Author: Andre Coleman

Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity allowed me to understand the past occurrences of psychology and theology. The book displayed the religion and confidence that psychology and Christianity should combine for it to possess a higher understanding and permitting the client a higher probability of healing. So as to do this there should be an entire understanding of every element in and of itself. Entwistle’s (2010) book presented all the facts from history as it has formed society these days. As he mentioned these historic events, it shows simply how the knowledge today may be a reflection or reaction of what happened then. Christianity has invariably had an enormous impact on world history and the way the planet is viewed. The author makes it clear that God offers humans reality and honesty in His Word. When consideration of his works is given his Word has begun to demonstrate an impact on the planet.

The Word of God is the Bible that God created as a guide to living life in the way that God designed to be the best for humankind. Theology and Psychology do not appear to be to be compatible however they are similar when it involves the appreciation and comprehension that enables a person’s life to be meaningful. The planet is filled with individuals that have many abilities to share. God created us in his image therefore that makes each of us distinctive in our own sense. We all have things of our own to share and contribute to the world around us. Theology and Psychology are earnestly applied in human character and human purpose. The author identifies within the book that there are not any dissimilarities between the holy and therefore the worldly person when it involves the truth. Within the hearts of men, good and evil exists; it is our human nature. All are born into sin, being sinful is inevitable.

The author makes a sensible argument when he wrote this book. The incorporation of psychology and theology makes for a nice combination in helping individuals with an assortment of issues. He emphasizes the magnitude within the ever-evolving worldviews towards the last part of the book and the author even provides an example for all to pursue. It would be helpful when aiding clients or daily interaction with others. The practice of integrating the approaches between psychology and Christianity is the result that has taken complete type from psychology and the reality that God has given to humankind (the Bible).

The theories, worldviews and sinful intentions that are established throughout the society can offer certain obstacles for the combination of psychology and Christianity from individual and business views. The main goal of secular psychology and Christianity is to assist people to prevail over any problems or circumstances in their lives. Any recipients of the secularisms and Christianity itself ought to look past their pictures and target the task that helps man through the troublesome times in their lives. The application of theology and psychology will turn out miracles in individual’s lives. It appears as if the aim of this book is to supply universal steerage toward the advancement of humanity’s overall state of being.

Concrete Responses

This information I gained from this book helped me to put a puzzle together that relates to my parent’s marriage. Psychology tries to explain why we as humans do what we do to each other. Christianity shows us how God wants us to treat each other. God gives us a better way.

When I think back to what I witnessed as a child during my parents’ marriage and subsequent divorce was that when God was in the midst of our home, the relationship that my parents had was strong. When God was no longer the center of our lives my parents relationship fell apart and ended in divorce. The impact and the emotional pain of my parents’ divorce are still with my siblings and me to this day.

The psychological and spiritual support that my parents’ needed at that time was not available to them. I remember my Mother saying that she felt like they were abandoned by our church when our family needed their support the most. Our family separated from our church after my parents divorced and it was many years later before any of my family sought out a church home again.

I think we as a society know better now. When you know better you will do better. There is more psychological and spiritual support for families that are in crisis now. I can see the value of what I want to do as a profession, and how I want to help families even more clearly now.

Reflection

The questions that I actually have for the author of this book are:

How do we convince those in need of counseling services to decide on a Christian counselor versus a secular counselor?

How will the concept of Christian counseling grow and flourish in the secular world?

I would think that possibly the best means of promoting Christian counseling would be through word of mouth. “For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.” Acts 22:15 (NKJV) It is important that we are passionate witnesses for God. Many people will rely on word of mouth when they are in search of a professional person or service.

I did not feel that this book was well laid out. It appears to be too academically weighted which means it might reach a wider audience if the words, theories and ideas were a touch more simplistic. I found myself having to look up particular words in order to fully understand what was being discussed. It was quite distracting and time consuming. Somebody with less education than myself would most likely have a troublesome time reading and understanding this book.

Although it is academically heavy, I actually found that it is a resourceful tool and filled with insight regarding the planet and the way we can view theology, psychology and Christianity. Upon finishing the book, I actually gained an abundance of information and would suggest it to others.

Action

When I become a Christian counselor, my approach to reaching my clients will be to consistently depend on the power of prayer, the Holy Spirit and God’s truth in scripture to enable them to make positive changes in their lives.

I will want to share my own personal experiences to help my clients to relate to me and to trust me and to help them to understand that I experience the same challenges as they do in life. Hopefully, I can be an example of love, compassion, understanding, and proof of happier days on the other side of whatever the problem might be that they are dealing with.

Humbling myself before my clients will enable me to serve them as if I were serving God. “As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” 1 Peter 4:10 (NKJV) Serving others with the only purpose of reflecting God’s love and bringing them into His presence could be an invaluable experience that I want to be a part of.

There are a great deal of people in this world of strife that are hurting and in need of comfort and peace. I would like to become someone that God can use to bring this about for his people that he loves so dearly.

Many people find the study of the principals of Christianity to be interesting and even intriguing. For some, however, the interest goes well beyond idle curiosity. For this group of truth seekers, a hunger for knowledge and truth drives them to dedicate years of their lives to the pursuit of deeper and meaningful insight into “what it all means”. They dive into their studies: reading, analyzing, listening, discussing, and debating the issues surrounding creation, divinity, and human relationships with nature, one another, and deity. Though their paths may be diverse, they share the universal hope that their efforts are fruitful; that they are able to tell the story of Jesus Christ, the history of the Christian church, and share the message of a loving Creator in a way that will have a positive impact on humanity and be pleasing to God. This is where my colleagues and I find ourselves today. We are charged with explaining what we have read, heard, learned, and understand, and the magnificent task of doing so with clarity and authority. The greatest challenge of sharing this message of hope, that is both exciting and challenging, is to be able to teach it (and live it) in a way that is not hypocritical or exclusive. While some are passionate and some are curious about the gospel message, there is still an entirely different group of people who are affected by it: those who are ignorant of Christian teachings and those who have negative feelings toward them. It is perhaps the majority of society, whom we should be reaching out to. Those people who are living outside of religion and spirituality are doing so because someone failed to share the message of God with them, or because someone failed to share it effectively. I believe there is more danger in being ineffective in sharing the message than in not sharing it at all.

I grew up a pseudo-Southern Baptist. I say “pseudo” because my family’s attendance at church was very inconsistent. We were faithful to attend church at least once a month, maybe twice in some months. I was never involved in youth activities, vacation bible school, or bible study groups. I did not have a close group of friends within the church. My experience with pew sitting included hellfire and brimstone sermons delivered by preachers who were well-versed in salvation founded in fear rather than faith. It is easy to imagine that, for me, church was not a place where I felt peace or grace. I eventually stopped attending church altogether during my teens. I had not felt any affirmation or nurture during my church experiences, so for a long time, all I felt I was missing was the guilt and fear I associated with church membership. I stayed away for about fifteen years before I felt God calling me to a relationship. Shortly after meeting Christi, who would soon become my wife, we visited the United Methodist Church with our daughters. It was then that I became deeply involved in a bible study for the first time in my life, and so much of the gospel message from my hit-and-miss church attendance finally began to make sense. We began to participate in several church activities with our children, volunteering in youth events, Sunday School activities, mission projects, and small group bible studies. It wasn’t long before I was drafted into the church praise band, leading worship on Wednesday nights and at the early service on Sunday mornings. I had known for a while that I had a desire to serve more fully, but it was through a very unexpected event at church that I was rapidly introduced to full-time ministry. Stepping out on faith, I was hired as the youth minister and soon became a licensed local pastor. This served my purpose temporarily, but it did not provide fully for the kind of education I felt was necessary to preach and teach in pastoral ministry. The more that I learned during this time of rapid growth and awakening, the more I hungered for even more knowledge. My understanding of Christianity and church membership has since changed drastically from the narrow-minded perspective I had maintained throughout my childhood and well into adulthood. My perspective has shifted and my understanding continues to evolve. There are things which had no importance to me at all, that have become priorities. I have grown passionate about social justice and have gained a true appreciation for programs that promote the wellness and interests of women, children and others who are oppressed or marginalized. I have felt a calling to be a voice of support for women in ministry; to support their ministries and ensure that they are fully enabled to accomplish all of the good that they can, particularly in areas of ministry that they can be far more effective than a man could be. I feel strongly about the importance of encouraging inclusiveness in the church. I believe that it is important for all God’s people to have a place to participate in corporate worship. Church membership should not exclude members of the gay and lesbian community, as we all are in desperate need of feeling ever closer to God. There are several mainstream congregations within our communities that would not welcome gay or lesbian individuals into their churches. It is often openly and overtly preached against such blatant sinners becoming church members. I believe that none of our own sins can fairly or accurately be judged. Inclusiveness must be an overriding theme in all areas of the mission field. We are called to go make disciples and since we are all sinners, we would be hard-pressed to make disciples among those who are perfect. Our worship space and our church families should be places that are welcoming and inclusive, rather than rejecting and exclusive. If we are to model ourselves after Jesus, the Christ, we must remember that our savior ate with sinners. In those examples of love and forgiveness, Christ showed us the perfect model. If we are to be like Him, we must remember all those on the fringes; not just those who are victimized, but also those who are marginalized of their own poor choices. I believe that Jesus is my example and I am to model myself after Him. This is my calling.

Prolegomena-

The central theme of the Bible is God calling us, God’s people, back into a relationship with God. If we believe this, then we can only accomplish this restored relationship by ensuring that all of God’s people have not only the chance, but the understanding of what that relationship means. But, for many, the Bible is a strange writing. It is filled with stories and situations and language that are not easily understood. In fact, for many, it is like a foreign language. In addition, as I have come to experience in the world of theological education, there are so many terms that are indecipherable to the common person. We take our knowledge of the Bible and continue to turn it into terms that are still “not user friendly.” I believe that as theologians and faithful followers of Jesus Christ, we have a responsibility to humanity to give our best efforts to share God’s message with others. We are called by God and by the scripture in Matthew to go out and spread the gospel in order that all people may have the Bible accessible to them and to bring the message of scripture interpreted to them in a language that they might understand. When I use the phrase “for the fringes”, I am referring to those who are outside the church. For whatever reason, they do not have any affiliation with a church- possibly from a bad experience, never having been exposed, or disbelief. I believe that this is partially what we are being told in the passage from Matthew 25, “the least of these.” These children of God may be in the far corners of the earth, or in our back yards. They may be from the poorest of society, or they may be in the wealthiest ten percent. They may be pre-teen children, or they may be in the eve of their lives. In any case, I feel as though it is the responsibility of those who know the truth of scripture, the Christian community, to educate in common terms. More specifically, I believe that it is my responsibility, as a response to God’s amazing grace, to make it a priority to share Jesus with everyone that I can, in a language that everyone can understand. Dr. Rieger referenced our God as a “fairly radical God.” [1] This God of creation and liberation is the radical God that can appeal to the masses of those who are believed to be on the fringes, those just outside the church. Some believe that God is only available to those who gather in community and in relationships found within the fellowship and experiences of like-minded persons. We characterize those outside established congregations with terms like “unchurched”, or “underchurched”, or “lost.” The fact that they are not incorporated into an organized body of believers does not make them wrong. Too often the Christian community carries within itself, perhaps even in its doctrines, the belief that God can only be found inside the church. There are some who may even believe that they are the only ones who “do church right.” As theologians, we are faced with the challenge of presenting good God-talk, rather than bad. Unfortunately, many people experience theology as nothing more than another’s unlearned opinion or agenda, which could be limiting, damaging, or complete destruction. It is the responsibility of every person to seek knowledge and to share that knowledge.

The Doctrine of God-

Theology begins and ends with God. In an effort to firm our theological stance, we seek resources to support what we have learned and understand of God. The Bible and other historical documents are not written to provide proof of God, but to show what God has done, what God is doing, and what God is yet to do. They are, in fact, a documentation of God’s existence throughout history. Of these resources, there is no place better to start than with the Bible. In Genesis, we see that “God created the heavens and the earthaˆ¦.” and “God swept over the face of the waters.” [2] We see evidence of God’s existence at the beginning of time. However, God’s existence in the lives of the individuals is measured not by the accounts of others, but in the relationships and experiences of the individuals.

The book of Deuteronomy, chapter 26 carries a hidden creed showing that the God of mercy and love delivered the writer from captivity and bondage. “We cried to the Lordaˆ¦..the Lord heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil and our oppression. The Lord brought us out of Egyptaˆ¦.with a terrifying display of power.” [3] Throughout the text, a merciful image of God is evident as God helped liberate a people from their captors. The Word shows that while being a God of great mercy and faithfulness, and love, that there is the existence of a God who can be terrifying. Both characteristics are contained within the same account. But, the testimony would not carry the same effect had it not been in a relational setting. The oppression and captivity were very real and very personal to the writer; also the action of God was also very personal. It is through these kinds of stories that the God of our Christian faith can be better understood.

God has been presented to us with many attributes. These include Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, omniscient, omnipotent, holy, loving and forgiving, to name a few. Perhaps the best defining words for God would be self-existent. The fact that God’s existence does not rely on anything but God is somewhat overwhelming. The challenge is not only to gain a personal understanding of who and what God is, but to be able to effectively articulate God to others. This is the mystery of God. God can be described as everywhere, yet among us. God is said to be “the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” [4] These terms provoke questions within those who do not have a relationship with God. God has been said to be all things to all people. It is through these examples that we begin to gain an understanding of the enormity of God. God is immeasurable through our human understanding. We cannot possibly have a complete understanding of God. To simply say that God is Christ leaves God somewhat boxed and therefore not the true God.

Origen said that “God is incomprehensible, transcending being itself. God is known only by inference from the created order.” [5] We see the presence and existence of God through the world around us. God is seen in the actions of neighbors and strangers. The God of creation is seen through the beauty of nature and in the faces of our fellow humans. God said in Genesis 1:26, “let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.” [6] It is clearly seen that God is intentional in God’s communion with humankind. Biblically speaking, the image of God can be seen in each and every person. John Wesley referenced in his Sermon 111, the scripture found in Jeremiah 23:24, “Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? Says the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth?” [7] Both John Wesley and biblical scholars agree that we see through this scripture that God is both immanent and transcendent. God exists entirely in this world and beyond. But the way that God is going to be seen in each person’s perspective is going to depend on where this person is in his or her life. God will meet us where we are at. The circumstances that surround a person’s life will shadow how God is viewed. A person who is suffering from loss, or poverty, or oppression might view God as uncaring, or distant. Whereas a person who is experiencing success- either socially, financially, spiritually, and relationally, may see God as very involved in their lives. It is those times where it is easier to see and acknowledge the existence of God. It is much harder to give God credit when times are hard. But the bridge to a better understanding of God is putting the two together and showing where God is present throughout. Trying to completely describe God would be failure. We cannot accurately speak of God’s greatness. Too many facets would be left out, and that would illustrate a God who fell short of the God that we have in our midst.

Explaining the Trinity is equally difficult. As theologians, we are to be able to put into words that the three- God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one. In our limited ability to understand, we seek to make sense not only to ourselves, but others. The Trinity may be likened to a full chord on a guitar. Each note, or string, has equal responsibility and equal worth. Each has its own tone and depth. But when all the notes are played simultaneously, the chord makes a complete and beautiful sound- a harmony, a relationship. This is how the Trinity works. As previously discussed, God the Father, Creator is with us always, from the beginning of time. As Christians, we understand that each point of the Trinity is equal to the other two. There is no subordination. If subordination were the case, the idea of the Trinity would be pointless. A wonderful example of the Trinity in modern writing would be illustrated in the book The Shack. The main character has suffered loss and brokenness and experiences all three facets while dealing with his circumstances. Though based on a fictional account, the lesson of each point of the Trinity, being in harmony with each other rings true. Each point of the Trinity was able to help the character in a different way.

Understanding God and the Trinity has and will be a continuous journey. As we move and study and live, the presence and knowledge of God will move within. Our understanding will change daily, as will our maturity in explaining. By helping others to identify God in their own personal experiences and relationships, we have a greater chance of helping them to understand scripture and the greatness of God.

The Doctrine of Jesus Christ-

Jesus Christ the Son, born of a virgin, is both fully divine and fully human. Jesus came and lived among sinners and died for our sins. This is the general idea of what Jesus Christ is to the world. But, there is so much more to the idea of the Son of God. The Christian faith says that the most significant way in which it has been able to see God present within the world is through the life, work, and legacy of Jesus Christ. It is claimed that Jesus Christ is the physical embodiment of God in the world. Jesus himself is not all there is to God, but He is God as God has chosen to physically manifest Godself in the midst of God’s creation. The historical Jesus is the Jesus of today, acting in history. In Mark 8:29, Jesus asks, “Who do you say that I am?” [8] It seems that the world has been trying to answer the question since it was asked. The problem is that many different people have many differing answers. Or is that a problem. For some, He is simply a man who lived over two thousand years ago. To others, He was a prophet, much like Elijah. To some He was a politician, or a public figure that was well known and killed for His views. And yet to many of us, He was a man, who lived over two thousand years ago, who was able to tell us things that were of another dimension, who was political and stood for a cause greater than we could humanly imagine. And then, just as He said, He would be betrayed by a close friend, arrested for upsetting the higher political figures, and murdered- all the while, changing the course of history and the future of the world.

Jesus only had a short ministry, but the magnitude of things done in that time would shape a faith that give millions hope and peace all over the world. He began by assembling a group of men who were not in the upper crust of society. He never promised wealth or position, something that the average person might aspire to achieve, but instead offered life, unlike they had ever experienced before. These young men would have been the ‘blue collar’ workers of our times. They understood what it was like to work long hours for very little pay. Most of them were barely educated. But Jesus saw something in them and He chose them to help Him carry the message- His message. Much of the time, they did not understand the words or actions of this man. He spoke unlike anyone had ever spoken. He used parables to teach them how to live and how to love. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers, raised the dead, ate with sinners, and basically drew outside all the lines of societal normalcy. Jesus spoke of a kingdom ‘not of this world’ where we would go to be with the Father. Jesus spoke about loving their neighbor and forgiving them of their wrongdoings. He challenged them to carry His teachings to the world. And this message was for the multitudes of people who believed, and followed. We are the disciples of Christ who are called to take this message now.

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit-

In the Old Testament, we see ‘the Spirit’ connected with deep experiences, through which its power might overcome an individual, it may rest upon an individual, or might be poured out over many people. [9] In the New Testament, this spirit is identified with Jesus Christ and is the bringer of justice, mercy, and the complete knowledge of God to the Jews and Gentiles alike. The idea that the spirit will be poured on the many- ie, Male and female, old and young, slave or free, as well as people of other nations, languages and cultures was radical considering the context of the time. The Spirit was granting knowledge to the outcasts. Not only were the wealthy and privileged receiving it, but so were the common folks. [10] We are told in scripture, “beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” [11] In fact, considerable time and study has been spent in exploration of this topic. The subject of spiritual warfare comes to mind. There are spirits that work daily in our lives. Theses spirits are not for the good of us, rather the opposite. The Holy Spirit is that presence that is carried within us every minute of the day. It is often the guidance that we seek when making a difficult decision. This Holy Spirit lives in contrast to the negative spirits. It is the spirit of both our God and Creator, as well as the spirit of Jesus Christ the Son. And this Holy Spirit will not act always the same way. Our individual needs and context will cause the spirit to respond in Its necessary capacity. Wisdom scripture say that the spirit “has filled the world and holds all things together.” [12] It is through our personal experiences that we see the Holy Spirit at work. It is often masked as the ‘nudging’ to participate or to not participate in any given activity. It is the feeling or calling of reaching out to those who are in need. We see the holy Spirit at work in the actions of others who show grace and compassion when their situations would not ordinarily warrant it. The Holy Spirit is the third element of the trinity, and is God and Jesus both active within our everyday lives. The Bible is a collection of all that God has said and done, as seen and recorded through the words of persons who were inspired to write by the Holy Spirit. It is a good example of how the Spirit works and speaks in their time and situation. The image of the spirit, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament is that of wind or breath. [13] In the Book of John, Jesus promises the spirit as encourager to come after He is returned to God. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truthaˆ¦he abides in you and he will be in you.” [14] The Holy Spirit is God living in us. “And the Spirit helps us in our weakness.” [15] The work of the Holy Spirit in our daily lives, just like in the lives of the Old Testament and New Testament people, helps to offer guidance even in our darkest hours. The battle that goes on within- ‘should I or shouldn’t I?’ is the direct activity of the Spirit, working against the evil and sin in our lives. It may be very complex and often difficult to explain, but the fact is that the Holy Spirit is simply our God, the Creator of all things, living inside, present at all times.

The Doctrines of Creation and Providence-

The doctrine of creation tells us that God is the source and the Creator of all things. God is the Creator of the universe as well as individual human existence. All life comes from God and all life returns to God. We are told in Genesis 1 that God created and saw that everything was good. We have no doubt that God was pleased with creation. [16] Creation, however, is not simply a process that ‘was.’ Creation is a continuous, ongoing process in which God is actively involved- a relationship between God and the world. Throughout Biblical history, we have seen the hand of God at work, primarily in the acts of creation. For example, this is evident in the story of the flood, through the imagery of the olive leaf returned to the hand of Noah by the dove. We saw God establish the covenant afterwards, the creation of Israel, and then the creation of a new community of faith through Jesus Christ. These are just a few examples of the love that God has continued to show for God’s creation. We have to be able to share that creation did not create itself. It is the gift of a God who is love, and through this gift, we are shown the magnificence of God.

But why did God create the earth and everything in it? Some have pondered that God was lonely, so God created. We believe that God is complete in Godself. We have already established that God is self-existent and ultimately that God’s existence does not rely on anything but God. with that in mind, it does not make sense, even to or limited understanding of this all-loving God, that God would become lonely and subsequently create. Karl Barth believed that God was radically separate from this world. Barth said “that “the One who loves in freedom” was acting out of no external necessity but freely creating simply because love seeks to share its goodness.” [17] This loving God that we worship, and often fear, is seeking to share God’s greatness. Through creation, God begins the relationship with humanity, not out of need, but out of love.

John Calvin said, “God’s providence is not that by which God idly observes from heaven what takes place on earth, but that by which, as keeper of the keys, he governs all events.” [18] According to Wood, in the Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, we are not to believe that we are tied to our situations simply because God has willed it that way. “This God who sends pain has also sent the means to alleviate it. The God who sends flood and fire has given is the intelligence to prevent it from happening, or to minimize its harmful effects.” [19] Providence is God’s divine guidance and care. God the Creator is continues as the sustaining force for creation and the guiding force for human destiny. But why would a loving God allow evil into the world. Placher points out that often, we just don’t have answers, but we might look at a few possible reasons. Sometimes good is not possible without evil, humanity abuses its freedom and the result is evil, evil helps refine our souls to be what God would have us to be, or simply that God allows some limited evil to act in the world. [20] It is only through God’s grace that humanity experiences free will. Sometimes, our choices through this free will cause us to be in harm’s way. God’s allowance of evil helps humanity to become the people God would desire us to be. Plainly speaking, we learn from our mistakes and through trials, we turn our hearts toward God. In the end, our relationship to God is strengthened, as is our witness to others.

The Doctrine of the Human Creature-

“The problem with the issue of human being is that we all believe that we have a complete understanding of human being. And because we already know about the human being, we tend to work from that assumption.” Our human condition, or human creature, or human existence is based upon our relationship with God. When we have a relationship with and we follow Jesus Christ, we become more fully human. [21] We are told that the human creature is not just individual, but collective, as well. [22] Our humanness comes with both possibilities and limitations. There is something in the individual, and in that individual’s desire for personal success that is adverse to the human creature. “We are qualified by the claim that what distinguishes them as specifically human is that God creates them in the image of God.” [23] The one who is created in the image of God seeks to form and sustain loving and caring relationships with God and other human beings. When the humans desire to achieve personal success overlaps the desires of another, conflict is created. Often in conflict, healthy relationships are not nurtured. This conflict is called sin.

The Doctrine of the Church-

“The church is the people of God.” [24] Though there are many divisions, facets, communities, denominations, the church stands as the people, the body of Jesus Christ, who founded the church and charged us with the task to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” [25] “God will speak where God will and the community will form around where God is.” The role of the church is to re-present Christ to the world. [26] In a recent lecture, Dr. Rieger alludes to a personal struggle that was similar to the struggle of Luther, Wesley, Barth, and Bonhoffer. That struggle was not about the people not believing, but that the people were being taught wrongly and therefore believed wrongly. Rieger offers that rather than idealizing the church, we begin to analyze the church. To do this, we must look at the four marks of the church to function as a framework for our analysis.

First, we look at the unity of the church- “One holy, catholic, universal church.” But we are not one church. We have both social threats to church unity, as well as theological threats. One threat is segregation. We are primarily segregated. Racially, church is referred to as the “most segregated hour in America- from 11am to 12 on Sunday morning.” [27] Class stratification is not easily overcome, especially in America. If we are really interested in the unity of the church, we have to address the issues that divide us. We are also divided by our differing doctrines. As a United Methodist now and formerly a Baptist for 35 years, I appreciated the joke about a Methodist being a Baptist that can read. There is humor intended in the statement but the sad truth is that Baptists, United Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, and Pentecostals have been divided in their beliefs for ages. In addition to these differences, we also create divisions with the Jewish people. We believe that the new covenant of Jesus Christ has somehow nullified the covenant of God with Israel in the Old Testament. Instead, we need to look to our similarities, oppose anti

Literature on this topic is abundant as research has been conducted globally on the topic of the hijab as to the reasons why women should and should not wear the hijab. The research conducted was made possible through the use of surveys, interviews, questionnaires and observations. Katherine Bullock in particular, a Canadian community activist, author and lecturer did extensive research on the topic of the hijab and published her findings in the form of a book called Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil which challenges “Historical and Modern Stereotypes”. She has also published articles on Muslim women and the media, and Islam and political theory.

Purposes of the research

The objectives of the study are to examine if the dominant negative Western perception affects the reasons why the Muslim community is divided on the subject of hijab.

This research addresses the concern for a dialogue that could inform westernised societies about the personal reasons why some female Muslim students wear hijab and why others do not. I want my research to be meaningful, relevant to local communities and to open my mind and that of others by being taught through research and personal interviews about the subject.

Scope and limitations

This study was conducted in a very short period of time with a very small sample group as the pool of participants was limited to the Muslim students at TSiBA Education. The data set is meaningful, but not representative of the vast range of Muslims in different contexts. It will however show a diversity of views within a common theology and faith. A more sizable sample within the target group would have provided a larger and more conclusive amount of data. This can have a bias that favours the educated and the youth of Cape Town. Another limitation of my study, was that all of the participants belonged to one ethnic group being from the race regarded in South Africa as Coloured. This was due to the fact TSiBA Education is a relatively small university whose Muslim female population is a fraction of the total students of which there were no Muslim women from a different race or culture. The research conducted could have benefitted from a more diverse pool of applicants.

Plan of development

This research report was compiled in the following manner. Firstly I provide my literature review which I put together for the purpose of exploring what has previously been written on the topic so that you and I may learn from it and be aware of it as we go about this research. Secondly I made a survey form of 3 pages long that contained relevant questions which I derived from the process of compiling the literature review. Thirdly, At random I selected 10 Muslim women studying at TSiBA to be my participants and followed through by conducting my survey about each one of them. Lastly, I analyzed the data obtained from the surveys and make this information available to you while also comparing my research findings to the findings derived from my literature review.

METHODOLOGY
Literature review

The first piece of work I did was conducting research on the topic of the hijab in order to compile a literature review. My literature review took a significant amount of time in relation to how long the actual research demanded. Information was abundant regarding the topic of hijab, modernization, the dominant Western perception and the media’s role in the portrayal of Muslim women that I found it particularly challenging to sift out important points from the all information available. My literature review saw two sessions of editing with my Communications lecturer who helped me construct and organized the important information once I identified it.

Participation

The target group for the research was initially 20 South African Muslim women between the ages of 18 and 40. This age group was the target of this study because they were the current generation of TSiBA students and were experiencing modern South Africa in a time when it seemed there was an ever increasing influx of Western culture after Apartheid. The age group is also likely to include married women who might be inclined to think differently about the hijab as their marriage might have changed the way each looks at the hijab. The participants of my research were all female as I had hoped, but unfortunately all of them belonged to one ethnic group being from the race regarded in South Africa as Coloured. There were 2 married women, and 8 unmarried women. 5 of them wore hijab and 5 of them were women who choose not to.

Method of data collection

One method of obtaining data was employed. The research draws on qualitative data from comprehensive surveys conducted on 10 Muslim students regarding hijab. The survey was constructed in a manner that it took students approximately 5 minutes to complete.

After many different drafts of the survey I went to the Tertiary School in Business Administration (TSiBA) Education to distribute the final version. My survey included the opinions of both young women who wear the hijab and those that do not. I did not ask for names in any section of the survey to ensure the anonymity of all my human subjects. In the end I collected 10 surveys in total which was a smaller sample group than I had initially hoped. After gathering the surveys, I analyzed the results manually.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction

The debate regarding the wearing of religious garb in public, specifically coverings worn by Muslim women has increased over the past few years resulting in a lot of controversy among those who agree with the practice and those who do not (iqraonline.net). Hijab is seen all over the world, especially in places with a high concentration of practicing Muslims. The hijab has resulted in severe media disputes and now denotes the difference of cultures. The French, along with the west expected that the hijab would pass away into history as westernization and secularization took root. However, in the Muslim world, especially among the younger generation, a great wave of returning to hijab was spreading through various countries. This current resurgence is an expression of Islamic revival (Nakata, 1994).

The Topic of Hijab External to South Africa
The views of feminists

The Western media and feminists often portray the hijab as a symbol of oppression and slavery of women (www.al-islam.org). A theory of Orientalism has been in existence since 1978 which argues that the Muslim population is deemed backward, uncivilized beings who are outcasts in Western society (Said, 1978). Many feminists, both Western and Islamic argue that the hijab is a symbol of gender oppression and that the Islamic veiling of women is an oppressive practice. Fadel Amara, an Islamic feminist and Muslim female member of French government describes the burqa as a prison and a straightjacket which is not religious but is the symbol of a tyrannical political project for sexual inequality (King, 299.).

Feminists argue that public presence and visibility is important to Western women. This overlaps sexism and racism as well as there are two arguments made by feminists who are divided on the topic of the hijab.

a) The argument of oppression

One argument is for hijab to be banned in public as they encourage the harassment of women who are unveiled and because public presence and visibility represents their struggle for economic independence, sexual agency and political participation. In the Western culture, celebrities are regarded as trend-setters defining what is acceptable. The hijab is therefore also seen as a problem because it poses challenge to the view of unconventional visibility and freedom of self-expression. (www.theage.com). Although it is true that many women do choose to wear the hijab, it is not the case for all women. In many Middle Eastern and North African countries women are forced, persecuted and abused for noncompliance with the hijab. This was demonstrated in Pakistan where an extremist killed a women’s activist and government minister because she refused to wear the hijab. King states, “From Afghanistan to Algeria to Sudan, Pakistan and Iran- women are systematically brutalized and caught in a deadly crossfire between the secular and fundamentalist forces.”

Some Islamic feminists argue that although the statement in the Quran about women covering themselves was not meant to oppress women, the interpretation of those verses by Islamic societies does in fact oppress women. Although it can be argued that the hijab is a symbol of the oppression that occurs against women in Islam, many Islamic women don’t agree. It is true that under some Islamist rule, specifically in some North African countries, Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia women are oppressed and forced to wear the hijab, but in an international context, this is the exception to the rule regarding women’s practices of wearing the veil.

Salma Yaqoob, a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the hijab explains the veil is not only an oppressing force in Islamic countries that require the veil, but also in Western countries that ban the veil. Yaqoob adamantly contends that by infringing laws that restricts women’s choice on whether or not to wear the veil, they are also being oppressed. “I am opposed to the Saudi and Iranian governments’ imposition of the veil and that of the Taliban previously. But this is also why I oppose the ban on wearing the hijab. In both cases the woman herself is no longer free to make a choice. In both cases her dignity is violated.”. Yaqoob explains that more women are currently banned from wearing the hijab, than are required to wear it.

b) The argument of liberation

It can be argued that rather than oppressing, the hijab is liberating. The second argument made by feminists supports the argument of fundamentalist Islamic leaders who argue that Muslim women have the right to choose to wear or not to wear a hijab as it is part of a Muslim woman’s duty to wear a hijab. These feminists demand that the French ban be withdrawn because they believe the oppressing force behind the veil is when authority figures, both Islamic and Western, take away a woman’s right to choose. They defend the veil as a mark of agency, cultural membership, and defiance. Tayyab Bashart, a feminist scholar and Muslim who teaches in France explains her beliefs “A woman in hijab, who is a functioning member of society, symbolizes an empowered, independent woman, rather than someone who lacks self-determination and is a puppet of society” (Basharat, 2006). The veil itself is just a piece of cloth. Human beings interpret the hijab according to social and religious constructions. Through the Western discussion and banning of the hijab in public schools, the Muslim school girls of France lose their freedom to express their spirituality. The desired effect of the 2004 law is to fight gender oppression and inequality in the public school system, but as a residual effect, it actually diminishes women’s freedoms rather than enhancing them. The ‘law on the headscarf’ supports the oppressing Western discourses about veiled women and attempts to Westernize French Muslim schoolgirls.

Western Governments

In Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran, the full covering, more commonly known as the burqa, has been made compulsory upon female citizens. In contrast to this, the unwillingness to understand the religion and culture of Muslims has resulted in traditional clothing such as the burqa and the hijab being banned with the hope of Westernised societies achieving secularism in Islamic countries. Katherine Bullock shines light on the differences in judgment over hijab by having identified themes from her research on women and the religion of Islam. She divides these themes into the descriptions of those who are for and those who are against the hijab. According to Bullock, critics of the veil rely on secular liberal assumptions about society and human nature and therefore the veil is supposed to be and described as a symbol of oppression because it:

Covers up (hides), in the sense of smothering, femininity

Is apparently linked to the essentialized male and female difference (which is taken to mean that by nature, male is superior, female is inferior);

Is linked to a particular view of woman’s place (subjugated in the home);

Is linked to an oppressive (patriarchal) notion of morality and female purity (because of Islam’s

Emphasis on chastity, marriage, and condemnation of pre- and extra-marital sexual relations);

Can be imposed; and

Is linked to a package of oppressions women in Islam face, such as seclusion, polygamy, easy male divorce, unequal inheritance rights.

Western countries has developed this view and disregarded other views of what public visibility may be to different women with differing beliefs. (www.theage.com). An example of this is that France has decided upon the banning of the hijab to be worn in schools. France’s 2004 law, popularly refered to as the ‘law on the headscarf’, reveals the difficulty of respecting conflicting ideas between diverse communities, especially when one community, in this case the Muslims of France, is a minority. According to this law, female students are banned from wearing the hijab as well as all other openly religious symbols in public schools. France bans women from wearing the hijab in public schools because many feminists and lawmakers argue that veiling women serves as an oppressing force, a force that silences women. Alia Al- Saji states in her article “The Racialization of Muslim Veils: A Philosophical Analysis” many feminists see the headscarf “As a symbol of Islamic gender oppression that aˆ¦should be banned from public schools, a space where gender equality is presumed (or desired).” Supporters of the law believe it fights gender oppression and gives equality to women in the school system.

Media attitudes in reporting Islam and hijab

While the media cannot be the only party held accountable or blamed for societal attitudes towards smaller cultures and religions, theses media moguls create “the lens through which reality is perceived” (Bullock & Jafri, 2000). Western media sees itself as a democratic powerhouse and therefore is frequently answerable for legitimising and distributing racism and bias against religious communities such as Muslims (Bullock & Jafri, 2000). The media in Westernised socities portrays Muslims as “tricky, sleazy, sexual and untrustworthy”, as uniformly violent, as oppressors of women, and as members of a global conspiracy (Bullock & Jafri, 2000).

For example, in 1998 a shift was noted regarding the European media’s depiction of women who wear the hijab. Veiled women were no longer portrayed as exotic but instead as a threat to society (Macmaster & Lewis, 1998,). This highlights the contrasting representations of Muslim women as concurrently being oppressed and threatening.

In 2005 Begum argues that these images of Islamic dress were increasingly used in the media as visual shorthand for treacherous extremism, and that Muslims living in Europe were suffering from the consequences of these associations (Begum, 2005). The increase of these media portrayals and political deliberation has segregated the Muslim community and had a further disruptive effect on society and feminism at large. (Begum, 2005)

Since then, the media in France reported on a women who was suspended for wearing a hijab under her hat while working as a meter reader, a fashion show of veiled women that was banned, the hindrance of hijab-wearing mothers from volunteering in schools, the refusal of cafeteria service to a student wearing a hijab and the banning of a witness to a civil service wedding from signing the documentation based on the argument that hijab prevented her from proper identification.

Many authors on this topic dispute that because of the media’s cultural fascination with Muslim women’s dress as symbols of oppression, Muslim women often have to resort to focusing on that facet of their identity as well, even if they would rather discuss something else. These authors state that even cases of responsible journalism have a propensity to devalue Muslim women. This is because Muslim women are primarily depicted as ‘exotic’, victimised, or threatening outcasts rather than your ordinary peaceful next door neighbours. (www.reportingdiversity.org.)

It is evident that the hijab remains a hot topic in Western countries and that the wellbeing and identities of Muslim women in Westernised societies are related to the wearing of the headscarf as a consequence.

The Topic of The Hijab Within the Muslim Community

The opinions of Muslim women vary in their decision about whether or not to wear the hijab. The hijab, according to many Muslims, has multiple uses and meanings. The hijab’s symbolism is one of modesty and morality. According to Islam, the hijab functions as a shield for a woman against the lustful gaze of men. The hijab also serves as a cover to preserve the modesty and piety of the woman, as that is her main role as stated in the Qur’an.

The most basic debate over the hijab is over the requirement of the hijab. This is an issue that is debated by many Muslim scholars. First in order to understand why there is an issue it is important to understand the power of the Quran. The Quran is the word of God brought to humanity by his last messenger the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). Islam is the religion of total submission to Allah (God the Father) and obedience to Allah. As the Quran is God’s word then it also means total submission and obedience to Quran. The first issue with the requirement of the hijab comes from whether the hijab is in the Quran or not. There are two sides to this argument; there are those who say that the hijab is a requirement because it is in the Quran and those who say that it is not because it is not part of the Quran

Reasons why Muslim Women wear the hijab
The laws of the Qur’an

Amr Khaled’s, a popular Islamic scholar, layman, and highly influential Muslim speaker, represents the school of thought that considers the hijab to be directly in the Quran and thus a requirement for Muslim women. He quotes these Qur’anic verses that make the hijab obligatory to Muslim women. “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And – ALLAH – is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (Surah 33: verse 59)”. In this verse women are told to cover their bodies so that they should be known as modest women and are not harassed. According to Amr Khalad’s lecture “Al-Hijab,” the hijab also serves the purpose of forcing men to not sexually objectify women but to see her as a vessel of intelligence and high moral values. Khalad says that the hijab reinforces the fact that Islam has placed the beauty of a female on a higher value in the eyes of men by providing protection of her beauty from uncontrolled lusts and desires, and instead ordering men to respect greater the inner beauty of her soul. Thus, the real value of women is associated with the degree of her modesty and her abidance by it (Khaled “Al-Hijab”). Yaqoob states her personal reasons why she wears the veil, “For me, the wearing of the hijab denotes that as a woman I expect to be treated as an equal in terms of my intellect and personality and my appearance is relevant only to the degree that I want it to be, when I want it to be.”. This is the traditional Islamic rational for the hijab and why it is important in Islam (Khalad “AlHijab”).

A symbol of resistance

A study about hijab in the West also provides another theory that I believe can also be applied in South Africa because it is a country heavily influenced by the West. The idea of the hijab as a symbol of resistance is explored by Tarik Kulenovic but not necessarily one that is strictly political. Tarik Kulenovic’s theory suggests that the hijab in the West is a matter of identity, a physical symbol of a woman’s Muslim identity. This symbol also carries a message of religiosity in a modernizing society which encourages a secular life style and scorns tradition. Kulenovic asserts that “the modern identity of Muslim women, which includes the wearing of the veil, is primarily the identity of resistance to the values that individuals find foreign to them and as such imposed on them” (Kulenovic, page 717). Thus, in modern society, the hijab can be thought of as a means of retaining a religious life style while assimilating to the demands of the modern world. Another reason women choose to wear the hijab is that they find that the hijab serves as an empowering factor.

The Interpretation of the hijab by those who wear it

Katherine Bullock, through her research, provides some reasons why women wear the hijab. The hijab to these wearers:

1. Does not smother femininity;

2. Brings to mind the ‘different-but-equal’ school of thought, but does not put forward essentalized male-female difference;

3. Is linked to a view that does not limit women to the home, but neither does it consider the role of stay-at-home-mother and homemaker oppressive;

4. Is linked to a view of morality that is oppressive only if one considers the prohibition of sexual relations outside marriage wrong;

5. Is part of Islamic law, though a law that ought to be implemented in a very wise and women-friendly manner, and

6. Can and should be treated separately from other issues of women’s rights in Islam.

Spirituality

Some women have a deep spiritual and religious connection to the veil and firmly disagree with the view of it as a sign of oppression. Many Muslim women feel uncomfortable without wearing it because the hijab is deeply-rooted in their personal values and religious tradition. A main reason women choose to wear the hijab, is as expression of spirituality. Bashart states in his book that “Muslim women carry with them their sacred private space into the public space by use of the Hijab”. In this view of the hijab, the veil is not simply an article of clothing; or a symbol of oppression it is a tool of spirituality for women.

Fadwa El Guindi, author of The Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance, says “veiling patterns and veiling behaviour are…. about sacred privacy, sanctity and the rhythmic interweaving of patterns of worldly and sacred life, linking women as the guardians of family sanctuaries and the realm of the sacred in this world”

Reasons why Muslim Women do not wear the hijab

In the Qur’anic this verse although it says to draw the cloak all over their bodies, it does not specifically say the hair. In addition, it does not specify in what way, to what extent, and in what manner women should cover themselves. There are many modern alternative views to this idea that the hijab is compulsory because it is in the Quran. For example, Dr.Reza Alsan, an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions, the founder of AslanMedia.com and also one of the leading scholars in the alternative view, considers the hijab not an obligatory aspect of being a Muslim woman. Aslan claims that the hijab is shockingly not compulsory upon Muslim women anywhere in the Quran. Instead he claims that the veil was an Arab culture before the arrival of Islam, through contact with Syria and Iran, where the veil was the sign of the upper class women. According to Lelia Ahmed and those who fall in the second school of thought like Aslan, the only places that the hijab is applied to women is when it is addressing the wives of Prophet Muhammad. Thus the veil was only associated with the prophets wives and his daughters not all women of Islam. This school of thought does not deny that modesty was expected of all believers. Believing women are instructed to “‘guard their private parts… and drape a cover over their breasts”‘ when in the presence of strange men (Surah 24:31-32)” as quoted by Aslan. Here specific parts of the body are named that women should guard and cover including the private parts and the breast but the hair is not mentioned. Thus those in this school of thought like Leila Ahmed and Reza Alsan do not believe that the hijab is mandatory for Muslim women because it is not mentioned in the Quran.

Conclusion of Literature review

This research investigates the reasons why the Muslim community is divided on the subject of the veil and if the dominant negative perception of hijab (as the hijab being oppressive) has affected, if at all, the wearing of hijab in TSiBA Education. In the attempt to answer this question, the research has presented two hypotheses:

(1) Living in South Africa, a country with great Western influence, causes some Muslim women to fear wearing the hijab and to abandon it all together

(2) Some Muslim women choose to wear the hijab for spirituality reasons despite constant the pressures of the West

Data obtained from the research

My data collection was a result of 10 surveys this research revealed that my two hypotheses were in agreement with a majority of this small sample of subjects. The data collected represents the opinions and beliefs of a total of 10 human participants which is 50% of the total intended target group. Thus, the data collected must only be interpreted as speculative and cannot be assumed applicable to all Muslim women or all Muslim female students.

What constitutes the debate Regarding the Hijab and what pressures are felt by Muslim women studying at TSiBA Education:

A point of view unknown to me before starting my research was that there are Muslim women who did not know that there were differing interpretations about what the hijab is tangibly. In fact, from the surveys it is evident that amongst Muslims there is a concept of a correct hijab and an incorrect hijab. Before my research commenced, the purpose of the research was not intended to identify whether my target population was aware that many Muslims have differing beliefs about what hijab is tangibly. 60% of participants claimed that the “correct” physical hijab is a head scarf and long loose fitting clothing that conceals the shape of the body and everything but the face and hands. Interesting to note is that four of the 10 answered that all forms of wearing hijab including: a. just covering your hair b. covering your face and hair c. covering your hair and wearing loose clothing are acceptable.

3 of the 5 women who claim to wear hijab said they wear a fashionable coloured hijab. I find these results consistent with my observations which are that tight, colourful head-scarves worn with jeans and a blouse are the most popular hijab style worn by the females on the TSiBA Campus and throughout the University-going Muslim women in Cape Town.

The fact that surveyed two married mothers may have resulted in that they would be more likely to wear a more “modest” and more “Islamically correct” hijab.

Hijab Decisions

The rationale for why women do or do not wear the hijab in this study is very interesting. 40% of my participants said they decided to wear the hijab by choice for purely religious reasons because they wanted to submit to Allah.

Reasons For Wearing the Hijab

Five of the 10 participants wore the hijab of which 3 participants said that they strongly agree that they wear the hijab for religious reasons while 2 participants said they agree that they wear it for religious reasons but that religion is not the main reason why they wear the hijab.

Culture

From this data we can deduce that 3 out of the 5 Muslim wear the hijab even though the hijab makes them feel like they don’t fit in with their peers. 1 person however does feel that she fits in with her peers and in her community because she wears the hijab.

Security

The hijab makes all five participants who wear the hijab feel protected and safe in public. 3 of them strongly agreed while 2 agreed. Interesting to note is that five of the 17 answered that all forms of wearing hijab including: a. just

covering your hair b. covering your face and hair c. covering your hair and wearing loose

clothing are acceptable.

The origins of Islam are from Saudi Arabia, it is a religious tradition that is monotheistic. The literal meaning of the word Islam is submission to God Julie Williams, 2008 This complete code of life is based on the divine revelations preached by Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) it addresses all aspects of life: spiritual, social, moral, intellectual, political, economical etc. Its teachings show us how to surrender to Allah’s will in every area of life, Who is the supreme creator and sustainer of this world. The sacred scripture of Islam is the Quran, which is the compilation of all the divine revelations sent to Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) and were taught by him. The underlying principle which is the foundation of Islam is that there is only one God, Allah. He has no equal or any partner.

Five Pillars of Islam are its unifying characteristic; they are the primary aspect of religion. These five pillars include Tauhid, which is the first and most important; it is faith in one true God, Allah. The second is Salah or Namaz, which is the ritual prayer Muslims are required to perform five times a day. Fasting is the third pillar of Islam where Muslims fast for a whole month. Zakat, the charity compulsory on certain wealth is the fourth pillar, the fifth pillar is Hajj, which is a pilgrimage a Muslim with enough wealth is required to take at least once in his lifetime.

Apart from the five pillars of Islam, there are also six articles of faith. These include:

Belief in One God

Belief in all the prophets

Belief in the four original Holy scriptures

Belief in the angels

Belief in the Hereafter and day of judgement

Belief in Divine verdict

Muslims are usually distinguished by their devotion to the obligation of praying fives times to Allah in a day. Another defining characteristic of Islam is pre-eminence of the sacred places, which are Makah, Medina and Jerusalem. A ritual of Muslims is to gather in a congregation at mosque to pray and worship Allah, also study the divine scripture, Quran. The distinction as to who is better in the Muslim community is based on solely the individual Muslim’s devotion to serving in the path of Allah. The universal aspect of Islam caused it to expand almost instantly after it evolved in Arabian Peninsula, in the present world it has spread across Africa, Europe, Asia and rest of the world. Although most of the Muslims are born into faith but Islam always welcomes the coverts too (Julie Williams, 2008). Even though Islam originated from Arab region, the Muslims are not necessarily Arab; it is a universal religion which is for everyone across the globe. There are Muslims from almost every nationality in the world, now the Arabs are only 20% of the Muslim population across the world.

The influence of Arab culture on Islam has had effects on those who belonged to other cultures but adopted Islam too. This has created a cultural bond due to similarities that they share among their societies, although these different societies do still have characteristics that clearly distinguish them. The culture of Islam inherited an Arab culture that was originated in desert, which although is simple yet not in any way unsophisticated.

It has a verbal tradition founded on the broadcast of culture by means of narrative as well as poetry. Although, the largest impact on Islamic civilization is that of the written scripture, the whole civilization is based on the teachings written down and compiled in form of Holy Quran and taught by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h).

A ts of animate beings. The focus of Islamic art is on Allah’s omnipresence, which cannot be illustrate ts of animate beings. The focus of Islamic art is on Allah’s omnipresence, which cannot be illustrated in any imagery. The calligraphy in Arabic is a famous art form to beautifully write Quranic verses. The Islamic art with its artistry as well as grandeur has not failed to inspire awe over the centuries.d in any imagery. The calligraphy in Arabic is a famous art form to beautifully write Quranic verses. The Islamic art with its artistry as well as grandeur has not failed to inspire awe over the centuries.n important part of the Islamic culture is its signature art and architecture (Larry A. Samovar, Richard E. Porter, Edwin R. McDaniel, 2009) which is marked by floral decorative patterns and abstract art. The fundamental aspect of Islamic art is that it is devoid of illustrations of living beings, especially humans according to the teachings of Islam, since it is forbidden in religion to paint or draw portraits of animate beings. The focus of Islamic art is on Allah’s omnipresence, which cannot be illustrated in any imagery. The calligraphy in Arabic is a famous art form to beautifully write Quranic verses. The Islamic art with its artistry as well as grandeur has not failed to inspire awe over the centuries.

Critically outlines how the history and practices of Islam shape the lives of Muslims today in a short paragraph

Most of the practices which are prevailing in Muslim world of today are not mentioned in The Quran. Although, the saying of Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) and his conduct of every day life provide the Muslims of today the basis for traditions and the practices of today in form of Sunnah. The Sunnah and Hadith of holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) provides a guiding path for all the Muslims of today from every day rituals like eating with the right hand, growing beard for men and hijab to cover the head for women, greeting another Muslim with salaam etc to major issues like marriage and legal problems. In the troubled world of today however, it is crucial to be able to differentiate as to what is true to Islamic nature and what only a part of culture. Many of the customs that prevail in today’s Muslim world have no roots in either Quran or Sunnah.

Compare Islamic culture with other cultures

Islam is one of the three Divine religions, other two being Judaism and Christianity which preceded Islam but were annulled when Allah sent the message of Islam through Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), which was to be the last and universal religion for the entire mankind.

The preceding cultures have various similarities but major differences in comparison to Islam. Let’s take Judaism for instance, there are many differences among these two religions yet they all originate from one basic difference. Although they both believe in One God, they have difference in the belief of Prophet, Islam is based on the teachings that Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) came with and believes him to be the Last Prophet. Where as Jews believe only in the prophet hood of Moses. According to Islamic belief any who denies that Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) was the last prophet would be doomed to an eternity in hell. There are other contrasting beliefs in both the religions too, for example Jews believe prophet Ismail to be an idolater where as Muslims respect him as prophet of Allah.

Christianity and Islam have a lot of similarities. Both of them hold the belief in Prophet’s, Divine scriptures, day of judgement/resurrection, importance of religion. Many of the teachings in their scriptures are similar too, although the Original transcript of Bible has now been tampered with. Regardless of these similarities there are a lot of crucial differences too.

Their Understanding of Allah is very different, in Islam God is one and only with no equals where as in Christianity they deem Jesus to be the son of God. In Christian culture, the belief of divine revelation is that God himself appeared to preach and provide redemption. Islam on the other hand looks upon revelation as a form of guidance.

Aside from difference of islam with these two major religion cultures, since islam has spread across the world, its true culture has taken various changes depending on the region it exists in, for example in subcontinent, Malaysia and Indonesia. The influence of hindu culture is dominant on muslim practices too, since the people that converted to islam and formed muslim communities there were originally hindus. Practices like lighting candles on the last seven Ramadan nights has been adopted from a Hindu festival, so are many of the customs involved in marriage that require bride and groom to sit centre stage and get appraised and blessed by the crowd. These practices are contrasting to what is truly Islamic and have no origins in islam whatsoever.

History has repeated itself over and over again throughout the past 200 years. From the discovery of the planets to the rise of technology, humans have found new methods to change their views and ways of life. Likewise, the Middle Ages that shadowed over the 13th century vanished as a period known as the Early Renaissance arose. This period marked the beginning of humanism, stressing the importance of the human body and the philosophical principles of humanism. One artist who exemplified these characteristics was Masaccio. The Crucifixion by Masaccio represents the shift from the highly stylized and decorative painting that is associated with medieval times to painting emphasizing three dimensional space and solid, realistic human forms, the kind of painting that could be associated with the Italian Renaissance.

The style and subject matter of the Renaissance art period promoted the Christian ideals and scientific values of art during the period. “Masaccio applied the mathematical laws discovered by Brunelleschi in his paintings and created an illusion of space and distance” (Koeller). He created an illusion by making a system of lines appear to head toward a certain focal point. Masaccio was considered a genius applying the mathematical laws to his art pieces. He is best known for The Holy Trinity with the Virgin and St. John. The constant desire to conform to the doctrines of the church, along with the persistence of religious themes in Renaissance art, is a testament to the continuing importance of the church in Renaissance culture. He also revived a second type of perspective, atmosphere or aerial, based on the Roman tradition. “Through the use of colors, he created an illusion of depth by subtly diminishing the tones as distance between the eye and object increased” (Koller). When atmospheric perspective was joined with linear perspective later that century, a greater illusion of reality was achieved.

A chapel in Santa Maria del Carmine in Pisa commissioned an altarpiece from Masaccio in 1426 for the sum of 80 florins. Payment for the work was recorded on December 26 of that year. The altarpiece was dismantled and dispersed in the 18th century, but an attempted reconstruction was made possible due to a detailed description of the work by Vasari. The Crucifixion by Masaccio is one of the surviving panels connected with the Pisa Altarpiece. It was placed on the central panel of the altarpiece, which represented the Virgin enthroned with the baby Jesus on her lap, flanked by two pairs of angels. Masaccio created an effect of reality by depicting the even from below. The Crucifixion by Masaccio represented the shift from highly stylized The Crucifixion creates a strong horizontal effect with the rather exaggerated extension of the arms of Christ on the cross, but still presents the gilt background for its representation; the atmospheric effects remain hauntingly convincing. “Masaccio introduced humanism into his art by putting man and the world at the center of his works, rather than at the periphery” (Koeller). Of all the practices of Renaissance Europe, nothing is used as much as Humanism, to distinguish the Renaissance from the Middle Ages, as both a program and a philosophy. Humanist philosophy stressed the dignity of humanity. This is opposite of the theocentric universe of medieval art; his subjects also appear to be drawn from the life he saw around him, rather than from the traditional models he inherited. He tends to try something unique for his paintings as he still illustrates early Renaissance style of art. “To counter the vertical trust imposed by the arch, Masaccio creates a strong horizontal effect with the rather exaggerated extension of the arms of Christ on the cross” (Web Gallery). Although Masaccio still uses the gilt background for his representation, the atmospheric effects remain hauntingly convincing.

Masaccio, originally named Tommaso Cassai, was born in San Giovanni Valdarno, near Florence. He joined the painters’ guild in Florence at the age of 21. “His remarkably individual style owed little to other painters, except possibly the great 14th-century master Giotto” (Web Gallery). He began working on his most important work in 1423: the frescoes on the walls of the Brancacci Chapel of the Santa Maria del Carmine. Masaccio is one of the first to use perspective to suggest depth in a flat surface of the paintings. Giorgio Vasari, an Italian painter who is famous today for his biographies of Renaissance artists, credited Masaccio for introducing humanism in art. As an impact of Masaccio’s introduction, all Florentine painters studied the frescoes of Masaccio to “learn the precepts and rules for painting well.” He had an eye for the use of light, a talent for expressing moods and forming groups. “His admirers justly vaunt the noble gravity of his figures, the suppleness and simplicity of his draperies, the harmony of his compositions, and his grasp of light and shadow” (Tommaso). He attempts to tie the viewer to the scenes for every paintings he had created, to make the sacred accessible to ordinary Christians and even to non-Christians.

Leonardo da Vinci is well known for many genres of art including: painting, sculpting, architectural design, engineering, and his fascinating representations of the human body. During the years 1503 to 1506, da Vinci created one of the most celebrated portraits ever painted, the Mona Lisa, which illustrates the final gathering of Jesus Christ and his disciples. One of the most celebrated portraits ever painted, the Mona Lisa, which one can observe the mismatch between the left and right backgrounds which creates the illusion of perspective and depth. “A viewer can note that all these edges of the new rectangles come to intersect the focal points of Mona Lisa: chin, eye, nose, and upturned corner of her mouth” (Bogomolny). Leonardo purposefully made the painting line up with Golden Rectangles in the fashion in order to combine mathematics into art. Just like Masaccio applied the mathematical laws in paintings to create an illusion of space and distance. In Crucifixion, Masaccio proportionally illustrated the people around Jesus and the cross. Also, the proportional circular background emphasizes the focal points of Jesus on the cross.

Another comparable art piece is one of Masaccio’s own, Crucifixion of St. Peter. The context of the art is explaining the crucifixion of St. Peter, and it is significant that he is crucified upside down. “This painting is one of predella panels of the Pisa Altarpiece. This subject had presented difficulties for artists because St Peter, to avoid irreverent comparison with Christ, had insisted on being crucified upside down.” (Web Gallery). St. Peter found himself unworthy to be crucified in the same way as Jesus Christ had been. Both paintings have realistic human forms with detailed illustrations. In Crucifixion of St. Peter? Masaccio illustrated the detail in the human perspective as where you can see his calve muscles as well as his shin bones. His facial expressions are very clear that he is in an extreme pain. All the guards behind St. Peter are well proportioned with the appropriate perspective. “Between the pyramids, the cross is locked into the composition.” (Web Gallery). Within the small remaining space the executioners loom toward us with tremendous force as they hammer in the nails. Peter’s halo, upside down, is shown in perfect foreshortening.

The traits evidenced by the Crucifixion have significant bearing on the reception of a contemporary Expressionism and New Objectivity, were it ever to make its way back into theatrical practice. “And just as he used his brush to depict the dead and tormented body of Christ, he used it on another panel to convey its transfiguration at the Resurrection into an unearthly apparition of heavenly light. It is difficult to describe this picture because, once more, so much depends on its colors” (Grunewald’s). The Crucifixion by Grunewald also depicts crucifixion of Jesus. It is showing a harrowingly detailed, twisted, and bloody figure of Christ on the cross in the center flanked, on the left, by the mourning Madonna being comforted by John the Apostle, and Mary Magdalene kneeling with hands clasped in prater, and, on the right, by a standing John the Baptist pointing to the dying Savior. Grunewald illustrated the painting very mournful by expressing it with his ability to create dazzling light effects.

Michelangelo was an Italian Renaissance artist who exerted an unparalleled influence on the development of Western Art. His art piece, Crucifixion, emphasizes three dimensional space and solid, just as Masaccio illustrated. Jesus is illustrated with the pose that is shown from different perspective. It is not a straight view, Jesus forms tilted body parts. It truly illustrates three dimensional space and soild. “Michelangelo has endowed Christ with the muscular strength typical of his sculptures, while concentrating a sense of deep anguish in Christ’s head, which twists upward as if pleading for humanity’s redemption” (Ruehring). “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, ‘They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots.’ These things therefore the soldiers did” (John 19:23). Present is the spear wound inflicted into Jesus’ side by a Roman soldier. His blood is seen here dripping from the wound on his right side. It is one of the art pieces that depict the verse of the Bible well with all the people depicted in the painting.

Documentation suggests that Masaccio left Florence for Rome, where he died about 1428. His career was unfortunately short, lasting only about six years. He left neither a workshop nor any pupils to carry on his style, but his paintings, though few in number and done for patrons and locations of only middling rank, made an immediate impact on Florence, influencing future generations of important artists. Masaccio’s weighty, dignified treatment of the human figure and his clear and orderly depiction of space, atmosphere, and light renewed the idiom of the early 14th-century Florentine painter Giotto. Masaccio’s weighty, dignified treatment of the human figure and his clear and orderly depiction of space, atmosphere, and light renewed the idiom of the early 14th-century Florentine painter Giotto, whose monumental art had been followed but not equaled by the succeeding generations of painters. Masaccio carried Giotto’s more realistic human forms and three dimensional space and solid.

A covenant is essentially an agreement between two people which involves promises but in the Old Testament, a covenant is an agreement between God and his people. In the Old Testament a covenant is much more than just a contract or simple agreement between two parties or people. The word covenant comes from a Hebrew word that means “to cut”. The word “berith” in Hebrew also means covenant. (Bingham) Covenant are also offerings to God in one way or the other whether its for a blessing or a covenant of thanks, or for repentance of sin. Covenants are used in everyday lives a good example would Marriage. Marriage is a covenant where two people pledge to commit to each other and God in a holy union. Being a parent is also a covenant. Parents dedicate their lives to raising their child /children because it is part of their covenant with the future.

In the Old Testament, “covenant” provides additional and insightful information into the meaning of this important concept. In the Old Testament, there are many customs that have been labeled as a covenant. For example the strange custom of two people passing through the cut bodies of slain animals after making an agreement as seen in the Bible (Padfield, 2011) “And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof,” (King James Bible Jer.34:18). In the Old Testament a ceremony such as this one in the book of Jeremiah has always accompanied the making of the covenant.

Another example of a covenant custom was seen at Mount Sinai. In Exodus, Moses sprinkled the blood of animals on the altar and upon the people who entered into covenant with God. “And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, all that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.” (King James Bible Exo.24:4-8).

Another example of people entering into a covenant is when a meal was shared in an agreement. In the book of Genesis, Laban and Jacob entered into a covenant over a meal. “Then Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mount.” (King James Bible Gen.31:54). A covenant can also be made between relatives as is seen in the first book of Samuel with Jonathan and David who entered into a covenant because of the love they had for each other upon entering into this agreement they were both adhered to certain responsibilities. “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.” (King James Bible 1Sam. 18:3).

Most covenants can be found in the Old Testament. The five covenants that will be used in this paper are: God’s covenant with Noah, God’s covenant with Abraham, the Mosaic covenant, God’s covenant with David and the covenant of Christ also known as The New Covenant. Some of the first covenants are found in the book of Genesis where Abraham and his children were all commanded to be circumcised as a sign of covenant between them and God. “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised. “And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.” (King James Bible Gen. 10-11)

In the book of Genesis a covenant was also made between God and Noah. In the story of Noah, he was chosen amongst all others because he and his descendents believed in God and lived their lives according to God’s word and will. When God instructed Noah to build an ark, he told him of his intention to destroy the world by a universal flood.

Being loyal and faithful to God, Noah began building the ark. Over the years it took Noah to build the ark, he never stopped preaching about God’s judgment and mercy to people warning them of their approaching doom that they faced if they did not repent and turn their lives over to God. After the flood, Noah was grateful to the Lord who had delivered him and his descendents from the flood. Noah’s covenant was when he built an altar to God and made a sacrifice which was accepted by God. “And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done.”(King James Bible Gen. 8:21) God assured Noah that he would never again destroy the world by flood. “And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.” (King James Bible Gen. 9:15)

In God’s covenant with Abraham, God promised to bless Abraham and his descendents and make them his own special people and in return for doing so Abraham was to remain faithful to God and to serve as a channel to which God’s blessing could flow to the rest of the world. (Bingham) The covenant of Abraham can be seen in the book of Genesis and includes three parts. The first part was that Abraham’s descendants would be a great number, His descendants would occupy the land of Canaan and thirdly, all nations through Abraham would be blessed. (Guzik, 2002) God spoke to Abraham and said “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (King James Bible Gen. 12:1-3)

After hearing this request made by God, Abraham must have thought to himself this was an unbelievable promise especially since his wife Sarah was childless. Nonetheless, Abraham obeyed God without doubt or disbelief and did as he was asked to do by God. For the faith that Abraham has in God, God opened Sara’s womb and Isaac was born; he was the son of the promise, and would be the descendant through whom God would use to fulfill his covenant with Abraham. In the Mosaic covenant, a covenant was made between God and the people of Israel. The Ten Commandments is one of the foundations of the Mosaic covenant.

In the book of Exodus, we see how the people of Israel committed to an agreement with God and agreed to abide by whatever God said. “And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.” (King James Bible Exo.19:8) In this covenant God gave to his people the laws of the land. Moses wrote the conditions of the covenant down and offered sacrifices to God and then sprinkled both the book and people with the blood to seal the covenant.

In God’s covenant with David, a covenant was made in which David and his descendents were established as the royal heirs to the throne of the nation of Israel. (Padfield, 2011) In this covenant we learn of the coming of Jesus Christ and the promises god told David. God promises David that the reign of his dynasty will last forever. Each of these great promises was partially fulfilled in Solomon, David’s son and successor to his throne. The first promise was that Solomon ruled on David’s throne. The Second was that God’s mercies never departed from Solomon, although he sinned and thirdly, Solomon built God a magnificent house. In the covenant with David the prophets foretold of a greater fulfillment of these promises. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute righteousness in the earth. . . . Now this is His name by which He will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness” (King James Bible Jer. 23:5-6).

“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. . . Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it . . . from that time forward, even forever. (King James Bible Isa. 9:6-7) “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end. (King James Bible Luke. 1:31-33) God’s promises to David are completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Jesus does reign, and will reign on David’s throne forever. (Guzik, 2002)

The last covenant is the Covenant of Christ or the New Covenant. The new covenant is the new agreement God has made with mankind which is based solely on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The main concept of the new covenant was originated with the promise of Jeremiah that God would accomplish for his people what the old covenant had failed to do which is seen in the book of Jeremiah. (Padfield, 2011) “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (King James Bible Jer.31: 31-34)

In this new covenant, God would write his law on human hearts. The new covenant is considered a better covenant as it was solely based on better promises and rests directly on the sacrifices and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. (Padfield, 2011) The Epistle to the Hebrews gives the new covenant more attention than any other book in the New Testament. The Epistle quotes the entire passage from (Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrew 8:8 – 12). In the Epistle, Jesus is referred to as “the mediator of the new covenant.” (Padfield, 2011). The new covenant accomplished what the old covenant not, which was the will of sin and the cleansing of the mind.

In conclusion, each covenant gives us all insight into different definitions and meanings of the word covenant. In the five covenants used, it is easy to identify what kind of covenant was used and implemented. In looking at God’s covenant with Abraham, it is clear that Abraham is an example in the Old Testament, “who makes us wise for salvation. The Old Testament is a good tool and reference that teaches Christians about salvation through faith in Christ. In the New Covenant, Christ cleanses the inner man. His death on the cross takes away the sins of the world. Covenants in marriage should be taught and carried on from our ancestors and in everyday life.

Covenants are man’s guide to knowledge of God’s love and the relationship he offers us through his son Jesus Christ. In reading both the Old and New Testament we all can learn from our ancestors mistakes they made with God and enrich our lives with hope as we all learn to become better Christians in living our lives according to God’s holy words.

Although the definition appears to be quite intuitive, it might be worthwhile to explore the evolution of the concept of liberty through the ages. The current concept of freedom is heavily influenced by Locke and Isaiah Berlin; but what about the Islamic point of view regarding freedom. In this report I will attempt to contrast the different views of John Locke and compare it with the concept of freedom in Islam.

John Locke

Locke believed that liberty was “to be under no restraint but the law of nature.” The old concept of liberty which was defined by Aristotle and Machiavelli basically advocated the imposition of self-control through the government. The new concept was to have none of that and it moved its focus towards individual rights.

Locke began his analysis by assuming a state of nature. He stated that this state is essentially the state of liberty. People’s rights are most obvious in this state of nature. However, people are not in this state of nature due to the presence of civil government. Having established individual rights as the basis of liberty through his idea of the state of nature, Locke needed to reconcile this with the existence of government. While Aristotle had emphasized on virtue and Machiavelli on virtu, Locke did likewise with individual rights. He says: “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

One of the criticism of John Locke is his assumption that liberty is only evident in the state of naure which leads to the conclusion that the civil society is bad. However, that is not the case since only through a defined rule and establishment we can seek to establish means and a method of protection of individuals’ right. Hence civil society endorses freedom unlike the state of nature since it has a check and balance mechanism against individuals’ encroaching upon other peoples freedom.

Freedom in West

The first breakthrough in freedom in the west was the freedom in religion and its speech, conscience and association. As the aftermath of the thirty years war (1618-1648) which was primarily ignited by the Protestant Reformation, a peace treaty was signed, known as the ‘Peace of Westphalia.’ The treaty gave religious freedom of some sort, by allowing Catholics and Protestants to coexist peacefully only as the established religions of the different states. However, this was merely a necessity of that time and was a compromise of sorts rather than an ideal scenario or example of freedom.

England was fighting its own battles which were essentially a political struggle between the king and the Parliament. The idea of religious freedom materialized in the form of freedom of the individual. The struggle for constitutional authority in 1689 was followed by the ‘Glorious Revolution’ which assured the dominance of Parliament and its religion whereby the religion was declared as free.

Religious Freedom in Christianity

In a well renowned move in 1965, the Catholic Church published a document titled on religious freedom which was titled Dignitatis Humanae (Of the Dignity of the Human Person). The crux of the document was that humans had the right to religious freedom which is essentially imperviousness to coercion in civil society. The most important points of the declaration were as follows:

The fundamental right to religious liberty

“Every human being has the right of religious freedom. People are free to seek out the truth in any religion they deem to be representative and correct. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” [1] (Quoted from Vatican sources)

The responsibility of the state

The government will do all within its right to safeguard the right of all citizens to protect the rights of all residents. It is discriminatory of the government if it imposes any constraints on any religion. “Religious freedom is exercised in society, therefore is subject to certain regulatory norms, again to ensure the common welfare. Freedom and responsibility must balance and religious freedom must have as its aim to promote persons acting with greater responsibility.” [2]

Religious freedom and Christianity

The Bible proclaims freedom for the people to follow their religion freely. Therefore, Christians should respect and advocate religious freedom. God has regard for the dignity of all human beings which can also be interpreted from the actions of Christ himself.

Freedom in Islam
History of freedom in Islam

The first instance of freedom can be observed when ALLAH created Adam (A.S) and taught him right and wrong and the liberty to choose between them. It is revealed in the Quran: “Then He showed him what is wrong for him and what is right for him.” This verse reveals that liberty is the right of everyone and no one’s right is be curtailed or harmed in any manner. When Pharaoh abused this right, ALLAH sent Hazrat Moosa (A.S) to free the Israelites.

We have another great example among the Seerah of Holy Prophet P.B.U.H. When he started preaching Islam to the Quraish, adopted a liberal approach where no one was forced to convert to Islam. Even after the conquest of Makkah, when the power of Muslims was at its pinnacle, people were given complete freedom as far as their religion was concerned. Even at Medina, the prophet P.B.U.H signed a pact with the Jews where both sides were supposed to be allies and help each other in times of war and turmoil. Islam contributes to the freedom of belief, since it spread its roots through invitation and persuasion. People are to embrace it based on sound judgment, truth and it goes without saying, without coercion. On a similar note, Ibn Qudamah, the renowned Hanbali jurist has written:

“It is not permissible to compel a disbeliever into professing Islam. If, for example, a non-Muslim citizen (dhimmi) or a person of protected status (musta’man) is forced to accept Islam, he is not considered a Muslim unless it is established that his confession is a result of his own choosing. If the person concerned dies before his consent is known, he will be considered a disbeliever. The reason for the prohibition of duress here are the words of God Most High that there shall be ‘no compulsion in religion [3] .”

Concept of freedom

An International Conference on Islamic law, which was held between the ulema of Saudi Arabia and Europe, issued this statement. “The individual is free in regard to the creed he wishes to embrace, and it is unlawful to compel anyone to embrace a religion.” This statement is derived from Quran which declares that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256), and ‘Had thy Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Do you then force people to become believers?’ (10: 99).

These teachings of the Quran were also upheld in the 1952 convention of the ulama of Pakistan who issued a statement named ‘The Basic Principle of an Islamic State’. One of its provisions were: “The citizen shall be entitled to all the rights, he shall be assured within the limits of the law of freedom of religion and belief, freedom of worship [4] “. Likewise, the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, issued by the Islamic Council of Europe provides: ‘Every person has the right to freedom of conscience and worship in accordance with his religious beliefs.’ (Art XIII [5] .) These have become the basis for formulation of law in many Muslim countries such as Malaysia & Pakistan. The Constitution of Malaysia 1957 states the following in Article (II) entitled ‘Freedom of Religion’:

(i) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion, and subject to clause to propagate it.

(ii) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own

The 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, similarly, asserts in its section on Fundamental Rights and Liberties that:

“Subject to law, public order and morality: a. every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion; and b. every religious denomination and every section thereof have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.”

The Prophet P.B.U.H did not treat conversion from Islam as a proscribed offense. Rather, he forgave many individuals who had embraced Islam, then abandoned it, and then embraced it again. Included among these was Abd Allah ibn Abi Sarh, the foster brother of Usman ibn Affan, whom the Prophet forgave when Usman pleaded on his behalf. Other instances include that of al-Harith ibn Suwayd, and a group of people from Mecca who embraced Islam, renounced it afterwards, and then embraced it again. Their lives were spared too. (Kamal 1999)

Ibn Taymiyyah, who has documented this information in his book, has written that these incidents are renowned to the scholars of Hadith. Ibn Taymiyyah also wrote that the Companions reached a agreement (ijma’) on this. When the Prophet P.B.U.H passed away, some of the Arabs, reverted, including many followers of the self- declared ‘prophets’, Musalimah, al-Anasi, and Tulayhah al- Asadi. They renounced Islam and were subsequently fought by Hazrat Abu Bakr and other Companions until they returned to the faith again. They were not persecuted because of their repudiation of Islam [6] .

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it can easily be seen that Christianity & Islam have similar views as far as religious freedom is concerned. Sadly, the modern day Muslims and Christians, misguided as they are, often engage in persecution or discrimination between different religions. The banning of hijab in France and the persecution of Christians and shiahs in Pakistan are stark examples of a harsh reality. More needs to be done to align the motives of these parties in order to ensure harmony between individuals of different faiths.

Additional Resources used

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitatis_Humanae

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

globalwebpost.com/farooqm/islam/freedom/freedom.doc

http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/concept-freedom.htm

http://www.ipedr.com/vol17/21-CHHSS%202011-H10000.pdf

Plagiarism Report

Note: Most of the work showing up as plagiarized is actually quoted text. References have been attached for each of the quoted text instances.

Disciples of Christ missionary, Donald Anderson McGavran, upon his return from evangelistic work in India, wrote and published in 1955 a book entitled The Bridges of God. Many advocates and critics of what is now commonly called the Church Growth movement credit this book with providing the movement its first and primary theoretical foundation. McGavran later published a second volume, How Churches Grow (1959), based on his research of church growth in various places throughout the world. These two books and McGavran’s efforts to establish in 1961 at Northwest Christian College in Eugene, Oregon, the Institute for Church Growth eventually propelled the movement into prominence in the United States. Particularly important to the movement’s expansion was McGavran’s appointment in 1965 as founding dean of the School of World Mission at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. McGavran’s collaborations with Fuller colleagues, along with the publication in 1970 of a third volume, Understanding Church Growth, solidified the movement’s eventual significance within and influence on North American churches throughout the late 20th Century and into the 21st Century.

Critics and supporters alike agree that Church Growth in its varied expressions since the 1960’s has had a profound influence on church ministry, particularly on evangelistic efforts and strategies. McGavran, the son and grandson of missionaries, was influenced by the Reconstructionist Movement and its aim to “Christianize” entire societies. McGavran crystallized his research and thinking into three primary principles that he argued were the core of Church Growth. First, Church Growth is evangelistic. McGavran was passionate in his conviction that a primary responsibility of Christians is to live out the Great Commission, in other words, to encourage all people to become followers of Jesus. The central purpose of the church is to grow. The second primary principle grows out of the first. Research, said McGavran, uncovers the causes of and barriers to church growth in diverse contexts. Finally, leaders and churches are to set goals and develop specific evangelistic strategies based on what is learned through research.

Another core characteristic of the movement is its emphasis on “cultural free” evangelism. What this means is that strategies for church growth include acceptance of diverse human cultures and support the cultural homogeneity of local churches. Advocates of church growth applaud the movement’s evangelistic success. Critics charge that the movement fails to adequately to promote ecumenism.

Because McGavran’s primary interest and emphasis was international missions, he focused his initial teaching efforts on pastors from places outside the United States. A Fuller colleague, Peter Wagner, began to apply McGavran’s church growth strategies to North American contexts. One of Wagner’s students, Win Arn, founded in 1972 the Institute for American Church Growth. Wagner and Arn are respected as influential pioneers of the Church Growth movement in North America. Equally important to the growing influence of Church Growth in North America was the development of Fuller’s doctor of ministry emphasis in Church Growth and the formation of the American Society of Church Growth. Since the 1970’s, many organizations and groups have incorporated Church Growth research strategies into their efforts to “market” Christian congregations. The well-known Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago, Illinois, exemplifies the explosion of what have been termed “seeker-friendly” churches that design outreach strategies based on demographic research. Another example is popularity of the “purpose-driven church” model developed by Rick Warren, author of the international best-seller, The Purpose-Driven Church, and pastor of the Saddleback Church, a mega-church in Lake Forest, California. Warren earned his doctor of ministry degree at Fuller Theological Seminary and bases his ministry efforts on The Great Commission in the New Testament and uses marketing strategies to shape related programs. Warren’s second book, The Purpose Driven Life, has sold more than 30 million copies.

Since McGavran’s death in 1990 and the closure of Fuller’s Institute for Evangelism and Church Growth in 1995, and in part as a result of the explosion of church growth models such as Willow Creek and the Warren’s purpose-driven church, the Church Growth movement as McGavran articulated it has become less focused and has diminished in prominence. The influence of Church Growth in its diversified forms, however, remains visible in many denominational and congregational ministries such as cell groups, long-range planning, conflict management, and leading change. Also, thousands of pastors and church leaders have adopted seeker-sensitive and/or purpose-driven approaches to church management and growth.

A new term that is being used in some circles as an alternative to Church Growth is “church health.” Some “church health” advocates, such as Christian Schwartz who wrote Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches, are critical of the Church Growth movement. Observers note that Schwartz and others who are defining “church health” utilize research techniques not unlike those developed by McGavran and Wagner in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

McGavran himself insightfully recognized that Church Growth was and would continue to be controversial. Certainly, the many ministries that have emerged since McGavran published his principles and strategies and that are considered to be part of the Church Growth movement have elicited divided and divisive responses. Zondervan published in 2004 a book that includes five different evaluative views of the movement. Critics of the movement argue that seeker-oriented, market-based approaches to church growth too readily replicate the marketing and growth strategies of major secular corporations and are too willing to utilize elements of popular culture to appeal to persons unaffiliated with Christian churches. Others criticize the theological views of those church growth leaders like Rick Warren who have gained international prominence and whose perspectives thus have significant public influence. Advocates respond that church growth leaders and congregations have a genuine concern for the salvation of persons. A study conducted in 2007 by the Willow Creek Community showed that while involvement in seeker-sensitive programs led to numerical church growth, it did not always translate into spiritual growth and maturity. Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek, and other church leaders have published the findings of the survey in a book entitled Reveal: Where Are You? and are considering next steps.

Resources

McGavran, Donald A. Understanding Church Growth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970).

McIntosh, Gary, Towns, Elmer, et al, eds. Evaluating the Church Growth Movement: 5 Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).

Schwartz, Christian A. Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches, trans. Lynn McAdam, Lois Wollin, and Martin Wollin (Carol Stream, IL: ChurchSmart Resources, 1996).

Wagner, C. Peter. Your Church Can Grow: Seven Vital Signs of a Healthy Church (Ventura: Regal, 1976).

Introduction

With an overwhelming reality with regard to orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) in South Africa there is an urgent response needed to assist these children. According to various authors the local church does possess the potential and mandate to be a key role-player and catalyst in creating sustainable livelihoods. Such an involvement could assist in improving the quality of life for the communities and its children in question (Makoko, 2007; Mitchell, 2001; Singletary, 2007).

According to the Bible (Matthew 28:18, 19; Matthew 22:37-39), the mission of the church is to declare and demonstrate the gospel to a sinful and a suffering world, with the primary aim to build the Kingdom of God. Perkins (1995:111) refers to a time when the church was the primary source of care and help for the needy of society and concludes that the church surrendered this role to government agencies and welfare programmes. He makes a profound statement by stating that “Today, in many ways, the lost world does a better job of caring for the needy than the church does.” (1995:111)

Within this chapter, a theological perspective and foundation for the church’s mandate to be involved in the community and the lives of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) will be investigated. Secondly the church’s potential and call towards a holistic, integrated missional approach for effective community development will be explored. Thirdly, the church’s methodologies and approaches within their current praxis of community involvement as well as possible shortfalls will be considered.

This investigation will be based on a literature study, primarily using the work of Kysar (1991) which is acknowledged as a relatively old source, but used due to the large extent of his work in both Old and New Testament literature relating to the mandate of the church for social ministry. Other authors such as Kumalo (2001), Liebenberg (1996), Mathole (2005), Myers (2004) and Myers (1999a) will be consulted and reflected in this chapter and used to evaluate Kysar (1991). Due to the limitation of this study, no exegesis will be done. The sources used in this study will be compared in order to identify similarities and contradictions in order to formulate a theological foundation.

a theological perspective and foundation for the church’s mandate to be involved in the community and the lives of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC)

The church’s involvement in the community has been motivated from various authors’ viewpoints (August, 1999; Dreyer, 2004; Hessel, 1992; Kumalo, 2001; Liebenberg, 1996; Mathole, 2005; Myers, 1999b; Myers, 1999a; Mitchell, 2001 Perkins, 1995; Pierce, 2000; and Vilanculo, 1998). Various conclusions have been made, but primarily it has been stated that the church has a responsibility and not merely an option to be involved in the lives of the local community. The focus of this study is not the church as such, and therefore this chapter will be directed towards the role and mandate of the church’s involved in the marginalized and poor. The primary purpose of this discussion serves as an understanding of firstly, the revelation of God’s concern regarding the poor and marginalized and secondly the mandate and role of the church.

Firstly, we need to explore the biblical imperatives for the involvement of the church in the lives of the poor, suffering people and marginalized of society with the aim to establish a perspective for a theology of development. This will be done by establishing a basic overview for understanding some of the biblical images and attributes of God as well as some of Jesus’ teachings in this regard. Secondly, biblical imperatives for the involvement of the church specifically towards orphans and children will be explored.

Due to the limitation of this study, the overview and discussion provided within this section are by no means comprehensive and are primarily focussed on the attributes of God as revealed in both the Old and New Testament as a means to understand the divine concern relating to the reality of the poor (poverty).

Various Old Testament attributes of God

Kysar (1991:7) calls for phrases such as ‘images of God’ and ‘attributes of God’ to be understood as at best, “a human perception of a reality that lies beyond the boundaries of language and conception”. To Kysar, all the ways in which God is referred to, represent efforts to understand the absolute unknowable in terms of the known. The images of God in Scripture are mere metaphors as they attempt to speak of the divine reality parallel to the human reality.

For Kysar (1991:8), Mathole (2005:70) and Van Til (2004:444) within the interpretations of the images and characteristics of God, there is a remarkably consistent theme of the biblical God who cares passionately about the total welfare of all human beings. These images of God will be shortly discussed and evaluated in light of other authors in order to establish a perspective for a theology of development for the individual Christian and the church in general.

God the Creator

Kysar (1991:8), Myers (1999a:25) and Van Til (2004:444) refer to Genesis 1 and 2 that endorse the image of the Creator God who forms reality through the power of divine word or act, or as explained by Myers (1999a:25) “making something out of nothing.” God is depicted as the Creator of this materialistic matter (creation) and included in it, is the human being that is created to the image of God (Befus & Bauman, 2004; Gordon & Evans, 2002:17; Kysar, 1991:8; Myers, 1999a:25, Van Til, 2004:444). Both Kysar and Myers (1999a:26) confirm the origin of the human reality as revealed in Genesis 1 and 2, as from the craftsmanship of God. They further consider the creation stories as honouring and celebrating the physical realm as a result of such a divine creative act. To them, the image of God portrayed in these stories of creation is that of a Creator who is in a continuing relationship with creation. Within this creation, human beings are placed in a system of relationships: with God, with self, community and the environment. God defines the physical dimension of life and existence for people in the calling to be fruitful and productive stewards of God’s creation (Myers, 1999a:25). God is presented as one who is concerned for the full range of human life including the physical welfare of all people (Kysar, 1991:8; Myers, 1999a:26).

According to Kumalo (2001:133) at the centre of a theology for development lies “the truth that every human being is made in the image of God”. This promotes the task of a theology of development to restore and recover God’s image in humanity by helping each other to reflect ‘human wholeness’ or ‘image of God’. For him, this ‘human wholeness’ implies a concern for life that includes all aspects of human existence, the spiritual and physical dimensions.

Kumalo (2001:134) defines a theology of development as the ‘comprehensive progression’ and well-being of individual humans as well as of the whole of creation, to include the ‘immanent needs’ for human survival and well-being, the ‘transcendent needs’ of human beings (the right to existence and empowerment in order to find meaning in one’s life); and a personal relationship with God. This is within the understanding that salvation presupposes human needs. With a holistic understanding of salvation it implies that the well-being of creation is central to a theology of development (Kumalo, 2001:134).

God of the Exodus

Both Kysar (1991:10) and Myers (1999a:31) refer to the course of history as altered by the intervention of God through the prophetic agent Moses. For Kysar, the ultimate revelation of the God of Israel is a historical one and it means that God attends to the historical conditions for humans. These historical realities of human existence are precisely where humans encounter God – the material reality of time and space becomes the medium through which an encounter with God is experienced. According to Myers (1999a:30), the divine revelation experienced by Israel in the exodus is typical of the way in which God works in human life. To him, the exodus is more than a past event; it portrays a model for how God always and everywhere acts for human well-being on a multiple level. Firstly, on a spiritual level, God is revealing himself and demonstrating his power in order for Israel to have faith and be faithful. Secondly on a socio-political level, it is the “moving from slavery to freedom, from injustice to a just society, from dependence to independence”. Thirdly on an economic level, moving from land owned by somebody else, to freedom in their own land and fourthly on a psychological level it is about self understanding as enslaved people and discovering the inner understanding that with God’s help, they could be free people and become a nation (Myers, 1999a:31).

With the understanding of the role of the church as an agent for change and transformation, a theology of development includes the church that understands and fulfils the realities of human existence. This would imply the active role of the church within the understanding that human well-being is enhanced through God’s involvement on a multiple level (spiritual, socio-political, economic and psychological level), through the dynamics of the church’s involvement.

The Passionate God

According to Kysar (1991:12) and Myers (1999a:31), Moses is called to the task of being the human agent in God’s liberation and the words and language of God. Kysar refers to Exodus 3:7 – 12 and 6:2 – 8 where we find attributes of God in human perception and emotions which portray an important image of the divine God. The verbs used are filled with sensitivity to the conditions of the people: ‘observed’, ‘heard’, ‘known’ and ‘come down’ and the implications of these verbs reveal a God that is moved by the plight of the people. To him these verbs also suggest God’s attentiveness to human welfare, and that God is moved by the physical, (social, economic and political) conditions of the people.

Kysar (1991:12) refers to the Hebrew verb yadah used and interpreted as ‘know’ in this text that means more than knowing in the sense of a cognitive perception. The Hebrew verb means to know in the sense of sharing in the reality of the known. In ‘knowing’ the suffering of the people, God is quickened to declare that the divine reality participates in their life conditions. The image of God is not portrayed as a passive figure but of a God who is moved by the plight of people and He declares the intention to act on behalf of the people (Myers, 1999a:31; Kysar, 1991:12). The act of God to free Israel is designed with one purpose in mind, namely to change the conditions of the people. The mode of this action is through human agency when Moses is sent to execute God’s plan of action. The passionate God acts through humans who are commissioned to represent the divine will (Myers, 1999a:31; Kysar, 1991:12).

With the understanding of the role of Moses as a human agent in God’s liberation, it affirms the vital role to which humans are enlisted for the liberation cause to assist others for the sake of their own liberation. A theology of development includes the awareness of God’s understanding of the plight of people and his declaration and intent to act on behalf of the people through humans who are commissioned to represent the divine will.

Advocate of Justice

Kysar (1991:18), Donahue (2006:1) and Van Til (2004:449) refer to the justice of God for human welfare as being evident in many ways in the Old Testament legal materials, but state that it is nowhere more radically portrayed than in the provision of the sabbatical and jubilee years. The sabbatical and jubilee years are related traditions in the Hebrew Scriptures to be found within the covenant code in Exodus 21 – 23 and in the Deuteronomic code (Deuteronomy 15). To Kysar, Donahue and Van Til, within the Sabbath year God is pictured as the monarch of the people and as their social liberator. There are a number of provisions within the legislation for the seventh year. Slaves are to be released along with their families (Exodus 21:2 – 6). The land is to be given a sabbatical rest by leaving the fields fallow and any spontaneous produce during this year could be harvested by the stranger or the poor as in Exodus 23:10 – 11. Within the Deuteronomic code there is provision for the care of the poor (Deuteronomy 15:1 – 18) which includes the cancellation of all debts, lending to the poor and the freeing of Hebrew slaves (Kysar, 1991:18; Van Til, 2004:449).

Van Til (2004:449) reflects on the covenant code and the laws, and concludes that “one senses a special concern for those who experience the greatest need – the widow, the orphan and the alien” – as a number of laws are enacted to provide for them. He refers to Deuteronomy 15:4 – 5 as evidence that if the commandments concerning the provision for the poor were kept, the absence of poverty would result. He also relates this as the mandate that God’s people “must serve the neediest among them by keeping the laws” that relate to the covenant legislations of the Pentateuch. These were provided as laws, and not as options for compassion. He also refer to Thethe keeping of these and other covenant stipulations that would result in blessings for the whole nation of Israel, including material prosperity and the failure to keep them would result in a series of curses (2004:452). While the means for these principles and responsibilities differ from society to society, they are still valid and ongoing as they demonstrate the just and merciful character of God (Van Til, 2004:452).

The God of the law that stands in solidarity with the poor and insists on their rights and dignity is portrayed through the legislations of the Old Testament law (Van Til, 2004:452). God speaks in this legislation as one who identifies himself with the poor, the enslaved, and the dispossessed, as well as one who is concerned for the welfare of the natural environment. It can be interpreted as God’s way of indicating indebtedness and responsibility towards the poor and assistance that needs to be provided by the church to free them from poverty or to liberate (Kumalo, 2001:134).

Within this understanding of God’s attribute, a theology of development should be people-centred, based on their needs and dependent on human resources. Within God’s concern for social justice, a responsibility and bias is implied towards the suffering, the marginalized and the poor; with the coexistent task of restoring their ‘human wholeness’. For Kumalo it is imperative to have a focus and bias towards the poor within a people-centred theology of development (2001:314).

God of the Prophets

Kysar (1991:20) and Donahue (2006:3) refer to the classical prophets’ concurrence through their insistence that God’s rule of Israel encompasses the social life of the people. Demands for the just treatment of the needy, the obligations of the leaders of the nation for justice, the interrelatedness of worship and social morality, and the inclusiveness of God’s care for humans are among the prominent themes of the prophets. According to Kysar and Donahue, the prophets offer us an image of a God whose rule extends to the social realm. They further refer to the importance of this social rule of God that the prophets are forthright in declaring that the violation of that rule can only result in the punishment of the people. Hence, the prophets of the eighth and sixth centuries understood that the exiles of both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah are the direct consequences of social injustice (Amos 3:1 – 2). To them, the violation of God’s will for social relationships is a matter of utmost significance. Its punishment arises from the very nature of God, for whom societal structures are of paramount concern.

Kumalo (2001:135) emphasizes the role of the church as the voice of the poor and to speak on their behalf to government and society. He relates this to the role of the prophets, and it means that the church might at times be unpopular within the wider society or powerful, but it should not discourage, as a theology of development includes the voices of the poor to be echoed in public policy for justice and the responsibilities of government towards the poor and marginalized.

God of the psalmists and Proverbs

The social concern of the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is further confirmed by the informative nature of the wisdom literature, where it is clear that it is in worship that people give clearest expression to their image of God (Kyser 1991:23) How worship is done tells us something vital about people’s understanding of the one to whom worship is addressed (1991:23). For him, within the variety of themes and moods depicted in the Psalms there is a consistency in the portrayal of God, which in turn fits the pattern of the images mentioned above.

He (1991:23) refers to the God addressed in the psalms as frequently represented as an advocate for and a rescuer of the poor. He emphasises passages such as God rising up the needy (107:41) and him being the saviour of the poor (34:6). Also, the afflicted are defended by God (140:12); he is present with the needy (109:31); he reverses the human conditions of want and deprivation (113:5 – 9) and he rescues the needy (149:5 – 9).

According to him (1991:23) the psalmists who address God in these hymns repeatedly portray themselves as poor (9:9-10; 86:1 – 2, 7). The Psalms are the petitions of the afflicted (25:16), the needy (35:10), the lowly (147:6), the downtrodden (74:21), the orphans and widows (68:6), the children (116:6), and the barren woman (113:9). For Kysar, the impression one gains from this overview of the self-identification of the psalmists is that God is one who hear the cries of the needy and the oppressed (1991:23). Indeed, it is God of the exodus, who declares in Exodus 3:7 – 8: “I have observed the misery of my peopleaˆ¦and have heard their cryaˆ¦I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver themaˆ¦” (NLT:1996).

For Myers (1999a:33) the literature from the Proverbs and Psalms is also a summary of learnings and wisdom of God’s faithful people concerning “right and just relationships” and demonstrates these people’s experiences of God’s rule as the absolute. Social relationships reflected as God’s concern, surface throughout the Psalms and Proverbs. It demonstrates God’s interest in the everyday things of life such as eating, drinking, playing, crying and laughing. The human inability to see God as being active and interested in daily life is referred to by Myers (1999a:33) as “a serious weakness, it is as if we believe that God is absent from or disinterested in this part of life”. He further refers to this inability as a cause of a serious blind spot that is often reflected in the church’s practice and interpretation of development.

For Kumalo (2001:136) a theology of development must generate a spirituality that encompasses the total human existence, which further brings hope, strength and power to the people and marginalized within the understanding that God is involved and interested in the everyday things of life. The attributes of God in the development of spirituality should stress issues such as freedom, love, holiness, dignity, power and creativity; as these elements are all part of human existence and should be the basis of all people’s lives (Kumalo, 2001:136).

The attributes of God, revealed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ

According to Kysar (1991:31), within the New Testament, the dynamics of the Old Testament attributes of God are enhanced by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ whole earthly existence echoed his and his Father’s love and care for the poor and needy, which included children. For Kysar, the attributes of God revealed through Jesus Christ’ teachings and primary concerns, directly relates to God’s concern for humanity. For Kysar, the nature of Jesus’ ministry, further relates to the nature of God’s mission in the world.

Kysar (1991:32) reflects on the ministry of Jesus, as a revelation of the attributes of God and believes that when seen in its totality, it is a clear expression of God’s concern for the whole human existence. Both Kysar and Myers (1999a:35) reflect on Jesus’ actions and words which addressed every aspects of human life, which made it a holistic mission.

Kysar primarily seeks to confirm three aspects within the New Testament. These aspects are firstly the God who cares for the whole person, secondly the God who cares for all persons and thirdly, the God who identifies with suffering humanity. Due to the inter-related nature of these aspects, they will not be separately discussed, but be referred to within an overview of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the attributes of God evident from it.

A concern with humanity’s physical welfare

Jesus’ concern for the physical welfare of people is considered by Kysar (1991:32) and Mathole (2005:92) in light of the numerous healing stories, which dominate the Gospels both in number and strategic locations (Mark 1:21 – 2:12). These healings ranged from a fever (Mark 1:30 – 31) to the raising of the dead (John 11), which according to Kysar suggests that any physical affliction evoked the attention of Jesus.

Further to the healing stories Kysar (1991:32) considers the accounts of Jesus feeding the multitudes, recorded by all four Gospels (Matthew 14:13 – 21, Matthew 15:32 – 37, Mark 6:30 – 44, Mark 8:1 – 10, Luke 9:10 – 17 and John 6:1 – 13). He acknowledges that these accounts have meaning beyond the satisfying of hunger, but appeals for the primary meaning not be lost and refers to these accounts as demonstrating Jesus’ care for the fulfilling of a basic human need (1991:33). To both Kysar (1991:35) and Mathole (2005:92) this reveals God as centrally concerned with the physical conditions of humans and further reveals God’s acting to reverse bodily suffering.

A concern with humanity’s emotional welfare

Kysar (1991:35) relates God’s care for the emotionally afflicted to the several acts of forgiveness (Luke 7:36 – 50). According to him, the forgiveness of sin is addressing the emotional affliction of guilt (1991:36).

He also considers Jesus’ acts of exorcism as emotional healing and interprets these as neurosis or psychosis (1991:36). He refers to the physical affliction demon possession could have, such as infliction of wounds (Mark 5:5), the loss of basic skills such as speech and hearing (Matthew 12:22), seizures and convulsions (Luke 4:35; 9:42), and multiple personalities (Mark 5:9). Due to the limitation of this study, Kysar’s interpretation of exorcism and demon possession will not be elaborated, but primarily considered in light of the pain and suffering demon possession entailed both physically and emotionally.

Both Kysar (1991:36) and Mathole (2005:92) concludes that through Jesus’ acts of exorcism he expressed God’s concern for emotional health in the same way as he offered the message of the Kingdom of God to pitiful and hopeless people. It meant healing, forgiveness, acceptance and hope for people that were entrapped by their emotional conditions and societal standards.

A concern with humanity’s economic welfare

For Kysar (1991:37) Jesus’ attention to the poor, relates to the expression of God’s care for afflictions that resulted from impoverishment. Both Kysar (1991:37) and Mathole (2005:75) mention that Jesus spent a lot of time among the common people of Palestine (Luke 6:17) which was according to Kysar, considered a land with vast numbers of poor residents. Secondly, Kysar considers that Jesus spent much of his time with the poor, as reflected in the way Jesus spoke of poverty through the parables. To him, these parables were very believable as they were realistic pictures of the common life and clearly understood by his audiences. Such parables would include the parable of the tenants (Matthew 21:33 – 43), the lost coin (Luke 15:8 – 9) and the figure of Lazarus as a common sight of such a pitiful creature (Luke 16:19 – 31).

While Kysar (1991:38) acknowledges other teachings of Jesus that relate to poverty and health, both Donahue (2006:5) and Kysar emphasise Luke’s presentation of Jesus. For them, Luke’s account reflects Jesus’ extensive attention to questions such as the dangers of wealth (Luke 12:13 – 21), the proper use of riches (Luke 19:1 – 10) and the call to surrender possessions for the kingdom of God (Luke 18:18 -23).

While acknowledging the controversial debate over Jesus’ own background of poverty, both Kysar (1991:38) and Mathole (2005:74) considers Jesus’ shared solidarity with the poor of his time, in light of his ministry as “a ministry for the poor by the poor.” They relate this to their understanding of Jesus’ and his followers lives of poverty during his time of ministry and promote them as a group that depended upon each other for shelter and sustenance (Luke 8:1 – 3). Kysar refers to Walter Pilgrim while Mathole refers to Padilla who considered Jesus and his disciples as belonging to a group in society that did not produce their own economic sustenance, but lived from the respect, gratitude and charity of others. Van Til (2004:452) does not consider Jesus and his disciples amongst the poorest, as he reflects on the fishermen of Galilee as business owners, and Jesus and his disciples giving alms, rather than receiving them. While no clear conclusion in this regard could be drawn, the primary message of all the authors considered, referred to Jesus’ total solidarity with the poor. In the work of Carillo (2008:n.p), he relates the ministry of Jesus to the ethos of the way in which Jesus lived his life. Carillo (2008:n.p) considers the poor “the hallmark of his true identity” as the healing, feeding, preaching to the poor was prophesied by Isaiah as evidence of God’s presence.

For Kysar (1991:39) and Mathole (2005:91) the message of Jesus had a particular relevance to the poor. To both, the establishment of the Kingdom of God meant transformation and implied a time of prosperity and abundance as the reign of God in the world was believed to bring changes in society. The message of hope related to the poor as a change in their circumstances and was perceived as the ‘good news’ for the poor (Luke 7:22). Kysar concludes that the attributes of God reflected in the ministry of Jesus are one who cares for the economic welfare of the people (1991:39). To Kysar, Mathole and Van Til (2004:452) the outpourings of God’s heart that feels the pain of entrapment of poverty is evident in Jesus’ words and deeds.

A concern with humanity’s social welfare

For Kysar (1991:40) and Mathole (2005:93), the social implications of sickness and demon possession, and the social integration as a result of Jesus’ healings and exorcisms, represented God’s concern for the marginalized of society. Both Kysar and Mathole refer to the practice where physically afflicted persons were removed from mainstream society which was due to legislation regarding holiness and cleanliness. Accounts reflecting Jesus’ acts of healing that resulted in social integration are the leper (Mark 1:40 – 44) and the woman with the flow of blood (Mark 5:25 – 34), to name but two. Both Kysar and Mathole conclude that Jesus’ healings besides being physical, also represented God’s concern for the marginalized of society and “embodied God’s actions to liberate humans” (Mathole, 2005:92).

Kysar (1991:40) also considers the implications of Jesus’ persistent failure to observe social custom as he generally acted in ways that contradicted the social divisions of his society. Both Kysar and Mathole (2005:93) emphasise this by referring to accounts such as Jesus touching the leper (Mark 1:41) by which he violates the social and religious law regarding leprosy. Furthermore they refer to Jesus using a Samaritan as the hero of his parable (Luke 10:30 – 37) and Jesus’ conversation with a Samaritan woman (John 4: – 26) which in essence challenged the hatred of the Jews and Samaritans of one another. To Kysar and Mathole Jesus brought down a social barrier by having dinner with people that were questionable in their religious purity which could endanger Jesus’ own purity (Mark 2:15 – 16), he treated women with dignity, respect and equality and included them among his disciples (Luke 8:1 – 3).

Kysar (1991:46), Gordon and Evans (2002:7) reflect on the inclusive behaviour Jesus revealed by ministering to all and his affiliations with those that are excluded by society due to political, religious and social reasons. Kysar refers to Jesus being called “a glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” because of his free associations with social outcasts (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). In their understanding of this, Kysar, Gordon and Evans consider accounts that reflect Jesus spent a good deal of his time with the despised class of workers. These included Jesus calling such to take a place among his followers (Matthew 10:3), he associated himself with those labelled as sinners (Mark 2:15 – 17, Luke 7:38; 15:1) and with the tax collectors which was despised and hated in the first-century Palestine (Matthew 9:10 – 11; 10:3). Over and above this, Jesus advocated for a prostitute (Matthew 21:31) and accepted the love and gratitude of such (Luke 7:37 – 50).

Kysar (1991:46) considers Jesus’ advocacy on behalf of women in Luke’s account of Jesus’ rejection of the custom of divorce of his time (Luke 7:37 – 50) and Jesus’ protest against the inhumane treatment of women in the divorce process (Mark 10:2 – 9, Matthew 19:3 – 8). He considers this not just as a mere rejection of the common view of women, but as acts in protest against it.

By no means are these a comprehensive overview, but they are considered sufficient accounts for Kysar (1991:50), Gordon and Evans (2002:7) to reveal the inclusive nature of Jesus’ ministry. For Kysar and Mathole (2005:93), the understanding of the inclusive nature of Jesus’ ministry relates to the nature of God, as a God who is concerned with all persons, regardless of their social, moral, religious, economic, or ethical standing. Through these accounts, Jesus demonstrated God’s divine solidarity with humanity and which also confirms Kysar’s aspect of a God who cares for all human beings.

Kysar (1991:51) and Mathole (2005:93) also consider these same accounts as evidence of Jesus’ identification with the poor and a demonstration of his solidarity and identification with those he served. For Kysar and Mathole, Jesus illustrated with his own life what is meant by being a servant of others (Mark 10:42 – 45) which also confirms Kysar’s aspect of a God that identifies with the suffering of humanity.

The metaphor ‘father’ for God as used by Jesus, was according to Kysar (1991:41) considered as an assault on the authority and role of fathers in the structure of the household. He refers to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 23:9 “And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father’, for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father” (NLT:1996). For him, the attribute of God invoked by this statement was a direct denying of the absolute authoritative role and power of the father in the basic unit of a family. This held the promise of liberation for women and children and their oppression from an absolute patriarchal figure of their time. Kysar (1991:51) refers to this same metaphor of ‘father’ in Jesus’ invitation to address God with this intimate term (Luke 11:2) as an indication of a God who identifies with human needs and therefore also relates to Kysar’s aspect of a God who identifies with the suffering of humanity.

Kysar (1991:41) concludes Jesus’ role as social protester with many implications for Chri

During my a yearlong stay in Australia in 2009, once I happened to visit St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney and witness Sunday Services, a formalized way of communal worship by the followers of world’s largest and celebrated religion – the Christianity. The services involved singing of hymns, reading of verses from the Holy Scriptures and possibly a Psalm, a sermon by the Archbishop and then Baptisms of a few young believers. The services were followed by a very informative guided tour of the Cathedral giving a quick insight into the history of the Christianity in Australia in general and of St Mary’s Cathedral in particular.

Impressed by the enriched history of the Christianity and captivated by this very orderly and benevolent way of offering prayers by the Christian’s’ Catholic community, I aimed to study the Christian religion in detail and explore its various aspects. However, the most vital factor which led me to write this paper is my eagerness to understand and analyze a shadowy and controversial yet vital Christians’ Doctrine of the Trinity, as during my visit to the Cathedral I was amazed to view the sermon and hymns glorifying the God, the Christ and the Holy Spirit while putting them all at equal to one and another, despite of the fact that the Christianity, besides Judaism and Islam, is a Monotheistic religion which believes in only one God.

In pursuance to my eagerness to understand and research on the subject matter, I went through a number of books and research articles about Christianity in general and the Doctrine of Trinity in particular written by numerous writers professing differing school of thoughts. Having gone through all these writings, my understanding about the Doctrine of Trinity remained as bewildering as ever before. However, being a student of MPhil in Socio-Cultural Anthropology once I tried to analyse the subject matter in anthropological perspective, my understanding of the issue became much explicit and I could make sense of many underlying facts about this mysterious faith of Christianity.

While doing my research work and writing this paper I have used the secondary data. However, I fully acknowledge and thank for the continual assistance provided by my instructors, my class fellows, and the Bahria University’s library staff during my drawn-out research work.

Introduction

The most debated mystery of the Christian faith has been the Doctrine of Trinity, which defines God as three divine persons – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These three persons, though distinct from one another, co-exist in unity and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

Most Christians often say they believe in the Trinity, yet they differ in their understanding of it. There are numerous Trinitarian conceptions that exist today, but generally the Trinity belief is that in the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; yet, together they are but one God. Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on teachings of the Bible. The Greek Orthodox Church calls the Trinity “the fundamental doctrine of Christianity,” even saying “Christians are those who accept Christ as God.” In the book ‘Our Orthodox Christian Faith’ the same Church declares: “God is triune . . . . The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God.” The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as “the central dogma of Christian theology”.

On the other hand, the critics of the Doctrine of Trinity say it false and man self-fabricated, as the God Almighty stands alone as a separate, eternal, and all-powerful being. They argue that Jesus in his prehumen existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning, i.e. “there was a time when he was not”. They instill that Jesus has never been Almighty God’s equal in any sense; he has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the Holy Ghost is not a person but God’s spirit, his active force. The opponents of the doctrine claim that it is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring the origin of the Trinity as entirely pagan.

Since the inception of doctrine of Trinity into Christianity about fifteen centuries ago, most Christians who believe in this doctrine have never actually checked it out to see why they believe it. They just assume that it must be true because it is what most churches teach. In addition, many people think it is wrong to question doctrines like this. But the reality is that many Christians who accept the doctrine of Trinity, remain confused and even those who have a deeper understanding of it admit that they do not understand it completely and can’t defend it when challenged. Once stuck, their eventual response is that the Trinity is hard to understand because God is beyond human thinking.

There is another disturbing aspect of this debate that many Christians believe in different Trinity doctrines or at least they understand this doctrine in different ways. Some believe that God is one being that shows himself in three different ways, like water shows itself in the form of ice, steam, and liquid. Others believe that the Trinity is made up of three distinct personalities and these three are in complete unity in love and purpose.

Notwithstanding the above, the aim of this paper is to explore and comprehend the Christians’ Doctrine of Trinity from different aspects including the anthropological perspective. In doing so, I will first briefly glance at Christianity as a religion while looking into its origin, brief history and the basic beliefs. Then I will deliberate upon one of Christianity’s most controversial yet pivotal teachings, i.e. the Doctrine of Trinity. In this part of the paper, I will address some of vital questions concerning the Doctrine of Trinity and will try to find their answers from the available texts and writings. Thereupon, I will analyse the said doctrine from anthropological perspective while applying a French social theorist Michael Foucault’s renowned theory on ‘knowledge is power’. I will also highlight perspectives about religion by a few other great philosophers like Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Sigmund Freud. At the end I will draw my conclusion.

Christianity at a Glance
Its Origin, Brief History and Basic Beliefs

The Christianity is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of a Jewish preacher named Yeshua, commonly known as Jesus Christ, who lived in Nazareth, a small town in Galilee of Roman province Judaea, about 2,000 years ago. Yeshua was born to a Virgin Mary probably between 7 and 4 BCE, and was executed in Jerusalem in the spring of the year 30 CE on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate. After Yeshua’s death, his apostles formed the Jewish Christian movement, concentrated in Jerusalem. One of Yeshua’s Apostles Simon Peter and then James, who is viewed as either Yeshua’s brother or cousin, headed the group. They regarded themselves as a reform movement within Judaism; as they continued to sacrifice at the temple, circumcise their male children, and follow Jewish kosher food laws etc.

Around 34 CE, Saul of Tarsus, originally a persecutor of the Jewish Christians, while travelling on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus on a mission to apprehend the Jewish Christians had a vision of the resurrected Jesus in a great light. He converted to Christianity and adopted the new name of Paul the Apostle, and became the greatest theologian of the early Christian movement. His writings, along with those of the author(s) of the Gospel of John, provided much of the theological foundation for what has been called Pauline Christianity, a movement that spread throughout the northern and eastern Mediterranean basin. Paul Christianity, which started around 37 CE, was directed primarily to Gentiles, i.e. non-Jews.

The third contesting belief system was Gnostic Christianity, which taught that Jesus was a spirit sent by God to impart knowledge to humans so that they could escape the miseries of life on earth. In addition to Jewish, Pauline and Gnostic Christianity, there were many other versions of Christianity being taught. However, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 CE, the Jewish Christian movement was largely dissipated which left Pauline and Gnostic Christianity as the dominant Christian groups. Gentiles within the movement took over control of the former movement.

As compare to other beliefs systems, the Pauline Christianity grew quickly in size and influence over a few decades, and by 313 CE Roman Empire recognized it was a valid religion and by 387 CE it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, replacing other forms of religions earlier being practiced under the Roman rule. Gnostic Christianity was severely persecuted, both by the Roman Empire and the Pauline Christian churches.

During the Middle-Ages, most of the Europe was Christianized. Following the Age of Discovery, through colonization and missionary work, Christianity spread to the American subcontinents, Australasia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the rest of the world. As of today, the Christianity is the most popular and largest religion in the world with around 2.34 billion followers, constituting 33.35 % of world’s total population and growing further at the rate of 1.38 % per annum. It is the predominant religion in Europe, the Americas and Southern Africa, and, in one form or another, is the sole state religion of several countries.

During the 7th century CE, power in the Christian world became polarized in Constantinople and Rome. These two Christian centers gradually grew apart in belief and practice. In 1054 CE, a split was formalized between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Later on, in the 16th century various schisms including the Protestant Reformation led to a fragmentation within the Western Church. The Protestant movement has since splintered into what is now many groups of denominations, and tens of thousands of individual denominations. Consequently, as of today there are three main groups practicing Christianity worldwide; the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Protestant Churches. There are other Christian groups as well that do not fit neatly into any one of these primary categories, like Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church. Of all the Christians in the world today about half are Roman Catholic.

Though, there are many differences of interpretation and opinion of the Bible on which the Christianity is based, Christians share a set of beliefs that they hold as essential to their faith. The central tenet of Christianity is the belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ). The title “Messiah” comes from the Hebrew word “mA?A?iaA” meaning anointed one. Christians believe that Jesus, as the Messiah, was anointed by God as saviour of humanity, and hold that Jesus’ coming was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

The foundation of Christian theology is expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds which contain claims predominantly accepted by followers of the Christian faith. These professions state that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born from the Virgin Mary, was crucified, buried, and resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust him for the remission of their sins. They further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven where he rules and reigns with God the Father. Most denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge all humans, living and dead, and grant eternal life to his followers. He is considered the model of a virtuous life, and both the revealer and physical incarnation of God.

Christianity has played a pivotal role in shaping of the world’s socio-cultural, political and economic scenario, especially the Western civilization. In words of a renowned American scholar Sam Pascoe, “Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise.”

The Doctrine of Trinity
Exploring the Doctrine of Trinity

The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons, the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. According to this doctrine, there is only one God in three persons. Each of them is said to be without beginning having existed for eternity. Each is said to be Almighty, neither greater nor lesser than the others. Each is said to be a complete God in every sense of the word which includes God’s attributes and all are equal in time, position, power and knowledge. Together, these three persons are sometimes called the Godhead. In the words of the Athanasian Creed, an early statement of Christian belief, “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God”.

According this Doctrine, though distinct from one another, the three persons cannot be divided from one another in being or in operation. In other words, God is not divided in the sense that each person has a third of the whole; rather, each person is considered to be fully God. The distinction lies in their relations, the Father being un-begotten; the Son being begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and (in Western Christian theology) from the Son. Regardless of this apparent difference, the three ‘persons’ are each eternal and omnipotent. While distinct in their relations with one another, they are one in all else. This ancient diagram explains the Trinity quite well.

According to researchers, the word Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Scripture, but used by the ancient Christian theologians to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. Some historians are of the view that the English word Trinity is derived from the Greek word trias, meaning “a set of three” or “the number three” and its first recorded use in Christian theology was by Theophilus of Antioch in about 170 AD. However, some researchers argue that the word Trinity came from the Latin word Trinitas, meaning “the number three, a triad”, and was first used by a Latin theologian Tertullian in 220 AD to express this doctrine.

Development of Trinity into a Christian Doctrine

Up until the end of the second century at least, most of the Christians were united in one basic belief; i.e. they all believed in the supremacy of the God Father. They all regarded God the Father Almighty as alone supreme, immutable, ineffable and without beginning. However, with the passing of those second century religious theologians and leaders, the Church found itself slipping slowly but inexorably toward trinity.

Most of the researchers are of the view that the origin of the trinity doctrine is linked to a controversy, often known as “the Arian controversy”, that occurred in the city of Alexandria in the early part of the fourth century. A certain Alexander was bishop of Alexandria, Egypt who attempted to explain ‘the unity of the Holy Trinity’ that whether “the Son of God, is of the same substance, or only of like substance, with the Father.” Alexander professed that “The Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, differing only in this one respect that the Father is un-begotten and the Son was begotten.” In explaining how the Son was begotten, Alexander quoted Jesus saying that “He proceeded from the Father.” Arius, who was a presbyter in charge of a parish church in the same city, dissented from the views set forth by Alexander.

This disagreement reached the level of confrontation between Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his presbyter Arius. So at a synod held at Alexandria in 321 C.E., in which Arius was deposed and excommunicated. However, Arius still had much support outside Egypt. Many of the important bishops theologically agree with Arius: Jesus Christ is not God.

The sustained controversy caused unrest in the whole Roman Empire and Constantine the Great, in order to resolve the issue invited all bishops of the Christian Church (around 300 at that time) to Nicaea (which is now in modern Turkey) in May 325 C.E. Consequently, the creed of Nicaea was signed by 218 bishops who endorsed the Son as co-equal to God. However, the controversy over the nature of Jesus continued for next more than sixty years and gradually involved every conceivable authority; general councils, Popes, Emperors, bishops alone or in parties, and the faithful at large.

A second ecumenical council met in Constantinople in the year 381 CE. This Council gave the finishing touch to the doctrine of “three persons in one God” stating that Jesus and God were co-equal, co-eternal and the deity of the Holy Spirit. From that time the Roman Emperors resolved and proclaimed they would punish all Christians who would not believe in and worship three persons in one God. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity came to be formally established as the basic foundation of Christian faith for the next fifteen centuries.

Subsequently, the doctrine of the veneration of Mary as the “mother of God” and “bearer of God” was also formulated at the Second Council of Constantinople (553 C.E.) and the title of “Eternal Virgin” was added. “In the prayers and hymns of the Orthodox Church the name of the mother of God is invoked as often as in the name of Christ and the Holy Trinity”aˆ¦.” In the Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary, the mother of God, was identified with the figure of the divine Wisdom. The process of deifying the mother of God went a step further here, in that Mary is treated like a divine hypostasis (substance), the figure of heavenly Wisdom.”

All through this period of development there had been protests made by those who wished to preserve the truth of the Gospel from the innovations; but they were gradually overborne, until at length, when the innovators were strong enough, they called other Christians “Heretics”, and persecuted them.

Factors that Influenced the Doctrine of Trinity

According to most of the researchers the prime factor that influenced the doctrine of Trinity to formulate into a fundamental belief of Christianity has been its connections with the paganism. Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylon, it was common for pagans to worship triad gods. This practice was also prevalent before, during and after Christ in Egypt (Horus, Osiris & Isis), India (Siva, Brahma & Vishnu), and Babylon (Ishtar, Sin & Shamash). With the spread of Christianity especially the Pauline’s ministry during the first two centuries CE, most of the pagans in the Mediterranean basin converted to Christianity. They brought with them their centuries old socio-cultural traditions and religious beliefs. After the death of the Apostles, such pagan beliefs began to creep in Christianity. One may think that Paganism was dominated by Christianity, but it is perhaps more accurate to say that Christianity adapted it. Even the fact that Christians worship on Sunday was the adoption of a Pagan festival, because the Jews used to worship on Saturday.

Some researchers are also of the view that one of the factor behind formulation of doctrine of Trinity as Christians’ fundamental faith had been the personal interest of the Roman emperors to wield maximum powers over masses by exploiting religion through the use of Church as a tool. It was in this context that the Constantine the Great, after coming into power in 312 CE, ended the persecution of the Christians and the suppression of the early Church which were continuing since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through conversion to Christianity special favors were offered to the people in the form of political, military and social gains. As a result, thousands of non-Christians joined the Church and enabled Constantine to exercise great power over the Church affairs. Constantine’s involvement in religious affairs was to such an extent that he himself presided over the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea and exercised his political power to bring to bear the bishops to accept his theological position. The Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes the proceedings of the Council of Niacea as follows:

“The Council of Niacea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presiding, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed (no doubt on Ossius’ prompting) the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, “of one substance with the Father.” Over-awed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them against their inclination.”

Justifications by the Trinitarians about the Doctrine of Trinity

The people who support the Doctrine of Trinity, commonly known as the Trinitarians, justify it on the basis that some verses in the Holy Bible, of which a few mentioned below, have specific reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct entities in a single narrative.

“As soon as Jesus Christ was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and landing on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

“The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!”

The Trinitarians interpret these verses as support for the doctrine of Trinity, because these verses speak of distinct entities mentioned by name in a single nerative. They argue, though the New Testament does not use the word “I¤I?I?I¬I‚” (Trinity) nor explicitly teach it, yet it provides the referencing material upon which the doctrine of the Trinity could be formulated. In addition, the Old Testament has also been interpreted as foreshadowing the Trinity, by referring to God’s word, his spirit, and Wisdom, as well as narratives such as the appearance of the three men to Abraham, which the Trinitarians view as support of a Trinity.

Rejection of Doctrine of Trinity by the Non-Trinitarians

Many groups in Christianity, commonly known as non-Trinitarians, do not believe in the Doctrine of Trinity or the way the God is described in the Trinity and His relation with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Non-Trinitarian groups also differ from one another in their views about the nature of Jesus Christ, depicting him variously as a divine being second only to God the Father, as God but not eternally God, as Son of God but inferior to the Father (versus co-equal), as a prophet, or simply as a holy man. The non-Trinitarians reject the Doctrine of Trinity on the basis that the expression “God the Father”, “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” were not known or advocated by Jesus or the early Christians. They argue that the Apostolic Fathers and those of the succeeding generations up to the last quarter of the 4th century CE never have thought of a triune God. They believed in One Omnificent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Transcendent Creator Who alone is to be worshipped.

Some Christian history researchers and scholars also dispute the authenticity of the Trinity and argue that the doctrine is the result of “later theological interpretations of Christ’s nature and function.” In their view, the doctrine of the Trinity was coined by the Christians about three hundred years after Jesus. The four Canonical Gospels, written between 70 and 115 CE, contain no reference to the Trinity. Even Saint Paul, who imported many foreign ideas into Christianity, knew nothing of the Triune God. The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the doctrine of the Trinity was unknown to the early Christians and that it was formulated in the last quarter of the 4th century. At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings. The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the (Trinity) idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognized the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One.

Denouncement of Doctrine of Trinity by the Holy Qur’an

Islam’s holy book the Qur’an denounces the concept of Trinity as an over-reverence by Christians of God’s Word, the prophet and Messiah Jesus Christ son of the Virgin Mary. The Qur’an declares Jesus as one of the most important and respected prophets and Messengers of God, primarily sent to prevent the Jews from changing the Torah, and to refresh and reaffirm his original message as revealed to Moses and earlier prophets. The Qur’an reveals that the creation of Jesus is framed similar to the creation of Adam out of dust, but with Jesus’ birth meaning his creation excludes male human intervention rather than creation completely without human participation. According to Qur’an teachings belief in Jesus as a prophet, as well as belief in the original Gospel and Torah and belief in Jesus’ virgin birth are core criterion of being a Muslim and Qur’anic criterion for salvation in the hereafter along with belief in the Prophet Muhammad and all the prior prophets. In short, in Qur’an the God is seen as being both perfect and indivisible. He can therefore have no peer or equal. Jesus, being God’s creation, can never be considered to be equal with God or a part of God. So, any believe in the concept of Trinity is considered as blasphemy in Islam.

Anthropological Perspective about the
Doctrine of Trinity

In the preceding paragraphs I have tried to explore the Christians’ Doctrine of Trinity from different historians and researchers’ point of view. The study confirmed that this doctrine had no roots in the teachings of Jesus Christ, his Apostles or the early Christian theologians. It was gradually evolved and formulated after at least three hundred years of Christ resurrection. No doubt, this doctrine has been in hot discussion in the Christian world for centuries and has retained the central most space in Christian theology. Though, tons of literature has been written down to analyse this Trinitarian doctrine, but its understanding remains as bewildering as ever before. Now, in order to comprehend this doctrine from anthropological perspective I will try to deconstruct it by going through its contents and by discourse analyses while applying Michael Foucault’s theory on ‘knowledge is power’.

In order to do that I will apply his structural theory to deconstruct this doctrine as power is employed to analyse knowledge, i.e. the concept of discursive formations. Foucault has a unique lens to see the world, societies, and its different institutions, and to use his own perspective about the knowledge and power. His philosophical theories addressed what power is and how it works, the manner in which it controls knowledge and vice versa, and how it is used as a form of social control. His first argument is that “all relationships are the relationships of power” which are diffused in the fabric of society ontologically, and its intrinsic urge to control others, everyone, and everything. He argues that in the human cultural history irrespective of time and space as a major rule human wants to control human by nature. Foucault divides all human history in three episteme; pre-historic, religious and scientific episteme respectively. He describes religion as a tool to control people. In his view, knowledge such as scriptures, symbols, myths and rituals play a pivotal role to prove legitimacy of any religion.

Knowledge is information and skills acquired through experience and education. Foucault describes four types of contesting knowledge that exist at parallel in a society; i.e. dominant, subordinate, marginalized and muted knowledge. According to Foucault, knowledge as power is used very carefully and politically by the knowledge creators to control human mind. Dominant knowledge creators are the drivers of the society as an elite class in the Marxist paradigm. Dominant knowledge producers create knowledge as discourse which elect some people, and give them the gaze to judge masses in the society, which means society is panoptical and individuals are under constant surveillance that they are doing their jobs properly. If some deviate from their role then the system declare them unfit and put them into asylum.

In Foucault’s perspective the society is held up in illusion and false consciousness. He annihilates all beliefs, norms, traditions and rules as discourse created by the dominant knowledge producers which are overwhelmingly imposed on the society. He proclaims that “no knowledge is authentic, all are socially constructed.” In line with many other postmodernists, Foucault argues that the reason to contest between knowledge is that there is a gap between the surface knowledge and living knowledge. Through discourse analysis, power structures may be uncovered and questioned by way of analyzing the corresponding fields of knowledge through which they are legitimized. This is one of the ways that Foucault’s work is linked to critical theory. The corollary of the concepts of Foucault is “ruling under the rubric of knowledge as power to dominate the thoughts of society”.

Now applying Foucault’s theory on to the Doctrine of Trinity, we would evaluate its legitimacy as divine revelation or socially constructed theology. As we explored earlier, the doctrine of Trinity came into existence through a gradual evolution that took over two centuries. The Christianity that started its career as a pure monotheistic religion drifted slowly but inexorably toward polytheistic beliefs under the influence of pagan traditions and the dominant class of that time, i.e. the Roman emperors. The earlier Christian theologians and council of Bishops like Gnostic (50 CE), Justin Martyr (150 CE), Theophilus (169 CE), Irenaeus (177 CE), Tertullian (192 CE), Clement (215 CE), Hippolytus (220 CE), Origen (230 CE), Sibellius (255 CE), Arius (320 CE), Council of Nicaea (325 CE), Council of Constantinople (381 CE), Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) played their role in the formulation of doctrine of Trinity by continuously defining and re-defining the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit and their relations to one another. Throughout this process the dominant class of that time used its political muscles to keep the doctrine in line with the state mechanism. In short, the knowledge created by the religious theologians and scholars in collaboration with the ruling class was employed to wield maximum power, and that power was used to control the masses.

Now we will exchange the lens of Michael Foucault with other great philosophers of nineteenth and twentieth centuries in order to analyze this doctrine in their own conceptions and perceptions. One of the great figure the social philosopher and the most influential political atheist Karl Marx has a very unique materialistic world view to see the processes in the society. He proclaims a conflict view of religion as “the sigh of the oppressed creature”, “the illusory happiness of men”, “the reflex of real world”, “the opium of