My thesis is that the tendency of modern medicine to reduce patients into causes to be mastered rather than persons to be treated does not stem from post-Enlightenment developments but rather lies within the beginnings of Western medicine itself, in what I call the anatomical rationality. I follow the development of this rationality through Hippocrates, the beginnings of anatomical dissection in Aristotle and Herophilus, and the theological translation of anatomy by Galen. I further show how this anatomical rationality that arises from medicine then transforms into dissective analysis that applies to theological and philosophical discourse, as seen paradigmatically in Nestorianism and the ontological logic of Avicenna. I argue that this anatomical rationality is a totalizing approach to knowing that creates new dualisms, such that nothing can escape the dissective gaze, God and man included. I suggest that the way to overcome the totalizing effects of the anatomical rationality is turning to the Incarnation of Christ, the God-man, who provides both the metaphysical ground and imagination for paradox and mystery, thereby protecting the integrity of God and man.

This thesis is an examination of the historical thought of several key English reformers regarding the assimilation or rejection of different aspects of late medieval notions of the sacrament of penance during the Henrician phase of the English Reformation. It is a study primarily concerned with how notions of penance in the theology of these reformers were inherited from patristic, humanist, and continental reformers and how the evangelicals reworked them. While these reformers did not agree on all matters of theology, important points of contact can be found in how they understood the roles of contrition, confession, and satisfaction within a framework that denied the efficacy of human participation in the forgiveness of sins. There are three distinct sections. The two chapters of the first section are concerned with establishing the context of sacramental penance in the sixteenth century. The first chapter identifies distinct phases of the evolution of notions of sacramental penance from the early church through the scholastics, and the second chapter explores the theology of three important influences on the evangelicals—John Wycliffe, Desiderius Erasmus, and Martin Luther—and shows that while their views were unique, they shared important points of connection with the evangelicals in England. The second section consists of the next four chapters, which are dedicated to individual English exiled evangelicals from 1524-1535. Chapter three identifies Tyndale’s unique use of terminology in his redefining of the terms and rearranging of the formula of sacramental penance as he focused on the covenantal language of Christ’s blood as the satisfaction in place of human effort. Chapter four is concerned with Robert Barnes’ notion of the coexistence of contrition and confession, with oral confession occurring after forgiveness has been made. Chapter five details John Frith’s notion of repentance as related to an earthly purgation of sins and a passive, effortless turning from them. Chapter six examines George Joye’s notion of how an effective confession was to be made to God or to man. The third section comprises only one chapter (seven), and it contends that these exiles had significant influence on the later Henrician formularies, and that within them an evangelical notion of confession prevailed, particularly in the relationship of confession and purgatory, but also the understanding of the relationship between sorrow for sin and its forgiveness.

The theologies of Robert W. Jenson and James H. Cone have not been interpreted together. This thesis argues that the two theologians are profoundly similar. The study argues that Jenson's and Cone's theologies converge in such manner that they may be described as sharing a common task; namely, the development of a theology of revolution. 'Theology of revolution' denotes both a doctrine of God that is metaphysically revolutionary, and a theology that enables revolutionary politics. Specifically, both theologians diagnose a problem with Christian theology, and their diagnoses are finally the same: theology has inherited from Greek theology assumptions about deity that construe eternity and time as contradictory, resulting in an abstraction from historical life, and a denigration of historical particularity, contingency, and concreteness. In Cone's analysis, white supremacy, as well as a heretical Christology, emerges from this theological assumption; in Jenson's analysis, oppressive political ideologies and inadequately orthodox Christology emerges from this inherited Hellenistic assumption. For both theologians, at stake is Christian eschatology, which, for both, is determinative of political life. Jenson and Cone alike argue that the God of Jesus is the God of history, and is therefore the God of eschatological revolution who enables and inspires revolutionary politics in history. Cone's theology has extensively developed a politics of this eschatology, but has insufficiently developed its corresponding metaphysics; Jenson has devoted enormous energy to developing the revisionary metaphysics of the gospel, arguing that the gospel's God is revolutionary, but has only occasionally addressed politics, and has largely neglected the implications of his theology for the problem of white supremacy. This study argues that just as Jenson's and Cone's theological programmes converge, their theologies are also mutually corrective for one another, enabling one another to better articulate a theology of revolution. Chapter One will address the theological and political context out of which Cone's theology arises, clarifying the theological and political programmes to which Cone is reacting in order to identify the revolutionary intentions of his theology. Chapter Two argues that political concerns partially occasion Jenson's theology, and that his occasional political writings that propose a revolutionary politics are constitutive of his effort to develop a revisionary metaphysics. Chapter Three explicates Cone's eschatological doctrine of God, in which God is the eschatological revolution, by means of analysing Cone's Christology. Chapter Four develops Jenson's proposal for a revolutionary politics, analysing how this proposal arises from his eschatological doctrine of God. Chapter Five analyses how Cone's proposal for a revolutionary 'Black Power' politics is a broader proposal for a revolutionary eschatology, in which eternity is the revolutionary fulfilment of time in the future. Chapter Six elaborates Jenson's revisionary metaphysics by explicating his Christology, showing how this Christology results in a revolutionary, eschatological doctrine of God. The Conclusion of the study restates and clarifies the argument of the study, that Jenson and Cone have developed a mutually corrective theology of revolution.

Within the contemporary church, usage of the term transformation has become commonplace. However, the way it is understood is often misguided. This study provides an original synthesis that points the church towards the need to express and live out a full, integrated, effectual and distinctly Christian vision of transformation. Self-identified “evangelicals” continue to explore the possibility of authentic transformation. There is now a proliferation of perspectives on the nature and process of Christian formation, some of which attempt a revision through ecumenical “ressourcement” or interdisciplinary methods. These often-conflicting approaches leave a landscape characterised by pluralism, division, fragmentation, confusion, relativism, individualism, pragmatism and subjectivism. Although evangelicalism is seen by some as a restorationist movement that seeks to draw the church back towards a prototypal faith, self-identified “evangelicals” clearly exhibit differences in their beliefs and practices. Both the absence of a common, coherent and integrated vision, and the lack of transformation itself, are often simply accepted and affirmed. In this thesis, it is argued that the only way to move towards the possibility a cohesive, integrated, broad, effectual and distinctly Christian vision of transformational theology, is through an approach that is grounded in rationallinguistic truth. Such a method is typified by J. I. Packer. His approach to integrating the concerns of theology and spirituality is used as the initial basis towards pursuing a “proto-evangelical” approach to Christian formation. In order to determine the breadth of Packer’s approach, he is brought into dialogue with Maximus Confessor. This critical conversation between two “theologians of the Christian life” allows exploration into the scope and diversity of a distinctly Christian view of transformation, and the seeking out of common characteristics in its nature and practice. This all provides a solid basis upon which to be able to outline an original synthesis.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

by Yeung Kwok Keung. / Thesis (M.Div.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1995. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-78). / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --- p.i / CONTENTS --- p.ii / Chapter 1. --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Chapter 2. --- BACKGROUND : ASIAN THEOLOGY AS CONTEXTUAL --- p.3 / Chapter 2.1 --- The Call for Doing Contextual Theology --- p.3 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Factors leads to the rise of contextual theology --- p.3 / Chapter 2.12 --- Different Models of Contextual Theology --- p.6 / Chapter 2.2 --- Constructing Contextual Theology in Asia --- p.9 / Chapter 2.3 --- Summary --- p.12 / Chapter 3. --- SONG'S CONCEPTION OF CONSTRUCTING ASIAN THEOLOGY --- p.14 / Chapter 3.1 --- Doing Theology with Asian Resources --- p.14 / Chapter 3.2 --- Song's concept of culture --- p.17 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- Definition of Culture --- p.17 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- Images and Symbols --- p.20 / Chapter 3.3 --- Song's Doing Theology in Asia --- p.22 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- Raw Material and Context of Theology --- p.23 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- ´بReclaim Our Own Asianness' --- p.25 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- New Orientation in Doing Theology --- p.26 / Chapter 3.3.4 --- Doing Asian Theology by Telling Stories --- p.29 / Chapter 3.4 --- Summary --- p.30 / Chapter 4. --- CRITICAL ASSESSMENTS OF SONG'S THEOLOGICAL PROJECT --- p.32 / Chapter 4.1 --- The Interpretation of Culture --- p.35 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- Prejudices in Reading Culture --- p.36 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- Reading of Cultural Texts --- p.39 / Chapter 4.2 --- The Notion of Culture --- p.46 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Culture and Human Beings --- p.47 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- The Scope of Asian Cultures --- p.56 / Chapter 4.3 --- Reflexivity and Symbolic Domination --- p.60 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Reflexivity of Theory --- p.60 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Symbolic Capital and Symbolic Domination --- p.63 / Chapter 4.4 --- Summary --- p.70 / Chapter 5. --- CONCLUSION --- p.72 / BIBLIOGRAPHY --- p.74

Thesis (D. Min.)--New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes final project proposal. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 143-153, 41-46).

Thesis (M.A.)--Wheaton College Graduate School, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 141-152).