Category: Free Essays

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

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

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

Belief in One God

Belief in all the prophets

Belief in the four original Holy scriptures

Belief in the angels

Belief in the Hereafter and day of judgement

Belief in Divine verdict

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compare Islamic culture with other cultures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Locke

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

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

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

Freedom in West

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

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

Religious Freedom in Christianity

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

The fundamental right to religious liberty

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

The responsibility of the state

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

Religious freedom and Christianity

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

Freedom in Islam
History of freedom in Islam

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

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

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

Concept of freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Additional Resources used

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plagiarism Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Various Old Testament attributes of God

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

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

God the Creator

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

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

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

God of the Exodus

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

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

The Passionate God

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

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

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

Advocate of Justice

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

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

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

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

God of the Prophets

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

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

God of the psalmists and Proverbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A concern with humanity’s physical welfare

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

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

A concern with humanity’s emotional welfare

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

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

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

A concern with humanity’s economic welfare

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

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

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

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

A concern with humanity’s social welfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Doctrine of Trinity
Exploring the Doctrine of Trinity

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

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

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

Development of Trinity into a Christian Doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors that Influenced the Doctrine of Trinity

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

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

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

Justifications by the Trinitarians about the Doctrine of Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

Rejection of Doctrine of Trinity by the Non-Trinitarians

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

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

Denouncement of Doctrine of Trinity by the Holy Qur’an

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

Anthropological Perspective about the
Doctrine of Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biologically speaking, we humans are social beings. We need our parents to be born, and once that happens; even though we are considered single individuals with a brain and mind that let us think and learn, we do not isolate ourselves from the rest of the people. On the contrary, all we do is to follow our peers.

We gather in groups, and these groups constitute subgroups again. This is the basic method we follow to successfully organise and build up our social structure to satisfy our several needs.

The first of these groups is our family, and from here we span to neighbourhoods; communities of different kinds, that we joined based on a particular interest, such as: religious, sports, academic, musical, labour, political, ideological, etc. These groups grow in number to form states and then countries or nations.

All these people together establish a society. Societies differ from one another and every single one of them is unique, particular and characterised for a distinctive feature that we call “culture”.

Culture is that complex absoluteness that we learn day by day. It is everything with which we fill and give sense to our existence. The way we wear, think, believe, act, speak, perceive are all framed and shaped by the ideas, concepts, values that are part of a specific culture.

Through culture we learn to adapt ourselves in this physical world, manipulating the available resources for our own welfare and we also shape our behaviour to avoid a social chaos.

Concepts of Culture

Culture is neither natural nor artificial. It stems from neither genetics nor rational thought, for it is made up of rules of conduct, which were not invented and whose function is generally not understood by the people who obey them. Some of these rules are residues of traditions acquired in the different types of social structure through which each human group has passed. Other rules have been consciously accepted or modified for the sake of specific goals. Yet there is no doubt that, between the instincts inherited from our genotype and the rules inspired by reason, the mass of unconscious rules remains more important and more effective; because reason itself is a product rather than a cause of cultural evolution. – Claude Levi-Strauss, 1983.

Culture means the whole complex of traditional behavior which has been developed by the human race and is successively learnt by each generation. A culture is less precise. It can mean the forms of traditional behavior which are characteristic of a given society, or of a group of societies, or of a certain race, or of a certain area, or of a certain period of time. – Margaret Mead, 1937.

Culture is the integral whole consisting of implements and consumer’s goods, of constitutional charters for the various social groupings, of human ideas and crafts, beliefs and customs. Whether we consider a very simple or primitive culture or an extremely complex and developed one, we are confronted by a vast apparatus, partly material, partly human, and partly spiritual, by which man is able to cope with the concrete specific problems that face him. – Bronislaw Malinowski, 1944.

Culture embraces all the manifestations of social behavior of a community, the reactions of the individual as affected by the habits of the groups in which he lives, and the product of human activities as determined by these habits. – Franz Boas, 1930.

Characteristics of Culture

Culture is learnt: as soon as we are in contact with other members of our culture, we start learning all about it; therefore, we can assume that culture is learnt rather than inherited biologically. A human being will learn the culture of the society where he is raised; thus, a person that is born in Australia would not practise the same culture if he had been born in Poland. In this context we are different from animals since they are biologically built in a way that they will know how to behave and act naturally even if they grew in isolation.

Culture is shared: if culture is learnt, we can state that it is also shared. We share all knowledge among the members of the same society. This way we pass on the standards of our culture along years keeping it alive. As we are social beings, we have a high tendency of sharing and this feature let us improve as a whole. By sharing we provide the necessary tools that are used for a gentle adaptation in all stages and environments we go through in our lives.

Culture is integrated: culture itself is not a single unit. It is a complex whole in which every feature that characterizes it has an important role that makes that culture distinctive and peculiar. All these features function integrated and not separately from one another. This way when a feature changes, it affects to the whole system making it also swift.

Culture is dynamic: there are some reasons such as: population growth, technological innovation, environmental crisis, intrusion of outsiders, modification of behaviour, etc; that have made cultures change. That is why cultures must be flexible and dynamic in order to adapt constantly to the new changes and avoid repression of his members.

Culture is based on symbols: culture has been transmitted among its members along the years through a set of different symbols. Symbols are then the instrument used to pass on culture and keep it alive from generation to generation, and language is the most important one.

Functions of Culture

According to Bronislaw Malinowski (1884 – 1942) the function of culture is to fulfill certain biological and psychological needs people share.

Cultures are expected to fulfill certain functions in order to lead a society successfully and some of them might me:

Guarantee the biological continuity of its members.

Provide practical means to pass on knowledge among members.

Meet the psychological and emotional needs of its members.

Being flexible enough in order to survive the increasing shifting conditions.

Offer strategies for the rational production and distribution of goods and services considered necessary for life.

Provide an organised and diverse social structure so that all its members can fit in it and also understand the world in their own means.

Facilitate social interactions among its members and offer reasonable ways to avoid or resolve conflicts that might rise within the group as well as with outsiders.

Allow human beings to adapt the environment to their own purposes. Social interactions do not refer to only relationships among human beings but also and deeply with nature. The survival of all cultures depends on the way they use and treat nature.

A well-working culture is the one that satisfies the different groups within the society as equally as possible; thus, its individual members can all have access to the resources available in the community and achieve their personal and collective goals. This will avoid the members to feel unsafe and unattached; therefore, they will not easily fall into anti-social behaviours, such as: violence, crime, suicide, depression, abuse of drugs, etc.

Enculturation and Acculturation

Every single culture is learnt by their members and transmitted from person to person and from generation to generation to avoid its absolute disappearance. The most important instrument used to carry this out is language. The process of passing on knowledge among people is what we call enculturation. This process is vital to guarantee the survival of the culture, but it is also significant to do it in the most smoothly manner to avoid any disruption among members and also among the features of the culture being transmitted.

Enculturation let us understand the past so that we can make a better sense of the present and therefore plan a more sustainable future for the welfare of our species. This process also gives us the opportunity to find out more about ourselves; our ancestors and origin; where the way we think and perceive the world, our values and beliefs come from.

When enculturation is carried out in the proper manner, the members of all cultures grow up closer to their past, revitalizing the core values that make their cultures unique and distinct from all others. They also grow up in an environment characterized by the deep pride of belonging to one particular culture and behave with strong ideas of maintaining their culture alive; albeit the irrevocable changes they must go through.

There is also another phenomenon that cultures might experience, consisting on the absorption of one culture over another one, called acculturation. This usually happens when industrialized or capital societies influence highly over traditional small societies to the point of modifying them completely. Once they are in contact, the former shapes and converts the latter one. The small society adopts the culture of the powerful one as the final outcome. This process is similar to that of colonization. It is especially more noticeable now that we live in a globalized world; where the small societies are usually the most affected ones.

Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism

There is generally a bad habit of criticising other people’s behaviour but most of all to judge the way other cultures function. When we find ourselves interacting with people from other cultures, or simply see it on the media; we get surprised by the different manners they behave, think and express in similar situations. There is nothing wrong with comparing cultures, in fact, this way we learn more about others and value ours, too. We must keep in mind that when comparing, we should adopt an unbiased position in order to understand the best way possible why other people do things in the way they do, and avoid unsupported preconceptions.

The term that refers to what it is mentioned in the paragraph above is ethnocentrism: the belief that the way that one’s own culture functions is the only proper and correct one, while all others are wrong.

In order to avoid making fast judgements or simply incorrect conclusions; anthropologists, when studying cultures, always put into practice what they call cultural relativism which is the idea that we must suspend or postpone judgement of other people’s practices until we acquire a full understanding of the culture in which we are interested; so as to understand them in their own cultural terms. It is important to clarify that in this process what it is done is to put off one’s judgement towards another culture, it is neither precipitated nor cancelled. Through cultural relativism it is possible to hold our judgements and perceptions about the culture being observed to the last stage; in order to take down accurate data and keep valid records; furthermore, avoid preconceptions influenced by ethnocentrism.

Conclusion

Along history not only humans have changed, but also the way we live. In our search for a better and more comfortable world for us to inhabit; we have made an irrational and abusive use of natural resources. We have damaged nature to such extreme points to threaten our own survival. Most of the societies around the world, influenced by the western fashion have turned into very consumerist ones; the ideas and values that used to grasp societies together are now stirring political discomfort and creating social inequality because the leaders and members of our societies are more tented to achieve personal and individual profits at any cost to work collectively so that every member can accomplish his personal and collective needs.

The process of changing is unstoppable; everything needs to keep changing constantly to stay alive; therefore a culture that does not adjust its features simple disappears. The most important affected feature of a culture is its language. Language is that particular faculty that differentiates us from animals and makes us a unique and rational species.

Through language we humans are able to express our feelings, thoughts, ideas and most importantly to transmit our culture from one generation into another one, assuring its survival along years. Many languages have already disappeared, mainly as a result of the process of acculturation; and with the languages, also ways of thinking, expressing, seeing, perceiving are gone. This way the world becomes small and intrinsic, losing authenticity and variety provided for the distinct and diverse manners of receiving, understanding, analyzing, shaping and living this world.

For a culture to survive is not enough to shift. It should do it in a way that it can guarantee that its members will satisfy their biological and social needs; thus, the whole society will feel competent and safe; therefore, it will behave proudly and mutually to keep it alive.

How could someone explain Americas loosening view of sexual intercourse over recent decades. Have our moral standards changed so much that they now accept or even encourage frequent sex? Is it just a method of rebellion as people attempt to fight conservative societal views? Maybe we just wish to fight those who instill inhibitive ideas on us, and our forms of freedom in this case, that of our bodies. Has American media’s desire for revenue and profit caused an increased sway towards what was previously deemed inappropriate? Prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is one reason.in this essay, I will argue that celibacy in today’s society is acceptable and not taboo.

First, how could someone explain America’s loosening view of sexual intercourse over recent decades? One can speculate on these ideas, probably others as well, and not really get anywhere. They’ve all contributed to mod There can be several motives why people decide to engage in sex. You know them. Everyone does. And of course, mostly for married folk, there’s the desire to have children. Other than that, all of those motives really originate, whether directly or indirectly, from the basic biological urge that makes us all crave sex. The difference between celibacy and the casual sexual attitude in today’s society is how a person decides to react to that urge and the various other motives that stem from it.

Secondly, maybe we just wish to fight those who instill inhibitive ideas on us, and our forms of freedom in this case, that of our bodies. not all people consider it a priority to do push-ups the hard way every weekend. In fact, some consider it a priority not to have sexual intercourse. These people are celibates, and they’re not ashamed to admit it. They’re proud of it. Tease them as you may, but they often have very good reasons to refrain from the common practices regarding sexual activity, and all the cultural side dishes that accompany it. Where will you find them? Yeah, church. We know. Where else? The reality is that they can be found in the same places as everyone else. You just may not realize it. Be that as it may, celibate people follow a different code on how, when and why they would or would not participate in sexual activity.

Lastly, celibacy is the key for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy. as there are different reasons why people have sex, there can also be varying reasons why people don’t. The most obvious one is health risks, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. However, when compared to most other reasons, this one still revolves around benefit to a certain physical satisfaction, that of being healthy and free of complication. It also stems from the issue of pressure and acceptance, as a person who contracts any health problems from intercourse may feel shunned from his or her peers, or may experience a personal sense of disappointment of modern times.

In conclusion, how could someone explain America’s loosening view of sexual intercourse over recent decades? Maybe we just wish to fight those who instill inhibitive ideas on us, and our forms of freedom in this case, that of our bodies. , celibacy is the key for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. My whole idea in writing this essay is to bring awareness to the idea of celibacy in today’s society. Preventing teen pregnancy and the AIDS epidemic is one benefit of celibacy. But in today’s society sex sells it is everywhere books, television, movies, and billboards. Peer pressure is one of the main deterrents of celibacy. So I hope that this essay shed a little light on how celibacy is not such a bad thing.[words 634]

Michael Garcia

Professor Rowe

Writing Techniques I

26 November 2012

Argument Outline

First, how could someone explain America’s loosening view of sexual intercourse over recent decades?

Secondly, maybe we just wish to fight those who instill inhibitive ideas on us, and our forms of freedom in this case, that of our bodies.

Lastly, celibacy is the key for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy.

In conclusion, how could someone explain America’s loosening view of sexual intercourse over recent decades? Maybe we just wish to fight those who instill inhibitive ideas on us, and our forms of freedom in this case, that of our bodies. , celibacy is the key for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.[words 117]

Supporting details worksheet

How could someone explain America’s loosening view of sexual intercourse over recent decades?

Have our moral standards changed so much that they now accept or even encourage frequent sex?

Is it just a method of rebellion as people attempt to fight conservative societal views?

Maybe we just wish to fight those who instill inhibitive ideas on us, and our forms of freedom in this case, that of our bodies.

Has American media’s desire for revenue and profit caused an increased sway towards what was previously deemed inappropriate?

Prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is one reason.

Thesis Statement: In this essay, I will argue that celibacy in today’s society is acceptable and not taboo.

Topic sentence#1 First, how could someone explain America’s loosening view of sexual intercourse over recent decades?

One can speculate on these ideas, probably others as well, and not really get anywhere.

They’ve all contributed to mod There can be several motives why people decide to engage in sex. You know them. Everyone does.

And of course, mostly for married folk, there’s the desire to have children.

Other than that, all of those motives really originate, whether directly or indirectly, from the basic biological urge that makes us all crave sex.

The difference between celibacy and the casual sexual attitude in today’s society is how a person decides to react to that urge and the various other motives that stem from it.

Topic sentence # 2 Secondly, maybe we just wish to fight those who instill inhibitive ideas on us, and our forms of freedom in this case, that of our bodies.

Not all people consider it a priority to do push-ups the hard way every weekend.

In fact, some consider it a priority not to have sexual intercourse. These people are celibates, and they’re not ashamed to admit it.

They’re proud of it. Tease them as you may, but they often have very good reasons to refrain from the common practices regarding sexual activity, and all the cultural side dishes that accompany it. Where will you find them? Yeah, church. We know. Where else?

The reality is that they can be found in the same places as everyone else.

You just may not realize it. Be that as it may, celibate people follow a different code on how, when and why they would or would not participate in sexual activity.

Topic sentence # 3Lastly, celibacy is the key for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy.

As there are different reasons why people have sex, there can also be varying reasons why people don’t.

The most obvious one is health risks, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

However, when compared to most other reasons, this one still revolves around benefit to a certain physical satisfaction, that of being healthy and free of complication.

It also stems from the issue of pressure and acceptance, as a person who contracts any health problems from intercourse may feel shunned from his or her peers, or may experience a personal sense of disappointment of modern times.

Topic Sentence # 3Lastly, celibacy is the key for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy.

AS there are different reasons why people have sex, there can also be varying reasons why people don’t.

The most obvious one is health risks, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. However, when compared to most other reasons, this one still revolves around benefit to a certain physical satisfaction, that of being healthy and free of complication.

It also stems from the issue of pressure and acceptance, as a person who contracts any health problems from intercourse may feel shunned from his or her peers, or may experience a personal sense of disappointment of modern times.

Conclusion: In conclusion, how could someone explain America’s loosening view of sexual intercourse over recent decades?

Maybe we just wish to fight those who instill inhibitive ideas on us, and our forms of freedom in this case, that of our bodies.

celibacy is the key for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

My whole idea in writing this essay is to bring awareness to the idea of celibacy in today’s society.

Preventing teen pregnancy and the AIDS epidemic is one benefit of celibacy.

But in today’s society sex sells it is everywhere books, television, movies, and billboards.

Peer pressure is one of the main deterrents of celibacy.

So I hope that this essay shed a little light on how celibacy is not such a bad thing.[words 634]

In the book of Ruth, the name Ruth itself means mercy. In the context of the book this mercy is to show that God’s grace and mercy is for all the people in Israel.

Ruth was a poor woman and on top of all she was as well a foreigner which made her life more difficult. However, during her difficult time she was helped by another woman and helped her overcome her difficulties. This woman was older and through her experience in life was able to listen and give advice to Ruth. In return Ruth offered to her extreme loyalty.

Ruth’ story is a historical novel which is based on real people and it signifies and points out a story of courage in difficult situations. It is set in the period of the Judges before the birth of King David however there is evidence that it was in reality written much later so much so about the time when the two tribes of Judah were set free and were allowed to go to Jerusalem.

The story is divided in four episodes each exploring Ruth’s life. The first episode was about Ruth and Naomi that go to Bethlehem. This first act which can be regarded as a prologue discusses how Naomi and her family went to Moab. Naomi was Israelite and lived with her family, however an unfortunate event occurred. A storm destroyed their grain and there was famine among most of the people including Naomi’s family. This famine led such a family to go to leave their home, Naomi with her family had to go and live in another country, specifically that of Moab. Naomi with her husband had two sons and later they got married. Due to circumstances Naomi’s husband and sons die. Heavy hearted she sees fit that she returns to Bethlehem. Naomi had two daughters in law who were Ruth and Orpah. The three women ended up being widows and in ancient Israel there were not allowed to remarry because their dead husbands were still considered to be families. However one must keep in mind that the daughters in law were not Israelites, unlike Naomi they were Moabites which were considered bitter enemies. So much so, there a few battles between them. This is so because the Israelites regarded the Moabites as inferior because according to hem they originated from an act of incest between Lot and his oldest daughter. This led to the believe, that the Moab nation was tainted. Naomi, regarding all this hatred among the two groups believed that her daughters in law Ruth and Orpah would not go to Bethlehem with her. However Naomi’s hope was not completely lost. Orpah decided to be in Moab among her people, but Ruth saw things in a different light. Ruth shared the same grief and loneliness that Naomi was facing and this led her to accompany Naomi and return with her to Bethlehem.

The second episode of the book of Ruth takes a different shape. Naomi was a widow but still she had family connections. On top of that both Naomi and Ruth were women of initiative; they did not believe that things were going to happen by themselves. Case in point, at that times women mostly took action in food management and production and Ruth took part in gleaning the barley so that she and Naomi survive. Naomi had a relative on her husband’s side, who he was rich and went by the name of Boaz. As Ruth usually did, she had to do gleaning in order to survive and she ended up gleaning in a field belonging to Boaz.

‘She came and gleaned in the field behind the reapers. As it happened, she came to the part of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech. Just then Boaz came from Bethlehem.’ (Ruth Episode 2:1-7)

One must notice that in such an event, Ruth uses the phrase ‘as it happened’; this signifies the meaning that God indented this scene to happen. This phrase is often used in the bible to bestow the greatness of God to establish such scenes. Also, Naomi and the people of Bethlehem saw that Boaz was a good match for Ruth and encouraged her to him.

Naomi believed that Ruth was good enough for Boaz as she was a good woman and respected, all her problems would cease if she just could have a rich husband. She saw through Boaz that he was perfect for Ruth, for he had a good nature, respected as well, rich and obligated to help them as he was a relative of Naomi. Boaz was a ‘go-el’ who had a duty to aid the respective family if the husband died.

Like Naomi believed, Boaz helped Ruth so much so, he went through many ordeals to gain extra grain for her, protected her and saw that she was properly fed. Through his help and care, God was opening a branch for destiny to occur.

The third episode takes place at the threshing floor which is a perfect time of the year as the harvest would have been brought in and weather would still be warm. Naomi thought that this was the last chance that Ruth had to marry Boaz so it was here that she devised a plan for Boaz to propose to Ruth. Ruth thought that the idea of her marrying Boaz was mere fantasy because she was a poor Moab woman while he had high status and rich however she still listened to Naomi and she heeded her words.

‘When Boaz had eaten and drunk, and he was in a contented mood, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came stealthily and uncovered his feet, and lay down.’

Ruth dressed well, perfumed herself and waited until Boaz had eaten a good meal. Afterwards, Boaz went to sleep and Naomi went near his place and lied down next to him.

‘cover her with his blanket’

This phrase suggests that since Boaz is the ‘go-el’, a kinsman, Ruth has the right to demand marriage so this phrase suggests marriage. Boaz agreed however he had some dire news that his cousin was a much closer kinsman than he is. Boaz had to deal with his cousin before he could marry her and he had to do everything in order so there would be no questioning about the legality of the marriage. Ruth slept and stayed next to Boaz till the morning and returned to Naomi. Naomi was eager to know whether she would marry him, but she was not alone as so was Ruth eager to know whether they will marry or not.

This leads to the fourth and final episode of Ruth’s book. As what happens in every place, the villages come to know what is happening as Boaz, the next morning, was already met by the nearest kinsman of Naomi’s family. However due to some negotiations concerning land finally Ruth and Boaz got married and they had their son Obed being the father of Jesse who was the father of David, who he united Israel to its greatness.

“Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without next of kin. May his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourishment for your old age. For your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him”. Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse.’ (Ruth Episode 4:1-22)

As one can see, the book of Ruth deals with how family continues throughout generations amplifying their greatness as the former Ruth was a woman who had no children but events folded in such a way that she became the great grandmother of David. It also puts forth a message about dealing with problems. In the beginning Ruth had nothing left, only Naomi however she embraced the little she had and did not lose hope. Even a poor Moab woman as Ruth through God’s aid was able to fulfil her destiny.

The religious aspects of the Book of Ruth deal also with practicality. All the themes conveyed such as love, generosity and most importantly to trust in each other brings out the meaning that no matters how badly events occur, goodness exists and it is achieved through effort and hard work. Given this fact, one can understand why the book of Ruth was written. God’s purpose may be fulfilled in many ways, some of them even unexpected. God’s love is for everyone and not only to the people of Israel.

The story reveals God’s character in His faithfulness in regards to chosen people. Ruth is God’s instrument to bless the nations. Old Testament narratives reveal the character of God and he is revealed as the provider of the helpless. In the book of Ruth, God provides Boaz, the nearest kinsmen to ultimately meet Ruth. Boaz becomes Ruth’s husband and also reclaims the rightful home for Naomi. Boaz is one who redeems; he redeemed Ruth as she was a victim of poverty, she was unprotected and no one provided for her.

The story provides a lesson on love and kindness. As we see from the very beginning, in the first episode, Ruth gave everything she had for Naomi her mother-in-law. This shows Ruth’s sacrificial character, so much so, Boaz noticed Ruth’ ability to give more than to receive back. Case in point, in the book of Ruth; it is stated that;

“Against the dark moral and ethical backdrop of the Judges period, the foreigner Ruth emerges as a paradigm of loyal love and of the kind of person the Lord is looking for to populate his covenant community”.

The tragedy of the beginning sets the story in motion as then there is the will to search for a special something that will restore balance. Naomi and Ruth are stricken by tragedy and this leads them to no hope of provision as they were childless. Naomi considers herself cursed by God, she sees no hope of security but then everything changes by God’s will through Ruth. A hero is someone who sacrifices his own needs to help others; Ruth is a heroine and saves Naomi. She sacrifices her security and the likelihood of marriage to remain loyal to Naomi however Naomi’s rule changes and adapts throughout the story. In the beginning she tries her best to dissuade Ruth to come with her to Bethlehem. However later on, when she accepts the fact that Ruth will accompany her, she wants her to marry Boaz. She even provides a plan on how to do so; this makes Naomi a complicated character throughout the story. When this change of attitude occurs, Naomi regards herself as vessel to bring about God’s voice. She actively prepares Ruth and Boaz for marriage and does her best in doing so. Even though the book is entitles Ruth, the story revolves around Naomi and her perspective. However, one cannot pass unnoticed the fact that is about God and His loving kindness to act as a provider for Ruth and Naomi.

References:
Books:
Hubbard RL., JR., The Book of Ruth, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Websites:
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/hist/ruth1.htm
http://www.womeninthebible.net/1.13.Ruth.htm
http://www.americanbible.org/absport/news/item.php?id=151