Faculty of Theology
Department of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
Selected Highlights from Research Findings
The aim of this research project was to determine whether the metaphor of ‘king’ can still be used in Christian God-talk. The researcher argues that modern people only know kings from fairy tales or ancient histories. If they happen to live in a country with a royal family (kingdom), as is the case in Great Britain and The Netherlands, they know their queen as a ceremonial figure who merely symbolises the unity of the people or the nation. If she has any power at all, it is very limited, delegated to her by the people. The daily life of the queen does not influence the lives of the people. Calling God a king in this sense would reduce Him to a distant, irrelevant ornament in our lives. On the other hand, the traditional understanding of God’s kingship implies that God completely dominated people’s personal lives and history as a whole. He was the ultimate ruler above all earthly kings, people and nations, who determined and directed all their actions. According to the researcher, God’s power cannot be adequately understood if it is separated from His authority. The power of God as king is precisely the power to exercise His authority. This means that God’s power is power-over: power over other powers and power over God’s creatures. This power-over is a different power to His power-to, His capacity to act. This power-over becomes particularly clear in God’s rule, which presupposes beings that are liberated, commanded, controlled and judged by God. Without the authority of the liberating God, in which God’s power-over is grounded, this power is misunderstood as despotism. In addition, God’s power should also be understood from His ultimate purpose and goal: justice, peace and love for all. God’s power over the powers of evil and sin is revealed in the way He has fought against them and triumphed over them in the life, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. The deepest word for both God’s ultimate goal and for His way of achieving it is the love of God. This means that our understanding of God’s power must be in accordance with God’s love. Modern people easily identify power with oppression and violence. Moreover, in modern times, the phenomenon of power as such has become suspect because power is so often exercised arbitrarily and by means of manipulation, threat and coercion. The researcher argues that if we identify power with arbitrariness, oppression, violence, manipulation, threat or coercion, calling God powerful would make a monster of God. Stated differently: if we accept modern notions of power, we have to say that the loving Father of Jesus Christ can have no power. On the other hand, the concept of a powerless God would contradict the Biblical witness about God’s present kingship and God’s coming kingdom. Fortunately, the modern definitions of power are far from self evident. Power in general and the power of God in particular can be understood in better ways. Firstly, it should be noted that the exercising of authority and the right use of power are necessary conditions for communication between human beings in an order of justice and peace. Secondly, it must be remembered that God’s power is not quantitatively, but qualitatively different from human power. According to the research, if we understand God’s power quantitatively as an infinite amount of the force we find in physical reality and the influence we find in human society, we wrongly apply a zero-sum conception of power to God. This conceptualisation implies that the more power one has, the less power others have, and vice versa. If we apply this conception of power to the relation between God and man, any power of God would threaten the power of human beings and vice versa. God’s power-over, though, does not destroy, but demands and creates free human obedience and cooperation. This shows that God’s power is exercised on another level than that of the physical force or human influence. Apparently, God’s power can cooperate with human power without diminishing it. In order to further specify the power of God, our king, the researcher distinguished five means by which power-over is realised: moral influence, coercion, oppression, physical force and physical violence against people. According to the researcher, when we ask which of these are implied by God’s power over other powers and over God’s people, the following can be said on the basis of the Biblical witness about God’s kingship and coming kingdom: God surely has influence over people through His law and His Spirit, but God’s command and inspiration do not coerce them, because God demands free obedience and wants to cooperate with them. Oppression is excluded, because God is no despot, but the liberator who wants the salvation of His people, and ultimately of mankind. The realisation of God’s coming kingdom will require a form of force, just as the creation did in the beginning, but it is impossible for us to understand this creative force because the physical force we know is an element of created reality. It is doubtful whether God’s ultimate victory over and His judgment of the powers of evil will be possible without any form of violence against God’s enemies. In the meantime, the exercising of God’s authority as king in human history is not violent because it is the rule of both the Father and the Son in the mode of the Spirit. Eventually, God will defeat all the powers that wage war against His kingship and He will be acknowledged as king by all His creatures. In this way, God will create justice and peace for all, and all will enjoy God’s love
Contact person: Prof J Buitendag.
In this research project, Binne of buite die blokkie? ‘n Poging om iets oor tyd en ewigheid te sê (Inside or outside the box? An attempt to say something about time and eternity), the researcher investigates the dialogue between theology and science, with special reference to eschatology. He examines the relation of time and eternity as a leitmotiv and bases it on the view that the latest insights from physics enrich the theological debate and vice versa. He argues that neither discipline is indispensable to the other. According to the researcher, the perception that the asking of factual questions is the domain of the natural sciences and that theology’s role is only to make value statements is no longer relevant. ‘What?’ and ‘How?’ questions complement each other in almost every field of science – including theology – and assume that the nature of the subject being investigated will determine the methodology and vice versa, and that the methodology will impact on the result. This is a circular argument from which science cannot escape. The researcher stresses that cognisance should be taken of the fact that both science and theology are in their own unique ways involved in the search for answers to questions regarding reality. It is therefore important that science and theology engage in conversation with each other on this topic. The research proposes a network that will result in an interaction between the time of man (endogenic time), the time of the world (exogenic time) and the time of God (transcendental time): a possible solution to understand the conflict between science and theology. According to the researcher, there is a growing interest to incorporate the understanding of the Trinity as a heuristic model to solve the problem of time and eternity. He argues that we should turn our attention to the Creator and stop fixating about the creation. Because time is an attribute of the Trinity, whose immanent being is neither static nor timeless, eternity is therefore not timeless either. Creation was therefore not the beginning of time, but rather the transformation of time. This also applies to the recreation when Christ will be everything in everyone
Contact person: Prof J Buitendag.
|
