Postteisms Džona Sponga Teoloģijā: Izcelsme Un Galvenie Aspekti: Post-Theism in the Theology of John Spong: Origins and Main Aspects.
This article reflects on John Spong’s post-theistic theology and classifies it. Furthermore, the article introduces the readers to the context in which John Spong lived and worked (the second half of the 20th century in the West), and examines the changes in theology during this time (revision of va...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Letón |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publicado: |
2022
|
| En: |
Cel̜š
Año: 2022, Número: 73, Páginas: 98-118 |
| Otras palabras clave: | B
Theology
B Theism B Consumption (Economics) B Definitions B Criticism B Crises B Evangelicalism |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Sumario: | This article reflects on John Spong’s post-theistic theology and classifies it. Furthermore, the article introduces the readers to the context in which John Spong lived and worked (the second half of the 20th century in the West), and examines the changes in theology during this time (revision of various traditional theologies, especially the re-evaluation of classical theism as a reaction to the Holocaust-induced and post-war crises in society). The roots of John Spong’s theology have also been listed and analysed. Mainly, his work was inspired by such thinkers as F. Schleiermacher, R. Bultmann, P. Tillich, D. Bonhoeffer, and J. Robinson. It turned out that Spong did not take the ideas of these thinkers literally but adapted them and shaped his own views. The article also provides a critique of the theological views of John Spong. It was found that John Spong predominantly used a narrow definition of theism and did not consider the broader possibilities of interpreting theism (open, personal theism, etc.). This is partly due to the polemical nature of his theology, meant for consumption by the wider public. His criticism was rightly directed at the simplistic vision characteristic of fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism, but it excluded other explanations of theism. |
|---|---|
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Cel̜š
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.22364/cl.73.06 |