2.3 UNIT ASSIGNMENT: CORE QUESTIONS

UNIT TWO INTRODUCTION
DOCTRINE OF REVELATION AND LANGUAGE ABOUT GOD

In Unit 2, we move on to an important part of any theological consideration: on what basis does systematic theology speak authoritatively for Christians today? If you recall Unit 1s definition of systematic theology, the foundation of the theological task has two parts (1) revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and (2) revelation of God in Scripture. If God had not chosen to tell us anything about Godself, then humans would not know it. Yet since God has chosen to reveal Godself to us, we must take care to follow the pattern of revelation. So we will consider the revelation that God has given to us and ask how systematic theology should use this revelation to begin building the house of ones theology.

A second part of this unit will engage the difficult topic of how humans should speak of God. Theologians have a short-hand way of speaking about God with our human language as God-Talk. We will examine this concept with the help of Thomas Aquinas as well as some thoughts on gender and God-Talk.

A final segment introduces the doctrine of God through a study of arguments for Gods existence.

UNIT TWO OUTCOMES
Upon completion of this unit you should be able to:

1. Analyze theological language about God.
2. Describe the various complexities of the use of gender language in reference to God.
3. Define the relation of revelation and Scripture to systematic theology.
4. Demonstrate an understanding of the traditional proofs for the existence of God and assess their weaknesses.
5. Demonstrate the skills of analyzing and evaluating theological arguments.
6. Identify parts of an argument.
7. Define key terms in argumentation.
8. Demonstrate an understanding of logic as related to argumentation in theology.

UNIT TWO RESOURCES

? Textbook: Faith Seeking Understanding. (An intro to Christian Theology, 3rd edition, 2014)
? Textbook: Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. (Christopher A. Hall, 2002)
? Textbook: Christian Theology Reader. (Wiley-Blackwell, 4th edition, 2011)
? Textbook: A Rulebook for Arguments. (Anthony Weston, 4th edition, 2009)
? Media Clip: Gender and God-Talk by Terry L. Cross, PhD https://vimeopro.com/user13308368/theo-250-systematic-theology-1/video/104727188
? Media Clip: Argumentation 1 by T. Cross https://vimeopro.com/user13308368/theo- 250-systematic-theology-1/video/105272627
? Media Clip: Argumentation 2 by T. Cross https://vimeopro.com/user13308368/theo- 250-systematic-theology-1/video/105272629
? Media Clip: Argumentation 3 by Kevin Snider https://vimeopro.com/user13308368/theo-250-systematic-theology-1/video/105279392
? Media Clip: Argumentation 4 by Kevin Snider https://vimeopro.com/user13308368/theo-250-systematic-theology-1/video/105279393
? Media Clip: Argumentation 5 by Kevin Snider https://vimeopro.com/user13308368/theo-250-systematic-theology-1/video/105549088
? 2.1a PDF: Gender and God-Talk paper by Terry L. Cross, PhD
? 2.1b PowerPoint: ProlegomenaRevelation, Scripture, Task
? 2.1c PowerPoint: RevelationThe Event and Record of Gods Self-Disclosure
? 2.1d PowerPoint: Religion and Revelation
? 2.1e PowerPoint: Revelation Diagram
? 2.1f PowerPoint: God-Talk
? 2.1g PowerPoint: Does God Exist?
? 2.3a Word: Core Questions
? 2.4a PowerPoint: Argumentation
? 2.4b PDF: Analyzing Theological Arguments by Cross
——————————————————————————————————————————————

UNIT TWO ASSIGNMENTS

2.1 TEXT/MEDIA: TEXTBOOKS; MEDIA CLIP; POWERPOINTS; PDF

INTRODUCTION AND ALIGNMENT
See Unit 2 Introduction.

Upon completion of this assignment you should be able to:
? Describe the various complexities of the use of gender language in reference to God.
? Define the relation of revelation and Scripture to systematic theology.
? Demonstrate an understanding of the traditional proofs for the existence of God and assess their weaknesses.

RESOURCES
? Textbook: Faith Seeking Understanding. (An intro to Christian Theology, 3rd edition, 2014)
? Textbook: Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. (Christopher A. Hall, 2002)
? Textbook: Christian Theology Reader. (Wiley-Blackwell, 4th edition, 2011)
? Media Clip: Gender and God-Talk by Terry L. Cross, PhD https://vimeopro.com/user13308368/theo-250-systematic-theology-1/video/104727188
? 2.1a PDF: Gender and God-Talk paper by Terry L. Cross, PhD
? 2.1b PowerPoint: ProlegomenaRevelation, Scripture, Task
? 2.1c PowerPoint: RevelationThe Event and Record of Gods Self-Disclosure
? 2.1d PowerPoint: Religion and Revelation
? 2.1e PowerPoint: Revelation Diagram
? 2.1f PowerPoint: God-Talk
? 2.1g PowerPoint: Does God Exist?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
None

INSTRUCTIONS
1. Read Faith Seeing Understanding, Chapters 2 and 3.
2. Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers, Chapter 9.
3. Read Christian Theology Reader 2.4; 2.8; 2.35; 2.40; 2.41; 2.42; 2.43; 2.49; 2.52 and 2.53.
4. View the media clip on Gender and God-Talk.
5. Read and study the paper by Cross, Gender and God-Talk.
6. View and study the PowerPoints.
————————————————————————————————————————————-

2.1a GENDER AND GOD-TALK: Some Reflections
By Terry Cross, Ph.D.
September 2012

Since theology (in one sense) is a reflection on the coherency and meaning of our language about God within the church, it makes sense today to ask whether or not there is a problem with our consistent use of male imagery and pronouns to speak of God. This is not simply a political correctness issue (although some may want to make it this), but a matter of appropriate reflection on our talk about God. Does it make a theological difference if we consistently use language about God that is male in its basis?

Here\’s my approach: lets begin with the nature of God. God has no gender because the Infinite God transcends finite human beings and has no human characteristics. If you aver that God is described with human characteristics in Scripture, you have missed the point. Biblical scholars and theologians have long seen these inferences and human metaphors as Gods way of accommodating to human needs by giving us human imagery to say something meaningful about God in terms we can understand. This is called anthropomorphism. For example, God is said to blow with the breath of his nostrils and the Red Sea parted. This imagery does not imply that God has a nose, but rather gives human imagery to help us understand that the parting of the Red Sea was caused by a mighty God.

God is essentially a Spirit. Spirits do not have bodies and therefore do not have gender. God\’s transcendence (his being above us) is so great that we can hardly use language to describe God perfectly. ALL language about God will end up stuttering and babbling when it tries to describe the Infinite God in a finite, human tongue. So what do we do? As a theologian, I need to prompt the Church to remember that God is not MALE (and also not female); just because God sent Jesus as a man does not mean God prefers males to females–the Gospel is for all, right? Or does God preferentially save males in a way different from females? How absurd! Here\’s another way to put it: is the central point of the incarnation of Jesus Christ as a MALE the fact that he was male? No…I submit that it is that Jesus was God IN THE FLESH. The central point is that God was HUMAN. God became human in Jesus Christ. Now Jesus could have come as an angeliclike being (which also has no gender according to Jesus\’ words in Luke–\”They will be like the angels…\”), but he did not. He could have taken on an alien form and spoken to us differently, but he did not. The Eternal Son of God became human. In doing so, God had to CHOOSE which form to enter of the human beingmale or female. Given the setting of 1st -century Judaism and even the ancient world, Jesus as a woman would not have been heard as easily nor would \”she\” have been allowed into areas of the temple or synagogue; nor would she have been allowed to \”read\” Scripture out loud in the synagogue, as Jesus did in Luke 4.

Here\’s my thought on this: if God had become a female human being in the 1st century world, she probably would have been crucified the moment she opened her mouth. Women just did not do the type of things that Jesus did. The focus of attention would have been on this female Messiah\’s genderher femaleness, not her message or her very proclamation of herself as the Messiah. The message of God\’s love would not have been heard because the grumbling and mumbling (and eventually, rock-throwing) would have been focused on the \”she-ness\” of the Messiah and this prophetess, not the message or signs standing in front of them. Think of this: the Jews who heard Jesus had a hard enough time accepting his claim to messianic fulfillment (blasphemous, they called it); what would they have done if a woman had tried to say it?

So in the \”fullness of time,\” God sent forth his Son, \”born of a woman\” (Gal 4:4). The woman, Mary, is clearly important in the narrative of Jesus\’ life and death. I think that this was planned by God to honor women and let them know that a woman was the way that God chose to enter the world of humanity.

So in God\’s wisdom, God chose to focus attention on the message of the Son of God. God in Jesus Christ redeems us, not BECAUSE he is a male, but BECAUSE he is God in the flesh! Therefore, men AND women can obtain salvation through him.

However, in writing, talking, and thinking of God within the Church, a theologian\’s task is to consider carefully how we (all within the churchmembers and clergy) are speaking of God. How does the human tongue even approach getting its speech about God right? We cannot explain God with our knowledge and finite language. Hence, the author of the hymn was headed the right direction, saying \”O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing…\” Perhaps he /she was thinking of multiplying the total effort of praising his/her redeemer, but I like to think of it as the author asking for a multiplication of efforts of my own ONE tongue because of the frustration of trying to speak of God and even to God with praise through only a single, finite human language.

If we speak of God entirely in male terms, doesn\’t that practice in the Church do something over a period of time that we really don\’t want to do (theologically, that is)? Doesn\’t it give or leave an impression with the people of God that their God is a Hetheir God is in some sense male. Surely the language of Father and Son allow us to use male language and imagery of him, but God is not only described or called Father or Son in the Bible; God is also the omnipotent, almighty one, the Lord of Hosts, the \”I AM,\” the Good Shepherd, and so forth. Indeed, as Clark Pinnock has noted and as Scripture supports, there are numerous times that God is referred to in feminine language. I\’ll only offer one reference to illustrate: Psalm 103:13: \”As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him.\” The word \”compassion\” here and the word \”pity\” in the KJV, is a Hebrew word that comes from the root word meaning a woman\’s \”womb\” or \”uterus.\” So as a mother/woman has birthing-connection (compassion/deeply felt feelings) for her child… That\’s how we would EXPECT the sentence to read because the verb is really rooted in a very feminine concept, namely, the womb. Therefore, what we see is a cross-over of gender roles: As a father has womanly/motherly deeply-felt feelings for his children, so the LORD loves those who fear himlike a mother who gave them birth. See the point? Even the action of the verb is descriptive of a female function, but the Psalmist uses it with a father and makes the comparison (through a simile) to God as Father.

The English language is difficult when speaking of God–especially through its use of pronouns. Only in this century has more \”gender-inclusive language\” been considered, that is, the awareness that exclusively using male pronouns and nouns to refer to the general human population (e.g., \”Man loves sugar; he can\’t seem to get enough of it.\” Using \”Man\” for all humankind and using \”he\” as the pronoun that replaces the noun, while formerly acceptable in English, now is unacceptable because it makes the general noun feel like \”Males\” instead of \”Humans\” and because it makes the pronoun \”He\” sound like males exclusively). So it is suggested that when speaking of humans we use \”inclusive speech\” such as \”Humans….they….\” or \”A person may tend to like sugar; he/she must be careful not to get too much in his/her diet.\” See the difference? It is NOT a politically correct issue for me, but a theological one. How so? Because excluding or more of the population through a simple language usage that could be easily changed/corrected is improper in God\’s eyesbefore whom there is not even a hint of favoritism! In Christ there is neither male nor femalewe are all humans at the same level around the cross (Gal 3:28).

But when referring to God, there are male references in the Bible to God (as we have seen above). However, nowhere in the Bible does it say \”God is male, blessed be HIS name.\” This is my theological point when speaking of God: God is beyond maleness and femaleness, so technically it is inappropriate to refer to God as Him or Her. However, the English language HAS TO use something other than the neuter pronoun itselfwhich implies that God is a thing. So I simply suggest that we are careful not to overuse the MALE imagery or MASCULINE pronouns when referring to God. So \”she\”, while \”shocking\” is helpful to open our eyes about God and widen all of our memories and horizons in worship of the One who is worthy of all worship. Beyond this, we should engage our study of Scripture with other images that speak to the reality of God in non-gender terms and attempt to season our God-talk in the Church with language that points to Gods transcendence without ignoring those that point to Gods humanness.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Media Links in Powerpoint on Gods Existence

Ontological Argument:
Anselms version

William Lane Craig intro

Plantingas version

Cosmological Argument
Kalam

Moral Argument

Teleological Argument

Argument from Desire

———————————————————————————————

2.3 UNIT ASSIGNMENT: CORE QUESTIONS -Unit 2

INTRODUCTION AND ALIGNMENT

See Unit 2 Introduction.
Upon completion of this assignment you should be able to:
? Analyze theological language about God.
? Describe the various complexities of the use of gender language in reference to God.
? Define the relation of revelation and Scripture to systematic theology.
? Demonstrate an understanding of the traditional proofs for the existence of God and assess their weaknesses.

RESOURCES
? ? Textbook: Faith Seeking Understanding. (An intro to Christian Theology, 3rd edition, 2014)
? Textbook: Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. (Christopher A. Hall, 2002)
? Textbook: Christian Theology Reader. (Wiley-Blackwell, 4th edition, 2011)
? 2.3a Word: Core Questions

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
None

INSTRUCTIONS
1. Review the textbook readings.
2. Answer the Core Questions in the Word document.
3. Submit in Word document.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–

THEO-250 Assignment 2.3a
CORE QUESTIONS: Unit 2
(5 points each = 25 points total)

INSTRUCTIONS
Answer the following questions regarding the reading from the textbooks. Please respond to the questions in as full a response as possible. Submit your responses in Word document. Make the name of your document as follows: Name,THEO-250,2.3a.

The Core Questions throughout this course are meant to engage students in the information that is presented either through the readings or presentations. It is also hoped that these questions will stir up critical reflection about the material discussed. Therefore, please provide more than one-sentence answers to the questions. Reflect on the questions and material in the readings before responding.

Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding

1. Using Flannery OConnors short story (Revelation) to provide a central feature of a theology of revelation, Daniel Migliore suggests that revelation is not something that confirms what we already know (22). Migliore goes on to explain this further and give some biblical examples of revelation that is a breaking-in on human beings. He later says, When God is revealed, everything is seen in a new light (23).

What do you think of the idea that revelation does not confirm what we already know? Interact with Migliores point here.

2. What are theologians attempting to do by using the language hidden and revealed when related to God?

3. Avery Dulles wrote a book that compared five models of revelation (called Models of Revelation). Briefly state and then summarize each model as Migliore has outlined them on pages 33-35.

Chris Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers

4. In the chapter on Sacred Scriptures, Chris Hall notes that Irenaeus battled the Gnostics around the year AD 200. The Gnostics taught they had received a secret revelation in some form and that it was superior to Scripture or the tradition of the Christian Church. Not everyone can learn or know of this knowledge, they say, but only those qualified to understand it. Irenaeus counters their thinking by focusing on the authority of the apostolic tradition as based in Scripture.

Chris Hall summarizes Irenaeus thoughts with these words: The mark of heretical teachers is that they believe only they have discovered the truth (223).

Some people suggest that we have a similar challenge in the Church today with a gnostic-like attitude in which some folks sense they have a special word from the Lord. How might you address such people using Irenaeus model?

McGrath, Christian Theology Reader

5. In section 2.40, Wilhelm Herrmann (1846-1922), a very popular German theologian at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, uses a rather popular religious theme for the modern Protestant liberal movement, namely, the idea that experience is involved in revelation. From this brief reading, what is Herrmanns suggestion for the role of human experience in revelation? What do you think of this?