De betekenis van Johan Buitendags stellingname in theologie der natuur

This article presents the importance of Buitendag’s stance in the so-called ‘theology of nature’. His theological statements endeavour to understand reality in conversation with other academic disciplines to see things in a wider and holistic perspective. Following a suggestion of Moltmann, theology must not restrict itself to internal ecclesiastical and personal faith topics but search for ‘the truth of the whole’. It is argued that Buitendag’s concept of holism is different from Moltmann’s ‘the truth of the whole’. Moltmann’s holism is eschatologically directed after history, but is meaningless in a contemporary debate. His concept of history seems to be problematic too. Buitendag’s holism is more Quinean as a comprehensive relative approach, bottom-up from contemporary insights within different academic disciplines. His theological approach looks like an ellipsis, involving both an ontological and epistemological focus. He defends (Trinitarian) communion as the primary concept, ontologically, which biologists may recognise in their observations of animal communities too. His theology shows a panentheistic perspective for the discourse on divine immanent agency by using as analogy the mind-body relationship in a sophisticated way. Buitendag shows the importance of this perspective for theological hermeneutics. This article presents some logical and theological problems in a panentheistic view which some prominent supporters defend as ‘reality depicting’. Buitendag avoids this because of a relational ontology

Betekenis van Johan Buitendags stellingname in theologie der natuur

This article presents the importance of Buitendag’s stance in the so-called ‘theology of nature’. His theological statements endeavour to understand reality in conversation with other academic disciplines to see things in a wider and holistic perspective. Following a suggestion of Moltmann, theology must not restrict itself to internal ecclesiastical and personal faith topics but search for ‘the truth of the whole’. It is argued that Buitendag’s concept of holism is different from Moltmann’s ‘the truth of the whole’. Moltmann’s holism is eschatologically directed after history, but is meaningless in a contemporary debate. His concept of history seems to be problematic too. Buitendag’s holism is more Quinean as a comprehensive relative approach, bottom-up from contemporary insights within different academic disciplines. His theological approach looks like an ellipsis, involving both an ontological and epistemological focus. He defends (Trinitarian) communion as the primary concept, ontologically, which biologists may recognise in their observations of animal communities too. His theology shows a panentheistic perspective for the discourse on divine immanent agency by using as analogy the mind-body relationship in a sophisticated way. Buitendag shows the importance of this perspective for theological hermeneutics. This article presents some logical and theological problems in a panentheistic view which some prominent supporters defend as ‘reality depicting’. Buitendag avoids this because of a relational ontology.Luco J. van den Brom is an extraordinary Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Pretoria, South Africa.http://www.hts.org.zaam2016Dogmatics and Christian Ethic

Does modern anthropology pose a problem to the Christian faith?

Prof. Dr. Luco van den Brom is participating as research fellow of Prof. Dr Johan Buitendag, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. This article represents a reworked version of a paper read at an Expert Seminar on ‘Anthropology in an Age of Science’ with scholars in Systematic Theology of the Protestant Theological University and the Faculty of Theology of the University of Pretoria (on 08 September 2011 in Pretoria).Contemporary scientific anthropology proposes a naturalistic conception of human personhood because of humankind’s place somewhere in the larger evolutionary process of life. Some authors use the theory of biological evolution to explain phenomena in other areas as well, and due to its success suggest it has universal application in cultural and religious studies too, as if it were a theory of everything. Darwin’s idea of a common origin of all life undermined a supposed superiority of humankind. It signalled the end of an Aristotelian metaphysical notion of classification and constituted a real blow for classical individualistic anthropology. Dawkins explains religion in terms of empirical immanent biological processes in the human brain. He views religious ideas as ‘memes’ that act like an infectious virus in mental processes. His hypothesis seems to be a relapse into the old Aristotelian pattern. Michael Persinger interprets religion as an internal physiological state of an individual brain and reduces the language of mental concepts to physiological states of a material brain. Persinger’s, and also Dennett’s, materialistic view presupposes a God’s Eye Point of View as an Archimedian perspective outside the world. If a God exists, the neurologists Newberg and d’Aquili argue that he needs a point of contact within our brain: the God spot. Sociobiologists Edward Wilson and David Wilson consider religion a form of group adaptation, because cooperating individuals show the primary benefits of cooperation and altruistic behaviour, just as social insects. Religion is an evolutionary support of altruistic instincts and creates a social infrastructure to benefit a cooperative society. However, social insects merely act on their instincts whereas human beings can act intentionally even against their primary instincts, because of motives for altruist practices inspired, for example, by the narratives and concepts of a Christian tradition. The communion of saints does not take place merely because of a social instinct, but because of the shared motive of the community as a whole, that is, the body of Christ, which acts altruistically irrespective of persons, including outsiders!http://www.hts.org.zaam2013mn201

Categorial differences between religious and scientific language : the agency of God

DATA AVAILABILITY : No empirical research or survey were done. All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.This research is part of The research project ‘Understanding Reality (Theology and Nature)’, directed by Prof Dr Johan Buitendag, Department of Systematic and Historical Theology, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Pretoria.Special Collection: Johan Buitendag Festschrift, sub-edited by Andries van Aarde (University of Pretoria, South Africa).In the dialogue of scientists and theologians, participants experienced differences in linguistic usage of the various disciplines, for example different concepts, grammatical rules, characteristic terminology, specific phrases, and expressions. A fascinating subject of this dialogue concerned God’s agency in human history within space-time, where the concepts of ‘God’ and ‘divine agency’ were unusual. In the church tradition, believers learned to use these concepts using biblical training with narratives such as the Exodus or Babylon stories. But to handle these narratives in historical situations, we need to analyse the concepts of ‘history’ and its ambiguity, and the ‘historical method of explanation’ to answer the question: ‘How does God act in history?’ The central question of this article was: Is history a domain of Divine Agency? It is imperative to pay attention to the specific grammar of religious language and to distinguish it categorically from the computational language of the natural sciences. History as such should be deconstructed into history1 and history2. However, religious and technical activities are of different logical types, so we cannot combine them in one conceptual scheme on the same level. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that coherence might be possible at a higher conceptual level. A qualitative method of a critical literature review across disciplines was used and a subsequent contemplative conceptualisation was proposed. CONTRIBUTION : This article illustrated the difference between religious and scientific concepts to address Divine Agency in history. If reality or the universe can be described as an information-bearing entity in process, and if this is hierarchically structured, then we can imagine God interacting with this hierarchy.http://www.hts.org.zaam2024Dogmatics and Christian EthicsNon

A theological alternative to Grube’s notion of ‘justified religious difference’

Grube proposes a framework for respectful dealing with different religions: ‘justified religious difference. The author comments on the epistemic setting of Grube’s thesis. It testifies a cognitive approach to religious faith by handling religious faith and epistemic belief as analogous argument. His criticism of the pluralist approach is not very convincing. This framework is too abstract for an interreligious dialogue. The author proposes a concept of religious faith within a web of practices, liturgical rituals. A concrete interreligious dialogue can enrich the Christian faith in its practical styling.http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpt202018-04-30hb2017Dogmatics and Christian Ethic

Zin in leven in de gloria?

Afscheidsredes PThU Kampen d.d. 4 november 2011. Bevat: L.J. van de Brom, God schept ons een zinvolle ruimte : de metafoor van de eigenzinnige tuinman (p. 3-23) en E.R. Jonker, Leren leven in de gloria : vormen, beschaven, geloven (p. 24-47)

Zin in leven in de gloria?

Afscheidsredes PThU Kampen d.d. 4 november 2011. Bevat: L.J. van de Brom, God schept ons een zinvolle ruimte : de metafoor van de eigenzinnige tuinman (p. 3-23) en E.R. Jonker, Leren leven in de gloria : vormen, beschaven, geloven (p. 24-47)