No description available.

Yong-mo Yu (1890-1981) was a supporter of religious pluralism in Korea, advocating for a syncretistic conception of God; and for interfaith spiritual renewal, during a period marked by the rejection of these concepts. A study of his work enriches our conception of the 20th century Korean Christianity. The main goal of my dissertation is to first analyze Yu's theological understanding of God and examine it in relation to the three East Asian major religious traditions as well as a Western ontological understanding of the ultimate reality; and second, through such analyses, to discuss the significance and challenges of Yu's pluralistic theology and spirituality. Yu's own definition of God as Opshi-gyeshin-Haneunim (God who exists as Non-Being) is an ontological understanding of the ultimate reality, which is very different from conservative Korean Protestantism's understanding of God. Yu's understanding of God is very similar to Robert C. Neville's understanding of God as the creator in that both of them define the ultimate reality as absolute Nothingness or Emptiness transcending both being and non-being. Yu's understanding of God was also based on the East Asian religious traditions which are Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Therefore, Yu defines Christian God as T'ai-chi and Wu-chi, nothingness, and Tao which are concepts that Yu borrows from the East Asian religions. Yu's concept of God as Opshi-gyeshin-Haneunim was formed and developed based on his own spiritual experiences, for example, his experience of spiritual union with God. At the same time, his theological reflection on the ultimate reality also had great effect on his spirituality. In the same tenor, the pluralistic characteristics of Yu's theology and spirituality are the result of Yu's creative combination of his ontological understanding of the ultimate reality transcending various religious contexts and the East Asian spirituality focusing on spiritual discipline to develop the divine power given to human beings. Yu's creative integration of the ontological analysis of God and the East Asian spiritual tradition can provide a new perspective to Korean conservative Protestantism in understanding other religions, and suggest a new type Christian spirituality in plural Korean contexts. / 2017-01-12T00:00:00Z

This thesis explores the work of three theologians, Arthur Peacocke, John Haught and Denis Edwards, each of whom has made a significant contribution to the dialogue between contemporary evolutionary biology and the Christian understanding of God. The thesis explores and analyses how evolutionary theory throws light on key theological themes such as the nature of God's providence, especially in relation to pain, suffering and evil, and the meaning of Jesus Christ. The thesis involves a critical reading of the selected theologians' works, with their respective emphases on classical, process and kenotic types of theological thinking, and also draws on resources from the classical theological tradition, primarily St. Thomas Aquinas. The study gives a positive assessment of the contributions of the three chosen authors. It highlights the critical importance that theological methodology plays in formulating insights into the relationship of God to evolutionary processes. Peacocke emphasises the use of critical realism as the most credible methodology for theology, consistent with its use by science. Haught agrees with this approach stressing, however, that the data of theology is not the same as that for science. Consequently, he argues that theology ought to constitute the deepest layer of explanation for understanding reality and for understanding God as the ultimate explanation for evolution. Edwards argues that we must find a way of talking about God that is consonant with the reality of the world but that this God always remains ultimately Mystery. Peacocke, Haught and Edwards explore the usefulness of kenotic theology for explaining how belief in an omnipotent and supremely loving God can be reconciled with the existence of pain, suffering and evil in the creation. Although a kenotic approach can account for the scientific evidence of a “self-creative” and emergent cosmos along with the presence of suffering and evil, a more comprehensive theological viewpoint must include an understanding of how God is active in creation, sustaining it in existence and drawing it towards its divinely ordained end. Haught's argument for the presence of genuine contingency in the cosmos as evidence of God's on-going creativity is critically examined. Genuinely new possibilities, in evolutionary terms, new species, cannot be explained by material causation alone. In his “metaphysics of the future”, Haught argues that, despite the enormity of pain and suffering evidenced in evolution, God continues to lovingly draw the creation towards a hopeful and promised future in God. This thesis appreciates the value of Edwards’ trinitarian “God of evolution” for it combines a more classical theological approach with evolutionary theory. For Edwards, biological evolution is seen as a process within an ontologically relational creation that reflects the divine relations of the Trinity. The creation of being-in-relation flows out of, and reflects, the divine trinitarian relations of mutual love. Edwards’ insights into the nature of original sin and grace within an evolutionary context are also positively assessed. Both Peacocke and Edwards propose a Wisdom Christology as the most fruitful link between the biblical Sophia tradition and a creation theology, holding together insights on the divine Being, Wisdom and the Christ-event itself. Aspects of process and kenotic theologies can be usefully combined with Aquinas' expansive notion of God as ultimate Being. Through this synthesis, the drama of evolution is more intimately related with the ultimate reality, the Mystery of God. Throughout this thesis, gender-neutral language has been maintained except in some quotations of St. Thomas Aquinas.

This study investigates how Mbiti and Oduyoye articulate their understanding of God in connection with the African traditional religio-cultural heritage to make the concept of God to become relevant to African Christians and to help African Christians feel at home in the Christian faith. Chapter 1 briefly describes the background of the study, the problem statement, the purpose of the study, the research hypothesis, methodology, delimitation, and structure of the study. Chapter 2 provides a historical sketch of origins and development of African theology and diverse types of African theology. This chapter maintains that African theology emerged not only as a theological reaction to the dominant Western interpretation of the gospel in Africa, but also as a theological attempt to secure the African cultural identity by reaffirming the African past. Chapter 3 describes the basic beliefs in African traditional religions, several African ethnic groups’ concepts of God, and the African theologians’ Christianization of the African God by employing Christian theological terms. This chapter concludes that it is not possible to presume a homogenous or one unified concept of God in Africa. One and the same God whom all Africans have worshipped is not real. In chapter 4, Mbiti’s understanding of God is scrutinized in relation to his methodology, the African concept of time, his understanding of revelation and of salvation. Mbiti has maintained African monotheism and ATR(s) as a praeparatio evangelica and has arrived at his conclusion that the God revealed in the Bible is the same as the God worshipped in ATR(s). This chapter criticizes Mbiti’s way of Christian theological interpretation of anthropological data of the African concepts of God. Chapter 5 presents Oduyoye’s understanding of God, her methodology, the status of African women in ATR(s) and the African church, her appreciation of salvation, of the Bible, and of the locus of experience. In Oduyoye’s theology, women’s experience becomes a crucial factor for doing theology, and salvation is understood as liberation from all oppressive conditions. Her understanding of God is closely connected with the theme of liberation. Chapter 6 examines the similarities and differences between the two theologians’ understanding of God, critically compares their way of understanding the interplay of the gospel and African culture, and categorizes the two theologians’ ways with their models of contextualization: Mbiti’s gospel-culture oriented model of contextualization and Oduyoye’s gospel-liberation oriented model of contextualization. By a comparative-dialogical study of the two theologians’ models of contextualization, this chapter attempts to make a dialogue possible between the two, and suggests the interculturation model of contextualization in which each theology keeps its own theological characteristic and has an open mind to learn from the other through mutual understanding. It aims to overcome the absolutism of contextualization, syncretism, cultural relativism, and provincialism, to keep a balance between locality and catholicity, and to affirm cultural identity and Christian identity. On the basis of the interculturation model of contextualization, this chapter proposes some criteria for African Evangelical theology in order to do a biblically faithful and practically relevant theology in Africa. This study also suggests some guidelines to articulate the understanding of God so that it has theological relevance and legitimacy to African Christians as well as to Christians worldwide. Chapter 7, as the final chapter, gives a general summary and concluding suggestions for further research related to the subject of African theology. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / gm2013 / Science of Religion and Missiology / unrestricted