaches us the multiplicity of sins. As in the game of a child, the lover cannot see what is right before him or her. What love sees, it sees with forgiveness. The person who withholds forgiveness increases, making it greater. Forgiveness takes vitality away from sin. Yet, to withhold forgiveness nourishes sin. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter VI, has the title, “Love Abides.” Kierkegaard has I Corinthians 13:13 as a text. If love abides, love is in the future, if you need that consolation. If love abides, love is in the present, if you need that consolation. Against all our fears of the future, love abides. Against all the anxieties of the present, love abides. The thought that love abides is an upbuilding one, for when we speak this way, we speak of the love of God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter VII, has the title, “Mercifulness, the Work of Love, Even if it Can Give Nothing and is Capable of Doing Nothing.” Kierkegaard notes that from an eternal perspective, everything dealing with God is in earnest. From the perspective of the world, everything dealing with money is in earnest. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter VIII, has the title, “The Victory of Reconciliation in Love Which Wins the Vanquished.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter IX, has the title, “The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead.” Kierkegaard says that this work, that of remembering one dead, is an unselfish act of love. The possibility of repayment is gone, so it surely is unselfish. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Part Two, Chapter X, has the title, “The Work of Love in Praising Love.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"> The book ends with the “Conclusion.”<o:p></o:p></p>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-27376434878337842462021-11-29T13:10:00.005-08:002022-01-14T11:53:53.601-08:00Essay on Existentialism<style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
h1
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.3in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.3in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:1;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.4in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:2;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
h3
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Heading 2";
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.4in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:3;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:4;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
h5
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:10.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:5;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
font-weight:normal;}
h6
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 6 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:6;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
font-weight:normal;}
p.MsoHeading7, li.MsoHeading7, div.MsoHeading7
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 7 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:7;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
font-style:italic;}
p.MsoToc1, li.MsoToc1, div.MsoToc1
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
p.MsoToc2, li.MsoToc2, div.MsoToc2
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:12.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoToc3, li.MsoToc3, div.MsoToc3
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:24.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc4, li.MsoToc4, div.MsoToc4
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc5, li.MsoToc5, div.MsoToc5
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:48.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc6, li.MsoToc6, div.MsoToc6
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:60.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc7, li.MsoToc7, div.MsoToc7
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc8, li.MsoToc8, div.MsoToc8
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:84.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc9, li.MsoToc9, div.MsoToc9
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:96.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Header Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 249.3pt right 431.95pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Footer Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 3.0in right 431.95pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoCaption, li.MsoCaption, div.MsoCaption
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-style:italic;}
span.MsoFootnoteReference
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
span.MsoCommentReference
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;}
span.MsoEndnoteReference
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
vertical-align:super;}
p.MsoEndnoteText, li.MsoEndnoteText, div.MsoEndnoteText
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Endnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoList, li.MsoList, div.MsoList
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Body Text";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoTitle, li.MsoTitle, div.MsoTitle
{mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Title Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:15.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid #4472C4 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:accent1;
padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;
font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoTitleCxSpFirst, li.MsoTitleCxSpFirst, div.MsoTitleCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Title Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid #4472C4 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:accent1;
padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;
font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoTitleCxSpMiddle, li.MsoTitleCxSpMiddle, div.MsoTitleCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Title Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid #4472C4 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:accent1;
padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;
font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoTitleCxSpLast, li.MsoTitleCxSpLast, div.MsoTitleCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Title Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:15.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid #4472C4 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-themecolor:accent1;
padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 4.0pt 0in;
font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent
{mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:.25in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent2, li.MsoBodyTextIndent2, div.MsoBodyTextIndent2
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:.25in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoBlockText, li.MsoBlockText, div.MsoBlockText
{mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:.5in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:navy;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
strong
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
em
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:justify;
line-height:12.0pt;
mso-pagination:none;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
cite
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:green;
font-style:normal;}
p.MsoCommentSubject, li.MsoCommentSubject, div.MsoCommentSubject
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-next:"Comment Text";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoRMPane, li.MsoRMPane, div.MsoRMPane
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBibliography, li.MsoBibliography, div.MsoBibliography
{mso-style-priority:37;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoTocHeading, li.MsoTocHeading, div.MsoTocHeading
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Heading 1";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:16.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
mso-ansi-font-size:16.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading5Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 5 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;}
span.Heading6Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 6 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 6";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;}
span.Heading7Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 7 Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 7";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F3763;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;
font-style:italic;}
span.WW8Num2z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num2z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num3z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num3z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num3z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num4z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num4z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.Absatz-Standardschriftart
{mso-style-name:Absatz-Standardschriftart;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.DefaultParagraphFont1
{mso-style-name:"Default Paragraph Font1";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.DefaultParagraphFont
{mso-style-name:"Default Paragraph Font*";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW8Num4z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num4z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num8z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num8z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num8z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num10z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num10z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num10z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num11z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num11z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num11z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num12z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num12z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num20z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num20z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num20z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num22z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num22z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num30z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num30z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num30z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num31z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num31z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num32z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num32z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num32z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num33z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num33z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW-DefaultParagraphFont
{mso-style-name:"WW-Default Paragraph Font";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
p.Heading, li.Heading, div.Heading
{mso-style-name:Heading;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-next:"Body Text";
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.BodyTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Index, li.Index, div.Index
{mso-style-name:Index;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Caption, li.Caption, div.Caption
{mso-style-name:Caption*;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
p.Index0, li.Index0, div.Index0
{mso-style-name:Index*;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.DocumentMap, li.DocumentMap, div.DocumentMap
{mso-style-name:"Document Map*";
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
background:#00007F;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.CommentTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.CommentSubjectChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FooterChar
{mso-style-name:"Footer Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Footer;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Framecontents, li.Framecontents, div.Framecontents
{mso-style-name:"Frame contents";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Body Text";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.HeaderChar
{mso-style-name:"Header Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Header;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FootnoteCharacters
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Characters";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
p.H3, li.H3, div.H3
{mso-style-name:H3;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:4;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
layout-grid-mode:line;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.BodyTextIndentChar
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Indent Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.EndnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Endnote Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Endnote Text";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.grame
{mso-style-name:grame;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.spelle
{mso-style-name:spelle;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.BodyTextIndent2Char
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2";}
span.TitleChar
{mso-style-name:"Title Char";
mso-style-priority:10;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Title;
mso-ansi-font-size:26.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:26.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#323E4F;
mso-themecolor:text2;
mso-themeshade:191;
letter-spacing:.25pt;
mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;}
span.versetext4
{mso-style-name:versetext4;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
p.Illustrationsources, li.Illustrationsources, div.Illustrationsources
{mso-style-name:"Illustration sources";
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:right;
text-indent:9.0pt;
line-height:13.0pt;
mso-pagination:none;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"ITC Garamond";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"ITC Garamond";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.WW-FootnoteReference
{mso-style-name:"WW-Footnote Reference";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
p.line, li.line, div.line
{mso-style-name:line;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.text
{mso-style-name:text;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.indent-1-breaks
{mso-style-name:indent-1-breaks;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;
color:teal;}
span.msoDel
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:line-through;
color:red;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page
{mso-footnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fs;
mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fcs;
mso-endnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") es;
mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") ecs;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:-2;
mso-list-type:simple;
mso-list-template-ids:-1;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:*;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:0in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1;
mso-list-template-ids:1;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.3in;
text-indent:-.3in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.4in;
text-indent:-.4in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.5in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.6in;
text-indent:-.6in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.7in;
text-indent:-.7in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.8in;
text-indent:-.8in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.9in;
text-indent:-.9in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-1.0in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.1in;
text-indent:-1.1in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2;
mso-list-template-ids:2;
mso-list-name:WW8Num2;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:3;
mso-list-template-ids:3;
mso-list-name:WW8Num3;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.75in;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:4;
mso-list-type:simple;
mso-list-template-ids:4;
mso-list-name:WW8Num4;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:16930871;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2110335272 1119264080 67698709 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:81.75pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:81.75pt;
text-indent:-45.75pt;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.25in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:63845097;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2008794590 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l6:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:99496445;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-757197870 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l7:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l7:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l8
{mso-list-id:406802773;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-902806402 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l8:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9
{mso-list-id:453062310;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-894027502 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l9:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l9:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l9:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l10
{mso-list-id:1072434472;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1755567560 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l10:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l10:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l10:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l11
{mso-list-id:1210385719;
mso-list-template-ids:-1562760418;}
@list l11:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l11:level2
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:0in;}
@list l11:level3
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:.85in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.85in;
text-indent:-.35in;}
@list l11:level4
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.2in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.2in;
text-indent:-.45in;}
@list l11:level5
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.55in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.55in;
text-indent:-.55in;}
@list l11:level6
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.9in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.9in;
text-indent:-.65in;}
@list l11:level7
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:2.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.75in;}
@list l11:level8
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.%8\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:2.6in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.6in;
text-indent:-.85in;}
@list l11:level9
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.%8\.%9\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-1.0in;}
@list l12
{mso-list-id:1367213592;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1738765188 67698689 67698691 67698715 -919930140 -1427178346 935498526 68702720 67698713 67698715;}
@list l12:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l12:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l12:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l12:level4
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l12:level5
{mso-level-text:"%5\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l12:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-text:%6-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:333.0pt;
text-indent:-.5in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:#202122;}
@list l12:level7
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-upper;
mso-level-text:"%7\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l12:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l12:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l13
{mso-list-id:1625237233;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1789710682 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l13:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l13:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l13:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l13:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14
{mso-list-id:2034529921;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-105629534 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l14:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l14:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l14:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l14:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l14:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l14:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l14:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level1 lfo5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-numbering:continue;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
mso-level-legacy:yes;
mso-level-legacy-indent:.25in;
mso-level-legacy-space:0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
-->
</style><h2 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Existentialism Essay<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgIv5hPskjqa5MkyIuL6R_lT5gIim9NlIXsOHEQP-hCWRRv8bMhJKhBygkBTEoOEXkjp6mT84OpCr0LFJ0_OYHJGJOesCR6KiSvHb-5zAdUKFGtqk6QNhNViTfaxLUkqbcwWPMZAAyhAtAqIDFSCxaF9nv_fHzd7S-prmD_XzrS89vfPDQIQkFDK_IXSQ=s474" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="279" data-original-width="474" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgIv5hPskjqa5MkyIuL6R_lT5gIim9NlIXsOHEQP-hCWRRv8bMhJKhBygkBTEoOEXkjp6mT84OpCr0LFJ0_OYHJGJOesCR6KiSvHb-5zAdUKFGtqk6QNhNViTfaxLUkqbcwWPMZAAyhAtAqIDFSCxaF9nv_fHzd7S-prmD_XzrS89vfPDQIQkFDK_IXSQ=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br />Every great work makes the human face more admirable and richer, and this is its whole secret.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333335876464844px;">The one thing your friends will never forgive you is your happiness. - Albert Camus<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">It is Europe’s mystery that life is no longer loved. – Albert Camus<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">This essay on existentialism will explore the role it might play in the formation of a theological approach to humanity, clarify the place philosophy and science in relation to any notion of divine revelation, explore the strangeness of the kerygma/gospel to modern ears, gain clarity into the act of faith, and even re-examine my view of Jewish apocalyptic and eschatology and their continuing relevance for theology and church today.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">I take Heidegger in <i>Being and Time </i>as providing the pattern of existential philosophy. However, the family of existential philosophers do not all think alike, and I will broaden our understanding of the possibilities within existentialism by consideration of other authors, such as Kierkegaard, Sartre, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, and Marcel. I will draw upon Bultmann as a theologian who takes Heidegger seriously. I have found Paul Tillich and John Macquarrie helpful in describing existentialism and incorporating the philosophy into their theological reflections. Albert Camus is an absurdist whose writings overlap with existentialist themes and provide an interesting alternative to some of the emphases one finds in existentialism. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">An understanding of existentialism can lead one to put it in the role that natural theology has in Roman Catholic theology. If one seeks a point of contact between theology and nontheological anthropological studies, existentialism, especially as seen in Heidegger, may be of assistance. Paul Tillich wanted his systematic theology to correlate with philosophy,<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> his primary dialogue being existentialism as the best interpretation of the situation faced by his generation. Existentialism was his way of sharing common ground with the questions his generation were asking. His famous notion of “ultimate concern” as defining this common ground acknowledges the existential character of religious experience. The questions of disruption, conflict, self-destruction, meaninglessness, and despair reveal the situation of his time, to which the New Being appearing in Christ is an answer that overcomes the self-estrangement of human existence, offering reconciliation, creativity, meaning, and hope. These answers contained in revelation are already implied in the questions that arise from human existence.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> John Macquarrie is explicit about the role of Heidegger in his approach to theology. He refers to it as a contemporary style of natural theology that that begins with the common humanity that each of us knows as those existing in the world. He refers to it as existential rather than rationalistic.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> Too much of philosophy focuses upon symbolic logic or has a close connection to how we can be certain of any human knowledge. Existentialism is a reminder that people pursue philosophy because of their concern with the art of living. Most of us take for granted the lack of certainty of knowledge. What we want are ways to live a meaningful and happy life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Existentialism will direct our attention to the phenomenon of human existence. It will want to find ways of describing who we are as human beings in our normal, average, everyday experiences. Husserl inspired such interest as he explored the embedded quality of human beings in the world as inter-subjectivity, the intentional quality of consciousness as always being directed to something in the world, perception is an involuntary act within the perceptual field of our life-world, the spirit of always returning to the beginning, and opposing tradition and valuing experience. He stressed that our perception of reality is through a community of persons. We experience our freedom as we set aside the past. The intentional object of consciousness already discloses that the person values, enjoys, loves, and hopes. He recognized that we direct our attention in numerous ways to our world and proposed the notion of regional ontologies like the physical sciences, psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and philosophy. Husserl was unhappy with the direction Heidegger and other existentialists would take.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Even Husserl recognized that his phenomenology was not meeting the needs of the tensions that arose in Europe in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century. It would be his students and those influenced by his writings who would give phenomenology an existential interpretation. The concern of the existentialist was to use phenomenology to describe accurately the everyday experience of human beings in modern culture, which they would view in negative ways, but also provide a way of lifting ourselves out of the ordinary identification of ourselves with the crowd or mass and into some form of illumination that will help us see the potential of our unique lives. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> One can see in existentialism the influence of both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Both insisted on the primacy of the individual and the struggle involved in a human life. Taking their path seriously means rejection of a philosophy that absorb the individual into a system. It also means rejection of the scientific and mathematical method as providing a model for way of existing in the world as an authentic human being. <a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> It suggests that only in extreme situations does humanity disclose itself.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> To be oneself and to remain oneself is a trickier matter than most people think. We are involved in situation within the world and presses upon us from within as well as from without. Our ontological bond with the world precedes our knowledge of it. We are in a unified whole that we might call world or universe. Yet, recognizing that such a notion of the involved self leads to indeterminate notion of self, it may be that anything the philosopher has to say is of little more than subjective value. Science addresses the universally human, but philosophy must address the individual in a way that assists people in their chosen way of existing in the world.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Existentialists will keep pushing us to engage in the tricky journey to know ourselves, believing that such knowledge will yield the meaningful life we seek. <o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Openness to the World: Mood, Understanding, Language<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Existentialists are aware of the scientific approach to humanity that merges humanity with nature. Humanity is a complex entity within a system of entities that are in relation to each other. Being is simply there. Existentialist will want to distinguish humanity from such generalized Being. If we turn to metaphysics, existentialism will tend to view the human being or consciousness arising out of the stuff that is simply there. If existentialists would have an interest in metaphysics, it would move against the dualism of mind and matter and argue for the close connection that mind/matter have. The appearance of Being has an absurd quality to it. It has no reason to be, it has no meaning, and it has no purpose. It is undifferentiated and meaningless massiveness. Something is simply there. We might think of it as the ontological shock that there is something rather than nothing. Such questions do not arise with the inanimate universe or even with low level biological life. Such questions arise only with the appearance of the human being. The development of consciousness required the pre-existence of Being, so the human being arises out of the generalized stuff that is already there. We are the ones who raise the question of why we are here, of what our destiny might be, and what our role might be in the world. We did not ask to be born. We simply are – and are not. The contingency of human existence is such that our “being” is not determined. We create our unique mode of being in a way no other being in the world can claim to do. We must bear this responsibility that our freedom has been placed upon us.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> Thus, Being refers to the wholeness of human reality, and therefore the structure, meaning, and aim of human existence.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What is Being? The question implies the possibility of non-being. First, the basic ontological structure is implicit in question, and deals with the relation between self and world. Only the human being is aware of the structure of Being. We are the ones who ask the ontological question and the ones in whose self-awareness the answer can be found. Being a self means separation from everything else while also belonging to that at which it looks. The self-world polarity is the basis for the subject-object structure of reason. Existentialism will resist every attempt to turn a subject into an object. Second, there are three pairs of elements that constitute this structure. 1) Individuality and universality, where in other entities the species is dominant, but with human beings the individual longs for proper recognition by its cultural, political, and economic arrangements. Human beings arrive upon individuation through participation in the natural and social structures into which birth has thrown them. Human beings know as they participate in their world, even if that means indifference or hostility. 2) Dynamics and form are the interation of potentiality for Being and the form that Being. To be is to have form. The dynamic character of Being implies the tendency of everything to transcend itself and to create new forms, making it impossible to think of Being without also thinking of becoming. 3) Freedom and destiny suggest the polarity of spontaneity and law, of indeterminism and determinism, of the possible and the necessary. Destiny recognizes the future orientation of this process of becoming what we shall be. Freedom suggests deliberation, decision, and responsibility. Destiny is that out of which our decisions arise. Freedom participates in shaping destiny. Destiny has an eschatological connotation. Third, the power of Being to exist consists of the polarity between essential and existential, or between potentiality and actuality. The ontological shock that there is something rather than nothing is matched by the ontological shock that contained within Being is the possibility of non-being. Existentialism wants us to face this nothingness and the threat of meaninglessness, which would mean the destruction of the structure of Being. The only way of dealing with the threat lies in the courage of taking it upon oneself. Finitude is unintelligible without nonbeing. Fourth, the category of Being and knowing as they participate in finitude. The limitation of nonbeing upon Being is finitude. To be something is to be finite. We anticipate that end. To be aware of moving toward death, we must look out over our finite being and move beyond it, imagining infinity. The notion of infinite directs the mind to experience its unlimited potential. The fact that we are never satisfied with any stage of our finite development, the fact that nothing finite can hold us, although finitude is our destiny, indicates the indissoluble relation of everything finite to Being. Thus, awareness of finitude is anxiety. Such a mood is ontological. The four main categories are the forms in which the mind grasps and shapes reality. They are ontological and are present in everything. Time is the central category of finitude, negatively suggesting the transitoriness of everything and positively suggesting the creative character of the temporal process. Time unities the anxiety of transitoriness and the courage of a self-affirming present. To be means to have space. To have no space would mean insecurity and anxiety and to secure a space is courage. Causality requires the courage to embrace our contingency. Substance is the union of being and nonbeing in everything finite, pointing to something underlying the flux appearances. Everything finite is anxious that its substance will be lost. Every change reveals the relative nonbeing of that which changes. Such concepts are a priori and present in every experience.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Science presupposes an original and unique perceptual relation to the world that we cannot explain in scientific terms. Our embodied existence is a limit upon our freedom. Lived experience enables us to grasp the significance of language, perception, and the body. We stand in worder in the face of the world. The “inter-world” that is, the forms of transcendence found in body, the natural world, and society, helps us avoid the danger of solipsism. The body ties us to this world. Lived experience occurs within the temporal flux as well as space. We are perpetual beginners. Because of the body, human beings are not just in space, but they are of space. The body is already in the world. Our embodied perception means perception is only within a specific situation. In this sense, the perceiving mind is an incarnated mind. This means that the perceiving subject is always changing and going through a process of rebirth. Consciousness is perceptual. Any certainty we have derives from perception that requires close attention and investigation. Such an understanding of the perceiving subject opens the way for a description of the living present. The world is what we live through. I am open to the world, and I am in communication with it. We exist in unity with a world that simply is. I have tacit knowledge of the world that is part of my phenomenal field. This tacit awareness as we perceive contains the sense of meaning and significance of the world, that is, the connectedness of the field. Language becomes the living present in speech. To speak and communicate is equivalent to becoming aware that there are only successive living presents. Language raises the question of a relation with the Other, to nature, to time, and to death, in ways that are not describable in mathematical terms. Reality is thick with meaning, so that ideology, politics, religion, economics, psychology, and biography can be true if we accept them within their separate fields. The question of meaning reveals the core weakness of humanity in that we do not know how we fit into the natural or social world. Reflection or reason is how we seek to compensate for this core weakness, giving us the means to learn ways to improve life on this planet. Reflection and reason bring to our consciousness what we tacitly know. In the process, we gain strength in the world as individuals and as human beings. We struggle to perceive meaning that is already there. We are part of that structure of meaning. We are part of the horizon of meaning and significance that already exists in the world. Everything that we perceive emerges from the field and is therefore part of the background of the figure that emerged. Our perception changes, as we perceive the figure from various perspectives of that relatedness to the background. Perception opens a window upon the world. The tacit thesis of perception is that at every instant we coordinate experience with the previous instant and that of the following. I also coordinate my perspective with other persons. Nothing is more difficult than to know precisely what we see. The phenomenal field is also a transcendental field. Reflection must arrive at an awareness of itself as well as the results of its reflections.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One difficulty in the journey of self-discovery is that human beings are so open to the world into which they have been thrown by birth that they naturally absorb what they experience. The self of the individual identifies with Others in a way that becomes a prison.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> The question will become how we gain access to the unique self we are when the dominant forces that determine who we are derive from They/Others. Experience invites us to surpass ourselves and engage a world that transcends us. Being transcends any knowledge we have of it. We are conscious of objects and our desire to know directs us toward the world, while our consciousness of knowing directs us to our act of perceiving the world. The recognition of beauty reveals transcendence. The aesthetic intuition directs us out of self and engage the world. Yet, the beautiful haunts the world as unrealizable. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One path to the self is that of feeling or mood. All moods have intentionality in that they refer so some state of affairs beyond themselves or situations in which the person participates. A mood attunes us to the environment and is an awareness and response to the situation we face. Emotional life is shot through with intelligence. It is thought that does not yet have words. A feeling or mood is our receptivity to our experience of the world. They become signs of our welcome or rejection of what we discover in our world. We can try the role of a spectator of the world around us and never participate. However, contemplation is an intimate mode of participation in the world.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> Contemplation is a form of looking that receives an object into oneself. It transcends inward and external. It arises from anxious self-questioning of the relation between me and my life.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> Fear is a mood that discloses who we are in a unique way. One experiences fear of something that is out there. Such anxiety is near to awe in that it opens our eyes to the wonder of Being.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> This mood underlies most of ordinary encounters with the world. Existentialism will want to elevate the experience of a mood into significant place in philosophical reflection. It will disclose the phenomenon of our everydayness. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Existentialism is confident that deep down in every person there dwells an anxiety that he or she become alone in the world, forgotten, overlooked among this huge household of millions upon millions. One keeps this anxiety at bay by seeing many people around one who are bound to one as kin and friends. Nevertheless, the anxiety is there all the same. One dare hardly think what it would feel like if one could take away all this anxiety.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We are not now whom we shall be, for we create ourselves with every decision we make. Our anguish or dread over this reality reveals our fragility. Being is everywhere, but our lack of Being, our lack of the fullness we desire, haunts us. This emptiness of the future is our anguish. Our freedom is how this emptiness of the future enters the world. Anguish is my consciousness of this empty future. Consciousness of my freedom also generates this anguish. I may await myself in the future, but my anguish is the fear of not finding myself at that appointment. My anguish is a distraction from my responsibility for my future and an attempt to disarm the past of its threat to imprison me.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A second path is through our seeking to understand and interpret the world one experiences, thereby using rationality/thinking. The bridge between entities in the world and human beings is knowledge. Knowledge is the presence of Being to the human being.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> One develops assertions or opinions about the world. The worldview develops for some as they thematize their understanding and interpretation of the world. In these ways, the world becomes an object and they become the subject. They have separated themselves from a world that they inhabit and from a world that is already within them. This subject-object split is the source of the experience of alienation from the world, especially as embodied in other persons. Existentialism rejects the subject-object split of early modernity represented in Descartes and Kant. As Marcel put it, human beings are not in the world alone. Rather, we are in the world together. Contrary to the Cartesian, "I think, therefore I am," he proposed that "we are” is the fundamental affirmation of contemplation and reflection. He had a particular concern that Sartre had an excessive concern with the self and did not leave room for genuine communion with the other. There is no “we” in Sartre. Existentialism will grant science its vital role in understanding humanity and world, but it refuses to submit to the objectification all science requires as a model for the way human beings ought to exist in the world. The scientific path of objectifying that which it studies, if applied to the way one exists in the world, can only lead to homelessness. It refuses to view the human being as a subject removed from nature, persons, and culture as objects. The person develops the self out of its emergence in the world. We dwell in the world and the world dwells in us. This means ontology is prior to epistemology. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The development of assertions and opinions based upon our interpretation of the world is an important aspect of rationality. However, we develop opinions regarding that which we have no knowledge. We form opinions at a distance, saying “I maintain that” or “I claim that.” Opinion is a seeming that becomes a claiming. If we saw properly our situation as recognizing that something only “seems” to be the case, we would not make our way to the affirmation. Making unilateral judgments are of the nature of opinion. Less authentic information leads to greater aggression, while authentic information will lead to lessening unilateral judgments. It will lead to deeper appreciation for the journey it would take for one to disagree with your opinion. The militant atheist claims to have a collection of facts that are incompatible with belief in God, most of which center around the presence of evil and suffering. The atheist relies upon an idea of God, which for the believer feels like a false idea of God. Faith is a matter of believing in someone. Believing involves following; I gather myself and rally myself to that in which I believe. If I believe in God, I affirm the existence of God. I may have a set of experiences that lead me to cut me off from my faith. To “lose one’s faith” is to fall away. One may think of this as freeing oneself from error. One may also “lose one’s faith” with regret of something valuable that has been lost. The journey from atheism to an affirmation of faith in God is equally intriguing. In ordinary life, we trust people all the time. Most of the time, they prove themselves trustworthy. People trust us as well, and hopefully, they will find us trustworthy. However, sometimes the trust is misplaced. Such a person enters our life as a tempter. We are undergoing a test of our ability to discern the trustworthiness of the other.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The most common mode of thinking is calculative. We use it in our everyday activities. Such thinking is in the subject-object pattern, for what we think about is an object to us, standing outside us. The direction of such thinking is toward handling, using, and manipulating the object, incorporating it within our instrumental world. Technology is a sophisticated use of such thinking. Theoretical science reduces the elements of utility and concern to the point where the scientist becomes a spectator. The knowledge we gain in such thinking is objective. We transcend or rise above what we know as an object and master it. We gain control over our environment, even if all we can is predict the course of events. We are active and the objects of our thinking passive. We are observing, experimenting, measuring, deducing, demonstrating, and showing connections. Such a view of reason is dominate with the coming of empiricism and the dominance of science. It focuses on the process of reasoning. Technical reason determines the means while accepting the ends from somewhere else. Some forms of logical positivism refuse to understand anything that transcends technical reason, making philosophy irrelevant for questions of existential concern. It can dehumanize humanity when separated from ontology. It becomes impoverished and corrupted if it does not receive nourishment from ontology. An existential or ontological form of thinking is personal. It aims at well-being. Such thinking is also common in everyday life. It is participatory, a thinking into the existence of the other subject, made possible by the bond that exists between two subjects. It can become theoretical, as the reflections by Heidegger and other existentialists have shown. Even then, such thinking proceeds because of participation in existence. Such a view of reason is dominant in the classical tradition from Parmenides to Hegel. Reason is the structure of the mind that enables the mind to grasp and transform reality. It is effective in the cognitive, aesthetic, practical, and technical functions of the mind. Even emotional life is rational. It determines the ends and only later the means. Both technical and ontological forms of reason assume the rational structure of reality. Life is creative. Only those things can live that embody a rational structure. The interplay of subjective and objective reason has led to realism, idealism, dualism/pluralism, and monism. A special case of existential thinking is repetitive, which implies going into some experience that has been handed down in such a way that it is brought into the present and its insights and possibilities made alive again. It can happen with an historical event, a poem, or a saying, derived from tradition. If we are to understand it, we must think into it, so think again and with the agent or author. Another form of thinking is primordial or essential thinking, which waits and listens. It responds to the call or address of Being, something like what one finds in religion and poetry. The initiative passes to that which transcends us as subjects. This form of thinking is rare.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> It seems clear that reason has a depth that some forms of philosophy do not acknowledge. Cognitive depth points to truth, aesthetic depth points to beauty, legal depth points to justice, and communal depth points to love. Among the challenges of modern philosophy is to acknowledge that reason has “fallen” from its depth and become superficial. Out of the depths of reason arises various artistic, emotional, and religious symbols.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> However, under the guidance of technical reason in our time, reason became shallow, empty, and without meaning that often leads to despair. Reconnecting reason with its depth is an urgent need for today. Reason has a static element that appears in the absolutism of tradition and revolution. It also has a relativistic appearance in relativism.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a>Successful cognition fills a need. In addition to fulfillment, it transforms and heals. It bridges the distance between subject and object. A harmful aspect of technical reason occurs in the attempt to use knowledge to control the object of knowledge. We properly understand when we unite the desire to connect with the object and the desire to maintain proper distance or detachment. Most cognitive distortions are the result of disregarding this polarity within reason. Existentialism is among the primary ways of resisting the dehumanizing element in technical reason. Since cognitive reasoning aims at truth, the existential-ontological reason finds verification only in a life-process. Although this approach can lead us to embrace the risk contained in life, it is also threatened by meaninglessness.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A third distinctive path to self-knowledge is our capacity for language. We engage each other in discourse and tell each other stories. Narrative is the unique capacity of language for people to express themselves. Yet, our talk is often nothing more than idle talk. Talking is the way we significantly articulate our life in the world. It is important for hearing, listening, and keeping silent to take place. If we want to discover the passion of the other person, we need stillness and stillness so that we may discover the secret of the other.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> Our everyday and average life as determined by our interaction with others indicates the alienation of our own human nature. Idle talk is the everyday disclosure of relationship to others as conversation. Instead of disclosing one another, it closes us off to each other. It does not take into one's self the other. It removes understanding from true relating to the world. Our desire to understand is little more than shallow curiosity. Curiosity is the everyday disclosure of others as sight. This act sees only to see, not understand. It seeks novelty, is restless movement to a variety of entities, and does not dwell anywhere. Our interpretation often yields nothing more than ambiguity. Ambiguity is the everyday disclosure of our relation to others as interpretation. All action is seen as unimportant. The result is that we have fallen into the crowd and experience our random thrownness into life. The self is lost in the They-self. We lose the self in the babble of the crowd. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In this way, our sense of alienation belongs to our everyday life. We have fallen from the true possibility of self. We have fallen to the demands, dreams, and expectation of others. We live with the temptation of becoming only what others desire, rather than living out of the unique possibility that belongs to us. In fact, we can deceive ourselves that such a life is true life, rather than alienation. True life hides itself from us. Yet, far from being separated from ourselves, we are entangled in ourselves. Thus, we fall into everyday life. The possibility of true living blinds our understanding.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Our bodies allow the Other to see us. I have shame of myself before the Other. “Once bitten, twice shy” is a saying that displays the intuition of the power of the Other. Negative appraisals of us carry more weight than positive appraisals. Yet, I am so open to the world, so with the Other, that I need the Other to become my true self. The Other occurs in the gestures, expressions, acts and conducts. The Other is the self that is not me. We depend on the Other in our being. In the look of the Other, we are seen. I am the object at which the Other is looking at and evaluating. I offer myself to the appraisal of the Other. The body symbolizes our defenseless state as objects. Shame, fear, and pride are my original relations to the Other. I exist my body is the first ontological dimension of the body. We are the center of our perceptive field. Here is our orientation toward the world. The second ontological dimension of the body is that the Other utilizes it and knows it. The third ontological dimension of the body is that I exist for myself as a body the Other knows.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> We have relations with others. The Other reveals to me the being that I am. The Other holds the secret of my being. The look from the Other reveals the Other to me and makes the Other the cent4r of my world. The original relation with the Other is conflict. One attitude to the Other involves love, language, and masochism. Love is the original relation to the Other and organizes my projects. The projects connect me with the freedom of the Other, which turns love into a conflict. The lover wants the beloved to return love freely, but to do so involves me in seduction that will make me fascinating to the beloved. I am language in that I employ language to seduce the beloved. Lover and beloved must remain in this perpetual insecurity because each remains in their subjectivity. This leads to a masochistic attitude. The project must fail. A second attitude toward the beloved is that of indifference, desire, hate, and sadism. Indifference is a refusal to look, which leads to solipsism. Sexual desire is the attempt to get hold of the free subjectivity of the Other. We exist sexually for others. Desire is the mode of my subjectivity. The desiring consciousness is troubled and clogged by sexual desire. The caress expresses desire. Yet, desire will fail. Even when we have pleasure, we experience the death of desire, which leads to sadism. Sadism must fail. The failed projects of inauthenticity lead to guilt before the Other. Yet, such a failed project contains within itself hints as to the authentic relation with the other.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Sexuality has links to our active and cognitive nature. We experience shame and immodesty through sexuality. We experience the relationship of master and slave through sexuality. We know we can explain many areas of human behavior in light of human sexuality. Sexuality is dramatic because we commit our whole personal life to it. Our bodies become a mirror of our being.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Speaking of the inauthentic relation with the Other in such negative terms may be disturbing. Yet, the experience of community is not the original experience of the Other. The experience of “us” arises out of a collective situation in which someone, They, has the power to name Us. This look by the Other/They define me as part of a social construct – Us. Thus, we have consciousness of “we” but it has no value as a metaphysical or ontological revelation. This inauthentic experience of “us” may provide some hints as to have authentic community.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If the mood of fear, the desire to understand, and the capacity for narrative are essential ways that human beings exist, then what unites them is that human beings care for the world in which they are and which is within them. This form of care for the world means that epistemology is not the primary question of philosophy. Rather, ontology is the primary issue. That which is true is that which has disclosed itself, created a clearing, and giving space and time for self and others. Truth is not a matter of scientific calculation of objects in the world and truth is not is not a matter of developing propositions that correspond to the world, that are part of a coherent system, or that contain a pragmatic truth. The truth we seek, the meaningful life we seek, is through disclosure. We are the ones who uncover and disclose. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Light is a helpful metaphor as we think of truth. <span lang="EN">Truth can dazzle and wound us as a bright light does when we turn our eyes full on it; and in ordinary language, we speak of people making themselves deliberately blind to the truth. We should pause at this point to analyze just what we have in mind when we think of truth as light. Most human beings grope about during their whole lives among these data of their own existence rather as one gropes one’s way between heavy chairs and tables in a darkened room. And what is tragic about their condition is that only because their lives are passed in this shadowy gloom can they bear to live at all. It is just as if their seeing apparatus had become finally adapted to this twilight state. Such persons take some pride in directing their search for truth to something outside themselves. They have developed a protective covering within which their lives continue. Yet, as an understanding self, I cannot shut myself against a light that arises from myself. As ambiguous as the term “self” may be, it is the self that has power to gaze upon our unique existence and our world in a new way. When we link facts and self and recognize a mortifying truth, we see how difficult it can be to affirm the ordinary, everyday statement that we love the truth. We may have shirked a painful truth for a long time, but finally discover consolation in opening our minds to it. By opening our minds to the truth that hurts us, we have put an end to a long and exhausting inner struggle with ourselves. We have struggled against the spirit of truth. In the light of truth, we diminish the permanent temptation that assails to conceive reality and to conceive myself as I would like them to be.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span lang="EN">This view of the importance of human decision that leads to an authentic life moves against the notion that human life is absurd. Can a change of life even occur? One life might be as good as another. Although many of us would consider marriage one of the crucial decisions of our lives, the decision to marry a person or not marry them may not marry. Even dying unjustly and waiting for the guillotine symbolizes human life – a series of absurd decisions that culminate in an absurd death.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 12pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> Such a view would be contrary to existentialism.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Our ordinary, everyday, average experience of the world, through which the mood of fear, the rational attempt to understand, interpret, and develop assertions regarding the world, and the use of language with idle talk, express shallow curiosity, and be ambiguous as we can, eventually becomes a source of dissatisfaction. Our need for transcendence will arise out of our dissatisfaction.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> The temptation to surrender the question asked in our existence is to surrender the answer to someone else, such as a religious sect or a political ideology. Delegating this responsibility discloses our alienation from our Being. It will be tempting to say that our way of life will disclose the answer to the question our lives present. Yet, I cannot tell the story of my life as I have lived it. We can recapture our lives only in fragments that might have luminous moments. Even if we keep a diary and have a stack of notebooks, many moments will leave us cold and others will lead to stimulating thoughts. Could our lives as we lived them be as disconnected and chaotic as that? A professional writer might impose some narrative unity to the story. A creative person could point to works of art as the answer. The judgment of history might be an answer. Everydayness leads to weariness and tediousness that moves toward despair. The more self-interest loads one down, the less intensely one lives a meaningful life. We can think of the self-centered person as incapable of responding to the various calls that will come in life. Such a person is incapable of imagining the needs and desires of the other. One is unavailable to the needs of others. Our lives are ungraspable and elude us. We do not possess our lives. In fact, the call of conscience is to sacrifice or consecrate our lives. Self-sacrifice consists of living for something, of dedicating ourselves. The need for self-dedication arises from the depths of our lives. Our lives transcend any conscious grasp we have in the moment. That which drives a human life is such self-dedication is the living of something other than oneself. Our inner need for transcendence, our need to move beyond our immanent relationships, is disclosed in such self-dedication and self-sacrifice.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In his journal entry for 1840-5, Kierkegaard points to the difficulty of the inward journey.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;">It is quite true that philosophy says: that life must be understood backwards. But then one forgets the other principle: that it must be lived forwards. Which principle, the more one thinks it through, ends exactly with the thought that temporal life can never properly be understood precisely because I can at no instant find complete rest in which to adopt the position: backwards.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;">The suspicion that we cannot get into a place or position in the flow of life to properly rest and look backward to gain understanding of our lives is a lively one for most existentialists. He may be referring to Hegel, who contemplated the past to show the development of the world process. Such a philosophy mean we gain understanding of our lives too late. We are alive now and must properly live our lives while we live. His point is that Hegel has not considered the ethical dimension of the future. We need to choose to live forward in the direction of our calling or vocation. We will fill our lives with what meaning we can. If we have the Hegelian glance backward, we see for a moment to be an existing individual with an ethical orientation toward the future.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> In <i>Concept of Anxiety</i> (1844), he says that our anxiety is over the possibility contained in our freedom. We may leap toward authenticity, but most of us leap into the inauthenticity of everydayness, which leads to our guilt and shame. Too many rush headlong into life, continue to rush forward, and yet never find life. The rush of modern life does not give one pause to reflect upon how a religious existence pervades and interweaves the outward existence. He seems to think that denying the Infinite and Eternal is a way of saying “goodnight to all meaning in life.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One difficulty of this disclosure for human beings is that the anxiety or dread of our movement toward the nothingness of death underlies the everyday way of existing. Human existence projects itself toward nothingness. The possibility of confronting nothingness arises in our anxiety or anguish. We flee from sincerity by fleeing from anguish or Nothingness. We must continually make ourselves. We are not but must be. Who we are now has meaning only in the future toward which we develop our projects. We are not now whom we want to be or say that we are. The projects we choose for our mode of being in the world presuppose that we are not the fullness of those projects. Ambiguity arises in our journey to be who we are because of this tension. Falsehood hides the truth of our ambiguity and seeks to state what we believe about ourselves. Guilt arises as we do not accept responsibility for what we are from our past or the projects we have for our future. Guilt arises as we blame others for who we have become. Guilt refuses to accept responsibility for the choices one has made. Guilt refuses to face the anguish involve in our freedom. Guilt is lack of authenticity, the primary virtue of existentialism. The only escape is through self-discovery that recognizes the corruption in which one has participated. Authenticity is the path out of this anguish and guilt.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What unifies mood, understanding, and language is our care for the world. The world is not a separate thing from us, but we are intimately related within the world and the world is within us. Dread of our end in death arises because that about which we care so much will no more be with us. Death is the loss of that about which we care. That in which we have invested our lives, such as a cause or people, will continue to feel the influence of our lives. We will still be with them. Our dread is that we will not be with them. Yet, as we come-face-to-face with nothingness as our future, we increase the possibility that we will have the courage to live out of authenticity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Some psychologists draw a distinction between acute anxiety and chronic anxiety. Acute anxiety refers to some immediate threat. If you step out of your front door and come face to face with a grizzly bear, you are feeling acute anxiety. Yet, if you wake up each morning with a sense of free-floating dread but have little idea where those dark forebodings come from -- nor any idea when or how you will break free from them -- then chances are, you are a victim of chronic anxiety.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The word "anxious" relates to a Latin word, angere, which means, "<i>to choke or strangle.</i>" Anxiety can have you gasping for breath. Another English word traces its lineage to the same Latin root. The word is <i>angina</i> -- the sharp, piercing pain that precedes a heart attack. Angina arises when arterial plaque chokes off one of the coronary arteries, blocking oxygen from reaching the heart muscle. Anxiety, in other words, can kill you. Another English word that grows out of this Latin root, angere, is "<i>anger</i>." Anxious people are often angry people. They sense the breath of life choking off from their soul, and so they lash out, flailing wildly to remove the threat, whatever they imagine it to be. Anxious. Angina. Anger. That sounds like our time. Alarmist headlines are part of our lives. We have come to believe the world is a fundamentally scary place. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Anxiety presents a danger to us. Anxiety may arise out of our desperate search for fulfillment and happiness. We want a fulfilled and happy life, but anxiety leads us away from its source. Instead of trust, we anxiously focus upon self and think that if we can just possess the right finite thing, we will be happy. We turn to lust instead of mature love. We turn to getting others to serve us. We might even give up instead of engaging in creative action. We anxiously seek recognition by others, and we want it any price. We are uncertain of the future, and so, we become anxious. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The temporality of human existence discloses itself as existentialism will look upon an authentic way of existing as an event of anticipatory resoluteness. Anticipatory resoluteness arises because there is a future now. Time is what it means for the human being to be. Anticipatory resoluteness shows itself as being toward one’s possibilities. We can be “toward” anything because there is a future. The future is meaningful to one because one goes toward the future, and therefore the future is meaningful. Awareness and consciousness presuppose the basic attitudes of living toward a future or from a past. The past is meaningful because I am its result, and the future is meaningful because I am coming toward it. The present is meaningful because the present is the place in which something occurs and in which I carry out an action. The present is making present and carrying out an action makes the present significant. Care is aware of its possibilities, it is already in the world, and it is alongside the entities it discovers in friendship with others and concern for things in the world. Such an understanding of care is possible because of its grounding in time. Authentic life anticipates the future and moves toward it as its own possibility. In authentic living, the present becomes the moment of vision. It refers to the resolute rapture with which the person carried away to whatever possibilities and circumstances are encountered in the situation as objects of concern. Resoluteness, in a moment of vision, looks at the situation with equanimity that are possible in the potential for the wholeness of Being as disclosed in anticipation of death. The meaning of our lives becomes the expectation of death. When death occurs, it can only put its seal upon the life we have lived. In this resolute decision, we can make death our own. Our attitude toward death anticipates the final note our lives will play. Facing the present mood of fear, anxiety, anguish, and despair generated by our death with intentionality and courage opens the way for a light to be shed upon the way we choose to exist in the world. The unity of temporality makes humanity possible. Here is a clearing where light shines. Our destiny is nothing other than our resolute moment of vision handing down what our heritage has handed down to us. Authentic Being unto death leads to the appreciation of one’s finite freedom. It leads to recognition of the compelling situation of the actual historical world and to urgent commitment to what is unique about one’s way of being here. Only as a member of a community with a shared heritage does one seek to own up to one’s fate in relation to a wider destiny that we all face. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Divorcing his consideration of time from eternity creates a problem for Heidegger. Eternity has a positive and embracing relation to time. Eternity is the complete totality of life, from the standpoint of time, is a fullness that one can seek in the future. The future becomes constitutive of the nature of time because only in terms of the future could we even think of the totality. Heidegger was not the first to capture this insight, as we have discovered in the reference to Plotinus. However, he did recover the insight. Unfortunately, he does so by dropping off his considerations of time from the notion of eternity. His concern was with the possibility of attaining wholeness for a finite, individual existence or <i>Dasein. </i>In moving this direction, Heidegger followed Kant, who attempted to derive the unity of time in intuition from the unity of the ego. Pushing back against Heidegger at this point, space and time are specific forms of the primordial intuition of the Infinite. Heidegger replaced eternity with his notion of <i>Dasein. </i>For him, the primacy of the future rests upon the anticipation of the ultimate possibility of <i>Dasein, </i>namely, the death of that individual. The way one positions oneself toward this future discloses the whole of this finitude. The totality of <i>Dasein </i>stems from the finitude of <i>Dasein. </i>He individualizes the authentic future through the anticipation of one’s own death. Yet, death would seem to represent the broken and fragmented nature of individual life, rather than its wholeness. The death of the individual is not constitutive for our experience of time. The possible wholeness of human existence must be participation in eternity. The leading role in our consciousness of time belongs to the future, since only the future can be the source of the possible completion of our lives. The present and past either participate in or fall short of this future.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We need to expand our consideration of death by exploring the primary categories of human reality: having, doing, and being. We act and we exist amid entities in the world without losing our freedom. Freedom is the first condition of action. Consciousness is free because what it is now is not enough, it is insufficient of Being, and is therefore free to set up those relations with Being that it desires. Our action modifies the shape of our world, arranges it in view of an end, produces an organized instrumental complex, and produces an anticipated result. An action is intentional. The act projects the self toward what it is not. In that way, Hegel is right to say that the mind/spirit is negative, driving us forward from that which is and toward that which is not yet. Mind or consciousness is a No to the present and Yes toward a possibility. This negative quality is indispensable when we think of the freedom of human action. We flee a situation by organizing and arranging our world to change the present and embrace a possibility. We must accept responsibility for our world. Although most of us may think of freedom as precious and good thing, there is another sense in which human beings are condemned to be free. We cannot escape it. If human beings simply are their fullness, they are not free. My existence and the foundation of the ends that I attempt to attain by will and passion have their foundation in my freedom. A philosophy of action will understand that we choose the world by choosing ourselves. We have freedom in a situation, and we have a situation because of freedom. My place, body, past, position in relation to the Other, and my fundamental relation to the Other, define the situation. The freedom that escapes the present and moves toward a possibility does not have the freedom to have any past it wants. The past is part of the facticity of our situation. Freedom is defined by the end that it projects. The future is the not-yet-existing state of what is. The meaning of the past depends on my present project. Our past may be living, half-dead, survival, ambiguous, and full of discrepancies. Every free project is also an open project. It contains within it the possibility of its further modification. Our freedom necessarily confronts the freedom of the Other. Wiling oneself wills the passion of freedom. I accept the burden of this alienated being my freedom brings into the world.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We die our own death, of course. Most of us exhibit some anxiety regarding death. We do not like thinking about it or discussing it. We do not bring it up in polite conversation. Death transforms a life into its destiny. One has no more cards to play. We become defenseless before the judgments of the Other. I must be my past and I am responsible for it. The present is such briefly. We are present toward that which we have an internal bond. I project myself toward the future and merge with that which I presently lack. Thus, we are also our possibility. The future is the meaning of my present. I have a future because I am free to develop projects. My anguish arises because I am a being whose meaning is problematic. Behind my freedom and projects is a notion of value that haunts me. What is so valuable to me that I am willing to act to reflect it, to possess in some way, and to express my being?<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Human life is full of boundaries, limits, and facticity. We did not ask to be born as we are. We are male or female. We are part of a nationality. Our skin has a color. Our genetic bonds will orient our response to the world. Birth occurs on a date that will make us part of a generation. These are facts. They are random in that out of all the sperm that might have united with that egg that made us, it was that one sperm that gave us the genetic constitution we have. Death is the boundary of my situation. As birth is simply a fact, so death is a fact of a human life. Death has a random quality in that some people are born with the genes that will produce an early death or that will create a long life of suffering and barriers to overcome. Death is random in that an accident or a crime will cut life short. By the time of his death at 46 in 1960, Albert Camus had already won the Nobel Prize for literature, writing several novels and essays that still find a wide readership. He chose to return to Paris in a luxurious Facel Vega HK500 rather than return with his wife on the train. It proved to be a fateful decision that would end his life. The various projects of his life were done. Maurice Merleau-Ponty was preparing for his lecture on Descartes when he had a stroke and died in 1961. Death is random in that some will live a long life in which their end will feel like the completion of a life well-lived. Unless we have received a death penalty for what we have done, or news that we have a terminal illness, we cannot await death. Death is the absurdity of every expectation we have in the projects we develop in our lives. The limit represented by death, but the quality of death varies between one to whom death comes as the completion of the final stage of aging, and for whom death annihilates in the prime of life or even in youth. If we think of our lives as a song, the final note may be cut off absurdly like an unfinished song, or it may have the sense of the resolved chord that gives meaning to the melody. Silence comes after the final note. Death is the final boundary of human life. A bit of wisdom is the philosophy is a long preparation for death. In that sense, so is theology and religion. We seek to give some sense of meaning to the life we have lived. Much of this advice is well intended but difficult to put into practice. Yet, as beautiful as some of these efforts may be, we must not avoid the absurd character of all death. Life is meaningful in that human reality makes know to itself what it is by means of that which it is no. It waits for the confirmation of this future anticipated by our past choices and our present possibilities. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Human life is a long waiting, although one can hope not as despairingly as one finds in Samuel Becket play, <i>Waiting for Godot.</i> A true reflection on death derives from a consideration of life. A waiting for death would be self-destructive, for it would negate all waiting. Death is the nihilation of my possibilities. It destroys all my projects. It destroys my expectation. Death is the triumph of the Other, with whom I have had conflict throughout life. Death transforms my life into its destiny. My life is. The Other becomes the guardian of the dead. We choose the dead. Death alienates us from ourselves to the advantage of the Other. The dead become the prey for the living. The meaning of our lives is to become the prey of the Other. To die is to exist only through the Other and to owe the meaning of one’s life to the Other. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">To say that death is absurd as the inevitable ending is to say that life is void of meaning, or that if meaning exists humanity is unable to know it. From the perspective of human existence, human beings simply need to embrace its truth. The contingent quality of human life has no external justification. The universe is unintelligent and immoral. The meaning and values that consume so much of human energy have no solid external component. Human beings need meaning, significance, and purpose, a need that confronts the unreasonable silence of the world. Thus, the absurdity of human life is inescapable. Such a view need not lead to nihilism or suicide, for either response is a rejection of human the weighty responsibility our freedom places upon us. The nihilist would say that if the world has no meaning, if human destiny is without meaning, then the only values by which we live are that of nature, such as violence and cunning. Human beings become a negligible matter in the great history of the universe, so all that matters is the adventure of power and the only morality is the realism of conquests. However, another path, maybe that of the stubborn humanist, is to exalt justice to protest the injustice of the world, to create happiness to protest the unhappiness of the world. Such actions would be ways to rediscover the solidarity we have with all human beings as we protest our common absurd destiny. Thus, the destiny of the world may have no meaning, but humanity exists, insisting on having a meaning.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For these reasons, it may well be that we need to remove death from consideration of the ontological structure of the human being. I cannot discover my death or wait for it or arm myself against it or adopt an attitude toward it that will open the way for authenticity. One can adopt many attitudes toward death, some helpful and some not so much. Death and birth are facts. They come to us from outside. Yet, we still have the choice of freely giving to our being a meaning for which we are responsible. Among our considerations are that death and finitude are separate issues. If human beings were immortals, they would still be finite. To be finite is to choose oneself, to make known to oneself what one is by projecting oneself toward one possible to the exclusion of others. The act of freedom is the assumption and creation of finitude. If I make myself, I make myself finite and my life is unique. Yet, death haunts me and is at the heart of every project as the reverse side, about which I rarely think about or discuss. I do not want to imagine the death of my possibilities and projects, so I leave them on the reverse side of all my projects. I do not allow death to penetrate my consideration and implementation of my projects. We discover the meaning of our lives in the living of it. Our freedom makes us carry the weight of the world upon our shoulders. This responsibility is not resignation. It is the logical requirement of the consequences of our freedom. Every event in the world can be revealed to me as an opportunity. We therefore apprehend ourselves in anguish. Our anguish derives from our being those compelled to decide the meaning of being. The one who realizes in anguish this condition as being thrown into a responsibility that extends to the very abandonment has no longer either remorse, regret, or excuse. The underlying anxiety, dread, or anguish of our lives is the weight of freedom that the responsibility we have for the creation of the meaning of our lives. We allow the anguish and dread to overtake us so that most of us live inauthentic lives as we flee the freedom we have to develop of our mode of being in the world and accept responsibility we have for it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Meaning and authenticity arise only on the foundation of the project of living. This project involves the doing and having involved in life reducing themselves to the desire of the human being to be itself genuinely and authentically. The desire to be ourselves expresses a lack in the present. What we desire is fullness of Being. An example is sexual desire. Love is a fundamental relation. One surpasses the object of desire and moves toward fullness of Being. Unsatisfied desire is empty of the fullness of Being that we desire. This desire for fullness involves the security of fully being oneself while being freely responsible for this fullness of self we have achieved. Of course, this desire is irrational. In this way, desire and love leads to a non-existent ideal that is self-contradictory and irrational. We seek to fulfill this ideal by various modes of being as we decide in fulfilling the project of living. We may see it for ourselves, or we may need some assistance, but deciphering the patterns of behavior as well as insignificant and superficial behavior become revelations of the whole person. The task is hermeneutic. Every act reduces itself to having/possessing, and every having reduces to the desire to be. Thus, reducing psychological reflections to childhood desires is not helpful. We are more helpful if we think of human reality as a choice of being through our acting and possessing. Every human reality is a project toward fullness of being. Human reality is a passion projecting loss of our limits so that we can experience fullness of Being. The passion of humanity becomes a useless one.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">As free beings, we cannot count ourselves among the realm of things. True, our will is often weak, thereby putting doubt upon our genuine freedom. Further, every act takes place within a background in which freedom is at least difficult to discern, if not entirely absent. The real choice is that of our whole character and manner of being in the world. If we are alive, our situation is open. It implies both that it calls up specially favored modes of resolution, and that it is powerless to bring one into being by itself. What is freedom? It is never determinism and never absolute choice. I am not a thing; I am not pure consciousness. Nothing determines me from outside because I am from the start outside myself and open to the world. We are true by the mere fact of belonging to the world; yet not like other things in the world. We need have no fear that our choices or actions restrict our liberty, for such actions set us free from determinism. Philosophy has no other purpose than to help us see such choices clearly once more. What is here required is silence, for only the hero lives out his or her relation to people and the world, and it is not fitting that another speak in the name of the hero.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">William James famously outlined his understanding of the mystical experience. They are ineffable in that one can describe them only in the language of metaphor. Strong feelings such as joy or awe or dread or wonder are involved and words cannot contain or express the feeling. They are transient; they are brief and may come and go, so one cannot live in a permanent state of such consciousness. One is passive in that one does not work for them but receives them. They are noetic in that they involve a form of knowledge. They know something they did not know before. What they know is not another bit of knowledge or piece of information, but another reality. Importantly, such experiences are transformative. They transform a person's way of seeing and being. They see the world differently. Rather than seeing the world as "ordinary," they frequently see it as "suchness," as the playful and wondrous dance of the void. Moreover, mystical experiences also transform a person's way of being, leading to freedom from conventional anxieties and inhibitions and to compassion as a way of relating to the world. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I am focusing upon the event nature of such an experience because that is the focus of Heidegger. Yet, transformative experiences that bring one to an authentic life are not always mystical types of moments. They can occur in the ordinary and everyday experiences of a human life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The British writer and humorist, Maximillian Beerbohm (1872-1956), has a story called “The Happy Hypocrite.” It is a sort of parable. The main character is a notoriously self-centered individual, named — appropriately enough — Lord George Hell. After many years of overindulgence in pleasures of the flesh, Lord George is a wreck of a man — as can be seen most clearly in his face, which is bloated and unhealthy looking. Something happens one day that changes George’s life forever. He sees a beautiful young woman and falls in love. It is a singularly pure attraction for such a corrupt and degenerate man. With every good intention, he wants to make her his wife — but he knows she would never accept his offer if she knew what he really was like. There is an element of magic to this story. Lord George Hell puts on the mask of a saint to hide his sinner’s face. As far as anyone knows, he is a kind and virtuous man. He courts the young woman and marries her. They live happily together. That is, until a woman shows up from George’s past. The mask does not fool her. She knows the man underneath it (or thinks she does). One day, in the presence of George’s wife, she confronts him and tears off his mask, expecting to reveal the bloated, pockmarked face of the old degenerate. What she reveals is something quite different. The mask was magical in many ways. Behind the mask of a saint is now the face of a true saint — the saint Lord George Hell has become, by wearing the mask.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The movie <i>Life as a House </i>(2001) is the story of a very dysfunctional family. The movie depicts an amazing process of transformation. The relationship between Sam, the rebellious teen, and George, his father, goes through a change as they tear down a shack and build a house together. As they build the house, Sam rebuilds his self-esteem and sense of identity. In the early stages of this transformation, George tells Sam, “Change can be so constant you don’t even feel the difference until there is one. It can be so slow that you do not know your life is better or worse until it is. Or, it can just blow you away, making you something different in an instant.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We cannot speak about our lives without considering the direction it is taking. It imagines that our lives have significance or relevance. Who are we? We are raising the question of personal identity. We have an awareness of the various stages through which we have traversed in our lives. We are aware of some continuity, but we are also aware of various changes that have occurred. We might use the metaphor of a human life as participating in a play. I am asking about my role in the play. We might receive cues and a few lines, but we have not read the entire play. I receive the cues, perform my role in the play, and I exit. My life may feel pointless to me, but I assume the producer of the play fits it into the theme of this part of the play. The image breaks down because the producer has not given me the information to fulfill the role. Yet, my existence as a human being precedes my discovery of myself as a living and responsible human being. Our family history narrows our choices. Combined with early childhood experiences, the range of choices we will have is narrowing further. The ego grows in the desire for recognition. Even the shy person has an exaggerated sense of the attention the crowd pays to him or her. At the same time, the intersubjective situation of being human creates various communities of togetherness. Here is the basis for various forms of unions, professional associations, and other groups with which we freely associate. At the same time, we have the shared secret, that which we prefer not to discuss even with our closest friends. The internal struggle is often between the person I recently was the person I long to be tomorrow. To contemplate the pattern of our lives is to become aware of moods that arise from our depths. Past and future clasp hands in the present. Many of us, when we contemplate childhood, develop a feeling of exile. Exiled homesickness as an adult does not mean childhood was unusually happy. Our nostalgia for childhood is a longing for the irrevocable state of wonderful irresponsibility and of being the object of protective care and guidance. The innocence of childhood, the feeling of so much possibility laying ahead, the idea of have an impact in whatever course my life would take, lend themselves such nostalgia. Such awareness of the texture of our lives makes us aware that our lives are more than our projects. We are thrown into the world, but we are also bound to those who have gone before us.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We are thrown into the world, but this makes us aware of the mystery contained within the family bond, which is a further expression of the mystery of Being. The complex arrangements of modern society tend to empty parenting of the richness earlier societies had. A form of nihilism would propose that I never asked to be born. It suggests that life is an imposition and has been thrust upon us. This refusal of the parental bond, of refusing to view the gifted quality of life, leads to a loss of the spirituality of family. Parenting is of technical interest to the biologist but little more than that. Children are renouncing their heritage. Refusing to acknowledge the bond with the parent leads to the interpretation that they are children of nobody. When children deny their parents, their parents will return to the favor. The estrangement between parents and children is masked by customary tolerance and decency. We cannot understand the family from a purely objective level.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[43]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Human beings exist in a way that is unique among other entities in the world, for only they are aware that they are in both mood and understanding. Some notion of self is important here. The self is always in the process of forming and is therefore incomplete. Human beings are potentialities that must be responsibly and courageously actualized during the process of living. We can miss an authentic life. Human existence involves living in the tensions or polarities that constitute a human life. We are the facticity of birth, gender, nationality, and death, but we are also possibility in the fulfillment of our projects. We are beings who rationalize, and we are beings of moods like anxiety, despair, and dread. We are individuals and we are communal beings. We are responsible, guided by conscience, but we are also impotent. The polarities lead to an anxiety that expresses a concern for our existence with its potential and its precariousness. Such anxiety is a mode of awareness of nothingness or nullity and thus the precarious dimension of human life. We employ various devices and illusions to tranquilize our anxiety. The tensions and polarities of a human life will end when death overtakes us. The fact that we continued living with the tensions suggests that our lives make sense to us and are meaningful. We experience the disorder of our lives. We can describe it as fallen, alienated, and estranged. An authentic life will have a unity, stability, and structure that have held the polarities of existence in balance and allow the person to reach fulfillment. When one becomes aware of the possibility of living an authentic life, the imbalance implied in tensions and polarities resolve themselves in a temporal balance of commitment to our possibility and acceptance of our facticity. Our care for the world unites the decisions we make, but an ultimate concern or commitment has greater potential to unite the various tensions of a human life. Embracing the call or vocation that arises out of life experience is a leap, a faith commitment that takes us beyond simple rational analysis.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn44" name="_ftnref44" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[44]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">As Heidegger posed the question, what is the meaning of Being? The answer will not arise in metaphysical speculation. The answer will not come from any fanciful appeal to a world beyond the world of human experience. Human beings are the ones who raise the question of meaning. The meaning of our lives arises because we do not naturally live our lives meaningfully. We naturally fall into a life dominated and dictated by the Other/They. Something will need to change if a life of everydayness is to become an authentically lived life. The underlying fear and anxiety of everydayness can lead us to search for something different. One possibility is that meaning arises as we have a mystical encounter in facing the nothingness of death. We courageously accept the project of living by living with the shadow of death in every decision we make. Another possibility is that meaning arises as we live our lives and accepting full responsibility for our decisions. Some truth may reside in both possibilities. <o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Disclosure through mood and a proposed expansion<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Here is a good place for us to push back against existentialism. Marcel is of some help in doing so, as he disagrees with Kierkegaard and Heidegger that anxiety and dread are the primary motivators toward Being. He believed there is an aspiration toward Being revealed in love, in addition to the disquieting mood in life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Existentialism is right when it identifies mood as an important disclosure of the human being and the possibility of a meaningful and whole life. No one could disagree that our fear of something in the world, our anxious connection to a world from which we will depart, profoundly disclose what it is to be human. Our attempts to tranquilize our experience of the world and flee from all that our death means discloses the inauthenticity with which most of us live.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Phenomenology and psychology alike have verified the basic insight of Schleiermacher. With Heidegger, we can agree that mood discloses our being as a whole, constituting our openness to the world. Feelings are not just a chance state of the moment, but a pointing toward the future, a way I want something to be. Feelings always occur in a personal field, an experience of one's self as personal and an imagining of others even if no one else is literally present. Feeling has a regressive aspect in revealing the past and especially childhood experiences; it also has progressive aspect. Schleiermacher also discovered the significance of religious feeling within the wholeness that marks affective life. In religious feeling, the wholeness of human life, present in all feeling, becomes a theme, although Schleiermacher obscures his insights by reference to self-consciousness. Feeling anticipates the distinction and correlation effected by the intellect, even though because of its vagueness feeling depends on thinking for definition. Thought can never exhaustively transfer to its own sphere what is present in feeling.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Martin Heidegger gives to the modern discussion of mood its primary impulse. He follows Kierkegaard in regarding the mood of anxiety as key and point of departure in the question of the wholeness of human existence. Unlike Kierkegaard, he relates anxiety only to finitude and not to the relation of finitude to infinitude. For him, freedom is the decision in favor of authenticity. The primacy of anxiety has a methodological basis since anxiety is adapted to show the relation of moods to the whole of life and since it is exposed to the void and is thereby related to freedom. Although this analysis comes across as one-sidedly negative, even for Heidegger joy is the mood in which the freedom of the Dasein finds expression. In his later writings, moods became the working of the Spirit, who elevates human beings above themselves. Plato could speak of the pleasure in wisdom (<i>Republic </i>582a10f) and then of reprehensible pleasure (<i>Philebus </i>49d7). The latter work is a discussion of the ambivalence of pleasure that shows why pleasure is not the criterion of the good. The Stoics made all pleasure reprehensible. Clearly, in every happy mood life seems full and complete. Yet, moods change. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> If truth and meaning are disclosure, I wonder if existentialism has disclosed the phenomena of the human. Its description of everydayness and its inauthenticity runs the risk of moralistically driving too sharp of a distinction with an authentic life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Granting that as soon as we are born, we begin dying, we need to take into our thought and life that we received the gift of life. It is a gift because we did nothing to cause it or earn it. While the gift of life is common, no gift like us has ever existed or will ever exist again. In the words of science, no set of genes as we possess has ever existed or will ever exist again. In the words of psychology, while we share much thought and life with family, the community, and the nation, no one will have the set of experiences that will shape our passions and talents. So much about us is like others, but we are unique. Thus, while underlying anxiety as we move toward the nothingness of death may have a deeper influence upon us than we may know, gratitude for the gift of life may also influence us more than we know. Think of the spontaneous joy and laughter of everyday life as an expression of our gratitude. Think of learning a skill so that we go out to earn our way in life as gratitude for the gift of life. Think of committing ourselves in love to another person and giving to others the gift of life as an expression of gratitude for the life we have received. With many persons, such gratitude is buried deep behind fear, anxiety, and anger. However, the intuition that we have some responsibility to give back in the form of making a positive difference in the lives of others is a good one and suggests the gifted quality of the life we have received.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Is love a mood? Love is an aspect of our average everydayness that I would find constitutive of human life. Freud could write much about sex and the neurotic dimension of love. Granting that love has that dimension, which in this context would be a descent into inauthenticity, I am confident that most of us have experienced other dimension of love that are expressions of authenticity. As corrupted as sexual expression can become, I would hope that many persons have the pleasure of a loving sexual experience.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Is the aesthetic experience a mood? Our artful approach to the equipment or tools of everyday is an important suggestion of who we are. Things present-to-hand or ready-to-hand are never just tools. They are part of our lives because we have made an aesthetic judgment rather than simply a utilitarian judgment. We are willing to go out of our way to appreciate beauty. Whether it be the attractiveness of nature that stops us in our journey or the beauty of a person that has caught our eye, the aesthetic is constitutive of what it means to be human. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This leads me to consider the dimension of human life of sheer wonder and awe in the presence of the mystery of life. Descartes could say that because he is thinking, “I am.” Yet, I hope we can make such an affirmation not the result of logic, but with a sense of humility and wonder.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[45]</span></span></span></a> Why is there something rather than nothing? We do not know, but we wonder about it. In the vastness of the universe, most of which is dark, with places of heat and light that generate tremendous amounts of energy, why is there even one, planet let alone the possibility of others, that can sustain any life at all. Yet, here we are, animals who live with anxiety, who have enough reason to seek to understand, interpret, and develop judgments about the world, and who live with the complexities of discourse and language. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I am not sure what to do with this, but I am struck by the laughter, joy, humor, and happiness of which human beings are capable. I mentioned that we often spend a long time resisting the spirit of truth, questioning whether we love it. However, once the disclosure that is truth encounters us, at some point, the spirit of truth gives birth to joy When we think of the struggle involved in finding our place in life, finding the unique reason for which we are here, the serious ethical question of the manner of relating to the natural world and to the world of people, we can still pause for expressive enjoyment, exuberance, pleasure, fun, and amusement. I would imagine sexual pleasure would be part of this discussion. When such moments are genuine and spontaneous, we do so for no deeper reason than the desire to do them. Given the structure of existentialism, one must show how each of these experiences of our average everydayness descends into inauthenticity. I do not think that would be difficult to do, as appreciation of the beautiful becomes obsessive possession, as the sense of wonder descends into unproductive daydreaming, and as enjoyment descends into the shallow pursuits of hedonism. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Despite sin and its consequences, we repeatedly know the original joy in life, joy in the richness, breadth, and beauty of creation and in each new day, joy in the illuminations of the life of the spirit, power from action within the order of community life, and a turning to others and participation in their joys and sorrows. We have achieved astonishing things and known periods of high cultural blossoming. Yet, even in the best of times, dark forces have been at work through anxiety and desire that have brought death and destruction. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In his journal entry for 1834-6, Kierkegaard said he no interest in his theological examinations, suspecting he engages them to make his father happy. He desires clarity for “what I am to do.” He wants knowledge, but only because it must precede action. He wants to know his destiny. He wants to know what Deity wants of him. He wants “to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die.” He will find it primarily in becoming an author. He thinks one must know oneself before one will learn the path of life one must choose. He refers to people who, because of “spiritual laziness,” satisfy themselves with the crumbs of the tables of others. He starts seeing himself as different from “ordinary” people and not interested in “practical life.” He commits himself to an inward journey, and thereby to what he knows will be a battle. In one aphorism, he notes, “It is very important in life to know when your cue comes.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Pondering questions of who we are, what our vocation or role might be in life, the meaning of Being, feel different the more part of our way of life involves welcoming others. The more we focus upon ‘I exist,” the less we actually “exist.” The necessity of the question of Being arises because of our sense that an over-functionalized world is lacking something of vital importance. The pressure from the question of Being arises from deep-rooted urge or appeal. An increasingly functional and technical culture has led to an acute lack, impoverishment, and aridity of the experience people have of their lives.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[46]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What does it say about us that, despite the nothingness of the end toward which all of us move, despite our loss of all that about which we care and love, we have the capacity for gratitude for having lived, open ourselves to love and friendship, stop what we are doing to gaze upon beauty, and stand in awe of the mystery that surrounds us and resides within us? It seems obvious to me that each of these further constitutive aspects of human existence unite around Being as care in that each expresses the care each of us has for the world into which we have been thrown. Including such moods as disclosure of who human beings are would lead to a different existential analysis of the human. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In fact, what if the end toward which we move is not nullity, void, or nothingness? I am thinking only of the phenomenon of the human at this point. We received the gift of life because of togetherness. Not only was sexual desire present, but someone nurtured us through the initial stages of our lives when we were dependent upon the care of others. No one could substitute themselves so that we could receive that gift. Only I can receive the gift. In an analogous way, the end toward which we all move is an end only we can experience. No one can take my place. However, as we received the gift of life, we will surrender our lives as well as the things and people about which we have cared and loved. That is what causes our fear, anxiety, or dread. We have cared and loved our world. Our world has touched us profoundly. We do not want to lose that about which we have cared, but we have experienced such losses throughout our lives. Death is the final surrender not only of our lives, but of that about which we have cared and loved. However, even in death, togetherness is present. What we have given to others will continue in them. We have given money, time, talent, and passion, to causes and people. What we have given will continue in them. We are social beings, we are Beings-in-the-world, in birth, in the living of our lives, and in our deaths. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What is Being? How can we give to Being a meaning that is intelligible for us? Such questions have behind them a felt need to devote ourselves to understanding our lives and experiences as fully possible. We can embark upon this enquiry only if some fullness of life is our starting point in a way that also assumes relation, togetherness with, and the intersubjective dimension of human life. The underlying reality of human life is the presence of a community. We concern ourselves with questions of Being because we have a consciousness of the underlying unity that ties us others. They are fellow-travelers and fellow-creatures.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[47]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Existentialism and modern culture<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The feeling of exile is, the sensation of a void within which never leaves, the irrational longing to hark back to the past or to speed up the march of time, is a mood that might describe many. One has memories that serve no purpose. The past becomes something one savors with regret. One in exile lives with the feeling that something is mission in their lives. They are hostile ot the past, impatient with the present, and cheated of a future. One in exile feels forced to live behind prison bars. One must learn to be content to live only for the day, along under the vast indifference of the sky.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn48" name="_ftnref48" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[48]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In his journal for 1834-6, Kierkegaard refers negatively to the “petty-bourgeois mentality,” contrasting it with its opposite, the Quaker mentality. In the entry for 1837-8, his negative evaluation of “petty-bourgeois” included “well-raised children” becoming “useful members of the state.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Political movements typically are a retrogressive move toward the irrational. The people become obedient to the one they have lifted to prominence, thereby obeying themselves. The political hero gets people to vote for them with noise, torches, and weapons, indifferent as to whether they understand anything. Everything becomes political.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn49" name="_ftnref49" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[49]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Most existentialists will have a negative view of the busy economic activity of modernity. The focus of activity is on using nature and the things produced as tools, so we tend to look upon ourselves and other people as objects to be used. Participants in modernity tend to view each other as tools that useful for this moment and easily dismissed when no longer useful. A major thread in Marcel was the struggle to protect one's subjectivity from annihilation by modern materialism and a technologically driven society. Marcel argued that scientific egoism replaces the "mystery" of being with a false scenario of human life composed of technical "problems" and "solutions". For Marcel, the human subject cannot exist in the technological world, instead being replaced by a human object. As he points out in <i>Man Against Mass Society</i> and other works, technology has a privileged authority with which it persuades the subject to accept its place as person in the internal dialogue of science; and as a result, humanity is convinced by science to rejoice in his own annihilation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> For Marcel, human beings also live in a society which is broken. Modernity is the movement toward treating human beings as machines. The world is under condemnation. Philosophy itself is part of this devaluing of human life as it moves away from the concerns of daily life. As philosophy concerns itself with abstractions, it advances the brokenness of the world. He came to believe, however, in the overabundance of Being. The deficiency of human life can be lessened to varying degrees by meaningful action.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Persons in modern society have lost awareness of the sense of the ontological or Being. Persons who participate in complex modern societies become an agglomeration of functions. This treatment leads to an inward life of dread. A functionalized world offers stifling sadness. It creates dullness and intolerable unease. The distinction between full and empty is far more significant than the philosophical issue of the one and the many. Life in a world centered on function is liable to despair because such a world is empty. It rings hollow. To eliminate mystery is to move in that psychological and pseudo-scientific category of the purely natural. It becomes a degraded rationalism. In such a world the ontological need is exhausted and brings the consequent atrophy of the faculty of wonder. Being is necessary. I aspire to participate in this Being, for exhaustive analysis will not reach the fullness of Being. We have an urge towards an affirmation that seems impossible to make. The primary ontological issue is the one who raises the question of Being. How are we qualified to begin such an investigation? To raise the ontological question is to raise the question of Being and of oneself as potential wholeness. We affirm the primacy of Being over epistemology and the pursuit of accurate knowledge, for epistemology must presuppose our participation in Being. The fullness of Being will be a mystery. A mystery may present itself in a problem but will bring us outside ourselves in exploration so that we become aware that we are not dealing with a simple problem. We might think of the mystery of body/soul in the philosophical and religious tradition. The mystery of the problem of evil is degraded when we treat it as a problem we can solve. Evil that is only stated or observed is no longer evil that one suffers or endures. It ceases to be evil to us. We get some sense of its mystery when it touches us. Many people have lost the ability to grasp the tragic factors of human existence. Yet, the will to negation that discloses itself in despair, betrayal, and suicide also disclose the tragic aspect of a human life. Despair is a reaction to the insolvency of life, while hope implies its solvency. Hope asserts that there is something in the heart of Being that affirms my aspiration toward Being. Beyond all date, inventories, and calculations, a mysterious principle cooperates with my aspiration toward Being. Hope is the center of the ontological mystery. Such hope has a prophetic tone. Hope and despair subsist until the end. They are inseparable. While the structure of the world in which we live permits despair, yet it is only such a world that can give rise to an unconquerable hope. Such hope springs from humility, for the fulfillment of hope does not depend upon us. The proud person, drawing strength from oneself, is cut off from genuine communion with others.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn50" name="_ftnref50" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[50]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For many persons, the world is loathsome due to the depth of suffering, but they learn to feel at one with others who must suffer it with them.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn51" name="_ftnref51" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[51]</span></span></span></a> One can grant that every ill that happens in human experience has its good side. It can open our eyes and force us to take thought of the pattern our lives are weaving. The presence of an evil helps people rise above themselves. One would have to be insane, a coward, or blind to give in to submit meekly to such evil. The presence of so much suffering can lead people to to think of themselves as fumbling in the dark, struggling to make something out. Victories will not last, but that is no reason to give up the struggle. The fight against suffering becomes a never-ending defeat. We may rightly feel profound and deep anger with the presence of such evil and suffering, so that what we have left is a mad revolt.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn52" name="_ftnref52" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[52]</span></span></span></a> Albert Camus, in <i>The Plague<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn53" name="_ftnref53" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[53]</span></b></span></span></a> </i>protests the death of an innocent child due to plague. A priest offers the possibility that we should love what we do understand. “No, Father. “I’ve a very different idea of love. And until my dying day I shall refuse to love a scheme of things in which children are put to torture.” In the sermon by the priest, he says that we can understand the judgment of an adult who has done evil, but “we see no reason for a child’s suffering. And, truth to tell, nothing was more important on earth than a child’s suffering, the horror it inspires in us, and the reasons we must find to account for it.” Yet, “religion in a time of plague could not be the religion of every day.” The priest will say that the love of God is a hard love to learn, but only it can reconcile us to suffering in the world. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">It may well be that much of existentialism is trying to find a way to be a saint without God. Granted, one may feel more fellowship with the defeated than the saints. One might feel heroism or sanctity is appealing. Yet, heroism and sanctity, understood as rising above average everydayness, hearing the call that will arise out of our experiences in life, and responding with courage to the possibilities of whom we shall become as we live out of the projects that derive from the call, knowing it is endless defeat, may well describe the authentic life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The modern world has created a situation in which the preposition “with” or the noun “togetherness” has lost meaning. The idea of close human relationships as found in large families, old friends, and old neighbors, is becoming increasingly hard to put into practice. The complex and unified social organization of technically oriented society creates this situation. In addition, as agents, behavior ought to contribute toward the progress of “the common good,” which, as nice as it sounds, is something distant, oppressive, and tyrannical. Such soft tyranny by votes can become harsh. It can feel at times that we are ticketed and labelled. The obvious monstrosity of totalitarian nations strips persons naked before the power of the State. Yet, the administrative machine and general bureaucratization of life in free societies can feel similar. It can favor abstract, depersonalized, and uncreative tasks and oppose creative energies. Such a society would achieve equality by levelling down to the level where the creative impulse fails to emerge. Such equality is not compatible with community.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn54" name="_ftnref54" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[54]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> It has become a common observation that people in our technological society have an incapacity to follow out a long continuous thought. An analogy would be the perseverance required of the long-distance runner. People look for every shortcut and in as little time as possible. Yet, true intelligence is the enemy of the ready-made. At the same time, one needs a distance and aloofness, a refusal to immediately jump in to participate, to engage in such thought. One needs to be willing to live on the borderland, resisting the temptation to merge with the fashionable ideology of the day. Too many people fling themselves blindly into an idea or opinion. Living in the borderland helps one maintain a properly critical spirit. Failure to maintain this critical spirit toward one’s own ideas, opinions, and groups to which one has joined oneself is a calamity that threatens the fabric of free societies.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn55" name="_ftnref55" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[55]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The critique of western democracies let some existentialists like Sartre to side with socialism and develop a naïve flirtation with Soviet communism. However, many were able to see the difference and refuse to place life in western democracies to the disadvantage of life in the Soviet Union.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The existentialist concerns regarding the complex economic, social, and political arrangements of modern, technological, and capitalist societies, are well worth pondering. One may simply learn the rules of the game and participate in the game. One participates by finding an occupation through which one is productive and which might contribute to a meaningful life, by establishing a household, and by practicing respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in self and others. One can also reflect upon the qualities necessaries to participate in such a complex society, such as the willingness to take risks, which will involve faith in oneself and others, to invest in the future, which will involve hope, and to care about the needs of one’s co-workers, employees, and customers, which will involve a form of love. In an economics organized around the market, it will be the the free exchange of goods and services that will determine the economic plan of the nation, and thus will guide millions of people regarding what is produced and what the price is for what is produced. Political freedom will always mean vigorous debate that usually has limits because the majority in one election may be the minority in the next. If one changes one’s stance toward economically and politically free societies from that of oppressed/oppressor, to a stance of appreciating the creativity and responsibility that such a society offers, one can meaningful participate in ways that can lead to a full and authentic life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Existentialism was close to the uneasiness that many experienced after WWI and again after WWII. They do not dissociate themselves from that uneasiness. They point to the negative and absurd because that was what their generation encountered and they feel some obligation to consider it seriously. Their world had witnessed unparalleled hatred. People became bureaucrats of hatred and torture. Hearts needed healing. A transformation of hatred into a thirst for justice needed to occur. Not giving in to hatred, not making any concessions to violence, not allowing passions to become blind, are the things one can still do for friendship and against all forms of tyranny. The media can create a climate that makes violence and insult seem like the way the world is, but we must protest becoming like the enemy.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn56" name="_ftnref56" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[56]</span></span></span></a> In a divided world, the world needs real dialogue between people who remain what they are and speak their minds. Even the atheist can recognize that the world needs Christians who remain Christians, Muslims who remain Muslims, Jews who remain Jews, Hindus who remain who Hindus, and Buddhists who remain Buddhists, for the world to have real dialogue.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn57" name="_ftnref57" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[57]</span></span></span></a> Within the Leftist movement and under the influence of Marx, freedom was viewed as nothing more than a bourgeois hoax.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn58" name="_ftnref58" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[58]</span></span></span></a>The accusations can continue between democracies on the one hand and tyrannical or communist or Islamic regimes on the other as to which is the worse in their contribution to human suffering. One thing that does not change is the victim. The only way to break the circle is to revive the value of freedom.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn59" name="_ftnref59" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[59]</span></span></span></a> While freedom has its privileges, it especially has duties.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn60" name="_ftnref60" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[60]</span></span></span></a> Freedom does not have many allies.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn61" name="_ftnref61" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[61]</span></span></span></a> The decrease of genuinely liberal energies and the insane admiration of force needs to find protests from all parts of the political spectrum.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn62" name="_ftnref62" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[62]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The critique of western democracies and their histories of imperialism and colonialism was beginning. For some, it was useless to condemn several centuries of European expansion and absurd to include the denunciation of the Italian Christopher Columbus regarding the Americas or Lyautrey in the French administration in Morocco. The period of colonialism is over. We need to evaluate honestly its positive and negative influence upon the people it touched. That period did something to those who designed it and to those on the receiving end of the design. It was not an absolute evil or good. Like all human acts, it was a mixed bag. We need to acknowledge the past and draw conclusions. A nation demonstrates its strength when it has the courage to point out its mistakes. The same nation must not forget the reasons it has for self-esteem. In a fight for truth, the fight itself must elucidate the values for which one fights. When fighting for your truth, you have to care that you do not destroy it with the very arms used to defend it.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn63" name="_ftnref63" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[63]</span></span></span></a> Tyrannical forces are always threatening free societies. Every tyranny is a lie, so it is worth fighting a lie for a half-truth. Freedom is a perpetual risk and an exhausting adventure. That is why people avoid the risk and the exacting demands of liberty and accept any bondage that will at least comfort the soul.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn64" name="_ftnref64" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[64]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> One concern is that of nihilism, which descends to the notion that all that matters is power and force. The prevalence of spitefulness in the public square is an expression of nihilism. Yet, the aim of art and life is to increase the sum of freedom and responsibility to be found in every person and in the world.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn65" name="_ftnref65" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[65]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Existentialists often place themselves on the political left. It may well be that rebellion is a constant in the human condition. In life, we have choice of enduring or not enduring. The decision to live means that our personal existence has a positive value. If we decide to rebel, it is because we have decided that a human society has a positive value. We discover the content of that value within the conditions of living. Among the conditions are the limits of suffering and death. Revolt is an essential dimension of humanity and from it we can discover a principle of existence. The revolt of the slave against the master is rebellion in its classic form. However, modern life has brought a metaphysical revolt against the conditions of life and an aspiration toward order. We see this revolt in Sade, Baudelaire, the Romantics, Nietzsche, and the surrealists. Rejecting the limits of the human condition and its creator, they took responsibility for building an earthly kingdom where their chosen principles predominate. They reconstruct the world in accord with their ideas according to their own concepts. Suffering has no justification. Historical revolt is political. Rebellion is action without plan and can be a spontaneous protest. Revolution implies destruction of the present and the establishment of a new order. We see this in the French Revolution, of regicide and deicide, and from Rousseau to Stalin, the course of revolution moves from loudly proclaiming liberty but always leads to authoritarian dictatorship. Nietzsche in his theory of super-humanity, and Marx with his classless society, replaced the promise of the beyond with the promise of later on. The individual must submit to the central committee that has the responsibility of imposing new order. All revolutions in modernity have led to a reinforcement of the power of the State. The strange and terrifying growth of the modern state is the logical conclusion of inordinate technical and philosophical ambitions that are foreign to the true spirit of rebellion while giving birth to the revolutionary spirit within modernity. The prophetic utopian dream of Marx and the ambitious dream of the “end of history and art” proclaimed by Hegel are destroyed by the State founded upon terror. Rebellion signifies unlimited slavery. The 1917 revolution that gave birth to Soviet Communism fought for universal dominion. Total revolution demands control of the world. The reason is the technological advance of modernity. If we are naturally rebels, we always live in a society that is deficient. From our perspective. We long for recognition and individuality and we long for identification with a group. We long for our uniqueness to find recognition and thus rebel against conformity to the community. Yet, we need the community as well. The revolutionary believes that any amount of suffering and death is worth the implementation of the ideas the revolutionary holds dear. The desire and hope for freedom and justice inevitably leads to the destruction of the present order and the birth of a new order. However, the new order will always, in the context of modernity, bring greater tyranny than the previous order. The technological means to do so are present and the revolutionary will use them to impose the ideas of the revolution. One who loves a friend loves in the present, while the revolutionary loves a person who has not yet appeared. If one is of a revolutionary mindset, one needs to recognize the limits of the human condition and recognize that the suffering death required to implement one’s revolutionary ideas are not worth the price. The revolutionary mind might go the path of establishing organic communities. Such communities would have deliberate freedom against the rational tyranny of the State, altruistic individualism against the colonization of the masses, which would express the endless opposition of moderation to excess that has animated history. Such life would be in perpetual conflict with the established order. Excess will keep its place in our heart, the place where we find solitude. We carry within us our places of exile. Our task is not to unleash our crimes and ravages upon the world. We must fight them as they exist within us and in others. We may need to see the inborn impulse of revolt inspired by a new spirit of action. Such rebellion cannot exist without a strange form of live. The revolutionary spirit and the rebel within all of us can show that real generosity toward the future lies in giving our all to the present.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn66" name="_ftnref66" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[66]</span></span></span></a> Although I doubt the revolutionary mind can accept such limits on their dreams and activities, we need to remember that great ideas come into the world as gently as doves.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn67" name="_ftnref67" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[67]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Existentialism and morality<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If existentialism is right, the moral life is part of the losing ourselves in the anonymous other, guilt and conscience arising from inauthentic life. The authentic call of conscience is to face one’s life and possibilities. Here is a synoptic awareness of human being in its authentic possibility and its actual disorder.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn68" name="_ftnref68" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[68]</span></span></span></a> The call is toward leading one’s life apart from fixed moral standards. One thinks through to the end, not for fixed standards, but to find one’s deepest aspirations given the preciousness of time. Since no one has the perspective of God, only I can take responsibility for my life in this time and place. The moral is partial because it does not disclose a way of existing in the world, is evasive because it is motivated by a flight from anxiety, and derivative because the capacity for moral obligation presupposes that one is guilty in one’s very Being. Morality loses its fundamental place in human existence because it is an escape into the universal. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Most existentialists will question conventional morality as a way of hiding in the Other rather than embracing the full responsibility of the freedom of this moment. Therefore, they will shift the traditional view of moral instruction as guidance that will lead to a full, meaningful, and happy life to a notion of living authentically out of the personal calling and insight one receives, the courage to see anew the inauthentic life one has been leading, and the courage to live our lives in its finitude and movement toward the nullity of death. The traditional view would look upon sin as crossing the line established by accepted and officially recognized codes that could lead to persons to their own prison and self-destruction. Not yet thinking of criticism, we should note that this shift in language is not a denial of moral concern, for authenticity becomes the new moral compass and inauthenticity becomes the new sin from which one needs liberation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In <i>The Existential Background of Human Dignity</i>, Marcel refers to a play he had written in 1913 entitled <i>Le Palais de Sable</i>, to provide an example of a person who was unable to treat others as subjects. Roger Moirans, the central character of the play, is a politician, a conservative who is dedicated to defending the rights of Catholicism against free thought. He has set himself up as the champion of traditional monarchy and has just achieved a remarkable success in the city council where he has attacked the secularism of public schools. It is natural enough that he should be opposed to the divorce of his daughter Therese, who wants to leave her unfaithful husband and start her life afresh. In this instance he proves himself heartless; all his tenderness goes out to his second daughter, Clarisse, whom he takes to be spiritually very much like himself. But now Clarisse tells him that she has decided to take the veil and become a Carmelite. Moirans is horrified by the idea that this creature, so lovely, intelligent, and full of life, might go and bury herself in a convent and he decides to do his utmost to make her give up her intention... Clarisse is deeply shocked; her father now appears to her as an impostor, virtually as a deliberate fraud... In this case, Moirans is unable to treat either of his daughters as a subject, instead rejecting both because each does not conform to her objectified image in his mind. Marcel notes that such objectification "does no less than denude its object of the one thing which he has which is of value, and so it degrades him effectively."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Such an analysis leaves a dimension of morality unexplored. Authentic life may well arise from the morally conscientious individuality. This moral posture would provide corrective for inauthentic selfhood and losing oneself in the anonymous other. Morally conscientious individuals lift themselves above the prevailing expectations of the group to do justice to the Other by considering a higher standard than what anonymous others find respectable. Morally conscientious individuals do not drift along impelled by the social tides. They subject their prejudices and public opinion alike to critical scrutiny. Authentic life may open the possibility of authentic co-existence. Authentic individuality opens one up to others in a new way and makes liberating solicitude possible. A relation of authentic care in which one can help others become transparent to themselves in their care and to become free for it. Moral conscience separates one from anonymous others. It also enables the individual to treat others as ends in themselves beyond the horizon of their public roles and situations. Authentic life, understood in this way, does not isolate the individual from others. Crucial to genuine moral conscience is the refusal to lose oneself in the dictates of the anonymous other. It involves willingness to take one’s stand against what is fashionable, to criticize public opinion for the sake of the community, to judge what is right beyond the horizon of the taken for granted. That one thinks for oneself does not guarantee wisdom. However, the habit of critical reflection puts an obstacle in the way of banal evil. The presence of moral conscience attests to authentic individuation and freedom.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Imagine if we lost the theoretical coherence of science. Imagine if we still used scientific words like neutrino and atomic weight but had no overall framework to explain how they fit together. That is the state of our moral discourse today. We still use words describing virtue and vice, but without any overall metaphysics.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn69" name="_ftnref69" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[69]</span></span></span></a> Further, a discussion of virtue and vice is a recognition of commonly accepted behaviors that respect the other. As C.S. Lewis observed, anyone who thinks the moral codes of humanity are all different should be locked up in a library and be made to read three days’ worth of them. One would be bored silly by the sheer sameness. <o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Death, the call of conscience and identity, and guilt - Authenticity<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Those of us who participate in modern culture fear loss of meaning. Our individualism is one of the great achievements of the modern social world. We stress individual rights. We have replaced the ancient view of a hierarchy ordered by God and in which everyone had a defined and fixed place, with a social order in which we must find our own place in a constantly changing world. The world has lost its magical, enchanting quality. Our individualism, some fear, leads us to lose our connection to the larger social and universal horizon of human life. We have lost a sense of the heroic, a sense of higher purpose, of something for which we would die. Sometimes we speak of a permissive society, the “me” generation, and prevailing narcissism. Instead, what is at work is a perversion of a genuine moral ideal, that of self-fulfillment. The moral ideal includes a sense of calling toward self-fulfillment, a sense that we wasted our lives if we did not pursue this objective. Each of has an original way of being human. A certain way of being human is my own unique way. I have a sense of calling to live my life in this unique way, rather than imitate others. I must be true to myself. If I am not, I miss the point of my life; I miss what being human is for me. This view requires contact with myself, with my inner nature, which I fear is in danger of being lost, partially through external conformity to society, but also the fear that technology will me of spirit. Only I can articulate and discover that sense of self. Authenticity, self-realization, and self-fulfillment are the social context within which we carry out this quest. Authenticity points us toward a more self-responsible form of life. In an age of authenticity, people potentially become more responsible. It allows us to potentially live a fuller and differentiated life, because we live it as our own. Our freedom also gives us the possibility of sinking lower, as well as rising higher. Nothing ensures certainty as to which direction our society will take. We can fulfill this ideal as we recognize its dialogical character. It has a rational component. Persuasion rather than condemnation has a far greater potential to move more people toward self-fulfillment in the highest and best sense. We become full human agents through our acquisition of expression in art, gesture, as well as words. We conduct such exchanges with others. We do not even have a sense of self through inner monologue, but through dialogue, through interactions with other persons. However, this does not just explain the origin of our sense of self. It explains the continuing and life-long journey of discovering and articulating our sense of self. Persons seeking significance exist in a horizon of important questions. I discover my identity as I negotiate it through dialogue and through tacit dimensions of involvement in the social world. Authenticity involves creation and construction as well as discovery, originality, and opposition to the rules of society and potentially to recognized morality. However, it is also true that it requires openness to horizons of significance and self-definition in dialogue. We cannot prefer one side of the equation to the other. Neither decline nor triviality is inevitable. We need to put behind us our temptation to discern irreversible trends, and see the dialectical struggle here, which makes the outcome continually questionable in a free society. Pessimism about our culture is counter-productive. We can achieve authenticity as our journey connects us to a wider whole, both to the social world and to nature.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We fear a loss of a proper orientation toward our “end,” or purpose in human life. Our rational and technological society is another of the great achievements of the modern social world. It has led to making the world increasingly our home by giving the opportunity for more people to live comfortably in it. Yet, we complain about our social world reducing us to calculate only the economic factors in reason and to focus upon efficiency. Our fear is that we ought to include other factors than economics and efficiency. We fear a loss of resonance, depth and richness of the human spirit. The thought is that we are helpless in the presence of massive technological forces in our society. This thought is wrong.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Some observers view technology as a sign of decline. We have lost the contact with the earth and its rhythms that our ancestors had. We have lost contact with ourselves. An imperative of domination drives us and condemns us to battle against nature within us and around us. This view simplifies too much. Human beings and their societies are more complex that for which any society can account. Technology and economics may push society in a certain direction; yet, many points of resistance exist as well. The drive toward authenticity and self-fulfillment is one such arena of resistance. Further, we give unprecedented importance to the production of the conditions of ordinary life to relieve suffering on an increasingly wide scale. We affirm ordinary life, the life of production and reproduction, work and family, as areas of life that are important to us and make a crucial contribution to our social world. We do not have to live our technology the way critics claim.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A great dislocation of power has taken place in our society. People often feel at the mercy of life. Power has shifted from individuals and local communities to national and international systems. People have become distrustful of large bureaucracy of any type, whether in business, government, or church. For many in the new generation, such systems of government have led to a debt for which they and their children will be paying the price. The bureaucratic tendency is to expand, making up for their sense that they make meager contributions to the health of society. This centralization of power has led to a growing sense of powerless ness among individuals. People dread the entrenched structure that has become lord over them. This leads to apathy and anonymity, a passive indifference to life, a sense that they no longer matter. At the same time, people overcompensate by becoming chaotic, destructive, and even deadly. The repeal of personal responsibility has undermined society's ability to call wrongdoers to account for their behavior. Responsibility implies free will. If our actions are the product of impulses or unconscious causes, free will makes no sense and might discarded as inhumane and barbarous. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Rediscovering a sense of personal power and independence, of being one’s own self, has become an important part of the cultural climate of our time. People search for the ability and the authority to shape their own lives and destiny. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We fear a loss of freedom. A mild and paternalistic government can lead to a soft type of despotism. It will not result in terror and oppression. It will maintain elections and the language of freedom. As the political world becomes centralized and bureaucratic, we feel alienated from it. We feel loss of political control. The formation of meaningful programs around democratic majorities becomes increasingly difficult. This process threatens our dignity as citizens. Fragmentation will grow as people no longer identify with the political life of our social world. Decentralization of power would help here, as the example of Canada might demonstrate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One trend within modernity often recognized is its individualism. The sense of inwardness, freedom, individuality, all of which arises out of nature, is part of the Western conception of identity. Behind the trend toward individualism and the focus on the self is the moral ideal of self-fulfillment. What may surprise some is that such an emphasis has a rich philosophical tradition in the West. Plato had a strong distinction between inner and outer life, the eternal and the changing, the soul and the body, the immaterial and the material world. Augustine could focus on discovering God within the processes of the soul. We have the capacity to give or withhold assent, which is an act of the will. People today feel they would have wasted their lives if they did not achieve self-fulfillment. However, they can achieve self-involvement only if they engage in the dialogical character of a human life. Granted, self-centered and narcissistic ways of life are a debased form of individualism, but that does not mean they are the predominate experience of the form of individualism in the West. Thus, authenticity, discovering personal identity, and self-fulfillment, are crucial elements of the culture of the West, but we do not work through this issue in isolation. We do so in dialogue. The value of authenticity is a worthy moral ideal in that it points us toward a more self-responsibility form of life. It allows us to live a fuller life. It encourages responsibility for self. Authenticity, being true to oneself, must connect to a wider reality to have its fulfillment.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn70" name="_ftnref70" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[70]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The prime philosophical text is to know oneself. We do not know ourselves by learning things about ourselves and the world as if both were separate objects for study. We know ourselves through disclosure. Through such disclosure we have meaning. Mood discloses our close connection to the world and leads to our dread of all that death means. Understanding discloses possibilities I have in my freedom to choose my way of existing in the world, interpretation makes clear what I think is available to me in the world, and developing assertions points out what is of use to me, predicates by pointing out characteristics meaningful to me, and communicates to another my relation to what I assert. Discourse, which includes hearing, listening, and keeping silent, discloses to others my mood and understanding. Kierkegaard says that we have two companions for the human journey. One calls us forward. The other calls us back. People keep going further. However, does nothing ever give you pause? Pausing is not a sluggish repose. Pausing is also movement, but an inward movement of the heart. To pause is to deepen oneself in inwardness. If you keep moving, you may go straight toward superficiality.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn71" name="_ftnref71" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[71]</span></span></span></a> Listening and silence are an impart aspect of the discourse that is a human life. The pause in our everydayness opens the possibility of hearing deeply of our temporality. For existentialism, the possibility of experiencing meaningful and whole lives comes in embracing the nothingness of our end, accepting that our way of existing is always toward this future by resolutely and courageously embracing our finitude. This embrace awakens the call or appeal of conscience to break our self away from They/Other, and move toward the unique possibility we can be. Conscience discloses the inauthentic quality of our way of existing in the world. Conscience discloses our guilt. Guilt is failure to reflect this authenticity of the self. We do so in a moment of vision or illumination in which we see the everydayness in which we have lived and the possibility for a new future. The capacity for action has its ground in the call to authentic selfhood. As Kierkegaard put it, birth symbolizes the uniqueness of our vocation. To be true to ourselves in relation to this vocation is the highest thing we can practice. As Shakespeare in Henry V, Act 2, Scene 4 put it, “Self-love is not so vile a sin as self-neglecting.” We face one potential fault and one offense as to how we chose to live our lives: we have disloyalty to self or the denial of this better self. People can grasp truth, good, and beauty while being faithful to themselves. Truth does not need people, but people need truth. People true to their vocation have the pleasure of dying and losing nothing, for they have given all to their vocation. They take everything with them and they lose nothing at death.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn72" name="_ftnref72" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[72]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Guilt has another dimension that existentialism will not see. It arises when we are not true to our potential but included in this potential is the type of person described in the virtue tradition. Ethical questions arise as soon as we encounter others. Coming face-to-face with the other, we face the ethical question of how we are to comport ourselves toward the other. The virtue tradition provides guidelines of behavior as we consider how we are going to relate to the other. Heidegger plays down the consciousness of guilt in the sense of having already violated an obligation and done a wrong that one cannot undo. His analysis fails to penetrate the depth of the nonidentity that makes itself known in awareness of guilt because it fails to see the rupture of communal order by a rending of the ties individuals have to their fellow human beings. Had he done so, he would have seen that the authentic self of an individual is a member of the human order to which it belongs. Had he been aware of this, he might have seen the importance of expiation (extinguishing the guilt incurred for the rupture of community, to put an end to the anger or sorrow that results from this disruption) in overcoming the nonidentity experienced in conscience that one is to accomplish in the life of the injured community. The result is that his analysis of conscience leads to an abstraction of the individual from the human community and its ethos. Heidegger has recognized the subjective form of the judgments of conscience. Yet, it abstracts conscience from all reference to the order of the social world. He has also brought into the coming of consciousness the modern notion of alienation. In fact, the call of conscience locates consciousness in its isolation. It leads into despair. Theologically, the notion of repentance opens the door to overcoming the judgment of conscience and the experience of nonidentity.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn73" name="_ftnref73" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[73]</span></span></span></a> A different way of putting this objection is that in Bultmann we find the reduction of the Christian ethic to the ethical demand to accept one’s self and take responsibility for the world in general. Such a focus upon the individual at least seems to quit the realm of justice and the social order. It runs the risk of becoming socially irrelevant.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn74" name="_ftnref74" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[74]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A caution in our consideration of conscience is that Heidegger blurs the connection between conscience and identity. Freud identified conscience with the superego and therefore with the authority of society. Although he was right to see the social connection for the development of conscience, he was wrong to identify them. Individuals are not simply functions of the social world. They preserve independence from the social world.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn75" name="_ftnref75" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[75]</span></span></span></a> We will build upon the heritage of our past, have courage in this moment, and move into an uncharted future. We experience our freedom to be the uniqueness we always have been but were previously submerged into the crowd. Here is a place to push back on the existential analysis of the human being. The call of conscience is frustrating in that it has little specificity of what it might look like in a human life. The smothering and dominating nature of They is such that one wonders how one can separate oneself from it. Such a choice embraces the anticipatory nature of this courage toward wholeness, for everydayness will always be present and attractive to us. Time has been significant in this process, the self continuing its dialogue with its past, courageously embracing the freedom of this moment, and moving toward the nothingness of the end. Death brings our lives to their fullness, totality, and wholeness. Here is the anxiety of death, that when we achieve the wholeness of our lives our possibilities are done and we are nothing. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Heidegger will point to the call of conscience toward authenticity as a moment of vision. We see clearly. He is pointing to the significance of an event in our lives that can lead us to an authentic life. Are we responding to a summons? Yes, our circumstances can be challenging, and we can hear the call in them. <span style="line-height: 32px;">In <i>Hamlet, </i>the play by Shakespeare, Hamlet experiences hesitation in a challenging call.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">The times are out of joint <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">oh cursed spite<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;">that ever I was born to put them right.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in 0in 0in 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;">Yet, out of such difficult circumstances, we may well experience a summons. In that case, we are not so much looking deep inside. We listen to the people and circumstances that are part of our lives. We respond to what we hear if we are attentive. Our temptation is to run away because of the challenge and the possibility of failure but running away will have harmful effects in the way we lead our lives. To run away from the call will also mean running away from that which will provide deep satisfaction in life. Some of us need to ponder the witness to our lives that we desire. Such a call is not a job but finds expression through a job and other aspects of our lives. Although the call involves contemplative listening to our world, and is therefore “out there,” it will have resonance with that which is deeply within us. Responding to a call is an obligation that will push us to our limits and beyond. Yet, it will connect so profoundly with us that it brings joy. It will be life-giving to you and to others influenced by you. Connecting this call with the end of our lives is a good place to begin our contemplation, listening, and attentiveness to self and world. Most of us want someone to witness to the uniqueness of our lives. What do we want them to say about us at the close of our lives? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The question to which we respond in our calling is something like, “What does life want from me? What are my circumstances calling me to do?” We respond to the summons of life. It begins with our embeddedness in a community of people, circumstances, and inter-relations. Frederick Buechner famously put it, “At what points do my talents and deep gladness meet the world’s deep need?” Viktor Frankl, in <i>Man’s Search for Meaning </i>(1946), said that it did not matter what we expected from life, but what life expected from us. We need to stop asking about the meaning of life and instead think of ourselves as those of whom life asks questions. He concluded that life had given him a moral and intellectual assignment. Such a calling or vocation feels like the person has no choice in the matter. In reality, of course, any of us can run away. We will usually do so with dire results. If one pursues it, however, one’s life becomes unrecognizable without the calling.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Heidegger was part of the attempt in 1900s philosophy to interpret death as the consummation of human existence. If we exist, we are not the totality. One finds meaning in the preceding awareness of death rather than fulfillment beyond death. In contrast to Heidegger, Sartre said that death breaks off life and robs it of any meaning. The problems we must face are in living remain with our death. Transcending the given nature of death as part of our human situation is a matter of reaching beyond mere existing. Sartre is closer to the biblical view. For the Old Testament, for example, death is separation from God. Awareness of our finitude includes awareness that death is ahead of us. Facing this end, we still have a feeling for life as we pursue the course of a human life to its end. Heidegger describes this process quite well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The issue in conscience is the identity of the I, especially in the broader context of the social world and reality. It holds a special place of self-feelings, for in it the totality of life is present in either a positive or a repressed form. The I is at the same time the subject even if mainly in the mode of disapproval, which also implies a relation to its possible positive identity. With its negative content the conscience then forms the transition from self-feeling to self-awareness in the narrower sense of explicit self-experience and self-knowledge. From the life of feeling in which conscience is rooted, there develops a nonthematic relation to the totality of life in which subject and other are not yet distinguished. This type of feeling and feelings corresponds to the ecstatic rootage of the early individual development of a child in a symbiotic sphere that in the first weeks of life binds the child to its mother and to the world at large without any conscious distinction from the mother. Cognitive development of the child, experience of the world, and reflection on it, will bring distinguishing world, God, and self. The experience of conscience is the form in which this self-relation becomes a theme. Conflicts between individuals and social forms are the basis of internalized accusations of guilt. Historically, it had a connection with self-consciousness, but it came to refer primarily to the moral sphere. This was the view of Hegel. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Self-identification occurs as we modify our social identity and integrate it into our projects that will become our identity. Our identity is something we create and define during social interaction. Erik H Erikson suggested the importance of basic trust as something we must carry with us in life, even as it has its source in our relation to the mother. Such basic trust opens us to the world. Self-identification involves us in trustful self-opening to the world. Identifying oneself always requires courage, appealing to Tillich’s notion of the courage to be. We do not decide to have basic trust; basic trust emerges from a process, the opposite of which is mistrust and anxiety that will lead to deformation of identity. In relation to God, however, the element of decision gains in its influence. Basic trust directs itself toward the wholeness of the self. Such wholeness is the goal of our development. The wholeness of the self finds its present manifestation as personality. Person signifies this wholeness. Boethius defined person as rationality, which set the stage for self-consciousness as constituting the person. Personality is the presence of the self in the ego. We need to consider the temporal structure of wholeness. Heidegger would say that we could anticipate wholeness by awareness of death through the call of conscience, even though the actualization of such wholeness remains obscure. For Sartre, human beings surpass the given in the direction of their totality. Each of us is an ego at every moment of our existence. We are still becoming ourselves. Yet, we also are ourselves now. Person establishes a relation between the mystery of the still incomplete individual life history that is on the way to the special destiny of the ego. Freedom is the real possibility of being myself, and thus freedom and personhood belong together. We need to stress the social conditioning of personhood. Personality arises out of the relation to the Thou and to the social world. The relation to the Thou and to the social world determines personality. In a comparable way, the self arises out of the mirror of the appraisals and expectations of others. The reference to God arises out of the theme of the wholeness of the self, as it shifts attention to that which transcends the individual. Because of this relation, persons are free in the face of their social situation. This relation frees us to be critically independent to any given social relation. The self-assertion of the individual against others and society may be the expression of a call to a more perfect fulfillment of the human destination to community. The dignity of the person suggests their divine destiny, a destiny that is the basis for the inviolability of the person. The person is not at the disposition of others.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn76" name="_ftnref76" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[76]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The way of existence existentialism will suggest is to refuse the path of looking upon a human life as a problem to solve, for such an approach will lead to dogmatism or a sacrilegious theodicy. The journey along this path is narrow, difficult, and dangerous. One can only hope to proceed in this country by calling out to other travelers. This way of existing is discoverable only through love.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn77" name="_ftnref77" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[77]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The notion of presence arises when we ponder relationships. An authentic living is a disclosure to the other, while inauthentic living is a refusal to disclose oneself to the other. Some people reveal themselves as present and available to the other when the other is in pain or need. They make room for the other. Such persons listen in a way that gives of themselves. Presence can reveal itself in a look, a smile, an intonation, or a handshake. The unavailable person cannot make room for the other and listens to the other in a way that refuses to give of oneself. Unavailability is as essential as is betrayal, denial, or despair. Unavailability is rooted in some measure of alienation. The transition from inauthentic to authentic living can occur to anyone who has an encounter that breaks down the framework of the egocentric inauthentic life of occupation with one’s own self. To be available to others, to be present to them, is to overcome the meaningless structure of the universe and affirm the meaningfulness of this moment. Such a person has a protection against any form of the negation of life and embraces life with gratitude. Recognizing that we do not belong to ourselves and are therefore intricately interrelated, we also recognize that the most legitimate use we can make of our freedom is in our action and creative fidelity.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn78" name="_ftnref78" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[78]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> A form of creative fidelity is possible here. Faithfulness is a recognition of something ontologically permanent, a presence that can be maintained within us and in our lives as a presence. If so, one can also ignore, forget, and obliterate it, which would represent the possibility of betrayal that stands as a shadow over our world. Fidelity is the active perpetuation of presence. Fidelity is ontological in that it prolongs the presence of Being and corresponds to the hold Being has upon us. Creative fidelity multiplies and deepens the effect of this presence in our lives. A presence to which we are faithful exceeds the object and opens the vista of death, the ultimate test of presence. It is evident that if I read of the death of Mr. So-an-so, who is for me nothing but a name, this event is for me nothing more than the subject of an announcement. But it is quite another thing in the case of a being who has been granted to me as a presence. In this case, everything depends on me, on my inward attitude of maintaining this presence which could be debased into an effigy. We admit that the object has disappeared, but that there remains a likeness that it is in our power to keep. Fidelity is creative in that sense. Presence is a reality; it is an influx; it depends upon us to be permeable to this influx. Creative fidelity consists in maintaining ourselves actively in a permeable state; and there is a mysterious interchange between this free act and the gift granted in response to it. Such a person is not only physically in my presence but within me as well. Such creative fidelity corresponds to hope.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn79" name="_ftnref79" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[79]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">An ontology of death and nothingness<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">An ontology of death is an intriguing notion. If death has some kinship with life, it remains hidden from us. Death is a final value that gives to human a life the quality of tragedy. Despair will always present itself to us has having good reasons to be our response to human life. Yet, a cowardly response to life would disclose blindness to important dimensions of our situation.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn80" name="_ftnref80" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[80]</span></span></span></a> The uniqueness of death makes it an invaluable object for inquiry. The perspective of death helps us to interpret life, in such phrases as “If I were to die today,” or “Before I die…” However, the love of life or the tranquility of self-deception may keep us from realizing what it means to be something that one day we will cease to be. Our awareness that we will cease to be influences what it means to be. Each of us dies our own death. It is not so obvious that we live our own life. When we are aware that we will die alone, we confront our authentic, genuine, true self. One’s awareness of death can focus one’s attention on the self as it belongs to the individual authentic self. Authentic existence is an explicit awareness of what it means to be. Inauthentic existence is that mode of existence in which one has hidden what it means to be, clouded by ambiguity, idle talk, and curiosity. The awareness of death shakes off this veil or cloud by focusing our attention on the question of what it means for us to be. Our self as it absorbs into others clouds our awareness of death. Further, death is that perspective from which one sees the whole or totality of human existence. What can impending death mean to the fullness of our lives? Can we grasp death? If death is out of our grasp, we do not have the ability to see the totality of human existence. How can we realize death as an existential? We can do so as we grasp the not-yet element involved in our existence. How do we interpret this not-yet element? My awareness that I am going to die is sufficient to give me the perspective of totality and to grasp human existence. I do not have to die to see my end. The existential awareness of the possibility of ceasing to be, of my moving toward death, has ontological meaning. The awareness of my death focuses attention upon what it means for me to be. Therefore, it shows my death is my own. I cannot share it with anyone. My projection of the possibility of death represents death to me as something that I cannot avoid. My awareness of death is due to a state of mind or mood, something forced upon us, something part of my fate as a human being. I try to avoid confrontation with the meaning of death for my life through living inauthentically in my other-dominated self. This avoidance usually takes the form of treating death as an actuality and never as my possibility. I fear death as an object, and in doing so avoid fully realizing that the self can cease to be. The awareness of death and its related mood of dread has its foundation in care. Death is the irretrievable loss of that about which we have cared in the projects of our lives and in the relationships we have formed. Dread is full awareness of my own possible dying. The truth the authentic awareness of death could reveal suggests that the truth is still there, within my life, even if hidden.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Heidegger will refer to the nothingness involved with death. Nothing is something in the sense that one must reckon with it as an original factor that precedes our negation and affirmation. “Nothing” is dynamic and active. It obtrudes upon us. It discloses itself to us in dread, which is the nihilating work of “Nothing” as the rejecting, reprimanding, and elusive being. Dread discloses the previously hidden alienation of the other. Here is the path toward self-hood and freedom. Nothing belongs to the essence of being. Existence derives from manifested nothing. One can define existence as a projection into Nothing. the basic mood that reveals Nothing as constitutive for existence is dread. The revelation of Nothing occurs in dread. Dread reveals nothing because we elude ourselves. Dread strikes us dumb. Revelation of Nothing discloses the strangeness of human existence. Heidegger wants to show the potency of Nothing against existence. Nothingness is underived and has a comprehensive dynamism and activity. Openness to Nothing is the virtue of existence. Nothing exhibits the nature and mode of what philosophy would normally refer to as transcendence. Nothingness in Heidegger is really something. Nothing is being that has some dimension of the holy and divine. Peace, serenity, and daring, overcome the revelation of Nothing in dread. Nothingness becomes something fruitful, salutary, and radiant rather than something dreadful and horrible or a dark abyss.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> <a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn81" name="_ftnref81" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[81]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We need to give ourselves time to reflect on the pattern our lives have been weaving. Death and loss are one of those times. Those whom we love keep leaving; keep journeying to "that land from which no traveler has ever returned." Think of death as a limit experience beyond the limits of normal life. We spend much of our lives avoiding, dreading, and defending ourselves against it. We think that beyond the limit is emptiness and loss. Yet, if we give ourselves time to reflect, we will also find creative love and courage that know no limits.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn82" name="_ftnref82" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[82]</span></sup></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The sentimental approach denies the harsh quality of life. It assumes that we can achieve good ends without effort, self-discipline, patience, or sacrifice. I am urging a form of realism when it comes to the pain of loss and death. Such experiences are simply facts of a human life. Yes, they can be hard, difficult, and painful facts, but they are facts nonetheless. Life is easy for no one. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The end yet to come casts its shadow in advance and defines the whole path of life as a being for death in the sense that we cannot integrate our end into our existence. Rather, our end threatens each moment of our living self-affirmation with nothingness. We lead our temporal lives under the shadow of death (Luke 1:79 and Matthew 4:16). Yet, our self-affirmation of life is an antithesis to our end in death. Fear of death pierces deep into life. It motivates us to unrestricted affirmation of ourselves. We grab for everything and everyone we can, clinging to the things around us as if doing so will keep death away from us. Death also robs us of the power to accept life, and thus we can see a close link between sin and death. The fact that we do not accept our finitude makes the inescapable end of our lives a manifestation of the power of death that threatens us with nothingness. The fear of death pushes us more deeply into sin. At the same time, as we live out our lives in time, we realize that our wholeness, fulfillment, and meaning are still ahead of us. We must link the ability to achieve wholeness to God, who is the only one who can bring to its wholeness the existence of our individual lives. Salvation means overcoming death. The wholeness that we seek cannot be our own act, for death is not our own act. We must suffer it. Death comes upon us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">At the core of human experience are the mystery of both the grandeur and the misery of self-conscious mortality. Unlike animals, humans know they will die. Yet, if we have courage, we also learn that our awareness of death gives life its juice and joy. Precisely because our lives are so painfully transient, they can also be so achingly meaningful. Our humanity consists of facing loss. Our lives will never become an easy form of contentment. If death always haunts us, there is the need for character and courage to live with what we know is ineradicable. Too much of what passes for therapy today seeks to remove the need for moral virtue to face the hardships of a human life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Is life meaningful?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Let us grant for now that we need to answer the question of meaning without the aid of the Infinite and Eternal. We have only finitude and temporality within which we can consider the question of meaning. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Let us begin with an act that is horrifying to most of us: voluntarily ending our lives with suicide. The act confesses that life is too much or that you do not understand it. Life is not worth the trouble. Naturally, life is not easy. Suicide implies that the habit of living, the absence of a profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation, and the uselessness of suffering, suggests the ridiculous quality of life. Although the universe gave birth to beings like us, our unique quality of consciousness enables us to reflect upon life as we experience it that can produce the feeling of being aliens and strangers. One experiences life in exile without the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. We are actors separated from the setting, and thus feel the absurdity of life. Must we leap into hope or into suicide? <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One way of looking upon existentialism is that it acknowledges the lack of meaning the universe has. It acknowledges the randomness of birth and death. Death is disturbing in its annihilation of the projects of a life and of our care for the world. Yet, it takes a leap in affirming that one can choose to live authentically, knowing that the limit or boundary of our choice is our death. To live in this way requires resoluteness and courage. The world is unreasonable. The separation one might feel is between the mind that desires and the world that disappoints. We have emerged out of a universe that cannot provide that which we desire. Simply accepting the absurdity may be all that we have. We do not know whether the world has a meaning. We know that we do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for us to know it. The danger is in my taking my appetite for wholeness and fullness and reduce this world to a rational and reasonable principle. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Could we live life better if it had no meaning? Living an experience, a fate, is accepting it fully. Living in the absurdity of our fate is an act of revolt. Living is keeping the absurd alive. The only coherent philosophy is one of revolt when confronted with the absurdity of life. We confront our obscurity. It challenges the world anew every second. A revolt devoid of hope acknowledges the crushing nature of our fate. The revolt gives life its vale. By living a permanent revolt of the absurdity of human fate, one restores majesty to that life. Confronted with a burning and frigid, transparent and limited universe in which nothing is possible, but everything is given, and beyond which all is collapse and nothingness, one can decide to accept such a universe and draw form it strength, refusal to hope, and a life without consolation. The absurd quality of a human life can lead to this revolt, my freedom in choosing to accept the calling of my life as a revolt and find my passion for life in the midst of the absurdity of life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Greek mythology contains the story of Sisyphus, a man whom the gods judged with the dreadful punishment of futile and hopeless labor. He would for eternity ceaselessly roll a rock to the top of a mountain, and the stone would fall back of its own weight. He lived with disrespect to the gods. He put Death in chains. But the god of war liberated him. Near death, he wanted to test the love of us wife. Obtaining permission to return to the world to chastise his wife. He fell in love with living, no longer wanting to return to the realm of the dead. He lived in defiance of the gods until he was finally captured and received his punishment. Yet could this myth be a symbol of a human life? We are condemned to futile and fruitless labor. If so, we can appreciate him as much for his passion for living and his rebellion as for his grim determination to keep rolling that rock up the mountain and then walking back to do it all over again. The pause in the myth, that moment when the stone rolls down and he must walk down the mountain, may well be the moment of joy for him. He smiles, knowing he once lived with passion and lived in revolt.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn83" name="_ftnref83" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[83]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Taken subjectively, we might go down the path of embracing the absurdness of life.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">However, the universe is a system of relations. Every element in the universe is modified by its participation in the system. Every element contributes to the larger system. Therefore, every element has a meaning beyond itself as it of necessity participates in the system. If one can grant this, then any universe that would have no conscious beings would still have meaning in that it would have a beginning, a system of relations, and movement toward its end. If this makes sense, then human life is meaningful simply because we remain participants in a larger system. <o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Theology and Existentialism<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The line of thought that arises out of Heidegger may be a way of analyzing human existence that provides the framework of a general view of humanity. The danger of binding theology too closely to the philosophical analysis of human existence provided by existentialism is always a possibility. Yet, its understanding of everydayness and inauthentic existence can stimulate theological reflection on human brokenness. One does not need divine revelation to see the effects of sin in corporate and individual life. The insight of existentialism into anxiety or dread as primary one considers the structure of human existence is valid, which would also mean that Kierkegaard is right in identifying dread as a loss of connection with the Infinite and the possibility of anticipatory wholeness. In this act of self-transcendence and openness to the world, humanity stretches beyond finitude and toward the Infinite. Heidegger will locate dread in the experience individuals have of this world that arises out of the care we have for the world as we project self into the nothingness of death. Such care can become little more than self-love ruling us, with self-preservation and striving for security and control dominating our lives. This explains why personal identity is so difficult for us. We can grant that that the guilt we experience is due to our indebtedness to our destiny and our responsibility toward it. We owe it to ourselves to have our lives correspond to this destiny. He introduces a time factor into the analysis of self-consciousness in that the future is decisive for the present way of existence of the human being. the question of personal selfness is accessible only by anticipating the future of one’s own death. The “extreme” place that death has in a human life becomes revelatory way as we “anticipate” that future in all this nothingness. For Heidegger, self-transcendence is transcendence is toward nothingness. The only way out of the questionable quality of human existence is the anticipatory knowledge of the death of the person. The anticipatory knowledge opens the possibility of the certainty of one’s Being. The certainty comes specifically through the call of conscience. The calling is from oneself. Answering the call is the achieving of identity. This ecstatic being-ahead-of-oneself in the future of the person has a positive understanding of the present as moment. The present is the moment in which human existence returns from its future in repetition to its past.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn84" name="_ftnref84" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[84]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Our responsibility for ourselves arises out of this sense of obligation. This idea is like that of Paul Ricoeur (<i>Symbolism of Evil, 102),</i> where he said that acceptance of responsibility is the basis of the consciousness of being an agent or author. The concept of action presupposes the concept of responsibility. Both the capacity for action and the sense of responsibility have their ground in the call to an authentic self. The judgment of conscience is a failure concerning achieving one’s self. I become conscious of something I lack and something I need. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This view of achieving personal identity has several challenges that deserve critical appraisal. One is the material abundance of possibilities of life preceding death apart from knowledge of inescapability of one’s own death. The contingency of events leading up to death argues against Heidegger here. In addition, death does not round out human existence into a whole. Death breaks off life. Even in the best instances, the successful life remains a fragment. We could also say that the intention toward wholeness necessarily reaches beyond death. The intended wholeness transcends the finitude of human life. The web of social life is part of this transcendence. Yet, the reciprocal relation of the social group and the individual suggests a bond that transcends them both that we might call the destiny of humanity. Self-transcendence is toward something rather than nothing. Yet, Heidegger is quite right to point to the importance of anticipation as the means through which humanity experiences its wholeness.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn85" name="_ftnref85" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[85]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Temporality, the Eternal, and Theology<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What I want to do here is push back on the notion that we have a right to dismiss consideration of the Infinite and Eternal, given that these are the philosophical notions that open a discussion of wholeness in distinction from viewing our lives individually and humanity collectively as fragmented. I grant that for some persons, life is full of so much suffering that it may well feel as if one is completely cut off. One can also, in the spirit of Locke, Hume, and Kant, have a philosophical notion of the isolated self that feels the distance between self and world. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The close connection between Being and time is that Being is an anticipation of its future essence. Heidegger would complete the severing of time and eternity. He based time on a general structure of transcendental subjectivity and on the concrete living out of our developing existence in time.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn86" name="_ftnref86" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[86]</span></span></span></a> However, to push back against most existentialist writers, the wholeness of human existence is not death, because it isolates in the individual question of existence from its social context.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn87" name="_ftnref87" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[87]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Granting that the desire to be fully and completely oneself is a desire to be God, embracing divine revelation recognizes the futility of the desire for fullness as established by oneself and opens the door for a discussion of an anticipatory fullness today and the hope for fullness provided by God in the future. Thus, the human passion for fullness is not useless, but its frustration could open one to a possible fullness in the future provided by God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The fulfillment of our finite life requires participation in the Eternal, and therefore, in life with God. Awareness of our finitude includes awareness that death is ahead of us. Facing this end, we still have a feeling for life as we pursue the course of a human life to its end. Heidegger describes this process quite well. Our sin separates us from God, even as death separates us from God. Death is a natural consequence of our finitude. When we live our lives independently of God, we know our finitude only as we know that death is ahead of us. Sinners deny the finitude of their existence in trying to be as God. The refusal to accept finitude delivers us to death. Life lived in time did have to be broken by the separation of past, present, and future. We have our self and identity only in anticipation of the totality of our lives. The self forms in relation to that which is other than itself. Yet, its self-seeking is such that remains with itself. Our now goes with us through the changes of time. Our sense of time is participation in eternity and awareness of the division and opposition of the moments of time. The end of this tension in a human life is death. Our finitude becomes death for us.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The notion of the Infinite remained an important part of the philosophical tradition through the early 1800s. Descartes could say that as he became aware of the finite, he had intuitive awareness of the Infinite. He could see that his finite life was part of the Infinite totality. Hegel developed a notion of the Infinite embracing the finite. Kierkegaard speak of the anxiety of modernity arising from being cut off from the Infinite. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The existentialism of the 20<sup>th</sup> century will assume that finitude is the final reality of humanity. Humanity is thrown into living, lives with the anxiety of the nothingness as it moves toward death, and gains wholeness only by courageously choosing our path of existence, knowing that nothingness, nullity, emptiness, and the void is the only outcome. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Consideration of the philosophical notion of the Infinite through the lens of Hegel can help us in an apologetic way in our modern setting. Locke, Kant, and Heidegger form the modern notion of subjectivity, all of whom divorce their reflection on the human being from the Infinite and Eternal. Our first thought of the Infinite is that it contrasts with the finite. Through Hegel, we learn that if all we do is contrast the Infinite and the finite, we place a limit on the Infinite, which would be a contradiction. The Infinite is truly infinite only when one no longer sees it simply in opposition to the finite, which would seem to turn the Infinite into the finite. The Infinite suggests freedom from limitation. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Such a notion of the Infinite affects how we approach the traditional attributes of God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For example, the central aspect of holiness is that of separation from everything profane. The point of the separation is to protect the profane from the holy. The holiness of God is primarily judgment. The holy threatens the profane because God is not totally other, but manifests deity in the human world. The threat of the holy is that it seeks to incorporate the profane into its world. When God elects a people, exclusive worship leads to the notion of the jealousy of the Lord. Yet, beyond every threat is hope of a new and definitive salvation. The holiness of God opposes and embraces the profane, bringing the profane into fellowship with the holy God. This is just one example of how we can resolve the contradiction in a Hegelian way by understanding that the true Infinite embraces the finite. Such a philosophical shift will replace the notion of first cause derived from Aristotle and replace it with the notion of the unthematic awareness of God based upon an examination of Descartes and Schleiermacher. Gregory of Nyssa based his notion of the incomprehensibility of God on the notion of Infinity, and Duns Scotus followed him in this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">John Wesley (On the Omnipresence of God [Sermon 111] and On the Unity of God [Sermon 114]) draws a close connection between the Infinite and Eternal and the attributes of God. I would especially point out that Wesley connects the holiness of God at this point rather than a reflection of the “moral” attributes of God. One, considering the Infinite as embracing the finite (Hegel), divine holiness is separate from the profane, but also embraces it and brings it into fellowship with the holy God. Two, the eternity of God opposes the frailty of the finite but is more than just endless time; it becomes the basis for our experience of time. The path to the goal is time, suggesting again the primacy of the future in our understanding of time. Boethius describes eternity as the perfect possession of life. Eternity has a positive and embracing relation to time. I would add that John Wesley (On Eternity, Sermon 54) seems to argue in the same vein. He admits that it is not easy to determine what time is, even though we use the word so much. Yet, time is a fragment of eternity, broken off at both ends, measured by the revolution of the sun and planets. Time is between that which was before it and that which is to come. In the “end,” brought by God, time will be no more, for it will sink into the ocean of eternity. Wesley says the Creator has made us partakers in the Eternal, referring to an ancient writer who referred to the human soul as a picture of divine eternity. Of course, Wesley applies such thoughts in a practical way, saying that the natural condition of human beings is to focus on the temporal rather than the eternal. He refers to it as folly and madness to prefer present things to the eternal. Our minds focus only on the portion of space and time that is immediate, rather than recognizing their context as the Infinite and Eternal.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Heidegger and Sartre reflect on time while dropping its connection with the eternal. Yet, we experience life with an anticipation of its wholeness. Hearing a melody, which has a sequence of notes, we hear the whole. Speech is a sequence of syllables, but we hear it as a whole. In an analogous way, duration occurs in our attention to the movement of time and in the movement of every ordered series. The view of duration as the synthesis of what is separated within the flow of time is significant from a psychological perspective as well as its application to non-human creatures. The being of a creature relates to its duration, and therefore, every creature participates in divine eternity.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn88" name="_ftnref88" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[88]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Plotinus is the origin of the idea of the primacy of the future, a theme that Heidegger explores as the means for attaining the wholeness of individual existence. In Augustine, time becomes the song that allows individual things to participate in eternity. In this way, duration is the synthesis of the flow of time. Finite being has its limited participation in the divine eternity. The problem with Kant is that the horizon of time is the ego, while the problem with Heidegger is that only the future of one’s own death constitutes meaning and time. Yet, meaning and wholeness occurs in the context of eternity, of the possible completion and participation of time in eternity.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn89" name="_ftnref89" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[89]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Therefore, if we look upon eternity from the insight of Hegel on the Infinite, the Spirit of God opposes the frailty of all things earthly, for the Spirit is the source of all life and has unrestricted life. Eternity does not just mean unlimited time. God is unchanging. All time is before the eyes of God as a whole. The notion of eternity was the reason early Christian theology found Platonism attractive. Plotinus importantly took the step of defining eternity as the presence of the totality of life. Eternity is not opposed to time but is the presupposition and source of time. With Plotinus, the soul lives in expectation of its wholeness and of the wholeness of all that is. Yet, the participation of Mind in the eternal is a fall from eternity because of its desire to control itself. The whole is present in temporal moments only in the sense that it hovers over the parts since the future is the whole. The decay into parts has the consequence that the whole becomes only the future goal of all striving within the realm of the finite. The path to this goal is time. This suggests the primacy of the future in our understanding of time since the orientation is toward the eternal totality.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn90" name="_ftnref90" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[90]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Let us consider the limited duration we experience in time. Limited duration is self-evident in the phenomena of the world. We can measure time only based on the notion of limited duration. We develop our identity in the course of the time we have. Even self-identity has its root in a notion of limited duration. A notion of limited duration is decisive for the independent existence of creatures. Life is present for us as we sense duration against the background of indefinite totality. Eternity represents unlimited duration. Thus, our experience of limited duration is anticipation of the unlimited duration of eternity. Our experience of time is participation in eternity in the sense that we experience the limited duration that anticipates the unlimited duration of Eternity. We receive hints of the contours of Eternity through recollection and expectation. Expectation takes precedence as we anticipate a future that completes time. An analogy might help. You hear a song, not simply in its individual notes, but as you think toward an ending the song has not yet reached. Our experience of time separates past from future, while the present bridges time in a way that offers limited duration to the individual. Continued objective individual duration in recollection and expectation corresponds to the duration we find in the Eternal. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This view of time has an opponent in those who propose the self-constitution of time. Aristotle thought of the subjective soul as the one counting time. Kant replaced the notion of Eternity as the basis of continuity and unity of time with the constant and abiding ego. In Heidegger, time is part of the general structure of transcendental subjectivity and the concrete living out of our developing existence in time. Such disintegration of our experience of time occurs because we cling to the present, extend it, and relate everything to it. The Now wanders through time as a sense of duration. The “I” cannot constitute the duration of our existence. The reason is that in the flux of time, each Now replaces another Now. The “I” makes duration both stretching and disintegration. The “I” is passing and changing in the flow of time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Within the existential view, then, as we have received the gift of life, we will surrender our lives to the nothingness of death. <o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Existentialism as tilling the soil for a discussion of a philosophy of the spirit<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Some forms of existentialism will view the existential analysis of the human situation as preparing the ground for a philosophy of spirit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> For the Christian existentialist, existentialism is a recognition of how difficult it is to keep in mind the uniqueness and dignity of the individual created in the image of God. Humanity may well find an end that it is not the creature theologians have affirmed. The less we think of human beings as individuals of sacred worth and dignity, the stronger will be the temptation to treat them as machines that provide a certain output. Theoretically, the gradual abandonment of belief in the afterlife would lead to greater appreciation for this world. What has happened is the opposite. Life in this world is now without justification and thus a worthless phenomenon. Modernity consigns humanity to having death as its final word.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn91" name="_ftnref91" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[91]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Yet, we are supra-personal, intersubjective beings. Sacrifice for the sake of others occurs with the background ontology of intersubjectivity. We have an important metaphysical decision to make regarding immortality. The influence of technique prepares us for the disappearance of intersubjective relations. Death becomes a raw fact, like replacing one mechanistic part for another. Some will say that the belief in immortality is ego-centric. Religion itself must not be tied to something so problematic. However, we need to consider love. Love says that whatever changes may occur between us, you and I will persist as one. Death does not nullify the promise of eternity. The bond of love implies the inherent need for eternity. This statement relies upon the metaphysical status of hope. Can we separate faith in God, who has formed human beings for intersubjectivity and love, from this intersubjectivity and love persisting into eternity? That which is at stake in considering immortality is this living link. Is this holy and living God capable of ignoring, consider as accidental, consider as insignificant, and decree annihilation of our human bond in intersubjectivity and love?<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn92" name="_ftnref92" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[92]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The living God can only be spirit. Such a word has reached its fullness as we consider intersubjectivity and love. We often think of immortality as a place “beyond,” but such a beyond consists in unknown dimensions unknown to us in our present structures of existence. We are not a closed system, but one open to this “beyond.” This thought leads us to consider hope. The opposite of hope is dejection, expecting nothing from self, others, or life. Life becomes immobilized, congealed, and frozen for such a person. In Christianity, hope is a virtue, as are faith and love. Hope is akin to courage. Courage faces danger with full recognition of the situation, but reduces that situation to nothingness, treating it as of no account. Yet, it fully appreciates the gravity of the situation. One who has hope for a world of justice and peace has a prophetic stance toward a future that will come, giving one the courage to face the challenges to that hope. Hope faces a world dominated by social technique, where life comes to a standstill and succumbs to boredom. Tragedy is behind hope. No matter how dark things may seem, my present intolerable situation is not final. Hope says there must be a way out. Hope does not close in upon oneself; it radiates toward and embraces others. Hope implies an expansion of time. A closed view of time is a form of despair in which one expects nothing from life. Closed time also shows itself in the boredom of fulfilling daily tasks as the sole task of one’s life. Hope is another name from the exigence of transcendence that becomes the driving force of the human pilgrim. Even weakened life has a sacred quality. Such considerations recognize the ambiguity of life, but also recognize the incomprehensible unity of what we thought might have no connection, such as being and death. As the myth of the phoenix shows, all life may hold within it the promise of resurrection. It may well be sacrilegious and absurd to do all one can to assert the finality of death. He acknowledges that our action must exert itself in another dimension.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn93" name="_ftnref93" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[93]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> A philosophy of spirit will consider other dimensions of hope. Faith, hope, and love are a unity. The presence of faith gives hope its intelligible frame. We need to see our lives as a gift, and not just a fact. As gift, one has no existence simply in oneself. In appreciating this gift, freedom can grow in a way that coincides with the trials one must face and in which one will need to make a decision and face decisive options.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn94" name="_ftnref94" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[94]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Faith is not simply a mental event. However, faith does not require proofs for the existence of God. Such proofs are not convincing. Those who form such proofs can always accuse someone not persuaded of an ill will, for they want life without the limits that God would establish. God simply should not be. Further, the incomprehensibility of the suffering of children can lead people like Albert Camus to say there is no God. The paradox is that proofs are ineffective precisely where they want to succeed, that is, in persuading the unbeliever. While some believers may find their faith strengthened by proofs, one believes in God on other grounds, so they serve little purpose. One has experiences one interprets as of God, and that becomes sufficient. For such persons, the final word is not nothingness, anguish, and death, but love and joy.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn95" name="_ftnref95" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[95]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> A bond exists between faith and truth. When a gap opens between faith and truth, faith is degenerating into idolatry or opinion, or truth is becoming arid and giving way to limiting reason to its logical, methodical, and exact function. The spirit of truth is a light. Intelligibility is joyful coming together of thoughts. We need to remove the prejudices that block us from faith and thereby make us open to grace. Saints affirm that everything is grace. Many believers could share in this affirmation, even with some reservations. We need to recognize evil as having a reality that identifies it with death. Salvation is deliverance from death. All hope is for salvation. There is no salvation in a world whose structure points toward death. Death may well be the price paid for sin. Thus, technique will not deliver us from death. We are involved in countless structures in which a spirit of faith will perceive the presence of sin. Sin is against the light of truth. Sin is the act of shutting oneself in on oneself or taking oneself as the center. The world of sin is a world in which death is at home. If this world can be conquered, it will only be through a hard and tragic fight, engaging in conditions not of our choosing but also form part of our vocation. Salvation is indistinguishable from peace. Such peace is the living progress in love and truth toward an intelligible city that we might think of as a mystical body.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn96" name="_ftnref96" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[96]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Philosophy is a long preparation for death (Plato). To use a musical analogy, we may start as soloist in the spiritual journey, but we graduate to be part of the orchestra in which the dead are closer to God, who is the symphony in its profound and intelligible unity, a unity in which we participate by degrees, through individual trials, the sum of which is not separable from our vocation.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn97" name="_ftnref97" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[97]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="break-after: avoid; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; line-height: 37.33333206176758px; margin: 12pt 0in 3pt 0.4in; text-indent: -0.4in;">Considering the place of divine revelation<o:p></o:p></h3><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Such a philosophy of spirit does not yet consider revelation. Yet, such considerations may assist us in approaching revelation. We need to admit that the path of affirming revelation is a difficult road full of obstacles, but by following this pilgrim road, we can hope to see the eternal light that has shown itself in the world, a light without which we would never have started the journey.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn98" name="_ftnref98" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[98]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Any discussion of revelation assumes that there are truths concerning us and our world that we cannot learn through the usual methods of human enquiry. They are communicated to us in a unique way.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn99" name="_ftnref99" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[99]</span></span></span></a> Such an encounter with the divine could be an illusion but gains in credibility when it addresses the human situation. It helps one see the same things in a distinct way. We will find parallels and connections to our mundane experience or in the accounts of human experience in philosophical reflection.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn100" name="_ftnref100" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[100]</span></span></span></a> For example, the conscience is our awareness of authentic possibility and the disorder that plagues human life, while revelation is authenticated if lit overcomes the disorder.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn101" name="_ftnref101" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[101]</span></span></span></a> The concept of revelation acknowledges that if we are to know anything about God, it will be because God reveals who God is. The initiative is from God. Revelation is therefore an expression of the grace and love of God for humanity. We hear revelation as a strange or foreign presence. In part, such strangeness arises out of differing cultural and intellectual settings. Yet, its strangeness also arises out of its eschatological and therefore divine nature. The future is primary in our knowledge of God, just as the future is primary in self-knowledge. Its strangeness is a sign of human sin. Therefore, the revelation of God is manifestation of divine love and grace. God revealed who God is in Jesus Christ, especially in his cross and resurrection. The abiding and saving significance of the cross is that it reveals the judgment and deliverance of humanity. Preaching the cross is the event of redemption that challenges all who hear to appropriate this significance for themselves. We experience crucifixion with Christ through this turn to the cross in faith. Authentic existence today depends upon this turn in faith to the cross. The cross becomes part of an eschatological history that originates in the historical event of the cross and continues in the life of the believer. If the crucifixion of Jesus is primary, then our crucifixion with Christ derives its significance from the death of Christ “for us.” The revelation of God in the cross, the one crucified for the godless, makes it possible for us to follow him.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> <a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn102" name="_ftnref102" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[102]</span></span></a></span> Salvation of humanity is possible because of the eschatological nature of the revelation of God. This revelation reveals the future. The historical point of reference is the eschatological preaching of Jesus as opening the door to understanding Jesus himself as the eschatological action of God. Consistent with the existential emphasis on the event nature of the transition to authentic life, one could understand the revelation of God as a matter of human beings coming to themselves and understanding themselves truly. Arriving at our authentic self is salvation. Thus, revelation is the basis of authenticity. One cannot achieve authenticity through individual effort. Divinity discloses itself in authenticity. Revelation addresses us. Preaching is revelation. Faith discloses the object of faith. Faith belongs to revelation. Revelation is the arrival of the future proleptically and in anticipation of the fullness of the future. Faith is openness to the future.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Faith brings the possibility of getting free of the past and therefore of beginning anew in each moment as we hear and fulfill the summons to love. The new age becomes an age of love as I am a lover and directed toward the future. The new age is a present reality in the activity of love, especially in forgiveness that frees one from the past. In Christ, such forgiveness is already present. The believer and the neighbor are in the same situation as sinners who receive grace. The believer needs to look upon the neighbor as the one already forgiven. In the neighbor, the love of Christ meets us. Love, understood as the manifestation of the love of God, is a release from the past. Faith implies understanding and obedience.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn103" name="_ftnref103" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[103]</span></span></span></a> A genuine human life is one we live out of what is invisible and in which we have surrendered all self-contrived security. Such a life is by the Spirit and in faith. This life becomes possible through faith in the grace of God. We trust the invisible and unfamiliar as it encounters as love and gives us a future that means life. Such grace forgives sin and frees us from the past. The past holds us in bondage. Through the past, we seek to secure ourselves and cling to what is perishing. Such an attitude is sin because it is closure against what is invisible, and the future of the gift God wants to give. Faith means opening ourselves freely to this future. Such faith is obedience as we turn from self, surrender security, renounce any attempt to be acceptable and gain our true life. Such an attitude is freedom.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn104" name="_ftnref104" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[104]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Existential analysis of the human beings makes the strangeness of the gospel clearer in that the preaching of Jesus and the early church occur in the context of Jewish apocalyptic. Jewish apocalyptic will feel strange and alien to the person living in the technocratic, scientific, and democratic setting of today. Existentialism will tend to focus upon the contemporary act of faith. It will set aside references to world history, and thus references to Israel, Jewish history, and the divine act of bringing the world to its completion in Christ. The Old Testament and Judaism become background for the eschatological revelation in Christ. To mention an obvious point, the imminent expectation of the rule of God that determined the activity and life of Jesus is no longer a live option for us and is unnecessary. If a divinely appointed end of human history is ahead of us when this completion and fullness of human history and nature is unknown to us. The general position of a theology influenced by existentialism is that the notion of resurrection contained in the kerygma needs to be freed from its apocalyptic content and bring liberation from the bondage of inauthentic existence today. The oppressed sinner can only respond with faith obedience, leading the person to a new self-understanding that comes with an encounter with grace. The significance of Easter is the rise of faith in the hearts and lives of the disciples. This faith means the rise of a new self-understanding they had of themselves as sinners who encounter grace from God in Jesus Christ. The existential understanding of Easter will turn away from the idea of Easter as narrating a significant even in the history of God with humanity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A pushing back against existentialism here would say that Easter was a revelatory event within divine life. It reveals the meaning of the future of humanity. The imminent expectation had its fulfillment in the resurrection of Jesus. This fact liberates those who believe today from thinking of when the end will come. Therefore, the theologian might say that we can live and think in continuity with apostolic Christianity and thus with the activity of Jesus if we recognize its proleptic fulfillment in the resurrection of Jesus. Christ rose into the yet undetermined future realm ahead of us. The kerygma points us to that future, giving content to the Christian hope of the redemption of the human story. Kerygma points to the future of Jesus Christ, not just the authenticity of our existence.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn105" name="_ftnref105" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[105]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> I would like to draw an analogy with a move many of us have been willing to make regarding creation. A narrow segment of Christianity continues adhering to the notion of six days of creation and reject evolution. For many of us, it has been quite comfortable to accept the notion of the big bang as the origin of the universe and evolution as accurately describing the creative energies present in the universe and on the earth. The combination of stable rules that provide the stability of nature with enough indeterminate chaos to allow for the emergence of new forms is an important part of the dialogue theology needs to have science. In an analogous way, the way apocalyptic as found in the New Testament expresses an end to the world does not need to be taken literally. It may point to a hoped-for fullness that is the goal of human and natural history.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> The point is that as good as existentialism might be in illuminating the nature of the event of faith in a believer, it has a weakness in dealing with the event-nature of the history of Christ that precedes proclamation and faith as their foundation. The history of Christ took place without us and for us. Thus, the gospel is more than kerygmatic address. The gospel is also a liberating telling of the history of Christ at the same time. Combined, this allows us to hope for the rule of God. As we broaden and deepen our theological understanding of the act of faith, we see that this hope deepens the solidarity of the person of faith with the unredeemed nature of this world. The person of faith sees the alienation of self and world from their true nature. As we ponder the work of God in creation, reconciliation, and redemption, the person of faith sees clearly the disfigurement, enslavement, and pain of this world. Revelation allows us to wait for the glorification of the new creation.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn106" name="_ftnref106" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[106]</span></span></span></a> To confront the eschatological possibility, we deprive the previous course of events of determinative force. The course the event took in time is irrelevant to its meaning as an eschatological event of the moment. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Existentialism cannot elucidate the look back to Jesus Christ. We will need to broaden our philosophical perspective.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The traditional notion may well create a narrative of the eschatological action of God in human history that liberates rather than imprisons. It offers a reliable basis to place trust or faith in this action of God, to see this action as reflective of the grace and love of God for us as sinners and offer hope for a redeemed creation and humanity. Rather than such a notion importing an alien worldview into the kerygma, it may well be that the kerygma invites its hearers to have faith in or trust an alien or strange action. The church may well do a disservice to its mission by removing the apocalyptic nature of the strangeness of the kerygma. It may well feel strange, in part, precisely because of its divine nature, its revelatory purpose, and its address to us as sinners. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If birth, life, and death have absurd dimensions, then revelation has such a dimension as well. It will be a paradox at an important level. Christianity begins with the absurd, the offense, the paradox. The danger is in making the revelation to which the New Testament testifies too rational and acceptable. If one is not careful, one becomes a second Judas in the process. In this sense, a paradox contradicts the openion of ordinary human experience. It contradicts the empirical and the use of our calculative thinking. It has an offensive character in that sense. The appearance of a new potentiality in an historical moment or event, such as in Jesus, is the paradox of the Christian message. This appearance is the divine answer to the longing of humanity for an authentic existence that resolves the tensions and polarities of a human life. The parasox of the Christian message is that in one personal life essential humanity has appeared under the conditions of alienated and estranged human existence without those conditions conquering him.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn107" name="_ftnref107" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[107]</span></span></span></a> In its proclamation, the church embraces this paradox and calls people to decide for God in relation to Christ. It does so with the confidence that one can find anticipatory fulfillment of the rule of God in bringing balance to the polarities and tensions of human existence. The possibility of authentic life is found by focusing our faith and hope in Christ as we seek to embody the love of God and others. Jesus Christ becomes the symbol of Being, in whom Being is present and manifest. He focuses Being in the sense that he is the disclosure of the mystery of Being. The historical symbol has an existential dimension in that it lights up for us our own being and our undisclosed possibilities of existence. Christ is the paradigmatic existence in a way that allows us to receive a renewed understanding of ourselves that amounts to a new possibility of existence. He belongs to God, but he also belongs to creation and therefore to humanity. That is the paradox of Jesus as the Christ.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn108" name="_ftnref108" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[108]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">We have discussed the notion of eternity and time. Can the Eternal have an historical point of departure? Christianity will say yes, and that the Eternal has done so in Jesus. Christianity will also say that an historical point of departure that manifests the Eternal will do one no good unless one appropriates it within life. The response of faith rather than offense makes the event of the historical point of departure more than a matter of simple historical interest. Thus, human happiness has its possibility in the event of the manifestation of Eternity, but the personal response of faith and willingness to live one’s life in accord with this event is what provides eternal happiness.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn109" name="_ftnref109" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[109]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">How far does the Truth admit of being learned? Socrates would begin with the notion of recollection. Therefore, he assumes that the individual already has the Truth within. Socrates was a midwife for thought in others. In fact, the highest relation between one person and another is bringing forth thought. For Socrates, each point of departure in time is accidental, an occasion, a vanishing moment. In Socratic thought, self-knowledge is knowledge of God. Each person becomes his or her own center. In one sense, every person becomes a teacher. The teacher who brings forth truth, in which I rest, is incidental. Socratic questioning assumes that I have the truth within myself and can acquire it myself. Now, if things are to be otherwise, the moment in time must have decisive significance. The previous state of the learner must be that of error, and therefore the learner is not even a seeker. The teacher gives the learner the knowledge that the learner is in error. The teacher must bring the truth to the learner and provide the condition necessary for understanding it. Yet, such a teacher is more than a human being. Rather, the teacher is “the God.” The destitute condition of the learner is one we might call sin. What shall we call such a teacher? We should call him Savior and Redeemer. He becomes an atonement that removes the wrath justly directed to the prior condition of the learner. This teacher is more of a judge than a teacher. Such a moment must, in fact, have a distinctive name that we call the fullness of time. As we shift our attention to the learner, we can see that he or she becomes a disciple, a new person. We might call the change conversion. Yet, what precedes conversion is repentance. We might call the transition a new birth. The disciple owes everything to the teacher. He concludes the chapter by imaging someone say that this is a ridiculous project of thought.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn110" name="_ftnref110" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[110]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If God is a teacher, what would motivate the God to come into finite existence? Love is the motivation. Love motivates God to reveal who God is. God loves the learner and desires to win the learner as a follower. Only in love does the unequal become equal. The love is unhappy due to the great distance between the God and the learner. They cannot understand each other. How can the God and the learner ever understand each other? Well, an erotic form of love might elevate the learner. God might show who God is in a dramatic way, making the learner forget whom he or she was. Alternatively, an agape form of love would cause God to come in the form familiar to the learner. If the moment is to have eternal significance for the learner, the learner will owe everything to the teacher. The union between God and the learner will occur through a descent. God must become a servant. Every other form of “revelation” would be a form of deception. Suffering will be the life of this servant. The cause of this suffering is love.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn111" name="_ftnref111" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[111]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Since this God is not provable from our reason or nature, we have a paradox, our reasoning colliding with the paradox. When we let go of the need for a proof, we are ready for the leap.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn112" name="_ftnref112" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[112]</span></span></span></a> If the paradox and reason meet and acknowledge their unlikeness, the meeting is a happy one. However, if reason cannot accept this, and still seeks understanding, we have an offended consciousness. The offense causes reason to stand apart from the paradox.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn113" name="_ftnref113" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[113]</span></span></span></a> Our continual attempts to understand the Incarnation and Trinity presuppose faith. The Christian may develop an easy relationship with such notions and thus forget the offense the teaching of Christianity is to many people. Christians can develop confidence in what they believe, but they must never forget its offensive nature.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">When reason and paradox have a happy meeting, we call it faith. In this sense, the historical makes no difference. Historical knowledge alone is not enough to bring a person to faith. Any knowledge about the teacher is accidental. Since the entire situation is non-Socratic, the learner owes everything to the teacher. Faith is not knowledge, for one cannot have knowledge of the absurd. Since the teacher has provided the condition for the learner, the object of faith is the teacher rather than a body of doctrine. The contemporary may see the teacher, but this does not make the contemporary a disciple. Really, only the believer, the non-immediate contemporary, knows the teacher. Every non-contemporary can become a contemporary disciple.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn114" name="_ftnref114" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[114]</span></span></span></a> The first disciples have the responsibility of reporting that they have believed and relate the content of the paradox for faith. The contemporary generation only needs to trust the credibility of the report that God has in fact become a human being. In fact, the historical contemporary with the paradox wants no special treatment. God brings the contemporary and all other generations together. Unfortunately, a generation could come that would look at Christian faith as triumphant. Yet, faith that celebrates its triumph would be ridiculous. It would never actually believe. Faith is always militant, in the battle, and therefore, the possibility for defeat is always present. Faith is always moving out into battle to confront the enemy. Faith is never returning home in victory.<a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftn115" name="_ftnref115" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[115]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For Christianity, the subjective decision that we make in faithful response to grace is critical. Yet, as important as the decision is, it has a content that has a reasonable basis. The history of Jesus, including the witness to the resurrection of Jesus, offers this reasonable basis. The gospel can provide clarity of that future toward which we must open our lives, for the future is fellowship with Jesus. Our act of faith is always letting go of human securities to embrace the possibilities of the future rule of God in our lives today as well as the hope of the future. Our act of faith is also an embrace of the past action of God that transforms the narrative of human history into the divine story of creation, reconciliation, and redemption. It will mean the presence of a new life shaped by the Ten Commandments, by love of God and neighbor, by faith, hope, and love, by developing virtue and avoiding vice, and the transformation of the everyday experiences of family, neighborhood, work, and associations. This new and eschatological life will find support in being part of the global experience of the people of God, as it will always behave in ways contrary to the pressures exerted by cultural, economic, and political institutions. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Christology needs to find a way to affirm that the eschatological proclamation needs the narrative of Jesus to identify the eschaton that one in fact proclaims. Jesus in his full historical reality of one born, baptized, teaching, healing, proclaiming of the nearness of the rule of God, passion, and resurrection, is the Word of God. The resurrection confirms the life Jesus lived, in all its Jewishness, and opens the way toward making the Jewish eschatological hopes universal. To put it simply and directly, Jesus would not be the Word, he would not rise into the kerygma/gospel, and he would not rise into the church as the Body of Christ, without the historical resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Such a message, far from imprisoning us to the past, liberates us for the future redeeming act of God that has dawned in Christ and participates by faith in the risen Christ as we participate in the Body of Christ and live in the life-giving power of the Spirit. This hope for the redemption of humanity and indeed the redemption of creation is eschatological life in its fullness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="643397360">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 269<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-859111330">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Volume I, Preface.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1748146813">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Volume I, Introduction, 4, 5, 6, 12, 49<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1332222246">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter II, 50, 51.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1844666857">(Husserl, Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology 1977, 1950, 1929, 1931)</w:sdt> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1908611847">(Husserl, Experience and Judgment: Investigations in a Geneaology of Logic 1973, 1935)</w:sdt> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1660960545">(Husserl, Ideas: A General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology 1913, 1931)</w:sdt> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-80521888">(Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy 1970, 1934-7 and first published in 1954)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1374429753">(Jaspers, Reason and Existenz 1935)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="630065798">(Jaspers, Philosophy and the World 1963)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="200668739">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt> Vol I, Introduction<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="930166757">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt> Introduction<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="933249957">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Introduction, 14.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-233862675">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt> Vol I, 163-203.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="431327338">(Merleau-Ponty 1945, 1962)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1198123455">(Heidegger 1962, 1927)</w:sdt> Much of what I describe as existentialist is from Heidegger.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1420216413">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt>Vol I, Chapter VI.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="981265903">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt>Vol I, Chapter VII<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1718970456">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV, 89.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> Journal of Kierkegaard, 1846-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-880633083">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt>, Part One, Chapter One.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-618925266">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt> Part Two, Chapter Three.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="414452339">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter V.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn21"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-869595672">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV, 82-3, 85-6, describing aspects of the later Heidegger, mostly in <i>What is called thinking.</i> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1241173565">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Vol. I, 71-9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn22"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1665287290">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Vol, I, 79-81.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn23"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-573980463">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt> Vol I, 81-94.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn24"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1200632737">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt>, Vol. I, 94-105.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn25"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1461381507">(Kierkegaard, The Concept of Anxiety: A Simple Psychologically Orienting Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue of Hereditary Sin 1844,, 1980)</w:sdt>, Section II.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn26"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="468093327">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt>, Part Three, Chapter One and Two.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn27"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1920314365">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt> Part Three, Chapter 3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn28"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="9970434">(Merleau-Ponty 1945, 1962)</w:sdt> Part One<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn29"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-182064118">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt>, Part Three, end of Chapter 3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn30"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1531375100">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt> Vol I, Chapter IV.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn31"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="208309491">(Camus, The Stranger 1942)</w:sdt>.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn32"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-13854452">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt>Vol I, Chapter III<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn33"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="425398548">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt>Vol I VIII.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn34"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1963724731">(Kierkegaard, On Authority and Revelation: The Book on Adler: or, A Cycle of Ethico-Religious Essays. 1846)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn35"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1405410292">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt> Part One, Chapter Two.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn36"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-596164999">(Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God 1988, 1990)</w:sdt>, 77-90. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn37"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="890303260">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt> Part Four, Chapter One.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn38"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1308541823">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt> Part Two, Chapter Two.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn39"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-100568043">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 27-28, Letters to a German Friend.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn40"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-56783409">(Sartre 1943, 1956)</w:sdt> Part Four, Chapter Two.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn41"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="482674367">(Merleau-Ponty 1945, 1962)</w:sdt> Part Three<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn42"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1208216694">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt> Vol I, Chapter IX.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn43"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[43]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1189881538">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt> Vol I, Chapter X.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn44"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[44]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-2043894753">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt> Part One, Chapter III, 54-74, Chapter IV, 77<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn45"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref45" name="_ftn45" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[45]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1284617523">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter II<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn46"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref46" name="_ftn46" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[46]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-2117676279">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter III.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn47"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref47" name="_ftn47" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[47]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-273019154">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt>, Vol II, Chapter I.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn48"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref48" name="_ftn48" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[48]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="405811145">(Camus, The Plague 1947)</w:sdt> Chapter 9<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn49"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref49" name="_ftn49" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[49]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2092973577">(Kierkegaard, On Authority and Revelation: The Book on Adler: or, A Cycle of Ethico-Religious Essays. 1846)</w:sdt> “Postscript.”<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn50"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref50" name="_ftn50" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[50]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-754211873">(Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism 1956, 1966)</w:sdt>, “On the Ontological Mystery,” 1-32.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn51"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref51" name="_ftn51" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[51]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-963118870">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 83.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn52"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref52" name="_ftn52" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[52]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1254663823">(Camus, The Plague 1947)</w:sdt> Chapter 15, 21<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn53"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref53" name="_ftn53" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[53]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="96538090">(Camus, The Plague 1947)</w:sdt> Chapter 21. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn54"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref54" name="_ftn54" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[54]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1240560323">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt> Vol I, Chapter II.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn55"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref55" name="_ftn55" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[55]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-852568336">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt> Vol I, Chapter VII<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn56"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref56" name="_ftn56" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[56]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1482349135">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 59, 62-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn57"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref57" name="_ftn57" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[57]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-887873011">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 70.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn58"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref58" name="_ftn58" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[58]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1633634609">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 90.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn59"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref59" name="_ftn59" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[59]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1019901427">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 92-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn60"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref60" name="_ftn60" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[60]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-767238598">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 96.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn61"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref61" name="_ftn61" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[61]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-354268753">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 100.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn62"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref62" name="_ftn62" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[62]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-113210415">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 103.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn63"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref63" name="_ftn63" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[63]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="961157806">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 120-1.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn64"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref64" name="_ftn64" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[64]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-137951612">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 248, 268.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn65"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref65" name="_ftn65" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[65]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1041398239">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 239-40.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn66"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref66" name="_ftn66" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[66]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1074313367">(Camus, The Rebel 1951)</w:sdt>, Foreword by Herbert Read.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn67"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref67" name="_ftn67" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[67]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-125006541">(Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and death 1961)</w:sdt> 272<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn68"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref68" name="_ftn68" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[68]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="533700199">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV, 92.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn69"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref69" name="_ftn69" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[69]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1573350338">(MacIntyre, After Virtue 1981, 1984)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn70"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref70" name="_ftn70" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[70]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1130902977">(Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity 1991)</w:sdt>. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn71"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref71" name="_ftn71" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[71]</span></span></span></a> Kierkegaard, <i>Purity of Heart, </i>Chapter 15.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn72"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref72" name="_ftn72" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[72]</span></span></span></a> Kierkegaard, <i>Purity of Heart, </i>Chapter 9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn73"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref73" name="_ftn73" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[73]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-627929086">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt>, 301-3, 308-10.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn74"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref74" name="_ftn74" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[74]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1175382224">(Moltmann, Theology of Hope 1965, 1967)</w:sdt>, 314-6, 321.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn75"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref75" name="_ftn75" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[75]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1593234552">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt>, 295-312.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn76"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref76" name="_ftn76" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[76]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1094515995">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt>, 224-42.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn77"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref77" name="_ftn77" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[77]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1417319251">(Marcel, On the Ontological Mystery 1933)</w:sdt> 444-6<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn78"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref78" name="_ftn78" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[78]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1902703275">(Marcel, On the Ontological Mystery 1933)</w:sdt> 40-4.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn79"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref79" name="_ftn79" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[79]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-2056073471">(Marcel, On the Ontological Mystery 1933)</w:sdt> 334-49<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn80"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref80" name="_ftn80" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[80]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1636329822">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter IX.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn81"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref81" name="_ftn81" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[81]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-628557643">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> Volume III.3 [50.3] 334-49.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn82"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref82" name="_ftn82" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[82]</span></span></span></a> Paul Ricoeur on death as a limit experience.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn83"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref83" name="_ftn83" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[83]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1939056161">(Camus, The Myth of Sisypus and Other Essays 1955)</w:sdt> for these reflections on embracing the absurdness of life.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn84"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref84" name="_ftn84" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[84]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1559616938">(Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective 1985)</w:sdt>, 209-11, 234, 237-9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn85"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref85" name="_ftn85" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[85]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="103926497">(Pannenberg, Systematic Theology 1998, 1991)</w:sdt> Volume I, 166-7.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn86"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref86" name="_ftn86" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[86]</span></span></span></a> (<i>Critique of Pure Reason, </i>with WP, <i>Metaphysics,</i> p. 82-84)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn87"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref87" name="_ftn87" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[87]</span></span></span></a> [See Concept and Anticipation, in Pannenberg, <i>Metaphysics and the Idea of God, </i>91-109, but especially 104-9.]<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn88"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref88" name="_ftn88" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[88]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="755183363">(Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God 1988, 1990)</w:sdt>, 79-82.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn89"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref89" name="_ftn89" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[89]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1737850781">(Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God 1988, 1990)</w:sdt>, 69-90. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn90"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref90" name="_ftn90" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[90]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1791080389">(Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God 1988, 1990)</w:sdt>, 75-77.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn91"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref91" name="_ftn91" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[91]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="897777034">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter IX<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn92"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref92" name="_ftn92" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[92]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="73249129">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter IX<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn93"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref93" name="_ftn93" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[93]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1094514312">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter IX<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn94"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref94" name="_ftn94" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[94]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="601919527">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter X<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn95"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref95" name="_ftn95" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[95]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="302521073">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter X<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn96"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref96" name="_ftn96" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[96]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1319415407">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter X<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn97"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref97" name="_ftn97" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[97]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1604374330">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter X<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn98"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref98" name="_ftn98" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[98]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-978295870">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt> Vol II, Chapter X<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn99"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref99" name="_ftn99" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[99]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-25334218">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt> Chapter II, 39.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn100"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref100" name="_ftn100" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[100]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="291101517">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV, 79, 80.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn101"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref101" name="_ftn101" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[101]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1108506920">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt>, Chapter IV, 92<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn102"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref102" name="_ftn102" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[102]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="361481419">(Moltmann, The Crucified God 1973, 1974)</w:sdt>, 61-2.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn103"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref103" name="_ftn103" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[103]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-643814300">(Bultmann, What is Theology 1926-36)</w:sdt> kindle edition 1694, 1703, 1829, 1831, 1834, 1985, 1988, 1995.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn104"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref104" name="_ftn104" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[104]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1632517569">(Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings 1984)</w:sdt> “New Testament and Mythology,” (1941) 282, 283.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn105"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref105" name="_ftn105" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[105]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-342083675">(Moltmann, Theology of Hope 1965, 1967)</w:sdt>, 173, 178, 185-7, 189-90, 212-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn106"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref106" name="_ftn106" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[106]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1890757591">(Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Conribution to Messianic Ecclesiology 1975, 1977)</w:sdt> 210-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn107"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref107" name="_ftn107" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[107]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1795293838">(Tillich 1951)</w:sdt> Vol II, 90-96.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn108"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref108" name="_ftn108" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[108]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1049296213">(Macquarrie 1966)</w:sdt> 249-50, 272.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn109"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref109" name="_ftn109" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[109]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-956099819">(Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments 1844, 1962)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn110"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref110" name="_ftn110" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[110]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-633413892">(Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments 1844, 1962)</w:sdt>, Chapter I, “A Project of Thought,” under the pseudonym Johannes Climacus.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn111"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref111" name="_ftn111" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[111]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="128604101">(Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments 1844, 1962)</w:sdt> Chapter II.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn112"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref112" name="_ftn112" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[112]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-60182661">(Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments 1844, 1962)</w:sdt> Chapter III.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn113"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref113" name="_ftn113" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[113]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1954364507">(Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments 1844, 1962)</w:sdt> Appendiix: the Paradox and the Offended Consciousness.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn114"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref114" name="_ftn114" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[114]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-252520094">(Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments 1844, 1962)</w:sdt> Chapter IV<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn115"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://6EEBB9D3-C6E2-40D7-8554-1E42779ABBE2#_ftnref115" name="_ftn115" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[115]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-732389209">(Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments 1844, 1962)</w:sdt> Chapter V<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-21471676385112375302021-06-21T15:39:00.002-07:002021-06-21T15:57:11.404-07:00Essay on Theological Method<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz9ADA01po3QYt65uMxsn5xQk5ib59wkvnyZn7DpyVFIBx-P5Wc5VWfH6K7kg5P8Hx7EdHIqhd65IVzCw1r-qL5R_cbFdLUzRsTnrRCUWbxU36TSH-070xKt96Q48FwE1gb1w81KYyDjf4/s960/what-is-theology.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="722" data-original-width="960" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz9ADA01po3QYt65uMxsn5xQk5ib59wkvnyZn7DpyVFIBx-P5Wc5VWfH6K7kg5P8Hx7EdHIqhd65IVzCw1r-qL5R_cbFdLUzRsTnrRCUWbxU36TSH-070xKt96Q48FwE1gb1w81KYyDjf4/s320/what-is-theology.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.3in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.3in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:1;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.4in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:2;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
h3
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Heading 2";
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:-.4in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:3;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
h4
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:4;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoToc1, li.MsoToc1, div.MsoToc1
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
p.MsoToc2, li.MsoToc2, div.MsoToc2
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:12.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoToc3, li.MsoToc3, div.MsoToc3
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:24.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc4, li.MsoToc4, div.MsoToc4
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc5, li.MsoToc5, div.MsoToc5
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:48.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc6, li.MsoToc6, div.MsoToc6
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:60.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc7, li.MsoToc7, div.MsoToc7
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc8, li.MsoToc8, div.MsoToc8
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:84.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc9, li.MsoToc9, div.MsoToc9
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:96.0pt;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Header Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 249.3pt right 431.95pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Footer Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 3.0in right 431.95pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoCaption, li.MsoCaption, div.MsoCaption
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-style:italic;}
span.MsoFootnoteReference
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
span.MsoCommentReference
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;}
span.MsoEndnoteReference
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
vertical-align:super;}
p.MsoEndnoteText, li.MsoEndnoteText, div.MsoEndnoteText
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Endnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoList, li.MsoList, div.MsoList
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Body Text";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent
{mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:.25in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent2, li.MsoBodyTextIndent2, div.MsoBodyTextIndent2
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
text-indent:.25in;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoBlockText, li.MsoBlockText, div.MsoBlockText
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:.5in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:navy;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
strong
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
em
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:justify;
line-height:12.0pt;
mso-pagination:none;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
cite
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
color:green;
font-style:normal;}
p.MsoCommentSubject, li.MsoCommentSubject, div.MsoCommentSubject
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-next:"Comment Text";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoTocHeading, li.MsoTocHeading, div.MsoTocHeading
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:39;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Heading 1";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:16.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
mso-ansi-font-size:16.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;}
span.WW8Num2z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num2z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num3z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num3z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num3z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num3z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num4z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num4z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.Absatz-Standardschriftart
{mso-style-name:Absatz-Standardschriftart;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.DefaultParagraphFont1
{mso-style-name:"Default Paragraph Font1";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
{mso-style-name:WW-Absatz-Standardschriftart111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.DefaultParagraphFont
{mso-style-name:"Default Paragraph Font*";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
span.WW8Num4z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num4z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num8z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num8z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num8z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num8z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num10z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num10z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num10z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num10z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num11z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num11z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num11z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num11z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num12z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num12z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num20z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num20z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num20z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num20z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num22z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num22z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num30z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num30z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num30z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num30z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num31z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num31z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num32z0
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z0;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW8Num32z2
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
span.WW8Num32z4
{mso-style-name:WW8Num32z4;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
span.WW8Num33z1
{mso-style-name:WW8Num33z1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
font-family:Symbol;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
span.WW-DefaultParagraphFont
{mso-style-name:"WW-Default Paragraph Font";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Default Paragraph Font1";}
p.Heading, li.Heading, div.Heading
{mso-style-name:Heading;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-next:"Body Text";
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.BodyTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Index, li.Index, div.Index
{mso-style-name:Index;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Caption, li.Caption, div.Caption
{mso-style-name:Caption*;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
p.Index0, li.Index0, div.Index0
{mso-style-name:Index*;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.DocumentMap, li.DocumentMap, div.DocumentMap
{mso-style-name:"Document Map*";
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
background:#00007F;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.CommentTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.CommentSubjectChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FooterChar
{mso-style-name:"Footer Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Footer;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.Framecontents, li.Framecontents, div.Framecontents
{mso-style-name:"Frame contents";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Body Text";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.HeaderChar
{mso-style-name:"Header Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Header;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FootnoteCharacters
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Characters";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
vertical-align:super;}
p.H3, li.H3, div.H3
{mso-style-name:H3;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:4;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
layout-grid-mode:line;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.BodyTextIndentChar
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Indent Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.EndnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Endnote Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Endnote Text";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.grame
{mso-style-name:grame;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.spelle
{mso-style-name:spelle;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-align:left;
line-height:normal;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:auto;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:windowtext;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.BodyTextIndent2Char
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Indent 2 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Indent 2";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page
{mso-footnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fs;
mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fcs;
mso-endnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") es;
mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") ecs;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:-2;
mso-list-type:simple;
mso-list-template-ids:-1;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-text:*;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:0in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1;
mso-list-template-ids:1;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.3in;
text-indent:-.3in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.4in;
text-indent:-.4in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.5in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.6in;
text-indent:-.6in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.7in;
text-indent:-.7in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.8in;
text-indent:-.8in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.9in;
text-indent:-.9in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-1.0in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:none;
mso-level-suffix:none;
mso-level-text:"";
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.1in;
text-indent:-1.1in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2;
mso-list-template-ids:2;
mso-list-name:WW8Num2;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:3;
mso-list-template-ids:3;
mso-list-name:WW8Num3;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.75in;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Wingdings;
mso-hansi-font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:4;
mso-list-type:simple;
mso-list-template-ids:4;
mso-list-name:WW8Num4;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ascii-font-family:Symbol;
mso-hansi-font-family:Symbol;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:16930871;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2110335272 1119264080 67698709 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:81.75pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:81.75pt;
text-indent:-45.75pt;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.25in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.25in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:99496445;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-757197870 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l6:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l6:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l6:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:406802773;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-902806402 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l7:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l7:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l7:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l7:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8
{mso-list-id:453062310;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-894027502 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l8:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l8:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l8:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l8:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l8:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l8:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l8:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l9
{mso-list-id:1072434472;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1755567560 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l9:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l9:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l9:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l9:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l10
{mso-list-id:1210385719;
mso-list-template-ids:-1562760418;}
@list l10:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l10:level2
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:0in;}
@list l10:level3
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:.85in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.85in;
text-indent:-.35in;}
@list l10:level4
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.2in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.2in;
text-indent:-.45in;}
@list l10:level5
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.55in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.55in;
text-indent:-.55in;}
@list l10:level6
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:1.9in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.9in;
text-indent:-.65in;}
@list l10:level7
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:2.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.25in;
text-indent:-.75in;}
@list l10:level8
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.%8\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:2.6in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.6in;
text-indent:-.85in;}
@list l10:level9
{mso-level-text:"%1\.%2\.%3\.%4\.%5\.%6\.%7\.%8\.%9\.";
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-1.0in;}
@list l11
{mso-list-id:1367213592;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1141711674 67698689 67698691 67698715 -919930140 -1427178346 935498526 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l11:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l11:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l11:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:2.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l11:level4
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l11:level5
{mso-level-text:"%5\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l11:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-upper;
mso-level-text:%6-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:333.0pt;
text-indent:-.5in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:#202122;}
@list l11:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l11:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.25in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l11:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.75in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
margin-left:5.75in;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l12
{mso-list-id:1625237233;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1789710682 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l12:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l12:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l12:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l12:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l12:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l12:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l12:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13
{mso-list-id:2034529921;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-105629534 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l13:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:1.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l13:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:2.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l13:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:3.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:4.5in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l13:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:5.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:5.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level1 lfo5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-numbering:continue;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
mso-level-legacy:yes;
mso-level-legacy-indent:.25in;
mso-level-legacy-space:0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
-->
</style><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">I offer a brief reflection on theological method.<a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Like other disciplines of study, such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology, theology has an aspect of its area of study that is self-reflective. What is theology? How does one go about the task of theologizing? The danger is that a theologian could reflect upon method so obsessively that one never engages the major themes of theology in the way the method describes. I do not intend to do that. The following is my best judgment as to the method I have followed over the course of my pastor life in preaching and teaching.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I offer this reflection while acknowledging that many cultures lived and thrived without that concept. In fact, no view of the divine is necessary to live a human life. One can thrive without the notion. Yet, every culture and every historical phase includes those who reflect upon the divine dimension of life. Such persons have a sense that matter is not a sufficient reference point for understanding reality. The secularity of this culture offers the challenge that God has a blank face. Many participants in the culture are clueless to the beliefs and values that the community of faith considers so important. Many cannot imagine why anyone would waste their time on anything related to the divine and what the divine realm might expect of us. Yet, I also suggest that in the modern situation a hunger exists among many as to the nature of their significance and the meaning of their lives amid the complexity of modern life. The strangeness of the notion of the divine may suggest the lack of a sense of meaning in modern life or a sense of the unity and totality of life. The wholeness of a human life is an unanswered question.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I would like to think that most modern persons would know they can enter a church and have an honest dialogue about the beliefs and values of the church. Sadly, the church has a negative image in the minds of many, an image it has earned through its many failures to be a true witness within this culture. The church seems to view itself as too fragile to provide meaningful places where that discourse can take place. The church appears fearful of inquiry, fearful of freedom, and fearful of knowledge. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">My assumption is that the theologian lives with the theology he or she writes and that it contains power for that person. The question is whether it can direct others to experience such power in their lives. Theological reflection is a practical discipline in that it helps people live and act in the world. The test of a theology is the types of activity and forms of experiences they make possible. As such, this work will be both critical and constructive reflection the faith, life, and practices of the Christian community. Theology should help the worshipping community become aware of the difficulties in forming beliefs and values in the context of a modern culture. Faith expresses personal devotion. Confessional statements put into rational statements communal faith. Theology seeks a better understanding of the faith, devotion, and confessional statements of the community and individuals. Faith and devotion do not easily make the transition to theology. Both can sense a threat in theological activity. Yet, for many who think theologically, it has been worth the risk. Granted, some persons who adopt the theological path lose their faith and devotion. Many others find faith and devotion deepened and broadened by theological reflection. The task before me is the articulation of a model of Christian belief that witnesses to the norm of the Bible, demonstrates being historically informed, and that has cultural relevance. It has the purpose of assisting the community of the followers of Christ in their vocation to live as the people of God in a particular social and historical context in which they live. The issue within a denomination family is whether its devotion and confession remain defensible considering the historical transitions that occurred. Properly understood, the themes of Christian theology involve a Trinitarian identification of the essence of God, the Christian community as a provisional embodiment of the respect God has for the individual and for the emergence of Christian identity out of the community, and the orientation of belief and life toward a future that fulfills the virtues of faith, hope, and love. Thus, Christian theology proceeds from the premise that one cannot experience God directly. Yet, people experience God indirectly through their total experience of finite reality. Finite reality is in the throes of a historical process, and as such is incomplete and open to the future. For this reason, humans can experience the fullness of meaning in anticipatory snatches each time they experience meaning in its universality. One can experience the reality of God in such subjective anticipation of total reality. From the scientific, secular, and pluralistic world in which we live, the theologian needs to acknowledge that God is a hypothesis and is therefore problematic. Any reference to the divine is not self-evident. We can meaningfully ask whether they are right and true. Any truth they contain is hypothetical. One can test it or ignore it. Such statements will always be debatable. Justification of the hypothesis occurs in the course of reasoning and of the way in which belief in God has grasped the theologian and the Christian community. Yet, the belief will always be hypothetical in our pluralistic setting, regardless of the depth in which the belief has grasped the theologian. Their truth rest upon the reality of God which will show itself in the consummation of humanity and world in eternal life with God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> We need to make a pre-interpretive decision as to the primary texts we will want to interpret as representing the best of Christian belief and life. I am not sure what I would say to people who might say they want to explain such belief and life apart from these texts. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Let us consider the norm of the Bible. In most denominations and theological perspectives today, we recognize the biblical text represents significant changes in perspective and the stance one takes in the world and toward God. The paradigm of the divine that guided the Patriarchs involved seeing the divine at work in ordinary ife, especially in the desire for land and progeny. It was a nomadic life centered around the clan. The clan would migrate to Egypt and kept its faith in the God of the Patriarchs through oral tradition as story tellers passed on their stories of life in Canaan. However, a new situation emerged of slavery to the oppressive powers of Egypt. If this faith was to continue, a new perspective was needed. Through Moses, the revelation of the Lord would be there for them in their oppression, liberation, and migration to the land of Canaan. This paradigmatic change included the Lord as divine warrior on behalf of the people and the establishment of a covenant with these people that bind them to the Lord and bind them ethically to each other. This paradigm would guide them through the period settled farming in Canaan and the period of tribal federation and into the period of the sacral kingship. The king was under the covenant and was to enforce the covenant among the people of the Lord. The period of exile and post-exile saw the emergence of a view of monotheism, of the Lord of all people. Yet, this God was still committed to a specific people and their formation by torah, temple, and priest. Through persecution under the dominance of regional empires, they developed an apocalyptic view that transferred the fullness of justice and righteousness into a future act of God. Into this world came the preaching of the nearness of the rule of God in Jesus of Nazareth. He proclaimed his version of the apocalyptic rule of God in word and deed. His life, death, and resurrection gave birth to a new people of the Lord that would join Jew and Gentile, slave and free, rich and poor into one people in union with the risen Christ and uniting with him in witness in the world. They would form the first communities in within the perspective of Jewish-Christian apocalyptic. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Let us shift to another way of viewing the biblical text. A significant role of literature in general is to enable readers to create a world or worlds for themselves, cognitively, affectively, behaviorally - in all the ways that individuals and groups are related to their world. At implicit and explicit levels, readers create their own worlds in the process of reading. World and self do not exist in isolation, however, and the reader is transformed in the process. Biblical texts share in this role in a particular way as they provide resources for the creation of a comprehensive universe, which has space for the human and for the divine and which sees the human in the light of the divine and the divine in the light of the human. The text is genuinely other. As such, the community engages in an open conversation with the text. It means a charitable reading of the text by the believer. To state the obvious, the first century was imperfect in its cultural life. The first Christians used the cultural material they had at their disposal to formulate their theological conceptions. It provided categories, models, and metaphors that New Testament authors considered adequate to communicate their understanding of the work of God in Christ. They accepted a three-tiered universe and the expected apocalyptic end of human history brought about God. They accepted the revelatory character of the Hebrew Scriptures, the importance of temple worship and the sacrificial system in understanding forgiveness, and the law as a way of life and expressive of the moral character of God. They understood the mercy and grace of God shown in significant moments in history. Their theological reflection arose out of the debate with Judaism and the spread of the movement into the Greek and Roman world through the cultural model of the household. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">The Bible is a witness to a paradigmatic event that witnesses to the God of Israel and to the Father of Jesus of Nazareth. It involves the believing re-presentation of the witness of faith of Jesus of Nazareth; the fully reflective understanding of Jesus as the Christ. The task of theology is not simply to make this affirmation but also to understand it. Such an approach acknowledges that the possibility of the knowledge of God must come from God. We can think of this on an analogy with how we know another person. The person reveals his or her inner feelings, spirit, will, or intention to us. We cannot know the person except as the person chooses to engage in genuine self-disclosure. The same is true with knowledge of God. Unless God chooses to reveal the will and purpose of God, our knowledge of God would be only guess-work. The failure of God to reveal who God is would be a self-absorbed God. For Paul, as an example, God has revealed the depths of God through the Spirit so that we might understand the gifts of God bestowed upon us (I Corinthians 2:10-13). Theology could not exist without this communication. The ambiguity of theological conversation arises from the possibility that it could be no more than human talk. In the modern era, advocating the truth of Christian conversation about God is problematic at best and one might legitimately wonder if it is possible. Where does theology begin the conversation with such a culture? This concern already suggests that theological reflection has a universal dimension in the sense that it does not view itself as simply the private perspective of the one writing. Therefore, talk of “the Christian God” is not helpful, for it regresses to a situation of a plurality of gods in the world rather than pointing to the unity of the human condition that finds fulfillment through connection to the one God. Theology seeks a far wider audience through its witness for God and for the sake of humanity. Theology revolves around God and the knowledge of God in a way that orient the way of belief and life of one who acknowledges the paradigmatic significance of this revelation. Thus, theology will also reflect upon humanity, the created world, the church and its acts of worship, and the Christian life. Theoretical and practical knowledge unite in theological reflection. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">A paradigmatic event is a historical occurrence that captures the imagination of a community in such a manner as to shape or form the community’s way of conceiving the totality of reality and its understanding of its ongoing experience of reality. Because of the event's wide-ranging influence, the community preserves its memory, while both reinterpreting the event in the light of the subsequent situations in which the community finds itself and discovering in it the source of a renewed hope for the future. Hence, paradigmatic events connect the community and its participants with the past and the future. Through their appropriation of these events, succeeding generations understand themselves in relationship to the experiences of the past and in anticipation of a future that will bring about the actualization of the ideals of the community. Such paradigmatic events have the power to create a meaningful present.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> Let us consider what it means to for this work to be historically informed. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">The Bible is the primary witness. However, we would not have a canon if it were not for the decision of the Christian community to elevate certain texts above others. At this point, from the standpoint of personal faith, the work of the Holy Spirit involved guiding the witness of the Bible, guiding the Christian community to accept certain texts as representing its rule of faith, and guides the interpreter of the text. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Christian tradition comprises several historical attempts by the Christian community to explicate and translate faithfully the original witness of the Bible into the language, symbols, and practices into new historical settings. Early theology especially arose out of the Cappadocian theologians regarding the Trinity, the Nicaean Creed, and the Creed of Chalcedon. Augustine stands as a significant figure. These thinkers were guided by the intellectual perspective of Hellenistic culture. This period would give way in the 900s to the strengthening of the power of the Pope and its attendant scholastic theology, with Aquinas, being the leading figure here. It includes the separation between the western Roman Catholic expression of Christianity and the easter Orthodox way, which would continue the Hellenistic paradigm. A period Renaissance and church reform through an early form of Christian humanism would emerge. It would give way to a significant paradigm shift with the reformation, with Luther and Calvin being significant leaders here. We are already seeing polycentric expression of Christianity in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Lutheran, and Reformed groups. These would quickly give way to further splintering of Christianity into evangelical denominations (Wesley, Edwards, Whitefield), anabaptist groups, and the emergence of liberal Christianity (Schleiermacher). This era we might think of as the formation of classical Christianity. This means acknowledging some harsh realities. In this way, the official affirmations and confessions of faith that arose out of ecumenical councils and the statements of faith out of the various Protestant traditions, have become part of that trajectory. However, such theology was a partner in the oppression of women, the subjection of races, the use of war and crusades to oppose those who disagreed with their vision of God, subjected the masses to a rigid hierarchical structure, became a partner with kings in the subjection of the masses, and inhibited the growth of science and technology. However, the deconstruction of classic texts wants to uncover what it views as the hidden oppression contained in the texts, deriving its interpretive tools from Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche. Such an approach is a convenient way to eliminate thousands of years of human thought. Thus, the communities out of which classic texts arose have also sustained the lives of women, serfs, slaves, and improved the lives of millions through its worship and communal life. We need to discern whatever is true and holy in classical theology, so that Christian community today may reflect the divine light that they share. The classical themes suggest that no symbols, metaphors, or words we use can contain what we mean by God, the analogical nature of all talk about God, and the necessity of many names and metaphors for God are parts of the heritage quite relevant to us today. The community engaged in a debate that led to what we might consider as the orthodox faith. To participate in the fellowship of the Christian community is to participate in this hermeneutical trajectory and to embrace the joint responsibilities of maintaining continuity with the past and addressing the context in which the community is situated today. Recent theology includes the voices of Barth, Bruner, Tillich, Bultmann, hope theologians Pannenberg and Moltmann, and the re-emergence of theology out of the Pentecostal tradition. Theology arising out of oppression, first in Latin America but expanding to other parts of the world, has added another dimension to the theological conversation. The theologian today needs to be aware of these shifts in the cultural challenges that faced the community. Even these are not a final authority since the ongoing life of the church moves toward its destiny. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Such classic texts have an excess of meaning that resists its bondage to its moment of creation. This statement would be true of other classic texts as well. That is why we continue to read Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and so on, with so much profit. Their images, symbols, events, rituals, and persons are continuous sources of reflection. Our experience of such classic texts vexes, provokes, and elicits a claim to serious attention from us. The interpreter must now interpret to understand the experience of this text claiming attention. The type of interpretation we might want to consider is the conversation that releases us to the to-and-fro movement of the question and response under discussion. The claim to serious attention provokes our questioning and response. I want to stress that anyone can engage in this type of interpretation. However, use of various methods of literary criticism help to keep the interpreter from an overly subjective interpretation, in which the text will mean whatever the interpreter wants it to mean. Since we are considering religious texts, the provocation in the interpreter will be toward existential questions of the human spirit, such as the issue of finitude, our guilt, the issue of that in which we trust, the issue of meaning, as well as initial comprehension of the text. Such provocation will alert us to the otherness of the text by forcing us to recognize our pre-understanding of self, our religious beliefs, and our culture. The nature of our participation in a community and in the wider culture become clearer to us. We are now in a genuine conversation with the text. The interpreter cannot simply impose a prior value judgment upon the text. The subject-matter of that which has provoked us and claimed our attention is the focus of our attention. We lose ourselves in that conversation, even as, in an enjoyable conversation with another person, we will lose ourselves in the subject-matter under discussion. To be clear, such a conversation cannot occur if the reader already knows what a religious text is going to say, and thus does not allow the text to provoke them. A conversation with the text cannot occur of the text is so autonomous that the response of the interpreter is not possible. A conversation cannot occur if one must get behind the text to the mind of the author, to the socio-historical conditions of the text, or the response of the original audience. If we allow the conversation to start, the text is presenting us with a genuine possibility to our imagination. Such a mutual critical correlation of contemporary experience and the Christian tradition renders explicit the hermeneutical character of theological reflection.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">The claim to truth and reality in theological reflection takes seriously the event-character of the revelation to which it points.<a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> The event has the power of a disclosure. Such an event has a dialectical character. The event is an existential intensification of particularity. I am going to consider the forms of religious expression as manifestation and proclamation. These expressions suggest the dialectics contained within Christian and Jewish classic texts, but also represent the dialectic within Christian consciousness. As one might expect, they need each other. From an historical perspective, Christianity includes both trajectories. The complexity of human experience might suggest to us that we must not choose between them. We may well be poorer theologically and spiritually if we do not.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">When this intensification releases itself to a radical sense of participation, the focus is upon manifestation of the whole that occurs in the event. Such a religion will focus upon the mystical, priestly, metaphysical, and aesthetic expressions of spirituality. The philosophical perspective we find in wisdom literature relates to the aesthetic and mystical hymns of the Psalms. It will focus upon persons who are priests, mystics, and sages. In modern times, think of Paul Tillich, Karl Rahner, Pentecostal and Charismatic, the eastern Christian tradition, and Mircea Eliade. It reconfirms our radical participation in the cosmos of our divinization by the sacred. Such a notion expresses itself in the repetition of actions by which one remembers and experiences anew a connection with the paradigmatic event. Religious expressions occur through the hierophanies, theophanies, archetypes, rituals, myths, and symbols and thus not only through words. Religion becomes an eruption of power of some manifestation of the whole now experienced as the sacred cosmos. They occur in space and time separated from ordinary space and time. In this setting, the ordinary becomes profane. The extraordinary becomes the sacred because of the power saturating the manifestation of this rock, this tree, this ritual, this cosmological myth only to intensify that becoming into the sacred time of origins, the sacred spaces of a manifestation of the sacred cosmos. Entering the ritual and retelling the myth helps us escape the nightmare of history the terror of ordinary time. We enter true time, the time of the repetition of the actions of the whole at the origin of the cosmos. The power discloses itself to those who participate in the rhythms of the manifestation of the whole. The other side of the dullness of the ordinary is the power and fullness of the sacred. Yet, immersing oneself into sacred time and place will lead one to a reorientation of our lives within ordinary time and place. Participation in the sacred leads to sacredness of the profane. The root of all proclamation is its connection to real manifestation, keeping proclamation from become fanatical, arid, cerebral, and abstract. Manifestation provides the context for the eruption of the defamiliarizing word of proclamation, just as the prelinguistic precedes the linguistic power of the word. Kerygma joins logos; word becomes sacrament. Manifestation envelopes the word even as manifestation allows itself to be transformed by the word. Manifestation re-emerges to unite with the secular, the historical, the temporal to reconnect through participation in the whole, by something like a feeling of absolute dependence or the experience of fundamental trust in the worthwhile character of existence. Manifestation keeps Christianity in the human experience of the manifestation and revealing presence of God in all creation, in body, in nature, and in spirit. Today, those who hold to the significance of manifestation approach the experience through the philosophy of religion and fundamental theology. We recognize ourselves as already in the presence of a horizon of mystery. It suggests a mediated retrieval of the manifesting power of an originating religious immediacy, such as the feeling of absolute dependence or already in the presence of mystery. Yet, in theological reflection, the originating experience is constantly transformed. Schleiermacher, Cobb, Gilkey, Ogden in the liberal Protestant tradition and Aquinas, Rahner, Lonergan, Kung, von Balthasar, Teilhard, and Schillebeeckx show that many Catholic and liberal Protestant theologians are analogous in structure. Buber and Gabriel Marcel would also reflect this perspective. The event of manifestation tends to emphasize experiential limit situations like guilt, finitude, death, fundamental trust, utopian and eschatological hope, and fidelity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">When this intensification releases itself into a radical sense of distance, the focus is upon proclamation. Such a religion would focus upon a prophetic, ethical, and historical expressions of spirituality. In the Bible, the narrative discourse upon the founding events of Israel relates to the prophetic and prescriptive discourse, both of which are ethically and historically oriented. This portion of the Bible will focus upon persons who are prophets and heroes. In modern times, think of Johann Baptist Metz, Reinhold Niebuhr, those whose passion is social justice, and the western Christian tradition. A word of proclamation from the whole is is now experienced by a finite individual self living the reality of a graced history and time. This word of defamiliarizing proclamation now experienced by the self is the transcendent other. This God speaks a word of proclamation in which the whole discloses itself in a new manifestation of the presence of a personal, gracious, acting, judging, proclaiming God. This God acts in the word-events of ordinary history and time. This God acts in the words and deeds that shatter our usual sense of participation. That word discloses the existence of a participating and distancing, ethically and politically responsible self. This self is responsible to conscience and to others, responsible for this world and this history, responsible to the words and deeds of this God. That word comes as stark proclamation and kerygma to disconfirm any complacency in participation, to shatter illusions that present experience is enough, to defamiliarize us with ourselves and with nature, to expose all philosophic wisdom as foolishness, to demand disillusionment as the precondition of insight. Here is a radical, decentering experience of world-negation in the proclamation of the prophetic word through which will come a new and radical form of world-affirmation. It will express itself by faith in the power of the paradigmatic manifestation of God in the word and freed to express a liberated hope in ordinary history and time. It frees itself for historical action toward love of the other, the ordinary, the neighbor, freed to enter the future as a promise. Barth, Bultmann, and Brunner are notable proponents of this perspective. No one can doubt the utter seriousness of the hermeneutical struggle that allows the real subject matter of theology, the Word of God in Jesus Christ as event, to take over in all theology. Such persons command attention when “poor, chatty little Christianity, (E. M. Forster) has forgotten the power of any word, much less the unmasking power of a word of authentic proclamation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> My approach to theology is one that recognizes it as a culturally significant enterprise. Theology is a partner with others in the human enterprise of discovering the best human life we can lead as individuals and as communities. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">The emergence of a modern culture through Renaissance, Reformation, the dominance of rationalist, empiricist, and romantic philosophies throughout the emergence of capitalism and democracy, the challenges of liberation theology and post-modernism, all represent new environments in which the church needs to find a way to remain faithful to its legacy while meeting the intellectual and lifestyle challenges of the day. One historical role of religion has been to legitimate the culture. However, it may also protect the individual from the culture from swallowing up the person. As such, the religious community becomes a hint that there is something more to which human beings are accountable, something that we might refer to as eternity. The larger point is that a theology free of or isolated from a culture does not exist. The faith community is not an alternative culture. The faith community shares with others a social world or culture. Christian identity grows within the shared larger culture. Thus, theology shares with the faith community the need to be in conversation with its culture. It will need to listen charitably, learn, and scrutinize what hears from culture. Modernity offers religious communities the gift of pluralism. During the Medieval and Reformation period, the church involved itself with the power institutions of society, and in so doing focused its energies on wealth, power, fame, and prestige. In a secular society, the church no longer sits with those in power, thereby freeing the church to direct individuals and culture to choose freely what is best. It can see itself in a pluralistic setting as co-participants with the rest of the culture in an ongoing conversation about what it means to be human. A genuine conversation involves the risk of change. This includes re-thinking classical formulations of Christian belief and life in a way that remains faithful to the past and open to the possibilities of the present. In the secular and pluralistic setting, the Christian community comes a unit of culture that has a vital connection with each other, perpetuates itself institutionally, and proclaims its witness to a particular way of belief and behavior. It shares a set of values, beliefs, and loyalties that arise out of its commitment to its paradigmatic event. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">One could add many other threads of culture that became fertile ground for New Testament theological reflection. Throughout the history of the church, this use of culture as a valid theological source for reflection has been important, suggested in the use of Plato, Neo-platonic thought, Aristotle, feudalism, the penitential practice of the Roman Catholic Church, mystical experience, and the legal system, all provided fertile material for theological reflection throughout the early church period and the medieval period. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">If the reader can travel with me this far, then maybe the reader can take another step. Modernity is not so superficial or evil that it does not have categories, models, and metaphors suitable for theology. Many fundamentalists (because of science and evolution) and many on the religious left (because of lingering racism and sexism) seem to think of modernity as something to oppose. Christians need to pay the modernity that embraces them the compliment of taking it seriously, rather than accepting it in secret, as so many do. Modernity has no more imperfections or apostasies as any other era. Christians need to discern the ways of God through modernity, rather than propose alternative communities and patterns of thought to it. Our culture provides some helpful ways for the church to reflect theologically on matters of concern to it. The task of theology is to discern those ways.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">A large element of the theological task is to correlate classic texts with individual and corporate life. We investigate common human experience and language as we explore the limits of science, technology, and moral life. We find openings in human life toward God as we experience the boundary situations of life that are beyond the methods of science and math. We explore Christian tradition primarily by exploring classic Christian texts, becoming an historical and hermeneutical investigation. What we seek in theological reflection in this way are the ways God is present. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Modern human life distinguishes itself from primitive culture, tribal society, feudal culture, Communist systems, military dictatorships, and any religious culture: Roman Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu. Objective alienation occurs when the social institutions participate in a social situation that oppresses the masses, keeping substantial portions of the people in poverty related to the availability of food, clothing, shelter, limits to the expression of freedom, limits to the expression of the worth and dignity of the individual in intellectual pursuits, political ideas, personal happiness, and religion. So much of the history of human civilization involves the spirit of oppression and domination. Such institutionalized violence is not a social setting that a caring and compassionate people need to tolerate. Yet, the culture is not monolithic. Participants in any culture do so in fragments. Oppression may intersect with an individual rarely, while other forms of life are meaningful producers of happiness. Granted, for example, a culture may be patriarchal, but this does not mean one will not fulfill the pursuit of happiness in other ways. People to do not experience the full weight of oppression. The human desire to find happiness is not one that any oppressive system can obliterate. One could imagine such visionary Christian leaders lovingly calling for repentance from Christian secular leaders with the hope of new secular leadership emerging that would have a significant role for the rights and dignity of the people. One could also envision a church in such a setting that adopts simple style of life in solidarity with poor masses, adopting a spirit of service, and disengaging from ties to other social institutions that oppress the poor. Such an approach would, through passive resistance, help bring the collapse of an oppressive system.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">The emergence of a spirit of freedom in the 1600s to the 1850s represents a paradigm shift in understanding of the economic, political, and cultural arrangements of society. It arose out of the stagnation of royal, hierarchical, colonial, and feudal Europe. The writings of John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Kant, and Hegel, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Federalist Papers form the intellectual basis of the paradigm shift. The thriving science of the time sought to lessen the suffering of the masses. The same is true of the emergence of economic and political freedom, and with it, increasing tolerance of a variety of beliefs and values as people pursued happiness in their separate ways. Respecting the worth and dignity of the individual by the academic, economic, religious, and political institutions of society was a major step in the growth of the spirit of freedom. Such respect meant that individuals pursuing happiness would have the benefit of decreasing suffering among the masses. Their actualization of the spirit of freedom was imperfect, as one would expect. To use an analogy, they were the first act of a play that has the theme of the value of freedom. Expansions of freedom, such as the ending of slavery, the expansion of voting rights to women, the ending of legal racism in the South through the Civil Rights movement, continued the paradigm shift begun with the Enlightenment. We are still completing the play with the theme of freedom. We live in a time greater fairness to persons of differing race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. For good or ill, Americans participated in a social experiment that has transferred vast sums of money to the poor, in such a way that most American poor have the lifestyle of the middle class in many countries of the world. Many participants in modern culture need the reminder that the spirit of freedom is an ideal and the present social arrangements are a pen-ultimate activity of human beings. The present social order is not the goal of the human quest. One will not find in it the fulfillment of one’s meaning, purpose, and direction in present social arrangement, but only in that which transcends all such human activity. The present expressions of alienation from the institutions of modern life that include attacks upon the founders, attacks on the constitution, and attacks on Christian institutions, arise out of impatience with the imperfections of modernity and its institutions. In the 1960s, the advocates of such alienation were organized cells of young, radicalized groups. Today, the advocates are in the boardrooms of multinational corporations. They are willing to use their considerable economic power and the power to distribute knowledge to limit public speech and guide political decisions. Their willingness to cancel access to the conduits of knowledge to those with whom they disagree, their willingness to submit to tactics of intimidation and allow groups devoted to the alienating critique of Marx to guide their decisions, shows willingness to surrender the spirit of freedom to their international economic goals that often involve cooperating at a deep level with the oligarchs of Russia, the Chinese Communist Party, and the religious leaders of political Islam. For the sake of economic gain, they surrender to totalitarians abroad and they offer financial support and educational support for totalitarian views within the western democracies. The attacks from these quarters have risks that include opposition to the spirit of freedom promoted by modernity, the re-emergence of intolerance, and a new form of totalitarianism that embraces restrictions on individual speech and behavior implemented by the new oligarchs of technology and industry. The present generation inherits a spirit of freedom embodied in the early writings and institutions of modernity. The question for this generation is whether they will be worthy children of the paradigm shift toward freedom or bring down the institutions that preserved freedom and create a pathway for a new form of soft tyranny to emerge. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">A theological understanding of the present situation of the culture is difficult. To listen to the culture for its struggle with fundamental questions is not an easy task. A significant difficulty is that people participate in culture in a piecemeal way. The segmentation of modern culture has increased in matters of personal interests and hobbies, sports, work, play, and friendships. Those who reflect upon culture will see what holds it together in a variety of ways. Every culture has its tensions, conflicts, change, and contradiction. Rather than a harmonious unity, culture generates its own resistance and contradictions. Like every generation, this generation struggles with finitude, estrangement, alienation, oppression, fundamental trust or mistrust, loyalty, anxiety, and mortality. The list is endless. The forms they take in this generation disclose a genuinely religious dimension of contemporary experience and language. The theological interpretation of contemporary experience is also a way of interpreting Christian proclamation theologically and applying it to contemporary experience. We are correlating these distinct interpretations. The theological task involves developing a mutually critical correlation between an interpretation of the contemporary situation and an interpretation of the Christian tradition. The theological act of interpretation involves a correlation of two distinct constants, the theological interpretation of the contemporary situation and the theological understanding of the Bible and Christian tradition. To refer to this act as mutually critical is to recognize that modern culture has much to teach the tradition of the church and that modern culture may have taken turns towards its destruction. A theology will emerge out of the theological interpretation of the experience of oppression and alienation. A different theology will emerge out of the cognitive claims occasioned by science, the Enlightenment, and the emergence of historical consciousness. I think of the fundamentalist reading of the Genesis 1-2 in contrast with the development of evolutionary theory. A different theology will emerge out of the struggle with tribal beliefs and values, the powerful experience of the Spirit, or the personal need for transformation. A theological interpretation of sexism or of anti-Semitism will lead to differing interpretations as well. Any unity such theology will have will be due to their common acceptance of the pre-interpretive claim to the significance of certain texts. However, significant paradigm shifts can occur as new situations confront the interpreter with new challenges to interpret the situation, the Bible, and the tradition in a creative way. The point is that a genuinely theological interpretation questions both the meaning and truth contained in the theological understanding of the situation and in the Christian proclamation as it brings them into mutually critical correlation. Acknowledging the reality of our denominational age, such a view of the theological task should increase tolerance and understanding of the pluralism of the age. The authentic community of inquiry has its grounding in a community of commitment to is paradigmatic event and to its classic texts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Our post-modern setting has the positive aspect of offering the potential of learning across denominational lines, across religions, and across those opposed to belief in God. Each of these has their paradigm shifts within their histories. It has the potential of being an era of humility in which we value our traditions and their perspective on that which unites Christians: the paradigmatic event of Jesus of Nazareth, the biblical witness, and the witness of tradition. Awareness of the paradigm shifts within the Bible and within traditions ought to help us today to develop approach to what we have and reach out to learn from others. Thus, most Christians today have different approach to the Bible and their traditions from those of even a generation ago. We are more attuned to the ambiguities and nuances of Bible and tradition that could lead to greater learning.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Theology will address the culture in which it finds itself, the challenge of the current community of faith, and the academic community. In most cases, it will do so weakly, given the modern, secular, scientific, and pluralistic setting, much of which will ignore theological insights. The reason is that theology embraces the truth of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ in an historical setting that dismisses this claim. Theological reflection does not help itself by simply repeating traditional concepts and solutions for today, since the situation of the church has changed. Such an approach makes infinite and eternal a finite contribution from the past. The challenge for theological reflection is to offer a coherent presentation of Christian proclamation that informs the life of the church in a way that will strengthen its witness to this generation. The beauty of the pluralist setting is that gaining adherents contributes to the aspect of a theological reflection that is true. Yet, its staying power is not one we can predict, so it is not sufficient criterion for truthfulness. In taking seriously the theological situation of those outside the community of faith, the risk is losing oneself to the culture. How to take the cultural setting seriously without surrendering the proclamation of the community to the whims of the culture is always the challenge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> I want to offer an example of the challenge presented by modernity to the perspective proclaimed by the church regarding the providence of God guiding humanity and the created order toward lit end in God. Modernity is highly attuned to the suffering and tragedy of the human condition. Its notion of economic and constitutional political freedom has unleashed creative powers and released people from the oppression of the feudal system and from the oppression of kings. It has created a web of private and public care for the poor and disadvantaged. It has promoted respect for the individual and personal responsibility in the pursuit of happiness. Science and technology have an orientation of improving the economic condition of the masses, thereby relieving much suffering. Yet, science also tends to view human history as moving toward a tragic end, the heating of this planet to a point where the sun will make it unlivable, and the universe will eventually die. Continuing to present the human life and the created order as in the providential care of God, considering the science of the situation, becomes difficult, although it is possible to do so. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> The point is that the beliefs and values presented in the proclamation of the church needs to meet the challenge of offering an orientation toward God and world that will have sufficient meaningfulness and motivating power to face the serious adversities, troubles, and catastrophes of modern life. It will not be sufficient to appeal to an authority, whether it be denominational statements, the pastor, the Bible, ecumenical councils, or the Pope. Such an appeal attempts to create insulating bubble the protects the community. It tends to be a defensive response to modern life that does not recognize the seriousness of the present age and its challenge to the way human beings find their way to core beliefs and values that enable them to live in this world. It prevents the community from engaging in a real conversation with the world and therefore inhibits a genuine witness to this generation. Genuine conversation will open the community to new possibilities for learning creative ways to affirm the Christian proclamation and move into fresh territory.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> I invite you to consider theological reflection as an unfinished work of art. My hesitation is that the work of art is external to the creator. The theologian is willing to commit his or her life to the beliefs and values presented. One is risking one’s life. However, set that difference aside for a moment. Theological reflection is an uncompleted play. Part of the initial task of the actors chosen to improvise the new final act will be to immerse themselves with full sympathy in the first four acts, but not so as merely to parrot what has already been said. They cannot go and look up the right answers. Nor can they simply imitate the kinds of things that their character did in the early acts. Good successive acts will show a proper final development, not merely a repetition, of what went before. Nevertheless, there will be a rightness, a fittingness, about certain actions and speeches, about certain final moves in the drama, which will in one sense be self-authenticating, and in another gain authentication from their coherence with authoritative previous texts. This suggests a conception of theological reflection more like a work of art in need of completion. We might consider the biblical story as involving successive acts: creation and fall, patriarchs, Mosaic liberation and law, tribal federation, Israel, Judaism, Jesus, the Spirit and church, the redemption of humanity and the created order. When we consider other acts, many would reflect on the seven ecumenical councils and the theologians that guided their decisions as having special significance. As we continue the story, the division of the church in between east and west, between Protestant and Roman Catholic, the continuing splintering of the church as a voluntary organization within secular culture, and the continuing tension between modernity and the church. Recognizing the lack of completion contained in the Christian story might be better ways to deal with the unresolved questions of theology.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Such an approach has an apologetic dimension in that it views those outside the community as people of good will and openness to rational argument and genuine witness. The early apologists of the Christian community in the second and third centuries gave a great complement to their world by adopting an apologetic form. Such an approach also is an encouragement to those within the community to refuse to become insular. It encourages them to view themselves open to the wider world, eager to bridge the misunderstandings separating them from others. They have a shared culture that enables such bridge building. Such an apologetic seeks to persuade those outside the community to enjoy its life together, while also encourages those within the community to be intelligible to themselves and to others. It strengthens community even as it seeks to communicate it. At the same time, it takes the risk of transforming the symbols of the community into a form and content in a way that becomes a bridge to those outside the community. This risk is present because one must be willing to use language and symbols familiar to the culture to build the bridge. The aim is greater understanding and tolerance.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> I have used the phrase “belief and life” several times. Theological reflection occurs today in the denominational age and in a pluralistic culture. The notion of consensus in such matters remains helpful. It suggests a positive role for genuine pluralism and a positive role for the biblical witness and the traditions of the various faith communities. Christians have deep differences in beliefs and ways of life that deserve respect. Respect includes taking the beliefs and ways of life seriously enough that they may no longer be able to share life in the same denominational family. Much of theological reflection concerns itself with properly identifying who God is, who the people of God are, the destiny of humanity, the content of the Christian life, and the witness of the community in the world. Communal identity and personal identity weave themselves together. There may be formal acknowledgement of shared history and official status of creeds and doctrinal statements, but they may no longer function operationally as shared areas of belief and Christian life. Controversy regarding the norms that will guide communal life may well lead to acknowledging that the closer fellowship of a denominational family is no longer possible, even if they acknowledge that they represent differing ways of being the body of Christ in the world. However, that does not exclude the possibility uniting in various theological conversations to learn from each other and uniting in shared areas of worship and witness in the world. Thus, the global Christian community is a variety of theological interpretations, conversations, and understandings of its identity that we can look upon in a dialectical way as a community of argument that is divisive and encouraging of community. Such debate occurs out of desire to see itself with increasing clarity. This will be the way of life for the global Christian community for the near future. Differing communities can still engage in biblical reflection, creedal discussion, liturgical practices, acts of worship, and the Christian life, in respectful and tolerant ways. The expectation is a clearer vision of witness and discipleship without expecting reconciliation of all disagreements. One can hope for organizational unity while recognizing the actuality of remaining divisions. They can unite in their shared commitment to the paradigmatic event that is the source of the community, their acceptance of the Bible as the primary witness to that event, and their shared history. As one example from philosophical history, the various schools of philosophy in Athens held true to their principles, whether as defined by Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, and Epicureans, but they engaged in fruitful conversation and debate. In the Medieval period in Europe, while recognizing certain lines crossed made one heretic, it also kept a lively debate among the Dominicans, Franciscans, Thomists, Scotists, Augustinians, Occamists, and so on. The stakes of this debate are high for the global Christian community, for its concern is not some personal truth but its interpretation of divine truth. The community will need to leave open the question of the extent to which any of its denominational families embodies and reflects that divine truth. The modern setting has moved the Christian community a long way past the notion of using coercion by authority to resolve such conflicts. Such a means is inappropriate if the goal is clarity of communal identity. The global Christian community can recognize the positive good of diversity, diversity is a happy reminder that Christians cannot control the movements of the God they serve and worship.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> Modernity easily accepts pluralism. I think of personal taste. I think of matters of public policy where reasonable people can differ, and votes decide the direction. Religion remains in the role of opinion, myth, and fictional stories. Logical and factual disputes also suggest the value of pluralism in reaching consensus. Truths contained in poetry, fiction, or myth contradict each other, but such contradiction is tolerable. The difficulty here is that the value in modernity of science and history can lead to discrediting certain religious beliefs. Religious people who continue to hold such beliefs enter the doorway to superstition rather than genuine belief. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> Post-modernity has an uneasy relationship with pluralism. Its loss of the transcendent nature of truth and goodness tends to localize them in the tribe with which one has identified. The persons in another tribe become the embodiment of evil, while their tribe is on a righteous cause. We are losing what it means to be “with” others and “together” with those who disagree. Are we losing a sense of intimacy? Social arrangements are increasingly complex. Technology as practiced can lead to increased isolation. Yet, we are social beings whose center is outside us, that is, in the interpersonal and in our connection with transcendent mystery. Are we losing an ability to experience our world and contemplate that which is not us? Such a stance toward life requires the capacity of the long-distance runner rather than looking for every short-cut. Are losing the ability to have a critical spirit toward our own ideas, opinions, and groups with which we have united? This would be a great calamity for our world.<a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> Our lives need more of the quality of welcoming others, especially those with whom we differ.<a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> Adopting such an approach will be counter-cultural, it will take courage, Of danger is the progressive who magnifies the sins of modernity and undervalues the ways in which modernity has sought to repent of these sins and amend its life in the direction of furthering the spirit of freedom. The progressive who has adopted the alienating critique of Marx uses every difference in a pluralistic society to drive a wedge of alienation between groups. Such a person has the agenda of destroying the spirit of freedom in favor of their version of justice, which includes the suppression of those who intellectually and ethically differ from them. This is not the liberation theology of the 1960s to 1980s, for it has access to the corridors of political and economic power in a way that considers democracy, tolerance, and pluralism its enemy. The progressive Christian who adopts this view has allowed the idol of political ideology to supplant God in the name of doing the work of God. It can justify violence to accomplish their end.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px; text-indent: 0.5in;">Theology needs to have the power to persuade and to strengthen the practice of the Christian faith. For any religion to be living and active, it needs to become an affair of the heart and passion of its adherents. Such experiences are not legitimate sources for theology, for feeling is far too subjective. Such experiences contained in the act of faith, in conversion, need further clarification and confirmation in an ongoing process of experience. Irrational fanaticism that locates religious truth in the realm of feeling is a sign of weakness, leaving rationality to the culture. Religions deal with forms of human life, the ordering and shaping of individuals and communities. The question in any theological work is whether it has the power to do that today in sufficient numbers beyond the theologian who writes. It also has a future reference. Is it lasting and reliable? That which is true shows itself as such as time progresses. Truth is accessible to us as human beings in the relativity of our experience and reflection. We do not have access to the true meaning of things and events in our world so long as the course of history continues. The extent to which we humbly share truth as we have to experience it and reflect upon it, we rest upon the confidence that we are sharing an anticipation of the fullness of truth. The meaning we ascribe to the data of individual history and to the events of social history depend on anticipation of the totality that is developing in history. These anticipations constantly change with further experience because as we move ahead the horizon of experience broadens. This does not rule out the possibility of provisional experiences of the reality of God and of the faithfulness of God in the course of history. However, all the statements that we make in the specific mode of human talk about God, rest on anticipations of the totality of the world and therefore on the yet non-existent future of its uncompleted history. This applies also to knowledge of God based on the historical revelation of God. The knowledge of Christian theology is always partial in comparison to the definitive revelation of God in the future. Recognizing the finitude and inappropriateness of all human talk about God is an essential part of theological sobriety. Every religion meets its test in the power it influences in the lives of individuals. Human history records many religions. Most of them died. The same is true of Christianity in general. We have no way of knowing today the truth of Christianity. Every Christian theology has an open quality to it in that only the future will determine its power and influence. It must interpret the central symbols of the tradition for a theological interpretation of the present situation, risk new interpretation of the tradition and the present situation, risk envisioning a Christian future, and recognize the complexity and ambiguity of interpretation. It needs to provide some objectivity to what conversion to Christian belief and life might look like. Part of the theological task is to define itself as an activity, it presents a possible correlation between faith and a theological interpretation of the present situation, it must be appropriate and understandable, it contributes to proclamation and apologetics, it will recognize the interrelated disciplines of historical theology, systematic theology, and practical theology, and it will recover the essential unity of theological reflection.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; line-height: 32px;"> Within the broad Christian community, in our pluralist setting, unity of theological perspectives is not possible. The conflict of our interpretations is our actuality. I do not see the possibility of a theological paradigm emerging that will unite various theological perspectives. Such an observation could lead to pessimism and despair. It could lead us to dogmatism of the Left and Right. However, genuine consecration and dedication to God can lead us out of captivity and into freedom. Conversation is our hope. Hope has a prophetic tone. It can lead us to creative fidelity to the community of the followers of Jesus of the past, present, and future. It can also lead to a form of creative destruction of what I love now so that I can embrace the new. Here is the challenge. Given the expansion of the spirit of freedom, it is tempting to look down upon previous generations of modernity with moral superiority. Given the advances in theological reflection in a time of pluralism, it is tempting for this generation of theologians to proceed with a moral superiority that ignores the insights of the past. Such a witness has made a commitment and is willing to stand in the presence of others to offer their testimony. Testimony bears on an event or that part of an event that is unique and irrevocable.<a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> The spirit of freedom needs institutions like religious communities to strengthen the slender threads that hold a free society together. Religious communities need to take many of the insights of modernity into itself, listen with discernment, allow creativity to emerge, and become salt and light in a culture that desperately needs the insight and wisdom of the ages.<o:p></o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1574048892">(Kaufman 1975)</w:sdt><w:sdt citation="t" id="-123161383"> (Lindbeck 1984)</w:sdt><w:sdt citation="t" id="2123111933"> (Lonergan 1972)</w:sdt><w:sdt citation="t" id="-1607794622"> (Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology 1975)</w:sdt><w:sdt citation="t" id="1761635885"> (Tracy, Christian Theology: An Introduction to its Tradition and Tasks 1984)</w:sdt><w:sdt citation="t" id="-1091232786"> (Tracy, Plurality, Ambiguity:: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope 1987)</w:sdt><w:sdt citation="t" id="359319095"> (Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism 1981)</w:sdt><w:sdt citation="t" id="842202800"> (Turner 1997)</w:sdt> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1812399527">(Kung, Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View 1988)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="443360185">(Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism 1981)</w:sdt> 193-231, 371-405.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="469552593">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 1950, 1951, 1960)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-76445890">(Marcel, The Mystery of Being 2001, 1950)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://5BE06A94-1A87-4072-95CA-CC7803B11EB3#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1584184222">(Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism 1956, 1966)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-10672756396854301232021-02-07T09:27:00.002-08:002021-02-11T07:12:16.165-08:00John of Damascus<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9OKoVJ37mAq_xgaivuN3CG54KR1zHt3ELWHk7gh_6RNxh1TLKITOsv_qFmU5eFUfmq0liSyemWJn0oXAgosqbUrC1ElddlyJk7P7T_aD_kOm-kSk_kYDzEXjUQbk1zwJ2GotVvddhN2Dx/s1600/johnofdamascus.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1242" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9OKoVJ37mAq_xgaivuN3CG54KR1zHt3ELWHk7gh_6RNxh1TLKITOsv_qFmU5eFUfmq0liSyemWJn0oXAgosqbUrC1ElddlyJk7P7T_aD_kOm-kSk_kYDzEXjUQbk1zwJ2GotVvddhN2Dx/s320/johnofdamascus.jpg" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">Saint John of Damascus or John Damascene (675?-749?) was a theologian, writer, scholar, Father of the Church, and Doctor of the Church, born in Damascus, Syria. Although a Christian, he served as a high-ranking financial officer under the Saracen caliph of Damascus. Because of the caliph's hostility to Christians, John resigned his post about 700. He retired to the monastery of Mar Saba, near Jerusalem, where he was ordained a priest before the outbreak of the controversy over iconoclasm. John opposed and fought the edicts of the Byzantine emperor Leo III against the veneration of statues and images; he was able to do so with impunity because he was not Leo's subject. He spent the rest of his life in religious study, except for a period shortly before his death, when he journeyed throughout Syria preaching against the iconoclasts.</span><p></p><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
h1
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.3in;
text-indent:-.3in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:1;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
h2
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-indent:-.4in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:2;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
h3
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Heading 2";
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-indent:-.4in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:3;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
p.MsoToc1, li.MsoToc1, div.MsoToc1
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc2, li.MsoToc2, div.MsoToc2
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:12.0pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc3, li.MsoToc3, div.MsoToc3
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:24.0pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Header Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 3.25in right 6.5in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{mso-style-link:"Footer Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 3.25in right 6.5in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.MsoFootnoteReference
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
vertical-align:super;}
span.MsoCommentReference
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-unhide:no;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p.MsoDocumentMap, li.MsoDocumentMap, div.MsoDocumentMap
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Document Map Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
background:navy;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoCommentSubject, li.MsoCommentSubject, div.MsoCommentSubject
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-next:"Comment Text";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
mso-ansi-font-size:16.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.HeaderChar
{mso-style-name:"Header Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Header;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FooterChar
{mso-style-name:"Footer Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Footer;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.XML
{mso-style-name:XML;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
color:red;
display:none;
mso-hide:all;}
p.PContinue, li.PContinue, div.PContinue
{mso-style-name:P_Continue;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-indent:.5in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-bidi-language:HE;}
p.PFirst, li.PFirst, div.PFirst
{mso-style-name:P_First;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-bidi-language:HE;}
p.SectionInfo, li.SectionInfo, div.SectionInfo
{mso-style-name:SectionInfo;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:.5in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.5in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-bidi-language:HE;
font-style:italic;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.DocumentMapChar
{mso-style-name:"Document Map Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Document Map";
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
background:navy;}
p.body, li.body, div.body
{mso-style-name:body;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:.4in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.unindented, li.unindented, div.unindented
{mso-style-name:unindented;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.body2, li.body2, div.body2
{mso-style-name:body2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:.4in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.unindented2, li.unindented2, div.unindented2
{mso-style-name:unindented2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.chaptersummary, li.chaptersummary, div.chaptersummary
{mso-style-name:chaptersummary;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:.4in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.4in;
text-align:center;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:13.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.list1, li.list1, div.list1
{mso-style-name:list1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.list1a, li.list1a, div.list1a
{mso-style-name:list1a;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:8.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.list2, li.list2, div.list2
{mso-style-name:list2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.headerinfo, li.headerinfo, div.headerinfo
{mso-style-name:headerinfo;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
background:#FFEE77;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Helvetica;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.CommentTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text";}
span.CommentSubjectChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject";
font-weight:bold;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page
{mso-footnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fs;
mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fcs;
mso-endnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") es;
mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") ecs;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:5139650;
mso-list-template-ids:553278178;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:135341048;
mso-list-template-ids:346314184;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:203366515;
mso-list-template-ids:773518530;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:235017758;
mso-list-template-ids:1521662226;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:241572909;
mso-list-template-ids:1726407854;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l4:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l4:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:439109653;
mso-list-template-ids:1036176200;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:619385974;
mso-list-template-ids:1642080126;}
@list l6:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l6:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l6:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:695666223;
mso-list-template-ids:-1125369598;}
@list l7:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l7:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8
{mso-list-id:696395350;
mso-list-template-ids:-1187595544;}
@list l8:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9
{mso-list-id:755322383;
mso-list-template-ids:-1795413850;}
@list l9:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l9:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l9:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10
{mso-list-id:762141542;
mso-list-template-ids:754335074;}
@list l10:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l10:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l10:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11
{mso-list-id:825635258;
mso-list-template-ids:-1287102164;}
@list l11:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l11:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l11:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12
{mso-list-id:839926015;
mso-list-template-ids:1317167048;}
@list l12:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l12:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l12:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13
{mso-list-id:864441844;
mso-list-template-ids:1574238526;}
@list l13:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l13:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14
{mso-list-id:985625078;
mso-list-template-ids:-2000095704;}
@list l14:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l14:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l14:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15
{mso-list-id:1005983563;
mso-list-template-ids:-2103252126;}
@list l15:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l15:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l15:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16
{mso-list-id:1110704559;
mso-list-template-ids:1682711238;}
@list l16:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l16:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l16:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17
{mso-list-id:1141534979;
mso-list-template-ids:-1354859828;}
@list l17:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l17:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l17:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18
{mso-list-id:1154028636;
mso-list-template-ids:-2117572988;}
@list l18:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l18:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l18:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19
{mso-list-id:1516455148;
mso-list-template-ids:-966333504;}
@list l19:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l19:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l19:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20
{mso-list-id:1848713697;
mso-list-template-ids:-522149544;}
@list l20:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l20:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l20:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21
{mso-list-id:1921720101;
mso-list-template-ids:-115581070;}
@list l21:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l21:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l21:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22
{mso-list-id:1922133620;
mso-list-template-ids:1862416958;}
@list l22:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l22:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l22:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23
{mso-list-id:1968782282;
mso-list-template-ids:30707800;}
@list l23:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l23:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l23:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24
{mso-list-id:1979214773;
mso-list-template-ids:-1490148562;}
@list l24:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l24:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l24:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25
{mso-list-id:1984963428;
mso-list-template-ids:-82812210;}
@list l25:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l25:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l25:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26
{mso-list-id:1994292129;
mso-list-template-ids:1524904806;}
@list l26:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l26:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l26:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27
{mso-list-id:2000036890;
mso-list-template-ids:2065448768;}
@list l27:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l27:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l27:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28
{mso-list-id:2116320409;
mso-list-template-ids:-2074860732;}
@list l28:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l28:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l28:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
-->
</style><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">Contemporaries considered John one of the ablest philosophers of his day and was known as Chrysorrhoas (Greek, “Golden Stream”) because of his oratorical ability. He was the author of the standard textbook of dogmatic theology in the early Greek church. This textbook, Source of Knowledge, is divided into three parts: Heads of Philosophy, Compendium of Heresies, and An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith. The third and most important section contains a complete theological system based on the teachings of the early Greek church fathers and church synods from the 4th to the 7th century. Both the Roman Catholic church and the Greek church consider John of Damascus a saint. His feast day in the Roman Catholic church is March 27; in the Greek, December 4.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">He wrote a summary of the orthodox faith, <i>An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.</i> He wrote it during the first waves of Arab Conquest. It contains four books.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">We turn to Book I. He begins by offering what modern theology would call a prolegomena. We learn quickly that considering the essence of God has connections with philosophical notions like that of infinite and eternal, which he will relate to the oneness of God. However, the identity of God is not as easy affirming this oneness, for the witness of scripture to divine revelation discloses that the divine life involves the monarchy of the Father, who always begat the Son and from whom the Spirit always proceeded. He stresses the role of the Spirit. His exposition of “orthodox faith” centers in Christ. Christian theology is a Christ-centered reasoned reflection on the witness to revelation we find in scripture.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">I.1-2 consider the knowability of God in a way that we might think of as a prolegomena.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> In I.1, he begins with the affirmation that no human being “has ever known God, he to whom He revealed Himself.” Deity “is ineffable and incomprehensible.” The Son knows the Father, the Father knows the Son, and the Holy Spirit knows the things of God. Deity has full and adequate knowledge of the divine essence. However, we are not completely ignorant, God has implanted the knowledge of the existence of God in all persons. God discloses proclaims the majesty of the divine nature. He will suggest that one cannot have human personality without hypothesizing a divine person that elicits and awakens human personality. Thus, free and responsible personhood is the highest achievement and of precious value. God has disclosed through revelation knowledge of God “as that was possible for us.” We must not seek knowledge above this revelation. Such revelation occurs because God is good and wants to provide what is profitable, revealing “which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret.” He concludes the chapter: “With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition.” He is drawing a distinction between a rational experience of the world that might lead to an affirmation of the reality of God on the one hand, and faith in the revelation of God contained in scripture. Thus, he offers a dogmatic in the sense of guidance to independent dogmatic work and not just the imparting of the specific results of a specific teacher.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> Classic Christian teachers worked to bring into ordered unity and equilibrium all the doctrines of Christian teaching according to the consensual affirmation of the early councils. In I.2, he admits that in matters related to deity and the incarnation, some matters remain unknowable. We will always dimly understand divine matters. We cannot put them in fitting terms. We can only address matters in accord with our limited capacity. He will then offer the basic orthodox Christian affirmation of these divine matters. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essences; and that He is known, and has His being in three subsistences, in Father, I say, and Son and Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession; and that the Only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, in His bowels of mercy, for our salvation, by the good pleasure of God and the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, being conceived without seed, was born uncorruptedly of the Holy Virgin and Mother of God, Mary, by the Holy Spirit, and became of her perfect Man; and that the Same is at once perfect God and perfect Man, of two natures, Godhead and Manhood, and in two natures possessing intelligence, will and energy, and freedom, and, in a word, perfect according to the measure and proportion proper to each, at once to the divinity, I say, and to the humanity, yet to one composite persons; and that He suffered hunger and thirst and weariness, and was crucified, and for three days submitted to the experience of death and burial, and ascended to heaven, from which also He came to us, and shall come again. And the Holy Scripture is witness to this and the whole choir of the Saints.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;">Despite this statement, Christianity cannot express the essence of God, or “how” the Son is begotten eternally and emptied himself and became a man through “virgin blood,” as he will say later. It remains beyond our capacity to think or say anything about God beyond revelation, by which he means the witness of nature and the witness of scripture. Part of the point he is making is that God knows God fully, so does not need our words about God. Theology is a study that fallible, finite human beings undertake. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> He is offering a picture of the world that at least provides individuals the possibility of affirming the reality of God. Such general knowledge of God available to all provides the background for the witness of scripture. The witness of scripture does not occur in a vacuum but arises out of the religious experience of humanity. Scripture is a witness to revelation from God, the existence of whom our experience of the world provides at least hints, even if it does not provide proof. Today, it would be better to focus upon the uniqueness of the human journey as providing hints toward “something more” than what temporality and finitude can satisfy. However, a proper understanding of the scientific description of nature and ontology may provide such hints as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In I.3, although we have knowledge of God implanted by nature, the Evil One prevails in many to deny the existence of God. Yet, those whose witness we find in Scripture received wisdom from the Holy Spirit, and worked miracles in divine power and grace, drawing them out of ignorance and into the light of the knowledge of God. Thus, we regard the prophets and apostles as witnesses of divine revelation and ascribe to them a definite separation from us and all other people. We cannot separate the form and content of the witness. These witnesses and these writings have a role and dignity peculiar to themselves.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> All we can do now is receive the enlightening grace of the Spirit and enlighten others walking in darkness. He invites us to consider that created things change (mutable) as they move toward death. This means that the uncreated does not change (immutable). He thinks those opposed by the nature of their existence as created or uncreated must also oppose each other in the mode of their existence, as subject to change or not. Change refers to progression or retrogression, increase or decrease, matters of quality, and matters of movement in space. He does argue that things created require the work of an uncreated maker, whom we call rightly the Creator and Deity. He then argues that the continuity of creation shown in its preservation and governance teaches the existence of Deity. He directs our attention to the opposite natures that we find in creation that yet form one complete world. The emergence of order out of the tension of the interaction of opposites in nature suggests the presence of an omnipotent power which binds them together, thereby preserving them from dissolution. Thus, rather than arguing from design or order in nature to God, he argues that we see many discordant elements in the universe that would not work harmoniously unless God gave it intelligent direction by implanting in them “the law whereby the universe,” which we might call the order expressed in the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, continue in preservation and direction. He clearly thinks that such laws can only have Deity as a source. Science has discovered the laws by which nature binds opposing forces together, and in so doing could acknowledge that such laws require a divine lawgiver. He acknowledges the possibility of their spontaneous appearance, but even that would seem to require an Artificer at work. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">He moves the argument beyond the notion of “order” and toward recognizing the oppositions and tensions within the natural order that suggests the divine presence binding oppositions in a whole. However, I would also suggest that directing us to our relationship with the infinite and eternal is an improvement over any argument from order. Seeing our lives in the context of the infinite and eternal places us in the context of the “something more” with which so many human beings long to connect. The revelation of God to which scripture witnesses, far from occurring in the air, emerges from and clarifies who this is infinite and eternal is and what it means for human life. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">1.4-8, neither male nor female language grasps the fullness of the divine reality, because God is beyond the ability of our language to express. 1.4, he does say that “there is a God. However, what God is in essence is incomprehensible and unknowable.”<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> God must be beyond that which the laws of physics can measure. In this way, God can permeate the fill the universe. If so, even while the essence of God is energy, we can see that “the first mover is motionless,” because God is already there, in every place. Now, to say things like that God does not have a beginning, does not change, does not perish does not describe the essence of God because all we have done is say what God is not. Thus, we can say nothing of the essence of God, but only what it is not, for God is above all beings.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> We can positively explain the essence of a finite and temporal thing, but we cannot do so with God, who is separate from such things. In that sense, we can affirm that God has no existence, for God is above the notion of existence. I believe he anticipates Paul Tillich here, who also stressed that since God is not “a being” in the world of experience, we ought not argue for the “existence” of God. This is another way, a provocative way, of saying that God is above the ability of our normal process of acquiring knowledge. In this way, he hesitates to say one can demonstrate the existence of God. “God then is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">1.5, he begins with the affirmation that he has demonstrated the likelihood that there is a God, and that the essence of God is incomprehensible to us. He wants to add that the essence of God is unitary or one. Scripture affirms this. To those who do not have regard for scripture, he would argue that the perfection of the divine necessitates one God. If God has no boundaries, there can only be one God. The governance of the world demands one God. Thus, there cannot be more than one necessary being. All of this suggests that he hesitates to say one can demonstrate the existence of God. Yet, in I.6, he will begin by saying that the one God has a Word or Logos within the eternal and infinite life of God. Our word is perishable and easily dissolvers, but the divine Word is eternal and perfect. This Word has the attributes of the Father who eternally begets the Word. This Word has an independent subsistence differentiated from the Father while sharing the same essence of the Father. The theme that the Logos is the Father’s self-reflection would become a permanent part of trinitarian thought. God is not without a word. He compares the enduring word that comes from God to the temporary word from us.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> In I.7, he begins by affirming that the “the Word must also possess Spirit.” Spirit refers to force, attraction, and movement in human life, and the divine Word possesses Spirit in perfection. The Spirit of God is “the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy.” The Spirit is “an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word, and shewing forth the Word.” He then states that the Spirit “being in subsistence in the likeness of the Word, endowed with life, free volition, independent movement, energy, ever willing that which is good, and having power to keep pace with the will in all its decrees, having no beginning and no end. For never was the Father at any time lacking in the Word, nor the Word in the Spirit.” This Christian view takes what is profitable from both the Greeks and the Jewish thought. Thus, the Spirit is a substantial power, self-related in his own individuating hypostasis.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> To sum up the argument of the past two chapters, the Father creates by thinking and what is thought is worked by the Logos and perfected by the Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> By saying that the Father “has” the Word and Spirit he is affirming the monarchy of the Father.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> I.8 is a difficult but important attempt to describe the orthodox view of the inner life of God. He begins by affirming what we have just discussed as the oneness of the divine essence as eternal, infinite, and boundless, “the fountain of goodness and justice.” God encompasses and maintains all things, “occupying all essences intact and extending beyond all things and being separate from all essence as being super-essential and above all things.” God is “the fountain of being to all that is, of life to the living, of reason to those that have reason; to all the cause of all good: perceiving all things even before they have become.” Christian baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which is sufficient for him to discuss these three as constituting the inner life of God. The Father has begotten the Son eternally, manifested in Jesus Christ, “consubstantial with the Father.” The Son “is the effulgence of the glory, the impress of the Father's subsistence.” Thus, the Father was always with the Son, and the Son always with the Father. The Father has eternally begotten or generated the Son, doing so without introducing passion or change in the divine essence (!). God is without time (!). He distinguishes between begetting as God’s work arising from his nature and as God’s work arising from the divine will.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> Such begetting is “without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone.” He uses the image that fire exists and light proceeds from it. Therefore, “just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any ways separate from Him, but ever is in Him.” He distinguishes the generation of the Son from the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, which is a different mode of being from that of the Son, “alike incomprehensible and unknown.” Father, Son, and Spirit have different modes of being,<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> but “no difference in essence nor dignity…. For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. The Father alone is without origin according to tradition.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father's essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father's essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension.” The orthodox faith affirms all of this based upon the witness of scripture to the revelation it finds in Jesus Christ. Despite the image of fire and light from nature, he admits that “it is quite impossible to find in creation an image that will illustrate in itself exactly in all details the nature of the Holy Trinity.” He goes on to affirm that orthodox faith also believes “in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal.” He again stresses the difference between generation and procession<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a>: “we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.” The Holy Spirit is Lord over every creature but is not lorded over. He deifies but is not deified. He fills but is not filled. He causes to participate but does not participate. He sanctifies but is not sanctified. The point is that the essence of God has no past, present, or future, but is the eschaton.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> “For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.” “Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement we recognize the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is one God, and His Word and Spirit.” Remembering that nothing in nature is an exact parallel to the relations with the Triune God, Peter and Paul share one human nature or essence, but are differing persons. Divine life includes this communal dimension of essence while maintaining the self-distinction we find with the Father, Son, and Spirit. The communal quality of essence and distinction that we find in nature is far removed from what we find in the case of the superessential and incomprehensible Trinity, but it may help us understand better the divine life. “For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects. … For the subsistences dwell in one another, in no wise confused but cleaving together…. For the subsistences dwell in one another, in no wise confused but cleaving together.” He again clarifies. “The Father is one Father, and without beginning, that is, without cause: for He is not derived from anything. The Son is one Son, but not without beginning, that is, not without cause: for He is derived from the Father. But if you eliminate the idea of a beginning from time, He is also without beginning: for the creator of times cannot be subject to time. The Holy Spirit is one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the manner of Sonship but of procession.” We could say that the monarchy of the Father is such at the Father “has” both Son and Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The stress in Chapter 8 is on the co-presence of the other modes of being in the one. This insight finds expression in the doctrine of the perichoresis (circumincessio, passing into each other) of the divine persons. The divine modes of being mutually condition and permeate each other so completely that one is always in the other two and the other two in the one. Based on this doctrine the inner life of “God would be an uninterrupted cycle of the three modes of being, and we are gladly reminded of the inappropriateness of the figure resulting from the literal meaning. The image prefers a spatial rather than temporal description of divine life. It implies both a confirmation of the distinction in the modes of being, for none would be what it is, no0t even the Father, without its co-existence with the others, and a relativization of this distinction, for none exists as a special individual, but all three exist only in concert as modes of being of the one God.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> The concept of perichoresis or circumincession contains the idea of reciprocity and has been adopted as an expression of trinitarian unity. It has had only a limited impact because of the one-sided viewing of the intratrinitarian relations as relations of origin.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> I am going to suggest that the “orthodox faith” today needs to reconsider some of this, while remaining respectful of and in agreement with the intent. The divine essence includes generation, or the giving of life, which is change. The giving of life is a passionate matter. It may well be that within orthodox faith is an understanding of divinity that embraces change and passion in a way that transcends our experience of them and brings them into divine life. The infinite and eternal God brings finitude and temporality within the divine essence and brings them to completion. The oppositions he acknowledges in nature are present in human life. Life can feel disjointed and alienated. Suffering and death introduce a profound experience of emptiness. The “orthodox faith” carries within it the possibility that God has brought such painful experience within the life of God. Contrary to the tradition, God is deeply touched by suffering and death to the point of bringing them within the eternal life of God. I can affirm this because of the infinite and eternal nature of the divine essence and because of the unique place the Son of the Father has in divine life. I will have more to say about this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In I.9, God simply “is.” God “keeps all being in His own embrace.” “God is a fire consuming all evils.” God sees all “before they were, holding them timelessly in His thoughts; and each one conformably to His voluntary and timeless thought.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In I.10, even the terms begotten and procession “do not explain His essence, but the mutual relationship and manner of being or existence.” We are only understanding the attributes of the divine essence in the variety of names we apply to God. He points out that the incarnation of the Word is unique “in that neither the Father nor the Spirit have any part at all, unless so far as regards approval and the working of inexplicable miracles which the God-Word, having become a human being like us, worked, as unchangeable God and Son of God.” Only the Son of God became a son of man, in contrast to Augustine, who said either the Father or Spirit could have become incarnate, a failure on the part of Augustine to care for the distinctions within the trinity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In 1.11, human beings cannot understand or speak of the divine energy of the Trinity only out of our experience. Our statements about God can only be symbols that have a higher meaning. We see in the Bible images of the “body” when referring to God (ears, eyes, hand, mouth, backside) that are symbolic of what the author intends to say about the attributes of God. the same is to of the emotions of God, such as anger and forgetfulness. When the Bible speaks of God repenting, the essence of God remains the same, but God is responding to new human contingencies.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In I.12, he refers to the mysteries learned from Dionysius the Areopogite. He notes again that deity is incomprehensible in that we cannot know the divine essence. The finite and temporal cannot understand the infinite and eternal. Yet, God allows some knowledge of God, “He is the cause of all and contains in Himself the reasons and causes of all that is, He receives names drawn from all that is, even from opposites.” In becoming known to us in this multiplicity of attributes, God has condescended to adjust the divine essence to our capacities of understanding.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> Thus, we use negative symbols like infinite (not finite), without beginning, and invisible, showing God is separate from that which have existence. Some names are positive, such as the cause of all things, essence, cause of reason and wisdom, the rational and the wise, intellect, life, living, power, and so on. “That which is immaterial is more precious and more akin to Himself than that which is material, and the pure than the impure, and the holy than the unholy: for they have greater part in Him…. which is just to say, being more than not being. For goodness is existence and the cause of existence, but wickedness is the negation of goodness, that is, of existence.” For John, the concept of God as the first cause is the basis for the apophatic procedure of negation. John here supplemented his apophatic statements by positive kataphatic predicates that trace back the perfections of the effects to the divine cause. He did not take up again the question of knowing the divine essence, which he had cogently rejected in favor of negative predicates. With his positive statements he could only argue from the infinity of God to his comprehensibility. He was following Pseudo-Dionysius.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> “God then is called Mind and Reason and Spirit and Wisdom and Power, as the cause of these, and as immaterial, and maker of all, and omnipotent.” Such qualities are the divine essence, but he then clarifies the relation of the three subsistences to each other. “The Father is super-essential Sun, source of goodness, fathomless sea of essence, reason, wisdom, power, light, divinity: the generating and productive source of good hidden in it. He Himself then is mind, the depth of reason (Paul Tillich again), begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit. … the Father has no reason, wisdom, power, will, save the Son Who is the only power of the Father the immediate cause of the creation of the universe: as perfect subsistence begotten of perfect subsistence in a manner known to Himself, Who is and is named the Son. And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation. Wherefore the Holy Spirit is the perfecter of the creation of the universe. All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone: while those that are appropriate to the caused, begotten Son, Word, immediate power, will, wisdom, are to be ascribed to the Son: and those that are appropriate to the caused, processional, manifesting, perfecting power, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In I.13, he considers the notion of space. He refers to physical and mental place, but the latter has no “form.” God is spiritual and has “has not place. For He is His own place,<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> filling all things and being above all things, and Himself maintaining all things. Yet we speak of God having place and the place of God where His energy becomes manifest. For He penetrates everything without mixing with it and imparts to all His energy in proportion to the fitness and receptive power of each: and by this, I mean, a purity both natural and voluntary. For the immaterial is purer than the material, and that which is virtuous than that which is linked with vice. Wherefore by the place of God is meant that which has a greater share in His energy and grace.” Heaven is the throne of God and earth is his footstool, “For in it He dwelt in the flesh among men. And His sacred flesh has been named the foot of God. The Church, too, is spoken of as the place of God: for we have set this apart for the glorifying of God as a consecrated place wherein we also hold converse with Him. Likewise, also the places in which His energy becomes manifest to us, whether through the flesh or apart from flesh, are spoken of as the places of God.” Thus, we can see that orthodox faith attests the value of this world to God by celebrating God’s own determination to become flesh and share in human history. Further, when we think of the infinity of the divine essence, however, we need to remember that this means “being everywhere wholly in His entirety.” Angels are in places, even if as spiritual beings they do not have bodies, “for to God alone belongs the power of energizing everywhere at the same time.” Angels have boundaries alike in time, in mental space, and in apprehension. God has predetermined by divine foreknowledge that which will be in our hands. We need to exercise some care in this humanizing image of foreknowledge. For us, knowledge of the future would be “foreknowledge.” If God is eternal, then every time is equally present to God. We could also say that God knows what is finite and temporal to the fullest, and thus past, present, and the possibilities and probabilities of the future. If we use that image, the future remains an open even for God. In any case, for John, finite and temporal things are distant from the nature of God. However, one who longs for God will see God, for God is in all things. God is mingled with everything, “maintaining their nature: and in His holy flesh the God-Word is made one in subsistence and is mixed with our nature, yet without confusion.” He continues with a reflection on the trinitarian relations: “The Son is the Father's image, and the Spirit the Son's, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after his own image. The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, (the Spirit stands in the middle between the Begotten and Unbegotten, an interesting image of the relations within the trinity<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a>) and united to the Father through the Son…. God is everlasting and unchangeable essence, creator of all that is, adored with pious consideration. God is also Father, being ever unbegotten, for He was born of no one, but hath begotten His co-eternal Son: God is likewise Son, being always with the Father, born of the Father timelessly, everlastingly, without flux or passion, or separation from Him. God is also Holy Spirit, being sanctifying power, subsistential, proceeding from the Father without separation, and resting in the Son, identical in essence with Father and Son.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In I.14, he summarizes what he has written. He opens by summarizing the attributes of the divine essence, the trinitarian relations (see the comments in Chapter 8), the divine effulgence and energy that gives being to existing things, and the divine essence penetrating all things, which is the basis for the divine knowledge of past, present, and future, is sinless, and brings salvation. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We now turn to Book II. He will begin with a discussion of creation that will lead into a discussion of human being. He carefully guards the goodness of God by stressing the free will of human beings. He concludes with a discussion of divine providence, distinguishing between the antecedent will of God, the consequent or permissive will of God. Leslie D. Weatherhead has a good set of sermons on this notion. He refers to the foreknowledge of God and predestination, carefully distinguishing that the knowledge God has because God is eternal and infinite does not remove human freedom from the equation. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.1, he refers to the seven ages of our finite and temporal world. “There is a partial consummation, viz., the death of each man: but there is also a general and complete consummation, when the general resurrection of men will happen. And the eighth age is the age to come.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.2, “God, Who is good and more than good, did not find satisfaction in self-contemplation, but in fits exceeding goodness wished certain things to come into existence which would enjoy His benefits and share in His goodness, He brought all things out of nothing into being and created them, both what is invisible and what is visible. Yea, even humanity, who is a compound of the visible and the invisible. And it is by thought that He creates, and thought is the basis of the work, the Word filling it and the Spirit perfecting it.” Creation is an act of the pure and free goodness of God.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.3, “an angel, then, is an intelligent essence, in perpetual motion, with free-will, incorporeal, ministering to God, having obtained by grace an immortal nature: and the Creator alone knows the form and limitation of its essence.” Angels are neither corporeal nor material and therefore unlimited and unrestricted, yet they are always in a definite and therefore a limited space.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> He expresses the general tradition regarding angels. Bodiless and immaterial, changeable, can become evil, and though no bodies, when in heaven they are not on earth.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> In II.4, God gave an angel guardianship of the earth, but did not sustain the brightness and honor given by the Creator “and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him: and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.5, we glorify as Three in One, created the heaven and the earth and all that they contain, and brought all things out of nothing into being. In II.6, he describes diverse options in what philosophers say about the heavens, concluding with an argument from beauty. “The heavens declare the glory of God, does not mean that they send forth a voice that can be heard by bodily ears, but that from their own greatness they bring before our minds the power of the Creator: and when we contemplate their beauty, we praise the Maker as the Master-Craftsman.” In II.7, he describes the knowledge of the moon, sun, stars, constellations, planets, and seasons he had. All of this suggests to me that the orthodox faith can deal with the cosmology as our scientists describe it and find ways to incorporate that knowledge into theological reflection. In II.8 he describes wind and air. In II.9, he describes water, “the most beautiful of God's creations,” with which I concur. In II.10 he describes the earth and its products, with which “we must not turn aside from reverent thought, but must admit that all things are sustained and preserved by the power of the Creator. …For there is not a single animal or plant in which the Creator has not implanted some form of energy capable of being used to satisfy man's needs. For He Who knew all things before they were, saw that in the future man would go forward in the strength of his own will, and would be subject to corruption, and, therefore, He created all things for his seasonable use…. Wild beasts are not without their uses, for, by the terror they cause, they bring man to the knowledge of his Creator and lead him to call upon His name…. But blessed is the man who inherits the earth promised to the meek. For the earth that is to be the possession of the holy is immortal. Who, then, can fitly marvel at the boundless and incomprehensible wisdom of the Creator? Or who can render sufficient thanks to the Giver of so many blessings.” He is suggesting that the divine omniscience is best viewed as the infinite consciousness of God in relation to all possible objects of knowledge. God knows past, present, and future.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.11, he turns his attention to the paradise of Eden. Of interest is that he concludes that “God meant that we should be thus free from passion, and this is indeed the mark of a mind absolutely void of passion.” Contrary to the Genesis text, he even says that work was not part of the plan.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.12, he turns his attention to humanity. Humanity is a mixture of “heaven” or mental powers and the “earth” or bodily sense, and thus is soul and body. “And it was also fit that there should be a mixture of both kinds of being, as a token of still greater wisdom and of the opulence of the Divine expenditure as regards natures, and to be a sort of connecting link between the visible and invisible natures. … He bestowed upon him by His own inbreathing, and this is what we mean by ‘after His image.’ For the phrase ‘after His image’ clearly refers to the side of his nature which consists of mind and free will, whereas ‘after His likeness "means likeness in virtue so far as that is possible.’” Thus, he proposes a distinction between imago dei and similitude, which scholasticism linked to Augustine’s doctrine of an original state of grace.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> He points to the future of humanity, for “in the age to come, he is changed and--to complete the mystery--becomes deified by merely inclining himself towards God; becoming deified, in the way of participating in the divine glory and not in that of a change into the divine being.” He points to the importance of free will: “But God made him by nature sinless and endowed him with free will. By sinless, I mean not that sin could find no place in him (for that is the case with Deity alone), but that sin is the result of the free volition he enjoys rather than an integral part of his nature…. he has the power to continue and go forward in the path of goodness, by co-operating with the divine grace, and likewise to turn from good and take to wickedness, for God has conceded this by conferring freedom of will upon him. For there is no virtue in what is the result of mere force.” Thus, God offers himself to the creature in such an intimate way that the creature is awakened and transfigured by divine grace. He stresses that the constitution of humanity is a community with inanimate and animate things: humanity “has community with things inanimate, and participates in the life of unreasoning creatures, and shares in the mental processes of those endowed with reason.” We need our “minerals” just as much as eating other living things, whether vegetation or animal. Throughout this discussion, “the difference between lifeless matter and vegetative matter is enormous. It is life, so God governs organic life in a vastly separate way than inorganic non-life.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.13, he distinguishes between natural and unnatural or good and evil desires.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> Pleasures of the soul include learning and contemplation, while pleasures of the body are actually enjoyed by both soul and body, such as food and intercourse. Some are true and some are false in the pleasure they provide. Moral pleasures do not bring pain and bring no cause for repentance, if one practices them within the bounds of moderation. He then explores various dimensions of human life, such as pain, fear, anger, imagination, sensation, thought, memory, conceiving thought and articulation of it, passion and energy (II.14-23). In II.24-25, he works cautiously to preserve the teaching of the holiness of God from the charge that God directly causes evil. The freewill defense is a time-tested response in that it is a good but distortable creation of God that is the source of sin. We do the sinning. God cooperates with humanity by empowering free will to act.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.26, he deals with events, some of which are in our hands, such as mental and deliberative acts, and some are beyond our control. In II.27, he considers why God endowed us with free will. “For reason consists of a speculative and a practical part. The speculative part is the contemplation of the nature of things, and the practical consists in deliberation and defines the true reason for what is to be done. The speculative side is called mind or wisdom, and the practical side is called reason or prudence.” In II.28, he considers what is not in our hands.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.29, he considers providence. “Providence, then, is the care that God takes over existing things. And again: Providence is the will of God through which all existing things receive their fitting issue. But if Providence is God's will, according to true reasoning all things that come into being through Providence must necessarily be both most fair and most excellent, and such that they cannot be surpassed…. Now the works of Providence are partly according to the good-will (of God) and partly according to permission…. the choice of what is to be done is in our own hands: but the final issue depends, in the one case when our actions are good, on the cooperation of God, Who in His justice brings help according to His foreknowledge to such as choose the good with a right conscience, and, in the other case when our actions are to evil, on the desertion by God, Who again in His justice stands aloof in accordance with His foreknowledge…. The first then is called God's antecedent will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called God's consequent will and permission and has its origin in us. And the latter is two-fold; one part dealing with matters of guidance and training, and having in view our salvation, and the other being hopeless and leading to our utter punishment, as we said above. And this is the case with actions that are not left in our hands.” What he is explaining is that God’s supervision functions without coercing or eliminating the priceless dimension of human self-determination. The giver of life who creates all things does not just leave them alone, or gaze passively upon them, but continues to nurture and care for them, and is constantly active on behalf of them. He viewed the preservation of the world from the standpoint of the governance of the world by providence.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> Here is a simple and pure view of predestination, which includes the presupposition of the overruling of God and the basis and goal of its realization. We have to do with the creature under divine lordship and the result of the personal intention of God. Providence is the active relation of God to the created reality.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In II.30, he deals with divine prescience and predestination. “We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. For He knows beforehand those things that are in our power, but He does not predetermine them. For it is not His will that there should be wickedness nor does He choose to compel virtue. So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on fore-knowledge. But on the other hand God predetermines those things which are not within our power in accordance with His prescience. For already God in His prescience has prejudged all things in accordance with His goodness and justice.” All of this is consistent with the argument of Arminius against the Calvinism of his day.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We now turn to Book III. He begins with the reason for the incarnation, where God cared enough for the misery of humanity to condescend to the human condition in one human being, Jesus of Nazareth, in order to emancipate humanity from its bondage to sin. He will explain to his satisfaction, but not mine, the two-natures theory of Christ as of divine and human essence subsisting in one person. I appreciate the connection he makes between the community of the trinity on the one hand and the community of human and divine in Jesus on the other. He will explain what “orthodox faith” means by referring to Mary as theotokos. Although I can understand the veneration of Mary, here is a place where I have a problem with “orthodox faith.” To refer to her has “ever virgin” seems a stretch biblically and introduces a negative of sexual intercourse. The main problem with his two-natures theory that I find difficult to accept is that only the human nature of Jesus suffered and died, while the divine nature of Jesus remains untouched. He concludes with a discussion of the descent of Christ to Hades.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.1, God “earnestly strove to emancipate” humanity from the enslaving bonds of sin, returning humanity to a life of happiness through the coming of the Redeemer. “For the very Creator and Lord Himself undertakes a struggle in behalf of the work of His own hands, and learns by toil to become Master…. God's goodness is revealed in that He did not disregard the frailty of His own handiwork but was moved with compassion for him in his fall, and stretched forth His hand to him… For what greater thing is there, than that God should become Man?... And He becomes obedient to the Father Who is like unto us, and finds a remedy for our disobedience in what He had assumed from us, and became a pattern of obedience to us without which it is not possible to obtain salvation.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.2, he focuses on the way the Word was conceived and thus the incarnation: “name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins. Hence it comes that Jesus has the interpretation Savior…. after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her… not by procreation but by creation through the Holy Spirit.” He then focuses upon the incarnation. “For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an independent pre-existence, but taking up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence took upon Himself through the pure blood of the eternal Virgin a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of man's compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a subsistence in the flesh…. Wherefore we speak not of man as having become God, but of God as having become Man.” Thus, the Word of God became the mode of being of the flesh. This is consistent with the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, guarding against a double existence of the Word.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.3, he considers the two natures of Christ: “we confess that He alike in His divinity and in His humanity both is and is said to be perfect God, the same Being, and that He consists of two natures, and exists in two natures…. For He is Himself both God and Man…. How, indeed, could one and the same nature come to embrace opposing and essential differences?” He then makes an important statement. “For when we speak of the nature of men as one, observe that in saying this we are not looking to the question of soul and body. For when we compare together the soul and the body it cannot be said that they are of one nature. But since there are very many subsistences of men, and yet all have the same kind of nature: for all are composed of soul and body, and all have part in the nature of the soul, and possess the essence of the body, and the common form: we speak of the one nature of these very many and different subsistences; while each subsistence, to wit, has two natures, and fulfils itself in two natures, namely, soul and body.” Therefore, it does not matter that he was born as a male, for human nature transcends gender. He then explores the implications of the Christological doctrine of the union of two natures in one person were discussed especially in debates regarding the communication of the attributes between the two natures and the person of Christ.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> “And therefore we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human … by synthesis; that is, in subsistence, without change or confusion or alteration or difference or separation, and we confess that in two perfect natures there is but one subsistence of the Son of God incarnate; holding that there is one and the same subsistence belonging to His divinity and His humanity, and granting that the two natures are preserved in Him after the union, but we do not hold that each is separate and by itself, but that they are united to each other in one compound subsistence. For we look upon the union as essential, that is, as true and not imaginary.” He finds it essential that we understand the incarnation was “a true union of them in one compound subsistence of the Son of God, and we hold that their essential difference is preserved. For the created remains created, and the uncreated, uncreated: the mortal remains mortal; the immortal, immortal: the circumscribed, circumscribed: the uncircumscribed, uncircumscribed: the visible, visible: the invisible, invisible.” We now come to the problem with the two-nature theory of the incarnation: “Lord of Glory is said to have been crucified, although His divine nature never endured the Cross, and that the Son of Man is allowed to have been in heaven before the Passion, as the Lord Himself said.” The second Council of Constantinople, Anathema 10, states that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh, but it was still possible to consider his suffering exterior to his deity. Divinity pervades all things, but nothing pervades it. It shares its glories with the flesh will remaining immune to the sufferings of the flesh, all of which he says regarding the incarnation. Thus, he is not expressing “orthodox faith” well in this case.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> However, his statement also reveals the problem with the theory. “In respect of His divinity He is connected with the Father and the Spirit, while in respect of His humanity He is connected with His mother and all mankind. And as far as His natures are united, we hold that He differs from the Father and the Spirit on the one hand, and from the mother and the rest of mankind on the other. For the natures are united in His subsistence, having one compound subsistence, in which He differs from the Father and the Spirit, and also from the mother and us.” This statement is important in that only the Son of God become a son of man, in contrast to Augustine, in a failure on his part to care for the distinctions within the trinity.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.4, he discusses the manner of the mutual communication of the divine and human nature of Christ: “in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, seeing that we recognize that He has two natures but only one subsistence compounded of both, when we contemplate His natures we speak of His divinity and His humanity, but when we contemplate the subsistence compounded of the natures we sometimes use terms that have reference to His double nature, as "Christ," and "at once God and man," and "God Incarnate;" and sometimes those that imply only one of His natures, as "God" alone, or "Son of God," and "man" alone, or "Son of Man;" sometimes using names that imply His loftiness and sometimes those that imply His lowliness. For He Who is alike God and man is one, being the former from the Father ever without cause, but having become the latter afterwards for His love towards man.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.5, he continues his discussion of the two natures of Christ, making an interesting comparison between the relations within the trinity and the communion of the divine and human Christ. “And just as the three subsistences of the Holy Trinity are united without confusion, and are distinguished and enumerated without being separable, the enumeration not entailing division or separation or alienation or cleavage among them (for we recognize one God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), so in the same way the natures of Christ also, although they are united, yet are united without confusion; and although they interpenetrate one another, yet they do not permit of change or transmutation of one into the other.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.6, he writes that the Word unites in its entirety to the human nature: “in the Incarnation of the Trinity of the One God the Word of the Holy Trinity, we hold that in one of its subsistences the nature of the Godhead is wholly and perfectly united with the whole nature of humanity.” He continues his error: “Hence we cannot say ‘The nature of the Word suffered;’ for the divinity in it did not suffer, but we say that the human nature, not by any means, however, meaning all the subsistences of men, suffered in Christ, and we confess further that Christ suffered in His human nature.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.7, he discusses the one compound subsistence of the Word: “without leaving the Father's bosom, took up His abode in an uncircumscribed manner in the womb of the holy Virgin, without the instrumentality of seed, and in an incomprehensible manner known only to Himself, and causing the flesh derived from the holy Virgin to subsist in the very subsistence that was before all the ages. So then He was both in all things and above all things and also dwelt in the womb of the holy Mother of God, but in it by the energy of the incarnation.” The flesh is mortal on its own account and quickening because of its hypostatic union with the Word. In becoming flesh, the Word remains the Word. The Word never ceases to be the Word. Thus, the Word speaks, acts, prevails, reveals, and reconciles.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> He distinguishes between two generations of the Son: “We reverence His two generations, one from the Father before time and beyond cause and reason and time and nature, and one in the end for our sake, and like to us and above us; for our sake because it was for our salvation, like to us in that He was man born of woman.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.8, he continues his discussion of the two natures. “Christ, therefore, is one, perfect God and perfect man: and Him we worship along with the Father and the Spirit, with one obeisance, adoring even His immaculate flesh and not holding that the flesh is not meet for worship: for in fact it is worshipped in the one subsistence of the Word, which indeed became subsistence for it. But in this we do not do homage to that which is created. For we worship Him, not as mere flesh, but as flesh united with divinity.” Colossians 2:9 teaches that the divine nature penetrates and perfects every aspect of the human, and the human is pervaded by the divine.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.9, he continues a discussion of the notion of “nature” in discussion of Christology and the incarnation. In III.10 he discusses the trisagium and an addition he finds objectionable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.11, he considers nature in species and in individuals and the difference between union and incarnation, wanting to explain the statement: “The one nature of God the Word incarnate.” “For He took on Himself the elements of our compound nature, and these not as having an independent existence or as being originally an individual, and in this way assumed by Him, but as existing in His own subsistence.” He again respects the difference within the trinity: “the Father and the Holy Spirit take no part at all in the incarnation of the Word except in connection with the miracles, and in respect of good will and purpose.” We are not dealing with the essence of God when we are thinking of the incarnation, but of the one mode of being as Son or Word of the Father. Thus, the Word that is God became a man, but not the deity as such.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.13, he discusses Mary as theotokos, mother of God. “He who was born of her was true God, she who bare the true God incarnate is the true mother of God. For we hold that God was born of her, not implying that the divinity of the Word received from her the beginning of its being, but meaning that God the Word Himself, Who was begotten of the Father timelessly before the ages, and was with the Father and the Spirit without beginning anti through eternity, took up His abode in these last days for the sake of our salvation in the Virgin's womb, and was without change made flesh and born of her. For the holy Virgin did not bare mere man but true God: and not mere God but God incarnate…. the purpose of God the Word becoming man was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption…. And thus it is that the holy Virgin is thought of and spoken of as the Mother of God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but also because of the deification of man's nature…. Who deified the nature that He assumed.” Thus, orthodox faith affirms Mary as God-bearer on account of the nature of the Logos and the deification of the human.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.14, he considers the free will of our Lord Jesus Christ. For him, one hypostasis becomes the synthetic agent of the whole gospel narrative, both of what is divine in it and of what is human in it, identifying the eternal Logos with this hypostasis.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> “Since, then, Christ has two natures, we hold that He has also two natural wills and two natural energies. But since His two natures have one subsistence, we hold that it is one and the same person who wills and energizes naturally in both natures, of which, and in which, and also which is Christ our Lord: and moreover that He wills and energizes without separation but as a united whole. For He wills and energizes in either form in close communion with the other.” He compares the communion of divine and human nature in Christ with the communion of will and energy within the trinity. However, we see again the problem with the theory of two natures in Christ when he suggests that in the interpretation of the gospel narrative we need to discern whether we find it to be the human divine or human will. “ “Since, then, Christ is one and His subsistence is one, He also Who wills both as God and as man is one and the same. And since He has two natures endowed with volition, since they are rational (for whatever is rational is endowed with volition and free-will), we shall postulate two volitions or natural wills in Him. For He in His own person is capable of volition in accordance with both His natures. For He assumed that faculty of volition which belongs naturally to us. And since Christ, Who in His own person wills according to either nature, is one, we shall postulate the same object of will in His case, not as though He wills only those things which He willed naturally as God (for it is no part of Godhead to will to eat or drink and so forth), but as willing also those things which human nature requires for its support, and this without involving any opposition in judgment, but simply as the result of the individuality of the natures. For then it was that He thus willed naturally, when His divine volition so willed and permitted the flesh to suffer and do that which was proper to it.” He wants to stress that we have a free will: “For to will is a faculty of nature, just as seeing is, for all men possess it.” Freedom of will belongs to the rational and intellectual life. Humanity made in the image of God, who is clearly free, must share in that freedom of will. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.15, he considers that Christ had two energies in the sense that he possessed the divine and human essence. “Life itself, it should be observed, is energy, yea, the primal energy of the living creature and so is the whole economy of the living creature, its functions of nutrition and growth, that is, the vegetative side of its nature, and the movement stirred by impulse, that is, the sentient side, and its activity of intellect and free-will. Energy, moreover, is the perfect realization of power. If, then, we contemplate all these in Christ, surely we must also hold that He possesses human energy.” He will stress the close communion of human and divine essence in Christ, as he did of the close communion within the trinity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.16, he considers that some thinkers of his day thought of humanity as having two natures, that of soul and body, and therefore Christ must have three, which, of course, he rejects. In III.17, he considers the deification of the nature of the flesh and will of Christ. For him, his resurrection makes possible the intended and fitting consummation of our humanity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.18, the priority always lies with the divine initiative, not with human responsiveness. “Wherefore God in His pity and love for man wished to reveal fallen man himself as conqueror and became a human being to restore like with like.” He clarifies that the divine will has superiority over the human will of Christ: “But His human will was obedient anti subordinate to His divine will, not being guided by its own inclination, but willing those things which the divine will willed.” He will provide us an example of how this view works itself out in the exegesis of the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, an appropriate text for this discussion. His exegesis of the text reveals the weakness of the two-natures theory. “For it was with the permission of the divine will that He suffered by nature what was proper to Him. For when He prayed that He might escape the death, it was with His divine will naturally willing and permitting it that He did so pray and agonize and fear, and again when His divine will willed that His human will should choose tire death, the passion became voluntary to Him. For it was not as God only, but also as man, that He voluntarily surrendered Himself to the death. And thus He bestowed on us also courage in the face of death. So, indeed, He said before His saving passion, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me," manifestly as though He were to drink the cup as man and not as God. It was as man, then, that He wished the cup to pass from Him: but these are the words of natural timidity. Nevertheless, He said, not My will, that is to say, not in so far as I am of a different essence from Thee, but Thy will be done, the is to say, My will and Thy will, in so far as I am of the same essence as Thou. Now these are the words of a brave heart. For the Spirit of the Lord, since He truly became man in His good pleasure, on first testing its natural weakness was sensible of the natural fellow-suffering involved in its separation from the body but being strengthened by the divine will it again grew bold in the face of death. For since He was Himself God although also man, and man although also God, He Himself as man subjected in Himself and by Himself His human nature to God and the Father, and became obedient to the Father, thus making Himself the most excellent type and example for us.”<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> This suggests that the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane is Jesus play-acting, giving us an example of how to face temptation. It was not a real struggle for Jesus of Nazareth, but he made it look like a real struggle so that we could better face our temptations. “ “Of His own free-will, moreover, He exercised His divine and human will. For free-will is assuredly implanted in every rational nature. For to what end would it possess reason, if it could not reason at its own free-will? For the Creator hath implanted even in the unreasoning brutes natural appetite to compel them to sustain their own nature. For devoid of reason, as they are, they cannot guide their natural appetite but are guided by it. And so, as soon as the appetite for anything has sprung up, straightway arises also the impulse for action. And thus they do not win praise or happiness for pursuing virtue, nor punishment for doing evil. But the rational nature, although it does possess a natural appetite, can guide and train it by reason wherever the laws of nature are observed. For the advantage of reason consists in this, the free-will, by which we mean natural activity in a rational subject. Wherefore in pursuing virtue it wins praise and happiness, and in pursuing vice it wins punishment.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.19, he considers the theandric energy: “just as in the case of the flaming sword we speak of the cut burn as one, and the burnt cut as one, but still hold that the cut and the burn have different energies and different natures, the burn having the nature of fire and the cut the nature of steel, in the same way also when we speak of one theandric energy of Christ, we understand two distinct energies of His two natures, a divine energy belonging to His divinity, and a human energy belonging to His humanity.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.20, he considers the natural and innocent passions, suggesting the hallowing of the human that occurs in the incarnation. “He assumed all the natural and innocent passions of man. For He assumed the whole man and all man's attributes save sin. For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us by force. For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labor, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In III.21-29, the humbling of the Son refers to his birth, but also to the way the Son grew to maturity and had to choose repeatedly the way of the way of the humble One until such choosing ended in death. In III.22, as an example of the omniscience of the Son voluntarily constrained, the paradox is that the Son became like a child, even as we must, to grasp the meaning of coming governance of God. In III.23, he considers fear in Jesus. In III.24, he considers prayer in Jesus, using the example of Lazarus. Again, we see the problem of the two-natures theory in that he feels the need to explain why the incarnate Son would pray, since he is already in close communion with the Father. In III.25, he considers the natural and personal appropriation of attributes. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.26, he considers the suffering of the humanity of Jesus and the non-suffering of the divinity of Jesus. Highlighting the problem with the two-natures theory, he says, “we say that God suffered in the flesh, but never that His divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh.” Separate from the issues he has discussed; he offers a statement of the role of examples. “For one must not take the examples too absolutely and strictly: indeed, in the examples, one must consider both what is like and what is unlike, otherwise it would not be an example. For, if they were like in all respects, they would be identities, and not examples, and all the more so in dealing with divine matters. For one cannot find an example that is like in all respects whether we are dealing with theology or the dispensation.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.27, the says the divine essence remained inseparable from the soul and body of Jesus even at death, so that his subsistence continued as one. He offers what some might consider an offensive image regarding the death of Jesus for us. “He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus he delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant. Wherefore death approaches and swallowing up the body as a bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a sinless and life-giving body, perishes, and brings up again all whom of old he swallowed up. For just as darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is death repulsed before the assault of life, and brings life to all, but death to the destroyer.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III.28, he considers corruption and destruction. “Our Lord's body was subject to corruption. For He voluntarily accepted all these things. But corruption also means the complete resolution of the body into its constituent elements, and its utter disappearance, which is spoken of by many preferably as destruction. The body of our Lord did not experience this form of corruption.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In III. 29, he considers the descent into Hades. “The soul when it was deified descended into Hades, in order that, just as the Sun of Righteousness rose for those upon the earth, so likewise He might bring light to those who sit under the earth in darkness and shadow of death: in order that just as He brought the message of peace to those upon the earth, and of release to the prisoners, and of sight to the blind, and became to those who believed the Author of everlasting salvation and to those who did not believe a reproach of their unbelief, so He might become the same to those in Hades: That every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth. And thus, after He had freed those who had been bound for ages, straightway He rose again from the dead, shewing us the way of resurrection.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">We now turn to Book IV. He begins with considering what happened after the resurrection of Jesus, including his ascension. In IV.9, he will turn to a discussion of faith, baptism, and ethics. We can now see that the church will not be a theological theme in “orthodox faith.” He is also clear that any discussion of ethics occurs in the context of faith and baptism, and only after his Christological discussion. He will discuss the Eucharist. He values the veneration of the saints and especially images of Mary. He discusses the nourishment provided by scripture. He concludes with a discussion of antichrist and the hoped for reuniting of soul and body in the resurrection of the dead. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">IV.1 concerns what happened after the resurrection of Jesus. IV.2 concerns what it means that Christ is at the right hand of the Father. “Christ sits in the body at the right hand of God the Father, but we do not hold that the right hand of the Father is actual place. For how could He that is uncircumscribed have a right hand limited by place?” IV.3 considers whether Christians are actually worshipping the creature since Christ has both human and divine natures. “His flesh, then, in its own nature… is not deserving of worship since it is created. But as it is united with God the Word, it is worshipped on account of Him and in Him.” IV.4 considers why the Son became a human being rather than the Father or Spirit. “The Father is Father and not Son: the Son is Son and not Father: the Holy Spirit is Spirit and not Father or Son. For the individuality is unchangeable. How, indeed, could individuality continue to exist at all if it were ever changing and altering? Wherefore the Son of God became Son of Man in order that His individuality might endure. For since He was the Son of God, He became Son of Man, being made flesh of the holy Virgin and not losing the individuality of Sonship.” In this way, John does better than Augustine in maintaining the distinctions within the triune life of God. IV.5 considers the type of subsistence Christ has: “it bears the properties of the two natures, being made known in two natures: so that the one same subsistence is both uncreate in divinity and create in humanity, visible and invisible.” IV.6 answers the question of when Christ received his calling: “we hold that the Son and Word of God became Christ after He had dwelt in the womb of His holy ever-virgin Mother, and became flesh without change, and that the flesh was anointed with divinity. For this is the anointing of humanity.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In IV.7, he considers whether the holy Mother of God bore two natures and whether two natures hung upon the cross. “He is two natures: for He is in His own person God and man. And the same is to be said concerning the crucifixion and resurrection and ascension. For these refer not to nature but to subsistence. Christ then, since He is in two natures, suffered and was crucified in the nature that was subject to passion. For it was in the flesh and not in His divinity that He hung upon the Cross. Otherwise, let them answer us when we ask if two natures died. No, we shall say. And so two natures Were not crucified but Christ was begotten, that is to say, the divine Word having become man was begotten in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, suffered in the flesh, while His divinity continued to be impossible.” He again does not the divinity of the Son touched by suffering and death. The hypostasis is identical with the Logos and the one agent of the saving narrative. The Logos makes human realities his own in the fashion of an exchange through the perichoresis of the parts. The divine nature did not suffer in the cross.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a> In IV.8, he discusses who the orthodox faith can refer to Christ as “first-born.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">John will now move from the themes of Christology to faith and baptism. He will not have a place for the church in his theological discussions.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a> His ethics are in a subordinate position to his exposition of the orthodox faith.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a> In IV.9, “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins and for life eternal. For baptism declares the Lord's death. We are indeed "buried with the Lord through baptism," as saith the divine Apostle. So then, as our Lord died once for all, we also must be baptized once for all, and baptized according to the Word of the Lord, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, being taught the confession in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…. But those who were not baptized into the Holy Trinity, these must be baptized again…. For since man's nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the Spirit the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life…. The regeneration, however, takes place in the spirit: for faith has the power of making us sons (of God), creatures as we are, by the Spirit, and of leading us into our original blessedness…. The remission of sins, therefore, is granted alike to all through baptism: but the grace of the Spirit is proportional to the faith and previous purification. Now, indeed, we receive the first fruits of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and the second birth is for us the beginning and seal and security and illumination s of another life.” Such baptism has ethical implications, for “with all our strength to steadfastly keep ourselves pure from filthy works, that we may not, like the dog returning to his vomit, make ourselves again the slaves of sin. For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith. For the true faith is attested by works.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In IV.10, he focuses attention upon faith. When adequate evidence is laid out, it is expected that by grace one is being made able to believe, at least pray for grace to believe. God does not believe for us. God enables believing. When we believe, it is truly our own action, yet always enabled by grace, exercising the gracious ability God has given us to trust in the eventful Word spoken in Jesus Christ. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In IV.11, the cross is the power of God for those being saved. “For without faith neither does the farmer cut his furrow, nor does the merchant commit his life to the raging waves of the sea on a small piece of wood, nor are marriages contracted nor any other step in life taken…. This is the seal that the destroyer may not touch you, as saith the Scripture. This is the resurrection of those lying in death, the support of the standing, the staff of the weak, the rod of the flock, the safe conduct of the earnest, the perfection of those that press forwards, the salvation of soul and body, the aversion of all things evil, the patron of all things good, the taking away of sin, the plant of resurrection, the tree of eternal life.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In IV.11, he discusses worshipping toward the East “in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten.” In IV.12, he considers the holy and immaculate mysteries of the Lord. The Eucharist is communion with Christ and with each other. We are co-embodiments of Christ.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a> “We were therefore given a birth by water and Spirit: I mean, by the holy baptism: and the food is the very bread of life, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who came down from heaven…. can He not then make the bread His body and the wine and water His blood? … For just as God made all that He made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is not possible to comprehend unless by faith alone…. bread and wine are employed: for God knows the infirmity of humanity: for in general human beings turn away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence He performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man's custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man's custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural. The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energizes and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same…. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In IV.14, he considers the genealogy of the Lord and the holy much-lauded ever-virgin one Mother of God. His poetic imagination soared with analogies like this to the dual generation of the Son. “For just as the latter (Eve) was formed from Adam without connection, so also did the former bring forth the new Adam, who was brought forth in accordance with the laws of parturition and above the nature of generation. For He who was of the Father, yet without mother, was born of woman without a father's co-operation. And so far as He was born of woman, His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while so far as He had no father, His birth was above the nature of generation.” He even says, “The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing,” a legitimate spiritualization.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">IV.15 concerns the honor due to the saints and their remains. “The divine Scripture likewise saith that the souls of the just are in God's hand and death cannot lay hold of them. For death is rather the sleep of the saints than their death.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[43]</span></span></span></a> For they travailed in this life and shall to the end, and Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. What then, is more precious than to be in the hand of God? For God is Life and Light, and those who are in God's hand are in life and light.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">IV.16 considers images of Christ and “our Lady.” “On what grounds, then, do we shew reverence to each other unless because we are made after God's image? For as Basil, that much-versed expounder of divine things, says, the honor given to the image passes over to the prototype…. the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in order that they should form a concise memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord's passion in mind and see the image of Christ's crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify…. It is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honor which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valor and to glorify God.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In IV.17 he considers scripture. As trees receive nourishment from water, “so also the soul watered by the divine Scripture is enriched and gives fruit in its season… Let us draw of the fountain of the garden perennial and purest waters springing into life eternal. Here let us luxuriate, let us revel insatiate: for the Scriptures possess inexhaustible grace. But if we are able to pluck anything profitable from outside sources, there is nothing to forbid that. Let us become tried money-dealers, heaping up the true and pure gold and discarding the spurious.” He suggests that unless the Spirit is active to penetrate our self-deceptions, how could we, trapped in a history of finely tuned deception, recognize the address? The Spirit works preveniently to make the mind proximately receptive, to enable openness to the divine address, and to prepare the believer to be unafraid to receive the truth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In IV.18, he has in important discussion of things concerning Christ. the identity of Christ in the gospels requires distinguishing the human, divine, or divine-human. Before the incarnate theandric union (Consubstantiality with the Father, the perfection of the person, the mutual indwelling of the persons in each other, the subordination of the Son to the Father, the will of the Father as fulfilled by the Son, or the fulfillment of prophecy), during the time of the incarnate union (the deification of the flesh by assuming and lifting up the human, the humbling of the Word by lowering from glory to finitude, by assumption of the flesh, or by temporarily emptying, permeation of both deity and humanity in the union by uniting, anointing, an intimate conjoining, permeating, by mutual indwelling), after the union (so as to show the divine or human nature or one person displaying both divinity and humanity), and after the resurrection (as pertaining to divinity, or to humanity, or to both natures). Each episode will exhibit one of these characteristics. This theandric premise may offer some assistance in reading the gospel narratives.<a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftn44" name="_ftnref44" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[44]</span></span></span></a> At first, I rejected this idea, but as I think about it, some of the nature miracles could be ascribed to after the resurrection, while the ambiguity of the historical Jesus could be after the union. Most of the Gospel of John would be after the resurrection. I will have to see.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In IV.19-21, scripture teaches that God antecedently wills the salvation of all. In IV.19, God is not the cause of evils. In IV.20, there are not two kingdoms. In IV.21, he ponders the foreknowledge of God in creating persons who would sin and not repent. “God makes all His works good, but each becomes of its own choice good or evil.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In IV.22, he discusses the law of God and the law of sin. Given the weakness of the flesh, “it is impossible to carry out the precepts of the Lord except by patience and prayer. In IV.23, he opposes Jewish thought on the Sabbath. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">IV.24 considers virginity. Here is a place where “orthodox faith” would find much disagreement with the most conservative Protestant of today. For John, even though the Genesis text has God commanding Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, he argues that God did not intend sex for the Garden of Eden. “For the first parents were the work of virginity and not of marriage. But celibacy is, as we said, an imitation of the angels. Wherefore virginity is as much more honorable than marriage, as the angel is higher than humanity. … Good indeed is the procreation of children enjoined by the law, and good is marriage on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to he caromed into unlawful acts. Good is marriage for those who have no continence: but that virginity is better which increases the fruitfulness of the soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer. Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">IV.25 considers circumcision. “For just as the circumcision does not cut off a useful member of the body but only a useless superfluity, so by the holy baptism we are circumcised from sin, and sin clearly is, so to speak, the superfluous part of desire and not useful desire. For it is quite impossible that any one should have no desire at all nor ever experience the taste of pleasure. But the useless part of pleasure, that is to say, useless desire and pleasure, it is this that is sin from which holy baptism circumcises us.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">IV.26 considers the antichrist. “But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist. First, then, it is requisite that the Gospel should be preached among all nations.” The universal preaching of the gospel does not imply the conversion of single living person before the end, but rather, testimony be given, and believers found throughout the earth. “And then shall that wicked one be revealed, even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders(2), with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, whom the Lord shall consume with the word of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming….he becomes man as the offspring of fornication and receives all the energy of Satan. For God, foreknowing the strangeness of the choice that he would make, allows the devil to take up his abode in him. He is, therefore, as we said, the offspring of fornication and is nurtured in secret, and on a sudden he rises up and rebels and assumes rule. And in the beginning of his rule, or rathe…r tyranny, he assumes the role of sanctity. But when he becomes master, he persecutes the Church of God and displays all his wickedness. But he will come with signs and lying wonders, fictitious and not real, and he will deceive and lead away from the living God those whose mind rests on an unsound and unstable foundation, so that even the elect shall, if it be possible, be made to stumble…. And the Lord shall come out of heaven… Let no one, therefore, look for the Lord to come from earth, but out of Heaven.” The notion of Antichrist resists the illusion of an ever-increasing, progressive, immanently developing justice growing naturally from within history.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;">IV.27 considers the resurrection. Orthodox faith affirms “the resurrection of the dead. For there will be in truth, there will be, a resurrection of the dead, and by resurrection we mean resurrection of bodies…. For if they define death as the separation of soul and body, resurrection surely is the re-union of soul and body.” He connects the hope of the resurrection of the dead to moral concerns. Resurrection is a necessary link in the moral chain of divine promises. “For if there is no resurrection, let us eat and drink: let us pursue a life of pleasure and enjoyment…. For God is just and is the rewarder of those who submit patiently to Him. Wherefore if it is the soul alone that engages in the contests of virtue, it is also the soul alone that will receive the crown. And if it were the soul alone that revels in pleasures, it would also be the soul alone that would be justly punished. But since the soul does not pursue either virtue or vice separate from the body, both together will obtain that which is their just due.” He refers to the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John, saying, “He did not raise the soul without the body, but the body along with the soul: and not another body but the very one that was corrupt…. We shall therefore rise again, our souls being once more united with our bodies, now made incorruptible and having put off corruption, and we shall stand beside the awful judgment-seat of Christ: and the devil and his demons and the man that is his, that is the Antichrist and the impious and the sinful, will be given over to everlasting fire: not material fire like our fire, but such fire as God would know. But those who have done good will shine forth as the sun with the angels into life eternal, with our Lord Jesus Christ, ever seeing Him and being in His sight and deriving unceasing joy from Him, praising Him with the Father and the Holy Spirit throughout the limitless ages of ages. Amen.” Redemption restores what had been lost in the fall, the full exercise of the free will to celebrate and reflect the divine good endlessly.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></p><h2>My trinitarian statement<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and John of Damascus were among those who urged church councils to adopt a set of beliefs regarding God, Christology, and the Holy Spirit. They would present their beliefs in concise, summary form. I thought I would put my mind to the same task. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Christian theology builds upon the ambiguous human experience of the divine, the sense that our finite and temporal lives connect to something much larger, and we are accountable for the lives we lead.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The Trinity is the way Christians identify God. This doctrine seeks a glimpse into the inner life of God, even though God is beyond our comprehension. God is infinite and eternal, meaning that God is present in every place and in every moment, giving God intimate knowledge of every place and every moment. The infinite and eternal essence of God means that the energy, grace, and presence of God is a reality for every finite and temporal thing. The mark of deity is endless futurity. The divine essence keeps things moving forward to an open future in a way that transcends past conditions and remains open to newness. The essence (οὐσία) of God is energy and movement. The Father has always generated the Son and the life-giving gift of the Spirit has always proceeded from the Father. Therefore, the inner life of God always included humanity and the finite and temporal world from which humanity would emerge. The Father was always moving outward toward all that the Son and Spirit embrace about our world. The three as ὑ πόστασις have always self-distinguished themselves from each other, recognizing that in distinguishing oneself from another defines oneself as also dependent upon that other. The essence of God is the loving embrace of this mutual relationship and dependence upon each other. The Father, through the Son and Spirit, has brought finitude, temporality, and therefore suffering, into the inner life of God, having done so eternally. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What Christians say about the essence of God has its basis in revelation witnessed to in scripture. The event of the Jewish teacher and prophet Jesus of Nazareth is the heart of this revelation. What some would say is impossible, the humbling of divinity to embrace a human being in his finitude, temporality, suffering, and death, Christianity proclaims as good news for the world. Raised by Jewish parents, Mary and Joseph, raised in the humble setting of Nazareth and distant from Jewish political and religious authority in Jerusalem and Roman political and economic authority in Rome, he received baptism by John the Baptist, taught using the humble form of parable and aphorism rather than the exalted form of learned discourse, and performed healings and exorcisms. Jesus lived a Spirit-filled life and ministry, led a life faithful to the Shema of Israel and the Jewish people, faithful to a loving embrace of the neighbor, and faithful to the proclamation to the rule of God. The Son or Word of the Father, in this event that embraces finitude, temporality, suffering, and death, is revealing what it is to be God and determines the nature of divine infinity and eternity. Jesus of Nazareth is the incarnation of the Son. As the Triune God is a communion within divine life, so is the life of Jesus an intimate communion of the divine and human. While differing in gender, race, and economic settings, what makes us human transcends such differences, making the incarnation of the Son of saving significance for all persons. The oneness of the divine essence has a parallel in the oneness of human essence. The self-actualizing of divine life within the relations of the trinity has a parallel in the actualization of a human life in relation to others. Despite sin and suffering in this world, the Father lovingly embraces this world and finds it worthy of reconciliation and redemption. The event of incarnation discloses the enslavement of humanity by sin. The cross reveals the extent of the love of God for humanity, bringing forgiveness of sin. He endured the suffering and shame of the cross in his death for others and for their sin, but also received the gift of life through the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Those who turn toward this event live their lives in Christ and Christ lives in them, through the life-giving influence of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit gathers a people called the church who place their faith in the truth of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, thereby experiencing justification with God, builds them up in love toward God and their neighbor, thereby experiencing sanctification through the Spirit, and enlivens them to a life of hope, thereby living with a meaningful vocation. They can live in reconciliation with God and with their world. They honor the disciples and other saints, leaders, and teachers of the church throughout its history. The focus of this life is no longer inner-directed but directed outward, under the influence of the Spirit, toward faithfully embodying the truth of the event of revelation through prayer and meditation upon the biblical witness, especially in love toward God and neighbor, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the vice-virtue lists in the New Testament, and leading a faithful, loving, and hope-filled life. In this way, embracing the truth expressed in the doctrine of the trinity by faith will not be an abstraction, but engages those who believe it in an ongoing process of transforming love through the Spirit and into the image of the Son. One becomes part of a community united with Christ in his baptism, a symbol of moral cleansing, and in the Supper over which he presides, in communion with Christ and with fellow believers. One can then live with a future that includes the hope of personal and cosmic redemption, in which finitude and temporality will find their completion in the loving embrace of the trinitarian relation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;"> </span> </o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> Barth, CD I.1, 25<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> Barth CD I.1, 276,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> (Barth CD I.2, 495).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 4.32-33.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith, 4.22-38.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 6.1-18, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 7.14-21 <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 6.6-8 <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> Barth CD I.1, 434.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith, 8.107, 122, tropos hyparxeos, or way of having being or even mode of origin.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg ST vol I, P. 311.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, ST vol I, 305.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> 2.32-36, how God is begotten from God we do not know. Exposition fidei 8.191-193, we have been taught that there is a difference between being begotten and proceeding, but we do not know the character of that difference. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> Barth CD I.1, 464.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 8.199-200, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> Barth, CD I.1, 370, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, ST vol I, P. 319.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> (Barth, CD II.1, 328.)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg ST vol I, 343.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 13.11<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn21"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> Barth, CD I.1, 469. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn22"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> Barth, CD I.2, 29.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn23"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> Barth, CD III.3, 382, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn24"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith iii, 45-50 <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn25"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg ST vol II, 211.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn26"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg ST Vol II, 240.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn27"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg ST II, 36.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn28"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> Barth, III.3, 4.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn29"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> Barth, I.2, 163, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn30"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg vol II, 387.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn31"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith, 51.57-61.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn32"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> Exposition fidei, 77.5-8.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn33"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> Barth I.2, 137.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn34"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> Barth, CD I.2, 33.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn35"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 56.60-62.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn36"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith, 58.43-50, 59.193-196, 46.24-30. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn37"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 68.19-22, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn38"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith, 47.75-85.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn39"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg ST vol III, 21.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn40"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a> Barth, CD I.2, 783,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn41"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 4.13.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn42"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a> Barth CD I.2, 201.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn43"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[43]</span></span></span></a> Orthodox Faith 88.25-26.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn44"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://A2DB41BD-C1A7-4002-807E-2015DE766240#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[44]</span></span></span></a> Oden, Classic Christianity, 308-9.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-80418472220322678382021-02-01T09:37:00.007-08:002021-02-11T07:13:11.205-08:00Athanasius and the Cappadocians<p> </p><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
h1
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.3in;
text-indent:-.3in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:1;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
h2
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-indent:-.4in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:2;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:list 0in;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
h3
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Heading 2";
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:.4in;
text-indent:-.4in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:3;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
p.MsoToc1, li.MsoToc1, div.MsoToc1
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc2, li.MsoToc2, div.MsoToc2
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:12.0pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoToc3, li.MsoToc3, div.MsoToc3
{mso-style-update:auto;
mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:24.0pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Header Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 3.25in right 6.5in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{mso-style-link:"Footer Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-hyphenate:none;
tab-stops:center 3.25in right 6.5in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.MsoFootnoteReference
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
vertical-align:super;}
span.MsoCommentReference
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-unhide:no;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p.MsoDocumentMap, li.MsoDocumentMap, div.MsoDocumentMap
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Document Map Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
background:navy;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoCommentSubject, li.MsoCommentSubject, div.MsoCommentSubject
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-next:"Comment Text";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
mso-ansi-font-size:16.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-font-kerning:.5pt;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
mso-ansi-font-size:14.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;
font-weight:bold;
mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;
font-style:italic;
mso-bidi-font-style:normal;}
span.HeaderChar
{mso-style-name:"Header Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Header;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.FooterChar
{mso-style-name:"Footer Char";
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Footer;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.XML
{mso-style-name:XML;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
color:red;
display:none;
mso-hide:all;}
p.PContinue, li.PContinue, div.PContinue
{mso-style-name:P_Continue;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
text-indent:.5in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-bidi-language:HE;}
p.PFirst, li.PFirst, div.PFirst
{mso-style-name:P_First;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-bidi-language:HE;}
p.SectionInfo, li.SectionInfo, div.SectionInfo
{mso-style-name:SectionInfo;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:6.0pt;
margin-right:.5in;
margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.5in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;
mso-bidi-language:HE;
font-style:italic;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;
mso-style-unhide:no;}
span.DocumentMapChar
{mso-style-name:"Document Map Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Document Map";
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;
background:navy;}
p.body, li.body, div.body
{mso-style-name:body;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:.4in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.unindented, li.unindented, div.unindented
{mso-style-name:unindented;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.body2, li.body2, div.body2
{mso-style-name:body2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:.4in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.unindented2, li.unindented2, div.unindented2
{mso-style-name:unindented2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.chaptersummary, li.chaptersummary, div.chaptersummary
{mso-style-name:chaptersummary;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:.4in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.4in;
text-align:center;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:13.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.list1, li.list1, div.list1
{mso-style-name:list1;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.list1a, li.list1a, div.list1a
{mso-style-name:list1a;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:8.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0in;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.list2, li.list2, div.list2
{mso-style-name:list2;
mso-style-unhide:no;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.headerinfo, li.headerinfo, div.headerinfo
{mso-style-name:headerinfo;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
background:#FFEE77;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Helvetica;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.CommentTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Comment Text";}
span.CommentSubjectChar
{mso-style-name:"Comment Subject Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-parent:"Comment Text Char";
mso-style-link:"Comment Subject";
font-weight:bold;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-hansi-font-family:Tahoma;
mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page
{mso-footnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fs;
mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") fcs;
mso-endnote-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") es;
mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("/Users/georgeplasterer/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/TemporaryItems/msohtmlclip/clip_header.htm") ecs;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:5139650;
mso-list-template-ids:553278178;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:135341048;
mso-list-template-ids:346314184;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:203366515;
mso-list-template-ids:773518530;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:235017758;
mso-list-template-ids:1521662226;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:241572909;
mso-list-template-ids:1726407854;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l4:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l4:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l4:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:439109653;
mso-list-template-ids:1036176200;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l5:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l5:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l5:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:619385974;
mso-list-template-ids:1642080126;}
@list l6:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l6:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l6:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l6:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:695666223;
mso-list-template-ids:-1125369598;}
@list l7:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l7:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l7:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8
{mso-list-id:696395350;
mso-list-template-ids:-1187595544;}
@list l8:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l8:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l8:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l8:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9
{mso-list-id:755322383;
mso-list-template-ids:-1795413850;}
@list l9:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l9:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l9:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l9:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10
{mso-list-id:762141542;
mso-list-template-ids:754335074;}
@list l10:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l10:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l10:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l10:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11
{mso-list-id:825635258;
mso-list-template-ids:-1287102164;}
@list l11:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l11:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l11:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l11:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12
{mso-list-id:839926015;
mso-list-template-ids:1317167048;}
@list l12:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l12:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l12:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l12:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13
{mso-list-id:864441844;
mso-list-template-ids:1574238526;}
@list l13:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l13:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l13:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14
{mso-list-id:985625078;
mso-list-template-ids:-2000095704;}
@list l14:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l14:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l14:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l14:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15
{mso-list-id:1005983563;
mso-list-template-ids:-2103252126;}
@list l15:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l15:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l15:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l15:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16
{mso-list-id:1110704559;
mso-list-template-ids:1682711238;}
@list l16:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l16:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l16:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l16:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17
{mso-list-id:1141534979;
mso-list-template-ids:-1354859828;}
@list l17:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l17:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l17:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l17:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18
{mso-list-id:1154028636;
mso-list-template-ids:-2117572988;}
@list l18:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l18:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l18:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l18:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19
{mso-list-id:1516455148;
mso-list-template-ids:-966333504;}
@list l19:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l19:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l19:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l19:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20
{mso-list-id:1848713697;
mso-list-template-ids:-522149544;}
@list l20:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l20:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l20:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l20:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21
{mso-list-id:1921720101;
mso-list-template-ids:-115581070;}
@list l21:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l21:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l21:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l21:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22
{mso-list-id:1922133620;
mso-list-template-ids:1862416958;}
@list l22:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l22:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l22:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l22:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23
{mso-list-id:1968782282;
mso-list-template-ids:30707800;}
@list l23:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l23:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l23:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l23:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24
{mso-list-id:1979214773;
mso-list-template-ids:-1490148562;}
@list l24:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l24:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l24:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l24:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25
{mso-list-id:1984963428;
mso-list-template-ids:-82812210;}
@list l25:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l25:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l25:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l25:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26
{mso-list-id:1994292129;
mso-list-template-ids:1524904806;}
@list l26:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l26:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l26:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l26:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27
{mso-list-id:2000036890;
mso-list-template-ids:2065448768;}
@list l27:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l27:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l27:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l27:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28
{mso-list-id:2116320409;
mso-list-template-ids:-2074860732;}
@list l28:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l28:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l28:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l28:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
-->
</style><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">I am going to explore an important part of Christian theology as it developed its notion of the identity of the Triune God. I will do so with the help of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Karl Barth, Robert Jenson, Walter Kaufmann, and John Macquarrie. The work of Thomas Oden in "Classic Christianity" helped to guide my reading toward their insights. I will conclude with my attempt to compose a brief statement of the trinity as inspired by these authors, although I will say that sometimes the inspiration is to respectfully move against them.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH9QhiyA89Q_h754RY6-Ia2sSiDXsr4QLHWNFaXpjp-cfwik6ikfT6IpMc9y6WnetwdWn8FZl1tr5ItmjzOwgFkYt9DhnV64hZd1vtWYMK05tH4a3TV8MS03oVPlWxQHN_0gadpOay8uhi/s1000/athanasius.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="663" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH9QhiyA89Q_h754RY6-Ia2sSiDXsr4QLHWNFaXpjp-cfwik6ikfT6IpMc9y6WnetwdWn8FZl1tr5ItmjzOwgFkYt9DhnV64hZd1vtWYMK05tH4a3TV8MS03oVPlWxQHN_0gadpOay8uhi/s320/athanasius.jpg" /></a></div><br />Athanasius (293-393) born in Alexandria, Egypt, would become secretary to the bishop. That position became the basis for his involvement in the Council of Nicaea in 325. He opposed a priest also from Alexandria, Arius. Athanasius formulated the homoousian doctrine, according to which the Son of God is of the same essence, or substance, as the Father. Arius, on the other hand, maintained that the Son was of a different substance from that of the Father and was merely a creature, much more perfect that any other creature, who was used by God in subsequent works of creation. Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria around 328. During the Arian controversy, politics mingled with theology, and each side labored to win the favor of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great. The Arian Party was both influential and very active at the imperial court. Athanasius was exiled five times; more than one-third of his episcopate was spent away from his see. His fifth and final exile lasted only four months and ended in 364. He spent the rest of his life in quiet labor at his post in Alexandria. The theological battle was over, and the victory rested with the cause of Nicene orthodoxy. He died May 2, 373. His feast day is May 2.<o:p></o:p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">Gregory of Nazianzus offered the following as to the character of the man. “In praising Athanasius, I shall be praising virtue. To speak of him and to praise virtue are identical, because he had, or, to speak more truly, has embraced virtue in its entirety. For all who have lived according to God still live unto God, though they have departed hence.” After listing some biblical heroes, “With some of these Athanasius vied, by some he was slightly excelled, and others, if it is not bold to say so, he surpassed: some he made his models in mental power, others in activity, others in meekness, others in zeal, others in dangers, others in most respects, others in all, gathering from one and another various forms of beauty (like men who paint figures of ideal excellence), and combining them in his single soul, he made one perfect form of virtue out of all, excelling in action men of intellectual capacity, in intellect men of action; or, if you will, surpassing in intellect men renowned for intellect, in action those of the greatest active power.” As a person who held power, he did not go to extremes. “He was sublime in action, lowly in mind; inaccessible in virtue, most accessible in intercourse; gentle, free from anger, sympathetic, sweet in words, sweeter in disposition; angelic in appearance, more angelic in mind; calm in rebuke, persuasive in praise, without spoiling the good effect of either by excess, but rebuking with the tenderness of a father, praising with the dignity of a ruler, his tenderness was not dissipated, nor his severity sour; for the one was reasonable, the other prudent, and both truly wise; his disposition sufficed for the training of his spiritual children, with very little need of words; his words with very little need of the rod, 1 Corinthians 4:21 and his moderate use of the rod with still less for the knife.” As a leader, “cleansed the temple of those who made merchandise of God, and trafficked in the things of Christ, imitating Christ John 2:15 in this also; only it was with persuasive words, not with a twisted scourge that this was wrought. He reconciled also those who were at variance, both with one another and with him, without the aid of any coadjutor. Those who had been wronged he set free from oppression, making no distinction as to whether they were of his own or of the opposite party. He restored too the teaching which had been overthrown: the Trinity was once more boldly spoken of, and set upon the lampstand, flashing with the brilliant light of the One Godhead into the souls of all.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">Paul Tillich had a distinct perspective, viewing him negatively as imposing a strange law (heteronomy) on the functions of reason. His approach claims to represent the depth of reason while placing limits on the actualization of reason. He claims to speak in the name of the ground of being and therefore in an unconditional and ultimate way.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> The decision of Nicaea, defended by Athanasius in a life and death way, presented a problem Athanasius found difficult to answer; how could a difference exist between the Father and the Son? Does it not become impossible to understand the picture of the Jesus of history?<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> The issue becomes acute for Tillich, who defined God as that which concerns us ultimately. How can ultimate concern find expression in more than one hypostasis? In the terminology of Nicaea, the divine nature (ousia) is identical in God and the Logos, and in Chalcedon, the Spirit. Ousia is that which makes a thing what it is. Hypostasis means the power of standing upon itself, the independence of being that makes mutual love possible. What does the historical Jesus mean for interpretation of the Logos? Can one attribute to the eternal Logos the face of Jesus of Nazareth?<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.4in;">The portion of the Nicaean Creed (325) relevant to these reflections.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">γεννηθέντα)</span> of the Father the only-begotten (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">μονογενῆ)</span>; that is, of the essence (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">οὐσίας) </span>of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial or “of one being” (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">ὁμοούσιον) </span>with the Father;<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;"><span color="windowtext">And in the Holy Ghost, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">ὑποστάσεως or hypostasis)</span>' or 'essence (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">οὐσίας)</span>,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]<a name="_Toc51323501"></a><a name="_Toc60129275"><o:p></o:p></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">Here are a few canons of contemporary interest:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">CANON 3: Women and clergyTHE great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta (woman) dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;"><span color="windowtext">CANON LI – divorce - Bishops shall not allow the separation of a wife from her husband on account of discord.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;"><span color="windowtext">CANON LXVI re-marriage - Of taking a second wife, after the former one has been disowned for any cause, or even not put away, and of him who falsely accuses his wife of adultery. If any priest or deacon shall put away his wife on account of her fornication, or for other cause, as aforesaid, or cast her out of doors for external good, or that he may change her for another more beautiful, or better, or richer, or does so out of his lust which is displeasing to God; and after she has been put away for any of these causes he shall contract matrimony with another, or without having put her away shall take another, whether free or bond; and shall have both equally, they living separately and he sleeping every night with one or other of them, or else keeping both in the same house and bed, let him be deposed. If he were a layman let him be deprived of communion. But if anyone falsely defames his wife charging her with adultery, so that he turns her out of doors, the matter must be diligently examined; and if the accusation was false, he shall be deposed if a cleric, but if a layman shall be prohibited from entering the church and from the communion of the faithful; and shall be compelled to live with her whom he has defamed, even though she be deformed, and poor, and insane; and whoever shall not obey is excommunicated by the Synod.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;"><span color="windowtext"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">The dogma of Nicaea started the process of stating the thought of the eternal and essential Trinity in a way that broke it loose from its historical moorings and tended to be seen not only as the basis of all historical events but also as untouched by the course of history on the account of the eternity and immutability of God, and therefore also inaccessible to all creaturely knowledge. Athanasius is the beginning of this line of thought.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> Trinitarian discussion uses the term “self-distinction” since the 1800s. The one who distinguishes himself from another, defines himself as also dependent on that other.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> This term and concept is important in discussing the constitution of the Trinity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> <i>On the Incarnation of the Word </i>has an introduction and four discourses. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The introduction has 56 sections. He defends the notion of creation out of nothing. In 1-5, had there been a less costly way to reconcile sinners that could have avoided the cross, God would have chosen it.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> In 1.3, he stresses that the Word of the Father was incorporeal by nature but chose to wear a body out of love and goodness toward humanity and for its salvation. Throughout the introduction, he will stress the inner connection between creation and incarnation. In section 2, he stresses that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the one who created out of nothing, for the Father made all things through him. In section 3, he defends the notion that Adam had an original immortality in the sense that with participation in the Logos Adam had a disposition for immortality and would have shared in it had he held fast to the knowledge of God. He rightly makes the sharing in the Logos that God gave us at creation the starting point of his doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos. Without this premise the incarnation of the Logos would be alien to our nature. The mistake he makes here is that Paul makes it clear in I Corinthians 15:47 that Adam is of the earth. Adam was mortal. Throughout this section, the biblical story is the story of creation of humanity, the fall of humanity, and the redemption of humanity. Revelation is for the salvation of humanity, thereby mending its brokenness. Throughout sections 4-15, he uses an analogy with the post-exilic historical experience of Israel to say that God is always doing something new in history, always creating or re-creating a new people, ever restoring that which has fallen to nothing.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> In section 4, he defends his reference to the origin of humanity in a document that is discussion the incarnation of the Word by stressing that our transgression in Adam is the reason for the coming forth of the Logos. God dealt lovingly with humanity by abiding in our corruption. We find the incarnation of Father through the Logos was worthy of deity because what was at issue in this even was the restoration and completion of the participation in the Logos that is related our human nature, that guarantees our immortality and that had been lost through the sin of Adam and its consequences. This loss did not include rationality in which the participation found expression. We also see the difference between Christ and all others for he is the new man from heaven who has overcome death. He suggests that mortality is natural to us but not the actual entry of death. Because of our participation in the Logos, even our body would have had immortality had not Adam fallen into sin. Though human nature is mortal, the fact of physical death is the consequence of sin. He linked the Adam typology to ecclesiology with his thought of a new creation of humanity in Christ based on II Cor 5:17. Yet, he did not raise the question of the relation of the distinctive earthly history of Jesus to the rise of the church. Christ as the new Adam as prototype blocked the idea. In section 4.5, he expresses succinctly the negative character of evil when he said, “What is evil is not, but that is good is.” Evil is lapsing into nothing or ceasing to be, which is a standing threat to all created beings. These beings have been created out of nothing, and it is possible for them to slip back into nothing or to advance into the potentialities for being that belong to them. evil is this slipping back toward nothing, a reversal and defat of the creative process.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> Underlying the discussion in sections 3-4 is the notion that a will that can choose differently when face to face with the norm of the good cannot be a good will. It is more than weak because it is not firmly set upon the good. In section 6, we must see death as wider than an individual phenomenon, for death having gained upon people, and corruption abiding upon them, humanity in the process of destruction, the rational person made in the image of God was disappearing, and the handiwork of God was in process of dissolution. He goes on to say that as the rational creatures were wasting and such works in course of ruin, what was God in his goodness to do? Suffer corruption to prevail against them, and death to hold them fast? And where then would be the benefit of their having been made in the first place? It would be better that God had not made them, left to neglect and ruin. In this way, he rightly connects creation with reconciliation.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> In section 7, he again makes it clear that we find the incarnation of God through his Logos was worthy of his deity because what was at issue in this even was the restoration and completion of the participation in the Logos that is related our human nature, that guarantees our immortality and that had been lost through the sin of Adam and its consequences. This loss did not include rationality in which the participation found expression. We also see the difference between Christ and all others for he is the new man from heaven who has overcome death. In section 8, he expresses the solidarity of the Logos with humanity. Throughout sections 7 and 8, he rightly makes the sharing in the Logos that was given us at creation the starting point of his doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos. Without this premise the incarnation of the Logos would be alien to our nature. In 9.1, the immortal Word, the Son of the Father, takes a mortal body in Jesus of Nazareth, making him worthy to die in the place of all and participate in the immortality of the Word, ceasing corruption by the grace of the resurrection. In sections 9.3-4, he used the analogy that just as a city becomes secure from banditry by the presence of a single just and powerful ruler, so the presence of the Word in human history checks the conspiracy of the enemy against humanity land puts away death. In section 11, God is higher being than is humanity in part because God is without a body. God has fashioned humanity in a lower way in the body. This lower quality makes it difficult for humanity to know its maker. The goodness of God leads God to make sure that humanity is not destitute of the knowledge of God. they could not be rational without knowing the Word and Reason of the Father. If human knowledge was only of earthly things, they would be no better than other animals. God does not want this, so God creates humanity with a share in the divine image. This image is the Word of the Father, which gives humanity the possibility of knowing the Father and lead a happy life. Yet, humanity rejected God and fashioned their notion of god and even worshipped devils. Even then, God is not hidden, and has in fact unfolded knowledge of God in many forms and ways. God foresaw that humanity would forget its creator, but by grace provided the works of creation to remind humanity of God. In 13.7 he relates the image of God represented by Jesus to the eternal Logos in the flesh. Humanity needed the presence of the image of God in our Lord Jesus Christ to know God. “Whence the Word of God came in His own person, that, as He was the Image of the Father, He might be able to create afresh the man after the image.” This view tends to detach Christological statements from any relevance to our general divine likeness. Christology and anthropology had to go separate ways.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> In 14, the Son of the Father, being an image of the Father, came to our region to renew humanity, which we might call justifying grace or new birth,<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> made in divine likeness, he sojourns here, taking a body to himself, so that those who would not know the Father from providence may see the Father through the body which the Word has taken up or assumed. In section 15, the Word saw that humanity looked for God nature and the world of sense, so the Word took a body, that of Jesus of Nazareth, and walks among people so that they would recognize the Father through him. He came to save and find the lost. In section 18, he makes the dubious claim that the mighty works of Jesus make his deity visible. His charging evil spirits is not of a man, but of God. or who that saw him healing the diseases to which humanity is subject can still think him man and not God? For he cleansed lepers, made lame people walk, opened the hearing of deaf people, made the blind to see, and in a word drove away from people all diseases and infirmities, from which acts to was impossible even for the most ordinary observer to see his Godhead.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> He will engage in a long discussion of the death and resurrection of Christ. In 20-32, the one God has created the world, permits its freedom to fall, acts to redeem what has fallen, and brings the whole story to fitting consummation. In 20.1-2, the only way to restore the divine image in humanity was through the Word, the image of the Father. He died for us to pay our debt of death, he offered his sacrifice for all, yielding his body to death in the place of all, to invite humanity to be free of their sin and demonstrate that the divine power is greater than that of death. In 21-25, it was crucial that his death be public and innocent at the hands of others. In 24, Christ accepted the cross and endured a death inflicted by others, especially his enemies. They thought of the cross as dreadful and ignominious, but he saw it as the way to bring death itself to nothing. The death they though would bring disgrace was a monument of victory against death. In 25.2-3, there was no other way for us to receive salvation than for his suffering and death for our sake. He received our curse on the cross. His death is ransom for all. only on the cross does a man die with hands spread out, drawing Jew and Gentile to himself. In 26-30, the heavenly ministry of Jesus begins with the ascension. In 26, he sets forth reasons why the resurrection could occur only after three days. In 27.1-2, he draws a contrast between those who view death with dread and the possibility now of saying that because of the resurrection of Jesus, our death is no longer terrible. One can know that one begins to live. In section 43, the Lord came to heal and teach those who suffered, thereby showing that the Lord was not engaging in a short journey, here but gave himself to the aid of those in want. The hope was that humanity would more quickly and directly know the Father through a body. For those who think it absurd to believe such, many think that they see divinity in other parts of creation, but they exclude that possibility from the body. In 46-57, we study Jesus of Nazareth because of his transforming power.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> He pleas for ethical accountability in speech about God.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> In section 54, we know the invisible by the works of the incarnate Word. We recognize the deifying mission of the Word in these works. We are to marvel that the divine has become visible to us, and by the death of the Son immortality has reached out to humanity. The Word becoming a human being makes the universal Providence known. He was made a human being so that human beings might be made God. His resurrection makes possible the intended and fitting consummation of our humanity. This famous dictum (54.3) does not distinguish what believers are becoming in this age and what they will be in the eschaton. Divination is the goal of the incarnation of the Son. The works of the Holy Spirit in believers, in which their elevation to participation in the life of God takes place, is grace. At issue is the grace of forgiveness of sins, but also at issue is the uplifting of our creaturely constitution into fellowship with the gracious God and into participation in his gracious turning to the world.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The discourses that come after the introduction are specific refutation of Arius and discussion of biblical texts.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The first letter to Serapion shows Athanasius is already laying the ground for including the Holy Spirit in the discussions regarding the how Christians would identify God. Some persons, while opposing Arius in his view of the Son or Logos of the Father, developed the notion that the Holy Spirit was less than Father and Son, a creature created by the Father, and thereby differs only in degree from the angels. He viewed this as blasphemy against the “holy Triad.” This view continued the subordinationist thinking of previous thinkers. He argues that the Spirit shares in the oneness of the Word with the Father.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We will now explore his <i>Four Discourses Against the Arians. </i>He will develop the relational definition of the trinitarian distinctions that the Cappadocians and Augustine would adopt. Revelation becomes an epiphany, the Logos appearing in the flesh in order that we might attain the knowledge of the invisible God. He could be right that the thesis of the consubstantiality of the Son and Spirit better preserves the unity of God than his opponents could when they thought they could defend the divine unity as a monarchy of the Father only by giving a lower, creaturely ranking to the Son and Spirit within the order of being.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Throughout discourse one, he will make the point that the union of God and human being is so permeant that readers of scripture cannot always easily separate out what Christ says of himself as God what he says of himself as human. When the scripture student keeps clearly in mind that though divine this one is human though human this one is divine, then, for him, the scriptures make sense, and each narrative unfolds plausibly. However, such is the textual problem that the two natures theory presents to readers of the text. It would be worth exploring today if there is another way to obtain the objective of Athanasius apart from the two natures theory of the nature of Christ. In 1.1-11, the affirmation of faith by Peter in Mark 8:29 is remarkable in that Jesus accepted it. Jesus is not one who points someone to the door as he is the door itself. In 1.4, he celebrates Christ as having attributes that could only be intrinsic qualities of God, for the only uncreated being is God. Arius denies the Son by making him a being God created. In 1.5, he is appalled that Arius teaches that Son and Spirit are of different essence from the Father and are thus alien to the divine essence. In 1.6, Arius teaches that the Word is not “very God,” and that thus the Son is foreign to, separated from, estranged, and disconnected from the divine essence. In 1.7, Arius proposes heresy, is a foe of Christ, and a forerunner of Antichrist. In 1.8, he uses scripture as a cloak to sow the ground with his poison and to seduce the simple. In 1.9 the Nicaean Creed contains the phrase “of one being” or “consubstantial” (<span style="color: #202122;">ὁμοούσιον). At the time the word had only vague and ambiguous theological uses. Those at the council knew Arius could not sign on to this creed. We now read the phrase as Athanasius understood it. For him, it means that the Son is the same one as the Father, by resemblance to the Father; the relationship marked by the prepositions needed to state the Son’s status as image is taken as itself constitutive for the one the being of God. That the Father and the Son are of one being means that precisely the relation of the Son to the Father belongs both to what it means to be God and to the fact of their being God. The Son is the image of the Father, but his deity is not an image of the Father’s deity but the same deity. That there is God the Son is proper to the facts both of the Father’s being the Father and of his being God. Thus, the trinity is God, presuming extension of this thinking to the Spirit.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: #202122; font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> </span>In 1.11-21, in John 1:1-4, he identifies Christ with the Word present in creation, but also whom the world was made. He identifies Jesus as the same Word who is from the beginning. In 1.11, the Son is the power and wisdom of the Father. The presupposition of Philippians 2:5-11 is paradoxically that Jesus is God and with God. He says that ignorance expressed by Jesus was economically assumed by the Lord, as a way of voluntarily constraining his omniscience. Given the debate with Arius, the argument makes some sense. Yet, Athanasius gets himself into trouble textually because of his way of viewing the incarnation. In 1.13, Hebrews 1:1-4 contains triune assumptions, that Christ is preexistent, one with God, the stamp of God’s very being, not less than God, higher than the angels, and all creaturely powers, yet distinguishable from the Father, whose coming is attested by the Holy Spirit. In 1.17, he detaches the eternal Son from all the human things that the Gospels record concerning Jesus. He would not even concede that there is change in the theological knowledge of God, a gradual emergence of the Trinity. He wonders what kind of religion it would be that does not remain the same but attains to perfection only in the course of time? For then there will be more development, and that without ceasing. Given the philosophical setting, we might understand the reason he takes this approach. Yet, I would also argue that religions that do not change are the religions that die. Every age has its flaws and sins from which adherents need liberation and healing. I would argue that the Bible is a record of profound change, from the simple awareness of the divine we find in the Patriarchs, to the liberating divine warrior, Yahweh, to the establishment of nation with a monarch under the divine ruler, Yahweh, to a people under covenant regardless of the land or temple, to the affirmation of Jesus as Lord and Savior of humanity. The church has undergone vast changes in its history, experiencing liberation from its bondage to sin and healing from that ails it. In 1.20, he took the statement in John 14:6 to mean that the Son was the truth and life of the Father, and that therefore, of course, the Son is one of essence with the Father. In 1.21 he regarded divine kingship as one of the attributes, applying to both Father and Son because of Psalm 45:6-7. In 1.29 he argued against the Arians that the Father would not be the Father without the Son. Does that mean that the deity of the Father is dependent on the relation to the Son? If so, it would be the basis of true reciprocity in the trinitarian relations.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> Athanasius emphasized the participation of all three hypostases in all divine activity as a consequence and condition of their unity of essence. His most important argument was that the Father would not be the Father without the Son and therefore he was never without the Son.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> This implies plurality in God because semantically Father is a relational term. However, apart from the story of Jesus and his Spirit-empowered life, there is no reason the Father would have only one Son. This view does not explain how we are to understand the unity in detail. As a result, the distinctions and particularities of Father, Son, and Spirit could no longer be based on distinctions in their spheres of working. He taught trinity in God only based on church tradition, the scriptural witness to revelation, and especially the baptismal formula. But this basis is not enough for modern theology since historico-critical exegesis no longer justifies the thesis that the threefold form of deity is a datum of revelation in the form of an express statement with the authority of revelation. No one in the Arian controversy denied the distinction of three hypostases. The issue was how to define their unity with the deity of the Father.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> In 1.35-36, he tries to distance the Son and the Trinity from all becoming and change. In 1.35, remaining what he was, the Son became what he was not. Yet, he is again appalled at the idea of change and development, for if the Word is alterable and changing, what will be the end of this development? If the Father is unalterable, what are we to make of the Word “becoming” flesh? In 1.37-38, he asserts that Jesus did not attain divinity as if an accomplishment, for we do not say that man became God, but that God became man. In 1.39 even the incarnation brought no change to the immortal Son. “He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us.” Further, “He Himself only is very Son , and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being another beside them, but being all these by nature and according to essence.” In 1.40, based upon Philippians 2:5-11, “He was not from a lower state promoted: but rather, existing as God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, was not promoted but humbled Himself. Where then is there here any reward of virtue, or what advancement and promotion in humiliation? For if, being God, He became man, and descending from on high He is still said to be exalted, where is He exalted, being God?” In 1.41, the exaltation of Jesus was personal, behavioral, and redemptive consequence for the life of the believer. It reveals the pattern of the work of the Spirit to enable to the believer to die to sin, rise by grace, walk in the way of holiness, and prepare for eternal life.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> Jesus humbled himself with reference to the assumption of the flesh and he exalted him with reference to the flesh. In 1.44, i<span style="color: #202122;">n Christ, the Logos has come from heaven in the flesh and death could not master him. </span>In 1.46, he regarded divine kingship as one of the attributes, applying to both Father and Son because of Psalm 45:6-7. In 1.48, even the incarnation brought no change to the immortal Son. The incarnation could add nothing to God. “For when our Lord Jesus Christ had been among us, we indeed were promoted, as rescued from sin; but He is the same; nor did He alter, when He became man.” I do get his concern here. Yet, I do think that somehow, finding temporality embraced by God is not as horrible as Athanasius thinks. Theologians need to figure a way toward that notion. In 1.62, he will again make the point that even the incarnation brought no change to the immortal Son. In 1.63, he thinks it would be an error to think of becoming in God, “For God is always, and one and the same.” He considered it absurd to ascribe becoming to the essence of God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We turn to Discourse 2. In 2.6, even in his physical appearing the Son undergoes no change. The biblical statements about the faithfulness of God bear witness to his immutability. In 2.8, any biblical statements that imply there might be becoming or change in God relate to the human nature of Jesus. In 2.10, the biblical statements about the faithfulness of God bear witness to his immutability. In 2.14-18, the sufferings of Jesus were finite, but his sacrifice had infinite value due to his Sonship. In 2.14, it is the death of Christ for all that conforms his right to rule over all. only one who dies for all has a right to rule over all. Only God the Son could die efficaciously for all. In 2.16, cosmic creation is a work peculiar to God. though it may unfold in an evolutionary process, the evolutionary process itself does not create itself.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> In 2.19-24, earlier teaching of the Jewish people on creation became transmuted in the light of the experience of Jesus of Nazareth. In 2.19, the angelic host are incorporeal, lacking bodies. In 2.23, the plural form Elohim in the Old Testament is a linguistic intensive, emphasizing the fullness of the divine majesty, which is a devout corroboration of what the New Testament would reveal regarding God. In 2.41, he presupposes the distinctions and relations of Father, Son, and Spirit are in harmony with the monotheistic character of the biblical belief in God and the tradition of philosophical theology. Baptism has never been in the name of one God and two creatures, the outcome of the teaching of Arius. Triune language has been definitive of orthodox Christian teaching. In 2.43, In the letters to Serapion presuppose the distinctions and relations of Father, Son, and Spirit are in harmony with the monotheistic character of the biblical belief in God and the tradition of philosophical theology. In 2.67, he presupposes the distinctions and relations of Father, Son, and Spirit are in harmony with the monotheistic character of the biblical belief in God and the tradition of philosophical theology. In 2.70, he presupposes the distinctions and relations of Father, Son, and Spirit are in harmony with the monotheistic character of the biblical belief in God and the tradition of philosophical theology.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We now turn to Discourse Three. In 3.5, the deity of the Father is thus in the Son. We see the Father in the Son and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father. In 3.6, as the Father is not the Father without the Son, so he does not have his Godhead without him. He is daring on this point, for the common view was that the deity of the Father is unconditional while the deity of Father and Son derive from the deity of the Father. He boldly states that the Son is the condition of the deity of the Father.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> “For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all that is the Father's. Wherefore also is He implied together with the Father. For, a son not being, one cannot say father. … But when we call God Father, at once with the Father we signify the Son's existence. Therefore, also he who believes in the Son, believes also in the Father: for he believes in what is proper to the Father's Essence; and thus the faith is one in one God. And he who worships and honors the Son, in the Son worships and honors the Father; for one is the Godhead; and therefore one the honor and one the worship which is paid to the Father in and through the Son. And he who thus worships, worships one God; for there is one God and none other than He.” In 3.9, The Son teaches us to know the Father as the only true God. In 3.14-15, in ascribing to Mary the term theotokos, bearer of God, the tradition never intended the slightest implication that Mary gave birth to the Godhead, but only to the incarnate Son. In 3.25, to the Father are ascribed works done alone as creator, redeemer, and consummator. The one who does the works of God must be none other than God. In 3.26-28, he examines in compact sequence the deity of the person, the humanity of the person, and the unique personal union of God and humanity in one person. He will accuse Arius dressing up Judaism in Christian clothes. In 3.30, God knows what will happen, but does not unilaterally determine each event, a notion that would dishonor human freedom and the reliability of secondary causes. The mere foreknowing does not circumvent secondary cause. The knowledge of God is that of free choice, of human and creaturely willing. In 3.36, the Father hands over his lordship to the Son as to have it anew in him. In 3.42-53, the logic of the humbling of God is characterized by paradox, surprise, and reversal. As God, the God-man does not advance but descends into ignorance and humiliation. As man, the God-man does advance in wisdom and stature to demonstrate his full participation in the human condition.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> In 3.58-67, the prayer of Jesus at Gethsemane shows that Jesus had a self-determining human will in which his human will was consecrated to follow voluntarily the divine will. In 3.58, the Son came to die. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The Anti-Nicaean thinkers defended subordinationism so that there can be a savior-God to suffer and otherwise stoop to us while God remains free from such contamination. The Father is really God and the Son is God in that he is closely assimilated to God. What Nicaean thinkers needed was a way to differentiate the three otherwise than by ranking them. The Cappadocians rose to the challenge. They related ousia to the one deity of God and hypostasis for each of Father Son and Spirit. ousia was a for a real thing as far as it is what it is. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas share ousia in their humanity. Hypostasis is how we distinguish Peter, Paul, Barnabas from each other. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 affirmed Nicaea and added reflections on the Spirit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">ζῳοποιόν</span>), who proceedeth (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">ἐκπορευόμενον</span>) from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.<span color="windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;"><span color="windowtext">In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><span color="windowtext"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span color="windowtext">The early councils assumed that deity is equivalent to impassibility. They did not recover the biblical understanding of the Logos as God’s speech. The theology acknowledges only relations of origin as constitutive for the divine life. This meant the suppression of the eschatological character of the scriptural history of God.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> </span>The dogma of Nicea (325) and Constantinople stated the thought of the eternal and essential Trinity in a way that broke it loose from its historical moorings and tended to be seen not only as the basis of all historical events but also as untouched by the course of history on the account of the eternity and immutability of God, and therefore also inaccessible to all creaturely knowledge. The eternal and unchangeable Father is the basis for the knowledge of Son and Spirit because they are of the same substance. Therefore, this divine substance is unreachable from finite, creaturely reality. The dogma makes the immanent Trinity independent of the economic Trinity and increasingly ceased to have any function relative to the economy of salvation.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Authors like Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus continued the work of Athanasius in defending the Nicaean Council. They sought an answer to the Arian charge of tritheism, and the problem of the unity of God arose afresh. The derivation of the Son and Spirit from the person of the Father no longer sufficed as an answer to the charge. The Father is only one of the three persons in God in distinction from the unity of the divine essence. They sought the unity of the Trinity in the activity of Father, Son, and Spirit. As regards the outward relation of the trinity to the creaturely, the Cappadocians taught that the trinitarian persons work together here, and that the perichoresis and the unity of origin from the Father, which explains genealogically the monarchy of the Father, this commonality of outward action is an expression of their unity in the divine essence. They thought they could meet the challenge of tritheism in this way. However, common activity is not constitutive for the persons or their distinction. One cannot infer their relations, independence, or dependence, from the unity of their common work. The failure of this approach led them to reflect on the relations between the persons as far as these are constitutive for their distinction and autonomy. The relations define the distinctions.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><h2>Basil (329-379)<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHjaAs24DS0s5IgRdVEzfJz1oZiNDEOwfsycWBHCZQMaGlw-SaB7OKyTn2CKkMI3GeW9UHJCxMPCyURatfwrDIm2jK3XFUziGtlyc-qLdvWz301NvrmjQbfUj-jhdQ1wJPV1uLyS1wIRQl/s450/basilthegreat.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="349" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHjaAs24DS0s5IgRdVEzfJz1oZiNDEOwfsycWBHCZQMaGlw-SaB7OKyTn2CKkMI3GeW9UHJCxMPCyURatfwrDIm2jK3XFUziGtlyc-qLdvWz301NvrmjQbfUj-jhdQ1wJPV1uLyS1wIRQl/s320/basilthegreat.jpg" /></a></div><br /> St. Basil the Great (329-379) was born of a distinguished family of Caesarea, the capital of Cappadocia, which was a province of Asia Minor of special importance in the 4th century due to its position on the military road between Constantinople and Antioch. The family had been Christian since the days of the persecutions of Christians, which ended early in the 4th century. One of Basil's uncles was a bishop, as later were two of his brothers (Gregory and Peter of Sebaste). His theological and ecclesiastical policy aimed to unite against Arianism the former semi-Arians and the supporters of Nicaea under the formula “three persons (hypostases) in one substance (ousia),” thus preserving both unity and the necessary distinctions in the theological concept of the godhead. On Eusebius' death in 370, Basil became his successor, although some of the other bishops in the province opposed him. <o:p></o:p><p></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> His primary contribution to theology was his book, <i>On the Holy Spirit. </i> Standard modern exegetical and theological discussions of the Holy Spirit have given little attention to the great early treatises on the Holy Spirit, among them this work by Basil. In this book, we see that one of the fundamental consensual decisions of the church is the affirmation that the Spirit will not lead the church in any direction that is contrary to the written word.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> He writes to Amphilochius (1). He accuses opponents of petty attention to syllables (2-5). His opponents are clear that they believe the Son is not with the Father, and the Spirit has a rank in below Father and Son. They pervert the simplicity and artlessness of the faith (6.13). The effect is to propose the remoteness of the Father. Yet, Christ is the power and wisdom of God, the image of the invisible God, the brightness of divine glory (6.15). The Son and the Spirit are worthy of participation in the doxology and baptismal liturgy of the church. In 8.18, Christ shows his divine power in his suffering. Nothing in creation sets forth the excellency of divine might, to the point of being incomprehensible, that God impassibly and through flesh would have close conflict with death, to the end that by the suffering of the Son he might give to us freedom from suffering. In 8.21, in the prologue of John, the world is created by the Word who is made flesh in Jesus. The Word in Jesus is coeternal with the Father. The Word is God, creator of the universe. The Creator, made known personally in Jesus, comes into our history to present himself clearly to our view. In 9-12, scripture attests the Holy Spirit as eternal, life giving one, of one essence with God. In 9.22-23, the texts of scripture leave no doubt in our minds of the importance of teaching of and by the Spirit. Further, the relation of Father and Spirit is described as a sending forth. Sanctifying grace is given in order that the believer may spontaneously and habitually love good and resist evil. In 9.22, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father. As “Holy Spirit,” the Spirit has a name appropriate to what is incorporeal, immaterial, and indivisible. God is Spirit, and therefore not like our nature so subject to change and variation. The Spirit is the supplier of life. The Spirit is “full, self-established, omnipresent, origin of sanctification, light perceptible to the mind, supplying, as it were, through Itself, illumination to every faculty in the search for truth; by nature un-approachable, apprehended by reason of goodness, filling all things with Its power, but communicated only to the worthy; not shared in one measure, but distributing Its energy according to "the proportion of faith;" in essence simple, in powers various, wholly present in each and being wholly everywhere; impassively divided.” God’s own Spirit is shared effortlessly with other spirits “without ceasing to be entire, as a sunbeam whose kindly light falls on him who enjoys it as though it showed for him alone yet illumines land and sea and mingles with the air.” In 9.23, the illumination the Spirit bestows is himself. He uses the image of a sunbeam falling on bright and transparent bodies, “so souls wherein the Spirit dwells, illuminated by the Spirit, themselves become spiritual and send forth their grace to others.” Through this means comes “foreknowledge of the future, understanding of mysteries, apprehension of what is hidden, distribution of good gifts, the heavenly citizenship, a place in the chorus of angels, joy without end, abiding in God, the being made like to God, and, highest of all, the being made God.” In 14.33, amid continuing history there remains this period between the times in which the reign of God has been inaugurated yet not consummated as expected in the last days. The manna in the wilderness becomes a type of the living bread, the exodus a type of baptism. The Spirit “used this gentle treatment, fitted for our needs, gradually accustoming us to see first the shadows of objects, and to look at the sun in water, to save us from dashing against the spectacle of pure unadulterated light, and being blinded. Just so the Law, having a shadow of the things to come became the means to train the eyes of the heart.” In 16.37, God works, and the Son serves, and the Holy Spirit is also present by choice, dispensing gifts. In 17, he rejects those who argue that we are not to number the Spirit with the Father and the Son. Christians do not have a fascination with the number 3. In 18.46-47, if the gates of hell shall not prevail (Mat 16:18) then the church will never decline into total forgetfulness, because of the guidance provided by the Spirit, who the Father promised always to accompany and remind the church. In 18.46 the Spirit is God because the worship due the Spirit is a worship due to God alone. The Spirit receives glory through communion with Father and Son. In 18.47, when the power that enlightens us enables us to fix our eyes on the beauty of the image of the invisible God, and through the image we see the supreme beauty, then the Spirit of knowledge is inseparably with us, bestowing on us time to love the vision of the truth and the power of beholding the image, leading us to the fullness of knowledge. The way of the knowledge of God lies from the Spirit through the Son and to the Father. Further, the natural goodness and the inherent holiness and the royal dignity extend from the Father through the Spirit. In this way, we preserve the monarchy of the Father and acknowledge the hypostases of Father, Son, and Spirit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In <i>Against Eumonius</i> 2.17, he will argue that the Father is the source and principle of deity. The Son was begotten be the Son always is and co-exists with the Father, from whom the Fatehr is the cause of the existence of the Son. The Son is from eternity, being connected in a begotten way to the unbegottenness of the Father. The point is that the Father alone is without origin. However, this thought has a close link to the subordinationism of the pre-Nicaean apologists which Nicaea rejected. Such subordination of the Son was a major hurdle to overcome in recognizing the full deity of the Son.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> The fact that he could not go as far as did Athanasius, who would suggest that we can think of the Father as unbegotten only in the relation with the begotten Son, suggests that the full deity of the Son and Spirit had not been elucidated in the unity of the divine essence.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> In letter 38, he offers a most helpful distinction in the theological language used. He states the purpose as considering the difference between οὐσία and ὑ πόστασις. He could compare the relation between one deity and the three persons to that between a general concept and its individual realizations. Peter is a human being, but no more so than is Andrew, John, or James. “Human being” in this case is a general noun, οὐσία, while Peter and the others denote a limit and specificity, ὑ πόστασις. “Human being” relates to what they have in common, while Paul and Timothy direct our attention only to them and their uniqueness. He ignored the threat to monotheism that was posed by the idea of a plurality of divine beings. “He who receives the Father virtually receives at the same time both the Son and the Spirit; for it is in no wise possible to entertain the idea of severance or division, in such a way as that the Son should be thought of apart from the Father, or the Spirit be disjoined from the Son. But the communion and the distinction apprehended in Them are, in a certain sense, ineffable and inconceivable, the continuity of nature being never rent asunder by the distinction of the hypostases, nor the notes of proper distinction confounded in the community of essence.” He admits what he says reflects the truth but is not fully the truth. What he says cannot have complete correspondence with spiritual truth. He draws an analogy with what we perceive with the senses, such as the brightness of the bow in the cloud. The brilliance of the light reflects off the moisture in the clouds and creates many colored stands in the bow, yet do not perceive an interval between them. In a comparable way we can envision a community of essence within the Trinity. He admits our thinking can get dizzy when reflecting upon trinitarian life. In any case, the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit define the distinctions. This was logical approach, but it helped little to answer the ontological question of the constitution of the persons. He went back to the older thought that the Father is the source and principle of deity, that the Son and Spirit receive their deity and their unity with the Father from him, and that the Father alone is without origin.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> In Letter 125, he stresses that those we must distance ourselves from those who call the Holy Spirit a creature, for he is holy by nature, as is the Father and Son. The church is of right mind to do so, for we receive trinitarian baptism. <o:p></o:p></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> In Letter 214.4, he refers to the Latin of the west as inadequate, given that they simply present the Greek word ousia in the Greek. “I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named.”<o:p></o:p></p><p style="font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"> He writes to Amphilochius. In Letter 234, he stresses that we “know” attributes of God, but we do not “know” the essence of God. If we claim to know the divine essence, we are ignorant of who God is. Knowledge of the divine essence involves perception of the divine incomprehensibility, so that object of our worship is not that of which we comprehend. In Letter 235, he ponders whether knowledge or faith come first. He prefers to say faith, but he can see why one would put knowledge first. He confesses that he knows what is knowable of God, but also recognizes that which is beyond comprehension. In an analogous way, I know myself and am ignorant of myself. I know who I am, but as far as I am ignorant of my essence, I do not know myself. We know only in part. In 236.6, “The distinction between οὐσία and ὑ πόστασις is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give a variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear. If we have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot give a sound account of our faith. We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the particular to the common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular. We must therefore combine the two and say, I believe in God the Father. The like course must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say I believe in God the Son, so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform to the appellation and say in God the Holy Ghost. Hence it results that there is a satisfactory preservation of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead, while in the distinction of the individual properties regarded in each there is the confession of the peculiar properties of the Persons.”<o:p></o:p></p><h2>Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389)<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd4H2Fl1mcvv4UfW5Ku-TNt2cdMsxtN99hOpMJMEUKseeuSHIdTR-nsvFuTFrQwNKmI6Tm4zwygJsVsBsN-pCdW3N9YD1Bp1SnPjaTO2qknECWwIWuyUKuP_pzMYWGRVJTyA7C2ZRVXiGb/s408/st_gregory_nazianzus.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="270" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd4H2Fl1mcvv4UfW5Ku-TNt2cdMsxtN99hOpMJMEUKseeuSHIdTR-nsvFuTFrQwNKmI6Tm4zwygJsVsBsN-pCdW3N9YD1Bp1SnPjaTO2qknECWwIWuyUKuP_pzMYWGRVJTyA7C2ZRVXiGb/s320/st_gregory_nazianzus.jpg" /></a></div><br />St. Gregory of Nazianzus (or “the Theologian”) was born near Nazianzus, in Cappadocia (now Turkey), and educated in Alexandria and Athens. He was baptized in 360 by his father, who was bishop of Nazianzus. Deciding to pursue a life of devotion, he went to Pontus, where he lived in the desert near the Iris River (now the Yeşil River in Turkey) with St. Basil. The two men compiled an anthology of the writings of the Christian teacher and theologian Origen, called the <i>Philokalia</i> (Greek, “Love of the Beautiful”). Basil later became bishop of Caesarea and, in 371 or 372, prevailed upon Gregory to accept the see of Sasima, a small village in Cappadocia. Gregory disliked public life, however, and retired until the death of his father in 374. His feast day is January 2 in the Roman Catholic church and January 25 in the Orthodox church.<o:p></o:p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">I will discuss the five theological orations, which one can also refer to as orations 27-31. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In the <i>First Theological Oration</i> (27) is a preliminary discourse against the Eunomians. In 27.3, he offers some advice that many persons engaged in contemporary debates would do well to heed. To philosophize about God is not for everyone. Reflecting upon divine things is not that cheap and low. Nor can one speak of such matters before every audience. Members of the audience need to at least be in the process of purification. The proper occasion is when we are free from external disturbance. “For it is necessary to be truly at leisure to know God; and when we can get a convenient season, to discern the straight road of the things divine. And who are the permitted persons? They to whom the subject is of real concern, and not they who make it a matter of pleasant gossip, like any other thing, after the races, or the theatre, or a concert, or a dinner, or still lower employments.” Further (27.4), we must philosophize only on matters within our reach and within the grasp of the audience. Given the controversies they face in theological matters (27.5), he urges “a certain decorum, so there is also in speech and silence; since among so many titles and powers of God, we pay the highest honour to The Word. Let even our disputings then be kept within bounds.” He observes (27.6) that a hostile listener is not worth the time and effort. Even the scriptural names for God do not comprehend the divine essence, that is, as God knows the divine self. God is uncreated and self-sufficient, qualities no temporal and finite being can possess. God cannot give such qualities to any part of creation. “For if we ourselves wantonly misuse these words, it will be a long time before we shall persuade them to accept our philosophy. … Such results follow to those who fight for the Word beyond what the Word approves; they are behaving like mad people, who set their own house on fire, or tear their own children, or disavow their own parents, taking them for strangers.” He then turns from the nature of the audience to the nature of the speaker (27.7). “What is this great rivalry of speech and endless talking? What is this new disease of insatiability? Why have we tied our hands and armed our tongues? We do not praise either hospitality, or brotherly love, or conjugal affection, or virginity; nor do we admire liberality to the poor, or the chanting of Psalms, or nightlong vigils, or tears. We do not keep under the body by fasting, or go forth to God by prayer; nor do we subject the worse to the better. … we do not make our life a preparation for death; nor do we make ourselves masters of our passions, mindful of our heavenly nobility; nor tame our anger when it swells and rages, nor our pride that bringeth to a fall, nor unreasonable grief, nor unchastened pleasure, nor meretricious laughter, nor undisciplined eyes, nor insatiable ears, nor excessive talk, nor absurd thoughts.” He concludes, “But with God we shall have converse, in this life only in a small degree; but a little later, it may be, more perfectly.” I want to suggest that part of the application of his thoughts is that a good mentor in Christian truth requires a theological temperament which recognizes a humbled self-awareness, a realistic consciousness of one’s actual ignorance, the limitation of one’s knowledge, one’s tendency to be deceived, and one’s egoistic interpretation of the facts. Christian theology requires the rational exercise of thinking since it is reasoned discourse about God, modestly framed in a way consonant with the immeasurability of its divine Subject.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In the <i>Second Theological Oration </i>(28), he refers (28.1) to the previous oration as focusing on the theologian. He is ready to enter theological questions regarding Father, Son, and Spirit, one in diversity, diverse in unity. In 28.3, he asks, “What is this that has happened to me, O friends … and fellow-lovers of the truth?” He has ascended the Mount, seeing “only that Nature, which at last even reaches to us.” He can only see the back parts of God. In 28.4, we find a caution against trying to define God. “It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words is an impossibility, as one of the Greek teachers of Divinity taught, not unskillfully, as it appears to me; with the intention that he might be thought to have apprehended Him; in that he says it is a hard thing to do; and yet may escape being convicted of ignorance because of the impossibility of giving expression to the apprehension, But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him. For that which may be conceived may perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly well, at any rate imperfectly, to anyone who is not quite deprived of his hearing, or slothful of understanding. But to comprehend the whole of so great a Subject as this is quite impossible and impracticable, not merely to the utterly careless and ignorant, but even to those who are highly exalted, and who love God.” The grand quality of creation draws our attention (28.5), “But far before them is That nature Which is above them, and Out of which they spring, the Incomprehensible and Illimitable--not, I mean, as to the fact of His being, but as to Its nature. For our preaching is not empty, nor our Faith vain, nor is this the doctrine we proclaim; for we would not have you take our candid statement as a starting point for a quibbling denial of God, or of arrogance on account of our confession of ignorance. For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is.” Thus, the incomprehensible essence of God does not mean we are speechless about God. In 28.6, he thinks it an intellectual embarrassment and offensive to reason to accept an infinite regress. He refers to Hebrews 11:3. Thus, God is the efficient and maintaining cause of all things. The things we see invite us to reflect upon their author. “For how could this Universe have come into being or been put together, unless God had called it into existence, and held it together? For everyone who sees a beautifully made lute and considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and arranged, or who hears its melody, would think of none but the lute maker, or the lute player, and would recur to him in mind, though he might not know him by sight. And thus to us also is manifested That which made and moves and preserves all created things, even though He be not comprehended by the mind.” In 28.7, “For what will you conceive the Deity to be, if you rely upon all the approximations of reason? … Is He a body? How then is He the Infinite and Limitless, and formless, and intangible, and invisible?” In 28.8, he says that to avoid infinite regression, we can presume a final cause. In 28.9, divine essence is incorporeal, unbegotten, unoriginated, unchanging, incorruptible still does not define divine essence, which has no beginning, is incapable of change or limitation. God is self-existent, a quality known only to God and not communicable to finite and temporal things. He then (28.10) wants us to ponder whether God is nowhere or somewhere. If God is above the universe, “how could this Transcendence and that which is transcended be distinguished in thought, if there is not a limit to divide and define them? Is it not necessary that there shall be some mean to mark off the Universe from that which is above the Universe?” He is stressing the incomprehensibility of the divine essence. God is the transcendent one, which summarizes what theology means by unlimited presence, knowledge, and influence of God. God is spirit and those known, like the wind, only from the effects of the divine working. As Spirit, God is invisible. Often, we do best to revere God and silently celebrate the holy presence of God. In 11-21, he argues that to affirm that God is high and lifted above creaturely reality does not imply that God is absent from creatures. In 28.15, he anticipates Feuerbach and Freud that any talk of the divine is a projection toward reality. People honored their passions by turning them into gods. The devil “laid hold of their desire in its wandering in search of God, in order to distort to himself the power, and steal the desire, leading it by the hand, like a blind man asking a road; and he hurled down and scattered some in one direction and some in another, into one pit of death and destruction.” In 28.16, “But reason receiving us in our desire for God, and in our sense of the impossibility of being without a leader and guide, and then making us apply ourselves to things visible and meeting with the things which have been since the beginning, doth not stay its course even here.” In 28.17, no human being will discover the essence of God. Our mind and reason will not behold such until the time when we shall know even as we are known. We can only perceive a small portion of the light in this life. In 28.20, “Wherefore he estimates all knowledge on earth only as through a glass darkly, as taking its stand upon little images of the truth.” In 28.21, “The truth then, and the whole Word is full of difficulty and obscurity; and as it were with a small instrument, we are undertaking a great work, when with merely human wisdom we pursue the knowledge of the Self-existent.” In the rest of this oration, he makes the point that “what we were laboring to shew, that even the secondary natures surpass the power of our intellect; much more then the First and (for I fear to say merely That which is above all), the only Nature.” Throughout this oration, if God is infinite it follows that we cannot define divine essence. The concept of infinite is also and not least of all the basis of the incomprehensibility of the unity of God in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. He could speak of the mystery of the Trinity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In the <i>Third Theological Oration </i>(29) he begins his discussion of the Son. In 29.3, the sources of time are not subject to time. “And when did the Father come into being. There never was a time when He was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Ask me again, and again I will answer you, When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Ghost proceed?” In 29.16, we have an important discussion of the relations within the trinity. The relations of Father, Son, and Spirit define the distinctions. Thus, Father “is the name of the Relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to the Father. For as with us these names make known a genuine and intimate relation, so, in the case before us too, they denote an identity of nature between Him That is begotten and Him That begets.” This was logical, but it helped little to answer the ontological question of the constitution of the persons. He went back to the older thought that the Father is the source and principle of deity, that the Son and Spirit receive their deity and their unity with the Father from him, and that the Father alone is without origin. In 29.17, he affirms that the term used of the Son make the deity of the Son clear: God--The Word--He That Was In The Beginning and With The Beginning, and The Beginning. The Son is only-begotten, the way, truth, and life. The Son is the wisdom and power of God. He is the image of God, Lord, and King. In 29.20, he points to the historical life of Jesus, baptized as a man, but remitting sin as God. He was tempted as a man, but conquered as God. “He hungered--but He fed thousands; yea, He is the Bread that giveth life, and That is of heaven. He thirsted--but He cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. Yea, He promised that fountains should flow from them that believe. He was wearied, but He is the Rest of them that are weary and heavy laden. He was heavy with sleep, but He walked lightly over the sea. He rebuked the winds, He made Peter light as he began to sink…. He is stoned but is not taken. He prays, but He hears prayer. He weeps, but He causes tears to cease. He asks where Lazarus was laid, for He was Man; but He raises Lazarus, for He was God. He is sold, and unbelievably cheap, for it is only for thirty pieces of silver; but He redeems the world, and that at a great price, for the Price was His own blood. As a sheep He is led to the slaughter, but He is the Shepherd of Israel, and now of the entire world also. As a Lamb He is silent, yet He is the Word, and is proclaimed by the Voice of one crying in the wilderness. He is bruised and wounded, but He healeth every disease and every infirmity. He is lifted up and nailed to the Tree, but by the Tree of Life He restoreth us…. He lays down His life, but He has power to take it again; and the veil is rent, for the mysterious doors of Heaven are opened; the rocks are cleft, the dead arise. He dies, but He gives life, and by His death destroys death. He is buried, but He rises again; He goes down into Hell, but He brings up the souls; He ascends to Heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> The <i>Fourth Theological Oration </i>(30) is the second concerning the Son. He will defend the two natures in one person theology by saying that this is the only way to have the scriptural witness maintain its beauty and cohesion. In becoming human, God teaches by embodiment the value of true humanity. The incarnation has far-reaching importance beyond Christology. It also teaches about humanity. The divine Logos eternally experiences full awareness of the cosmos, but as incarnate Logos he has become voluntarily subjected to human limitations, ignorance, weakness, temptation, suffering, and death. In 30.6, God measures all by comparison with his own suffering, so that he may know our condition by his own. In 30.20, the frequency and intensity of the ascriptions of lordship and unique divine sonship to Jesus are distinctive themes of the New Testament. “He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in Essence; and not only for this reason, but also because He is Of Him. And He is called Only-Begotten, not because He is the only Son and of the Father alone, and only a Son; but also because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies. And He is called the Word, because He is related to the Father as Word to Mind; not only on account of His passionless Generation, but also because of the Union, and of His declaratory function.” In 30.21, “He is called Man, not only that through His Body He may be apprehended by embodied creatures, whereas otherwise this would be impossible because of His incomprehensible nature; but also that by Himself He may sanctify humanity, and be as it were a leaven to the whole lump; and by uniting to Himself that which was condemned may release it from all condemnation, becoming for all men all things that we are, except sin;--body, soul, mind and all through which death reaches--and thus He became Man, who is the combination of all these; God in visible form, because He retained that which is perceived by mind alone.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> In the <i>Fifth Theological Oration </i>(31) he focuses upon the Holy Spirit. In 31.8 he stresses the procession of the Spirit from the Father. In 31.9, we see again that the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit define the distinctions. “the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of their Names…. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties.” This was logical, but it helped little to answer the ontological question of the constitution of the persons. He went back to the older thought that the Father is the source and principle of deity, that the Son and Spirit receive their deity and their unity with the Father from him, and that the Father alone is without origin. In 31.10, as the Son is worshiped so is the Spirit. As the Son is begotten, so the Spirit goes forth from God otherwise than by being created but also in some other way than by being begotten. The two cases are thus parallel; therefore, the Spirit too must be recognized as homousios with the Father. In 31.14, the different relations by which each of the three is the one God for and from the others, are the differences by which they are three. Finally, therefore, there was a way to say what by now all but the stubbornest traditionalists realized needed to be said: “Differentiated though the hypostases are, the entire and undivided godhead is one in each.” He stresses unity in trinity and trinity in unity. Barth will use the term “triunity” in part based upon this oration. We can only think of the act, will, and essence of God as one but we know three as objects of worship. He refers to this as the dialectic of the union and distinction in the mutual relation. “To us there is One God, for the Godhead is One, and all that proceeds from Him is referred to One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more and another less God; nor is One before and another after; nor are They divided in will or parted in power; nor can you find here any of the qualities of divisible things; but the Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in separate Persons; and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three suns joined to each other. When then we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause, or the Monarchia, that which we conceive is One; but when we look at the Persons in Whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause--there are Three Whom we worship.” Gregory had to reinterpret the comparison of the three rays because it did not do sufficient justice to the independence of the hypostases proceeding from the Father.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;">In 31.19, as the Son is worshiped so is the Spirit. As the Son is begotten, so the Spirit goes forth from /God otherwise than by being created but also in some other way than by being begotten. The two cases are thus parallel; therefore, the Spirit too must be recognized as homousios with the Father. In 31.25, 26, salvation cannot make a sudden change, for God did that, violence would be done to us. if we move toward salvation by way of persuasion,, like a tutor or physician, one partly removes and partly condones habits. The gospel beguiles people into gradual changes. “Now the two Testaments are alike in this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden, nor at the first movement of the endeavor. Why not (for this is a point on which we must have information)? That no violence might be done to us, but that we might be moved by persuasion. For nothing that is involuntary is durable; like streams or trees which are kept back by force. But that which is voluntary is more durable and safe. The former is due to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In Orations 34.10, the three can be individually identified by their relations to one another precisely with respect to their join possession of the same deity, for “all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality; and all that is the Son's belongs also to the Spirit, except His Sonship, and whatsoever is spoken of Him as to Incarnation for me a man, and for my salvation, that, taking of mine, He may impart His own by this new commingling.” In Orations 40.41, Barth will to unity in trinity and trinity in unity with the use of “triunity,” referring to this oration. We can only think of the act, will, and essence of God as one but we know three as objects of worship. He refers to this as the dialectic of the union and distinction in the mutual relation. He refers to “the confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. This I commit unto you today; with this I will baptize you and make you grow. This I give you to share, and to defend all your life, the One Godhead and Power, found in the Three in Unity, and comprising the Three separately, not unequal, in substances or natures, neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same; just as the beauty and the greatness of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of Three Infinite Ones, Each God when considered in Himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Ghost; the Three One God when contemplated together; Each God because Consubstantial; One God because of the Monarchia. No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of That One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In Or 40.43, I am not sure what to make of his comment. “I should like to call the Father the greater, because from him flows both the Equality and the Being of the Equals (this will be granted on all hands), but I am afraid to use the word Origin, lest I should make Him the Origin of Inferiors, and thus insult Him by precedencies of honor. For the lowering of those Who are from Him is no glory to the Source. Moreover, I look with suspicion at your insatiate desire, for fear you should take hold of this word Greater, and divide the Nature, using the word Greater in all senses, whereas it does not apply to the Nature, but only to Origination. For in the Consubstantial Persons there is nothing greater or less in point of Substance. I would honor the Son as Son before the Spirit, but Baptism consecrating me through the Spirit does not allow of this.” Here is how Pannenberg interprets. He calls the Father the basis of both the being of the other two persons and of their unity with him. It did not occur to him or Basil that this does not logically agree with his thesis that father is a hypostasis that must be distinguished from essence. The incompatibility is that the Father as the source and origin of deity cannot be distinguished from the substance as the other two persons can. The problem with this line of thinking was that it links to subordinationism in pre-Nicene views of the Trinity. He says the Father alone is without origin among the three persons of the Trinity, that the Father is the origin and fount of deity for the Son and Spirit. He had the thesis that the Father is the fount of deity in a way that threatens the mutuality of the deity of the persons of the trinity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><h2>Gregory of Nyssa (335-394)<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwzo14oOjJAWAka7pyjNSaTIsr5YhkfjFI-8EOdz6R4NZQtRb-xbvDvo9D6uQNDUe_QWvD7w34WEbks4WbxJyec4-g_qfjO-EGvELRiwwvbplVAUPzNkORbGkdx6sB8BSGZdIeI8W13m4n/s284/gregoryofnyssa.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="284" data-original-width="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwzo14oOjJAWAka7pyjNSaTIsr5YhkfjFI-8EOdz6R4NZQtRb-xbvDvo9D6uQNDUe_QWvD7w34WEbks4WbxJyec4-g_qfjO-EGvELRiwwvbplVAUPzNkORbGkdx6sB8BSGZdIeI8W13m4n/s0/gregoryofnyssa.jpg" /></a></div><br />Gregory of Nyssa was born in Neocaesarea (now Niksar, Turkey), younger brother of Saint Basil. Gregory married, but on the death of his wife he entered the monastery founded by Basil in Pontus, near the Iris River. About 371 he was ordained by his brother and made bishop of Nyssa. Gregory's religious position was strictly orthodox, and he was particularly zealous in combating the doctrine of Arianism. The Arians charged Gregory with fraud in his election to the bishopric and with mishandling the funds of his office. Convicted of these charges, he was exiled from Nyssa in 376 to 378. After his return Gregory was a strong supporter of the orthodox position against the Arians at the first Council of Constantinople in 381. In the next year he was sent by the church to reorganize the churches of Arabia. His feast day is March 9.<o:p></o:p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">A central idea in Gregory’s writing is the distinction between the transcendent nature and immanent energies of God, and much of his thought is a working out of the implications of that idea in other areas–notably, the world, humanity, history, knowledge, and virtue. This leads him to expand the nature-energies distinction into a general cosmological principle, to apply it particularly to human nature, which he conceives as having been created in God’s image, and to rear a theory of unending intellectual and moral perfectibility on the premise that the purpose of human life is to become like the infinite nature of God.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> In fact, one could say that his epochal contribution in his letter to Eunomius to the Christian doctrine of God was to show that we are not to seek the basic form of the thought of God in the concept of a first cause, but in that of the Infinite. In an analogous way to how people know a benefactor through actions, so we know the divine essence through the energies or acts of God. For example, in the act of God as reconciler, we perceive the God as creator. He thinks that we may rationally know both God’s existence, especially by inference from the order of the world to an intelligent author, and by divine perfection. On this ground he believed in addition that reason is forced to confess the unity of God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">In Or cat. Magna 6.2, 7.2, (I did not have access to this text) he uses Neo-platonic ontology to describe evil as ontologically null and void because it is not work of the divine will or an object of divine good pleasure. Wickedness and evil have no doubt entered creation with the knowledge and permission of God. he was wrong to link it with an attempt to absolve God from responsibility for the coming of evil into creation. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">I did not have access to the following as well: In de hom op 5, he regards our rational nature as a copy of the divine Nous and Logos. He related divine likeness to the soul. In Or Cat 10 he makes it clear that the divinity of the Word lays hold of humanity. In Holy Spirit s, 3, he uses a classical metaphor of the three torches.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">Gregory based his doctrine on the incomprehensibility of God on the infinity of God. Gregory is a mentor for Christian theology as it devises a trinitarian concept of being itself.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">I will begin with a discussion of <i>Against Eunomius Book I. </i>In 1.17, Gregory insists that God exists in God’s energeiai just as much as in God’s nature. Through such energeiai, God is present within oneself, and thus the pure in heart can “see God.” Gregory’s concept of the divine energies is remarkably like the Western concept of grace, except that for Gregory, as for Eastern thinkers in general, grace is due to the actual presence of God and not some action at a distance. So, we directly experience the divine energies in the only thing in the universe that we can view from within–ourselves. But God’s energies are always a force for good. Thus, we encounter them in the experience of virtues such as purity, passionlessness, sanctity, and simplicity in our own moral character. In 1.18, we know the essence of God through the energies and activities of God. In 1.22 (314) clearly seeing the relation between the baptismal mandate and experience and the use of the personal name Father, Son, and Spirit in Christian life, which is also a compressed telling of the narrative by which Scripture identifies God. This was the foundation on which the ancient church developed the Christian understanding of God. Then, (366) when we speak of God we may think first of the three identities, each of whom is God. then there is the life among them, the complex of their energies, which is the proper referent of phrases such as “the one God.” “We regard it as consummately perfect and incomprehensibly excellent yet as containing clear distinctions within itself which reside in the peculiarities of each of the Persons: as possessing invariableness by virtue of its common attribute of uncreatedness but differentiated by the unique character of each Person. This peculiarity contemplated in each sharply and clearly divides one from the other: the Father, for instance, is uncreate and ungenerate as well: He was never generated any more than He was created. While this uncreatedness is common to Him and the Son, and the Spirit, He is ungenerate as well as the Father. This is peculiar and uncommunicable, being not seen in the other Persons. The Son in His uncreatedness touches the Father and the Spirit, but as the Son and the Only-begotten He has a character which is not that of the Almighty or of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit by the uncreatedness of His nature has contact with the Son and Father but is distinguished from them by His own tokens. His most peculiar characteristic is that He is neither of those things which we contemplate in the Father and the Son respectively. He is simply, neither as ungenerate, nor as only-begotten: this it is that constitutes His chief peculiarity. Joined to the Father by His uncreatedness, He is disjoined from Him again by not being 'Father.' United to the Son by the bond of uncreatedness, and of deriving His existence from the Supreme, He is parted again from Him by the characteristic of not being the Only-begotten of the Father, and of having been manifested by means of the Son Himself. Again, as the creation was effected by the Only-begotten, in order to secure that the Spirit should not be considered to have something in common with this creation because of His having been manifested by means of the Son, He is distinguished from it by His unchangeableness, and independence of all external goodness.” Finally, there is the divine ousia, deity sheerly as such the character by exemplification of which someone is called God, which is infinity. The divine ousia is the infinity of the one God that is, of the mutual life of the identities. “The First Good is in its nature infinite, and so it follows of necessity that the participation in the enjoyment of it will be infinite also, for more will be always being grasped, and yet something beyond that which has been grasped will always be discovered, and this search will never overtake its Object, because its fund is as inexhaustible as the growth of that which participates in it is ceaseless.” Infinite-being cannot be something other than its own infinity. Such deity can be infinity-as-such. It is the infinity of something, which is the mutual action of Father, Son, and Spirit. Their action is limitless. What happens among them has no boundaries; nothing can hinder what they enact. If we label the triune action love, then we must say; the love of the Father can embrace whatever the coming of the Spirit brings; the love of the Son can endure whatever his Father sends him to do; the creativity of love by the Spirit is inexhaustible. This love is God. such infinity appropriate to deity is temporal infinity. God is infinite because no temporal activity can keep us with the activity that is God. no temporal process can keep pace with it (1:366).<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> In 1.25, “that this view of theirs will bring us to the conclusion that the Father is not from everlasting, but from a definite point in time.” “But if we must at all risks confess this absence of beginning in the Father, let not such exactitude be displayed in fixing for the life of the Son a point which, as the term of His existence, must cut Him off from the life on the other side of it; let it suffice on the ground of causation only to conceive of the Father as before the Son; and let not the Father's life be thought of as a separate and peculiar one before the generation of the Son, lest we should have to admit the idea inevitably associated with this of an interval before the appearance of the Son which measures the life of Him Who begot Him, and then the necessary consequence of this, that a beginning of the Father's life also must be supposed by virtue of which their fancied interval may be stayed in its upward advance so as to set a limit and a beginning to this previous life of the Father as well: let it suffice for us, when we confess the 'coming from Him,' to admit also, bold as it may seem, the 'living along with Him;' for we are led by the written oracles to such a belief.” We can know that God truly exists without pretending to know how God exists, or without claiming to know all that God knows about the existence of God. Only the infinite can know the infinite. In 1.26, “It is clear, even with a moderate insight into the nature of things, that there is nothing by which we can measure the divine and blessed Life. It is not in time, but time flows from it…. it is inevitable that our apprehensive faculty, seeking as it does always some object to grasp, must fall back from any side of this incomprehensible existence. All, I say, with any insight, however moderate, into the nature of things, know that the world's Creator laid time and space as a background to receive what was to be; on this foundation He builds the universe. It is not possible that anything which has come or is now coming into being by way of creation can be independent of space or time. But the existence, which is all-sufficient, everlasting, world-enveloping, is not in space, nor in time: it is before these, and above these in an ineffable way; self-contained, knowable by faith alone; immeasurable by ages; without the accompaniment of time; seated and resting in itself, with no associations of past or future, there being nothing beside and beyond itself, whose passing can make something past and something future. … It is above beginning and presents no marks of its inmost nature: it is to be known of only in the impossibility of perceiving it. That indeed is its most special characteristic, that its nature is too high for any distinctive attribute.” In 1.42, “The eternity of God's life, to sketch it in mere outline, is on this wise. He is always to be apprehended as in existence; He admits not a time when He was not, and when He will not be. Those who draw a circular figure in plane geometry from a center to the distance of the line of circumference tell us there is no definite beginning to their figure; and that the line is interrupted by no ascertained end any more than by any visible commencement: they say that, as it forms a single whole in itself with equal radii on all sides, it avoids giving any indication of beginning or ending. When, then, we compare the Infinite being to such a figure, circumscribed though it be, let none find fault with this account; for it is not on the circumference, but on the similarity which the figure bears to the Life which in every direction eludes the grasp, that we fix our attention when we affirm that such is our intuition of the Eternal. From the present instant, as from a center and a point, we extend thought in all directions, to the immensity of that Life. We find that we are drawn round uninterruptedly and evenly, and that we are always following a circumference where there is nothing to grasp; we find the divine life returning upon itself in an unbroken continuity, where no end and no parts can be recognized.” God is infinite because God overcomes all boundaries (1:666-672). The Arians wanted to keep divinity from action and suffering, which is what the Word endured. In contradiction precisely the action and suffering of the Word qualifies the Word to be God. futurity determines divine infinity. The mark of deity is endless futurity. Arians need to let that which is to come guide their thinking and have real hope. The being of God is that God keeps things moving. To be God is always to be open to and always to open a future, transgressing all past-imposed conditions. Such eternity is appropriate to the God of the gospel.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> Gregory suggests that it is not order in general but the blending of opposites into a harmonious whole that would have never happened spontaneously, but only through the power of a Creator. Opposites not only fail to annihilate each other, but they even contribute to an overall harmony. The emphasis here is not on order in general, but on unexpected order. Given what we know about motion and rest, heaviness and lightness, and the rest, Gregory argues, we would expect to find them excluding, rather than complementing, each other. The fact that they behave in unanticipated ways can only be explained by the exercise of divine power. For us as modern readers, the fact that a phenomenon seems to violate what we think we know of the laws of nature does not imply that it really does violate those laws. Our knowledge may simply be too limited. So the fact that we find order in nature that we don’t expect may simply be a function of the limitation of our knowledge rather than of the intervention of God in the world.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[35]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We now turn to <i>Against Eunomius Book II.</i> In 2.2, the trinity “is divided without separation, and united without confusion. For when we hear the title Father, we apprehend the meaning to be this, that the name is not understood with reference to itself alone, but also by its special signification indicates the relation to the Son. For the term Father would have no meaning apart by itself, if Son were not connoted by the utterance of the word Father. … That Spirit is indisputably a princely Spirit, a quickening Spirit, the controlling and sanctifying force of all creation, the Spirit that works all in all as He wills…. For the differentiation of the subsistences makes the distinction of Persons clear and free from confusion, while the one Name standing in the forefront of the declaration of the Faith clearly expounds to us the unity of essence of the Persons Whom the Faith declares.” He is saying that we have the unity of the three persons in the unity of their activity. This approach might well help to relieve the difficulties in understanding the relation of the three persons in the unity of the divine essence if the unity of the ray of their common activity derives from the mutual relations of the persons. They thought that they could cogently meet the charge of tritheism in this way. But the unity of the divine activity could also be thought of as a collective unity od divine beings existing prior to the common activity if the thought of uniform activity was to be related to that of a trinity of divine persons. The common activity is not constitutive for the persons of their distinction. The idea of one divine activity could not offer any constitutive basis for distinctive persons. It does not rule out a collective cooperation of ontologically independent beings. Gregory and the Cappadocians had to reflect on the relations between the persons insofar as these are constitutive for their distinction and autonomy.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> He deals with the question of why three instances of the divine ousia do not make three gods. God is a predicate. Therefore, how many gods we assert depends on to how many subjects we attribute it, there are three instances of the divine ousia but these are not three gods as three instances of humanity are three human beings because /god is not a word for the divine ousia. God is not a word for this or any form. God refers to the mutual action of the identities’ divine energies to the perichoretic triune life. and since all divine action is the singular mutual work of Father, Son, and Spirit, there is only one such life and therefore only one subject of the predicate God. First, the term is referent for all such language as God is the mutual life of Father, Son, and Spirit. All we have is a triunely personal perichoresis, a communal life. this being of God is a going on, a sequentially palpable event. Second, the Father, Son, and Spirit live this life. There is a hypostatic being of God that one must distinguish from the act of divine being, as the antecedence of those who do the act. Third, we do need to posit a divine ousia. There must be what we may call deity, which he defines infinite.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> In 2.8-11 the Word is coeternal with the Father. In 2.14, he begins a discussion of the Holy Spirit. “But what room is there for the charge of tritheism against those by whom one God is worshipped, the God expressed by the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?” In 2.15, “the doctrine of the Church declares that in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost there is one power, and goodness, and essence, and glory, and the like, saving the difference of the Persons. … from the identity of operations it results assuredly that the Spirit is not alien from the nature of the Father and the Son. And to the statement that the Spirit accomplishes the operation and teaching of the Father according to the good pleasure of the Son we assent. For the community of nature gives us warrant that the will of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, and thus, if the Holy Spirit wills that which seems good to the Son, the community of will clearly points to unity of essence.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We will turn to <i>Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book. </i>To say God is holy is to say God is perfect in goodness, both in essence and in the energies or activities that proceed from that essence. “God is not an expression, neither has He His essence in voice or utterance. But God is of Himself what also He is believed to be, but He is named, by those who call upon Him, not what He is essentially (for the nature of Him Who alone is, is unspeakable), but He receives His appellations from what are believed to be His operations in regard to our life.”<i> </i> He will stress that while the Father is ungenerate, the divine essence includes the generation of the Son. Father and Son experience no separation. He is imagining the closest possible connection between Father and Son. By connection, he means “the union and blending of spiritual with spiritual through identity of will. Accordingly, there is no divergence of will between the Father and the Son, but the image of goodness is after the Archetype of all goodness and beauty, and as, if a man should look at himself in a glass (for it is perfectly allowable to explain the idea by corporeal illustrations), the copy will in all respects be conformed to the original, the shape of the man who is reflected being the cause of the shape on the glass, and the reflection making no spontaneous movement or inclination unless commenced by the original, but, if it move, moving along with it — in like manner we maintain that our Lord, the Image of the invisible God, is immediately and inseparably one with the Father in every movement of His Will. If the Father will anything, the Son Who is in the Father knows the Father's will, or rather He is Himself the Father's will. For, if He has in Himself all that is the Father's, there is nothing of the Father's that He cannot have. If He has all things that are the Father's in Himself, or, say we rather, if He has the Father Himself, then, along with the Father and the things that are the Father's, He must needs have in Himself the whole of the Father's will.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">His rational basis for knowing God involves frequent appeals to Scripture, of course, but he also argues for the existence of God. And although he concedes that God’s inner nature will always remain a mystery to us, Gregory holds that we can attain some knowledge of God’s energies. This does not mean, however, that God does not have a transcendent nature. For Gregory everything that exists has an inner nature that cannot be known immediately and is knowable only through its energies. God is only the most striking instance of this. If it can be shown that God exists, it follows necessarily in Gregory’s mind that God has a nature. But God’s existence is derived from our knowledge of God’s energies, and those energies are in turn known both indirectly and directly. The indirect route relies on the order apparent in the cosmos. The fact that the universe is orderly indicates that it is governed according to some rational plan, which implies the existence of a divine Planner. In noting this, Gregory is relying on an argument that had been around since the early Stoics–the argument from design (cf. Cicero, <i>Nature of the Gods</i> II 2.4 – 21.56). Now there are several things to notice about this argument. In the first place it is an analogical one: just as a work of art leads us to infer the existence of an artist, so the artistry displayed in the order of nature suggests the existence of a Creator. But if Gregory’s argument is nothing more than a generalized appeal to the harmony of the universe, it is not a very persuasive basis for proving the existence of God. For that there are laws of nature is nothing surprising: to have anything at all, from cosmos to quark, is to have order. If this is all that Gregory means, his argument at best reduces to the cosmological, or “first cause,” argument that any chain of creating or sustaining causes requires a first member, which “everyone would call God,” as Thomas Aquinas puts it (Summa Theologiae I q. 2 a. 3). Such an argument, however, is not very convincing. Why not an infinite chain of causes, for instance? Or even more to the point, why can’t things exist on their own? It does not seem that the cosmological argument rules out either of these two possibilities.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[38]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> He explains the love of God for humanity in a beautiful way. He suggests that the Incarnation is worthy of human flesh because of the intrinsic goodness of human nature. “We account for God's willingness to admit men to communion with Himself by His love towards mankind. But since that which is by nature finite cannot rise above its prescribed limits, or lay hold of the superior nature of the Most High, on this account He, bringing His power, so full of love for humanity, down to the level of human weakness, so far as it was possible for us to receive it, bestowed on us this helpful gift of grace. For as by Divine dispensation the sun, tempering the intensity of his full beams with the intervening air, pours down light as well as heat on those who receive his rays, being himself unapproachable by reason of the weakness of our nature, so the Divine power, after the manner of the illustration I have used, though exalted far above our nature and inaccessible to all approach, like a tender mother who joins in the inarticulate utterances of her babe, gives to our human nature what it is capable of receiving; and thus in the various manifestations of God to man He both adapts Himself to man and speaks in human language, and assumes wrath, and pity, and such-like emotions, so that through feelings corresponding to our own our infantile life might be led as by hand, and lay hold of the Divine nature by means of the words which His foresight has given.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> Toward the end of the book, he anticipates some of the negative theology of later generations. Theology is the investigation of a reality and is not simply speculation. A community of people persist in believing in God. God is not an object in the world. God is not finite and thus not an object for scientific investigation. “It is a sacred duty to use of Him names privative of the things abhorrent to His Nature, and to say all that we have so often enumerated already, viz. that He is imperishable, and unending, and ungenerate, and the other terms of that class, where the sense inherent in each only informs us of the privation of that which is obvious to our perception, but does not interpret the actual nature of that which is thus removed from those abhorrent conditions. What the Deity is not, the signification of these names does point out; but what that further thing, which is not these things, is remains undivulged. Moreover, even the rest of these names, the sense of which does indicate some position or some state, do not afford that indication of the Divine nature itself, but only of the results of our reverent speculations about it. For when we have concluded generally that no single thing existing, whether an object of sense or of thought, is formed spontaneously or fortuitously, but that everything discoverable in the world is linked to the Being Who transcends all existences, and possesses there the source of its continuance, and we then perceive the beauty and the majesty of the wonderful sights in creation, we thus get from these and such-like marks a new range of thoughts about the Deity, and interpret each one of the thoughts thus arising within us by a special name, following the advice of Wisdom, who says that by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionately the Maker of them is seen Wisdom 13:5 . We address therefore as Creator Him Who has made all mortal things, and as Almighty Him Who has compassed so vast a creation, Whose might has been able to realize His wish. When too we perceive the good that is in our own life, we give in accordance with this the name of Good to Him Who is our life's first cause. Then also having learned from the Divine writings the incorruptibility of the judgment to come, we therefore call Him Judge and Just, and to sum up in one word, we transfer the thoughts that arise within us about the Divine Being into the mould of a corresponding name; so that there is no appellation given to the Divine Being apart from some distinct intuition about Him. Even the word God (Θεὸς) we understand to have come into usage from the activity of His seeing; for our faith tells us that the Deity is everywhere, and sees (θεασθαι) all things, and penetrates all things, and then we stamp this thought with this name (Θεὸς), guided to it by the Holy Voice. … We are taught, then, by this word one sectional operation of the Divine Being, though we do not grasp in thought by means of it His substance itself, believing nevertheless that the Divine glory suffers no loss because of our being at a loss for a naturally appropriate name. For this inability to give expression to such unutterable things, while it reflects upon the poverty of our own nature, affords an evidence of God's glory, teaching us as it does, in the words of the Apostle, that the only name naturally appropriate to God is to believe Him to be above every name Philippians 2:9 . That he transcends every effort of thought, and is far beyond any circumscribing by a name, constitutes a proof to man of His ineffable majesty.” Thus, Gregory counters Eunomius by repudiating the central presupposition of Eunomian theology–that one can derive by a process of analysis concepts that are predicated of God. God is incomprehensible; thus, it is presumptuous in the extreme to suppose that God can be defined by a set of human concepts. When we are speaking of God’s inner nature, all that we can say is what that nature is not. Gregory anticipates the negative theology of the Pseudo-Dionysius and much medieval thought.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">Nevertheless, if that were the whole story–if we were left with God’s utter incomprehensibility and nothing more–then Gregory’s theology would be a very much stunted exposition of Christianity. After all, in the Beatitudes Christ promises, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8) If God’s inner nature is knowable only negatively, how is this possible? More generally, if God is simply some remote, unknowable entity, what possible relation to the world could God ever have? Gregory answers these questions by distinguishing between God’s nature (phusis) and God’s “energies” (energeiai)–the projection of the divine nature into the world, initially creating it and ultimately guiding it to its appointed destination (Beatitudes VI [1269]). The idea of God’s energies in Gregory’s theology approximates to the Western concept of grace, except that it emphasizes God’s actual presence in those parts of creation which are perfected just because of that presence. By distinguishing between God’s nature (sometimes he uses the word “substance”–ousia) and God’s energies, Gregory anticipates the more famous substance-energies distinction of the fourteenth century Byzantine theologian Gregory Palamas.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[39]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We shall next consider <i>On the Holy Spirit: Against the Macedonians.</i> He shares a direct affirmation regarding the Holy Spirit. “We, for instance, confess that the Holy Spirit is of the same rank as the Father and the Son, so that there is no difference between them in anything, to be thought or named, that devotion can ascribe to a Divine nature. We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed from God, and of the Christ, according to Scripture , but that, while not to be confounded with the Father in being never originated, nor with the Son in being the Only-begotten, and while to be regarded separately in certain distinctive properties, He has in all else, as I have just said, an exact identity with them. … We are not to think of the Father as ever parted from the Son, nor to look for the Son as separate from the Holy Spirit. As it is impossible to mount to the Father, unless our thoughts are exalted there through the Son, so it is impossible also to say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be known only in a perfect Trinity, in closest consequence and union with each other, before all creation, before all the ages, before anything whatever of which we can form an idea. The Father is always Father, and in Him the Son, and with the Son the Holy Spirit…. (In a well-known image) the grace flows down in an unbroken stream from the Father, through the Son and the Spirit, upon the persons worthy of it.” He offers a well-known analogy. “It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We now turn to <i>On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit,</i> which is to Eustathius. “The Lord, in delivering the saving Faith to those who become disciples of the word, joins with the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit also; and we affirm that the union of that which has once been joined is continual; for it is not joined in one thing, and separated in others. But the power of the Spirit, being included with the Father and the Son in the life-giving power, by which our nature is transferred from the corruptible life to immortality, and in many other cases also, as in the conception of "Good," and "Holy," and "Eternal," "Wise," "Righteous," "Chief," "Mighty," and in fact everywhere, has an inseparable association with them in all the attributes ascribed in a sense of special excellence. And so we consider that it is right to think that that which is joined to the Father and the Son in such sublime and exalted conceptions is not separated from them in any.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We now turn to <i>On the Faith, </i>which is to Simplicius. “Therefore both He Who was formed in the Virgin's womb, according to the word of the prophet, is the servant, and not the Lord (that is to say, the man according to the flesh, in whom God was manifested), and also, in the other passage, He Who was created as the beginning of His ways is not God, but the man in whom God was manifested to us for the renewing again of the mined way of man's salvation. So that, since we recognize two things in Christ, one Divine, the other human (the Divine by nature, but the human in the Incarnation), we accordingly claim for the Godhead that which is eternal, and that which is created we ascribe to His human nature. … the Church believes, as concerning the Son, so equally concerning the Holy Spirit, that He is uncreated, and that the whole creation becomes good by participation in the good which is above it, while the Holy Spirit needs not any to make Him good (seeing that He is good by virtue of His nature, as the Scripture testifies); that the creation is guided by the Spirit, while the Spirit gives guidance; that the creation is governed, while the Spirit governs; that the creation is comforted, while the Spirit comforts; that the creation is in bondage, while the Spirit gives freedom; that the creation is made wise, while the Spirit gives the grace of wisdom; that the creation partakes of the gifts, while the Spirit bestows them at His pleasure.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We now turn to <i>On “Not Three Gods,</i>” written to Ablabius. He is clear that to write of the divine essence is a difficult matter, “nature is unnameable and unspeakable, and we say that every term either invented by the custom of men, or handed down to us by the Scriptures, is indeed explanatory of our conceptions of the Divine Nature, but does not include the signification of that nature itself… it is clear that by any of the terms we use the Divine nature itself is not signified, but some one of its surroundings is made known. For we say, it may be, that the Deity is incorruptible, or powerful, or whatever else we are accustomed to say of Him. But in each of these terms we find a peculiar sense, fit to be understood or asserted of the Divine nature, yet not expressing that which that nature is in its essence. … if we say that He is the Giver of life, though we show by that appellation what He gives, we do not by that word declare what that is which gives it. And by the same reasoning we find that all else which results from the significance involved in the names expressing the Divine attributes either forbids us to conceive what we ought not to conceive of the Divine nature or teaches us that which we ought to conceive of it, but does not include an explanation of the nature itself.” The divine essence is beyond our language to capture. He recognizes only three ontological questions. Is It? What is it? How is it? He taught that only the latter applies to the hypostases. This allows us to read him in a metaphysically revisionary way. He stresses that we have no insight into the mode of the unity of the divine and human in Christ. It being an event is beyond question for us, but not how, which we do not investigate for it is beyond understand.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> He then explores the unity of the trinity in divine action. “As we have to a certain extent shown by our statement that the word Godhead is not significant of nature but of operation, perhaps one might reasonably allege as a cause why, in the case of men, those who share with one another in the same pursuits are enumerated and spoken of in the plural, while on the other hand the Deity is spoken of in the singular as one God and one Godhead, even though the Three Persons are not separated from the significance expressed by the term Godhead. … But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfil it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things. … there is one motion and disposition of the good will which is communicated from the Father through the Son to the Spirit…. Since, then, the character of the superintending and beholding power is one, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as has been said in our previous argument, issuing from the Father as from a spring, brought into operation by the Son, and perfecting its grace by the power of the Spirit; and since no operation is separated in respect of the Persons, being fulfilled by each individually apart from that which is joined with Him in our contemplation, but all providence, care, and superintendence of all, alike of things in the sensible creation and of those of supramundane nature, and that power which preserves the things which are, and corrects those which are amiss, and instructs those which are ordered aright, is one, and not three, being, indeed, directed by the Holy Trinity, yet not severed by a threefold division according to the number of the Persons contemplated in the Faith, so that each of the acts, contemplated by itself, should be the work of the Father alone, or of the Son peculiarly, or of the Holy Spirit separately, but while, as the Apostle says, the one and the selfsame Spirit divides His good gifts to every man severally 1 Corinthians 12:11, the motion of good proceeding from the Spirit is not without beginning — we find that the power which we conceive as preceding this motion, which is the Only-begotten God, is the maker of all things; without Him no existent thing attains to the beginning of its being: and, again, this same source of good issues from the will of the Father.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">He deals with the question of why three instances of the divine ousia do not make three gods. God is a predicate. Therefore, how many gods we assert depends on to how many subjects we attribute it, there are three instances of the divine ousia but these are not three gods as three instances of humanity are three human beings because God is not a word for the divine ousia. God is not a word for this or any form. God refers to the mutual action of the identities’ divine energies to the perichoretic triune life. Since all divine action is the singular mutual work of Father, Son, and Spirit, there is only one such life and therefore only one subject of the predicate God. God is the Father as he is the source of the Son’s and the Spirit’s deity; God is the Son as he is the recipient of deity from the Father; God is the Spirit as he is the spirit of the Son’s reception of deity from the Father. He is saying that the unity of the three persons is to be found in the unity of their activity. The rule for reflection on the trinity is that all action that impacts the creature from God begins with the Father and is actual through the Son is perfected in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the attribution of the action is not divided among the plurality of actors. Each of the three is a hypostasis differentiated from other instances of the same ousia so as to be enumerable by the different way in which this instance of deity has deity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.5in;">This approach might well help to relieve the difficulties in understanding the relation of the three persons in the unity of the divine essence if the unity of the ray of their common activity derives from the mutual relations of the persons. They thought that they could cogently meet the charge of tritheism in this way. But the unity of the divine activity could also be thought of as a collective unity od divine beings existing prior to the common activity if the thought of uniform activity was to be related to that of a trinity of divine persons. The common activity is not constitutive for the persons of their distinction. The idea of one divine activity could not offer any constitutive basis for distinctive persons. It does not rule out a collective cooperation of ontologically independent beings. Gregory and the Cappadocians had to reflect on the relations between the persons as far as these are constitutive for their distinction and autonomy.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;">As I have noted, Gregory stresses the Infinite in a way that distinguishes him from others. “we, believing the Divine nature to be unlimited and incomprehensible, conceive no comprehension of it, but declare that the nature is to be conceived in all respects as infinite: and that which is absolutely infinite is not limited in one respect while it is left unlimited in another, but infinity is free from limitation altogether. That therefore which is without limit is surely not limited even by name. In order then to mark the constancy of our conception of infinity in the case of the Divine nature, we say that the Deity is above every name: and Godhead is a name. Now it cannot be that the same thing should at once be a name and be accounted as above every name.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> We now turn to <i>Address on Religious Instruction. </i>In Chapters 5-6, he stresses the reasonable quality of Incarnation. “If the entire world was created by this second Divine hypostasis, then certainly was man also thus created; yet not in view of any necessity, but from superabounding love, that there might exist a being who should participate in the Divine perfections. If man was to be receptive of these, it was necessary that his nature should contain an element akin to God; and that he should be immortal. Thus, then, man was created in the image of God. He could not therefore be without the gifts of freedom, independence, self-determination; and his participation in the Divine gifts was consequently made dependent on his virtue. Owing to this freedom he could decide in favor of evil, which cannot have its origin in the Divine will, but only in our inner selves, where it arises in the form of a deviation from good, and so a privation of it.” In Chapter 24, he said the transcendent power of God is shown in his condescension to our weak nature, rather than displayed in the vastness of the heavens or the luster of the stars or the orderly arrangement of the universe or perpetual oversight of it. In Chapter 26, said God defeated the devil by deceitfully outwitting him the devil, seizing on the bait of Christ’s human nature as it is with greedy fish and swallowed the fishhook of his divinity, and thus was destroyed. Later, Anselm would say that such images violated the proper dignity of God.<a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"> He wrote a letter to Eusebius. “He appears in flesh to us, Who holds the Universe in His grasp, and controls the same Universe by His own power, Who cannot be contained even by all intelligible things, but includes the whole, even at the time that He enters the narrow dwelling of a fleshly tabernacle, while His mighty power thus keeps pace with His beneficent purpose, and shows itself even as a shadow wherever the will inclines, so that neither in the creation of the world was the power found weaker than the will, nor when He was eager to stoop down to the lowliness of our mortal nature did He lack power to that very end, but actually did come to be in that condition, yet without leaving the universe unpiloted?<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.4in;">The logical consequence of Christ’s deification is the apokatastasis–the restoration of humanity to its unfallen state. Because evil is a privation of the good and is therefore limited, Gregory believes that there is a limit to human degradation. At some point, everyone must turn around and strive for the good. Besides, the ultimate good, which is God, is infinitely attractive. Thus, Gregory endorses Origen’s (<i>First Principles</i> I 6.3, II 10.4 – 10.8, III 6.5 – 6.6) much-maligned theories of remedial punishment and universal salvation (<i>Great Cate</i>chism 8 [36 – 37], 26 [69], 35 [92]; <i>Making of Man</i> 21 – 22 [201 – 205]; <i>Soul and Resurrection</i> [97 – 105, 152, 157 – 160]). In other words, for Gregory as for his intellectual ancestor Origen, everyone–even Satan himself (<i>Great Catechism </i>26 [68 – 69])–will eventually be saved. This means that there is no such thing as eternal damnation. Hell is purgatory; punishment is temporary and remedial. As Gregory puts it in a colorful metaphor, the process of purgation is like drawing a rope encrusted with dried mud through a small aperture: it is hard on the rope, but it does come out clean on the other side (<i>Soul and Resurrection</i> [100]).<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[42]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.4in;">Because he was committed to the idea that humans have a unique value that demands respect, Gregory was an early and vocal opponent of slavery and also of poverty. Against the former Gregory marshals three arguments (<i>Ecclesiastes</i> IV [665]): (1) Only God has the right to enslave humans, and God does not choose to do so; indeed, it was God who gave human beings their free wills. (2) How dare a person take that precious entity–the only part of the created order to have been made in God’s image–and enslave it! (3) As humans who were created in the divine image, all people are radically equal; therefore, it is hubristic for some to arrogate to themselves absolute authority over others. Against the latter, he appeals, once again, to the “dignity of royalty” theme–that poverty is inconsistent with the rulership bestowed on humankind at its creation (<i>On Compassion for the Poor</i> [477]). Both slavery and poverty sully the dignity of human beings by degrading them to a station below the purple to which they were rightfully born; and although we may congratulate ourselves on having outlawed slavery, it is important to remember that for Gregory poverty is no different.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[43]</span></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></p><h2>My trinitarian statement<o:p></o:p></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and John of Damascus were among those who urged church councils to adopt a set of beliefs regarding God, Christology, and the Holy Spirit. They would present their beliefs in concise, summary form. I thought I would put my mind to the same task. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Christian theology builds upon the ambiguous human experience of the divine, the sense that our finite and temporal lives connect to something much larger, and we are accountable for the lives we lead.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The Trinity is the way Christians identify God. This doctrine seeks a glimpse into the inner life of God, even though God is beyond our comprehension. God is infinite and eternal, meaning that God is present in every place and in every moment, giving God intimate knowledge of every place and every moment. The infinite and eternal essence of God means that the energy, grace, and presence of God is a reality for every finite and temporal thing. The mark of deity is endless futurity. The divine essence keeps things moving forward to an open future in a way that transcends past conditions and remains open to newness. The essence (οὐσία) of God is energy and movement. The Father has always generated the Son and the life-giving gift of the Spirit has always proceeded from the Father. Therefore, the inner life of God always included humanity and the finite and temporal world from which humanity would emerge. The Father was always moving outward toward all that the Son and Spirit embrace about our world. The three as ὑ πόστασις have always self-distinguished themselves from each other, recognizing that in distinguishing oneself from another defines oneself as also dependent upon that other. The essence of God is the loving embrace of this mutual relationship and dependence upon each other. The Father, through the Son and Spirit, has brought finitude, temporality, and therefore suffering, into the inner life of God, having done so eternally. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What Christians say about the essence of God has its basis in revelation witnessed to in scripture. The event of the Jewish teacher and prophet Jesus of Nazareth is the heart of this revelation. What some would say is impossible, the humbling of divinity to embrace a human being in his finitude, temporality, suffering, and death, Christianity proclaims as good news for the world. Raised by Jewish parents, Mary and Joseph, raised in the humble setting of Nazareth and distant from Jewish political and religious authority in Jerusalem and Roman political and economic authority in Rome, he received baptism by John the Baptist, taught using the humble form of parable and aphorism rather than the exalted form of learned discourse, and performed healings and exorcisms. Jesus lived a Spirit-filled life and ministry, led a life faithful to the Shema of Israel and the Jewish people, faithful to a loving embrace of the neighbor, and faithful to the proclamation to the rule of God. The Son or Word of the Father, in this event that embraces finitude, temporality, suffering, and death, is revealing what it is to be God and determines the nature of divine infinity and eternity. Jesus of Nazareth is the incarnation of the Son. As the Triune God is a communion within divine life, so is the life of Jesus an intimate communion of the divine and human. While differing in gender, race, and economic settings, what makes us human transcends such differences, making the incarnation of the Son of saving significance for all persons. The oneness of the divine essence has a parallel in the oneness of human essence. The self-actualizing of divine life within the relations of the trinity has a parallel in the actualization of a human life in relation to others. Despite sin and suffering in this world, the Father lovingly embraces this world and finds it worthy of reconciliation and redemption. The event of incarnation discloses the enslavement of humanity by sin. The cross reveals the extent of the love of God for humanity, bringing forgiveness of sin. He endured the suffering and shame of the cross in his death for others and for their sin, but also received the gift of life through the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Those who turn toward this event live their lives in Christ and Christ lives in them, through the life-giving influence of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit gathers a people called the church who place their faith in the truth of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, thereby experiencing justification with God, builds them up in love toward God and their neighbor, thereby experiencing sanctification through the Spirit, and enlivens them to a life of hope, thereby living with a meaningful vocation. They can live in reconciliation with God and with their world. They honor the disciples and other saints, leaders, and teachers of the church throughout its history. The focus of this life is no longer inner-directed but directed outward, under the influence of the Spirit, toward faithfully embodying the truth of the event of revelation through prayer and meditation upon the biblical witness, especially in love toward God and neighbor, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the vice-virtue lists in the New Testament, and leading a faithful, loving, and hope-filled life. In this way, embracing the truth expressed in the doctrine of the trinity by faith will not be an abstraction, but engages those who believe it in an ongoing process of transforming love through the Spirit and into the image of the Son. One becomes part of a community united with Christ in his baptism, a symbol of moral cleansing, and in the Supper over which he presides, in communion with Christ and with fellow believers. One can then live with a future that includes the hope of personal and cosmic redemption, in which finitude and temporality will find their completion in the loving embrace of the trinitarian relation.</span></p><div><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol I, 85.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol II, 142-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> Tillich Systematic Theology, vol III, 88-90<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Vol I, 332-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology vol I, 313<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology, p. 416.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology, p. 133.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, 234. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, 244, 246-7<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, vol II, 209)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology, 614.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> Gordon Kaufmann, Systematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective, 181.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology, 214.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology, 219<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol 3, 197<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol I, 102-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol I, 284.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn18"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[18]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, volume I, 272-3<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn19"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[19]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, V 1, 278.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn20"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[20]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity, 448.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn21"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[21]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity, 126.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn22"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[22]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Vol I, 322.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn23"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[23]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity, 341.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn24"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[24]</span></span></span></a> Jensen, Systematic Theology, vol I, 108.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn25"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[25]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Vol I, 332-3.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn26"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[26]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology vol I, 384-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn27"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[27]</span></span></span></a> Thomas Oden, Classic Christianity, 185.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn28"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[28]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology vol I, 279-80.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn29"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[29]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol I, 274.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn30"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[30]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology vol I 278.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn31"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[31]</span></span></span></a> Donald L. Ross, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn32"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[32]</span></span></span></a> – Jenson, Systematic Theology, 212.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn33"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[33]</span></span></span></a> Jenson, Systematic Theology, Vol I.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn34"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[34]</span></span></span></a> See 3/10:36 and 1:666-672. See Jenson, Systematic Theology, 214-6.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn35"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[35]</span></span></span></a> Donald L. Ross, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn36"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[36]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology vol I, 278, See C. Eun 2.149 <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn37"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[37]</span></span></span></a> Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol I, 2:102 See 2:69-70.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn38"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[38]</span></span></span></a> Donald L. Ross, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn39"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[39]</span></span></span></a> Donald L. Ross, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn40"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[40]</span></span></span></a> Pannenberg, Systematic Theology vol I, 278,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn41"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[41]</span></span></span></a> Kaufmann, A Historicist Theology, 395.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn42"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[42]</span></span></span></a> Donald L. Ross, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn43"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="applewebdata://E9E30AE3-4010-4FA3-B611-A61192E8772D#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[43]</span></span></span></a> Donald L. Ross, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://iep.utm.edu/gregoryn/<o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-58070432481847330322021-01-12T04:10:00.003-08:002021-01-13T03:32:56.948-08:00Augustine on The Trinity<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;">The most widespread and longest-lasting theological controversies of the 4th century focused on the Christian doctrine of the</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;"> </span><a name="672104.hook" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;">Trinity—that is, the threeness of</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;"> </span><a name="672105.hook" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;"></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;">God represented in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Augustine's Africa had been left out of much of the fray, and most of what was written on the subject was in Greek, a language Augustine barely knew and had little access to. But he was keenly aware of the prestige and importance of the topic, and so in 15 books he wrote his own exposition of it,</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;">De trinitate</i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;">(399/400–416/421;</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;">The Trinity</i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.4in;">). Augustine is carefully orthodox, after the spirit of his and succeeding times, but adds his own emphasis in the way he teaches the resemblance between God and man: the threeness of God he finds reflected in a galaxy of similar triples in the human soul, and he sees there both food for meditation and deep reason for optimism about the ultimate human condition. He argues against skepticism by saying that if he is deceived, he is at least certain that he is alive.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The portion of the Nicean Creed (325) relevant to these reflections.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;">And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">γεννηθέντα)</span> of the Father the only-begotten (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">μονογενῆ)</span>; that is, of the essence (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">οὐσίας) </span>of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">ὁμοούσιον) </span>with the Father;<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;"><span color="windowtext">And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life (</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">ζῳοποιόν<b>)</b></span><span color="windowtext">, who proceedeth (</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">ἐκπορευόμενον</span><span color="windowtext">)from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;">[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">ὑποστάσεως or hypostasis)</span>' or 'essence (<span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">οὐσίας)</span>,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.] <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><span color="windowtext"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">In what follows, I include in my reflections on <i>The Trinity,</i> works from Karl Barth (<i>Church Dogmtics), </i>Peter Hodgson <i>Winds of the Spirit,</i> Robert Jensen, <i>Systematic Theology</i>, Wolfhart Pannenberg, <i>Systematic Theology</i> and Katherine Sonderegger, <i>Systematic Theology</i>.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">In Book I.1.1, he refers to the sophistries of those who disdain to begin with faith and are deceived by a crude and perverse love reason. He begins with a difficult pill to swallow. He is asking the reader to accept by faith the orthodox teaching of the church regarding the nature of God as trinitarian doctrine understands it. In I.1.2, he notes that scripture, as primary witness to this teaching, uses words draw from any class of existing things to nourish our understanding in such a way that we may gradually rise to divine and transcendent things. 1.1.3 he admits that it is hard to see how God creates temporal things and events without temporal movement within divine being. He believes a story of temporal events while not acknowledging any temporal contamination of God (Jenson Volume I, 112). It may well be that he needed to figure out a way in which eternity embraces time, thereby making it not as difficult as he imagines it to be here. 1.2.4 Augustine provides the theological rule of the Trinity. The Trinity is the one and true God, in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance or essence. In I.3.5, he offers the caution that those who inquire into the unity of the Trinity error is dangerous, the inquiry is true intellectual work, and yet, the discovery of the truth contained it is so profitable. He suggests that many persons should author many books on this topic, differing in style but not in faith, dealing with the same questions, so that its truth may reach the greatest number. In I.4.7, affirming a basic rule of trinitarian reflections, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are an intimate divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality, and therefore they are not three gods, but one God. The Father has begotten the Son, and so, the Father is not the Son and the Son is the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father of the Father and the Son in a way that testifies to the unity of the Trinity. The question Augustine raises here is whether we can infer trinity from the unity.<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> If so, putting the doctrine of the unity first has justification. Trinitarian statements would then supplement what one says about the one God. This approach is possible only if we suppose that what we say about the unity of God is an insufficient account of who God is. If we do not suppose this, then trinitarian statements become superfluous and external additions to the doctrine of the one God. One can resolve the situation by insisting on the unity of the divine substance prior to all trinitarian differentiation and by defining this unity in such a way as to rule out any idea of substantial distinction even at the cost of making the differentiation of the three persons in God an impenetrable secret. He tried to interpret the statements of trinitarian dogma based on the simple unity of the divine substance. His first point was there can be no substantial distinction even though there are three persons. In I.5.8, he admits that some persons find a difficulty in this faith that the Father, Son, and Spirit are God individually and in unity. It seems like the faith is in three gods. in such difficult matters, we can appreciate that he acknowledges that he can disclose only so much of the road as he has already passed, and the point to which he has reached, while the course yet remains to bring him to the end. Beginning in I.6.9 he offers scripture that require the doctrine of the Trinity. He will discuss both those that affirm it, focusing on John 1:1-18, while also dealing with scriptures that imply an inferiority of the Son. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book II focuses the way in which the sending of the Son and of the Spirit does not mean they are less than the one who sends. He can say that actions of the Son in the Old Testament could just easily be said of Father and Spirit. One can easily dispute exegesis of the passages to which Augustine refers. However, the Old Testament itself hints at something like the Trinity when it easily refers to appearances of the Lord to Abraham, Moses, and Daniel. Such appearances made it easier for the New Testament to see in Jesus and in the coming of the Spirit the presence of God in their historical moment.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book III pursues the question of the appearances to which he referred in the previous book. In III.3, he can say that actions of the Son in the Old Testament could just easily be said of Father and Spirit. In III.11.22, he will say that the substance (a passive term) or better the essence (esse, an active term denoting energetic being) of God in the appearances did not make itself visible. The tradition preferred the second term.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book IV takes a turn toward considering the purpose of the sending of the Son. In IV.1, Augustine begins by placing knowledge of self, knowledge of the weakness of the self, which leads to proper health and strength, is preferrable to knowledge of the external world. He grants that even this preferred knowledge is tainted by the limited and fragmentary nature of our self-knowledge. Yet, he strives to return to the solid truths by the path of the divinity of the only-begotten Son. He is the essence of God, thereby having nothing changeable since truth and love are eternal. In IV.1.2, we are in exile from the joy of living in divine truth and love, but we are not so exiled that we do not naturally seek eternity, truth, and blessedness, even if we seek them in temporal things. Our search continues because finite and temporal things cannot satisfy our longing, so our pilgrimage continues. The message of the church seeks to persuade people of how much God loved us, lest we despair. The message of the church also seeks to show us who we are, lest we become proud as if our merits earn the love of God. In IV.3.5, he starts a discussion of how the single life, death, and resurrection of Jesus answers in harmony with our need for salvation. In IV.4.7, he takes an unfortunate turn toward numerology of the number 3. In IV.10.13, our true peace and firm bond of union with the creator is that we should be purified and reconciled through the Mediator of life, since we have been polluted and alienated through the mediator of death. The devil led humanity through pride to death, while Christ through lowliness led humanity back to the creator through obedience to life. IV.17.23, he says we ought not to go philosophers to understand the successions of ages or the resurrection of the dead, by which I assume he refers to something like what we find in the Book of Revelation. In IV.20.29, he refers to the Holy Spirit as the gift of God who proceeds from Father. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book V deals with rational arguments against the orthodox notion of the Trinity. In V.2.3, God is essence (substance, ousia). Yet, as an essence, God is unlike the essence of any finite, temporal thing. We can refer to the essence of a finite thing in a way that allows its description to include accidents, that is, that which may change from one thing to another, or that which may change over time. that which changes does not retain its own being. In V.4.5, therefore, there is nothing accidental in God, because nothing is changeable or lost in God, which we can say by definition. Yet, in V.5.6, we can say things regarding God that are not according the divine essence. He refers to the relation generated eternally in the Father, Son, and Spirit relation. Father and Son have a reciprocal relation that is eternal and unchangeable. Relations in the divine substance are not accidents. Yet,<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> the question remains that if we exclude accidents from the simple essence of God, and we speak of relational distinctions in God, we must acknowledge that he made no attempt to derive trinitarian distinctions from the divine unity. In V.8.9, he wants to distinguish between that which applies to divine essence and that which applies to divine relation. What is said of Father, Son, and Spirit applies to the divine essence. He can say that whatever is said of God as Father, Son, and Spirit is said in triple and equivalently of the Trinity in the singular. The Spirit is common to both Father and Son. He is the fellowship between them. He is their common gift. He concludes by saying he uses the term “essence” while Greeks prefer “ousia.” In V.8.10, he makes the unexpected admission. Her refers to the Greeks, who use hypostasis, making it different in a way he does not understand with ousia. Greeks will refer to one ousian and three hypostaseis, which he reads in Latin as one essence and three substances. Given that he has already identified substance and essence, this is a strange misunderstanding. The basic rule, according to Jenson, Volume I, 110-4, was that all action that impacts the creature begins with the Father becomes actual in the Son and is perfected through the Spirit. The action of God is not divided among the three agents of divine action. The undividedness of divine action requires perfect mutuality of the three agents. Such a notion can make sense only if temporal events bring differentiation in God. God must incorporate temporality into the divine being for the doctrine of the Trinity to make sense. Augustine did not seem to notice that Nicea asserts eventful differentiation in God. He seems blinded by his Platonic notion that God must be metaphysically simple and that no self-differentiation can be true of God. He assumed that temporal distinctions do not exist in God. The idea of mutuality in divine action did not occur to him. The problem here is that the Augustinian supposition that there is no necessary connection between what differentiates the triune identities in God and the structure of the work of God in time bankrupts the doctrine of Trinity cognitively, for it detaches language about the triune identities from the only that made such language meaningful in the first place, which was the biblical narrative. He resolves the dissonance between Greek metaphysical principles and the gospel story by preferring the metaphysical principles at this point. The larger point is that Augustine commits a misstep in his exposition of the Trinity that has affected western theology. Western theology needs correction at this point. In V.9, he acknowledges that when we ask the question What three, human language labors under poverty of speech. The orthodox answer is “three persons,” not speak completely, but that we must not leave it completely unspoken. Augustine admits that “person” is a necessity due to our language, for a suitable term for the distinctions within the Trinitarian God does not exist. Our notion of person denotes separateness in a way that the Trinity would not suggest. In V.10.12, he says that while we cannot refer to the Trinity as Father or Son, we can do so with the Spirit, since “God is Spirit.” He goes further to say that the Holy Spirit is not the Trinity, but is in the Trinity, he is the Holy Spirit relationally to Father and Son. The relation is apparent when we understand him as the gift of God, for he is the gift of the father and of the Son, since he proceeds from the Father. I think he prefers this term because the Creed refers to the Spirit as the Giver of life. The Spirit is gift. The Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son and on that account, he is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. His point is that spirituality is the essence of Father and Son. Augustine was right to describe the Spirit as the bond of union between the Father and the Son. This notion leads Peter Hodgson to discuss Hegel.<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> The “Absolute Spirit” in Hegel is the Spirit that absolves, lets the world go forth from itself freely and sets it free from every constraining factor. Father, Son and Spirit are distinct moments or patterns in an indivisible divine process. Each includes all. The love of the divine One is a liberating love, oriented to redemption; the freedom of the divine One is a compassionate freedom, riveted to the world; the divine One is the One who loves us in freedom. In V.12.13, the gift of the Father and of the Son is the Spirit in a way that correspond mutually to each other: the gift of the giver and the giver of the gift. He states that the Spirit as gift brings him into relation to Father and Son. The Spirit is the gift of God, and the Spirit gives himself. He is this gift because of the existence of creatures. In V.13.14, he says the Father is relationally the Beginning and the Father in relation to the Son, and the Beginning in relation to all things. Yet, Father, Son, and Spirit are each Beginning in the sense of their involvement in creation. Augustine focuses upon the relation of origin in a way that for many is problematic. In V.14.15, the Spirit is both Spirit of God who gave him and ours who have received him. The Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit in a way that is one Beginning. In an analogous way, Father, Son, and Spirit are one Beginning with respect to every finite thing. V.16.17, the Spirit is a gift eternally, but also a gift given in time.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book VI explores how Paul can say Christ is the power and wisdom of God. In VI.1.2-2.3, Augustine deals with the weakness of the notion of some that the persons of the Trinity having their unity in the one Godhead would mean that the attributes of the Father would exist only in the Son. It violates the notion of the equal nature of the persons of the Trinity. As he puts it, the Father is not God without the Son, nor the Son God without the Father, but both together are God. In VI.5.7, Augustine describes the Spirit as the eternal communion of the Father and the Son, as the love that unites them. The Holy Spirit is the unity of the Father and Son in holiness and love. The Holy Spirit is “something” common both to the Father and Son, the communion being consubstantial and co-eternal, a friendship and love, that binds Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is Lord in inseparable unity with Father and Son. Barth<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> will say that this communion of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit. He is the common factor in the mode of being of God as Father and Son. He is what is common to them as far as they are the Father and the Son. The potential problem here is that the Spirit adds nothing to the Trinity, but rather is the duplication of the love the Father has for the Son. However, the way Augustine formulates it, the Spirit is that part of the Trinity who differentiates and unites the relation of Father and Son. This may well be a wonderful role, but does this role add anything to the Trinity?<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> In VI.6.8, he begins a consideration of how divine essence can be both simple and manifold. He notes that finite creatures are manifold, but in no way simple. In VI.10.12, he points that creation is the result of divine skill, showing a certain form and order. It is fitting that we find traces of the Trinity in the finite things God has made.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book VII continues with the question that began the previous book. He wants to enquire whether each person of the Trinity is God, or only with the other two. In VII.1.1, he understands something we say something by Son that Word does not say, so we need both. In VII.1.2 he puts special emphasis upon the Word. However<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a>, Augustine rejects the central position of Athanasius and the Cappadocian insights that the three are God precisely by the relations between them, which he here describes as absurd. Pannenberg will say that there can be no consubstantiality of the persons if they have their substantiality only in mutual relation. The relation between the persons is constitutive for both their distinctions and for their deity. The unity of Father, Son, and Spirit finds expression in the relations of salvation history which are determined by their mutual self-distinction. Such joint working of the persons and their mutual perichoresis is an expression of the unity of the divine essence. The one God is so transcendent and yet also present in the process of salvation history that the events of history bear on the identity of the divine essence. Augustine thought he could self-evidently presuppose the ontological concept of essence, but theology must show that we can think of the divine essence as the epitome of the personal relations among Father, Son, and Spirit. In VII.3.6, he says the Holy Spirit is the love that joins Father and Son together, as well as joins us to the Father and Son, in such a way that “God is love.” In VII.4.7, Augustine notes that the Greek part of the church speaks of one essence and three substances, but the Latins of one essence or substance and three persons. God is more truly thought than altered and exists more truly than thought. He asks what three they are and what they have in common. The being of the Father is not common to them. the image of three friends does not work either. What three do we speak when we speak Trinity? If three persons, then they share personhood in common. Yet, there is no difference of essence. Person is a generic name, for a human being is a person, but there is a great gulf between a human being and God. Thus, Augustine admits that “person” is a necessity due to our language, for a suitable term for the distinctions within the Trinitarian God does not exist. Our notion of person denotes separateness in a way that the Trinity would not suggest. In VII.5.10, we improperly call God substance and properly refer to the essence of God. He prefers referring to three persons rather than three substances. He rejects calling the persons hypostases, since the Latin equivalent was substantia. In VII.6.11, he wonders why one essence subdivides into three persons. Augustine is saying that God is one substance or essence, which means that God remains essentially one while becoming known in three persons. In all of this, the notion of person is primarily relational, identifying the constitution of the Trinity and the inner life of the Trinity. Moltmann would prefer to distinguish between them.<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book VIII shows no person of the Trinity is greater than the other. In VIII.1, Augustine deals with making distinctions within the Trinity as grounded in the relations within the Trinity. He rejects calling the persons hypostases, since the Latin equivalent was substantia. The mutual relations of the of the persons condition the distinctions within the one God. These relations are eternal. In VIII.1.2, no person of the Trinity is greater or lesser than the other. In VIII.4.6, one who is not known, but is believed, can be loved. In VIII.5.8, he applies this to our desire to understand the eternity, equality, and unity of the Trinity. We ought to believe before we understand. He ponders how we can love, by believing, that Trinity which we do not know. In VIII.6.9, righteousness is beauty of the mind which makes people beautiful. In VIII.7.10, he is writing of true or genuine love, so that by adhering to the truth we may live righteously. In VIII.8.12, we are to embrace the love of God and by love embrace God. We love love. We love one who loves something, for it is the nature of love to love something. Love is what it is in relationship to something else. It is analogous to our use of words, which also indicate themselves but also something else. Love refers to itself but also to that which it loves. In VIII.9.13, faith will lead to the knowledge and love of God, so that we may know God more clearly and love God more steadfastly. In VIII.10.14, his psychological analogies were simply meant to offer a very general way of linking the unity and trinity and thus creating some plausibility for trinitarian statements. Thus, love is of some one that loves, and with love something is loved. Thus, there are three things, one who loves, that which one loves, and love itself. Love is a certain form of life that couples together two things, the one who loves that which one loves. He concludes by saying he will rest, but not because we have found what we seek, for we have only found where to look. Thus, love requires a lover, a beloved, and a love that unites them, in a kind of three-in-oneness, for in speaking of these three, we are speaking only of a single reality, that of love. To say that God is love is to say that God eternally is in the process of self-differentiation and self-identification, for love cannot fulfill itself in a solitary object, a process that will carry within itself the pain of negation.<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> Barth<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> will say that the ground out of which Father, Son, and Spirit arise is in their relation to each other. The threeness consists in the fact that in the essence or act in which God is God there is first a pure origin and then two different issues. God manifests as God in these relations. God brings forth the divine self in two distinctive ways. God possesses the divine self as Father, that is, as pure Giver, as Son, that is, as Receiver and Giver, and as Spirit, that is, as pure Receiver. The One and the Same can be this and that in the truly opposing determinations of these original relations without ceasing to be the One and the same. Each of these relations as such can also be the One in whom these relations occur.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">In Books 9-11, Augustine deals with the vestiges of the Trinity. He considers the mystery and unity of the Trinity. He will discuss reasons and analogies for the trinitarian belief of scripture with a treatment of the natural knowledge of God. We attain to this natural knowledge by means of vestiges of the Trinity in the works of creation and we then find them more clearly in the human soul. In some way, we need to rescue this achievement of Augustine. Jensen lists his analysis: the Father is being, the Son is knowledge, and the Spirit will; the Father is mind, the Son is knowledge, and the Spirit is love; the Father is memory, the Son knowledge, the Spirit will. The Trinity is person, and the Father, Son, and Spirit are the inner life of that personal God. Such a notion could undo trinitarianism. It refers to an analogue of the Trinity. It suggests that in some creaturely reality distinct from revelation that manifests itself in its own structure by creation a certain similarity to the structure of the Trinitarian God of Christian revelation, doing so in such a way as to be an image of the trinitarian God. Augustine separates himself from the Cappadocian tradition, which is the Eastern church followed, as they preferred to think in a communal way about family when looking for such traces of the Trinity.<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">In Book IX, he suggests that our experience of mind, and the knowledge by which the mind knows itself, and the love by which it loves itself and the knowledge it gains have a mutuality in their wholeness that reveals their oneness of essence. Thus, our experience of the world becomes a trace of the triune life of God. In IX.1.1, he invites us to have the disposition to seek the truth, which is a safer position than a disposition that presumes to know unknown things. Further, he invites us to doubt without unbelief and affirm without rashness. He wants us to believe that the differentiated life of God as Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one God, a trinity of persons mutually interrelated, and a unity of an equal essence. In IX.2.2, he admits that he is not ready to ponder such heavenly matters, but rather of their image in human experience. He refers to his previous discussion of the lover, the beloved, and the love that binds them in relationship. In IX.3.3, he notes that a mind cannot know other minds if it does not know itself. As the mind gathers the knowledge of its world through the senses, but if matters intellectual and spiritual it gains knowledge through itself. Mind, distinguished from the physical brain, has a at least a non-physical aspect in which if it does not know itself, it does not love itself. In IX.4.4, he has pointed to three things, the mind and the love of it when it loves itself as well as the mind and the knowledge of it, and the three are equal. In IX.5.8, we can distinguish the trinity of mind, love, and knowledge while also recognize their mutuality as all in all. the mind loves itself as a whole and knows itself as a whole. They are marvelously inseparable while also distinguishable and while sharing one essence in the mutuality of their relation. In IX.8, distinguishes between desire (cupiditas), which directs love toward a finite thing in itself, and love (charitas), which enjoys the finite thing in reference to the Creator. We ought to love ourselves and others in the Lord, directing ourselves upward rather than downward. In IX.12.18, will (voluntas), since everyone who seeks wills (vult) to find, and if one seeks knowledge, one wills to know. If one wills ardently, one studies (studere) to learn. Therefore, desire precedes the mind stretching beyond itself as it seeks and finds, giving birth to knowledge. The desire is not the stretching out of the mind nor is it the knowledge one gains. The desire is the love of the thing when known, while it holds and embraces its knowledge, uniting it to the mind. The mind possesses an image of the Trinity as the mind gains knowledge of itself, which is the knowledge to which it gives birth and its word concerning itself, and love as a third, yet the three are one essence. Jensen suggests that in the view of Augustine, God has left soul-prints of triunity everywhere in the created order. They are in perception, as external objects encountering the mind that can perceive external objects. Thus, in a common human function, there is a threefold unity as an act of perception that requires the mind, objects, and the act of perceiving. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book X discusses another trinity human experience, that of memory, understanding, and will. According to Pannenberg, he does this in the context of his search for self-knowledge, which continues in many of his writings, as in Trinity book 10. He mentions the question of what could motivate an enquiry into something unknown. He supposes that love would have to motivate an enquiry of the thing into which one enquires. However, how can one love something, and so have motivation to enquire into it, when it remains unknown? The enquirer already knows what he is enquiring into according to its genus. He refers to the exhortation: “Know thyself.” He asks how the mind could fail to know itself. He decides that, in an important way, the mind cannot fail to know itself. Nothing is so present to the mind as itself. Why was the mind commanded to know itself? The admonition to “know thyself” is to be understood as an admonition not to turn away from oneself but to live according to one’s nature under God. The mind is something that lives, remembers, understands, wills, thinks, knows, and judges. These essential activities of the mind are self-certifying in an interlocking way. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">In Book X.1.1, he wants to explain the same point as in the previous book with greater thoroughness. One cannot love that about which one is entirely ignorant, so we must carefully consider of what sort is the love of those who are studious, for they do not already know and still desire some branch of learning. In X.1.2, one must already know that a word is a sign, such as the word “temetum” (protection, refuge). A word is not an empty sound. The word signifies something. One does not love the three syllables of the word, but rather, gaining knowledge of what it signifies. In X.3.5, he wonders what mind loves when it seeks as ardently to know itself. The mind seeks to know itself with studious zeal. What does it love in doing so? Does it love itself? However, we have already said that you cannot love what you do not know. The mind may love what it imagines itself to be, which may be widely different from what it is. It may love a fanciful image of itself. If so, the mind loves itself before it knew itself, because it gazes upon that which is like itself. It knows other minds from which to picture itself, so why does it not know itself, since nothing can be more present to it that itself. Then again, the mind may be close to itself, as our eyes cannot look directly at themselves, but only through a reflection in a mirror. Since the mind contemplates non-physical matters, it has no mirror to see itself. The mind knows what it is to know and it loves to know, and so it desires to know itself. In what way can the mind know its own knowing? The mind knows it knows other things but that it does not know itself. How can that which does not know itself know itself as knowing other things? When it seeks to know itself, it knows itself as seeking, and thus knows itself. It cannot have complete ignorance of itself, for it at least knows that it is in the process of knowing. In X.5.7, why is it so commonly said: Know yourself? It is an invitation to consider itself and live according to one’s own nature. We do many things through desire, but in such a way that it seems as if we forget ourselves. We may see excellence and recognize we ought to remain focused upon and enjoy that, but we turn away from it so easily by our desire, slipping gradually down into that which less and less even while thinking it on a path of more and more. In X.6.8, the mind lovingly and intimately connects itself with such false images of itself and in doing so errs greatly. In X.8.11, he considers it a wonderful question when we consider in what manner the soul seeks and finds itself, at what does it aim in order to seek. After all, what is in the mind more than the mind itself? However, the mind is in the finite and temporal things about which it thinks of with love, and thus, is unable to be itself without the images it has gained from the world. shameful error arises as the mind seeks to know itself, for it cannot separate itself from the images it has learned from the world. The mind is within, it goes forth from itself in the act of perception, it exerts affection of love toward that which it perceives, leaving footprint of many acts of attention. Such footprints are imprinted on the memory through perception, so that the mind holds images of what has perceived. In X.9.12, the mind seeks discern itself precisely because it is already present and seeks self-knowledge because it distinguishes itself from others. In X.10.13, the mind bidden to know itself knows the saying bids the self that is, lives, and understands, to do so know itself. The mind knows it is, lives, and understands. In fact, everyone already understands, are, and live. They know that they will, and equally know that one who wills is and lives. They also know that they remember. To study ardently is to have memory, understanding, and the will to enjoy them and use them. In X.10.14, we do not reasonably doubt that we live, remember, understand, think, know, and judge. In our doubts we live, we remember why we doubt, we understand that we doubt, we wish to be certain, we are thinking that we are doubting, we know we do not know, and that we ought not to make decisions rashly. In X.11.17, he wants to focus upon memory, understanding, and will. In X.11.18, each of the three, even if we distinguish them, abide in one essence.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The unity of selfhood is made up of memory, understanding, and willing, showing how a personal subject or self may remain one while being threefold. We can describe each aspect of the self, but together, they refer to a single person. Love requires a lover, a beloved, and a love that unites them, in a kind of three-in-oneness, for in speaking of these three, we are speaking only of a single reality, that of love. According to Hegel, the truth of the Trinity is most adequately grasped in logical categories and the dialectic of identity, difference, and mediation, or of unity, separation, and reunification. Such categories reflect the movement of consciousness and of life.<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> Barth (II.1, 263) expresses this in terms of the dialectic of subject, object, and predicate, or of revealer, revealed, and the act of revelation. Augustine draws his analogies from sense experience. The misleading aspect of this is that each moment is what it is in relation to the other moments. God is God through the relation of aseity or self-generation, the inner divine play of self and other. In the moment of difference, God constitutes the world as object through the relation of creative and redemptive love. In the moment of mediation God and world are co-constituted and consummated as Spirit through the relation of freedom. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book XI deals with a kind of image of the Trinity in the outer or physical person. In XI.1., he wants to find a trace of the Trinity in bodily sense so that even here we will find some reflection of the image of God. In XI.2.2, he says that in our perception of finite things in our world, we distinguish three acts, the object itself that we see, the vision or act of seeing, and the attention of the mind that keeps the sense of the eye in the object seen. In XI.2.3, the objects in the world do not produce our sense of sight, yet they produce the form in its own likeness in our sense of sight when we perceive anything by seeing. We do not distinguish the form of the body which we see from the form that is produced by it in the sense of one who sees, since the union of the two is so close that there is no room for distinguishing them. we rationally infer that we could not have sensation at all unless some similitude of the object we see worked into our sense of sight. He uses the analogy of imprinting a ring on wax. We do not see the imprint until we separate the ring from the wax. If we do not see the ring, the imprint left will easily persuade us of the prior existence of the ring. The physical act of perception is a more difficult case because we will find a physical image in our sense. In XI.2.5, the objects of the world are separate from us, unless we are perceiving our bodies. However, our act of perception has the imprint of the objects perceived through the body in the soul. The imprint upon the soul involves the will that brings the first two acts together. Thus, the form of the object we see and the image of it in the sense of seeing combine through the act of will as it retains it in the mind. If the will does so with love, desire, or lust, it affects the rest of the body. XI.5.8, the mind has great power to imagine not only things forgotten but things that it never saw or experienced by increasing, diminishing, or changing after its pleasure. It imagines things to be such as either it knows they are not, or does not know that they are. We must take care that the mind does not speak falsely in deception or hold an opinion to deceive.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">The theologians I consulted did not refer to the next three books. I can see why. Throughout these books he distinguishes between knowledge and wisdom. I am glad that in XII.7.10 that Genesis makes it clear that male and female alike bear the image of God, rather than the idea that only in the oneness of marriage do they bear the image of God. In XIIi.6, he refers to a poet, Ennius, who said that all mortals wish to have others praise them. it led me to reflect upon how easy it can be to conform what we say and do to receive such praise. We often need to have the courage to what we believe to be right. It reminded me of the fickleness of people as well, who may well praise you one moment, but pursue another course in another moment. Any leadership position carries with it the burden of doing things that will not receive praise. In XIII.13.17, he says that God needed to overcome the power of the devil not with power but with righteousness. In the same, in imitation of Christ, we are to overcome the devil with righteousness rather than use of power. XIII.15.19, he accepts the notion that the blood of Christ was payment of ransoms and redeems human beings from the power of the devil. In XIV.4.6, he wants to find the image of the Creator, the Triune God, in the rational or intellectual soul of humanity. In XIV.8.11, he says the image of God implanted on human nature is the best possibility for finding the trace of the Trinity in created things. He will want to find the image of in the mind as it in itself. The image of God remains, regardless of how defaced it may be due to human sin. When we see here the mind remembering, understanding, and loving itself, we discern a trinity that is an image of the Triune God.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.4in;">Book XV suggests that path taken thus far allows Augustine to inquire concerning the Trinity. In XV.1.1, human beings, being in the image of God in a way no other living thing can be in reason or intelligence of mind. In XV.2.2, we receive encouragement to seek God that we may find and found in order that one may seek more eagerly. Faith seeks while understanding finds. In XV.2.3, he thinks we have tarried long enough among created things in order that we may know God in them (Romans 1:20). In XV.3.5, he offers a summary of the first fourteen books. In XV.4.6, he wants to seek the Trinity in the things that are eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable. The creator is above created things, so the creator lives, perceives, and understands in the highest sense, and thus cannot die, suffer decay, or change, and thus, be most beautiful, good, and blessed. In XV.5.8, if God is eternal, living, wise, powerful, beautiful, good, and blessed spirit, only the last term describes the essence of God, for “God is Spirit.” Yet, each term applies to the essence of God. He reaffirms in XV.6.10, that the trinities his book as pointed toward in human life are not ways of beholding the Trinity, for as he has said often, they are only traces of the Trinity found in that being who is the image of God. In XV.7.11, he says that the trinities he has discovered in humanity are not themselves a human being. Augustine seems to understand the problem he has presented for himself when he asks: If, then, the Trinity itself and the persons of Trinity singly can all be said to be whatever God is, where or how will triunity be manifest? He never answers the question.<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> He does say that he understands how wonderful and incomprehensible is knowledge of God when he cannot even comprehend himself. In XV.12., he deals with a form of philosophy that doubts everything. Yet, even the one deceived cannot doubt that he or she is living. In XV.14.23, he affirms the Word is the only begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is that which the Father ism, yet is not the Father, for one is Son and the other is Father. The Father uttered Himself, begetting the Word equal to Himself in all things. Thus, when God speaks, then Mind and Logos share equal truth and dignity. Barth<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> will say that we are saying the same thing when we refer to Jesus as the Word of God or the Son of God. The Word of God that is spoken to us is no other and no less than God. Further,<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> as the Word that God thinks or speaks eternally, the content of which can be no other than God, Jesus Christ is God. Yet, our experience has no analogy to this, since for us, we know no word that is the essence of the speaker. Only revelation and faith can lift us to the truth found in this Word. In XV.17.27, he now wants to treat of the Holy Spirit as the gift of God, consistent with the Creed that the Spirit is the giver of life. The Spirit is unites Father and Son and intimates to us a mutual love in which Father and Son reciprocally love each other. In XV.17.29, he affirms the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. In XV.18.32, the most excellent gift given by the Spirit is love. His biblical basis for these reflections is Romans 5:5 and I John 4:13. In XV.19.36, the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Spirit. The Spirit is the mutual love that binds Father and Son and fills us with this love as well. If the Spirit is personal being, he finally has only himself to give.<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> In 15.20ff he stresses the difference between the image of the Trinity in the soul and the threeness of their persons in God. In XV.23.43, Augustine pointed out that the image of the Trinity in human psychology is so full of infirmity that only God can heal. The copy falls far short of the original and are inadequate in helping us understand the inner life of God. In XV.26.47, he points out that nothing said of intra-Trinitarian life occurs in time. To speak of the generation of the Son from the Father and to speak of the procession of the Spirit from Father and Son is to speak of an eternal movement within the life of God and apart from the act of creating that which is different from God. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest change within God. Augustine thinks he has resolved the matter of the procession of the Spirit that distinguishes the generation of the Son from the beathing of the Spirit. The Spirit is common to both Father and Son. He is the fellowship between them. He is their common gift. The common procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son means both Father and Son are givers of the gift of the Spirit. He will refer to the image of the Trinity in human psychology. The genesis of the Spirit might be related to that of the Son in the same way as will or love is to knowledge in the soul. The will proceeds from knowledge without being an image of knowledge. Similarly, the Spirit from the Son. His psychological analogies were simply meant to offer a very general way of linking the unity and trinity and thus creating some plausibility for trinitarian statements. The picture of God in the human soul reflects the three persons in concert. Much later, such psychological reflections would influence Hegel to develop the notion of the self-consciousness of the absolute Spirit as its being revealed to itself, making possible its revelation to others. The irony of Barth basing his reflections on the Trinity on a portion of Augustine that is explicitly developing a notion of the vestiges of the Trinity is not one the student of theology should miss. He ends up basing his doctrine on the supreme vestige of, the image of the Trinity in the human soul, rather than on the content of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In XV.28.51, Augustine offers a prayer that Barth considers as the standard statement on the Trinity. O Lord our God, I believe in you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the risen Lord would not have commanded us to go into the world to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit were God not the self-revealing movement and energy found in the relations of the Trinity. Nor would the Shema of the Jewish people not say, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one,” unless you, O God, were also one. You, O Father, sent the Son. The risen Lord Jesus assured his disciples of the gift of the Spirit, whom he referred to as the promise of the Father. All my reflections upon the Trinitarian God direct my purpose by this rule of faith, for I have sought you and have desired to see with my understanding that in which I have believed. I have preached and taught much regarding the Trinity. You O Lord are my God, my one hope. I ask you to listen to me, lest through weariness I might be unwilling to seek you, but that you will give me strength to always seek your face eagerly. I ask you to give me strength to seek, for you have made me to find you and have given me the hope of finding you. You see both my strength and weakness, so preserve the one and heal the other. You see both my knowledge and my ignorance. Help me to remember you, understand you, and love you. Increase these things in me until you renew me entirely. The Bible says somewhere that in the multitude of words you shall not escape sin. I want my words to proclaim and praise You, for I hear the injunction to preach your word in season and out of season. Paul spoke and wrote much as well. He was not silent, and I must not be silent. Set me free, O God, from that multitude of speech in the internal conversation I have every waking hour, for too many of my thoughts are not worthy. Help me not to dwell upon them or consent to them. Help me not to allow any unworthy actions to proceed from that all too often unworthy internal conversation. Help my opinions and conscience be safe from them. When we come to you, the many things we speak that come short of honoring you will cease, and you will remain all in all. When my time, I shall join with a multitude of others who say one thing without end, in praising you in One and we shall be one with You. O Lord, the one God, the Triune God, whatever I have said regarding you, may they acknowledge who are yours; if anything of my own, may both you and your people pardon me. Amen.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What is the place of Trinity in the structure of Christian dogmatics?<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> It simply will not do to deduce it from the essence of the one God, where one views that essence as love or spirit. In either case, one will tend toward modalism or subordinationism, neither of which are faithful to the trinitarian dogma. Nor can it derive from divine self-consciousness, as if the subjectivity of the one God generates the other persons. The relation between the persons are constitutive for both their distinctions and for their deity. The unity of Father, Son, and Spirit finds expression in the relations of salvation history which are determined by their mutual self-distinction. Such joint working of the persons and their mutual perichoresis is an expression of the unity of the divine essence. The one God is so transcendent and yet also present in the process of salvation history that the events of history bear on the identity of the divine essence. Augustine thought he could self-evidently presuppose the ontological concept of essence (7.1.2), but in reality, theology must show that we can think of the divine essence as the epitome of the personal relations among Father, Son, and Spirit. Therefore, the only basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is the way in which Father, Son, and Spirit come on the scene and relate to each other in the event of revelation. It has its basis in the biblical witness to the event of revelation and thus to the economy of salvation. Christian reflection on the essence and attributes of God relate to the Triune God. This was the procedure of Barth as well. The grounding and development of the doctrine of the Trinity begins with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Barth treated the doctrine in relation to his discussion of revelation and prior to the doctrine of the essence and attributes of God places the question of who the God is who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Among my disappointments is that Augustine promises to look directly at the Triune life of God, but I do not think he does. He has sought to describe traces of the Trinity in human life. He does this only to show areas of our lives that we can think in terms of threeness, but are yet elements of one person. It would be worth exploring the numerous ways in which we commonly recognize one thing as having multiple dimensions. Unicity and multiplicity are simply part of our world. It makes sense, then, if we properly know God, we will see unicity and multiplicity. However, we also need to avoid fascination with the number 3. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In the following two paragraphs, based upon the study of Augustine in <i>The Trinity,</i> I offer a brief reflection. Hegel was insightful in showing God as self-moving Spirit. God is self-Moving Thought in the sense of Triune Subject. Here is the transcendental mode of the one God as living Triunity. God is not lifeless identity. Rather, God is eternally moving toward and embracing the world of change and suffering. However, I think Sonderegger<a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> was wrong in saying God is not self-moving Spirit in moving through the struggle and suffering of time that would come out on the other side of crucifixion. I hope I can show why.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I can write that as God is by definition eternal, and thus, that the life of God was always that of begetting the Son. The essence of God always involved this begetting of the Son, and therefore always included the union of the divine and human in one man, Jesus of Nazareth, and thus, the movement of God eternally included that which was different from God. The divine energy eternally embraced the finite and temporal. As such, eternal divine life included the tension of the opposite of God, that which is finite, temporal, subject to suffering and death and abandonment by God. Such divine movement and energy eternally included the procession of the Spirit in a way that bound Father and Son in mutual and reciprocal love. As such, the role of the Spirit is that of bringing the always anticipated created things into loving relation with the Father and Son. We might be able to imagine this movement and energy within the life of God as always describing the intra-Trinitarian life of God. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">If the above paragraph is something like the eternal and spiritual inner life of God, then God actualizes that inner divine energy and life in the act of creating all things, but especially in beings who bear the image of God. God embraces these beings, you and I, by the fact of our existence, but further, in disclosing the identity of God in revelation. The event of revelation discloses a mystery, doing so through Jesus of Nazareth, which in itself verifies the activity of God in Abraham and his clan, among the Hebrew tribes and their liberation from Egypt and establishment of life in Canaan, the emergence of Israel and its kings, its judgment and renewal in exile, and finally in the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus himself led a Spirit-endowed ministry of teaching and gathering disciples that would lead to his suffering and death by crucifixion. He would experience abandonment from the Father, even as he had committed his life to the Father. In doing so, he identified himself with the extreme abandonment and loneliness many human beings experience. The Spirit who empowered him in life gave him resurrected life, revealing that he was indeed eternally the Son. The life-giving Spirit continues the eternal divine energy and movement toward bringing all things into the loving embrace of the Trinitarian life of God. Those who turn toward this event of revelation with faith engage in a life-long journey of love toward God and toward all that God has created. They also look forward with hope toward a future event of redemption, in which finitude and temporality will find fulfillment within the Trinitarian life of God. <o:p></o:p></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-783959912">(Pannenberg 1998, 1991)</w:sdt> (Volume I, the place of the Trinity in dogmatics).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[2]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1526128230">(Pannenberg 1998, 1991)</w:sdt> Volume I, the place of the Trinity in dogmatic teaching).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1101839574">(Hodgson 1994)</w:sdt> (158-9)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="242537102">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> I.1, 469.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn5"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-821422458">(Moltmann 1980, 1981)</w:sdt>, 169.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn6"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[6]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="161678357">(Jenson 1997)</w:sdt> Volume I, 112.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn7"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[7]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="2125499869">(Moltmann 1980, 1981)</w:sdt>, 183.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn8"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[8]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1210874176">(Moltmann 1980, 1981)</w:sdt>, 57-58.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn9"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[9]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="603622259">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> I.1, 364-5.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn10"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[10]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-1634407737">(Moltmann 1980, 1981)</w:sdt>, 198.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn11"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[11]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="360329778">(Hodgson 1994)</w:sdt> 158-9)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn12"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[12]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="713925802">(Jenson 1997)</w:sdt> Volume I, 112)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn13"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[13]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-2012588111">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> I.1, 434-5)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn14"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[14]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-2094618246">(Barth 2004, 1932-67)</w:sdt> I.1, 436-7),<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn15"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[15]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-2136635375">(Jenson 1997)</w:sdt> Volume I, 148-9)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn16"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[16]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="-2127534635">(Pannenberg 1998, 1991)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="ftn17"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in;"><a href="applewebdata://A3C0AD0C-DA00-4892-950A-B36C7C05C349#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style="color: purple;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt;">[17]</span></span></span></a> <w:sdt citation="t" id="1307894954">(Sonderegger 2015)</w:sdt><o:p></o:p></p></div></div>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-47217265908884755532021-01-10T10:24:00.001-08:002021-01-10T10:24:36.281-08:00Augustine on Political Philosophy in City of God<p> <span> <span> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">I want to raise the question of the church in relationship to its culture. In fact, Wolfhart Pannenberg (</span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">“</i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">Kingdom of God and the Church,” 1967, in</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">Theology and the Kingdom of God, </i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">1969) notes that one can understand the church only in relationship to the world. For him, too many people take the church seriously by denigrating the world. The relationship is essential for the authentic vocation of the church. In fact, the very concept of a Christian community presupposes an other larger community.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A classic statement of the relationship is in Augustine (<i>City of God, </i>Books 11-22) saying that the city of humanity was one that began with Cain, who served himself, while the city of God is symbolized by Abel. The city of God is traceable through Noah, Abraham, Moses, the children of Israel, David, the prophets, and the church. The church is a witness to this city, for humanity will find its fulfillment in the city of God. The church is far from perfect, for it has within it people who rebel against God. The city of humanity is indifferent toward the purposes of God for the world. Yet, it has within it a people, the city of God, who seek to fulfill the purposes of God. Human civilizations will rise and fall, but the city of God will endure. The enduring problem, of course, is how the two cities relate in history.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In Book V.24, he says that rulers are happy if they rule with justice. They show humility, place their power at the serve the majesty of God, love God more than an earthly kingdom, slow to punish and quick to pardon. They take vengeance on wrong to protect the State and not their personal animosity. They grant pardon in the hope of amendment of the wrong-doer. They compensate severe decisions with gentleness, of their mercy and the generosity of their benefits. Such rulers are happy in hope during this life and happy in reality hereafter, when what we wait for will have come to pass. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In Book XI, Augustine discusses creation. In XI.1, he points out that we long for the City of God with a love inspired by its founder. He wants to discuss the development and end of the earthly city and the heavenly city. They intermingle with each other “in this present transitory world.” In XI.2, he discusses the knowledge of God. As made in the image of God, humanity is near to God, especially in rationality, for humanity shares with the rest of the animals. The mind had to be trained and purified by faith, in order to give humanity greater confidence in its journey towards the truth along the way. He stresses that the Son of God, who is the Truth, took human nature without abandoning divinity, and thus established this faith. In XI.4, he puzzles as to why God decided to make heaven and earth at that particular time, and not before. He refers to some people who admit that God created the world, but say it had no beginning in time, so that creation becomes an eternal process. He admits that this view has force, in that it avoids the notion of creation being an arbitrary act, as if the idea had never occurred before. In XI.6, he stresses that God did not create in time. Rather, God created with time. In XI.9, in a discussion of angels, he says that angels who turn away from God are impure spirits. Since they no longer participate in the divine light, they become darkness. As a result, evil is not a “positive substance,” but rather the loss of good. In <i>Enchiridion </i>4, he says that what is called evil is really the privation of good. All of this is similar to Plotinus (<i>Enneads, </i>3, 2. 5), when he said that evil is the lack of good. In XI.10, he says that the reason one calls a nature simple is that it cannot lose any attribute it possesses, there is no difference between what it is and what it has. In XI.17, he says that evil choices make wrong use of good natures, while God turns evil choices to good use. In XI.18, he says that the beauty of the universe becomes richer through the opposition of contraries. God would never have created humanity in the foreknowledge of its future evil state, if God had not known at the same time how God would put such creatures to good sue, and thus enrich the course of the world history by the kind of antithesis that gives beauty to a poem. An antithesis is the same as opposition or contra-position. Such contraries add to the beauty of speech. In the same way, there is beauty in the composition of the history of the world arising from the antithesis of contraries, a kind of eloquence in events, instead of in words. In XI.21, he says that God does not experience time in the way do, as if God were to look ahead to the future, look directly at the present, and look back to the past. God does not have to turn to give attention to something. God sees all without any kind of change. God comprehends it all in a stable and eternal present. God does not give attention to one thought and then another. Rather, all things that God knows are present at the same time. God knows events in time without any temporal acts of knowledge, just as God moves events in time, without any temporal motions within the divine self. In XI.22, he warns us not to indulge in silly complaints about the state of affairs in the world. Rather, we are to take pains to inquire what useful purposes are served by things. Our insight or staying power of thought may give us answer, but if not, we need to trust that the purpose is hidden to us. He again states that nothing by its nature is evil. For evil is a privation of good. The reason for the creation of the universe was the good purpose of God to create good. In XI.23, he says that God, out of divine goodness, created good things. In XI.24, he offers his statement of faith that the Father has begotten the Word, that is, the Wisdom by which all things have been made, his only-begotten Son, one begotten of one, eternal, supremely good. He believes that the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, the Son being consubstantial and co-eternal with both. This totality is a Trinity in respect of the distinctive character of the persons, and is also one God in respect of the inseparable divinity, just as it is one Omnipotent in respect of the inseparable omnipotence; but with this provision, that when the question is asked about each individual the reply is that each is God and Omnipotent, whereas when the question is about all at the same time they are not three Gods or three Omnipotents, but one God omnipotent. Such is the inseparable unity in persons; and this is how that unity of wills to be proclaimed. In XI.26, he points out that as beings in the image of God, human beings are distant parallels to the divine Trinity. We resemble the divine Trinity in that we exist, we know that we exist, and we are glad of this existence and knowledge. In a way that Descartes would later pick up upon, he says that the certainty that I exist, that I know it, and that I am glad of it, is independent of any imaginary and deceptive fantasies. He refers to skeptics, who would say, “Suppose you are mistaken.” His reply would be, “If I am mistaken, I exist.” After all, a non-existent being cannot make a mistake. Therefore, I must exist, if I am mistaken. Then since my being mistaken proves that I exist, how can I be mistaken in thinking that I exist, seeing that my mistake establishes my existence? Since therefore I must exist in order to be mistaken, then even if I am mistaken, there can be no doubt that I am not mistaken in my knowledge that I exist. It follows that I am not mistaken in knowing that I know. For just as I know that I exist, I also know that I know. Further, when I am glad of those two facts, I can add the fact that gladness to the things I know, as a fact of equal worth. For I am not mistaken about the fact of my gladness, since I am not mistaken about the things that I love. Even if there were illusory, it would still be a fact that I love the illusions. For how could I be rightly blamed and forbidden to love illusions, if it were an illusion that I loved them? However, since in fact their truth is established, who can doubt that, when they are loved, that love is an established truth? Moreover, it is as certain that no one would wish himself not to exist as it is that no one would wish himself not to be happy. For existence is a necessary condition for happiness. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In XVIII.1, Augustine summarizes the first seventeen books. In the first ten books he refuted the enemies of the City of God, who honor their own gods about Christ, the founder of that City, and display a bitter hatred of the Christians, with a rancor most ruinous to themselves. Next, he wrote about the origin, development, and the destined ends of the two cities. One is the City of God and the city of this world. The City of God lives in the city of the world, but lives there as an alien sojourner. This City did not proceed on its course in this world in isolation. In fact, as we well know, just as both the cities started together, as they exist together among humanity, so in human history they have together experienced in their progress the vicissitudes of time. The City of God developed not in the light, but in the shadow. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In Book XIX, Augustine discusses the opposing ends of the two cities. They endeavor to create happiness for themselves amidst the unhappiness of this life. He wants to clarify the difference between the hollow realities of the city of earth and the hope of those in the City of God. In XIX.4, he says that the first task of an individual is that one be reconciled to oneself and for that reason naturally shun death. One should be a friend to oneself, and thus desire to live. In XIX.5, he agrees that human life is social, but there are so many disorders of love in society. Even peace is a doubtful good, since we do not know the hearts of those with whom we wish to maintain peace, and even if we could know them today, we should not know what they might be like tomorrow. In XIX.12, he notes that just as there is no one who does not wish for joy, so no one does not wish for peace. Even when people choose war, their only wish is for victory, which shows that their desire in fighting is for peace with glory. For what is victory but the conquest of the opposing side? When it is achieved, there will be peace. Even wars, then, are waged with peace as their object, even when they are waged by those who are concerned to exercise their warlike prowess, either in command or in the actual fighting. Hence, it is an established fact that peace is the desired end of war. For everyone is in quest of peace, even in waging war. Whereas no one is in quest of war when making peace. In fact, even when people wish a present state of peace to be disturbed they do so not because they hate peace, but because they desire the present peace to be exchanged for one that suits their wishes. All people desire to be at peace with their own people, while wising to impose their will upon those people’s lives. For even when they wage war on others, their wish is to make those opponents their own people, if they can, to subject them, and to impose on them their own conditions of peace. In XIX.14, he says that the humanity makes of temporal things is related to the enjoyment of earthly peace in the earthly city, whereas in the Heavenly City it is related to the enjoyment of eternal peace. So long as a member of the Heavenly City is in this mortal body, he or she is a pilgrim in a foreign land, away from God. Therefore, one walks by faith, not by sight. That is why one views all peace, of body or of soul, in relation to that peace that exists between human beings as mortals and immortal God, so that one may exhibit an ordered obedience in faith in subjection to the everlasting Law. Now God teaches two chief precepts, love of God and love of neighbor. In them, humanity finds three objects for love God, self, and neighbor. One who loves God is not wrong in love self. It follows that one will be concerned the the neighbor should love God, since one is told to love the neighbor as oneself, and the same is true of one’s concern for one’s wife, children, and other members of the household, and for all other people, so far as is possible. For the same end, one will wish the neighbor have concern for his or her own self. For this reason, one will be at peace, so far as lies in one, with all people, in that peace among people, that ordered harmony, and the basis of this order is the observance of two rules. First, to do no harm to anyone, and secondly, to help everyone whenever possible. To begins with, then, a person has a responsibility for one’s own household. This is where domestic peace starts, the ordered harmony about giving and obeying orders among those who live in the same house. For the orders are given by those who are concerned for the interests of others. Thus, the husband gives orders to the wife, parents to children, masters to servants. In XIX.15, he discusses natural freedom and the slavery caused by sin. He begins by pointing out that in creation, the intent of God was that human beings would exercise lordship over irrational beasts only, but not over another human being. Therefore, the first cause of slavery is sin, whereby human beings were subjected to another human being in the condition of bondage. This can only happen by the judgment of God, with whom there is no injustice and who knows how to allot different punishments according to the deserts of the offenders. Yet, masters are not free people. However, in that order of peace in which people are subordinate to others people, humility is as salutary for the servants as pride is harmful to the masters. Yet, by nature, in the condition in which God created people, no one is the slave either of humanity or of sin. Slavery is ordained by that law that enjoins the preservation of the order of nature. That explains the admonition of Paul to slaves, that they should be subject to their masters, and serve them loyally and willingly. What he means is that if they cannot be set free by their masters, they themselves may thus make their slavery, in a sense, free, by serving not with the slyness of fear, but with the fidelity of affection, until all injustice disappear and all human lordship and peace is annihilated, and God is all in all. In XIX.16, he says that this being so, even though ur righteous fathers had slaves, they so managed the peace of their households as to make a distinction between the situation of children and the condition of slaves in respect of the temporal goods of this life. Yet, in the matter of the worship of God, in whom we must place our hope of everlasting goods, they were concerned for all the members of their household. However, if anyone in the household is, through disobedience, an enemy to the domestic peace, one is reproved by a word, or by a blow, or any other kind of punishment that is just as legitimate, to the extent allowed by human society. However, this for the benefit of the offender, intended to readjust him or her to the domestic peace from which one had broken away. For just as it is not an act of kindness to help people, when the effect of the help is to make one lose a greater good, so it is not a blameless act to spare one, when by so doing you let one fall into a greater sin. Hence, the duty of anyone who would be blameless includes not only doing no harm to anyone but also restraining one from sin or punishing one’s sin, so that either one who is chastised may be corrected by one’s experience, or others may be deterred by one’s example. One’s house ought to be the beginning part of the city, and every beginning is directed to some end of its own kind, and every component part contributes to the completeness of the whole of which it forms a part. The implication is quite apparent, that domestic peace contributes to the peace of the city. The ordered harmony of those who live together in a house in the matter of giving and obeying orders, contributes to the ordered harmony concerning authority and obedience obtaining among the citizens. Consequently, it is fitting that the father of a household should take one’s rules from the law of the city, and govern the household in such a way that it fits in with the peace of the city. In XIX.17, a household of human beings whose lie is not based on faith is in pursuit of an earthly peace based on the things belonging to this temporal life, and on its advantages, whereas a household of human beings whose life is based on faith looks forward to the blessings that are promised as eternal in the future, making use of earthly and temporal things like a pilgrim in a foreign land, who does not let oneself be taken in by them or distracted from one’s course towards God, but rather treats them as supports that help hone more easily to bear the burdens of “the corruptible body that weights heavy on the soul” in Wisdom 9:15, they must on no account be allowed to increase the load. Thus, both kinds of people and households alike make use of the things essential for this mortal life, but each has its own very different end in making use of them. So also the earthly city, whose life is not based on faith, aims at an earthly peace, and it limits the harmonious agreement of citizens concerning the giving and obeying of orders to the establishment of a kind of compromise between human wills about the things relevant to mortal life. In contrast, the Heavenly City must make use of this peace also, until this mortal state, for which this kind of peace is essential, passes away. It leads to what we may call a life of captivity in this earthly city as in a foreign land, although it has already received the promise of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit as a kind of pledge of it. Yet, it does not hesitate to obey the laws of earthly city by which those things that are designed for the support of this mortal life are regulated. The purpose of this obedience is that, since this mortal condition is shared by both cities, a harmony may be preserved between them in things that are relevant to this condition. While this Heavenly City is on pilgrimage in this world. It takes no account of any difference in customs, laws, and institutions. Thus, even the Heavenly City in her pilgrimage here on earth makes use of the earthly peace and defends and seeks the compromise between human wills in respect of the provisions relevant to the mortal nature of humanity, so far as may be permitted without detriment to true religion and piety. In fact, that City relates the earthly peace to the heavenly peace. In XIX.19, he refers to a life action, in which achievement is right and helpful if it serves to promote the well-being of the common people, for such well being is the intention of God. We see then that it is love of truth that looks for sanctified leisure, while it is the compulsion of love that undertakes righteous engagement in affairs. We should employ our freedom from business in the quest for truth and in its contemplation, while if it is laid upon us, it is to be undertaken because of the compulsion of love. Yet, even in this case the delight in truth should not be utterly abandoned, for fear that we should lose this enjoyment and that compulsion should overwhelm us. In XIX.20, he refers to the happiness that hope brings in this life. In XIX.21, he discusses the notion that justice unites people into an associate by a common sense of right. Without it, we would have only a mob. Where there is no justice, there is no commonwealth. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In the City of God, Augustine seizes on the lust for domination that he says characterizes the Earthly City. Once established in the minds of the powerful, how can that lust for mastery rest until, by the usual succession of offices, it has reached the highest power? The answer is the arrogant not rest until they have achieved dominion. This restless love for power explains the sway of history’s great empires and Rome’s hegemony over Augustine’s own world. Indeed, love and conflict are central to Augustine’s discussions of politics. In terms of slavery, government, and property, Augustine is relatively uninterested in a question about government that was of central concern to both Plato and Aristotle: which form of government is best? Unlike Plato and Aristotle, Augustine is uninterested in the historical and social processes by which one regime is typically transformed into another. Augustine is interested in the rationale for a human relationship. He observes that some human beings have the authority to govern or to control the actions of others by the use of coercion. This is unnatural. He then asks how such an authority relationship came to be and what ends it serves. His answer is that it exists only because human beings are sinful creatures who need to be humbled and restrained by force and the threat of force. What is significant is Augustine’s use of traditional ideas about slavery to explain government. Augustine says that human beings are naturally social. They have a common origin in Adam and because of this common origin they are naturally drawn together by bonds of sympathy and kinship. Indeed, he remarks that there is no species so naturally social as humanity. What is it about sin that makes Augustine think political authority exists because of it? The psychological disorder that is symptomatic of our sinfulness makes it difficult for any of us to live in peace with ourselves and others. The human tendency to conflict is so strong that peace could not be brought about if groups were governed only by parental power. Augustine says the earthly city desires an earthly peace, and it limits the harmonious agreement of citizens concerning the giving and obeying of orders to the establishment of a kind of compromise between human wills about the things relevant to mortal life. Their authority comes ultimately from God, who ordained political authority as a remedy for sin. Augustine’s treatment of property is consistent with other Patristic writers in thinking that the division of property is not natural. Augustine continues that one of the functions of laws of property is to protect unjust possession so that those using their property badly become less injurious than they would otherwise be. Those who make bad use of the property to which they are legally entitled do so because of their strong attachment to material goods. Their attachment is so powerful that they would steal or illegally retain the things they wanted if the laws required them to give them up when they used them badly. Laws that allow the unjust to retain possession of property thus keep them from obstructing the faithful by their evil deeds. So strong an attachment to finite goods is an affective disorder that results from human sinfulness. Therefore the fact that sinful human beings have an undue love for material things is what explains the feature of private property. What is it about political authority that makes Augustine think it would not have existed if human beings were not sinful? The answer is that for Augustine, the most salient feature of political authority is just that feature an authority would have to have in order to govern a society of people all of whom are constitutionally prone to conflict: the authority to coerce them. In comparing Augustine, Cicero, and Rome, the notion that political subjection is akin to slavery is weak. First, few societies maintain peace through forms of coercion that bear any resemblance to the treatment of slaves. His study of history should have taught him that peace in any society depends on a large measure of voluntary compliance. Secondly, political society exists to bring about some degree of justice. The fact that societies are perceived by their members to do so helps to explain why the members of those societies comply with the demands of the social order. Thirdly, it might be thought, it is precisely because political societies effectively aim at justice that citizens, especially citizens who are active in political affairs, realize important elements of the human good. Cicero stressed the second and third of the points. Augustine takes a strong stand against that tradition. Augustine is sometimes labeled a positivist or political realist. Positivists in the philosophy of law maintain that some precept counts as a law in virtue of having been enacted or posited in the right way. Immediately after offering his own definition of a people as a multitude in agreement on the objects of their love, Augustine continues that the objects of this agreement, the better the people; the worse the objects of this love, the worse the people. Augustine does not believe that various aspects of political life are beyond any ethical assessment. What he does believe is that the moral assessment of political authorities turns crucially on how they try to bring about earthly peace. The moral assessment of the peace they establish depends upon its terms. Augustine had modest hopes about what public officials can accomplish and so he has modest hopes for politics. In justifying warfare, at least some forms of violence may be justifiable if they proceed from a heart that loves rightly. Augustine argues that laws that permit the use of force to defend oneself, and perhaps another, against unjust attack are not unjust laws, laws may permit lesser evils to prevent greater ones. If Augustine is to argue that Christians may participate in war, he must argue both that the legal actions declaring war are morally acceptable and that Christians are permitted or obliged to obey them. The first he establishes by arguing that wars may be waged in self-defense, if another nation refuses to return property it has unjustly appropriated or if it refuses to rectify injustices. The second he establishes with the qualified assertion that soldiers are obliged to fight a war that has been declared by lawful authority. In terms of the continuing significance of Augustine’s political thought, the force of his theological critique depends upon the alternative social model that he develops, the City of God. That city serves as a social ideal the rightly ordered love, peace, and justice of which no earthly society can realize. It is an ideal by comparison with which every earthly city must suffer. He therefore uses the City of God as a standard against which actual political societies, especially the great empires, can be measured and found wanting. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"> In setting up this situation, as Pannenberg (<i>Human Nature, Election, and History, </i>1977) points out, Augustine is defending Christianity from the charge that it brought about the downfall of the Empire. He argues that Christians will make their contribution to the political and economic order of a peaceful and just society, but that war is part of human history, and Christianity should not be blamed for that. Although the intellectual achievement of Augustine was impressive, it came at the price of a form of dualism between the “kingdom of God” and the world. He lost the “coming” nature of the reign of God, as it steadily became identified with the church itself. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Robert E. Webber (<i>Who Gets to Narrate the World? </i>2008) discusses the three ways that sociologists generally discuss the relationship in relationship to society. One is the separatists or those who think of the church as opposed to the secular world, who argue for a countercultural understanding of the church. The two “cities” are in antithesis. Christians are to live one city, the city of God, and not the other, the city of humanity. The Amish, Mennonite, and Brethren traditions have their own way of living out of this antithesis. Two is the identifiers or those who think of the church as part of that world, who argue that we live in both cities simultaneously. We live in constant tension between service to God and the expectations of our own service in the city of humanity in which we find ourselves. Three is the transforming agents of that world, who argue that the goal of the reign of God is to convert the the city of this world into the rule of God. Medieval Christendom brought both “cities' under the pope. John Calvin attempted to bring church and state together. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One of the books that has shaped the way many pastors think about the relationship between the church and culture is the book by H. Richard Niebuhr, <i>Christ and Culture </i>(1951). He notes that we need to be careful in defining what we mean by “Christ” when we set up such an antithesis. For him, “Christ” means the one preached and proclaimed in particular types of Christian communities. He defines these communities in relationship to how they envision Christ in relationship to the culture in which they exist. Now, any of the five responses of a community to its culture could be appropriate as a response. Thus, some communities, like Tertullian, Epistle of Barnabas, Mennonites, Quakers, the Rule of St. Benedict, have a view of the community “against” culture. In this approach, the line between the community and culture is quite thick, almost a wall of separation. Now, some cultures may be so evil that this is an appropriate response, but the community had better be very careful, or else it will become like the Amish communities in America. At the other end, represented by the Christian liberal theology of Schliermacher and Ritschl, as well as the Deists like Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, is a view of the community as “of” culture. It assumes much symmetry between the community and culture, in the sense that the culture largely supports the values of the church. The problem here for the community is that as supportive as the culture may be, it is not the reign of God on earth. The community will always need to discern prayerfully the values of a culture in light of biblical values. In between these two extremes he finds three other ways a community relates to culture. One, represented by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, has the community “above” culture, in that Christian reflection represents a synthesis of biblical teaching and cultural influences. When a breakdown of the culture occurs, as it did at the beginning of the Medieval period, the church stood in the breach and held European life together in a synthetic way. Two, represented by Martin Luther, Reinhold Niebuhr, Ernst Troeltsch, Kierkegaard, Augustine, sees the paradoxical relationship between Christ and culture, and is in a sense a dualist approach. The relationship between the community and culture is an uneasy one, to say the least. Three, represented by Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, and Edwards, is that of the “transformation” of culture, and it thus has a conversionist stance. The point is to steadily bring culture toward the light that the community sees in Christ. The involvement of the church in America in abolition and later Civil Rights, prohibition, women's right to vote, and prison reform, are examples of such an approach. It recognizes that while the culture will never fully reflect the values of the community, there may be specific areas where it can, in a sense, get closer. Although Niebuhr does not recommend any of his typologies, readers generally assume the superiority of transforming culture, regardless of whether one is liberal or conservative politically. Niebuhr himself encourages people to do the responsible and realistic thing, reading the culture properly, and then determining the proper response, which he assumes will be one of the five typologies he presented. He assumes that the individual Christian will have a certain degree of reasonableness, rationality, and even detachment, in order to make such a judgment. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Before I examine a bit more closely what Niebuhr has said, I would to mention another influential work, that of John Howard Yoder (<i>The Politics of Jesus, </i>1972). What he adds to this discussion, from his Mennonite and classical Anabaptist perspective, is that Jesus needs to the “norm” of any Christian ethic. For him, this means Jesus as a nonviolent zealot, who sought political reformation through nonviolent means. In response to criticism of this position, he says that what is of concern is the politics, so whether Jesus was actually a sage, rabbi, or wisdom teacher does not affect the political effect, which is his primary concern. His book is largely an exploration of the New Testament foundation for this proposition. For him, the cross is central to the ethic of Jesus, and therefore to how Christians ought to act in culture. This willingness to accept the cross as followers of Jesus is central to his proposal, especially since the “powers” of this world are “fallen,” and therefore always require of the Christian resistance. Adherence to the “norm” of Jesus will give the Christian community to oppose the “powers,” whether they be economic, cultural, or political. Any alignment of the church with the “powers” of this world is a denial of the “norm” of Jesus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Yoder has established a methodology that leads to viewing the church as opposed to the secular world. As Pannenberg (“Kingdom of God and the Church,” 1967) points out, opposition is a type of relationship that determines an understanding of the church. It has an element of the truth, but taken in isolation, it becomes false. It tends to contradict itself by regarding the opposition as essential for a true understanding of the church, when in reality, it must presuppose a relationship. Further, the idea of opposition neglects the universalist thrust in the notion of the reign of God, a thrust present in the message of Jesus that, for Pannenberg, is central to the mission of the church. For me, such an emphasis upon opposition suggests that the Christian community needs to be pure, and the only way it can do so is disengage from the culture in which the community finds itself. It is also a denial of the ways in which God may be active in culture. Yoder also assumes that what Jesus did in first century Judaism, under Roman occupation, is an absolute that Christians in every age must follow. I want to explore all of this after I have explored some significant critiques of Niebuhr. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A strong reaction has set in against the typology of Niebuhr. One example is Craig A. Carter, <i>Rethinking Christ and Culture: A Post-Christendom Perspective </i>(2006). It becomes rather clear that Carter is upset that he would fit into the first type, that of setting the community “against” culture. Although he does not explicitly say this, for him, the only response of “radical discipleship” is to be against culture, to bear the cross of such discipleship, regardless of the culture in which one lives. In order to justify this course of action, he must tell a story of “Christendom” and “Western Civilization” that paints it as largely an evil presence in the world. Carter gathers in the heavy artillery. He values John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas in particular. His critique of Niebuhr is that he assumes the notion of cultural Christendom. It is the “unexamined” background of his book. Yet, Carter’s own Anabaptist and Mennonite assumptions seem quite unexamined as well. His point is that whole history of the rise of Christendom was a bad idea, one that the Christians who engaged in it should have known if they had just paid attention to the gospel. Therefore, bishops would not have worked with Constantine and the emperors after him. Had this not happened, the practice of infant baptism would not have arisen, the use of coercion to make others Christian would not have happened, colonialism would not have happened, and the list goes on. He thinks it was “unsuccessful.” Yet, it persisted, in his understanding, in one form or another, from the fourth century to the 1960's. I guess longevity counts for nothing. He grudgingly admits that it was not all for nothing, in that the church had some positive influence upon caring for the poor and other ways. Yet, for him, the history is largely negative. His willingness to say that “Constantinianism” and “Christendom” are largely the same thing is another attempt to create a negative evaluation of 1600 years of history. I do not want to engage in dissecting this notion, but it has been customary since at least the 1960's to deplore the Constantianian epoch. For example, Pannenberg (<i>Human Nature, Election, and History, </i>1977) notes that this tendency considers the period the downfall of the moral authority of the church, since it united with the Empire and thereby was no longer the church of the martyrs. He grants that the historian has much evidence to support the charge. First century Christianity likely viewed the Roman Empire as the last and worst world empire. However, Origen argued against Celsus that if Christianity would become the dominant faith of the empire, it would not lead to the destruction of the empire. Rather, the peace that Rome brought to this part of the world met a counterpart in the peace that Christ seeks to bring. Eusebius, an early author of the church, sought a unity between Christianity and State. Richard Tarnas (<i>The Passion of the Western Mind, </i>1991) says the church became the only institution capable of sustaining some semblance of social order and civilized culture in the West, and the bishop of Rome, as the traditional spiritual head of the imperial metropolis, gradually absorbed many of the distinctions and roles previously possessed by the in fact, the Western church assumed an extraordinarily universal authority in medieval Europe. The Roman Church became not just the religious counterpart to the Empire, but its historical successor. Rome the persecutor became Rome the defender, progressively uniting itself with the church. My point is that although a church of the martyrs sounds morally superior to a church of the empire, I am not sure that long term, a church that tries to exert its emphasis upon the state and culture might not have long term positive effects. The difficulty, as I will point out, is that coercion, which is the extreme weapon of choice of by political authorities, a weapon that Jesus, Paul, and Peter seem to endorse (the powers of the sword and so on), does not seem fitting in the hands of bishops. In that sense, the two cities idea of Augustine and the two kingdoms idea of Luther become attractive. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Carter grants that the cultural Christendom of modernity has created some positive trends, such as the value of the individual and freedom, it has largely been negative in its colonialism, sexism, slavery, capitalism, and so on. Well, he accuses Niebuhr of being “nice” in his portrayal of the choices between “Christ and Culture.” One cannot accuse Carter of being “nice” to the Christian tradition, to Medieval Europe, or to those Christians who sought to free the church from state establishment. For Carter, there is a narrow strand of faithful Christian witnesses that finally re-stated itself in the Anabaptist movement in the Reformation period and continues on in Kierkegaard to Barth to some extent, but especially in Yoder, Hauerwas, and himself. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Carter offers his own typology for a post-Christian age. For him, Christendom types accept violent coercion, whether they legitimate culture, humanize culture, or transform culture. These types recognize that in this world, every culture will need to exert force in order to defend itself, and Christians need to accept their responsibilities within the culture to do so if necessary. However, non-Christendom types are pacifist, whether they accept the vision of transforming culture (Martin Luther King Jr.), of humanizing culture (Mother Teresa), or separating from culture (Amish). Carter himself does not seem to acknowledge that his own “non-Christendom” positions of pacifism actually assume a degree of tolerance and even acceptance from the culture. In other words, they also must assume some moral symmetry between their community and the culture in which they live. He rightly points out that this typology shows the diversity within the pacifist position. Yet, Carter makes it clear that the only valid, faithful Christian witness is that of pacifism. His concluding chapter, “Jesus or Constantine,” makes it clear the type of choice he thinks Christians of all ages must face. Any choice other than the “non-violent” choice is not one he will accept as the response of a faithful disciple.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">I hope the reader can see the arrogance of the position Carter takes. People like Augustine, Pope Gregory, Duns Scotus, Anselm, Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Billy Graham, have all been placed outside of the realm of genuine discipleship. For me, any approach that does this, while lifting up a small strand of thinking in the history of the church, that of pacifism and the Anabaptist movement, is immediately suspect. Carter writes of the unexamined presupposition of Niebuhr. One of the unexamined presupposition of all brands of pacifism is that culture is largely evil. Culture is part of the fallen “powers” that represent a danger to the Christian community. If you engage culture in an honest dialogue, it will harm the purity of your community. Yet, his brand of “non-Christendom” reactions also assume some symmetry and tolerance from culture. My point is that he has put such a negative read upon his notion of Christendom that the only reasonable discipleship response is to repent of the past and separate in the present. Quite bluntly, culture is not a worthy dialogue partner for someone as “pure” as Craig Carter, Yoder, and Hauerwas. The background assumption of pacifism, however, is that you can only be contaminated by engaging the culture. I think I am right in suggesting this, for this is a violent world. At least, this is what my own brand of Christian realism I learned from the Niebuhr brothers teaches me. As much as any culture may want to avoid violence, if the culture is to defend itself against its enemies, it will need to have the courage to fight. The pacifist of all types is actually calling for the destruction of the culture in which he or she lives. The pacifist is “too good for this world.” Its demands of a perfect civilization will never find realization in this world. The courage to take stands in the midst of ambiguity is not part of the approach that Carter recommends. Pacifism will reign in heaven, but o earth, the courage to fight will always be necessary. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">These are weighty matters before us. It involves us in an attempt to properly “read” a culture, “read” Christ, and then engage in meaningful action and witness in the world. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What Carter calls Post-Christendom is another way of referring to postmodernity. While Christianity had an important role to play in forming modernity, postmodernity is the flowering of the skepticism that modernity always had of Christianity, a skepticism we see present in Deism and in the French Revolution of 1787. We also see judgment of the cultural role that Christianity played within modernity by Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. One might even think of such thinkers as the birthing stage of the postmodern setting in which we now find ourselves. In any case, it might be helpful to see that the view Hamm has of modernity and postmodernity is hardly one that has achieved consensus. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, <i>Resident Aliens </i>(1989), would largely agree with the analysis of Western Civilization and Christendom as provided by Carter. They would sharpen the above discussion of modernity that its fulfillment is Nazi government. The shame of such a statement is that the Nazi movement, along with the Communist movement and the Muslim Militant movement, are violent reactions against modernity, which does indeed have its emphasis upon democratic institutions and scientific methods designed to improve the quality of everyday life. Granting their point that many German liberal theologians joined the Nazis, as did philosopher Martin Heidegger, it does not mean they all did so (many did not). In any case, the authors seem horrified at the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan, not acknowledging that Truman struggled morally and spiritually with this decision and opted for it because of the human cost of invasion. They make it clear that their real objection to the actions of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Truman was that Western Civilization actually defended itself against the threat of the axis powers. Although they acknowledge on the one hand the evil that Nazi and Japanese Empire brought upon the world, they discount the courage showed by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Truman to act against this evil and in defense of Western Civilization as combating evil with evil. Therefore, they reject any form of accommodation to modernity as they define it, and therefore reject the entire project of a theologian like Paul Tillich. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Hauerwas and Willimon go on to criticize the notion of Martin Marty, who thought of the church scene in the 1960's as one of the evangelical community as a “private church” and the liberal theology of the time as “public church.” For them, Reinhold Niebuhr is the great apologist for the public church. Of course, the public church notion assumes symmetry between church and a culture somewhat friendly to the church. There can be little doubt that when culture changes, as all of these authors agree, then the mission and vision of the church needs to change. My point is that Marty and Niebuhr were ministering to their settings with faithfulness, and we need to learn to minister in a new setting. They show how far they reject modernity by rejecting its notion of individual rights. They assume that the state created these rights, when the founders of America said that the rights are from God, and thus the Nation has a responsibility to acknowledging rights that God already gave. As already noted, Tarnas makes it clear that modernity received its valuation of the individual from the Christian notion of the worth of the individual as created in the image of God, and even from the Reformation notion of priesthood of believers. Theologically, then, in creation, God gave independence to human beings, creating them in the image of God, granting them worth and dignity, and granting to them rationality and creativity. Human beings are to join with God in caring for creation and for improving this planet as a home for human beings, both in nature and in its political structures. Thus, Christians can happily see the prevenient grace of God present in the notion of individual rights. However, Hauerwas and Willimon will not go this direction because they want to reject “modernity.” They go on to reject another Niebuhr, this time H. Richard, in his book, <i>Christ and Culture </i>for its subtle repressiveness and suggestion that transformation of culture is a goal of Christian involvement in political life a democracy. I agree, again, that the assumption of H. Richard Niebuhr is that there is some harmony between the goals of culture and the goals of the church. Hauerwas and Willimon, in portraying modernity as the perpetrator of evil, clearly fault the Niebuhr brothers for not seeing it. Personally, I think the negative review they offer of the Niebuhrs reveals the shallow quality of their thinking. I do not fault the Niebuhrs for addressing their times as they were. I will reserve some fault, if we must go down this road, for post-modern church leaders for not perceiving that the times had changed, and then not finding a way to address the needs and language of this new culture. By the way, we can see the pacifist trend of this book in lifting up John Howard Yoder as a better theologian of church and culture than the Niebuhr brothers. As they summarize, for Yoder, the activist church seeks to improve society, the conversionist church seeks to call people out of culture, and the confessing church seeks to create a community that worships Christ in all things. Faithfulness is the goal of the confessing church. It will be a church of the cross in the world. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">What I am suggesting is that those who, like Yoder, Hauerwas, Willimon, and Carter, have clearly taken a political stance in relation to Western Civilization in general and America in particular that is one of opposition. They have laid onto their political stance the label “radical discipleship.” They have offered a read of America and Western Civilization as evil, in the sense that all “powers” are evil, and have then sought at some level to disassociate themselves from their cultural home. The church of the martyrs is a morally superior to the church that sought to work with the Empire in order to stabilize the economic and political order. Minnesota megachurch pastor and theologian Greg Boyd also espouses an Anabaptist message since he renounced his more conventional conservative beliefs in a controversial 2004 sermon series called "The Cross and the Sword" that earned him a 2006 New York Times feature story. He also wrote a popular book called <i>The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church</i>. A younger neo-Anabaptist is self-proclaimed "urban monastic" Shane Claiborne, a thirtysomething popular lecturer whose 2008 book, <i>Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals</i>, likened America to the Third Reich.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Part of the current theological debate that involves both evangelicals and liberals is the extent to which the Mennonite tradition will expand its influence to that of other traditions. In the context of church history, Anabaptists are best known as Mennonites, Brethren, Moravians, and, in their more dedicated forms, Amish. Quakers are sometimes associated with the tradition in outlook though they have separate historical origins. Traditionally Anabaptists are pacifist and separatist from society to varying degrees, foreswearing national loyalties. During the 16th and 17th centuries, Protestant and Catholic governments persecuted them for their perceived theological and political subversion. Many Anabaptists immigrated to colonial America, where they prospered. However, the Anabaptist tradition has often emphasized its history as victim and outsider. Mennonite World Conference chief Larry Miller confessed to the Lutheran reconciliation service: <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">"At times, we have claimed the martyr tradition as a badge of Christian superiority. We sometimes nurtured an identity rooted in victimization that could foster a sense of self-righteousness and arrogance, blinding us to the frailties and failures that are also deeply woven into our tradition."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">This admission is significant because the notion of “radical discipleship” among some Christians equates to the notion that if you do not suffer for your faith, you are not being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Yet, for these authors, and for the many pastors who have followed them, the nature of this “opposition” is not essential to discipleship, even by the way they lives their lives. They receive the blessings of that home, whether they be economic, intellectual, political, or cultural, and yet alienate themselves from their home because it was not a perfect home. They view themselves as too pure, so they encourage rejection of culture. Further, I find this view of this culture narrow and alienating. Spiritually, it disconnects its followers from the prevenient grace of God at work in the past 1600 years. It disconnects its followers from any sense of gratitude for the gifts that this culture has given them. If one writes a story of their cultural home that is only an account of its sins, one can only feel alienated and frustrated. It may seem as if this opposition is a radical form of criticism of the present social reality. As Pannenberg (“The Kingdom of God and the Church,” 1967) points out, it turns out to be the most dreadful and conservative conformity to society. Its social function diverts attention from the human situation into the realms of otherworldly fulfillment. If I might offer an anecdotal conversation with a clergy who was into this mode of thinking, when I suggested that his position would lead not only to the death of Western Civilization, but to his own as well, his response was that it would not bother him if that was the will of God. For me, this conversation is some verification for the statement by Pannenberg that this vision of the church actually allows for its exploitation as one of the social institutions of society. The church must not confuse criticism with aloofness. It must take with great seriousness the present arrangements of society in light of the coming reign of God. The point Pannenberg is making that the church has a responsibility to make every culture an increasingly loving, just, and peaceful place, and that means involvement in its political and economic institutions and willingness to use coercion against criminal elements within and against external threats. Thus, in contrast, I would suggest that the place to begin is love of our home. Yes, our cultural home is not what it can be. The ideals of liberty, peace, and justice are always ahead of this civilization, but they are goals towards most participants in this society find worth and acceptable. The reason that pacifist approaches to reform like that of Ghandi and King work is that they can tap into the core values of this civilization and lead people toward a fuller application of them. Tiananmen Square stands as a witness that a nation and culture that does not have such values is not moved by pacifist witness. The fact that pacifist reform can work within Western Civilization is a testimony in itself of its worth and greatness, as is the willingness of Muslim militants, Communist governments, and Nazis to squash pacifists a testimony to their evil. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The focus on “Jesus” in this group of writers makes of Christ the ultimate basis for a doctrine of the church, which then allows them, as Pannenberg (“Kingdom of God and Church,” 1967) puts it, to exist in “that splendid isolation of religion from society.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The focus of these political attacks upon Western Civilization upon the admitted sins does not acknowledge the progress it has made. For example, Hegel made the point that the ideals of freedom and tolerance arouse out of Christian ideals, as did the ideals of the modern constitutional state, of human rights and especially of freedom. Pannenberg (<i>Ethics, </i>1977) says they represent a tolerant form of the Christian faith that is critical of authority. Such political ideas draw their strength from the continuation of the Christian tradition. Advances in the quality of everyday life of its citizens, deriving legitimacy of governance from the consent of the governed, abolition of slavery, removal of racism, elevating the rights of women, are just a few of the significant advances it has made. Western civilization has created political and cultural institutions that can change as new knowledge arises that gain the consent of the people. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Further, the focus on the sins of Western Civilization is often done in isolation from the sins present in other cultures. The American brand of slavery in the South was evil. Yet, it did not bring slavery to Africa. The tribalism of Africa often led to one tribe making slaves out of another. Colonialism as a program of Western Civilization was sad chapter of that history. Yet, the tribalism it found in Africa was hardly pure. It had its own sins, as did the civilizations of Asia. What often comes across as a form of self-loathing by members of Western Civilization is a denial of the sins that every culture and civilization has in its history. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">The attempt to ground pacifism in the teaching of Jesus is a way of abstracting the historical Jesus from his setting. In fact, these political authors create a “Jesus abstraction” that is somehow to be a norm for Christian behavior in every age and culture. Clearly, Jesus adopted a nonviolent strategy for his immediate followers. We can all be grateful that he did not try to form an army. Yet, given the Roman occupation, it may well be that he sought to provide a way for the Jewish people to avoid the self-destructive path of resistance to the Roman Empire of his time. The history of first century Judaism that led to zealot rebellion and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple suggests that he had some wisdom here. However, in disagreement with Yoder, Paul and Peter suggest that governing authorities have a responsibility to use force to in order to keep the full flowering of human evil at bay. In that sense, governing authority, while imperfect, is hardly so evil that Christians have no responsibility for it, if given the opportunity. It would take several hundred years, with Constantine, before the church would have such an opportunity and responsibility. Very simply, pacifism, given the world in which we live, is a call for the church in the West to assist in the collapse of Western Civilization. Clearly, I do not think this would be a good, either for the church or for humanity. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Pannenberg (“The Kingdom of God and the Church,” 1967) offers a way to think differently about church and world by saying that the primary point of the reference for understanding the church is the reign of God if it is to be faithful to the concern of Jesus. This means that the message of the church has a universalist thrust. The expectation of the reign of God explains the factual inseparability of church and world. The church is true to its vocation in the world when it anticipates and represents the destiny of all humanity and of the goal of history. If we narrow the concern of the church only to opposition, we actually deprive the church of its social significance. If we are not careful, the concern of the church will become the religious needs of some people, needs which a secular culture is leaving to fewer of its numbers. For him, then, the secularizing of the culture that postmodernity represents is a challenge to which the church of this time has not responded. It continues in its present (1960's, for him) stance by being “a hangover from another historical period.” If the church is to respond to this challenge, it will need a new emphasis upon its vocation as an eschatological community “pioneering the future of all humanity.” Now, for me, this is quite prescient. Already in the mid-1960's, Pannenberg was able to see that the transition from a modern to postmodern era had begun, and he proposed a way for the church to respond to the challenge. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For Pannenberg, an emphasis upon the coming reign of God means the church points beyond itself. The coming rule of God over history suggests a form of unity to humanity toward which history is moving. In an addition, this unity is suggested in the notion that if God is “one,” then humanity must also have a unity. Significantly, this unity is not one that can be coerced. It cannot be enforced by violence. Such a forced unity would not testify to the Creator of humanity and world for human nature cannot be ultimately opposed to the Creator and the divine rule. A rule by violence or coercion means that the subjects are by nature opposed to the divine rule. Such a unity would contain the seeds of its own destruction. The only unity consistent with the rule of God is one based on justice and caring for each other. The reign of God will fulfill the social destiny within the emerging unity of humanity, thereby satisfying the needs of each individual as well. The reign of God is the concrete reality of justice and love, concerned with both individual behavior and social institutions. Since the coming reign of God is “coming,” no present arrangement of social institutions can reflect it, and therefore theocratic societies are out of the question in terms of faithfulness to the message of the reign of God. Any political acts by Christians is provisional, of course, but that does not make them irrelevant, for they have an oriented toward a worthwhile goal. The measure of this activity is the movement toward justice and love. The church is itself preliminary to the reign of God, in which, as the conclusion of Revelation makes plain, there will be no “temple” and no “church” as we understand it. Yet, this preliminary, provisional activity of the church on the way to the reign of God does not make it irrelevant. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">For Pannenberg, humanity needs an “honest” or “authentic” institution that will uncover the limitations of all present forms of social and political life, bringing them into contact with the ultimately destiny of humanity in the reign of God. The church is to be that honest place where one can confront the short-comings and limitations of the present life of humanity. It accomplishes this unity through its communion with Jesus, its mission in the world, and its sacramental community. This “critical” function toward society must not succumb to the temptation of severing itself from the problems of society, as the separatist or oppositional understanding of church and society suggests. The presence of the church as a social institution within a culture is a reminder to political life that the present arrangements of society are not the “end” in any meaningful way and the church stirs the imagination for social action that moves society toward the fullness of the reign of God. For Pannenberg, this stirring can occur because the Holy Spirit is a life-giving force in the community and world, offering an anticipation of the joy of the fullness of the reign of God, healing, and counters the trend toward specialization by focusing on wholeness.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">To conclude, it seems to me that the stance of the church as one in basic opposition to culture, the Mennonite option that has gotten wider acceptance among many clergy, at least, through the work of Yoder, Sider, Carter, Hauerwas, and Willimon, is not a viable option. It has an entirely too negative read of both modern and postmodern culture. Frankly, if followed by many Christians, it would justly be labeled as the reason for the downfall of Western Civilization in general and America in particular. The violent result of such a fall would rest upon their shoulders. I do not consider the church of the martyrs as more moral than the church that seeks to work with society to create an increasingly loving, peaceful, and just culture. Thus, my judgment is that some form of either simply recognizing the tension or of accepting some form of transformation of the world. In both cases, one would recognize that the political arrangements of any society do not fully reflect what God wants. For that reason, theocracy is not a valid Christian option, or it assumes the imposition of the reign of God on earth through coercion. In any case, such involvement by the church would have the goal of avoiding use of coercion, while also seeking expansion of justice, peace, and love. Coercion could mean soft tyranny that inappropriately restricts the use of personal property, inordinate government taxation, inability to keep spending within receipts, law to inappropriately restrict individual behavior, and so on. It could also refer to more obvious forms of tyranny present in Communist, Fascist, and Radical Muslim states. All of this suggests some form of “Christian realism” and “public theology.” It means that Christians need to be willing to make the tough choices, including war, in order to protect political and economic institutions. If Christians are too pure, too Jesus-like, to make such decisions, then they are, in a sense, too good for this world. They are truly so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good.</span></p>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7402106794978228277.post-4851827693935313992021-01-10T10:20:00.000-08:002021-01-10T10:20:25.796-08:00Augustine on Time in his Confessions<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I would like to explore the notion of time with Augustine in</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Confessions. </i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In 1.6, he makes his first observation concerning time. In God, today never comes to an end, while the human experience of today ends in God. The reason is that time exists in God. If it did not, it would have no means of passing. Since God does not end, “today” is all that God experiences. “The countless days of our lives and of our forefathers' lives have passed by” within one divine today. From the divine today, human days receive their duration and existence. So it will be with all the other days that are still to come. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In Book 11, Augustine begins a discussion of time and eternity. It is worth exploring in some detail, given its influence in the history of philosophy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 11.1, he refers to God as being “outside time in eternity.” Beginning with this assumption, his question is quite pertinent. Is God unaware of the things he says to God? Does God see “in time the things that occur in it?” If God does see them, why does he lay before God this lengthy record of his life? True, the Lord knows what we need before we ask. Yet, “by confessing our own miserable state and acknowledging your mercy towards us we open our hearts to you, so that you may free us wholly, as you have already begun to do. Then we shall no longer be miserable in ourselves, but will find our true happiness in you.” <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> It appears that Augustine has created a problem for himself in that if eternity is so different from the human experience of time, he wonders how God could even communicate with him. He will need to turn himself to this question in a serious way later. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 11.2, he says that his pen is his spokesperson. “Every particle of sand in the glass of time is precious to me,” he notes. He does not wish to allow his time to slip away. He wants the Lord to grant his desire, for he does not desire for himself alone, for his desire is to serve the love he bears to others. No moment of time passes except by divine will. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 11.3, he wants to hear the meaning of the words, “In the beginning God made haven and earth.” The writer wrote these words “and passed into your presence, leaving this world where” God spoke to the writer. The writer is no longer here. He can no longer see the writer face to face. Yet, if he could, he would want more explanation. In 11.4, he notes that the fact that he can see earth and the heavens suggests that they were created. They are subject to change. If anything exists that was not created, there is nothing in it that was not there before there. The meaning of change is that something is there that was not there before. Earth and the heavens proclaim that they did not create themselves. For to make themselves, they would have to exist before their existence began, which would be an absurdity. Therefore, the Lord made them. Since what God has made is beautiful, God must be beautiful. Since what God has made is good, God is good. Since earth and heaven are, God is. Yet, Augustine presses the question in 11.5. By what means did God make heaven and earth? He stresses that we cannot use the analogy of human craft, in which the mind conceives and directs a project by making one thing out of something else. How did God create the heavens and the earth? Simply put, God spoke them into existence. In 11.6, he pursues even further, asking how God spoke. He refers to the Mount of Transfiguration scene, in which the voice of God said, “You are my Son.” At that time, the divine voice sounded and then ceased. It was speech with a beginning and an end. In 11.7, he says that in the divine Word, all is uttered at one and the same itme, yet eternally. If it were not so, the divine Word would be subject to time and change, and therefore would be neither truly eternal nor truly immortal. This Word must be “co-eternal” with God, for God says all at one and the same time, God saying all that God wants to say eternally. By this Word all things have been made. God creates all things by the Word alone. Yet, these things that God has made do not into being at the same time, nor are they eternal. For him, in 11.8, the eternal reason is the divine Word. This Word, in 11.9, is the beginning in which God has made heaven and earth. This divine Word is also divine strength, wisdom, and truth. He admits he is quite different from this Word. Yet, “in so far as I am like it, I am aglow with its fire.” This Word is the is the light of Wisdom, which at times shines upon him, parting the clouds that often obscure his vision. In 11.10, he pursues another question, “What was God doing before God made heaven and earth?” He says they are steeped in error. In 11.11, he wishes their minds could be seized and held steady. They would glimpse the splendor of eternity, “which is forever still.” They would then contrast eternity with time. Time is never still. We cannot compare time with eternity. Time derives its length from a great number of movements constantly following each other into the past, because they cannot all continue at the same time. In eternity, nothing moves into the past. Everything is present. In time, everything cannot happen at once. The past is always driven on by the future. The future always follows on the heels of the past. Both past and future have their beginning and end in the eternal present. He bursts out, that if only the minds of people could be seized and held still. They would see how eternity, in which there is neither past nor future, determines both past and future time. He wants his words to accomplish this task. In 11.12, his answer to those who ask what God was doing before God made heaven and earth is not the “frivolous retort” that God is preparing Hell for people who pry into mysteries. He considers this an effort to evade the point of the question. Such a retort is an effort to make fun of the questioner. The one who has the question deserves a serious answer. Before God made heaven and earth, God made nothing. In 11.13, he points out that the problem with the question is that it assumes eternity is still a progression of time past, and thus, there were ages of idleness before creation. Persons with such a question need to shake off their dreams and think carefully, because the wonder they express behind their question has a basis in a misconception. God is the maker of all time. Even if there was a “time” before God made heaven and earth, God would have “made” that time as well, for time cannot elapse unless God made it. However, if we assume that God made time along with the universe, we have no basis for asking what God was doing before “then,” for there was no “then.” True, God is before time, yet, it would not be appropriate to think that God “precedes” time, in time. If that were so, God would not be before all time. Rather, eternity is supreme over time, and therefore God is at once before all past time and after all future time. What is now the future, once it comes, will become the past. Yet, God is unchanging. The years of God do not come and go. Human years pass and other come after them, so that they all may come in their turn. Divine years are completely present, because they are at a “permanent standstill.” they do not move, forced to give way before the advance of others, because they never pass at all. Human years will all be complete only when they have all moved into the past. Divine years are one day, today, because the divine today “does not give place any tomorrow, nor does it take the place of any yesterday.” The divine today is eternity. God made all time. God is before all time. Therefore, the time, if such we call it, when there was no time, was not time at all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 11.14, Augustine makes it clear that no time can be co-eternal with God, because God does not change. Yet, if time never changed, it would not be time. What then is time? He warns us that there is no quick and easy answer. He finds it difficult to understand what it is, let alone find words to explain it. Yet, few words are as familiar as time. We seem to know what it is. Yet, he says, if someone asks him what it is, he is baffled. He is confident of this: if nothing passed, there would be no past time, if nothing were going to happen there would be no future time, and if nothing were, there would be present time. His puzzlement begins immediately, however, for of these three aspects of time, how can past and future “be,” when the past no longer is and the future is not yet? As for the present, if it were always present and never moved on to become the past, it would not be time but eternity. Now, if the present is time only because it moves on to become the past, it also “is” not. In other words, he says, “we cannot rightly say that time 'is,' except by reason of its impending state of “not being.” In 11.15, Augustine pursues the notion of duration. When we say a long time or a short time, we refer to the past or to the future. Yet, how can anything which does not exist be either long or short? The past “is” no more and the future “is” not yet. We would increase our accuracy if we would say that it “was” a long time or “will be” short time. Still, when we refer to a long time in the past, do we mean that it was when it was already past or before it became the past and was still the present? It could only to long when it was there to be long. One it was past it “is” no longer. If it no longer was, it could be long. We could only be speaking of a time when it was present. Yet, we need to pursue the question of whether the present time can be long, for we have the ability to feel and measure intervals of time. We could speak of the “present” century, of course, but some of the years of this century are in the past, and some are in the future. We could speak of the “present” year, but run into the same problem. Some of the year is past, and some of the year is future. We could speak of the “present” day, but the same problem remains. Thus, we can see that a century, a year, a day, is not “present.” The difficulty in all of this is that the “present” cannot possibly have duration. In 11.16, he points to the human experience of awareness of periods of time. Our use of language suggests it. We compare them one with another, some being longer and some being shorter. We calculate how much loger or short one period is from another. If we measure them by our own awareness of time, we must do so while it is passing, for no one can measure it either when it is past or future. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 11.17, he says that that he has presented only tentative theories, rather than downright assertions. In his childhood, he learned of past, present, and future. However, some people might say there “is” only present, since neither past nor future exist. Another might suggest that past and future do exist, but that time emerges from some secret refuge when it passes from the future to the present, and goes back into hiding when it moves from the present to the past. This might explain prophecy. It might also explain why people can describe the past, since they can “see” it in their minds. Thus, our conclusion must be that past and future do “exist.” In 11.18, he wants to explore where the past and future “are,” if they do in fact exist. Now, if the past no longer “is” and the future “is” not yet, then the only place either can “be” is in the present. At this point, he explores the notion of memory. When we describe the past, what we are describing is the words based on our memory-pictures of the facts of the past. When they happened, they left an impression on the mid, by means of our sense-perception. His own childhood no longer exists and is in the past, which also no longer exists. However, he remembers those days and describes them, it is in the present that he pictures them to himself, because their picture is still present in his memory. He is not sure whether some similar process enables the future to be “seen.” Yet, he knows that general we think abut what we are going to do before we do it. This preliminary thought is in the present, whereas the action that we premeditate does not yet exist, since it is future. When we start to act upon the preliminary thought, it becomes present. The mind forms of a concept of things that are still future, and is thus able to “predict” them. The future is not yet, and thus, “is” not at all and cannot be “seen.” It can be foretold from things that are present, because they exist now and can therefore be seen. In 11.19, he wonders how God reveals the future to people. It may be that God only reveals present signs of things that are to come. In 11.20, it might be correct to say that there are three time, a present of past things (memory), a present of present things (perception), and a present of future things (expectation). Such different things exist only in the human mind. He will accept the common language use of three periods of time, but he also says that “our use of words is generally inaccurate and seldom completely correct, but our meaning is recognized note the less.” In 11.21, he reminds us that he recently stated that we measure time as it passes. We know this because we do in fact measure time. While we are measuring it, where is it coming from, what is it passing through, and where is it going? It can only be coming from the future, passing through the present, and going into the past. It is coming out of what does not yet exist, passing through what has no duration, and moving into what no longer exists. Yet, we must have some measurable period against which we measure time. In 11.22, he says that his “mind is burning to solve this intricate puzzle.” The word “time” is often on our lips. How long did he speak? How long is it since I have seen it? This syllable is twice the length of that. We seem to know what we mean, yet, their true meaning is concealed from us. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> At this point, I want to pause and consider if the rather primitive notion of language that Augustine proposes in Book 1 is not failing him here. He puzzles over time because it does fit the rather limited use of words as referring to things that he has already expressed. To what “thing” could the words past, present, and future possibly refer? I think it quite possible that he another understanding of language in order to solve the intricate puzzle he has set for himself.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 11.23, Augustine objects to the idea that time is nothing more than the movement of sun, moon, and stars. He did not agree, although it might be more accurate that time is what moves the heavenly bodies. If the movement of the heavenly bodies ceased, would time cease? Of course, by their movements, as Genesis 1:14 says, we mark time, day from night, and the passing of days. The problem he has before himself is to discover the fundamental nature of time and what power it has. Thus, another biblical story, in Joshua 10:13, has a man stopping the movement of the sun so that the battle could go on. Time is an extension of some sort, he thinks. Yet, does he really see this or only seem to see it? In 11.24, he notes that no material body moves except in time. Therefore, time cannot be the movement of a material body. Rather, we measure the movement of a material body by time. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> In 11.25, he admits that he still does not know what time is. Yet, he is aware that he is saying this time, that he has been writing about time for a long time, and that this time would not be long were it not passing. He knows all this, while not know what time is. However, he might know what time is, but not know how to put it into words. He admits that he is in a sorry state, for he does not even know what he does not know. In 11.26, he admits that he can measure time, but he does not know what he measures. Time seems to be merely an extension, though of what it is an extension he does not know. He begins to wonder if it is an extension of the mind itself. In 11.27, he explains that the length of a sound or a syllable is something that occurs because we have memory of its beginning and end. Therefore, it is his own mind that he measures time. He must not allow his mind to insist that time is something objective. He measures time in his mind. Everything that happens is an impression in the mind, and the impression remains after the thing itself has ceased to be. What he measures is the impression in his mind, since it is still present. The thing itself makes the impression as it passes and moves into the past. When he measures time, he is actually measuring this impression in his mind. He then says that either this is what time is, or else he does not measure time at all. If we measure, silence, then, we measure it mentally, not objectively. The attentive mind, which is present, is relegating the future to the past. The past increases in proportion as the future diminishes, until the future is entirely absorbed and the whole becomes past. In 11.28, he reminds us that he has said the future does not exist, so how can the mind actually “do” something to something that does not exist? He says that the attentive mind can do this only by the mind, which regulates this process, performing the three functions of expectation, attention, and memory. It seems common sense to say that the future does yet exist and the past no longer exists. It also seems that the present has no duration. Yet, all of them exist in the mind as expectation, memory, and attentiveness. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 32px; margin: 0in;"> Augustine starts to bring his reflections on time to an end. In 11.29, he says that he looks forward, not to what lies ahead of him in this life will surely pass away, but to his eternal goal. He does want to be distracted from that goal. God is eternal. However, he experiences a division between time gone by and time to come, and its course is a mystery to him. His thoughts, the intimate life of his soul, are torn this way and that in the havoc of change. His life will be like this until he is purified and melted by the fire of divine love and fused into oneness with God. <o:p></o:p></p>George Plastererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339351514467331662noreply@blogger.com0