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

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)