Contemporary Theology

​

Dr. Alexander Kurian

​

1. Process Theology

Process theology is the theological system that has been developed on the basis of the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947. His major work is Process and Reality). His philosophical system arose out of his conviction that concepts of matter, space and time were in error; reality is not static but fluid. The universe is in a constant state of change. The process philosophy which teaches that process is the rule of the universe is the underlying thesis of process theology.

The major doctrinal affirmations of process theology can be summarized as follows:

•    Reality is constantly moving and in process
•    God is an impersonal force, the controlling force behind evolution
•    God is not immutable, sovereign, or omnipotent. God Himself is in process. He is only a co-creator with man, directing the world in cooperation with the world. God has a “primordial” or transcendent nature and a “consequent” or immanent nature by which He relates and becomes a part of the cosmic process.
•    Denial of the supernatural and the miraculous
•    The Bible is not uniquely authoritative and is subject to correction by reason and science.
•    The deity of Christ is viewed as the divine activity of God in Christ; God’s action among men. Jesus Christ is the authentic man who sacrificed himself for his fellow human beings and God.

In essence, Process theology denies the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

John B.Cobb, Jr., David Roy Griffin (Process Theology, An Introductory Exposition),  Norman Pittinger (Unbounded Love : God and Man in Process), and Schubart M.Ogden are some of the notable Process theologians.

​

2. Liberation Theology

Liberation theology is based upon the economic and political liberation of man. The teachings of Jesus are interpreted in terms of liberation from political, social and economic injustice.  Liberation theology is described as “Christianity through the eyes of the poor.” It has grown into an international and interdenominational theology, joining hands with several liberal Christian activist movements.
The term “liberation theology” was coined by the Peruvian Dominican priest Gustavo Gutierrez (A Theology of Liberation, 1971). As a theological movement it was born within the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1960’s. Latin America’s poverty, political oppression, and suffering contributed to the growth of liberation theology. A number of Latin American theologians were disillusioned by the failure of the West to relieve the poverty and oppression of the people. They used Marxism as a tool of social analysis and interpreted the teachings of Jesus from the perspective of the poor and oppressed.

The liberationists say that theology is missionary in its opposition to detachment and abstractness and in its participation in the struggle to turn the eschatological hope of heaven into a revolutionary transformation of society (see Harvey M.Conn, “Theologies of Liberation: Toward a Common View,” in Tensions in Contemporary Theology, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Alan Johnson, 225). The concept of the “kingdom of God” is interpreted in terms of liberation and revolution. Confrontation of oppression is an act of love. The exodus of Israel from Egyptian bondage is a paradigm for doing liberation theology.

The concerns of liberation theology have created a new interest in many parts of the world. Black theology, African Christian theology, Social Gospel, and Christian Socialism are modified forms of liberation theology. It has been popularized in Asia by a Jesuit theologian Aloysius Pieris (An Asian Theology of Liberation, 1988). Dalit theology in India is also influenced by liberation theology. Arvind P. Nirmal (1936-1995. See A Reader in Dalit Theology, ed. Arvind P. Nirmal) who was the major proponent of Dalit theology identified Jesus as a Dalit drawing on the concept of the “suffering servant” in Isaiah (Dalits are the “untouchables” in the traditional caste system).

Liberation theology is more contextual than biblical; more political than theological, and more “this-worldly” than “other-worldly.” Salvation is liberation from oppression and Jesus Christ is only a political liberator.

When all is said and done, however, it falls short of the mark because it depends on human beings in space and time to achieve its redemptive goals. One wonders how and why God is at all necessary to the achievement of liberation goals (David L. Smith, A Handbook of Contemporary Theology, 225).

3. Theology of Hope

Like liberation theology, theology of hope is a socialist theology. Its major proponent, Jurgen Moltmann (The Theology of Hope, 1964) was strongly influenced by the Marxist philosopher, Ernst Bloch. Theology of hope is also referred to as “futurology” because of its strong eschatological orientation.

For Moltmann eschatology is central to theology. Theology is always pointing towards the future. “….from first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, moving and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present” (The Theology of Hope, 16). Faith is based on hope, and “the sin of unbelief is manifestly grounded in hopelessness” (Ibid, 20).There is a difference between hope and believing hope. Believing hope has an object to hope for. Hope is the essential nature of Christianity.” Promise” and “hope” are the two sides of the eschatological coin.

The futuristic emphasis on hope is a commendable feature of the theology of hope. It breathes the air of hope in the context of pessimism and despair. But it denies the absoluteness of God and His immutability. God is only moving to the future. The significance of the historicity of the “Christ event” is also denied.

Moltmann’s theology of hope is a socialist theology of revolution and social change. Individual salvation from sin has no place in this system. Hopelessness is the essential foundation of sin and overcoming hopelessness is salvation. The Church is only an agent of transformation in the world. “Moltmann is more indebted to Karl Marx for his theology than to the teachings of Scripture” (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 594). Unfortunately the theology of hope does not rest upon the God of hope and His revelation in history.

David Smith’s evaluation of the theology of hope sums it all:

Unfortunately and contrary to popular evangelical thought, the movement provides little more hope for God’s existence than does the death of God movement. While it does not declare God dead, neither does it affirm His life. It adopts a wait-and-see attitude. The future will prove or disprove God’s existence (A Handbook of Contemporary Theology, 147).

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Carl Braaten, Robert Jenson (all Lutherans) and Johannes Baptist Metz (Roman Catholic) are some of the other leading theologians of hope.

4. Feminist Theology

The rise of the women’s Liberation movement from the mid twentieth century has produced a new theology known as “Feminist Theology.” Though a relatively modern movement, it is a highly influential movement in contemporary Christianity, including evangelicals. Feminist theology is a  significant feature of theological reflection today as forcefully reiterated by Beverley Clack in the May 2010 issue of  Feminist Theology Journal editorial:

Feminism has been – and continues to be a powerful tool for enabling the neglected female voice to be heard. Feminists have sought to expose and explore the neglected place of women in culture, society, and indeed, theology, and as a result have pioneered methods which challenge the hegemony of masculinist ways of thinking and acting (www.sagepub.com/journals).

Modern Feminist movement and theology represent varieties of feminism. At least three categories can be identified – secular feminists, liberal Christian feminists, and evangelical feminists. The evangelical feminists, though conservative to some extent argue for abolishing gender-based roles in society, home and the church.  Historically the first influential book on the role of women in the church that promoted a feminist theological viewpoint was The Church and the Second Sex by Mary Daly (1968).

The impact of feminist theology can be seen in three critical areas:
•    Theological study and ministerial training
•    Challenging and changing patriarchal customs in most denominations (ordination of women, placing women in pastoral leadership roles).
•    Awareness raising relating to gender inclusive language in liturgy and alternative models of divinity (incorporating the feminine image of God).

Feminist theology sees the Bible as promoting an oppressive patriarchal structure. Patriarchalism is viewed as chauvinistic androcentrism (centered on or dominated by males or masculine interests). According to feminists the Bible has been written, translated and canonized by males. Hence the message of the Bible is male-centered. Through thorough theological and exegetical reconstruction, the feminists want to liberate the biblical message from male prejudice and domination. Many radical feminists view the Church as an “oppressor.” It is seen as an institution structured by men, for men and dominated by men.

Evangelical feminism does not advocate the radical depatriarchalization theory. But the ordination of women and women’s leadership in the church are of paramount importance to them. These issues continue to plague the church today as never before. New Testament passages restricting women’s pastoral leadership roles have been attributed to non-Pauline sources or as later insertions. Many biblical teachings on women’s role are seen as Jewish-oriented cultural traditions, customs, and ideologies.

Feminist theologies are no more a western women’s movement. It has invaded Latin American, African and Asian churches as well (see Rosemary Redford Ruether, “Feminist Theology in Global Context” in Reflections on the Faith of Our Mothers and Fathers: Personal Witness, ed. M. Mani Chacko, 25-31; also by Rosemary Reuther, Sexism and God Task: Toward  a Feminist Theology). The beginning of feminist theological approach in India emerged during the 1980s. The feminist ideologies have set in a process of total revolution in Indian society and churches. In November 1984, The All India Council of Christian Women with the Association of Theologically Trained Women in India and Catholic women organized a national consultation on the theme ‘Towards a theology of Humanhood: Women’s Perspective.’ This consultation can be considered as the beginning of theological feminism in India. Rev. Dr.(Mrs.) A. Katakshamma of the Good Samaritan Evangelical Lutheran Church (GSLC) was consecrated on October 27.1996 at Bhadrachalam (Andhra Pradesh, South India), as the first woman bishop of Asia (for details on the emergence of feminist theology in India, see Aruna Gnanadason, “Feminist Theology in Indian Perspective” in Readings in Indian Christian Theology,Vol.1,ed .R.S. Sugirtharajh and Cecil Hargreves, ISPCK, 1993; also A Reader in Feminist Theology, ed. Prasanna Kumari).

Feminism as a cry against the oppression of women has resulted in the liberation of women in many societies. Their insistence on the rights and dignity of women has protected women against abuse. But the feminist attack on the Bible as patriarchal and anti female is a misinterpretation of the Bible. The feminist trends have ignored the “order” and “role” God has ordained for women. They have misinterpreted the positional truth of Galatians 3:28 as functional truth. Feminism rebels against the acceptance with dignity of women’s role in the will and plan of God.

One’s view of the Bible is crucial in determining how one approaches the feminist debate. How do evangelical feminists square their theology with a commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture? Their theology seems to dissipate in an increasing variety of confusing and contradictory directions.

The questions raised by the feminist issue in the realm of bibliology are far- reaching. They sprawl across the broad reaches of arguments over the nature of revelation, higher criticism, hermeneutics, and inerrancy. They cut through the entire width of the theological spectrum, left to right. Yet at the heart of the discussion are these recurring questions: What is the Bible? How does it speak to believers if, in fact, it does at all? The answers are inextricably bound up in the debate over feminism, sometimes shaping and sometimes being shaped by the social commitments of the participants. And the debate shows no sign of letting up (A. Duane Litfin, “Theological Issues in Contemporary Feminism” in Walvoord: a Tribute, ed. Donald K.Campbell, 341-342).

Valson Thampu has portrayed the feminist agenda in these incisive words:

But the fact that you have an agenda that reflects a biblical concern does not mean that your project will be biblical or spiritual. Feminists are more influenced by the spirit of the age than by the ethos of the Bible. Ours is an age of conflict and aggravated alienation. It is an age in which, as Yeats points out ‘the center cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the earth.’ Disruptiveness inheres in the spirit of our times. Rejection rather than affirmation, underlies the passion and energy of our rhetoric and responses. Hence the virulence that we sense in feminist posturings (“Emancipation of Women” Light of Life, ed. P. Abraham, Nov.1996, 39-41).

5. Prosperity Theology

E.W. Kenyon (1867-1848) is considered to be the father of modern day prosperity theology (prosperity gospel), though his name is primarily associated with the Word of Faith movement (the belief that if one believes the Word of God and confesses it, then the believer shall receive what they confess). Tele evangelists Oral Roberts (the obituaries on Oral Roberts by the secular media summed up his contribution as the pioneering preacher of the “prosperity gospel”), Robert Tilton, Fred Price, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn made it popular. Its big names and best selling authors today are T.D.Jakes, Joel Osteen, and Joyce Meyer.

Robert Schuller’s, “self esteem theology” (“possibility thinking”) strongly affirms prosperity theology. Norman Vincent Peale’s “positive thinking” has considerably influenced prosperity theology and the faith movement. Yongi Cho in South Korea and D.G.S. Dinakaran in India were the promoters of prosperity Gospel in Asia. Prosperity theology is indeed the theology of “wealth,” “health,” “prosperity,” “power,” and “success” (“Name it and Claim it, or “Blab it and Grab it”). Prosperity Gospel affirms that God is there for you and your happiness. This is basically the “theology of glory” without the “theology of the cross.” This “glory story” is evident in the astonishing success of many tele-evangelists in recent years.

The world has no attraction to the message of the cross. Apostle Paul acknowledged that it is offensive and foolish to the Jews and to the Greeks. The only message a Christian has to proclaim to the world is the message of the cross – of God the Son becoming man, of His dying to pay the penalty for our sins, and of His being raised from the dead in order to raise us to life.

Pentecostalism and Charismatic movement has played a vital role in the development of theologies of wealth, health, success and prosperity. Misinterpretation of Bible texts isolated out of context, healing, and other miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, “seed-faith offering,” “positive confession” or “thought actualization” based upon Rhematology (the theology of the Spoken Word) are used by the prosperity proponents to promote their theology. The doctrine of “direct revelation” (“God said….” approach) helps these “prophets” to pressurize and manipulate believers who want to be “prosperous.” The emphasis on tithing also has been utilized to promote “giving to get” doctrine.

Prosperity theology teaches that a Christian can and should live in perpetual health and material abundance. If you name it, you can claim it. They teach that material wealth is the right of every believer. Prosperity is the guaranteed benefit and blessing of faith in Christ.

…..And the leaders of the success movement aptly model for their followers what they preach. They live in opulent settings, drive top of the line automobiles, and wear the latest and most expensive designer clothing. And they teach all who will listen that all these blessings may be theirs as well (David L. Smith, A Handbook of Contemporary Theology, 179).

Prosperity theology is the theology of the “crown” without the “cross.” Hence it is unbiblical and anti-biblical. It makes man a “mini god” and God a “Santa Claus,” and a divine vending machine. Most conservative evangelicals consider it as an aberrant teaching, almost cultic in nature. It is a theology which teaches material salvation and promotes a hedonistic view of life (for a critical evaluation of its history and teachings, see A Modern Cargo Cult; Measuring Oral Roberts’ Influence in http://www.gty.org/blog Dec.2009; Prosperity Gospel: Christianity’s cargo cult in http:// www.apologeticsindex.org).

6. “Third Wave” Theology (“Signs & Wonders” Movement)

Charles Peter Wagner, former professor of Church Growth at Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission, used the term “Third Wave” in his book, The Third wave of the Holy Spirit :Encountering the Power of Signs and Wonders Today (1988). Historically the origin of this movement is traced to the classroom ministry of John Wimber, pastor of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship, Anaheim, California, in Fuller Theological Seminary in 1981).  Like the Pentecostal movement (“first wave” of the Holy Spirit, 1906) and the Charismatic movement (“second wave” of the Holy Spirit, 1960s), the Third Wave also is a renewal and revival movement with added emphasis on signs, wonders, miracles, “power evangelism” “power healing” and “power encounters.” It is also referred to as “Neo-charismatic” movement. “The third wavers” do not wish to be labeled as “Pentecostals” or “Charismatics,” but simply as evangelical Christians who are “open” to the Holy Spirit.

Many critics argue that Pentecostalism with it varied branches, charismatism, and third wave differ only in terminology, but not in either theology or practice, so to distinguish between them is to make a distinction without a real difference. They all have their own theological versions regarding encountering the Holy Spirit and the manifestation of the Spirit. “Latter Rain” teachings, “Toronto Blessing,/ Holy Laughter Doctrines” “Brownsville Movement,” and “Pensacola Outpouring” are offshoots of third wave  theology. Some of these movements have embraced extreme theological viewpoints in relation to sign gifts and the manifestations of the Spirit, that it may be labeled “heretical.”

One can definitely see some positive emphases in their approach – the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, the passion to fulfill the Great Commission, zeal for evangelism, the need for effective evangelism, the importance of training and equipping ministries, urging all the members of the church to develop and exercise their spiritual gifts, and the reality of demonic forces and spiritual warfare (see John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism, 1986). Though their theology is weak and shaky, they have really called our attention to some of the most important challenges the church faces today. One can only heartily agree to such observations and rejoice in an emphasis that leads people to Spirit-filled life and ministries.

There are several aspects of Third Wave/Vineyard theologies which must be rejected.
•    Signs, wonders and miracles are the key to evangelism. Power encounters are the chief means of spreading the Gospel (not simply preaching the Gospel). This is a definite undermining of the Gospel message.
•    Unbelievers and believers must experience the miraculous to be brought to full faith.
•    All believers should be experiencing and mediating the sensational power gifts to destroy the work of Satan.
•    Their understanding of the kingdom and eschatology is defective. The doctrine of the imminency of Christ’s return is minimized by the emphasis on making the church pure, spotless and ready.
•    The kingdom of God comes in power today with accompanying sensational wonders. Though they believe that the kingdom is future, on the basis of all the “power” manifestations which they advocate, it seems that the kingdom is already here in full force and its power and authority are available to the subjects of the kingdom. This is contradictory.
•    Third wave theology leans heavily on visualization, experiences and healing than on the revelation of God’s Word.

CONTEMPORARY WORLD TRENDS

Numerous global trends are altering the way of life in all societies. The new philosophical, theological, spiritual, and cultural trends have impacted man’s thinking, beliefs, and worldviews. Cultural anthropology tries to analyze and understand these trends from a global perspective.

Some of these new world trends are blatantly antichristian and promote presuppositions that always hold “tolerance” and “diversity” above all virtues. This is indirectly an open war against Christianity which claims absolute truth and belief in absolute right and wrong. The result is a war of competing worldviews and value systems.

James Sire’s excellent definition of worldview is helpful:

A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously; consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being (The Universe Next Door, 17).

Sire also lays out seven basic questions every major worldview tries to answer:
a.    What is prime reality – the really real?
b.    What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
c.    What is a human being?
d.    what happens to a person at death
e.    Why is it possible to know anything at all?
f.    How do we know what is right and wrong?
g.    What is the meaning of human history? (ibid.).  

Two widely influential global trends with prevailing influence in religion, philosophy, theology, and spirituality will be briefly discussed here – The New Age Movement and Postmodernism.

1. The New Age Movement

Many Christian scholars and researchers compare the New Age Movement with the Gnosticism that plagued the early church. Ron Rhodes in his book, The Counterfeit Christ of the New Age Movement uses the term “Neo-Gnosticism” to refer to much of the New Age teaching concerning Christ.

The infectious influence of New Age Movement is aptly described by David Smith:

Not since Gnosticism at the dawn of the Christian era has there arisen a philosophy as pervasive and threatening to orthodox Christianity as the New Age movement. Like Gnosticism, it comes from the East and is extremely eclectic, either mixing with or assimilating other disciplines or worldviews. Philosophy, science, politics, music, medicine, and theology (even Christian theology) have all been infected by New Age thinking. It would be difficult to find any area of life which has not been touched or redirected to some degree by the concepts of this movement (A Handbook of Contemporary Theology, 273).

It is very difficult to define the New Age Movement (NAM). It gained momentum in the 1980s, though it started to emerge as a distinct movement from the early 70s. The teachings of Alice Bailey (1880-1949), and Helena Blavatsky (1836-1891), founder of the Theosophical Society in America, can be considered as the historical antecedents to the NAM Marilyn Ferguson (The Aquarian Conspiracy) and David Spangler (Revelation: The Birth of a New Age) have made the most popular presentation of the New Age philosophy.

NAM can be described as a worldwide coalition of networking organizations and individuals, bound together by Eastern philosophical mysticism, metaphysical thought systems, a conglomeration of theologies, and eclectic religious ideologies. Their vision is to hope for the “new age” of peace and enlightenment (the “Aquarian Age”), and their goal is to create a new age by means of altering human conscience to enable people to come to enlightenment, or union with God (the idea of God is not necessarily personal). In the experience of such a union the world will become an ideal place, a true paradise. The mystical experiences are based on oriental philosophies, transcendental meditation and monistic ideas (one universal soul, one truth, one absolute universal principle).

The basic components of the New Age spirituality can be summarized as:
•    Mysticism: Mystic relationship with God/universe/universal soul through human efforts like meditation and yoga.
•    Monism: Belief in one universal soul, principle, truth, or energy.
•    Pantheism: Creation and God are identical. The whole universe is a partaker of the divine essence. God is not a personal Being, but a force or energy.
•    Reincarnation: All life is reincarnated. One life form may transmigrate in a future life into a completely different form. In what form one return to this life depends on one’s karma (deeds done in this life).
•    Relativism: There are no absolutes in truth or morality. Nothing is right or wrong in and of itself.
•    Esotericism: Like the Gnostics of old, New Age people believe that they have received special knowledge meant for only the select few, and not for the ordinary person.
•    Global Unity: This unity consists of man with man, man with nature, and man with God.

In NAM, man is a spiritual being, divine, and co-creator, and a “soul force.” His main task is to discover his own divinity. Man is essentially immortal, and cannot die. He will come to know himself as the divine being, the ultimate self-realization. In essence, this is salvation.

The rainbow is the most important symbol in the NAM. In Gen.9 the rainbow is the sign of God’s covenant with Noah. But in the NAM, rainbow is the symbol of constant communion between the personality and the Universal Mind.

New Agers consider Jesus as divine in the sense that we are divine; having perfected and manifested the divinity potential in each of us. He is the most advanced human ever to walk on this planet. Human Jesus is separated from the divine Christ spirit which dwelt in Jesus and other great religious teachers. Alice Bailey (The Reappearance of the Christ), Benjamin Crème (The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom) and David Spangler (Reflections on the Christ) are the major interpreters of New Age Christology.

“New Age philosophy generally seeks to merge with those philosophies that put man and nature on an equal level. We are no more or less important than our cousin the animal, bird, or fish. We must live in harmony with them, understand them, and learn from them, is the general philosophy of the New Age” (http://www.carm.org/new-age).

The New Age Movement is also known in various names such as, The New Spirituality, Cosmic Consciousness, the Age of Aquarius, Human Potential Movement, Cosmic Humanism etc. Practitioners of New Age spirituality encourage holistic health and alternative medicine. They advocate simple, sustainable living and protection of earth’s (Mother Nature) natural resources. The new age music is intended to create peace, tranquility of soul, inspiration and relaxation. Eastern practices of yoga, meditation, massage, reflexology, Ayurveda, martial arts, vegetarianism, organic food etc are encouraged and embraced in NAM for healthy living and also in realizing one’s potential (Deepak Chopra, the famous Indian-born, American physician’s self-help books are based on New Age spirituality and philosophy).

2. Postmodernism

“Postmodern” literally means ‘after modernism.’ Postmodernism is a predominant tendency in contemporary culture to reject the principles and practices established by the scientific mentality of modernism. It is an intentional departure from modernist notions. Postmodernism has affected literature, music, drama, art, architecture, religion and philosophy.

Postmodernism holds that truth, and hence morality is relative. Contrary to modernists, postmodernists teach that there is no such thing as objective truth or objective rationality. Unbiased reason is a myth. Reality is in the mind of the beholder. I construct my own reality in my mind and hence I can not judge another person’s view of reality. According to the postmodernists, we believe in what we like and we believe what we want to believe.

Kenneth Boa’s simple explanation of postmodernism is helpful:

Culture watchers commonly refer to the breakdown of the modern world view and the resulting abandonment of the notion of objective truth and reality as postmodernism. At the heart of the postmodernist revolution is the claim that objectivism, the belief that truth and values exist independently of our perceiving them or believing in them, has been declared an outmoded, unrealizable ideal. Not only has God been declared dead, but Truth also has been pronounced dead. How can we tell a postmodernist that Jesus Christ is the Truth, when they don’t believe in truth any more
(The Way Things Ought to Be: Post modernism and the Question of Reality, http://bible.org).

The Emerging Church movement has embraced postmodernism in their theology and practice. They claim to promote a more generous orthodoxy. In this generous orthodoxy, “truth (to whatever degree such a concept is even recognized) is assumed to be inherently hazy, indistinct, and uncertain – perhaps even ultimately unknowable” (John MacArthur, The Truth War, x).  For an excellent critique of the Emergent Church, see also, Steven W. Cornell, The Emergent Church – A New Wave of Evangelical Identity, http://bible.org).

The Christian faith is founded upon absolute, unchanging truth. Those who believe in historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity will never surrender this ground. Even in the postmodern world, a Christian is called to pursue truth, proclaim truth, and practice truth. It is the truth that shall set us free.