Category: Free Essays

The term image is everything is truer today than its ever been before. Whether its the designer clothes a person is wearing, place of residence, the car they drive or the calculated lines they recite, presentation is now replacing content when it comes to discerning the authenticity and character of a person. This is the measure by which people are valued nowadays; superficially and without substance. Unfortunately and sadly this is also true within the church. We lack concern when it comes to the true character of an individual, but we care more about their gifts and talents. It’s seems like society and the church are captivated and awestricken with an individual’s false persona, and television personalities rather than a person’s character.

This standard is used chiefly because of the materialistic and/or secular nature of today’s society. Much of this is done either consciously, or subconsciously, in an effort to enhance one’s “image” as seen through the eyes of man, one’s friends, family, peers, and even society in general. All that being said, the term, “image is everything” is alive and well. However, it shouldn’t have validity for the reasons described above, but rather because man is created in the “image” and “likeness” of God. This is the true image that should shape the manner in which Orthodox Christians live their lives.

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1: 26-27) The significance of man being created in God’s image is sometimes overlooked due to the complete silence of the rest of the Old Testament on this subject (In the Image and Likeness of God by Vladimir Lossky). However, the Orthodox Church lays the utmost emphasis on the image of God in man (The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware). To acquire the likeness of God is to become deified or to become a “god by grace”, this is the ultimate goal of Orthodox Christians.

According to the church fathers, the terms image and likeness do not mean the exact same thing. In general, the term image can be thought of as the powers with which each one of us is endowed by God from the moment of our existence. By making proper us of being created in His image, each one of has the ability to acquire God’s likeness or to be deified. (1)

Oddly, its meaning “image of God” has been debated, a hot topic, if you will, for centuries in and outside of the church. Most theologians argued that it is the human mind – the capacity to exercise reason or rationality, the intellect – which marks us as being made ‘in the image of God. It also distinguishes us from animals.

The argument for this is that God himself can be described as acting in accordance with reason. God’s actions, Christians affirm, are always consistent with God’s inherent qualities, such as love, justice and mercy. God is consistent and trustworthy, and so can be said to be characterized by perfect reason. In creating human beings, God gives them, uniquely, a capacity for reason that reflects God’s own reason. It is in this respect that Christians believe we are in God’s image. (2)

I. Image:

The “image of God” is a key concept in Christian theology. It is foundational to Christian thinking about human identity, human significance, bioethics, and other topics. Many Christians see evolution as incompatible with the image of God. How could God’s image bearers have evolved from simpler life forms? Doesn’t image-bearing require miraculous creation of humans rather than shared ancestry with chimpanzees? When in the evolutionary process did humans attain this image? These questions are tied to many other issues concerning human origins, including the soul, the fall, and the historicity of Adam and Eve.

The phrase “image of God” does not appear many times in the Bible, but the importance of the concept is emphasized by its repetition in the scripture: “Then God said, let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27) Herein, it’s clear that part of bearing God’s image is ruling over the animals. Genesis 9:5-6 reveals another aspect of image bearing: all human lifeblood is sacred because all humans are made in the image of God. The emphasis on Judeo-Christian thought on the sanctity of human life is derived in part from this passage. In the New Testament, the idea is expanded further as Christ is revealed as the true image of the invisible God. (2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15).

Being made in the image of God, says Lyons and Thompson, does not refer to the physical body, the posture, or the authoritative aspect of man. It is true that the word “image” (Hebrew tselem) is a term used in certain contexts within the Old Testament to refer to a model or to idols (and thus can refer to a similarity in physical appearance). It can’t and doesn’t denote such meaning in Genesis 1:26-27, nor in any of the other passages referring to the imago Dei (“image of God”). God is not “like unto gold, or silver, or stone” (i.e., He is not physical; Acts 17:29). As Ashby Camp observed: God, of course, is a spirit (Jn. 4:24), and the O.T. stresses his in corporeality and invisibility (see Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 4:15-16). So, the resemblance no doubt relates to some nonphysical aspect(s) of humanity (1999, p. 44). Since it is the case that a spirit “hath not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39; cf. Matthew 16:17), then man does not bear the image of God in his physical nature. (6)

“Creation in the image of God distinguishes humankind from all other life forms” said Milne in Know the Truth. Additionally, he said, “traditional interpretations of the image refer to features such as human knowledge, moral awareness, original moral perfection and immortality.” He goes on to say some scholars argue for a physical meaning for the image. And he also declares that others have argued for humanity’s alleged Trinitarian constitution, or the image as human dominion. (Gen.1:26-28.) They are looking forward to the renewal of the dominion in the kingdom of God through Christ, the embodiment of the image. (Heb. 2:5-9) Furthermore, more recent interpretation Milne says, has spoken of the social nature of the image, human experience as being-in-community reflecting the divine being-in-community of the Godhead. Barth extended this interpretation specifically to the man-woman relationship. (Gen. 1:27) “God created (humanity) in his own imageaˆ¦ Male and female he created them.”

Irenaeus distinguished between the image, which he identified with human reason and moral freedom, and the likeness, he identified with original righteousness. He taught that only the likeness was lost in fall. This interpretation was followed through the medieval period and contributed to its essentially optimistic view of human nature. Luther, however, says that there is a case of Hebrew parallelism in Genesis 1:26. He believed image and likeness were synonyms; what was true for one was true for the other. The image of God, he said, “has therefore been totally lost and can be restored only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit.”

There is a variety of views on how the image has been affected by the fall. A common view is that the image of God refers to the human abilities which separate us from the animals. Still, scientists have found that abilities like communication and rationality are also present in animals on a basic level. Another view is theologians do not see the image of God as human abilities, but instead it as our capacity for a relationship with God. Other theologians see it as our commission to represent God’s kingdom on earth. Either way, the author says God has given us our spiritual capacities and calls us to bear his image. (3)

Nevertheless, Milne says the bible doesn’t actually refer to a total loss of the image of God. (Gen 9:6, 1Cor. 11:7 and James 3:9.) Calvin, spoke of relics of the image of God in fallen humanity, which, while affording no basis for humanity’s justification, still distinguish them from the animal creation account for the undoubted gifts and achievements of non-Christians. Dutch scholars, in the reformed tradition, such as A. Kuyper and H. Bavinck, spoke in this connection of common grace, whereby God in his pity restrains the worst effects of the fall and renders social life tolerable for humankind. (4)

Lyons and Thompson communicate that, through the years, numerous scholars have suggested that the image of God spoken of in Genesis 1:26-27 refers to some sort of “spiritual perfection” that was lost at the time of man’s fall, and thus is incomprehensible to us today. Genesis tells us that man was created in a special way, bearing the stamp of God upon him which the animals did not bear. Unfortunately Genesis also tells us that he lost this stamp. While Adam himself was created with this image, his disobedience so robbed him of it that all his children thereafter bore not the image of God but his-and even his likeness (1975, pp. 103, 109, first emp. added, last emp. in orig.) When we see in Genesis 1:26-27 that man was created in the “image and likeness of God,” does the language refer only to Adam and Eve as these writers would have us to believe? Or does it refer to all mankind in general?

It is the author’s position that the “image of God” spoken of in Genesis 1:26-27 does not refer to some kind of “spiritual perfection,” especially considering the fact that the members of the Godhead (Who created man) are omniscient and therefore knew that man would sin. Reformer Martin Luther claimed that the image was an original righteousness that was lost completely. He averred: “I am afraid that since the loss of this image through sin, we cannot understand it to any extent” (as quoted in Dyrness, 1972, 15:163, emp. added).

John Calvin similarly spoke of the image of God as having been destroyed by sin, obliterated by the fall, and utterly defaced by man’s unrighteousness (see Hoekema, 1986, p. 43). Yet, at other times, he took a less “hard-core” approach and vacillated between a complete loss and a partial loss of the image. In his commentary on Genesis, he wrote: “But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us, yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed” (as quoted in Hoekema, p. 45, emp. added). Keil and Delitzsch commented that the “concrete essence of the divine likeness was shattered by sin; and it is only through Christ, the brightness of the glory of God and the expression of His essence (Heb. 1:3), that our nature is transformed into the image of God again (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24)” [1996, 1:39]. Canadian anthropologist Arthur C. Custance, in his book, Man in Adam and in Christ, observed.

Feinberg, in speaking of the image of God as what he called an “inalienable part of man’s constitution,” spoke of that image as currently being in a “marred, corrupted, and impaired state” (1972, 129:245). Hoekema elaborated on the same point when he wrote: in other words, there is also a sense in which human beings no longer properly bear the image of God, and therefore need to be renewed in that image. We could say that in this latter sense the image of God in man has been marred and corrupted by sin. Nevertheless, we must still see fallen man as an image-bearer of God, but as one who by nature images God in a distorted way (1986, p. 31). (6)

II Likeness:

Jim Schicatano believes that “likeness and image are different.” Likeness, he says, “doesn’t convey such preciseness as “image.” To be like someone means you possess many, but not all of the characteristics of that person. Obviously, man does not possess God’s omnipotence, wisdom, righteousness, perfection, ability to create, and divineness, he said. (5)

In these others (along with Lyons and Thompson) differs with Schicatano in relations to the image/likeness of God. They say, the “image” (tselem) of God does not refer to something different than the “likeness” (demuth) of God. The Greek and Latin “church fathers” frequently suggested a distinction between the two words. They taught that tselem referred to the physical, and demuth to the ethical, part of the divine image (Feinberg, 1972, 129:237). Other theologians (like Irenaeus, A.D. 130-c. 200) taught that “image” denoted man’s unchangeable essence (viz., his freedom and rationality), whereas “likeness” referred to the changing part of man (i.e., his relationship with God). Thus the former related to the very nature of man, while the latter was that which could be lost (Crawford, 1966, 77:233). As of 1972, this still was the official view of the Roman Catholic Church (Feinberg, 129:237).

They go on to say despite the influence of those who claim that these words carry very different ideas about the image of God, a careful study of such passages as Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-3, and 9:6 reveals that, in fact, these two Hebrew words do not speak of two different entities. “Likeness” simply emphasizes the “image.” As William Dyrness noted in regard to tselem and demuth: “The two words should be seen as having complementary rather than competing meanings. The first stresses the image of God as its being shaped and the second express its being like the original in significant ways” (1972, 15:162). Charles Feinberg, writing on “The Image of God” in the respected religious journal Bibliotheca Sacra, agreed when he remarked: A careful study of Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1,3; and 9:6 will show beyond question that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the two Hebrew terms are not referring to two different entities. In short, use reveals the words are used interchangeably (1972, 129:237).

There actually is no good evidence for making any distinction between the two. In fact, the words are essentially synonymous in this context. Keil and Delitzsch remarked in their commentary on Genesis that the two words are “merely combined to add intensity to the thought” (1996, 1:39). As Clark puts it: “Man is not two images and to distinguish between image and likeness is fanciful exegesis” (1969, 12:216). (6)

III Dominion:

In relations to dominion, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what exactly God meant when he said, “Let hem have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28 )

Schicatano believes we are like God in the sense that we have been given sovereignty over the entire Earth. God is responsible for the creation of the universe, and likewise, we are responsible for our world. This sovereignty, however, is not a birthright of ours. It is a sacred gift, given to us from God; it is a delegated responsibility. Just as God has created and formed our world to His liking, we are capable of changing it and managing it to our liking. So, it is this responsibility that has been entrusted to us. It must not be taken for granted because ultimately we are answerable to God for the conditions of planet Earth and the state of our fellow human beings. (5)

However, Lyons and Thompson don’t share Schicatano belief. They convey that the “image” is not man’s domination of the lower creation around him. In a “letter to the editor” that Norman Snaith penned to the Expository Times in 1974, he boldly claimed: The meaning is that God created man to be his agent, his representative in ruling all living creatures, and he was given sufficient (to quote the psalm) “honor and glory” to do this…. Biblically speaking, the phrase “image of God” has nothing to do with morals or any sort of ideals; it refers only to man’s domination of the world and everything that is in it. It says nothing about the nature of God, but everything concerning the function of man (1974, 86:24, emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.). In regard to this kind of thinking, we would be wise to remember that man must exist before dominion can be invested in him, and that man has authority because of the truth that he is made in the image or likeness of God.

Also, the authority is not the cause of the image or likeness, but the image and likeness is the ground of the authority (Chafer, 1943, 100:481, emp. added). In commenting on this subject James Hastings wrote: “The view that the Divine image consists in dominion over the creatures cannot be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure, and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man, already made in the image of God.” The truth is that the image marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not the essence, of the Divine image (1976, 1:48, emp. added).

“Dominion,” Keil and Delitzsch noted, “is unquestionably ascribed to man simply as the consequence or effluence of his likeness to God” (1996, 1:39). As William H. Baker commented: “[I]t is the presence of the image of God in people that makes them able to exercise dominion over the earth. Dominion itself is not what constitutes the image” (1991, p. 39, emp. in orig.). Although somewhat closely related to the image of God, exercising dominion over the world is not itself that image. (6)

Conclusion:

Perhaps while on earth we may never totally understand what is meant by these verses. But, upon research, some theologians, Christian Orthodoxy believe we are still in the image of God, others concur that when man fell his image was marred. And some agreed it was lost. However, without a doubt, what is clear is that in mankind, God has completed His final creation of the Creation Story. Let’s consider what King David said of our creation and our special place among all of God’s creations. “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.” (Psalms 8:3-8 NIV)

With the diversity of views, most (Christian orthodox) agree that each of us have been made in the image and likeness of God, and because of this, we are capable of determining our own destiny. Unlike the plants and animals, God has endowed us with the ability to form a relationship with Him, the ability to increase our knowledge and wisdom, and the responsibility of caring for the world that He has given us.

As His primary creations, we are obligated to imitate and show evidence of His divineness in every area of life. Some may find it complimentary that we have been made in His image. But, because of evolution many no longer treasure this mystery. Matter-of-fact, some have become irresponsible stewards and have neglected the responsibilities that it entails. Above all of His earthly creations, God has endowed man/womankind with a unique soul – holding us responsible for all of our actions. (5) One day we will give an account to the Creator how we’ve managed; our temples, our lives, family, resources, businesses, ministries, blessings, and this planet called earth.

Each author seems to have scriptural evidence to support their theory on this controversial and highly debatable topic. But, there was another point of agreeableness among them: some of the characteristics were which represent man/woman being formed in the image of God. To name a few, we are creators, God created the heavens and the earth, we’re relational, God is relational, we are communicators, God is a communicator, we are spiritual beings as God is a Spirit, and we are intellectual beings who reasons, God is intelligent and reasons too.

When we fully grasp what it means to bear God’s image, we are amazingly struck with the boundless, grandeur of our possibilities and the tragedy of our unrealized potential! To be fully human is to completely reflect God’s image. Furthermore, though all humans possess these godlike capacities, each of us has the potential to express them uniquely because God’s image has been imprinted peculiarly on each of us. (7) In God’s infinite creativity there are no duplications. Everybody is an original and is created in the image of God, which according to Orthodox Christians can never be lost.

Endnotes/ Works sited:

1) http://www.stgeorgeserbian.us/darren/darren03.html

2) V. Plater- In the Image of God: http://www.virtualplater.org.uk/?page_id=2054

3) BioLogos: “How could humans have evolved and still be created in the “Image of God?” BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that “all things hold together in Christ.” [Col 1:17] Daniel Harrell, Senior Minister,

Colonial Church, Edina, Minn.- http://biologos.org/questions/image-of-god

4) Text Book; “Know the truth,” by Bruce Milne

5) Jim Schicatano,”Created in the Image and Likeness of God.” http://thebibleandscience.webs.com/articles/image.htm

6) Lyons and Thompson- “In the Image and Likeness of God.” Eric Lyons, M.Min. & Bert Thompson, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=149

7) Dick Staub- “What ‘Made in the Image of God’ Really Means” By Dick Staub, March 4, 2013

(Taking a second look at a very misunderstood part of our faith.) http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/deeper-walk/features/23549-qmade-in-the-image-of-godq

The atonement is a very debatable theme in theology primarily because of the importance of the doctrine itself. According to Caleb Burge, this very doctrine is “the foundation of all the doctrines of divine revelation which respect the salvation of mankind: the grand pillar on which they are supported” (1822). In other words, the doctrine of atonement is foundational one, on which a number of other doctrines stand. Moreover, it is directly related to the meaning of death of Christ on the Cross. That is why people, especially theologians, are so much concerned about the rationale behind it.

Interestingly, the term “atonement” is of Anglo-Saxon origin, not a Biblical word as such (Bingham, 2001). According to Bingham, this term “acts as an umbrella to cover a number of other words such as reconciliation, expiation, propitiation, and the like” (2001). Besides, reconciliation is “a result of Jesus’ mission in which the enmity or hostility between God and humanity is overcome and set aside so that they can have a good relationship”, expiation – “an effect of Jesus’ death on the cross in which humanity’s sinfulness is covered and set aside so that reconciliation between God and humanity can take place” (Grenz, 1998), and propitiation is Christ’s death on a cross “to appease God’s wrath against sin” (Bawulski, 2012).

Honestly speaking, I never ever engaged in thinking about atonement before having Theology class. In addition, I am still not committed to Christianity for a number of reasons though do believe in something beyond our world so to say. However, there were a lot of Christians in my surrounding including my grandmother and to some extent my mother. I also actually read Bible, even more than once: first time when I was a kid and had Bible in pictures adapted for children, then we were studying some parts of it in school at literature classes, and lastly we were studying Bible very closely at our university. So, I was introduced to idea of atonement but was unaware of the theological debate around it.

What influenced me to choose this very topic to research was not our lesson actually, but an extra-credit assignment on penal substitution theory. Reading an article by Schreiner I first of all got more information about the doctrine of atonement and the theories around it, and also got personal insights concerning this theme. So, when choosing a topic I decided to take one I am already more familiar with and have more thoughts about.

What I think is surely true is that complexity of atonement is a mystery beyond our understanding that nobody is able to explain sufficiently (except only God). Interestingly, Schreiner builds his theological argument on theological concepts that are also arguable, for example the nature of God’s love, and the assumption that forgiving without sacrifice violates God’s holiness. God for some reason needed this sacrifice, but are we really able to explain it?

Interestingly, searching for the meaning of atonement I saw it also has a meaning of compensation. However, as I mentioned above already atonement is purely Anglo-Saxon term, thus, in Hebrew or Greek versions of the Bible there might be no compensation implied.

Nevertheless, the atonement as compensation to the Father (Christ died to satisfy a principle in the very nature of God) is consistent with the Substitutionary or Satisfaction Theory (Keating, 2002).

My idea of the rationale behind the question of atonement (though I do not actually believe any idea can be proved) is that Jesus took the original sin (that was brought to us with Adam that is also debatable though) from humanity, but we ourselves still will have to die, so maybe we have die for our own sins, not the original one, now. Also, Christ’s life and death have a moral effect on us and demand following Jesus’ example. So, my idea is more or less close to Christus Victor theory of atonement and surely reflects the main ideas of example theory and moral influence theory of atonement.

So, among major views on the atonement are: Christus Victor theory, Example theory, Moral Influence theory, Satisfaction theory, Penal Substitution Theory, Ransom theory, Governmental theory, Mystical theory, and Vicarious Repentance theory.

According to Christus Victor theory “in Christ, God triumphed over the law, sin, death and the devil – the evil powers of the world, the ‘tyrants’ under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in him God reconciles the world to himself” (Aulen, 2010).

According to Example or Socinian theory, the atonement is “a perfect example of the type of dedication to God that we are to practice” (Keating, 2002).

According to Moral Influence theory, the atonement is “a demonstration of God’s love and should inspire us to love him in return” (Keating, 2002).

According to Satisfaction theory, Christ in his suffering “restores or rehabilitates God’s offended honor and dignity” (Bingham, 2001).

According to Penal Substitution theory, Christ “died for man, in man’s place, taking his sins and bearing them for him that takes the punishment of them, and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law, thus, the righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution” (Bingham, 2001).

According to Ransom theory, the atonement is “a victory over the forces of sin and evil because Christ’s death ransomed us back from Satan” (Keating, 2002).

According to Governmental theory, the atonement is “a demonstration of divine justice, of what will happen to us if we continue to sin” (Keating, 2002). Bingham says that “God is a governor that determines and requires; he can abrogate the law, or rather its total punishment; Christ on the Cross bears a nominal punishment, thus showing that God views sin seriously, however forgives it having put his safe-guard around his law” (2001).

According to Mystical theory (Gradual Extirpation of Depravity), Christ “entered the world in the flesh of fallen humanity, but brought a new factor, a new kind of life, which destroys original depravity on the Cross, so that a new humanity emerges through Christ; by identification with us, and we with him, man is gradually sanctified, and his sanctification becomes, in fact, his justification” (Bingham, 2001).

According to Vicarious Repentance theory, “perfect repentance is all that is required for forgiveness that Christ showed on the Cross, where he identifies with man under condemnation; man, thus being forgiven, has an impetus to holiness” (Bingham, 2001).

Support

To start with, I want to say that I do not really stick to one position concerning the atonement, or one particular theory, but choose a couple of them that seem to me to be the closest ones to my personal point of view. As I mentioned before, my idea is that Jesus saved humanity from the original sin with his death on the Cross, but as we still have to die, we supposedly are not saved from our own sins. Probably, we have to die to conquer our own sins ourselves following the example of Jesus who conquered the original sin (let’s suppose its true?S ). Moreover, the fact that we understand we have to struggle with our sins can be a result of moral influence of Jesus’ death.

So, my support would focus on defending mostly elements of Christus Victor theory, and give some support to Example theory and Moral Influence theory.

First of all, according to Scriptures, the penalty for sin is death – “And the Lord said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and leave forever’” (Genesis 3:22). This sentence from the Book of Genesis clearly says that people became mortal as a result of disobeying God, sinning in other words. Consequently, to become immortal again people have to overcome sin. So, judging from the fact that we are all still mortal, Jesus’ death on the Cross did not take all the sins from humanity. Either way, I suppose we would be immortal again. On the other hand, eternal life is promised to people after death. Considering that, we have to die. But death is the result of sin, so we in a way follow Jesus’ example as we die and overcome some part of sin that is still in us that is consistent with Example theory of atonement – “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).

From the first sight it seems that in such situation Jesus’ sacrifice is not necessary, as we all die in the end, thus, overcome sin ourselves. However, the thing is that we are unable to take the responsibility for the original sin, so something else, that is Jesus’ sacrifice, is needed.

What is hard for me to explain in my theory though is the connection between Adam and Eve’s sin and Jesus’ ability to defeat it. Nevertheless, the very fact that Jesus suffered and died on the Cross implies that there was some connection. This is also evidence for the fact that sin could not be just pardoned “for no one can rationally suppose, that the Son of God would have left the bosom of the Father, and the glory which he had with him before the world was, to take on him the form of a servant in this world, and subject himself to the pains and sorrows incident to human life, if such humiliation had not been indispensably necessary, in order that the purposes of grace, in the salvation of sinners, might be answered” (Burge, 1822).

The idea that Jesus took only original sin from us is similar to some extent to Christus Victor theory – “The Son of God,” we read in 1 John 3:8,” was revealed for this purpose: to destroy the works of the devil.” The works of devil are primarily the deception of Adam and Eve from where the original sin comes.

One may think that if we are free from original sin, why then we continue to sin in the eyes of God. To answer this question I came up with an idea that sinful acts or thoughts are the result of socialization – the process by which an individual learns to live in accordance with the expectations and standards of a group or society, acquiring its beliefs, habits, values, and accepted modes of behavior primarily through imitation, family interaction, and educational systems; the procedure by which society integrates the individual (“Socialization”). At the moment of Jesus’ death people already had a sinful culture so to say that included the possibility of sinning. So, even when people became free of the original sin, they still remained in this culture that is the result of the original sin. Maybe this is the main reason for the necessity of Jesus’ second coming – the need to renew the earth and the heavens that would result in destroying this sinful culture.

The main objection to Christus Victor theory is that “Satan or the “powers of Evil” must be satisfied rather than God, whose command was originally ignored in the Garden of Eden, and who is continually ignored by all mankind” (Glynn, 2002). The cosmic significance of Christ’s work is more fundamental than its soteriological significance (Bawulski, 2012). This objection is consistent with Satisfaction theory of atonement.

However, I do not see any problem with that – in my view, people were unable to give to God his due (that is the definition of sin according to Satisfaction theory) primarily because of the works of Satan. Thus, when evil is defeated God should be already satisfied.

Conclusions

Jesus died on the Cross to defeat the works of devil that is Jesus freed humanity from the original sin. His death and resurrection obviously had an effect on people – a positive moral influence as a result of understanding that righteousness brings eternal life. Also, in order to have this eternal life people should follow Jesus’ example – live a righteous life, die and resurrect then immortal and free of any sin. All of this is consistent with Christus Victor, Example and Moral Influence theories.

My rather innovative idea is that we are released only from original sin, and have to die overcome our own sins. We continue to sin regardless of being free from original sin because of having sinful culture that probably would be destroyed with Jesus’ second coming.

This way to see the doctrine of atonement emphasizes the importance of second coming of Jesus and explains in a way why it has to take place. Probably, it makes no differences in other areas.

The 1840s was a time of rapid change and was an age when new and revolutionary ideas were beginning to crystalize and form into modern beliefs. Many tried to experiment with social reform and this included John Humphrey Noyes. Noyes was a prominent, colorful, and devoutly religious leader and his ideas blossomed into the infamous Oneida community of New York. Oneida was a revolutionary community with philosophies taboo in that age as well as the modern age. Outsiders viewed Oneida with awe and attracted many tourists from all over to see how such a community could function under policies of complex marriage, communalism, eugenics, and mutual criticism. People looked at Oneida as a shocking utopian society which worked under taboo policies, yet lasted successfully and peacefully for over 30 years.

John Humphrey Noyes Jr. was born in 1811 in Brattleboro, Vermont under his father, John Humphrey Noyes Sr., a shopkeeper and former minister, and his mother, a deeply religious Christian. His father would represent Vermont in the House of Representatives for two years. Later he left politics, sold his business, and settled down in the Town of Putney with his eight children. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BmVnMZODeXI/TFTMG_qah5I/AAAAAAAAAFs/UFhqclvZeNE/s1600/Noyes.jpg

Noyes had an extremely deep religious up-bringing. He was ten when his family moved to Putney and they had family prayers and readings from the New Testament daily. His mother took him to conversion meetings and had intended her son to go into ministry when he grew up. Attending private school at the age of 9, Noyes graduated with flying colors and eventually attended Dartmouth College. At first, he chose an occupation in law, but eventually decided to become a minister after he had a dramatic conversion experience after visiting his hometown of Putney in the fall. Noyes came to study scripture at Andover seminary passionately for a year but decided to transfer to Yale due to lack of liberality. While attending Yale, Noyes joined a New Haven church. These churches looked down upon the practices of other common churches for their loose interpretations of the bible, and this was where Noyes’ radical ideas blossomed. He spent most of his time having theological discussion and attending mass. After a year at Yale, he received his license to preach.

During this time period, many began to question and interpret the bible in their own ways. One of such was Noyes’ professor of theology, Nathanial Taylor. Alongside him, many other preachers such as James LaTourette, and John B. Foot, created and preached their own takes on the bible and began to speak of Perfectionism; the lifestyle of being completely free of sin. Noyes was very interested and his religious fervor influenced him to study the bible to new extremes. Going through a period of starvation and poor health, John came to the realization that the best way to live was as a Perfectionist. He soon began to regard himself as perfect in god’s eyes because he chose to abstain from any sin.

His self-proclaimed perfection caused uproar among his peers and professors. People questioned him deeply and he was often isolated among other students. Noyes said, “My friends were fast falling away. I was beginning to indeed be an outcast.” (Klaw). This period of persecution was rough on Noyes, but he was firm in his beliefs for he believed the best path was the path of truth. Staying rigid in his self-image, many believed he was crazy or too extreme and radical. Eventually, his professor attempted to coax him to recant his statements because he was on the precipice of being expelled. Noyes denied recanting his ideals, was expelled from Yale, had his Preacher’s license revoked, and had been voted out of his New Haven church.

At the age of 23, Noyes had no followers and was in a bad state of mind. In spark of hope, he traveled to New York to meet one of his favorite Perfectionist theologians, Charles Grandison Finney, at an annual theology convention. Noyes traveled all the way to New York, but he failed to meet his idol and left in a state of hopelessness. He wandered for 3 weeks in New York City in a drunken stupor in open rebellion to his theories of abstinence due to his spiraling depression. Noyes was in a rough patch in his life and he spent a lot of his time preaching to the city homeless. Later on Noyes’ brother discovered what had happened to him and requested that he come back to Putney to get back on his feet. http://library.syr.edu/digital/collections/j/JohnHumphreyNoyes,ThePutneyCommunity/p054a.jpg

For the next two years of John’s life, he rediscovered his passion and worked to convert people to Perfectionism in New York and New England. Although in an age of rapid discovery and innovative ideas, Noyes had a hard time converting people because others still considered his ideals too much. He preached that the Second coming had already occurred, men could reach perfection, and that salvation was attainable through perfectionism.

While in New York, Noyes teamed up with two other theologians and shared their ideas with the public via a periodical on perfectionist ideals. This went on successfully for a year until Noyes had to leave because his radical interpretations even caused his partners to stray away and disagree with him. Once again, Noyes’ found his way back to him hometown of Putney to get back on his feet in 1836.

Noyes was a determined man. He had many goals for himself, but felt extremely unsatisfied if those goals were not reached. He was vulnerable to neurotic fatigue, weeks of anxiety, and nervous physical disorders. After New York, Noyes slept little and ate almost nothing. He preferred to use the strongest stimulants available when he chose to eat; like cayenne peppers. He described these feelings as, “spiritual crucifixion,” and once the pain had disappeared, he would feel reborn into a new world to sow the seeds of life (Garden).

Other aspects of Noyes’ personality were his inability to focus on one idea at a given time. He would pursue ideas, but not fully if he believed it seemed invaluable; after he would move right on to the next one. He thought that these ideas were, “divinely inspired.” Another trait of his personality was his lack of deep personal relationships with other people. He would get to know someone on a superficial level then move on to the next person. One of his beliefs was that love should be shared with others and not specialized into one single person.

Once back at home, Noyes’ passion for preaching and converting caused him to do just that. Residing in a small town with few inhabitants, Noyes’ reputation was known well for being a very radical thinker. Most people in his hometown even looked at him with a dubious expression; many people were skeptical of Noyes’ preaching. Noyes put his passion of religion to full extent back in his hometown, and he attempted to convert most of his family. He was successful, but he did not receive the blessing of his father, John Humphrey Noyes Sr.

The next spring, empowered by his respite in his home town, Noyes’ sought out to follow his passion for converting and preaching. His preaching skills earned him many loyal disciples. He published a new periodical called “the Witness.” At the very young age of 26, Noyes had a very prominent reputation under his belt. In his publication, he preached that perfection of morality was completely possible, but his ideas were a double edged sword for they alienated him from society. His philosophies included the belief that when one reached perfection in terms of the bible, it let you be free to do what you wanted in the physical realm. This idea led to open kissing sessions between the members of his following. He was looked at in a different light after that, but he knew that he truly believed there was nothing wrong to share love that god had intended to be shared with everybody.

His ideas blossomed when he met Abigail Werwin. They became close and he loved her in a lustful way, but she eventually left and married another man. Even though he was rejected, Noyes was still convinced that they still had a chance together. Lonely and sick of “love,” Noyes’ isolated himself in his studies to reflect upon the teachings of the bible and to further his philosophy of love.

One of his most devout followers was Harriet A Horton. She professed her faith to Noyes’ after reading one of his books on the topic of perfectionism. She came from a wealthy family and would frequently give him gifts and donations. Her grandparents were affluent and both her parents were dead at the time. Although he had not seen much of her, in 1838 Noyes proposed and since her grandparents were not opposed to it, they were married. In his marriage proposal, Noyes made it clear that he wanted her to love all men and women and that either of them should, “monopolize,” or, “enslave,” each other’s hearts.

During this time period, Noyes was trying to establish himself as a leader in the Perfectionist movement and he turned his focuses to printing his philosophies. Within a couple months of getting married, he and his family were working hard to publish his previous articles into a single book called, “The Way of Holiness,” and he continued to publish his periodical, “The Witness.” http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X9AQjPidBWc/TWMJoJ8C4KI/AAAAAAAAAT0/GBv_AgzS9As/s1600/biblecomm1.jpg

Noyes publication work would eventually lead to the creation of the official holy text of his philosophies. In 1847 he compiled all his works into, “The Berean.” He did not consider this the complete book because he believed that forms of practice depended on the age of the time and that ideas were constantly changing with time.

Of other ideas present in his book of Perfectionism, Noyes included his theory that the Second Coming of Christ had already happened, and that freedom from sin could be possible. He argued that simply believing in Christ or taking the traditional route of faith, which included studying the bible and attending church, could give you a quality faith, but it could not free you from sinful deeds. He said that receiving this second rebirth was achievable but hard. He argued against antinomianism, the theory that faith in god was all you needed, and said that faith in god did not save one’s soul; god taught people through the bible how to save their own soul. Through god’s teachings, mankind could evolve inevitably toward a perfect society. He also said that eventually even death itself would cease because mankind would become so perfect that death was not required for one to go to heaven. He did not include how this was possible and his ideology was regarded as an extreme interpretation.

In his holy book, Noyes also discusses how a perfect holy man would be. He said that he would be a very spiritual individual, and with the guidance of god and the church, he was free to become holy through his will. He believed that man didn’t have to follow every rule as the Puritans did, but man should be open and willing to try new experiences and to accept all that life had to offer.

ORIGIN OF ONEIDA

The origin of the Oneida community began in Putney. Through his publications on Perfectionism, Noyes had gained a small amount of followers throughout the Putney region. Small pockets in Northern New Jersey, Northern Vermont, and New York began to look towards him as their leader. Noyes encouraged these people to organize conventions from where they could discuss social reform and talk about their faith. The issue between these pockets of people was that they were segregated. In 1841, Noyes created, “The Society for Inquiry,” consisting of no more than 12 members in his town of Putney to unify them.

Later in 1841, eight months before Noyes’ father died, his father split his savings and each gave his children $20,000. With this money, Noyes finally had a source of capital to fund his activity. Before, he had relied on donations from his dispersed followers and from his wife. He decided that he would change the policy of his church so that to be an official member, one needed to donate a certain amount of time to the church. With this set, the beginning of his organization was created with 29 adults and 9 children.

His followers inhabited 1 of 3 houses owned by Noyes’ family and they relied economically on 2 farms and a store located on their land. They created a school for the children and stressed that 3 hours a day should be a minimum to study and worship god. This was troublesome for them because it entailed that they would spend less time working on the farm and making money, but Noyes was adamant that religion came above work.

Interestingly, the small community was unanimously dedicated to the sole theocracy of Noyes. Anything that Noyes wanted he got and he was the sole decider of what would happen. His sisters who were part of the community even let him chose their husbands. In one case, 2 of the members had fallen in love in secret and wanted to get married, but Noyes expelled them from the community not because they had fallen in love, but because they had done it in secret.

The context of the time period showed that communal associations were rising throughout the nation during the 1840’s. Noyes became more interested in establishing a true community away from the influence of the outside world where he could institute his utopian ideas and practice communal marriage. One could observe Noyes’ ideas through his teachings, but one could not observe his social ideas in his current situation. Many knew that he was all for complex marriage; however, the members were expectantly waiting for him to declare that it would be acceptable to have sexual relations between members of the church.

In 1846, Noyes and his wife finally agreed to have sexual relations with another couple who they were attracted to. Later, the 4 agreed that it was god’s intention for them to have sex and they began incorporate this marriage system in the community. The principles for their social union were that they would all share material possessions as well as relationships between people, and they submitted themselves to the John Noyes’ leadership.

Other members of his church who weren’t part of the central location began to hear of Noyes’ new policy and were curious about it. Noyes’ told them that exchange of love between two people was acceptable, but he stressed that it would only be alright with his blessing. The town of Putney eventually heard of what was going on and Noyes’ was at the spotlight of the authority. Charged with adultery in November 1847, Noyes fled to New York.

Eventually, the community had come to the conclusion that Putney was too conservative and slow of a town to practice their beliefs, and looked to find an oasis to practice. As this occurred, a group of Noyes’ followers had started a community in Madison County, New York. The land, which was a sawmill located at Oneida creek, was owned by Jonathan Burt and he invited Noyes to see the land in hopes of creating a settlement there. After visiting, a grateful Noyes gave Burt $500 and began to invite members from other settlements to come.

Original followers who traveled from Putney to Oneida, New YorkIn the course of 18 months, arrangements were made for 31 adults, 14 children, and other members from Vermont to inhabit the area. The area in New York was a very popular place where many other Utopian Societies were established. The rolling green hills and country side were very attractive to these Utopian communities. They spread like wildfire and the area was named, “The Burned over District”. http://tontine255.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/raking-bee.jpg

Noyes did not have a set of rules for how to run the community so he laid out 2 basic principles, individual perfection and communal good. He said that Perfectionism was a process of perfecting character. One should try to achieve a, “spirit of love,” and a, “spirit of childlike freedom”. Education was very important in the community. People were encouraged to be introspective and study curriculum alongside with the bible. It was stressed that self-realization came through the process of education. The second principle was achieved by giving up selfish desires. A perfect community could be achieved by relinquishing personal want for the better of the community. By the end of 1848, there were 87 members of the community and in the next couple of years, over 200 would join.

http://tontine255.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/group-1860s.jpg

Members of Oneida in 1860

In his community Noyes arranged marriages between his followers. He did this because he thought it was a good idea to join together two people so that if the community were to disband, a person would not be left alone to deal with adjusting to normal society. He was a hard worker and people looked up to him for his unending devotion to bettering the community. Noyes had a personality that made you almost feel completely accepted, and this was useful because it would make people strive for his full acceptance by being obedient towards him. Although neurotic and radical, Noyes was an intelligent, devoted, and outspoken person. If anyone was to lead the community, it was him.

ECONOMIC BASE

Many joined Oneida for their luxurious comforts. Neighboring villages were astounded that such a community could create the Mansion House, which housed over 50 people. People would question how this community could strive and be successful. Noyes’ plan for establishing this was by picking a select group of talented individuals to help start economic factors in the community. Some were chosen based off of their wealthy backgrounds and others for their skill sets. The community eventually had a net investment of around $108,000. Without this investment, Oneida was almost certainly doomed to failure, and it would takes almost 10 years and over $40,000 lost for the community to finally begin reaping in profits.

Noyes began to realize that to become self-sufficient, farming would not be able to support the entire community even though they did have the equipment, labor, and supplies to create a successful farm. John R. Miller proposed that Oneida plunge itself into the commercial world to be able to seek self-support. Their first business venture was to preserve fruits and vegetables and peddle them to surrounding villages, and this market was attractive to anyone who wanted to enjoy foods that were not in season. When Miller died, it did not stop the community from gaining profits.

Sewell Newhouse’s traps on display in Oneida In 1848, Sewell Newhouse, a successful trap maker, joined the community. He manufactured traps with a special spring that made them very effective. Once he moved to Oneida, his traps gained more and more popularity. The 1850’s saw an increase in the popularity of traps and the success it drew caused Newhouse’s traps to become Oneida’s main source of income. On the side, Oneida also canned fruits and vegetables and created small items such as chains, travel bags, brooms, and rustic seats. During the mid-1860s Noyes sent 3 members to New York to learn how to weave silk from silk thread and thus, it established a new business venture that helped the Oneida community thrive. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34229/34229-h/images/000.jpg

In 1862 the Oneida community began to hire local villagers to do menial tasks. This began to grow as Oneida’s economic status grew. By 1875 Oneida was hiring more than 200 workers and it soon became an industrial center. By 1864 its net worth was $185,000. By 1875 this grew to $500,000, and by 1880 it was over $600,000.

In 1860, with the successes in business, Oneida began to experience a taste of luxury after years many years of hard work. They created the Mansion House which was used to house many of the people. It was remodeled to be made out of brick instead of wood and it would be designed to have 4 stories. Around it, the mansion was covered with beautiful gardens and trees.

http://www.mohawkvalleybottleclub.com/Photos/2009/OC_Manor.jpg

Originally made to house 50, the Mansion House grew to house 250 people. Since the main philosophy of Oneida was of the importance of community, the public rooms showed the most grandeur. They were extravagant and had many sitting rooms. Once Oneida became prosperous, entertainment attractions were created such as a photo studio, chemical lab, theatre, musical instruments, and a two-story summer house near the Oneida Lake.

DAILY LIFE

Even in the early days of Oneida the practices of their Utopian society were prevalent everywhere. They had no real structure for worship. Every day was sacred and even Sunday wasn’t regarded as a special day. They did not recite prayers formally, and Christmas wasn’t considered too important. Baptism was also seen as unnecessary and funerals were deemed unimportant because it was considered a good thing that the soul had moved from Earth to Heaven. People spent most of their days working jobs, doing chores, or enjoying themselves with entertainment or play.

There were few holidays, because they considered every day to be special. However, on February 20th, people got together to celebrate the day when Noyes believed he was reborn and free from sin.

Every day at 8 o’clock, the members would gather in the main hall and listen as Noyes would speak. He would teach of new realizations and teachings, and discuss perfectionist theology and how it applied to everyday life, and how to live life. Noyes also had writers take note of what he said so that they could publish it to read in the future.

COMPLEX MARRIAGE

One of Noyes basic principles was the evils of monogamous marriage. He thought this was a tyrannical institution and that it was selfish because love should be free to love all. His ideas of complex marriage would not easily be synchronized into his community, so it took years after his marriage to come up with a plan. Noyes thought that women’s role in society was flawed; women were seen as simply children factories. He eventually came up with the idea of “male continence.” Sexual intercourse did not require a final stage of ejaculation because it burdened women with the painful process of pregnancy. Male continence would be beneficial to the society for 2 reasons. It hindered women from pregnancy, and it stopped the drain of life on the man’s part. After practicing male continence for two years, Noyes felt that it could be useful to his community as a form of birth control, and he then introduced it to the community. This system was successful; however, 31 children were accidentally conceived between 1848 and 1869.

With this system in place, Noyes saw that it could easily run wild. He created a process of choosing sexual partners via a hierarchical form called “Ascending Fellowship”. A person could have sex with people who were considered above their spiritual level, and the higher up you were the more freedom you could have. He put this system in place to make sure that no one person was left out or more desired than another. Men simply asked women if they were comfortable having sex and the women could either decline or refuse; if accepted, it would be approved by a third party, usually Noyes or a high seated citizen. A physician reported that a woman would have sex every two to four days.

The community differed from the outside world in that they believed that women should enjoy sex as much as men. Sexual expression was, “love in its most natural and beautiful form” (Garden). Social taboo against sex seemed irrational to Oneida because it created shame; It was a hopeless was against human nature. God gave humans these feelings and to deny them was denying the instruments of love that god had given them. These topics were discussed freely among the Oneida people and visitors never reported strange or unusual behavior. Orgies, homosexuality, and incest were never reported. Setbacks to this system were that the males could not ejaculate into the woman; a factor hard to believe was still accepted among the people, but both parties still agreed that it was better than abstinence.

An issue concerning this system was that two people could fall in love. If caught in love, public criticism followed that person and they were sent to another branch of Oneida until those Earthly desires were relinquished. As punishment, Noyes would withdraw sexual privileges from a person and they would be lowered in the ranks of Ascending Fellowship; this entailed that they had less choices in people to have intercourse with. Falling in love was a threat to the whole as a community because it created an unequal balance of love.

EUGENICS

By the 1860’s their system of birth control and communal marriage proved successful. In the community’s evolution, they now experimented with the idea of eugenics. Not known about the term eugenics, Noyes created the term “stirpiculture.” It was accepted in their community without much opposition and fathers were chosen via the ranking of Ascending Fellowship; men who seemed more spiritual were better suited fathers because their genes would create spiritual children. Women chosen were usually around the ages of 20 to 41 and men were from the ages of 25 to 68.

Noyes himself had fathered many. His lineage was deemed better because he was the leader of the community, and he fathered 10 children. Children born via eugenics were put into Children homes. The children were made to see their parents less frequently compared to other children in fear that they would develop some sort of specialized love. Eventually the time spent between parent and child would grow as the child got older. In this Children homes, children would be raised to focus on education and religion. They were cared for by the leaders of the house and if any of them developed special relationships with another they would be separated. No setbacks could be reported among these children. They were given food to eat, a great education, and much attention and love from the adults who oversaw them. They were encouraged to attend college and they became successful in business, scholarship, and arts.

SOCIETY

Work in Oneida was cycled often. This supposed that the people would not be stuck in monotonous jobs and that they could try a little bit of everything. People changed jobs frequently but people who displayed a passion in their work would remain there for years. Since women were not burdened by child bearing, they were seen much as equals. They shared jobs that men would work on and they could even ascend into the lines of business. Everybody had equal opportunity to participate in community events. Despite this; however, Oneida believed that gender entailed different specializations. Men were seen to always do a better job compared to women.

The Oneida Community Working in the Garden Each child went to school regardless of gender and they would learn a wide variety of topics such as zoology, astrology and philosophy. Oneida prepared their students for the outside world and college. Their library housed over 4000 volumes and they sent people outside to achieve higher educations. Over a dozen were sent to Yale to gain scientific knowledge, and those who gained medical knowledge outside of Oneida came back as physicians. https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpq5va1H1h3-_J8PRF7oJ9kb0vxWT7cDO611U1ecyHYA3ouNe3

Oneida worked hard and played hard. In contrast to other religious organizations, they saw the joy in good spirits in activities such as dancing, theatricals, and card playing. They later formed an orchestra and a theatrical group and the audience was always enthusiastic. In one Christmas performance in 1867, the visitors outnumbered the actual Oneida members in the audience. The carefree charisma present at Oneida was noticeable and many thought that the women not only looked carefree in their short hair and dresses, but that they had compassionate personalities because they were worry-free in their daily lives.

MUTUAL CRITICISM

Noyes found the power of mutual criticism to be powerful. This entailed that a single person would be given public, constructive criticism by a council of 6 to 12 people. These criticisms were not necessarily negative. They were usually published in the newspaper and the criticism gave people a different paradigm as to how they saw themselves and it taught them how to become a better person. Criticism ranged from being called arduous to carefree and enthusiastic. Noyes’ comments on people were usually harsh and insightful as he was a good judge of character. As the leader; however, he was rarely judged but he would often judge himself harshly. Mutual criticism could break someone’s ego, but such catharsis could give birth to a new and better person who did not live in the confines of their former self.

DESPOTISM

Utopian ideals usually come with the sole rule of a single person and Oneida was no exception. People joined Oneida with full dedication to John H. Noyes and he was their complete leader. People could not join without giving themselves up to his influence, and Noyes often discussed this with his followers. He concluded that service was freedom just as following Christ was their freedom. Concerns were always brought up at daily meetings with the public and a higher council, but they all gave themselves to Noyes because they believed that he led them through life with good intention; all his principles stemmed from Perfectionist ideology.

Many times punishment was too austere for peoples’ liking. People shown to develop specialized relationships were given different jobs that they usually did not like. Sick people were treated harshly too because they believed that sickness was a sign of bad spirits. Higher ranked citizens were immune to criticism and they were given more privileges. Members did not complain about the system, or it would be evident once they left. People who did leave were never dissatisfied and usually admitted wanting the Oneida policies to be incorporated into larger society. Despite Noyes’ single rule, he was not close-minded. He discussed topics openly with his council and took many ideas into consideration.

THE BREAKUP AND DECLINE

Subtle changes in the way the community was originally run led the slow but definite crack in the glass tree that had thrived for over twenty years. People believed they had solved most major social issues in the world and this was caused in the change of tone in Oneida. The 1870s showed a change from religious emphasis towards social emphasis. In the 1860s, Noyes began to research social science. A.J. Macdonald was a social scientist whose works Noyes began to study. With this inspiration he drifted his process of thinking from religious justification to scientific justification.

Instead of the usual “Oneida Circular”, the town periodical, Noyes established the “American Socialist”, and he also set up clubs focused on mutual improvement. He used to emphasize the important of 3 hours of religious study, but then began to emphasize spiritualism, a sect of philosophy he formerly shunned.

At the age of sixty-four in 1875, Noyes had difficulty in speech and hearing. Since he was the sole leader of Oneida, his importance began to decline as he got older. He put more responsibility to the central

Cultural artifacts are unique symbols of any organization or culture that suggest their shared expectations or belief. People shape them from their natural recourses. It gives information about its culture and people belong to specific culture. These are found all over the world different from generation to generation. Artifacts of our own cultures surround us from art and music to architecture and literature, from philosophy and religion to laws and economics. We are living among cultural artifacts that have deep roots into specific culture. The Holy Bible is as cultural artifact. It is not merely a religious book but it has historic and social book. It is direct reflection of its culture. It influences rationality, heroism, anarchy, technology, morality, languages, literature, science, true wealth, compassion, liberty, family and educational institute. It has formed various aspects of our culture. It allows the reconstruction of many socio-cultural elements. It is a guideline for moral behavior. For its significant impact on language, literature, art and politics it is considered more than a cultural artifact.

The Bible as cultural artifact

The Bible is the typical history of the collection of ancient texts held sacred by Moslems, Jews and Christians, The Bible is classic. It is not a smooth, apparent list of rules and regulations that we can depict impartially and apply independently to our lives. But it is holy accumulation of letters and equity, proverbs and poetry, philosophy and apocalypse, written over thousands of years in cultures and points differ from our own, and tell the complex story of God’s synergy with humanity.

The Bible is not merely religious book but it is historic and social book. It can direct better conception of people’s motivation. This book is not set of belief in Judaism or Christianity. But it stresses its words themselves. Once Jesus said that his mission was not to extinguish law but to fulfill its requirement. And in this concern, fulfilling the law is to letting it go. It may serve as a little comfort to those who have suffered abuse at the hand of Bible-wielding scholars, but the disturbing laws of Deuteronomy lose their bit of their potency when God himself breaks them.

A symbol is something that stands for something else. The Bible is a symbol of The Holy Ternary, Contrition towards god, Justification, Holiness, Divine Healing, and The Purge of the Holy Ghost and many more. It proclaims renovating of the mind, pardon, love, belief, patience, and in particular wisdom.

It contains a lot of cultural data of these societies and data on their relation with God. Anthropology has a great deal of light on the cultural history of the Bible by using the text as an ethnographic resource. By using the tools of anthropology, a scholar may sought from the pages of the Bible the information which allows the reconstruction of many socio-cultural elements.

The Bible leads the foundation of Jewish culture. It constitutes the discerning bookcase. . It is direct reflection of its culture. The Bible has formed western culture moreover any other book. Its strike is far-reaching and has extremely credit the history of art. Impact of the Bible on British culture has been lifted frequently in recent months. The Bible has impact on English language and literature.

Melvyn Bragg has published a book called Book of Books: The Radical Impact of the King James Bible in which he dashes a liberator bent in the Bible which shows its role in changing society. It continues the movement to abolish slavery. He argues Bible is a clout for democracy. Nick also bucks that the Bible has influenced the British political history. It has impact on democracy, the rights and duties of kings, tolerance and balance. It has a positive impact on British civic life.

Mangalwadi argues that the Bible provides the basics upon which western civilization as well as Indian democracy rests. It is related to the values and beliefs of western culture. Mangalwadi credit the influence of the Bible over rationality, heroism, anarchy, technology, morality, languages, literature, science, true wealth, compassion, liberty, family and educational institute. Bible has formed various aspects of our culture

Bible is commented as a cultural icon because of his significant impact on language, literature, art and politics. For these reasons the Bible is considered more than a cultural artifact. It is a lasting power which discloses and draws us towards compelling truths about our lives as human beings.

The Bible is a guideline for moral behavior. As its lessons are recognized that and effected by two thousand years old and some things that are timeless other things change. It falls on us to make up our own mind and choose that we want to take away from it. The bible is used for a victim for immaturity and irresponsible actions.

About the Bible, people put too much stress on the words by themselves and not on actual words what they say. It is a Holy book that is able quote scripture at desire, and it is able to be internalize what we read and apply actually in our life. It is not static. Religious leaders change them for their own sake and it pass on to its next generation not as same.

Conclusion

The Bible is considered as typical cultural artifact. It leads the foundation of Jewish culture. It is considered as a cultural icon because of his significant impact on language, literature, art and politics.

Mythology can be seen as the heart of everyday life in Ancient Greek and Roman. They regarded mythology as a part of their history and used supernatural characters such as gods, goddesses and heroes to explain phenomenon, cultural variations, religious practices and friendships. Intellect of Greek people including perfect mythology that they had shared among the members are essential factors that made the kingdom last very long. After the fall of Greek empire, Roman gained the power over the region. They appreciated the values of Greek traditions and mythology. So they maintained some Greek values however created their own legend which based upon them. As a result, there are different versions of legends which are out of the same source, same gods and goddesses as, heroes well as same places. What is different between the two versions is mainly about the names which the Roman had for the same gods and goddesses, heroes as those of the Greek. This is why ancient Greek and Roman mythologies often confused people. To make things clearer, it is important that we can see the relationship between lives of these two nations. Three values of mythology which indicate that the Greek and the Roman share in common are that they have same origin of the myth, same characteristics of deities and they share the same religious practices.

The creation of gods and goddesses in Greek and Roman started at the same belief. Greek and Roman believed that everything they do, see or struggled was caused by deities, such as natural phenomena, passion or even warfare.

For example, sailors who had taken a trip to an island and had experienced a sudden storm. To explain this phenomenon, they had to look for someone who account for it and then they started to worship Poseidon, the lord of the sea, who they believed the storm maker to have a safe voyage. Roman, on the other hand, prayed to Neptune, the lord of the sea, to bless them a safe journey to lands that they wanted to conquer. In addition, warriors who went to war needed encouragement and inspiration so they put their minds on the goddess name Athena. She appears to be a helper for the heroes, heroines and soldiers that went to the war. Finally, she became a symbol of strategic warfare. For the Roman, they worshiped the war helper as well. They named their goddess Minerva.

As the Greek deities became versatile that can explain many indescribable situations, the Roman adopted gods and goddesses system from Greek mythology and reinterpret stories about Greek deities under the names of their Roman counterparts. Gods and goddesses that are mentioned more than any other gods are Olympian gods, the 12 deities on the Mount Olympus. In addition, The Ancient Greek and Roman gods have same fantastic abilities and characteristics but different names which are

1. Zeus, the king of all gods and the ruler of Mount Olympus, represent for the sky, weather, thunder, law, order and fate. His Roman name is Jupiter.

2. Poseidon or Neptune in Roman, the Ruler of the sea, includes rivers, floods, droughts, earthquakes and horses. He is known as the Earth Shaker or Storm Bringer

3. Hera or Juno, queen of the gods and she is the goddess of marriage and motherhood

4. Aphrodite, Goddess of love, beauty and seduction. She was depicted as the most beautiful woman. She was called Venus in Roman

5. Apollo, he was called as Apollo in Roman as well. He is a god of music, healing, plagues, prophecies, poetry, and archery.

6. Ares God of warfare, violence and courage.

7. Artemis or Diana, Goddess of the hunt, wild animals, childbirth and plague.

8. Athena or Minerva, goddess of wisdom, warfare, strategy, heroic endeavor, handicrafts and reason

9. Demeter or Ceres, Goddess of fertility, agriculture, horticulture, grain and harvest.

10. Dionysus God of wine, parties and festivals, madness, drunkenness and pleasure

11. Hephaestus or Vulcan Master blacksmith and craftsman of the gods; god of fire and the forge.

12. Hermes or Mercury, god of messenger, commercial and thieve.

Twelve deities identify exactly that Roman had shared gods and goddesses from Greek mythology because the deities in Greek have same powers and responsibilities in Roman except for one thing. The names of 12 gods were all Greek sounding, so they changed all the names to better fit their lifestyle.

Greek and Roman have same kind of religious ceremonies, including sacrifice animals to gods and festival. People thanked and worshiped gods by giving tame animals for sacrificing. Sacrificing process is described as an agreement between god and man. If gods gave what men want they would give the life of animals to god in return. Sacrificial animals include pig, sheep, goat, cow or even human. Example of sacrificing human is when Agamemnon wanted to move his ship to pass the storm. He killed his daughter to sacrifice to Poseidon.

Furthermore, Greek and Roman have same kind of celebration which it is Anthesteria in Greek and The Liberalia in Roman. This festival was held for the honor of Dionysus (Greek) or Liber (Roman). He is the god of wine, intoxication, ecstasy and fertility. Greek and Roman celebrated this festival to worship and thank god for giving a fertile agriculture thorough the year.

Consequently, Roman religious ceremony is associated with Greek ceremony.

Since mythology of Greek and Roman has been confusing to people all the life time weather they belong to each other in some value or not. We apparently see that Greek have same elements in Roman, there are the birth of god system, power and feature of deities and ritual.

The Grand Inquisitor is part of the stories found in the book by Fyodor Dostoevsky entitled Brothers Karamozov. Dostoevsky concerns himself in analyzing the psychological consequences of engaging in crime, and the moral consequences of engaging in such kind of vices. In the grand Inquisitor, the characters question the validity of religion, free will and morality. The main dilemma that these characters ask, is it prudent for man, to observe the laws of religion? The other questions that linger on the minds of these people is whether they should take the role of God, and ignore the various religious believes or traditions. The poet identifies the various degrees of freedom, and this includes positive and negative freedom, rational egoism, Christian idealism, and nihism. He does this through the various characters in his poem the Grand Inquisitor (Dostoyevsky,, Richard and Larrisa, 27).

The Grand Inquisitor is based on the idea of freedom and human nature. In the poem, Alysha is a monk, and Ivan questions the benevolence of God. According to the Grand Inquisitor, the notion of freedom does not exist. The Grand Inquisitor observes that people need to be selfish, and by doing that the whole society will benefit. This is because the needs of individuals are the same and complement each other. On this basis, the freedom the Jesus Christ brings to the world is not freedom but slavery. This aspect is denoted in the poem when the Grand Inquisitor tells Jesus that by coming again, he is destroying the church. He further tells Jesus that the devil tempted him with three items, food, power, and divine authority (Dostoyevsky and Constance, 33).

For instance, the devil told Jesus to turn stone into bread. According to the Grand Inquisitor, Jesus should have done that. According to him, men will only follow people who feed their bellies. By turning stone into bread, Jesus will demonstrate his ability to feed the multitudes. The Grand Inquisitor further tells Jesus that he should have cast himself down from the temple and caught by angels. This would have demonstrated his godhead abilities, therefore acquiring worship and trust from the people. Finally, the Grand Inquisitor believes that had Jesus accepted to rule over the world, then the world would have seen salvation (Leatherbarrow, 24). On this basis, the Grand Inquisitor accuses Jesus of giving humanity freedom to choose.

According to him, the masses do not have the capability of choosing what is right or wrong. This freedom has led to the destruction of mankind. The Grand Inquisitor therefore believes that the freedom that Jesus gave to mankind, by refusing to oblige to the temptations of the devil, was too much for the people. On this basis therefore, the Grand Inquisitor advocates for selfishness of an individual. However, this freedom that comes with selfishness is an illusion, and does not exist in Christianity. The Christian teachings advocate for love, and humanity. For instance, the Inquisitor believes in giving people bread, in exchange of their souls. According to this teaching, the freedom of people will only come through coercion. On this basis, the Grand Inquisitor takes the role of God, instead of man. In my own opinion, the kind of freedom that the Grand Inquisitor advocates for is the negative freedom.

The Inquisitor tries to justify his believes by identifying the roles of Satan in providing real freedom. He does this by denoting that the catholic church long left the teachings of Jesus, and followed the teachings of Satan. In his own opinion, freedom that comes from the devil is sufficient in taking care of the needs of humanity. This is because the devil gives authority to the few, who have the capability of handling their freedom. By doing, the devil manages to end the suffering of humanity, and uniting the world, through the church, i.e. the Catholic Church (Crane and Faynia, 19).

No matter what justification the Grand Inquisitor gives, this is negative freedom. This is because it is against humanity to act in a selfish manner. For people to stay together, they must satisfy the various needs of others. There is no way leadership by a few people and through coercion can result to the promotion of humanity, and hence positive freedom. This is because people will always be dissatisfied by the selfishness of individuals, resulting to rebellions. Dostoevsky presents the freedom denoted as Christian idealism through the actions of Jesus Christ. For instance, the Grand Inquisitor accuses Jesus of allowing people to choose on what they want and what they donaˆ™t want (Davis, Gary, David, John, 28).

For instance, the Grand Inquisitor argues that by refusing to accept the temptations that the devil offered to Jesus Christ, he gave mankind the freedom to choose. This is what Christian idealism is all about. To Christians, they have a role to play in their lives, in regard to worshiping God. They can choose either choose to worship God, and achieve eternal life, or to go against God, and be lead to eternal death (Dostoyevsky, 33). The Grand Inquisitor acknowledges these teachings, and he tell Jesus that even though the devil is leading them to death and destruction, the freedom that he gives is for the benefit of humanity. This kind of freedom is the elimination of the free will of individuals, in exchange of providing for their needs, and happiness.

In conclusion, Dostoevsky manages to highlight religious bondage in the manner in which the Grand Inquisitor argues about the freedom. The Grand Inquisitor is under religious bondage because of his assumptions that freedom to choose is limited to a few individual. In reality, this is not freedom but bondage. This is because an individual will not have the capability of acting by himself. The person will always live in fear of need, because the authority will fail to provide for her due to disobedience. On this basis, the notion of harmony does not exist; instead individuals are under spiritual bondage, in the name of self-gratification, and self-love.

Prophets have always been surrounded by an aura of mystery. Because they were intermediaries between the human and divine worlds, prophets appeared to their hearers as terrifying yet magnetic and fascinating figures. Throughout the history of Western civilization, whenever these divinely inspired individuals have appeared, attempts have been made to penetrate the mystery that surrounds them. The focus of many of these attempts has been the Old Testament prophets who have traditionally functioned as models for the elucidation of other prophetic phenomenon.

How prophets were viewed:

Prophets were viewed as channels through which divine messages reached the ordinary world and through which humans could gain direct access to the divine. Therefore, the prophetic intermediaries appeared in any society which believed in the existence of divine powers capable of communicating with human beings. [1]

However, within societies and groups, the behaviour of prophets tended to follow traditional, well-defined patterns. This behavior varied from society to society. Within a given society or group, prophetic behavior usually conformed to the expected norms. In the Old Testament we can find that the prophets receive divine messages and translate them into human terms and communicating them, using traditional speech forms and actions. This task indicates that they are functioning as prophets and the message they bring, comes from the divine realm. [2]

Isaiah as a prophet:

Similarly, Isaiah who is one of the great prophets, exercised his prophetic ministry during the reigns of Uzziah (783-742 BC), Jotham ( 742-735), Ahaz ( 735-715) and Hezekiah (715-687). The vision which is recorded in Chapter 6 was the one which constituted the call of Isaiah to be a prophet.

It has sometimes been said that Isaiah must have belonged to the aristocracy of the capital because he knew the ways of the court and had ready access to the presence of the king when he had need. A prophet of the stature of Isaiah must have made himself a well-known member of the Jerusalem community and one whose words were treated with great respect. [3]

The book of Isaiah, one of the longer units in the Hebrew Bible, comprises prophetic material in verse and prose collected over a period of at least half a millennium. In the opening chapter of Isaiah we catch echoes of Amos here and there, not least in the contrast between the sacrificial cult and the demands of social justice ( Isa. 1:12-17) which would fit better the early stage of Isaiah’s career.

There is also reminiscent of Amos in his condemnation of the ruling classes who grind the face of the poor (Isa. 3:15) and reflects a lack of concern for traditional moral values of the women of Jerusalem ( Isa. 3:16-17,24-26; cf. The poem on divine judgment (Isa. 2:6-22) restates for the befit of Judah the central message of Amos : that the God of Israel has now abandoned his people and left them at the mercy of history. [4]

And Isaiah was taking up where Amos left. He is more explicit than Amos in his reference to the Assyrians and the role they were destined to play in Israel’s future ( Isa. 5:26-30).

Social, cultural and political situation during the time of Isaiah:

Before the time of Omri and Ahab, kings of Israel about a century before Isaiah received his call to be a prophet, the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah after the death of Solomon had been an unimpressive record of petty squabbles, and events of very local significance. But these two kings saw the folly of such behaviour o the part of two politically weak kingdoms, which, in face of an aggressive policy by a great power such as Assyria or Egypt, could hope to survive only by the combined military resources of an alliance of western states, in which they had part.

Israel was the dominant partner. In every age political and commercial bargaining was successful done from a position of strength. With Israel’s considerable increase in national wealth owing to the opening up of profitable avenues of trade, s development which, in turn, widened the social gap between the wealthy, upper class in Israelite society and the poor peasants. [5] Such a situation was liable to recur whenever Israel entered into a close relation of association with, or, even more, of dependence on, a people greater in power than itself, and it was the main reason for the warning which the prophets repeatedly gave against any policy.

In a way not paralleled in the activity of the other great prophets whose utterances have a place in the Old Testament canon, Isaiah took a very prominent part in the national crises of the days through which he lived.

Isaiah as a Judge:

In spite of the fact that judgment spoken of as if it were inevitable, that does not exclude from Isaiah’s preaching the note of pleading and entreaty calling upon the people to return. This is found several times in chapter 1 (5, 16 f., 18 f.). It is Isaiah’s conviction that for all this sinfulness a day of judgment is coming. God is not mocked; men cannot disobey his will with impunity. ‘The land will be desolated. Lebanon will become a heath, fruitful places like Carmel and Sharon will become a wilderness, men and cattele will be few Time after time Assyria is specified as the instrument by which the judgment will accomplished’. [6]

Isaiah often declares his confidence that, however devastating the judgment may be, a remnant of the people will survive. Out of the stump of the tree new life will come. The glory will have departed, the comeliness will have perished, the new shoot will be a miracle of renewed life; but therein is the hope of the people and therein lies the possibility of the continuance of their work and witness. That conviction on the part of Isaiah may be related to the fact that even in human relations a complete obliteration of an individual or a people was guarded against with very great care ( cf. Deut. 25.5; Ruth 4.10 f., Amos 1.6,9). The doctrine of surviving remnant in turn is related to the fact that whereas the prophet can speak in terms of a judgment upon the whole people, he can, at the same time and without any sense of contradiction, speak of a discriminating judgment in which a distinction will be made between the righteous and the wicked ( Isa. 1. 27 f.; 3.10 f.; cf. 28.23-29). At this point Isaiah though of the necessary cleansing of the peoples as consisting substantiality of restoring in them a former righteousness and purity which had become corrupted; he comes near to describing it as a renewal of the wilderness ideal. [7]

The message and the people Isaiah spoke to and spoke about:

The postexilic community was concerned with their identity and self-understanding. Their existence as a people was threatened by the consequences of the catastrophe of exile and loss of national independence. There were other Jewish communities, and perhaps provinces, in close proximity to Judah, for example in Samaria and Transjordan, and far away, for away for example in Egypt and Babylon. Isaiah presents a vision for these people to understand themselves, their God and their world. The vision spans past, present and future.

Israel as a people participates in this story ( Isa. 1.2-9; 4.2-6) and, at the same time, Israel is comprised of wicked and righteous, oppressors and the oppressed ( Isa. 1.19-23, 27-28; 3.13-15). Isaiah gives a clear picture of distinction between good and evil that is at points applied to over against the nations can be applied to Israel itself. Righteous versus wicked behaviour is the important point. There is no doubt in Isaiah about the radical separation of good and evil. What is in doubt, indeed, what is denied, is the equation of these absolute categories with actual human groups, whether defined in religious or political terms.

Isaiah represents his vision as a Quasi-drama dominated by dramatic speeches. Even the narrative sections in chapter 6 provide settings for further speeches. The characters are not presented as distinct and historical individuals. They are constructs in the grand poetic work of Isaiah. Israel, for example, is masculine singular ( 1.4), masculine plural ( 1.5-6) and feminine singular ( 1.21-26), where one can see that Israel is judged and condemned, desolate and devastated, and comforted and redeemed. [8]

Books

Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel ( Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996)

James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier. Early Israelite prophecy: Interpreting the prophets, ed., Philadelphia : Fortress Press, c1987.

Mauchline, John.

John Mauchline, Isaiah 1-39 , (London : SCM Press, 1962), p.

Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah ( Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). P.

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.