Category: Free Essays

Okonkwo response to the collision of culture by resisting it. He continuously tries to fight the changes happening within the Ibo society. He disagree with the West ideas and believe the Ibo people should join together to forcefully remove the Western people. Okonkwos identity is challenged by the cultural collision because before the Western people came in he is the ‘top man’ of the Ibo people, he is respected and feared and greatly honored for his fighting skills. However now that the Western people are in-charge he losses all that because the Western people take away the fighting games they(the Ibo people) had. Also the other Ibo people will not assist him in his mission to get rid of the Western influence and through that Okonkwo is shown to loss the respect he once had over everyone.

In life, people often follow the rules and traditions of their community because it is all they have ever known. Most people do not want to break tradition because they do not want to run the risk of creating a state of disorder in their community, also MANY feel that by breaking the status quo they will become social outcasts. Through this unconditional faith that most people have in the traditions of their community, people turn a blind eye to some of the immoral practices that are followed. Despite the majority of people that will continue to follow these practices, a small amount of others will question their morality, causing others to feel threatened by their “backward” stance on community values.

The reason a person decides to turn against the traditions they once believed in can result from many different things in their life. When a person of a community decides to change the way they behave and to stop following the practices of their community, other people, in turn, are often affected by this decision. The effect that a person’s decision has on other people holds the ability to cause a revolutionary change in the community. In Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, Nwoye turns towards the Christian faith as a refuge from the questionable practices of his Ibo village, in turn, spreading anger and confusion amongst the people of the community.

Nwoye’s decision to turn away from the practices of the Ibo village results from a combination of several sources. When the Christian missionaries came to preach about their religion for the first time the author describes Nwoye’s reaction by saying, “The hymn about brothers who sat in darkness and in fear seemed to answer a vague and persistent question that haunted his young soul-the question of the twins crying in the bush and the question of Ikemefuna who was killed. He felt a relief from within as the hymn poured into his parched soul.” Nwoye feels that the Christian religion answers his doubts about the cultural practices of the Ibo, such as the abandonment of twins and the killing of his friend Ikemefuna. HOWEVER, because Nwoye now has the opportunity to immerse himself in a religion In which the beliefs allow him to turn away from immoral practices of the Ibo culture, he is able to release his bitter feelings. When the author describes the way in which Okonkwo reacts to Nwoye’s interest in the Christian faith he says,”Nwoye turned round to walk into the inner compound when his father, suddenly overcome with fury, sprang to his feet and gripped him by the neck… He seized a heavy stick that lay on the dwarf wall and hit him two or three savage blows.” The way in which Okonkwo reacts to his son’s interest in the Christian faith allows Nwoye to believe that he is an outcast within a family and a community that believes disobedience towards the Ibo faith is NOT MASCULINE. Because Oknonkwo makes Nwoye feel as if he is an outsider, Nwoye turns towards the Christian faith, where everyone, including social outcasts, is seen as equals. Therefore, Nwoye’s decision to become a part of the Christian faith, results from his unwillingness to continue agreeing with the practices of the Ibo culture.

Nwoye’s rebellion against his father and the society he embodied is seen as a peaceful retaliation with an undertone of vengeance. When the author speaks about Nwoye’s curiosity in the Christian faith he says, “Although Nwoye had been attracted to the new faith from the very first day, he kept it a secret. He dared not go too near the missionaries for fear of his father. But whenever they came to preach in the open marketplace on the village playground, Nwoye was there(pg 149).” Although Nwoye is infatuated with this new faith and believes it to be more sensible than the Ibo faith, he feels that it is best to stay only a mere observer in order to avoid unnecessary chaos. Through Nwoye’s placid behavior, he passively opposes his father’s violent reaction towards everything in his life. Nwoye’s vengeful behavior towards his father is shown when the author says, “He went back to the church and told Mr.Kiaga that he had decided to go to Umuofia where the white missionary had set up a school to teach young Christians to read and to write…Nwoye did not fully understand. But he was happy to leave his father. He would return later to his mother and his brothers and sisters and convert them to the new faith.” Nwoye wants to get back at his father for always making him feel inferior, but because he is not a violent person, Nwoye does so in a quiet manner. Nwoye’s actions allow the reader to see that his rebellion stems from a strong desire to gain vengeance over his father. Therefore, although Nwoye’s actions are NONVIOLENT they still inflict hurt upon the people who are a part of his life. Nwoye’s decision to revolt against his FAITH

There are multiple principles that have been taught in this course that have changed my view of being a Christian but here I would like to focus on temptation and the Crown of Life. These two topics shed new light in my understanding of resisting temptation and the reward for doing so. Not all Christians know how to deal with temptation nor that their efforts go unnoticed in the grand scheme of things. Resisting temptation can prove to be very difficult at times and one of the biggest temptations can be to avoid persecution for being a Christian. But not only does resisting temptation help one stay on the way to Heaven, God will single out those who resist temptation and are willing to die for their faith, and reward them justly.

Temptation can be theologically defined as a trial; “a being put to the test” (Easton, 2007). In basic terms, it is the enticement to sin. The devil brought temptation into the world. Thankfully, Jesus Christ sacrificed his life to save us from sin and overpower Satan. It is up to each person to make a concerted effort to resist temptation, just as Jesus did in the wilderness. In the Old Testament, the word for temptation is the Hebrew word maccah, which translates to temptation or trial. In the New Testament, the word in Greek is peirasmos, which means temptation(s) or to try. According to the Blue Letter Bible website, the word “temptation” appears in the King James Version sixteen times in fifteen verses.

One of the foundations for the doctrine comes from Matthew 26:41: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (KJV). The first recording in scripture of Satan tempting humanity is when he tempted Eve’s loyalty through her lust of the flesh to God, which led her to eating the forbidden fruit. He also appealed to her lust of the eyes whereby the appearance of the fruit caused her to desire what she did not already have as well as feeding on her basic feeling of self-worth and self-preservation. Temptation is even mentioned in The Lord’s Prayer: “And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil” (Luke 11:4, KJV).

There are several practical applications regarding the issue of temptation. One of the best ways to protect oneself is to stay alert at all times and remember that the flesh is weak. Be sure to test everything that comes across your path and question whether it is from God or not. People should make every attempt to avoid conditions that might lead them to temptation. It is always important to focus on the truth and if we follow Christ, He will show us the truth, and it will set us free. When a person feels tempted, if they turn to prayer, God will always provide another way. You just have to be vigilant in looking for His way.

Crown of Life

The Crown of Life is one of the rewards for believers that will be given by Jesus from his seat of judgment. Theologically defined, the Crown of Life is not something that is received as soon as someone becomes a Christian but something the Christian will receive from God after proving firmness in faith. It is also sometimes referred to as the martyr’s crown. This crown has a guarantee and is a promise to those that suffer deprivation now and to those specifically who love God and honor Christ. Simply put, the Crown of Life is God’s reward to humanity for his perseverance in faith and his honoring of Jesus Christ.

There is a lot more biblical foundation for this doctrine than I thought I would find when I began my research. Revelation 2:10 stands out the most to me: “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a Crown of Life” (KJV). Jesus specifically tells us that we will be tempted throughout out lives and we will more than likely receive persecution for our faith in Him. It is our duty to keep Satan beneath our feet and proclaim the truth in Jesus in order to receive this honor. James 1:12 is also another great reference for this doctrine: “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the Crown of Life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him” (KJV). Dr. Towns pointed out that the author could have been referring to temptations of Christians to “compromise their witness” instead of dealing with the discrimination of being one of the faithful “at the cost of their lives” (Towns, 1983).

The applications of this doctrine are more than practical but one must be very cautious because this is not a reward to be making bets for when you choose to live a life in faith. You do not live in faith just to receive this reward, quite the contrary. You receive this award for living in faith without regard to being rewarded for it. Making it through the temptation and persecution is of way more value than the gaining of the crown itself. If a Christian loses everything they have, Christ is still worthy of honor and the Crown of Life is still worth the steadfastness. Do not get wrapped up in things of this world such as money being the source of self-worth, security, and/or power. These things can only be appropriately received through faith in God and if a person lives by biblical principles with a true heart and without regard to their own humanly wants and temptations, they will receive their just reward – the Crown of Life. If a Christian loses everything they have, Christ is still worthy of honor and the Crown of Life is still worth the steadfastness.

Conclusion

Everybody gets tempted in life. Pleasing God is all in how you deal with those temptations. The world today is so far gone from what God seeks from His people now that temptation is rampant. So many sinful behaviors are seen as normal everyday things that are okay for people to do. This denial of God’s truth will keep His people from grace and all of His rewards, including the Crown of Life, which is eternal and assured for all of those who live righteously. People should not resist temptation just to receive the crown reward but rather should earn it by living everyday in light of God’s desires. Resisting temptation is a huge part in earning the Crown of Life. It is not going to be easy if one does it alone, but if they look to God, he will help make it a little more bearable.

Q1: What is the central paradox of all Christian theology? There are two paradoxes described in a lot of the locations i.e. Trinity and Incarnation. The apperception of God as Trinity has continually been both axial and uncertain to Christianity, yet “Three methods in one God” summarizes spiritual adumbration about the functions of the Godhead. The content of the Trinity has been again assaulted as casuistic bribery of God by various curved unprivileged. In the Incarnation, as usually genuine by those Chapels that follow the Authorities of Chalcedon, the all-powerful functions of the Son was associated but not alloyed with beast functions.

Q2: What is Israel’s “primary narrative” in brief? How does it shape Israel’s understanding of God as liberator and Creator?

Israel has a main conventional to abduction and generate over the acquired Palestine to get its details and the most perfect little angels resources which are hidden in Palestine. The fight of Israel and Palestine was begun returning 1882. There has never above been an approved real conventional bookkeeping and approved on to both Israelis and Palestinians. The approval of God as liberator of Israel defined the position of God as the God of Israel. It was the bit-by-bit capability that the God who absolved Israel is these God who designed the apple organization company organization that began out the way for finish monotheism. If God is the designer of all factors and of all people, again God is the God of all.

Q3: What is the meaning of theosis? And how it is central to the doctrine of Trinity? Explain your answer by refereeing to “ascent-descent” pattern in key passages from scripture, as well as the structure of Nicene Creed.

The “theosis” has two explanations, the action or the supplement of incredible and improve of man. Alone God has the action of incredible in and of Himself. No man can whenever they want acquire accurate divinity. There is alone one God and we are not Him. However, theosis is the supplement of getting divinized or God-infused, both in overall look and personal. Theosis is associated with addition theosis stated which is anecdotic adjust amongst wedding being of the Trinity. Therefore, theosis is associated with to his adeptness for perichoresis, or interrelationship, in which God prevails aural His monster growth. As an aftereffect of theosis, and this inherited adjust of God, man is developed existing, finish, and finish. The Nicene Rule is a function of acceptance for Religious followers in all places and a lot of modifications. The Nicene Rule is stated the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, because the finish current framework of the canon eos was authentic by bishops at the Regional regulators of Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381). Catholics, Conventional, and abounding Protestants acquire the age-old Nicene Creed. The Nicene Rule gradually explains the Church’s material about the Trinity, but it indicates actual information of Jesus’ way of life. Even recognizing the canon eos does not anon adduce Scriptures passages, it is based on religious concepts and information.

Questions for Discussion, pp. 47-48

Q1: Have you ever thought of the question, “why is there something rather than nothing” what sort of feelings or thoughts does such a question elicit from you?

Religious people (at least the sophisticated ones) have abandoned trying to argue as evidence that god provides explanations for how things work. They have realized that this is a losing strategy as science has made god redundant as an explanation for anything, and that signs of god’s power seem to show a notable inverse correlation to the advance of science. As a consequence they have shifted ground to questions of meaning such as “why is there something rather than nothing?” In particular, they apply it to the existence of the universe, since the origins of the universe seem to be slipping from their grasp as an insoluble mystery to be explained by god.

Q2: What are some other examples of Theophany in scripture or perhaps in other religious context? How do people today typically speak of encounter with the divine, and are such accounts similar or different from celebrated instances in the past?

At the foot of Mount Sinai, God appeared to the people of Israel in a physical form. This is called a theophany. Here are some of the other times God appeared in Bible people. The angel appeared to Sarah’s servant, Hagar, announcing the birth of Abraham’s son Ishmael, The Lord appeared to Abraham, foretelling Isaac’s birth, The angel stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in anxiety in a bush, God appeared to Israel in pillars of breaker and alarm to adviser them through the wilds, The Lord batten to Moses face to face, One “like a actual being” appeared as the fourth man with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the afire furnace.

Q3: Do you think it important to maintain a balance between transcendence and immanenxe in one understands of God? In what ways do you think the doctrine of the Trinity might assist in this? Do you agree with the author that the doctrine of the Trinity, by its emphasis on relationship and self-giving, present a strong challenge to the individualism of much modern life? Explain. Might such a doctrine promote a more open and dialogical attitude towars people of other religions? Again explain your thinking in this regard.

Questions on p. 70:

Q1. Explain the Sinai Covenant and its conditions?

Sinai Covenant also called Laws-Covenant means Laws or God’s Code of holiness. All Covenants in Scripture are unilateral, except for the Covenant of Works, which was ancient bogus with unfallen Adam and afresh at Sinai with Israel. In both situations, this Works-Covenant bootless because it counted on absent-minded man. This is the aloft could cause why it could not and will not anytime succeed.

Q2. What does the word apocalyptic mean?

Apocalyptic means prophetic of devastation or ultimate doom or affording a revelation or prophecy or pertaining to the Apocalypse or biblical book of Revelation.

Questions for Discussion, p. 71

Q1: What are some of the important theological themes of Torah? Why do you consider them important?

The Torah provides itself as the anterior of the guidelines offering Judaism work out. One might, believe, then, that the primary craving for food of acceptance Torah would be the animadversion of these guidelines and the apperception of an alteration for their performance. In the rabbinic ideas, Torah needs antecedence over all else–even, in some circumstances, over the lord’s complete will. In a definitely adventuresome apostolic announcement, the rabbis beforehand that the Torah predates the apperception around the planet, and that God uses the Torah as adjust for growth. In the same way, the Talmud symbolizes God as making an investment the traditional three duration of every day acceptance Torah. Several rabbinic information signifies the apperception of the angel as codicillary on the Jews’ biggest acknowledging of Torah. According to these information, if the Judaism individuals had disallowed to availability the Torah, God would acquire modifying the angel to its pre-creation situation. One who analysis Torah is effectively strong to be relationship up the complete world.

Q2: How might the threefold arrangement of the books of the Tanak influence one understands of the concept of the Messiah?

The excellence the guides are categorized as they are- helpful that the acclimation goes from holiest’ the Torah, to little holy- the information in Ketuvim. This chooses antecedence for what is effective as a lot of precise and what maintains issue. This becomes essential if there is one or engaged organization to obtain something- successfully abolishment in Nevi’im (Prohets) agree to be considered to agree to with the Torah and abolishment in Ketuvim agree to agree to with both Nevi’im and the Torah with Torah demography issue. With this in concepts, one can catch the prohecies and negligence any concepts that activity with the Torah, and once again any that activity with Nevi’im.

Q3: Why do you think apocalyptic literature is sometimes used to frighten people rather than to provide them with hope?

Apocalyptic is not developed to surprise us or benefits us overseas from knowing Scripture; rather, it is adventuresome to admonition us approval God, achievements, wish, elegance, the lord’s strategy, and that He is in achievements in control. The alone methods who should be abashed are those who abatement and abhorrence God and abounding of us just do not approval it passionate because it is passionate of negative to our terminology, training, and heritage; thus, we consumption it or abusage it or dry at it as finish activity else.

Additional Question:

What methods of scriptural interpretation do you find most helpful? Why?

The scriptures passages is the lord’s Phrase. But some of the knowing acquired from it is not. There are abounding cults and Spiritual groups that declaration their knowing is appropriate. Too often, however, the knowing not stopped adjusts abominably but are incredibly uncertain. This does not abject that the Scriptures are ambiguous documents. Rather, the issue can be discovered in those who adjust and the methods they use. Because we are sinners, we are butterfingers of understanding the lord’s babble absolutely all of plenty of your energy and energy and effort. The program, ideas, will, and angel is impacted by sin and achieves 100% analytic accurateness challenging. This does not abject that accurate supportive of the lord’s Babble is challenging. But it does abject that we allegations to entry His babble with care, humbleness, and objective. Furthermore, we need, as best as can be had, the admonition of the Holy Spirit in understanding the lord’s Phrase. After all, the Scriptures are enhancing by God and is settled to His people. The a lot of connected use of the acclimation of Scriptures consumption familiar as the Conventional Phrase Sentence Acclimation began in Antioch, Syria, in the third a eon a.d. in acceptance to the Allegorical Strategy, which had developed several millennium impressive in Alexandria, The red sea. The Alexandrian Acclimation was an acclimation of the acclimation of Philo, a Judaism professional who lived from 20 B.C. to a.d. 55. Philo lived in Alexandria.

Introduction

The Book of Galatians highly believed to be written by Apostle Paul was written in its original form as instructions to the Christians in southern Galatia, which was a Roman province in what is now Turkey. Galatia was the area where on his first missionary journey Paul established the congregations in Pisidia Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe .

Although there have been several other books written by bible scholars alike on Paul’s letter to the Galatians but that of Ralph Martin and Julie Wu under review is by normal standard one of the best annotated books of understanding.

The book is explicit and clear in its outline with the use of interesting pictures and boxes to highlight points in a very concise manner, the colour combination is attractive and makes the book appeal to reading and learning.

Authorship and date

Paul was attributed to have written no fewer than thirteen epistles in the New Testament. Out of this thirteen, seven are almost universally accepted, three are considered in some academic circles as other than Pauline for textual and grammatical reasons, and the other three are in dispute in those same circles.

It was gathered that Paul writing documented today in the book of Galatians was a dictation through a secretary (or amanuensis), who would usually paraphrase the gist of his message, as was the practice among first-century scribes.

It was also gathered that the message in the book of Galatians was first circulated among the Christians, where they were read aloud by members of the church along with other works. That was why some bible scholars regard Paul’s epistles which was said to have been written between 50-62 to be one of the earliest-written books, if not the first written book of the New Testament as they were cited around c. 96 by Clement of Rome.

It must be emphasised that this letter which was largely traceable to Paul was part of the intensive trips/missions to the east and west of the Aegean Sea…during which he concentrated in the succession of the provinces of Galatia, Macedona, Achaia and Asia

Although, scholars have not agreed on a specific date because the exact year is difficult to determine, but some placed the date of Paul’s writing his letter to the Galatians between 48 to 52 AD.

To some scholars the date was a time when Paul’s writing was put before the Jerusalem Council. According to then, the materials before the Council dealt with the issue of circumcision and the Law of Moses and whether such issue is relevant in view of the New Testament teachings.

The argument here is that Paul’s letter to the Galatians did not mention the Jerusalem Council and that if the council had met before the date of Paul’s writing his letter, Paul would have mentioned the decisions of the apostolic council in Jerusalem. Before of this assumption, scholars believed Paul must have written this letter to the Galatians before the Jerusalem Council, which was around 48 to 49 AD.

Expectedly, there is another group of scholars who argued that Paul’s Galatian letter should be dated at a date after the Jerusalem Council. According to this group, Paul began his second missionary journey after the Council had met. This group cited Acts 16:4 where it was recorded that Paul revisited the churches of Galatia to deliver the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in the Jerusalem Council. They also argued that it was after this date that Paul went to Greece to teach for close to two years while on his second missionary journey, this would place the date of its being written around 52 AD.

Purpose

Galatian’s purpose was primarily to resolve the dispute among churches in Galatians. During Paul’s mission in Corinth, false teachers were overturning the decision of the Jerusalem Council by claiming that the Gentile Christians must be circumcised according to the Law of Moses to be saved. To try to settle the matter, Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians from Corinth, where he was unable to leave his missionary work at the time. In other words, Paul wrote his letter to Galatians while in Corinth.

Another purpose is for Paul to counter the Judaizer view. Paul was particularly interested in refuting the false teachers spread by false teachers and to remind the Galatians of the roots of their faith. The three issues surrounding false teaching Paul was trying to tackle include:

That Paul was not a true apostle and did not have the full backing of the church in Jerusalem and that they (the false teachers) are the true apostle accredited by James;
That while Paul brought the Galatians the gospel of Jesus Christ, he had failed to give them the full undiluted gospel and that;
Without adherence to the Jewish Law, the church would have no ethical guidelines and would fall into immorality.
Structure

The book of Galatians has 6 Chapters, and was written in polemical style and tone, yet with a clear rhetorical structure and deep pastoral concern for the readers, to enforce the twin themes of faith and freedom (9).

The book is carefully structured into five distinct parts. The first part contained greetings and introduction (Galatians 1:1-10). The second part (Galatians 1:11-2:21) was used to defend Paul apostolic ministry of the pure gospel as against the false teachers.

The third part was used to defend the gospel of justification and salvation by grace and faith alone (Galatians 3:1-4:31) while the fourth part was dedicated to defending the freedom Christians have to love one another and live by the Spirit. Galatians 5:1-6:10. The last part includes conclusion and summation (Galatians 6:11-18).

Conclusion

This work has been to review Paul’s letters to the Galatians at the time the false prophets and teachers were spreading fake counsels and heresies about Paul and his teachings. The book was structurally crafted to treat the purpose and intent of Paul in a very clear manner. Paul’s Galatians is regarded as his very first epistle in the New Testament.

While it may not have always been clear why blood was a necessity for humans to survive, it was always worshiped unlike anything else. Practically every tribe and civilization throughout Mesoamerican history has participated in some sort of blood or human sacrifice. Even though each group of people may have had very different beliefs and even different rituals, blood was central part in many ceremonies. Nevertheless, the extent to which blood had been used was extremely different. While some civilizations sacrificed thousands of humans, some only participated in animals sacrifices, and others had no sacrifices at all. Blood ceremonies happened for a number of various reasons, anything from a coming of age, to the induction of a new king, to the construction of a new temple. Most often sacrifices were made to appease the gods, as a sign of piety and could be performed by anyone from a lowly servant to a king. While the Aztec, the Maya, and the Kuna were all very different people living at different times in Mesoamerica with entirely different ceremonies and beliefs, all used blood as an integral part in many of their rituals.

The Aztecs, also known as the Mexicas, were a group of culturally united people that mostly spoke Nahuatl and lived and ruled in Central Mexico during the fourteen to sixteenth centuries. They ruled from a large city called Tenochtitlan, which is now the present-day location of Mexico City. Out of all of the Mesoamerican civilizations, the Aztecs had the most prolific blood rituals and human sacrifices. They especially thought it was important to sacrifice humans, at least once a month so that they could appease the gods and bring good luck to their land. However, researchers have found that human sacrifices in the Aztec empire were done much more often than once a month. Even many of the Aztec myths surround human sacrifice. The “Legend of the Five Suns” attempts to explain the formation of all of the gods and why there is a need for human sacrifices all in a single story. It begins with the god Ometeotl creating four sons who would be the four cardinal directions and who would also create all other gods that the Aztecs worshipped. These four gods created people and when they did they had to create a god that would serve as the sun as well. Unfortunately the gods that would be created for the sun were not be perfect and kept fighting and the sun god kept changing which kept killing all of the people on earth. Finally Quetzalcoatl decided that he would not let the people that he created be destroyed so he went to the underworld to steal their bones and resurrect them. At the same time created for them a new sun called Huitzilopochtli. This is the sun that the Aztecs believed was in the sky over their heads. They also thought that every time it turned dark Coyolxauhqui, the goddess of the moon, and the stars were fighting with Huitzilopochtli to try to take his spot. In Tenochtitlan: Capital of the Aztec Empire Jose Luis de Rojas emphasizes the conclusion of the myth: “The myth dramatizes the triumph of the sun over the moon and the stars when it rises each day” (pg. 16). Additionally, the human sacrifices performed by the Aztecs were supposed to help give Huitzilopochtli the strength to fight back and to rise again each morning. In The Aztecs: New Perspectives Dirk R. Van Turenhout explains the importance of sacrifices: “The Aztecs shared with other Mesoamerican peoples the belief that sacrifice to gods was necessary to ensure the continued existence of the universe” (pg 188). Without human sacrifices there could be no life sustained on earth.

Even the founding of Tenochtitlan is a legend based on the human sacrifice of a princess. It is said that when the Mexica, or the Aztecs, first came to Central Mexico they were forced to settle in Chapultepec, a region with very poor resources and living conditions. Here they fell under the rule of another city called Culhuacan whose rulers were said to be descendants of the Toltecs. After the Mexica city helped Culhuacan defeat an enemy the King of Culhuacan gave away his daughter for marriage to one the Mexica leaders. Unfortunately when he arrived for the marriage ceremony to Chapultepec, to his disbelief he saw one of the Mexica priests wearing his daughter’s skin over his head. Upon being questioned the priest explained that their god, Huitzilopochtli asked for them to sacrifice the princess. Outraged the King forced all of the Mexica off of the land. They wandered aimlessly for weeks searching for a place to settle when Huitzilopochtli came down from the heavens and told them to settle down when they see an eagle perched on a cactus killing a snake. They came across this scene in the middle of a marshland and there founded their soon to be great capital of Tenochtitlan. Just like this one many of the Aztec myths are based on human sacrifice, or at least have human sacrifice, demonstrating how important of a ritual it was in their lives.

For the Aztecs most of the human sacrifices were performed by a set of five or six priests. The victim would be dragged up the stairs to the top of the temple where a few of the priests would hold him down on a stone slab and one priest would make an incision in the victim’s abdomen with a flint knife. He would then reach in and quickly pull out the still beating heart for all to see. The heart would then be placed in a bowl which would be offered to the gods and the body would be pushed down the stairs. Meanwhile all of the spectators were expected to perform some sort of bloodletting ritual themselves. While this was the most standard form of human sacrifice each god had a specific sacrificial ritual that had to have been followed. In the Handbook to Life in the Aztec World Manuel Aguilar-Moreno describes the different human sacrifice rituals of the Aztecs:

“Types of sacrifices included extraction of the heart, decapitation, dismemberment, drowning, or piercing by arrows, to name some examples. Instruments of choice included, but were not limited to, a techcatl, which was a sacrificial stone; a cuaubxicalli, a container to hold hearts; a teepatl (flint knife), which was used to stab the subject” (pg. 154).

The Aztecs used the most elaborate ways they could think of to kill their victims in order to show their obedience and respect to the gods. The Aztecs performed the most gruesome and grotesque human sacrifice rituals in Mesoamerica.

Out of all neighboring civilizations the Aztecs held the largest human sacrifices and in recent times researchers have speculated about the causes of these mass sacrifices. They have come up with a number of reasons, though the most important three seem to be religious, political, and ecological. The Aztecs seemed to believe that sacrificing humans to the specific gods would bring them anything that they wanted, from a season of good rain, to a well-built temple, to a victory against an enemy. If things were not going the way they were planned it was often thought that the particular god was not pleased with the sacrifice so more would have to be made. For example when building the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan the Aztecs sacrificed more than eighty thousand prisoners, approximately ten per minute during the four day building process. Many of the sacrifices could have had more backing by political reasons though. In The Aztecs: New Perspectives Dirk R. Van Turenhout writes: “Modern scholars of Aztec religion are convinced that the frequency with which these sacrifices occurred had the additional aspect of propaganda” (pg. 190). It is believed that the Kings would sacrifice as many people as possible to demonstrate their strength and influence as well as make sure that all of the servants obey. The Aztecs held a lot of land at their peak that was occupied by people who were not Aztec descendants so they had to be kept in line; the thousands of human sacrifices could have been the annual tributes that these villages each had to pay to stay protected by the Aztec empire. Not only did this have a strong effect on the people living in the civilization it could also have been an intimidation factor for the civilizations around. In his book, City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in Civilization, David Carrasco explains the role of the sacrifices in instilling fear in the surrounding populations;

“The ritual extravaganza was carried out with maximum theatrical tension, paraphernalia, and terror in order to amaze and intimidate the visiting dignitaries who returned to their kingdoms trembling with fear and convinced that cooperation and not rebellion was the best response to Aztec imperialism” (pg. 75).

Some even think that the numbers of sacrificed could be much lower than is believed and reported by the Aztecs because the number of deaths were inflated to scare their enemies.

The Mayans were a very advanced civilization living on the Yucatan peninsula in Mesoamerica starting during the pre-classic period and reaching its peak between 250 and 900 AD. The Maya were a very progressive civilization for their time having creating a written language as well as mathematical and astrological systems. Unlike the Aztecs, the Mayan people were not as inclined to participate in human sacrifices, yet they often had blood rituals. The Mayans had a large number of religious festivals and rituals throughout their calendar year but as researchers have found none included the sacrifices of humans. The festivals based off of the calendar had a few animal sacrifices and most importantly all had some sort of bloodletting ceremony. These bloodletting rituals could be performed by practically anyone, such as a young boy or a servant male but for the large gatherings it would be the king or the priests preforming public bloodletting. In Handbook To Life In The Ancient Maya World Lynn Vasco Foster explains the importance of bloodletting in Maya culture: “Despite the pain, the Maya elite carried out bloodletting rituals for a variety of purposes. They believed they could traverse cosmic boundaries in bloodletting rituals, and Maya rulers could contact deities and ancestors” (pg 191). The bloodletting would be done by sticking a barbed rod through the tongue, ear, or foreskin and blood would be collected on a piece of parchment and then burned for the gods. The foreskin or the vagina was the most common places where blood would be taken from because of the great significance of these body parts. For obvious reasons the blood from these locations was considered to have fertile qualities and was used in ceremonies concerned with the plant life and the growing of crops.

One of the most important reasons for bloodletting and any blood ritual was to see the Vision Serpent. The serpent was by far the most important social and religious symbol for the Mayans and the Vision Serpent was the most important of all serpents. Often the purpose of the bloodletting was to contact and communicate a deceased relative or a god. During a successful bloodletting the participants would see the Vision Serpent and out of its mouth would form the head of the god or ancestor they are contacting. The Vision Serpent was a direct link for the Mayan people from the physical world to the spiritual world. In Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization Arthur Andrew Demarest mentions the importance of bloodletting in art: “The importance of bloodletting is confirmed by archeological evidence, as well as iconographic representations and carved texts” (pg 188). One of the most famous depictions of bloodletting from the Mayans is found on a limestone carving called Lintel 24 which was discovered in Yaxchilan by a British archeologist named Alfred Maudslay in 1882. This lintel depicts the ruler Shield Jaguar holding a torch while Lady Xoc pulls a rope with shards on it through her tongue to produce the vision serpent. The hieroglyphs state that the carving dates back to the 28th of October 709 and also give the names of the two represented. Depictions like these were popular in Mayan civilizations and adorned many tombs demonstrating the importance of these rituals.

Though according to records the Mayan people rarely had human sacrifices during the calendar festivals, they may not have been as “innocent” as the Spanish conquistadors thought. During excavations of various pyramids and other influential sites bodies were found that told a very different story. The Mayans were a very aggressive civilization and often participated in war, even with other Mayan groups. When this would occur any prisoners that would be taken would usually be sacrificed in grandiose celebrations. In The Ancient Maya Sylvanus Griswold Morley explains the importance of these rituals: “These sacrifices were apparently essential to the sanctifying of important rituals, such as the inauguration of a new ruler, the designation of a new heir to the throne, or the dedication of a new building” (pg. 543). These sacrifices were a way to induct a new king or simply show how powerful and successful a current king was. Often after a king died, his son would not be allowed to rule until he brought back prisoners from an enemy tribe and sacrificed them. If during this escapade he would be murdered himself, that would be his fate and the next in line for the thrown would have to do what he failed to accomplish. While both the Aztecs and the Maya had very elaborate blood rituals, both were very different. The Mayans only used human sacrifice as a way to demonstrate that a King was worthy of ruling the city, otherwise for the most part human sacrifices were shunned. While the Aztecs would sacrifice thousands to ask the gods to help them construct a great pyramid the Mayan people chose to sacrifice animals instead. In comparison with the neighboring civilizations of the same magnitude the Mayan people can be considered to have had very mild blood rituals.

Unlike the Mayan and Aztec decedents, the Kuna tribes of today still participate in the same, or at least very similar, blood rituals as they had before the Spanish invasion. The Kuna people live in villages in present day Panama and off of the coast on the San Blas Islands. A significant difference between the Kuna and most other Mesoamerican tribes and civilizations is the great emphasis that they put on women in their society. The Kuna are matriarchal and women are held as the ultimate symbol, participating in many tribal decisions and gatherings that would in most other cases be solely for males. Similarly, most ceremonies are centered around women and in a few of them blood plays a substantial role. The inna tunsikkalet ceremony is the second largest ceremony that revolves around Kuna women. This is a two day puberty ceremony which is this first in a series of coming of age rituals and is very similar to the inna suid rite, or the hair cutting ritual, that is held later once the girl is ready to be married. Unlike many other Kuna rituals, the inna tunsikkalet is a “family and household event” (280, The Art of Being Kuna). During this time the young girls are isolated from the rest of the community and are not allowed to touch the ground with their feet and have to be carried if they need to leave their room for whatever reason. During this ceremony it is believed by the Kuna that the young girls are getting rid of all of the bad in their bodies through this blood. They are expelling any evil spirits from their bodies through the flow of blood. A few months after the Kuna girls have been secluded from all others and have finished their first menstruation the girl’s family sponsors a “collective drinking bout” (280, The Art of Being Kuna) during which the girls are again isolated. This time they are put in a surba, or a small, rectangular, wooden enclosure where they are painted in a black dye from the genipa fruit. Alexander Moore writes that after they have completed their rite “the pubescent girls, then, have emerged in this modern community as the paramount symbol of community life” (276, The Art of Being Kuna).

In comparison with the Maya and the Aztec the Kuna did not participate in any animal sacrifices nor did they see it necessary to sacrifice humans to appease the gods. The use of blood in their ceremonies was purely symbolic and was not forced out of the body in any way. Unlike the other people of Mesoamerica the Kuna did not see a need to feel pain or show penance during their blood rituals and in this way can be considered a more advanced and civilized tribe of their time. The differences between the Kuna and the other people of Mesoamerica can be attributed to the small communities that never fought, but also were never conquered. They never saw any gruesome battles or bloodshed and for the most part have been a peaceful tribe. For this reason many of their blood ceremonies and rituals are not as extreme as the Aztec or Mayan sacrifices. Yet blood was still an all important part of their lives, without it there would be no inna tunsikkalet, or puberty rite.

Blood played an integral part in just about every civilization and tribe throughout Mesoamerican history. Though, this doesn’t come as a surprise; blood ceremonies, in some way, have been a part of practically every single culture from the beginning of time until the present. From the enormous, public gladiator battles and executions in the Coliseum during time of the Roman Empire in the 70 AD to the symbolic drinking of Christ’s blood during the Eucharist under Christian theology in today’s world, blood has and will always play an important role. While human sacrifices have long been gone from our world, some religions, such as the Santeria, still participate in animal sacrifices as a way of healing. One of the possible explanations for the importance of blood in so many different cultures and societies over such a long period of time is that blood is practically the same in just about everyone. Whether one was a Mayan king or a humble servant he still had blood that flowed in exactly the same way. Anyone who wanted could participate in these blood rituals and show their piety to the gods, even if it did not mean a public ceremony. Blood is also universal, every single person who has ever walked this earth had blood flow through their veins. For this reason it is safe to assume that most people were aware of it and for most it was something of a mystery, something that could mean the difference between life and death, something that could be worshipped. Whether it is for religious, cultural, or medical reasons, blood will always play a significant role in our lives. Blood is as important as air, water, or food, without it we would not survive.

‘Keeper N Me’ by Richard Wagamese, is a novel based on the necessary balance between life and the culture in which one belongs to. This is a necessary aspect in order to maintain a steady relationship with one’s self. In this novel passing on traditions or a certain way of life from generation to generation is one of the most important aspects of guiding someone of the Ojibway culture, as the Ojibway people have very strong beliefs and take their culture very seriously. The people of the Ojibway culture believe that through storytelling and dreams one can realize the importance of tradition and its influence on their identity. Wagamese throughout his novel tries to teach the readers the power of one’s community and traditions as he reflects a positive view of Native life. Passing on traditions is a very important aspect of guiding someone of the Ojibway culture in this novel, but to stick to a certain way of life has its challenges as everyone receives different views and opinions from the many different people they encounter throughout their life. The author’s concept in Keeper ‘N Me is much more than just someone who provides guidance but it is how storytelling and the teaching of traditions are used to help guide. Garnet Raven, being isolated from the rest of his family, has struggled with knowing his true identity. Furthermore, the author shows not only the significance of finding a place to belong, but rather the importance of one’s actions and emotions in finding a balance in life but at the same time not letting the presence of dominate views overlook the power of one’s self.

Passing on traditions in the Ojibway culture is a very important aspect of guiding and teaching someone. Due to the Ojibway people having such strong beliefs, they take their culture very seriously. The culture must be maintained for future generations to come as the generations is slowly being bombarded by “white” society. Such behaviour results in the newer generations of Ojibway people to become less interested in learning and living in the traditional Ojibway lifestyle. These younger generations of Indians need to be guided by their elders in order to keep that traditional culture alive, which creates a a string bond with one’s family and ancestors, inspiring them to become guides for next generations as well. Dreams are also a guide in Ojibway culture, “‘one of the things that elders tell you nowadays to try real hard to remember, write them down even to help you.’” (Wagamese 252). It is believe that through dreams one receives visions that are “‘sent to them by the spirit world. That vision could be just about anything and was meant to be a sacred and private thing for the seeker. Gave a direction for their life.’” (252). Dreams are believed to be important messages that provide one with “‘direction and strength’”(252).

The Ojibway honour the traditional way of storytelling as a guide in which it provides a way to pass on words of wisdom and tradition from one generation to the next. Bernice Weissbourd says: “Because it’s not only a child is inseparable from the family in which he lives, but that the lives of families are determined by the community in which they live and the cultural tradition from which they come.” In Keeper’n me, Garnet was taken away from his family and placed in numerous different white foster homes starting from the age of three; “‘ everywhere they moved me I was the only Indian and no one ever took the time to tell me who I was, where I came from of even what the hell was going on.’” (16) Because he was isolated from family and culture, he lacks the knowledge and strength he needs to be himself. Garnet, living in an all white society is unaware of what culture and from what society he actually belongs to, which is why he is in constant search for something he can call his own. Garnet does not know what its like to be Indian which initially

Zammit 3

makes him feel unease and disconnected with his family and culture; “‘growing up in all-white homes, going to all-white schools, playing with all-white kids can get a guy to thinking and reacting all-white himself after a while. I just figured I was a brown white guy’” (17) so he feels that he has no choice but to become one of them, as he knows no different. Soon after that, Garnet learns the negative stereotypes about Native people when one of his foster fathers drives him to the Indian section of town showing Garnet all the drunks and homeless people, “‘See. Those are Indians. Look at them. If you don’t start shaping up and doing what you’re told around here, that’s what you’re going to be!’” ( 18) this takes away all the culture he ever had and encouraged him to not want to be Indian as he did not want to become like the people he saw. Keeper as a storyteller tries to pass the message of traditions and a way of life to guide Garnet, once he arrived in White Dog reservation. Finally, after spending some time at the reservation, Garnet was given another chance to gain confidence with the person he was. With the help of Keeper, Garnet is learning how it feels to be part of the Ojibway culture for the first time. Garnet was taught that to be a true Indian one must be a participant. To be a true Indian, one needs to learn “‘the why of this life instead of just the how’”(307).

Author Richard Wagamese with the help of Bernice Weissbourd’s quote informs the readers of the importance of tradition and its possible influences on one’s identity. The culture in which an individual grows up molds the views of one’s self and the world around them, in which maintains a connection with ancestors and traditions. A necessary factor in the lives of many people today, is the feeling of belonging to a group of people with similar interests, beliefs, religion, culture, traditional ways, etc.. Such behaviour is a very important aspect in the shaping of identity. Many are taught at a young age that ethnic traditions are meant to be celebrated and carried on from one generation to the next. In this novel, one of the most significant lessons to be taught is to always

Zammit 4

find balance between culture, yourself and the world; “‘Find balance with things. Yourself. The world. Everything, on accounta change is the biggest law of nature. Fight change you fight yourself’” (196). Culture is so important because its extends the inner self of a person, to members within a society, or a community. Culture can form invisible bonds between members in the community, which can result in the passing on of values and traditional ways. This also builds up a long term tradition after years and years. Culture and tradition is strengthened by the passing on from generations and provides a background to its later generations, allowing there to be gain in a sense of belonging withing people and the culture in which they share.

Throughout Keeper ‘N Me, Richard Wagamese portrays and informs the importance of tradition in the novel based on the necessary balance between life and the culture in which one belongs too, in order to maintain a steady relationship with one’s self. It is made clear to the reader of the significance of passing on traditions or a certain way of life from generation to generation, and how it is one of the guiding aspects of the Ojibway culture. Wagamese throughout his novel is also tries to teach the readers the power of one’s community and traditions as he reflects a positive view of Native life. Furthermore, the author shows not only the significance of finding a place to belong, but rather the importance of one’s actions and emotions in finding a balance in life but at the same time not letting the presence of dominate views overlook the power of one’s self.

A cultural comparison can be made between the United Kingdom and Greece by examining these dimensions and their stances on each. Lets first look at power distance, which addresses the inequality of power in organizations. The UK scores a relatively low 35 and Greece is moderately high at 60. Large power distance, like Greece, indicates an acceptance of a hierarchy in which everyone has a position in society and no further validation is needed. The UK on the other hand, with a low power distance society, seeks power equilibrium and requires validation for disparities of power in organizations.

Collectivism maintains a high interdependence within a society, where individuals presume their community will take care of them; it is based on loyalty. Individualism fosters a society that is much more independent where people only look after themselves and immediate family. The UK at an 89 is very high on individualism where Greece with a relatively low 35 nurtures a society where the community watches out for one another.

Masculinity advances material successes, high levels of achievement, and decisiveness. Femininity promotes quality, humility, relationships, and morality for the weak. The UK and Greece are most similar in this regard scoring a 66 and 57 respectively. They are both slightly on the masculine side. However, the UK is closer to the masculinity side of the spectrum. They are a little more concerned with accomplishment and heroism, while Greece maintains some reserve for the overall quality of life and Adam Smith’s fellow feeling.

Uncertainty avoidance is the amount of ambiguity a society feels comfortable with, whether you attempt to control the future or let it happen. A high uncertainty avoidance culture sustains firm beliefs and is unaccepting of radical ideas. Weak uncertainty avoidance cultures view principles inferior to practice and have a much more relaxed environment. The UK has low uncertainty avoidance at 35 while Greece is extremely high at 112. Unlike the UK, Greece does not tolerate ambiguity and deviations well. Their organizations will serve to defend conformity and certainty.

These cultural dimensions discussed are also correlated to accounting values. The UK ranks high in individualism and low in uncertainty avoidance and power distance, implying an accounting culture that would rank high in professionalism over statutory control. Professionalism allows for judgments to be made in certain situations, whereas statutory control aims to regulate how to account for each transaction without the interpretation of the professional. Greece with extremely high uncertainty avoidance would favor statutory control.

Greece ranks high in uncertainty avoidance and power distance while being low in individualism. This would correlate with an accounting culture fostering uniformity over flexibility. The UK on the other hand with low uncertainty avoidance would support a system with comparability/uniformity subject to the prerequisite of flexibility.

Greece is much more likely to be conservative with a high uncertainty avoidance and a low ranking for individualism. Conservatives tend to under value assets and profits while over estimating liabilities to hedge the uncertainties in future events. The UK with high levels of masculinity and individualism and a focus on achievement, would be prone to be more optimistic with their valuations.

With a low level of uncertainty avoidance and power distance accompanied by a high level of individualism the UK would foster an accounting culture with more transparency as compared to Greece employing more secrecy. Secrecy surfaces from a need to preserve security and elude conflict while also maintaining power disparities through restricted financial statements. Transparency appeals to the UK because they are more focused on the individual and his achievements while they are not concerned as much with the uncertainty that accompanies many company’s books.

There are many links that have been hypothesized by Hofstede and his use of cultural dimensions. However, as prior research shows, it remains very controversial as to the identification of how national systems develop their accounting policies. Much empirical examination must still be done to understand the degree of correlation between accounting and societal values. It will be important to integrate external impacts in the research to truly understand the findings. The ideas presented by Hofstede reveal promising relationships in the realm of accounting, which could prove to be crucial as we attempt to move towards a unified global accounting system.

Resources:

S.J. Gray, Towards a Theory of Cultural Influence on the Development of Accounting Systems Internationally

Question 2

It is clear that accounting systems across the globe are heavily influenced by culture and major discrepancies exist between IFRS and countries that have not adopted its standards, specifically the Islamic world. There is an ever-growing need in our macro quantum world to apply an accounting system that is consistent across all nations to allow comparability across international organizations. The fact that culture does play such a significant role in developing accounting policies, and that cultures are so vastly different from one country to the next, how could we cultivate a culturally acceptable accounting system? Hofstede’s analysis of cultural dimensions and accounting values could offer some insight into this growing problem.

Hofstede identifies four cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance that can be used to predict and explain cultural differences. These dimensions are then linked to accounting values in the form of statutory control, uniformity, conservatism, and transparency. Using this framework to analyze Islamic nations we can better understand their cultural and accounting values, which will help formulate a socially acceptable accounting system.

Islamic law is very collectivist, every individual is required to work and produce. They also attempt to distribute wealth through zakat, which is an almsgiving, and if that is not sufficient the government will impose a temporary tax on the affluent as a means to provide balance. This also displays a moderate to lower level of power distance by striving for equalities. Living extravagantly or in poverty is condemned, further exemplifying a lower power distance as the society aims for equalities. Muslims are expected to be socially accountable to their community so that the whole community will benefit. These ideals also embrace femininity by caring for the weak and living a life of modesty and quality. They display a low level of uncertainty avoidance by trying to eliminate any doubt or ambiguity in society, the Qu’ran is the truth and it will take care of you.

Islamic law requires full disclosure that is fair and accurate, which means they believe in transparency over secrecy. This is in line with a nation with high collectivism and femininity, while having lower power distance. They are required to keep adequate records, especially in regards to debts; they aim to eliminate uncertainty and doubt. This would put Muslims at a moderate to high level of uncertainty avoidance. Islamic accounting is conservative in nature, not optimistic. The holy Qu’ran reveals the truth and the best way of living, thus disclosure must reveal the entire truth in all faithful obligations so that investors can afford their religious responsibilities such as the zakat. It is forbidden to attempt to deceive; therefore optimistic accounting would not be advised. Islamic law would lean towards statutory control and uniformity in accounting policies to ensure records meet their strict presentation requirements.

In formulating a culturally acceptable accounting system it is imperative to fully understand the cultural differences that are unavoidable in society. We must address and embrace these differences in order to formulate a system that is satisfactory to all. Hofstede’s dimensions provide a framework for analyzing and grouping cultures to find similarities and offer insight to why there are discrepancies. The IASB can then utilize this information to help nations understand each other’s reasoning and beliefs concerning financial reporting. Using this mechanism we can come together and make compromises where necessary and construct an accounting system that will benefit the majority.

Resources:

Tsakumis Campbell and Doupnik, IFRS: Beyond the Standards

Mervyn K. Lewis, Islam and accounting

Christopher Napier, Defining Islamic accounting: current issues, past roots

S.J. Gray, Towards a Theory of Cultural Influence on the Development of Accounting Systems Internationally

Question 3

We live in a macro quantum world where every aspect of the global economy is becoming exponentially interconnected. There is an immense ripple effect in our society that reaches every corner of the globe. As things become more and more connected the cultural differences within our societies are becoming increasingly more evident and influential.

There is a need for a unified accounting system in our macro quantum world as transactions and investing are taking place on the global stage. Recently there has been pressure for the rest of the world to adopt the western “conventional” accounting standards. The problem is that the rest of the world has different political, social, and commercial environments. Requiring a nation to adopt such standards is not possible without detrimental effects to the home country’s society and economy.

As Hofstede alluded to, accounting and cultural values are interrelated. Accounting practices form cultural realities and the controlling forces within the culture inherently influence these practices. If the capitalist peace is to be achieved in the macro quantum world, state and non-state actors will have to find something within that allows for a peaceful arrangement that will benefit the society as a whole.

Adam Smith believed people have a conscience formed through self-love and sympathy that is kept in check by the impartial spectator. Sympathy to Adam Smith was closer to the emotion of empathy, the ability to understand another’s feelings and being able to step in their shoes and embrace those feelings. Although, empathy is not so much a word but a capacity to actually feel the pain someone else is experiencing. As we continue to globalize it is imperative to be able to see the world from another nations point of view in order to initiate policies that will serve the greater good. If we cannot truly understand our cultural differences and the purposes behind them we will be unable to create a culturally acceptable macro quantum world.

We all have an inherent need to be approved by others; we achieve this through an understanding of the desires of others, thus being in sympathy. This is the fellow feeling. This feeling is essential to life, we need to be loved and we need to love others. Understanding the trials and tribulations of developing nations and being able to lend aid allows us to grow. This will be mutually beneficial in the long run. We cannot simply implement policies in other countries because we believe them to be correct, we must empathize with them and comprehend we are both seeking a similar end, its just the means that needs to be sorted out.

Adam Smiths concepts of sympathy and the fellow feeling apply to much more than the harmonization of accounting standards. They apply to the entire macro quantum world. Embracing the fellow feeling is one of the best ways to eradicate poverty and deriving a plan to combat healthcare issues. If we could all truly empathize with one another there would be now need for security or defense. By embracing the fellow feeling we would be able to better realize the impacts of negative externalities of energy on our neighbors.

Everything that happens in a macro quantum world has effects felt across the globe. Incorporating Adam Smith’s teachings about the fellow feeling and sympathy into our everyday lives would have major positive influences. We must set aside our selfish ways and empathize with others. Only then will we be able to truly grasp our neighbor’s troubles and come to their aid. Our selfishness leads to prolonged policy making and constant political gridlocks. More than ever do we need to realize this and do something about it. By embracing sympathy and the fellow feeling we can realize a capitalist peace in our macro quantum world.

Resources:

Shahul Ibrahim, Nurtured by ‘KURF’ the Western Philosophical Assumptions Underlying Conventional (Anglo-American) Accounting

Jonathon B. Wight, Saving Adam Smith

Peter Marber, Seeing the Elephant

Question 4

It has become very clear over the past decade that outsourcing of domestic jobs will be very prevalent in the future. Daniel Pink argues much of this is due to one very “scary” word, routine. As companies are able to reduce certain tasks to a series of steps that produces the same end, they are able to outsource these tasks to countries that have cheaper labor. Many tasks within the accounting profession are already heavily outsourced to India. KPMG’s tax practice utilizes their “Q-center” in India, which performs all of its routine tax preparation work. Daniel Pink argues that these left-brain attributes will no longer secure the fruitful jobs they once did. Pink suggests certain right brain attributes that we need to develop in order to prevent our position/career from being outsourced.

In A Whole New Mind Daniel Pink identifies six senses: design, story, symphony, empathy, play, and meaning as qualities to build upon that will differentiate yourself from the routine. As a professional you must be literate in design, it has become a fundamental business attribute. Design is the remedy to commodification. With the implementation of the Internet facts have become free, which eliminates its value, we must be able to put these facts in context and present them with emotional influence, thus story. The third facet is symphony; this is the ability to see the big picture and combine incongruent things into previously unrealized concepts. Empathy is the ability to step in someone else’s shoes and understand their situation; it is similar to Adam Smith’s fellow feeling. A disposition of playfulness and humor is good for you physiologically and psychologically and promotes better attitude in the working environment. The final aspect is meaning. Everyone seeks meaning in what they are doing. Pink expands on this discussing “not only for profit” companies that can generate profits, gratify their shareholders, and do right by their employees, while using a vehicle that links purpose, profit, and public spirit. The main underlying link between all of these qualities is that they are all incredibly hard to outsource and or automate, this is the key to ensuring you career does not end up overseas.

In Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us Daniel Pink pinpoints three more elements: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Autonomy is the desire to be engaged and self-directed. The strive for mastery drives motivation is such a way that such things like Wikipedia have been made possible, where people devote countless hours of work in their discretionary time. We all have the desire for purpose, the desire to be part of something more. It is much like the need for meaning, discussed earlier. These elements will serve to provide the proper motivation to achieve and thus diminish the possibility of the individual being outsourced.

As an up and coming CPA, I feel confident that there are many things I can do to prevent my job from being offshored. Motivation will be key. I strive to master my craft, continuing to learn everyday and fully understand the concepts of taxation to be able to consult my clients in a manner unrivaled by tax preparers in India. Symphony will play a major role in my future. It will be imperative to comprehend the bigger picture of a company’s current affairs and future goals in order to provide the best tax planning strategies. Empathy will also play a vital role in helping clients cope with certain issues and also in acquiring new clients. The ability to grow my billable book will be an asset that cannot be achieved overseas. It will be crucial to always be learning and developing these right brain attributes that will prove to be the differentiators in the future. The key is to be able to utilize and expand upon your inherent attributes that cannot be easily outsourced or automated.

Pink addresses three questions you can ask yourself about your role in the workforce: Can someone overseas do it cheaper? Can a computer do it faster? And is what you’re selling in demand in an age of abundance/significance? We must stray from the routine and develop our right brain characteristics in order to differentiate ourselves in the future as we are shipping our left brain overseas. In our growing macro quantum world, where new avenues for labor cost reduction present themselves everyday, it is crucial in every vocation to mature these core senses.

Resources:

Daniel Pink, A Whole New Mind

Daniel Pink, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us

CHAPTER TWOA THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON UNITY AND UNIQUENESS
Biblical and Theological Basis

Unity and uniqueness are integral and consistent to the composition of the universe. The world around and the skies above reveal the Creator’s work, a tapestry of creation that abounds with harmony and diversity. The world He fashioned overflows with originality and there are distinct markings of diversity, yet all of the differences are held together in consistent unity. Christian theology accounts for both the coherence of the universe and the distinctiveness of its parts. This is the core of the Apostle Paul’s confession; “all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities-all things were created through Him and for Him. He (Jesus Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16). The created order of things in the world is not static; it is utterly dynamic. The cosmos is loaded with dynamic diversity that is simultaneously being held together in unity, in Christ.

Both the Old and New Testaments support the theme of uniqueness and unity. In this theological reflection the researcher will examine the idea of unity and uniqueness as revealed in Scripture. The theological basis for this project is that the theme of unity and uniqueness is one of God’s overarching principles conveyed in the revelation of the Godhead, the composition of the Canon, and in the design of the institutions of marriage and Church. In this paper, the researcher will give greater attention to the study of the Trinity because, “all the crucial elements in ecclesiology and entire theology are rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity.”

Unity and Uniqueness in the Godhead

The theme of uniqueness and unity exists in creation is an echo of the presence of uniqueness and unity in God. One of the most basic Christian beliefs is that God is “one God in three persons.” This doctrine is recognized in the historic Christian faith as the doctrine of the Trinity. While the word “trinity” does not occur in the Bible, nor is the theological concept fully described in the Text, the idea is rooted in the scriptures. Since there is no overt reference to God as Triune in the Bible, Emil Brunner, the Swiss Protestant theologian gives an insightful perspective: “The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity, established by the dogma of the ancient Church, is not Biblical kerygma, therefore it is not the kerygma of the Church, but is a theological doctrine which defends the central faith of the Bible and of the Church.”

Early church theologians developed the term Trinity as a way to communicate the three distinctive persons of God that constitute one divine being. They developed this doctrine in resistance against dangerous heresies, in which Christ with God was called into question, either on God’s behalf or on Christ’s. Jurgen Moltmann, an influential thinker on modern Trinitarian theology, writes, “It was only in these controversies that Trinitarian dogma grew up, and with the dogma grew its formulation, as philosophical terminology was given a new theological mould.” This new doctrine would be derived from the Latin word trinitas, meaning “threeness,” referring to the Tri-unity of God.

This doctrine conveys that the eternal Godhead exists as three distinct Persons. All three—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -are distinct yet interconnected. The early church explored the revelation of God’s three-in-oneness and the conclusions of these explorations were expressed in the Athanasian Creed, “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the substance.” This theme of Trinity can be summed up in this concise way: “The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; yet, there are not three gods, but one God.”

Man did not invent this doctrine of Trinity; this doctrinal position was established in creed to articulate the concept of a triune God based on the revelation through Scripture of three manifestations of the Godhead. In the first century church arguments were intense regarding what precisely was “three” about God, what was a divine person, what was “one” about God, what this meant for now, and how the nature and identity of Jesus should be understood. The early church discussions did not remove the mystery; rather the creed they established on the doctrine of the Trinity merely gives clarity within the mystery, providing reassurance by wrapping words around an imagination expanding reality.

The creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. Hodge writes that, “They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son and Spirit; their mutual relation as expressed by those terms; their absolute unity as to substance or essence, and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as the mode of subsistence and operation. These are Scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal.”

While the creed gives clarity to the mystery, it in now way contains an explanation for the God who created the heavens and the earth. God’s nature and essence cannot be completely understood by the human mind. Finite minds cannot comprehend an infinite God. The fullness of the nature of God remains outside of our experience and knowledge. God is transcendent and the uniqueness and unity within the Godhead is described in complex terms. The church did not invent the doctrine of the trinity; it just accepted it from what God revealed about Himself through the Bible.

The doctrine of the Trinity gives us a key to understanding unity in diversity. Inside this dogma is an implicit uniqueness within the distinctive persons of the Godhead that does not diminish the unified essence. Trinity reveals much about the nature of God and the values of the universe. The actual content of the doctrine of the Trinity may be summarized with four statements: “God is one, God is three, God is a diversity, and God is a unity.” These four simple statements come together in a doctrine that is complex and paradox; it is a beautiful mystery that is biblically justified. Though we may never fully comprehend the mystery of the Trinity, we can reach for higher understanding while standing firm on the concrete form of biblical revelation. The researcher will point to passages that communicate and illustrate the reality of trinity. There is much to work with, according to the Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield, “the doctrine of the Trinity is rather everywhere presupposed in the Bible.”

The Unity of God: There is Only One True God

The Bible does not teach tritheism or polytheism; Scripture teaches that there is only one true eternal God. The unity of God is rooted in the Jewish faith anchored in the Torah. The Hebrew people were monotheistic, which in the ancient world positioned them in stark contrast with their surrounding nations who worshiped “many gods.” Even to this day, as an act of worship the Jews regularly proclaim their blessing, or creed, called the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (Deut. 6:4-5). This statement clarifies their belief in the Oneness of God. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the Hebrew understanding of God, but differs in that the LORD is understood to be one not in “a solitary unity but a composite unity.”

As Christians we believe that the God of the Trinity is the one whom the Old Testament worshippers knew as Elohim or Yahweh. In their worship of Yahweh there was temptation to take up the many gods of their pluralistic neighbors. While other nations were embracing polytheism, the prophet Isaiah reminds Israel, “This is what the LORD says, ‘I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6). The Apostle Paul carries this teaching of the Oneness of God into the New Testament, three times he instructs the church, “there is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4, 1 Cor. 8:6, 1 Timothy 2:5).

The Uniqueness of God: Three Distinct Persons

Plurality through Pronouns and Names. There are traces of Trinity in the Old Testament, most of them are found in God’s revelation of himself through names and pronouns. The name Yahweh may be the first name God chooses to introduce himself with in a conversation, but the first name used for God is the Hebrew word Elohim. “In the beginning God [Elohim] created…” (Genesis1:1). After only four words into the Biblical story, God introduces himself as Elohim, which is a plural form, and though no clear statement of trinity is contained, a plurality of persons could be implied. Another early allusion to divine plurality is found later in the chapter, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.” (Gen 1:26). He says again, “The man has now become like one of us…” (Gen 3:22). And a third time he says, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language” (Gen. 11:7). Contemplating these passages, a Roman Catholic theologian, Bertrand de Magerie asks: “Does this Divine “we” evoke a polytheistic age anterior to the Bible? Or a deliberation of God with his angelic court? Or does it not rather indicate the interior richness of the divinity? How does it happen that only in these four passages the plural form of the name Elohim used here has influenced the verb, which is plural only here? And what is more extrodinary is that these plural forms are introduced by formulas in the singular: ‘Elohim says’. ” These questions are presented in an attempt to help the reader engage with the plurality of God. They look to compel the reader from dismissing plurality in the Torah as a highly intriguing to realizing it’s high importance as an insinuation for the Trinitarian idea.

Distinctive Plurality through Unique Activity. Evidence for the concept of plurality in the Godhead exists beyond pronouns and names; it is also found in the distinguishing activity of God in Genesis. Within the creation account there is an explosion of activity where each person acts uniquely with his own actions.

In Genesis 1:1 God the Father is revealed existing as the originator of the created world. He is presented as the mastermind behind creation and the one who generates the universe ex nihilo. He

In Genesis 1:2, the Bible introduces God as the Spirit who watches over the works of creation, hovering as the waters. He is the active agent in creation. He is the one who “hovers” over creation, keeping things in tact, preserving, protecting, and unifying what the Father brings into being. The Spirit brings order out of chaos and confusion. As one theologian writes, “it is because of Him that we have cosmos instead of chaos.”

In Genesis 1:3 we are introduced to the “Word” of God through whose work the will of God becomes initiated. God speaks and the Word brings it into reality. John writes in the fourth Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made” (John 1:1-3).

While the doctrine of the Trinity was not clearly enunciated in the Old Testament , the theologian Gerald O’Collins, has stated, “The vivid personification of Father (Wisdom), Son (Word), and Spirit, in as much as they were both identified with God and the divine activity and distinguished from God, opened up the way toward recognizing God to be tripersonal.”

Distinctive Plurality through Unique Personhood. These Old Testament account only gives an allusion of Trinity; the Trinitarian doctrine receives much fuller treatment in the rest of the Bible as God manifests himself and further reveals himself to humanity. The Trinitarian concept’s chief development is anchored in the New Testament, the Gospels present the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son, and in the book of Acts, describes the sending of the Holy Spirit on the Church.

In several New Testament passages Christ is clearly called God (Heb 1:9-9, John 1:1, John 20:28) In The latter passage, John 20:28, one of the apostles, Thomas, confronts the resurrected Jesus and proclaims, “My Lord and my God.” From this verse, the Scholar D. Moody Smith, contends,

Thomas’ response is exactly appropriate, as he utters the confession of Jesus as Lord (kyrios) and God (theos). This confession is typical of early Christian theology and language as far as Lord (kyrios) is concerned, but uniquely Johannine in its ascription of the name of God (theos) to Jesus as well. In 1:1 the preexistent word (logos) is called God (theos) and at the end of the prologue this most exalted title is repeated, after the incarnation of the Word in Jesus has been confessed. For the most part John withholds the designation theos from Jesus, but in the course of the narrative makes clear that this ascription of deity to Jesus is indeed correct and unavoidable (5:18; cf. 5:19-24; 10:30; 14:8-11). While Thomas may have once doubted, he has now made the confession that is essential and true. Jesus is Lord and God.

The description of Christ as God was an important explanation that integrated New Covenant theology with the monotheistic Hebraic covenant of the Old Testament. The confession of Thomas and the other passages in the New Testament help construct the Christian understanding of Christ as God.

The concept of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament is carried over into the New Testament. The same person of God that “hovers” over his creation and the Holy Spirit fills Mary and descends on Jesus at his baptism. As Jesus was being baptized, the Trinity became expressive to human senses. John the Baptist and others who witnessed the baptism, audibly heard the voice of the Father affirm Jesus as his Son, and visibly saw the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus in the likeness of a dove. The Spirit is revealed in the likeness of tongues of fire when he empowers the disciples on the day of Pentecost. This is in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise to his disciples that “the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:6).

Jesus words at the end of Matthew’s Gospel are known as the “Great Commission,” but one mustn’t overlook the “great expression” of Trinity. Jesus sends out his disciples to baptize with the “Trinitarian formula”, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Christ’s words reveal Trinity.

Later in the New Testament, in the Epistles, the Apostle Paul gives description of the Spirit’s nature and activity. To the church at Corinth he explains, “We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us”(1 Cor. 2:12). Paul gives other direct references to the Spirit that are unmistakable Trinitarian references. In another letter to the church at Corinth offers a benediction, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14).

Conclusion

In this section, the researcher has presented key passages that reference the triune God, demonstrating that the Bible reveals God existing as three unique persons yet in unity as One, which is the doctrine of the Trinity. There is complexity within the specific functions of the Godhead yet a unity in their purpose and three Persons. Each of the three Persons performs specific functions and are involved in everything together. This doctrine is fundamental to understanding the theme of unity and uniqueness in the universe, because whenever we see it in our world it exists as an expression or echo of it’s source in the Godhead.

The Trinity holds a central place in this project going forward because all crucial elements in theology, ecclesiology, and sociology, are rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. This section has demonstrated that the doctrine of the Trinity has roots in Scripture. But when looking at the themes of unity and uniqueness we see that even the Bible itself, it bears the mark of unity and uniqueness in its composition. The work is a reflection Trinitarian essence of the divine author.

Uniqueness and Unity in the Cannon

Though ‘Bible’ is a singular term, the Bible is not one book, but a library of diverse writings concerning God and his relationship with the world. While the theme of uniqueness and unity is present in the revelation of God’s Word, it is also evident in the composition of the Bible. The Bible is a diverse collection of books that present one over arching unified theme. “Neo-Orthodox” theologians in the past century worked to revive an emphasis of study in the unity of the Bible. Professor C.H. Dodd called for greater study in this area; “Biblical scholars have long worked on separate sections in what might be called the centrifugal movement, but now the centripetal movement is needed; a study of the unity of the parts, an attempt to find the deeper meanings of the dominant theme present within the diversity of writings. This section will examine the uniqueness in the composition and the unifying theme of the text.

The Uniqueness of the Books within the Cannon.

The Bible is a diverse collection of books that were writing over a period of 1,500 years by many authors from a wide range of experiences and walks of life. These 66 unique were written in a variety of historical and cultural contexts. The 40 authors wrote in a wide array of literary forms. The diversity of the writings may be described as the humanity of the Bible, since it extends over a vast range of human experiences and perspectives. This diversity is expressed well by author Terry Hall: “It had to be one of the strangest publishing projects of all time: no editor or publishing house was responsible to oversee 40 independent authors representing 20 occupations, living in 10 countries, during a 1,500 year span, working in 3 languages, with a cast of 2,930 characters in 1,551 places, together they produced 66 books, containing 1,189 chapters, over 31,000 verses, 7 hundred 74 thousand words and over 3.5 million letters. This massive volume covers every conceivable subject expressed in literary forms poetry, prose, romance, biography, science, and history, to tell one story with internal consistency.”

To appreciate the difficulties the unity of the Scriptures, we only need imagine the complexity in turning this diverse collection into a unified work. The complex reality of the unity in composition despite broad sweeping diversity reveals evidence for divine authorship. The evidence is from the reality that despite the many differences there is one overarching meta-narrative. The internal consistency could be described as the divinity of the Bible. God chose to use distinctive, unique personalities to reveal his unified infallible, inerrant word. God weaves together the diversity and uniqueness to form one story, the story of redemption.

The Unity of the Cannon.

God’s Word is always united to this theme of redemption and tied in with history. G. Ernest Wright regards this unity as “the confessional recital of God’s saving and redemptive acts.” If one follows the meta-narrative, the story line leads from creation, to the fall of man, to the need for redemption, to the sacrificial system, to the person of Jesus who fulfills prophecy and brings redemption through his sacrifice, from the garden to the great city of God, the consistent unifying theme within the Book is Jesus and the work of redemption.

A tradition in the British Navy illustrates this unifying theme; there was a practice in the Royal Navy that every rope they used would have a scarlet cord woven into it. The cord would run from end to end, that way whether lost at sea or stolen in the harbor, no matter where the rope was cut, every inch was marked and it was evidenced that it was possession of the crown. And so it is with the Bible, in the united message within the diversity of the Text. The Scriptures are comprised of 66 books and regardless where one cuts in on the story, there is one unified theme, the redemption of mankind through the work Jesus the Messiah.

Karl Barth called this the “Christological concentration.” He stated this central emphasis on Christ this way; “in the Bible only one central figure as such has begun to occupy me – or each and everything else only in the light and under the sing of this central figure.” Jesus Christ is the scarlet thread that runs throughout the Bible. Bible contains unique books with unity in their composition and theme.

Conclusion

The diversity and unity of the Bible is supernatural, the evidence supports its claim to be the revealed Word of God. There is a striking a unity out of diversity, a harmonious and continuous message from beginning to end, a self-consistent whole, where the main theme is the person and work of Jesus Christ. God intended for the diverse books of scripture to fit together as a unified whole, the various books coming together as a beautiful and cohesive whole is just another revelation of this universal theme of unity among unique parts. The divine author has designed this into the created order of the Cannon and integrated unity and uniqueness in the created order of humanity and the architecture of the institution of marriage.

Unity and Uniqueness in Marriage

God is Trinity, which means that in God there is a unity, a perfect consistency of essence. Since this is within his being, God finds delight in uniqueness within unity. God makes his pleasure known by weaving this theme into the cosmos, into the cannon, and into the crown or apex of his creation, humanity. The essential unity of God finds expression in the creation of mankind and the institution of marriage. Humans have been stamped with unity and uniqueness, since God created man in “[His] image, in [His] likeness” (Genesis 1:26).

The process of being created in God’s image has important implications for human relationships, as Stanley Grenz explains: “The image of God is primarily a relational concept. Ultimately we reflect God’s image in relationship. Thus the imago Dei is not primarily an individual possession but a corporate or social reality, present among humans-in-relationship.”When God created humans, “He constructed into creatures and relationships a unity-in-diversity that characterize the eternal divine reality.”This creative act of unity and uniqueness is evident in the creativity of the male and female design: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). The male and female distinction within humanity mysteriously reflects the image of God. This is revealed in the marriage mandate and the divine institution of marriage.

The Marriage Mandate

The marriage relationship has been deigned and instituted by God. In fact, marriage is the very first institution that God creates. In the created order, marriage is formed before civil government and the local church. Marriage is the primary institution and is the preeminent building block of societal vitality.

God sets forth his design for marriage in the marriage mandate, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). The Hebrew word for one in one flesh, is the same Hebrew word used in the Shema, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One” (Deut. 6:4-5). This word one references the unity of the Godhead made up by three unique persons with three distinct roles. In the case of marriage, it is not tri-unity as with God, rather it is unity of two persons, male and female – one flesh. This oneness, or unity, is the marking reflection of God’s essence on the marriage covenant.

Uniqueness in Marriage

The oneness of marriage does not mean that the marriage mandate reduces or eliminates individuality. Just as the distinct persons and different roles in the Trinity are unified in purpose and mission as one, male and female in the marriage covenant come together as one. Both persons bring their distinctive personalities and giftedness, unique passions and abilities together, not to exist merely as two individuals but to become united together. The Bible teaches that marriage is the complimentary functioning of two unique persons in their roles to reflect the image of God.

It is important to note that distinct persons and different roles does not indicate different value. Just as the three persons of the Trinity are equal in their value and in their personhood, also women and men have been created equal in their worth. Neither male nor female are “better” or “worse” than the other. In God’s economy, both male and female are equal before him. As the apostle Paul writes in the letter to the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Scripture affirms absolute equality of personhood. But equality of value and importance is different than equality of role and responsibility. Males and females have been assigned unique roles according to the created order. Pastor and Theologian John Piper writes: “In the Bible, differentiated roles for men and women are never traced back to the fall of man and woman into sin. Rather, the foundation of this differentiation is traced back to the way things were in Eden before sin warped our relationships. Differentiated roles were corrupted, not created, by the fall. They were created by God.”

Although man and woman are equal, Scriptures teach that there are proper roles within the marriage mandate. The Apostle Paul defines these roles in this letter to the Ephesians. He writes, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:22-26).

The husband is called to serve and sacrifice for his wife as an expression of his love for her. Likewise, the wife is called to submit and respect her husband as an expression of her love for him. In this way they complement each other. God has given the husband the role of loving servant-leadership, with a responsibility to lead, protect, and provide for the wife. In the same way, a woman’s responsibility is to affirm and support his leadership, as a helpmate. The complementing distinctions create a mutually supportive home that affirms each others calling in Christ. These two complementary halves unite – physically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally and physiologically and the unity of the uniqueness reveals the image of God in marriage.

Unity in Marriage

The Bible uses the phrase “one flesh” to describe the mysterious and miraculous unity that is present in marriage. This description distinguishes the union of marriage from any other human connection, differentiating the marriage relationship from any other social institution. Marriage is not the product of social evolution or a cultural invention; rather it is a pre-fall created relationship that began with the primal event in the Garden of Eden. Within marriage there is this sacred mystery of unity and uniqueness held together in one entity.

In the New Testament, Jesus affirms the marriage mandate and profound significance thereof: “Have you not read, that he who created them from the beginning, made them male and female. And said for this reason a man shall leave his Father and Mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh? Consequently they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6) Christ presents the profound significance of the ordained demarcation, as the man and woman leave their father and mother, and unite as they cleave to one another in the sight of God and become “one flesh.”

Cleaving together and becoming “one flesh” as husband and wife is symbolized and sealed by sexual union, but the “one flesh” relationship entails more than sex. It is the mysterious fusion of two lives into one, where life is shared together, by the mutual consent and covenant of marriage in a mysterious union. By God’s architecture in humanity, male and female are made anatomically, emotionally and spiritually for one another, for oneness. Through divine intention, by joining together, the husband and wife represent the full spectrum of the God’s image. As God’s unity is everlasting, the marriage unity is designed to be reflective of his everlasting nature, by two people giving themselves over into a permanent circle of shared companionship.

In the context of the letter to the Ephesians it appears that marriage is set within the meta-narrative of God’s restoration of all things under the headship of Christ. This includes all of humanity who believes, Jews and Gentiles, the body of Christ, the church. Paul sets forth God’s purpose of humanity “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head even Christ” (Eph. 1:10). The authority of Christ is supreme, he is the head of all things, and all things are subjected to him. This overarching sovereign work of God becomes the central purpose for a unified marriage. Unity in marriage is developed from sharing this God-given mission and purpose.

Conclusion

The longest statement in the New Testament on the unity of marriage and the relationship between husbands and wives is found in Ephesians 5:21-33. In this passage Paul conveys the distinctive roles for wives and husbands and at the same time reveals the way it corresponds to the relationship between Christ and his church. In this way, marriage serves as a metaphor of deeper spiritual realities. The truth marriage mirrors is that the unity of husbands loving their wives to become one flesh/body is a dimension of the great mystery of the unity of all believers into the one “body” of the church through the self-sacrificial love of its head, Christ (Eph 5:2, 23-30, 32). Marital unity in love adds to the great cosmic mystery of unity causing the growth of all things to Christ, so that all might be united under him.

This theme of unity among uniqueness is present all throughout the cosmos and creation. Flowing from the Trinity, the theological underpinning of the essence of unity and uniqueness has wide-ranging implications for the study of Scripture, the function of marriage, and ecclesiology. Basically, this doctrine is the foundation of practical Christian reflection of the diversity and unity within the Godhead. The human family is not the only way God has ordained to reflect his unity to the world. Within the church we have “many members” and yet “one body” that display his glory (1 Cor. 12:12).

Unity and Uniqueness in the Church

The unity of the Church is a theme that carries throughout the New Testament. There is not a clear, concise, summarizing definition of the church put fort

The resurrection and ascension of Jesus has remained a mystery to my belief. There has never been a reoccurrence in my life time and throughout history. People tend to wonder how a man who was really dead and was buried can come back to life. The burials that take place in our communities result in the decomposition of the body. In areas, like Malawi villages, where technology is not advanced burials are immediate. A delay in burial for about two to three days in a village set up without the cooling system makes the body starts to decay. Therefore, it is a hard thing to believe that a person came back to life on a third day. The idea is even complicated when it is said that the resurrected person went up to heaven. In secondary school we learn the laws of gravity. If you throw something up it falls back. It is a fact that people do not fly because they have no wings. This paper wishes to establish why Christians believe in the physical resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Establishing the reality of resurrection and ascension of Jesus will strength believe and resolve the mystery.

Summary of Grudem’s Views

Grudem (2000) asserted that when Jesus came back to life from the dead his body was in physical form. He stated that Jesus’ experience was different from that of Lazarus as it is recorded in the book of John. He affirmed that Lazarus’ resurrection was subject of physical developments which lead to aging and death. According to him Jesus’ resurrection is not subject of biological development, (Grudem, 2000).

Contrary to Harris’ views (as cited by Grudem 2000) Grudem (2000) refuted the fact that Jesus’ resurrected body had spiritual aspects which enabled him not to observe physical laws. Harris argued that Jesus’ spiritual body enabled him to pass through the wall and perform instant appearances and disappearances. Grudem affirmed that the New Testament does not seem to assert that. He argued that when Jesus resurrected his body was physical because he could eat, prepare breakfast and be seen. He quoted Jesus himself in Luke 24:39 confirming his physical being by telling his disciples, “see my hands and my feet that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see I have,”(Grudem, 2000, p. 613).

Grudem (2000) insisted that Jesus could not have deceived the disciples. He stated that if Jesus had wanted to prove that he had a spiritual body he could have clearly demonstrated it to his followers. In line with this, he stated that the disciples could have clearly recorded it to give evidence for his spiritual body. He also argued that when Jesus ascended to heaven the angels confirmed about his physical state by telling those who witnessed his departure that he will come back in the same physical state he went to heaven. He stated that Jesus’ resurrected body set precedence to the kind of state which people would acquire in the next life, (Grudem, 2000).

Grudem (2000) stated that the resurrection empowered the believers of Jesus. He pointed out that Jesus promised his followers the power of the Holy Spirit only after the resurrection. He argued that the believers were given the ability to overcome sin in their lives and effectively serve him. He made reference to Paul’s message that God made us right with him through the resurrection, (2000).

In regard to the ascension of Jesus Grudem (2000) affirmed that it is an indication that he went somewhere to a place. He argued that there should be a place called heaven where Jesus went in his physical body. He stated that even though we do not see where he went it does not nullify the fact that there is heaven. He said that just as angels are invisible although they are around us so too is heaven. He cites an example of Elisha as recorded in the Old Testament that when God sent him the chariots of soldiers his servant could not see them. He said that our eyes cannot locate heaven but Jesus went up and Elijah too went there. He considers Jesus’ ascension vital because it is a sign that we too shall ascend to heaven. He confirmed this with Jesus’s promise that there is a lot of place in heaven and we too shall go where he has gone, (Grudem, 2000).

Leading Views

In his book The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence to Jesus, Strobel (1998) supported the reality of Jesus death and resurrection based on interviews with experts in medicine and history. He established that Jesus really died according to the doctor. The doctor said that Jesus could not have survived the trauma and the harsh treatment. He argued that the high degree of stress that Jesus experienced made his body tender. He added that in this state when he was subjected to severe Roman whipping his body had severe tears and loss of blood. He stated that this disapproved those who claim that the resurrection was just resuscitation. In his interview the historian argued that there was no way the soldiers could have walked free without punishment. He argued that considering the kind of punishment which was in practice for such an office what the high priests and the Roman officials did revealed a foul play. He confirmed it with reliable documentary that Jesus resurrected. He stated that Jesus showed himself too at different times to many people and the largest group was 5000 people, (Strobel, 1998).

Mcdowell (1981) and Lutzer (1994) supported the historical resurrection of Jesus. They argued that historical evidence like the Dead Sea scrolls and history from historians like Josephus proved that Jesus really resurrected. They said these validate the historical reliability of the New Testament which also has the shortest gap between its copies and the originals. They highlighted the reluctance showed by the high priests and the Roman officials to punish the tomb guards. They said that the guards’ action to have supposedly allowed the escape of criminal or robbery of the body was a serious case punishable by death. (Mcdowell, 1981 and Lutzer, 1994).

Interestingly enough, Mcdowell (1981) in agreement with Grudem, reported that Jesus’ resurrection was physical not spiritual. He refuted the claim that Jesus’ body decayed and came back to life a spiritual being. He argued that Jesus physically appeared before many people both hostile and friendly. He affirmed that these could have refuted the reports as they were written while most of them were still alive. He stated that both hostile and supporting community validated the accuracy of the New Testament report, (Mcdowell, 1981).

Alternative Views

Humel (1975) and Kaufman (1968) argued that Jesus did not resurrect but the disciples had visions and hallucinations. Hemel stated that the disciples experienced the aftermaths of the dilemma of losing Jesus. He argued that they resolved the dilemma by the imagination of a ghost so they hallucinated due to their memories of Jesus. While Kaufman argued that the disciples experienced public visions about Jesus in his Jesus came back to life in a spiritual body. They both argued that the resurrection was the explanation of the believers’ experiences not the reality of events, (Humel, 1975 and Kaufman, 1968).

Harris (1990) partially agreed with them as he argued that Jesus rose into a spiritual body that could materialize for some time to be seen. He stated that Jesus’ body did not observe the physical barriers like walls for a building. He concluded that the fact that Jesus could be found standing instantly amidst the people it indicated that he was a spirit (Harris, 1990).

Crossam (as recorded by Boyd, 1984) asserted that as Jesus was killed like a criminal he was buried in a shallow mass grave according to the custom of the day. He argued that wild dogs usually ate the bodies so Jesus’ body was also eaten. He stated that Jesus’ followers had no idea where he was buried and what came of his body. He concluded that since Jesus was their hero they decided to portray a victorious end of his life by inventing characters life Joseph of Arimathea and the resurrection, (Boyd, 1984).

Personal Views

Jesus really resurrected into a physical body as verified by scriptures. I agree with the views of physical resurrection because of the reliability of scripture. The scripture recorded Jesus himself in Luke 24:39 saying “see my hands and my feet that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see I have.” Therefore, if Jesus himself confirmed his physical resurrection and the scripture recorded it then it is historically validated that he had physical resurrection.

The fact that Jesus appeared to a large numbers of people verifies his physical body. I disagree with Humel (1975) and Kaufman (1968) who argues that the followers of Jesus either saw visions or hallucinated respectively. It is difficult to believe if visions or hallucinations can be experienced by a group at the same time about the same thing. This is impossible. Spiritual experiences are personal. As a result there was no way for instance, the 11 disciples or the 5000 people could see the vision or hallucinate about Jesus at the same time.

The gospels recorded that the ascension took place in the presence of his disciples and other people. In line with this, it can be argued that Jesus was physically present with them on the day of the ascension. Acts 1:11recorded the two angels’ message to those who witnessed the ascension. They said that Jesus will come back from heaven the way he has gone.

I agree with Strobel (1998) who is a journalist by profession. His interview with the medical personnel revealed how impossible it was for Jesus to fake his death as some claim. The spear through his heart could definitely finish him if he had faked it or just fainted. Strobel gives us a scientific explanation of the reality about the death of Jesus. For those who rely on history he also verified Jesus death, resurrection and ascension based on the historical events. Therefore, even if one does not believe in the bible he can base his trust on the evidence of the medical and historical information available. These experts help us to clear the doubt whether Jesus died and resurrected or he just fainted and was resuscitated.

It has to be noted that the community in which Jesus lived not everyone agreed or supported him. There were other people who wanted his down fall. These people could have really tried to refute the substantial claims made by his followers. The silence of the then hostile community reveals the validity of the claims of the believers.

In support of Mcdowell’s (1981) and Lutzer’s (1994) suspicion I agree with them. If a very serious crime is committed no one is willing to cover it unless there is some benefit in doing so. Therefore, it puzzles me too to hear that in such a serious and sensitive mistake made by the guards the high priests who were the interested party never reacted. The Roman officials too decided to overlook their laws. It is surprising that somebody would chose to cover up an enemy. This clearly shows that Jesus was raised. They could not disprove it by producing a body. I understand that they could afford to fabricate a lie.

Conclusion

The resurrection of Jesus is the essence of the Christian faith while ascension gives us hope. If there would have been no resurrection there would have been no basis for Christianity. In line with this those who are hostile to Christianity will always try to find something to fault Christianity. Opposition will always be there but a Christian should have a reason for his or her belief. If someone tells you that Jesus’ body was rotten or eaten by wild dogs there should be an explanation to your stand. As our teacher Professor Stauffcher always say that we should have a reason why we believe what we believe so that we can answer when critics confront us. Ascension gives us hope for the promised heaven. In John 14:1-4 Jesus said that there are many rooms in heaven. He tells us that if there was no place he would not have bothered to tell us. Therefore, ascension gives us hope that one day we will also ascend to heaven and be with Jesus and the Father.

SYPNOSIS

Arius and Athanasius were archrivals of the Arian controversy. Arius was the leading father in Arianism whilst Athanasius was the defender of the Nicene Theology for orthodox Christianity against Arianism. As Arianism rejects the divinity of Christ, salvation to mankind was at stake. Athanasius advocates the consubstantiality of the three persons of the trinity which was crucial argument to defend the divinity of Christ. Consequently Athanasius had built the ground of the Trinitarian and Christological doctrine which together with the humanity of Christ represents the complete Trinitarian theology.

I. INTRODUCTION

The fourth century church experienced a major crisis in understanding God’s divine nature, characteristics and relationship with members of the Godhead. This Arian controversy centred upon two archrival theologians, Arius and Athanasius.1 The controversy represented a new phase of doctrinal development of the Godhead and led to the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Church’s first ecumenical statement of the Trinity. 2 Athanasius was the champion of Nicene Theology, who greatly defended the traditional Christianity against the Arian heresy.3 Section II of this essay will briefly discuss the background of Arius, and summarize his basic theology. Section III will provide an overview about Athanasius’s life, Athanasius’ theology in conjunction with his defence against the Arians’ heretic claims. Finally, the conclusion will be drawn in Section IV.

II. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY

The ‘Arian controversy’ ignited in 318, when Arius openly taught his heretic teachings that denied the full divinity of the Son. Consequently, Arius challenged his bishop (Alexander of Alexandria) and teachers of Alexandria to an Christological conflict.4 The controversy lasted for nearly half a century and became the confrontation between the two archrivals, the ‘Nicene party’ and Origenists.5 Athanasius coined the names ‘Arian’ and ‘Arians’ as pejorative political and theological slurs against Arius and his opponents, who disagreed with him on the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and those meant the Son as a creature or held fast to Arius’ basic position. Cf. Thomas G. Weinandy, Athanasius: a Theological Introduction (Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), 51-52. Donald K. McKim, Theological Turning Points: Major Issues in Christian Thought (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 14.

Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of The Reformation (3 vols.,

New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984, Vol. 1), 173. Johannes Quasten, Pathology: The Golden Age of

Greek Patristic Literature. From the Council of Nicaea to the council of Chalcedon (Utrecht, Netherlands:

Spectrum Publishers, 1963, Vol. III), 66.

Bruce L. Shelly, Church History in Plain Language (2nd Ed., Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1995), 100.

Everett Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1990), 8485, 92.

The controversy roots lay deep in “the differences of the ante-Nicene doctrine of the

Logos,” especially in the two contradictory half truths of Origen’s Christology, which was

claimed by both archrivals ? the full divinity of Christ and his eternal distinctness from

the Father.6 Conclusively, the Arians were the catalysts, rather than the main participants.7

II.1. ARIUS AND HIS DOCTRINE

Trained in the Lucian School, Arius was called one of the heretical fathers of Arianism.8 Arianism was a heretical doctrine of theological rationalism, based on the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, and Neoplatonic theory of subordinationism.9 Arius wrote very little and only a few fragments survived. Thalia was his only own writing which Athanasius recited.10 Most information about Arius’ life and his doctrine came from Athanasius’ writings.11

Influenced by Origen, Arius rejected the term ????????? (consubstantial) and insisted the concrete and distinct three persons (???????) of the Godhead, a separate essence and the subordination of the Son to Father.12 Nicene split the church into two major groups: 1) The ‘Nicene party’? consisted of the West, the school of Antioch and other in the East like Athanasius. They affirmed the full deity of Jesus Christ, but were less clear on the eternal threeness of the Godhead. They did not deny the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (i.e. they were not Monarchians), but they did not state it as forcefully as the Origenists wanted and so appeared to them to be Monarchian. (2) The Origenists ? were strong on the threeness of the Godhead, but less clear on the deity of Jesus Christ. They were not Arians (i.e. they did not see Jesus Christ as a creature made out of nothing), but they held him to be inferior to the Father and so appeared Arian to the Nicene party. Cf. Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought (Rev. ed., London: T&T Clark, 2006), 30. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism’ in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology (3rd ed.; Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894, Vol. 1) 134137. Cf. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html (29 April 2010).

Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 30-31. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism’ in A Religious

Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 134-137. Cf.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html (29 April 2010).

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 7.

Ephiphanius, Panarion 69,4. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,4. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 15.

Note: Scholars still debate over the ideological forerunner of Arius’ doctrine, whether it was derived from the

theories of Origen, or of Paul of Samosata, or of Lucian of Antioch. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 2, 6-8.

Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, I.5,6; Athanasius, De Synodis, 15. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for

Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd., 1988), 11.

And a few sources from the church historians of the fourth and fifth centuries, and from the letters of St.

Basil and of Epiphanius of Salamis. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10-13.

Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism’ in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal,

and Practical Theology, 134-137. John Behr, The Way to Nicaea: The Formation of Christian Theology (3

vols.; Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001, Vol. 1), 200-201.

Arius denied all internal divine relations existing between the Father and the Son ? the

eternal deity of Christ and his equality with the Father (????????).13

II.2. A SUMMARY OF ARIUS’ THEOLOGY

Arius’ basic doctrine:14 (1) Godhead is uncreated, unbegotten (???????), without beginning;15 (2) The Son of God cannot be truly God. The Son is the first of God’s creatures, a secondary God, “god by participation.” Like the other creations, “the Son is not unbegotten (???????),” “he is one of the things fashioned and made,” 16 brought out ex nihilo (? ?? ????). “There was a time when the Son of God was not (? ?? ?? ?).”17 “Neither does the Son indeed know his own substance as it is,” “he was created for our sake, rather than we for his.” “He is the Son of God not in the metaphysical, but in the moral sense of the word.”18 By the will of God, the Son has “his statute and character (?????? ??? ???).” “The Son is by his nature; changeable, mutable, equally with other

rational beings.” The Father is ‘ineffable to the Son; for neither does the Word (Logos)

perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he perfectly see Him (the Father).”19

(3) “The title of God is improper for the Son of God, since the only true God adopted him

as Son in prevision of his merits.” This sonship by adoption insists “no real participation

in the divinity and no true likeness to it;” Thus, the absolute and eternal divinity of Christ

13

Epiphanius, Panarion 69.6.1ff. Theodoret of Cyrus, Haereticarum fabularum compendium (History of

Heresies) I.5. Cf. Philip Schaff, ‘Arius’ in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical,

Doctrinal, and Practical Theology,139. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 7-8.

14

Epiphanius, Panarion 69,6. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,5,1-4. Athanasius, De Synodis 15.

Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,6. Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia conc. Nic. 2,3. Cf. Johannes Quasten,

Pathology, 8, 14, 15-16.Cf. Athanasius, Epistula encyclical ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 12. Athanasius,

NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters (Philip Schaff ed.; Grand Rapids, Mi: Christian Classics

Ethereal Library, 1892), 229. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_229.html (25 April 2011).

15

Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1.4.1. See also the conclusion in Arius’ first Letter to Eusebius of

Nicomedia. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10.

16

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 16.

17

See the Arius’ conclusion in his first Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Athanius, De Synodis, II.26. Cf.

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian

Controversy 318-381, 8.

18

Athanasius, Ad Episcopos Aegypti 12. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 16. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal

heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 8.

19

Italic words are mine. Athanasius, De Synodis 15. Cf. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism

through the centuries, 7. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy

318-381, 15.

3

is to be denied.20 (4) The Logos is created by God as the instrument of creation. The Logos

holds a middle place between God and the world is made flesh by the will of the Father and

fulfilled in Jesus Christ the function of a soul, “though divine, was less than fully divine.” 21

(5) The Holy Spirit is the first creature of the Logos, and is still less God than the Word.

III. ATHANASIUS AND HIS THEOLOGY

Though Athanasius was not a systematic theologian, his greatest dedication in life was the fierce defence of orthodox Christianity against the Arian heresy. 22 He was “so identified with the cause that the successive history of the Arian controversy is best told by following Athanasius’ life.”23 The three discourses of Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, were his main dogmatic writings targeted against Arianism.24 The first discourse contained the definition of the Nicene Council ? there is a unity of divine essence between the Father and the Son, and the Son is eternal, increated (???????) and unchangeable.25

III.1. ATHANASIUS

Athanasius, De Synodis, 15. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 8. Cf. the following citation: “The leaders in the Arian movement (Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris and Theognis) received their training under Lucian and always venerated him as their master and the founder of their system. Later critics of Lucian, including Alexander of Alexandria, during the Council of Nicaea in 325, associated his school with Arius’s rejection of the absolute divinity of Christ. No one before Lucian of Antioch and Arius had taught that the Logos is categorically different from God.” of ‘Lucian of Antioch’ in New Word Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lucian_of_Antioch (10 April 2011).

Cf. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 100-101.

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 67-68.

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 66.

Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 166.

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 26.

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 26.

The systematic and reliable ancient account of Athanasius could be found in the

framework, such as Historia acephala and Festal Index.26

Ordained as deacon to his bishop Alexander in Alexandria, Athanasius accompanied

Alexander to the Council at Nicaea (325). Later he succeeded Alexander and became the

bishop of Alexandria (328-373).27 Athanasius, as a leading Christian writer of NeoAlexandrine School, adopted the historic-grammatical interpretation of Scripture (which

the School of Antioch advocated) in all polemical and theological controversy with the

Arians.28

The Arians enlisted the support of secular power and corrupt church authority to silence and destroy Athanasius. When Athanasius refused Constantine’s order to readmit Arius to communion, his opponents launched all kind of allegations, causing calumnies further to increase.29 For instance, under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, the bishops of the Tyrian Synod condemned Athanasius with charges which he could not escape. They exiled Athanasius to Trier and restored Arius to church communion and reinstate him into the rank of the clergy.30

The history about Athanasius’ life is also found in his own writings and the Syriac introduction to his Festal Letters, also in Historia acephala or called Historia Athanasii, Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration 21, and some fragments of a Coptic eulogy. Cf. Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (2nd Printing 1994; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 5. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20.

‘Athanasius’ in Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t100.e116 (18 March 2011). Cf. David Hugh Farmer, ‘Athanasius’ in The Oxford Dictionary of Saints (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003). Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 2, 20. Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, 1.

Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 2, 20.

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20-21.

Athanasius was firstly charged with murder (sorcery and murder of Arsenius, a Meletian bishop in the Thebaid). His second charge was a political kind (he had threatened to stop the Alexandrian corn-ships).His third charge was his order to assault the presbyter Ischyras. Cf. ‘St. Athanasius – (ca. 297 – 373), Patriarch of Alexandria’ in Christian Classic Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius (18 March 2011). Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 9. Archibald Robertson, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria: Edited, with Prolegomena, Indices, and Titles (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Cushing-Malloy Inc., 1978), lxxxvi. John Behr, The Nicene Faith Part1, 165-166. For the letter, see H.I. Bell, Jesus and Christians in Egypt (London: 1924), 53-71.

Because of Arian controversy, Athanasius spent seventeen of his forty-five years as bishop in five different exiles.31 This situation happened, probably “because his Defence against the Arians gave so full an account.”32 Athanasius was likened to “a modern gangster,” “an unscrupulous politician,”33 because of “his oppressive and violent authoritative nature.”34 However he had never been formally charged with heresy,35 and some mentioned that he was the “pillar of the church;”36 And the Roman Church hailed him among the four great

Fathers of the East.37

III.2. ATHANASIUS’ THEOLOGY

Alexander and his successor Athanasius laid emphasis on Origen’s insistence on the Son’s eternal divinity related to the existence of God as Father rather than creator, which had led to the Nicene doctrine of the identity of substance (????????). Athanasius prioritized faith over reason, contrary to Arians’ rationalistic tendency.38 Athanasius’ theological approach was centred on Soteriology.39 He was committed to monotheism.40 But Arius’ account of God was incoherent since on one interpretation it was similar to the radical Judaic monotheism, and the other interpretation of it (one that emphasized “the Son is god in some secondary sense”) was equivalent to a kind of polytheism ? two gods, namely one God who is ingenerate and 31 Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, . Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20. ‘St. Athanasius – (ca. 297 – 373), Patriarch of Alexandria’ in Christian Classic Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius (18 March, 2011). See also, Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and

Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, 20. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 239-273, 422. Cf. David M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’ (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 2. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 6. John Behr, The Nicene Faith Part 1, 167. Cf. Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, (6 vols; trans. Neil Buchanan; New York: Dover Publications,1961, Vol. 4), 62. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma4.ii.ii.i.i.iii.html (25 April 2011).

Gregory of Nazianzus, The Orations 21, 26. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20. The four great Fathers of the Eastern Church ? John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Athanasius of Alexandria ? were recognized in 1568 by Pope St. Pius V. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20. ‘Church Fathers’ in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Church (6 April 2011).

Athanasius, In Illud ‘Omnia mihi tradita sunt’, 6. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 66. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God, 423. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God, 425.

one who is generated. This resulted in two incongruous accusations against the Arians that

they were no better than Jews and that they were identical with pagans. 41

Unlike the Arians, who needed the Son as a lower god to reconcile an incomparable and

impassable God with the Scriptural message that God suffered for humankind’s salvation,

Athanasius dealt with the self-revelation of God who had come into the closest contact

with His creation (Jn 14:9).42

Athanasius endeavoured to substantiate “the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the

Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the

Fathers kept.” Athanasius maintained, “I have delivered the tradition, without inventing

anything extraneous to it.” The tradition was that the one God is a Triad.43

Trinity

At the heart of Athanasius’s theology of Incarnation lay his doctrine of Trinity,44 summed up as follows: There is a Trinity, holy and complete, consistent, eternal and indivisible in nature, not composed of one that creates and one that originated, but all creative, called to be God in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father does all things “through the Word (the Son) in the Holy Spirit”. Their activity is one, and their unity is preserved. The Trinity is Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos III.67, I.17, 18, III.16. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 8. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 424-425.

R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God, 426.

Athanasius, Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum, I, 28-33. Cf. Johannes Quasten,

Pathology, 66. Brian LePort, An Introduction to the Letters of Serapion on the Holy Spirit by Athanasius of

Alexandria, 18.

http://westernseminary.academia.edu/BrianLePort/Papers/172851/An_Introduction_to_the_Letters_of_Serapi

on_on_the_Holy_Spirit_by_Athanasius_of_Alexandria. (21 April 2011).

Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos III.15; Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 402. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_402.html (20 April 2011). R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 424-425.

“not only in name and form of speech but in truth and actuality.” Thus one God, “who is overall (Eph. 4:6), and through all and in all.”45 Athanasius constantly defended the ontological unity of the Father and the Son through his Scriptural argument. He proved the divinity of Christ and of Holy Spirit,46 because “if we participate in Christ, we must then participate in God, if our redemption is to be assured.” 47 Athanasius refuted Arius’ claims that the Son was a creature and had come into being from ‘non-existence’, and that “there was a time when He was not.” Athanasius argued that there can be only one Son ? the eternal Word and Wisdom of the substance of God the Father, and that the Word is always coexistent with the Father, who is the creator and Lord of all, to whom all things owed their existence.48 Athanasius rejected the Arian position that the very name ‘Son’ presumes His being generated, and that the Son (the Word) is a work of the will of God for the creation of the world. Athanasius argued that to be begotten implies to be “an offspring of the Father’s essence, not of His will,” since “begetting in God differs from human begetting” because of God’s indivisibility.

Because the Son is in the Father and proper to Him, as the radiance in the light and stream from fountain, Athanasius asserted that the Son’s eternal relation to the Father is essential Italic words are mine. Athanasius, Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum, I, 2, 12, 14, 16, 19-20, 25, 27, 31; III, 15. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos II.24, 25. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 66-67. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 427. Athanasius, De incarnation et contra Arianos, 13-19. Cf. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 422. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 29. Kurt Aland, A History of Christianity: From the Beginnings to the Threshold of the Reformation (Trans. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980, Vol. 1), 191. Athanasius, Vita antonii, 69. Athanasius, Depositio Arii, 2, 3. Athanasius, Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi, 11. Athanasius, “On Luke X.22 (Matt. XI.27)” in In Illud ‘Omnia mihi tradita sunt’, 4. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, III.4; Cf. Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 214. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_214.html (15 April 2011). Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 70. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_70.html (15 April 2011). Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 89. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_89.html (18 April 2011). Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 69. and not merely moral as Arius viewed.49 Also, Athanasius refuted the Docetic views of the

Arians and Apollonarians on the relationship of the historical Christ to the eternal Son. 50 Arius maintained, based on Proverbs 8:22ff, that the Son’s mediatory ontological status between God and creation was necessary, because “the Father was too high and mighty, or too proud to carry out the work of creation himself,” and “therefore begot the Son” as “the minister of the intentions of the Father.”51 However, Athanasius argued that the terms applied to the Incarnate and not the pre-existent Christ; Thus, Athanasius implied that the mediating activity of the Son is not in his position within the Godhead, but in his becoming Incarnate.

So, Athanasius placed the Son (Logos) on the side of God, opposite Arius’ placement of the Son on the side of the creatures.52 Athanasius insisted that “the Son has in common with the Father the fullness of the Father’s Godhead” and “the Son is entirely God.”53 Against Arius’ subordination of the Son, Athanasius argued that if the Son says, “The Father is greater than I,” He means that, “The Father is the origin, the Son the derivation.”54 “Eternally begotten, the Son is the Father’s substance, He is consubstantial to the Father, He is ?????????.”55 Athanasius also rejected the term ????? as unacceptable. So, Athanasius defended the term ????????? against the Arians and Semi-Arians.56 Consequently, Athanasius disapproved what the Arians’ claim ? a ‘proceeding origin’ for the Father and the Son.57 Athanasius, Epistula ad Afros episcopos, 3-6. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 56, 67-68. Athanasius, Epistula ad Epictetum episcopum Corinthi, 9. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 59. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos II.24-25. Cf. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 8. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 101.

Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, II.25; I.16; III.3, 6; II.41; III.3,4. Athanasius, Epistula ad Afros episcopos, 3-6. Cf. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318381, 424. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 67. Athanasius, Oratinones contra Arianos I.16; III.6. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 68. Athanasius, Oratinones contra Arianos III, 3; Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 69. Athanasius, De Synodis 41. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 69. Athanasius, De Synodis 41. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 69-70. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God, 434.

Logos and Redemption

Athanasius’ theology of the Logos centred upon the concept of redemption.58 For Athanasius, the redeeming will of God necessitated the incarnation of Christ and his death. If God Himself had not become man, and if Christ were not God, there would not have been redemption for mankind.59 This can only required that Christ was God by nature, not by participation, because the latter could never have formed the likeness of God in anyone. Thus, Athanasius refuted the Arian concept of the Son as “god by participation”.60

Christology

Athanasius’ theology upheld the real distinction between the divinity and humanity after the Incarnation, yet emphasized the personal unity of Christ. Consequently, whatever the Lord did as God and as human being belongs to the same person.61 Athanasius refuted the Arian charge of creature-worship directed against the Nicene Christology with the argument, that Catholics do not worship the humanity of Christ, but the Lord of creation, the Word Incarnate.62

Holy Spirit

By maintaining that the Spirit “is no creature, but is one with the Son as the Son is one with the Father, [the Spirit] is glorified with the Father and the Son, and confessed as God with the Word,” Athanasius rejected the idea of the Holy Spirit being one of the Athanasius, De incarnatione et contra Arianos, 9, 54. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 70-71. Athanasius, De incarnatione et contra Arianos, 8. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 71. Athanasius, De Synodis 51. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 71-72. Athanasius, De Sententia Dionysii 9. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology,72. Athanasius, Epistula ad Adelphium et confessorem, 3. Athanasius, “Letter LX. ? To Adelphius, Bishop and Confessor: against the Arians” in NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 575. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_575.html (20 April 2011). Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, ministering spiritual creatures, and insisted the Godhead of the Holy Spirit according to the Nicene Creed.63 Athanasius defended the non-scriptural Nicene term ????????? (consubstantial) and ? ?? ???? (of the essence). He claimed that these terms were to be found in the Scripture, and they had already been used by the Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria and Theognostus.64 Against the claims of the heretic Arians and Tropicists, Athanasius gave the reasons for adopting the word ????????? (consubstantial) for both the Son and the Spirit in relation to the Father, and proved that the Nicaea’s Trinitarian formula was in accordance with Scripture.65 Athanasius accused the Arians of teaching that God was not always a Trinity since the Son has not always existed, and also of dividing the Trinity because they attributed different natures to the Father and the Son.66

Arianism attacks the very nature of Christianity because it denotes “a God who was not a true God at all”, who was “in no position to communicate salvation” to humans, and therefore “incapable for redeeming mankind”.67 The Arian doctrine, which formed a canon Athanasius, Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum, I, 1, 15-21, 27, 31; III.1. Athanasius, Oratinones contra Arianos II, 25, 26, 73, 74. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 56, 67. For a discussion of Athanasius’s use of homoousious of the Spirit, see Kilian McDonald, The other hand of God: the Holy Spirit as the Universal Touch and Goal (Collegeville, Minnesota, USA: Liturgical Press, 2003), 18, 74, 126. Athanasius, Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi, 18. Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 163. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_163.html (20 April 2011). Cf. Johannes

Quasten, Pathology, 61.

Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi (Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea) was written about 350/351 and addressed by Athanasius to one of his friends, to whom the Arian claim had caused confusion. Whereas and Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum (the four letters concerning the Holy Spirit) was written by Athanasius around 359/360 and addressed to Serapion to refute the heretic tropicists, who opposed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 57, 61. Kilian McDonald, The other hand of God: the Holy Spirit as the Universal Touch and Goal, 18. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 424. Athanasius, De synodis 51. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 8. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 7.

of scriptural misinterpretation, was a slander against the Fathers. 68 The worship which the Arians offered to God was a blasphemous idolatry. 69 Athanasius defended the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, successfully explained the nature and generation of the Logos, built the ground of the Trinitarian and Christological doctrine of the Church, and thus established the theological foundation for centuries to come.70

Athanasius’ Christological weakness

In his Christology, Athanasius did not assign any important role to the human soul of Christ. In fact, When the Arians objected the divinity of Christ by referring to the Scriptural passages which mention the inner suffering, fear and affliction of the Logos, Athanasius never made use the opportunity and never attacked the Arians in this error, because it dealt with the human soul of Christ. 71 Christ’s death is to Athanasius is a separation of Logos and body.72 Athanasius’ theology was based on Logos-Sarx theology. In relation to Orationes contra Arianos (III.35-37) its weakness was revealed when Athanasius could not comment to the Arians in: (1) the connecting link between the Logos and his flesh; (2) the existence of a human soul in Christ.73

Athanasius, De Sententia Dionysii 1. Cf. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the

centuries, 8.

Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos I.8, II.43, III.16. Athanasius, Ad Episcopos Aegypti 13. Cf. Maurice

F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Ari