Christian Use Research Articles

Paradox in the Development of the Non-Disabled Church

“He was born blind so that the work of God can be revealed in him,” John 9:3. The appropriation of disabled body images and metaphors in the symbolic language of Christian theological discourse played and continues to play an instrumental role in the formation, building, and sustaining of Christian faith communities. Yet, Christianity's symbolic language is also used effectively to disenfranchise and alienate the actual disabled body from Christian communities. An inheritance from its Graeco-Roman and Jewish ancestry, Christianity takes as normative a direct link between disability and sin. This paper focuses on John 9:1–41 in exploring early Christianity's use of disability to articulate its ideals and examines the implication of the disability/sin correlation for contemporary Christian Communities.

Liberation Theology, Sustainable Development, and Postmodern Public Administration

Christianity has tended to stress acceptance of injustice and oppression as simply a side effect of political organization. Arguably, this form of has legitimized suffering while reinforcing an oppressive theory of justice. From this hermeneutical vantage point, theologians, philosophers, and social scientists are now rereading the social context of escapist worldviews (Gutierrez, 1999; 1973; Sobrino, 1993; Miranda, 1981; Metz, 1969; Derrida, 1962). This development is dramatically new, since Latin America and the Third World continue to be the focus of revolutionary change based on the continued struggle for justice in response to the continued disparity between rich and poor nations (Gutierrez, 1984a; 1993a; 1993b; Dussel, 1985; Boff, 1984; Miranda, 1974). Progressive Christians and Marxists have pointed to international capital and oppressive social and political structures as the main culprits in this disparity. Christianity's use of Marxist praxis in what is known as the theology of has heavily influenced the ongoing discourse on resistance to global hunger, injustice, and oppression (Sobrino, 1994; Schillebeeckx, 1987; Boff and Boff, 1985; Gutierrez, 1984b; Tamez, 1982). Theologians, philosophers, and social scientists in both the First and Third Worlds have increasingly turned to Marxist social analysis for greater clarity in their reflections regarding this ongoing discourse (Gutierrez, 1993a; 1993b; Sobrino, 1984; Moltmann, 1984; McGovern, 1980; Segundo, 1976). Moreover, liberation theologians argue that contemporary Christianity is challenged as it confronts Marxist interpretations of increasing poverty and inequality throughout the world (Brown, 1997; Boff and Boff, 1987; Gutierrez, 1973). Largely because of Marxist influence, theologians have

In Defence of Theism—A Reply to Kai Nielsen

So much has been written in recent years about the philosophy of religion that one might have expected some definite pattern to be emerging from the discussion. In particular, one might have hoped that theists and non-theists would cease to adduce supposedly knock-down arguments against their opposite numbers. But there are still Thomists, commoner in the English-speaking countries than on the Continent of Europe, who seem to think that some purely logical process can settle the matter, and there are still positivists, again more especially in the English-speaking countries, who seem to think that God can be disproved. Professor Kai Nielsen's article does not make that claim in so many words, but he does conclude that the orthodox Christian's use of ‘God’ is the result of a mere confusion of mind and that for the philosopher the question of God should not arise at all or arises only to be dismissed. I hope I have not overstated Nielsen's conclusion (that would be a poor return for his kindness in allowing me a pre-view of his article); his treatment of the vast topic of the ‘human condition’ seems to me so extraordinary that I cannot help wondering whether I have misinterpreted it, most of all as it appears that he is not merely controverting Mr I. M. Crombie but also undertaking to dispose of theism altogether. He seems to think that ‘Flew's challenge’ is the decisive move in this debate, and that Crombie's two attempts to meet it are the only attempts which have to be considered. If this is really the case (as I shall have to suppose in what follows) I find it quite perplexing.