ESCHATOLOGY (THE FINAL THINGS IN HISTORY)

One of the salient things in Christian theology is that of eschatology, i.e. the doctrine of the final things.  Another way of putting it would be the end of history as we know it.  As in its parent religion, Judaism, in Christianity there is the notion and belief that things as they are will come to an end, and that we will live in a "happily ever after."  This might correspond to the Marxian view of a "workers paradise," in which there will be a "permanent jubilee."  

How do we then account for the various eschatological perspectives that we have in the Christian community?  Each tradition claims to be based on "what the Bible says."  Having said that, what complicates this is that there are a variety of biblical hermeneutics (interpretations) which in turn lead to a variety of conclusions.  Each tradition has its own chronology as to how history as we know it will come to an end. 

The particular hermeneutic that we subscribe to will depend on the lens through which we read Scripture and the historic Christian traditions.  Some of us read them through the lens of our particular denominational theology, while others of us read them through the lens of the various branches of human knowledge, and more specifically, the social sciences.  And then there are some of us that read them through our life experiences, both individual and collective.  

Eschatology has traditionally been defined as the doctrine of the last things.  It appeared in the final chapter in the classic systems of dogmatics under the heading "de novissimis" in Latin and "ta eschata" in Greek texts.  This dogmatic locus dealt with events that still belong to the future, such as death and resurrection, the last judgment, and the end of the world, eternal damnation (hell) and eternal life (heaven). It covered the future destiny of each individual after death  as well as the final consummation of the world (Carl E. Braaten in "The Kingdom of God and Life Everlasting."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks, eds. Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 328).

In the period of Protestant scholasticism (seventeenth century), the treatment of eschatological topics became petrified in the last chapter of dogmatics.  Karl Barth spoke ironically of this approach as "lulling us to sleep" by adding at the conclusion of his Church Dogmatics a short and perfectly harmless chapter entitled 'Eschatology.' (Karl Barth, Epistle to the Romans, p. 500).

To a large extent, the mainline churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, permitted the sects to claim the subject of eschatology as their specialty.  Their literalistic preaching from the Bible about the end of the world has tended to inoculate the mainline bodies of Christianity against this virus of eschatology (Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973).

Eschatology is no longer confined to the concluding chapter of dogmatics as teaching about the last things.  Every theological statement is at the same time an  eschatological statement in the sense that eschatology deals with what is ultimate and to speak of God is to speak of our ultimate concern.  There is a consensus among the various schools of theology that the eschatological perspective is basic to the understanding of the Christian faith.  At the beginning of his long theological career, Barth inaugurated the eschatological renaissance in Christian theology with this striking claim: "Christianity that is not entirely and altogether eschatology has entirely and altogether nothing to do with Christ (Barth, op. cit. p. 314).

Echoing this mandate a half century later, Jurgen Moltmann insisted: The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but the medium of Christian faith as such. Hence eschatology cannot really be only a part of Christian doctrine.  Rather, the eschatological outlook is characteristic of all Christian proclamation, of every Christian existence, and of the whole church (Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, p. 16).

One of the problems of biblical interpretation has been that of finding the thread of continuity that ties the two testaments of the Bible together.  Since the awakening of the eschatological perspective in theology, it has become evident that the people of God, from the days of Israel in the Old Testament to the period of the Church in the New, have moved forward in history in expectation of future salvation, however much this expectation was always founded on historical events in which God had intervened in the past (Braaten, op. cit., p. 330).

In the Old Testament the coming of eschatological salvation was announced in different terms, for example, the day of Yahweh, the day of judgment, the coming of the Messiah, the reign of God, and the new Jerusalem.  The eschatology of Israel underwent a continual process of change and development.  Originally Israel held a predominantly this-worldly eschatology; its vision of the promised future belonged to this world of space and time.  This is the case with early prophetic eschatology. The prophets expected a coming paradise on Earth.  The coming reign, which Yahweh was to establish for His people, enjoyed the same material reality as the promised land.  It would be a land flowing with "milk and honey."  The faithful remnant of Israel would be drawn to the holy mountain  as their dwelling place.  There is no specific hope for Heaven or life after death.  Salvation will be something to see, the earth will be extremely fruitful, people will be inwardly renewed, society will become righteous, and the nations will rest at peace.  Israel, the least of the nations, will be exalted above all the others, provided the people remain faithful to the covenant (Ibid., pp. 330-331),

The Christian revision of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology was determined by the modifications which Jesus of Nazareth effected through His preaching of the Reign of God and the double ending of His life: His death on the cross and His resurrection to a new form of being.  The central motif of Jesus's message was the coming of the reign of God.  The eschatological rule of God which Jesus preached was the power determining both the content of His message and the activities of His ministry. However, there is no consensus among contemporary theologians on how to interpret Jesus's expectation of the Reign of God.  Did Jesus think of the Reign of God as something otherworldly and future (traditional orthodoxy)?  Or did He think of it as something otherworldly and present (Karl Barth and dialectical theology)?  Or did He think of it as something this-worldly and  present (Rudolf Bultmann) and existentialist theology)?  Or as something this-worldly and future (Christian Marxism and Liberation Theology)?  Perhaps there is an element of truth in all these viewpoints, each forming one facet of a multidimensional vision of the Reign of God (Ibid., p. 332). 

What is the "correct" eschatological perspective?  A lot depends on who one asks.  My own response would be that there is no one inerrant, infallible, or perfect eschatology.  We cannot afford to treat any one particular eschatological hermeneutic as "Heaven-sent." We can spend our entire lives cherry picking Scripture verses and elements of the Christian tradition, and yet never arrive at a consensus.  The perspective that we adhere and subscribe to will in turn determine the form and shape of both our ecclesiastical form of government, and also how we carry on the ministry of Christ in the world.  As with all other branches of Christian theology, the construction of eschatology or eschatologies will be a continuous one.  One can only remain active in this world in the arenas of evangelism and social justice, and continue to pray "Even so, come Lord Jesus."

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

              HOW ARE THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE RELATED?

The Christian life has been regarded from the beginning as a following of Jesus.  Erstwhile Christians have ever been invited to step into the shoes of that first band of followers, twelve of whom He explicitly chose to be carriers of the Word-apostles.  Indeed, we may surmise that the role they play in the Gospel accounts was shaped with an eye to later followers: their humble origins; their persistent inability to get the point; the impetus desire to share in His lot, followed by their disappearance at the critical moment. And the Gospel of John reminds us how, in being called to follow Him, we are not merely being conscripted into His service, but are rather invited to become His friends (David Burrell in "The Spirit and the Christian Life."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks, eds. Peter C Hodgson and Robert H. King.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 302)

An invitation to friendship with divinity taxes our credulity, so much that to accept it is to believe Christianly.  That seemingly impossible barrier being breached, it is a relatively small step to speak about intimacy with God-both as individuals and as a people, for this God has already acknowledged delight in being with us.  The capacity to of divinity to delight in us creates in its turn an entirely new dimension of receptivity in us.  This new person, this self-transformed, is itself a sign of the promise as he or she displays a new-found familiarity with God as well as a correlative capacity for receiving and forgiving one's fellows.  The promise of a relation between God and ourselves, which has the qualities and potentialities for friendship, opens up similarly new possibilities among ourselves (Ibid.) 

That is the character of the promise offered to humanity in Jesus.  That promise might best be called faith, if we were to understand  faith as naming a new mode of life which is a new way of relating to God (Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Faith and Belief. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).

We are informed in Scripture that if any person be in Christ, that they are new creatures.  The role of the Holy Spirit as the agent of that renewal is alluded to in the Scriptures of the New Testament and in the traditions of the Church.  The Gospel according to John, and the letters of the Apostle Paul speak to the renewed life for those who are in Christ.  

The doctrine of the Spirit interacts with at least three established sectors of Christian theology: 1.  that of grace and sacramental life, 2. that of church and ministry, and 3. the distinctively Christian treatment of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer).  By reminding ourselves that at the outset how the Christian life must be conceived as a response to divine initiative, we have underscored the primary element in the doctrine of the Spirit.  Since we can hope to understand that initiative, however, only by scrutinizing the how Christians have deemed it appropriate to respond, we concern ourselves with with outlining and analyzing the characteristic forms which that response has taken since the momentous celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Burrell, op. cit., p. 304).  

Are we to understand the role of the Spirit in the life of the individual Christian and in the life of the Church as a whole, an initial action which elicits the human response, or are we to understand it as the volitional response to the initiatory work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, both individually and collectively?  That would all depend on whether one's theology of the Spirit and the Christian life follows the Pauline-Agustinian-Calvinistic thread of theology in which it is believed that human nature is incapable of responding to the divine initiative because it is "dead in trespasses and sin," or whether one follows the Arminian thread of theology in which it is believed that as humans we have the ability to voluntarily embrace or reject the initiative of the Holy Spirit.  

This particular doctrine, just like all other doctrines in Christian theology, is "under construction."  Because the hermeneutics (interpretations) surrounding it vary, and because the spring or sources of hermeneutics are varied (experience, Scripture, tradition), it is subject to fluctuation.  

The theology of the Spirit and the Christian life will continued to be explored and expressed in a variety of ways in the days to come.  The impact of the various branches of human knowledge, i.e. the humanities and the natural and social sciences, will continue to inform and shape our theological perspectives, and the lens through which we interpret and understand these doctrines.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                           THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS 

Given the variety of theological expressions in the Christian Church, I will say that the doctrine of the Sacraments is a very complex one.  In the Catholic and Orthodox sectors of Christianity, there are a variety of sacraments.  In Protestantism, both mainline and "non-denominational," the Sacraments are broken down into two.  What complicates biblical theology about the Sacraments, is that every sector of the Church has a different biblical hermeneutic, i.e. different interpretations and understands of "what the Bible says," about the Sacraments and about everything else.  

While in no way invalidating the notion of the Sacraments in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, I will limit myself to talking about the two Sacraments as understood and practiced in the Protestant churches.  And I will note, that even within the Protestant traditions, there are a variety of understands and perspectives as to the meaning of the Sacraments.

I begin by noting some general things about the Sacraments.  I will talk about the Sacraments in historical perspective, how we got to where we are, and where we are now.

Sacrament is the name given to certain specific rites of the Christian churches.  Of the major denominations, only the Quakers (Society of Friends) and the Salvation Army make no use of sacraments, but for all others, there are at least two, baptism and the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion).  According to both the  contemporary and Eastern Orthodox churches there are seven sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper (Eucharist), but also Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, ordination, and matrimony.  Orthodox attaches less importance to the precise numbers than does the Roman tradition, which under assault from the Protestant Reformers, fixed the number at seven at the seventh session of the Council of Trent in 1547 (Stephen W. Sykes in "The Sacraments."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 274).

Does the number of sacraments matter?  Modern theology has come to think that the reasons that led Roman Catholics and Protestants to be so certain and vehement in their rival enumerations are far from cogent.  On the other hand, the Church developed in the course of its history a very large number of rituals, some local, some universal or nearly so; but only some these rituals is the claim made that they are sacraments.  If sacraments are a special class of ritual, there must be something by which they are distinguished.  If sacraments are a special class of ritual, there must be something by which they are distinguished.  Enumerating them is the consequence of knowing what sets these rituals apart (Ibid.).

It is no presupposed that the number of the sacraments is known for certain.  Indeed, it will be shown that one cannot a definition of "sacrament," but must, rather, attend to the history of the arguments which have raged to and fro about what a sacrament really might be.  At the same time, if any Christian rites are correctly said to be sacraments, then baptism and the Lord's Supper are the least disputable examples. Therefore, in introducing the theology of the sacraments, these two sacraments  will be used as instances (Ibid.).

Scholastic theologians of the medieval period developed a distinction, which survives in Roman Catholic handbooks of theology to this day, between sacramental theology in general, and the theology of the particular sacraments.  The essence of a sacrament could be known, and each particular sacrament would then be presented as an example of the general nature of sacrament.  If we are to speak of the sacraments at all, then it is of baptism and the Lord's Supper that we speak with most assurance.  We proceed, in other words, from the particular sacraments to the possibility that there may be a generalized sacramental theology.  It is not disputable that human beings communicate with each other by external means, rituals, signs, and symbols.  The theological question is, however, what role is to be assigned to which ritual and why.  If we can clarify the answers to these questions in respect of the two generally admitted sacraments, we will be in a better position to say how and why we can and should distinguish between the numerous incidental rituals, which have grown up in the churches over the course of time, and those privileged rites accorded the name of the sacraments (Ibid., pp. 274-275).

The Sacrament of Baptism

Baptism has been understood in the Church as a "washing" ritual, a ritual that washes away original sin and in some cases, the intrinsic sinful nature of humankind.  It was practiced in the Jewish community when Gentile converts embraced the Jewish faith, and together with the rite of circumcision, which placed them under the covenant, represented a putting away of the old pagan practices,  Those Gentiles who embraced Judaism were called "proselytes."

In the Protestant sector of Christianity, baptism has also come to be representative of the new birth in Christ, and a putting away and behind the previous sinful lifestyle.  

NOTE: Some Protestant churches, especially those of the Reformed tradition, have retained the ancient Catholic of infant baptism, though the reasons are much different than what they are in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.  In Protestant infant baptism, the theology is that baptism replaces circumcision as a sign of the covenant with God, and that at baptism, the child together with her/his family is under the divine covenant.  

The reasons why some Protestant churches carry out their baptismal ritual by immersion rather than by sprinkling or or pouring is two-fold:

1.  One of the translations of the Greek word "baptizdo" is immersion.

2.  Since the New Testament concept of baptism is "burial with Christ," they believe that baptism by immersion best represents this burial and resurrection.

The Sacrament of Holy Communion

In Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, during the administration of the sacrament by the priest, the bread and the wine are literally converted into the body and blood of Christ.  This doctrine is called "transubstantiation."

In Protestantism, there are various views of what the Communion (or Lord's Supper) is.

1.  Memorial-The churches that practice it this way take literally the words of Jesus "Do this in remembrance of me."

2.  Consubstantiation-This is the belief that the body and blood of Christ are "under" the elements of the bread and the wine. 

3.  Presence-Those who subscribe to this view believe that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, is present, not in the elements, but in the act.  

Like all other aspects of Christian theology, the theology of the Sacraments is something that will always remain in flux rather than become a static doctrine.  The challenge for Christians is to determine how, and if, we can put aside those differences, and come to the point where we can sit together at the Lord's Table, regardless of our view of the meaning of the Sacrament.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST AND SALVATION 

Christology (the doctrine of Christ) and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) are key features of Christian theology.  In many ways they are interlocked.  We cannot separate them in an absolute way, especially as in Christian theology, salvation is impossible without Christ. 

In Scripture, we find several passages that imply that salvation only comes through Christ.  In John 14:6 Jesus Himself says that "no one comes to the Father except through Him."  In the book of Acts we are told that "there is no other name given under Heaven to humankind by which we must be saved." And then the Apostle Paul says that "there is only one Mediator between God and humankind, the man Christ Jesus."  

When we read these passages superficially and without paying attention to the context, we tend to take them literally and at face value.  In other words, the tendency is to take them literally, and to state "the Bible says so and end of story." 

Christology is reflection upon the one whom the Christian community confesses as Lord and Savior.  Historically, this reflection has not been merely a theoretical matter. The effort has  informed the keenest of human interests-the interest in salvation.  It is therefore fitting that soteriology be considered at the same time as Christology (Walter Low, in "Christ and Salvation."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 222). 

In testifying to Jesus Christ, the community points to a particular person who lived at a specific time and in a specific place.  This reference gives Christianity its distinctive identity, its specificity. But Christian thought throughout its history has oscillated between questions of identity and questions of relevance (Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993, p. 7).

If Christology is located at the first pole, i.e. identity, then soteriology would seem to gravitate to the second pole, that of relevance.  One might say that the role of soteriology is to show why this person Jesus Christ is understood to be significant (Lowe, op. cit. p. 222).

The modern period, however, experienced the polarity as a tension.  Linking soteriology to Christology has seemed to many to be odd and even presumptuous. After all, it amounts to gathering up the most fundamental of human concerns-the concern with salvation, however defined-and linking it, focusing it, and somehow making it contingent upon a Jewish prophet in a minor Roman dependency  some two thousand years ago.  The sense of anomaly and tension this creates is often termed "the scandal of particularity (Ibid.)"

In view of this concern, modern theology has tended to reverse the classic order of the doctrines.  In classic dogmatics, one felt free to begin with Christology and then proceed to soteriology.  One might talk about who Christ is, then about what He has done.  For many in the modern period, however, to begin with Christ seems to presume too much, to risk being irrelevant and if not, intolerant.  Thus modern theologians have generally preferred to start with soteriology, to begin by establishing a common ground with their audience on the basis of common humanity.  It has been said, after all, and only in half jest, that sin is the one Christian doctrine which can be empirically verified.  And if sin should seem too harsh a term to serve as a point of contact, one may speak in a more positive vein, invoking the human search for peace and meaning.  Whatever the particulars, this pattern of argument appears and reappears  throughout the modern period in the rhetoric of conservative preaching no less than in the proposals of liberal revision. In this broad sense the modern temperament has been preoccupied with apologetics-depicting some human need or experience, then speaking of salvation in relation to that need or experience, and finally presenting Jesus Christ as the one through whom salvation comes (Ibid., pp. 222-223).

We are then, faced with the question of which comes first between the chicken and the egg.  Do we begin with the person of Christ, or do we begin with the work of Christ?  Do we confine and limit God's liberating and salvific work in human history to the incarnated Christ of Bethlehem, or do we see Christ in more cosmic terms, not limited to dogmatic propositions? 

Few would deny the fruitfulness of the modern strategy.  Further, one may claim on its behalf that it simply brings to light a method already implicit within the classic Christologies. The best of the tradition, as has been noted, was never merely theoretical; it was animated from first to last by a deep soteriological interest.  At the same time, however, the shape of theology does make a difference.  To reverse  the classic paradigm generally entails a reinterpreting of content as well.  When the soteriological interest is converted into a topic of reflection in its own right and becomes itself a sort of doctrine (and a decisive one at that), then the modern approach, produces problems of its own (Lowe, op. cit., p. 223)

The whole issue of Christology hinges on the following two questions:

1.  What do we mean by the term "salvation?"  Are we referring to something that happens in the "hereafter," or is it something that happens in the "here and now?" 

2.  Is the Christ of Scripture a Christ who is restricted to the dogma and theology of the Christian Church or is the Christ of Scripture a cosmic and universal Christ who transcends all religious dogma and religious belief?

As a theologian who subscribes to Liberation Theology, I believe that salvation (deliverance and liberation) is something that occurs within history, and entails liberation from colonial, economic, political, and social bondage.  I also believe that God's liberating and salvific work in human history is not limited to preparing us for the "hereafter," but rather includes the element of the "yet/not yet" of God's reign through Christ.  Jesus Himself, on one occasion said, "If I by the finger of God, cast out demons, then the reign of God is among you."  

How Christology and soteriology are conceived and developed, will be something that will go along with the continuous construction of our theological systems.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                THE DOCTRINE OF SIN AND EVIL 

When we approach the issue of sin, there are many questions surrounding it.  We may ask, "Just exactly what is sin?"  We may also ask, "What constitutes sin?" 

In the Christian community, the notion of "sin" varies from one segment of the Church to another.  Some churches believe that sin is the abrogation and violation of those rules and regulations found in Scripture.  Other churches believe that sin includes a violation of their doctrines, dogmas, and traditions, even if not directly alluded to in Scripture.  Some churches believe that to merely drop out of the community constitutes sin. Other churches believe that to have fellowship with other churches that don't subscribe to their doctrine is a sin.  And so the list goes on.  

We examine sin in the light of what it may have meant and was conceived of in the early Christian community, and also how it is conceived of today.  This is not, in any way, intended to promote the notion that we are free to discard ancient notions of sin and replace them with contemporary notions of sin, or that we are "free" to decide what is or what isn't sin.  

When we look at the issue of sin, we get into what may sound like a circular question.  For example, do we say that adultery is sin because the Bible says so, or does the Bible say so because it is a sin?  If our response is the latter, then we have to define what constituted such and such to be a sin prior to the writing of the Bible.  

The doctrine of sin and evil occupies a somewhat anomalous position in Christian doctrine.  On the one hand, there is no positively stated orthodox doctrine of sin comparable to the doctrines of the Trinity and of Christology.  The ancient church agreed with Augustine that certain views of sin and evil are incompatible with Christian faith.  Accordingly, the church condemned the Manichean heresy for its theological pessimism, and the Pelagian heresy for its anthropological optimism concerning evil.  But the church stopped short of officially adopting Augustine's own positive formulation of original sin.  Instead, it came closer to adopting his teachings concerning grace.  Yet the doctrines of redemption presuppose some concept of the human condition, including responsibility for evil.  There is, as Augustine well knew, a systematic connection between the concept of salvation and the concept of sin, so that neither concept can be formulated in complete separation from the other.  Consequently, while the church did not officially adopt Augustine's teaching concerning sin, his formulation of the doctrine of original sin has been highly influential-so much so that it can almost be said to have attained semiofficial standing (Robert R. Williams in "Sin and Evil." Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 194)

One of the questions regarding sin is one that is related to the nature of humankind.  Are we, as a result of the sin of our first parents born in sin so that it is not possible not to sin, or are we capable of avoiding sin altogether?  Is the notion of original sin a heresy, or is it compatible with Scriptural revelation?  

In modern secular culture, moreover, the Christian concept of sin has been eclipsed and virtually displaced.  Secular culture perceives evil no longer as a theological problem but rather as a problem of human institutional and social arrangements.  Divine aid is felt to be either unnecessary or not among the real possibilities available to resolve the problem.  Instead, evil calls for intelligent human action.  There are present in modern culture, however, quite different views concerning the meaning and result of human actions. Some take a rather optimistic view in which the problem of evil is capable of human management and therefore amenable to control.  Science and technology are regarded as the instruments by means of which we eventually eliminate evil as a problem.  Whether evil is seen as a resistance of nature to human manipulation and exploitation or as a recalcitrance on the part of human beings to social planning and conditioning, it is at least viewed as a "problem" which will sooner or later yield to an appropriate technological "solution."  So runs the "myth of progress" (Williams, op. cit. p. !95). 

So, en fin, we ask the question as to whether the doctrine of sin should continue to be a concern of the church, tilling its own internal garden, or should we allow the sway of secularism to define what at one time may have been the domain of the church?  Do we subscribe to the philosophical notion of "sin" being our failure and refusal to live up to our potential?  Should we define "Sin in sociological terms whereas sin is a violation of a social contract, and a violation of the social consensus? 

As time move on, the church will be faced with the options to define for itself what is the nature of sin, or whether to allow society to define it for us.  The "give and take," and the "push and pull" between the church and the society will continue until the end of history as we know it. 

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary